Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 34

[Speaker 2]
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. Let's get started on the quiz, shall we?

[Speaker 1]
So this is emptiness. I'm sorry. This is early for me, that's one thing, but really this is about interlude on emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
And our fourth class. Can you see my screen. Perfect.

Great.

[Speaker 1]
So we're on this pretty much the exact same topic we've been on all term, which is about K to J telling us at the beginning of term that there are two, basically two types of emptiness to things in the mind only school and most people think only of the first one, which is that there's no outside object. But there's the second one. And this is the one we've been talking about.

So we are continuing now to be quizzed on it. What is this statement, a typical example of blue, the starting of blue, the staying of blue, and the ending of blue. Life cycle of an instance of blue.

Your answer is a correct statement, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for. When this is given as an example it when we're speaking of the more subtle form of the emptiness of things in the mind only school.

[Speaker 2]
What might this be the example. How would this example be used. These are the features or the characteristics of blue.

[Speaker 1]
That's half of it. Yay.

[Speaker 2]
What's the first part. Hmm. There's Leave this.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, the essence and the characteristics.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Thank you. Can you give me your answer in Tibetan, please.

As a complete sentence. This is an example. This is a typical example of the essential nature and various features.

[Speaker 2]
No, I yet. I mean, no. Don't get by in.

It's not. Yeah, I don't know. That's, that's really close.

Sure, it is. Oh, these are examples.

[Speaker 1]
Typical example. Yeah. Which they share.

They are, these are the typical examples. Uh huh. Or this is the typical example.

Okay. Pay to mom if I'm using the right word for typical.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, sounds good to me. Okay. Great.

What question. No. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, I need coffee. I really need coffee. What question is this the answer to.

You will never be able to understand, even in the slightest. The mind only system in its entirety. The four total knowledges or the four approaches, or how to apply the concept that everything is only in your mind, or detailed explanations of the perfection of wisdom sutras, such as the 10 wrong ideas of distraction and how to deal with it.

What would the question be. Roxanna's got a shot. I can't see the chat.

[Speaker 2]
She said.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
What would happen if you fail to understand the way we connect the qualities to the object. Yay. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Whoa.

[Speaker 2]
What question is the following answer. Sending on new makeup and contact. Not yet.

Just kind of emptiness. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3]
Two kinds of emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
No. These are both positive things.

[Speaker 3]
But it's not made by the absence of an essence on names. Yeah, one is not a bus or science.

[Speaker 1]
This was sort of, I'm sorry, this is maybe a trick question. It was something that guess you mentioned, as an aside. In our last class.

[Speaker 3]
The question isn't what was something and it's from our last class right.

[Speaker 1]
That would be about I would accept that one. It's also. It's also the phrase that Lord Buddha uses is on the left.

And what word he does not use on the right in this in the sutra what I really meant when he talks about the first of the three attributes of what would become the mind only school. So another their equivalence. Oh wow.

Oh, that's I think that's in course 15 just like that too.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that would be my guess too.

[Speaker 1]
Because I don't have memory at this time in the morning. So now we're going to give either an English phrase or a Tibetan phrase and ask you to give me the equivalent in the other language.

[Speaker 2]
Even the slightest. I'm looking for the Tibetan here just in case.

[Speaker 1]
So, I'm sorry say again.

[Speaker 2]
Some can be. Some. Oh sure.

Okay, not even a bit, not even a part. Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Implied.

[Speaker 2]
Well how we use that yeah there you go by implication.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. And lastly, Oh, the English is hard right conceptualize a mental image. Is it like our talk.

Cool.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
Emptiness. Blue.

[Speaker 2]
And now I'm going to. I'm really I want to apologize in advance for subjecting anyone to whatever pain may be about to occur. Okay.

So the first one. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, I'm sorry I'm so caught that it's referring to the last sentence is especially good. This is a belief shared Buddhist philosophical schools this sort of like a Sunday show that's really good.

And it's, that's the hard part here. You got to draw a better connection. Even if it started.

Nobody got it. Oh, no.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right. No, I got it.

