Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 35

[Speaker 1]
What are you doing? Don't worry, it's almost over. Hi, Hato.

[Speaker 3]
Si?

[Speaker 1]
Si. Si. Don't be so serious.

Where's Word? He's here. Let's go, Word.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. His name's Word, right?

[Speaker 1]
It's Word, right? Mr. Word, yep. Oh, I have a proposal that will upset Word.

Okay. Can I do it? Probably.

That will not be difficult. Can I take the first 10 minutes of your class? Yeah.

Okay, I'm going to do that to everybody. Okay, Nick? Okay.

Noted. Yeah. So, let me take the screen.

Good playing, boss. Let me find the thing I wanted to talk about. Are you going to expostulate?

Yes, I have, in fact, probably the rest of the classes. I'll just take equally 10 minutes from each person or something like that. Cool, cool, cool.

Is this what you've been bribing us for for these last few terms? I want to talk about the rules of the Mixed Nuts and how it works for the new people. And I took too much of their classes already, so now I'm going to take a little bit of everybody else's class.

How's that? Sounds good. And I think it's good if the audience hears it because they want to be a Mixed Nuts later.

Okay, here we go. So, Word, I'll really try to stop. Give me 15 minutes.

Give me 12 minutes, okay? And here we go. And I know it's going to be irritating for Word and for the rest of you, but I don't care.

Okay, here we go. I would like to describe the workflow of the Mixed Nuts. And partly why I'm doing it is because we need to clean up part of it because now we have so many books coming out that we need to organize better.

And we also need more people to help. There's more work now. There's much more work now.

And I can't cover all of it. Like, I used to cover the extra work, but it's just too much now. There's too many books coming out.

So, we need more people. So, I'm inviting... part of the reason I'm doing this presentation is to ask for help, okay?

So, if you guys who are already Mixed Nuts or you guys who are just observing these classes, if you think there's something I mentioned that you would like to help with, then talk to Nick or talk to Ben Kramer and write them and say, I'd like to help with that. Because we need help. It's too much for me to do everything anymore, okay?

All right, so here's the workflow. And I'm just going to stop at 545. And then I'll continue in the next class, okay?

This is how the Mixed Nuts works. So, I have a workflow, and then I have a policy document, okay? Here's the workflow.

Can you guys see it okay? Okay, and oh, Utpala, you asked me to send out the PDF from the document I did in the morning. And I will send it out.

In fact, Nick, while Word does his homework, I'll post it in the... I'll send it to you to post in the chat. Sure.

Okay? And anybody who wants a copy of that document can have it, right?

[Speaker 3]
I was going to post it on Google Doc Specialist so that anyone can get it.

[Speaker 1]
Let's do both. Let's do both here. Okay, so here's the flow of the Mixed Nuts work.

And each step is numbered, okay? Look at this flow. That's how many steps we have, okay?

That's all the jobs. And, you know, we need more people. We need more help.

That's how many jobs there are, and it's a lot. And it's a lot of work. And now that the Mixed Nuts are better trained, they're putting out more books, I need help.

We need more help. So, here we go. And, again, if it sounds...

If anything sounds interesting to anybody, talk to Nick, talk to Ben Kramer. Just say, look, I have... I want to help with that, okay?

Here's how the flow goes. And, Werd, I will stop at 545. I've got eight minutes.

Number one, we... And, by the way, the first step in the Mixed Nuts workflow is we choose a subject. We choose an ancient school.

We choose a topic. And I'm just going to give the example of Abhidharma, okay? So, let's say Stanley finishes his first Abhidharma book.

And we want to go deeper into chimtsu, or one of the other classics. Gyelwangtsu. These are deeper commentaries on Abhidharma.

Debate commentaries. So, the first step in the workflow is we choose a topic, like Abhidharma. Now, second step, we choose a book, okay?

So, in the case of Abhidharma, there's a Tibetan master called Denden Dru, and he wrote a book called Light on the Path of Freedom, which is an Abhidharma commentary. So, we select a title, and we select an author. That's the second thing we do.

First, we choose a school, and then we choose a book and an author. Third step, we look for a good edition of the book. We try to find some good books.

We try to find carvings, and we try not to find computer-input books, because they are often, often, often corrupt, every single page. There is not high-quality control of ancient book publishing in this world, because nobody can read it. And nobody can see there's three mistakes on every page.

