Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 27

[Speaker 1]
I tried to make this one a little bit more reasonable for y'all. I think I've been a little PhD level before. Don't know that I could have answered the question.

What qualifier does Master Bapaviveka add to his syllogism about emptiness, syllogism about emptiness, that Master Chandrakirti strongly disagrees with, Tibetan and English. There's a word in that syllogism that Chandrakirti, yeah, I'll just give it the rest of the second. Chöchen.

Not Chö-chen.

[Speaker 2]
Chö.

[Speaker 1]
Not Chö. Yeah. Ultimately.

Ultimately, even better.

[Speaker 2]
As an adverb.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, as an adverb. And he is in Tibetan so you guys are getting your vocabulary. Ultimately.

Specifically, there are two places where Master Chandrakirti says that there was no need to place that qualifier where Tibetan and English. Uh, no. Not thinking about it exactly right.

I'd be surprised if you don't get this, Ben. But it does require remembering last class. Eventually.

No.

[Speaker 2]
You mean in that syllogism? Others?

[Speaker 1]
Should I wait? Go ahead, Ben. Remember?

It's in Tibetan and then English. Oh, yeah, how did the syllogism go? Well, forget that.

It's not even, he just, I'll give you a hint. It only came in one of the places in the syllogism, but then he says it shouldn't have been in either place.

[Speaker 2]
The Chöchen or either the subject or the assertion.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in Tibetan. Subject or assertion in Tibetan?

[Speaker 2]
The Chöchen or the, what is it?

[Speaker 1]
Drupche Chö.

[Speaker 2]
Drupche Chö, yeah. Chöchen and Drupche Chö. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Subject and assertion. Wait. Assertion is Drupcha.

In its best group, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Future tense. Let's check the text in a second.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, so Drupcha is the first and second element together. The Japanese restaurant is someplace we should go to. And the Drupche Chö is the half of that, which you're trying to prove, the quality you're trying to prove, which is to be gone to.

Okay, so Drupcha is one plus two. Okay. And Drupche Chö is two.

Right, okay, so I was thinking Drupche Chö. Okay, good. And I believe it has to be BS.

I was struggling with the fonts again. Yeah, better you than me. Sometimes I think I should put the font.

Well, I want to put it in Tibetan because we don't get to look at Tibetan letters. No, I mean, sometimes I think I should make you read the Tibetan letters.

[Speaker 2]
It's fun. It's definitely slower going. Not for long.

Not for long, yeah. I feel like I've been hypertexting so much I've had to switch back to Roman. It's been hard for me.

Here's a B-S-G-R-E-G.

[Speaker 1]
I'm looking at Drupche Chö. It should be future. It should be B-S-G, yeah.

There are people who spell it without it, but most people who know what they're doing... Do you know which page in the text... Well, anyway, I'll check it in a second.

No, I just added it. Okay. It was in my notes.

Got it. Yeah, Drupche Chö. Okay.

Why did I put it under Drupche Chö? Third page. Oh, yeah, yeah, I'll tell you later.

Okay. Master Chandrakirti breaks down why there is no need to apply the word ultimately. State one of the reasons that he gives.

There's three in the text. The last thing in the last class. Because if you felt the need, you don't understand what the Buddha was teaching.

Yeah, that's cool. I mean, it's true, but he gets kind of specific, like why there's no need to place it if you're debating with this person or if you're debating with this people or those only... Yeah, if you're debating with worldly people, then...

[Speaker 2]
I can't remember.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. They don't know what you're talking about anyway. It's not that, it's that they don't examine it anyway.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, they left it unexamined. Chö, yeah, not Chö or something like that. Oh, I'm not talking about Chö.

Uh-huh. Anybody remember any of the other ones? Oh, they don't agree on the subject.

What are the three kinds of people? Those who might not.

[Speaker 1]
Gold diggers and... Oh, in the...

[Speaker 2]
If you're a Madhyamikan, then you don't need to say it because they don't accept.

[Speaker 1]
No, he divided it into Nāgula and Chīgula.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he did. The first one is Nāgula, the second is Chīgula, the third one is worldly people. Oh, no, that's...

Are you sure? Yep. Oh, because you're looking at it right now?

I just went over it. He made another division also for non-Buddhists. Yeah, those are the Chīgula.

Oh, okay, Chīgula is in the sense of... Yeah, who you present the reason to.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Who you present the syllogism to is mudekpas.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, right. Yeah, that's right.

[Speaker 1]
And you don't have to specify... It doesn't matter whether you say they believe that the self, that things came from themselves, or that they came from themselves ultimately, because it doesn't matter whether you say to them, things come from themselves in a conventional way, or things come from themselves in an ultimate way, because both ways they're wrong. They don't even understand how corn seeds make corn.

So this is right, right? They don't accept that things are from themselves even conventionally. Oh, yeah, that's the first guys, ngāgo.

