Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 44

[Speaker 1]
And I uploaded it and then I found a mistake right before we started meeting again, so you may have to go up and get the new version. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Venerable Pala, Geshe-la just stood up to go out of the room to meditate, so I think if you want to start your homework that might be advantageous to you. Okay, it's like the opening of the heart sutra. It's amazing.

Once I was there. He went into deep meditation on the meaning of the profound. Once I, yeah.

On the practice called.

[Speaker 1]
How far are you going to go with that, Ben?

[Speaker 2]
The profound. Sometimes.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, I forgot to make a special thing with my translation attempt.

[Speaker 2]
None of us mind.

[Speaker 1]
A special thing. It's a document that can be big enough for people to see.

[Speaker 2]
Sounds like.

[Speaker 1]
Record your screen. And. Quiz, yay.

You see the quiz? Yes, excellent. Looks good.

Okay, so here we go. Thank you for your interest in this text. Thank you for your patience with me as I struggle and be mainly wrong about things.

And. Here we go. So suppose someone were to ask you what's blue made of?

And you quickly answer, oh, it's one of the many visual objects in the world. What did KJJ say about the state of mind that would elicit that kind of answer? That is not paying attention to the question?

Okay, sure. It's a state of mind with no particular motivation. It calls forth a response given without much thought.

What two things did KJJ specifically mention as not being responsible for the relationship between the color blue and the word blue according to the mind only school?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, my God.

[Speaker 1]
This was such an important part of the class. Right, so I mean, just in general. While the color blue mistakenly appears to us to automatically be the object that the word blue refers to, that is the relationship between the two mistakenly appears to be a natural one.

That mistake is not because of some defect inherent to blue. There's not some problem with blue. And then the other one was actually an answer to a question from the last quiz.

So hopefully that's a little clue. Right, the blue of the previous second that triggered the blue of the current instant. Okay, so those two things are not responsible.

[Speaker 2]
Hmm.

[Speaker 1]
For the mistake. Or the relationship. Sorry.

Now, can we say that the color blue is the basis for the word blue? Please explain giving any distinctions between the Sutras school and the mind only school. Oh, the Sutras.

The Sutras believe that it is. Yeah, automatically. I don't know the best word.

What's the word? Automatically a basis. And the mind only school does not.

Yeah, wouldn't the Sutras school say that it's around 10, which is real. And so that so the cheats and applies to their own 10. Right.

[Speaker 2]
By definition.

[Speaker 1]
So, yeah, the color blue appears to be the basis for the word blue. Everyone agrees. Mind only says that only is that only deceptively speaking.

And we say that the color blue is the basis for the word blue. And the Sutras school says that it's by definition. As for the nature of the relationship between the color blue is the basis and the word.

Mind only says that's also strictly conceptual. And therefore, artificial. And Sutras school says the relationship exists by definition.

[Speaker 2]
What's the difference between those two?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good one is the color and one's the relationship. So when you call something something.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Um, it's just that it's. It it gets the name. And then when you talk about the relationship.

It's it seems to me it's different than just that than just labeling. It's how the two it's how the label and the thing relate to each other. Right.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. What is their relationship?

[Speaker 1]
When I say, oh, the sky is blue. Um, when we talk about the sky being the basis, it's just the thing that's being named. OK, when we say that.

This guy is the relationship between the sky is the basis of the name. Blue. Um, it yeah, it's more about the connection between the two of them.

Yeah, it's a connection. Yeah, it's the connection.

[Speaker 2]
It's a basis of like a one way relationship of identity, like. Um, to be the object is to be blue, but being the object isn't necessarily blue, because you could think of it as something else.

[Speaker 1]
I think we may be getting into that later. We guess not.

[Speaker 2]
Uh.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't think about it.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
I haven't thought about it, but I just haven't thought about it. I don't think so. I'm not sure that relationship would go either way.

Um. Yeah, I didn't think about it. I don't think it comes up much.

The question is, is the relationship artificial or not? That's the big question.

[Speaker 2]
There's no even a relationship.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Natural. Is the relationship natural or not? What is the relationship?

I think it's the relationship. It's not the relationship between car and and Toyota. It's the relationship between the word blue and the color blue.

[Speaker 2]
But didn't the last time Mind Only School was saying that there is not even an artificial relationship?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, Hasso asked if the Mind Only School says there's not even an artificial relationship between the color blue and the word blue.

