Нагарджуна, курс 4 — Мудрость Арьи Нагарджуны, курс 4: Тайна глав (2022, Аризона), занятие 12

[Speaker 2]
Hi, welcome back to Arya Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
And here we go. And we're going to go to a 5.25, right? All right, good.

We had seven options for causes and effects that were basically separate. And then here's option number five. The result being triggered, does it have a nature of its own or is it devoid of such a nature?

So now, notice that they've switched the meaning of voidness here. Before, voidness meant, is the cause devoid of the result? And now we're asking, does the result, is the result devoid of a nature of its own?

So different devoids, okay? All right. ,DE BOS MI STONG KHYAD MI RGYUR, ,MI STONG RGA PA MI RGYUR RO, ,MI STONG DE NI MA NGAG STONG, ,MA SKAD PA YANG RGYUR YIN, ,JE BOS MI STONG KHYAD MI RGYUR, There cannot be a starting if the thing is not devoid of a result.

What do you think about that? I think he might, that first line might be talking about the old kind of devoid. Let's go to the commentary.

,DE BU SKYE BA RANG BZHIN GYI STONG PA MI STONG GANG ZHIG ,SKYE DANG By the way, that SKYE DANG in the first line is a new expression. I've never seen it. But he started to use it over and over.

And now it's clear. It means, I'll give you a couple of choices. You choose one, okay?

So SKYE DANG means I'll give you a couple of choices. You tell me which one you like. ,DE BU SKYE BA RANG BZHIN GYI STONG PA MI STONG Is the, oh, that was the line that was messed up in the carving.

The carving said the same thing for options four and five. So one of them had to be wrong, and it's this one. And what it really should say is DE BU SKYE BA RANG BZHIN GYI STONG PA is the growing of the result.

It's the starting of the result. Is the growing of the result empty of its own nature or not? You tell me what you think.

Now he's not saying the cause is empty or not, or the result is empty or not. He's talking about the growing of the result is empty or not. Okay, got it?

Different. Is the growing of the result empty or not? ,DE LA DE BU RANG BZHIN GYI YOD PAS MI STONG BA BYAS CAN Let's consider a result which was not empty of having its own nature.

Let's take the case of a result which was not empty of its own nature. ,SKYE BAR MI'I RGYUR BA LTA'O It cannot start because DGON DAL MA YIN DGON DAL MA YIN It's not dependent origination. It would not exhibit dependent origination.

So there he's just, he's just used it as a reason in an argument, but it's a profound principle that he's talking about. What is it? If something were dependent origination, it could not have its own nature.

It could, sorry, it would have to be empty of its own nature. If something were dependent origination, it would have to be empty of its own nature. ,RTEN DER MI STONG BA DE NI BYAS CAN If it were not empty of its own nature, if it were not empty of its own nature, it couldn't be dependent origination and it couldn't GAG PA, which means what?

It could never stop because RANG BZHIN GYI YOD PAS BYAS CAN That's sort of a cheap argument because it has its own nature. Thanks. By the way, he has repeated over and over again that if something had its own nature, it could never come to a stop because then it would lose its nature.

That's all. It's been a repeated argument that if something had its own nature, it couldn't die because that means its nature would have to change and it wouldn't be its own nature. So things that have their own self-existing nature could never stop because then they would be different from what they were before.

And that's not possible because it has its own nature. GAG PA MI GYUR TE RANG BZHIN GYI YOD PAS BYAS CAN ,GAL TE RANG BZHIN LA RDOG PA MED PA'I PHYIR Here's the punchline. If something is something's nature, its true nature, it cannot be modified.

That nature cannot be modified. It cannot, RDOG PA means to turn it back, stop it. It could not be changed or stopped.

If it were a true nature, if it were an inherent nature, it couldn't be stopped because then the thing wouldn't be what it was anymore. You couldn't cut the cancer out without killing the patient. Something like that.

