Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 26

[Speaker 1]
The three questions kind of work together, could be kind of confusing, but just to let you all know, Erin got all three of them last night. So if you don't say them... But she's smarter than everybody else.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
You don't get them, no complaints. Yeah, yeah, just don't complain to me. You know where to get two of them from.

If you don't get them, complain to your elected representative. According to a major proponent... Well, I went to my congressman, but he said, quote, I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote.

Sorry. You cannot have a subject in the debate about emptiness. Who is this proponent, and what is his reasoning for this claim?

Shh. I don't think this is right, dude. You can't agree on...

Well, you didn't hear the answer.

[Speaker 2]
I don't think that he says that.

[Speaker 1]
You don't think the question's even right. That's the problem. Well, according to the other text that we found...

He's implying that, but he doesn't say that. He doesn't say you can't have... No, you're right.

And we're going to kind of go into it a little bit. It's not totally clear. I agree.

So we'll look. We accuse him of essentialism. Right.

But he would certainly not say that. So Master Bhagaviveka is the proponent. And his reasoning is that anything that is mentioned is just a conventional object.

It cannot exist ultimately. So it can't be that's something that two people in the debate about emptiness could discuss. Or at least we're saying that he's saying that.

He would say the opposite, because he very much believes that you can have a subject, which is part of what makes him run Cuba. Right. Let's see if my other homework questions then are obsolete.

Well, this one's not so bad. What object does he use to prove that things could not start?

[Speaker 2]
Eyes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. But everybody knows that you don't have anything there. I want to let the rest of the class think about it.

We were all here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I know. We elected you representative.

[Speaker 1]
He was talking about the eyes and meeting the sense powers, that they're not ultimate. And what's his point in proving that they're not ultimate? And I think they do accuse him of saying this.

This is too confusing, I understand. He's saying that things that... Those things which aren't ultimate cannot be the object of unmistaken perception.

They cannot be the object of an unmistaken perception. Basically, his point is that... Well, what they're saying, his point is...

Well, it comes in the next question. Next point. You don't think so?

I don't know. If we look, when we look back at the text, which I guess we're going to do... By the way, this was coming from the text that we were looking at as sources.

This wasn't directly from Gyaltsabje. This was from the Mongolian scholar. So let's see if this ties it together.

What interesting premise is implied by the master's assertions? Just going to the answer. Any perception of a non-arya believes its object to be self-existent.

So basically he's saying that any time you're looking at something that's not ultimate, you're thinking that, if you're not an arya, you're not in a direct perception, you think that that thing exists from its own side. And because you think that... You're mistaken.

You're mistaken, that those things cannot be the object of an unmistaken perception. And because of that, there could be no Chöchen. That seemed to be where the text was going.

And you're right that maybe he wasn't saying it directly. A lot of it was implied by what we were accusing him of. Yeah, I mean, right.

He would say that they can't agree on a Chöchen. They can't.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, he would have to say that.

[Speaker 1]
Because he's debating... Because he said you can use independent reasons. Right, right, right.

So there has to be an ability to debate. You can use a reason, because a reason is part of debating. Right, which totally depends on the fact that they can have a shared Chöchen.

Right.

[Speaker 2]
Didn't he mean that you can say that there can't be a shared Chöchen, and you can say that there's... We have to choose between that and reason to put ourselves forward?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we were kind of... Yeah, right. We were ending the class on that.

Right. He's saying... Right, right.

We're kind of making that argument, I think, right? I think so. He says that there is such a thing as a self-powered reason.

And he says that you necessarily perceive the object wrong. Right. And then we're saying you can't have both.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Like, either there's a self-powered reason, or we're not perceiving the object wrong. And we're about to... Like, the suspense is now building for what's going to happen.

For those of you who can follow what we're talking about.

[Speaker 2]
So, you can't have a correct perception of anything other than ultimate reality.

[Speaker 1]
Uh-huh, yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So, he's saying you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Although, I do sometimes.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. What? He told me she won't let you eat cake.

Actually, she tried to tempt me last night. I refrained from ice cream. That's an exception.

Mixed out. Say mixed out. Mixed out.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
A loud exception. Mixed out.

[Speaker 1]
Absolution. No. Take my hat off.

What do you call that? Mixed out. Special case.

Yeah. I thought you said absolution.

[Speaker 2]
An exception. Absolution. How do you spell that?

[Speaker 1]
What? Mixed out. It's the D-M-I-G-S-G-S-A-L.

[Speaker 2]
G-S-A. Clear.

[Speaker 1]
It might not be a G-S. It might be a G. I don't know.

I can look it up for you. What's true? You don't have to hide one.

I'm just thinking.

[Speaker 2]
True one. Is this spread as in like ancillary or tangential?

[Speaker 1]
No, that's true. This is true one. Oh, true one.

No. True one. Mistaken.

[Speaker 2]
No, no. I'm not going to have it tonight. This is true one.

[Speaker 1]
It's not true, though, because it's from magic as well. Oh, is it? True core.

True core. Oh, magic. Yeah, it is.

Machine. True core in tantra yoga. It's called true core.

[Speaker 2]
It's a mystic machine of the body.

[Speaker 1]
A stegan wheel. This one was not in the last class, but I couldn't, you know, I only had a couple lines in the last couple of weeks, so I had to pick something that I thought would be fun for us all to learn that you guys probably aren't going to remember.

