Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 27

[Speaker 1]
Go for it, Utpala! Go for it, Utpala!

[Speaker 2]
Hi, welcome back to Interlude on Emptiness. Here's our quiz. So, what are the three parts...

I didn't know what else to call them. The three parts of something being figurative. Keshla, what is it?

What word would I use instead of parts? Three aspects of something being figurative?

[Speaker 1]
You could say... Yeah, you could say three aspects or three conditions.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's say conditions.

[Speaker 1]
Don't ask me to answer questions when I have pizza in my mouth.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. And then after the English... It's very short English.

One or three words. And then if you could give me the Tibetan after we'd go through the English. So, does anyone remember what the first condition is?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, should contradict something in scripture or that you know to be true.

[Speaker 2]
That's the last one.

[Speaker 3]
Hmm, okay. I mean, that's one of them.

[Speaker 2]
That's the third one. So, I'm not going to show any of them because that's the last one on my list. Does anyone remember what the first thing is?

[Speaker 1]
I think the second one is some compelling reason to be figurative.

[Speaker 2]
LSS has something specific in mind.

[Speaker 3]
There we go. It should be a true intent.

[Speaker 2]
There's a topic. There is an intent. And if it was taken literally, it would refute the truth.

Does anyone know the Tibetan for the first one? Oh, let's see. And then the second one?

[Speaker 3]
That's the gupa, no?

[Speaker 2]
Gumpa?

[Speaker 3]
Gumpa? Gumpa. Oh, yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
And then the last one, does anyone remember from my notes? Hmm. So, remember we had this, you know, really quite impenetrable poem by Maitreya from the Jewel of the Sutras.

But do you happen to recall what the conclusion of that poem was? It had like, because the quality, because family, because selflessness, because, had this long list of because, because, because, because. What was the conclusion?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. I mean, right? Something like that the intent of the seven paths is that there's one path?

[Speaker 2]
Right. That was Choney Lama's commentary, right? Sorry, I'm still not learning how to use PowerPoint on Zoom.

There is just a single vehicle. So what does Ketur just say about how we might take that conclusion? So if we think that that means the Jewel of the Sutras is a text of the Middle Way, and that the conclusion is not liberal but literal, well then, we would not be understanding it correctly.

Sorry, I'm just going to quit now because it's just not worth your time or mine. Sorry to waste your time, folks, really, I am.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, do you have vocabulary or you did it already?

[Speaker 2]
No, I didn't do it because I thought that, you know, I'm just wasting people's time.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
What's the vocabulary?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we want vocabulary. There's a big demand here.

[Speaker 2]
Right. You asked for it. Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Steady and firm. Oh, I know it. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Empty of other stuff.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Oh, she.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah. Yeah, the thing that is empty. The thing that is not empty.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But what do you mean in context I remembered it earlier today.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, we're going to probably get into it a lot more.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool.

[Speaker 2]
So I'm going to read this to you because it's a little fuzzy. So this is some, you know, some social media gathering. I hate when people in movies and TV are reading ancient languages and they translate everything really smoothly and poetically, as if when people who study ancient languages aren't consulting three different commentaries and sobbing profusely when they read.

And someone responds. Okay, so like, it says, come you all into the deepest cavern, or maybe that's fireplace depends on usage. Having come mean you give your treasures skin.

I don't know something to the about to be a door guy that one who. Okay, he either causes earthquakes or he sleeps a lot. This might be an idiom.

[Speaker 1]
What nerdy chat is this from Twitter.

[Speaker 2]
It's not Twitter. I'm blur something like that.

[Speaker 1]
Not talking about us right now it's talking about me. Oh, that's okay. Here we go kids.

Thank you for your homework. Oh, did you have any. I forgot if we had a translation job.

[Speaker 2]
Give me a translation job and very much like the fellow in that chat. String of not complete and utter nonsense so I mean it's not that I'm embarrassed to show it it's just, it's, it's nonsensical and it'd be a complete waste of your time.

[Speaker 1]
Well, here we go. I was kind of embarrassed that I had such a rough time with your class last class. And so I told my wife, I gotta get back and study that again, you know, and do a better explanation of it so I went back and made a lot of notes and did a lot of work on this quotation.

