ACI 13 «Искусство аргументации», занятие 10

Class Ten: The Concept of Time



Transcribed by Angie Overy



… And it’s, you know, John announces it every night. But I guess when he does
it, I don’t listen to it either, but they’re quite serious now. So, no drinks or food
inside here or in the lobby, at all okay. When you leave tonight please be sure
that place is spotless. Please don’t abuse the maintenance guy. He, apparently
he’s very upset at us and you know, it’s sort of depressing ‘cos we’re supposed
to be Buddhists. And we’re supposed to be all very compassionate and
considerate of other people and then sometimes I’m embarrassed by the, by
what we do, you know. On a normal human, we care for all sentient beings, but
not for the people in the [laughs] Quaker House, I don’t know. But we have to
be better at it, okay. They really didn’t want to renew past Thursday and we
only after long talks. There is no other place. We looked at a synagogue, they
asked us for two thousand dollars a night. And, you know, I can’t find any other
place in the Village. So if we get kicked out of here I don’t know we could do a,
what’s that [unclear Square Park, but it’s kinda busy at night. So [laughs] you
know, so very serious, okay. This is a great deal as places go, as far as the cost of
it, so, so we really will get kicked out. They were very clear. And they said
probably not, no matter what we do we probably can’t get another booking
here after the next course. But at least let’s not, they said if there’s a bad night
they’ll just ask us to leave, you know. So please, no food or drink at all. I don’t
know how we’re gonna take a break. I guess just have some air or something.
Maybe you could go outside and drink or eat something. Okay. Sorry about
that. If you can find a better place, you know, be happy to, please look, okay. I
mean, this place was just found by somebody walking by one day. And if you
find anything let John know or let Ora know, okay. Alright.
The reading tonight, I didn’t finish the whole reading. What you’re getting, I
don’t know, did they get it yet? No. In the break? Did you get a reading yet?
No. Okay. It’s a very nice thing called the {chutok gye}. Say {chutok}[repeat]
{gye}[repeat] {chutok gye}[repeat]. It’s the monastic debating schedule at Sera
Me, okay. And this is a very ancient document and an ancient system. And I got
a hold of a very ancient, a copy of a very ancient thing that describes how the
schedule goes for the whole Dharma schedule for the whole year. So it’s kinda
cool. You can see how it goes from semester to semester and what things they
do at what times during the year and stuff like that. So I think you’ll enjoy it. It’s
down to the day, you know. And typically there are eight debating sessions per
year. On the first one there’s a thing called {…tsok} and they all meet together
and they do special prayers. Then they count heads. They count how many
monks are there. And then, the next two days are called {shinglong} and that’s
begging for firewood. On the first day you go out to the suburbs the villages
around Lhasa City and you ask for firewood. And the families have it ready for
you ‘cos they know the monks come on that day. And then the next day you go
to Lhasa City and you collect firewood. And this is firewood enough for fifteen
days. Then you debate for maybe a week or two weeks and then there are
{dam.. chenmo} which means the great Geshe debates. And throughout the year
Geshes are being examined. Normally, every year, two Hlarumpa Geshes, two
or four {..} Geshes, which is number two; four Lingtse Geshes which is number
three and then a bunch of {..} geshes which are the lowest level. And then
there’ll be {…} which are pre Geshe examinations. So, that whole schedule and
the whole special year, all the events of the year at Sera Me, we got a hold of
that. And Khen Rinpoche took a long time and clarified a lot of difficult points
on it.
I’m thinking it’ll be useful in the future in America when we decide on our
schedules and we can design it after Sera Me’s debating schedule. It’s a very nice
schedule. It’s a rigorous schedule. And I thought it would just be useful for you
to see it and it’s kinda beautiful to see how they spend the whole year. It’s about
ten pages long the whole annual calendar. And then I gave you the original, it’s
a handwritten copy of the original chart. So you can take, like, three months and
try to figure that out. It’s in [unclear], it’s in script, okay. And it looks kinda cool.
It’s totally incomprehensible, but if you want to, you know, some of the people
who are studying that can try to see if they can understand that, okay.
Tonight we’re gonna do, say {du sum}[repeat] {namshak}[repeat] {du sum}
[repeat] {namshak}[repeat]; {du} means time, like, Kalachakra is {dunkhor},
okay, The Wheel of Time; {sum} means the three times: past, present and future,
okay; {namshak} means all about that thing or the presentation of the three
times. And that’s the final lecture in this series of ten. I thought it was kind of
cool. I had students asking me about what do Buddhists think about the nature
of time and I though it would be interesting for you guys to see how they
present it in each of the schools. It’s a big point of departure from the different
schools. One of the points that differentiates Madhayamika Prasangika, the
highest Madhyamika, from all other schools, is what they think about the nature
of time. So I thought I’d give you a little bit of that also. Tonight, mainly, we’ll
get it from the [cut] by the way, it’s not just some kind of, I mean, it’s interesting
philosophically but it’s not the only point. By the end of tonight we’ll be talking
about the emptiness of time and that’s really where we’re trying to get to, okay.
It’s not just an interesting discussion about the nature of time. It also applies a lot
to the nature of emptiness, okay. Say {do depa}[repeat] {do depa}[repeat]; {do
depa} I translate it as Sutrists School, okay. They are the higher of the two
Hinayana schools in the great four schools of India, okay. So, Sutrists School.
Why are they called Sutrists? Because they put a lot of emphasis on using sutra
to prove things, okay. There are a couple of groups inside the {do depa} and
tonight we’re gonna talk about the [cut] say {rikpay}[repeat] {jedrang}[repeat]
{rikpay jedrang}[repeat]. This is a part of the {do depa} that follows logic much
more than the other part which more follows Scripture. And they’re called
{rikpay jedrang}; {rikpa} means logic and {jedrang} means follower, followers of
logic. So the whole presentation that I’m gonna give you on the nature of time
tonight comes from the logic followers inside the Sutrist school, okay. And they
have special beliefs that the other Sutrists school doesn’t have, that the other
parts of the Sutrist school doesn’t have. But this presentation is gonna be on the
nature of time from, from their point of view, okay. The ideas of this school are,
are kinda cool. If you think about it you will probably accept their school. If I
didn’t tell you, we don’t accept this school, you probably wouldn’t have any
problem with it. And it raises a lot of questions. For me, when I read this stuff,
in the Abhidharma there’s a big debate about time in the third chapter. There’s a
big debate here and there’s a big debate when you get to Madhyamika
Prasangika. And every time I come out, like, dizzy ‘cos I can’t figure out what’s
going on afterwards, you know what I mean. I forget, I can’t remember, I can’t
figure out what’s right, you know what I mean. And I’m not afraid to admit it.
Anyway, we’ll just go with them. I think this is the kind of thing we have to go
home and think about it. I can’t stand up here and give you everything about
this tonight. I’ll give you what they say but you have to go home and figure it
out, okay. And it’s gonna take a few days of thinking about it, okay. It’s just the
nature of time. If you start thinking about time carefully you get confused. To
me it’s the nature of time. You know, thinking about time is, you know, you
start to get lost right away, okay.
Say {depa}[repeat] {depa}[repeat]; {depa} means past time, time which is in the
past. {datawa}[repeat],technically, this is {ta tarwa}, okay, {ta tarwa}and in
colloquial it gets changed to {tanda}, {tanda}, okay, but I’ve put it halfway
between, okay, {datawa}. {datawa} means the present tense, okay, present time.
