Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 39

[Speaker 1]
So we're going to pick up with that argument that we left last time. And this mark here, where you see square brackets and something with an asterisk, it means I fixed it a long time, like 10 years ago, 15 years ago, for a publication we were doing. But I didn't want to change the carving.

But now we're going to change it. So I'll just take it out. OK, let's read together, ready?

1, 2, 3. KA CHI NA RE PE NA KYE PA NI KYI SHE SOG KYI BUNG HE MIK ME DANG CHE PA MIK PE NYING CHE NYI LA RANG GI MIK YUL TU GYUR HE SEM CHEN MIK YAK PA DANG RANG CHEN MIK PE NAM PAR CHAR WA GUR PE DUNG MA YIN KYI. He's referring to a quotation that started, DE NA KYE PA NI KYI.

And that was up here. What was it from? GOMBRA SANDE.

GOMBRA SANDE. Yeah, it was from the root text. So he's talking about that.

He quotes the first part. I'm going to cut out the piece that we want, characterized by this little card. What's KA CHI NA RE?

[Speaker 2]
Someone else. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see what the verb is. Where's the verb usually? At the end.

OK. So it's the verb CHI here. This is a possessive at the end of a phrase.

So it has to be. But, good. Which means that the sentence isn't over.

Let's go down to the next piece for the verb. It's right here. Which is?

Yeah, so now we can supply it up here. Now, suppose someone now comes in and makes the following claim. Oh, see why I split the sentence?

He's only halfway through his sentence, OK? So that citation above by YOD SONG KA PA, which is talking about characterized by these two different qualities, is not saying that the two types of compassion, which either have no focus or which are focused on things, must be having a sense of living beings which provide their object of focus as being either changing or devoid of any nature thereof. So what he's saying is that, I don't like your, I don't think YOD SONG KA PA was talking about, you're loving the lady behind the ice cream counter, and so your direct focus is love, right?

Your direct state of mind is love. But there's a sense going on in the back of your mind somewhere, somehow, of her dying as she scoops the ice cream, and of her coming from you, not coming from you, if you want to be technical. That's her emptiness, right?

See, I don't think YOD SONG KA PA was talking about that. That's not what he's talking about, OK? Key, what's the key?

Rather, OK? Here it's like, rather, he's talking about. Now we'll hear what he thinks YOD SONG KA PA is talking about.

And by the way, as I said last week, I believe the khatik is who? Sarah Jetson, Chuky Getson, his teacher from Sarah J. Just from some other reading I did.

Why did they say Sarah Jetson, Chuky Getson? Why don't they just call him Chuky Getson?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, there's one Chuky Getson.

[Speaker 1]
Huh?

[Speaker 2]
He's not the first Mosan.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, people were getting confused with Mosan Chuky Getson, Penchen Mosan Chuky Getson. So he always put Sarah Jetson Chuky Getson. I used to get really terribly confused between those two.

I used to get confused between Dharmakirti and Chandrakirti. OK. And a lot of other people have, too.

Oh, let's read together. It's slow tonight, Penny. Just kidding.

Not your fault. It's Bill Gates. OK.

One, two, three. De, mi, gyu, la, den, me. Wait, stop, stop, stop.

Open vowel. Pre-nasal. Lan, den, me.

Got it? I go like that, right? I did it a little slow, but it hurts my nose.

OK. Let's start over. It's like that monastery called?

Ganden. Open vowel, and a la, den, me after it. Here we go.

One, two, three. De, mi, gyu, la, den, me. Gan, sak, la, sen, chen.

Ni, tak, la, dang, rang, shin, me, pe. Nang, ba, shar, wa, gu, pe, tu, yi. Ser, wa, dang.

There's the word gyu. What are three meanings it could have? Tantra, stream, or stream of consciousness, OK?

Can also mean lineage, as in lineage lamas, gyu pe lama. So that's four meanings of gyu. So sometimes it's a little tricky how to translate it.

OK. Yeah, like, it took me like three days, OK? Yeah, you should say, huh?

Let's look at the first one. I mean, let me do one thing, Evan, you know. Usually, when somebody says kao thik, it means the thing he says is false.

So let's go back here. Is it true that those two types of compassion don't have a sense? Like, when you're loving the lady behind the ice cream counter, does that compassion have a sense of her dying at that moment?

Yeah, because he's using having a sense as meaning it doesn't bump into. If you said perceive her as dying, that's impossible, because one mind can't have two perceptions at the same, two disparate perceptions at the same time. But he's using have a sense of as saying, well, you could perceive her, love her, and still have a sense of her dying in the way that you figured it out in meditation that morning.

But he says that's not what Je Tsongkhapa is saying. What he's saying is that the person who possesses these two types of compassion in their heart, they have a sense of the lady and of her being changed. But didn't he just say the same thing?

[Speaker 2]
He might have objected to some of this.

