Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 40

[Speaker 1]
OK, let's start. First, I'd like to welcome, we have a special guest, without whom the ACIP database wouldn't exist. And he has selflessly helped for 15 years, I think, and put in his own money and been broke all that time.

And so I'd like to welcome Robert Chilton. OK, because these are the guys that use it a lot. We just had somebody came up and said, the type of compassion which is focused only on a living being perceives the living beings which provide its object of focus as being unchanging, discrete, and independent.

So, somebody comes up and says the lowest kind of compassion, that when you go to 31 Flavors and you're focused on the lady behind the counter, you're not thinking that she's dying as she scoops the ice cream, and you're not thinking that she's not your projection. You're just not thinking about anything except that you wouldn't like her to get hurt. Like, I hope she doesn't pinch her hand in the scooping thing, you know?

And, samchen tsam lam mikpay nim je, it's only focused on her and it's not distinguishing anything about her, right? It's not distinguishing her in any way, got it? Now, somebody says, no, that's...

the type of compassion which is just focused on a living being is distinguishing her in the wrong way. It's actively thinking about her in the wrong way, as opposed to just not thinking about her in any special way. So, tak chik rang wang chen, as being unchanging, a discreet little hole, and independent, like she runs the show.

If she decides to not give me rainbow sherbet, I won't get rainbow sherbet, right? Okay. Can we say, mitabha...

Mitabha? Oh. What did you just say?

We said, but isn't that incorrect?

[Speaker 2]
Demi-devata?

[Speaker 1]
Demi-devata. Yeah, demi-devata, isn't that incorrect? Because, first of all, isn't it the case that the form of great compassion which focuses simply on the living being can arise even in the heart of a person who has never given any thought to the question, questions of things being changing and lacking any nature to them, okay?

Like, he never thought about it. Somebody who never thought about it can still come to stop and shop. We always give this example because there's nothing else around here.

And think, you know, they just don't think of whether she's changing or, you know, empty, or they don't think about it, but they can still like her, they can still hope she doesn't get hurt, right? Second of all, the great compassion which focuses only on the living being can also arise in the heart of a person who has already undergone the experience of perceiving either the shared type of a lack of nature to things, or suchness itself. Okay.

Kiritimadagi is going to keep going on this. I'm going to cut it up into small pieces to make it more digestible. You ready?

Let's start. One, two, three. Then...

We're trying to convince him of something. We're trying to convince him of what? You know that people don't have to be thinking the wrong way when they're not thinking about anything, right?

So, we're going... Ah, okay. You just get it reversed all the time.

It's that whiny one. It is too, it is too correct. It is too.

[Speaker 2]
That's how.

[Speaker 1]
Sound like this. That's how. One, two, three.

[Speaker 2]
That's how.

[Speaker 1]
That's how. It must be that thing, right? It installs this whiny thing every time you start the computer.

Anyway, okay. Okay. Alright.

Is it 14 or 16? This is complicated, but anyway. Is that okay?

It's a weird sentence, but that's how you say it. I don't know which, which the tendency, which the tendency, or which person thinks it's... onto which the tendency...

Maybe we just want to break this sentence up. It's too much, right? It's too complicated, right?

Let's try to break it up. I mean, I broke it up already, but...

[Speaker 2]
Do you guys want me to say a person with this tendency, so we don't...

[Speaker 1]
Hang on. Is that better? How's that?

That's better. So, consider the tendency to hold a vase as being an unchanging thing. There's a certain object which this tendency thinks is there when it holds the vase as being unchanging.

And let's say that there is a person who still hasn't heard a convincing argument about why this object doesn't even exist. Alright? We didn't catch the for example.

[Speaker 2]
...still hasn't heard a convincing argument about why this object doesn't even exist.

[Speaker 1]
Actually, the example is much longer. So, I think I'll just say it at the beginning and let it float, distribute down. But let's go and see what it says.

One, two, three. BUM PA MIG PA NYOG RE GYI THAG PA'I KHYER PA DU CHE ME NYOG PA'I KYANG MA KHYAP BUM PA MI THAG PA NYOG NYONG WA'I KHANG SA Stop there, because I didn't cut this yet. Let's stop here.

Okay? They just didn't... Right?

