Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 68

[Speaker 1]
Do you have like 50 of those? Okay. Can you go get them?

All right. We're buying, Christy and me are sponsoring your snack today. Okay?

So you need 50 dakini bars. If you eat it, you might find yourself like, changing. All right.

Oh, forget it then. Okay. Nah.

That's all right. Let them go hungry. We don't care.

All right. Oh. Uh, no, you do have some.

We have something. Oh my God. Okay.

No problem. You mean the good stuff's not gone. It's like, it's like when your brother gets into your Halloween candy.

Yeah. Okay. Uh, okay.

First, I'm going to do a quicksilver. Lama quicksilver. What's that mean?

Yeah, I have a correction. I told you there were nine levels of samsara, right? Desire realm, down here.

And then four form realm levels and four formless realm levels. And then I said nothing at all was the top one of the formless realm. But it didn't make sense to me and I was wrong.

It's the next to the top one. You see what I mean? So, what he was referring to was a kind of worldly meditation where, you see, you have to be able to get to this level of meditation to see emptiness directly.

Why? Because in that meditation, you have absolutely no desire for food or sex, which is down here in the desire realm. So when you overcome those two, it doesn't mean you can't have them.

It just means you don't have desire for them. It's a different thing. Okay.

No, it's a different thing. You can, yeah, you can not eat and then, but want it all day, right? So, but you get to first form realm state of meditation by overcoming attraction to these.

And it doesn't have to do with any understanding of emptiness. It's just that your mind is so subtle and so calm that you're just not thinking about food anymore. Okay.

And sex. Okay. So like that.

So, it's called shiraki number ten. Like if your mind gets more subtle, you wouldn't even be attracted to this level, which is like where your breath stops or something. You see what I mean?

You wouldn't even, you'd be beyond that. You'd be at some like super level, right? So all the way up here, in the third of the four formless realm levels, there's a thing called nothing at all.

And that's where your mind feels like it's just melted into nothing at all. But there's one higher level called the citse, the peak of samsaric existence. And the way you get the citse from nothing at all is that you lose even your attachment for melting into nothing.

You see what I mean? Like you want to, you realize that you're like, you realize that even that is going to kill you. Even that won't protect you from death.

So you get even more subtle and you go up to the peak of... So there are non-Buddhists, there are people who never heard of emptiness, who can get up to this level by what? They overcome desire for all eight of the levels below it.

They have no more attachment to even high states of meditation. They're at extremely subtle state of meditation. So they like wouldn't be breathing anymore and they'd be like, they could stay there for hundreds of years or something like that.

So they're all the way up here. So, we told that other guy, right? This is the argument, okay?

This is where the argument was. He said, those books where they talk about a bodhisattva outshining lower track people, right? By virtue of their wish, right?

That wish is referring to the direct perception of emptiness, right? And we were saying it's bodhicitta, love. In the mind of a person who's seen emptiness, right?

And we said the quotations mix those two together, like that. But they got their new family, as Nicole said, they joined a new family by virtue of a wish meaning bodhicitta, okay? Wish for enlightenment.

But he says, no, they outshine lower path people by virtue of their direct perception of emptiness. And he's talking about the ultimate form of the wish, okay? Right?

Direct perception of emptiness. So then we come back to him and say, we don't say, are you telling me they haven't seen emptiness? Who?

Yeah, even people who have reached nirvana already, okay? But on a lower track, okay? So, you would expect us to come back to him and say, are you saying they haven't seen emptiness?

We go around the back door. You make it dramatic. When you're going to wipe out somebody in the debate ground, you start three implications from what he said.

You start three implications down the road from what he said. If he said they hadn't seen emptiness directly, then he would be saying they hadn't gotten rid of their mental afflictions, which means they hadn't seen the view, which is, you know, like that. You catch him several steps away.

So we go up to him and we say, are you saying that they aren't any more special than this non-Buddhist? Are you saying the way they get to nirvana is just like super-spacey meditation? Are you saying that?

Because are you saying they've reached the highest peak of what? Samsara. Are you saying they're still just totally spaced out in meditation?

Are you saying they're there? Is that what you think in our heart is? Right?

Got it? And then he says, teach here. You know, I never said that.

And we say, yeah, you are, because you're saying they haven't seen emptiness. And the Bodhisattva has seen emptiness. And that's why the Bodhisattva outshines them, because he has the wish, which wish?

Yeah, the ultimate wish. And that's where we are. So we then we say, are you saying they haven't gotten rid of their mental afflictions?

Are you saying they haven't gotten rid of their mental afflictions? What's that say about someone who's in a super-spacey state of meditation? They haven't gotten rid of their mental afflictions.

And he doesn't use the word nyoma. He uses the word cagye. And this is an Abhidharma thing where you differentiate between mental afflictions in different realms.

So like you could get rid of desire realm mental afflictions, but not form realm mental afflictions. Like you could, what's the Bodhisattva vow about being attached to the pleasant sensation of meditation, right? So that would be like a form realm attachment.

Like, okay, you're beyond food and sex, but you're still attached to the pleasant sensation. So that becomes a new mental affliction. The attachment to pleasant meditation becomes a new mental affliction.

So then when we're trying to find a word that clearly indicates mental afflictions operating in all three realms of existence, meaning even the very, we don't have that mental affliction. We don't have the manifest form of a very subtle mental affliction which is attached to being in a perfectly good meditation. Why?

Because we don't get into a perfectly good meditation. We have, and why did I say manifest level? As a debater, why did I say manifest level?

Yeah, because we have the seeds. We have the seeds. If we ever got there, we would get attached to that.

Okay, because we do have those seeds, right? But when you want to clearly indicate that you're talking about a mental affliction, even in a very subtle form, the most subtle form, which is up here at level nine, right? Then you say thagye, which means, we translate it as widespread mental affliction, meaning it spreads through all three realms.

Either its seeds or its manifest form is found in all three realms. Okay? Even at the end.

Even if you never study emptiness and you just study meditation, that's where you'll end up. That's the highest you can get. Why is it called a formless realm meditation?