[Speaker 1]
Well, yeah, but that's understandable. He just didn't want anything to do with it.

[Speaker 2]
He's ascribing it to the person and not compassion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, say it again.

[Speaker 2]
He's ascribing these qualities to the person and not the compassion itself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Ben can perceive the lady serving the ice cream and have a sense of her dying. But Ben's mind, Ben's compassion, can't perceive her and have a sense of her dying.

How's that? Someone tried to make this distinction.

[Speaker 2]
How could compassion arise devoid of her suffering state? Doesn't the compassion have to have an object? That is the lady behind the ice cream counter?

[Speaker 1]
See, sir, as being, as being, as being, dying. Well, dying, as dying. As being in the act of dying.

All right, well, let's see what he says. Maybe it'll help. Did you have a question?

[Speaker 2]
I was just going to say, would it help to italicize person there and compassion in the reader?

[Speaker 1]
How much do you want to help the reader? You see, I'll tell you something funny about the religious classics of all time. If they're a little confusing, they seem to work better.

I'm not kidding. Like the New Testament was mistranslated in a lot of places, and it just works better. It sounds more mysterious.

And the early bad translations of Tibetan stuff are very popular. Like the Tibetans look at the dead, and the life of Milarepa, and they're totally wrong. They're all like off the wall wrong.

And so they sound mystical. Sometimes I think as a translator, you make the judgment that you want to lead the nut for them to crack. You want them, you want a really good reader will stop and say, what's going on here?

And they'll go back to it day after day. In Tibet, my experience with Madhyamaka textbooks, you can't get it on the first reading, or the second, or the third. You have to be a person who's willing to spend the time to go back again, and again, and again.

This particular book always used to put me to sleep. I used to read it on my back with a scripture like this, and I'd just fall asleep. And I couldn't crack it.

And we used to argue and fight. And I think we'll leave it for them. He didn't say, gyu ni, or khanzang ni.

He didn't help either. He didn't give his reader. You have to know what he didn't do to translate it properly.

He didn't help his reader. He just gave it to him and went on. He didn't even explain it anymore.

He's going on to a different subject. Here we go. One, two, three.

Ngyelwa dupa ni, tham je ngyelwa yin te. He's going to say something, OK? And I'm going to set you up, OK?

Tham je ngyelwa yin te. What's tham je mean? All of them.

What's ngyelwa? Ngyelwa. Yeah, ngyelwa means to be contradictory, at odds with one another.

Gyelwa means to black out or cross a river. So if you don't have your pre-nasals right, you might have the debater blacking out or crossing the river. So say, ngyelwa, ngyelwa, ngyelwa, ngyelwa, ngyelwa.

What's this one? Ngyelwa, OK. Tham je ngyelwa means what?

All this stuff they say, it's all contradictory. It all doesn't make sense. What?

Everything else in this paragraph and everything else that we just had, which was what? That trying to make this distinction between the person having the two things but the mind not having the two things. It's all ngyelwa.

It's like, ngyelwa, tham je ngyelwa, OK? So that implies that what he's about to say in this paragraph is all confused, and wrong, and contradictory, right? Say yes, then I got you.

OK. So let's look at his first statement here. Chang sen papa la dong yin ngeun sum du do pe kya.

Say, Chang sen papa la dong yin ngeun sum du do pe kya. Kya. It's absolutely the case, kya, that if you're a Chang sen papa, what?

Ayah bodhisattva, dong yin ngeun sum du do pe kya. You must have, yeah, sorry. You must directly perceive it.

Oh, in Tibetan, we don't have a distinction between the past tense, the present tense, the future tense, and the progressive tense, present progressive tense.

[Speaker 2]
Then that holds.

[Speaker 1]
So which one do you use? Is it true that if you're a Chang sen papa, you must have seen the emptiness talk?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Chang sen papa ke kyi tamo chö chen. Take a bodhisattva Arya in the first moment of his existence or her existence. Don't even think about it.

They must have perceived emptiness there.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. No.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
Not in the first moment, no. Right. Not in the first moment.

Second moment. It's not true that they must have.

[Speaker 1]
It's true that they are. But not must have.

[Speaker 2]
Beginning of the first moment, basically?

[Speaker 1]
How about the beginning of the beginning? Beginning of the beginning of the beginning. Is it true to say a bodhisattva Arya is seeing emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
They must have seen emptiness. Otherwise, they wouldn't be Arya.

[Speaker 1]
So they're not called a bodhisattva Arya in the first moment of their time.

[Speaker 2]
They must have seen emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
When did they see emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
In the first moment.

[Speaker 1]
So according to you, we should translate it as the present progressive text. They must be seeing emptiness. If anyone is a bodhisattva Arya, they must be seeing emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Could you give us something that sounds amusing and nice?

[Speaker 1]
No, it's a great answer. It's a perfect answer. It's a perfect answer.

