ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 8

Class Eight: Definitions and the Things They Define



Transcribed by Angie Overy




First thing, I’d like to ask you all to, to pray this evening for Cecile Brenner.
Cecile Brenner is married to Peg Brenner who has been kind enough to, to house
MSTC Washington for the last twenty years or so, okay. He’s in critical
condition tonight, okay, so if you can pray for him, okay.
Tonight’s subject: Say, {tsen-tsun}[repeat],{tsen-tsun}[repeat]. This is the subject
tonight from the {Dura}. And I was running out of subjects towards the end so I
started picking the hard ones, okay. But then I decided I wanted you guys to
debate more the last few classes, so it’ll be short. So, we’ll finish before the break
and then we’ll do some more fun things after the break, okay.
{Tsen} stands for {tsennyi} and {tsun} stands for {{tsunjal}. Say {tsennyi}[repeat]
{tsunja}[repeat], {tsennyi}[repeat] {tsunja}[repeat]; {tsennyi} means, the definition
of a thing, okay, the definition of something. For example, the definition of
{ngupo}, or working thing, is {dunjin ngupa}, anything that performs a function,
okay. So {tsennyi} means the definition and {tsunja} means, the thing which you
are defining. In the west this is called ‘definidum’ or something like that;
definidum?      Or something like that. I just call it the thing you’re defining.
How’s that? Okay. I prefer to call it that, alright, [laughs] ‘cos I can’t pronounce
the other one, alright. So say {tsennyi}[repeat] {tsunja}[repeat], {tsen-tsun}
[repeat] {tsen-tsun}[repeat]. So we’re gonna study tonight, we’re gonna talk
about the definition of definition itself, okay. How do you define something?
How do you make a definition of something? And in, in Buddhism, I don’t
know if you noticed yet, but this is critical, you know. You have to decide, how
you’re gonna define a thing, before you can talk about it. Both parties have to
be on the same wavelength, in the sense of, agreeing to the definition of
something before you can debate it properly. So, very typically, in the debate
ground, you’ll say, I don’t think we’re on the same wavelength, you know,
what, what do you mean when you say that? You see what I mean? What do
you mean when you use that word? And then they have to give a definition for
it. And then, you check to see if the definition and the thing it’s supposed to
define have certain relationship between them, okay. Do they have, do the rules
regarding how you define something apply? Is this definition airtight for the
thing he’s trying to define? And we call those, the qualities that a good definition
should have, are three, okay. And I’ll give them to you now. Say {dze-yu}
[repeat] {chu sum}[repeat] {tsangwa}[repeat], {dze-yu}[repeat] {chu sum}[repeat]
{tsangwa}[repeat]. Let’s do the easy parts first. {sum} means, three, okay.
That’s pretty easy, okay. {tsangwa} means, all three should be there, {tsangwa}
means, complete, okay, {tsangwa} means all three should be there. {chu} here
means, a quality, three qualities have to be complete. Three qualities have to be
complete if something is to be a good definition. Okay. Now, we get to the hard
part, {dze-yu}, okay. And I’m gonna talk a little bit about {dze-yu} and it’s
brother {tak-yu}, okay. Everybody got that part? Okay. We’re looking for
three qualities that are {dze-yu}, okay. And I’m gonna talk about {dze-yu}. Say
{dze-yu}[repeat], {tak-yu}[repeat], {dze-yu}[repeat], {tak-yu}[repeat]; {dze}
means, ‘stuff’ or ‘material’, okay, {dze}. {dze} means, material or stuff, okay.
And {yu} means, it makes it an adjective in this case, okay; it’s material, {dze-yu}
means, it’s material. The thing is material. {tak-yu} is the opposite; {tak} means,
sort of, how would you say? Made up by the mind, or something like that,
okay. You can say, nominal, {tak-yu} would be nominal or something that exists
only as an idea, okay, is {tak-yu}. So, {dze-yu} means something that has some
material existence and {tak-yu} means something which only has a, a
conceptional, a conceptual existence. How’s that, conceptual existence, something
like that. The idea of {dze-yu} versus {tak-yu} in Buddhism is a huge subject and
you can spend years just talking about the difference between the four Buddhist
schools of ancient India about what material versus conceptual means. Okay.
And, each school has its different idea. When we get into the Mind Only School
in November, or late October, it’ll be the last regular class of this series, we’re
gonna talk a lot about {dze-yu} and tak-yu}, okay. Because, in their school it’s
very important to, this distinction is very important, okay. And it’s a little bit
different for each school. By, then ‘ninety-nine, if you remember, is gonna be a
huge review of fifteen courses, okay. Which, I think, it will be really cool, ‘cos,
kind of, we can wrap up everything in your mind. For a Geshe candidate, that’s
what you do from the day you finish your last class to the day you get your final
Geshe exam, which can sometimes be ten years apart. Okay. Depending on
how many guys are in front of you ‘cos they only graduate two a year in
Hlarumpa and they only graduate four a year Lingtse.                So, you know,
depending on what number you are in the priority, you know. We’re lucky at
Sera Me because we’re actually one of the smaller colleges. We only have about
a thousand monks. Sera Je has about two thousand so you have to wait twice as
long or something.
{dze-yu} is defined as, something which, when you want to perceive it, you don’t
have to focus on all its parts and then conceptualise the whole, okay.
Remember, we’re in a lower school now, okay. Don’t start complaining to me
about it, alright. We’re not talking Madhyamika anymore. Don’t forget what
hat you have on they say in the monastery, okay. You have a Sautrantika hat on
this time. You’re Hinayana School, this time. So, for them, something material
means, you can just perceive it straight and you don’t have to look at all its parts
and then conceptualise it in a certain way, okay. And they say, examples are,
colors, okay, the, the, the objects of the five senses, for example. It’s not like you
have to divide up the smell of some fritte french fries from Second Avenue,
which I don’t get to have much anymore. And, and then, you have to think, oh
this is the, this is this smell, this is this smell, this is this smell and then
conceptualise it into a big smell or something. You just smell it, you know.
