Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 4

[Speaker 1]
Okay, hang in there one more hour Nick. No, then you can sleep through the DCI courses. Sangpa Sabuddhare.

So this guy from North Tibet called Sabuddha. You can always look up here, I'm on the first line. I'm always on the first line.

And you can, if you're not sure how to get to it in your own text, just search for DGTZAM. He doesn't accept this kind of purpose to the prostration. What was the wrong Luke?

What did we say is the purpose of Nagarjuna's prostration? One of them was to get enough merit to compose the work. To be able to compose the work was the second one, and the first one was to show that he's in league with the holy people.

Yeah, good, okay, yadam, okay. He says, if you do agree that there is such a purpose in mind, then let's consider Nagarjuna and his spiritual son, Ayodeva. Are you telling me they are not holy beings?

Why? Because they are hoping for some kind of return on their goal. They would be like somas.

They'd be like businessmen. They must be prostrating to get something. Which is a common accusation of DCI.

You're being nice to someone so you can get something back, right? How do you answer that objection? You're being nice to someone so you can give something great or bad.

You can say that, yeah. If we can convince everybody to give something, then we'll have a world where everybody's giving and get what they want, and there'll be world peace. Yeah, so it's not necessarily selfish, okay?

It could be selfish. So then we got to, so there's a she. By the way, that's a typical four-part syllogism.

Take blah-blah, it's blah-blah because blah-blah, and this is an example for the same thing. You do the same thing as businessmen. They are not holy beings because they are always looking for something when they do something for somebody.

Okay, so that's typical. So, drachachen, mitakte, chepichur, perma, pumbachen. Drachachen, mitakte, chepichur, perma, pumbachen.

It's like a water vase. Yeah, it's like a water vase. This is the classic classic, okay?

Okay, who was the chigo in that debate? Who was the opponent? Chigo, om.

Some Hindus who said what? Om, last of all. Yeah, the sound of om is unchanging.

The most famous Buddhist proof is to fight people who said om is unchanging. You know, om is like magical. The eternal sound.

Yeah, okay, so anyway. Tsongmachen she, korsen ke lang dang dang, chan la mun dang dang, ve so en ten gyur gyur. They set forth, gyur, a ten gyur.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, an assertion.

[Speaker 1]
Now, selwa, you know, I used to know and I don't remember, because it's been like 30 years, but... We're going to pause here and go through the parts of a good reason, okay? Okay, we're going to pause here and go through the parts of a classical reason, okay?

So, here we go. And I'll just type them in here, and let me see if I remember them. Chö chen equals, drach chen.

Consider sound. Sound, okay. Drup, I think that's the right spelling, drup chay chö.

What quality are you trying to prove about sound? That it's...

[Speaker 2]
Classically. Impermanent. Yeah, it's changing.

[Speaker 1]
It's changing. Okay. Drak, what's the proof you use?

What's the thing you use in the proof slot? Chepa. Yeah, it's made.

Okay, made thing. Okay. By the way, when you write out the reason, you don't add verbs and stuff.

You don't say drakpa yinme chö. You don't say drakpa yinme chö, you just say... Sorry, you don't say chepa yinme chö, you just say chepa.

What's the dak? Chepa. So, technically, it should be called the element in the reason or something like that.

The element in the statement of the reason. The main point of the statement of the reason, which is made. Made, okay.

What's the... Sorry. Drup chö.

[Speaker 2]
Chö, sound is changing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sound is... Is it changing? Sound is changing, it's okay.

It means... So this is the... What do we call it?

Subject. Yes, subject. In English, what are we talking about?

Sound. This is the quality we're trying to prove about the subject. Okay.

Okay. By the way, if you want to go deeper, which you don't want to, but I'm going to go there anyway. The opponent must have atsema about the chö-chö.

The opponent must be able to see what is the sound. Otherwise, it's a bad argument. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, you can't say, take a shabda to somebody who doesn't know Sanskrit. Okay.

