Сугэн Ши — Книга 2: Колесо жизни (первый принцип и подразделения зависимости), занятие 14

[Speaker 1]
Please do, please do. All right. Okay, let's start with the fun one.

I'm sorry, it's too easy. So what are the three main activities of gridmasters? I'm asking the answer in English, please.

[Speaker 3]
Explain, defend, compose.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, thank you. What is the place name where people performed the impossible, and what did they do? Sedona, Nick finished.

Oh yeah, there, Sedona, and Nick completed his difficult book. Okay, this is with reference to Master Vasubandhu. So what is the place where people performed the impossible?

Oh, first, what did they do? What impossible that they did? Okay, I'm sorry, I was just...

No, I don't remember this at all. It seems like we're just a little bit dull-minded. Is it the rain?

It's the vacation coming up, we can't think. Oh yeah, the day is off. Yeah, after this, yeah.

Well, I was just actually picking on the joke that Geshe-la mentioned, you know, they did what the master told them to do accordingly, and the place is in Gori. Wait, I don't remember. Oh, you don't remember that?

Oh, I see, you know, that is impossible, yeah. I couldn't remember. Yeah, it's the fortune...

Now I see why you say it's fun.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it, got it, got it. Geshe-la told us to remember this one.

[Speaker 1]
And that's my mistake. And what are the three results out of what the people did in number two above? So what is the result if people do the impossible?

Dharma spread. Yes, there's one. Renaissance.

What? The teachings increase in spread? Yes, that's one.

That weren't mentioned too. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. You get flowers on your head?

Yes, that's true.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, what kind of flower?

[Speaker 1]
What kind of flowers?

[Speaker 2]
I think they're miracles. And what's the other one?

[Speaker 3]
They stay in the world? Teachings stay in the world?

[Speaker 1]
No, it's simpler than that. People develop tremendous faith. Oh, so gang, if you don't have hair in the middle, the golden flowers can stick better.

I thought that's more slippery.

[Speaker 2]
No, you just flick it and stick it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, word, you got it now. Chitsum Tsam. Beside word, what are these three?

Well, you just said it. Yeah, I know. Okay, so basically it's teach.

Explain, debate. Explain, debate and compose. Chegu.

You know, this term in Malay is also very similar. What is that?

[Speaker 2]
The nine great things? Important people. Tsunzom, venerable Tsunzom.

At that time.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, upper class or races. In Malay language, chegu means teacher. Wow.

Okay, kungi tunang. We got a lot of nang just now. Kungi tunang.

Everything appears similar? It's an idiom. It's an idiom, yeah.

I forgot myself too. By the way, it's a very important word in logic. All are in a court.

Everyone's side. Yeah, well, it's up to Sugeng to tell the answer. Common experience for everyone.

Yeah, everybody experienced the same thing. Like the golden flower. Yeah, and then there's a bitter debate in logic that you can't take a chichen, you can't take a subject for debate if the other person doesn't know what you're talking about.

You can't take a subject that they don't know what you're talking about. Especially like if you use a foreign language and you say pero, let's talk about a pero. They don't know what's a pero.

And then there's a huge debate about, well then, can the other person ever see the thing exactly the way you see it? So how can you ever discuss anything with your wife, for example? Yeah, definitely.

[Speaker 2]
Correct.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Okay. Well, Geshe-la, you didn't give me a new phrase, so I just chose the first one and it turned out to be a disaster.

Oh, yeah. I was so confused. I was staring like how many hours and I drew blanks.

Oh, this is, by the way, your text is extremely difficult. And again, the hardest thing about your text is that we don't have any other resources. We don't have anyone to ask.

We don't have any commentaries. It's just us. And I'm looking forward to doing it because I think you guys can help.

The whole team, the whole Mixed Nuts team, you can say what you think it means because we need this kind of input. This book, we have no resources. And that's why nobody has ever tried to translate it.

We don't have anybody else to ask except Mixed Nuts. So actually, we can mess it up completely, but with agreement. Okay, I'm going to help you, Sigueng.

This commentary has a strange name. What is it? This is that ancient principle of Mixed Nuts that you better know the name of the book you're translating.

