Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 28

[Speaker 1]
Go for it. State the four parts of Nagarjuna's statement in the opening lines of wisdom. Nothing comes from itself.

Nothing comes from other things. Nothing comes from both. Nothing comes from neither.

Bam! Very good. Bam!

[Speaker 2]
Are those the opening lines?

[Speaker 1]
They are, in fact. I mean, after the obeisance, after the prostration, those are the opening lines. I've verified that.

Yeah, Tibetan. Go ahead, Venerable Phil. Wow!

He uses kye, but yes, dak kye. But yeah, well, fair enough, Nagarjuna didn't speak Tibetan either. Well, we don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead and give me this word in English. Here's a vocabulary word. It's on the bottom of the screen there.

Misbah, misbah. Actually, I've changed it from bah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, sashay. Oh, a text on wisdom.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. And without an S too, right? He spells it without an S, yeah, and sometimes with an S.

Good, yeah. Now, you let the B off. What?

The water. No. Ah, good, good, nice.

Because then it would mean grass wisdom. Grass wisdom. I'm just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun.

[Speaker 1]
I actually found it with the bow also. Maybe that was a mistake. It's a mistake.

Okay. It was sawa chidam.

[Speaker 2]
Sawa chidam.

[Speaker 1]
It didn't have a dot between the wa and the sh.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
I predicted. That's why, yeah, okay, okay. That explains that.

Yeah. So I put wisdom here in quotes because that's what the child likes. That's what the Garjuna thought the title should be.

Uh, Chodzhen Nalang Palden breaks Master Chandrakirti's reputation of the lower middle way into three parts. Name those three. Whoa.

Yeah, this is... That's difficult. Trying to keep us all where we're at in the text.

Hmm. Where we're at in our deviation from the text. No, we're in the deviation from the deviation.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Today we're going to do a deviation of deviation of deviation. I think we're already third tier going into fourth.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Hmm. Name those three.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Lord.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I didn't explain to you. But if I show you the first one, you can probably guess the other two. Reasons why they're wrong?

[Speaker 2]
Uh, well, I can... Yeah. I can read the top of those.

[Speaker 1]
Reasons why they're... Yeah. Proving...

Proving them to be wrong. No, good. Reasons why they're wrong.

That's the first one. Okay. But you should give it a...

Go ahead and say it, Ben. Uh, showing that you already accept those reasons. Showing that they already...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Showing that they already accept our... Actually... In essence, yeah.

Actually... Did you want to put... Yeah.

Yeah, I thought of it, and that's why I didn't put it. But I feel like I should have, because I didn't remember. Okay.

You warming up? Okay. Oops.

Showing them that they already accept our logic, and... Wait. If we stretch, we can remember.

It didn't work. Ready? Okay.

Reasons that those criticisms... Oh, yeah, yeah. Our own.

Our own. Our own criticisms.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Cool, right? Yeah, it was cool. What's that mean?

Paropos. Everybody except Ben. Outer...

People who believe in outer objects? Close. Kind of...

Relates to what you just said. Outer objectors?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, go ahead, Ben. We just continue to preserve the facade that I know.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, nice. Paropos. He uses it as a word to talk about svatantrikas.

Oh. Like, because you're studying parching in the monastery when you're studying... He refers...

He referred to them... I wouldn't say no. It just means the other guys here.

Oh, really? Really? The outsiders?

But he was pretty specifically referring... He keeps referring to svatantrikas. No, he wouldn't call them parchimbos or something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right, so they're just... That's a very late thing. Okay.

Yeah. It sure seems like it's a cool... All right.

This one? Um... Kece?

Trigra? Not kece. Those are naros.

Oh. This is a very important word. It's common.

Give you guys a hint. Punis problem, right? Yeah, punis problem.

Punis problem. Yeah, what kind of problem? Yeah, actually you can figure it out.

Problem you express? It means to complain about somebody.

[Speaker 2]
Right, criticism. Criticize.

[Speaker 1]
Criticism. Whoops. Well, don't show the answer.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
What claim... What controversial claim...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no, it's going to make me angry.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Did K.J.F.J. make about the difference in how upper... This is especially for you to not answer.

[Speaker 2]
It's going to hurt me.

[Speaker 1]
It's going to hurt your feelings. Ah, well, why am I doing this? What claim did K.J.F.J. make about the difference in how upper and lower middle-weight philosophers take the guardians' statements? It's controversial. It's controversial? Well, that's the best answer I can give you.

