Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 35

[Speaker 1]
Nine minutes. Okay, let's turn the sound back on. Do you want to say a few words about your book, Utpala, and then...

Well, I did a little PowerPoint. Let's do it. All right.

Let's see. Hi, Catherine. It was fun to see you in Kyoto.

I have to remember how to share. It's been a while.

[Speaker 3]
Share, share, share.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, Inna. Oh, here we go. Inna, you saw these books?

You sent me these books, probably. Crazy Ukrainian. Look at all these books they did.

Oh, my gosh. Okay. Okay, this is just a, you know, I guess a sketch.

I don't do mind maps because mind maps came after I... You know, I don't know. It's a newfangled thing.

I do PowerPoints. Okay, so Interlude on Emptiness. He sets the stage by talking about Arya Nagarjuna's credentials, the reason why we would look for the meaning of emptiness, the benefits of wishing to understand emptiness, and the type of person qualified to study emptiness.

Utpala, slow down. You're giving the translator a heart attack. Oh.

Just pause after each... Sorry. Take a deep breath.

It's a Lamaze translation technique. I don't know anything about Lamaze either. But anyway, so Emptiness, main topic of the book.

And we need to know, first question asked. The Buddhist teachings were varied. Apparently, he contradicted himself.

So, when was he speaking figuratively, and when was he speaking literally? And then the next question we have to ask is, according to whom? So we've got Arya Sangha, and the mind-only school interpretation of what is figurative, and what is literal.

And Arya Nagarjuna, the middle way perspective of what is figurative, and what is literal. We start with Arya Sangha, and the mind-only perspective. In previous terms, we talked about the three wheel turnings.

Number one, everything has some self-nature. Number two, nothing has any self-nature. And number three, some things do, some things don't.

Arya Sangha says, these first two turnings are figurative, and only the last one is literal. The mind-only school talks a lot about these three attributes. Mental constructs, things dominated by other things, aka changing things, and established reality.

They say that mental constructs don't truly exist, but things dominated by other things and established reality truly exist. And then we got into this bit where, oh my gosh, there was a number of very interesting people coming around and making very wild claims and very interesting discussions. There's one which Geshe Michael mentioned last night as being key to understanding Adam's text, which is, is there one Buddhist vehicle, or are there three?

They say three. But we went through, when we talked about this, I don't know, last term, term before, term before, there was a very interesting piece we pulled out from Choney Lama about how there's one, from the Prasangika Madhyamaka, or the consequence branch of the middle way school perspective. So when mind only says like an illusion, do they mean the same thing as the middle way school does when it says things are like an illusion, or is it a unique presentation?

It's unique. Emptiness of other, to which K.J. basically said, say what? Say what, man?

And then emptiness of self means empty of self, to which K.J. said, are you bonkers? There's a translation challenge. And this is where I get to have fun and things like this.

All right. Anyway, and then someone posited that Arya Asanga and Arya Nagarjuna are saying the same thing, and to which he says, have you even read what they had to say? So then we continued on.

And last term, we talked more about selflessness. We talked about selflessness of things, how the mind only school is very similar to the independent branch of the middle way school. And then selflessness of the person, which is different in mind only.

When we talk about selflessness of things and of persons, there are two types. There's the type that is inborn, and then there's the type that is learned. And we talked briefly about that.

Moving on to selflessness of things, what is it that the Gokcha is? What is it that selflessness denies? Number one, things that appear are a different substance than the mind.

That is a Gokcha. And things have a self nature by definition. And we got into a very long and detailed piece about how most people talk about the first one, that there's no outer object.

When you're looking at blue, you're looking at your mind, and that's really the important thing about mind only and what it denies to get to the selflessness of things. And K.Jipje talked about how Jason Kappa is the one who really understood the mind only schools philosophy in talking in a lot more detail about the second one, which is that the essential nature and characteristics are posited by mind. And the essence of a thing and its characteristics do not come from the thing.

It comes from the act of positing that or labeling that by the mind. And that is what selflessness is. So cool.

That's great, Utpala. I did exactly the same thing, so I wouldn't bother now. Yours is probably much better than mine.

