Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 30

[Speaker 1]
All right, homework, how does color and a color relate to seeds and foundation consciousness? It gets so quiet when you do your homework. Yeah, um, colors like seeds and foundation, um, a color is like seeds and foundation consciousness is like color.

Okay, where does the relationship between a thing and its chi come from? What's a pea? Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. I was looking at the other spelling, I'm like, what is that?

[Speaker 3]
Outer.

[Speaker 2]
Outer thing, yeah. What's the answer, Tim? Um, I don't know.

Where the relationship between, when you say the thing, the thing that we perceive?

[Speaker 1]
It means, uh, where does the relationship between blue and color come from? That's a weird question. I'm a seed in your mind.

Yeah. Exactly.

[Speaker 2]
I was overthinking, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay, do whatever you want. Um, why can't a thing be one and the same as the opposite of all that is not? I think we got a clear answer on that one.

I mean, that's what we're trying to figure out, right? Nice, Nick. Nice, Nick.

That's an awesome, I'm really curious to see why. Uh, this is the old Zedog thing that, uh, Ben Kramer's been working on. Uh, when you reverse something that all, when you reverse what is, when you reverse everything that is not a thing, you come up with the thing but on a different level, right?

Now it's a, now it's conceptual. Yeah, it's an archetype and it's not the real thing, supposedly, so. Is that a Y word?

Because it can't, like, perform a function or something? Can't do anything? No, because it would be the archetype, wouldn't be the thing.

Yeah. Yep. Okay.

Um, Tibetan. Um. That's really crazy.

Crazy words. Crazy talk. Crazy talk.

Nice, Nick.

[Speaker 2]
The vocab disappeared from the screen.

[Speaker 1]
Word disappeared. I know. Oh.

Crazy talk. Oh, it's not the same as what, you guys? It could be one.

[Speaker 2]
It could be the other.

[Speaker 1]
It's... It's not zed chik, it's jesudrupay chik.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Something that's established naturally? Established as being one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could say a natural one, or a substantial one. To be one is naturally to be the other. Yeah, that'd be okay.

Um. Exactly the same when you get to the opposite of all that it's not. Yes, Geshe-la, you do know the answers.

I'm just trying to break into the silence here. Okay. To be one is the opposite of all that is not.

Okay, the verses. Uh-oh. Oh, this is hard.

This is your last hard part. Then from here on out, it's all downhill. Okay.

Uh, it is not the same. Well, uh, yeah, uh, shingma... Now, okay, so shingma yinpa le dokpa ngupo.

Let's treat that first. Okay, word? Shingma yinpa le dokpa ngupo.

That thing, okay, ngupo does not mean functioning thing here. It just means that, that guy, that thing, which is the dokpa of shingma yinpa. What's that mean?

Which is the opposite of everything that is not a tree. Yeah, which means tree in the abstract. Now, now we just ended up with archetype tree, right?

Archetype tree, the mental picture of tree, which is what you use to confirm things in the world. Wait, did we end up with the archetype tree or the archetype of what is not a tree? It's the archetype of a tree, because you reversed everything that was not a tree.

But I thought dokpa was already reversing everything. Yeah, sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Okay, and by the way, ngupo here cannot mean what?

Function. Yeah, because when you reverse the opposite of a thing, you come out with a concept, which is always unchanging, because archetypes, by the very idea of the word archetype, they are unchanging, okay? Yeah.

So, that archetype of a tree, is it, does it have a, a tricky question, okay? Does it have a zeychik relationship with aloe tree? No.

Can we say that to, can we say there's a zeychik relationship, can we say aloe tree shingma yinpa le dokpa dang zeychik? Can we say to be an aloe tree is to be a tree? Good, to be an aloe tree is to be a tree.

Can we say that to be a tree is to be an aloe tree?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
We can if there's no other kinds of trees in the universe. Okay, right? Now, here it doesn't say that.

It says, is the aloe tree, is to, is to be an aloe tree to be a tree independently, self-existently? No. No, good, that's all, that's all.

That would be dzesuk drupa. So, that's all. If the, if to be an aloe tree were to be a tree self-existently, then there wouldn't be, yeah, there wouldn't be juniper, junipers couldn't be trees because they would have, good, because they are a member of the set tree.

