Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 20

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we just had a sexy Talmud, a statement of absurdity, a proof-based on absurdity, and Nick's going to tell us what it was. The Talmud? It always starts with, Chedok Chöchen, well then they must blah blah blah, because blah blah blah.

It has to achieve us. Yeah, there are people who have achieved liberation, because they already... Wait, who's the Chöchen?

Chiba. Sorry. Consider people who have, regular folks.

Take all the two-year-olds in the world. All the two-year-olds. I guess they've reached nirvana, because they see things as they really are.

Good, not bad. Okay, now then, this ancient Tibetan commentator on the sixty verses said, according to him, this is one of two kinds of logic. It's either a tel-dok, which means like a teller, okay?

It's a statement where if you switched it, it would be correct. They haven't seen, okay? They don't see reality correctly, because they haven't achieved Arhat.

Okay? That's tel-dok. Right.

Or maybe it's a rang-draki tenzing, okay? All right. I'm sorry.

We say it's a tel-dok, or it's a rang-drak. It's a reason given to yourself. Why shouldn't I eat bread today?

Well, Anton told me not to. It makes me fine. Like that.

If you give those reasons to yourself, that's called a rang-drak. Here, drak means proclaimed to yourself. Self-proclaimed to yourself, okay?

Spoken to yourself. But he said, no, it's a rang-gyu. It's a rang-gyu.

Now, Gyaltsabje uses that as an excuse to go off on the rang-gyu bus, which aren't at all anything to do with this book. And then he even goes off on the differences between the two Madhyamika schools, which is a wonderful subject. So I'd like to do a good job on that.

I'd like to do it from Tsongkhapa or somebody like that. He's got a list, but he doesn't explain them very much. Gyaltsabje does.

Here in this text, yeah. He goes to them, off the subject matter, and you see there's root text verses are getting scarce in this section. It means he's off on his own thing.

He's probably going to have them all at the end, just listing. But I thought it'd be a wonderful appendix to your book if you had that section from a major number. And I haven't chosen which one yet.

But there's a famous list of eight unique qualities of Prasangika. And the implication is that the Svatantrika don't have them. And those are very famous, and you learn a lot by studying them.

So it'd be a beautiful addition. It'd make your book a lot more valuable for everybody. And that's probably why he stuck it in here in the first place.

So we're going to follow him. So I went and got you some basic information about Ranggika Tenzing. And I would like to translate these little snippets.

They're just snippets about what is a Ranggika. Because that ancient Tibetan scholar said, he didn't say it was a tengyur. He didn't say it was a logic given to myself.

He said it was a Ranggika. And then Gyaltsabje disagreed. He said, no, it's either a tengyur or it's advice to himself, but it can't be a Ranggika.

So what is a Ranggika, and why are the Svatantrika called Svatantrika? Because they're named after this logic. The name of the lower middle school is taken from this logic.

And the name of the higher middle school is taken. It's a contradiction, too. So I just thought, first we'll go off on some introductory things about Ranggis.

And then we'll go through eight or ten features that differentiate the Prasangika from the Svatantrika. Those are from Gyaltsabje, and they're not much detail. And then I'd like to go to a footnote called the eight features that are unique to the Prasangika.

And that in itself has become a subject of study in the monastery. Like you might do it for three weeks or something. A lama might spend three weeks on the eight qualities.

It's called the eight unique qualities. Here we go. First up is Kedrup Dambadage, who wrote whose text?

Sugeng's. Yes, Sugeng's text. And let's start it here.

Let me piece it up for you. I've asked some people in India to find this better scan of Sugeng's text. I'll scan.

You don't have any? Let alone better. Yeah.

I think we're starting with an explanation of what is Vrindu.

[Speaker 2]
Indefinite reason. Welcome to the dark side of appendices, my friend.

[Speaker 1]
I was just thinking about that. I'm excited about it. This is an awesome appendix.

Appendix topic. Okay, here we go. Okay.

Oh, excuse me. This is Kedrup Dambadage's Madhyamika... Tatra.

Tatra, yeah. Follow the Sugeng. Okay.

What is Vrindu? No. He just gave us the archichan.

It's down. We're going down. Where's the Chirunchepartel?

