Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 24

[Speaker 2]
No, no, not at all. Welcome back. And now we're going on to interlude on emptiness, where we are deep within the section of the book that is discussing how Arya Sangha and others of his school talk about how to determine whether something is literal or figurative.

Now we just if you remember, last time, which was not that long ago, Masters Dharamati writes that he's going to disprove those who say that existing things are similar to consciousness and that they have a nature as well as disprove those who say just as every object is deceptive, so too is the mind deceptive. In what way is this similar to the groupings of Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings according to the mind only school point of view?

[Speaker 1]
You kind of spelled it out for us here, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Like, yeah, I wanted to do a softball first. That's nice.

[Speaker 1]
So the first turning of the wheel seems to imply that things do have a nature, and he's going to disprove that one. And the second turning of the wheel is that, you know, things don't or every object is deceptive. So too is the mind.

And the third turning of the wheel is the one that the mind only school tends to agree with. That is, I guess, denying both of those.

[Speaker 3]
So maybe in that way, it's completely similar. Some have a nature and some don't. Okay, yeah, right.

That makes sense. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Arya Asanga says that when something doesn't have something, it's empty of that thing. And whatever's left over exists. So please describe how this applies to how those are the mind only philosophy view the world.

[Speaker 3]
One minus the Kuntak is the young group. Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so concepts don't have a self nature and what's left over after self existing concept are removed are dominated things in established reality, which truly exists.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, okay, now comes I actually understood the last class. That's pretty cool.

[Speaker 2]
It's, it's pretty unusual. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. This is a long question. It has two parts.

And each answer has multiple parts. Hey. So how does one go about investigating just how it is that the essential nature and the qualities of a thing are imputed?

Oh, so please give the names for the overall process. And it steps in both English and Tibetan. And this is only part one.

So what's it called? Overall, what's the whole thing called?

[Speaker 3]
Or searches in the four knowledge? Yeah, and the four not knowledges, but super awarenesses.

[Speaker 2]
Comprehensions. Thank you. Oops.

And what is it?

[Speaker 1]
Hey, it's in Tibetan. Yeah, it's a young sushi shape by she just to know no, no, no possessive before the last four. Before the last number four.

This will be our geeky. No, I'll get to eat before the bow. Yeah.

There you go. Okay. Good.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, that's not a thing. Yay. Okay, so now be which I can't find right now.

But what are the names for the steps?

[Speaker 1]
You mean each of the four searches and each of the four comprehensions?

[Speaker 2]
Well, you can speak of it. All together. In in four.

Because you first search and then comprehend, right? Yeah, you comprehend that search. Okay, so what's the first step?

[Speaker 1]
I know we're looking at how something I know what it is, but I'm going to control myself.

[Speaker 2]
First, we try to find the name that belongs to the thing by nature. Yeah, no, wait, don't add that last phrase you just added. Okay, to find the names.

And so what we're going to do is, okay, what about that finding that we talked about? It's exhaustive, right? We, we search high and low for something, and then we comprehend it, right?

Okay. So there's the name and does that have a Tibetan equivalent? No, no way.

I say it does mean anyone agree with me?

[Speaker 1]
Ming?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And now, the second one, after the name, then you look for search exhaustively high and low for the name that belongs through by nature of its own. So you'll say, we're not talking about by nature. Okay, in this searching in, as relates to this question, because we're just talking overall, the four that are searched for and comprehended, and then part B of the question, which you're trying to answer is, like, what are the factors involved with this search?

So first, it's like, what are we searching for? What are the four things we're searching for and fully comprehending if we're successful?

[Speaker 3]
Inestimation? When it starts?

[Speaker 2]
The thing which got the name?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That's good. And, and is there a Tibetan for that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Dokshi? You're overthinking.

Oh, yeah. Good.

[Speaker 2]
And we're not sure if that's really nom or not. But because it was used twice, maybe it is. Could be nom without the aro?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I think I really think it is without but anyway, okay. Without the rango? I don't think it should have a rango, but we got to confirm it with some carvings.