[Speaker 2]
Position. One position.

[Speaker 1]
It came in the list of ten. Oh, this is whether or not they can share a position. No, it's one of the other ones.

It's asserting things by exclusion.

[Speaker 2]
Really?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's a position, taking a position where you can assert things by exclusion.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, whether or not we assert things by exclusion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It kind of relates to what we're working on. Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe kind of. It's not the same. No.

I think it's related. Kind of.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But they had a separate, there was a separate, one of the lists was a separate one for that, but I think it's probably the same thing. As far as I can understand it, it is. If you guys don't know this one after Ben's class, then we're in trouble.

Yes, thank you. Baha. And if you want to get fancy, Sanskrit Vs are more slurred to W.

Okay, you take the plane again. Okay, I'm still trying to find this stupid website, but I'm so sorry. Did you send the...

I did. Anyway, I'm working on it. Cool.

I think I ended up asking Art the last time, it's the same thing. Go find it and search your email. I did.

[Speaker 2]
You did? Yeah, I couldn't find it. It's fun.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I know. It's amazing that no one talked about it.

This thing is irritating. Open. Ummm.

Okay. I'm frustrated by your text because... That's very comforting to me.

No, I feel like it's some subject that he knows very, very well and he's not explaining it. And I don't know it that well. So I...

I feel more comfortable with an appendix. And maybe for all the differences between the Prasangika and... Because it wasn't very satisfying to me.

We had three or four lists, but we didn't learn anything. We just got lists. And they're all spread out in Tsongkhapa.

So I'm thinking, as they come in Gyaltsabje, we appendicized them. Appendix? All into the same appendix?

Or we just... I don't know. Yeah.

But anyway, I think inside of Gyaltsabje's text, you're not going to get a good explanation of these eight. And there's nobody who went through them one by one and explained them discreetly. So you're probably going to have to take pieces out of...

Tsongkhapa and others. Yeah, to see who has the best explanation of them. Right now the Mongol scholars are doing pretty well.

Wow. So I did two things about your text. I went back to get more detail on the Mongol scholars thing, you know?

The one we were discussing? Yeah, because I'm not satisfied with it. I think...

Am I in the right text? Yeah. I'm not satisfied with what we've got so far.

So I'm kind of beefing it up. Cool. Yeah.

I see all these notes that you pasted in here. These are new notes. Yeah.

Tsongkhapa. Whoa. Yeah, now it's about ten pages of notes.

But I have a smaller point to cover before that. He keeps spelling Rigmor with an S, which bothered you, and then because it bothered you, it started to bother me. From my upbringing in the monastery, it's Rigmor without the S.

But he keeps repeating it. So it's not like a... It's not a typo.

He believes it. And he's guilty of J. So I went and did a statistical count.

Here's the vote. 40 to 33. That's like, doesn't help anything.

That just throws it all into confusion, you know? So generally when you say Ngo La, it's to a state of mind. You wouldn't say Ngo La to a syllogism.

See, it has to be a person. It has to be a mind to which an idea makes its appearance. You see, that's the idea.

So technically, Rigs Ngo doesn't make any sense. Because Rigs means syllogisms. So syllogisms don't think.

So you can't say to the mind of a syllogism. You cannot say Rigs Ki Ngo. It has no sense at all.

But what I found was Jetson Kappa saying Rigs Pe Rigs Ngo. So a mind that's using reasoning? Yeah.

So it was kind of what I thought last time. It is kind of what you thought. So I went to find...

Here's a whole section from Tsongkhapa, from Illumination, where he uses Ngo over and over. Many Ngos. So I'll just read it to you quickly, okay?

Well, what the heck is that? Pabongka Rinpoche didn't actually make them. Although the body and mind of a person don't exist by nature.

You know, they do exist even according to the parlance of the world. Jigten Gyi Ngo, to the mind of a normal person in the world, they are... If you just restrict yourself to what appears to normal people's minds, daki mawa chanda.

I'm talking about them. More. Now he has another one.

Now if you talk about the conventional perceptions of people of the world, you can talk about Majimikas. And now he's got another one. Yeah.

To the... What is accepted to the accurate perceptions of conventional. Conventional accurate perceptions, okay?

Dam Chud Chukyur. Now he uses Riks Ngo. So he's got three Ngos already.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Seme Ngo is fine, because it's presenting itself to an accurate perception. Tanyegi Ngo is okay, presenting itself to a conventional perception. But a Riks Ngo is uncomfortable.

But here he says... I think he's saying, Dam Chud Chukyur Riks Ngo. To the mind which is considering arguments for emptiness.

Wow. Riks Chukyur Riks. Okay?

So there's a Riks Ngo. Jatakapa uses the S, so it's not a mistake. Okay?

Yeah. Dam Chud Chukyur Riks Ngo. Seme Ngo.

Now he uses Seme Ngo. I'm just saying he's got like seven Ngos here. Seme Ngo means...

Yeah, in other people's minds, you could accept that. Okay? So there he's got that Ngo.

Is he got another Ngo in here? Yeah, to other people's perceptions. Okay?

It applies to other people's perceptions. But he does use Gs. Now here's Tsongkhapa again, in the illumination again.

