Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 80

[Speaker 1]
We were talking about a lower form of wisdom, which saw that Ra wasn't in control of his body and speech. And then we were discussing whether, what kind of mental afflictions that could be moved, because it's not real emptiness perception, right? It's a lower form of selflessness perception.

So, then the book says, the realization that you're not in control of your body, for example, that ultimately you won't be able to raise your arm, right? Or that you can't control your shirt. I don't know that this won't be in goodwill in Wilcox next week, because I died and they got rid of my shirt.

I kind of don't control it. So that removes certain negative emotions. You know, like, I'm not so attached to my shirt.

I know it's going to end up in goodwill. So, probably I need to almost deal with it. I'll probably take off the body or something.

But anyway, so I don't get so attached. That helps me with certain kinds of mental afflictions, which are inspired by that wrong view. Got it?

Of what? That I am in control, okay? So, like feelings of attachment for a shirt, which are not the viewpoint that I'm in control, but which are inspired by that viewpoint, right?

So, if I can overcome that viewpoint, which is not emptiness, right? I mean, I'm not understanding emptiness. I'm just understanding something about life.

You're not really in control of your life, you know? You don't have the control you think you have, and as you get older, you get into situations where you realize that. If I can overcome that idea that I am in control, then the mental afflictions, specific mental afflictions, which are engendered by that idea, right?

Like desire for my t-shirt. It helps me deal with those, right? That's what he's saying here.

But, it doesn't help me eliminate negativities that come from a deeper misunderstanding that everything is... I think things are coming from the wrong side. Got it?

So, a less understanding does deal with lesser problems, but it doesn't deal with larger problems. Okay? Like, a real emptiness understanding of my t-shirt would allow me to become an immortal deity who would always have my t-shirt.

You see what I mean? With bigger stakes. With bigger worldview.

Got it? Then he answers a question. Somebody says, How come my understanding that I'm not in control can't deal with the fact that I can't get shirts when I want them?

Why? Because it doesn't stand in direct contradiction to my ignorance, okay? My deeper ignorance, okay?

The idea that I'm not in control doesn't stand in direct contradiction with my real ignorance about where the shirt came from. Got it? And we had it in Tantra yesterday.

Do you remember? We had the same idea in Tantra. If you get really good at emptiness presentations in the open teachings, sutra teachings, then you can just carry them over to Tantra.

And we had two examples yesterday. What did he say about emptiness in Tantra and emptiness in the open teachings? Same.

Same. It's the key to both. If you understand emptiness in the open teachings, you can succeed in the open teachings.

And then you can carry that same understanding to Tantra and it will make you succeed in Tantra. Right? Then he said something else.

He said, a certain mystical state of mind. He used the same language. Does not stand in direct contradiction with the way that your ignorance holds things.

What state of mind was he talking about? What was he... Master Yamaguchi, you're going to say?

Yesterday. The primordial state of mind. Okay?

The inherent clear light. Only in the beginning. Okay.

The deeper Mahamudra. Okay? Like he says, yeah, you have a Mahamudra in your mind.

You have a clear light in your mind. You have an inborn clear light. Exist in all creatures, gown to ants and germs, right?

They have inborn clear light. But it what? It does not stand in direct contradiction to their root of their problems.

Which is holding things to come from their own side. Right? The shirt came from his own side.

I bought the shirt. Someone gave me the shirt. Actually I swiped it from her.

It's from her mom or something. It's not mom. Okay.

So, that's what it means to not stand in direct contradiction. Now I'm going to say something cool. Alright, here we go.

Let's read together. One, two, three. TE TA YIN KYANG DEN ZIN GYI CHANG PE NYON MO YIN NA TE FONG MI NYUGYAL MA KYA FE Okay.

We got a few. I don't know if you were scratching, Amber, or you were doing that. Okay, yeah.

Alright. This is subtle. Does the idea that you are in control cause you certain mental negativities?

Like attachment about your shirt. Right? Does the deeper misunderstanding that you think you bought the shirt in the store, that the shirt came from the store, right?

Does that lead to certain mental afflictions? Yeah. But the state of mind that understands that I'm not in control cannot remove all of my mental afflictions, right?

Because that's not the perception of emptiness. It's not real emptiness. But does the idea that I'm not in control help me deal with mental afflictions that are actually engendered by my deeper misunderstanding?

Question. Right? We'll put it negatively, you know.

Is it the case that the understanding that I'm not in control can never remove mental afflictions which have been triggered by my deeper misunderstanding? Think about that. I'll say it again.

Is it the case that my understanding that I'm not in control can never remove mental afflictions that were triggered by my deeper misunderstanding? Yeah. He said, it doesn't remove all those mental afflictions, but it can help with certain mental afflictions that are engendered by a deeper misunderstanding.

Got it? Okay? Got it?

Just nod. Okay. Alright.

Now, even though that's the case, okay, it's not true that if something is a mental affliction which was brought on by one's tendency to hold the existence real, we could never find this wisdom. Okay? I would say that then this other wisdom, this wisdom, this other wisdom could never attune.

What's this other wisdom? Yeah. The understanding that I'm not in control.

Okay? So can we say that that understanding is so wimpy it could never touch mental afflictions that are triggered by the deeper misunderstanding? That's not the case.

Okay? It can't remove them all because if it could, then it's a path to Nirvana. And it's not.

But it can help with selected mental afflictions that are caused by a deeper misunderstanding. Got it? Okay.

And, I'm sorry. Chi, Ni, Su, Kan, Sak, Ran, Kya, Tu, Pei, Ze, Yu, Tu, Zen, Pei, To, Pa, Pei, Ran, Gyu, Ten, Zen, Ki, Sa, Wa, Je, Yi, Re, Re. Okay.

All right. At least we sent you back to Tel Aviv with something. Okay.

You can fight and stuff. You can... All right.

And that's the curse. Okay, guys? Now he goes a different...

It's very cool. It's very cool. Why does the understanding that you're not in control also help to remove understandings that are engendered by that deeper misunderstanding?

Eh? All misunderstandings come. Yeah.

Because the misunderstanding where you think you're in control is born out of that deeper misunderstanding too. Got it? Okay?

