Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 48

[Speaker 1]
So we were talking about the idea of a stain and stain sakpa in Tibetan, and it means, there are different interpretations of what stain means in different schools. So Abhidharma school is anything that is a mental affliction or which can contribute to the growth of mental afflictions, either directly or through a link with another mental state. And then our author said, no, that's not what stain means here in Madhyamika.

Stain here means anything ... where is this? Stain here refers to the tendency that things exist in truth, or the mental seed for this tendency.

What would it be to think that these cinnamon almonds exist in truth? I mean, aren't they here truly? Yeah, anybody who doesn't think so doesn't get any.

No, they exist, you can eat them, right? But apparently we have some tendency to think about them in a wrong way. Like what?

Yeah, like somebody bought them in a store, somebody picked them from a tree, somebody packaged them in plastic, that's why they got here. And then the correct way to view them is that ... what?

Yeah, you only get them by serving them to others. So if we were sensitive to this fact all the time, then we would be ultimately generous all the time. And not because it's a sacrifice, but it's just an intelligent way to live, right?

Like all things come from doing the same thing to somebody else first, unilaterally, right? But we can't do it, you know, we can't do it. Like we understand it, we all nod our heads, but we can't do it, which means we don't really get it.

So we still have this tendency to think like this. Hmm, I can't give it away because I need it, or I can't give it away because I need that money. I won't have any money if I give my money away.

And that's the ultimate wrong idea. And then you're thinking of the money the wrong way. That way of thinking about money is mistaken.

Money only comes from giving it away. So it's never a wrong thing to give your money to others, right? And then you won't have any financial problems in your whole life, ever, if you just keep giving, right?

We don't have time to open all the envelopes with the money in it. It's very funny. But anyway, so the principal form of staying is the tendency to think that things exist in truth, that the almonds came from the store, and not from being kind to other people.

So we just said that, and now we say der tal, and it's going to go up or down? Yeah, up, okay? Because it's what we believe.

So here we go. One, two, three. der tal tsik tsal le marikpe rab ribdang trawa dhag gi yeshe sapa mepe yuk gi rang shin la du ne ni ma yin no she sung pe che One pronunciation thing that I think you should practice.

Say, rab rib. You have to roll the R. In English we make an R with our front teeth on the lower lip, say, like, rug.

And notice where your teeth and your lips are. It's rug. So that your front teeth are touching the back of your lower lip.

Rug. Now do the Spanish one, ra, ra. It's a trill of the tongue on the palate, up on the top of the mouth.

Right, right, Jose? Ra. Ra.

Yeah, ra. So, in Tibetan all... all R's in Tibetan are rolled.

I can't do it that well, especially with gum in my mouth. Say, rab rib. Rab rib.

And it's not rob rib. Do it the wrong way. Rob rib.

Yeah, and this is that Spanish trill. Rab rib. Okay, good.

That's today's pronunciation thing. We'll do some... We're going to keep doing this.

Where's Rob Ho? Is he here? Yeah, yeah.

Tuesday, right? Tomorrow. Yeah, first 30 pages, right?

Okay. Anyway, I see turning in tomorrow. Sorry.

Okay. First mistake. Huh?

Der tel, okay? Der tel. Okay, then?

Yeah, that's transcription, right? We want pronunciation. Transcription and pronunciation are different.

Okay. Anything else in the first line? Yeah, ma rik pe.

Huh? Yeah, P-A-Y. Also, I would put ma rik pe together, you see?

Ignorance, right? And I'd also put this together. It's the name of a book, Cicel, okay?

Cicel. Rab rib. Any other problems in the first line?

Yeah, rab rib or something like that. I wouldn't mind to do it that way. It's definitely more clear, right?

How about this next line? Yeah, jawa. Dak.

Yeah, good. Anything else? Sak.

Sak. Epe. Okay.

How about down here? Yeah, good. Sorry?

Here? Oh, they're different words. They're two different words.

Oh yeah, they are different. Gi and gi. Yeah.

Yeah, they're different. They are different, yeah. There's three different ones, right?

Gi, gi and gi. Rang shin la. Dön ne.

Sorry. Ne. Mayin.

