Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 29

[Speaker 1]
I don't know if you're here, I'm just going to start talking, I don't know. In what sense are foundation consciousness and yet not foundation consciousness? That would take about three weeks to answer.

It's one phrase, we had it last class, it just brings the whole thing home, just trying to wrap this thing up. Oh, you wish, it's a couple more classes. I do wish.

[Speaker 2]
Well, everything is consciousness, right? And we just call it seeds when they project, wasn't it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I like that. Did you hear Seiji? Yeah, that was like two classes ago though.

[Speaker 2]
All right, never mind.

[Speaker 3]
The seed is nothing more than the ability of the kunshi to give results.

[Speaker 1]
That's what Seiji just said.

[Speaker 3]
And it's not aware, so it's not consciousness.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all true, but that's just a couple of classes ago.

[Speaker 3]
No, that was last class, actually.

[Speaker 1]
I think they're talking about the seeds for remembering the last class.

[Speaker 3]
Unless we had a class after December 4th, maybe we did.

[Speaker 1]
That's not what I'm talking about regardless. Anybody?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, what do you have?

[Speaker 1]
They are zei-chik, but not zei-kiriki-chik. That's also true. Where's the money, honey?

You get it right, in the sense of being merely nominal. Oh me, I didn't write the book. Okay.

But you're going to be blamed for this book for your whole life, you know that. No, I won't. I'll just tell them you did it.

If the seeds and the foundation consciousness were substantial, what problem would arise? I don't know. If you didn't get the last one, I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
Time would freeze. He's got two kunshis.

[Speaker 2]
Films operating at the same time.

[Speaker 1]
That's what Ka-chik says, and that might be true. Yeah, let me give you the answer. Time.

If the seeds were substantial, they could neither be the foundation consciousness nor separate from it. Whoa. That was the counterfeit.

That was why they have to be in name only. According to Chichibinao and Pelden. Okay.

That was a good move on from that one. I would have done the same. Is the relationship between the foundation conscious and the seeds parallel to the relationship between qualities and characteristics?

Yeah. Yes. Why?

Why? Because we can't figure it out. So, yes?

Yes. I vote yes. Well, we're going to have to review.

We're going to have to review. No. Our class ended at that, so we didn't get the why yet.

We just got that.

[Speaker 3]
Unfair question.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Tibetan. It can mean three things.

I put them all here. Member of a set. Nice.

Tim, smarty pants. The first one is clear. Yes.

What's the last one? The hard one. The most obscure one that's not in your notes.

This one is really hard.

[Speaker 2]
I don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
Anyone? Meat salad. We had meat salad, meaning not good eyes, just in our last class.

Yeah, that's what I said. I know. That is the clear one.

Assertion in a tongue here. Oh, my God, Ben Kramer. I love you.

That is right. Quality of the thing to be proven. I accidentally didn't white out the next part.

Okay. Do you guys remember this one?

[Speaker 2]
Subsumes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but what does it literally mean and why is it confusing? It means come after. So it seems like it should mean the things that are under the.

You're not taking the quiz. I'll go back to trying to find. Right.

Once again. That's like seeking emptiness. Yeah.

It seems. It means literally come after. And yet.

It means the opposite. In the case of like qualities and characteristics. Like the thing that comes from it.

Rather than after it. I don't know. I don't know.

But Tim said subsumes. And that's right. Okay.

You thumb. If you mix blue and yellow, what do you get? A bellyache.

No, really. You get green. You can tell my wife I was eating greens in class.

Okay. It's not merely.

[Speaker 2]
I think.

[Speaker 1]
Merely labeled. Yes. Thank you.

Name only. Same, same. Okay.

I did a bonus part because I've been wondering about this thing for a while. And so I did it. What is significant about the spelling of this term?

It starts with a vowel. That's true. Hold on.

That's true. Nick, what else?

[Speaker 2]
Is it in the past tense?

[Speaker 1]
It's definitely. Tensorized. I think Nick is giving him answers.

He did just run in here, which. She just finds me wherever I am. Don't you boo.

I thought the sub suffix makes it a. Past tense in this case. It can, but this is.