It's not Vasubandhu Wheel. No, it's not. First Principle or something?

First Principle and Divisions? Yeah, it is. Hang on.

Here it is. The full title is RTEN CING BRAL BAR BYUNG BA DANG PO'I NAM PAR DBYE BA ZHES PA An Explanation of the NAM PAR DBYE BA of Dependent Origination. DANG PO It's the First Principle.

Yeah, and you can say the First Principle and the Divisions if you want to. So this sutra is divided into two huge sections. It gives the first principle of all dependent origination, and then it gives the twelve links.

Okay, and what is the first principle that he states in two parts, Sugeng? Yeah, I just pasted the phrases here. If this is here, that is there.

If this happens, that happens. Nice, very nice.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Oh cool, that's what that's referring to there? Exactly. So now Nick's going to tell you how to read it.

The Tibetan? Yeah. So what's the Kāyārūma?

Yeah, whichever is suitable. And as Jun has, if you say whichever one of those you feel is the way to say it. But what are the two?

Oh, if this is here, that is there. Or if this happens, that happens. Yeah, exactly.

Okay, if this starts, that starts, is the second one. If this exists, then this will happen, is the first one. Okay.

And the last thing that was said in the commentary before we took the last break was? Both are equal. Both are the same.

And why do you, why did he say both? Yeah. The guy says, I'll read you the last part of this, of the commentary that we did.

Okay. ,'CHIG DI NYID LAS SDUN GYI PHYIR DAG, THA DE PHYIR ZHIG YOD CHEN NA, As the other guy says, well, why did you say two different things? Why did you say, if this exists, that happens?

And then you said, if this starts, that starts. What's the difference? Why did you say two different things?

Why didn't you just say, if this is there, this will occur? Or why didn't you say, if this starts, this starts? Why did you have to say two things?

What's the difference? Our answer is, CHI YANG MED DO. There is no difference.

There ain't no difference at all. There's no difference at all between those two. The Buddha didn't mean any difference.

Okay. Then the other guy says, CHI PHYIR NYID. PHYIR.

PHYIR PHYIR NYID. Why two? Yeah, well, so why is there two?

And then Vasubandhu says, CIG LA CIG ZHES. In ZHES. CIG LA CIG ZHES.

Each one clarifies the other. Perfect. Perfect answer.

Yay! Okay, now comes our conversation. Now comes our new conversation.

Now comes the section which Sugeng foolishly chose to translate because it's so difficult. Okay. So now read this first part for me.

KANG YANG RUNG BAR ZHIG SBYUN NA NI MI NUS KYIS MA SBYUNG BA LAS SBYUNG BA SKYE BA YIN PA NI MA YIN NO Okay, good. It's very difficult. Okay.

Let's start with the DRANG CHEN PAS. What's that, you guys? Yeah, nunerous.

Okay. Now, since Dr. Kramer is the master of other schools in his recently completed masterpiece, what did they think about cause and effect?

[Speaker 2]
They said that the effect already exists in the cause.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. So like, I don't know. When a virus causes COVID, COVID itself was already there during the time of the virus.

And when it looks like it came out of the virus, it actually was just, you were just seeing something that was always there. It doesn't come out of the virus, it just shows itself. So the tree was always sitting there inside of the seed.

And the tree didn't have to grow, it just showed itself. Okay. That's Sankhya system.

So DON YOD PA, we don't know. And we're going to have a thousand things like this. What's he talking about, DON YOD PA?

What do you guess? I propose that on this book we help each other. Because you guys have enough background now.

What's the DRANG CHEN PA guy going to say about, if you have this, this happens. If this triggered, then that triggered. You know what I mean?

What's he going to say? DON YOD. It was always in there.

Yeah, good. The thing was always there. Okay.

So you can say like the Sankhyas, the thing was always there. SKYE BA RTOG PA BYED PA RGYUD TE Or you can RTOG PA DARE SKYE BA. You can...

No S on the RTOG. This is a Stanley RTOG.