If you've been paying attention, it's very controversial. It's not the ultimate thing. It is.

It does have to do with that.

[Speaker 2]
It's what?

[Speaker 1]
The ultimate thing, he said. Ultimate? Definitely, but it specifically relates to the tetralemma.

[Speaker 2]
Right. She likes it.

[Speaker 1]
She likes tetralemma. I like tetralemma. The who?

The four, the guardians' four-part tetralemma. Tetralemma? Oh, that's cute.

If he gives me a chance to complain about somebody else's conjunction, I'd like to find out about it. I didn't give a hint. All right, whatever.

Here we go. He said that both schools take starting from the South, both or neither, to be impossible. But he says that as far as coming from other, that upper middle way says it's conventionally impossible while lower middle way says that it's conventionally possible.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
Which seems to be the opposite of what we've said at other times.

[Speaker 2]
Remember, Geshe-la?

[Speaker 1]
No, I gotta look at it. Good, yeah, that's true. He said that.

And it's kind of controversial because we thought it was the opposite way. It's ultimately conventional. Why would you say that?

I'm just warning you what's coming. Oh, man. Do you want me to take the blame?

Do you want me to pull up where that is? Do you want me to crash the thing?

[Speaker 2]
No, I'm okay.

[Speaker 1]
Are you ready? Here we go. No, I do recall, and it is true.

Why it's true, we're not going there today. My feelings have been hurt by this whole, we arrived at that part. But I did prepare for your class.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, thank you, Geshe-la. As opposed to somebody else's class.

[Speaker 1]
I thought yours was going to be easier.

[Speaker 2]
We all take our turns.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry about that.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-oh. Glad to be here.

[Speaker 1]
In my bed. Complaints. Oh, let me see if I can break it anywhere.

So this is a new version, you said, right? It is, but I haven't hit you with the new stuff yet. This is where we stopped last time.

Okay. Those whose eyes are not poisoned by the poison water of jealousy should clearly understand this point. Yeah, that's right.

Probably referring to someone who was jealous of some kind of person. Which did happen. Okay.

There's no way to cut it. Let me see if I can cut it just artificially. How about here?

It's hard with this fat cursor. Okay. Seiji, you got the plane.

Find something wrong with his pronunciation. I'll give you ten dollars. Okay, fine.

Go slow so you can find something. You may buy. Why did you buy some money for us once?

What was that again? That was like a cup of tea. Cup of tea.

Very good. Okay. jorwa gupa...

So, I remind you that jorwa can mean tensing.

[Speaker 2]
It's syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? A whole syllogism, Jason, can be called a jorwa. jorwa gupa...

We had gupa, like taksu gupa. Gupa, gupa, same thing. To set forth.

[Speaker 2]
To put forth. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Jorwa gudzo... So, you know, you've been arguing about Bhagavad-Gita, the way he put forth the argument. Where is it?

You know, like, what... How did he... How did he mess up this syllogism?

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You want to see how they did it? Jorwa gudzo? I'll give you verbatim.

Okay? But let's go to Umanangwa. Light on the middle way.

Bye. I'm guessing it's Chandrakirti? I think it's Kamalashila.

Oh. Really? You can check in the Tohoku penlang.

You want to do?

[Speaker 2]
Cool. You want me to do?

[Speaker 1]
He's already checking. You want to do it, or you want me to do it? I want to do it.

Madhyamakaloka. Madhyamakaloka. You guys are too smart.

I'm going to look it up myself. Delete our old... I'm going to look up Umanirnang.

Okay? Just as a policy. I lost my Tohoku search fields.

Ta-da! Kamalashila.

[Speaker 2]
He is the author. Got it?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Kamalashila. All right. So...

Sorry. Let's go back to the text. So, here's Kamalashila's version of Bhagavad Gita.

Jorwa. Syllogism. Anything which, ultimately speaking...

Okay? There's the mistake. Kamalashila said that.

Anything which, ultimately speaking, doesn't come... Okay? Doesn't born, either from itself, or from something else, or from both, or from nothing.

Okay? Anything which is divorced from that kind of starting, anything which is free of that kind of starting, that's what we call emptiness. That's gong-yi me-pa.

That's a lack of a nature. How can you tell that something is empty? It doesn't start from itself.

It doesn't start from something other than itself. It doesn't start from both. And it doesn't start from nothing.

Okay? Three of those are conventionally acceptable. Yeah.

Things don't grow from themselves. They don't grow from both. They don't grow from something else.

