Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 50

[Говорящий 1]
To be there and to see all this soon. There's one in the business of selling bells now, I'll order 10. Okay, Nick, let's do your homework.

All right, all right, here we go. Let me find it. There it is.

Can you guys see it? There it is. Yeah.

All right, so we kind of were hammering on a theme. So some of these are just questions to spark discussion. Let's just see how it goes.

Are we wrong every time we label something? That is, is it incorrect to call a pen a pen? I heard somebody saying no.

I think it was Oscar. Was that you, Oscar?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. Why not?

[Говорящий 2]
Because a pen is a pen, but it is a pen coming from you.

[Говорящий 1]
That's a great answer. Anybody else want to chime in?

[Говорящий 2]
We can say that maybe we could be wrong from our point of view from where it comes, but not necessarily about its content and function based on what mental images I have ripening.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, perfect. That's basically what we've discussed. Calling a pen a pen is a reasonable attribution.

We can be correct about the content, just like you said, and incorrect about where it's coming from. So basically what both of you said. And we were discussing this in what context?

Does anybody remember where we were in the text?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah. Rope for a snake.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, good. So what does this word mean, Oscar or anyone? Yeah, good.

It means checkered. Cool. All right.

I don't know how I did that. It doesn't matter. It means checkered.

Just as we don't find a snake somewhere in the coiled rope, we don't find any nick in my parts. Is that really parallel reasoning? Like there's no snake in a coiled rope, but is it the same?

Is that parallel to say that there's no nick in my parts? Earl says it's not parallel. It's not parallel?

Why not? He's doing the Mooney thing. Oh, okay.

Right on. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. That's so deep of him.

There never was a snake you could find, but you could find a nick. You could, in my parts? Okay.

Anybody else want to share your thoughts about this? That's good, Earl. I think that's really good.

[Говорящий 2]
It's supposed to be a parallel reasoning.

[Говорящий 1]
Rob Haggerty says you cannot find nick in Nick's parts. You can't. Okay.

It is supposed to be a parallel reasoning. That's right, Ben. What do you think?

Is it parallel reasoning? It was supposed to be.

[Говорящий 2]
I struggle with it, but yeah, I think it is parallel reasoning. I think there's something about the idea nick that is just utterly as made up as the idea of a snake. The way that you think of Nick, if you're an ordinary person, is as absurd as thinking of that other object as being a snake.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Yeah, that seems to be the way that geltsubj is going with the discussion. Let's see what I wrote, because I don't remember.

We aren't in our component parts in a single moment over the past and future or in our parts in general. A person is not found in their parts, but they are indeed the collection of the parts, just not from their own side. We are coming from a seed.

So from our discussion that we had in class and what geltsubj says, it is parallel reasoning, because without the seed, you can't say that we're in our parts. But we are in our parts, so it's confusing. I mean, what do you think?

Tim says there's no snake in the rope. But is there a Nick in the parts? He says there is.

He doesn't know me that well, I guess. You should point them out. I think it's tricky.

I think it's a really tricky point to wrestle with. What does pungpola teneng aon nyampa mean? The me you think of that's simply based on the heaps or your parts?

Yeah, in this context, that's one way that thinking that I exist within my parts is what it means here. But yeah. Cool.

What are three problems that would arise if someone were their parts? Them their parts? Someone were.

[Говорящий 2]
Tim's healing.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's one of the problems. Okay.

Now there should be two others. I know I'm usually very precise with my theirs too. I just, that's absent-minded.

You would change every moment. Yeah. It would be changing moment to moment, right?

There would never be a me that was consistent. Multiple people. Anatole says there would be multiple people.

Good. Yeah, there would be plural amounts of me's, multiple me's. And I blame them all.

That would be more than we could handle. Fair enough. I say that I blame you.

And there's not enough waves in your part of San Diego to support that. That's right. The waves would be so shredded.

[Говорящий 2]
And it would be incorrect to say anyone could remember their past births.

[Говорящий 1]
Good, awesome, amazing. Yeah, we got all three. Be changing, there'd be multiple, and you couldn't say that they would remember their past lives.

And I don't know quite why that third one, but that is what Yeltsin said. And I had the theory that it's because if you're so associated with your current parts, then you wouldn't be associated with your previous ones. Someone who is not a mix nut translator, please give me the six elements.

There's four of them, I heard four. Sounds like somebody's eating on my microphone. Somebody's eating on the microphone, yeah.

