Гибсон Чан — Книга 2: Восхваление зависимости, занятие 24

Гибсон Чан — Книга 2: Восхваление зависимости · записи курса ↗
Автоматическая расшифровка записи. Возможны ошибки распознавания: имена, тибетские и санскритские слова. Расшифровки постепенно вычитываются.

← пред.все занятия курса

[Speaker 1]
Hey friends, looks like it's time. Yeah, good morning, good evening, good afternoon. I'm excited to present you Gibson Cheung this evening, who is ready to present a deep dive of the week into the Mind Only School.

I think we may get some guests running in from yoga studies all day, a marathon of meditations with friends. So we can welcome them as they show up. They're probably finishing a deep meditation session right now somewhere.

Gibson, are you standing by and ready? Yeah, I'm ready. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We put Gibson on the spot and Gibson is filling in at the last minute. And so if he seems as smart as always, it's extra extraordinary because we surprised him with teaching this class and the same will be true in a little bit with Tim.

All right. Cool, Gibson. Thanks for doing this.

Okay. Thank you for doing that too. All right, let's prepare.

Here's Nick. You can see by Nick's background that he's also coming from the festivities at YSI. Yeah.

It's funny. They transferred us over from the YSI call and I was here introducing mixed nuts simultaneous with you, Ben, but nobody could hear me. Oh, okay.

Well, that's not a very DCC background you're using, Nick. I for one, offended. That's good.

I mean, that's fine. It's fine. If I can manage to offend you, I mean, then I'm such an easy way.

I didn't have to work hard at it. I haven't finished my coffee yet. Yeah, that explains a lot.

Here, how's that? Oh my God, it's so much better. Okay.

I'm sorry, Gibson. We're taking all your time for our silliness. Please carry on.

Okay. Okay. Let me share my work.

A little bit's worth it. All right. Thank you, Gibson, for agreeing to jump right in.

No, I'm happy to do that. So last week, we are diving into the section where maybe the Bodhisattva asked a question. He said, when you say the imaginary thing is the one that lack of the definitive nature, then what exactly is the imaginary thing?

Then he will do that for the Xianwang, also for the Yongzhu today. So there's three qualities or the three descriptions he have here. So anyone can guess what is that and give you the hints.

The answer is almost exactly the same. Same as what? All three of them are the same.

I mean, the subscription. No, no, no. The description is the same.

Yeah. The three qualities are very similar, right? Yeah.

Yeah. I remember he switched. He just switched Nampartopa for one word.

Yeah. Nampartopa. They have a two word after Nampartopa.

Yeah. That thing which comes from names and terms, which is imagined. Yeah.

Something like that. Projected onto the whatever is the thing that does stuff, the real thing. Objectification.

Daxi. Yeah. The Daxi is that.

Yeah. Later. Yeah.

Later. This is projected onto the Daxi. Yeah.

It is an object tool which conceptual thought work on. And I learned that the Daxi used to translate as the arena or playground. Oh, nice.

Yeah. Nampartopa. Yeah.

You can mean object, right? And ju is engaged, meaning the conceptual thought where you engage the object, where you engage the conceptual thought, I guess. Yeah.

So and the second one. It's quite difficult. It's similar, right?

It's the home. No, it's the. I give you a little bit.

It's Nepal. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. We have a name. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. You guess.

You are correct for the name. Let me see. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
As a team, we're a whole smart person. True. Existing with the characteristics of an imaginary thing.

Oh, OK. Let me see how I translate. Yeah.

Yeah. It is a seat where the imaginary characteristic rest. Mm hmm.

Yeah. And the third one is short. Oh, yeah.

The first four. Oh, no. I had it.

Oh, did you? Check it. What is the difference between the team and the team?

Timmy is just definition or sometimes it's characteristic, but generally it's definition. Cinema means something like a sign or an indicator. Usually there's some overlap between the words.

OK, and how do we translate? So I see. I see.

I used to translate. So sometimes he translates as a factor or sometimes he translates the thing that he sees, but changing or produce. I think, yeah, I mean, a factor when it's a when it's the fourth heat, right?

Let me see. Like carry the mug of the walking thing. I don't know.

This is all for contact. Yeah, I think probably did she might mean a concept or idea. Because we're talking about contacts.

So it must have the mark of it, of an imaginary or a sign of being a concept or a thought. Hmm, maybe. Yeah, maybe.

But yeah, but although these three put together, but also apply to the different attribute, but I still a little bit confused of why they put these three. These are all three relating to contact. So, yeah, it was one long sentence that we broke up into three.

Remember? Yeah, I do remember. Yeah.

I mean, I would take the do Jake eat Sanma being the Oh, maybe I don't know the signs or indicators. Are they the Kuntok or are they the thing that where the Kuntok stays?

[Speaker 3]
I'm sorry, is what the Kuntok or where the Kuntok stays?

[Speaker 1]
Indicators that do Jake eat Sanma. I think I think it's what makes the Kuntok is the Tenma are what are the Kuntok make making the DJ. Oh, yeah.

How can Kuntok make a DJ? Oh, so they also use the same one to check it in the next one. Oh, that'll only make things worse.