[Speaker 1]
So the first line says this. What gac cha you have to gac in order to arrive at dakme. That's the key.

You see? Got it? What gac cha do you have to gac in order to arrive at dakme?

And the nature of that gac cha, gac che dak, or the self nature which is that gac cha, OK, can never exist, even nominally.

[Speaker 2]
So where do we see can never? Can never.

[Speaker 1]
Madrup. Yeah, madrup. She madrup.

OK. So I can say things like can or can't. Yeah.

Madrup. Yeah. Just to make the English flow.

Yeah. The key is that first part that you just typed. So all of the Buddhist schools agree that there's something you have to cancel in order to arrive at emptiness.

Yes. That's all. And all of the Buddhist schools also believe that the self nature which you deny can never exist in the slightest.

OK? That's all. OK.

[Speaker 2]
And then.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
That, what was it?

[Speaker 1]
This number jokpa means in order to arrive at.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in order to establish, if you want to say that, yeah. Cool. So the gak cha you have to deny in order to arrive at emptiness.

It's a nice reminder that we arrive at yong drup by canceling kun tak with regard to shenlongs.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. OK. That's the point here.

Whoa.

[Speaker 2]
This is brutal.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
OK, good. Let's go to the last sentence. At least you should be able to describe in words, meaning even if you don't understand it in your mind.

OK? OK? So tsig tsam tu, at least you should be able to describe in words.

If you want to really understand these points, tsam tu, mulupar, all of these ideas of tsen shi. Tsen shi means what relative to tsen yi?

[Speaker 2]
The examples.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's the real example of a definition. So you give a definition and you give a typical example. Lepar ngos sumpa means what?

What's wun dzin?

[Speaker 2]
Wun dzin was...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to identify. To identify. Shi gos so.

You got to be a person. Shi gos so, who has identified very clearly in your own mind and in their entirety, the typical examples of what it is we're denying, right? The gac chan.

OK? And that's... At least you should be able to say it in words, even if you don't understand exactly what you're saying.

OK? Tsig tsam du. You should be able in words.

Mulupar means every one of these examples. And he's giving...

[Speaker 2]
OK, referring to the ones he just gave.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and I don't know, we could count them or we could number them. Just between every dung. There's one, two...

Oh, and he's been talking about it for all terms as well. Five, he gave five. OK?

He says if you can't even describe these five verbally, then you don't understand these schools. OK? Something like that.

And let's go through the five, right? suk sok ngor dang kyewa sok... How many you got here?

Oh, yeah, OK. suk sok ngor dang kyewa sok, kyewa du ming dang dang takpa tsam. So the belief that things like physical stuff has its own nature, and it has features such as starting, right?

Good? The fact that physical stuff, starting with physical stuff, it has a nature, its own main nature, and then it has these features, such as starting. To believe that those things, which are only creations of names and thoughts, to believe that the connection between them, which actually only exists in name and thoughts, to believe that that connection exists by definition.

That's his first example. This is his first sen shi of what doesn't really exist, gag ja. The fact that the connection exists from its own side.

So we understand that one, right? We're OK with that one. We know from the last sentence that this is the gag ja, that once you gag it, you can arrive at no self-nature.

We understand that much. Now how about the second one? GZUGS SOGS RNAMS NGO NA BSKYED PA'I RTOG PA'I RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA RANG GI TSE NI GYI GYUR PA SGOGS PA NI GZUGS SOGS RNAMS Physical matter, physical things, etc., which are actually just...

their nature and the connection between their nature and their features is just a creation, which is labeled or put on it by the mind, by our mistaken mind, RTOG PA. GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA, that's what we believe in. Remember GZHAN YUL from yesterday?

It's kind of similar. That's what we're having our wrong belief about. GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA RANG GI TSE NI GYI GYUR PA We believe that that connection, which is actually a creation of your thoughts, exists by nature, RANG GI TSE NI GYI GYUR PA SGOGS PA NI, and denying that connection...

And by the way, DO DE BA is an acceptable Dhamkar. You can say DO DE BA or DO DE BA because there's a rule that...

