Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 19

[Speaker 2]
I'll take a shot at it too. Hey. See where we're at.

So welcome to Interlude on Emptiness. Thank you. Where we are still talking about mind only school ideas, right?

So the last class, which was just yesterday, so hopefully we remember, there was a quote by Lord Buddha in Unraveling the True Thought, where he discusses a connection between the three attributes of the mind only school. And he discusses it in two parts. Can anyone describe?

What are the three parts?

[Speaker 1]
Couldn't talk Shenlong and young.

[Speaker 2]
In English, please.

[Speaker 1]
Imaginary things dominated things in totality.

[Speaker 2]
It was nice. Her hair turned white. Her sister is dead.

What's going on? Okay, so does anyone remember what it was that the Buddha said about these things? And it had to do with, one hint is that it had to do with the quality of concepts, the quality of dominated things, the quality of established reality.

If you, he's talking to ultimately pure. Yeah, does someone get to say?

[Speaker 1]
Isn't it like if you take the imaginary part away from the dominated thing, then you end up with totality?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no, that's it. No, we're talking. Well, let me just do it.

He says, oops, why is it not? There we go. That if the quality of dominated objects and the quality of being established reality exists, then he will understand precisely the quality of concepts.

In other words, that they exist, right? And then the second part is that whoever considers the quality of dominated objects and the quality of being established reality as not existing, then also underrates the quality of concepts. Thinks of them as non-existent.

That's a tough question. Yeah, sorry. And it's the easy one.

It's the easy one. Okay, so Arya Sangha in the level of Bodhisattvas, he talks about four parts of, I shouldn't have said a perceived, well, yeah, four parts of a perceived object. Now, I'm hoping that people can remember listing them in order of the most obvious to the most subtle, give their name and a brief description of each.

Like the most gross thing about a perceived object is.

[Speaker 1]
The physical part of it.

[Speaker 2]
No, we're talking perceived. Saying something's there that's not there. Is that one of them?

It's the word. It's the name of the entity. So if the word is the most obvious, then what's the thing that's a little more subtle than word?

[Speaker 1]
The mental image.

[Speaker 2]
Great, the label, the mental image of the entity. Now in this list of four, what's the next most subtle part of a perceived object? The chi?

The chi, it's the sign. Which I could not find a definition anywhere for sign, but attributes of the entity. Then what is the most subtle thing?

[Speaker 1]
The emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
No. I don't know why this, there we go. The foundation, the support of the previous three.

But remember, we can't talk about that because that is an indescribable entity, right? It's not, it has no qualities. It has no, there's no mental image of it.

There's no name of it. We can't talk of it. Okay, maybe, does anyone remember the Tibetan for these four?

Word? Word? Label?

Sign? Not traumatized.

[Speaker 1]
Sign?

[Speaker 2]
It's senma. And foundation? Yeah.

Thank you. So, okay, if we have a misunderstanding of the fourth of those parts that you guys just came up with, the foundation, if we have a misunderstanding of that, Arya Asanga says we'll waste our lives in two problems. So what is the misunderstanding and what are the two problems?

[Speaker 1]
I'm guessing the two problems are corndep and drung dope.

[Speaker 2]
What's the misunderstanding?

[Speaker 1]
Something about something having soft nature.

[Speaker 2]
Nope. The problem would be if we think that because the foundation, oh, that we think that the foundation ultimately exists because it is an indescribable entity, then we either overrate it, that which is not there, and we underrate that which is.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks.

[Speaker 2]
Is there an English equivalent to chitsumpa? No, I think. Waste or squander, which is what will happen if we have that misunderstanding.

Jitumepa. Inexpressible. Yeah.

Indescribable. Dakni. Well, I, myself, or self, very self.

Any other ideas? Self-existence, no.

[Speaker 3]
The being.

[Speaker 2]
Any other ideas?

[Speaker 3]
That being, that one itself.

[Speaker 2]
Entity.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Sure, yeah. Yeah, that seems okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you for your attention. Netflix and chill. Next, I get to show you my attempt.

Where are you? Oh, please. So can you see this thing?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 2]
No?

[Speaker 3]
No, you might be sharing only your- Yeah, you're right.

[Speaker 2]
I was sharing only my, ah. Can you see this thing?

[Speaker 3]
Quite.

[Speaker 2]
Is it big enough? No. No.