All right. DE BZHIN DU MIN RTOG BAR BDOD NA NI MI THES TE ,DE NI MA RGAGS PA RNAMS NA SKAD PAR YANG RGYUR BA YIN ,DE YIN PHYIR YANG RGYUR BA YIN ,DE BZHIN DU MIN RTOG BAR BDOD PA NI MI THES TE If you deny that the result could have any nature of its own, then it could never stop or start. It would have to have some nature, but not a self-existing nature.

Not an immutable nature. DE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS RTOG YOD PA'I RTOG BA NI PHYIR BYED Let's take the fact that the result doesn't exist through any nature of its own. JI LTAR NGO BO NYID KYIS SKYE BA RGYUR BZHIN JI LTAR NA NGO BO NYID KYIS RGAGS PA RGYUR BA NI MI THES TE If the result were empty of any nature of its own, it could never start and never stop.

MI THES TE RANG BZHIN GYIS RTOG PA'I RTOG Because it wouldn't have any nature to change. If it had its own self-existent nature, it could never stop especially. If it didn't have any nature at all, it couldn't start or stop.

So it has a nature, but not a self-existent nature. I don't like my picture so much, I'm going to skip it. DE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS RTOG PA'I RTOG PA DE YANG NGO BO NYID KYIS That's okay, you don't need that.

All right, I have some Sanskrit words for you just to take a break and have some fun. I don't know, I have fun with Sanskrit. Here's some words that you could, they're going to apply very heavily to the next section.

Say ekatva. So Sanskrit doesn't have a V. It's like a dukkha, mua, ekatva.

There's a when coming for, from the victory. Okay, if you know Hindi. Okay, ekatva means one and the same, one and together.

GCIG TU RGYUR means cause and effect have become one and the same. Cause and effect are one and the same. EKA means one.

EK, DOG, RTIN, BYAR, BANG ZHIG SAT There's a lot of Hindi. So EKA means one. EKA RASA, what was that?

Single song, yeah. And so EKA came into the word ego, and from aham, you know aham. And then DVA is always shun or nurse.

So ekatva means sameness or oneness. It's going to come in handy here. Are the cause and the effect one and the same?

And they're not. They're not ekatva. Next word, anyatva.

And it doesn't mean onion. Anya means other, something other. Opposite of EKA.

EKA means they're one and the same. Anya means there's something else. Which is an-i, not go together.

An-i, don't go together. Exit, i. So anyatva means shun to gyur, something else.

If they're not one, are they something different from each other? Shun to gyur. Basically from the privative A.

Privative means negative, A. It's the Greek term for it. And it's don't go together.

Anyatva. An-ya-tva, okay. All right, next word.

Is that, oh, there's a nice one here. Say svabhava. Svabhava.

Sorry. Svabhavas. Svabhavas.

Adbhuta.

[Speaker 2]
Adbhuta.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And I'm not sure that it should be a long bhava. That's what the dictionary had, but I'm suspicious a little bit.

Okay. This one's to be, no long A. Light is long A.

So I'm suspicious of this one. But anyway, that's what the dictionary had. Lo-wa-nyiki-yupa means exist through some nature and its own.

Svabhava. Svabhava means own. Comes from S-U, like suicide.

To kill. Side means kill, like regicide or homicide. Human killing, homicide.

And S-U means yourself. So Svab means self. Bhava means nature, like bhu meaning to be.

So Svabhava means its own nature. Adbhuta is an unusual word that means, normally means something happened, but something amazing. Medpachungwa in Tibetan.

So adbhuta usually means, like what's the third chapter called? Vibhuti, by the way. Yeah, an amazing occurrence, supposedly.

We're going to talk about it. But the bhuti often means happening, and something happening, like something big. BRTIS means, sometimes it means something big.

So here it means, SVABS PA BA means it got its own nature. Its own nature happened. SNGOR GNYIS KYI YOD PA Exists through some nature of its own, not chocolate sauce.

It doesn't need chocolate sauce for its existence. It exists as a ball of ice cream without the chocolate sauce. All right, so there's some words that are going to be useful in today's class.

All right, here's the sixth option. And I think we can finish the options today. We'll just be refreshing somehow.

Result is triggered by a cause which is either the same or separate from it. Is the cause, is the result triggered by a cause which is either the same as the result or separate from the result? Okay, and let's look at the possibilities.

