Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 23

[Speaker 2]
Get to work. Looking for my quiz. Hold on a minute.

No, I put it here somewhere.

[Speaker 1]
I have so many bibliographies and spreadsheets open on my computer still.

[Speaker 2]
Oh yeah, close them all.

[Speaker 1]
I will, I will. I know it's time to close them. I'm so excited.

[Speaker 2]
There. All right. Can you guys see my quiz?

Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I hope I can remember the answers myself. Makes us feel better if you can't.

Yeah, yeah. Oh good. And I'm just pretending if I can't.

All right. What is the result? You guys ready?

All right. What is the result of holding to me and mine? And why is GALSubJ making a point of explaining that the me and mine that we are holding to are lying to us?

[Speaker 2]
Isn't he talking about what you see in the direct perception of emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
No, he's talking, he's using, we're in the section on the reflection. Right. And he's talking about, so that was the last quiz.

We were talking about that. Now we're talking about what he specifies that something is caused by holding to me and mine. Well, I mean, some sorrow or suffering, but that's both very good and correct answers.

It isn't what he specifies exactly. So I suppose I'll give you a hint. I suppose maybe you could say they fall into the, they fall within what he's describing.

Ben, do you know the answer? You're gesturing as if you do.

[Speaker 2]
No. I have some rank guesses.

[Speaker 1]
Well, go into the lower realms. We're falling. No, no, no, it's not.

No. I mean, you could say that some, some sorrow is a part of what he's saying is the result. You could say, one could say, one has said.

It's much simpler than this is.

[Speaker 3]
What is the result of holding to me and mine?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Either you remember or you don't. The impure heaps are the result of holding to me and mine.

Impure heaps. He's making a point that these impure heaps are lying to us because we believe that the heaps are true. But if we understand that their cause is a lie, which is the me and mine that we hold to, then it would be illogical that they could be real because how could something real come from something that's a lie?

Yeah. So it seems that he's implying a lot in this argument that somehow we would understand first that the me and the mind that we hold to are false before we could understand that the heaps themselves are lying to us. I'm personally not totally clear on the helpfulness of the metaphor that he's using, but this is the metaphor that we're in, and this is exactly what he said.

So we can go back and check it out, though.

[Speaker 2]
Tibetan for false cause?

[Speaker 1]
What super cool result comes from stopping our grasping to me and mine as being real? Direct perception of emptiness? That's not what he specifies here.

Pure heaps?

[Speaker 2]
In this context, you would want to think that, right?

[Speaker 1]
What's that, Ben?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I mean, in this context, you would want to think it's no longer being forced to take on suffering heaps.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's more like it. Any parts that were infected with suffering will not arise again, and we will give up suffering and its source, and thus achieve liberation. Where's Oscar?

Is he writing me the answers on WhatsApp or something? No.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, of course he is.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, he's putting them in the chat. Yeah, yeah. There we go.

Freedom. Oh, okay. Oscar is there.

Good for you. Stop suffering. Good.

Nice, Elmira. Cool. She felt it so strongly that she wrote it to me in a separate chat.

Tibetan for...

[Speaker 2]
That one was just personal advice.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Give it up. Stop suffering.

I can't. Come on, somebody. Duk ne dang kun jung pong?

Right. That's right. Is there a quicker way that Tibetans like to say stuff?

I don't know. Correct. Yeah.

Oh, my God. I was joking. Oh, we see this a lot.

I guess I see it a lot in these concepts and texts. Oops. Please explain Arya Nagarjuna's example of the reflection in the mirror.

So this came straight from Arya Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 2]
Is it like the face? Now we're talking. Keep going, Rob.

[Speaker 1]
The face. Yeah. Isn't it true that it's a reflection even though it's fake?

No. You're getting too...

[Speaker 2]
In the same way that you could think that the reflection in the mirror is real?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Wait. Oh, yeah. And then you could think of your own body, your own parts as real.

[Speaker 3]
Holding to a meme based on those parts. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, good. As a team, Geshe Michael, we mix nuts.

We can do this. Hey, you keep it down out there. Hey, Nick, why does the Peachtree people show up only for dinner?

Should I say that again? Never mind. Somebody came to buy some shelves.