Well, I was frustrated because I keep getting lost. I don't know why he is where he is and what he's teaching. So I made myself a...

I made myself the same thing you did. Let me see. Hang on, you don't want to see my politics thing.

Okay, here we go. I gave one donation to somebody and now I got... Oh, God.

Five emails a day asking for more, right? At least 20, and I don't know how to get rid of them. I don't want to get rid of them because there might be something unimportant, but maybe there's not.

Are we jumping down to your outline? We are going to jump down to my outline. Okay, here we go.

And I'm not going to go through it in detail. Well, let's go through it in detail. I'll go through it briefly.

I keep getting lost in Utpala's text. I keep not knowing where I am. Every time we come back to it in a new term, I can't remember where we are or why we're there.

So I'm going to go quickly through this outline. First of all, he covers why people should study emptiness and why you should try to get explanations of it. Then he tries to sell you on how great your life is going to be if you worry about what is emptiness.

Then he says, who should you talk to emptiness about? Who's a worthy vessel? Well, they have to be someone who wants higher things and is also very intelligent, and they're not going to misunderstand.

Then he gets into the actual teachings on emptiness. And he says, well, first of all, there was this great argument in Buddhist history where some things that the Buddha said seemed to be wrong, and they seemed to be just for the audience that was in the room. Generally, Buddha didn't believe them, but he thought it would help people if he talked about them.

First of all, he says, let's talk about what things said that he really meant, and then let's talk about things that Buddha said because people in the audience weren't ready for the real explanation. Then he says, two great Buddhist teachers described the division differently. What did Buddha say that he really meant, and when did he change the message to fit a weird audience?

Then he says, well, Arya Sangha has his opinion, and then Nagarjuna has his opinion, and they're not the same. So that you can understand emptiness more, I'm going to teach you how Buddha modified his message for these mind-only guys. Basically, in the first turning of the wheel, Buddha said everything is as it seems.

Everything does have some nature, as Upala said. In the middle turning of the wheel, he said, things are all the same. They don't have any nature at all.

Then in the last turning of the wheel, he said, some things have a nature. It's kind of a nature, and some things don't have a nature. Then in the...

This is all... It's important to remember that we are inside the mind-only explanation of what Buddha really meant, and what Buddha didn't really mean. So we are going to be stuck here for a while.

We're getting the mind-only school is explaining why the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra, for example, are... Figurative. Yeah, they are not what the Buddha really meant.

He was exaggerating because he had an audience that would respond well to exaggeration. Then when he got to the third turning of the wheel, he toned it down. He didn't talk so radically.

In the mind-only school, Buddha talked about things that just exist as concepts, things that are changing things, cause and effect, and then emptiness as the result of subtracting self-existent concepts from changing things. Kind of like an equation. Seemingly self-existent concepts.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'm not going to do these details because I get lost. We're in the middle of...

Well, let's put it here. He says the mind-only school clearly says that no outer objects exist, and that the mind does exist in an ultimate way. He says that...

Well... When these big sutras in the second turning of the wheel talk about things not having an essence, they are going too far, and we cannot take them literally. Gongpa Chen means Buddha was...

Buddha had a hippie audience, and he just adjusted. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. I think you covered all this. kun shi nama shipa samantab chepa kuni nama gyur kyen So much shit.

Yeah. Yeah, this is interesting. The people who believe in the mind-only school like the kun shi.

They like the refrigerator that holds the karmic seeds, and they believe that it's almost the Buddha nature of a person. Whose text were we having the other night? It was...

Trying to get rid of the... Right, exactly. Yeah, okay.

Yeah. That's a different point. du de gong de la shing lung zinpa dangway sum ni Yeah, and then they talk about the meaning of illusion is different between the lower middle way school and the higher middle way school.

When you say in the higher middle way that all things are like an illusion, you mean they don't exist the way they seem. And when you say it's like an illusion in the lower... When you say things are like an illusion in the lower middle way, you're talking about the example of the horse, of the person emanating a horse or an elephant from a piece of wood.