If you think things are coming from their own side, you're more... You start to think you're in control also. Because you think your body is outside of you and you're controlling it or something like that.

Okay? So it makes sense that if you understood that you're not in control, since that misunderstanding is based in the deeper misunderstanding, then you might be able to overcome some mental afflictions caused by the deeper misunderstanding. Got it?

Okay? Yeah. Yeah, when they say it's specifically substantial.

And to think that things like Zeyu are substantial has about six different meanings in scripture. Each school has a different idea about what it means. Like the Abhidharma has a really weird idea about what it means.

But in this case, in this school, it's the Mahamudra where you think you're in control. Okay? We took it from there.

But if you want to know the whole thing, Changya Rupa Dorje, who's a former life of a monk or a butcher, wrote a Drukta Chamo, the great book on the schools of philosophy. And in there he describes all the substantials. So that's an easy place to go in.

If you ever want to go there. Somebody tried to translate it. I think they didn't do a great job.

It'd be a beautiful thing to translate. Oh, which reminds me of something. A couple of monks actually have asked me to teach them advanced pramana, perceptual theory, right?

And logic. And then I kept saying I didn't have time. And I kept trying to send them to the monastery.

And there's this one great book by Khenroje, extraordinary book by Khenroje, called the Devaniki Mantsra, which is removing the darkness in the mind with regard to the seven great books on logic, like Dharmakirti. So when I was debating at Jebu in the winter debates, we used that book. I used that book.

That was my secret weapon. And it helped me a lot. It's a huge treatise on advanced perceptual theory.

How do you see things? Why do you see things? And I've always wanted to work on it, but I never had time.

So I still don't have time. And I asked one of the Christians, she said, you don't have time. And I believed that.

But what we started to do, I told Jebu, walk around to the paper corner in the first few pages. And if we're walking to the car or we're going to the house, we're carrying wood to the house or something, then I'll talk into the paper corner. So we started.

But one of the conditions is it has to be made public. He has to put it up online and people have to be able to get it and read it, I mean listen to it for fun. So he's agreed to do that.

And there's Lobsang Nima, Dr. Starks, he would like to study that. So you have to make sure he knows about it. He asked me.

All right. Okay, here we go. So if you're interested, you can listen to that.

Like if you really want to brain fry, you can work on that. He doesn't know what he's getting into. It's like 20 years.

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

Long we knew by in day. Okay. What is...

When I say Shiraki Napa Chan, those of you who want to be a translator, something's got to happen in your mind right away. Shiraki Napa Chan. Yeah.

What do you want to call it? I don't know. Progressive subtlety meditation.

You know? Like move from a noisy part of... Move from New York to Tucson and things sound quieter.

Go from Tucson to Bowie and things sound quieter. Go from Bowie to the campground and things sound quieter. You know?

Then go walk in the... No, she says no. Then go walk in the BLM lab and things get really quiet.

You know? And your mind will go through corresponding feelings of pleasure. You know?

Like for a while. That's when San Pancho, the land developers, they try to get you in the first week before you've adjusted to the new level of quiet. You think San Pancho is actually better than Tucson.

You know? And in the first week you want to buy a place there. And then your head catches up with you and it sounds just as noisy as Tucson.

You know? And then you move to another, a more wild place, Yucatan, you know? And then it's the same thing.

The mind will always catch up with you because you're not changing the mind. You're just going to a quieter place. It's the same with changing partners.

It's the same with changing food styles. It's the same with changing all sorts of things. You're not changing the mind, really.

You're just... Things are getting more subtle and you have this illusion that you're getting better. Take the person who went from Tucson to Bowie to the temple to the wilderness, right?

Then put them back in Tucson. And within three days they'll just be just as nervous and frenetic and angry as they were when they left Tucson. You see?

Because they're not dealing with the problem. The environment is not going to help. It'll...

It gets your mind quieter and then you can see some deeper things and maybe that will help. It's kind of a semi-method. Okay?

So, Shiraki number 10 is done. Myeongjuk means samadbati. Right?

Balance between dullness and thinking about dinner. Okay. Densinbi Musub Changgye Kang Okmanag Domba Duse Duse means...

Duse means like a desire or grasping. Okay? Desire.

Which Domba, which aspires or which has a... What do you call it? Craving for Kang Okman Huh?

Okman, not Goma. Ok... Yeah, lower realms.

Okay? Lower of the three realms. Desire, form and formless.

Right? He doesn't say which he's talking about. He just says lower ones.

We don't know in Tibetan whether it was one or ones. You see? Kang Okman I would read it as plural.

Why? He's gonna say learning to meditate deeply like on your breath with no better object than that. Like Burmese meditation.

I was taught that by a Burmese teacher, Goenkaji. My first meditation teacher. He taught us just watch your breath and then that will help you deal with what?

A desire towards the objects of what are below that level. You see? Like what?

What's the dukkham? What's it defined by? Food and sex.

The desire for food and sex. Okay? So if you're able to meditate a lot just on your breath your desire for food and sex will lessen.

Right? You'll be able to overcome them temporarily.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
Stop meditating and then within a couple of weeks you're back to chocolate chip cookies and going to clubs. You know what I mean? Because it didn't change anything in the mind.

It didn't really change anything in the mind. So that's a couple. People who've reached a four round meditation no longer desire food or sex.

People who've reached a four round meditation no longer have even a desire for any physical object. Smell, taste, sights, sounds. They've reached a formless state almost.

You see? So you can say that they've been doing this from East Tucson to Bowie Bowie to Diamond Mountain. The people who've reached Diamond Mountain don't want Bowie anymore.

The people who've reached Bowie don't want Tucson anymore. Got it? So if you get to Bowie sorry Diamond Meditation have you overcome a desire for a lower realm?

Yeah. Bowie and Tucson. If you've reached Bowie realm meditation have you overcome a desire for a lower realm?

Yeah. Tucson. Right?

So either one of these could be called the lower realm. Desire for a formless realm. Okay?

And there's this famous thing that you can get rid of desire for Tucson or Bowie temporarily. Rishik. Say Rishik.

Rishik. Temporarily. Sometimes they say you can get rid of desire for Tucson and Bowie by eliminating the manifest desire.

