Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 71

[Speaker 1]
Last time we looked up this quotation because we found the end of it where we didn't expect to find the end of it. So, we found this quotation in the Tengyur, in Master Chandrakirti's other commentary. And I forgot to say where it was from and we forgot to indent the rest of it.

So, I was going to do that. This is just boring work, it's not very exciting. And if you don't do it when you're first translating, you won't do it later, you won't have time.

So, you know, one of the first rules of translators is do the grunt work while you're there. Don't leave it for later. Every translator has like 20 unfinished translations on their shelf.

I went to Professor Thurman's one day. He has like 30 unfinished translations on his shelf. You know, because you don't want to go through and look up all the quotations and the boring stuff.

You'd rather translate the meaning, right? So, we're going to do it as we go. So, we'll delay meaning a little bit.

Where do we look? From Avalokiteshvara to the Madhyamaka? Tengyur.

Oops. And we could have shortened it if we had said Uma. Okay?

And that's where it is. And we decided there were some differences, but nothing important enough to change what Master Ketuk Durgadhargi had. But what we're interested in is this.

This is the page number. And if some nerdy scholar wants to look it up later, he'll want the page number. So, it's 226B and 227A.

And I'm going to just indent the rest of these. I made a macro for indenting, because we do it so often in translating. And this is where the quotation ends.

Oops. Okay. We lost it.

Does anybody want to read me the last paragraph? Anybody have it? Nor would they be...

Nor would they...

[Speaker 2]
Nor would they be someone who had perceived the lack of self with a person, comma, since they would be focusing upon the heaps, which are what we call the self.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Yeah, okay. And then you would put a...

I don't know, have we been doing footnotes? That's not... How are we doing footnotes?

I don't remember. Just dollar signs? Okay, about two dollar signs.

And then you put the... You put the ACIP catalog number, so people can find it later. Okay.

She got an easy one. Okay. Let's read it together, okay?

One, two, three. Okay. So we're going to cop Jackie's translation.

Good. Okay. Where is she?

Not here? Somebody finally gets their translation right, and then they're not here? Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. She's having good news. Okay.

She's having good news. Now... We're going to find the whole thing.

Is there going to be a problem that we couldn't put the whole Zen in here? No, it doesn't matter. You know, if you have the database set up this way, it doesn't matter.

And it makes it faster, actually. You don't have to type the whole Zen. Nothing's going to start with a positive D in here.

And then nothing else. Where do we look for this quotation? Who wrote the Rinchen Dharma?

Ayanagarjuna. Ayanagarjuna. Okay.

Radhamala. Say Radhamala. Radhamala.

Which means it would be in the... Tangier. Tangier.

Where? Uma. It might be in Uma, I think.

I think it is in Uma. But beware, those of you who are learning to use a database. A lot of Ayanagarjuna's works are in a section called Epistles.

Letters. Because a lot of his greatest works were letters to kings, like letters of advice to kings and things like that. So you think, oh, Ayanagarjuna, he must be in the Madhyamika.

And then you search and you don't find it, right? So just a point of knowledge. Okay, let's see.

This is not it. But it's the same thing. You're looking at the very top line under the number.

And it didn't say Rinchen Dharma, right? So now you take off the Uma part, okay? And now it will go through the whole Tangier.

Tangier is 3,000 texts, okay? You can search it in about a minute. Is this it?

We don't know, okay? Because when the ACIP, they typed in the whole Tangier, they haven't split it up yet. They just typed in 210 volumes, which has 3,000 books in it.

And all we have is big chunks of volumes right now. We don't have the whole text, okay? But what I wanted you to see was...

By the way, is this the Rinchen Dharma, those of you who can read the first line? Huh? Yeah, if it says from the Rinchen Dharma, it's not the Rinchen Dharma, okay?

Somebody's quoting the Rinchen Dharma, but it's an ancient Indian quoting the Rinchen Dharma, okay? But I wanted you to see the second line, okay? jisi pumbor dzin yöpa Say jisi.

jisi pumbor pumbor dzin yöpa dzin yöpa te si te si tela tela lan zin lan zin yöp yöp As long as you hold your pieces to be self-existent, you will hold what to be self-existent? You. You.

Okay? He speaks in a sense of ngar. Ngar.

You will hold yourself to be. Okay? So as long as you hold your parts to be self-existent, you will think that you are self-existent.

Okay? That's gonna be important. And the next section here is one of the most important sections of all emptiness books.

And we'll just go into it. I won't explain it yet. But this is...

