Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 17

[Speaker 1]
Sadhguru jin juk shing me thok chok rik rak ling shing yin de gen pari sang ye shing du mik te u war gi chok kun nam dak shing la juk par shok vidam guru ratnamandala kam dhirdatayami sang ye chodam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bardu dak ni kyap su chi dak gi chen yin gi be su nam ki tro la pen chir sang ge dru par shok sang ye chodam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bardu dak ni kyap su chi dak gi chen yin gi be su nam ki tro la pen chir sang ge dru par shok sang ye chodam sok gi chok nam la jang chu bardu dak ni kyap su chi dak gi chen yin gi be su nam ki tro la pen chir sang ge dru par shok shok so you guys have to be sure you're in the building today just you know they will she'll bring you food nick will entertain you and uh it'll help me a little bit okay possibly possibly it won't what time is it that's what i don't know

[Speaker 2]
oh oh they're gonna go to yoga oh are you sure you say you want to do it in your ethics class that's the contract signing

[Speaker 1]
yeah that's the signing but the squeezing has to be done quietly oh yeah sorry sorry i can pre-squeeze and then post-squeeze but then the squeeze squeeze is usually done by yourselves with the two columns one for okay that's enough it's mostly just uh to remind me what's going on

[Speaker 2]
yeah

[Speaker 1]
currents maybe i just not sure where i put them current i the 21 would probably yeah do you need it you do yeah it's great well okay um sorry we have ice right now they're not no ice will come soon which one do you want ice now uh with the ping ping you mean ping uh mail ping yeah it's in the fridge that's okay okay may or wendy uh uh did you drop it to me no i'm working on that I'm so grumpy today. I don't know why. You're on light on the which is not mine.

I've been sleeping too much.

[Speaker 2]
It's a good book.

[Speaker 1]
That'd be the one. Alright. Aha!

I will put it in the drop box. I'll tell you in one second. Stop trying to confuse me.

We have to try.

[Speaker 2]
Shooting fish in a barrel.

[Speaker 1]
Even that's confusing. Stop trying to confuse me. I'll put it in TranslatorJob's Nick current version.

Got it. Where do you want it?

[Speaker 2]
We'll talk about it later.

[Speaker 1]
A lot of people are tired. We're all grumpy. You're all grumpy.

Nice dress.

[Speaker 2]
That's from Taiwan.

[Speaker 1]
Taiwan and Argentina is similar. Are you okay? I'm up and ready.

Please don't talk too much among each other. It's hard for me to say things twice. There are two viewpoints being discussed here.

Yuta and meta. Yuta means what? Things exist from their own side.

No, it's not the ta. Yuta means the idea that things exist the way they look. And then meta...

When you introduce meta, you always have to introduce it with reference to yuta. If they don't exist the way they look, then they don't exist at all. So that's yuta and meta.

Now, they hold to yuta and meta because of the extreme idea that things exist the way they look and the extreme idea that if they don't exist the way they look, then they don't exist at all. So in this section, it's crucial that you make those distinctions. Yuta, the idea that, or the viewpoint that things exist the way they appear.

And it holds to an extreme idea that things existing the way they appear is yuta. Okay, got it? It holds to yuta.

Okay, good. Now, don't forget that next text is Nagarjuna arguing against who? Yeah, Hinayana presentations of emptiness.

So this text of Nagarjuna called the... Sixty Verses. And it has no other name.

It's not like the golden key in Sixty Verses. It's just called the Sixty Verses. So the Sixty Verses, don't forget that the people fighting here is Nagarjuna representing the rebirth of the Mahayana.

And then his opponents representing the dark days between 500 B.C. and 200 A.D. when Buddhism declined and became mostly Abhidharma. Stanley's text. Sorry, Stanley.

You're the bad guy in this book. Alright, so don't forget that. Now, in your opinion, in your opinion, no, not even that.

