Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 14

[Speaker 1]
See my screen? Yay, so welcome back from two days off. And you know, remember, this is a book by KJJ about emptiness.

And we're at the beginning, he's gone through, like, what kind of student you have to be? And where do we find those kind of students? And, and now he's talking about, okay, so yeah, we got to understand emptiness.

But how do we do that? Oh, we, we have to go to the Buddhist teachings, we have to rely on the Buddhist teachings. But what is it about the Buddhist teachings that makes that a challenging thing?

Well, gosh, he said some things that appear to sound contradictory. So how do we know what we can rely on? And what can't we?

So that's where we're at in the book. And there are two different ways that the Mahayana school talks about how you divide, or, or a portion of the Buddhist teachings between what is literal and what is figurative. And we're at the first group, which is Arya Sangha and his brother, Vasubandhu, and how, how it is that they split or make that division between literal and figurative.

So my summary, thank you. Good. So now do you remember, I know this is a tough question, since you didn't have it two days ago.

Or since, yeah, since you didn't have it yesterday, or the day before. But anyway, K.J. talks about three essential... ¿Se habla de esto?

[Speaker 2]
¿Tres esenciales? I assume you're not in the translation booth yet. Hold on.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
But good to hear your voice.

[Speaker 2]
You too.

[Speaker 1]
So K.J. is talking about one particular section, and he's describing, he's equating essential natures, the three essential natures, with the three attributes of the mind-only school. So if you could name what the three essential natures is, that K.J. equates to the mind-only school, and to the three attributes, what are those three attributes, and how do they equate? And if you can do it in Tibetan, you get extra credit, but let's do it in English first.

So what are the three essential natures? Does anyone remember? Venerable Upala, I remember this section.

[Speaker 2]
I don't remember, and I know this is Ngoan'i. Is that what you mean? Is that your translation of essential nature?

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Doesn't he only mention two, not three of them?

[Speaker 1]
He doesn't mention any of the essential natures, actually. He mentions two of the three attributes of the mind-only school.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so you're asking just in general, what are the three essential natures of the mind-only school?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Geshe-la gave those to us in class and showed how they equated.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So this is more not in the text, but in the class. Okay, that was my question. Made-up things aren't essential by definition.

Things that are dominated don't have any nature of starting. Okay. And then the completion of the equation, the totalities have no nature of being ultimate.

Yeah. Wow, so you gave it all there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and then Kuntak, Shemwong, and Yondrup.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, those are the three attributes of the mind-only school.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then the qualities are, if you can read Tibetan, it's right there. Yeah, zen yi ke wa, the number. Yeah, good.

So how are the three essential natures normally spoken of as existing? And what Word told you is not how K.J.J. talks about it in the text. K.J.J. talks about it more in a positive way. That's a big hint. Then, then Drupal? So they're normally talking about as being three kinds of lack of essential nature.

Ngo ni me pa sum. And he said, Ngo, Ngo ni sum. Okay, sorry, that's really like challenging, given that we haven't talked about this in a few days.

So we'll go on and continue to be challenging. Yay. What does Unraveling the True Thought, as well as the works of Arya Sangha and Master Vasubandhu, say about how it is that the Buddhist teachings are divided into literal and figurative?

So we got our three turnings. Yeah, the turning of fine distinctions explains how things really are. Okay, what about the others?

I don't know what the text said. I remember Geshe-la's commentary on it when we discussed it. I mean, I know the general answer.

I don't remember what the text says. It's something to do about reading sutras or something. I'm sorry.

It's pretty, this is much easier than you guys are making it out to be. There's three turnings.

[Speaker 3]
Comparing what is said in one sutra to the other.

[Speaker 1]
What does it say about one, two, and three?

[Speaker 2]
The third one was the literal one, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
More figurative. Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so what interesting distinction did Ketuje make when, so he gave us how they're divided. And then he talked about how Arya Sangha and Master Vasubandhu divided them. And what interesting distinction did he make when he talked about the latter?

