Нагарджуна, курс 4 — Мудрость Арьи Нагарджуны, курс 4: Тайна глав (2022, Аризона), занятие 11

[Speaker 1]
Hi, welcome back to Arya Nagarjuna. We've been trying to slowly march our way through seven different weird things about causes and their results, mainly if they were separate. If the causes were not the results, then what kind of problems would come up?

This is going to be a... It's a long and difficult section. I think this is a good section to review.

Make sure you understand the seven. Why did these seven come up? I always enjoy, if I have some extra time, I'll go to a coffee shop, and I'll sit there and say, why these seven?

How does one lead to two? How does two connect to three? It's a nice way to...

It's a nice meditation really that you can do in a coffee shop. We're on option number three with this cause and results that are kind of separate. This is the question of whether or not there is contact between the cause and the result that it produces.

Is there a point of contact between them? We've been looking at that point of contact. Frankly, the chocolate sauce is the only way it's possible.

I know you're going to remember the chocolate sauce. This whole section, which is quite a few verses, unusually many verses, four different verses, he's going to look into the different, what do you call it? Options of the cause existing in different times and the result existing in different times.

I like to call it time zones. It's easier for me to remember. So if the cause is in one time zone and the result's in another time zone, is that a problem?

And he goes through all the permutations. That's the word I was trying to remember. BYAS BU DE PA RGYUD DE DANG What if the result is in the past and the cause is also in the past?

Can they have a connection? So he's going to discuss, can there be a point of connection with regard to different time zones, choices for the cause and different time zone choices for the result. So we get all these possibilities.

BYAS BU DE PA RGYUD DE DANG So suppose the result is in the past already and the cause is in the past. MA SKYE BA DANG, SKYE BA DANG Suppose the cause or result hasn't started or has started, and one has started. Can there be Atlantic Tirpa?

That we talked about already in the Sanskrit. Can they ever sit together in the same room and touch each other? SNAM YANG YOD PA MA YIN NO Impossible, he says, not possible.

That's the first possibility. Let's go look at Choney Lama's explanation. GZHAN YANG DGOS RDZAS BU RANG BZHIN GYIS SKYE NA If a cause led in a natural way to a result, SKYE NA, DE NI PHRAD PA STE Any point of contact between the two, GZHAN GCIG TU TSOGS He says, could they sit in the same room together?

GZHAN GCIG TU TSOGS DGOS PAS, they would have to. If there's a point of contact between cause and result, then they would have to be in the same place at the same time to hold hands. DE YANG RIGS SHES KYI BYED MI ZAD DE That's a new expression for you, Tim.

It means it doesn't bear logical examination. This TSOD PA doesn't mean patience. This TSOD PA means doesn't tolerate examination.

In other words, if the idea falls apart. And it's a beautiful expression. This idea cannot tolerate logic.

Logic can tolerate, like many people. NYUGOS LA SOGS PA'I BDE BU BDE PA NI Let's say that the result, such as the sprout which pops out of a seed, is in the past tense. It's in the past tense time zone.

SA BA NA SOGS PA'I RGYU BDE PA Let's say that the cause has also already passed. Let's look at this possibility of contact between cause and result, both in the past. RNAM YANG YOD PA MA YIN TE Totally impossible.

Why? They don't exist anymore, please. So he's like, they don't exist anymore, please.

So forget that possibility. I think he's setting us up for the possibility of a cause which is past and a result which is present, but he doesn't go there directly. He says, well, what do you think?

Could a cause that wore out yesterday have a relationship with a result that's also gone today? And then you say, wait, they both don't exist anymore, right? Yeah, could they have a relationship?

No, duh, I mean, no. And he's like, good, good. Let's go to another possibility.

He's setting you up for the past cause and present result, but he's doing it cleverly, I would say. Okay, next, we have a picture here. Yeah.

Could the Titanic touch the iceberg today? I like it. I just thought, well, that's cute.

You know there's no photographs of it crashing into the iceberg? Anyway, but yeah, they're both gone, so you can't talk about it anymore. It happened once, it's gone, and then they're not.

Okay, second possibility. DE BZHIN DU BRAS PA BRAS PA NI RGYUD MA SKYES PA MA'ONG BA DANG, PHYIR PA MED DE And I'll play with Tim here. I like it.

