Бетси Грир — Книга 2: Интерлюдия о пустоте, занятие 51

[Speaker 2]
Quizify? Yes, don't expect too much of me.

[Speaker 1]
Um, you will, you will do just fine.

[Speaker 2]
In the long run, I'm sure that's true.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, welcome to the last quiz of the term. Thank you for sticking in there. May you continue to stick in there for the rest of the 20 years it's going to take to finish the book.

The rest of our lives. What's that? I think you're, is your microphone on?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, she is. I can hear you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, all right. Okay, so, uh, yeah, let's set our intention. You go ahead, you go ahead.

That we realize emptiness. If not completely understand the mind only school's position on the nature of reality. Okay, last class.

We learned that according to Arya Asanga and Master Vasubandhu, uh, one of the four conditions is explained as applying to the consistency potential of the immediately preceding moment. And that's rick to a Bach talk. If you prefer the Tibetan over the English, which I think I do at this point.

What was that condition? Or what is that condition?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, it was the first, but I don't remember the name. Oh, so condition, something like that. It's the causal condition, which is cute.

Now word, which of the four conditions seems on its face to be more related. Yay. What is, what is that in English?

The condition immediately proceeding or proceeding. Wonderful. Okay.

Every occurrence of something to a sense consciousness has three aspects. What are the three and what is the Tibetan for each? And, um, he put them in an order.

That, uh, was a little different than we usually talk about these three, which is a huge hint, but the order is related to like, it's, um, should we say it's accordance with, with what scene? That's a huge hint. Okay.

Ready? No, those are three things. That's good.

Yeah. Yeah. I think the first one is Shen one as Chloe.

Yes, it is. It's an appearance to a single consciousness of an object that exists the way it appears by definition, not be definition, I think under the influence of something else or Shen. What's the next one?

DWI under the influence. Yeah. Yeah.

An appearance of an object that exists only nominally, merely labeled by name and mental image and mental construct. And the last one. Yeah.

An appearance of an object labeled by thought that doesn't exist nominally and can't be posited as existing the way it appears established reality. Younger. What kind of potential is involved with the aspect where the object exists the way it appears?

Yeah, we got it. We had a new kind of bathtub last time. Oh, it's a difficult, it's a difficult, uh, it's a difficult word.

Come on, Oscar. I know you've got it. I'm thinking like the back check that makes you see a cop outside and the back check that makes you see a cop, something like that.

No, we already, we've been talking about that one for quite a while. This is, this is less to do with like, what its result is then, uh, how it is. A firmly established potential.

What's the Tibetan? Yeah, very good. Okay.

We've talked about how things appear in three aspects to a sense consciousness. What about can things conceived of by a conceptual consciousness also be divided into three?

[Speaker 2]
I would think.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I was going to say that. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
I guess the shape of looking at a contact would be, uh, Shen Wong.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Um, there, there are three conceptions, but they're separate conceptions. So, um, not three aspects of a single conceptual thought.

Where they are. Oh, okay. They are to a sense consciousness.

Three aspects of a single, um, appearance to sense consciousness. And when you say conceptual consciousness, are we referring to the sixth? You know, like the.

We're referring to a, uh, Shempe Pakpa. Sorry, but to an aria? Shempe Pakpa, sorry.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Where's that translation? Yeah. Yeah.

It's coming. It's coming. Oh, who's that?

Uh, but Paul, you have translation. Yep. Yep.

Yep. I'm just having technical issues. Hey, Mr. Nick, while she's. Here it is. Uh, Mr. Nick, um, another sponsor has offered 3000 if they can be matched. Oh, wow.

Bet on the table. So this is, I mean, like an additional 3000 to match. Yeah.

So if you can raise six, me and this other person will give you six. Okay. I'm going to post the link immediately in the, uh, just our job.

It has to be in this cow, but that's the trick. Okay. You're not doing it.

Oh, it has to be during what? Change. Okay.

All right. That works. I will keep you posted.

Sure. Whoa. Okay.

This is hard. Okay. Good.

First part's good. But even though a mental image. Mm.

I got this translation from Adam's text. No, that's good. That's all right.

Yeah. So how are you translating? Which we had a lot in DCI, for example, right?

Yeah. So doing she is a mental image. I also got that from Adam's text.

[Speaker 3]
And.

[Speaker 1]
A drudgy sound, which is the general archetype. Okay. Uh, somebody explain it to me.

Relative to France. Wait, okay. Say it again.

