Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 34

[Speaker 4]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Good, I hope you do. You want to start your homework? Nope.

I knew how to wake you up. For measly $500, I could do as much homework as you want. Okay, I'm starting.

All right. Okay. Here we go.

I'll try to keep the questions simple so they can be answered. Okay, here we go. When dividing up reality to all existing things, what category are seeds placed in?

[Speaker 2]
Typically changing things which are neither mental nor physical.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yes, that was my next question. Very good.

[Speaker 2]
Cool. Quit while I'm ahead and let other people answer.

[Speaker 1]
Nah, just answer. Let's get this over with. Which one of the heaps are the seeds placed in?

[Speaker 2]
Typically number four.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the duce of the denman. Right. Oh, by the way, it's just duce y pumbo, right?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I was just saying like the duce and denman, that's what Ben was saying.

Okay, cool. Okay. In summation, what can we say roughly about how seeds exist?

I shouldn't say that. Okay, hold on. In connection with the foundation consciousness.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
For lack thereof, I don't know. He just sums it up and like what we've been talking about since last term. So I'm just reminding everyone.

[Speaker 2]
Neither the same nor different.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hold on my camera. Yes, that is what is summed.

[Speaker 2]
That's the potential to do something else. It's already the kunshi.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, that is true too. Yeah. You're both correct.

This is what I said. Seeds are neither the same nor separate from the foundation consciousness.

[Speaker 2]
Kind homework.

[Speaker 1]
What's that?

[Speaker 2]
That was a very kind homework.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean, yeah. Read the text if you want more fun. Okay, what does gupa mean?

[Speaker 2]
Smearable.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, it means smear. That's what it literally means, Ben Kramer. What does it mean in terms of a kunshi and seed?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it is a fit to be imbued on it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Nick said something that was right.

[Speaker 3]
There's like the one word we've learned from your text again and again. Yeah. Smeared like cream cheese every time I hear it.

[Speaker 1]
You know what Haggard is thinking about? Okay, so I put a little part here from the great dictionary just to help people use the text. So gupa, does anybody know what tense this is?

I mean, the answer kind of makes it right. Past tense. Yeah, exactly.

So here we have it. And this is what it will say in the great dictionary when you look it up. Goa is the infinitive form or the present tense.

And then depa, what's that mean? Past. That's your question.

And then when you look in the book, it will tell you what kind of verb it is, one that needs an object or not, right? This is one that does need an object. And it will say the past, the future, and the imperative in that order.

And then this is our definition, the second definition amongst the first. And to make things nasty. Okay, that's just a little hint from the dictionary guy.

Okay, xel champa. Champa means chunpa, if that helps anybody. To herd from the mouth or herd from the lips.

No. Yeah, who said that? Very good.

It means an agreement. Champa means same, chel means both mouths said the same thing, Nick. Like that.

It's rare, but there's not that many new words, so I had to pick something. Okay, rakshe. Explain the subtleties.

Opposite. Oh, right, the course, roughly, explain roughly. What would be the subtle explain, Nick?

Trongmo. Trache, right? Trache, yeah, totally, yeah.

That was a bonus for fun. Okay, roughly speaking. Okay, here we go.

Oh, wait, so I did this thing on the kens, Geshe-la, you asked me to. Okay, I'm looking. It was interesting.

I used the great dictionary. Here it is in all its glory. Here's the Sanskrit and Chinese.

And then here's the explanation of just the words. So this is my translation of the great dictionary. The causal condition, immediate condition, object condition, and personal condition.

Okay. Okay, and then I don't know how much you want me to go into it, but I did all this. And apparently, in my research, I found that these things are different in Mind Only than they are in Abhidharma.

Oh, that I don't know about. Yeah, so this is the great dictionary stuff. And this is what I found from a Mind Only scholar about it.

And there's apparently some differences. Not that I completely understand what they are, by any means, but. So anyway, the personal condition is the one that happens literally, right, to the person, the individual.

