Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 25

[Speaker 1]
First question should be pretty easy. Describe the idea of an independently effective reason. One that relies on...

[Speaker 2]
Nothing in addition.

[Speaker 1]
A reason which self-existently convinces you of the argument. From its own side. Has the power to convince you of the argument.

Yeah, independent of... So it definitely helps you from its own side. Independent of the person's karma.

That's what I was hoping to hear. Independent of the person's karma who's hearing the reason. Is Mr. Wu comfortable?

Alright. He felt warmer there. Warmer there?

Yeah. But you want to all move down? This seat's empty.

You want to all move down one seat? This seat is not good for a boy. This thing here.

This thing here is a problem for a boy. Girl, it's okay. No, no.

No, not you, Ed.

[Speaker 2]
You need to slide a little. It's a musical chair. Leave the chair there, and we're all moving down one chair.

[Speaker 1]
That's it. Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
So the unused chair is the one where we shouldn't sit down. We apply to a subset.

[Speaker 1]
Actually, everyone sit. Phil, you can slide over before you sit down. Slide over before you sit down.

[Speaker 2]
If the music stops, everyone slide.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. Is the window open? Oh, it's not open yet because of the noise.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. That's what happens every Monday morning.

[Speaker 1]
Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's better than a dirty parking lot. Alright. Okay.

Here we go. What is wrong with the idea that there could be no accurate perception in a mind that still possesses a discrepancy between what it sees as being real and what is real? What is an implication of this idea?

In fairness, you guys, if nobody knows this, it's from, we barely touched on it the other day, and we touched on it a lot more last term, but it's something kind of cool, and plus we didn't cover only half a line last time, so I had to use stuff from, I mean, because we had to review, so I had to pick stuff from previous. You only did like three lines of your text, right? Less.

Less than three lines, yeah. What is wrong with the idea that there could, so I'll try to make this more clear.

[Speaker 2]
How about like this?

[Speaker 1]
Kind of. There could be no accurate, if somebody claims that there's no accurate perception in a mind like ours, but they're trying to prove that to you, is there a problem with that? They're trying to use logic, they're trying to use the same reasoning to reason that they say cannot be reasoned.

Yeah, they're using reasoning to say that you can't use reasoning.

[Speaker 2]
They're using an inaccurate perception to see that.

[Speaker 1]
Not that it's inaccurate, but they're trying to use logic to say that you can't use logic.

[Speaker 2]
So is this about the logic, or is this about the perception?

[Speaker 1]
It's about logic, it's about logic. They're saying that you can't have accurate perception, that's what happens in the text. They're like, there's no accurate perception, I guess it's meaning logic.

Who's saying that? Kachik. Of course.

Kachik is saying like, there's no tsema in a mind that's not enlightened basically, not in a direct perception like this, there's no valid perception there. And we're saying like, oh well, how do you know that? And he's like, well I figured it out.

It's like, well what did you use to figure it out? I used the accurate perception. How could he be having an accurate perception of that?

That's the problem. And then what's an implication? So Gelsinger mentions a couple consequences.

You guys probably don't remember this, I don't think we touched on it the other day. The consequences of that idea are like, I guess the teachings on the four kinds of valid perception are not right, and you were going to say?

[Speaker 2]
It's something about simultaneous, that you could never use your mind simultaneously without both.

[Speaker 1]
There's no point in making efforts toward the Aryan path, is what he said. That's kind of a cool part of that. According to Gelsinger, what point needs to be considered in order to determine whether or not an independently effective reason exists?

This is really hard, and the text is hard, so I couldn't come up with easier questions. But it's interesting stuff for us to have in our minds going into our study of it. Do you even understand my question?

I'm not commenting. I think I know what you're talking about.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, like when I say consider banana, can we share the same object? Are we both thinking of the same thing?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's it. This is the point that needs to be considered to determine whether or not an independently effective reason exists. So I guess we're about to get more into it today.

[Speaker 2]
Definitely.

[Speaker 1]
More than you ever wanted. A person from a state in Tibet. Always a good one to go to.

It has a power, a lot of meaning. Right, Geshe-la? It is, you're right.

Kentuckian. Any other ideas of what else it might mean? You showed us.

[Speaker 2]
Ironically, you failed to hide it.

[Speaker 1]
Long way. There's a famous Guru Samadhi commentary, which is the basis of all study of Gitu, which is the illumination of all hidden subjects. So bay and bar are the same.

Cool. Long way. Long way?

Long way. Short. Not motivated?

Short. Insufficient time. There's no time.

Yeah, which refers to the refutation of... In this case, it refers to the refutation of... to one of the ten differences.

