Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 48

[Speaker 1]
Shmokey dokey. Alright, here we go. Progress report.

We've covered 16 folios, 32 folio phases, plus another 14 folio phases of appendices. So we have done 23 folios, 46 phases in 8 terms. So we're running pretty fast, 6 folios phases per term, which is better than most texts.

And I don't know how. Then the total book is 33 folios of Gyaltsabje. And then his notes to our lecture by Tsongkhapa on the same subject, which we thought we would include in this book.

And it's too short to create a separate book. And normally they're printed together. So that's 11 folios.

So we have 44 folios total to do, which is 21 folios to go, which is about 50% done. So it's going to take us 7 more terms, including this term, which includes this term, which means the last book classes will be in September of 2021. Then we start the editing, right Utpala?

Okay. Yeah, we can give it to the baby on their second birthday. This little mooncake.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
Sumba.

[Speaker 2]
Sumba.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I had to go back way, way far back to find this. So we're moving on. It means we're really moving on.

Sorry. So I went and cut it out for you. Okay, actually I should have put a little curlicue down here.

So we had demonstrating that dependence is freedom from extreme positions, establishing the statements about the parts of a person and so on with a fingertip. And now we reach problems of attachment to the parts of a person. Is that true?

It's not true. Oh, no, here. This is all part of my diversion here.

Okay. We're down to here actually. Okay, I'm sorry.

This is all part of my footnote to myself. Okay, here, just close it up. Okay.

We're down to the third part of these three parts. The last part of my note to myself, in bold. Go down to the end of the bold.

Keep going down. We're in the third of these. I gave you the category, the sub-category, and the sub-sub-category.

Okay. Yes, we are. We are refuting the substance of the two extreme views.

This is exactly what this says. Lama Gagpala. Thay Nyi Kyi Lama Gagpala.

But it was a long time ago. So it means we're moving on in a major way. Major subject change.

So, please read. Dhammala. Okay, cool.

So we're going to cover the... No, this is back up here. You see?

The third is divided into two. What's the third? The third is that we're going to refute the essence of the two extreme views.

That things exist or that things don't exist, okay? And to do that, we're going to have two parts. Thepa-gapa.

Yeah, something about setting forth the correct position. And then lung-gyel-pang. We're going to prove that our position does not contradict scripture.

Okay, we're going to... We're going to eliminate the accusation that we contradict scripture. Okay, cool.

So we're on the first one, which is where we kind of are going to set forth why what we're doing is okay, or the correct position, okay? And that correct position itself has three parts, which is kap-gapa, thepa-ngur. So the first one is we're going to set the...

We're going to set the context. Let's set the context. And then we're going to...

The actual proof that it's okay, what we're saying is okay. The actual okay-ness. And then we have a concluding summary, juk-dua.

Somebody's going to wrap up, a wrap-up. Alright, here's the first, which is we're going to set the context. Okay, by the way, we have been in...

We just finished a metaphor about a guy who's crazy about a girl who's a mannequin. Okay, it was called the metaphor of the mannequin. Okay, and we're done with that.

Yeah, the illusory maiden. And I'm not going to do the root text. Let's come back to it after we read the commentary.

Okay, so start with kangpa. Ten-to. You got to keep watching your Ts, okay?

No tens. Ten. Ten-to.

Yeah, now, this is a numbering idiom that you have to know. Half and three means two and a half. Okay, half makes three.

Means two and a half. Okay, so you just have to learn that. It says half and three.

It means two and a half. If you add in another half, you would get three. So it's called half and three.

Okay, and it means two and a half. So what he means is, the first two and a half lines here. Yeah, and I checked, you know, you can't split this third line because it's an uneven number.

But it goes up to the end of de dak. Okay, so, ,GANG DAG GIS NI, ,DU BYED LA SKYE DANG, ,JES PA RNAMS BDAG PA DE DAG, It's two and a half lines for him. Okay, the first two and a half lines.