Then, that's like writing a contract and not telling them what it's about. I'm not talking about the tail gear now. I'm talking about a classical...

Syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
Sound is changing.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Tak means the main element of the statement of reason. So what I mean is it's not the whole reason.

Because it's main. It's just main. Okay.

Sound is changing. Yeah, assertion. Assertion.

Or what we're trying to prove.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now, very famous, say chö-chö. Chö-chö. Number one is number three.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Number one is number three. Which equals sound is a... Syllogism is made.

Okay. Number one is number three. Jacob.

Jacob. If something is three, number three, then it is always number two. Equals, if something is main, it must be...

If something is sound, it must be produced? No, I'm sorry. Something must be changing.

Yeah, it must be changing. Okay. Don't kill me.

You can say don't kill me. It's like a confirmation step. If something is not number two, it cannot be number three.

Equals. If something is not changing, it cannot be something made. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
That's what I'm saying. It's like a confirmation step.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because if the... By the way, these are called the three... This is called soul number one.

This is called soul number two. And this is called soul number three. And the definition of a correct reason is anytime these three are all complete.

But as Ben pointed out the other day, if number two is true, number three is always true. So, it's really just dessert on the cake. It's like a re-confirmation.

If number... If soul number two is true, soul number three is always true. Anyway.

Okay. You okay? You guys okay?

Now, why am I doing this? The same terms applied to a tilger are different. This is the...

By the way, I got some bad news for you. That can also refer to the whole soldier.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Or Rigpa. Or Rigpa. Right.

Logic. Okay. Unfortunately, the word for reason can also refer to the whole statement.

Okay. Yeah, reasoning. They call syllogisms reasons sometimes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. The study of syllogism in the Dura is called... Yeah, the science of docs.

Yeah, which means the science of reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Huh?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what's the word by the way? So, it's third tone and not... And not li, which means power.

[Speaker 2]
Li.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Now, there are corresponding component names for tilger, which you could call a statement of consequence. Sarcastic statement.

Okay, are you telling me... Everything that's... Every fruit is red.

Then we come back with a sarcastic statement.

[Speaker 2]
Oranges. Oranges.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I guess take oranges, they must be red, because they're a fruit. Okay. Now, what I don't remember, and I didn't have time to look it up, so I'll be honest, is a term called selwa.

And there's no easy place to look it up. I kind of just have to tear things apart. Well, it came up here because he's a logician and he can't help it.

But it's... Give me any term here. Take a banana.

Are you saying it's red? Because... It's a fruit.

Okay. Take a banana. Are you saying it's red?

Oh, it must be red, right? Why? Because it's a fruit.

[Speaker 2]
What's the target?

[Speaker 1]
Selwa is... I believe it's... I think it's a banana, it's red, I'm not sure.

It's like the dukje chur. It's one plus two. Dukje chur is one plus two.

[Speaker 2]
It's the mic that we were trying to prove.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Oh. Okay.

And where the tak is? Dukje is one plus two, right? This is a nice...

You guys should write this down, actually. Tak is... is three.

Okay, chur chen is one. Okay? Tak is two.

Tak and also two, if you know what I'm saying, equals... One plus... Two plus three.

So dukje chur is the two. Right. I'm sorry, you're right.

Dukje is one plus two. I believe selwa means the thing you want to clear away. Who said that?

Yeah. Dukje chur is red. Yeah, that's the question I have.

I don't know if we're trying to eliminate bananas red or... Maybe you are. Or all fruits with it.

The incorrect subject or the incorrect assertion. Well, you're saying two plus three. Take a banana.

Take a banana. Are you saying it's red because it's a fruit? Right.

Or is it... One plus two. Bananas, man.

I don't remember. I gotta keep looking, okay? Okay.

It's relevant here because he brings up the selwa. I saw that. By the way, I believe I saw something the other day.

Okay. When I was trying to solve this in 30 seconds that I had available to me, they were saying there were telgears without selwas and then telgears with selwas. And it could be the same telgear presented to different people.

Okay, so take a banana. Fruit. Sample you made.

