ACI 4 «Доказательство будущих жизней», занятие 1

ACI Course IV, Class One
Course Overview; History and Purpose of Buddhist Logic
6/30/94



All right. The subject you’re going to study, you don’t have to write the Tibetan,
but I put it up just, it’s a good, so, if anybody says, I always tell the story of
meeting the Dalai Lama’s teacher on a train station and my teacher was standing
next to me, and the Dalai Lama’s teacher says, “What are you studying?” and I
said, “Uh,” [laughs] and I didn’t know the name of the subject and my teacher
was very embarrassed and he was standing actually behind the Dalai Lama’s
teacher and he’s like [laughter]. He was trying to tell me the name of the subject
without [unclear], and, so he says, “What are you studying?” “{Tsema}.” Okay,
say, “{Tsema}” [repeats]. Okay, and the Sanskrit word for {tsema} is, say,
“{Pramana}” [repeats], say, “{Pramana}” [repeats].          Most Westerners say,
“{Pramana}.”

Okay, this is one of the great five subjects that a monk must study in the
monastery in the traditional course. You must finish this to get your {geshe}
degree; it’s one of the five great subjects. In general, we spend twelve years on
The Perfection of Wisdom; then we spend four years on {Madymika}, Higher
School; we spend two years on {vinaya}, monk’s rules; we spend two years on
{Abidharma}. And every winter, we take three months off and we study
{pramana}. {Pramana} is the study of how to prove something, okay, reasoning.
And the word {pramana} means, means “a correct perception; a normal,
unaffected perception.” You know, what does that mean? All through the day,
all the perceptions you have, all the physical perceptions, all the thoughts you
have, are ninety-nine percent {tsema}. They’re all {pramana}. They’re all okay;
they’re not screwed up. Okay, they’re not affected. What does “affected” mean?
You can be affected by alcohol; you can be affected by a drug; you can be
affected by an external factor like, when you’re, in the Scripture it says when
you’re rowing in a boat and it looks like the trees are moving; it looks like the
trees are going that way, and not that the boat is going this way. You can be
affected by, the one I always remember is when I was in a car in, at, near my
house and a leaf went across the road at dusk and it looked like a squirrel, a real
squirrel and I slammed on my breaks; you know, that’s, that’s not a {pramana}.
Okay, everything else you have during the day is a {pramana}. Everything else
is, is a {tsema}. And that’s, {pramana}’s are what makes the world for you.
Every time you have a {pramana}, you just created another thing around you;
you just saw another thing around you; you, you validated something. You say,
“How do you know that exists?” I had a {pramana} towards it. {Pramana}
means I had a perception of something; I wasn’t drunk; I wasn’t crazy; I wasn’t
very angry or jealous; you know, sometimes you see something when you’re
real jealous that’s not there or when you’re very paranoid at work and you think
someone’s out to get you and it turns out they’re trying to help you and you
have strong emotion that ruins your {pramana}. So, {pramana} means a kind of
normal perception, under normal circumstances, and you have them all the time.
That’s, that’s a very, very important idea because the definition of existence in
Buddhism is [pause]

…backwards, and you don’t have to know the Tibetan, you don’t even know,
need to know this, but I’d like to plant a seed in your mind, next life…end up in
some Buddhist monastery, somewhere [laughter]; if not in this life. {Tsennyi}
means definition. Tibetan goes backwards, all right, Tibetan always starts from
the back. {Tsennyi} means “definition” {yupe} means “of existence.” Okay, the
definition of existence, the definition of existence in, in Tibetan is {tseme mikpa},
say, “{tseme mikpa}” [repeat]. {Tseme mikpa} [repeat]. {Tseme} means “by a
{pramana}.” What is a {pramana}, Ariel? {Pramana} is a, is a correct perception.
Yeah, a normal, unaffected, correct perception; just a normal perception. You
know, people write books about {tsema}, they call it valid cognizers. And
everyone’s wondering, I wonder if I’ll ever be able to get a valid cognizer, you
know, [laughs] you have them all day long. Your living valid cog, you know, I
don’t like all these weird translations; it’s just a normal perception. Okay, {tseme
mikpa}, {mikpa} means “perceived, perceived by a normal perception; perceived
by an unaffected, undrunk, uncrazy, unjealous, unangry,” you know, just you
saw it, therefore what?

[Student: It is.]

It exists. And that’s the definition of existence in Buddhism. That’s how you
prove something exists. Yeah?

[John Stilwell: So, how is {mikpe} different from {tsema}?]

It’s a verb.
[J.S.: Oh.]

Okay. {Mikpa} literally means “eyed.” The word for “eye” in Tibetan is {mik}
so, {mikpa}, they made a verb out of it, now, “eyed by a {tsema};” “seen by a
{tsema}.” Anything seen by a {tsema}; anything seen by a {pramana} exists.
Okay. And if you don’t see it by a {pramana}, it doesn’t exist. And that’s
interesting. {Keydrup Je} who’s one of {Tsongkhapa}’s two main disciples says,
in his text about this, in the opening lines says, “You people taking refuge,”
describing five hundred years ago, right, “So, all you Buddhists in Tibet, you’re
taking refuge in what? In the Buddha. You have no clue if the Buddha exists; you
have no proof; you have no evidence; compelling evidence that you can
convince me that there is possible, that there is a being like you describe:
someone who, who knows all things; someone who has total compassion;
someone who’s watching us all the time in this room hoping we might meet
him, you know, ready to come at any moment, you know. How can you pro…
you know, he’s, he’s complaining. He’s saying that ninety-nine percent of the
Buddhists in Tibet have no inkling of what a Buddha is, they have, if you ask
them for three reasons why a Buddha should exist they can’t give it to you; and
they say they’re taking refuge. By the way, if you don’t take refuge you’re
what?