Well, they're imputed. So that is what they impute on something. I got.

OK. OK. OK.

We'll see. Fair enough. And also, yeah, this is the first part of that translation.

And the second part, they say each one indicate to something. And anyone can guess. Oh, so all three of the all three have these three characteristics.

At least I'm just looking ahead to what we're going to be translating all three of this exact same wording. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, right, right.

Almost exact. So exact or almost exact. Almost.

It would have to be almost if there's three different things. Yeah. Gibson.

Yeah. Can you keep going? The imaginary nature itself is identified by the word.

Let me give you some hints. I'll just give you everyone everything here. OK, so the imaginary nature is applying two ways to the general identity of the object.

OK, when we say this is the hip, the physical matter and or the particular characteristic of the object, as we say, that the hip grows up or abandon or fully understand. OK. So this is what Dr. Wu mentioned earlier. OK, let's go to the next one. If the dependent thing is the one lack of any nature of growing, then what exactly is the dependent thing and what does this indicate? So basically, it's the same answer here, although I didn't know if I translate correctly, but they indicate two different things.

Anyone can tell me what do they indicate? I don't know if I understand the question exactly. Oh, OK.

Maybe you can answer here first. And let me I will show you the translation later to see if we can make the question more precisely. And it does look like the wording is exactly the same.

Yeah, it's the same. Let me show you the Tibetan here. Yeah, I remember the Kangi Yu.

Yeah, Kangi Yu, whatever object is. Let me see how I translate. It indicates what it is that takes the dependent thing as its object.

So these two grow together when we are in the paragraph of the Xinguang. And about the second two, let's say the Gundaki Dashi, this is the Xinguang. It indicates that dependent things are the basis toward which the imaginary thing is applied.

How about the Ducheke Chema? Let's say it's the Rangki Ngowa Tendo. It indicates the very nature of the dependent thing itself.

Yeah, so Chema, I guess, is the sign. When you see that, it indicates or it shows you the Xinguang shows the Gunda. Let's go to the translation here.

No original text here. Okay, so we are here last time. Maybe we can review the Xinguang first and we continue.

So let's say the Xinguang, if the dependent original thing is anything that is the lack of any nature of growing. And what is the Xinguang? What is the dependent thing?

And the technique comes out, they will refer to what I really mean here. Let's say the Nambatabe Juyu we just mentioned and Gundabe Tsenikinne and Ducheke Chema. And they will start to indicate, they will pair each one to the previous one.

Let me see, like on both Kanghi, Yueyinba, Nibbe, Gundake, Daxing, and Shunbe Rangki Ngowa Tendo. Just like we just mentioned earlier. Okay, let's go to the next one.

I know it's a little bit confusing. And by the way, this is where Geshe-la mentioned about the Zhaxi when he taught this class. So just to let you know and let me know who can read.

English. Yes. Can you read this one?

Thank you. Okay, and let's go word by word here. Yongzhu, what is Yongzhu?

It's the totality. So if the totality is the Tuntambangun Yimepa? If the totality is not the ultimate essence?

Yeah, it's the totality is lack of any essence. Essence of being ultimate. Yeah, and it is the lack.

Yeah, it is. And Taini, Kang, Yin, Yang, Na. So when you think of the Taini, what is that?

It's the sadness. Sometimes it can mean sadness, but in this context, it means Yongzhu. I think it just means that thing.

What is that? What are you talking about? What is the thing?

Yeah, what is that you are referred to or when you are thinking of it? Yeah, it's like, what exactly is that? Yeah, and you can find the answer here.

Or we can also again refer to the Gongzhang left. Yeah, from the commentary on what I really mean. Yeah, the commentary of what I really mean or my true intent.

And first one. What did you translate? The object, what the conceptual thinking?

Yeah, the arena of imagining. Arena. Arena of imagining.

Playground. Yeah, the playground. The stage in which the characteristic of the imaginary thing.

Yeah, the place of the characteristic of the imaginary thing or attribute. And you check, you check. It's only that side of the producing.

I think it stops at the cinema, then it says, that's exactly what it is. Oh, oh, oh, okay. Okay.

Yeah. So, so he referred to the same, right? The sign of the gym.

And I, you think the question, I don't think it stops. I don't think it stops there. And just because he repeated it this way this time, and now I'm starting to feel like 10 ma is, is very close to meaning to me because he said it the same way three times as three as referring to like three 10 is of things which are due to.

So it is that. That aspect or that sign or that attribute of condition things that very one, which is. And then he's going to tell us what makes young troops special from amongst the three of them that were all described this way.

So if anything is not to say they are not belong to this three, I think do Jay is being described here a little bit as being composed in the sense of being composed of these three aspects. Okay. That's a hunch.

Let's see how it plays out. Okay. That's the feeling I'm getting at the moment.

I don't know. To that characteristic of imaginary imaginary things, the totality is not established. No, no, no, no, no.

It is totally not established as being the, that characteristic. We call couldn't talk praying the word, right? Because he is a young drawing.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. The dare that's like, it's a lot doing that thing, which is completely not contact. Yeah.