Svatantrika came much later, like 700-800 B.C. Oh, Svatantrika? Yeah, it's big around 500 B.C. A.D. So a thousand years later. Now, if I had to tell you the guys fighting against Nagarjuna spent more time on yatha or metha meaning spent more time fighting it.

No, more time fighting it in the universe. Which one would you say they spent more time on? Yatha.

The idea that things exist the way they seem. And not the idea that if you misunderstand what I said when I said things don't exist the way they seem, you're going to think that nothing exists. So all that's introduction.

Let's go. Here's the second part. So I'm going to just remind you that the view that things cannot exist if they don't exist the way they seem, we already fought against that.

That fight's done. Sin means what? It's the past part of life.

[Speaker 2]
That's right.

[Speaker 1]
Well, in this case, it's just I already explained it. As an addition to a verb, it's the past tense. It's the past participle.

We already done that. So it's very important to explain that. And they're just reminding us.

Just to remind you, we've done with that long since. Who's we? This book, but Nagarjuna.

See, I made a mistake the other day. It's not this book. Buddha already took care of it.

In the old days, the Abhidharma days, hundreds of years ago, before Nagarjuna, may I remind you that this viewpoint was already denied by Lord Buddha himself. Therefore, I don't have to I have to re-explain it to you. Yeah, I don't have to go into it very long because my opponent is these lower way guys.

And your books, your versions of the sutras already took care of that. So may I just remind you. You know, jama la jama means may I just remind you your books already took care of that.

Of the sutras you like. Yeah, metta. Yeah, metta.

So the opinion of our aggressive body is maybe not correct. We'll see. Yeah, but the Abhidharma means...

I was going to say nyam bar dampa. This is a classic, you know, don't have the three problems of the pot as happened in the Diamond Cutter Sutra. Nyam bar dampa means advice to listen up.

Okay, so look. Your sutras, in your sutras, Buddha already denied that things don't exist. Now, listen up to our denial that things exist the way they appear to exist.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
So we're going to focus on yotta or metta? Okay, so we were wrong in what we first said five minutes ago. Here's the first one.

The first one is the first part is him saying you know, may I remind you. It's the may I remind you. So first he's going to cover the may I remind you.

Ready? There's no prenasal in the second column. Oh, possible.

Except for one. But it can be there and you just don't pronounce it or that is a mistake? It's not considered a prenasal because you cannot prenasal in the second column.

Yeah. Some of our Buddhist schools. It's our system.

Yeah, and it's not necessarily wrong. It just means us Buddhist guys. People belonging to our own groups.

Meaning I'm, we're not talking Hindus or other people. Some of the people in our group say it is mithet. It's incorrect to say all things are empty?

Yeah, it's incorrect to say that to explain all things as being empty. Why? Two reasons.

Split reason. There's a word for split reason in logic. I can't remember.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, concurrent?

[Speaker 1]
No, I mean in Buddhist logic. There's a name for it. In Tibetan?

Yeah, there is a word for it.

[Speaker 2]
I don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
No, we had lots of split reasons, but I can't remember the technical term for it. Okay, anyway, what's the first reason? First part of the reason.

Container. Jigme. Oh, there's no...

Proof. There's no proof. There's no proof to your idea that all things are empty.

There's no proof for your idea that all things are empty. A.

[Speaker 2]
B.

[Speaker 1]
Nöje. There is evidence that you're wrong. There's no evidence that you're right, and there is evidence that you're wrong.

There's reasoning which hurts your position. Nöje means hurting. Oh, yeah, yeah.

So, actually, these are the opposite. To prove and to disprove, or refute. Damage, literally.

The word is damage. If it didn't have a G, what would it be? Then it would be a container.

I'll give $10. Unless your name is Word. And if your name is Allison, I'll give you $100.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
That's a lot of Reverend B. $600, Reverend B. $600, Reverend B.

N.O.D.? I don't know. By the way, these baths only last 10 seconds. You can't come tomorrow.

10, 9, 8, 7, 6. That's an 8. Yeah.

