THE DECADE OF THE SECOND TREATISE SUBJECTS

TREATISE ON THE TWELVE GATES.

THE SECOND DOOR 
ORGANIC FRUIT BARS AND AN INFINITE RESULT.

Say again that the French vassal state is any living being. Why?

If a result had real,
can not be contentious.
If the word at first results not
also can not have birth
If have just not real,
can not be contentious.
How can being?

If a result already have taken one, would not be contentious. If the first result is not contentious. If a result has just really just not real, will also not be contentious. Why?

If one is in a human and become a product, then it will continue ad infinitum. If a result is not yet engenders that has become a product, then the wrestling was born and probably have to have a product. Why? Because they were initially available in a human. The main result of that right was born also will have its product, so will end.

If saying that what has been born and can never again be engenders can will be the principle of no engenders nothing about impregnation. So, unable to one available in a human and become a product.

If say one result has been available in a human, and the yet to be born will be born, but the product was born and then will not be born again, then it is meaningless. Because of the birth and the birth was not all is true, [so they have the same nature]. There is no logical reason to [cause they have different functions ], making this one is not the other one that engenders engenders.

[According to your logic] if the not yet engenders is real, then what has been born is not real. Why? Because the birth and were not yet being is in reverse. When that was contentious and the not yet being is in reverse, the impregnation of them are different.

Real and not actually is in reverse. Suppose what is real and what is engenders not yet engenders is also real; If so, they are no different. Why? If both are true, then they differed in what? But actually not have to them is no different. So, if a worker is in a result, still can not be contentious.

Anything that is real then was done, why it is being out again? Like what did not phảilàm again, and something has to be achieved not achieved again. So what is actually not born again.

If a result is the real one, then one can notice the fruit before it engenders; but the fact the one might not notice. For example, people don't see the khận tank in clay, or the projector in the tangle of grass. So, if a worker is in a result, there is no birth.

Q: But a Result there before, but because it has not mutated so not recognize.

A: If the jar is not yet born, its formation has not yet transformed to shouldn't be able to notice it; so thanks to General we know and say the average rằngtcái in clay? There are general or General, thanks to the cows, or horses that know they have general comments? If the clay does not contain General of jar, General of cows or horses, then isn't that JAR does not exist ? So, can not say that one result in a human and will be born.

One variation is known as a result, and therefore must have the transformation happen in the nucleus. Why? Because you said that a result had before in a human. If these things jar has undergone transformation and have the front [of workers], then one must be able to notice them. But actually can't find them. By the way, can not say that because the results are not experiencing transformation so can't recognize it.

N u that do not undergo transformation not known as a result, it ended up unable to achieve results. Why? Because the đổikhông variable happens before the birth and also does not happen after the birth. Therefore, these results must as the average ended would not have been.

If the change was referred to as a result, a result not in a human. So you don't know for sure a result previously had one or no one.

Question: The transformation before but could not see. A character may actually exist, but that they do not recognize the existence of it. For example, could not recognize a character because (1) it is too near, or because (2) is it too far; one cannot recognize a character when (3) sensorydisabilities; or people don't recognize a character because (4) no attention to it. One can not get ramột things because (5) there are obstacles or because of (6) the same. One cannot recognize a character because (7) it is others overwhelms. An object (8) is too small, then couldn't get out. Smoking in the eyes is an example that when a plant too close don't realize it. A bird flew too high and disappear in the sky is an example that may not recognize an object far away. Some examples of shows that one cannot identify an object when there is sensorydisabilities: a blind man cannot see the colors; a person who is deaf cannot hear; clogged nose can not smell; a mouth of a sick person can not know the taste of the food; a body paralyzed without sensation; a mind madness can not recognize reality. One example that we do not accept ramột animals when not paying attention to it: when we focus on the colors or something, then we don't hear a small voice. The example shows that we do not get to know a thing because there are obstacles: the ground hinder the eye causing us not to see flood overflow surges, and a wall obstructing makes us see the animals inside. One example that we do not recognize an object because the same: black dots on a black background. An example shows that we do not recognize an object when it is others overwhelms: we do not recognize the small voice when the bells, drumming. An example that the object is too small, does not realize: we don't see the dust particles . Therefore, although the figures available but people don't recognize them because the eight human charm . He is not correct to say that because can not see the jar in its staff, so the workers are not able to contain the transformation. Why? An object may be hiệnhữu but people don't realize it because eight human charm .

