Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 17

[Speaker 2]
The thing is, the more you spend on a computer, the more often it lets you down.

[Speaker 3]
Yay! The problem is high hopes.

[Speaker 2]
No, I actually have no hopes, but let's see. I apologize for the delay. I had to reopen everything.

[Speaker 3]
Could you turn up your mic volume in the midst of the thousand things you're doing to try to get set up too?

[Speaker 2]
I didn't understand what you said. I just heard something about volume.

[Speaker 3]
I can't hear you. Yeah, could you upgrade your...

[Speaker 2]
You have to be more specific about what that means I have to do.

[Speaker 3]
Be louder.

[Speaker 2]
Can you tell me to go to this menu, click this thing? To zoom preferences, then audio on the left. If you want me to do something, tell me what I have to do in the app.

[Speaker 3]
Click on the where it says zoom.us, then preferences, then audio.

[Speaker 2]
I don't see an audio menu.

[Speaker 3]
On the left, a small tab. The third one, top down.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry. And then I'll cancel that. Third one is edit.

No, nothing there.

[Speaker 1]
Click on zoom.us, okay? Then click on preferences. Then click on audio, right, Seiji?

Third one down from the upper left. Correct. It says audio.

[Speaker 2]
It's telling me it's in the red when I do that high.

[Speaker 1]
Then when you see output level, increase the output level.

[Speaker 2]
The output level. Whoa, that increases your voice, not mine. Is this better?

Is that better?

[Speaker 1]
Yay, yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
You're welcome. It's the blind leading, helping the blind.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Oops. Hey, okay.

Can you see the quiz?

[Speaker 3]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 2]
All right, so here we go. The last quiz of the term. Okay, so yeah, we're still the same topic where K.J. is talking about the chariots of the middle way that are Arya Asanga and Master Vasubandhu, how they divide the Buddhist teachings into those that are literal and those that are figurative. We've talked about that a bit, and now we're talking about what it means for the three attributes of the mind-only school and how they relate to the three lack of an essential nature, three lacks of an essential nature. Okay, so in unraveling the true thought, in what sense does the Buddha mean that constructs have a characteristic nature? Because remember, he's just gone through talking about how all three of the attributes lack an essential nature in some way, but he did say that constructs or kundaks have a characteristic nature.

Anyone remember? In some sense.

[Speaker 3]
Having the nature that it's impossible. I'm sorry?

[Speaker 1]
That it's impossible. Maybe it's wrong already. Having the nature that it is impossible to exist?

No?

[Speaker 2]
No. Okay. They have a characteristic nature in the sense of just being made up of names and mental images.

[Speaker 1]
That's good.

[Speaker 2]
Can anyone give the Tibetan four have a characteristic nature of being made up of names and mental images?

[Speaker 3]
But... Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
No, it's actually a key.

[Speaker 1]
Ming dang de.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Jokpa. Shakpa. Characteristic nature.

Ngo wa ni?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Oh wait, seni. Yeah. Seni.

Yeah. So mi dang, mi dang, mi dang de seni.

[Speaker 2]
Sakpe seni. Yin. Yi.

But that doesn't mean they have. That's good. Ngo wa ni.

[Speaker 1]
That's cool. Hey Utpa, what font are you using for the Tibetan? It looks really nice.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Tibetan uni.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 2]
What interpretation of the things the Exalted Perfection of Wisdom and Ten Thousand Lines Sutra says lacks an essence, cause KWJ to sing to the sky in a cry of pain normally heard only in the hell realms. Do you remember? It has to do with, you know, a certain kind of thing that, you know, only a certain kind of thing lacks an essential nature.

We can divide the world in many ways. One of the ways to divide all things is changing and unchanging things. Yeah, changing and unchanging.

But another way is ultimate and deceptive. Yay! The mistaken interpretation that KWJ implores us to not to trust, if we have any brains at all, is that, you know, statement that only deceptive objects don't have a self-nature.

[Speaker 1]
And that has interesting parallels to Adam's text from last night. Just, you know, if you're interested about the status of constructions or abstractions, right?

[Speaker 2]
Why does the Mind Only School say that the third lack of an essential nature is ultimate?

[Speaker 1]
Great question.

[Speaker 2]
It's the very last thing we talked about.

[Speaker 1]
It's not a lack of essential nature. It's the essential nature is ultimate, right?