So, now I'm ready to talk about it. I was right but kind of by accident. So, this is a quotation from Sutra Alankara, the jewel of the sutras.

Okay. And the first thing I'd like to say is, this is one of the five, what?

[Speaker 2]
One of the five books by Maitreya.

[Speaker 1]
One of the five books of Maitreya. Now three of those books are supposed to be mind only school.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Two of those books are supposed to be middle way. And so I think the first job we should have done, Geshe-la should have prepared better. And Geshe-la should have said at the beginning, this is one of the books which is supposed to be...

Mind only. Mind only. Yeah.

Okay, so first of all... I think he said that though.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's supposed to be the mind only school. Okay. Now, I also checked very thoroughly.

What? Did somebody have a statement? Okay.

Okay, I also checked very carefully and what was I going to say? I checked technically, does the mind only school believe there is ultimately... One path.

One path, path, or do they believe that ultimately there are... Three. Three paths.

And I checked and checked and checked and checked, and everybody says the mind only school is one of the lower schools that believes that ultimately there are three paths.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
It's not true, according to the mind only school, that all paths go to the same place. Basically, there are three separate paths, tracks, and that never the three shall meet. And so, what have we established so far from Grandpa's further research?

Number one, this has to be a mind only book. This is a mind only book. Number two, mind only school says that ultimately there are three tracks.

[Speaker 2]
Three paths, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and that description from the original sutra, what I really meant, where the Buddha says, look, there's just people on the lower track, listeners, and if all the Buddhists in the universe tried to get them to be a Bodhisattva or Buddha, they couldn't. That's literal, according to the mind only school. When you say, look, there's certain people who will never be Bodhisattvas, and they're going to go through their spiritual path, and they're going to reach the end and reach nirvana with no remainder, and they will never come up to the Bodhisattva path.

They reach the end of their development on their own lower path. Who said that? Buddha said that.

What? In the third turning of the wheel, which is the favorite one for the...

[Speaker 2]
Mind only school.

[Speaker 1]
Mind only school. Sorry, I'm trying to sneeze. I think I'm allergic to pizza.

I'm sorry. I guess my friends will have to eat all of it. It's got to be in the mind only school that any mind only school book, even from the five books of Maitreya, should be saying what?

[Speaker 2]
There are three vehicles.

[Speaker 1]
There are three tracks. But what does this verse say?

[Speaker 2]
There is but a single vehicle.

[Speaker 1]
It's all one path. But isn't this one of the mind only books of Maitreya?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, we must be reading it out of context.

[Speaker 1]
Therefore, it must be that we have to interpret it, because it cannot mean what it says. It cannot mean what it says. That also means that our side is correct when we say, two things will never find a common ground.

What is that?

[Speaker 3]
Mind only and middle way.

[Speaker 1]
That guy wants to say, the opponent wants to say, look, there's a place where the mind only meets the middle way. If you're him, where would you go to prove it? This verse.

Hey, there's a verse by Maitreya. Isn't he a Buddha? Look, even he combines middle way with mind only school.

In his mind only book, he's talking about how, in the end, there's only one path. All paths lead to the same thing. He gives seven different reasons why they all lead to the same thing.

Therefore, the mind only and the middle way do cross over, even in the future Buddhist book. His famous mind only book, he's talking about, in the end, it's all one path. Okay?

Now, then Geshe-la was trying to help you, and he found a quotation that explained the seven ways in which the lower track and the higher track are equivalent. So, I misled you. I took you on a...

Is it true that this is what the verse says? Yes. Is it what it means?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it? Isn't that confusing?

[Speaker 2]
So, is this commentary, then, by Chinni Lama, is that just... Is that how the middle way interprets the meaning of the verse?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. This would be the wrong look of the middle way. You could say that.

[Speaker 2]
It's not what it means to the mind only school.

[Speaker 1]
Right, because the mind only has to say there's three tracks. It's not true that all paths lead to the same goal.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So, we just got confused. Listen, it was a mean verse to give us, with so little explanation. He has chosen a verse in a mind-only book that sounds just like middle way.