[Speaker 2]
Oh wait, before we go on to Sutras, could you tell me... What I heard you say is that these two things are the same.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know yet. We didn't finish yet. Okay, sorry.

DO DE BA They do refer to the same general principle, but from a different viewpoint, I think. RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA, RANG GI TSE NI GYI GYUR PA SGOGS PA NI DO DE BA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA This describes how things like physical stuff, etc., constitute what words refer to. The things which words refer to.

RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA What do words refer to? Words refer to the idea that we create a connection between the main thing and its qualities. And we believe in it.

We believe in that connection. GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA And we believe that's natural. RANG GI TSE NI GYUR PA SGOGS PA NI DO DE BA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA That's their idea of the way that physical things are the objects of names.

That's a second concept. That's a second concept. What was the first concept?

It was that the connection is natural. And the second concept is that physical stuff is what we're thinking about when we make up these connections. SGOGS PA NI GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA Third concept.

SGOGS SOGS RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA RANG GI TSE NI GYUR PA The fact that... Hang on. RANG GI TSE NI GYUR PA COG NI PHYI'I TSE NI DUG PA DANG MI DOR GYI KHYAD PAR LAS PAR BYED NAS NGUL DU'I KHYAD PAR DANG MI DOR GYI KHYAD PAR LAS PAR BYED NAS SGOGS SOGS Physical things, etc.

RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA This has got to be RTOG PA'I. This is a misspelling, which makes it very difficult. SGOGS SOGS RTOG RTOG should be SGOGS SOGS RTOG.

I did look at the carving and it's correct, because it did not make sense to me either. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't miscarved. It was also SOGS, not RTOG.

Oh yeah, that can't be correct. It's got to be RTOG PA'I. Because form and other things are what our RANG belief has a belief in.

We talked about GZHAN ZHIG YIN yesterday, right? How we take the object and how we think it really is. Like when we see a mirage, the GZHAN YUL is what?

[Speaker 3]
GZHAN YUL is water.

[Speaker 1]
Water, real water. SGOGS SOGS RTOG PA'I GZHAN ZHIG YIN PA RANG GI RTZEN NI GYUR DRUB PA RGAGS NAS Does that exist by nature? RGAGS NAS CI TSEN DU BRDOD PA DANG MI BRAL BA'I KHYAD PAR LAS PAR BYED NAS CI TSEN means that general archetype, right?

Hang on, it could be RTOG PA.

[Speaker 2]
SGOGS SOGS RTOG PA'I GZHAN YUL RANG GI RTZEN NI GYUR DRUB PA RGAGS NAS Yeah, I saw some instance of RTOG as being like some form of consciousness.

[Speaker 1]
Some sort of mental activity. CI TSEN are RTOG PA.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. Especially in the school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so the mental picture of a coffee cup is RTOG PA. I'm not sure yet. SGOGS SOGS RTOG PA'I GZHAN YUL Because if it was RTOG PA, it should be GZHAN YUL RTOG PA.

They should have put the adjective after GZHAN YUL. You see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
And you don't take it even when you see a mental image in your mind that is unchanging in this school. I don't think you take it as unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
Right, that's true too. So it's got to be RTOG PA. That's a good point.

What Ben just said is GZHAN YUL means what we think we see. And it implies that it might be wrong, like the water in a mirage. So what Ben is saying is that we're not aware that we're dealing with mental images that are unchanging.

That's not what we take it as, GZHAN YUL. Right. But let's think about it.

RTOG PA'I GZHAN YUL YIN PA RANG GI TSE NI GYI GRUB PA RGAGS NAS GCIG RTZEN DU BDOD PA GCIG RTZEN DU BDOD PA DANG MI BRAL BA'I KHYAD PAR What this says is it's not a similar distinction to what happens when we understand that something is a GCIG RTZEN. Okay. So who believes that...

Whose big thing is it that the quality of the thing is a GCIG RTZEN?

[Speaker 2]
The Sutras.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a second school thing, right? RANG GI TSE NI GYI GRUB PA RGAGS NAS GCIG RTZEN DU BDOD PA DANG MI BRAL BA'I means what we're talking about in this paragraph is different from the idea in which school? In the mind-only school.