RGYUD RANG BDE BU GCIG GNYIS DU RNAM YANG THEG PA MIN GYI RO Hey, it would be ridiculous to say that the cause and the result were exactly the same thing because why would one start from the other? Okay, so cancel that one. Second half of the...

And by the way, he repeats the second and fourth lines, which is Nagarjuna's style. That's ridiculous if they're one and it's ridiculous if they're separate. He's always saying that.

It's ridiculous if this and it's also ridiculous if that. So RNAM YANG THEG PA means totally big boo-boo. RGYUD RANG BDE BU GCIG GNYIS DU And here's the gods, right?

If the cause and the effect were the same thing, then what's the point? If the cause and the effect are totally disconnected, then what's the connection? If they are inherently different, meaning no point of contact, then why talk about cause and effect?

RGYUD RANG BDE BU GCIG GNYIS NA If the cause and the result are the same, SKAD BYA SKAD BYAS GCIG TU GYUR then what's being created and the creator are one and the same. The creator and the creation are the same thing. RGYUD RANG BDE BU GZHAN NYID NA If the cause and the effect are essentially different, disconnectedly different, RGYUD DANG RGYUD MIN TSUN PAR GYUR then things which are appropriate causes for something to happen and things which are in no way appropriate causes for something to happen would both be appropriate causes for something to happen.

You could fix the economy by, I don't know, picking up a pen or something. Something that's not a cause would become a cause if they were not connected. And here's his commentary.

GZHAN NYID RANG RGYUD BYED PA'I RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED NA If the cause self-existently causes the result, GNYIS LAS MIN BDE MIN BDAG BA'I BSKYED NA GNYIS LAS MIN BDAG BA'I Since there would be no essential difference between them, RGYUD RANG BDE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG then if the cause and effect essentially became the same thing, BDE PA MIN GYUR, that would be wrong. Why?

[Speaker 2]
RGYUD RANG BDE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG BDE PA MIN BDE BA'I RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG GCIG PA NYID LAS MIN BDE BA'I NYID LAS MIN BDE BA'I RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID LAS MIN BDE BA'I I'm sorry, I got to restate that.

[Speaker 1]
GZHAN YANG RGYUD BDE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED NA If the cause causes the consequence self-existently, NYID LAS MIN BDAG BA'I they could never be other than two things. They could never be other than two things. RGYUD RANG BDE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG And that means they could never be the same thing.

BDE PA MIN BDE RGYUD RANG BDE BU RANG BZHIN GYIS GZHAN PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG BDE PA MIN BDE BA'I Therefore, it's incorrect to say that they are essentially different. RGYUD RANG BDE BU NYID RANG BZHIN GYIS GCIG PA NYID DU RNAMS YANG If the cause and the result are by nature a single thing, MI THE STE That's also a BU BU because SKYE BYA BDE BU SO SKYE BYAS KYI RGYUD LA SOGS PA THAMS CAD KYANG GCIG TU DGOS Then all of the things being created by the cause and the cause creating them, the creation and the creator would be the same thing. And I thought this would be a good picture.

Then the mother would be kissing herself. If the creator and the created were the same thing, then this is a picture of James Brown's mother kissing herself.

[Speaker 2]
I'm so beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
I'm so handsome, I could kiss myself. I'm so handsome, I could kiss myself. All right, BRAL MA'I DUN GZHAN By the way, this is a common idiom.

BRAL MA'I DUN GZHAN means if there's no relationship between them at all and they're just two separate things. This is a common philosophical expression, BRAL MA'I DUN GZHAN. LA NI RGYUN DE YIN MIN GYI DBYE BA MI ROL BA'I PHYIR If there was no connection between the cause and the, sorry, the creator and the creation, if there were no connection between them at all, then RGYUN DE, then it would be incorrect to categorize that as cause and effect.

If there was no relationship between the cause and the effect, it would be incorrect to categorize it as an example of cause and effect. Finished with six, let's go on to, oh, did I have a picture? It's coming later.

Okay, number seven. Yay, we're almost done. Result which either does or doesn't exist through its own nature is triggered by the cause.