That's a perfect answer. That's a perfect answer. We're looking for a translation that's wrong.

That's clearly wrong. And that's a nice one. That's a good one.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The fact that she came up with it is just a coincidence. Okay. See, I'm going to make it a little bit easier.

Must be seeing. Nice. That in the mind of that kind of a person, there must be present all three kinds of compassion.

I'll do one more. This is a good debate topic for this week. Let's go through them one by one.

Is it true that a realized being who is a bodhisattva must be seeing emptiness directly? No. Kali Chöchen.

Give me a Chöchen. Chöchen, show.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Jetho bhyasi la meype chamsen Papa Chöchen.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Consider a bodhisattva Arya who is in the aftermath, after they've come down. That's good. Good Chöchen.

Okay. Can a chamsen papa have all three kinds of compassion in their mind at the same time? Did I say mind?

I didn't say mind. Yeah. Can you have...

Can you have... Like if once you're at a pretty high state, like a chamsen papa, could you have all three kinds of compassion going on in your mind at the same time? Going on now.

Or not going on, but possessed, let's say. Yeah. But what does samchen tsam mean?

Not making any distinctions about the person. Not thinking that she's dying as she scoops the ice cream. Not thinking that she's coming for me.

Just not thinking anything. Just I hope she doesn't cut herself with the scoop, you know. Get her thumb caught in a little thing.

That's compassion, right?

[Speaker 2]
They wouldn't be capable of that, would they?

[Speaker 1]
That's... Apparently that's what our guy is saying. That at that point, they wouldn't be capable of having...

Je Tsongkhapa was only talking about how many of the three way back then. He's only talking about two. He doesn't even consider the third one for a high person.

[Speaker 2]
Because the first one's a gacchan. So I have compassion for a gacchan.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the first one is a gacpa. It means... It's a mahinga.

He only looks at the person. Meaning he don't see the other things about them. So you can't have the first one and the other two at the same time?

No, samchen tsam means making no other distinctions. Not making no other distinctions. You can't have the first one and have the other two at the same time.

Because the other two are making distinctions. The other two are saying, they are qualifying the person. This person is dying as she scoops the ice cream.

This person is just coming from me. And the first one is thinking, Ah, I hope she doesn't hurt herself. You know, okay, got it?

Got it? Now let's go to the third idea. Is it wrong to say you could have...

You could be a person who has the last two types of compassion.

[Speaker 2]
Is it wrong to say that?

[Speaker 1]
No, it's not, right? In case you come back down and you have to... Right.

So, that's a good example. Yeah. Okay, you got the third one?

You can't be having the last two. You can be thinking that she's... You can be...

What? You can love her and have a sense of her dying as she scoops it and of her coming from you. Okay, got it?

Just know. You can figure it out later.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Nobody said at the same time. They just said, in the heart of Bodhisattva Arya. And you know, I think what Ben was saying, it should come into your mind about the Eighth Class Ramana subject, that why is he beating this to death?

Why is he letting this go on to the second verse of the root text after a year and a half? I think he's trying to... If you go home and sleep on it, like if you wake up...

I wake up in the morning and often I have an hour to sit there, two hours to think, and I can just... Why is he beating this to death? And then you can think...

He wants you to come up with that thing about the first instant. He wants you to... He wants you to wonder, do I toggle between the two?

How long does it take me to toggle between the two? And what's the exact border when I toggle between the two? And then sooner or later it's going to occur to you what?

You can't be toggling between the two. And then it gets really weird. Okay?

I think he's trying to force you into this question about how long does it take me to toggle? Because it feels like I'm having both at the same time. Like that.

And then what's the nature of that moment? When does the switchover take place? How long does that take?

Where's that moment? He wants you to start struggling with that. It's very beautiful.

Let's do this one. One, two, three. If everything the other guy said was true, then the only kind of compassion that an Arya Bodhisattva could have would be great compassion, which is focused on the person's emptiness.

Like if it were to the exclusion of thinking that they are changing. If the latter two kinds of compassion are contradictory in this person's mind, then what you're saying is that you believe that their mind is like just possessed by the great compassion which has no focus. And therefore there ain't no room to think about her dying.

Got it? Okay. According to you.

According to you. That's mean.

[Speaker 2]
He said that.

[Speaker 1]
What do you say? She says that. Who's talking?

We are. So it's got to be that whiny, It is so. Okay?

Which means you go up. One. We just said, if it's true that the latter two kinds of compassion can't be in the same town at the same time.

There's only room in this town for one of us. You know? If that's true, then what you're saying is that this Bodhisattva must always be having some kind of extreme form of emptiness compassion.

To the exclusion of thinking that the lady could be dying at the same time. Right? Okay?

So, that's how, that is so the case, because, Okay, one, two, three.

[Speaker 2]
There's hell.

[Speaker 1]
Day in the Run. You love. Them day.

Come send love. Run give me. You to cure day.