Does your mind go into the formless realm? Not really, you see. It's a...

King Girgile, it's a... If you keep that meditation up for years, then when you die, you'll be born into the formless realm, which means you take rebirth without a body in the square foot where your mind was when you died. Okay?

So if you died on a bed in Wilcox Hospital and you had been doing this meditation your whole life, you would enter the formless realm in that few inches, right around your chest, when you died, you see? Because that's what it means to say it's a formless realm meditation. If you kept it up consistently over your whole life, you would be born into that realm.

And then you spend sort of like a long time there, very spaced out and very happy, and then you go back to a hell realm. Because you burn tremendous amounts of good karma. So yogis look upon a mindless deep state of meditation as a severe danger, as a very, very sexy and dangerous place to be.

So to not learn to recognize spaciness, ching wang gupa, subtle dullness in your meditation, and not to introduce an element of emptiness into your meditation is worse than not meditating. You see? Okay.

So then we said, are you saying these guys who, have they achieved nirvana? Yeah, there are hearts. Have they wiped out their mental afflictions?

He would say yes, but we would say no. Why? Because they haven't found the state of mind.

Remember the cookie? I was hoping that the cookie would impress itself. Like if I just didn't use a cookie, you might not remember.

But I remember, it was chocolate chip, it was really good. I ate one bite, I held it up here, and I said, there's a jindang ngungyal, right? There's two contradictory ways of looking at the cookie.

One looks at it as something, yeah, I was hoping someone would do that. She has, ooh, it's even the right kind. But it was half-eaten.

All right. You look at it, you say, oh, he got it because Ness gave it to him. He got it because Ness brought it to him from the table.

But that, and that's one jindang. Jindang. Say jindang.

Jindang. Dang means the way of doing something, like a dro-dang is the way a horse, what do you call it? Different kinds of gates and traps and gallops.

I don't know all the words in horse language, but there's a gate and a canter, and there's a gallop, and they're all different somehow. So dang means that. And jindang means the way you hold the thing.

Okay, so your jindang is that I got it because Ness gave it to me. You hold that. You believe that.

Inherent in that belief is that I couldn't have snapped my fingers and the cookie would just fly through the air and land in my hand. Right? You can't believe that.

You think I only got it because she brought it to me from the table. Right? And that's a certain jindang.

That's a certain way of believing about the cookie. But then there's a higher jindang which says, I got the cookie because I shared cookies. Right?

I got the cookie because I shared cookies. Like yesterday, I was trying to choose a gift for a friend, and I had like three or four choices. And some of them were stuff I didn't really like very much.

And then I was like, yeah, I'll just get one of those. And then I thought, oh no, that's like not giving away your cookie. You know?

That's really foolish. So what he's saying is that, are you telling me those arhats don't have a view of the cookie, which would contradict the belief that Ness gave it to me? I'll say it again.

Are you telling me that those lower arhats, these guys in nirvana, have never reached the point where they look at the cookie in a way which is mutually exclusive with believing that Ness brought it to me? Right? What would he say?

That they did contradict? Or that they hadn't? By the way, what's the implication?

We went from, did they get rid of their mental afflictions yet? Did they get rid of desire for a cookie? Right?

What would he say? Okay, listen, you're the other guy. I'm the right side, you're the wrong side.

So tell me, did these people in nirvana, did they get rid of their desire for a cookie? And then you said, yeah. And then you'd say, oh, I see.

Well, did they find a point of view? Have they come to a point of view where they understand that anyone who believed the cookie came from Ness was wrong? Have they reached that?

But what's the implication of linking one to the last one? What's the implication of linking Ness to them getting rid of their desire? What's the implication?

What's the implication? No, it's more subtle. What's the implication?

Don't go that far. He didn't go that far. He didn't go that far yet.

He said, did they get rid of their mental afflictions? And he said, yes. And then we said, oh, so you're saying he doesn't believe Ness gave him the cookie.

Well, what do you say? Ah. Okay?

No, it means, we don't have to jump to emptiness perception. We don't have to jump there. Does he believe that I got the cookie from Ness?

What are we going to say about how does that relate to mental afflictions? What are we going to say? He's going to say, what's that got to do with mental afflictions?

Let's go through that again. Did I get the cookie from Ness or not? He'd say, yeah, you got the cookie from Ness.

Well, that proves they couldn't have gotten, if you think like that, that proves they couldn't have gotten rid of their mental afflictions. Because you don't understand where the cookie came from. We're not to emptiness yet.

We're kind of in dependent origination. You see what I mean? Got it?

Got it? I cannot want the cookie if I believe it didn't come from Ness. That's the implication.

Got it? I cannot want the cookie if I don't believe it came from Ness. If I understand where it really came from, I cannot want it.

What's the implication of that for enjoying cookies? In Buddhism, wanting is not the same as enjoying. It's not the same.

It's not the same. You can want a cookie. That's fine.

They're good. Buddha paradises are good. My Buddha paradise is going to have Mrs. Fields cooking me, making them for me personally. You know? No, that's fine. You see?

It's not, you got to be careful when a Buddhist says, want the cookie. Did they reach nirvana? Yes.

Do they want cookies? No. So, oh, are you saying they figured out that it didn't come from Ness?

He'd have to say, he's got to understand the connection between wanting and understanding. Right? He's got to.

He's not that bad. You know? Like, you can't say, did they reach nirvana?

Yes. Is that the removal of all mental afflictions forever? Yes.

So, does he believe Ness brought me the cookie? What's he going to say? He's got to say no.

He's got to say, he has reached a state of mind which understands that Ness didn't bring you the cookie. I created Ness to bring me the cookie. She's the, she's the, what do you call it?

She's the expression of my own karma. You see? Did she bring me the cookie?

Yeah, but only as an expression of my own actions. She's just a medium of my own karma. I earned the cookie.

I must have earned the cookie. All right? Probably by wanting to buy dakini bars for everybody.

Okay? Okay. Okay.

So we say, they haven't found a state of mind which contradicts the belief that things exist by some nature of their own. Okay? Which is to say Ness brought him the cookie.

