Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 15

[Speaker 1]
Ummaladrupa doesn't enter into the umma. You can always say Dhammadrup, right? Ummaladrupa does enter into umma.

Sure. He said it enters in two ways through the wide, far-reaching teachings and through the profound side of teachings. No, it doesn't because it doesn't enter the middle way through the profound side of the teachings.

So it does enter the middle way through the profound side of the teachings.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Eight ways of what?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you can say that.

[Speaker 1]
Distinctive characteristics of the... They're called distinctive and unique. So what's the difference?

I don't know yet. Unique to the Prasangika and?

[Speaker 2]
And also it differentiates why it's not mind-only.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Okay. Who did that, Eric?

Jackie? It's almost better than Mercedes. Mercedes.

[Speaker 2]
I'll start a fight.

[Speaker 1]
You need a judge. Okay. Now, I think what's confusing a little bit for me is he's gone off into the first one, which is why there are eight unique characteristics to Prasangika.

Unique to Prasangika. And the first part of that is that there are ideas that appear in Umatantra, which is what? What's the classical commentary on the middle way?

That city is New York, right? The classical commentary on the middle way is... Yeah, Arya Nagarjuna's book.

We don't have to say that, right? Notice I didn't put quotation marks. I didn't put italics.

It was like... Everybody knows. The city.

It's buoy. And in this one you would think that he'd gone on to his second thing and how he's different from mind-only. But it's not.

We're fighting with the mind-only because we have taken a position that things have no nature of their own, which automatically graduates to Prasangika. It's not just how it differs from mind-only anymore. Oh, let's read together.

You ready? We were going to have Tibetan letters today, but they got caught in the Diamond Mountain epidemic. No way.

They had their way.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Say, Deyang. Deyang.

[Speaker 2]
Yente. Jalpale.

[Speaker 1]
Lugdini. Oh, you're supposed to do it. Let's do it together.

One, two, three. Deyang. Yente.

Jalpale. Let's go slower. Let's start again.

We'll go slow, okay? One, two, three. Deyang.

Yente. Jalpale. Lugdini.

Tumomin. Pao. She.

Ke. Pa. Nam.

Ki. Nge. Pa.

Cha. Oh. Okay.

She. Nam. You okay?

Something fall off? Not the battery?

[Speaker 2]
Do you cook your food? Probably not. Probably not.

[Speaker 1]
I think there's a misspelling here, so I'm going to check. I think it comes in Gombudabso also. Here's the same quotation.

In Gombudabso, we already worked on it. We already translated it, okay? And let's just steal it.

The reason I brought it up is that this one seemed to be misspelled. Right here. Ke.

Pa. Nam. Ki.

We're going to start learning some words, okay? And I'll teach you some grammar. Venerable Phil gave us a good text.

It's a nice text by... Huh? Oh, next time.

Maybe we'll start it next time. It's by Yangchen Dubey Dorje. Say Yangchen.

[Speaker 2]
Yangchen.

[Speaker 1]
Dubey. Dubey. Dorje.

Dorje. He's a student of Quicksilver, Mulcu Dharmabhadra, who wrote several extraordinary commentaries on Vajrayogini. And one of them was the main one that we used during three-year retreat.

And we worked on it. For three years or something. And it's this huge manuscript now.

But we went through the whole thing with the three-year retreat and it's for like three years before three-year retreat. In all sorts of weird places like Kathmandu and Flagstaff. But we finished it like a few days before three-year retreat, right?

We were still in the tents or something. We didn't do the last five pages. But anyway, I think he's a former life of Pabongkha Rinpoche.

And he's just wonderful. I love his works. But his disciple is Yangchen Dubey Dorje.

And he was a great grammarian. And so we often studied this grammar text by his student, Yangchen Dubey Dorje. Yangchen Dubey Dorje also did a great commentary on Vajrayogini called Drum Song of the Gods.

And Christy has translated all of it or not? Most of it? Ninety percent of it.

And when we get to Vajrayogini practice, you'll be using those two commentaries. So anyway, we'll go through that grammar text. We'll start through it next time.

But I'm not too big on grammar like by the book. I like you to learn grammar by just doing it. I think both are healthy.

I think it's good to know some formal grammar. When I got to how Rinpoche made me do a grammar text, it was healthy. It was good.

We had to memorize the text that we were talking about. But again, you can either study grammar out of a book or just learn. Just somebody yelling at you, don't do that.

Do this. It's like studying yoga from a book or having somebody do corrections on you. And it's more comfortable to study out of a book, but it's better to have someone do corrections on you.

So anyway, what does day mean? Yeah, that. I'm just going to do a few days.

Yin. You know that? Like when we're debating and you say, yin bei qie.

What do you say to yin bei qie if you don't agree? Da ma du. But what do you say if you do agree?

Yin bei qie. You just match the verb. You just say yin.

If he said yu bei qie and you agree, you say? Yu. Yu.

That's all. You just repeat back. Du comes after a tau.

We'll talk about it. Yin te. Te means because.

There's a colon. Yin te. Yin te.

You got to learn some words, okay? Say delpa. Delpa.

It's related to doma. It means to untie something. And it's a word for commentary.

So you're going to hear delpa over and over again. Those are things to learn. We learned luke with rung luke.

What was rung luke? My way. So luke means system.

Without the sa, it means a sheep. So be careful. Okay.

What's kepa? You're studying a book by Kedrup Denpa Darge. He's kepa and he's dupa.