Seven ten. Run she may day. Number.

Charm way. Ninja. Ten.

Oh you. Good day. I'm going to add, I'm going to add this, okay, Eva?

We've got to cut him some slack, okay? They need a little bit. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
You all right? Could you parentheticalize from of to heart? Is that clarifying?

[Speaker 1]
Do you think it would be easier in parentheses? A little. Yeah.

I agree it might help. Let me cook it, okay? I agree it might help.

It's a nasty sentence. Okay. What's he trying to say, anyway?

[Speaker 2]
There's only one kind of compassion in this man's mind at this time.

[Speaker 1]
According to you, why?

[Speaker 2]
Because his tail's not big enough for the both of us, and if he's that high that he can see the ultimate, then why would he go back to the beginning?

[Speaker 1]
Because his tail's not big enough for the both of us, and he said, which means what? Anyone who's a Bodhisattva Arya, what? Is seeing emptiness directly.

Now this is complaining about, this is going back to his other thing. Is seeing emptiness directly. So, oh, so their mind is taken over by direct perception of emptiness.

So, they can't be thinking about this person's changing, according to you. Okay? That's why they got in trouble.

Because they heard, they heard Bodhisattva seeing emptiness, and they heard Arya Bodhisattva, and they jumped to, oh, perceiving it in the direct perception of emptiness. They jumped to that. They haven't learned enough to know that a Bodhisattva Arya can also be having deceptive aftermath perceptions.

They didn't recall, they didn't get that far. When they hear Bodhisattva Arya and they're thinking, oh, boom, direct perception of emptiness. He can't be seeing the lady behind the counter as changing.

Okay? Okay. Okay.

Ah, the Bodhisattva. You could say, it would have to be a form of great compassion of that Bodhisattva, which had us, you see what I mean? You could say that, but that's just the way he said it.

I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]
That's why I think the parentheses would help.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I know. I'm still holding out on the parentheses. Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you're right. If something were a form of compassion in this, of the Bodhisattva, you're right. That's nice.

That helps. But I, yeah. That's funny.

Where the problem comes from is that we supplied, we're a form of compassion in this heart, in this person's heart. That's all supplied, because the Tibetan doesn't repeat it. But if you don't repeat it, it's even worse.

Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
Just a difference between an Arya and a Bodhisattva is, you know, they're fluctuating between this deceptive view. For instance, if a Buddha walked into the ice cream store, isn't that a Buddhist in a constant state of...

[Speaker 1]
It's the next thing. It's the very next paragraph. Now, they say if you write a book well, then an intelligent person should be asking the next question before they get to it.

So, that's a good sign. All right. All right.

YIN PEI CHEN What's he gonna say? What's he have to say? TAMO DU He could say TAMO DU, but he probably says TAMO DU.

Okay? TAMO DU What do we say? One, two, three.

TAMO DU Now, if you say TAMO DU means... How do you want to translate TAMO DU? TAMO DU What's...

What's TAMO DU mean? TAMO DU The reason is... The reason is wrong in some way, right?

So, we're gonna say, no, our reason is DU. Our reason is RE. Is that okay?

Can we say that? Okay? Okay?

Makes sense, right? SANGYE GYI RGYULA SEM GYEN MIG PA'I NYING RJE MI RE YOD CHEN Compassion which focuses on living beings does not exist in the precious heart of an enlightened being. Sure.

Say TAMO DU or say something like that. Yes, say TAMO DU. SEM GYEN NA MIG PA'I NYING RJE SANGYE BHAG PA'I RGYULA NYOG You're telling me they do have the type of compassion which focuses on living beings?

Yes. Oh, so they have all three compassions?

[Speaker 2]
No, teach you.

[Speaker 1]
Good. You didn't fall for it. Okay?

I didn't say that. Which one doesn't he have? SEM GYEN TZAM NA MIG PA'I NYING RJE You guys are no fun.

Supposed to fall for it. Let's read this together. One, two, three.

It's not only no contradiction for them to have both.

[Speaker 2]
You have to say it. He didn't say.

[Speaker 1]
He just said CHANG SEN. There may be implications there. You have to worry about it.

Anytime he lays down something, you have to be like, why did he do that? He's trying to trick me. Because he is.

Now, he is tricking you, which now becomes apparent in the next paragraph. One, two, three. DHAGSALA NEPE CHANG SEM KYI GYUR KYI NYING RJE YIN NA MIG MEG KYI NYING RJE CHEN PO YIN Good day.

Okay. Somebody brought, I think Ava brought it up last week. The higher three bodhisattvas.

You mentioned it. You were already thinking about it. Pure levels is a code word for 8th, 9th and 10th bodhisattva levels.

What's the difference between the first seven and the last three bodhisattva levels? You're not only not believing in it, you're not seeing it that way anymore. You're not only not believing in it, you're not seeing it that way anymore.

