Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 26

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I think we can start. Welcome to Interlude on Emptiness quiz for the first class of this term. So we started off with KJFJ taking issue with someone who said that Arya Sangha's compendium and Arya Nagarjuna's six books on reasoning, which we know is not the full title, are in agreement.

Do you happen to remember two arguments that he makes, KJFJ makes, about this statement? The first one's kind of funny. Well, not funny, it's kind of tragic.

And then the second one is just, you know, what is? That's a big hint. Okay, he said that the person who makes that kind of claim is not trained very well.

He hasn't a clue. And he blurts out whatever comes to mind.

[Speaker 2]
Which is what we didn't do right now.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Okay, so what is the thing that is? Like the main argument about that statement?

It's the thing we've been talking about for a few terms.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, even Arya Sangha is saying that the second turning is figurative.

[Speaker 1]
Right idea, wrong turning.

[Speaker 2]
Arya Sangha is saying that the second turning is figurative.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's the third turning we're talking about. Arya Sangha says the third turning of the wheel is literal, and the middle way says it's figurative.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's what I said. Middle way is the second turning.

[Speaker 1]
Third turning of the wheel.

[Speaker 3]
Mm hmm. Second turning is the middle way, which is figurative.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Maybe I should say about the third turning of the wheel. Arya Sangha says it's literal and middle way considers it figurative.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
That's what that should say. I'm gonna have to get training on how to use PowerPoint in Zoom. So what does what I really meant say about those who are on a journey to personal nirvana?

A little selfish. Even if all the Buddhas... Even if all the Buddhas wanted to stop them or help them out of it, they couldn't.

Right. Even if they with all their might, they tried, they couldn't establish them, the listeners in the heart of enlightenment. That said, what does what I really meant have to say about what it is that the ones and listeners have in common?

They both listen to... They both praise the teachings and pass them on. That's true, but I don't think that that was in the sutra.

[Speaker 3]
They both share emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Is it that they both see emptiness? As far as the bodies of their freedom, which we're taking to be the Garbha, the ones gone thus and listeners are equal in equivalence. Wow.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Heartless.

[Speaker 1]
They don't know what they're talking about. It's not...

[Speaker 2]
Doesn't have a clue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's an idiom. Yeah.

Blurred it out. Yeah. Whatever comes to mind.

Yeah. I'm afraid to say anything now because... It's not an idiom.

No. A little bit, an estimate. I forget.

Mere instance. Nice vocabulary words.

[Speaker 2]
Blah, blah, blah.

[Speaker 1]
And what I love about this is it's misspelled. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That's right. It's amazing.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe it's B-law. It's like a B-boy lawyer. All right.

Thank you. Hold on. I'm getting my homework.

Yeah. That's what I was waiting for. So many little files.

[Speaker 2]
Tiniest of files. We'll do this in bits, I guess, so you can actually see it.

[Speaker 1]
Is it going to zoom in more? Are you blown out right now? Oh, you want it more?

No. I mean, if you click on the screen, is it going to come back to the forefront? You don't see it?

It's a little... My eyes are getting bad. Let me reshare.

I think it's doing just... We see it, but it's not enlarged much. Yeah.

You could make the full screen version of the text larger on that screen. That better? Similar.

The same, but it was so much better. Just enlarge the window. Yeah.

We're seeing your whole screen, not just the title.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. There you go. You're cooking with grease.

[Speaker 1]
So just to orient everyone, this is the last two of the seven parts of a poem that's found in the two of the sutras. And we just had words. And so Choney Lama is explaining what these words mean.

What was the point of the words? To show that all vehicles are one. Good.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Lead to one goal. In the end, it's one road. Okay.

And we had seven different ways, just in the first two lines, I think. So he doesn't even finish the discussion. But let me see how this is...

Let me see what this says. These are in the last two lines, these guys, I think. There are options.

Okay, let me read it. What does sultemba mean, you guys? Doesn't it mean playing?