I think mayin no. Sorry? Yeah, now again, that's something you have to teach the person.

You have to put in the beginning, all u's are u, all e's are e. And it's not to be read as a long u. With a silent e in English.

You just have to train people for that. You have to train them that much. You don't have a choice.

Okay, anything else? Hyphen where? You could do this, right?

Oops, sorry. Dön ne. Actually, that's a postposition anyway.

We get out of that problem. Okay. I think you could though.

I wouldn't mind if you did. It's better to help them too much than too little. Sungpay chir?

Yeah, sungpay... Yeah. Sorry?

We're using the comma. Yeah, okay. That's enough of that.

That's kind of boring actually. Okay. Rob's not going to make any mistakes anyway.

Right? Rabdiv means a cataract. I guess we just use cataract, right?

Does that mean anything to you? Not me. No, but...

No, I'm worried about... He's using this quotation to prove what he just said, right? Dare tell means...

He's trying to prove what he just said. What did he just say? He said, the worst kind of stain on mental affliction is to think that things are self-existent.

And that must be true because... What's siksel? What's prasannapada?

Yeah, it's Master Chandrakirti's word-by-word commentary on Master Nagarjuna. Whereas, what is his meaning commentary? Yeah, Majjhima-kavatara, which is our root text, right?

The unstained wisdom of those who are free of the... I don't know, it doesn't say anything to me. Does it to you?

I mean, forget the cataract part. That's not the problem. Oops, what did I just do?

Yeah, it could be. I have a suggestion. We're going to look at the original and see if it helps any, okay?

I think there's some other context in the original. So, call up a search program. Then take some unique pieces of here.

What is that? Rab-rib is pretty good. Rab-rib-dang-drel Then another piece is good, just in case it breaks across the line.

Rang-shin-la-du Okay? Kangyur-sumbum or? Tengyur.

Tengyur. Any particular section? Uma?

Yeah, I've got to put an A. That's not it. You see this up...

Can you read that? I'll put it up at the top. Yeah, it's from TIGSAL, so we know we're in the right place, probably.

Rab-rib-dang-drel-wa-dak-yi-su-sam-pa-myu-myu- Rang-shin-la-du-nyi-ma-yo-no So that's correct, which is refreshing. I think it might be helpful to go up here. I'll just read some and you see if it helps, okay?

In the same way, when we speak of going to the... moving from the other world to this world, right? When we die.

Or we speak about going from this world to the next world when we die, right? We're talking about things that happen to dependents, stopping. So we're making sort of...

characterizing things as stopping. It seems like your presentation that things are empty would contradict that concept of going from this life to the next life. If you say that everything's empty and nothing works, nothing's true, then how come a person can die and go to the next life?

GZHAN NA, GANG GI PHYIR BDE LTAR BRTAN CI LTAR BYUNG BA RGAGS PA LA SOGS PA DAG YOD PAR THOS PAR RGYUR BA DE NYID KYI CHE For the purpose of clarifying this point, that things which do occur in dependents can still go through processes like stopping, right? In order that people should understand that, LO DPON GYIS BYANG BA DANG NGES PAR DANG NGES PA'I DUN GYI MDO DE RNAM PAR YANG BAR BSTAN PA BYA BA'I PHYIR For that purpose, the master, the acharya, who's that? It's Arya Nagarjuna.

BYANG BA DANG NGES PA has talked about scriptures which are in, what do you call it? Figurative and... Figurative?

I don't like interpretive because I never heard it except for in a Buddhist book. Figurative and literal, right? And that there are literal sutras.

In order to indicate that, he wrote this book about the middle way. Meaning Arya Nagarjuna wrote the root text on wisdom, ok? And in that book he talks about the beginning of things and the endings of things which still occur in dependents.

And those things... Ok, here we get to our quotation. Because he cut the quotation from the middle of a sentence.