Good. That's good. That's a good translation.

Xing zel is the sexy word here, word. What's that? Xing zel.

What's Xing zel? He made up a new word. Member of a set of trees?

Yeah, member of the set called trees. Perfect. And you translated it perfect.

Okay. All right. Let's go to the second sentence.

Xing here means, if Xing dan dzesuk drupa kyi gyi na, shakpa shing mayinpar gyurten. If it were, if aloe trees were by nature trees, okay, if to be an aloe tree was to be a tree automatically, okay, without karmic seeds, right, then aloe trees wouldn't be trees, okay, because zey non pensin ma depa nepey che. Zeys don't get, yeah, yeah, good.

That's good. Zey here means, really, it means chi, doesn't it? Okay.

Chis don't step on each other's toes. Do members of a set step on each other's toes?

[Speaker 3]
They can.

[Speaker 1]
Can members of a set overlap? I guess it depends how you word it, but... Yeah, especially if they are substantial, let's say.

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, they couldn't. An aloe tree could never be a juniper tree or something like that, okay. So, kind of, members of a set, by nature, once you're a member of a set, you don't step on other members' territory.

Juniper trees never become aloe trees, okay. Cool? All right.

Okay, that's really difficult stuff, and you did a good translation. And I like that you avoided saying zey chik when it was zey subdupe chik. Cool.

That was a good move. All right. Let's go back to work, you guys.

Where is the words text? Okay, that's the sentence that we finished. Why is this in bold, you guys?

Anybody there? Hello?

[Speaker 3]
We must be in some other book.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're in another book. We're in the Mongolian master, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's explanation of the same concepts that Tsongkhapa is talking about, because we couldn't understand Tsongkhapa by himself, okay. All right.

And at some point, we're going to go back to what? Tsongkhapa? We'll go back to Tsongkhapa.

We have to go back to Tsongkhapa. This is all a footnote. By the way, this is one of those huge footnotes that became a what?

[Speaker 3]
Appendix.

[Speaker 1]
And a very valuable appendix, in my opinion. Okay. We finished this part, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, please read this. And Mr. Nick wants to check you. Okay.

Yeah, this should be... We said it yesterday, right? Yeah, or was that even this morning?

It would have to be thik chen. There's no thik chen. Yeah, exactly.

Nice. I'm glad you remembered me. Remembered why too.

If... Now, question for you, word. Can we say, shabpa shing dang dzay chik?

Can we say that? No. No, listen.

shabpa shing dang dzay chik. shabpa shing dang dzay chik? Yeah.

To be an aloe tree? Yeah, is to be a... To be a tree?

Yeah, we can say that, right? Yeah, you can say that, yes. Okay.

Good. You can't say shing shabpa. Can we say shing shabpa dang dzay chik?

No. No, we cannot. Okay.

All right. So here it says, to be a tree is to be a shabpa. And that was the Sakya Pandita's problem.

That's what he was complaining about, okay? The to be this is to be that relationship can only go one way when you're talking about members of a set, okay? All right.

Khyang. Shubpa. Say again?

By the way, this should probably be min. Okay. Shubpa sokla jesudroa.

What does it mean to jesudroa over shubpa, etc.? Word. Word.

Hello? My internet is acting weird. Oh, okay.

What does it mean to say that something jesudroa over shubpa, etc.? Shubpa means juniper tree, okay? Yeah.

Jesudroa in this context means subsumes or lords over. Yeah, meaning it comes... Good.

Generates. It's the quality of, I don't know, of that thing. Does shing jesudroa over shubpa?

Yes. Does shing jesudroa over shubpa? Yes.

Does shubpa jesudroa over shubpa? No. Great.

Yeah, aloe trees don't... Sorry, juniper trees are not types of aloe trees, so they are independent. Okay.

He says things could be zed chik and there's no contradiction. I don't know. I don't like the way he read it here, but it's no contradiction for trees to be what lords over aloe trees and be lording over juniper trees at the same time.

No problem. Okay. Okay.

Please read and Utpala is going to check you. Yay! Yeah.

Young Yeah, tough stuff here, tough stuff here. Uh Does... now he's reversed it in his language, but can we say that kawa dang bunpa are zed chik with ngupo?

