Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 33

[Speaker 2]
Hi, are we ready for some interlude quiz action? Anybody want to play? Yay?

Okay, good. There's at least one person who's excited.

[Speaker 1]
I was giving me really thrilled responses with my mute button on.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's really early for me too. Oh, shoot. Sorry.

I went to the PowerPoint before sharing screen and that doesn't work very well. Do you see my screen?

[Speaker 1]
Mixed nuts.

[Speaker 2]
Yay. Okay, so here we are. This is the quiz for class three.

And if you recall, what's under discussion here is some person said, hey, you know, Asanga only thinks this about the mind only school and Dignaga and Dharmakirti only think that about what emptiness is in the mind only school. So KJJ is now refuting. And what we're going to do in this quiz is focus on Master Arya Asanga.

So in the summary of the greater way, he wrote about the meaning of kunta construct. But what is it in a nutshell, real nutshell? It's very short.

It's very small.

[Speaker 3]
Mental image, but I mean, I don't know. It's probably the same, the same construct.

[Speaker 2]
There isn't an outer object, it's only the mind appearing as if it were the object itself. So these are all going to be variations on a theme here. KJJ also shared with us a little poem that Master Asanga wrote about hungry spirits and animals and humans and divine beings.

What point was he proving with this little poem about these beings?

[Speaker 1]
That everything is mind only.

[Speaker 2]
So what is it about these beings? Why talk about these beings then?

[Speaker 1]
They all see the outer object, or the thing they think is an outer object differently.

[Speaker 2]
So yeah, I could be looking at a cup and Venerable Gyalse can be looking at a flower. That's okay. They're all looking at the same thing and seeing it differently.

So he holds that outer objects do not exist. So the next one, he gives a number of examples, and this is like through different writings, not necessarily all from one text. So he uses examples of a dream, an eye affected by cataracts, a mirage, the magical illusion of a horse and elephant, and meditating on the ugly.

So what's his point in using these examples? Do you remember? What is it about these things?

They all come from the diamond cutter. That's one thing. But why would he choose them?

What else is similar about them?

[Speaker 1]
Things that seem to have some outer appearance, but in fact, have none or don't have the one they seem to have.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. And then what else about it? The interaction with these things.

The interaction of appear to be separate stuff. Right. So I'm sorry, the thing I was going for was that object isn't real, but it's held by a state of mind that is.

So just because the object's real doesn't mean the mind isn't real. Okay, so now I'm going to give you some English words and ask that you give me the Tibetan to take a position. So I can see that we're going to run into a synonym issue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
This has dominant. Oh, very good word. Thank you.

Thank you. Now word is going to know this one at first instant that it appears on the screen. So word, if you could like count to maybe 15 before you give it.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just going to get smeared before you even put it up. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
The word that we had, the phrase that we had in the last class has something to do with numb. Thank you for counting to 15. I appreciate it.

Oh, I waited repulsive. Very good. Okay.

That's the closest I could get to what it looks like for a person who has cataracts when they're looking at someone.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, nice. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, now I will... Oh, actually I wanted to ask, should I wait to show my translation attempt till when we get to that point in the class?

[Speaker 1]
You should. That's great. Good idea.

All right. Tell me when we hit it, okay? Because I hardly remember.

[Speaker 2]
256 for those playing at home.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hang on. I got the wrong screen here. Let's do this one.

Okay, so we're going to start at 254, I think, and Hasso wanted to check you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Good.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. This is tough. Now you got GZHAN DBANG, KUN LTAGS, and YONG DUB, right?

Yep. You got changing things, and then you got made-up things, and then you got empty things, which are changing things subtracting made-up things. Takes you to emptiness, okay?

Got it? It's an equation. You start with changing things, subtract all the things that are just made up, and you get to emptiness, okay?

So we can say that if we're looking for what it is that we make up stuff about, SDOG here is the LTAGS in KUN LTAGS, okay? SDOG is the present tense of the LTAGS in KUN LTAGS, okay? So KUN LTAGS means made up, and SDOG means making up, okay?