In fact, this was part of my Geshe exam. Some high-powered Geshe from Dharamsala came down to give me a hard time. And he asked me this question.

And I knew it. So anyway. Luckily.

Luckily. Here we go. Who's this out there?

Say again? Okay. Okay.

Alright. It means somebody's not dying. Okay.

Is there a dog in Baobui? Alright. Here we go.

One, two, three. Okay. Okay.

Even though that's the case, it's not true that if someone has failed to perceive that their parts of the person have no nature of their own. They must necessarily have failed to perceive that the person themselves has no nature of their own. Okay?

You gotta think about that one. It's supposed to be really important. Let's go backwards.

Master Chandrakirti at the end of his Avalokamottari says, if you're still thinking of your parts as coming from their own side, you must necessarily still be thinking that you come from your own side. Okay? If you don't see, for example, that your own thoughts are being spoken in your mind, and you're not speaking them.

Right? You can't be speaking your thoughts and listening to them at the same time. If you go deep in your mind, there's someone having the emotion, there's the emotion, or there's the words running through your head, and then there's you listening to them.

So you can't be both. Right? You either have to be what they call the witness, right?

You either have to be the witness of your thoughts, or the speaker of your thoughts. But if you think about it, you're like a victim. No, it's like you're just the victim of your thoughts.

Your thoughts are running in your mind. I mean, that's why people can't get to sleep at night. That's why people go crazy.

Their thoughts are being spoken in their mind and they can't stop them, because they're not speaking them. They're just listening to them. Right?

So where are the thoughts coming from? Where are the thoughts coming from? It's your karma.

It's what you did to other people in the past. If you spoke unkindly to people a lot in the past, or if you blah blahed, if you gossiped a lot to people in the past, then in your mind, you know, three o'clock in the morning, it'll wake you up. Somebody will wake you up.

Hey, you know, you want to think about your window on your car won't roll up, you know? What are you going to do about that? Maybe I should do this.

And they're like, I want to go to sleep. Just be quiet. And then you try to stop your thoughts, but you can't, because you're not thinking them.

You're just hearing them. They're being thought at you. So as long as you think, for example, that your own thoughts are coming, are not coming that way from your karma, then what?

You will think that you're not coming from your karma, because they're just a part of you. Got it? As long as you misunderstand a part of you, your mind or your body.

Like people go out and do yoga to feel healthier, right? And then they get stronger in a yoga class and then they think the yoga did it, right? So they don't understand the body.

So the first person didn't understand, what do you call it? The insomniac didn't understand the mind. And the yoga practitioner didn't understand the body.

And they thought they got healthier because of the yoga. And those are two kinds of ignorance about parts of you, pieces of you. Right?

But as soon as you're stupid about a piece of you, you must be stupid about you. Okay? You don't understand yourself, if you don't understand your mind or your body.

Okay? What made the person healthier? They took care of some sick people, or they got housing for some starving monks, or, you know, they helped poor people in Tibet or something.

You know, they did stuff like that. Then they went to the yoga class. Actually, that created the yoga class.

And that created the yoga teacher. And that made them get healthier at the yoga class, right? And people who didn't take care of sick people, they go to the yoga class and they get bored or they hurt their neck.

Right? And it doesn't make them healthier. Or they die six weeks after they've paid for a six month yoga class.

Okay. Right? Okay.

They never give me money back either. So... Okay, so he says it's true that if you misunderstand your parts, you misunderstand yourself.

Right? But can you see the true nature of the whole thing and not see the true nature of the parts? You know?

Shen Lu, the other guy came up and he said, if you don't understand... Sorry. Because to misunderstand me, I misunderstand my parts.

Because misunderstanding the parts of me means I misunderstand me. Right? Then if I fail to see the all my parts are not self-existent, I can't see that I'm not self-existent.

And he says, ma kya. He says, ma kya. What's the...

ma kya means what? It's not necessarily true that if you fail to perceive the emptiness of your parts, that you haven't seen the emptiness of the whole, of you. Okay, got it?

It's reversed. Right? I'll say it one more time.

If you misunderstand your parts, do you misunderstand yourself? Yes. Yeah.

If you fail... If you understand yourself, have you necessarily understood your parts? He says, ma kya.

Not necessarily so. Okay, got it? When you first see emptiness directly...

This is the question I got asked in the debate. When you first see emptiness directly, do you see the emptiness of Michael or do you see the emptiness of Michael's parts? Okay?

That's the question. It's an important question. Whose emptiness do you see first?

What's the first emptiness that you ever see directly? Your mind, I guess. It's all empty.