Where's this talk most often seen in the mind only school. Yeah, exactly. Okay.

What is an alternate way to spell it? In terms of contact. Yeah, we just had a bunch of them in a.

Yeah. Okay. What is the Tibetan root of each of those terms?

Oh, that's cool. It's impute like. What's the root of.

The talk. It's impute, but in Tibetans, that's what I mean. Yeah.

Isn't it. Or something like that. Right.

Right. Right. Right.

Right. And then. What's the root of that?

Doke. Doke. Yeah.

Without an S. Yeah. That's a great question.

I guess without an S. Without an S. That's why I'm going over this.

And. We just kind of did the difference in each meeting. That's cool.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And then, and then I got really nerded out. There's the whole thing. And then Stanley here, or did he go to sleep?

Might be on the plane. No, no, no. Oh, that's smart.

Okay. He literally took off.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. He. We are not on a plane.

We are driving to airport right now. So he's driving. He's driving.

What do you got for me?

[Speaker 1]
What do you got for me? Don't distract Stanley while he's driving. I found.

Look what I found. This is so cool. Talk about literally means in the corner of the great dictionary.

Same A. Yeah. Cool.

It's literally the opposite. It's not just like. Figuratively.

It literally means not substantial. That, that, you know, this is not a, it's not, I mean, he's just, it's not scriptural. This, this, this thing here is not scriptural.

This definition. Yeah. But it's not, you know, he's just.

Stan, I just put some Chinese there for you. You can look at it later. What's really interesting is the different Sanskrit.

Hey, there it is. And then I did the Sanskrit. Cause I really wanted to know what the difference was.

And honestly, even in the Sanskrit, they're basically interchangeable. And I think that's kind of the issue because here's the second definition of. Couldn't talk.

Right. The, with the, the Brit talk and it, it has the definition of. But talk.

And then here's, here's the. Here's the. The.

The thing being adjusted, right. The root or whatever. And they basically mean the same thing.

And they come from the same exact route. Yeah. This thing.

Check that. Yeah, I checked. I use the.

Okay. Sandra. And I use the great dictionary.

Digital dictionary of Buddhism. Yeah. So those are my findings.

It was fun. I swear that's some real nerding. I'm a pure nerd.

I'm not a mixed nerd. I would say. Explore.

The.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
For BTAG. And you, you may adjust your conclusions.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Okay. But I, you know, there's no serious Tibetan scholar who shouldn't be asking this question.

Yeah. It's a big, big issue. Yeah.

And I encourage you to look up. Okay. Thanks.

Where's your translation. Oh. Here we go.

It was. It was difficult. To say the least.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, let me think about it.

This is. You got to read. As one thing.

Oh, really. Okay. And it's extremely difficult.

I have to say, I've read your text for a couple of hours and it's very difficult. But somehow the, the answer to this, you know, we could go on to the next section. It's quite easy word.

But you're a mixed nut. You know, let's crack this one. I mean, the next section and the following sections are easy to understand.

This one's not. So, so this chi, which is like, why goes with this day. Cheese.

It's just, hey, she means, hey, hey, is, is to be. Is a thing. Such that to be it is to be a physical, something physical.

Is it the same as being the substance of physicality. So we're just, we're exploring three terms here. Say chick.

Say, and say, say, say true. So, say chick is easy. Okay.

Say, it's like car, Toyota and car, right? If something has a relationship with physicality, that is such to be it is to be physicality. Does that mean it is the substance of physicality.

And by substance in the second part, he means cheap. Hmm. If something is color.

If something is, if something has a color, is it a color? Is it color? I see.

Yes. It has a color. Is it color?

No. If something is a kind of color, is it color? It is not.

Right. Is it a color? Yes.

No. Colored a color. Blue is a subset of color, right?

Is it a color? Yes. But a blue car isn't a color.

Is blue a color? Yes. Yeah.

So that's the problem here. Sukhize means to me, Sukhize means the substance of physicality. Mm-hmm.

Color. Okay. Is blue color?

Is blue a color? Yes. That's all.

The second one is color. The first one is a kind of, or a color. Yes.