Something we could take to the debate ground at some point. He just gave them in a different order. He said there was the middle and the first.

And then the last. So instead of going one, two, three, he went two, one, three. And it would be interesting to know why did he do that?

You know, he's not just goofing around. Someone had to write this and carve it, you know? So it'd be interesting to explore that.

And then Ketuje presented the test that Arya Sangha and Master Vasubandhu use when they evaluate individual sutras. Does anyone remember what that?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's what I was talking about, I think. It's something about if you're uncomfortable with what you're reading, you have to compare it.

[Speaker 1]
Then, if that's the case, then? To see if it matches what the Buddha said. And then if that's the case, then?

It's literal. It's literal. No, no, it's not.

It's figurative. If you can read a text on its own and you understand the meaning, that's literal. If you read a text and you go, gosh, what, huh?

And you go to another text, then it's figurative.

[Speaker 3]
Ah, right. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's what it meant. Yeah. Did it say something about contradiction in there?

I mean, maybe not. But if you read other texts and it's contradictions, and you, oh. No, I didn't see contradiction.

[Speaker 2]
No, maybe not. I had a question about that to the panelists.

[Speaker 1]
I remember that statement. But it sounds like there's equivocation happening. Because that's the literal meaning of literal or something, right?

Yeah, I feel the same thing. Yeah, when we say literal and figurative, we're not saying, do we need help with it? We're saying, is it what the Buddha said?

Did he say what he means? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Yeah, so it sounds like equivocation or something. There is, I think we might get to it. But there's an interesting distinction, John, between figurative, something that you have to interpret, and then something that you can take on face value, according to the sounds of the words.

There's some distinction made between something you have to interpret and then something you can't take literally. And it's interesting. I think we'll get to it.

It's not easy. It's not easy. Ja je shimpa, right?

Following the literal word. And then nge dun. Ja je shimpa means following the words exactly.

And nge dun means what's the real intent. And those are slightly different. And I think, Ward, I think your mind's on that slight difference.

It's a very intriguing difference. Okay, thank you. One could say, not incorrectly, that this is actually how Maitreya would say it as well.

What is the English equivalent of kick bar? Extraordinary? Difference or feature?

Especially. And leng shi. By the way, can I interrupt?

Which I love to do. Kepa can have two vastly different meanings. Can someone tell me?

It can mean a difference or a detail. Good. Okay, good.

Kepa du is most especially. But kepa as a noun with an adverb ending on it means feature. Okay, thank you.

It's a difficult word. So yeah, Ward gave this one. It's the setting of the teaching.

And sama.

[Speaker 2]
Oh no. A lady of a little bit.

[Speaker 1]
The only lady. Except. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, okay. It's probably tsamba tok or tsamba yen or something like that. Okay.

Sorry. Okay, cool. Thank you.

That's not Spicoli, is it? Who? I don't know what that is.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Never mind. Nice, nice homework and well thought out.

Well considered homework. So here's my translation attempt. You can see the red?

Yeah, I got it. So I did this before you split it up yesterday night. Oh, okay, good.

Let me read it through. The only suggestion I have is that what this says is that all the teachings of the first wheel are nyamba in that they All the teachings of the first wheel are nyamba because they're considered to rankitseniki dupa, rankitseniki yupa. They're all equal?

Yeah, good. Because they, okay. Because they all exist by definition.

Or self-existent, okay? In the first turning of the wheel, all phenomena were equally said to exist from their own side, basically, okay? And then on the other side, on the other hand, in the parva turning of the wheel, all things were equally spoken of as not coming from their own side, basically, not having their own nature, okay?

Yeah. Not having some nature of their own, yeah. I like to say not having some nature of their own rather than saying not having a nature because I like to get the word some in there, you know, to make it sound more impossible, okay?

He's talking about some supposed benefit that people are going to get, but you see, I like to say it like that, to make it clear that it doesn't exist, okay? Cool? Yeah, thank you.

