ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 3

Class Three: Quality and Characteristic
February 24, 1998



Transcribed by Angie Overy
Proofread by Linda Salmon

I mean, that’s pretty much the definition of Buddha, okay. To be able to sit there
in the pew whether you are known to other people or not because we all know
{gangsak gyi gangsak gi tsu misung te nampar gyur tare}, right. And be able
judge, sorry, be able to be present on every planet in the universe without
thinking, without any conscious thought. I mean, it’s automatic. {Unclear} which
is a common Tibetan name means, automatic. That is the goal of these classes,
okay. The goal is that you can reach a place and sit there and be a perfect,
perfectly, perfect match with every living creature in the world and help them
exactly what they need, all the time, without any premeditation. And that’s the
nature of a Buddha, okay. To get there, you know, you have to become a
Buddha. It’s the same thing really. To get there, you have to basically remove
mental afflictions forever, otherwise known as nirvana; the definition of nirvana
really. But it’s not the whole definition of nirvana because the other part is {….}
to be able to remove your mental afflictions permanently because you saw
emptiness directly. So what would seeing emptiness directly for that.
What comes in the few hours before you see emptiness directly? I’ll be Rinpoche
for you [laughter] Huh? {Chu chok}, okay. {Chu chok} is called the supreme
object, okay. Meaning, the final hours before you reach the direct perception of
emptiness. The supreme object. During that stage, you, you understand,
perfectly, what it is to be dependent origination, okay. So, you can say, {chu
chok} equals understanding dependent origination. Or, you could say, lower
reality. [Cut]
This is higher reality, right. [Cut] And to perceive, and to reach {chu chok} you
must study emptiness. There’s a long learning curve where you’re studying
emptiness. And, the most important thing to study is mental images, because if
you understand mental images well, you will see the meaning, you will see how
lower reality works. If you understand how lower reality works, you’ll perceive
higher reality, directly, very shortly after that. Within the next day, within the
next twenty-four hours. After you’ve seen higher reality you’re eligible, directly
right, you’re eligible to remove your mental afflictions and reach nirvana. After
you’ve seen nirvana, after you reach nirvana, you can reach Buddhahood, okay.
No more than seven lifetimes; typically, seven lifetimes after you see emptiness
directly, okay. So, studying mental images is, is in a direct lineage to getting to
Buddhahood, okay. You must study mental images. And we’re gonna go
through them tonight.            It’s, it is probably the whole meat of the
Pramanavartikka. They’re not just studying Buddhist logic for fun, okay. And
they’re not just doing it because it’s something scholastically interesting. The
whole Pramanavartikka, Dharmakirti’s whole shtick, is to get you to understand
why you see something, why you perceive something, okay. The different ways
that you perceive things. That’s his whole reason. Logic is one way to see
something and then direct perceptions another way to see something. And he
covers both of them. But the guts, the real essence of his book is how do we
create a mental image and how do we see things with a mental image, okay?
And this, there ‘a) if you debate Dharmakirti, Master Dharmakirti’s book, you
end up, sooner or later, debating what is the nature of perception. How do you
see things? Which is to say, what is dependent origination, you see what I mean.
Once you understand that it’s only, like, a few hours to see emptiness directly,
okay. So, it’s very, very important. What we’re gonna go over tonight is very,
very important. First thing: very important. Second thing: very difficult in that
this is one of the subjects where you need some kind of energy or power to get
it, okay. It’s called {kelwa}. Say, {kelwa}[repeat], {kelwa} [repeat]; {kelwa} means
you’ve collected some kind of good karma, some kind of positive energy, and
that gives you the, the ability to see what I’m gonna talk about tonight, okay. If
you don’t have {kelwa} and you look at the reading that you’re gonna get
tonight, you will, your head will explode, okay, all right. [Laughs] You’ll say, I
don’t care, what the hell. I mean, you’ll open up anywhere and you’ll say I don’t
understand what the hell are you talking about, you know what I mean. It’s
very difficult. And it’s difficult, not intellectually, but spiritually, you see what I
mean. If you have enough good karma and you open this thing you could be
blown away. You could see emptiness within a week or two, okay. If you had
enough {kelwa}, when you read this reading that you’ll get tonight, it would just
blow you away. You would just totally change your whole life, okay. If you
didn’t have {kelwa}, let’s say you had half {kelwa}, then you’d say, this could be
useful for my future. I gotta work on this, you know. I gotta really concentrate
on this. If you didn’t have any {kelwa} at all, or not much, you’d say, this is some
logic BS, totally unnecessary, they’re just playing with words. It’s all sophistry.
It’s all just semantics. I don’t see the importance of this. And then my class
would go down to half as many people next class, okay. [Laughs] And I thought
it was unsafe to teach these subjects because I didn’t want that to happen. I don’t
know how many people have {kelwa}. What I’m saying is, be patient with this
subject. It could save your life, okay, but it’s gonna take some time. And this
isn’t something you can do the homework at six thirty-five next week, okay.
This is gonna take devoted effort and thought to get to the real meaning of this.
You can get to it on a very superficial level, you know. I could teach it to you
tonight. You can go home thinking, oh, I understand that, what’s next week,
you know. But there’s an extremely profound, deep level here. I’m gonna
phrase the class in such a way that I’m forcing you to deal with that level. I had a
choice when I translated it. There’s two ways to translate it. And I was sitting
there and I said, if I translate it the easy way, everybody’ll get it, and then they’ll
go home and think they got it, you know. If I translate it the deeper way, they’ll
all be confused and maybe they won’t come back, but at least they heard it, you
know. So, I chose that, all right. It’s deep and, and you have to have a lot of
good karma to see it, okay. So, if you don’t see it or it’s not clear to you, don’t
worry about it. Take one page of the reading and chew on it for two or three
weeks, okay. If you get one of the arguments in the reading you’ll be okay with
the other ones, okay. And, and it’s deep. And, and it’s a real ticket to emptiness,
okay. This is, they call this study the key to Madhaymika, and it is, okay. It’s, it’s
the key to seeing emptiness directly. You must, sooner or later, grapple with
these things. So, don’t be wimpy, okay. Take it home and attack it, but it’s
going to take some serious time and some serious effort, okay. It’s not crazy, it’s
not semantical BS; it’s extremely profound, okay. And, it’s very, very close to
understanding dependent origination, which is, if you see the meaning of
dependent origination directly, then you are within say, two or three hours of
seeing emptiness directly, okay. Very profound; {chu chok}, the last moments of
the Path of Preparation. And then, you flop over into {Tong Lam}, the direct
perception of emptiness. So, it’s an honour to study this subject. It’s an honour
to teach it. And, and try hard, okay. Put on your thinking cap, okay. It’s hard,
all right. Here we go.
Say, {chi}[repeat], {jedrak} [repeat], {chi} [repeat], {jedrak} [repeat]. Okay, the
vignette, the, the subject for tonight, is {chi jedrak}, okay. It’s known that way.
Everybody says, what are you studying, you know? What are you debating
nowadays? Oh, {chi jedrak}. Oh, cool. {Chi jedrak}, okay. {Chi}, I’m gonna give
you the, very important, this is the most important thing I’m gonna tell you
tonight. Okay, ready? I’ll give you a provisional translation of {chi jedrak}. I’ll
give you the easy one and then, in about fifteen or twenty minutes, I’ll give you
the real one, okay. So, here’s the easy, here’s the general one, okay. It’s not the
one that’s gonna get you to see emptiness quickly, but we’ll start there, okay.
{Chi}: general. Okay, so, {chi} is the general category and {jedrak} is a specific
member of that category. And, I’ll give you an example. You could also call it
‘sets and subsets’ if you know set theory; which I only remember what I got in
fourth grade and that’s all I know about it. That wasn’t Mrs. Melvin, but-. So,
here’s an example. Car could be the {chi}, which is the general category and the
different members of that set can be Chevrolets, Fords, lets say Chevy’s, Fords
and Toyotas, okay. And these are {jedrak}. Now, what happens when you
divide Chevy’s into old Chevy’s and new Chevy’s? Chevy’s becomes the {chi},
okay. So, if you divide it this way, it’s like that. But, if you restrict yourself to
this, Chevy’s is the {chi} and old and new Chevy’s are the {jedrak}. A very
general test, okay, a very general test of whether something is a {chi} of a
{jedrak} is to imagine what would happen if you wiped out all the {chis}. Would
it wipe out the thing you’re talking about, okay? Like, if I were to check and see
if an old Chevy is {jedrak} of a {chi}, I wipe out all the Chevy’s in the world.
