Гибсон Чан — Книга 2: Восхваление зависимости, занятие 21

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so the first question is Bodhisattva Paramita Samgadha asked the Buddha, what were you thinking of when you say the following statement? And I already put a statement in the answer, but you just need to fill the blank in the statement. So what's the first one?

Oh, Conqueror, what was it that you were truly thinking of when you say, it is, it is what? Impossible. Impossible.

Thank you. For anything in the universe to have an essential nature of its own. Yeah, essential nature of its own.

And nothing in the universe has ever started or stopped. Correct. And from the very beginning, everything in the universe has been in a state of peace.

Correct. Has already, and has already gone to Nirvana by its very nature. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay.

So Bodhisattva knows that if we take the two type of statement as first value, let's contradict each other, which cannot be the case. So what's are the two types of statement found in the sutra that we are talking about here? Figurative ones?

Figurative? Figurative? Not this direction.

You can think about the three turning of the wheel. What's Buddha say in the first turning of the wheel? Love did exist by definition?

Yeah. Here. He say, body and mind have their own definitive nature and so on.

And this idea mostly survived in Abhidharmakosha. And what's the other statement that is contradicting to this one? The opposite of that, like in the Heart Sutra or the Diamond Cutter Sutra?

Yes, correct. So nothing in the world has any nature of its own. As you say, most survive in the Heart Sutra and like the Diamond Cutter Sutra.

So Chuh-tang-cheng-mo-ni-me-pa. Okay. And when Master Yuen Chuh translated his definition, Rang-ki-tse-ni.

He say, it's unique definition, defining quality. So what's Je Tsongkhapa's take on this, opinion on this? Does Je Tsongkhapa think Master Yuen Chuh on this point is correct or not correct?

Incorrect. Why? Because he talks about what he defines definition or something like that, right?

Yeah. So what's the definition that we are going to point to here, to describe here, mainly? By definition.

Yeah, by definition. To the kunda, right?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, kunda.

[Speaker 1]
To the kunda, okay. So Je Tsongkhapa say when they use the word definition in the sutra, you always in the sense of something belongs to the category of the kunda, imaginary thing. Things don't exist just in your head.

Meaning in the sutra when they say tse-ni, they are not talking about its unique defining quality written definition. Because they exist. So they are talking about existing by definition.

Okay. Okay. Okaveri, what's Sumané?

Since beginningless primordial time? Yeah, from the very beginning. That's a tough one.

[Speaker 3]
Like literally.

[Speaker 1]
Whoa. You just leave it at the words. Yes, the wording or the text words on the first value.

What's Machiba? Impossible. To answer?

Impossible. Thank you. Yay.

Good. So these words are very rare. So this is why I picked this one here.

All right. Let's go to the student translation. Whoa.

Whoa. Guess you asked me to translate Nibbana from here. But I also translate the Kam Natsopa.

Do you want to read the Kam Natsopa? Yeah. Yeah, good.

The variety of the categories, good. And many kinds of categories, du ma la, gyelpa nam gyi, different commentary, shen duk she kye. Yeah, shen duk she means that, you know, they commented on it in a certain way, a certain different way, right?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
You see what I mean? Yeah. They explain it as being something else.

But the sutra, which, if we, yeah, if we apply what will come below in the sutra, good, we can say that these two refer to the eighteen categories and the six categories. Okay, good. What are the...

so the eighteen categories are very famous. That's Abhidharma. It's the six sense powers, the six objects of the sense powers, and the six awarenesses of the sense powers.

But what are the six come to? When he says six categories, what's he talking about? Realms?

Is it realms here, Geshe-la? I don't, I don't know. We have to check the commentary, but it could be the six elements.

[Speaker 2]
You know what I mean?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like consciousness and space added? Yeah. Maybe, probably.

Okay. Okay. Okay, cool.

So we'll have a footnote later when we publish the book. Yeah, there's a very ancient word in the original text, which is gyupa, and it means to not forget. And Tsongkapa is just helping us.