The cause does trigger result, yes. Does it exist through its own nature or not? I don't care, both are wrong.

Okay, let's say it again. Does the result come from the cause? Yes.

Is it triggered from the cause? Yes. Is the result which is triggered by the cause, does it exist by itself or not by itself?

Both are wrong. Okay, all right. So let's look at that one.

BRAS BU NGO BA NYID YOD NA, RGYUD NI PHYI ZHIG BSKYED PAR BYED If the result already existed through some nature of its own, then the cause would be unemployed. Okay, if the cause, if the result already existed through some nature of its own, the cause would be unemployed. What would the cause have to do?

BRAS BU NGO BA NYID MED NA If the result didn't have some nature of its own, RGYUD NI PHYI ZHIG BSKYED PAR BYED then what would there for the cause to create? If the result didn't have any nature at all, then what's the cause supposed to do? Meaning, if it didn't exist at all, right?

Because if it doesn't have a nature, it doesn't have an identity, it doesn't even have an existence. Identity theft instead of unemployment. Okay, RGYUD DE BU SKYE NA Here's a commentary.

RGYUD DE BU SKYE NA DE BU NGO BA NYID KYIS YOD PA'ANG MED PA If you say that causes create results, let me ask you a question. And we say, yeah, what's your question? When a cause creates a result, does that result have its own nature or not?

And both answers you give are wrong. Why? DE LA SGRUB PA NGO BA NYID KYIS YOD NA If the result existed through some nature of its own, then what would the cause have left to do?

NGO BA NYID KYIS SGRUB ZIN LA RGYANGS KYIS MI DGOS PA'I PHYIR Once something has a nature of its own, there's no point to it being caused again. Once a thing exists with a nature of its own, what's the point to causing it over again? What more can you do?

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
I found a fruit. You ready? And the point is, the point...

Okay, I have to explain the picture. These seeds cannot create this finished pomegranate because it's already there. That's the point.

If the finished pomegranate had any nature of its own, then what would the seeds have left to do? Unemployment, everything. It's too late for them to do anything.

SGRUB PA NGO BA NYID KYIS MED NA And if the result doesn't have any nature of its own, YID NI CI ZHIG BSKYED PAR BYED then how could anything trigger it? If the result had no identity of its own, then how could anything else trigger a thing with no identity? SKAD DANG RANG BZHIN GYIS MED PA DANG MED PA LA SKAD PAR MED PA'I PHYIR RO Because according to you, and someone's going to tell me who is you.

Ready? According to you, to lack your own nature and to be nonexistent at all is the same thing. Who would say that?

I'll say it again. Not having your own nature and not existing at all are the same thing. That's the other guy.

That's the guy who wants things to be self-existent. If they're not self-existent, they don't exist at all. Why?

They don't have any identity. Then they might as well be a piece of popcorn, instead of a pomegranate. They don't have an identity.

So then I chose, I don't know if this is a good picture. I was getting desperate. I was trying to find a case where the seeds didn't have anything to do anymore.

I don't know if that works. If the result had no nature, then the seeds couldn't make a result because a result with no nature wouldn't have any identity at all. It would be nonexistent.

These seeds are not going to make a result. They're not viable anymore. All right, someday people will sit down and look through all my pictures.

This one was good. Meaning, oh, no. Okay, now we say section two.

There's about a thousand section twos. What I've done in the notes, which you're welcome to have, right? I've always identified section two, which is a lot of work.

So you have to go back through all the section twos and find out which one it is. So I do it in every case because I want to know what I'm talking about. It takes time.

So here, and unfortunately, they don't say what's section two. It's like chapter two at the head of the page and they don't tell you what's chapter two. They don't tell you the name of chapter two.

Very typical. That's Tibetan stuff. So maybe they want you to go back and look.

Okay, so here, we denied RGYUD NYID RANG BZHIN GYI YOD PA RGAGS PA We're going to prove that it's not true that the cause taken on its, the isolated cause, isolated from the collection of causes and conditions, et cetera, and causes and results. Let's just talk about cause by itself. RGYUD NYID RANG BZHIN GYI YOD PA RGAGS PA We're going to deny that it could have any nature of its own, any specific nature of its own.