[J.S.: Not a Buddhist.]
Not a Buddhist. But, he’s saying, if you do take refuge, you probably don’t even
know what you’re taking refuge in, and you probably can’t give me three good
arguments why it even exists. You know, so, you have to have a {tsema}
towards the Buddha. Is it possible? Can you get a {pramana} towards the
Buddha? Have you ever had a {pramana} towards the Buddha? You can’t say he
exists if you haven’t had a {pramana} towards the Buddha. Have you ever had
{pramana} towards the Buddha.

[Student: Yes.]

You’ve not had a direct {pramana} of the Buddha, unless you’re truly to believe
the Dalai Lama is a Buddha or something like that or {Khen Rinpoche}. You
have not physically seen a Buddha, pr…you know, in a traditional sense. Can
you have another kind of {pramana} about a Buddha? Is there any other way to
establish that a Buddha exists?



[Student: Deductive reasoning.]

Huh?

[Same Student: Deductive reasoning.]

Yeah, just prove it. You know, can you prove it? Now, now, we’re gonna study
that. And it’s not easy. If you got into a good debate with {Geydrup Je}, and
you say, “I, I believe in the Buddha.” He says, “Okay, prove it to me.” You
might have trouble [laughs], you know. And it’s great. If, if we can prove it,
then you’d be a much better Buddhist. And, and even if we can’t prove, we had
a Catholic girls’ school at the temple a coupla’ months ago, [unclear] Girls, silliest
girls in New Jersey [laughter]. And they came in, like thirty girls and we, and
they, I said, “I’m gonna prove future lives to you.” And we got the other three
monks and we debated, meaning, you know, I translated as we went. And at
the end of the night, there was no person who, who, who would say that they
didn’t believe that there could be future lives. There was no person who said, “I
believe there’s not future lives,” or that I believe I can prove that there is not
future lives. You know, and we asked everybody, we said, “Anybody still,” you
know people came up and, and we proved that thing, and at the end, nobody,
everybody said, “Okay, we believe it’s very possible,” and that, and that, they
believe it’s probably not possible that they don’t exist. You know, that, that’s the
way it should be done, and then you know like, four girls call us afterwards and
want to come to class, it’s great.
So, [laughter] so, that’s the [laughter] that’s the way it should be, that’s the way,
that’s the way it should, you’re not allowed in Buddhism to give a proof which;
you’re not allowed to use a reason in a proof that the other person cannot
accept. A, a, an argument made to a person who already believes in future lives
is, is not allowed in Buddhist logic. If I tried to prove to the Dalai Lama that, that
future lives exist, I’ve made a logical error. And if I try to prove to a person with
reasons he cannot accept that there are future lives, that’s bad logic, too, even if
they’re true; see that’s interesting. I can, if I give you a reason, which you’re not
ready to accept, even if it’s true, it’s, it’s a false logic; not allowed togive that
logic; a Buddhist monk can throw me out of the debate ground. [If I use a
reason…]

[Student: How do you know that…]

…even if it’s true. But you, if it doesn’t relate to your level of understanding, it’s
a false reason; itt’s not acceptable; it doesn’t prove anything.

[Student: How do you know that the person isn’t going to accept the logic, I
mean unless you…]

Talk to them.

[Same student: Oh, okay.]

You get down to their level of experience. You know, you, you relate to them,
you must use reasons that come from their world. And you, even if you give a
good reason, which is not in their world, it’s bad logic and it’s thrown out of
Buddhist, you’re thrown out of the Buddhist, Buddhist, you’re not allowed to
give this, this reason; even if it’s true. That’s beautiful, I like that. That’s, that’s
one of the principles of debating and of Buddhist logic. So, anyway,

[Student: unclear]

Excuse me?

[Same student: Did you explain {yupa tsennyi}

Yeah, I did. {Yupa tsennyi} means “the definition of existence.”

[John Stilwell: So, what’s the whole thing?]
The definition of existence is “that thing which is perceived with a {pramana};
any object perceived with is perceived by a {pramana}.” {Pramana} meaning “a
perception which you have; you’re not drunk; you’re not crazy; you’re not very
angry; you’re not jealous; just normal.” All right? Like all the subjects in
Buddhism, in the monastery, all the great schools of ancient India, they come
down to us in a big long chain. If that chain ever gets broken, if you do not have
students that, that will finish [unclear] world. That’s very important, that chain
has been going on for two and one half thousand years. There’s always been
someone to teach the young, the next generation. You know, if you don’t learn,
the, the principles of what we’re going through, and if you don’t pass it on to
other people, you might be the people who break the chain. That’s a very big
responsibility, and that would be a very terrible thing. You really have to grasp
enough of it to pass it on to the next line in the chain, so, I’m gonna show you
how the, how the chain came to us.

We have a direct, unbroken chain of these teachings, orally and through debate
and through certain writings, but if, there have been schools that are lost. The
Sakya’s had a great logic tradition. Sakya Pandita’s, one of his greatest works
was on logic. They’ve lost their logic tradition. There are only two people in
India who can explain it; they’re very old, they can’t teach very much now; that
chain has pretty well been broken. The Kagyu’s were fantastic debaters;
Kagyu’s used to be great logicians; that chain’s pretty much broken now. So, it’s
up to; it’s really up to you guys. We have a nice, strong Gelupka logic chain, it’s
not actually that strong, it’s, it’s actually, right now we’re in pretty bad danger
because the books were destroyed in Tibet, a lot of books were destroyed, we’re
still looking for some of the books and I’ll talk more about it. But, it’s a big
responsibility, you have to know the chain and now you’re the next link and it’s
a big responsibility, so I’m gonna write, do you have a question?