So, basically, everything in the world in the first turning of the wheel, and by the way, the heaps are the classic subject of the first turning of the wheel, and you can think of the subject of the first turning of the wheel as the three great subjects of Stanley's text. First chapter, the five...

[Speaker 2]
Skandhas, heaps, and the sense of doors, and...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, so when they say heaps, etc., you can fill it in in your head, okay? And so, basically, Buddha said, look, I don't care if you divide it into five heaps or you divide it into 12 doors of sense or you divide it into the 18 categories following Abhidharma, I don't care. Whichever one you're talking about, things do come from their own side.

That's the first turning of the wheel. Then the second turn, and he said they are equal. They are all equal in that they come from their own side.

And then, in the second turn of the wheel, he said everything's equal in that nothing comes from their own side. And then, in the third turning of the wheel, he made distinctions. He said, look, some things do come from their own side and some things don't come from their own side, okay?

And that's why the third turning of the wheel is called... Making fine distinctions. Yeah, making distinctions.

So, the word nyam, equally, is very powerful here because it's the opposite of making fine distinctions. You see, it's very, very intentional, okay? Look, in the third turning of the wheel, he took the time to split things up.

These are real, these are not real. But in the first two turnings of the wheel, they were blanket statements, you know? Either he said everything existed from its own side, or then he said nothing exists from its own side.

But only in the third turning of the wheel. It's almost like saying Buddha didn't have time during the first turning of the wheel to make the distinctions he should have made. And then, in the second turning of the wheel, he was eating dinner or something.

Of course, which is impossible. And so, he didn't have time to make a decision, distinctions. And then, in the third turning of the wheel, he took the time to say, okay, of these three characteristics, two of them are real and one of them is not real.

Okay, got it? And then, let's do the second paragraph here. In the final turning of the wheel, yeah, here's where he divides it into the three characteristics.

He made the distinction. Yeah, you translated it correctly. Uh, good, yeah.

I wouldn't say these. I would say this turning, you see? This turning is considered literal.

Meaning the third turning is, you know. Yeah, thank you, thank you. And don't get confused between literal and not literal and existing from its own side and not existing from its own side.

Not the same distinction, right? Okay. All of the third turning of the wheel was literal when he said that some things do exist really and some things don't exist really, okay?

Yeah. All right, cool. Wow, awesome.

Good translation. Oh, thank you. And frankly, when I hit the nyamba, I was also, I was unsure for a while.

And again, you have to read it once. Go do your stuff for 24 hours and read it again. And I think you'll find it on the third reading.

Sometimes Kitu J reveals himself on the third day, on the third day. So don't be in a rush to understand it the first day like that. Oftentimes on the first day.

That's why, Utpala, you keep getting updated versions of people's texts. Because I read it again a second day. I read it again a third day.

And then my thinking matures. All right, good job. Good homework and good translation.

Oh, let me go get your text.

[Speaker 3]
Uh-oh.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm. You have a hard book. Neener-neener?

Really? Okay, sorry. Let me see here.

Okay, I'm gonna have to do it this way. And then this way. Okay.

What was the last date we had you? It was 8-10. Yeah, that's it.

Okay, so we finished this first two paragraphs. You completed those. Stanley looks so interested in correcting you.

I don't know what it is. It looks like he's in a movie. It's kind of a long...

Yeah, they're in a... They went to film recording. Okay, please read slow.

Stanley, please correct. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. According to the... What's that, Stanley?

You know. Well, I know. You know this.

You know it. You had it a lot in China Sartar. According to...

Sutra... Of what I really meant? Yeah.

Yeah. According to that sutra, what I really meant. Here's how they...

What's that? Divide? The gongba of the dos of the korlopapa.

The meanings of the sutras of the middle turning. Yeah, good. Good.

And... So, here's how the sutra which explains the sutra, explains the sutras of the middle turning of the wheel. It's kind of a joke.

He's being cute. Okay. Here's how the explanation of the sutras explains the explanation of the sutras.

During the... What are two... What are two sutras from the middle turning of the wheel?