And then the mikken is the object that's produced by one of the sense powers. Well, actually, the object acts as a kim. Oh, I see.

I see. Okay. Okay.

Okay. And there's some finer details in the Mind Only school, of which I do not comprehend. But I wrote them down.

And then imitape ken is the thing that happens just after another instance. And then the yui ken is basically another word for cause. Okay.

Okay. And then here's my translation of those things. I just used the last line that we translated, because it had yui ken in it.

And then the next three, because it has each ken. So just to be consistent. Okay, cool.

Sikkimini says this. Okay, I see. When the first seed continues on in a stream, then it acts as a yui ken for the same thing later on, in a separate time.

Yeah. Okay. And don't forget that I believe what they're talking about in all these cases is seeds acting as causes for seeds of the next moment.

I believe so. Yeah, that's why you put this note here for us, Geshe-la. Yeah, I put it for me.

So when a seed acts as a cause for the seed of the continuation of the seed, it's not a dakpo yi ken. Okay. Because...

Because it is a cause that produces something of an equivalent time. Yeah, you can say that. Yep.

Okay. I guess maybe they're talking about when the seed opens. I don't know.

You know? Okay. I thought it was because dakpo yi kens are specific in how they ripen personally, but like a sabin creates another thing like it, like sabin.

Yeah, but he's saying why it's not a dakpo yi ken. Yeah. Okay.

That implies that a dakpo yi ken must not produce something of the same type. Right, exactly. Okay, I've got to flush it out more, but thank you.

Yeah, okay. This one's easy. It's not a...

This is just one long word for the third kind of ken. Oh, okay. Tsongpa de ma tak kyen.

Tsongpa de ma tak kyen. It's the condition for something of the next instant which is of the same type. And it always refers to sem and sem chung.

Okay. So, obviously there can be conditions which create things in the next instant that are of the same type. But in this case, of the same type always means sung den.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, shared between mind and mental functions. Okay. So, why cannot seeds in the mind be called tsongpa de ma tak kyen?

Because they are not sem chung. Right, they're den min du chen. Yeah, they are not mental.

They are not mental functions. Okay. So you can disqualify the third kind of ken.

How about this fourth kind of ken? Oh, I think it's because for a mikpa, for a seed to have a mikpa it would have to be aware, so therefore it cannot. Yeah, mikken means something that when you focus on it, it triggers the consciousness.

Right. So, it says here, seeds cannot be factors of the type that triggers a consciousness when it's focused upon, because nothing focuses on a seed. Or a seed doesn't focus on anything.

You could possibly say that, yeah. Because it says, sab en la mikpa me, the seeds don't have objects. Well, the ken would be the object, you see?

Like blue is a mikken for eye consciousness. Okay. You see what I mean?

So, this has to mean the seeds don't, you could say the seeds don't have any objects that they focus on. But yeah, that would make sense. But, you see, if the seeds are not, if we're saying that the seeds are not a mikken, it means there's nothing which focuses on them and is thereby created, is thereby triggered.

You see what I mean? So, you're reading it as there is no focus upon the seed, as opposed to... It has to be.

Yeah, yeah. Because, well, yeah, because mikken means an object which triggers a subject. Like blue triggers the perception of blue, in the schools that believe in these things.

So, this has to be saying there's nothing that focuses on the sab en. And therefore, it cannot be, it cannot trigger a consciousness of it. You see, if it said mikpe ken yang me te, it would mean the seed doesn't have an object of its focus.

But if it says mikpe ken mayin, it means the seed itself is not the kind of cause which triggers an awareness of itself by acting as the object of that awareness. If it says may, isn't may the opposite of you, like to have? Yeah, it is, but mikpe, again, mikpe ken means causation coming from the side of the object, not the subject.

You see? The object triggers the subject. And in Madhyamika, that becomes a problem.

Right, because that's Abhidharma, right? Yeah, yeah, pretty much. In other words, the object has to predate the consciousness of it.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Which is not possible in Madhyamika. Or mind only. I don't know.

