Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 34

[Speaker 1]
Whoa. Hello, everybody. Whoa.

Hi. You're muted, Geshe-la. Whoa.

I should say, whoa. Whoa. Welcome back.

Are you in another country or something? Still in the country of Portugal. Very small country known for cork and pork.

No, port. And probably fish. But, yeah.

So, still here. And you guys are in the country of Stanley and Allison's studio. Rimrock area.

Rimrock metropolitan megalopolitan area. A lot of traffic jams on the way here, but we made it. Jumped on the subway.

Oh, good. Yeah, I've been waiting for them to put the Rimrock line in. So, looking forward to another episode of Xuanzang's Tower.

Thank you for joining us live and direct from your vacation, Geshe Michael. All right. This is Geshe Michael's relaxing time, so we super appreciate you taking time out of your vacation to keep teaching us the art of translation.

Okay, no problem. Take it away. Okay.

By the way, the classes... We're going away for two weeks to Japan and China, so the classes will continue here. The meditations will continue here.

So, sorry, Jacqueline's going to get the place opened up and everything. So, we'll continue at 7 a.m. on Saturdays. And we'll do the 8 a.m. class will be here online, the Zoom class. We'll continue with the classes on Monday evening at the Tower in VOC. Okay? So, please keep going.

All right. And ask Jacqueline if you have any questions. All right.

Tim's got a homework for us, I'm sure. Yes, I do. Okay.

What's this? Oh, nice. My infusion.

So, our debater comes along. There were two debates in the last class, and we're going to review the first one. So, our debater comes along and says that it's contradictory that the speech of the Buddha can be both directly from his lips, and also come from someone else who was granted permission to speak on his behalf.

So, what are the famous words that start every sutra that is used as a counterexample to our debater's claim? Let's start with the English. Once I heard this teaching?

I think I see it in the chat. Once I heard these words, all right. Something like that.

And then, Nick, what did you just say? That's not what you just said.

[Speaker 2]
There it is.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. And then, what's the Sanskrit? All right.

Thank you. I didn't know how to put the diacritics in exactly, so I just pronounced it. Good.

All right. So, the second question is, explain why these words, once I heard these words, are the counterexample to the Kachik's claim that the speech of the Buddha can't be both.

[Speaker 2]
I take the opportunity to answer, because no one answered. Because the spoken person cannot be the same person that heard this word.

[Speaker 1]
Not exactly. Is it because if you quote or repeat the words of the Buddha, they count as the word of the Buddha? Can you say a little bit more about that?

I think you're on the right track. What else can I say? Like, let's say the Buddha say hi, and then you say, oh, the Buddha say hi.

You're basically saying what the Buddha say, and those were the words of the Buddha. You're on the right track, so let's be more specific. I would say if the Buddha said to me, hey Mike, when I say hi, can you say hi?

Yes. All right. If the Buddha asked me to speak for, to repeat his words, then in a way, it's the Buddha's words.

Is that okay? How's that? How do we prove that the Buddha said that?

What he just said. If the Buddha asked me to say something, to repeat what he said, how does our debater prove that the Buddha said that? There's an actual sutra where the Buddha said, hey, guys, collect together all my teachings, and that's kind of gave them the teaching, well, instructed them to do so.

And how did he instruct them to start the teaching? Once I heard these words. And then that sutra where they tell us that the Buddha told us to do that, how does that sutra start?

Oh, nice question. Makes you get stuck on that. Nice.

Yeah, that's a good point. All right. Also in our, exactly, there was a previous counterexample.

So when our debater comes along and says this, then we give a counterexample. What was the sutra that was that counterexample? And why is that possibly doubly interesting for our study of this?

I know it's hard, guys. It was so long ago. The Heart Sutra.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The Heart Sutra. Yeah. And so the Heart Sutra starts with, what does it start with, Nick?

I think Eva Meier-Schwitzel. But why is the Heart Sutra a good example for why we would wonder if it's contradictory to say that the speech of the Buddha could come directly from his lips, or it could come from someone else who has granted permission to speak on his behalf? Because Shantaka's Buddha is a puppet in that one?

Exactly, right. I think both the people, the only two people who speak in the sutra mainly, except for two words, are other people. Right, yeah.

The Buddha is using two puppets. All right, cool. Is that all those things?

All right, here's some words. And this is from the second debate. Ooh, tree.

Tree. Tree, yes. We called it a wish-giving tree, kind of, but it's generally just a tree, right?

Generally just a tree, but why is it important in this discussion? Yeah, so why is it important based on that previous debate? What does a tree have to do with anything?

Come on. The teachings are a wish-giving tree, or Lord Buddha is? Nope.

So think of that.

[Speaker 2]
Go ahead. I'm sorry, I was thinking perhaps a tree is a vehicle through which the Buddha can speak.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yes. Yeah, exactly.

So that's another counterexample, and it's actually the second debate.

[Speaker 2]
Where?

[Speaker 1]
You could be listening to the wind blow through the trees and then hear the deepest teachings, for example. Yeah. I wasn't sure, is it just denpa, or is it all put together?

Usually they say denpa gōnen, or something.

[Speaker 2]
Gōnen, okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right, so what does that almost mean? The door to truth, or something? Door of truth?

Door of truth, but we were referring specifically to an act of truth.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, interesting. Yeah. Yeah.

Why did they mention an act of truth here? Somebody said, if such and such is true, then may this happen.

[Speaker 2]
The act of truth.

[Speaker 1]
But what's the act of truth here? You mean Buddha's act of truth? If his enlightenment is true, may he be reborn in the planet with the worst...

Oh, looks like Upala has the right answer. If it's true, may Buddha may... May I be reborn in the most terrible places that I remember, but...

It's not exactly. That's true, too. That's true.

What did she say? May the Ganges flow in the opposite. Venerable Upala's got it right here.

I'm going to read it. Yeah, sure. She said, if it's true that I'm a Buddha, may the trees blow in the wind.

May when the trees blow in the wind, may they give inspiration to my disciples 2,500 years in the future in Rimrock. And waves on the ocean, and things like that. May they teach people.

And then another part of it. Oops. Chinky look.

Blessing? Yes. Oh, yeah.

It's all from one sentence. Okay, cool. Cool.

That's it. All right, kids. Here we go.

Would Rimrock be re-pabong in Tibetan? What would it be? Rimrock.

Yeah, Rim-gi-do. Rim-do. Rim-do.

Yeah, right. Yeah, Rim-do. Okay, good.

Please read, Timothy, and then we'll take on people. Tachik, nun-thak yin te, ten-chu chen-po'i nam shes, te che-pay kyap ne, ten-pay ten-chu chen-po yin ser na. Yeah.

So this first debate is strange and difficult, and we're going to get through it as fast as we can. Let me get this cursor up here first. Okay, good.

So he's quoting a line from a scripture, and that line is ten-chu chen-po nam shes tse. I will make a nam shes of a ten-chu chen-po. I will make a commentary.

I will make a commentary to the Great Commentary. To the Great Commentary. So somebody said, I will make an explanation of the Great Commentary.

