Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 36

[Говорящий 1]
Hi everybody! Is anybody there? Let's see.

Oh, hey! Hi, Dr. Nick. There are people here today.

Great, thanks for joining us. Hi everybody! Not enough of us will get the joke, but for those of you, I'm not actually a doctor.

So anyway, looking forward to today. First up is going to be my text. Then we have class with, we have Mind Only with Dr. Wordsmith. So kind of tough stuff today, I think. Put your thinking caps on and get ready to jump in with your ideas about how to translate these books. You didn't make it extra easy for us today?

No, I did. I wanted to, but I, for whatever reasons, I don't seem to have that ability. Hey, Adam.

Yo, what's up, Nick? How you guys doing? Good, good.

All right, the number of participants is growing, so I'm going to stall for a minute. I'm going to make it seem like I'm stalling for more people to join while I find and pull up my quiz. Here we go.

It's really pulled up, but I just have to white out the answer. Stall, stall, stall. Don't ruin the surprise for us.

No, no, no, I wouldn't do that. I'll just stall for about 10 more seconds. I do hope that everybody can get these questions.

I did try to make the quiz easier for you guys this time. We'll see, though. I think that every time, and then I'm always, or I'm often wrong.

Would you settle for me learning from the questions? I would settle for that. For those of you who care about learning the 60, sorry, the 60 verses, that's a book that I once worked on, Letter to a King.

Maybe this will help us orient ourselves with where we are in the text. Here we go. I'm going to share the quiz.

There it is. Can you see it? Can you see it now?

Yes. All right. Whoops, I was wrong.

Hold on a second. Sorry. I forgot to highlight one thing, and I didn't want to ruin the surprise for you guys.

I mean, to white out. Fortunately for you, I do not have a photographic memory. Yeah, well, there are people here who do.

I know there are. There are welcome.

[Говорящий 2]
That's okay.

[Говорящий 1]
They can just give the answer and be smart. That's a kind of smart. It sure is.

It's a very impressive guy. You're so supportive, Ben. There we go again.

Oh, I hear you, Tim. You're awake. Yes.

Amazing. Barely. Well, it is eight o'clock.

It's not that bad. Oh, yeah. Come on.

So if things existed through some nature of their own, by the way, we are talking about it in the context of my book, okay? This is Origin of Rude Text, Letter to a King, commentary by Gyaltsabje. If things existed through some nature of their own, they would have to reside within the?

The past, present, and future. Very good. Was that paling?

It was. Brilliant. Nice.

Great. Past, present, or future. And the West Chinese word for past, present, and future.

And as you can see, I did not write three different long words. Yes, to all of you who answered.

[Говорящий 2]
The Doosan chorus.

[Говорящий 1]
Band name, perhaps not. But even then, after things were destroyed, they couldn't? Go anywhere.

Yes. Fantastic. Tim, this reminds me of the days when you used to know all the answers to my questions.

[Говорящий 2]
That's right. Well, I have a photographic memory. I'm intelligent, according to Ben.

[Говорящий 1]
I didn't know that about you. When things start, they couldn't? Quidditch.

Close. Anybody? When things start, they couldn't stop.

No. Along the same vein as the last sentence, after things were destroyed, they couldn't go anywhere. When things start, they couldn't?

Hang around. Yeah, something like that. Actually, no.

So I guess maybe you just need to remember the verse, which brings us to Utpala. Not the verse, the section. Do you know it?

Do anything, says Duoduo. No, but let me make sure my chat is turned on. There we go.

Nice guess, Duoduo. I agree. He put a question mark there.

He was boldly guessing. Do anything? Yeah, that's how I always answer my quizzes, or your quizzes.

Do you?

[Говорящий 2]
What was that, Oskar? They couldn't come?

[Говорящий 1]
They couldn't have come from anywhere.

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, that's great. So this one should be probably pretty easy. You can see how small the answer is.

And after they have started, they couldn't? And they go. Somebody said it.

I think it was Oskar. Oskar, say that again. Yes, thank you.

Stay. Yeah. Here's a tip.

Gelsubj mentions that these entities are beyond staying in the past, present, or future. What West Chinese word does Gelsubj use for entities here? It was kind of an interesting choice and confusing for me.

I thought that that would key word in on this one. I was confused about this weird word. Close.

No, it was in this case, it was not related to you texting me earlier. No, no. Okay.

I mean, there's some maybe way you could associate that, but no. Yes. Who said that?

Oskar? I want to be in me, the old me. Yes, that was a good answer since it's dark.

Oskar, if you feel like you're getting too many right, and you just want to direct message each of us so that we can say the answer for you and look smart, that's also fine. Each book for five books or something?

[Говорящий 2]
They're gladly worth every penny.

[Говорящий 1]
It's worth more than $5. Don't sell yourself short. Just drop your Venmo in the chat.

So this is kind of interesting, because doc, what's doc usually mean? Self. Yeah.

Self, atman. So it's kind of strange that they used it for entities here. I think Gelsubj was somehow being playful, and I have to try to figure out how to work that into an English translation.

One of the very many exciting difficulties of being a translator. Oh, you can do it. I appreciate the encouragement.

Whoever just said that, I heard kind of a Singaporean accent or something. That was awesome. Thank you.

I feel... Thank you, Peiling. Thank you.

I feel very empowered now to do it. What distinction does Gelsubj make between the emptiness of the world, meaning the cycle of pain, and the emptiness of nirvana? None.

That's right. Was that Lindsay? Yeah.

All right. Good job. Come on.

[Говорящий 2]
What Tibetan word do you use for come on?

[Говорящий 1]
No, no, no. He didn't make any distinction. The point was there's no distinction.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, there is one.

[Говорящий 1]
Was that Hasso?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
There is a distinction that Gelsubj made between the emptiness of the world and the emptiness of nirvana.

[Говорящий 2]
No, he didn't make one.

[Говорящий 1]
But I think there is one. Oh, that's fine. But that's cool.

I mean, you could talk about it. But I was asking what distinction Gelsubj made. Yeah, yeah.

It's a nice debate tactic to make sure that everybody can get to debate your question. I wasn't asking a distinction. Yeah, we could say there's a distinction.