Okay. This completely not as contact. Okay.

Cause it's ultimate. It's the opposite of imagined. Yeah.

Are they referring to the Lombard topic to you? No, no, I think, I think they're referring to young group referring to the young group. Okay.

Yeah. Young troop is very much not going to talk in, in reference to those things. Um, it's sure as heck is not going to talk.

So in, in reference to the, yeah, that aspect of changing things, which is the domain of right ideas of conceptual ideas and the basis for imaginary ideas. It's not, it's very much not the, the imaginary part of it. And from that, um, that's only essence.

Um, no, it's, um, uh, yeah, it's, it's not, it is not able to the essence. It's, it's, it's, it's essence. It's essence is essence lists.

It's, it's, it's the essence. It's the essence of such lacks any essence much cheaper. Yeah.

Right. Or which means it isn't possible. Yeah, it isn't.

Yeah. It has no essence. It's not having essence.

Yeah. The essence, the essence comes from not having an essence name. Okay.

The essence is come from not having that. That's kind of sexy. Yeah.

If you're into that kind of thing. Uh-huh. Is it possible that the name is not, uh, uh, a name is a knob plus instrumental.

I think it is. And I was thinking that they cone on me like that. Either way, it's still the same thing.

Yeah. I was thinking it's probably instrumental because it's often used that way. Yeah.

I think you're right. Either case, it means the essence, which has no essence or something like that. Yeah.

It's essence is having no essence. Might be right. Okay.

Don't forget that knee. Yeah. You skipped the knee.

I skipped the knee. Oh, the knee should come with the previous one or come with the tree. I think it goes with the previous.

Yeah. And nothing but that it's essence is nothing more than it's lack of any essence. Hmm.

Okay. Um, and then like, kind of like a comma or like an, a positive or something, um, a thing, a thing which lacks any self or something like that. Yeah.

Hmm. So they say that. A thing which has no self.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

It's impossible to, the thing is impossible to have a self, right? Yeah. I think a lot of the machi is just doesn't have.

Yeah. I think it does not. Yeah.

I agree. Okay. Doesn't have.

All right. And they meet Bob Kong on love. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. So the object of the number number, any object, which has come purely completely as it is, as, as things are like as reality is they shouldn't meet.

I think it's even the, um, it's the thing that you look at, which, um, which purifies you. It's the, it's the make pot. It is the thing.

It's like the, like the object of purification or something. It's the thing that you see that, that cleans you of, of negativity, of negative emotions. So it's the number doc Bay meet.

Yeah, I get it. I get what you mean. I don't think it's a verb here.

I think it was going to refer to that, but I don't think it's, I think it's an adjective for non-part doc and then make buzz. And now, so it's the object of complete purity. Yeah.

That's what I think an object of complete purity means. It does, but that's not what it says here.

[Speaker 2]
The object, which is totally pure is how it was written.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So I guess it's the same thing.

[Speaker 1]
What I'm making a shopping list. I know it's always bothered me. This is what they say.

This is the tiny. That's the characteristic young group. Yeah.

I think this one is more clear than the know. Isn't that strange? Well, now it's completely clear.

So I thought it was clear before I think so. So the verb, so that was not for doc. Better.

All right. Next one. That was smaller.

Thank you. Dr. Mike. Thank you very much.

Thanks. Okay. Like when we say and stuff like that, stuff, stuff, or whatever, stuff and stuff.

When we stay, say stuff and whatever, what, what do we mean? We are saying that. Tommy.

It's the true law from earlier, by the way, the true law doc. Yeah. Yeah.

For the audience here. Yeah. That's what he said.

Oh my God. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, for sure.

He's like, why, what are we talking about when we say true? Yeah. And the rest.

Yeah. Yeah. What does that refer to?

Or words, wording such as that? Hmm. Because there's a to lack of the self, right?

Yeah. I mean, I don't know where he goes, but that's one way to go with it. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
We're referring to the lack of self of things. Yeah. And the lack of self of the person.

Yeah. I think that they shouldn't need is the very thing that we're referring to is the absence of the self of things. Hmm.

Okay. So here, Chukidame Teishinichiba. Chukidame Teishinichiba is an expression of what we are talking about.

We are exactly talking about the Chukidame. Yeah. Well, I think it's Chukidame Teishinichiba.

Hmm. Yeah. Yeah.

So that we're talking about just that. Yeah. Yeah.

It's the Teishinichiba from earlier. It's reality. Reality is the lack of self to things.

Hmm. The fact that things have no self nature, something like that. Okay.

And Kang Lamikne. This Kang is whoever, right? No.

Maybe. Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
Whoever. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Looks like it's whatever objects we habituate our minds to. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to purify any obstacles. Oh, okay. I think.

Yeah. Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
By virtue of whatever objects we habituate our minds to, we can purify obstacles.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Purify obstacles.

[Speaker 1]
Then we will recognize Yongzhu. Any Yongzhu. Yongzhu.

[Speaker 2]
Identify what it is.

[Speaker 1]
Identify.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What is a moon usually mean? Base. Direct.

Base. Obvious. Yeah.

Mian. Mian. Yeah.