Completely different. I'm not going to go through these details. Yeah, we were talking about what makes something ultimate reality.

And we were saying the test of something, whether it's ultimate reality or not, is if you see it, does it help you get rid of your obstacles? That's ultimate reality. So that's the test.

If something is ultimate reality, if you ever see it, it will help remove your mental obstacles and your spiritual obstacles. Yeah, in these lower schools, changing things are real. Why?

Because they exist by definition. They exist by definition, and they don't exist just through... Names only.

Names, only names. And images, mental images, which is the opposite of the middle school. In the lower schools, is it real?

Yes. Why? It doesn't just exist through mental pictures.

And in the higher school, is it fake? Yes. Why?

It just exists through mental pictures. Got it? Okay, so they disagree on that.

Which leads us to the mind-only school's idea that we tend to underestimate or overestimate things. When we overestimate reality, we have two versions of that. One we are born with, and one we develop in our lifetime.

And there's a different... He says the way we overestimate people is very similar for the mind-only and for the lower middle way. These guys are similar.

Then, why I was lost, and I didn't understand what he was talking about. He says, Look, there's some kind of weird overlap between Adam and Ben's school, which is what? Sutras.

The pramana school. Yeah, there's Dignaga and Dharmakirti. These guys, logic schools.

There's some kind of weird overlap between them and the mind-only. And then there's some kind of weird overlap between that and the lower middle way. That's where he is now, and it's confusing.

He's saying Dharmakirti and Dignaga had a certain insight into emptiness that was good enough for a sangha that the mind-only school would appreciate, and even the lower middle way school might appreciate. And that has to do with what Utpala called the essential nature of a thing, and then its features. I like the example of fire.

So, to what extent does the fire part of fire come from me? And to what extent does the hot part of fire come from me? Is fire fire from its side?

And is fire hot from its side? This is called the essence of fire, which is fire, and then one of the qualities of fire, which is its heat. So, the logic schools are already talking about is fire inherent in fire, and is heat a necessary part of fire, or where is it coming from?

They're already talking about that. But only a sangha was able to figure out that when you see blue, you are watching a seed open in your own mind. By the way, that's true, even in the higher school.

But the seed opens as part of the outside world. So, when you see something blue on the stove, are you just watching a seed open in your mind? Yes, but it opens and it goes out and becomes part of the outside world.

Or it appears to open and appears to go out, right? Well, in the highest middle way, it does go out. The picture does leave the seed in your mind and does exit your mind and goes to the outside world and sits there as blue.

But doesn't the outside world also come from the seed in our mind? Yes, and it opens out of a seed and moves to the outside world. You've got to cook that.

Opens to or opens as? Both. Actually, I'm trying to get us up to where we are.

Master Naga... No, I'm saying for myself, I got confused while I'm confused. They've reached a part in the explanation of the mind-only school's idea about what the Buddha meant and what the Buddha didn't mean, where they start talking about what the second school thinks, Master Dignaner, who wrote a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.

He wrote a famous commentary on the 8,000 verses. If he had never written the Sutra on Pramana, he would have been famous for writing a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom, and Tim would be translating Dignaner. You see what I mean?

He did write a commentary on the 8,000. He talked about, if you guys want to know what's the lack of a self-nature to things, it's that the fire part of fire and the hot part of fire do not come from fire itself. They don't exist by definition.

That's interesting. It sounds maybe a little middle way. It sounds maybe a little mind-only.

It relates closely to a question that Dr. Kramer raised yesterday, which was what? Because... Whether a consciousness or a mental thing could be a...

Whether you can have a direct perception, whether emptiness... No, we heard that Dharmakirti was using certain methods to... Right?

Oh, in his book. I was thinking of his questions on Adam's book. Ben, jump in here.

What was your question? Dharmakirti was using... What?

He was...

[Speaker 2]
To his close angel.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he was practicing sadhanas. He wrote a sadhana to probably a fourth-class tantric angel. And so Ben's like, well, does that mean Dignaga accepted the highest form of emptiness and therefore was Mahayana, for example?