Diamond Cutter. Heart Sutra. Heart Sutra.

Yeah, I love to show off this book. If you don't have this book, you are a loser. I don't have a box, but I have a book.

And we do have more copies available. Okay? Just contact Diamond Cutter Press.

This is... You're going to carry this to heaven with you and meet the Buddha, and you're going to have this under your arm. Okay?

This is the Diamond Cutter Sutra and the Heart Sutra commentary. That's like all the sutras you need. Now, according to Arya Sangha...

That was all figurative. Yeah. How is he going to explain these two books?

Here comes the question. Here comes the answer. Keep going, Stanley and Utpala.

Okay. Okay, good. The Stewardess of the Middle Turning of the Wheel, the Second Turning of the Wheel, which by the way, in Sanskrit, is always called the Middle Turning of the Wheel.

These are the Prajna Paramita books. Prajna Paramita books. Yeah, like such as the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra.

And in the second turning of the wheel, the Buddha said, CHOS THAR BYED SNGO NYID MED PA Nothing has any nature of its own. Nothing has any nature of its own. But that means three kinds of nothing have any nature of its own.

And these are the three that Word taught us this morning. KUN LTAG TSE NI SNGO NYID MED PA Those things... Let's take it to the kitchen.

Where's the Kuntak in the kitchen? Some husband who had a bad day. Yeah, the I-didn't-do-anything husband.

He's called Kuntak, just made up. He's just made up. There's no such person.

It's just Kuntak. Kuntak means it's all in your head. It's just made up in your head.

Kuntak. So we can say he has no nature of being a husband at all. TSE NI SNGO NYID MED PA He has...

So the husband, I-didn't-do-anything husband, he doesn't have any nature because he doesn't have any qualities. Duh. Because why?

He doesn't even exist. He's made up. Okay.

Then where's the GZHAN DBANG in the kitchen? The real husband that we very rarely ever see. And why is he GZHAN DBANG?

Let's call it the yelling of the husband. Why is the yelling of the husband GZHAN DBANG? Because it starts and stops.

It came from... And it started because you were yelling at your children the week before.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
So the classic GZHAN DBANG... And it ends because that karma ran out. Yeah, the classic GZHAN DBANG in the kitchen is the real husband who came from the causes, GZHAN DBANG.

It's totally under the control of its causes. Meaning, if you had not...

[Speaker 2]
If you had not yelled.

[Speaker 1]
You wouldn't have a husband yelling. Good.

[Speaker 2]
You wouldn't have a yelling.

[Speaker 1]
And that's why we call it dominated... The yelling husband is dominated by the yelling at the kids. If the yelling at the kids had not been there, he never would have been yelling at you.

So, he has... Now, that husband, the real husband, who's yelling at you, and he's real because he comes from a real cause of yelling at your kids, he doesn't GYE BA. He doesn't get born?

He doesn't start yelling. Oh, he doesn't start. He never started yelling.

Okay? Did he never start yelling? Well, I guess if you're wearing a Mind Only School hat, you would have to say no.

Yeah, you could say that. Or you could say, yeah, he never started yelling. Without your causes.

Meaning, without you. You know, from his insides. Okay?

Got it? That's why we say DNGOS NYID MED PAR. Okay?

He never started yelling. Now, where's the young dupe in the kitchen? Give me an equation.

The fact that the KUN THAG is not there. Yeah, I like an equation. Okay, so it's the GZHAN DBANG...

Minus the... Minus the KUN THAG equals the husband. So, the real husband minus the...

The imaginary husband. Good. The I-didn't-do-anything husband equals...

The... Wow. What are we calling it now?

I forget. It used to be totality, but now it is... I think totality is okay.

I don't know what we're going to call it this time. Yeah, just take away the husband that doesn't really exist. Okay?

Subtract that, and you get to... Established reality. The true nature of things.

Okay? Which has no nature of being ultimate. Okay?

All right. Now, I had a breakthrough in my own head. He says, that's what this was intended to say.