So, unfortunately, many, many, many editions are bad. So, we try to find the carvings. Carvings are usually high-quality.

There's very few problems with most carvings, because you don't carve something, you know, the king or the prince of the local kingdom doesn't sponsor a carving unless it's well edited, you know, normally. Okay. Now, I have side trees here.

We try to find the original Sanskrit, or we try to find the Pali, or the early Chinese translations. We try to find other versions, other supporting translations. That's 3.02. Step 3.03, we try to find a nice biography of the author, like the one that Ben Kramer's been reading for Dignaga and Dharmakirti, for example, or the one that Sugeng's been reading for Vasubandhu. We try to find a nice authoritative. By the way, I'm not interested in something you find unlike. I'm not interested.

They're almost always wrong. They're almost always corruption. They're almost always some starving university scholar, I'm sorry, who's trying to get credit for their professorship or something, and they're poorly written, they're poorly researched, they're poorly translated, and I don't trust them.

So, I only want to use original biographical works, okay? I don't want someone's guesses about, well, maybe he lived then, and maybe he was there, and maybe his name was something. I'm not interested.

I want authentic biographies that they're using, and then they just keep adding stuff. I was at Princeton University. I was pressured in my senior thesis to make up stuff, and it was considered scholarly to make up new things.

We had a lot of pressure to make up new things, and it was all bullhockey. Now I look at it, I'm like, oh, my God. So, anyway, by the way, me and Ben, why these have numbers on them, each step in this long, long process is going to have a number on it, and the reason I put a number on it is after this term, I would like Nick and Ben to sit down and make a list of those numbers, okay, on a separate document, and then I would like to see who's in charge of that.

Who's in charge of 1.01? Who's in charge of 2.01? Who's in charge of 3.01?

Okay, A, who's in charge? I'll make a list. B, who pays them, and how much do they get paid?

You know, who pays them, how much do they get paid? Who's their boss? Three.

Who works for them? Four. Who checks that they do their work?

Five. And who reviews them every year for a raise and a bonus? Okay, and number six, who raises the money?

So, every single task here should have a person assigned to it or several people. They should have a supervisor. They should have staff if it's a big job.

They should have a salary. They should have a bonus if they do good work. They should have a review twice a year.

And what's their job supposed to be should be written down for them. And here's the ten things you're supposed to do. And we never did this for the mixed nuts.

We never, never had this. And we're getting big now. And we're producing important work.

And, you know, Ben and Nick have been begging me to finish a contract with Diamond Cutter Press, for example. And it's time to write down who does each job. Who's in charge of them?

How many hours a day do they get? How much do they get paid? Do they get a bonus?

Who's in charge of them? Who's working for them? How often do they get checked?

Who keeps track of their hours? Like that. I mean, it's time to make it a real company because we're so successful.

We have 27 books coming out. And somebody has to coordinate all this stuff. So that's my sales pitch for you guys.

There's going to be how many? I don't know. There's probably 100 jobs here.

And they're all necessary. And I would like to define them. I'd like to define who's in charge of them, who's working for it, who pays them, who raises the money for them.

God bless. And stuff like that, okay? And then each number here will have a person and their job and who's in charge of them, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay, word over to you. And I'll continue this. I'll do it 10 minutes in each class.

Okay, Mr. Homework. Okay. Sorry to take your time and I'm sorry I popped it on you, but I thought I would have more time, but I didn't.

I talked too long about the other thing.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, no problem. Here we go.

[Speaker 1]
Yay, homework. Yeah, just share the screen. Go ahead.

Just a little review from last time. Okay. Okay.

Question one, does the explication by master has no nature at all. Agree with Jason copper that seeds are neither. They check, nor had a bar with that with the country.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to give other people a chance word. Thanks, man.

[Speaker 2]
I definitely don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I don't remember at all. It's, it's, it's binary either does or doesn't. Yeah, it is there's more details but you're right it is binary.

Okay. It seems like he does not. But we shouldn't be confused by the meaning of his words because his text is actually in agreement with the text of the song of brothers is what Jason got buses.

That's exactly what. Yeah, I think in the bottom line is he does agree that it's difficult to say it's either the same or the separate from. Yeah.