And then, of course, we're confused. All right? So, just to check with you, Utpala, is that verse from the Sutra on Ankara, is it chung dun or is it nge dun?

Are we supposed to take it literally or are we supposed to interpret it?

[Speaker 2]
If you are of the mind-only school, it is literal. If you are of the middle way school, it is figurative.

[Speaker 1]
Reverse. No, reverse. No.

[Speaker 2]
No. Oh, that... I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you're mind-only, you have to interpret it.

[Speaker 2]
So, now we have a problem.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
We have a big problem because mind-only would say the book is literal.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Oh, the book is literal but the verse is to be interpreted.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, but this is the mind-only school presenting the turning of the wheel that they say is the literal one and when they do it, they do it figuratively, according to them?

[Speaker 1]
Now, listen. I'll give you two choices, Dr. Kramer. Number one, they might just be reporting what the middle way school thinks.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's true. And secondly, what was my other choice?

[Speaker 3]
Did we check?

[Speaker 1]
They might be saying that, look, the listeners and the bodhisattvas, it's true they're focusing on the same emptiness, but that doesn't make their paths the same. Okay. Okay.

Okay. In fact, that's probably what they have to say. Okay.

All right. Maybe. I feel better about this verse already.

Okay, good. And then, so 2.13, section 2.13 means if you accept this, if you say this verse in the Sutra Alankara is middle way, if you say this verse, and also the quotation in the Buddha, in the Sutra, if you say this is a middle way section in a mind-only book, and if you say we're supposed to take it literally, and if you say therefore there is only one path in the end, you're nuts. Not mixed nuts, just plain nuts.

Okay. All right. Got it?

You okay? Then he quotes, and I misquoted this, and it took me about an hour to break this quotation down.

[Speaker 2]
I noticed you added a whole bunch of stuff.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, five pages of notes. Then he quotes, he quotes the original Sutra called What I Really Meant. And Lodro Yangpa is actually one of the members of the audience there.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's, what do you call when you're calling out to one of the, what's the grammar case? Evocative? Yeah, evocative.

It's the evocative. Oh, oh, Lodro Yangpa. Okay?

Then it says LEN PA'I RNAM SHES, the consciousness which takes, like tonglen, like tonglen, the consciousness which takes, and he doesn't explain it. Nobody explained it. He says the consciousness which takes, if you rely on that one, and you stay in that one, then you get those six kinds of awareness.

And you have to read the commentaries where they say the consciousness which takes is a code word for kunshi. The consciousness which takes. And then nobody touches that, that I could find.

Nobody says, in all the commentaries to that sutra, nobody says, this is what the consciousness that takes is. Only one guy took a shot at it. Guess who he is.

Getsongkapa.

[Speaker 3]
That'd be nice.

[Speaker 1]
Getsongkapa. Look at all these guys. Okay?

And God, I worked through all these guys. Oh my God. Clearest explanation.

From entering the Middle Way, from Tsongkapa, right? Which is Gomba Rabso. Okay?

And I'd like you to read it. Let me get you the big cursor here. I mean, Stanley's a big cursor also, but let me see.

Person who curses.

[Speaker 2]
Really? I always thought he was very clean.

[Speaker 1]
He's too polite. We could do better. We can Americanize him a little more.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no, no, no. Stanley, don't listen to them. Okay.

LEN PA'I NAM PAR ZHES PA ZHES BYA GZHAN NA DBANG PO GZUGS CAN THAMS CAD GYIS RGYU YIN PA DANG LUS THAMS CAD NYE BAR LEN PA'I NI GZUGS RGYUR PA'I PHYIR TE Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why in that weird quotation from Sutralinkara, okay, do they talk about the consciousness which takes? LEN PA. Okay.

Well, there's two reasons. First of all, it's the cause for all of the five sense organs. Okay?

Physical sense organs.

[Speaker 2]
Physical sense powers.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. And secondly, NYE BAR LEN PA'I NI GZUGS RGYUR PA'I PHYIR LUS THAMS CAD The whole body, NYE BAR LEN PA'I NI GZUGS RGYUR PA'I PHYIR it is the place taken by the whole body, or it is the place which takes the whole body. Okay?