And he's quoting that line. Somebody said, I will make an explanation of the Great Commentary. And he says, I think the Great Commentary being mentioned in that line is the nun-thak yin.

Okay. Which is the... The ornament of realization.

Yeah, the jewel of realizations, written by... Arya Sangha. Yeah, no, Maitreya.

Maitreya. Yeah, the coming Buddha. The next Buddha.

Granted it to Asanga, who... After the dog story, right? You all know the dog story.

So he says... And by the way, this quotation, if I'm not mistaken, it's from Haribhadra. So Haribhadra is one, two...

It's like three generations. Third generation commentators. First you have Maitreya.

And then you have Arya Sangha, who met the dog and went to learn from Maitreya. And then Haribhadra wrote a commentary on Asanga. And in the monastery, we actually spend the first twelve years of the Geshe course.

Half the Geshe course is spent on Haribhadra's two commentaries. So there's two commentaries to this revealed scripture that was given to... Granted to Asanga by the next Buddha, by the fourth...

Fifth Buddha to come. He's number five in this eon. And it seems natural to say...

If Haribhadra says, I'm going to write a commentary on the great... I'm going to explain the great commentary. It seems natural to think he's talking about the Abhisamankara, the jewel of realizations.

Because that's his thing. That's his job. That's what his commentary is about.

You would assume that. Now, question for you, and that's the subject today. What's the difference between a shastra and a sutra?

Sutra is spoken by a Buddha. Sutra is anything spoken by a Buddha. And sometimes it means an open teaching as opposed to a secret teaching.

So, with exceptions where sutra means short book. Like Yoga Sutra or Vinaya Sutra. But generally, a sutra is ka.

Say ka. Ka means the word. Capital W.

The word of the Buddha. Ka. And then if you translate it, it's...

Kangyur. Kangyur. The translated word of the Buddha.

And we have 990 teachings, lectures of Lord Buddha that survived in Tibetan. They were translated from Sanskrit. Then they were destroyed in Sanskrit.

95% gone. So, actually in Tibetan we have a very great wealth of the original sutras. Ka.

Ka. And when it's translated, we call it kangyur. And if you're from East Tibet and you taught Rabbi, you call it a kangyur.

Okay? And the first Americans and the first Westerners to learn about Tibetan learned it from the Easterners. So they mispronounce everything.

Okay? Kangyur. If you say kangyur, I'll hit you on the head with the kangyur.

Kangyur. Okay? All right.

Then dengyin means shastra. Say shastra. Shastra.

Yeah, dengyin means a classical commentary. Basically written from 150 AD up to 1000 AD. Basically the first thousand years.

Or 500 years after the Buddha, then there was a thousand year period of Indian commentaries. And we have 3,700 of those translated in Tibetan and preserved in 210,000 pages. Sorry.

210 volumes, which is 420,000 pages. It's about half a million pages translated. So the mixed nuts have a ways to go.

Okay? And that's called tenche gyurwa, tengyur. The commentary is translated.

So the question here is, somebody says, I'm going to make an explanation of the great commentary. Now our question for you. Is the Abhisamaya Avankara, the Jewel of Realizations, is it a shastra or a sutra?

Shastra.

[Speaker 2]
It's a shastra.

[Speaker 1]
Buddha. It should be called a sutra because it's spoken by a Buddha, right? It's by the next Buddha, who's already a Buddha.

Not in an open teaching, Geshe-la. Hanging out in Tushita, waiting to come. By the way, I always say, and you should understand, he's much closer than you think.

That's an inside joke. Anyway. But anyway.

We say it's not a sutra. We say it's a shastra. Why?

And then we need the definition of a shastra. So we have the five great books of Maitreya. The most famous one is the Abhisamaya Avankara, the Jewel of Realizations.

We spend 12 years on it in the monastery. It's 75 pages. It takes about an hour and a half to recite.

Every monk has to recite it. And it's wonderful. It's wonderful to memorize it, because then you have the future Buddha speaking in your head all the time, which is quite nice.

Okay? All right. So anyway, Muthugende.

So you would think that Haribhadra, being known as... He's written two commentaries on Maitreya's book. You would think when he says, I'm going to explain the great commentary, the great shastra, he should be talking about the Abhisamaya Avankara.

You would assume that. But it's not. By the way, if Kachi says it, it's wrong.

The debate format of scripture, the proposal, is always wrong. And then you have to figure out why. He says, when Haribhadra says, I'm going to write an explanation of the great commentary, he must be talking about Maitreya's book.

And apparently that's a wrong idea. So here, if you're a mixed nut, you have to go find that quotation where he said, I'm going to write a commentary on commentary. I'm going to write an explanation of the great commentary.

If you're a mixed nut, you have to use John Brady's database and go find that quotation. Required. Otherwise, you're not a mixed nut.

Otherwise, you belong to some other translation group. Luckily, we have finished the 4,600 books from ancient India. We finished inputting them about 15 years ago.

It was hard. We had the only copy of the Ten-Year available in the world. How we got it is an adventure story, which I cannot tell you exactly.

Anyway, here it is. Here's the quotation. I'm going to ask Tim to read it.

By the way, he wrote two commentaries. Haribhadra. Senge Sangri.

Haribhadra means the pure lion. Hari means senge, singha. It means the lion, like Singapore.

And then bhadra means the good one. The pure one. Pure lion is his name.

Please read. DRO LA CHAGS PA'I... Okay.

DRO LA CHAGS PA'I KUN CHAGS SE PHAG PA GTOGS MED GYURG NI GYIS MI PHANG DGOS LA SEMS NAS NI RTEN CHOS CHEN PO'I NAM SHES SE Yeah. DRO LA CHAGS PA Usually DRO LA CHAGS is a negative thing. It's in the wheel of life in the middle.

Desire. Attraction. Which of the three animals?

Pigeon. The rooster or the pigeon. Because they have a lot of desire.

Normally CHAGS PA is a negative emotion, but here it means love. Love toward beings. Yeah, love towards all beings.

Because he was KUN CHAGS. He was big love? Yeah, because he was like...

Loving everyone. In love with the love. Because he was in love for all beings.

Okay. He did something. Who?

PHAG PA GTOGS MED Master Sangha. Master Sangha. Who's the one who went to the paradise to get the main book we're studying from Maitreya, the future Buddha.

GTOGS MED Then he refers to a Sangha as GTOGS NI. The Protector? Yeah, the One Protector.

The Protector, capital P. The Ultimate Protector, a Sangha. Then he said...

And the LA here means from. MI PHAM DGON He learned from. Came down from Maitreya's heaven.

He listened. Oh, listened. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He heard something. MI PHAM means Ajita. Unconquerable.

It's a synonym for Maitreya. MI PHAM or Ajita. Ajita.

Nowadays in India a lot of people are called Ajit. Ajit. People say Ajit.

I had a favorite diamond dealer who was Ajit. So MI PHAM DGON means the Protector. He heard it.

He listened to teachings from the Protector, the Undefeatable One, which is Maitreya. GZAN NAS NI And having heard them, HE ZAS A NAM SHES He composed the explanation of the commentary. Of the great commentary.