DE BZHIN DU BRAS PA BRAS PA Past tense result. Past tense result, a result in the past. And suppose the RGYUD is MA'ONG BA.

What's that mean? Future, in the future. So can a cause in the future, can it make contact with an event that happened in the past, with a result that happened in the past?

But he does something tricky here. He introduces the word MA SKYES PA, which means, was not triggered yet. Was not triggered yet.

But keep that in mind, because he's going to do something sneaky. I'm just warning you. SKYES PA MED DE SKYES PA means point of contact.

No. Can a future cause make contact with a past result? No.

DE NYID DU THA DE BA'I PHYIR They're in different time zones. So just stop talking about it. That's not possible.

But I tell you, he's not just being silly. He's setting us up for the big one, which is just immediately past cause and immediately happen result. Can they make contact?

But he's not there yet. He wants to get you to say, you know that thing you say, red light, red light, red light, and then say green light or something? That's where he's going.

Here's an example. I kept forgetting why I put this example. So supposed to be the causes in the future.

[Speaker 2]
From the wrong place should be hiding.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's not that easy. I had some deeper thing here and I don't remember. I guess it's current events.

Can 2023 be affected by a kamikaze spitfire battle from 1940? Causes in the past. Now Madhyamika would say yes.

I like to give the example that the crash of the Titanic into the iceberg is still affecting maritime regulation. So in a way it's still present as a force. It's causing laws to be written in a certain way still.

But that's very Madhyamika. We're not going there. All right.

YANG RJE BU DE PA Let's put the result in the past. And RGYUD KHYAD PA So Tim, which cause are they talking about? What does it say here?

KHA! What's RGYUD KHYAD PA mean? The cause was triggered.

And then he says THA THA BA. KHA! KHA!

Sorry. And it's tricky.

[Speaker 2]
THA THA BA means present tense.

[Speaker 1]
He says KHYAD PA and then he puts in a positive present tense. KHYAD PA means happened. Yeah.

Yeah. It was born. Now it's here.

He just passes it by you. If you don't ask the question, you will notice it. Did the cause happen?

Yes. Is it a happened good cause? Yes.

So it's present. It came into being. Came into being.

And it's present. It's very tricky, but it's very beautiful. The tense is past tense.

KHYAD PA is past tense. It happened. So it's present.

But that's getting greasy. KHYAD PA MED PA THA THA BA Can a result which was passed make contact with a cause which is present? And then he says no.

Different time zones. So he's used that twice now. Different time zones.

They're in different states. One's in Oregon, one's in Connecticut. BYAS BU KHYAD PA DE THA THA BA, he uses it again.

Meaning what, Tim? The result. Yeah, which is now here because it happened.

Okay, tricky. DE RGYUD MA KHYAD PA DE And suppose its cause never happened, yet hasn't happened yet. Could they, which means a future cause, hasn't happened yet, means future.

It's interesting, right? All right. Can a present tense result touch a future cause?

RGYUD DE PA DANG NI KHYAD PA DE THA THA BA DANG NA JIG TU PHYIR PA RGYUD BA NI SNAM YANG NGO BO NYID KYI RGYUD MA YIN NO RGYUD DE PA NI KHYAD PA THA THA BA DANG RGYUD DE PA NI KHYAD PA DE THA THA BA He says that, he uses the word a past tense cause which has happened, meaning it's present. Okay. A cause which has moved from the past into the present.

Something like that. THA THA BA DANG NI KHYAD PA RGYUD MA YIN NO SNAM YANG NGO BO NYID KYI So he's talking about a present tense result from a future cause. But sometimes when he says future cause, he means you can't call it a cause until the future, until it gives a result.

Okay. You can't call a cause a cause until the result comes because it's not a cause until it has a result. But by the time the result comes out, it's past.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So causes are always in the past because they don't get to be causes until they do something. But then they're already gone. But they're present tense because they already did something.

Now we can call them a cause. Now they get to be a cause. You okay?

Okay. Then when he wants to get out of the idea of a present tense cause, what would you say is the real one, by the way? Which is the correct one?