I'll give you a clue. Baba referred to whether or not there was a wisdom in the mind stream of a Buddha. Right.

And perhaps we can say it's hidden. To our sight. And then this one referred to the refutation of the tenth point.

Oh. According to my way of reading it, which was kind of...

[Speaker 2]
innovative.

[Speaker 1]
I thought it was the exclusion thing, but... Rangrik. Oh, apperception.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Why? Because how can that...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, there's no time.

[Speaker 1]
If you restrict the time to a single millisecond, there's not time for the mind to see itself. If you say two milliseconds, okay. Then long way.

But long way... So I'm... I'm taking nine and ten to refer to these two.

[Speaker 2]
Makes sense.

[Speaker 1]
I think it makes sense. But it might end up, which I said in the footnote, that Baba Longmei is some guy's name. But anyway, it fits nine and ten, which is the last thing we just did.

Okay. Alright, then this one counts. By the way, that shay...

is restricted to first syllables of a line. Oh, wrong shay. Yeah, you know, I...

It's because I couldn't... Why?

[Speaker 2]
Oh. Because it looks like it could be something. Because you could otherwise confuse it.

[Speaker 1]
It's... The first... If a shay follows a single syllable in a line and it starts a syllable, you're required to use this.

That's just a rule of carving books.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, so it's continuous.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And it doesn't make any sense in our... in our computer data because the lines aren't...

You know, it doesn't... It's no longer necessary. It just means...

It's kind of weird if a single syllable ends a sentence and there wasn't room to carve it on the line before. They'll put it on the next line but they'll write this shay. It means this goes from the line before.

So you don't use it in... otherwise. I just couldn't figure out how to do it with this font.

Yeah, I know, it's okay. I figured. I'm just trying to teach you guys something.

Excuse me. So that means in our books as Sugong prints them eventually... And by the way, he has proposals about how the book should look and we should vote on it because you're all...

it's going to... you're all going to have to live with it for the rest of your life. You have to take out the semicolons and replace them with commas.

Yeah. Okay, in your data, in your book, before you start translating, take out all these because they don't mean anything anymore. Because we're not retaining page structure.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, go.

[Speaker 1]
Chigo and Targo. The side after and the side... I was expecting them to get this one better.

Oh, it's the attacker and defender in the debate. Oh, this is Nago. This is Nago.

For some reason the text had Targo... had both. Maybe it does, yeah.

Yeah, yeah. So... Then this would be equivalent, I think.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
These two would be the same?

[Speaker 1]
I'm guessing. No, actually this is not... This is never...

That was just Tar comma Go. Oh, referring to Nago. No, it's something...

the end of something before it. They're not related. SNGA.

SNGA. Nago. Chi means later, Nga means earlier.

Who starts? The Nago or the Chigo? Nago.

Yeah, the Nago. The person who makes the proposal is the Nago. And who defends.

The Chigo. Yeah. No.

Well, the Nago has to defend his views to the Chigo. Okay, okay. You're right, you're right.

The person standing up is the Nago. The person sitting down is the Chigo. I guess.

Unless he's responding to something that the sitter said. If the sitter started the debate, I'd say he's the Nago. So it's more general.

[Speaker 2]
It's more general. Like, in a debate the stander starts, but in a debate text the sitter starts by being catchy.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Something like that. Okay, again, you take the plane.

Someone has. Okay, get ready to be confused.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, what?

[Speaker 1]
More confused. I'm going to start here, and I know he's frustrated because we're not going anywhere, but I'm going to just do this quickly, okay? Don't look so much at the English because I didn't work on it yet.

As long as you don't make us sad for not getting the car. So I'm just going to read it fast. Lopan Leng...

Lopan Chambo Leng, then JK. Now... Warm.

No, warm. Okay. Now you have to understand some...

I'm going to repeat something historically, okay? So, Nagarjuna wrote his book, and then somebody named Buddha Palita wrote a book properly describing Nagarjuna's views. Then, a very brilliant scholar named Baba Viveka wrote a huge book on why Buddha Palita was mistaken.

And then Chandrakirti came later and defended Buddha Palita against Baba Viveka, probably after they were both dead. Okay? So, okay, got it?

So, Buddha said stuff, Nagarjuna interpreted it correctly, Buddha Palita described Nagarjuna correctly, then Baba Viveka attacked Buddha Palita, and then Chandrakirti... I always see him as the cavalry coming at the last minute, he's like, ah, I'll help you, you know. So, he showed up at the last minute and attacked who?

Baba Viveka. Again, and protected... Buddha Palita.

Even though Buddha Palita's name means... Protector of the... Protector, okay.

He was the protectee, actually. Okay, got it? Yeah.