Have I, automatically, wiped out all the old Chevy’s in the world? Yes. That’s
one indication that it might be a {jedrak}, okay. Like a general test {….. yinpay
chir}, okay. Like, [unclear], the {chi} and the {..jedrak}, okay. If you wipe out all
the {chis}, then all the {jedraks} get automatically wiped out. That’s a general
test; there’s a more specific test that we’ll talk about, okay. That’s the general
meaning of {chi} and {jedrak}. I’m gonna give you some other meanings of {chi}
and {jedrak}, okay, of {chi}. You, you should learn them too, okay. There are
three general, generally speaking, three types of {chi}. By the way, the root text
here says, {….}; {..} means, just nominally, implying that some of them are not
real, okay. When you have a division in Scripture, you can divide this into five
different categories, and then they’ll say, nominally speaking. It implies that
some of them are not real. What’s an example? Like, you know what natural
nirvana means. What’s it mean? Emptiness. Emptiness itself, okay. Is it a kind
of nirvana? No. Can you call it nirvana? Yes. Okay. And that’s what we say
like a nominal nirvana. It’s, you can call it nirvana, but it’s not a real nirvana,
because it’s not overcoming your mental afflictions forever. This pen has
emptiness but it hasn’t overcome any mental afflictions. But, you can say, it has
what we call natural nirvana, okay. That’s another division, which is not real,
you see. It’s just given that name. So, I can give you three kinds of {chis}, but I
warn you, two of them aren’t real, okay. Two of them can be called {chi}. It
helps you understand what a {chi} is, but technically, they’re not {chis}, okay.
{…} Very important in logic. Nominally, you can divide it into three types, okay.
Okay, here’s the first one. Say, {rik chi} [repeat], {rik chi} [repeat]; {rik} means, a
type, okay. A type, like, what? Like, Chevy, okay. A type, a kind, or even, like
car. You see car could be a type. How many things are characteristic of that
type? Oh, Chevy’s, Toyotas, Fords, okay. So you get something of the idea of
general types or general quality and the things, which are characteristic of that
quality, okay. Like, car would be a {rik chi}, okay. And it’s, and its {jedrak}
would be Chevy’s, Fords and Toyotas. Chevy’s could be a {rik chi}; a, a, a
general type and then, its particular members, would be old Chevy’s and new
Chevy’s or Belair’s and Corvettes and whatever, okay. All right. Definition of a
{rik chi}; I’ll just read it to you. I had it in Tibetan here, I said, No, I’m not, I don’t
wanna torture them too much this time. That existing thing which subsumes the
multiple things, which are of its type, okay. This just means, that the general
quality and many things are characteristic of it, okay. It’s a general quality.
What’s the general quality? Car-ness. Okay. And, here I present for you a new
idea. This is the guts of tonight’s talk, okay. If you think about, it it’s a general
quality and things, which are, write this down, this is very important. Think
carefully, and I beg you to do that, okay. If you’re gonna get out of samsara in
this lifetime you must understand what I’m about to say, okay. Think of car, as
quote, “car”, okay; “car”, quote, “car” or the quality of car-ness. If you think
very, very carefully, it’s the difference between ‘a car’, ‘the car’, and “car”, okay.
You have to think about it. You have to go home and think about it, okay.
Very…it’s life or death question for you. You have to get the difference, okay; ‘a
car’, ‘the car’, and “car”, okay, “car”. Okay, car with quotation marks around it;
car-ness, okay. Car-ness is not the same as ‘a car’, right? A Chevrolet, car-ness is
a quality; car-ness is an attribute, okay; car-ness is a nature. And then there are
different objects in the world, which are characteristic of that quality. And you
have to get used to those terms, okay. Car-ness is a quality; “car “, quote, is a
quality or a nature. And there are different objects in the world, which possess
that nature or which are characteristic of that nature. For example, Chevy, Ford
and Toyotas. And you have to get used to that. You have to get used to that,
okay. How your reality is occurring is closely tied to the question of car-ness,
okay. Why you are perceiving your reality the way you are. What you’re doing
wrong. Why you are suffering is directly related to understanding car-ness,
okay, the quality called “car”, okay. It’s very, very subtle and you have to work
on it. If you understand it, if you come to a point you can understand it you will
understand dependent origination. That will trigger a day you see it directly.
That will trigger the direct perception of emptiness. This class is the most
important class you’ve ever had maybe, okay. This, this could trigger a turn of
events that could make you see emptiness, okay. The day you see emptiness, I
mean, I’ll put the carrot out, okay, you can see your future enlightenment
directly. And you know how many days left. You know how many lifetimes
and you know the nature of those lifetimes. You now what you’ll be doing,
generally. You know how you’ll live. You know your circumstances. So, what
else is there to do with this life? You see. You see the Buddha directly. You see
your future lives directly. You know exactly how many lives it’s gonna be and
you see your future enlightenment. So who’s gonna do anything for you, okay.
Who’s gonna talk you out of or into anything else, you know. You’re an Arya.
You understand everything. And, and, it’s this weird sensation. It’s just being
totally independent of anything going on in the world. You saw it. Nobody can
tell you anything else about it. In, in those fifteen to twenty minutes you see the
contents of the entire Scriptures on emptiness. And, and you can go ahead and
study them the rest of your life but you’ve already understood everything they
have to say. Period. Your direct perception of emptiness is exactly equivalent to
the direct perception of emptiness of a Buddha or an Arhat. Period. It’s not
anything less than that, okay. It’s perfect. And, and you see all these future
things and they are true. And so they give them the name, ‘Four Arya Truths’,
okay. Because you see them and you know they are true, okay. You have to
understand this kind of thing, okay. This is between you and that carrot, okay.
[Laughs] You have to understand the car-ness thing, all right. I’m talking about
{chi jedrak} as car-ness, as a quality. And, Chevy’s and Fords and Toyotas, that
are, characteristic of that quality. And you have to start thinking of {chi jedrak},
in the words, ‘quality and characteristic of’.        By the way, I don’t say, ‘a
characteristic’, scratch that from what I, you know, don’t think like that. I’m not
saying, ‘a characteristic’, okay. I’m saying, ‘characteristic of’, or ‘typical of’, okay.
A Chevrolet is characteristic of the quality called car or car-ness, okay. I’m not
saying it’s a characteristic of like, blueness or whiteness is a characteristic of this
pen. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that, a Chevy is characteristic of, or typical
of, the quality called car-ness. And you have to get used to that and you have to
work with that, okay. If I lost you or if you feel uncomfortable, stick with it,
okay. Stick with it. You must understand this subject eventually, okay; in some
lifetime. Just jump over it now, okay. Go home and think about it. And by the
way, you have to pray for the blessings of your Lamas, okay. You have to pray
also. You really have to get divine assistance on this one, okay. So, go home
and do a really good preliminary {…} right, seven steps. And, and work on it
really hard, you know. Ask the Lamas for their help, you know. Visualise them
and, and ask them for help. It’s the only way that it’s gonna work. It’s the only
way that it’s gonna happen, okay. Some, some heavy duty Guru yoga would be
in order, and I’m not kidding, you know. On the order of building a house or
something. I don’t need a house, but anyway, something like that. And I’m not
kidding, okay. All right. Remember this page here. Get this page down, okay.
Make sure you have this page down, okay. Yeah. [Student: could you [unclear]]
The page? Yeah. First half of the page says, general quality, underlined, quality;
which is “car’ in quotation marks or the quality of car-ness, okay. That is the car
as a {chi}, okay; car as a {chi}. And then there’s a big line across the page and
then underneath it says, and those things, which are characteristic or typical of it,
which is {jedrak}. An example of the {chi} is, “car”, in quotation marks. You’re
gonna see all these quotation marks in the reading. You’ll say, this guy went
crazy with quotation; maybe it stuck on the keyboard or something. Not so.
I’m indicating the quality, okay. You can read ‘ness’ if you want, okay: car-ness.
But you must get it. Car-ness, okay, “car.” [Student: Question I had, when you
taught this before [unclear] quality and characteristics, general and specific, are
you labelling those now? Generals, qualities and specifics.] Yeah, the real
meaning, the deeper meaning of the word general is, ‘quality’. The deeper
meaning of the word characteristic is ‘characteristic of’, okay. And, and, and, you
know, you can get up and teach this thing as ‘general categories’ and ‘specific
members of those categories’, but if you get up and teach it as ‘quality’ and those
and ‘characteristic of that quality’, if you, much, much more close to the meaning
of dependent origination. [Student: Can I ask you repeat what you said about
the Chevy and car relationship, seeing them both ways, general and specific and
quality [unclear]] General, specific, you could say, [student: [unclear] you could
say, cars as general category called ‘cars’, all cars in the world. And then, its
members are, are Chevrolet cars, Ford cars and Toyota cars, okay, and that
would be a general category and the members of that general category. And
that’s one way to teach this class. It will not get you to see dependent origination
like dynamite. But, if you call it ‘quality’, called car-ness, or quote, “car”. Quote
is very important. What do I mean when I say, quote “car”? What does it mean
when you say, “car” in quotation marks? It means the quality of car-ness, okay.
And you gotta go home and think about it, okay. And, those objects, which are
characteristic of car-ness, okay, which are typical of car-ness, are Chevies, Fords
and Toyotas. Those are, that, that’s a distinction. It’s very subtle. You must
learn it. [Student: Same relationship for example a piano] Yeah, yeah, same
words, okay, same words, okay. The classical {chi jedrak}, by the way, that’s the,
that’s the main thing. Let me; let me go through, like, on a slow [unclear], okay.
[Student: [unclear]] Yeah. [Student: [Unclear]] The deeper one. Yeah, yeah.
We’re still on {rik chi}. Yeah. We’re on a deeper meaning of {rik chi}, okay.
We’ll go onto the second {chi}. Let me, let me slope through and then we’ll,
we’ll, we’ll, you’ll get questions later, okay. Some very important subjects I have
to throw, okay. And then you can stop me later. Number two: say, {dun chi}.
[repeat], {dun chi} [repeat]. I could say, like, three characteristics in the definition
of a {dun chi}, so, instead of giving you the technical definition, which is a long
story, I’ll give you the elements of the definition and that’s all you need, okay.
Number one a: it’s a mental image. Think of your refrigerator at home, okay.
[Laughs] I don’t know, something intimate, all right. Think of your refrigerator
at home, okay. And that image in your mind, okay, is a {dun chi}. All right.
That’s a {dun chi}, okay. By the way, Buddhist philosophy distinguishes between
{dun chi} and {dra chi}. I’m not going to get into {dra chi}, okay. {dun chi},
technically speaking, and it’s not the point tonight, {dun chi} is a mental image of
something with which you are familiar and which you have already perceived,
okay. {Dra chi} as opposed to {dun chi} is a mental image of something you’ve
heard about but not experienced directly. For example, I don’t have a {dun chi}
of Clinton, President Clinton. I have one of Robert Clinton, but not of President
Clinton, okay. But, I have lots of {dra chis}. By the way, I have a of {dun chi} of
him on the TV. And I have a {dun chi} of him in film or on video, or on the front
of New York Times, or something. But, I don’t have a {dun chi} of him, you
know. I didn’t go to the White House and see him face-to-face, okay. But I have
a {dra chi}. I’ve heard about this guy, I know, generally, what he looks like. I
can form a mental image of him based on what I’ve heard and that’s called a {dra
chi}. {Dun chi} should be something you’ve had a direct experience of, okay.
Like, your refrigerator at home, okay, I hope, okay. You had a… but you can
get a mental image of your refrigerator at home, okay. And that’s called a {dun
chi}, a mental image. Second quality of it is that you mistake it for the actual
object. Now, here, the schools diverge, okay. What they mean when they talk
about this in Madhyamika is one thing. What the Sautrantikas, school number
two think it means, is different. I’m gonna give you the one that relates to you
seeing emptiness directly ‘cos that’s what we’d like to do, okay. It’s very similar
to the Sautrantika position but not exactly the same okay. But anyway, it is for
example, we given the example many times, you’re standing next to a stove in
your kitchen. You’ve put a pot of water on a stove to make tea for your Lama.
You’ve been studying {chi jedrak} like crazy, okay. And, and you’re staring at
the pot and then suddenly, you realise that you’re not looking at a pot, you’re
looking at a mental picture of the pot. Because, all there is out there is a circle of
silver, a black long thing. You see, all your eye can see is clues, indicators of pot.
It sees long black thing. It sees silver round thing. It sees glinty, glint, glint, you
know. It sees little ovals forming where the bubbles are coming up but they’re
not bubbles to your eye. They are just colors and shapes. See, the eye can’t
think, I’m seeing a pot of water. The eye is only seeing colors and shapes. And
then the mind, under the influence of your past karma, in fact, ruled and dictated
by your past karma, organises those, that data into a certain object, okay.
There’s black, there’s silver, there’s shiny – I think it’s a pot. And then your mind
fills in the blanks. And your mind creates this {dun chi} you see; this mental
image of a pot. And then, you’re staring; you’re actually staring, mentally, at an
image of a pot in your mind. And then, you think that’s the pot, okay. You
mistake that for the pot. It is all you’re; actually, all you’re getting is some sense
data, okay. If you were the roach crawling across the top of the stove at the
same moment, getting the same sensory data input, you would interpret,
because of your past karma, you’d interpret that as a life threatening hell realm
with a burning iron floor. Do you see what I mean? Validly so. It’s no more a
pot than it is a hell realm floor, you see what I mean. There’s nothing that says it
has to be a pot to a roach. It is validly and correctly, a hell realm, burning floor
to a roach. I mean, metaphorically speaking. Hell realm metaphors are much
worse, but, but to a roach it’s a life threatening object as big as a mountain,
better run, you know, or you’ll get fried, okay. Validly because, because that
being’s karma is forcing that being to take that same sense data and organise it
into a {dun chi}. He’s also mistaking his mental image of a, of a mountain
burning with mental. He, he’s also mistaking that mental image to be an
external object and it’s not, okay. He’s making the same mistake, okay. He’s,
he’s also interpreting it and, and he’s also looking at a {dun chi} and not at a real
object, okay. And if you think about it carefully, that’s what makes him a roach.
He is not a roach independently existing as a roach. He is a roach because of the
collective impressions that his karma is forcing him to have about the same sense
data that you’re getting. And you’re karma’s forcing you to organise things
mentally into {dun chis} that are much more comfortable, normally, okay. And
that’s what it is to be a human. There is no human outside that collection of, of
perceptions, you see. That’s what it makes you different from a roach. That’s
what makes you a human. It’s very interesting. Your karma, it’s not that there’s
a roach’s world and your karma throws you in. You know, people say that. It’s
not true. It’s not that there’s an animal realm and your karma is throwing you
into the animal realm. It’s not that there’s a pre-existing human realm and your
karma is throwing you into the human realm. Your karma is the human realm.
His karma, is the animal realm, you see what I mean. It’s the {dun chis} which
are being forced upon you. It’s the way in which your past karma, is forcing
your mind to make mental images from the same data, is what forces you into a
roach’s world, okay. That makes tantric enlightenment possible. You must
change your karma. It’s, it’s lousy right now. It’s what we call { …}. You’re
stuck with this lousy mix of black and white karma. To make it perfect, and the
same fact that allows a roach to see it as a burning floor and the human to see it
as a pot of water, can make you see it, experience as the nectar of immortality
literally, okay. And it’s great. So, {dun chis} are very important. Okay, so {dun
chis} are running your world and they make everything possible. Yeah.
3627[Student: Unclear]] Loud [Student: [Unclear]] Yeah. You’re having a {dun
chi}. She said, if you, it’s like you meet somebody and you don’t have a, you
don’t have a real clear mental image of them or perhaps, if you have a sort of,
vibration from them or feeling about them. That’s also a {dun chi}. That’s a {dun
chi} to have a mental image of some kind of vague feeling about them. That’s
fine. Same rules apply. That, that sense data is making you have a, your karma
is forcing you to interpret that sense data, as a vague feeling about this person.
No problem. Same rules apply. Same rules apply for every single mental or
physical event in your life. They’re all {dun chis} and you’re mistaking them for
some outer object. When you do that, you can hate and you can like and dislike.
And then you get into trouble, you see. Only when you think that the object is
out there, and is not depending on your own {dun chis} that you have created,
can you dislike someone or like someone in the wrong way. You see, only then,
can you, can you collect karma by having these negative emotions, the the three.
You know, if you really saw that everything you perceive is only your fault, you
know, every asshole you ever met, is your problem, you created it, you’re,
you’re maintaining that asshole, you know, then who’re you gonna get mad at,
you know? You, you’ll just go home and be sad that you have such crappy
karma and you didn’t keep your book, you know what I mean. Go home and
be sad that you didn’t keep your book; I didn’t have time, you know. That’s it.
You would be freed of the emotion of disliking things. You would reach a thing
called nirvana. Why? ‘Cos you understood its emptiness, you see. It’s very
cool. Okay. That’s a {dun chi}. You see that it’s not the same as a {rik chi}, okay.
But you also see that they are very, very sexy connection between them.
Something’s happening here, you see; car-ness and your mental image of a car;
something very close there. And you have to investigate that. It will liberate
you if you see the connection, you see. Some intimate relationship between car-
ness and the thing in your mind that you see when you think of car, okay. The
mental image in your mind when you look at a car. And that brings me to the
third quality of a {dun chi}. Take everything in the world, which is not this very
pen, and cancel it. What’s left? The pen, okay. And that’s how you, according
to, this is very Sautrantika, okay. This is very Pramanavartikka. This is very
Master Dharmakirti, okay. The mental image that you have going on in your
head of this pen, is a mental exercise, which your mind goes through every time
you perceive something, of cancelling everything that the pen is not. Which
leaves the image of the pen, okay, in your mind. Now, that’s big deal in, in Sau,
in Sautrantika. Yeah. 39 [Student: [Unclear]] You’d say, he asked, like, we’ve
made a distinction between a mental image of something you’ve had a direct
experience of and then we distinguished it from a mental image of something
that you’ve heard about so you can form a picture of it, but what about, like,
when you’re hallucinating or something, like, you’re on acid or something and
you start getting these mental image? Do they, do they apply there? I don’t
know. You could call them {chis}. You could call them mental images.
According to Buddhism they would come from some prior experience that you’d
had. I wouldn’t call them a {dun chi} necessarily. But that’s, that’s a long story.
They are confused images of a hallucinating mind and they are mental images,
okay. Where was I, I got lost. I don’t know. Anyway, that’s the third quality.
This is very Sautrantika idea and, and it will help you a little bit. It’s not the main
point, okay. I mean, it’s interesting to know. It’s interesting to experiment and
to investigate the process or the, the way in which your mind seems to be doing
this. But, I think it’s more important to reflect on how this is coming from your
past karma. I mean, it’s more important for your enlightenment and more
important for your tantric liberation, to see how this is coming from your past
karma. I’ll take some questions later on it, okay, in about fifteen minutes or
something. Okay. It’s much more important. By the way, some Buddhist
schools in Tibet think that emptiness means point number three here. That, the
emptiness of something, is the fact that it is the opposite of all, which it is not. It
is the negation of all that it is not, called, called by some people {shen tong}. And
they think that’s what emptiness means. It’s not. Dharmakirti spent a lot of time
on it describing how it plays a part in perceiving things. It is not the emptiness of
an object, okay. Because, if it were, you would have a direct perception of
emptiness every time you perceived anything. And that’s too easy. Okay.
[Laughs] All right. Okay.
Last kind of {chi}. So, if your homework said, give an example of a {dun chi},
you might say, the opposite of all that a, that a pen is not as I imagine it while I
perceive something. And, that which I mistake as the real pen, as a real pen, you
know. I mistake it to be a real pen. Is there a self-existent, existing from its own
side, inherent, having its own nature, real pen out there? No, because it’s a
chewable object, and you know that. It’s not a pen. Right? To a dog, it’s a
chewable object. That proves it doesn’t have its own nature. Okay. Period. By
the way, I’ll give you a clue in the reading, take note, okay. There’ll be a place in
the reading where they’ll say, like, {dun chis} are false because everything is {dak
me}, okay. I mean, this is, you’re mental image of a pen, is not the real pen,
because everything has its own emptiness. Like, if I come up to you and say, I
have a reason, okay, so proving anything, because every object in the world has
its own emptiness, Jay Siller, you can say, I agree with your reason. I don’t
know what you’re trying to prove yet but your reason is true. I don’t, I will not
say to you {tak ma drup}, okay. {Tak ma drup} means, your reason is bad. And
you’re gonna learn that tonight. There’s two debating terms you’re gonna learn
tonight. Somebody gives you a reason; by the way, it doesn’t have to be to
prove anything yet; because all things lack any nature of their own. You can say,
okay, I do not say {tak ma drup}. I don’t know what you’re trying to prove but
your reason’s not bad. Your reason is true, okay. I don’t know what you’re
trying to prove yet but the reason is, so far, good. Okay. So, you won’t say, {tak
ma drup}. You’ll see that in the reading tonight. Don’t get confused. They’ll try
to prove something and the last thing’ll say, because nothing has it’s own nature.
And you can say, okay. Which is to say, everything exists that exists, you know.
My head is my head. I like Cheerio’s, okay. I mean, any general truth, okay. All
right. Last kind of {chi}. By the way, not to be confused with the Chinese chi,
which means, inner wind or something like that. I don’t know, okay. I’ve had
students tell me, well which one is that, you know [laughs], okay. Okay.
[Laughs] It happens. [Student: Say that in Tibetan.] {Lung}, high-tone {lung},
{lung}, okay. [Student: What is the second?] Is the {dun chi}, [student: {dun chi}]
{dun chi}[Student: In English?]. Oh, you can say, mental image. Yeah, mental
image.
Very close to the quality but not a real quality is it? Or, is it? You know, what’s
the difference between car-ness, quote “car,” and the mental image you form
when you perceive a car? Okay. Explore that question and it will take you very
close to seeing emptiness, okay. What’s the difference between car-ness or “car”
with quotation marks around it, and the {dun chi} that you get when you
perceive a car? Okay. It was a huge question in India. What is it in the human
mind that allows you to look at four hooves, a big bump, and some horns and
say, mahe? This is an Indian ox. You know, what is it in your mind that allows
you to understand that the thing is an ox? What is it in your mind that allows
you to organise those parts into a thing and think, ‘mahe’? I mean, this is a huge
question in the Pramananvartikka, okay. The answer, of course, is your past
karma’s forcing you to organise it that way, okay. Which makes tantric
enlightenment possible in this life, okay. But, you gotta keep your book, okay.
Okay. Say, {tsok chi} [repeat], {tsok chi}[repeat]. This is easy. A physical
collection of parts is called a {tsok chi}. {Tsok} means, a group, a conglomerate, a
bunch of stuff, okay. And then, {chi} means, a, a general object in the sense of
having its own members, in the sense of having its own parts, you see. There is
a use in English of ‘members’ that way, right? It’s a collection of its members,
meaning, of its parts. You see what I mean? You could, for example say, a water
pitcher, right, is a collection of a handle, a spout, a base and a belly of the pitcher,
okay. And that’s a {tsok chi}, okay. In, in Abhidharma philosophy, which you’ll
see in your reading, they use the example of all things are composed of
molecules. And all molecules are composed of the eight, of the eight, they’re
called the ‘eight components’, okay: four qualities of earth, fire, wind and water
and then something to do with the object of the senses of your eye, your nose,
your tongue and your body. And they leave out the object of the sense of sound
because it’s so fleeting and there’s a long debate about it. Anyway, you know, in
ancient Abhidharma atomic theory, all physical objects are made up of particles,
which include eight different qualities. And so, that would be its {tsok chi}-ness,
you see. 4832The fact, that it’s a gross physical object, composed of molecules.
It’s a physical collection of parts, okay. Like, any particular car. And I didn’t say,
“car”, okay. And, big difference, okay. This is a lousy {chi}. This is the {chi} you
could kick out right away. This is gross, physical, collection of a bunch of parts.
It’s not any big {chi}. I don’t, what he’s trying to say when he says, nominally
this is a {chi}, he’s saying, come one this is not a real {chi}. {Chi} is, like,
intellectual car-ness thing. It’s not a particular car made up of its parts, you
know, its wheels, steering wheel, the engine, okay. That’s very gross. Seeing
that or seeing how a car is a collection of its physical parts is not gonna get you
that far to seeing dependent origination or, or emptiness, you know.
Understanding how you perceive or conceptualise car-ness when you see a car
or you think of a car, that process, could get you enlightened. It could make you
see emptiness directly. It is the key to seeing emptiness. You must, you know,
go home and meditate about this for about five years, okay. All right. [Laughs].
It’s worth it. It’ll happen, okay. That’s all. Let’s take a break. If anybody has a
burning question come up to me during the break, okay. Take a ten-minute
break and come back. [Cut]
Remember, in the unsophisticated version, it doesn’t get you to see dependent
origination quickly. {Jedrak} could mean member of a, member of a, of a
general category, all right. In the more sophisticated way, that does get you to
see dependent origination, which does get you to see emptiness, which does
remove all your suffering, okay, is like something which is ‘characteristic of’, you
see. And, we could give the example of, say, {ngupo} [repeat], {bumpa} [repeat],
{ngupo} [repeat], {bumpo} [repeat]. {Ngupo} means, a working thing, right. It’s
a synonym for changing thing. Anything that does anything is, automatically,
changing by doing something. Anything, which is changing, is, automatically,
doing something, okay. And, one day, we’re gonna have a great debate about
whether emptiness does anything because it’s unchanging, okay. Empty space,
for example, which is one of the classic examples of an unchanging thing, inspires
a perception of it, engenders a perception of it, functions to? No, you can’t say
that. You could debate it sometime, okay. I’m gonna give you three tests of
whether a {bumpa} which means, water pitcher, right. People say, ‘vase’; lousy
translation. It wasn’t the point. The point is you’re in a village in ancient India.
You’re in this little clay hut. And the teacher is teaching this student emptiness
and he says, “It’s nnnn… water cup, get it?” And, and he’s pointing to the water
pitcher that’s there in the room, okay. {Ngupo} meaning anything that works,
anything that does anything, okay. I translate it as working thing, functional
thing, okay. [Laughter] [Laughs] If we keep working we’ll get Neil Young.
{Ngupo} is {bumpa}, a {jedrak} of the {chi, ngupo}, okay. We have to explore
that, all right. [Students] [Laughter] I don’t know. So, ‘working thing’ being the
quality and ‘water pitcher’ being the thing which is characteristic of that quality,
okay. Being a working thing is the general quality. We have big demons
tonight. [Laughter] [Music in the background.] That’s a real demon, by the way.
Seriously. Something that would take your mind off of emptiness. Anyway,
you get it. Water pitcher is characteristic of the quality called working thing.
Thanks. [Laughter] [Laughs] Da-da [laughs] [laughter] Okay. Okay. Three,
three tests, you know, three tests between a water pitcher and a working thing.
I’m, I’m sorry; I said a very bad thing. I said, ‘a working thing’. I’m very sorry.
Three tests between a water pitcher and working thing. There’s a big difference,
okay. So, here we go. The three tests of whether something is a {jedrak} or not.
By the way, there ain’t any Buddhist Scripture, that doesn’t have a direct impact
on your enlight…, enlightenment, okay. There doesn’t exist one. They’re all
really incredibly sexy and relevant to your enlightenment. You just have to get
someone to explain it to you why, okay. But never think, I mean, logic, people
don’t study logic. People say, oh this is dumb, you know. This is boring. It is
essential for your enlightenment. And all Scripture’s like that. If you could come
to see that all Scripture {ka} was directly relevant advice to your personal
enlightenment, {dam}, we could call you a {kadampa}. And that’s what the word
means, you know. It’s a person who gets it. Je Tsongkapa said, if you can get to
this, what’s it say, {.}. That’s the line, you know. If you can get to the point
where you can understand that the Buddha didn’t say anything that didn’t relate
directly to your own enlightenment, you really got, you’re really well along the
path. And we can call you a {kadampa}, okay. That’s the real meaning of
{kadampa}, okay. Okay. First one: {kyu ngupo yin}. Say, {kyu}[repeat], {ngupo}
[repeat], {yin} [repeat], {kyu} [repeat], {ngupo} [repeat], {yin} [repeat]. First test
of whether a water pitcher is characteristic of the quality we know as working
thing-ness if you want, okay, is, is a water pitcher a, here’s the ‘a’. English is
different from Sanskrit and Tibetan. Is a water pitcher a working thing? First
test. Now you can use ‘a’ all over the place. Is a water pitcher a working thing?
First test. Is a Chevy a car? First test of whether it’s a {jedrak} of that {chi}. By
the way, I ask you, is there anything, which is a car, which is not a particular, of
the set called ‘cars’. Because, if there isn’t, then, this is stupid. I’ll say it again.
This is hard to remember [laughs]. Is there anything, which is car, which is not a
member of the set called car? How’s that? Is there anything, which is a car,
which is not, already, a member of the set of thing called car, of cars, cars?
Because, if there is, this is unnecessary. I mean, if there isn’t, well anyway. Yeah.
How about motor vehicle? You see. It’s not a {jedrak} of cars. And you gotta
get used to that. If two sets are completely equal we don’t call one characteristic
of that quality. See, characteristic means, those things, which are typical of that,
not, the whole set of things which are equal to that. Okay. Different thing. Car
and motor vehicle are equivalent sets. They are not, like, one belongs under the
other, okay. They’re not set and subset, okay. So, this is not enough to define a
{jedrak}, okay. What do we have to say on top of this? There are other stuff
that’s also that thing but that’s not the, a water pitcher, okay. If you want to
prove that something is a member of a set, you have to say, well, one, it is what
that set is, but two, there’s other things in the set that are not it, okay. You gotta
get used to that, okay. That’s {jedrak}. {Jedrak} means, if you want, a particular
thing, which is in that set. And, motor vehicle is not a particular thing, which is in
the set called, ‘car’. Why? It is that set. Okay. You gotta get used to that. Yeah.
[Student: [Unclear]] Absolutely. Almost all, sorry? [Student] No. Car is not; car
is equivalent to, motor vehicle. Or, you could say, the set of all cars is equivalent
to the set of all, or not equivalent. By the way, in Tibetan Buddhist logic we
define, we distinguish between, ‘the same as’ and ‘equivalent to’, okay. [Student:
Would a motorcycle be a motor vehicle, but not a car?] Oh, I’m using it in the
sense of car only, of car alone, okay. Sorry. Okay. I’m using the word motor
vehicle, you could say; well give me another set of things. How about all
working things and all changing things, okay? Two sets which are totally
equivalent. I’m sorry, I meant motor vehicle in the sense of cars only. [Student:
Automobile and car] Yeah, that’s great; automobile and car. [Student: [Unclear]
for the same set?] Absolutely. Yeah. When there are two different names for
the same set, you cannot call one of them a {jedrak} of that {chi}. That’s all, okay.
Car and automobile are not {chi} and {jedrak}. They are two ways to name the
{chi} if you’re talking about Chevy’s; the {jedrak} if you’re talking about all
functioning things. Got that, right? Okay. First requirement for a member of a
set or something characteristic of a specific quality, is that it be that thing. A
water pitcher is a working thing. Okay. Second requirement. {Kyu} in Tibetan
normally means, ‘you’, okay. In Scripture it can mean, ‘it’. So, those of you who
are studying Tibetan, especially if you had Rinchen [unclear] colloquial class, in
Scripture, in logic, {Kyu} can mean it. Okay. {Ngupo} means, ‘working thing’.
{Dang} means ‘with’ in the sense of sharing a relationship with, okay. {Dang}
normally means, ‘and’ but here it means ‘with’ in the, in the, in the expression ‘to
share a relationship with’, okay. And, the {drel} at the end means to share a
relationship, to share a relationship. It’s a verb here. Okay. It shares a
relationship, {drel}, with {dang}, {ngupo} working thing, okay, {kyu} meaning, it.
So, I’ll go, Tibet, you know, English syntax, you know, English word order, it
{kyu}, shares a relationship {drel}, with {dang}, {ngupo} working things, such
that, it is {dak chik tu drel}. {Dak chik tu} and {dak chik tu} is a nasty idiom.
People have abused this poor idiom. It’s almost untranslatable, you know. They
say, ‘one self’, ‘one essence’, ‘one being’, one, it doesn’t mean anything in
English. What it means, I translate it like this, and this is the only thing it means.
And if you can find a better way to translate it, god bless you. It shares, get this,
a pitcher shares a relationship with working thing, such that, to be a pitcher is,
automatically, to be a working thing. And that’s what {dak chik tu} means.
Okay. [Laughs] To be one is to, automatically, be the other. If you are a Chevy
you are automatically a? [Student: Car.] And in Tibetan, that’s {dak chik tu drel}.
It’s an idiom. It’s very difficult to translate. You could say one being, one
essence. To me, it doesn’t give me the, it doesn’t convey to me the meaning of it.
The meaning is, to be one is to be the other, automatically, okay. To be a water
pitcher is automatically to be a working thing, okay. To be one is to be the other
and that’s all. Yeah. [Student: It sound like it’s reciprocal] She asked if it can be
reciprocal. It can be.
[End side A]
[Side B]
It doesn’t have to be. We have in Buddhist logic, the expression ‘one-way’ {dak
chik} and ‘two-way’ {dak chik}, okay. What does that mean? Chevy’s, to be a
Chevy is to be a car, but to be a car is not to be a Chevy necessarily, okay. So, it
can be reciprocal, as in the case of automobile and car. To be an automobile is to
be a car and to be a car is to be an automobile. We call that, {pen dzik dak shik tu
drel}, you know. Which is really called {ying shak nyam} if you want to get fancy
in Tibetan Buddhist logic. Or, the relationship can be a one-way relationship
only. Chevrolets are {dak chik tu drel} with working things. But, working
things are not necessarily; to be a working thing it is not necessarily to be a car. I
mean, to be a, yeah, Chevrolet is necessarily a car, but a car is not necessarily a
Chevrolet. So, it can go both ways or it can go one way. And you put the thing
being related to first and the thing relating to it second. Okay. So you’re gonna
get confused with that but if you study the translation you’ll get it, okay. I object
to the translation of one essence or one nature or something like that. It doesn’t
give me the feeling that the words to be one is to be the other, you know.
That’s, that’s all. So, it’s hard to see it in the Tibetan.
Yeah. [Student: [Unclear]] He asked, is, is, does working things have to be the
only example here? Is it, is it the definitive example or is it just one example? It’s
just one example. You could use it about cars and Chevrolets. You could use it
about anything. Okay. We were talking about; it’s a very good question. What
he’s really asking is, is this the definition of a {jedrak} or is this the description of
a {jedrak} in a particular relationship where we’re talking about water pitchers
and working things? The answer is the second. Okay. Some things in Buddhist
logic you can only define by actually giving a case. And that’s how they define
{jedrak}, okay.
There isn’t really a separate, you could make one up, but they choose in this text,
the Dalai Lama’s tutor, the last Dalai Lama’s tutor, chooses in his text to use this
example as the definition, okay. Okay, last quality, if I can find it. The last thing
you have to be to be a good {jedrak}, to be characteristic of a certain quality, is
{kyu mayin shing ngupo yang yinpay shi tunpa du ma drup}. Say, {kyu}[repeat],
{mayin}[repeat], {shing}[repeat], ngupo}[repeat], {yang}[repeat], {yinpay}
[repeat], {shi tunpa}[repeat], {duma}[repeat], {drup}[repeat]. Okay. Tibetan
word order is pretty much the opposite of English, unfortunately, okay.
Number one. {Drup} means, there do exist, there exist. {Duma} those of you
who are studying Tibetan, {du ma} will be your enemy for the next twenty
years, okay. Why? Because, it looks like a locative particle followed by a
negative, {du ma drup}. It’s also the word for ‘many’ in Tibetan and it’s a bitch.
Okay. Like, you don’t know if it’s {duma} or {du ma drup}, okay. This one
happens to be {duma}. In about one percent of the cases its {duma} and you will
search through your dictionary for weeks and never find it, okay. So, beware of
{duma}, okay. {Duma} means many, okay. There do exist, what do we have so
far? There do exist many. Now, there is a very beautiful word called {shi tunpa}.
Say, {shi tunpa}[repeat], {shi tunpa}[repeat]. I’ve seen it translated, you know, if
you guys learn Tibetan well and start translating in normal English you’re gonna
put a lot of people out of business. I’ve seen it translated as ‘common locus’.
Sounds like some kind of bad grasshopper or something. [Laughter] But
anyway, it just means one thing, which is both (a) and (b), okay. And learn to
translate it that way, for god’s sake. Okay. One thing, which is both blank and
blank, and then you just fill in the blank, okay. And please translate it that way.
Everybody can understand it. It won’t be as mystical but it’ll be more correct,
okay. One thing, which is both blank and blank, okay. And that’s how you
should translate, how I suggest you translate {shi tunpa} if you want anyone to
read your book past the third page. Okay. One thing, which is both, here’s the
first part, {kyu mayin}. This {shing} here means, and. And then, here’s gonna be
the second part; (b), (a) and (b), okay. What makes pitcher, a water pitcher,
characteristic of the quality called working thing? The last requirement is that
there should exist many other things which are both (a) and (b). What are the
two things? You could guess if I gave you five minutes. We don’t have enough
time. It is both {kyu mayin}, {kyu mayin} means, it’s not it, right. {kyu} means it,
{mayin} means not. Not what? A water pitcher. Okay. What’ve we got so far?
There must be many other objects which are both (a) not a water pitcher, but
which are (b) nonetheless, still {ngupos}, still working things. And if you think
about it that what makes, that’s what makes something a member of a set, okay.
There are many other things, which are both (a) not it, but still belong to that set.
Big deal. That’s all, okay. And that’s all. That’s the third requirement. [Student:
Can you just repeat that whole sentence again?] Yeah, there should be, there
should exist many other things, I’m sorry, I like to say multiple because
sometimes there’s not that many, okay. I prefer to say multiple. There should
exist multiple other things which are (a) not it, meaning not a water pitcher in
this case, but which are still (b) working things. All it means is, for Chevy to be a
kinda car; there should be many other cars, which are not Chevy’s. That’s all.
Then you can say that Chevy is a member of the set car, called car if you don’t
want to see dependent origination quickly. Or, you can say, there are many
other things, which are characteristic of the quality car-ness, which are not
Chevy’s. And there’s a big difference in the level between those two statements,
okay. All right. [Student: [Unclear]] I was afraid you’d ask me that. He wants
me to say them again. One way to say it is, there’s a lot of other cars that aren’t
Chevy’s. And that’s what makes Chevy’s members of the set called, car. That’s
the normal way to say it.
It won’t help you to see emptiness that quick. Think of it this way. There are
many other objects which are characteristic of car-ness but which are not
Chevy’s. Think; learn to think of it that way. There’s a big difference between
those two levels. One is forcing you to think about mental images and forcing
you to think about your reality and what you’re doing all day long. According
to the highest schools of Buddhism, every single perception you’ve ever had
until the day you see emptiness directly, is mistaken. Every single perception.
Sixty-five [snaps fingers] of them per finger snap throughout the length of your
life’s-s, okay, have been infected by the, by mistaking the mental image for the
thing, okay. That’s a lot. [Laughs] All right. And somehow that causes all of
your suffering. Why? ‘Cos it’s hard to hate something when you realise that
you’re doing it. Okay. It’s hard to get jealous and, and be attached to a person if
you realise that whether or not you get to keep them is totally dependent on
you. On, on your mind, you see. It doesn’t depend on the other guy or the
other girl or something like that. It’s you, okay. Okay, last thing. Here’s a nice
question that you’re gonna come across in the reading. And I wanna bring it up
because you might miss it, okay. You might get to that part in the reading and,
if you live that long through this reading, okay. The, the most famous logical
statement ever given by Buddhists in ancient India was to non-Buddhists who
claimed that the sound OM was {takpa}, okay. Was an unchanging, eternal
thing? OM is the unchanging, eternal nature of the universe or something like
that, you know. And then, the Buddha said, come on, it’s a {mitakpa}. It’s a
great example for your life and your death. Sound itself is like tik, ti, ti, ti,…..,
you know. It’s like coming into existence and being destroyed instant by milli,
millisecond by millisecond. Forget it being eternal and unchanging. Come on.
It’s changed; it’s changed, like, three hundred times by the time it gets from my
mouth to your ear, you know. It’s in constant change, okay. And, and that’s a
metaphor for your life. So, most famous statement in ancient India was, please
repeat, {dra chuchen}[repeat] {mitak te}[repeat]{chepay chir}[repeat]. One more
time, {dra chuchen}[repeat] {mitak te}[repeat] {chepay chir}[repeat].
Consider sounds, consider sounds.
They are changing things.
Why? Because, they’ve been made. They are made. They were made by
somebody.
Anything that’s made has to die. Anything that’s born will, will fall apart.
Anything you get in samsara you will lose, okay. I mean, that’s what they’re
trying to make, that point, okay. Now, consider the fact that sounds are
changing. Okay. Consider the fact that sounds are changing. Is that a {takpa} or
a {mitakpa}? Cook it. I’ll say it again. What about the fact that sounds always
change? Is that {takpa} or {mitakpa}? Is it a changing thing or an unchanging
thing? [Students: [Unclear] we got {takpa} and {mitakpa} [laughs][laughter]. It’s,
it’s tempting to say it’s {mitakpa} or changing, because it involves changing
things, right? Sounds are changing so the whole thing must be changing, right?
But listen more carefully. Is the fact that sounds change something that changes
or not? No. It never changes. It is totally constant. Ergo, facts are unchanging
things, you see. Facts are unchanging things. The fact that sounds are changing
is truth itself. And truth doesn’t change. In fact, the set of all things about which
you can say, sound is changing, is exactly equal to the set about which you can
say, they exist. Which is exactly equal to the entire set of things about which you
can say, they have no nature of their own, they are empty. Cool? I’ll say it again
[laughs], okay. The entire set of things, okay, that exist, about which you can
say, they exist. This big, okay. And the entire set of things about which you can
say, they have no nature of their own, they’re only my projections, they’re
empty and the entire set of things about which you can say, it’s true that sound
changes, are exactly equivalent. They are the same set and you gotta get used to
that. They never change. It’s truth itself. Okay. So, I can prove something by
saying, Jay Siller is sitting here because sound is a changing thing. You see. You
gotta get used to it [laughs]. Or, how about this? Because sound is a changing
thing, exists. Which is to say, because reality itself exists, which is to say, because
I’m standing here, you know. You see what I mean? It’s a truth. It is truth. You
gotta get used to that. Cook it when you get home. [Student: [Unclear]] I’m just
giving three examples, which happen in Scripture. The set of all things, which
exist about, I’m sorry, the set of all things about which you can say, they exist.
And, the set of all things about which you can say, they have no self-nature, they
have no nature of their own. And the set of all things about which you can say,
sounds change, are exactly the same. Okay. The set of all existing things about
which you can say Michael [unclear] shakes are the best, is the same as, the set of
all existing things about which you can say, they exist. Okay. Think about it.
That’s a trick question that’s on your homework. Okay. Last thing. How many
last things can there be? [Laughs] By the way, that’s your, that’s your, what we
call your {dura} topic for tonight. I finished it, okay. {Chi jedrak} is finished. I’m
moving on to formal logic. You’re actually getting three classes in one. You’re
so lucky, okay. This should go on for another hour and a half. We don’t have
time, so it’s gonna go on for ten, nine minutes or so. Then, you get the third
class in the last two minutes, all right. [Laughter] Okay. I’m gonna cram
through you formal logic, okay. We studied already; we spoke already about
the subject and the parts of the logical statement. We talked about the subject,
the quality that we’re trying to prove about the subject, and the reason. We
talked about it last week. We already talked about it.
Let’s take sounds. That’s the subject.
They are changing things. That’s what I’m trying to prove. To whom? To some
ancient non-Buddhist who says that OM is permanent, you see; that Om is
unchanging, okay. And then, what am I using for my proof: Because, they are
made by somebody, sounds are made, okay.
So, first thing, subject: sounds. Quality I am trying to prove about them: they
change. Reason I am giving to prove that assertion: because they are made.
Assertion itself, combination of elements one and two. The subject plus, what?
The quality I am trying to prove about it which is to say, sounds are changing.
Sounds are changing things. That’s my assertion. We had those all last week.
This one is called {chuchen}, it’s alias is { …}. This one is called {drupje chu].
Number two is called {drupje chu}. Number three is called {tak}. Number one
and number two together are called {drupja}, okay. You’ve had that much now.
Now, here’s a new one. Two words and then you’re home free, okay. Say, {tun
chok}[repeat] {tun chok}[repeat]. {Chok} means the whole side of something, in
Sanskrit, pakshya. It means the whole side of something, okay. Like, very
common in Tibetan Buddhism to say, the samsaric side of things and the
enlightened side of things, okay. Like, these are pakshyas, these are called
{chok}. The four directions are called {choks}, okay. In logic, {chok} means a
group of objects, okay. A group. {Tun} means, to get along with somebody. To
be in harmony or to be in, what do you call it? [Student: Concord] - Concord
with somebody. I’m gonna translate it as ‘group of similar cases’. In, in Buddhist
logic it means similar cases. And this is called {tun chok}. Similar to what? I’ll
give you an example. What’s that big debate that the non-Buddhists, I’m sorry,
that the Buddhists gave to the non-Buddhists? {Dra chuchen}, okay. Let’s talk
about sounds. {Mitak te}, they are changing things. {chepay chir}, because they
are things that are made. Okay. What’s the quality we’re trying to prove about
sounds? That they are changing things, okay. What would be the whole group
or set of things, which are similar to, things, which change? Oh, you, the pew
you’re sitting in, New York City, any changing object, you see. It’s the whole set
of things which fit that description of the quality you’re trying to prove, okay.
It’s the whole set of stuff that fits the description of the quality you’re trying to
prove. In this case, the quality you’re trying to prove is? They are changing
things. So, who is in the {tun chok}? What kinds of things are in the {tun chok}?
Oh, pitchers, water pitchers, pillars, people, cows, cars, okay, mind, anger,
jealousy, love. They’re all changing, okay. They all belong to that set of similar
cases, to that group of similar cases, okay. Why do you have to talk about this?
Why do you have to keep getting more and more complicated? Can’t we just
have a simple syllogism, three things, you know? You’re gonna learn, later on,
that truth itself depends on whether three relationships hold in the syllogism. If
three relationships exist there, you got truth and a good argument and a good
reason. And, if three relationships are absent, if any one of them is absent, you
got a bad argument and what you’re saying is false, okay. You need this group
of things to establish two of those relationships. And I’ll talk about it later.
That’s why. I’m setting you up for next time, okay. That’s why we’re talking
about the field of all things, which are similar to, the thing you’re trying to
prove. The quality, the quality you’re trying to prove, okay. We gotta talk
about his little brother, which is {mitun chok}, and then maybe you really can go
home.
By the way, you would have debated all this by the time you were thirteen in the
monastery. This is first subject you learn. Kinda cool. It means they, first they
learn how to debate and then they start getting content of the debate. But they
don’t, not allowed to touch the content until they understand the format, okay.
Say, {mitun chok}[repeat] {mitun chok}[repeat]. It’s the opposite of {tun chok} so
what would it be? It’s that group of everything which is dissimilar, okay. You
could say, all the dissimilar cases, okay. The group of dissimilar cases. And, if
you think about it, three possibilities are here. There are three possibilities for all
the stuff in the world that is not like a changing thing, okay. What? Well, how
about {mepa}? That’s all you needed on Thursday night was, like, three hours of
logic class, right? After working all day. Oh, well. Say, {mepa}[repeat] {mepa}
[repeat]. {Mepa} means, things that don’t exist anyway. Okay. Horns on the
head of a rabbit are the classical example in Scripture.             Or, what they
mistranslate, the poor word got abused again, as sky-flower, meaning a plant
that could grow in mid-air. Okay. Like a gardenia that could just sprout and put
its roots out in, in mid-air, with no water, no dirt, no sunlight. Just boom, okay.
That’s what they mean when they say sky-flower. It’s a mistranslation. {Nam
ka} means, empty space; in mid-air. Okay. A flower that just sprouts in mid-air,
okay. That would be an example of something that does not fit in the group of
similar cases. Because why? It doesn’t exist anyway. How can it be similar or
dis-, you know. Okay, number two. Say, {shenpa}[repeat]. By the way, in each
case you would say {mitun chok} after that. You’d say, {mepa mitun chok},
{shenpa mitun chok} and then {gelwa mitun chok}. I mean, if you were
debating, okay. But I don’t want to overload you, more than I did about an hour
ago, okay. {Mepa} means doesn’t exist. {Shenpa} means, something other, okay,
something other. And it’s a deceiving name because what it really means is
something too big, like, all existing things. You see? Like, it’s something too big.
It’s just ‘other ‘in the sense of being too, too massive to fit in the field of similar
cases. All existing things; you can’t say it belongs in the family of changing
things. It’s too fat to fit into that little car, okay. All existing objects is too big to
fit in the little Volkswagen called, all changing things. You could not call it a
member of all the group of similar cases. I mean it’s like, it has changing things
in it, but it’s just too big. It goes beyond the field of similar cases. It goes beyond
the group of similar cases. It’s too broad to be restricted into what we call
changing things. And so, we call it, belonging to the group of dissimilar cases by
virtue of being something else meaning too big. It’s too big, okay. What? All
existing things. That big fat guy called, all existing things, is too wide to fit in that
little thing called, all changing objects. So, we call it, oh, here’s another kind of
field, it’s another member of the group of dissimilar cases, okay. Third one is
easier. By the way, these are all important for establishing whether a statement
is true or not. Especially, the five classical proofs for emptiness, okay. So you
have to understand these points, okay. Say, {gelwa}[repeat], {gelwa mitun chok}
[repeat], {gelwa}[repeat] {mitun chok}[repeat], okay. {Gelwa} means, directly
opposite, directly contradictory. What would be the {gelwa mitun chok} for
changing things? - The family of all unchanging things. 8835 That’s a direct
opposite, a direct contradiction. That’s a group of dissimilar cases by virtue of
being totally opposite of what we’re talking about. You could also have a group
of dissimilar cases by virtue of not even existing. You could also have a group of
dissimilar cases by virtue of being too fat to fit in the family. Okay. And that’s
all the dissimilar cases there can be. That’s your formal logic for tonight.
Now, we’ll do some fun. Two minutes of debating. I only want to teach you,
tonight, yeah [John Stillwell: Can I ask one question?] Yeah [John Stillwell:
About {chi jedrak?] Yeah [John Sitllwell: You said to study emptiness you have to
meditate on {chi jedrak} and you gave the example of quality and characteristic.
Can you give a specific example of how you would [unclear] quality and
characteristic specifically in a specific way and hows that mean to [unclear]
towards that process.]? John asked, basically, what he’s asking is, if {chi jedrak} is,
is like the immediate trigger that would help you see emptiness, how can we
turn it into a practical meditation, you know? If my homework, for example,
said, ‘fifteen minutes per day analytical meditation trying to detect how you
yourself tend to take your mental image of an object as being the object itself’.
Okay. That that would be my answer. Okay. It means, take something close to
you. I mean, for me, I mean, take a, like, a pot of water if you have to make tea
all day, you know; something that you’re around all the time, some kind of
common object. And try to catch yourself, when you look at it, fixating on an
object, which is too perfect. Come on. You never see the back of the pot. How
do you know there’s a back of the pot? I mean, technically, legally, logically
speaking, you don’t know if there’s a back on that pot. You don’t know there’s
just a big empty space behind the pot that you can’t see, but your mind fills it in.
And that’s another indication of the truth that you are watching a mental image.
It’s too good. Okay. You can also do it this way. Face it; you can never see the
whole pot. What you think you’re doing is totally impossible even if you sit here
and think about it logically. You can’t see a whole pot without focussing on the
left side and then moving your eyes to the right side. Right? But then, you’re
not looking at a whole pot anymore. And if you don’t look at the left side and
the right side, you can’t see a pot either. And come on, you can’t see the whole
thing at once. That’s why your eye is always going like this, you know. Your
eye is, like, picking up clues and then the mind is turning it into a perfect {dun
chi}, a perfect image. And you think you’re watching Michael Roach. You’re
not, okay. You’re seeing my right hand, my left hand, the right side of my head,
the left side of my head. And that’s all you’re seeing. You’re seeing indications.
And then, your mind is gluing them in together and saying, there’s a guy
standing up there, a whole guy. Come on, it’s impossible. You can’t be seeing
the whole thing at once. You don’t know where my foot is by the time you see
my head. Okay. You can’t see the whole Michael Roach but you think you are.
Something’s fishy, okay. [Laughs] And I’m not kidding, okay. I’m really not
kidding. You can meditate on it like that. [John Stillwell: So how do you relate
that to quality and characteristic what you just said just how you fit those words
in.]
Think about Michael Roach-ness, the mental image of Michael Roach and the
parts, the data you receive through your eyes of Michael Roach. And try to
compare those three things. Try and see if you can find a difference between
them. [John Stillwell: Probably characteristic or [unclear]] I don’t know. You
have to figure it out. Okay. You have to figure it out, really. Okay. Okay, last
thing. I’m gonna give a classical debate thing and you just learn. Debate is
beautiful because it works like a computer program. It’s just on-off switch. Yes-
no, yes-no, yes-no. All you have to answer is yes or no, okay. If I frame the
questions perfectly, then if you’re the person sitting down, right. The attacker
stands up and there’s another person sitting down, all you have to do is sit there
like cool as a cucumber and say, right, no, right, no, right. Once in a while,
you’re allowed to clarify the question. Do you mean, vase as a concept or as an
actual vase? Do you mean a vase or “vase”, quote. You see, you can ask that.
You’re allowed to ask a question. You’re also allowed to stall by saying, {uh}
[laughter], meaning, I… I can’t hear you; there’s all these guys yelling here.
[Laughter] And, and in the meantime, you’re thinking furiously, you know, like,
you know, like you say {uh, uh, la, la} means, I didn’t catch it, you know. And in
the meantime you’re thinking of your answer, you know. Like, you’re stalling
for the few milliseconds that you need, you know. So anyway, normally, you
just say yes or no. And I’m gonna teach you the two answers. Tonight we will
only do two answers, okay. These are the two allowed answers to a statement.
By the way, there’s only a total of four, so you’re not, you don’t have any
problem. We’ll do two tonight and two next week. {Chir} is because in Tibetan.
Like, you’d say, {dra chuchen}. Say, {dra chuchen}[repeat] {dra chuchen}[repeat].
{Chuchen} means, let’s take this for example, right, remember. Let’s consider
this example. You’re stating the subject. {Dra} means, sounds; sounds, things
you hear, okay. {Dra chuchen}[Repeat], {dra chuchen}[repeat], okay. {Dra
chuchen} means, let’s talk about sounds. Okay. So first you make sure the guy
knows what you’re talking about. Then, you’re gonna give the {drupje chu},
what you want him to learn about it that he does not accept yet. {Mitakpa yin
te}, okay. I’m sorry, let’s do a short way. {Mitak te}, learn {mitak te}[repeat]
{mitak te}[repeat], they are {mitakpa}, okay. This is something he does not
accept yet. It’s the quality you’re trying to prove. They are changing things,
okay. Now we’ll do the whole assertion, right. {Dra chuchen}[Repeat], {mitak
te}[repeat], okay. That’s all. But there is a colon, okay. Why? Because I’m about
to tell you why. That’s a colon {te}, okay. Say, {dra chuchen}[repeat] {mitak te}
[repeat], okay. And then you’re gonna give him a {ba, ba, ba, ba, chir}. And the
{chir} in Tibetan is, ‘because’. Unfortunately, it comes at the end in Tibetan. You
say, it’s a made thing because. Okay. All right. In Tibetan, you say the because
at the end. It’s a made thing because, okay. How do you say it in Tibetan?
{chepay chir}[Repeat], {chepay chir}[repeat], {chepay chir}[repeat]. And you go
like - Okay. {Chepay chir}, okay. Because it’s made, stupid head. Okay. Because
it’s made, okay. One more time. {Dra chuchen}[Repeat], {mitakte}[repeat],
{chepay chir}[repeat], ‘cos it’s made, okay. And that’s supposed to, like, all the
non-Buddhists go, Oh I get it, okay. [Laughs] Okay.
Take sounds.
They are changing things:
Because they are made.
You now have two options to respond to me. And I wanna, all I want to teach
you, the two options, okay. When you hear {chir}, you know you got two
options, okay. Assuming what he said is wrong, okay. Two ways to object to
what he said. I know it’s a lot to digest in one night and maybe it’s not wise to
give you so much but we all might die in six months or something. You might
as well cram, so bust ass and don’t be wimpy, okay. It’s a lot. You can do it in
two years or you can do it in one course. We’ll try and do it in one course, okay.
Who knows where we’ll be six months from now, you know, okay. So try, try
to be, you know, patient and don’t, don’t worry, don’t think, oh, I’m not gonna
get home on time. Forget it. You wanna get enlightened you’re gonna have to
work a little bit, okay.
Say, {tak ma drup}[repeat]. It has to be, like, with feeling, you know. [Laughter]
What the hell are you talking about, okay? {Tak ma drup}[Repeat], {tak ma drup}
[repeat]. Sometimes, if you’re really disgusted you say, {tak}, okay. Say, {tak}
[repeat], {tak}[repeat]. {Tak} means, {tak ma drup} but I’m so disgusted I don’t
even want to say the whole answer to you. [Laughter] [Laughs] Who could ever
believe it? {Tak ma drup} means, your reason is incorrect. {Tak} means reason;
{ma drup} means, literally, doesn’t exist or is incorrect, okay. Your reason is
incorrect.
That’s answer number one. Answer number two: say, {kyappa}[repeat] {ma
jung}[repeat], {kyappa}[repeat] {ma jung}[repeat]. {Kyappa} means, for two
things to be necessarily so. Literally, it means ‘to cover’, okay. {Ma jung} means,
it isn’t necessarily so. And I’ll give you an example. You ready? Here’s some
real debates. Got to think of one. The sky {chuchen}, okay. We’re talking about
a normal midday sky without clouds, okay. Sky {chuchen}. Consider the sky.
{..te} it has a color. Why? Because it’s blue, okay. Because it’s blue. It has a blue
color, okay. I’ll repeat the statement. Consider the midday sky without clouds
in a normal part of the world, this world, etcetera, okay. It has a color: because it
has a blue color, okay. And, if you agree with the statement, if the guy by the
way, if the guy’s stupid enough to say something which is true to start a fight, to
pick a fight, all you do is sit there and repeat the verb. It does, okay. [Laughter]
And then he’s just, like, okay [laughs]. Like, if you say {yinpay chir}, you would
say {yin}. He says, {yinpay chir}, you’d say, {yu}; {drupay chir} you say, {drup};
just repeat the verb. That’s the easy one, okay. Answer number three which is,
yes, just repeat his or her verb. It does, it doesn’t, it will, it won’t. Okay. {Yin,
yu, mayin, me} okay. And that is to say ‘yes’, I agree, okay. Typical example.
 Consider the sky, a normal sky, okay, blah, blah, blah.
It has a color:
Because it has a blue color.
And you would say, it has. Okay. {Yu, mayu}. Now, what if I say,
Consider the sky.
It has a color:
Because it’s green with pink polka dots.
Okay. Then what would you say? {Tak ma drup}. Okay. Say, {tak ma drup}
[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat]. The thing you gave as a reason does not
properly apply to the thing you gave as a subject. Pink polka dots in a green
background does not correctly describe the sky. {Tak ma drup}, okay. {Tak ma
drup}, okay. That’s when you use a {tak ma drup}. When his third part of his
statement is wrong, say, {tak ma drup}. The whole thing sounds right, repeat his
verb. But, what if he says,
Consider the sky.
It’s an existing thing:
Because it’s blue.
Consider the sky. It’s an existing thing: because it’s blue. Then you have to say,
not necessarily. It’s not necessarily true. There’s lots of blue things, wait a
minute, I screwed it, sorry. [Laughs] [Laughter] That’s not, I gave a bad one.
Sorry. Scratch that example.
Consider the sky.
It’s green:
Because it has a color.
Okay. How about that one. Sorry, okay. Consider the sky. It’s green: because
it has a color. Okay. Is it true that the sky has a color? So you cannot say, {tak
ma drup}. You see, you can’t say, your reason doesn’t apply to what you’re
talking about, okay. You can’t say that it has a color doesn’t apply to the sky.
So, you have to say, {kyappa ma jung}. Say, {kyappa ma jung}[repeat]. Hey,
just because it has a color doesn’t mean it’s green. Okay. Not necessarily so.
And that’s all, okay. And those are the three possible answers really. Two of
them mean no, one of them means yes. I’ll give you the examples again.
Consider the sky. It has a color: because it’s blue. And you just say, it does, it is,
okay. What was the second one? Consider the sky. It has a color: because it’s
green. Ah, {tak ma drup}. Sky’s not green, okay. It’s green, doesn’t apply to the
sky, with pink polka dots, okay. The what’s the third one? Consider the sky.
It’s green: because it has a color. Okay. You can’t say {tak ma drup} because it
does have a color. So you have to say, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that if
something has a color it’s necessarily green, okay. And that’s the {kyappa ma
jung}. Say, {kyappa}[repeat] {ma jung}[repeat]. Okay, got the three examples?
That’s all. So [laughter] let’s check. The sky has a color, because it’s red with
yellow stripes. Give me the right Tibetan answer. [Students: Kyappa ma jung]
Please {tsa} [laughs][laughter]. By the way, {tsa} means, you know, {ngo tsa]
means, you should be ashamed of yourself. [Laughter] Okay. The sky, what’d I
say? Take the sky, what? It has a color, because it’s green, it’s red with yellow
stripes. Then you say? [Students]{tak ma drup}, okay. Be, have some, I almost
used a bad word, you gotta be strong on the {tak ma drup, tak ma drup} Say,
{tak ma drup}[repeat] and you kinda stretch out the {tak} and do not say {thak},
okay. First column, {tak}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat].
It’s not true that the sky is yellow, red with yellow stripes, okay. Your reason is
bad. The thing you said in your reason does not apply to the sky, {tak ma drup},
okay.
Consider the sky. It’s a pretty pastel lavender in the middle of the day, because
it has a color. [Students: Kyappa ma jung.] {Kyappa ma jung}, you say, {kyappa
ma jung}[repeat]. Come on, {kyappa ma jung}[repeat], {kyappa ma jung}
[repeat]. Come on, it’s not necessarily so. Okay, it has a color, doesn’t mean it
has to be a pink lavender, you know, okay. {Kyappa ma jung}. Those are the
three possible answers and you can live on those for years in the debate ground,
okay. You just say, {tak ma drup, kyappa ma jung, yin, yin, yin, yin.}. I mean,
that’s a typical response. You can spend hours in a {yin, yu, tak ma drup, kyappa
ma jung, yin, yu}, okay. And like that, just like that. It’s going like boom, boom,
boom, okay. So just learn those two answers, okay. {Tak ma drup}, say, {tak ma
drup}[repeat]; {kyappa ma jung}[repeat]; and, if you’re disgusted, {kyappaaa ma
jung}[laughs][laughter], {kyappa ma jung}, okay. And then if you agree, just
say, repeat the guy’s verb {yin} and ‘is’, okay, like that. I don’t want you to get
distracted from the main thing. Go home, think about {chis} and {jedraks}, okay.
It’s the best thing I can tell you. We’ll do a short prayer. I’m sorry to keep you
late.
[Prayer: short mandala]
[Prayer: dedication]
The Asian Classics Institute
Course XIII: The Art of Reasoning