The first half of the sentence said, in order to indicate that things like starting and stopping can occur when things happen in dependence, right? marikpe raddo dantawa dhag gi yu shi, the wisdom of those which is free from the cataracts of ignorance, sapa me pa'i yu kyi rangshin la tsu ne ni ma yin no, they don't depend on the object, they are not something which depends on the object of which is free of stain, okay? But let's see where it goes from now.

ona chi she na, then how is it? Then what is the case then? If you say it's not that, then what is it?

marikpe rabdu kyi lor du kyi mik nyampar chepa, dhag gi shepa yu la tu ne, marikpe rabdu kyi lor du kyi mik nyampar chepa, dhag gi. Some people do have those cataracts of ignorance, and then their eyes of wisdom are are corrupted, okay? And then they see things, and this presentation is made relative to what they see.

So now it's like this, we've been talking about something, but what we're talking about is relative to people who have ignorance and see things the wrong way. It's not talking about people who don't have ignorance and don't see things the wrong way. Does that help prove what he wanted to prove?

What did he want to prove again? Huh? Let's go back.

The tendency to think that things exist in truth is the principal form of stain. Why? Because it's not something that we that we set forth relative to people who see things the right way.

Rather, it's something we set forth relative to people who see things the wrong way. Okay, let's do a little more, let's see if there's any more there that helps. What it is, is in this section in the commentary, they're explaining why things are called absolute truth and deceptive truth, okay?

It's all talking about that, okay? I think what he's saying is that what this quotation is used for is what is the question that Ben asked the other day, and it's the point we're trying to make the other day. Is this bag of almonds, is that all we got?

Okay. I'm not coming to teach here if there's not more, okay. Is this ultimate reality or deceptive reality?

Right, because it would tend to trick you. You would tend to think when you saw it that you could get it by going to the store, and not by giving it away to someone else, right? That's human nature.

Do we establish it as deceptive relative to people who understand emptiness, or relative to people who don't understand emptiness? Yeah, why? Is this from its own side deceptive?

No, because if a Buddha and Arya were in here, they wouldn't see it that way. They wouldn't be fooled by it. So, is it deceptive reality to an Arya?

If you're in a debate ground, you'd have to say, it is deceptive reality to an Arya, but it doesn't deceive an Arya. Okay? What makes it deceptive reality?

Yeah, only that it could fool someone who doesn't understand emptiness. That's what the word deceptive is. That's how we call it deceptive.

Not that it would fool a person who understood emptiness, but that it would fool a normal person's mind. So, that's what this quotation is saying. We don't establish it meaning deceptive reality, relative to the knowledge of a person who understands emptiness, but relative to a person who would look at it and think you could get it in the store.

Okay? Yeah. They just, now this is just an axiom, it's an idiom.

We're starting with that principle. You know, we choose to call it deceptive reality because it would deceive a normal person. That's all.

Not because it would deceive everybody. Okay? And not because it's deceptive from inside, but because it deceives a person who has a deceived state of mind.

That's all. This quotation is meant to answer your question. Yeah, yeah.

We're giving the object its name based upon a screwy state of mind that might look at it. When all beings become enlightened, will there still be deceptive reality? There'll be what we call deceptive reality, but there won't be anybody deceived anymore.

That's all. But we'll still call it deceptive reality, because it's the reality that used to fool people who used to have that state of mind. Yeah, that's all.

In those days we'll say, when that time comes, we'll say it used to deceive people. Okay? Got it?

Okay. Now why that proves what he was trying to prove. Why that proves what he was trying to prove.

Don't ask, you know, let's go a little further and see if it works, but I don't know, it doesn't feel that comfortable to me. What I think is he's trying to make an excuse to go into his next favorite subject. He's just, he's just an artificial segue into the next interesting thing, which is right here.

One, by the way, slob, okay? Slob. High tone, strong, okay?

Right? Anytime a la is involved in a stack, it's a stronger, it's a high tone. Okay, one, two, three, LOB LAM NA PHAG PA'I NYAM ZHAG YESHI MA RTOG ZAG MED KYIS ZHES PA MED DE Stop there, we'll cut it shorter.

Okay? What was stain again? What did stain mean?

Infected with the tendency to see things as having come from the store. So, while we are still on the path of someone who is still learning, which you just had Lope Sungjuk and Milope Sungjuk, right? In the Tantric class.

So, what does it, what is one who is still learning mean? In plain, yeah, in non-Buddha. Any sentient creature who is not a Buddha yet.