A cause in the past creates a result in the present, right? Yesterday created today. That's okay, right?

[Speaker 2]
Or in the future world, I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and maybe in the future also, indirectly. So what we would normally say, there's contact between the events of yesterday. I was in a room with somebody last night who tested positive for COVID, right?

And then today, maybe I have COVID. We don't know yet. But is there a...

That's the normal cause and effect, we would say, right? Whenever it approaches normal, Choney Lama scoots out to the side door, which is, he adds, in and of itself. He throws in in and of itself.

NGO BO NYID KYIS Can a just past cause create a present result? In and of itself. From its own side.

When you start to press him, he goes from its own side. MA YIN TE RGYUD DE PA DANG NGO BO NYID DUS THA DE PA'I PHYIR Well, the cause of the past and the cause that's going to be declared a cause in the future, even they are separate. The cause that already happened and the cause that gets to be called a cause after the result comes out, even those aren't the same cause.

I'll say it again. Don't need to. The cause of yesterday as a cause and yesterday as a present cause because it only got called a cause today because it had a result today.

Even those are separate, he says. THA DE PA'I PHYIR RGYUD DE DA LTAR BA NYID LA THA NAS PA'I PHYIR PA'I BYANG SNGA PHYIR YOD KYANG RANG BZHIN GYI PHYIR PA MED PA'I PHYIR Look, he says, here he says something interesting. He says, look, I think, and he's expressing middle way, I think you could start to talk about the front end of the result and the back end of the cause.

Not bad. He says, you know, we could go there. The back end of the cause touches the front end of the result somewhere, but only as a concept, only as a seed coming, opening in your mind and the chocolate sauce.

Got it? Cool. Then he says later, oh, middle way, we don't have any of these problems.

Why? Oh, we got front ends of causes, front ends of results, and we got back ends of causes. That's what touches each other.

And then you say, but it's still all the same problems. They can't touch each other because they'd both be in the present. He says, no, but if the chocolate sauce covers them both, you can take the back end of the cause and the front end of the result and chocolate sauce it, and you got cause and effect because your mind creates the cause and effect.

And he's very comfortable with it. He says, oh, we love front ends and back ends and chocolate. So that's where he goes.

Here it says, BYA SNGA PHYI YOD BYA SNGA PHYI YOD There, BYA here, second line. BYA SNGA PHYI YOD means, yeah, we do have front ends and back ends. BYA means end.

BYA means sector of the cause. The back sector of the cause and the front end of the result. BYA, it's called BYA in each case.

The end, which is really the front, but okay. All right, and I made an example here. Well, I was thinking a lot about the web telescope.

I think we should have a Big Bang here or something. The telescope went up. It's working well.

I was reading the history of it and all the instruments and the history of the instruments, because the best one, the infrared reader, almost got canceled because it was 20 years late and $5 billion overpriced. Every day they delayed the launch and they delayed a couple times recently. It's a million dollars a day to keep the thing stored properly and blah, blah.

They had to take it to French Guinea to shoot it. That's a whole nother story. But anyway, why did I talk about that?

Oh, when you look at the Big Bang through the web telescope, which will hopefully be possible, we'll be able to see the last parts of the Big Bang. We'll be able to see wavelengths that are so old, they're cold. That's why the instrument has to be kept at a really cold temperature.

It's cool. Anyway, you're going to be looking at the past directly. I don't know what that does to Nagarjuna.

The telescope is present case. The telescope is present case. The particles entering the telescope are past tense.

They were part of the Big Bang. They're still flying. You can triangulate to the Big Bang position if you have a sensitive enough instrument, you can say, well, this particle hit over here.

This particle hit over here. The Big Bang happened there 80 billion years ago? 81 billion?

I don't know. Anyway, it raises interesting questions about whether a present result is triggered by a cause, which we have to kind of... All right, PHYI MA GRUB TE RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD NA LTOS SNGA PHYI MI RUNG BA'I Now he kind of cheats sometimes.

He says, well, anyway, what the hell? If something existed by nature, it couldn't have a past and present anyway. If something exists...

That's an interesting hustle. If something is self-existent, ready? If something...

I know you love this stuff. Was it you that beat the Geshe in India? It was, I remember.