So when we try to think about what is it that we're making up things about, it's the GZHAN DBANGS. We're making up truth about the GZHAN DBANGS, about changing things, functioning things that are not true, okay? And that's what we are fantasizing about, SDOG, okay?

So the object of our SDOGS, the place where we put our SDOGS, is GZHAN DBANGS, okay? And then we have to understand that the fantasy, or the artificial construct that we're making up about changing things, is DNGOS DANG KHYAD PAR DU LTAGS, is some automatic connection between their essence and their qualities. For example, fire and hot, okay?

So the artificial thing, the KUN LTAGS, that we are putting onto fire and hot, is that hot applies to fire automatically, or inherently, okay? Got it? So the first line says, what are we making stuff up about?

We're making up ideas about GZHAN DBANGS. What's the idea we're making up about changing things? We're saying that their essence and their qualities are connected self-existently, inherently, okay?

Cool? KUN LTAGS implies automatically. Yeah, and that's the past tense of SDOG.

Right, okay. And dangerously, it bears a close, close, in fact, often confused connection with BRTAG. In KUN LTAGS.

In KUN LTAGS, and usually it says KUN LTAGS there. Yeah, which is imaginary, which is not a bad mistake, okay? This SDOG means untruths are put onto them, applied, stuck onto them in the way a nickname is given to somebody.

Applied. But it's not totally crazy that people constantly make the mistake to spell it as imagined, okay? So we can live with that.

It's a great ambiguity.

[Speaker 2]
So Geshe-la, when you say there's a connection, are you saying the connection is between essence and qualities and the GZHAN DBANG? Or are you saying the connection is between essence and qualities?

[Speaker 1]
What we make up stuff about is changing things or functioning things, okay? And of the three qualities of the mind-only school, only GZHAN DBANG is inhabited by changing things or functioning things. KUN LTAGS are imaginary.

They're fake. They don't exist at all. And then YONG DRUGS are ultimate reality, which is unchanging.

So if you take all the changing stuff in the universe, you take all the functional stuff in the universe, it all gets in the mind-only three characteristics. I'm slowing down consciously. They all get thrown into GZHAN DBANG, okay?

GZHAN DBANG is the only one of the three qualities of the mind-only school that has any working things or functioning things in it, okay? And that grab bag, that group of functioning things is what we make up stuff about, okay? GANG LA RDOG PA'I GNAS In the first line here.

That's the object that we make up stuff about. Well, what do we make up about it? We artificially create in our minds some connection between the essence and the qualities of fire, for example.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so it's not that they're applied to the thing. We don't care about that necessarily in this discussion. We're talking specifically about the relationship between the essence and the features.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we fantasize such a relationship. Yeah, we invent such a relationship. But talks, okay?

Yeah, that's the point. So now for Khenpo Jey, his whole point throughout here has been, look, to say that the mind-only school version of emptiness is only that blue part is not an outside thing. He says, that's the easy one, okay?

We want to go to the harder one, which you guys are hesitant to go to. And we want to go to that emptiness where the connection between a thing and its qualities is not inherent, okay? It is made up.

It is glued onto it. BTAG or MDOG. Okay, cool.

And for Khenpo Jey, don't forget that in these lower schools they struggle to draw a line between khan sak gi dakme and chuk gi dakme, right? The easier to see selflessness and the harder to see selflessness. The easier to see selflessness is called the selflessness of the person.

And the harder to see selflessness is called the emptiness or the selflessness of things. So what Khenpo Jey is into here is, he's attempting to draw our attention to the deeper selflessness of the mind-only school, which is that the qualities that things have are glued onto them by our mind, and they do not have them from their own side. Even fire is not hot from its own side.

It's MDOG PA, from our side. Cool. So what we got so far is, the thing we're making up stories about is changing things, shenwangs.