That's why he's called Kedrup. That's why Kedrupje is called Kedrup. Kepa.

Kepa means like a wise man or a scholar. Almost like a scholar more than a wise man. Sometimes.

Kepa nam ki nyepa chau. You should know dang. Dang means hand.

Okay, dang. All right. Here we go.

We cut this. We just stole this, right? Now he calls it commentary.

So I don't know. Anyway. Okay.

I just want to see if this appears in the other. Yeah. You see, if you remember what you've done before, you can just cheat and take it from the other commentary.

Okay, let's read this one together. These are all just proofs of why entering the Middle Way, enters into the classical commentary on the Middle Way through eight unique characteristics or something like that. And then he's just quoting somebody and it's kind of boring.

Okay, but anyway. Let's do this together, okay? On the count of three.

Okay. Did we do that one before? I don't think so.

Let me see. Yeah, we haven't done that one before. This is a long, dry quotation from the Sanskrit.

Okay. Let's read some things. What is this one here?

Read these four words. On the count of three. In English.

One, two, three. The classical commentary on the Middle Way. My Greek teacher made us do that.

And it was like ridiculous. We didn't know what he wanted. And then it worked.

It's really weird. So yeah, this is the classical commentary on the Middle Way. What's that?

Nagarjuna's word. Root text and wisdom, right? Let's do these two syllables in English.

One, two, three. Classical commentary. Okay.

Let's do the next two syllables here. One, two, three. Emptiness.

Okay. We'll do this one. Do it in Tibetan and do it in English.

Just this one word. One, two, three. Luke system.

Okay. How about this one? One, two, three.

Luke system. Okay. How about this one?

In Tibetan and in English. One, two, three. Emptiness.

How about this one? One syllable. One, two, three.

Dharma. Okay. How about this one?

One, two, three. Classical commentary. Two syllables.

One, two, three. Wise man or woman. Okay.

Because. Yeah, because blah, blah, blah. Whatever came before.

Okay, here it goes. I'm going to split it because it's so long. Okay, we'll try.

Is it this? And then I have to go for it. I didn't know how to do that.

Okay. I'll do it again. I want to say wise men.

He's going to say, I would hope that wise men could perceive this fact, you know, that just as Arya Nagarjuna book contained things that other people didn't get, well, so does my commentary on his book contain things that the other commentaries didn't get. You see, he's trying to draw a parallel between him and himself and Arya Nagarjuna. Both of our books contain things that other people didn't get in their commentaries.

But I don't want to say wise people. Wise people. The wise?

How do you want to say? Well, a lot of times in ancient times there were listeners, so you got to be careful of the readers. You like the wise?

Those in the room know? What's wrong with people? It's about wisdom.

[Speaker 2]
What's wrong with people? Wise people? It's a question of wisdom.

[Speaker 1]
People?

[Speaker 2]
It's a question of discernment. How about the wise? The wise.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
This is something that we would hope that the wise.

[Speaker 2]
What did you say?

[Speaker 1]
Do you like true sages?

[Speaker 2]
The wise.

[Speaker 1]
It's usually a connotation of almost scholars as opposed to wise men necessarily. Scholars sounds so dry sometimes. There's a word for that.

You see, that's something you have to know. You know, where there's already an existing Tibetan word for that. That's just something you know after 20 years.

It's called Let's say the wise. This is something that we hope that the wise will perceive. Or something like that?

Is that okay? This is something we hope. I like to make it short.

This is something we hope the wise will perceive about my book. Like smart people will probably figure out that my book is as different from other books as Arya Nagarjuna's book was from other books. Is that okay?

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
It just sounds. He does use the royal we later. This is this cak.

For those of you who care, dak cak or kola cak, which is pretty rare, is always almost the royal we. Or sometimes the friendly we. Like Khyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche will use it when he wants to say, all of us who have mental afflictions.

You see what I mean? Like trying to include himself with us, just to be friendly. So that's cak.

It's not very common, but it's always plural. And it can get into the royal we a little bit. Anyway, why would that prove what Kedrup Dhammadhaya was trying to say?

What was Kedrup Dhammadhaya trying to prove? We started the class that way. Yeah, by being unique, which means compared to other schools and compared to other texts.

That's all. So if Master Chandrakirti himself says, I hope people figure out that my book is unique, then that would prove that he felt the function of his book was to enter the middle way, showing some kind of unique quality. That's all.

So he's trying to prove that. We finished then. No, I hope they'll come to grasp that my book is as distinct from other books as Arya Nagarjuna's book was distinct from other books.

That didn't explain emptiness right. Ngepa means more pursuit. Just a verb he used.

Okay, ready? Here we go. We'll do it slowly together.

One, two, three. He's trying to prove something. It is so true.

Okay, what? We don't know yet. In Tibetan and in English.

One, two, three. Two syllables. One, two, three.

This is the only school. One syllable. Because it drulmas, you see, same root.

Just one syllable. One, two, three. To enter.

In the monastery, if you're studying Madhyamika, you say I'm studying jukpa. What does that mean? Yeah, avatara.

What are you studying? Avatara. And then everybody knows it's entering in the middle way.

So what if you're studying Bodhicaryavatara? You say I'm studying cinju. You say, so what are you studying?

Jukpa. I'm memorizing jukpa nowadays. Entering.

Then everybody knows, oh, entering in the middle way. And then if you say I'm studying Bodhicaryavatara, you say I'm studying cinju. Say cinju, which is chariya avatara.

