But I found one strange thing. When it was translated into Kubatul, they called the same word Janu Janak, and that means compute. That's exactly what it means, that there was apparently still the possibility there. So the Tibetans, who were very, very careful translators, who, in the beginning, had even to create a special philosophical language, according to the Sanskrit Buddha, were did not allow people to translate their Sanskrit books into Tibetan, but they were not qualified people. They had to work for a special examination of the Highest Council, and they were not allowed. And there was a rule that once the philosophical township had been settled in Tibetan, There was a counter-addiction right here, and every constructor had to use, by government law, had to use the same expression for the same word, so that people could not bother between this and that, and all sorts of things like that.

[01:11]

And due to that, the Tibetan translations are the most exact translations in the world. They are not comparable to earth and earth because, for instance, if you take the Chinese texts, which are very beautiful, very interesting, but you would never be able to retranslate any text from Chinese to Sanskrit. But you can take the Tibetan, and you can retranslate it word by word from Tibetan to Sanskrit, and you get the same rhythm, the same stroke, the same meaning. While in Chinese, you have other grounds, which expose a certain idea, which is beautiful. But you can never say which word was being used. You're getting a general idea, but not a word. So therefore, if you translate from the Chinese, you will get a very beautiful version of what more the said by the Buddha, but it is more, I would call it a poetic version. It is not an absolute direct translation.

[02:16]

So we have to be very careful with translations in general. Translations, even by Buddhists, are, with all good intentions, very often something that has been created by former people. And that's one another example. I don't know if you know the books of, for instance, of one good man, Christopher Shortface. He was the head of the Buddhist in England. He has written some very beautiful books. He's a very good Buddhist and all that. But he came originally from the Therese of Hull, and his idea, I think, was a kind of affirmations of various religions. I mean, he had the idea to show that it wasn't really women's respects that symbolized Christianity. It was a good redemption in the U.S. lighting, women's respects, but not in every respect.

[03:19]

He could not quite forget his Christian background, and then, for instance, he referred to the last verse of the Buddha. The Buddha said, simply two words. It was the last two words. It means, What did he say? He, for instance, said, Strive for your own salvation with diligence. There's no question of your own salvation. It is absolutely un-Buddhistic. We never should think of our own salvation. Neither the word salvation nor the word own. It has been simply inserted in it because it always sounds very good. Well, it doesn't sound right to me. So both have written so carefully to observe the actual expressions of the Buddha. They are so much clearer than any other translator. They are so... Please don't follow me because I have said it.

[04:25]

If you experience it for yourself, it's all right. But if you don't experience it, it's up to you. You wouldn't believe me because I don't want to believe you. I want to be the one who is found out to be correct. If you agree, if you have come to the same point of view through the early experience, then you are a follower. Otherwise you are just a believer. Like a lot of people in the world who may have different religions and who just use the Bible as it's written. So that was what, to my mind, what I explained very well. It wasn't your hypnosis and your course of hypnosis. So these four parts, this, the next part of the Vajrayana, which we know belongs to the very first core of Buddhism. And if you remember this, this center around totals and antipodes and then in the Vajrayana,

[05:28]

I want to jump in with my outcome. In my understanding, living is based on very clear logic. In fact, the Buddha said, logic is not all. Logic is all right to express my words in a comprehensive way. But don't you believe that you can arrive at anything beyond by logic, because there are many things which are much deeper than that. And that is what we must not forget, that Buddhism points to a center which may be inexpressible, but here, as far as the Buddha's words go, they are understandable for anyone in the world, in that basis put it. So, please, if you have got any questions, You okay?

[06:34]

You okay? I would like to know what you have to say. It would help to know. So I would be interested if you have any particular idea about it. Because after all, I can only talk what I feel, but let me know what you are. I'll be quite conscious of the fact that there is so many evaluations, so many possibilities, so many beautiful traits of this. Could you talk a little bit more about the sense of, if there's a Japanese word, complete, instead of right, or right view, right? You don't have to think of anybody. And I wonder if you mean that in the sense of perfect. No, it was fine. It was fine. They were perfect for a... It might be nice, but we were with a certain question. Because people think perfect means something which can't be made better.