Are you telling me... Chirunchepartel. Oh.

Chirunchepartel. Well, how do you say that? Tam chak tey tey chir.

Tam chak tey tey chir. Okay, so the ridiculous statement at the beginning, the other guy's statement, is Lopen Paksen. This is a very, very famous group of two guys.

Papa Namdo Tey, Vimukti Sena, and Senge Sambho, Haribhadra. Vimukti Sena and Haribhadra. Two very, very, very famous commentators on the Abhisamaya Aramkara of Maitreya.

Okay. They are the two early commentators. They're the two big guns of the early days of this text.

Okay, back in India. Okay. So, our guy says, this is very interesting.

It should be interesting for you guys. I mean, everything's interesting. But Lopen Paksen tells me, tell him, give it to him.

[Speaker 2]
They're Prasangikas. They were Prasangikas.

[Speaker 1]
Now, who said it? Kedrup Tarkwal. Hold on, Lopen Paksen...

Oh, Shenlu. Oh, Shenlu.

[Speaker 2]
Shenlu is saying...

[Speaker 1]
The other guy. How do we know we're in country?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Serenath.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, somebody comes along and claims, which is, you know, Sugeng's now got it as a macro on his computer. Somebody comes along and claims those two great early commentators on Maitreya's famous, famous book, Abhishekam, they were Prasangikas.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, I want to make sure we're in a Prasangika text. Yeah, we are. By the way, the way they name a textbook on Madhyamika in the monastery, they say, Commentary to Gomarapsa.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
Gomarapsa is so famous that any book on middle Prasangika is a commentary on illumination.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
So this statement has to be wrong, according to us. According to the highest viewpoint, it's wrong to say that these two early commentators on Maitreya were Prasangikas. When we learn now, when we learn why they can't be Prasangikas, we'll learn something about Rangyukti Tenzing.

Rangyukti Tenzing, by the way, is right here. When he says, when Thang Sakpa says, oh, that statement by Nagarjuna about children who must have seen emptiness directly, right? That's a Rangyukti.

He means, the full form is Rangyukti Tenzing. Okay. Reasoning involving a reason.

Independent reason? Which is independent, you can say that. So Tenzing is another way to say reason?

Tenzing is another word for reasoning. But it can also be interchangeable with the reason by itself, in a logical statement, in a syllogism. The last element before the Timbhayanda is sometimes called a Tenzing, but Tenzing can also mean a school of reasoning.

So all of the words in Tibetan for reason and reasoning get mixed up.

[Speaker 2]
You just have to know.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, the expanded name of Rangyuk is Rangyukti Tenzing, always. So here he says, well, then here's our counter-statement. Go ahead.

By the way, please make the first two syllables sarcastic. In Tibetan, there'll be a smile and a nod of your head. A little smile, because he's f'ed up already.

Rangyukti Tenzing, Wait, you're going up or down?

[Speaker 2]
I went down.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, struggle with that. Well, then. Just say it piece by piece.

Okay, I guess the masters, Haribhadra and... Oh, I guess master Haribhadra taught Rangyukti Tenzing, a reasoning which uses... Meeshe distributes to both.

Oh, I guess he didn't teach. Yeah, I guess he never accepted... I figured that's where we're going.

Never accepted reasoning which uses independent reasons. Yeah, he... I guess master Haribhadra didn't accept independent reasons.

Why do they call it independent? It's coming. So I guess he didn't...

A, he didn't accept independent reasons. B, he didn't accept... Yeah, our perceptions.

The ability of the mind to know itself in the same instant, in the same millisecond. Are we one millisecond behind in watching what we thought yesterday? I mean, are we watching karmas coming out of our mind?

Karmic seeds opening into thoughts? Or is the mind aware of itself? And the higher schools say, no, it cannot be.

A knife cannot cut itself and a man cannot ride on his own shoulders. There's no time for you to hear what your mind says in the same moment that it says it. And that fits very well the DCI idea that thoughts are coming out of your karmic seeds.

By the time they come out, it's too late to change them. You're just a listener. So, I guess he doesn't accept independent reasons.

And I guess he doesn't accept our perception. And I guess he does accept, okay? Now that he does accept...