Yeah. It was, it was a really specific part but they're all really specific parts, and if I don't pick one and there's no homework. Okay.

Um, what is the two word phrase that Jason copper adds the term, look what then his first for clarification. Nice question. Easy.

Easy. Two words, give me two words. Tanya.

No, good, good try though. I think, I think I'm just looking at the verse, sorry, I'm just guessing. Nowhere.

In the early years of the mix. Oh we did we're getting there too. Hmm.

It's my drip. Of course, yes. It was in Stanley's text to.

Yeah, it was okay guys. I have a question. What's that.

You have to say and does not cause an obstacle. Oh yeah. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, you cause an obstacle but it doesn't. Non obstacular unpredicted. Perfect.

You'll get a bonus in the next review. Okay guys so you ready. What am I waiting for I don't know.

Bonus question $300 guessing Michael. God, you must. Yeah, I know you had now.

You must have hit your head.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Am I paying. Right. Now you put me on the spot.

I will that. That's right. I can't take money.

I can donate it to something. Okay. If you get it.

Easily. Okay. Okay, you ready.

Yeah, I'm ready. I'm nervous. Now I know what it feels like.

I know it's all coming back. Okay, here it is. Name is about his name is not word it's weird.

Name a phenomenon that is neutral and does not cause an obstacle. You mean my diploma then right. Yep.

Let's see. Now it's specific we had it in the, I think the first term. Yeah, now it's changing.

Oh my god. First term. Makes nuts.

First. Okay, now I'm getting serious let me think about it. Yeah.

I'm not sure if a comment on it. Physical form. No, it's, it's super specific.

There might be others this is the one I know that we talked about. Is it, is it. Is it the I'm trying to remember the non communicating karma.

No, that would be cool though. It was super specific. It's been like five years, but I thought it'd be fun.

Yeah, thanks. I give up. I give up.

I don't remember. It's a meditative state of fogginess. Oh my God.

I have no recollection of that.

[Speaker 3]
I remember.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Okay. I got fogginess about that.

I didn't have to give $300 so I don't have fogginess. All right, I'm gonna give, I'm only gonna make bets like that with you. Okay, here we go.

According to a, according to. According to a debate opponent. What are the three absurd consequences of seeds.

Being neutral. This is the last thing we covered.

[Speaker 3]
How can they cause pleasure or pain.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Basically, yeah, that's one. That's one of them.

That's kind of the first two though, how he's, he's the opponents puts them up. So there's one more that's.

[Speaker 2]
One order to create the seed that action would have had to have been neutral itself. Right. But if all seeds are neutral, they couldn't then have another what Gil say said.

[Speaker 1]
That's logical.

[Speaker 3]
It's not what he says, but if they're neutral you can't have a good or bad birth, which is kind of saying the same thing as pleasure and pain.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's kind of the same thing it's specific, I don't know if people took notes on it but it's, it's a vow wouldn't yield a good result is what he said. Oh yeah, good. Oh yeah.

A vow could not be a sustained virtue. Exactly. Um, and the first two are more specifically the ripenings of causes cannot do anything, and causes cannot yield results that are like them.

So, we didn't, we didn't refute those yet but we're getting there. Okay, I have some Tibetan words. That first one is very difficult.

Yeah, it's a fun one. It's rare, also, it's, it's rare, I just, there's not that many new words so I just put it. Yeah, exactly.

And you know what it means to Geshe-la? What? It means spinal cord.

That I didn't ever hear of. So I think, I think it's like the person with the most spinal cord or something like that. Yeah, that's, it sounds logical.

Yeah, that sounds logical. I don't, there must be a fancy English word for Shumba. It's like a high degree of intellectual discrimination, or something like that.

Yeah, it does. Did I forget, hold on, I forgot to do this, hold on. One second.

I thought I did that and I didn't. Okay. Here we go again.

Okay, here are the, here are the kens, I forgot the last one. Anyway, here are the kens. Nasty, nasty.

Let's just review them. What's the kui ken?

[Speaker 2]
Cause factor? Yeah, I mean.

[Speaker 1]
It refers to a cause factor, but just give me the translation. The one we came up with in class, for someone that's like. Dominant?

Yeah, perfect. Good job. Oh nice, dominant factor, dominant condition.