[Speaker 2]
Nope. So it's not just that the absence of an essential nature is the highest thing. And if there's nothing higher, there's nothing higher but the fact that it, by seeing it directly, you remove your obstacles and it fixes your heart.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice. Yeah, that's a big point in the Mind Only School. Yeah, yeah.

Cool. Yay! Yay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Drake Kong Jar, the English equivalent?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's nasty.

[Speaker 2]
Is it?

[Speaker 1]
That's really difficult. I mean, it's almost impossible, but okay. Is this the same as Ring Dread?

Like the same? Exactly. Yeah.

And Oscar got it also. Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, did he? I can't see the chat. Okay.

So append the same words to be in or follow the same pattern.

[Speaker 1]
That's a funny one. A mental power which does not stay in its self-nature?

[Speaker 2]
Well, no.

[Speaker 1]
Does this mean crazy? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You're out of your right mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yay.

[Speaker 1]
It's a perfect translation, by the way, Udpala.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Not your right mind is a perfect translation. It's something like distinguished by. Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Thoroughly distinguished, yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Mike John Brady.

[Speaker 2]
I know. What was the picture, Venerable? It's, I don't know, something that needs to be unraveled.

That's the closest I could get to.

[Speaker 3]
Nice.

[Speaker 2]
It was challenging to find an image for this term, images for this term. Okay. This is hard, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Oh, these are nasty. These sutra quotations are nasty.

Yeah. The first part's fine. Wow, this is hard.

Things that come about through interdependence. Then it should say, don't have a nature of starting. Don't have a nature.

It's that things that come about through interdependence, which is a side reference to Shenlong, I think. They don't have a nature of starting. Yeah, they don't have any essential nature of starting.

They can also be described as having no nature due to the ultimate lack of a self-nature. Due to emptiness, right? Yeah, it's very difficult.

It's almost impossible, so don't worry about it. Okay, let's do the second paragraph. The point is that he's using the sutra to back up what he said about changing things, not having a nature of starting from their own side.

Yeah. Yeah. Who's hiccuping?

Oh. Okay, why is that so? Oh, are you ultimately pure.

Good, nice. That which is the purity. That's okay.

That which is the purity, because of that. Great, very difficult. Yeah, the second paragraph is good.

Yeah, very difficult. Yay. Okay, that probably took some time.

That's the kind of thing where you just stare at it for a couple hours, and then you go watch some Netflix and come back.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I went and got something to eat.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. You did a good job. Those were difficult.

Those were really difficult. You know, partly it's just whatever we hit when the end of the class comes, so I'm sorry you hit such a bad place.

[Speaker 2]
I could have stopped with the introductory line, but I thought, no, that would be too much.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's great. It was great. Okay, interlude.

Interlude me. It's such a deceptive name, like interlude, we should be relaxing and, you know. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Do you want to talk more about those things I just attempted to translate?

[Speaker 1]
Not really. They're fine. Yeah, they're fine.

He's just backing up.

[Speaker 2]
What is meant by a pure object of perception?

[Speaker 1]
That object which, when perceived directly, removes all your obstacles.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, it's basically the definition of ultimate in this school.

[Speaker 2]
That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, he's just backing up. Is this what we're on, Utpal, 152?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Venerable Kadding wants to check you, she told me. Turn your mic on.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry, I've lost track of you. I stumbled back there. Can you please start the second line?

Sure. Oh, we have a different second line, sorry. Parmay.

Yeah, it's actually dun du.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. Wow. Okay.

What do you mean when you say kun tak is rang gi tse nyi kyi me? Translate that.

[Speaker 2]
What do you mean when you say concepts don't have a quality of their own?

[Speaker 1]
Good. They don't exist through any quality of their own. What do you mean when you say that?

[Speaker 2]
They don't exist through any quality?

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
They don't exist through any quality?

[Speaker 1]
You could say that, yep. What we mean is that they are damn remit.

[Speaker 2]
Um, what we mean is that they're, they're not ultimate.

[Speaker 1]
They're not real, okay.

[Speaker 2]
They're not real.

[Speaker 1]
Not real. What do you mean when you say that constructions, constructs don't have any quality of their own? What we mean is that they're not real, okay.

All right. What's a construct in the kitchen? Let's take it to the kitchen, just so we know we're all on the same page.

[Speaker 2]
The husband who got angry, I didn't have anything to do with it.