[Speaker 2]
It's all empty, but...

[Speaker 1]
No, but what... Of all the possibilities, what is the first thing you see?

[Speaker 2]
The person on their parts. The person on their parts is in the mind. The person on their parts is in the mind, but that's...

I don't get it.

[Speaker 1]
One part. What do you think? One part?

One part. Just your toes or something?

[Speaker 2]
But they say in the Michael's focus on emptiness you can't perceive anything else. Right.

[Speaker 1]
This is a difficult question. When you're perceiving emptiness, you can't perceive normal things. Directly.

Cannot. But the emptiness you see... Are all emptinesses the same?

That's the question, actually. Are all emptinesses the same? If I see the emptiness of this mouse, do I see the emptiness of the computer?

Yes. No. Are they different?

No. In their quality, they are not different. That's what they mean when they say ekarasa or one taste.

In their quality, they're just not what they look to be. They're all the same. But, it's possible to see the emptiness of one and not see the emptiness of the other.

You see what I mean? Okay, got it? All emptinesses boil down to the same thing.

But like if I never saw a car before, but I've seen a horse lots of times, and I see the emptiness of the horse, I don't necessarily see the emptiness of the car, because I'm not familiar with cars yet. Okay, like that. So, where he's going now in this text is, whose emptiness do you see first?

And that's useful to know because before you get there, you can start practicing on that thing. If it's the emptiness of pie, then you'd want to eat a lot of pie, so you'd be close to it. If it's the emptiness of your thoughts, then you'd want to do a lot of Mahamudra meditation, right?

If it's the emptiness of me, then you'd want to do a lot of meditations on, is my body self-existent? Is my mind self-existent? You'd want to know and understand your parts of me, right?

Me. Maybe not necessarily. Perhaps not necessarily.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Let's see where you're coming from on that. But perhaps it is easier to see the emptiness of yourself first.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see. Because that's the question that's coming up. What should you concentrate on?

What's the emptiness that you see first, directly? Because for all people it's always the same. And then that's the one you'd want to concentrate on.

Right? Okay. Let's read this one.

Okay, ready? Okay. And that's true.

Because in order to perceive in its entirety the fact that the parts of a person have no nature of their own, the person must first perceive in its entirety the fact that what? The person themselves has no nature of their own. Okay?

It's what Peter said. It's what Peter Long said. Okay?

This is interesting. In order to see that your parts in order to see that your mind isn't coming from its own side you must first perceive what? That Michael doesn't come from his own side.

This is cool. This is very interesting. In order to see that my mind is not coming from its own side I must first perceive that I'm not coming from my own side.

Okay? But he's a debater and he put in a tricky word. What was it?

In the Tibetan, what was it? Dzogpa. Yeah, ninth.

Which is what? In its entirety. In its entirety.

Okay? Because you just perceived... I just explained to you the emptiness of your mind.

The insomniac. And I just explained to you the emptiness of your body. The yoga practitioner who didn't help sick people.

Right? I just explained to you those two. And that's led you to some understanding about your emptiness of Vilma.

Right? Of Vilma. You got some understanding of your own emptiness when I was talking about the emptiness of the insomniac and the yogi, right?

Yoga practitioner. So is this sentence wrong? I just led you through the parts first and that took you to the person.

So is this sentence wrong? Why not? In its entirety.

Right? He adds Dzogpa in its entirety. Meaning you can't see the emptiness of your mind and body directly until you see the emptiness of yourself directly.

Of Maiko. What's that imply about what you see first when you are an Arya? When you become an Arya?

What's the first emptiness a person ever sees? Of Maiko. Of Gyelse.

Of Gyelse. It's very beautiful. It's very beautiful.

The first emptiness you ever see directly, you can just put your name on it. It's important to put your name on it. Don't say the person or the me or me.

Don't think like that. It's always Maiko. Maiko.

You know? So where, if you want to see emptiness directly, according to this text, which is correct, and this is the highest viewpoint. Tantra is also based on this text.

Okay? So, which one do you have to go after? Yeah.

Stick a name on it. Ian. I have to go after Ian.

Where's Ian? You know? Like you have to, all your efforts, if you want to see emptiness directly, don't even say the person or the individual.

It has to be me. It has to be Ben. You know?

I have to go after Ben. Where's Ben? Huh?

Maybe. Yeah. Technically Ben is in the fourth heap.

but, that's not, did you just see emptiness directly? I mean, that's not enough. I mean, to know where he's classified is one thing.

To know where is Ben. I didn't say Ben wasn't a part of it. Okay.

