Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 21

[Speaker 1]
I like your choice of words, by the way. Is that big enough? Does anybody remember the first one?

I know you all remember the first one. Because there were so many arguments for the first one, you didn't even think it was worth talking about. Do you remember the three, and I wouldn't have remembered without going back, but there was like three specific examples of why, of what the arguments for Yeta had, that Meta had, but not Yeta.

Not arguments, but what ways it was... Many times, constantly... The last one was like the first one.

It was presented many times in the scriptures, and it was presented... Constantly. An explanation was devoted to it.

There were scriptures devoted to it. Presentations devoted to it. Oh, okay.

What is the proof by absurdity that Geltubj is using to explain that things couldn't really exist the way that they appear? I guess we're all nirvana. I guess two-year-olds are already...

have already reached nirvana. Yeah, there's problems with it, right? I mean, it implies certain things.

It implies that as soon as you see emptiness, then you're already enlightened. Right. Or as soon as you see the way things really are.

[Speaker 2]
There's no habituation.

[Speaker 1]
What does the independent branch of the Middle Way School say that you need in order to deny the Gakja, according to Kedjutempa Dargye? There's a clue there. Oh, you need, right, independent reasoning.

Yeah. Do you remember? A self-powered reason is how we were translating it.

You need an independent. Which is basically where the reason has some inherent power. Inherent power.

From its own side. Remember there was these words? Anybody?

Dantig is reason. Nice. By the way, you can refer to the syllogism or to the reason, as there's so many cases, like dark and...

Oh, the reason. Syllogism is the whole statement. Take blah-blah, it must be blah-blah because it's blah-blah, it's like blah-blah.

Or, Tantric can just refer to reason. The third one. Because blah-blah.

Oh, gyalndur. Gyalndur. I think it can be, but in this case, it's the other thing that you remember.

Contradictive. Yeah, like an internal contradiction. By the way, dur might be a Dany grammar case that I've come to do.

[Speaker 2]
Gyalndur, right?

[Speaker 1]
Meaning come together. So, when they come together, they contradict.

[Speaker 2]
Not a word. It's a word in a particle. Hey, hey.

[Speaker 1]
I was just going on with what we were talking about. Sharchung is a philosophical shorla. Shorla.

Who said that? God bless you. It's because I shorla you so many times.

Sharchung means incidental explanation. By the way of giving the main explanation, they go on and on and on. So, shorla is what you tell your attendant when you say, on your way back to Cambridge, could you stop by again?

That's how she knows the word. Good job. I like all your homeworks, but make them, somehow formalize them, because I'll tell you, when the day comes that you have to teach a course, you won't have time to clean them up.

Put the header on them, put name, date, place. Make a real homework, because if you have them sitting there, you'll be more likely to teach a course in it. Because somebody will say, could you, and you'll say yes.

Here, here's the first homework. Does somebody want to volunteer to make a standard format? I can give you the format from the DCI.

I already have that. Just modify it. We'll change the words.

We will do that. Do you want to take over again? Do you have an updated...

It's not updated. I didn't have time to look at it. I'm winging it.

I'm caught up to you. I'm not deeply updated. I'm okay.

I can keep going as long as you can keep going. I don't doubt that for a second. Where were we?

Okay, good. This was hard for me, and I found that phrasing it a certain way helped me. Okay.

Are you going to sit there?

[Speaker 2]
This is a girl chair.

[Speaker 1]
Only a girl can sit in this. Watch out for those cables. Can you see it?

Okay. Scripture says... I would take this comma out when you phrase it.

So I would read it this way. Although Gyaltsabje is difficult. When scripture presents arguments to disprove the idea that a two-year-old could see the truth.

So nirje means arguments against something. Or proves that it's not the case. So the lung lake together with tonpa...

I would take out this comma in my mind. Meaning when this scripture from Nagarjuna is presenting arguments against the idea that non-Aryas could see the truth. What it's saying is that trusting the information that you get by relying on your six senses and making an examination that way.

That way is not tsema. Meaning at their point to have a correct perception about emptiness they must be using jepa. And if they're not, if they're depending on the evidence of their senses it can't be tsema.