The people who presented the debate are umapas. Umapas. So...

Then the Chīgulas... They don't have to say ultimately, because they don't even accept it conventionally, that things could grow from themselves. There's no reason to say things don't grow from themselves ultimately, because they don't grow from themselves anyway.

You could say things don't grow from themselves in a fish pond. Who cares? You don't have to add those words.

And then if they're non-Buddhists, they don't even grasp the two truths correctly anyway. Yeah, so why make the distinction? I'm talking ultimately, or I'm talking conventionally.

Both ways they don't understand how things start. So why add it? Then don't add it in the third way, which is...

Yeah, for people in the world, they don't care. They say, just give me the money. I don't care if it came from itself or from something else.

It doesn't matter to me. And here's another word. I gave you guys a bunch of words already, but here's one just for fun.

It's B-R. It's funny, I didn't write it. I was like, I got this.

I think it's apply, isn't it? Apply to? What's jarci?

It's glue. Glue, yeah. I see.

So it means combine, apply, stick. Jorlam. Jorlam, right.

Yoga, yuj. Cool. That's it.

You take the plane. Okay, I got the plane. I'm going to quickly review what we did before.

And I'm sorry we're going slow, but I still assert that in the end we'll be faster.

[Speaker 2]
I'm happy. Someone's going to get ridiculed for going slow.

[Speaker 1]
Not from me. So we're at a part where they're going to deny Baba Viveka's beliefs.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Lek ten je kyi lukpa kakpa. Three parts. Rang gi gopay rikpa.

We're going to deny the logic called independent logic. Rikpa de paro bhokyam dirgi khelang tsultam. We're going to show how the other guy does accept such logic, even though he doesn't know it.

Which means dun kyi. We had dun du before today, actually. Right?

So, dun kyi is the same. So, what they believe amounts to believing in that kind of logic. Okay?

And then, kyen gyur de rang gi jor la mitsumugyutsu no. Why the same criticisms don't apply to our use of logic.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Then, the first part, which is, we are denying the independent logic. Independently effective logic. Dun dang pa kyey pa jawa dun mey pa shepa.

We're going to say, it was... I'm sorry. Yeah, you can...

I'm sorry. This rang gi doesn't mean independent reasoning. It means the school.

What logic we use to deny the school.

[Speaker 2]
The independent school.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And the second part, I apologize. I said it wrong.

First part here, is we're going to deny the lower middle way school's presentation. Secondly, we're going to show that... We're going to deny their...

We're going to give logic... We're going to give reasoning why they're wrong. Okay?

Then we're going to show that that reasoning they accept in actuality. Although if you ask them, they would say no. So, in fact, dun kyey.

If you accept everything they accept, they must already be accepting the logic we use to defeat them. Okay? Got it?

And then, kyen je de rang gi jor la tsongway. Then why those criticisms don't apply to our own use of logic. So, we're going to...

I'll say it again. We're going to give reasoning which... which disproves the ideas of the lower middle way school.

One. Number two. We're going to show that they already accept that reasoning, but they don't know.

I thought that was number three. No, it's number two. And then number three is the criticisms we give of their reasoning don't apply to ours.

Okay? Mi chung. Then the first one, where we deny their logic, their syllogisms, it has two parts.

Number one. It's unnecessary for you guys to keep repeating, ultimately. Okay?

And second... I think I can give a little better explanation of this than I did. Chö chen chi tsam means Minami restaurant independent of good food or bad food.

Just the chö chen taken as a general thing. Chö chen chi tsam. Just take...

Yeah, Minami restaurant. Before you talk about good food or bad food. Okay?

Take it by itself. Gagpa. We deny that.

They try to sell us that. Okay? We can see the same restaurant when we have a debate with our wife about the Japanese restaurant, if we divorce it from the conclusion we're trying to draw about it.

Just a general restaurant. Not whether it's good food or bad food. Okay?

So we can both talk about whether or not we should go to the restaurant. Even though the restaurant in my mind is a good place to eat, and the restaurant in her mind is a bad place to eat, we can still talk about the restaurant in general. Okay?

Who says that? The other guys say that. The other guys say that.

They said we are seeing the same restaurant. When you fight with your wife about going to the Japanese restaurant, because you believe it's good food and she believes it's bad food, you're still talking about the same restaurant. Because we don't mean the restaurant which is good or bad when we say the restaurant in general, chitsam.

Okay? The restaurant in general. Okay?

Then that's a wrong idea about logic.

[Speaker 2]
Right. There's even one of those...

[Speaker 1]
This is Noam Pellman. So it's possible. I believe the wrong look, you know.

Everybody wants the wrong look. Just tell me what we believe, Geshe-la. I believe the wrong look is we can have a different perception of the object that we're talking about, and we can still have a meaningful argument about it.