When you see ‘blue’, you don’t think, like, oh light blue, dark blue, medium blue,
you just think blue, okay. It’s not, like, a big decision. And it’s not, like, you
have to perceive it via seeing all its parts and then conceptualising it, in this
school, okay, in this school. So that’s the meaning of {dze-yu}. Examples are
colors or other objects of the senses and also the mind. Okay. The mind itself, in
their school, in their belief. Like, you don’t have to think about the left side of
your mind and the right side of your mind, or anything else. You just perceive
your mind, right. You’re just aware of it. It’s not like you have to analyse it and
put together some kind of conceptualisation about it. You’re just aware of the
mind and you’re just aware of colors. And that’s all. It doesn’t go through a
process, in their school, of seeing the parts and then putting something together,
okay. So, the definition is, more or less, perceiving it doesn’t depend on
perceiving its separate parts and creating a conceptualisation or something like
that: {dze-yu}, okay, material. Those things exist in a material way. And then,
{tak-yu} is the opposite. These are things, which you must perceive the various
parts, and then, put them together in a certain way. Examples would, examples
in the, examples in the lower Madhyamika school would be, a car or a person,
car or person. Which, if you think about it, do they belong in the category of
mental things, physical things, or things which are neither and which are ideas?
You see? Where do they belong? Where does car, where does Winston, belong
in there? Yeah. It’s {demin duje}, it’s the third choice, okay. When you say
Winston, you’re not referring to Winston’s mind alone. When you say Winston,
you’re not referring to Winston’s physical body alone. You’re referring to a
concept, which includes both, covers both the physical body and the, and the
mind, okay. It’s a, it’s an idea really. It’s a concept. That would be {tak-yu} in
this school, you see. Perceiving Winston depends on perceiving the physical
body, having a {jepak}, deductive perception of his mind, we assume he has a
mind, he’s moving around. Not sure, right, could be an emanation or whatever.
And, and then, we put that together and call it Winston, and that’s {tak-yu},
okay, that’s {tak-yu}. Okay, in this school. You’ll come back to meet these two
guys many, many times in the future. Very important in Madhyamika, very
important in Mind Only, okay, and they’ll take on different meanings in those
schools. What’s it got to do with {tsen-tsun}? Well, the definition of a definition,
was {dze-yu chu sum tsangwa}, right? Say {dze-yu}[repeat] {chu sum}[repeat]
{tsangwa}[repeat], it must have those three material qualities. Okay. If the three
material qualities are present, the thing is a good definition. And here are those
three qualities, which I’m sure, you’re dying to learn. Okay. You don’t care as
long as it’s short, right, so you don’t have to memorise too much. Say {chir}
[repeat] {tsennyi}[repeat] {yinpa}[repeat], {chir}[repeat] {tsennyi}[repeat] {yinpa}
[repeat]; {chir} means, generally speaking.         If you’re from {Gelrong}, like
Gelrong Khyentse Rinpoche, it’s {spir}, okay, {spir}, okay. Like, in the outlying
regions of Tibet they still pronounce it probably the way it was originally
pronounced, {spir}, okay. {chir} means, in general; {tsennyi} means, definition;
{yinpa} means, it is. So, generally speaking, it is a definition, okay. It sounds like
a definition, okay, ‘that thing which performs a function’, okay. So, that’s the
first thing. I mean, it’s generally structured, sounds like a definition. That thing
which is hot and burning, which is the definition of what? Fire. Okay. That
thing which is wet and flowing: definition of fire. That thing which is hard and
self-supporting: earth. That thing which is light and moving: the element of air,
wind. Okay. And those are definitions, {…}, okay, those are all definitions. So,
generally speaking, it should sound like a definition, alright. First thing, right. It
should be, it should be, like a definition, okay. Is that enough? No. Second
quality. Say {rang gi}[repeat] {tsenshiy}[repeat] {tendu druppa}[repeat], {rang
gi}[repeat] {tsenshiy}[repeat] {tendu druppa}[repeat]. Okay, {rang} means, ‘its’,
its, {rang gi} means, its. {tsenshiy} is an important word and you should learn
it,okay. When you learn {tsennyi} and when you learn {tsunja} you should go
ahead and learn {tsenshiy}, okay. {tsenshiy} means, a definitive example. So,
you have {tsennyi} meaning definition, you have {tsunja} meaning the thing
which you’re trying to define, and then, you have {tsenshiy} meaning a defining
example or a definitive example. For example, {ngupo} or a working thing
would be a {tsunja}, something to be defined. {duje ngupo}, that which performs
a function, would be a {tsennyi}, a definition. And then, {tsenshiy}, a water
pitcher, would be a classic example, like a definitive example, okay.              So,
{tsenshiy} means a definitive or a classical example of that thing, alright.
{tsenshiy tendu druppa} means, {tendu} means, ‘on top of’, {druppa} means, ‘to
exist’; to exist on top of, in Buddhist philosophy means, ‘it should apply’
perfectly, to, to a classic example, okay. So, if I come up to you and say, this
water pitcher is a classic example of a {ngupo}, of a working thing. You should
say, well, what do you propose as a definition of a working thing? And I say,
anything that performs a function. And you say, does that apply perfectly to this
classic example that you gave? And I don’t say anything. I just pour you out a
glass of water. Okay, {dun-je ngupo}. Okay. It performs a function. Drink it.
Okay. And so that’s like a proof. That’s a proof that what I proposed as a
definition applies perfectly to the classic example that I’ve given you as a, as a
{ngupo}. Okay. So that’s the second test of the validity of a definition, okay.
Third test, final test. Say,{shen gyi}[repeat] {tsennyi}[repeat] {mayinpa}[repeat],
{sheng gyi}[repeat] {tsennyi}[repeat] {mayinpa}[repeat]. It should be something
that’s not a definition for any other thing. Okay, {shen} means, ‘any other thing’.
Okay, I’ve simplified the Tibeten here ‘cos I didn’t want to give you a twenty line
thing, okay. {Shen gyi} means, ‘something else’; {tsennyi} means, definition;
{mayinpa} means, ‘it’s not’. Okay. In other words, it can’t be so fuzzy that it
could apply to another object as well. It should be precise. It should not be
appropriate as a definition for any other thing. It should fit the thing it defines
and no other thing, okay. Should be airtight in that way, okay. There’s also a
thing called {tsen tsun kyi go gye} which is eight relationships between the
definition and the thing defined. And those are kinda cool and we don’t have
time to do them, so, get back to me later, alright. For thing defined, for the thing
defined, they are very similar, okay. What do you guess would be the first one?
