Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 38

[Speaker 1]
Someone may make the following claim, this compassion which has no focus is perceiving that living beings which provide, that the living beings which provide its object of focus have no nature of their own. Then we say, are you saying then that this kind of compassion is entertaining two disparate ways of holding to its object? What would the two disparate ways of holding to its object be?

[Speaker 2]
Instead of mind of compassion, instead of mind of perceiving, Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Holding them as being, having no nature of their own, and holding them as being someone suffering that you want to free from pain, right? Okay. Let's read together, ready?

By the way, sa, that first syllable, and I'll go like this, and it means you go de, right? You don't go de. One, two, three.

That's always a pause, okay? And then you pause, and then you say, cam, du, ki, nam, pa, chen, ki, lo, yin, be. Kang, shik, okay?

Kang can mean a lot of things, right? What, who, where, when. But kang, shik always means, do you know?

It's always A and B, you know? Like you do that in English, you say, there's two reasons why I don't like you. A, your breath smells bad.

B, you stole my chocolate chip cookies, you know? And it's that, between there you would go, kang, shik, and you would pause. You stole my chocolate chip cookies.

Okay? Alright, so... It's working fast today.

What is it? It must be out of there. Okay.

Those are the two aspects, right? Okay? What happened here, between here?

Usually we get cheer after what? A day, yeah. Yin day, yu day, and then it gives a cheer, right?

But here it came after, yi ba le. So, how can you say cheer to Tao? Who said...

Are you telling me it has two desperate ways of holding something? Who said that? Us or them?

[Speaker 2]
We did.

[Speaker 1]
We did, right? Are you telling me that? Because he started out, right?

He made that ridiculous statement. Always start a debate with a ridiculous statement. What was the ridiculous statement?

Mi'kmaq yin day, perceives that the living beings that it's focused on, have no object of their own. Have no nature of their own. It perceives that.

And that's a ridiculous statement. So we came back with, are you saying that? Now what's the only two ways you can answer at Tao?

De or chi chi, right? De or chi chi. Chi chi.

So you have to know that in the monastic textbooks, the answers of the other guy are often understood. Okay? So you could put it in here.

You could have put here, what, de or chi chi?

[Speaker 2]
Chi chi.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, why?

[Speaker 2]
Because we're explaining why he did say that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. He's saying, you know, why do you say that? We say, because...

Okay, got it? Okay. And we could have translated it here as, we could have started the sentence with because, but it'd be a weird book to put out that way, you know?

So we'll leave it like that. Okay. So, and it's understood at the same moment.

At the same moment, this state of mind, are you telling me at the same moment, this state of mind can wish that someone wouldn't have pain, and at the same moment, see that they don't have any quality of their own. Okay? Nod.

Nod, yeah, okay. I should give you the chocolate now. I have these really great chocolates, and then I forgot to bring them.

Next time. One, two, three. De, na, mi, te, de.

Lo, mu, chi, pa, yin, pe. Yeah. Where would he have said, I agree?

Here? Would he say, would we have a problem if he said, well, anyway, I shouldn't say that. This I just have to teach you, okay?

When you say, when you give a cheer after a tau, it means he must have said, chi, chi, or between. Then, then silently in a monastic textbook, he goes back and corrects himself. He says, oh, oh, oh, de, de.

Okay? Yeah, oh yeah, right, right. Which means he answered right to what?

To this one. Are you saying that this kind of compassion has two disparate ways of seeing, holding to its object? So he's cut off from one branch.

He said, chi, chi, or, and we said, because you'd have to be saying that. Then he backed up. He said, oh, oh, oh, oh yeah, let me take that back.

I agree. I agree to what? I agree that that state of mind has, is holding the object in two different ways at the same time.

He backed up. You'll, you'll hear it once, here. You'll hear it 500 more times.

This is just the first one. And then you'll, then you'll be able to read these books on your own. But, but there's this weird thing going on where his, his responses aren't recorded.

In the 13th course of ACI, I inserted all those responses in brackets to help you, but here I'm not going to do it anymore. Okay. And if you were to agree, you would still be wrong.

You helped me out. I mean, I was like, having nightmares about how to translate this. And I decided that's your problem.

The word mu here, mu. There's only one place that I, that you normally see mu, which is mu shi mu sum mei bei ye che. Right?

You guys did it in the monastery? Yeah, mu shi mu sum mei bei ye che. There's no three or four possible combinations between being, changing, and being blue.

There's no three or four possible permutations between being, changing, and being blue. So there's no three or four permutations between blue and changing. Yeah, good.

So there are three or four permutations between being blue and being changing. Show. Then you go through what's called mu shi mu sum.

You go through the permutations. First, show me something which is blue and changing.

[Speaker 2]
Blue ball.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Show me something which is blue but not changing. Blue sky.

Huh? Blue sky. It's not changing?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, that's not blue.

[Speaker 2]
No, that blue doesn't exist.

[Speaker 1]
That blue doesn't exist. The idea is not blue. The idea of blue is not blue.

I have the idea of blue. Anyway. So that blue doesn't exist.

How about changing but not blue? Red ball. Yeah.

And neither changing nor blue. Sky. You can say emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
You can say emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Emptiness or...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, or empty space. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So how many mus are present? Yeah, three out of four are there. That's pretty typical.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I've been wanting to ask, when you've been starting to engage with us in class, and you haven't been saying because, but you want us to reply that much, why is that? Because that much you're afraid only applies to the reason.