There are no outer objects, Geshe-la. Well, no, but mikpe doesn't have to be outer, that would be chi mikpe. Okay.

And this shepa, is it saying this whole thing is a quote from Dunsang? Yeah, yeah, or it's paraphrasing it. It could be a paraphrase.

Okay. Okay. That's it.

Thank you for that, it's a tough, tough section. It's a very tough section. And we still have to look more into it.

Okay. We're going to go back to this and look at it again. Let's see here.

Okay, so, dakpa kyen ni me de. Yeah, a sabana is not a... Okay, we finished on that.

By the way, I went and did some research as far as the Abhidharma, right? Mm-hmm. So a dakpa kyen, according to Stanley's text, is equivalent to a je gyu, a doer cause, okay?

Got it? And the doer cause is defined as something which doesn't prevent the arisal of something else in the universe. Oh, right.

Remember, the surfer in Indonesia didn't stop a baby born in England, so in the moment he was riding the wave. So, dakpa kyen, something like a... something like a...

I don't know, what do you want to call dakpa? I don't know. A dominant cause or something, okay?

Yeah. A dominant factor is equal to a doer cause, and a doer cause is defined as anything in the universe that doesn't stop something from growing, okay? Which means that this sentence doesn't make any sense, you see?

To say that the mental seeds are not like the surfer in Indonesia because they do not... they are not causes which trigger something of the same type after them.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, mental seeds don't trigger something of the same type after them, therefore they are not like the surfer in Indonesia. Mm-hmm. And that doesn't make sense, you see?

Yeah, yeah. That's not how dakpa kyen is defined. Geshe-la.

Yep. Because I think the mind-only school defines it as seeds and how they produce their manifestations, and not seeds producing more seeds. Well, this doesn't even necessarily have to be seeds producing more seeds, this sentence.

Yeah, that's true. Now, he quotes Dönsang, right? Mm-hmm.

And Dönsang is actually a little bit helpful here, so I'm just going to show it to you, which is here. So read this big sentence here. Dakpa kyen mayinte kelpa nyampa nyumpar jukpe yuyinpe chiru.

I mean, that's the same sentence. Yeah, okay. It's not a dakpa kyen, okay?

Mm-hmm. It's not a, what do you call that? It's not a...

Dominant? I used to call it owner cause or something. It's not an owner factor.

Yeah. Because it does create something of the same type just after it. Uh-oh.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Now, word. If he's talking about the surfer, this makes sense.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? If the seed is defined as something which triggers the continuation of the seed, okay? Mm-hmm.

Then we're not talking about a surfer, because the surfer creates a baby, which is definitely not the same kelp, not the same type. You got it? Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? So if dakpa kyen in the mind only does mean the same thing that it means in Abhidharma, and you say there's a difference, but I've never seen such a discussion. It may exist, you know?

It may very well exist. I haven't seen it, but there's lots of things I haven't seen, as my teacher used to say. Mm-hmm.

So, but it makes sense as it stands. This is not a surfer in Indonesia, because what it produces is something of the same type, which a baby in England is not necessarily, right? Okay?

Right. All right, here's the next term. It's not a summa demata kyen, okay?

It's not a minor mental function which triggers a minor mental function of the next moment, because why? Because this essence is not either of those things. Yeah, it's a demoduchi.

It's neither mental or physical. So it cannot be the second kind of condition. And it cannot be the first kind of condition.

Okay? So now we're still looking, okay? Mikme kyen yang min te.

Sabun la mikpa may be chir do. And again, I know it would feel comfortable to say sabun la mikpa may should say seeds don't have things that they focus on, right?

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
But it's being used to prove that the sabuns themselves are not objects which trigger awarenesses of them. You see what I mean? Yeah, I do now.

Mikpe kyen. Yeah, okay. All right, here we go.

Please read, and Nick is going to check you. Okay. Okay, here.

Yeah, so shesar, which is the other commentary that's often parallel to dentsam. The explanation? Yeah.