Right? Not the seed for the desire. Like you won't have any manifestations of that desire.

You won't get angry while you're out in the BLM camping because of traffic. But you've eliminated the manifestation. But what?

The seeds are there. The seeds are there. Go back to Tucson in 15 minutes you're angry at somebody.

Okay? Because you didn't remove the anger. You just removed the object temporarily.

That's what monasteries are all about. That's what monasteries are all about. Remove people from the world for long enough that they can go deeper.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
But if you take a monk who's who's removed from the world for a while but hasn't gained any real understandings put them back in the world they're back to desire right away. Something like that. So the question.

If you go into this like breath meditation can you overcome desire for the objects of the lower realms? You can either say temporarily or the manifest form. Like the real camping kind of form.

Okay? Like that. Okay?

But let's see what he says. If you get into deep meditation on your breath can you overcome desire for food and sex? Manifest.

Manifest forms of desire for food and sex. Okay? Got it?

But what if I modify that desire for food and sex? What if I say that desire for food and sex which is directly triggered by a deep misunderstanding of reality. Then you have to say that breath meditation wouldn't be able to touch you.

You see? Wouldn't be able to touch you. It's too strong.

If that desire for food and sex has been immediately triggered by a deep misunderstanding of reality then even breath meditation is not going to affect you. Got it? So what kind of what does breath meditation what does it affect?

Does it affect anything? Yeah. But a manifest desire for food and sex which is not brought on immediately by that deep misunderstanding.

You have to say immediately, right? Why? All desires are brought on by that misunderstanding.

Right? If you're in a debate ground and you don't put in here the woosoo you're in big trouble. You know?

No, you're in big trouble. They'll wipe you. You know?

Okay? They'll wipe you. You have to say woosoo.

Not gine. What's gine? Indirectly.

Through a medium. Through four or five steps. That mental section has been brought on by a deeper misunderstanding.

Because all misunderstandings all mental sections are brought on by a deeper misunderstanding. Either directly or indirectly indirectly I almost prefer to translate as through a series of steps. Like that.

Okay? Got it? He's just pointing out that if your particular mental sections have a deeper misunderstanding in the immediate background even breath meditation is not going to help you.

Even with the manifest easy forms of that desire. You'll go into three-year retreat and you'll spend the first year thinking about Starbucks like I do. Okay.

Oh, did I make a boo-boo? So, yeah. Yeah?

Okay. Yeah, that's a good question. How do you know you're having a desire for food and sex which has been immediately triggered by a deeper misunderstanding?

Or you're having a desire for food and sex which has been triggered by an indirect misunderstanding. You've got to meditate on it. Maybe they'll come in and poke you in the crotch or something.

Okay, here we go. One. Two.

Three. Devam. Jigdam.

Yama. Re. Lo.

Ma. In. Re.

Good. Nice. We'll steal this from...

We'll steal this from here. That's how I can translate things. So many things in a day.

What is the first it? Yangchen Dupay Dorje wrote a grammar text. And one of the first things it says is when you hit a day, like at the beginning of the sentence, you better know what it's talking about.

Okay? What's the day referring to? It's talking about some kind of wimpy realization.

Yeah. Shirvakyamana-jigdam. A meditation which is just a breathing meditation.

Just more subtle. Too subtle to really meditate. Okay?

That is not a state of mind which is in direct contradiction to the way in which the other state of mind holds that things exist. What state of mind would that be? I would say it's the desire which is directly brought on or immediately triggered by a deeper misunderstanding of reality.

Got it? Okay? It's too wimpy to handle that kind of desire.

Got it? Okay. Now we're getting to another question.

If the breath meditation, which just depends on the relative subtlety of stuff, like the difference between Buddha and Tushar, if that's all it's got going for it, right? No understanding. Changing environment.

If that's all it's got going for it. So we got one wimpy state of wisdom, really, or meditation, right? We had another wimpy state of wisdom.

What was that? The understanding that I'm not in control. Okay.

So are they equally wimpy? Which would you rather have if you're on a desert island and you can only have one? Would you rather watch your breath or would you rather realize you're not in control?

That's the question. Okay, this is what comes up next. Okay.

Here we go. One, two, three. NYONG CHU DE DA YESHE DE NI PO MYONG RONG GI SA BU PONG MI NYU PA TSUNG KYANG Okay.

Now it is true that that form of meditation and the type of wisdom we were speaking about are equivalent to each other. You guys want to... Some people want to come over here?

I mean... You're welcome to stand up and walk through the class. I allow it.

You know, there's lots of territory over here. Okay. That's true that the four wisdom and the type of wisdom we're speaking of are equivalent to each other in that they are incapable of eliminating what?

Yeah. The seed for... the seeds of mentality.

Will the breath meditation remove your mental afflictions? Careful. Yeah.

Elon Musk got it right. He's like a wise debater. He's like, Sure.

Then I'm like attacking, you know. You know. So you're good to be an arhat if you move from Tucson to Bui because it removes your mental afflictions.

So if you don't remove all your mental afflictions you're not in reach to run it? Excuse me? If you remove all your mental afflictions you're not in reach to run it?

I'm sorry. I meant to say isn't it the case that if you remove all your mental afflictions you're in reach to run it? So if this meditation removes your mental afflictions don't you remove all of them?

I cheated, right? I left out all in the second sentence. That'll get you for a couple of minutes in the debate ground.

Okay. It does remove mental afflictions but not all. And not very long.

And definitely not non-manifest ones. Okay. And here we're talking about non-manifest ones.

The seed. The seed for mental afflictions. So the breath meditation moving from Tucson to Bui and the idea that I'm not in control of my arms they are equal in one sense.

What? They cannot remove the root of mental afflictions. Neither one can remove permanently the root of mental afflictions.

Got it? So in that sense they're equal. But does that make them equal?

That's the question. That's where it's coming from there. One, two, three.

Man gyero wa ongwa la nyu pa che chung gi the pa yu pe Okay. There is a difference in the capacities in the degree of their capacity to eliminate manifest forms of mental afflictions. Alright?

Good? Moving from Tucson to Bui has a certain ability has a certain power to help you remove very gross and obvious mental afflictions. You know, for a week you won't feel stressed.