It can be bigger.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, we're here. We're here to rescue.

[Speaker 2]
So, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You asked me to translate 162, but it appeared to me when preparing that 161 is actually the first part of a thought.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And it sort of ends in the middle of the thought. So I'm doing both of them here.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. Let me absorb this for a second. Therefore, when certain people listen to pure teaching, some of them are going to be, called the Dun-Im-Ba-Dak.

Oh, the dak is not, it's not pure. It's just a pluralizer.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's good.

I like it. It's okay. Not bad.

Maitri said okay, also.

[Speaker 2]
Let's go to- Okay, so, oh, I don't want it to be okay, not bad.

[Speaker 1]
It's okay.

[Speaker 2]
I want it to be stellar.

[Speaker 1]
It's very good for such a difficult sentence. Yeah. All right.

Wait, I didn't do the second part.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, oh. I thought you were saying the whole thing was- The second part was stellar. That's what I was hoping.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Wrong. The tsultrim mayimbar nam par dak, okay?

Yep, yep. That means they impute a wrong idea on the text, you see, around the teaching. Okay?

So it's, they make up a story about the teachings, which is wrong. And the story they make up about the teachings is to say that the teachings are made up.

[Speaker 2]
The teachings, what? Wait a minute, say that again.

[Speaker 1]
The story they make up is that the teachings are made up. Okay? Deetamjey, all these teachings, tapasambuddhisate, they are nothing more than.

The say means nothing more than. Okay? All these teachings.

Because they have gotten ideas through not, through thinking illogical thoughts, okay? They say all of these teachings about emptiness are just made up, okay? Deenim dekho na yin na.

And they say it can only be this way. Suddhita tawa deni andapa tawa yin no shepa. And they say that suddhita tawa deni, anyone who sees things this way are seeing things in a pure way.

They see it and they express that. That's how they view things and that's how they express themselves.

[Speaker 2]
All right?

[Speaker 1]
It's a different...

[Speaker 2]
Wow, that's very different than what I had. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, in my old Russian class, they would say divide and conquer.

[Speaker 2]
Right, so this is not dissing on Madhyamaka.

[Speaker 1]
Meaning split this long thing into pieces, into separate sentences. You'll be better. Okay.

All right, not bad. By the way... No, it was bad, it was bad.

You are translating a translation from Sanskrit, which is really tough, right? Okay, you're translating Tenggyur, right? That's what it was.

Yeah. It's hard. And frankly, I'm so...

It'd be hard in an oral teaching to correct it properly. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just correcting pieces for you. Yeah, okay. All right, here we go.

So, let's go back, okay? They are quoting the Levels of the Bodhisattva by Master Asanga, which I believe is a book that he wrote without...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Without Maitreya.

[Speaker 1]
Without his collaborator. Okay? And it's huge.

And I think there's nine sections to it, and I once figured it out and put it in a footnote somewhere. DE BA'I NA GANG ZHIG GANG PHYI'I SHES PA'I DKA' BA'I DOR DE PA CHEN PO'I LAS BRTEN PA SANGS PO'I STONG MI NYID DANG BRTEN PA'I BSKOM PA'I DANG BRTEN PA DE LA BRTEN NAS Therefore, there are certain people... I'm just going to repeat what you said, who take these very difficult-to-understand Mahayana teachings, especially those on emptiness, which have a very difficult to...

Deep, deep... Yeah, you could say hidden meaning. And when they hear those teachings, SHES PA'I DUR YON DRAG PA JI LTAR BA ZIN DU MA SHES They don't understand them in the way they were meant to be understood.

TSUL SHING MA YIN PA RNAM PAR BTAG PA STE They make up wrong ideas about these teachings. RIG PA MA YIN PA'I KHYAD PA'I RTOG PA TZAM GYIS They get just weird ideas instigated by ill logic. THAMS CAD DI NYID DRAG PA TZAM DU ZAD STE And they say, all of this is just made up.

DE NYID DE KHO NA YIN NO That's all it is. TSUL DI LTAR LTA LA DI DE NYID People who view things this way think they are having a correct view, and they look upon things this way, and they say things this way. Now, you're going to read and Venerable...

Sorry, is Su Geng there? I can't see you, so I forget about you. Yeah.

Let's go. Correct this lady.