Mian. I thought it was noodle. Mian.

Mian is also noodle. Both right. Both right.

Tuba. Tuba. Yeah.

So whatever you focus on, habituate on, then you will purify your obstacle. And that is exactly the Yongzhu. We can identify that as Yongzhu.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Kong. Meaning that thing. Yeah.

Whatever that is. Does it go the other way though? Like I didn't like correctly recognize the Yongzhu.

Is that thing which will purify your obstacles from what you habituated? Because I don't understand how the habituating is going to purify your obstacle. What are you habituating to?

[Speaker 3]
I think the. Shukidagme.

[Speaker 1]
Shukidagme. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

You're meditating on emptiness. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I think a few class ago, when we are talking about the three attributes, they use the metaphor to describe when you focus on the sound, you don't purify the unknowing or your ignorance, misunderstanding about the sound is changing. But if you focus on the sound is changing, then you will purify your misunderstanding that sound is not changing.

So exactly the same. We need to go through the, how to say that? Function.

Formula. The formula. The computation.

The Xianwang minus Gunda. Gunda. Equation.

Equation. We need to go through the equation to, in order to purify our obstacle. Yeah.

This is what we have a few class ago. Let me see. Okay.

I know Jessica. Yeah. Shukidagme.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Make her translate. All right. Shukidagme.

No self. No self nature of things. Yeah.

Lack of self thing. What the heck is that mean? Um.

Someone may ask. Yeah. So what is the Shukidagme mean?

Yeah. What is the Shukidagme mean? Is the question.

Yes. Yeah. We say that is a Ngoni Machipanni.

Um. That is impossible.

[Speaker 2]
Uh. Impossible of the essence.

[Speaker 3]
Itself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. The essence is.

Yeah. The thing which has no nature at all. Yeah.

The thing which has no essence at all. But why do they put the thing after that again? Because it's.

It's the very. I think it is the very lack of essence. Right.

It's not right. As opposed to the thing that. The thing that lacks the essence.

This is the very lack of that essence. Okay. And that also means that Dakota.

That is also the meaning of the meaning. When we refer to the Dakota. Yeah.

Yeah. Such as.

[Speaker 3]
But.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. All right. Let me see.

I know Earl want to read it. Oh, wow. Cool.

He wouldn't. He couldn't. He wouldn't be able to talk.

If he's on the other. So you might be right. He's screaming from the other link to let him read.

He did catch me in. Oh, mid bite. There we go.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Hey. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, good. We're going to get the meaning of totality. Oh.

Yeah. Yeah. If you were wondering who or what the heck it is that lacks.

An essence. Yeah. The lack of essence of what?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. What is the lack of essence?

[Speaker 1]
No, I think it's. What is it that lacks essence? The.

Those three have the ngoni meba, right? All of the three attributes have the ngoni meba. Whatever it is, I see what you mean.

Yeah. Because I would wonder that. Okay.

Again, the adjective, right? Yeah, there's. Adjective.

Yeah. Earlier when I said ngoni kone. Yeah.

Where is it earlier? Let me see. Where is it earlier?

Not long ago. Not long ago. There it is.

There it is. At the end of the third line. Oh, here, here.

Yeah. Okay. He's breaking down his own definition.

He's like. He's breaking down the hard terms from the definition he just gave. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So when you say that, we mean. What is the konto muba here? Muba means to utter, say, right?

And konto is something higher or above. I think he's like, as I just said, yeah. As I just said above.

Above, yeah, exactly. Exactly. As I just said about the essence of the konta, the imaginary thing.

Yeah, that's what we were just saying. It's a quote from his. Yeah, it was spoken in, you know, in reference to the nature of kontos.

When we said strictly by way of its intrinsic nature, we were talking about, I guess, the ngo-o-ni of kontos. I think here is a ngo-o-ni-de-ko. And he's trying to say the ngo-o-ni and the ne-ko.

Let me see. Ngo-o-ni-ne-ko-ne, yeah. They have two parts, right?

So ngo-o-ni, we, as I say above, okay, and what does the ko-ne mean? Yeah, he's breaking it down even more. He's like, from that thing, I said, now let me tell you what ko-ne means.

Because it's we, and no one says ko-ne, so he's explaining it now. Yeah, so ko-ne means the shin-ju-be-ngo-o-ni, shin-ju-be-ngo-o-ni. Oh, that's cool.

That changing things are caught up. Shin-ju-be. Well, caught by other, caught by other.

I think, wait before the ngo over there, it's shin-ju-be, right? It was meant to cut off others. It was meant to exclude other things.

When I said ko-ne, it was meant to exclude other things. And in this case. Those two other essences.

Yeah, right. Yeah, the other two natures. Yeah, they said no.

But the lack of any essence of the other two essences are cut off by me saying ko-ne. Yeah, it's not cut off. How do you say?

Restricted or? Restricted, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Excluded, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, I'm not talking about the lack of intrinsic nature to shidenwangs, or the lack of intrinsic nature that is yongdrup. He's talking about the lack of intrinsic natures of gundogs, specifically here.

