ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 2

Class two: An Outline of All Existing Things
February 19, 1998

Transcribed by Angie Overy
Proof: SF

[Prayer: mandala]
[Prayer: refuge]

Tonight we’ll do as content, right, every night we’ll do a little bit of content and
then we’ll do a little bit of format, meaning how do you debate, how do you …
how do you make a logical statement and then we’ll do a little bit of how do you
debate, okay. So, for the content tonight, this is a very important section from a
book called the {Dura}. Okay, and I’ll write {Dura} for you. I didn’t write it for
you last time.
Say, {Dura} [repeat], {Dura} [repeat]. As you can see it’s really spelt {du dra} all
right, and in modern colloquial they say {dura}. {dura} is a kind of literature in
which great Buddhist masters of each college of Buddhism have taken the
information in the Pramanavartikka. The Pramanavartikka is really, really
difficult. In the monastery, every winter, we debate it for three months; it’s rare
to reach half-way through the book after fifteen or eighteen years. Most people
never get to the third chapter. In the winter debates which are the times when
the colleges … when the great colleges meet together, it’s like the what are those
basket ball play-offs where the … what are they called? [student: inaudible]
Yeah, the NCAA play-offs or something like that. It’s like when all the best
debaters, you get, you field the team of like fifty guys and you send them to a
central monastery. It rotates every year. And then you have an inter-monastic
competition, debating competitions for … we debate for maybe sixteen to
eighteen hours a day each other. And you get to meet the best debaters from all
the other colleges. And even in that format you can’t finish more than two
chapters of the Pramanavartikka. It’s very difficult. {Dura} is a place where, it’s a
special kind of book where people have taken the important ideas out of the
Pramanavartikka and made separate books out of them. You are gonna be
studying three different {duras}, okay.
Say, {yongdzin dura}[repeat], {yongdzin dura] [repeat]. {yongdzin dura}is the
book that you had last week called ‘The key to the Logic Machine’ or something
like that. That’s the other name for it. But {yongdzin dura} means the {dura}
written by the {yongdzin}. {yongdzin} means a tutor of the Dalai Lama, and
Purbuchok was a tutor of the thirteenth Dalai Lama. So, {yongdzin dura} means
oh, that {dura} text that was written by the Dalai Lama’s teacher. You are also
gonna study the {Se Dura}. Say, {Se} [repeat], {Dura} [repeat], {Se Dura}[repeat].
I’ll write them for you just so you know, in case somebody asks, okay. I know
in the subway they often ask [laughter] which {Dura} are you studying, you
know.
Say, {Yongdzin} [repeat] {Dura} [repeat], {Yongdzin Dura} [repeat] okay, so the
{Dura} written by the {yongdzin} by the teacher, okay.            Oftentimes and
nowadays you’ll hear in Tibet {yongdzin nyampa nyi}meaning the two
{yongdzins}. So, normally, there’s a … there’s, there’s a set of {yongdzins}who
take care of the Dalai lama, who teach. They are in charge, they’re charged with
teaching the Dalai Lama his Buddhism or helping him remember, okay. It’s
called {bakchak sepa}, you know, getting him to get back to where he was
before. And that’s their duty. And if you saw ‘Kundun’ [unclear] Rinpoche was
one of my first teachers, played Ling Rinpoche and then their was Trijang
Rinpoche. So, anyway, that’s a {Yongdzin Dura}.
The next one is {Se Dura}. {Yongdzin Dura} by the way, is used at Sera, both the
colleges of Sera: Sera Je and Sera Me both use the {Yongdzin Dura}to teach their
young debaters.
{se} means ‘son’, like spiritual son, okay. Like, it means ‘prince’ and it means
spiritual son or daughter. So, a close disciple of a great Lama would be called the
{se} of that … of that Lama. Male or female would be called {se}. {se} refers to a
lama named Ngawang Trashi. His dates are in your syllabus. I don’t remember
what they are but he was a student of the great Jamyang Shepa. Jamyang Shepa
is the textbook writer from one of the colleges of Drepung monastery. We
always say of Drepung – Drepung means pile of rice, and Sera means hailstones,
so when we debate them we say, you know what happens to a drepung under a
sera, you know [laughs] we can wipe you out. And they say, yeah, but if the
debate goes on for a while, the hail would melt wouldn’t it, you know. [laughs]
So it’s like we have a debate like that. {Se Dura} is the, is a great {dura} text
written for the college of Gomang in Drepung monastery. Jamyang Shepa’s
books are the basis if most of the translations of Jeffery Hopkins, Professor
Thurman, Christopher George, Joshua Cutler, because they were all students of
Geshe Wangyal, who was a Mongol, and the Mongol’s all belonged to Gomang
College. So, that’s the lineage, okay. {Se Dura}.
Say, {Ratu} [repeat], {Dura} [repeat], {Ratu} was not one of the big three
monasteries in Tibet, but it was an important monastery outside of Lhasa I
believe. They had a branch that they used in the summer called Jang, in a little
village called Jang. And all the great debaters from Sera, Drepung and Gaden
would pack up a knapsack and a sleeping bag and walk to Jang every winter and
debate there for three months. And that was the winter debates. And they were
put on by Ratu monastery. Ratu monastery was the sponsor and that’s where
they did the winter debates in, in Tibet. And that’s been corrupted sometimes in
India, they call Jamyang {unclear} which means the winter debates of Jamyang,
which has nothing to do with jang, and is just a confusion, okay. Anyway, Ratu
monastery was most famous for a certain logic text, the first {dura} ever written
in Tibet was written by a great scholar from Ratu called {unclear} and that’s in
your syllabus, okay. An you’re gonna be studying the {Ratu Dura}. This is the
mother of all Dura texts. This is the first great Dura text that was ever written. It
was lost until recently. We found the {Ratu Dura} maybe fifteen years ago,
fifteen to twenty years ago we found it. Jean Smith found it or helped to find it.
And then, there’s only one commentary to it in the world, and there’s only one
copy of that commentary that we know of and that was brought into the
computer centre at Sera one day. And somebody said, I think this might be
important, maybe you want to input it. And we saved it and it was input. And
we approached the head of Ratu monastery who is [unclear] Rinpoche, which
you say, Chongla, okay. That’s his home monastery. He is the head of Ratu
monastery. So, we asked him if he wanted to pay for the printing and he did
and we spread it all over Tibet and India. Gave it away all over Tibet and India.
So, you’re gonna study that commentary and, and the Ratu Dura. You’re the
only people to study it in the west. It was only just reprinted. We only just
found it, okay. And that’s the mother of all dura texts, so you’re gonna study,
the last reading you’ll have on the concept of time, comes from the Ratu Dura,
okay.
Tonight, we’re gonna talk about a … the dura, the structure of a dura is that
there will be about fifteen important topics covered in a dura. And they will take
it and it will be presented in three sections which are very cool, okay. And I’ll
give them to you. This is how you learn something in the monastery. This is a
three-step process. Here’s step number one, it’s called {gak}.
{gak} means to choke somebody, okay, or to stop something. This refers to a
step in logic where, in the duras, when you present a subject, first you get a
bunch of crazy guys coming up and saying, I think it’s like this, okay. And you
have like, ten or fifteen crazy guys will come, one by one, in the book and they’ll
come up and say, I think emptiness is this yellow light that comes to you, you
know. And then they’ll blow him away. {gak} means they’ll blow him away. So
{gak} means, {… gakpa} means we let the other guys come first, you see. It’s a
very beautiful way to learn. You don’t find out what emptiness is right away.
You only find out what it’s not, you see. So {shelnu gakpa} the first step is very
beautiful. The dura starts with the fighting, with debating. And somebody will
come and say, emptiness is this green light that shows up over your head, you
know. And then we’ll blow him away. And that’s called {gak}. So the first
section of a dura subject is always {shelnu gakpa}, which means blowing away
the other guy, okay, {gakpa}. Second step: say, {shak} [repeat], {shak} [repeat];
{shak} means {rangruk shakpa}okay, now we set forth our own position. You
see, first you get to hear the wrong positions of the other guys and then in the
second step, they’ll say, okay, here’s what emptiness really is. And you’ll have
the definition, and you’ll have the divisions, and you’ll have some clarifications
about it, and like that. And that’s a little section in the middle called {rangruk
shakpa, shakpa}, okay. So, so far, you have {gak shak}, okay, {gak shak}. The
last part is called {pong}. Say, {pong} [repeat], {pong} [repeat]; {pong} means to
re-blow him away [laughs] [laughter], okay. In step number three they, after
they’ve heard our version of things, they get to come and present some rebuttal,
you know. They get to attack our ideas. So, we get up there and say, emptiness
means that no object in the world has any nature of its own. So then they’ll
come back and say, well I guess you think nothing exists or something or, you
know. That’s rebuttal. They get to come and complain about your idea, which is
fair, right. It’s some kind of nice that they get to come back. And then we re-
blow them away and that’s called {pongwa}. Normally,{pongwa} means to
eliminate somebody. So it’s like Schwartzenager, the eliminator and you {pong}
them, you know. And that’s {pong}.
So, say {gak}[repeat], {shak} [repeat], {pong} [repeat], {sum} [repeat]; {sum}
means those three steps and it’s very famous in dura, okay. What are you
reading? {gak chak pong sum}, okay {gak chak pong sum}. Oh, what subject?
Oh, we’re studying {shi drup}, say {shi drup} [repeat]. Okay, that’s the subject
you’re gonna study tonight. The first and most important subject, I think, well
maybe not the most important, but the first one is called {shi drup kyi namshak}.