Okay? That's what they intended to say. Okay?

This goes back to the very first line. What did those two sutras, Heart Sutra and Dharmakara Sutra, what did they intend to say? Oh, they wanted to talk about the husband who's not there, the husband who is there, the emptiness of the husband who is there.

Okay? That's what they wanted to talk about. So the minute you see gong, it means...

Intent, thought, belief. Figurative. It means figurative.

Okay? Because the word gong here means what he really meant. What he really meant.

When you say what he really meant, you're already saying that he wasn't talking literally. If you have to say, hey, no, no, you didn't get it. This is what he really meant, then you're already in the world of figurative.

Right? Yeah, by their definition of how you define it. Yeah, by the very definition of the word, what he really meant.

Yeah. Okay, good. So we can say that the...

If we call this sutra what I really meant, which turnings of the wheel are they talking about? All of them. One and two?

Well, kind of. But mainly the first two, meaning... I have to tell you what I really meant, because you don't understand what I really meant.

Okay? Because it's not what it sounded like.

[Speaker 3]
In what way is yong drub not ultimate from the mind-only school perspective?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a tough one. From the mind-only school system... Well, you could say that the word applied to it independently.

Something like that. How's that? KHYOD KHYOD SHES SBYOD PA'I DE RANG GI TSE NI KHYOD DUG PAR RANG GI TSE NI KHYOD DUG PA'I LTAN DAM PA'I STONG Something like that?

Okay. That's tough. I think you'd have to go to it being called what it is.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, but it already is that subtracted, right? If it's already...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is.

[Speaker 3]
...minus kundak, then the kundak's already been taken away before we talk about yong drub.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or maybe you have to read this LTAN DAM PA'I NGO NYID MED PA as that LTAN DAM PA, which is NGO NYID MED PA. You see what I mean? And it doesn't mean no nature of being LTAN DAM PA.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
But, by the way, we're going to get more into it now. It's coming. All right, Miss Kat.

Thanks for asking, Ben. Okay, Venerable Paula. Yeah, it's not clear, is it?

It's kind of confusing. Okay. 135, Venerable Paula.

BYANG CHUB TSEM PA LTAN DAM MYANG DAG PHAB GYIS BYANG DEN DE GYIS DO GA GCIG DU PHUNG SOGS RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PAR GSUNGS GA GCIG DU RANG BZHINS MED PAR GSUNGS PHAN DI LA NGO BA MED PAR GSUNGS PA'I DONG GANG LA GONG PA LA ZHES ZHUGS PA'I LEN DU Nice. So, don't forget that the ten chapters of this sutra called, What I Really Meant, are really ten different questions by ten different bodhisattvas. And it's only this chapter that talks about the distinction between literal and figurative.

And, by the way, the other nine questions are very intriguing. And Yuan Tzu wrote the English equivalent of seven books about it. But anyway, this chapter is called Paramartha Samudgata.

This bodhisattva called, let's call him Mr. Ultimate, okay? He asked the Buddha, Hey, BYANG DEN DE What's that mean? Utpala?

Oh, conquer. In GA GCIG DO, In the... In the one-spoken sutra?

Some sutras. GA GCIG is... You normally do it as other person, opponent, but...

99% of the time it means other. 99% of the time it means other guy. Here it means some.

Okay? In some sutras, you said PUNG PO LA SOGS PA You said the heaps and the sense powers and the categories. Nice!

RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA They have their own nature. Yeah, you said they exist through some nature of their own. And then in some GA GCIG sutras...

Sorry, I gave you the answer. You said RANG BZHIN MED He said they don't exist through their own nature. Yeah.

And then NGO MED PAR GSUNGS PA'I DUS GANG LA BSGOM PA LA And then you said something about no natures, right? No essence of their own. What were you thinking?

BSGOM PA LA LARC means is. When you say Geshe-la, this is the LARC. It means his is-ness or her is-ness.