[Speaker 2]
Right, maybe not.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it has to be entirely wrong.

[Speaker 2]
If by relationship we mean really strictly like causal or identity, then I don't see how to establish it. There must be a relationship, but it's just not natural. Otherwise, blue.

Yeah, you would think.

[Speaker 1]
Is blue color in this case? Is the name blue? Is that Drache?

It depends on what school you're talking about. In the Mind Only School? I don't think they would talk about it that way.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I don't see that language in this section. Cool. Okay, let's move on to bigger suffering.

Tibetan. Please give me the Tibetan. Phrase for a wrong idea with no particular motivation.

It would be the Tibetan for the first question. Yay, very good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Has no English. Oh, I forgot the sauce. Sorry.

Has no English equivalent.

[Speaker 2]
Hmm. It is not something inherent.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, you can say inherent also. Yeah. The word we've been using a lot for words, terms, and conventions.

The word caterpie has been using a lot for words, terms, and conventions.

[Speaker 3]
Rane?

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Thank you. Yay.

[Speaker 2]
It's blue, I think.

[Speaker 1]
I thought it was yellow. Good homework. Good homework.

Very good homework. Okay. Do you see just the word document or do you see other things on my screen?

We can still see the other things on your screen.

[Speaker 2]
Now it's just the word document. If you can blow it up a little bit. There you go.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Thank you. It's so big I have to move across the room.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Good. Good.

Give me a moment to see this. Visible form being the basis of words versus people. Okay.

Okay. Okay. But visible form being the basis of words.

Okay, I like it. Okay. I like it.

[Speaker 2]
Second paragraph.

[Speaker 1]
Tom. When visible form appears to the eye consciousness, it appears as if it were the location where we're inside. Okay.

That it exists the way it appears by definition. Oh. That it exists the way it appears by definition is accepted.

Yeah, you can say that. Okay, good. Good.

Okay. Good. By the way, just Utpala, note that for ne in the second line.

Right. He's been using she all along and he's going to go back to using she. He's going to try to draw a distinction between calling it she and calling it you.

Okay. Meaning the basis to which the word applies or the object to which the word applies. And he's going to try to draw a distinction between she and you.

Okay. Is this the foundation for the word blue? Or is this the object that the word blue refers to?

And when you say she, it could be false. And when you say you, it is not normally false. And in that last paragraph you had up, he has fudged it by saying ne.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. It's a very subtle thing. But okay, I'll say it again.

Is blue the object to which the word blue refers? And see, when you say object in Buddhism, you imply correct, solid, real. Okay.

Is blue the thing, is blue the you to which the word blue applies? When you say it that way, the blue has to kind of be real. When you say, is blue the she or the place that the word blue refers to?

Okay. Which often means shenshi, what you think is there. Okay.

Then it draws it into doubt. Okay. Then it, maybe it's not a real thing.

Okay. So you can call blue the she of the word blue. Then it means the thing you call blue.

Okay. When you say it's the you of the word blue, when you say blue is the you of the word blue, it means blue is the object referred to as blue. Then that kind of implies the blue is real.

When you use the word object instead of foundations. You didn't know that's the nature of blues? Nature of what?

Oh yeah, you'll, yeah. And technically, in Adam's book, Dura, she and you are synonyms. The universe is called she, and the universe is called you, okay?

Or sheja, or youpa, okay? But I'm just saying in that last paragraph, if you're very sensitive, you're gonna have to use a third word for ne, which could have been she or could have been you. He's playing with us.

All right. Just, just a thing. All right.

All right. Well, I did use locations, so hopefully that'll fit the bill. I, I like that you chose that, and I think it's a wise choice.

Uh, I, I thought that was really smart. Well, I don't know if it was smart. It was just lucky, I think.

Well, it was, or it was really good luck, which is about the same thing. Okay. Now, Geshe-la, we talked about, um, going back a little bit.

I mean, in my notes, it's, I have, I wrote down that you asked the question, does there exist a connection between blue and the word blue? And I wrote down that you said the second school said yes automatically, and the third school said yes artificially. Okay.

But then at the end of class, you said it doesn't exist at all. Not even deceptively. Uh, yeah, that might be a Majimika opinion.

Can I say that?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. Tell us.

[Speaker 1]
Sure, you can, you can say pretty much anything you'd like to. Well, no, no, I mean, okay. Uh, let's go forward and we'll find, we'll see, we'll see.