I read it to mean foundation consciousness is the one where really you are taking all of your physical perceptions are happening there. For example, when you think you see blue, it's happening where? Inside the kunshi.

So you are taking blues from inside the kunshi. Okay? I read it that way.

Let me see if there's anything else we wanted to cover.

[Speaker 2]
He didn't explain any further.

[Speaker 1]
No. There's the actual quotation from where they mentioned LEN PA'I LEN PAR ZHES PA. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And it's been quoted correctly here. KTJ seems to be pretty careful here. And here they mention it again.

LEN PA'I LEN PAR ZHES PA This kunshi, right? Is deep and subtle. Okay?

KUNSHI LEN PAR ZHES PA Is the... KUNSHI LEN PAR ZHES PA Is where all the sovereigns stay. And again, it is the basis for your negativities.

Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because the NGON NYID Yeah? Looks at the kunshi and is mistaken. Misunderstands it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and misunderstands it.

[Speaker 2]
Misunderstands it as outer objects.

[Speaker 1]
Good. And then the quotation from what I really meant is taken as evidence here. And the same point is made in these two mind-only texts.

The whole point here is that we cannot take the Sutralamkara statement literally if we are mind-only, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. Now, this is all stuff that we're supposed to cover here. Anybody who says that the core of the Buddha is unchanging and firm, okay?

Anyone who talks about kunshi in those words, okay? And anybody who says the third turning of the wheel was literal, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
We would say they don't know anything, okay? Because they're mind-only, okay? They don't understand things, okay?

We would say that. They don't really understand, okay? If you take the third turning of the wheel literally and if you take these statements about a solid or self-existent essence to Buddhas, you don't know what you're talking about, okay?

[Speaker 2]
That's what that means.

[Speaker 1]
Which one?

[Speaker 2]
Tak ten and self-existent.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's often... These words are often added to, for example, yeah, anything which is firm and unchanging.

[Speaker 2]
Why is he bringing this up now all of a sudden? No one's been talking about tak ten, ninpo tak ten of Buddhas at all. Like, where did this come from?

[Speaker 1]
It's from the lambe nomba shepa thing. It's from the reference to kunshi, okay? Being somehow the core of the mind, okay?

Like that. And we say, no, it's not, okay? Then he just finishes up, and we finished it last time.

As we've just taught you, that ancient sutra, what I really meant, and the books that were written by the two brothers on their own without Maitreya, and the two famous books of the three of the five which are mind-only, okay? DONG ZHIG GZHAN BA'I DNGOS PO BSTAN DU BDE NYID KUN DAG SNGON MED DE SDONG PA GZHAN SDONG GI BSTAN DU PHYIR GSAL BAR YANG ZHES LA It's obvious that they are teaching the equation of the mind-only school. You start with changing things, you look at what they don't have, which is existing outside on their own, independent of the mind, and then you come up with emptiness.

Take blue, subtract the idea that it exists at a distance, and you reach reality. Then you reach ultimate reality, okay? That's the equation.

That's called the equation of the mind-only school, okay? All right, here we go. We're back.

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, would you equate the word Shendong as referring to that equation, to that subtraction?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's a great question. Shendong has two vastly different meanings, okay? Shendong has two completely different meanings.

In the later mistaken Tibetan schools, it means the emptiness of something is the fact that it's empty of everything else. The people who understand the whole 14 schools of Buddhist thought will say, come on, that's just a logic school idea, that a thing is the opposite of everything it's not. That's not emptiness.

Everybody knows that. That's a second school thing. That's not a fourth school thing.

Everything is the reverse of everything it's not. Take everything that's not Osiris, flip it around, what do you get? Osiris.

Some Buddhist schools in Tibet said, that's emptiness, and it's not. It's just the identity of Osiris. Every school, except Abhidharma, believes that.

That's no big thing, okay? That's not emptiness. But there were schools in Tibet that thought that was emptiness.