My, uh, kawa... oh. Uh, this is that thing though.

That... It's not that thing, okay? Forget that thing.

It's not... Yeah, forget that durr... Forget the durr thing where they say let's consider a coffee cup and a tree at the same time.

It's not that, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Separate that. Separate that. Um, so yes.

Good, good, good. Yeah, you got it. You got it.

Uh Just because uh pillars and water pitchers, why do they choose these two in particular? Because they're the classic objects chosen to demonstrate because they were the things present in every room. Yeah, every room 2,000 years ago had had the roof held up by a stick and it had a water pitcher because they didn't have indoor plumbing, okay?

So the teacher was just trying to point to something in the room. It's true that to be a coffee cup is to be a functioning thing. And it's true that to be a pillar is to be a functioning thing.

But does that imply that ka, kawa, and bumba are interchanged between each other? Me good. Yeah, good.

Just because something is a member of a set and another thing is a member of the same set doesn't mean that to be one member is to be the other member, right? Uh Which is what would happen if they were zes of dupa. What's that mean?

Substantially, to be one is to be the other. Yeah, if they were kind of self-existent, they could be each other. But they can't be otherwise.

Okay, doppa la ngupa nangwa When an object appears to the consciousness, okay? If ka bum dan tse chik yin na, ka bum yang tse chik du gyur go shing Yeah, this is a test of being a member of a set, okay? This is a test of being a member of a set.

When you look at the member, does it involve an imagination of the set? This is a test of being a member of a set. When you look at a juniper tree, do you think tree?

Do you see a tree in your mind? Or do you think tree? Well, you just said juniper tree, so I guess so.

Yeah, when you conceptualize the member, you necessarily conceptualize the archetype. That's a principle of archetypes, okay? That's the function of an archetype.

Whether or not the archetype self-existently connects to the member is a huge debate. But you can say when you think of an apple tree, you think of tree, right? It involves thinking of tree, okay?

But that doesn't mean that apple trees and plum trees are the same thing, okay? That doesn't mean that when you conceptualize one member, you conceptualize the other member, okay? Wern, this whole session, this whole term for you has been discussions about members and sets.

Where does it come from? Take us back to why we're talking about this. We are talking about this because there is a debate concerning the ontological status of the seeds that create our world and the foundation consciousness, which is the foundation for our world.

Yeah, this whole every class words had this term has come from the question of are the seeds part of the mind or are the seeds not part of the refrigerator? The kunshi, are the seeds part of the refrigerator? Or are the seeds not part of the refrigerator?

Is it true that to be the seeds, you have to be the refrigerator, okay? So maybe he's treating seeds and refrigerator as two members of a set called mental stuff or something like that. You know, kunshi related stuff.

And in that case the seeds would be a member of kunshi related stuff and the kunshi would be a member of kunshi related stuff. But to be the seeds would not be to be the kunshi because they're both members of the same set. That's the point here, okay?

They're both members of the same set. When you consider them as members of the same set, one cannot be the other. When you consider them as the same stuff, they have to be each other.

Therefore Tsongkhapa says, neither are they, neither are they not. Okay, and that's why we're here. That's why we've been in this for three, four classes now.

Okay, all right. I'll say it again. Viewed from one point of view, the seeds are part of the kunshi.

Viewed from another point of view, they cannot be such that to be one is to be the other, okay? So we can generally say that they are neither the same or different. Okay, and that it's so confusing, all right.

All right. Please, ,'ONG NGOS PA DANG, ,RTOG PA LA NGOS PA SNANG BA NYID GANG, ,DKA' BUNG KYI PHYI YIN PAR SKYES PA MED LA, Okay. It's easy to say that, it's easy to say that pillars and water pitchers are members of the group called LOPO.

Why, Word?

[Speaker 2]
Because they're things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, no, because they are? Functional things. Functioning things.

They do something. They hold up the roof and they hold the water. Okay, so they do belong to this set called working things.

Pillars and water pots do belong to this set called working things. Now, a question for you, Word. Do they belong to the set of things called the appearance of working thing to the mind?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they are. They are working things that appear to the mind, okay? In that sense, they are similar.

Okay, in that sense, they are similar. They are similar in being working things and they are similar in being perceived as working things. They belong to both sets, okay?