Is Buddha Palita considered Middle Way or like Proto-Middle Way? Proto-Prasangika. Right, yes, what I mean is...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. Oh, and by the way, in terms of school names, you can say Nagarjuna is Higher Middle Way, Prasangika, then Buddha Palita is Higher Middle Way, Prasangika, before the words were used normally. And then Baba Viveka came and criticized them and invented the independent school, the independent group in the Middle Way school.

And then people like Shantarakshita carried it on, and Kamalashila was like... His teacher was Shantarakshita, but he kind of tended more towards Prasangika. Okay, although technically he's considered a Lower Middle Way.

But if you read the commentary to Diamond Cutter, you can't believe he's Lower Middle Way. Although he has some aspects of that. Okay.

And some minori aspects.

[Speaker 2]
But he is formerly Higher Lower Middle Way.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Neljor Chepe Umar Rangyupa.

[Speaker 2]
Right, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So anyway, to understand Nick's next few pages, which are extremely difficult. Harder than anybody's text.

And his text was super hard. Wherever word went to. His text...

To get what we did today was... It took me the whole John Foley's lecture. Okay.

So Lopan... By the way, which I really enjoyed, and I think he's a brilliant, beautiful man. He's going to talk in here.

Yeah. I'm sorry. They just do their maintenance today.

Okay. So I want to go back to where he first appears. Okay.

We have a list of differences between Prasangika and Independent. Right? Svatantrika.

Okay. And then, kind of where he first appears in the list, after the list, is this paragraph. And I'm just going to read it fast.

Lopan Lekhyenjeyki. Now, Bhavaviveka. What he says is, sukhi kyewa medho nyam du chun na, sher chen na chuky.

You are... You are asking Prajnaparamita questions. Boroboromito.

You are... You are discussing the perfection of wisdom. If...

If you're examining whether or not physical things can ever start. Okay? If you're discussing whether or not the cup was ever made in a factory, then you're talking about the perfection of wisdom.

Okay? But, kyi, disjunctive. sukhi kyewa medho nyam na.

If you examine... If you are asking the question, does there exist a non-starting of the cup? Does there exist a non-starting of the cup?

Then you're not studying perfection of wisdom. That's a different question. Okay?

If you're studying how the cup doesn't start, you're studying emptiness. If you're talking about whether the non-starting of the cup exists or not, that's some other question. It's not what we're worrying about here.

Which means, we're not discussing whether emptiness exists or not. We're studying emptiness. Okay?

Got it? Because the first one is kind of a gakpa, and the second one is kind of a drupa. And you can almost say that the second one is the exclusion of the opposite of the first one, and that may be why the list includes exclusions.

Okay? Maybe. I'm just...

That's maybe what Gyaltsabje is talking about. Okay? Uh...

sher chen la mi ched te. rik ngor So, ngor is an important word in Tibetan, which means, the face of something, like this. Or this is called the ngor of the TV.

The front face of it is called the ngor. Rik ngor means... Rik ngor is a...

is a... What do you call it? Special expression.

Idiom. Idiom. That means, how does the thing present itself to the TV screen?

Okay? What presents itself to your perceptions? So, perceptions are seen like a mirror.

And then, what presents itself to that mirror? Okay? Rik ngor la.

Rik ngor. So, rik ngor is a very common expression. R-I-G.

Should be R-I-G. R-I-G-S is mistaken. He spells it that way a couple times in this text.

With G-S? Yeah, for whatever reason. There could be a way, but anyway, normally it's rik ngor.

You can take a vote, I don't remember. But, what presents itself to your perception? Okay.

Rik ngor. Khewa gopa yin kyi. We are denying that a cup could start to the consciousness, to your awareness.

Okay? That's what we're denying. But, we are not trying to prove the non-existence of starting.

This is bhava viveka. We are not trying to prove the non-existence of starting. We're just proving that it doesn't start towards your mind.

Is within the mind your transition of rik ngor here? To the mind? Oh, did I write that?

All this kind of starting is denied within the mind? Maybe. I'm not going to go there.

Let's go. de na te chok ni dang po tar yin la Therefore, what's correct, te chok means the side who's in the right. Te chok.

The side that's in the right follows the first. Is the first. Okay?

We are examining whether or not the cup starts. We are not examining whether the non-starting of the cup exists or not. Now, out of those two choices, the first one is the right one.

I believe according to bhava viveka. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Then he has a la. Then he has a la. Which means that the next paragraph closely relates to this paragraph.

And, but it's almost like an extension of the same sentence. So in the same breath, he continues and says, uh, then we get down to the question of whether or not the two opponents can ever see the object that we're taking as the example in the same way. yeah, ten nang means is there a, is there an agreement about the object or not?

