Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 24

[Speaker 2]
Hey, Ward, are you there? You're still muted. No, I unmuted.

[Speaker 3]
It's unmuted on this.

[Speaker 1]
That's a lag. Yes, I'm here. And no, you are not muted.

Hi. So you didn't hear the stuff I said about you before, right? No, but you can compliment me later if you want.

All right, good. Here's our progress report on Ward Smith. We did six folio phases, which was very respectable for Tsongkhapa.

The whole Autocom is 44 folios. We have 32 folios to go. We will finish in December of 2024, about two years from today.

OK. The final book will be about 600 pages, 575 pages, which makes it substantially bigger than the Diamond Cutter book. And in this first class, Ward, I wanted to go back to this original section so we get the context.

Yeshula, did you get my emails today? No. Oh.

I just worked on the text. Oh, you cut out the rick tear. I cut out the rick tear, and I worked on the text a little bit.

God bless. OK. OK.

OK. I'll check it. By the way, we have to cut out the whole thing.

We input the whole Sakya Classics, and that's just one book. It's like 20 volumes or something. OK?

So that's a project for later. Please read this line quickly. What's it mean?

[Speaker 2]
Those seeds, those potentials in the mind, they are one and the same. They are not separate from one another. OK.

OK. Yeah, they are.

[Speaker 1]
But it's saying gangyang min, so they're. It's a neither nor.

[Speaker 2]
It's a neither.

[Speaker 1]
They are neither separate, nor are they one and the same in some sense, in a single substance. Good. And then for you guys, just the normal way to think of it is kunshi, is the refrigerator.

So are the seeds part of the refrigerator, or are the seeds not part of the refrigerator? And Tsongkapa says neither. All right, good luck.

When you have seeds in the kunshi, in the refrigerator, in your mind, karmic seeds, are they equivalent to the refrigerator, or are they different from the refrigerator? And he says gangyang min, neither one. OK.

And it gets worse. All right, here we go. I'm going to put something here, OK?

And I want you guys to learn it. And it's a pet peeve of mine, and apparently it's a pet peeve of Tsongkapa. The chick.

Sorry. Now, I'll give you $1,000 if you translate this the way I like to translate it. I'll give you $1,000.

I can see your devious brain is really spinning.

[Speaker 2]
The place where the seeds rest, and the seeds are one. Made of the same stuff. Whoa.

[Speaker 1]
OK. And I've never seen anyone come close to translating it right anywhere. Tse ching is an extremely important idiom that does not mean one substance.

It means to be one is to be the other. OK. It means to be one is to be the other.

OK. The word is one substance. But what it means is, and the classic example word is, yeah, you can say, no, let's say.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
To be a changing thing is to be an impermanent thing.

[Speaker 1]
No. Oh, yeah. To be a produced thing.

To be a thing produced by.

[Speaker 2]
The convening of causes and conditions.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by causes and conditions. Is to be a changing thing. So you have to understand this idiom, tse ching, as meaning to be one is to be the other.

Are they the same? Changing and produced. Changing and impermanent, for example.

Changing and produced. Are they the same thing?

[Speaker 2]
They're not the same in the sense of being different words. Therefore, they can be compared.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they refer to the same objects, but they're not the same thing. Produced means a product of causes and conditions. Changing means, kye chik gi kye chik gi, kye jik chepay che.

He gave it to me yesterday. By the way, I hereby pronounce that because of Tim's extreme interest and hard work in Tibetan, I'm willing to take you on as a translator. And I even chose a text for you, which is Kedrup Denpa Dargay, born in 1493, died 1568.

He wrote a text which we studied for 12 years in the monastery, which is called The Dialectical Analysis of the Perfection of Wisdom. And we spent 12 years on it. And it's one book per chapter of the Abhisama Alankara.

It's one book per chapter of Maitreya's greatest book. And everything's in it. It's going to be seven books.

[Speaker 3]
It's going to be seven English books.

[Speaker 1]
He'll be 34 by the time he finishes. OK. All right.

But we'll start next term, OK? Because I got to get it ready for you. And that's a rare thing.

As you guys know, I've only done that once or twice. All right. But he has worked so hard to learn Tibetan that I really have to.

I can't deny him. OK.

[Speaker 3]
Who's going to manage the hotels?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
This is a full-time job.