They haven't found a state of mind which contradicts that. Got it? Got it?

Okay. What does contradict mean here? When I say the dzintang ngungyal, say dzintang ngungyal.

Mutually exclusive. There's a certain idea you cannot have about the cookie if you think Ness brought it to you. Those two thoughts cannot what?

I always see, I always see John Wayne, you know, and he's looking in the guy's face and he's saying, there ain't room in this taeyang for both of us. You know? And it refers to your skull.

In Buddhism it refers to your skull. You know? You cannot believe that Ness brought you the cookie if you understand where the cookie came from.

You cannot. You cannot. But you slip and she doesn't bring you the cookie.

And then you get angry at Ness. No, and then you get angry at Ness. All mental afflictions come from misunderstanding where things come from.

If you want to know how your bok chenpa, doha, saraha, perception of the unspeakable void is doing, then see if you got angry in the last 24 hours like I did. You know? Like, you don't, you advertise your understanding of emptiness to everybody all the time.

You know? Really? Really?

You know? The more, the less smile you have, the more, the less understanding of emptiness you have. Your smile and your understanding of emptiness are directly connected.

Yeah, really. Okay? Directly connected.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Really. You have a barometer of your understanding of emptiness is your own feelings. Because you can't have negative emotions if you understand, if you understand that you, the only way to get the cookie is to give it away, how can you get angry at Ness if she doesn't bring it to you?

You know? So how conscious is that understanding? How present is that understanding?

How's your chenpa and sheshin about that understanding? Are you totally, do you catch yourself when you lose it? And a good way is just see if you feel bad.

If you're unhappy, you've lost your understanding about the nature of cookies. Got it? They're directly connected.

And I, and you're all going to be teachers. And no, nobody's teaching it this way. Nobody draws the connection.

You know? You can sit there teaching on emptiness for three, four hours, or three weeks, or four weeks, and no one talks about cookies. And, no, nobody talks about the connection between how you feel and your perception of emptiness.

You see? But it's everything. And that's what he just said.

You see? Did they reach nirvana? Yes.

Did they get rid of their mental afflictions? Yes. Do they have a point of view which is contradictory to thinking that Ness brought me the cookie?

Right? And then he's like, what's the connection? What's the connection between that and their mental afflictions?

You see? This debate, the debate is brilliant. K.

Dukden Bodargye is trying to get you to make a connection. What? You can only have a mental affliction if you don't understand how the cookie got there.

Okay? Got it? That's what he's really teaching you.

He's not in some debate with some old guy, you know, what was it, 1350 years ago, you know, about some arhats and some pratyekas and shravakas and things you've never heard of. It's not some historical mental masturbation. It's not that.

It's very cool. It's like, they can't have a mental affliction if they see that Ness didn't bring the cookie. Alright?

So did they or did they not have a thought which contradicted the thought that Ness brought the cookie? What's he going to say? Oh yeah, they have that.

They have that. Sure they have that. They understand cookies.

He's going to say that. Alright? Oh sorry, you didn't even see this thing the whole time.

Sorry. Okay. That's the only miracles I can do.

Okay. Doesn't work sometimes. Alright.

Let's read it together. It's so beautiful. I mean it's so beautiful.

Alright. You can get cookies for the rest of your life. One, two, three, oh, are we going down or up?

We said, did they have a state of mind which contradicts the idea that Ness brought them the cookie? And he's going to say, why did you say that? Of course they do.

And we were saying no, right? We were saying they didn't. So are we going to go up or down?

Up, okay? Like you're trying to convince somebody, I'm telling you. Okay?

You just remember it that way. When you're wondering whether to go up or down with Tel, it's like, have we been making an argument? Is he being stubborn?

Do we go up? Don't you get it? Okay?

One, two, three, there, Tel, ngo po rang shin, mey pa yong su she pa, dang tel wey chi. Okay. It is so true.

It is so. Because, oops, okay, true that they haven't found a state of mind which contradicts the idea that Ness brought the cooking pot. It is so true that they don't have that state of mind because they, Tel, who's up now?

Who's up, Alistair? Okay, am I a confuser? Oops.

Number five? Oh, are you on E? No.

Am I, huh? Yeah, okay, I'll get it back to you. Here, throw this thing away.

Okay. Or maybe I got the wrong one, I don't know, but anyway, okay. Because they, what does Del mean?

Tel. Sorry, I'm going to make a trick question. Del.

Huh? Del. I'll make it more obvious.

What does Del mean? Related, connected. Related or connected.

Like Dendel, like dependent origination, connected origination, right? Del, with an apostrophe before it, right? And a dengu, which means connected, okay?

Del. Then, here's another one. What does, Aiyah, if you were in book chamber, you'd get in big trouble.

Okay. What does Tel mean? Tel.

No, let's not go there. What does Tel mean? What does Shel mean?

Shel. What does Shel mean? Shel.

It means to shred or to tear, and it's on a muddied pig, okay? If you didn't catch it, that's Shel. Okay, got it?

Then that came into Tel. What's Tel mean? I hope I didn't need that, McNally.

What does Tel mean? Without, without. And it's always preceded by Deng, which is weird because Deng means and or together with, right?

So Deng Tel means not to have something, to have lost something, okay? Deng Tel means to possess something. So you got to be really careful, okay?

This is what this class is all about. This is why we're having this class. You don't get this from a dictionary when you look up Tel.

You look up Tel, it says don't have, you write don't have. A human teacher points out to you that Deng Tel means to possess something, the opposite, okay? So then a human teacher says be careful when you hit Deng Tel or Deng Tel and please get your prenasals in order in your nostrils, okay?

So let's do them together. Shel, okay? Tel, separated.

Deng Tel, connected. Let's do them fast. Shel, Tel, Tel, See, it's not a big, they don't see a Tibetan girl there, Tel, you know?

They just say, Deng Tel. Okay, like that, all right? Okay.

Yeah? It's a miracle. Okay.

Because they lack then the total understanding that functional things have no nature of their own. Okay? How does that apply to cookies?