Always they grow from something other than themselves. A watermelon grows from a seed. Right?

A wife gets angry from what the husband said. He said, there's something other than himself. Okay?

Got it? But, he used dun-dan-par. He sure did.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now, there's some justification for saying it with shen. Why? Because the lower middle way, apparently, is saying...

Because conventionally speaking... Because conventionally speaking, what? Things do come from other things.

Things do come from other things. So, it's okay. It would seem okay, if the guy felt it necessary to say, things don't come from themselves.

Things don't come from something else, ultimately speaking. And they don't come from nothing, and they don't come from both. That would be okay.

But he's stuck, ultimately, on all four. Right. He said it before he started in on love.

Okay? And therein lies the debate. Okay?

Maybe we can... Okay, got it? Yeah.

Danny gave his tempeh yangdat, which means what? What's tempeh yangdat mean? Correct example.

The fourth element in a logical statement.

[Speaker 2]
All right. Classical example.

[Speaker 1]
Take Moscato restaurant. We should go there tonight, because the food is good. It's just like Pacchime in Phoenix.

So, when you say it's just like... This is two of our favorite restaurants. Pacchime serves street food, street Mexican food.

It's really good. So, anyway, and they have 35-cent pastries, which we don't eat. Which, ultimately speaking, we don't eat.

We just look at them with... Okay. Some day Texas will have pictures of them.

We do. They're so beautiful. Do you know a good Mexican pastry selection for 35-cent?

Anyway, anyone you want. So, here's his tempeh yangdat. It's like Pacchime.

Okay, it's always the fourth element in a logical statement. Da-da-da, it's da-da-da, because da-da-da, it's like da-da-da. Okay?

Here's his like. What? A lotus in the sky.

Good. Sky flower. Here's your sky flower.

Nam khe pe mo. Sometimes, o is added to the word lotus, just because. Okay?

They say pe mo. Okay? But it's not padma.

Padme means what? Lotus born? Om mani padme hum means what?

In the lotus. It's a locative. So, padme means in the lotus.

Padma means the lotus. Padmo is just a corruption that people like to use. Okay?

Per nam nam khe pe mo la sokpa tabu-wo. Rang dang shen gyi yangdakpa yukpa meype ngopa thangche gyang de nendro kono yin no. And all the things that people say, whether they're Buddhist or non-Buddhist, exist ultimately.

They're all the same. Okay? Okay?

Can you say that one more time? All the things that our own, that us and others say, I believe this rang dang shen is our group and other groups. All the, all things, baba, that people say are, exist purely, meaning ultimately, yangdakpa, okay?

Are the same. Gyang de nendro kono yin no. There's no exceptions.

Kono yin no. She sung. What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Who said? Good.

[Speaker 1]
End of quotation. End of quotation. so they just wanted to show you where is this syllogism found where Baba Nirveka says ultimately, and it turns out to be Kamalashila that he's using as an example.

His teacher was, who devotedly followed Baba Nirveka. Baba Nirveka. Okay.

Okay. This is an interesting added thing. Shepe shen ke gopay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oops. Wow, that's interesting.

Yeah. What's it say? Chok shen sum gopa la.

La. To the other. Le labo.

Oh, easy. Yeah, easy. Easy to understand the reference.

How many of these pieces are easy? Three. Three.

Birth from self, birth from both, birth from neither. Those are easy. Yeah.

Yeah, we didn't think that a mom, that a baby was born from a baby. Yeah, anyone, we don't understand those. But, dake gopa la dun gye jangwa mi they par ok tu tun de.

But the idea of adding dundam, ultimately speaking, even to, to dake, coming from itself. Why we don't have to jangwa that.

[Speaker 2]
Why we...

[Speaker 1]
Why that word.

[Speaker 2]
Why it's mi they. It's incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to tumba.

[Speaker 2]
Talk about a blow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Ok, dang, you're boring. Ok, that's cool.

We just got through, why did I have that, what do you call it? Diversion? Why did we detour?

Why did we just detour? We just finished a detour within a detour. Ok, this detour was necessary because we didn't know what the syllogism was.

You know, and we didn't know it was referring to Nagarjuna. Ok, ok, now you do. So when he's, when Baba Viveka's talking, Baba Viveka is proposing an adjustment to Nagarjuna.

Nagarjuna shouldn't have said things don't grow from self, other, and both, neither. He should have said, ultimately speaking. So Baba Viveka's kind of trying to correct Nagarjuna.