[Speaker 1]
When he starts his text, we're going to stop everyone's salary. OK, OK, OK. All right.

Here we go. Now, a word in two successive verses after that. First, he starts out with a verse and says, the seeds are not the refrigerator, and they're not not the refrigerator.

OK? To be the refrigerator is not to be the seeds. And to be the seeds is not to be the refrigerator.

But to be the seeds has to be to be the refrigerator. And to be the refrigerator has to be to be the seeds. OK, that's what he says.

Then he discusses the arguments for and against in two more verses. OK? Why can the seeds not be the refrigerator?

We are halfway through those lines. Why is it impossible for your karmic seeds to be the store chest room where they are kept?

[Speaker 3]
OK?

[Speaker 1]
Why is it impossible? First, he's going to say why it cannot be. And then he's going to say it's true.

OK? So we're halfway through where he's explaining why it cannot be. And by the way, the first thing he said in words last class was, seeds don't, seeds are not.

Thinking. They can't think. They cannot be the mind.

They're not aware. They're a potential. They're a future potential.

They are not a mental state. They cannot be aware of the world. Seeds are just dumb, quiet energies.

So that's my first argument against saying that the seeds are the refrigerator. The refrigerator is your mind. He says seeds cannot be the refrigerator because seeds don't think.

OK, got it? He's finished that argument. Now he's got a second argument.

For whom? For himself. OK, here we go.

If the seeds were the refrigerator, go, word. YANG SBYOR BA NGE'I SABAN NAM CHUL WA NI THUN GYUR TE SBYOR BA NGE'I SABAN NAM ZAD CIG DU KHAS LEN RGYUD PA'I PHYIR RO Good. Moreover, my second objection to saying what, word?

[Speaker 2]
SABAN THAN DAM ZAD CIG That the seeds and the refrigerator are a single substance.

[Speaker 1]
I hate that way of saying it. To be the seeds is to be the refrigerator, OK? Please.

But isn't he arguing that, I said it like that on purpose, because isn't he arguing against the fact that it is, because aren't people misinterpreting Zadig to mean a single substance? Exactly. Yeah, as all Western scholars do, all.

Right, so that's what Tsongkhapa was actually arguing against. Well, in a way, but not only, OK? All right, by the way, CHUL WA here was misspelled by everybody.

So if you're trying to translate this goddamn book, the most important word was misspelled by everybody. It's not so, it's CHUL WA, which is extremely rare. What does CHUL WA mean, word?

Jumbled, mixed up. Good, I'm so glad I didn't offer you any money. CHUL WA means jumbled together, jumbled and mixed up.

What? The Sabans for the Doa Ngur.

[Speaker 2]
Sabans for the five realms.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the five realms, which are? Start from the bottom. Hell realm.

Hell realms. And then there's an argument, but either animal or hungry ghost is next. Hungry ghost, animals.

And then human. Humans. And then jealous pleasure beings.

Nice, good, good, good.

[Speaker 2]
OK. Pleasure, pleasure.

[Speaker 1]
If to be the seed were to be the mind, and if to be the mind were to be the seed, then all the five rebirths would be mixed up. When you die and go to a hell realm, you'd be a... What's the guy's name?

Angelo, Angelo's husband. You would be Brad Pitt, OK? You got seeds in your mind to go to the hell realm.

And if the seeds were the mind, then you'd just end up as Brad Pitt, which is kind of a hell realm, but that's different. OK. Why?

Because you have claimed that those sovereigns are dze chig. You've accepted the fact that the seeds for those five realms are to be one is to be the other.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You said the karmic seeds were the mind, therefore a seed that's supposed to take you to a hell realm could take you to a deva realm. I'll say it again.

You said to be the seeds was to be the mind. Therefore, anytime you take a rebirth, you could go anywhere because all the seeds aren't the same. They're all the mind.

OK, now why is that? OK, why is it true that if all the seeds are... If to be the seeds is to be the mind, why is it true that the realms would get mixed up?

Why is it true that rebirths would get mixed up? Here we go. Please.

Stop there. I tried to cut it for you. OK.

Yeah, read this first part. See if you can stretch that out. Shana, why are you saying that?

[Speaker 2]
How is that the case, Sri Sankappa?