[Student: Yeah, I’m not quite sure what {tsema} means.        I thought {ma} is a
negative.]
No, sometimes it’s feminine, and sometimes it’s just the second part of any noun
[laughter], you know, it doesn’t, here it doesn’t have anything to do with
feminine or negative, it’s just the second part of a two part word, it doesn’t, by
itself it has no meaning here. It’s, all Tibetan words, the root of a Tibetan word
is in the first syllable, usually, and the second syllable is usually [stuck in]. Okay
[laughs]. So, so don’t worry about it, it doesn’t, the {ma} doesn’t mean anything
here.

[Same student: So, does {tsema} mean {pramana}?]

Yeah, {tsema} is the Tibetan word and {pramana} is the Sanskrit word and the
English is “normal, unscrewed up perception.” And you have them all day long.
Okay, and that’s a very basic thing, and I swear, most people never get it, you
know they, they study logic; they study Dharmakirti for a year and they never
realize [laughs] they’re having {tsema}’s all day. But, {tsema}’s important
because it’s establishing, what?

[John Stilwell: Reality.]

Reality; truth. You don’t have {tsema} if you don’t know what’s a {tsema} you
can’t, you don’t know if something’s true or not; you don’t know if you should
believe in something. Okay, you have a nice, lucky attraction to Buddhism; you
don’t know if there’s a future life, you don’t even know if a Buddha exists. We
have to try to establish those things, then you won’t be anymore [in] Buddhism
because you like to be a Buddhist; it’ll be Buddhism because you damn well
better be a Buddhist, [laughs] ‘cause you’re in trouble for your next life, you
know, it’ll be a little bit different after that. You’ll, you’ll actually understand
why, why you have to do all this stuff, you have no choice. Yeah?

[Student: Does {pramana} go through for all kinds of accurate perceptions or
merely for perceiving things the way they normally appear to be?]

All kinds.

[Same student: All kinds.]

And we’ll talk more about it; there’s a yogic direct perception: the perception of
{shunyata} directly in meditation is , is a very special category of {tsema}, it’s way
up over here somewhere, we’ll go through it. We have a chart here, it’s kinda
nice, we, I collected it from the first [Dalai Lama] {Keydrup Je} [and then]
[unclear], nice. You’ll get it.

[Student: Was it translated?]

Yeah.

[Same Student: [unclear].]
 We just translated it. Okay, so, I’m gonna teach you; we’re gonna take a break
in about three minutes. I’m gonna give you the main book we’re gonna be
studying. Don’t forget, you have to read Tibetan backwards, right? You’re
gonna be studying, say {Tsema Nomdrel} [repeat twice]. Okay, {tsema nomdrel}
in Sanskrit which you don’t have to know is {Pramana Vartikka} and it’s the text
which is used in all Buddhist monasteries since, you know, India, for the study of
logic, Buddhist logic. It was written by, you’re not supposed to call a lama by his
raw name; you’re not supposed to say, “Hey, {Lobsang Tharchin}.” You’re
supposed to say Master Dharmakirti or {Charya Dharmakirti}; Dharma
manners, okay [laughs]. Don’t get him confused with, who? Do you know any
other {kirti}’s?

[Student: Chandrakirti.]

Chandrakirti, okay. I al…people always get them confused. Great scholars, you
know, embarrass themselves in magazines by slipping and calling, you know,
I’ve seen it. This is {Dharmakirti} not {Chandrakirti}. {Chandrakirti} lived in
about one hundred years after that and he wrote the basic text [for], on
{Madymika}, on emptiness. {Dharmakirti} was the great logician. You don’t
have to know it, but he belonged to what we call the {Sautrantica} School which
is the second of the great four schools. And he had a good dose of Mind Only
School.

[John Stilwell: When you say he was part of {Sauntrantica} School, does that
mean that pretty much everything…]

By the way, there’s {Swatantrica} School …

[J. S.: {Sautrantika}.]

…and a {sautrantrica} school…

[J.S.: Which one…]

And he was part of {Sautrantica}.

[J.S.: {Sau, Sautrantika.}]

People get that mixed up; I did for years.
[J.S.: Does that mean pretty much everything he did is {Sautrantrica?]
His famous work, for which he’s famous and he wrote a few other logic works
was written from that viewpoint. We say you can’t reach enlightenment unless
or Nirvana unless you become a {Madyamika Prasangika} so, we say he was
really a {Madymika Prasangika} in sheep’s clothing. [laughter]. And, and you
know, that’s our, that’s the viewpoint. That’s a long story. We’ll do it someday.
So, his name is {Dharmakirti}. He lived six-thirty A.D. I’ll do one more thing, we
got two minutes before the break. Why’d you put that clock there for me.
[laughter], [pause]. This is what I call the “onion skin theory?” We’ll talk more
about it; onion peel? Anyway. The correct perception that {Dharmakirti} was
talking about; the correct perception that he wrote his commentary about wasn’t
the one in your mind, it was a book called “Correct Perception.” And that was
written by, that was this book. And this is a book that was written two
generations earlier by {Dignaga}; {Master Dignaga}.