Yeah. Because he repeated it twice.

[Speaker 2]
What's the third thing? Remember what we're investigating? How is it that we're applying the name?

imputing things? So how is it that we're imputing that it has an essence? Is there a Tibetan?

But I should just say what is that?

[Speaker 1]
It does skip a step.

[Speaker 2]
It saves us serious attempting to answer but she's incorrect. I know I need to talk about nice.

[Speaker 1]
That's good. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And then lastly, the fourth is searching for and fully comprehending how the thing was Computer? Computer to have features. Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Oh, right. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And the Tibetan for that is?

[Speaker 3]
Nam jang tu dakpa. Kepa du dakpa. Kepa du dakpa.

Yeah. Kepa dakpa.

[Speaker 2]
It's actually chedrak or kepar du dakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. All right. Whew.

All right. What's the dakpa we had in Xiaoping's text yesterday? Xiaoping.

It was to lick your hands after you eat. Dakpa meant lick? Yeah.

Ndakpa. Ndakpa, I think. Anyway, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so now we're going to talk about the states of mind, and then the other stuff that Gyaltsay was talking about. So first of all, how many states of mind did we talk about that are involved in this process of exhaustively searching for and fully comprehending imputation? There are three.

[Speaker 3]
Oh. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2]
What's the first one, Ben?

[Speaker 3]
Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because you are the expert in?

[Speaker 1]
Pramana.

[Speaker 2]
Yay, accurate perception. And the Tibetan for that is?

[Speaker 3]
Sama. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And the second state of mind? Anyone remember? There were two that are non-Samas that were in the list.

[Speaker 1]
Keshe, memories, or recall, I guess we were saying.

[Speaker 2]
A certain kind of recall. A certain kind of recall? Yeah, a rough one.

Okay, rough recall. Yeah, and then the other one was? Smooth recall.

I think that's about 20 feet tall.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, estimation? Yeah. Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
So the word for estimation is? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What's that? Ichi.

[Speaker 2]
Yay. Who was that?

[Speaker 1]
Word. Word, of course. Word, of course.

My banker. My banker.

[Speaker 2]
And then the word for rough recall?

[Speaker 3]
Keshe. Keshe.

[Speaker 2]
Now, what are the two things? Gyalse. I mean, how many are there?

[Speaker 3]
Two. Two.

[Speaker 2]
What's the first one, Gyalse?

[Speaker 3]
Gyalse. Gyalse.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, somebody. Oh, there you are. That the name exists in nature.

So whether it is?

[Speaker 3]
Inherent. Existing in and of itself.

[Speaker 2]
So what we're looking for is how it exists, right? Okay, I'm sorry. So deceptive is what it's looking for, but I couldn't figure out how to find it.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So what's the Tibetan for that?

[Speaker 3]
Kunzob.

[Speaker 2]
Kunzob, yay. Yay. And then the other one is?

Ultimately real. Ultimately real, yay. And the Tibetan for that is?

Dun-dun. Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Wow, that's a good homework.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, there's more. Please give the English equivalent for Jitawa Shindu.

[Speaker 3]
Like that? How it is?

[Speaker 2]
Just as it appears, we learned. So these are, I'm sorry. These first two are tricky, and the other one's not.

So, mi lang po chi na me.

[Speaker 3]
Doesn't smell like a big elephant.

[Speaker 2]
No. What's na?

[Speaker 1]
That guy has the nose of an elephant.

[Speaker 2]
Mate. Mate means he has the nose of an elephant?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, he doesn't have the nose of an elephant.

[Speaker 2]
Or who's me, please?

[Speaker 3]
All people. Humans. Humans don't have the nose of an elephant.

[Speaker 2]
Elephant trunks.

[Speaker 1]
Elephant trunks, yeah. That's probably a better way than saying nose of an elephant, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So my confusion, or the thing that I learned last time was that lat with mate means doesn't have.

[Speaker 3]
Doesn't have, yeah. It's like one of those things they teach you in the very beginning of Tibetan and you forget.