Which is like three quarters of a line in Sanskrit. Okay, but that's another thing. ,GIS MI SKYES PA'I GANG ZAG BSTAN, It is describing a person who don't have a clue.

Who doesn't know what's going on. ,MI SKYES, They are not wise. Okay, not well learned.

Okay, so the first two and a half lines are describing people who don't understand these teachings. Okay, he says it in a polite way, they are not wise. But it means they don't know their ass from their elbow.

Okay, you know this expression? I should charge you each English expression. This is the elbow right?

This is the ass. When they say someone has no idea what's going on, they say they don't know the difference between the elbow and the ass. They can't tell their elbow from their ass.

It means totally, they don't know what they are talking about. Most translators, I mean, never mind. Okay.

It comes in my mind a lot, I don't know why. By the way, who is it that doesn't know their ass from their elbow? It's those guys.

What guys? Now I'm going to go to the root text. Please read up to DE DAG.

[Speaker 2]
GYIS NI DE DAG Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So I just filled in BRTAGS for you, because it can mean examine, it can mean check, it can mean analyze. But in this translation of Sanskrit, which we don't have for this verse, but we do have the next verse. It means who thinks they see something but it's not there.

Okay, it's the verb RTOG. Yeah. Yeah, cool.

They imagine that something exists but it doesn't. What do they imagine exists? That things could start or stop.

Okay. They imagine that things which are created by the meaning of causes and conditions, produce things, could start or stop. GANG DAG GYIS means those guys who, then it goes with the DE DAG.

Okay. Those guys who blah blah, those guys are blah blah. Okay, got it?

Okay, now let's go to the second line and a half. BYAS DANG NYID BYAS DANG NYID KYIS GNAS MED RTEN STONG They describe the problem. If you are, if you don't understand your ass from your elbow, then what's going to happen?

You will, BRTEN CUNG KHOR LO YIN SBYOR BA RNAM PAR MI SHES SO You read across the line, okay? BRTEN CUNG KHOR LO YIN SBYOR BA RNAM PAR MI SHES SO You will totally not understand. Yeah, the workings.

No, this one is the workings. The goings, meaning the workings of? Of the wheel of dependence.

Okay, Sugeng's wheel. Okay, you will not understand Sugeng's wheel. Okay, how it works, the workings of the wheel, okay?

If you think things could start or stop, you don't understand the wheel, how it works, okay? Now we get into the actual commentary. The root text is in bold.

Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
RTA BU'I RTA BU'I Okay, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's getting you back into the context. Remember what we're talking about, okay? He's giving the context.

What's the context? A bunch of people who don't understand how things start and stop. For example, they think to start something you'd have to do something rather than plant a seed.

Okay, if you wanted to start a college in Asia, you know, do you go find sponsors or do you help someone else plan a college? You see? Those who...

They think things could start without that, but they can't. Those are MI KHYEPA. They don't understand they're asking an elbow about starting a college, okay?

All right. By the way, don't use that expression in front of people. You will get an elbow in your...

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Just do it. Okay. So, keep your eye on the bold, because the stuff that's not in bold is explaining the bold.

And that's why I bolded it so you could follow, okay? So, MI KHYEPA, kang dak, those guys who are... who don't know anything.

NAM TZAM GYIS, just because things look that way, okay, I should say things, right? They follow the appearance of things. It looks like you get a college by, you know, collecting money, and finding professors, and stuff like that.

But that's just the appearance. SNANG BA TZAM Just the appearance, okay? DU BYED...

By the way, this is different from the SNANG in NAM SHES, right? Here we're not talking about taking on an aspect. Here we're talking about how the world appears.

Okay. SNANG TZAM GYIS, DU BYED LA, They see... produce things as having SKYE BA and GCIG PA, but a certain kind of starting and stopping.

Yeah, by definition. RANG GI TSE NYID KYIS By definition. Okay, what a difference.

And that's a total... this number means total made up. Okay, it's totally...

I'm going to put totally here. Okay. It's totally imaginary.