Container. What's the word for to grant a vow? It's to grant a vow.

[Speaker 2]
To grant a vow.

[Speaker 1]
So, don't say no for no. Okay. So, here's the proof.

Here he's going to say why there's no proof. There's no proof that all things are empty. And it's long.

It goes all the way down to... Is it that there's no correct proof or is it incorrect to say that there's a proof? That tepe misi.

Oh, we'll get there. Yeah. It's impossible.

So, this si is not the si in Sugan's text. In which case it means sipe kordo, bhava chakra, wheel of life. So, this is not that sipa.

And it's not the sipa which means sansara. And it's not the sipa which means a bardo being parsipa. It refers to not possible.

Impossible. It's impossible to say to prove that it was correct. It's impossible.

Now, I don't know if that's all his first half of his reason. If that's all he's going to say. But you've got to struggle with that.

Oh, I know. And where does Shanlok start? Rikpen nitye.

As far as harming the reasoning. As far as evidence that hurts... It is refuted by reasoning.

It is refuted. And that seems to apply to the second part of the reason up here. Which implies that his first part of his reason is done.

Yeah. Which is kind of too short. Rikpen nitye.

To say there's no proof for saying that. All he said was it's impossible... To prove it.

Well, it's impossible to give good reasoning that would prove it. It's impossible to give good reasoning that would prove it. And he's going to make fun of our reasoning later.

So this is kaji. It's starting to sound like kaji. Yeah, it is.

This guy never heard the pen game. Yeah, it's impossible to give good reasoning that would prove it. And later he's going to say why.

And it has to do with how do you prove that something doesn't exist? You see, if you're trying to prove something, I don't have a problem with it. But trying to prove that something's not?

You know, come on. How do you prove something's not? You see what I mean?

You could prove that there's a cup here. You could prove that this is a green drink. But prove that something's not?

He's uncomfortable with it.

[Speaker 2]
Establishing emptiness itself.

[Speaker 1]
And he never had to plead to his wife why he wasn't messing around when he was late.

[Speaker 2]
You see, he forgot that there are... So he's using tongnyidu in a more general way like just the emptiness of anything at all would be important.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They say prove emptiness, basically. Denny says rikpen nitye it's hurt by reasoning.

Okay, your idea that everything is empty is hurt by reasoning. Why? Denny gives a bizarre syllogism.

And I think he's making fun. So here it says mensung gi mi pa mi gyur ta Because it doesn't become...

[Speaker 2]
it doesn't become...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's not something you can see with your direct senses. It's not something you can see with your direct senses. Now, I think he's making fun of someone trying to explain emptiness to someone on a bus.

You know? Okay, now, just listen. He's being really basic about it.

It's kind of not something you can see with your eyes. Because it doesn't exist. Well, why?

Because it doesn't exist. You see? It's like this guy on a bus trying to explain...

It's like nothing you can see with your eyes. Why? It doesn't exist.

What's he talking about? Emptiness. Yeah, well, it seems to be emptiness.

It's kind of like a... Like a little rabbit's horn, right?

[Speaker 2]
Not necessarily. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's like the antlers on a rabbit. Yeah. You see?

So he's making fun of us on an airplane going home to Singapore. You know, and you sit next to somebody you don't know, and they say, well, what did you work on? Well, we were just proving that, you know, it's just emptiness.

And you say, well, what's emptiness? And they say, well, you see, it's not something you can really see. And they say, well, why not?

And you say, well, because it doesn't exist. And they say, well, what are you talking about? And you say, it's like the antlers on a rabbit.

Because direct perception is stuff that... Because you only have a direct perception of stuff you can see? Wait, and here's the punchline.

Because emptiness exists, you see?

[Speaker 2]
That's why it exists.

[Speaker 1]
Because it doesn't exist. He's making fun of our logic. Because this section is supposed to be you can't prove it.

It's impossible to... He says, you know, what you're talking... The proof you're suggesting is bizarre.