Not those elements, that's the chicken nuggets, six elements. Hasso said it. Hasso said it, what?

Satchumelunumka and Namshe. Satchumelunumka and Namshe. Good, great, nice work.

That's from Hasso. Good job, Hasso. He didn't even ring a bell.

Yeah, he doesn't get the answer next time now. That's what you win. All right, guess what I- He says he's not going to ring the bell in your class unless there's $100 connected to this.

All right, I got to start getting generous. You didn't assign me anything to translate, but we can take a look at some parts that I looked at. Okay, good.

All right. If I ever forget to sign you, do the next five lines. Totally, I always do.

All right. So let's look. All right.

So here we are. We're up to number, we were talking about five ways of examining the self or whether or not the self is parts. What's the first one again?

Remind us what's the first one. Here it is. So it's the three that we just covered, that it would be changing.

There would be multiple and you wouldn't remember your past births. Okay, all right. That's the first examination was that the self can't be found in the parts because of those three.

Okay, okay. And now we're up to- Who's going to read the next one, Nick? You want to read, Nick?

Yeah, I'll read this first one. dak ter pungpo tey kar shong la gya shuk dar tenpa min la pungpo tey lar dak tey tey dar tenpa min te mik rung mimik pey chee ro Good. I found these a little hard.

So I'm not a hundred percent confident with my translations but I think I did all right. Yeah. It's done down here.

A gya shuk is a juniper tree? I'm not sure. It doesn't, it's not comfortable for me.

I found somewhere online that said a gya shuk is a big snake, but- No, no. This refers, it was taught to me as in the Himalayas, people like to put, they have flat roofs made of mud and which don't do well in earthquakes, as we saw this week. And they like to put a big, like those Mexican pots for plants.

Terracotta pots. And then they like to, yeah, and they like to plant things in them up on the roof. So that terracotta pot is called a gya shuk.

Gya shuk generally means a basin of some kind of carton. Yeah, so something is not like a potted plant, like a small tree in a pot. I think it's saying that the parts don't rely on the self in the way that a plant relies on its pot, maybe.

What was the first one? The parts don't rely on the self? You mean up here, it was like the, let's see.

Oh, they're not the same thing. Yeah. They're not the same.

Yep. Okay. Parts are not the self.

And now we're talking about whether they rely upon them. Yeah, but I don't know which way, who's relying on what. The way it says here.

It's interesting, because I think it does go both ways. Yeah, I think you're right. I think the self and the parts, Michael and the parts to Michael are not like a plant in the pot you put it in.

I mean, it doesn't seem to say which way. Well, check out this, check out number three, because two and three are together here. And it looks like Yeah.

Kung po de la dak te tar tenpa min te is saying, nor does the self rely upon the parts this way. So it's like the parts don't rely on the self. Yeah.

Yeah. You're right. You're right.

So the second one should be the parts don't rely on the self. And the third one is, and the self doesn't rely on the parts. Yeah.

And then, yeah. Nor does the self rely. And then he gives us a reason because we'd be able to see it that way, but we don't.

Yeah, and I didn't understand that reason until like yesterday or this morning. Mik rung means it should be something you could possibly observe. But in fact, mi mik.

But you don't observe it. He did not put a disjunctive between the two. He should have.

He should have said, able to see nothing. Okay. But it means we should have been able to observe it, but we don't.

If the self depends on his parts, if Michael depends on Michael's parts, we should be able to observe it, but we don't. Okay. Yeah.

I'm so happy right now that I kind of understood something.

[Говорящий 2]
Yay!

[Говорящий 1]
Okay, who's gonna read the next one, Uncle Nick? You wanna try? That was pretty short.

Okay. ,GUNG PO THEG MA'I BAR DAG YIN GAR BAR ,MIG PA'I YANG MIN TE ,GUNG PO MED PA'I TSE NYID CHEN DU ,MIG BAR THAL BA'I PHYIR RO Good. YIN GAR BA is a crucial word here.

Yeah, this great is a great translation for YIN GAR BA. Some separate speaking. Yes.

In the absence of the five parts to the person, you don't see Nick hanging around. Uh-huh. In the absence of Nick's five parts, five heaps, you don't see a Nick, you know, hanging around.

Okay, you mean, you don't. Uh-huh. Because in that case, Nick would have to be something that you could, that was typified by not having parts.

Nick with no arms, no feet, no legs, no brain. Okay, no surfboard. It'd have to have an independent existence.