So if something is a color, is it necessarily color? No. If something is a color, can it be color?

No. When you say a, it means one of a group. Yeah.

Okay. That's all. That's where it's going.

Why are we talking about all this? Keep going back to why we're talking about this. Keep saying that every paragraph we do a word, I want you to bring it back to?

To be the seeds is to be the foundation consciousness. Yeah. Is it true?

A seed is one kind of foundation consciousness. Or should we, in other words, is blue a color? Or are the seeds foundations consciousness itself?

And Tsongkhapa says neither, which is impossible. Either it is or it isn't. It's got to be one or the other.

I'll say it again. Are the seeds foundation consciousness?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Are they a foundation consciousness? No. Are they a type of foundation consciousness?

No. Well, I'd say, yes, they are. They're not a type of foundation consciousness.

What are the subdivisions of foundation consciousness? You didn't say subdivision. You said type.

That's what I, when you say a, you always mean subdivision. Like, anyway. Anyway, yeah.

Let's keep going. When it's out, keep going. Now, let me read your translation.

Okay. Can you go down a little bit, back to where you were? Oh, the top one still?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, please.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm still chewing on it. Okay. You, re-translate yin na mayin for me.

It is, it is not? Nope. Yin na mayin.

Oh, it is or it isn't. Good, good. Yeah, that's how I want you to go.

Okay. Is it or isn't it? Okay.

Is it or isn't it the case that blue is color, if blue is a color?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's cool. Is it the case or not? Okay, let's do the second sentence now.

Okay. Now, you can translate Dambodhana correctly. As for the first option.

Right, nice, nice, nice, nice. Yeah. So, if it is, if it is the case that to be a color is to be color.

Okay. If it is the case, then what? kye kyi dupa min duk te Your position would be wrong.

Now, I'll give you two choices. He said, are the seeds separate from the kunshi or are the seeds the same as the kunshi? And Tsongkhapa said, neither.

Yeah. So, which possibility is he on now? We finished one of the possibilities and we're on the...

They cannot be the same because in that case, your seeds would be... Knowing, aware. Seeing things, knowing things, okay?

Now, as I remember, we're in the part where the guy says, they are not. The seeds are not the kunshi, which has its own problems. To say that the seeds are the kunshi has a problem because kunshi is a namshin.

And all namshins know something. Then you're saying the seeds can perceive something. So, what do they perceive?

They're not even ripened yet. They're just a potential, okay? So, okay, we beat him on that.

What's the other problem? Well, the realms would be mixed up. Okay, now, what if they're separate?

What if to be the seeds is not to be the kunshi?

[Speaker 2]
Then they could not live there or something?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then that's what we're on now. So, Kyoky Dibba Mindupe, your position that they are separate, to be the seeds is not to be the kunshi, is in danger if you say to be a color is to be color. Then to say they're separate, you're in trouble.

If you say to be a color is to be color, then you're in trouble when you say the seeds are separate from the kunshi. Okay, I'll say it again. If to be a color is to be color, then you're in trouble when you say to be the seeds is not to be the kunshi.

Why? Because then they wouldn't be zai chik, okay? You just said zai chik.

To be color, a color, is to be... Do you want to say to be a color is to be color? He says, I'll take the first option, yes.

Then we say, well, then you can't say what you said in the first place. What do you think I said in the first place? You said to be the seeds was not to be the kunshi.

And now you say to be a color is to be color. Same thing. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it now. If you say it's not separate, then you're saying basically the chi's are the chedraks or whatever.

Yeah. If you say the chedrak is the chi, then you can't say they're separate. Yeah, and then you can't have any objects because then all objects would be the chi's, would be color.

Yeah. Then you can't have any subdivisions of color, yeah. Okay.

Okay. Now, can you guess word just off the top of your head? We're saying blue is a...

Let's say color is a type of thing, right? It's a kind of sense object, let's say, okay? So let's say color is a kind of sense object, right?

Now, what's the status of smells, sounds, tastes relative to color? Can they overlap?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think they overlap, but is he saying that here or is he saying that they would also in the same way have the same problem as well? You could say a sound is sound itself, a smell is smell itself, a taste is taste itself, okay? You'd have to say the same.