They're going to do, this is a long discussion. I kept hoping it was going to end, but it's not. Okay, so we're stuck.

I thought, you know, when I was working on your text today, I thought that, uh, and by the way, I was working on it in the car, and I thank again, Ali, for driving me everywhere, because it gives me, that's some of the only private time I can get. Uh, so there's, remember the six flavors of emptiness teaching we did for a while? Yes.

And two of those flavors were from the Mind Only school. And I thought to understand the next section, it might be good to talk about those two flavors, just briefly. Okay, so I put them here.

Uh, the flavor number three, I think it was, three, uh, please read, uh, Utpala. Yeah, that's the first of two popular Mind Only flavors of emptiness. That's the first of two popular Mind Only flavors of emptiness, okay?

Uh, the blue, su, okay? And, uh, sema, which perceives that blue, okay? Perceptual, grabs it, zen.

Uh, that, those two are empty of being made of a separate substance, which is to say, they are of the same substance, which is to say that the blue is made of the same thing as the mind perceiving the blue, because it's in the refrigerator.

[Speaker 2]
This thing, though.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's in the refrigerator, okay? So the blue, uh, and the big emptiness, this big emptiness in the Mind Only school is, do you want to know what emptiness is in the Mind Only school? Yeah, there's no outside visible objects.

The lack of those outside visible objects is emptiness. That's emptiness. You, and, and those outside visible objects, they're the gaccha.

And outside blue is the gaccha in the Mind Only school, okay? Why? Because you're looking at a blue in your own mind.

Okay, cool. So that's the first kind of gaccha. Yeah.

Now here's the second kind of gaccha. Pleased to read, Utpala. kye che pe tanay kyi juk shir rang gi tsenay kyi no, not kyi, kyi druk pe tongpa The universe is empty of things that are automatically called what they're called.

Okay. The universe is empty of things that are automatically called what they're called. Putting a name on a thing is always artificial.

It's never natural, okay? Okay? That's the kyu kyu here is very confusing.

The first kyu means the outside blue. Oh, sorry, the blue that you see. The first kyu is the blue that you see, it, okay?

kyu she pe tanay means the word blue. Okay, blue and the word blue, okay? That's kyu kyu.

Kyu, kyu, blue and blue. But the second kyu is the word blue, okay? So blue is not the object that gets the word blue automatically.

rang gi tsenay kyi druk pe, okay? And that's the gag ja. The gag ja is any color blue that would have gotten the name blue automatically, okay?

It's random. It's just up to you what you call it, okay? Things are not automatically related to the words we use for them.

If you think they are, that's a gag ja. Okay, cool? In whose school?

Uh, in the Mahayana school. Now, I challenge you guys, and I want you to cook something. And I think it's going to help you have a breakthrough in this next difficult page or two.

Are these two kinds of gag ja related? I mean, they can't be because they don't exist, but as a gag ja they exist. I mean, is there a connection between understanding that the blue is part of your own mind and understanding that the word for blue was, what do you call that?

Automatic. Artificially. Applied.

Artificial. Random. You could have called it fish.

You could have called it anything, okay? I'll say it again. Is there a connection between understanding that blue, what looks to be outside blue is actually blue in your own kunshi that you're just watching inside your own kunshi, okay?

Is there a connection between that and understanding that blue is not the object of the name blue automatically? I think so, Geshe-la. Haven't I...

Sorry, did you want to go, Venerable? Oh yeah, I just wanted to say if we don't use the word random, then I say there's a connection between the two. I don't want to say random because if we use random, then it doesn't necessarily mean that the kunshi...

[Speaker 2]
Arbitrary.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I was looking for... Who said arbitrary? God bless you.

I want to say arbitrary. It could have been anything, okay? But is there a connection between these two kinds of emptiness?

Because they're both from the same school. I have an idea. They made one.

I think Word wants to express it. Yeah, I think Word wants to say this, yeah. Thank you.

And I think I can even bring in the nunjukibakchak to tie them together. That's the only thing we do understand in this text. I think what ties...

The idea... I don't know, having thought about minority school for the last six years, I think that the bakchak where we see things based on the fact that we've been talking about it that way from beginningless time or whatever, one of the biggest nunjukibakchaks is seeing objects as outer. So we merely label objects as outer when, in fact, they're in the kushi.