Outside objects. Outside objects. Chittas.

Shravata. Well, why do you say that? Because you said he was Prasangika.

So now we know two things that Prasangikas don't believe and we know one thing they do believe. Tell me what they are. They do believe in outer objects.

Yeah, that's radical. Yeah, they don't accept apperception and they don't accept independent reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, definitely not independent reasoning. So it's kind of interesting. You get up into the higher school and they start saying outer things do exist again.

Right, right. The whole thing we talked about downstairs for two days is wrong. Right.

According to the higher school. By the way, can you tell me why Prasangika... If I asked a Prasangika guy, would I say...

He would ask me, Are all things projected by my mind? Yes. Are they all popping out of seats in my mind?

Yes. Then how can things be outer? Because they're projected as outer objects.

Yeah, as an outer thing. Your mind is so powerful that it can project objects as outer things and project people as separate entities, as separate mindsets. Wow.

Your mind is so cool. Your seeds are so sophisticated they can create other people with their own minds. So it's not that you're living in your mind and it's not that everything you see is in your head.

Okay? That's the high, high, high school. Duna.

Lopungi or...

[Speaker 2]
Wait, wait, wait.

[Speaker 1]
What did he do to...

[Speaker 2]
If you... Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I thought I was going to read it first.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay. I didn't know, but that's cool.

[Speaker 1]
Outer objects and... He doesn't accept... I guess you're saying that he does accept outer objects and doesn't...

No, he always says they're right after tau. Yeah. I agree he doesn't accept two things and does accept one thing.

Yeah. He says, yep, that's right. Right, right, right.

What are the two things and what are the one thing?

[Speaker 2]
Let's just stay on it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he does accept outer objects and he doesn't... I guess he doesn't accept a perception or independent reasoning. Yeah, good.

Independent reasons, I think I'd say. Okay. I agree he does not accept.

I agree he doesn't accept the two and he does accept the one because I think he's a prasangika and I agree that's what a prasangika should say.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. I agree. Yeah.

Do not... Lopangirang Gyuki Tensik Shepartel. Shepartel.

Yeah. Are you telling me what? He accepts independent reasoning.

Yeah, that's...

[Speaker 2]
The master accepts independent reasoning.

[Speaker 1]
So he took one of the three things out. Yeah. He just wants to confirm it about one of the three things.

Yeah. Us. So let me get this straight.

He doesn't believe in the two things and he does believe in the one thing, right? Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2]
You're the other guy. Right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
You're the guy who thinks he's a prasangika. Now what do you say? Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 1]
So can I just tweet one of those? Yeah, sure, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So are you... Let me just confirm. You really think he believes in this independent reasoning thing?

I didn't say that. No, well... No, you say why, teacher.

Right, why.

[Speaker 2]
Why do you say that?

[Speaker 1]
And I say, well, because he... I'm sorry. Yeah.

Because he does accept that things could exist from their own side. Oh. He does accept the idea of a reason which works from its own side.

Right, I got it. He does accept the idea of a reason which works from its own side. Oh, does he say a reason here?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
A correct reason, a correct reason. He accepts the idea of a reason which is correct from its own side.

[Speaker 2]
Are we still talking about Harry Potter?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Harry Potter, yeah. Yeah. Wouldn't that work?

Yeah, he's going up, not down here.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm sorry, I misstated it. So this is... He is...

This is Kati. Yeah, no.

[Speaker 2]
No, he's going up.

[Speaker 1]
Kati said he doesn't accept this kind of reason.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
And we say, because he's a Prasangika, right?

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And we say, I'm sorry, but he does. Right, oh. He does accept independent reasons.

Yeah. Why do you say that? And see, I threw this selection in here because this sentence tells you what a Rangyu is.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right.

[Speaker 1]
This sentence tells you what's a Swatantika.

[Speaker 2]
From their own...

[Speaker 1]
I thought we were trying to say that he's a Prasangika. No. We disagree he's a Prasangika.

He said he's a Prasangika. Okay, so we got it right. We misstated it.

So that's Kati. Yeah, we went up here. Yes, he does accept Rangyu.

He does accept Swatantika reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Why? Because he says a good reason is effective from its own side. And that's the sentence that's establishing the difference between...