And you’re gonna study that from the point of view, in the reading, is {gak shak
pong sum}. So don’t be surprised in the reading, you’re gonna get a guy come
up and say something stupid and then he gets blown away. And by the time
you’ve had ten guys come up and say ten stupid things about emptiness and get
blown away about it you’ve got a very good idea about what emptiness is. And
then you get to hear the {rang} the system, our own system and then they get to
come back and fight about the system, okay. And it’s very, very good for
learning, very, very powerful for learning. So, oftentimes, when we debate in
the monastery, we start out with a wrong statement. You see, you want to start
a fight. How do you start a fight in debating? You say something stupid. And if
you are a good debater you pick something that the other guy might not be able
to disprove, okay. Something subtle. You wouldn’t come up and say emptiness
is green. You’d come up and say, well emptiness means that things depend on
my projections, okay. Things depend on my projections, which is not emptiness,
it’s …? Dependent origination, which is the brother of emptiness. That’s a
positive thing, emptiness is a negative thing, okay. Dependent origination
explains how things work; emptiness explains how they don’t work, you see
what I mean. So, but you could start a good debate that way, you know. You
could say, oh, emptiness means, you know, that, okay. And you would go up to
somebody and you would say, okay, here we go: I need a rosary [unclear]. First
thing, you, the custom, by the way, is … this is an old custom in Tibet, okay. I
mean, it comes from ancient India. When you read a scripture from ancient
India, it will say ‘thus have I heard’. And then they’ll say, somebody like Subhuti
approached the Buddha and got down on one knee, you know, and, and
dropped his {sen}, okay, he dropped his … out of respect, he dropped his shawl.
And so still in the debating, let’s say if Elly is the opponent, okay, the attacker
will stand up and then he’ll drop his {sen}out of, out of, you know, the first and
last courtesy of the debate [laughter] [laughs]. And then you put it, normally,
you put it back here, okay. And then, and then you whisper in their ear the, the
subject, you know. You say, {dhi chitar chu chen}, okay and it’s very mild, you
know, you just go like that, okay. You gotta practice [unclear]. I mean we’ll
stand up and practice it later, okay , briefly. {dhi chitar chu chen}, okay, {dhi}.
{dhi} means, is the root syllable of Manjushri. It’s a tantric mantra. It’s… it is the
short mantra of Manjushri, okay. What’s the long one? {Om, ah, ra ,pa, tsa, na,
dhi}, and {dhi} is considered an important syllable in tantra for wisdom, for
intellectual, you know, smarts, you know. And if you have a kid in the
monastery who’s not too bright you say, look go home and {dhi} ten thousand
times and come back, okay. And he’ll go home and go {dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi,
dhi} [laughter] and you see it in the monastery. It’s a very powerful mantra; it
works, okay. {om, ah, ra, pa, tsa, na, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi} and you’re
supposed to say it until you run out of breath, okay. Ready? Try. {om ah, ra, pa,
tsa, na, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, dhi, …} yeah, okay, like that, okay. [laughter]
{dhi} in Sanskrit means light or mind, okay, and it’s an important syllable. So
anyway, you start out you say {dhi chitar chu chen}, okay, {dhi}; {dhi} means,
hey, you know, wisdom, I hope I can remember everything [laughs] [laughter].
{chitar chu chen} means how about this, you know, how about this one, okay.
And then you say something like, because the sky is green, okay, because the
sky is green. Okay? Because the sky is green, all right. [student: inaudible]
Huh? (Dhi) How about this one: because the sky is green, you know. And that’s
all you have to say. Is it a reason? Why? {tak si kupa tak kyi tsennyi}, I set it
forth as a reason. What does it prove? Who cares. She can evaluate the reason
by itself, you see. It’ll start the debate already. I can say, because everything is a
projection and that’s the meaning of emptiness. And she doesn’t have to know
what I’m trying to prove. I never say what I’m trying to prove. I just say, hey
how about this: because the sky is green, okay. And immediately she can say,
{tak ma drup}, you’re wrong, okay, and then the debate starts, you see what I
mean. But you start out normally by that. Very often you’ll say, {nang ….}you
know, you quote a scripture and you say, dependent origination and emptiness
are brothers, they love each other. That doesn’t mean anything, you know.
[laughter] So I start out with the {dhi}… because the quotation about emptiness
and dependent origination doesn’t mean anything, you know. And that’s all I
say, you know. And that’s the start of the debate, okay, like that. That’s how
you start a debate. So, normally, you start out by saying something crazy
because you wanna pick a fight. And if you’re really good you say something
that’s almost right. And that’s, and that’s what [laughter] [laughs] and you see if
he can prove you’re wrong, you know. And if he can’t then you blow him away
at the end and show him why it’s wrong, you see. And then everybody learns
something. So, it’s very … that’s the structure of a dura text. They come up and
they start saying things that are wrong and then you hear them get blown away.
It’s like a big gunfight with Dirty Harry, you know. And then one by one, these
guys get blown away. And then, one by one, you learn something subtle about
emptiness, until the end of the gunfight, you know all of it. You know, you
understand everything about it. So, when you read the reading, remember, the
first guy talking is crazy, right. That’s the guy who’s getting {gak}ed, {gak},
okay, and don’t forget it you know, you’ll get confused, you know. He’ll come
up and say, blah, blah, blah, you know. And then, you have to remember he’s
wrong, all right. Sometimes you get confused. In the Tibetan it’s very subtle
who’s talking, okay. Okay, today… oh sorry.
So the subject for tonight, and we’re not gonna start debating today, okay, so
don’t worry about it. That’s a ….[cut]
Say, {shi drup kyi} [repeat] {namshak} [repeat]; {shi drup kyi} [repeat] {namshak}
[repeat].
{shi drup} is a , is a word that means ‘existence’, okay, existence: things which
you can establish exist, okay. {shi drup} is another word for existence; things
you can establish as existing, {shi drup}. {namshak} means ‘everything you ever
wanted to know about’, okay; an outline or a treatment of {shi drup}, okay. And
that’s our subject for tonight. You’re gonna study, oh, how about, all existing
objects, okay. This is an outline of everything that exists in the universe. Not
bad, okay. Kinda cool. And I, I really like this subject. We had to memorize it
early on in the monastery. {shi drup kyi namshak} starts from the top and then
goes down through the levels of all existing things. I’d like to tell you how this
relates to your personal life, okay. What’s the use of sitting there in the
monastery and studying the outline of existence, especially if you don’t have
enough food, you know what I mean? What’s this got to do with your personal
life? This is very important for understanding emptiness and I’ll talk more about
how this relates to emptiness. You need to know about {shi drup kyi namshak}
to understand emptiness. So, we’ll start with that, we’ll go down through the
levels of it and then I’ll tell you how it relates to your own trying to see
emptiness. What’s the big deal about seeing emptiness? See it in this life,
directly, once for fifteen or twenty minutes, and… and you’re on your way out
of this life, you know. You will become a Buddha within seven lifetimes and you
see it directly, okay. And you see it directly. You see all those four things,
including that. Those four things are called the Four Arya Truths or the Four
Noble Truths. They mistranslated as Four Noble Truths. One of them, your see
your own enlightenment, directly. If you can get this class clearly, if you can
understand these subjects clearly, you can reach that state, okay. You can …
that’s the whole point of this class. That’s what we’re trying to get to in this class,
okay. That’s the use of studying this subject. That’s my sales pitch for {shi drup},
okay. Once you’ve had {shi drup kyi namshak}you will be able to reject about
ninety percent of the presentations of emptiness you ever hear, okay. You see
that they’re wrong right away, okay.
Say {yupa} [repeat] {yupa} [repeat]; {yupa} means ‘existence itself,’ existence,
okay; {yupa} means existence, okay. That’s the big heading at the top: ‘all
existing objects’. That’s called {yupa}, okay. It has a lot of synonyms for that. I’ll
give you some of the synonyms.
Say, {sheja}[repeat], {sheja} [repeat]; {sheja} means ‘knowable thing’, knowable
thing, okay. Anything you know, a knowable thing, okay, something which can
be known. [unclear] when I was first studying {shi drup} I … I was like, known
by whom? Because there’s a lot of things I can’t know that exist. You know, if it
means that someone has to know it for it to exist, what about all those asteroids
out between Pluto and Neptune, you know what I mean. It’s not like anybody
went out there and saw all of them. I found a text later, and several texts later
that say, {nam …..} something which can be known by an omniscient being.
That means it exists, okay, all right. So the tree in the forest thing doesn’t apply
here. There is no tree in the forest because we’re talking about things which are
known by a being who sees every object in the universe at the same moment,
okay. There is no tree in the forest in Buddhism, okay, that falls down and
nobody hears it, right. There’s no such thing, okay, {sheja}.
Say, {chu} [chu], {chu} [repeat], {chu} is the Tibetan word for the Sanskrit dharma,
okay, dharma.        Dharma has ten different meanings or twelve different
meanings, I forget. One of them is the teachings, right? I’m studying Dharma.
Another common meaning, probably the second most common meaning is, any
existing object, okay. Every existing object is a dharma, okay, is a thing, okay.
You can say existing thing, okay. That’s a dharma, {chu}. These are all
synonyms. If you are a {yupa} you’re a {sheja}, if you’re a {sheja} you’re a {chu};
if you’re a {chu} you’re a….
Say, {shi drup} [repeat] {shi drup} [repeat]; {shi drup} means, anything which can
be established as existing by a correct perception, okay, by a valid perception.
It’s the same as {sheja} right? Anything which you can establish exists, is called
{she drup}, okay. Anything which you can establish as something which exists,
okay, is called {she drup}. There’s one more. Well, there’s lots more, but here’s,
enough, okay. Say, {yul} [repeat], {yul} [yul]; {yul} means ‘object’, okay. Any
existing object. And we use those words in English also don’t we? An object, a
thing which you can perceive, a thing which you can know, any thing, okay.
These are all synonyms for existence, okay, for an existing thing. By the way, to
warn you, they can be used for all of existence together and they can be used as
words for ‘existing thing’ also, you see. This is a {chu}, but {chu} also means all
existing things, okay. So you have to get used to that. This is a {chu}, but{chu}
also means all existing things. Tibetan and Sanskrit don’t have the word for ‘a’
or ‘the’. Now, think how English would be if we didn’t have ‘the’ or ‘a’. I mean
it would be pretty confusing and it is, all right. And you can get through a page
of translation and then suddenly realize they’re talking about the other one and
go back and change them all, you know, okay. [laughs] They don’t have a word
for ‘a’ or ‘the’. Try to speak to someone a couple of times without an ‘a’ or a
‘the’ in the sentence and you’ll see how it is, okay.