I think that's what he's saying. I'll say it again. When scripture thus presents arguments against two-year-olds seeing the truth, what they're talking about, denpa, bo, is that when these people use their six senses and based on that they make some kind of determination that cannot be pramana.

Actually, six senses is used for jepa.

[Speaker 2]
And he's talking direct.

[Speaker 1]
And it's an interesting point. What Gyatsop Jey is saying is, don't quote me as saying a non-Arya could never see the truth. They have to.

That's how Aryas became Aryas. Aryas were all non-Aryas. And then they used jepa.

So when Nagarjuna is making this tenure, this statement of absurdity, he's got to be restricting himself to their use of their direct senses. Otherwise the punchline doesn't make sense. He's not denying that a non-Arya couldn't use deduction to come to the idea of emptiness with the pen.

He's denying that they could see it with their sense objects, sense consciousnesses directly.

[Speaker 2]
Last time we were together, weren't the very last words we had together implying that basically non-Aryas don't have pramana, period?

[Speaker 1]
We're just about to get to that subject. Here we go. NINANG GI LO LA TSEMA MIMPE KHYAPAR DROP PO NI MAWA THAMCHE DZIN ZHEPA DANG CHUD TZUNG TE Okay.

These scriptures. Mr. Idiom. SHEJE means evidence.

SHEJE means evidence. Knowing maker. So he's saying now there's some kind of weird sub-sect that uses these comments in scripture, meaning nirgajuna, uses them as evidence, or as proof, as points of proof to say, and then you know you're going to get some ridiculous thing, that all NINANG GI LOS are not SEMA.

What's a NINANG GI LO? It's a dualistic mind. You can say dualistic, I don't mind.

Generally I object to the word dualistic, because it's misunderstood as meaning there's no subject or object. Dualism, when people misunderstand Buddhism, they say dualism, we want to overcome dualism, we want to overcome the feeling of a separate subject and object. That's not at all what dualism means.

I sometimes call NINANG discrepancy. Right, right. I much prefer that.

The way things really appear, and the way things really are. The way things seem to be, and the way they really are. There's a discrepancy in Trump's statements.

This morning, if you heard it in Switzerland, he was like, we are working for America first, and that's why you should work with us. It's exactly what he said. Then there's a discrepancy.

Wait a minute. It's like, I can't see any European leader going like, what?

[Speaker 2]
But it doesn't mean that everything they said was untrue. He is looking out for himself.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, they say any state of mind which involves a discrepancy cannot be similed.

[Speaker 2]
Cannot be promoted.

[Speaker 1]
That means if you see a bagel, you don't see a bagel? Because there's NINANG there. It appears to be coming from its own side, and you're taking it to be coming from its own side.

But the bagel part is correct. You've got to get used to that. We didn't say there's no such thing as a correct perception.

We never said that. Is the bagel a bagel? Yes.

Is that a correct perception? Yes. Is it correct about the ultimate nature of the bagel?

No. We didn't say that. We're not talking about that.

Is it a relatively correct perception? Yeah, it's a bagel. Bagel's a bagel.

We never said there's no correct perceptions among minds which are involved with discrepancy. The capital D, discrepancy. And if you think that, that all states of mind which are involved with the discrepancy, if you think they can't be similed, then you might as well join that group called Everything's Fake.

Zen Shepas? DER PO NI MA LA THAMS CAD DZIN PA Which is to say, all statements must be false. If you do think what?

There's some kind of school. It's similar to the idea that no statement can be true. It's similar to the idea that no statement that you, nothing you can say that can't be said.

It's something like that. There's no such thing as a statement which is not false.

[Speaker 2]
Right, which must not be true.

[Speaker 1]
Then Chod Sung means, you amount to the same thing as those guys. Is that a Buddhist school? I haven't heard it before.

[Speaker 2]
But it's someone interpreting Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's somebody who believes that all statements must be false. You can't make a correct statement. It's impossible to say anything in words.

But they're basing it on Luddita. Yeah, and there's some kind of school that says all perceptions are false, and all statements are false. You're the same thing as those guys.

You're just the same as those guys. You can't say something correctly. And that's true.