Okay. So seeing something which is characterized as being free of parts, is that okay? We would be seeing something.

Yeah, good. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, that's nice.

That's a nice translation. Difficult. Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, Nick, choose something.

[Говорящий 1]
Choose a victim. Choose a victim for the lesson. Okay.

Who's the, I'm trying to think who's there. You want me to tell you who's here? Sure.

Pick one, two, or three. Three. Okay, you got Hasso, Christina Kasica, you got Rivas.

Rivas. You got Alfonso. Okay, he's ready.

He's ready. Hey. Hey, Nick.

Dak dang pungpo me shintar ndre te deni dang. Shen ni yud du me pa, yud du, me pa min tem. Gu po la, ngo po, la deni dang.

Shen kang rung gi kyap pey chiro. Nice.

[Говорящий 2]
Someone say churros.

[Говорящий 1]
Say again? Churros.

[Говорящий 2]
Someone say churros?

[Говорящий 1]
Churros. Churros. Churros.

[Говорящий 2]
Churros.

[Говорящий 1]
Churros. They don't make good churros in America. I'm just warning you, don't try to order them.

Okay, dak dang pungpo, what's that mean? Me and my- Self and the parts. Okay, so he's going through possibilities.

He's going through different possibilities. The fifth possibility is not that one is the other, or not that one's relying on the other, or the other's relying on the one. But now we have a new possibility.

Are they somehow ndre pa? Mixed together. No, are they somehow intertwined?

I was wondering if you're saying that they are or not. He's going to say min in the middle of the second line. Yeah.

That's what I originally thought. Okay, I got confused. Are they somehow mixed like firewood and fire?

That's correct. It's just like after the fire's burning pretty well, it's impossible to separate the fire from the coals. It's one thing, right?

It's mixed together, okay? Ndre pa means mixed together. And de ni na she ni.

Good. You can't say, are they the same? You can't say the fire and the firewood are the same thing, because you can see the firewood's still there.

But you can't say that they are different either, because you couldn't separate the fire from the firewood at that point when it's been burning for a while, okay? Therefore, ndre pa la de ni na she ni. By the way, Nick, I would have said, personally, I would have said de ni na she ni.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. De ni na she ni. Identical or separate entities or something, or separate?

Yeah. When you're talking about a thing, it's got to be one or the other. It either has to be that, the firewood or the fire.

It can't somehow be a mix, okay? When you're saying what's there, you can't say fire mixed with wood. You have to be able to separate fire from wood, right?

Even though it's pretty much together, okay? In the same manner, you and your five parts, they are not somehow mushed together. It's just, I don't accept the mush school.

Okay, guys, that's another option, that somehow they're intertwined. De ni she ni comes in. Kyap means either you're the fire or you're the firewood, but you can't be firewood mixed with wood, okay?

Oh. All right. So you're either- Rebus asks, you're either fire or firewood, but you can't say you are firewood intertwined with fire.

In the end, you have to be able to separate. So that's- Rebus, maybe if he could do the next one. Can I just clarify one thing?

I'm sorry. Yeah. The kyapay chir then means because you have to be either one or the other?

Yeah, that's all it means.

[Говорящий 2]
That's all it means.

[Говорящий 1]
Standing up always is like, you have to be either one thing or the other thing? Yeah. When you're talking about a thing, you have to say it's either firewood or fire.

You can't say it's a mix of firewood and fire. Okay. I'm just gonna leave a note here, so I don't, okay.

Yeah. Rebus wants to do the next one, Nick, or something.

[Говорящий 2]
He said- Please, Rebus.

[Говорящий 1]
What does that even mean? Just calm down. It's fine.

Thank you. Thank you. Sure.

Dak ni jita rang shing gi yun de me patal. Me patal? Me patal?

Me patal. Okay. Che na nam pangar me pa de chu.

And by the way, Nick, this is the conclusion of the five volumes. Okay? Therefore, we can decide what?

As for, we can decide, we can use these five examinations to see, we can see that it has no nature of its own? Yeah. Therefore, we can say that the self is not something which exists by nature.

Okay? He says it that way. He says it's not something which exists by nature.

Yeah. Because if you really look into it, che na nam pangar, it is none of the five options that we just discussed. Maybe nature.

You can't find it in any of those five options. All right. Now, what's fun is to have the victim choose the next victim.

Okay. You should complain, boss. That's my friend.

That's me. We got it. We got it.