DE DAG GIS And then, they don't understand... I'm going to go to DROG BA, okay? They don't understand DROG BA, and if you don't know what DROG BA means here, it means JUG TSO.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, or the way it works.

[Speaker 1]
The way it goes on. Yeah, the way it continues, okay? Especially the way you get into it, yeah.

Of SANSARA, which so much resembles TABU, a wheel. Why? And everything before that.

Starting with TOKMAR. The DANG DRAWA distributes to the first three. Yeah, which doesn't have what?

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, but he's glossing wheel. He's glossing wheel for you. And it's very beautiful.

Okay, where was the first starting point? Yeah, where was the first starting point of these wheels?

[Speaker 2]
Point one.

[Speaker 1]
You can't point to it. So, where's the middle? Six o'clock?

You know. Well, where's the end? And he says that's the definition of a wheel.

You want to know what a wheel is? That thing which has no beginning, no middle, and no end. And that's a wheel.

It keeps wheeling. You can't say it's starting here. Okay, got it?

It's a very beautiful definition of a wheel. The wheel of life. He's defining the wheel of life.

I mean, if it's me, I might even put a footnote in my wheel of life text. This is how Nagarjuna described it. Who was a great fan of the wheel of life.

Okay. Alright. In a way.

Okay. But these guys, who are MI SKAD PA, they number MI ZHES DES GZUGS TSUL. Yeah, good.

And MI THOG. They don't get it. Good.

And they don't understand that if things existed by definition, okay, then LA. You know. When you're talking about things that exist by definition, SKYE BA and ZHIG PA is MI ZHES.

Impossible. So here's the word ZHIG PA used as impossible or possible. This morning we had four ZHIG PA, but that was a long time ago.

What? SKYE ZHIG, PHYIS ZHIG, BAR ZHIG, MUN DUG GI ZHIG PA. Yeah.

Well, we had a list of four in his text. Yeah, being at birth, being at death, being in the bardo, and the being between birth and death. And we had being, being, being, being.

And now we have ZHIG PA as not possible or possible. So, you know, today we've had all the ZHIG PA's possible. We've had all the ZHIG PA ZHIG PA.

GZHIG ZHIG PA ZHIG PA ZHIG PA. GZHIG ZHIG PA ZHIG PA ZHIG PA. ZHIG CHUNG.

GZHIG ZHIG PA ZHIG PA ZHIG PA ZHIG CHUNG. you have seen today all the Sipas that are possible, among Sipas. Alright, somebody should write that down.

Okay, here we go, please read. You have seen. Yeah, we reached the second part from just immediately above, but I went and got it for you, and I underlined it.

THEG PA NGOS. Actually, the real correct thing. Okay, we don't know exactly why he's calling it that, but we're gonna get there.

He set the scene, he gave the context of a bunch of fools, and now he's gonna set, now he's gonna explain why something is correct, which is probably his presentation of the two extremes. Yeah, I'm gonna give you an overview, and then I'm gonna talk about some subsidiary topics. Okay, I'll give you an overview, and then we'll talk about some other details, okay?

About what? About the two extremes, kind of. Okay, we'll see.

Or starting and stopping, okay. Actually, no. Actually, let me change THEG PA NGOS, okay?

The correct position. I'm gonna give you the real correct position for the first time in this whole book, okay? And that's why it's easier to read.

You know, I was like dancing around yesterday, because I didn't have to stay up all night. Okay, so here's the real poop. What's poop mean?

Poopoo, right? But there's an English idiom, American Indian idiom, they call the real poop. It means I'll give you the real information.

In the military, real poop means the real ...

[Speaker 2]
it's not a bad word, it means I'll give you the real ...

[Speaker 1]
So, I'm giving you the real information. So, THEG PA NGOS means, let me describe to you, for the first time in this book, the real position you should take. Who's the kachigma in this book?

Who's the opponent? Yeah, no, the Hinayana. Yeah, the lower two schools.