Yeah, so GCIG RTZEN DU BDOD PA DANG MI BRAL BA'I KHYAD PAR We are making distinctions. LAS PAR BYED We are making distinctions which are dissimilar from the beliefs that we're dealing with archetypes when we look at things. Who believes that?

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, who believes that we're looking at archetypes when we look at things?

[Speaker 1]
Sutras. Yeah, BDOD DE BA. So what he's saying is that the belief that we're talking about here in the mind-only school, the deeper belief, which is the lack of self-existence to things, you can kind of feel how it is developing out of the idea that when you look at a car you're really dealing with an unchanging archetype in your mind.

That's a second school thing. And this is MIN DRA BA. MIN DRA BA means you've got to be able to draw a distinction.

KHYAD PAR LAS PAR BYED NAS You have to see the difference between the realization of the second school that when you look at a microphone you're dealing with a mental image in your mind of a microphone and the deeper emptiness understanding of this mind-only school that the connection between the microphone and its color, for example, is natural. It's actually created by names and ideas. Names and concepts.

He says if you claim to really understand the mind-only school you have to understand how the connection between the microphone and its color is artificial and it's only a creation of names and mental images. It's not natural. I think what he's saying here is you also have to appreciate how that developed out of the lower school idea that when you look at the microphone your mind is actually focusing on an unchanging mental archetype.

What he's saying in this paragraph is if you really want to understand the mind-only school if you really want to understand the three characteristics of the mind-only school if you really want to understand the third turning of the wheel then you should appreciate that it's different from the distinctions drawn by the second school but it has come out of those distinctions.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's a refinement of those ideas.

[Speaker 1]
If you don't appreciate the mind-only school as a refinement of the second school then you don't really understand the mind-only school. He's trying to make points like that. He's trying to point out subtleties that if you don't understand them if you can't name all these examples sen shi then you don't really understand the mind-only school and the three characteristics.

Let's go to the last one here. That's a joke. Here, CHI TZAM DU DUG PA DANG MI DRA BA Look, this mind-only school is not similar to the sutra school belief in an unchanging mental archetype.

You better be able to distinguish the mind-only position from the sutra's position. What's the mind-only position? That the connection between the object and its characteristics is just nominal and a creation of your concepts.

There's a big joke here. Three hundred dollars. Jigme tells me I'm running out of money, but I'm up for it.

The joke? There's a big joke. Somewhere here?

I'm going to say, let's say from CHI TZAM DU DUG PA between CHI TZAM DU DUG PA and MING DANG DE ZHAG TSUL The next line. These two lines. Yeah, there's a big joke there.

Come on, guys.

[Speaker 3]
He makes a reference to the third turning of the wheel.

[Speaker 1]
Say it again, word. I hate you.

[Speaker 3]
He's making a reference to the third turning of the wheel. Why? Because that is the turning of the wheel where there was fine distinctions made.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Whether purposely or whether because he's immersed in these topics, he has pulled out the name of the third turning of the wheel here, which is unusual. The wording is unusual.

If he uses it, it's probably on purpose. You have to make fine distinctions. Between what, word?

Between the three semis. No. I mean, in this case, it's parallel.

Between the way that the dodepas are...

[Speaker 3]
In this case, between the sutra school and the mind-only school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. How they describe emptiness. Because he just went in the last paragraph, he just said, everybody's got to have a gag ja.

Everybody's got to have a gag ja. Good. LAS PA CHE BA'I KHYAD PA DANG MI ZHAG TSUL DANG You got to understand that distinction.

DE RANG GI TSE NI GYI GDUG PA NANG TSUL You further have to understand how... Just this piece, very short. This one's easy.

Please, what do you think, Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
The way they appear to exist. The way they appear is to exist by definition.

[Speaker 1]
What's the DE referred to?

[Speaker 2]
The NGON KHYAD PA.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the connection between the object and its features. That appears... You got to understand, if you're really going to understand all this stuff, you got to understand why and how it even appears to you that that connection is natural.