Nobody came up to you and proved to you why this cup is being destroyed as we speak. Like, no one ever came up to you and gave you a convincing argument why this cup, in the time that we're here, will be an hour closer to its destruction. Right?

Nobody came up to you and made a big deal about that. Nobody came up to you and tried to destroy your habit of thinking that this cup is going to be around for a while. Do you have this habit?

Yeah, otherwise you wouldn't get angry or disappointed if your friend broke it, you know, when they handed it. You know, he handed it to them, they dropped it. Then you just...

if you had been... if someone had taken a lot of time to prove to you how it was like destroyed the day it was made, then you wouldn't be... you wouldn't be disappointed by things.

When you lost them, or they died, or when relationship ended, you wouldn't be, like, all freaked out, because you would have already been trained, right? So it's not the case. But even though that's the case, that no one proved to you that it's falling apart as we speak, it's not the case that you were necessarily, every time you saw it, you were holding the opposite.

It's not the case that you're automatically thinking, it's got to last forever, it's got to last forever. Because sometimes you're just not thinking about whether it's going to last or not. You're just drinking without thinking.

Okay? All right. But it's also not true...

here we go. Can you guess what's coming if I say it's also not true?

[Speaker 2]
It's also not true that they characterize it as being changing.

[Speaker 1]
Close. Let's go. One, two, three.

Okay? I've got to steal the language from up here. Okay.

Got it? So, it's not the case that someone who never thought about it, right, is necessarily going to, you know, every time they look at the cup, think, oh, it's going to last forever. It may have a sense, right?

We have to talk about that. But the opposite is not true either. A person could have perceived its subtle impermanence in the past, you know.

But then it's not true that every time they drink out of a cup, they're thinking, oh, this thing is falling apart in my very hands, you know. Okay? Then just to catch the double image here, we say, the case here is just the same.

What case? The person who has the compassionate only purpose in the living being is actively thinking that they're unchanging.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
All right. This is going to be a good one. Okay.

One, two, three. Kha, ching, rang, ki, mi, yu, tu, kyo, pe, Rang, shing, me, pe, kya, pa, yu, che, pe, Sem, shen, la, mik, pe, nin, je, yin, la, mik, me, ki, nin, je, yin, pe, kya, pa, dang. Almost.

Yeah, okay. Okay. We need a verb, okay?

Let's go down and look for the verb. Right there. See it?

Serenade. So we're going to supply it up here. Good luck hypertexters.

Okay. Chew on that. Yeah.

You're on... You're no fun. You take no fun out of it.

This could be like five minutes of them struggling, you know. You're supposed to tell me what. You're supposed to say what.

Then... You're supposed to say, sounds right. Nespa?

I mean, no? No? Doesn't it sound right?

It would have to be a sense. It would have to be a sense. A sense of the lack of a self-nature of the object of focus.

I mean, for it to be right, you know. Because you're perceiving the living being with a sense of the intimate world. Yeah, let me see.

Yeah, well... Mikpa chönnam tam jay te is when the Abhisamaya Alankara describes the path of seeing. Bhajjimehlam.

Mikpa chönnam tam jay te. That's the point at which the Abhisamaya Alankara describes the path of seeing. It's mikpa.

It is mikpa towards every existing object. You see? So, it doesn't see kundal tenpa, the direct perception of emptiness.

Does it see deceptive reality? No, but the book says so, because that's its mikyo. It's mikpa towards all existing things.

So it's focused on all existing things, and it's seeing them as empty. You see? So, I don't buy it.

He didn't say tog. He didn't say ratogs. He fudged it.

He went halfway between ratogs and nambarsama. Got it? He went halfway between perceives and has a sense.

What did he say? He said, focus them. Now, let's see if there's a problem.

Let's see if that's the problem. I tend to use there nowadays to cover male and female. It sounds a little impersonal to me.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
If you see a person as lacking in nature of their own, then you necessarily can't see them as having the nature of being changing or self-standing.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's true, and I think you and Alistair have a valid point. But it's not where he's going. Is there anything else wrong with this sentence?

It's what Thich Nhat Hanh said, but let's do the... Let's do the... Is it what you said?