Hey, Rosa. By the way, everyone should pray that she has a very long life. Because without her, we can't do anything.

And I hate to say it. I don't have it. Hang on, I gotta switch something in another place.

I can pull it back up if you want. No, I was gonna do it this way. Okay.

And then, it's gonna be down here. No, I'll just do it this way. Okay.

You go over there. You go over there. Okay.

Okay. Aiyah. Okay.

You go up there. Hey. Stop here.

Wait, finish this part. Finish this part. Finish this part.

Yeah, we're down to the Nipalani. Okay. Hang on.

I can get it bigger. No, let's not. Okay.

Let's try not. Nipalani. Good.

Sukhumrungshin. Kigrupadang. Pungpolakmanamlajarwo.

I like a jar head. Okay. Good.

Now, as you know, in these ancient texts, it's kind of frustrating because they say something like, part two has two parts. And supposedly you remember what happened like eight weeks ago and what's part two. So it's a mixed nuts condition to go get it for you before class.

So here it is. It's part two is the big letters here. What, can you read that?

Is it?

[Говорящий 2]
Dukkidang meja pao.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. So he finished gangsakidang me, the no self nature people. And now he's moving to the no self nature of things.

Okay. And how he's going to talk about the no self nature of things, he's going to say, he's going to gakpa, he's going to deny that the sukhipungmul. Part of the person which is physical.

Good, nice translation. He's going to deny the nature of its own. That couldn't exist through some nature itself.

Sukh is a dangerous rupa, is a dangerous word to translate because it can have three completely different meanings. Like physical form, physical form. Yeah.

It can mean physical form. And it can mean physical form. And here it means all physical stuff.

And if you have a broader Abhidharma viewpoint, the first heap extends to all the universe. Okay. So anyway, we're going to prove that physical stuff doesn't exist self existently.

Then we're going to go on to phungpo thakma. We'll apply that same explanation to the other parts of the person.

[Говорящий 2]
Nice.

[Говорящий 1]
The other four parts. Then we'll go to the rest of the phungpo thakma. Do you want to call in somebody?

Yeah, Jose. Jose. Hey, we got Jose de la Borda from Peru.

Oh, muy bien. Ancient Diamond Mountain founder. Wow.

And he still looks young, which is really, it's really irritating. Hola. First time I'm going to wait.

Okay, that's okay. Yes, don't miss anybody, just go. This one?

Yeah. Dangpo la. Okay.

Dangpo la. Shi. Zen.

Yuwa. Rangshi. Yi.

Drupa. Good. Dak.

Padang. Dak. Padang.

Zenpa. Yu. Yungur.

Rangshi. Shi. What was that?

Rangshi. Yi. Drupa.

Dak. Padang. Chosang.

Lap. Ger. Ger.

[Говорящий 2]
Gerwa.

[Говорящий 1]
Gerpa. Dang. Namka.

Rangshi. Yi. Drupa.

Dak. Pow. Nice.

Oh, he's running away. Hey, Nick, that's a Luma surfer's accent. Nice.

We were supposed to talk about how the physical part of you doesn't exist through some nature of its own, okay? And we're going to cover that subject in four parts. First one is zenjungwa.

Rangshi. Yi. Drupa.

Dak. We're going to deny that it could be made of elements, some foundation made of it. Yeah.

We're going to deny a foundation which could be made of elements, okay? Okay. Meaning your physical body cannot be made of atoms if you prefer, or elements, chemicals, okay?

Then we're going to say, so that treats the foundation. Zen, R-T-E-N, means the foundation. Then zenjungwa means the thing which came out of the foundation, okay?

Okay. And now, Nick, I got a big thing here, okay? I had trouble with this because it's misspelled, but it's very subtle and scholars do it.

Many writers do it. And I checked the Sanskrit. I went to Aisha's Yashamitra Commentary, to the Abhidharmakosha.

And the thing is, they always talk about, zen, they call it jungwa and jungyur. Say jungwa, jungwa, jungjungwa, jungyur, jungyur. Now the first one is easy.

Jungwa means the five elements, or the six elements, or the four elements, whichever number you're dealing with, okay? Then jungyur means what came out of the elements. So like a rock is jungyur.

A product. The qualities of earth, fire, water, wind, which are, by the way, principles. They are not, no ancient Abhidharmakaya thought there was a little campfire in the water.

He just meant forms. All objects, all physical objects have warmth. Even a physical object at absolute zero has some warmth.