And then, based on that, he's giving a syllogism. Dundampar, you know, dak le kyewa chod chen, things don't arise from themselves.

[Speaker 2]
And, and that leads to a second fight.

[Speaker 1]
Is it ever possible for two people in an argument to see the same thing? Ok, if a wife, we've been giving examples, it's not us, ok? If a wife and a husband don't agree on what restaurant to go to, because they have different perceptions of the quality of the food there, then to have a discussion, someone has to say, can we talk about that restaurant?

Ok? The discussion has to start with, can we talk about that restaurant? But what that restaurant is, is by definition, different to the wife and to the husband.

So, how can you have an argument about something, whether they have good food, for example, or not, if you already don't see the same restaurant? When I say, take the restaurant, if you don't see the same thing, then how can you have an argument about it? Why does that relate to this syllogism?

Bhaviveka felt it was necessary to say, restaurant, ultimately speaking. He's trying to clarify, perhaps, whether there is a restaurant that exists that we can agree upon. That both can talk about.

You know? Do two people in an argument, ever, see the thing that they're arguing about as the same thing? This is a very fundamental question.

You see what I mean? And there's something to do with Bhaviveka feeling, he had to add, ultimately, to the restaurant. You see what I mean?

Otherwise, the other person wouldn't know what he's talking about. I'm not talking about whether or not things come from themselves. I'm talking about whether or not things come from themselves, ultimately.

Now let's talk about that, because he's feeling the other guy might see the Chöchen more clearly. Got it? So, that's why we go here.

And he's not talking about the dog-like khewa, in the sense of... No, the dog here does not mean a self-existent thing.

[Speaker 2]
It doesn't mean that. Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't mean a self-existent thing. That's a different dog. The dog in Dangzhen is not the dog here.

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
Wrong. Got it? Okay.

Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, are they just remembering it differently? No, you're going to get a third one also.

[Speaker 2]
Shouldn't we, at some point, actually find it and bother it back up?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Maybe. Yeah, we should go there.

And by the way, he does get it. I don't know if I cut it out or not. Okay.

Okay, so we finished that. We just wanted to make it clear that the syllogism we're talking about, the proof that we're talking about, is the one that relates to Nagarjuna's first birth. That's all.

That whole digression must establish that we're talking about the first birth of Nagarjuna. It's an argument about the first birth of Nagarjuna. Okay, got it?

Okay. Now we're going back to the first diversion. Ready?

[Speaker 2]
Here we go.

[Speaker 1]
We're sort of ready. I want to go back. Let me remind us where we are.

Oh, there we are. The Tathagraha. Well, okay, I'll just quickly review.

Okay, we don't have to read the Tibetan. Okay, just listen. We're going to refute Bhagavad-gītā, okay?

In three parts. Number one, we're going to explain why it wasn't necessary for him to add the word, ultimately. Number two, ,CHOD CHEN CIG TZAM, ,DZIN PA'I LEN DGAG PA'O, Apparently, it says, we're going to disagree with his response where he said, can't we just talk about the restaurant in general?

Because that's what you would like to think happens when you say, let's talk about Moscato. You know, I know you don't want to go there tonight, but I do really want to go there tonight because they have good food and you don't. Okay, separating Moscato restaurant from good food or bad food, can we talk about it, honey?

Okay, before we decide if it's good or bad. Okay, got it? Then, okay, those are the two great parts, okay?

So, we worked our way through why him adding ultimately, okay? And we said, you can add ultimately, there's no sense to add ultimately to ,DAK CHE, growing from itself. So, and there's no need to add it to the CHOD CHEN either.

Okay, and the CHOD CHEN, by the way, is the I, etc. Okay, you don't have to say ultimately the I doesn't grow from itself. But you also don't have to say the I ultimately doesn't grow from itself.

[Speaker 2]
Got it? Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Two choices. First is true because, ,SNGA ROL LA BSTOD NAS YANG DGOS PA MED, the guy making the argument doesn't want to add ultimately. SNGA ROL LA BSTOD NAS YANG DGOS PA MED, the guy listening to the argument doesn't need it either.

By the way, who's the guy listening to this argument? No, it's a... it's one kind of chiropa.

It's one kind of Hindu school. This logic by Nagarjuna was presented to the mudekpas. Nagarjuna's opening verse was aimed at the mudekpas.

Got it? Yeah, it is and it's coming. Okay, then thirdly, JIG RTEN PO LA LTAR NE.