It says, read this, okay? Up to Shea. It says that potentials are just that.

They are not the foundation consciousness. Yeah, potentials, mental seeds in and of themselves are not foundation consciousness, okay? Mm-hmm.

And then our author, Tsongkhapa, says, don't chulwa these words. Don't mistake these words. Because Tsongkhapa says, what about the kunshi?

It has two parts, right? Yeah, it has the ripened and the unripened. Yeah, so look, I agree that shesar has this one phrase that says the seeds in themselves are not kunshi, but that's not what it means, okay?

But that's not... Don't get hung up on the wording here. It doesn't mean what it seems to say.

No one's denying that the bhagyaks are part of the kunshi. Okay? Cool?

So Tsongkhapa's saying, don't look at this phrase and think that somebody who knew what they were talking about said that the bhagyaks were not the kunshi. Right. Even though the wording states that, don't be fooled, it would be incorrect to think that they weren't.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Could he also be making the point that the Mind-Only School acknowledges that the kunshi comes from seeds? Like it's the ripening?

Well, think about this, Nick. Classically, Tsongkhapa has said that the kunshi has two parts. One is the part that holds the seeds, and one is the seeds themselves, right?

But that doesn't preclude someone from saying, look, don't think that the bhagyaks are mind, are made of mind, just because they live in the mind. Don't think they are demenduchi. They are neither physical nor mental.

But they are part of the kunshi. Kunshi is a state of awareness, but the seeds aren't aware of anything. So he says, look, from the point of view of being aware, seeds are not mind.

They are not aware. But don't think that therefore they are not part of the kunshi. Okay?

Awful quiet up there. I get it. Okay, good.

Here is the quotation, if you are interested, for your footnote. Okay. Now, somebody is going on to a new suggestion.

Please read, and Ben Kramer wants to check you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Kelte, sabay nyupor ndu la tse su min du na, nyun mepe lukso she na. This is tough. This is a short sentence, but it's tough.

You want to fight with it, you guys? She na. You may ask.

Yeah, good. That part you got right. Luka system.

You wrote that here. This never before? Yeah.

Hey, your suggestion, O Tsongkhapa, is really unprecedented, meaning you just made this up, didn't you? Okay. Kelte, if we say that the seeds are not real, right, nyupor?

No, they are nyupor. Oh, if we say that they're functioning things. Yeah, but they're not ze.

But they're not substantial things. Good, good, good. Yeah.

Yeah, O Tsongkhapa, this is an interesting new idea you have here. Something can be functional and not be substantial. That's weird.

Oh, right. Why did you just come up with this never-before-seen system of thinking? Yeah, now, word.

In what sense did Tsongkhapa say the seeds were not ze? He's being accused of two things. He's being accused of saying that the seeds are functional.

That's okay. But he's also being accused of saying that the seeds are not substantial. They're not substantial in the sense that they're not to be one is to be the other, in reference to the kunshi.

But Tsongkhapa has said they are ze sumadrup. He said they are nyupa. They are not ze.

Yeah, they have their potentials. They're in-name-only seeds. Yeah, they're not...

You can't touch them. You can't feel them. They're not substantial.

They are just actually words put on state of the kunshi. They are just a potential. They have no concrete existence.

So, this guy is saying, wow, you just invented a functioning thing that has no concrete existence.

[Speaker 2]
Which is all demodigy anyway.

[Speaker 1]
And this is the kind of criticism that is normally reserved for us telling them. But now the guy is saying to Tsongkhapa, oh, nice, you have a system that no Buddha ever taught before. All right, here we go.

Keep reading. Who's checking you? I forgot.

Hasso, oh my gosh. All right. Okay, good.

No problem, man. No problem. No problem.

This master, who I guess now, they're saying, the master here who wrote this. HR is... Whoever wrote Shekhar.

Ngo Nyi Mepa. Yeah, Mr. No Self Nature. Okay.

Okay. This master is just following the kuchas. Just following the Sangha brothers.