[Speaker 1]
That's a big, big realization, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Rob to shepa.

[Speaker 3]
To know it.

[Speaker 2]
Other ideas? So there's shepa and there's rob to shepa. So it's rob to shepa.

[Speaker 3]
Which extended the O sound. Comprehend.

[Speaker 2]
So shepa would be to know and rob to shepa would be to comprehend.

[Speaker 1]
What was the translation principle that we were trying to point out there? Do you remember?

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's... It's like book jumping the meaning of the word.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so in English...

[Speaker 2]
Speefing it up.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in Tibetan and in Sanskrit you add a prefix like super know or ultra know. And then when you're translating those words, you have to find an English word that means to understand more deeply. And you might come out with comprehend.

So when you see these prefixes in the Sanskrit or the Tibetan, don't try to translate the prefix. Just find a deeper English word.

[Speaker 3]
Grok.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
That's kun ken.

[Speaker 3]
There he was.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, now, here we go. Wow.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, let's go through piece by piece. It could be in a positive. They could be saying the shintu gyepa nena.

What's that mean? The dena, which is shintu gyepa.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the collection of sutras, which is extensive.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the collection of scripture, which is extremely detailed. Or how do you say that? Extensive.

Okay. The collection of scripture, which is extremely extensive.

[Speaker 3]
The big mama.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And then yum gyepa, which means the extensive version of the mother, which is the perfection of wisdom, right? And actually, I had an aha moment.

I figured out that shintu gyepa is actually another section of the kangyur. Oh. Okay, so I don't think it's in a positive here.

Okay. And I'll show you what I'm talking about. Yeah.

I think it's ratnakuta, actually, which is the pile of jewels, which is a whole collection of sutras, but I'll show it to you. Okay. And I think its nickname is shintu gyepa.

Okay. So that's a theory I have. I'll show you why.

Okay. But that's, as I said recently, I think, that's a whole section of the kangyur, which is short sutras all jumbled together. And sometimes they're not even catalogued separately.

You have to go in and read and find them. So it's weird. It's kind of a weird section.

Okay. And in those, I would say in those two sections, and in other sections, they say that, chu tam je ngo nyi me pa.

[Speaker 2]
Nothing has an essential nature.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Statements in those two collections and other similar collections that things didn't have any nature of their own were later stated to be gompa chen.

[Speaker 2]
Were later stated to be the intended meaning?

[Speaker 1]
No. To be, to have a deeper intention. Oh.

Meaning, cheng dun. It's necessary to interpret them. They are not to be taken on face value.

Saying that something is gompa chen, meaning it has a deeper intention, is to say in Tibetan that it cannot be taken on face value. Yeah. So gompa chen is a synonym for cheng dun.

There's something deeper going on. So that makes sense, right? Who would say that the second turning in the wheel has to be interpreted?

[Speaker 2]
Arya Sangha and such.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Yeah, Arya Sangha and such. So they would say those, and I believe he's talking here that these two sections of the Kangyur were second turning of the wheel.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah.

That these two sections were second turning of the wheel, and they were not intended as stated. We have to establish whether Ratnakuta is second turning. I'm not sure.

I'm not sure it is. I think it is. Okay.

gong shi ngo nyi med so sum la gompa drong gong du Yeah. jidro samma gong du shenpa Whoa. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]
I'm just moving it down here by this thing.

[Speaker 1]
It went into emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
It did.

[Speaker 1]
gong shi Yeah, now this is tricky.

[Speaker 2]
I know.

[Speaker 1]
Don't forget, okay, that this is tricky, okay? And it's a big part of your class today. Don't forget that when people reinterpret the second turning of the wheel, they use do de gong reo.

Sandinimochana Sutra, right? Yeah. How do we like to translate that?

[Speaker 3]
What I really meant.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what I really meant. And then Lord Buddha says something radical. He says, everything I talked about in the first two turnings of the wheel, really, they can be broken down into three groups.

Every subject I talked about can be broken down into three groups. What are they, you guys? Oh.

