Вордсмит — Книга 2: Трудные места школы «Ум только», занятие 26

[Speaker 1]
And you're ready to go. Okay, q&a session. Go ahead.

If you want to have a big answer about Luca asks, you can just say your question to by the way that's the whole meeting thing. Can the Can result come before the cause? Or can result be before the cause?

No. Good question.

[Speaker 2]
We need a Chinese translation.

[Speaker 3]
Sorry, I was speaking in English just now. Okay, now it's time for the q&a session. She got kicked out she's back in.

[Speaker 1]
It's not clear again we're sorry about that. That's fine. Next question.

So why do we do diamond way practice them. Why do we do diamond way practice to get enlightened faster.

[Speaker 2]
My question. Can I say that. Can I speak to my question.

Ask my question orally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I would like to know, can the result come before the course. Or can the result come together with the course.

[Speaker 1]
If not. Why do we do diamond way practice. Because we were asking my dad to see somebody, or everybody around, around us up with us.

But they are not to them. Yeah. But just because you see, try to see them as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas doesn't mean they are Buddhas and Bodhisattvas therefore you're wanting to see them as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas by trying to see them as Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, which would mean the result came after the course, which is your attempt to see them as such.

[Speaker 2]
Well, right. You're confusing.

[Speaker 1]
Why because guess you might go saying something else that you're not referring to. What, what have you heard otherwise.

[Speaker 2]
But we also were taught that cause and the result, they don't touch together.

[Speaker 1]
So, nothing touches. Yeah, nothing touches. That doesn't mean.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I still need to churn it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, just think about it. I mean, to say they don't touch means they don't happen, the way you think they happen, because they don't happen self existently. That doesn't mean they don't happen.

Right. Things happen your life is happening, but that doesn't mean it's not coming from seeds. Right.

[Speaker 2]
I agree.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so things don't touch in the way people believe they touch, but that doesn't mean things don't happen. Right. Okay.

And same with the diamond way I'm not sure exactly what guess was teaching you. But I've heard some whispers so it sounds like you have confusion between the thinking of people as becoming Buddhas in your world. Therefore, it sounds like guess was saying something like the result happens before the cause meaning.

You can see Buddhas in your world before you have a world full of Buddhas right.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's confusing me a lot.

[Speaker 1]
No, I think, I think it's just metaphorical. You're attempting to see Buddhas in your world. You see tempting to have a world full of Buddhas by seeing Buddhas in your world.

But really the cause of it is the attempt. But to say to say something radical like the result comes before cause would be very helpful for students. So, I was a good teacher, I would say something like that.

But since I'm not I'm telling you, the cause becomes the result. Koke, next question. Can we say that we pretend to see a result in order to print a powerful seed.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
I have a question. So, from the point of view of my only. Is that possible for the only people to see them directly.

[Speaker 1]
Or they need to. They need to print some see to move to shift to a Jamaica, the middle way in order to see the emptiness directly. Um, it is said by the middle way upper middle way, anyone can see emptiness directly.

But from any school, but then after that they all become higher school, because once you see there's only one emptiness to see. So, they're all crossing Geeka. In the end, everyone sees the same emptiness middle way.

But no matter what they call themselves, or school they studied before they saw. Yeah. So yes, I have a question.

Who's that. Yeah. I mean, family, why don't you go back to bed.

Well, I do need to ask you.

[Speaker 3]
Well you have to be fair to everyone.

[Speaker 1]
That's up. I don't. I was really lost in Adam's class about name only.

Oh yeah. Yesterday, can you debrief me the main idea about name only in the, in the, in the largest school, the second school in his text and, and, and in the higher school. Um, yeah.

Um, I need to review it. But, I'll be great. I mean, before.

I thought you want to do it now. I'll do my best to answer. I can't give an answer I listened to the class with you.

And it's the first time I heard it exactly like that. I understood it. You know, understood it basically, as it was coming out but you know, it's a long day of translating.

Can you say something now. It was, it was basically saying that if conventions, like Tane, which is Tibetan for convention, a conventional way to put things is not really, really the thing that you're talking about right, the words you use to discuss something isn't actually the thing that you're discussing. Right.