But when you say a bagel's a bagel, that's okay. As long as you don't say a bagel's a bagel. Then it took me a while to get this, but it's so cute.

It's so beautiful, Jay. Not go. Do you believe that all conventional perceptions are wrong?

No, you're the other guy. Do you guys think all conventional perceptions are wrong? Yeah, that's what we're saying.

Do you believe what you say?

[Speaker 2]
Do you understand what you say?

[Speaker 1]
Are you confirming your own conventional perception with a conventional perception, because all conventional perceptions are wrong? So you cannot be saying what you're saying about conventional perceptions, because that's also conventional perception. It's like those guys who try to prove to you that logic is stupid.

And here's why. They're always using logic. They say, no, Geshe-la, go beyond logic.

Why? They're using logic. I think he's being cute.

Let's put it this way. Te Tag Koe Ranggilo, their own state of mind which understands their position, has got to be, they have to accept that it's a tema. Their perception.

Their perception that they're correct. To say there's no perceptions is a perception, or else it wouldn't be correct and they couldn't say it. What's koa?

Koa means understanding. Yeah, it's colloquial. You can say, by the way, if you want to get into that verb, which is one of my favorite things to do, it can mean to hear.

Ko ma chung. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't hear you.

It doesn't mean I didn't understand. Ko ma chung means I didn't hear you. I didn't quite hear what you're saying.

Ha ko ma chung means I didn't get what you're saying. Ko ma chung means I didn't hear what you're saying. Please repeat.

So you guys should put that in your dictionary. Put that in your dictionary. Okay, this whole thing?

Yeah, I'm just wondering if there's a, now there's no other way to cut it. I'm just wondering if there's a, now there's no other way to cut it. I'm just wondering if there's a, now there's no other way to cut it.

Okay, good. de mi dun na de mi dun na, and it's if you don't accept that. Yeah, if you don't accept that there could be such a thing as a conventionally correct perception.

Uh huh. Oh, so, okay, yeah, right, right, right. Okay.

Then, how could you be drawing any kind of, how could it be correct, te? How could it be correct to draw some distinction between those two being correct or incorrect?

[Speaker 2]
Uh huh.

[Speaker 1]
Which two? Uh, let's go on and then we'll go back. Okay.

This is a tough sentence. Whatever he just said is supposed to prove what he says next. Uh huh, uh huh.

Therefore, lung di dak gi, statements such as Nagarjuna's is about how people who never saw emptiness best be seeing the truth directly all the time.

[Speaker 2]
Uh huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, statements like that.

[Speaker 2]
Uh huh.

[Speaker 1]
What it's talking about is Just the sense powers. wangpo dekho ne nyi chokpay tse ma min te the sense powers. Just the sense powers.

cannot be This is tse ma. Yeah, a valid perception. A valid perception, which investigates the meaning of suchness.

This is an idiom. dekho ne nyi chokpay tse ma Chokpay tse ma, investigating. Yeah, a state of mind which is investigating whether a thing is empty or not.

When I say, I perceive this is a bagel, am I engaged in an exploration of the ultimate reality of a bagel?

[Speaker 2]
Maybe. No.

[Speaker 1]
This goes back to this famous conversation. I got frustrated one day when we were in our tiny little classroom in New Jersey. I'm like, Rinpoche, just tell me what I'm doing wrong.

According to you, I'm having some kind of wrong perception of the door to the kitchen all the time. What am I doing wrong? Just tell me.

Okay, blah blah philosophy philosophy. Just tell me in one sentence, what am I doing wrong? He said, it's not wrong that you're seeing a door.

That's correct. It's how you feel about the door. It's the feeling that the door is coming from its own side.

That's wrong. But the perception that the door is a door is not wrong. Do these chibas have tse ma or not?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they have tse ma. But their perception of the door is not a perception of the reality of the door. That's an interesting way to break it down.

Yeah, so don't tell me all of their perceptions are wrong. We didn't say that. We said their feeling about where the door is coming from is wrong, but their perception of the door is not wrong.

But if their general perceptions of doors were all that we're talking about, then they must have seen ultimate reality a long time ago. Then they'd already be arhats. If having a correct perception is to have the correct perception, then they must have been arhats a long time ago.