One distinction would be one emptiness is the emptiness of the cycle of pain, while the other one is the emptiness of nirvana. Yeah, they also would say that they are lend your arguments to West China care of the 14th century. Gelsubj made it clear that there's no distinction.

I don't know. What does he know? A lot, it seems.

Gase? Anybody remember? It was a weird word.

Who knows this answer? Good job, Oscar. Who knows?

Or where did in this case? Hum. An expression used to show disgust.

No, that's English. Yeah. Damn.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It could be. It could be a question mark.

It could be or. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Interrogative particle in this case. It could be or a few other things, but that's exactly what I was looking for.

And because at this point in the text, they. He started commenting on the word Tom. He was like, Tom is here because it's a question.

[Говорящий 2]
Got it.

[Говорящий 1]
Cool. I'm going to stop sharing this and find my other thing to share. Thank you.

We got through the quiz in 11 minutes. And I guess you might call asked me to. See if we can get through the quizzes a little faster moving forward.

I didn't try that hard this time because he wasn't here. But. I managed to spend 45 minutes online in the last class on Saturday.

OK, so get that out of your system now that we're getting that out of our systems. Uh. Here we go.

Where were we? Nippon. All right.

Like 11 versions of my text on my desktop. So I had to make sure I had the right one for you guys. Excuse me.

I guess we can be somewhat. No, that's not it. Where were we?

No. Yes. Can you guys see it?

Yeah. Yeah. Starting stopping and saying, OK, is that big enough?

It's good for me, but I'm sure other people would probably. Yeah, if you max out your available. Hold on a word window space.

It's nice. Yeah, there we go. That's better.

It's good for me. Adam, everyone knows you have the perfect vision like a pilot. Denying starting.

Here we go. So maybe you guys can help me with this. Um.

Here's the second part from above. A denial that the definition of a produced thing could start, stop or stay through any nature of its own. I know this is not what it's trying to say.

And I want to see what we might think it says. So it does say do J key, which is literally the definition of a produced thing. Um.

But I'm wondering if he's trying to say that they don't like produce things, don't start, stop or stay through any nature of their own by definition. Or they. They did.

They definitely. Yeah. Or we're denying that they definitively looks to me like it's saying it's denying that they definitively start, stop or stay through any nature of their own.

No, I don't think so. I think it's I think it's the definition of a changing thing is something that doesn't start, stop or stay through any nature of its own. We didn't.

That's what we deny. A denial that the definition of a produced thing. Is that it.

Oh, a denial that the definition of a produced thing is that it starts, stop or stays through any nature of its own through any nature of its own. Yeah. OK.

That would just. I mean, you could read it in a way to where it's true, right? Because the definition would be.

I mean, it wouldn't be a thing. The definition would be something conceptual. But I'm just like, you know.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to leave it like this for now and we'll come back to the boss.

Yeah. Well, and also. Maybe we're about to learn more on the topic and that'll be helpful for this.

Indeed. All right. Yeah.

So. I know, Michael, when you guys do this on your own, I'm curious to see what everybody else's procedure is. For me, I do try to do the root text first, often.

Then I'll go and do the commentary and correct what I thought was wrong about the root text. And I kind of go back and forth a couple of times. I usually try to get a feel for the root text first.

And I know that's not what Geshe Michael generally advises. But I often can't make sense of the commentary without looking at the root first. Anybody else want to share their process?

If you haven't, go ahead. I always do the root text first for fun because it's just fun. Not because I understand it, but then I do the commentary and then I go back and change the root text based and see how close I got.

Totally. I have a similar approach. I ping pong back and forth.

I make an attempt at the root text and then see if I get clarity from it on the following paragraph. But yeah, I don't have the skill that Geshe Michael does to just read the commentary. Right.

I find it helpful to ground me generally in what, especially what words are essential. Mm-hmm. Because so often a commentary will repeat the same words with different meanings.

Or sorry, repeat, give different meanings for the same words. So sometimes it's helpful if I've been through those words first. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I kind of do it for the same reasons that both of you guys said. It is kind of fun to see how much of it makes sense to you.

Especially if it's like Nagarjuna. Am I understanding him? Usually not.

But yeah, also to give you a hint. Okay, so here's what I came with. nepa me chir kyewa thang ngakpa yang dak nyi min na kyewa thang ni nepa thang ngakpa tun tu kala shik And so I thought it says, nipa me chir, because nothing stays, kyewa thang ngakpa, starting and stopping, yang dak nyi min, are not pure.

Okay. Okay. Pure as opposed to correct.

Yeah, because I mean, we could, I don't know, we can mess with it. Geshe Michael said pure last time, so I've just been playing with that word for this. Okay.

But correct. Yeah, equally correct, or more. Kyewa thang ni nepa thang.

Okay, so we have a kala shik here, which Geshe Michael likes to translate as how on earth, or how in the world, I think. So how on earth could things really... I learned a new translation in my last class to mean real, or truly.

Yeah, or in fact, it's the same. Yeah. How on earth could things really kyewa thang ni nepa thang ngakpa start, stay, or stop?

And I think that this nyi is here just for meter, I hope, and it's not trying to make a distinction between the kyewa and then the ngakpa. It's meter. Yeah, it seems like it.

It's pretty good. Okay, let's see what Gyaltsabji thinks. I think we did, I think I...

Can we keep the root text on the screen at the same time we're looking at the... Yeah, that's great. That's perfect.

Yeah. I don't mind. Hasso, do you want to read this, the West Chinese here?

Of course. Okay. Great.

I like those rolling R's. How in the world, gala shik, here we go. So it looks like he starts with the latter part of the verse, right, the gala shik.

Sorry, let's look at, shrink it a little bit. Uh, how in the world could anything really, uh, tundu, or in fact, and it looks like he's glossing that here with rangshin kidrupa, really meaning from its own side, right, rangshin kidrupa. Those of you who are less familiar with the West Chinese language, if you have been paying attention to my class and you have learned anything, you know that rangshin kidrupa means like from its own side or through some nature of its own.

Because this comes up over and over and over again in my texts. How could it start, kewa, or stay, nepa, or stop, ngakpa. So far so good, right?