DANG PHYIR CHEN PO'I NAM SHES ZAS Now it gets all confusing. Who wrote the Abhisam Arankara? Who wrote the main book we studied for the first half of the Geshe course?

Who wrote it down or who?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, who wrote it down.

[Speaker 1]
It was spoken by the future Buddha. It was written down by Aya Sangha. He came back to this world.

It was 50 years later. It was one morning he spent there or something like that. And there was a time difference.

Time zone difference? And he came back and all his friends were dead.

[Speaker 2]
Like a jet like his dad.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So it would seem to be... I mean it's a little confusing.

We don't know whether they're talking about somebody made a commentary to the Jewel of Realizations or somebody made the Jewel of Realizations commentary when he got back. It's unclear. Could this be read as an adjective but also as a relative clause?

It could be an adjective. Or it could be an adjectival clause. It could be either one.

That's the problem. It's not clear. It's not clear.

Do we have the Sanskrit by the way? That's a good question. I don't remember.

Okay. We can ask our boss. Please read this.

Okay. GNYIS KHRI'I DE NYID RNAMS NAS DE DGOS THOB RGYEN GYI DRIN ROL PA YIN PAR DAG YIN PAR DAG KHYOD KYI DAM BYED DE BA'I PHYIR That.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
So GNYIS KHRI'I GNYIS KHRI'I means the perfection. BOD ROL BA LA MIN DO The perfection of wisdom in 20,000 verses. There's a Heart Sutra.

There's a Diamond Cutter Sutra. Then there's the 8,000 verses. Sorry, then there's the brief, what's called the brief perfection of wisdom.

Then there's the 8,000 verses. Then there's the 10,000 verses. Then there's 20,000 verses, which is really 25,000 verses.

Then 18,000 verses. And then there's 100,000 verses. Those are the perfection of wisdom sutras.

They are about half of what we have from the Buddha. They are those teachings on emptiness. They're all teachings on emptiness.

And by the way, they are not classical commentaries that you study and you hear in these classes. They read like science fiction. They are stories.

And they are awesome stories. And they are unbelievable stories. They're wonderful science fiction.

I mean, if somebody translated them or did something, they're really, really amazing science fiction. They are not philosophical works. But then they go into emptiness in a very beautiful, like a dream, like an LSD trip or something.

It's unbelievable. And there's that many versions. The 100,000, the 25,000, the 18,000, 10,000, 8,000.

Then the short one, and then the short, short one, Diamond Cutter Sutra, the Heart Sutra. Like that. So, the GNYIS PHYIS means the 20,000.

GNYIS means two. PHYIS means 10,000. GNYIS PHYIS means 20,000, which is really 25,000.

It has a nickname, 20,000, but it's really 25,000. 25,000. DE NYID NANG NAS means an examination of the true nature of the 20,000 verses.

By the way, verses in Sanskrit are not really verses. They're not written in verses. So even the name of the Perfectional Wisdom Sutras is confusing.

It refers to their length, general length. The 8,000 verses, for example, takes 1,000 pages of Tibetan. Just for reference, the 20,000 is two or three volumes.

The 100,000 is like 12 volumes. A volume is 1,000 pages. That's why nobody is translating.

GNYIS PHYIS DE NYID NANG NAS DE NYID NANG NAS means analyzing the thusness, analyzing the thusness of the 20,000. That was written by Master Vimuktesena. He wrote an explanation of the 20,000 verses.

We say, RGYUN DOG DGE'I RGYAL PA YIN MA THA'O Are you telling me that's a RGYAL PA to RGYUN DOG DGE'I? You started telling me that's a commentary to the Jewel of Realization. Because what you just said is true.

What did he just say? He said, it looks like he said, I'm going to write a commentary to the great book. But then it turns out to be not him and not the book you think.

Okay? It's Vimuktesena. It's not Haribhadra.

Vimuktesena is commenting on the 20,000 verses. But this line is not referencing. Right.

It says, he wrote a commentary to the great book, which is a sutra. The 20,000 verses on the Perfection of Wisdom. You see what I mean?

It's very confusing. Okay, so in these four lines he's saying, this is not the great book, this is the commentary. It looks like Haribhadra is saying, I'll explain his explanation of the 20,000 verses.

Something like that. But everybody assumes that he's talking about Haribhadra, about the Jewel of Realizations. But he's not.

Okay, got it? That's all. That's the whole debate.

It's not that important. I mean, it's good to know that there were classical commentaries written to each of those Perfection of Wisdom sutras. There's different commentaries written to the 8,000.

There's different commentaries written to the 10,000, to the 18,000, to the 20,000, to the 25,000, to the 100,000. And to the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra. And those are all the emptiness teachings by Lord Buddha.

And they are massive. They are tens of thousands of pages. Okay, cool.

What you study, what you read, is just a distillation of that. It's nothing to do with the sutras. And he's saying, look, open your head a little bit.

That's a 75-page book. Okay, got it? That's the first debate.

Here's some backup from John Brady's database. If you're ever interested, we can go through it. It would take too much time.

Tim's book is projected to take about 50 to 60 years. It's eight volumes. It's about 800 pages in Tibetan, which is about...

I don't call it 10,000 pages in English. And it would take us 50 years to finish. And something you should know is that each generation of Indian took one of those Perfection of Wisdom sutras and worked on it.

So there's Indians who just committed to the 8,000 verses. And there's other Indians who committed to the 20,000 verses. And others who committed to the 100,000 verses.

And those are intimately related to the Jewel of Realizations, which Arya Sangha brought back from Maitreya's heaven. They are intimately related. Okay.

Okay. Who's going to... You want somewhere else to read?

Sure. Lindsey, you want to come up? You cursor here.

Not cursor.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry. Do na. Do na.

De do ja. Ngen. Ngen.

[Speaker 1]
No, no. Ge. Ge.

That's not a silent N.

[Speaker 2]
Ge. Ah, ja. yeah good good drel drel pah drel pah drel drel pah pah STAY BOD DIS NI KHRI KHRI KHRI KHRI CHI GRAL GRAL PHA RGYUN PHYI CHE Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Stay for a minute. DUR NA means if you agree that it was, what did he agree to? That it was a commentary, that they were talking about a commentary to, what did you say?

It's a commentary to the Perfectional Wisdom. Yeah, if you say it's a, so is it a commentary to the original sutras or is it a commentary to Maitreya? Is it a commentary to Lord Buddha in this planet or is it a commentary to Maitreya?

If you say this is a commentary to Maitreya, right? He said that. He said this is a commentary on Maitreya's book.

He did not say this is a commentary on Lord Buddha's teachings on the Perfectional Wisdom in this planet. He said DUR NA. Well, then I guess the NGON THAG RGYEN, or I guess Haribhadra's book, is a combined commentary.

BYAR BA, yoga. It's a combined commentary on sutra plus Maitreya's jewel. According to you then, if the commentary mentioned in the opening lines here is referring to Maitreya's commentary, then if we comment on that, we must be writing some kind of hybrid commentary between two Buddhas.

Okay, got it? DO RGYEN, you have to read them separately. It's not DO RGYEN.

It's not DO RGYEN. It should have been, but it's not. And it's very confusing.

