Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 36

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to turn the mic off because there's too much noise here. Go for it, Utpala. Can't hear me?

[Speaker 2]
I can't hear you, boss, there's too much noise there.

[Speaker 1]
Can you hear me, Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I don't hear anything. Oh, it's you. We all hear you.

[Speaker 1]
You can hear me? Yes. So your speakers are turned off, Utpala, or something, no?

[Speaker 2]
Can you hear any of us? Oh, there we go. Sorry.

I found it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. You bother everybody with your homework, okay? Let's go.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe we will bother you with your homework.

[Speaker 1]
Now I can't hear you. Is your microphone on?

[Speaker 2]
She's good, Geshe-la. Now it's you.

[Speaker 1]
What's going on? Oh, you go ahead and start. Let's see.

I got done with this. That's okay, right? That's okay.

[Speaker 3]
What about... Where's the other one?

[Speaker 2]
It's better or worse? Oh, great.

[Speaker 1]
Utpala, can you say something?

[Speaker 2]
Utpala, can you...

[Speaker 1]
Okay, it's good. It's good. You got enough food?

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Can you hear me?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. I don't hear you. Oasis Mixtos.

[Speaker 2]
I don't hear anybody.

[Speaker 1]
Is it technical? That's your volume, Utpala.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Now I hear people.

[Speaker 1]
Good, good, good. Hey. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Welcome to the first quiz. Having some fun now.

Okay. In his discussion of the mind-only school, what's two things about the nature of things Does KJJ say, even the Sutras figured it out. There were two things.

Things don't deserve their names by definition. Well, nobody deserves anything, but...

[Speaker 1]
They don't apply by definition.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Words for things' essential nature and characteristics do not apply to the thing automatically. And then what was the next thing that the Sutras got?

It follows on this very closely. To the, no. If you...

If anything can have any name? If you think that they applied to the thing automatically, it's a mistaken state of mind. Okay.

Cool. Now, keep that second one in mind, thinking that they apply to the thing automatically is a mistaken state of mind. And please give me that phrase in Tibetan.

You may need to look at your notes. Not so tongue. Well, no, because we're talking about thinking.

And we're talking about mistaken states of mind as two clues for a word that might appear in the phrase. Yeah, that's in there. Good.

That's two of the words at the end. Can I have a vowel? Chö is on a different one.

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Chö is in there somewhere, yeah? It's chö te nang wang pe la chö chö.

[Speaker 1]
Chö chö is there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, chö chö is there.

[Speaker 1]
Chö te... I like that font.

[Speaker 2]
Isn't it lovely? Tibetan machine meaning.

[Speaker 1]
I have that one too, but even the English one.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Garamond. Okay. Okay, let's say you figured out that second part, just as the sutras did.

What does Ketur-che say you've done by doing that? Remember, it was sort of like, wow, cool.

[Speaker 1]
You're muted, Geshe-la, if you're saying- Oh, I know what it is, but since you never give me money, I'm not gonna answer. I understood the emptiness of labels.

[Speaker 2]
Of? Things. Things, that's cool.

When you understand that what appears to your thinking does not exist the way it appears, as existing by definition, you have realized the lack of a self-nature to think.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. Now- Which in most schools, most of the lower schools, is considered more difficult, perceiving the lack of a self-nature to the person.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. Okay, so now remember, at the end of that section, there was a phrase that gave us pause. Do you remember that phrase in both Tibetan and English, and then why it gave us pause?

That's a hard term. No. No.

[Speaker 1]
Gave us pause, hmm.

[Speaker 2]
It made us go, this can't be right. What?

[Speaker 1]
I felt like Jerome's pause.

[Speaker 2]
It's got a me in there, at the end. It's got a dun right before it.

[Speaker 3]
Dun me. Ong dun me.

[Speaker 2]
And then right before, yeah, very good, ong dun me. And what does that mean?

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't mean that it would be that.

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't mean it comes to- It doesn't mean that it would be that.

[Speaker 1]
I still haven't figured that out yet.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I'm giving a possible, maybe something, something. So why did it give us pause?

[Speaker 1]
It seemed to be attached to something that was true.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Because the next section appeared to state the opposite.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So- It's a mystery. Here's something that I'm thinking might give us a clue. What is it about the way that the sutras describe the relationship between a sense consciousness and the object that appears to it that might give us a clue about the puzzling word choice in the previous question?