Take this thing. It doesn't exist. Like, you can't see it directly.

Why? Because it doesn't exist. Well, what's it like?

It's like the antlers on a rabbit. Well, so what? Well, therefore it exists.

This is the art. This is his version of us talking on the plane. This is Gatsby.

[Speaker 2]
No, this is the law school.

[Speaker 1]
This is the law school. Yeah, yeah, right. When you guys get on a plane, this is what it sounds like.

Hey, what did you study this week? Emptiness. Well, what's it like?

Well, it's nuts that you can see with your eyes. Well, why? Well, because it's like nothing.

Well, what do you mean? Well, it's like the antlers on a rabbit. And therefore it exists.

[Speaker 2]
He's making fun of our logic.

[Speaker 1]
Which is technically correct. But he's making fun of our logic. He's like, come on.

Well, why does it exist? Because it can be seen directly by these special people called artists. That which cannot be seen directly can be seen directly.

That which doesn't exist does exist. It's kind of like a rabbit's horn. And he's like, what's this bullshit?

You guys don't understand. Why do you guys always talk like that? You know, he's complaining.

[Speaker 2]
He's like, okay, got it? It can get annoying.

[Speaker 1]
Now, what's two ways to prove things in... Loon and Rick. You can either prove something with logic, which he just did, or you can prove something with scripture.

Now we're going to harm the position of scripture. Now he's going to... Now he's going to...

Your assertion that all things are empty is not only disproven by logic, Rigpe, it's disproven by scripture also. Why? Because the Buddha said this was a mistake.

Boy, that was a mistake. That was an exciting mistake. That mistake took about half an hour.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
And it's not a crazy mistake because a nara looks like a tsa-hat. Say tsa-hat. What's a tsa-hat?

[Speaker 2]
It's a little flag.

[Speaker 1]
And it looks, with a dengu, it looks like a nara. So that's not as bad a mistake as it looks like. It's a pretty good, bad mistake.

Don't they? Because sutra talked about... Now this is Sugeng's purview.

This is Sugeng's subject. What does se-sum-ba mean? I'm guessing it means...

Oh, third life. No, three life as an adjective. Yeah, I will.

Three hyphen life. Three life. It's referring to the wheel of life in general, right?

How it's broken up into three different lives. Oh, yay. That's what I was going to say.

A typical wheel takes three lives to finish. A typical turning of the wheel takes three lives to finish. Tell me which is in which life.

The first two. First two or the first one? The third through the ninth and the second.

Yeah, tenth. After the pregnant lady. After the fat lady's thing.

Three to ten. And then eleven to twelve, next life.

[Speaker 2]
Rebirth and death.

[Speaker 1]
So, sometimes the wheel of life is called the se-sum-ba. The three-life wheel. As an adjective.

The three-life wheel. Why is it relevant here?

[Speaker 2]
Isn't it like the first turning of the wheel that the Buddha taught?

[Speaker 1]
Give me a better reason. What did we say that he's criticizing? He's criticizing our experiences.

[Speaker 2]
Tong-pa. Tong-pa.

[Speaker 1]
What did we say? Say it in English. Nothing exists.

All things are empty. Oh, so Buddha didn't teach this wheel that goes on for three lives, right? Like something that doesn't exist is going to go on for three lives.

Right? He's being sarcastic. Got it?

Something that doesn't exist goes on for three lives in the most important teaching of the Buddha. Okay, got it? He's playing.

This is lower school talking. Moreover, he's going to quote another book. Abhidharmakosha.

Be careful. It's just Abhidharma. Yeah, the Abhidharma literature.

See here, chen nun-ba means the Abhidharma literature. Okay. Because the Abhidharma literature also says, le kyang, it also says pung-po kam kye je.

Subject of the first chapter of the Abhidharmakosha. Say, pung-dam kye je. Pung-kam kye je.

Pung-dam kye go. Pung-dam kye go. Rikki dan.