He beat two Geshes. Okay, here we go. If I can remember the question.

Is it possible for a self-existent thing to be a past or future? We would say no, because it involves... If it's self-existent, it should be solid and present.

It shouldn't involve any conceptualization. So that's an interesting idea. Choney Lama is kind of proposing that if something is conceptual, it can't be self-existent.

That's a big question. That's something you guys can debate at home. If something is conceptual, it can't be self-existent.

[Speaker 2]
It cannot be.

[Speaker 1]
It's not solid enough. Like past and future are conceptual. So that's an interesting argument.

He says here, DE'I SNGA PHYI BA MI RUNG BA'I Because it's self-existent, you couldn't say it was past or future. Sorry, you couldn't say it was... Yeah, you couldn't say it was past or next.

Okay. I mean, that's very interesting to think about. DE'I BU MA SKYES PA'I MA DBANG PA NI So now if we have a result which hasn't happened yet, which is therefore future.

MA DBANG to come. If the result is future, RGYUD SKYES PA THAG LTAR BA But the cause has already happened, which means it's present. Nice.

Future result, present cause. DANG MA SKYES PA'I MA RUNG BA But I'll also give you a cause which is future. So now he's discussing the possibility of a result which is future and a cause which is either present or future.

Two possibilities. MA RUNG BA DANG DE'I PA NI DANG And hey, let's throw in past. Now you've got a result which is future and a cause which is either past, present, or future.

SEMS CAN PHYIR PA RGYUR PA NI For them to make contact, RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD MA YIN It's not possible if they're all self-existent. He's kind of a cheap out if you ask me. Why?

RGYUN DE LTA LTAR BA NI, RDU LTA DE CING Well, RGYUN DE LTA LTAR NI Past tense cause and a present tense cause relative to a future result are in different time zones. We can cancel them right away. I'll say it again.

Past tense cause, future tense cause, we can cancel right away because we're talking about a future result. RGYUN DE MONGS PA'I DUS SU, DE NYID KYANG YANG MED PA'I PHYIR RO And hey, by the way, somebody's going to say, well, what about future cause? What about future result?

He says, what? And we say, well, but you didn't cover future cause and future result. He said, they don't exist.

What do you want me to talk about? What do you want me to say? They touch something, they don't touch something?

They didn't happen yet. How can something that's not there make touch? Why are you asking me that?

That's so silly. We thought he was being very methodical, covering all the past tense, present tense, future. But when he gets to future he says, don't talk to me about it.

Well, why? Duh, it hasn't happened yet. Okay?

DE LTAR BYAS PA NA BYAS PA RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA MA YIN NA Therefore, we can say there is no contact in and of itself. RGYUD NI BDE BA JI LTAR NA RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED PA BYAS TE And you can't say that the cause triggered the result in a self-existent way. He just finishes.

Whenever I think of touching, I think of... It's like the most anticipated touch of all time. Yeah, so somehow they don't touch.

They're kind of not touching, right? But we're here. CI STE YANG RGYUN DE RANG BZHIN GYIS BYAS PA YOD PA YIN NA YANG RGYUN NI BDE BA LTAR NA RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED PA BYAS PA RGYUD NI BDE BA If you say that...

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, CI STE YANG RGYUN DE... Yeah, it gets tricky here.

[Speaker 1]
He says, if there cannot be contact between the cause and the result, then you can't say the cause contacted the result. I'll say it again. If there's no contact between cause and result, then you can't say that the cause functioned to make contact with the result.

There it goes. Almost the same thing here. RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED PA BYAS PA MI THES DE RGYUN DE DANG LHAN CIG MA TSOGS NA RANG BZHIN GYIS MI PHRAD CING You can't have this discussion because RGYUN DE BU DANG LHAN CIG MA TSOGS NA If the cause and the result never got in the same room, then they couldn't talk about touching, even self-existently.

And TSOGS NA NI, if they do get in the same room, what? The cause and the result. LA RANG BSKYED PA DON MED PA'I PHYIR RO If they are both already present, then why would the cause do anything?

The result's already there. Then the cause lost his job. It applies for unemployment.

The cause applies for unemployment. Okay, got it? All right.