Okay, please read, and Tim wants to check you. Yeah. When a working thing appears to the mind, if to be that, if to be the fact of a working thing appearing to the mind, were to be a pillar and a pitcher, okay, then it would be such that to be appearing as a functioning thing to the mind would be to be a pillar and a pitcher.

Okay, please read. Okay. is the relationship between apple tree and tree, okay?

Is the relationship between apple tree and tree, is it self-existent? No. Yeah, we would say no.

So, to be an apple tree is to be a tree, but to be an apple tree is not to be a tree automatically. That's a construction of your mind. Okay, that's the whole point, okay?

To be an apple tree is to be a tree, but that doesn't mean that to be an apple tree is to be a tree automatically, okay? Otherwise, SA BA RNAM LA BYAS MIN DRO, trees wouldn't be, trees wouldn't cover all other kinds of trees, okay? Trees, trees wouldn't cover all other kinds of trees if apple trees were self-existently trees, because then they would be trees.

Right. And that's what the Sakya Pandita started out with, okay? Right, tree wouldn't cover all trees.

Yeah, if apple trees were self-existently trees. Yeah, cool. Good, you got it.

BYAS DU GZHAN NI NANG BA MED, then the other things covered by trees would disappear. Okay. By the way, we don't have far, well, not too far to go.

We're almost ready to go back to Tsongkhapa, which will be comforting at this point. Please read this sentence. Mr. Ben, can you check in?

Oh. There's no problem with his pronunciation, right, Ben?

[Speaker 3]
Not a one. Perfect. Immaculate, pure as empty space itself.

[Speaker 1]
Flawless.

[Speaker 3]
Unmistaken from the beginning.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Hey, Word, we can't hear anything you said, but it's kind of refreshing. I can't lose any money, right, Ben?

[Speaker 3]
You could find a way.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. RTOG PA LA ZHING MA YIN PA LAS RTOG PA NANG BA When you take the opposite of all that is not a tree, when you take the opposite of all that is not a tree, you come out with the idea of a tree. And RTOG PA means your imagination mind.

So imagination deals in archetypes. When you close your eyes and imagine a tree, what you're seeing is the opposite of all which is not a tree. So if we talk about the opposite of all which is not a tree, appearing to your imagination.

DAM PAS DON DU MED TE In an ultimate sense it is made. It's not a tree. You can't cut it up for lumber and hold up your house with it.

A tree as an archetype or a tree as a mental image is not a real tree. Okay. ZHING SEL NAM DANG RDZAS GCIG DANG THAG PA'I KHA NA'I YANG MA GDUG PA'I PHYIR That imaginary tree wouldn't be either a tree or not a tree.

It wouldn't relate to all the members of trees. That imaginary tree would not relate to all the members of trees. If you double reversed an apple tree to get to it, Okay, word, can you still hear me?

We can't hear you. I can hear you. Okay, please read.

ZHING SEL NAM DANG RDZAS GCIG DANG THAG PA'I KHA NA'I YANG MA GDUG PA'I PHYIR ZHING SEL NAM DANG RDZAS GCIG DANG THAG PA'I PHYIR RDZAS GCIG DANG THAG PA'I PHYIR THOG PA DE'I NANG YUL LA MA CHUL BAR NGYUR LA Yeah, if something were a member of the set of trees, I would say, it would have to be a working thing, okay? If it were a working thing, then imagination could be unmistaken towards what it's thinking of. Nangyul means what it's thinking of, okay?

So, dogpa, or imagination, deals in trees or the idea of trees, Warren? Go ahead, Warren. The idea of trees.

Yeah, dogpa without an S, imagination, you can say, deals in the ideas of trees, okay? Can it be correct in what it's perceiving? I mean, if it's dogpa, I guess not.

It could be. You could think of a tree. You could imagine tree-ness, right?

Archetype of a tree, that's okay. But is your imagination of a tree, a tree? No, it's not, but it is the imagination of a tree.

You can correctly- It's an imagination, yeah. If you didn't think it was a tree, you'd be okay. If nangyul na matua, you know, if imagination thought of a particular tree and thought it was thinking of a tree, not in the abstract, okay, then to that imagination, it would start mixing in jeypa, the shing sang, the members of the tree, the members of the tree family, okay?