Right. Okay? It's natural that we will have a different perception of the restaurant.

But we can still talk about whether we should go to the restaurant or not. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
I'm imagining they're going to present it, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's going to be the second part. Blah, blah, blah, later, later. Okay, first part.

Why it's unnecessary to add the word ultimately. Okay? And this whole thing is a single line in Gyaltsabje.

Do we see the same thing when we talk about something or not? Tun, chit, chit-chen, tun-na-wa. Are we talking about the same object, the same restaurant, or not?

Is it ever possible to talk about the same restaurant? This is all a footnote. Because he went off on, you know...

Okay, so here's the syllogism, as Lekten J would like to give it. Isn't it the same one we did last time? It is.

Tun-da-pa-nang-yik, ge-che-nem-che-chen. Ultimately speaking, take the inner eye power from optic nerve. Do you want to say, ultimately speaking?

Oh, ultimately. Da-la-kye-wa-ma-ngay-te. It's not certain that it could grow from itself, yu-be-ye-chir, because it exists.

It's like everything in the universe. It's like everything in the universe. Now, I'm not comfortable with how he gave this syllogism.

And I found a better one. I found a better version of Baba Viveka's syllogism, where he said, open the way. Okay?

So we're going to go on a digression within the digression. Which is definitely going to slow you down. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Yay.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to guess where. Go down a couple lines.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, interlude on emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. We keep hitting this guy. It makes me hungry.

I want to eat you up. Phew, cater J. We're chewing on Gyaltsabje's toes.

But we would like to eat you up.

[Speaker 2]
Gyaltsabje's toes.

[Speaker 1]
Go. No, sashimi. Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. No, I couldn't read from there. We didn't cover that.

No, this is new. This is the beginning of the digression in the digression. Because I want to get his syllogism straight.

So I'll start from the beginning. Which, without which, you cannot discuss Chö Chens. Without understanding Baba Yuga's syllogism.

And, I would assert that this is the Ranggyu, from which their school is named. Okay, this is the one. Or something like that.

I'm trying to sell it to you, my digression. Okay. We're all buying tickets.

Alright. Okay. Good, okay.

This is misspelled. Which? It's Dorje Sekma.

Oh, yeah. But they are not to be blamed, since it's extremely rare. Right.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
He's looking it up for me.

[Speaker 1]
You want to just... Oh, that's a chesok, same problem. Give me the whole four lines.

He's looking it up. He's going to quote it for us. I'm looking forward to teaching this in...

We might start a little bit in Guadalajara, but we'll hit it heavy at Diamond Mountain in October. You got it yet? That's it.

Yeah, that's it. Tatlay Mayan. Read it.

It's not last time, but it's late. Translate that much. Say it again.

Wait, then go slow. That's the relevant part. Okay.

So, now we're digressing down the digression. Okay. Baba Viveka's argument comes from a quotation from Nagarjuna.

Okay. The syllogism that Baba Viveka gave, that started the fight, that ended up in a lower middle way school, called Rangyupa, Svatantrika, meaning a certain kind of syllogism, it starts from this quotation. Tatlay Mayan.

Shanlay Mayan. Nyilay Mayan. Gyumay Mayan.

Translate. Translate that much. Things don't come from themselves.

They don't come from something else. They don't come from both. From no cause.

Without a cause. Okay. So, now we know all four choices, all four moods, mean, refer to gyu.

As, things don't come from themselves as a gyu. As a cause. A watermelon is not born from the same watermelon.

It's born from the watermelon of the year before some. Okay. Now, skip the second one.

It's traditional to skip the second one. Ah, let's do the second one. Are things born from other things?

Yeah, they are. Kids are born from moms. Watermelons are born from last year's watermelons.

Okay. They do, they are born from other things. But not, ultimately.

Okay. Then, are they born from both?

[Speaker 2]
Nope.

[Speaker 1]
Are they born from neither? Nope. Sometimes this is called, Mushi Geng Gopi.

The denial of all four. Look at this. This is cool.

I got both feet. This is awesome.

[Speaker 2]
Or if you're British, a hundred years ago, you'd call it the Tetra-momo.

[Speaker 1]
Alright, sorry. Ah, they don't come from themselves, they don't come from something else, they don't come from both, they don't come from nothing. That's a basic, that's basically nirvana to me.

Okay. Now, do I have to add, ultimately, on the first one. No.

No. Specifically not, Chandrakirti got really upset about that. Yeah, why, things are not born from themselves.

A mother, a child isn't born from itself.

[Speaker 2]
Ever.

[Speaker 1]
Do I have to say, ultimately speaking.

[Speaker 2]
Because not under any circumstances. No.

[Speaker 1]
When do I have to add, ultimately speaking.

[Speaker 2]
For the second one.

[Speaker 1]
For the second one, okay. You can add it. But don't waste my time on the first one.