[Speaker 2]
DE LTAR NANG RDOG PA'I SHI'I NGOS PO TZAM YANG MED PA'I RDOG PA NI KHANG CHENG THAMS CAD KYIS THAMS CAD DU MED PAR NGYUR NA BTAG PA TZAM GYIS DE KHO NA YOD PAR THAG KA LA NGUR TE DE BA'I NA NAM RANG DE NA DE DAG GIS NI DE KHO NA DANG BTAG PA DE NYID KA LA YANG GUR BA DE BTAG PAR NGUR TE Okay. Sorry, I'm just still upset about how poorly I did. I'm going to get off of it right now.

[Speaker 1]
DE LTAR NANG RDOG PA'I SHI'I NGOS PO TZAM YANG MED PA'I So then they say that there is nothing in the world which is what is given a name. RDOG PA'I SHI'I NGOS PO TZAM There is nothing in the world which is the object of a name. YANG MED PA'I RDOG PA NI KHANG When you deny what is labeled, you also deny the labeler.

RDOG PA NI KHANG THAMS CAD KYIS THAMS CAD DU MED PAR NGYUR NA And I want you guys to... Where is that? I think I did it with somebody recently.

DAG DUNG DAG DUNG DAG DUNG DAG DUNG DAG DUNG DAG CHI DAG CHI DAG DUNG DAG CHI DAG DUNG DAG CHI Yeah, good. DAG DAG DAG CHI DAG CHI I think something like that.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
DAG DAG CHI DAG CHI DAG CHI We did it in my book. guess a lot. Okay.

So they're actually reversed. Okay. I'm not sure I have it spelled right.

But I think I do. I think these are the parts of the pen. Okay.

And then the dog J is the is the the mind, the mind sending out a picture. Okay. And then the doctrine is the finished composite.

Okay. So you start with the parts of a pen, which is a great color and a cylinder shape. And then the mind a karmic seed opens in the mind, and it sends out a picture to coat the parts.

And then once the picture coats the parts, you have a finished thing. You have a you have an object. Okay.

So you start with random parts, the mind unifies them, and then you have a thing. Okay, so these are the dogs. These are the dogs he's using here.

Okay. So the dog fishy noble Samya maybe that the thing that hasn't yet been given the name, which is what the color and shape of the pen, the parts that haven't yet been given a name. Don't believe him.

If you say if it doesn't exist. If the parts that get the name or the parts that get the picture don't exist, then how can you say that the giving of the name could exist? If there's nothing to give a name to?

How could you say there's somebody giving it a name? Don't believe me. It's the giving the name.

Okay. Tom, Jakey, Tom, Jay to MEPA is a idiom. That means totally and purely non existent.

Okay. It wouldn't in every way it would be non existent. Okay.

You're not there.

[Speaker 2]
So I think that don't pay she I think the dog is spelled incorrectly. It should not have a saw at the end.

[Speaker 1]
And the first line I would leave it alone. I mean, look at the quotation in later from the tenure. Now here they let go be she it has an S.

Yeah, it does. Okay. Don't worry.

By the way, they're not. They are not respecting the verb tenses and that happens all the time.

[Speaker 2]
And go ahead.

[Speaker 1]
In language, they get lost completely. The future, the past tense, the present tense, the imperative, they all get mixed up. Okay.

And that's a weakness of Tibetan. Sanskrit is extremely precise. And it never changes.

Future tense, past tense, present tense, imperative tense, but Tibetan, it gets really sloppy. Okay, and this is a translation of Sanskrit. Okay.

They don't have the machine without some young matey. If there's nothing there to give a name to dope and you can Tom, JK, Tom, JD, MEPA. Then, then the naming couldn't couldn't exist either.

Okay. But some, by the way, the discussion here is, what's the status of the parts before you give them a name? What's the status of the parts before you unify them?

Okay. DAPA sanggye de kona yupa takala gyurte. How could takala...

takala is an idiom, okay, that you should know. Takala means how on earth. Takala.

And it's rare. Okay. How on earth could there be any naming?

Okay. If there's nothing to give a name to, then how could, then there would be no naming in under any circumstances. And then how could you end up with something that got a name, a product of a name?

Okay, gyurte. deway na, nam dang de na, de dak gi ni de kona dang dapa de nyikala yangkorwa dapa gyurte. Therefore, if you deny any one of the three elements of the mind-only school, you deny everything.