Are cookies a functional thing? They bring great joy to some people. Do they have a nature?

Wait, I'll say it this way. Do they have a nature? I'm talking chocolate chip cookies, okay?

Do they have a nature? Of course they have a nature. They have chocolate chips.

Or else they wouldn't be chocolate chip cookies. Do they have a nature of their own? No.

Got it? Okay? The chocolate chipness of that cookie was imparted to it by me, my karma.

It didn't have chocolate chipness before I got in the room. Okay? It didn't have chocolate chipness before I got in the room.

Does a tree fall in the forest? Does it make sound? When a tree falls by itself in the forest, is there a sound?

See, not for me. Not for me. Okay?

Got it? That's how Buddhism would answer it. Does it?

Do you mean in general or for me? Because for a Buddhist, it's always for me. Okay?

Alright. Because they have no nature of their own. Who lacks that understanding?

Who lacks... Yeah, those arhats. So, do they have a state of mind which could contradict the idea that Ness brought me the cookie?

No. Got it? Okay?

He didn't just lazy. He wasn't lazy. He didn't say, Oh, did they perceive emptiness or not?

No, they didn't. He brought you through the whole flow. Do they have mental afflictions?

No. Are you saying then that they have found a state of mind which contradicts the idea that Ness brought me the cookie? The guy would say...

They have found that state of mind. We say, No, they haven't because they don't understand the real nature of the cookie because they still think it has a nature. Independent of their karma.

Independent of their kindness to others. And isn't that the way it should always be taught? And, you know, God bless.

I hope you always teach it that way. You see what I mean? 99 out of 100 Buddhist teachers stopped before there.

They stopped at the step before. It doesn't have any nature. Why?

You see, what's it got to do with me and how I treat people? Got it? You got to go the next step.

You have to go the next step. Or you're not a teacher. You're not teaching it.

You're teaching it wrongly. You see? All right.

Hmm. Shenyang. Let's do this together.

Ek, do, tin. This is top. One, two, three.

Say that again. Okay. Shenyang means the butcher came.

You want to improve it? Let's hear it again. Shenyang.

Say Shenyang. It's a low tone shah. Okay?

So in, in transcription, in transliteration, because English only has one sh, we use zh. We say zh. Okay?

But it stands for a lower tone sh. Okay? So say shah.

And shah. Shah. Shah.

Then say ah. Ah. Ah.

Ah. Ah. Ah is a long Sanskrit A, like raja, king.

And then uh is a short Sanskrit A, like namaste. Okay? They don't say namaste.

They say namaste. Okay? And it's a totally different word.

You can use it here in Tibetan. Say shen. Shen.

Shen. Shen. Okay.

Mmm. Shenyang means, well, let's read the whole thing. And I know you're going to do it right, because we don't want a butcher here.

One, two, three. Shenyang. Dey che chen.

Kang sak gi dak me dzokpa ma tokpa. It's a new, I'll give you a clue, it's a new argument. It's a new argument.

So we're going to go up or down? Whoa, how it is like this? Down or up on a new argument?

Down. Yeah, are you telling, are you telling me, you kind of go down in English too, you know? You don't say, are you telling me?

You go, are you telling me? Okay? Let's try it again.

One, two, three. Shenyang. Dey che chen.

Kang sak gi dak me dzokpa ma tokpa ta. Kang sak, rang shin, mey pa, mun sung du, ma tokpe che.

[Speaker 2]
Let's see if we got anybody. I don't know. It doesn't like your desk.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Is it Australian? No.

Oh, there we go. Which one? Do you know which one it is?

Okay. Oh, right.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's weird, right? Oh, yeah, okay. Okay.

There we go. Come on, careful. Whoa.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Whoa.

What is that? Oh, okay. Okay.

All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Moreover, what's dey che chen? What is that same thing?

Yeah, yeah. Moreover, let's again consider the same people, okay? So, che chen, when you start an argument, you always have to state what you're talking about.

What's your subject? And you say, che chen, I'm talking about the same people who? Yeah, the people who achieve nirvana already on a lower path, okay?

Consider these same people. Are you saying that they haven't yet perceived the lack of self to a person in its entirety? All right?

Okay. Hmm, what's he going to say? Are you telling me they haven't seen the emptiness of people?

He's going to say, che chen, why would you say that? Hmm, because they haven't perceived, because they haven't yet perceived the lack of a self. Oh, I'm sorry.

Perceive directly lack of self to a person. Sorry? I must be missing, because they haven't yet perceived directly the lack of self to a person, you're right, yeah.

Hmm, what's the implication of our answer to his, why do you say that? We said, are you saying that people who have achieved nirvana on a lower path haven't seen that people are empty completely? And he said, why do you say that?

Why do you accuse me of that? And we say, because they haven't seen that people are empty directly. What's the implication?

That in order to see it completely, you must see it directly. Got it? Okay, got it?

To see that people are empty completely, to completely see that, you must see emptiness directly. It's not enough to talk about it in class. You must see it directly.

No amount of talking about it will give you the complete perception that people are empty, which means you will still get angry at Ness. Now, the implication of this argument is profound. Even if you were up till 4 o'clock last night, it's still profound.

If you don't see directly emptiness, you will forever be the victim of your mental afflictions. You cannot remove anger without seeing it directly. You see?

Impossible. That's the line of argument here. Whether you accept it or not is a different question.

But this is one of the most important statements in the universe. This is one of the most important statements ever written on a piece of paper. You know?

This is worth all the recipes for polio vaccine or AIDS vaccine. This is more valuable. This statement on this paper is more valuable than them.

You see? You can't get rid of your unhappiness if you don't see emptiness directly. It's not possible.

Okay? That, you know, if you had to go on a desert island with just one sentence from a scripture, I mean, that would be enough. Really.

Okay? You can't be happy unless you see emptiness directly. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Did I... Yeah, you're correct. That would be nice.

They haven't seen directly. They haven't seen directly the fact that a person has no nature of their own. Yeah.

And in some schools that would be different. And that's a good point. Okay.