It's impossible for something to be born from itself. Okay. This does not mean self-existence.

Okay. It's not, it doesn't mean that kind of doc. Okay.

This is not an argument about the doc that doesn't exist. This is an argument about the kid who does exist. Okay.

So, don't get confused. We're not, we're not denying doc as atman, as the self-nature of things. It's not the argument.

The question is, can a thing come from itself? Can the baby give birth to a baby? And then we just reject it.

Well, why did Nagarjuna mention that in the first place? He wanted to cover all possibilities. Okay.

That's all. Okay. All right.

Satsang in Dalai Lama. CESOG GSUM PA'I RJESUR DANG NAS Quotes like this and such. Yeah.

Following... RJES DANG means following. UMAN NANG BA by...

I looked it up, because I can't remember all these things. The... The Light on the Middle Way.

Okay. Etc. RANG RGYUD PA'I SHUNG Those are the main texts of the...

Yeah, the great books of the Lower Middle Way school. LAS KYANG TASHI Sometimes it's called TASHI KENGO KURUKPA. Sometimes it's called MUSHI KENGO KURUKPA.

Some people say TASHI KENGO KURUKPA isn't the dak and shen, it's the yuh and meh. So, anyway, it's some confusion about what you call it. Anyway, you can call it TASHI KENGO KURUKPA.

And there's a heavy prenasal here because... KENGO Because it's an open vowel. So, when you say it, always say KENGO.

Say KENGO. KENGO MUSHI KENGO KURUKPA KURUKPA The logic which depends on four possibilities. Canceling four possibilities.

All four possibilities. KENGO RIG PA'I SHES PA LA This is also called DORJE SEGS MA Diamond Sliver The Sliver of Diamond. So, SEGS G-Z-E-G-S is extremely rare.

It mostly only comes in the name of this logic. But SIG, like Chenrezig, Avalokitesvara, very common. Extremely common.

So, the typist corrected it. Unconsciously. Subconsciously.

That's why when we started our project, I went to Korea to watch them inputting the Greek. Hewlett-Packard sent the Greek to Korea. Because they started in Greece, and they stopped.

They gave up the project in Greece. Because the Greeks kept correcting it to the modern spelling. You see?

Without thinking. Okay? So, that's why it's okay to have people typing scripts they don't know.

Sometimes it's even better. Okay? All right.

KENGO RIG PA'I SHES PA LA DORJE SEGS MA TENZIG SHES DRAG We had DRAG when we discussed SER, DRAG, and SER, DRAG, and SU, I guess it was. Oh, LO. LO, SER, and DRAG.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. It's also known as. This DRAGPA means also known as the sliver of diamond.

Or you can say the four combinations. The four possibilities. Okay.

Now. Okay. Go ahead.

Oh. DE LA RANG RGYUD PA'I THON MONGS MA YIN PA CHUNG ZE SHES NA Yeah. What if I gave you guys just a little explanation of this four possibility-canceling reasoning of Nagarjuna according to the lower middle way.

Well, then you say, oh, there is CHUNG MONGS MA YIN. Yeah, their unique way of presenting Nagarjuna's four-part reason. Okay.

How about we talk a little bit about how the lower middle way school presents this famous reasoning from Nagarjuna. Okay. Meaning, and he said unique, but what he meant was messed up.

He's being polite. Let me tell you about this unique socks that Nick had on. Who?

No. Who had them on? Show them.

Let's talk about these unique socks. Which means unbelievably ugly. Okay.

I mean, just my opinion. As opposed... Now, here's...

So, who's the lower middle way champion?

[Speaker 2]
Baba Viveka.

[Speaker 1]
So, now we get a different version of his logic, of his syllogism, which I assert is kind of more clear. Cool. Okay.

I like this one better. The last guy, Chodzhi Ngang Pel Neng, added the dundampa where? Uh, at the Chochen.

Yeah, inside the Chochen, which we never almost say dundampa nyuku chochen.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. Let's take...

[Speaker 1]
Is it our ultimate pens? No, it's worse than that. Let's take pens ultimately.

Right. It's just kind of... we wouldn't say that.

Yeah. Uh, this is a little more comfortable. This is Kedrup Je, instead of Chodzhi Ngang Pel Neng.

Oh, cool. He's speaking his native language. Okay.

Nyuku chochen. Let's take pens, or bamboo around as well. Yeah, a sprout.

It means a sprout. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Especially get in your mind like, what are those sprouts that people eat?

[Speaker 2]
Uh...

[Speaker 1]
Mung beans. Yeah, like mung bean sprout, after the sprout came out. Okay.

Chochen. Denmei kyewa mei den. Uh, they start as...

they don't... start as... They don't start really.

[Speaker 2]
...truly, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? They don't start really. Uh-huh.