I don't know. The sense consciousness takes on the aspect of the object? Well, if we said that if you think about something existing the way it does and is a mistaken state of mind, then the perception of a sense consciousness towards the object that appears to it is unmistaken.

That's what they say about sense consciousnesses. So we're not talking about conceptual thought. We're talking about sense consciousness.

So could this be the sticking point? Could it be that, okay, cool. Sutras get that the essential nature and characteristics of a thing don't apply to it automatically.

And they get that if you think about it that way, that's a mistaken state of mind, but they hold that what appears to a sense consciousness is not mistaken.

[Speaker 1]
That's interesting. Wouldn't the middle way also think it's not mistaken?

[Speaker 2]
No, no, I don't think so. I think the middle way would say that your eye is infected with ignorance, I think. Okay, we'll move on.

So please describe what's going on with the sense consciousness that causes the nature of that relationship with the object that appears to it and give the Tibetan phrase for that. What is it that, because we already know the answer, what is it that makes the sense consciousness be unmistaken with regard to the object that appears to it? Remember it was a very rare and unusual Tibetan phrase.

It's the result of being infected by a particularly persistent, stubborn and firmly implanted seed. Do you remember? No.

And the Tibetan phrase for that then- Babun ten, right?

[Speaker 1]
Or something like that?

[Speaker 2]
Is close, it's bak chak ten jung gi wang che. Okay, thank you. I couldn't find a glass with different words for glass on it so this is as close as I can get.

[Speaker 1]
It's pretty good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, Geshe-la, things arose and I could only look at the first bit.

[Speaker 1]
A-O-N-T. You gotta make it bigger for grandpa.

[Speaker 2]
I know, I gotta make it bigger for the universe. Yeah. Is that big enough or bigger?

[Speaker 1]
It's okay for me but I think it doesn't hurt to make it as big as you can.

[Speaker 2]
Does that work?

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. Okay. That's not bad.

You could say when we negate, right?

[Speaker 2]
I was thinking it was in this past tense. When we have.

[Speaker 1]
It's a general truth. It will, or it does. It's present tense, yeah.

Is negated, yeah. So when we deny that things could exist the way we feel that they do, then we have denied self-nature to things. Okay, cool.

That's good. That's good. Yep.

[Speaker 2]
But.

[Speaker 1]
But, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah, that could be a soft conjunction.

We'll see, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay. And I apologize, I wasn't able to get.

[Speaker 1]
That happened to me with Paula's text a couple days ago. Yours was the most stubborn text this term. It refused to reveal itself to me.

[Speaker 2]
Darn it.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see. All right. Please read, and who's going to check you?

You pick a person to check you, how's that?

[Speaker 2]
Venerable Jigme.

[Speaker 1]
Ooh. Nice. Luckily, she finished her dinner.

You want to sit here? Hang on. Can you move this from there?

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
What'd you guys have?

[Speaker 1]
We had quiche and salad, but the salad is sticking around like the hard points in Utpala's text.

[Speaker 2]
Ew.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. Okay, you guys do your thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Tope shensule wangshe ki nangsu takja lo yultu char awe. Tokmar nangsu te ngu tse na.

Te tartu drupar shenpe tope shensul tar drupa ngokpe sul shepala ki tse na. Mingsi ngangro lo may chir la sokpe ni. Wangshe ki nangsu tar shenpang gokpa tso war tse du.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, nice. This is a very, very difficult paragraph. Tokpe shen yul.

When you... Very, very important for this section. If you see tokpa spelled without an S, what does it mean?

[Speaker 2]
It means that it's a thought, but it could be an incorrect thought.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could call it a... Or mistaken. What do you want to translate it as, you guys?

[Speaker 3]
Idea, concept.

[Speaker 1]
Ideas.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we've been saying before the way we think of them.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And then shensul means how you believe it to be, okay? So, how your...

Listen, your idea of... The idea... I'm sorry.

The way you feel it is when you get a certain... When you perceive. I would say perceive.

I don't know, when you... I need a different word for tokpa. It's to...

You're looking at something and it's not defined as correct or incorrect.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Conceived of.

[Speaker 2]
Conceived. Conception. You want a verb or you want to...

[Speaker 1]
We say you perceive something mistakenly? Yeah. Yeah, we do.

Let's try perceive. But I admit that we might find something better. Okay, shenpa is different from tokpa.