Now, here, which is Ben's question, why did they mention shentong here? This is a totally different shentong. Completely different.

This is the shentong where a functioning thing is empty of being outside there on its own at a distance. That's what it means to be empty of something else. That's a legal emptiness in the Maidongna school.

What are things empty of? Well, blue is empty of being on the outside. That's called shentong.

It's empty of something it's not. So, completely different here, Ben.

[Speaker 2]
Then there's a third one, right? That there's another school of Buddhism that is so-called higher than the Prasangika?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know about that.

[Speaker 2]
The shentong point of view?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know about it. We don't study it that much. If you know logic at all, it's just silly.

We don't spend much time on it. Okay. Please read, and Uncle Nick wants to check you.

Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
I felt like embracing my own hangmeng here for a second.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. SDONG ZHIG DE ZHEGS GNYIS BU DNGOS MED DE NYID GZHAN DBANG DNGOS PO DU BYED KYI TSOGS KYI SDONG PA'I SHENTONG ZHES DAG GIS BRTEN ROL NYAM DU GSUNGS NAS So, if you think that the idea expressed here is the ngedun of what the Buddha really meant, if you think this is what he literally meant, then your lodur is nyongpa.

[Speaker 2]
Messed up.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, crazy. You're crazy. Your intellect is insane.

And it's as though you were embracing your own hangmeng. On the, what do you call it? On the platform.

Gallows. In the gallows, you're like hugging your hangmeng. Which means you're embracing a completely destructive idea.

So now let's try to figure out the idea. SDONG ZHIG, the thing that has the emptiness, right? SDONG ZHIG, the thing that has the emptiness.

DE ZHEGS GNYIS BU The emptiness of the Buddha. Let's just try it on for emptiness of the Buddha. Tathagatagarbha.

Is it ngepo or is it ngepo mepa?

[Speaker 3]
Ngepo mepa.

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, nge me can mean doesn't exist at all. Or nge me can mean what then?

[Speaker 3]
It can mean an existing thing which doesn't function. But also the term is sometimes used to include both.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so here, I believe we're talking about it as an existing thing which doesn't function because it's a mere absence.

[Speaker 2]
Why would they use me as min? I'm sorry, what? Why use me, which is about existence, for when you mean min?

It should be either ma nge or nge ma or mi nge or something. It doesn't function.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, oh, oh, I see, I see. I don't know, it's just a baba.

[Speaker 2]
Baba's driving me nuts. I don't know how many hours.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Does not possess function.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Ngepo. Yeah, I understand what you mean.

Yeah, it's just an idiom, okay? All right. GZHAN WANG NGE PO Now, a question for you guys.

Is GZHAN WANG DAG PA or MI DAG PA? GZHAN WANG is... MI DAG PA, MI DAG PA.

It's anything that comes from a... It's anything which is under the control of another thing, which happens to be its cause. At the mercy of, GZHAN WANG can translate as at the mercy of.

All changing things are GZHAN WANG. All produced things are GZHAN WANG because they are under the power, they are at the mercy of their cause. If the cause shows up, we got a concert.

If the cause don't show up, there ain't no music. So, we are dependent on the musicians showing up, okay? GZHAN WANG.

We are GZHAN WANG. Okay, Ngepo. DU BYED KYI TSOGS KYI STONG PA'I GZHAN STONG Now, normally, what do we say is empty in the mind-only school?

[Speaker 2]
We say that the...

[Speaker 3]
Three things in three ways.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can say that. Yeah, objects of perception are empty of being outside, okay? But actually, we usually start with GZHAN WANGs.

Functioning things are empty of coming from their own... of existing as outside states. And then that's emptiness.

That's how you reach emptiness. That's the formula for reaching emptiness. He wants to change it.

This guy wants to change it. I think the thing that's empty, the emptiness of the Buddha. Okay?

Normally, in the mind-only school, what's the thing that's empty?

[Speaker 2]
GZHAN WANG.

[Speaker 1]
Outside objects. Outside objects. And they are empty of being real, okay?

Any functioning thing in the mind-only school is the DONG ZHI. He wants to switch it. He says, let's talk about the emptiness of emptiness.