And what's happening in Kirubje's text, what's the exciting thing here is that he has latched onto this one detail of the second school, which seems to say they accept emptiness in the highest version. It's... That's why I was lost.

I thought he was supposed to be teaching us mind only. And he wasn't. He went to the school below mind only.

And then he threw in lower middle way. You know? And I was like, what?

I've heard about that there are those sutras who lean towards mind only and those mind onlys who lean towards the independent branch. Yeah, there are. So here's the form of emptiness in this great presentation on emptiness by Kirubje that Utpala is translating.

And by the way, in about five pages we'll be in the cocoon of higher middle way. Really? Yeah, I mean, we're going to switch over and then none of this interesting stuff is going to come up.

It's going to sound like a Lam Rim text. So, you know, have hope or appreciate it while it's here. Like, some fun.

How about both? I've never heard of. And here you have, in his commentary on the perfection of wisdom, you have Dignaga saying that the essence of fire and the characteristics of fire do not adhere to fire through any nature of their own.

Okay? And that's ta. Right?

Okay? Right? And who said that Dignaga says that?

The Tantra says that. Who says that Dignaga is getting close to emptiness? Asanga.

Asanga says that, okay? The mind-only inventor praises the inventor of the second school and says, God, he's got some good points there, you know? He's getting close.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
I mean, by the way, Dignaga even having a commentary to the perfection of wisdom is already an issue.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's the ultimate Mahayana text, probably. Okay.

DE LTAR NA YANG GZHAN DBANG GANG LA SDOGS PA'I GNAS SU BYAS NI SNGON NA SKYES BU LTA BU'I TSUL DANG LTA BU'I DANG RANG GI GZHAN GYIS SGRUB PA'I SGOGS SU DANG LTA BU'I PHYIR GYI DANG MI SBYONG SEMS DANG MA BZHIN NA MIN GYIS PHYIR GYI DANG MI SBYONG SEMS RTZOGS PAR BSHAD PA MI NUS If you cannot appreciate Dignaga's comments on how fire and heart don't, by definition, pertain to fire, then you will never understand the mind-only school. If you don't understand Dignaga's version of emptiness, it says, Kirubjai, you will never understand the mind-only school. And how does that relate to what I really meant?

How does that relate to the sutra called What I Really Meant? That sutra, does it refer to Dignaga's emptiness thing about fire and heart not existing, by definition, in fire? Yeah!

That's TSE NYID NGO NYID MED PA in the mind-only school. That's... That's...

mind-only school. Okay? Got it?

That's cool. SBYONG GRUB is that they don't... that they don't exist, by definition, is SBYONG GRUB.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or you could say they are KUN LTAG. Thinking that they do exist by nature in fire is KUN LTAG.

It's not real. It's the imaginary part of the world. Okay?

Got it? ZHUGS GZHAN LANG LA NGOR DANG KHYAD PA'I DU LTAG PA'I RANG CHEN GYI GYUP PAR BRJEN PA'I PHYIR GYI DANG ZIN So even in the mind-only school, we can say that Dignaga's version of emptiness is also an accepted kind of emptiness. Okay?

According to the mind-only school. Because it's a sangha who pointed out that Dignaga's commentary to the 8,000 verses describes a pretty hot emptiness. Okay?

Cool? It's very interesting. I always suspected that when you read Adam's new book, when it comes out in November, you'll say, God, this is helping my emptiness understanding a lot.

And then you start wondering about Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Okay? Here's where they describe fire and heat.

They don't call it essential nature and characteristic. Essential nature and characteristic. He doesn't use fire and hot as his example.

He uses suk. This is material form. This is stuff.

This is material reality. And this is how it started. This is the moment that it started.

The moment that it started we call characteristic. And then the material stuff itself we call essence. The essential stuff.

And both of those, suk khyepa nu, they are just name only. They are made up in names. Okay?

Here now you've got Dignaga being pointed out as a good example by Asanga, and they both sound very Nagarjuna. Yeah. I'm sitting here thinking, wait a minute, did we already hop to the middle way?

And by the way, I hate to say it, but it's time to get back to work. Yay. We still have nine folios to reach Nagarjuna.