And this classically refers to Again, I like to give the example of the husband and wife want to go out to eat and the husband says, let's go eat at the Japanese place. What's it called? Minami.

Let's go to Minami, you know. And then the wife says, I got salmonella there last week. You know what I mean?

So, take Minami restaurant. The husband, we should go there because the food is good. Okay?

Or whatever. Because they have tempura. Okay?

And she can't deny they have tempura because it's on the menu. The husband says, let's take Minami. We should go there for dinner because they have tempura.

Okay? And, and she doesn't like the restaurant because she went there and had a bad experience before. The way she sees the restaurant is as a lousy restaurant.

But when he says, let's take the Japanese restaurant, Minami. We should go there because they have tempura. In his mind, it's a shining restaurant.

You know? They have tasty food and like that. You see?

So, one of the rules of debate is when you take an example to talk about, you must be talking about the same thing. You must be. The only thing the opponent doesn't understand is which of the three parts.

Take the restaurant, we should go there because it's got tempura.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
It's a restaurant we should go to. It's the only thing your opponent doesn't see. They must see that they have tempura.

Otherwise, it's not a good reason. She must agree to three. And she must perceive one.

Or you can't have an argument. Number two is what you're trying to prove. Okay, got it?

So she must see a restaurant. This must be tun nang wa. They have to see it in the same way.

And they both have to know what tempura means. Independent of whether you're talking about this restaurant or not. They must have the same mental picture when you say the word tempura.

Or you can't have an argument. And they must have the same mental picture when you say Minami restaurant. Okay, the only thing they don't have the same mental picture about is desirable.

Should or should not go there, okay? But, what it means desirable, they should agree on. Whether one is two, they don't agree on.

But they have to... she has to know what two is. The word desirable, what's it mean?

She has to know the word that's used in number one. She has to understand the words that's used in number two. And she has to understand the words that's used in number three.

What she doesn't agree to is that one is two. Or that three proves two. I don't know, she doesn't.

No, she has to. Now, a good reason is defined as tsu-tsu-myin-pa. Three relationships have to hold.

She believes that one is three. She accepts that Minami has tempura. And she accepts that if they had tempura, we should go there.

And she agrees that if you shouldn't go there, it's because they don't have tempura. She agrees to all three, okay? She should agree.

Well then, why didn't she agree to the guy in the first place? She never tied it together. You see?

It's not that she doesn't agree to all the components. She does. Otherwise, it's not a good argument.

If any of those three relationships don't hold, the husband shouldn't be saying this argument. Okay, got it? She agrees to all the pieces, but she didn't tie it together yet.

That's the definition of a good reason. Okay? You're not allowed to use terms to your opponent that they don't accept.

You're not allowed. Okay? Now, by definition, when you're arguing about emptiness or self-existence, your opponent doesn't even understand the term.

They don't know what's Minami. Why? Why?

When they think Minami, they think self-existent Minami. And when you're talking about Minami, you're talking about non-self-existent Minami. It's impossible, in a debate about emptiness, that there can ever be a first term.

I see. So that's why these two paragraphs relate to each other. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 2]
That's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1]
Because he's saying that we're not talking about... Well, I'm saying your job is to show their relationship. Gyaltsab Jay makes huge leaps.

He doesn't explain himself. He just leads to the next thing. It's up to the translator to struggle with it.

Okay? Got it? You okay?

Yeah. You okay? So, can...

And that's why in the list of... Can you turn the air conditioner off or something? Or turn it on?

Just turn it off. For a while. That's why in the...

Where was I? That's why in the list of differences between those two schools, they often start out by saying, when you're examining emptiness. Right.

Yeah, there's a couple of...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Dön dan denpa chuppi kapsu. It's something like that. Time of examining suchness.

Yeah. They want to talk about arguments that are proofs of emptiness, because in those, they get messy about the Chitin. The first term, Minami.

They get messy. Why? If I'm trying to convince you of emptiness, and I say, take Minami Restaurant.

And you... And by the rules of logic, you must know what's Minami Restaurant for me to take it. But if we're proving emptiness, by definition, you don't perceive Minami Restaurant.

Right. And it's a negative thing, so it's even harder to be... You can say that, but...

But the point is, you can never see the first term.

[Speaker 2]
How many times have I already thought that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or something like that. So, the question is, is the whole use of logic to prove emptiness, thrown into question by the fact that the opponent can never see the first term? They can't see Minami Restaurant in the way that you're seeing it, when you say, take Minami Restaurant.

We're making sense out of guesswork.