Tokpa means you perceive something, and then shensul means you take it to be a certain way. How do you take it? Okay, so of all the ways that you could perceive something or think you perceive something, how's that?

Now let's go to the second line in the middle. Gag ja lo yu tu char ga. Okay, and that's a crucial section in this sentence.

Okay, gag ja, you know gag ja.

[Speaker 2]
Right, the object to be denied.

[Speaker 1]
And all you guys have heard gag ja, and now you know what it means and you feel comfortable with it. So there's the spelling of gag ja. Char kawa means char kawa.

The word strikes you? Appears to you. It's difficult to get it...

Difficult. To get a picture in your mind. Okay, lo yu tu char ka means it's difficult to get a good picture in your mind of the gag ja, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay, good, good, good.

[Speaker 1]
It's difficult to get a good picture in your mind of the gag ja, okay? Why? Because of all the ways that you could wrongly think of something, okay?

Wang shei kyi nang tsu. How things appear to your physical senses.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
It's very hard to detect gag ja, okay? Like mentally, you can sit down and say, oh, when I think something's coming from itself, that's the gag ja. But to detect your eyes, feeling that when you...

To detect that your eyes are mistaken all the time, that they are always looking at a gag ja. Your eyes are lying to you, your ears are lying to you. Okay?

To really isolate the gag ja in the case of sense awarenesses, how you see blue, for example, is extremely difficult, he says, gag ja. Look, char kawa. It's difficult to close your eyes and think correctly of how it is that your eyeballs are misseeing things.

And what we learned in Sugeng's text, his first dependent origination Wheel of Life text, was that all 12 links are infected by marigba. Okay? Even when you see colors and shapes, those perceptions are infected by misunderstanding.

But it's much harder to describe what's going on with your eyes and your ears. Okay? It's easy to describe what's going on when you think the wrong way.

Oh, I thought my husband yelled at me because he was mean, but he yelled at me because I yelled at somebody less. You know, that's mental. But to say, when I looked at my husband's blue shirt and I misunderstood, that's hard to get the gag ja.

What's going on? What are you doing wrong? It is a blue shirt, right Hasso?

I guess. Okay. Yeah, so, you know, it's difficult to isolate the gag ja when you're talking about sense consciousness.

That's all he's saying. Okay? So he says, I'll give you a strategy.

THOB MAR MNGON ZIN DANG NANG TSUL Okay? THOB MAR MNGON ZIN DANG NANG TSUL At first... It's to put the gag ja in a sense perception.

Then the first thing you should do is MNGON ZIN DANG NANG TSUL.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, recognize, recognize the way it appears.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, MNGON ZIN means you would first have had to identify. What?

Before you talk about gag ja in what your eyes are doing wrong, it's essential to understand what's presenting itself to your eyes wrongly. Before you can cancel it, which is you have to understand what's wrong with what you think you see. Okay?

So what's appearing to you? And it appears to you. To the eye, E-Y-E, your blue shirt appears somehow wrong.

Okay? And you can't discuss canceling that until you understand what's appearing wrongly. That's what he's saying here.

THOB MAR NANG TSUL DANG MNGON ZIN First identify what's... First identify how the blue is appearing to you. And then you can talk about canceling what's wrong.

So how does the blue appear to you? Okay. Here we go.

DE LTAR DU GRUB PA'I GZHAN PA'I THOB PA'I GZHAN TSUL DANG GRUB PA'I BSGOM PA'I TSUL ZHES LA SKAD CES LA Yeah, if you want to get to canceling what's your GZHAN PA, what's your wrong belief is holding about the blue. Then the first thing to do is to identify how the blue is appearing to you in a deceptive way. It's lying to you.

The blue is lying to you in a certain way. You cannot disprove that appearing until you know what is appearing to you. And then, and he says, GOM PA'I TSUL ZHES PA LA SKAD CES LA It's crucial to understanding emptiness in this context to understand what's wrong, what's appearing, what's lying to you?

Who's lying to you? What's the lie being presented? And then you can cancel it.

But if you don't even know, like with the pen in the normal conversation in DCI, the lie is that the pen is appearing to come from its own side. The kak ja is that it doesn't. Okay?

So if you cannot describe the lie, you can't kak ja, you can't cancel it. Okay? So he says, in the case of the senses, to understand how things are lying to your eyes, colors and shapes, the raw data is lying to you.