Just let's take, isolate causes by themselves. Let's not talk about them in context of results. All right, here's the root text.

SKYE BAR BYAS PA MA YIN NA RGYUD NYID BTA'I PA MI RGYUD RO If the cause is not, if the cause is not triggering anything, then how can you call it a cause? RGYUD NYID BTA'I PA YOD MA NA If something, if you couldn't call something a cause, then whose result is it? Sorry, which result does it belong to?

I'll say it again. SKYE BAR BYAS PA MA YIN NA If something doesn't trigger something else, RGYUD NYID BTA'I PA MI RGYUD RO You could never call it a cause. RGYUD NYID BTA'I PA YOD MA NA If you couldn't call it a cause, BDE BU GANG GI YIN PAR GYUR then whose would the result be?

Who does the result belong to, if there's no cause? GAL TE RGYUR NA GZHIN GYIS YOD PAS BDE BU GANG GZHIN GYIS YOD DO BZHIN NA And this is an interesting argument, and he's been doing this over and over again. If the cause has some nature of its own, then the nature should, sorry, if the cause has some nature of its own, then the result should have some nature of its own.

He wants to say that. The other guy wants to say that. Look, if the cause has a nature of its own, then the result that's connected to it should have a nature of its own.

If anything has a nature of its own, anything connected to it should have a nature of its own. That's his general position. Why?

MI BTHE DE We say MI BTHE. Why? RGYUD BDE BU GANG GZHIN GYIS YOD PA BYAS PA MA YIN NA RGYUD NYID KYANG RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA THEG PA MI GYUR LA RGYUD BDE BU GANG GZHIN GYIS YOD PA BYAS PA MA YIN NA If the cause didn't create the result through any nature of its own, RGYUD NYID KYANG RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA THEG PA MI GYUR Then he says, if the result has a nature, the cause must have a nature.

Did I say that right? Sorry. If the cause has a nature, then the result should have a nature.

And then we say, that's not correct because if the cause is not a creator of the result by through any nature of its own, then the cause itself could not exist through any nature of its own. If the cause didn't create things through a nature of its own, then the cause couldn't have a nature of its own. RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA THEG PA MI GYUR LA Picture, if it didn't start something from its own side and never existed from its own side, if the cause didn't create a result from its own side, then the cause never existed from its own side.

That's the opposite of what he wants to say. He wants to say, if the result exists from its own side, then the cause for that result has to exist from its own side. We say, no, let's turn it around.

If the cause doesn't exist from its own side then the result doesn't exist from its own side either. We kind of agree with his methodology. RGYU NI RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA THEG PA MI GYUR NA If it's incorrect to say that the cause itself exists through any nature of its own, BYE BAR RANG BZHIN GYIS YOD PA DE RGYU GANG GI YIN PAR GYUR Then if the cause, if it's not correct to say the cause has a nature of its own, then if a result showed up, whose is it?

Sorry, if you can't say that the cause has any nature of its own, then what result that has a nature of its own came from where, please? I'll say it again. If the cause doesn't have a nature of its own, then where did the self-existing result come from?

Got it? If the cause doesn't have a nature of its own and you have a result which does have a nature of its own, then where did that result come from? Because you don't have a cause which matches it.

RGYU GANG GI YIN PAR GYUR BA MI THANG So who does the, what cause does the result which does have a nature of its own belong to? Okay? If the cause can't have a nature of its own on its own, we study in isolation, then if you get a result that does have a nature of its own, where did it come from?

Because a result that has a nature of its own should logically come from a cause that has a nature of its own. But if you isolated the cause earlier and said it didn't have a nature of its own, then you got all these results that do have a nature of its own. They don't belong to anybody.

They just popped out without a cause. Okay? Got it?

GYUR BA GANG GI YIN PAR DE GYUR BA DE SKYES PA RGYUD DE YIN PAR DU GYUR BA Because you have to say that every result has a corresponding cause, no? So if you got a result hanging out there that did come from itself, has its own nature, you should got to find a cause that does have its own nature to match it with. But you just said the causes don't have their own nature in isolation.