But we just see them that way because we've been saying that forever and ever and ever. Nice. So you have tied the two kinds of emptiness together.

Calling them outside is the second kind of bakchak here. And being outside, appearing to be outside when they're not outside, is the first kind of bakchak here. So we're saying, yeah, there is a sweet connection between these two kinds of emptiness.

When you call it blue, you're thinking of it as outside blue. When you call it blue and you misunderstand how the word applies to blue in an arbitrary way, you're also somehow believing that the blue is outside. Yeah.

Calling things blue arbitrarily and believing that they aren't just a part of your own mind are somehow related. Okay, I just threw it out, and I think it might help us understand the next section. Okay, please read—Oh, Paula, you finished this one, right?

Yep, I did that one, and I did 290 as well. Okay, let's go to 291. Okay, I'm going to start with you, Paula, and then you're going to choose somebody else to suffer.

To have fun, to have joyful effort in planting seeds, to understand Tibetan. Okay. Yeah, so to start with, this difficult sentence is saying that this difficult sentence starts with the words, what they're not saying is, okay, nobody's saying the following, okay?

Nobody's believing the following, okay? Döpa ming ki means, look, nobody's saying the following. Nobody, when they use it in that way in this section, don't forget they're really heavily comparing the mind-only ideas to the— Sutras.

Sutras ideas. So he says, look, nobody's saying—and now we have to figure out what they're not saying, okay? Nobody's saying, do sem nyi ka.

What's that mean? The two of the sutras and the mind-only's. Yeah, neither one of these schools, to say it in English, English requires that you say neither one.

In Tibetan, you say both of them don't say. You're required in English to say neither one of them does say. And a lot of translators never get that, okay?

We don't say in English, Parso and Daniel don't say the same thing. We say what they're saying is not that. Neither guy is saying that.

That's how we say it in English, okay? Neither the sutra school or the mind-only school is saying that, when, when, say, okay? When, when suk appears to the wang she.

When blue appears to the eye consciousness. Yeah, and by the way, the reason we're talking about eye consciousness here is to talk about how deep the problem is. It's not just that you're seeing the wrong way.

Sorry, thinking the wrong way. Even your eyeball is seeing the wrong way, okay? The infection has gone from your conscious mind to your senses.

And that's what they're really interested in here. They talked about theoretically believing that blue is called blue or not. But now they say, do these things lie to your eyes as well as your mind?

Because if they do, we're in deep trouble. Okay, good? All right, got it?

Wang she lak tu nang may say, when blue appears to your eyeball, Eye consciousness, right? It's not saying eyeball. Yeah, well, I'm trying to make it simple, okay?

Yeah, okay. Hey, Wang she lak tu nang may say, su gyi tra nyen gyi rang do yang nangway go ne, dey shir nangwar dukpa min kyi. Nobody's saying that the word itself, the blue word itself is appearing and that that blue appears to be the basis of the word blue, okay?

Nobody's saying that the eye awareness of what you see is thinking to itself, oh, the word blue applies to this thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? You okay? Here, rang dok doesn't mean, we're not talking about shing dong rang dok, rang ten.

Sometimes in Tibetan, rang dok just means that thing itself, okay? If we're talking about the word itself, it's not as if your eyeball believes that the word blue applies to the color. That's not what the debate's about, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? That's not what we're talking about, all right? Nobody's saying that, all right?

Yeah, go ahead. I was just saying, is it ta neng misspelled there? Which one?

Ta neng, middle of the second sentence. Probably. Yeah, it should be on that.

You're right, yeah. Excuse my interruption. No, it's interesting that they misspelled it though, because then they put the pronunciation, right?

So, but it goes on to say the basis, so somehow we have to add in about the basis. The blue doesn't appear to the perception of blue as being the basis of the word blue. The blue does not appear to the visual perception of the blue as being the object of the word blue.

Being the basis of the word blue, right? Because we're going to get into objects. Well, basis, yeah, yeah.

You can say that, yeah. Okay, but when you look at blue with your eyes, it's not that at that time it is appearing to your eye consciousness to be the object of the word blue. Your eyeballs don't think, is this blue?

Is this what we call blue? Okay, that's not the debate. That's not the debate, okay?

Uncang has been put in parentheses wrongly. It was just carved smaller, so they made a mistake, okay? I'm trying to fit words on the page.

Yeah, it's very confusing. On top of it being super difficult. Okay, who's gonna read?