[Speaker 2]
It's a problem.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, no, I mean, no, this is... This relates to the rest of the... This is the huge...

Now they're going to start a huge argument. Is it hopeless to try to prove emptiness to someone? Because by the rules of logic, your opponent must understand the first term.

If they don't know what the hell is Minami, if they think Minami is something that happens after an earthquake in Japan, no, then you can't say, because they have tempura. They'll say, tsunami is tempura? You see what I mean?

Even if they don't know what the first term is, you can't have an argument. That has to be tumowa. It has to be shared.

Or you can't have an argument. So, is it impossible to prove emptiness to another person?

[Speaker 2]
Why?

[Speaker 1]
Because the terms themselves they can't understand. By definition, you can't have an argument. Okay, so that's where we are.

de yang chö chen la tön nang yu me yin te Do they have the same perception of the object under consideration, Minami? Okay, tön me yin te, yu me yin te, that's a discussion. Do they or do they not see the chö chen, the first term, in the same way?

[Speaker 2]
Is it an Arya and a non-Arya division?

[Speaker 1]
No, it's a Prasangika and a Rangyupa. Two schools of Middle Way.

[Speaker 2]
So nothing about where they are on the path?

[Speaker 1]
No, not here. Not this problem. rang gyu kyi tak yu me ni And whether or not an independently effective reason exists comes down to the question of Minami restaurant.

Okay? tar gul chigul You're right, by the way. You're totally right.

I apologize. I apologize. He seems to use tar gul here as ngagul.

I apologize. It could be a bad card. It could be a wrong typing.

But I doubt it. It's possible. Okay, chigul kyi tu...

I'm sorry, I apologize. I'm wrong. tu nang du shi shi here means chö chen.

It's just shi. It's another word for chö chen. The foundation of the argument, or the thing you're arguing about is called shi or chö chen.

It doesn't matter. Okay? tu nang Do they see it in the same way?

Okay? du ma du Is there or is there not present a first term that they both agree on? Okay?

la rak lepa The question of whether an independently effective argument exists comes down to Minami restaurant. Okay, got it? Okay.

Alright. Which is the fourth of the ten disagreements I made a note here. Which...

And now he goes off on it. And he goes off on them in out of order. Okay?

He discusses six and seven first up here. Okay? Then suddenly he's back at four.

Okay? I think he had ADD. I don't know.

That's like... Excuse me. I shouldn't say that.

Now, gobo tok shi de yana gobo... That's a side comment on the word Baba used in a kind of reasoning. I'm not going there.

We talked about it already. gobo tok shuk gi means by the nature of a word or by a thing can it suggest other things? Can smoke suggest fire?

That would be called gobo tok. Is there some potential within smoke that by itself suggests fire? That's called gobo tok.

Okay? Okay, and there's... Okay, but that's okay.

We're not going there. What he says, what I believe he says there, is when we say the nature of the thing referring to smoke, that it suggests fire. Okay?

We're not talking about the nature of a thing which is defined as being a function. Because the word can refer to either. Okay?

The word can refer to either. Okay, good. Now, we're where we got up to.

That's about it. You want to read? You want to read?

[Speaker 2]
Sure.

[Speaker 1]
Who's got the plate, Adam? Okay, now first of all, shen na, which means... So, we should...

we should be able to find something wrong in this already. Okay? So, the first thing to say about this very difficult section, just be aware the first sentence is supposed to be wrong.

It's somebody else's idea. And he says, lopan lengden je kyi kyang ke lang. Even Baba Viveka accepts that.

So, it has to be wrong. Okay? Alright?

He says, even Baba Viveka accepts that. And what he means is, kanya pe tsamah. Yeah, a conventional percept...

a conventional accurate perception. Yeah, but it means a perception which is not operating in the realm of emptiness.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, which is not asking the question is this exist ultimately or not. If we're discussing whether or not this thing started in and of itself. Is that a...

Are we using a kanya pe tsamah or a dundan pe tsamah? Are we using a kanya pe tsamah or a dundan pe tsamah? Are we using our emptiness logic or our senses or are we using our normal senses?

But does it count as an emptiness sense if we're not in the direct perception of emptiness? Oh yeah, it does. Well, that's part of the question.

That's a big part of the question.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
So, the other guy said, kap su mirung. When you are examining suchness, it's wrong to talk about a shared perception which is normal, everyday perception, nominal perception, conventional perception. Call it conventional.

Okay? When you're talking about the emptiness of the cup, it's totally improper to use any kind of normal perception. There's no perception of a cup.

Because you're examining emptiness. Okay? ringor chochen merpa.

Therefore, because you cannot use a normal perception in the examination of emptiness, Okay? Then you can't talk about a cup. You can't examine a cup's emptiness.