I didn't say the whole me wasn't part of it either. Okay. Yeah.

But what I, but what I, excuse me, what I did say was, if you want to see emptiness directly, we play these Anna Forrest tapes, right? And I called Mama Christy the other night, was quoting, you didn't know, but you start to say something. She said, you have to get utterly fascinated.

And she's like got you in some pose and you're like in agony and she says, don't give in to panting. You're like listening to a tape and she knows you're panting. You know?

Don't give in to panting. You know? Okay.

I don't give in to panting. You know? And then she's like, you have to be utterly fascinated about how this makes you feel.

You know? Like, you're like miserable and you're feeling terrible and she's like, be utterly fascinated, you know? So, now you have to be utterly fascinated.

Who is this at? Where is this at? Where is this at?

You know? Because if you want to see emptiness directly, that's what you have to focus on now. Now you know.

Scripture says you have to focus on whatever your name is first. And crack, that's the one to crack first. That's the one you'll see directly first.

So work on that one. You know? Like, okay, you could do pictures and pillars and stuff like that, but ultimately you're going to have to work on whatever your name is.

Okay. Anna, come on. I was saying that in the last verse, the previous verse, this one, to fail to perceive, is that the same as to misperceive?

No. Okay? Alright.

Okay. Yeah, to fail to perceive is different from misperceiving. Right?

If you don't see a dog or you think it's a cat, those are different things. Yeah. Okay.

But for the rest of you who've been working on emptiness for years, this is something you have to remember for the rest of your life. The emptiness you want to work on first, is whatever your name is. And that's the one you should work on the most when you have time.

Okay? Alright. Alright, let's read this together.

One, two, three. TING ZIN GYAL PO LAI JI TAG GI GYI DAG GI DU SHING NI SHES PA DE SHING KUN LA LO CHA CHA SHES DAG As the... What's the TING ZIN GYAL PO?

In Sanskrit. Samadhi Raja Sutra. It's a sutra by Lord Buddha, right?

And I think you got it a lot in what course? Bhogjimba something. Bhogjimba 2.

We translated a lot of it, right? Yeah. Lama Kristi was like, this is interesting.

This is how she did it. She found a sutra called meditation, right? It's the most famous sutra about meditation.

But it's too long to translate for a class. So in order to pick out the most important parts of it, she went through the Lama Chenmo. And whenever Je Tsongkhapa quoted the TING ZIN GYAL PO, they figured that was probably an important quotation.

And then translated all those. In the airport in LA waiting for the luggages, I remember. Okay.

So, as the King of Concentration, Kong of Concentration, that's it. Let's go through the pieces of it. Because it's hard to turn sutras into normal English.

It's a challenge to turn sutras into normal English, okay? What's one reason why? Well, they're old.

What were they written in? They're written in Sanskrit, right? And then they were translated into Tibetan.

And then we're translating them from the second language. Okay? So that's one problem.

That's a big problem. Go find the Sanskrit. Okay.

JITTA means just as. KHYOD. Khyod means you.

It could be K. Say K. K.

Khyod. Khyodan. Khyodan.

These are all options, okay? Khyodan Karachigiri. In modern Kalakoya, Khyod is impersonal and impolite almost.

What is your noble self doing? You know, like that, okay? So, Khyod is sort of like too abrupt.

Khyodan is more honorific. But in ancient language, Khyod is common for the honorific. So you go, Khyoki.

Just as you Dushye, the dog. What's Dushye? What's Dushye?

Second, third hint. Yeah, the ability to discriminate between things. Sorry?

Oh, yeah. Dushye is important. Dushye is totally mistranslated by a lot of people.

How do you say it? The reason why Dushye was made into a separate part of a person is because it's the root of all pain. Dushye means our tendency to discriminate.

This is tall, this is short. She's nice, she's not. This is black, this is white.

You know? I like this, I don't like this. So, in a way, it causes all the suffering.

You can say, sometimes Dushye means conception. Your conception of yourself. Shepa.

Shepa. What's Shepa? Yeah, just as you understand your conception of yourself, Deshen, you should apply it with your mind to all other things.

Okay? Now, how to say that in normal English? You should think of all other things just as the way you think about your conception of your self.

Your self. Okay? Got it?

What's he saying? Which thing do you understand its emptiness first, according to this quotation? Yeah, you understand yourself first.

And then you apply that to computers and to cars and to houses and to food and whatever else. Okay? Right?

First you understand Darcy's emptiness. And then you apply that to other things. Got it?