The, the coffee, coffee, coffee, grand, grand day. Yeah, but if I say, is your body and mind actually the word Stanley. Oh, so you're saying the difference between the name, or the word, and the thing that it refers to.

That's the whole discussion. If you, that's the first sentence or something. If you understand that you'll understand the whole thing.

That's what they're talking about convention Tane, which is can be synonymous a synonym, the same as like a term. It's not the same as the thing that you are talking about. When you use that term to refer to that thing.

You know, there is a person named Aldo translating, but that Aldo. The word Aldo is not the person translating, although Aldo is translating. Okay, so if you go back and listen that, because that's like the first sentence, and the rest comes from there.

And what, how did he do remember how do you compare it with the high school. Okay, this. Um, I forget exactly but I think it's something like, um, your projection.

Um, the thing out there. Isn't the same. I forget exactly I should I should review before I answer anymore.

Yeah, I'll do that too. Okay. It's not as complicated as you think.

Once you get that part I just told you, if you really listen, you'll be fine. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, you will go to bed.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
There are questions in the chat.

[Speaker 1]
I know I'm looking at them.

[Speaker 2]
Do you have a question are you just telling me that I have a one but you choose the one that you want to answer.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, in the chat.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. What's your question.

[Speaker 2]
So, it is more as for clarification. How to understand the two way, two ways of looking at it so quality and the characteristics versus sets and set and the members.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So is it the same or there are some difference.

[Speaker 1]
There's a huge difference. It's like the difference between driving a cardboard Mercedes Benz around and actually having set and subset. Okay.

Are you ready, you ready for this.

[Speaker 2]
Always.

[Speaker 1]
The concept of the concept of teacher dark is the doorway to see emptiness. Because if you understand teacher dark, then you understand that everything is a projection, and that there is nothing out there but projections and all things have a quality that comes from seeds. And, and that quality is what you call things.

And every example of that quality is impossible. It is impossible to call. Okay, let's take a pot on the stove.

Okay. Because this is a tutorial. This is a right before you see this directly.

Is it possible to boil water for your teacher on the stove.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Would you do that in a pot.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So there's pots that you can use to boil water, correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Of all the pots in the world.

How many of them are exactly the same.

[Speaker 2]
No, I would say, like exactly the same.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's impossible to have two parts that are exactly the same correctly. So, if it is impossible to have two parts that are exactly the same.

How can you identify the pot they're using to boil water on the stove for your teacher as a pot.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I will give you them answer right because my mom told that that seems called your mom's pointed to something that was a pot.

[Speaker 1]
But how do you identify the other thing that you're calling a pot as a pot. If it's completely different, which you just said. Okay, Len, you just said, there's no two parts that are the same.

So how, how can one pot be also called a pot when it's not the same as the other thing called a pot.

[Speaker 2]
So before jumping to seats, I would say. So I see that that shape, which looks like pop pot, and I call it pop. That's.

So before moving to the seats, I see there's so many parts that have this square and handle. Yeah, stick. And so I call them pot.

[Speaker 1]
Impossible.

[Speaker 2]
Impossible.

[Speaker 1]
So there's no such thing called a pan. When does a pot become a pan.

[Speaker 2]
When I call it, so.

[Speaker 1]
So you've never used a pan.

[Speaker 2]
No, I did.

[Speaker 1]
So there's things called pans.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
And you can also use them to boil water.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
You can't use a pan to boil water. I just did.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, maybe. No, you cannot.

[Speaker 1]
You can't use a pan. Sorry, what? You can't use a pan to boil water.

You can't put water on the stove on a pan and then it will boil.

[Speaker 2]
No. What do you mean no? When you say pan, you mean, spell it P-A-N?

[Speaker 1]
P-A-N, pan.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, I was thinking about P-E-N. Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
No, pan.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, I can, I can. Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, oh, sorry. Yeah, yeah. So you can.

So when does the round thing with the handle become the less round thing with the handle?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I guess between two seeds. Don't say it, forget seeds.

[Speaker 1]
Answer the question, when?

[Speaker 2]
When you named it, when you said that it's not pot but pan, when you asked me if I can boil water in a pan.

[Speaker 1]
No, never. It never happened. Never, right, impossible.

Impossible. It's also impossible to call a thing that is completely unique a general term, a general term. Okay, general, that's the misnomer, but it has the quality of being a pot.