[Speaker 1]
That's true. Yeah. I should start with, better than I engage.

That's true. Technically you have to start with, you know. And then the monastery is just like, everybody knows.

Yeah. In a book it would always start with cheer.

[Speaker 2]
But anyway. In that case, is it wrong based on the reason that you give, or is it wrong because it doesn't have a subject?

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, again?

[Speaker 2]
Is it, in that case...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, when I don't say cheer? Uh-huh.

[Speaker 2]
Well, in that case you say cheer. Do I judge it based on the reason itself, or do I say it's wrong because it doesn't have a subject?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, based on the reason itself. Based on the falseness of the reason itself.

[Speaker 2]
Is it automatically wrong, though, if it doesn't have a subject?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if the reason itself is by itself a falsity, you can answer, cheer. Automatically.

[Speaker 2]
If I say because the sky is blue, is it necessarily wrong because I, it doesn't apply to a subject, because I haven't given one?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, technically that's true. I mean, it's like, in the nine different kinds of biological statements, there is no subject, or no valid subject, but it's always understood that maybe you're taking it from a past conversation or something. You know, like that.

Nobody would say, oh, false on the grounds that there's no subject. It would always be false on the grounds that what you said is false. The reason is false.

Okay. So if you were to agree it would still be wrong because, here it is, lo means mind, mu means one, mu means mu, right? Uh, what did we say?

[Speaker 2]
Permutation.

[Speaker 1]
Chitpa means a single. So it doesn't mean permutation here, it just means... I don't...

He says, it's wrong to say the mind is perceiving both the emptiness and the suffering of the person at the same time, because it's only one, it's a single-move state of mind. It's a single-move state of mind. Now how do you translate that move?

It could be. But I don't think it's an option here. I don't think they're saying between four options here.

I think it's... And somehow you have to get in the sense of it being momentary. It's a single instance of mind.

Would it work to say a single instance of mind? I think so. If you're very serious.

Because this is only a single... and not two instances of mind. And Mu is hard there.

Very rare. Oh, I found out something cool today. I...

I googled a stream from a text I was working on just for fun, because I thought it was misspelled. And Google found it faster on a billion websites than GopherCannon, my machine. You know?

It found the string in an ACIP text that's on the web much faster than my computer can find it. And so just to let you know, it doesn't do as cool proximity searches and stuff like that, but it was really... I don't know how they do it.

It took .06 seconds. I don't know how they do that. But it's a cool karma.

Because they've already done it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They just don't know where it is. But anyway, it's a cool karma. We've collected this karma, right?

So I guess if you're using the database, you should know that, because if your Gopher's not working, you can just Google it. Okay, here we go. One, two, three.

Nam-pa-shara-wa-shi-gur-de Okay. So I'll make it easy. And I'm not going to make the sentence easier here, because he didn't seem to want it to be easier.

When you're loving the lady at the stop and shop, are you at the same moment perceiving her emptiness? No. Are you at the same moment perceiving that she's changing moment to moment?

She's getting older as she scoops the ice cream. No. Did you previously perceive those things?

Yeah, during your meditation in the morning, and then you still have a sense of those in the afternoon when you go for ice cream, okay? So the sense is still swimming around in your mind, but the perception of her as not being self-existent can't be going on while you're feeling love for her, because they would bump into each other. That's the point, okay?

You can't have two very active states of mind with different content at the same moment. That's all, okay? So he says, okay, it's true that you're not thinking of her actively as changing, and you're not thinking of her actively as empty, but there must be some sense.

You must have some sense of her that way as you love her, okay? That's his decision, okay? This is Ranglok.

Ranglok means what? It's our own school, our own position on the question. Ranglok, okay?

Which is always right. But, you know, it could be a different school if you were in the lower body school. The Ranglok would be false sometimes.

Okay, let's read together. Yeah? Is this sense something like mental factors?

Say again? Is this sense like mental factors? Mental factors?

Like sanctions? Like sanctions? Seeing her as empty is a mental factor called wisdom.

In this 51 mental factors or whatever, it's called wisdom. Seeing her as changing is also a form of wisdom. And feeling love for her is a kind of love, right?

I mean, if you divided it Abhidharma way into mental functions. So all three are mental functions. And there's a mind going on at the same moment, which is your awareness of her.

And the fact that you're not unconscious, that's also going on at the same moment. So it's really talking about one sin, mind, state of mind and three mental functions, technically. Can two mental functions go on concomitantly?

Which school? Because in the Abhidharma they're called kundrala or, what's it? Sorry, higher school, South Trantica.

Anyway, ever-present mental functions, right? So those can supposedly go on at the same time. You can feel something as...

You have to be feeling, and discrimination are always present in your mind at any given moment. They are mental functions. So then you can get into this debate, well, cung dem nam-ma-la-yi-ma-pa.

Are they matched in the five ways? And somebody says, yes. And they say, and are they matched in their object?

Which is one of the definitions of... And you have to say, yes. And then you say, they must both be perceiving their object at the same moment.

Yes. And then you could fight it that way. You could get into a big debate that way.

Yeah. It's hard. That's a hard question.

So don't ask that. Okay. Okay, let's read together.