A: the event that we cannot realize the transformation and the result as the jar isn't because eight human charm . Why? The transformation and the result too close will be able to realize if they don't get too close; and what is far away will be able to recognize if they are near. However, the ability of the body we are not good enough to recognize them, but if the possibility that pure and good, you can recognize them. But the minds spread beam should not recognize them, but can get ranếu we pay attention. Those obstacles could prevent us seeing something, but we can get the ranhững transform and result when no obstacles. When the same object so we do not see, but when they are not the same, then we can see. When the subject was overwhelmed so we don't notice, but when they're not being overwhelmed, then we can find. A character should not be too small to see, but the other results and the vase is large enough and can see.

If a jar is too small so not seen in entertainment, you can't see after it engenders. Why? Because what has and what engenders yet engenders the same characteristic , if both are real.

Q: an object is small when not yet born, but it becomes big after birth. So, what was being able to recognize, while the not yet being not able to realize.

A: If so, workers do not include the result because there is no big thing in entertainment.

There something bigger in the nucleus before impregnation. If there's something big in the nucleus then you should not say that the result should not see grapes too. The present result is great, but you should not see is too small; If so, something big could not be called as a result. So then the people don't reach are results. But in fact they have achieved are the fruits. So you see that not because it should not be too small to see. Therefore, can not say that includes results and that because eight coast workers should not see results.

If a staff including a result and then, both sire and the results are lost the General. Why? Because like a rug in the textile fibers or a fruit in the bowl. In these cases , the so-called entertainment is the only place and cannot be called. Why? Because textiles and isn't bowl of fruit and a blanket. When a human being destroyed , then the result is also destroyed. A material such as yarn is woven of the rug. But If not then there will be no result. Why? Because thanks to the personality charm should result invited into. If staff is not able to, how can the fruit?

 If not have the make up is not something that can be called as a result. The human as the textile fibers cannot engenders the result as the rug. Why? The textile fiber not only because they blanket engenders provide a place with no result. So no people and no results. If not there are human not have results, one should not find how gồmquả human or not included .

Suppose a including results and people don't recognize the result. But the General of the results, they must be able to recognize. For example, we smell the fragrance and know that the flowers; we hear the birdsong and know that there's a bird; we hear the laugh and know that there's a human being; we saw smoke and know that there is a fire; we saw cranes and know that there is a Lake nearby. So, if a staff including a result must have these signs. Now, there is no physical nor has the General a result; so we know that the human does not include fruit in it.

If included in the nucleus and then the result engenders should not say that the textile fiber blanket inflicted or tangle grass tile causes the projector. If workers do not include the result, then there's something that can bring forth fruits. For example, if there are no blanket made of textile fibers, it can be made of grass or not? If it's not made of yarn or the grass then we should say that it engenders? If it engenders, we can call it the result. If there are no results, as noted trướcđây. So, for example, was already include results in it and then bring forth fruits.

If a result is not due to anything created then it should be typically constants such as Nirvana. If the result is usually constant all owners vi of France is generally constant. Why? Because all owners vi of France are the result. If Chu France are usually constant then there is impermanence. But If not there are impermanent then also there is often constant. Why? Because there are usually constant should have the impermanence, impermanence and there should have constant often. If so, there is usually constant in that there's impermanence. But that is impossible. So, people should not t̀a that were included in the results it engenders.

If workers did include results in it engenders result, then the result will engenders different results. For example, a projector makes someone sitting on it, a curtain created the cover, and a car creates the transport. But actually the result really be caused as a result. So, one should not say that workers have included results in it and engenders.

Someone could have reasoned that the Earth smells fragrant, but If not then the rain fragrance that is not exuding. A result just like this: It will not sire If don't have the coordination of the human charm. But not so. Why? As you say, something just called the fruit after it has been created, then the objects as jar is not the result. Why? Because anything created is due to create. But according to the reasoning of the jar as you were real and not the things that have been created. So, if the result is what has been created is not to say that the workers were included in the inside and produce results.

Saturday entertainment glean can glean as not able to delivery the property object. For example, when a lamp is lighted to soi sángchiếc in the dark, it also illuminates both the bed and the other bedroom. The charm of human mixed hợpđể make a jar may not produce a bed and other items. So, one should understand that a human did not include one in the inside.