But take the cause by itself, it doesn't have its own nature. All right, yay, we're on section three. SOGS PA LAS SKYE BA SGOS PA'I RIGS PA BZHIN BRTAN PO Don't forget this outline is imposed on the book by Choney Lama.

He has made up the outline to fit the evidence. He's like a detective. He's creating a murder scene from the blood spots.

So he's imposing a structure on the text, which is extremely helpful. And so far I'd say I vote for it 100%. I think he's...

I've seen books where the author pushed it too far to get their outline in. But this one seems to work to me. All right, so the third part here is SOGS PA LAS SKYE BA SGOS PA'I RIGS PA BZHIN BRTAN PO I'll give you more reasons why a result doesn't come about through the coming together of causes and conditions.

I'll give you another reason why results don't pop out of circumstances where you have causes and conditions coming together. Because that's the one that we most want to be. That's the one that feels most comfortable to us.

Look, Geshe-la, the seed is there, the water is there, the sunlight is there, the gardener is there. Fertilize it. Then it's going to come out.

The tree is going to come out. In fact, we had huge debates in the monastery of whether it was even possible to reverse it at that point. In the millisecond before the result comes out, is it possible to cancel a result coming out if all the conditions are present?

And the famous answer is yes. And we're like, what? And he says, if a crow flies down and picks up the seed.

And then you're all like... You guys can think about that one. It's supposedly an ancient, valid argument.

I think then you'd say the causes and conditions weren't there because the condition of the seed sitting in the dirt wasn't there anymore, I would say. But it's a famous... I don't know, everybody was just like...

I remember the debate. Okay, SOGS PA LAS SKYE BA SGOS PA'I RIGS KYI GZHAN BSTAN MO Let's talk about other reasons why results don't pop out of... What did we call it?

I'll give you $5. The consummate convening. That's my word.

I'm going to use it as the name of my next band. The consummate convening. Anyway, try to struggle to imagine all the necessary causes and conditions have already come together.

The sugar's there, the flour's there, the milk's there, the oven's on, the time passed. The cake is made. So we're going to have other...

We're going to have a few final arguments about why we don't want that. RGYUD RNAMS DANG NI RKYEN DAG GIS TSOGS PA GANG YIN THEG GYIS NI BDAG GIS DANG NYID MI RGYIS NA BRJED PA JI LTAR BSKYED PAR BYED If you assembled all the necessary causes and conditions and it couldn't produce itself, if the water, the sunlight, the seed, the gardener, and the fertilizer couldn't create the water, the sunlight, the gardener, and the seeds, if all the causes couldn't create themselves, BRJED PA JI LTAR, then how could they cause sapna?

[Speaker 2]
We need a commentary, right?

[Speaker 1]
I'll say it again. If the seed, water, fertilizer, gardener, sunlight didn't create the seed, water, gardener, sunlight, then how could they all together create a tree? We need a commentary.

Here we go. DE PHYIR SOGS LA BYAS PA MIN Therefore, the result is not created by the convening of the causes and conditions. SOGS MIN BYAS PA'I BDE PO'ANG MED And if you never had the causes and conditions together, that wouldn't create the result either.

BYAS PA YOD PA MA YIN NA If there's no result, SKYE NGIS RTZOGS PA GA LA YOD Then how can you say all the conditions collect? That's that retroactive, you get to be a cause because now you've produced a result. Got it?

All right, here we go. RGYUD KHYEN SOGS NAS BRJED PA SKYE DOR BZHIN NA And this is very reasonable. Somebody says, look, you want a result?

Just put together all the causes and conditions and the result will pop out. That's the way it works. Then we say, RGYUD KHYEN GYI RTZOGS PA BDAG GIS BDAG NYID MI BYAS TE But don't you agree that the coming together of the conditions and causes have not created the conditions and causes?

Yeah, that's okay. We can agree. The fertilizer didn't give birth to the fertilizer.