Okay, it can be measured as zero. Okay, so anyway, so that's jungwa, the five, four elements. Four energies within all matter.

Four energies within all, that probably relate to gravitation and mass and things like that. They're very sophisticated, they're not stupid. Then jungyur, say jungyur.

That's jung, jungjungwa lay gyurpa, okay? Jung, that means a product of the elements. So like a pizza.

I don't know why I was thinking about a pizza. But that's, so jungwa means four elements or five or six. Jungyur means all the products of the elements, okay?

And Nick, here's the important thing. It should be spelled gyur without an apostrophe. Right, right, right, right, right, right.

Okay, that's an important mistake. And I know it doesn't look important. And the trouble is that the word before it ends with NG.

So you hear a prenasal word and there's no prenasal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll say it slow, you ready?

Jung, gyur. Yeah. It's not jungyur.

Yeah. Okay, and it's completely different meaning, it's profoundly different meaning. And I checked the database, like half the Tibetans misspell it, okay?

All right? So this is, it's very wrong. Jung, jung, jungyur means a product of the elements.

Past tense gyur, right? Which have come from the elements, okay? Then that makes sense, okay?

And if you say jungyur, it just didn't make sense. And I struggled with it, struggled with it, struggled with it, and then I realized he misspelled it, okay? The author misspelled it, okay?

Rangshinhi jupa cannot exist, products of the elements cannot exist by themselves, okay? Gagpa, we're going to deny that they could exist by themselves. They were going to jarwa it to cheshin.

We're going to apply the same explanation to anything else. Yeah, yeah. Meaning, what are the cheshin here, Nick?

I'm guessing that would be other physical stuff that could somehow not be included in the elements or the products of the elements. Go deeper. Not included in your parts.

Well, we're talking about sukhi, right? Because this is the four- No, not necessarily. Oh, so then the other parts- Other kinds of mental stuff, concepts like that.

Rangshinhi jupa gagpa, cheshin, the jarwa. And then we're going to pay special attention to namkara. Empty space.

Space, and namkara has been a problem in the Abhidharma school for 2,000 years. Namkara means space. So does it mean the place where the cup is?

Yeah. Or does it mean the blue sky? Or does it mean outer space?

Or does it, I've heard some dashis say it's the space between the wall and the deck, which is mistaken. You see what I mean? Yeah.

That's not what's, that's not space, namkara. We're going to discuss whether space exists by itself, from its own side, okay? Those are the topics we're going to cover here.

Yay. By the way, I went through a whole thing. First of all, I confirmed that it's, here, see it here?

Jewa le. Jewa le. Kyrpa.

Kyrpa. Kyrpa. Say kyrpa.

It's not ngyur. It's not kyrpa. And if it was ngyur, it would be ngyurwa.

Okay? Kyrpa is past tense. So it's clear, that which has come from the elements, da, like rocks.

Now I got another one for you. Kosha root text. Oh boy.

The root text of the Abhidharmakosha Sutra. When they treat this topic, when they teach it in Kosha, they say, jung ne gyeway nam buk nam. They spell that correct.

jung gyur nam sung. Products of the elements. They spell it correctly.

Who? Abhidharmakosha's brother. Abhidharmakosha's brother.

Half-brother. Okay. Now, here's the Sanskrit for the same verse.

Oh, cool. Due to Mrs. Skoufulos. Anyway, it's bhautika.

It's the product of the bhutas. Bhuta means... Bhuta means element.

Bhauti means product of the element. When you want to say a product of something, you strengthen the vowel. So here it's...

Bhuta means... Bhuta means element. Sacchimendu, wind, fire, blah blah.

And bhautika means a desk or a computer or something made of the elements. Okay? Bhautika.

And then you go to the Sanskrit dictionaries, jungwa and jung... jungwa ne khyorpa. Khyorpa, past tense, which has been made by the...

Okay? Therefore, it's wrong here. And it's very, very dangerous.

It's very mess... It messes up the meaning. Okay?

Anyway... I should get a dollar for anything that I say. Okay.

So anyway, we're going to deny that the elements could exist from their own side. And then we're going to deny that the products... products of the elements exist from their own side.

Okay? Then we're going to jarwa... It should be jarwa...

to other what, Nick? Other stuff. Yeah, let's apply it to other stuff, like, I don't know, pizzas.

I keep thinking... Awesome. And then, in particular, we're going to go to namkara.