I think. Even though he's defining yongdrup and. Yeah, yeah, yongdrup maybe is more specifically the lack of inherent nature to gundogs.

That is what we mean by yongdrup is the fact that a thing doesn't deserve its name by definition. Yeah, so that lack of an essence of a gundog is the essence of which I speak. And what I was, when I said ko-ne or ko-ne, that's why I said that, because I didn't mean the other two.

I meant gundog. Yeah, right. Right, exactly.

Yeah, so gundog ko-ne ngo-me-pa-la, right? The lack of essence. It is just the lack of essence of gundogs only.

Gundog ko-ne, right? Um, right. That yongdrup tu-che.

Because it doesn't do what kuntaks do, right? It's the lack of an essence. I think you have to go all the way to the me-pa.

Yeah. Yeah, I think so. It lacks any essence of only the kuntak, of not performing what the kuntak does.

I don't know. It's a double negative, but it seems like it just means it's the thing that strictly doesn't do what the kuntak does or something. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so this is the meaning of the yongdrup, right? Yongdrup tu-che. That's what yongdrup does.

It does not do what kuntak is not doing. These two should look together, me-che and che, right? Yeah, well, there's a la in there, but I think that's why there's the che's, yeah.

Or fortunately, we don't have to worry about yongdrup doing stuff. It's just what kone does, because that's in che, right? That's the word, the expression.

So you could say refer, because it's me-che. It doesn't refer to, because that's not what kone is doing here. It doesn't refer to the lack of nature of the other two.

Okay, let me see. Let's go to the next one. Ben, can you read?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's try. Okay, here. Teni kone-che-pa-ni-nam-par-to-pa-che-pa.

Nen tene-che-pe-har-ki-ben-wang-dong-shir-tene-kuntak-i-tse-ni. Duma-drup-che-che-pe-teni-kuntak-i-tong-pa-la-yong-drup-du-shin-du-sel-we-do-di-tong-tsul-ten-pa-nge-ten-du-nru-pa-tang-ngo-wo-ni-pa-ma. Ngo-wo-ni-tong-bo-ni-ki-tong-pa-yong-drup-du-ndu-pa-yang-gao-ao.

All right. Okay, teni kone-che-pa. I think we have explained this above.

Yeah. Just before. This is the very thing above that I explained.

I already said this. Oh, we are going to talk about the nam-pa-to-pa. Yeah.

When we say nam-pa-to-pa. When we say nam-pa-to-pa. What's the name here?

I think he's saying from saying nam-pa-to-pa, deni-che-pe. I'm trying to understand this part. Everything from the nam-pa-to-pa up to the teni.

So go back, Gibson. Highlight everything from nam-pa-to-pa to teni and drag it down there. Where is the nam-pa-to-pa here?

Well, we had it above. I'm afraid it's higher than that. Way higher.

Yeah, I don't know if we need to paste it because it'll be the same.

[Speaker 2]
Where there it is.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there we go. It's your homework. Well, the younger part.

Right. Yeah. All right.

Okay. Let's just copy here. It's our.

I don't know. Bold and bracketed and something. Yeah, we want to.

Makes me nervous. Yeah. And then curly brackets.

Or even just indented or something. Fish and Michael curly brackets. Things that are not a part of the text pretty ritually.

So yeah. Teni. Okay.

So from the nam-pa-to-pa to teni to parki. Nam-pa-to-pa to teni to teni. Um.

Yes, what I was indicating when I said all that. Yeah. I'm trying to show you that Xianwang's at their very nature are empty.

But they're. They're the foundation for what something rests upon. Maybe for what?

I mean, it's the nature. Having explained Xianwang's as being the. I don't know.

It's like, yeah, it's like the basis of emptiness. Yeah. Yeah.

That's where I think he's going with it. It's the thing that's empty. Yeah.

Because this is like the equation that Geshe Michael teaches us.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Where Yongzhu is Xianwang minus Kuntak.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Right. So where do you.

[Speaker 1]
Kuntak is teni. Here is a tu-ma-zhu or tu-ma-zhu. It's probably tu-ma-zhu.

Well, it's another quote. So it's right up above. But yeah, not recently though, right?

We didn't have a tu-ma-zhu. The Kuntak doesn't apply by definition to the. I think that's what it says.

Okay. Oh, Kuntak doesn't apply to the. Yeah.

I think it's the rest of the equation, Nick. He's saying when you take. If you take the Kuntak, which doesn't exist from the Xianwang, which is the basis of emptiness.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's see. Yeah.

It's empty of the Kuntak. Then you're super clear on what is the Yongzhu. Yeah.

Yeah. Then you're super clear that what you get is a teni, that very thing, which is empty of any Kuntak-ness, any Kuntak-ing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah. Yep. Yep.

There we are. Can you say it again?

[Speaker 2]
The equation, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You want me to say Kuntak-ery again? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Kuntak-ery, stop with that.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's the equation. So the famous equation that we keep talking about and mentioning is Kuntak, excuse me, Xianwang minus Kuntak, or a dependent thing minus an imaginary thing equals Yongzhu, which means totality or total. It can also be the result of the equation.