We're selling all our stuff if anybody needs anything. We're taking 75% losses like it's nothing. I'll take Amelie and Sheru.

The sheepdog we can talk later. Just kidding. I love that dog.

Did he just bark at you for that? Yeah. He has something to say about that.

He's like, what? What would you say? Whoever looks in the mirror will see a reflection of the image in it.

That's your own face thing, Rob. This reflection appears to be the real thing itself, but it is not. Not even the slightest bit.

Just so, grasping to me based on perceiving the parts of a person is like taking a reflection as an object that has some nature of its own. It's a lie. There is no person or parts of a person that exist through any nature of their own at all.

This is, I guess, my translation of that part. That's the metaphor. Like so, like so.

Cool. English for a reflection of their own image. Oh, wait.

Okay. Tibetan for that. Yeah, I know.

But get even more weird. Oh, what's the Rangishin thing? Is that it?

Yeah, you got it.

[Speaker 2]
Seems like a nice modern metaphor would be the image, like the one inch square image of myself on this computer screen, like right now.

[Speaker 1]
My Zoom. Is there a word for that?

[Speaker 2]
My Zoom. I don't know. It sure looks like I'm there.

I am not. But there is something strangely compelling about it.

[Speaker 1]
About Zoom. That's what I was going to say again. Zoom nian.

God, this is getting really geeky. Oh, boy. Okay.

Here's some translations, some translated things. Stopped here. Oh, Keshala, I took another shot.

I combined the two paragraphs and took another shot at it, at the one we were struggling with at the end of the last class. You want to tell the story of what happened on this? Okay.

It would appear that we split the paragraph in the midst of an idea. And it seems that when we put the... Geshe Michael was probably on the way home and noticed it, or asked Stanley to check the Chinese.

Stanley checked the Chinese and saw what explained what it said. Geshe Michael looked again. This is my interpretation of what happened.

And saw that if we put the Tibetan back together, then it would make sense. Which I promptly did. And then saw that it made sense.

And then it didn't make sense to me. And then it did. And it didn't.

Like, that's how I translate. Stanley on his own initiative came to me. And he said he thought the Chinese was correct.

And it helped me a lot. And I realized I had split the sentence in the wrong place. It was a great, great help.

Thank you, Stanley. Even Jaru's barking. He was psyched when this happened the other night.

Okay. So, I don't know if I translated it right. But this is...

[Speaker 2]
Can you blow up your thing for us, buddy?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Love it.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-oh. I think Amelie's messing with Jaru now. Uh-oh.

Oh, man. I didn't have time to get it. But Amelie has this little astronaut and a monkey on a surfboard.

And she was like, I'm going to show this to Geshe Michael. And then he's going to be a monkey. I would love to.

Can you show me the Tibetan also?

[Speaker 2]
The what?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yes, of course.

[Speaker 2]
Great.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And then I need a second because it's kind of long.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'll read it to stall. Okay. Okay.

Nice reading. Let me sit with this for a second. Oh, I know.

And I struggled with one part. I'm still unclear for sure about one part. Yeah.

I'll tell you the core of it. Which is what Stanley helped us with. We're going to start in the third line halfway through.

This particular part of this particular one of the five heaps. Okay. This particular one of the five heaps does appear to exist through some nature of its own.

But this other part of the five heaps doesn't appear. So that's the breakthrough that Stanley helped us. This part of the five heaps does appear to exist by nature.

But this other part of the five heaps doesn't appear to exist through its own nature. You can't say that. Either they all appear to exist to their own nature, or none of them appears to exist through its own nature.

So the whole point of your text at this point is to say when you break something down and try to analyze whether each of the parts exists by its own nature. If you don't find that each and every one of the parts uniformly exists through its own nature, then the whole cannot exist through its own nature. And that's what this whole sentence is saying.

Okay. Cool. That explains one of the tomchays that I did not understand.

Yeah, and by the way, then they take it to reflection in the mirror. Right. They say what?

We should pay attention to this example of a reflection in the mirror so that we can grasp that not even the tiniest part exists through any nature of its own. Yeah, and what he's saying is if any part of the reflection in the mirror is real, then the whole thing has to be real. It's not like the nose in the mirror has to be real and the mouth is not real.

Either all the pieces separately appearing in the mirror are fake, or are not the real nose, etc. Or they all are, but there can't be a mix. Okay, got it.