We’ll divide {yupa}, we’ll have… we’ll have a [unclear] chart of existence here,
okay. There’s {yupa}, which is all existence, all existing things. You know, before
we divide it, let’s give it a definition.       Could be on your homework or
something.
Say, {tsema mikpa} [repeat]{yupay tsennyi} [repeat], {tsema mikpa} [repeat],
{yupay tsennyi} [repeat]. Very famous in the debate ground, okay. {tsema}
means a valid perception, okay. You can say correct perception. What does
correct perception mean?         In this case, you can eliminate the following
perceptions and then the rest are all {tsemas}, okay. Eliminate hallucinations,
eliminate LSD perceptions, eliminate the things you see under the influence of a
drug or alcohol, eliminate things you see when you are really pissed off or
jealous of somebody, okay. Those are all called {tsemin}; {tsemin} means they’re
incorrect perceptions. They’re not valid perceptions. You see things that aren’t
there under those conditions, okay. Those are called {tsemins}. {tsema} how
many {tsemas} do you have during a day? Like, sixty-five per finger-snap, okay.
All of them are {tsemas}. What are {tsemins} that I had today? I mean, I had
one: there was a leaf blown across the road in the dusk, in dusk, and I thought it
was a mouse or something, and I was like, oh stop, you know. And then you,
the nature of a {tsemin} is normally, like a few minutes later or sometimes a few
years later, you realize you were stupid or crazy, you know. Like, you think
someone was trying to get you at work and then it turns out that they didn’t
have anything to do with it, it was somebody else. And, that’s called a {tsemin}.
So normally, ninety-nine percent of your perceptions, much more, are {tsemas},
okay.
{tsema mikpa}, {mikpa} means perceived by, okay. Perceived by a correct
perception, perceived by a valid perception. {tsema mikpa} means, that thing
which has been perceived by a valid perception. It’s called {tsema mikpa}.
{yupa} you know means existing thing; {tsennyi} means the definition, okay, the
definition. So it’s interesting. In Buddhist philosophy, in Buddhism, it’s like I’m
from Missouri, you know, what, I’ll believe it when I see it or something like
that. Show me state [laughter]. The definition of existence in Buddhism is that
which can be perceived by someone who’s not crazy, on drugs, overcome by
jealousy, you know. And … and then you can say the thing exists, okay. Prove
to me that it exists. I saw it and I’m not crazy, okay. That’s the definition of
existence in Buddhism. You need to know that, okay. All existing things exist,
you can establish they exist as soon as you can say someone has perceived them
who’s not on drugs or crazy or hallucinating or something like that, okay. Yeah.
[student: unclear] They are totally consistent with each other. By the way, I warn
you one thing, we are in school number two, for this whole class. Don’t forget it,
okay. We ain’t in Madhyamika any more Toto, okay [laughs] all right. We’re in
Sautrantika, which is the second school of Buddhism. It’s a Hinayana school.
And you’re gonna get some Mind-Only mixed in, but, but mainly we’re talking
school number two. There are gonna be some ideas that, that will be presented
as part of this class that are not correct. {tsema mikpa}is accepted by all schools
as the definition of existence. What they mean by it is, is very touchy and I’ll try
to warn you when we’re getting to points where they’re much different to
Mister Shantideva’s ideas, okay, even though they may use the same language.
[student: unclear]
Oh, well that one is more, is more defined as not one of the classic kinds of
mistaken perception and then they give you a long list, you know and you have
to study. That takes like a year to study that. [student[unclear]] I, I think I know
what you’re saying. But, don’t forget, valid perception is not to define as that
which perceives something which exists, you see. Then it would be circular, you
see. Then it would be circular. Yeah. It’s not like that. If you can say valid
perception is a perception which is not one of the invalid perceptions then they
give you a list of those and then [student] That’s a very long story and each
school has their own belief about it. Each school has a different belief about it.
You could say, maybe, that it doesn’t function the way you expected it to, how’s
that.    The object doesn’t function the way you thought it would, okay,
something like that. All right, we’d better do it, let me do it in the break or
something. Come up to me in the break, okay. I just wanna, if we have time
we’ll do it. But it’s good that you have a question and we’ll try to cover some
questions, okay.
That’s the definition of existence in Buddhism. And if something can be
perceived by a valid perception then it exists, okay. All existing things can be
divided into two.
[student: inaudible]
I’m sorry. Oh, {yupa tsennyi} means, {yupa} means existing thing and {tsennyi}
means the definition of, okay, the definition of. And it’s very famous. If you’re
gonna be in a debate ground {tsema mikpa yupay tsennyi} is like a mantra,
{tsema mikpa yupay tsennyi; tsema mikpa yupay tsennyi}                   Definition of
existence is, that which can be perceived by a valid perception, okay.
Say, {takpa} [repeat], {mitakpa} [repeat]]. Don’t write this, okay. I’m gonna give
you the system that we’re gonna blow away, okay. Some people say, okay, that
{takpa} means ‘impermanent’, and that {mitakpa} means, I’m sorry, {takpa}
means ‘permanent’ and {mitakpa} means ‘impermanent’. That’s … in Buddhist
philosophy, that’s a mistranslation and I want to talk about why, okay. I want
you to understand why. It’s a pet peeve of mine, okay. First, we’ll talk about
impermanence; what’s mistranslated as impermanence. And by the way, if you
go home, and you meditate deeply when we get to the section called, well if you
meditate deeply on {shi drup}you will see something very deep, okay. {mitakpa}
comes in two forms: the gross form and the very, very subtle form. If you can
perceive, in this lifetime, what it is in it is very subtle form, you’re very close to
seeing emptiness, okay. It’s a precursor to seeing emptiness so listen up, okay.
{mitakpa} is defined as, very simply, of the Sautrantika, of the Logic, Logic
Schools, but it’s accepted by all schools, okay [student: inaudible] Oh, this is the
right one, okay. Go ahead and write it, okay. It’s a good question. In the
monastery you say, which hat should I put on? [laughs] Am I a Madhyamika
today or am I a Sautrantika today?
Okay, say {kechikma} [repeat], {kechikama} [repeat]; very simple definition of
{mitakpa}, {kechik} means ‘instant’, {kechikma} means something that only lasts
for an instant, okay. Subtle impermanence is [snaps fingers repeatedly] you
know, it’s going tch, tch, tch, tch, tch .., okay, that’s the subtle form of
impermanence. When you drop your computer on the ground and you break it,
that’s gross impermanence. When you’re using it all day long and then it wears
out after a year, it’s been a victim of subtle impermanence, you see. Every
moment that goes by the hard disk is deteriorating a bit, some wires starting to
loosen, all over the time that you’ve used it, every millisecond, sixty-five
divisions for finger snap, it’s been getting older, okay. And that’s {kechikma},
something that only lasts a, if you think about it, all of those objects are only
lasting for an instant. They’re changing by the instant and that’s the point of
{mitakpa}, okay. I translate it, and I’m always right, as a changing thing.
[student: inaudible] There is a different name for the process. This is the victim
of the process. This is the thing which is changing, okay, changing thing. Now,
what does impermanent mean to you? I mean, what’s the difference between, a
permanent glue and an impermanent glue? What’s the difference between
permanent dye and impermanent dye? Huh? One doesn’t last and one does
last, okay. And that’s the meaning of impermanent and permanent. One sticks
around and the other doesn’t, you know. Permanent Green Card means,
permanent resident means it won’t wear out ‘til you die, okay. And that’s what
permanent means. Permanent means it will stay around for the foreseeable
future; that’s what permanent means. Impermanent means it will wear out, like
it will stop after a while, okay, and that’s the meaning. Now let’s talk about
something like, oh, by the way, I’ll give you the opposite.
[student: inaudible]
Yeah, {kechikma} is the definition of {mitakpa}, okay; that which only lasts for a
moment. Something which only lasts for a moment, is the definition for
{mitakpa}, okay, of what they translate as impermanent or a changing thing.
How about {tongpa nyi}? What does {tongpa nyi} mean? Emptiness, okay.
Shunyata. {tongpa} means ‘empty’ and {nyi} means ‘ness’, okay. In Sanskrit,
shunya is empty and ta is ‘ness’, okay, emptiness. Shunyata, all right, shunyata.
Shunyata is the classic example in the whole world of something which is {takpa},
which is the opposite of {mitakpa}, you see what I mean. It’s the classic example
of a thing that is, that they mistranslate as permanent, okay. Permanent, okay.
If emptiness was permanent, what does that mean?                 Emptiness [student:
inaudible] You just said it; never wears out. What did you say? How did you
def… [student: inaudible].Yeah, it doesn’t last, okay. So, if, if permanent’s a good
translation, then emptiness should last forever. Does emptiness last forever,
okay? If it does, then permanent’s a good translation. If it doesn’t, we should
use a different translation, okay. I’m debating, all right. I wish I had one of
those guys here. [laughter] Anyway, is the pen perma… {takpa} or {mitakpa},
changing or unchanging? Changing. And, changing by the instant. What’s the
proof? Eventually you can’t write with it anymore. It’s been changing all that
time. Don’t think it ran out of ink the millisecond before it stopped writing. It’s
been running out of ink ever since the day it was made. The ink has been
evaporating since the day it was made. That the moment the ink was put in
there it’s been evaporating. In Buddhism we say, the cause for its destruction is
its creation, okay. Putting the ink in there is assuring that it’s gonna run out.
That was really stupid that you put the ink in there [laughter] you know,
[laughs] that’s why it’s running out of ink [laughs] [laughter], okay. It’s the
cause of its destruction. You don’t need to get hit by a car, your body will kill
you very nicely, okay, if you don’t get hit by a car, okay.