Yeah. Good point. Then if colors are...

If a color is a color, if a sound is sound, if a smell is smell, if a taste is taste, then there's nothing that's over things you see, things you hear, things you smell, things you taste, and things you feel. There's no category they belong to, because they are the category. Yeah, exactly.

If a color is color, if a sound is sound, etc., etc., then there's nothing above them, because they are the thing above them. Then there's no chi. There's just a bunch of chedaks and no chi.

DE DAG LA BYAS SU SBYO BA MED DO There's nothing that can stand hierarchically over them, because they are that. Okay, got it? Yeah.

It's really tough. I'm sorry. Okay, I got the punchline now.

I got it. Got the punchline. Good.

All right, we're going back to the book for more confusion. Yay! Oh, that's your other text, by the way.

We're working on it. Sorry about that. Let's move that one.

Where is this text? Here you go. We're working on your Golden Key, by the way.

Me and Rupal are laboring laboriously over it. You got that other book?

[Speaker 3]
What did you do?

[Speaker 1]
That Kingo?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I have it.

[Speaker 1]
I want to show you guys a book. I showed it to you already, but I just can't stop bragging about it. This is just like me.

It's coming. Man Manda. Man Manda.

Man Manda. Anyway, here's a new book. It's unbelievable.

You got to get it. It took six years to finish the soft cover. It's the life of Tsongkhapa.

Unbelievable. All the paintings. Where is that?

It will be available at the end of the month. Yeah. Every painting is broken out into its pieces and translated.

When will it be available? 30th. 30th of December.

This is going to be available at our New Year's party. Be there or be square. Okay.

All right. Thanks to the Diamond Cutter Press people. You're amazing.

Without you, there's no Luke's Nuts books. Okay. There's the question.

There's the answer. Let's pick up here. Please read.

Let me make it bigger. Okay. Please read.

Okay. Okay, cool. Sukhidze Mayena.

If to be a color is not to be color. Okay. I'm sorry.

Sukhidze Mayena. If a color is not a color, then they are both... Then to be one is to be the other.

And to be one is not to be the other. Okay. If to be a color is not to be color, then they have to be such that one is the other, and such that one is also not the other.

If to be one is... If a color is color. Okay.

If a color is not color, then they would have to... Then to be one would have to be the other, and to be that same one would have to be not to be the other. Because a color cannot be color.

But if a color is not color, what is?

[Speaker 2]
If a color is not color, what is? I'll say it again.

[Speaker 1]
Is a color color?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Is a color... So color is not color.

[Speaker 2]
Color is color.

[Speaker 1]
Is a color color?

[Speaker 2]
No. It's not color.

[Speaker 1]
Does a color belong to the set of things that are colors?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
So it's color.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, it's not colorness.

[Speaker 1]
Not good. Not colorness. It's not the group.

It's not the overgroup. So in a way Tsongkhapa wants it both ways. He says the seeds cannot be the foundation consciousness, and they cannot not be the foundation consciousness.

But that's only true if you take foundation consciousness at a different level for each of the two. Are the seeds a part of foundation consciousness?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Are the seeds foundation consciousness? No. So in that sense, the seeds are and are not foundation consciousness.

[Speaker 2]
Like one or many.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. Got it? It's not easy.

It's not easy. You can only say that the seeds are both foundation... You can only say that it's not true that the seeds are foundation consciousness and are not foundation consciousness if you change the meaning of foundation consciousness in that sentence.

I'll say it again. It's not true to say the seeds are not foundation consciousness, and it's not true that the seeds aren't. They are neither foundation consciousness.

To be a seed is not to be foundation consciousness, and to be a seed is to be foundation consciousness. You can't say both unless you change the meaning of foundation consciousness halfway through the stream. Well, Geshe-la, should we now impound the change and change the meaning of seeds?

Whoa, what? Yeah, merely labeled instead of say, say truth. Yeah, that's true.

It was like four paragraphs ago. Yeah, okay. So anyway, if you don't make that distinction right, I'll say it again.