You might start to get bored but you won't feel stressed. Okay? But if you could learn to understand that you're not in control of your body and your mind you'd be better able to remove gross forms of mental afflictions.

Neither one has the power to remove the seeds of mental afflictions. Right? But they have differing powers to deal with manifest mental afflictions.

Well, I'm not in control of that. Okay. Now he's going to clarify that.

Why? Say again? He didn't say which one was more powerful or why.

No, he didn't say, but he's a doctor. He's a doctor. Desire non-formal and formless realm.

Where are you when you see emptiness directly? Your mind is in the form. Your body is in the desire realm.

Which one of the four levels of the form realm? First, which one of the three sub-sections of the first level of the form realm? The first.

Samten, Dambu, Nyerdo, Michoge. Say Samten. Samten.

Dambu. Dambu. Nyerdo.

Nyerdo. Michoge. It's like the very first taste of a state of mind which is defined by no longer wanting any of the gross physical attractions of the desire realm.

Like, what's that mean in real terms in meditation? You are incomplete. I mean, anyone in this realm would consider that person to be almost enlightened.

They can sit there and you can wave McDonald's french fries over their nose and then they're totally unaware of that. Their concentration is so perfect. You can play a tuba or you can run that daisy thing right under their window while they're meditating and they won't hear anything.

You know? Okay? They won't hear anything.

And then if they go more subtle they go into formless realm. And then they don't have any attraction to any kind of physical object at all. Period.

The mind. Right? In the mind.

And then this formless realm has four levels within it. And the highest one is called sitze. Got it?

When you get that sitze how is it defined? You've overcome desire for the three lower parts of the formless realm. Because you're at the top of the formless realm.

And that's how it's defined. It's parallel to the idea that you reach the form realm when you don't care anymore about food and sex. Okay?

You reach the top of the formless realm you don't care about any of the others at all. There's three more levels here. There's four or seven levels here.

There's all these levels in the mind. You don't care about any of them. You're beyond all of them.

Okay? In the Yoga Sutra, what does it come with? Vittar, vittar, anandas, vittar.

Vittar, vittar, say vittar. Vittar, anandas, vittar. First chapter, right?

So, asmita would be the sitsang, top of the formless realm. Like you're beyond everything. You don't have desire anymore for any of those things.

But what about your desire for death? Because there ain't no place else to go in a breath meditation. You're at asmita.

There's no place else to go. How are you going to deal with that desire? For what?

For this totally perfect meditation. How are you going to deal with desire for death? Because you can't go by yourself.

You can't get over it by going by yourself. You see what I mean? Okay?

So we're going to talk about that. The wisdom legend does have the capacity to allow us to eliminate for the time being a manifest form of a long-awaited, whole, and substantial way where this misunderstanding is taken in by the level called people, at least. You have to understand the idea of taken in by.

Say, say dupa. Say dupa. Very important in Abhidharma.

Very important in Abhidharma. I think it's refreshment time. I need a cookie to demonstrate something.

There will always be something I'm trying to demonstrate on the cookie map because of the power of my desire. Okay. But let's say I have a cookie in my hand.

Ooh, wow. Okay. Did you do that?

Wow. Okay. You have to eat the four corners first.

Yeah, yeah. Ready? That's the four corners.

Right? Okay. The fourth one.

Ready? One, two, three. Okay.

Is the cookie included into the desire realm? We call it say dupa. That's the concept in Abhidharma.

It's called say dupa. It is taken in by that level, meaning the desire realm. Okay?

If I'm in a deep meditation and I'm about to see emptiness directly, is my mind, du, kam, ki, say, dupa? Is it included into the desire realm? No.

That's the distinction. Okay? Like parts of you can be say dupa by a higher realm and parts of you can be say dupa by a lower realm.

A cookie will never get into the formless realm. Form realm. Even the form realm.

Okay? Alright. If I do the Buhi, the Tushanta Buhi breath meditation and I get more and more subtle and I work my mind up to the highest level of the formless realm, right?

By just breath meditation. By just subtlety. Degrees of subtlety, right?

If I get up to there, can that affect my ignorance that's in that level of reality? That's say dupa by that level of reality? Can my calmness in the highest form of the formless realm, the highest level of the formless realm, deal with my misunderstandings that are in the highest realm?

Cannot. Cannot. Because subtlety meditation only works for Tushant from Buhi.

And only works for Buhi from Dalai Lama. You have to be at a higher level looking down and rejecting those things. Got it?

And there is no higher level meditation. Breath meditation. Got it?

Just getting more and more calm in meditation cannot deal with the misunderstandings which are in your mind at that level of meditation. Got it? Got it?

Got it? But can the idea that I'm not in control help with my misunderstandings at even a very high level of meditation? Yeah.

So which would you rather have on a desert island? That's the answer to the question. That's the answer.

I'd rather understand that I'm not in control than be suddenly breathing. Because when the boat comes and everybody jumps off and there's all these Tahitian ladies in bikinis I'm gonna drop out of the meditation. You know?

But if I've been doing an emptiness meditation on how I'm not in control, you know, then I'll probably have some self-control. Got it? Okay.

Got it? The meditation cannot remove my misunderstanding at that high meditation level. Right?

But my understanding that I'm not in control can. Got it? So we can say, he's using this as a Tak Yang Dak.

Say Tak Yang Dak. Tak Yang Dak. It means a goddamn good reason.

For what? For what he just said. Let's go back and see what he just said.

There is a degree of difference in their capacity to remove mental obsession. There's a difference between, if you got stuck on a desert island you might want to know which one was better. Okay?

Are they good? Sorry. Is one better than the other?

You just proved it. Who said no? Is one better than the other?

One's better than the other. You can get rid of more mental afflictions. Right?

Are they good? Now you can say no. Okay?

Is one better than the other? Yes. Are they good?

No. Got it? Why?

They can't get rid of the fear of mental afflictions. Got it? That's where we are.

When you get into one of these... I mean, I have a very close friend. He's a great, great, great Tibetan scholar.

He's not a galupa. He never had a chance to hear these from the feet of a qualified farmer. He says, those monastic textbooks are just bullshit.