Seme Ngo. That's okay. To the perceptions of this person.

To the way...

[Speaker 2]
Seme Ngo. You know?

[Speaker 1]
That Ngo is okay. To... To...

To their eyes, to what they see. Okay? That's okay.

But Yeshe De Ngo, to that wisdom. You see? That's a state of mind I'm comfortable with it.

Okay? Lo Kone Ngo. Only to the mind.

That's okay with me. I'm just uncomfortable with the ricks.

[Speaker 2]
You see?

[Speaker 1]
yu dang yu chen gyi cha chen ni, ri ngor ma jokpa she no. It must be a mind operating logically. No, I think it's logic.

Yeah, yeah, to a mind which is considering arguments in favor of or against self-existence. I'll take it that way. There was someone...

Imagine logic as a subject. So I'm going to accept it as a mind in a logical mode or something. Yeah.

Okay? Who's thinking logically. And 99% of the time it's about reasons to prove emptiness.

Right, which is what our text is about. Okay. Now, we had last time gone through...

Our list of ten. We were kind of footnoting something. Okay?

And we had gotten... this far. Did we?

Shen Yun? No. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Here.

[Speaker 1]
No. Are we talking about being in the footnote? Yeah, we're still in the footnote.

What is it? No, the page numbers have changed. Trust me.

Yeah, I've got to go back to an older version of the text that I have here. Well, I have. Did we stop at Dekonar?

We were just about to get there. Oh, no. Yeah, we just hit Dekonar.

Dekonar, a larger... Yeah. Oh, okay.

So we stopped at Dekonar. Yep. Here.

We stopped here. Dekonar. And we were working our way through Nalanda's discussion.

I went back to his discussion. And if we added more to his discussion, your discussion would be much more beautiful. But it's a lot.

Okay? So if you're up for it... It's an appendix size now.

It's not footnote anymore. Okay? So if you're up for it, we'd do a much longer thing with him.

[Speaker 2]
Let me check my lawyer. Step with your lawyer.

[Speaker 1]
No. No, we're going to do an appendix in general instead of a footnote. It's going to slow him down by a couple months.

But it will make the book bigger. I think it's a good idea. It'll be a fatter book.

I can't say, but off the record... So I added more in front of what we've already done.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? From the same author. And I prefer it.

Because I'm still not satisfied. And I learned a lot when I read it. And then I learned a lot of what I thought he was saying about the trichan, about two people seeing the trichan the wrong way.

It's not what you think. Whose position is whose position is about reverse from what you thought. If you read the whole thing.

I don't know if you heard my homework questions, but I'm guessing they were all wrong then. Probably. Okay, so here we go.

It starts with Nipah, okay? And... This is something that you pasted in...

Look up The Nipah and you'll find it. In the most recent version? Yeah, the one I just sent you.

Which is about ten pages longer now. Yes, sir. It's a long argument.

But I don't think you can understand trichan tenangwa unless you look... unless you read this. And it's going to surprise you.

Which it did when I was sitting outside the Rimrock Coffee Shop at 615. Are we sure we're on the same version? Because...

Does it say 522? GMR 522? Yeah, it's called GMR 522, but it doesn't...

Look up The Nipah. It doesn't come on page 58. Nipah.

What do you mean page 58? Here it says 58 on the bottom. Oh, I don't know.

Look up The Nipah. Maybe your word is...

[Speaker 2]
The Nipah?

[Speaker 1]
Look up The Nipah. I hope not. Where?

Oh, oh, that's a good idea. I got you. Look up that.

One of these words doesn't belong... Got it. Maybe your pagination is different.

Yeah, slightly. Word does that, depending on your margins. Okay, as you'd expect.

Okay, Nipah. Now, he doesn't say what The Nipah is. I went and got it for you.

Okay? Okay, thanks. So, just read, and let's relax and slow down even more than we slowed down before.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
What word? Do you see the dots?

[Speaker 1]
Zumba. It starts with Zumba. Phil, tell me his pronunciation wrong.

Dawe Shab Ki Kyun Di Da Tam Che Ni Rik Ta Ma Iyin Par Ko Wo Cha Ki Tong Wo Okay, you can translate that if you guys work on it. Thirdly, Dawe Shab Ki, yeah, according to... Why Shab?

Because we're being honorific. Yeah, high honorific.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
At the holy feet of Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Bible.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. By the toes of Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Kyun Di Da Tam...

[Speaker 1]
That wasn't very respectful. Alright. By the way, we do have to be careful in class not to...

Sorry. It's kind of a bad Munjuki Bhakta. Okay.

Sorry. Although I'm the one who does it as much as anyone. We can see these problems with logic.

Yeah. Iyin Par Ko Wo Cha... This Riksabha means correct.

Okay. Yeah. We can see...

Is it not? That these are...

[Speaker 2]
Incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
Improper almost.

[Speaker 2]
Incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
All of these problems, Ko Wo Cha, us guys, we see... Incorrect. Are not correct.

And flawed. Historically speaking, what's he probably talking about? Perception.

No, independent reasoning. Think about it. Think about it.

Why did he write his book? Oh, he was... Against Baba Viveka.

He was defending Buddhapalita against Baba Viveka. So if he said, you know, we understand that all these criticisms are incorrect. He's probably talking about Baba Viveka.