Is to be a seed to be foundation consciousness, yes or no? Tsongkhapa says...

[Speaker 3]
Yes and no.

[Speaker 1]
Yes and no. No, he says neither. That's yes and no.

No, that's neither yes or no. Well, the neither yes is no, and the neither no is yes.

[Speaker 3]
So I'm just saying.

[Speaker 1]
Reasonable. That's totally true. Okay, anyway...

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, is A foundation consciousness or just foundation consciousness?

[Speaker 1]
Depends on how you're treating it. If you're treating it as a chi, then it's foundation consciousness. Yeah, we all have a separate word.

Yeah, but here they're discussing it in the abstract also. Yeah, unfortunately. Okay, so in general, if you didn't make the distinction I just proposed, then to say that the seeds are both the foundation consciousness and not the foundation consciousness, together, is NYON PA'I TSIG.

Amaging? Crazy talk. NYON PA'I.

NYON PA'I. Crazy talk, okay? And we have a rule.

We don't tsopa with NYON PA'I. Debate with crazy people. There's no use debating with a crazy person.

Yeah, and by the way, this line is pulled out maybe once a night in the debate room. You will hear it maybe once a night. It's when you get so frustrated with the other guy that is not being logical.

You're allowed to stand up and walk out, and you say this line. You say, I can't debate with a crazy person. It means with a person who does not follow the rules of logical dispute.

You're nuts, and I'm not wasting my time on you. And it's a big insult, and people don't abuse it. People say it when it's really true.

They say, you're just not being logical, so what's the use in me wasting my time? I'm going to go find another guy to debate with. Okay, good.

Keep going. Good luck. MA SKYAP TE Good.

MA SKYAP TE means not necessarily so. It's not necessarily the case that I'm crazy? I don't know if that's what he's referring to.

Now, I'll point out one thing to you that helped me a lot here. He did not say Zaychik. Yeah, he said this.

So this is substantial. This is not to be wrong. Yeah, this one's substantial.

Okay, let's say it again. Is car, sorry. Is Toyota Zaychik with car?

To be a Toyota is to be a car. Yes, to be a Toyota is to be a car. Yeah, and that's what we call Zaychik or Dinchik or something like that.

Low cheek, low cheek. Okay, to be a Toyota is to be a car. They are low cheek.

Are they Zaychik by you? Sorry. Are they Zaychik?

Okay, I'll say it again. Is to be a Toyota to be a car? Yes.

Is to be... Is to be... Is Toyota to be car-ness?

Is the fact that to be a Toyota is to be a car, does that exist by nature? No. No, nothing does.

That's easy. No, that's the Zaychik group, okay? That's the Zaychik group, okay?

They changed terms. It's... what do you call that?

Equivocation. Equivocation. I'll say it again.

It is true that Toyota is Zaychik with car. To be a Toyota is to be a car. But it is not true that they are Zay-su-du-pay-chik, a substantially existing one.

They are not a substantially existing thing. They don't have a substantially existing relationship such that one is the other. So only exactly the same thing will have that relationship, right?

What he's saying is there's a big difference between saying Zaychik and Zay-su-du-pay-chik. Okay, Zaychik means to be one is to be the other. Zay-su-du-pay-chik means to be one is to be naturally the other.

And can you say that for the same object?

[Speaker 2]
Could you say, like, to be this computer is naturally to be this computer?

[Speaker 1]
Maybe not really. No? You can.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, you can. Yeah, you can say whatever.

[Speaker 1]
No, you can say... Now, here's a big point. To be a changing thing, what's the relationship between that and a made thing?

To be one is to be the other. Mutually Zaychik. Mutually Zaychik.

They're on the same hierarchical level. To be a changing thing is to be a produced thing, and to be a produced thing is to be a changing thing. We say mutually Zaychik.

But there's a lot of things that are only one way Zaychik, like Toyota and car. To be a Toyota is to be a car, but to be a car is not to be a Toyota. So that's a whole different point.

But the point here, are Toyota and car Zaychik? Is it true that to be a Toyota is to be a car? Is to be a car and to be a vehicle with four wheels used in America to pollute the world?