Pung-bo kye je kam nam yin. Pung-bo kye je kam nam yin. Abhidharmakosha.

The big subject of the first chapter, which is the most important chapter. Yeah, it's three ways of dividing reality. Are they equal?

Do they cover the same set of stuff? Nope. Why not?

Do they all cover all things?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Do the five heaps, the twelve doors of sense, and the eighteen categories each separately cover all existing things?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, do the skandhas cover all existing things? Do the ayatanas cover all existing things?

[Speaker 2]
And do the dhatus cover all existing things?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, that was the debate. The only way to get it parallel is to say that somehow the five heaps cover all existing things.

Right, which is when you say sukha is all outer things. Which means everything you observe has to be included into your heap of form. Even though that's normally just your body.

Anyway, the Buddha, sorry, the Abhidharma literature has to describe these three ways of categorizing all existing things. Why do we need to categorize all existing things when there's none existing thing? You know, like, come on, get off my back, okay?

Who's talking? Yeah, lower school. They're like, yeah, okay, yeah, nothing exists, right?

And the Buddha didn't spend half his life explaining three ways that everything exists. Okay, you've got to get that feeling in the translation. It has to sound really sarcastic.

Not only that, but about those three ways of dividing all existing things, he said there's wrong sense and chit sense. Inner things and outer things. Oh, general things and specific things.

No. What's a wrong sense and a chit sense?

[Speaker 2]
There are mental images or outer things.

[Speaker 1]
Say it again. Archetypes and manifestations. I like the inner things and outer things.

Real cups in the world and the idea of cup. Yeah, right. There's nothing in this.

Nothing outside, nothing inside. He's being sarcastic again. Yeah, right.

No cups and no cup. Yeah, okay. Yeah, everything's empty.

Buddha didn't talk about that in the Abhidharma. Mm-hmm. Okay, got it?

Lend me the very short word, very powerful. Uh-huh, answer? Yeah, here's my answer.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Here's what I got to say. Who's talking?

Gelsogye or Stokachi. Let's see what it says.

[Speaker 2]
Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
I am Nagarjuna. And then we go to the root text. Oh, we're actually back in a verse?

Yeah, now we go to the... Yeah, after one year, we've reached the third verse.

[Speaker 2]
But only the first half.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is leading to this... it's a segue to this verse.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Some jerk comes and says this and this next verse is already...

[Speaker 1]
That's why Nagarjuna said this, yeah. Let's look at the verse. Just for fun.

[Speaker 2]
Let's not.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, you should underline the root text where it's woven. Yeah, I will. I've been not underlining it in my text.

I italicize it, I think. Let's make a standard of underlining, if you want to.

[Speaker 2]
Really?

[Speaker 1]
Bold. Okay, but why not bold? ACI was bold.

[Speaker 2]
Because if the root text is in bold and if you bold bits in there, it's like... Well, you don't have to bold the root text.

[Speaker 1]
Let's decide later. Okay. Where are we?

Oh. All the storehouse of virtue transcends the world and the world itself. Sorry.

The division is jiten and jitendekpa.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Of the world and things that are beyond the world.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Jitsa. The roots of virtue. Meaning your bank account of good karma.

Your bank account of good karma. Which are beyond the world and of the world. All your different investment accounts.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Arsundjimba. Yeah, ripped out from the root. And as we said, it's also a word for rape.

And it's a very distasteful word in Tibetan. So whenever you use it, it's meant to imply violence. Okay.

He's not just saying, Oh, that will hurt your good karma. This one will rip your good karma off. Rip it to shreds.

You want to just... Not just hurt your good karma. Not nu.

He didn't say nu. He said, you want to destroy your good karma, like totally rip it up? Okay.

Arsundjimba. You are... You have entered.

You're on a road. You're on a path that's going to lead to that. You're on a path to lead to that.

What is... What's he talking about? Way down here.

If you... All of this above is describing... If you keep the view that things don't exist at all.