Yeah, it means to pretend. Okay, so they pretend to be? They pretend to reach Nirvana on the track of the listener.

Over and over. All for the benefit of disciples who are listeners. And that's called an emanation.

Okay. So somehow the emanation is in common between the bodhisattvas and the listeners. I guess you could say their appearance.

Because the bodhisattvas are pretending to be listeners. Okay. And they're demonstrating over and over again.

They keep reaching Nirvana on a listener track so listeners can get how to do it. Okay. And that proves somehow that they're all on the same track.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, and then ultimate nas is the final shared quality.

In sanggeki thekpa le, shen med te, there is no track other than the track of the buddhas. There is no track other than the... I should say the ultimate track is none other than the track of the buddhas.

That's what I said, sort of, but not as eloquently. Yeah. Okay.

And these are gong shi. Gong shi means... So do you remember that there's three requirements for something to be called interpreted?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There should be something that we have the opinion about. Sorry, there should be something that we're thinking about. There should be a thought, a special thought about it.

Yep. If you took it literally it would harm people. Yeah, yeah.

No, that nu means it would contradict truth. Nu la nuppa. Nu la nuppa.

That nu means logically it would hurt the truth. It would contradict the truth. So it cannot be literal because it would contradict what we know to be true.

And that word contradict is called nu in logic. To hurt, to hurt. Okay.

Okay. And the Jewel of the Sutras, let me see. How is this translated?

The two lines from Sutral Incarnation? No. Oh, you can't see my highlight?

Okay, yeah. So what the Buddha was really thinking about involves these seven. Okay.

So it has gong shi and then it has gong pa. Yeah, so there's gong shi, gong pa, and nu la nuppa. There should be something they were thinking about.

There should be a real idea they had in mind. And there should be a contradiction somewhere with what we know to be correct. In order for something to be interpretive, it needs to be interpreted, not literal.

So is this statement literal? No. Why?

There's something he really had in mind. There's something he had it in mind about. And what he said contradicts that.

Okay, I'm not seeing how to equate it to how to translate this part of the sentence. Yeah. Because it seems like what he was really thinking about involves the intent of these seven or something like that?

He was thinking about these... When he said the listeners were hopelessly different, right? When he said the listeners were hopelessly different, he didn't mean it in the sense that there are separate tracks to enlightenment.

To make people feel better, he said, yeah, there's two tracks. You can get all the way to the end on the listener track, or you can get all the way to the end on the bodhisattva track. But what he was really focusing on were these seven qualities which are shared by the two tracks.

What he was really thinking about was these seven aspects in which the two tracks are the same. So even though he said there's a kind of selfish listeners who have to go all the way on a lower track, and he implied therefore that there were three tracks, listener track, self-made Buddha track, bodhisattva track to enlightenment, in the end they all share these seven qualities. What he was really thinking about when he said something wrong was these seven qualities, which they have in common.

Because they have these seven qualities in common, ultimately all paths lead to the same goal. Did Buddha imply in his third turning of the wheel that there were separate tracks? Yes.

Did he mean it? No. Why?

There's seven ways he didn't mean it. That's all. Could you say then, because what the Buddha was really thinking about is...

Yeah, you could say that. GONG ZHIG means... Let's say the GONG ZHIG is a pen.

What I want to talk about is a pen. My GONG PA is to make people feel comfortable. What I have in mind is to make people feel comfortable.

I will say something that's not true. I will say this pen ultimately comes from saving your money and being careful to select the right pen. That's false compared to what is real.

This pen is coming from your seeds. But if I want to make people feel comfortable in a business talk, I'll say, save your money so you can buy more pens. Which is false.

Ultimately speaking, it's soft. What's the GONG ZHIG? The pen.

What's the GONG PA? I want to help people who aren't there yet. Is it like this?

GONG ZHIG equals sedun? Yeah, exactly. Okay, great.

Thank you. It's a difficult idea. By the way, we can't appreciate the verse unless we do both halves of it.