And that's what you understand when you paste it back together. And that's why we can't make this shorter. And by the way, he's going to carry that over to the reflection.

And that's the whole thing he's trying to teach in this section. If you break things down, if you think a thing is self-existent, break it down into its pieces. And if any of the pieces is not self-existent, you have a problem.

Okay, I'm just making a note to make sure I change this. And then that's the khazak and chökyi dangme, by the way. That's the emptiness of the person and things, but things in that division always means the pieces of the person.

So when you say people are empty and things are empty, that things always means the pieces of the people. It doesn't mean stuff in general. Absolutely.

Okay, so I didn't get that. I thought it was more simple, but that's easy. Got it.

And he's trying to segue into the idea that there's two kinds of emptiness. People and the parts of the people. Okay.

And that's really about the emptiness of coffee cups and stuff like that. Okay. I'll read this one.

No, this is a hard one. Oh boy. If you want, it'd be easier.

I'll just read it. But we have to see both. Oh, I see.

Yeah. Does that work? No, I mean push the whole paragraph of the Tibetan down to the next page.

Oh. That's some carriage returns here. There you go.

Okay. Later, you'll wonder why you did that. Okay.

Sorry. This is a hard sentence, actually. When we talk about things not being the way they appear with regard to a mirror...

Okay. When we talk about things not being the way they appear when we have an image in the mirror... Okay.

My question to you, Nick. When I say that the things that you see in a mirror don't exist the way they seem, in other words, like a small baby will take that to be another person, right? They'll take their own reflection to be another person, another baby, and they'll try to talk to it or touch it or stuff like that.

So, when we talk about realizing that the thing in the mirror is not a real baby... Okay. At some point, the baby figures it out, right?

When we talk about that... Now my question to you, Nick. Could you perceive that...

Could you perceive that the things in the mirror are not what they appear to be? Can you perceive that with your normal senses? Or do you have to go through a long logical process?

Well, I suppose you could use that using your normal senses, yes. You could... Okay, so that's the argument here, okay?

And he chooses agyempo. I thought he was choosing aging, but maybe he's talking about an old man. It's an old fogey.

Probably over 71. You guys know Dajang. Yeah, well, Dajangwa is someone who knows the terms for things.

Yeah, but in this case, it's not an Eskimo who never saw a mirror. Okay? It means someone who's familiar with mirrors, okay?

It's an old fart who's familiar with how a mirror works, okay? Does he... He can just see it with his ngonsum.

He can use direct, accurate perception. To see that the thing in the mirror is not what it appears to be, right? Uh-huh, yeah.

You can see that. He's seeing that it's conventionally... I mean, he's got a tanyepe here, but it's modifying the ngonsum semas.

He's just saying a typical direct perception. Yeah, his normal perception. His normal direct perception.

He doesn't need... He don't need laji, okay? A tanyepe means conventional.

Okay, he sees it with conventional senses. Some people say, okay? Some people say that dey tokpa, to realize that...

To realize what? Uh, that it's not what it appears to be, using your conventional perception. No, just to realize that the things in the mirror are not what they appear to be.

Dey tokpa. To realize that, and then pause, and then say, nama kachiki, some... Someone before.

Yeah, some thinkers of the past in Tibet. He always loves to complain about... You know, Tsongkhapa loves to pick on the early Tibetan thinkers.

Nama kachiki. There were some weirdo early Tibetans who said, you need rikspa. Okay, you have to use logic in order to perceive such a thing.

Yep, you need logical perception. Although they admit rakpa, logical perception, is okay. Okay, so just a kind of rough, logical perception.

Yeah, it's not rocket science, but you still gotta figure it out, okay? And then he says, mi te. It would be, but they're incorrect.

Yeah, their... Correct. Their dupa is mi te.

Their perception, their position is incorrect, okay? Totally. Dupa means their position.

Shepa chau? We should understand that. We should know.

Get it. Okay. In your cocoa, in your head.

That must be an omelet expression. All right. Spanish, the coconut.

Okay. So, cool, all right. I got it.

I will re-do that one completely. You're gonna say nipa ni, and then you're gonna read what is nipa ni. Here's the second example of the cessation.