If you say you really want to understand the mind-only school, and you want to understand the deeper emptiness of the mind school, if you're not satisfied with blue is outside my mind or not, then you have to understand how the connection between the microphone and its color, or its starting, appears, NANG TSUL, how it appears to us to exist naturally. It's not a philosophical question. It's a day-to-day thing.

Someone irritates you on the road, on the drive to the college, which happens every day. Then you automatically assume that they're... I want to use a bad word, Ben, but the fact that they're a bad driver is something natural to them, and it's not coming from my seeds.

The connection between their driving and them, the connection between how they drive and the driver, I automatically take it to be natural, and then it upsets me. Then I want to show special hands, mudras, to them. I do, sometimes.

My wife gets really disappointed in me. Like, didn't you hear anything you taught this morning? The connection between the bad driver, the driver and how they're driving around me, NANG TSUL, appears to me to be natural, and not something I created.

Good. That one's not so hard. RTOGS PA'I GZHAN ZHIG BSTAN CI LTAR YIN PA What is that?

RTOGS PA'I GZHAN ZHIG BSTAN What is it that the object, which is the... GZHAN... What's the connection between the word ZHI and YUL?

[Speaker 2]
Between ZHI and YUL?

[Speaker 1]
ZHI and YUL. Between those two words, what's the connection?

[Speaker 2]
Well, maybe it's referring to the YUL? The ZHI is referring to the YUL?

[Speaker 1]
As a basis? Yeah, they are synonyms. Adam can tell us.

ZHI, YUL, ZHI GRUB, NAM SHA'I, YOD PA, Oh, I thought you mentioned the sentence. Yeah, yeah. The ontological status of what we think we see.

When we... This RTOGS PA'I means have a wrong idea, right? Just what is it that we think we see when we're thinking wrong?

It's RTOGS PA'I GZHAN ZHIG BSTAN CI LTAR YIN PA Just what is it that we think we see when we are thinking wrong? Like that driver's driving comes from him or her. Okay.

No, I don't understand how to translate those words. I don't see what is it we think we see. Is that what GTAR is?

Yeah. The last topic, ZHAN ZHIG LAS PAR SNGON SEMS PA You can say here almost the important topics for this subject. ZHAN ZHIG means the important topics for this subject.

The last one is, just how is it, just how do we describe that thing which we think we see? Just how do we describe that DUN thing which we think we see? Which we believe in.

SHEN YUN That's the last thing that you guys should... If you're able to describe these five, I think it is. One, two, three, four, five.

Yeah, if you're able to describe these five topics clearly, then we can say you really understand these schools. Especially the mind only school.

[Speaker 2]
Guess what?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I must not then.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I think all of us are not 100% clear on it. But he just wants us to be sensitive to the fact that until you're clear on it, you don't really grasp these schools as deeply as you could.

[Speaker 2]
In at least a broad brush at least, could you help us to see what is the distinction that he's trying to get us to understand between these two schools?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, personally I would go this way. It's this, right? Say again?

It's the chi tsang? Yeah, I think that's the key one here. I think that's the key one.

Don't forget so far, he's been criticizing the shallower mind only guys. Right. Just hung up on the blue.

So far he's been kind of criticizing them. Now he's saying, can we appreciate how Buddha in his four schools, four and a half schools, he went from the second school to the third school. I think if you meditate, if we all meditate on the difference between the second and the third school, we'll get to where he wants us to go.

In the second school, you are unconsciously, unaware, using mental image to identify things like car. Those mental images are unchanging pictures in your mind that have been there for time with no beginning. When you think you're looking at a car, you're actually looking at a mental image in your mind.

That's second school. Third school, and then when you see quality, my car is blue, thanks to Nick. My car has a pretty color.

Nick, I saw another car yesterday with the same color. I think they stole it.

[Speaker 2]
Impossible.

[Speaker 1]
They were parked at the Hilton. Anyway, if you think the connection between your car and its color is natural, I think why he's doing this to us in this impossible paragraph, which we probably should have split into five or six parts. He wants us to appreciate how you go from understanding that the car is an unchanging mental image, and in fact, the result of canceling everything it's not, which by the way, if you're interested, in the second school is called nang nyu.