And {ma-ongpa} means {ma} means not and {ongpa} means to come, ‘not come
yet’ means the future, okay, the future. The discussion of the three times, by the
way, I’ve put in two sexy parts from the, from the discussion of it. One is pure
dialectic. Two guys go at it about the nature of time. And I think that’s very
interesting and just to see how they punch it out is very, it’s very, very
interesting to me. You’re not going to get that reading tonight. Sorry. Okay. So
you better take good notes tonight. But this part is not gonna be in your
reading. I just didn’t have time. The other thing took like twenty hours or
something. You know, figuring out the schedule thing. So take good notes,
alright? And I’ll try to get it all to you before you take your quiz, your final or
something. I’ll try to finish one at least by Thursday, okay. They start out the
discussion by asking, oh and then I give you the {rangruk}, okay. Then I give
you our own position, okay, which is only a couple of pages long. They start out
by saying, what shall we give as the definition of the past and the future. And,
since you have to write this on your homework and your quiz and all that, you’ll
be glad to know there isn’t any. Okay. Because it’s [cut] say {mepe na}[repeat]
{tsennyi me}[repeat], {mepe na}[repeat] {tsennyi me}[repeat]. Okay, {mepe na}
means, look it doesn’t even exist, {mepa}means they don’t exist and so {mepe
na}, {tsennyi me}means they don’t have any definition. There is no definition.
Okay. They don’t exist. In this school, the past and the future, the past is gone,
can’t, can’t see it anymore, doesn’t do anything. It’s just gone, doesn’t exist.
Future isn’t here yet. Okay. So, how can you define it? There is no definition.
Okay. I mean, in, in, what do you call it? In non-relative sense, in absolute sense,
okay, now I’m qualifying it, right. In a non-relative sense or in an absolute sense
the future doesn’t exist yet and the past has already gone into non-existence so
you can’t have a definition. There is no definition ‘cos those things don’t exist.
You can’t have a definition {tsennyi} without a {tsunja}, right? Without a thing to
be defined you can’t have a definition, okay. And they just don’t exist. You can’t
see, the future didn’t happen yet. The past already happened. They’re gone.
Past is gone, future’s not here yet. They don’t exist. You don’t need a definition
for them, okay. Finished. That was easy. Okay.
But, okay, [laughs] relative to a particular object, which is existing now, okay.
See, in absolute terms, this is their school, okay, so don’t pick on me, alright.
Probably I couldn’t do anything better actually. In absolute terms the past and
future don’t exist. Now, if you say, in terms of a certain object, you know, can
we, can we establish a past relative to this current object that exists here? And
can we establish a future relative to this particular object? They say, yes. Okay,
now here’s the definition of the past, for example, relative to a particular object,
okay. Two parts. Say {bumpay}[repeat] {dusu}[repeat] {kye sinpa}[repeat],
{bumpay}[repeat] {dusu}[repeat] {kye sinpa}[repeat]; {bumpa} means a water
pitcher, {bumpay dusu} means, ‘in the time of the water pitcher’, okay, like, if the
water pitcher was here at eight o’clock. Okay. {bumpay dusu} means, in the
time or relative to the time of the water pitcher, okay, that the water pitcher is
present. Okay, {bumpay dusu}means, relative to the time that the water pitcher
is present, say, eight o’clock, okay. The first requirement for something to be
past tense is that it should already have started or begun, okay. {kye sinpa},
{kye}means, began; {sinpa} means, already; {dusu}means, at the time of;
{bumpa}, the water pitcher. So, at the time that the water pitcher is already
there, we’re trying to define the past relative to a water pitcher, alright. So,
relative to a current water pitcher, present water pitcher of the present moment,
the first requirement of the past, is that it should already have begun by the time
that you have the water pitcher. How about, ‘by the time’ for {dusu}, okay. By
the time you have the water pitcher it should have already begun, this past
thing, okay. Second requirement. Say {bumpay}[repeat] {dusu][repeat] {gak}
[repeat] {sinpa}[repeat], {bumpay}[repeat} {dusu}repeat] {gak}[repeat] {sinpa}
[repeat]. Okay, {bumpay dusu} is the same, by the time of the water pitcher,
okay, by the time of the water pitcher, {gak sinpa} means, it must have already
stopped also, okay. It must have already stopped also. So, by the time of the
water pitcher, now we have a point of reference, okay. By the time of the water
pitcher which is present time eight o’clock water pitcher, it should have already
begun and already stopped. And in logic, in the debate ground, you better be
careful to say, by the time of the water pitcher blah, blah, blah and by the time of
the water pitcher blah, blah, blah. If you leave one out you’re in trouble. Okay.
You have to say it this way. The definition of the past relative to a water pitcher
is by the time the water pitcher exists it should have begun and by the time the
water pitcher exists it should have stopped already. And that’s the way you
have to answer it in the debate ground. If you get lazy and you only put in one
‘by the time of the water pitcher’ you get blasted by your opponent, which you
can already feel what it feels like, right, a little bit. Okay. Okay. Alright. They’re
just waiting for something like that. And they won’t tell you right away. They’ll
play you along for about twenty minutes like a fish on a hook. And then they’ll
start reeling you in. Yes {kyappa ma jung}. [student] That’s just what I said you
better not say. Just technically speaking because that can be phrased, by the time
of the water pitcher it should have begun and by the way, it should have ended,
you see. Whether or not there’s what you call in English grammar, distribution
of the clause to both parts of the statement, it’s not clear. You see, it can be
ambiguous and in logic you have to straighten it out. You have to repeat it,
okay. It’s a custom. It saves you a lot of grief in the debate ground if you do
that, okay. If I was gonna give you the definition of the, of the present now,
okay, it’s something like this. The first part is the same {bumpay dusu} which
means at, by the time of the water pitcher. The dot, dot, dot is {bumpay dusu}.
By the time of the water pitcher, say {drup sinpa}[repeat] {drup sinpa][repeat], it
should have already happened, okay. It should have already happened, {drup}
means it already happened, it came out already, okay. It already happened.
We’re talking about time itself, right, time itself.       It should have already
happened and {bumpa dang},say {bumpa dang}[repeat] {du nyam}[repeat]
{bumpa dang}[repeat] {du nyampa}[repeat], okay. {bumpa dang} in Tibetan you
have to say, {bumpa} means water pitcher, {dang du nyam} means, going on at
the same time, simultaneous, okay; {du} means time; {nyampa} means, equal;
{dang} here means, with: equal time with the pitcher, okay. So, the definition of
what? The present, okay. The definition of the present for a water pitcher, okay.
The definition of the present relative to a water pitcher is it should have occurred
by the time of the water pitcher, okay, and it should be simultaneous to the
water pitcher. That time which has occurred by the time of the water pitcher and
which is simultaneous to the water pitcher is called the present time relative to
the water pitcher. Right? Okay. You alright? Okay. It’ll get worse. Okay.