Okay, got it? This is getting specific. Just to clarify, is dekona nyi chepay tse ma?

Is the idiom you use? Yeah, which is exploring the feeling about the door. A correct perception, which is exploring whether or not the door comes from its own side.

That's called a state of mind which is exploring the satchiness of the object. Seeing the door as a door is not dekona nyi chepay tse ma. It's just kunzok chepay tse ma.

Just exploring the realm of apparent things. But they're both tse ma. He's just specifying which tse ma it is that they're lacking.

Yeah, wombo. Their sense powers. Every time they open their eyes and see a wall, according to you, if things are the way they seem, then they're seeing ultimate reality, their eye consciousness, when they stare at a wall.

Oh, well then you say their eye consciousness is not tse ma. No, we didn't say that.

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
He's overreacting. He's overreacting to our kyong gyur. The second half of the sentence is much more easy.

shen du, if it were otherwise. If their sense powers were perceptions which investigate reality, then pa glam la ben na dun me pa thao. There would be no need to have the third path?

It'd be meaningless to bepa, sundru. To work so hard to get to the Arya's perception. Then it would be meaningless.

If a sense power could be a correct perception which is exploring reality, then it'd be meaningless to make efforts in reaching the Arya path. And that's the talawa that's being pangpa here. That's the absurdity which is being suggested here.

Are you telling me that it's meaningless to work at the Arya path? That's the absurd consequence that's being projected here. That's the absurd consequence of your ideas.

Pangpa means consequence.

[Speaker 2]
I was saying that yepa is not something we need to cover.

[Speaker 1]
But, ki, if that's not what all this stuff means, then our whole system of four correct types of perception is wrong. Then our general Buddhist system, which accepts four kinds of correct perception, is mistaken. Because according to you, no perception would be correct.

Because they're all investigating the ultimate reality of things, even when you just look at the door. Now, you need a footnote for what? Four types of correct perception.

Is this a new thing that you cut in the last few days? It's about two or three days old. Okay, I'll probably have to grab this from you.

[Speaker 2]
I think it was the 19th when you changed the data sampler.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I just changed the data. That's a new one. I'll grab it.

It's not a new one, but anyway, it doesn't matter. You got me. By the way, you had it in course seven.

And here it is right here.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, is it the flu shot? No. Four and 13?

[Speaker 1]
I'm talking DCI, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Well, here's the list, and I'm just going to cut it and cut it, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Each here? Each here.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. Conversion.

[Speaker 2]
Conversion, yeah. Oh. Yeah, cool.

Oh, it's a third one. No, no, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, this is the part you should make the footnote from, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Let's just say footnote here, okay?

[Speaker 1]
And I'd like you to make a footnote, and I'd like you to make bibliography and jury, and your... If you guys hit it lucky, this will be in Ben Kappa's...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's already in the document that he puts together.

[Speaker 1]
But I don't think it is, actually. That's all right. Oh, enter the middle way?

No, no, no.

[Speaker 2]
This is a commentary.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I see. Which is a better remembrance of all treasure trove. But it might be.

I mean, if you guys want to cheat. In my opinion, if you cheat by doing it easier, you're smart. He's got a database of footnotes.

He's got a database of bibliography and jury. If I ask you to make a bibliography and jury, and by stupid dumb luck, yours is in that, and you use it, I think you're smarter than if you didn't use it. You're saving yourself 20 minutes.

Yeah, you're saving all of us time. Okay, here we go to the fourth. And you're going to translate.

Where did it go? Footnote from here. Okay, go.

I'd like you to do both paragraphs. Tema du yuchena. Nguntzumdang nguhtog jepagdang.

Yichay jepagdang. Jwakpe jedo sum. Jepag.

Jepag. Oh, I see. Jepag sum chewe shi yuchay.

Shepe chirthe. Oh, can we read the rest? Yeah, you can if you want.

Choklang gi nguntzumdundang jepagdang. Yichay jepagdang tenlao. She sum pey.

Hun yinpay chir. Oh, so he's... Okay, tema du yuchena.