The three qualities of something defined. Generally speaking, it should be a
thing, okay. I mean, everything can have a definition, alright. It should be a
thing that you could define, okay. It should be a thing that you can define. By
the way, every existing object can be defined. Every existing thing can be a
{tsunja} sooner or later, okay. Like, there’s a definition of { dun-je ngupo} also.
Okay. There’s a definition of the definition of a working thing also, right. And it
would be the {dze-yu chu sum tsungwa, tsangwa} of {dun-je ngupo} of, of that
which performs a function. And then you can go on and on and on. Okay. You
can also have the definition of the definition of a working thing. And then you
can have the definition of the definition of the definition of a working thing.
And, like that, you see. Every object in the universe can have its own definition
and should have it’s own definition. So, the first requirement to be a, something
which is defined, should be, it’s appropriate to be defined. I mean, it’s just
something you can choose to be defined, okay. Second quality would be what?
On, on the [student],what’s that? [student] Oh, yeah. It should apply to a typical
example, okay. So, not only should, ‘it performs a function’, apply to the water
pitcher, but the description or the word, ‘working thing’, should also apply to a
water pitcher. Okay. It applies nicely to its typical example. Okay. People
should be able to say of its typical example, that it it is, it is it, okay. Thirdly, It
shouldn’t be the thing defined by any other definition, okay. And that’s all,
okay. Those three qualities, when you’re talking about the definition of a
definition, are called, the three material qualities. Those three qualities, when
you’re talking about the definition of something to be defined, are called, the
three conceptual qualities. Okay. Why? I don’t know, okay. I was sitting there
during the meditation and trying to guess, okay. I used to worry about it in the
debate ground. I haven’t had time to check it out thoroughly in Scripture. I’m
not sure. It’s not mentioned directly in this section. It may be somewhere else.
But it seems to me, which is more material and which is less material, between
fire, the concept fire, and then, hot and burning? Which is more material? Hot
and burning seems to be more basic to me, you see. Hot and burning, it feels
like something you could burn your hand on as opposed to the concept ‘fire’.
When you say, fire is defined as hot and burning, in English, you often put, what,
around the fire? You put quotation marks. That, I think, is the way in English,
and I’m not sure yet, my thinking on it’s not clear, is the way we indicate a {chi},
to me, a quality, a general principle. You see, the idea of fire as opposed to a fire,
okay. You know, work on it, but I think, when you put, when you say ‘fire’,
quote, is defined as that which is burning and hot, then the burning and hot, to
me, is more material. And, ‘fire’, quote, becomes more conceptual and I believe
that’s why definitions are called more, the three material qualities. That’s hot
and burning, right. And then, the thing which you’re defining, quote ‘fire’, is
more of a conceptual thing at that point. When you’re talking about the
definition of quote ‘fire’, I think, it’s more conceptual. And that may be why,
although I haven’t confirmed it in scripture and I want to admit that, that’s called,
the three conceptual qualities. Okay. By the way, in this school {takpa}, meaning
what? Unchanging thing. And {tak-yu}, are synonyms. We’ll talk about it some
day. Difficult, okay, it’s difficult. Oh, I knew that would get Jay Hahn going.
No. [laughs] [student] Oh, conceptual, okay. Fire, with quotation marks about
it, around it, is that, is that, is that an idea? Is that a mental picture? Is that,
perhaps, something unchanging? You see what I mean? The concept of ‘fire’;
fire as a quality, you know. Is that, perhaps, something unchanging? Think
about it, okay. You have to cook that, right. Yeah. [student] It should be true
of the typical example. Like, what you normally do, is you say, what are you
trying to define? Working thing. What’s your definition? Anything which
performs, a function. Give me a typical example: a water pitcher. Okay. Then
the, then you have to decide, is this, a working thing? Okay. [student] Yeah. Is
this a working thing? Is the example, the {tsenshiy} which he gave, the classic
example or the definitive example, does that apply to the definitive example?
Can you say, of a water pitcher, that it’s a working thing? That’s all. That’s all.
Remember, normally, an example, a {tsenshiy}should be a {shi tun}, one object
which combines two or more qualities of the definition and of the thing defined.
That’s all. That’s another fancy way of saying that, okay. The thing that you
choose as the classic example should incorperate both the definition and the
thing defined in one object. And that’s what makes it a classic example. A
pitcher should be both a working thing and a thing which performs a function,
okay. It should be one thing, which incorporates both, okay. Then you can say,
this is a good definition, to fit that example, okay. [student] Can we make up
new definitions? [student] Oh, no, no. We can, you have to. You will. Yeah.
Can you make up new definitions? Sure. Are there classic definitions for most
objects in Buddhism? Yes. Okay. And, you know, they get debated in the
monastery, from time to time, they encounter a new object and someone says,
should we change the definition [unclear]. For example, when I was in my
student years in the debate park, fluorescent lights were a big debate, you know.
Is this hot and burning ‘cos it looks like fire, you know? And then everybody
would go up and grab one and say, no, you know, it’s not too hot. And they’d
say, well, is that fire or not? And there would be this huge debate would break
out, you know what I mean. And yeah, once in a while you come across
something like that, okay. That’s okay. Okay. If you think about, let, let’s pick
a, let’s pick a typical definition and this’ll be the last part of definition ‘cos it’s not,
it’s not a, there’s, it’s not a extensive subject in the {Dura}, okay. It’s important,
it’s very important, but there’s not a lot to say about it, okay, [laughs] in the
{dura}. Let’s take a definition and see how it works, okay. Let’s take this
definition. By the way, try to write both lines, okay. Write both lines. I’ll take a
break while you carve it. [laughter]
The {matrulway} had a problem, okay. This is, cut this out here, okay. It means,
‘boo-boo’ and I think the computer did a boo-boo just to prove it on that word,
okay.
[unclear], did you have a question? I’m sorry, didn’t see you over there.