Because you said all fruits are red. So I guess a banana is not a fruit, right? But if the original assertion was wrong, was correct...

Yeah, a telgear presented to someone who already believes the thought... Yeah, it's not a correct telgear. I can't say to a Buddhist, take some.

No, it's not dakpa because it's made. Are you telling me it's... What was their...

What's their assertion? Drakpa chen. Om chod chen.

Oh, their assertion. Om kyi drakpa chod chen. Drakpa yin te om yin me chod.

Because it's om? Yeah. That's them?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Well... There's various reasons. Never changes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Let me study it more, okay? Maybe we can deduce it from his statement here.

Let's go try. Can we go to the next part and see? Khor sum ke lang.

Well, you see, this part means he has put forth a telgear. This guy has put forth a telgear. Well, he's describing what they're saying.

They put forth a telgear. In which... Which says, are you telling me Nagarjuna's not a good person?

[Speaker 2]
Why?

[Speaker 1]
Because he's doing it for... He's trying to get something out of his frustration.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So that's his telgear.

[Speaker 2]
His sarcastic statement.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, so I guess Nagarjuna's not a nice person. Why? He's trying to get something out of his frustration.

Okay? Yeah. Alright?

So, who did the telgear go... The telgear... Who put forth the telgear?

Sabu. The other guy. Yeah, okay.

So, they put forth a telgear. Uh... Where the damcha is eliminated by scriptural authority and by what everybody knows.

Position. What position is supposed to be eliminated here? Our position.

Our position. Okay? What's our position?

We had these goals in mind when we did this. Yeah, good. And according to him, those positions are obviated...

Obviated by what? Okay, are disproved by both scripture and by what everybody knows. Okay.

So, give me an example of how scripture would disprove the idea that, uh... Aryadeva and Arya... that these guys are had purposes in mind when they prostrated.

Well, scriptures which say they're nice guys. Okay. Okay?

And the common knowledge, drakma, that they're nice guys. Okay? Got it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And, kor sum ke lang means somehow someone has contradicted themselves.

Now, your question is, is Gyaltsabje accusing this guy of contradicting himself, or is this guy accusing us of contradicting ourselves? And I believe it's the second one. Because he's saying this, dam chak...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
In which he's claiming that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. This is an English expression. Do you know?

Shoot yourself in the foot means you're trying to get something and you do the absolute wrong thing. It's called shooting yourself in the foot. Like, I don't know.

You're trying to get rich and you cheat somebody. You shoot yourself in the foot. It's called shooting yourself in the foot.

So, he's claiming that we shot ourselves in the foot because we said, Nagarjuna, there is a purpose to his prostration because the purpose is to get the good karma to finish his book. Okay? So, he's accusing us of accepting a self-contradictory position.

It cannot be that Nagarjuna was hoping to finish his book by prostrating because no holy person would try to get a goal by doing a nice thing. No moral person would try to get something out of a prostration. Are we okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
You struggle with it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
I already did. I mean, so it seems like... So, actually, the word selva doesn't really matter right here.

Not in terms of translating it, I guess, because I don't... Well, he's giving a sarcastic statement in which he's trying to prove, actually, through scriptural authority and by common knowledge that our assertion is wrong.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Selva. So, maybe there's some way that I can reflect that.

[Speaker 2]
The word selva.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the sarcastic statement.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay. I thought it was a Cabezon reference in Ken Ripochet's saying that selva is an absurd conclusion.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think so. I believe it's like dupe de ture. You know, I believe it's 2 plus 3 or...

It's either 1 plus 2 or 2 plus 3. I don't remember. I'll look it up.

[Speaker 2]
That's cool.

[Speaker 1]
Telgiers have parts the same way as Tarks have parts. Tarkyam nakshat. And...

I wrote them out somewhere.

[Speaker 2]
If R1 plus 2 is based on their mistaken idea, then it's absurd.

[Speaker 1]
That's true. Yeah. Nagarjuna is not a holy being.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, I guess Nagarjuna is not a holy being. There's a 1 and 2.