Here we go. PHYIR DANG BDAG PA'I RNAMS SBREL RNAMS GSUNG PHYIR RIGS NI THA DE PHYIR SEMS NI THOB PHYIR THUB PA'I PHYIR THEG CHEN GYI The last line is the clear one, right? Yeah.

There's only... In the end, there's only one vehicle, okay? No, and for seven reasons.

PHYIR, BDAG PA'I, RNAMS SBREL, I forget. RIGS?

[Speaker 2]
GSUNG?

[Speaker 1]
I'm not sure. I have to go back and see the list.

[Speaker 2]
So it's RIGS.

[Speaker 1]
Say again? Different families. And then...

SEMS NI THOB And then THUB PA How many do you have? That's seven. Yeah, okay.

So there's seven key words here. And because of those seven GONG ZHIGS, we can say that there's really only one path. That all paths lead to the same goal.

Why? Well, because... And then the CHOD is the same.

The BDAG MED is the same. The RNAMS SBREL is the same. The RIGS is the same.

The SANG PA is the same. You see what I mean? So would you add that?

Because it was only mentioned once and it's here. Yeah, you could add it to all of them. Well, I don't know.

You could say, in the end there's only a single vehicle because of the nature, because of the selflessness, because of the liberation, being the same, because of the time. You see what I mean? The problem is that the final end is one of the seven.

Yeah. That THAR THUG at the end doesn't mean in the end there's one path. It just means the end is the same.

Yeah. Okay? And the point is, you could never understand what he's talking about if you didn't read Choney Lama.

Okay? And our author, Khenpoche, he just threw out that quotation. He didn't explain it.

Okay, so you're going to have to have a nice appendix here. So you would just move this last line to the first line and add a comma. Yeah.

Yeah, you could say, in the end there's only one path because of these seven things. Yeah, it would sound strange in English syntax to say, because this, because this, because this, because this. You have to reverse the syntax.

Yeah, something like that. Provisional for your... Yeah, yeah, something like that.

But it's exciting that we have the commentary. Otherwise this would be hopeless. Like even just the first word, Dharma, it doesn't mean Dharma here, right?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
It means emptiness. Right? So you would go for the capital D?

I mean, if I was translating it, I would probably... I would probably expand it to what it's really talking about. Or you could say the quality or something like that.

Yeah. It certainly does not mean the teachings of the Buddha. Yeah.

Yeah. But if you don't know that, if you don't have a commentary, it looks like it means the teachings of the Buddha, right?

[Speaker 2]
Sure. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Cool. It's hard.

It's hard. Thanks very much to Ben for spending time with me this afternoon.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it didn't really work out for you in the end. I made a mess of things, but it was fun.

[Speaker 1]
And I think it'll be fun when you translate these seven, the words in the 16-point type, the big words, are going to be in italics, right? Something, yes. And you can see where that sung only occurs once in the verse, but he repeats sung a few times.

Yes. So you are meant to add the coupled sungs in there, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
See what I mean? There's a sung in each one. Here's sung.

Here's a sung. Here's a sung.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? But the thing in translation, though, is that we can't put words in the author's mouth, right? He wrote it in a way that's very impossible to understand without someone teaching you, right?

So we can't write it in a way where people could read it and understand it. Yeah, the idea is if the author has purposely made the verse obscure or mysterious, then it's a mistake to fix it. If the author has chosen to make a verse Twilight Language, right?

If he's chosen to make the verse almost secret, the translator has to respect that. You cannot fill in words for the author. He chose not to.

Okay? So your translation is going to have to be confusing and mysterious, and then you're going to have to have a footnote with the commentary. And it would be a mistake to add a bunch of words to the root text to make it more clear.

Cool?

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
And anyway, that's the craft of a translator. And we don't talk about it a lot. We're going to talk about it a little bit in the next few days.

But there are certain aspects of the craft of a translator, right? Okay. There's the rest of the verse.