Yeah, they are mutually Zaychik. You see what I mean? To be a car is to be that, and to be that is to be a car.

That's okay. But in any case, are those relationships natural? They are made up in your mind.

They come from your seeds. The relationship itself comes from your seeds. Even though we say Zaychik, which means one substance, they are not substantial.

They are one substance, but neither one is substantial. Got it? That's all.

That's all. Okay. Okay.

So Zaychik Dupa word is cheating. Exists substantially, right? Yeah.

They are not a one which exists substantially. Dopa chik tu gyur. If they did, if they did, then their dopa would be identical.

If they were substantially the same, then their dopa would be identical. What does dopa mean? If they were the same, then the reverse would be true.

It could go both ways. One could be subsumed by the other just like the first subsumes the second. What's the dopa of coffee cup?

A lack of a coffee cup. No, it's the opposite of everything which is not a coffee cup. That's called dopa.

That's called a reversal in logic. In logic, it's called a reversal. Now, is it true that...

See, dopa chik requires... Okay, I'll give you the easy answer. Dopa chik means identical.

It means the opposite of everything is not must be the same. In other words, its archetype must be the same. That's very subtle.

Cup as an abstract. Cup as an abstract thing.

[Speaker 3]
Meaning an idea?

[Speaker 1]
Like a mental picture. How do you get to that mental picture? You take a real cup.

You cancel everything that's not it. Then you cancel that and you come back to the cup. Now you come back to the cup as a concept.

When you reverse it, when is the result of a double reversal? It's no longer a plain old cup. It's cupness.

[Speaker 2]
Because it's a process of elimination.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, double elimination. When you cancel all which is not the can, you reach can as an idea. Got it?

And then this can is... To be this can is to be can-ness. But to be can-ness is not to be this can.

Relationship. So when you're talking about double reverse, the only way two things can be the same when you double reverse them is if they start out as the same thing. And not even different means.

If you call this a metal container, its dopa would be different from the dopa of a can. The opposite of all that is not a metal container is not the same as the opposite of all that is not a can. They have to be identical.

The wording has to be identical. Okay, word? So dopa chief means they would both have to be can in the abstract.

Archetype of can.

[Speaker 2]
But then the same object holds so many archetypes at the same time.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, many archetypes. But they're all different, aren't they? Metal emphasizes the strange.

Like that. Okay, all right. DE LTAR NA LDA DANG PHYI DANG ROL LA SOGS PA LA RJES SU MI DOR GYUR BA DANG If to be the opposite of all that is not a can is to be a can, then there's nothing under can-ness to be the can.

If the can is the opposite of all that is not the can, then there's no kinds of cans. Because then this is the archetype can. Okay, got it?

Okay, it's very difficult. Let's keep going. By the way, we're almost to a comprehensible section.

Get through these two sentences. One more sentence. I'm not kidding.

And then you can chew on this for a couple of years, and we'll get back to it. By the way, this is the easy explanation of Tsongkhapa. RGYUD PA'I PHYIR Nice.

RGYUD PA'I PHYIR RGYUD PA'I PHYIR By the way, RGYUD PA'I here means an example of form, of visible form. And when they say RGYUD PA'I here, they're not talking about General RGYUD PA'. They're talking about an example of general visible form, like blue.

So when they say RGYUD PA'I here in these arguments, they're not talking about functioning things in general. They're talking about NGOS PO DE, which means a particular physical thing like blue. So he says, Look, blue can be physicalness.

Okay? RGYUD PA'I PHYIR And still not be the same as physicalness when you double reverse it. Okay?

Blue can be physicality, but that doesn't mean it has to be that Chi, or the archetype of physicality. Okay? You can say blue is physical, or blue is visible.

You can say that, right? Is it not visible? No, that's a set.

That's a set of things. Blue is not the visible, right? Blue is visible, which means blue is one kind of visible.

When I say blue is visible, I don't mean that the opposite of all that is not blue is the opposite of all that is not visible. Those are different archetypes. Got it?

Okay? I don't mean, when I say they are substantially the same, I don't mean they're identical. What's identical mean?