Okay? I think what they're talking about is the emptiness of emptiness. I think they want to say emptiness is devoid of something.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Where are you going with this? Well, what's empty is emptiness. Okay.

What's it empty of? Changing things.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. And imaginary things.

[Speaker 1]
It's empty of... Yeah, lots of things. It's empty of changing things.

And that's GZHAN WANG.

[Speaker 3]
I think that's right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 3]
That seems okay.

[Speaker 1]
Start with emptiness, and the fact that it's empty of changing things, if you can understand that, you will reach enlightenment. That's what he says. Who's he?

He says that's a new opponent.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? And again, you've got to understand the mind-only school in terms of our equation. Changing things minus imaginary things equals emptiness.

Okay? Okay, got it? But he wants to change the equation.

Emptiness minus changing things is the fact that things aren't themselves, and that's the equation. Okay? And we say NYON PA.

Okay? That's crazy. And by the way, look at my note here.

Tsongkhapa students are often responding to somebody in their historical period. Somebody wrote an article on Wikipedia, and they're trying to defend something. And they get really hot about it.

And then Wikipedia died, the person died, everyone else died, 20 generations died, and now they're arguing about it, and we don't even know who it was, when it was, where he was. And that's the situation here. If you have graduate students in the future, Ben Kramer, you can have them check through all the other literature, 10,000 books, and find out who it was.

Rongtomba is a good candidate.

[Speaker 3]
Rongtomba.

[Speaker 1]
He was one of the logic authors in your last paragraph.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah. Sakya Master.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Listen. You ready?

Here's the mantra. THEG PA CHEN PO'I ZHUNG LA MNGAL BA ZHUGS DU MA BYAS PA'I RGYUN YIN THEG PA CHEN PO'I ZHUNG LA MNGAL BA ZHUGS DU MA BYAS PA'I RGYUN YIN Rongtomba, I think, wrote nine volumes on the Perfection of Wisdom, Tim. And Ben, he was a kid of Joe, I think, or adults of Joe, says, you know what's your problem?

And they said, what? And he said, you haven't studied enough. That's your problem.

THEG PA CHEN PO'I ZHUNG LA MNGAL BA ZHUGS DU You haven't put out enough effort to study the great books. I just wrote a thousand pages of commentary. I know.

That's what I'm saying. So he's a common enemy of these two guys. You might check him and see if he thought that the Shentong...

You got to go see whose idea it was. It's a weird Shentong. It's even weird to translate.

All right. Let's go, Unpala. Word wanted to check you.

I don't know why.

[Speaker 2]
Because you asked him. That's why.

[Speaker 1]
I think he's going to give you $100 for every correct pronounced word.

[Speaker 2]
No. Okay. Good.

THEG PA CHEN PO'I ZHUNG LA MNGAL BA ZHUGS DU You haven't put out enough effort to study the great books. I know. That's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. We should read across the do. Oh, I see.

In fact, I should make a note here.

[Speaker 3]
It's just a page number.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Those people who follow the Dode Gongdra, okay? Those people who follow the sutra called What I Really Meant, okay?

Who is that? Mind only? Yeah, the mind only school.

Do they think that... Okay, what's a shen wang, Unpala? What's shen wang?

[Speaker 2]
Shen wang is a thing that's under the influence of other factors.

[Speaker 1]
Any changing thing.

[Speaker 2]
Any changing thing, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Any functioning thing. Now, according to the mind only school, are those ultimate reality, or are they deceptive? Ultimate.

[Speaker 2]
They truly exist, if that's what you mean.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're for real. They're for real. You light a fire and it causes heat.

That's for real. That's real. You know?

Well, that's... That's ultimate reality. There's nothing deceptive about that, okay?

So, if you follow the third turning of the wheel, okay? And if you believe that changing things are ultimate reality, or things that do things are ultimate. I mean, a fire burns you.

It must be there. It's real, okay? Things that do things are really real, okay?