But it's an absurd conclusion of his position.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Yeah. It could be 1 or 2.

Okay. Let me look it up. Yeah.

I remember spending like an hour at once and figuring it out. Way back in the day? Because there isn't a list and they're not in a dictionary.

Yeah, like long ago. And I searched the ACI courses to see if it was in there, in the logic course, and I didn't put it in the logic course. I don't know where I put it.

But I'll go look it up again in my copy at the same time. Okay. Okay.

Uh... Majajangye means Majajangye. And Maja is probably a place name, but Maja by itself normally means...

Sorry. Before you go any further with that, I looked in the scan for something.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Just like at midnight last night. Majajang... It's...

What it looked like more like in the scan was Yesanare. Y-E-S-A-N-A-R-E. No.

This is correct. Okay. His real name is Changchub Yeshe.

I did find him in TBS I think. I'll show you how you look for it. In our database you would do it this way.

Everybody's sick. Okay. Cool.

You would do Majajang and see what you hit. Oh. Majajang.

Here's Majang... Majajangchen. Oh.

Oh, here. Hey, look. Wow.

This is Longchen Lama and he's got all of them here. All the Majas. Oh, this is cool.

Yeah. Majajang... Yeah.

Great. Yeah, here. Okay.

This is nice. You want to use this. All right.

There was a person who was simultaneous, what do you call it, with people? He was a contemporary. Yeah, contemporary.

He was a contemporary of Sarawa Yondendak. Okay. Sarawa.

Pengyu Gyal. Gyal.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, I couldn't see it. Pengyu, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Pengyu, he lived in Pen. Gyal hlakang ma shang ma sam ni ma drat. Pengyu gyal hlakang ma, who lived in the place that's called Gyal Hong Kong.

Okay. And his name was shang ma sam ni ma. shang ma sam ni ma.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Ni ma drat. Ni ma drat.

[Speaker 1]
Gyal gyal la lo nyur nga. He spent 25 years in India. Kha che yun se.

He went to Kashmir. Here's the interesting part. Umar Rikzal Dukh sang du drabba den sa.

Den cha pel chela buddha gyur. He was responsible for translating the great majority of Nagarjuna's works into Tibetan. Okay.

De lo ma kham bap shee ni. Kham bap shee means four lineages descended from him. Okay.

Four great students. Okay. One was the chik la kye pa shu gang ma.

Shu gang ma was wise in the wording of Nagarjuna's texts. Sorry, I didn't catch his name. Shu gang ma.

Okay. Then there was Tsangpa Dregul who was good at the meaning. Okay.

Then there was the guy who was good at both. And that was ma ja chang tsun. Okay.

Chang tsun of ma ja. It's probably chang chuk tsun dru. Okay.

And then there was shang tang sakpa. Shang tang sakpa. Who's quoted here, I believe, in your book, down here, right here.

He's the next guy. Okay, now, is ma ja chang ye the same as ma ja chang tsun? That's your problem.

Say you? It doesn't say. What was he good at?

It just says he was the fourth. He wasn't good at anything. But these guys are no slouches.

At least two of them are students of the person who translated Nagarjuna into Tibet. But I think Gyaltsabje is attacking them. I believe this is ma ja chang chuk ye she.

Let's go see if there's another ma ja chang. Here's tsun. Okay.

Here's tsun again. Here's tsun again. Patsab kyi je.

He came after Patsab. He followed Patsab. That's the first lama we had here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, Patsab.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, misspelled. He... And there's some description of his...

Here's another one, ma ja chang seng ma. So here's proof that there's more than one ma ja chang. Okay.

Yeah. There was chang chub seng gi, chang chub tsundu, chakya seng gi. Okay.

The peacock. Yeah. By the way, it leads into mandala.

Okay, but not our guy. This is the one I think it is. Chang chub ye she.

You see? Y-E-S. And he was a teacher of ma ja chang chub tsundu.