Because to examine the cup's emptiness, you have to examine cup. To examine cup, you cannot be using emptiness. Right.

Emptiness perception. You gotta be using conventional perception. Therefore, there cannot be a minami.

Rest done. There cannot be a basis that the two agree on. Yeah.

When talking about emptiness. He said chochen merpa. There's no subject.

To that state of mind. To that state of mind. ringor.

To the state of mind in time, nye te tse ma. Yeah. Right.

Then there's no... Yeah. Yeah.

kap su mirom. You cannot use conventional perceptions when you're discussing emptiness. When you're exploring chupa deko ne nyi.

Emptiness. You cannot use normal perceptions. Therefore, there's no cup.

There's no minami rest done. And he says, he says, even Brother Viveka agrees to that.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, then I... This is all so... It gets worse and worse.

Okay? So, I went to get some help. And I propose we go to get some help.

Okay? I propose that we go through a page from Kalka... Kalka Dantika.

Shri J. Kalkan. Now I'm down then.

This great Tantric writer who wrote... I translated his whole book. It's part of the Tantric series.

Six or seven? Six. Can you send me this version?

Or did you already?

[Speaker 2]
I did already.

[Speaker 1]
He did.

[Speaker 2]
Moments before class.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, I propose we go to this extraordinary Mongol scholar. And that's why it's so exciting that we got permission to catalog the 200,000 books there.

God knows what's there. There could be some really cool stuff there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Because these guys were not slouches. I... Yeah.

He says, riksnor. Now, he could mean to the... to a logical perception, but I don't think so.

I believe that also you can say rikpe as a past tense of rikpa, to know. But it's rare. When I've looked this up in dictionaries, it says...

it treats it as if it's its own idiom with an s as a separate idiom and recalls it to, logically speaking, to the face of... I'll leave it for now. Okay.

That's probably why I put... I put logically speaking in my original... But I don't think so, because what he's saying is there could be no normal perception.

Therefore, there's no chitra. To your mind at that moment. He's not talking about the logic of the chitra.

He's saying you can't... The chitra by itself is not logic. He's just spelling it that way.

It's the cup. Yeah, it makes sense. He's talking about can you see the cup or not.

Okay? He's not talking yet about logic. There's no...

There's no syllogism yet. We're just talking about the first term. We're just talking about the first term.

There's no logic yet. There's no syllogism yet. He's saying by the time you get to the end of Menami restaurant, it's already impossible.

You know? He's not talking to your logic. He's talking to your perceptions.

Because your mind is operating in emptiness. Your mind is exploring emptiness. It cannot see a cup.

To its perception.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Is this a Kachik saying that Baba Viveka says that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Even Baba Viveka says there's no Tunanga. There's no...

According to him. According to him. Which means Baba Viveka must have said there was.

Let's go to Kalka. Lauren Pelman.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Okay. Kalka means mango in Mongol.

Okay? It's Kalka.

[Speaker 1]
Kalka. Kalka means mango. It's the ancient Tibetan word for mango.

They don't say mango or anything like that. The modern Tibetan word for mango is Sokpo. Which is close to the word for spice.

So be careful. Okay. Please read these two lines.

I'm going for help. And it's a side thing. I'll tell you something about his text.

If we get it straight, it's a great contribution. If we don't slow down and take the time, it won't be such a contribution. You see what I mean?

I can translate it. We can translate it. I can do it today.

I can write the whole thing. But will it be correct?

[Speaker 2]
You know.

[Speaker 1]
Let's get it perfect. And that takes time. Okay, go.

Tarna. Tarna. Tarna.

Chikun. Okay. Chikun.

Chikun. Chikun. Chikun.

Chikun. Chikun. Chikun.

Okay, good. Okay. Hlak tong chenmo probably refers to the great Vipasyana, referring to the section in the Lamrim chenmo on Vipasyana, which we're going to do in the Lamrim retreats in two years.

We're on a schedule to start it in two years from now. Eight retreats from now. Seven retreats from now and we'll start the hlak tong chenmo as dessert.

And it's half as long as the Lamrim lak chenmo, which is going to be twelve years. So, you're talking six years on that. Oh, money's been you.

Okay. Hlak tong chenmo tarna. Shung de tsik tun ni.

The meaning of that scripture. Okay. The meaning of those words in that scripture is golwa nyi kar.

Golwa nyi kar. To both debaters. To both of the debaters.

tu nang du drub pa'i chu chen me te. There is no ni ma, ni, ni nami, which is perceived in a similar way by both. tu nang du drub.

Okay. There is no restaurant which is perceived in the same way by both debaters. Not possible.