[Speaker 2]
You can think it started.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can be like the Sankhyas and say it was always there. Or you can believe that it started when the seed opened, the tree started. You can believe that, okay?

Okay. I don't know where he's going by the way. You guys got to help me.

Let's go to the end because I think I can understand it. MA BYUNG BA LAS BYUNG BA SKYE BA MA YIN It's neither that the cause is within it, nor that it is not. I think it's saying it cannot be the case that something starts or occurs without something occurring, okay?

You can't have something occur where nothing occurred before. You can't have nothing and then have something. It's not possible.

Nothing comes from... Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever occurs.

[Speaker 3]
Nothing ever does.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Now we tackle this here.

SKYE BA MED PA YANG RGYUD DANG BRAL BA YOD PA MIN GDOD PA MIN GDOD Okay. If nothing starts from the seed, then you cannot accept the principle of cause and effect. Okay?

Got it? Okay. Okay.

Wow. And again, we have no help. We just have to think it out, you know?

You're going to have to sit and stare at it. And I'll tell you my experience. You stare at it on Monday, you don't understand it.

Stare at it on Tuesday, you don't understand it. Then Wednesday, you suddenly look at it and you see the answer, okay? So you have to...

I don't think you'll get a lot of clarity by sitting with it for three hours. Try for like 10 minutes, close the book, go do your other stuff. Next day, come back and look at it again.

But that's going to be your text because we don't have any other resources. We have to figure out this text by sheer logic. We don't have any other resources, you know?

So, okay. It's an interesting mixed nuts exercise. And normally we avoid books like this.

Because who knows? There is a famous case in European Tibetology that some guy tried to do what we're doing and he rebuilt the Sanskrit for the Abhidharmakosha from scratch, from the Tibetan, he rebuilt the Sanskrit. And it took him, I don't know, 10 years.

And he finished and then somebody took a horse to Tibet and found the original Sanskrit. Wow. And then, you know, everybody had fun trying to see how well he guessed.

You know, pretty good. He did pretty good. Yeah, in fact, Geshe-la, I really appreciate this way of doing homework, you know, because the fact that I'm staring at it, it's like a jigsaw puzzle.

I started to find this piece, that piece, you know. And suddenly it became so interesting. It's addicting, to tell you the truth.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, I mean, can I have a few questions? Yeah, go ahead. What is this yang, single yang in Tibetan?

What does it actually mean? Like kang yang ru, the yang? Oh, now that's a very good question.

What do you guys think, kang yang ru? He wants to know what yang means by itself. Oh, yeah, but what does it mean here, kang yang ru?

Whichever is suitable. Yeah, whichever one you want to... You could have said either one, you know.

So, yang is never alone. It has to be with something else. It can be alone, but it changes meaning depending on the words around it, okay?

Depending on the people. So, it means also, or even, or although, or...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Like, even, or... Yeah. So, you kind of have to think of kang yang ru as a separate word.

You can't really break it up. Yeah, so either one. Okay, and the next one, gyur te.

Gyur te here, I see it appears quite frequently. So, what does this actually mean? Is it referring to future tense, or whatever, or something else?

I'm sorry, which word?

[Speaker 2]
Gyur te.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. The te, think of it as a colon in English, okay? Okay.

It would be like this, colon, okay? Oh, gyur is like this, okay. Yeah.

By the way, I'll give you another thing to think about while you're struggling with this paragraph, with this sentence. Do you guys see any difference between saying... I'm going to spell it for you, okay?

Here we go. I'm going to spell it out for you. Thank you, Yeshela.

Iyuna Injung Ikena Dike These are the famous two sentences, okay? Yeah. Is there any difference in the stuff he's talking about?

If this exists, that exists. If this arises, that arises. I'll give you an important clue, okay?

Jun, the word jun, okay, sorry. Jun means occur. Therefore, oops, it does not have to be talking.

My butt caused that. That changing thing, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, now do you feel a difference between these two? By the way, Vasubandhu said no difference at all. Then the other guy says, well, there sure is a hell of a difference.

[Speaker 3]
First one just points to existence itself, and the second one points to something that's caused or changes. Exactly, exactly. Say it again, word.