One, two, three. Nam-she-gong-pa-ra-sel-le He-na-ke-pa-ni-ki Ke-pa-du-che-pe Sem-chen-nin-je-mi-pa-jo-pa-na This is a quotation. When you see le or ne at the end of a phrase, you think quotation.

And when you're looking for... Like we did the... Win-Chen-Tao talk, the relationship talk in Tucson.

And we could have read the 500 verses and translated them all and then decide which 20 we wanted to talk about, which would take about three years. Or we had this strategy. We said, let's just talk about the most famous quotations from this book.

And then... Then you search in the database, you search what? Win-Chen-Tao.

But then you'll get like thousands of mentions of this book that are not quotations of this book. So you just use le. This is a trick, okay?

Win-Chen-Tao and le. You search for Win-Chen-Tao and le. And then you only get the famous quotations from that book that any Tibetan ever used.

And then we picked the 20 hottest ones. We did a statistical thing, you know. Oh, this one was mentioned by 100 people.

That's got to be in the top, you know. And like that. So that's something cool you can do if you know about le, okay?

Nam-she-gong-pa-ram-sa-le. What is this book, Nam-she-gong-pa-ram-sa? It's a book that this is a commentary about, right?

This is the... What do we call it? The exposition?

How do we translate Nam-she, do you remember? Explanation. Yeah?

Let's check ACI camera. Oh, the illumination. Yeah, we didn't check anything.

Oh, explication. Yeah? Illumination.

Sorry? Very beginning.

[Speaker 2]
Did we have anything? We had hearing containers. The illumination of the truth thought.

An explanation of the great possibility...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Okay. I think we can get away with it.

But just be aware that he sometimes would be calling gong-pa-ram-sa-le simply Nam-she. Which is really confusing because there's about... There's thousands of Nam-shes.

Like a pool. The exposition called the illumination of the truth thought. This is tough.

Some space. What do we say? Distinguished or characterized?

Okay. Okay? What two different qualities?

[Speaker 2]
The way that we characterize compassion and not the way we do it.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to get into that debate. And then we'll have to go back and change everything probably. Okay?

Yeah. Anyway, two different qualities. One is, in this case, changing and empty.

Changing and empty. So, which compassion are you talking about? The compassion which sees in as changing and empty.

Or you could say, which living beings are you talking about? The ones which are characterized by being empty or changing. Okay?

So which... It's going to come later, a debate about what's being characterized. So that's a problem.

Then we'll have to go back and change everything. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry.

Because we have a cheer coming way down at the bottom. We didn't mean it. Okay, that's okay.

This is still Jatakarta. And this is our rama-loka, right? Oh, that person who either sees them as empty or sees them as changing, right?

The person who has either of those two kinds of compassion. Are those good kinds of compassion? What's the third one that's not so good?

Sanjana. Sanjana. Just sees the person.

Not thinking of... Just sees the girl behind the counter, hopes she doesn't cut herself. You know, that doesn't help her much.

That won't help her much. You have to be much more subtle to see that she's dying as she scoops the ice cream. And even more beneficial if you can see that she's in a projection and you could stop her from dying, right?

So anyway, the person who possesses these two states of compassion, meaning either one of the great ones in their heart has already in the past grasped that the person is changing by the moment or that they don't have any nature of their own. Based on this prior perception, now they can have a sense as they love the person. Understood.

As they love the person. They can have a sense, oh, they're changing and they're empty. But they don't have a perception of that.

Because if they did, it would bump out the compassion perception. Got it? He says, this must be how it is.

It can't be that it's in the other way. Why did we say that? Because we wanted to prove what we said.

Even though that love is not directly perceiving her changing nature and her emptiness at that moment, there must be some kind of sense going on. Right? It must have some kind of sense going on.

Why? Because Jessica said so.

[Speaker 2]
What's the word we're translating to speak?

[Speaker 1]
Nampar Sharma. Nampar Sharma. To...

It's a really difficult word. Sharma means to... It can either mean for an object to appear to the mind, or it can mean that the subsequent state of mind appears in your mind.

Rises like the sun in your mind. Sharma means to rise like the sun. So, here it means...

He's... Our textbook writer is trying to get out of using the word dogpa, which is to perceive. So, he's trying to come up with something that's a little more watered down.

Like, could you have a sense while you're perceiving something? So, he's trying to introduce this. And in fact, I was reading a difficult passage today.

The one I looked up on the web. His teacher from Thursday seems to say you could have those two states of mind. He goes on to quite lengthy quotation, you know, presentation about how you could have two perceptions going on.

And there's a tradition in Sarame that the King of Temadagya improved on his teacher. You know. And then, Sarajevo said, no, he was a naughty boy.

He argued with his teacher. And then, you know, the real yogis say it was all a play of maybe one person as a disciple and teacher. And that the friction raises attention.

Our attention. Oh, this is the one they had a fight about. Tell me about it, you know.

And then you're more likely to study it. You know. So, his teacher seems to say you could have both.

And he says other controversial things according to our view. So anyway, he's talking to his teacher. And the parent.

Okay. And that's how, one of the reasons Sarame got its reputation as being like a black sheep monastery or something. Okay.

So you're not lineage now.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So we're quoting Je Tsongkhapa. So we must be right. That's Lunggijujje, right?