All right. Please read. And Christina Casica wants to check you.

Whoa. Whoa. Okay.

Okay. Let's read it. Therefore, these quotations, if they are the Great Middle Way, right?

And if you accept them as being nge dun, what's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
The ultimate meaning? What he really meant.

[Speaker 1]
What he really meant, yeah. As opposed to drang dun, right? And nge dun is just about the same as dragyu shimpa, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Like it sounds.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, the way it sounds. And there's subtle differences between those two, by the way.

But that's a long story. Looks so ke lang ne. If you accept these quotations in that way, PHAR THUG THEG PA'I PHYI'I DU MA BA NI RIG PA GNAL DU MA ZHAG PO If you were to say that somebody accepted that there was but a single vehicle, your RIG PA would be GNAL DU MA ZHAG PO.

What's gnal mean? Like gnaljor? It's not like geese or something?

It means totally accurate. Gnaljor means practice which is totally accurate, okay? The word for yoga in Tibetan means accurate practice, okay?

So gnal du ma zhag po means you would not be hitting the point correctly, okay? If you said that they said that in the end there was only a single vehicle, okay? Or a single track, okay?

[Speaker 2]
This is still the Sangha's point of view.

[Speaker 1]
Who says there is a single track?

[Speaker 2]
The Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
Or which of the four schools? The Middle Way. Yeah, who wrote the verse we just went through?

The Buddha. No, Dodegin. Master Asanga.

Lord Maitreya. Yeah, Maitreya wrote this verse, okay? Or Asanga wrote this verse.

Does it say there's ultimately one, a single... Does it say there's a single path... Does it say in the end all paths lead to the same thing or not?

It says tek chik nyi. Yeah, it says all paths lead to the same place, right? Who wrote the verse?

Asanga. Okay? And we're trying to prove he contradicts the Middle Way.

We're trying to prove that he doesn't agree with Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? So, if you accept... Now, Naro, is this...

Should we say that his statements here are literal or figurative?

[Speaker 2]
Whose statements?

[Speaker 1]
Asanga. Thank you. They're probably figurative.

They have to be figurative because he doesn't believe there's only one path.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Why? He's mind only. Right.

He presents the mind only. And he's not supposed to get along with Nagarjuna. Wow.

He's not, right.

[Speaker 2]
So we're saying he's figurative from his own perspective.

[Speaker 1]
Well, what I'm saying is, if you think he's really saying that all paths lead to the same place, your rikpa is neltu masharpa. Okay. Okay.

Because the other guy's been trying to say what? That there's a place where... Yeah, they agree.

There's a place where Nagarjuna meets Asanga. Right? Yeah.

And if I can find a verse by Asanga that says that ultimately all paths lead to the same goal, right, then I can say he does have points of agreement with Nagarjuna, right? Right. Therefore, this verse cannot be literal because he's not supposed to have points of agreement with Nagarjuna.

Okay. I'm kind of struggling with the supposed to, right? I mean, does he or does he not?

He does have some points of agreement, but this is not one, right? Because from his point of view when he wrote that, he was being figurative. Yeah, you could say that.

I mean, he's an Arya, he's already Prasangika, but his school is mind only. Right, right, right, right. The teaching he's sharing with the world is a teaching he doesn't believe in.

He's doing the same thing that his brother did. So what we're doing here is jumping from presenting what the mind only thinks to commenting, to K.W.J. commenting on it. What he's saying is, it looks like you guys like this verse because it seems to imply that Asanga would agree with Nagarjuna, but if you really think he meant it that way, you're crazy.

Okay. Okay? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So when you say you're measuring Trang Nge in reference to truth, or you're measuring Trang Nge in reference to the intent of Arya Asanga, and are we assuming those are the same thing or not?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm saying every Buddhist author can pretend to be someone they're not.

[Speaker 2]
But is that our position in the text here, that Arya Asanga, when we say that he couldn't be speaking literally, is it because he couldn't think that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's because he wouldn't pretend to speak literally. Okay. Okay.