He says that rare word, not gyupa, means don't forget. Okay, that's all. That one's easy.

All right, let's keep going. Okay, now we're going to the second section. Yeah.

What's it mean? It's when the bodhisattvas are asking the question that he said, Buddha, you contradict yourself in that first turning over wheel and second turning over wheel. And the second section is, he's going to explain to rid of your question.

He's going to... Yeah, the bodhisattva says, it seems like you contradicted yourself, which is do de la gyalpong gi tuwa. The bodhisattva asked Lord Buddha, it seems like you contradicted yourself.

And then the second part, which we now reached, is gyelwa deypong win len. Lord Buddha's going to len, answer, and bongwa deypong gyelwa. What's bongwa?

To get rid of. Get rid of the apparent contradiction. He's going to clear up the apparent contradiction.

So let's... Gibson, can you read it? Ni pa la nyi.

Okay, ni pa la nyi, nguwa nyi me tsuk kang la gong ne, nguwa nyi me pa sungpay shepa tang. kang la gong ne ma gyepa sok su, sungpay shepa wang. Okay, the answer that clarifies the apparent contradictions has two parts.

An expression of how the lack of self-nature is going to be... Yeah, okay, that's okay. And kang la gong ne ma gyepa sok su shepa wang.

Yeah, okay, good. The translation's okay. Good.

Okay, who's going to read the next sentence? Oscar.

[Speaker 3]
Oscar.

[Speaker 1]
Oscar. Yeah, and the translation's good. The translation's correct.

What is the first part again? What is the first... This one?

No, but what do all three belong to? Oh, what's the kind of lack of self-nature Buddha had in mind when he said nothing has any nature? What kind of no-nature do things have?

And that has three parts. We're going to talk about it in brief, then we're going to talk about it in detail, and then we're going to give a good worldly example of something that doesn't really exist. All right, easy.

Next. Who's going to read that sentence? Oscar.

Okay, and by the way, just as a strategy, Gibson, we are reading Je Tsongkapa's interpretation of two sources about what the Buddha really meant. And so the first one, the first source is going to be... he's going to emphasize the sutra, which was called What I Really Meant.

And then he's going to have another sutra called Akshaya Madhyas, another sutra to explain the Middle Way's view. And the reason I bring it up, Gibson, is probably we want to go get those sutras and translate them in the same book, so it's a fat book like Ben Kramer's book. Okay, so if it were me, I wouldn't stop with Tsongkapa's short and very difficult commentary.

I would get the original sutras and translate them also, and print the three of them together. See what I mean? That would be helpful for people, I think.

You mean the old chapter, or only the chapter that he mentioned here? That's a good question. For example, the sutra is quite long, so we might want to start with the one chapter, I think, and just the relevant chapter where he answered the question, why did you seem to contradict yourself?

Because the whole sutra is much longer than that. And that would take many years. And I have other things in mind for you.

Okay, here is the verse from the sutra What I Really Meant. Listen, Pranamarta Samagata. By the way, nowadays I am using the Sanskrit TH.

I used to try not to, because it's not THA. It is not THA, but it's helpful. It's AR THA instead of AR THA.

But it's okay. So many people use it. You don't say Siddhartha, you say Siddhartha, so everybody can mispronounce it.

Listen, Pranamarta Samagata. When I said that nothing had any nature of its own, what I meant was that things lack any quality in three different senses. That's good.

Quality of lacking in indefinite nature. The quality of lacking in nature of lacking being ultimate. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, good. That's fine. That's good.

And then we went and got the original quotation from the sutra Why. To see if Je Tsongkapa has any... if he has any opinion.

Yeah, we want to see... Well, first of all, we always want to make sure the author quoted it correctly. And then in Je Tsongkapa's case, he often prefers a different translation than the one which survived.

So it's nice to see. If he uses a different one, it's probably better than what we have. But in this case, it's the same, I think, right?