Oh. shen wang Right. shen wang, kun tak, and yong du.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, the order should be shen wang, kun tak, yong du. Because one minus two equals three. Okay.

Okay, good. yong du y-o, y-o. Yeah.

Now, those of you who really remember that sutra, Buddha called these three ngo nyi me sung. ngo nyi me sung.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Three essential natures.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, let's go another way, let's go another way. In the mind only school, are shen wangs real? Yes.

Yeah, so put real next to shen wang. Okay, are kun taks real? Are imaginary things real?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, not real. Are yong drups real? Emptiness, real.

Okay, good. Yes. Now, here's the difficult part.

All three were referred to in the sutra as ngo nyi me.

[Speaker 2]
Not having an essential nature.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, having no essential nature. But two of them are real and one is not real, and all three are mentioned in the same breath as being lack of self-existence or lack of a nature. That's very confusing.

Okay, that's very confusing. You know, two are real, one is not real. All three are called no essence.

[Speaker 2]
Right, and we talked about this last term, I recall.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We had several days on this.

[Speaker 1]
It's just confusing, okay? So here, your sentence says, gong shi ngo nyi me... gong shi means what was really intended, okay?

What was the real intention was the three ways in which things have no nature. Okay? What was really intended is the three ways in which things have no nature.

Okay? And you can find that description in Dodegondra. And that's those statements in the third turning of the wheel I have explained above.

All right. And how did he explain them above? He made this division that you have here into real, not real, and real.

That's all. That's all. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, we're not going to go to the part about getting into how they each have no essential nature?

[Speaker 1]
We went through that, like, extensively.

[Speaker 2]
I know, but a footnote that points people to that area.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. So the point is, look, in the third turning of the wheel, Lord Buddha said the first turning of the wheel, and the first and second turning of the wheel, mainly the second, had to be interpreted. They weren't literal.

By the way, the first turning of the wheel also has to be interpreted, and I think Ratnakuta might be there, I'm not sure. Anyway, they all have to be interpreted, and the way you interpret them is to say, changing things are real, causes and effect is real, that things could not be cause and effect is not real, and you get to emptiness by subtracting one from the other. But mainly, what he wanted to say was, I'm not saying that Shen Wangs aren't real.

Although somebody else would say that. Who's that?

[Speaker 2]
Lord Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
The middle way guys. Okay? The middle way guys would say all three categories are not real.

[Speaker 3]
Okay? Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And that's the whole discussion you've had for three or four classes. Somebody's trying to say that Shen Wangs aren't real, and we're trying to say they are real. Okay?

In this school. In the mind-only school. Okay?

Why is he spending... K.W.J. is supposed to be explaining emptiness. Why is he spending so much time in the mind-only school?

[Speaker 2]
It has to do with... We have to know what definition or what description of emptiness it is we're supposed to understand and meditate on in order to get out of suffering. Because the Buddha gave so many different, seemingly contradictory explanations of emptiness, we have to know which one.

[Speaker 1]
That's why we went into the structure of his whole book last time. Because first he's going to explain how... Who interprets things?

[Speaker 2]
Master Asanga and Vasubandhu and such.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and then he's going to explain how... Arya Nagarjuna. Good, yeah.

So, you know, it's kind of uncomfortable for us middle way people because we're in the middle of Asanga's version. Okay? All right.

And I'm sorry to say, he gives Asanga a lot of air time.

[Speaker 2]
Well, if we look at it in the context of the whole thing, it's really not that much.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. Well, it's a whole term for us. Okay?

Several terms. Yeah. But we'll get out of it sooner or later.

And then everything will be easy, actually. It's reading and translating the mind-only school, which is really difficult. Okay?

Because there's problems with it. Right? Okay.

All right. What is that?

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's, you know, searching for something exhaustively. Extensively. I don't know.

It's the best I could do.

[Speaker 3]
I like it.

[Speaker 1]
What was that? That was one of those...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you put a quarter in. You're on the top of the Eiffel Tower. You put a quarter in.

You can see it everywhere.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. All right, good job on that homework. Very, very...