When you double flip it, you get the same thing. When you double flip blue, you get double flip of all visible things. That's not the case.

But can we say blue is a visible thing? Yeah, it's in that category. But can you say blue is a visible thing?

No, that means it's red and green and yellow and everything else. Got it? Okay.

It's a struggling with the idea of substantially. Okay? Substantially.

Okay? Then he comes up with the following. blue, to be blue is to be visible.

Sorry. He says to be blue is to be the visible. But to be blue is to be the visible.

But when you double flip them both, they are separate. They are not the same thing. You're not saying blue in quotation marks.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
No. No. Okay.

I'll say it again. To be blue is to be the visible. To be blue is to be the visible.

But look, I'm not saying when you double flip blue, you get double flip visible. I'm not saying that. And then we say, nyenpay tsik.

But that's really crazy. That's really crazy. je su drubay chik yin na.

If they were substantially one, char kang ne kyang so so ye gyu me. They should not be distinguishable from each other in any aspect. The opposite of the opposite should be totally the same.

Identical. If they were not, you couldn't say they were the same in that sense. Got it?

chik yin gyu bay che. Now, yay! We get to the part...

Okay. This is a quotation from the Sakya Pandita, who was the greatest Sakya of all time. He made the Mongols Buddhists.

The reason I studied in a common temple is him. Okay. His nephew.

And he wrote the first great early Tibetan book on logic. And in fact, Ben Kramer's next assignment is to translate the names of the ten chapters. Okay.

Or eleven? I don't remember. Okay.

So here's a famous quotation. Hey, word, this is easily understood. Just read.

Seiji is checking. Okay. I think...

How much time we got?

[Speaker 2]
Ten?

[Speaker 1]
Good. We have time. Okay.

Okay. This is the easy part. This is what we've been waiting for.

So Kappa uses it. We're going back to it after we finish this. Okay.

We'll get this twice. And by the way, shawa means deer, and shapa means an aloe tree. And, you know, thank you for that.

But deer has a wasoor, doesn't it? I don't know. I don't think so.

Maybe. Anyway, it's totally misspelled in every case here, which makes things fun for us. Okay.

Okay. Now, you can easily translate the first line here. Let me see.

Xingmin, what is not wood? All that is not a tree. Isn't it the opposite of all that is?

Yeah, the opposite of all that is not a tree. Okay. That object you come out with, that object you come out with when you cancel a tree and then cancel that, when you cancel a tree and then cancel what you canceled, now you have tree as a concept.

You have trees and not a tree. Okay. So, that thing you have left, when you cancel all that is not a tree, which is now the concept of a tree, okay, shapa yena, could that be an aloe tree?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, an aloe tree grows and drinks water. You can cut it down. It can get stuck in a pool of water and might fall down.

Right?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you cannot say that the archetype could be a tree. And if you did say that, then shen ki shing min. I'm sorry, shing shen shing min.

Nothing could be other than a tree? Listen to me carefully. Shing shen shing min.

Shing mayin. A tree, a tree. I want to hear two trees here.

Shing shen shing mayin. Then other trees would not be a tree. Okay, I'll say it again.

If the way to get to an aloe tree is to cancel all trees and then cancel back, then an aloe tree would be the only tree in the universe. If the opposite of tree reversed was a particular tree, then there would be no other particular trees because you just reached the archetype. Okay?

If the archetype tree were aloe tree, then there wouldn't be any other trees in the universe. Got it? If you flip tree and then flip it again and come to tree as a concept, and if the aloe tree could be that, if that could be the aloe tree, then there'd be no other types of trees in the universe.

Got it? Okay. All right.

If the archetype tree were this particular tree, then there'd be no other types of trees. There'd be no universe.

[Speaker 2]
You can say that the opposite of an object is not the same object.

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

Because if it were, there wouldn't be other types of that object. GZHAN ZHING YIN NA. Now the reverse word.

If other trees were trees, then ZHAG PA MA YIN. Then ZHAG PA couldn't be that archetype.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, aloe trees couldn't be tree-less if there were other types of trees. If other types of trees exist, then ZHAG PA cannot be tree-less, which is the opposite of the opposite of tree. You got it?