[Speaker 1]
Why do you say all the rebirths would get mixed up? Because Tenshik, in the case of one particular Kunshi, the seeds for those five realms that exist there would have to exist or happen simultaneously at the same time. Yeah, and get the implication here.

He's saying all human minds have seeds for all five realms. Human minds at all times have the seeds for countless rebirths in all five realms already. OK, you already have countless seeds in your mind for all five realms.

Good. And those exist in the mind dunyam. At the same time, or equally.

OK, at any given moment in every human's mind, the seeds to be reborn in one of the five realms, countless seeds are already there. Therefore, if the seeds were the mind, since the mind is in the moment, the seeds would all be in the moment. OK, here we go.

Deidakang. Deidakang tende kunshi namshi kyechik ma kyechik thang tsechik bar kye len gyi shing kyechik thela. Let's cut this.

Do this much. OK, isn't that the end, though? You want to cut it there?

Yeah, I do want to cut it there, just to get you through the sentence. Later, you can glue it back together. OK, that sounds good.

[Speaker 2]
So Deidakang, those seeds that we're talking about, I think this is also in this case, in that storehouse of a kunshi, moment to moment.

[Speaker 1]
No, sorry, in a single moment. Kyechik ma, breathe, kyechik ma. Yeah, OK.

In a single moment, you would have to accept that they're the same.

[Speaker 2]
To be one is to be the other.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Oh, God bless you for not saying one substance. Yeah, in any given moment, to be the mind is to be all five seeds.

Now we have a problem. OK, good. OK, here we go.

And here's another problem. Just to be this much, Ari, give it to you. I won't read it.

OK, kyechik de la cha she may, what's that mean? That means there would be no parts to a moment, or something like that. He's just saying, in general, by definition, the shortest amount of time in the universe has no sub-pieces.

Oh, you can't divide a moment anymore? No, you can't divide a moment. 64th of fingers, now, 1 64th is indivisible.

There's no front side, no back side. It's the shortest amount of time there is. If you could divide it, it wouldn't be the shortest amount of time.

If it had any duration, it wouldn't be the shortest amount of time. OK, OK, good. So since instance cannot have parts, therefore, de sab na po, what's the po?

All five of them. Yeah, all five of those seeds, for all five kinds of rebirth, they wouldn't have cha she either, because they are ze. Ze chik.

Yeah, they would all be one. They wouldn't have parts. It couldn't happen.

The five different kinds of seeds, since they are the same as the mind, since to be the mind is to be the five different seeds. And since those seeds are indivisible, because they occur in an instant, then all the rebirths would be mixed up. OK, got it?

You OK? Christina Casick has said she'll figure it out at home. OK, listen, mind, present moment mind, how long is it?

How long does it stay? A single moment, kachik machik. One sixty-fifth of a finger's length, OK?

And that moment of time traditionally is considered indivisible.

[Speaker 2]
That's odd.

[Speaker 1]
And the mind in any given moment is therefore indivisible. You can't say stream of mind in the present moment. It's only a single moment in length, in duration, OK?

And since you can't divide it, and since the mind is equal to the seeds, then all five seeds have to be in that present moment. And then they're all mixed up. They can't be divided because it's indivisible.

[Speaker 3]
Good point.

[Speaker 1]
Wow. If Ben Kramer says good point, then Tsongkhapa, you're clear. OK.

We didn't finish the paragraph. I was just kind of hoping it wasn't there. Mm-hmm.

OK. DE'I TZE CHEN LA SHEN MEPA, CHIK TU GYUR TE. All of the moments would become one.

All the seeds would become one. Because what? Because the awareness of those moments itself wouldn't have part.

Yeah. Yeah. All of the rebirths would become one because to be the seeds is to be the mind.

And the mind itself has a nature of lasting for it. Sorry. The mind itself has a nature in a single moment of being indivisible.

Therefore, the seeds would be indivisible because to be the seeds is to be the mind. And therefore, when you were supposed to have a rebirth in the house, you could be Brad Pitt on a good day.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. By the way, this is the easy part. I'm just telling you.

Hopefully, we can stall tonight and put it off. Let's go as far fast as we can. That's better.