In this book only, Nagarjuna takes the trouble to attack the lower schools. Why should we listen to an attack on such a simple school? Yeah, because the way he beats them is he takes their scriptures and proves that the Buddha was talking about emptiness in the first turning of the wheel, which is supposed to be the Hinayana realm, you know.

He said, you Abhidharma guys, your books describe emptiness. I'm not even going to use middle way books. I'm not going to use Mahayana, and I'm still going to beat you.

I'm going to use your books to prove you're wrong. Okay, got it? So, supposedly by studying this book of his, you will see emptiness in the lowest teachings of Buddhism.

Okay, that would be nice. Okay, here we go. Mmm.

Try it, translate. What's the real poop? The real poop is Jambani.

Yeah, I'm going to describe to you the two realities, and that's the real proof of this whole book. Well, I'm going to give it to you in four parts.

[Speaker 2]
First, I'm going to do... No, the definition. The definition of the two realities, the divisions of the two realities.

Interpretations are counted amongst them.

[Speaker 1]
CANG NGES is not the same as DRANG NGES.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
No, it means why there's two and only two. Why there's not one, why there's not three. So, CANG NGES PA, he could have said CANG NGES PA, it would have been easier.

Why there's two and only two. There's not more than two, there's not less than two. There's two realities.

There's not mean less, there's not more. Okay, and then, NAM SHAGS BSTAN LA BAPA, then I'm going to give you a real, what, definitive explanation of each of them, and that's going to be long. Okay, so, the definitions are short, the divisions are short, there's only two items.

The count is fixed, but then I'm going to give you a long essay about what each of them is, and that's going to be easier. Yeah, well, here you go. Okay, well, this is it right here.

It's not very long. Go ahead. Yeah, there's two truths, KUN SROG LDAN MA and LDAN RNAMS LDAN MA.

Deceptive Reality and Ultimate Reality. By the way, as I mentioned before, I prefer to call it two realities than two truths, because it refers to the actual realities. RIM PA BZHIN DU, respectively.

I'll give you the first definition, then I'll give you the second definition in the same sentence. Okay, SEMS MED SHEL BYA. That's the definition for him of KUN SROG LDAN MA.

Yeah, something which is under consideration of nominal correct perception, nominal form of correct perception. That's how I like to... when you have a translation which is two words, accurate perception, which is what I'm favoring nowadays for TSEM MA, then use form for the first part, a conventional form of accurate perception.

Okay, that's what I'm suggesting for TAN YOD PA'I TSEM MA. Okay, what did I just say? The conventional form of accurate perception.

Okay, that's how I'm translating it nowadays. I do, yeah, I'm happy with it. I may change something.

Okay, and now, this is confusion, because he uses the word RANG RIG, and he's been doing that, and I had the sense that he was using it about the perception of emptiness, and not about the perception of the mind by itself, and here it's confirmed. So, I'm excited, you know, because he's defining what? No, what is he defining?

No, ultimate reality, and then he's saying anything which is considered by the wisdom, yeah, or something like... no, I don't think so. I think it's insight.

I think it's just insight. I don't think it has anything to do with the mind perceiving itself. Insight.

No, I don't think so. It doesn't smell like that. It doesn't taste like that.

It just means a deep state of mind. It has nothing to do with perceiving itself, I propose. Well, that is, yeah, that's in a state of deep meditation.

So, the deep insight of wisdom of a person who's in deep meditation, something like that, okay? That thing which is... but I propose that in this text, RANG RIG PA just means, which sees the truth or something.

I don't think it has anything to do with perceiving the mind. Well, as I remember, he's done this a few times. Well, here's that they don't...

now, here's not RANG RIG PA. See, RANG RIG PA is a verb. This is RANG RIG, this is not apperception.

So, that one's obviously apperception. Here, NYAMS SHA RANG RIG PA'I... uh-oh, when their minds are in the deep perception.

I translated it your way, but I'm not sure about it. I don't think it means that anymore. I think it just means to know things one by one or something, to know their true nature of things is what it means, okay?

But he's... what it bothered me that he uses that... I think it's SO SO RANG RIG PA'I DGE ZHES.