You spent a lot of time on it. You worked hard on it. And thank you for that.

All right. I mean, I really, really like it when you guys spend time on your homework. And I have to say something.

You've got to put in the hours. If you don't put in the hours, you can't be a translator. I'm sorry, you know?

And it creates problems at home, you know? Geshe-la spends 12 hours trying to translate and you're going to get some heat from the rest of the world.

[Speaker 2]
I don't have the rest of the world. Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I'm just saying, you know, I get constantly... People are constantly complaining to me that I don't have time to talk to them.

And it's a choice. You make a choice, you know? If you're going to be a translator, it takes hours.

You can't get out of it. You can't avoid it, okay? All right.

Here we go. Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Did you update the text again? You did!

[Speaker 1]
Did I?

[Speaker 2]
Can I please have a copy?

[Speaker 1]
Wait. No, I don't think I worked on it since I sent it to you.

[Speaker 2]
Well, if the title has 11 in it, you did.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe I did. Let me send it to you.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. No worries. Let me see here.

Let me get to an email. New, new text. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. It's coming.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's getting big.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's getting well. Or the Rimrock Internet is getting slower.

[Speaker 2]
It's almost a meg.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. It's getting there. Okay, here we go.

Back to your text. You ready to read?

[Speaker 2]
Sure.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm sorry. This is a long one, and I wouldn't break it up. Who's going to check you is...

Let me... How about Tim?

[Speaker 2]
Yay. Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
So, this is by Arya Sangha. It comes from Abhidharma Samuccaya. And I want to point out something to you here.

Here's the Kangyur entry for... I'm sorry, I said Ratnakuta. That's wrong.

Avatamsaka, which is another category of the Kangyur. So, forget the Ratnakuta part, okay? Avatamsaka, which means the majority section of the Kangyur.

There's a section in the Kangyur called the majority section, okay? And the nickname of it is what? Here.

Yeah, the very extensive collection, all right? So, sometimes it's called majority section, and sometimes it's called extensive. Me and Venerable Jigme, when we were cataloging the Kangyur, we figured out what majority refers to.

There's only one mention that I could find in thousands and thousands of pages of why it's called majority, and I forgot. Maybe Jigme remembers. But anyway, we confirmed that it means majority.

It took us a long time. I think it's in the native catalog, okay?

[Speaker 2]
The native catalog, is that what you said?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the native catalog to the Dengde. Thanks. So, shintu gyepa le, so that section of the Kangyur, okay, which is called majority section, all right?

It says, chod tam je, so the very extensive section of the Kangyur, which refers to what we call the majority section of the Kangyur, okay? Nowadays it's called the majority section. In Asanga's time, maybe it was called the wide, you know, the very extensive category, part of the Kangyur, okay?

And obviously, the Prajnaparamita section of the Kangyur says the same language, gives the same language, but Asanga chooses to refer to the majority section of the Kangyur, which also uses the same language. What's the language? Chod tam je ngo nyi me.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, all things don't have any, nothing has any self-nature.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nothing has any nature of its own. She sungpa la, when they say stuff like that, what's the gongpa?

[Speaker 2]
What's the intent?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what did they really mean? And then he answers with the three characteristics of the mind-only school, okay? When they talk about things having a deeper intention, what they mean is kuntak, shenwang, and nyongdru, okay?

Yeah. Kuntak, shenwang, and nyongdru. But in the sutra called What I Really Mean, Lord Buddha doesn't mention kuntak, shenwang, nyongdru.

They have other names there. The three have other names there, okay? And you should know those names, because they are extremely confusing.

What we nowadays call imaginary, in that sutra, is called It Has No Nature of Definition, okay? It has no nature of definition, or being defined, okay? Okay, what is the nature of, what is the nature of imaginary things as stated in that sutra, right?

Third Turning of the Wheel? He doesn't call it imaginary things. He calls it a lack of nature of being defined.