[Student: Compendium?]

Compendium on direct perception.

[Student: I don’t know what compendium means.]

Compendium means like, he collected all the things that the Buddha said about it
and put them in one place.

[Same student: Like a collection of it.]

It’s like a collection. So, {Dignaga}, Master {Dignaga}, there’s a big debate, you
know, when did he live, who, we don’t know who these guys were. We don’t
know anything about them, we know very, very little. They are lost in history.
We don’t know the names of the great kings then, you know there’s debates, did
they live a thousand years after [unclear]? They argue about it, you know. We
don’t really know, much. There’s a few old histories, but they’re mostly, you
know, very difficult so we don’t really know. Tibetans say maybe {Dhamakirti}
was his direct student, maybe there was someone named {Ishvaraseva} between
them; we don’t really know, it doesn’t really matter [laughs]. “Study their
books,” the Dalai Lama’s always saying that. Not so important that we know,
you know, who his mother was, you know. The books speak for itself. You
could have called it by anyone. Anyway, {Dharmakirti} is explaining {Dignaga}’s
book because in between there, some non-Buddhists attacked that book and
{Dharmakiti}’s big job is to explain Master {Dignaga}; he’s trying to explain what
{Dignaga} meant. And, {Dignaga}’s the great founder of Buddhist logic systems;
he’s the, he’s the ultimate source, for almost [laughs] for all our studies in logic.
Okay, we’ll take a break. [Geshe-la speaks of class “business”.]

[John Stilwell: What is, what is {choklam}?]

What’s that?

[J.S.: {choklam}?]
{Choklam} is his Tibetan name.

[J.S.: Oh.]

They translated because of his name, like Stilwell, they would, they wouldn’t call
you Stilwell, they would call you Quiet Water or something, see what I mean?
They would make a new name. That’s what the [Tibetan’s would do]. [More
class business].

You can’t understand, well I’ll tell you about it later, first I’ll write it on the board.

Say {tel seljay} [repeat]. {Tal seljay} [repeat]. What does {tarpa} mean?
[unclear] {Tarpa} means “freedom.” It’s a synonym for {Nirvana}. {Tar, Tar}
means “freedom.” {La}, you know.

[Students: At.]

At, okay, so {ta la} means “at the freedom.” {Seljay} means “light,” light; {seljay}
means “light.” Literally, it means “clear maker.” {Sel} means “clear” {jey} means
“maker.” And, and that’s what a lan, a lantern does. So, you think of a dark
night out in Arizona, no electricity for [fifty] miles; it’s very dark. And, you, you
kill yourself in a few feet and to have a lantern is very nice. So this is like a
lantern on a dark path, very beautiful. “Lantern, Light for the Path of Freedom.”
That’s a commentary by {Gyalsup Je}, by the way, tonite’s the boring part, I
mean more boring than usual, ‘cause we’re just doing books, we’ll get into
{tsema} next week, next [unclear]
[More class business]. Okay, {Gyalsup Je} he was the number one disciple of
{Tsongkhapa}. He’s always on the right side, on {Tsongkhapa}’s right, in any
picture of {Tsongkhapa}, you can always see him there, on the right.

[Student: Student of {Tsongkhapa}?]
Yeah, he was the number one student. {Gyalsup} actually means “regent”
because he took over the throne of {Tsongkhapa} after {Tsongkhapa} passed.
So, he was the first holder of the throne of {Tsongkhapa}.                Who was
{Tsongkhapa}, if you don’t know, born 1357; died 1419; wrote ten thousand
pages of Buddhist commentary, on every Scripture, on every major Scripture.
He, it, it’s almost impossible within one lifetime. We believe he was just taking
transcription from Manjushri.          We believe he was in direct contact with
Manjushri, and you cannot read, {Gyalsup Je}, who was under {Tsongkhapa}; his
student, [unclear] cannot read, in the monastery, we read about one paragraph a
day, we debate it for about six hours. You can debate a page of normal English
stuff in about ten minutes; extremely difficult, extremely deep thinker
{Tsongkhapa}’s is more, it’s deeper. So, how he wrote it, we don’t even, can’t
even, we don’t even imagine. Those books in the house over there are his
collected works; incredible. You know, Professor Thurman who’s very [ex], I
won’t say he’s [unclear]guished [laughter], he’s a distinguished scholar, in his
life, he’s been able to translate one hundred pages of {Tsongkhapa}. You know,
that’s about where it’s at. So, that’s {Gyalsup Je}. Very fantastic work, extremely
difficult to read, we can’t read it, so we have to study [pause]

{Tsema} means, what?

[Students: [unclear].]

{Pramana}; normal, unaffected, unscrewed up perception. That would look great
in a translation book [laughter]. {Go} means “a thought, the thought behind
something.” You know, when my boss says, “The cow got skinny,” what’s his
{gomba}? No bonuses this year, okay, he gave that lecture one year, right,
[unclear] [laughter]. {Gomba} means “the thought behind something. {Gen}
means, it’s {Alankara} in Sanskrit, it means “jewel”; {alankara} we were, I was
responsible for translating this book, it’s Jewel of the True Thought, and he has,
this scholar has written, he’s in Tibet, he’s head of the Buddhist Association in
Tibet, Tibetan government, and he’s head of the {Norbukinka} Palace and he’s an
incredible scholar, he wrote this book twice, it was burned the first time by the
Cultural Revolution [laughs] second time it was snuck out in a laundry bag and
he is a genius, and there is only one man in the twentyith century able to write
commentary, on that subject, he’s a genius and his student is my teacher. I’m a
student of his student, I’m his main disciple so, he’s, you’re now in that lineage,
and he wrote a commentary to the whole {Tsema Nomdrel}; the first person to
do it in I don’t know how long. And he, it’s incredible, it’s very easy to read. So,
we’re gonna study that. We’re gonna study excerpts from that.
[John Stilwell: The Light for the Path to Freedom,” is that a commentary?]