Yeah. Okay. All the Khyens that Baba Viveka made against Buddhapalita are Rikpa Mayan.

Are not correct. Okay. Khyen Sung So.

So, we're at this subject about the criticisms. And then, Di La Nyi. The three...

The three criticisms don't apply. How the three criticisms don't apply. And...

We're going to refute the system. We're going to refute Baba Viveka. So I'm skipping to that.

That is Nyipa. Da Nyipa is... You know, refuting Baba Viveka.

Okay. So, here we go. Um...

No, sorry, that's not Chandrakirti talking. That's... He's saying that Chandrakirti did that.

Yeah. Are we quoting Chandrakirti still, though, in this? This is Chojingo and Palden.

This is the Mongol scholar. Good guy. Amazing.

Amazing. Which you should think about it. They were not writing in their mother tongue.

They were writing in Latin. Okay. And they're amazing.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Which gives us hope. No, it's as if we were writing commentaries in Tibetan. Their Tibetan was that good.

And they're good. They're really good. Okay, last one.

Did we just change texts, going from unbold to bold? Yeah, I kind of left it that way, because the Nyipa is the text we're in. Nyipa was said by the Mongol.

This is all from the earlier pages. So, I didn't want you to get confused. His refutation of Baba Viveka, sum.

Okay. So, this is the third part. That was the second part, right?

Now we're at the third part? Yeah. Oh, we're at the third part of the second part?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
We're inside the refutation of Baba Viveka. Okay. Go, read.

Tang Tang, you got the plane. Come on, wake up, wake up. Criticize it.

Say something. Ah, it's not bad. Call him a phantom.

Puh. Puh? Puh.

Puh. Puh. Puh.

Okay. Dun-ki. Make it longer.

Dun-ki. Okay, good. uh, the logic that refutes, that it disputes each other's end.

Yeah, or it might be, uh, Svatantric reasons. You see, Rangyuki, Rangyuki Tenzing. Okay, it might be, we don't know.

Rigpa-de-parupa-khyang, dun-kyi-khe-lang-tsul. Uh, why? Dun-kyi, okay, idiom, uh, amounts to.

Amounts to. Okay, so why their position amounts to, uh, agreeing with us. It's very much the theme of the sixty verses.

You see, the position you think disproves us, supports us. Okay, in, in effect, dun-kyi, you are accepting our position. Okay, okay, yeah, so dun-kyi is tricky here.

Okay. What's, uh, what's the parup doing there? Parupu-khe-lang.

You are agreeing with us. Oh. You know, your own logic.

Yeah. Uh, according to your own logic, you agree with us. He's referring to the Svatantric as his parupus.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, okay, the logic you attempt to use against us supports us.

Thank you. Okay. Okay, kin-ju-de-rang-gi-jor-wa-lang-mi-tsul-mi-gyur-tsen-ho.

Why it is that these criticisms, uh, don't apply to our logic. Prasangika's logic. Why the criticism, which, criticisms we made against your forms of logic doesn't apply to our own forms of logic.

But we're not going to go that far. Jor-wa-lang-mi-tsul doesn't apply? Yeah, jor-wa, no, here jor-wa means, uh, jor-wa is a synonym for syllogism.

Uh-huh. Unfortunately. Oh, wow.

Okay. Jor-wa means syllogism in some cases. Sorry.

So, mi-tsul-sum. Ten-tik-rik-pa-tark-jor-wa, same thing. Unfortunately, tarka refer to the whole syllogism or the third part of the sentence?

It's all messy.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, and the Sanskrit doesn't help. Could we translate that last sentence? Yeah, why our criticisms about your Rangyupa syllogisms are not, are not equivalent to, they don't apply equally to our presentations of logic.

Our criticisms of your logic, lower middle way, don't apply to our, to our logic, the logic that we use, Prasangika's, okay? Probably. But we're not going to get that far.

Okay, go. By the way, it's complicated now, but I promise the material is going to make you happy. You're going to be happy we went back.

The introductory parts are a little messy. Okay, go ahead. Okay, now, why it was dönmepa?

Meaningless. It's a strong criticism. Dönmepa means meaningless.

Why it was meaningless, we're going to explain shepa, why it was meaningless, to apply the distinction of saying ultimately. Okay, you using this extra word, ultimately, in these arguments is meaningless, and even harmful. Okay, and then we're going to refute their answer in which they talk about Minami, Chichen Chi, you know, the restaurant in general.

Okay, then they're going to give some answer about restaurants in general, and we're going to say, no, that's still wrong. You're still wrong. Okay, now, I put these numbers to remember which section we're in.

Okay, obviously those are in the Tibetan. Here's the first one. The first one is a long explanation of why it's unnecessary for lengden che, to keep putting in the adverb, ultimately, ultimately speak.

We don't need that. Okay, here we go. And then I'm happy because we finally got the logical statement where the Chichen is stated, for the first time, the Chichen we're talking about.

The one that we keep saying. The one we're keep talking about, Tun Nangwang. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's not talking about Chichens in general. Right. It's talking about a specific argument that Bhagavad Gita gave.

His Chichen. But it never repeats his Chichen. Right.

So, finally, we got that Chichen. It's that Chichen of a particular argument that he gave, and no one ever stated the whole argument except Ngoan Phambe. Cool.