If you deny any one of them, you deny all three. That was the point that was being made so far. If you deny changing things, dependent things, then you deny emptiness, and you deny husbands that don't really exist, or gag chas, kundak.

Okay. So it's the old formula. Take the cup, remove the cup that's coming from its own side, and that gives you emptiness.

And those are the three qualities of the mind-only school. Here he's applying it to naming a thing. Okay, if you take away the naming, and if you take away what is named, and you take away the naming, then how are you going to have any named thing?

And he's comparing that to what we studied with the three qualities of the mind-only school. Okay, in the process of naming. Who's he?

[Speaker 2]
Arya Isanga.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. Good.

[Speaker 2]
So this is just like an example so that people understand better what he means when he says what he said about concepts, dominated things, and established reality?

[Speaker 1]
It's all coming from that idea. The original thing your text was starting out with was, if you discount korwa depa, any one of the three qualities of the mind-only school, the other two also are destroyed. If any part of the three-part formula is messed with, the other two parts collapse also.

Now he's drawing a parallel with how you name things. Okay, and here's how he wraps it up. Please read.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, by the way, was this a nasty correction or not?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'm kidding.

[Speaker 1]
Not today. And that's what makes it so hard to understand these texts, because it's been thousands of years. Okay, so tapa dang de kono lakwa.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, tapa dang de. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and there's a comma. tapa dang de kono lakwa tapa. If you underrate, if you say the process of labeling, and if you say the emptiness, the true nature which is established by understanding how things are labeled, that's my husband, okay?

Then that's the meypa tawa'i tso'o yinpa. You should, Rikpa Cho, you should understand that the worst mistake you can make in saying things don't exist, what's the metas? Typical metas are karma doesn't exist, future lives don't exist.

He says those are nothing. If you believe that this process doesn't exist, then you're really in trouble. Okay, that things are named, that you are making the husband who's yelling at you.

He's a product of a picture coming out of your mind, which we, picture coming out of your mind, the process of picture coming out of your mind and jumping on top of the husband's parts is what we call naming. And pictures become names. So when you say, when you see things like things exist in name only, what it really means is things exist in pictures only.

Popping out of seeds in your mind from how you treat other people. Okay, and if you don't explain it that way, if you don't go back to follow the watermelon vine, back to that comes from how you treat other people, then you haven't explained emptiness well. Any explanation of emptiness should trace back to, oh, and that comes from how you treat other people.

All explanations of emptiness should be excuses to encourage you to be moral. And if it doesn't go there, the teacher's understanding is in doubt. Okay, all right.

So to believe that if you say this idea of things existing through labels, and if you say this idea of the emptiness of anything that doesn't exist in labels, if you say those are bullshit, okay, then that's the worst kind of denial you could ever do. Worse than refusing karma, worse than refusing future births, worse than refusing the Three Jewels. Who said that?

[Speaker 2]
Arya Sangha.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, who's checking? Is everybody sleepy here? We're tired.

This morning night thing doesn't work so well. Anyway, live with it. It's the best for the rest of the world.

John Brady, you want to do? You want to pick on him? You ready?

Okay, John Brady.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, now go very slow because John Brady's checking you.

[Speaker 1]
Do it. Please do it slower. Okay, we can live with that.

Umapa, the Madhyamaka guys. Chö Tam Jey is what?

[Speaker 2]
Every existing thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Takpa Tsam.

[Speaker 2]
Are merely labeled.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, just products of labeling. Mawa, those guys who talk like that. Mepa Tawa Gyurpa Nupa.

Tem. This is describing what happens if you... How do you say it?

Mepa Tawa Gyurpa Nupa Tempa. There it is describing, then, the problem, Nupa, that they could be accused of saying that nothing really exists. Okay, saying that things are just...

Oh, that's just... you just made that up. You're just calling it that.

It's not really that. It would seem to be a denial of something, that things could exist, okay? Oh, is this a cup?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a cup, but you're just calling it a cup. And then to other people it sounds like you're denying that it's a cup. But actually, when you say you're just calling it a cup in Madhyamaka, it proves it's a cup, okay?

I'll say it again. Generally in the world, if you say, oh, you're just calling it a cup, it means it's not really a cup. But in Madhyamaka, if you say, hey, you're just calling it a cup, then you're proving it's a cup, okay?

Got it? So it'd be easy if someone read the description of how we create things with our mind. If you say you just made that up in your mind, usually that's a criticism.

