Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 11

[Speaker 1]
Mr. Tim, are you ready? I am ready. Good morning.

Let's kill these guys. All right, here we go. With knowledge.

All right, quiz three. I mean, quiz three, yes. Oops, didn't update that.

All right, here we go. So in this, where we are, just to review, is we're trying to define the qualities that make up an innovator, what their definition is, and who fits that quality. Okay.

So, the other guy comes along and says an innovator is a Semekabu, who independently comments on the meaning of the sutras and doesn't follow in the footsteps of anybody else. First question. What's a Semekabu?

[Speaker 2]
Someone who can't lie, basically.

[Speaker 1]
That's an implication of that, yes, but how else could we translate that?

[Speaker 2]
Someone with accurate perceptions.

[Speaker 1]
Correct. And so, typically what types of beings are Semekabus?

[Speaker 2]
I would say only enlightened beings.

[Speaker 1]
Probably.

[Speaker 2]
Mixed nuts students.

[Speaker 1]
Nice try, though. Oh, Juan, you make us laugh, you're amazing. All right.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
So this wasn't, we didn't talk about this, but there's a, I always like to talk about this when we're talking about Semekabus. What's the implication, the general implication of using the word kabu in describing a Semekabu? They became that way, they weren't born like that.

They weren't born that way, that sounds like Lady Gaga. Yes. They weren't born that way, so what is that an implication for us as mixed nuts and students and aspiring Buddhists?

It will become like that.

[Speaker 2]
We can do it too.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, we can do it too. All right. So I always like to think, well, why are we, why are these examples being brought up right now?

Like, why did we start off with a Semekabu in our book? Like, this is just a supposition. Why would we be thinking about Semekabus right now?

Like, is it an accident?

[Speaker 2]
So we know that we have that potential ourselves.

[Speaker 1]
I like that. Why else?

[Speaker 2]
To state the authoritative power of this teaching?

[Speaker 1]
Potentially, yeah. What chapter are we in? Omniscience.

Yes, we're in the chapter of omniscience. So maybe there might be a connection there. I don't know.

I just like to think about, like, why we're even bringing up these things in debates. All right, next question. So if we're designing a debate, and Akashic said, yes, okay, fine.

A Semekabu is an innovator who has these certain qualities. If you were designing the debate, what would be the next thing to move forward if a Semekabu would not be an innovator?

[Speaker 2]
An example of one who's not.

[Speaker 1]
Correct, right. It's an easy question, but I wanted to start thinking about, like, when this comes up, what's the first thing we do? So, of course, he does that.

Yeah, good. So who are the two people that he mentions as a counterexample?

[Speaker 2]
Shariputra and Madgalayana?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. I'm glad you've struggled on that word, because I'm not going to try to struggle, either. And who are those two people, Venerable Paula?

[Speaker 2]
Who are those two people? Shariputra. Well, the reason he was named is because he composed the classical commentary, The Heath of Dharma.

Is that what you mean?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, for people who don't know.

[Speaker 2]
One who sat at the foot of Shakyamuni Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so can we say it in Vedic language? There's two students.

[Speaker 2]
Buddha's top student.

[Speaker 1]
Two students, right.

[Speaker 2]
Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
And then, Venerable Paula, you were going to go into about what they did. What did they do?

[Speaker 2]
So Shariputra composed The Heath of the Dharma. And Madgalayana composed the book on terms.

[Speaker 1]
And so why would that be a counterexample?

[Speaker 2]
Because, I can't remember what the beginning of the debate was.

[Speaker 1]
So the debater says, oh, well, seven kabus are innovators.

[Speaker 2]
Whoa, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Whoa. The voice of a seven kabu. All right.

Basically, they're not seven kabus yet. But we consider them innovators. And then what, if they're not seven kabus, do you guys remember how, at the very end of the debate, how they're described?

Like what label they're given? Like what type of being they are at this point in their spiritual development? Arya Bodhisattva.

[Speaker 2]
Arya Bodhisattva.

[Speaker 1]
Not exactly. Arhats.

[Speaker 2]
Arhats on the listener track?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, sorry. What did you say, Venerable Gyaltsen? Arhats on the listener track?

Yes, specifically. And what's that in Tibetan? Arhats on the listener track.

[Speaker 2]
Dracumpa.

[Speaker 1]
All right, cool. All right, third question. So Arhats doesn't give up.