DANG YANG DRAG PA YOD PA'I DNGOS PAR LEN CIG MA YIN PA ZHES BYAS If somebody says things that do something are the really real things, and if somebody says, I like the third turning of the wheel, okay? DE'I DUS PA'I RIG PA DANG GZHAN DBANG LDAN MED DU BSTAN NA If you don't accept these thoughts, and if you think shenwangs are denmei, if you think things that do something are deceptive, are not real, okay? If you follow the third turning of the wheel, if you say that what's ultimately real is fire, because it makes heat, okay?

If something does something, it's real, okay? And if you accept that kind of logic, or if you're one of those people who says fires are denmei...

[Speaker 3]
Not real.

[Speaker 1]
If you say fires are not real, okay? If you say the heat and the fire came from...

[Speaker 2]
Like, I don't know, seeds or something? A mental image? Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Who put the heat in the fire? Who put the coal in the coconut? You put the heat in the fire, okay?

According to who? Middle way. According to...

Got it? If you're one of those guys who says that fires are unreal, they are not what they seem. They look like they're coming from wood and matches and gasoline, but they're not.

They're coming from you, okay? If you're one of the people in the world who says fires are not real, what would a mind-only school guy say about you? Underestimate.

Corndub, yeah. Corndub. All this stuff that's real, you think none of it's real.

You are underrating reality. A corndub, okay? All right?

Now, would they say it once? No. They would accuse you every morning when you wake up.

They call you on the phone. Are you up yet? Yeah.

God damn. You're the people who say fires aren't real, right? Yeah, we are.

Why are you putting down Lord Buddha? I'm not putting down Lord Buddha. Yeah, you are.

You're putting down the third turning of the wheel. Oh, he was just talking. No, he wasn't.

It's real. Okay, got it? LEN GCIG MA YIN PA means, look, if you're a real mind-only school, you wouldn't criticize those fires are not real guys once.

You would criticize them every morning. You would set their alarm on their phone. They'd give them a call.

Do you still believe fires aren't real? Yes. God, you're nuts.

You're criticizing who? Lord Buddha. I mean, in the third turning of the wheel, he said, GZHAN DBANG SAR BSTAN GRUB Things that do things are real.

That's what makes them real. Who are you? We're mind-only.

Sorry, we're middle way. Well, what turning of the wheel do you guys like? Second turning of the wheel.

Yeah, so do you say changing things are real or not? No, we say they're unreal. You guys are nuts.

Don't call us nuts. Okay, got it? Yeah.

Now, given this section number 219, what would be an asshole thing to say?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, that they're the same path.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. They think there's a meeting point, you know? So maybe sometimes the fire's real and sometimes it's not real.

Maybe we can get together, middle way and mind-only. Okay, got it? That's the whole point.

K.W.J. wants to say, God, give it up, man. They don't agree. And they never will because the mind-only says, changing things, functioning things, things that do something are real.

And the middle way school says, when they do something, it proves they are not real.

[Speaker 3]
That would be lower middle way.

[Speaker 1]
Nah, that'd be lower middle way. Oh, let me check the time, Hasso. Yeah, Keshla, it's 7.30 now, and I'm trying to split the difference because we went a little over in the other one. All right. We call that, in English idiom, we say saved by the bell. The student asks a difficult question and the school bell rings, and the teacher says, oh, I'm sorry, we have to do that tomorrow.

Okay, Nick, five minutes? Yep. Yep.

Okay. Thanks, Keshla. Thank you, guys.

It's tough. Thank you, Keshla. It's going to get easier.

It is?

[Speaker 2]
Should I just try to do the next one or just...

[Speaker 1]
Yes, let me see. Yep. And actually, I can do it with my notes.

[Speaker 3]
Right, right. Then don't assume you're destined for ruin just because you're...

[Speaker 2]
And my quiz, I mean, the quiz we did today is what we just did today, so we just repeated.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, if you can't make...

[Speaker 2]
So that means that when I give the quiz on Monday, Tuesday morning, everyone will get all the answers right.

[Speaker 3]
Kava majung.

[Speaker 1]
I know. That's a long time from now.

[Speaker 3]
We're going to take a break by then. We're going to eat and sleep it all out of our brain.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, see you guys in 10 minutes. All right. Have a good break.