[laughs] Say {kye shinpa][repeat] {kye shinpa}[repeat]. Thos eof you who are
learning Tibetan {shinpa} means to be in the act of something, like, present, what
do you call it, present progressive tense or something like that. To be in the
process of {kye} means, beginning; it is in the act of beginning, okay. It is in the
process of beginning {kye shinpa/ ma kyepa}, say {ma kyepa}[repeat], but it
hasn’t begun yet, okay. And the dot, dot, dot is {bumpay dusu}. At, by the time
of the water pitcher, eight o’clock, okay, by the time of the water pitcher it is in
the act of becoming or occurring and it hasn’t occurred yet. It hasn’t started yet,
okay. And that’s the definition of the [student] boo { ..me tsennyi, ..}, you telling
me there’s a definition of future? [student] Huh? I said [laughs] {kye shinpa}
[laughs] {kye ma sumpa}, yeah, {ma-ongpa tsennyi yinpay chir}, so that thing
which has, which is in the process of occurring and which hasn’t occurred yet is
the definition of the future, {ma-ongpa tsennyi yinpay chir}. Yeah. [student]
{..yinpay chir}, you said so, now you say {tak ma drup} [laughter] [laughs] make
up your mind. Here’s a {du} over here. [laughter] {yinpa tel, ma-ongpa tsennyi
yinpa tel}, are you telling me that’s the definition of the future? {ma-ongpa
tsennyi yinpa tel/ ma-ongpa tsennyi yerta}, so you’re telling me there is a
definition of the future? [student: du] {du, peche … cha pe .. yinpay chir},
scripture said, the book says, {mepe na … tsennyi me pechir ..}, it said, {…} you
have to get used to, okay. {…} means, look the book said, because it doesn’t
exist {mepe na tsennyi me pechir}, there’s no definition for it, {…}. So you
contradict Scripture, right? {… yinpa tel} [student: kyappa ma jung] { … yinpay
chir}[laughs] {… yinpay chir}, you have to accept it, you have to accept the
Scripture. {.. yinpay chir}. [student: the Scripture’s interpretable} This is a
{yongdzin}[laughter] This is {..yongdzin yinpay chir}, this is the teacher of the
Thirteenth Dalai Lama. [laughter] [student: it’s interpretable] {Yongdzin kepe
yarta} so you don’t accept the teacher of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama? [student: it’s
interpretable teaching] Ah, ah {tragne yinpa tel} Huh? {tragne yinpa tel}, you
telling me it’s, it’s figurative he says. It’s figurative, {tragne yinpa tel}, {yinpa tel}
are you telling me it’s figurative? [student: du] {..mayinpa tel}, not literal?
[student:du] Not literal. So, {… yin}, so who’s position is it if it’s not the {rikpay
jedrang gyi do depa}, if it’s mot those logic group within the Sutrist school, then
whose position is it? Right? It must be somebody else’s, must be somebody
else’s, {yarta}.      Is it somebody else’s, {kyerang ma .. yinpa tel} must be
Abhidharma school, I guess. [laughter] No {… ma-ongpa ngupo ..yinpay chir},
they accept that it’s a thing, functioning thing. Forget it. Not only do they say it
exists, they’re a working thing, the past and the present. So it’s not an
Abhidharma school? Well I guess, well whose school is it? You said it’s
figurative so it must be somebody else’s school. No, anyway, you can go like
that. And each school has its own belief about it. [laughs] No, you can go,
alright, yeah, you did pretty good. Indefensible position: just keep stalling, okay.
[laughs] [laughter] Keep moving on, you know, another thing, and hopefully
the debate master will ring the bell, you know. [laughter] [laughs] Okay. {Kye
shinpa}, no, it was a good debate though, it was a good debate, pretty good,
{kye shinpa ma kyepa}. Okay. So, that’s the, what is that the definition of? Why
did we get into that argument? Somebody said that’s the definition of future.
Would you like to amend yourselves? Yeah, relative to a pitcher, okay, relative
to the time of a water pitcher. Okay. There is no definition for the future ‘cos
the future doesn’t exist, okay. Alright. Now, some tricky ones. Where is that?
[cut] I get in debate I always lose the thing. [cut]
They’re debating outside already. Yeah. [student] Excuse me? [student] I’m
not biting right now, we’ll get there, okay. He asked me if a future water pitcher
exists. We’ll talk about it. Let me finish and then we’ll debate it, okay.
Say {bumpay gyu}[repeat] {bumpay gyu}[repeat]. I’m gonna list fifteen different
ideas, okay, fifteen different ideas. And you tell me, you tell me if they exist or
not.
Okay. Well, no, let’s not do it that way. We’ll do {bumpay gyu}. That’s one.
What is, {bumpa} is what? Water pitcher. {Gyu}? Cause. Cause of the water
pitcher. Okay. Now I’ll give you another one. Say {bumpay}[repeat] {drebu}
[repeat], {bumpay drebu}[repeat]; the result of a water pitcher, okay, {bumpay
drebu}. [cut]
Say {ngupo}[repeat] {ngupo}[repeat], means what? Working thing. Now, this is
where it gets tricky, okay, and I lose it sometimes. So, if you catch me just tell
me. I’m not shy about it, okay. Cause of the water pitcher: present or future?
I’m sorry, present, past or future? [student: past] Yeah, okay, I mean, I would
say past, right. Relative to the time of the, [students] relative to the time of the
water pitcher, because generally speaking, it could be present also, right? I
mean, if the, if the, he’s right. In this school it has, good, has to be present.
Okay. If I say the cause of a water pitcher it has to be present, okay. Because, in
their school, by the time it’s gone it doesn’t exist anymore. Okay. In their school
if the {bumpa’s} already here, if the water pitcher has already occurred, then the
cause of the water pitcher doesn’t have any status anymore as an existing object.
It’s gone, come on, it’s already done its thing. It’s spent itself in producing that
baby and it dies, okay. So it’s gone. Okay. So, from one point of view, the cause
is, has to be present tense if it exists, right. Then again, causes always come
before the thing so they’re past, right? Little tricky, starting to get greasy, okay.
Same with {bumpay drebu}, okay. Relative to the time of the {bumpa}, yeah
[student] She said, look, didn’t you say many times that even the highest schools
of Buddhism accept, that by the time the result has come out the cause is gone,
but as a process you can say that the thing exists, you know. Which school are
you in? [student] Oh [student] Yeah [student] Yeah, and she’s saying this, what
she’s saying is this. I ask you does the past exist? In this school? No. Does the
past of a specific object exist? In this school, yeah. That’s what you’re trying to
say. Yeah, yeah. She’s just pointing out the difference between that. So you can
say that the cause of a, of a water pitcher exists in the present as a past thing,
how’s that? Alright? The cause of a water pitcher exists in the present as a past
thing, okay, in this school. Yeah. [student] {Bumpay gyu …} [laughs] [laughter]
{bumpay gyu ..}, so in this school, in the present time, there’s no cause for a
water pitcher? {bumpay gyu …} {Du}, okay. {Ma-ongpa … chuchen}, take the
cause of the next moment’s water pitcher, okay, {..}, so I guess it doesn’t exist,
right? [student: I didn’t say that] Hah, {bumpay gyu me yinpa tel}, so I guess
that’s not a cause for the water pitcher? [student] {bumpay gyu yarta} [laughs]
Oh, it is not the cause for the water pitcher? {kechik … chuchen}, we’re talking
about that [student] Ah {tsa..}[laughter] [laughs] {…. mayinpa tel}, so are you
telling me, like, this microphone is different from the microphone that was here
when I started? Are they {tade yinpa tel}, you said different. Okay. Are they
different things? So there’s two microphone’s, right? I thought I had a lot
already. [laughs] Anyway, we can go all night on that. I’d love you to debate
it, okay. Be, feel free. But not when the Quaker House is going to threaten us
with throwing us out, okay, if we go over. {bumpay drebu}and then {ngupo} is
a working thing. And you could say it exists in the present time, okay. If it’s
doing something, it better be existing now, okay. I’m gonna throw you some,
this is a game I played on your homework, okay. I better check ‘em off one by
one. I’ll give you the easy ones first. Now, don’t forget, we have three choices.