Nang nyu? Nang nyu. That's the object as it's truly appearing to you, but you don't understand it.

The archetype of the car appearing to you is the nang nyu. How you take it is different. Sung nyu, or shen nyu.

But that's another story. Trying to go from the important ideas of the sutra school, and then graduate to the connection between the thing and its qualities, I think that's what he's talking about here. So he's not disagreeing with the sutras, he's just saying that what Mind-Only School is dealing with has more to do with the connection?

Yeah, he just says here, we are making a distinction that they don't make. He doesn't say we are denying them. Oh no, he just kept saying they all believe the same thing.

Yeah, good. It seems like Mind-Only makes finer distinctions, as word said. What he said in section 258 is a very profound thing.

He says all Buddhist schools which believe in any kind of emptiness believe that you have to cancel something which is not really there to arrive at emptiness. That's a profound statement. All Buddhist schools that believe in any kind of emptiness or selflessness, they believe we're seeing something that's not really there.

We have a mental picture of something that's not really there. If we can cancel that bad picture, we will arrive at emptiness. They all agree on the process.

They don't agree on what's the gācchā. But they all agree on the process, that you have to identify the gācchā, you have to cancel it, and then you have to arrive at emptiness. They all agree on the process.

They just disagree on what's the goddamn gācchā. It's very interesting. That's 258.

258 is, man, you should carve that on a piece of wood and hang it at your house or something. Somebody's going to do that. Then whole 259 is like, well, here's how the deeper mind-only guys distinguish the gācchā from the way the sutras do it.

For example. Geshe-la, just to bring it full circle, and simply put, he's saying about the connection, the main distinction that he's making about that connection is that the connection is also coming from your mind. Yeah, exactly.

Dārthakpa here. Dārthakpa Tsang. It's only a creation of names and mental images.

That I believe the bad driving of the drivers is their bad driving, that's a creation of my mental pictures.

[Speaker 2]
So they would both believe that an unchanging mental image is being applied, but the implication is that maybe the sutrists would accept that the object somehow deserves that name.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'll take you to a nice place. I enjoy doing this, and I really enjoy this group of people, and God bless all of you.

[Speaker 2]
But it would be more like they would agree that the name doesn't necessarily belong, but gosh, some of those features sure do.

[Speaker 1]
Hang on, hang on. There's two kinds of kūntak in the mind-only school. Tell me.

[Speaker 2]
There are names like Ben applied to body and mind, but then there's the idea that the name belongs on that body and mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. So can we say that all kūntaks in the mind-only school don't exist?

[Speaker 2]
No, we can't say that all of them don't exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can call Ben Ben, and that's using names. So yeah, that's the answer to the question you just asked me. Sometimes kūntak means imaginary, wrong thing, doesn't exist, the connection between black and microphone, the natural connection between black and microphone is kūntak.

It's a creation of my mind. But also when I name people names, sorry, when I use an unchanging mental image to perceive something, that's also kūntak. The process that's actually happening.

Yeah, and that's acceptable. So that part of the Centric School is quite acceptable to the mind-only school. So the mind-only school has simply gone deeper.

I used to get confused that all kūntaks in the mind-only school had to be non-existing. But there are some ways of naming things, or using names or mental pictures to think of things which are valid.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but they're not mepa, they're just kūnzō.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're artificial, but they exist. That's the point. Some artificial things exist, some artificial things don't exist.

The artificial natural relation between the microphone and its color doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Or some relationship between it exists. That's kind of what you're saying. But the artificial relationship between the picture of a car in my mind and my car, that's okay.

That one exists.

[Speaker 2]
Or you could say all the kūntaks exist, but they don't all have like referent objects. You do have the idea of a connection between the name and the thing that gets named.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, even a wrong idea exists. Yeah, you could say that. Wow, we're all burning.

Everything reminds me of a Zapa song. I used to have trouble with Frank Zappa, I remember, because he was so cool, but the music was pretty bad. Anyway, here we go.