And then there's a te here. And then it's me partel. Okay, so like, and I interpreted it that way, Adam, like the take kind of like, I added a question mark here to make it like, to like, end the sentence and then made this a separate sentence, me partel.

And sorry, if you're going to say something, just interrupt me, it's fine. And then this whole sentence is the reason. So this is a, it's a kind of argument, right?

Here's a tell, and here's a cheer. So that's how we know we're in some version of a bait statement. It can't.

Are there two reasons here, Nick, and have you captured them?

[Говорящий 2]
I guess that's what I'm trying to look at.

[Говорящий 1]
It seems like, right, he says cheer na, which means because of this, but then he says min bay cheer, and I'm trying to see how, I'm trying to think about how to capture both reasons. I think I just totally read over that and didn't even pay enough attention to catch it. But yeah, isn't that cheer na saying if it were the case?

Yes, it looks like it is. If it were the case that. Yeah.

Okay. That's it. Well, if it was a split reason, I feel like you would use Kong shit.

Often, you know? But on the other hand, if the second reason is a reason for the first reason, then this formulation might make more sense. I think that he's trying to copy what Ari and Nagarjuna is doing in the verse, saying he's using the first cheer is just Nagarjuna's cheer, where Nagarjuna is saying because nothing stays, you know, you can't start or stop.

And then he's saying, and because nothing stays through any nature of its own, it would not be correct to think that starting or stopping could exist purely either. And the second cheer, it kind of is another because, but it sounds really clunky in English to say because nothing stays and that you can't, you know, I don't know. I'm not even seeing why a second cheer is necessary.

So I just kind of included them into one because. So there's nothing that would allow a train. So because this and because of that, then.

Let's think about it. Correct to say, because nothing stays, because nothing stays through any nature of its own. And that's because it would not be correct to think that starting or stopping is purely either.

I think that made sense. But can you please say it again? Because nothing stays through any nature of its own.

And that's because it would not be correct to think that starting or stopping could exist purely either. Oh, then we'd have to reverse the order, right? Because the fact because it.

Oh, starting and stopping can't exist purely because nothing stays through any nature of its own. That's what Nagarjuna is saying, I think. He's saying due to the fact that things don't stay, they can't start or stop.

Yeah, well, I think it says if it were the case that if it is the case that nothing can stay by through any nature of its own, then due to that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what I think it says, because if and then in many cases.

Yeah, so it's kind of if then, yeah. And yeah, how in the world could anything really meaning from its own side start, stay or stop? It can't.

Right, because nothing stays through any nature of its own. And if this is right, and this is true, because it would not be correct to say that starting or stopping could exist purely either something like that. I'm not sure that the if belongs after the because.

I can't. Okay. If, because, because if nothing.

Yeah, because, yeah. Well, because to or not can just mean in order to or for the sake of or due to. Well, because due to the fact that nothing stays through any nature of its own, then it would not be correct to think that starting or stopping could exist purely.

So you can change the if to due to the fact, but I think it's when you couple if with then, isn't it kind of the same? Yeah, it's all saying if it were the case. So, yeah, at this point, I think we could say it any of those ways.

If it were the case, due to the fact that or just if. Yeah. And I'm really lazy, so I'm going to make it as short as possible for now.

Okay, we'll move on. Here we go. Incidental points on the denial of the beliefs of other schools.

It seems like that's what it says. Here it is here. I'll read it.

Hey, Nick. I'm sorry. Do you want to see if that because we just went to a new section.

Did that clarify for us? Do we want to see if that gives us clarification on the meaning of the name of this section? Yeah.

Uh, did it? Semi wasn't used anywhere in there, though, was it? No, I don't think it helped much.

Um, yeah. No, you're right. I don't know why they the word definition here.

Um, it was it's out of place. The book hasn't been using the word definition almost at all. So I don't know why it got thrown in here.

Um, it seems I don't know. I wonder if right. Our kid and they are, you know, being born, stopping staying.

Are these kind of like what word is suggesting? I mean, are these like, could you say these are the three definitive qualities of cause things? Could be.

And that and I'm wondering if this is tonight. Well, then it's wrong. All right.

Like, I'm wondering if. Because he keeps going to refute points of the what he called the and and other Hindu schools. I'm wondering if maybe, Adam, you have some answer.

I was just trying to recall. And I think that the definition in the definition of a wrong sin had three qualities. One was that it had to have a particular place in time, place, a place in space, time, excuse me, place, duration.

There were three qualities. And it does. It's there.

It's parallel to these. So I was just wondering if it's like, you know, because it doesn't appear that the that it's changed much from the perspective of the four school from the second school to the four school. Mm hmm.

No. OK, that's helpful. Thank you.

And I'm I'm also wondering if there's perhaps the vice because say that things start, you know, stop and stay through their own nature. And maybe we're about to find that out. Because he's really he's kind of he's kind of got it out for them in this book.

Yeah. So it might be something like a denial that the three definitive qualities of caused things being that they are born, that they go away or that they change could exist through some nature of their own. Maybe.

Could be. Yeah, I don't think it's anyone's definition. Mm hmm.

Right. I don't think so. Yeah.

Yeah. I think I think it's closer to what you're saying that these definitive qualities could. I'm just going to leave a note for myself here to come back and check it like later.

Yeah. I mean, it'd be cute if you could kind of, I don't know, fudge the difference a little bit by saying that a denial that caused things definitely start and stop or stay through some nature of their own. Maybe.

I guess you, Michael, would probably do that. He would probably will probably encourage me to find something in between that's sufficiently vague and incorrect. Cool.

Okay. I'm sorry to sidetrack to you. I wanted to return back to Enemy Lines behind us and see if we could get the bad guys.

Here's good. Oh my God. We love them.

We love them. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Sure.

This is right. They gave you Michael Paratrooper thing, right? He says that if you're stuck on something, then just, you know, throw up yourself behind Enemy Lines and then you can circle back.

I know. I like to use other metaphors. We went back behind Puppy Rainbows.

That's right. It works for me. All right.

Here we go. Let's see how this one looks. Maybe easier.

I put it in this, you know, phrasing. Incidental points. I guess I wrote it here.

Incidental points regarding the denial of beliefs of other schools. I guess we'll see what's incidental about it.