Well, let's let him do his own punchline. One, two, three. rang gi mik yul tu gyur pe mi dak pa sok gi kye bar du kye pe sem chen la mik pe nying je yin na chö la mik pe nying je yin pe kyak ser na Okay.

We can just cut the last one. Yeah, we'll add N. Which is characterized by what?

By being a changing thing. Right? Or by being something changing?

Which is changing? Is changing thing okay? Okay.

Must be the compassion, which is focused on things. That's all. That's the only difference.

I'm going to do one change here, which I do sometimes. Do you see we have three witches? The first one refers to the compassion, and the second two refer to the living being.

So I'm going to change the first one to that, which makes the other two hang together more with the living being. Okay? And it will never be confused as modifying the compassion.

Then I have to go up and do it on the other one. Now, I'll let him do his punchline, okay? He's good at it.

There's a Tao. I'm going to give you a few minutes, a few seconds. Think about whether you're going up or down.

Okay? One, two, three.

[Speaker 2]
DE NI DE PA TAO Good.

[Speaker 1]
Because it's in the middle of my argument. It's in the middle of my argument. So I must be saying, It is so, because NING RJE CHEN PO YIN NA RANG SHIN MEI PA DANG MI THAG PA SOG GYI KHYE PAR DU CHE PAS RANG GI MIK YUL DU GYUR PAS SEM CHEN LA MIG PAS NING RJE CHEN PO YIN GUR PAS Okay?

Well, okay. I'll say his argument. Ready?

I'll say his argument. I'm the khaji. So what's the first rule of all debates?

About what I say. I say something totally ridiculous. Ready?

Every form of great compassion, meaning all three forms of great compassion, are focused on a living being, right? That provides its object of focus, who is already characterized by being unchanging, not having any nature of their own, and everything else. Huh?

Huh? Changing. Did I say unchanging?

Oh, I'm sorry. Changing. Let's say it again.

Every form of great compassion is focused on a living being who is characterized by being changing and not having any nature of their own and everything else. Yeah, that's true. Got it?

Did I characterize it as changing? Or was it characterized by being changing? Got it?

Now you saw a punchline. Did you get a punchline? Did I characterize the object as being changing?

No. But is it characterized by being changing? Yeah.

I mean, it always will be. Right? It's changing.

It's a changing thing. So it's characterized by being changing. See, he just moved the phrase characterized by being changing.

He moved it off the state of mind, and he moved it onto the object. Those objects, the lady behind the counter at 31 Flavors will always be characterized by being changing. Right?

Oh. Shukumatarata. So she'll never achieve the Dharma body.

Dharma body. Huh? So she will achieve the Dharma body.

So at that time, she'll be characterized by being changing. Yeah. Yes.

I said she'll always be characterized by being changing, and you guys automatically agree without even hesitating. That's very dangerous. Okay, anyway.

Okay, anyway. But in the meantime, is she characterized as being changing? Yeah.

That's one of her qualities. Okay, got it? Did I characterize her as being changing?

No. Not if I have the lowest kind of compassion. Got it?

Comfortable?

[Speaker 2]
Alright. So it just implies that someone somewhere managed to characterize them that way, because it's true?

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
It just means that someone somewhere did manage to characterize them that way, because it's true? No, from her own side she's that way.

[Speaker 1]
You're trying to set me up. Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I really hesitate to raise my hand, but I feel like...

[Speaker 1]
He's just playing with the very difficult word he's characterized by.

[Speaker 2]
Right, but is the way that you... I mean, I'm sure you have, but is the way that the English used in the first one where the compassion was focused on a living being, and the compassion was characterized by the human nature of itself first?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, the very, very first one, way back when? Now it turns out to be okay, I think. Okay.

You see, I told you we might have to go back and change it, right? But right now it says that the compassion is characterized, and not the object is characterized, which is closer to what is happening now. We might want to go back and change it at some point to how they see.

See, that's okay. I said characterized by thinking it was changing. You see what I mean?

Not characterized itself by being changing. I think that's... I hope.

Okay. Let's see. Let's go on.

But it's a good point. He's gonna, you know, he's got the guy on the ground, he's kicking him. One, two...

You're ready, right? Are you ready? One, two, three.