He says, well, if a seven kabu doesn't fit the definition of an innovator, then a realized Bodhisattva must definitely be someone who's an innovator. So first, what's the word that we use for a realized Bodhisattva in this text? Pakpa.

Changshu? Changshum? Changshum ki pakpa.

Changshum pakpa. Yes. Yes, Venerable Gyaltsen.

Geshe-la, I have a question about this. The reason I brought this up. Does this imply a Mahayana Bodhisattva?

Definitely. Yeah. Mahayana track, third path at least.

Okay. That's what I thought because later in the debate, that's why we bring up a person who belongs to the middle way. I just want to make sure that that doesn't imply somebody else.

All right, cool. Sorry. Definitely a Bodhisattva on the Mahayana track.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
Can you be a Bodhisattva on any other track?

[Speaker 1]
No. Vajrayana.

[Speaker 2]
That Vajrayana is not Mahayana?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you know what? You're right. My brain didn't.

Neurons in fire. Yes, thank you. You're correct.

And Arya on another track. That's where my brain didn't fire. Okay, cool.

All right. So what are the three aspects of an innovator? Just to review.

What are the three aspects of an innovator? Teaching this world. Yep.

[Speaker 2]
They were predicted.

[Speaker 1]
Nope. No. Maybe so far.

And then that might be a definition later, but so far it's not a. One of the qualities.

[Speaker 2]
They're commenting on someone else's work. In a new way.

[Speaker 1]
Correct. There's one more. They're of this world.

Oh, we got them all. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. We'll probably put two together. All right.

And in this particular debate, just because I just want us to know exactly where we are, which ones are we primarily focusing on? If you remember. There's only three options here.

Just take a guess. The world, right. The world.

[Speaker 2]
That's the one.

[Speaker 1]
That's the only one that's not being commented on right now. Yeah. Right.

Exactly. Okay. Here's some Tibetan words.

And actually we're pushing forward. So we know what we're going to be translating into. What is it?

What does this word mean? Yes. Yes.

The jewel of realization. What's the. Again.

Sutra. And why, and what's the relationship between the dodecan and then. Written by the same.

Right. And another book by Aria Sanga. All right.

Yeah. By the way, sometimes they're called the two games. Yeah.

Cool. All right. What does that mean?

I'm not really.

[Speaker 2]
Middle is cool. A guy who started.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. A follower of the middle way. I like that.

I couldn't, I couldn't find anything better than a person. But thank you guys to follow. I like that.

And then what's this. Sam samba. Oh, I know.

[Speaker 2]
I know.

[Speaker 1]
Mind. A banker. Then our mind only guy is a banker.

Cool. That'll be relevant for today's work. All right, cool.

Nice. Nice. Nice homework.

[Speaker 2]
His homeworks are always nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he spends time on them. I guess he's so busy also. He's.

He's like. Taking care of all of us. Here's the upcoming.

Where we are in the debate that you asked me to finish.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
This previous sentence. We already did this one, but I wanted to show it to you so that we can move on for everyone else's benefit. Can you make it bigger?

How's that? Is that better?

[Speaker 2]
Much.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. If it were a case, if we said that. Could we also say.

Okay. Okay. A little bit different, but it's good.

The wording is all good. Okay. The first section here in the English is supposed to be like almost an accusation.

Okay. Okay. So is it the case that Lord might tread in?

Must be an innovator who belongs to the middle way. And then there's an understood. She cheer.

And so I always translate it. It's it's it's understood, but it's not written. So after the question mark.

I'm going to say. Empty space. Then say.

Why do you say that in italics? Okay. All right.

I'm just going to take notes here. Just. So we're not.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why do you say that? And then. The dub a day chair means because you agreed above.

Okay. Just something else. He agreed to something else.

Okay, and then that's not in italics because we're saying it. Right, okay. Okay, good.

Okay, good, you got it. Mostly, all right, cool. All right.

Then, and if you, okay, when he says chi chir, it means after a tell in that section above. Yeah, when he says chi chir understood here. Is this the implied word, the chi chir here?

Yeah, and it means I don't agree to the necessity. I don't agree that if this, then that, okay? Okay, if, yeah, I don't agree to the necessity, yeah.

And then after we beat him on I don't agree to the necessity, he comes back and says, you know what, I'm gonna change my answer from chi chir to duh. I do agree that the author of the Lintoken, Abhisamankara, could be a Madhyamika innovator. And that's just, and that's implied, right?