Things of their own... the true nature of things. SO SO RANG BZHIN RIG PA'I DGE ZHES.

How's that? SO SO'I RANG BZHIN RIG PA'I DGE ZHES. The wisdom which understands the nature of each individual thing.

Because it's the direct perception of emptiness. He's using it as a synonym for the direct perception of emptiness. And it's kind of unfair, because it looks so much like RANG RIG.

Okay? Okay. Yeah.

But it's not. It's a verb. RIG PA'I.

Okay? Anyway...

[Speaker 2]
I don't think so.

[Speaker 1]
I think it was in the text. Because he... it bothered me.

I remember, oh God, he's done this before. Let's go back and fix it some day. Okay.

Fix the...

[Speaker 2]
fix the...

[Speaker 1]
Sure. It has to. Shepay Me.

The guy who understands. Or other tiny epitaphs are... Okay.

Fix the RANG RIG PA'I to... I'm gonna read it something like, CHOS SO'I RANG BZHIN RIG PA'I. How's that?

Which understands the nature of each individual thing. I think that's his point. Okay, but let's keep going.

It's not something I can prove or disprove. He has to use it a few more times, and we have to see. But, it must mean the direct perception of emptiness in the highest school.

So, whatever translation we use, I doubt that it can... that the point is not the perception of the mind. It's the perception of ultimate reality.

It has to be. In fact, it cannot be the perception of the mind during the direct perception of emptiness. We've spent a long time on that.

Okay, here we go. Yeah, rather. He spent like 20 pages on it.

He tends to do that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, now he's gonna make divisions relating to these two realities. He starts with the mother division, which is into two realities, which is deceptive reality and ultimate reality. But then he goes on to divide those, and it's more difficult.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, normal perceptions, normal perceptions can be divided into?

[Speaker 2]
Correct and incorrect. Yang, dak, and mok.

[Speaker 1]
Staken normal perception.

[Speaker 2]
I think a rope is a stake.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. It's a normal perception, but it's mistaken. Okay.

Is it a tsemo?

[Speaker 2]
No, it's not a tsemo.

[Speaker 1]
No. Okay, good. Yeah, good.

Now, he's gonna give you an example of things which are real deceptive reality. He's not defining kunzop tsemo, he's dividing kunzop dempa.

[Speaker 2]
He didn't say tsemo, did he? Yeah, right here.

[Speaker 1]
But he's not talking about the tsemo, he's talking about what the tsemo perceives. No, those things which a normal perception perceives is kunzop dempa. You see, shel jah, those things which a normal perception perceives is lying to you.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And then that can be divided into?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, and actually these are not states of mind, these are objects. Correct objects and mistaken objects, I should have put it that way.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's keep going. What's a correct object? Tai nye pi tseme, tsemo shi shel jah, is a correct object.

Among fake objects, correct fake objects.

[Speaker 2]
Correct real objects and correct fake objects?

[Speaker 1]
No, correct fake objects and incorrect fake objects.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Huh? Correct fake objects and incorrect fake objects. Here's the correct fake objects.

Number one. Tai nye pi tseme, shi shel jah.

[Speaker 2]
Four types of correct perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, of accurate perception.

[Speaker 2]
We said a footnote on it earlier.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, Nick, check this out. There's your footnote.

[Speaker 2]
Hey!

[Speaker 1]
I used to work for this big Polish guy in a warehouse. He said, I take care of you guys, I take care of you guys. I take care of you guys.

I got your footnote right there. That's the footnote you worked so hard on 20 pages ago. You don't even remember.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
There's the fourth.

[Speaker 1]
He was from Trenton.

[Speaker 2]
Trenton.

[Speaker 1]
Trenton. Trenton. Huh?

You from Trenton? Oh, my God. I'll still talk to you.

Okay. So, what it says here is, any object which is perceived by the four kinds of normal correct perception, accurate perception, is fake reality. And it's the correct fake reality.