We're going to be in mind only for nine more folios. That's... Two more terms.

It's two more terms. We're not out of the woods yet. When we get out of the mind only section and move to the middle way section of Udpalas, of this book, you're all going to be comfortable.

You're all going to say, oh, I heard that before. We're going to be lost for two terms and then we'll be okay. Here we go, back to the real book.

Oops, sorry. Let's do that again. 261.

Okay, here we go. Okay, please read Udpala. I'm going to pick on...

Let me see what I got. Ayesha. Yay.

She's translating. Yeah? Oh, she's translating.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, let's take it back. I guess her husband can do it.

All right. Yay. Udpala, you want to read or you want him to read?

Up to you. Anatole, what's your preference? He wants to read.

He told me that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, sure. No D in Tibetan. No G either.

Okay, let's take it back.

[Speaker 1]
De la suk means physical stuff. When you talk about the essence of physical stuff, it's just physical stuff. Then when you talk about the characteristics of physical stuff, classically you say, the birth of physical stuff, or when did it start, okay?

Do those words, form or physical stuff and the birth of physical stuff, first question, do they apply to physical stuff?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Are they the basis that those words are used to describe? Are they the...

Appellations. Are those... Is physical stuff what we're talking about?

Yeah. Yeah. It gets the name physical stuff and it gets the name, oh, physical stuff started, right?

Now, when physical stuff gets the name physical stuff and when physical stuff gets the name, hey, it started, right? Do those words apply to it? Yes.

Do they apply to it automatically? No. But it looks that way.

Right. It looks that way. It looks like this is not a banana, okay?

It looks like glass, the word glass applies to this automatically. It looks like that. It feels like that, okay?

If I say, oh, I'm eating a banana, hey, Kiri, I'm eating a banana right now. Mmm, good banana. Yeah, it doesn't feel right, right?

It seems like there is a word glass that applies to this object naturally and it shouldn't never be called banana, okay? RANG GI MTSAN NYID KYI GRUB PAR RTOGS PA LA NANG BA'I It looks like that. NANG BA'I TZAM NI RANG GI MTSAN NYID KYI MA GRUB PA'I GRO LTAR But that's an overestimation.

It's not true that the word glass applies to this thing automatically. It's not true. And it's not true that this is automatically what the word glass should apply to, okay?

[Speaker 2]
It's not true.

[Speaker 1]
All right? That's an overestimation, okay? Even the dodepas droop that.

Even the sutras understand that. Yeah, and that's... Khen Rinpoche is saying, look, droop sin means...

They figured that out a long time ago. Droop sin means they figured that out a long time ago. Who?

Even the second school figured that out a long time ago. Droop sin. DO BDE PA'I KYANG Even the second school figured that out a long time ago.

RTOGS PA DE'I NANG BA DE LA GRUB ZHES SO'ANG They also proved that if you think glass applies to this automatically, it's mistaken. You're mistaken. It doesn't apply to it automatically, one.

Two, if you think it applies to it automatically, that's a mistaken state of mind. Okay, got it? GRUB ZHES SO'ANG This NGES is delicate.

Look at the construction above, in the line above. DO BDE PA'I GRUB DO BDE PA'I GRUB The sutras figured that out a long time ago. And?

And they put the instrumental on DO BDE PA, right? Right. I think this should be DE.

Okay. And they also a long time ago figured out that if you think those words apply to glass automatically, that's a mistaken state of mind. They figured out that it...

They figured out that it is overestimating things to think that words apply to this, to its essence or its features automatically. They figured out that's wrong. And they figured out that thinking that way is wrong.

And I think this NGES should have been DE. Okay. They figured that out a long time ago.

Because it says they also figured out that the state of mind is wrong. Okay, got it? That's my opinion.

I checked two carvings. They're both saying NGES. But doesn't the CING mean that the DO BDE PA is going to apply to whatever comes after the CING?

Well, you can say they figured... Even the Sutras figured out that the word glass doesn't apply automatically to this object. And they also figured out that if you think it does, that's a mistaken idea.