Yeah, I'm not even going to go to the picture, but what do we got here, Tim? Coming up next. It says, oh, okay.

I think, is this guy at the starting line or is this guy at the finishing line? That's the point, okay? You decide whether it's a good picture.

These things are hard to pick pictures for him to say. Okay. What's the next holy words here, Tim, that we're so excited about?

Yeah. Hey, you want to know what we think about all this? And again, it's rare that he gives us that option and it's only Choney Lama.

It's not Nagarjuna. Here we go. All right, Nagarjuna.

RANG LUGS MYU GOS SOGS NI, RANG GI RGYU RGYU DANG MA BYAS KYANG In our system, this is interesting, the sprout never makes immediate contact with the indirect cause. The sprout never makes immediate contact with the indirect cause. Indirect cause means the seed, when it was in your desk drawer in the winter, as opposed to the seed just before the sprout came out in the spring.

So the seed in the desk drawer in the winter is called indirect cause. And the seed that is just opening up into a sprout is called direct cause. So now Choney Lama throws this bomb into the conversation.

Let's divide between direct cause and indirect cause. RANG GI RGYU RGYU DANG MA BYAS KYANG I'll admit that the sprout never touches its indirect cause. That makes sense.

The sprout never touches the seed that was in the drawer in December before you planted it. That makes sense. KYANG, BAG SMOD RGYU DANG PHRAD PA, KHAS LAN We do believe that the sprout makes contact with the immediate seed in the spring.

Yeah, how does that make sense? RGYU RGYU DANG PHRAD PA, the final instant of the immediate cause and the first instant of the result must make contact. That's RANG GI RGYU.

The front end of the result and the back end of the cause have to make contact, but only possible if you have chakras. Because it's a concept really. It can't exist as a physical reality.

Neither can anything else, but that's a different point. I like this picture. They're making contact.

The front end of the back car and the back end of the front car are making contact. The left side car is the cause and it's front end. Sorry, it has to be the result.

The front end of the result is touching the back end of the cause. Something like that. It took me a long time to find this.

Unfortunately, they overlap a bit, but maybe they have to. That's called contact. Okay.

MI PHRAD NA NGOS SUR KHYAD BYAR KHYAD BYED DU MI RGYUR ZHING NGOS RGYUD DANG BRAS BU BAR DU PHYIR ZHING GI PHYIR PA'I KHYEN YOD PAS PHYIR Choney Lama says, if the back side of the cause and the front side of the result never make contact, there's the probability that there would be another thing between them and then they wouldn't be direct cause and effect. There'd have to be something between them, even if it's just time. Then they wouldn't be direct cause and direct result.

DE BZHIN DU NYID DU LTA BU RANG GI SMRAS KYI CHA DANG PHRAD PAR BSTOD DGOS TE In the same way, we have to say something like a sprout, even something like a sprout has to have a front end or a back end that makes contact with the sprout of the next millisecond. The back end of the first millisecond of the sprout has to make contact with the front end of the second millisecond of the sprout. DE LTAR NYE DU PHRAD PA LA CHA GCIG PHRAD PAS Now he says LTAR NYE DU, $100.

Anybody? LTAR NYE DU.

[Speaker 2]
Conventionals.

[Speaker 1]
$100. You have to collect it from Ven. Matsumura.

She's not here today. She's my banker. By the way, she takes care of all of my banking.

I don't know anything. I don't know where my accounts are. I don't know the account number.

If she's in here or happens to her, I've got to stop all the bets. You don't know how nice that is to have someone take that suffering on themselves. It gives me so much free time to work.

Today she sent me an email. It says, there's an important stock notice on one of your major stocks in your portfolio. She said, do you want to look at it?

I said, no. You read it. You don't have to do anything.

Let me know. But you don't know how sweet it is to have somebody look at it. THA GNAS DU BSTAD PA LA CHAGS CIG BSTAD PAS Anytime two things meet conventionally, if they make contact conventionally, forget this ultimately stuff.

Forget self-existently. Forget from its own side. How about from my side?

How about from my side, in my words? BSTAD PA LA CHAGS CIG BSTAD PAS Yeah, they do have to make contact and they will make contact at a certain end. Now he says something interesting to think about.