DO means Perfectional Wisdom Sutras. RGYEN means Arya Sangha and Maitreya's jewel. So he says, oh, well, I guess this line is referring to some super commentary to two Buddhas.

To Maitreya's jewel and to Lord Buddha's countless Perfectional Wisdom Sutras. It's some kind of hybrid. BYAR BA YIN PA DKA'A You're telling me it's some kind of fancy hybrid.

Why do you say that? RGYEN DO RGYEN GYI BYAR BA YIN PA DKA'A ZHIG Well, first of all, you said it's a commentary on Maitreya. And then you said, and it happens to be a commentary on the 20,000.

The commentary he mentioned in his verse happens to be a commentary on the 20,000. And that's what it really is. That guy understood it as a commentary to Maitreya.

So we say to him, oh cute, it must be a commentary to two Buddhas. Maitreya, the coming Buddha, and our current Buddha. Why?

Because it's a commentary to the jewel written by the future Buddha, and it's a commentary to the 20,000 verses spoken by this Buddha. He never said the second part. We're accusing him.

Oh, that's cute. There must be some super book. Why?

It's a commentary on both Buddha's teachings on emptiness. Why do you say that? Well, you said it was a commentary on the jewel, which is a book on emptiness, right?

And he says, yeah, I did say that, but why do you accuse me of a combined book, a hybrid book? Well, because it's also a commentary on the 20,000 verses, which he does not agree to. Okay, got it?

So we're saying, oh cute, there must be some super book. Why? It's a commentary on the emptiness teachings of two Buddhas, number four and number five, which is Shakyamuni and Maitreya.

Okay, got it? Wow, super commentary. Because it also comments on the 20,000 verses.

And then he's like, I didn't mention 20,000 verses. Why are you accusing me of referring to a hybrid emptiness commentary when I never mentioned the second one? I never said it was a commentary to this Buddha.

I never said that. And then we say, well, yes, he did, because she's going to read this sentence. By the way, we will be out of this debate soon, don't worry.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Wei? Cheer.

[Speaker 1]
You can't agree, dum yin ne te, that Haribhadra is writing some kind of hybrid commentary, because tok ma. First. First one of all.

Tok tat par sum. Tok means first. First one of all.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The very first commentary where someone combined the two Buddhas. Do means Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. Gen means the Wendol Gen.

The Jewel. Okay. The very first person to combine them, the two emptiness teachings of the two Buddhas, was in the Nyi Chi Nor, which means the Light on the 20,000.

Okay. The first commentary, the first hybrid commentary of all time, was the Light on the 20,000, written by Bhimukti Sena, who came later. Yimpa.

Sen den means authoritative. Okay. Authoritative.

Sema dan denpa. Pramana. Pramana-ish book.

Okay. Meaning authoritative. Correct.

Like correct perception book. Not a logic book, but a correct book. Okay.

A correct book. An authoritative book. Which one?

What's shung mean? A main one. Yeah, a major book.

A major commentary. Shung can also mean government, federal government. And shung can also mean Highway 17.

Major artery. So shung. Shung le chung e che.

Okay. Sen den gi shung. Many authoritative works have described the very first hybrid commentary as that of Bhimukti Sena.

What was the hybrid? He combined a commentary on Maitreya's teachings of emptiness and this Buddhist, our Buddhist teachings on emptiness. That was the first combined one.

Therefore, Haribhadra was not that. Okay. Okay.

Haribhadra is the commentary we're studying for the next 12 years or something. We are studying the Jewel of Realizations by Maitreya, but we're studying Haribhadra's interpretation of it. And he was not the first hybrid writer.

So it became a custom in ancient India to write hybrid commentaries on emptiness by two Buddhas. Okay. And the mother of all hybrid commentaries was not by Haribhadra.

It was by Bhimukti Sena, who came later. Okay. So don't tell me that this is a hybrid commentary.

It's not. Okay. It's not a commentary on the Jewel and on the Sutras.

So which one is it? Haribhadra's is a commentary on which one? On the Jewel.

And we're going to spend 12 years on it or something. Okay. He just wants to say, look, the commentary we're about to read is really a commentary on the emptiness teachings of Maitreya and not Shakyamuni.

Because it's not a combined commentary. It's not a hybrid. Well, I thought it was a hybrid.

No, that's Bhimukti Sena. He's a different guy. Okay, got it?

That's all. That's all. We're focusing on the future Buddha.

Okay. Why? That's the Sangha's thing.

That's where he went. He didn't meet this Buddha. He lived 800 years after this Buddha.

He wasn't writing a commentary on this Buddha. He's writing a commentary on the Buddha he met face to face. That makes sense.

Okay. Got it? So when 15 year olds are studying this, how long does it take for them to go through this?

The teacher will go through that first debate quickly and they'll forget it and he'll forget it. Okay. Good.

Now we'll get to the real meat of the matter, which I'm glad we have some time. How much time do we have?

[Speaker 2]
17 minutes.

[Speaker 1]
Now here's the real stuff you can remember and chew on. Do you want to choose another reader? Sure.

Rebecca. Rebecca.

[Speaker 2]
I'm choosing...

[Speaker 1]
It's going to make a joke. It's better not to. Where are we starting?

Okay. I'm sorry. There's one more side comment from the guy.

Moreover, when the book says all those shastras are like that, meaning classical commentaries, all those shastras are like that, the shastra which they're mainly talking about, directly talking about, ngu si denpa, the shastra that they're directly referring to must be, according to you, the jewel. So somebody mentioned all those shastras. And then we said, well, you're in the kind of mood you're in, you'll say it's the jewel.

He's talking about the jewel. gyen la che rikpa ta, khyo kyi dam tra tepe ye che. Since you misidentified the nature of this commentary, you probably do it with other commentaries.

Now, he pulled that quotation out of somewhere, and luckily we have John Brady's database. And Tsongkapa mentions it. hlakpa to me kyi dzepay de nyi nang ne, dok yin jang re drub pa yin sewa yi tepe.

Yeah, the ascertainment of reality by Asanga is not... If you claim that it's a commentary to the jewel, you're wrong. I'm going to skip through that.

dunar ten chen thada dey da she, mang se kyi munpa la ngupa ngepa thag depa de ye che. It refers to multiple commentaries. thada, all the commentaries.

And we say, well, then there must be no need to say that. dum nyi ngepa. And he's referring to something by Tsongkapa.

Let's go here because you can understand something today. Who do you want to read? Go ahead, Rebecca.

[Speaker 2]
khachi rang tsongpa po, sem chen kyi ka gong dral du, tsam pay thag, dzun ngak ngak nam thag, ten che kyi sen yi ser ngak.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now we're going to get to the meat of the matter, okay? He was just testing you to see if you would last this long. What's tenchu?

Classical commentary. Yeah, by the way, that's shastra. What's shastra?

Sword. Shastra means sword. Short A.

Shastra. Say shastra. Shastra.

Shastra. In Sanskrit, short A's and long A's are crucial, and they change the meaning completely. And no Westerners pronounce them correctly, and no Westerners understand them.

Okay, say shastra. Shastra. Shastra means a sword.