And what are the most important other things he's talking about? The parts of Darcy. Darcy's mind, Darcy's body.

Okay? Alright. He's giving scriptural proofs for the fact that you have to understand Michael's emptiness first.

You have to work on Michael's emptiness first. The day you see emptiness directly, it will be Michael's emptiness that I see directly. You see what I mean?

Yeah. Okay, let's read this one. One, two, three.

Pa, pa, du, pa, le, kyang. Da, chin, da, wa. Sen, chen, tam, she.

De, da, she. Sen, chen, tam, she. Chin, da, de, da.

Cho, kun, she. She, da. Couple of pronunciation notes here, right?

How do you pronounce these two together? Say, chin, da. Chin, da.

It's called a pronunciation, right? Say, nga. Nga.

Now say, ta. Nga. Ta.

Ta. Got it? I'll do it again.

Ta. Ta means a hair or a wing. Ta.

A falcon. Ta. A fishnet.

Nga. Similar. Got it?

All different. This is chin, da. Because of what we call an open vowel before.

Open vowel means it doesn't have a suffix letter. There's no closing consonant. It's just an i, or a u, or a a.

So it's chi. And then it's a very heavy pronunciation. So you say chin, da.

What famous monastery is very typical of this? Ganden. There's no n in Ganden.

And then down here. Now you know this one. Den dar.

Because if you don't say den dar, if you say de dar, they'll say, what kind of fishnet do you need? You know? Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
All right? If you wonder why Tibetans just stare at you when you try to Tibetan on them. It's like, you've used something like ta that has ten different pronunciations.

And you're using the wrong one. And you said, there's a falcon in my hair. You know?

And they're like... Okay. I'm trying to help you for when you go to ceremonies.

Okay? Pakpa? Arya.

Pakpa means literally higher. Elevated. There's a very rare verb called pakpa.

There's a tree that's pakpa. It's elevated above the rest of the houses. Dak chen jang.

The... You see, all the perfection of wisdom sutras are called pakpa. They're given that title.

The Arya, or the elevated, right? What's another word? There's another word for elevated.

Yeah, exalted. Thank you. The exalted sutra...

The exalted summary says as well... It's a sutra, but it's a summary. Okay?

Understand all other beings in the same way that you understand yourself. Understand all other beings in the same way that you understand all other beings. Got it?

Now, this sutra is sort of suggesting a three part process. Which is what? First you understand the emptiness of Michael.

Then you understand the emptiness of everybody in the class. And then you understand the emptiness of the temple, the chairs, the rugs. Okay?

Like you work that way. That's a suggestion by Lord Buddha. Okay?

Alright. Yes, sir? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Does like your arm include all other things or does it include like the parts of yourself? Does that include...

[Speaker 1]
All other things. Does that mean you think about your arms after thinking about Andriana's arm? I don't know.

That's a hard question. I'd work on your arms, but... I don't know.

If you're with your partner all day and half your questions are probably related to each other, then it might not be bad to work on her emptiness before you work on your arms emptiness. After you've worked on her, it comes after that. Right?

Seriously. Because that's a big part of why we do partner practice. It's a...

A huge part of it is to just set up a situation which is totally impossible. You know, I'm not going to be away from you and I'm not going to see you as a holy being forever. You know?

And... No, then... It's like locking a mouse up in a jar, you know?

Two mice in a jar and you just screw the lid on and leave them there for a couple of days. You know, it's like a small jar. No, really.

No, that's part of the practice. A yogi seeks out the most difficult situation that they can and exposes themselves to it purposely and commits themselves to it purposely and then masters it. And then the rest is easy.

Really. And you're missing out if you don't do that, I think. Okay, here we go.

Ek tar tin. Rin chen chen wa le kyan. Ke bu sa...

Okay, stop, stop, stop. This is poetry, which in Tibetan means... Ti din, ti din.

Ti, ti, ti. Ti din, ti din. Ti, ti, ti.

Okay, got it? Here we go. One more time.

Ke bu sa min chu ma yin. Ne rin lung min na ka min. Na she ma yin kun min na.

De la shen na ke bu kam. Ke bu kam tu nu be chhe. Yang dang ma yin ji ta war.

De shin kam mi re re yang. Du chhe yang dang ni du min. She su be...

Okay. It's shlokas. Shloka is Sanskrit for birth.

And the Tibetans, since they can't say two, a shan and a la together, they'll call it shloka. Shloka. Okay, shloka.

But normally translated into four lines of Tibetan, so we can split it here. The... what text is he quoting?

Rin chen chen wa le. The string of jewels. Why didn't they say rosary of jewels?