Oh, dokpe pedan. Yeah, what were we supposed to dok in part one? Sorry, what do you mean?

I don't know. There was a homework by a guy about 10 minutes ago. And he said, one of the homework...

Sorry, one of the vocabulary questions was... Wasn't it? Two of the four truths.

Oh, we were doking, yeah, the two... Question two. Yeah.

What we were doking, yeah. Right, right, right. So, what we seek to dok is what?

Dukun kun. Yeah, the Arya truth of suffering, and the Arya truth of where that suffering comes from. Now, I explained it to you, but now I'm going to give you a bit.

For the dok... I already explained it to you, now I'm going to give you an example, or a metaphor. Yeah, I'll give you a metaphor so you guys won't forget it.

Okay, here we go. I took a shot at the verse, but we can skip that for now. I don't mind that we're done.

Let's try, let's try.

[Speaker 2]
Can we keep the Sanskrit also, Nick?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, there it is. Nice. Okay.

By the way... By the way, Ben, I think it's interesting. This Adarsha, in North India a thousand years ago, sometimes a long A was pronounced A-N.

Like Arhant? No, yeah, or Andarsha. Andarsha.

Adyam dupe aloke andarshe. You know, this one. This one, Andarsha.

The Tibetan say Andarsha. It's the mirror. Andarsha.

So, Adarsha means what you look at means the mirror. Okay. So, Nick, what's interesting here is, if you read Gyeltsab Je, and if you read the Sanskrit for the second line, says swa mukha.

Yeah, so that's rang kyi shin. Nice, nice, nice. If you don't use a me long, okay, if you don't use a me long, you will never see the suk nyen of rang kyi shin.

Yeah, their own image. Someone wants to see a reflection of their own image, their own face. Yeah, you'll never see your own face.

If you don't use a mirror, you will never, you will never see the reflection of your own face. Okay. The reflection of your own face cannot appear unless you rely upon a mirror.

In the same way, okay, that was the metaphor. In the same way, if you don't pretend, use. Yeah, I was struggling a little bit with how to make pretend the same for both, so I didn't get that far yet.

Yeah, I saw. What he says is, if you don't use a me long, you guys, you cannot see the reflection of the parts. If you don't use the bubos, parts, if you don't use your parts, you will never be able to understand ngan dzin.

Wow. Understand ngan dzin? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

In other words, you cannot understand how mirrors work without looking at a piece of a reflection, and you cannot understand emptiness without looking at one of your five heaps, at a piece of you. And what Nagarjuna's theme here is divide and conquer. Split it, break it up, split it up, split it down, and then you can see emptiness.

Work on the emptiness of the parts, and then you can see the emptiness of the whole. Okay, in the same way that when you want to see if, you know, if you want to understand how a mirror works, look at your nose, and then look at your eyes, and then look at your lips, and like that. It's very interesting.

It's very beautiful. Get to the emptiness of the person through the emptiness of the parts. But when you see this directly, you always see the emptiness of the person first, and then the parts.

Okay, very interesting. Totally. I'm just amazed how far off the mark I am here, but it's just great.

It's very good, and he's saying go at it through the parts. Go at it through the parts. That's all.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Cool. By the way, by the way, go at it through the fakeness of the parts.

Yeah, establish the fakeness of the nose in the mirror, and then you can establish the fakeness of the face in the mirror. But go at the fakeness of the pieces first, and then you'll understand the fakeness of the whole. Okay, cool.

Yes, sir. I'm just kind of curious, because you're saying that last line is saying they won't understand ngar dzin, and that definitely makes sense, but is that somehow in the dra, the part about understanding it? Oh, de dang dra means understanding how you grasp the nick comes through understanding how you grasp the nick's parts.

So understanding the emptiness of me is similar to the process of understanding how the whole face is fake by looking at the parts of it. Okay, so de dang dra means the same process. We use the same process to understand ngar dzin.

You get to understanding ngar dzin by understanding ngar yi war dzin. Understand. I understand what you're saying.

And then I'm trying to understand what word in here I can translate as understand.

[Speaker 2]
Like if you don't rely on the heaps?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if you don't, yeah, someone who doesn't, if you don't use the heaps, and you won't understand holding to his self, right? Holding to yourself is, let's do the whole thing. If you never buy a mirror, you will never see how your face looks.