So it says Xianwang Tongshir Ten. If you indicate a dependent thing as the basis of emptiness or the thing shown to be empty of things. That's good.

Yeah. And then Nei, go ahead. Yeah, good.

You got it. Yeah, having shown that. Nei means minus here.

You minus a Madrup, a thing which doesn't exist, called a Kuntak, which is a Ceni, a characteristic. Yeah. And then from that, what you get is Shintoselwa, is extremely obvious to Jason Kappa, no one else, which is Tongpa, which is empty of Kuntaki, of any kind of imagined thing.

And that's called Yongzhu. Something like that. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. Great. So this is what it means when we say the number here, number to the Teni.

Yep, I guess so. I mean, he just added Teni to all the other ones. So I guess, I don't know.

All right. Let's continue with this one. Yeah.

Yeah. This is what is being put forward or posited in this book as a teaching of the real meaning of how things are empty. Yeah, right.

This is what we accept, right? Yeah, this is emptiness in what I really meant by the Buddha. Yeah.

The last essence. Okay. The Tama is the last, right?

Yeah, which is Yongzhu, right? Yongzhu. The first two.

Which is Shenwang and Kunda. And if you don't. Yeah, they're empty.

That's what we're saying.

[Speaker 2]
That's what we say, Yongzhu.

[Speaker 1]
These two kind of think when they are contradiction, right? I think it would be contradictory to say that that suchness, that Yongzhu is Shenwang's lack of either of those or that it's somehow the lack of both of those being empty of the imagined and dependent attributes being imagined and, excuse me, being empty of Kunda and Shenwang would contradict this presentation that the Twin is that Shenwang is empty of Kunda. Yeah, he's wrapping it up, right?

Yeah, I think he's saying that it would contradict that to say that Yongzhu is empty of Kunda and Shenwang. It would be contradictory then to say that totality is the lack of dependent things and the lack of imaginary things because totality is not the lack of those two. Totality is the lack of the imaginary in the dependent.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, hence the equation.

[Speaker 1]
But someone might say, oh, well, the totality is the lack of either of those first two, but it's not. It's the lack of one of them in the other one. By the way, in two minutes, we're going to talk about, especially Gibson's going to lead us to talk about how to make this practical.

Yeah, it's the most practical class we've maybe ever had. It's so clear in your mind. Because there's math, you know, what's more practical than math?

It's Shurusalwa. Oh, it's so clear, dude. Um, I noticed that there are two dupas and the structure of Tang Gyalwa.

So I don't know. Are these two, are these two dupas? The things that are contradictory to each other?

It says Yang Gyalwa though, not Tang Gyalwa, right? No, no, Tang Tang. Dupa Tang.

Dupa Yang Gyalwa. Yeah, there's a Tang and a Yang. That makes sense.

Could be, could be, yeah. We're right. So saying that what the sutra just said is the ngedun, the like, the definitive meaning of how things are empty would be contradictory, Gyalwa with dupa, suggesting that somehow Yang group is the lack of the first two natures.

Yeah, yeah. This is talking about that. Yes, I agree with you, Ben.

Those would be contradictory dupas. Beliefs, yeah. Yeah, conflicting suggestions.

Propositions? Propositions. Vote no on proposition two here.

Proposition two minus one equals zero. That one I'll vote for. That's proposition one.

Good job. We're avoiding that. I think that's your time.

Yeah, let's not say. Let's say. All right.

Thank you all. Thank you, Ni. Thank you, Ben.

Thank you, everyone who helped. It's really tough.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Gibson.

[Speaker 1]
And thank you, each translator online. I know. Somebody said, hopeless, the class is ending.

Yes. But if we continued, it still might be hopeless. All right.

Anyone who's thinking about how you can apply this to your daily life or like a math class?

[Speaker 2]
It's a free association going here.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we did. We did talk about this a little bit last week, and we're still in similar territory because we just had your class, which is helpful either to remember what to talk about, or it's harder because we're talking about the same thing. But words are not reality is the thing here.

You can have a name for something, but that doesn't make it so. You can say all kinds of wild stuff. And but that's not reality.

And you can see that. You can tell yourself stuff that's not true. We can say, I mean, that's what the Mind Only School is asserting.

And I think it's cool to debate with that. Is reality dependent on words? Yeah.

Yeah, reality is dependent on words, but that doesn't mean that I can just say stick of gold and the thing in my hand is a stick of gold. It doesn't do that. If the Shen Wang had the kundat in and of itself, if I could just throw that name there, then I can make a pen a stick of gold just by demanding to call it that.

And that's not how it works. We have to help other. If we want to stop getting frustrated, if we want to stop being in pain, then we got to stop doing the things that we do that cause terrible results that upset us.

And if we want to stop doing the things we do that cause terrible results that upset us, then we got to stop getting upset. And if we want to stop getting upset, then we have to sit and see. And maybe this very thing, according to this school, that there's something about this very understanding, just that very understanding that just because you think of something a certain way, it doesn't make it so.

Now that's sensitive or does it? I don't know. I think that's pretty helpful, especially for those of us who've been practicing or have certain extreme ideas about how to manifest goals.