Lunggijujje. Scriptural proof. Scriptural authority.

Okay, here we go. One, two, three. The use of yang twice to say he is both a fool and he's an idiot.

Okay. So you say fool yang-yi idiot yang-yi. And then you pause.

You say yang-yi. Then you pause. And then the other one you say yang-yi.

Same. First one goes up. Second one goes down.

One, two, three. Yang-yi. Yang-yi.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's good to know. It's good to translate. Okay.

So those two yangs are linked together. I'm going to split it. How's that?

Consider this compassion in the heart of a bodhisattva on the path of seeing. Like not just in normal shmak bodhisattva. That's in the high bodhisattva, right?

Semba chenpo. Semba chenpo, right? Chancho semba semba chenpo.

They say in the Heart Sutra. Semba chenpo. So this bodhisattva is on the path of seeing, right?

And he's looking at, he or she is looking at living beings. And he or she is looking at living beings. Those living beings both appear to be self-existent and also appear not to be self-existent.

[Speaker 2]
Huh?

[Speaker 1]
That's right. So far, could be that. So far, could be that.

It could be they're talking both about the the period, while you're in the direct perception of emptiness, uninterrupted path, and after you come down and start seeing things as normal. Could be talking about two different states of, could be talking about two different times. Let's see where he goes with it.

That's not bad. That's a good, good shot. Let's see if this is true.

I like to say, you're perfectly right. And it's beautiful that you caught it. Really, really beautiful.

He said, shouldn't the second time we said true nature have said some true nature? We talked about it the other day. Whenever you talk about self-existence, shouldn't you say so-called self-existence?

You know? You can't use an adjective before self-existence or what do you call them? Declarative?

Whatever it is. A the. Or an a.

Because it doesn't exist. So you should be saying some, some true nature. I stuck it in there on purpose so you ask the question.

Really. Because the second state of mind, what? Yeah, it's wrong.

It's like, yes, it does have a true nature. The first state of mind, it's correct. And it's saying, look, some true nature.

Okay, got it? I'm just like playing. You got it, brother.

You got it. That's nice. Okay.

Sorry? Did somebody else have a question? Oh, I was just going to say, couldn't they both be, like, after seeing each other's directly and then one is intellectual and one is, like, you know that things don't, like, so, you're seeing them as not having a true nature, but you're also seeing them as having a true nature.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You're seeing it, but you're not believing it.

[Speaker 1]
What we call this the period of illusion. What we call the period of illusion. The magician.

Where you realize that things are not what they seem. Yeah. Human couple.

The period of illusion. Let's see where he goes. We have two proposals.

They're both pretty cool. Okay. We talked about compassion.

Yeah. Okay. The people that, the girl behind the counter at the stop and shop is appearing to the bodhisattva on the path of seeing as not coming from her own side.

Right? By the way, didn't we just say you couldn't perceive her as not having some nature of her own? Didn't we just say that?

If you're loving her at that moment, you can't at the same moment entertain the idea that she's empty, right? Correct or not? Correct.

You can't, according to our view. But could she appear that way? Yeah.

You see? Is she appearing to you as not having inner nature of her own? So now we're talking about this way, and not that way.

Got it? Can you that way see her emptiness while you're loving her? No.

But could her emptiness be like appearing to you, washing over you as you're not her? Whether you detect it or not. Hit it with my salve.

Wouldn't that be the direct perception of emptiness itself? Can emptiness appear to you... Is emptiness appearing to all of us right now?

Are things appearing to us as not having any nature of their own? Just the opposite. Things are...

Things are... have no nature of their own. But how do they appear to us?

[Speaker 2]
They appear to have a nature of their own, yes.

[Speaker 1]
But if the statue... If the head of Lord Buddha over there is truly empty of any nature of its own, isn't it like appearing that way? By itself.

I mean... If you...

[Speaker 2]
I mean...

[Speaker 1]
This has a... This thing has a metallic color. Isn't...

Isn't it looking metallic? Yeah. Spot-on trigger.

I mean... There's a blind man in the class and there's people who can see. But is this looking metallic?

If looking means... If you're using looking as a synonym... No, I mean if you hold that in front of a blind man, is it...

Is it... Is it appearing metallic? No.

No, from inside is it appearing metallic?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
But from any side.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
So it's not metallic. It's in there. So...

So its appearance changes like halfway to the blind guy. So its color changes halfway to the blind guy. So it's not gold color.

Because he can't see it. But is it appearing to him as gold? And he can't pick it up.

Time for candy. That's why I always laugh. You see?

Laugh, get it? Okay. James said I had to eat this myself.

Is that homemade? Keshav? Keshav?

Yeah? Shouldn't we refer to it as the illumination and not the expectation?

[Speaker 2]
Since we just used expectation as a modifier and not as a thing to tell a lie? Or at least not a tell-a-lie.

[Speaker 1]
That's true. But... He didn't say compara-se or anything like that.

He just said the expectation. So he wants people to get used to him calling it the expectation. So a condensate is the expectation of...

Right, yeah. And then the cell is the illumination.

[Speaker 2]
And in that case, shouldn't it be short, lowercase, and not a tell-a-lie?

[Speaker 1]
Um... That's a good point. I think we'll do it.

Because it's... Because it's confusing. It is confusing in Quebec.

So let's keep it confusing in English. We'll go with this. This is really tricky.