[Speaker 2]
What I'm stuck on is not seeing, he calls it this, and we call it kuntak.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I'm just trying to help you, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I'm just trying to translate it, how am I? Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What we call kuntak dengo nyi, by the time we get to the mind-only school, Buddha called zengyi ngo nyi merpa, okay? When we say its nature is to be imaginary, in the original Third Turning of the Wheel, Buddha called it, it doesn't have a nature of existing by definition. Okay, what we call shen wang gyewa, okay?

Oh, sorry, what we call shen wang gyi mongwa, okay? What we call the nature of being dependent, right? Under the mercy of other forces.

At the mercy of other forces. He called it the lack of any nature of starting. In the Third Turning of the Wheel, he called it the lack of any nature of starting.

[Speaker 2]
That's shen wang.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so shen wang, he didn't immediately use the word, the language shen wang, he called it no nature of starting. And he didn't immediately use the language imaginary, he called it having no definitive nature. Okay, all right.

Now, what did he call yong du? This is what we call the conclusion.

[Speaker 2]
Or established reality.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or you know, a hundred other things, but it means the result of the equation. Subtracting a husband who's not in the kitchen from the husband who is in the kitchen is emptiness, right? Okay, that yong su drupa, that conclusion, he calls no nature of being ultimate.

I'm sorry, the no nature which is the ultimate.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, right, better.

[Speaker 1]
The no nature which is the ultimate. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So, yong su drupa, so every other time he said what we mean, so like kun tak pe ngo ni.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 2]
Kun taks have the nature, I mean, the nature to be imaginary.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what's the nature of imaginary things? We call it the non-nature of existing by definition.

[Speaker 2]
So, this isn't that it doesn't exist?

[Speaker 1]
No, not at all.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I'm looking at that, so the something-something ngo wo always follows what we call it, and then what comes after the ngo wo...

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't. He drops it in the second tu.

[Speaker 2]
He drops it in the second tu.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Which thing you want?

[Speaker 1]
He could have added it. He didn't. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so really what he's saying is kun tak pe ngo, and shen wang gi ngo, and yong druk gi ngo, are ngo ni me. Okay, the nature of each is that they don't have a nature, okay? The nature of each one is that they don't have a nature, although two of them are real and one is not.

That's the confusing thing. That's the confusing thing, okay? Yeah.

So, how do we know... When you say the second turning of the wheel, whether you refer to the Prajnaparamita Sutras, like the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra, or whether you refer to this odd part of the kanga you're called the majority, okay? In each case, Buddha later said in the third turning of the wheel, I didn't say what I meant.

I didn't say what I really meant. So people said, well, what did you really mean? And he said, I was talking about three ways in which things don't have any essential nature.

What are they? Well, I call them imaginary, caused, and empty, okay? That's all.

That's all, okay? Now, may I draw your attention to a problem here?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I was going to ask a question. Doesn't the chepa ne mean like up to this part?

[Speaker 1]
That's exactly what I'm asking you. He just quoted the first part of a discussion, and he quoted the last part of a discussion, but if you're a mixed nut, you better ask...

[Speaker 2]
What's in the middle?

[Speaker 1]
What the hell's in the middle, okay?

[Speaker 2]
It may change everything.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, why did he do it this way? Why did K.R.J. quote the first part and then quote the last part?

[Speaker 2]
Because the parts he's going to highlight are within those two parts?

[Speaker 1]
You know, sometimes people put dot, dot, dot. What is it called? An elision?

An ellipsis. An ellipsis. Sometimes people put dot, dot, dot.

Like in Seiji's text, you see a lot of dot, dot, dots when he quotes some famous passage, which he's going to do tonight, okay? Because everybody knows it. Do you think that's why he did it here?

No.

[Speaker 2]
No, not at all.

[Speaker 1]
No, because not everybody memorized the Abhidharmasamut Chaya, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Why did he put dot, dot, dot? Because the first part and the third part were very germane, and I had to look it up, Warren, and make sure you spelled it right. They are very important for our discussion.

The first part of that quotation and the last part of that quotation are crucial for our discussion, and the middle part is not so, not so much.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But if you're a mixed nut, you want to...