Can I ask a quick... Oh, I guess namkara is physical. Because aren't these four a division of the first one above, which was supposed to be only a denial about physical things?

Exactly, you're correct. But namkara, obviously, is also physical.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
He's sneaking other things in when he said he would do it later. Right. Okay?

All right, good point. And then, again, why has it been misspelled through history? Why did people misspell junggyur?

Because it comes right after jung, so it sounds like... Yeah, it comes right after nar. So it sounds like it starts with a nar, but it doesn't.

It's un... Sure. It's not junggyur.

And it's a huge difference, completely different. It's very confusing. Okay?

All right, we got another root text here. 83rd verse, Nik is cruising. By the way, with Nik's book here, we are covering the two great epistles of Buddhism.

The two most famous epistles of Buddhism. We finished the one, Letter to a Friend, and then this is the String of Jewels, which is another Letter to a King. Some people say the same king, it's not clear.

There is a commentator who identifies the other king, is Udayibhadra, who was a grandson of Bimbisara and the son of Makeda, an unborn enemy, who killed Bimbisara, who killed his father. And his father commissioned the first Wheel of Life painting, and that guy killed his father. And this is the son.

Right? That's pretty heavy. Yeah.

Okay, who's going to read, Nik? You want to choose? Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Geshe-la, are we forgetting a verse here?

[Говорящий 1]
We're not going to do the verse. No, we're not going to do the verse, because we're not going to read it yet. Don't worry.

We're going to cover it in the bowl. Go slow. Good.

Good. Stay, because it's too short for your skills. Dhammo-ni, which is...

What was dhammo? It doesn't exist. It's one or more than one.

We did skip this line, then. This one here, dhammo-la-shi?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Okay. Let's make Lindsay read it.

[Говорящий 2]
Dhammo-la-shi. Good. Good.

Good.

[Говорящий 1]
Good. Dhammo-la-shi. So, dhammo, first was...

Yeah, we're going to talk about... Denying that the elements have any nature? The object which possesses the elements could possess a nature of its own.

Okay. And then we're going to say... It has four parts.

That discussion has four parts. Does the cup, which is made of the four elements, have its own nature? And we're going to discuss that in four parts.

Chittam Dhammo Narayana Manjripa. This is very confusing and difficult, okay? This is a cup made of the four elements, okay?

Is it one or is it more than one? Oh, yes. Yes.

Naturally. Is it one cup or is it more than one cup? One cup.

One cup. Is there one cup here made of the elements or is there more than one cup here made of the elements? It's not made of the cup.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, nothing's made of the cup.

[Говорящий 1]
It's made from your seeds. Don't tell me this is made of chemicals. Don't, don't, you know...

What's very funny for us as, you know, in these times on this planet is that the current worldview of the planet is low-arbitrary. It's chemicals. It's got carbon and it's got oxygen and it's got, you know, and that's like almost below-arbitrary.

It doesn't even qualify as a viewpoint. It's a dumb thing. Okay, so anyway, she...

So, is the cup made of chemicals in my hand? Is it one thing or multiple things?

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, you got it. It's a bad question. Yeah, there's no cup in your hand which is multiple things or one thing that's not coming from your seeds.

You didn't say coming from my seeds. If you don't say coming from my seeds, I refuse to answer your question, Geshe-la. And it leads to a weird life, you know.

You live with your wife and you always say, did you find that person irritating from your seeds? She's like, no, did you find them irritating from your seeds? Okay, that's the first one.

Second one. DE NA BYUNG BA RANG BZHIN GYIS MED PA Therefore, because you can't find one cup here or multiple cups here, therefore the very parts of the cup cannot exist by nature. The elements in the cup cannot exist by nature.

Neither can the collection of those elements exist by nature. And then, GDUG BYED RGAGS PA means we're going to deny attempted proofs. We're going to deny attempted proofs.

Or people's... GDUG BYED can mean evidence, the things they offer to prove something. We're going to deny it.

All right, now I can go to this one. We're not going to make Lindsay do it again. Right, Nick?

I mean... No need, it's okay. I got it.

The slide is short. Yeah. I know you both.

Okay. DANG PO NI BYUNG BA GSUM DANG GCIG MIN TE Oh, sorry. First of all, where was first of all?

It's one or many. Yeah, one or many. It doesn't exist as one.

It doesn't exist as many. It's not going. Come on, honey bunny.

Just go up there. Okay. All right.

The BYUNG BA GSUM are SA DANG GCIG. Are the other three elements... GCIG with SA.