[Speaker 1]
Good. I didn't do anything, husband. I didn't do anything, husband, okay.

That's the kun tak in the kitchen, okay. That's the construct. That's the made-up thing in the kitchen, okay.

What do you mean when you say it doesn't exist through any quality of its own? Well, what we mean then is that it's not real. He's not real, okay.

He's just not real. Okay. But, and, and this was extremely difficult because of the two mistakes in the text, okay.

It took a long time. Ngan is a real word, meaning bad. Chang is a real word, meaning to hold.

And they're both wrong. And it means dun du che, okay. This is the story of the guy who corrected the offset film that I almost threw off the roof.

But, okay, that's another story. If it were not that way, if we didn't mean they're not real, okay, then we would have to be saying, we would have to be explaining it as not existing at all, okay. When we say constructs are not real, I'm sorry, when we say constructs don't exist through any characteristic of their own, what we mean is that they're not real.

What we don't mean is that they don't exist at all, okay. If you don't take, if you don't take the meaning of don't exist through inequality of their own, if you don't take that as meaning they're not real, then you might take it as meaning they don't exist at all. Then they may, okay.

And if you did that, then there would be no kundaks in the universe.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So, yeah, when we say the husband, I didn't do anything husband in the kitchen. When we say he doesn't have any nature of his own, what we mean is he doesn't have any nature of being real. What we don't mean is, we're not emphasizing that he doesn't exist, okay.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have three characteristics of the Mainoni school, we'd only have two. There wouldn't be constructs, okay. There wouldn't be gākjās, or ideas of gākjās.

How's that? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So, the visvīpe, would that be impossible?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it would be impossible, yeah. Then there wouldn't be any, there wouldn't be in the kitchen, there wouldn't be any gākjās, okay. And by the way, do you want me to tell you the rest of the class?

Yes, please. Okay. Now, Stanley, you guys are kitchen experts, we went through this, we did China soft power for a year on the three characteristics, if I remember correctly, of Yensa, Master Yensa.

So, if there's no kūntaks in the kitchen, okay, if there's no husband in the kitchen who's not my fault, okay, if there's no false idea in the kitchen, then what happens to the other two characteristics of the Mainoni school? Tell me that correctly, and you understand the whole class today. If there's no gākjā, what happens to the other two characteristics of the Mainoni school?

Shenwangs and nyongdrups. What happens to shenwangs and nyongdrups if there's no gākjā?

[Speaker 2]
What happens to them? You see them?

[Speaker 1]
You can't establish them. You can't say they exist, okay. You can't have emptiness without a gākjā.

You can't have ultimate reality without a gākjā. If gākjās disappeared in the universe, if all the husbands who are not my fault disappeared in the universe, there wouldn't be any husbands who are my fault.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, the idea.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, isn't the gākjā what it is we're trying to refute, and once we do so, we get to the truth?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but he wants you to be delicate about it. He wants you to handle the gākjā with good gloves, okay. Gākjā is not real, but please don't say gākjās don't exist in the universe.

Of course they exist in the universe, because if they didn't exist in the universe, nothing would be empty, and if nothing was empty, then they couldn't be what they are, shenwang.

[Speaker 3]
It's a lanky gākjā.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, kind of. If there's no lack in the kitchen of a husband who's not my fault, then there's no emptiness in the kitchen. If there's no emptiness in the kitchen, then there's no husband who is my fault, and you canceled all three of the mind-only characteristics by refusing kūntaks, by misunderstanding the concept of construction, the guy who's not my fault.

If you think we're saying there's no such idea, you're wrong, okay. We're just saying it's not real, but we're not saying you don't have that thought, okay. You do have that thought.

It's not my fault. I don't know why he's yelling at me. Then you catch yourself, and you say, oh, that's not true, right.

Not that it doesn't exist in your mind. And then you say it's not true, and that way you establish emptiness, and that way you establish the husband who is your fault, which is dependent origination, okay. You cannot cancel any of the three characteristics of the mind-only school, because if you cancel any one of them, you automatically cancel the other two.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe Michael, when you say the equation, is that not removing kūntaks, or concepts?

[Speaker 1]
You remove the reference of the idea of kūntak, but you do not remove the idea of a kūntak. That's all, okay.

[Speaker 2]
The actual instantiation of it.

[Speaker 1]
What the word made-up construct refers to, you remove that, but you don't remove the concept of something made up. That's all. That's all he's saying.