The first one just points to existence itself. The second one implies some sort of change or cause.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. But at a meta level, they both say the same thing, and that there's causal relationships. Well, there are cases where, I don't know, if empty space exists, then there will be a place for the cup to stand.

Okay, sorry. Okay. Never mind.

Yeah, then they're both unchanging things, you see? Yeah, yeah. How about they both at a meta level talk about relationships?

Now, now let's go to Sugeng's sentence. Okay. Either one you say, maybe you have some problems.

Okay. If you say the first one, then you're kind of talking about unchanging results that are sitting in the seeds since beginningless time. Okay.

Then you sound to me like a Sankhya. Okay. You sound to me like you're saying the tree was inside that seed for a billion years without changing.

Okay. Which means it fits the first one. If the tree is in the seed, one day a tree will come out.

But it's not causation. It's not causation. Okay.

Nothing's causing something else. Okay. It's already there in the seed.

Okay. So then you feel, you know, if you say the first one, you feel to me like a Sankhya. Then if you say the second one, okay, then, I don't know, it seems like you're saying something wasn't there and then it started, which is also weird.

Something didn't exist and then suddenly it started. But how could that be? You know, how could something not exist and then start up?

[Speaker 2]
Because the second one is phrased how again?

[Speaker 1]
If this, if this grows, if this grows, then that grows.

[Speaker 2]
And then the example in the paragraph?

[Speaker 1]
By the way, if it were me and I was the Buddha, I would have said DE YOD NA DI'I NJUNG and DE SKYE NA DI SKYE It would have been easier. Right now it says, if this is here, this happens. Happens, not starts, okay?

Happens, not starts. And then the second one says, if this starts, then that starts. Okay, got it?

Should that second one have a saw at the end? No. Or are you talking about two different words?

Yeah, if this has started, then this will start. Okay. And maybe Sugeng, in fact, now I'm kind of sure of it, talking about, look, either way you say it, KANG YANG RUNG BA ZHIG BYUNG NA NI, something's uncomfortable.

If you say, if this is here, then that will occur, but you don't say start, right? If this is here, that will happen. But the word happen can apply to unchanging things, okay?

Then I start to get this feeling like you're a Sankhya, and you're saying there was something there inside the seed for a billion years, and then it came out, you know? I mean, then the first one sounds like Sankhya. And then the second one also feels uncomfortable, because what you end up saying is that something, if this starts, then that will start.

But if that will start, where was that before it started? How can you get something from nothing?

[Speaker 2]
How is that in DOG PAR BYA?

[Speaker 1]
That's, oh, where were we? GYEL BAR DOG PAR BYED PA Yeah, you just imagine that there's a birth, okay? You're just imagining there's a birth.

But how could something which was not there at all start? Okay, what's start? What started, okay?

Just from nothing? There was nothing? So either you're saying that things were always there, and then they popped out, or you're saying nothing started, and then something started.

But that doesn't make sense. That's like the Big Bang, you know? Well, but we have the something started, then another thing started, right?

Yeah, but we always assume that something started before the something started to make the something started start to start. Ah, okay. We never say ex nihilo, okay?

You guys know about that word, ex nihilo? This is a Christian concept, you know? Nothing.

That something could come from nothing, okay? That the universe could suddenly come into existence from nothing, okay? And we don't accept it.

We say that's not possible. There's always a chicken or an egg, okay? So anyway, I would take this as a...

and you got to sit with it, Sugeng, and we'll move on. But I think he's talking about the problems, no matter which one you say. Kāyāng rūpaśī, the first...

half of the first line is the only clear part, you know? It doesn't matter which one you say. By the way, what was the last line we had?

He said... They clarify each other. One clarifies the other, right?

And then I think somebody says, but then both of them don't make sense, you know? Either you're like a Sankhya and you're saying something unchanging can start something unchanging, or you're like these other guys, you're saying something can start where there was nothing before. And it just doesn't make sense, okay?

Both of them don't make sense. All right, let's go on and see if it helps. By the way, I think the second argument relates to this famous...

How many arguments for emptiness in Venerable Upala's text? Twenty... twenty-five?