The impossible quality of being a pot. Yes. It's impossible because there are no two pots are the same, yet you can correctly identify a pot and use it.

True? True, yes. So there is no pot that you can call a pot on the outside.

[Speaker 2]
True, yes, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
All pots have to be identified by you as a pot. That's why some pots become pans.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Because, yeah, when does a car become a...

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, can you repeat your question?

[Speaker 1]
When does a car become a sports utility vehicle, SUV?

[Speaker 2]
SUV.

[Speaker 1]
When does a SUV become a truck or anything?

[Speaker 2]
Never, I should say.

[Speaker 1]
Not should, it never happens. It doesn't. You can't, because what are you going to say, one inch here, one inch there, right?

But even an inch can be divided, right? So when does it actually happen?

[Speaker 2]
Never, no.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't, except for your, and this is your time, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
What should I say?

[Speaker 1]
Seeds, it's always the answer, seeds.

[Speaker 2]
All right, okay, pan, the seeds, right.

[Speaker 1]
Your projection of a quality organizes the parts to make it that thing.

[Speaker 2]
Point, mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and that thing is a characteristic of the quality that you are organizing.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, okay.

[Speaker 1]
So the chi is the general quality, and the che chak is the specific characteristic. Because all objects have to have a general seed which brings them together, the parts of which then become that specific thing to you in that moment. And there's nothing in the world that's not like that.

And if you think there's anything in the world that's like that, it's maritba, it's a misunderstanding. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, absolutely. And what's the connection with the set and the members, or just we start from the set and the members?

[Speaker 1]
I'm just with that, general and specific. Okay. Yeah, because it is set, but if you see quality and characteristic, it sheds light that is much clearer and much more specific, ironically.

So what you want to evoke, you want to evoke the understanding that it is a quality of a projection because that characteristic is impossible without the quality. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's my rudimentary understanding.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Good question. I have the same question, that for the general quality, that we have a perfect image to put on each object, like similar subset.

And I have heard a video that Geshe-la said that perfect image doesn't change. So I have a little confused about this idea. Why the image doesn't change, and could you elucidate this idea?

The image in the moment it is occurring doesn't change, that's why you can identify it as a pot in that moment. Because here, here's the other thing, right? Okay, you ready?

Gibson? Yes. Are pots changing things?

Yes. So you're telling me pots change. The pot change.

Yeah, pots change. Yes. So pots are changing things.

The idea of pot is not changing things. I didn't say the idea of pot, pots are changing things. Yes.

Oh, so pots are changing things. But you still always call it pot. Yes or no?

Do you call pots, pots?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, so the changing thing is always the same thing?

[Speaker 3]
I didn't say that.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, you did. Hey, Len, you just said the changing thing you always call pot. You did.

We have recording, you know. Okay, yes. Yeah, you have to agree, because you did say that, and there's nowhere to go.

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
So you're telling me a changing thing is an unchanging thing? No. Okay, Len, you just said the thing that is a changing thing you always call a pot.

Are you saying the name of the pot or the pot of pots? I said called pot. I actually said pot, which means pot, right?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's the argument. How can you always kind of, because the name, the thing, the image which you use to organize it is the term which you call pot, right? Do you mean the term is the image or the name?

They say, what do they say? Name and term, right? I forget.

But there's a sound, and then there's the image that goes with the sound, right? Yes. So the sound is pot, but the illuminating, organizing image that comes out of your mind due to your seeds of how you treated others in the past is how you visualize, feel, smell, touch, taste, think about that thing which you call pot.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
So it's impossible. Why do you think it's impossible? A changing thing is identified in an unchanging way such that even after it changes over time, you can still call it the same exact thing.

So the image itself does not change, just like your name of it does not change. And yet, it is a pot, and it does change, and you can use it. Yay, I did it!

Okay, cook it. I don't know. Maybe we'll all see emptiness after this.

Okay, next. We have questions in the chat, just as Ai-jan said. Let's see what those are.

I have to go back a little bit. I don't know. I might.

Okay, here we go. So Olga Abson. What are the seeds for the karma to work?

How did we plant that the law of karma works in our world? Wow. You guys skipped to the hard stuff.