So, in general, when you talk about dogpa, it's dealing in imaginary trees, you know? Imagination, close your eyes and think of a tree. You see a tree, but that's an imaginary tree, right?

That, you could almost say archetype of a tree, okay? And the shing sangs, the apple trees, the pear trees, the different date trees, they shouldn't mix in with that, okay? All right?

They shouldn't mix in with that. shing gi tselwa nampen tsuk jey sang mi droray che. If they did, then the types of trees, apple trees would invade plum trees and they would have overlaps, okay?

But they don't. There's no overlap between members of a set. If there's an overlap between members of a set, then those members are not true members of the set, okay?

Cool? Yeah. All right.

Please read. And who we got here? Sugeng, can you check?

Yes. Tse ta dey tu drup na chi tse shen tun gyur gupa le. shing sel nam la jay sung drorway chi tse shen mi lo ma trulwa la nangwa meyway or meypey?

Meypey, you're right, yeah. chiro sheypey chir. Tse ta dey tu drup na chi tse shen tun gyur gupa le.

shing sel nam la jay sung drorway chi tse shen mi lo ma trulwa la nangwa meypey? chiro sheypey chir. Tse ta dey tu drup na.

Do the members of a set exist as substantially different? If substantial means self-existent? Yeah, let's not go that way.

Is to be a apple tree to be a pear tree? No. Yeah, good.

And since to be one is not to be the other, chi tse shen tun gyur gupa le, then tree, to be a tree could not be to be an apple tree. That was the whole problem, right? Is it true that to be a tree is to be an apple tree?

No. Is it true that to be an apple tree is to be a tree?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
If it were true to be a tree were to be an apple tree, then shing sel nam la jay sung drorway chi tse shen mi, where would you find another archetype to cover those types of trees? Okay, chi tse. Nangwa meype.

Yeah, nangwa meypey, you couldn't think of one, okay? It could not appear to a non-mistaken state of mind, okay? If to be an apple tree were to be a tree, then that tree could not appear to an unmistaken state of mind because it would have no other members, okay?

Which is the whole thing we started with. Please read the next section, and we got Utpala. Utpala.

Khandro-le, chi si selwa nam le ma tokpe, chi tse tsu drubpar ndupa de tse du tse chik thang thade takpe kyun nipo ung min nuso shesung pye ching. Yeah, so he's talking about two problems. Kyun nipo, two problems here.

That to be a plum tree was to be a tree, or to be a plum tree was not to be a tree. You can't get away from these two problems if you say that apple trees are substantially trees. If you say that apple trees are really trees, then you have a problem with plum trees.

You can't say that they are really trees because if apple trees were really trees, then apple trees would be the category called trees, and then plum trees wouldn't be trees anymore, okay? But they couldn't not be trees either. So you get two problems.

I'll say it again. New translators are very brave, okay? If to be a apple tree was to automatically be a tree, then apple trees would be the category called trees.

And in that case, plum trees couldn't be trees because they're not apple trees, okay? So you get this problem where plum trees couldn't be trees, but you also couldn't say that plum trees weren't trees, okay? If you mix up the idea of to be one is to be the other, and you mix it up with to be one is to automatically be the other, then you have a problem.

Then you have all these problems, okay? Yeah, are apple trees trees? Yes.

Are apple trees automatically trees? No. Okay, is to be an apple tree to be a tree?

Yes. Is to be an apple tree automatically to be a tree? No, if it means not made up in your mind, okay?

Keep playing. Young Kachiki. Say chick, you're not.

Cha, tam chay, nay chick doon, yor way, cop, cop, cop, cop-a-tell, tay, nay, lay, say chick doon, ka-lang, may, cha, nay, dooba, len-wa, men-a, yen-lak, tam, yen-lak, chen, nay, say chick-pa, tsang-gye, kyang, gyak-par, meen-nu-so, shay-sung, bi-ay-chay, na, yang, ma-kyap-tay. Okay, good. Okay, the last part is easy, okay?

What does it mean? Words, tsang-gye, kyang, gyak-par, meen-nu-so. If the kyang is also here, it would be Buddha's...

Oh, no, it's the disjunctive. Oh, okay, that's... Yeah, I couldn't tell, I didn't know the context.