Thirty-eight. Thirty-eight. How many correct ones?

Twenty... twenty-six. Twenty-three.

Twenty-three. Yeah, twenty-three, and fifteen wrong ones. And God, I think this is going to be the classic book of forever.

Okay, anyway, here's the discussion of whether something could start from nothing or not, okay? And this is a Buddhist proof of emptiness, okay? Okay, nothing can start from its own side because a sprout that existed already at the time of its cause could never start.

That defeats the... whose idea?

[Speaker 2]
Sankhya.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Sankhya. This first one says, look, if the sprout was already there before it was caused, then why should it start? If the tree was in the seed forever, then why should the tree suddenly come out, okay?

Or why do you need seed? Yeah, now, number two, it's impossible for something to come from nothing, okay? But Choney Lama adds what?

From its own side. Yeah, from its own side. It's very tricky, and he's getting close to that Bhavaviveka guy who thought you had to add that to everything.

Okay, now, it's also... you can't have a sprout that comes out that existed and didn't exist at the same time. That's easy.

And number four, it's not true that the sprout which existed and didn't exist came out from its cause, okay? Anyway, the answer is in here somewhere. Let's go on.

And by the way, I read this text. I remember I was in Guangzhou, I think, and I found a nice coffee shop and I tried... I just took notes to myself.

And some of the notes are wrong, Sugeng. Okay, got it? I was just taking notes to myself.

They were just kind of like thoughts that came to my head, and some of them are not useful. Okay, I'm just warning you. Okay.

It's not a translation. They're just thoughts I was thinking about. Okay.

Okay. Please go ahead. Okay.

Okay, this part's easy, okay? Now, di kye pay di kye, is that the first of the two statements about the first principles of dependent origination? The second.

The second one. Yeah, if this what? If this...

If this starts, then that starts. Yeah. I still say he should have said di and de.

If this starts, then that will start. Okay. Could this be a clue somewhere that they used di and de?

I don't think so. I wish it was, I don't think so. He's saying, look, if this starts, then this starts.

But it's an inflection of your voice. Listen, if this starts, then this starts. Okay?

But it would have been easier if he said, if this starts, then that starts. When you say jawa majunani, if you don't say that, okay, why are we discussing this option? If you didn't say the second one, there's a problem.

Why are we even discussing this option? Because it was the first one. The other guy feels uncomfortable that Buddha gave...

Two. Two statements. He still says, I don't care if one explains the other.

Why does he have to give two? I don't understand. What's the point?

And he says, if you didn't... And we say, if you didn't say, if this starts, then that starts. Yeah.

Then you didn't gakpa gyu takpa. You didn't... Stop?

Is this stop? Yeah, you didn't prove that there's no...

[Speaker 2]
Permanent cause.

[Speaker 1]
Cause. Yeah, good. Now, Sugeng, if you're saying yu na di jung, could it be dakpa?

Yu na, di yu na, di jung. Yeah, it could be a dakpa thing. It could be an unchanging thing.

If there's emptiness in the kitchen, then you should calm down. But you can't say, if there's emptiness, it's going to start something. You can't say that, because emptiness never changes.

When you start something, you have to change. When you start something, by starting something, you lose some of your energy. That means an unchanging thing could never start anything.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, when we say you need something to trigger something, and they're both changing things, we're trying to make the point that we don't accept the idea of a cause that can trigger something else without changing a little bit. You know, when the mom pushes the baby out, the mom also changes, right? Yes.

What was the little bit there, Geshe-la, here? I'm sorry, which one? You're saying if something is changing, the cause should be changing too.

Yeah, yeah. No, no, I got it, yeah. That's why, according to Vasubandhu, Lord Buddha had to give the second sentence.

Okay, yeah. He had to talk about changing things. Because the first sentence could apply to only unchanging things, okay?

If this is here, that will happen. But he didn't say, if this is here, that will start. Because you can't say that, okay?

With dakpa, with unchanging things. All right, here we go. Yeah, okay, so look, if you don't say, if this starts, this starts, if you don't say that, okay, then there's a problem that you're not refusing an unchanging cause, okay?