That's not written here. Well, yeah, well, the way I would translate it is, okay, if you do agree that, if you do agree to that last one, then in that case, the author of the Abhisamankara, Lord Maitreya, are you telling me he must indeed be an innovator who's of the Middle Way? Okay, are you, so this tell is, he must be an innovator of the Middle Way because the book itself is a book of a person of the Middle Way, okay?

So basically, I'm getting the idea of the words, it's just the format, I haven't quite. Yeah, and once you get it once, you'll always have it. And I'm working on Adam's first logic book nowadays.

We finished almost 400 pages of it, and it's in that format. So I'll send you, I'll send it to you. All right, okay.

And you'll get a good feeling for the format. Once you get it once, you never lose it, okay? Okay, cool.

And I really, really like the mixed nuts rules for formatting a debate, because we do some smart things. We always put the hidden replies. We always state the hidden replies, first of all.

And then secondly, we always italicize the other guys so you know who's talking. And in Tibetan, it's not clear at all who's talking. So it's very important to supply the reader that.

So the way we translate debates is, I think, unique and very correct, okay? Okay. All right, cool.

I'll show you Adam's book after you finish your homework. Dare Tell. Now, this is amazing.

And this is amazing for a little tiny reason. What was the, can you show me the last line? Yeah, the last line said, this book, The Jewel of Realizations, is a classical commentary of or by a innovator who is a middleweight innovator.

This book, The Jewel of Realizations, is a book of an innovator who is a middleweight, a middleweigher, okay? Okay, so my question here is if we're helping the reader, do we assume that he's still talking about Lord Maitreya or we're just leaving that out?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's a general principle. It's a general, okay. If the author of The Jewel of Realizations is a middleweigher, then Lord Maitreya must be a middleweigher because he is the author of The Jewel of Realizations.

Right, yeah, yeah. Okay, and then we say in the next line, it is too a classical commentary of a middleweigher. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I just wanna point out something very subtle here and it's even worth a footnote, I think. I just wanna, hang on. Can you say, Tim, that if a classical commentary was written by an innovator, it's always a classical commentary by a Madhyamikan?

Can you say that if a, I'll say it again. Can you say that if a classical commentary was written by an innovator, then it was always written by someone who is a Madhyamikan, who is a middleweight guy?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Well, if the innovator was a Madhyamikan, right, then everything else would be by Madhyamikan.

[Speaker 2]
It has to be.

[Speaker 1]
Hasso, tell me why it has to be. Hasso, tell me why all innovators have to be middleweight guys.

[Speaker 2]
Because they are Aryas. I mean, they precede everything, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. That's all you have to say. That's all you have to say because they're Aryas.

Okay, if you're an Arya, you saw emptiness, 100%, 100% emptiness. You saw it. Then that makes you a middleweight.

It doesn't matter what you think you are even. You're a middleweight. You're a middleweight school.

You belong to the middleweight school, okay? That leads to a kind of a strange implication that all innovators are middleweight guys, okay? But classically, the innovators in this world are divided into two, which is?

Mind-only and middleweight. Yeah, Arya Sangha for the mind-only innovation, and then Arya Nagarjuna for the middleweight innovation, right? Yep.

So can you, at the same time, divide all innovators in this world into mind-only innovator and middleweight innovator when they both have to be middleweight guys? Well, I mean, it doesn't mean, just because Arya Sangha is an innovator of the mind-only school doesn't necessarily mean he's not an Arya Bodhisattva. And it doesn't mean he's not a Umapala.

Middleweight guy. Middleweight guy. And that's a perfect answer, Tim.

That's a perfect answer. That's all I want to get to. Yes, Arya Sangha is the innovator of the mind-only school.

And yes, he is a middleweight guy. So my question, bringing this up right now, we haven't mentioned clearly that an Arya is a quality of an innovator yet. No, we have not, but he does that all the time.

Okay. Okay. Anyway, now about this sentence, I just think it's so beautiful.

Either it's just a simple carving error, or it's something very profound. Because we're saying the innovator involved here must be an Umapa because that's a commentary by an innovator. Then the de refers to the ngundoggen.

It refers to the one-minute realization. Yeah, yeah. If, which the implication then is, if something is a classical commentary by an innovator, it must be a classical commentary by a Umapa.

Right. By a middleweight guy. If you say de and not deyi, okay, it means that that guy, dey shing dey so je kyi ten cher, dey shing dey so je kyi ten cher yinpey chir.