Because, ultimately speaking, they don't come from themselves. They don't come from something else. Okay.

They don't come from both. And they don't come from no cause at all. Uh-huh.

And it's all a reference to the opening lines of Nagarjuna's wisdom. Okay? There's two lines.

The long name of Nagarjuna's book is Tsawa Sherab Kyew Karika. You know, like the root verses are Mula Karika, Mula Prajna Karika, something, okay? But, but I would assert that what he wanted to call his name was Prajna.

Like, he knew how to write a title. The book just says wisdom. They say in the book business, if you can see the cover from three feet away, it's a good title.

It's not like foundational verses on the subject of the wisdom. It's, it's... He wouldn't have named a book that way.

He was Nagarjuna. He was a master of less is more. Who's, uh, what's his name?

Miles Davis? Miles Davis said that. Less is more.

You know, make the music come in with a lot of spaces, and it will tell you more. And Nagarjuna was the, the ultimate master of that. And I think it has something to do with being an Arya, in his case.

So anyway, Okay, go. I'm sorry, did I not... Oh.

It doesn't arise through any of these choices. Okay? Through any of these choices.

Okay? It doesn't start. Things don't start from themselves.

Now, if it were Nagarjuna, he would have said, things don't start from themselves, things don't start from something else, things don't start from both themselves and something else, and things don't start without a reason. This guy said, through none of the above. Okay?

And then some guy came later, which is gonna happen to our translations, mark my words, and corrected him, and put, ultimately. Who's the guy? Thanks for correcting Nagarjuna.

Okay? No. You have to say, ultimately, they don't go from themselves.

Okay, got it? Tendampa. Go.

Yeah, let's cut it there. Cepadi. Cepandi.

Cepandi. Yeah, this quote, yeah. Now, anyone wanna make a comment about that?

Yeah, okay, you should ask me that. It's an accepted variant to the spelling of Munaparanya. It's accepted.

It's a nickname. It should have been spelled S-H-E-S. Should have.

Should have, right? And it's an accepted nickname in Buddhism. And she doesn't mean anything.

S-H-E doesn't mean anything. She is nice, because it's ladies. But, generally, it's just a nickname, okay?

It's an accepted monastic nickname. S-H-E, where are you studying now, this? S-H-E.

S-H, man. I'm S-H, S-H-E. Okay, S-H-E, the quotation from S-H-E, it means here, okay?

The S-H-E-S words. Okay, Dalai Mayan, Shenleyman, he knows the rest of it. Okay.

Yeah, then he says that chapter, meaning he left out a line which I just applied. Sikdun. Now, the Ranggyupa's chet.

Okay, they don't drink it. They explain it. This is Bishan.

[Speaker 2]
This is Bishan, okay? They don't beer it, Chang.

[Speaker 1]
See? Not, no, it can be present also. They explain it this way.

But, but extremely difficult word here, in this sentence, is du. Sikdun, du, they explain as the meaning. What's that mean?

No, sorry, it's not that dundun, he's got it right.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, really?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a Daini grammar case. As the meaning. But why?

[Speaker 2]
They explain as the meaning. Nikalaman, Shenleyman.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, when you use a Daini grammar case, there's always two elements. We elected him president. As, so in Tibetan, we elected him president as.

Whenever you use a Daini grammar case, there has to be two things, okay? What are the two things here? I'll give you half of them.

The original verse from Nagarjuna is half of the relationship. Him, as. The meaning of the words is the other half.

Ultimately, how do you use open lines? Nah, this is going to take too long. This syllogism is their interpretation of Nagarjuna.

Got it? This rangyut, this Svatantra, is their interpretation of the opening lines of Nagarjuna. And it's wrong.

Because they added dundambar. Which probably reflects their basic problem, which is that they think 50% of the object is coming this way, and 50% is coming this way. And that makes them lower mental well-being.

Good. They felt they needed it. Somehow it relates to their big problem.

Oh, 50% when I see Seiji is coming from Seiji, 50% is my opinion. And they meet in the middle. That's the lower middle way.

Higher middle way? I made 100% of Seiji. Okay, got it?

Probably it's related to their need to put a dundambar there. So this whole syllogism, he's saying, who's he? Kiriutje is saying, the whole syllogism is how they want to take the verse from Nagarjuna.

Got it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, where is that referred to?

It's the do. It's just this do here. Okay, yeah.

The subject of the sentence is this whole syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. They take this to be that. Rangyu is the syllogism, right?

I mean, they're just calling it Rangyu. No, that's a subject. No, this Rangyu is the people.

Oh, they do.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. The Rangyupas.

[Speaker 1]
The Rangyupas, right. Okay, that's what I originally thought. The Svatantrakas say, che.

Their explanation is that this whole syllogism is what Nagarjuna meant to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's Sikdun.

It's what Nagarjuna's verse meant. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Now we can go on.