I mean, sorry. What do you call that? Yeah, rosary.

No, ma. What's the other word? Garland.

Precious garland. I mean, such a lame translation. I mean, the idea is a string of...

a mala made of diamonds or rubies or, you know, something expensive. Okay? It's not a foreign garland or anything like that.

Okay. Which is what garland means in English. Okay.

One of my pet peeves. Okay, the string of jewels also says, the person is not air, nor what? Water.

Nor... Oh, sorry. Yeah, fire.

[Speaker 2]
Nor...

[Speaker 1]
nor wind. Nor... space.

Nor... Namaste. Consciousness.

Consciousness. And if they are none of these, where else could they be? All right?

And this is going to... This is one of the nice sources for the presentation of the elements as six. So sometimes you see four elements, sometimes you see five elements, sometimes you see six elements.

This is one of the most famous verses for saying that the person is made up of six different elements. Okay? Elements you can think of as forces.

In the Abhidharma Kosha they are careful to say, it's not the water in your body which is the water element. The water in your body is distinct from the water element. The water element in your body is the tendency of all the parts of your body to flow, or to be wet.

So it could be any part of your body. There is no one part of your body which is exclusively one element or another. The bones are mostly earth element, but they have necessarily water element, fire element, like that.

Even a chunk of iron has water element in it. Okay? Some amount.

All right? These are forces like gravity or... What do they call that when something continues to move?

Inertia? Opposite inertia? What is it?

Yeah, momentum. You can think of them as forces, like gravity, momentum, inertia. These are...

They are not like ancient peoples were stupid and they thought... They didn't understand the periodic table, so they just had six elements or something. They are very profound.

They are the forces which make up all physical matter. They are very sophisticated. If you study them, they are very sophisticated.

All this ancient Abhidharma stuff that people like to make fun of is very sophisticated. They just don't understand it. Okay.

So, if I'm not my solidity, if I'm not my wetness, if I'm not my ability to flow, if I'm not my mind, then where else could I be? Okay? How is he going at emptiness?

He's looking at the parts. He didn't go after Gyaltsen. He went after Gyaltsen's fire element, Gyaltsen's earth element.

I don't know. It seems backwards. He's trying to prove something, but the quotation to me seems backwards.

Like Arjuna Garjuna is saying, Oh, examine all your parts and then you'll come up with how you're not. Right? Why is he using that here?

I don't know. It's like he's proving that he's wrong or something. It's weird.

Huh?

[Speaker 2]
He's not talking about the emptiness of any of those parts.

[Speaker 1]
Well, here we go, the emptiness of the parts. Now that you mentioned it. Well, that's a good question, right?

I mean, how can I get to Darcy's emptiness if I don't think about why Darcy can't sleep at night and why Darcy's yoga is not going well? Like that, you know? How can I think about, isn't it the case that we always deduce from parts to wholes?

Can you just jump into Darcy without thinking about Darcy's mind and without thinking about Darcy's body? You know? I don't know.

This is what this section is about and you are meant to worry about it. You are meant to think about it. It's easy to sit in a class.

It's really hard to go home and sit in your tent and think, how do I decide that Michael is empty if I don't think about Michael's pieces? You know? What are they saying?

How can I think about me without looking at my arm or my legs? You know? How can I do that?

Good question. Okay. Rinpoche never answered any questions that we had.

He just avoided them. Okay. The person is not...

I want a word for pure that kind of more means real. They used a word that can mean normally pure but that's not the point. They are trying to say not real.

In English there is a word between the two, I think. You know? Like the food was not pure.

The milk was not pure. But that's different from saying the milk was not real. Like purely real.

It's not purely there. You see the difference? In English, pure means...

Well, see, in English, pure means not dirty. But that... And so a baby translator would say the person is not pure.

But that's not the point. The point is that the person is not... It's close to that.

Think of another word. Now, you see, everyone said absolute and that would be tempting because it's really nice. That's the point.

You know? That's the point. They are not absolutely them.

They are not purely them. That's exactly the point. Unfortunately there is a difference to that word for absolute.

That's the problem. So as a... When you get more sophisticated in translating, you eliminate choices because they could have used that word and they didn't use that.

They didn't use tattva. Or they didn't use dundampa. They used yantattva.

What is it? Yeah, it would be nice if there were an adjective, though. Sheer.

I like that. Who said actual? Oh, I like that.

Let's try it. The person is not actual because they are composed of six different elements and neither are each of the elements actual. They themselves That's getting into the emptiness of the parts, right?