Even a tsang-gye... Even Buddhas aren't able to stop this or refute it. Yeah, not even a Buddha could deny it.

Not even a Buddha could deny it, okay? So this is kha-chik, okay? This is some other guy.

je chik yin-lak chak chen ne chik tu gyur way kya-wa-ta. If an apple tree, if to be an apple tree is to be a tree, then apple trees must be the same as trees in every respect. chak tam chen ne, chak tam chen ne.

Let's say it again. If to be an apple tree is to be a tree, then an apple tree must be the same as a tree in every respect. Is that, is it a word?

Is an apple tree the same as a tree in every respect? In the sense of being a tree, yes. But are they different in any way?

Is the set of apple trees, sorry, is the set of trees only apple trees? In that sense, no. Good, yeah.

So we can't say that the set of trees is exactly the same in every respect. chak tam chen ne, in every respect. It's not the same to be a tree and to be an apple tree, okay?

dze chek tu khen lang na. But he says, if you accept that, if you accept that to be one is to be the other, if you accept that to be an apple tree is to be a tree, then you would also have to say that to be an apple tree is to be a tree in every respect, okay? And then apple trees would become trees, and then there wouldn't be any plum trees, okay?

There wouldn't be any plum trees. If apple trees and trees are the same in every detail, then apple trees is the group called trees, and then there's no plum trees in the universe, okay? Got it?

So we can say that to be an apple tree is to be a tree, but we can't say that apple tree is tree, okay? We can't say that the concept of the archetype of apple tree is the archetype of tree, right? They are not substantially the same in that way.

And substantially the same to this guy means the same in every respect. There's nothing about apple tree that differentiates it from tree, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And even a Buddha would agree with that. Nobody, no Buddha could ever disagree with it. Here's the punchline, okay?

And we're almost ready to go back to Tsongkhapa, which is we're gonna go back to things we can understand. And by the way, if you don't understand this, don't freak out. We're just talking about, when you say an apple tree is a tree, is that automatic?

Is that relationship automatic or is it coming from you? When you identify an apple tree as a tree, is that automatic or is it coming from you? We have to say it's- Seeds.

Coming from you. Yeah, coming from your seeds. So can you say that the seeds in your mind themselves are part of your mind?

In what sense? Yeah. If you think that they are automatically, then again you are refusing seeds.

If you think that seeds in your mind are automatically part of your mind, then you are refusing seeds in general, okay? Yeah. Got it?

Okay. All right, please read. ZAS SU SGRUB PA'I...

ZAS SU SGRUB PA'I GCIG DU GALANG GALANG NA THA DE'I THU'I GALEN MI RUNG BA'I THUN YIN PA'I PHYIR TE Yeah, once you agree that an apple tree is a tree automatically, then you could no longer say that there was any difference between apple tree and tree. Okay? There's no difference between the member of the set and the set itself.

Okay? If they are... If to be an apple tree is to be a tree automatically, apart from your seeds.

If to be the seeds in your mind is to be your mind automatically, then they cannot be different. Then there's no refrigerator. There's just seeds.

Because to be a seed is to be the mind automatically. Okay? Then there's no other things in the universe.

For example, the refrigerator. All right. Last line.

Here we go. GZHAN DU NA GZHAN DU NA, TSE GCIG YIN NA, DNGOS PA GCIG YIN PA'I KHA BA THAL BAR NGYUR BA'I PHYIR RO Yeah, we are finishing this difficult, difficult discussion. And he says, look, if to be an apple tree was to be a tree self-existently, then to be an apple tree...

Sorry, apple trees would be trees. And then it would be the category called trees. And there would be no other kinds of trees in the universe.

They would be DNGOS PA GCIG. The opposite of the opposite of them would be the same. The opposite of everything that's not a tree would be the opposite of everything that's not an apple tree.

But that's not true. There are other kinds of trees. Okay?

And that's what the Sakya Pandita was saying. So what's the bottom line? What's the punchline of all these classes we've had?

What's the relationship word between the seeds and the mind and the mind? What's the relationship between the seeds and the refrigerator? From one point of view, the answer has to be two.

The answer has to be two. From one point of view, they... From one point of view, they are the kunshī, and from the other, they are not.

Yay, that's all. Okay? From one point of view, the seeds are the refrigerator.