So, does it have emptiness? Does it have its own emptiness? Yes. Why? ‘Cos it
doesn’t have any nature of its own. Oh, no, no, no, it has a nature of being a
pen. Forget it. This cylinder could just as well be a… [students: inaudible]
chewable object, to a dog that walks in here, okay. It is validly and correctly, can
be perceived by a dog, as a chewable object. Forget it, the dog doesn’t see a pen,
okay, forget it. They see a very, very chewable thing. Just right shape for a
[unclear] or something, okay [laughter], a puppy. This is a great chewable
object. They would never perceive this as a pen. Therefore, its ‘pen-ness’ is not
inherent in it. It’s empty of the nature of being a pen and it’s equally empty of
being a chewable object, inherently. But those two beings who perceive it, a
person and a dog, each impute it or supply it, with that nature. They project that
nature onto it, okay. In fact, if you think deeply, that’s what it is to be a dog or
to be a human. You walking around with that bag of projections is what it is to
be a dog. But, I’m not going to get into that, okay. It doesn’t have any nature of
being a pen from its own side, you see. It doesn’t have any nature at all actually.
When this pen is destroyed and is melted down and destroyed at the garbage
dump, does its emptiness disappear? Yes. The fact, that this particular pen
could’ve been anything else, the fact, that this particular pen doesn’t have any
nature of its own, goes away, okay. We don’t say it stops or starts, okay. That
implies a gradual starting and a gradual ending and that doesn’t apply to
emptiness. Why? Emptiness just blinks out, okay. When this pen is destroyed,
on the day that this pen becomes dysfunctional, on … in the millisecond that it
can no longer write, it’s, [snaps fingers], okay, I’m talking usable pen, okay, it’s
emptiness is, goes out of existence. But, five minutes before it ran out of ink, did
it have any less of a no-self nature than it did the day it was created? No. It’s
unchanging. It’s totally constant. It is one hundred percent an object which has
no self-nature. It is one hundred percent empty. The day it’s made, ten days
later, two months later, three years later and just the millisecond before you
destroy it, it is equally and perfectly void of any self-nature. It could have been a
chewable object. It is a chewable object, validly, to a dog, okay. It doesn’t have
any nature of its own. And that is something that will never be more or less. It’s
hundred percent emptiness. You can’t be more or less empty. It’s not, like, oh,
it’s got ten percent self-nature today, and it had twelve percent tomorrow, then
suddenly; it’s not like that. So, permanent is a really crappy translation for the
fact that it’s unchanging, you see. Emptiness is unchanging. And that’s the
whole point of {takpa} and {mitakpa}, okay. It’s a mistranslation. Is the
emptiness of this pen permanent? No. It goes away, okay. So you can’t use that
word because it is {takpa}. I mean, nobody says it’s not {takpa}, okay. So, that’s
my schpiel. That’s on your homework. If you didn’t get it you can think about
it, okay. The emptiness of this pen will go out of existence. We don’t say stop,
please, okay. It will go out of existence. Until that moment, it will be a hundred
percent pure emptiness, as much as it was the day it was made. And that never
changes, unchanging. It’s perfectly constant. And that’s the meaning of {takpa}.
It is not a thing which lasts for a moment or changes from moment to moment.
It’s not like that, okay. Yeah. [student:[unclear]] Yeah [student: inaudible]. No.
At that moment, the emptiness of the puddle of the plastic, comes into an
existence, please. Now, be very careful about, if you…, if you medi…, by the
way, you cannot perceive this unless you meditate a lot. And, the points I’m
making now, can only be confirmed by you, if you meditate on it, deeply. You
cannot say that the emptiness of the puddle began. It did come into existence.
And there’s a serious distinction there. You have to think about it, okay. And,
and if you get it, you’ll be very close to understanding subtle impermanence
which is {kokyur}, it’s a hidden reality. It’s deep. It’s hard to perceive without
meditating. Right after that, you’ll probably perceive {chi jedrak}. Right after
that, you’ll perceive emptiness directly. They’re very closely related. These
three subjects are very closely related. This is very sexy. If you can see subtle
impermanence directly, you’re very, very far along, okay. I can describe it, you
can understand it intellectually, but if you ever really see that everything is like,
blinding changing, every second it’s a flow of things, you’re very close to seeing
emptiness, okay. Let me, I gotta go on with it, okay. Sorry. Catch me in the
break, okay.         Anyway, that’s the difference between permanent and
unchanging. This pen’s emptiness is not permanent but it’s unchanging. It’s
{takpa}, okay. It’s not {mitakpa}, okay. Now, I’ll write {takpa} for you. By the
way, in certain contexts, {mitakpa} is well translated as impermanent. Like, in
the Lam Rim, {chiwa mitakpa} means, the impermanence of a person, the fact
that they have to die. That’s a good translation, you see. In that case, it’s okay,
but in Buddhist philosophy it’s a mistranslation, okay.
I’m gonna be a {kachik}, okay. Say {kachik} [repeat]. {kachik} is the word that’s
sed in the {dura}and elsewhere in Buddhism for some guy comes up and claims
something, you know, okay. {kachik} is in trouble the minute he gets called
{kachik}, okay.       {ka} means, ‘mouth’, {chik} means, ‘one’;{kachik} means
somebody comes up, some guy comes up and says, and then they give you the
wrong idea, okay. And the whole thing of Buddhist Scriptures destroying all the
{kachiks}, they’re like roaches in your apartment, okay, going {kachik, kachik,
kachik}. Each guy comes up with a crazy idea. I will be, now, a {kachik}which
means, watch out, I’m about to write something wrong, okay. But you can write
it ‘cos I’ll change just one thing and it’ll be right.
Say, {kechikma} [repeat] {ma-yinpa} [repeat], {ma-yinpa} you gotta say like with
disgust, okay. {kechikma} [repeat], {ma-yinpa} [repeat], okay. {kechikma}
means, what? [snaps fingers] Something that only lasts for a moment, okay.
Some thing that only lasts an instant. {ma-yinpa} means [student] not. Not. It is
not. {ma} means ‘not’, {yin} mean, {yinpa} means ‘is’; it is not [snaps fingers]
something that’s changing from second to, millisecond to millisecond, okay. By
the way, sometimes the definition of {mitakpa} is given as {kechik kyi … chu}
which means, an object which is arising and being destroyed by the instant, you
see. Now, I’ll debate with you, okay. This is your first debate. Don’t get
nervous, all right. There’s like a lot of you and only one of me after all [laughs].
I need that. Better give me a rosary. I can beat them off with it, if they get too
bad, okay. Anyway, okay, yeah. {kechikma ma-yinpa takpa tsennyi yin pechir},
okay. I actually start it like this, okay. Let me see, I don’t have enough room
here Seamus, later. Okay, let’s say that Jay Siller’s the opponent, okay. He’s
supposed to sit there like he knows it all, okay, like that. And then I come up
and flail against him. I mean, if he’s really strong he just keeps saying, right, no,
right, no, no, right and sooner or later, he can destroy me just by saying that if
he’s, if he’s sharp, okay. I gotta keep throwing questions at him and sooner or
later, I’ll get myself in trouble, okay, because you can always establish the truth
by debating, you know. If I start out with something wrong he can always beat
me if he gives the right answers. It’s a flow-chart. It’s a logic program. It’s a
computer on-off switch, you so. So, I’ll come up and say {dhi chitar chuchen},
okay. So, you know, I give him all the respect, {dhi chitar chuchen}how about
this one, okay. {dhi} how about this one, what do you think about this one.
{kechikma ma-yinpa}, not changing by the instant, {tak kyi tsennyi yin pechir}
okay, {tak kyi tsennyi yin pechir}, okay. That’s the definition of {takpa}. That’s
the definition of an unchanging thing. Not changing by, not something that only
lasts… not only lasting a minute, second, sorry, okay. {kechikma ma-yinpa}, that
which doesn’t last an instant is the definition of {takpa}. Then you say, {tak ma
drup}, say {tak ma drup}, say, {tak ma drup} [repeat]. By the way, later you can
do it in English, okay, but just learn the Tibetan now. {tak ma drup} [repeat] {tak
ma drup}It’s gotta be like with power, you know, {tak ma drup} meaning {tak},
{tak} means the thing you gave me as a reason, what did I give him as a reason?
Oh, that’s the definition of an unchanging thing; a thing which is not changing.
I’m sorry, that which is not changing, okay, is the definition of, of, of an, of an
unchanging thing. And he said, {tak ma drup}. {tak} means the thing you said
last, that reason you gave, {ma drup} means, it’s incorrect, okay {ma drup}; {tak
ma drup}, {tak} by the way, you can either slap your hands or if you’re in a little
group and you don’t want to blow everybody away, you can [snaps fingers],
okay and you can, you know, okay. It’s {tak ma drup}, are you telling me that’s
not the definition? You say, {dir}; {dir} means, right, that’s what I said. [laughter]
[laughs] {dir}. Then I say, {shok};{shok} means, well, what’s wrong, you know.
What’s the problem here? Why? [student:[unclear]] Oh, yah, you’re in big
trouble now [laughs], {shok}. He said there’s things that last longer than a
second that aren’t [takpa} [student], yah, so {shok, shok}.           Give me one.
Anyway, that’s a long story. You’re going the wrong way [laughter] [laughs]
no, you’re going the wrong way. By the way, [laughter] all that it says in the
Tibetan here, so far, is ‘not something which changes by the instant’, not
something which changes by the instant. Is that a good definition for a thing, an
object which is unchanging? No, because what about [students: inaudible] okay.
There’s a famous example, two famous examples, okay. One of them is, the
horns that are proliferating on the head of a rabbit, okay, and there’s no such
thing, all right. But, is it something, which is not changing? Is it not changing?