What are the seeds for karma to work? So, Olga, your questions are related, like the same question. What are the seeds for the law of karma to work, right?

I don't know if she's there. Maybe she's typing. Yes, she typed.

Okay, sorry. I have to go down. She's translating, so you cannot speak with her directly.

Oh, she's translating. Okay. Exactly, yeah.

She's multitasking. Good job, Olga. Translators make good multitaskers.

Okay. Wow. I don't know that I've heard this exactly.

This is the kind of question Geshe-la tends to get in Q&As. So I've heard him talk about things related to it. So I'm going to take a gander.

I don't have any scriptural authority to back me, necessarily. But I'll use deductive reasoning, which can be really helpful, especially if you didn't spend your whole childhood memorizing Buddhist books. So I would say this, because I actually do think about stuff like this pretty often, because personally, I don't like to be bound by anything.

That's why I became Buddhist, because I wanted freedom from everything, including laws, all of them, governmental and ones that govern the universe. But basically, I would say that, because it's weird, though, because it's the karma for karma, right? What's the karma for karma?

What's the cause for causes? Well, using logic, it has to be based upon the fact of doing things in a specific way. Like, what we're saying with karma or cause and effect, you know, we say karma, but we mean cause and effect, right?

What we're saying with cause and effect is that there's, like, a justice to the world, right? Like, when you do something specific, something specific always follows. And, you know, Ari Nagarjuna likes to say, we believe what farmers believe, right?

Like, if you plant mangoes, you're going to get mango trees. And then I've argued this kind of stuff with non-Buddhists, which are kind of the best people to argue with because they haven't drank the Kool-Aid, we say in English. They're not, they have no emotional attachment.

They just say, oh, that's wrong or that's bullshit, blah, blah, blah. And they tell you why. It's not making them mad.

It's good to argue with non-Buddhists or people outside the sangha, people who don't, who just thought about it, but they haven't heard any indoctrination or anything. So when I've argued about this with people, they would say something like, well, if I planted a mango seed, but I did something to it, like the genes, right? It wouldn't be a mango seed.

It wouldn't get a mango, I wouldn't get a mango tree. And so then you'd have to argue, well, then it wouldn't be a mango seed anymore anyway, right? Because the thing inside the seed is what makes it be the seed that it is.

And so even though things might occur after you do something, and it seems like that's correlated with the thing you did, it has to be the case that the thing you did is actually connected to some previous action. This is not happening in continuity, right? So in that sense, because any way you answer the question, you get the same problem, which is one of the 14 unanswered questions of the Buddha, which is beginningless.

Because if you go back, there's always a point we have to say, but what happened before that? Because you can say your mind created karma by thinking or acting in a way which was just, or thinking things should have an order to them. And you can always say, but how did that happen?

And that's like little kids say, why, why, why? I guess little Chinese kids say, why? And therefore, I can see why the Buddha didn't answer these questions.

But it would have to be something like you did actions that made things just, that there was an order to things. That's my deduction. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Then I would have a follow up question word.

[Speaker 1]
Who's that? It's Anna. Oh, hi, Anna.

What's up? So I was, we were also discussing about this in our community in Romania. How come we are living in a universe that is based on cause and effect?

And the follow up question was, okay, are there universes without the cause and effect law? Because if I am working, if I'm doing things, unjust things, then I don't know. I'm just asking, it's a follow up question.

If you say there's a universe without cause and effect, and you say that universe came from doing unjust things, that would mean that there was a cause and an effect to the unjust things happening. True, true. But to say that there's a universe where karma consistently happens based upon the causes that you did, is not to say that there's a universe where things happen that are unjust based on the things you did.

Yeah, there's a little distinction there. But I don't know. I'm just trying to get out of this one, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Okay, I'm not asking anything more.

[Speaker 1]
Good questions, though. It's good to stretch your mind at eight in the morning. Another question?

I think I answered all the ones in the chat. I might have missed one or something. I wrote a question.

Who's you?

[Speaker 3]
I can ask it like this. Okay, go ahead. Is it possible to say that if emptiness is an unchanging thing, if emptiness is an unchanging thing, then also the emptiness of teapot or second husband in the kitchen, whatever, is the same.

It is the same unchanging thing. So this emptiness is everywhere the same. The emptiness in general and emptiness of this system is the same or not.