I think it's time, Anatole. They're getting quiet. I can tell.

All right. One, two... Oh, are we going up or down?

Have we been already making an argument? Oh, wait. There's one more big thing I wanted to show you.

Just this little thing here. Okay? What is that?

What is that? What is it? It's an A.

Okay? No, it's an A. All right?

And what's the difference between saying the lack of a two-headed 13-foot purple elephant in this room or the lack of the... Listen. I'll say it again because some people are looking at their cookies or something.

Look at me. What's the difference between saying the lack of a two-headed 13-foot purple elephant in this room and the lack of the two-headed 13-foot purple elephant in this room? You can't use the word the for something that doesn't exist.

You can't. Okay? It's just an A.

It's just an A. Okay? But I get these big books from, I don't know, X Publications Company that starts with a W.

And they're 400 pages long. Chrissy says, look, this new text got translated. I say, open it up.

She opens it up. I say, does it say the self? Lack of the self.

She says, yeah, there's a the self. I say, throw it out. The person doesn't understand it.

Got it? Just throw it out. Don't read that book.

Because in that the, they are giving you already a wrong information. I got to wait till they hand these out. This is like the most important thing.

In the simple use of the the is the information to me that that person doesn't understand what they just translated, what they spent 12 years translating. They don't understand. Because they use the word the instead of a.

Because it's a theoretical self. Got it? It's a purple elephant.

It's not the purple elephant. The moment you use the, the person who translated it is not totally sensitive to the fact that that self is the Gaccha. Got it?

You can never use a the before the Gaccha. Why? It don't exist.

Okay? And when they do use a the, it means they don't really, they're not sensitized to the fact that they're talking about something which never could have existed. Got it?

A self to a person. Okay? Got it?

I just throw the book out. That's why I've never read one. All right.

Okay. Up or down? Up.

We're in the middle of an argument. One, two, three. Okay.

Okay. It is so true that they haven't seen directly that a person doesn't have any nature of their own. Because, this is really hard.

Let's go backwards. Okay? A lot of times when you want to crack a Tibetan sentence, start from the end.

Okay? What's chingpa? What's chingpa?

What's chingdul mangmi? Chingdul mangmi. Yeah, it's fetter.

Chingdul mangmi is the PLA, People's Liberation Army, that freed Tibet. That's the Tibetan word for the People's Liberation Army. Chingdul.

Chingdul mangmi. Okay? The ones who broke off the fetters.

No, I mean, that's what they call themselves. I once met the Chinese, I shouldn't say this in public, but anyway, I once met the Chinese ambassador at the Princeton Club. And I said, so do you have an intention to withdraw the People's Liberation Army now that they've liberated Tibet?

Okay. And it is to tell you, because, he got mad, but anyway, and it is true that they haven't, because, they are still, how do you want to say, enslaved or chained, or how do you say, fettered? Fettered, okay.

They're still fettered. By the, chingilok. Asked backwards.

I like, who said that? Yeah. It's asked backwards.

Chingilok, it's not enough to say mistaken. Somebody at work is trying to help you. They are trying like crazy to get you the vice president's job.

They do everything they can do. They're in screaming with the president for four hours to try to get you the vice president's job. You know, they come out in that evening, that person is announced as the new vice president.

So you come to the chingilok that they were in there doing what? Explaining why you shouldn't have been the vice president. So it's not just that you're wrong.

You're totally wrong. No, we like to call it asked backwards because you're 180 degrees wrong. You're not just wrong, you're, you're opposite about the truth.

You're, you're actively diametrically deposed to the truth.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Asked backwards. Asked backwards. Okay.

Never heard that. We're getting better. Yeah, leave that there.

Okay. It's the only chance I get in a whole week. All right.

I'm like protected by this little thing up here. It's like I have a diamond wall. Okay.

Yeah. So how do you want to say that in an English that won't be upsetting to our readers 23 years from now when we publish this? Actively.

Yeah. Maybe. How about we just say like totally mistaken or something?

Grossly mistaken? Who did that antithetical? I would have thought it was Ava.

But anyway. Okay. Antithetically mistaken?

I don't know. I'm going to stick to grossly mistaken. Do they appear in any famous yoga texts that you know?

The four chinji logs. The four ass backwards. This is.

Yeah. What's it say? What's it say?

Do you remember? In Sanskrit. Shaucha.

Ashuchi. Anatma. Anitya.

Nitya-suchi. Dukkha-anatmasu. Nitya-suchi.

Sugatmasu. Akhitya-vidya. Okay.

Anyway, they're in the first chapter. Second chapter of the Yoga Sutra. Okay.

By the grossly mistaken idea which holds that. Now we're going to skip to this part. Say dakshi.

Dakshi. This goes back to a very interesting thing. Okay.

It's the last night of our class for this term. No more cookies. I mean no more text.

I think this is a Bhogjimba thing even. She said I haven't really done a class unless I've criticized Bhogjimba at least once. Are you your head?

Just by the way, this is a famous misunderstood thing in the modern yoga schools. Are you your hand? Are you your foot?

Are you everything together? Your mind and your body together? Are you all the parts of you together?

Is that you? Meaning are you the parts? Individually?

Are you the combination of the parts? So what's left? Then the only thing left is are you something other than your head and your arms and your legs and your mind?

Well then you don't exist? Then give me your cookie. I won't collect any bad karma taking it.

You see? Because you don't exist. And then you know the punchline.

You know the punchline. It's that until you think of all the parts as Michael, it's not Michael. Okay?

So if you took my arm and my leg and even if you assembled them together but you didn't know my name or you were so totally drunk or something that you couldn't perceive me as Michael, then I wouldn't be Michael for you. Okay? So all the parts together in Buddhism are called Dakshi.

Say Dakshi. The thing we're giving the name. The thing we're giving the name.

Shi means the thing or the foundation and Dak means past tense of or future tense of Dok which means to to apply a name to somebody. Okay? So Dakshi.

Is this the Dakshi of Michael? All this stuff? Yeah.

Okay? So you need to know the word Dakshi. How do you want to translate it?