That sounds very comfortable to me. You can say NGES GRUB. You can make a new word called NGES GRUB.

You can apply it to the Sutras, but I don't like it. But that's the way it's carved, okay? So anyway...

And would NGES GRUB mean something like they definitely... Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Or you could say they confirmed or something, but I've never seen it or I've seen it once. I don't think it's correct. Anyway, that's Grandpa's opinion.

Okay. Please read. And who's going to help you read?

Let me pick somebody. Alejandra, are you there? Hustle?

Alejandra Hustle? Are you there? Are you sleeping?

Okay. All right, let's try. We did this, guys.

Chunzong. Okay, Chunzong, please read. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
DON MED DOG DON MED DOG Lovely.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, RTOGS PA'I SNA BA means... LAS RTOGS PA'I SNA BA LTAR The thing that appears to your thinking, right? Because thinking can mean wrong thinking, right?

I'm not going to call it perception. I'm going to call it thinking. The thing that appears to your thinking doesn't exist as it appears to your thinking if you think it does by definition.

I'm sorry. If you realize it doesn't exist by definition, then you have seen the lack of self-existence to things. If you understand that the word glass doesn't apply to glasses naturally, the way you're used to things, if you understand that that's a mistake in perception, and if you understand that glass doesn't apply to glass automatically, then you have realized the lack of a self-nature to things.

You have. You have realized? Throughout this section, understanding that glass and the features of glass, clarity, for example, clearness, do not apply naturally to this object.

If you figure that out, you have perceived the lack of a self-nature to things. That's the theme through this whole section. Okay.

The whole section, they're talking about chukyadagme dogpa. Can you understand that things are not what they seem? Wow.

Yeah, we just did. So cool, you don't have to be in single-pointed meditation. Well, no, you don't intellectually.

You're doing it right now. You guys are doing it right now. You are perceiving the lack of a self-existence to things now through explanation.

Not directly. Indirectly. Whether that's a mental image or not is something you can check in...

Sorry. Yeah, Adam's text. Now, ong dun me.

Ong dun me means it doesn't mean that it would be that. Ong dun me. It doesn't mean that it would be that.

Understanding that your imagination, that the word glass doesn't apply to glass naturally, it doesn't mean that you would somehow have perceived the lack of self-existence to things. He says ong dun me. That would not represent that realization.

It's wrong. This sentence is wrong. In the next sentence he says it does.

Okay. At the end of 263 he says, that's exactly what we mean by chö kyi dakmey tokpa.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The end of the next section, 263, says that's exactly what we mean when we say you've seen the lack of self-nature to things. Then in this paragraph he says a very weird thing. Ong dun me.

It doesn't mean it comes. It doesn't mean it comes. I looked at several scans and it does say ong dun me.

I'm going to ask Word. Is he there? Yes.

Has Je Tsongkhapa... Can you search the whole 16,000 texts in our database of Tibetan texts and look for ong dun med, without the apostrophe? Okay.

I also want to catch a yodel. I want you to tell me how many there are. I wonder if Je Tsongkhapa ever used it.

I don't think anyone's ever used it, but I'm just... That's my opinion. If you're not going to do it, I'm going to do it.

I'm looking. Well, come on, it takes two seconds. Oh, you had a kid.

I understand. Everything's going slower now. I understand.

Ong dun me. Can you see my screen now? You can see it?

Yes. Here it is. There we go.

Let's go look at it. You were going to do it without the apostrophe as well? I'm also getting ong dun me again.

Oh, I'm sorry. We better make it ong dun me. Okay.

Yeah, you're right. We don't want that. We can do but not.

[Speaker 2]
This is a great time for but not.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm going to do but not, Ben. Oh, yeah. Anyway, I don't want the but here.

We do. Yeah. We do.

Ong dun me but not.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Wow, it does exist. Oh, my God, there's 76 of them. I stand corrected.

Imagine if you included yong. Very popular. All right.

All right. It still doesn't make sense. There's also a pong dun me, so I don't know.

You got to... Yeah. Yeah, there's a couple variations on the ong.

FYI. Yeah, okay. I got to cook it, okay?