Husband in the kitchen comes from its own side. Of all the things in the world, this thing has its own power. Very close to Mumbawa.

People say fire is hot from its own side. I didn't make fire hot. That's the nature of fire.

Gasoline runs cars. Water doesn't. Some Rangyu is pretty common.

Rangyu is pretty common.

[Speaker 2]
Rangyune. From its own side.

[Speaker 1]
Well, if you're going to put an idiom, I'd put this whole thing. Rangyune dupa.

[Speaker 2]
Very famous. Established from its own side.

[Speaker 1]
There are lists of words for self-existence in scripture. There are lists of words for self-existence. Rangyutseniki dupa.

Rangyune dupa. Tumdampa dupa.

[Speaker 2]
Here comes Rangyutseniki dupa now. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Look at that. So, it's a reason which has power from its own side. No one gave it that power.

It has its own power. Any time you use that reason, it's going to be true. Okay?

Go ahead. Where are we? Can I tell?

Can I tell? It does too have power from its own side because Rangyutseniki dupa kuchupei tenzik yangdak chepei kye chepei kye because it is a reason which is correct. Yangdak means correct.

It is a reason which is correct which exists in and of itself. Rangyutseniki dupa. It exists in and of itself.

Nobody gave it the power to prove something. It will always prove something. It's its own power, sub-power.

[Speaker 2]
By definition.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by definition. And then they add the word shepa which means he agrees to that.

[Speaker 2]
Who is he?

[Speaker 1]
Master Hariputra.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If he agrees that a reason works from its own side, okay, then he cannot be a Prasangika. Right. And we can call him a reason works from its own side school, which is Rangyupa, which is Svatantrika.

Okay? You understand now? You got it now?

The lower middle way school is called reason works from its own side school. Svatantrika. Okay?

And this is why they're called what they are. Right here. Okay?

And some of the greatest Buddhists of history have been Prasangikas, like Haribhandra. You mean Svatantrika?

[Speaker 2]
You mean Svatantrika.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, what did I say?

[Speaker 2]
Some of the greatest Buddhists in history have been...

[Speaker 1]
Prasangikas, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
No, didn't get it.

[Speaker 1]
The greatest have been... But let's go on. What I'm saying is he was no slouch.

And his commentary is the basis for the first twelve years of study in the monastery. Half of the Geshe course is devoted to his commentary. So he's no slouch.

Okay, did I tell it?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we ran out. Did I tell it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Because he accepts that reasoning is established from its own side. So we got a string of reasons here.

We got a string of reasons here. He can't be a Prasangika because he doesn't deny apperception and he doesn't deny individually worth self-functioning reasons.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And he does accept outer objects. I'm sorry, he doesn't accept outer objects. It's sarcastic here.

Are you telling me he accepts outer objects? Then we say, well, why do you say he believes in rangi? Why do you say he believes in reasons which prove themselves?

Because he believes that they have power and he believes that they exist from their own side. Why do you say that? Well, he believes that they exist in and of themselves.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Why do you say that?

[Speaker 1]
Well, why do you say that?

[Speaker 2]
He runs around proving things that way.

[Speaker 1]
Because... I'm just going to say the same thing again. No, why do you say he does accept the concept of something that could exist in and of itself?

Why do you say that Haribhadra does accept the concept that something could exist in and of itself? Why do you say that? Well, I'll tell you why.

Okay? He wrote the Dalai Lama. He wrote a smaller and a larger.

But in his smaller commentary he doesn't use the word rangatirnagibhiva for gaccha, for the gaccha. He doesn't say exist in and of itself when he's talking about what emptiness is, MPO. When he's denying something he doesn't use the words because they exist by definition.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I see. Because he uses kundsattva. He uses kundsattva.

He adds an adverb.

[Speaker 1]
He adds an adverb. Ma... Ma...

[Speaker 2]
Ma... Ma... Ma...

Ma... Ma...

[Speaker 1]
Ma... Ma... No, not if you're saying ultimately.

[Speaker 2]
Ah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Well, does that... When somebody answers that I'll say it again. Do you accept the idea that something could exist in and of itself then you come back with Do you mean ultimately?