A, it’s the onion theory, he’s commentating on him; it’s too difficult for people to
read; by about seven hundred years later, so he writes a commentary, and after
another seven hundred years, we need another commentary, it goes like that in
Buddhism…

[J.S.: So, The Lamp of the Path…]

… every five hundred years, you need a new commentary.

[J.S.: So, The Light on the Path to Freedom is a commentary on the compendium
to Correct Perception?]
Yeah, actually, there’s many commentaries in between them, I didn’t want to
over burden you. Okay, that’s the lineage of commentaries, [unclear] not read
this, it’s in code, it’s from memorized, memorize it, it doesn’t make any sense at
all {[very fast Tibetan]} you can’t understand it. Okay, that’s a typical example, of
a, of a verse in code. And then he writes, he breaks the code for you, and he
breaks his code, and he breaks his code. You can’t go to the original books, you
have to go backwards through history and it’s very beautiful. So, you’re gonna
get a really nice commentary that’s, the book has just recently been printed in
Tibetan and in fact, the second half hasn’t even been printed yet, it’s ready, yeah?

[Student: Michael, We often do this in class, we trace the lineage of a text back
generations like this, are you saying it’s because there is a degeneration of
understanding or because it’s more colloquial for the time?]

I think both. And we don’t have time; we’re not spending our lives devoted to
the [unclear]. He probably sat down, he didn’t have it written down, he
memorized the root text, then he had an oral explanation, then he memorized
that and we don’t do that. [unclear, laughs]. Okay, you have to know that, all
right? That’s the onion skin, you need to go back. There’s two, now, when kids
start Buddhist Logic in the monastery, when they’re thirteen; first subject you
study after you learn to read and write; that have to have a text book to use,
these are too tough, so two texts have come out, I’m gonna write their names,
it’s a different homework question, okay? [laughs] And you should know this.
So, I’m gonna, yeah?

[John Stilwell: I’m sorry, I lost it on the commentaries, The, The Light on the Path
to Freedom is a commentary on…]

…on the one before it.

[J. S.: Compendium…

Yeah, [unclear].

[J.S.: …or commentary on Correct Perception?]

No, on the commentary on it. See, you go back in history.

[J. S.: The compendium is first.]
{Geshe Waldruk} is writing on {Gyalsup Je.          Gyalsup Je} is writing on
{Dharmakirti. Dharmakirti} is writing on {Dignaga}.

[J. S.: Okay.]
And you should know it, they’re more important than your grandparents. Your
grandparents gave you a body, these people are giving you your spirit. You
know, these people are giving you the knowledge that you will live by; they’re
more dear to you than your grandparents. You should know their names; you
shouldn’t just think they’re some dusty old books somebody wrote; they are
more kind to you than your grandparents. You know, they’re, they’re giving
you a way out of suffering and you should at least know their names. They’re
like your grandparents. In the monastery, we have to memorize the name of
every single lama, back to the beginning of our monastery, who, who was in
charge of the debate ground. And we recite it every Tuesday night, we stop and
we pray for like three hours to thank them, you know, so it’s a very holy thing.

[Student: [unclear]]

Well, how about like this? You mean like that?

[Same student: [unclear] first, second, third]

This is the earliest, then the next. All right, now I’ll give you, this is a different
question; different point. You’ve got two kids books that are written so that
young people can study logic in the monastery.

[Student: [unclear]]

It took me eight years to get me to the point where I could study these, and I
didn’t do anything else.

[Student: [unclear]]

No, we’re gonna to the tough stuff. {Dura, Dura} means “collected topics.” It
means “collected topics.” I think the next course that you do on this subject of
{tsema} will be from the {Dura} and most people would have started you from
the {Dura}, but I think it’s important that westerners learn the arguments for
future lives before we die. And we might die before the next class [laughs].
Seriously, you gotta study the most important things first. {Dura}, I’m gonna
give you three subjects from the {Dura}.
Say, excuse me?

[Student: Sorry, I’m just curious, about the {Dura} what is that thing under…]

Yeah, this is [unclear], it’s a good question, it’s a very good question. You rarely
see it, it’s a special spelling thing, don’t worry about it [laughs]. Say {she drup}
[repeat] {she drup}, [repeat]. {She drup} is the outline of existing objects; the
outline of existing things.

[Srusent: Outline as in visual outline; silouette?]

No, outline as in this is a, b, c, this is 1, 2, 3. Now imagine this, in two pages, a
complete breakdown of all existing objects; it’s incredible.

[Student: In two pages.]

In two pages.

[Student: [unclear] generic categories?]

Yeah, categories of existence. It takes the {Abidharma} about five hundred
pages. You know, this is, these are the two kinds of existing objects; this one
breaks down into two; this one breaks into three; these three have these
categories; these four have these categories, about the time you finished two
pages, you’ve covered every object existing in the universe. And it’s a beautiful
subject; it’s really a fantastic subject and we’ll do it someday, okay. Yeah?

[Student: The first [unclear] {samsun}…]
Uh-huh.

[Same Student: You said that’s how to define something, you said it…]

How to define “definition.”