And he was the teacher of ma ja chang chub seng gi. And by the way, this is a lineage for umarik sok chok, the oral transmission, lung, passed down to these people. And this might help you establish a lineage, but sometimes there's 200 years apart, okay?

So, here's the lineage of giving people the oral teaching of Nagarjuna. And he includes the 70 verses, the 60... This is the lineage for your text.

Okay? Right here.

[Speaker 2]
Where is this text? Stay with me.

[Speaker 1]
Well, go down here. It's Lung Du Lama, 65481.

[Speaker 2]
65481.

[Speaker 1]
Folio 136A. 65481. Sorry.

Folio 136A. Here's the lineage for your text. It starts with, guess who?

[Speaker 2]
Papa Lu. Papa Lu. Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
And then goes to Sangye Khyen, Buddha Palita. Then it goes around Gyupa on us with Baba Viveka. But then it comes back to Chandrakirti.

Rigpa Kuchung means the cuckoo, cuckoo of reasoning, cuckoo of knowledge. And there was two of them, the elder and the younger. This is probably their names, I guess.

Sarajita and Hasimati. Yeah. Not the other cuckoo.

There's two Rigpa Kuchungs. I believe this is probably the two of them, Sarajita and Hasimati. Then it came to somebody named Kadaka Varma.

Then it came to the Tibetan translator, Patsap. That's probably the one he's talking about. Because he doesn't specify which Patsap.

Then it came to Majah Chandra Geshe, who's the guy we're on now. Then Majah Chandra Tsundru, then Majah Shakya Senge, Khun Khyen Chimpa, Gyelten Lama Man Lam Tsultrim, Gyel Nguro Benchen, Thel Nguyen Chimpa, Nguyen Shing Khun Gyelwa, Chukyi Gyelpo Tsongkapa. And then to Gyeltsabji, which is where we are.

Then he traces it up to Benchen Losang Chukyi Gyeltsen. Okay, the first Benchen Lama. Chimpa Gyeltsab is the textbook writer for Ganden.

Jamyo Shepi Dorje, scripture writer for Devon. Losang Kelsang Gyeltsab is the 7th Dalai Lama. And he gave it to me, which is Lung Du Lama Thakur.

So there's your lineage.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is. Yeah, sorry. 6548 I 1 Okay.

But he seems to be criticizing the lineage right before him.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. Majjaj Changchub Yeshe Nare. Okay.

So you've got the ye from ye and the sh and the s from the end of the sh of yeshe. Okay. He said, I also don't agree that there should be any purpose why Nagarjuna would be bowing down.

Because he's at a he's at a juncture where he is at a Bodhisattva level, meaning he's seen emptiness directly. He's reached the bhumis. First bhumi, first Bodhisattva bhumi is to see emptiness directly.

He's reached the bhumis and he has no desire anymore, chak jel. Right. He's free of all desires.

He doesn't want anything. Okay. At that juncture.

And by the way, Gyatsabje takes juncture to mean during the direct perception. Okay. But, okay, during that juncture when he's at a level, meaning just got to the level.

lang dor kyi mikpa tam je chom He's destroyed all appearances of practicing something or giving up something. Therefore, this is difficult rendering, but I take it to be gupa tsir me means there's no point in trying to calculate what are his what are his purposes. He doesn't have any purposes.

He's in the realm of nothing. Right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Wherein we destroy all goals and things we try to eliminate, you know, there's no more at that moment. Oh, So, this tsir here? Oh, by the way, I want to add one more up here and you should get it, whoever's doing this text.

densik also equals syllogism. So, densik is clearly syllogism. Da can be syllogism.

Okay, Nagarjuna's had this some amazing mystical experience. He's not thinking of what he wants to give up or what he wants to achieve. There's no, you shouldn't even, tsir means to consider or calculate.

Yeah, karti means astrological calculation. Citta means mathematics. So, here it means try to calculate what he should be doing or what he shouldn't be doing.

He's not at a point where he can be considering that because he's in chakta. He's in the state free of everything. No goals.