I’m giving you three choices. Now I’m gonna start making list. You tell me
which one of those three choices fit the things I’m gonna write now. Okay.
What are your three choices? Cause of the pitcher, result of the pitcher or
working thing, okay. I’ll give you some easy ones to get you used to it, okay.
We’ll call them one, two, three, okay. Number one is cause of the pitcher.
Number two is result of the pitcher. Number three is a working thing. Yeah.
Say, {kechikma}[repeat] {kechikma}[repeat]; something that only lasts a
moment. Okay, {kechikma}. Which of the three does it best fit into? Number
three, okay. {kechikma} and {ngupo} are same thing, refer to the same thing.
Obviously the other two are also {kechikma} but the one that best fits is {ngupo},
okay. A working thing is by definition a thing which only lasts a moment. It is
changing by the microsecond. As it asserts its effect it is changing. It’s wearing
out. Okay, {kechikma}. That’s easy one. Let’s find a better one. How about, say
{kye}[repeat] {shinpa}[repeat], {kye shinpa}[repeat]; {kye} means growing or
starting or beginning and {shinpa} means in the act of, right, in the act of
beginning. I’m putting my pen away so I can debate the first person who bites.
Which one? Uh. What’s uh? Uh means, alright, come and get it. [laughs] Make
my day. [laughs] Number two {yinpa tel}, {ka ri}, which one? {bumpay drebu,
kye shinpa} in the act of beginning, that which is in the act of beginning. By the
way, I’ll give you a fourth choice, nah [laughter], no that’s not fun. In this school
{kye shinpa ..} [student: gyu] Huh? { kye shinpa gyu yinpa tel, kye shinpa}, that
which is in the process of brginning. {kye shinpa mayin}, okay, it didn’t happen
yet, okay. That’s a clue Mr Siller, {kye shinpa chuchen ..} Ah? {gyu} is here,
{gyu} happened ‘cos the pillar, the pitcher’s already here. {kye shinpa}? Ah?
{kye shinpa ..}, {kye shinpa}, that which is in, I’ll give you another, I’ll repeat my
clue. [laughter] [laughs]. {kye shinpa mayin}, it didn’t happen yet, okay. It5’s a
trick question. It’s also a trick question on your homework, okay. [student]
What, which, what does it most describe in your mind, ‘that which is about to
occur’? How’s that? Huh? No, I mean, just in general, what does it, past,
present or future? Future. And in this school? Doesn’t exist. Okay. None of the
above. It doesn’t exist. In this school, doesn’t exist, okay. In this school, there’s
no such thing as that which is about to occur, okay. In the {bumpay dusu
shinpa}? Is there anything which is about to occur relative to the time of the
water pitcher? Yeah. The water pitcher of the next moment. And that’s fine.
And you can call that the future. But, but until you give it a point of reference it
doesn’t exist, okay.
You gotta get used to that. Here’s one more. Say {bumpa la}[repeat] {tu te}
[repeat] {ma-ongpa}[repeat], {bumpa la}[repeat] {tu te}[repeat] {ma-ongpa}
[repeat]; {bumpa} means water pitcher, {tu te} means relative to, okay, relative
to. Relative to the water pitcher, {ma-ongpa}, didn’t come yet. Which of the
three? Or, we have a fourth now, right. Which of the three? No, does it
describe the cause of the water pitcher, the result of the water pitcher, the water
pitcher as a working thing, or is it something that in this school couldn’t exist
anyway? {Bumpa la tu te ma-ongpa}, that thing which relative to the water
pitcher has not yet occurred. [student] It’s the result, okay. As long as we put
the qualifier, you know, relative to an existing water pitcher, that thing which
has not occurred yet is the result of the water pitcher. Got it? Okay. I’m doing
all the easy ones first, okay. This is gonna be difficult ‘cos we’re out of
transparencies. Okay, I’ll keep writing on here.
Say {bumpay}[repeat] {dusu}[repeat] {depa}[repeat], {bumpay}[repeat] {dusu}
[repeat] {depa}[repeat]; {bumpa} means water pitcher, {dusu}means by the time
of the water pitcher, {depa} means past already. Does it describe the cause, the
result, the water pitcher itself or nothing, none of the above? Cause, okay, the
cause of the water pitcher. By the time of the water pitcher it is past, okay. By
the time of the water pitcher the cause is past, okay. Yeah. [student] {dusu
depa} just {dusu depa} or just {depa}? If you didn’t put {bumpa la tu te}, [student]
yeah [student] yeah, if you didn’t put in a ‘relative to the water pitcher’ you,
you’d be in trouble. Then, it would be a non-existent thing, okay, which isn’t a
thing anyway. Okay. Does that work? [student] Present tense, makes it
present tense.
{Dusu depa}, here’s the one I have a problem with. If you get this one then I
think you’ll be okay. Abhidharma has a lot of difficult ones. Say {bumpay}
[repeat] ma-ongpa}[repeat], {bumpay} [repeat] {ma-ongpa}[repeat], future for a
water pitcher, future for a water pitcher. [students] Anyway, the text clearly
says, {bumpay gyu}, okay, {bumpay gyu}, the cause of the water pitcher is future
for a water pitcher. [student] You tell me. I mean, that makes it easy, {bumpay
dusu ma-ongpa} is very clear, right? That would be the, the, think thing which is
future at the time of the water pitcher. This just says, in the Tibetan, ‘future for a
water pitcher’ and, and it fits into the cause of a water pitcher, okay. [student]
Not the future causes. Well, maybe the future causes but he didn’t say that. I
think you have to cook it a little bit, okay. This is the tough one for me. This is
the tough one for me and, and in the Abhidharma, when you study it deeply
you have to get into this, this feeling of relativity. Is the future coming towards
you? Is the future something that hasn’t come yet? Or, is the future something
that you are moving through and in a sense it already exists and then it goes into
the past? And then, the future becomes the past. And you have to struggle with
those things. The text says this best describes the cause of the pitcher, future for
the pitcher, okay. There’s a thing in Madhyamika where, in a sense, the pitcher
is the cause for the cause of the pitcher. It’s easy to say that the cause of the
pitcher is the cause for the pitcher. But is the pitcher, which occurs later, the
cause for the cause for the pitcher? Can you say that? By the way, I’m not in
Madhyamika-Prasangika now, okay. You can see it in Pabongka Rinpoche’s
commentary. Is there any sense in which the water pitcher can be a cause for the
cause of the water pitcher? In what sense? [student] She said it wouldn’t be a
cause if there wasn’t a water pitcher. Yeah. You couldn’t call it the cause of the
water pitcher until the water pitcher has occurred. So from that point of view,
the cause of a water pitcher is future relative to the water pitcher. You see what I
mean? From that point of view there isn’t any cause of a water pitcher until a
water pitcher has occurred. So it has to wait until a water pitcher has occurred
before it becomes the cause of a water pitcher. Now is that what they mean
here? I don’t think so. I’m just flirting with you, okay. You figure it out. Okay.
I don’t know. Huh? [student] That amounts to the same thing though, you see,
thinking of the water pitcher as a water pitcher can’t occur ‘til the water pitcher
occurs, you mean, something like that? [student] Yeah, this is talking about,
well, is it or isn’t it? It’s talking about the cause of the, he says they’re talking
about the cause of the water pitcher. Let’s do an easier one. I was at the San
Dieago zoo with my niece and nephews and I saw Miss [unclear] do her thing.