Kui ken? That's easy. Yeah.

Causal factor. Yeah, causal factor. Cause, cause.

Temaktepe ken? Immediate. Yeah, exactly.

And then mikpe ken? The object factor. Basically, I use condition.

Condition, I see. Factor, condition, whatever.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
That's good, those are good. That's good that you did those. Yeah, I just thought we could review them.

I did one more, and then I forgot to do this thing again. Oh, what did you say? I'll say it out loud.

Ngyun mepe luk. What's that? Uncrazy system?

Not Ngyun, Ngyun. Oh, oh, oh. Ngyun, Ngyun.

Ngyun. Ngyun. Okay.

S-G-N-O, S-G-O-N. S-N-G-O. Oh.

Oh my.

[Speaker 3]
System no one ever had before.

[Speaker 1]
Nice, nice. Yeah, exactly, very good Ben, very good. Never before seen system.

Yeah, it implies a made up stupid system. Okay. Translation, it was really hard.

I don't think I got it.

[Speaker 2]
Good for you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's not a fun part of the text. I tried.

Yeah, let's go slow because your text is, I don't know, it got worse. Dump on me. J-S-U-J-L-W-A-S-H-S-T-O-P-E-D LUNG YOD PAS.

Okay, let's do that much.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
There is a lung which mentions Je Tsudowa. That's what this means. Oh.

Okay. Hmm, okay. Because of the citation, which says, which mentions by association.

Is that how we're translating Je Tsudowa? Yeah, you can. Yeah, you can say by association.

What's it mean? Like a seed produces a seed in the next moment? No, we're talking, it's karmic content.

It's karmic, how active is it karmically? Meaning, is it virtue by association or non-virtue by association? That's the topic here, right?

It is. So there's this idea that seeds might be described as good or bad by association, not because of their own essence. Okay.

So, look, there is that scripture that mentions by association, and I'm going to show you that quotation, okay? Therefore, BAG CHAGS SKYES MI DGE'I TSE NYID PAR GYUR NA, if the implication of that, if because of that quotation, mental seeds become actual TSE NYID PAR, because of that quotation, they become actual virtue or non-virtue, okay? If seeds become virtue or non-virtue, real virtue and non-virtue, because of that reference to by association with something else, okay?

DE DANG NA GZUGS MED DU YANG GZUGS TSE NYID PAR ZHIG YOD PAR GYUR TE Then in that case, even in the formless realm, there would have to be examples of GZUGS TSE NYID PAR. Actual form. Yeah, good.

Yeah, actual form, okay? DE, why? Because GZUGS MED DU YANG GZUGS TSE NYID PAR ZHIG YOD PAR GYUR TE DE DANG NA GZUGS MED DU YANG GZUGS TSE NYID PAR ZHIG YOD PAR GYUR TE Because the kind of form which is said to exist by association would have to be actual.

Okay? And that's because there would have to be seeds for physical matter. Okay?

It's complicated. And I'll show you the quotation. I'll show you the reference.

The point is, if because seeds are associated with virtue or non-virtue, that makes them virtue or non-virtue, actual virtue and non-virtue, then there's other examples of things that are associated, for example, in the formless realm is associated with the potential for form, so then it would have to be actual form. Okay? So, that's all.

And not only that, not only would there be form in the formless realm by association, right? If existing by association is to exist in reality, then in the higher two realms, there would also have to be actual non-virtue. And that's not true.

They don't have non-virtue in the higher two realms. Right. So, this MA is not MA NI, it's KAM KUNG MA.

Yeah, it's KUNG MA. But I have a question for you, Warren. Don't the deities fight with the demigods and make bad karma?

Yes.

[Speaker 3]
That's the desire realm.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Yeah, you're right. You're right.

Yeah. The people in the form and formless realms are in a state of meditation all the time, and they don't make bad karma. They don't create new bad karma.

So, Ben Kramer, why do they always go to hell? Go ahead, Ben Kramer.

[Speaker 2]
37 people just said it at once.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay, okay.

[Speaker 2]
But yeah, they use up all their goodness feeling so fantastic all the time.

[Speaker 1]
And then their old bad seeds assert their power. Yeah, I'm good. Okay, cool.