If you don't say, this starts when this starts, then you're not proving that there's no such thing as an unchanging cause, okay? So look, we had to say the second one. Now, he says, well, did you have to say the first one?

And we say, yeah. You don't say that? We had to say the first one.

Di yu na di chok. How do you translate that, you guys? If this exists, that happens.

Don't say starts, don't say starts, don't say arise, okay? If this is here, then this will happen, okay? Now, so what's the problem if you don't say that?

Who's talking? The other guy. The other guy asked Vasubandhu, well, what's the problem if you don't say the first one, okay?

Oh, well, then you're not, I, okay, this is how I read it, well, then you're not really creating, you're not really giving a structure for everything in the world, okay? Denlapapa means you are not creating a framework. Denlapapa, which covers everything, okay?

If you don't say the first one, because the first one allows us to be talking about dependent origination with...

[Speaker 2]
Unchanging things.

[Speaker 1]
Unchanging, yeah, unchanging things. Now, for a thousand dollars, boy, it got quiet, right? I should use this to make people shut up.

Please. For a thousand dollars, this conversation appears in ACI number one, okay? The different kinds of dependent origination.

Give me three, and you get a thousand dollars, but one person has to give me all three. Dependent origination, according to the functionalists, means things depend upon causes, things depend on other parts, and things depend upon the seed in your mind. Let me do the first two, and then I'm going to let Ben do the last one, and they're going to get $500 each for their kid's scholarship fund.

Okay, here we go. Things depend upon causes. Things depend upon their parts.

Okay, number three, Ben. Things depend upon you projecting onto a basis of projection. Nice.

500 bucks each, Eli, for these two handsome guys. Excellent. So, those are all...

Those are... By the way, that's got to be one of the most viable statements in all of Buddhism, okay? It makes everything so clear, okay?

Look, lower school dependent origination, this causes that. A little bit better school dependent origination includes stuff and its parts, the car and its parts, just like who did... The Svatantrikas.

Nagasena and Milinda. Right, right. Okay, and then finally, the car doesn't depend on its parts, the car depends on you...

Projectionizing the seed. Yeah, calling it a car, or seeing it as a car because there's seeds in your mind. Okay, got it?

So, what he's saying is, without the highest of those three, and actually without the last two, you can't really cover everything in the world, okay? Your discussion, the lower schools believe that dependent origination always means cause and effect. And the higher schools say, no, things that don't change, but they exist, they also have dependent origination.

By the way, that the origination is a bad translation of... Dung. Dung.

Here it is.

[Speaker 2]
Dung.

[Speaker 1]
Happens, okay? Happens in dependence. It does not say grows through dependence.

It does not say starts through dependence. It says happens through dependence. Pratityasamutpada.

That's a tough word. Yay. Okay, so anyway, he says, look, if we didn't have the first one, if this is here, then that's going to happen.

We would be excluding what? If this is here, then that... I mean, changing things.

Yeah, we would be excluding unchanging things which still exist. Sometimes it's useful to say which still exist, okay? All right.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Are we excluding if we don't have the other one again? You just said it and I...

[Speaker 1]
Well, what he's saying is, if I had not said the first of the two general principles, first principles, right? This book is advertised as, A, a treatment of the general principles of dependent origination, first principles. And secondly, an explanation of the twelve links.

We're in the first part. We're in the general principles, the first principles of dependent origination. And there's a debate about, why did Buddha say, if this is here, that's going to happen.

If this starts, that's going to start. And Vasubandhu says, I think, if he didn't say the first one, he wouldn't be setting out the framework of all of the things in the world. Okay?

Got it? Okay, keep going. Suge, anyone who's not confused gets a hundred dollars.

de kona yu na de yu pa yin gyi dak la sokpa takpa le kyang ma yin te de tan na ni gyu takpa takpa ma che par gyur ro Okay. So, kang kye pe kang kye wa means, if this starts, then that starts, okay? de kona yu na de yu pa yin gyi But now he's saying, and if you think about it, if that's a statement of all of dependent origination, then it must cover everything, all dependent origination.