BEN NA BU DE MTSE'I PHYA ZHES SMRAS PA GCIG LTUNG RGYUR TE ZHES PA PHYA ZHES SNYID CIG GYI RANG BZHIN YIN PAS SPYIR RO Good. GCIG LTAR ZHES NA How's that word? BEN CIG LA RDOR SNGA'I SRAD PA Any given refrigerator, Okay, any given refrigerator has what?

Has seeds for all, all of those five seeds. Yeah, all five types of rebirth are present in any given mind. So they would have to be tu nyam with the mind.

They would have to be there at the same time the mind is present. Good. And since you have, you would have to agree, kun shing nam shing kye ching ma chig dang dzey chig par kye leng gu, they would have to be, to be the seeds, would have to be the state of mind, which we've all agreed only lasts for a second.

To be the seeds would be to be the mind. To be the seeds then, to be the five seeds, would be to be a single millisecond of mind. You already said that, you already said that.

Yeah, but wouldn't, like, couldn't you say to, yeah, to be the seeds would be the mind in any given moment of the kung qi, any given moment. Yeah, you could say that, but you'd have to say any single moment. Yeah, yeah, okay.

But any given moment is a single moment, right? By definition? Let's say millisecond.

I think it's gonna work better here. Maybe. In any given state of mind in the present lasts only a millisecond.

All five seeds. Since to be the mind is to be the seeds, they must all be present in that millisecond. Okay, khena goshe khe chig de la cha she meypay na.

And since that present moment, khe chig cha she meypay na, de la cha she mey means what? Since any given moment cannot be divided any more than that. Right, of the mind, then there should be no...

Here you can say substantial. There should be no substantial sections or divisions of the sub and non.

[Speaker 2]
Of the five, of all five of them seeds.

[Speaker 1]
And therefore, since there's no substantial division between the five seeds, chig du gyur. There's only one. Good, yeah.

Why? Because all the parts of the mind are one nature, okay? All the parts of the mind considered in a single moment are one, okay?

Therefore, if to be the mind, if to be the seeds is to be the mind, then since the mind has to be one thing in the present millisecond, then the seeds would all have to be the same in the present millisecond. Because to be the five seeds is to be the one state of mind, according to you. Let me finish.

Yeah, but why does it say chag she ni, chig? It just means the two, in any divisions of the mind are actually one, okay? Any parts of the mind considered in a single moment are unitary.

Good luck translating this. Okay, here's a part that everybody will like because you can understand it. Okay, so go ahead, Ward.

Can I read both sentences together because they go together? These two sentences? Yeah, I mean, they're translated.

Yeah, they're with a double comma after each one?

[Speaker 2]
No, I mean, they go together in a sense of logically.

[Speaker 1]
What is the function of a double comma, Ward?

[Speaker 2]
Break up a section or an argument or something.

[Speaker 1]
Major break in a section. Yeah, yeah, if you want to read them together.

[Speaker 2]
Whatever.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, please read. TEN TSUN NA, TEN CHO'I NAMEN GYI SABAN CHE, GZOG CHE MI DGE BA'I SHAG PA THEL? If you agree, go up.

If you disagree, go down. I disagree, so THEL. If you're being sarcastic, go down.

Yeah, THEL, yeah, down. SHAG PA THEL, SHAG PA THEL. Are you what the fuck telling me?

SHAG PA THEL. TEN CHO'I NAMEN GYI SABAN YINBYE'I PECHERO? Okay, translate and I'll relax.

I'm getting hot anyway, so. If you agree with that, are you telling me that the seeds that, bad seeds that you plant ripen into good seeds for a higher rebirth? What's GZOG mean here?

And it's shock, right? It's... GZOG, smear, plant.

Good, yeah. Are you telling me that a harmful action to another person could ever plant a seed which would ripen into?

[Speaker 2]
Body of an angel or a person.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, DENDRO as opposed to NGAN TSANG, we had it in Seiji's text.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I was summing it up, realms, higher realms.

[Speaker 1]
One of the higher realms. Are you telling me that a seed that was planted by a good deed could result in a birth in the lower realms? Okay, sorry.

Could a bad deed seed produce a rebirth in the higher realms? SHAG PA, is that what you're telling me? Why do you say that?

Then we say, DENDRO. Because those are the seeds that ripen into a lower rebirth. Yeah, bad deeds, MI DGE BA, hurting other people is what plants seeds to go to a lower rebirth.