They're just sophistry. You know, they're just like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, they don't mean anything.

Like, they're just talking... What do you call it? They're arguing about words.

What do you call it? They're just dealing with semantics, you know? How would you answer that in this last piece?

Yeah, you know what you need to go for. But what's such a common mistake in meditation in America? Just get calm.

You know, take your breath deeper and deeper. You know? She has a third eye.

It can rotate around the stomach. Like, sometimes in the back of the head, but sometimes right over the ear. And she can see if I'm taking an extra cookie.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's probably the biggest problem in meditation in America. Well, the biggest problem in meditation in America is what? People don't do it.

But the second biggest problem. The second biggest problem is, you know, they go to a yoga studio, and they say, watch your breath, and everyone gets calm, you know? And then they leave, and they go outside and they get mad in traffic.

You know, because it didn't change anything, right? So, you could say, this is not just, what do you call it, semantics? They're not just talking semantics.

It's a very serious question. You know, would you rather have an ounce of understanding or an ounce of breath meditation? You know?

Is that to say that breath meditation is bad? No, I do it every day. I do it for like half an hour every day.

I still do it every day. Ever since Goenkaji in 1973. Okay.

Here we go. One. One.

Two. Three. Ni.

Pa. Ke. Ni.

Chen. Juk. Ken.

Pu. Rok. Su.

Ten. Pa. Ra.

Uh. Meema is going to translate the whole thing. I'll give you a clue.

Chen Juk is Avatara. And it's short for something else. Yeah.

Bodhisattva Charak Charak. Ni Pa means we're reaching the whole big section. Section two.

Huge section of the book. Be careful with denyi. Okay?

Be careful with denyi. I had a case recently. Denyi doesn't always mean tatva.

It doesn't always mean sections. It doesn't always mean emptiness. Sometimes it means the thing we was just talking about.

That same thing we was just talking about. What do you think it means here? Huh?

Yeah. And he wants to tell that that is the Luke. He wants to show that it's the system of Chen Juk Kenpo.

What's a Kenpo? Shiruki, Vinaya master. What's a Kenpo?

Yeah. Kenpo nowadays means Abbot, right? Abbot.

But in the Vinaya times it meant your vow master. And why did it slur over into Abbot? In a modern Kalupa monastery all the vows are given.

All the monks are ordained by the Abbot. So, if you had the same Abbot, Jampa Gunya, for 12 years, how many Jampas are you going to have in the monastery? Like 400.

And that's what happened in Sarame. Jampa Lurik is one of that generation. Okay?

There's like 90 other Jampas running around the monastery. Like, it got so bad in the monastery. Like, Jampa number 47?

No, 83. You know, okay? Okay.

So, sometimes Master Shantideva is referred in scripture as Chen Juk Kenpo. The master of the the master of entering the Bodhisattva spirit life. The master of the entry to the life.

The master of the entry the master of entering the life. Okay. This brings us to our second major session.

A demonstration that this same position represents the system of Master Shantideva. The I'll just say Shantideva, right? Because we're going to call him Master.

And, and what did I try to say? A guide. The master of the guide.

Okay? Guide to what? Bodhisattva spirit life.

Okay. Now this is something that most people don't grasp. Okay?

But Master Shantideva wrote this very sweet heartwarming Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life. And it's so general that His Holiness can even teach it in Tucson twice. Right?

Two chapters from it. But what you have to also understand is that his chapter on emptiness is one of the greatest presentations of emptiness I've ever written. It ain't no heartwarming wimpy thing.

You know? It's a real debate master like shredding the opponents. On the question of emptiness.

You know? And he gives no quarter. You know?

He's merciless. And he's pure. You know?

So, you know, there are whole monasteries that only study the ninth chapter of the Guru Charitaure. Okay? Alright.

One, two, three. Chuh-wa nyam-te toh-pa la muh-po ram-shin meh-pa toh guh-pa pam-den da-wa chak-pe gong-pa yin-pa ma-se Okay. But I want to do one exercise here.

Since you are working on the laptop, right? Since you are working on a computer, I want you to you can easily go back and see what was dang-bo. Yeah, like how did how far back did we how far back was number one started?

And what was number one? And that will help you translate number two much more responsibly. So, don't be lazy.

Go back and find it. Okay? Now, if you go back and look for all the dang-bos, you're going to hit like ninety of them.

Okay? But fortunately, he's giving you the name of the of the category, which is dang-yi, chun-ju, ken-bo, lok-su, ten-ba. So, if we just go back and look for chun-ju, for example, Bodhicharyavatara, we're going to hit it.

And then we'll see what dang-bo is. And we'll see what they were categories of. And that will help us translate it more responsibly.

So, we go back to the beginning of the file. We look for chun-ju. He's quoting chun-ju.

That's not that's not what we want. Ah. Okay.

We go back on page 260. We will show how this sutra talks about. Then we will set forth scriptural references.

And finally, we will overcome our opponents. He's talking about how non-Bodhisattvas can see emptiness directly. Okay?

You don't have to be a Bodhisattva to see emptiness directly. Okay? And he's going to show how that was the position of two different people.

A, the person who wrote the commentary. And B, of Master Shantideva. Who was the person who wrote the commentary?

Chandrakirti. Master Chandrakirti. On who?

On Arya Nagarjuna. Okay? Got it?

So, the position I'm trying to present, which is that you don't need ultimate love to see emptiness directly, was the position of two great masters. Chandrakirti, as he was commenting on Arya Nagarjuna, and Master Shantideva. He's done with the first category.

He's moving on to the second category. Got it? Alright, here we go.

We go back to Chandrakirti. You see, I wouldn't have been able to say that phrase if I hadn't looked back. Okay?

And so, it is certainly the case that it is true, but it was Chandrakirti that you must perceive that things have no qualities that you hope to attain liberation by the Buddha. Okay? Did he say that?

Is that what he sold it to us as? What was category number one? What were they saying?

They were saying that people on lower tracts can also see emptiness directly. Now they've switched. What do they call it?

They've switched. What do they call it in Sunnism? You've changed your terms.

Solipsism? You've changed your terms. You said you were going to prove that people on lower tracts could see emptiness directly.