Yes, it’s not changing, okay. It’s not changing. It’s not changing, but is it a thing,
is it a {chu}, is it a dharma, is it a {yupa}, does it exist? No. So, this is a bad
definition. I could put into unchanging existing objects I could throw in rabbit’s
horns. If you leave the definition like this you’re in trouble, okay. Not changing,
see? I didn’t say a thing which is not changing. It doesn’t say a ‘thing’ yet. It
doesn’t, especially it doesn’t say an existing thing, which is not changing. It just
says, not changing, okay, that which is not changing. But I didn’t say, a thing,
which is not changing. That’s a big difference, okay. That which is not changing
applies to non-existing things. They can’t change and they can’t un-change, they
don’t do anything. I have to say, ‘a thing’, a existing thing which is not changing.
So, I have to add here what? What do I have to add? Let’s throw in {chu} and
that’s the definition, by the way. Now, you got two parts: a thing which exists
that doesn’t change by the instant, is the definition of an unchanging thing, an
unchanging thing. Now, you’ve got a good definition. You have to write that
down.       That’s on your homework, okay, {kechikma ma-yinpa chir takpa
tsennyi}. The definition of an unchanging thing is, an existing thing which is not
the kind of thing that only lasts for a moment, you see what I mean, okay. Now
you’ve got an airtight definition. [student: inaudible] That’s a big debate, you
see. Is a rabbit’s horn a thing? [student] I, I, in my English translations, I, I say
you can say something, okay, you know. Something, which doesn’t exist, right.
We can say that in English, right? Give me an example, of something, which
doesn’t exist. So, that can be a general word. [student] I’d say, you better clarify
thing with existing thing, or something like that, okay [student] I don’t mind to
call it thing. [student] Oh, I’d say, existing object, you see, for thing, okay. I
would translate dharma as thing. Yah. [student] As ‘a thing’, yeah, yeah. But I
say you could use ‘something’ for things that don’t exist. Give me something
that doesn’t exist. Then, you can say, rabbit’s horns, you know. Give me
something that’s a thing and doesn’t exist, I think you’d have trouble with
rabbit’s horns, you see, that’s what I’m saying. Think about it. My Lama used to
say, ‘cook it’, okay.
So, you have two divisions of all existing things. They’re either changing or
unchanging, okay. Take a break and when we come back we’ll do the three
divisions of changing things, okay.

I’m gonna give you a couple of examples of {mitakpas}. Your homework says,
give me what {takpa}, give me the two divisions of existing things. Define each
one of those divisions and then give me some concrete examples, okay. Here are
the two examples, classical examples, for {mitakpa}, a changing object, okay; a
changing object. These are the two examples in Scripture that you see most
often. So, you picture some yogi. I, I like to picture this. I often picture this, you
know. He’s, like, in this tiny little hut in India, it’s really hot outside, it’s dusk,
you know. He’s sitting there with his student. First, he made him memorize the
Pramanavartikka and now he’s explaining it to him, you know, say five hundred
years ago in India, okay or a thousand years ago. Maybe a thousand years ago
is better. And, and he starts teaching him about {mitakpa}, you know, here’s
what {mitakpa} means. And the student doesn’t get it, you know. What’s an
example of {mitakpa}. He says, look, look. And he looks around the hut, you
know. What’s in an Indian hut, if you’ve ever been there, not much, okay. It’s a
mud floor, mud walls, couple of sticks holding up the thatch, right. And there’s a
big water pitcher in the corner because you have to walk to the well ‘cos there’s
no pipes ‘cos they’re too expensive. And the women spend their whole
morning, up ‘til noon, standing there waiting for the one faucet to be free. And
then, they fill up their kailash, their water, their water pitcher and then thy walk
home. And they set it there and they cover it. And that’s your water for the
whole day: washing, drinking, everything else, brushing your teeth or whatever.
Those are the objects in an Indian home, so these are the classical objects in the
Logic Scriptures. I’m sure it came like that. I’m sure that’s why they are. {kawa}
means the stick that holds up roof, okay. A pillar, if you will, but I wouldn’t call
that stick a pillar if you’ve ever seen ‘em, okay. That’s a {kawa}. Sera Je just built
a beautiful temple and His Holiness inaugurated it in January, and temples in
Buddhism, in Tibet, are measured by their {kawas}, you know. My temple has a
hundred and fifty-three {kawas} So now, my monastery, Sera Me, is trying to
build a hundred and sixty {kawa} temple, okay [laughter] [laughs], okay. That’s
a {kawa}, okay. {bumpa, bumpa} means a water pitcher. People translate it as
‘vase’; that’s not the point. The point is, there would always be a {bumpa} in the
room where you’re being taught logic in ancient India. There’d be a water… a
water pitcher, or a, you know, the thing to hold the water, the day’s water. It’s
those beautiful red clay things. You touch them and they’re cool in the
summertime. The water stays cool. They’re really nice, okay, {bumpa}. There’s
an important synonym for {mitakpa} which you should learn. Sorry.
Say, {ngupo} [repeat], {ngupo} [repeat]; {ngupo} means, ‘a working thing’. I
translate it as a working thing, a functional thing, something that does
something. Any object in the universe, which changes, also does something. If
nothing else, it contributes to the continuation of itself, you see what I mean. It
acts as the cause for something. Anything in the world which changes is
performing a function, and they’re synonyms and you better get used to it or
you’ll never be able to understand Madhyamika. You’ll never be able to study
Madhyamika, okay. It’s very important in Madhyamika, okay. So, how do we
define a {ngupo}? I’ll give it to you here. Say, {dunje} [repeat], {nupa} [repeat],
{ngupay} [repeat], {tsennyi} [repeat]; {dunje} [repeat], {nupa} [repeat], ngupay}
[repeat], tsennyi} [repeat]. {dun} means, thing, okay, something [unclear],
{dunje} means, to do something; {nupa} means, it has the ability. So, anything
which can perform a function, all right. Anything which can perform a function,
is the definition of a {ngupo}. So, I call it a working thing, okay, so you get used
to it. Working thing to me means it does something. It does something. So,
emptiness must be a {ngupo} right? I’m trapping you. So, emptiness must be a
{ngupo} right? Remember, {ngupo} and {mitakpa} are synonyms; something
that does something and something that changes are synonyms, okay. You
always change [cut] [end side A]

Something, right. So, changing thing and working thing are synonyms. But,
when I presented unchanging things I said a good example would be …
emptiness ‘cos it never changes. It’s always a hundred percent emptiness, okay.
You can’t be more or less void of any nature. You either are or you ain’t, okay.
So, I guess emptiness is not a working thing, right? By definition, right. If it was
working it would be changing. If it would be changing you’d have to say
emptiness gets more or less empty or something like that. Right? So, make up
your mind. Changing thing or unchanging thing? Changing or unchanging?
Unchanging thing {yin pa ta}, are you telling me it’s an unchanging thing? Yeah.
Okay, so it doesn’t do anything, right? Right. So, no use to see it, right? Won’t
get you enlightened. Won’t, won’t stop your suffering. It can’t do anything.
What’s the use of it? Doesn’t have a use. [student:]. Right, it makes all things
possible, boy, that’s a, thank you Mister emptiness [laughter], you know.
Remember, we said many times if I wasn’t empty I couldn’t become a tantric
deity, right. It must, it better do something, so make up your mind. Yeah.
[student] So, it’s changing. By doing you change, period, okay. [laughter]
[laughs] So it’s a changing thing. So, {……}, okay, are you telling me that
Vasubandhu never said, this is one of the … this is one of the things which don’t
change? I mean, all Buddhist philosophers throughout history, always said
emptiness never changes. [student: inaudible] [laughs] [laughter] It’s a, now, at
this point Khen Rinpoche would say, you think about it, we’ll go on. [laughter]
I’ll give you a clue, but I’d rather… I mean, if I was Khen Rinpoche, I’d just leave
you hanging. There’s a distinction between the perception of emptiness and
emptiness, right. There’s a distinction between the perception of emptiness and
emptiness, okay. Chew on that, okay. All right.
So, so far, we have existing things and they went into changing and unchanging.
Now I’m gonna give you the three kinds of changing things; three great
divisions. And then we’ll be done with {shi drup kyi namshak}and it’ll be nine
o’clock and we can start the real class, okay. All right. I’m gonna give you the
three kinds of changing things. Number one is {suk}, okay. Say, {suk} [repeat],
{suk} [repeat], okay. Don’t say high-tone, right. Low-tone, {suk}[repeat], okay,
{suk}. {suk} means a physical thing, okay, in this case; {suk} means a physical
thing, physical things. That’s the first kind of changing thing, is physical things,
okay. Physical things. Another word for physical thing, which you’ll find in
your reading, is {pembo}, say,{pembo} [repeat], {pembo} [repeat]. {pempo} is
defined as {dulda drupa} which means, a thing composed of atomic particles, you
know, a composite physical thing. Whereas the emphasis here is on {suk} and I’ll
give you the definition of {suk}. I don’t get to torment you with Tibetan after
this year so I’m going to get my money’s worth, okay. Just do the top- half,
okay. Don’t do the bottom- half yet. Say, {suk si} [repeat], {rungwa} [repeat],
{suk kyi} [repeat], {tsennyi} [repeat]; {suk si} [repeat], {rungwa} [repeat], {suk
kyi} [repeat], {tsennyi} [repeat]. {suk}, the first {suk} means physical, something
physical, physical thing, okay. A physical thing, {suk}. People have translated it
as ‘form’. I don’t like that translation. Form, to me, means the outline of
something, or something like that. {suk} is, the divisions of {suk} are color and,
well, no. I’ll tell you what the divisions of {suk} are [laughs]. {suk si rungwa} is
the definition of something physical. Let’s say blue, okay. Let’s talk about this
blue. I, I was with my friend’s kids the other day and they were reading a book
called ‘A Wrinkle in Time’, and the kids were trying to explain colors to beings
who had never seen colors, you see. And what’s the only way you can define a
color? What would be, I mean, if you were trying to teach somebody from Mars
who came here the word ‘blue’, and you [student] you have to show it. {suk si
rungwa} means, anything you can show as {suk}, is the definition of {suk], okay.
Because, when you get down to colors, you can’t do it with words you see. You
have to do it, you have to say, [laughs] okay, {suk si rungwa suk kyi tsennyi}.