You see what I mean? And it's just nicknames for the books, for the major books. If I'm studying gen, what's that mean?

The ornament. Which is what? So what are you studying?

I mean, you spent twelve years on gen. Fifty pages. Twelve years.

What are you studying? Gen. You don't have to say, oh, I'm studying ngonto gen.

Everybody knows what gen you're on for the last twelve years. Okay. And those of you who know and care, this is spelled wrong, right?

On purpose. It should be S-H-E-S. Shirab.

And it just got to be, the word is so common. It's like what do you want? It's not what do you want anymore.

It's just what ya. And there's a tsa-she. Tsa-she gumba.

Oops. Somebody told me today, I heard this rumor a couple of times, but somebody told me again today, that there's been found in the Patala Palace the Sanskrit for entering the Middle Way, which has been missing all these years. And then somebody else said that it has been taken to Beijing now.

And they still are not showing it to anybody. It would be nice to get, but anyway. There's also a way in which entering the Middle Way...

Okay, so that means everything else that came before, all those proofs and quotations that came before were proving what? Yeah, that there were any distinguishing characteristics that distinguish our ideas from the other three and a half schools. Now, only now he got to proving the second half, which is it is true that entering the Middle Way enters into the root text on wisdom by describing how it can't be described as Middle Way.

Mine only. Sorry. Okay.

We have been? Yeah. That's okay.

We should be. Oh, it is. It is.

You can't see it because of the thing. Okay. Now it's fine.

This is kind of cool. Okay, ready to read? We'll go slow.

Is there any way to raise that up to the top of the thing? Because some people can't see, right? You're having trouble seeing, right?

Just like tilt up the front length a little bit or something? Yeah, like that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I don't, you guys figure it out.

[Speaker 1]
This is going to be cool, okay? It's a little hard. Do things that function, say, or let's say trees, okay?

Do trees grow? Yes. Say yes.

Yes. Okay. Do they grow from themselves?

I'll just put it in Tibetan. They grow from themselves. You say, of course they don't grow from themselves.

Oh, so they must grow from something other than themselves. No, I said, so you got two choices. Do is right, chichir is why so.

Oh, so they don't grow from something other than themselves. Do it. So what do they grow from?

Nothing. So there must be trees everywhere. No, because they don't need anything to grow from.

That's a Master Kamalasiddha would say. Just suddenly all the trees in the world pop up everywhere. The hair grows back on my head.

No, it doesn't need a cause. Anyway, of course they grow from something else, right? Something other than themselves, which is what?

See, right. So why does he say that entering the middle way enters into the root text on wisdom by refuting, quite successfully, the idea that something can grow from something else? Oh, but then he goes on to explain it.

The idea that the result that existed by definition could grow from something, a cause that existed by definition. That's what growing from something else means to Master Chanakirti. So then you have to say that things don't go from something else and Venerable Phil is right.

Right? Okay. Now what does by definition mean?

Yeah, all those things are synonyms in Prasangika. Not necessarily in the lower schools. What is an easy example of something that exists by definition?

Say with fire. I mean, by definition fire is hot. I mean, come on, what's the definition of fire?

In Tibetan. Sāshiṃsepa. Hot and burning is the definition of fire.

I mean, that's how you know you have a fire, right? It's hot. So by definition.

That's what Ranggit-seni-ki. Say, Ranggit-seni-ki. Ranggit-seni-ki.

By definition fire is hot. Are you telling me that fire is not hot by itself? Right, nice, good.

Yeah, exactly. It takes people who have been through the Bhagavad-gita to really get that. You're telling me a car doesn't run on gas?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I mean, by definition a car runs on gas, right? I mean, except for some cars.

Right? By definition, that's what cars run on. Right?

I mean, since I was a kid. Then we have to say no, there is no by definition. Okay, that's all.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So it doesn't mean like the actual definition. Like the first example you gave that fire is by definition hot because the definition of fire is something which is hot and burning.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you see in English the word by definition, if you think about it, means according to its very definition. And it's the same in Tibetan and Sanskrit. So it's very useful.

It's nice. Seni in Tibetan means definition. Lakshana in Sanskrit, which I believe is the corresponding Sanskrit here, is svalakshana means by its own definition.

So the very definition of fire is something that's hot and burns you. What's the very definition of fire running? You can debate the definition of car.

I mean, the definition of car is probably something like a four-wheeled vehicle that gets you somewhere or something. But let's leave that. But fire, it's clear.

By definition in English does mean conveniently the same that it means in Sanskrit and Tibetan. If you took the very definition of fire, that would describe that object automatically. It should automatically have that quality.

So by definition fire is hot, meaning if you looked it up in Webster's, it would fit that definition in Webster's. So the word by definition is conveniently correct, parallel to the Sanskrit and the Tibetan by definition, meaning by what everyone agrees is its most definitive characteristics, the characteristics which define it. So what's he trying to prove at this point?

No, I mean in general. He's trying to prove that Chandrakirti's book enters into the middle way by beating the mind-only school. So he says, look, it's true that it enters into the middle way by refuting the mind-only school because it goes about proving that things can't come from other things.

After having expressed the wrong idea of the mind-only school on this point. That's why you got this second part of the sentence here. Got it?

I'll say it again. At this point we're trying to prove that Chandrakirti had to write his book about Ayyanagarjuna's book in order to beat the mind-only school. So he says, prove it to me that Chandrakirti wrote his book to prove to me that Master Chandrakirti in his book is showing how Master Nagarjuna can't be taken as mind-only.