Yeah, who divide all lupas into ze and tak, ze yu and tak yu. Divide all functioning things into those who are substantial and those that exist in name only. Good.

And Demodoche, and he believes that Demodoches are duchas. He believes the fact that existing things which are neither physical or mental... Changing things which are neither mental or physical.

Oh, changing things which are neither physical or mental do stuff. Are produced. He agrees that.

And he says they can also be not. He says, and they are also not ze. And at the same time, they are insubstantial.

Would he say mental things are ze?

[Speaker 2]
No, he wouldn't. Mental things are ze.

[Speaker 1]
He would. Would he say physical things are ze?

[Speaker 2]
For sure.

[Speaker 1]
Would he say physical things are duchas?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Would he say mental things are duchas?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Would he say Demodoches are duchas?

[Speaker 2]
They are.

[Speaker 1]
But would he say Demodoches are ze?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, that's what he said. And Tsongkhapa is saying, don't pick on the guy. He's just following the position of the two brothers.

Okay. That those in-between things called changing things that are neither physical nor mental don't qualify as stuff.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Like things like Ben or things like concepts or things like cheese. Wow, I shouldn't say that. Okay.

Anyway, here we go. Careful.

[Speaker 2]
He meant Swiss.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. Uncle Tim, let's go.

Oh, this is nice. And for that reason, for that very reason, okay, to jeba with an O. Discriminate, divide?

Good. To discriminate, divide. Discriminate between separate masters, Luke, without jeban.

Discriminate between the system of separate teachers without mixing them up. Nice. Proves that he is a dzangpa.

A wise pandita. Yeah, and his ye is shungpa. Shungpa is extremely rare.

It means low self-worth. Yeah. Yeah, he's like a texter.

He gets the shung, right? Yeah, he said, no, this shung doesn't mean scripture. It's spelled differently.

It is? It means to have a clear mind. Okay.

And you've never seen it before, trust me. He's a clear, clear-minded one? Yeah, he's a clear thinker.

He doesn't mix up his systems. Okay. Now, word, you want some good news?

We're done with this part? No, we're going to start something which we can understand. Oh.

[Speaker 2]
I'll be the judge.

[Speaker 1]
I guess it's just a vacation. Okay. You can translate the next line.

You don't need me. You may ask, what are the three ways that seeds are presented? Virtuous, non-virtuous, and neutral?

Of those three, which is it? Yeah. So somebody says, hey, those seeds in the mind, are they good?

Now listen, are they themselves good deeds? And are they themselves bad deeds? Or are they themselves neutral?

So be careful here, okay? It's not to say good seeds, bad seeds. Are the seeds themselves a good deed?

And are the seeds themselves a bad deed? Okay? Well, if they were, they wouldn't be a very good smearable place, would they?

That's true. Okay. Please read.

Yeah, I remember this from the Golden Key. I hope so. MA DRIP LA SHES PA MI KHWAG MA O Yeah, you see, in the root text we only said LUNG MA BSTAN.

Yeah. And oftentimes you say MA DRIP LUNG MA BSTAN. Yeah.

So he says, don't forget to add the word MA DRIP here as implicit, okay? Yeah, okay. Okay, good.

That's cool, yeah. Here we go. Our footnote in the Golden Key talks about MA DRIP LUNG MA BSTAN.

Yay! Okay. Okay, go.

TENI NURIKTE LUNG THANG RIG PA THANG NGELWE CHIRTE NDI THAG KUN LHAG TU SU JE SUN DREL PA'I DE BA LHAG GANG SHEN NA THEY THAG NU NI GYI PHAG CHAG SO SHES THANG Whoa, okay. Okay. Okay, that must be incorrect, right?

What's incorrect? THANG SHEN NA I don't know. It sounds now like it's saying something different.

Somebody said, what are BHAG CHAGS? And if you say they are MA DRIP LUNG MA BSTAN, okay? If you say they are neutral, okay?