It's real fake reality. Okay, got it? Okay, now, what are the four types of perception?

Nick's going to give you a small lecture. Here you go. I'm drinking my drink.

Just read the footnote.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and I just lost the argument.

[Speaker 1]
I just lost the argument. So, he likes this term. It's the second time he's used it.

So, it just means in DCI 7, any of the kinds of accurate perception, if it's something you see with those, it's a... it's a correct fake object. He did not mention NEL DRANGS RGYUN GSUM.

Yeah, which is the Arya's direct perception. He did not mention that, because what it sees is not fake reality. Okay, here we go.

Keep going. What's that say? Unaffected by alcohol, by jealousy, that's called NIRDPA MED PA.

Yeah, so, when you see NIRDPA MED PA in this context, what it means is you're not insane, you're not drunk, you didn't just take a drug, and you're not overcome by jealousy, and you see men there who are not there. Okay, seriously, those are called NIRDPA MED PA. PHYAL GYI MTHU RGYUG GI NIRDPA MED PA PHYAL GYI MTHU RGYUG GI NIRDPA MED PA Unaffected by temporary circumstances.

Because we're all affected by ultimate circumstances. So, the full form of this expression is unaffected by immediate circumstances. We all have permanent mistakes.

Okay, alright. Yeah, those sense powers which are unaffected by drugs, by, what's that disease? Jaundice, and their objects are considered correct fake reality.

Okay, correct fake reality. Yeah, both the perceivers and the perceived objects are all considered to be within reality, correct fake reality. That implies there must be a...

Incorrect fake reality. Okay, and here he goes. What's that second one?

Incorrect fake reality, what's that? Yeah, now, NIRD CHE means, NIRD CHE means what?

[Speaker 2]
When you in fact are affected.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you are adversely affected. It doesn't mean someone punched you. Okay, that's not the meaning.

This is the NIRD in AHIMSA. MI NIRD PA is AHIMSA. So, it doesn't mean violence here.

It means you are not adversely affected by alcohol, drugs, jealousy. You still have the PHUG GI THUG YU. The long term.

Yeah, the human, you know, built-in mistake you are making all the time. Okay, NIRD CHE GYI DBANG PO. You are...

Yeah, and the things it sees.

[Speaker 2]
For example...

[Speaker 1]
No, DAS and LANG BOS in a dream. Elephants. Horses and elephants in dreams.

Yeah, I spent a long time figuring out, trying to figure out when do you call LANG, elephant, when do you call it cow? Because... BA LANG, BA LANG is cow.

LANG CHEN is elephant. And it happens to be elephant because those were popular objects created by magicians in those times. So, that's all.

Horses are... Horses are elephants. Okay, yeah.

They are CI DONS and they are DZIN PA. And they lie to you. Okay, they lie to you, okay.

And they keep going. We are on a roll. This is the most we have ever done in a day.

[Speaker 2]
I think so. It did get a little more straightforward speaking of something.

[Speaker 1]
I think the drug wore off.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, where are you?

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, DON DUN NA.

[Speaker 2]
DON DUN NA. Oh yeah, thank you. THAMS CAD ZIN PA'O.

[Speaker 1]
Good. What's a SHA DAG DANG PHYIR PA'I RTAG? MA.

[Speaker 2]
What is DANG PHYIR PA'I RTAG? A bloody horse?

[Speaker 1]
No, meaning a real one. Flesh and bone. We call flesh and blood?

Oh, okay. Flesh and blood horse. It means the real one, you know.

Flesh and blood. As an outer object. These are DENG PA.

They're real, okay. But, but, but, okay, they are real relative to how you perceive and not DON DUN NA in reality. So, this is a...

relatively speaking, if I say this is a glass, I'm correct. But as I say it's a glass, ultimately speaking, I'm still misunderstanding it. So, in an ultimate sense, it's not real, it's fake.

But in a relative sense, it is a glass. Okay, got it? On a normal level, a conventional level, it's real.

Everything on an ultimate level is unreal. That's what he says here. And DON DUN NA is a very rare idiom.