From another point of view, the seeds aren't the refrigerator. We can say both. Okay, that's all.

That's the bottom line. Now we're going to go back up to Tsongkhapa. Well, ironically, which is...

Ironically, Jason Popo didn't put that option in his poem, but it's the answer. Yeah, yeah. Okay, now we're going back 10 days.

We're going, finally, after 10 days, we're going back to your text. Okay? And here it is.

Please read. Okay. Tsongkhapa Dharma.

Kyuki Ndupa Minjupte. Kyuni Sukthang Tsechikpe Nupatthetra Thang Chriyotabut Thang Yang Tsechikparndula Suk Gyi Tseyena Thetakla Jason Drowa Metho Okay, so according to you, if to be the seeds is to be the mind which is holding the seeds, right? If to be a certain thing were to be physical, if to be visible is to be physical self-existently, okay?

If to be visible is to be physical self-existently, then visible things would be the only physical things because the opposite of each of them, reversed, would be the same thing, okay? If to be visible were to be the category of all physical things, right? Which is what would happen if they were self-existent.

Are visible things types of physical things? Yes or no? Word.

Yes. Yeah, is it true that to be a visible thing, you have to be a physical thing? Be a visible thing, you have to be a physical thing?

Sorry, is it true that to be a visible thing, you have to be a physical thing?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, is it true that all visible things and all physical things are the same? No. No, because then there wouldn't be any hearable things or tasteable things, okay?

All right. So, if to be visible was to be physical in every sense, then there wouldn't be any other sounds, smells, tastes like that, okay? Good.

If to be visible were to be physical self-existently, then to be visible would be the only kind of physical thing in the universe because it would be the set of which other physical things are in the member, okay? Cool. And that applies to seeds and the refrigerator because why?

Is it true that to be the seeds is to be the refrigerator? To be the seeds is to be the refrigerator? I mean, they're not...

I would say jesu, mindro. Yeah, okay. They are not kinds of refrigerators, right?

Okay, that's okay. The seeds are not lured over the refrigerator. Yeah, does a refrigerator lured over the seeds?

Only in the sense, only in a merely labeled way. Yeah, okay, good. That's all he's saying here.

That's all he's saying here, okay. All right. Okay, we're trying to figure out why Tsongkapa said the seeds are the refrigerator and the seeds are also not the refrigerator.

Okay, that's our basic problem. Okay, please read. SUGGI TSE MA YIN NA TSE GCIG PA'ANG YIN LA TSE GZHAN PA'ANG YIN PA YIN PA GNYON PA'I TSIG TE GO BA CHAG GNYON PA'ANG LHAN CIG MI TSUD TO Translate this last part here.

GNYON PA'I TSIG Crazy words. You're talking crazy. And we...

And us guys don't argue with crazy types. Okay, good, good. So look, this is the punchline, okay.

Tsongkapa said the seeds in the refrigerator are not the refrigerator, but the seeds in the refrigerator are also not the refrigerator, okay. And if you're talking about, if you're saying those two things in the same way, then you're crazy. Then it's crazy, okay.

But if you're using them in a different way, if when you say the seeds are the refrigerator, you're looking at one point of view, and if you say they're not the refrigerator, you're looking at them from a different point of view, then you're okay. Then you can say they are neither. They are neither, okay.

And the punchline here is a word. Are the seeds, sorry, is to be a seed to be the refrigerator? No.

Is to be the seed not to be the refrigerator? No. Yeah, okay, good.

All right. Now, let's read this next verse, okay. Here we go.

CHUG GI CHE KYANG SHING RIN LEN DOG NUS PA STE ZHAG PA YIN NA ZHANG ZHING MIN ZHANG ZHING YIN NA ZHAG PA MIN THEG YI RANG BZHIN ZHEN MIN BYAS Yeah, and Tsongkapa is going to the Sakya Panita quotation. Sakya Panita lived about 150 years before Tsongkapa. And this is from his logic book.

CHUG GI CHE means the Lord of the Dharma, the King of the Dharma. And here it refers to Sakya Panita. Sakya Panita, yeah.

Later, CHUG GI CHE came to be used for... It's from Tsongkapa. Tsongkapa himself, yeah.