Jachi is when you've heard about the Eiffel tower at elementary school, but you never went there to see. And then she is, if you've actually been to Paris and seen the Eiffel tower. Does that help?

Does that make a difference? If you mean to how I translated it? Yeah.

No. That's my. Uh, so if you don't know what the word, if you don't know the word for something, but you perceive it, and then you think of it later, you will just get a dingy.

You will get an image in your mind based on having actually seen that thing, but you will not get a dodgy. For those who don't know the word, they won't get a dodgy. Right.

To use. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, yeah, they will not get a dodgy, but they will get a dingy.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They will, but they won't get the name, name, image based on the name. Right. Which resulted from your teacher using words to explain the Eiffel tower to you.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

There, you can either have a memory of, you can see the Eiffel tower in your mind, and that's called an actual mental construct. Construct of the actual thing. And then you can also have a dodgy, which is a construct of what you heard about the actual thing, which is just what your teacher told you in grade school about the Eiffel tower.

Okay. Now, if your original perceiver doesn't know the word for something, they cannot have later a mental image based on the word. But they can have a mental image based on the thing.

Okay. Got it? If they never heard of the thing.

Do you think that knowing the name for a physical object makes much difference in how you see it with your sense organs? Yeah. I'll say it again.

If you didn't know the name popcorn, and I showed you a piece of popcorn, would knowing the name popcorn change the image in your mind much when I show it to you? They say not really, not much. It's just a yellow blob.

Okay. All right. tan yi gi ja chi ma shawin way, therefore, nang tso tar gyi da jor ma shepa tsam shik kye pa ro.

Therefore, the only distinction between a person seeing something and not knowing the name, and a person seeing something and knowing the name, is just whether or not later they can give it the correct name to what they saw. and it doesn't affect how they see it. Because they see the dunji but not the dachi.

Later they have a perception of the image of the thing as it was, even though they don't have a perception of what the thing was called. Which school? What was the question?

This is some Madhyamika guy which I got in the room. We can get him out though. Okay, next paragraph, Upala.

I had a hard time with this. Like, what the heck is this? So I don't mind this.

Yeah, I think that's okay. I think that's okay. I think that's okay.

I don't think it means more than that. So, in this, the question is this, okay, I have a blue object here, and I have a blue object here, and before you call it cup, before you call it cup, is there something there before you call it cup? Yeah, there's kind of an unnamed thing there in my hand.

You don't know the word cup, right? So I've got this. It's solid.

Does it exist before you call it cup? Is it like really real before you call it cup? Yeah, because in the higher schools, it's not real until you call it cup.

But you got to get used to in these lower, especially in the second school, before you gave it a name, it was a real cup. You just didn't know the name for it, okay? So what about in the Mind Only School?

Was it a cup before you named it a cup? No. In the Mind Only School?

No. I think they would say if it functions as a cup, it was real, you didn't have to know the name, okay? Yeah, so the thing that receives the label cup, is it real?

Yeah, it's real. It just didn't get called cup yet. In the higher school, it's not cup until it gets the name cup, okay?

So, and the conception cup. So they would say the thing that you give a name, blue, or the thing that you give the names of characteristics, like changing, okay? Whether you name this a blue thing, or whether you name this a changing thing, it's here, right?

It's here. It receives the name. What name?

Two. Blue and changing. So, by the way, blue is its essence.

It's called this color blue. And then changing is some of its qualities. This all relates very importantly to the unique kind of bhagyak that Venerable Uddhapala started out with today, in her homework.

Tenjungi bhagyat. Tenjungi bhagyat, right? The reason you give this blue color its name, blue, and the reason you give this blue color other attributes such as changing, is due to...

it's not so much due to a karmic seed from billions of years, in the way that outsideness is coming from that kind of seed. This kind of seed is coming from some kind of very... they call it a deeply fixed seed.

Tenjungi bhagyat, okay? Deeply fixed seed, that you feel like it must be blue and it must be changing, okay? Well, if you felt distance, if I...

that comes from a different seed. Feeling that this cup is not inside your mind, comes from that billion-year-old seed. But feeling that it should be called blue, or it should be called changing, comes from a different seed, which is called, you know, a firmly rooted seed, or something like that, okay?

All right. Mm-hmm. ta nyik'i shir ranggitsa nyik'i jupa laway nang tsultar du shenpa tokpe suma tar jupa gokpe ripa ni.