And they are called shenwangs because they depend on their causes. They're at the mercy of their causes. And then, what do we make up about them?

We make up a story that the qualities of something are inherent to it, when actually we have glued them onto that. And this could be happening in the kitchen. You make up stories about your husband and you glue things on him.

Oh, he had a bad day at work or he's hungry. Something like that. Now, that connection between fire and its heat, does that exist in and of itself?

Okay? Is that connection line three? Is it natural?

Does it exist by definition? And we say GOG.

[Speaker 2]
We refute that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we deny that. So, when you're talking about GAC CHA, in the mind, deeper, in the deeper, murkier depths of the mind-only school, GAC CHA means we deny that the BDAGS PA, the connection between fire and its heat, exists by definition, and not because we made it up. Okay?

And when we talk about GAC CHA, that natural connection between heat and fire is the GAC CHA. In the deeper version of mind-only emptiness. Okay, cool.

[Speaker 2]
GOG TSUL DANG So, that would be the way we refute?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That that connection exists by definition?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we got to talk about how we deny it. How are we denying that? And GAC PA'I CHOS KYI BDAG MA'I SBYOGS SU RNAMS By the way, all of this list here is an object of MA SHIN NA in the fourth line.

Okay? If you fail to grasp how changing things are the objects of our fantasies, if you fail to grasp the way in which we connect the qualities to the object, if you fail to grasp, if you fail to attempt to stop the idea that that connection is inherent, okay? In short, if you don't understand how to how to set forth the non-self-existence of things as opposed to people, CHOS KYI BDAG MA'I If you don't know that, okay?

MA SHIN NA If you don't understand one, two, three, four points here, okay? Then you will never understand the CHOS KYI BDAG MA'I the lack of self to things as it is put forth, SBYOGS SU in this school, in the mind-only school. You will never understand it in its entirety.

RDZOGS PA Okay? In its entirety. You will never understand.

And Okay? RDZOGS PA DANG And then he says And by the way, you're gonna have to know about the four total knowledges. YONGS DU ZHES PA ZHIG You're gonna have to know about the four approaches.

TSUL BA ZHIG And you're gonna have to know how by understanding those two fours, okay? The four What do we call them? Total knowledges.

Total knowledges and the four approaches. If you don't know how to use those two sets of four to establish ZHUGS PA'I TSUL Sorry, RNAM PAR RIGS PA TZAM Yeah, if you don't understand how they apply, okay? To the concept that everything is only your mind, okay?

RNAM PAR RIGS PA TZAM That to the concept that the world is only your mind, okay? And Then, and in that case, you won't understand it in the ZHES CAN GYI RDOGS You won't understand them in the Sutras on the Perfection of Wisdom. Yeah.

Where they describe antidotes to the RNAM RTOGS CHU The ten weird ideas, okay? Of a distracted mind, okay? RNAM YOD Okay?

RTEN PA'I TSUL RGYAS PA BYED PA These long explanations about the four knowledges, the four approaches, the ten kinds of wrong ideas of distraction, those those RGYAS PA BYED PA Those Those detailed explanations in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, okay? You will never be able to know the slightest percent of those explanations. RNAM ZHAG CHA TZAM YANG means the slightest piece, the slightest tiny percent.

ZHES PAR NYID PA MA YIN You will never understand, okay? So, this is a beautiful summary of his last 10 or 15 pages. Maybe that means we get liberated from this discussion soon.

I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. Aren't we gonna... I mean, it smells like we're going into a long footnote detour here.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and most of these footnotes are gonna be references back to previous footnotes. Okay. Yeah, we had...

And by the way, I copied it in here for you. We had these at Folio 12A.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Here's the 10 Weird Ideas. Okay. And the other two sets of four we had.

So, by the way, we had them. They weren't very clear, but we had them. They're clear enough for a footnote.