And I was proud of myself for figuring it out. It means in reality, in actuality, yeah. Okay, so, you know, in real fact, in real point of fact, everything's fake.

Come on, okay. But I'm not going there. He's kind of like, I'm not going there.

Look, a glass is a glass, okay? It's real. Ultimately, nothing's real.

Come on, okay. Alright, here we go. DARK.

No, I don't care which one you're hitting. I want to hear DARK.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So look, there's emptiness, which appears real, ultimately real, and is ultimately real. Then there's real fake stuff, which can function and appears as real, and ultimately it's fake, but it's real on its own level. Then there's stuff that appears to be real, but has no reality at all, and is totally non-existent, which doesn't apply to glasses.

There's even a screwier reality, where nothing is real. What's that? Tsang de dak dak.

Fifty dollars. Ten. Nine.

Eight.

[Speaker 2]
Anything that's pure, happiness, permanence, or a self.

[Speaker 1]
Good. What's the name for those four?

[Speaker 2]
Back-ass. Four ass-backward thoughts.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, twenty-five and twenty-five, okay? Xiaoping? Twenty-five.

Cinchi lok shi. The four ass-backward thoughts. Ass-backward is an English idiom, it means completely backwards.

Yeah, something like that. He doesn't deserve anything. Okay, so tsang means what?

Pure. Yeah, it looks like, oh look, it's so beautiful, everything's so nice. It means 180 degrees wrong.

Everything is like a knife. You know? A yotel, a donut is like a knife.

You just don't see for what it is. You think it's okay, but you're wrong. A green drink is especially like a knife.

Then everything seems dewa. It seems like to sit on a nice, comfortable couch is comfort. You're dying while you're sitting there.

Everything seems dark. It looks like these classes will go on forever, because we've had them a couple times. You know?

I told people in Diamond Mountain Tantric class, look, someday this will end, we'll all be separated, we won't even see each other. They're like, no, no, we have it now. Okay.

Yeah, okay, I understand. And dark. It seems like things are coming from their own side, but they're not.

So these are called the four aspects. In English, we call diametrically opposite. Completely opposite.

Opposed, diametrically opposed. Those... The glass is here.

Emptiness is here. And things which are pure, things which have any pleasure at all, things which are themselves, and things which are unchanging, they don't even qualify as fake reality. They're fake, fake, fake reality.

Got it? And he throws it in, it's very sophisticated. He says, well, there's real reality, then there's fake reality, and then there's fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake, fake.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
And he says, that one don't exist on any level. That's what he's trying to say. This one exists on ultimate level.

This one exists on a relative level. And these, they don't exist at all. There's no pleasure in this life.

He's trying to give a teaching in the middle of a teaching, right? I'm sorry, what?

[Speaker 2]
Is this a third level, or is this a fourth level, or is this... Does blissful ease exist on the same level as dream elements?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I don't know... Yeah, you're right. I think even worse.

Let's put it in a category. He just called it... It's a second category of messed up reality.

How's that? You could say in the same category. Yeah, but one hurts you more actively.

How's that? Okay. But he makes another statement.

Let's start there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but those do exist, which are kind of the opposites.

[Speaker 1]
Are they the opposites? Come on. I want a better one.

[Speaker 2]
What are these four?

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to fire everybody.

[Speaker 2]
Those are the four pure aspects.

[Speaker 1]
The first four are the sixteen, please.

[Speaker 2]
They're the opposite of those four.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe there's a connection. Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Anyway...

By the way, for $200, give me another name for these two.

[Speaker 2]
Ten.

[Speaker 1]
Nine. Eight. Seven.

Six. Five. Four.

Oh, so nice. Three, two, one, zero. Chimany.

From Stanley's Tech. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
But that was a long time ago.

[Speaker 1]
You had lunch between.

[Speaker 2]
I think so.

[Speaker 1]
Come on. You should have said that's the ones you think are the chimany. I still would have given you ten cents or so.