Yeah, all things, including unchanging. Okay? All right.

So, he says the deeper meaning of, if this starts, then that starts, is that if this exists, then that will exist. Okay? That's the deeper meaning.

de kona yu na de yu pa yin gyi dak la sokpa takpa le kyang ma yin te This can't be a reference to a self-nature, which is takpa. By the way, when you describe something as, when you translate the word takpa, I think it's useful sometimes to add, it's unchanging in... And also in existence.

Okay? It's an existing thing that's unchanging, okay? I often add the word, oh, by the way, when I do demonduchi, what is that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. It's an either-minder. Changing things which are neither mental nor physical.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I don't like to translate it as things which are neither mental nor physical, because that applies also to...

[Speaker 3]
Unchanging things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I like to say a changing thing which is neither physical nor mental, okay? It's similar to here, okay?

dak la sokpa takpa le kyang ma yin te de dang ni, de dang na ni, gyi takpa gapa ma chepa gyurl Okay? So it's not that things have grown from a dog. What is that?

[Speaker 2]
A self-nature.

[Speaker 1]
Deepak, come on, you're the dukta guy.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, a soul, like a...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, atman. This dog means atman, okay? And, you know, it could apply in some ideas to God, the Christian God, you know.

It's not that things could have been born from a thing which never changes. For example, Atman with capital A, you know, the big self, the big god of the universe, okay? It's not.

Why? If things could come from, if things could be born from a thing which was unchanging, right? Then why would we have to be trying to stop the idea of an unchanging cause?

Okay, got it? If things could be born, notice I said born, from this Atman, unchanging big self... And by the way, what's the stuff that's born called, Ben, for five dollars?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, there's one, right?

[Speaker 1]
In Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
In Sanskrit. Oh, in Sanskrit, the stuff that's born on their creations. Oh, Prakriti and...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Prakriti. What the heck is that? Did I win some money myself?

Yeah, Purusha means the dog, okay? The big person. And then he makes Prakriti, which is the nature, all of nature, all of the natural world, okay?

Then, you know, if things could have come from one big guy, then we wouldn't be trying to fight against the idea of a cause which never changes. Okay, got it? Okay.

All right, this is the only easy sentence in your whole class, Sugeng. Yeah, we have time, it's time's up. Yeah, well, just try to say this one so we don't give up.

deway na nyi ka gupa dang chepa yin no Okay, what does it say?

[Speaker 2]
Therefore... We gotta say both.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, therefore, they both have a function. Don't complain that we gave the first principles of dependent origination with two separate sentences. They were both necessary, okay?

They both had a purpose. Don't complain, okay? And don't try to say we should have said one and not the other, okay?

So, for the next class, should I just take the... Oh, oh, let me, hang on. Let me pick a sentence that makes sense.

I might not be able to find one.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, now I want to know if something is yupa, then something else must kepa, and if something is kepa, does something else have to jungwa?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, not only do we have no commentaries, not only do we have no oral tradition of teaching this book ever, not only do we don't have the Sanskrit, but we are depending 100% on... Logic. This is a translation.

If the translator didn't know what he was doing, then we're in big trouble. Because no matter how much we talk about it, we'll never figure it out.

[Speaker 2]
What's the dang chepa doing there?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, where? The dang chepa. Because nika gupa, you know, that...

Oh, no. That says what you said. What's the dang chepa?

We are both... Demba. Demba.

L-D-A-N. Have. I know what it means, but how do you...

Both are together with their purpose? Oh, no. Both have their individual purpose.

Each one has its individual purpose.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 1]
Neither one is purposeless. Let's find a sentence that won't give... Well, maybe we should give Sugeng a headache.

[Speaker 2]
Hello. How are you, Nicole? Juan Hasso, we are on your phone call.

Really? It's fine. Dark time already there?

[Speaker 3]
Hello, is Juan home? Oh, excuse me.

[Speaker 1]
Let's do this one, Sugeng, okay? Okay. Oh, okay.

Please translate. I'll bold it for you, okay? Okay.

Thank you. This is Master Sugeng during his... Off days.

Vacation. Yay.