Venerable Chunsam, please. Are you here?

[Speaker 3]
Who?

[Speaker 1]
Venerable Chunsam.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah. Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
Nice, a tough, tough, tough stuff, okay? Let's try. I'm gonna go to here, nika, okay?

In the fifth line here. So now we know when this text says both, they're talking about second school and the third school, okay? Both of them agree that terms are being applied to objects.

Both of them agree that words are being applied to things. We're gonna talk about it later. And, but there's a mitumba between them, okay?

But they don't agree, okay? So they both agree to something in the first part of this sentence, which we're gonna get to, okay? But they disagree on whether the way things appear to the mind at that moment, okay, nang tso, nang tso, whether it exists by definition or not.

Is the appearance natural or not? The appearance of the object or the appearance of the word? They didn't describe it yet, okay?

So let's just go there. They both agree that something is appearing, okay? They both agree that something is appearing here.

Something appears to be, okay? But they disagree about whether it's natural or not, whether it's automatic or not, okay? By the way, the sutras believe it's natural.

And the mind only believes it's not natural. It's artificial, okay? What?

And now we got to get to the what, okay? When suk, when blue, okay, when blue appears to your visual awareness, okay, di suk shepa'i min khanla jukpa'i shi nang tso yupe, it looks to you like this is what we call blue. When blue appears to your visual awareness, you can think to yourself, this is the thing that I call blue, okay?

This is what I call blue, okay? Does that relationship appear to your sense powers, sense awarenesses, okay? Let's take a guess.

So quiet. Let's go. I want to go to here, okay?

And then we'll go backwards, okay? shen te topa, te la shen te topa, okay?

[Speaker 2]
You're being nasty, like a really bad idea.

[Speaker 1]
I told you. Yeah, I told you we were going to try to make a distinction between shi and yul, okay? We're going to try to make a distinction between shi and yul.

Shi means basis of perception. But that shi could be false. But when you say a yul of perception, an object, when you say object in Tibetan, it's more likely to be super real, okay?

So when you, now, this verb shen is crucial in this paragraph, okay? Shen means what, you guys? The attachment.

It's the way you hold it. The way you think about it. Yeah, we had an old lojong call.

We had an old lojong from the Sakyas called shenpa shidro, in the ACI courses. Shenpa shidro, freedom from the four attachments, okay? So shenpa means craving.

Shenpa means attachment. Shenpa means to think of something in the wrong way. Shenpa is always false, okay?

Shenpa is always false, okay? And if you studied the DCI Advanced Level 2, we went through it with the apple, okay? And it's what you believe is there.

We translated it as what you believe is there because the word believe implies you might be wrong, okay? I believe he's there. Is Daniel at the college?

I believe he's there. And then that means you're not sure, right? So shen here means a perception which might be wrong.

It's probably wrong, okay? Got it? Tokpa, is that a correct perception or not?

Yeah, without the additional S, without the S at the end, tokpa means I think so, okay? I think so. When you say, I believe Daniel's at the college, well, are you sure?

I think so. Especially when you say it that way. Tokpa means I think so.

I might be wrong, okay? Now, important for this section. When a sense awareness perceives an object, we use this verb.

We use what?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we use R-T-O-G. And in that case, it means perceive, okay? When the verb that you use to say, I saw it, I heard it, I smelled it, I tasted it, I felt it, it's always tokpa without the S.

It's interesting, right? So in this section, this tokpa is a landmine. You gotta be careful.

It could mean a wrong idea. I think he's there. Or it could mean I saw it, I smelled it, okay?

And those sense perceptions, we give them the verb tokpa. Well, that's another question, okay? Now, in a couple of paragraphs, he's gonna say tokpa shen shi, okay?

Say tokpa shen shi. What's that mean? Tokpa shen shi.

I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Shi is a verb?

[Speaker 1]
Foundation.

[Speaker 2]
No, foundation, yeah. Okay, tokpa shen.

[Speaker 1]
The thoughts are the... Foundation of craving? No, no.

It means what you think you see, okay? Tokpa shen shi means what you think you see is called tokpa shen shi, okay? And it's a very important phrase in this discussion, okay?

Tokpa shen shi implies that it's...

[Speaker 2]
Not what it's really, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
For example, an outside blue is a tokpa shen shi in the mind knowledge, okay? It's something you think you see and you probably don't see, okay? Now, I've got a...