[Student: That’s an explanation of what definition is.]

Yeah, what are the rules of defining things? Because in Buddhism, if you don’t
know, you, you don’t know it.

[Student: What does that mean?]

Excuse me?

[Student: What is that [unclear]?]

Right, what are the rules for defining. Are we gonna study all these subjects?
Not in this course, I just want you to know the literature; I want you to know
the, these are, this is your family tree, you should know it. Okay, say {chi}
[repeat], {chi jedrak}, [repeat] {chi jedrak} {chi jedrak} [repeat]. Hard to
translate, {chi} means “a general in the sense of car,” {jedrak} means “a specific in
the sense of Chevrolet.” Now you translate it, I don’t know, “the study of
generals and specifics;” the study of…

[Student: Makes and models]

[John Stilwell: Classes and sub-classes]

Classes and, I don’t care what you call it, you can call it generals, I don’t care. It’s
the study of how do you make a mental image and how do you, it’s, it’s like
Jung, Jung’s archetypes and Aristotle and; it’s a fantastic subject. In fact, if you
study this subject, which is like “car” and “Chevrolet,” okay, if you study that
subject, if you’re good, if you’re serious and you meditate carefully, it can lead
you to a direct perception of emptiness; that particular subject could trigger what
your goal is. And once you perceive emptiness directly, you, you’re on your
way out; you have seven lifetimes to go or whatever. That’s why they call it {}.
You, you are, you will not suffer more. You will see your future lives; you will
know the nature of those lives; you won’t have a bad future life anymore.
[Student: Wow.]
You’ll have a nice future life. You will be born into the, into a kind of birth that
you will always be able to have good teachers; you will always be comfortable;
you will always be studying these subjects; you will never forget what emptiness
is; you, it’s, everything’s set after that. You perceive it directly and you perceive
your future lives directly.

[Student: Wow.]

And, and this can trigger it, this, if you study this carefully, it can trigger it

[Student:[Is that what we’re gonna study?].

Not this course. [laughs/laughter]. Still have to prove future lives. That’s why
this study of Buddhist, I call it Buddhist Logic and Perception, is called the key to
Madhymika. They say that you cannot understand emptiness without a good
understanding of this. I always tell story of {Geshe Daldon} who was that? Who
is that?

[Student: [unclear].]

Where was he?

[Student: What do you mean?]

Where is he now?

[Student: [He could be anywhere] [she laughs].]

He’s dead, okay? No, her, her, when she was a kid, her first teacher, old
Mongolian Geshe; great master, very wise. On his deathbed, I went to his room,
he’s got the {Dura} in his hands, he’s studying thirteen year old logic; what she
studied when she’s twelve. I, said, you know, “Geshe-la, shouldn’t you have
some Tantric manual in you hand or something? What is this?”
“No, I want to die with this, I want this to be what I carry.” This is the key to
everything.” It’s very important. And he died two days later, that’s, that’s what
he chose to have on his, [death], so it’s something, something wonderful. Logic
is not, Buddhist logic is for the purpose of achieving {Nirvana}.

[Student: [unclear].]
Well, you think about it [laughs]. Then you don’t remember, [laughter]. No, not
very well, you guys can do it. Okay, one more book and then you’re outta
[unclear]. This is another kind of book. Now, we’re not talking about this
anymore. [Unclear]. [Geshe-la talks more class business]. Okay, say {takpik},
[repeat], {takpik}, [repeat]. {Takpik} is “the study of formal logic; how do you
make a reason.” This is this, because this, okay, formal logic; what is a good
reason; what makes a good reason. You’re not gonna study this, okay. You
have to study this before you can enter the debate ground in the monastery.
When you pass this subject you’re allowed to go into the debates; it’s usually at
age fifteen. She studied it when she was a kid; we got a grant from the [federal]
government and we had about, I don’t know, eight kids learn it in conjunction
with the local school system, Howe and it was great. We did a [unclear] at the
end of the year, [unclear] Washington, D.C.; never went because they found out
she was only twelve, and [laughs/laughter], long story, but, it’s the study of
reasoning. You, you’re not gonna do it. We’re gonna go straight to what they
use it for, which is to prove, what? Future lives; past lives. Okay, one more
thing. last homework thing, life story and a background is in your notebook, it’s
from the English introduction to these books; this book was written in Tibetan,
but Geshe, his life story is very inspiring, he, he was imprisoned by the Chinese,
he was badly injured, his books were burned, and then how he got through it
and what he’s doing now, is very interesting. So that’s in your reading. The
other reading you have is from the last, is from the core of the onion. What’s the
Core of the Onion? Like if you got through this book, and then you could read
{Gyalsup Je} and then you could read {Dharmakirti}, and then you could read
{Dignaga}. Would there be anywhere to go from that?

[Student: [unclear].]

Huh?

[Students: The Buddha.]

The Buddha. Did the Buddha teach logic? Yes.

[Student: But did he write anything, the Buddha?]

The Buddha never wrote anything. It was written down five hundred years
later. He was like Jesus, [unclear], [laughter]. He, he wrote logic and the classic,
this is your second reading and you must read it and you have to memorize it,
his classic statement and why you need logic is …
[Student: Who’s he, I’m sorry?]

Buddha.     He said, “{GANGSAK              GUI, GANGSAK GI TSU MISUNG TE,
NYAMPAR GYUR TARE}” which means “the reason you need logic is that if any
one person, without being able to read another person’s mind perfectly, judges
that person, he’ll go to hell. You’ll fail.