Yeah. If he had to ask the question what does he think you always have to add to that expression. Ultimately.

And that means if you don't add the expression it's okay.

[Speaker 2]
That means that he accepts Tanye, that they do accept Ranggitsen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in and of itself is okay until you say ultimately speaking. But in Prasad Gita, in and of itself is not okay, it doesn't matter what you put onto it. Yeah, they're like, why would you say that?

So if this guy keeps putting ultimately, he keeps adding that adverb to exist in and of itself, he cannot be a Prasad Gita. Or he wouldn't think he had to add this word. Yeah, and what Ben is saying is that you're also implying that he accepts some kind of nominal existence of in and of itself.

You're also saying that in the normal world, some things do exist in and of themselves. And we're about to show that. Okay, ready?

Dindam kikyapa means those extra words, dindam. That extra quality, dindam. Yangyang, he doesn't say it once, he says it over and over.

He repeatedly uses the word ultimately. I'll give you another example. In the kitchen, is the husband coming from you or not?

[Speaker 2]
You mean ultimately?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Is he coming from his own side? Well, do you mean really?

Okay, that means you don't understand what I mean when I say from his own side. Well, you wouldn't have to say, do you mean really? Is that it?

That means you think there's a come from his own side which is okay. If it's not, ultimately.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Is it the 50-50 thing?

[Speaker 1]
Kind of, yeah. Yeah, exactly. We're going to get there.

It's coming. Okay. He repeats it over and over.

Here's a little commentary. Okay, in the smaller commentary because he wrote a bigger commentary. I think it's two volumes or something.

He wrote a huge commentary. There's a Sakhi guy who wrote a 12-volume commentary. Right.

And Gyatsobje's comment was it's too bad he didn't have a chance to study the subject.

[Speaker 2]
Anyway. He's pretty clever.

[Speaker 1]
Moral, right? He accepts ultimate and... No, you guys sit with this.

I think you should pay me $100 if you can't figure this one out. He establishes even ultimate things as being He establishes that there's a deceptive and an ultimate truth. You got it, you got it.

You just saved your friend from nightmare.

[Speaker 2]
Say it again. He believes you can establish a true deceptive truth.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. This is all deceptive reality, right? It lies to us.

It says I'm coming from my own side. I'm coming from someone else. But he says, well, you know, in the deceptive world there's two kinds.

Sometimes there's dreams which are not real. Or there's times when you slam the brakes on your car when a leaf crosses the road. That's deceptive, deceptive.

And then there's correct deceptive. Like I'm looking at Stanley. That's correct deceptive.

So only if you're not a prasangika would you divide things that way. No prasangika would ever say that. They would say, I don't care whether you're dreaming or whether you're awake.

There's nothing right about either. Right. Don't tell me there's good bad perceptions and bad bad perceptions.

They're all bad. Except for the direct perception.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, does this make trouble for establishing sama in the prasangika school?

[Speaker 1]
We're going to talk about it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So also he must not be prasangika because he does accept the idea of a good bad perception.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Of a better bad perception.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let me finish that guy. I'm going to keep hitting you with a few of these. And then you'll be better equipped to go to the eight qualities.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Who was this? Who was that?

Dialectical. You called me.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, who is this? I forgot.

[Speaker 2]
So it's another book.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe it's even this name.

[Speaker 2]
Let me see.

[Speaker 1]
22. Oh, it's the same book, actually. Okay.

How? This is the wrong book. How?

And deni means the two branches of madhyamika school. And I like to call them branches. I think it's a very accurate way to mention them.

I used to say group within the school, but if you say branch it already means a group within a school. So the two branches of the middle way. Narasimha Kepa and Yomata they do, too, have the differences that I just described.

They do, too, have the differences that I just described. Meaning the eight differences. Because Okay, you spend some time You come up, work on it together and tell me what you got here.

They're able to establish they believe they believe that they're able to prove that things are selfless and they can see the truth by only by the power of an absurd reason, but I don't know what the way to tell them here. They believe that's the only way Oh, prasangikas and only prasangikas are the way?

[Speaker 2]
The only way that you can deny the self The only way Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Prasangikas say So the first tangira is the name of the school. Prasangikas say But this isn't only it's with nothing more needed. Ah, I see.