By the way, he didn't bother to clarify them, which means that he didn't think it was necessary for his readers to know what these groups were. He just said, look, there's these groups, and I hope someday you can learn them. And somewhere in here, he's gonna say, I'm not gonna explain this all stuff, all these groups, because my book would be at 10,000 pages.

Okay. That's how these guys get out of explaining this stuff. Okay.

Who's up? I gotta find somebody.

[Speaker 2]
Venerable Chen Zong may be awake.

[Speaker 1]
Is she there?

[Speaker 3]
I think so.

[Speaker 1]
It's kind of early in New York. Are you there, Chen Zong?

[Speaker 3]
I'm here. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Are you at the beach in Long Island? Are you?

[Speaker 2]
Night. Soon.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. All right. Please read, Venerable Utpala.

Chen Zong, be merciless, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 3]
I'm not gonna do the purposeful mistakes.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you're not? No. Okay.

Good.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. What's DO DE GONG DO?

[Speaker 2]
The Sutra of What I Really Meant.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the Sutra called What I Really Meant. In that lay, they describe the fact that Shen Wangs, changing things, have a nature which is imputed to them. And here's the other spelling, by the way, B-R-T-A-G.

There's a refuted or reputed connection between the essence and the qualities, okay? And that nature, MO BO, such a nature, RANG GI TSE NAS KYI RGYUD PA, doesn't exist by definition or naturally. And we say ME.

Okay? It doesn't have a natural connection like that, okay? Who said that?

Lord Buddha, okay? And that's, by the way, what KUN THAG, one of the three qualities, those three qualities in that sutra are not called by those three names commonly. They are called the three NGON YI MED PAs.

So here is TSE NYID NGON YI MED PA is how that sutra talks about the lack of a natural connection between the thing and its qualities, okay? So when you see TSE NYID NGON YI MED PA, you can just think KUN THAG, okay? The category called KUN THAG.

But in the sutra, it has a synonym called TSE NYID NGON YI MED PA, a lack of any inherent defining nature, something like that, okay? Meaning the heat of fire, okay? In the sutra, that's explained, end of the third line, ZHES PA, that's explained as being CHUG GI BDAG NI.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, emptiness to things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now- Geshe-la, can I ask a question?

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, I heard two different things that are contradictory, so I want to make sure I understand. I thought I heard you say that TSE NYID NGON YI MED PA is the phrase used in what I really meant to talk about the three attributes. And then I heard that TSE NYID NGON YI MED PA is the word used for KUN THAG.

[Speaker 1]
Only the attribute of KUN THAG.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, good. So, if the lack of self to things is explained in that sutra as the lack of a natural connection between a thing and its qualities, okay? Then ZHUG GI, and we had a lot of ZHUGS in, was it Adam's text yesterday?

Adam's text, yeah. What's this ZHUG mean?

[Speaker 2]
Automatically?

[Speaker 1]
Implied, implied, yeah. By implication, by implication. Okay, now, follow me.

If that's what the sutra says is the lack of self to things, okay? Then by implication, we can say that that sutra is describing holding to the lack of self. Oh, sorry, holding to a self of things, okay?

If the sutra describes a lack of a self nature, then we can reconstruct what it means to grasp to that self nature. That's easy, right? I'll say it again.

If the sutra clearly states what's not there that we think is there, then we can reconstruct what it feels like to think it's there, okay? ZHUG GI, okay? ZHUG GI means we don't need Lord Buddha to say, oh, that's what lack of self is.

Therefore, holding to a self, okay? Which is our LAM GYI GAG BYA, right? Which is the habit we want to stop.

Holding to a self can be described as believing in that connection. Okay, cool. So, he says ZHUG GI means if you get what the sutra says about what's not there, then you and I, without relying on the sutra, can reconstruct ZHUG GI DANG DZIN.

[Speaker 2]
Holding to a self nature to things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what is it to hold to a self? Well, to hold to a self is to hold, going backwards in the fifth line, is holding to a self is to hold that the connection between shen wangs, sorry, with shen wangs, the connection between their essence.