Okay. And then if you read it as dey, it is umapey shing dey so je kyi ten cher yinpey chir. Umay, umay shing dey.

If you read it with an apostrophe I, it means the innovator of the middleweight school. Okay. Which is not true.

That's ngundoggen, okay? So I think it's, I don't know, you got to sit with that, okay? I'll say it again.

You can read the dey as a sanga. This is a, sorry, this book is a classical commentary by an innovator, which means it must be middleweight, okay? And then, sorry, and then dey means of other guy.

This is a classical commentary of that school, okay? Umay shing dey so je kyi ten cher, which is incorrect. He's not the innovator of the middleweight.

So how you read this dey is extremely delicate. And it's just a single apostrophe I. So sit with that, see if you can cook it, okay?

Okay. It's very subtle, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, in the lower middleway, do we not say sometimes that an Arya sees the emptiness or lack of self-nature appropriate to their track? And then does that apply to the mind-only school?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and that goes back to that statement in Venerable Utpala's text that the opinions on this question are pretty much the same between lower middleway and mind-only, yeah? Yeah, that was a very profound sentence in her book, okay? Now, given what comes next, given what comes next, what comes next, Tim?

Dumi nukte, you cannot- You can't say this. You cannot agree- Cannot agree to this. That last sentence, because he's the shinde-soje of Semdham.

Because he's the innovator of the mind-only school. Yeah, and that implies you have to read the last sentence as that's a classical commentary written by the innovator of that, which means they, okay? Meaning of that school.

Meaning of the middleway school, okay? Got it? Okay, it's very subtle.

It's very subtle. So given what we say next, we know that Ranglu, our side, is reading the last sentence as de shinde-soje, okay? See here how after Semdhampa, there's a genitive.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Of the mind-only school, okay? So this should have been a deyi up here in the last sentence, of that school. Of that school.

You see what I mean? Right. And I think he's messing with us, okay?

Okay. Because see here below, you gotta use the genitive when it means of that school. Okay.

Anyway, it's probably just a carving error. All right. Oh.

All right. And then here's the last part. But why don't we just skip out of this and have you take it over?

Because in terms of, I don't wanna confuse myself more with my wrong formatting. No, but I, yeah, I understand. But I'll send you that formatting guide.

Oh, thank you. If you see it once, you'll get it. Okay.

Okay. Do we need it? You can't agree that, you can't agree that the author of the Jewel of Realizations is a umapa.

Umapay, okay? You can't agree with that because he's Semtsambe. Because he's a middle, he's a mind-only error.

Okay, good. Now, Tim and Word, I direct this debate to you. We cannot call Lord Maitreya a middle way innovator because he's a mind-only innovator.

Am I right? No. He's an innovator who is a middle way guy, but he's not a middle way innovator.

Got it? He's an innovator who's an umapa, but he's not umapay innovator. Okay.

He's not the innovator of the middle way school. He's an innovator who belongs to the middle way school, but he's not the innovator of the middle way school. Got it?

I'll say it again. He's an innovator who, because he saw emptiness directly, gets the membership card into the middle way school. But we don't think of him as the innovator of the middle way school.

That's nāgārjuna. Okay, got it? We call him the innovator of the mind-only school because he worked on all, he basically defined it, right?

Then Geshe Michael's going to give you a counter debate. JE RINPOCHE CHOS CAN SEMS TZAM PA YIN PA U MAPA MA YIN PA THAM Yeah, he must, Je Tsongkapa must not be a middle way guy. Yeah, so Je Tsongkapa is not a middle way guy.

Because he wrote Chönggyi. Then Tim says, offendedly, CHI CHER And Geshe-la says, because he, because, here it is, the book he wrote is a book of the mind-only school. Word's book that he's been working on for sweating bullets for six years.

It's written by who? Je Tsongkapa. It's the Bible of the mind-only school.

So if you write the Bible of the mind-only school, you must be a mind-only guy innovator. Right? That's what we say here.

Okay. Okay, cool. Right, but we said earlier, just because you're a mind-only innovator doesn't mean that you are a mind-only person.

School innovator. School innovator, right, right, right. Yeah, good, that's all.

That's the point of this debate, okay? And it's a beautiful debate because it draws into question every one of the Mixed Nuts authors. You guys are translating 12 different schools, but really you are translating one school.

Right. According to that school. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty awesome, right?

You guys think you're doing Vinaya. You guys think you're doing Abhidharma, but you're all doing middle way.