Mm. Say it. Because this is a state of mind which possesses a nanwa of Denver.

Literally. Do you want to say it that way? Or is there a better way to say it?

Is there a more colloquial way to say it?

[Speaker 2]
That's pretty cool. A state of mind in which things are appearing.

[Speaker 1]
Which possesses an appearance. But then it sounds like the mind has an appearance of a true nature. Appears to have a true nature.

And the point is not that. And that's when, if you don't... If you don't stop and think, how could I say this in a colloquial way, you lose the reader.

It's those dharma... So many dharma translations are like that. This is fine.

I've covered every word. You know. And it doesn't make any sense to...

It doesn't make any sense. And then you read whole books like that. You just get a headache, you know.

And what it means is that the person, meaning us, hasn't clarified what it means in their own mind. Or else you could say it in a colloquial way. So what does that mean in Narottam Geshe-la?

Truly appearing. Is the mind truly appearing? No, the mind is perceiving.

So let's work on that. Because of the state of mind. Can we add words?

There's object. There's object. Yes, there is.

Perfection. So how? Can you use holds instead of possessives?

I think I like it. Let's try it. Let's try.

Is that okay? You got it, right? It's a state of mind whose object is appearing to have some true nature of itself.

Right? But it seems redundant. In the first recital, they do appear to have some true nature.

In logic, nothing is ever redundant so long as... Do you know? It's called...

What's it called? Shitak. Shitak.

It's a fault of logic when the shitak, chikpa yinme kyun, chik yinme kyun, where the subject of the logical statement and the proof are exactly the same wording. Which implies that what? What's that imply?

Change one syllable, you're okay. Change one syllable, it's a good proof. You know?

This thing is blue because it's appearing blue. Or this thing is blue because it's... What's blue in Spanish?

Azul.

[Speaker 2]
Azul.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and that's okay. You can say that. It's not axiomatic?

It's not... No, there's a different word for that. It's not redundant.

As long as you change it in any way, the reason is correct. Because there'll be someone who doesn't understand that. So anyway, we're not going to go there.

Yeah, anyway. It's still legal as long as one word is different. To put it simply.

Okay. Even if it doesn't seem to us to help much. It's clear enough.

It is clear. Yeah, yeah. Now, but think about what he just said.

He used a... He used a lungi dukje, and then he used a rikmi dukje. He said...

Let me see if I can repeat it. He said, the lady at the stop and shop is appearing to the... To who is the guy now?

Who's standing at the counter? A bodhisattva on the path of seeing. That's all he said.

He didn't say, oh yeah, okay. Be careful. Whether they're the same or not, we can debate.

So, bodhisattva on the path of seeing both sees her. She appears to him as both having qualities of her own and not having qualities of her own. Why do you say she doesn't have qualities of her own?

Because Je Tsongkhapa was just talking about that. Why do you say he sees her as having qualities of her own? Because he has a state of mind in which things appear to have qualities of their own.

Okay? Got it? He split the reason.

It's called a split reason. Do you still want to keep in the previous paragraph where you had a true nature as opposed to here where you do... I'm thinking about it.

He... Oh, some wasn't... Yeah.

I'm going to let it go. Now I drop it to draw more attention. In the previous paragraph you had said not have some and I didn't know if you wanted...

Yeah, I'm still going to let it go. That's where I switch back. Okay.

Yeah. But it's a good question. Okay.

What did he say? Okay. What did he say?

We said, he said, well, Je Tsongkhapa said things were not appearing to him as self-existent and we know that things are appearing to him as self-existent. So it must be appearing to him both ways. Then, what's he going to say?

He's going to say, right? He's going to say what? You're crazy.

What are you talking about? How can something be appearing to him as empty and as non-empty? Come on.

Then we said, now, the reason I brought that up is that we got a Tao here and you have to make a moral decision. What's that? Yeah, you're going to go up or down?

Are you going to say, there Tao? Or are you going to say, there Tao? Okay.

Now, the last night, the last Friday night, we went up or down? We went down because it was, are you saying that it's got two different states of mind in one? You know?

But, but now it's, we just made the last thing. This is proven. Because Jethro Coppola said so and he is, and he has a state of mind which is seeing things as self-existent.

So he said, false. Then we say, there Tao. This is righteous, indignant self-righteous state.

We say, practice, there Tao. It's got to be like, there Tao. Of course it's that way.

You know? Okay, there Tao. Okay.

When you go up, it's got to be like, you've got to believe me here. You know, there Tao. And say, one, two, three.

Lo-pe-gyu-gi Ni-no-jen-gi She-pa-yin-me You can't quite do it in the writing. You can't get that whiny sound in the writing. That is still the case because...

You're going to help me with this. Do you know Lo-pa? Lo-pa?

What's Lo-pa? Inspire.

[Speaker 2]
Say again?

[Speaker 1]
To be inspired. To be inspired? That's...

long one, I think. Lo-pa means to study. Like, Lo-ma means a disciple, right?

A student. Someone who's still studying. But what it means in Buddhist philosophy is someone who is still learning.

What does that mean? As far as the five paths, I didn't include. He's not on...

Fifth plan path. The path of no more learning. Who said that?

Good. Yeah. Which implies that he's...

He's not on one of the first four paths or no path at all. Okay? So we divide all beings into Lo-pa's and Mi-lo-pa's.