Okay. I'm just saying it could be. At $200...

I agree. Okay, okay, okay. But what he wants to point out is the ass-backwards ones, clean, happy, unchanging, permanent, those does have a self nature.

Those don't exist on any nama. But the opposites are perceived by normal, accurate perception. Nominal, conventional, accurate perception.

[Speaker 2]
They jump the level.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. The opposite of those four is something we can perceive as well as a glass. Okay, got it?

Say again? Yeah, that's true. That's why I think he's quoting the four.

Well, are they? Okay, mitak relates to tak. Dunyal relates to de.

Tong relates to... maybe. Maybe, maybe, I don't know.

Okay, let's keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Khandak...

[Speaker 1]
Let's stop there and try to get that much. I typed it for you, so maybe you can just read it. By the way, he starts attacking nihilists here.

People who go too far with emptiness. He gets... something triggered in his mind.

He must have gone... somebody must have asked a stupid question in one of his classes in the last few days. And he's like, by the way, that brings me to these people who say that on a nominal level, on a relative level, to be and not to be is the same thing.

Come on. He gets irritated. Yeah, I think he had a...

Maybe it's a lower school interpretation of Mahayana. Yeah, okay. Keep going.

[Speaker 2]
DUS NGOS I have trouble with this sentence and I'm happy to play with it with you.

[Speaker 1]
So, DUS NGOS means to a perception which is messed up. To the face of a perception which is messed up. Okay?

Konar, if we restrict ourselves to what makes its appearance to people with jaundice, okay? If we restrict ourselves to what makes its appearance to people who are totally jealous or insane or drunk, okay? If you think that's what kunzop means, if things are only fake to a diseased mind, okay?

If things are only fake to a diseased mind, they think that's what it means to be deceptive. Only those things which appear to a diseased mind, like purple elephants to a drunk, they think, thinking that that's what it means to be fake. Okay?

They take deceptive as fake. Okay? YOD PA'I SRAM NAS GZHAN NGOS KONAR KHYAD DANG DGOS PA'I KUN ZOP So they only define deceptive as how it appears to other people whose minds are drunk or insane or...

So they think when you say fake reality, what do you call it? Illusory. What do you call it?

Hallucination. Hallucination. You're only talking about very drunk people, insane people, people on drugs, okay?

They think that, okay? They think that's what deceptive reality means. RANG LUGS LA KHYAD DANG PA'I KUN ZOP GYI KHYAD PAR MA BYAS TE They...

Sorry. Yeah. They have failed to make the distinction of what it means to be deceptive in our school.

UMMA PHYANG RGYUR BA Okay? We're not saying that it's only purple elephants seen by alcoholics which are fake. We're saying everything you see is fake.

A normal person, okay? So don't go with those guys who say, you know, all right?

[Speaker 2]
What's the second kunzop?

[Speaker 1]
A kunzop where you accept only a kunzop with regard to these other people who have messed up minds. Yeah, okay. Yeah, okay.

Then he's going to quote Master Chandrakirti, but I don't think we quite nailed down the connection to that, of that with the people who say that it's equal to be, to exist or not to exist deceptively is the same thing. I don't think he has addressed that statement. So, I'm going to...

I want us to come back to this sentence. Okay? I don't see how it relates to...

It's almost the opposite of saying... of the accusation. You see what I mean?

They're saying only some people are crazy.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But he's supposed to be proving that everyone's crazy.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, all right, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe he's still saying what they think is right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You want to chew on it and give us a report when you come home?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Krishna, it would follow after this statement that everyone is crazy. We think that we're not only saying that it's like people who are the same, therefore we're saying it's...

[Speaker 1]
Well, it could be that this is wrong. Just... It could be we're the ones who claim that on our deceptive realm that this is...

I don't know. We got to chew on it. I'm not comfortable.

We missed something here. Yeah, right. Those who...

It's got to be a criticism of somebody else, right? We're never those guys. Thank you.

It's kind of cool, huh? Intriguing, I think. Thank you.

Thank you.