Shastra means a classical commentary. And what's ananda? Ananda.

Ananda. What's ananda? It means unhappy person.

What's ananda?

[Speaker 2]
Super happy person.

[Speaker 1]
Ananda with a long A means very happy person. The main disciple of Lord Buddha. Ananda means the unhappy guy.

Okay, got it? Short A is a negative. Long A is a superlative.

Nanda, nanda means to be happy. Ananda means the unhappy one. Ananda means the super happy one.

Guess which one is the disciple of Lord Buddha? Nobody pronounces Sanskrit correctly. Nobody.

Except you. Are we studying shastra or shastra? Shastra.

We're studying shastra, which is classical commentary. And now the real debate comes, which is a debate on what's the difference between a sutra and a shastra. And now we're going to learn something.

Okay? It's all important because... Why do you think it's important in this particular book?

The distinction between a classical commentary and a sutra. Why is it important in this particular book that we're studying? We're studying Maitreya's Jewel.

Why is the discussion important between a sutra and a shastra? It's a debate. It's spoken by a Buddha.

It should be a sutra, but it's not. It's a shastra. It's in the Tengyur.

It's not in the Kangyur. It's not ka. It's not the word of a Buddha.

The word of Maitreya is not the word of a Buddha. It's a commentary. Somebody drunk?

Did somebody put it in the wrong category? Which happens. And it's very beautiful.

It's a very wonderful debate. So, the other guy tries to give his definition of a shastra. Here's my definition of a shastra.

Okay, give it to me. Let's check it out. He says, RANG MTSAMS PA PO The person who composed it is a SEMS CAN.

[Speaker 2]
He's a living being. Meaning not a Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
SEMS CAN means suffering living being. So, the person who wrote it is a suffering living being, which means a human and not a Buddha. Okay, got it?

He says, Okay, I'm going to define a classical commentary. A shastra. Okay, go ahead.

First of all, it should have been composed by a human. Suffering living being. First.

Then it should be a DRAL PA TAG KA. It should be a commentary to the speech of a Buddha. Yeah, it should be a commentary on the speech of a Buddha.

Okay, got it. And reveal the real meaning, GOM PA. It should have been Sambha or composed.

Okay. And it must be NGAG, which is NAM DAG.

[Speaker 2]
Pure speech.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, it doesn't mean it has to be spoken. It just means it has to be purely written or purely intended. Okay.

He proposes as a definition of shastra. He proposes the writer of it should be a suffering living being, not a Buddha. But it should be a commentary on a Buddha's words.

And it should somehow be purely written. We don't know what that means. Intention or writing style?

We don't know yet. He proposes as a... By the way, in the West, in a normal textbook, they would just tell you what it is.

And in the pedagogical system of the monasteries, it's for two and a half thousand years. You force the student to think. You force the student to think.

First you give them wrong ideas. And then they say, can you guess where the mistake is? Can you guys guess where the mistake is right now?

Here's a mistaken definition of a shastra. He says the person who composed it, composed covers verbal or written. The person who composed it, the person who put it together should be a suffering living being, not a Buddha.

They must write it in commentary on a Buddha's speech, and it must be pure speech. It must be pure words. He proposes that as the definition of a classical commentary, of a perfect commentary.

It's probably something about Semchens. Where's the problem in his definition? He wants you to think.

The debate style is meant to force you to think. The teacher is supposed to pause here and say, which part here do you think is wrong? Do you think the writer shouldn't be a suffering being?

Do you think they shouldn't comment on the word of a Buddha? Or do you think somehow their speech should be wrong? What do you think?

Okay, here we go. By the way, the next line in all Buddhist writing is the counterexample. He says, the definition of a fruit is an orange thing, an orange edible thing.

Then we say, well, take apples. Take red apples. I guess they are orange edible things, right?

The next line is going to be the counterexample that his definition doesn't cover. The counterexample shows the problem with his definition. It forces you to think about what kind of book is worth your lifetime because you ain't going to live forever.

You ain't going to live forever. Every minute is clocked. Every second is clocked.

Don't waste your time on other things. If something's not a real shastra, don't waste your time on it. That's the point.

Got it? Here's our counterexample. Here it comes.

Who's next? Let's consider a shastra written by a chiroka, a non-Buddhist, a Hindu, or I don't know, somebody else, Zoroastrian. Let's consider a non-Buddhist shastra.

Then you're like, whoa, wait a minute. There's non-Buddhist shastras? Yes.

Shastra just means classical commentary. Non-Buddhists can write them. There's a shastra about how to count crow's teeth, stuff like that that are not real helpful.

Got it? They threw a few of them into the Buddhist canon. Like there's a shastra on the evaluation of gemstones.

There's nidhi shastras, which are commentaries on how to run a government. There's a tiny quantity of non-religious shastras, or extra-Buddhist shastras. They're not Buddhist.

He says, take a non-Buddhist shastra, okay? Tsenny der ta. Does your definition fit that?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, it doesn't fit that. Why? Their shastras are not written in explanation of ka.

Their comment shastras are not written to explain the ka of an enlightened being. They're written like how to evaluate cars, gemstones, how to run a government, stuff like that, how to buy pigs, stuff like that. Really, there's shastras like that.

So he says, Tsenja de'i che. That's what he's defining. Your definition must fit that because it is what you're trying to define because it is a shastra.

A non-Buddhist shastra is a shastra. It's a classical commentary. It's just not a Buddhist classical commentary.

Okay, got it? Now we learned something. What?

Shastras are not limited to Buddhist shastra. Okay, good. Then we say, because it's a shastra, then he says, ta ma dru.

[Speaker 2]
It's not necessarily a shastra.

[Speaker 1]
It's not a shastra. I disagree it's a shastra. I disagree that the evaluation of pigs is a shastra because there is a shastra.

Then we say, oh, you don't agree it's a shastra? Rebecca, we've got a few minutes. Let's go.

[Speaker 2]
ma druk na chiropay tenche de tenche yinpart Do we go up, which means we believe it, or do we go down, which means it's sarcastic? Well, it's sarcastic because we don't believe them.

[Speaker 1]
No, we are going up.

[Speaker 2]
That's what I meant.

[Speaker 1]
chiropay tenche de tenche yinpart Tenche yinpart? Why? chiropay druk ta druk ta yinpay chir ma druk na If you say it's not a shastra, the evaluation of pigs or whatever, we say, oh, chiropay tenche is too a tenche.

It's too a classical. Yeah, non-Buddhist classical commentaries are classical commentaries. Classical commentaries.

No. Because non-Buddhist belief systems are belief systems. If you studied Advanced Level 3 last week, there's Ben's book.

This is his book. Siddhanta. Belief system.

Is a non-Buddhist belief system a belief system?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, you are.

[Speaker 1]
Is it a correct belief system according to Buddhists? No. But it's a belief system.

Since a non-Buddhist belief system is still a belief system, then a non-Buddhist commentary is still a commentary. Would anybody agree, would everybody agree that a non-Buddhist belief system is a belief system?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Or non-Buddhist commentary is a commentary. What's wrong with that? No.

He says no. Of course, Kramer was saying no. Okay.

We got time. We got one more line here. Down, right?