[Speaker 1]
They're equivalent, not the same.

[Speaker 2]
What does it mean they are equal and they're not the same?

[Speaker 1]
Equivalent. They have the same emptiness, but they don't have the same emptinesses.

[Speaker 2]
The quality of the emptiness is the same?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. They're all just as empty of being the objects they are. But if you eliminate that object and therefore eliminate its emptiness, you have not eliminated all emptiness in the universe.

Therefore, their emptiness is equivalent but not the same emptiness.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, but the quality would be the same and it's always absence of self-existing. It will be the same, the quality of the pot, second husband. In this way, they are equal.

[Speaker 2]
Yep, yep. Okay, thanks. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
There was a question in the Gartner chat.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, fun. Next. I have a question.

Oh, hi, Leah. You at work? I am, yeah.

You playing hooky? A little bit, yeah. Okay, what's up?

Nice to see you. You too. I have a question after Nick's talk.

And you touched on it at the beginning of this.

[Speaker 3]
But before going to that, and I find it super helpful to have all the examples.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, the physical grande, you know, beyond the carness and the Toyota.

[Speaker 3]
Are you using, when you said the characteristic is impossible without, did you say the perception or the projection?

[Speaker 2]
The characteristic is impossible without the perception or without the projection.

[Speaker 1]
I believe I said projection, but perception could work too. Okay. So sometimes you use the words interchangeably, perception and projection.

Not generally. No, I do not. But only because the perception is based on the projection.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, great.

Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
So one thing I was confused about, or curious about, when you said that at first we let go of some sorrow because it's pain, and then we let go of it because it's incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
To me, that also implies that some people or that listeners also have an incorrect version of nirvana, you know, that we can experience it without the DTE.

[Speaker 2]
So, you know, but even in this Q&A, you said there's only one DTE. Yeah. So, if you have an incorrect perception of what it is, how can you have the seeds to have the correct DTE?

Oh, sorry, I see a question here. Direct perception of emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Somebody's saying, what's DTE? I see it. Yeah, DTE, direct perception of emptiness.

They say that those people who are on the lower path and see emptiness directly, they see it because of the amount of faith they have in the path, actually. Like, even though they didn't study it exactly right, the fact that they studied with their teacher and believes in their teacher. It's enough to push them over the edge.

Something like that, as I recall. Okay. You're welcome.

Juan is very respectfully asked to ask a question. What is it, Mr. Hasso? I can't, sorry, there's a little background noise.

Say it again, please.

[Speaker 2]
Hasso? Hello? Si.

[Speaker 1]
Yes? No escucha. Muy bajo.

Hello? I can barely hear you. What's your question?

My question is about absences. Now I can hear you. Your alarm's going off.

Okay. We in Guadalajara, I was talking to Aldo, and we were trying to figure it out. Talking to Aldo, that's your first problem.

Yeah. No, I'm just kidding. We were trying to figure it out.

What about absences? What about it? Do they come from seeds or not?

And I was arguing they don't come from seeds because they are absences. But we were trying to figure it out. We were trying to figure it out.

Let's say when I don't have money, it's because I have the seed to have the absence or money? Or is it simply because I don't have the seed to have money? And we were trying to attach all these to answer emptiness.

Is emptiness something that exists? And we were saying yes. But does emptiness exist because of seeds?

In the sense that emptiness comes from seeds? And I say no, emptiness doesn't come from seeds because it's an absence. But I guess we cannot figure it out yet.

It better come from seeds. That's why I'm translating these books. Yeah, emptiness comes from seeds.

Everything does. Yeah, the absence of pesos in your bank account comes from seeds. You project a zero when you go to Banamex, when you go to the ATM.

Right? What about the law of karma? It says if you don't plant something, you don't get the result.

So it's like an absence of a seed can create an experience in the world, isn't it? Yeah, but you could plant something to create the absence of money in your bank account. You could plant stealing.

Stealing would create an absence of money in your bank account. And I guess I'm trying to figure out the difference between the presence of, let's say, poverty, the presence of lack of money, or the absence of money. And I think, in a way, they are the same, but from a different perspective or something.

You can't think of things that you can't think of. Things you can't think of, the things you can't think of due to the fact that no seed was planted, you can't even conceive of them. Because no seed was planted.