[Speaker 1]
So the word syllogism is contained in the do, got it? Exactly.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's weird that these tiny little words are the ones in any language, like Russian or anything, it's like between a and i. On prishol i skazal. On prishol a ni hochin.

Like that. The tiny words that cause trouble. Okay, anyway.

Now we can go on. Go. Okay.

Okay. tsiksel le takchur detar ngepa kshang dey Anybody? Anybody got the plane?

I think it was at Burning Hall about an hour ago. tsiksel le takchur detar ngepa kshang dey tsikdun yinpa kathayinki You know, we've been talking over and over about how Chandrakirti refuted Bhavaviveka, but I'm starting to smell, and I'm just too lazy to check, I think it was in tsiksel, and not in umalajupa. Remember, never forget that Chandrakirti wrote two commentaries on Nagarjuna's wisdom.

One of them, the very famous one, is called Entering the Middle Way, in which case Middle Way refers to the book, Prajna. Okay, but he also wrote another book called Tsiksel, which everybody mistranslates as clear words. Prasannapada.

Everyone makes a mistake. It's not Sikh words, it's Sikhs with an S. Sikhsucheppa.

[Speaker 2]
Pada. Verse. Shloka.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a clarification of the, clarification of the shlokas. It's not a clarification of the words. Everyone mistranslates the title of his book.

Wow. If somebody mistranslates the title of the book, I usually don't read the rest of the translation. Like, three principles of the path.

I don't know. Okay. Sorry, I get emotional.

Okay, now I'm starting to feel like, Prasannapada, Tsiksel, is the book that he used to argue against Bhagavad Gita's interpretation of the opening lines. Okay. Meaning?

Probably because Bhagavad Gita criticized... Buddha Palita. Yeah, Buddha Palita.

Okay. Alright, here we go. Tsiksel le.

Takjor detar gopa. Takjor means a syllogism. Oh, really?

Okay, takjor. The words in logic for syllogism are a mess. They're just a mess.

There's no standard. Tak can mean reason. Tak can mean syllogism.

Feels like it's all slang. Okay, it's all messed up. Okay, so I'm sorry.

You can write a letter of complaint to the authorities. Anyway, and the Sanskrit doesn't help, by the way. So, it's also very confusing.

So, takjor.

[Speaker 2]
What is the Sanskrit?

[Speaker 1]
Syllogism. For a reason? Well, that's our problem.

Right, there's not one word either.

[Speaker 2]
Sign. A sign.

[Speaker 1]
A sign.

[Speaker 2]
Lakshana, okay. I think. Takjor.

Yeah, takjor. Tak, right, slang. Deitargupa.

[Speaker 1]
Gupa means, we talked about taksakupa.

[Speaker 2]
Takitseni. Taksakupa.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Taksakupa, takitseni.

[Speaker 1]
It's like a loose definition. Tak. Provisional?

Taksakupa. What takitseni means? The definition of a reason.

The definition of a reason is taksakupa. Oh, the reason I put forth. Anything your wife says.

[Speaker 2]
Gupa.

[Speaker 1]
Anything your wife says is a reason. Uh-huh. Established.

You may encounter even a thought in the cup. Something that can be called existent or not existing. Yeah.

Be a reason. Everything in the universe, whether it exists or not, is a reason. Yeah.

That's in the definition of reasons.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Sayang dagmayan. Yeah. Ultimately, you're not a correct reason.

Not a correct reason. That's a different subject. But anything your wife says is a reason.

We shouldn't go to the restaurant because my sister might call next week. Say anything you say or anything that exists. Gupa means put forth.

Anything your wife says is a reason.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Good reason I didn't say. And by the way, if you really want to go deeper, there's no such thing as a good reason either.

It's only a good reason in this context. It's a definition of a good reason. They do die a knot.

In a certain context. Because outside of the context, everything could be a good reason. You know, this is...

Uh, anyway. This is silly because rabbits have horns. Okay.

How's that? Okay. Tantra means...

Anyway, gupa means to put forth a reason. Shung de chik tu yinpa kak.

[Speaker 2]
The denial...

[Speaker 1]
Uh, giving us a syllogism like that is not explaining what Nagarjuna meant to us. Okay? Who said that?

[Speaker 2]
Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 1]
Chandrakirti. He said, yeah, that's a nice little syllogism you guys got. Dun dam par dag ne ke mayin.

It doesn't grow ultimately from itself. But that's not what Nagarjuna would have said, please, excuse me. He wouldn't have added ultimately when he said things don't grow from themselves.

Because?

[Speaker 2]
He didn't.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't matter ultimately or not ultimately. They don't. They can't.

Why do you add ultimately? Give me a break. Who added ultimately?

Babi Megha. Because he thought he was clarifying what Nagarjuna meant. And then Chandrakirti says, shung de chik tu yinpa, that's not what he meant.