[Speaker 2]
At all.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. If you say, the Buddha said nothing exists at all, then you're on a bad trajectory. You're in trouble.

You're going to rip up your good karma. You're going to wipe out your bank account in a few minutes. Oh, nothing exists.

There's no such thing as good deeds, bad deeds. It's all an illusion. Then you get on that road, you're in trouble.

Then you start misbehaving. You know. Okay?

Okay. That's what he's saying. How is he relating that to jikten?

Good karma you made, which is going to give you a nice rebirth in samsara. Or good karma you made that's going to get you out of samsara. You're ripping up both.

That's kind of a common phrase, right? It is, but his point is good. It's good to say what it is.

Your karma for the world and your karma for leaving this world are both being destroyed. And if you keep it up, it's going to be a cue It's going to be a cause to suffer a lot. To be born.

This is not born because it's be. It's to have been. Which creates.

Which gives birth to. All suffering of the hell realms and such.

[Speaker 2]
Good. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which would give birth to all the sufferings of the hell realms and such. And another bad cue. It's also going to be a cause for obstacles.

Good. Which creates obstacles to the good karma you already have. Yeah.

To the good things you've already done. That you had before. It's going to block those.

Like, either you're going to wipe out your bank account or it's going to be put on hold. And since it does all these bad things, we can describe it as the kunjun. Oh.

The source. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
The source of all evil.

[Speaker 1]
The source of all evil. What? Thinking things don't exist.

Thinking Buddha taught nothing matters. Everything's an illusion. Just relax.

Go into the black. Into the black. Geshe-la, didn't we somehow make a jump here from discussing the problems of yitta to discussing the problems of metta without even mentioning that we were making that transition?

No one ever said we were going to cover the problems of yitta. I thought that's what we just said before we did the...

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
We are reminding the guy that Buddha already talked about it in his own scriptures. We're on this part. We're talking about metta.

This is the reminder. This is the may I remind you. Right, right, right.

Got it. So this is where we're reminding you, the guy. Don't forget your own teacher in your own Hinayana sutras covered this.

Yeah. By the way, if you have a metta, you necessarily are corn-deping le ingo. You're denying the causal effects.

Not denying.

[Speaker 2]
You're giving it too much credit.

[Speaker 1]
No. Corn-dep. Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You're minimizing it.

[Speaker 1]
So say in plain English describe these two extremes. Corn-dep and drum-dop. Drum-dop and corn-dep.

In plain English. Saying something is there which is not there is drum-dop. Corn-dep is saying something is not there which is which is this one.

Corn-dop. No, corn-dep means corn. You're minimizing the importance of cause and effect.

It's not that. It doesn't exist. Something which is there, you are saying isn't there.

What? The connection between what you do and what you get. Karma and its consequences.

I like to say consequences because it ties into the cause tighter. It ties into the cause tighter. So this viewpoint you have which is actually discounting the laws of karma and its consequences would act as the very wellspring of every screwy thing.

Of every bad thing. Do you need I'm sort of saying it's the second truth. Do you need kyu-kyi lok-tsen-ma.

Here's lok as we had in Adam's text.

[Speaker 2]
The opposite or backwards.

[Speaker 1]
Now make a verb out of it. Because it comes after the instrumental. And it's got a past tensorizer.

And it turns around, turns back or reverses. What's the subject of this sentence? Kyu, it.

You. Oh, you. Oh, and by you, I see.

You guys already beat this viewpoint. May I remind you. Kyu-kyi lok-tsen.

You just spent your whole life that's what Hinayana guys do.

[Speaker 2]
You know.

[Speaker 1]
You just spent your whole life fighting against people who say there's no karma. You know. Trying to fight the viewpoints of people who say it doesn't matter what I do.

May I remind you that this is what you did? So, reishi. And that's an unusual spelling of reishi.

It should have been zh, so maybe you check it, okay? Yeah, provisionally. Or for the time being.