So you don't even know the things you can't think about because you can't think of them. That's true. If I say, like, there is no purple elephant in my room.

But you're thinking of the fact that there's no purple elephant. So you planted a seed to think about the fact there's no purple elephant. That I can agree.

But if I say, okay, there is an absence of a purple elephant in my room. So it's like, where does that absence come from? I think the absence comes from the seed you planted for the absence.

Okay, but then it's not wrong to say that, if I say, where does... It's like, how can a negative object be coming from seeds? It's like saying, where does that elephant come from?

And you say, nowhere, because there is no elephant. No, but there is the concept of an absence in your mind. You're not actually talking about the absence of the elephant.

Yeah, the concept I can agree. Definitely, anything that is perceived has to come from the seed. There's no other absence besides the concept of the absence.

Interesting, thank you so much. Think about it. Question, I'm glad I thought about these things for 30 years.

Wait, did you say that emptiness is caused? The seeds, I said the perception of an absence of a self-existent thing or something like that is caused. But emptiness is not caused.

No, I never... No, emptiness is not caused. Uncaused things are not caused.

Cool. Joel's trying to trap me. So emptiness is not caused?

Emptiness itself is not caused, correct. But the perception of the fact that emptiness is not caused is caused.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That made the room quiet. Who's next? We started late.

I'm going to go late. If you need to go home or go to sleep, or you're just sick of hearing my voice, you can leave anytime. I'm also sick of hearing my voice.

Hi, I only consider to be the Mubomawa functionals. Do they believe that the fire is hot, so it exists? Yep, fire works.

So, what's your question? So, what's the difference, the final difference between my own school and the sutra school? Oh, as far as they just...

Yeah, because they are all functionalists, but is there any minor difference between what they believe? Yeah. The thing is what?

I think they disagree on how it functions, just not the fact that it, because it functions. Okay. Yeah, I don't know.

Those questions are very difficult. And honestly, I have not studied in depth. It's not part of the ACI courses.

And we have touched on some of that in the Mixed Nuts. But it's been brief, and it's very difficult, like comparing the different Buddhist schools and the points at which they diverge. So, I don't know that much about it.

I know the basic tenets of those three schools, but to say I have a comprehensive knowledge would be untrue. But I would say that they would disagree on the how, and not the fact that they believe because it functions, it therefore exists. Yeah.

But it's a good question. Those are good questions, and they're advanced questions, and only people like you usually think about them or ask them. But I think it takes a very deep study of all the schools, which is beyond the scope of what I've done.

That's like Geshe-level stuff, and I think even some of it is, might be even difficult for Geshes, unless you're like a super Geshe, like Geshe Michael or Geshe Thubten Rinchen or something. Yeah. Ella says something in the chat.

What did she say? I guess someone said in Mixed Nuts Reading Club, we say something comes from seeds doesn't mean it is caused. Yeah, that's true.

Okay, what's next? Word, I have a question. Joy here.

Yes. Okay. Hi, I know you.

You're the one asking me Chinese questions during class.

[Speaker 2]
So my question is, for someone who likes to see emptiness directly, what's this, how do they need to be in a very relaxed state of mind during their whole daily lives?

[Speaker 1]
I mean, during their whole practices. So this question comes from, maybe, I don't know if there's any ancient classics talking about being very relaxed, so that they can be into this kind of deep meditation. You don't necessarily have to be relaxed.

Actually, I wouldn't say relaxed. It's called calm abiding. Say shamatha.

And in Tibetan, it's shi ne. Shi? What is it in Chinese?

Shamatha? Oh, that's a sound translation, though. Oh.

But, I mean, you're right. This says jer, right? Jer.

Jer. Yeah, you guys, yeah, third tone. Jer.

You can argue about it. But, um, does that give the comment, that gives the connotation of, um, anashina is the Tibetan, we're talking about the Chinese. And here's the spelling of the Tibetan.

Because you don't want to confuse trans pronunciation and transliteration, or you'll have problems later. Okay. So it's not about being, what you say, relaxed.

It's about walking a very thin line between being extremely alert and being relaxed at the same time. It's called ching wang gupa. You have to walk a thin line between being calm and at the same time, being completely focused.