[Speaker 2]
I'll be similar to Amara, especially though, boss, right? Is there not some ambiguity here between it being mind-only or lower middle way?

[Speaker 1]
One of my favorite ways to spend a useful hour is to, again, look up the opinions on this. Which of the five books of Maitreya are mind-only and which of the five books of Maitreya are middle way? And I always have to look it up because I can never remember.

But yeah, there's a lot of, there is some debate about it, yeah. And isn't there debate about the third turning and the second turning? A Nagarjuna would say the third turning is middle way.

And the whole, the presentation of the three qualities is very Madhyamika if you know what's going on. Anyway, all right, Kevake, you said that if somebody was the innovator of a certain school, then they were of that school. And then you, and then we say, but you can't agree.

Just because, just because the jewel of realizations is a classical commentary of the innovator of the mind-only school, doesn't mean that the jewel of realizations is a classical commentary of a person who belongs to the mind-only school. You mean ornament of the sutras, right, Keshe? Yeah, oh, I'm sorry, yeah, don't again, sorry, yeah.

Okay, okay, good. Just because the ornament of the sutra, just because the jewel of the sutras is a classical commentary of the founder of the mind-only school, doesn't mean that it's a classical commentary by a person who's in the mind-only school. So Keshe, when I'm translating it, it's helpful for the reader to have all of what you just said in that paragraph.

Yeah, and as you'll see, I will supply the other guy's words. I always supply the other guy's words, okay? And I'm good in- Yeah, because right there it says, we cannot, you can't agree to that.

Yeah. But we need to give the reader more to understand what they're not agreeing to. Yeah, and I always, when I see Dumi Nuso, I say, well, then I agree, blah, blah, blah.

And then I say, no, you can't agree to that, so, yeah. And I think it's a- I mean, are we just gonna say, I can't agree to that, period? Or we're gonna say, you can't agree to that because everything that you just said about?

Well, sometimes you shouldn't, what's that word in English? You shouldn't spoil the joke or something like that? You shouldn't ruin the fun?

You shouldn't let the cat out of the bag. Sometimes you should make the student wonder. Okay.

So that's a fine call by a translator. Okay. You should supply needed information.

You shouldn't supply the answers to koans. You're gonna quote me a hundred years from now.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
No, guess I said the koan. No, it was needed information. Okay, who's tracking you, Tim?

I don't know. How about Ana-Elaine? Yay, here we go.

All right. Ka-chik. Kon-dro-shen-la-ma-ten-par.

Do-dun-rang-wang-du-dra-way. Sam-chen-pak-spa-shin. You missed it.

Sorry. Pak-pa. Pak-pa.

Pak-pa shin-de-tsul-je-gi-tsen-ni-se-lam. Good. So Tim, let's do the last part here.

Shin-de-tsul-je-gi-tsen-ni-se-lam. Okay, the definition of an innovator is? Yeah, the definition of an innovator is, now let's read backwards.

A Chang-sen-pa-pa. Arya Bodhisattva, realized Bodhisattva. Who is dral-pa-ying rang-wang-du.

Who's commenting independently on the meaning of the sutras. Yeah, on the meaning of the sutras, without denpa, on gong-del-shen. Without relying on any other commentaries.

Good, perfect, yeah. Without relying on any other interpretations of the true intent. Okay.

All right. Now, what's fun, Tim, with your book, is to try to guess what he did wrong before Khenopadhyay attacks him. Okay.

So he's missing something here, or he's made some mistake here. Like what's missing so far? Can you anticipate, anticipatory translation?

You listed three things in your homework. Right, so the comments on someone else's, it does not comment on someone else's work, doesn't follow in their footsteps. It operates in this world, and then that's not in this one.

Yeah, I'd hate to, I'm sorry to say it, but that the other guy left out in this world, but that doesn't seem to be where we're going, okay. Anyway, you can always try to guess what he left out, okay? And by the way, the goal of this whole debate process, and I'll repeat it again, is by the end of the debates, you know the definition of an innovator without ever having heard it.

Okay, by hearing 10 people get shot down because their definition is somehow wrong or incomplete, you could write the real definition yourself before you reach the real definition, okay? It's a very powerful educational tool, okay? All right, here's our counter example.

Here comes our counter example. All right. Nana, do you want to keep going?

Yeah, she said so. All right. BAG PA'I THOB MED CHOS CAN SEMS NYID DER LTA'O SON JA DE'I PHYIR Yeah, let's consider BAG PA'I THOB MED.