In Madhyamaka, it's a badge of honor. Yeah, you are making up everything. So, DA BA RGYUR BA'I NUS PA BSTAN PA LA They could be mistaken for saying that nothing exists.

BYANG SRAS LUNG KHO MED This quotation, LUNG, from the Bodhisattva Bhumi by a Sangha, above that we just treated, KHO MUN, BSTAN DAG PAR RGYUR PA YANG DAG PA'I DNGOS PO When it says BSTAN DAG PAR RGYUR PA YANG DAG PA'I DNGOS PO, a pure thing, a real thing, which is really there, when a Sangha himself mentions a real thing, which is really there, it is clearly indicating that things are DENDRO, that they exist really, without labels.

LUNG PO DENDRO SOR TE It's obviously talking about unreal things, true things, real things. GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA Oh, please read.

[Speaker 2]
GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA NGRE BU KHE NUD KYI TSE SU MED GÖ PAS TEN MED MED GÖ LA DE THA NA KUN THAG DANG YONG DUG KYANG MED PAR NGYUR RO SHES ZHAO BAR GONG PA TE NGÖ PO LDAN PAR MED NA TEN MED DUNG GYUR GÖ NA GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA NGOS MA BA'I PHYI GRUB PA'I THA YIN NO Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA If things that come from causes and conditions, which means dependent things, if they are not real things, if you say they are not real things, GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA then how can they produce results? If you say cause and effect things, because they are cause and effect things, are not real. Who says that?

Madhyamaka? You Madhyamaka guys, you say that things that involve cause and effect aren't real. Therefore, GZHAN DBANG KING LUNG PO LDAN PAR MED NA Therefore, they cannot be things which produce an effect.

According to you, you say GZHAN DBANGs aren't real. If they're not real, then a seed can't produce a tree. If they're not real, GZHAN NYON GZUGS BSTAN NAS MED DGOS LA DE LTAR NA And if that's true, then the self-existence of a tree is not true.

[Speaker 3]
What? You mean the lack of self-existence of a tree?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. No, they say it. No.

Okay. I'm all confused. They don't say that if-dependent things aren't real?

[Speaker 1]
If GZHAN NYON... No, listen. This is the other guy talking.

This is the Lupa Mawa. This is first three schools. Why are they called Lupa Mawa?

Why are they called functionalists?

[Speaker 2]
Because they say that if something functions, then it's real.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's the test. Is it real? Is it a real shovel, or is it just a painting?

Well, can you dig with it? Yeah. Well, then it's real.

Okay. So, this is their reasoning. Oh, Mr. Madhyamika, do you say that things which create other things are unreal?

We do. So, therefore, they can't produce results, right? Yeah, that's what we say.

Therefore, there's no such thing as a cause that produces a result, right? Right. And if that's true, then there's no such thing as a thing which is kuntak, made up.

Okay? There's no made-up things either. Because made-up things are defined by real things.

False things are defined by real things. So, kuntak means just labeled. Kuntak means, let's put it, let's go to the kitchen, okay?

The husband who's yelling because he's hungry is called kuntak. Okay? And the husband who's yelling because I yelled at my kids is called shenwa.

Okay? A cause and effect thing. And then the absence of the husband who's yelling because he's hungry...

When you subtract from the kitchen the husband who's yelling because he's hungry, which only leaves the husband who's yelling because of what you did, then you've established the emptiness of the husband who's not coming from you, which is called yong du, the result of the equation. Right? You had it a hundred years ago.

Okay? Okay. So, but if things don't create other things...

If yelling at the kids never created the yelling husband, then you could never say the husband who's yelling because he's hungry doesn't exist. If you take the husband who's real out of the kitchen, then there's no husband who isn't real, and there's no emptiness of the husband who isn't real. Okay?

These three characteristics of the mind-only school depend on each other.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
I'll say it again. The husband who's yelling because you yelled at your kids, the caused husband, he's real. Okay?

Then there's the other husband in the kitchen, one who's yelling because he's hungry, which is not real. And his absence is called emptiness. Okay?

Take away a husband who was created by yelling at your kids, and the other two can't stand up anymore. Because then this one would be real, because there's no other husband. The one who's yelling because he's hungry would become real, and then there wouldn't be any absence of him.

There wouldn't be any emptiness of him. You okay? I'll say it again.