So, let's do a truth test. If you respond even halfway consciously, you'll get a treat. So it's a big incentive here.

Are you actual? Each person take their own name. Is Viet actual?

Say, no. And then he'd say, why? Why because of this?

What's the proof here that Viet is not actual? No, that's too far. We haven't gone that far yet.

Because he has parts. Because he has parts, he's not actual. Okay?

So can we say, this is critical. You're not getting a snack unless you get this right. Can we say that anything with parts is not actual?

I really like the actual value. That's perfect. Can we say that anything with parts is not actual?

Yes. Okay, so you don't need any part. I'll show you the parts.

That's a part of the point.

[Speaker 2]
And I don't actually have any.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly, and that's why we need it. It has parts. So it's not actual.

So you don't need any. Because it's unreal. Right?

I mean, you can't agree to that or you don't get a snack. But if you do agree to that, you probably don't get a snack either. It has parts.

I took a part and Lama Krishna's taking a part. Therefore, the pie is not actual. Really good mud pie, too.

But it's obviously actual. It's obvious. I'm enjoying it.

I have an experience of it. And the very definition of existence is that which is experienced with the correct perception. I had a pie.

I had some pie.

[Speaker 2]
Who says it didn't exist at all?

[Speaker 1]
You said it wasn't actual. I mean, actual, it doesn't exist. Was it fake?

[Speaker 2]
Is it fake?

[Speaker 1]
Is it fake pie? It's not real pie? Why would I want to give fake pie to somebody?

Huh? Oh, Andrei said something important to teleclass. Where is that?

Where is he? You had something important for the class, I think, no? Anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. I promised him.

We even shared the class. All our goodies from Peru. These are direct from Peru goodies, okay?

How did you figure out that the pie wasn't actual? Because it had parts. Right?

And what was the case about the parts? And neither are each of the elements actual for they themselves are composed. Okay?

The fire has its own parts. The element of warmth has its own parts. Therefore, it's not actual.

If the parts aren't actual, then the whole can't be actual. Okay? So we went from the whole to the parts or were the parts to the whole?

Huh? I know it's good, but which way was it? Did we go from the parts to the whole or did we go from the whole to the parts?

Huh?

[Speaker 2]
What did he just do here?

[Speaker 1]
Wow. Who? What whole?

No, he proved the person wasn't actual. He said the person's not their parts. So he's looking at the parts.

Huh? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. He got open his mind, too.

Coaxing. Okay. I don't know.

Looks to me like he's talking about the parts first. Huh? This one here?

The person is not everything. Yeah, he's looking at the ambiguous person by looking at the ambiguous parts.

[Speaker 2]
He's looking at the parts as on his own whole. That's why I got distracted.

[Speaker 1]
Important announcement. The darker cookies are not vegan. The medium cookies, the lighter cookies are vegan.

Please try to do vegan, okay? Snackers, please try to do vegan. Yeah?

Uh-oh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Uh-oh. What do they call that, Ted, in computing?

[Speaker 2]
Crash?

[Speaker 1]
No, no, no. Some kind of error. Fatal error.

This is Norton Hunter-Marson refusing to get off of my computer. No, there's a word for that. Deadly error.

That's not fatal error. That sounds like that. We're not enough resources to complete the...

What is an API? Interface? It's just like Windows is too wimpy to do it.

Just ask. Where were we? When?

Okay. Yeah, I think Alistair's right. If you think about it, he's discussing the person first, right?

And then he discusses the parts. If you think about it, he's looking at the endings of the person first. Through the parts, admittedly.

But only then does he examine the endings of the parts, right? Yeah? Yeah, with the same logic.

He applies a certain logic to the whole, and then he applies the same logic to the parts, which is what the text told us to do. Right? Which is what the sutra told us to do.

So, Arya Nagarjuna is okay. Alright. This is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very important line.

Okay? So, despite all the excitement in the room, you must pay attention. Now, you will never forget this one.

Alright? One, two, three. One, two.

We had a very unusual connotation of the word gyu, last class. And I'm wondering if those Tibetan scholars will say, I can't remember what it was.

[Speaker 2]
It was like, reason which is.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. Reason to do something. Like, didn't they say gyuyomare?

There's no reason why you should act like that. Che gyu, right? OK.

Or the thing which is to be, whatever verb is before it. Like, tong gyu means the thing which is to be seen, right? Che gyu means the thing which is to be done.

Nge gyu, nge is a verb, the thing which is to be. Ascertained.

[Speaker 2]
Hm? Ascertained.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice. Or perceived, you could say. But ascertained is nice because why?