So, until the point where we are Buddha, there is no unstained state of mind, unless you're in the direct perception of emptiness. Okay? Which is to say, I mean to put it in plain English, every perception you've had since you were born, 65 perceptions per finger snap, were all wrong.

Okay? Dreadfully wrong. The entire perceptions of every living creature, bug, human, animal, in this world, since the day they were born, every single perception was wrong.

And that's what causes suffering, and pain, and war, and death. You see? It's tragic.

It's overwhelming. It's not like you're wrong sometimes, you know? It's not like you're having bad days.

It's like, at this point we're not capable, ever, of really seeing where these came from. Even when I talk about, these don't come from a store, and you nod your head and you understand, I have to give them to somebody to get them. Even while we're talking about them, you're seeing them wrong.

You see? And then you'll go to the store, or you'll save money, or you'll try to get money, and you won't think of giving away money as a method of getting money.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Because it's that deep, it's that ingrained. You think to give it away would be to lose it. We call, the word is lose in English, right?

And in every other language of the world, teriyat, you know, I will lose if I give it away. I will lose it. There's no language in the world, in this world, which says, I will gain it if I give it away.

You see? It's so ingrained that it's even in our language. There's no language on this planet that uses the word get after you give this away.

I will lose it if I give it to someone. You see? Even the languages of the world are all wrong.

It's profound. The mistake is embedded within everything we do, and everything we say, and every thought we have. Okay?

So, he's going to prove this, okay? And that's why he was just trying to get an excuse to talk about this, which is nice, right? Yeah, good point.

He said, what about an arhat on the Hinayana path? We're going to get there. It's coming.

It's a good question. They're both perfect questions. They're both coming, shortly.

Okay. Oh, let's read it together. One, two, three, Here's the answer to the question coming up right here.

Yeah? Right? Yeah.

Okay. So, they were asking questions about people who had overcome the manifest tendency to see things as... So, there are people who have reached a state, they're not a Buddha yet, they don't think of this thing as having come from the store.

The minute they see it, their mouth starts watering, because they know they're going to get some to give away. Okay? Those kind of people, they don't have manifest ignorance.

They're not thinking of it actively in the wrong way, but they still have deep seeds in the mind that could theoretically reawaken, and they could still fall down from that state. So, they still have seeds in the mind. Okay?

Deep seeds. That's a big debate. I mean, in theory, if you still have the potential in your mind to see it the wrong way, then you're still at risk.

You could still go back to seeing it the old way. You see? And they're seeds.

Yeah. Yeah, that's true. You can say that.

You can say that. They're going to talk about it. It's called lungje kyi marikpa.

Ignorance which triggers seeds. Okay? They're going to talk about it.

It's a nice point. Okay. One, two...

Oh, are we going to go up or down? Let's decide before we start. Yeah, we've been trying to make a point.

Our side's been trying to make a point. So, the only kind of sarcastic thing that's going to... There's not going to be a sarcastic.

We're going to say, yeah, that is so the case. Okay? Yeah, it must be true.

So, we're going to go there, tell, or dare tell? Dare tell? That righteous, offended, you know.

Dare tell? Okay. One, two, three.

Dare tell? nam she gong barab sel le, de yang sanggye gyi sa, ma thok tsun che du, marikpe bhag chak gi le, ma lepe she pa ni, bhag pa nam gyi, nyam shak mi dokpe, yeshe ma yinpa me la. Okay?

Yeah. Take those people who are on sort of a higher level. Let's say eighth bodhisattva level.

They're not seeing the bag of almonds the wrong way, or yeah, they're not seeing the semen almonds in the wrong way. But they are infected by... their mind is infected by that seed, but the seed is not activated yet.

Well, I think it's something like, I could think of like, we get strawberries, right? We get boxes of strawberries. We had really fresh ones in Buenos Aires.

I don't think I've ever eaten strawberries that weren't sprayed with chemicals, you know. But in those strawberries lies the potential to rot faster. It's not that they're rotted already, but because they haven't been sprayed, they'll only last a day or two, which is preferable to me.

But that's an example. The rotting is inherent in them in a latent way. So we can say that they're infected by the potential for rotting.