That's what that book is saying. Okay. They're probably talking about Bhagavad Gita, I guess.

I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
And what's the subject when they're in the debate?

[Speaker 1]
Whether or not the...

[Speaker 2]
No, this... Has he mentioned that we're talking about emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
Hmm. You can say shung de tsik tun chu chen. I mean, you can take those words of that book if you want.

But he's talking about...

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. Does this author say when debating about emptiness, there's...

[Speaker 1]
Is he talking about the Vipasyana section of the Lamrim Chenmo? No, no. In the Vipasyana section of the Lamrim Chenmo, it's referring to a section of Bhagavad Gita, probably.

And... shung de tsik tun. And what that book is saying is that...

Or what... What this book is saying... He doesn't say what book.

I could go find it, but I... I didn't do that yet. gu nyi gar tu nang du drub pay chu chen me de.

There is no restaurant. Restaurant. Minami restaurant?

Which looks the same to both debaters. The husband and wife. I'm putting it in real terms.

Why? Because... By the way, the chu chen in this argument is the meek.

It's the eye. The eye. The eye is sense power.

You can say optic nerve, the heart, or whatever. In this Lamrim Chenmo example, what's being discussed is not a cup. It's your eye.

Okay? Okay? Etcetera.

Eyeballs, noses, ears, tongue.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Chu chen, the chu chen is the meek soul. The eye and so on.

de dun dam pa ma drub pa That they don't exist ultimately is... is accepted by Baladeva himself. Okay?

So the question... Let's start with this question. Let's talk about your eyes.

Okay? Got it? Let's talk about your eyes.

Does Baladeva think they exist in an ultimate way or not?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
He does not. Because after all, he is a... He's still a middle way guy.

He's just a lower middle way guy. Does he accept that your eyes exist ultimately? No.

Okay? de dun dam pa ma drub pa He... He himself.

Rang ni. So, Tsongkhapa is like... He even...

He... Look, he himself doesn't accept that it could exist. Okay?

rang ten je kyi mik sok te de dun dam pa ma drub pa chu chen tu gub pa chu dro In fact, he gives the eye and such things as his example when he wants to prove that things can't start in an ultimate way. So, instead of using the starting of a cup, he's referring to the starting of your eye. Okay?

Your eye cannot start when your mom... when you got conceived inside your mom. Okay?

Your eye didn't start in and of itself, you know, ultimately. Okay? Even he says that.

And when he gives his emptiness arguments, what chu chen does he take? The eye and such. The eye.

And what's he prove about them? That they can't start ultimately. Good.

You wanna go deeper? And we just said, he would say, I'm not trying to prove that the fact that the eye doesn't start ultimately, okay, that's not what I'm trying to talk about. I'm not talking about that.

I'm just talking about whether it starts or not. I'm not talking about whether or not the not starting of the eye exists. I'm not talking about that.

Okay, got it? Okay. He's using this as proof that they don't have a shared object according to Bhagavad-Gita, because Bhagavad-Gita...

We didn't... Let's go through the... Let's go through it a bit.

Okay. Onna, go ahead. Onna, te ta ke len mu, te chir...

Te... Te... chir gyur chena, te ta na mi tsok na ma chu we she pe ne dun ma yin par gyur tek.

Okay, this is cool. Onna, te ta ke len mu. Okay, so he believes that.

You know, he doesn't believe... He believes that the eye does not start in an ultimate way. Okay?

Ultimately speaking, the eye doesn't start. Okay, onna, te ta ke len mu. Okay, we all agree he admits that.

chir gyur. So what's the point? Okay?

te chir gyur. What is that proof? So what's the point, you know?

So, okay. He accepts that. Why do we care?

Why do we care? Why do you say, he himself accepts that, right? So what?

It's just, so what? chir gyur. Te, by that fact, chir gyur.

What's supposed to come out of that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
te ta na mi tsok na ma chu we she pe ne dun If it... Yeah. If that's the case, who's talking?

We are. We are. Because somebody came and said, so what?

So what if he doesn't accept that? What? That the starting of the eye can be ultimately existing.

The starting of the eye... Does not start ultimately. Then, so what?

So what? Well, that means... Okay?

te ta na means, well that... The point is, te ta na, the point is, that means, mi tsok ni ma chu we she pe ne dun ma yinpa gyur te. Okay.

It means that the eye itself cannot be the object which an unmistaken perception can perceive. That the eye itself cannot... be the perception of an unmistaken perception.

The perception of an unmistaken perception?

[Speaker 2]
The object of an unmistaken perception.

[Speaker 1]
ne dun means which it locates. ne dun means... profound.