Then, let's go that way. I'm not sure this is where it's going, okay? Okay.

That cannot be correct because it contradicts both LUNG and RIG PA. Yeah, because you're contradicting scripture and logic. Yeah, so now I guess this other sentence above says, if you ask me whether the seeds are good deeds, bad deeds, or neutral, I would say they are neutral, and in addition to that, I would say they don't block, right?

They don't obscure, right? They're the kind of neutral which doesn't block you, okay? Yeah.

And then the other guy says, that's not right, because that contradicts both scripture and logic. How it contradicts scripture is, KUN LAS DUS SU BYAS SU BRAL PA'I Okay. It says what you may ask, It's saying, it says that in the Abhidharma Samuccaya, that they're virtuous.

I'm sorry, I misphrased it, okay? KUN LAS DUS SU, in the compendium, right? Abhidharma Samuccaya, okay?

What does it mean when we say something is virtue by relationship? Oh yeah, we talked about this too, yeah, I remember. Okay, so we can't read this Drel as G-R-E-L, right?

It's connection. Yeah, it doesn't mean commentary, it means connection, yeah. So, in the Abhidharma Samuccaya, when it says, what is, by the way, big mistake here, and caused me some trouble, Thanks.

They should hire us to clean up their books before they carve them, right, Word? You have me. Yeah, okay.

What does it mean to be virtuous by association? Okay. Oh, that refers to DE DAG NYID KYI BAG CHAGS.

Yeah, that refers to the seeds themselves. Yeah, the seeds for that, okay? For, I guess, virtue, okay?

The seeds for virtue are considered virtue by association. And then the opposite, now. Yeah, what is it?

Please read and translate. DE GZUN DREL PA'I MI DGE BA GANG GZHAN NA DE DAG NYID KYI BAG CHAGS SOGS ZHES BAG CHAGS DGE MI DGE GSUNGS PA'I PHYIR THANG And you may, and so what is it that makes the seeds non-virtuous? What does it mean to be non-virtuous by association?

Right, thank you. What does it mean to be non-virtuous by association? That's just seeds for non-virtue, okay?

Yeah, SOGS here just means non-virtue. Those are just, that's just seeds for non-virtue. Yeah, and then you have to have a big pause after the second ZHES.

And you have to say, those two quotations, okay? These two quotations state, they clearly state that the seeds are... Virtuous and non-virtuous.

Yeah, good. Virtuous in the first quotation, non-virtuous in the second quotation, okay? In fact, we shouldn't split these two, okay?

Because otherwise we'll forget. All right.

[Speaker 3]
I like it.

[Speaker 1]
All right. And here's the original text of the Abhidharma Samuccaya by... Arya Sangha.

Yeah, here's the first quotation. What does it mean to be virtuous by association? It refers to mental seeds of virtue.

What does it mean to be virtuous, non-virtuous by association? And then he continues with that, okay? All right.

Now, this is a huge kachikma and very difficult. It's a two-paragraph question.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's a two-paragraph position. Okay, so I just wanted to alert you. The shena in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine...

Nine lines down. Yeah. It says, if you say...

It's talking about all nine lines, okay? So, please read them, but just remember that it's a huge statement by the other guy. The other guy says...

Kelte? Kelte. Wait, wait, I need someone to make you suffer.

Anatole. I don't need anyone to make me suffer. All right, extra suffering.

Anatole, are you there? Kiri, are you there? Okay, we'll do it when Kiri's done.

Word, make a few mistakes so Anatole feels like he's in the... He's not stuck in Guadalajara, okay? Let's go.

Anatole, are you ready? Hey, hey, Kiri, Kiri, Kiri. We want Kiri.

Okay, here we go. Okay, I'll make one mistake per line, Anatole.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. Kelte. Kope.

Acha. Tamche. I think he just turned his internet on.

Okay, there we go. Lungmaten. Tunduna.

Namen. Giu. Chepar.

Chepar teluatan. Jukse. Mgege.