Right, no, they're not talking about the manifesting of it. Yeah. Well, I was just giving it for an example.

Yeah, maybe they can't. I don't remember. Okay.

No, maybe they can't. For that you have to study salam namsak, the sutra salam namsak. There's a thing called gendun nyeshu.

It's not in there, I think. But there's a thing called gendun nyeshu, which I never had time to teach you guys. But it's called the 20 permutations.

And it's like, who can fall down from what stage? And they discuss 20 different permutations. Okay.

Here's something very interesting. One, two, three, de yang ren jokpa te, nyam shak ye langpa la, bhak chak gi lepa chen du, kye yok she sung be chu. I need a word.

Ren jokpa. Say ren jokpa. Sometimes it's used as a description of impermanence, or changing, and it means sometimes it's there and sometimes it's not.

And what they're gonna ... yeah, I used to use intermittent. Let me give you the whole sentence.

Let me give you the whole sentence. And even their condition is blank, ren jokpa, because when they rise out of that meditation, their mind will again be polluted with that mental seed. I think temporary.

Who said temporary? Yeah, I kind of like temporary. Okay, and even the condition is temporary.

I think it should be like football teams, and you get it on your helmet. When you make a good tackle in an important game, you get a little thing on your helmet. People get the most words into the translation.

Okay, yeah, yeah. Question. With an arya, who just saw emptiness directly, wasn't their mind infected by the mental seed for seeing things the wrong way, while they were seeing emptiness directly?

Yeah, seems to me it was still infected, you know. I would have an issue with Jefferson Copperhead, but since he's not around. Okay, I mean, but this is a nice scriptural authority for what we've talked about many times, that when you come down out of the direct perception of emptiness, as a person on the path of seeing, you again go back to seeing things as self-existent, you know.

The party is renyopa, it's temporary, but now there's a big difference. You know you're crazy, you know, and that's the state of what we call illusion, right? Like, things go back to seeming to you to be coming from their side, but you don't believe in anymore, okay?

In your moments of clarity, okay? I mean, you can lose it if you get angry or jealous or whatever, you'll lose it. I mean, under extreme circumstances, not enough sleep, you know, while you're sleeping, things like that, you can still have mental afflictions come up, right?

Because you don't destroy all mental afflictions when you see emptiness directly. But in a clear state of mind, when you're aware, then you know you're wrong as you look at things, okay? During the direct perception?

No, because there can't be the idea in your mind, I know I'm wrong, you know, yeah? And you're not wrong doing that direct perception, okay? But it's nice to see a scriptural, it's comfortable, people feel more comfortable if they see a scriptural reference to something we've been talking about for a long time.

Yeah? Sorry? The other day in Tantric class it said, three times ten to the sixtieth power million years of good deeds.

Or, there was an or there though. Or they said, with a good heart, imagining what it will be like when you become the angel who can serve all beings on countless planets. Just the fantasizing about it is a quick way to get that much karma.

It's as fast, which is pretty cool, yeah. You mean an inconsistency between a karmic result and its cause? You're not gonna get me to say that.

But I think you'd have to say something like that. I think so. Enough bad seeds will make you a good seed.

I don't know. It has to be, right? I don't know.

I'm saying too many. I think it's time for chocolate. I hope you guys do better next class.

Okay. One, two, three, sa dunpa men che du marikpa dang debhag chak nyi kye lepa yu kyang. Let's stop there.

Okay? From the seventh bodhisattva level, including the seventh bodhisattva level, on down, we have two kinds of infection taking place. One through mental seeds, and one through manifest, so latent and manifest infection, by thinking of the almonds in the wrong way.

Okay? Read the whole thing? Yeah?

Okay, just to check. All right. Oh, Japan?

From Japan? Okay. Yeah.

We're gonna read this one, okay? You ready? The chocolate might help your pronunciation.

One, two, three, sa gyepa dang nyen rang debhag chak nyi kye lepa yu kyang marikpe lepa me de. Okay? Comfortable?

Once you reach the eighth bodhisattva level. So, these two guys, they did it nice. They gave you these two about three paragraphs ago.