The thing you give the name? They would call it you know like in a normal book they would call it what do you call it? Yeah, oh yeah the imputation basis.

And you just lost 200 readers. In one word you lost 200 readers. I looked up the translation I was talking about we looked it up on the web.

We looked it up on the web. We were just curious. Amazon gives you rankings for all the books, you know?

So we looked up this book that I just threw out and it's been out for about 10 years or 8 years and it was it sails on the list it was 2,548,000 book in America as far as sales. There are 2,548,000 2,548,000 you know, books that are selling better. Now that's what the ranking means.

Diamond Cutter is like 50,000 or something which is really it's good. No, it means like well it's by an order of 2,000 times more you see? So, no, I mean you got all those diet books there's at least 20,000 diet books that no, they go straight to the top you can't even count them.

Okay. Okay. By the girls Okay.

That's a thing. Oh, we are working on a Karma, Emptiness and Diet book. Actually, Lama Aura is working on that with Jamie.

Don't think we didn't think of it. Because they are still fed up with that which holds that the thing which is called me the pungpo the heaps do you want to call it parts of a person? Exists rang munay dupa rang munay dupa from their own side exists from their own side which is to say in a way and they are feathered in a way which in a way which doesn't allow them to this is cool to sun jimba what's you've seen sun jimba once in your life who said that?

In the four powers cool alright four powers please what's the first one called? yeah I think it's called foundation right? the second one is it's the sun the destruction power and that's sun jimba okay and if you were in those classes sun jimba is a very radical word meaning to rip the heart out of something it's a Tibetan colloquial term for rape to what do you call it?

to ravish a woman or to rape a woman like is to sun jimba to waste her it means to waste her you see it's a very bad word it's a very tough word so they are feathered in such a way that doesn't allow them to sun jimba we need a verb it means like did you see that movie Last of the Mohicans and the guy's been trying to get after that and he finally rips his heart out and holds it up still beating you know yeah it's gotta be you gotta feel it can't be like stop yeah okay I think obliterate yeah it's very good the shen yu it's an object but it's a special kind of object which one? what's shen mean?

it's not gushen it's shen you had shen basidra in course 13 15? 13 14 in course 14 you had shen basidra yeah freedom from the four attachments so shen bas means to be attached to something the way you think it is okay who's the shen yu in the cookie example? what's the shen yu in the cookie example?

be careful and if anyone uses the I'm gonna throw the cookie at them huh? yeah great cause he put it in the optative case he put it in the optative case which means no, it's called a cookie that she could have brought you he even went further he used a and then he used could have okay so let's say it together a cookie which ness could have brought you okay does that cookie exist? no it's nowhere it's nowhere it never did exist it never will exist it doesn't exist now and most importantly it could never exist it could never exist so is it a yul?

because yul is a synonym for sheja in Tibetan philosophy yul object of the mind is a synonym for existing thing in Buddhism is it a yul? it's a shen yul so what does shen yul mean? what?

the object they think they see now we can say that because we said they think they see okay the object they think they see okay, got it? do they think they see something? what is it?

a cookie which ness could have brought me okay a cookie which ness could have brought me so what did we just say to him? what are we trying to prove by the way? they didn't see the emptiness of people directly why?

because they still think that the parts of Michael are coming from Michael's side in such a way that they still believe in a thing which is there which couldn't be there got it? okay a Michael which is a Michael get it? a Michael which is there who couldn't be there got it?

alright they still think there's a Michael there okay coming from the parts alright what's the opposite of that? yeah a Michael which I'm inventing a Michael which my mind is projecting okay onto the parts okay good up or down? why?

we're in the middle of an argument and he's being asinine okay one I mean a donkey he's like still no, no okay one, two, three down, down Poon Bo Rang Shin Ma Ba Yung Su She Ba Da Drel We Trel is this Drel? yeah, good Evam did a nice it's not say it's not Drel it's not Drel what is it? Drel okay say Drel Oh, okay, which means, just think shell.

Yeah, they don't have, they don't possess. And that it is so the case, because they lack the total understanding. A total understanding?

Total understanding that the parts of a person have no, what, nature of their own. Okay, now I want to show you something. I say, he hasn't seen emptiness directly.

He hasn't seen the emptiness of a person directly. And then what's the other guy going to say? Yeah, cheat you.

Why? Why do you say that? Because they still haven't seen that Rob's not coming from his own side.

Got it? I'll say it again. They haven't seen emptiness of Rob directly.

Cheat you. Because they haven't seen the fact that Rob's not coming from his own side. What would they say?

I answered in cheer. I said, yin be yin cheer. I said, specifically I said, dak chee po mo rang lo ne du bar dzin be shen yin sun dzin mi nupi tsul kyi chi jin lo wi ching gi yin be yin cheer.

And what'd he say? He said, dak ma dub. Dak ma dub is the easy answer to everything.

Dak ma dub is the easy answer to everything. I disagree with your reason. Your reason is false.

Your reason is a lie. Whether it applies to anything doesn't matter. Your reason is a false statement.

Okay, what does that mean if he says dak ma dub? What's that mean? They do see that he's not coming from his own side.

They do see that. See, when they say dak ma dub, those arhats do see that Rob's not coming from his own side. They do.

Okay, got it? But is that the only answer he could have given, is dak ma dub? What's his other option, aside from falling asleep?

Chak. He said, chak. Chak.

Which is kya ma ma chung. Like when you're in a hot debate, you say, yeah, chak. Which means no kya.

Okay, say, chak. Chak. It's like, chak.

Which means what? Just because he doesn't see that Rob... No.

Just because he doesn't see that Rob doesn't come from his own side doesn't mean he hasn't seen Rob's emptiness directly. Got it? Okay, got it?

He said, no connection. No connection. No connection.

You can see Rob's emptiness directly and not understand that Rob doesn't come from his own side. Okay, got it? So instead of saying dak ma dub, he said kya ma ma chung.

You can see the emptiness of Rob without understanding that Rob doesn't come from his own side. No problem. Got it?