Yeah, if you never study your pieces, your understanding of how you grasp to yourself will be the same. We would have to say the same is true of how you grasp to yourself or something? Yeah, exactly.

Maybe it's true of yourself grasping. I got you. But we're going to three ideas.

He mentions ngar dzin, grasping to Michael. Then we want to get to ngar yi war dzin, grasping to Michael's. And there was something else in there I don't remember.

Yeah, that's it. Actually, that is it. And those two together constitute the view of the perishable assembly or whatever it is.

Okay, destruction of your favorite translations. Yeah, and that constitutes the true first link of the wheel. Okay.

Okay. All right. Okay, cool.

Thanks. Thank you for clarifying that. Thanks for working on it.

You got any more here? Yeah, I got more. I hope it got easier.

I don't remember, but I seem to have really. Okay. Oscar, do you want to read?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I'm going to sit with your translation for a second. Well, I mean, I took word for word what I had translated the verse as, the first half of this is going to be definitely wrong.

Well, let's start with the first half here. The first half of line. If you don't use a mirror, okay, it's the same.

If you don't use a mirror, there will never be a reflection of your own what? Face. Yeah, that's all.

That's the whole. By the way, in the study of metaphor, it's called the, what's it called? The metaphor, referent.

The referent of the metaphor. Okay, so seeing your face in the mirror, the referent is holding to a self, a you, as opposed to a me, or mine. Okay, holding to a me, as opposed to a mine.

Okay, so he says, if you never use a mirror, you're never going to be able to see your own face. And if you don't use the parts of a person, you will never understand how you grasp to the total of the parts of the person. Mm-hm.

You don't look at a piece of yourself in the mirror, you will never understand your whole self. If you never understand how a piece of you is fake, in the mirror, you will never understand how all of you is fake, in the mirror. Okay, if you don't understand how your face is fake in the mirror, you'll never understand how you are fake in the mirror.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Is he not kind of saying that, not just that you won't understand Ngarn-Zin, but that if you don't rely on the heaps, you will have Ngarn-Zin, and then in the commentary, then if you do rely on understanding that the heaps aren't really there, then you turn back Ngarn-Zin.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, let's read that part, okay, Ben? Then Nick from Pumbo in the third line, in the middle of the third line, let's read that part because that's what he's comparing the mirror thing to. If you can PUMBO RANG BZHIN MED PAR RTOGS Yeah, if you can realize, if you can rely upon the realization that the parts of a person do not possess any nature of their own.

Well, let's cut it. PUMBO RANG BZHIN MED PAR RTOGS, what does that mean? Realization that the parts of a person are empty of any nature of their own, or don't have any nature of their own.

If you can RTOGS with an S, if you can come to the realization that the pieces, the parts of you have no nature of their own, then you'll be able to RTOGS PA You'll be able to stop your tendency to hold to a dock and a dock here. Me and mine. Yeah, a me and a mine.

And by the way, each one is 50% of JIGS SOGS LA LTA BA. Yeah, and you have to have both to spin the wheel of life. Because they are, those two together are the first link of the wheel of life.

And holding things like coffee cups to be self-existent is not part of the wheel of life. It's specifically holding you to be self-existent, and mine, me and mine. That's the first link of the sansara.

Some teachings, coffee cups are mine, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's just an Andrade school thing.

[Speaker 2]
In the real life, the parts are the instrument.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I personally feel it this way. Seeing that your face is fake in the mirror would help you see that your whole body would be fake in the mirror. Seeing a piece is fake.

The whole idea of this whole section is if you attack the pieces intellectually, you will understand the emptiness of the whole. That's the whole idea. Unfortunately, it's not that clear.

It's definitely not spelled out like that. Yeah, it's not really that clear, but that's the point. That's how Gyatsobje is taking it.

By the way, the next sentence makes it pretty clear. Let's go there. Is Saluestro there yet?

[Speaker 3]
He left already.

[Speaker 1]
Every time you start to get up, he leaves. He's got something against my class, I guess. Perhaps.

I told you you have to take a shower more often than me. Well, that's beside the point. All right, how about JB?

He also has escaped. Connie. Come on.