So the illusion thing kind of ends at that point. It's not that they look self-existent and you think they're not. They don't even look self-existent anymore.

That's all. You still got something though. There's two positions on that.

And the easier one is that they still have obstacles to omniscience. But it's not that they haven't defeated all forms of seeing things as self-existent.

[Speaker 2]
They have.

[Speaker 1]
In fact, then the 8th bodhisattva level becomes equivalent to nirvana. Because the most subtle mental affliction has been destroyed. You're a dark chamber.

You're an enemy destroyer. What's the most subtle form of mental affliction? Seeing things as self-existent.

You see? It's what Michael said. There's some very, very subtle seeds.

Things will never again appear to them as self-existent. But they haven't destroyed the seeds that they will never appear to them again as self-existent. In fact, things won't appear to them again as self-existent.

But they still have the seeds for that to potentially happen. Although it doesn't happen.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like a weird point to make.

[Speaker 1]
But, no, because for Hinayanas it's possible to revert. So they go into that. But some people say that.

Abhidharma has a thing about the obstacles to omniscience. Vishepa Gishi, the four obstacles to omniscience.

[Speaker 2]
Does that mean that they can see emptiness and deceptive reality at the same time?

[Speaker 1]
No, so you've got to cook that.

[Speaker 2]
It's a good question.

[Speaker 1]
If things aren't appearing self-existent to them anymore, does that mean they're necessarily seeing them directly as empty? That's your question. You've got to cook it.

I think not. I mean according to the scriptures only a Buddha can... It's a really good question though.

It's a really fine question. So there must be some pungsambha. There must be like things aren't appearing self-existent to you anymore.

But you're still seeing them as deceptive realities. Don't forget that deceptive reality means that which would deceive a person who wasn't at that level. Anyway, here we go.

We're going up or down? Sure? Yeah, you're right.

If your opponent in a debate gives a good answer, ask him, are you sure? And if you're lucky, he'll switch. I have these really good chocolates in the refrigerator up at the love house and I've been meaning to bring them for like two weeks.

I always remember halfway down. And I'm always late for class. Then I think about sending somebody after them.

But they'll miss a paragraph that's on top of due to my chocolate desires.

[Speaker 2]
Is there a term for deceptive reality? Caused realities that a Buddha sees? It wouldn't be deceptive anymore?

Is there a term for that?

[Speaker 1]
Even the second reality that a Buddha sees it's called deceptive reality because it's a reality which would fool a lesser person. Yeah, it's a good question. Did we read this together?

One, two, three. Thank you. Thanks.

I was hoping. You okay with that? Now, it says nam-pa-shar-wa but it's a different use, okay?

That's the word that men have a sense of so far. Let's leave it. Let me see.

Okay? Which is just to say that once you're on the street highest bodhisattva levels you're always thinking that this person behind the counter is empty of any self existence. Okay?

I don't know if it means that. The previous comment is that it's necessary to recognize that it's not true, but it's necessary to recognize that it's not true. That's true.

I guess you're right. Maybe that's the whole problem. Maybe that's his whole mistake.

Maybe he was kept saying that I guess our wrong look is that it's true of a high level bodhisattva that the two would be contradictory. But it's not true of any bodhisattva i.e. Maybe that's our own position, I don't know. Sounds like that, right?

Or maybe it sees her as dying but even thinks that is not coming from its own side, right? That's been Michael's position all along. Anyway.

One, two, three. Tenna gangi mikyu tu kyupe senchen denpa nanya denpa matupa gyuma tabur nangwe kyape This is a problem. You'll see.

Thank you. Yeah, what did you say? Are we still talking last three bodhisattvas?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I think he switched subjects on us.

[Speaker 1]
He switched horses halfway to the stream. It's kind of a nasty thing to do. Now he's talking about great compassion which...

Where were we? Great compassion which has no focus. I think he switched the the chenchen to great compassion which has no focus.

And he didn't... I think he switched out of the three highest bodhisattvas. I think, but you have to cook it.

Rinpoche wouldn't even help us that far and say, oh, you're cooking. You have to think about it. We'll see.

Maybe more information will come later. Somebody's got to check. That'd be really, really stretching it.

[Speaker 2]
But despite... You could say that. Despite the fact that we could have heard this word.

[Speaker 1]
This compassion has to take a lot of meaning.

[Speaker 2]
Even if they... Even if they did hear it last time.

[Speaker 1]
I agree that it would be more debo. It'd feel better if it said that. But it would have a little bit syntactical differences.

Wording... What are the words of the Buddha? RANG GI MI RGYUD DU RGYUR TE SEM CHENG DENG PAR NANG NANG PAR SIG KYANG or something like that, you see?

Even if it were to happen or something. Or it would start out with KYALA which is a really weird word to say in the event. In the unlikely event.

Or there's another TA PA TA SUM GYI RIG PA It would say TA PA TA SUM GYI RIG PA In the impossible case that... You know, there'd be something else to qualify it.