CHOG, this CHOG without the M, Tim, for $50. It's a... No, without the M.

Yeah, it means not superior. What's CHOG mean without superior? It has two meanings.

CHOG means it's okay. It's okay. CHOG DU DGE'I means can I take a popcorn?

Can I have a piece of popcorn? CHOG DU DGE'I Is it allowed that I take a piece of popcorn? Without the M.

With the M it means KHOY CHOG, which means three jewels. But without the M it's CHOG. Means it's okay if we talk about front end and back end, if we're talking chocolate sauce.

Then we can talk about front end and back end because that in itself is just a concept, as is everything else. It's just the result of an image coming out of a karmic seed. With that, if that's all the rules are, okay, you can have front ends and back ends because it's just, whatever your seed comes up with is okay.

And that's reality. BYAS PA'I CHOG It's okay. Everything's okay.

CHOG GYIS BAD There's a BAD. Small print. RANG BZHIN GYIS PHYED NA But if you want them to touch by some nature of their own, and not just by luminous images popping out of my karmas, SDUG BSNGAL MCHOG THAMS CAD NAS PHRAD DGOS PA'I PHYIR If two things which existed in and of themselves ever made contact, then every part of the cause would have to make contact with every part of the result.

Like two tennis balls occupying the same space. Contiguous. They'd have to be, the skin of the first ball would have to be part of the skin of the second ball on every point in the circle, in the sphere.

And he says that's the only way it would work if they exist by definition. If they exist by definition, you can't talk about what? Front end and back end.

Then you can't say, the ball met the front end of the back end and this ball met the front end of this ball. They'd have to be like this. And I have a picture of that.

Oh. No, I'm sorry. This is the chocolate sauce meeting.

There's no part of the white car in the space of the part of the red car. That's chocolate sauce meeting. PHYIR MA BYED KYI BYA YER YON NA BYA BYED YIN PA'I RTEN BRAL DU GYUR This is extremely deep.

If with a self-existent thing there could be parts of either the cause or the result making contact with them, then there would be parts of the result that were not making contact, and there'd be parts of the cause that were not making contact, and then the cause and the result would have to have sections, and then they'd be dependently originated. Anything with sections is dependently originated. Why?

It's a big, big understanding I had from Venerable Utpala's fine translation. If things have parts, they cannot be self-existent because if they have parts, something has to be gluing them together, and that's the chocolate sauce. Got it?

Anything with parts has to be dependently originated, which at its deepest meaning means depending on seeds opening in my mind. Chocolate sauce. Because otherwise, the left side has no natural connection to the right side.

The front end has no natural meeting place with the back end, and front ends would be running around over there, and back ends would be running around over there because there wouldn't be anything gluing them together. It's only your karma gluing them together. That's why you have to give people rides for your car to work all the time.

[Speaker 2]
You should be saying, huh?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm not kidding. The parts won't fit right if you don't give people rides. Something will break.

Something will break down.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
All right, how many of the seven we got through? Three. I don't know about you, I was praying I would get to the end of these.

I so much wanted to go on to something else that was more clear, but this is how you get there. You slow down. I think we have until 4.10, right?

4.10? Wow. How time flies when you're having fun.

That was on the wall of the ice cream parlor where Mo and Veronica grew up. It's still there by the way, but the ice cream chain. The front, no.

Okay. The result is triggered by a cause which is either devoid of that result or is not so devoid. Is the result in any way present in the cause?

We seem to have talked about this already, but when I went back and checked if we talked about it already, we weren't talking about isolated cause and effect. We were talking about the collection of the causes and conditions and the result of the collection. Was the result present in the convening or the coming together of causes and conditions?

We discussed that already. Now we're at isolating cause and we have the same result. So it's actually a different conversation.

Does the result somehow lie inside of the cause? I kind of see it like a fetus inside of a mom's tummy. Is the result somehow lying inside the cause and then it comes out?

Is it pre-existing condition? Okay. And we can finish this.