All right, this is getting into a difficult section, Warren. As opposed to the other ones? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Finally.

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, I talk about it in the workflow. And after the workflow, I'm going to present just some ideas I have about our whole project. And one of the ideas I have is that you guys should realize that the translation classes are not even meant to come up with a definitive translation.

It's too early in the process while we're threshing out the first translation. It's too early to decide what the thing means. Okay?

It's too early. It takes a year after that. It takes about a year after the last class for it to really clarify it.

You see what I mean? And that's just part of the process. No translator in the world of these texts can decide on the first day they read something what's the correct translation.

It's got to have a period where you think about it, you chew on it, you read other commentaries. That's just part of the process. Don't be frustrated if you can't get to the point of making a finished translation of a sentence that you just read for the first time last week.

That's not even possible. It takes... The classes that we do together are not for the purpose of a final translation.

They're for the purpose of starting the process of cooking it. That's just the way it is. I don't believe there's any translator in the world who could read something truly new and translate it immediately and it would come out good.

It's too deep. You need to finish the whole book. You need to sit with it for a few months.

You need to come back to it three, four, five times. Then you can do a finished translation. Okay.

Not really. Okay. Here we go.

Word, you ready? Don't get frustrated if you can't do a finished translation the first day. Nobody can.

The goal of doing it together is to start the process. Then it cooks and cooks and cooks and then it comes out like a pizza. Oh, God, I just got a desire for pizza.

Okay. By the way, here it is, word. Here's your sentence.

The word, jeserjewa, by association, we had it before. It came before. I'm going to show it to you right now.

Here it is. It's the Abhidharmasamuccaya. It says non-virtue by association.

Okay. What is non-virtue by association? Okay.

That's what he's referring to in this line. Good. Let's go on.

We're on to the second part. Supposedly the second part. It's always good to look at what the second part is.

We say he attempted scriptural proofs for why the seeds should be virtue or non-virtue. He attempted to bring up scriptural proofs for why the seeds should not be always neutral. We beat those.

Now, he's going to do Rigpa. Nick knows Drupje. Drupje means backup or evidence.

What do you call that? We've been calling it Cheje, right? Proof.

A corroboration or evidence, you see? Then he says, look, you cannot... The quotations you attempted to use to prove that seeds could also be virtuous and non-virtuous didn't work out.

Now, Drupje to Mindola means they don't work as proof. Your scriptural quotations don't work as proof that seeds can be virtuous and non-virtuous. Now, we're going to show that your logic doesn't work out as proof that seeds can be virtuous and non-virtuous.

Because the wrong look here is that seeds are always neutral and non-obstructing. Non-obstructing. Yeah.

What did we sing? What did I forget? None.

How did we translate? Neutral and does not cause an obstacle. Yeah, okay, good.

Now, we're going to defeat his attempted logic of why seeds had to be virtuous or non-virtuous. That was the three points that you had in your homework. Now, we're going to attack those three points.

Here we go. This is interesting. Okay.

Your first logical argument was that if seeds were not virtuous or non-virtuous, they couldn't provide or they couldn't serve as namen kegu. What does that mean? Ripenings of causes.

Causes which ripen into some experience. You see what I mean? Explain the idea, Word.

If the seeds are not virtuous or non-virtuous, then how could they be a namen kegu? Yeah, if the seeds are neither virtuous nor non-virtuous, then how could they ripen into an experience? Yeah, into a good or bad experience, specifically, right?

How can seeds ripen into ice cream and vegetables if they are not virtuous or non-virtuous? Right. Okay.

If they don't have that kind of content to them, how can they give us pleasant ice cream and unpleasant vegetable experiences? Okay. Shepani.

That's what you said. Yeah. Now, this is very interesting.

We say, namen penje mayim bar tawa ni. Duh. We say, duh.

Yeah. What? Are the seeds not penjakers?

Penjayers? Yeah. He says, the opponent says, are you telling me karmic seeds are not penjayers?

And we say, yup. Yup. That's an unusual answer, a median answer.

Yup. Okay. What's penjay?

Throwing, casting. They throw an experience into the future. They throw an experience into the future of pleasure or pain.

Wait. Are you telling me karmic seeds don't throw an experience into the future of pleasure or pain? Are you saying that?