Now you're saying if you want to reach Nirvana you have to see emptiness directly. But what's the what's the bridge that you could use to get between those two ideas? Yeah.

Everyone accepts there are lower arhats. So, how did they get there? How did they get rid of their mental afflictions?

Everyone accepts that people without ultimate love can still get rid of their mental afflictions. Okay? How did they do it?

Oh, they signed to this. Okay? Got it?

So it's not like crazy. It's not like crazy. I'm going to I'm going to stick this up here.

But it is as well a true thought of Gyel Tse Shul Han. Yeah. What's Gyel Tse mean?

That's her name. So you don't always have to say Master if he says the Great or the Glorious then that's good enough. Okay?

To give you tantric power. Okay? Really?

Okay? You notice how he never does anything else? He never calls him Chandrakirti or something like that.

He said Glorious Chandrakirti. Okay. Between who?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you're right.

[Speaker 1]
You're right. Thank you. Okay.

One Two Three And that's true. Because we need to have this sort of realization is set forth in in the guide right? Thank you.

In the guide in the form of a a Gyel means like Tsukpa What's that? Yeah, debate. It's a different word for Tsukpa.

A criticism and a response. What's that mean? Somebody in the Bodhichitta raises a an objection.

There'd be an objection right here. Okay. And a response.

So what can we anticipate is coming up? As a translator you're not always just translating cold words. You are anticipating what they're going to say and it helps you squeeze it out of the text.

And if you don't do that it's difficult to translate. You have to anticipate what he's going to say. What's probably going to happen next?

Yeah. He's going to show the He's going to repeat the objection and then he's going to repeat the response. Most likely.

But gather it in mind as you translate. Where should this argument go next? And then you can find it in the words.

Okay? Alright. One Two Three One Two Three Sixteen in two steps.

A presentation of the original argument then the response. Okay, got it? So first we're going to hear somebody attacking who?

Master Shantideva. We get to hear Master Shantideva's enemies talking. Then we get to see him wipe them out.

Okay. One, two, three. Who's speaking?

The enemy or Master Shantideva? The opponent or Master Shantideva? The opponent is speaking.

So would he be saying, you do too have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? Or would he be saying, are you telling me you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? Or let's put it in a negative way.

Would he be saying, it is so not true that you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana, okay? Or is he saying, are you telling me it's not the case that you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? Which one of those would he say?

The first one, right? He wouldn't say, oh Master Shantideva, are you crazy? You're telling me you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana?

Or would he be saying, come on, anybody knows you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. Which of those two would he be saying? The second one.

He'd be like, are you kidding? Of course you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. Right?

That would be the opponent's, what the opponent would be expected to say. Got it? You wouldn't expect the opponent to say, come on Master Shantideva, are you telling me you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana?

Would he say that? No, because he doesn't believe it. So which way does the tell go?

Now you know. Is he saying, it is so true that you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? Or is he saying, are you telling me it's not true that you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana?

He's the first one. It is so the case that you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? That's what he's saying.

He's not saying, come on Master Shantideva, are you saying you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana? Because he wouldn't say that. Because he believes that.

He wouldn't be sarcastic and say what he believes, right? So, does he go up or down? Up.

In Tibetan it goes up. Let's do it together. TAM BO LA KA CHING KYI CHO BA MYANG TE TOG PA LA DONG NYID DO MI GOS PA KA.

Got it? Of course it's true you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. What's wrong with you?

Are you crazy? Got it? It is so the case for the first of these the opponent comes and says it is so the case that you don't have to perceive emptiness to get to reach Nirvana to reach liberation OK?

Let's read this one together. 1, 2, 3 DONG NYID DO PA LA MA DU PA DRO BA MYANG TE TOG NYU ME CHIG SEWA YIN TE OK? We have to catch the sewa which means, in this context, to claim, which is a mayinga.

What's a mayinga? Mayinga says, you say one thing and you mean something else. Right?

We were talking about a mayinga in the Tantric classes today. They have a long list of why certain kinds of people and beings couldn't achieve Buddhahood in one life. They have a long list.

Cannot practice the stage of completion. And they have a long list. For example, one which is not secret maybe.

Yeah, I don't think so. There are six elements. They said, such and such beings in such and such realms can't achieve Tantric Buddhahood in one life because they don't have the six elements in their body.

That's a mayinga. Mayinga means, that tells you something positive. Saying that negative thing tells you something positive, which is what?

You do have to have the six elements and we do have them. Like, all those other people can't achieve Buddhahood in one life because they don't have the six elements in their body. Which is to say, we do.

And we can. What's the mayinga here? I forget what I was going to say.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
You're right. Oh, yeah. The word sara is mayinga.

Why? When you say, you know, Michael Brandon claims this, what are you saying? He's wrong.

Be careful because sara can also mean they state. You have to know that it's wrong. The government comes and claims.

And that's true. They claim, they continue because it is possible to attain the Dharma without relying on a perception of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
He just changed it, relying. And that's legal. It's a good question.

When a gi comes at the end of a sentence, it's the one percent of the cases where it doesn't mean by and it means rather. Okay? Yeah.

Okay? And that's true because the guide has those lines that say, we reach liberation by seeing the truth somewhat easily to see emptiness. Okay?

Okay? That's what it says. Do you think he might have taken something out of context?

But for him it's a very powerful argument. He's like saying, oh, you're telling me that Master Shantideva said you had to see emptiness to get Nirvana, right? And we say, yeah, we say that.

He says, it's not true that you have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana because you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. That was your... you didn't like his...

Okay. And then we say, teacher, why? He says, well, I mean Master Shantideva did say we reach liberation by seeing the truth and what uses it to see emptiness.

He did say that, and that's in his book. I don't personally remember, but what's a possibility that this is a statement? It's the Kachin?

From Master Shantideva. It's very possible that I think the other guy was saying this. I'm not sure.

Or else he meant something else. Should I take the trouble to go see? I really have like 15 minutes, so maybe not.

Left in the term. Alright, so... I blew it, okay?

I blew it. I blew it. Hang on.

I missed this last one when you came here.

[Speaker 2]
The first of these is expressed...