So he's saying, please learn to distinguish between saying the construct is not real, and don't say the construct is not there, because it is there, because you had to deal with it, and that's how you get to nirvana, okay. It's a very beautiful distinction. In fact, you could say he's like Parchewa.

[Speaker 2]
He's making very fine distinctions, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you 20 bucks for that.

[Speaker 2]
Just to make sure I understand, we have to understand that when we're talking about the three attributes, the attribute of kūntak is not non-existent.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly, or there would only be two attributes. They can't stand on their own without kūntak.

[Speaker 2]
But we do get rid of a particular kūntak related to something.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly, or yeah, a certain angle of the kūntak we deny. We deny that there could be a husband who's not my fault, okay. Yay!

Now you can understand the rest of the class, okay. Here we go. So Geng wants to check.

He told me, I'm sorry you're not drinking anything, Geng, but I still called on you, okay. Cheers!

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
This is a very difficult sentence, okay. More difficult than the last one. And now look, when we refer to kūntaks, when we refer to the husband who's not my fault, we are not saying that you can't imagine that husband.

We're just saying it's not really what you thought, okay. When we talk about the husband who's not your fault, we are not saying it doesn't exist and you cannot imagine such a thing. You can imagine such a thing, but it's not real, okay.

It's not real. And we make the same distinction with shenwangs, okay. And when we say shenwangs do exist through some quality of their own, what we mean is the opposite.

They are real, okay. When we say made-up things like the husband is not my fault are not real, but they exist. The idea exists then you have to think the opposite with the shenwangs, okay.

With the husband who is my fault, the husband who's yelling at me because I was bad to my kids, okay. That's shenwang husband. We say he does have a definitive quality of his own.

He does have a quality of his own, okay. Well, what's that one mean? It's not referring to the question of whether he exists.

It's referring to the question of is he real or not. So, just in the way that with the husband who's not my fault, the concept exists, okay. The husband doesn't exist, okay.

The concept exists, but it's not real, okay. And we can say the opposite about the husband who is my fault. The concept does exist, and it is real.

And that's what we mean when we say the husband who is your fault does exist through some quality of his own. Rangchen Gyi. Rangchen Gyi, okay.

Got it? So, just as when we say constructs, the idea of constructs exists, but the constructs themselves are not real, when we talk about shenwangs or the husband who did come from me, what we're saying is he does exist by definition, meaning he is real, that in the same way exists by definition, doesn't exist by definition, it means real or not real with the husband who does exist, okay. Got it?

We're not debating whether the husband exists or not. The husband who's my fault. We're not talking about that.

We're asking about if I think he's coming from yelling at my kids, is he real or not? Is that real or not? Okay.

Is it true or not? Got it? DEM PA.

The question is DEM PA, not YOD PA, okay. The question is DEM PA, not YOD PA, okay. Is he there?

Well, yeah. But is he real? That's the question.

Got it? All right, here we go. It is cool, by the way.

And it's, oh, sorry. GZHAN DU NAR KUN DA'I RANG GI TSEN GYI MED CHING. So, if you said that the husband who's not my fault, that that idea couldn't exist, all right.

If you said me, okay, he doesn't exist, the concept doesn't exist. And then you said, but the husband who is my fault does exist. And you made this kind of distinction between existing, rather than a distinction between being real or not.

Okay, got it? The distinction is not that the concept of the wrong husband doesn't exist. The question is whether that concept is true or not.

We have to say the concept exists. People do think it's not their fault. Okay?

That concept exists, but it's not true. Okay? And the husband who does come from you, the question is not whether he exists or not.

He's there yelling at you. But is he true? Is he real?

And he is. Got it? So, the question is not whether kuntaks and shenwangs exist or not.

They both exist. The question is, are they real or not? And the kuntaks exist, but they're not real.

And the shenwangs exist, and they are real. Okay? Got it?

And it would be KHYAD PAR MI TE means it would be a mistake to draw the distinction between existing and not existing, rather than drawing the distinction between this real or it's not real. Okay? And look, either they are, either they, either we're talking about both equally, about their reality, or we're talking about their existence.

Okay? You have to keep, the rules have to be the same with both of these two characteristics of the mind-only school. Either we're talking about them existing or not, or we're talking about them being real or not.