Just nod. I know it's late. Probably you were up late last night for some reason.

What's teyong gyur? Huh? Yeah, an absurd logical statement.

Give an example. Use nest. Are you telling me that cookie will never end?

Yeah. Are you telling me you can't eat that cookie? Well, I didn't say that.

Yeah, you did because you said nest brought it to you. I'll do it again. Ready?

Are you telling me you can't eat that cookie? I didn't say that. Yeah, you did because you said nest brought it to you.

What's the implication? Yeah, if the cookie came from nest, you couldn't eat it. I'll say it again.

Are you telling me that I couldn't eat that cookie? Are you telling me I couldn't eat that cookie? Are you telling me I couldn't eat that cookie?

You say, what do you mean? I'm not telling you you can't eat the cookie. You're up there.

You're in your protection circle. You can eat the cookie. Are you telling me I can't eat that cookie?

Yes or no? Are you telling me I can't eat that cookie? Yeah, you are telling me that because you told me nest brought it to me.

Got it? That's a tangir. A tangir means an absurd statement.

Are you telling me the sky is purple and not blue? Are you telling me that? It's like that, okay?

It's an absurd consequence of the other person's wrong view. Got it? That's a tangir.

What is it in Sanskrit? Pasangaka. So, and that's the name of the highest school of the Middle Way.

The highest school of Buddhism is called the Consequence School. Why? That would be accepted by all Buddhist schools.

Yeah, cool. They are called the Consequence School because they believe on the basis of a single sarcastic statement you can give someone a direct insight into emptiness. You don't have to go and explain anything to them.

Are you telling me I could eat the cookie? And then, you know, you go home and you say, why did he ask me that? Why did he ask me that?

And then, you know, you go, boom, I got it. I got emptiness, you know. Okay?

Like according to this school, on the basis of a single sarcastic statement someone can be led into the direct perception of emptiness. Okay? That's why they're called the Consequence School.

Okay. Which means the lower schools think what? You can't.

Like someone would have to sit there and say, what I meant when I said, you can't eat the cookie, was that if she brought me the cookie, and then you have to go on this long thing, you know. Okay. All right.

How are you going to say that? There is too, too, a necessary relationship in the previous observed statement. I'll borrow.

Okay. I'll do that. I'll do it again.

Are you telling me they haven't seen emptiness directly? Then you say teacher, right? I say, because they haven't seen that Rob doesn't come from his own side, then what do you say?

Now you say, which is to say, just because you haven't seen that Rob doesn't come from his own side doesn't mean you haven't seen emptiness directly. Got it? Doesn't mean you haven't seen Rob's emptiness directly.

Is that true? I'll say it again. I'm going to say person A hasn't seen Rob's emptiness.

You say, wrong. And I say, he hasn't seen Rob's emptiness because he hasn't seen that Rob's parts don't come from their own side. Is that a khyaba?

Is that a necessary relationship? Do you have to see that Rob's parts don't come from their own side in order to see Rob's emptiness? I'll say it again.

Do you have to see that Rob's parts don't come from their own side in order to see Rob's emptiness directly? We say yes. We say, tengyur ngamala khyab.

Say, tengyur ngamala khyab. There is a necessary relationship in that previous absurd statement, which is to say what? If you haven't seen that Rob's parts don't come from their own side, then you can't see that directly, that Rob's emptiness.

What's that say about the relationship between seeing the emptiness of Rob's parts and seeing the emptiness of Rob? Kangsaki dhagme and chökyi dhagme. The emptiness of the person and the emptiness of the person's parts.

What does that say about the order in which you perceive them? This was the last big question in my Geshe exam. Some big Geshe from Dharamsala got up and he was like, which do you see first?

Which one do you see first? Do you see that his parts are empty first or do you see that Rob's empty first? Which one do you see directly first?

This is the last thing we'll do for this semester and it's probably the most important thing. So buckle down. I tried to give you enough sugar to get you through to the end of my class.

I don't care if you collapse going into her class. This is one sentence, okay? Sorry.

Okay, let's read it together. Ready? One, two, three.

DAG SHI PHUNG PO RANG BZHIN GYIS GRUB PA DZIN PA'I RTOG PA'I GZHAN YUL GSUNGS CHUNG MI NUS PA JI SRID DUG GIS PAR DU Let's stop there. I mean, I'm going to split the sentence. It may not sound as good.

Suppose. Sometimes when you split a sentence, you can start with suppose, okay? Suppose a person has still not been able to obliterate the object they think they see as they hold the thing which is called me that is their part, their own parts, right?

To exist through some nature of their own. Chökyi La asked a good question, okay? This is a different tense of the verb GSUN GYIN.

GYIN is the present tense or future tense and CHUNG is the past tense. But the past tense is also the optative, which means what? So long as they have not, you see?

So long as it were true. In English, we use the past tense. So long as it were true that they hadn't, you see?

We use the past tense for optative, you see? A theoretical condition, all right? All right.

So suppose a person still has not been able to...

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The object they think... Where? They see as...

Oh, the... Yeah. What is that?

The object they think they see as they hold... I'm sorry, you're right. Okay.

Oh, you're right. Okay. That's correct.

Okay. Let's do this next sentence. You get liberated at the end of the next sentence.

Okay. One, two, three. dak chö kha sa rang ngu ne chö pa dzin pey tok pey shen yu sun chung mi nyu pa chö pa Suppose a person...

So long as this is the case, they will not be able to obliterate the object they think they see as they hold... Now you got to learn a new word. These are all Madhyamika terms, right?

I was thinking, you know, if we had some really bright, young people, we could make five dictionaries, because there are five different Tibetan languages. There's a Madhyamika language, there's a Perfection of Wisdom language, there's a Vinaya language, there's a logic language, there's an Abhidharma language, and they're all different. They're all totally different.

You can study four of them and not study Abhidharma, and when you get in the debate ground, they're throwing around words you never heard of. They just have these weird... Like the Vinaya words we've been through, they're like unbelievably archaic and weird and like totally...

It'd be really beautiful to make like a five-part dictionary. Here's a dictionary of... What do you call it?