[student] Did I say that? [student] By the way, if you’re wishy-washy, sooner
or, she asked, is it good tactic to be wishy-washy in debate? I mean, when
you’re in trouble, you wanna try to stay obscure, yeah. [laughs] [student] Oh,
no. That, generally speaking, in the first part of the definition of a definition, is
just saying, you could take out the ‘generally speaking’. I mean, it should, you
could say, it should sound like a definition, or it should be, be thought of as a
definition, or the two parties should consider it a definition, or somebody should
propose it as a definition. That’s all ‘generally speaking’ means here. Okay. It
doesn’t mean what it usually means in a debate when you’re trying to cover
your rear end in case there might be an exception somewhere in the universe.
Which is what, yeah, I was talking about that. You always say {chu tang}, you
know. That way, if some one does figure out a counter example you could say,
oh, that’s why I said {chu tang}, okay, generally speaking, okay. [laughs]
Say {sardu}[repeat] {miuway}[repeat] {shepa}[repeat] {gangchik}[repeat], okay.
By the way, you always say, {gangshik}like that.           Say {gangshik}[repeat],
{gangchik} means, the thing is A da, da, da, da, da, and B da, da, da, da, da, da.
And the {gangshik} is always between the A and the B, okay. And that’s how
you say, look, this thing has to have two parts to it. It is da, da, da, da, da
{gangchik}, then you pause and you take a smoke, and then you say, and da, da,
da,da, okay. And there’s always supposed to be a pause between them, okay.
So {gangchik}, if you look up{gang} in the dictionary, what do you find [Tsultrim
La]? ‘What’, you find ‘who’ or ‘what’ or something like that. {chik} means, ‘a’
and then you go crazy. {gangchik} is an idiom, okay,{gangchik} means, it has to
be both A and B. And B comes after {gangchik} and A comes before {gangchik},
okay. And that’s all. You’ve already met {sardu miluway rikpa} or {sardu
miluway shepa}. It was the definition of? [students] {Tsema}, valid perception,
pramana. Okay. Valid perception was defined, in this school, as {sardu miluway
rikpa} or {shepa}, same thing, okay, {sardu miluway shepa}. {Sardu} means,
‘fresh’, because in this school recollections aren’t {tsema}, they’re not valid
perceptions. Remembering the pizza you ate this afternoon, ain’t, doesn’t have
the same ontological status, as biting into it, you se what I mean. In this school,
okay. In the Madhyamika Prasangika there’s a debate about it and they decide
that memory is a valid perception, okay, of a remembered object, okay. And,
therefore, of the pizza, okay. You can debate it later. {Miluway, miluway}
means, ‘unerring’, which generally means that thing that you thought it was and
the thing it really was were the same. Okay. Although, on an ultimate level, no
one who hasn’t seen emptiness directly yet, has ever had a truly unerring
perception of anything, okay. And that’s another story. But that’s again another
school, okay. {Miluway} means, unerring; {shepa} means, ‘state of mind’.
{Gangchik}, when you reach {gangchik} and you’re a translator, you go back
here and put, one, okay, [laughter] that’s all. And that’s all. And you should do
it that way, by the way. Okay. It, it, the one and the two that are used in English
to, to do that, to, to, to designate two very necessary parts of a statement but
which are separate from each other, is exactly the right way to do {gangchik},
okay. And it has the same power in Tibetan. It’s like, I’m gonna give you two
things and I’m gonna separate them with {gangchik} and each one is important,
each one is necessary, okay. It’s much stronger than {dang} or {shing} or {ching}
or {la} or anything like that, okay. {Tokdrel} means, ‘free of conceptualisation’;
{matrulway} means, ‘unmistaken’; and {shepa} again, means, ‘state of mind’.
So, I’m proposing this as a definition. I’ll say it in plain English once or twice
through. You concentrate on what you think might, it might be the definition of,
okay. What’s the {tsunja} here? What am I trying to define with these two lines?
You know, what’s that, charades, you know. I’m thinking of a state of mind, it’s
fresh and it’s unerring, it does not involve conceptualisation and it is not
mistaken. What state of mind am I talking about? [student] Huh? [student:
valid perception] [student] {ngunsum}, ah, thankyou, {ngunsum}, a direct valid
perception. Okay. Because an indirect valid perception, like, a deduction,
involves thinking, right: oh, A is C so C has to be B so A must be B. Okay.
That’s not free of conceptualisation. This is a definition of direct valid perception,
okay. Let’s see how each part of the definition acts in defining a direct, comma,
valid perception, alright. The different parts of the definition are meant to
achieve two goals. One, goal number one, eliminate other types of things that
might be mistaken for the thing we want to define. So, if you think about it,
there’s two goals of all definitions, and this is important, okay. There are two
goals of all definitions. The first is to eliminate or to disallow other types of
perceptions that we might be talking about, okay. That’s the first goal of a
definition. The second goal of a definition is to address common misperceptions
about it, common mistaken ideas about the subject. Okay. And those are two
goal of all good definitions, alright.        It should eliminate other types of
perceptions, in this case, that might be mistaken for it. And it should eliminate or
it should address some wrong ideas that people normally have about it. Like, if I
was gonna define nirvana for an American audience, I might not only say, you
know, it’s the permanent stopping of your mental afflictions ‘cos you’ve seen
emptiness directly, I might also add, and by the way, it’s not that you disappear
and go into some never-never land twilight zone. Okay. I mean, I might also
want to add that to eliminate some common wrong ideas that my audience has,
you see what I mean. Or I might want to do that with other things in Buddhism.
And when you describe objects or Buddhist ideas to an American audience you
often find yourself adding new parts to the definition to address their unique
wrong ideas about it, okay. Emptiness is the general absence of a self-existent
thing. And by the way, it’s not that you sit there and try to make your mind
black, okay. That’s all, alright. Let’s go through each part of the definition of this
definition and see which parts are acting to prevent, to disallow dissimilar types,
other types that might be mistaken for it. And, which parts are meant to address
specific wrong ideas that certain people have, okay. And then, you’ll get the idea
of how definitions work. And then we’ll be done with definitions, right. Yay.
Okay. [laughs] Fresh and unerring. [cut] By the way, Jay Hahn, by, it’s a rule
that a teacher should continue to ask questions of a student until they screw up,
you see. I mean, if they get something right, you should keep asking them until
they finally get something wrong. I think Khen Rinpoche’s very good at this.
What other states of mind are there besides direct, that’s a {mayin gak}, right,
valid perception? What other, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll say, there’s two other states of mind.