[Speaker 2]
You're still going to go look at the middle. See if we agree with Keshav Chai.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, great, great, great. Yeah, that's a mixed nut thing. And I'll tell you, it takes years to translate a book in the mixed nuts, because we go check.

We go look at things, because we're curious, and we want to go deeper, okay? So, guess what we're going to do now?

[Speaker 2]
We're going to look at the middle part and translate it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. But I want to just point, I want to drill it into your head, that the first part and the third part express what he wants to express, okay? Buddha talked about three ways in which things don't have a nature, but what he was really talking about was kundak, shenwang, and nyodrug, and the whole argument for the last few days has been that two of them are real, and only one of them is not real.

But Buddha referred to all three as not real. Got it? Okay?

So, I don't want you guys... I don't want you guys... We just talked about why it's wrong to say that changing things aren't real, like those Madhyamika guys say, okay?

And I admit that in our classic sutra, Buddha said, changing things don't have a nature. He said that. I admit that, but that's not what he meant.

Okay? All right? Cool?

So, who would present this quotation? Who would throw in this quotation normally? Yeah, our guy, Nagarjuna, he'd say, look, in the third turning of the wheel, Buddha repeated that there's three kinds of ngo nyi me pa.

There's no self-nature to things. Okay? And then a sangha has to say, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, two of those three are real.

Okay? Two of those three are real. Okay?

Cool? Now, you get the extreme pleasure of going to the middle section. All right?

Here's the two sections in the big letters, okay? Yeah. shen du gyepa la bla bla bla bla bla.

And then yang kun tapay ngo nyi me pa bla bla. And thankfully, the section between is short. By the way, I'm gonna do something for our audience.

Let's underline it, okay? This is the missing section. This is the missing section.

Okay, please read it. And who's awake? Not many people.

Oh, Sugeng loves to check people. Come on, come on. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
dak nyi kyi win jung wa dang rang gi dak nyi me pa dang rang gi ngo ho la mi ne pa dang ji pay sungwa shen du tse nit me pay che ro.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You can translate these three slowly. Sorry, four.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't arise by itself.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Well, you better say occur.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, it doesn't occur.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because unchanging things can occur.

[Speaker 2]
Right, okay. It doesn't occur by itself. It doesn't exist through its own nature.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Or in and of itself.

[Speaker 2]
And it it has it has no way of staying in its own nature.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it yeah, good. It doesn't continue through any nature of its own, or it doesn't exist in any nature of its own.

[Speaker 3]
Not there. Not there from its side.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, I'm sort of blanking on. Cheap. What's a cheepa?

Opposite of opposite of a pluckpa. So a little baby?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, infants. I like nowadays I'm into two year old, the two year olds. Okay, the two year olds.

Now that I know a couple of two year olds. So a man's past tense of Zimba.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, two year old hold. Yeah. With the way two year olds hold it to be ten you make.

[Speaker 2]
I'd say doesn't exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it doesn't exist in the way that two year olds think it does. Now, unfortunately, there's four elements here. They don't clearly relate to the three on either side of them.

I would guess that's why he cut them out. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, well, I mean, it doesn't seem it doesn't bother me. It's the three and then there's just four things about it.

[Speaker 1]
Do you think there's any correlation between the between these and the three and the three, the three qualities of the Mind Only School?

[Speaker 2]
You mean to split them up? No.

[Speaker 1]
Do you think they they correspond in any way? Do you think Dagny and Minjungwa refers to?

[Speaker 2]
Imaginary refers to young groups?

[Speaker 1]
No. And do you think that Ranggidagnyidumeba refers somehow more to Shenwangs? And Ranggidagnyidumeba refers more to young groups?

And then the fourth one is just kind of for everybody. Do you think? Yeah, I don't.

There's no clear correlation here. I would say it was wise that Kdubje cut it out because it didn't help his point. It didn't help.

It didn't strengthen his argument in any way.

[Speaker 2]
So, we could add a footnote that says, hey, Kdubje cut out this part and you really don't want to know about it because it's not germane, or do we just not footnote the bit?