And we happen to be talking about whether they're real or not. Okay? So, you have to use the same criteria, criterion, for these two qualities of the mind-only school.

We are not discussing whether they exist or not. We're discussing whether they're real or not. Okay?

YOD LDAN PAR MED NYAM. They're equal in the question of are they real or not. They are, or they're equal in the question of do they exist or not.

It's not that they, that one can't be real and one can't be unreal. Okay? Got it?

[Speaker 2]
It's not that one can't be real and one can't be unreal?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's not the question. So, what we're talking about, we're trying to apply the criterion of are they real or not. We are not trying to apply the criterion of do they exist or not.

They do exist. Buddha said, there's three characteristics, there's three NGON YI MED PA. He said that.

The only question we have to talk about is are they real or not. It's not whether they exist or not. Okay?

The concepts exist. Okay? Got it?

So, NYAM DU TSUNG means the criterion has to be equal for these two of the three qualities. Either they exist equally, or they are true or not equally. Either they exist or not equally, or they are true or not equally.

But you have to apply the same criterion to both. Okay? So, bottom line, when we say constructs don't have any nature of their own, what we're really saying is they're not real, or they're not true.

We're not saying that Buddha never taught constructs. Okay? Yay!

Okay. It's very difficult. Okay.

The idea that your husband's not your fault definitely exists. It causes all the suffering in the world. It causes every suffering in the world.

That must exist. If it causes all the suffering in the world for eight billion people, it probably exists. Okay?

But it's not real. Okay. Please go ahead.

So, to exist by nature or not. Okay, now this is the same...

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, my internet blinked out. Could you start over, please?

[Speaker 1]
What's frustrating is when, even when it blinks out, or when it doesn't blink out, it's still unintelligible. Okay. Now somebody comes with a new idea.

Okay? Now somebody comes with a new idea. Okay?

The question of whether something exists through some nature of its own, okay, the question of whether something has some nature of its own, refers to whether or not it exists as a functioning thing. Okay? That can do something.

Okay? So, he's saying things that don't... he's probably saying, when we say something doesn't have a nature of its own, we're saying it doesn't have a function.

And when we say it does have a nature of its own, we're saying it does have a function. And that's very close to the argument in Adam's text last night. Okay?

Okay. Things that things that you perceive in your mind as ideas don't have a real existence. It's only things that you see with your senses, your physical senses, that are real.

Rangzens. And these concepts are not real. And then that's a bad idea because then you cannot have logic, and you cannot figure out things that you cannot see.

Okay? Cool?

[Speaker 2]
Well, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Then you couldn't have anything.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and the problem was, the problem, the crux of the problem last night was the idea, very, very important idea, can an archetype change? Yes or no?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No. Cannot. Then it's not an archetype.

Okay? Okay. You can't add a handle to the cup.

You can't change its color. You can't make it taller. You can't make it fatter.

An archetype is frozen. The cup you learn with, that's why people fight, because you learned, your mom taught you one way of cleaning the house, and my mom taught me another way of cleaning the house, and your archetype of cleaning the house doesn't fit my archetype of cleaning the house. Archetypes are archetypes means they don't change.

Okay? They don't change. They cannot change.

Okay? So, last night, the guy said, look, archetypes cannot change. They just cannot change.

Okay? And then he said, and anything that doesn't change isn't really real. And then we said, well then, okay, you can't have logic, because logic deals in ideas.

Logic depends on ideas. They don't depend on cups and microphones and computers. They depend on the idea of a cup and the idea of a computer.

Okay, got it? So, this guy is saying the same thing, essentially. He's saying, I want to say that it's only things that change, and only things that do things, that is real.

Okay? That's real. Okay?

That exists by definition. Okay? Now, if you're Shenduk, right?

Utpala? And I come up to you and I say, look, it's only changing things that are real. What's your job is to find an exception to his rule?

So, what are the two qualities your exception's going to have to have? He said, anything that's real has to be changing. So, what's your job?

[Speaker 2]
You have to find something that's real that's not changing.

[Speaker 1]
Great, great. Okay? And he says, you can't.

And we have to try. Okay? He says...

Well, young Drup.

[Speaker 3]
That's what I want to say.

[Speaker 1]
No, but he's not going to buy that yet. Okay? This guy wants to say, nothing's real unless it does something.

Okay? That's his position. Okay?

Here we go. Who's checking here? Gibson, we need you.

Okay. Except for word. Okay?