And he says, well, he refutes the idea that things can come from something else. So somebody says, what's that got to do with mind-only? Oh, but first he explains how mind-only thinks that they do come from something else.

Get it? By definition. Got it?

I'll say it again, one last time. We're at this point, we're trying to prove that essentially Master Chandrakirti is trying to clarify Ayyanagarjuna by proving that he's not mind-only. So somebody says, prove to me that's true.

He says, well, because Master Chandrakirti goes to great lengths to fight the idea that something can come from something else. What's that got to do with mind-only? Oh, because the mind-only believes that, that they do come from something else, definitively, automatically, in and of themselves.

Okay? Got it? So it's true that Master Chandrakirti is attacking the mind-only.

Why? Because he attacks that things could come from something else. What's that got to do with it?

Oh, because the mind-only believes that, that things do come from something else by definition. Okay? Like, watermelons only come from watermelon seeds.

What? Do you think they come from something else? No, watermelon seeds have some kind of unique, intrinsic, you know, their own watermelon-ness.

Everybody knows that. You don't go out and plant a corn seed to get a watermelon. You go out and plant a watermelon seed to get a watermelon.

So there must be watermelon-ness in that seed, intrinsically. And we say, uh-uh. Are you saying you could take a corn seed and grow a watermelon on it?

Are you saying you could run a car without petrol or walk on water? Or turn water into wine? You see?

Yeah! That's what I'm saying. You got it.

You're telling me everybody could get rich? Yeah! Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Money don't come from itself. Money comes from the minds of all people. If everybody was equally generous, then fusion would be invented tomorrow.

Or if everyone were equally open and communicating, then in two years the world would be connected by some kind of electronic web. In our lifetime, suddenly, anyone can email anybody. That's a miracle.

That's a total miracle. It hasn't happened for 15,000 years. In your lifetime, while we were in two-year retreat, some dumb thing, anyone could talk to anybody.

That's the same thing. No, that's not possible. Yeah, it happened.

Your karma made it. Somehow we were all... You should go home and pat yourself on the back.

I was so open and communicating with other people. I helped people communicate with each other. And now suddenly I can email anybody.

And any idiot could pop up some crap on my computer. You know? No, I mean...

You can find out what the temperature is in Booga Wooga, yesterday at 3 p.m., anything. No, really. That's the karma.

It's just suddenly a very powerful karma that didn't exist for 15,000 years. You guys don't appreciate this stuff. You just thought that's normal.

So yeah, even the fact that a watermelon comes from a watermelon seed ain't automatic. We are imputing that. And then mind only says, No way.

No way. That's what... Master Chandrakirti has to write a book to explain why that's not true, that watermelons come automatically from...

Sorry, watermelons come automatically from watermelon seeds. Got it? Okay.

We're only halfway through the sentence, by the way. You're right. Good.

I'm going to put the English because I'll forget, and then we'll do the Tibetan. Okay. Let's go back up here.

One, two, three. ming de sha tsam la gyun dre ki nam sa the pa tem pe go ne ca she dön drel wa la gyu pe kye Okay. Say, ming de.

ming de. Sha tsam. Sha tsam.

ming de. ming de. Sha tsam.

Sha tsam. It should be a mantra. If there's any mantra at Diamond Mountain, this should be it.

Say, ming de. ming de. Sha tsam.

Sha tsam. Things are established only by terms and projections. Okay.

Words and ideas create everything. Everything is ming de sha tsam. That's prasangika.

That's the ultimate position of the ultimate school. How do things exist? You just say, ming de sha tsam.

Nothing more than your projections. Nothing more. Tsam means just that.

Okay. And ming de, ming da. Okay.

Words and pictures, really. Okay. Like watermelon.

Is watermelon a word or a picture? You see, at some point they cough. And the Yoga Sutra is very big on that.

Really big on that. Itradesha. What's it?

Shabdadda. Itradesha. You know, we'll get into it in New York.

But the Yoga Sutra is big on that, you know. We confuse things and their names. We confuse our idea of something with the thing, you know.

So, we got three things so far. The real watermelon, the name watermelon, and the idea watermelon. Which came first?

En arche. Where does it go? Say, en arche.

Hen halogos. In the beginning was the word, right? It's a very big thing.

Yeah. The word watermelon came first. And then later on the watermelon came.

Are you kidding me? No. First you got this green round thing.

And then you walk around and people say, What do you want to call that? I say, I don't know. Let's eat it first.

It's all watery. It's called a watermelon. Yeah.

Okay. Everybody call it a watermelon, you know. I mean, you think that, right?

Caveman number 43 called it a watermelon. First there was a green bumpy thing. Then they slobbered it up.

And then somebody said, you know, This is a watermelon, you know. But it's not like that. Watermelon came, the idea came first.

The picture came first. Is there a difference between the word and the picture? Not really.

There's a shorthand sound you use for that picture. But they're both the same thing, really. Words and pictures are the same.

But did that come before the watermelon? I mean, before he broke it open and ate it, he's already calling it a watermelon? Is that true?

It is true. Okay. The word creates the watermelon.

But how can you do that? How can you do that? That means there must have been a watermelon before that in your mind somehow.

Is that true? Yeah. That's ridiculous.

When was the first watermelon? No, no such thing. No such thing.

You have had watermelon in your mind since infinite beginningless time. No problem. No problem.