Okay, so you're comfortable with tokpa shen shi? It's gonna come over and over. Here, it's in a different order, but it's the same thing.

In the following paragraphs, they're gonna say, who's to blame when you have a tokpa shen shi going on, okay? Who's to blame when you think something's there implied you're not seeing it correctly, okay? Who's to blame?

Okay, word, tell us. Mun juk gi. Yeah, mun juk gi, bak chak.

Bak chak, wow, okay? So, what's to blame when you think you see something is always that billion-year-old habit of calling it that, okay? Billion-year-old bad habit of calling it that is always responsible for tokpa shen shi.

Of course, I think it's there. I think blue is automatically called blue, okay? And that's the classic tokpa shen shi.

I think that the word blue is not an artificial decision by whoever uses words in the universe, okay? And the whole thing is that you could have called it yellow. You could have called it potato.

You could have called it anything. It's not natural. The words you select to refer to things is not natural, okay?

And thoughts are very connected to words, which means the way you think of people or the way you think about anything is arbitrary, okay? It just depends on your karma. It could have been yellow.

It could have been called yellow, and it could have been yellow. Blue could have been yellow if you had different seeds. That's what they're trying to say.

And by the way, what's the first topic of all the duras in the universe? White. Red and white.

Oh, yeah. Kadokarma. And there were years in my life when I thought, this is just for beginners.

This is the first debate every monk ever has in their life is kadokarma. Can things be all red and all white at the same time, okay? That's the topic, okay?

And it's so cute. You see these eight-year-olds debating it, and they're like, and so they're having a lot of fun, you know? This is always the first debate.

And suddenly, halfway through Adam's book, I realized this is the most profound debate. Does blue have to be blue? Could red be white?

Could something be all red to one person and all white to somebody else? Aren't colors the one thing that we hold to as being the most self-existent thing in the universe, okay? Are you saying that I could see Daniel's shirt as all white and somebody else could see it as all red?

Because white and red are classically contradictory. You cannot be all red and all white at the same time. And yet, it is.

Daniel's shirt is all white, and Daniel's shirt is all red at the same time to different beings with different barchaks, okay? Cool? And that's the ultimate kind of emptiness.

You know, I understand you could like Neil Young. I could not like Neil Young, or it might be the other way around. But for you to perceive a shirt as white at the same time I perceive it as red, God, that's radical, you know?

Even the colors I see are coming from me, and that's why they chose blue in this school. And that's why they're talking about red and white is the first debate of all debates. And I would wager that there's not two monks in Saramé who know why it came to us, you know?

It's that colors, among all things, seem to be natural, you know? You can't... I can understand you can say I like Daniel's haircut or I don't like Daniel's haircut, but to disagree about that, but to disagree about the color of his shirt, is that also coming from me?

And then, yeah, okay? So anyway, back to this sentence, tokpay shen shi, the foundation of your wrong idea is mun juk gi bak cha kyi, okay? Here's the phrase here, and I want you to learn it, okay?

Please repeat, mun juk gi bak cha kyi What's sojong mean? The repairing, restoring ceremony. Yeah, it's the ceremony of restoration and cleansing.

Soa means to restore something that was broken. Kangpa soa means to renovate a cafe, for example, okay? The word for renovation is soa, okay?

Soa means to renovate something, and... To work in a six-pack seat. Yeah, and the verb for what your billion-year-old seat does with the feeling you have about the name Blue in the Blue, okay?

The feeling that you have about Daniel's shirt color being self-existent or not, okay? The feeling, the wrong feeling that you have about it was soa by your mun juk gi bak cha. That's the verb he chose to use.

Soa also means to make up something from scratch. Okay. Soa also means to make up something from scratch.

It's just a construct. G-S-O is the exact perfect Tibetan word to use here. It's just made up.

Fabricated. Yeah, fabricated is great. By the way, this soa also is the word for medicine.

Right. So you fix. Yeah, sorek is the science of medicine, okay?

So soa means to fix an illness also. To cure an illness is also called soa. And they're all related to simba, which means alive.

So it livens you up when you're almost dead, okay? Anyway, this seed from countless lifetimes of saying it that way, mun juk, right? This deep seed in your mind from countless lifetimes of talking as if blue was blue, that appearance that blue is what we call blue is made up falsely, artificially, arbitrarily by that mental seed of having said it that way for countless lifetimes, okay?