If you can't describe how it's lying to you, you can't disprove that lie, okay? Which is kak ja. You can't cancel it, okay?

[Speaker 2]
And you have to be taught to know what it is to.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and he's saying, look, before I talk about emptiness of things that you are seeing with your eyes, we have to talk about how do things lie to your eyes, okay? Then we can talk about the emptiness, okay? And then he says something really heavy.

And if you don't know what's going on here, you will never figure it out, okay? He says, ming gi ngaru lo may chir. And that's a famous quotation from a mind-only text, the Mahayana Sangha, okay?

That's a sangha, right? It's a famous quotation. Ming gi ngaru.

Before the name, lo may, there's no perception. Okay? Before the name, there's no perception.

Dot, dot, dot.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
And he just pulls it out of a hat, you know? We weren't talking about this at all. And he says, wang shei la nang tsu.

That means, how is blue lying to your perception of blue? shenpa gokpa. We're going to have to talk about that.

And then we can cancel it. And that's our main job. Tsong zik.

That's our main job, okay? Now, I got something super sexy for you.

[Speaker 2]
You found the quote and we're going to do that?

[Speaker 1]
I found the quote. In Tony Lama's Diamond Cutter Sutra Commentary, the first book published by the Mixed Nuts ever. He clarifies this quotation.

Oh, wow. You should give grandpa a three dollars, just once. How much?

[Speaker 2]
How much?

[Speaker 1]
Three. Okay, two. I'll take two.

Two. Nevermind. I'll suffer quietly, or maybe not so quietly.

Here's the Diamond Cutter Sutra Commentary by Tony Lama, translated by the eminent... Where are you?

[Speaker 2]
Venerable Elizabeth von der Posse with Geshe Michael Roach.

[Speaker 1]
This very pair right here. We can call them the two naughties. All right.

All right. So, please read, Utpala. Utpala.

[Speaker 2]
DER DUG NANG NYID NUD BYED KYI YOD SHES NA YOD TE BAG PA THOG ME YI THAG TU LAS Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, I want to get my cursor up here to help you guys. Man, this thing is irritating. Okay, okay, okay.

Okay, good. Let me do one more thing. Okay, good.

DER DUG NANG NYID If things existed that way, okay, in a real way, NOD BYED means, well, what would that hurt? What's the problem? NOD BYED KYI YOD What would be the problem?

Well, there would be a problem. And BAG PA THOG ME YI THAG TU LAS If you want to know what it is, let's go to the Summary of the Greater Way, written by a sangha, which is one of the main mind-only texts in the universe. Please read this verse, and read it like, BAB BAB BAB BAB BAB BAB BAB MIG NYID LA ROL LOG That's too high.

MIG NYID LA ROL LOG MIG NYID LA ROL LOG You sound just like those little boys at the monastery. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
MANG NGAY PHYIR DANG MANG BRAS SPYIR DE YI ZAG NI BDAG MANG DANG BDAG BRAS RGYAL BA'I GRUB PAR YOD Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Boy, I'm just blown away. All right.

And here's the translation. Before it is given the name, there is no idea of it. And that's the part that's being quoted by your author right here.

Before it is given in the name, there is no idea of it. And we talked about this. If names were applied to things self-existently, then there'd be many things.

One thing would become many because sometimes one name applies to different things. Right. Can apply to a bad car.

And sometimes the opposite happens.

[Speaker 2]
People have multiple names. Father, son, brother.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, there would be many itselfs, or it would be themselves. And so our point is proven by these inconsistencies. Please read.

[Speaker 2]
ZHES GSUNGS PA'I DUS ZHES GSUNGS PA'I DUS DE GCIG NA DRA NAG NI DUS DE DANG DE LA MTHAG NAS GYIS DBANG RGYIS MI RJUG GI DBANG PO'I DBANG RGYIS MI RJUG TE Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
ZHES GSUNGS PA'I DUS DE GCIG NA Could you describe just briefly what this verse is I was talking about? There's a pun there for $10.

[Speaker 2]
Because this is the summary.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's THEG DU. He's quoting a book called Summary. And the other guy says, could you just summarize that for me?

And he says, ha-ha, I get it. All right, everybody's so happy. DRA NAG NI DUS DE DANG DE LA MTHAG NAS GYIS DBANG RGYIS MI RJUG GI Here, DRA means names, okay?

Names or words applied to the reference of words, to their objects. MTHAG NAS GYIS DBANG RGYIS By just nominally, okay? Nominally, right?