Because to see emptiness directly, you have to get to the platform first, formless realm stage meditation. That's called mi chok me, no lack of time. So it's not about being calm, because if it was about being calm, then you could just take drugs or go to sleep.

You could see emptiness directly. Right? And this is a big misnomer, I think, that happens in many yoga schools.

And people's beliefs about meditation in general, or even yoga, they think, oh, just be completely calm. No. It's about being, not letting your mind drift off to something else, while at the same time, not getting sleepy, even in a subtle way.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And if you meditate a lot, you start to notice this subtle kind of sleepiness. Like we come from the thoughts, yes? From the thoughts, from the thinking.

One second, please. If you meditate a lot, you start to notice that you can be meditating on your object, but have this subtle state of almost drowsiness, or they say dullness. Because when you start talking about these things, it's very difficult.

Someone asked me a question about meditation recently, and they got very angry when I couldn't explain it to them properly. But the problem was, the question was subtle, and as I know the person, their ability to meditate was not advanced. So once you start meditating a lot, you start to notice things which you cannot notice in a regular state of mind.

Which is the whole point of meditating. Because if you could see the fact that things are coming from you and nothing else, in a regular state of mind, no one would spend all this time meditating. It's hard to meditate, and it's annoying, and it's painful on your body most of the time, and it's difficult.

And no one wants to do it. That's why no one does it. That's why you get an aria every 2,000 years or something, not every five minutes.

So it's not exactly being calm in that sense, but it is being calm in the sense that you can focus totally on an object without interruption. So based on this one, because I have this question because I had a dream last night. But it's like a scene that someone, like I remember Emily was in my dream.

[Speaker 3]
I mean, Emily here. So we were talking about the pen, and there is another black, just like another teacher, like a black woman. She's there, but I don't know her.

And then she said, except for learning about the pen, we have to dive into the deep, deep ocean. And then she took me into that deep ocean and asked me to be really, really relaxed. So because she said, if you want to see emptiness directly, not only learning about the pen, but you need to dive deep into the ocean and being very relaxed.

And this is something that was challenging for me because I cannot really relax, even I don't know how to swim very well. So when the coach teach me how to swim, I cannot really relax. So I'd like to know, maybe there is some sign there to share with me how I need to be very relaxed so as to do so.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I think that's what a lot of the yoga is about, actually. It's to release tension in the body and the deeper channels, which get filled with mental and subtle emotional energy that makes it difficult to get out of certain states of mind or feeling like anxiety or sadness or worry or overthinking. And that's what the, in Chinese, Indian and Tibetan systems, you do different exercises like Qigong, which yoga is a form of Qigong, like to move energy.

So, yeah, I would do yoga and maybe take herbs too, if you can go to the Chinese doctor office. Right. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah, you're very welcome.

Okay, on that note. Oh, Elena, did you have something to say? Excuse me.

[Speaker 3]
No, I just wanted to ask regarding concentration or this is like regarded concentration or something like when we're trying to regarded our concentration, like it will be like thoughts in this meditation concentration. It's like slow down our other thoughts and in this concentration regarding this question from Joe Chen.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. It's just focusing. It's just like watching a movie, in a sense.

You're just watching it. You know, that's basically meditation, whatever object that is, but it's on the inside. Right.

Or just depends what object you're focusing on. It's really just watching movies. My sister, I noticed a long time ago, my sister when she watches TV, it's like the whole world does not exist.

You can be like, hey, hey, hey, and then she's like, huh? And it's like, she comes back. So that is an ultra focused state on TV, you know.

And so, you know, we pick different objects directly like, you know, our teachers hands or face or something like that. Or even contemplating emptiness could be your object if you can focus on it alone. Because a movie has many parts and different images, yet it is one movie.

Right. So usually we start with the breath and then move inward to what they consider as a higher, more virtuous objects, like our teacher. Okay, that's enough.

I'm going to go do something else. You guys can stay if you want. I hope you had fun.

And Mike, if you want to get more torture with my face and my voice, my class is in eight hours and 13 minutes. So wherever you are, it's going to be that much time. I don't know what time it is where you are.

Okay, have fun. Go relax or do yoga or eat some breakfast or go to bed or something. Thank you.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you so much.

Bye.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.