BRJES BU SKYE BA DON MED PA'I BLAM NA BYAS PA RGYAL BA RNAMS SOGS PA BRJES SU MED PA'I PHYIR Three reasons here. And one of them is interesting, personally. Here we go.

RGYUD KHYEN GYI RTZOGS PA When the causes and conditions come together, BDAG GIS BDAG NYID MI BYAS TE they don't themselves create themselves. Why? BRJES BU SKYE BA DON MED PA'I If the causes and conditions could come together and create the causes and conditions, then there would be no need for them to create something else like a result.

MED PA'I DANG Okay, that's kind of weird. Second reason.

[Speaker 2]
BLAM NA BYAS PA RGYAL BA It's a contradiction to say that something created itself.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. You can't say the seed created the seed or something like that unless you're talking about the continuum of the seed itself. Okay, but I like the last one and I want to talk about that.

RTZOGS PA MDZAD SU MED PA'I PHYIR And this word MDZAD in Tibetan, drab ya in Sanskrit, substance, substance. It's a highly debated word in all the schools. So MDZAD means stuff.

Okay, so he says conventions of causes and conditions are not MDZAD.

[Speaker 2]
So they can't create other things. They're not substantial enough to create something.

[Speaker 1]
Not the causes and conditions separately and not the causes and conditions together, but the convening doesn't make a MDZAD. The convening is just a situation. It's not a stuff, okay?

The coming together, the act of coming together is not stuff. And since it's not stuff, it doesn't produce MDZAD. So I don't want to say that coming together of the causes and conditions created the tree.

I don't want to say that. Why? Coming together is just kind of like an idea.

It's not the actual thing. It's their being in the same area at the same time. That's not big enough to make a tree.

Causes and conditions being in the same area at the same time is not solid enough to create a two-ton tree. It's just a condition. I like that one.

It's kind of interesting. SOGS PA MDZAD SU MED PAS RANG GI BDAG NYID MI SKYES NA Since the coming together of causes and conditions is not kind of like a solid thing of its own, not like chemicals and nutrients. MED PAS BDAG NYID MI SKYES NA If that means it can't produce something, DE'I JI LTAR NA BRAS BU RANG BZHIN GYIS BSKYED PAR BYED PAS If the coming together is not a solid enough thing to create the result, then how could it ever create a result by itself?

It would be like MO BZHAM GYIS BU, $300. MO BZHAM GYIS BU. MO BZHAM GYIS BU.

It's an idiom. It means the child of a barren woman. Famous expression.

I don't know. The child of a woman who lost her ovaries or something. That's just not possible.

Not possible. What's not possible? If the coming together itself is not concrete enough to produce a result, then how can you guys be saying that the convening self-existently creates a result?

If the coming together, not the chemicals, not the seeds, not the fertilizer, not the warmth of the sun, but the action of coming together, if that's not enough of stuff or a thing to create a result, then why are you talking about some kind of self-existent creating a result if it's not even a normal creating a result? Okay, got it? Because their original argument in this section was the coming together of causes and conditions creates the result.

We say no. Would we say that causes and conditions create the result? Yes.

Would we say the coming together of the causes and conditions creates the result? No, that's too theoretical. Would we say the coming together of the causes and conditions creates the result if the coming together itself exists to make a result?

You say, ah, that's something you made up. Okay, got it? All right.

I took a picture, I was trying to... Now, look, you got to realize what I was trying to do. I was trying to create a picture of multiple elements that didn't have a common purpose.

It was just a crowd walking down the street. They didn't have... They're not walking to build a snowman or something.

They're just walking down the street and you know it. They don't have a goal in mind. The walking of people down the street doesn't create a snowman.

The people do, if they choose to go to Lincoln Center, Lincoln Center Ice Rink. Yeah, but if they don't, then they're just a bunch of people walking by Fifth Avenue up near John's favorite place.

[Speaker 2]
What was that place called?

[Speaker 1]
You know, on the park, the department store. I forgot the name of the park. Birch Park.

Birch Park, yeah, yeah, okay, okay. We're not going to talk about it. I'm being discreet.