Vṛttāṃ nīnje jambu mī yūtu gyurpe saṃchen yīn nā nīdhākpa dhāng rāṃśe mēpe khevārdu kyepe saṃchen yīn gṛhāyati That's it. I'm seeing if I can just cut it out and paste it down here. Oh, no.

I don't think I can do this. Gyepsh. Okay.

Got it? And that must be the case because if something is a living being which provides the object of focus for any form of great compassion, right? Do you want to add that?

It might be. Then it must be, right? A little easier.

Then it must be a living being who is characterized by being a change in the Vṛttāṃ nīnje jambu. I think so. He's just rubbing it in, okay?

Nā. It's a rib of chains. Like, nā.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. You have a lot of them.

Okay. Just nā. Yeah, oh yeah, yeah.

Okay. Alright? I mean, somebody's...

If the thing has a head and two hands and two feet, it has to be characterized by being changing and by not having a nature of its own. Okay? Alright.

I hope he goes on to something else. Let's see. Okay.

This is like impossible to translate into English. Let's try. One, two, three.

nīnje sumbo te mikpe gōne jokpe dunyam yude mikpa jōsuki gōne jokpe All the three types of great compassion are established according to whom they focus on. Are they distinguished from each other by whom they focus on? No.

Are they distinguished or established by the way in which they feel about that person? No. They all love them, they all want them to be freed from pain.

Are they established by the sense that they have as they're wishing that that person not have any pain?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Who said no? Okay. Got it?

Got it? Just nod. Okay.

I'll say it again. Are these three types of compassion distinguished from each other by focusing on different things, on different objects? No.

Are they distinguished from each other by having a different feeling about that person? No. No.

Are they distinguished by some kind of characterization they have made, of which now they have a sense that distinguishes those objects from each other? Yeah. Okay.

Alright? Okay. Nod.

Okay. Established gōne, through their gōne, what? Are we saying mikpa?

Say, mikpa? Or are we saying mikpa? One more time.

Mikpa? Or mikpa? Because the spellings are the same.

Okay? I'll tell you what the choices are. Mikpa means object of focus.

If I'm looking at Ian, he's my mikpa. Okay? When you say mikpa, it's focusing.

You know? That state of mind is mikpa to that living being. So, as a translator who can't hear this word because it's written, it's like tell, you see?

You don't know that it go up or down. You have to figure it out from the context. So help me out.

Do you think these three kinds of compassion are established, in other words, differentiated from each other through their object of focus or through how they focus? Okay. I'm going to say establishing their focus to maintain some ambiguity.

Because he wanted to. Okay? All right?

We'll get there. Because then he says focus shouldn't shift it. Okay?

So anyway, here we go. Okay? The point is that they're established but very much their focus is established.

Meaning their object of focus? It could bleed over to that. It could bleed over to that.

You see? So, we'll just let it bleed. You know?

Let's leave it like that. Okay? Got it?

He's going a little further. Let's see if he helps. One, two, three.

Te... He's going from mikpa. I like it, but we might be wrong.

Okay? So, here we go. One, two, three.

But then what does it mean? When we say that they're established by the way in which their focus is established. Got it?

Okay? Literally what he says is but there is a meaning of what it means, of what that means. You know, that does mean, that does have a certain meaning in itself.

What? That they're established by the way in which they establish their focus. Okay?

So, he's going to help us. He's like offering to help us with what's that mean. And again, this is the most difficult, one of the most difficult kinds of Tibetan you'll ever face.

At all. You know? Like we're used to Jetsun Kappa.

We'd spend all day with Jetsun Kappa. We were struggling through a medical commentary last night. It was...

It just wasn't up to Jetsun Kappa's standards. You know, it said... And, you know, were you in the medical class and they were talking about a bird and its shadow?

So, here's the commentary. Are you ready? You want to do it?

Okay. Oh, oh. The commentary on a bird?

Yeah. No, it's like... They got into a huge debate.

It was a really important point. The bird is a feathered thing. He's like, here's the commentary.

The bird, which is a feathered thing, that's the commentary. No, no, no. No.

It was flying through the sky and cast a shadow. But of course... It was daytime.

It was daytime. No, we're just not used to that. Like, we were pulling our leftover hair out.