Miss Frizzle? Yeah. The father’s know her. And she just keeps going. I guess
she’s like a children’s daytime show thing, okay. By the way, this other one, at
what point, for whom is the pitcher future? How about we translate it ‘pitcher
future’? For whom is the pitcher future? For which of the three is the pitcher
future? For the, for the cause of the pitcher. [student] Okay, so in that sense,
maybe it fits. How’s that? Okay. If you translate it as pitcher future, how’s that,
okay. [student] For which of the three is pitcher future? For the cause of the
pitcher. And they say, cause of the pitcher best describes {ma-ongpa}, sorry,
{bumpay ma-ongpa}, okay. How about that? Let’s do it that way. Sounds
good, okay, pitcher future. For whom is pitcher future? For the cause of the
pitcher, okay. Now we have pitcher past, okay, {bumpay depa}, pitcher past.
For whom is pitcher past? The result of the pitcher, okay. This best describes the
result of the pitcher, okay. Lost yet? Alright. Let’s do a little more. It’ll get
worse. That’s why I didn’t give you a reading, to make it really interesting. I’ve
got one more here that’s kinda cool. Yeah. [student] Yeah. [student] Yeah.
Absolute. Everything I’m listing now is absolute. By itself, by itself, one of those
phrases describe it. [student] Yeah, yeah. [student] Yeah, not relative to
anything else. [student] Yeah, I have not given any other qualifier, okay. Okay,
one more easy one.
Say {jik}[repeat] {shinpa}[repeat], {jik shinpa}[repeat]; {jik shinpa} means, {jik}
means ‘destruction’ or being destroyed, okay. And {shinpa} means ‘in the act of’
or in the process of being destroyed. We already had {kye shinpa}, in the act of
starting. And which of the three did it fit into? [students] None of the above. It
was a non-existing thing. Okay. That thing which is in the act of beginning but
has not begun yet doesn’t exist, okay, in this school. You’re describing the
future, in a, in a absolute sense, not relative to anything else, and that doesn’t
exist in this school, okay. But how about {jik shinpa, that thing which is in the act
of being destroyed? Yeah. [student] {Ngupo}. Great. Thanks {kyappa ma
jung}. It describes a current thing. It describes this pen. It’s in the act of falling
apart. It’s in the act of being destroyed, okay. So don’t get fooled. In the act of
beginning, don’t count for nothing in this school. It’s {me pa], doesn’t exist. In
the act of falling apart or being destroyed, that describes the present, okay. That
describes present as all of us can attest to who are over forty, okay. [laughter]
Take a break, ten minutes. When you get back we’ll do the highest school’s
version of time, alright.
Quick overview of what, of what the {tengyur-wa }think about the past and the
future, okay, the higher Madhyamika school, the Prasangika. What do they
think about the past and the future? They say all three times are functioning
thing, okay. They bsay all three times are working things. They don’t like it
when the Sutrists say a past pen, for example, doesn’t exist. They don’t like that.
Okay. They say, more or less, it exists but exists as a past pen, okay. And that’s
the distinction. I’m gonna give you two reasons.              This comes on your
homework, alright. There are two arguments that you can find in Madhyamika-
Prasangika for, for why are the past, present and future all working things. By
the way, the lowest school, which is what?              The Abhidharma schools,
Vaibashaka. They also say that the past, present and future they are all working
things but they say it for a much different reason. And they’re wrong, okay. So
they say the same thing but they don’t say it for the right reason, okay. The
highest school says all three times exist as, as working things, okay. I’ll give you
two reasons why. And they get into this fight because of karma, okay. Like, the
big question is, how can a deed which I do today affect me a thousand years
from now? Why? You know, either it stops or it doesn’t stop. If it stops how
can it do anything? How can it affect me? And then the different schools get
into huge arguments. Some people say, this school wouldn’t say that, but some,
some, some Sautrantikas, some Sutrists would say, oh, well future karma and
past karma do exist. Okay. The past and the future don’t exist, past karma and
future karma do exist. I mean, they get out of it that way. Some of them would
say, oh when you commit a deed it plants a {bakchak}. Where? Well then the
Mind Only school says in your {kunshi nyampa shepa}, okay, in your
alayavishnaya. In your, in another part of your mind which is only function of it
is to store seeds of karma. So the original impetus, the original deed is finished
and it is gone and it doesn’t exist anymore but there’s been an imprint put on
your mind and that imprint replicates where? In a separate consciousness. In a
separate part of your mind until the day that it meets the conditions that make it
ripen, okay. Yeah. [student] I’m sorry, what? [student] No, not separate.
They wouldn’t separate. They said it’s the same continuum of the same, they
would say it’s continuum of the same mind. Oh, it’s a, no, I don’t mean, I mean
separate in the sense of separate from your eye, ear, nose, taste, mental. They
say separate from the six consciousnesses. The [unclear] fact there are several
other consciousnesses which the other schools don’t accept, okay. One of them
is foundation consciousness, which is the store, or storehouse consciousness
where it stores those things. Yeah. [student] Yeah, it is the lower of the two
Madhyamika, of the two Mahayana schools. Yeah, of the two greater way
schools, Mahayana.        So, down here is Mind Only, sometimes known as
Yogachara and then, up here Madhyamika divided into two parts – Lower
Madhyamika and Higher Madhyamika. So it is the lower of the two Mahayana
schools, okay. Four great schools in India, two of them Mahayana, two of them
Hinayana, okay. The next schools up say, well the karma stays in your, I’m
sorry, Abhidharma school would say that the karma stays in your, in your five
heaps as they travel on. In the stream of the five heaps, okay. And then, the
lower Madhyamika school would say, no the karma stays, by the way, they
wouldn’t say the karma stays but the {bakchak}, the seed created by the deed
stays in your mental consciousness and floats on from year to year in your
mental consciousness, stays there, okay. Now, what does the highest school
say? And this is how we get into the argument. This is how the whole argument
begins, okay, of time itself. And they say, look, when you commit a karma, by
the way, up to now, especially in the Diamond Cutter Sutra, I taught you the last
one I just said. I didn’t teach you the ultimate one, okay. Here’s the ultimate
one, alright. They don’t stay in your mind stream. They stay in “Tessie”. They
are carried in “Tessie”, alright. They are carried in “Winston”, alright. In the
person as a projection. The projected person they are carried throughout time.
The reason a million years can go by between hitting someone on the head and
getting hit ten thousand times on the head is not that that karma sits around for
a million years. It’s that a seed, a mental seed is created which is carried on by
the person, that you think you see, because you’re forced to see that by past
karma. Now that gets very subtle and that’s why I didn’t bring it up yet. Okay.