[Student: Can you repeat that again, please?]
“One person,” it’s in your reading, “judges another person, without being able
to read his mind perfectly, he will fall.” When He means “fall”, He’s referring to
an actual incident where somebody went to hell. And it doesn’t have to [mean]
go to hell, but you can think it as collecting extremely bad karma by judging
another person. Somebody in the other class asked, “Does that mean that you
should just give up trying to correct other people or should we just never pay
attention if a Sadam Hussein is about to kill people?” No. You must resist evil
and in fact, if you took the initiation last, last weekend, that’s one of your vows.
You’re now required to resist evil; protect people from harm. But, you have to
be extremely careful not to judge people; you cannot judge another person if
you cannot read their minds. He says [nyampar, gansak gui gangsak gi tsu
misung te, nyampar gyur tare.} Unless you are a Buddha, or close to it, don’t
try. You don’t know who around you is a bodhisattva; anyone in this room
could be a bodhisattva, you could all be bodhisattvas, I am not. I don’t know
who is a bodhisattva in this room and I, and I, and I can’t judge; I should not
judge you.       And {Gedrup Je} who, who was the other great student of
Tsongkhapa says, “Look, just go to your room. Perfect your own knowledge.
Worry about your own faults. Clean out your own mind. Clean out your own
actions. Keep your own vows - which are many – and don’t worry about other
people [laughs]. You know, if someone’s mugging someone, help. But, do not
judge other people. Do not spend your time judging other people. And the
Buddha tells a story and that’s, and that’s that’s the source of Buddhist logic. The
Buddha tells that story and then goes into Buddhist logic. He begins to explain
the methods for perceiving things that you can’t see with your eyeballs. And
that’s where Buddhist logic comes from and that’s the ultimate source of
Buddhist logic. That’s the, the purpose of Buddhist logic is to keep us out of hell,
okay [laughs], and, and get us to Nirvana.

[Student: How do you reconcile with the fact that if you see something, like
somebody is hurting somebody else, you don’t, acknowledge that. Isn’t that
judgement, also?]
Yeah, it is a judgement that you should stop the harm, but you in a, in a case of
extreme violence you can, you can think that the person is probably having
some evil thoughts, but you can’t even be sure about that, but I’m not talking
about that. I mean, what I’m talking about mainly, is the people around you;
that you know who they are, in your office or in your family, or in your
relatives, and you’re judging them. And you, and you have no basis. You do,
cannot read their mind; they could be a bodhisattva, they could be doing
something for very high reasons that we can’t imagine. And don’t, don’t, He,
the Buddha calls it {Medong}. {Medong} is special kind of barbecue pit in India
[laughter], where you have burning embers [laughter] for twelve feet down and
it’s covered by a very innocent looking powder, you know, ash powder. So, it
looks, you know, looks like no problem. It doesn’t look dangerous. He calls it a
{medong}. It looks like you could mess around with it and not get hurt, but if
you take that step, you burn and you burn badly. You fall into a deep pit of
embers; burning embers. He says, he says, “Don’t touch it; stay away from it; be
careful. Judging other people is very, very dangerous. You, you will hurt
yourself.” You know, He’s adamant about it; that’s where Buddhist logic started.
That’s the question. So, I’ve taken the quotation out of the Sutra. By the way,
who brought, brought us the Sutra? This Atisha. Okay. Atisha quotes the Sutra.
It’s in the {kangyu}; the Sutra is still there. You can find the original Sutra in the
{kangyu}, you can find it in the {tengur} because Atisha uses it.

[John Stilwell: You’re talking about the original sutra that …]

Yeah, Buddha…

[J. S.: …Master Dignaga…]

… one of the one’s he was commenting on; one of the one’s he was using to
write his book. And, and that Sutra has a short, it’s about five pages long, that
section, and that’s what the students in the other class are going to be translating
for you guys and that’s the part that you’re gonna have to edit and it’s very
exciting. When you get to the end of it by the end of this course, something very
interesting will happen, and I’m saving it. So, you’re gonna get it in installments.
First one’s coming from Eric [Colomel] and then Serge is gonna do a page and
then Ernst is gonna do a page. Yeah?

[Student: Micheal, when you say, brought, that Atisha brought us the Sutra, we
have all the Sutras, its just that his reference to it has made it flow though all
these documents.
Yeah, he wrote a book called {Do}, {Dokun me dukpa}, he, he collected major,
important [unclear] from Sutras, [unclear] a book, but it happens to be, that
particular Sutra still exists, some of the other Sutras in his book don’t still exist.
See, he lived nine hundred years ago, we’ve lost those. So, you can find it in two
places; you go to the {kangyu}, which is in New Jersey or you can to Atisha’s
work, which is in the computer, already. So, that’s how it comes, no one’s ever
found it, that’s the benefit of this [unclear].

[Student: [You have to] judge the situation.]

You have to judge the situation, in order to act with compassion and, and, and
your Dharma responsibility. But, be aware and you know it, and I don’t have to
tell you, you, you don’t know his real thoughts. You don’t know what he’s
really thinking and when someone seems to do something harmful to you or
you, you absolutely can’t judge. You don’t know. But, you have to admit you
don’t know.
[Student: But, what if someone told you? … someone tells you?]

No. If someone hurt you, people say lots of things. The Buddha, don’t, don’t
judge. Don’t worry about it. We’ve got all these problems within ourselves,
you’ve got all these things to fix.