[Speaker 2]
And...

[Speaker 1]
You know, like, say something already. Do a commentary already. Pick some difficult point.

[Speaker 2]
We're just spoiled, you know.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. Well, when we say established here, what we mean is distinguished from each other. The kinds of compassion.

Because there are three types of compassion. How are they different? And it's in the difference that we increase our own compassion.

It's in learning the difference that we increase our own compassion. And it's just this cool thing, where, I don't know about you, but now when I go to 31 Flavors, it's just like this mystical experience. It's like...

And it was a different lady the other day. We were like, okay, we got to keep in mind, she's still... Do you love her?

Yes. But now you have a... But now understanding that there are three kinds of compassion.

Like, the whole book is in the first opening lines. That's why we've been on it for a year and a half. You know?

The whole book is right there. You know? While she's serving the ice cream, don't just love her.

Love her in the way you love someone who's dying on their deathbed. You know? Because she is.

You know? Like, treat her with the same sense of warmness that you would a person in a hospital who's dying. Because she is.

You know? And then, go up to the third level of compassion. The highest compassion.

See that she is your projection. She is... The fact that she's mortal is the result of every tiny violence you've ever done to anybody.

The fact that she's mortal at this moment is the result of every tiny violence in speech, or look, or thought that we have ever done to the people around us today. You know? You could save her life.

She's coming from you. She could be a tantric angel. You see?

It's like, get it, you know? That's why he's like... That's why he's trying to get us to grasp the difference between these three levels of compassion.

That's why he's beating it up. That's why he didn't go on... You're like, why doesn't he go on to the second line already?

It's been a year and a half. You know? Okay?

It's like he wants you to get it, you know? Because we still don't have it, you know? I go into the 31 flavors and all I'm thinking about is, will Christie let me have the fatty one?

You know? And I just... I just...

What do you call it? I forget to think about her in that way. You see what I mean?

Okay. All right. Maybe Wednesday.

When you see that van go... Did we read this? Did we say...

Did he say three? Oh. Yeah.

Okay? That part's okay. Does it prove the last part?

I mean, if you're lazy you can just go on, right? If you're gonna be really honest with yourself you have to make sure you understand how it proves the last part. What was the last part?

They are established through their focus. And he said, what that means is, now he's kind of saying that focus refers to what? What's the only word focus that came in this last sentence?

Where's the only word focus in this sentence? Object of focus. Object of focus.

If he's explaining what mikpa means, the only mikpa he's mentioned in his final statement is object of focus. Which means we should have said mikpa and not mikpa. Maybe.

But I'm still going with focus. Okay. Because it's ambiguous.

All right? Sometimes you just leave in the built-in ambiguity and let your disciples struggle with it. Okay.

Let's go on to something more clear. By the way, he's finally going on to another part of the text which is the image of the lake and the moon. Which is the image of the lake and the moon.

So in the original text of the... Entering the Middle Way by Master Chandrakirti. Good.

Everybody's mastering this week, right? Okay. Let's read it together.

One, two, three. mikme kyi ninje dang chö la mikpe ninje nyi kyi rangshin me pa dang mi pa pa so kyi kye par gyur che ne sen jin la mikpe tsu yul te Well, since you got past that part, you should have a reward. Let's see here.

These are Indian sweets. Oh, no. This side of the room gets Indian sweets, okay?

Sukha. Sukha. The middle gets...

Can you catch? German almonds. This side gets chocolate-covered macadamia nuts.

That's Chilton's over there, okay? There's a couple left over here. I get them hyped up on sugar the last half hour or so.

Then they crash during her class. Thank you. Are you okay with that?

Sorry? I'm sorry. You're great.

Okay? You all right? Not.

You're good?

[Speaker 2]
I don't feel guilty.

[Speaker 1]
Are you okay with that? Okay. Say Churakambo.

Say Churakambo. Churakambo. Usually a Churakambo accent.

Churakambo is like dried cheese in Tibet. And they chew on it for like three hours and then they can't talk for three hours. Okay.

Again. Okay. One, two, three.

[Speaker 2]
Perna.

[Speaker 1]
Chudangshi. Chima. Nebe.

Nandu. Dawe. Su.