Yeah. Are the other three elements the same or one with... Are they equivalent to the element of...

Solidity. Solidity. That's the element of earth in the table.

Okay. That's what element of earth means. Okay.

Are the other three elements, water, space, heat, fire, are they the same as earth? No. Why?

SA LA GSUM KYI TSE NI TSANG BAR THAL BA DANG That's because SA by itself, earth by itself, or solidity by itself, would have to exhibit the qualities of the other three. If the other three existed within earth, then earth would be warm, and it would flow, and it would breeze across the sky between here and Tim's house. Okay?

Yeah. Is the way they're phrasing that is because he's saying earth is by definition free of those other ones, or like... You don't observe the defining characteristics of the other three elements in earth.

Right, right, right, right, right. Because otherwise earth, all dirt would be warm, and all dirt would flow like water, and you don't see them. Because they'd be mixed together, I see.

Yeah. Yeah, and then he says, he uses this very, very kind of extreme word, CHO BA. Say CHO BA.

CHO BA. CHO BA means hurdy-gurdy, mixed up, all mixed up. Mishmash.

It means mishmash. CHO BA means mishmash. Yeah.

And the famous occurrence of this word is if you hurt someone and you got what you wanted. The famous example of this word is you hurt someone, you fought another country, and you got their gold mines, or something like that. That would be CHO BA.

Yeah, yeah. It's very interesting. It's a very charged word.

It has heavy, heavy consequences. Is it possible to hurt someone and get what you were hoping for? That would be CHO BA.

That would be mishmash. Then the whole universe would be crazy. That's what CHO BA means.

The whole universe went crazy. Here it means if Earth could flow, the universe would be crazy. Like water.

It doesn't. Who's going to read next? One more.

Yay, one to you. I want you to take the breath out of T. DEN PA.

DEN PA. Now say TEN PA. TEN PA.

TEN PA means rely. TEN PA means smoke a joint. Which one is it?

You think I'm kidding? Yeah. TEN means to smoke.

And DEN means rely upon. You cannot, and there is no English DAK. It doesn't exist in English.

So say TEN PA.

[Говорящий 2]
TEN.

[Говорящий 1]
No, nod your head. TEN PA.

[Говорящий 2]
TEN PA.

[Говорящий 1]
I told you, Earl. TEN PA.

[Говорящий 2]
TEN PA.

[Говорящий 1]
TEN PA, good.

[Говорящий 2]
TEN PA.

[Говорящий 1]
There's a certain translator who's a surfer who had trouble with this for years. It took me years to fix it. DEN PA.

MIN LA.

[Говорящий 2]
SUNG PO BYED MED PAR SA MED PAR YANG MIN NO.

[Говорящий 1]
Nice. Okay. SANG DI LA, the earth element, does not DEN PA on the BYUNG BA GSUM.

Doesn't rely upon the other three elements. It does not rest upon the other three elements. SOLIDITY does not rest upon FLUIDITY or WARMTH or TEMPERATURE.

Okay? Does not. MIN SHING.

Neither do those three DEN PA on EARTH. They don't have this relationship of a KAR SHUNG and a SHUG PA. Yeah.

SHUG PA, by the way, means juniper tree. Right. And the Tibetan, I don't know, what can grow at 12,000 feet is similar to earth element.

SHUG PA. It's a very hardy tree and it makes allergies. Okay.

SUNG PA DI LA TEN PA MIN LA. SUNG PA DEN MED PAR. Even if those were absent, if the other three were absent, temperature, fluidity, and motion sometimes they say, could it exist in their absence?

MED PAR. Could SANG MED PAR. I thought it would be, yes, there's a MIN.

[Говорящий 2]
Not even MIN.

[Говорящий 1]
It says MIN. Yeah. And unfortunately, we don't have a Sanskrit here.

Oh no. It is MIN, but we should check it out in another commentary. Okay?

I think what it means is you don't see solidity in the absence of fluidity and temperature. There's no place in the universe where one element, one function can exist independently of the other three. I think he's saying that, Nick.

Okay. Yeah, is he trying to say that? If you found the universe with no water and no temperature and no motion, you probably wouldn't be able to find Sagar.

Okay. Is he trying to say that it can't exist through any nature of its own because it's dependent upon those other ones? You could say that.