It's enough, sufficient.

[Speaker 2]
A tangira is enough.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. A prasangika by itself Let's say we should go to Thai tonight because I like Thai food?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
You and me, Nick, should go to Thai food tonight because I like Thai food.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you're right. We should go to sushi since we both love Thai food.

[Speaker 1]
I'm trying to think of one.

[Speaker 2]
I'll be here if you need me.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, so if you like Thai food I like Thai food, right?

[Speaker 2]
So I guess I like Thai food too.

[Speaker 1]
That's the tangira. If you like Thai food, I like Thai food. I guess all the restaurants should become Thai restaurants.

Now, is that enough? Is that statement by itself? So I guess I guess I like Thai food as much as You say to me, okay?

Geshe Michael, Nick said, I say We should go to Thai food tonight You give a reason because I like Thai food. And then I say to you Well, I guess I must like Thai food too. Which is usually what you would say.

[Speaker 2]
Which is sarcastic, right?

[Speaker 1]
Is that enough for him to understand that I don't want to go to Thai food? Or do I have to say I don't like Thai food? No, I know you pretty well.

[Speaker 2]
Can I just hint?

[Speaker 1]
Can I just imply? Can I just say something sarcastic? Oh, I must be crazy about Thai food too, right?

Do I have to say Nick, you know I don't like Thai food. Okay? Can I just say Is it enough for me to be sarcastic?

If you're a prasangika, it's not only enough It's the most powerful way to do it. If he's intelligent, yeah. If he's intelligent enough, that's stronger.

Oh, I must like Thai food too. But here they're saying sufficient That's what the tsam is doing. Is enough, okay?

You don't have to go on and make a second statement Watch.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Nick, I must like Thai food too.

[Speaker 1]
And in fact, I do not. See? The first half is enough by itself.

The sarcasm is enough by itself. It proves what you want to prove. That's the prasangika school's view on reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
So you leave that conclusion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and it's almost more powerful because he has to figure it out by himself. Why did Michael say I must like Thai food too? Oh, he doesn't like Thai food.

[Speaker 2]
Because that's the objective, not the... Just that'll do. It'll do it.

[Speaker 1]
Right, right. And by that... Now, if you want to disprove something on one hand, and if you want to prove something on the other hand, the sarcastic statement's enough.

By itself. In this case it's saying it's enough to establish what's not there. No, it's enough to deny.

Kekpa is a form of gakpa. Kekpa is a form of gakpa. It's enough to deny the truth of the thing which is that things could exist real.

[Speaker 2]
Really. And to prove lies.

[Speaker 1]
And conversely, it's enough to prove that it doesn't have a self-nature. It's enough to deny that it could exist really. And it's enough to prove that it doesn't have a self.

They say who? Yeah, the prasangika. Right.

It's strong enough, nupa, to prove and disprove. To prove and disprove.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
Whereas, the svatantrikas think... Keep going. rangyupe detarminuparangyukitensik yangdaki gacchupvedakce gupardhupecethe Sit with it.

Tell me what it means. Well, the rangyupas say the independent school says just... It's like...

[Speaker 2]
That's not enough.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you need a strong... You need an independent reason. A true independent reason.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That could establish... That which could deny and establish. Yangdaki gacchupvedakce That was true.

[Speaker 2]
You need one. That establishing...

[Speaker 1]
That denying and that establishing has to be done with a correct reason.

[Speaker 2]
Correct independent reason.

[Speaker 1]
We should give it a different name.

[Speaker 2]
For sure.

[Speaker 1]
Self-effective is what it means. Well, we're calling it the independent school. But I guess...

Maybe we could change both. You can say independent.

[Speaker 2]
It's like self-consistent.

[Speaker 1]
No, it means like fire. It's hot from its own side. Aspirin works from its own side.

Self-powered reason? It means that.

[Speaker 2]
It means that.

[Speaker 1]
Auton... Which has its own effective myth is what it really means. Self-effective.

I mean... Is that a word? Temporarily.

Temporarily.

[Speaker 2]
Provisionally.

[Speaker 1]
Provisionally, let's call it self-effective. But I'm not saying you have to use that. Use something better.