Okay. One more question, Geshe-la, sorry. So we went through that whole Chinni Lama explanation from the Middle Way point of view about what that verse means.

Well, I don't know if I would say it's a Middle Way point of view. I guess you could say that, yeah. Well, if you're saying that the Buddhists pretend to be listeners and go through the path just so listeners can know what to do.

Yeah, you could say that. That seems to be a Middle Way point of view, right? Well, it's Middle Way guys pretending, yeah.

So in other words, my question is, that whole commentary says all vehicles are the same path. In the end, there's one path. Yeah, yeah.

But here, K.J. in verse 213 is saying, if you think it means that there's one path, that he's saying there's one path, you're crazy. Yeah, if you think Asanga was saying there's one path, you're crazy. Yeah.

Right. Yeah. So aren't we going to confuse people by putting in Choney Lama's explanation?

Oh, well, it just proves what a good fake he is.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we'll be okay. We'll make it clear. Okay, Hasso, check out her pronunciation.

YANG GONG DRE LAS LOD DRO YANG PA LEN PA'I NAM PAR BSHAD PA DE LA BSTEN CING NAS NAS NAM PAR BSHAD PA'I TSUL KHRUB PO NDI THA DE MI GYUR NAM PAR BSHAD PA DANG NA BA DANG NA DANG CHE DANG LU DANG NYID KYI NAM PAR BSHAD PA DAG ZHIN BYUNG NGO Let me see if there's more. Okay, well, let's go here. What's GONG DRA?

Sutra? It's the sutra called What I Really Meant, right? I'm going to read LEN PA as endowed with, okay?

So, if you have LOD DRO YANG PA... You have intelligence. Yeah.

And if you depend on that NAM PAR BSHAD PA... Advanced intelligence? What kind of intelligence?

An awareness that's intelligent. Yeah, if you have a mind which is wise, basically. LOD DRO means intelligent, right?

Yeah, but YANG PA. Oh, YANG PA means broad or wide or vast. If you have vast intelligence, okay?

NAM PAR BSHAD PA DE LA BRTEN CIG MED PAS You rely on... Sorry, LOD DRO YANG PA NAM PAR BSHAD PA DE LA BRTEN CIG MED PAS If you have this, if you rely on this kind of intelligence, then you can say that... How many NAM PAR BSHAD PA are there?

In... It says... Yeah, and even in the mind-only school, we say there's eight kinds of consciousness.

The group of six, plus klesha mind, plus foundation mind. So he says, yeah. So the TSOG GRUB is accepted by everybody.

By the other schools, it's accepted as all the consciousnesses there are. In the mind-only school, it's accepted as the basis, and then you have those two extra ones. Cool.

And then he just lists them. The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the skin, and the mind. DE DAG BYUNG MO Where is he going with this argument?

We don't know. It doesn't seem very profound. I don't even hear the argument, but anyway.

There's no argument yet. He just says... He's quoting a sutra that says, Hey, guess what guys?

There's six kinds of consciousness. Thank you. Do I have to have lotu yangpa to get that?

I don't know. Now, they must be going somewhere, right? KRIB RJE is no fool.

No. Okay. I'm going to push this down so you can read it easier.

Haso, keep checking her. I like your tie and your shirt, by the way. Haso, keep checking her.

I like your tie and your shirt, by the way. Haso, keep checking her. I like your tie and your shirt, by the way.

I like your tie and your shirt, by the way. Okay. CHES SOGS means what?

[Speaker 2]
What these lines were talking about?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, RGYAS PAR ZHES NAS. They go into some detail. Then he says, LEN PA'I RNAM PAR ZHES PA, SAB CING DRAG.

The awareness that takes things is... I'm sorry, my internet is... Let me switch to my phone.

You're breaking up for me. I think it's you, Apollo. Oh, no?

No. Okay. I'm sorry.