[Speaker 2]
Is it ever not true that one of the bodhisattvas on the last three rounds is not like the magician?

[Speaker 1]
No, he's always like the musician.

[Speaker 2]
So things do appear to him but he doesn't believe it. So it doesn't contradict that paragraph's translation.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. You gotta think about it. Think about it.

I know.

[Speaker 2]
And that's the question. Think about it. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's a good debate question. Okay. This is a good question.

One, two, three. KA CHI SEM CHEN TZAM LA MIG PAY NING JE TE RANG GI MIG YUL TU GYUR PAY SEM CHEN TA CHI RANG WANG CHEN DU MIG PA YIN NO SER NA Hmm... How you wanna...

There's three qualities here. TAK, say TAK. TAK.

[Speaker 2]
CHI.

[Speaker 1]
RANG WANG CHEN TAK. TAK. CHI.

RANG WANG CHEN TAK means unchanging. RANG WANG CHEN means in control. Independent.

There's a driver who can decide that I'm not gonna cut my finger off tonight. You know? Or like that.

But the middle one is hard. CHI. I mean, it means one whole little thing.

One discreet little thing. Huh? That's what the third one is more, you see?

It means one whole little thing. Self-contained is pretty good. Solitary.

[Speaker 2]
Discreet.

[Speaker 1]
Discreet. I like discreet. As opposed to what, right?

What's CHI mean here? It's supposed to be a really stupid way to look at somebody. Yeah, I guess.

I mean, it's supposed to be a really wrong way to look at somebody. Anyway, that's a different thing. It's like one little thing.

But what does that mean? Why is that wrong?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I like discreet. Let's hang on. Independent.

Isn't that true, though? Because it's not making these distinctions. Quit giving all the right answers.

It's boring. Yeah. That's true, right?

It's not necessarily that it's thinking she's not good. It's just not thinking about it. Okay, got it?

Like, it doesn't characterize her.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. As a living being.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you can say that. But it doesn't characterize her any further necessarily. Like, it doesn't necessarily have any stupid ideas about her.

It's just not thinking about it. That's our wrong look. Let's see if it holds up in the next few paragraphs.

One, two, three. Give me terrifying stuff.

[Speaker 2]
We can go down now. We have to go down now. That wasn't us.

[Speaker 1]
If we go down, it means, Are you telling me that's incorrect? If we go down, it means, Are you telling me that's incorrect? If we go up, it means, It isn't.

That's totally incorrect. Where are we going? Oh, okay.

One, two, three. That's not right.

[Speaker 2]
Huh?

[Speaker 1]
Split reason. Split reason, okay? There's the next reason.

They call it split reason. How do you respond to split reason? You can attack either piece, okay?

You can attack it as both pieces together. Like that. It's a whole other art.

Attacking a split reason is difficult. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
The me?

[Speaker 1]
Right, right. Yeah, if the me were gone, we would go down. Are you telling me that's correct?

Yeah, that's a good point. All right. Isn't that incorrect?

Now, he's gonna say, isn't it the case that even a person, isn't it the case that the compassion which is just focused on the person can grow even in the heart of a person who, lo ka ma chokpa, about mitakpa and dhagme, keep doing, okay? Lo ka ma chokpa, about mitakpa and dhagme keep doing. So let's work with mitakpa and dhagme keep doing first.

What's mitakpa? Changing. Like instantaneous changing.

Subtle information, okay? And, dhagme pe dun means what? Dun.

The meaning of emptiness. I mean you can say roughly, the meaning of emptiness. The meaning of saying that things have no quality of their own.

Okay? So, lo ka ma chokpa. Lo, this is cool.

This is an ancient, this is a 16th century verb, okay? You don't see it much after that. We're thinking to put the database into centuries.

And then you could trace when words began and when they died out. You see? With gopher for windows, that works fast.

Okay. Say, lo is what? Mind.

Ka? Face or mouth? Face or mouth, right?

Same in Sanskrit. Just ka. And nam ka means what?

[Speaker 2]
Space.

[Speaker 1]
Any open aperture. Okay? Alright.

So, the face of the mind. This verb, this chok is a verb. What's chok usually mean?

A direction, like north, south, east, west. But this one is a verb meaning to point or to direct the mind. To direct the nose of the mind.

To direct the face of the mind. To direct your snout. Mukha.

Mukha. Right? Towards mitakpa and and dakmekita.

Ma chokpa. Even a person who's never given it any thought. About, oh, is the lady behind the counter dying right now?

As she scoops my ice cream. Is she like closer to her death between the sherbert and the mint chocolate chip? Right?

They didn't even think about it. You see? Even that kind of person can what?

Have compassion which focuses only on the person. Okay? Got it?

Okay. So they didn't they didn't think about whether she was changing or not and decide what?

[Speaker 2]
She wasn't.