You perceive watermelon because you offered a watermelon to someone in the past. Yeah, but when was the first watermelon? Dumb question.

Impossible question. Get smart. Of course there's no first watermelon.

Don't give me this chicken or egg crap. It's a dumb question. It's a dumb question.

No, it's just a dumb... Of course there's always an egg before a chicken and of course there's always a chicken to lay the egg. Of course the answer to the riddle is there's always been chickens and eggs.

Okay, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
Is the word the same as the thought?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. That's what we're saying. Now, technically speaking, there's a shorthand verbalism to represent the thought.

Like watermelon is not the same as green, round, red on inside. But essentially they're the same thing. But the conceptualization...

When we say word in Madhyamika we're talking about the thought. And then there's a shorthand of verbalism with a semi-vowel followed by an a-vowel followed by a dental and another semi-vocalic R and that's water. And that's okay.

But essentially when we say mingdang, mingde words in... Because ming and da mean the same thing. Ming means name, da means term.

Term here means projection, mental image. Okay. Well, now you can debate whether there's such a thing as a dhunchi.

Is there some mental image of a thing in your mind? Is it possible to have a mental image of something you haven't experienced? You can debate the whole thing.

Well, yeah. Then the next big question is where this thinking goes from here is well, then when you perceive emptiness directly for the... Where did you get that dhunchi?

Where's that image come from? Okay, we'll skip that. So anyway, is it possible for something to come from something else?

I didn't say ultimately. I just said, is it possible for something to come from something else? Yeah.

Yeah. Does it come intrinsically from something else? But does it come from something else if you have the karma to think of it that way and it comes from something else?

That's all. That's all he's saying in these two sentences. Watermelons don't come from watermelon seeds intrinsically, by definition.

Out there, you see. But if you have the karma, if you've given away a watermelon, then you'll have this projection of a watermelon and it will come from watermelon seeds. And that's all.

The way stuff works is perfectly reasonable, he says. No problem. No problem.

Because people freak out. You see, the world is in your mind. You're creating the watermelon seed to create the watermelon.

Oh no, it's impossible. Yeah, yeah. Okay, go ahead and eat it.

It's all right. I'm kidding. You know, if you encourage your students to give away cake to each other, then it's reasonable you have a cake.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Say again? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, how does it plant that seed?

I think there's something big about... I think it's like gotta be... You know how they can't get car wheels in films to run the right way?

After all these years with George Lucas and everybody, when you show a car in a movie, the wheels still go backwards. Because you're filming on... It's the reverse, right?

Whatever. But I got this theory that unless you do it to something you conceive as someone else, it's not planted properly. You see what I mean?

So yeah, by giving away, you perceive coming in. You have to think about that. That's a big deal.

There's some kind of big deal there about how karma is planted. Somehow it's gotta be done from you to someone to perceive it coming back to you from someone.

[Speaker 2]
How do you mean?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, mental karma is still like wishing you could give to someone.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And you thought you were just giving it to yourself. I think then you overcome... I think that has something to do with overcoming impure karma.

Then it becomes some kind of pure karma. And then it perpetuates. You don't just use up the cake and get it taken away.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's read together. Are you ready? One, two, three.

la, ju, pa, le, she, pa, chao, she, su, be, she. Okay. He's still debating.

Every single sentence, right, is still in debate format. So we're going to keep saying, and this is true, okay? Who wrote Sixth Cell?

Who wrote Clear Words? Right. Master Senegirti.

So in his own book he says, if you want to understand about dependent origination, how things are projected, how watermelon seeds are still just mental images, okay? Well, I suggest you go read this other book called Entering the Middle Way, written by...

[Speaker 2]
Huh?

[Speaker 1]
I mean, come on. Okay, I'll say it again. Clear Words is his word-by-word commentary on Arya Nagarjuna.

Entering the Middle Way is his, like, meaning clarification. So he wrote two commentaries on Arya Nagarjuna. Okay.

People don't study Sixth Cell much. I think it'd be fun to study in our free time after the next three-year retreat. Okay.

Okay. And so, what's he trying to prove? Let's look at the last thing he said.

He said, Entering the Middle Way goes on to demonstrate how even though watermelon seeds don't exist from their own side, they still wakes. Why? Because they're coming from your mind.

You have a problem with that? No. If you do have a problem with that...

Oh. Prove to me that Entering the Middle Way explains that concept. Well, he wrote this other book called Clear Words, and in Clear Words it says, if you have trouble with the idea that things come from mental images, well, go read my other book.

Okay. So that must prove that his other book talks about mental images. Who said his other book talks about mental images?

Master Chandrakirti. If you don't want to believe Master Chandrakirti, what am I supposed to do with you? Okay.

Prove that Master Chandrakirti talked about the idea that mental images have stuff to do with seeds. He said it himself. If you want to know about how your mind projects stuff, read my book.

He's like, you know, read the Garden, read the Diamond Cutter, you know. I wrote a book about that. It's in 1295, Amazon.

You know, he's like, come on, go check it out. I wrote a book on that. Okay, so, if you need any proof that he wrote a book about mental projections, he said he wrote a book about mental projections.

Okay, got it? Okay. So he's done beating to death, and it won't be this dry later on, okay, sorry.

But I can't like skip stuff. He's beat to death the idea that entering the middle way enters into the root text on wisdom by teaching the profound side of stuff. What do you think he's going to do next?

Yeah. Now prove that entering the middle way talks about the root text on wisdom through the Bodhisattva teachings. Now prove that.