[Speaker 2]
Essential nature and various features.

[Speaker 1]
And their qualities. Exist by definition. Yeah, which is actually BDAGS PA.

That imaginary connection exists by nature. Or really, okay, really. So, in a sense, by demonstrating what it is to be a self nature, Lord Buddha is implicitly, impliedly, telling us what it is to hold to a self nature of things, of things.

ZHUG GI DANG DZIN DU BSTAN Got it? It's cool. It's very cool.

All right, cool. By the way, I'm uncomfortable with implicitly because...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it smells self-existent.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, it means explicitly in modern English. It was implicit in Joe Biden's discussion that, you know, blah, blah, blah. You know, but it didn't used to mean that.

It used to mean the opposite of explicit. But now it means explicit. So, I don't like to use that word much.

Okay, good. Did you have a question?

[Speaker 2]
Is this a new idea that...

[Speaker 1]
No, I think he's kind of... He's kind of starting to repeat himself. Or he's trying to wrap up.

He's trying to confirm that we understand what he's been talking about. Okay. And I appreciate it.

I really appreciate it. Because I wasn't sure I knew what he was talking about. Yeah.

By the way, there's something in here I want to say. Oh, yeah. It's a slightly interesting fact that that ZEN NYID in ZEN NYID NGO NYID MED PA which is the sutra word for kundak, right?

Uh-huh. Where the essence of... The defined essence is not natural, something like that.

That ZEN NYID, I think, appears in this word RANG GI ZEN NYID KYI GRUB PA, right? To exist by definition. And so, it's always been a question in my mind why the quality of kundak or the characteristic of kundak was described as ZEN NYID NGO NYID MED PA.

Lack of defining essence. And now we know that it means that the qualities are not present by definition in the fire, okay? Cool.

So, if you're sensitive in this translation of this paragraph, you might want to consciously tie RANG GI ZEN NYID KYI GRUB PA to ZEN NYID NGO NYID MED PA, okay? Okay. All right, good.

Uh, well, here's a nice small paragraph.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's the one that you asked me to translate.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Do you want to go through it slowly? And do you want to...

I'm going to stop the share and you want to share your screen?

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And we'll go through it. It's a long paragraph. It's a hard paragraph.

Aren't you glad I didn't give you the last paragraph?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. But, you know, any one you give is fine.

[Speaker 1]
You learn something, right?

[Speaker 2]
I try.

[Speaker 1]
In the depths of confusion, as they say.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I lost you. Are you seeing anything? I don't know.

Are you seeing multiple things? Yeah. I'm going to start over.

Okay, do you see this now?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. Can you make it bigger?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow, even bigger.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's just that it's a monster paragraph. Okay, good. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 2]
I just stole those footnotes from Emptiness Meditation, so you don't really need to...

[Speaker 1]
Yay, Emptiness Meditation.

[Speaker 2]
...approve them.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm going to go slow, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Do you want me to read it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, oh, yeah. Read it in Tibetan and let me choose somebody here. Venerable Kadding wanted to check your pronunciation.

Wow, okay. Here we go. I'm just going to go slow.

BYANG TSA YANG SLA BA SOGS PA RI BSAGS PA It's the summary of the outline. Yeah. Okay, I'm not sure of that title, but I guess you checked it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, from before. But you haven't reviewed my translation, but that's the provisional translation.

[Speaker 1]
And a summary of the greater way. Good. Made great efforts.

DE PHYI LTAR GSUM NYID DU MYIN DU MYIN DANG THAR to establish that being empty of the way a thing is held is the ultimate meaning of emptiness in the mind. Good, okay. PHYIR GYI BDAG MED KYI YUL GRUB TU PHAD PA THUG MED As explained in the Loves of Bodhisattvas and others, the lack of dependent things existing by definition, CHE BA LA NGOL DANG KHYAD PA LAG KUN DAG PAR LTAR PHYIR GYI BDAG MED KYI YUL GRUB TU PHAD PA THUG MED Where is PHYIR GYI BDAG MED KYI YUL GRUB TU PHAD PA THUG MED?