[Speaker 1]
Now the argument changed. Got it? What was the first category he promised us?

The argument. So we say there was an argument in the Bodhicaryatara, because somebody came and said you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. And then we say, no, there was no such argument made in the Bodhicaryatara.

He says, yes there was, where the guy said we reach liberation by seeing the truth in what needs to see emptiness, okay? So I misstated that. I misunderstood that.

He's not proving... The kācig is not using this to prove anything. We're using it to prove that there was such a kācig.

I'll say it again. We promised two things from the Bodhicaryatara. What were they?

Number one, we're going to hear an objection. Number two, we're going to get the response to it. Somebody says, I deny that there was an objection made about this subject in the Bodhicaryatara.

That's the debate. Then we say, there was such an objection made because somebody got up and said, you don't have to see emptiness to get to Nirvana. And he says, I disagree.

And then we quote the kācig from the Bodhicaryatara. That's all. That's all the proof is.

He didn't do anything sneaky. We're just proving that there was an argument by quoting this verse. Got it?

Now as a translator, what are we expecting? What's coming next? The response.

Which is really what we're interested in. And we have about 15 more minutes. I think we can get to a good place in it.

Let's translate it up to that point, and then you tell me if it's a tell or a tell. It's good that you're struggling with this, because then you'll be able to translate it properly. If you didn't know there was a problem, you would just run over it like a bulldozer.

And it would be wrong. So here we go. Moreover, it is the case that it's impossible to achieve Nirvana, liberation, without relying on the perception of emptiness.

Down or up? Yeah, up. In Tibetan, up.

Because who's talking? We are. It is the case.

In English we deal with that emphasis of the verb. It is the case that you have to see emptiness. Or you can't reach the bottom without seeing emptiness.

It is the case. So in Tibetan you go up. Let's go together.

xe yang tong ni to pa la ma to par dro wa nyam de to mi nyu bar Okay, okay. Moreover, it is so, the case, that you can't attain Nirvana. By the way, here there are synonyms.

I don't know why he's repeating it. There must be some reason. Like, maybe Master Shakyadeva is going to use dro wa later on.

But tarpa, say tarpa, toma, nyam de, dunchik, synonyms. Moksha, I don't remember. Freedom, liberation and Nirvana are the same thing.

Sometimes, dro wa can also mean Buddhahood. So be careful. Tarpa never means Buddhahood.

Okay, and nyam de, kut, alright, we're going to see Nirvana without relying on a perception of emptiness. Why? One, oh, ahach, daim, khamesh, de, par, de, par, nungi, nuk, rik, pe, kyang, nuk, pe, shlok.

Shlok, sorry, khamesh is five, right? Yeah, it's the same in Arabic, khamesh. But anyway, okay.

De, rik, pe, kyang, nuk, pe, shlok. Jampa, nuk, rik, has appeared. What's nuk, rik mean?

He's the great monk at the temple in New Jersey. His name means scriptural authority and logic. So two ways to prove something to another Buddhist, you know.

You can use either scriptural authority or you can use logic. Like I was very weak in the scriptural authority because I hadn't memorized all the texts up to my seventeenth year, you know. They had it on me on scriptural authority in the debates.

I had to use logic, right? But it's interesting, if a person from Seramay goes to the winter debates, their nungi, rik, pe, changes. Why?

They don't accept this scripture as nungi, as nungi dukje, as scriptural authority. Why? Especially they ain't gonna accept it as Seramje.

Why? It was written by the student from Seramay who contradicts his teacher from Seramje. Okay?

So, you can't say, because Kekutamadargi said so. Okay? Which is why when you do the winter debates, you use Gyaltsabje, text on logic.

Which, if you finish Dejunyikimunseo, you can have Gyaltsabje for dessert. And that'll take 30 years. Okay?

That'll take 30 years. Much more difficult. Infinitely more difficult.

Okay? So, at the winter debates, you have to use Tsongkhapa or his two disciples in a galupa monastery. But what if the Sakyas come?

You gotta stick to Kamyarapindeya. Or their own texts. One year, the Dombos came.

They refused to say Chöchen. They refused to say Chöchen. You know?

Which means what? Take the paper. Paper, Chöchen.

Take the paper. They refused to say Chöchen. Why?

It includes the word Dharma. They say, Paper, Bunchen. You know?

So, what do you use for scriptural authority on the Dombos? Then we went to the Rigpa. Then you switch over to the Rigpa.

Why is this relevant to you? When you meet your mother-in-law at Thanksgiving dinner, and they ask you about some Buddhist concept, what are you not going to do? You're not going to use scriptural authority, because there is no common scriptural authority.

There is no common scriptural authority. Unless you use their own scriptures. Yeah.

Yeah. And that's why you have to know the Bible and things like that. But more probably, you'd want to go to Rigpa.

And what is the foundation of logic in a debate? What is the foundational principle of logic in a debate? You only use ideas which they accept already.

You are not allowed to introduce a new idea. You must, as your tools, and as your material, as your gunpowder, you can only use things which they already hardly agree to. You are just rearranging them into a new, you know, you say, do you believe this?

Yeah. Do you believe that? Yeah.

Well, you know if you believe that and that, you have to believe this. Wow! So, arguments with your spouse or your partner, where does it break down?

You pass beyond what they accept. It breaks down, the argument goes from 1 to 5 a.m., all on the basis of, at 1 a.m. you said one thing wrong. You said, you used an argument that they do not accept already.

And then the whole other four hours was useless. Okay? Alright?

But we still do it. Okay. As you know, if you have the pleasure.

So, and that's true. Because the belief expressed above, is, this is a difficult word, do you know nu? Yeah.

Yeah. I gotta think of it. Yeah, shen nu, shi nam, che ban ne, do pa.

Okay? That's Jessica's definition of Pratimoksha. Shen nu, shi nam, che ban ne, do pa.

That's his description of Pratimoksha. Shen nu, hurting other beings, nam shi. It's foundation.

The foundation. Pratimoksha is all about verbal, avoiding verbal and physical harm to other beings, ahimsa, right? That's Pratimoksha.

But Tsongkhapa sneaks in, shi. Yeah, the thoughts behind those actions and words. So everyone goes around saying, Pratimoksha only deals with what you say and what you do.