Could you say that again, Geshe-la? There is a form of consciousness which is particularly deep and subtle, and it's called LEN PA'I RNAM PAR ZHES PA. The consciousness which takes.

Okay. All right. CHES SOGS KYI DON DU DE.

That sentence is an abbreviation of a certain idea. What's the certain idea? That KUN ZHIG RNAM PAR ZHES PA is SAB DANG THAMS CAD PA.

That KUN ZHIG is all the seeds. Yeah, is all seedless.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So KUN ZHIG, foundation consciousness, is the place where all the seeds sit. Okay?

And then, here's a difficult point. And words are going to explain it. KUN NAS NYON MONGS KYIS CHOS KUN GYIS RGYUD KHYER.

The KUN ZHIG is KUN NAS NYON MONGS KYIS CHOS KUN GYIS RGYUD KHYER. Did he?

[Speaker 2]
Totally.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe it's not there.

[Speaker 2]
Causes and conditions of all that.

[Speaker 1]
Now, get this. What's the seventh consciousness in the Mind-Only School? They call it the seventh.

NYON NYID.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's the messed up state of mind. It's the state of mind with all the negativities in it. Shouldn't they be describing the NYON NYID as the cause and the condition of all kleshas?

Why are they describing KUN ZHIG? Why are they describing consciousness number eight as the cause and condition of all mental afflictions? I thought it was number seven.

Well, the seeds are in the KUN ZHIG. Well, to unlock this idea, unlock this sentence, you have to know that traditionally number seven is focusing on number eight, and that's why it's KUN NYON MYUR. Your messed up part of your mind looks at the KUN ZHIG and believes that the blue it sees there is outside.

Okay? Got it? We can call the foundation consciousness the root of all evil.

Because it's the object that you misunderstand with your really evil thoughts. Misunderstanding lives only in the NYON NYID. Yeah, NYON NYID's main function is to look at KUN ZHIG and misunderstand.

So then KUN ZHIG can't be the root of all evil? Well, it's the cause of the root of all evil. Oh, oh, oh, fuck.

Okay? SEL BAR ZHES BYING DE NI ZHES BYED DU DRANG DE We can use that as backup proof. Whether you're talking about the Mahayana Sangraha, take two.

Or you're talking about... I'm sorry. What is KUN DU?

Which DU is he talking about here? Abhidharma? I don't think it's the Abhidharma Samuccaya.

That would be called DUG PA. I forget. There's another book by Asanga that he's referring to.

I'm just looking back to see what we had recently. We had the brief presentation. That's it.

Yeah, that's it. Okay? These two books are by Asanga, right?

And they are saying that KUN ZHIG is the root of all evil. Okay? Geshe-la, when it says RGYUD KHYEN there, is it specifically talking about that division of...

No. Or is it just saying causes? It means RGYUD DANG KHYEN.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

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

It's not RGYUD KYEN. They're careful to put apostrophe I if they mean that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, let's keep going and we'll come back. Here's the root text, by the way, if you're interested.

LEN PA'I RNAM PAR SHES PA SAB CIG THAR Okay. Let's keep going. Please read and who's checking you?

It's Sugeng. SANG LHAG YANG MA THEG PAR BYUNG RGYAL DU MED SOG ZHES GRUB PA'O Okay. Okay.

Hi, Kiri. Good to see you. Hi.

Okay. GANG DAG DE BA ZHES PA'I NYID MO RTAG BSTAN RGYUD DE DAG NAS BSTAN PA'I KUN ZHIG MO Okay. Is there a Nyingpo of the Buddha?

There is an essence of the Buddha. Yeah, there is an essence of the Buddha. Is it BDAG PA and BSTAN PA?

Yeah, it's the emptiness, right? Of a Buddha, right? The essence of the Buddha or the heart of the Buddha is their emptiness, right?

Tathagatagarbha, right? Okay. Is it BDAG PA?

[Speaker 2]
Daddy, what's that?