[07:35]

But I also don't compute, because it can still be more, I don't know, it can be still understood in a deeper way. And it was not the same as perfect. Perfect is, in the last ten and a half million years, they were perfect. It was almost like there was a real finality. But in business, there was no finality. And I would say, apparently, It means only a certain way of seeing things. That means to see things in their completeness, not able to see them essentially in a graver, or this a graver, or this or that, but to see them with a firmness, and which I recently read about for Like the Tibetan Buddhist said, you define the rana as the perfect understanding of samsara, or the perfect understanding of this world.

[08:41]

Because unless you have understood this world already, then you can't ever attain the rana. You can't just jump over it. So a lot of people are like, well, what's wrong with that idea? Because the world, like the world is in itself that we don't know. We can either see the world as samsara or as the room. It's up to us what we see. But it was not the world itself. The world is not a good or a bad. If you look at that, you look at all the good or the bad. So the concept of Morana has nothing to do with the idea of heaven or paradise or anything like that, that you may feel like in paradise. The idea in Buddhism was that even if you were brought to heaven, would have to come down again, and in general effect, to not work out as I've told them before, because you're not only seeing one side. So both are, because they're not, they're not heavens, they're not devas or gods, they do not promote necessarily perfect things that are made, things perhaps of a higher stage, but not double-minded.

[09:53]

So we have to be careful to understand that they are perfect. We should always make it clear that we don't worry. It's perfect and accurate, and we'll develop it harder, something which is, for all of you, perfect, and which will be able to be improved. Could we use the word perfecting in that concert in what you're saying? Well, I would say in the translation, perfect use would be writing a sentence over a complete year. Because if you were to work through a structure in the word perfect, otherwise there is no European word. It doesn't matter what I taught there. You know, I have tried to find better constructions, and I think the end of the world is perfect, but I am conscious that not the result was super simple and finite and immutable.

[10:58]

Because people might say, how can I get a graphic made from the beginning? But then you come back and you say, don't deal with the period. So then I say, you never must know that you shouldn't see the friends only from their own point of view, but also from other people's view. And that is, at least we can all the time increase our knowledge. What? I don't know if you can hear me. I didn't want to give away too much time to themselves. You have to follow what I said, check it for themselves and try it. I don't know if you can tell it, but I don't know how critical it is. So, for example, in Ireland, we had a four-level troop, so you had four cars. I don't believe in them, because I don't want to allow the children. If you're going to delete one, you have to keep the second one. That's right. [...]

[11:58]

Because the Buddha doesn't want you to believe it. But you must try to understand it. If you believe it, you understand it as a gospel house. You can believe it through your nostrils. You can fully believe it. But it doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you can understand it, you have certainly achieved something. Because at least you know what you are talking about. So I think the main difference between Buddhism and all the other religions in the world is that whereas all the other religions are based on faith or belief, rather, Buddhism is based on understanding. That if you have understood it, you will have trust and a sense of self-confidence with the Buddha. That's all right. But trusting yourself is a different thing than belief. And we all make a difference because we do it first. So what can we add for... You can go further, but you have to understand what he says. In the Perfection of Wisdom in the Ten Thousand Lines, Kamsa translates the first line as, Call forth all you can of faith, of love, and of perspective.

[13:14]

Please talk loudly, all of you, because we're going to find a theory. Please put all your questions down. Make them short, and we'll come out. Thank you. In the profession of victim, translated by Edward Kahneman, he translated the first line as, call forth all you can, the order might be wrong, of love, of faith, and of respect. How do you mean faith? How should we understand faith in that? Well, the word faith is not allowed, because faith in the bodhisattvas is not able to believe. If you go to the university, And I don't know what to say to a particular commercial for a particular professor.