And so names apply to objects almost by choice, by human's choice, right? It's not NGOS PA DBANG GIS. NGOS PA DBANG GIS means by the nature of the thing that we're talking about.

A car is not called a car because something about the car. A car is called a car because of something about the people calling a car, okay? Car doesn't apply to car because it should.

Car applies to car because people decide that car is going to apply to car. Okay, got it? It's a nominal decision, all right?

But don't think that a car can apply to car automatically. In fact, don't think dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun. Don't think MING GYI NGAR BAR LO MED CHER.

Okay, the fact is, if there were no human intercession prior to the application of the name, then, you know... He would have no name. Yeah, either there would be too many things called the same thing, or nothing would be called anything, basically.

So, please read this.

[Speaker 2]
BUM SOGS KYI CHOS GANG LA YANG DE'I MING MA BAG PA'I NGAR RO DU BUM SOGS KYI NGDU ZHES MID SKYE BA DANG DON GCIG LA YANG MING NA SOGS KYIS GCIG CHOG PA DANG DON DU MA LA YANG MING GCIG GYIS GCIG CHOG PA'I CHER Yeah, BUM SOGS KYI CHOS GANG LA YANG.

[Speaker 1]
Anything you want to pick, for example, a coffee cup, MING MA BAG PA'I NGAR RO DU, before you call it coffee cup, you don't think of it as, quote, coffee cup. Okay, until you apply the word coffee cup to this object, you don't think of the object as a coffee cup. And that's why DON GCIG LA YANG MING NA SOGS KYIS GCIG CHOG PA DANG That's why you can also call this a chashka.

Pravda. You can call it a chashka, a cup, right? And DON DU MA LA YANG MING GCIG GYIS And that's why you're going to have two bobs in the same room.

Okay, one name can apply to multiple people. All right, cool. If the name were inherent to the thing, there could always only be one bob in the room, okay?

And if the name were inherent to the thing, there wouldn't be other languages than English in the world. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Or Russian.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, ILI RUSKI YAZIK. All right.

You're finished with me, right? No, I'm not finished. The minute you ask to go, I'll make you doze off.

Oh, hey Utpala.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you want to eat a snack, don't you?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, God. Okay, you read. Utpala, can you check her?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, please.

[Speaker 1]
Give her a hard time. She's giving me a hard time all day. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Ngukwe, wanginjuk nani? Mingmatapay ngun duyan deo. Nyampe dushey jungwartel.

Jungwartel? Jungwartel. Jungwartel.

Wadang dunshidumartel shindun dumayan chikgyur la. Cure. Cure.

Cure.

[Speaker 1]
There's no English G. It's cure. Because it's the past tense, because it's the optative, which means if it were.

We use the past tense in English also for a maybe case. If it were true. By the way, Ngo-Won-Ki is an idiom that you guys should learn.

All you philosophers out there, Kramer and Mr. Nashaw. Ngo-Won-Ki. Which is an abbreviation for Ngo-Po-Won-Ki.

If it were the very nature of things. Ngo-Po-Won-Ki. What's that famous grace to Tsongkapa and his two sons?

Kanchen Kepe Tugend Tsongkapa. Ngo-Tob Rikpa Wongchuk Gyel Tsubje. Ngo-Tob Rikpa.

Sometimes Gyel Tsubje is called Ngo-Tob Rikpa. And that Ngo-Tob is an extremely difficult word. And it means the nature of the thing suggests some logical conclusions about it.

Ngo-Tob Rikpa. And it's another ancient name for deduction. And here it's similar.

Ngo-Tob or Ngo-Won. Oh, it doesn't mean automatically? Yeah, in this case it's a bad thing.

In Gyel Tsubje's case, in the grace to Gyel Tsubje, it's a good thing. Ngo-Won-Ki, chukpa-na means if words apply to objects automatically, due to the nature of the object, if this had to be called cup, then even before you called it cup, you would think of it as cup. So, if the word cup applied to this thing automatically, then before you called it, before anybody called it cup, it would be saying, cup, cup, I'm a cup.

,'DOD ZHIG SBYUNG BA LTA'O DANG, ,'DOD ZHIG SBYUNG BA LTA'O ZHIG, Then one object would become many. Because if the word applied to the object automatically, since I can say cup, cup, cup, cup, cup, then there'd have to be five cups here. Because each word would automatically apply to a cup.