Up.

[Speaker 2]
DER THAL?

[Speaker 1]
By the way, it's the agreed THAL. DER THAL? DER THAL?

Of course it is.

[Speaker 2]
DER THAL? PHYIR ROD PA'I GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG YIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
A non-Buddhist belief system is too a belief system because a belief system which is MA BA, which is, how do you say, a belief system which is enunciated or which is declared by a non-Buddhist is still a belief system. Because a person who professes a belief system outside of Buddhism is still a professor of a belief system. Therefore, a non-Buddhist belief system is still a belief system.

Therefore, a book describing a non-Buddhist belief system is still a commentary, classical commentary. Cool? We got time to finish this whole debate.

Here we go. Go fast, go fast.

[Speaker 2]
DER THAL GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG LA CI'I NANG GIS GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG NYIS SU BYAS RIG PA'I PHYIR Yeah, the NJ here is important and it's got a prenasal.

[Speaker 1]
That's why I spent 100 years of my life teaching you guys prenasal. Yeah, without the prenasal it means to do. With the prenasal it means to divide.

Completely different verbs. And if you don't know how to make a prenasal, and you're like short A, long A Sanskrit person, which is every scholar in the world, drives me nuts. That's why I don't read their website.

DER THAL GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG LA CI'I NANG GIS GRUB THA MA BA'I GANG ZAG NYIS SU BYAS RIG PA'I PHYIR A person who MA'A's a GRUB THA... Who professes a belief system. Yeah, anybody who professes a belief system can be NJES PA, can be divided into CI'I GRUB THA MA BA'I and NANG GIS GRUB THA MA BA'I.

[Speaker 2]
Buddhist and non-Buddhist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, non-Buddhist and Buddhist. People who profess a belief system can be either Buddhist or non-Buddhist. That's fine.

Therefore, there can be Buddhist and non-Buddhist belief systems. Therefore, there can be Buddhist and non-Buddhist classical karmaputra. Okay, got it?

Now, he's not done with it yet. We'll go one more minute. DER THAL GRUB THA LA CI'I NANG GIS GRUB THA NYIS ZUN BYAS RIG PA'I PHYIR Yeah, GRUB THA NYIS ZUN ZUN BYAS RIG PA'I PHYIR ZUN BYAS Of course you can divide all Siddhantas or all belief systems into CI'I and NANG.

[Speaker 2]
Non-Buddhist and Buddhist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, non-Buddhist and Buddhist. It's appropriate. RIG here, RIG means...

Of course you can divide belief systems into Buddhist and non-Buddhist belief systems. Therefore, there must be Buddhist and non-Buddhist classical commentary. Therefore, your definition of a classical commentary is defective.

Why? He said it should be a commentary on God. God.

On the word of a Buddha. We object to that. He says the definition of a classical commentary includes it should comment on the word of the Buddha.

We said, uh-uh. He says, well, why not? Don't all classical commentaries comment on the word of the Buddha?

We said, no. What kind of classical commentary doesn't comment on the word of the Buddha? We say...

Non-Buddhist. Or jewels. Yeah, non-Buddhist.

Because there's non-Buddhist and Buddhist... There's non-Buddhist and Buddhist belief systems. Therefore, there should be Buddhist and non-Buddhist classical commentaries.

Therefore, to put in your definition of a classical commentary, it must be a commentary to the speech of a Buddha, is defective. We don't want that definition. We reject that definition.

Got it? So is it necessarily the case that the other two parts are correct? Ah, no, that's a great question.

We had three parts to the proposed definition. What were they? The first one is a suffering living being who...

Yeah, it should have been written by a non-Buddhist. It should comment on the Buddha. And what was the third one?

Pure speech. I think we're going to attack the third one sooner or later. I'm not sure.

But Tim's question was, if we attack the second element and disprove it, does that automatically make the other two elements correct? And the answer is no. I mean, we might attack those next.

Yeah, okay. I'm going to give you the next one for free, okay? Nice.

DER LA GONG RE Then somebody comes and says, CHE DOG PA'I STON PA STON PA YIN PAR THA'O CHE DOG PA'I STON PA... Sorry. CHE DOG PA'I STON PA STON PA YIN PAR THA'O BYAS CHER CHE DOG PA'I STON PA STON PA YIN PAR AYE CHER I think that non-Buddhist teachers must be teachers because non-Buddhist classical commentaries are classical commentaries.

He's sarcastic to us. Oh, I guess non-Buddhist teachers are teachers, because non-Buddhist classical commentaries are classical commentary. And we say, mucked up, which means Tim, it doesn't necessarily follow.

It doesn't follow. Just because non-Buddhist commentaries are still commentaries, doesn't mean that non-Buddhist teachers are still teachers. Okay?

And we'll get there. Yeah, by the way, part of the definition in Buddhism as a teacher of a teacher is that they teach something which is correct or unmistaken. Okay, cool.

But apparently that doesn't apply to commentaries.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe those are Mawas, not Dombas.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Mawa means professor. Stopped here. What's the date?

Keshava, thank you so much. Yeah, you're welcome. Thanks for coming out on a vacation for us for this one.

I'm still going to go buy a Christmas tree today if my wife stops the morning. Oh, good. Yeah, we're trying to do the same, actually.

We found a little place down the street. But they didn't have trees in Portugal. They don't.

They only have Christmas trees. They import them. They fly them over from the United States.

Thank you very much. And now we have 15 minutes, or we can do 10, 15 minutes with Tim discussing with the world interesting real-life applications and then some updates from Peach Tree World News, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, so Tim's going to lead a conversation.

Was there anything in today's class that you could use in your real life? And grandpa's just going to relax. Relax.

Thanks, Keshava. I'm going to uncaption myself. All right.

No, not. Okay. We can remove spotlight.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, there goes Tim. All right, I'm going to start with everyone else online first, while I'm thinking furiously right how this might apply. Any ideas from the from everyone online?

I think we're still working it out, Tim.

[Speaker 2]
But I was just, in my working it out, I was sort of heartened that our author was willing to accept the term commentary so broadly to say there are a lot of books out there and we're going to talk about what are the important things for us to study and how to spend our time.

[Speaker 1]
It seems like this is a detailed destruction of what's a detailed instruction or a destruction of how not to spend our time and an instruction on how to spend our time and it's worth spending our time thinking about how to spend our time.

[Speaker 2]
Someone said to me recently, I was arguing about advertising for a local business, a yoga studio, and I didn't want to think about it. I don't like advertising. I don't like doing it.

And I don't have time.

[Speaker 1]
I have to run my yoga studio. And he said, yeah, yeah, I get it. You don't have time to sharpen your axe.

You have to cut this tree down. And so I think we're setting aside time to think about how to use our time. And it's tempting to say I don't have time to think about how to use my time.

I have to study. I'm just going to grind it out. I'm going to study the books.

I'm going to learn now. But we're setting aside time to think about how we're going to spend our time. It seems meta or abstract or something, but our author seems to say it is worth setting aside some time, a lot of time, to be very detailed about what should we study, what's worth our precious time together.

We only have a few hours a week together. And so are we studying books that are worth our time? Are we using our time wisely?