If you go to the restaurant and say self-effective, they'll probably give you some aspirin. Yeah. Even if I was a waiter.

Now, last comment from K. Dukthambhattargyi. Oh, okay.

What's that? You need to understand the differences between the telangir and the rangupa. It's a little different.

Any fool would have to accept there's a difference between the two schools. It's got to lie somewhere. What's any fool?

Well, he's not here.

[Speaker 2]
K. Langir.

[Speaker 1]
We all have to accept that there's definitely a difference between the two schools. Now, this is what it is. He's just telling you.

This is what it is. It comes from their name. Their name reflects the difference.

One of them still thinks that something could have some power from its own side. Right? 50-50 school.

And the other says no. All right. Yeah.

All right, then.

[Speaker 2]
We have time for...

[Speaker 1]
I think it better be self-effective. Self-powered. But it's not...

I'll have to think about it for a while.

[Speaker 2]
Email me if you have any good ideas.

[Speaker 1]
Self-supporting. Self-contained. I will...

I will receive ideas. This is just a final, you know... He's throwing this comment as he jumps out the door.

This... Yeah, it happens to be... It's the same book.

It happens to be the same book. You have time? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We have eight minutes. Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
Kepa rumme thawa kelen shindurangyuki tensi kelen pad gelndur sunpayi chirtay sunpayi chirtay Now, there's an idiom here for Adam, okay? Gelndur. Gelndur.

Exclusive idiom. It means a contradiction of terms. A contradiction of terms.

It's a logic term. Gelndur. And, by the way, the shindur...

I'll give you a clue. Just so you can work it out by yourself. It's that present participle-izer.

Even as you blah... Accepting the view of the middle way. The detailed view of the middle way.

[Speaker 2]
It's contradictory. Accepting the contradictions. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you call yourself higher middle way, then you forever cannot accept a self-powered reason. Meaning... So, when it says gelndur...

[Speaker 2]
He just says middle way.

[Speaker 1]
No, this kepa means more particularly. He's had some discussion before.

[Speaker 2]
He just says you're not middle way.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. No...

Yeah, I'm sorry. He's a prasangika criticizing the lower middle way school. Call yourself middle way.

He wouldn't even call them a middle way. He's correct. That's correct.

He's being more severe. He's saying you can't call yourself middle way. Why?

You think something comes from its own side. What? Reasons.

I think reasons are powerful from their own side. Don't call yourself middle way. You're a disgrace.

Shabden. You're a shabden to the middle way. Pull the leg.

I mean, literally he's saying it would be contradictory to accept self-powered reasons while accepting the view of the middle way. You're calling yourself... Are you telling me, A.

I come from a school that says nothing comes from its own side or B. Good reasons come from their own side. Right.

You're contradicting the terms, man. Okay, got it? Yeah.

While saying that you accept the view of the middle way. Then he makes another snide comment which is fun to listen to. Just like Ben Kramer sitting there.

Here we go. Ume Tawa Kelen Shindu Yang Rang Gyu Ki Jor Way Ngak Chö Pa Gang Yimpa Deni Chö Shindu Nipa Du Me Nesu Tok Te Shey Sumpai Chö Is this a longer sentence? The first part is the same.

Ume Tawa Kelen Shindu While accepting the view of the middle way. Even as you accept the view of the middle way. Rang Gyu Ki Jor Way Jor Way means it's another word for Tantric.

Okay, so self-powered reason. It means an expression put together. A logical expression put together.

Whoever accepts self-powered reasons even what... And in the same breath, Shindu. While accepting the view of the middle way.

Good, yeah. This kind of person. This kind of phenomenon.

A person says I'm middle way but I believe that reasons have their own power. This kind of person. Shindu Nipa Du Me Nesu They cause a lot of problems.

They stay in a lot of problems. Yeah. They're living in a kind of philosophy which is just going to cause everybody a lot of problems.

And it did. Bala Viveka Pudapalita Dharmakirti No, Bala Viveka attacked Pudapalita and Dharmakirti had to clean it up. That's Nipa Du Me.

Lots of problems came out of that. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
What's the talk doing here?

[Speaker 1]
You should understand. Oh. And then he's quoting somebody who said that.