[Speaker 1]
Personally, I would translate the middle part in a footnote. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

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

[Speaker 2]
But add something like, but don't be confused.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. And by the way, here's the Kangyur reference where it calls the majority section of the Kangyur Shindugepa, the very extensive section. And as you can see, look how many pages it is.

It's the whole volume ka, and then it's the whole volume ka. And then it's the whole volume ka, and then it's the whole volume ah. Okay.

That's extensive. Yeah, it's 1,600 pages times two. It's 3,200 pages.

Okay. And by the way, the next section is the Pile of Jewels. So, I misspoke.

The majority section comes before the Pile of Jewels section. Okay. And by the way, the majority section is called Avatamsaka.

And Maha Vaipulya means very extensive. Okay. Vaipulya.

Okay. All right. Yay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. What's this next bit you took?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I want to show you something. Here we go. Now, if my theory is right, and the first section here is referring to the Avatamsaka, right, then I would go to the Avatamsaka and see if there's any quotation that says, CHOS THAMS CAD NGO NYID MED DO ZHES.

Okay. Because we started out this discussion, the first part of the quotation is, what is the real meaning behind, or what did Buddha say he really meant? In the Avatamsaka, in the extremely extensive section of the Kangyur, what did he mean when he said, nothing has any nature of its own?

Okay. So, if you're a real mixed nut, you better...

[Speaker 2]
Let me search that for that quote.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you better go through those 3,200 pages and try to find somewhere where he said, nothing has any nature of its own. Okay. Which he later explained as three kinds of not having any nature of its own, two of which do have a nature of their own.

Okay. Yep. All right.

And I did the work for you. Thank you. Here's the Avatamsaka, and here's where he says, CHOS THAMS CAD NGO NYID MED.

[Speaker 3]
Wait a minute.

[Speaker 1]
So, it really is here where he says it. Okay. He discusses, CHOS THAMS CAD NGO NYID MED discusses all things, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And then at the end he says, their nature is NGO NYID MED. They have no nature. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So, were we going to add this to our footnote?

[Speaker 1]
I would, because it was so hard to find it, because it was split into pieces.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. And are we going to, we're not going to translate it though.

[Speaker 1]
Not this whole section, but you could, you could say it's page 24B of the fourth volume of the Avatamsaka, where you find this statement. There may be other places, but you could say this is one of the places. Okay.

I think we're out of time. Yeah, that's it. But let's read this last sentence, because it ties up your whole, your whole, your whole term 15.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
The one I translated so poorly. Okay, SHIN TU RGYAS PA'I DE NUS YIN RGYAS PAR GSOGS LAS CHOS THAMS CAD NGO NYID MED PAR GSUNGS PA'I BSGOM PA CHEN DU GSUNGS NAS

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so what they're saying is that Parasangha, in his Abhidharma Samuccaya, is saying that the Avatamsaka section of the Kangyur, and the Prajnaparamita section of the Kangyur, which is called the mother, okay, when they say that nothing has any nature of its own, these are to be interpreted. They don't mean what they say. They don't mean what they say.

Okay, got it? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much for another wonderful term. Please don't stop. Please continue.

[Speaker 1]
Congratulations on surviving another term.

[Speaker 2]
What is today, the 12th? Today's the 12th.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Nick, give me some bad news. Just go ahead. Don't be shy.

All right. Oh, I don't have any bad news. We can take a break.

We're doing your Q&A.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
I should be sleeping. Can you do both at the same time? You know, yesterday I saw some friends for lunch, which was unusual, and they all started handing me eyedrops, you know.

Do they help you stay awake? I should get some of those. My eyes are like, anyway.

Yeah, it's a lot of hours staring at the computer. Thank you, Geshe-la. Thank you, everybody, for hanging in there.

Yeah, I recommend blue light glasses to protect your eyes for the five minutes. Well, I was thinking to make our coffee, so let's call it seven minutes. Sounds good.

So we can meet back here at 808 Arizona.