So somebody says, it appears as though the cup, before you called it the blue here, before you call it blue and before you called it changing, okay, it appears that it existed by definition before that. The cup was blue and changing before you referred to it as blue and changing, okay? Tokpe suma tar jupa gokpe.

We're gonna deny that. We're gonna deny that this was blue and changing from its own side before you called it that, okay? And we're gonna deny that.

How are we gonna deny that? We're gonna use rikpa from? Take two.

What's take two? The summary of the greater way, written by Master Sangha, okay? He's gonna address the question of whether this is natural or not.

The two attributes, blue and changing, okay? How much of an object is there before you name it? That's the question.

How much of an object is there before you name it? And here's the famous quotation in take two. We had this one earlier and it wasn't one that I was supposed to translate this time but I thought I should still include it since it's in the flow.

Yeah, exactly, you should and you did right. So we had this in your book already? I don't remember.

Yes, we did. And we put it, actually we're putting it in a footnote because it mentions only the beginning line and then we went and found it and translated it and we're putting it in a footnote. Okay, do you want to read the translation and kind of talk about it?

But can you, can you ask someone to read the Tibetan first? I'll just read it. ming gi ngag rol lo may chir, mangway chir dang man dray chir, de yi dak nyi dak man thang, dak dang dray galway druk pang yur, she sung pey ten te.

As for explaining it, there's no way I could, but it says before it is ever given the name, there is no idea of it. It would be many and they would never mix. There would be many itself, or it would be themselves.

And so our point is proven by these inconsistencies. There's problems with the idea that names belong to objects, okay, that you couldn't call this a fish, for example. Okay, there's problems with thinking that.

And we're gonna go through the problems. Okay, here we go. And all those problems are summarized in that verse, but that doesn't make any sense to read the commentary.

Here's the commentary. Who's gonna read Utpala? Can I just finish this and then when we get to yours then other people can start?

Okay, I've seen that the round pot-bellied thing being the basis of the word pot is always part of it, independently of the word. RIG PA DONG MA NI, LTOS DER BA'I BUM PA'I THA GNYIS KYI SHES SBYOR PA'I LTAR LA BSTAN MI STOD PAR THAL LTOS DER BA'I BUM PA'I THA GNYIS KYI SHES So LTOS DER BA'I means that little round-bellied thing, and it's not referring to me. That little round-bellied thing.

Is it the she of the of the word cup or vase, okay? Vase. Pot, okay?

By the way, the definition of a pot, part of the definition of a pot is round-bellied thing. He says, is the round-bellied thing what is given the name pot, yes or no? Yeah.

Is it, THA GNYIS KYI SHES SBYOR PA, to decide whether or not it is the thing given the name pot, would you have to use words? He says no. Would you have to not use words at all?

BSTAN MI STOD PAR means completely not depend on it, okay? So LTOS DER BA'I BUM PA'I THA GNYIS KYI SHES SBYOR PA LTAR LA BSTAN MI STOD PAR THAL Why? DE'I LTOS DER BA'I RANG GI NGOS PA NAS TSUL KYI YIN GYIS NGOS NAS RANG GI DRIN GYIS DUS PA'I PHYIR I'm gonna read the second part.

They, that round-bellied thing, they're called pot. LTOS DER BA, is it true that the LTOS DER BA, the round-bellied thing, exists from its own side, in this school? In the Mainomi school, does the round-bellied thing exist from its own side?

Is the round-bellied thing, is the round-bellied thing self-existently deserve the name pot? No, no. Okay, we say not, okay?

Here they say DA LA BSTAN MI STOD. It doesn't depend on names at all. DE'I LTOS DER BA RANG GI NGOS PA NAS TSUL KYI YIN NGOS NAS RANG GI DRIN GYIS DUS PA'I PHYIR Yeah, the fact that it's a round-bellied thing doesn't depend on calling it anything, right?

Okay, okay, so far so good. Okay, 3.26, oh sorry, you're done. Okay, let's go.

Hang on, I gotta get your text out. No, okay, okay, now I'm gonna take you guys over there, okay, 3.26, okay. Uh, who's gonna read Utpala?

Venerable Chinsen, please. Does a round-bellied ceramic thing deserve to be called pot? Well, then it should be called fish.

Okay, so anyway, LTOS DER BA means a little round-bellied thing. We call it a pot, okay? NYAM PA'I LO BSKYED LA I gotta say, LTOS DER BA LA BUD PA'O NYAM PA'I LO BSKYED LA DA LA Could you, when you see a round-bellied thing, could you think this is a pot without using words?