Tell me. [student] That’s only one. [laughs] That’s not bad. Now, divide that
into two. [student] No, divide, if I throw out all the states of mind in the
universe which are direct valid perceptions, how many other states of mind do I
have left, generally speaking? Two. [student] Yeah, great. Invalid perceptions
we can throw out. An example in Scripture, is standing on the full moon day on
a dark night with no clouds and you look up and you press your eyeball like
that, you can try it with the Quaker House lights up there, and it works, okay,
and you see two. Okay. Try it out. You press your eyeball and then there’s two
of them, okay. That’s an example of a {tsemin}, okay, the perception of two
lights when there’s only one is a non-pramana. It’s a non-valid perception. It’s
an invalid perception. So, yeah, Jay is right in one sense. When you say, direct
valid perception, you are disallowing that, that kind of direct invalid perception,
right. And? [student] Great. And, all valid perceptions, which involve, like,
logic or conceptualisation, you know, deductions. Okay. So if I throw out all the
direct valid perceptions in the world, I got two things left: all the screwy
perceptions and all the perceptions that are not direct, you know, the indirect
ones. Like, where I have to sit there and figure it out. You know, what does the
back of Winston’s shirt look like? I don’t know. Knowing him it’s probably
white, you know. Now, Elizabeth, could be checkered, [laughs] could be striped,
could be leopard skin, you know. I don’t know. You see what I mean? And that
would be, you see that takes a, a, a deductive process. I’m perceiving the back of
their shirts but I’m doing it through deduction, okay. So this, when I say, ‘fresh
and unerring’, which of those two other states of mind have I already
disqualified? [student] The invalid perceptions. Give me an example. Okay,
that’s all. Oh, look, two Winstons, you know. That’s invalid, okay. Why? The
reality and the appearance don’t correlate, okay. [student] Yeah, generally,
what makes it invalid is a long story. We’ll, we’ll get there some day, okay. So,
‘fresh and unerring’, first of all eliminates the invalid states of mind. So it has,
this part of this definition, is functioning to disallow or disqualify, a certain other
type of perception, okay. Which is what? Screwy perceptions. Okay. That’s the
first. This definition is cool. Now, what about, ‘free of conceptualisation’, Mr
Hahn? [student] It eliminates the other type of valid perception which is the
deductive ones, okay. By the way, I’m saying deductive in a very general term.
Of course, you know, there’s, you know, what do you call it? Conventions and
there’s Scriptural authority perceptions in addition to deductive perceptions.
There’s actually three types of conceptual valid perceptions, okay. But the most
common one is {ngutop}, which is deductive. So, I’m using the word in a general
sense. Yeah. [student] She said, couldn’t you, isn’t ‘fresh’ to say, no you can
have a, this is fresh. The first moment of this is fresh, okay. [student] It is free
of conceptualisation but it’s not fresh. So when I say, ‘fresh’, it’s eliminating, in
this school, memory, memories, okay.            That part of the first part is, is
disqualifying memories, okay. Yeah. Which, in this school, are not valid, are not
valid kinds of perception. Unmistaken, why do they put ‘unmistaken’ there after
they’ve already mentioned unerring? We have to talk about. We didn’t get
there yet. Okay. But these two parts of the definition, the ones that I’ve
underlined twice, those function to disqualify other types of perceptions, okay.
Now, what are those other parts of the definition doing in there? They address
wrong ideas of special groups of people, okay. They address wrong ideas of
particular groups of people. For example, if I chose to define emptiness as the
general absence of a self-existent thing, and by the way, it ain’t some black, what
do they call it? Black hole in your mind, okay, it’s not that. The second part of
that definition is, technically, not necessary unless I’m speaking to Americans
who have such a wrong view about it that I have to add that to clarify the
definition. See, that’s what I’m saying, definition involves two goals. One,
disqualify dissimilar cases. Two, address your audience’s specific wrong ideas.
And then, your definitions are cool, okay.
Unmistaken, here, there are schools of Buddhism that think, that in a sense,
when I see two lights, it’s, it’s not mistaken. Okay. Because all, it’s valid, right. I
mean, if you squish your eye, there are two, in a way, you know. There are
schools who think that, okay. And, the reason to add ‘unmistaken’, is to say,
okay, you can have a direct perception but it’s not necessarily valid. It’s not
necessarily unmistaken. Like, Ellie was kind of tending towards that viewpoint,
right? Look, if you see something with your own eyes, it’s probably correct,
right. {ma kyapp, kyappa ma jung / shok}; squish your eyeball, okay [laughs]
alright. It’s a direct perception you can’t deny but it’s not unmistaken. So, the
word unmistaken here, which seems to be superflouous, is not. It’s meant to
address the common misperception that might pop up in almost anyone’s mind
that, if I see it with my own tow eyes it must be correct. {Ma kyapp}, squish
your eye. Okay. That’s all, okay. You can have a direct perception, which is not,
a valid direct perception. That’s all, okay. Now, the other one here is, ‘free of
conceptualisations’, also addresses a wrong idea. There was a school of ancient
India called {rikpa chen}[unclear], the logic schools. I translated it as the
‘logicians’, okay. And they believed that even the perception of blue involved a
conceptualisation, you know. You had to think about it in some way or your
mind had to glue together the parts of the blue to see that blue or something like
that. Sounds like somebody else, right? But anyway, it’s to address that
misperception, that we also add the words ‘free of conceptualisation’. It’s to
address their wrong idea that you can have a direct valid perception, which does
involve conceptualisation, okay. That’s all. Okay. So those are the two functions
of a good definition. And I’m gonna give you the words for those, if I can find
them.      Say {rik}[repeat] {mitun}[repeat] {selwa}[repeat],rik}[repeat] {mitun}
[repeat] {selwa}[repeat]; {rik} means, ‘type’ or class, type. Okay. {mitun{ means,
‘dissimilar’, which are not similar, okay; {mitun means, dissimilar types. {selwa}
means, it eliminates them, it disqualifies them, it disallows them. Okay. That’s
the first quality of a definition or the first type of definition or part of a definition.
Those parts of the definition, which are meant to disqualify, in this case, the case
we had, two things: deductive valid perceptions and invalid perceptions. Okay.