Kak. That's not what he meant. Okay?

Kak. And then he says, your syllogism that you've... you know, this fancy syllogism you've written down for us.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't clarify what he meant. Got it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Alright, good.

[Speaker 2]
Shung means like the real meaning of what he was trying to say?

[Speaker 1]
Shung means that classic. Meaning... Oh, that classic syllogism.

Wisdom. The book Wisdom. Of that classic.

Yeah, it doesn't explain the wording of Wisdom. That classic. That classic book.

Shastra. As opposed to...

[Speaker 2]
Shastra.

[Speaker 1]
When you try to teach people the difference between a long A and a short A, shastra is a good example. Shastra means...

[Speaker 2]
Classical commentary. Classical.

[Speaker 1]
Shastra means...

[Speaker 2]
Sword. A sword.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So if you don't pronounce the A correctly, you say sword when you want to say book. So it's a good example for foreigners.

Okay. Go. Where were we?

Ki.

[Speaker 2]
It's just the previous stanza ended in ki. So it's like, but... Then this is going on.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, ki. But, okay, just listen. Okay?

But I didn't say that Chandrakirti objected to saying things don't grow from themselves, things don't grow from something else, things don't grow from both, and things don't grow without a cause. I don't object to you putting it that way. I'm just objecting to you if you add ultimately to the first one.

Okay? But generally, it's not the case that Chandrakirti didn't agree that you could just say it simply. Right.

That's not what we're complaining about. Okay? We're not...

If you hadn't added the ultimately, we wouldn't be picking on you.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
We're not saying that Chandrakirti didn't accept that. He did. Okay?

Got it? Yeah. That's not what he didn't accept.

Okay? Okay. He clarified.

Got it? Yeah. Okay.

Alright. Let's go. We got time?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
However...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. However... Things that grow...

The three that things growing from themselves.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And he's talking about the three that are patently impossible. Right, right. Other than things growing from others.

Things growing from themselves. Things growing from both. Or things growing from neither.

Yeah. Now, those three, tanye du yang, misi... They don't even exist conventionally.

[Speaker 2]
They're impossible.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, misi. Yeah. It's his sipe korlo sipa.

Thank you for that. Yeah. Your sipa can mean samsara.

But it can also mean possible. Here it's misi. Not possible.

The three choices are impossible anyway. Let's just... You know...

We don't have to talk about this. Misipa... Tun yang.

Yeah, everybody agrees on that. Doesn't matter your lower middle way, your higher middle way. Everybody agrees those three are stupid.

They're not possible choices anyway. It's the second one that's the problem. Now, he says a radical thing about the second one.

From others though, the prasangikas would say that conventionally, they claim... It says misipa, but even that's impossible. For a watermelon, to grow from a good watermelon seed is also impossible.

[Speaker 2]
Impossible.

[Speaker 1]
Even conventionally.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
According to who?

[Speaker 2]
The prasangikas. Yeah. Misipa.

[Speaker 1]
So, if you're a prasangika, would you ever want to add the word ultimately to any of the four?

[Speaker 2]
Absolutely not. Nope. They do not want to add ultimately.

It's also impossible.

[Speaker 1]
It's confusing. If... Do things grow from something else?

Absolutely they do. If you asked a prasangika what he's saying, would they say things grow from someone else? Yeah.

From something else? I thought so, until now. No, they say, when I say something else, you're already thinking the wrong thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
When I say something, it's the pen thing. When I teach you the pen, that it doesn't come from its own side, while you're watching me teach it, you think it comes from its own side. Really.

Deep down inside. Okay? Until you know, yeah.

Okay? So that's why they're saying it's impossible here? Well, this is Kirubje saying, okay, look, let's, you know, let me tell you something between us.

The three are impossible anyway, it just kicked us out. There's a problem with the second one, okay, that the prasangika would say, even in an ultimate sense, it's not possible. Even if you...

Sorry, even in a conventional sense, it's not possible. Okay, now what that means, we have to talk about. But you can think about it as people see the pen as coming from itself, even while I'm explaining how the pen doesn't come from itself.

It boils down to that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Alright. No, but this is a classic prasangika. This is classic prasangika teaching.

You know, even conventionally, things don't go from other things. This is classical... It's been the argument that they're sticking with the whole...

Prasangika. Okay? Go.

I'm just gonna, you know, divide and conquer, okay? Split, split, split, split, make it easier. Yeah, lower middle way does accept that things can grow from something else, even in a conventional way.

In a conventional way. They accept that. And therefore...

[Speaker 2]
That's why they have to deny... Yeah, that's why they apply the word ultimately, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
To which one?

[Speaker 2]
That reason. About others. That it certainly could grow from others.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So, needless to say, if you're lower middle way, you gotta add the word ultimately to the second one.