Let's move on. But thank you for looking. It is an allowed expression.

I'm not sure what it means here. Okay. Here's why it can't mean what it says.

Please go ahead. Utpal, you read are correct because we got to finish this paragraph. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay, nice. den na dir.

Therefore, here, the sutra, the second school, talks about nang nyu la ma. Something that the sutra says is unmistaken perception towards its object. towards the object which appears to it, okay?

Something which is unmistaken perception towards the object which appears to it is occurring to bok chok ten chung. As the note here says, this is the first time that they have used this unusual word in this whole book. And I, it's a rare expression, and I believe it means a sort of like a stubborn seed.

Okay, like a persistent seed, it's kind of a strong one. Okay, it's a firmly imprinted seed, okay, ten chung. This ten means firmly, right?

It doesn't mean rely or anything like that. Okay, so, bok chok ten chung kyi wang she la. When the sense perception is infected by this persistent seed, okay, suk sok nam, it seems to be that the fact that the glass is called glass, and the fact that the glass of the glass is called clear, okay, exists by definition.

It's this which should be called glass and nothing else which should be called glass. This is naturally called glass, okay? That the word glass applies to this thing by nature.

Okay, no, it's always like that, okay, infallibly. Okay, rang gi tse ni kyi dupa nangwa nyi. It looks like that, but nangwa tar, in the same way that it appears to us, even normally, it's not true.

Forget, ultimately speaking, even normally it's not true. You can call it stikam, nitnas, or it's not bad. Pun, sa glas na, we sa glas ni?

Da, okay, so she agrees, this is stikam. This is not a glass, okay? So even relatively speaking, in the normal world, this is not glass by nature.

It could be stikam by nature, okay, it doesn't matter. Okay, but he says, even in the languages of the world, those words don't apply to these objects by definition, okay? And if you figure that out, you have seen yong druk.

You have seen the mind-only characteristic, one of the three characteristics of the mind-only school, which is called, I don't know what you want to call it. Established reality is what we've been provisionally translating it as. Then you have seen emptiness according to the mind-only school.

If you see that this thing is not called glass by itself, even, forget ultimately, even just in the languages of the world, it could have been called anything else, gubu. This is gubu in Tahitian, okay? And then if you see that those words don't apply naturally to things, then even in the mind-only school, you have seen the emptiness of the mind-only school.

Okay, cool?

[Speaker 2]
And that's...

[Speaker 1]
We're out, we're over time again. Okay, and therefore, that realization is a realization of the highest form of emptiness. Okay, cool?

Yay. I'm still stuck on that, the sutras that come. I thought you were bad.

Yes. Yeah. One of my features is that I'm stuck on that a lower school says that a changing thing doesn't exist by definition.

Oh, that's another story. What do you mean? That's another story.

But they do say it's dendam denpa. Changing things are ultimate reality. Right.

Well, that's true. That's true. All right.

Or in that they really exist. They're real. They're the only real thing, actually.

Yeah, yeah, okay. Well, so is young group, but that's another story. Yeah.

Okay. See you guys. Oh, yes, you're live.

You feel confused or you're learning something. And if you don't feel confused, you're not learning anything. So God bless the confused people.

Okay, what? May I have a homework to translate, please? You're a masochist too.

I split the next one into two to make it easier. I'll renumber and get a copy back. Yeah, by the way, don't bother too soon because we're going to probably change it later.

Oh, okay. Just for ease in class. That's okay, if you want to do it.

I would do both these sentences, okay? Okay. Let me check something.

Yeah, I just give you a clue, okay? This, before the name came, that's a quotation that I gave you following. He doesn't tell you, but that's a famous line from Mahayana Sangraha, okay?

Okay. All right, okay, so try those two sentences. Thank you very much.

Good night, everybody. So much fun to be back with you. Yeah.

Okay, everybody go to bed. Get some good yoga and you'll feel much better every day. Your mind will work much better if you go to yoga class.

I'm also talking to those translators. And eat carefully for two weeks, then go back to Twinkies. All right, see you guys later.

Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
All right, see you in the morning.