[Speaker 2]
Where is this one? That is...

[Speaker 1]
PHYIR GYI BDAG MED KYI YUL GRUB I think... The lack of a self-nature to things is established reality. Okay, it is established reality.

That's okay.

[Speaker 2]
Was I right in assuming this different word for and is what separates these two parts?

[Speaker 1]
This and?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, he uses SHING instead of DANG, which he uses...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and. Yeah, that's correct. Okay, that's okay.

KHYAD PA LA NGOL DANG KHYAD PA LA LAG KUN DAG PAR LTAR RANG GI TSE NI KYI GRUB PA'I STONG PA Things are empty. Anybody said the lack of dependent things as conceptualized, essential nature and various features is established reality. Okay.

YUL GRUB And the way things are, PHYIR BDAG to self and nature. TSE NI KYI GRUB PA'I STONG PA DE YUL GRUB DANG Okay. PHYIR GYI BDAG MED DKAG PA'I PHYIR GYI BDAG MED DKAG PA'I PHYIR GYI DANG GANG LA DMIGS NAS BSGOM NA Yeah, so this GANG LA DMIGS NAS BSGOM NA'I SHES BSDUBS BDAG PAR BYAS PAS is kind of the definition of what?

[Speaker 2]
Nirvana?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or emptiness, right? Or ultimate reality. Kind of the definition of ultimate reality or emptiness in one sense is if you ever see it, and if you ever meditate on it, you will remove your SHES BSDUBS.

Good. So I would say... Okay, that's okay.

MIG PAS BYANG SOGS SOGS PA'I MI NYAN THOS DE NYID KYIS The two listener schools. Okay. DE NYID KYIS NGO DANG KHYAD PA DU KUN THAG PAR RANG GI TSE NI KYI STONG PA'I MA GYUR CING Do not establish that the conceptualization is empty by definition.

RANG GI TSE NI KYI STONG PA'I MA GYUR CING DE NYID KYIS LUGS LA And that in both schools... DE NYID RANG GI TSE NI KYI GYUR PAR BRDZIN PA And that must be how that... Yeah, good.

I like the whole thing. It's extremely difficult. By the way, let me ask you a question and this will help you.

If the lower two tracks, right? Which is... Which is...

Which is traditionally here, the listener track and the self-made buddha track, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's not talking about details in sutras?

[Speaker 1]
I don't think so. Okay. And I'll tell you why.

And I'll just plant a seed in your mind. I mean it bears further checking, but... BDAG MED PHRA RAG GSUM.

Say BDAG MED. BDAG MED PHRA RAG PHRA RAG GSUM The three degrees of selflessness, of which only the highest one is STONG PA NYID. Okay, so the lower two are called selflessness, and only the higher one is called emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
How do you spell PHRA RAG?

[Speaker 1]
PHRA PHRA space R-A-G-S R-A-G-S, okay. Thank you. And...

So in the... and remember they said that essentially the presentation of these degrees of emptiness by the mind-only school and the lower-middle-way school is essentially the same. So what he's describing here is how those lower two tracks, which I think is what he's referring to as the two listener tracks, which is actually the listener track and the self-made buddha track.

It's traditionally the belief in the mind-only school and the lower-middle-way that the two lower tracks never see directly full emptiness, which is sometimes described as CHUG GI BDAG MED DRANG MO'I, subtle lack of a self to things. Okay, cool. So I think what he's setting you up for here is the appreciation that there are degrees of...

And we can't even say, you see, we cannot say degrees of emptiness. We have to say, technically, we have to say degrees of a lack of self-nature. And some are self-nature to things and some are self-nature to a person.

And seeing this lack of a self to a person is something that the two lower tracks do do. And only the Mahayana tribe sees wholly the lack of self to things. And what he's been describing here in these last few pages is the lack of self to things, CHUG GI BDAG MED.