Ben, I think I might add into that is then what's, because you made the comment of like, well, what if you spend too much time studying, right, and not enough time practicing? What do you do outside of your studies? I guess where I started about is what do I do outside of, you know, after spending an hour in this class, how do I, what do I do afterwards?

Eat cinnamon rolls. And eat cinnamon rolls, but how do I eat the cinnamon rolls? And we need classical commentary on eating cinnamon rolls in a way that takes care of other people, right?

My guess is that we will find in the sort of book that is worth our time to study that it will strongly encourage us to do something other than sit there and study, in addition to sitting there and study.

[Speaker 2]
We may find that that's one of the qualifications of a good book is that it'll make sure that we do the kind of work you're suggesting, Tim.

[Speaker 1]
What were your four qualities of a book that's worth our time? That was in your book, Ben. What are they?

Just, just quick, you know, easily. Well, are we, are we talking about the four marks? Are we talking about the four seals?

Are we talking about, yes. Four seals, yeah. I froze on purpose.

I know this trick, Ben, where you shouldn't cover the fact that all comeabouts are ever-changing. It should, oh, I'm not the frozen one. Everyone else is moving, right?

Just pretend you're frozen.

[Speaker 2]
He did it.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. You gotta watch this, see if he blinks. Did I get out one of them?

No, you didn't, no. Start over. Start over, please.

The book should cover four topics. One, it should cover the fact that all things which come about due to causes are ever-changing. Two, it should cover the fact that all things which are stained by our negative deeds and emotions are painful.

Three, it should cover the fact that things are not themselves. And four, it should cover the fact that there is a state of peace beyond these sorts of sufferings. Cool, okay, good.

What other ideas do we have in here? There are a couple on, there are a couple in the chat that I liked. Go for it.

Marjorie said, well, perhaps a non-Buddhist teaching is actually coming from a Buddha. Can you say more about that, Marjorie?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I was thinking if everybody, if we're trying to imagine others as Buddhas, no matter what that they're talking about, might appear not to be a Buddhist teaching, but depending on the level of understanding, it very well could be a Buddhist teaching. Maybe it's like the debate format of the book where they tell you the wrong things and make you think.

[Speaker 1]
Did you have something you wanted to add?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, I was just going to say nothing about the tree.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know if you guys could hear that, but Rebecca said the thing about the tree where you can, you could hear, I mean, you could hear non-Buddhist classical commentaries in the tree too, right?

[Speaker 2]
No, I was saying, well, my point is if you can get a Dharma teaching from a tree, why can't you get a Dharma teaching from a non-Buddhist commentary?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, she said if you can get a Dharma teaching from a tree, maybe you can get a Dharma teaching from a non-Buddhist commentary.

[Speaker 2]
But I just think you have to maybe give your discernment also, because you can totally go off the deep end, like with the self-help books or something like that. I like that too. Because sometimes you can twist it, so that you're trying to twist the Dharma that's there into the self-help thing.

You've got to keep your eye around, you know what I mean? But I think it could be a way that the Dharma could be taught in a certain way, definitely to a certain degree.

[Speaker 1]
You still have to use common sense. Yeah. When you decide that a murder mystery is the speech of the Buddha, it doesn't mean you should murder people.

[Speaker 2]
There's also a vow that says once you take refuge, that every scripture that you read, you should do that.

[Speaker 1]
So how do you determine? I think it's a good question. How do we determine what's a Buddhist teaching and not?

And if I'm hearing something from someone is, are you a Buddha right now teaching me something? In that way. So the suspicion that might come from that.

Yes. Cool. We're over time.

Let's flip over to the... Yeah. By the way, it's advanced Buddhism, diamond way, to see Buddha's speech in almost anywhere.

But as long as it's not telling you to do something bad, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, as long as you follow the Dharma. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Good. We're going over to...

Who's on for Peachtree today? Hey, we're here. It's Daniel.

And our first guest. Hey, thank you guys for class. Pretty awesome.

Thank you again for giving us your time, even on your vacation. Yeah, my wife agreed. Awesome.

So welcome to our 15 minute segment for the Peachtree World News. We have two exciting segments to bring you today. Our first segment is going to be a continuation of our Who Are the Mixed Nuts series.

So our victim for today is Mr. Seiji Arao. Are you around Mr. Arao? Hey, Daniel.

Yes, I'm here. Hey, good. Nice, brother.

Thank you for joining us. Good morning. How are you?

Thank you. Nice. You look good.

I'm doing good. I'm doing good. How was your Thanksgiving?

Oh, awesome. It was a very, very nice, I don't know, chill day. How about you?

It was great. Actually, we got together. You were there.

All of us were there at the Peachtree Cafe. So that was very nice. It was nice seeing you.

And so if people don't know about Seiji, he's got a very beautiful partner and a really handsome little boy. So we all got to hang out at the Peachtree with Noor and my tree, which was very nice. And a couple of other just, you know, facts about Seiji is that he is from Guadalajara, Mexico.

And this handsome Japanese man speaks perfect Spanish and, in fact, is a real Mexican in case you didn't know that. And so I guess we'll just start off by asking you a few things that maybe folks don't already know about you. So obviously, you are a mixed nuts translator.

That's why we have you on the show. But just for other people to know, what else do you do for the Worldview Network? I know it's a lot, so I just want everyone to rejoice in all your work.

Well, I have the pleasure to be the VP for DCI, the Diamond Career Institute, and also for the Sedona College. I think most of the people here would know, but DCI teaches all this content in a universal way. And the Sedona College trains people how to teach the DCI principles.

Awesome. So most of the time, you're busy helping run those two organizations? Yeah, between DCI, ACM, and Diamond Cutter Classics.

Cool. And just for inquiring minds, how long have you been around? How long have you been part of the Worldview?

And when did you first meet Geshe-la? I met Geshe-la in 2010 in Guadalajara. At that time, I was helping my teacher there for the retreats, et cetera, et cetera.

Then at the end of 2016, beginning of 2017, I started working at the college, and then shortly after DCI, and shortly after I was a translator. Nice. Cool.

And so I'm just curious. I'd love to hear maybe a personal story on how you first came about working for DCI at SCIM. You were studying with Geshe-la.

You were just showing up to classes, serving, and then suddenly you're the VP for DCI and SCIM. I'm just, you know, fill in, give a story. What was your interview like for DCI and SCIM, or what was your first talk with Geshe-la about this subject like?

Well, in 2010, I learned about the four steps, and then I took my time, to be honest, to see if they worked. And then I used it to be able to go to Australia to do my master's. Then I realized that I wanted to come back to work for Geshe-la.

So in 2015, in a retreat in Guadalajara, I asked him for a walk and talk. At that time, I was fully convinced that I needed to do something for the world. And he told me, oh, you know what?

We're going to start a college in Sedona in 2017. You should connect with Scott and Norit, who were the VPs at the time. And that's how I started working in 2017.

Then in 2020, when COVID started, I was promoted to be a VP because they retired. Right. Nice.

That's awesome. Well, I know Geshe-la is always speaking about how much you're helping him. So it's amazing that you have the capacity to do what you do for Geshe-la and also to translate for the Mixed Nuts.