I’ll say it again. It doesn’t just stay in your mind and float on through the next
million years. It stays with you as you are projected by your mind forced to do
so by your past karma. And that’s where karma really stays, okay. That’s all
Madhyamika answers. So the first part, if your homework said give two reasons
why the highest Madhyamika school says the past and the future are working
things, okay. Let me see which one I put first. In the case of a karma that’s how
it’s done. It’s a karma of the past can still affect you because a mental seed is
planted in you as a projection of your own mind, okay. If you want to explain to
somebody in a easy way, in, in a figurative way, you say, oh you see this seed
gets planted in your mind and carried until it ripens. And that’s what I always
tell you, right. I mean, ultimately, not even that. It is carried in your projection
of yourself as you move through time as you continue to project yourself, forced
to do so by your past karma. You continue to project the existence of those
{bakchaks}. It’s very cool, okay. Makes sense. [student] It’s getting much, it’s
just getting more and more accurate. It’s not so, yeah, and you’re continuing to
project a thing called “Jay Hahn”, okay. So the {bakchaks}or the mental, the
seeds of karma in Jay Hahn’s being keep being projected too by Jay Hahn and
they exist or they are carried on in the “Jay Hahn” that you keep thinking that
you see. Now, is that a real Jay Hahn? Absolutely. Why? Because, you’re just
projecting it. Wait a minute, if I’m projecting it he’s not real. Sorry, Nagarjuna
said, Je Tsongkapa said, because you’re projecting him he’s real. And if you
weren’t projecting him he couldn’t be here. Because if you weren’t projecting
him he couldn’t change for example. But we know he changes ‘cos first he gets
up and says you can drink stuff in the back and then gets up and says you can’t
drink stuff in the back, you know what I mean. [laughter] So he must be a
projection. Okay. Yeah. [student] She, she said, can you describe how they stay
in the Mind Only School, how they stay in the foundation consciousness. The
description of how they’re planted there: by being, by being present. And the
description of how they go on: by replicating. And, the description of how they
ripen: by meeting the appropriate conditions. Is all the same, it’s all accepted by
the highest schools of Buddhism. We just don’t accept that you have to make up
a separate kind of consciousness for those little dudes to live in because they stay
in “Leon” as projected by Leon, okay. That’s all. Alright. I asked my teacher
that question once. Now, the easier answer to the question of why does the
higher school think something past or future could still be working, okay. Now
I’ll give you the easier one. They say put your mind on a pen at the moment of
its destruction. Does the destruction of the pen have a cause according to you
{do depas}, you {rikpay jedrangs}, okay, you Logic group in the Sutrist School.
Come on, I ask you, {jikpe gyu ..},okay, is there a cause for the destruction of the
pen? Yeah, {du}, so pen {shipa gyu yarta}, so there must be a cause of the past
pen? Now get that jump in your head and you’ve solved the question, okay.
Get that jump in your head and you’ve solved the question. What is the jump?
Does the destruction of the pen have a cause? Yes. So, does the pen which is
past, have a cause? Yeah. So how can you say it’s not a functioning thing? How
can you say it’s not a working thing? Anything that has a cause, anything which
is caused, anything which is produced, anything which is grown, anything which
is lasts for only a moment, anything which has a working {dunchi yinpay chir},
it’s all the same thing. I’ll go through it one more time. It’s hard for me
[unclear]. Does the destruction of this pen have a cause? Yeah. The dog comes
in and chews it up, okay. What’s the next moment? There’s a destroyed pen,
right, destroyed pen. Does that have a cause? A pen which is past? Yeah. Its
destruction. Its destruction, okay. So, if it has a cause it must be a {ngupo}, right.
He can’t say {tak ma drup}, you can’t say {chi chir}, you can’t say no, okay. And
that’s all. That’s how the Madhyamika-Prasangika beat them. Okay. They say,
does the destruction have a cause? Does the destruction of it have a cause? Yes.
So the destroyed pen has a cause, right? Yeah. So, it’s a working thing, right?
Right. So the past is a working thing, right? They don’t want to admit it but
they have to, okay. [student] Object past, how’s that? Object past, where, yeah,
but once you prove a past object you can prove the past. I mean, it doesn’t
matter, right. If a past object is a working thing then the past is a working thing.
[student] [laughs] One more thing then we’ll get to that. Later. By the way,
they say that’s true because you can’t go around saying that there are causes for
the birth of a thing and then say the thing has no causes. They give them a
{rikpa .. sum}, okay {rikpa gosum} means, ‘parallel reasoning’. And I’ll give it to
you one more time. Does a thing have its causes? Does the beginning of a thing,
I’m sorry, does a beginning of a thing have its causes? Yes. So does that thing
have its causes? Yes. So does the beginning of the destruction have it, does it,
does the destroying have its causes? Yes. So therefore the destroyed thing has
its causes. Right. They say, higher school says, same thing, same argument.
Okay, I’ll go through it one more time. Does the, does the birth of a thing have
its cause? Yes. So therefore the thing has its cause. Right. Does the destruction
of a thing have its cause? Yes. Does the destroyed thing have a cause? Yes.
And they, well, Madhyamika-Prasangika says it’s all the same, okay. Now those
are the two reasons they give. One is referring to karma, how karma works and
how it’s stored in your, in you as projected by you. And the other is, is a little
more easy, okay, and that’s by parallel reasoning. Yeah. [student] Prasangika,
mainly. Higher, higher school of Madhyamika, [student] Ah, what do the
[unclear] say? They don’t accept that the past and the future are changing things.
I think they might accept that they’re unchanging things. [student] Prasangika
is the highest and the lower is called Svatantrika, Svatantrika, okay, not to be
confused with Sautrantika. And when Tibetan lama’s say it they say Sutrantika
and Sutrantika, so be careful, you’ll get confused, okay.
Okay, little bit of formal logic. Take hope, this is your last formal logic lesson.
The light’s not going on. Maybe we’ll just cancel it. Too bad. [laughter] Your
karma changed. We’re gonna get into bad reasons, okay. Incorrect reasons.
And if we run out of time tonight we’ll debate on Thursday, okay, ‘cos that’ll be
a short class. But I think since we had the discussion with the Quaker House as
early as a few hours ago we better not push it tonight.
Say {tak tarnang}[repeat] {tak tarnang}[repeat]. What do you think might be a
good definition for {tak tarnang}?          Anybody.        {Tarnang} means, ‘bad’,
‘incorrect’ [cut]
[end side A]
[side B]
Okay, {tak} means, reason, okay.          {Kyappa ma jung}, what do you say?
[student] He says, a reason where the three conditions don’t hold. {tak tarnang
…}, you telling me that’s the definition of a bad reason? [student: du] {tak
tarnang ..}, so I guess a bad reason exists, right? [student: du] Ah, {tak tarnang
…} [laughter] [laughs] {tak …} You. [laughter] You, hiding behind the pew
[laughter] after so bravely saying {du}[laughter]. {tak tarnang yarta}, are you
telling me there is such a thing as a {tak tarnang}? I can’t reach you anyway.
[laughter] {shok} No, name any existing thing and let’s talk about it, any
existing thing you want. Name any existing object. I don’t care. Okay, flower
{chuchen}. Take a rose, it’s an existing thing, ‘cos it’s a kind of flower, {tak
tarnang yinpay ..}. So, I guess that’s a bad reason; flower’s a bad reason? Huh?
[student] [unclear] You just told me, you just said a flower is a bad reason. I just
gave it as a good reason. {…}, anything that exists in the world is a good reason,
come on, what’s the matter with you {kyappa ma jung}? Don’t pretend you’re
reading that book. [laughter] [laughs] {..chuchen}, anything that exists is a good
reason I say. Any {tak ma drups}? Anybody want to bite? {… makyata}, you
telling me if something exists it’s not automatically a good reason? [student: du]
{Shok} Give me any one thing that exists. Everything’s a good reason, come on,
{tak su kupa ..}, everything that exists is a good reason. Come on, come on,
where’ve you guys been? Whose class were you in? Huh? [laughs] Everything.