One husband is yelling because you yelled at your kids. Another husband is yelling because he's hungry, and it's coming from him. And he's not real.

When you subtract him, you get emptiness. This is the principle of all mind-only teaching depends on these three ideas. One's coming from real causes.

One looks like it's real, but it's not. And the absence of that one is emptiness. And upon these three legs stands the whole mind-only school.

Okay? Take away this guy, which is the husband who is yelling because he yelled at your kids, and you destroy the other two. Because then he becomes a real husband.

Because then the husband who's yelling because he's hungry becomes the real husband, because the real, real husband got kicked out. The husband who's coming from you yelling at your kids, if you kick him out of the kitchen, then the only husband left is the one that, I didn't do anything. And then his emptiness also disappears from the kitchen, because now he's in the kitchen.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la, would you then say that a kuntak, which is a concept of something like democracy or love, is dependent upon a changing thing? I mean, you're using a husband that doesn't exist as the kuntak, but what about something like democracy?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, there are existing kuntaks. Yeah, there are existing kuntaks. In the mind-only school, there are mental constructs which do exist, but the important one is the one that doesn't exist, which is the husband that doesn't come from yelling at the kids.

The mind-only school, kuntak technically can extend to existing imaginary things. Existing imagined things, like the principle of democracy. That can be called a nominal entity, as opposed to like a concrete entity.

But they emphasize the nominal entities that don't exist, which is the husband that you didn't do anything and he's yelling. Okay, got it? So the point is, if you take away any one of these three, the other two cannot stay in the kitchen.

Okay, if you take away the husband... I'll say it again, okay? And this is the whole last three pages or so.

If you take away the husband who's yelling because you yelled at your kids, he has to leave the kitchen. Who's left?

[Speaker 2]
The absence of the husband that could never exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the only guy left in the kitchen then is the husband who couldn't exist, which is the husband that... I didn't do anything, husband, okay? And then, if he can't be in the kitchen, what happens to his absence?

Then that can be in the kitchen, okay? So if you take away the kitchen who's yelling because you yelled at the kids, if you kick him out of the kitchen, what husband you have left? The one who's yelling because I didn't do anything, okay?

And then if you take that one, then if he's in the kitchen, his emptiness has to leave the kitchen. You got it? Now, what you should be asking me, Stanley, and I hope that's it, Geshe-la, why do you want to take the first husband out of the kitchen?

Why are we even talking about taking the first husband out of the kitchen? Why are you so insisting to kick the husband out of the kitchen who came from yelling at the kids? Because he's just called a husband.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, in a way, Stanley.

[Speaker 1]
That's the whole problem here. Some Madhyamika guy said, this guy who's the real one, the husband who's yelling because you yelled at your kids, the real one, he's just called a husband. And then lower school people say, oh, Geshe-la said he's just called a husband.

He must not be a husband. And then we're like, no, when we say just called a husband, we mean you labeled him a husband because you yelled at your kids before. Calling him a husband is the same as saying he's yelling at you because you yelled at your kids.

I'll say it again. Calling him a husband is the same thing as saying he's yelling at you because you yelled at your kids. Because the name that you call him husband with came from yelling at your kids.

So in Madhyamika, it's a compliment if they say, you're just called Seiji. Then you're like, yeah, no, yeah, now I'm real Seiji. But they have this problem.

They say, if the husband who's coming from yelling at the kids is just called a husband, then Shenwangs don't exist. And then we say, look, you can't deny the husband who's Shenwang because then you lose kun tak and yong du. You lose the husband who was yelling because he was hungry.

And the emptiness of that husband has to leave the kitchen. Yes?

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, I have a different way to understand this thing. So you are saying that if we say, you are saying that if we say the caused husband is not real, then there's the imaginary husband.

[Speaker 1]
We'd have to, he'd be the only one left.

[Speaker 3]
But can I say, if there's no caused husband, there's no husband at all? If there's no husband at all, then there's no imaginary and there's no imaginary.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, it's because someone's yelling at you.

[Speaker 3]
But they just said that. They just said there's no one yelling at you because you just called someone, called that the yelling husband.

[Speaker 1]
They accused us of saying that.

[Speaker 3]
Right, right.

[Speaker 1]
That's the idea, yeah. So we say, then you're denying the husband who came from your karma.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Because he's the husband, just called the husband. Because when we say, just called the husband, we mean called because your mind made a picture from your karma and called him husband, which means he's real.