Word. Just get the answer right in your head and don't say it out loud yet. And I want somebody else to figure this out.

I figure Kramer and Nick have a shot. I think Utpala could do it. Just tell me what...

It's our counterexample. It's time for the counterexample.

[Speaker 3]
Take your time. Take your time.

[Speaker 1]
He, by the way, he just said, anything that's real has to be a functioning thing, has to do something. Only things that do something are real.

[Speaker 2]
So, it's not what I just said about established reality?

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
But then you come back with, that's not right. That's not right. Because there's yondu, right?

Yeah. Yeah. And does it exist by definition?

Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, then according to you, it would have to be a...

[Speaker 3]
Ngopo.

[Speaker 2]
It would have to be a... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Emptiness does something. Okay?

And by the way, when something does something, it loses a bit of itself in the process. Okay? It wears out.

Okay? When a cause produces a result, it wears out. Okay?

Yeah. So, emptiness does something, right? He says, yeah.

Okay. So, it's only 99% empty after an hour. Right.

Okay. So, it's 1% not empty after an hour. Right.

So, it's 1% coming from its own side after an hour.

[Speaker 2]
You okay?

[Speaker 1]
Either the connection got lost or...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no. I'm sorry. Did you ask a question?

I thought you were...

[Speaker 1]
No, it's okay. Okay. Here we go.

Keep going. 156. And Inna is going to check you.

Yay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Cool. Yay.

Hi, Inna.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. You guys can translate that. He says, okay, if you're saying that two of these three characteristics are real, are true.

Okay? If you're saying out of the three characteristics, changing things, the husband who did come from me, and the fact that he didn't not come from me. If you say those two are somehow equally real.

Okay? Functioning things and the emptiness of the husband are both real. Okay?

If you say they're real, then can you just go into why? Can you just tell me how that's equal? How is the reality of the emptiness of the husband equal to the reality of the husband who came from yelling at my kids?

How are they equally real? He wants to know. Okay.

Ready? Here's our answer. Inna, you're still up.

Okay. Should be may part. You're right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I have to remember which one is right. I would say I would change this one. Okay.

All right. This is what I said before. Okay?

Follow my thinking. Follow my thinking. The husband who didn't, who's not my fault.

The husband who's not my fault. Does the idea exist?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can think, oh, it's not my fault. Okay. But is it, is the referent of the idea, is the husband who's not my fault real?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Okay. So you can have an idea, but it's not real.

Okay. Now what if you go too far and you say there is no husband who's not, there's no idea of a husband who's not my fault. What if you go too far in identifying emptiness and you say the idea of a husband who's not my fault doesn't exist.

What if you go that far? What if you go too far? Okay.

Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Then there's no suffering.

[Speaker 1]
No. I want you to answer this. How does that impact on the other two characteristics of the mind only thing?

[Speaker 2]
Well, yeah, as we talked about before, there would be no two, other two characteristics of the mind only thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So if you, if you, what do you call that? I want to say, I don't want to say underestimate.

Anyway, there's a word. I can't remember it. If you deny the idea, no, I want some other word.

I'm close to a real English word that we use. Underrate? No, there's something else.

Like a news story and you, and you say it's not true. Discredit? Any, I don't know.

Okay. I'll come, I'll think of it tomorrow. Okay.

If you say there's no idea of a husband who's not my fault, okay, then you're also canceling the emptiness of that husband. And in effect, you're also cancelling the husband who is your fault. When you cancel one of the three characteristics of the mind only school, you are automatically chain reaction, denying the other two characteristics of the mind only school.

And that's what this sentence says. Okay. If you say, now if you say the husband who is my fault has no nature of his own, okay, then you are, you are underrating cause and effect.

Okay. If you go too far in identifying how the husband who is your fault doesn't have a nature of his own, if you go too far and you say he doesn't exist, then you not only cancel the husband who is your fault, but you also cancel the idea that he couldn't be your fault and you cancel the emptiness of that idea. Okay.

Anyway, the point is, anytime you mess with any one of the three characteristics, it has a domino effect on the other two characteristics. In this case, we're starting with shenwangs. If you underrate shenwangs, if you, if you somehow misidentify what's the husband who does come from you, then you're going to misidentify who's the husband that doesn't come from you and the emptiness of that husband.

Got it? Okay. Anytime you mess with one of the three qualities, you mess with the other two because they're interlinked.