[Speaker 1]
Go back to that. Yeah. Go back to the last.

What's the guy trying to prove, right? He's trying to prove that someone who has the first and lousiest kind of compassion believes that she's not changing. Right?

And we said, no! People who never thought about whether she's dying when she scoops the ice cream. They can still love her.

Got it? Okay. That's all.

Because, first of all, isn't it the case that the former Great Compassion, Constantinopoulos, who has never given any thought to the questions of things being changing and lacking. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
That's certainly true. Otherwise it would be like saying only Buddhists should have compassion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
One, two, three. I think I needed more chocolate. Is that true?

Can the lousiest kind of compassion also arise in the heart of a person who has already had the experience of perceiving either the shared type of a lack of a nature to things, or such and such. First of all, what's a shared... Shared between whom and whom?

Yeah. Yeah. Dogme charak sum.

Say dogme.

[Speaker 2]
Dogme.

[Speaker 1]
Charak. Charak. Sum.

Three degrees of dogme. The three degrees of dogme. But who accepts this idea of three degrees of dogme?

In the lower mind you mean. What school are we in right now?

[Speaker 2]
Higher.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. So we're saying a lower Majamika can't have compassion?

[Speaker 1]
No. Well, I just think it's sort of weird for him to even accept to call those so-called lower forms of emptiness, give them the name emptiness. I don't think it...

It's kind of weird for him to even do that. Those shared kinds of emptiness, he's saying. But in the highest school they're not even forms of emptiness.

Either you're emptiness or you're not. You can't be like halfway emptiness or pretty good emptiness. Let's see if anyone else has used this expression.

It's a positive thing. It's a negative thing. Okay.

Hang on. Let's go see if anyone else ever used this weird term. Okay?

Just for fun. Everybody got the question? sung jin je ta de gi tong sung jin je ta de gi tong is one lower form of emptiness according to the lower Majamika school.

What's it mean? The subject and object are devoid of any separate karmic seed. You know, like one karma has created Eric for me to see and Michael to see Eric.

And the fact that they don't exist in the other way is a kind of emptiness. According to the lower middle way school is a degree of emptiness. We'd say that's not ultimate emptiness.

That's not emptiness. No. We wouldn't.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But let's see if anyone else has used the word dhagme tumoho. And let's see if anyone has explained what it means. I'll give you a choice.

We can look in the kangyur, the tengyur, or the sumo. Yeah. And this is...

I mean, those of you working on like scanning text or ACIP work or anything like that. When you're doing real work like you're struggling to prepare a class on the tantric vows or something like that and you hit a question in the translation, 99% of the time you go to the sumbo. Because the Tibetans were just really damn good at what they did.

They were unbelievably good. And frankly better than the Indians. You know.

Like they refined Buddhism. Like they didn't just take Buddhism and ride on it. They refined it.

And they took all the questions and they made it more and more clear. So as opposed to many religious traditions, Tibetan Buddhism gets more clear the longer it goes on. You know.

Like people like Jetsun Kappa just thrash... He thrashes out those tantric vows like nobody. You know.

He straightens it out in a way that no Indian ever did it. You know. And it just gets better after that.

You know. So... So we...

So when you're deciding what do we input for the ACIP, right? Frankly we don't... We don't work so hard on the Kangyur.

You know. There's 50 books in the Kangyur input out of a thousand. You know.

Because... You know they're good but they're... If you really want to grasp it you go to a Tibetan.

You know. You go to a 14th, 15th century Tibetan. You know.

And... That's just the way it is. They're just so...

They're much clearer. They're much more precise. Okay.

So anyway. I'm going to go to a Sim. Any part of Sim?

Yeah. Books about Madhyamaka. Books about Madhyamaka.

But aren't we going to hit lower Madhyamaka school? It would be what?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Beautiful answer. Did you hear? Yeah.

He said no. That would be Perfection of Wisdom. Okay.

Don't forget that in the monastery and in later Tibetan Buddhism Perfection of Wisdom refers to the teachings of the lower Middle Way school. Although Perfection of Wisdom as the sutras is the source of all schools. Period.

Okay. So you have to distinguish between Perfection of Wisdom as the original sutras, the mother's, the mother's sutras, and Perfection of Wisdom in the monastery which means the study of the lower school of Madhyamaka. Okay.

Good answer. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
You guys are no fun.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
It always made me wonder is Abhisamaya Mukhara...

[Speaker 1]
Don't go there. Sorry? Is it what?

[Speaker 2]
Is it not mine only text?

[Speaker 1]
That's a long story. Some of the five books of Maitreya are considered mine only and some are considered Madhyamaka. Which are which is another...

But which Madhyamaka depends on which century and... Okay. Somebody mentioned Gangsakirtagme Tumara in...

Look at the top, the line at the top. Right there. Gomarapsa.

Jatakapa used this expression but he didn't explain it. I mean... Yeah, okay, never mind.