The definition of matter is ,that which can be presented, as being matter, you see
what I mean.       That you can show to someone {suk si rungwa} means
‘appropriate’; {suk si rungwa} means you can show it to somebody as blue. {suk
si rungwa suk kyi tsennyi} means, the definition of physical matter is anything
which can be pointed to as being physical matter by someone who knows what
physical matter is. And that’s the definition of physical matter because you can’t
define it otherwise. You can’t go to some planet where they don’t have colors
and stand there and explain it to them in words, okay. You can’t distinguish
between blue and green in words to someone who doesn’t have colors, okay.
So, you get down to the definition of color’s very difficult. {suk si rugwa suk kyi
tsennyi}, okay. What’s an example? Say, {tsaway}, oh, by the way, {suk} here
means physical matter, {tsennyi} again means definition, and you better learn the
word {tsennyi}, definition, okay. What’s an example? {tsaway rekja}. Say,
{tsaway} [repeat], {rekja} [repeat]. In your homework you have to write an
example, okay, {tsaway rekja}. I don’t mind if you do it in English, doesn’t
matter to me. {tsawa} means, hot; {rekja} means, tangible object, something
tangible, something you can touch. A hot touch, {tsaway rikcha}, okay, the feel
of something hot, okay. The feel of something hot. {rekja} means something
you can touch; {tsawa} means heat, okay, hot, hot object. Okay. Second
division. What would you guess would be the second division of changing
things? If physical matter is the first one, what would number two be? Mind.
The mind, okay, {shepa}. {shepa} means, a mental thing. I think you get in
trouble if you say ‘mind’ because the thoughts are there also, you see what I
mean. In English, the word mind means, the main mind. And then you have the
thoughts in the mind, you see, in English. And then you get a lot of, I, I would
consider, poor translations of Sanskrit and Tibetan, where every mental thing is
called mind, you know. The mind of enlightenment, or something like that, or
you know, or, or a mind which perceives or something like that. You don’t
perceive, your mind doesn’t perceive, in English, in normal English grammar
you say, I perceive it with my mind or something like, you see what I mean?
When you translate, try to stick to English, otherwise it gets confusing and
people can’t understand it and that, then you’ve destroyed the reason to
translate. You might as well leave it in Tibetan. If you want to have something
that nobody can understand [laughter] leave it in Tibetan, you know. Here’s the
definition of a mental thing, okay. Say, {sel shing} [repeat], {rikpa} [repeat],
{shepay} [repeat], {tsennyi} [repeat]; {sel shing} [repeat], {rikpa} [repeat],
{shepay} [repeat], {tsennyi} [repeat]; definition of a mental thing, okay. The
definition of a mental thing. {sel} is very difficult to translate here. I’ve asked
many Lamas, I’ve debated it in many monasteries. My current understanding,
okay, as Je Tsongkapa would say, which is implying that I may learn more, is
‘invisible’, okay. Invisible, okay. Usually, it means, ‘clear’, okay. Usually, the
word {sel} means clear but here it means invisible, okay. {shing}means, ‘and’;
{shing means, and. {dang, shing, … } all mean the same thing: and. {rikpa}
means, ‘aware’. And that’s the definition of a mental thing: It’s invisible and it’s
aware. Okay. I think, in the west, we tend to confuse it with the physical matter
which it is closely related to, you know. Like, your brain. When somebody says,
you know, where’s your mind? You go like this. For a Tibetan to go like that,
for a Buddhist philosopher,that would be insane to say my mind is here. See,
‘cos the mind is ineffable. It cannot be located. It cannot be touched. It’s, it’s not
even up to the end of your skin, you see. It goes beyond. You can think of
what’s in your refrigerator at home. In a sense, your mind has gone there.
Where is your mind? You know, can you see your mind? You know, it’s all
very difficult questions. Invisible and aware, okay. Examples of mental things,
okay. Examples of mental things: {dewa} [repeat], Say {dewa} [repeat]; {dewa}
means, happiness, in this case, okay. Happiness. And {yeshe} which means,
wisdom, okay, wisdom. These are mental events, okay. These are mental
things, mental functions, okay. Those are examples of something mental. Did
we cover all changing things? If we did, you might be able to go home. Did we
cover all changing things? What about ‘Tessie’? Is Tessie changing? That’s her,
okay.      Is Tessie changing? Yeah. Is she something physical or something
mental? She combines both, you know, she incorporates both, but what about
Tessie? It’s a concept really. You see, Tessie is a concept; person, person. Person
is a concept, you see. You can’t touch person. You can touch Tessie’s body. You
could, you know, get her mind mad. But, Tessie, quote “Tessie”, you see what I
mean. That’s a little tricky, all right. That’s a very subtle thing. You are the
combination of your body and your mind, but you are not either one itself. And
so, that’s a third thing, like a conceptual changing thing, you see. A concept
which is changing. Actually, Tessie is a concept, okay. And that whole category
of things is called, well, I’ll give you the whole thing, what the heck. That’s your
last thing tonight so don’t, don’t lose hope, okay. Say, {denmin} [repeat], {duje}
[repeat], {denmin duje} [repeat], {denmin duje} [repeat], better get used to it.
{denmin duje} [repeat]; {den} means, ‘possesses’, {min} means, ‘not’, {duje}
means, ‘something that does something’. I translate it as an active thing, okay,
an active thing. An active thing which is nether mind nor matter.             Active,
meaning, it does something, okay, {denmin duje}. There’s also a {duche} which
I’m sure you won’t confuse it with because that’s different spelling, different
sound. Of course, {je }and {che} are different, okay [laughs] and some people
confuse them. But anyway, {denmin duje} is the third kind of changing thing
and then we’re done with {shi drup}. We’re done with what we wanted to get
through tonight. The third kind of changing thing, is a changing thing that is
neither mind nor matter. And, an example, is Tessie. {gangsak, gangsak} means,
person, person. It could be a horse, it could be a dog, it could be a human, it
could be Tessie. But, if you think about it, it’s an idea. You can’t touch, touch
Tessie. You can’t throw Tessie out of the room. You can throw Tessie’s body
out of the room, okay. But, Tessie, is an idea that covers her body and her mind,
okay. Tessie is a concept. Is it changing? Yes. Okay. But it’s neither physical
nor mental. It combines both. It’s a concept, which combines both, okay. Yeah.
[student] Active thing here is only a code word for a changing thing, okay. And
people have struggled with it, you know, ‘compositional factor’, you know. If
you wanna make your translations sound scholastic, you know. It just means it
does something. {duje} means something that does something, okay. It’s a
synonym for {ngupo}. It’s a synonym for for {mitakpa}. Yeah. [student:
inaudible] Excuse me? Tessie can die. Tessie can get old. [student] that’s Tessie’s
body, right [laughs]. That’s true. Well, you can start, but your concept of Tessie
can be one thing tonight and another thing tomorrow. How’s that? That’s
better. You beat me on that one. Okay. I’ll give you all the words here, okay.
{denmin duje} is pretty much untranslatable. It means, doesn’t have matter and
is not mind, but it’s all in code, okay. So, you might as well call it something
that’s changing but is not matter nor mind. It’s neither matter nor mind, okay.
{duje} means, an active thing. If you wanna translate it, kind of literally, you
could say, a, a, an active thing which is neither mind nor matter, okay. Active
things which are neither mind nor matter; changing things which are neither
mind nor matter. Like, horse; like person, okay. How do you define it? {pem}
means, physical matter, {she} means, mental thing, {gangrun} means, either one,
{mayinpay} it’s not, {duje} means, produced thing, a thing which was produced,
okay. {duje} means a thing which was produced. If any student in this class uses
‘composed thing’ on their homework you have to burn it, okay Phuntsok? All
right. [laughs] It’s been mistranslated for thirty years, okay. It has nothing to do
with composed thing, all right. {duje} means something which was {….} which
means, something which was produced by causes and factors, okay. And all that
compositional stuff is wrong. Space is, is composed of its directions. It’s not
{mitakpa}. It’s a wrong translation, okay. So, anyway, {denmin duje pem she
gangrun mayinpay duje} which means, this is wrong. The definition, of an active
thing which is neither mind nor matter, is a produced thing which is neither
mind nor matter, okay. That’s all. [student] No. Not necessarily. For example,
in the Vaibashika system, in the Abhidharma system, when you get to a certain
point, like, you’ll never be born in the hells again, you get a certain thing grows
on your body, in your, in your continuum which, which keeps you unpossessed
of that thing. Okay. And that’s another example if you want one. If you want
me to go further, we [laughs] okay. {….} in the Heart Sutra. That’s what it’s
talking about. Vaibashika system there are certain things that are neither mind
nor matter which exist, {bakchaks}, huge debate about {bakchaks}. Are they
mind? No, they live in the mind. Are they matter? No, you can’t operate them
[unclear]. What’s a {bakchak}? A {bakchak} is a mental seed; a propensity, or
energy, in the mind. And it’s not physical and it’s not mental. It resides in the
mind but it’s neither physical nor mental. There’s a huge debate about that, but
those are some more examples. They’re kinda rare, okay. They’re not too
common.       There’s a debate about whether words are physical sounds or
concepts, and that would be a {denmin duje}, okay, depending on whose school
you’re in, okay. I thought we’d have some fun, okay. And then you can go
home. I need a rosary. I just want to show you how to start a debate, okay.