Okay, here's, and I, and I moved it, I just put returns to make it look like a classic syllogism. Okay, and and so you can't understand the difference between the two Madhyamika schools if you don't understand the eight points on which they differ. One of the eight points on which they differ is how they feel about Chichen.

Things that we take in an argument. Things that we point to, to have an argument about. But they're talking about one argument, historically.

Okay, that was between Bhagavad Gita and Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, essentially.

[Speaker 1]
Not really. He came before. He's dead and they're arguing about him.

He's long gone. No, Buddhapalita is long gone. Then they're picking him over his, they're fighting over his body.

Okay, so I made it into a logical statement. Okay, go. Yeah, so in essence, he gives this argument.

This is Bhagavad Gita. Consider the inner ayatanas, and in other, other places they say mik, etc. Yeah, the optic nerve.

Okay, let's take, it's inner by the way, but it's not awareness. Yeah, it's inner, but it's not awareness. It's the sense power, the optic nerve.

Let's take things like the optic nerve, and let's talk about them ultimately speaking. He wants to start the sentence with, ultimately speaking, the I and the other inner sense powers. It's definite that they don't start from themselves.

Okay, because this is Bhagavad Gita's argument. This is Bhagavad Gita probably thinking he's fighting Buddhapalita. It's his criticism to Buddhapalita.

Okay, you have a picture, because they exist. If they exist, then ultimately speaking, they cannot come from themselves. And the Prasangika says, you don't need to say ultimately, and if you do say ultimately, it proves you don't know what you're talking about.

If you think we have to say ultimately, you're already wrong. Okay, Prasangika says to Vrangipa, we say to Bhagavad Gita, just say nothing starts. You have to go around saying nothing ultimately starts.

If you think we have to add ultimately, you don't know what the Buddha was talking about in the first place. Okay, Scott added ultimately the class downstairs. Who was there?

And I corrected him, yesterday. I said, no, he's correcting me. I said, no, Dharmakirti said, don't say ultimately.

They're supposed to get it, other, without saying ultimately. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Say again? Ah, I don't remember, it's a long commentary. Okay.

SRED PA YOD PA'I GNYIS SHES NO. It's like the awareness. Okay, it's like the awareness, because so far we're not talking about awareness, we're talking about physical nourishment.

Okay, but what is GNYIS SHES NO? It's like, see, this is his TUM PA'I YANG DAG. What's that?

DRAG CA CHEN MI DAG TE CHE PA'I PHYIR. PAD NA BUM PA BZHIN. Oh, this is his example, correct?

Yeah, it's always the fourth part of his syllogism. So, DRAG CA CHEN MI DAG, it's changing, because it was produced. It's like a coffee cup.

And this, why you say the fourth part, you know, take Minami, we should go there, because they have, what did I say yesterday? TAMPURA. It's like that nice place in Flagstaff that you like.

Okay, now, the example is supposed to be something that the other guy agrees to, right? It's like that nice hotel in Flagstaff that has the Japanese food, and you like that place. But what I'm saying about the fourth example, is that it should be easily acceptable to the opponent.

Yeah, I agree that's a nice place. Okay, got it? So, he's giving CHE PA as an example of a GYEPA?

It's his BUM PA. Yeah, it's like the fact, like the fact, like that existing thing that we call mind, okay? Yeah, he's just trying to say, when I say CHE PA, I'm talking about CHE PA as a GYEPA.

Okay, he could have said CHE PA SHIN, but he's just nailing it down. Okay, now, DAWAI SHENG, put forth an argument. DAG SA KUPA DAG GI TSEN GYI.

DAG SA KUPA DAG GI TSEN GYI. The definition of a reason is anything your wife says. Not DAG YANG DAG GI TSEN GYI.

Yeah, DAG YANG DAG means correct reason. But don't forget, the definition of a reason in Buddhism is anything the guy says, and anything, YUN ME KANG RIN YUN NA, DAG YUN ME KYO. And whether it exists or not, it can be used as a reason.

Fish are flying in the sky because Rimrock has great restaurants. Many great restaurants. Okay, is it a reason?

Yeah, is it any way good reason? No, it's totally bullshit, but it's a reason. You see?

Okay, so KUPA DAG SA KUPA DAG GI TSEN GYI. Anything you put forth as a reason. So, he has given this syllogism.

Okay, okay. Thank you. He has given this syllogism.

And in this syllogism, he meaninglessly added the word, he added the, what do you call it? The qualifier. Very good.

He had uselessly added the qualifier. Ultimately speaking, okay, the Buddha didn't want you to say that. He wanted to say, MIG ME, NA WA ME, NA ME, CHEN ME, LU ME, YI ME, SU ME, DRA ME, THI ME, RO ME, REG CHEN ME DONG.

He didn't go saying ultimately, there's no I. Ultimately, there's no you. Ultimately, eh, come on.

We don't do that. Okay, all right. DAO BA'I, now, DAO BA'I SHAB KYI.

From the Holy Feet again of Chandrakirti. DE LA DUN DAM PE KHYER PAR CHAD WA LA, GUR PA ME DE. Translate just that much.

Okay, from the Holy Feet of Chandrakirti, that, the ultimateness of that. No, the qualifier. We don't need to apply, oh, there is no need to apply the qualifier.

Ultimately. Ultimately. Or ultimately speaking.