Okay, I'm going to read this quickly. I know we only have one minute. SHING RIN LEN DOG NUS PA STE So let's take the opposite of all that's not a tree, okay.

Let's take the opposite of all that is not a tree, okay. Think of tree. Cancel it.

Think of a tree. I have a tree in front of me right now. Think of that tree.

Then think of all the things in the universe which are not that tree. And then we first start. You come back to a tree, but now it's a tree as an abstract.

Now it's a tree as an idea, right? Is that idea an apple tree? No.

No, it's not. Because if that idea was an apple tree, there wouldn't be any other kinds of trees, okay. Is apple tree a tree, Wern?

Yes. Is apple tree tree? No.

Good. Why isn't apple tree tree? Because if apple trees were trees, there wouldn't be tree.

There wouldn't be any other trees. Well, it wouldn't be tree either. Yeah, that's true, okay.

Now, if other kinds of trees are trees, then the apple tree couldn't be tree. Okay. If there are other trees in the universe that are not apple trees, then apple trees cannot be tree.

Yeah, if there's members of a set, then any member of that set can't be the set itself. Good, right. And if there are other members of a set, then the one member cannot be the set, the set daddy, okay, at the top of the set.

Okay, good. Okay, and then de rang shing shen min chir means, look, this relationship between apple trees and trees is, to be an apple tree is to be a tree, but that relationship is not natural. It's coming from you.

It's coming from you, okay. It's coming from your seeds. Last thing, okay.

Are the seeds the kunshi? Are the seeds the refrigerator? No.

I mean, you have to take what's in it, but yeah. Are the seeds something in the refrigerator? In a sense, yes.

Yeah, so in that sense, they belong to the refrigerator, right? Yep. But they are not the refrigerator.

Otherwise, there'd be no other things about the refrigerator except the seeds, okay. But so everything is in seeds? Well, you can say, you know, in just between friends, we can say everything is your seeds, but it's not.

Everything is coming from your seeds. And when things, this is the weird thing. Who made the connection between a good deed and a good result?

Who made that connection? I did. Yeah, you did.

That comes from your seeds, okay. How come when you kill somebody, you don't get stronger? Like eating meat, okay.

How come when you kill somebody, you don't get stronger karmically? Who made that connection? And we have to say we did, okay.

We invented karma. And it is true, but it's artificial. It's true, but it's artificial.

Cool. So are you saying I can make a world where killing people did make me stronger? There happens not to be that option.

In theory, you could. So things don't come from seeds?

[Speaker 3]
No, no, no, because you created the seed for it not to be.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but that's not a possible seed. Problem, problem, problem. Okay, we're coming back to this next time.

By the way, thank you for sticking and everybody, translators, people listening to this class. I noticed the number hasn't dropped. Like either you've been replaced by other foolish people, or you're actually sticking with this class.

And I have to say, you're very brave. The translators are very brave and everybody's very brave. This is very, very difficult, but it's getting to the very essence of what is emptiness.

How much of the world is coming from you? And even these natural relationships are coming from you. The fact that an apple tree is a tree is coming from you.

Okay, cool. Nick, you got any words of wise words here? Only to say thank you Geshe Michael, and thank you everybody.

And I have a Q&A coming up with me, so you guys can go, you can come, whatever you want to do. I'm going to give you a link right here. If you want to do yoga with YSI, some fantastic yoga videos there, and just check them out.

You know, they're giving us these videos for free for now, and they have awesome teachers. So please go. But yeah, we'll take a five minute break and then I'll do a Q&A.

Hey Nick, do you have to turn on the sauna to heat your brain up before you do Q&A? Is that the thing? It doesn't help, but yes.

There's nothing I can do, it turns out. I've tried everything. Well, look, it's a long, long session, and it's very, very difficult stuff, and you guys are brave.

By the way, by the time we get to the final book, like Utpala's book, Utpala's classes were impossible. But then when we cooked it for two, three years, the book is fantastic, and the book is a great book for meditating on emptiness. So I'm sure Word's book, Word's first book is coming out soon.

We're working on the final of Corrections right now. So that's the easier mind-only book. Okay.

All right, see you guys later.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. See you later.

[Speaker 1]
Bye, Octavian. Thanks, everybody. Bye.

Bye, Osho.