When you said nothing had a nature of its own, what were you thinking about? My gosh. And then LEN DU And he answered.

Yeah, in response, and then we got the next one. GZHE ZHUGS PA means he asked that question. Quotation mark.

And then the minute you see GOM PA, you know somebody's talking about the possibility that something was not meant literally. What were you thinking? Your mom doesn't have to say, was it literal or was it figurative?

She just has to say, what the hell were you thinking? All right, then here's the answer. LEN DU And who's up?

Tim, let's go. Okay, and maybe this is the answer to your question of why in listing the figurative turnings of the wheel, he started with the second instead of the first. Okay, that was like your homework.

And he says, look, Oh, Paramahansa Samudgata, Oh, Mr. Bodhisattva, I was talking about three kinds of no-essence. I was talking about three kinds of no-essence. Don't forget, these are just code words for the three...

The three, the mind-only school? The three characteristics. Yeah.

Yeah, okay. Basically, changing things, emptiness, and the Gakcha. Okay.

Kuntak you can call the Gakcha.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so, well, there was the things that don't have any nature of their own, which is the Gakcha stuff. And then there's the things which never started from the outside, which is the things that started, which is the shenwang, the changing things. And then there was the things that don't really have any nature of being ultimate, which is the ultimate things, which is the emptiness.

Okay? So, Gakcha, and then the thing which is empty of the Gakcha, and then the emptiness of the Gakcha. Got it, you guys?

You okay? You guys all right? It's awfully quiet out there.

I guess the internet's down. So, but you're just using... The Gakcha here is a code word you're using...

For Kuntak. ...for an imaginary thing. Yeah, for Kuntak.

The ultimate Kuntak is a two-headed elephant, or the husband is not my fault. That's the ultimate Kuntak. So, Kuntak means just made up in your head.

It's the husband who's upset because his boss is angry or something like that. It's never true that your husband is upset because of what his boss said, or to traffic, or he's hungry. It's never true that that's why he's upset.

There's husbands who are perfectly happy when they get home and their boss has yelled at them. There's husbands who enjoy getting stuck in traffic so they don't have to come home. And then, you know what I mean?

So, this is not what made him unhappy. It was you yelling at the kids, always. It had nothing to do with the boss, or what he ate, or what he didn't eat, or the traffic.

It's never that. It's always your fault, Kat, everything. Yay, just kidding.

I mean, we can all say it about ourselves, right? So, when the Buddha said nothing had any nature of its own, he was talking about gākjās, he was talking about husbands, and he was talking about the emptiness of the husbands. Yay.

And how does this answer the question of... Oh, it doesn't, at all. Oh, okay.

What I had in mind was that some stuff is just made up in your head, and some stuff is changing, and some stuff is the emptiness if you get rid of what's just made up in your head. That's what I was thinking about when I said nothing had any nature of its own. So, all three of those are some kind of known nature.

All right, here we go. Thank you for the footnote info there. Oh, yeah, all the quotations are there.

All right, who is checking now? Did you get to pick on her? I don't remember.

Not recently. Not yet. Oh, pick on her.

And then Sugeng is just watering at his mouth, I can see, to pick on somebody. Okay, let's go. Nice.

So, this is a text by Asanga. Yogacara Bhumi Vilishchaya Samgraha. Yeah, and by the way, the common name is just the brief presentation.

And it's useful to know the whole name, which is that I'm giving you a condensed version of my huge Yogacara Bhumis. So, he's basically giving you a brief presentation of his massive Bhumi texts. Okay, all right.

Khamagone, what was the Buddha thinking about chokpa dekyi chetan jengwa nyi me pa, when he said nothing had any nature of its own? Shenna, if you ask, me pa. What's that mean?

He said. This me pa after shenna means word? Do you have a guess?

He replied. He meant what he said? No, here it means, I'll tell you what he meant.

Okay. So, when you see me pa in a ten-year text, after shenna, oh, you want to know what the Buddha meant? I'll tell you what he meant.

Me pa. It all depends on the durwa, dulja. Disciple?