Okay? So, you're either someone who's still learning or you're a person who is no longer needs to learn or something like that. Okay?

So that's why the last path is called no more learning. Okay? But how do you want to call that person?

Well, what's an English word? This is a... Because...

I'll just put an X in the heart of a... Is this state of mind? Dualistically...

We finally got it. In Tibetan. Okay?

What do you want to call a Lo-pa? Now you tell me. Sometimes I used to say a person who is still learning.

Like I used a clause because we don't really have a word for... You could say that but that's got so many connotations that Lo-pa is meant to say he's still learning. I'll state his name.

A trainee? It's not bad. You could stay a learner but...

Right now. Yeah, right now.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You have to explain it. Do you want to put a footnote here? That's what you're saying?

No. When you do that you open yourself up to a lot of potential problems.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like the final clause is a clarification.

[Speaker 1]
That's even better now. That's even better. So, Lo-ma yin-na more to learn...

But anyway, that's not as good. So if you're a Mi-lo-pa if you're a Mi-lo-lam is it true that you don't have more to learn? Yes.

So there's no such thing as Hinayana arhats. But that's a lower Madhyamika school.

[Speaker 2]
That's also a lower one.

[Speaker 1]
We're in Uma Tandyowa. So it's kind of a cheap shot. Okay.

Because compassion is a state of mind in the heart of a person who still has more to learn. His object is appearing. You know, usually when you use who's it should modify the word right in front of it or else it gets confusing.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, which word are we translating as dualistically?

[Speaker 1]
It's the ni. It's the two. There's dualistically.

Like, if you want dualistically which people seem to like so much there it is in Tibetan. Finally hit it. It's not very common.

But it's important in the study of emptiness. What does it mean? That me and the object are one?

Like if I didn't have that would I melt into the object? What does dualistic mean to a Prasangika? What did you say?

Yeah, that's okay. Traditionally what they would say is the way it's appearing and the way it really is are disparate. Don't match.

That's ninam. That's dualistic. The way it's appearing and the way it really is don't match.

That's what dualistic means in Madhyamika. Maybe we'll hear it at some point in the text I think. But basically it's that.

Okay. It sounds like it means the same thing when it's disparate. Sorry?

Yeah, disparate. Yeah, same thing. Same idea.

Do they imply the same thing? Disparate and dualistically? In Madhyamika it's a technical term that means disparate.

You could probably say that. I think you could say that. Okay.

Here we go. No, deceptively it's just one side of the coin. This includes both.

It's dual. But, yeah. But the dual as used in Madhyamika always means deceptive in a way that you're being deceived somehow.

The way it appears and the way it really is. Okay, it's implied to deceive that there's another way in which it exists. We said he's a person.

Why did we say loka? It's a mayinga. We're trying to say he's not he's not enlightened.

Somebody asked me we were talking about is it fair to come into the debate ground and talk about Buddhas. And often times they'll say don't talk about Buddhas in the debate ground because they're so extremely different than most people it's not really fair. Like, can you go into the debate ground and say you can smell things with your ears?

And then some will say no and they'll say no, no, Buddhas can. And then it's like, just cheat. You know, it's just well, Buddhas can be everything but we're talking normal people here.

And so sometimes they'll say come on that's an enlightened being. We're debating normal people, you know. So, but he's made it specific.

I'm talking about someone who's not enlightened.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So I'm talking about a state of mind which is still seeing things dualistically. And then he said dharma which means what? Get your shi chö chen.

Get your shi chö chen. What's the chö chen of the logical state? What did we say?

Take dharma. He's dharma because he's dharma. What did we say?

Who's the subject? Chö chen. Yeah.

Chan-sam-tong-lam-pa Chö chen. Let's consider Vaisakha on the path of seeing. Then what do we say about it?

He's both seeing things things that are appearing to him as both self-existent and things that are appearing to him not being self-existent. The same. We didn't say at the same time.

And then the guy said dharma. We said, that is the case because Jetsun Kapa said the first and the second is things are appearing to him as real as self-existent. Then we said dharma.

No, it's not. Yes, it is because he's a person who's not a Buddha who's engaged in a dualistic state of mind. Then he said what?

The other guy. Quick, quick. Yeah, he said dharma-do.

He won't agree to anything just as soon. Dharma-do. He doesn't care what you say.

[Speaker 2]
If you guys say dharma-do.

[Speaker 1]
Which means what? He's not having a dualistic perception. He's not the kind of person who has a dualistic perception.

Who are we talking about? Chan-sam-tong-lam-pa. You're telling me he's having a dualistic perception?

Oh, Pachimalama Church and dualistic perception. Yeah. So a guy who's in the middle of the direct perception emptiness has dualistic perceptions?

Chi, chi. You say, yeah, yeah. Okay.

So he must not be having dualistic perceptions. Cha-ma-chi. Say, cha-ma-chi.

Doesn't follow. Doesn't follow. I didn't say that.

You're talking about Tulamba. I'm talking about Pachimalama. You're talking about a guy on the path of seeing.

I'm talking about a guy who's on the first half of the path of seeing. Got it? It was Evan Avon's original point.

Okay, here we go. So he said, it's not true that he's having a dualistic perception. Let me see.

Now are we going up or down? Up. Yeah, right.