And we say, yup. That's exactly what we're saying. He's like, whoa.

Wait a minute. Okay. And we say, because bak chak de jog je ge mi ge, punk sin.

Because potentials. Now, word. I'll help you.

The potentials have already been punked.

[Speaker 2]
I was going to say that.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. Okay. Say it.

I'm sorry. Zen means it already happened. So, on an end of a verb.

So, yeah. And punk is a past tense of pen. So, yeah.

So, the potentials were already placed as virtue or non-virtue. No. The seeds themselves were already thrown into the future by the jog jays, meaning the good deeds or bad deeds.

[Speaker 2]
I see.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Don't talk about seeds as throwing events into the future. The seeds themselves were already thrown into the future by the jog jay.

So, jog jay means what planted them. The actions planted them. The good deeds or bad deeds which planted them.

They are not the good deeds or bad deeds. They are the result of the good deeds or bad deeds. They're already thrown into the future.

They have been thrown into the future by the good deeds or bad deeds which planted them, jog jay.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
That's cool, right? That's so cool. This is Tsongkhapa defending himself, right?

Don't get Tsongkhapa pissed off. You're in trouble. Then he says, okay, word.

You can finish the sentence here. The jog jay is the pen jay. The very nature.

No, the jog jay is the pen jay.

[Speaker 2]
That's the only thrower.

[Speaker 1]
The only thing that they are is throwing. The only thing that their very nature is placement and therefore throwing. The jog jay means the original good deed or bad deed.

Like killing somebody or giving someone $300 who deserves it is a jog jay, okay? It's the jog jay that does the throwing. Yeah, right.

I see. It's the original good deed or bad deed that planted the seed that does the throwing. Don't think the seed throws the vegetables or the ice cream.

It's the good deed or bad deed that throws the ice cream or the vegetables, okay? The seeds are intermediate steps, okay? Got it.

They were thrown by the jog jay, okay? The jog jay, the original good deed or bad deed, is what does the throwing. Not the seeds.

The seeds, in fact, are thrown by the jog jay. You really say seed is an intermediate result? I mean, I'm trying to position the seed as an intermediate.

It's a vehicle. It's not the good deed or the bad deed. It's the vehicle that delivers.

It's the postman. It's the medium. It's not the thrower.

The thrower is the original good deed or bad deed that planted the seed, okay? Cool? This is so kappa.

Okay, here is another argument against something he said. Dr. Kramer, you want to check this guy? Okay.

Yeah, and then the guy says, well, okay, let's leave it alone. I back off on my claim that they don't provide the cause for ripening, okay? I back off on that.

But, namin mi chepa tawa lani, if the seeds are not good deeds or bad deeds, that doesn't necessarily mean, says Tsongkhapa, that they cannot create a namin ki-drebu. A ripened result. Yeah, a result of karmic ripening, right?

Like vegetables or ice cream, okay? Just because the idea that if they are not good deeds or bad deeds themselves, they can't create the results of good deeds and bad deeds. No kepa, that's not necessarily the case.

Okay, that's not necessarily the case, okay? If it was the case, shen du na, if it were the case, then kun shi nam she kyi kye chik ma nga ma yang, lung du ma den pa gyur ro, if it were the case, then previous instance of kun shi, okay? This first ma is not negative, right?

It's just kye chik ma. Yeah, okay. So, previous instance of foundation consciousness would also have to be lung ma den.

Okay? Would also have to be lung ma den. Okay?

I guess because they do or because they don't ripen into something. Because they do ripen into something, right? According to you, previous instances of foundation consciousness would have to be karmically neutral.

Would also have to be karmically neutral, okay? Okay. Because the ripenings from the kun shi, if they were not neutral and did not cause an obstacle, then therefore, if that's the case, then therefore the kun shi has to be, previous instances have to be neutral as well.

You got a two on this one, but I think the point is, do previous instances of foundation consciousness perpetuate foundation consciousness or not? I'd hope so. They would have to, right?

Yeah, I would think they have to, right. And you might have to throw in the idea that bak chaks are the kun shi. Okay?

Don't forget, they are the tendu gyopi kun shi, right? Breton. Breton, okay?

So, I'll say this again and you guys got a two on it. It's not necessarily the case that the seeds cannot produce a karmic ripening, okay? It's not necessarily the case that if they are always neutral, they cannot produce a karmic ripening.