You should understand that people running around calling themselves middle way people and at the same time accepting that a reason could have its own efficacy. This kind of teaching has been the source of a lot of problems. Got it.

First you accused him of being contradictory which it is. And then he said, not only are you contradictory but this kind of talk is harming everybody. This kind of talk is hurting everybody.

Let's go back to our text. Whoa. And then I'll find you the best presentation of the differences of the two schools when I can.

It'll take me some time because there's a lot of them. I seem to remember one in Illumination.

[Speaker 2]
There's some really cool stuff in Lama Chenmo too.

[Speaker 1]
It might be in Lama Chenmo, but I'd rather use something from Illumination because I could get some of my own text done. I haven't touched it in six months. Okay, go ahead.

korwa tokpa me pa ne tenpa tong na de tsam nyang ngen le depa tokpa tewa penpa ying gi tong na ne nyang de njokpa min te oktu chodok Okay, korwa, by the way just to be fair to you he's going back to the kids seeing truth. Right. I mean, we kind of went on a detour.

One early Tibetan said that this is not a tengyur. This is a ranggyur. Right.

shang tang sakpa shang tang sakpa So no Tibetan I know would remember this name. Okay. korwa tokpa me pa ne beginningless samsara Give me that first part after the comma.

You and Ben were going to get it. If you see the truth from beginningless samsara Yeah, so if you see the truth If you see the truth of that samsara beginningless What has been the situation since you see the truth According to the sarcasm that's been the accusation. I guess they're enlightened already.

I guess they've been seeing the truth since beginningless time. Yeah, since time with no beginning in samsara I guess these dudes have been seeing the reality.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right, right.

[Speaker 1]
And if they have been na that in itself would be enough to say they've reached nirvana. Talwa pemba means your beliefs project this ridiculous idea. What you've been saying you know projects this ridiculous idea.

Yeah. What you're saying implies that? What's that?

Reject? It's 1 of 30 Geshe-la hour time Yeah, anyway, if your thought is correct if it's true that everything is the way it seems then people who never heard about emptiness must be seeing ultimate reality all the time. And then they would have been arhats all the time.

Okay? And so what he's saying in this sentence is the idea that people could have seen the truth from samsara with no beginning throws it implies the second concept they must have achieved nirvana. It implies.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, the argument kind of bothers me because he's saying like, yeah, if your thought is correct but like, instead of defending our specific presentation of what your thought would be. No, he'll get there.

[Speaker 1]
But I want to finish this sentence, okay? But we're not talking about the idea that when you reach the path of seeing that's what it takes to reach nirvana. Okay?

That's nirvana. That's a different idea. Ki means but.

This ki is but. The disjunctive but. But I'm but this is not the part in the text where we deal with the question of whether you reach arhat when you see emptiness directly.

That comes later. Otuchedo. I'll examine that question below.

All we're saying is if it's the case that if these guys have always seen things correctly If things exist the way they seem then people never heard about emptiness. They must have seen the truth since time with no beginning. And since time with no beginning they must have achieved nirvana.

Oh, that implies that for time with no beginning they've achieved nirvana. We're not on the subject of discussing whether or not at the path of seeing you reach nirvana. That's coming later.

I see. Just clarifying a little bit. All right.

Geshe-la, can you please send me this version with the books that you pulled up?

[Speaker 2]
In case someone comes up and says oh, well then I guess aryas are all at nirvana because they've seen the truth.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that could be.

[Speaker 2]
Say it again. He's anticipating us saying oh, well then I guess all aryas are already at nirvana because they've seen the truth and you just said that normal people must be at nirvana.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's a good idea. That's a good point.

[Speaker 2]
He's waiting for whoever's going to say that.

[Speaker 1]
That's a good point. That's a really good point. Where is Nicholas?

Where are you? Got it. Thank you, God.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
I'm so much more excited even now because I can understand what he's talking about. It's funny because the statement doesn't seem that radical. You know, it doesn't seem like it's not very hard to understand but he makes it into a long story.

It's just one sarcastic comment by Nagarjuna. If things exist the way they seem then everybody's an arhat. But then he goes on.

[Speaker 2]
Well, if it wasn't hard to understand then I guess we're all arhats.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, but what? Do we do this?