If a result was actually available in a human and then produced the people cannot distinguish between what has been created and the yet to be created. But you have to differentiate that way. So, not a staff already have a fruit and produce it.

Now suppose a result not available a in it but it does produce results. This cannot be. Why? If something can engenders from nowhere, then people could grow more second head and hand Thursday. Why? Because something can engenders from nowhere.

Question: what things like jar have nhân charm so they can engenders. But the second head and third hand not have nhân charm, so, how could they be born? So what you just said is not true.

A: A second head, a third hand, a jar and the results are not in their personalities. For example, not have something in clay and no jar out of rock. So why do we treat the clay is of the jar that is not considered rock is it? Why we call milk is of the cheese, and called the textile fiber is of the carpet without calling grass flooring is its staff.

If a worker does not have a result in it but it engenders result then anything can also engenders anything else. If so, a finger can Sire, horses, vehicles, food and other things. Similarly so, the textile fibers can produce tapestry that also produces cars, horses and food. Why? If something can engenders from nowhere , then why don't you weave fibers can produce cars, horses, food, which can only produce the carpet-because of all the things that are not real in the nucleus?

If workers do not have a result in which engenders such personnel would need to have the capacity of special with which to produce results of special biệtnào. Typically, if we want to have oil, we removed from Sesame, easy to sand. But if they have no contact whatsoever with each other, why we take the oil from Jatropha rather than from the sand?

Maybe you say that we 've ever seen produced the sesame oil, but we never see the sand to produce oil. So we make sesame oil rather than from the sand. Saying so is not justified. Why? If the so-called "General" (sign of impregnation), then one can say that because we each see the sesame oil production but never sighted manufactured sand oil, should we find sesame oil which does not search from sand. However, there is no "General," so one can not say that because we 've seen the sesame oil production, should we find that sesame oil not search from sand.

Now I'm not the rejected a examples of impregnation from workers but also dismissed all the workers and result. If say a staff already have a result in it and engenders result, that one cannot have a result and engenders result, that a recently available just not available results and engenders the outcome, argues it doesn't stand. Examples of rằngt you say you saw oil producing sesame [sesame oil should look for] is based on the notion of birth from the property, but the notion that does not stand up.

If the result has no worker in it which engenders the fruit, then the characteristics of workers do not have. Why? If a worker does not have something [in it], how can it being produced? How can it bring forth or achieve something? If not have the manufacturing or delivery products, how can it be called? So an Agent can not create something, and something is created also cannot create something else.

If workers already have the fruit in it then there is no difference between the created work, actors, and characters were created. Because if the result was true then why it was created again? So, you could say that because of his work, the agent, created, and other people can not set, so I have to accept the argument that a human did not include a result in it. However that does not necessarily be true. Why? If we accept the distinction between the creator and the agent, and impregnation from entertainment, then they must accept the word of argument . But I insisted that the created work, the agent, and causation are not. Moreover, the renunciation of the created work, the agent and the causation of you fit in with the stance of me and not against me. So I still believe that argues "a human does not include a fruit and produce the result" is not sustainable. If people would accept that a staff including a result, then you dismiss the notion . But I don't say that a human has to include a result in it; so I do not need to accept the denials, and I also do not have to accept the point that a human did not include a result in it.

 The arguments "a medium includes not just include a result but engenders the fruit" also does not stand. Why? Because the "include" and "including" is not opposed to each other in nature. How are things in reverse in the nature can stay together? Like the light and the dark, miserable and happy, outgoing and in bondage , and openness, can not stay together; so a medium includes not just include a result cannot bring forth products. Besides, argues "a medium includes not just include a result" has been rejected in part on when we review these cases included and not included.

 So, if a worker does not include a result in it, then no impregnation. If a staff including a result in it without impregnation. And if a human fit includes just don't include a result without impregnation. Can not argue further more, we 've surveyed all the aspects and can not find the impregnation. So then the results are not being produced.

When that ended no impregnation fruits, all these things are created (owner vi of France) are not. Why? Because all things are created and are the result.

When the objects are created are not then things are not created (wuwei France) also is not.

When the owners of the micro France and wuwei France are not laboratory experiments the "intersection" is not? END=NAM MO SHAKYAMOUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=THICH CHAN TANH.THE MIND OF ENLIGHTENMENT.VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=GOLDEN LOTUS MONASTERY=AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.24/7/2017.