Gangsakirtagme Tumara. This doesn't help either. Okay.

This is a... This is good. This is an explanation, okay?

The highest form of worldview is the worldview of the middle way and the greater way. The greater way. Okay?

Got it? Mahayana. The medium level way or jnana has the medium level worldview which is that of the symptom.

Mind only. And the tek chung, the lowest... Hinayana?

The lowest way is the way that has... Tavatama means the lowest worldview which is Gangsakirtagme Tumawetava. A sort of shared view about what it means not to have a self-mentioning to a person.

Okay? So... So he's accepting the concept although if you pushed him on it, if you said, is that emptiness?

He'd say, no, no. Okay? So he's letting them use the word but he's not...

He wouldn't accept that that's a real kind of emptiness. Okay? Now, why does this last thing he said have any relevance to what we're talking about?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's nice. Yeah. Okay?

I like that. Everybody's tired, but let's go a little bit. I'll just read this one to you and then we'll stop because we're out of time.

That how? Okay? Which means, suppose there's a person that someone else hasn't disproved to the idea, the object, the tendency to hold things as unchanging, as a vase.

There's a guy who's holding that a vase as unchanging, right? There's a tendency to hold this as as not going in and out of existence moment by moment. There's a tendency to think of it that way.

Okay? Now, suppose you're somebody that someone else has not come up to and disproved that. No one ever came up to you and said, Look, look, no.

This is now one hour closer to breaking than it was when we started class. You know? Look, that's important.

You're also one hour closer to breaking. You know? Suppose it's the kind of person that's never had anyone come up and say that to them.

Okay? It's not a khyabha that they've been concentrating on how much this is unchanging. Okay?

It's not a khyabha. It's not necessarily the case that they've been thinking, Oh, this is unchanging. This is totally unchanging.

Okay? Right? What's the pungsambha?

What's the other possibility? They just didn't think about it. It's a cup, man.

It's just a cup. I'm going to drink some tea before I drink a cup. I didn't think about it.

It's nature's unexamined. Yeah, this is going to break. It's not going to break.

I don't care. I'm just drinking tea. Okay?

He says, this is Mike Young, It's not the case that they have a wrong idea about the cup. Just if no one ever came up to you just through a potential wrong idea about the cup. Or their tendency, their habitual wrong idea about the cup.

[Speaker 2]
Isn't it inherent in how they're... Yeah, almost.

[Speaker 1]
I'd say almost. Yeah, it's almost assumed, right? When they mention that.

It's almost assumed. But I said almost. Okay.

By the way, one last thing. There's a verb here. Say this, sun, ma, chungwe.

sun, ma, chungwe. You didn't sun chungwe. You didn't sun chungwe it.

That's an extremely rare past tense of sun jimba. And where do you know that word? sun jimbe to.

Yeah. The power of ripping out, the power of a bad karma. Which is really, refers to gilpa, which is what?

Regret. Regret, yeah. So, right?

So, here you see it as a very ancient verb. Which they have, but that person hasn't had any wrong idea ripped out of them yet. That it's unchanged.

They just didn't think of it. Okay? So, you see, in logic, sun jimba means to rip a wrong idea out of your opponent's heart.

Okay? We'll stop there. Thanks for sticking in there.

This is hard. And again, we're doing it because it's the best book on emptiness. And if we don't do it, no one else is going to do it.

Hang in there. You don't understand everything. And that means it's a great book, actually.

It's a book that you have to go back to over and over again in your life. You have to read it once in 2006. You have to go back in 2007.

You know, these kind of books you knock your head against. What do you call it?

[Speaker 2]
You...

[Speaker 1]
You tackle them. You try to tackle them over and over during your life. And then, like, maybe on the fifth attempt, you get it.

And you're like, wow. And then you feel some sense of accomplishment. So don't think that a book...

that every book has to be understood on the first reading. And also don't think that if you can't understand it on the first reading, that it's not written properly or something. There's a pung sumba.

There's a third possibility. That just some intense, beautiful, holy mind has written some book and we just can't... at our level, we just can't grasp it on the first reading.

It seems like gibberish on the first reading. I read this scholar from Colombia who died, OK? Not anyone alive.

And they said, Gyatsabje is just gibberish. You know? It's just gibberish.

Especially that book about Tsema. It's just ridiculous. It just goes on with all this crap.

And he just didn't... he couldn't... he was so far off on the wavelength he just couldn't see that it's like the most brilliant book ever written about Pramana.

So stick with it, OK? And then one day you'll be glad. One day you'll say, oh, thank you.

Right now you're like, oh, man. No, but it's a... it's a sign that it's a great book.

I'm telling you that it's a sign that it's a great book. That you have to... you just have to keep cracking your head against it and then finally you're like, oh!

You know, OK? All right, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Sat Sri Akal.

[Speaker 1]
OK, thanks.