Unique Madhyamika terms. Here's a dictionary of unique Vinaya terms, you know? And then all together, that would be like the greatest dictionary ever done or something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Because no one's really done that. It's something really beautiful to do. So here's Daksa as opposed to Dakshi.

What was Dakshi? The thing we gave the name to. Which was what in the case of Ram?

All his parts. All his parts we call Ram. Okay?

Are his parts Ram? No. But after we call him Ram, in a sense after we add the last part, then he's Ram.

Okay? So I mean a Madhyamika, a diamond mountain master we call him, they'd say, are his parts Ram? We'd say, are you counting the projection of Ram as a part?

And if I say yes, then you can say his parts are Ram. If I say no, we haven't projected that yet, we can say he's not the sum of his parts. Got it?

Very nice. Okay, very nice. So Daksha is the thing after the projection is finished.

The projected thing. That exists. That's Ram.

Okay? What's the Dakshi? Yeah, the totality of his parts.

Daksha is Ram as a finished projection. Okay? Ram as a finished projection.

That's the Ram sitting there right now. That's the Ram who's there. Why?

Why? Because you are projecting him. You are projecting him.

And the last part is complete. Why? Everybody sees him.

He's a common object in the room. Okay? Got it?

Except the people who are asleep already. All right. Okay.

So long as this is the case, they will not be able to obliterate the object they think they see as they hold to the thing which is the result of the process of naming. That is the person to exist from its own side. So we're calling him the result of the process of naming.

Ram is the result of the process of naming. Okay? Does it exist from its own side?

No. But in order to see that, you must first see that the thing you are putting the label on doesn't come from its own side. The parts don't come from its own side.

Even though totality of the parts doesn't come from its own side. Got it? Got it?

He's saying you have to be able to see that the parts aren't coming from their own side before you can figure out that Ram doesn't come from his own side because the parts are what are called Ram. Got it? Okay?

All right. Sorry? No, they don't have parts.

Here's the punchline. Here's the punchline and it's a beautiful, beautiful place to stop. It's a very profound place to stop.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You could maybe see emptiness over the break. All right. If you're not too busy with your other stuff.

Okay. Your emails and stuff. Okay.

One, two, three. DASHI DE CI SI BYUG GI BAR DU DE DBANG GIS LASOK LAS DE DBANG GIS GOR BAR GOR WAY CHI And so long as that is the case. And so long as this is the case as well.

I'm going to say, in so long as this is the case. They will continue to, then they will continue, due to this very fact, to lay SOG, collect karma, nice. Until you see that Rob's parts don't come from their own side, you won't see that Rob doesn't come from his own side.

And until you see that Rob doesn't come from his own side, you will continue to, because of that very fact. Okay? And, due in turn to this fact, they will continue to korwar kor.

Circle in a circle. Okay? So the first one is a noun, the second one is a verb.

Korwar. Say korwar. Kor.

Circle in a circle. Continued pain. Okay?

They will continue to circle in a circle. Circle. Circle in a cycle of pain.

So what's the... Now I debate you back. What are the khyabas here?

Go backwards. What are the khyabas? If you are circling in the circle of samsara, you must have collected karma.

If you're collecting karma, you must not have seen that Rob doesn't come from his own side. If you haven't seen that Rob doesn't come from his own side, you must not have seen that his parents aren't coming from their own side. What's that have to do with our argument?

Yeah. Let's go forward. Let's go forward way.

Have those lower arhats, have those people who are already in nirvana, they have already destroyed their mental afflictions, right? Have they seen that they don't come, that their parts don't come from their own side? Have they seen that?

Well, he would say no. The other guy would say no. Are you the other guy?

Okay. Have you seen, have the arhats seen that their own parts don't come from their own side? They haven't seen that?

Good. So, have they seen that they themselves don't come from their own side? Right.

So, have they stopped collecting karma? So, do they no longer cycle in this cycle? That's what he would say.

He's done a very good other guy. That's what the other guy would say. Because they are, they're not arhats.

They're in nirvana already. Let's go backwards. Are they an arhat?

Are they in nirvana? Are they circling, I'm sorry, are they circling around the circle of suffering? Do they still collect karma to do so?

Why not? They know that the product of the projection process doesn't come from its own side. Rob doesn't come from its own side.

Why do they know that? Because they've already seen that his parts don't come from their own side. So, have they seen emptiness directly?

Yeah. If we say, this is the khyabha, this is the khyabha, and then that's it, we'll stop. Have they seen emptiness directly?

What would he say? No. So, could they have seen that Rob's parts don't come from their own side?

So, could they have seen that Rob doesn't come from their own side? So, could they have stopped collecting karma? So, could they have escaped samsara?

Good. Yeah. Got it?

Okay. That's it. Cool.

The bottom line is, now, what is the instructional part? What are we supposed to try to see about Rob? Yeah, that his parts don't come from their own side.

Got it? That's where we start, apparently. That's supposed to be where we start, apparently.

Okay? So, that's a clue for you over the break. Instead of doing this like Doha meditation, you could like concentrate on the parts of the person.

But to be, I mean, just so I don't get yelled at when we get home. At some point, the people in the time of the Doha were so advanced that they already knew that. It was understood.

When they say, let go and you'll be free, you were talking to Nagarjuna. You were talking to Arya Nagarjuna. You were talking to his teacher.

And they said, let go, you mean, don't think of his parts as coming from their own side. Yeah, of course. We all understand that.

You don't have to write that in the Dohas. The Dohas are poetry. Doha means song.

Doha means poetry. You don't have to write this long logical statements about his parts and all that crap. Just sing the song of the single unity.

You know what I mean? Not like that. But they understood it to mean, don't think of his parts as coming from their own side.

Got it? And they were so advanced that that song meant a lot to them. Okay?

So mix them. Use both of them together.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's a good gewandi. Okay. Nirmala.

[Speaker 2]
Nirmala.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Have a good break. Rest well.

We have to finish the book, right? At this rate, maybe a few kalpas, I think. All right.

Okay.