Lungmaten. Kepe. Sabingi.

Yutungi. Braise. Anatole.

Anatole, you have to turn your microphone. Kepar teluatan. Terebu.

Terebu. Tonpa. Tonmi.

Rima.

[Speaker 2]
Sima, Tangwar, Rinwa.

[Speaker 1]
Kim is trying to correct both of you. Sima. Sima.

Yeah, good. Tang, Tangwar. Gewa, Kyun, Chak, Su, Mi, Chung.

Keep going. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Sima.

[Speaker 1]
Sima.

[Speaker 2]
Sima.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. There you go. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

It's awesome. Awesome. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

By the way, our reply, okay, Word? What's our reply here? De ta mayino.

They're not like that. Yeah, it's not like that, okay? And that's all.

That's our reply, okay? It ain't like that, okay? So at least we know if it's correct or not, okay?

So go slow, Word. Kelte means what? Okay, so you may ask.

So if you ask, Kelte, if. Good. Go pay pak chak.

The seeds that have been smeared. Yeah, the seeds that have been planted. All of them.

Kam che, all of them. Are they lumadun? If you're wondering, or if you hold the position that they are neutral.

Good. If you believe that all seeds are karmically neutral, right, then it cannot be the case that they ever provide namin kiyu. Right, it's ridiculous that they could ever be a ripened cause.

No, a cause for a karmic ripening. Ripe, yeah, okay, a ripened cause. A cause that ripens, yeah.

They can never be a cause for karma to ripen on you, good or bad. If the seeds themselves are neutral, they cannot create pain and pleasure. Okay?

Okay. Ian. Kam che, the, when the, excuse me.

Somebody's having a wrestling match with their toilet paper or something. Okay, there we go. When the mental consciousness is engaged.

Good, good. Well, it could also be a physical consciousness. When the consciousness engages, it cannot be the case that they have been created by dge mi gye lungpa teng gyi sabar.

By virtuous, non-virtuous, or neutral seeds. Yeah, which is to say consistent results, meaning bad pain must not come from bad karma. Pleasure must not come from good karma, okay?

Must be. If the seeds are invariably what? Neutral.

Invariably neutral. Then how can you have impressions of, either good impressions or bad impressions?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And, Practicing a vow? Yeah, once you have taken vows of any kind.

Okay? Until such time as you teng. As you throw them away?

As you pass away? Until such time as you formally renounce them, okay? Give them up.

Or do. How can you claim that there's a gewa gyun chak? How can you claim that there's a stream of virtue that occurs?

Yeah, good, good. Yeah. How can it be that after you take a vow, and until the day you give it up, you get a steady stream of good karma every second from those vows, if the seeds themselves are always?

Neutral. Neutral. Then how can you say that when you take a vow, you get good karma until the day you give it up?

Okay. Moreover. Okay.

Okay. How can, how can the, how can that, the ripening which occurs from them be projected as good, bad, or some combination thereof? Well, I think what he's saying here is, and now as far as that, what it is which projects a ripening, okay?

You, you know, traditionally we divide it into gewa and migewa. Yep. So if, if the seeds are always karmically neutral, then why do we always say that pleasure and pain are projected by good and bad deeds?

Okay. Right. Okay.

And, ,GYI LTUNG GI DE BU DE RGYUR LAS RTEN CIG DGOS PA'I PHYIR DANG, Okay. Then, then there couldn't be a compelling case that the causes and their results would be in accord with each other. Right, yeah, yeah.

If, it's weird. Your, yours, your description is weird because all the karmic seeds are neutral and they are producing pleasure and pain. Okay.

Inconsistent results. And, ,TSOGS GRUG DGAG PA'I TSE NA, ,YID DNGON DU GYUR DU NI MED LA SA BON YUNG KLANG, ,LU MA BSTAN DU BDOD PA'I PHYIR DANG, Moreover, when you're at TSOGS GRUG stop, maybe when you die, for example, I guess. Yeah.