And so in terms of the Mixed Nuts work that you do, let's just pretend somebody's tuning in for the first time. What textbooks have you translated so far? And what are you working on these days?

Well, we like to say that we translate, but the one who really translates is Geshe Michael. But anyway, so the first book is a beautiful, beautiful book that you might know for ACI Course 14, which is a class of 11-session class on the Crown of Knives. And then right now, we're doing something very cool that we're going through the root text of the Bodhisattva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life.

And at some point, which is super exciting, Geshe Michael said that he would write his own personal commentary in Tibetan. So he'll write that, then we'll somehow translate it to English. So I'm excited for that.

Not sure when that will start, but I'm excited. That's awesome. Awesome.

So the Crown of Knives is coming, you said, from one of the, I guess, Course 14. And then the textbooks that you're translating with Geshe-la now is also, I think, what, three of the courses as well? Yeah.

Yep. Okay, awesome. So we're getting a deeper dive into some of the older subjects Geshe-la has been teaching.

Yeah. Actually, there's a few books in our translation group that are like that. What I like is that Geshe Michael had a lot more time to check different versions, and he went for, he didn't hold back, and he went for super, but I really like, for example, the commentary on the Crown of Knives by my author, because he went into much deeper detail.

And on top of that, we have Geshe Michael giving his own commentary. He loves to do detours, and I love when he does that. So I think it's going deeper, with more detail on these topics.

Awesome. Cool. So where's the baby right now?

He's awfully quiet back there. The baby, I think, is with his mom doing something, probably having breakfast. Nice.

Awesome. Well, thank you, Seiji, so much for joining us. It's really nice to get a more intimate look into who is Seiji, the Mixed Nuts translator.

Thank you for all your hard work, and I'm glad we didn't have to wake up too early, right? Yeah, yeah. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Seiji. We'll see you soon.

All right. See you. Awesome.

So our next segment is, we have another Mixed Nuts translator with us, Mr. Ben Kramer. Mr. Eno, are you there? Hi.

I like your new glasses, Daniel. Yes. Very handsome, sophisticated, intelligent.

I can read.

[Speaker 2]
That's often the mark of intelligent people.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Nice. All right.

So today, Ben, we're not holding you up for the Mixed Nuts who's who, since we already had you for that. But we want to talk about, actually, your book, right? The Diamond Cutter Classics is working to get your first book that you and Geshe-la translated out to the masses.

So I just wanted to ask you to, you know, again, I know some of this is quite repetitive, but it's really good, I think, for us to keep repeating it because it takes multiple times hearing stuff before it sinks in for me. But so it's nice, I think, for us to just kind of pretend that we might have a new viewer on the show and tell them a little bit about your book, you know, like, say something about it. Why do you think it's a good idea that people go get a copy of it?

Well, my book, which I think is available... Oh, by the way, sorry, sorry. If Geshe-la is there and if Geshe-la wants to chime in or join us, please do.

I just wanted to put that there. But go ahead, Ben. My book, which I believe is available for pre-sale now, which is very exciting.

We were given choices. Originally, Geshe Michael wrote to the few translators who started. Originally, there were eight of us.

And he said, what topic do you want? And I think everyone thought that I was either going to choose middle way or logic, because those are two subjects that I'm fascinated by. But I asked specifically for this topic, because I wanted a book like this.

When I was studying, there's this special topic in commentaries, in classical commentaries, in the Living Lineage of Wisdom, which talks about different points of view in understanding different traditional ideas that have happened in history, but different ideas that happen in our brains as we're seeking to understand reality. So it's like a catalog of all the ways that you might see your world, and some options to... Oh, wow, I accidentally put a thumbs down.

Right. So all of the negative ways that you could think about your world, so that you can come to a higher understanding of reality. And to scrutinize your thinking with a a manual, it's like a user's guide to the human mind, trying to learn how to think about their world, trying to come up with a system of understanding for themselves, and for sharing with other people that will help them to move most quickly in their journey to be of the greatest service to the greatest number of people.

And what version of viewing the world will allow that completely, or partially, or not at all? What are the pitfalls of different styles of thinking? And what are the advantages of different styles of thinking?

And then where am I at? Right? How many of these ideas sound good to me?

And how many of them don't sound good to me yet? It's an incredible tool that I wish I had had at an earlier point in my studies.

[Speaker 2]
So I was really excited to be a... I don't know if this word translates well, but we have this word doula in English, right?

[Speaker 1]
Like a midwife or something who helps bring a baby into the world. As Seiji said, Geshe Michael's the translator. And he kindly lets the mixed nuts call themselves translators.

But I think we're more like the midwife who helps to bring the book into the world, who helps caretake this translation along the way to help make sure the custodian that helps bring it into the world from Geshe Michael's beautiful translations. That's awesome. And so basically you're recommending it in a nutshell because it gives you a pathway on how to map out different ideas, where they get you, where they might not get you, and then how to eventually move your way to the highest.

And I love that process. I love scrutinizing my thinking. And this is a good book for scrutinizing your thinking, for challenging yourself, as so many of these books do.

A nice template, a nice user's guide for someone who wants to learn about the difference between what they're thinking today and something higher they could be thinking tomorrow. And so this is Ben Kramer's translation with Geshe Michael Roach. So I'm just curious, this book's going to follow you for the rest of your life, right?

So people are going to be asking you questions about it. Any ideas on how you might want to share this in the future with people? I'm just curious.

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm sure you probably have some creative ideas. I can't say that I have the clearest understanding. I certainly don't understand it as well as my teacher.

My teacher very kindly put my name before his in the book. It's not true. His name should certainly go before mine.

But I will say that I attempted to translate every word. I sat through the classes for every word. And I think it's entirely appropriate and important that the Mixed Nuts go on to teach these texts.

I'm not the best person necessarily to teach any of these texts. But I have been given a gift by my teacher of present for every word of it. And I looked at every single word, every single syllable of that book and tried to translate it.

And then I saw what my teacher did instead. And this was a very valuable lesson for me.

[Speaker 2]
And so I would say that each of the Mixed Nuts is uniquely positioned to share the material that they've been shared. And it will be imperfect.

[Speaker 1]
But of course, I will do my best to teach my best understanding of the book. And I look forward to doing that. I look forward to that.

And that is what will keep these books alive. They're hard to read. All of these books are hard to read.

We need teachers. And it would be nice if Geshe Michael could just teach it over and over again. But I don't know that he will teach this again.

At some point, you'll be stuck with me.

[Speaker 2]
But we'll do our best. And I will warn you up front that I am an imperfect vessel. But I'll do my best to handle on my understanding.

I look forward to it. It's a great joy to share with friends.

[Speaker 1]
You're very well suited for the job, Ben. So it's really nice to see you, brother. Good to have you on the show.

Thank you for all your hard work. And we are going to go ahead and send it over to Mr. Word, who is happily teaching the Tibetan alphabet and getting everyone to pronounce things correctly. You there, Word?

Yay, there's Word. I can't see you. Can I hear you?

Can you hear me? That's a little funny. Hello?

I can hear you. Okay.