So the parts of a definition or definitions, which are meant to disqualify,
dissimilar types of things are called, {rik mitun selwa}, okay. What’s left? What’s
the other, what’s the other half? Parts of the definition which are meant to
disqualify? [student] Common wrong ideas, common bad ideas. Like, when I
say, and by the way, it’s not a black hole in your mind, okay. Don’t sit there and
meditate on black. Black’s not a negative thing, by the way, okay. Black is a
positive thing. Emptiness is not, closing your eyes and concentrating on black,
okay. {Lok tok selwa}; say {lok tok}[repeat] {selwa}[repeat], {lok tok}[repeat]
{selwa}[repeat], okay. Write it down and then we’ll do it. [cut]
{Lok tok} means, ‘wrong idea’, {lok } means, ‘wrong’, {tok} means, ‘to perceive’.
Yeah. In this case, it means an idea, {lok tok} means a wrong idea, okay. By the
way, I’m sure everyone who’s studying Tibetan is sensitive to the fact that this
{tok} doesn’t have a {sa} secondary suffix. Because, when it gets a {sa} secondary
suffix it becomes ‘realised correctly’, okay. Which is nasty, you know. {tok}
without a {sa}means to think something in the sense of being wrong. Like, a
paranoia is a {tokpa}, okay. But {tok} with a {sa}means to realise something in
the sense of, when I say, ‘realise’, I thought he was my friend {tok} but I realised
{tok} that he wasn’t, okay. The sound is completely the same. The spelling is
different, okay. And in the monastery, often when you’re in a debate, you’ll
stop and say, are you talking about one with the {sa} or not, you know. And
they’ll say, I don’t know. I say, well you better tell me and then I’ll get back to
you, you know. [laughs] Okay. Alright, {lok tok selwa} means, it disqualifies or
it disallows, wrong ideas. Parts of a definition or specific definitions, which are
meant to address and disqualify dumb ideas about that thing, which the other
person has, okay. And those are the two qualities of definition, okay.
The whole formal logic subject for tonight, right, I’m done with {tsen tsun}, okay.
And that’s pretty much all there is in {tsen tsun}, alright, but there’s a lot to cook,
right. The whole formal logic thing I’m gonna finish in two minutes, okay, ‘cos
from now on, we need time to debate, okay. So, here you go. Okay, say {nang
rung}[repeat] {mamikpay}[repeat] {tak yangdak}[repeat], {nang rung}[repeat]
{mamikpay}[repeat] {tak yangdak}[repeat], okay; {nang rung} means, {nang}
means, ‘to appear’, {rung} means, ‘appropriate’ or ‘possible’, {nang rung} means,
I’m translating it as ‘perceptible to the opponent involved’, okay. This is,
remember we had last time, we were talking about proving that something’s not
there which they would have trouble seeing anyway. Which involves something
which they would have trouble seeing anyway. For example, a preta, a hungry
ghost or something like that. Or whether Jay Siller has or hasn’t seen emptiness
directly. Or whether he’s a Tantric deity or not, okay. That’s, that involves
something which is not normally perceptible to a normal person, okay, to the
opponent. So, there’s a whole realm of logical statements which are meant to
address how touchy it is to talk about things that people can’t see directly. Okay.
Which are imperceptible normally. And we decided that it was one of the most
important functions of logic to convince yourself that that’s the case and you’ve
gotta be really careful about judging other people, okay. Who knows, I mean,
one of the most important goals of Buddhist logic, is not so much to defeat your
opponent. In fact, in the Pramanavartikka, one quarter of the chapters are
entitled, ‘logic for your own self’, you know what I mean, proving things to
yourself, you see what I mean. And it’s proving to yourself logically that you,
how much of the world that you don’t know if it’s one way or the other. I don’t
know what’s on the back of your shirts. You know, maybe you all went out and
had a party and put, hey this stuff really works and probably [unclear] there.
And it was his idea and he spray-painted everybody’s, I don’t know. You know
what I mean? I can’t assume that the backs of your shirts, don’t have anything
on them, you know what I mean. But how much do we assume al the time,
especially, with other people? And how much intense bad karma you collect
when you do that. And then that, disqualifies you from reaching a Buddha
paradise, you see what I mean? It’s not like a sin. And, there’s no god up there,
keeping track and blah, blah, blah. The karma of that prevents you from
reaching a Buddha paradise in this life. So stop it. Be a logician. Be a strict
Buddhist logician. You know, be sceptical of everything in a good way. You
know, I don’t know if this person’s a bodhisattva or not. They seem like a pain
in the arse to me at work. Maybe there’s some reason why. I’ll keep my mind
open. I’ll reserve three percent of my judgement about them. I’ll give it a three
percent chance that this guy is a bodhisattva sent to help me deal with my
patience or anger, okay. And, and you have to allow that, you know. The
purpose, one of the most important parts of, purposes of Buddhist logic is to
straighten out your own behaviour and reach a Buddha paradise. That’s cool.
Okay. Now, we’re talking about {nang rung}; {nang rung} means things you can
see, okay. Proving the absence of things that involve something you can see.
And this subject’s not so long, okay. The other one is vital and very important.
That’s where the guy goes into, the Buddha tells the story of His past life and all
that. When you get to {rang rung mamikpay tak}, there’s just a long list of
permutations, okay. And I haven’t bothered to give them all. There’s sixteen
permutations, two of then don’t hold and blah, blah, blah, okay. I will, though,
give you a few examples of a {nang rung mamikpay tak}, since you have to
name them on your homework. Okay. First one, which I think is the one on
your homework okay, consider {me me.. gyatso la chuchen}. That’s the debate
in the monastery, okay. Say {me me}[repeat] {..}[repeat] {gyatso la chuchen}
[repeat], okay; {me} means, what? Fire. {me}, okay, {me} means, there is no fire,
{me me}; {tsema}is {..},night time, {me me ..}, {gyatso}, you know. Tenzin Gyatso
is His Holiness, okay. The ocean, Dalai, in Mongolian, okay. {.. gyatso la
chuchen}. Let’s talk about a night time ocean. Why are they talking about a
night time ocean? They’re talking about on the surface of a huge body of pure
water at night, okay. {…}, say {..}[repeat] {me te},there’s no big, billowing smoke
there, okay, {me mepay chir}. Say {me}[repeat] {mepay chir}[repeat], because
there’s no fire there. Okay. You can confirm it. I mean, just stand on the shore,
you look out, total black. Okay. There’s no smoke out there. Why? You
couldn’t start a fire out there anyway, okay. I mean, okay, in theory, a plane
could’ve just crashed there and there’s still smoke but the plane went under, like,
flight whatever. Not talking, normal case, normal ocean, normal night, you
know. Pitch black night. You look out or you know, turn off the light, fill up the
bath tub, [laughter] stare at the, you know [laughs] stare at the top of the water.