Now, idiom, okay? What is correct perception? You know the word tuma to mean many.

Many, many. Okay, you know the word tuma, which is very confusing because of the du and the ma. They look like...

Looks like particles. Repositions, and they look like negatives. They're nothing to do with it.

Tuma is a terrible invention. Du yue comes from that. Okay?

Du yue means how many are there. How many types of correct perception are there? Yes, you don't learn du yue.

Du yue means how many are there. You've never seen it. You don't know how to deal with it.

You look it up in a dictionary and you're in a disaster. Is it not common? Not that common.

Okay. But it's related to this weird word duma, okay? How many kinds of tuma are there?

Okay, whose book is this? Jamyang Shepa. He's very good for footnotes.

Well, there's mun sung. Direct. Direct perception.

Then there's logical. But what's it? Lupa tok.

From some power? Through the power of the thing. Through the power of the thing.

This is a term for deduction. This is a synonym for jepak tsemo.

[Speaker 2]
Lupa tok tsemo.

[Speaker 1]
Well, here they've divided jepak into three. So here, they're making a distinction between direct and jepak. There are all kinds of deductions, but some kind of deduction is done from logic, some kind of deduction is done from scripture, and some kind of deduction is done from someone you trust.

Sorry, from convention and convention. So, you've got to be... Whose text is that?

[Speaker 2]
Mine. We did this.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's yours.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
In your next few weeks of your life, the next few classes you have, the implications of calling it the power of the thing are going to be explored. Okay. Because it seems to imply vangyu.

Uh-huh, and independence.

[Speaker 2]
Right, yeah, right, yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
If you can draw a conclusion from the nature of an object... Right, therefore it has a nature. ...then it must have a nature. That's just a reasonable thing to say, you know. When I say fire, and you induce heat, right? Because that's the nature of fire.

Well, what if you came across some weirdo who said, fire has no nature? Well then, how could you deduce heat from fire?

[Speaker 2]
Right, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Absolutely.

[Speaker 1]
All right? So, calling the very word for logic... The Master of Logic?

The Master of Mudok. In the prayer that we say for food, we call Gyatsobje, his author, the King of Jeto. Sorry, the King of Mudok.

You are the king who said, we can draw conclusions from the nature of things. And then you said, they don't have any nature. What's wrong with you?

Okay, got it? Okay, so this is going to be a loaded word for you for the next few classes. Okay.

So, Mudokjebak, which is a synonym for what we think of as deduction, using reasons. Then there's other kinds of jebak, Iche. Deduction, I'm guessing this is going to be from scripture.

Yeah, Iche means faith, trust, authoritative source. And the test is that someone, you know, you've asked this guy three times in the past to recommend a restaurant. And each time it was amazing.

No, really. And then you say, okay, what's the next one I should go to? And he says, or what's the next coffee I should buy?

Because the last three you told me were amazing. And then that's called Iche. That's called, you now have trust in that source.

Trust in a source. Fourth one? Convention.

Yeah, what's the example in DCI Level 7? Is it the rabbit and the moon?

[Speaker 2]
Well, no, that's one. That's a typical example. Lemon.

[Speaker 1]
Oh yeah, the lemon. I bought a lemon. I was trying to get a good deal and I bought a lemon.

And everybody knows in English, in colloquial English, lemon means a lousy car. I bought a lemon. So that's called, you're kind of deducing that he's talking about a bad car when he says lemon, because that's a common nickname in your culture for a bad car.

That's the fourth kind of correct perception. Someone says, I bought a lemon. I had trouble.

Then you have the perception that they're talking about an old car. And that's a correct perception because you know this convention. Convention means a word that we all agree is going to mean bad car.

It's a word for a fruit which is sour. But we all agree in our culture that we're going to use it as a name for a bad car. That's called convention.

We all agreed in our culture that this is going to be a word for a bad car. In the classical scriptural example... Yeah, that's the rabbit in the moon.

Yeah. Well, it looks like there's a rabbit in the moon and it's kind of a folk tale, I guess you could say, that there is a rabbit in the moon, but it's just because it appears that way. But people all agree that that's a thing, that it looks like there's a rabbit in the moon.