Yeah, to that. Good, yeah, in your syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
In your syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
You just say KHYER WA ME DE. KHYER WA ME DE, right. Nothing starts.

You don't say nothing starts, ultimately speaking. Okay. Yeah, well, that's an...anyway, stick to it. Stay with me. Okay. Who's complaining, or who's now, who's the complainer?

Who's criticizing? Chandrakirti. Khandroche Rinpoche in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Come on, man, you don't have to add ultimately to everything. You don't have to do that. Okay, because, now he gives two reasons why you didn't have to do that, Bhagavad-Gita.

Okay, what? CHOS LA JA NA YANG DGOS PA ME. Because there is no need.

There's no need to apply it to the CHOS, and there's no need to apply it to the CHOS CHEN. Okay, to the CHOS and the CHOS CHEN. There's no need to apply it to the reason, and there's no need to apply it to the subject.

For this, you've got to appreciate the reason for the word CHOS CHEN. What's CHOS CHEN mean? Something which has a quality.

It's the literal meaning of the word CHOS CHEN. The subject under consideration, which is what it's sometimes called. Take the Minami.

Let's consider Minami. Let's take this cup. The thing you want to talk about, okay, is called CHOS CHEN.

Why? Because it's a thing that has a certain quality, that you're trying to prove. So, the quality you're trying to prove about it, is called DRUG CHEN CHOS.

I believe he has shortened it here to CHOS. You don't have to add it to the CHOS CHEN, and you don't have to add it to the DRUG CHEN CHOS. You don't have to add it to the first element of the syllogism, and you don't have to add it to the second syllogism.

Because he added it to the first one, oddly. He didn't say, ultimately speaking, it doesn't start. He says, ultimately speaking, comma, the I, CHOS CHEN.

He like, very, what do you call it, clumsily added it to the Minami. You see, ultimately speaking, let's consider the I, ultimately speaking. Okay?

It doesn't start. It doesn't start, okay? Because the Buddha said, you know, consider all things, they don't start.

So he rewrote it. Ultimately speaking, all things consider. They don't start.

Then Chandrakirti says, look, you don't have to add that to the first element, by the way, and you don't have to add it to the second one either. It's useless. He said it the other way around.

He did. He did. And he didn't seem to add it to the second element, in the way we're looking at the syllogism, right?

It's just implied that... Well, I believe that Ngawan Pendon called it the Drupde CHOS CHOS. The quality to be proven.

Whether or not it starts. Okay? You don't have to add it to the first part of the syllogism, which is CHOS CHEN.

And you don't have to add it to the second part of syllogism, which is born, or started. Okay? That's a whole other subject.

Okay? Double Drupde. Okay?

I'll say why it doesn't, you don't need to say ultimately, when you say it starts. You don't have to say, let's consider the I, it doesn't start ultimately. Okay?

Two choices here. Ultimately, let's consider the I from an ultimate point of view. That's the CHOS CHOS.

It doesn't start speaking ultimately. That's when you add it ultimately to the second element. Okay?

So we're going to start with the second element. Okay? Now, the first means the second.

So, you don't have to add the word, ultimately speaking, to the word... Good, nice. Start.

Okay, Bhagavad Gita can look. You don't have to add ultimately to the word start. Okay?

Why? bhāro latana yāṅgapa me. It's meaningless according to the person making the argument.

jīgo latana yāṅgapa me. It's meaningless according to the person listening to your argument. jīgdenpa latana yāṅgapa me vicara.

And no one in the world would need it anyway. No one in the world talks like that. It's meaningless to the guy starting the argument.

It's meaningless to the guy answering in the argument. And it's meaningless to whoever would hear it. It's in the whole world, nobody goes around saying, ultimately speaking, I'm typing on the computer.

Ultimately speaking, I'm drinking Ben's awesome coffee. Ultimately speaking, you know, come on, nobody does that. I wish we had this at Dine & Bounce before...

Yeah, it could be. I mean, you could defend it, but we're not going to. Okay, go.

It would be so fun to pull this out of the big round and ask someone. Mm-hmm. Oh, you support Bhāvaneka, huh?

Wait, wait, not dhambho jukte. Oh, I thought we already covered that one. Okay.

Dhambho jukte. Ngāgo umāpe dhākye khunso tu yāng khe mālangpe ichir. Okay, good.

This is very profound and very difficult. Who is the ngāgo in this argument? It's, yeah, the upper middle way.

Buddhapalita.

[Speaker 2]
Really.

[Speaker 1]
It's really... Oh, it's Bhāvavī? No, it's, you know, you don't even have to say.

All Madhyamikans are supposed to be able to say, let's take this glass, it doesn't start, because it exists. Okay, sure. Okay, he's talking about a proof that would be acceptable to any Madhyamikan.

Okay, so ngāgo, assuming the ngāgo is... By the way, the opponent, when the Buddha says, look, nothing starts, who's the opponent? Those who hold to things as a mudek.

Stream stool. The stream steps.

[Speaker 2]
Non-Buddhists. Non-Buddhists.

[Speaker 1]
People who think if you sit down in the Ganga, you will get enlightened. Anyway, I've been there. The arms are floating by.

We don't accept things starting from the start. Okay, so the classical argument that they're both arguing about is the argument that the Buddha gave to the non-Buddhists. Take all things, they don't start from themselves.