Even if we were not philosophers, yeah, you don't have to say ultimately speaking, okay? Okay, got it? Okay, here we go.

Then we went on a side trip to establish that we were talking about Nagarjuna. Really. Okay, got it?

Uh... Now, TSA LTAG NYID PA CHUB TE. Uh...

What was TSA LTAG NYID PA? B. I put numbers because I couldn't remember in the car.

There's no need to add it to the CHUD CHEN. Okay? Okay?

There's no need to add ultimately to the I.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? That's where we are. Okay, go.

Uh... Here. TSA LTAG NYID PA CHUB TE.

You don't have to add it to the CHUD CHEN. You don't have to say the Moscato restaurant, which I like. You getting hungry?

Go, read. TSA LTAG NYID PA CHUB TE. Sugeng, you have the plane.

You don't criticize people very well. CHUD CHEN. He's really bad at it.

CHUD CHEN. LA CHOR NA. NAGOL LA TUR TE CHUD CHEN.

TUR TE. TUR TE. I lost my tongue.

BADR PE KEN DU GYUR WE CHIR. GYUR WE. What's the NAGOL, the second one?

Unnecessary for the NAGOL? I thought the NAGOL was the first one. Yeah, it was.

And I think it might have even been TAGOL. Yeah, the ngago is the first one. He's got his outline confused.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
I hate to say it.

[Speaker 1]
It's unnecessary for the Madhyamika guy. Okay? The Buddhist guy.

Anyway, it seems to me he's got his numbers mixed up. No, he said part two, I think. He said satang nipa, second part of my original reason.

Anyway, let's just keep going. Dundagye khepa chö chen na jona. If you say, ultimately, the I isn't born from itself, from other, from both, or from neither.

Okay? If you add the word ultimately at the beginning of the sentence. Okay?

It's wrong, because if you do that, nga gu la tte te chö chen ma drup, he can't, you haven't even established the same subject. Then, relative to the debate horde, who started the debate, he couldn't accept the chö chen anymore. The debate horde.

Yeah, the Madhyamika guy, or the Buddhist guy, in Gini Garjuna's case. If he had said, ultimately, your I, then already you have a chö chen which he cannot accept. Because it doesn't exist.

What's the big debate here? When two people argue, do they ever see the thing they're arguing about the same way? Because if they don't, how can you have an argument?

How can you even decide what you're arguing about? He's gonna go a little bit more. Okay, so nga gu la tte te, we had te in Sugeng's text, and if you can't tell me, I'm gonna strangle somebody.

Yeah, te drup. It's almost a definition of tendrel. Te drup.

Nice. God, you're weird. Okay, go, read.

He remembers everything. Probably if he sneezed, he remembers everything. te kun tso pe mik tso tsu shir sung me dun dam par kye wang gok pe kye me to shen na.

Well, if you take the tsu shi, which is the chö chen.

[Speaker 2]
Tsu shi is a synonym for chö chen.

[Speaker 1]
Tsu shi is a synonym for chö chen. If you take the thing you're debating about as a conventionally or a deceptive eye, E-Y-E, then it wouldn't be so weird to have to add ultimately to the birth that it doesn't have. If the chö chen you're treating is something that doesn't already ultimately exist, it still wouldn't be weird to say the word ultimately with reference to the way it doesn't start.

Okay, that's his argument, the other guy. The other guy is saying that. Couldn't we say ultimately with the second part of the argument?

I understand we don't have to say ultimately. It's almost wrong to say ultimately about the eye, because it doesn't exist ultimately. It exists deceptively.

But assuming we all know that the eye exists deceptively, isn't it still okay to say ultimately about the way it doesn't start?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
And we say still wrong. De yang mi rik te, still wrong. Why?

De yang mi rik te, de kye tu ma me pe chir dam. First of all, it wasn't said that way. By whom?

[Speaker 2]
Papa Viveka?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, quote it again, Phil. Dak le. Dak le ma yin.

Dak le ma yin. Shen le min. Nyi le ma yin.

Gyu min. Did anybody hear Dundambar? No, I didn't hear it.

Okay, so, you know, de kye tu ma me, it wasn't said that way. What? The original, the Guardian didn't think it was necessary to say ultimately.

Okay, got it? He was messing with people's minds. He said, they also don't start from other things.

Then he wants some kind of reaction, you know, everybody's supposed to go, ahh! Okay, chir dam, me nam, even if he had said it, which he didn't, okay? Past tense.