Has a word certain in it. It contains the word certain in it, which is the other meaning of nge. OK.

Oh, yeah, this thing here. I'd give Ted Lemon, like, $50 if I could get this thing off of my computer every time it starts up. OK.

All right. Anybody else, I'll give $40. To perceive it, Peter's emptiness in his eyes and his nose, and easier if you take a metaphor or an example such as a deflection in the air.

OK? All right? It's a totally different discussion, totally different point.

He never said anything about Peter's body. OK? He's talking about, you want to get to the emptiness of your eyes, ears, and nose?

Then go look in a mirror. How real is the nose in the mirror compared to the nose on your face? OK?

How real is that nose? Is that a real nose? Just a reflection.

No, it's just a reflection of the nose. It looks real. Children, little babies, sometimes get nervous when they, like, are talking to them and trying to touch them.

Right? Put a little baby in front of the mirror. And they're, like, trying to, they, like, say something.

And the person in the mirror is moving their mouth. And they're, like, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And they get excited.

[Speaker 1]
And then you reach some point where you realize that that's an illusion. And you no longer react to the thing in the mirror the way you used to before you understood where it was. You see it?

Someone comes up to you and says something that pisses you off. Right? If you don't understand that they're like a mirror, you will.

I'm kidding. If you understand that they are 100% coming from you, being irritating yesterday to everybody else, then how mad can you get at them? You know?

How mad? Maybe they reach a certain age where they no longer are trying to talk to the thing in the mirror. Because they realize it's not a person.

It's not real. So we, we with angry people, that's the difference between I and another person. The difference between I and another person is like the difference between an adult and an infant.

Right? Because they're not reacting anymore to that. They've seen that it's just a reflection in the mirror.

They've really seen it. And somewhere between the I and the person who never studied Dharma is the rest of us in Dharma classes, right? Who heard that angry people are just a reflection of something I did yesterday.

I'm seeing angry people in my life because I was angry in the past. Okay? And to some degree that makes me more cool.

I can be more cool. When someone gets angry at me for the first three minutes, I can reflect on how they're just coming from the blow-up I had with Lama Krishna in the last week. You know what I mean?

They're coming from me. The last thing I want to do is... yell at them.

You know, intellectually I understand that. And then they push me a little harder. And then I break.

I break. I break down. I yell back, you know?

With all my wisdom, I yell back. Where do you pile up this wisdom? How do you make it go from wisdom to reality?

How do you make it go from understanding to the direct perception? Say it. Tö.

Tö. Sang. Sang.

Tö Sang Kong. Tö Sang Kong. It's so important that we use it.

The real name of Srimad Bhagavad Gita is Tö Sang Kong Rinpoche. It's the jewel island of Tö Sang Kong. That's the real name of Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

What does it mean, Tö Sang Kong? Class hours. Sheer class hours.

Pile up the numbers of hours inside the class. That's all. Stupid thing.

How many hours can you pile up in this class? It's going to trigger some... So go home and think about it.

Like if you walk out of the class and never think about it, your Tö doesn't do any good. Or wash a dish and move a rock. Yeah.

Tö Sang again. Go. Meditate on it.

Because if you're not in deep meditation, you'll never see emptiness. If you want to disqualify yourself from reaching a higher evolution, then find ways to get out of your meditation every day. If you want to disqualify yourself from evolving into a higher sort of being, then think of ways not to meditate every day.

Or, you can make them short and meaningless. You know, like find ways to make them half-assed. Like if you...

If meditation is too attractive and you really want to meditate, then try to find ways to make it half-assed. Then you disqualify yourself. Most people, they just don't want to meditate anyway.

They find reasons not to meditate. They have to say, it's too hot, it's too cold. It went from yesterday, it was too cold today, it was too hot.

That was my yoga thing. Yesterday, oh, it's too cold. Today is spring.

This is the one day of spring, I hope you appreciate it. That's too hot, right? If you can't disqualify yourself by not meditating at all, then try to make it short and distracting.

And then you won't have this problem of seeing emptiness. I think, I think next week we work more on this quotation. I don't think I translated it perfectly, but I also think we gotta look further into whether he's not heard a quotation in a debate ground that wasn't that way ever anyway.

Okay? Alright? Or does he talk more about reflections later on?

Okay? And maybe the carver left out something. Okay?

Got it? Okay. So it's so beautiful to have John bring his work, and we should help.

If you could help out. Again, if you're gonna be a Chester, you gotta help, John. Okay.

Here we go. Okay. Thanks.