[Говорящий 2]
That's Char.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, Charla. That's the thing where Geshe Michael always gives us the example of, you know, if you're going to the store to get pens, could you also get some milk or something? Charla.

And where's the Char? I'm not seeing it. Right here.

I'm going to highlight it. Oh, it's down there. Okay.

Not in the Tibetan. It's above it. The third part.

Yeah, because it's just, you know, how he does that. He puts the previous statement where, like, sometimes Gelsub Jeb will just say sumpa, or sumpa, you know, and Gelsub Michael, Geshe-la, will go back.

[Говорящий 2]
Got it. Got it.

[Говорящий 1]
Thank you. Yeah. Here we go.

Let's see. Let's get somebody. Hey, Peiling, with all of your correct answers, would you like to read the West Chinese here?

Starting from sumpa. Okay. Yeah.

Read the Tibetan. Yeah, right here. Sumpala.

This one's dual trend. Oh. What is this?

This one's tricky. Nice. Awesome.

The third part, incidental points regarding the denial of beliefs of other schools, has two parts of its own. Colon. Is this right, Utpala?

I would put a colon here. Yes. Okay.

I've been doing it for seven years, so I was hoping you would say yes. A denial of the detailers' belief in unchanging, partless particles. So here we go.

These are the detailers, or the Vaisheshikas, which is a non-Buddhist school from India, probably like a Hindu school. Dual trend, I believe, means minuscule particles. Takpa means unchanging, and takpandipa means the belief as being unchanging, or that they are unchanging.

Dakpa means the refutation, or I've been saying denial. Maybe refutation's better. I like denial.

Cool. And then Khyamjuk is, does anybody know who Khyamjuk is? A character in Ben's first book?

A character in Ben's first book, yeah. I don't find him. I'm sure he's in there, but that's such a science fiction reality.

This is Vishnu, as far as I know. Vishnu. Yeah, there's like the umbrella that covers the, I'm trying to think, maybe I'm confusing a couple of the schools.

That, Ben's book really does stand out to me as well. That was a real glory. The genes that are into the umbrella soul is a gene thing.

So it'd be the followers of Vishnu, right? Yeah, good, yeah. I wrote Vaishnavites, and I think that's a correct English word, but I didn't Google it to make sure.

This is just what I remember from high school. Wow. Where'd you go to high school?

It's just a regular old public school in New York. Sorry. I'm sure we spent 10 minutes on the beliefs of India, and that just stuck with me.

Vaishnavites belief. Okay, here we do. Kebu Takba.

I translated this as an unchanging soul. I remember from Ben's book, and also one of the DCI courses, Kebu is what the Tibetans use to translate Purusha. So in my mind, I was trying to translate Purusha.

So an unchanging soul. You could say, I mean, Kebu, if you're just reading that, the Tibetan kind of says person, which I think could be a way to translate this. But when I think of Purusha, it seems a little different than saying the unchanging person.

How did you translate it, Ben? Yeah, how did I translate Kebu? I don't know.

Let's see. I think universalists is what Geshe Michael chose for Kiamjuk, or Kiamjukbaz. Kiamjukbaz, he called them the universalists.

Interesting. He did, not to be confused with the Unitarians. Sorry.

They're related. Denying the views of the Unitarians. And then for, did he say Kebu?

Let's see. I'm looking right now. Oh my.

I'd be interested to see. Yeah, he said soul, I'm pleased to say. All right.

I like it. Yeah, I like it. And I think it has that feeling, although maybe he didn't perfectly consistently.

Sometimes he says soul, sometimes he says self. And sometimes he says person or individual. Yeah, right.

I don't know. When I think of Purusha, I feel like the idea is so much faster. But I bet we'll find out whether it should be soul or person when we get down to the actual Gapja.

Yeah. You know, I'm thinking. Tiri Lama says in my book, at least, that the version of the Purusha suggested by Sankhya is sort of an earliest version or a particularly early version of an idea of a true self.

That kind of blossoms into a lot of other versions. But it's kind of the earliest version that we're arguing against. That a lot of other versions of selves or souls come from and uses this term.

Cool. All right. All right.

Well, let us continue and see a few minutes here. I want to pick somebody who... Duoduo, do you want to read the root text here?

Sure.

[Говорящий 2]
Nice.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. I guess we should all watch out because Duoduo will also take over our jobs soon. I'm pretty confused here, so this will be fun.

I probably need to allocate a bit more time to this, but let's see what we come up with together with our brilliant minds. If things are constantly changing, I don't know. I guess this might be hard without the commentary.

How could they actually exist for a moment? If things don't change? How in the world could they ever become something else?

I don't know. I don't think it's become. I like all the lines except the become and the endure.

The end? Yeah, I think it's how in the world could they ever be... something other than that or something.

Okay, a very reasonable suggestion. Because the first line says they can't change, and the third line says they have to change, and the third line says they don't change, but what else could they possibly be? That makes sense.

Very, very logical. Whatever else could they be? Yeah.

Uh-huh. Okay. Yeah, so kyor means change often, but it's tricky as word is pointing out that it doesn't always mean.

It means change. It even means translate, but it just means like is or just like it's pretty. It's kind of a flexible verb.

It's such a gerundifier. It can just make things into like the present participle or whatever. Happening.

Although parinama certainly means change. Ah, which one? Oh, let's look at the same.

But that's the gyurwa me. Yeah. Na asti, right?

That's two words, right? To be something. Na asti.

It's not that. Chet is, I think, cha and iti. Well, it's right here.

Oh, good. Sorry, no, that's a difference. He didn't define all those.

It's good words. Boo. Next one.

Yeah, that's the next verse. But I am interested to see. I don't know.

Kuto. I wonder if that's, if kutor tata is like galang yor, maybe. Well, it's kutaha, right?

It's kutah and then artata. So that apostrophe is when you get the sarga, the H with a dot under it, followed by an A, you get that apostrophe. So it's arta, which is dun.

You see the object kutas is for whom or from where. Is that the kala? Probably.

Because that's the only question word in the whole line. Yeah, kala, galang yor. Nashti.

Is nashti shen? No, nashti is not is. So I think that's the me.

Yeah, it's me. It's not. Nashti.

It's two words, right? It's a long A made by nashti and then asti. And then anyat tavam.