Cool? Okay. Good.

Okay. This is not easy section. This is an incredibly difficult section.

Keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Mind-only, school-only idea.

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
This is only a mind-only school idea.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I mean, that'd be a huge debate, you know. I think the middle-aged school would agree that if you mess with one of those three false distinctions, you would mess with another of the false distinctions. Okay, so don't go there.

[Speaker 2]
Well, they would say, okay, if you project three attributes and you say it like this and then you mess with them, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If you have, if your rabbit has horns on its head and you break one of them, yeah, it would probably affect the other one. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Who?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's, um, it's, uh, Kirwan Dep, but it's Kirpa Top. Oh, really? Yeah, just...

That's mean. Yeah, I triple checked. Okay, I'm gonna buy it.

Kirwan Dep, but Kirpa Top.

[Speaker 2]
Kirpa, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Apparently, when you make the main verb past tense, you affect the secondary verb. Okay, uh, good. Nice job, Word.

Okay, first checking is, uh, let me see, Alex Rivas. Yay! Yeah, okay, wow.

Uh, now, rather than saying if you mess with the husband who didn't come from you, you're messing with the real husband and the emptiness, now we're going at a slightly different angle, and we're saying if you mess with the husband who is your fault, then you are messing with the husband who's not your fault, and you're messing with the emptiness of that husband, the lack of that husband. Okay, got it? Uh, the point is, anytime you mess with one of the three characteristics, you're, you're hurting the other two.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I thought we just talked about that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but now we're going deeper. Okay, okay, here we go. Uh, DE PHYIR MED PA LTA BA NYID DU RGYUR RO SHES GSUNG ZHING So, what this would be called is that you fell into believing things don't exist.

Okay, once you cancelled out any one of the three characteristics, you cancelled out the other two characteristics, and then you're in danger of falling into the extreme of saying things don't exist. Okay, got it? If you, if you damage one of the three characteristics, you damage all three.

If, and if you certainly, if you damage all three, then you're in danger of thinking nothing exists in the universe. Okay, got it? Now he's going to explain, one more sentence, now he's going to explain the interconnection of these three characteristics.

Why, if you hurt one of them, you're hurting the other two, is that they're tied together inexorably, inextricably tied together. Okay, why? GZHAN DBANG KUN DAG GIS BDAG ZHIG Okay, the husband who is your fault is what the husband who's not your fault refers to.

Okay, so if you, if you slide out the husband who is your fault, the husband who's not your fault is going to fall down.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
The concept of the husband who's not your fault. So, you know, the BDAG ZHIG means that's the thing that we need to have around to establish the husband who's not your fault. We got to have the husband who is your fault around to talk about a husband who's not your fault.

If you take away the husband who is your fault, if you hurt GZHAN DBANGs, if you say they don't have any existence at all, then you're hurting KUN DAGs. And if there's no KUN DAGs, how are you going to have a YONG DUG, which is the absence of the KUN DAGs? Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
So, what's the English word for the thing we have to have around to establish something?

[Speaker 1]
BDAG ZHIG, here, BDAG ZHIG.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no, the English word.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, referent, referent.

[Speaker 2]
Referent. Oh, that's the word that people use and no one understands.

[Speaker 1]
Well, in this case it means, look, the husband who doesn't exist refers to the husband who does exist, okay? If you take out the husband who does exist, then you can't talk about a husband that doesn't exist because there's no husband.

[Speaker 2]
So, would we say then for the waiter, the thing that refers to?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could say that, yeah, or what it's linked to. If you had to make it simple for the I'd say, look, the husband who doesn't exist is sitting on top of the husband who does exist. He's in his lap.

The husband who doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I wouldn't want to go that far.

[Speaker 1]
Is sitting in the lap of the husband who does exist. And if you slide out the husband who does exist on his chair, then the husband who doesn't exist is going to fall down, something like that. If I was talking to a waiter.

Thank you. Yay! That's a jolly end to your classes this time, okay?

Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Nick had a small, no, I always overrate that, Utpala, because I don't want to underrate it. You see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good, because it's a long ways away from here.

[Speaker 1]
So, I always read an extra couple pages just in case you guys go faster than humanly possible. Okay, thank you so much. So, we'll see you guys.

Well, I assume we have a yoga class. Does anybody know who's teaching?

[Speaker 3]
Nicole, I believe.