[Speaker 2]
Connie escaped.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to give you some quick choices, okay, Nick? Going down the row. Rob, Gyatsobje, Ellie, Stanley, Jack.

Gyatsobje is in red. Uh-oh, okay. It took me too long.

Oh, Connie is there. Oh, what are you online or something? All right.

You're supposed to turn off your camera when he calls on you.

[Speaker 2]
It is off, I think. You shouldn't. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I'm in the shower. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
JB and I are in the garden. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. You've got to turn those.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Nice. Nice.

Nice. Nice. I'm also blind.

[Speaker 3]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Nice. Nice.

If you can't see and you just did that, that's amazing. JB is laughing at me. Okay.

Okay. So, by the way, Nick, pey dun is an idiom and it's always pey dang dun. Oh, okay.

I think I just took the whole thing as a metaphor of pey dun. Yeah. The metaphor and their meaning or something?

And the metaphor and what they refer to? Like if you say, I don't know, popcorn is like a parachute, then the dun is popcorn and the pey is parachute. Oh, cool.

Yeah, yeah. So, having explained these metaphors. And their reference.

And what they refer to. Yeah. Okay.

Let's talk about that. It's pey dang dun. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Gotcha.

[Speaker 1]
Let's examine these independences. Consider it people and their parts. Okay.

I would say consider the person and their parts. They are empty of any existence or any nature of their own, because they are dependent. They are, for example, like a reflection.

Yeah. And as your footnote probably says, this is the classical... Yeah, this is called the king of reasoning.

Yep. This is supposed to be the king of all proofs of emptiness. By the way, it may come from here.

I don't know. But... Yeah.

I referenced the three principal paths because it's coming out soon. And it's a nice, clear explanation in there. It is.

It's an extremely beneficial text.

[Speaker 3]
So is it just meditations?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Cool.

By the way, in my heart, he doesn't really nail it down here. You know? I don't think...

I don't know. I think Nagarjuna is trying to say divide and conquer. Understand the emptiness of the pieces, and you will get to the emptiness of the whole.

It's not so clear this way. I mean, I understand the sentence, and it's okay. I'm not sure how closely it reflects the metaphor of the reflection.

In fact, it doesn't even mention it. But, tendrel, dependent origination, the fact that the presence of a polished, mercury-covered substance is present is supposed to be a cause for the reflection. So there is a cause and effect thing going on there.

There's an appropriate substance to act as a mirror, and then you put a face in front of it, and that's called dependent origination. It will create a reflection. Yeah.

That's how I interpreted it. Similar to seed and water will create a tree. A good surface and the presence of a face in front of the mirror will create a reflection.

[Speaker 2]
It's super slippery for me, but I want to ask somehow if he's trying to say that the self appears upon the heaps, just like your face appears in the mirror, and then it's just as real because of that, because somehow the self depends on appearing upon the heaps, or something like your face appearing on a mirror, just as in real.

[Speaker 1]
I can see the merits of that. I can see that it would be helpful. So you're comparing the parts of a person to the pieces of the mirror and the presence of an image in front of the mirror, and then the impression of a person is similar to the reflection.

Something like that? Yeah, yeah. That goes along with what you were just saying, Geshe Michael, about the presence of a mirror and the presence of a face in front of the mirror.

I think it takes a lot more meditation and a lot more thought. Something's going on here, and he's not saying it directly. For example, why don't you just study your fingers so you can see the emptiness of your hand?

Why the mirror thing? If it's not the way Ben said, then why have a mirror involved? You see what I mean?

You can just look at the emptiness of the fingers and see the emptiness of the hand, right? There has to be some lie involved, right? Kunzo, there has to be some misdirection.

It has to appear to be something it's not. The best thing to do when you're kind of glued down like this is to go ahead. You take the plane, boss.

All right, here we go. You have five minutes. Yeah, you gave me five minutes.

You're so generous. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but we had that hard combined thing.

That was nasty. Thank you, Ben Stanley. Okay, Nick, who's doing this one?

They have to read this, and then they have to read the big letters down here. Oh, big letters, okay. How about Lindsay?

[Speaker 3]
Sheep honey?

[Speaker 1]
I'll go skip to the big letters down here.

[Speaker 3]
tong ni tokpa tar pay gyur tenpa or pao?

[Speaker 1]
Tenpa.