But now, according to you, since they're all mixed together, then all your bad seeds could produce a pleasant result, which is the ultimate Buddhist injustice. Wrong thing to say. And now he's going to flip it, which is why Dr. Smith wanted to read them together. Go ahead. And furthermore, YANG NENG JOY NAMEN GYI SABEN TEN CHOK CHE GYE WEI SHAG PAR CHEH SHAG PAR CHEH NENG JOY NAMEN GYI SABEN YIN PYE CHEH RO Translate. And on top of that, would doing good things for people mean you plant seeds to go to a bad place?

Good. Are you telling me that? Because that's, because they would, because they put you into a higher realm.

Yeah, yeah, good, good. Okay, good. That's why the five seeds cannot, that's why it cannot be true that to be the seeds is to be the refrigerator.

Because then the bad part of the seeds would lead you to a good result.

[Speaker 2]
Because at any given moment, you have them all in your mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, keep going. Now, by the way, now he goes deeper.

Okay. Okay, good luck. It's like somebody should throw us a life thing.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. THEG LA LOD CHO'I KYI NJUG PA YANG PAS RIG PA LA MA PHE CHING DRA'I PHYI TZAM SHAR WA KHAR CIG DRO BA NGES SA BON NAM PEN SON YIN MI RGYUD TE NGUNG PO THANG TSUL KHREN NO NAM DU SEM NA Okay, and this is extremely difficult. Okay, well, let's just say that.

Okay, and he starts off by, with a sentence that we can understand. He says there are some, by the way, misspelled in the text, which makes it impossible. Okay, like you could spend a year on this and you'd never figure it out.

That's because he changed LA MA into LAM. Okay, he changed people who don't make efforts into the path of making efforts. The carver changed not making efforts into the path of making good efforts.

And that's what we have to deal with, with these carvings. And I got it because it didn't make sense. And you struggle and you struggle and you struggle.

And that's why it takes 20 years to be a real translator. Because it just, it has to be done. But you, you know, how do you know that?

You just have to figure it out. Okay. And it helps if you go look at another scan.

All right. Sometimes all the scans are wrong. Okay, so there are certain people who have not BEPA, not Tsundru.

Not worked hard, not efforted. Not worked hard in YANG ME RIG PA. In the great or vast teachings thought?

Yeah, vast thinking. No, sorry, RIGS PA. Oh, class type?

No. Logic. Yeah, there's people who didn't make efforts in Ben Kramer's text and Adam's text.

Exception. Okay. In the vast sphere of correct reasoning, they're thinking.

They didn't try hard to learn what it means to prove that the Japanese restaurant we should go to today. Okay, MA BESHE. And this RIGS PA means the capacity of their LOD DRO to enter into deep ideas.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Engage, we translated as before, right? Yeah. Okay, and LOD DRO means synonym for?

Intellect, shadow, mind, I don't know, like. Yeah, yeah. So the capacity of their mind to engage in the vast field of clear thinking, they didn't work hard.

They didn't study Dharmakirti, okay? And they got wrapped up in DA'I CI TZAM. General teachings, or I don't know, it could be Sanskrit too.

I don't know, here it means they got stuck in words. They got stuck in words, okay? In the general meaning of...

SHAR BA means to be able... SHAR BA means to think of in your mind. It's the literally, it's the meaning, it's the word for the sun coming up.

But in this sentence, it means they're just thinking about the general meaning of the word WHA. What word is crucial here that people are fucking up? Everybody.

Chick. You got to understand Americans. Zay chick?

No. Yeah, I'll take it. Zay, yeah.

He says, all you guys, I say zay chick, you start saying substance. It pisses me off. It pisses me off, okay?

Okay, DA'I CI TZAM SHABA. All you can do is you get stuck on the general meaning of substance, and I lose you. And I've taught it year after year after year, and I still lose you.

You still keep translating as they are the same substance. And Tsongkhapa's like, look, it doesn't mean that here. Don't get stuck in the word, okay?

KA'I CI DRO NGA'I ZLAB PA'I RNAM PHAN ZIN YIN MI DGOS TE. Some people say, okay, who are stuck on ZAY, what? If the seeds are of the same...

Substance. Substance, as the mind, they got stuck on the word substance, got it? And they keep coming to me and saying, oh, Tsongkhapa, DRO NGA'I ZLAB PA'I RNAM PHAN ZIN YIN MI DGOS.