Huh? No, {…}, doesn’t matter whether it exists or not it’s a reason, right?` I’m
not talking about that. I’m not talking about that. I’m not saying {tak su kuppa
tak si tsennyi}, anything I put forward as a reason. I’m saying, anything that
exists is a good reason, can be a good reason for some proof. [students] That’s
all I’m saying. Good. So {kyappa ma jung} you can’t give me a reason, a
definition of {tak tarnang} ‘cos we just talked about for an hour and a half how
poor old past and future didn’t have any definition ‘cos they don’t exist. {tak
tarnang} doesn’t exist either unless you say {de drup} [laughter] By the way, if
you want to get slaughtered in the debate ground in Sera Me, by the way,
anyone who wants to go better tell me in the next few weeks, okay, in
September, okay. {de drup kyi, de drup kyi} means, ‘of the particular proof’,
you gotta say {de drup kyi}, okay. There’s no such thing as a bad reason.
Anything that exists can be a good reason in some proof, for some proof, okay.
If you think of one let me know Thursday. Later. [laughter] Or I’ll prove to you
why we won’t be here next week. {de drup kyi}, okay, for some, {de drup kyi}
means for some kind of reason, in a particular reason it’s a bad, it’s a bad reason.
Three kinds, okay. I’m not gonna put, I’m not gonna repeat for a, ‘in a
particular’, okay.
Say {gelway}[repeat] {ten-tsik}[repeat]          {gelway}[repeat] {ten-tsik}[repeat];
{gelwa} means, ‘contradictory,’ as you know, because you studied {geln drel},
contradiction and relationship, alright. Most of our relationships turn into
contradictions. [laughter] Anyway, {ten-tsik} means, {ten-tsik} means reason but
they use a different word for reason, okay. And I think it’s ‘cos they don’t want
to give the thing the status of being a logical reason ‘cos it’s a bad reason. They
don’t seem to want to use the word ‘reason’ with, with, with something that’s
illogical. So they {ten-tsik} is another word that means a kind of a reason, how’s
that, alright, sort of a reason. Alright. {Gelwa} means contradictory and it’s
where the thing you’re trying to prove is the absolute opposite of the thing
you’re giving as the reason, okay. So give me a, give me a, {dra chuchen …}
right, take sound, it’s a changing thing, because it’s made, {dra chuchen ..}. Keep
the subject and the reason the same. Change the second element and give me a
{gelway ten-tsik}. Anybody. Take sound, it’s [student] yeah, or it’s not a
changing thing, because it’s made, okay. And that’s just contradictory because
being made and not being a changing thing are totally contradictory, okay.
That’s where the thing you give as the reason {tak} and the {drupje chu}, the
thing you’re trying to prove, the quality you’re trying to prove are just totally
contradictory, okay. That’s easy. The dot, dot, dot means, ‘in a particular proof’,
right?
Say {ma ngepa ten-tsik}[repeat] {ma ngepa ten-tsik}[repeat]; {ma} means ‘not’,
{ngepa} means, ‘definite’, okay. Let me see my example. [cut]
The answer key is messed up, okay, on this. We gotta fix that, alright. It’s last
question, part B, six B is messed up. Anyway, take sound, it’s something you can
hear, because it’s a changing thing. Take sound, it’s something you can hear,
because it’s a changing thing. Good reason? No. Why? Because it’s not definite.
Why? Just because something’s a changing thing doesn’t mean it make it
definite that it has to be a thing you can hear, okay. I reversed it on the key,
okay. In both of these two examples which of the three relationships have failed
Mr {kyappa ma jung}? [student] Yeah, the two necessities have failed, okay. It’s
true that sound is a thing you can, is a, is a thing you can hear. And it’s true that
sound is a made thing. So the {chok chu} or the relationship between the subject
and the treason holds tight. But those other two collapse and that’s what makes
them bad reasons. One collapses because of the direct contradiction between
two and three and one collapses because just because something is three doesn’t
prove it’s number two. Okay. Now, what do you guess the third kind of bad
reason involves? A collapse of relationship number one, okay, alright. And we
call it, say, {ma druppay}[repeat] {tak tarnang}[repeat], {de drup kyi ma druppay
tak tarnang}, a bad reason for a particular proof, because the reason doesn’t
work out. Meaning, the reason and the subject, something’s screwy there.
Something’s wrong with the reason, okay. I’ll give you a bunch of examples.
Ready? How about I give you seven examples? All you have to do is catch one
of them for your homework, okay. But these are the seven classic examples,
okay.
Consider a guy [unclear], take the guy in front of me, Jay Siller, he’s suffering
violently because he’s been stabbed with the horn of a hare. Okay. Good
reason? No, because the third, the thing positive in the position number three is,
doesn’t exist at all, okay. So that’s the first kind of bad reason of this third type, is
where the thing you give as the reason just doesn’t exist at all, okay. Got it?
Take the horn of a hare, it’s a changing thing, because it’s made. Take the horn
of a hare, it’s a changing thing, because it’s made. No, because element number
one doesn’t exist. Now, when you get into proving the non-existence of
something this gets very tricky. Like, the non-existence of a self-existent thing
doesn’t exist either, but can you ever prove that? Because then you’d have a case
where the subject didn’t exist. Very touchy, okay. Big debate in the monastery.
Okay, number three. Take sound, it’s a changing thing, because it’s a changing
thing.
You hear this kind of logic daily, okay. [laughs] [laughter] It’s a changing thing
because it’s a changing thing, okay. If the two terms are not different it’s a lousy
proof, okay. And many, many arguments that you hear throughout the day,
especially at my office, were like that, okay.
Take sound, it’s a changing thing, because it’s sound. Again, the same problem;
the first element and the third element cannot be the same, okay. It’s not a
proof, okay.
Take sound, it’s sound, because it’s changing. Okay. That’s also not a proof,
okay.
Take sound, it’s a changing thing, because you can see it with your eyes. Okay.
That’s a, that’s a case where the thing you give as the reason doesn’t apply to the
number one; number three doesn’t apply to number one, okay. How many we
got? We got six so far. I’ll give you one more if you agree to go home on time.
Twist my arm. Okay. This is a tricky one, okay, for those of you who ever get
to read the original text. Take trees, they have minds, because their leaves curl
up and go to sleep at night. Okay. Take trees, they have minds, because their
leaves curl up and go to sleep at night. Okay. That’s a pretty classic proof. And
this is called a case where part of the reason doesn’t apply to the subject. Which
part? The reason is what? Because their leaves curl up and go to sleep at night.
The ‘go to sleep at night’ part, okay, doesn’t apply to trees. That’s all, okay. It’s
where you give, like, a dual reason and part of the treason doesn’t apply to the
subject anymore, okay. Alright. You give, you give multiple elements in your
reason, and part of them, don’t apply to the subject. Those are seven ways in
which the reason itself can be screwy, okay, jut doesn’t work out, okay.
[student] You can give a zillion reasons. People do, don’t they? That’s okay.
You can keep giving reasons. You can chain the reasons, you can daisy-chain the
reasons. There’s no problem there, okay. Yeah. [student] We’re getting there,
okay. If your opponent doubts one of your elements you can’t use it. That’s
another way of, kind of a bad reason, like, sound is a changing thing because
you can see hungry ghosts sitting here, okay. Sound is a changing thing,
because you can see hungry ghosts sitting here. If they have doubt about one of
the elements, about the very existence of one of the elements, it’s a bad reason.