You could. DA LA MA LTOS PAR SKYAG TA Then we're saying, if the word belongs to the thing independently, then you wouldn't have to think of the word pot. It would just like announce itself as a pot, okay?

If the word pot applied to the round-bellied thing self-existently, then it wouldn't be waiting for you to give it the name pot, okay? It would be pot, I don't know, somehow it'd be pot by its own side, okay? DER PA DE'I PHYIR So, the question is, is the round-bellied thing suggesting the word pot to you?

No, okay? It could be anything, and there's many languages in the world, right? Okay, who's next, Utpala?

I would like Venerable Chintam to continue, please, through this reason. NDUN NA THO DER BA LA BUM PA SHES MING MA THAB PA'I NGA ROL DU'ANG THO DER BA THONG BA TZAM NAS NDUN GUNG PA'O NYAM PA'I LO SKYE BA LTA LUNG Okay, if you say that the name pot belongs to the pot-bellied thing automatically, then before you call the pot-bellied thing a pot, before you call the round-bellied thing a pot, okay? Before you call the round-bellied thing a pot, just by seeing the THO DER BA, what's that, the round-bellied?

The round-bellied thing. And if the name applied to the round-bellied thing automatically, then the moment you saw it, the word pot should come up in your mind, okay? Okay?

That's okay, right? All right, BUM PA NYAM PA'I LO SKYE BA LTA LUNG, okay? Who's ...

oh, you want ...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, this is the last thing. Okay. DE LTAR LTA LHAG LA LAS DE YI GONG DU DEN DRA'I LO SKYE BA MED PA'I PHYIR DE'I DE LTAR NAS KYI TSE RANG GI TSE NI KYIS MA GRUB PA Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, DE LTAR LTA LHAG LA LAS, rather than that having to be the case that the minute you saw the round-bellied thing you thought the word pot, okay? Rather than that being the case, DE'I GONG DU DEN DRA'I LO SKYE BA MED PA'I PHYIR because you didn't have that kind of thought coming into your mind, okay? You did not have the word pot come into your mind before you took the word and gave it to the round-bellied thing, okay?

The round-bellied thing didn't ask you to give it the name pot, okay? Therefore, as the basis of the word pot, the round-bellied thing doesn't exist by definition. That's all.

If the round-bellied thing existed by definition, it would suggest its own name pot to you before you thought of the name pot. Okay? If it were a pot from its own side, then it would suggest the name pot to you before you thought of the name pot.

Okay? And the moment, in the millisecond that you saw it, you would think pot, okay? Before someone taught you the name.

[Speaker 2]
You would know the name of everything.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hasa says you'd know the name of everything before someone taught you the name for everything. Okay. Geshe-la, isn't the terminating particle wrong on the last section?

Yeah, it is. Okay. Well, yeah, okay.

Drupal. Okay, good. Who's reading next, Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
Joy Chen.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Are you translating, Joy?

[Speaker 2]
Joy Chen is translating.

[Speaker 1]
It's okay. Tangtang?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Utpala, hey.

[Speaker 1]
Could you read, please?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, I just log out another device.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here's the second of the three classic disproofs about names applying to things automatically, from the Mahayana Sangraha of Asanga, right? Here's the second reasoning, okay? What's kye bu chik, Utpala?

Were we talking about Indra? What's kye bu chik mean by itself? Oh, a single person?

Yeah, here it means a single person, okay? Now, we can refer to a single person with different names. Haso, Juan, that long name that you have on your email, that your grandma gave you, or Andy?

Kye bu chik la, a single person can be called at the same time Indra, or chakra, or, I'm going to go with grama ghatika, okay? Okay. Yeah, wangpo means the powerful one, which is Indra.

This is talking about a worldly god whose name is Indra. They have a nickname called gyel jin. I used to call it hundred gifts, and it was a mistranslation.

It's a hundred cities, destroyer. It's not jin here, it's not gift, it's destroyer. Like, anyway, in the four powers, there's a jin.

Sun jin, to rip out? To rip out. Sun jin.

That's the jin here. This jin does not mean giving, it means to tear out, okay? Giving with a sa prefix?

Yeah, well, jin, B-Y-I-N, is the past tense of sabbatabayata jaggi gucchina jin, okay? Sorry for the interruption. So anyway, gyel jin, I studied it, and chakra means destroyer of a hundred.

Shatakar. Shatakar means a hundred. It came into English as century, okay?

Gyel jin. And tong jom is a word I don't know in Sanskrit, but I looked it up. It's gramma ghatika, and it means the plunderer of the village, all right?

Yeah, it's a synonym for Vishnu. Well, this author wants them all to be the same person. Oh, I see, okay.

It's like calling Rob Hags, or Haggerty, or Rom, okay? Three names for a single person. That's the example.

That's logic number two here. So you got one la, one worldly god. They have three different names.

Indra, chakra, or gramma ghatika, okay? Ming du ma juk de la. Ming du ma jukpa.

What's du ma mean, Udpala? Many. Many.

Yeah, many names apply to this one person, jukpa, okay? If those names applied to the person, ngupoy wang gi, By the person's own power. Yeah, if the names applied to the...

If the three different names applied to that one person automatically, okay? If the three names applied to that one person automatically, then... Yeah, he says, do you say that those three names apply to that person automatically?

You say, why do you say that? Because, kye bu de ming de dak gi jukpi shir ngupay wang gi nyepay che. Because you say, before the thing was given the name, it was the thing.

You say, before the thing was given the name, it was the thing. Okay? Good?

You okay? What, he says, look, does this guy have three names? Yes.

Do those names apply automatically to him? Yes. Okay, then we say, 3.30, who's going to read, Utpala?

I would like Rebecca to read, please. Oh, sorry, you always say that and I forgot. I got so excited.

Okay. Yeah, I was just kidding. All right.

What's it mean, Venerable Utpala? If you agree, then are you saying that that one person to that one person... No, are you saying that that one person, like the name that applied to that one person, is Duma?

Oh, it's also many. Yeah, if the name pot applies to the rounded thing automatically, then when pots have three different names, there should be three different pots. Okay?

And that worldly god should be three different people, because it has three different names, if the name applied self-existently, let's say. Yang Duma, dun means the object of the name, okay? Ming dun, would have to be multiple.

Okay, cool. Who's next, Venerable Utpala?

[Speaker 2]
Rebecca, could you continue, please? Oh, okay. Dikhyang ngartar drupje chenpeno.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and the rest is my own. Then ngartar means as the same as in the earlier case, meaning the first of the three logics, okay? So we got three logics to prove that names don't apply to their objects self-existently.

And he says the proof for the second one would be the same as the first one. Well, it was the first one. It was that the thing would have to be called the thing before anyone named it that.

If the name applied to the pot, if the name pot applied to the rounded thing automatically, then before anyone gave the name to that, it should have been called pot. Okay, so the same logic applies here. Drupje chenpeno.

The same kind of logic applies here. Maria, would you like to read? Who's that?

Maria. Oh, Maria. I would love to, but my screen is frozen.

That's a new one. I never heard that.

[Speaker 2]
Lindsay, would you like to read?

[Speaker 3]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Rigpa Sambhani, here's the third logic from the Mahayana Sangraha. Suppose there is SKYE BU NYID. Let's suppose there are two people.

And they both have the same name. They both have the same name, yeah. Does that name apply to them luwangki, lupoywangki?

You know, automatically. Yeah, let me think of a second. Let me think about it.

KHANG CHEN GYAS PA'I TSUG RGYEN PHYI NGAG PA'I NGO KHANG CHEN GYAS PA'I TSUG RGYEN PHYO MANG RGYU BA'I DPA'I DBANG PHYIwaiting for the next section. Yeah, this is a reference to the word muthop, but that's a long story. Sorry.

So, if the name belongs to a person automatically, if the name pot belongs to a rounded vessel automatically, Then, if two people have the same name... Hello? If two people have the same name, are you saying that the name applies automatically to them?

And they say yes. Okay. So, then...

DE NYID MING GCIG GI SBYUGS SHER DNGOS NAS TSIGS DBANG GI SBYUGS PA'I PHYIR Then what you're saying is these two got the same name self-existently, right? They deserve the same name, right? Each one deserved the name.

Can we say that? In his system. Each one deserved the name John, even though there's two people who got the name John.

Well, if the name was self-existent, if the name applied to the object self-existently, then... Here's the punchline, Venerable Utpala. DNGOS NAS DE NYID MING GCIG PA'I PHYIR DE'I GANG LEN BCUG PA'I DGOS NYANG GCIG DU THAL BA'I KHYAD BU DE NYID RGYUD DRE'I PHAR THAL BA'O Yeah, if you say I agree that each one got the same name self-existently, then in the same way that they have the same name, then the object to which the name refers, GANG LA BCUG PA'I DON, should also have to be GCIG.