[Speaker 3]
But Geshe-la, can I say, just because denying the...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, just because you deny the cousin that came from yelling at the kids doesn't mean you have to accept the husband who doesn't come from yelling at the kids. But it does, doesn't it? Because that's the opposite of yelling at the kids.

[Speaker 3]
They're connected.

[Speaker 1]
You're saying there's no connection between the two husbands, but I'm saying there is. There's a deep connection between the two husbands. If my husband is not the one that I created by yelling at the kids, then he has to be a husband who's hungry.

Because someone's yelling.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's all. That's all. I understand your idea now.

All right. Section 167. It's a difficult thing, maybe.

Let's go. Are you still there?

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's push this down so I can read the whole thing.

[Speaker 2]
ten la'apa duwa le pekpa chenpo la la rang gi yi ngey par sungway ndi kye che kun dzok du ni dang che yi la dunpar ni medok she sero Yeah, and ten la'apa means, ten la'apa duwa means the brief presentation, okay?

[Speaker 1]
ten la'apa means to lay out the details of a subject. It often refers to an outline. Duwa means abbreviated.

So the abbreviated presentation, or the abbreviated outline, which is also written by Master Asanga, okay? It says, tenpa chenpo la la chok And by the way, you have an option of la la here. La la land.

Here's the tengyur, okay? The tengyur has two la's, okay? And I'll go with that one.

I'll go with the la la in the... Because tenpa chenpo la means in the greater way. Tenpa chenpo la la means some guys in the greater way.

Okay? When you repeat la, it changes the meaning completely. So, someone messed up this carving, okay?

So, tenpa chenpo la la. Some people in the middle way school, rang gi nye par sungway And there's a better reading. rang gi nye par sungway It's totally wrong.

The tengyur is right in the first half of the sentence, and the tengyur is totally wrong in the second part of the sentence. Okay? And that's why we're glad we have John Great.

Yay! Okay, the ancient carving is correct when it says la la. And it's completely wrong when it says nye wa.

And it's completely wrong because nye wa has meaning. And it gives a meaning here. And that meaning is irrelevant.

Nye pa means fault. Where are we? Nye pa here, okay?

In the carving of key juk je. Says problem or fault. N-Y-E-S means problem, okay?

Nye par sung means to consider something as a problem, okay? The tengyur says nye war sung, to hold it dearly. Okay?

Hold it dearly, the ancient carving. Hold it as a problem, the modern carving. But the modern carving was wrong when it said in the middle, in the in the greater way.

And the tengyur was right when it said some guy's in the middle way. Okay? And now you know why it takes time to prepare your classes.

And you can't just dump a month's work on Geshe-la suddenly and expect an answer civil, civil answer. Civil means polite. It's not gonna get a civil answer.

Okay? Hi? Hi.

Okay, so no, just kidding. She's gonna, no, she's so polite that she won't talk to me for a year. Okay, so here.

Some people in the greater way, thekpa chenpo la la, rang gi nye par sung way, considering their own positions to have some faults. Okay, considering their own positions to have some faults, they try to fudge things. Okay, and they say this, di kye che, kun sok du ni tam je yu la, everything exists in a fake way.

pa dun dapa ni me dong, but nothing exists in a real way. Okay, everything exists in a fake way. So then there would be only one reality.

There's no ultimate reality, kun sok denpa, and deceptive reality. There's just, everything is deceptive reality, and there is no ultimate reality. Everything is mistaken.

Okay, they have to fudge their position, okay? We say deceptive reality accommodates ultimate reality quite sweetly. Because ultimate reality is the absence of deception.

They live together. yin yin yin yin yin, yin yin. Okay, good.

la dun dapa ni me dong, shes sero, the ser tips it off. Who's gonna help me? The ser tips it off.

Yeah, ser means claim, claim. They claim in the Abhidharma, what would that be? instead of ser.

And why did Sangha Bhadra's students get upset at Vasubandhu?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, because in Avidyāna, Vasubandhu keeps saying, de'i se, meaning, he doesn't believe in anything.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, meaning, I don't accept it. Now, if Christina Kasica wanted to make $1,000 tonight, she would give us the unusual Sanskrit word for that low, for Vasubandhu's tiny little syllable. It's $300 a letter, basically, for de'i se.

That's why I offered so much money. I don't remember it either.