Nyen. Sha. Lung.

Ki. La. Na.

Just to draw your attention to the fourth word here, Tang. Tangwa. Or Tangba.

The V is what we call an Asu. It's that little triangle hanging off the bottom of a letter. And it's used for like orthographic purposes.

It distinguishes two words that would otherwise be homonyms, like two. How do you spell two? You see, it could be T-O-O, it could be T-O, it could be T-W-O.

So they put this little mark at the bottom, this little triangle on the letter, and it distinguishes it from another word. So in the ACIP transliteration it's V. Why V?

Do you pronounce it? Do you say Devong? No, it's just that that was available.

It doesn't change the pronunciation, unfortunately. Right? It's just Tang.

How do you spell Tang? V-A-N-G.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And it's much more common, right? Like by about a billion percent. So here we use a V.

Devong. Devong. I think in some parts of Tibet they still say Devong.

They might say Devong. Okay, anyway. Give me a word, Lauren, Timameba.

No stink, but it has to be a nice word. It means no stink. The water is like no stink.

No bad smell. But I need a nice word. I need a literary word.

It's not fragrant, it just doesn't smell.

[Speaker 2]
Pristine.

[Speaker 1]
Pure. Pure? Pure, crystal clear, pure water.

Is pure okay? I think pure is more what the feeling, you know, the feeling is pure. Think for example of the reflection of the moon.

You pour crystal clear, pure water. Okay? Then the wind rises and causes ripples in the water.

Okay? What's going to happen to the reflection?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, you can.

[Speaker 1]
Be like my book or something. Okay. Okay, let's read together.

One, two, three. ten shu dang, ten pa, dao rei su nian ni, ke qi jin ji fa, tong wa de shin du. This is an important concept for you to learn.

Okay? If you're going to translate, you should know this concept. Okay?

Say ten. Ten pa. Ten dang ten pa.

Ten dang ten pa. How do you spell ten? There's two spellings here.

See in the first four letters, in the first four words here? One is re ten, one is bre ten. Okay?

So here's the difference. Ten without the bao means the thing which is supporting something else. The foundation sometimes or the support.

And then bre ten means the thing which is supported upon it. So if you lay a cup on a... If you set a cup down on a table, is the table the ten or the ten pa?

The ten. It's the ten. And the cup is the ten pa.

Okay? Which means the supporter and the supporting. Okay?

Like that. Okay? So, what's the ten here in this example?

The water. What's the ten pa? The reflection of the moon.

The reflection of the moon. Okay? So, what does ke, chi, kin, jigpa mean?

[Speaker 2]
It's destroyed moment by moment.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, are being destroyed moment by moment. Okay? Literally it says by one moment, but what it means is, you know, you don't see this thing flickering in and out of existence, which it really is.

It really is flickering in and out of existence. Right? But when you're looking at the reflection of the moon on some water, then it's easy to get this sense of things flickering in and out of existence.

That's the point. Maybe we should put it that way, but that's the whole thing, right? But he's got this additional thing, like at the end of the Diamond Cutter Sutra, right?

There's that famous verse, Right? Things are like a star. Right?

What's the timara?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, cataract.

[Speaker 1]
Like a lamp. And then there's this debate in Tibet. Is this a verse about impermanence, or is this a verse about emptiness?

You see? And you have the same sort of feeling here. Right?

Because you've got... Where's the illusion here? The impermanence is clear.

When it ripples, it's impermanent.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like somebody, I guess... There's many stories in India of animals that jumped into water thinking that they would land on the moon, like that. They thought that was the real moon.

You see? So there's this sense in the opening lines of Master Chandrakirti's great book, Masterwork, right? There's a sense of a thing which is both an example of impermanence and an example of unreality.

Okay? Where's he going with it? We'll see.

Which one did we want? If we're on the subject of the three kinds of compassion. Yeah, book.

It's a trick question, okay? Yeah, it'd be great to have an example that had both in it. Right?

So somehow we're supposed to have a sense at the 31 flavors of what? Simultaneous senses. Simultaneous senses.

What? She's dying, and I could be helping her. You know?

She's dying, and it could have been different. That's a negative, right? It could have been different.

That's her emptiness. You see? It could have been different.