Anya, in this case, like other, right? Shen, yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Ni tavam. Anyat tavam.

[Говорящий 1]
Then ni. None other. Okay.

So yeah, I think that's a pretty good. That's a very logical word. I think you're right.

I think so. There's a good chance. Why don't we get the commentary?

Yeah. Here we go. Here we go.

If only someone wrote a commentary on this. Here's the first. What was the first?

The first was something about atoms, right? Yes, atoms. It's not atoms.

It would never be. Belief in unchanging, partless particles. Yes, yes, exactly.

Okay. According to the detailers, that's what, detail, according to them. Oh, sorry.

Somebody want to read this? Let me see who's in there. Oscar.

No. Nice. Thank you very much.

Here's the first. According to the detailers. Let's see, guys.

I think that he's saying, the idea. So I'm coming from right here. I'm calling an idea.

The thing which they accept. That there are conditions that cause everything to start or stop. That's how I'm translating.

Where do you get conditions, Nick? Well, I mean, I'm playing with it, right? This was kind of, I was doing it somewhat of a hurried way before class, so I was maybe a little free with extra words.

But what is a kyanjic jepa? It's more like something that causes everything to start or stop. A cause or a force or something.

A force that cause. But either way, you kind of have to add in a word for the jepa of the kyanji. I think.

Do you, though? Jepa can just be like a verb maker. Yeah.

Oh, I could say. There are. All things have the actions of starting and stopping.

That's their belief. Yeah, you could say actions. But I think that it's not saying that, isn't it?

Isn't it more saying that there's something that makes things start or stop? Kyanjic jepa. Could be.

Sounds like that to me. But I guess we'll see. Rather than saying jepa dang jikpa.

I think it's, but I don't know. Let's see. There are.

Was it in the root text? Kyanjic? No.

Okay. Two verses ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, it wasn't, though. I mean, in jik might have been, but this kanjic jepa wasn't. But even kanjic wasn't.

Okay. He's just. It's just going off the top of the head here.

Okay. So, okay. So we'll see.

And perhaps conditions is a little bit loose, but let's see. Kyanjic jepa. Kaya Lampa.

Okay. The idea, Kaya Lampa, that there are something that that causes everything to start or stop is wrong. I'm not sure about this rather either, but let's see.

Nepa dang gyurwa yin. I also don't really understand what this. Gyurwa.

Like, why is that there? I think he's just saying, like, it is like that. I think he's saying up to the Kaya Lampa is their belief.

And then he says tela nepa. That's wrong. And then he says dang gyurwa.

That's what their belief is, actually. Sorry. No, you're good.

Thank you. I think the dang gyurwa is, dang gyurwa yin is like, it is the case that that is occurring. But yeah, he's and then you qualify it.

Those guys. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. They believe in dur trends. For whatever reason, he's been, he's phrasing it in terms of what they have a problem with.

He's like, that's why I think he's saying that they have a problem with. There's a force that makes things start or stop, I think. But yeah, he does.

That's a koa chakni. Dual trend. Wrong.

Shingi. Tuck bark. K Lampa.

Hey, Nipa. May. There's no problem with the idea of an unchanging self nature to part list particles.

Or what I say, they have no problem with the idea that there are part list atoms with an unchanging nature. Yeah. Okay.

I think I got it. It's he's saying they believe that things start and stop. That's their belief.

But that's problematic because even though that's happening, they also still believe that things that things have some kind of unchanging nature, which which is a problem. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. That's where I originally thought he was going with it too. But I couldn't get past that.

Dare go to. But I think you're right. And he doesn't get Shays, but Shays would have been what we say for that is something that the Chidok, the Chidok Mawas do accept that they take, they take dual trend as being talk.

Yeah, it's not Chidok Mawas, Chidokpas. So Vaisheshikas as opposed to Vaibhashika. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, OK, just because we're just because we're ascribing such a non-Buddhist belief to them. What's what's the what's with the Kyocho, the Kyocho? What does it have to do with us guys?

Those guys, those guys. Yeah, that phrase means typically it's us. Yeah, I've seen it both ways.

I've seen it mean we and I've seen it mean they. In this book. Oh, I see.

[Говорящий 2]
OK, well, that's compelling.

[Говорящий 1]
But yeah, thank you, Ward. I think that I think that you're right that this sentence ends there. Yeah, it would have been helpful to have a comma here.

Yeah. Yeah. Did you say Shays happens?

No, I'm kidding. Yeah, Shays happens, right? So the translators have asked that we speak English.

Commas happen. We're desperately trying to. OK, so what we're saying is Ward made a really good point that it looks like this is actually the end of the idea.

Then a new sentence starts here where it looks like he's saying. That's problematic. But that's stupid.

Oh, sorry, Yin. Because those dudes also believe. Yeah, I like that word.

OK, I'll come back and tell her because we're running out of time. But they have no problem with the idea that there are partless atoms of an unchanging nature. So then he says, and I believe he's asking a question here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys. Yeah, if it is or isn't the case. Yeah, is it the case that.

They're momentary or that they're changing or temporary. Or let's see. Yeah, is it or isn't it true that things are temporary?

Yeah, I phrased it wrong here, but that's how I'm seeing it now. So one more time slowly for the translators, please. Are functioning things temporary.

Or not. I don't like it. I don't know.

I think it's not Yin and Min, but Ye and Me. So we're talking about whether a thing exists or not. Not whether or not it possesses a quality, I think.

You're totally right. That's how I had it. But let's put it back to that.

I think you're right. I guess I could just. Yeah, do functioning things.

I'll say temporary functioning things exists. Well, you could say, are there temporary functioning things or not? Totally.

OK, are there temporary functioning things or not? I like it. OK, well, when I go back.

Do you think it's functioning? Yeah, probably. Yeah, maybe not.

I think it's are there things that are temporary or not? Yeah, that's not necessary. Yeah, yeah.

We don't think this is probably sufficient for this. Yeah, our do. And then we don't need the well either, for that matter.

Do temporary things exist? Are there temporary things or not? I like the well.

I like to edit. For hypertextures, the well is a translation of the nah in the previous paragraph. What were you going to say, Adam?