Wait, there's hell. One, two, three. There's hell.

Lo-pe-gyur-gi-min-je-yin-pe-gyur. Now we'll get the winding. That is to the end.

Why? Because... We're saying hard in this section.

Well, big, big, big implications here for our general discussion. Okay? He said, if it's a state of compassion in the mind of a person who's not a Buddha yet, then it must be what?

Screwed up. It must be dualistic. It has to be dualistic.

He has to be misperceiving reality. It's like, this is really... This last statement is like, boom, you know.

Anybody who's not a Buddha, who has love for somebody, that state of mind is screwed up. That state of mind is seeing something wrong. Is that true?

On the path of seeing, right? Anywhere. Anywhere.

He didn't say that. Anywhere except the fifth path. Anyone who's not on the fifth path, on the Mahayana track, who has love for someone, is screwed up.

Huh? Yeah, bodhisattva is nidam too. Bodhisattva is seeing things as self-existent.

Yeah. Yeah. And Arhat...

Yeah, I said the Arhat path. You're talking fifth path. Arhat and Nilobha are the same thing.

In this... On one track, on the Mahayana track.

[Speaker 2]
Simple. Anyone... I'll say it again.

[Speaker 1]
Anyone who's not a Buddha, and who's experiencing a feeling of love for another person, must be seeing them as self-existent. That's not true.

[Speaker 2]
Come back to me. Come back to me with a chit-chat. He's coming.

[Speaker 1]
They're coming. If what you say is true, then the perception in the mind of a bodhisattva on the path of seeing is misperceiving emptiness. That's true.

Oh, I didn't say that. I said he's misperceiving the person. The lady behind the counter.

No. I said he must be misperceiving the lady behind the counter. He's perceiving her ultimate mode of existence.

Not while he's feeling love for her. We just got through with that. That he's not in the direct perception of emptiness.

I never said he wasn't in the direct perception of emptiness. He can't be in the direct perception of emptiness. Why?

Why? Wait, wait, answer that. He can't be in the direct perception of emptiness.

Because love is a positive thing. He's feeling love. He's feeling love.

And we just said mu jikpa. We just said mu jikpa. Eric just proved, Nyingbo just proved mu jikpa.

It's a single state of mind. It's a single state of mind. He can't be loving her and seeing emptiness directly at the same time.

[Speaker 2]
Impossible.

[Speaker 1]
But can it be steeped like a sadhaka? Steeped in a different thing. Steeped in a different thing.

Yeah, yeah. Sem kye kyi simpa. Say it.

Sem kye kyi simpa. Imbued with bodhichitta. But he ain't having bodhichitta.

You see? Like swimming in bodhichitta. During the direct perception of emptiness.

But can't perceive living beings at that moment. Because they are deceptive reality.

[Speaker 2]
Can it be the opposite way? If you're in the experience of bodhichitta, couldn't your bodhichitta be steeped with an understanding of their emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, great debate. Nice. Nice.

But does that mean then that that person wouldn't appear to him as being, you know... That's what you're saying. That's what you're saying.

And we say... And you should speak to her. You should say, yeah, yeah.

She's not appearing as me. Because she's so steeped in it. Oh, yeah.

That's a really good thing. We'll talk about that. We're getting there.

That's part of his teacher's... What he's complaining about his teacher. It seems to be.

Because he's with you. But you're like almost there, Jay. Just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
I'm kidding.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. We'll let you... Honorary teacher.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Is bodhichitta made-minded or not at all?

[Speaker 1]
Wow. I'm not going there right now. I'll never get in here.

It's a good debate. That'd be a really good debate. I'm not going there.

I ain't touching that. We'll start something. We have six minutes.

We'll start... This is where I think he got into the thing... To the meshing of his teacher, okay?

So, is everyone agreed that... That last thing... That was the end of the debate.

Anyone who's not a Buddha... Who's actively feeling... I'm saying actively to make it easier for everybody.

Who's actively feeling love for the lady behind the counter... Must be having a dualistic perception at that moment. Yes.

That's all. Does that mean you can't be having a sense of her emptiness? No.

You could. You can be having a sense of her emptiness. In fact, you have to be if you're having a third kind of compassion.

Got it? But you can't directly and actively perceive her emptiness at the same instant that you're... Microsecond that you're perceiving her...

As someone who's suffering. If you're only a... Lopa.

If you're still a Lopa. Okay. Alright.

Let's read this together. I'll just get it... We'll just start it in your mind.

Let's read it together. One, two, three. Okay.

Do you remember what I said the key had to be at the end of a clause? But. It's got to be a but.

Okay? Why? It can't be of...

It can't be... The book of... Christine.

Right? It can't be Christine keyed them. And then you cut it at key.

It can't be the possessive. It'd be like Christine's and then you stop the sentence. You know?

This is Christine's. Well, I guess you can say that in English. But anyway.

Without saying what you're talking about. Okay. So it's got to be but.

Okay. And I'm just going to... I'll just lay it on you.

And you cook it. As Rinpoche would say. Somebody says, therefore...

Oh, I'm sorry. That quotation that you pulled out by Jetsun Kappa which said that was talking about it's not the case that the two higher kinds of compassion perceive their object in two different ways at the same time. Right?