If I had collected different karmas, if I were more careful keeping my vows, then I wouldn't be seeing a person behind the counter who's dying. So both senses should be there, right? It's appropriate that the moon is in the water and rippling.

That's a perfect example. It's like brilliant. Especially in a country that didn't have, you know, video fast, something else you could use.

It's like anyone could go out and see a water, moon in the water, and then they're going to think about it. Especially in India. There's lots of pools of water around.

You're always looking at the moon in the water. Okay. I don't know.

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

Devo? Devo dve. Devo madhu.

Nga yena devo madhu. What's nga yena mean? Nga yena means, if it were me.

It means, nga yena means, like, seems to me. If you were to ask me, Nga yena? Nga yena devo madhu.

Nga yena devo madhu. For me, this ain't quite comfortable. This ain't quite comfortable.

Why? It's too active to me. You're not having a sense that she's dying, and your projection.

You're, like, thinking it. You know? He just moved out of the having a sense thing.

Now he's more going over to the Sarah Jay side.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
What we were saying is teacher's side, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Nyam. Nyam. Nyam.

Nyam. So, Elsie's doing good. He's trying to separate all these verbs.

So far we got, retokspa, snyampa, nabharsharwa, and demikspa.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Are you focusing, having a sense, perceiving, or feeling? Or thinking, to yourself? You see?

Because, because see, we just have this long, long argument that you can't be, it's sem kyi mu chikpa yinpe'e kya. It's only one mu of the mind. It's only one aspect of the mind.

It can't be entertaining two disparate thoughts at the same time. Are they disparate, are they not, are they not disparate in the time it takes to think this changing living being should be free from all pain? Have I toggled?

Maybe you could debate it that way, I don't know. I mean, in the time it takes to think it, I've toggled, haven't I? Isn't my mikpa different in some way?

I don't know. You could debate it in the debate ground, okay? Good luck.

Do it early in the night, so when Kristi and I get there, it'll be done. I like the tantric debates more. Okay.

This is long, and we have time to do it. Okay. One, two, three.

Chö drub kyi yu tu khyur pey yin ché sung khya yö pa dang The chen gyi rik chen nam hi dham bo chang chu du sem kye de ché tong yi tok pey ta wa tsok wa ché pa dang min ché chen bo de yu ché ni hi ta wa ten pa min gyal te Min gyal. Got it? Why?

Open vowel followed by a pronunciation. Min gyal. If you say min gyal, no Tibet would understand what you're saying in the debate ground.

They'll just look at you. You know, huh? So you gotta say min gyal.

Okay. And min gyal happens to come first because it's the verb. Which is to say?

Yeah. Now it's no contradiction. And I'm going to add three numbers to help the reader.

One, ah, ah, ah, there's a problem here. Chö drub kyi yu tu khyur pey means, yin ché means the three types of compassion which provided the subject matter of the initial offering of praise of this book. I should write that before I forget it.

yu, sum kha yu means what? Sum yu means what?

[Speaker 2]
There are three.

[Speaker 1]
Sum kha yu means what? They're all three. Sum kha means all three.

What's sum pa mean? What's sum po mean? These three, nice.

What's sum kha mean? All three. So that's how they differentiate in Tibetan.

You know, we say all three, or the third, or the three. They say sum pa, third. Sum po, the three.

Sum kha or kha, dham kha. What's dham kha? You can spell it either way.

Kha or kha. It's both ways. All three.

Yu. Yeah. But yu can also mean something else.

Which is what? That would be yin. That's the only thing yu is not.

They have. Yeah, that someone could have. Which one is he saying?

Can you have all three? Do all three exist? I'll ask you two questions.

Do all three exist? Yeah. Can you have all three?

I think at different times, at different times, right? Which one is he talking about here? I'm gonna go with one can have.

And let's see if it helps, okay? Well... Can you have all three compassions?

Ah, can one person have all three compassions?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
That would imply no particular progression at that time, right? Like in their life. Like maybe at three o'clock, they're not thinking about the lady being changing or empty, right?

Four o'clock, they think about her being empty. Five o'clock, they go back to not thinking. That's almost like they can all be going on in the same day.

Am I right or wrong? Okay? Number two.