Yeah, it all depends on the disciple. Here's the crucial word, dulwe wang gi, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
It's all, it just depended on who was in the class. It just depended on who was in the class. Is that common?

Okay, sorry, what? But they would say dulwa instead of, is that common?

[Speaker 2]
No, it's uncommon.

[Speaker 1]
It's so uncommon that I would think it might be a mistake, but anyway. It was for the purpose of who was, it was just all dependent on who was in the class. Dulwe wang gi.

Would you say the intelligence of who was in the class? What is that power referring to? Oh, no, that just means due to.

The wang? Yeah, it has nothing to do with, yeah, it just means because of. It's no more power than the cause and because is caused.

You see what I mean? Okay, yeah. Yeah, it was just up to the disciples there.

According to the disciples present, he said some things exist ultimately or some things don't exist ultimately. He divided it into three categories. Okay, gong ne sung.

Who's the subject of the first sung? Who's doing the first sung here? It would be the listeners in the sense of those who were.

Who's the subject of the Buddha? There's a. Shantung de.

Yeah, the Buddha said. Yeah, Shantung, yeah. Yeah, that's all.

Yeah, he was just trying to adjust things according to whoever was in the audience. Such a common occurrence, right, for all of us when we teach. We have to adjust constantly when you teach.

In fact, it would have been a huge surprise if the Buddha had not adjusted what he said according to who's in the room. Who's the subject of the second sung, Utpala? The Buddha.

Master Sangha. Master Sangha. Yeah, Master Sangha.

See, you have to read it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
There's another sung up again. That's the third sung. Sorry.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. So it's just confusing. The third sung is the Sangha, yeah.

And this is my new way of putting a quotation in the Tibetan, okay? Which I did in your... I started in your book, Utpala.

So, yeah, the inset part is quotation, okay? All right. And it's important here because the two sungs are piled up.

Yeah, well, pile of sungs. Yeah. Okay, so gang, you finally got your chance to criticize Utpala.

Yay! Yay! Sorry.

$50 for the pay. To pay. This was said by Master Ambasubandu?

Yeah. Oh, but because of this quote something like because yeah good good Nick good. I'll give it to you $50 for the Amelie fun.

Yeah. Just mean that pay books, because goes into the date year down there in 139, this pay distributes to this song. And they're both become reasons.

Okay, the two quotations become reasons for this statement. Okay. Okay, we know what what I really meant means because of what was said in these two commentary.

Okay, very difficult structure. All right, good. Who wrote this into by you guys.

This is the 30 verses by us. Yeah, I believe that's enough. Okay, good.

No, no, no. To counteract the three natures. He mentioned the three lacks of any nature.

Okay. Okay. And that's why he said that nothing had any nature during which turning.

Yeah. Okay, so I'm going to flip the verse around. The reason the Buddha said that the reason the Buddha in the second turning of the wheel.

He said that nothing had any nature of its own was that he was thinking about the three ways in which things like any particular nature of in three different ways. Okay, three different kinds of nature. When the Buddha in the second turning of the wheel said that nothing had any nature of its own.

He was talking about three different kinds of not having any nature, which you might think they did have, which has three kinds. So we can say by definition. By.

Can I just make sure I understand there's three ways of thinking about the three different ways of not having a nature. He taught there was three ways that things don't have a nature. Because you might expect that they had a nature in three ways.

Okay, and that's why he said nothing had any nature in the second turning of the wheel. Okay, so this one doesn't mean the same as this morning. Okay.

And we have to be careful. In the second turning of the wheel, Buddha said nothing had any nature of its own. Okay, that's this one.

Why? Because it didn't have any nature of its own in three different kinds of nature, two of which are a nature of its own. Okay.

You go. You're okay. Oh no, but that's all right.

Yeah. How does that one fit in? So two of the three characteristics of the mind only school do exist, do have a nature of their own.

Right, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay. But all three were said not to have a nature.