And so, you’re, you’re reading, for the debate part of your text tonight, says,
we’ll talk about three different things about debating. One is posture, one is how
to use a rosary and the third one is how to start a argument, all right. So, we’ll
go through the three. Normally, the defender sits down and then the attacker
stands up. Everything is initiated by the attacker, okay. So, when you sit down,
I used to like to prefer to be the attacker ‘cos at least I knew what was coming,
you know. To be the defender, you have to sit there, the guy could ask you
anything out of eighteen years of study. He could quote anything out of
thousands of pages, you know. Like, you’re defenceless. If he, you’re supposed
to pick, like, a really obscure quotation that he probably forgot, like six years
ago, you know. And then you say, what does that mean, you know. And, so it’s
almost more fun to be the attacker than the defender. But the defender has to sit
there and listen really carefully. And then, the attacker, you’re like, you come
into the debate ground and you’re like, you like, you saunter up to the guy and
you’re already clicking, you know. You’re already like, let’s see what he
probably hasn’t heard about that for a while, you know. [laughter] That’s if
you’re lazy, okay. If you’re a good debater you pick the things you’re not sure
about, you see. Like, I’m not sure about this thing that he said about the person
not being the physical or the mental. I’d like to debate that, you know. Let’s
debate whether the person is physical or mental. Can you throw out Tessie’s
body without throwing her out? You see what I mean? Or, vice versa. And,
what is the relationship between those things? And, if you’re a good debater,
and if you really get into debating for the right reasons, bring out the things that
you’re not sure about. You know, when you spend time with your Dharma
friends in this class, and when you do your debating practice together, okay,
which you will, bring out the things that you’re not sure about and see if,
sometimes if you have three good guys together, you can figure out something
even though none of you knows any more than the other guys. But, just talking
it over helps a lot, you know. And so, you try to pick the questions that you’re
not sure about, okay. And you, you would come up and say, {tong nyi mitakpa
yinpay chir}, okay. Like, you say, you start the debate by {dhi}. Say, {dhi}
[repeat]{chitar} [repeat], {chuchen} [repeat]; {dhi}[repeat] {chitar}[repeat
[chuchen}[repeat], but you say it very quiet, {dhi chitar chuchen}, okay. And
then, you say, {takpa} you say, {tong nyi takpa yinpay chir}, sorry, {tong nyi
mitakpa yinpay chir}: Emptiness is something that changes, okay. Emptiness is a
changing thing. We were, I’m sure about it. Like, take the one thing that you’re
most unclear about and bring that up. It’s very, the comfort level is low; the
truth-seeking level is high, [laughter] you see what I mean. And, and you can
tell the great debaters, they always bring up the things that they’re not sure
about even though they may look like a fool for a few minutes. But, if you keep
that up for a year or so, you’re not a fool any more. You’ve actually explored all
the difficult questions. Gelugpa writers , tend to, in their textbooks, they ignore
the easy parts. They don’t even write about them. They only bring up the hard
parts. It’s called {kagne}. So anyway, let’s debate something we’re all not kinda
clear on; {tong nyi mitakpa yinpay chir}, okay. {tong nyi mitakpa yinpay chir},
okay. And, and today I’m not gonna try and teach you debating. I, I mean I just
want to show you the posture, okay. So you start out, when you say {dhi chitar
chuchen}, you normally have this here. You’ve paid some respect to them, okay,
and it’s very quiet. And sometimes, they’ll go right down to your ear and say
{dhi chitar chuchen}, you know. And then they’ll, then you step back and you
say, {tong nyi chuchen mitakpa yin te dunje nupa yinpay chir}, okay. And then
you give a slap, okay. That’s all I want you to learn tonight really, okay. You
go, you go down like this {dhi chitar chuchen} and then you, and then you come
back and you say, {tong nyi chuchen}, which means, let’s talk about emptiness,
okay. {ngupo yin te} we’ll say {ngupo yin te}, it’s a working thing, {dunje nupa
yinpay chir} because it performs a function. {dunje nupa yinpay chir}, okay. And
you gotta get used to that, all right. So I’ll show you one more time then you
gotta practice a little bit, all right. [laughs] Okay. Normally, it’s your left foot
forward. Okay, I’m sorry it favours righties, okay. The lefties’ll have to get used
to it. So, you’re left foot’s forward and, and sometimes, you’ll even have the toe
up, okay. And, and you got this, this’ll be like this. Later on you’ll be going like
this, okay. And if you saw the thangkas, there’s, I checked it out. There’s two
thangkas: Dharmakirti and Dignaga. I honestly don’t know which is which. But,
in our temple in Leon’s house, they’re both like this. This has been this way for a
long time. And when you’re in a debate you be like, you know, like that
[laughter], okay. But you start out with it here, you know. And you go {tongpa
nyi chuchen} [unclear] {tongpa nyi},say, {tongpa nyi} [repeat], {chuchen} [repeat];
{tongpa nyi}[repeat] {chuchen} [repeat], okay. {tongpa nyi} means, emptiness,
shunyata, okay. {chuchen} you gotta get used to; {chuchen} means, this is the
subject we’re gonna debate. In Scripture, it’s called {….}which means, the subject
under argument, okay. {tongpa nyi chuchen}
So, every syllogism has three parts, okay. The first is the {chuchen}. {chuchen}
means, what are we gonna talk about, okay; {chuchen} means, what are we
gonna talk about, what are we gonna debate about. What are we gonna be
debate about? {tongpa nyi, tongpa nyi chuchen}, okay, {tongpa nyi chuchen}. It
could be anything. {tongpa nyi chuchen}. Then you’re like this. You’re already
like this, okay. Left foot, left foot forward. I mean it’s just a, it’s just a custom, all
right. {tongpa nyi chuchen} and then you say {ngupo yin te} and then by then,
you’re normally, I mean, you don’t have to point to the guy but it’s like huh,
okay [laughter]. Say, {ngupo} [repeat], {yin te} [repeat], {ngupo} [repeat] {yin te}
[repeat]; It’s a functional thing. It’s a working thing, okay. I think it’s a working
thing. {ngupo yin te} [repeat], okay. That’s called {drupjay chu}, okay. Say,
{drupjay} [repeat] {chu} [repeat], {drupjay chu}[repeat]. You can read it in your
reading, but {drupjay chu} means, the quality that you’re trying to prove. The
quality that you’re trying to prove. What quality? That it’s a working thing.
That it does something, okay. That it’s a working thing, okay. That’s called
{drupjay chu, drupjay chu} and those are the elements. Element number one:
{chuchen}. What are we arguing about? Element number two: {drupjay chu}.
What is the quality you’re trying to prove about emptiness? See, {drupja}means,
to prove, {chu} means, quality. What’s the quality you’re trying to prove about
emptiness? That it’s [students] yarrrr [students] working thing. That it’s a
working thing, okay. So, so far, we have two parts. All I want to do tonight is
three parts. You’ll be outta here by nine-thirty. You can practice stamping. I
hope you don’t live above somebody, okay, okay. {drupjay chu, ngupo yin te
dunje nupa yinpay chir}. Say, {dunje} [repeat] {ngupa} [repeat] {yinpay chir}
[repeat] {dunje} [repeat] {nupa} [repeat] {yinpay chir} [repeat]. By the way, you
don’t have to debate it in Tibetan. I’ll have you in groups in a week or two, in a
class or two, and you’ll be debating, the English track’ll be debating English and
that’s okay. So, don’t worry about it. Don’t run away ‘cos there’s a lot of
Tibetan here. But those of you who want to learn, your homework Tibetan, for
example, if you debate it for ten minutes, forget it, you’ll never forget it. It’s
really nice. It’s really good, okay. {dunje ngupa} [repeat] {yinpay chir} [repeat].
Then, it’s like, you gotta practice, okay. Like that [laughter]. I wasn’t dancing in
Time Magazine [laughter], okay [laughs] all right. You get this up like that, right.
And you can tell the new kids, they’re like [laughter]. Forget it. It’s like that ‘cos
you need power. You need some, what do you call it? You need some, you
know. So, it’s like that and then you’re like [slaps hands], okay. Like that, all
right. So you gotta practice it at home. Don’t, I don’t wanna see people like that
[laughter]. I did one of my exams like that and I got fried afterwards by
Rinpoche, okay [laughter]. So, your arm is up like that, and then a lot of power
coming down with a lot of [slaps hand], a lot of power, okay. So you can go
home and practice it. You see kids in the monastery, you know, [slaps hand]
practising, you know [laughter] [laughs], okay, {dunje nupa yinpay chir} And
this, it’s just nice to do the old custom. And then you kinda keep it there or you
might go, you know, [laughs] [laughter], okay, all right. And there’s all this
body language. I described it in the reading, but. Then you wait for him to
answer. And, if he’s slow, you just kinda go [laughter] [laughs], okay [laughs] all
right. It’s like [laughter] and you’re waiting you know. And if, and if after
awhile he doesn’t answer, you know, you start a Woa. Say woa, I’ll do one,
okay dooooooo tsa [laughter] [laughs]. Practice, dooooooo tsa, means, come on,
you know [laughter] and then you star a woa. If you start a woa it might be
nine hundred people will repeat it, see. All the audience will help [laughter] you.
And , and it’s very embarrassing. Like, you’re trying, you’re furiously tring to
remember where this quotation comes from and there’s this woa going on, you
know [laughter]. So it’s like that; woa tsa. So, first you, this is all you have to
learn tonight. {dhi chitar chuchen}[slaps hand]. If you wanna do it in English, dhi,
[repeat] we won’t change the Sanskrit manta, okay, we’ll leave those alone.
Everything else we’ll translate, okay. {dhi chitar chuchen} how about this one
[slaps hand] okay, dhi, how about this one. And then you give a small clap but
you don’t yell, okay. And then, you kinda back off and you get your left foot
forward. And you can even see them like this, you know, or getting ready, you
know [laughter] [laughs]. Then they say, {tongpa nyi chuchen} let’s talk about
{tongpa nyi} you know. And you keep eye contact with the guy, you know,
normally, unless you’re, like, so disgusted you’re like {tongpa nyi chuchen}
[laughter], okay, okay {tongpa nyi chuchen ngupo yin te duje ngupay yinpay
chir} [slaps hand] , okay and then you give ‘em, and it hurts after, you know, I’ve
seen many times in the winter debates, that people’s hands are cut open and
there’s this blood spurting in your face, you know. If you do it for eighteen
hours a day it’s like, it’s like, and it’s really good for young monks who are
trying to keep their vows [unclear[ [laughs] [laughter]. I mean, it’s [laughs]
[laughter] it’s very good. It’s actually a very good custom in debate. We do it
for five, six hours a day. And then you have certain types of people who are
very physical or athletic, and it helps everybody, you know, because by the time
you get home you’re totally exhausted, you know. And, you’re like, and you’re
refreshed, and it keeps you healthy also. So, it’s really nice. It’s a great custom.