Because you call your book what? Shorten the monastery? Jukpa.

Say Jukpa. I'll never forget, because in the diamond business, in Yiddish, juk means what? Roach.

So all the Yiddish, all the, you know, Hasid dealers would call me, hey, juk. You know. So I always remember jukpa, you know.

So jukpa means avatar. Majmik avatar. So in the monastery, what are you studying?

What are you up to nowadays? I'm jukpa. I'm memorizing jukpa.

Okay. So thus, what does jukpa mean? It gets into that other book.

Well, what does that mean? It explains it. In how many ways?

Two. What? Teaches the emptiness side of it.

Jukpa's the emptiness side of it. And jukpa's the bodhisattva side of it. Prove it enters, jukpa's into the emptiness side.

We just covered all that. Well, now prove what? It enters into the bodhisattva side of it.

Okay. So here we go. Well, there's one argument.

We better cut it up. Let's see. Bill Gates is frozen now, so let's just read it.

Oh, here we go. I think we can cut it here. Ready?

One, two, three. Tell or tell? Let's see what he says first.

Yin-ba-ta means it is so. And yin-ba-ta means are you telling me? Okay, got it?

Let's see what he says and then we'll know whether he's going up or down. What's gyatso? What's gyatso?

Who stands in gyatso? Yeah, Dalai.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Gyatso means ocean. So gyatso means wide lake. So gyatsewa means far-reaching teachings, the bodhisattva teachings.

Juk, you know juk, oh gosh. It enters. Su, la.

Now, let's talk about that bodhisattva side of things. Okay. Bodhisattva side of things.

Kajik. That's kajik. Yeah, one mouth.

Kajik. Okay. Kajik.

Kajik nare. Somebody says sawasera, which is the same as tsa-she, which means what? The root text and wisdom.

Ma-yin is not a tenchu of the thekpa chenpo. Okay. All right.

Now, some guy just came up and said Arya Nagarjuna's single most important work on Middle Way ever written, his tenchu, his shastra, it does not belong to the Mahayana. It's not a Mahayana book. So is he going to say ma-yin-ba-ta or is he going to say ma-yin-ba-ta?

Yeah. You think he believes it or not?

[Speaker 2]
Let's see.

[Speaker 1]
Let me ask you this. Could it be either and still be a kajik? Could some idiot really believe that it's not a Mahayana text?

No, not even for the sake of argument. Is it possible that someone actually believes it's not a Mahayana text? Yeah, anything's possible, right?

Okay. Let's see where he goes. I think he believes it, okay?

Just save time. Anyway. Anyway.

Let's see if it's an assertion or a claim. What did he say at the end? What did he say here?

Ser-na? What's a ser mean? Claims, okay.

So now that's going to be the verb up here. Make the following claim.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, what determines the tone? The person that's making the claim I think it's the person that's writing about the claim.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, we say he ser-ed. So we're prejudging him.

[Speaker 2]
We're prejudging.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're prejudging him. You already know Ketub Tenpa-dage thinks the guy's a fool when he uses the word ser-na. The guy's already a fool.

We haven't even heard what he said yet. But he used the verb claimed. Okay, okay.

Yeah, yeah. She-na, she-na. You see, instead of ser-na, assert.

Then that's a little more, it's less of a diss to the guy. He asserts instead of he claims. When he claims, he's already shot down.

Okay. Okay. I'm sort of avoiding the tell, but it's okay.

You ready? Here we go. One, two, three.

Kap-n-dir. Okay. Nobody said she-k, right?

Nobody said flea. Okay. Now, what makes, what's the difference between greater way and hinayana mahana?

What's the difference? Yeah, I mean, some people say if they talk about bodhichitta and bodhisattvas and saving all living beings, it must be mahayana. But Dvaitamakosha has lots of material about bodhisattvas in it.

And it's definitely the root text for most of hinayana, right? What's another way of distinguishing mahayana and hinayana? Sorry?

Perception of emptiness? Yeah, good. More prasanna emptiness makes mahayana.

Less prasanna emptiness makes hinayana. And he's going to talk about that in more detail. But in the lower half of the middle way school, the distinction between mahayana and hinayana is made by the varying degrees of emptiness that you see.

So they assert that there are more subtle degrees of emptiness and less subtle degrees of emptiness. It's called dharmacharaksam, the three relative degrees of selflessness, the highest of which only is emptiness. And the other...

And Prasangika doesn't accept that distinction. Okay? They say, look, it's either emptiness or it's not.

Okay? It's not like there's more of an emptiness or less of an emptiness. And it is true, in fact, that the emptiness that an Arya sees is 100% equal to the emptiness that all Buddhas are perceiving.

No difference. Once you see emptiness once, directly, you have seen it as purely, as totally, as fully, as any Buddha has ever seen it. Period.

Because there's just one sheer emptiness. That's all. You're either empty or you ain't.

Okay? Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
Is suchness, though, different?

[Speaker 1]
No. Suchness... So, is this a separate thing?

Not in the Prasangika. Selflessness and emptiness are synonyms in Prasangika. In the lower schools, there can be distinctions between selflessness and emptiness.

Okay? And we'll go... This whole book's about it.

Okay. So he says, first of all, in this context, meaning Prasangika, we don't divide between different kinds of emptiness. I mean, it's not like there's a more subtle kind of emptiness and a higher and a less subtle kind of emptiness and lower...

Hinayana people see a lower kind of emptiness and Mahayana people see a bigger kind of emptiness. Not like that. Okay?