DE PHYIR RGYUD KHYEN GYI RTZOGS PA LA'I PHYIR BA'I BRAL DBYIN BU MNGOL NYID KYI RGYUD PA MNGOL We have some time, right? What time we have to stop? Okay, five minutes.

We got just time. What we got here? RANG LUGS He's finally, not Nagarjuna, but Choney Lama's going to say, well, what do we think?

I'll tell you what we think. Yay! You should stand up more often and tell us what we think.

Oh, here's RANG LUGS. RGYUD KHYEN GYI RTZOGS PA LA'I PHYIR BA'I PHYIR YANG We, in our system, we do agree that when the causes and conditions come together, they do produce a result. We can say that in Madhyamika.

We can say that. That's okay. KYANG But RTZOGS PA RDZUN PA'I But the idea, but the concept of the collection or the convening is artificial.

He calls it RDZUN. RDZUN means a lie. But what he means is artificial.

The coming together of causes and conditions is artificial. It's an artificial concept. The causes may be solid.

The conditions may be solid. But coming together is sort of like an opinion or something. RDZUN PA'I PHYIR BA'I YANG RDZUN PA'I PHYIR PA PHYIR PA Now, if you want to say it this way, I'll buy it.

Who's that? Who's I? Choney Lama.

If you want to say it this way, I'll buy it. An artificial convention of people could create an artificial result. That's okay.

I'll buy that. An artificial coming together, chocolate coated coming together, if it created an artificial result of a tree that's chocolate coated and the whole thing was chocolate coated, I'll buy it. You got it?

Then I'm okay with it. If you mean artificial trees, artificial causes, artificial coming together creates an artificial tree, I'm okay with it. Hey, what do you mean by artificial?

I mean, it's coming from me. It's not real out there. It didn't exist before I was there.

I created it. Okay, cool. He's got one more sentence.

It's okay. You got time. Okay.

,RGYUD KHYEN GYI RTZOGS PA MIN PA BYED PA BDE BU'ANG MED TE, By the way, I'm not saying you could ever have a result if the causes and conditions didn't get together. I didn't say that. That's not what I'm saying.

,DE NI GZHIN DU YANG RGYAL BA'I PHYIR, GZHIN DU, you guys know GZHIN DU. That's total crap. You know what I'm saying?

Your stuff is regular crap. But to say they don't create anything, now that's total crap. He's like really funny.

GZHIN DU is completely BS. Your usual stuff about self-existence is pretty lame. But if you want me to say that I'm saying that they don't produce a result when they come together, that's ridiculous.

I never said that. One more line. Oh, by the way, then we finish the chapter.

[Speaker 2]
Yay!

[Speaker 1]
And then we got one more chapter to go for this course, which is going to be 22 or 21. Okay, here we go. ,GCES SHES PA'I RIGS PA'I RNAM PAR BYED PA NA, ,BRAS BU RANG BZHIG GI RIGS PA MA YIN NA, ,YOD KHAN GYIS RTZOGS PAR RANG BZHIG GI GALA YOD, If you follow the arguments I've been making in this chapter, and if we can say that the result that comes out is not something that could exist in and of itself, then you'd have to logically believe that the coming together of the causes and conditions was also not something that existed in and of itself. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm trying to point out to you guys that if the result is not something that could exist by itself, then the coming together of causes and conditions that created that result, logically, would have to be the same. They could not be coming from their own side. They must be coming from the other side.

[Speaker 2]
The fertilizer's coming from the other side.

[Speaker 1]
The water's coming from the other side. The fact that the gardener showed up is coming from the other side. The fact that the sun shone today is coming from the other side.

If the tree is coming from the other side. You got it? It's kind of cute.

,RANG BZHIG GI RIGS PA MA YIN NA, Because it should all be the same. Whatever's true of the collection should be true of the tree. Whatever's true of the tree should be true of the coming together.

Cool? Yay! On to chapter 21, which is called An Investigation of How Things Occur and Then Pass Away.

An Investigation of How Things Occur and Then Pass Away. So that's a new topic. Yay, see you tomorrow.

Hold on to your hats.

[Speaker 2]
That's a new subject. An Investigation of How Things Occur and Then Pass Away