They don't start, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Because they exist.

[Speaker 1]
The Buddha said it to non-Buddhists, okay? The chīgo is... Who's the chīgo?

The non-Buddhists. Good, mudekpa. Who's the ngāgo?

The umapas. Who's the targo? That's the ngāgo.

Yeah, dang. Okay. Dharmadrupde, if the ngāgo is the umapas, is the majamikana, they don't even accept that a cup could start, deceptively speaking.

So why would they have to add, ultimately? Got it. Don't they?

Yang kemalang eche, because they don't accept that it could start deceptively. This is very profound, okay? Chandrakirti's saying, look, if you're a madhyamika, you don't accept any kind of birth.

You don't have to add, ultimately. Because even if you don't add, ultimately, we would agree. Is it true that nothing starts?

Yes. Do you have to say, ultimately, no, we're madhyamika. We don't even believe it could start on a conventional level.

Why are you shying away from... Simply avoiding the word dhāt. That seems to be okay, too.

Oh yeah, you can say dhāt, okay. Because it's almost saying, like, ultimately, ultimately, because dhāt means ultimately already, and Jatsangata's famous for adding the qualifier back in. So he's saying, ultimately, ultimately.

He's saying, ultimately, it doesn't ultimately start from itself, because he's saying, ultimately, it doesn't start from itself. So it's like, oh, you already said... I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm corrected.

Dhakye, something starting in and of itself doesn't exist. Even, convince me. So they're keeping that...

Okay, that's okay. But it's not as strong. So it's not the hard sutra.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, dhakye, yeah, okay. But they don't say anything in the syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
He totally does.

[Speaker 1]
No, here.

[Speaker 2]
Show me the syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
Here, that's... Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I'm corrected.

I'm corrected. Totally corrected. Okay.

Things don't start from themselves. The cup doesn't start from itself. Okay?

Nibbādukte. Second. It's the second part of the...

So Madhyamikans don't need any ultimately, because we already say from itself.

[Speaker 2]
So it's redundant. It's redundant at the least. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then, the mūṭhekpas don't need it. Why not? Because they deny the two truths.

Well, because they believe things come from... Their opinions already mess with conventional reality. Mess with...

If you follow them, you've already denied conventional reality.

[Speaker 2]
Also.

[Speaker 1]
Is that what it's saying? Yeah, denpa nyi le nyam. They have degenerated from both realities.

Okay? Before the argument was made. Okay?

mūṭhekpa nyi... den... nyi car.

From the point of view of both realities. Gokpa. It's denied.

You could deny them from either point of view. You could deny... For example, they say that the cause of the cup was always in the cup before it started.

And it just manif... Sorry. The result...

The result of a glass cup was already in the factory before it was made. Because the potential was there. They say a finished jar was already there, and then it was revealed.

Okay? A corn cob was already in a corn... a seed corn...

under the ground. It was already there. And then it just got revealed.

Okay? So even if we're not talking about ultimately speaking, they're already wrong. Okay?

So you don't have to say ultimately speaking for them. Because whether or not you say ultimately, they're already wrong. Okay, got it?

Okay. Now, how about the normal world? Yes.

Oh, somebody tripped it. Uh, Jigme. Jigme.

This basically says, they don't worry about it. The dakle. They don't worry about the dakle.

So, yeah. Whether things arise from themselves, or whether things arise from something else, they don't... Michö.

They don't care. They just want the food. They don't care how it grew.

Okay? So, so it's unnecessary from their point of view to say ultimately.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The Buddhists don't want it. The non-Buddhists don't want it. And the people who don't care about Buddhists or non-Buddhists, they don't want it either.

Maybe you shouldn't have said it. Okay, got it? By the way, now that we understand, now, now he nails down what dak means in the syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, cool. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's not self-existent. It's specifically the opening lines of wisdom. Things don't grow from themselves.

Things don't grow from other things. So, when he says self here in the syllogism, he's not saying self-existently. He's saying from themselves.

Different. Different thing. He doesn't mean from a self-existent nature.

He means from themselves. They don't grow from themselves.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And they don't grow from other things.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I see.

[Speaker 1]
Babies are not born from themselves. Neither are they born from their mother.

[Speaker 2]
What's not themselves and not self-existent mean?

[Speaker 1]
Different. Different? Yeah, it's kind of subtle, right?

Without your seeds.

[Speaker 2]
Which one? It's about the observer, right?

[Speaker 1]
If it had meant rang shing gi, by nature. If dak here meant rang shing gi, that's what it means naturally. By itself.

But not from itself. You see what I mean? This is mu shi khen go kyi rikpa.

Mu shi khen go kyi rikpa. Do things arise from themselves? Or things arise from something else?

Or things arise from both? Or things arise from neither? But the self, when they say self, they're not talking about a self-existent self.

They just mean from yourself. Did the mom... Was the boy born from the boy?

It doesn't mean was the boy born without seeds. So it's just in the context of those four permutations. Yeah, it's not dak in the sense of rang shing.

It's dak in the sense of not shen. Rang. It's dak in the sense of rang.

[Speaker 2]
It's self.

[Speaker 1]
And if you broke it down... By the way, which of the four... Which of the four is nominally okay?