I also find mind-only or these particular aspect of mind-only school that we're talking about helpful when I'm just having days where it's easier to accept that the parts of the pen are there, but the label pen is not. And then I can just kind of keep... Because that's kind of what we're talking about here, in a way.

And I find it much easier to not get hung up on stuff. If I'm like, well, we just think about it a different way, like me and whoever I'm disagreeing with, we just don't understand this thing the same way. We have different pictures of what that thing is or should be.

I went to see the Odyssey in a very large screened movie theater. And there was a woman next to me who had put a profound number of things on the armrest that we shared. And I had a moment of sensitivity about that.

And there was another woman who kept coming in and walking out and coming in and walking out. And I was like, all right, everybody, I'm dealing with all these people. And I'm trying to watch a movie here, guys.

Can we just stay out of the way of each other and not... But I had this thought about when I watch a movie with my family, because there are people to the right of me and there's people left of me. The left of me was Ezra and Kendra, my family.

And to the right of me is whatever, just all these other turkeys that are in my way. But what if they were my family too? Or what if, I don't know, all the people in this town are my family, my buddies?

If I sat and watched a movie with however many hundreds of you there are right now, and you wanted to whisper in my ear for a second about something happening, or whisper to my other family member about what was happening, I think it's kind of cute. I think it's endearing. I went to the movie with you.

You're my family. I could have just watched the movie alone, but I want to see the movie with you. And there was something just about this thought of, if these people were just my friends, if these people were just my family, I just thought that word.

I don't mind them getting up, moving around, sharing my armrest. It's kind of sweet. If they're just all mine and I'm theirs, then who's a bother?

Who's a bother? If I'm going to the movies just with my family and these people are in the way, but if I'm at the movies with my big, big, big family, it's nice. It was nice.

It felt really nice. And then they got up and they're moving around. It was nice.

It was like we were all watching in a very darned big living room. And just the words, just that little thought, just what I was calling it, made it feel very different to me. Yeah, it was beautiful.

When I take this class and review what Geshe-la taught, what is amazing for me is that he always can relate this idea to our daily life. And I don't know how he can, how he's doing that. And randomly in that class, he said Zhaixi, the name Zhaixi.

But when he's talking about the Douba, Nangba Doubei Juyu, so maybe we can, in this class, we can think about this. How we name things. Is the thing we named it, they are coming from their own side?

When some baby popping up, popping out from their mother, we just say, oh, Gibson or Ben. What is the basis that we are naming to? And who named to them?

Are they have any nature of it? And how we can find the emptiness out of it? Because this is how we do it, right?

And also, this also reminds me about the way of naming the thing. Is that related to the Dunqi, Zhaixi, and Rangchen, Qichen? I don't know.

It feels fascinating to thinking about that. Yeah. So what do you think?

Yeah, right. I mean, this is the quest. Are we naming real stuff with our names?

Or are we just naming more names with our names? And the quest of all of the different texts of the Mixed Nuts are different ways of struggling with the question of what are we naming? What are we naming?

That's like the heart of every school here. Are we naming another name? Are we naming something?

What's at the bottom of all the names? There's got to be something at the bottom of all the names, right?

[Speaker 2]
It's a cool way to put it. That's a nice way to talk about the progression through the schools.

[Speaker 1]
Dr. Tin, don't raise your hand. Just flap your lips and share. This is your living room, sir.

Don't be polite.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, I'm still struggling with the definition of Yong Su, Yong Thup, and Shen Wang, and Kuntak.

[Speaker 1]
And I try to relate it to the two husbands in the kitchen. So I don't know that I understand right or not. But the Shen Wang is the dependent things, right?

So in the two husbands in the kitchen, that will be the husband, the cause and effect husband. The yelling husband, which coming from that we yelling our kid last week, right? And the Kuntak, the imaginary thing is the husband, which is I didn't do anything, right?

And if the Yong Thup is Shen Wang minus Kuntak, then the Yong Thup is the husband, the cause and effect husband minus the imaginary husband, right? Then that is the Yong Thup, the totality. But I still cannot feel what is the thing.

That's when we take the cause and effect husband minus the I didn't do anything husband. Because it's the totality, yeah. Because you don't get a husband when you think of that, but you do get a guy in your living room.

And that's the limit of the mind only school. There is a guy there, but girl, whatever, whatever is the thing. That person there, whatever you call them, the fact that you call them that has no nature of its own.

And the fact that it has no nature of its own is the essence-less essence, right? And that is Yong Thup. But you can call them something and they can function as your husband, whatever you're doing over there.

And the fact that they function like that has no essence of its own. But the person is there and they're K-Y-ing, they're growing and changing. But their husband-ness is essence-less and is nothing but an imagined thing.

And the whole reason you're mad at him, right, is because he's yelling at you for no reason. And when you look to see what is it about the guy in the kitchen that deserves the name yelling at you for no reason, you don't find anything. There's nothing about that flesh in the kitchen that deserves the name yelling at me for nothing, not a bit of it.