What's it mean? That's, they can't be the same. They can't be.

What's a PHAN ZIN? PHAN ZIN is a mutual or... Yeah, it's almost interchangeable, okay?

Tsongkhapa, look, how can you say that the seeds for five different rebirths could ever be interchangeable? What are you talking about, okay? Why?

Why do you say that? Oh, NGOS PA DANG GZUGS GZHAN NYI MA'O.

[Speaker 2]
Because things and physical objects, we think they're the same.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's tough. Because they are different entities and they are different physical objects. Why?

Why? The seeds in the mind. So someone's complaining to Tsongkhapa, okay?

No, no, no. The seeds could never be interchangeable. They are different things and they are different physical entities.

We've got one big problem already. What? Yeah, they're not physical entities, okay?

What happened? Why would someone say that they were physical entities? Because you would have to, because kunshi is in consciousness, so if they're an object...

No, no, listen. This guy is getting hung up in words. He's taking words in a common way.

Oh, substance would mean a physical thing, right? Substance would mean a physical thing. But what about the tsongkhapa?

Physical thing. Sabin. Sabin, like a seed seed.

What is seed in Tibet? Seed in the mind. Oh, must be physical.

Why? Seeds are physical. Why do you think that?

Seeds are seeds. Seeds, you know, you make tomatoes and potatoes, you know? He's hung up on this, the original meaning of the words, okay?

They can't overlap. They're separate things, they're seeds. He's hung up on a seed as a round ball that can't bang into other brown balls because he learned the word seed from his mom with tomato seeds, okay?

Got it? All right. Okay, keep going.

Bichete. Chi sokthang zechekpe nubodhe sokki. Zey yin na ma yin.

Bichete. Okay, you want to go that way? Let's check it out.

Bichete. That means let's check it out. Okay?

You say they're physical things. They are different. You say they can't overlap with each other because they are different things and they are different physical things, right?

Okay, bichete. Let's check it out, bichete. Chi sokthang zechekpe nubodhe sokki.

Zey yin na ma yin. And then Tsongkhapa goes to the real meaning of chichedak because he wants to talk about it. Why?

Because if you really understand it, you can see emptiness directly within a month, okay? And Tsongkhapa drags the whole discussion over to chichedak, okay? It's beautiful.

It's his master stroke. Okay. Okay, let's check it out.

Chi sokthang zechekpe nubodhe. Let's take a thing which is zechek with sok.

[Speaker 2]
Let's take a thing that to be sok is to be the other thing we're talking about.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to be physical is to be the other thing, okay? Let's take something like that, okay? Is it physical or not?

Zech. Yes. Is it substantially physical or not?

If something, listen, if to be something is to be physical, does it have to be physical?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Now, does the reverse hold true? Is it true that... I'm sorry.

Is it true that if something's physical, it is to be a physical thing? Physicality.

[Speaker 3]
Are you saying yes, yeah?

[Speaker 1]
If something is physical, is it physicality? Oh, no. You just changed the word.

If something is physical, is it the physical? No. No.

Absolutely not. And if something is the physical, is it physical? Yes.

No, but it also wouldn't be zechek, so how is it relevant? Wait, wait, wait. To be...

Is it true that to be physical is to be a physical thing? To be the physical, is it true if I say to be the physical is to be a physical thing?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
That's no, that's no. Is it true that to be a physical thing is to be the physical? No, my in...

No, because the physical is a concept. The physical is a concept, okay? Physicality.

This cup is... This cup is characteristic of the quality of physicality, but the quality of physicality is not physical.

[Speaker 2]
So a Toyota is not a car.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, a Toyota is a car, but car-ness is not a Toyota.

[Speaker 2]
Toyota is not car-ness.

[Speaker 1]
Toyota is not car-ness. Only five.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, and that's what we're exploring here, Word.

[Speaker 1]
So keep it in mind, okay? Is physical... What's the relationship between physicality and something physical?

Is it true that to be a cup is to be physicality itself? The quality, okay? It is characteristic of the quality.

It displays the quality of the cup. It displays that quality, but to be the characteristic, is that to be the quality? No, to be characteristic of physicality is not to be physicality.

Is to be physicality be characteristic of physicality? No, because that's a concept, and this is a cup. Got it?