Then when your mind is, the mind that's left over, right? The, the evidence state of mind left over, may. Wouldn't exist.

There wouldn't be anything left. There wouldn't be any manifest state of mind, but the Sabans Yung. The Sabans would still exist.

And to say that those are LUNG MA BSTAN, oh, and because they are LUNG MA BSTAN, they, they could stay. Three minutes. Okay.

Yeah. After you die, your six consciousness go away and your seeds are still there. How can you say those are neutral if you go to a good birth and a bad birth?

Yeah, yeah. And there's no other thing to force you there. Okay.

Right. Then we say, oh, they thought about you. Nuh-uh.

Yeah. It ain't like that. Okay.

It ain't like that. Then he comes back rightfully with, this is, you may ask how it really is. Yeah, yeah.

If it ain't like that, then what's it like, please? Okay. He says, oh, if, if it's not like that, can you just clarify it?

Okay. All right. Now we got two minutes left.

Let's use the time. Yay, please. Please read.

CHI TEN NGAR GYI LUNG RIGS DE NI THO BZHIN NA DE NI BHAG CHAGS RGYAS MI DGE BRTZEN NI PAS GRUB PAR BYED PA YAN DAG PA MA YIN NO Yeah, so somebody says, hey, well, what do you think about these scriptural and logical refutations of your idea that the seeds are neutral? Okay. What do you think about those?

And we say, okay, these are what? So yeah, these are pure. These aren't correct.

Yeah, these are not correct proofs for proving that Bhag Chaks are gay and mid-gay. BRTZEN NI PAS BRTZEN NI PAS means authentic or real. Really, really?

Yeah. Your arguments, both your scriptural arguments and your logical arguments are bad, okay? Because they don't prove conclusively that the seeds are either good deeds or bad deeds.

Okay. Let's do one more sentence. Okay.

Come on, Nick. One more sentence. One more sentence.

I'm just reporting. I'm just kidding. Go ahead, word.

JI LTAR GZHAN NA DE LA LUNG GRUB BYED DU MIN DRUG BAR BSTAN PA'I THAMS RIG PA GRUB BYED DU MIN DRUG BAR BSTAN PA'I MI SO Yeah, so the guy says, look, you say my arguments are lousy, okay? Both my scriptural arguments and my logical arguments. Well, can you just tell me why or how?

And we say, yeah. And we're going to tear you down in two sections. What's the first section?

Scripture. Yeah. Your quotations are not scriptural proof.

Okay. Secondly, your RIG PA is not GRUB BYED. Your logic is also YANG DAG PA MA YIN.

Yeah, your quotations suck and your logic sucks also. Okay. All right.

Now, I just want to remind everybody that we're going to have an important class the next two mornings. So we start at six o'clock a.m. Sedona time. I will be at the college, Tim, at 5.30 a.m. Okay. And we will have, tomorrow and the next day, we'll have early morning classes in Arizona and that everyone's welcome to attend who is vaccinated. And we're going to cover more about the structure of the mixed nuts. And it is amazing and wonderful.

So if you don't come, you're a loser. Okay. And you got to get up early if you're in America.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
All right. Is that an open invitation to people not doing the course? Like specifically or?

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, it should be, Tim, that people not doing the course can come to those two days. To the 7.00 a.m. class, actually. It's the 7.00 a.m. that you're going to be doing that exposition, yeah. Yeah, I'll be at the school at six. First, I'll do both classes in the morning from the school tomorrow and the next day. And if you can come, you're welcome to come.

But the important class is at 7.00 a.m., okay? Cool. They're all important.

Thank you. Yeah, well. Thank you very much.

Thanks for another day of amazing classes.

[Speaker 2]
What class is at 5.30 in the morning?

[Speaker 1]
Six. No, no, the regular schedule holds. Regular schedule, but at the 7.00 a.m. class tomorrow and at the 7.00 a.m. morning class the next day, I will do an important review of the Mixed Nuts program and its connection to the ALL program, okay? Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks.