ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 6

Class Six: Negative and Positive



Transcribed by Angie Overy




[prayer: short mandala]
[prayer: refuge]
Okay. Tonight we’re onto sixth class and [unclear] have that structure of three
parts. One will be selection from {dura}. {dura}being all of the basic subjects that
come from the logic books and the books on Buddhist perception. And then
we’ll do a little bit of debating. We’ll learn one more piece of debating: {droltang,
droltang} meaning, the format. You have to keep working on the format of it.
Okay. So, we’ll do those three things. The part from the {dura} today is called
{gak drup}. Let me see [cut]. Say, {gak drup}[repeat], {gak drup}[repeat]. {gak
drup} is a special study called, ‘Negatives and Positives’, negative and positive.
[unclear] is the study of {gak}, okay, of negatives. {gak} and {drup}. It’s really
important for the study of emptiness. I gave a talk up in [unclear] Massachusets
this weekend, three days, right. It’s an unusual place because they’re, they
attract a lot of people from different Buddhist traditions, you know. There were
people from all sorts of Buddhist traditions. And, so it’s interesting place to teach
because they know something about Buddhism. They’ve all studied some
Buddhism. Most of them. And then it’s interesting to teach because every
school that they come from be it Japanese Zen or Shri Lankan or Burmese or
Thai, Theravaden traditions, or, even some other Tibetan traditions. They all
have their own versions of what emptiness is. And it’s very interesting, you
know. The, some of the ideas that were presented as [cut] [unclear] okay. The
ideas are bad. One idea was that, she said she had spent ten or ten years I think,
staring at the floor, you know. That she had been taught to stare at the floor.
And, she was wondering what, what was supposed to happen, you know.
[laughs] And I’m, like, I don’t know, you know. And she felt like, she looked to
be about fifty [cut] sorry for her, you know. I think she said fifteen years even. I
don’t know. But she had spent a long time staring at the floor. And this had
been taught to her as the meaning of emptiness or that she could understand
emptiness this way. Another person was, had spent, you know, years watching
their breath. Just watching their breath for years. And then, every time a
thought came up, they were supposed to just follow it and watch the thought.
And that was gonna make them see emptiness. And then, another person said
they went to this place and they taught them that emptiness meant that they
should clear their mind out of every thing. And, if any thought came up, then
they should try to find a meditation place, where there’s no thoughts at all, you
know. Which is impossible, according to all Buddhist theory, you know. All, all
Buddhist theory, you know. To have no mental content at all is impossible.
Even someone perceiving emptiness directly has, is focussing on something, you
know. And, like that. It was very interesting. The other guy, he, he was in a, a,
a tradition that taught them that the, what do you call it? The luminous nature of
the mind was emptiness, you know. That the way, that the fact that you are
aware, is what emptiness is and if you could just focus on that, that you would
see emptiness. So, all these people didn’t get the {gak drup}, okay. They didn’t
have the {gak drup} teachings, alright. And that’s what I thought that it’s really
nice that you have {gak drup} today. And it was very sort of depressing, you
know, that they, they kind of, you could see this emotion in their face of their
world crumbling, you know. I mean, the more they heard, the more it became
obvious to them that they had wasted five years or ten years on something that
doesn’t have anything to do with emptiness. And it was, it was kind of
bittersweet, you know.          They were kinda happy that they got a good
explanation. And then, they were kinda sad that, when they saw that that was
obviously not what emptiness was. And it, and they all, I think most of them got
what emptiness really is ‘cos it makes sense, you know. Once you hear a good
teaching on it, it’s not like anything very esoteric. Pretty clear what it is. So, it’s
important to study {gak drup}. If you study {gak drup} well, you won’t get into
these strange ideas about staring at the floor for ten years, okay.
So, we’ll go to the definition of a {gak}, {gakpa}.
Long, okay. You don’t mind. This is the longest thing tonight I promise. I
decided to lay off you guys a little bit so it’s only a forty page reading and
[laughter]. And I figured that if it’s too much for you and it’s too much for me. I
was going crazy too. And Winston drove too fast so you didn’t get as much
reading as you could have. [laughs] Okay. Take some time and write that. [cut]
In Tibetan they say { .. gu ma re}. Say,{ … ma re}[repeat] means, you don’t have
to carve it, just write it. Okay. [laughter] [laughs] Alright. Say {rang}[repeat]
{ngu su}[repeat] {tokpay}[repeat] {lu}[repeat] {rang gi}[repeat] {gakja}[repeat]
{ngu su}[repeat] {che ne}[repeat] {tok}[repeat] {gupay}[repeat] {chu}[repeat],
okay. We’ll go through the parts. First of all, the thing should be a {chu}, which
means, it exists. It’s an existing thing. Okay. A negative is, first of all, a thing
which exists. An example would be emptiness, okay. Emptiness is a negative
thing, alright. We’re talking about the definition of a negative thing. This is
{gakpay tsennyi},okay. {gakpa}is a negative thing. So, first of all, it should be an
object. It should be a thing. And there’s this huge debate about {mepa} itself,
about non-existence itself. Does non-existence exist? You see. And it’s a bitter
debate in the monastery. I’ve seen, the Abbott of Tashi Hlunpo, which is one of
the great monasteries, punch it out with one of my classmates in a, in front of a
thousand monks. And they had a hard time deciding, you know, does non-
existence exist. But that’s another story. You can decide that in Winston’s debate
class. Okay. {rang} means, it, meaning, the negative thing, okay. {ngu su
tokpay} means, to perceive it directly. Which perceives it directly. The state of
mind which is, {lo}, okay. The state of mind, which perceives it directly, should
{che}. {che} means, to eliminate, okay, to eliminate something. This is the same
root as {dorje chepa}. What’s {dorje chepa}? Diamond Cutter. Okay. {chepa}
means, to cut or to eliminate something, okay, by cutting something out.
Alright. {chepa}. {ngu su che pa} means, it directly cuts something out, okay.
What does it cut out? It’s {gakja},okay. {gakja} means, anything that you deny
the existence of, okay. Anything which you say, this is not what we’re talking
about, okay. That’s a {gakja}. Okay. In Madhyamika theory, {gakja} means, the
thing that emptiness is empty of, okay. The thing that emptiness denies. The
thing that the idea emptiness says doesn’t exist, never did exist, never could exist.
Which is what? A self-existent thing, okay. {rang gi gakja} means, when you
say, for example, emptiness, {rang gi gakja} is its own thing which it denies,
okay. {rang gi} means, its own, okay. So, so far, what we have is, in order for
the mind to perceive this thing, the mind must first eliminate something else.
You see what I mean.
The mind must first exclude something else directly. In order to perceive
emptiness you must first exclude self-existent things. Okay. So, {rang gi gakja}
means, the thing which it excludes, the thing which it denies. First it must
exclude that. And, that’s the only way that it can {tok}. {tok} means, to perceive
the meaning of the thing, okay. So, the whole long sentence means, and you can
put this on your homework, something like this, okay. Definition of a ‘negative
thing’, I have it here, let’s see, is, ‘a thing which must be perceived by the state of
mind which perceives it, directly, through a process of eliminating, directly, that
which it denies. So, I’ll give you some examples, okay, and you tell me what’s
the process. What’s the process? Like, if I say emptiness, when I say emptiness,
your mind can only perceive that thing by eliminating something, you see what I
mean. It’s the absence of something. Okay. When I say emptiness, and by the
way, this is your homework assignment, your meditation assignment, okay.
We’re trying to, the whole purpose of this class is to get you out of the mood of
thinking of emptiness as something positive. Okay. It’s not the floor. It’s not
the thoughts running around in your mind. And it’s not the fact that your mind
is aware. Emptiness is the absence of something and it’s a {gakpa}. It’s a negative
thing, okay. How do you perceive a negative thing? What’s the definition of a
negative thing? The mind which understands that thing directly, the mind which
perceives that thing directly, has to first exclude something else and then it can
see that thing, see what I mean. It has to exclude what that thing denies. So,
emptiness denies a self-existent object. And for you to see emptiness, either
intellectually or directly, first you have to eliminate or exclude a self-existent
thing, okay. That’s one example and that’s why emptiness is a negative, okay.
Because it can only be perceived by the mind which perceives it directly through
the process of excluding directly that which it denies. Okay. And that’s the
definition of a negative thing. There are some more classic negative things.
How about what we call {nam ka}, okay? Say, {nam ka}[repeat]. I’ll give you, I’ll
write it for you. By the way, before we do that, how are we gonna write
emptiness in this school? What’s the Tibetan word for emptiness? {tongpa- nyi}.
This school doesn’t accept the idea of {tongpa -nyi}, you see. We’re in a lower
school. We’re fishing around in the lower schools. Okay. They don’t call
emptiness, emptiness. They call it, one of the things they call it, is, you won’t see
the word emptiness used in the lower schools. You’ll see ‘selflessness’, anatman,
okay, or you’ll see {chu-nyi}. Say {chu-nyi} [repeat]; {chu-nyi’s} like, dharmata,
meaning the real nature of things, okay. It includes the word for dharma. It
means the ‘dharma-ness’ of things. Okay. I translate it as the real nature of
things. {chu-nyi} is a {gakpa}; {chu-nyi} is a negative. Why? If you wanna
perceive the real nature of things, first you have to exclude, mentally, all those
things which are not it, okay. And by now, somebody in the class, like, [laughs]
maybe, Mark, should say, wait a minute, in this school they said everything was
like that. Right? Didn’t they say in this school that to perceive anything you had
to exclude all that it was not? You see what I mean? Like, you perceive the pen,
in this school, by a process of excluding, everything which is not the pen, you see
what I mean. You take everything, which is not the pen and then you reverse it
and you get the pen. It’s called the {dokpa}, right? And you’ve had that. That’s
like a principle of this school. It’s very important in this school. The {dun chi},
the way you get to form a mental image of something, is by excluding,
everything which the thing is not. The text is careful to say, that’s what we’re
not, we’re not talking about that when we describe how you perceive a negative.
That’s a different thing. You see, that’s how you form the mental image and
that’s done through a process of eliminating or reversing everything, which it is
not the thing. The opposite of everything, which is not the thing, is the thing.
Okay. And that’s true of perceiving all things in this school. But that’s not what
we’re talking about when we’re talking about a negative. And that’s why they
add the extra words in there, okay. They’re not saying everything in the
universe is a negative, you see. If this was the meaning of negative then you
could never find a positive thing, okay. So, in this school, that’s not what we’re
talking about. We’re talking about a process where you directly eliminate,
consciously, pretty much consciously, you eliminate, mentally, everything else.
Let’s give another example of a negative thing in this school. Okay. Or in all
Buddhist schools. [cut]
Say, {nam ka}[repeat], {nam ka}[repeat]. People translate it as ‘space’, okay. We
talked about it, you have to get good at this word, okay. {nam ka} is a special
idea. {nam ka} can mean space, like the element of space; {nam ka} can mean the
sky. In Tibetan, you say {nam ka} is the sky. Like, {kam dro} is a sky-goer, a
dakkini, okay, a Buddhist angel. And, {nam ka} means sky. But, in Buddhist
philosophy, {nam ka} means the space, which this pen occupies, okay. The space,
which this pen, occupies. I like to translate it as ‘empty space’. Okay. Empty
space. Is empty space {takpa} or a {mitakpa}? Does it change or does it not
change? It’s, careful, does it function or not? Careful. I’ll give you a couple of
arguments. Like, if you, let’s debate it, okay. Alright. Who’s gonna be a victim?
Seamus, okay. [laughs]
{nam ka chuchen}. Okay. Take empty space. Alright. {mitakpa yinpe},it’s a
changing thing because {rengawa yinpay chir}, okay.                {rengawa} means,
sometimes it’s there and sometimes it’s not, okay. {rengawa} means, sometimes
it’s there and sometimes it’s not. Okay. So, I’ll say it again in English. I’ll say it in
Tibetan. {nam ka chuchen; mitakpa yinpe; rengawa yinpay chir}. Okay. So, take
empty space; it’s a changing thing; because sometimes it’s there and sometimes
it’s not.
What do you say? Huh? Say, {tak ma drup}? Meaning, I disagree that
sometimes it’s there and sometimes it’s not. You have two choices remember.
What do you have, what are the two choices to {chir}? First one? {tak ma drup},
which means, empty space is not a thing which comes and goes. {nam ka
rengawa mayin}, okay. And then you can say what? The other choice is, he’s a
real good {kyappa ma junga}, okay. [laughter] The other choice is {kyappa ma
jung}. {kyappa ma jung} means, okay, I admit that it comes and goes, but that
doesn’t mean it’s a changing thing. Okay. I admit that it comes and goes but
that doesn’t necessarily make it a changing thing. So, which way are you gonna
go Seamus? Oh, by the way, you can always agree. You can always say {yin},
you know. You got three choices really, right: I agree that space is a changing
thing or, disagree that space comes and goes or, just because space comes and
goes doesn’t mean it’s a changing thing. Okay. What’s your choice? Come on.
[laughs] He says he agrees. Okay. [laughs][laughter] That’s the easy way out
‘cos he doesn’t have to do anything, right.
So, I’ll say, {nam ka chuchen rengawa yinpa teln}. When I go down, it means,
what? Are you telling me it comes and goes? Okay. {nam ka chuchen}, say
{nam ka chuchen}[repeat]. Oh, you guys are sleepy. {nam ka chuchen}[repeat]
{rengawa}[repeat] {yinpa teln}[repeat]. You telling me it comes and goes? You
say, {du}, okay. Say {du}[repeat]. That’s what I said, yeah, yeah. That’s what I
said. Okay. That’s what I said, okay. So, take the space in which this pen
occupies, {rengawa yinpa teln}, are you telling me it comes and goes? You said
{du}. {du}, say, {du}[repeat], {du}, okay. And, it’s pretty good, you know. When
I take, when I take the pen back, the space goes away, right? Well, when I
occupy it, it goes away, right? Which one do you want Seamus? Okay. When
the pen is there it’s occupied and when it’s not there, it’s not occupied, so it
changes, right? It comes and goes, right? No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t. It’s always
there, okay. When it’s occupied, it has to be there or the pen couldn’t be there.
When the pen’s not there it’s been there anyway, you see. And that’s the real
meaning of empty space. And some people never get it. You know, there’s
some Scriptures that, I mean, some people think, oh, space is the distance
between me and the wall. But that, you don’t get it, there’s a deeper meaning of
empty space. It’s the place where this pen is. And whether the pen occupies it
or not, it’s always gonna be there. Okay. It doesn’t ever change. It’s empty
space. From that sense, it’s not changing, okay. Everybody agree? You agree
to easy. Yeah, {ngupo mayin pa teln}, so, since it’s not a changing thing I guess
it’s not a working thing. I guess it doesn’t do anything. {ngupo mayin pa teln},
you telling me it’s not a working thing? Luis? Doesn’t do anything? It doesn’t
or it does? {ngupo mayin pa teln}, I said, are you telling me it’s not a working
thing? Are you telling me it doesn’t do anything? [laughter] By the way, don’t
forget, if you agree it’s a working thing, you must agree it’s a changing thing.
You’re in trouble if you agree it’s a working thing. Then you have to agree that it
comes and goes. Then you have to agree that it comes and goes. Don’t forget
those are synonyms:{takpa, ngupo, mitakpa, ngupo}, yeah, what was another
one? {chepa dunchik}, okay. They all mean the same thing. Make up your
mind, {ngupo mayin pa teln}. [laughter] I gave you a moment to think, okay,
{ngupo mayin pa teln}. So, I guess it doesn’t have any function because Seamus,
and all of us, we established that it doesn’t change. It doesn’t come and go.
Anything, which has a function comes and goes. Anything, which comes and
goes has a function. By coming and going you function. You do something.
You effect other things. {ngupo mayin pa teln}, {.. } say something. [laughs]
[laughter] Hey, by the way, in a debate you just take a shot in the dark, you
know. You go {du}.[laughs][laughter] {mayin pa teln, ngupo mayin pa teln}.
Huh? No. To {teln} you only have two choices. What are they? {chi chir}, like,
huh, who said that? Say {chi chir}[repeat], {chi chir}[repeat]. So, I said,are you
telling me it’s not a working thing? And you said, {chi chir}, I didn’t say that.
You’re saying that. Okay. What’s the other choice? {du}, yeah, right, right, it’s
not a working thing. Okay, which one you gonna go for? This is like ‘Truth or
Consequence’ [laughter] {yinpa teln}. {chi chir}. Oh ya. Oh ya, means, I got you
now, okay. [laughs][laughter] {ngupo yinpa teln, ngupo yinpa teln}, so you’re
telling me it’s a changing thing, I’m sorry, does it perform a function? I’m sorry,
is it a working thing? Are you telling me it’s a working thing, {ngupo yinpa
teln}? {du}, that’s what I said. Stick up, stick to your guns, okay. In debate you
have to be shameless, okay. {ngupo yinpa teln}. {du}. {du-je yerpe yinpa teln},
so it performs a function, right? Good. {du}[laughs][laughter] {yerte},how so,
please? [laughter][laughs] [student] Yeah. I mean, it provides a space for the
pen to be in, right. It provides a space. That’s a function, okay. I mean, this is a
big debate in the Abhidharma. Okay. Space has a function because if it wasn’t
doing its schtick the pen wouldn’t have a place to stay, right. So it’s providing a
space for the pen. What did you say? [student] I didn’t catch it, say [student]
Oh, she said, the pen doesn’t stay in space. That means the thing is kicking it out
of space I guess. Space isn’t always providing space for the pen you mean, right?
Something like that. This is where Rinpoche would go on and say, you have to
think about it. Okay. [laughter]
The debate, the debate is that, I mean, technically, they would say it’s not, it’s not
exerting itself, it’s not influencing a function, it’s not exerting an effort or it’s not
exerting a function by just being there. And it’s, and we can’t, technically, say
that it is working; it’s not working to provide a space for something, you see
what I mean. It’s just a simple absence of something. And, and it’s very tricky if
you say it ‘allows’ a thing to stay there. We can’t say that. If you say that you’re
in trouble on the debate ground. You can’t say, empty space allows a space for
things to be. It just is. It’s just there. It’s just the absence of any obstruction.
Okay. And I’ll give you the definition. Well, the definition of space is that: it’s
the simple absence of any obstruction. And it’s always there and it never
changes. And, technically, you can’t use the word it ‘provides’ a place for things
to stay although there’s a huge debate about it. So you’re not, you know, it’s,
it’s, a very difficult question. It’s a big question in Abhidharma. They argue
about it a lot. Yeah. [student]
Say, {.. }[repeat] { .. }[repeat], the simple absence of physical obstruction, is the
definition of empty space in, in Buddhism. Yeah. [student] Yeah. It’s still there.
Right. No. This is obstructing. The pen is obstructing. The pen ain’t, the space is
just sitting there. The, the space is not pushing anybody out of that space, the
pen is pushing other things out of that space. There must still be { .. } there where
the pen is or the pen would be pushed out of the space. That’s all. That’s all.
You gotta get used to it. But what I want you to get, [student] no, nothing else.
So, I wanna, the, the pen is { ..}, the pen is a thing which pushes out other things.
Nothing can stay there as long as the pen is there. But, if there were no space
there, the pen would be kicked out. But it’s not, so it proves there’s empty space
there. Okay. Sometimes it’s occupied, sometimes it’s not, it never changes. In
fact, I like to think of it as place itself. And you gotta work with that. Okay.
Anyway, it wasn’t the point of bringing it up. And we gotta go or else, I don’t
mind to stay ‘til eleven but some other people get mad at me. Especially the
Quaker House and John Stillwell. Okay.
All I want you to really get about this, is that to put your mind on the thing
called ‘empty space’, you have to exclude the concept of something which is
obstructing, you see what I mean. That, that prevents something from being
there, you see. To perceive what I say, when I say empty space, especially
because of the word ‘empty’, which I’ve added, okay, just to make it easier for
you, you have to in your mind, exclude, mentally you exclude, physical objects.
Things that would stop something else from being there, you see. So, when I
say, empty space, from now on, your mind should go through a process of first
excluding something which is not there. What’s not there? Obstruction. If
obstruction’s not there, empty space, you see what I mean, { .. }; the simple
absence of an obstruction. But, what, the point I’m trying to make is that, is to
get you sensitive to the definition of a negative thing: you have to exclude
something, to perceive it, you see what I mean. Mentally, you have to, you have
to, directly say, oh, empty space, he means something where there’s nothing
that, that is blocking other things, okay. That’s all. That’s all. Rinpoche like to
call it ‘blockers’; there’s no blockers there. ‘Cos he saw it on TV, he heard it on
the football game and he’s, like, that’s what blocker is. [laughs][laughter] Yeah.
Yeah, real quick though, okay. [student] Ah, we can say, she said, is any space
really empty because there’s always sub-atomic particles there. There’s not
enough to block the, block the insertion of the pen into that place. That’s all.
Student] By the way, the fact that they’re there means that there is space there
because it’s allow–oop, it’s, it’s a giving it-oop, it’s where they are, okay.[laughs]
That’s all. If it wasn’t there, they’d get pushed out, you see what I mean.
Second question.         [student]     Oh, there’s a big debate about it in the
Abhidharmakosha third chapter. She said, explain gravity according to all this.
In the Abhidharmakosha they say, everybody knows the Earth is flat and why
doesn’t water fall off the side? [laughter] Third chapter. By the way, not so silly
as it sounds, you know. Long story, but I’m not gonna go into it. Anyway, they
say, the karma of sentient beings who live on that planet, prevents the water
from falling off the sides. Yeah. [student] Leon asked, does the emptiness of the
pen reside in place? I don’t think they would say that because they only talk
about things residing in a place with regard to physical matter I think. Like, you
can’t position your mind. You can’t say that your mind has a location. Where do
formless realm, when you take birth in the formless realm, where do you enter
the formless realm? Remember we had it? It’s in the place you die. So, there’s
no? There’s no {bardo}. Why? There’s no {bardo} being. You go straight to the
formless realm. Why? You don’t have to get anywhere. The function of a
{bardo} is to get you to your new birth - place, you know. So, there’s no {bardo}
for a person being born into the formless realm ‘cos you just are born there
wherever you die. And then you’re not in any place anymore. So, I think, I
would say that, probably Buddhist Scripture says that, place is a place for
physical objects. I would, I would, you know, I would say it that way. And I
would debate it by using the {bardo} thing, you know. Yeah. [student] Hang
on one second though. But, I could say, you could say, that, and you do say,
that emptiness is attached to its object, you see what I mean. But, it doesn’t
mean that it’s located in the same place as the pen. Like, the pen has its own
emptiness and that emptiness goes out of existence, please, we can’t say,
‘destroyed’, when the pen is destroyed. It goes out of existence. So, it is a
quality, which is attached to the pen, but we wouldn’t say, I don’t think, that it’s
located at the same place that the pen is located. But, but you could, you know, if
you wanted to debate me and we were in the debate ground, if I was gonna take
your side, you know, I would say, oh, isn’t it based on some kind of, doesn’t it
have a locus? And the guy, would have to say, yeah, it has a locus. Then I’d say,
then it has a location, right? And then he’d say, not necessarily, and then, we’d
go like that, you know. Yeah, I’m sorry. Go ahead. [unclear] [student] I don’t,
she said that, the idea of place is like a vessel and, I’m repeating for the tape,
okay, ‘cos it doesn’t pick up your question easily. So, couldn’t you say that your
mind is, is located where your body’s located, is that what you mean? [student]
Oh, place. I think that you’re falling into the trap of thinking of space as the
location, of, as the distance between two walls or something. That’s a trap and
it’s common. You know, the Abhidharma, what’s it say? {namke … }, in the first
chapter. It says, space doesn’t refer to the vault of space, to the vault of the sky.
And also, don’t get into the trap of thinking that space refers to the place
between two walls or two, that’s not the real meaning of space. It’s the, it’s the
lack of physical obstruction; the simple absence of physical obstruction. Okay.
Excuse me? He asked, is, is what? Space? [student] That’s a huge debate, okay,
and I like the question. There are three interpretations among the four Buddhist
schools of what dependent origination means. The, the lowest group, which is
the first three schools lumped all together called the “Functionalists’, because,
they believe that anything that works must have some existence in and of itself.
They say that thing is dependently arising when it depends on its causes and it’s,
and it’s, what was the thing we had? Supporting conditions, contributing factors,
okay. The second group, which is the lower half of the Madhyamika school,
says, some, that’s no good because that doesn’t cover things like empty space,
which also has its own dependent arising quality. So, your definition is not good
enough. You have to extend, extend it wider. If you restrict it to causes and, and
to the fact that things depend on their causes, you’re not going far enough,
because then you exclude empty space which must have its own dependent
origination, because, it has its own emptiness. Okay. And they say that you
should say, that a thing is dependently arising when it depends on its parts. And
then they give the example of empty space. And then the guy says, what are the
parts to empty space? And he says, east, west, north, south. How’s that? The
four quarters, you see. Okay, ‘cos location, you can locate something by, you
know, relative to direction. Anyway, we better go onto the class. Alright.
I’ll give you one more negative that I like. How do you spell that? Say, {hlejin}
[repeat] {tsunpo}[repeat] {nyinwor}[repeat] {se}[repeat] {mi sa}[repeat]; {hlejin}
[repeat] {tsunpo}[repeat] {nyinwor}[repeat] {se}[repeat] {mi sa}[repeat[. {hlejin}
means, Devadatta, okay. I’d like to translate it as Joe Blow or John Smith or, it’s,
it’s meant to be, like, John Doe, you know. It’s meant to be, you know, Joe
Schmoe, okay.          And, we’ll see how you translate it when you become
translators, okay. It just means Joe Anybody, okay, {hlejin}, Devadatta. It comes
from ancient India. They’re just trying too say, ‘John’, okay. I, I think I
translated it as John Smith or something. Okay. {hlejin}. {tsunpo} is an ancient,
ancient word. You never ever see it. It means, chubby. Okay. [laughs] {tsunpo}
means chubby, okay. {nyinmo} means, daytime; {nyinmor} means, during the
daytime, during the day. Okay. {se} means, food; {se} means, food. {mi sa}
means, he never eats food during the day. Okay. John Smith, that extremely
chubby fellow, never eats food during the day. Okay. I think they’re probably
referring to some monk who was being very righteous and not eating after
noon, you know, and then he kept getting fatter and fatter, right. [laughter]
And never ate anything but that little thing in his bowl every day, you know. I
believe it’s probably a joke like that, okay. This is a {mepa}. This is a {gakpa},
okay. If you think about it, this is a {gakpa}. This is a negative thing. Why?
Because, it’s, it’s directly stated, you know, he doesn’t eat during the day. Okay.
And you exclude in your mind that he eats during the day. In your mind, the
{gakja} here is, chubby John Smith eating during the day. And when I say, think
of chubby John Smith who doesn’t eat during the day, you picture this portly
guy, who’s not out in the restaurants during the day, you know, in the east
Village. Okay. He doesn’t frequent them during the day. But, immediately,
something else comes up in your mind. Which is what? He’s gotta be hanging
out there at night, okay. [laughs] [laughter] He’s gotta have some bagels under
his pillow, you know, something, okay. And, and, it’s, it, we call it, that it
implies, in Tibetan it’s called {penpa}. Say {penpa}[repeat] {chu shen}[repeat]
{penpa}[repeat]. I’ll spell it for you. I hope I spell it right. Let’s see. [cut]
Say, {chu shen}[repeat] {penpa}[repeat], {chu shen}[repeat] {penpa}[repeat]. Any
negative statement or any negative thing or any negative expression, which {chu
shen penpa} is a different kind of negative, you see. {chu shen}, {chu} means
dharma or thing, {chu} means thing; {shen means, some other thing. Okay. {chu
shen} means, some other thing. {penpa} means, it implies some other thing.
Okay. {penpa} by the way, is a word in Tibetan which means, to project. When
you shoot an arrow it’s called {da penpa}. The karma that threw you into this life
is called {penjen gyi le}, okay, {pen}, {pen} means, to project, a projectile
something. So, when I say, chubby John Smith never eats during the day, it’s
projecting into your mind another thing, you see what I mean. And that’s a
different kind of negative thing. And you have to learn those two kinds of
negative things; very important. And I’ll give them to you again. The first kind
is a simple absence of something. [cut]
The second kind implies something else. Where is emptiness? Sorry, the true
nature of things in this school, right. I have on my Sautrantika hat this course. I
can’t say ‘emptiness’. I have to say, either, ‘selflessness’, or, the ‘true nature of
things’. Okay, ‘cos they don’t believe that that’s the same thing as emptiness.
That’s a long story. And that belief is not shared by any of the higher schools,
okay. Which one of these two, into which one, will you put emptiness itself? I’m
sorry, the true nature of things? Yeah. It’s the simple absence of what? A self-
existent thing. Tell me what a self-existent thing looks like. Describe to me a
self-existent thing. [students] The credit, on my credit card, okay. [laughter] All
the readings I ever got done well in advance of the class. [laughs] Okay. [laughs]
The hair in the middle of my head, you know. You could say anything, you see.
If I ask you to describe a self-existent thing you’re in trouble. There’s no such
thing. How long is a rabbit’s horns? You see? You have to ask me, sorry, we
can’t describe a self-existent thing, but we can describe what people think of
when you say self-existent thing. You see what I mean? There’s a big
distinction. You can describe what people think of when I say self, when they
perceive a self-existent thing, or they think there’s a self-existent thing. Oh,
what’s that? It’s a thing that doesn’t depend on their karma. The bad things that
happened to you today, the people that treated you bad today, the people that
irritated you today, the situations that you did not like in your life today, all
came from somewhere else. They are not your own mind doing its thing ‘cos
you collected the karma to make it happen. They’re, they are somebody else.
That person is stupid and they better get their act together. No, no. You better
get your act together. Okay. All of those people in the world that you think are
stupid, what’s the test? If they can create a mental affliction in you, then, you are
holding them to be self-existent. Very interesting. Very, very interesting. Okay.
What’s the test of whether you got your emptiness metre running or not? Can
they upset you, ‘cos if they can, you’re not understanding their emptiness.
Okay. Period. Anytime that another person or situation could cause you any
kind of stress or discomfort or any kind of dislike of them, you’re not,
understanding their emptiness, by definition. It’s very cool. You wanna know
how good your emptiness understanding is? See how pissed off you’re getting
at other people. Okay. You wanna see at anytime during the day, you know, is
emptiness understanding at a peak or at a valley? How pissed off do you get?
You know, really. And I’m not kidding. It’s a very interesting test because you
cannot have a mental affliction unless you’re holding the thing to be self-existent.
Which it never was, never could be, never will, isn’t now. Okay. You can’t, your
mental afflictions feed off your ignorance. Okay. They need ignorance to eat.
To, to live, they need your ignorance. Okay. Anytime you have a dislike
someone and feel upset. Anytime your mental stream is disturbed, right.
{ … },definition of a mental affliction: any kind of thought that could disturb your
peace of mind. Once your peace of mind is disturbed, by definition, you’re
having a mental affliction. And, by definition, you’re taking that problem, or
that problem person, to be self-existent. It’s very interesting. It’s very, you
know, that’s why they say, go up on a cliff and have someone, you know, like,
go like that. Stand behind you and go, go like that. And you get this emotion
come up. You couldn’t have that unless you saw the thing as self-existent, okay.
It’s very interesting. Yeah. [student] [laughs] Shouldn’t be happy in the sense,
he said, does that mean you shouldn’t be happy or sad. You can be sad, okay. I
mean, Buddhas are sad, right, but their mental streams are not disturbed or
upset, you see what I mean. There’s a fine distinction between being upset and
being sad, you know. You can be sad about the fact that you created this person
and you have to put up with them for the next, until you purify the karma. You
can be sad about it. They, they have compassion, right. They have a sadness.
You look at Trijang Rinpoche’s picture, you know, you see it in his face. He’s sad
about us, you know, but he’s not upset. So, there’s a distinction, you know.
{rang ..}, his mental continuum is not thrown off balance, you see what I mean.
It’s not, there’s a big distinction between that. [student] [laughs] That, you can
be happy, but never be so happy that you would do, by the way, another test, is
your happiness or your joy about something, legal or not? Okay. Would you
do something negative to somebody to keep it? That’s the question. That’s the
test of whether you’re seeing that thing as self-existent. I mean, we talked about
the negative one, right. What’s the test of whether happiness or joy is ignorant
or not? Would you fight to keep that thing? Would you hurt someone to keep
that thing? Then, it’s ignorance, you see what I mean. And that’s a very fine line
too. Okay. Yeah. [student] He says, but in a case where, say, somebody
punches me in the face, wouldn’t I feel pain and wouldn’t I feel upset? You guys
who studied the Diamond Cutter know about the guy who suffered under the
hands of the king of Kalingal, right? Kalinga. The king of Kalinga was
wandering through the forest one day. He caught his wife with a Buddhist
monk. The Buddhist monk was teaching her sweet Dharma. He took it the
wrong way. He tied him down and he slowly cut off all his fingers and toes and
feet and arms. And, the Buddha’s relating this story during the Diamond Cutter
Sutra and He said, I felt the pain but I did not get angry. You see? And that’s the
distinction. Yeah. I did not lose my balance. I did not lose my peace of mind,
but, of course, I was in intense pain. And there’s a distinction between the two,
okay. Okay.
There’s a word for simple absence. And these are the two divisions of all
negative things. Say, {megak}[repeat] {megak}[repeat], a simple absence of
something. Examples are, space, empty space; the simple absence of physical
obstruction. Simple absence of tangible obstruction. Yeah. [student] I mean,
when I say space I mean empty space, okay. [student] There’s no such thing as,
well, when I say empty space, I mean, the empty space, can be occupied by an
object. [student] Yeah. It’s still empty. [student] It’s always empty. Yeah.
Yeah. How about available space or something? It’s always available, okay.
[student] Yeah. Yeah. If it weren’t empty the thing couldn’t occupy it. That’s
all. You got the idea. I hate this, I did not say ‘empty space’ in this reading.
Why? And here I’ll answer a homework question for you. Okay. The opponent
says, all negatives must be such that the words which express them have a
negative word in them somewhere, like, ‘un’ or ‘non’ or ‘less’ or ‘empty’. And
the guy says, no. What about {nam ka}? Okay. Space. {nam} doesn’t mean ‘no’,
‘not’, ‘un’, ‘less’. And {ka} doesn’t mean that. So, there, ergo, that’s not, did you
notice that was not a part of the definition of a negative? Okay. You can have
things which are positive and which have a negative sound, have a negative
word in them. For example, I like it, {mitakpa}. Okay. {mitakpa}. Supports my
theory, okay. What’s {mitakpa} mean? [student] No. Woa. Changing, okay.
But in the Tibetan there’s a negative particle there; not unchanging, you see what
I mean, {mi takpa}. Okay. Now, what is that? Is that a negative? {mitakpa}
Think first. I’m not referring to the wording. I’m referring to the concept. To
perceive ‘changing’, do you have to reject anything else? No. It’s a positive
event, you see. You’re just watching the thing change. You can go out and
watch the traffic on the George Washington Bridge. That’s a {mitakpa}. And
you’re just watching it. Okay. So, {mi takpa}, which has a negative word in it, it
doesn’t, doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative concept. We’re talking the
concept of a negative thing, okay. Yeah. [student] That’s difficult. No, because
{pa’s} attached to all adjectives in Tibetan; all nouns, all verbs. [student] Yeah.
[student] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it would be nice. I got another question for you
though, while I’m on the subject, okay. We can knock off another homework
question. How about {dra mitakpa}? How about the fact that sound is a
changing thing? Think carefully, okay. This is a hard one. I ask you, okay. Let’s
debate. Nah. How about {dra mitakpa}? By the way, I remember, Art once
asked a beautiful question in class. I’ll never forget it, you know. He was sitting
there, you know, in his way, and he said, wait a minute Rinpoche, he burst into
class, you know. He says, are all unchanging things negative? And Rinpoche
said, yeah, I guess so. Okay. You know, he couldn’t think of one that wasn’t.
So, now, I ask you again. [laughs][laughter] {dra mitakpa}, the fact that, the fact
that sounds are changing things, is it positive or negative? It sounds positive,
right? Now, I’ll say it a different way. And it only dawned on me this afternoon,
you know, ‘cos I’ve struggled with this for a while. How about, sound is always
a changing thing? [student] It’s closer to, ‘sound is never an unchanging thing’,
right. So, how about if I put ‘always’? I like to do that. Let’s say, always. Sound
is, I’m talking about general truths, right. We’ve been struggling with general
truths. And there’s even some confusion in the text I think, okay. Sound is,
sounds are changing things or, and I’m gonna emphasise the ‘always’. Sounds
are always changing things. Huh? [student] Yes what? [student] [laughs] I
know it’s true. And it’s a universal truth. I’m asking is it a positive thing or a
negative thing? That statement. That truth. If I say, sounds are always
changing. [student] Huh? She said, that happens to be an unchanging thing.
That’s true, according to me, okay. There’s a little bit of a debate in the reading
today, okay. [student] He said, some truths, are changing. What truth is
changing thing? {shok} [laughter] Come back to me in a couple of days, okay.
No. Anyway, [student] think about it. Is it a concept, which you can only
perceive by eliminating something else? It really is, you see. And I believe that’s
the point. And I’m struggling with it myself so you play around with it when
you go home, okay. But I believe, and as far as I can tell in the text, all general
truths are {mayin gaks}. [cut]
It’s a negative, which implies, something else. And I’ll give you two examples.
One sounds like a negative and one doesn’t sound like a negative, okay. Be
careful. Here’s the one that sounds like a negative: John Smith, that chubby guy,
doesn’t eat during the day. Okay. That’s a, that sounds like a negative,
especially ‘cos it has that ‘not’ in it, right? It’s easy. See, you’re getting confused
between the concept of a negative and the wording of a negative. And don’t do
that. Okay. The definition of a negative was not, anything I say that has a
negative in it, like, ‘not or’ no’ or ‘un’ or ‘non’ or, like that. Okay. It was, rather,
anything that you could only perceive directly by eliminating or excluding
something else directly. Okay. Don’t forget that. Okay. So, it’s obvious that,
the expression, ‘John Smith who’s chubby, never eats during the day’, is a
negative in the sense that it implies something else. Okay. It projects something
else. What? He stuffs himself at night. Right? It directly states he doesn’t eat
during the day. It indirectly implies that he stuffs himself at night. It actually
directly implies that according to Buddhist, okay.
How about the following one? What was in the other one? Did you like what I
cooked for you today? What you cooked this time was really good. [laughter]
[laughs] Okay. [laughs][laughter] Okay. I’ll say it again. What you cooked this
time was really good. Okay. Is that a negative? Is that a negative statement?
What you cooked, this time, was really good. According to Buddhism, it’s a
{mayin gak}, okay. It’s a {mayin gak}. Why? Because, you’re excluding all the
other times when they cooked really bad. Okay. To, to perceive the truth, the
general truth that what they cooked was really good, you have to forget all the
bad dinners they ever made you. Okay. To perceive the truth that this dinner
was really good, you mentally you have to try to forget all those nights that they
burned it [laughs], okay. And that way, you can establish in your mind, this one
was good, okay. This one was good.
I assert, that all general truths, are the same. When I use the word ‘always’,
when I say sounds are always changing things, I’m excluding, what I’m
essentially saying, is they are never unchanging things. You see what I mean?
And you gotta cook that. It looks like, in this text, that all general truths are
{mayin gak}. Okay. That’s tricky. Now, whether those are functional things or
changing, that’s another question. Yeah. [student] I’m sorry, say again.
[student] A rabbit’s horn. Okay. [student] he said, how do we know a rabbit’s
horn [student] yeah [student] yeah. He said, how do we know that rabbit’s
horns don’t exist? How about I say this? When I refer to a rabbit’s horns, I refer
to rabbit’s horns, which are easily observable on most of the rabbits that
Americans normally run into in our common experience, you know. And that’s,
you know, you have to say that. In the debate ground, you start out with
saying, look, for the next three hours, when I refer to a rabbit’s horns, I’m
talking about the one we both know can’t exist. [student] Yeah. Yeah. Sure,
sure. Yeah. We have to deal, he said, are you talking about observable and
[unclear] perceptions? Of course. We have to deal with our own reality, you
know. I mean, yeah, we do have to. Now, how do we do that? There’s a big
debate in the Pramanavartikka. Like, do you, is your normal reality defined by
taking several examples of rabbits that you’ve seen and then drawing some kind
of broad conclusions about all rabbits? I mean, how do you determine or how
do you conclude that rabbits don’t have horns? How many rabbits did you
check, you know what I mean? And really, there’s a debate about it, and
[student], yeah, yeah. It’s similar, yeah. [student] It does, yeah. Yeah. They
could just have a, what do you call it, a hormonal problem or something like
that. And that’s true [cut] [end side A]
[side B]
That’s really true. We’re talking about general. Everybody knows he sneaks
cookies at night in the monastery and stuff like that. Okay. Yeah. [student]
Yeah, you could say that, yeah. In our current, accepted, convention of a rabbit.
[student] Yeah, you could say that. He said, by definition, when we define a
rabbit, we don’t define it with horns. And he said it’s the same as talking about a
round square, by definition, a square has four corners. By definition, our normal
definition of a rabbit, would not include horns. Okay. Yeah. [student] It’s equal
to a what? [student] {takpa}. That’s a huge debate. According to Michael Roach
it is. I mean, general truths, to me, are {takpa}. There is a debate in the Scripture
and you’ll see some greasy stuff going on in your reading tonight. Sorry, you
know. There are, sometimes {mayin gaks] are called, ‘working things that are
negatives’. Okay. And it’s not clear in my mind and I admit it, okay. To me, a
general truth, has to be an unchanging thing, you know. The, the really good
Sautrantikas distinguish between, the expression of a general truth and the
general truth itself. They say that the expressions of general truths, the words,
or I guess you could say the fact that, okay, rabbits don’t have horns, for
example, the wording, or in a sense, the quality, right, is always {takpa}. Is
always unchanging. But, but is that thing unchanging, is a big debate, okay.
[student] No such thing [student]. He said, all universal truths have to be
expressions. Then, all universal truths are sound? [student] {yinpa teln}
[student] Huh? So, if we never say them they’re not general truths? {yinpa teln}
[student] Huh? [laughter][laughs] [student] They are convention, yeah.
[student] You can say that. I guess you could say that. I’m not gonna say either
way. Okay.
These are the two kinds of negatives, alright. And one thing you should know.
Did you have a question? Alright. Maybe we take a break there. One more,
yeah. [student] Yeah. [student] Right. [student] By the way, it’s in the
inflection of my voice, isn’t it? You see, it’s in the inflection in my voice. In
English, in this example, it’s in the inflection. If you wrote it down on a piece of
paper and said, I liked your food this time,it could be a {mayin gak}, it could be a
negative which does imply something else or it could be a positive. But when
you hear my inflection, this time, then you know [laughs] okay. Alright. Take a
break, okay, right.
[student] [unclear] said, what’s the difference between the absence of something
and not being something? This is not an elephant. Okay. That’s not being
something else. You see what I mean? And then, emptiness is the absence of
self-existent thing in this room. You see what I mean. One is the fact that the
thing is not here and one is the fact that this is not the thing. In English, it’s the
difference between the word ‘is’ and the word ‘exists’ sometimes, you see. He is
or he is not President of the United States and then, the President of the United
States doesn’t exist. Those, are two different things, you see what I mean? One
is a {mayin gak}, one is a {megak}. Okay. The absence of the President of the
United States would be a {megak}. The fact that Joe Schmoe is not the President
of the United States is a {mayin gak}, okay. And those are just the words that I
use to translate {megak} and {mayin gak}, okay, and you might want to get used
to that ‘cos it’s on your homework that way. We try to be merciful, okay. All
you really need to remember is ‘simple absence’ and ‘implying something else’,
okay. By the way, if your homework were to ask, describe a {mayin gak} in
general, okay.      Describe number two here in general.           Then you’d say,
something like, that’s how we do the final, right. It’s a negative thing, where the
wording used to describe it, used to express it sorry, where the words used to
express it imply something else. You see what I mean. They imply something
else.
Incidental to denying what they already deny, you see what I mean. When you
say, he’s fat and he doesn’t eat during the day, you’re, you’re denying that he
eats during the day. So, incidentally, incidental to denying that he eats during
the day, you are implying what? He eats at night. Okay. By the way,
somebody asked me, is that always the case, is that, you know, a {kyepa}. It’s
not a {kyepa}, right. He could have some kind of problem. He could have
stopped eating during the day yesterday, you know, or whatever. So, it’s not a
{kyepa}. But remember the context. It’s a bunch of monks sitting in the monk
cafeteria, wondering why this guy who never eats more than a little bowl of
food, keeps getting chubbier and chubbier. You know, like, maybe something’s
going on here. Okay, you know. [laughs] Okay. ‘Cos classically, you’re not
supposed to eat after noon, alright. A monk is not supposed to have any food
after twelve until the following morning, okay.
Okay, we’ll go on to some formal logic that’s very short today. We talked about
the definition of a reason. What was the definition of a reason? Anything you
give as a reason. Okay. Because the sky is filled with pink polka dots and pink
stripes, okay, is a reason. Okay. Is it a correct reason? No, because the three
relationships don’t hold. Okay. Here we go. Because the sky is pink with green
polka dots, okay. Is it a correct reason? No. How can you say that? How can
you say it’s not a correct reason when you don’t even know the other elements
yet? I didn’t say, consider this, it’s that, because it’s that. You know. And
already, you’re telling me it’s an incorrect reason. How can you say that when
you don’t even know what relationships I’m talking about yet? Aren’t you
supposed to wait until you hear the thing I’m talking about, and then the thing
I’m trying to prove about it, and then the reason? And then, you’re gonna see if
those three relationships hold. Is number one number three? If someone is
number three does it make it number two? If something’s not number two does
it mean it can’t be number three? You didn’t wait. You just said, incorrect
reason. [laughter] [student] Huh? [student] He’s right. Okay. He said, the
relationship between one and three is never gonna hold anyway ‘cos number
three doesn’t exist. Okay. Doesn’t exist. So consider non-existence. I guess we
can never say that self-existent things don’t exist because, the definition of non-
existence would be, something, which is not perceived by correct perception.
[student][laughter] [student] I can’t [laughs], well, how about we just put it this
way. Look, non-existence, consider non-existence; it does exist; because, the sky
is pink with purple stripes, or something like that. [student] [laughs] Doesn’t
number three imply number one? Oh, so, a sky that’s pink with green stripes or
whatever, is not something that’s true about things that don’t exist? [student]
Okay, you got me. Alright. We’ll go on. That’s a kind of a tricky one, okay. It’s
a big debate in the monastery. Does, does the horns which grow on a rabbit
apply to non-existence? When I’m trying to prove non-existence don’t I have to
use a thing in the reason which is impossible? And then, how could you have a
relationship between a non-existing thing and an impossible thing? So how could
you, how could the three relationships hold? You gotta, you gotta cook that
one. I mean, I’ve seen really great debaters debate it hour after hour, okay.
Kinda tricky. Anyway, where were we? Okay. And, the definition of a good
reason, was where those three relationships hold. Why are we talking about
that? What’s the main reason to talk about this? I mean, if you had to go outta
here and, and find some practical application of that, what would it be? There
will be no Buddhists in the West who have to use proofs more than the first
generation. You are the first generation, right. It’ll be up to you to prove things
more often than all the Buddhists who come after you, you know. You’ll be
constantly asked by people, throughout your life, if you become a good
Buddhist and a good Buddhist teacher, which I hope you will, you’ll be asked to
prove things. And, and you will always remember this class. And, you’ll always
remember, something is not a good reason for them, unless the three
relationships hold, and unless what? They accept the three relationships. Right.
By the way, to accept the three relationships, they must accept the words used to
express the three relationships. You can’t say to them, consider hungry ghosts,
you know. They do live in such a realm because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And
they don’t even accept, the idea of a hungry ghost yet, you see what I mean?
You can’t prove a quality of a hungry ghost to a person who doesn’t even accept
that thing yet. You have to go back. You have to step back. You have to start
proving that the mind is, doesn’t die when the body dies. And then, you have to
start proving the possibility, that some kind of really bad karma could create an
impression of a hungry ghost existence. And then you have to establish the
existence of a hungry ghost. But you can’t go arguing about hungry ghosts first,
okay. Don’t do it. You know, I se all these western people, westerners who try
to teach Buddhism, and the first class is about the hell realms, you know. And
the people are just getting uncomfortable, you know. This is what Father so and
so was yelling at me about, you know. And it’s just as unprovable when they
present it as when he presented it, you know. Don’t go that way, you know.
First, establish that the mind doesn’t stop when the body stops. And, by the
way, there’s not a shred of evidence possible that, the mind stops when the body
stops. Okay. There’s not. There’s not a single shred of evidence to support that.
It’s a cultural thing that Mrs Melvin taught you in the first grade or something.
It’s New York Times worldview. Okay. And it’s wrong. And there’s not a shred
of evidence that supports that. So, you have to go that way first. And then you,
and then you describe how different states of mind grow. Like, you know, the
concept, Franklin and what’s the guy’s name, Thomas, Thomas Jefferson sitting
around a table in Philedelphia in seventeen seventy-four, I think, and discussing
what kind of a country do we want here. And they had these bitter debates, you
know.      One guy said, a monarchy and George’s gonna be king, George
Washington this time.         And then, and I remember I read that Benjamin
Franklin’s landlady used to ask him every time when he came home, well, what
is it Mr Franklin? Are we gonna have a monarchy or a democracy? And he’d
say, I dunno yet, you know, we’re still talking. So, the concept, in two men’s
minds, you know, two hundred years later, is sucking out forty percent of your
income, you know. [laughs] [laughter] You know what I mean? [laughs] And it
was just a little idea in a guy’s mind. Don’t tell me that thoughts don’t grow, you
know what I mean; that concepts don’t grow. Of course they grow, you know.
A seed planted in your mind in first grade of a thing called ABC has become
your very sophisticated {ka, kha, ga}, right. Now, you’re able to do that in other
languages as well. And, of course, those seeds are staying where? In your mind.
You know, so don’t tell me they don’t grow. I mean, start like that. What I’m
trying to say, is the reason we’re studying formal logic, and never forget it, is
that you get sensitive to the fact that when you present Buddhism to somebody,
you must go backwards until you reach common ground. And that, in Buddhist
logic, is more important than the truth of the statement itself, okay. A statement
is not true, in Buddhist logic, until it’s accepted, on common ground, by both
parties. Period. That’s very earth shaking, you know. I could give to you a true
statement but, it’s not true for you and neither, generally speaking, is it true,
unless both parties accept all three terms and the relationships that I described.
It’s very interesting. The implication is he already accepts all three relationships,
he just never put it together the way you’re putting it together for him. And
that’s where you should start your arguments for Buddhism. Why? Because, we
want Buddhism to be bigger than Christianity and we want to take over every
church in New York City. We’re starting with our first one, right. [laughter]
Not like that, okay. Why? Because you can stop death this way; you can help
people stop their death. Really. Honestly. That’s why we’re here. It’s not like a
debate between this or that. That doesn’t matter. This is a method, which any
particular person can use, to stop their death in this lifetime. Period. And that’s a
precious thing. And, if there’s a clever way or a good way or a valid way to
present it to people, then you better learn it. And the goal here is reduce it back
to common ground. Do not lay arguments on people that involve Sanskrit,
Tibetan, you know, hell realm, preta things, that they can’t accept yet. Start with
common ground, you know. His Holiness is very good at it, right. And then,
work up to more, okay. If you can’t prove future lives from common ground,
then they probably don’t exist, okay. That’s the idea. So, we go to the second
kind of a good reason. Last time we did a good reason which involves a result,
right, {du deng gyi la la chuchen … }. Okay. Consider a mountain pass covered
with smoke, okay. There must be a fire there. Because, I can see all the smoke
there, okay. And you have to, that’s a, a correct reason where the reason given
is a result, and so it’s called, ‘a correct reason which involves a result’. Today
we’re gonna do, say, {rangshin gyi}[repeat] {tak yangdak}[repeat], {rangshin gyi}
[repeat] {tak yangdak}[repeat]. {tak yangdak} means, a good reason, right, a
correct reason, okay. {rangshin} means, ‘which involves a nature’, okay. A
correct reason which involves a nature. Here, the word ‘nature’ is a little bit
deceptive, misleading. And, you have to think of it as, if something, to be, to be
one thing is to automatically be the other. You have to remember that phrase,
okay. Remember, to be a Chevvy is automatically be a car. So that’s called a
{rangshin} relationship, a nature relationship. Why? The nature of all cars, all
Chevvys, is that they’re cars. Okay. And you have to think of that. So, this is a
reason, where the thing given as a reason, is such that, to be that thing is to,
automatically, be the thing that you’re trying to prove. Okay. And that’s all. I’ll
say it again. The thing given as the reason, to be the thing given as the reason, is
to automatically be, the quality that you’re trying to prove. I’ll give you an
example. I’ll say it one more time. Okay. [laughs] This kind of correct reason, is
a reason where to be the thing in the reason, is to automatically be the thing that
you’re trying to prove; the quality that you’re trying to prove. I’ll say it in that
one, two, three, okay. Remember the three parts? What are the three parts?
Consider sound, number one. It is a changing thing, number two. Why? Three,
because it’s made. Okay. That’s the classic proof, {dra … } Okay. Consider
sounds; they are changing things; because they are things which are made.
Okay. Classic, correct reason. That happens to be a {rangshin gyi tak yangdak}.
Why? To be a thing which is made is to, automatically, be a thing which is
changing. Okay. To be number three is automatically to be number two. If
your hand is tired you can just write that. Three is automatically two. I’ll say it
again. Consider sounds; they are changing things; because they are things which
are made. What’s the relationship between number two and number three? Is,
if you are number two are you automatically number three? If you are a
changing thing are you automatically a made thing? Yes. Okay. Does that
always hold true in a correct reason,{rangshin} reason? No. I’ll tell you why.
Consider sound; it’s a changing thing; because you can hear it. Okay. Consider
sound; it’s a changing thing; because you can hear it. Are all number threes
number twos? Are all things that you can hear automatically changing things?
Yes. Okay. All things that you can hear, which means sounds, are automatically
changing things. But is the reverse true? Are all things which are changing
automatically things you can hear? No. So, there are two kinds of {rangshin gyi
tak yangdaks}. And we just got out of it easy, okay. In one, the relationship
between three and two goes both ways. In the other, the relationship only goes
one-way, okay. That’s all. In some of them, to be two doesn’t mean you have to
be three. That’s all. In some of them, to be two means you have to be three.
But, they’re both valid, okay. I’ll give you the two logical statements again.
Consider sounds; they are changing things; because they are made things. In
this case, the relationship between three and two goes both ways. Every made
thing is a changing thing and every changing thing is a made thing. Is that
always the case? No. What about the reason where I say, the logical statement
where I say, consider sounds; they are changing things; because you can hear
them? Is it a proof that just because you can hear something it’s a changing
thing? Yes. Okay. But, is it a proof that every changing thing has to be
something you can hear? No. Okay. What’s a {chuchen}? Give me an example.
Colors. Okay. Like that. Right. Those are the two kinds of valid, you know,
correct reasons of {rangshin}, okay. And that finishes that. And you’re glad.
Okay. Last thing. I gotta give you some new debate stuff, alright. Anybody
have a rosary? Thankyou. Okay. Okay, I’m just gonna check your, your {chirs}
and your {tak ma drups} and your {kyappa ma jungs}. Okay, are you ready? Be
careful. By the way, don’t space out and sit in the back. There’skids in the
monastery who do that and they end up in the computer centre. Okay. [laughs]
[laughter] Or cooking. [laughs] You don’t wanna do that in your next life, okay.
[laughs] Alright.
Take sounds; they are changing things; because they are made. What do you
say? {yin}, okay. {chepay yinpay chir},okay. And you say, {yin, yin},okay.
Oh, {chepay yinpa teln}, you telling me they’re made things? {du}, right, that’s
what I said.
{mayin pa teln takpa yinpay chir}, no they’re not, because they’re unchanging
things.
{tak ma drup}, yeah, {tak ma drup}. Which is to say, they’re not unchanging
things, stupid-head.
{takpa mayin pa teln}, you telling me they’re not unchanging things?
{du}
{takpa yinpa teln ma chepay yinpay chir}, yeah they are, they must be
unchanging things because no one ever made them.
{ma chepay yinpay chir}. No. When I end in {chir}, you can only say {tak ma
drup} or {kyappa ma jung}.
{tak ma drup}, right. They’re not things that didn’t have, that weren’t made by
anything.
{yinpa teln}, yes they are, because {takpa} and {ma chepa dun-je yinpay chir},
because everything that’s unchanging is always unmade. Huh.
{kyappa ma jung}, yay. [laughs] we’re gonna change you, you know, in the
monastery, this is how youn get stuck with a name like {kyappa ma jung} for the
rest of your life. [laughs] [laughter] Oh, here comes {kyappa ma jung}. [laughs]
[laughter]
Yeak. Okay. I said, it is true because everything unchanging is unmade. And,
and he said, yeah, that is true, everything unchanging is unmade, but that
doesn’t prove what you’re trying to prove, stupid-head. Okay. {kyappa ma
jung}. [laughs] Alright.
Oh, so {dra chuchen ma chepa yinpa teln}, are you telling me that sounds are
unchanging things? {yinpa teln}
{chi chir}, who’s gonna be {chi chir}? [laughs] [laughter] Say, {chi chir}[repeat],
{chi chir}[repeat]. And that’s like, who said that? You know [laughs], okay. I
didn’t say that, okay. So, now you got, that’s all your answers. By the way, you
can sit and memorise your homework for an hour or you can debate for three
minutes. It’s the same thing. You gotta learn to debate, okay. It’s fun too. And
you learn it like that. Like, half you guys didn’t want to learn {tak ma drup} and
{kyappa ma jung} and here you are, you’re always stuck with it, right. It’s really
good. Okay. So, we’ll do it one more time.
Now, we’ll do today’s homework and go home and do it with your friends,
okay.
{nam ka chuchen megak yinte gakpa yinpay chir}, I’m sorry. Yeah. {nam ka
chuchen}, say {nam ka chuchen}[repeat], {nam ka chuchen}[repeat]; {megak
yinte}[repeat], {megak}[repeat] {yinte}[repeat]; {gakpa yinpay chir}[repeat].
Okay. Consider empty space; it’s a, it’s a negative in the sense of being a simple
absence of something; because it’s a negative. Okay, {nam ka chuchen},it’s a
negative in the sense of an absence of something, because it’s a negative, {gakpa
yinpay chir}.     [students]     {kyappa ma jung}, which means, just because
something is a negative doesn’t mean it’s a simple absence of something.
Hey, {gakpa … }are you telling me just because something’s a negative it
doesn’t have to be a negative in the sense of the absence of something?
{du}, that’s what I said.
{shok}, show me something. Show me something that’s a {gakpa} and not a
{megak}. Show me something that’s a negative and not a negative in the sense
of the absence of something.
 [student: chubby Jo] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Come on. [laughter]
Chubby Joe {chuchen mayin gak yinpa teln}. [laughter] By the way, it’s very
cool in the debate ground. You just interrupt somebody halfway through. And,
you know, chubby Joe {chuchen mayin gak yinpa teln}, sorry, {gakpa yinpa
teln}. Are you telling me chubby Joe’s a negative thing? [laughs] {yinpa teln}
[unclear] give me an answer, man.
Oh,{du, yinpa teln, gakpa yinpa teln} [laughter]. Chubby Joe {gakpa yinpa teln}.
Andy {chuchen gakpa yinpa teln} [laughter] [laughs], you telling me Andy’s a
{gakpa yinpa teln}? Say. Andy {chuchen gakpa yinpa teln}. Is Andy a negative?
Because, fat Joe’s, a negative. [laughter] [laughs] {doooootsa} [student:du] Oh,
Andy {chuchen gakpa yinpa teln}, you see what I mean. And, good. By the way,
if, if you’re in trouble, just keep going. You can’t lose anything. [laughs] ]
[laughter]
So, Andy’s a negative, right? {du, du} Okay. Yeah. [laughs]
{mayin gak yin megak yin}, okay. That’s how you say, ‘or or’, okay. Is he a
negative in the sense of an absence or negative in the sense of not being
something please? {megak yin, mayingak yin}, because there’s only two kinds,
which we all know. It’s either got to be the absence of something or not being
something. Right? And they’re different things. In English, he is not Andy or
Andy doesn’t exist there in that second pew, Andy. {megak yinpa teln}, simple
absence of something Andy, okay. Okay. {yinte} [laughter] {yinte} [laughter]
Where’s Andy? [laughter] {yinte}why? [laughs] There’s no Andy, right? Andy
{megak yinpay chir}. [laughter] [laughs] Andy’s the simple absence of Andy.
[laughs] Okay. Anyway, you’ll never forget those words, okay. I mean, I had
some kid come upand wipe me out during my pre-Geshe debate. I’ll never
forget the stuff he was debating about, you know. Okay.
{mitakpa chuchen gakpa yinpay chir}, okay, {mitakpa chuchen}, let’s talk about
{mitakpa}. You ready [unclear]. Don’t pretend you’re listening to that thing,
okay. [laughter] [laughs] Okay. {mitakpa chuchen}, what’s {mitakpa} mean?
Changing thing. Okay. But, in Tibetan, it’s not {takpa}, right? {mitakpa chuchen
gakpa yinpay chir}, that’s a negative thing. Okay. {mitakpa}, not unchanging
thing, is a negative thing, {yinpay chir}, {yinpay chir}. You’ve got two choices.
You can say {tak}, well, you got three. You can say, right {yin}. Okay, consider
{mitakpa}, okay. It’s a changing thing. I’m sorry. It’s a negative,{gakpa yinpay
chir}, okay, {mitakpa gakpa yinpay chir}. Changing thing is a negative thing.
Good, {tak ma drup}. Say it with authority, {tak ma drup}[repeat] {tak ma drup}
[repeat].
Oh, {mitakpa chuchen}, are you telling me it’s not a negative thing? {mitakpa’s}
not a negative thing? Are you saying that? No, you say, {du}; {du}- that’s what I
said. Go, {du, du} [repeat], {du}, okay. {yinte}, why? By the way, if you want to
get out of it easy just say, oh, it’s one of the two negatives, or something like
that. You can say anything you want actually. [student] Yeah, yeah. I mean,
they’ll close the Quaker House after a while. [laughter][laughs] I don’t think it
will last for ten minutes though. [laughs] What did you say about this [unclear]
on? [laughter]
{gakpa yinte}, why is {mitakpa} a negative thing?            Why are you saying
{mitakpa’s} a negative thing? He just said it was. [student] I said {mitakpa}, I’m
sorry, you said {tak ma drup}. So, you telling me it’s not a negative thing?
Changing, now let’s see. Hanging thing is not a negative thing, right? {du, du},
okay, {du}. Right. {takpa mayin pa teln}, are you telling me, I’m sorry, {gakpa
mayin pa teln}, are you telling me it’s not a negative thing?
{du} that’s what I said.
{yinte mi gaksik yinpar chir}, it is a negative thing because the word ‘mi’ is a
negative in Tibetan. Okay.
[student: kyappa ma jung}. Ah, nice, nice, nice, nice, nice. Okay. What just
happenend? I said, come on [unclear] {mitakpa} is a negative because it’s got a
‘non’ in the front of it. And then Jay said, that doesn’t prove anything, {kyappa
ma jung}. Of course it has a negative, a negative on it. That doesn’t prove it’s a,
it’s a negative thing. Okay. Yeah. {ma .. ta}, are you telling me it doesn’t prove
it? {student: du}, {du}, right. Okay. Good, you beat me. Finished. Okay. That’s
a nice one.
How about this one? [unclear] do nice one.
{dra mitakpa chuchen}. You’re so hot. You’re on a roll, okay. [laughs] [laughter]
{dra mitakpa chuchen gakpa mayinpey chir}. [student] [laughter] {dra mitakpa
chuchen}, means let’s talk about the fact that sound is a changing thing, okay.
The fact that sound is a changing thing, {dra mitakpa chuchen}. {gakpa mayinpa
teln}, so, I guess it’s not a negative thing according to Mr Jay Hahn? [student]
[laughs] Just to be a bodhisattva. Come on. You don’t have to be a bodhisattva.
Just be yourself. {mayinpa teln / mayinpey chir}, it’s not a {gakpa}? The fact,
that sound is a changing thing, is not a negative thing, {mayinpey chir}. [student]
No. you can either say, [student: du]. No, you don’t say {du} to a {chir}, right.
You can say, {yin, mayin}, you can say{mayin}, it’s not. It’s not a negative thing.
[student] it’s not a negative thing? [student] Okay. Then you go like this. This
is the lesson for tonight, okay. We have six minutes to do this one. { … }
[laughs] [laughter]
Say, { … }[repeat], { .. }[repeat]. Okay, {pecha} means, a Tibetan book, a
scripture, right, {pecha}. The honorific, the polite word is {chakpe}, {chakpe}, like,
hand, okay. Sometimes, you add the word {chak} to things to make them
honorific. Like, you don’t say, Khen Rinpoche, here’s your mula. You say, Khen
Rinpoche, here’s your respectful holiness’s money, which is {chak wu}, okay. So,
you add the word {chak}, okay. So, in Sera Me monastery, the greatest
monastery, we say it that way. And each, each monastery has their own, and
you can tell who a person studied with by how they say, ‘you contradict the holy
Scripture’. Okay. You contradict Scripture. You contradict the holy Scripture.
Okay. Say {pecha .. }[repeat], {chakpe .. }[repeat]. And then, the people from
Ganden, right [claps][laughter],okay, they go [claps], okay. [laughter] Like that,
you know. And then they, when we contradict Scripture, they go { .. }. [laughter]
[laughs] Okay. Alright. [laughs] [laughter] Okay. They make fun of us and we
make fun of them. Okay. By the way, two ways you can prove something. Say
{lung}[repeat] {rik}[repeat]; {lung}[repeat] {rik}[repeat]. Who’s that nice monk?
That incredible bodhisattva attendant, out there in New Jersey?               Jampa
Loungrik. That’s what his name means, okay. We should all be like that, right?
If we have enough classes, maybe. {loung} means, Scriptural authority; {rik}
means, logic. Two ways to prove something in Buddhism. Okay. You can
either use {loung} or you can use {rikpa},okay. And, it’s such a famous thing that
they call kids, when they get ordained, they say, okay, your name is Scriptural
Authority or Logical proof. [laughs] [laughter] Jampa Loungrik, okay. By the
way, your first name comes, normally, from your khenpo. Which, which really
means, in Vinaya, the person who gave you your vows. The, the former abbott
for twelve years was named Jampa [unclear], so there are about two hundred
monks in Sera Me called Jampa. [laughs] Okay. He ordained everybody for
twelve years. Everyone who came in, you see. So, they all get the same first
name. So you make up names for them, like, {kyappa ma jung} [laughs], okay.
So, it’s either to use {loung} or {rik}. Now, as far as Scripture, you have to use
one that’s accepted by both parties. Okay. When we debate in the winter
debates, between all the Gelugpa colleges, you can’t use Scriptural authority
from your college, you can’t use your college’s textbooks, okay. You have to
use, like, Je Tsongkapa or the First Dalai Lama or somebody like that, okay.
That’s the, because you, you can’t use Scriptural authority unless the other party
agrees to it. And, you see so many American Buddhists trying to use a Scriptural
authority that the other party doesn’t accept, you see what I mean? Such-and-
such a Rinpoche said so. I don’t care. I don’t accept that as Scriptural authority,
you know. I don’t care. It doesn’t, you see, you have to choose something that
the other party agrees. And you cannot, in the rules of logic, use a Scriptural
authority that the other person doesn’t accept. And by the way, Scriptural can
mean a person, right. You can’t quote somebody that they don’t accept, okay,
and say, that proves it. You know, you’re wasting your time. Go back to
common ground. You’re breaking the rules of debate, okay. You’re breaking
the rules of explaining something to somebody when you pull out such-and-such
a Rinpoche who they don’t accept, okay. Can’t do that. When you debate
among Tibetan schools you would debate using the Kangyur or the Tengyur;
the Word of the Buddha or the word of one of the great Indian commentators.
And, that would be accepted by all Buddhist schools in Tibet. Okay. When you
debate Buddhist schools from other countries you might have to go, I like the
Abhidharmakosha, because that’s accepted by all, all, all Buddhist schools in the
world that I’m aware of. Probably there’s one that I’m not aware of that doesn’t
accept it.       But everyone accepts the Abhidharmakosha.           Just using the
Abhidharmakosha you can prove almost anything you want to prove if you
know it well, okay. So you have to be sensitive to where your opponent is
coming from, okay. And then, normally, when you quote a person in debate,
you say, { … }, okay. Which means, I’m speaking of the incomparable, the great,
the holy, the glorious, the unerring master of all attainments Kedrup [unclear].
{ .. },say { ..} [repeat] {gurpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat]. Which means, and
you better accept it. Okay. By the way, this is the textbook writer from Sera Me,
who wrote all the textbooks back in the fourteen and fifteen hundreds. So ,if
you quote from him and the guy’s gotta accept it, you know. And then you say,
I am quoting this person and you don’t use their { ..}. You never refer to your
Lama, like, Nagarjuna, Tsongkapa, okay. You always have to say, the great
Tsongkapa or the master Tsongkapa, or something like that. It’s a Buddhist
custom. It’s, it’s a vow, in fact. It’s important, okay. So you always do it like
that.
What was that last thing? You must memorise the quotation you use. You can’t
go into the debate ground with a piece of paper. They would laugh you out of
the debate ground. It’s gotta be, they would say here, it has to be here in your
mind. By the way, that proves your mind’s not here, right. [laughter] They say,
it better be in your mind, okay. And when you go to the debate ground you
have to have that quotation ready, okay. And, and what you don’t wanna do is
get into a quotation that you can’t finish, okay.             [laughs]    It’s really
embarrassing.; You say, { .. } scripture says, and everybody goes, you know.
And then you say, ah, er, um, [laughs] [laughter] you know. Then you get really
in trouble, okay. That’s all. Yeah. [student] Yeah, sort of. { … }, like that, you
have to be able to quote the Scripture, okay. What do you want me to quote?
Anything. [student] Oh, say, { dura… }[repeat] It is stated in the {Se Dura},
okay. That’s, by the way, we switched Duras tonight. We just went to a
different text ‘cos the presentation on Positives and Negatives is presented very
well from the text from Drepung monastery, okay. [laughs] [laughter] Okay.
Yeah, you’re studying the Se Dura. It’s a different one, okay. We’ll stop there.
But, anyway, those are the conditions. You can either prove something logically
or you can use an authority that both people accept. And, don’t let me see you
American Buddhists going around quoting people that they other party cannot
accept. That’s no good. You broke the rules of your own tradition. Okay. Can’t
do it. Okay.
[cut]
[prayer: short mandala
[prayer: dedication]
[cut]
Also to remind you that there is no class on Thursday, okay. It’s a, you should
do some important virtue. It’s the day that Lord Buddha was conceived, or came
out, came out? Yeah. [laughter] [student] Quick, quick, quick
[announcement]
The Asian Classics Institute

Geshe Michael Roach
Course XIII: The Art Of Reasoning