[Speaker 2]
Once I heard this...

[Speaker 1]
Where's my gopher? Oh God, I can't see it anymore. Anyway, I'll tell you, it's like hitar, itar, something like that.

It's a tiny little... Iti! And...

[Speaker 3]
It's iti!

[Speaker 1]
I know, is it?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, it is! Word!

[Speaker 1]
Can you check it for me? No, iti is quote.

[Speaker 3]
He said, she said.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I can check it. Kramer says iti too. Okay.

She said it after we talked about it.

[Speaker 2]
She should get it this time.

[Speaker 1]
All right. When people... Ajamika guys...

Sorry. When some wimpy Mahayana guys say, oh, everything exists...

[Speaker 2]
Could someone please turn off their mic? I'm having a hard time hearing Geshe Michael. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. kun dzok tu ni tam che yang yu. Everything does exist deceptively, and nothing exists ultimately.

Okay? When people say that, you can say the following to them. de la di kye che.

che dang denpa den dangpa yupa ni kyan. Well, what do you think the ultimate is? What's che dang denpa mean?

That's... Junior monk is how you've been translating it. Ah.

It would be sarcastic here.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Reverend.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, oh, your holiness. You know. What do you think we mean when we say den dang, ultimate?

And what do you think we mean when we say fake, deceptive reality? What do you think we mean? Oh, Reverend one.

Okay. And here's... de kye dupa na.

de kye dupa na. When you ask them this. Okay?

When you ask them this. kyal te di kye che. And suppose they answer with the following.

chu tam je ngo yin mey pa kyang yinpa de ni. When you say that nothing has any nature of its own, that's ultimate reality. And...

when you say that... and if you believe that all those things which have no nature, when you imagine that they do have a nature, that's deceptive. Okay?

So actually this is a good answer. I'll say it again. I'll say it again.

Okay? Oh, Reverend one. What does it mean when you say...

things are ultimate, or ultimate reality, or things are deceptive reality? Ultimate reality means they don't have any nature of their own. That's okay.

And what do you mean when you say things are deceptive? Oh, that's when you think that things that don't have a nature of their own, do have a nature of their own. And that's a lie.

That's a lie. Okay? Got it?

That's not so bad.

[Speaker 2]
And we're out of time.

[Speaker 1]
Luckily. Let me just see where we are so I know where we're going to start.

[Speaker 2]
Please let me know what homework to do.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to give it to you right now, and actually it's not as painful as what we just did. And by the way, you're just in an impossibly difficult section here, and don't take it too seriously. And the third and the fourth and the fifth time you read it, you will understand it.

To think you can understand K through J on the first reading is naive. And that's just a fact. Okay?

And the third time you go back to it, it'll seem like you understand everything. And you'll say, I wonder why I didn't understand it before. It's very interesting.

It's a real phenomenon with Madhyamika. Okay. You're going to translate.

You're going to translate that part. Good on that. And you can try the next paragraph too.

Okay. Okay. That one's a little longer.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. All right. Sashimi.

We're having Japanese food. By the way, it's really, really difficult, so don't worry too much. It's extremely difficult.

You still have that big smile on your face. I don't know how.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, my internet really sucks, so I can't do video.

[Speaker 1]
I'm kidding. It's just a picture. All right.

See you guys tomorrow. By the way, if you're listening to this thing, let me tell you the principle of everything, okay? If you understand something easily, you shouldn't come to the class, because you already know it.

If you understand something easily, you shouldn't be coming to the class, because you already know it. If you come to the class and everything's difficult, that means you're learning something, okay? Really, seriously.

Adults tend to stop learning. Adults are very lazy. After you get out of school, you really avoid situations where you don't know something, and you just stick to what you learned in school.

It's very rare to see an adult learn a new skill or learn a completely new topic or something. It's very rare. If you can force yourself to learn something which is uncomfortable, you expand your brain a huge, huge amount.

And I have to say, just sitting in these classes, for me, it's exploded. My mind has exploded. We wrote a new level for DCI.

It was like the most amazing thing, because of these classes, because of these classes. So don't get discouraged if you're in these classes and you don't know what's going on. You should get discouraged if you think you do know what's going on.

That means you didn't understand anything. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
See you guys.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Keshe.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Keshe Michael. See you bright and early. Maybe early, but not bright.

Fair enough. All right, everybody.