There’s no smoke there that’s resulting from a major fire, okay. And you can
confirm it just sitting there, that’s all. That’s what it means, okay. Now, the
thing used as the reason, ‘because there’s no fire there’, is, what’s it’s relationship
to the thing you’re trying to prove is not there? It’s, normally, its cause, okay.
Fire, okay, I’ll repeat it. Take your bath tub, take, take your night time dark,
dark bathroom, bath tub surface {chuchen}, you know. There’s no smoke there.
There’s no huge puffs of smoke there because there’s no fire there, okay. So, the
thing given as a reason, the main element in the reason is, fire. The result of it is
smoke. You’re proving the absence of smoke by proving the absence of its
cause. Okay. That’s all. That’s all. Now, technically speaking, you can have the
result in moment number two, millisecond number two, and there could have
been a fire there in millisecond number one and the plane went under the water.
And that’s theoretically possible but we, we’re not talking in those terms, okay.
Okay, second one would be this. Consider a rocky mountain crag, consider a
bare rocky mountain crag, okay. { shapa me te}, say {shapa}[repeat] {me te}
[repeat], there’s no Juniper trees there, okay, {shapa me te shing mepay chir}.
Say {shing}[repeat] {mepay chir}, because there’s no trees there, there’s no
vegetation there. Okay. What’s the relationship between vegetation and Juniper
trees? [student] it’s like a {kyapje}, we call {kyapje}. I mean, one covers the
other, okay. I mean, if there’s no vegetation, there can’t be any Juniper trees,
okay. That’s all. One covers the other. And, like that. You can read the rest
from the examples, okay. Those are ways of proving that something doesn’t
exist there. And, and generally speaking, Juniper trees and smoke, are not
{keldun}. {keldun}, anybody? They’re not abstruse objects, okay. They’re not,
like, looking twenty kalpas into the past or something like that, you know.
Anybody could normally see smoke if it was there, you know. Anybody could
see a Juniper tree if it was there, normally speaking, okay. It’s not like pretas or
the existence of the direct perception of emptiness in Jay Siller’s mind. It’s not
like something that you and I can’t confirm easily, okay. That’s all. Okay. We’re
gonna take a break and on your way back in you gotta go through this door.
And you’re gonna get a chance to pick a number out of a hat. And you’re gonna
go into groups of three people. So, three people are gonna get number five, for
example. And then, by random selection, of your karma, [laughter] you’re
gonna be with two other people. And then we’re gonna have a debate up on the
screen and you’re just gonna practice doing it. And then I’ll walk around and
help you, okay. And that’s very much the way we do it in the monastery. By
the way, the last part of the reading tonight, discusses special kinds of debates in
the monastery, you know. I sat down and just thought about all the different
kinds I’ve ever been in. There must be, like, fifteen different kinds of special
debates. Geshe debates, {rikchen} debates, {tsoglan}, all night debates {..}, winter
debates, home debates, college debates. There’s all these beautiful kinds of
debates. Debate is used in, like, fifteen different contexts in the monastery.
Debates, with your roommate, debates with your Scripture teacher. And I just
wrote out, all the, all the general kinds. It’s nothing that I have to teach you per
se. But I thought that you should read it. It’s nice. It’s interesting. All the
different ways, in which debate is used, in the monastery. So take a break. And
on the way back come back through this door. Pick your number and then
when I say, start, the, the ones will be over here, okay. So, like, one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, up to say, ten, okay. And then, if your number is eleven or
higher, the elevens’ll start over there and then it’ll work out to here, okay. And
then just get in groups of three. I think in the open space there, alright. Come
back in ten minutes and we’ll start, alright.
Hello. Please. Okay. Two of your group have to sit down and fact towards the
centre, okay. And one of your group has to stand up and face them, okay. So
try to spread out a little bit, okay.
[students] If you only have two people in your group that’s fine, okay. One
person stand up and one person sit down. [students]
Okay, everybody ready? [whistles] [students] Yeo. [students]
The debate master that I studied under had an electrical cord that he used.
Anyway. He didn’t plug it in but he hit you with it. Okay. [laughs] Check this
out.
Say {rikpay}[repeat] {droltang}[repeat], {rikpay}[repeat] {droltang}[repeat];
{rikpay droltang} means, {droltang} means, ‘the way it goes’, okay. {droltang}
means the way it goes; {rikpay} means, ‘a debate’. Okay, {rikpay droltang}
means, the whole, how the thing works. You know, first you say this, then he
says that, then you say this, then he says that. I’ve given you one here, okay.
And you should practice it, alright. First of all, the guy who’s standing up, turn
to your opponent and say, ready? Is your foot ready? Is your hand ready?
You’re gonna start a fight, okay, you gotta pick a fight. [students]
Okay, ready? The person standing up say, {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat]
{yinpay chir}[repeat]. Yeah, nice. Okay, one more time, one more time.
{Bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat]. Okay. Oh, nice. Okay,
you’re starting a fight. You’re staring a fight because you’re saying, shh, shh,
shh, hey, [unclear] [laughter], {bumpa} means, a water pitcher, right; {takpa}
means, unchanging thing; {yinpay chir} means, because. Okay. You’re starting
the fight by saying, because a water pitcher is an unchanging thing. Okay. What
are you trying to prove? It doesn’t matter. [laughter] [cut]
[end side A]
[side B]
[laughter] Okay. And when you start a debate you always start like that. You
just start with the ‘because’, okay.       You go, ‘because water pitchers are
unchanging things’, okay. Say again, guy standing up, {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}
[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat], okay. Alright.
Now, you guys sitting down get to respond. Okay, guys sitting down, ready?