No. First you always develop compassion. Then you go and work to see emptiness.

No. Compassion is the root of the other two causes. What were the three causes that we worked with in the first place?

Three causes for what? For Bodhisattvas.

[Speaker 2]
I think for a Bodhisattva, wasn't it?

[Speaker 1]
What three causes do they need? Compassion. The mind that transcends duality.

Yeah, nice. He went to debate ground. You see the difference?

Okay. Okay. I still got three minutes.

Crazy. I like this next thing. It's very important for me.

I had a big debate with somebody once about this. And then later I found it, you know. My view was correct.

My view was verified by the text. Why are they not contradictory? And we still may want to change and go back and change the year.

Okay, I'm not sure yet. But let's go for this one. One, two, three.

DANG PO DE PHENG CHEN GYI RIG CHEN ONG DU GYI WANG DU CHEN It's nice we have two wongs. And it's not really wong. Sometimes it sounds like wah, wah, wah.

Wong. Okay, wong. And some people say ong.

And some people say wong. But it's a little bit, it's an ong. Okay.

Okay. I hesitate to say, I always put in the relative thing. Why?

I mean, come on. If you're already on the greater way. What did we say in the Tantra class?

It was like, you're... Well, you're already Vajra brothers and sisters in a way. On one level.

Right? But there was something else. Anyway, you're already brilliant.

If you're on the Mahayana, you're already brilliant. So we're just talking brilliant among brilliant. Or slow among the brilliant.

Okay, got it? So I prefer to translate it as relatively dull. The text says ong du, which means dull powers, dull intellect.

Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Alexander, who's on my right, he uses left sharp.

[Speaker 1]
What did he say? Left sharp. Oh, oh.

Nah. It does say ong du. I mean, what can I say?

Du means like a dull knife. And it's related to duwa. Meaning to tame or to, you know, it got beaten down for dull.

You see what I mean? Like, so... Not to say that all monks and nuns are dull.

But anyway, it was good. I like it. It's just that I want to maintain some reference to the dull.

You know. And please keep sending me in comments. And we'll take one out a hundred comments.

Chilton knows that. I'm gonna... I just want to translate this one sentence, Miss Kristen, okay?

Because it's really sexy. And I really think it's beautiful. And it's something you said in class yesterday.

One, two, three. Te chen gyi ri kye wang nun nang gyi tar pa tun nyer gyi lo la chen min gyi nyong ma tun ma ma tar pa sen me nge gur te Sharper? That's cool, right?

Okay? That's really cool. That's really cool.

And Kristila said something yesterday. You couldn't really believe in Tantra in the sense of believing that you could reach an angel's body if you didn't first understand emptiness. You see what I mean?

So, it's no wonder that emptiness is so stressed as a preliminary for Tantric practice, right? He's saying the same thing here. It's really beautiful.

And then in the next sentence he's gonna say, you know, and to do that you have to see emptiness. So, they want to know logically that liberation is possible, that turning into the angel is possible before they're gonna get the wish to become that to save all beings. You see?

Before they aspire to it, they want to know it's possible. Which means you gotta prove to them that their being could transform. Which is, which to prove that, you have to prove that it's empty.

Which is what he's gonna say next. Okay? So, I already told you what he's gonna say next, right?

Alright? It's really beautiful. It's the point that was coming up during the...

And it's why in the Tantric vows keeping an awareness of emptiness keeps coming up over and over again in the three conceptions and and during the day, you're supposed to write and all those things.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
That's why it keeps coming up. Because a Tantric disciple, meaning wang nun, right? High faculties.

Because you wouldn't be in their... You wouldn't be even... You wouldn't karmically have a chance to walk in the door if you weren't wang nun.

You would never make it in the door. That kind of person would want to know why I could achieve this Tantric enlightenment in one life. They'd want to know why.

You see? They'd want proof of that before they took the vows and took the initiation and worked on it. You know?

Okay? And that's the... That's the only appropriate disciple for a Tantric.

Okay? Alright. We'll stop there.

That's cool. I really like this part. Okay.

Didn't remember today to say. Oh, you didn't like the other part? Dhamma kuni Dhamma shlok Can you do that one?

[Speaker 2]
Dhamma shlok What's that other one?