Born from self. Yeah, born from something else. From a seed.

Okay. Nominally, that's okay. Okay?

And this is why we accuse them of accepting a non-monopolist self-existence? Oh, that's another deal. That's some kind of yang dak kun dzok, you mean?

[Speaker 2]
Tani, Tani and Tendo, we say that they accept a nominal ultimate nature, which they sort of just implied in this syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not... I don't know. I'm not sure what that means.

[Speaker 2]
Are you talking about existing by definition?

[Speaker 1]
This is Paul Empore. When did they come to Gyurachen? So anyways, we didn't get to the chöchen yet.

Okay. We just got to him saying ultimately. But...

Right, we're just talking about the assertion so far. The chö, the gyurpe chö, right? Yeah, but the ultimately is going to affect the chöchen.

Okay? Okay, so just be ready for that. Okay.

Yeah, I will, I will. Nagarjuna wrote a book called The Sixty Verses in which he sought to prove to the lower school that in the sutras which Buddha taught just for them, he did present emptiness. Okay?

And then he started to argue about... And then... And so in that way, he's saying a strange thing about the difference between the higher schools and the lower schools.

The lower schools got the information and misunderstood it. But it's not that... It's almost not the case that Buddha made it simple for them.

It's that he didn't make it simple for them and they took it the wrong way. That's what the whole book is about, okay? But you're kind of getting into so what's the difference between the higher school and lower school is not a difference in what the Buddha presented.

It's a difference in how they took it. Okay? So then you can say that the schools were invented by people who didn't understand the schools.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Then he says, you know, while we're on the subject of schools, he makes a very clumsy segue. He goes to another subject because he wants to. Because he just wrote a book about it.

Okay? And he says, that reminds me of the difference between the two Madhyamika schools which is not at all the subject of Nagarjuna's text. Okay?

And he says, I mean it's a parallelism maybe? Maybe the differences between the two Madhyamika schools, how they developed is similar to the way that the differences between the higher schools and the lower schools develop. But that's the only excuse you could ever give him.

You see, now that reminds me of differences. And I've heard people give ten differences. One of them being, does the opponent and us have a...

Do we see the object that we're fighting about in the same way? Minami restaurant. Or do we not?

Okay? And then he says, well, let's go look at the opinions of lower middle way starter, Bhavavika, and the higher middle way great defender, Chandrakirti. Let's look at how they thought about this topic.

Now, I'll throw another wrench into this discussion. If I say to my wife, you know, if I say, look, when I'm fighting with my, when I'm arguing with my wife about should we go to the Japanese restaurant, okay? I'm, when I say let's talk about the Japanese restaurant, I'm not talking about one that serves good food or one that serves bad food.

Why? Because we're supposed to argue about the same thing. So let's just talk about the restaurant in general without characterizing it one way or the other.

Can we agree that we both see it the same way? If I say, let's talk about, honey, let's talk about the Japanese restaurant. Am I kind of saying without, without deciding right now whether it's good or bad?

Am I kind of saying that? Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I am.

[Speaker 1]
That's Baba Viveka's position. I'm just setting you up, because it's uncomfortable. It sounds pretty good, and I expressed it myself last time we met.

This is where you get the 50-50 thing from when you teach. Well, I'm just saying, the guy, it sounds like a reasonable position. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Let's just talk about being honest.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm just going to say, if I read it correctly, and maybe I'm wrong again, but it seems like the argument is that Baba Viveka thought when a Buddhist tells a non-Buddhist that sound is not eternal, they got to talk about sound, the chit-chan, what they're talking about, is sound in general before we talk about eternal or not. Come on, you know, the sound that's out there. Just sound without getting into specifics.

And, and Baba Viveka says that's what chit-chan means.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And, and, and I'll find you a part in his text that says if the two opponents don't agree on the chit-chan, it's already a bad reason. Sure. It's in the list of bad reasons.

Yeah. Okay? Now, so it should be correct to say that the two opponents should be talking about the same thing, they have an argument about it.

But that seems to be Baba Viveka's position, which is criticized by Chandrakirti. So what's Chandrakirti want to say? That there isn't even one of those, or that...

They can't even hold the same gentleman? And I'll give you, I'll throw another wrench in there, and then I'll make you go home for two days.

[Speaker 2]
That's a curse right there.

[Speaker 1]
Is it possible that at Samma, is it possible that both opponents have at Samma about the chit-chan, and one of them is mistaken? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That's what you're trying to elicit. Is it correct? And the other person?

[Speaker 1]
I'll say it again. Is it possible that two people who are supposed to be talking about the same thing, or they can't have a valid argument, that one of them sees jahr, but in an incorrect way, but it's still accurate for our purposes? I suppose that's what Chandrakirti is going to go with.

[Speaker 2]
He's going that way.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Okay? Therefore, Chandrakirti goes to the position that he has to say, chulwe samayu.

Yeah. There is a mistaken state of perception. Sarda miluwe.

A fresh and unerring one. Which is chulwa. An unerring, mistaken perception.

Yeah. Yeah. Now you don't understand anything.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
That's what the argument is going to come down to. Okay? Fundamentally, when I argue with you about the cup, and you never heard the pen, are we talking about the same thing?

We are. According to Chandrakirti. Or maybe not.

I don't know, I am just... I don't work there.