The same, yeah. But you should always check, Gibson. That's part of your job.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, Geshe-la.

I finished my translation. Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see. Where are you? You're over here.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, good.

Okay. You got this part. Okay, who's going to read, Gibson?

Alex Riva. Yay, Riva. Hey, thank you for the class.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you for the class.

[Speaker 1]
Let me see something. I want to get a larger... Now, if someone from Mexico wrote to you and said, could they build a new center there, and you were their grandpa, you would probably say, rent a center inexpensively until your group gets very strong and collects money, and then buy a center and move into it, rather than borrowing money or stuff like that.

That's my experience as a grandpa. I never borrow money. I save the money and then I buy whatever I want.

All right. So, what's a duo, I guess?

[Speaker 3]
Companion?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it means the abbreviation, really, and this is, the full name is down here, Neljor Chudpe Sa Number Tenla Appaduwa, okay? So, Neljor Chudpe Sa means what? Yoga Chudpa.

Yoga Chudpa. Bumi. Arya Sangha wrote two kinds of books.

One, he was a secretary and he wrote for Lord Maitreya, and then later, he wrote books on his own, okay? And he wrote a very long and complex group of about nine different books called the Yogacara Bumis, the levels of yogic practice, okay? And they're very complex.

It's hard to even count them, and it's hard. If you want, someday, we can have a whole class on it. But it's very hard to, no one's really translated it much.

My friend Arden Bo translated some of it, but it would be interesting to translate someday. It's huge. And it's basically Arya Sangha's own writing, rather than dictation, okay?

So, anyway, they quote it, and it says, you know, chom du de kyi chi lab gong ne, what's that, Gibson? What do you really, what was he really thinking? Yeah, what was he really thinking when he said, chod tan je ngu nyi me pa?

Nothing that will have any nature of its own. Good. And then, when you say me pa to start a sentence, what's it mean?

Word probably knows. In reply, the answer is... Yeah, it's like, I'll tell you what.

Okay, me pa means past tense, he said. But when you start a sentence with me pa, it means, I'll tell you. Okay, I'll tell you what.

Why did he say, why did Lord Buddha say nothing has any nature of its own? I'll tell you why. Okay, me pa means I'll tell you why.

Du we rong kyi. Depend on the label of the student? Yeah, according to the level of the students, he described three what?

Three kind of lacking of nature. Yeah, what's the de dan der mean? It means like this and that.

He explained three different kinds of emptiness, all kinds of different things. De dan der, okay, different things. And that's why gong, that's what he had in mind when he said nothing has any nature of its own.

He was describing three kinds of no nature according to the needs of his students, okay? That's whose opinion? That's Arya Sangha's opinion, okay, of why the Buddha taught different kinds of emptiness, three kinds of emptiness, okay?

Khenla. According to, yeah. The de she sung, is he saying that's what he had in mind when he said, and that's what the quote I said is saying?

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, okay. She sung is, I think, a reference to a sangha.

And the first sung is Lord Buddha said. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. And there we went, we found it.

And I know that Gibson checked it. All right. Who's going to read this one, Gibson?

So basically somebody with authority said the reason Lord Buddha talked about nothing having any nature of its own is that according to the student's need, he wanted to outline three kinds of emptiness, okay? All right. Who's going to read this one?

Okay. Yeah, good. And we see three differences in four lines between Je Tsongkapa and the Tengyur that we have now.

Okay, so that indicates that the people who put the Tengyur together, which is Buddha and Rinpoche, just before me, just before Tsongkapa, it means Tsongkapa chose a different translation. And that's always interesting because he had his opinions. He had strong opinions.

He'll say this translation isn't as good as the one I could make or the one I know about. So it's too bad he didn't translate the whole Tengyur, but he probably didn't have time. Okay, so the important quotations, he will put them his own way.

So anyway, you can see three differences here. And you know, somebody someday could do a whole study of... We are in what we call the classical period of translation, which means we get the honor of translating things for the first time into English, like Abhidharmakosha.