What it looks at. Okay? Then what you're saying is that any time we think of the eye, we are mistaken.

If the eye doesn't exist ultimately, then any time you think of the eye, you're in a mistaken state of mind. Right. Okay?

Then what you're saying... Double negative here. Then what you're saying is that a perception of an eye cannot be a correct perception.

Impossible. Why? Because it doesn't exist ultimately.

That implies that all perceptions of... physical... all physical perceptions are mistaken.

Oh, sorry. All perceptions of ultimate... Yeah, all perceptions of physical objects are taking them to be ultimately existing.

[Speaker 2]
No, it's the implication there. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
He says... I'll say it again. The eye cannot be the object of an unmistaken perception.

Because all perceptions think that what they're looking at exists ultimately. But they don't. By the way, where's that going?

If we ran out of time. Where's that going? Whether or not we can discuss anything.

I'll say it again. Does Baba Viveka accept or not that the cup exists ultimately?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
He does not accept. Okay? So, does he accept or not you can have a correct perception of it?

No. Yeah, he says you cannot. He accepts that you cannot.

And any time you... Therefore, any time you look at a cup, you're making a mistake. Therefore, we can't talk about cups when we're talking about emptiness.

Because two people cannot agree on what they are. Now, is that what he believes or not? Because, coming later, Chandrakirti accuses him of that.

That's why I got the historical thing set up for you. Okay? Now, Gus, later...

Hang on. Here, down below here. I want to say this sentence, and then we can stop.

RANG RGYUL GYI LTA KHE LENG PA DANG Believing in a self... Believing in a reason which is independently effective. Okay?

And... Believing that there's... At the same time, that, to the mind, there cannot be a kitchen, a Minami restaurant.

RANG Or NANG RGYAL. There are incompatible things. And Dawa Drakpa accuses Baba Vivekananda of that.

Beautiful.

[Speaker 2]
Now we're talking.

[Speaker 1]
Chandrakirti accuses him of saying that.

[Speaker 2]
Now we're talking.

[Speaker 1]
Give up one or the other. You can't have both.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Either... Either you can't talk about Minami restaurant, or you can have your independent reason.

Right, right. But you can't have both.

[Speaker 2]
Who said that? Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, complaining to... Baba Vivekananda.

[Speaker 2]
Kenny.

[Speaker 1]
But is this only... The idea that two people can't have the same Minami in their minds, is that... Is that only regarding talking about emptiness, or is that also...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
We often say in this literature, the adverbial phrase, when we're talking about emptiness. Yeah. I mean, in the end, it applies to all reasons.

But especially when we're talking about emptiness. Right. If...

And by the way, since you asked the question, there's a famous argument between the Vaisheshika, a Hindu group, his Hindu group, and the Buddhists. And they say, take sound, it's impermanent because it's made. Right?

It's changing because it's made. Okay, very... The most famous logical statement in Buddhism.

The first great Buddhist logical statement of all time. Because these... If it's true, that in a discussion about emptiness, two Madhyamika followers from different branches of Madhyamika can't agree on a chöchen, then the first Buddhist argument ever made should not have been made.

Because a Vaisheshika and a Buddhist never see sound in the same way. Right, right, right. So there's no debate...

So there's no Buddhist logic, and Adam has to retire. Okay, got it? Got it?

That's where Gyaltsabje is going. That's where Gyaltsabje is going. Yeah, because you asked me the question, are we only talking about proofs involving emptiness?

That's a proof involving impermanence. Because that... Hindu school believed that Aum was eternal.

He goes there. He goes there. No, he goes there.

[Speaker 2]
That's going to shake them out of their mysticism.

[Speaker 1]
Oh no, don't get me there. Don't let me go there. Stop again so you can get to class on time.

Yeah. It's not as much fun. They accused me of not having as much fun downstairs.

I said, I'm sorry. We're filming, we're filming. Ha ha ha.

Thank you. Thank you. That's amazing.

That was fun. Thank you. We got one line.

We got through one line. One and a half, maybe. That was...

But we did it well. That's right. You know, the theory of carpentry is, do it perfect and you'll speed up later.

Do it perfect and you'll speed up later.

[Speaker 2]
The speed will come.

[Speaker 1]
But don't be sloppy. Don't be sloppy. It'll end up slower.

Do it... Nail it. Nail it now.

And then that'll... Later you can speed up. Thank you.

Because it'll come back again. If you don't get it now, it'll haunt you later. For sure.

Yeah. We shouldn't avoid... I was going to figure it out.

Okay. We shouldn't ever allow ourselves to go on if we don't crack something. Thanks for coming.

Can I sneak you into Hollywood, please?