[Same Student: Yeah, but I’m not talking terms of putting down someone, but I
mean I’m talking in terms of you keeping your vows and in terms of…]

Are you talking about…

[Same Student: …I don’t want to associate with these people…]

Are you saying terms of determining…

[Same Student: Yeah.]

…decisively, that this is a bad person?

[Same Student: I’m talking…]

Are you talking in terms of deciding that he’s, he has bad, certain evil thoughts.
Can you decide that? Anyone. What I’m saying is obviously not, but it takes a
lot of Buddhist training to figure it out,you know [laughs]. It does take more
than a few minutes to figure it out, but you gotta get used to it; you gotta get
used to staying away from, what? The barbecue pit. It looks innocent, it looks
like, you know, you can bad mouth anybody, but it’s very, the karma you collect
by it is [unbelievable]. Let me see if there’s anything here you didn’t get. What
did {Gyelp Je } say about logic? He said, {Gyalsup Je} is who?

[Student: [unclear].]

Number one disciple of Tsongkhapa; on His right hand side. He said that the
kindest thing that Tsongkhapa ever did to him was to teach him logic. And
before {Gyelsup Je} met Tsongkhapa…

[Student: [unclear].]

More homeworks in the back? We might be short, because …
[Student: [unclear].]
[laughs], we’ll talk about it. {Gyelsup Je} was the most famous logician in Tibet,
before he met Tsongkhapa. He was already a great man before he met
Tsongkhapa. He went to Tsongkhapa’s lecture to embarrass Tsongkhapa and he
went to a lecture to challenge Tsongkhapa, and to defeat him in public. And by
the end of the lecture he was a student of Tsongkhapa [laughter]. And he
prostrated himself and he became his student and, and he said the kindest thing
that Tsongkhapa ever did was teach him this subject. You know, Tsongkhapa
taught him all the tantras; taught him Madhymika; taught him, the biggest, kind
thing that Tsongkhapa ever did for me was teach me logic. And you’ll see [at
some point]. Yeah?

[Student: Can I ask a big [unclear], are we gonna wrap this up?]

We’re gonna wrap up; we’re gonna finish now, in three minutes, fifteen minutes.
Now, go ahead.

[Student: I, I, ever since you’ve said the first word of the class {tsema} or
{pramana}…]

Yeah.

[Same Student: …I don’t think I understand what normal perceptions, aren’t
there millions of ways of normal perception?]

Yeah, millions, all day long.

[Same Student: [unclear] perceptions, there are just million, okay.]

Knowable objects in the universe are almost uncountable. Therefore, {tsema}’s
are almost uncountable. Each, each object has to be established by a, the job of
the perception, the job of the {pramana} is to say, yeah, this thing exists, I saw it.

[Student: You are seeing it]

Without being drunk, without being crazy, without being under the influence of
a strong emotion. You see it. It exists, therefore it exists.

[Student: So, its whatever you think it is with your normal [mind]?]

Yeah. Now, in an ultimate sense is that correct?
[Student: Probably, no]

Touchy. Very difficult question, but that’s not tonite. I think that’s about it.

[Student: [unclear] spelled exactly the way it sounds?]
{Sautrantika}?

[Student: The school that we’re …]

We’re studying?

[Same Student: Yeah]

Okay, you don’t have to know this, but this is [for her] question.

[Student: {Sau}…]

It comes from the word Sutra. And in Sanskrit, when you strengthen a vowel, it
becomes [au] so, it becomes {Sautrantika}.

[Student: So, it becomes {Sautrantika}.]

Which means a follower of Sutras; Sutrists.

[John Stilwell: I don’t know if it’s okay to ask this, but I don’t get question
number four, in the homework, you know, two, you said two types of books
used in the monastery? Is it the same as…]

Number four [unclear] those are the two books I wrote and these are the
[unclear][laughs]

[J. S.: So, why are they types of books, I mean,I thought that was the name of a
type of book. [laughter] Are you’re saying it’s a type of book?]

Yeah, just give me the name of the book and…

[Student: The {Dura} is only one book, is it two books or one?]

I gave us the second book. [laughter] [Don’t make me] do your homework. By
the way, I have a request, if you have a question about your homework, call
each other first, sometimes I don’t even cover it, then I know I’ll get twelve
phone calls…[Geshe-la talks more class business].

[Student: So, you need logic to prove things you cannot see?         Or not be
judgemental?]
It’s the same thing.

[Student: Everything.]
Okay, go ahead.

[Prayer: mandel]

[Prayer: dedication]

One more thing. The purpose of logic, ultimately is to perceive emptiness;
karma, the fact that they exist, the fact that Nirvana exists; prove that those
things exist. And, and by the end of this course, hopefully, you’ll have a, you’ll
have a better insight I would say than any other Westerner has ever been
exposed to these particular proofs. I, really, by the end of the class, totally
believe that there’s a future life, really, I don’t think so, only on the basis of the
class, but I think you’ll have the tools to perceive it yourself. That, I can give you
and if you work on it, you will see your future life. That’s, that’s great. You can
do that. So, that’s the goal of that. Second thing, Khen Rinpoche who’s our root
lama, is having a birthday on Sunday, you’re all welcome to attend, it’s, you
know bring [potato chips] or something, nothing fancy. It’s in New Jersey, I
think it’s starting …

[Student: Four.]

Four o’clock. And if you’ve had the Vajrayogini initiation, [unclear] we’ll be
doing a ceremony; everyone is welcome to attend that. That’s it. [Geshe-la
continues with class ‘business.’]

###
940725-1.aaa
12a.txt