What was the lack of self to the person then in these last few pages? Because he's been focusing hard on the lack of self to things. But he seems to have skipped over the lack of self to a person.

So what would be the easier lack of self to see in the last few pages?

[Speaker 2]
What would be the easier one? I'm sorry? I didn't understand the question.

[Speaker 1]
Lack of self to a person is supposed to be easier to see than the lack of self to things. Supposedly the lower two tracks can see the lack of self to a person, but they cannot see the lack of self to things. If the lack of self to things is that characteristics don't apply to objects inherently, then what is the lack of self to a person, the easier lack of self in the last few pages?

The easier mind-only lack of self.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're asking.

[Speaker 1]
What's the easier emptiness to see in the mind-only school that he...

[Speaker 2]
According to Kejiche, it's the lack of the self to persons.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but that is the fact that blue is not an outside thing. Right. Okay, cool.

That's all I'm trying to get. That's what I'm trying to get, okay? Yeah, that's the easier quote emptiness to see, that the colors and shapes you see are in your kunshi, are in your foundation consciousness.

They don't exist outside. We can say that's the lack of self to the person. But what Kejiche is trying to get at here is that nobody talked about the lack of self to things, and that's much more difficult, and that's the fact that fire is not hot.

Fire doesn't have its attributes self-existently, right? Cool. So that's why he brought in the two listener schools here.

Okay. They don't get the higher kind of emptiness. And he's kind of saying that those of you who've been lazy about your mind-only studies, you're kind of not being bodhisattvas.

It's kind of weird. All right? Because?

Because you are not aware, even aware of chukyadagmi in the mind-only school. You don't even understand that there's a higher emptiness in the mind-only school, which is the fact that things don't possess their characteristics inherently. Right.

Okey-doke. Whoa, heavy. Very difficult.

And you did a good job on the translation. Okay. And by the way, it's not BS, okay?

This is not BS. It has everything to do with the kitchen. Okay, it has everything to do with the kitchen.

You cannot have successful relationships, which by the way means you can't have a successful business life if you don't understand this kind of selflessness. And if you do understand it, your life is very successful and much easier. Okay.

Okay. Where are we? 257?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, that would be the next one.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I still want to get Sugeng to do some work because I'm jealous of him sitting in the pleasant sort of Maya. And okay, let's go.

I'm ready.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and I really appreciate this little turn up because he's he's kind of going in more to what does it mean when we make an artificial connection between fire and hot? Okay, how do we make that connection? What do you mean it's an artificial connection?

And he says, DIN DAG GIS KUN DAG NI When we're discussing this kind of artificial reality, right, of the three characteristics of the mind-only school, when we construct constructs, okay, especially false constructs, okay, when we say, when we look at our five heaps, okay, and we say, oh, this is the first of the five heaps. This is the heap of form, right, which means the physical parts to us. If Lord Buddha had gotten enlightened in America, he wouldn't have talked about the five heaps.

He would have talked about body and mind. And so this is the body part of body and mind, okay? So when you look at the physical parts of me, of Michael, and you divide Michael into body and mind, okay, then that collection of stuff, pungpo, that you call Michael's body, body, suk-so, she, that's the NGO BO.

That's the fire. That's the essence. That's the main thing.

Okay, that's the main thing, okay? And then what does it mean to talk about some characteristic of it, khyepar? Okay, khyepar.

NGO BO DANG KHYEPAR, right? So finally, which he should have said a few pages ago, when we talk about the thing and its characteristics, okay, such as fire and heat, he says here, for fire, think your body, sukhi pungpo, okay? This is my physical part of me, okay?

For the main thing, think body. For the characteristic, which we are tying to it artificially, think this was the start of my body, when I was born in the hospital. Oh, right, right, right.

Okay, so what's the main thing like fire? My body. What's the characteristic of it that I am artificially gluing to it?

Oh, this was the day I came out of my mom. This was the birth of my body, okay? Got it?