We have the honor to make the first correct translation. And then later, graduate students will have to live off the leftovers. They'll say, oh, here's Tsongkapa's version of that.

See what I mean? We are special people in history because we get to translate it for the first time and maybe make re-translation. And then later people are going to have to say, oh, here's a minor commentary written 500 years later or something.

I mean, you don't appreciate that you're in a time in history where no one has translated anything. So you get to do the... We get to pick and choose the greatest of the great books to translate.

And then people who come later are going to have to do the second commentary, the third commentary, the 20th commentary. And then there'll be a graduate student somewhere, like a DSEU. Okay?

All right? We're very, very fortunate to put out the first translations of these classics. I would much rather live now than later.

Okay. So there's the quotation from the Tangiers. Okay.

Who's going to read this one? Keshav, we haven't translated yet. Okay.

Keshav, do we need to translate the previous part?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. The 30 verses says... Who wrote the 30 verses?

Master Vasubandhu. I think it was Vasubandhu. Yeah.

ngo wa nyi ni nam sum kyi What's it mean, Gibson? These three type of the lacking of the nature? Yeah.

If we read it Tsongkapa's way, or I don't know, of the three kinds of real nature, ngo wa nyi me nam sum pa, these are the three lacks of a nature. The three real natures are three lacks of a nature. Okay?

And that's what gong. What Buddha really think. Yeah.

That's what Buddha really meant when he said, nothing has any nature of its own. Okay? Okay.

Now, you have to read it backwards. When Buddha said that nothing has any nature of its own, he was talking about the way in which three essences have no essential nature. Okay?

When Buddha said nothing has any nature of its own, he's talking about three kinds of non-nature. That's all. Okay?

Geshe-la. Yeah. Excuse me.

When it says sum pa, does sum pa sometimes not mean third? Like, I've seen kam sum pa, and it seems to not mean the third realm. It means to mean like all three realms.

Yeah, it should be. If you want to read it that way, it should say sum pa. But you can sometimes push it.

Because here it doesn't mean the third. Here it means like all three, or those three or something, right? Which means Tsongkapa may, yeah.

It's kind of nam sum po. Yeah. Okay.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, it means a presentation of nam sum. Hmm.

Oh, that's cool. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay, Gibson, who's going to read? Meribah Khatin. She sung pe kang tak sher chin la sok pe ndo nam le chio tam che ngo wo Ngo wo.

Ngo wo. Ngo wo. Ni me par sum pa kun sok ki chio tam sher la gong ki don tam pa la gong pa min no sher nche pa ni gong drel tang tok me ku she ki shung tang ngel shing pak pa yab si?

No.

[Speaker 3]
Yab si.

[Speaker 1]
Si. Si. Si.

La sok pe luk le kyang chi roll tu gyur pao. Thank you. Nice.

Let's do the last two lines first, okay? Let's do the last two lines first. You are gyelwa.

You are contradict. Yeah, if you think such and such, you are contradicting dote gong dra. What I really mean.

You're contradicting the sutra, which is called What I Really Meant. So apparently somebody's thinking something and Tsongkhapa's complaining to them. If you think like that, you contradict the sutra where Buddha himself explained what he meant.

Okay? And you also contradict tok me ku che.

[Speaker 3]
The brother of the Asanga.

[Speaker 1]
In the West Chinese language, it's the Asanga twins. Oh, twins. You see what I mean?

Which means Asanga and Vasubandhu. Younger brother always gets disrespected. They call them the Asanga twins.

Are they twins? No. Okay, tok me ku che.

So you contradict the Lord Buddha's own explanation of himself, and you contradict the two half-brothers. By the way, between those two, they wrote 60% of the Geshe course. 60% of the 25 years, 15 years, is only spent on those two brothers.

Okay? It means they're pretty amazing. All right?