And, not only that, ,'DOD DUS MA YANG GCIG GYUR, If you had three cups here and I said these are cups, they would all become one cup. Okay. So the point is this, look.

And here we go. The point is this. Do our names apply to things by the nature of those things?

Is Neil Young a screaming eunuch? Or is he the greatest guitar player who ever lived?

[Speaker 2]
No, he's not that either.

[Speaker 1]
Like what Rolling Stone thinks. So, this is very, very cool. He says, does a name apply to something before you think of it that way?

,'LO YI NGA RUL DU, ,'LO YI NGA, We had it, right, in your book. Before you think of it with a name, is it the thing or not? And this is applying directly to your whole section, which is the discussion between blank and blank.

[Speaker 2]
Are you talking about philosophical schools?

[Speaker 1]
This whole section we've been talking about.

[Speaker 2]
,'LO YI NGA RUL DU, Oh, about essential nature and characteristics and an object.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. What do you call it? What do you call it?

When you give something a name. Label. You can say label.

When you label something, fire or the fire starting. That was the... Fire or fire starting, when you say that.

When you say that, is it naturally fire and fire starting? That's the question. It turns out that your whole argument, which was supposed to be about the essential nature and the features of things existing automatically, becomes a discussion about language.

It becomes a discussion about applying names to things. So the whole struggle we've had to understand what does it mean to apply... What do you say?

Say something. Apply NGO BO, essence. What's the other one?

NGO DU SKAD PAR NGO DU SKAD PAR It's all a discussion about language. Now he's pulling it all over to a discussion about language. He set off the change by quoting a sangha and saying does the name exist before the mind perceives it?

Or not? Does the name exist before the mind applies the name to the object? Or is the name inherent to that object?

Should that be called fire? Did it have to be called fire? Could it have been called water?

And then water be called fire? Yeah. This gets into how politicians talk.

Oh no, they're convoluted.

[Speaker 2]
This makes perfect sense. What they do makes no sense.

[Speaker 1]
Here's the last part from Choney Lama. Don't forget Choney Lama is... What hat does Choney Lama have on during his commentary to the Diamond Cutter Sutra?

[Speaker 2]
He has on his Kusambika Madhyamaka hat.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like super upper middle way. He's super upper middle way. Don't forget, I just remind you that Master Sangha might interpret Master Sangha's words differently than Choney Lama interprets Master Sangha's.

[Speaker 2]
Indeed.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm just warning you. Keep a little distance from this future description of the same quotation. All right, please read.

[Speaker 2]
Who? Venerable Jigme or me?

[Speaker 1]
Let's use General Jigme. Let's go, let's go.

[Speaker 3]
Tena bum sok kyang yu par ngur wey. Sem chun a yang bum sok gung gi. Ga yang.

Ga yang?

[Speaker 2]
Ga yang.

[Speaker 3]
Ngayang.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Oh, I didn't hear it, sorry.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, I got it. Bum sok gung gi mi pong par tel war ngur wa sok ma ngur.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, BUM SOGS MED PA'I ZHIR We had this over and over in Adam's text just now. A place where no coffee cup exists. Take a particular spot in this room where there's no coffee cup sitting there, okay?

YANG If the name applied to the object inherently, then you could say, coffee cup, and it would be here. It would appear there. DE NA BUM SOGS KYANG YOD PAR GYUR It would also exist there.

It would be there. SEMS CAN GA'ANG And then Choney Lama says, it would be so wonderful because nobody would need a vase anymore, a coffee cup. Nobody in the world would be without a coffee cup.

Because they could just say coffee cup and they have a coffee cup. PHUNG PA means bereft of coffee. PHUNG PA means a state of poverty where you don't have a coffee cup.

He says nobody would be poor anymore. They could just say coffee cup and coffee cup would appear. It would be so wonderful.

GYUR BA SOGS MA NGON Many other problems too, and I'm not going to even talk about them. All right, we're going back to your text. Well, let's go...

Now, your text says... Where are you? It says, NGON GYI SNGA ROL LO MED PHYIR Look, Master Asanga said, Before you have the name, you cannot have the concept.

LA SOGS PA'I Therefore, you should use that statement to help you understand how the blue shirt is appearing wrong to you, so that you can go from there to the... Gag ja. You cannot gag what you do not understand isn't there.