Where's he going? Let's see. This is going to take some digestion.

Here we go. Say... Oh, sorry.

Let's read it together first. One... Two...

Three... Ten... Jai...

Tso... Wor... Chai...

Ne... Ma... Ten...

Be... Chir... Ser...

Na... Okay. Serna means cheap.

Serna means if you claim. Okay? Big difference.

So we got to go serna. Okay. Yeah.

So... Here he spelled sashe... Do you know the spinner ball, Phil?

Now he went to the other spelling. He's like fooling around. I'm sorry.

No, he hasn't. This is instrumental. Very tricky.

This is instrumental. But anyway, those of you who care. Oh, you learn.

Let's follow his reasoning now. Nagarjuna's text doesn't belong to the Mahayana. That's how he started out.

Now he's going to probably anticipate that we're going to say does it talk about emptiness or not? I mean, come on. Why would that prove it belongs to the Mahayana?

Because in the lower school that does say that there's a less subtle selflessness and a more subtle selflessness, only the more subtle selflessness gets called emptiness and only Mahayana people see it. I'll say it again. If you're in a lower school, which is the lower half of the middle way school, which accepts three levels of selflessness, three degrees of selflessness, one for listeners, one for self-made Buddhas, one for Bodhisattvas, two lower Hinayana tracts, one Mahayana tract.

Only these guys see what we call emptiness. These guys see selflessness. Okay, got it?

So in that lower middle way school, if you say, if your book's talking about emptiness, it must be a Mahayana book. Got it? By the way, you're just learning a debate, but you're already learning the rest of the book.

I'll say it again. The lower half of the middle way. Are we in that?

No. We don't like that school. If we did belong to that school, they say, if you're not so smart, you see selflessness.

If you is real smart, you see emptiness. They like give them two different names. Actually, it's the same thing.

Okay? But if I belong to that school, and I'm writing a book about emptiness, it better be a Mahayana book. Okay, got it?

He says, don't give me that stuff. I know you're not in that school. He starts out that way.

He makes this radical statement. He says, Arya Nagarjuna's book is not Mahayana. Then he knows we're going to come back and say, well, didn't it talk about emptiness?

He said, don't give me that crap. I know you're not from that school. I know you're not from the school that says, if you're talking about emptiness, it must be Mahayana.

I know you're not from that school. Yeah, on that basis. I know you're not from that school.

Don't give me that. That's what this paragraph here says. Okay?

We're not talking from that point of view. Got it? You got to cook it.

I know you's not in that school, where if someone's talking about emptiness, the book's got to be Mahayana. I know you're not from that school. Don't give me that.

Got it? You okay? The other guy's telling us that.

You can't tell me Nagarjuna's book is about Mahayana just because it talks about emptiness because you ain't from the school that says that emptiness can only be seen by Mahayana people. You're not from that school. Don't give me that.

Okay? So far he's safe. He's covered.

Now the second half. Moreover, the main thing that Nagarjuna's text talks about, if you had to take those two choices, does it talk about parisapha-stha or does it talk about emptiness-stha? Well, which one?

It talks about emptiness-stha. Therefore, it's not a Mahayana book. Got it?

There's two sides of the teaching. What? Profound.

Emptiness side. Then there's the parisapha part of the teaching. Now which is the main subject matter in Nagarjuna's book?

Profound side. Therefore, the wide-reaching, the far-reaching side, the parisapha side, is not the main subject matter in his book, is it? You have to say, right, it's not.

So it's not a Mahayana book? Okay? That's what he's saying.

No, it makes sense because it doesn't explicitly talk about the parisapha-stha. It's all about emptiness. Arya Nagarjuna's book is like this long thing of people fighting about emptiness.

He doesn't talk about bodhicitta. He doesn't talk about parisapha activities. He doesn't talk about it.

So his book's not Mahayana. I mean, that's how most people think of what Mahayana means, right? That's not an unreasonable statement.

So far, it's not so bad. Let's see where we go. By the way, I'll just pull something out, just for those of you being stubborn.

Read this paragraph in English. The root text on wisdom does present the profound side of the teachings, but does not go further to elucidate the specific features of the greater way, the far-reaching side of the teachings. What's that file?

Gom-pa-rab-sa. Who wrote it? Jetsal Kappa.

We translated it in the first term. You're stuck with it. I think the guy's got a real strong case.

There's Jetsal Kappa saying the same thing. It doesn't talk about the bodhisattva side of things. And you're not from a school that says if you talk about emptiness, you're Mahayana.

Got it? So you're in a corner. The guy's good.

The guy's good. Give him some credit. Who's talking?

I didn't use Ali's indent. See? See?

Before I was indented. Now I'm not indented. So who's talking?

We are. We're defending. Ketu-tam-dagi.

We're defending now. We're answering now. The guy said what?

He made this radical statement. What did he say? The greatest Mahayana book I've ever written is not Mahayana.

I mean, basically, that's the shtick. Why? It doesn't talk about bodhisattva stuff.

And we said, but it is, in fact, like the most amazing Mahayana book. Why? Because it presents emptiness in an infinite variety of ways.

In an infinite variety of ways. Okay? First of all.

Secondly, it is too Mahayana book. Why? Because it presents emptiness like in a thousand different ways.

And you only do that when you're trying to attract a bodhisattva. Get it? In this school, that's what counts.

In this school, that's what counts. What makes a bodhisattva? Bleeding heart?