Dzong Zapa. Are you ready? Let's go back to this text.

Boy, that was a hard—I can't believe a teacher would give you that paragraph.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, then you should meet my teacher.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't write this sentence. I mean, don't blame me.

[Speaker 2]
I know.

[Speaker 1]
I did, gosh darn it. Yeah, you made the connection in the sentence. Hang on.

Okay, all right. Let's see, Nick, will you check—are we on 260? We are.

Okay, hang on. Hang on one second. Okay, good.

Dan. Yeah, there's a nasty mistake here. Yeah, I looked at the carving, and that's what it says.

It does? It should be su. Su.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the carving has some weird errors in it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I think we should fire the guy. No. Would it generally not make sense to have a verb in that place anyway after a key like that?

Uh, the expression suk sok, the word can check, but I bet it occurs 10,000 times in the database. And the expression sik sok, I bet it doesn't happen once. So you just get a feeling for it, Nick.

Yeah. And I should have caught it before. I don't know why I didn't catch it.

And here it is up here in the first line, for example. So, Dan, suk sok. Suk sok is a device in scripture to refer to everything in the universe.

Uh-huh, right. All the things you see and everything else. Yeah, the coffee cup on your table, on up, on up.

Uh-huh. Everything in the universe is the shi, okay? It is the tsen shi, right?

Uh-huh. What are the things that we can point to as typical examples of this problem that we have of naturally connecting the features of the object with the object? What objects should we use to have this discussion?

And he says, uh, everything in the universe. They are the place, ne, or the foundation for this idea or this expression. Ta nyi.

This expression of the thing itself and its features. What things in the universe are we thinking about when we talk about the idea, quote, main thing and its features? And then he says, suk sok, everything in the universe.

Okay. Now, those things which in the mind-only school, we think about as possessing their characteristics naturally, okay? How are those things established?

[Speaker 2]
Ming dang dren shakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they are just creations of... the pictures coming out of our karmic seeds, da. They are just creations of the pictures coming out of our karmic seeds, da.

Who says that?

[Speaker 2]
Mind-only.

[Speaker 1]
And the middle way. Yeah, that's the middle way. Middle ways, huh?

Yeah, so now...

[Speaker 2]
But he's been saying this all along.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He said it just above.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by the way, he has dawdled. I like dawdled. Jingming tells me how to say dawdle.

Yeah, dawdle is not a word, but we can make it one. But it sounds dorkier if you say dawdle.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it does.

[Speaker 1]
He's been dawdling in the mind-only school for a couple of terms now. He was supposed to be giving us an overview of the schools, different schools' ideas on emptiness, and he just got stuck in the mind-only school for page after page after page. But is he breaking out finally to the fourth school?

I'm not holding my breath. Me neither. Me neither.

I agree with you. He says, let's think about the objects that the mind-only school deep guys believe don't have their characteristics naturally. When you think about it, those objects which don't have their features naturally themselves exist through names and mental images.

Why he throws that in here, we're going to have to see. We've got one minute, Geshe-la. Well, I kind of hope he's setting up to change to the middle way school.

But I don't know if... I don't trust it either, Utpa. TSA YIN LA GZUGS SONG NGO DANG KHYAD PA'I THA GNYIS KYI ZHI YIN PAR TSE MA'I KYANG...

This is TSE MA'I, I think. TSE MA'I KYANG DRUG NGON MI. Yeah, DRUG NGON MI.

Look, we can all establish that physical stuff is the... We can all perceive that it's what we're talking about when we talk about the thing and its features. We can all see that that's what we're talking about.

We can all perceive the microphone with our TSE MA', with our accurate perception. And we can all agree that the microphone itself is established by our accurate perceptions. KYI, agreed, but.

MOD KYIS is always like... We're all on track, but... MOD KYIS, but...

GZUGS SONG NGO DANG KHYAD PA'I THA GNYIS KYI ZHI RANG GI TSE NAS KYI GRUB PAR Do they exist as the object of names by nature? Are they the gag ja by nature? RANG GI TSE NAS KYI GRUB PAR THA GNYIS DU YANG MED PA'I That isn't true even nominally.