Yeah, man, the Shana, if you had the Nare there. Oh, yeah, it's a good. That's a good question.

Yeah, and then down there at the end, there's some way to crowbar that in there. Yeah, it could also see it functioning without to. It looks really nice the way you have it.

I mean, I don't know. I thought about it. I was like, why is there a Shana?

And I was like, is somebody is this in it? It says according to the detailers. My first question, I was like, is somebody saying that according to the detailers?

Well, and I looked for a second, too. And I'm not disagreeing with you. You know your book way better than I do.

But I've never seen Coachella refer to they. I haven't, right? It's like, I mean, in all the dictionaries I have and all the hypertexting stuff that we've got, all the data, it's always us or we.

Us guys. Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, I'm definitely having a memory of it, but I didn't go back and look.

So I better check that out. But my guess was that the Shana was just closing the quotation. And I think you were about to say something.

Yeah, I don't think it's closing the quotation. It's saying you may ask why according to the detail list, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's just a question.

Just the phrasing interrogative instead of a statement. That's all. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that makes sense, too. Yeah, why? Of course, since we're about to refute that position, it would be if someone thought what the detailers think, which is this.

Then here's what we would say. Which is why I would submit that well is a translation of nah. Yeah, if some surfies like the detailers said this.

Well, then do temporary things exist or not? If that's your position. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And stay tuned and join us next month. Yeah.

For Schwartzongs Tower with me. To answer that question. And for more information about the detailers.

And we didn't even get to the who was next. I can't even remember now. The, the Vaishnavites.

The Vishnu followers. Yeah. Followers of Vishnu.

There's another name I saw. Kamjupas. Cool.

Well, thank you all for participating in this wonderful session.

[Говорящий 2]
It was fun.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, Gibson looks like he's been working hard on it. His hair is all messed up. He's like, what is going on with these Kamjupas?

I mean, detailers. Thank you, everybody. We do have 13 minutes of discussion now.

On useful, practical life applications of the wrong beliefs of the detailers. And the Vaishnavites. Or anything else that we wanted to talk about.

Or whatever this course brings up for you. Haso said 30 minutes. No, aren't you going to do the news, Juan?

In, oh, I said 13. He says no. No, no, we will have Peach Tree World News.

And I was getting excited to escape to breakfast. No, just kidding. No breakfast for you.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, come on. You have to earn your breakfast.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, are you going to have? They have pickled radish for breakfast. It's delicious.

Yeah, I am. Actually, I am at Gibson's room. But he left.

And he left because his room. Ah, he was being. And is he in your room?

No, he left. He's in a different city now. Oh, I see what you mean.

Okay, let's go for your discussion. And then I'll show you some cool. What do you think, Nick?

How do, how do things? I'm trying to think about the way that things appear to start or stop or stay. And what seems to cause that.

Like I see a, I don't know. What's a thing? What's an object in my life that seems to have some power?

Even my car. Like I go to drive my car. And I think that that thing has some power to affect things, to carry me places.

But that's just, you know, there were a bunch of people who built the car. There's me thinking of the car as a single thing. There's each of the pieces of the car came from some place.

Like any object that we look at. It's almost like a flash image. Like a picture in time of a river made of countless things flowing along for a moment.

And we could take a picture or maybe a fountain, right? Like the, right. A fountain shoots into the air and there's a little, what would you call it?

Like a little, like it looks like a little umbrella or something. And that image looks like a thing, but it's not a thing. It's only a thing if you somehow like stick yourself in some weird frozen moment in time.

And the second you think about what that little umbrella looking shape is coming out of the fountain, the second you think about it, it's gone. And if you go to point at it, all of the water that made it up is already gone by the time you try to think of it. So when we look at an object that causes something in our life, money, food.

Yeah. These look like real things that have some power, but what does have power? What gives them power?

What is the thing causing them to be able to make my, you know, my wellbeing, my livelihood to stay? I'm trying to get it to stay. How do I make it stay?

Yeah. I feel you with all that you're bringing up because I noticed in my own life related to exactly what you're saying. I get immense amounts of anxiety because I think that I've done the wrong thing to, you have been tuning into the Mixed Nuts for a while.

My family, again, is trying to move into another apartment or house and I get incredible amounts of anxiety that I did something wrong or said something wrong. And that's going to affect whether the application goes through or not, or like whether we're going to sign this deal. And just the amount of stress that I have around a single email, it's incredible.

And so I'm talking about this because the world appears to us as these very interrelated cause and effect moments and that we are actually affecting the next moment with one moment. And as I understand it, the teaching is that you both are and aren't. You are affecting the future, but you're not necessarily affecting the next moment the way that you think you are.

I try to cover all my bases personally. And I write a good email and I wrote someone a text today and said, you're welcome to stay at the place that we don't have yet. You're welcome to come visit next month.

So I'm already offering it, you know, so hopefully that helps. Please, somebody share. I heard what Ben said just now.

We try to keep the things. I try. We try.

Right, but it sure looks like what makes my car go is my foot on the gas pedal. It does. Sure looks like it does.

Yeah, it feels like I'm not. I now have a car that doesn't run on gas or we're borrowing one for a year. So gas does not make it go.

But the electric car runs out of battery way faster than the gas car runs out of gas. So it's even more stressful. Oh, Nick.

That's why I'm getting all gray. That's not the. No, it's just, yes, what you said, Paling is amazing.

And I think that it's why, you know, the diamond cutter system is so popular. You know, I think it truly does help people. And in the short term, it has the potential to reduce your nervousness about whether or not something's going to work out based on what you do in the moment.

Of course, I feel that it's the way I see it is, and I think most people here probably think this way. But like, there is some version of reality where I have to, you know, fill out an application correctly to get a job, let's say. But I will fill that application out correctly if I have the seeds.

You know, so this is kind of like and maybe that's a fault of my mind that I'm only able to see the world working that way. And I have had strange experiences in my own life where I did something completely wrong and still got the thing like. But still, like some part of my mind grabs on to reality as functioning in a certain way, like this depends on that, you know, the result depends on me putting the cause in place correctly.

So like in the case of a job application, like if I generally would need to fill it out properly and look professional in order to get the job. That said, I think I've gotten the jobs without filling it out correctly.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, I want to share a point.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, yeah, please.