Like gives away their last piece of cake? You know? No, I mean, you know, pets, animals all the time.

No. Loves to debate emptiness in a thousand different ways. So if you've got a book that's like presenting emptiness in a thousand different ways, it must have been written for bodhisattvas.

Don't go telling me it's not Mahayana. Of course it's Mahayana. What's he saying?

It's a very radical statement. What makes this book Mahayana? Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I don't know. Yeah.

The number of different twists you can give to the... It's Bhagavad-Gita. How many twists can you give to this argument that things don't start?

How many twists can you give to it? When do the students start saying, when are we going to get out of Bhagavad-Gita? When are we going to move on to something else in this stupid Bhagavad-Gita class?

Why do we need the 14th proof for why the atom didn't start this other thing, you know? I mean, then those people aren't Mahayana. You see?

Mahayana, big capacity. Big capacity. Mahayana.

They want, give me another one. Give me another one. Tell me why the cancer cell couldn't have touched my stomach.

Tell me why the virus that ran through Diamond Mountain couldn't have run through Diamond Mountain. Because it couldn't have touched anybody. You see?

Tell me about that again. And then that person is a bodhisattva. That's radical.

You never heard of that, you see? This is a very radical place we're at. He's saying, that's what makes a bodhisattva.

He cares, she cares to hear about emptiness a thousand different ways. So don't go telling me the book's not Mahayana. That's what makes a book Mahayana.

Uniquely. Okay? Got it?

Yeah. Well, that's always, I think that's a very profound statement he made. Got it?

Yeah. You'd have to be an incredibly kind person to want to hear a thousand reasons why a virus, you know, why? Why would you make that leap?

Why would you say they have to be incredibly kind if they care about this stupid book, Jamba Class? Why? Because they're dying to really help people.

They want to know really how to help people. I tried X medicine. I tried X herbal treatments.

I tried X yoga exercises. And I couldn't really help people. They're still getting old.

They're still getting hurt. People are still dying, you know. Tell me again about this worldview thing.

If it's something that can really help people, I want to know more. I want to know a thousand ways how that works. You see what I mean?

Then that person's a real bodhisattva. Because they're not satisfied. They didn't see people getting helped yet.

So they want to know, is there something else I can do? You see what I mean? Yeah, so Debbie By said that.

[Speaker 2]
What if it's just like this sort of inexplicable intellectual attraction to emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
There's that too. I mean, there's people like that.

[Speaker 2]
But without a reason.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. There's people like with some kind of...

[Speaker 2]
That's what I was saying.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Because if you really get into it subjectively and you understand it, you feel interested to be kind.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I see. That's also true. The opposite is also true.

She's just saying also that the more you understand worldview, the more you're forced to be kind. Yeah, yeah. But I understand what you mean.

There are people who, in a very shallow intellectual, almost for their own profit sometimes, in a... What do you call it? Scholastic environment might just throw out more proofs for this thing.

Yeah, it's possible.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like some people come in to Dharma because they get this sense of disgust with the world or recognition that things don't work. Some just hear emptiness. They're like...

And why is that?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I would say this. You need intense good karma to even hear the word emptiness in your lifetime. To hear the word emptiness once in your lifetime, you need more good karma than every other good karma in the world.

So, just the people who come in and hear the word emptiness and say, I want to know more about that, they're already... In this book they say, if you get chills up your spine when you hear the word emptiness, you're sitting in the right place. No, this book starts out like that.

Somewhere in this book it starts out like that. So that's all. Intense, intense good karma to want to know about emptiness.

Yeah, yeah. I'll leave you with that. That's powerful.

It's 7.30. It's really powerful. Did you know? You could say that.

It says in Tibetan, Thekchen kyi rikchen. Rikchen means who belong to that like unique family. Rikipu, Kula Putra.

In Sanskrit, in the Heart Sutra, Kula Putra. Kula means noble family of high lineage. In a caste way sometimes, but here it means in a kindness way.

You are of high family because you're in that unique group of people who really want to save other people. So we call Kula Putra in the Heart Sutra. Rikipu.

Yeah, noble family. You want to try that? Let me see.

You can do that too. Who belong to that?

[Speaker 2]
Family sleep.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. I don't mind that.

[Speaker 2]
You can just say family then.

[Speaker 1]
It's got to be special. You can be of a lousy family too.

[Speaker 2]
You can be of a special family, but know of people. Your family is always a people. Could you say group?

Class is going on.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to leave it family because I like the feeling of family too. Yes, I think. Let me see how it smells next week when we get there.

He's going to go more into that next week. You can take that off if you want, by the way. You can take the file off if you want.

Okay. Chants we might have Geshe Lothar here this weekend. We don't know yet, but we're working on it.

[Speaker 2]
What can we do for him?

[Speaker 1]
I'll let you know. Everything is taken care of. If he has time, he'll come.

Yes, a teacher would be okay. If he does come, we've got to do it right, which means pampered nicely. Rebecca is working on that.

If you have any ideas, talk to her. You should pamper. If a lama comes and if you can get him here, then you have to pamper them.

We get pampered every day, and I want to thank you for that. I mean, amazing meals. Today we had Debbie Baez, and who was the other nokhi?

Oh, Susan McKenna. They just pamper us. I want to thank you for that.

No complaints. I met one of my lamas last week, and I said, one thing they do right, they really pamper us. I have to thank you for that.

You really do a good job on that. I'm not just hinting, okay? I already got my cake and everything.

See you next week.