But he says, no, shi nam che. Nei do, you must turn back from harm to others and the foundation of that harm, which is hating them or being angry at them. Okay?

Like that. Okay? But that's a classic use of the word nu, which means what?

To hurt. Okay? But in logic, nu is used in a different way.

What is it? My logic, my argument is going to nu your statement. How do you want to translate that?

Disprove maybe, I think. And that's true because the belief expressed above is disproved. It can be above too complicated.

It can be both by scriptural authority and we have a few minutes. We'll do some of the logic nu, okay? One, two, three.

Done. It's a split reason, right? It's a split reason.

And that's true. Oh, I'm sorry. Disproved first because the state that freedom is impossible for those who still see things.

Okay? Which is mukha-doshi. If you're taking a diamond cutter course from Paramahansa Yuga, they're on this subject right now.

It could even be a reference to the diamond cutter. They think of things as things. It's called mukha-doshi.

Mukha-doshi. Mukha is bhava. In Sanskrit it can mean either a functional thing or a thing in general.

And you just have to tell from the context. Is a thing not a thing? It is a thing, right?

But it's not a thing from its own side or the way you think it is. You thought it was bought in a store. You think paper is a God-given right of Americans.

No, you believe that. You believe you will always have paper. Not the case.

This is coming from your karma. This is coming from your virtue. It's a heavy virtue to have good paper in a country.

No, you cannot express ideas. You can't. This is a very serious, heavy good karma, and it can end any time.

Because it's driven by karma, in a year you could have no paper. You could have no hand to hold the paper. You don't have any rights with karma.

You have all the seeds, and they can go off any time and do really weird, screwy things that you don't deserve right now. Okay? That's part of malcontrol.

Okay? Here we go. One, two, three.

Tu sung ki geng tu shuk pa ne Rang sang ge ki par na Sher ching di la fe ne Rang rang ki chang shu Tao ge par sung de shi Duh! Okay. I like to say past, present, and future because it's more common English than Alpha 3 times.

Look at the New York Times. Google Alpha 3 times. You won't hear anything.

Make it common English. Strive to make it understandable by normal people. That's your goal as a translator.

All those beings and passions which have or ever will achieve the goals from entering the stream, which is the lowest of the goals of some, just seeing emptiness directly, up to the state of a self-made Buddha, can only do so by relying upon this perfectionism to achieve their individual enlightenment. I thought there was only one enlightenment. If you've achieved Cang Chu, are you a Sanghi?

You see? There's lower Cang Chus. There are lower Cang Chus.

Lower Arhats, their Arhat ship is called Cang Chu in some schools. Got it? It's never called Sanghe except when you say it wrong, Sanghe.

Okay? Sanghe me Sangye me, kya me ae cha. Ta mu gyur.

Cang Chuy me Sangye me, kya me ae cha. Ta mu gyur. Okay?

Sangye me Cang Chuy me, kya me ae cha. Yin. Kya.

Okay? Got it? Alright.

Uh... But what did he just prove? What does this specifically say?

Huh. Who's he talking about? Is he talking about Buddhas reaching Buddha?

No, he stopped at self-made Buddhas on a lower chart. He stopped at lower Arhats. Right?

What did he say about everybody from any kind of Arya up to a lower Arhat? What did he say about them? They can't get to where they got to unless they...

see emptiness. Essentially. Got it?

Got it? That's... No, he's using it to prove that.

He's using it to prove that. Because what did the other guy say? You don't need to see emptiness to achieve...

Buddha, did he say that? No, he said Nirvana. Got it?

Nirvana. Why is this relevant to George Smole on the street? Who could care less about enlightened beings.

They want to be happy. Yeah. Do you have to see emptiness directly to get over jealousy or anger or uncontrollable desire for dumb condolence?

Which is no. Which plagues two-thirds of Americans. No.

No, it does. They suffer heavily in this country from all the problems that come from not being able to control their desire for food. Right?

So someone comes to you, I can't control my desire for food. I get angry. I'm jealous.

I see weird things that aren't even there. You know? Because I'm so jealous.

What can I do? Then what are you going to say? See emptiness.

Think about emptiness. And then you're going to make this huge, you know, beautiful leap to a daily practice of emptiness. How does it relate to Dunkin' Donuts?

You're not going to sit down and quote Shantideva. To them, you're going to talk about the last maple-covered donut. Really.

Really. Okay? Really.

You're going to say, how do you think you get donuts? You have to share them.

[Speaker 2]
You know?

[Speaker 1]
And then you go off on the emptiness of donuts. That is the emptiness. That's actually a dependent origination of donuts.

You have to share them to get them. What's the emptiness of donuts? If you don't share them, you can't get them.

So maybe you don't want to eat some of these. If you like donuts, maybe you want to give some of them away and not eat the whole box. And then now, there's a way, and they'll be happier.

No, and then that's emptiness. You don't have to go off on some Tibetan scripture. You know, you never have to tell them where they came from.

Right? You just want to make people happy with these ideas. This whole idea that maybe eventually we could wipe out all references to Buddhism, or Buddhas, or Sanskrit, or Tibetan, and it could just be part of a way of life.

You see? It would be beautiful. You have to think like that as a translator.

We're not just doing this course to translate some Tibetan text. The course has no benefit unless you take it on to people who have real problems, and you can help them in some way by understanding emptiness. The emptiness of a donut.

If you make that leap, you are a pundit. You know, you are a sage. You know?

Just quote Tibetan to somebody, to your family, it's not going to work. But if you can show them how to get more donuts, Really, the real source of donuts, I'm going to write a classical commentary. The real source of donuts.

But what happens, by the way, if you start sharing donuts, is that you don't want to overeat them anymore. And then you become happier. Right?

And then that's the goal of what we're doing in Translator College. Okay, that's my pitch. Bring it to the people.

Bring your... Become a... Get your head stuffed full of Chandrakirti and chanting, you know.

And then what comes out of your mouth should be joshmo. Alright? That's a real yogi.

Kusuli kusulu. Right? A virtuous one who is anonymous.

An anonymous virtuous one. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting Chanting