Arya Sangha. Yeah, are you telling me that that SEMS NYID fits him? Are you telling me that that definition applies to him?

Yeah, it fits him, because he is what you're trying to define. SON JA, okay? Right, okay.

He is an innovator. Right. Yeah.

Who's an authority, who did all these things. Don't go that far. All the debaters, all the opponents said was, that's the definition of an innovator.

SHING DE'I TSUL BYAS KYI TSIN NI You pause after BAG PA. Now, then we come back with, oh, okay. Well, let's take Arya Sangha.

I guess that definition fits him. And then the other guy says, why do you say that? And we say, well, because he's an innovator.

He's what you are trying to define. Then understood, I disagree that he's an innovator. Okay.

I disagree that he's what I'm trying to define, which is an innovator. And then we say, oh, DER TAL. DER TAL, SEMS SANG PA'I SHING DE'I TSUL BYAS GYIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, and when we believe it, we go up.

DER TAL, and you do it in an aggrieved way. What, what, DER TAL, DER TAL, he is so an innovator because he's the SEMS SANG PA'I SHING DE'I TSUL BYAS GYIN PA'I He's an innovator belonging to the Mind-Only School. No, of the whole- He's the innovator of the Mind-Only School.

Of the Mind-Only School. Yeah, you can't say belonging to the Mind-Only School. All right.

Because he innovated the Mind-Only School. Okay. Oh, okay.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, then I go back to your last TAL, which is right here, which was, are you telling me that that definition fits a Sangha? Okay. And now he goes back to that TAL and changes his response.

He says, oh, before I said CHI CHIR. And now I say DER, DER. Yeah, that definition does fit him.

That definition does fit him. I agree. Okay.

Oh, if you agree, please read. DER MI NUS DE GONG DROL GZHAN MA'I PHAN NAS RGYAL DUN RANG DBANG DUN DREL BAR BYAS PAS BYANG SEMS PHAG PA'I GYIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, you cannot agree that that definition fits Arya Sangha because, let's go backwards. He's a phagpa.

He's a realized art bodhisattva. Yeah. I like to say he's an Arya who happens to be a bodhisattva.

Okay. He's an Arya who happens to be as bodhisattva. I like that because it implies there are...

Aryas who are not bodhisattvas. Good, yeah. He's an Arya who's a bodhisattva.

And he RANG DBANG DUN Independently. Yeah. Commenting on the DOL DUN.

The meaning of the sutra. Relying on the GONG DROL of GZHAN. Yeah, relying on someone else's interpretation.

Good, relying on somebody else's interpretations. Relying on someone else's commentaries. Now, close your eyes, think about it.

Did Arya Sangha rely on someone else's commentary to write the Jewel of Realizations? He's going to say Maitreya, probably. I mean, that's, yeah, that's...

But he's not, Nick. He's not going to go there. He's going to go a different way.

Let's go see. Okay. I'm sorry.

I guess you are right, Nick, in a way. Let's read it. Yes, he did rely on someone else's commentaries because DETA, DETA.

He did too. GYE DRING DU GSUM GYI GONG DROL BAR DEN NAS DOL DUN RANG DBANG DUN DUN DREL BAR BYED PA'I BYANG CHUB SEMS PAS YIN PAS BYED BYANG SEMS PAS YIN PAS BYED DUN Let's go backwards. He did too rely on other commentaries to interpret the sutras because he's a BYANG SEMS PAPA.

He's an Arya who just happens to be a bodhisattva. Nice. Thank you very much.

The difference about Tim is that he listens to grandpa. Okay, sometimes. He's an Arya who is a bodhisattva who RANG DBANG DROL Who independently commented or commented on the sutra.

Depending upon GONG DROL's commentaries on the SHER RAB GYI BAR DO LTOS CAN PAR BSGYED PA SHER RAB GYI BAR DO LTOS CAN PAR BSGYED PA SHER RAB GYI BAR DO LTOS CAN PAR BSGYED PA On the extensive something of perfection of wisdom, the medium length and the short summary version. Yeah, which you could say is the 100,000 verses, the 25,000 verses, which is often called 20,000 verses and the 8,000 verses. We're curious about...

Yeah, anyway, he used other commentaries that were themselves commentaries on the huge mass of perfection of wisdom literature in Buddhism. And then the other guy says, I don't think so. And we say...