I guess because he's saying they do produce the kun shi of the next moment. Yes, they are lungma ten. Yes, they are not gyewa mi gyewa.

But they still perpetuate the kun shi. So, you can't say they don't have a karmic ripening. Okay?

It's not necessarily the case that if the seeds are never virtuous or non-virtuous, they cannot create a karmic result. I'll say it again. It's not necessarily the case that if the seeds are only neutral, they cannot create a karmic result.

Because, after all, don't they perpetuate the kun shi itself?

[Speaker 2]
It does pretty directly contradict the previous paragraph, right?

[Speaker 1]
The point is, can a neutral action create a karmic result?

[Speaker 2]
Right. Well, yeah, can a neutral action...

[Speaker 1]
Don't we often say at a DCI talk that the patterns in the four piles were created by a neutral karma in the past? You see what I mean? Yeah.

Either pleasing or displeasing.

[Speaker 3]
He said the action can, but that the seed isn't. Like, it's the action causing the result and not the seed causing the result.

[Speaker 2]
But now he's saying, yeah, but, you know, sure, the seed, obviously, the seed kind of causes a result.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I'll tell you what I think it says, okay? You know, the other guy must have accused us and said, if seeds cannot be gewa or migewa, if they cannot be a good deed or a bad deed, then they can never produce their own karmic result. And we say, look, it's not necessarily the case, because there are neutral karmas that do produce neutral karmic results.

And neutral means the result is neither pleasant nor painful. It's just there in the background. It's just background karma.

We call it background karma, right? It's creating, I don't know, the weather when you don't notice the weather, okay? So, he's saying, just because the seeds are themselves neither good deeds or bad deeds, and if you say it that way, it's a lot easier to take Tsongkhapa's position.

Is a karmic seed a good deed or a bad deed? No, I mean, nobody thinks that. It's the result of a good deed or a bad deed, right?

It's not a good deed or bad deed in itself. That's all Tsongkhapa is saying. Tsongkhapa is saying a seed is wrapped up with good deeds and bad deeds, but a seed itself is not a good deed or a bad deed.

It's a result of a good deed or a bad deed, okay? And then, just because it's the result of a good deed or a bad deed, doesn't mean it can't create ripened results, okay? And then he says, for example, the kunshi creates the kunshi of the next moment.

It's not a good deed or a bad deed. It's karmically neutral in and of itself, right? Didn't we say that?

It had to be karmically neutral to accept seeds. Then it tends to perpetuate itself. I don't know why you have a problem with that, okay?

But the distinction here, unless I missed something, is that the seed, while being neutral, will perpetuate a result, or could perpetuate a result, which is either positive or negative. That's not the emphasis. That's not the emphasis.

The emphasis of this second argument is that in the case of neutral results, the seed is active. The seed is perpetuating a neutral result. Just because it's neither good deed or bad deed, doesn't mean it cannot create a karmic result.

That's all.

[Speaker 2]
And the line he doesn't want to cross here, right, is calling it a nāmaṅgīgyu?

[Speaker 1]
The opponent doesn't want to call a seed a nāmaṅgīgyu. Tsongkhapa says a seed can be a nāmaṅgīgyu for something neutral.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Tough stuff.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, word. Who's up there? Sugei, check him.

Find the fault. My honor. Yulton Pei, don't tongue way to Europe.

Yeah. Now, this is tricky, okay? He says, as if the...

[Speaker 2]
He says...

[Speaker 1]
...themselves are neither good deeds or bad deeds. If Yulton Papa say that mental seeds are always neutral, then how can they be produced... How can they be involved with the production of a similar result?

Yulton. Yulton means the cause and the result are at the same time. So, if the seed is neither good or bad, how can a seed trigger ice cream and vegetables?

Okay? If the seed is neither good nor bad, and the seed leads... And the seed is involved in a relationship where the cause and the result are similar, then how can a seed which is invariably neutral lead to pleasant and unpleasant results if there has to be a continuity of content, which is called gyutun, okay?

If there has to be a continuity of content, if good has to lead to good, and bad has to lead to bad, then how can you claim that mental seeds are always neutral? Do not they always produce results which are either happiness or pain? Then where's your continuity of content?