And so the whole idea of the source of your anger, that that person in front of you, that that ball of growing flesh in front of you somehow deserves your anger, it just evaporates if you understand that the name that you made up is what you're mad at the guy across the room for. It's insanity. I made up a word, I threw it on the guy over there, and now I'm mad at him about it.

It's insanity. And if you can see that there's nothing about him that deserves the name you just threw at him, then it would be impossible to get mad at him. I remember not to mention that also, you know, we also threw out the one that we call husband that comes from my seat, right?

There's no guy in the kitchen, really. There's a guy that we're projecting, as the word said. I think of the pot on the stove, the pitcher.

[Speaker 3]
And Cosimo always saw the pitcher, the pot on the stove, one pitcher, and then followed by the long pitchers, like that, pot on the stove.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what has that silver, you know, and black done to deserve the name pot? Didn't never happen. That thought, that thing on the stove never heard that word.

It has no relationship with that word. That's your trip. I want to say about the pitcher.

First, pot on the stove, times out. Oh, it's okay. Now it's 8.15. Oh, no problem. Thank you. Yeah, next class, we will have on the other website. Do we have, Nick, do you know, do we have a Wanhaso?

[Speaker 2]
We have a Wanhaso.

[Speaker 1]
We have mainstream world news. And then we have another class with Dr. Tim Lowenhaupt. What's that, Marina?

[Speaker 3]
We have three recordings from Juan.

[Speaker 1]
Three recordings from Juan. Very good. Yeah, well, I approve this message.

Welcome, everyone, to another excitement segment of, if you are watching this, I'm probably already dead. Of course, just kidding. But that's the name of the segment.

Probably when I pre-record videos is midnight and 40 minutes. Regards from Barcelona. Woo, amazing place.

But today, today we have super, super exciting news. What's going on? Geshe-la, 51st anniversary of Touching the Diamond World.

And for that, we're going to start sharing. Thank you, Geshe-la. Please stay with us.

We are so grateful. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Please stay, please. Helping us, please.

Take us today to be able to touch the diamond world as well with your wisdom and love and kindness and kindness. Thank you so much. We'll be talking more about this in a moment because today YSI is celebrating this 51st anniversary along with the 20th anniversary of YSI teachings on Ripples of Light.

But we'll get there in a moment. Let's start going with academic sessions level one. Pretty much is about to start tomorrow.

Sending best wishes over there. Just letting you know that's happening. September, Geshe-la is planning to go to China to have DCIG level nine.

I think it's in Shenzhen city. And Wang Xia and Tina Liu are some of the main organizers that I know about. If you want more information, try to contact them.

SCIM will have more step levels this year. Level three coming up in October from the 12th to November the 13th. Mastering your mind for success at work and at home.

CSP is having some events coming up in Arizona in August, I think. But in October, they're opening the group number five. Exciting news.

We hope we can talk to them soon. Yes, okay. Just two days ago, teacher John Brady, teacher Connie O'Brien and Holger Wolf.

They also had an event in Munich after wonderful, wonderful event in Vienna. They went to Munich and I got some pictures about the event. Thank you, Alona, for sharing.

I hope the event went super cool, super well. If people have videos, we're still accepting them. Oh yeah, okay.

So long story short, right now I'm in Barcelona. But before, the whole trip started in Singapore. Wonderful event, level eight, organized by Jenny Wong and her wonderful, wonderful team.

Beautiful place, beautiful teachings. Then after Singapore, we went to Malaysia. Another amazing, amazing event.

It was about 900 people and the teachings were really, really cool. Thank you, everyone who made this possible. Five Houses, Jasmine Yao and her wonderful team.

And of course, we want to thank, very specially, WorldView Productions, because without you, this event would have not been the same. And here they are enjoying some fun team building activities at the pool after the event. Sending best, best regards, WorldView Productions.

We really appreciate you. Okay, what happened then? I went to Vienna with this wonderful event.

Super, super cool. As I say, super impressed with the community there. Super impressed with the teachings, with the city.

The friends in Vienna were super, super welcoming. I'm very, very grateful. And I want to show you some pictures of the event.

This was the first day, a special yoga class by teacher JB. Well, Konila was there as well. But the asana was done by teacher John Brady.

And then a wonderful Q&A by both of them. The actual event happened the next day. And here's a group picture.

Super cool community. Things that are happening there really impressed me. And I'll be talking about that later.

They're gonna have another event in Vienna, December 18 to the 20th. It's a weekend where they're gonna be taking the content that Geshe-la will be teaching all over the year and then sharing it with the audience in pretty much Europe, I will say. Now, I want to talk a little bit of something very cool that happened in Malaysia when Geshe-la gave this first edition of Illumination of the True Thought on four different books to this wonderful team of people that are really changing the world.

And for that, we have a special interview to share with you. Let's go!

[Speaker 3]
Vienna Tour 2026.

[Speaker 1]
Unbelievable. We are very honored and very happy to be here with teacher Peter Mortel. Today, we're in a very special place next to the Danubio River in Vienna where teacher Peter and teacher Maria have their apartment, their home.

[Speaker 3]
It's very dear to me also. For many years, I remember you telling me like, Oh, one day you should come to Vienna. You should come to Vienna.