[Speaker 2]
Actually, you spelled Mr. wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, it's a mystery. All right, here we go. Have a nice sashi.

Thank you. Just a heads up for everybody, we're going to cancel the Q&A tonight because Mr. Adam's not feeling... He's not well today.

Yeah, they got some virus running around. Apparently, there's a virus running around. I heard tell of it.

I did hear tell of it down by the gas station.

[Speaker 3]
Should one of us step up?

[Speaker 1]
Well, Gen, do you have any thoughts? I think let's take a break. It's a vacation.

We're going to take off starting... No, after the next class. After the next class.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, we're going to do the next class. I'm going to split up the reading between different...

Great. So order your pizza now, Nick. So you're saying we can stop five minutes ago?

Okay, we're starting at 6.05, you guys. Arizona Central World Time. That proves that Rimrock is the center of the universe.

Yeah, Rimrock is the jungle. Yeah. All right, we'll see you.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Venerable Utpala. Yes, sir. I think there is a much better way to send.

There is this service called WISE, used to be called TransferWISE. So if you can give me your bank account, I can send it to you with very, very low cost. I sent you in the chat the link to...

I know, xe.com, right?

[Speaker 2]
But yeah, it's not free?

[Speaker 1]
I know. No, I don't think so. I mean, well, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure. I've not used that before. But the WISE.com, I have been using it a lot and a lot. It's very, very affordable. So yeah, and then the sender will have to bear the cost. So...

[Speaker 3]
Okay, just send it to me PayPal. PayPal.

[Speaker 2]
I've used TransferWISE as well, Sugeng, and it's super cheap. So from the US to... That's the one.

That's the one.

[Speaker 1]
TransferWISE is like $4.

[Speaker 2]
They are called WISE.com now.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so that's more expensive than PayPal. Use PayPal. It's fine.

[Speaker 2]
No, it's $4 no matter how much you send.

[Speaker 1]
That's more expensive than PayPal. Really? Yeah.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Bonus 4.5%. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, thank you. Thanks a lot. Just, yeah.

Sorry. But I was going to ask Nick, and now he's gone. Are we still raising money or are we stopping?

I don't know. I think we should. Oh, anyway.

I don't know. Let's ask him.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Who's the Spanish translator for the next class?

[Speaker 3]
Tang Tang.

[Speaker 2]
Now, that's why you... Tang Tang, you're doing Spanish? Unlikely.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Impressive.

[Speaker 1]
No, she's very smart. I wouldn't doubt it.

[Speaker 2]
I think she's getting ready. She's bored with Chinese right now. She needs to go higher.

All right. Well, I will put you into the Chinese box for now.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
You're welcome. Now, you're stuck. We should give the translator box a better name.

A higher name. The throne. The translator throne.

Yeah. I thought you said the higher. I thought that was cute.

It's not like a penalty, but it's like a... I think of a better name for it. But you get stuck there.

That's why they like to call it the translation box.

[Speaker 1]
How about castle?

[Speaker 2]
Castle. I'd like that, the translation castle. Or treasure house.

Then I'm going to think about a cigar or something. And that's depressing.

[Speaker 3]
Translator... Kousha.

[Speaker 2]
I like castle. Treasure box.

[Speaker 1]
That doesn't come from me. Someone referred to it as the castle the other day.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that was Catherine, I think.

[Speaker 3]
Stealing us or steering us, Tangtang?

[Speaker 2]
Stealing.

[Speaker 1]
Stealing, yeah. I was thinking that too, Tangtang.

[Speaker 2]
Abidama is everywhere, Tangtang. Can't really go away from it.

[Speaker 1]
Remember literal and figurative, Stanley?

[Speaker 2]
I mean literal.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry. I was just working on my text and we're talking about that. What's literal and what's figurative?

Abidama, where is that one? Even according to mind only.

[Speaker 2]
From whose point of view that's?

[Speaker 1]
I said even according to mind only.

[Speaker 2]
If I want to study Nagarjuna's take on the third turning, do you have a book recommended?

[Speaker 1]
It may happen in this book that I'm working on before too long. Not may, it will happen.