Okay. It's an implied threat. For now.

Yeah, for now, gopa-michi. For now, I I'm not going to go ahead and I'm not going to take the trouble to kick your ass on that.

[Speaker 2]
For now.

[Speaker 1]
And then he goes, for now. Yeah, it's an implication. But I'm busy.

I'm going to eat a sandwich first. You know, you spent your whole life you spent your whole life denying these viewpoints. I guess I could take a few minutes off before I convince you that you should deny them.

Okay, like that. He's like, you know. I'm not going to fight with you right now.

Yang-na. We can stop after this. Okay, moreover, Chönyinma.

The Abhidharma Sutra.

[Speaker 2]
Abhidharma Sutras.

[Speaker 1]
And I got a headache. I went looking for them. Oh boy.

[Speaker 2]
I couldn't find any called Abhidharma Sutras.

[Speaker 1]
Then I went to see if anybody quoted Abhidharma Sutras and they did. So I figured I would take those quotations and look for them in the Kanya. And I could establish what sutras are considered Abhidharma Sutras.

Even though they're not named Abhidharma Sutras. So I went and found like 10 quotations from the Abhidharma Sutras in the day here and went to look up those in the Kanya and they're not there. So it's my opinion that these don't exist anymore.

But they're still quoted in later years. Could they be in the Pali Canon, maybe? Well, there's a list of books.

Yeah, they could be. And there's also a list of Abhidharma texts. He already translated that verse.

Shariputra wrote something. Malgalyayana wrote something. There's a list of the early books.

It's in my text.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Because your opinion here has already been refuted in the Abhidharma Sutras, resik. Now this repeats the spelling.

Yeah. So it makes us think it's a damkha instead of a misspelling. Maybe it's a legal alternative.

Should we put a question mark there just in case? I'm not going to do it. Yeah, okay.

For the time being, I'm not. So what does the yelana here mean? Moreover, because it's also in the Abhidharma Sutras.

No, it's not a moreover. Because it's also in the... And even if.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I guess that's the other thing. It's...

[Speaker 1]
The lines could also be saying... You see? The line could also be saying...

You see what I mean? Meaning the Garjuna's line could also be saying? It could be saying you guys spent all your time refuting this viewpoint.

I don't have to talk about it. Or it could be saying that's the shepa. Because when you say yelana with shepa...

Or it could be saying the Abhidharma Sutras already cancelled this idea. So this... What Gyaltsabje is saying Nagarjuna could be saying you guys spent...

You guys are working so hard to stop this idea. Or maybe he's saying the Buddha stopped this idea already in the Abhidharma Sutras. Why did he mention Abhidharma Sutras?

Because he's battling with the Abhidharma Sutras. No, he's battling with lower school guys. Oh yeah, and Gyaltsabje said I'm going to use your own text.

Yeah, and this is a very classic example of a debate technique where you use the other guys' home books. So when we do the intercollegiate debates against Ganden or Durbong or Sakyas in the real debating, we have to study their books. We study their books and we defeat them with their books.

We don't even mention our books. So when we debate Sakyas, which we did or Bumbas you see, when you debate Sakyas, you have to go back to the code. You go back to something that everyone can accept.

So that's a theme of this whole book. That's a theme of this whole book. We're going to use your own sutras to prove to you why you're wrong.

And later, Gyaltsabje has someone come in from the Mahayana and try to beat the guy. And he says, oh, go away. He says, why?

I'm correct. He says, I know you're correct but you're not using their books. Wow.

He even says it. Like some, what do you call it? Over...

[Speaker 2]
Overzealous?

[Speaker 1]
Overzealous.

[Speaker 2]
Mahayana.

[Speaker 1]
Mahayana guy says, I'll take care of this guy. And he starts, and then Gyaltsabje says, just chill. We've got to use their own books.

The theme is using their own books against that. Gyaltsabje chants. Gyaltsabje chants.

Thank you, Geshe-la.