[Говорящий 2]
Several years ago, me and Emily had rented a house from a landlord and suddenly we thought that if we keep paying the rent in advance, then we will stay here for a long time. And out of nowhere, because we are talking about the thing that start and stay and the end from its own side. So we think that the money can keep the house going on and we can stay in this house very safely.

And because his son is graduating and getting married, and he told us that he wants to leave the house for his son. He told us to leave the house within the month. And we are really shocked because we connect the money and the place together.

We think the money has power. We think the correlation, we think is illusion. So I think this is very helpful that if we want to stay in the house, have a safety house.

It's not money to let you stay. It's how you provide the space for other people. And I think it's very helpful for us to learn that the start and the stay and the end don't have any nature of their own.

[Говорящий 1]
Thank you for sharing.

[Говорящий 2]
Is that going on now?

[Говорящий 1]
Are you in the middle of that now, Gibson, or is this in the past?

[Говорящий 2]
It's in the past. We have to, we have a lot of anxiety. We need to go online searching for the house and all the house we couldn't able to pay because, yeah, in that time.

Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
I hear you. Let me know if I can help you in the past.

[Говорящий 2]
No, I already know.

[Говорящий 1]
Isn't this saying that, you know, doesn't Nagarjuna say there is no starting? What we think is starting is just, it's an insane thought. We cannot find moments of ending.

There is no such thing. I'm making a garden bed right now, planting seeds. In some cases, I'm putting in sprouts.

Some cases I'm putting in seeds and it seems like I'm waiting for my seeds to start. But of course they are already seeds. So I don't know what it would be for them to start.

And for a thing to start, it would have to come from nothing. I mean, the seed and the sprout aren't really different things. They're like that river.

One is a continuation of the other. But I start thinking of it differently when a little shoot comes out of it. And I decide that something else started, but nothing else started.

It's the same thing that was there earlier. It's just doing something differently. I used to move around a lot in my life as a kid.

And even as a young adult, this is actually the longest I've lived anywhere, I think, in a city is here in beautiful New Mexico, come visit. And then I remember this feeling of moving when you pack everything up and you're in between two places. And maybe some of you have felt this.

There's like a breaking of the bubble of security, of safety that feels like home. And you are adrift between the two. And you've broken it in the old place.

And in the new place, you don't have it yet. And for a moment, there's this lack of security or lack of safety. And I think this is this feed.

This is this idea of what makes home is that feeling. It's not the space. It's not the place.

It's not the stuff. It's that quite literally projection. It's us in imbuing, putting forth, setting that glow, that luminous mental image of home onto a place.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah. There's another thing. I think this is pretty important because we are here.

We try to learn some knowledge or learn some Chinese, Western Chinese word. And I think it also relates to how things start and keep and end. Because we want to learn knowledge of the West Chinese language or the mixed knowledge going to our head.

And sometimes it's very difficult. We think that all we need to do is to study, study and study. But I used to struggle for a few years.

I studied a lot. The thing doesn't go into my brain, doesn't go into my mind. And I think I see a lot of people like me from Vietnam.

I was their worst student. All they do is to share the knowledge to other people. And suddenly they're Tibetan getting pretty good.

And I think this is how the knowledge form in your mind. And not to say you have to find a tutor. You have to spend a lot of time on the book.

And in the meantime, you start to not sharing your knowledge to other people. You think that is the way you keep the knowledge.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Thanks, Kimson. By the way, that's not a message to all the mixed not to study.

Kimson is not advising you to never study.

[Говорящий 2]
No, no, no, no, no. You have to share and study too.

[Говорящий 1]
All right. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Thank you, gals and everybody for having this discussion. And let us move into the world of the Peachtree World News. Coming to you from Kyoto, Japan, I think.

Yeah. Live from Gibson's hotel room. We are here in a, I would say, pilgrimage tour showing some of the rooms of the mixed nots.

So if you're a mixed not, maybe your room is going to be next. That's awesome.

[Говорящий 2]
But it will be great. When I hear Ben saying, come visit, I thought like, maybe it will be nice.

[Говорящий 1]
You know, you never know what you're going to have me knocking outside your door with a camera.

[Говорящий 2]
That would be funny. Well, maybe not then.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, we'll see. We'll see what happens. But yeah, as you mentioned, I have the great fortune to be right now in Japan, being able to be witnessing this great Dharma party in Japan.

First, we went to check Tim Sloan's hop event, the Steps on the Path Course 2. It was very, very cool. Then I had the chance to go to the YSI Prem event.

Then I traveled to another island, which I am right now. It's called Awiki Island or something like that. Awahi or I don't know my Japanese, you know.

But here the Heart Sutra teachings were happening. And I've been trying to gather a lot of material. Now I just need time to edit it in order to be able to present it and share it with other people.

I'm working on it. But I want to at least show you a little bit of what happened on the very first event. So how it worked is like I came into Japan just almost at the end of the first event, Steps on the Path.

So I was able to gather some material I want to present to you. And then we will move with some specials interview for today. So if Kina, you're so kind, could you share with us the video, please?

The very first video. And for all of you, just enjoy.

[Говорящий 2]
Or if you want to go to the bathroom, go to the bathroom or whatever. So here we are reporting from Kyoto this time. You know, this great wisdom party that is happening here.

So this is the last day of the very first event, led by Tim Lohenhaupt and other teachers. So we're going to go there and catch what's their last day looking like. I hear they're going to have yoga class.

They have meditation already in the morning. They're going to have the last class then. And we're going to be checking how did it go.

We're going to be talking with the teachers, with the participants. Let's check it out. And we'll keep reporting very, very soon.

Cool.

[Говорящий 1]
Good. We just finished yoga class. How was it?

Very nice. Yeah, the best one? Today's best one.

Okay, great. Today's best one. That's actually the question that I have for you.

What's up? What's up? What's happening here?

Why do people look so excited?

[Говорящий 2]
What are you giving them?

[Говорящий 1]
Why are people excited? Probably because it's the last day of ACI2 and it's been difficult.

[Говорящий 2]
And they are about to start YSI, no?

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, YSI is coming. What's the name of the event? Let's just enjoy the infinite free life.