[Speaker 3]
Tenpa, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Nick, Shiva? Of course, here's the fourth.

Yeah, which is tong ni tokpa is the gyu of tarpa. The realization of emptiness is the cause for reaching liberation, a demonstration of that. Yeah, I'm going to demonstrate that.

I'm going to skip the rude text, and we have enough time, I think, to do... Yeah, if you want to call on somebody to read this part. Do you want to keep going, Lindsay?

[Speaker 3]
hakpa kun ga wo yin ni nar shepa de ta wui do tongpa ni no sum du tokpe tong lang to ney cho nan la cho ki mey du mey ching tri ma tang drawa shen yi dring la mi jok Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Cho. Cho? Yeah, cho, it means dharma.

Which one? C-H-O-S. Cho.

Thank you. Cho, it means dharma. It's good.

It'll come up a lot. Yeah, so Nick, we're going to do this quick. Papa pao?

Arya Ananda. Ananda, thank you. Thank you for not saying Ananda.

Okay. Ananda means unhappy person. Ananda means unhappy.

Ananda means unhappy. Ananda means unhappy person. Ananda means super happy person.

Okay. My sister's name is Amanda, does that have any meaning? No, she's gone beyond the world.

Amanda. Oh yeah, yeah, cool. Amanda.

She's gone beyond the world. Okay. Papa kun gawa yini.

Then you have to say, nga shepa de tabi dun. Okay. You have to say that one there.

Uh huh. Ananda tokpa de dun. He realized the meaning.

Which I just said that to you. Uh huh. Above.

He understood the whole mirror thing. Uh huh. Okay.

And therefore, he tongpa nyi ngun tu du tok. He realized emptiness directly. Which means he tokpa tonglam.

He achieved the path of seeing. And he achieved the chukyami. The wisdom eye or the dharma eye.

Towards all chos. Stuff. To all stuff.

And now his eyes didn't have any talwa or dul in them anymore. Right, his eyes were no longer obstructed by dust or whatnot. Very dust, if you ask Amalie.

And his eyes became, now give me the Sanskrit for tumadandawa. Vimala. Yeah, vimala.

God free of all impurities. Okay. And here's a word you guys don't know.

Which is called ding jopa. Say ding jopa. Ding jopa.

Ding jopa means to, I got to say it carefully. It means to trust what somebody says. Trust what people say.

Ding jopa means trust what people say. And Ananda chose to shen gyi jing la min jok. Rely on no one else or trust nothing, no one else.

Yeah, he didn't go along with the common knowledge of his days. Common wisdom, right? He did not go along with the common wisdom of his days.

He was an independent thinker. A maverick. Yeah, he was a maverick independent thinker.

Right, Dennis? All right. Dennis.

Hey, Dennis. Okay. And we'll find out the rest later.

Yay. Cool. I do have another class this term.

That's not. Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you very much.

And this reaffirms, even though I never lost it, this fully reaffirms my feeling that I would be truly lost without you. And it's not just a feeling. It's also proven fact.

Okay, next paragraph you're going to translate. And the next paragraph. And then you're going to take a shot at the verse, okay?

Okay. By the way, extremely famous verse. One of the most famous emptiness verses of all time.

Okay. All right. A question for you again.

Your appointment, is that tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? Tomorrow, right, Dennis? It's tomorrow.

So there's a chance I'll be late for class tomorrow. But only slightly. I have a Tesla.

And a Chinese driver. He used to be the Green Lantern or something like that. I don't know.

Stanley, go slow. Geshe Michael, just take your time, bro.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, don't speak, please.

[Speaker 1]
Crazy. From Flagstaff. It's fun.

Put it in neutral and roll down the hill. All right, cool. So, okay.

That's Adam's text up first tomorrow. I mean, yeah, that will be Adam's text. Okay.

I think we can make it, but just in case. All right. Cool, cool, cool.

Well, be safe. And we love you and thank you very much. Love you guys.

Nice evening. Yeah, that was fun. Thanks, everybody.

Thanks. Thank you interpreters also. Can't thank you enough.

Thank you, tech crew. Thank you, everybody.

[Speaker 2]
See you. One.

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, can you still hear me?

[Speaker 2]
No. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
I'll have to call on his telepathy.