[14:17]

You do so because of the faith that has been most central to what I don't do. If you hadn't got that faith, that conviction, that you were a small group, you wouldn't have been trained to learn from me. So that's why this kind of conviction we must know first, first of all the Buddha. But all that is our conviction should be based on certain facts. That means they should be convinced that what the Buddha has to judge corresponds to morality. On that basis, we can listen to him. We can find that what we say is true for ourselves. If we don't find what we say is not true for ourselves, then we should swear quite openly, well, that's not for me. So is good conviction based on fact, which we understand with our heart? that in Buddhism, understanding is not a model for intellect, but rather a model for our heart. So therefore, I would say that if it begins in understanding, it doesn't end well in what we generally assume to be the sort of men.

[15:24]

So when conviction is a thing that is grounded in the heart, but in the feeling heart, I'd like to offer the definition of the word day, simply intensity of interest. Intensity of interest. I think that is not sufficient. I may be interested in something, but I may not have faith in it at all. I may be interested, for instance, in certain branches of science, but that interest is not quite sufficient to convince me. I would say, well, maybe so, maybe not be so. So that, therefore, in Buddhism, we expect that we have some reason for our faith. Without a sufficient reason, there is no point in it.

[16:27]

Was it reason that you found in our correspondence between our own experience of our own lives and these ideas that we're interested in? I don't know. Would the reasons that we have be because of the correspondence between our own personal experience of life and the ideas in which we're interested? Certainly, our own experience is not so complete, but I think that in a certain way there should be a correspondence, and that means that our own reason might confirm to the ideas which have been brought to us. If we find them in accordance with us, with our own experience, with our own experience, then in that case we can proceed on the path of the liver. But in that case, we see his first cases. This is well-generated On a very general ground, everybody experiences suffering.

[17:29]

That cannot be denied. So if you experience the effect of suffering, then we can go to the next point, we can ask ourselves, why? What for? What is the reason? And when the Buddha gives the reasons, he said, great hatred and ignorance. And I found that certainly great hatred and ignorance are the cause of most of our sufferings. In the day we can go everywhere one step further, we can see great and hatred are based on ignorance. In the day we can deny that, because if we were not ignorant we couldn't become a father. So the bit I studied is so fundamental that it is beyond all disputations. You're more about doing mathematics. If you're saying 2 by 2 is 4, well, that's an axiom. You can't prove it. Or 1 by 1 is 1. You can't prove it. If you see the axiom, you have to accept it's a phenomenal effect. If you see anything below, it takes an axiom, which is so universal that you can't deny it.

[18:34]

And then it depends on that, you see. Like a physician, he asks first, he makes a diagnosis, what's the problem, what's the problem, and then when it comes to the diagnosis, what are the reasons of our suffering, and then he shows that we're not out from the suffering to a state of revival of the suffering and can enter a state of happiness. So that's all very clear and logical explanation. And I say, the Mughals did not start with any metaphysical idea. For instance, the Mughals asked, how did this world come into existence? They said, it's a silly question, because if you explain how the world came into existence, then the next question would be, well, what happened before that? Then there would be no answer. Then one might deny the question or the other. I mean, if you have to answer, if you have to, by yourself, to go to another question which you can't solve, then what is the use of worrying about such questions?

[19:42]

And I remember when I was traveling with everybody, It was a camp camp on the rear of the ship. It was very comfortable and it was very happy to see the places and so on. I think of the Irrawaddy, there was different Buddhist communities, but come and see me. And one day, I remember the village. And there came a missionary. He looked at me. He said, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I said, why are you so sorry? What does this do? What does this do? I'm very happy. I'm trying to look like a sacred person. I don't know what the election was. I don't remember. And all the people around me And he said, look at this sunset, look at this sunset. I said, yes, I see. Who has made this? I said, and who has made God?

[20:44]

And I said, if he has not been made by anybody, then why don't you see the world when the world has been made by somebody, by everybody? So people either own or wear so-called metaphysical garments, and if you don't wear it together, how is it that you're illogical to wear it? Good master would tell me to go home with the chicken and the egg, because I don't want to see the chicken and the egg. You must cross the chicken and the egg. See, I cross... This must be the last question. Do you want to say it to me? I think they may have come to Rome, if I might talk.

[22:04]

We may go there.

[22:06]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.38