This is the discussion here, and it's a very deep... It's Chichendak. He's dragging it to Chichendak.

This is Chichendak. It is characteristic of the quality of being physical, but it's not the quality of being physical. Is it?

[Speaker 3]
It's not the same, no.

[Speaker 1]
So it's not physical, right?

[Speaker 2]
Not physicality itself.

[Speaker 1]
Now, I'm playing with you, but he's gonna play with you also, so let me prepare you. Is the cup physical?

[Speaker 3]
It has to be a physicality.

[Speaker 1]
In English, luckily, you have the, okay? Is the cup the physical?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
But is the cup physical?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay? So that's the difference here, okay? It's characteristic of physicality, but it is not physicality.

To be a cup is to be...

[Speaker 3]
Physical.

[Speaker 1]
Physical, but it's not true that to be a cup is to be the quality of physical, the quality of physical, okay? You have to say the cup is physical, but when you say physical that way, it's not physical with quotation marks. I'll say it again.

The cup is physical, but it's not physical. Okay? And we're gonna go there.

We're gonna go there. I'm not just being cute. I mean, I am cute.

I'll say it again. The cup is physical, but it's not physical, which means the quality of physicality. Physical referred to as a concept.

And that's chi, and this is chidang. And this is quality, and this is characteristic, and everyone translates it wrong. Everybody, ever, forever, okay?

Parts and set, you know? Okay? It's wrong.

It's totally wrong. We don't understand it. Okay.

It's amazing. Okay, here we go. Now Tsongkhapa asked a question, okay?

suktan tse chepay noppa de suk yid tse yen nam mayin Let's say that to be, let's say that if something is a certain expression of the physical, is it physical or not? You should answer me with a question. I'll say it again.

If something is an expression of physicality, is it physical or not? You should ask me a question.

[Speaker 2]
Is it a physical expression of physicality?

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Question mark. Did you have, on the word physical, did you have? Quotes of a...

I'll say it again. Is this an expression of physicality?

[Speaker 2]
Does it have quotation marks?

[Speaker 1]
Is this an expression of physicality?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, it is.

[Speaker 1]
No, I didn't get there yet. Is this an expression of physicality? Yes.

Is it, is this physical? You have to ask me a question. Okay, so when you say, is it physical?

Are you putting quotation marks on that physical or not? Because it's a big difference. It is physical, but it's not physical.

Got it?

[Speaker 3]
Can you put a physicalness?

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Qi, quality, you can almost always put a ness on it and you got it. Physicalness.

Is it physicalness? Is it physical? Ask me a question.

Yeah, ask me a question. Is it physicalness? Is this expression of physicalness, physicalness?

Is it physical? Yeah, good. Yeah, I love you.

So nice to have you here. You should move here. Talk to Rosa.

There's probably another townhouse back there. You can make it your summer home. Okay, good.

Here we go. So don't forget those points. Here we go.

Word, don't be mad at me that I'm taking time. It's necessary. Okay, here we go.

Read, read, read. DANG PO THAR NA GYUR GYI NDOD PA MIN SGRUB PAS GYUR NI TSUGS DANG, TSE GCIG PA'I NYOD PO THEG DRAG DANG, GYUR RO THA BU DANG YANG TSE GCIG PAR NDU LA TSUGS KYI TSE YIN NA THEG DRAG NA, JE SUM SBYOR BA MED THO Yeah, and he's listing. Now he's going to set and subset.

Now he's going to set and subset. Chi and Tse Drak. Chi and Tse Drak.

Chi as cars and Tse Drak as Toyotas, Fords. Okay, so if you say Suk is the category, what are some members? What are some classical members of the category?

Physical.

[Speaker 3]
Physical killer.

[Speaker 1]
Here they are here. DRAG CI RO, Heart Sutra, right? SUGS MED DRAG MED CI MED RO MED REG BYANG MED CI MED DOG Now he's talking about members and sets, okay?

Well, you want to talk about Suk? You want to talk about Suk as a category? Is that what you want to do?

Is that what you mean by Tse? You want to explore substance as Chi Tse Drak? Yeah, okay.

So you want to say to be the member is to be the set? Okay, yeah, okay. So let's take the set members.

We already had Suk. Visible things. And now curable things, smellable things, tasteable things, he could have added.