That's awesome. Check it out. We're going to learn some meditation with Earl and Mojang.

And then we're going to practice Tristana with Lady Nagumawang. Tristana? Tristana.

What's Tristana? It's a three-part technique. I never hear about it.

Oh, no.

[Говорящий 2]
Ujjayi. Banda. Ujjayi.

Ujjayi is a kind of...

[Говорящий 1]
It's not me supposed to get tested. You're supposed to get tested. Who's next?

Yeah. Did you see what you did, Juan? What have you done?

We're making them memorize definitions to get into the last class.

[Говорящий 2]
I think that's amazing. It took me like 10 years to learn those definitions. These people are learning them from day one.

[Говорящий 1]
And we're bribing them, of course. We have a big chocolate cake. If they get into the room, they get a chocolate cake.

[Говорящий 2]
You know, who wouldn't want chocolate cake? I'm telling you, team. One day, a more younger and handsome guy is going to come out.

He's going to substitute us.

[Говорящий 1]
We're talking about succession now.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
These kids are learning so much from day one.

[Говорящий 2]
It took me 10 years, man. Yeah, you know what? In 10 years, I hope they take over, Juan.

Yeah, me too. Actually, sooner. Then we can retire and just go surfing and...

Right, and sit on the porch on a... Eat cake. Get on a rocking chair and be like, back in the day...

It's time, man. It's time to retire, man. It's time.

Good job. Thank you so much for everything you're doing here. It looks amazing.

Thank you. My name is Angel. And what was your favorite part about this event?

Oh, I like this event so much. Because the very beautiful view and beautiful people here. And also very nice teaching from the teachers and also translators.

And I like the contact with the people here.

[Говорящий 1]
So how many people came this time?

[Говорящий 2]
Ah, there are almost 20 team classes. Yeah, I like...

[Говорящий 1]
He's telling stories very good. And he's throwing many questions. And we can think about it.

And finally, I like the cake.

[Говорящий 2]
What's your name?

[Говорящий 1]
Where are you from? I was born in New York. We currently live in Tokyo.

What's your favorite part about team classes? I like how honest he is about his afflictions. With respect to his anger and how he perceives other people.

It's true. It's very, very fun. I enjoyed it so much.

And it's very clear how deeply knowledgeable he is in the text. But he doesn't rely on this unnecessarily.

[Говорящий 2]
What's your name? Yashen. And where are you from?

Guam, Taiwan. Great. So what was your favorite part about this course number two?

There are some meditations about emptiness and grace. I really enjoyed the conference. Would you recommend other people to come in person to these events?

[Говорящий 1]
Oh yeah, of course. Yeah, it would be good to come.

[Говорящий 2]
Are you planning to come again?

[Говорящий 1]
Yes.

[Говорящий 2]
Hopefully. Hopefully. So thank you very much.

And we may see you later sometime. Thank you.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, so that was the very first event. The last day actually of the very first event. And actually I have much more material.

There are like many very, very fun moments. But I, as I say, just need a little more time to edit them. Then I can present something more cream of the cream to you.

But at least it's a good advance. And speaking of this event, you saw in the video Angel Ai Chu. She lives in Taiwan.

And she is becoming a very, very good producer. So she was one of the persons that helped to produce this event. And she's very soon producing another event in Taiwan with Tim Lowenhaupt.

And I would like to invite her just for a few moments. She should be around just to talk to her for a few minutes. If she's around and you could help me to spot her, I'll appreciate it very much.

[Говорящий 2]
I think she is under the name of Angel. Yay, how are you?

[Говорящий 1]
Very good. I'm glad you make it back to Taipei.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes, just arrived. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Wonderful. So thank you very much for being here. And what I wanted you to talk a little bit about is if you could share with us your own experience of having produced this event in Kyoto.

And then what do you have in mind for next event in July? Oh, yeah. Actually, we have the AC.

I know. I mean, we have last class in March. And then people like it very much.

I just bring all the materials back to Taiwan. And we have a study group here. And people like it.

And with very little time. So some of them come to Kyoto this time. And they really like it.

And we are wondering, is there much more class coming? Yeah. And also, we are preparing for a new event in Taiwan.

That is a very, I think, a cool activity in Taiwan. It's called Giving Garden for Circle Day. Oh, yeah, we have a poster.

Can we show it really quickly? Yeah, thank you. Yes.

Yes. And what it's going to be about?

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, it's going to be about Circle Day. And which I would like to invite all of you to come with your family together. Because this is a beautiful forest park.

And I think the sunshine and also the woods, people will like it. But the most important is this is the first in-person event by by Taiwan group this year. And we are excited to announce that.

[Говорящий 1]
We have invited Tim Lowerhut, the teacher, to lead us to this beautiful garden. And bring the more fun and, I think, activities here. And also, there is a Happy Camp program.

And we also want to take this opportunity to thank everyone here in Taiwan.

[Говорящий 2]
So also Tim is going to talk about it. I think this is going to be a very fun. And this is very near to a famous sightseeing in Taiwan.

[Говорящий 1]
In Beipu, you know, Beipu. It's near Hsinchu, this place. Yeah.

Wonderful. And the topics are going to be... You told me, I remember, you say this is going to be focused on perfection.

Number one, the perfection of giving. And also in how to learn to do practical retreats. Is that correct?

Yes, yeah. We have two days here. And I think people will enjoy it.

[Говорящий 2]
I think so too.

[Говорящий 1]
So if for all of you, if you are around the area or you want to go. Just follow the QR code. We will be sharing it with you in the next few days.

This event is happening in one more month, about a month. So we'll keep showing the QR code. But if you're interested, just follow the QR code.

You're going to get more information and details on how to get there. And thank you very much, Angel. It was a very beautiful production.

I had the chance to attend to the first one. And now just a little bit to the second one. But I see how the group is growing and growing.

And the excitement of people is also growing. People are happy, engaging. And I feel it's going to keep growing.

So congratulations very, very much. Thank you. Yeah.

And so I guess we have, of course, we always have more material to show. But time is little. So we have to keep going.

Word is ready to take us into a wisdom trip. And I want to apologize to all the other people who have great things to share. But we will have you soon, very soon.

Soon, very soon. Thank you. Thanks.