Shashikant. Shashikant. In Asia.

It's also a man in the moon, right? Yeah, we see a man in the moon, or the moon's made of cheese. In India it's called shashikant.

It has a rabbit. They see a rabbit in the moon. They see ears and...

I saw it once. I once saw it. So if you say the rabbit's bright tonight, in Tibetan culture they know you're talking about the moon like a lemon.

If we say that car's a lemon, then everybody knows. Okay, thanks. I never really got how the rabbit in the moon exactly was conventioned, because they all refer to the moon as...

You know, go out on a full moon and... In Tibetan. No, just imagine it, and you can pretty much see a rabbit.

Oh, yeah, I've seen it. Okay, drop a jaypok. Why do they say sung cheway?

Because, well, two of them are divisions of one. Classically, jaypok is just one of them, and then there's two types of jaypok from the scriptural... No, there's three kinds of jaypok.

See what I mean? Oh, oh, oh, oh. So he's divided...

These are the three kinds of jaypok, then. Lungsum stands by itself, and then jaypok, I'm going to split for you into three. Right, right, right.

Okay. Making... Four.

A total of four. Our talk. Our talk by whom?

Hey. Probably the Buddha, let's see. Dignaga.

Dignaga. Oh, yeah. You know, I spent a long time figuring out dignaga, and I want to show off.

This is one case where money or whims was helpful. It's rare. Extremely rare.

But apparently, naga is an ancient word for an elephant.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, that's right. The directions. The eight directions.

[Speaker 1]
The four primary directions, which are called dik. To indicate. Digital comes from that.

Dictator comes from that. Does it mean finger? And dignaga comes from that.

Digit. So, dignaga. Is it a word for finger?

Yeah. No, it's a point. The thing you use to point.

The thing you use, yeah. Dictate. Then, dik means direction.

Yeah. Point to. And naga is those elephants.

So, there were elephants at each of the carnal ornal directions. Ornal. Chokta.

Well, by tradition. So, he was called... His name means elephants of the directions.

Dignaga. You could never figure it out. Those were the elephants that held up the Buddha's throne, right?

Could be. No, that was lions. I don't know, but I think they do hold up the world or something.

I don't remember. I'm pretty sure you told us that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, Mr. Dignaga says... So, direct... These four that I just gave you have been explained by who?

By Dignaga in his famous work.

[Speaker 2]
Pramana Samaccha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Pramana Samaccha. Companion of valid perception. Okay.

Then he lists them, right? Direct perception of an object. And then there's logic.

And then there's authoritative. And then there's convention. Rang ten la.

I forget what that part means. I think it's... Relying on...

You can use them for yourself or something. Okay. I don't remember that.

Okay. Cool. Got it?

Yep. So, our presentation of the four types of pramana would be wrong, according to you. And it would, in fact, be unnecessary to exert ourselves in achieving the path of the Aryas if it were the case that these perceptions of children being mentioned were not direct.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay? That would be...

Because if we were complaining that children can't use logic to get to a perception of emptiness, then we're throwing out our whole system. Then why study logic? The purpose of logic is to see emptiness.

Yeah. Okay. So, we're not saying that these two-year-olds...

Directly see the true nature of the mind. ...don't have any correct perceptions. And we're not saying, also, that they can't use logic to have a correct perception.

We're just saying their direct perceptions are not of ultimate reality. Because if they were, they would already be... Aryas.

Arhats. Arhats. Okay, good.

So, don't accuse Gyaltsabje of saying there's no correct perceptions. I never said that. And it's not when Nagarjuna...

See, some people came out of that quotation by Nagarjuna and said, nothing is correct perception. Right. Yeah, so he's really...

They said Nagarjuna's Telangir, Nagarjuna's Prasangika, was trying to prove there's no such thing as a correct perception. Too much, too much. Is it what the Zen school says?

You know, I don't know enough about Zen to know, but I suspect it is. There's probably thousands of Zen schools.

[Speaker 2]
Gyaltsabje was speaking of Zen school before.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, he loves to pick on other people, that's for sure. Just in general. Thepa chenpo shungwa...