[Speaker 1]
Hi. Is it BDAG PA, Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
What's that, Daddy? What's that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So BDAG PA, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
BDAG PA is not everlasting? Wait, hold on. Is the emptiness of the Buddha BDAG PA?

Is it unchanging? Yes. Yeah.

Is it BSTAN PA? Is it therefore firm?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Would you describe it as the KUN ZHIG? Me?

No. Right. Okay, good.

But those books do.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So those books, meaning the books of a Sangha, describe the unchanging, adamantine essence of the Buddha as being their KUN ZHIG. Okay. Okay?

If a book said that, would it be BYANG DUN or NGE DUN? From whose point of view?

[Speaker 2]
It does depend on whether the author believes it.

[Speaker 1]
Let's say higher middle way. It would be figurative. Yeah, good, good.

Okay? So are there books by Arya Sangha that say the unchanging core of the enlightened beings is their KUN ZHIG? Okay?

Okay. Are those... And is DO DE BSGONG BRAL itself, BYAG CIG BZHIN PA, NGE DUN, in higher middle way?

Is it literal? No. Is the third turning of the wheel literal?

No. No, good. So here we have two problems already.

We got somebody claiming that the core of the Buddha is their KUN ZHIG. And then we got the same guy claiming that the third turning of the wheel was literal. Got it?

Then if you buy into their ideas, which is Arya Sangha's ideas, KHO BU, we would DROG PA at the end, okay? DROG PA means DRAG PA. We would declare to the skies.

Right, shout from the rooftops. Yeah, good. We would shout from the rooftops that they didn't DA BA YI SKAD SANG of those holy books.

They didn't grasp a tiny letter. A single. They didn't read a single letter.

Oh, they didn't read a single letter. Okay? And they're just talking ZHUNG RGYAL.

They're just talking it was any old thing. Yeah, it was on your homework. Any old thing.

Yeah, okay? Here we go again. If you're one of those guys who says the core of the Buddha is their KUN ZHIG, and if you're one of those guys who says the third turn of the wheel was literal, then we sing from the rooftops that you haven't looked at a single letter of the great books, and you're just blah, blah.

Okay, cool? Okay, who we got here? Let me see.

John Campbell. Are you there? How about Rebecca?

Are you there?

[Speaker 2]
What happened?

[Speaker 1]
Your cameras are all broken, I know. Okay, Rebecca, let's go. Okay.

Okay, this is a little tough. Moreover, as I have explained above, if you think about the sutra called What I Really Meant, and you think about the great books written by the two brothers, and it's kind of unfair they call them the two brothers of Asanga, etc. Okay?

That's the standard expression. Sorry about that. Pasa Bandhu has too many letters.

Yeah. Okay, so if we look at the sutra called What I Really Meant, if we look at the great books written by the two brothers, if we think about the sutra Alankara, which is kind of Maitreya and Asanga, or if we look at utthannam je, which means separating the middle from the extremes, okay? Then the tong shi, what has the emptiness, is shenwangs.

Okay? Tong shi means the thing which has the emptiness, okay? So of the three characteristics of the mind-only school, when we talk about emptiness, what we're pointing to as being empty is functioning things, which are called shenwangs.

Things that come from other things, okay? Things that are results that are under the control of their causes, therefore called shenwangs. Is he going to mention the other two?

He's coming, it's coming, okay? First of all, let's talk about what has the emptiness. It's all functioning things, which in the mind-only school are called things that are under the power of their causes in order to exist.

Okay? Ngön drub, which are ngöpo, okay? That's ngöpo, okay?

Den drub de nyi, and they really exist, okay? They do really exist, all right? They are denpa drubpa.

In the mind-only school, things that do something, or things that grow from something else, they are real, okay? They are real, okay? What are they empty of is kun tak, ngu me, okay?

They are empty of... Kun tak means imaginary things, and ngu me means don't even exist, okay? So, you can say self-existence, or existing really as outer objects, for example, is kun tak, okay?

Kun tak means... The brain is existing as outer objects? Yeah, kun tak means made up.