You're saying neutral leads to happy ice cream, and neutral leads to spinach. Okay? Then where's the gyutun?

How can you still say that bak chak's seeds are gyutun? Gyutun. Gyutun.

Gyutun means the cause and the result share a quality of being pleasant or share a quality of being unpleasant. They're consistent. The cause is consistent with the result, okay?

And Tsongkhapa says, there's some gyutun going on here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There's some gyutun going on here. Where? Ah!

It's gyutun with the jochi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Yeah. The seed, and by the way, this is going to be important later, the karmic seed is consistent with the deed that planted it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But what are you talking about? The karmic seed is consistent with the deed that planted it. Lots of good deeds.

There's lots of bad deeds. You just said all the seeds are neutral. Where's the consistency?

Okay? All right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He says, when we say that the seeds are in a consistent relationship, good to good, bad to bad, okay? We're not talking about necessarily that the seed has a consistent relationship with its result. It has a consistent relationship with its cause, which is the deed that planted it.

But Tsongkhapa, the seed is still neutral even when it was planted, according to you, okay? Yes, but it has the capacity to create a good result or a bad result. It carries the DNA to the result.

Right. Okay? So therefore, there's still a consistency here.

It all seeds are neutral, but you can still have good seeds and bad seeds.

[Speaker 3]
What's the consequence that we're trying to avoid that we would incur if we were to allow the seed to be called good or bad independence upon the action that it stemmed from?

[Speaker 1]
That's okay with Tsongkhapa. He'll agree with that. But he doesn't want to call the seed a good deed or a bad deed.

He wants to call the seed neutral. He can't say that the seed is… As a karma, it's neutral.

But you can call it a good seed or a bad seed, depending on the action that planted it. But for some reason, he doesn't want to say that it's consistent with the result, even though they would be kind of the same as… He doesn't want to say that.

Or he wants to… Maybe it's more convenient for him to beat the opponent by referring to the dzogchen, the action… Oh, he didn't say that it's not consistent with the result.

He just… It's not clear. Okay.

Not clear. Okay. Whoa.

Okay. This is beautiful stuff. And by the way, it's going to be clear later, and you will never guess it's related to the hippie system of tie-dye clothing.

What? Trawl? That whole thing?

[Speaker 2]
Kata.

[Speaker 1]
No. We're getting there, okay, Word? It's a whole new thing.

Okay. I'm putting a seed in your mind, okay? Here we go.

Of course, it's neutral. In the days of the hippies, we had an interesting custom. We would take T-shirts, white T-shirts.

We would tie strings on them, like bunch them up with a string. So, tie a corner of the T-shirt with a string. Then you throw it in water with dye, with colored dye.

And when you pull it out, it dries in patterns. It has star patterns or stuff like that, okay? So, don't forget my example.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Don't forget my example. Tie-dye is coming up here.

[Speaker 2]
Ties are awesome.

[Speaker 1]
It's called tie-dye. T-I-E? D-Y-E.

You don't dip the T-shirt in a pot of colored water. You tie it up in knots. And then you dip it in the water.

And the dye doesn't reach all the parts of the shirt. And when you dry it, you get all these beautiful star shapes. Yes.

Oh, here. Stanley's got one here. Wait.

Hang on. Okay. Wait.

Go. Show it on the camera. There you go.

Can you see? That's tie-dye. That's tie-dye.

Now, Wern, that's going to be important for your text, believe it or not. Okay? Trust me.

Yay. Okay. Here we go.

Back to the text.

[Speaker 2]
Is it time? It's time.

[Speaker 1]
We're over time. We're over time. Okay, Wern.

We're about to hit something that we can understand. Unfortunately, you don't get to do it today. But we're going to talk about how a vow, when you take a vow, it can continue to give you good karmic results until the day you lose it.

Okay? The opponent said, if it's true that when you take a vow, you continue to get good karma automatically until the day you die or you give up the vow, how is that possible if seeds are not good or bad? Okay?

How is it possible that the continuation of a vow itself could be a good karma? Okay? We'll do it next time.

Yay. Yay. Yeah, take a break, you guys.

Go breathe deep in a plastic bag. Okay, how much time is left? Well, I guess take five.

We'll take five at the end of this.