Tok me ku che kyi shung. Text. Yeah, they're a great book.

Shung means great book. Gyal, you contradicted. You also, you also reached chiro.

[Speaker 3]
To the other side?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or outside, like you're out of town. You're not in Rimrod anymore. Chiro means outside, okay?

You're outside of the loop. The system. You're outside of the system of pakpa yub se.

The Arya brother and father. Father and son. Yeah, the Arya father and son, which is?

Arya Nagarjuna and Arya Deva? Yeah, yeah, Arya Nagarjuna and Arya Deva, okay? You're outside of their system.

So it's not bad. You just contradicted every great teacher, whoever in there. Okay?

Now, what did the guy say to get accused of contradicting every important person? That's the first three lines here. kad dak she chen la sab pa'i do nam la'i chod tan chen ngon yin mey pa suma ku dzab gyi chod tan chen la gong kyi When the, she chen kyi do?

Perfection of wisdom. Sutras? Sutras.

Okay. When they say that chod tan chen are ngon yin mey pa? When they say nothing in the world have any nature of its own.

Good. Somebody says they're just talking about ku dzab chod. Yeah.

Just talking about thing in the deceptive reality. Yeah. So there's two parts to reality, deceptive reality and ultimate reality.

Ultimate reality, how much time do we spend in each one? A normal human being, in their whole life, 70 years, whatever, they are never 10 seconds in ultimate reality. Their whole life, every single second of their life is spent in fake reality.

Okay? Fake reality. Okay?

Then the other guy, by the way, who contradicted everybody in the universe, he said, when the Buddha said nothing has any nature of its own, he was talking about their fake nature. Okay? But they weren't talking about dun-dun.

Ultimate reality. Yeah, they weren't talking about ultimate reality. When the Buddha talked about how nothing has any nature of its own, they were just talking about apparent reality and not about ultimate reality.

Okay? The other guy who made a mistake said that. When Buddha said nothing had any nature of its own, he's talking about the normal nature of things and not their ultimate nature.

Okay? All right? So what's the correct idea?

Buddha was really, when Buddha said nothing has any nature of its own, he's talking about... Dun-dun. Their ultimate reality.

Okay? Okay. Just because Buddha said something doesn't have a nature of its own, don't think Buddha was talking about fake reality.

Okay? He was talking about ultimate reality, which is that fake reality doesn't have any reality. Okay?

Okay. Now I got to see where I'm going to split this one. Let's cut it here.

Okay. Who's going to read, Gibson? Yeah.

Go to Chi-Yang. No?

[Speaker 2]
I'm here. Tee-taa-chee-laa-goo-nee-goo-nee-meh-paa-soom-paa-chee-paa-nee Chee-laa-sam-nee-goo-nee-meh-paa-tem-paa-tung Goo-nee-meh-soom-chee-paa-in-laa Lain-kee-kyaang-tee-nee-wee-paa-shim-doom-paa-lay-tung Oh, Chee-paa-nee. Thank you, teacher.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. Nice reading. So actually, what he's saying is the question has two parts and the answer has two parts, okay?

The question has two parts and the answer has two parts. ji la gong ni means what, Gibson? What does Buddha really mean?

Yeah, what did Buddha really have in mind when he said ngo nyi me? Nothing has any nature of its own. And then that's a question, Chipa.

Somebody's asking, who? Buddha. Yeah, but Safa's asking more Buddha.

What did you have in mind when you said nothing had any nature of its own? Okay, Chibanyi. What did you have in mind when you ngo nyi me pa tenpa?

When you tenpa. When you teach that nothing has any nature of its own. Yeah, so look, I have two questions for you, Lord Buddha.

He's not really asking one question, he's asking two questions. First of all, why did you teach that? After spending 30 years not teaching it, 20, 30 years not teaching it, why suddenly why you start teaching it?

That's the first question. What's the second question? What do you think is the second question?

Yeah, what the heck do you mean? Why did you wait so long to teach that nothing had any nature? And then, what do you mean when you say nothing has any nature?

So it's really, the bodhisattva's question has two parts. Okay, and then the len. Yes, sir.

Yeah, is that the len in tong len? This is, take it again, this is len. This is misspelled.

Oh, L-A-N. Yeah, yeah, yeah, by the way. Yeah, L-E-N means taking, like tong len.

L-A-N means to give an answer. Somebody's misspelled it. Yenla Mengke, when he gives his answer, he teaches those two rimpa shen.

These two respectfully, respected... Yeah, one after the other. Rimpa, like lam rim, stages.

So first he's going to say, this is why I said nothing had any nature of its own. And then, this is how they don't have any nature of their own. Why did I teach that?

And then how is it that it's correct? It's two different subjects. And it's a good question.

Why did you choose now to teach it after so many years of teaching Abhidharma? And then, after you did decide to teach it, well, what is it? Two questions, okay?

Why did you decide to teach it now? And what is it? Okay, all right.

So here's... what's dangpo? It's le dangpo or dangpo.

Oh no, this dungpa le means of those two questions. The le here means of those two questions. What are the two questions?

Why did you choose to teach it now? And what the heck do you mean? Okay, of those two questions, le means from.

Of those two questions, here's the dungpa. Here's the first one. We're going to answer the first question.

Why did you choose now to teach it? Okay, that's a good question, I would say. Yeah, who's going to read the...

let's make it shorter. How about that? Yeah, anyone in the room want to read?

Those guys are all scared to read. There's one guy sitting on the table who might do it.

[Speaker 3]
Meow meow.

[Speaker 1]
Who's going to read? Minzy, you ready? Come on.

I'll start with sukne. And go slow or it's long. Sorry.

Stay and help me translate. So, he's going to say par. What's par mean?

Like parallel. Yeah, up to. From here up to there.

It's par. Par, okay. So, starting from suk up to numkin.

Suk means? Everything in the universe. Physical stuff.

Like the most basic stuff in the universe. Physical stuff. Up to the fullest thing in the universe.

Omniscience? The mind of a Buddha. So, in ancient philosophy, when you want to say everything, you say everything from rocks up to Buddha's mind.

It's very common. Suk, from rocks up to Buddha's mind. Chunnam.

Everything. Yeah, all the stuff in the universe. Sarway yewa.

That's that unusual use of sarwa. Categories? Yeah, it means categories.

Yeah, it's unusual. Usually 99% of the time sarwa means clear. Like ozel means?

[Speaker 3]
Clear line.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so here, sarway yewa means the classifications of stuff. All the way from rocks up to Buddha mind. Taiyepa.

Infinity. Yeah, infinite. If you try to sit down and write down all the categories, it's endless.

Taiyepa. But, all of those things have me. They don't have a lo.

Nature. Or rangshin. So, if we reserve the word nature for rangshin, what do you want to use for ngo?

Essence. We can say essence. Or it's essence.

So, he's trying to find a synonym for nature. He says ngo or, dam means or, the essence or the nature. And he says, all the divisions of all the stuff from rocks up to Buddha minds, they all ngo nyi me.

They don't have any... They don't have any essence. They don't have any essence.

They don't have any nature. Meddo she sungpa. He said, past tense.

When you see sung, it's high honorific. It's usually the Buddha. Or, you know, somebody like Vasubandhu or something.

Sungpa nam. All of those emptinesses of all the zillions of stuff from rocks up to Buddha minds, Lord Buddha duo into sung. Explain that.

He grouped it to make it easy for people. So, I could tell you six billion kinds of emptiness. But why don't we just make it three?

Dua, he abbreviated it into the three ngo nyi me. The three lacks of any essence. Three kinds of no essence.

He summarized all those zillions of emptinesses into three. Meddo she sungpa. And if he explains the emptiness of all the stuff in the universe with those three, she na ho la wa.

Ho la wa. It's easy to understand. Easy to understand.

La wa means easy. It also means yogurt which is too thin. Seriously.

See how it came to mean easy? See what I mean? If your kid is not feeling well and you can't feed them yogurt, you mix it with water and they can drink it.

That means watered down. Like la wa means watered down. Ho la wa means even a kid can understand it.

Okay? Okay. Watery for kids.

Ngong ne. Lord Buddha, his real gong. What's gong?

Yeah, he's real. Deep down, he's real thinking. So when you see gong, you got to think, it's a very beautiful word.

What did Buddha, what was Buddha thinking deep down that he didn't tell anybody? Why did he make it so simple? Why did he take all those millions of emptinesses and make them three?

He thought, go loud. It's going to be easy to feed the kids. Okay.

So he abbreviated everything into three kinds of non-nature. Okay. Oh, Lindsay is crying to read one more sentence.

Or maybe she's just crying. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
den dang pa den dang pa pang kun sok sok pe chu tam chu tam che chu tam che de sung yi de sung yi gi du sok Nice.

[Speaker 1]
chu tam che Everything in the universe, which means all existing things, can be dupa, can be abbreviated into these three. You say all things in the universe, what do you mean? I mean everything ultimate and everything apparent.

Okay. So all the things in the universe, ultimate or fake, can be grouped into those three. Okay.

Easy way. Uh... Okay.

If you want, Gibson, Lindsay can become unpopular by using something else in the room. Please see that one. That should work.

Yeah, but there's some problem here. Is it just chu, Geshe-la? Like, by those ten?

Well, let me think about it. I'll start with... Here, let me see the plain here.

de tar she go pa yang yom yi do la sok par yi do la sok par bung po nya gam cho ge kye Yeah. Word. I figured it out.

Did you figure it out? I could be missing an apostrophe or a space. He has created a new word for 12.

And it's... He said ten ten wu te wu ten two Okay, got it. Word.

It's chu nyi. But, yeah, probably there's a big ink sponge on the card. It's supposed to be chu nyi.

Okay. That's what you paid me for. Keep going.

chu nyi kyi cho tam che la re re na re re ne re re ne myo po may pa dang rang shen may pa dang no wo nyi may par sung shing Nice. Very good. Really good.

You can sit and enjoy. I know you're dying to do that. Gibson, why did he say de tar ze go pa Ze is high honorific.

That gives you a clue. To do? You have to do?

He had a compelling reason to do that? Yeah. Why?

What was the big reason for him to do that? And then we know him as Buddha, Lord Buddha, because it says ze, which is high... It's a high word.

What did he do? By the way, he's presented all of those kinds of emptiness in three. Billions of emptinesses in three.

Well, in the dos, in the sutras, for example, in the Yulm Sutras, Mother Sutra. This is the Yulm like in Yab Yulm. Father and mother.

Parent. Yeah. The Mother Sutras.

In those, he talked about tongpo nga. He talked about the kam chok gye. By the way, this is the place where you pronounce the prefix letter of the second syllable.

You say chok gye. Everyone says chok gye. It shouldn't be that, but it is.

chok gye. And kye che chun yi. Stanley's going to figure out in his lifetime why this is always out of order.

You should say 5, 12, and 18. It always says 5, 18, and 12. Go figure.

I don't know. Probably there's just some commentary somewhere. Anyway, they followed that same standard.

Usually they say hung kam kye che. But he did it the same here. He spelled them all out, but he kept the same weird order.

Okay. All right. chun yi kyi chod tam je.

Which means all the things in the universe. re re ne. Each one of them is ngopo me pa.

It's not a real thing. This ngopo is very difficult. It means thing.

Here it means real thing. And rang shin me pa. No nature.

And ngo nyi me pa. No essence. Things are not things.

They have no nature, and they have no essence. By the way, these are the three kinds of emptiness that Lord Buddha talked about in the third turning of the wheel. Three kinds of emptiness.

But if you're a really good Chang'e student, you should try to tie those to the three kinds of what? Characteristics. The three qualities of the mind-only school.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You should try to... Lord Buddha in the sutra only mentioned these three kinds of emptiness. But they relate to the three kinds of natures.

That's an old Chang'e exercise. All right. Do you want Jacqueline to choose the next victim?

Sure. I've got three minutes. Who wants to use it?

Tracy McKenzie. Tracy! Let's cut it there.

Just because we only have today. Okay. Okay.

Go slow. Okay. Yeah.

It's a strange one. Okay. Nice.

Very nice. Let's sit for a while. People tend to run away like I didn't brush my teeth or something.

Okay. Khenpo Dule? Particularly.

Yeah, more particularly. If you want to go into detail, he talked about tongpa nyi. Emptiness.

Yeah, and then he used a synonym which is chö kyi yin. The realm of is. I like to translate it as the realm of is.

It's a weird word. It's supposed to be like a Sedona word. When you call those things the vortex realm of is, chö kyi yin, and de shi nyi means tattva.

Suchness? Yeah, suchness. So these are three synonyms for emptiness.

Emptiness, the realm of all things, and suchness. Okay. He used many nam dang.

Anybody nam dang? Nam dang means synonym. It means different words for the same thing.

So he used many words for emptiness. For den dang, the ultimate reality. The ultimate meaning, den dang.

Tam je, me means he said, he spoke. Same as sung. He mentioned all these different kinds of synonyms for emptiness.

And they all mean ngo nyi me pa. Nothing has any nature of its own. Nothing has any nature of its own.

He said that. When it says sung, it's usually ngo nyi me pa. Let's do this one.

Tracy wants to do this one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Gibson.

She's begging to do it. Okay. What's do?

What's do as a sutra? Good, yeah. Do de means the collection of sutras, or the basket, like chud pitaka, the pitaka of the sutras.

But here it just means all the sutras in general. In those sutras, he said chud, all the chud, meaning here all the existing things, are ngo nyi me pa. They have no nature of their own.

He said everything in the universe has no nature of its own. In the sutras, Lord Buddha said nothing in the universe has any nature of its own. Then, chud, those teachings he gave, those things he listed that don't have any nature of its own, would you say that dun dam is included in that or not?

When Lord Buddha said nothing in the universe has any nature of its own, did he want to include in everything in the universe the fact that things have no nature of their own? Yes. Of course.

It's one of the things in the universe. Okay, all right. So, Tsongkapa says sem dung denpa.

Mine.

[Speaker 3]
Mine.

[Speaker 1]
Great. It's sarcastic. If you had a brain, who, su shik means who on earth, would say that ultimate reality is not in that list?

If Lord Buddha took the trouble to say in the sutras that nothing in the universe has any nature of its own, did he include not having any nature of its own? Of course. Duh.

And apparently, Tsongkapa is often criticizing Tibetans who came before him who did not understand the ancient classics very well. Mostly they didn't understand. You can draw a very clear line in 1357.

Most explanations, not all, but 90% before that were mistaken. And then he said, come on. Lord Buddha makes a list of all things in the universe and you don't want to include emptiness in there?

Do you have a brain? Okay. All right.

Now we got to a new section called Nibbāni. Gibson, can you translate that whole section right here? Okay.

Okay. All right. How are you feeling?

Are you all right? Yeah, I'm pretty good. So excited to hear.

If I was you, I would be lonely without my honey. Yeah, Emily's having parties every day, but... Oh, I'm so jealous.

All right. All right. We'll see you.

Thank you again. Thank you and take care of yourself. Don't eat anything on the street.

All right. All right. Okay.

Hope to see you soon. By the way, your new book is almost out.

[Speaker 3]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. His Song of My Spiritual Life is done. It's in the printer now.

It's going to be the next... It's a beautiful cover. Okay.

See you later, handsome. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Bye.

[Speaker 1]
I got to stop. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Bye.