So, what about somebody who's not the eighth bodhisattva level or higher? And then somebody else said, well, what about an arhat on a lower track, right? Okay?

They're not, they still can be infected by the seed for ignorance, but not by the manifest state of ignorance, okay? Whether they can, what do you call, there's a word, deteriorate? Degenerate, yeah, whether they can degenerate or not is a debate.

Okay. Now we do Michael Brennan's, Gikula's point. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I do, yeah.

It's just, I don't feel good putting a lower case B on a Buddha, even if it's not a Buddha. Okay. What's that?

One, two, three, long je kyi marikpa, pangpay che. Okay? That's talking about the kind of ignorance that would open a mental seed.

So, they lack the kind of ignorance that would make a mental seed manifest. Okay? One, two, three, de nyi le, sa dunpay padu, nyi marikpe, le pa yu la, sa gye pa ne dang, dra chung pa, nyi la nyi, long je kyi marikpa sepe, de le pa me kyi marikpe, pa chak kyi le pa nyi, yu dong chen su ming che.

Okay? What was that word? It's usually the last one quoted.

What was the last book quoted? I think it was Kamalapita, right? Yeah, right here.

Kamalapita. Okay? One, two, three, drel pa le kyang, sa dangpo la, nyi me kyi ye shesu sungpay dhun, dzin nyi me tokpa la, je ba mayim te?

Either way, are the wisdom ... I'm sorry, look at this Japanese, you can eat the whole thing. I'm going to prove it shortly.

Is this person who sees it, or your mind and this object, are they two different things? See if it hurts, okay? Did it like diminish your eyesight?

No, they must be two different things. I mean, if you want I can keep demonstrating that. Okay?

No, they must be two different things. But here it says there's some kind of high realization if you realize they're not two different things. Where have you heard this before?

Sugden sung dzin gyi tse ma dzay shen gyi tongwa. Mainoli, Mainoli school. It's Geshe Tutor Rinchen, his mantra.

Sugden sung dzin gyi tse ma dzay shen gyi tongwa. The eye which sees a thing, and the thing which the eye sees, are not separate substances. Meaning what?

Yeah, it's a code word in the Mainoli school, for they come from the same seed. When I gave away almonds in the past, I not only created honey-covered almonds, but I created myself to be there when they were there, so we could interact. Right?

So we did it one time, we were in Germany one day, and we were talking about this idea, and I don't remember who it was, but we were talking about, it looks like things happen this way, you know, you go to the store, you put down your money, you get the package, you open the package, you eat the almonds. It looks like that, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. What's really happening is this.

And here, my arm is the act of giving people almonds in the past. And that's triggering the store, and the money, and the plastic bag, and the almonds, and opening the bag, and putting them in my mouth. So it's not like, this is causing, this is causing, this is causing, this is causing.

It's not that true. All of them, in a serial progression, are being created by one previous act. That's what subtan sung dzin gyi tsenpa tse shen gyi tawa means.

Is it true that me and the almonds have been placed here by my previous act of kindness? Yeah. So is it true that one form of emptiness is that it's not true, that it's not the case, that me and the almonds were put here by one act of kindness?

That's true. That is a kind of emptiness. Why?

There's no such thing as a Michael who interacted with an almond for any other reason than being kind to someone else. You see? So there's a general lack of Michaels in the universe, whoever got to eat honey-covered almonds, for any other reason than giving them away to somebody.

Right? So isn't that one kind of emptiness? So what's wrong with that?

Why is it a mind-only view and not a higher Madhyamika view? Yeah, so far everything is fine. So far everything is fine.

That's emptiness. That's perfect, beautiful emptiness. You can get enlightened that way.

Why? You'll keep giving away almonds. Right?

The only defect is in the understanding that when a mind-only person presents this argument, they believe that that seed is planted in a separate part of the mind, which is not itself a seed, which is not itself a ... it's like independent. Like that didn't depend on giving away almonds or anything like that.

Okay? They like posit some kind of impossible corner of your mind where all these seeds are planted. Otherwise, as it stands, it's fine.

Okay? Got it? Okay.

Yeah, shirshak chen ne. Kunshi ... say kunshi ...

shirshak chen ne. Kunshi ... shirshak chen ne.