We have a few minutes. ,GAL TE GRUB PA'I STONG PA'I RGYU, ,JI LTAR GRUB PA'I SKYE BAR BSGYUR, This is so classic Nagarjuna poetry. ,HE THUB PA LAS NA GZHAN YOD CHED, ,KA THAMS CAN YOD DE PA LA'AM, ,HE THUB PA LA NAS, ,PA LAS NA GZHAN YOD CHED, ,KA THAMS CAN NA YOD DE PA LA'AM If the result didn't have the cause inside of it, if it were devoid of the cause, if the result...

I'm sorry. ,GAL TE GRUB PA'I STONG PA'I RGYU, Sorry. If the cause didn't have the result inside of it somehow from the beginning like a fetus inside of a mom, ,JI LTAR GRUB PA'I SKYE BAR BSGYUR, then how does the cause eject the result?

Like the baby popping out. If the baby's not inside the mom before it pops out somehow, then how can a baby pop out? And let's say it's not in there.

Let's say the baby is in the mom. The third line, ,GAL TE GRUB PA'I STONG PA'I RGYU, If the cause is not devoid of the pre-existing result, ,JI LTAR BDE BU SKYE BAR BYED, then how does it give a result? How would it give?

Notice the second line and the fourth line are the same. The Garjunas being cute. Problem either way.

Let's go through it. ,GZHAN YANG GAL TE BDE BU STONG PA STE, ,MED PA'I RGYU NI, Let's say that the cause is void of the result and Choney Lama says, void here just means don't have it. Thank you.

We're not talking about the deeper meaning of emptiness. We're just saying, don't, empty pocket. It doesn't have a credit card anymore.

So if the cause in no way has the result inside of it already, which means void of, don't confuse it with GZHAN YI LTAR. ,LTAR NA, ,DE BU RANG ZHIG GIS BSKYED PAR BYED DO MI BYED PAS, He says, well, what's wrong with that? How about the result is not present in the cause and then the cause doesn't sting and the result occurs.

What's wrong with that? MI BYED PAS ,CHOS LA MAR GYI RGYU MED PA, Tim, a hundred bucks. Haso, anybody.

CHOS LA MAR GYI Yeah, good, same. Yeah. I'll do 50-50.

Is it where you're going to say that? But where are you going to say it? Let's say 36, 37.

70-30, okay. We share 50-50.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
But this is a simple statement, but it's a deep idea. And there's a very common expression in Buddhism that you don't churn water to make butter. Why?

There's no potential of butter in water, but there is potential of butter in milk, which kind of implies the potential thing is valid. If you don't churn water to get butter, but you do churn milk to get butter, then there's something present in the time of the cause, of the result. You see what I mean?

It's kind of cute. That's talking about the validity of potential results. Why is it relevant here?

If the result... I'm sorry. If the result were self-existently not present in the cause, then you could churn water to make butter.

,GAL TE RANG GI BRAS BU'I MI STONG BA'I RGYUD KYANG, Now let's say the cause is not void of the result. Meaning, let's say the cause does have a potential result in it, like milk has potential butter in it. ,JI LTAR NA BRAS BU'I RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED PAR BYED PAS, But how would that then self-existently create its result?

Because, ,BRAS BU'I LUS NYOD PA LA RYANG MI SKYE BA'I PHYIR, There's no reason to make butter because the butter was already there in the milk. Why make butter twice? I saw her, she was frowning because she's dealing so much with potential outcomes of her work.

She printed two books yesterday. She's done in a month what wasn't done in 10 years. And she's done it like six times already.

Anyway, it's pretty cool. The Diamond Cutter Sutra e-book came out and the Heart Sutra e-book came out today or yesterday? Like they're coming out like babies.

Okay, ,BRAS BU'I LUS NYOD PA LA RYANG MI SKYE BA'I PHYIR, So Rose is asking the question, well, can't you have a potential for a result present in the cause's time and then the real result comes out? So what's the contradiction there if you have a potential result present during the time of the cause and then you have the actual result after the cause has done its thing? I'll ask JB later.

I can see you thinking about it. I also think about it, but I'm going to avoid it. JB will answer later.

He keeps repeating that if the potential result, if the cause has a potential result within it, then there's no reason for it to make the real result. That's what he would say. It's redundant.

Yeah, that's like, my teacher would say it needs more discussion, but not today. Okay, see you in the next class. We're up to number five of the seven.

Thank you.