Thepa chenpo shungwa ngewa shuktu machubu gyur ye. I told you that. Some Sakya guy wrote 12 volumes on the perfection of nature.

And all Gyaltsabje could say is, it's too bad you didn't have time to study it more carefully. He's pretty hot. Jetsun Khabar never mentions his enemies directly.

He says, somebody says. But Gyaltsabje doesn't have this. He's not so shy.

Now we got to, to me, the sexiest thing I've got to in a long time. Dhani? Oh, I guess that's now.

Dhani thanggyo... Not da. Ta.

Dhani. Dhani thanggyo dhani. It's not an English D.

We just had de and de, and thank God it's not the same. Whose book was that? Seiji's book.

De and de. Dhani thanggyo dangramgyo duma we umape kepar shepar jate.

[Speaker 2]
Now I'm going to tell you how to tell the difference between these two memory schools.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Beautiful. Do it word by word.

Now. Yeah. Prasangika, Madhyamaka, Middle Way Consequence School and the Independent, the proponents of those Middle Way schools.

Oh no, those Middle Way schools who purport belong to either school. Those Middle Wayers who belong to either, yeah, I see. I'm going to explain the details of each of them.

The difference. The difference, I see. Between the two.

What points... The distinction. What points differentiate a higher Madhyamaka from a lower Madhyamaka?

And this is almost a tsomba dhammachala. Tsomba dhammachala. Thomas the Complete Order.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, cool.

[Speaker 1]
It's almost, you feel a sense of monumentalness. You feel like he's like, now, I'll tell you the difference between these two schools. It's like he's making a commitment.

I will die or I will finish. Wow. I commit to tell you the difference between...

Because everybody's wondering, it's really five schools in Buddhism, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's not four, it's really five. He's got this weird break between the two Madhyamaka guys. Well, you know, why did you break the fourth school into two?

Why did that get broken into two? And now we're about to hear the ten points that separate them. And if you learn that, you can remember forever.

It's very cool. It's really relevant to Sogong, for example. Because you got stuck, Geshe Michael threw you into the lower Madhyamaka, which is better than being thrown into Abhidharma, trust me.

Right, Stanley? Push your butt. No, don't throw me into Abhidharma.

No, no. Keep going. Yeah, so normally, nangtang means synonym.

In the Diamond Cutter Sutra, it means a version of the teachings, chikki nangtang. In the Heart Sutra, it means a kind of deep meditation. The Buddha goes into it.

This one has to be... I'm going to give them to you one by one. I'm going to enumerate them.

I'll read it as enumerating. I'm going to enumerate them for you, and then I'm going to identify Ngo-Sung, Mun-Dzin. By the way, Mun-Dzin is very common in colloquial Tibetan.

How are you taking it? Mun-Dzin che yi ma chung. It was dark, I couldn't recognize it.

So in this case, it's all identified? What's tepa mean? Correct.

Correct. Come on, we always have me-te-te. Correct.

I thought it was correct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's correct.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. Chok means side. Paksha.

Yeah. What's it mean here? He's going to Ngo-Sung, me-te-te-chok.

[Speaker 2]
He's going to identify the correct position.

[Speaker 1]
And I'll tell you who's right. I'll tell you ten points of difference, and then I'll tell you who wins. I'll tell you who's correct.

Not that I'm biased at all.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, how much time do we have? Can we start?

[Speaker 1]
We have four minutes. Let's start on them. I want to go to a different scripture for them.

I see. He's assuming you understand them already, and I'd like to have an appendix like we have. Sure, that's exciting.

And I believe it comes from the illumination. It's going to push me back a few months probably. It will, but it's totally worth it.

It's probably cooler than the whole book. I'm into it. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Did you just skip a scripture?

[Speaker 1]
I was exploring. I was flirting with different ones. I didn't find the one I want yet.

Oh, really? I know there's one in Tsongkhapa somewhere, and I couldn't find it yet. Okay, okay.

So we'll go with Joseph G.'s enumeration for now? Well, right now, since you have a few minutes, let's just jump into the names of them. And I reserve the right to change it later.

Sure, that's cool. Okay. Dambala.

What was the first thing he promised us? He was going to enumerate the differences between the two schools.