I don't think so. He says DAG MA DRU, which means I don't agree that he used commentaries on those three perfection of wisdoms. And we say DER THAL, but how do we say it, up or down?

He said... Yeah, he did too, DER THAL, DER THAL, because... Because DO DE GANG DRA LA BSTAN NAS BSAN SANG...

Not BSTAN, not BSTAN. BSTAN. BSTAN.

BSTAN means to make a tukpa soup. Okay, BSTAN TUG. Okay, BSTAN NAS BSAN SANGS PAS, SHIN TE GSUM CHE BAG PO'I BYANG SEMS BAG PA YIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, you guys tell me the punchline, Tim.

Here's the punchline. He did too depend on the commentaries to the three massive collections of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, because... It is an Arya who is a bodhisattva, who is an innovator of the mind-only school.

Good, and here comes the punchline. Here comes the punchline. Who relied upon the...

Who relied... Hold on. $50.

He relied upon the commentary or interpretation of the Dode Gyalen, the dual...

[Speaker 2]
No, the sutra.

[Speaker 1]
The sutra, What I Really Meant. The sutra, What I Really Meant, okay. Wait, so Utpala, you got the 50 bucks.

You got the 50 bucks, okay, Utpala? You got the 50 bucks.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Don't think I'm good. Yeah, because he used a commentary called What I Really Meant. Who wrote that commentary to him?

Aishakamuni.

[Speaker 2]
It's an auto-commentary.

[Speaker 1]
I can't tell you how many hours in my early days that I searched through the Tengu for this book, because it's that commentary. Who wrote this commentary to the Buddha? He himself.

The Buddha, God dang it. Yeah, okay, so... So now, Tim, can we say Asanga is an innovator or not?

Sounds like it. Yes. Sounds like he's an innovator.

Yeah, we think he's an innovator, but what do we want that guy to change in his definition? Can we go back to it? Other commentators other than Buddha.

Yeah, don't tell me he cannot have checked other Gungdos. Right. Okay, don't tell me that an innovator cannot use other commentaries, because if that's the case, then nobody's an innovator.

He did rely on other commentaries. Which one? The Buddha's own commentary.

Okay. Okay, got it? So please don't add that to your definition.

We're learning more and more elements of the definition so that by the time we finish Shen Lung and we get to Ranggur Shakpa, we'll be able to give the definition ourselves. All right. We got one minute or something, two minutes, six?

I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Six.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go, man. Let's check you. Earl, Bernie, this guy, he's just drooling.

He wants to check you. All right. Gacik, GONG BRAL GYI BRTEN CHOS GZHAN LA MA BRTEN PAR GNOD DU RANG DBANG DU DRO BA'I BYANG SEMS PHAG PA SHIN TE SONG CHE GYIS SEMS NI SER NA Good.

Translate. GONG BRAL GYI BRTEN CHOS GZHAN LA When, by the way, the last time the definition said they didn't depend on other interpretations. And this time he changes.

He says, they don't depend on other shastras. Any classical commentaries. Classical commentaries.

Ah, no. So he did not use the tengyur, okay? And without relying on any classical commentaries, he, Drelwa, Drelwa is either somebody's being smart and showing that they understand the root connection between commentary and liberate, or it's just a carving error, okay?

And he's done it twice now. So we need that St. Petersburg scan. Okay.

Right, because it could, nabwe could mean, you said liberate, it could mean like unravels the meaning independently. Exactly, exactly. And I think that's too sophisticated.

I don't think he said that. I think he said Drelwa, okay? So, an Arya Bodhisattva who comments or unravels depending on the, independent of the meaning of the sutra without depending upon other classical commentaries.

Yeah, who doesn't use the tengyur. He doesn't use a sangha. He doesn't use those great Indian saints, okay?

That's the real definition of an innovator, okay? And here's our counterexample. All right, well, okay.

So, Bhagavad took my church and... Right. Sending their, we're disagreeing.

So, sending their Tao, Tao. Sending their Tao. Their Tao.

Sarcastic. Go up when you believe it, go down when you want to be sarcastic. Sunja, Sunja Daychir.

Yeah. I guess that definition fits a sangha because he's what the definition defines. He is an innovator.

So, I guess your definition fits him, right? What would the other guy say, naturally? What would he say?

[Speaker 2]
What are you talking about?

[Speaker 1]
I know, he'd say, I'm saying, God dang, are you saying your definition fits a sangha? Because he is an innovator. What would the other guy naturally say?