[Speaker 2]
That it certainly couldn't grow from others.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Shen kye go pala. When you deny that things could grow from others.

Nge par. Definitely. We had it in karma, was kept being nge par, nge par.

Okay? So, you definitely, that quality, kye par, jar. You have to apply it.

Jar. You gotta glue it on the syllogism. You better mention ultimately, if you're gonna deny shen kye.

That things come from things other than themselves. You gotta add the word ultimately. Okay?

Jar kyi. This is the disjunctive. But, ta ne du yang me pa But you cannot find a lower middle way text that says, even conventionally, things don't grow from other things.

You will never find a lower middle way text that says that. That even in a normal speech, even normally speaking, things don't grow from other things. You will never find a a rangyupa text that says that.

You will never find a lower middle way text that says, things don't grow from other things in a normal sense. You will never see that. You will only see it in a pasangika text.

Okay? So, okay? Got it?

Keep going. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, Shi Tso, Shantarakshita, and his spiritual son, Kamalashila. Kamalashila. Okay?

We didn't figure out the other one yet. Pak is Papa Namrul De, Arya Vimukti Sena, and Seng means Hari Bhadra, or sometimes called Singha Bhadra. Hari means lion, Singha means lion, same thing.

So sometimes it's called Singha Bhadra, sometimes it's called Hari Bhadra. Okay? So, these guys, Gyun, De, Shen, She, De, Pak, De, Nak, Shi, Shintu-Selo, extremely clear, he says, don't mess with me, extremely clear, Shimta-Gupa, right?

In DCI. Extremely clear. Come on, Shintu-Selo, what?

That they accept, She, Pak, that they accept that causes and effects have to be Se, Shen.

[Speaker 2]
Substantially different.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, substantially different. To a mind-only person, what does Se, Shen mean? In this context, different scene that they could come from different seats different comic scenes okay but that's not what it means here here's just like come on every every lower middleweight guy would say that things come from causes that are other things right okay you should say shin other stuff here just means other entities other entities yeah that are separate there are different things okay that are different things you won't find a lower middleweight guy who's gonna say they grow from the same thing okay all right got it all right read this way so sexy yeah I'll read it fast no let me read it let me read it I'll do it they chair there for young tell wrong la la she could do but tiny Duong do me do keep our yuppa therefore to say that there's a difference between the two middleweight groups okay about whether things that exist by nature exist conventionally whether they're not things exist conventionally that they have a difference in opinion right to me to keep our yuppa low make the eyes of your wisdom chocked okie took to our leppa they are infected by the poison of jealousy okay leppa Taki so we're talking you know okay if your eyes weren't if your eyes weren't infected by jealousy they'd be obvious to anybody okay I was afraid you asked me that tell wrong la it literally it says anyone who thinks there's a difference between the Prasangika and Svatantrika about existence existing by nature existing conventionally okay do me do keep our yuppa you're just blind I didn't like it but it came from him so he's the one it's because I didn't think that way before he told me that yeah I think we gotta come back to this do they have a difference on tiny yeah yeah do they have a difference I don't think you do but no they do not funny implies that they have a difference on I do they do they disagree on self-existence well ostensibly no I mean is there a difference between the two middle way schools on how they think about self-existence yeah you can say they both talk about it yeah they both say out loud we can okay okay we said he threw in tiny don't do me because they said yeah I think he's talking about do they have a difference in how they talk about the idea the idea of existing by its own

[Speaker 2]
nature I mean we're criticizing them for accepting the time yet the nominal causation from other which we all sat around and accepted together by the way

[Speaker 1]
just I mean just as an aside who is the accusing of jealousy I guess the wrong either that or just whoever's reading his book he's talking about some other Tibetans who criticize some copper I would guess people who are failing to clearly draw the actual distinction between the two schools I think we'll come back to this poison water and it's instrumental yeah their eyes have been Lepa I mean this was so I did such a good job to figure this out there were two nasty misspellings the misspellings are both words so la la make would mean upper eyes or something low make means the eyes of your wisdom and Lepa is unusual which means to be polluted or infected by so by the poison Duke Jim means the poison water of jealousy and charcoal I'm not sure the top focus don't know I guess it is yeah okay so he's probably you know if he studied a long time he could figure out somebody must have criticized some kappa and that's when you could use a secondary database you know you gotta have a database of fools who criticize some copper so you can go see who was it that criticized some copper about this point did you already read any and he's just saying these people you know it's more a statement about how they feel about some copper than how they feel about Madhyamika pressing that you see it got personal for them okay their eyes were blinded by their personal competitive feelings about some good so copper came from east Tibet when he got to Lhasa it was a big deal and he shook up Lhasa he shook all of the monasteries he shook everything up and guilt of J went out to challenge him and that was a famous incident okay I'm gonna get any help on resolving this in the next two sentences we will get some help