[Speaker 2]
He's going to Tsongkhapa.

[Speaker 1]
So look, I put in the numbers. Yeah. And because at the end he said, dang chuo.

[Speaker 2]
Chuo. Dang chuo. Makes ten.

And these make what? Only ten. And these make ten.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which makes for a total of ten. Yeah. Okay.

So, here's the ten, briefly. Chir. Ranggukidam.

Tam. Cha. La.

Le. Len. Mi.

Len. Dang. This has got to be K.

Right. Got to be. Yeah.

Generally speaking, do they accept Ranggukidam? Aha. Reasons to have their own power.

Yes. Generally speaking. Yes.

Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
When you say they, you're talking about the Tsongkhapa.

[Speaker 1]
No. These are litmus tests to be used to decide the question.

[Speaker 2]
There's distinguishes between the two. Oh. Yeah.

Do they accept that? Yeah. Is this guy a Prasangika or Tsongkhapa?

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Does he accept that reasons have their own power or not? Yeah. These are questions to ask to see if someone has that.

Which side they're on. Yeah. Got it.

Like, hey, Allison, do you accept reasons have their own power? Right. That's an exit poll.

Exit poll. This doesn't quite make sense. I got to think there might be a problem.

Uh oh. Oh no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I take it back. You made sense of it? It's really a subset of the first one.

Oh. Do they or do they not accept this kind of reason in number one? Of self-existing reason.

Okay. Reason which has efficacy from its own side. Self-powered, yeah.

Do they accept that more particularly in the context of emptiness?

[Speaker 2]
Establishing suchness. No, analyzing emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exploring emptiness. Yeah, exploring suchness. I always remember that that idiom means I'm not asking about the door is there or not.

I'm asking is the door coming from its own side or not. The second one is called exploration of its real nature. So, generally do they accept this kind of reason?

And more specifically, do they accept that it can be used in exploring the true nature of the door? Yeah. Third one.

Wow.

[Speaker 2]
Let's fix this.

[Speaker 1]
Do they not accept? No, it's similar. Do they accept or not accept?

Oh. Yeah, I should put it here. Yeah.

Do they? Yeah. Do they or do they not accept?

Yeah, do they or do they not accept? Oh, this is awesome. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good. I was wondering. Me too.

I'm wondering.

[Speaker 1]
I think it's top shoot. Top shoot. Power of things.

That's first kind of the three. Right. That's right.

And the three kinds of deductive reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The first one is just general deduction. Logical deduction. Do they accept logic as a valid method or not?

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's weird. We should both.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, we want some explanation. Okay, one more and we're going to stop.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, we're out of time.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to accept one more. Okay, now for this, I want to show off that I still remember. When you take a chöchen, right?

Let's say somebody says things come from their own side. Someone says things come from their own side. Then I'm fighting with them.

I want to prove them wrong. I say, go to chöchen. Consider the door.

Yeah, consider the door. Now, it's a rule of logic that when you take something as the example, they must see what it is and you must see what it is. Equally.

Yeah. They have to have the same understanding of the object that you take for your debate. That they have.

But they never do. Chön nang means Harmonious appearance. And an equal perception of the door.

Otherwise you can't use it as an example.

[Speaker 2]
So here's like common ground.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, common ground. We'll take the door. But when you're debating the ultimate reality of the door, they can't take the door because they're already misunderstanding.

They're already not looking at the same door that you're looking at. And that's always going to be the case anytime you're trying to prove emptiness. The guy you're fighting with doesn't see the object the same way you see it.

Take Neil Young's music. And they're like, whoa, you mean that noise? Someone says, you may do mawa.

Is it even possible to have a chön that's common ground? Is such a thing even possible? Does there exist common ground or not?

Because according to the rules of logic, we must be talking about the same object. If I say fish and you mean... If I say lemon and I mean fruit and you mean car, that's not a good example.

[Speaker 2]
In the context of someone you're trying to convince that he's right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Then it gets worse.

[Speaker 2]
I've been waiting for that for a long time.

[Speaker 1]
Me too. I never got to teach it before. Cool.

Exciting. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you. Thank you.