That's the quality, okay, and that quality is connected to that main thing only nominally, with names and terms. Okay, dakpa dakpa. It is glued.

The starting of my body is a concept glued onto my body by names and das. What's das?

[Speaker 2]
Terms. Mental images.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good, mental images. Technically, as a word, nix righted means term, but we know it means the more important part of naming things, which is how you picture them. Okay, and not the syllables that you put on them.

It's not a big deal that you say b-r-a-d-t-h-a. Okay, birth. That's not the important thing here.

It's that you conceptualize a picture in your mind of coming out of your mom and say that belongs to my body. Okay, inherently. Okay, so dar tapay ngu.

Okay. So the suk is the ngu and the kyewa is the kyepar. It's the equality which we are attaching to the body with names and ideas.

Okay, good. Okay, pungsok nam ngor tsam tu yupa kak mi nyupay, de rang gi tsen nyi kyi yupa gongpay. Okay, pungsok nam ngor tsam tu yupa kak mi nyupay.

I don't know. To say that heaps and other things exist only in essence, you couldn't stop it that way. So in this case we're trying to deny that that connection could exist by nature.

Okay, we are not denying that the body is not the body. We are not denying that the body is the body. We're not denying the ngor.

Okay, we're not saying the body is not the body. Which is what who says? Lord Buddha.

[Speaker 2]
So they say that...

[Speaker 1]
Those crazy middle-aged men, those extremists, those terrorists.

[Speaker 2]
The consequence branch.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, those wild, crazy people. Yeah. They would say not even the fire exists.

Okay. But we would say no, no, no. The connection between the fire and its heat and the connection between my body and the event of my birth are not natural.

Cool, pretty cool.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so that last... okay, can we say that last part again so that...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We're not... We're not...

[Speaker 1]
we can't... No one, unless they were crazy, mi nyupa, would be able to say there was no body. Okay.

We're just saying that the connection is... We're just denying GOG. That the connection could exist by nature, by definition.

Okay, but, but, hey, we're not saying there's no body. We're not saying there's no fire. That's, that's middle way, guys.

We're just...

[Speaker 2]
I was just trying to connect it to the words. Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're just saying the way you see those morals is, is artificial. Okay, cool. And it's created by your karma.

Whoa! Heavy stuff. And, but I'm happy.

I think, I think we got it. And it would be easy to read through these paragraphs and not understand them.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Geshe-la, what shall I attempt to translate for the next class?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, let me cook this. Whoa.

[Speaker 2]
Whoa. How about 265? It's only two lines.

[Speaker 1]
259 is the deep end of the pool. Just kidding. I guess you don't have any choice.

You should go for 58 and 59. 258 and 259.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
But go slow. Don't, don't break your teeth. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Right. Well, I have to start like at 802 a.m. so...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 2]
In order to make it in time for next class.

[Speaker 1]
During, during grandpa's snoring.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much. May all the beauty and nourishment and wonder of the world be yours and everyone's.

[Speaker 1]
All I need is a few hours of sleep.

[Speaker 2]
Or a few hours of sleep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, see you guys. By the way, if you're a translator, I bow down to you and I kiss your toes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Your toe, your big toe. And you other guys, you other guys who are still in this class, you are, you're the kind of people who like to hit your head on the wall. I, I, I think you're amazing.

Meaning Bodhisattva. Nick, any, any announcements? Thank you Geshe Michael.

Thank you Upaula and everybody. The only announcement I have is that Uto is going to teach yoga now. So stick around here on this link and you'll get an amazing yoga class with a really wonderful teacher.

And at four we have another yoga class for those of you who would prefer to join later and that will be with Anjali. Also a great, great yoga teacher. And thank you for helping us move our bodies because we're sitting for so many hours trying to wrestle with these ideas.

Uh, that was an awesome class. Thank you so much. Confusing and then enlightening.

All right, see you guys this evening. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Thank you. You