Okay. DE YI RANG BZHIN GZHAN MIN PHYIR. Because then the aloe's nature would not be...

I'm sorry, would not then be the ZHAG PA's nature. Sorry, tree-less would not be the ZHAG PA's nature. Tree-less would not be the aloe tree's nature if there were other trees.

Aloe tree would not be tree-less if there are other trees. But aloe tree is part of tree-less. Yes.

That's true. Okay, again, just to lighten up this class, Wern, I'm going to give you a free gift, which is the next verse of the Sakya Pandita. Here we go.

Just three minutes. We can do it, because this is understandable. It's a joke.

Please read, fast, Wern. ZHUGS ZHAG PA ZHUNG ZHONG ME DAG NI CHENG PO YI RIG PA DUNG GOG NAG LA NI BE CHO YU THAG CHUN PE SHING LA MI TZANG THOR ZHE ZHAO WA WAR KHAB GYI... TSIG TSIG CHE PA YO.

This is called a light-hearted verse. And they throw it in to make things... They throw it in to make you go home and feel like you understood something.

And it's really a tradition. So, Sakya Pandita, after he covered all these points, he threw in a relaxation verse. This is called a relaxation verse.

Okay, you ready? I like it. I think we should add it to the book.

KHRIKYADARPAYI ZHUNG TSUNG NAS You claim to be people who are upholding the great book of Dharmakirti. Okay? ZHUNG, right?

Great book. TSUNG. You are dzinma.

You are holders of the great book. Okay? And then, DAG NI CHENG PO YI RIG PA DUNG GOG And then you deny the same logic that this Mahatma teaches.

You say you are followers of Dharmakirti. And then you deny his greatest work. You say you are followers of his greatest work, and then you deny his loving.

You are like nakla nebechu. You are like monkeys running through the trees who are pooping on the very food that they need to eat. You are pooping on the book that sustains you.

Because you are denying Dharmakirti's thinking. You guys all say you are second school. You deny Dharmakirti.

You are like monkeys who live off of fruit, and then poop on it, and then have to eat the poop. It's very beautiful, I think. And I don't see how we can do without it.

No. You are pooping on the very text that you make your living on.

[Speaker 2]
Would you footnote it or add it directly?

[Speaker 1]
I would do both. I have it in the text and in the footnote book. No, I'm just kidding.

I would footnote it, definitely. But I think it's important that it's the next verse, and the second verse. Okay, Word, it gets easier from here.

Then you're going to feel guilty that we didn't understand the last part. It's a translator's curse. Okay, here we go.

Sashimi. Thank you, Word. Thank you, Geshe Michael.

Thank you, Word. Thanks, everybody. Awesome.

I'm going to call you my bank account vacuum cleaner. Okay, bye. Thanks, Nick.

You have anything? Just real quick, don't forget to take advantage of the videos. Yoga Studies Institute has kindly given us access to a library of their videos for all us nuts and people participating in the term.

So check it out. There's great videos on there. They're awesome.

Get familiar with that organization. They do really cool stuff around the world. And, yeah.

Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you, Word. Thank you, Tim.

Thanks to translators. All the participants. And we'll see you guys tomorrow.

There's a special class tomorrow with Ben. Don't miss it. It's going to be on debating.

So if you notice, a lot of our texts were, you know, going through debates. If you want to know what the heck is going on, Ben might shed some light on that for us. I learned from him 10, 15 years ago or something.

Hey, Stanley, I like your earring.

[Speaker 3]
We are on our way to the airport now.

[Speaker 1]
I think you're on the bus, right?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's really sad.

[Speaker 3]
Are you going to join us when you're over the Pacific Ocean somewhere?

[Speaker 1]
We'll try.

[Speaker 3]
We'll try.

[Speaker 1]
I think they're jumping out in Hawaii.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you, everyone.

[Speaker 1]
We miss you guys already.

[Speaker 3]
We miss you.

[Speaker 1]
We hope you get there safe and sound.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you, Nick.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, translators. You are very brave and foolish.