Is the fact that we're talking about the microphone as our example when we want to talk about the natural connection between an object and its features, as what we're talking about, does it exist by definition? We are trying to find objects in the world to talk about when we want to talk about the connection between an object and its features. But those objects that we choose, like the microphone, how much natural existence do they have to start with?

Forget the connection between the microphone and its color. If we just, when we look at the microphone, to think about its connection to its color, are we seeing something naturally? And he says, no.

We're not. THA GNYIS DU MED PA'I DE LTAR GRUB PA But it seems like they do. DE LTAR GRUB PA'I SNANG BA LTAR SNANG BA LTAR THA GNYIS DU YANG GRUB PA'I KHYAD PA They don't even exist nominally in the way they seem to.

KHYAD PA DANG DE LTAR GRUB PA'I GZHAN PA'I GZHAN TSUL If you think that we have chosen the microphone and that we're choosing a thing naturally, then you better cancel that GZHAN PA, that belief. Why did we take the microphone as an example of the main thing and its features and the connection between the thing and its features? What did we take as the example?

The microphone. The fact that we took that microphone, does that exist by definition?

[Speaker 3]
Nope.

[Speaker 1]
And then he says, no. Well, do you think we took the microphone naturally? Yep.

Yeah, we do. But when you take the microphone to discuss the connection between the microphone and its black, even if you don't get to the connection and you just take the microphone, you're already misunderstanding it. How's that?

Okay. Let's talk about the microphone. Let's talk about the connection between the microphone and its...

Shiz, shut up. You already made a mistake. Okay, here I go.

Let's talk about the microphone and its... Wait, you already made a mistake. You already have a shenpa, a wrong shenpa, when you think of microphone.

And the microphone you're thinking of when you start your conversation, ta nye du wang du, it doesn't even exist nominally. I thought we... We're well over time.

One more sentence. The microphone that pops into your mind, when you start a conversation between the microphone and its color and how natural is that connection, the microphone that pops into your mind is already the gaccha. Okay.

This is... And I hope he's going to use that as a springboard to the middle way. But...

[Speaker 2]
It sounds like one.

[Speaker 1]
But I wish it was. Okay. Very cool.

Very hard stuff.

[Speaker 3]
That makes us think you've checked and know that it's not.

[Speaker 2]
So, just so I'm clear, this is still KJ presenting the mind-only position.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but he's... I think he's setting up to move to the middle way.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks for a wonderful term, Geshe-la. Yeah, and it was a hard one, but I think we did okay. I feel better about it.

I feel better about it. I wasn't clear how he was moving from the three qualities of the mind-only school to this connection thing. And I think it's clear now.

And by the way, I'll tell you something. In a class, in the monastery, it's an accepted principle that if it's deep stuff, you're not going to understand it the first or second or third time you hear it. It's just considered normal.

You're not supposed to take an exam after the last class of the course and get a hundred. If you do, there's something wrong with the class. There's this Western idea of education that you learn it for six weeks, and then you can get a hundred on the exam.

But that's never going to happen with this stuff. Right. We've planted seeds in this class, and the stuff we're about to do in Gibson's class seemed impossible to you about 20 years ago.

And now it's very comfortable. There's no surprises at all in Gibson's class for you. But can you put your mind back 20 years ago, and thank God that basic lam rim stuff was so weird.

And maybe there'll be a day when you look back on this and say, oh yeah, that's easy. I hope, I hope. Yeah, and I hope it comes really soon.

No, I don't know. I mean, maybe enjoy the process. Just enjoy the process.

If your mind is being stretched, the mixed nuts is doing what it's supposed to do.

[Speaker 2]
Yay, mixed nuts. Yay, confusion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you want easy stuff, don't come to the mixed nuts. This is accelerating. Okay, I'm sorry Nick, I went over.

Let's stop, and let's give everybody a three-minute break. Okay. Okay.

Gibson, get that quiz ready. Thank you. Thanks for trapping you guys.

Thank you, Catherine. I'm looking at you. Thank you, Roxana.

Thank you, Marina, for setting this up.