[Speaker 2]
A bunch of more adaptable.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay. Is that what you want to say with Tse Chik? Is it that Toyotas, Fords, and Chevrolets are Tse Chik with cars?

Not always, not both ways.

[Speaker 3]
Are they? Not both ways.

[Speaker 1]
Now translate Tse Chik the way I want to translate it. Is it true that to be a Toyota, to be a Chevrolet, to be a Ford is to be?

[Speaker 3]
It is to be a car. To be a car does not mean, so it doesn't work.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. It doesn't go both ways. It can go both ways when they are totally equivalent sets.

And that's going to be important here. Ngopo and mitapa. Functioning thing and a thing which must die are equal sets.

Anything which does something must die. Equal sets. Okay, but now we're talking sets and members.

Okay, Chi Tse Drak, in that sense. DANG PO LTAR NA GYUR KYI MIN GDUG PA MIN GDUG PAS TSE CHIK PAS NGOS PO DE GZUGS KYI MDZIN MA YIN NA GZUGS DANG TSE CHIK PAS NGOS PO Let's say, let's take something which is physical. GZUGS DANG TSE CHIK PAS NGOS PO Got it, word?

Let's take something which is physical. Is it physicality? No.

Okay, good. Does it? Is it physical?

Yeah, it's physical. Okay, and we're asking the other guy. Okay, let's take this cup.

Is it physicality? Is it the quality of physical? No, it's not.

Oh, but if you say it is, GZUGS KYI MDUG PA MIN GDUG PAS Then you couldn't have said above that they have to be separate. The five karmic seeds have to be separate, okay? Your own position is broken.

Okay, why? GZUGS DANG TSE CHIK PAS NGOS PO DE LTAR DANG PHYIR DU ROL PA DANG PHYIR DU DE YIN NA DE DAG LA BYAS SUB SBYOR BA MED DO Here you got to know BYAS SUB SBYOR, word. GEN DROG CHE DAG SEL BA I'm giving you the tools to read this section.

GEN DROG CHE DAG and SEL BA You've never seen the word SEL BA this way. What does SEL mean? Clear?

Yeah, it's clear. Like this, the clear line. Okay, but in logic, in set theory, it means member of a set.

It means member of a set. And if you don't know that, you can't build this. You'll never get this.

SEL BA, GEN DROG and CHE DAG are synonyms in set theory, in Buddhist set theory. What's GEN DROG means follows after. Toyotas, Fords, Chevrolets are GEN DROG of cars.

They are members. They follow the boss. That's why they're called GEN DROG, okay?

All right. It's time, Geshe-la, just so you know. Okay.

Anyway, what we're saying is, is this cup an example of physicality? Yeah. Is it physicality?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Does it belong to the set called physical?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Is physicality different from the set called physical?

[Speaker 2]
Physicality different from the set? No.

[Speaker 1]
Same. That's the debate here. We'll come back to it.

That's the debate here, okay? The set called physical and physicality itself, are they different? And by the way, this is not BS.

It sounds like BS, it's not BS. If you don't understand it, you say it's BS. It's very, very important to discuss why.

What's the punchline? Physicality and physical. One is a, physicality is a concept, it's an idea.

Cars, I'm sorry, Fords, Toyotas, Subarus, Crosstreks, it's a new car we're looking at. Sorry, nevermind. They are members of the set, right?

But on a deeper level, could they be concepts?

[Speaker 2]
Sure.

[Speaker 1]
Hmm, maybe the study of Chicheda allows you to give a different answer when somebody says cars as a theoretical set and Toyotas, Subarus, are they? No, they're real. They're the real thing.

They're the car you can touch. Am I right? They're not theoretical.

They are not just made up by your mind, right? And that's where we're going. That's where we're going.

Keep that in mind. That's where we're going. Physicality and cup.

Why is this not physicality? Well, physicality is a concept. This cup is a goddamn concept.

All right, got it. Yay, word.

[Speaker 3]
Good luck.

[Speaker 1]
Cheers. De wa dee, word. All right, thank you.

Hang in there. Read it over 10 times, okay? On different days.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thanks.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, it's extremely difficult and we'll speed up when we get through this section, okay? We're actually trying to learn the ideas instead of just jumping. Okay, all right, good night.

Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you, everybody.