And we do that a lot, okay. The final kind of bad reason and then we’re done is
called bad for that, bad for the school that’s represented by your opponent,
okay, bad for the school of your opponent. Okay. You can’t give, and I think,
see they give the example of a Jain arguing to a Buddhist, okay, which we used
to do a lot in the old days. And the Jain says to the Buddhist, take a tree, it has
life, because it dies when you peel the bark off. Okay. Take a tree, it has a mind,
because it dies when you peel the bark off. Okay. And they, the expression ‘dies
when you peel the bark off’ is not, in Tibetan and in Sanskrit, you don’t say ‘die’,
you say ‘dries up’, you see what I mean? So, they believe that a tree dies and, in
fact, in English, we use that word too. In Tibetan we don’t say ‘die’, just it ‘dries
up’. So, it would be inappropriate for a Jain to come in here and say, look, trees
have minds because they die when you pull the bark off, okay. It’s not a good
reason because the school of the person you’re making the argument to. I, I
brought this up last because I don’t want you to use that kind of reason in the
United States, okay. You have to stick to common ground. The reason for
studying logic, the reason you came in here, the reason you took this course,
hopefully, is that as Buddhists we should be logical in our, in our defence of
Buddhism. And you’ll be called on in this generation more than any other
generation to defend Buddhism, you know. And it’s embarrassing when you
see some Americans defending Buddhism, you know. They’re just as illogical as
the schools they’re arguing against, you know. They happen to be right but
they don’t know why. Kedrup Je said, all of you, this is, like, five centuries ago,
you Tibetans all believe in past lives and you all believe in future lives and you
can’t give me one good reason why they exist. You just believe it ‘cos your
mommy and your daddy told you so, you know, and that’s the only reason. All
of you Tibetans who believe in future lives, you’re acting like you believe in it,
you’re trying to respect karma and all that, the laws of karma, but you can’t give
me one good reason why future lives exist. You can’t prove it. You have to be
able to prove things. And as a Buddhist, I mean, theoretically, you can save
people’s lives with Buddhism. If you didn’t get it yet the purpose of these whole
courses, the fifteen courses, is to save your life. You shouldn’t, if you do these
courses well and if you keep your practice well, if you meditate well, if you do
retreats and especially if you track your vows from hour to hour. If you tracked
your behaviour, track, write down every couple of hours what you’re doing,
and if you’re keeping your vows, you will reach another realm in this lifetime,
okay. You will change and you will go into another realm and you don’t have to
die there. And your body changes and everything around you changes. You
might look the same to the people around you but you’re not, you’re not the
same. And for you you’ve already reached a different realm where you don’t
have to suffer anymore. Your body actually starts to get younger and then it
changes completely and you don’t have to die like that. You don’t have to go
through that. If that’s true,and by the way, that’s the only goal of these classes,
it’s the only reason why Buddhism is, exists, is to reach that, okay. In one lifetime
if you practice Tantra, okay, in one lifetime. It’s the only reason to come to these
classes. It’s the only thing you really want. You can do it. Now reverse that
thinking. If you fail in, in, in your presentation to people, if your presentation is
lazy or illogical and if they, and if because of that they reject Buddhism as a Path,
as a method, then I would say you’ve murdered them in this, you know what I
mean. You, you’ve destroyed their chances not to die which is almost the same
as murdering them. I mean, I had a person, I was getting a sponsor, I said, you
gotta help me. You have to help me. I don’t have enough money. I need
money to spread this stuff, you know, I really need it. If you don’t, you’re
almost murdering people, they, like that. Anyway, I still believe that. I mean,
maybe it’s kind of tacky to do that to your sponsor but [laughter] to tell you the
truth I, I really do believe it. I sincerely believe it, you know. If you don’t, if you
found a way or a path, which by, meditating short time every day, very nicely;
by keeping sweet, holy, sacred vows, by checking them regularly; by doing your
Tantric retreats properly; by doing all the practices nicely, if you could reach
another realm and not die. And, if you could give that gift to someone but,
because you’re too lazy to think it out clearly or you don’t find common ground
with that person, if you lay on them ideas that they’re not ready to accept, and if
as a Buddhist you haven’t been trained as a logician, you know. By the way, in
the monastery, they say {tsen ..}, they don’t call you a student, they call you a
{tsen..}. When you get into the monastery you’re a logician. The word for the
study of the five great books is {tsenni}, logic, you know, reasoning. And it’s
because you, you can’t help people if you can’t present these things logically to
people who don't accept anything of what you’re getting at, you know. So,
really, their lives are in your hands and you have to be sensitive to what’s good
logic and what’s lousy logic. And that’s been the purpose of this course, you
know. Hopefully, you go use it now and be very sensitive that, I think the
biggest failure of westerners is that last one we had. Ten courses, you know,
many debates, many suffering, you trying to get through those readings, we
came down to the last three minutes, okay. And the point is: be sensitive to
lousy logic. Be sensitive to that the people that you’re talking to belong to a
different school called western civilisation and their worldview is wrong. It
doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for them and they suffer through a life and they
die unnecessarily. It’s a, it’s a tragedy. It doesn’t have to happen. It could have
been prevented, you know. It’s like Three Mile Island or something if the guy
hadn’t pushed the switch or something. You can, if you’re careful, and if you’re
well educated, well trained and if you think clearly and you present Buddhism to
other people logically, then, you can save their lives. And that’s been the
purpose of this course, okay.
The next course will be Lojong which is how to have a good heart during the
day, you know, all day long. And I think it’s a good change of pace from all this
logic stuff, okay [laughs] and I think it’s gonna be a really sweet class. We
already chose the texts. There’s some beautiful Lojong. It’s, like, how to develop
a good heart texts. And I think they’re very, very sweet. They’re very much
like parables of the west, you know. They’re very beautiful. They’re something
that you can use from day to day. And we’ll be doing that. I think it starts
around May fifteenth.
Last thing I think, well two things. We’re also gonna have a transcription project
going on through the break. Which means we would like to get some of this
stuff typed up and on the web so that people could access it throughout the
country. There are about, I think twelve thousand tapes have been ordered
already and sent out by volunteers here. And we’d like to get everything typed
so that people could access it on the web. And there’ll be a search engine. So,
like, if you don’t remember how to do your water bowls, you type ‘water bowl’
and it jumps to the day that, that it was explained. Or if you don’t understand
some, if you don’t remember why the Madhyamika-Prasangika thinks time
works like that, you can just type in ‘time’ and it’ll jump to the day that time was
discussed and stuff like that. But we need, somebody has to type them in. So, if
you have any extra time during that break, time whether it’s present, past or
future, talk to Ora, okay. Alright. And she’ll be, just type, if you don’t have
equipment we can loan you equipment. It’s just typing tapes out. And I think
there have been about forty people working on it and it’s going really good. It’s
also very good for prisoners. We have a lot of prisoners in the course and they
can’t get tapes. They’re not allowed to have tapes. Many of the prisons don’t
allow tapes so they can’t continue, some of them, to study. All they get is the
readings, okay. And that would be cruel to send a guy in prison [laughs]
[laughter] the readings you had, okay. [laughs] So, right? So we need you,
okay. So if you can help please talk to Ora afterwards. And then we’ll have a
review. I think you should come on Thursday if you can. I’ll do all the
thankyous on Thursday, I think, okay. So, [student] oh, we’re gonna hand out
all the answer keys for all the home works, okay. We changed the policy on the
answer keys. I want everybody to have them so you know the answer clearly
and correctly, okay. So we’ll be doing that, alright, as clear as I can make it.
Okay, we’ll do a short prayer.
[prayer: short mandala]
[prayer: dedication]
Geshe Michael Roach
Course X111: The Art of Reasoning