Shhh, ‘eh [whistles] [students]
Say, guys sitting down, {tak{[repeat] {ma drup}[repeat], {tak me drup}[repeat],
{tak ma drup}[repeat]. Which means what? Your reason is bad. Okay. The
reason is bad. I don’t care what you’re trying to prove. Stupid reason, okay,
{tak ma drup}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat].
Okay, here we go. Do the first part again. The guy standing up, I’ll call you
number one, okay;{bumpa takpa yinapy chir}[repeat]. And they say, {tak ma
drup}[repeat]. You gotta, by the way, you gotta stretch out the {tak}, okay,
{taaaak ma drup}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat]. Okay, one more time.
Number one: {bumpa takpa yinpay chir} [repeat]
{tak ma drup}[repeat], okay. This is, this is {rikapy droltang}; no matter what the
guy says, if it ends in {chir} and you wanna pick a fight say, {tak ma drup}, okay.
[laughter]
Now, back to number one. Number one is gonna say, you ready number ones?
The guy standing up, okay; {bumpa takpa mayinpa tel}[repeat]. Yeah, good.
One more time: {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat] {mayinpa tel}[repeat].
[students] Okay, what’s that mean? Are you telling me that water pitchers
aren’t unchanging things? Okay. Ready? Are you telling me water pitchers
aren’t unchanging things? And the guy sitting down says, right, that’s what I
said, okay, {du} [repeat], {du} [repeat]. Okay, now you gotta practice the whole
thing again, okay.
{Bumpa}[repeat], the guy standing up, {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat] {yinpay
chir}[repeat].
{Tak ma drup}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat]. Okay.
 Then, you come back with , oh {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat] {mayinpa tel}
[repeat].
And they say, {du}. [laughter] [laughs] Okay. [laughs]
Okay, now number one says, {mayin te}[repeat], which means, whuch means,
‘why the hell not?’ [laughter] Okay, {mayin te}[repeat], why not? Okay. Why
not?
Number two says, number two, {bumpa}[repeat] {mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpay
chir}. Okay, the guy sitting down doesn’t clap his hands, okay, his or her, okay.
Say again, {bumpa}[repeat] {mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat]. Why not?
Because, water pitchers are changing things, stupid head, okay. {Bumpa}[repeat]
{mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat], okay.
Then, the guy standing up has gotta confirm, do you really believe that? Okay,
ready guy standing up, there’s gonna be a slap here, okay; {bumpa}[repeat]
{mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpa tel}[repeat], okay.
Are you [students: du], yeah, nice, {du}, okay, {du}, which means, yeah that’s
what I said. Okay, you have to practice this at home over and over again. This
exchange, okay, this exchange over and over again. Okay. Try it one more
time.
Guy standing up: {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat]. You’re
starting a fight. You’re picking a fight. You’re picking a fight: water pitchers are
unchanging things.
Then, the other guy says, {tak ma drup}[repeat], {tak ma drup}[repeat]. Okay.
Then you say, oh, guy standing up, ready: {bumpa}[repeat] {takpa}[repeat]
{mayinpa tel}[repeat]. Are you telling me [students], {du}, that’s what I said.
Then, the guy standing up, {mayin te}[repeat], why the hell not?
[students], {bumpa}[repeat] {mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpay chir}[repeat], because
vases or water pitchers are changing things, okay.
Oh, guy standing up, {bumpa}[repeat] {mitakpa}[repeat] {yinpa tel}[repeat].
{Du}[repeat]. Okay. Alright
Practice it with your own group and I’ll walk around and critique you, okay, just
that exchange. Do it for about ten minutes, okay.
[students: practice]
Hello, hello, hello. We’ll stop there, okay. Practice that at home with all your
family and stuff. And see you on, when? Tuesday. Monday night, no class, next
Thursday, no class. Monday night is {..} and next Thursday is {sojong}, okay.
[student] Somebody asked me to just say it again, okay.
You start out by saying, {bumpa takpa yinpay chir}.
And they say, {tak ma drup}.
You say, {bumpa takpa} and then, very disgusted sound, {bumpa takpa mayinpa
tel}. [laughter].
And they say, {du}, that’s what I said.
I say, {mayin te}, why the hell not? Okay.
Then they say, {bumpa mitakpa yinpay chir}, okay.
They say, oh {bumpa mitakpa yinpa tel}.
They say, {du}.
Okay. This is {rikpay droltang}. I’ll say it one time in English, okay.
Because a water pitcher is an unchanging thing.
What are you trying to prove? It don’t matter. It’s stupid already. Okay. You
don’t have to hear it, the assertion, the reason is bad already, okay. One more
time:
Because a water pitcher is an unchanging thing. That’s a way to pick a fight in
the debate ground, okay.
And the other guy says, {tak ma drup}, wrong. Okay. You can just say, wrong.
If you’re gonna do it in English, wrong. Okay.
And then the other guy comes back sarcastically, the guy standing up, are you
telling me that a water pitcher is not an unchanging thing, {mayinpa tel}.
The guy says, {du}, right. That’s what I said. Okay.
Then, you just check in with him; {mayin te}, why the hell not? Why, why isn’t it
an unchanging thing?
And then you come back with, {bumpa mitakpa yinpay chir}, because it’s a
changing thing stupid, okay. ‘Cos it’s a changing thing, okay.
And then, you confirm, you reconfirm. Are you telling me a water pitcher is a
changing thing, {bumpa mitakpa yinpa tel}?
And then, you say, {du}. That’s what I said. Right. Okay.
And that’s enough. Next time, we’ll do the next series, okay. But this, the point
of learning this, {rikpay droltang} means, this fits every debate you ever start,
okay. You can just plug in different words. You can go home, debate with your
friend, plug-in different things. Doesn’t matter. The structure is always the
same. {Rikpay droltang} means, the structure of a debate. It always starts like
this, okay, I mean. So, practice that and you got down all the other ones. By the
way, everyone who thought they would never learn Tibetan have just learned,
like, ten words of Tibetan. Right. And this is the way to learn Tibetan. You can
sit there all day long with dictionaries and books and you won’t learn any
Tibetan. You debate for six months you can read anything. It’s cool. So, go
home and debate. Okay. See you next time. [applause] [laughs]
We have to do prayers. Ready? Okay.
[prayer: short mandala]
[prayer: dedication]
The Asian Classics Institute

Geshe Michael Roach
Course XIII: The Art of Reasoning