Should also have to be one person. Two people to whom the single name applies should have to be one person, according to you. And then their RGYUD of the two guys would DNGOS DRE'I PHAR.

DRE'I PHAR means flow into each other or mix together. Their mind streams are going to mix together? Yeah, they would have to become a single.

By the way, where we had this whole section before was from your Emptiness Meditation book, and I just copied it out of there. Here it is. It's the whole argument, and we worked hard on it, and he's taken the whole thing.

Who was the author of your Emptiness book? Choney Lama. Yeah, Choney Lama copped the whole thing.

It's already there, and it's well translated, not like I did it today. If you're interested, you guys can read it. The whole thing is there in the Emptiness book.

Go to section 117. That's why we put the section numbers. Because when you're dealing with e-books and different people want different size of letters, the page numbers get all messed up.

You can't say page number anymore, but you can say section number. So go buy the Emptiness Meditation book in the Diamond Cutter Press website. Diamond Cutter Press website, and then go to section 115, where Venerable Uddhapala's translation is already there.

Yay! Okay, that's the whole bold thing here. Two minutes.

Two minutes. Okay, we're gonna do a little bit more. Hang on just a sec.

Okay, that was a long argument in her book, okay? And it's well translated, so you can get it. That's where I was supposed to end the term, but we're gonna go forge ahead.

Oh no, we're supposed to end way farther down. Okay. Oh, that's as far as I checked.

Yes. Okay, please. Okay, let's go through it.

We got one minute, we can do it. According to the Sutra school, second school, BOM PA SHES PA'I DRA'I DNGOS KYI SPYOD PA The thing which is given the name pot, RANG GI TSE NI SKYES SGRUB NA If it existed from its own... by definition, okay?

Then DA BRAL, and I had trouble with this word. I don't think this word exists. The scan says D-R-E-L.

I think it's wrong. Later on they use G-R-E-L, which is correct. Okay, so RANG GI TSE NI SKYES SGRUB NA DA BRAL BYED PA LA MI BSTOD PAR It wouldn't have to depend on the application of a name.

Okay, DA BRAL BYED PA LA MI BSTOD PAR MING GYI LO SKYE BA'I SKYEN YOD KYANG Even though there is the problem that before the name was given to it, if the name applied to itself existently, that name would come up in your mind the moment you saw it. Okay, SKYEN YOD KYANG RANG BZHIN LA STONG BDE BA BUM PA'I MING RGYUD PA'I ZHIR When you talk about a round-bellied thing acting as the object of the name pot, okay, ZHIR, NANG TSUL LTAR RANG GI TSE NI SKYES SGRUB PA I'm just saying that after you give it the name, it does appear to that the name pertains to it self-existently. It does.

Okay, look, SKYEN MED, all your criticisms don't apply to me. I didn't say the name applied to it automatically. I said after you see it, after you've identified it with whatever name it is in your language, then from that point on it does seem to be called that automatically.

It seems to be cup to you, if you're an English speaker. Okay, SKYEN MED MA YANG That's what the second scroll says. I'm not suggesting that it was a pot, it was a cup before we named it cup.

But after you named it cup, it's reasonable to say that it seems as though the cup word applies to it automatically. Then we say, NAM RIG PAS LDAN DE BSKYED PAR YED MI NUS PAR The mentalist say... Yeah, the mind-only school doesn't agree, and they don't agree to this separation of the name from the thing in the way they've done it, and therefore they offer these different reasonings.

How many? Three. Three, okay.

By the way, I found the word used, dadrel, in Tsongkhapa, so I think it should be corrected in the carving. I don't think D-R-E-L is a word. Okay, we're finished.

You're welcome. Nick, you got any news for us? Sure, yes.

Coming up next is my class after a nice 10-minute break, so get some rest. We are 127 away from the first three thousands that somebody will match. If you were feeling so inclined, then you'll get somehow double karma.

Thank you so much. Thank you everybody who's helping us out. That's awesome.

I'll thank you more tomorrow. Thanks for class again. You guys gonna have dinner?

Yes, even though our class is so strict with the time. I'm gonna give you 10 minutes. Okay, thanks.

All right, see you soon. See you. Thank you.

Thank you everybody.