You can't disprove something until you know what's wrong. He says, you got to know how blue is lying to you before you can see how blue is empty. Okay, all right.

Okay, and I mean, you know, if you're not familiar with the material, you don't even know it's a quotation yet. So how could you go... All right, 266.

I don't know, one of you guys want to...

[Speaker 2]
I would like a venerable chinsen.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, you're free, and you can sit here if you want. I would leave because there's a lot of salad around here.

[Speaker 2]
What? There's healthy food there.

[Speaker 1]
I keep eating it, I think it's having babies. It's like those mixed nuts guys. The salad keeps having babies.

Every time I turn around, there's a new baby.

[Speaker 2]
Are you there chinsen?

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Do you want to read or check? Check, my voice is... Okay.

Okay, this is tough.

[Speaker 1]
So wang che, your visual perception, right? For example, it's tokme, all right? It does not involve thinking.

Wrong or right, doesn't matter. Wang che is thoughtless. The perception of blue is thoughtless.

The perception of blue doesn't have opinions. But we're talking about a way in which blue appears to you which is only imputed by thought. So now this guy gets cute.

He says, is perception with your eyeball, is it thinking or not? And we say, no, it doesn't think. The eyes don't think, they just perceive things.

Then he says, then how the hell could what the eye is doing be described as merely imputed by thought?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'll say it again. Does the eye think when it sees blue? No.

Then how can you say that when the eye does see blue, it's thought which is creating the perception? It's a creation of thought. It's an imputation by thought, if the eye itself is thoughtless.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Good question.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. All things are created by your ideas, and if the eye doesn't have ideas, then how could your eye be doing anything wrong?

[Speaker 2]
What on earth? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Silly. Okay, I think Chim-Zum should suffer more than come with a coffee cup.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now we say, look, if it's contradictory to say that an eyeball, which is without thought, could see something which is merely a creation of your thoughts, in that case, then the horse would never have appeared in the magic show.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. You want to explain? There you go.

Paula, you want to try?

[Speaker 2]
Well, you'd have to think about the stick as a horse before you saw it as one.

[Speaker 1]
The question is, could you see a horse in the magic show if you didn't think there was a horse there?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
You couldn't, right. Does your eyeball think?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, how could you see the horse?

[Speaker 2]
Magic dust.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, anyway, it's wonderful. And by the way, there's a big, big point here. When you say illusion in the higher middle way, and when you say illusion in the lower middle way, it's completely different.

It's two totally different things. Here, does the horse that the magician emanates with the magic fairy dust and the mantra from the little stick, does it appear to your senses? Is it simply a creation of your mind?

Yeah. But how could it be if your senses are not mental?

[Speaker 3]
Right. The mind interprets it in a way that is mistaken.

[Speaker 1]
Hasa says the mind interprets it in a way which is mistaken. Anyway, here, you got, it hinges here on this phrase, which you are all familiar with from the higher middle way, which is topi taksam. Just a creation of your thoughts.

Just imputed by your mind. Imputed by your mind. So, a magic horse doesn't exist really.

In fact, it's a classical example of topi taksam. Something made up in your head. It's just something made up in your head.

So, magic horses are called simply made up in your head. Therefore, there must be some head stuff going on with the eye.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so this again, this is mind-only school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I would say, you guys were talking about this. What's it called? What's it called?

nyeljor chupay umarangyupa nyeljor chupay umarangyupa yogachara swatantrika Okay, we're over time again, just so you know. Mind...

[Speaker 2]
What do you call it?

[Speaker 1]
It's called mind-only leaning lower middle way. Lower middle way wolves dressed in mind-only sheep's clothing.

[Speaker 2]
I see. Mind-only is definitely the wolves.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You saw what a teddy bear you are with that baby. You can forget that.

Okay, stop.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to be merciful and we're going to go back to the horse, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Do you want me to try and translate anything or should I?

[Speaker 1]
I want you to translate 267 and 268.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
You know, what we found out with words text is that sometimes a sangha is easier to read than the disciples of Je Tsongkhapa and Je Tsongkhapa. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much, Geshe Michael.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we have a major salivating break now. Yeah, eight minutes. Wow.

I might not get to the tomatoes, Nick, okay? Fair enough.

[Speaker 2]
We'll alert the media.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Geshe-la. Those were both two incredible classes. Thank you.

All right, Michael. You sing. Dun-dun-dun.

Dun-dun-dun-dun-dun. Stop videos.