Assuming the background of that self-existent kunshi. Shirshak chen is a very useful word in the debate ground. Say shirshak chen ne.

Kunshi shirshak chen ne. Everything I'm about to say is said from the reference point of the existence of a corner of your mind that doesn't depend on mental seeds, that is holding all your other mental seeds. Okay?

Kunshi shirshak chen ne. Then whatever I'm going to say is ridiculous. You know?

Assuming the sky is green, it doesn't matter what I say. It doesn't matter how profound a thing I say after that. Assuming the sky is green, it's already wrong.

Okay? Got it? He didn't say kunshi shirshak chen ne.

Kunshi shirshak chen ne. But it's understood. When he said it's not that, it's understood.

Got it? Okay. But that's not from the point of view of their interaction.

We're assuming from the point of view of their interaction. Okay. I get to go a little bit late because Christy made me late to class.

Okay. I won't go too late because I know you like that class. Okay.

Just enough to assert my ... Okay. Yeah.

Okay. One, two, three. yu yu che gyang che kyi ni nang nyu pe go ne, de ko na nyi mun sung du tokpe duyin pe.

Gyang che. Gyang che means at a distance. But how do you say that about subjects and objects?

Yeah, who said that? That's nice. You get a helmet thing.

Okay. Okay. Yeah.

So we're not talking about a lack of duality in the sense of me and the almond coming from a separate karmic seed. Rather what we're talking about is a lack of duality where I hold that me and the almond are somehow wildly separated. That's the problem.

The first one, kun shi nambar shepa shir shak. The first one, assuming the background of those seeds existing in an impossible foundation consciousness. Got it?

Because otherwise there's no difference, right? Otherwise there's not much difference. Got it?

Not anymore. I'll keep this class going until I finish all the almonds. Because she won't let me have any afterwards.

Sorry? Perception? No, it's okay.

Sorry? Boo-boo? Okay.

Let's just finish this sentence. This sentence is going to end just before what? Kācig.

Before the last. No, like, something that starts with kācig has to be a totally different subject, right? I mean, there's a guy, another guy comes up and makes an argument.

So, we have to finish somewhere in here. Let's read it together. One, two, three.

Oh, up or down? Nice. Okay.

One, two, three. de ta men lam ngun du ma song wei jang sem kyi sa dang po ma tok tsun chadu yu yu ched gyang che kyi nyi nang nyu pe gong ne de kon na nyi wun sum du ma tok pe ... Are we doing it this way in the Tantric debate?

Okay, anyway. All right? You never transcend that form of duality until you reach the first bodhisattva level?

Can you say that? What if you're a lower arhat? Bodhisattvas could have been lower arhats.

All lower arhats become bodhisattvas. No, he said, not previously traveled the lower path. That's what he means, is they were never on the Hinayana path.

They started on the bodhisattva track. So, he's careful to say that as a debater, because he doesn't want people bringing up lower arhats. Yeah, yeah, he cut them out already, okay?

All right? Had to, he had to. Yeah, okay, good.

Okay, everybody okay? No, it doesn't matter, we have to quit anyway. Say again?

Yeah. No, they're simultaneous. Yeah, okay.

Supposedly. Okay, in many presentations. Okay, I didn't finish all the almonds, so I'll leave them up here for Christy.

Okay, okay. Sadhguru chants Sadhguru chants Preview to next week, next class. Someone's going to come up and say, ignorance so much pervades the mind, that it's impossible to have mind without ignorance.

And this is a non-Buddhist viewpoint. In ancient India, many Hindu schools said that. Like, ignorance is so pervasive that it cannot be removed from them.

It's like a really bad tumor in the brain, and you can't remove it without killing the brain. So then they say that enlightenment or nirvana is the cessation of thinking itself, because the process of removing ignorance kills thinking itself. And so then you get this idea that it would be nirvana to just stop thinking, to just stop existing.

If you want to know what that feels like, we'll play a song for you. Oh, we did it in the car on the way here. Jimi Hendrix, yeah.

It's, what's it called? I Don't Live Today. Okay, all right, all right.

I just can't say. Okay, all right. See you in Bhojjima.