No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah. My definition fits, yeah.

I just gave you the definition of innovator. It fits all innovators. Yeah, of course it fits a sangha.

Then we say, do me nude. That can't be the case. Yeah, you cannot reply, yes, it fits a sangha.

Because? BYANG CHUB CHI MA GSUM LA BSTAN NAS BSTAN, BSTAN, BSTAN BSTAN NAS SEMS SANGS PA'I LTA BA BSTAN LA BSPAD PA'I BYANG SEMS PAG PA YIN PA'I PHYIR YIN PA'I PHYIR Say, make it sweet, okay? Okay, you guys can translate this.

And I'll tell you, I'll make you an offer. If you translate it, we can all go back to bed. I know that's not so much interesting for Ajahn and you got European guys.

It's interesting for us. All right, so the Arya who happens to be a Bodhisattva, well, you... Oh, no, yeah, he is, you can't agree that Arya Sangha fits your definition, because, let's go backwards, because he's a Gangstan Pagpa, right?

Ooh, I don't know what that, we had that expression. Presented. Yeah, who set forth or set down the SEMSANG PA'I DANG.

The view of the mind-only school? So far, it's okay. So far, it doesn't contradict his definition.

But then we say, by using the latter three of the BYAMS CHOS NA. Of the five books of Maitreya. Yeah, of the five books of Maitreya.

Yeah, so don't tell me an innovator can't use the tenure. Okay, don't tell me an innovator cannot use the classical commentaries. Why?

Because Asanga did. Why? He used the last three books of the five books of Maitreya to clarify the first two books.

So he used his own books, basically. But they were not his, legally. Yeah, right.

So he did that. He was the scribe. Yeah, the copyright was Maitreya's.

He did write his own books, even though he took books from Maitreya. So he still defended all teachings from Maitreya. He still has some copyrights, but not this.

Now, I put a footnote here from an older book that the Mixed Nuts did. And it's my dream that eventually we can just insert footnotes from older books because they're perfect. Okay, so, this one's got a lot of references.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but because it has those percentage signs, that means it's not yet perfect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Because ones that were printed don't have the percentage signs any longer.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, but the information is perfect. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay.

It's overtime, Geshe-la. If you guys are bored today before the evening classes and you want to know what are the five books on Maitreya and which are the first two books of Maitreya and which of them are mind-only school and which of them are middle way school, which took me a long time to figure out. Okay.

Okay. It's a good thing to know, Tim, especially, and anyone who's working with Arya Sangas and Maitreya's books, it's good to know which ones are traditionally, and notice I said traditionally interpreted, meaning most people say, but there's not a total agreement about it, okay? Cool.

Cool. Very cool. All right.

Oh, I know what you're gonna ask me, Tim. Yeah, how many more would you like me to try to do? Yeah, let's see.

Wow, that's a long one. I would just do the next four sections. Okay.

Okay. Kachi, Kadambu, Detel, Kepte, okay? Okay.

Yay. By the way, you're doing a good job on this text, and you can already sense that it would be useful to put out interim books. You know, this stuff is so useful and beautiful that we don't have to wait 20 years to put out your first book.

I think we can do your first book in two years or something.

[Speaker 2]
Right, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Sachi. And thanks for coming, everybody. Thanks for teaching.

Thank you. Thank you. Nick, you wanna threaten us with yoga?

Yeah, I do. Threaten you all that there's gonna be yoga, and I dare you to come. Today, yoga will be led by Alex Rowland.

[Speaker 2]
Come, come to class.

[Speaker 1]
Come to class. She threatened you, too.

[Speaker 2]
We're gonna do it outside here.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's exciting. It looks pretty there in Colorado. Yeah.

Nice. She's gonna teach a great class. Stick around, 8.15. And then at four, if you don't make it to that class, there will be a class with Alex Rivas, which will also be fantastic. So please make it to one of our yoga classes. And that's it. Otherwise, thank you to our translators.

Hey, Alex, I got a thing about mosquitoes. I don't know. There's no mosquitoes here.

[Speaker 2]
We're good. All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. It's dry. So dry.

Okay, thank you. Have a good break, everybody. Okay.

And Nick, I think, was thanking the translators. Oh God, it's so difficult to translate this stuff, and thank you. You guys are amazing.

We're very, very grateful for your work. And I apologize. Sometimes Grandpa gets excited and goes too fast.

All of us. Yeah. All right.

All right. See you soon.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.