[Speaker 2]
Free of attachment.

[Speaker 1]
No goals, no problems. So, he can't have a goal of trying to collect enough karma to finish the book. Yeah.

Okay, then you can see it. She... She...

puts forth the kind of logical syllogism that is known as, you know... Now, this is difficult. I have to look it up.

It would seem to say the syllogism which is known to others. Oh, this... Sorry, this...

Okay. I think I missed something with the words. It says, chey shen la jak ti ten si gyi Oh...

That's the end of his syllogism. I'll say it this way. Take Nagarjuna's prostration, okay?

It would be incorrect to... Ignore this chair for now, okay? It would be incorrect to try to calculate something he had in mind.

I'm sorry. Take Nagarjuna... He...

He is... He has destroyed the state of trying to get anything or not trying to avoid anything or trying to avoid anything because this is a point in his mental stream when he's... he's reaching the bodhisattva bhumis and he has...

he's free of everything. He's free of all attachments. He's not...

He's not saying, I want to achieve this or I want to avoid that. He's like in this sphere of om, you know? Okay?

Shambhala Dakshatendra... I have to look it up, okay? It might be more specific than it sounds like.

But I'll say this. It might be that he's... he's referring to common knowledge but not a common knowledge I would accept.

This is a common knowledge that someone else would accept. That if you're in the realm of ultimate reality you no longer have any goals or anything you're trying to avoid. So I believe the Shambhala Dak means okay, he's giving some kind of reasoning but I would say he better be showing it to...

he better be giving it to somebody else besides us because we don't agree to it. Yeah, from my point of view this argument would only hold water with someone who already has some wrong ideas.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
He also said he's composing a book while he's in the direct perception of everything. Well yeah, it wasn't that clear. It seemed like he was almost saying he's in the direct perception of everything because he's someone who has reached the direct perception.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. You can tell from... from Gyaltsabje's response which is coming.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just supplying something for you because I know where his response is. Ready?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Can I just ask one more question?

[Speaker 1]
It seems like these guys are responding to somebody else from a long ago who gave these two goals because they're pretty specifically referring to the two goals that Gyaltsabje had. Or they wrote their own commentaries that just... and just said look, there's no particular goal in mind.

[Speaker 2]
And then he put it into a different form.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or it could have been... you have to see their dates.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Were they criticizing Gyaltsabje? It's kind of tempting to go to Gyaltsabje and lecture first. It seems like according to that lineage that there were hundreds or thousands...

Or were they criticizing somebody else? No, because they are in Tibet. Okay.

Early Tibetan. All right, all right, all right. Just around from 1000 to 1357.

Okay. Okay. Or 1363?

1660? 1664. Okay.

Now he throws in another guy almost as an afterthought and he doesn't work on him very much.

[Speaker 2]
Shang Tung Sakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Shang Tung Sakpa, which is in that lineage list.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
He also... I admit, muh, that he puts forth arguments, okay, which are in keeping with these commentaries on the 60 verses. Meaning those three guys.

So he doesn't say what this person believes, but he says he's also thinking along the same lines.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
You can even put it that way. Okay. And I take it, I take Tikhar to be plural and I take it to be...

Because he says dedak. Commentaries of these guys. Yeah.

No, I reverse myself. Oh. In his Tikhar, In his Tikhar.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He seems to go along the same lines as these three guys. Okay.

Yeah. He seems to be kind of, could, what do you call it? Commiserating.

Has parallel ideas. In concordance.

[Speaker 2]
Concording to these three guys.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, now, I'm going to make your life easier, or harder, I don't know. Let's count the guys we have so far. Here's one.

Patsap. Okay. We talked about him.

Then we had Sangpa Sabu. And now we got Maja Changchen Yeshe. Now, he's going to, he's going to fight them one by one.

That's why I gave you numbers. Here's one. Starting with Dela.

Okay. Here's two, starting with Yipang. Here's three, starting with Simbang.

You alright? You with me? You want me to wait?