So it's not the case that the two higher kinds of compassion perceive their object in two different ways at the same time. But rather they have a sense of it being one way while they're perceiving it in a different way. You see what I mean?

That's Jetsun Kappa said that. Now this guy, Kaji. Somebody said that quotation that you pulled out must be saying that...

Now this is really tough. It must not be saying that these two kinds of compassion have that kind of a sense about that. It must not be saying.

Got it? It must not be saying that these two kinds of compassion have this kind of sense about their object. Got it?

Is that correct? Say no. Okay, I'll say it again.

The other guy said when Jetsun Kappa was talking about having senses about the lady behind the counter he wasn't saying that you had to be having a sense about her.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. No. No, I'll say it again.

[Speaker 1]
When Jetsun Kappa was talking about having senses about the lady behind the counter he wasn't saying that those two kinds of compassion had to have a sense about the lady behind the counter. All he was saying was that the guy had to have a sense about the lady behind the counter. I'll say it again.

That quotation by Jetsun Kappa where he said those latter two states of compassion must be having some kind of sense about them being dying and empty. When he said that talking about having a sense about it he was just saying that the guy must have a sense about it and not that the compassion had a sense about it. Oh, that's crazy.

The guy has a sense about her dying and being empty but his compassion doesn't have a sense about her dying and being empty. That makes sense to me. I like it.

I like it. Then you get out of this problem. Then you get out of this problem.

You don't have one state of mind having two states of mind.

[Speaker 2]
It's the guy.

[Speaker 1]
The guy is having a sense and not the compassion is having a sense. That's what Jetsun Kappa is trying to say. Got it?

It took me like three days to figure this out. What's wrong here? There's a sign here.

The thing is so obscure. He just drops 14 levels of obscurity. We weren't interested about that.

We weren't wondering about that really. It's a sign that he's criticizing something. When you're very sensitive to Tibetan when you're very sensitive to the textbooks you can tell when he's going off on this huge tangent to answer somebody that beat him in debate last night.

It can't be that. The fourth root downfall is like wait, wait, we weren't... We don't have to be so passionate about it.

We were just reading about the downfalls. It's a sign that some kind of controversy took place. You feel it in the Tibet.

You can feel it when one of these happens.

[Speaker 2]
Today you said that you define dualistic as the way something appears in the way it truly exists.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't say dualistic. I said really exists. It doesn't match.

You should pick on me about really exists.

[Speaker 2]
Another time when you said dualistic dualistic also could mean just because something doesn't truly exist doesn't mean it can't exist at all.

[Speaker 1]
You can say that. But in general in Majjhimika that's more of the description of the two extremes. That's normally how we describe the two extremes.

Majjhimika threads a middle way between the two extremes. Just because things aren't the way they seem doesn't mean they don't exist at all. Those are two extremes.

We thread our path between the two. That comes more in that context.

[Speaker 2]
Could this be an example of that where just because the compassion that they're having sees the lady doesn't want the lady to get hurt doesn't mean it can't see that she's also dying.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that could be. You could say that. Just because that sees her doesn't mean it can't see her and can't be perceiving or be steeped in the idea.

Yeah, steeped in. Ah, you added steeped in. I'm not falling for it.

Of course you could be steeped in. You could be steeped in the taste of mint chocolate chip and not have any more mint chocolate chip. Right at the moment after.

You're like you're driving and you're like and Krishni like sets the thing on the ground and you're like you're still steeped in chocolate chip but you got bad chocolate chip. Like, is she just putting it down there because she doesn't want to eat anymore or is it really empty, you know? You're going off the road.

I shouldn't reveal all my secrets. So you think about that and how would you answer that guy? I'll say it again.

Tetsutaka was just saying that the guy standing at the counter must be having the sense and not that his compassion was having the sense. And that's how he got out of this problem. Say again?

[Speaker 2]
Right, yeah, you're right.

[Speaker 1]
You're right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. What he's talking about is the Tibetans don't really distinct...

They'll say compassion loves its object. And we don't say that in English. We don't say my compassion loves you.

We don't say his compassion loves her. We say he feels compassion for her. We give it to a person.

In Tibetan they say the mind that perceives her is feeling compassion for her. So we've been talking in this class for the last year that if you're gonna not lose your readers put it, personify it in the way that we would in normal English. He feels love for her.

You don't say his compassion is loving her. But does that get us in trouble now? Does that get us in trouble now?

Because the argument hinges on is the compassion having a sense or is he having the sense? And does saying he has the sense help you get out of the original problem? Yapeng says no.

But we'll see. I say no to it. Oh.

Okay, thanks for sticking with it. And it's hard. And it's one of the reasons we're doing this text in this six years is that it's so difficult to figure out that I think if we don't crack at least a few of these texts in the generation right after the great masters from Tibet.

Khenpo Rinpoche was the youngest you could have been and finished your Dharma by Geshe in Tibet. He was perfect. Historically perfect.

He was the youngest you could have been and had finished in Tibet. You see? He finished Tantric College like in September and then, I'm sorry, in February and then in March the Chinese moved in, right?

So, he was the youngest you could be. So, in that historical work, right? Vortex.

We have to catch what they understood and translate these texts because then it will just be gone. Then nobody would ever be able to crack them, I think. Or they would not do them as well.

When we still have the what do you call it? Impetus. Impetus?

Of the original masters, you know? So, okay. Thank you.