But two of those saying they don't have a nature doesn't mean they don't have any nature at all. Okay. So in the third turning of the wheel, he made a fine distinction.

Yeah, all things don't have a nature. But with two kinds of things, it doesn't really mean that. Well, yeah, so I understand that, but I don't see anything in there about me, like two different kinds.

Oh, no, he doesn't say it here. No, he never says it here. Yeah.

In the 30 verses, he never says it. He just says, when the Buddha in the second turning of the wheel said that nothing had any nature of its own, he was talking about not having three particular natures. Okay.

And then he doesn't say two of those do have a nature of their own. We're just about out of time. Geshe-la.

Okay. By the way, it's true. Yeah.

Sorry to interrupt. What's tripping you guys up, what's confusing you guys is that all three natures, the real husband, the fake husband, and the emptiness of the real husband, of the fake husband, they are all three called no nature. That's what's tripping you up.

All three are called ngo nyi mepa. In the sutra, what I really meant, all three, the real husband, the fake husband, and the fact that the real husband doesn't have the fake husband, which is emptiness. Okay.

All three are called no essential nature, ngo nyi mepa, in the third turning of the wheel. But two of those don't mean don't have any nature of its own. That's all.

They're all called, all three are called not what you thought. All three are called not what you thought. Or they don't have a nature that you thought they had.

But it doesn't mean they don't have any self-nature, like Buddha said in the second turning of the wheel. That blanket statement, he went too far. But the real husband and the emptiness of the real husband, which do exist really, even in the third turning of the wheel, in the third turning of the wheel they are called they don't have any nature.

Okay. And we have to deal with that. We have to deal.

So in the third turning of the wheel, Buddha did say these three things have no nature of their own. But with two of them, he meant something different. Okay.

Because they do exist really. They don't have a certain nature of their own, but they do exist really. What's the natures that they don't have, but they still exist really?

Well, first of all, the real husband didn't start with no cause. He doesn't have that nature. Got it?

The real husband doesn't have a nature of starting with no cause. And the emptiness of the real husband doesn't have a nature of being the ultimate thing in the universe from its own side. Got it?

So that's not so bad. Yeah. What's tripping you guys up is that even in the third turning of the wheel, all things were said to have no essential nature.

So it's confusing because it sounds exactly like what he said in the second turning of the wheel. Yeah. He didn't mean it in the third turning of the wheel.

So in the third turning of the wheel, where he divides what he said in the first two turnings into literal and figurative, you have to figure that out. That's not literal. The explanation of what's literal and figurative wasn't literal.

But wouldn't Prasangika agree with this? Oh, yeah. There's a Prasangika way to read the third turning of the wheel.

I mean, a real Prasangika who really understands things, supposedly Nagarjuna, would say the second and the third turning of the wheel were both correct. But only if you really understand the husband in the kitchen can you say the third turning of the wheel was also correct. Cool?

Majorly cool. Thank you. Geshe-la, this kind of confirms what he did earlier in the text.

Because earlier in the text, he said, GZHAN WANG THANG YUNG GRUB RTEN PAR GRUB PA'I NGO BA NI GSUM Yeah. That's okay. Yeah, they're real.

They're correct. Those two are real of the three. Yeah, but they don't have certain natures.

Yeah, they're not completely real, but they're real. Well, there's natures that they don't have, but natures that they don't have are simple. Okay, here, I'll say it again.

The nature that the real husband in the kitchen doesn't have is starting without a cause. But he's real. The nature that the emptiness of the real husband in the kitchen doesn't have is an emptiness which could save the wife, could make the wife a Buddha from its own side.

That's all. Got it? All right.

Don't worry, you guys. We'll come back to it. But the main thing is that you understand the husband in the kitchen, and tonight you don't yell at your spouse.

That's the purpose of having these classes. Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you, Mahamudpala and everybody.

Thank you, translators. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Mixed Nuts.

Please stay on this link for a very special Zoom yoga class with Geshe Michael. He's wearing a tie. Wow.

Executive yoga.