Okay. Now, resik is an extremely difficult term. Resik can very commonly mean provisionally.

It can also mean for the time being. It can also mean without going into detail. You know.

And I think it's the third one. Okay. So, you know, it's almost as if he were saying just quickly now.

Okay. The first position is wrong. Dhammo mirik.

And then he, he criticizes it in logic and in scripture. First in logic and then in scripture. Let's do the scripture part first because it's easy.

Rincheng says, Rincheng Tewa Rincheng Tewa says, They practice the Dharma because they have this faith. They practice the Dharma only out of faith because they have faith. Alright?

By the way, what was the first argument? The guy is not trying to achieve something. He's not trying to like collect more karma.

He just was overcome by faith and he threw himself down. He just tuljung. He just, wow, he just, wow, he threw himself on the ground.

He wasn't thinking, oh, I'm going to throw myself on the ground so I can finish my book. He just got some sudden burst of faith and he threw himself down. Okay.

That was the first argument. Okay. Now, our counter-argument.

So, I'll tell you that the counter-argument basically is like this. So, are you telling me that if you have a burst of faith and you make a prostration you don't have anything in mind? Because Nagarjuna himself in the Rinchen Thera said they practice because of their faith.

Practice implies a goal.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You're telling me anybody does it out of faith there's no point to it? Because Nagarjuna himself talks about people who practice because they have faith. You're telling me in practice it assumes a goal.

To get a goal. Right? So, you can't say that someone just had a burst of faith and bowed down and that's not no goal in mind.

Because Nagarjuna himself said people who have faith turn to practice to achieve their goals. Understood to achieve their goals. Okay?

Now, now we'll go to the wording. Okay? Your first argument is mirik.

Mirik. Incorrect. Yeah, that's not true.

We can also mean illogical. Okay? But here it means incorrect because tarpa dunyakir lo those who aspire to freedom.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Those who... dunyir means to aspire. Dunyiyowa.

Dun duniyowa. Lo. If you have feelings of aspiration for freedom.

Chumma means I told you many times in Lam Rim I learned this word at the halfway point to Washington D.C. at Howard Johnson's where Rinpoche asked for cream for his tea and they gave him cream dream. This is a fake cream. Those little cups in the restaurant.

And he said that's chumma. That's chumma cream.

[Speaker 2]
Chumma.

[Speaker 1]
It means fake. Artificial. Okay.

Chumma mayimba means Yeah. Completely sincere. Okay?

Not... What do you call it when you have to uncontrive? Okay?

So, those who have uncontrive feelings of aspiration for freedom. Okay? Who has managed to develop such a attitude in their heart.

This kyepa means develop. According to you they must be a person who has no goal in mind. Okay?

Who's not looking forward. Right? We've called him a person who aspires.

And then you say he has no goal. Aspire to what? Oh my god, excuse me.

You know. He's a person trying to achieve something who's not trying to achieve anything. According to you.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, this is really cool.

[Speaker 1]
Why? Because he's practicing Dharma because he has... he got faith.

Practicing Dharma out of pure faith without any...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, because he got faith.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. He developed Dharma meaning crystal faith. Right?

That... By the way, normally it should have a wāsū as Sugan knows. Where's that?

Dhamma meaning faith should have a little triangle on the bottom of the letter but it's a dhamka. Okay. Dham...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
So...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. So those people who aspire towards liberation right? From their very depths of their heart must, according to you, be people who have no goals right?

Because they are practicing Dharma out of faith. And you said anybody who has a burst of faith and does something doesn't have any goal in mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Got it? It's a counterexample. Then to nail the guy down he says, and by the way Nagarjuna in his own book talks about people who practice because they have faith.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay, got it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now next time we're going to disprove the second bad position which is, I don't know, who's that? Sangha Sabha.

Uh-huh. Okay. Got it?

Yeah. All right, let's go. I get to go home and take a nap.

Sachi... Bukkhi... Dukshin...

And don't jump. Rirang... Cool.

Thank you. Super cool.