And you’re out in the night air and you’re excited and everybody’s laughing, yo
know. And it really breaks the monotony of studying all day or memorising all
day and it’s really a lot of fun. So, try it at home and next time, you know, we’ll,
we’ll try to clear things off a little bit and do it, okay. You start out, you do start
out like that, {dhi chitar chuchen}, {dhi} how about this one. Let’s talk about
emptiness. It’s a working thing because it performs a function. [slaps hand]
Okay. I’ll say it again in English. It would be like this: {dhi chitar chuchen}, {dhi}
how about this one, {dhi} how about this one.              Let’s talk about emptiness.
Consider emptiness, okay. It’s a working thing. Because, it’s a thing which
performs a function. [slaps hand] Okay. And all these flag stones in the Sera Me
debate ground are broken into pieces, you know [laughter], thousands of people
smashing them all day long, you know. And that’s how you do it, okay. So, you
practice it at home like that, okay. The last element, where I said, because it’s a
thing which performs a function, is called the {tak}, okay. Say, {tak} [repeat] {tak}
[repeat], okay, {tak}. {tak} you had last week; it means, reason, okay, the reason.
I’m gonna write you those because we have four more minutes and I can torture
you a little bit. Say, {chuchen} [repeat] {chuchen} [repeat]. {chuchen} is the
subject. What was our subject this time? {tongpa nyi}, okay, emptiness. We
said, {tongpa nyi chuchen}. We didn’t get that far, right. We were like {tongpa
nyi chuchen}, okay, {tongpa nyi chuchen}. Let’s talk about {tongpa nyi}; {tongpa
nyi chuchen} means the subject is {tongpa nyi}.                By the way, the basic
requirements for the subject, all though you can study it more carefully in the, in
the reading. And, the reading is hard, okay. You gotta spend a lot of time on it.
It’s like forty pages. We all went crazy doing it; many all- nighters, okay. There
are basically two requirements. Your opponent must have perceived that object
with a {tsema}, you see, with a valid perception. In other words, you and I can’t
debate about a [unclear], ‘cos you don’t know what I’m talking about unless you
know Russian, okay. Okay, Mary ,okay. You know, you can’t debate about
that, a red door, if I say, if I use a language which you don’t know, that’s not a
good {chuchen}, you see what I mean. It must be, first of all, an object which the
opponent knows what it is, okay. He has confirmed that this thing exists, okay.
[student: how do you know what he knows?] Normally, when you’re making a
debate with somebody, like, you’re responding to a question they made or
something like that.       Like, somebody comes up to me and says, I think
emptiness is a changing thing. And then I’m gonna debate with him, then I have
to assume he knows what emptiness is, intellectually, you know. By the way,
you don’t have to have a perfect understanding of the thing. You understand
the word and you have a rough idea of what it is. If you had seen it directly
you’d be an Arya, you wouldn’t be asking me if it was an unchanging, a
changing thing. You would never say that. So, it doesn’t mean that you have to
perceive it absolutely correctly, but you have to know what I’m talking about
when I’m talking about emptiness, okay. You must have your own {tsema} of
emptiness in a very rough way, okay, at least. {tongpa nyi} And the second
requirement is, the opponent must be unsure whether or not it is what you say
next, you see what I mean. What am I gonna say next? It’s a working thing; it’s
a working thing. He must doubt that fact. He must be unsure about that fact.
And those are the two requirements, okay. He must know what the subject is
and he must be unsure about whether it’s the thing you’re about to say. You
see, you’re about to assert that it’s a certain thing; you’re about to say, it is a
working thing, and he has to be in doubt about that. In other words, you’re
starting with an assertion, he has to doubt it or you wouldn’t be arguing about it,
okay. It has to be something he doubts. If the opponent doesn’t think, if he
doesn’t have doubt about what you say, you have just presented an incorrect
reason, in Buddhist logic. In the classic proof, you know, if you go up to
Dharmakirti and try to prove one of these things, that’s incorrect reasoning, you
see what I mean. It counts as much as a wrong reason. It’s, it’s invalid, you can’t
use it, okay. You can’t argue something to someone that they already accept,
okay. So, those are the two requirements, basic requirements of the subject. It
must be that they know what you’re talking about and they must doubt that it is
what you’re trying to prove, okay. That’s all. Okay. Now, {drupjay chu}, what
was the {drujay chu}, what was the thing we were trying to prove about
emptiness? That it’s a working thing, okay. I’ll give you the second element.
[student] Yeah, you, you’ve picked the wrong subject, actually [laughs], you
know. You’ve picked the wrong subject. I mean, you can debate it for exercise,
for the exercise of it, you know, and they do in the monastery. But, the greatest
teachers in the monastery, in front of a thousand monks, will take a position
which is totally wrong just to see if this young monk can learn to prove him
wrong, because he’s trying to help the other person, you see. It’s not who wins.
The great debaters are searching for subjects that are delicate, you know. It’s
called delicate in Tibetan. They’re looking for subjects that are touchy because
they want everyone to learn something profound, you see. And, and, and, and
you’re trying to explore the unknown together. Really, debate is exploring the
unknown. You’re not, the American idea that it must be a competition or
somebody has to win and somebody has to lose, is very sick and it’s totally
foreign to Tibetan Buddhism. It’s, when you go to the debate ground it feels so
nice. It’s like exploring the unknown with your friends. And it’s great. It feels
wonderful. And you go home and you understand so much more than when
you went there. It’s a beautiful thing. It’s a really beautiful thing. And you
should never feel embarrassed or shy or say, I had a couple of people come up
to me and say, yeah, could I sit in the back during the debating ‘cos, you know,
I’m not too good at yelling and stuff. You don’t have to yell. I don’t care if you
yell. The great, great, great debaters are like, {tongpa nyi chuchen}[laughter] ,
you know. You see the great ones, really, especially as you get older, you get
less, you know [laughter] [laughs], you know. But you also get like a violin
player, you know. I mean, you just get more, you know. They’ll sit there and
go {tongpa nyi chuchen}, they’re like that. You can’t even hear their finger
snaps, you know, and they’re wiping you out, you know. {laughs] [laughter]
But, but you’re learning, see. So, don’t ever be shy or embarrassed. Never think
like that. That’s pride. If you think about it, that’s pride. Forget your pride. Go
in and explore the things you don’t know and your mind will get expanded
immediately. It’s really fun so forget the pride thing, you know. People say
they’re embarrassed. You’re not embarrassed you’re just too proud to get
embarrassed in front of other people. A good Buddhist wants to learn, you
know. You wanna learn something about emptiness. Come on, bring up
something I don’t know, okay. Let me learn something, you see. That’s better.
Have that attitude when you debate, okay.
So, that’s the {drupjay chu}. What’s the requirement for something to be a
{drupjay chu}? {….} You can be the object that you’re trying, the quality that
you’re trying to prove about this {chuchen}. What’s the quality that we’re trying
to prove? That emptiness is a working thing. To be a working thing is the
quality we’re trying to prove. By the way, that second element, the quality
you’re trying to prove, in Tibetan called the {drupjay chu}, doesn’t even have to
exist. Because, the definition of the quality that you’re trying to prove is simply
anything that both you guys want to consider the quality being proven.
Because, for example, you can prove that something is non-existent, right? In
that case, the thing doesn’t even exist. So, it doesn’t even have to exist, you see.
As long as you both consider it the thing the guy is trying to prove. That’s the
definition of the quality you are trying to prove. You both consider it the quality
that you’re trying to prove. And that’s enough. It could be a castle in the sky. It
could be rabbit’s horns. It could be anything as long as you’re both in sync that
this is what you want to prove about the subject, okay. That’s all. The only
requirement. It doesn’t even have to exist. Yeah. [student] I can say thing
you’re trying to prove, but see, quality is good because quality of the subject,
you see. Quality of the subject [student] you’re trying to prove that it’s a quality
which, which, which applies to the subject. [student] A what? [student] That’s
the whole statement. [student] No. There’s a difference, by the way, there’s the
distinction about, between what you’re trying to prove and the quality you’re
trying to prove, you see. What am I trying to prove? That emptiness is a
working thing. What is the quality about emptiness that I’m trying to prove?
Being a working thing. You see, there’s a distinction between element number
two and element number one plus element number two. What I’m trying to
prove, the statement I’m trying to prove, the idea I’m trying to prove, if you
think about it, it’s the combination of number one and two. It’s that emptiness is
a working thing. The fact that emptiness is a working thing. And that’s called
{drupja}. I wouldn’t have brought it up Mister Hahn and you would have got
home on time, but since you brought it up [student]. It’s great to learn all these
and that’s, that’s part of the class. That’s the second half of the class. {drupja} is
the combination of one and two. {drupja} means, what we’re trying to prove.
The statement we’re trying to prove. You could call it the assertion, okay. It’s
the thing we’re trying to prove. What are you trying to prove? That emptiness
is a working thing. What’s the quality about emptiness you’re trying to prove?
Being a working thing. What’s your subject in this debate? Emptiness. Okay.
Last part, then you really can go home. Say, {tak} [repeat] {tak} [repeat].
Definition of a {tak} is what? Well it means reason, right, but what’s the
definition? {tak su kupa} anything you want to say is a reason, okay. Take
emptiness. It’s, it’s a working thing. Because the sky was green on the thirty-
second of January [laughter], okay [laughs]. Fine. It’s a false reason but it’s a
reason, okay. It’s an incorrect reason but it’s a reason. I like to impress on you
why it’s important to debate. Why is it important to do this? Why is important
for you to come back and not leave between [cut]
The Asian Classics Institute

Geshe Michael Roach
Course XIII: The Art of Reasoning