And now the blue is called shen shi, okay? What's that mean? Shen shi.

Shen shi. There's this thing you imagine out there, right? Yeah, it's what you imagine is out there.

And then if you want the full form, it's dok pei shen shi, okay? It's the thing you think is there. I think it's there, okay?

When you say I think it's there, you are under the influence of your billion-year-old seed. That's all he wants to say. When you say dok pei shen shi, I think it's true, you are under the influence of seeds that you planted for billions of lifetimes of talking about it that way, mun ju, okay?

Now, the only last thing we have now, and the time is perfect, what's the shen shi, okay? The seed from countless lifetimes of talking about it that way, mun ju gi bak chak gi, has made up a certain situation, so ah, where we have a dok pei shen shi. We believe something about something without evidence, without truth, we're just in the habit, all right?

What is it that blue could apply to blue? Hmm, okay. suk she pei ming applies to suk, okay?

All right, the word blue applies to the color blue automatically, okay? Who thinks that? Who's having a problem?

Some state of mind is believing that the word blue applies to blue automatically. What is that state of mind? It's not an opinion.

It's a sense perception level. It's a goddamn sense perception, okay? How are you going to get out of sansara if your eyes are lying to you?

And that's what's going on. Your eye, your visual awareness is assuming that blue is what you call blue. And you do that because of countless lifetimes of doing that, of thinking that way.

That's why it'll come. Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
That's what creates that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Tim said an interesting thing. That's what creates your sansara. Can I say eye, or impermanent eye, or dying eye?

Okay, that's what makes your eye dying. Oh, we're way over time. We're a couple minutes over time.

Utpala, a quick summary, and we're going to come back to 292 because I know you love this paragraph.

[Speaker 2]
Um, okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, the mind-only school and the sutra school differ about one, except that when a visible object appears to the eye, it's by definition, and the other does not. Sutras does, mind-only does not. That's about it.

Okay, good. And I keep thinking about this question that Ben Kramer asked a couple of times ago. Uh, Geshe-la, I don't see the big utility, or what's the use of knowing that the word blue doesn't apply to the color blue?

Because anyway, we use different languages to say blue anyway. So, what's the big deal? And I do understand, I do agree with Ben, something deeper is going on here.

Thinking of that patch of color as blue, how's that? Is that natural? You have a square inch of blue, and you think of it as blue color.

Forget words, okay? You see a square, it has the blue color, and you think it is blue by nature, and not because of your karma. Or you even think of color, period, or shape, period.

Yeah. That's all by virtue of that ngun chok gi pak chok. Yeah, if you didn't have those seeds, you might live in the harmless world, and you wouldn't see blues or shapes, okay?

I mean, even color is not self-existent, that's the thing. And it's so basic that we can't even understand what he's talking about. Color is not coming from its own side.

All right. What would you like me to do? By the way, I want you guys to think about why that debate is the first debate in the door.

It's not a mistake. It's very profound. And it's not some kid's debate.

It's the highest debate you're going to have. Okay. Thank you, Geshe-la.

What would you like me to do next time? Count how many pizzas I'm about to eat? No.

Okay, good. I'll just ask the jigme. Okay.

Let's do 292 and 293 and 294, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Whereas Sugeng's text requires backing up from the text and not looking too close, your text requires taking small pieces and translating them very literally, and then stringing them together. Seriously, seriously, okay? Then you'll understand it, okay?

It's a different approach to two different texts. Cool. Cool.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
All right. See you guys shortly. Take five.

I don't... Nick, I don't see those boxes. But Chloe is gone, which is hopeful.

All right. Which boxes are you talking about? Pizza boxes?

Pizza boxes. Pizza boxes. Of course.

Yeah. Yeah, okay. See you guys in 10...

What time, Nick? 6.40? Well, we can start late since we went late if you want.

Do you want to do that? Well, it's only one minute. I got 6.31, so do we say 6.40? Usually it's 6.35. Oh, who's up next? You also started late. It was only a 55-minute class.

Oh, Nick's up next. We can start whenever is good for you, boss. Let's start at 6.40 and go to 7.40. Okay. Okay. We'll go for one hour. Ooh, just an hour.

See you in nine minutes. He's the boss. He's the boss.

We got to pull some strings.

[Speaker 2]
You guys need to go.

[Speaker 1]
Whatever. Thank you for class.

[Speaker 2]
That was really fun.