I guess we'll have to investigate further. By the way, Nick, I'm pretty sure, I mean, you should check it out in other commentaries, okay? Wouldn't it make sense to say if the other three are absent, you could still have Earth, therefore it doesn't depend on them?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. They do tend to mess up the mins and yins in this text. Of course, I have the text up here.

I've been struggling with it. But anyway, I won't show it now. Check it out, Nick.

By the way, the hope is that what's the option, Aisha, we don't have the root text of this verse. What's the option? Did someone else quote it?

Was it ever quoted? And that's something you can find out with that gentleman. Oh, that's cool.

We'll go see if there's a Sanskrit for that.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Wow. Yeah. She'll check.

Sometimes you can recreate the text from other works that quote it. But that's very laborious. That's like 130 verses in searching thousands of texts.

Okay. All right. Who's going to read the next one?

Linda.

[Говорящий 2]
Rina, do you want me? No? Okay.

Francisco.

[Говорящий 1]
Who is that? It's Francisco. Oh, Francisco.

All right. Hey, Francisco. Thank you.

Oh, wait. Nick, you got the plane, okay? You correct Francisco.

We'll take a break. Junwa means what, Nick? The elements.

Yeah, the elements. Let's take them again. Take the elements.

Let's look at the elements. So far we've been kind of looking at the earth elements. Now let's take all the elements.

They are Zumba. They're fake. They are fake.

They are not what they seem, because they are similar to dark. They're like a self. Yeah, they're similar to self.

Okay, good. Why are they similar to the self? Why are they misleading?

Because chen na... If you were to perform an analysis... Yeah, if you were going to check them in the shi different ways...

The four, yeah. The four different ways we've been talking about, you would find out with each one of them... For example, with chu...

With water. It's similar to suh. Similar to...

If you use the same four criteria, check them. They're also... They're not what they seem.

Okay? And you won't find the real one. Okay?

You won't find the real one. You won't find a water that comes from its own side any more than you find earth that comes from its own side. Because if you check the water in the four different ways we check the earth, you'd see it does not come from its own side.

Okay? It comes from your own. And this is interesting, because what he's saying is to put it in scientific terms, the chemicals or the elements which make up reality according to a scientist are themselves empty.

They don't come from their own side. He's not saying, look, tables don't come from their own side. He's saying the carbon in the table doesn't come from its own side.

So how can you say the table comes from its own side? That's where he's... That's why he went to the elements.

Yeah. Cool. All right.

Who's... How are we doing on time? We have to wait three minutes.

[Говорящий 2]
Three minutes.

[Говорящий 1]
I just said never waste three minutes. Or who said that? My teacher.

Second question. Francisco's begging to read the big letters here. All right.

Okay, good. So we reached the point where, therefore, the Jungists are Rangchinki members. Yeah, their four elements are lacking in any nature of their own.

Yeah, they don't exist from their own side. The four elements. By the way, Francisco did a great job for the YSI tech, along with...

Along with Gina and Marina. Gina, Marina, and Francisco. They did a really great job at YSI.

We'd like to thank them. And they do a great job for us all the time, every week. So thank you.

I wish they would stay in Arizona. But I think pretty soon even Arizona people won't be able to stay in Arizona. Let's do the next...

I'm going to read... Nick, you want to read this one fast? Sure, yeah.

We got two minutes. Okay. Okay.

Basically it says the four elements don't exist on their own side, because if they did, if each one of them did, the other three would. Yeah. Or if the three did, the one would.

They don't. That's all. Okay, Nick, we're going to stop there.

Sounds good. And just don't say Grandpa didn't give you homework. Just kidding.

I'll always do it anyway, but yes. How are you doing? Are you okay?

Yeah. Did you find... Are you guys still homeless?

Yeah. Yeah. I'll tell you about it when I see you.

We have a storage shed. So, Nick, let's go down to... You don't have to do the verse.

Can you do through the end of... Yes, sir. Okay.

All right. Okay. Thank you.

For your hard work in leading the Mixed Nuts, Mr. Nick, and especially for our salaries. Thank you. Thank you to all the people who help us get everybody their salaries, because some people keep having kids and stuff.

Thank you. Thank you, Geshe Michael, and thanks to everybody for supporting the Mixed Nuts. And I'll see you soon, next week.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Have a great evening.

[Говорящий 2]
Looking forward to it.

[Говорящий 1]
I'm Dave.

[Говорящий 2]
Love you, Geshe Michael. Bye. Thank you.

[Говорящий 1]
Thank you. Bye.

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you, Geshe.