Right. A blue color, which truly exists on the outside, we call kun tak, okay? And that's the gag ja, okay?

So, de tong, okay? The tong chi, which is all caused things in the universe, is empty of existing on the outside, or empty of names being applied the same way all the time. Those two things, okay?

Shen tong gi dun du, okay? So, this is a very, very famous expression. Say shen tong.

[Speaker 2]
Shen tong.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and there's a huge argument on it, okay? It's a school, right? I mean, they...

Well, there was a school that said things are empty of being themselves, or self. Oh, sorry. There was a school that said the absence of everything a thing is not is its emptiness.

The opposite of all that a thing is not is its emptiness. And that's just a basic Adams text idea that's not emptiness, okay? I'll say it again.

The pen is the opposite of everything it's not, okay? Some... yeah, some Tibetan schools thought that was emptiness, okay?

So, shen tong. All right. Dun du, che selwa yang yang she.

So, how do you describe emptiness in the mind-only school? How do you describe emptiness in the mind-only school? What's the thing that's empty?

It's called shen wangs, okay? And what's the thing it's empty of? It's called kun tags, which means imaginary stuff, okay?

And what is the emptiness that you come out with at the end? It's called yang du, right? Yang du.

Okay, so a sangha and the mind-only school, again and again, when they explain emptiness, they don't do it the way we do it in the kitchen, okay? They don't do it the way we do it in the kitchen. The way we do it in the kitchen is...

what school? Middle way. Higher middle way.

Prasangika, yes. Yeah, that's higher middle way. What has the emptiness in the kitchen?

What doesn't? No, the husband who comes from you. Okay, the husband who comes from me has the emptiness.

What's the emptiness he has? Coming from his own side. Yeah, coming from a bad traffic jam and he's hungry and blah blah blah, okay?

So, real husband minus fake husband... Sorry. Yeah, husband minus fake husband is the emptiness of the husband, okay?

We're over time.

[Speaker 2]
We're over time, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, but I just want to say this. The three characteristics of the mind-only schools, I like to call it the equation. The equation.

Take changing things, subtract anything that's outside, and you come up with reality, and that's emptiness. That's emptiness, okay? So, what he's saying in section 217 is, the third turning of the wheel, the great books of the two brothers, the Sutra Alankara that we've been talking about, the Uttanam-je, separating the middle from the extremes, they're all describing emptiness as changing things, not possessing imaginary objects, okay?

And that's emptiness, okay? By the way, how many books did Maitreya write?

[Speaker 2]
Five.

[Speaker 1]
Why did he only mention two of them here? Because the other ones are of this school. Right, good, okay.

And why did he mention them in addition to the works of the two brothers? Why did he mention them? Because they are of this school?

No, when he says the works of the two brothers, he means the ones that they wrote on their own without Maitreya.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, you've got the Sutra of the Third Turning of the Wheel, you've got the books that the two brothers wrote on their own without Maitreya, and then you have two of Maitreya's five books. Yes. Okay?

And you have this whole theory of emptiness, which doesn't fit the kitchen theory.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Are we going to go on later to the emptiness of the three, or because we already covered it above? I'm just curious about why he said, as I explained above, he explained that all three of them... Which all three?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, Siri thinks I'm talking to her.

[Speaker 1]
That all three... All three characteristics of the Mind-Only School, you mean? Yeah, yeah.

Oh, we're going to get there. That's coming next, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's coming next, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
The bottom line here is, look, the ideas of Asanga and Vasubandhu are so vastly different than the ideas of the Middle Way, Higher Middle Way. Right. I don't see how you can say they have a common thread.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's all. That's all. All right, we'll see you guys in...

How long, Nick? Four minutes. Oh, sorry, guys.

I owe how many people? 104 people four minutes. That's a lot of time, but take advantage of it.

Hit me up. Thanks, Keshla. Hit me up.

We expect a shorter homework next time. Yeah. Okay.