[Speaker 2]
Me nam.

[Speaker 1]
Even if he had said it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it.

[Speaker 1]
Chir gu la chir chir ma drub pa'i khen du gyur we chir. Then the, then the chir chir would be unacceptable to the other guy. To the other guy, to the guy listening, okay?

If you add, ultimately speaking, to the subject under consideration, right? It's already unacceptable to the other guy. Why?

Now you see the real opponent in the Guardian's verse. Sankhya, it's a Sankhya. Yeah.

Get them. chung chen gyi mik sok um ma pe, ndrub pa tar gyi tun dam du, ndrub kyi khun sok tum mi ndrub pa'i chir ro. Yeah, because the Sankhyas, etc., the mudekpas, who Nagarjuna was Buddhist, when they talk about the I, E-Y-E, what they're talking about is the, ultimately speaking, thing that the Middle Way school describes.

[Speaker 2]
What? Say again.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I think I understand. Sankhyas think the I exists, E-Y-E exists, in exactly the way, the illegal ultimately way, according to the Madhyamikas.

Got it? If you accept what we criticize as being impossible, they say, is the nature of things.

[Speaker 2]
The Sankhya is accepted in the form of the umma, gaccha, in the form of the thing that we deny as umma.

[Speaker 1]
Right. But doesn't it just say umma pe drub? No, umma pe drub pa tar.

In the way that ummapas, in the way that Madhyamikas take the word ultimately, okay? They say that's fine. And they say, khun sok tum mi ndrub, it's not fake.

They say it's not fake. So why do you have to say ultimately speaking to them? Well, I guess you could say they don't accept the difference anyway.

It's always been ultimate. To them, in that way. Yeah, okay.

So, there's no reason, from the opponent's point of view, there's no reason to add the word ultimately. They already think it's ultimate. Okay?

There's no distinction between the two. No reason to add it for us, no reason to add it for them, no reason to add it for farmers. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
Nipa ni... By the way, nipa... It goes back to up here.

I thought the last one they just called nipa also. Well, I may... I don't think I have it wrong.

This gets interesting, why I left it in your digression, is that you can't say, can we just talk about the restaurant in general? You know? A rule of argument with another person is that you must be arguing about the same thing.

Okay? If you already start talking... If I say Moscato and she understands René's, then the whole defense of Moscato's food becomes irrelevant, because we're talking about different restaurants.

Okay? We've got to be talking about the same restaurant. Okay?

So, can... Now that we're talking about... Are you talking about Moscato in Cambridge?

Yeah, I'm talking about Moscato in Cambridge. The place we went? Yeah, that place.

Okay? Now, can we ever talk about the same restaurant? Because I perceive it as a wonderful, wonderful place, and my wife might not perceive it as a wonderful, wonderful place.

So every time I say the word Moscato, are we actually seeing different things in our minds? And then how can we have a discussion? Because it's a different restaurant.

Okay? Then the answer, proposed answer is, let's just talk about the restaurant in general. Don't think good food, bad food.

Can we just talk about the restaurant in general? Then we'll talk about the food. Do you...

Are we talking about the restaurant that's on Third Street? Yeah, that's called Chöchen Chi Tsao. Just the restaurant by itself.

Okay? The restaurant by itself. Got it?

Here we are. This is going to help a lot in the arguments about restaurants. Read.

Oh, you got the plane. I should give the plane to Tangtang. Tangtang, you take the plane.

Pairna. Pairna? Pairna.

[Speaker 2]
Pairna.

[Speaker 1]
Be mean. Be loud. Be like word.

It should be junkyur, by the way. Junkyur. Oh, I see.

This is wrong. Good. Good.

The discussion of whether it's possible for the wife and the husband to talk about the same restaurant, okay, is often referred to in earlier argument about sound, drajchen viddhāti cepacir, the most famous logical statement in Buddhism. Okay? Sound is not eternal.

Who said it was eternal? Yeah, some Hindu schools. With reference to the word?

They thought Om was God's name, and, you know, like Yahweh, and it's eternal, and it will last forever, and blah, blah, blah. Runs the universe, okay? So, lekten nare.

If lekten nare said that, yeah, he claims. Yeah, now, is it... He's gonna...

He's gonna talk about whether or not the husband and wife can see the same restaurant, when they argue about mascaras, okay? Got it? Pairna, for example, sanggepe, the Buddhists, when the Buddhists talk to the cetarpas, the detailists, uh-uh.

Yeah, there's a Buddhist group called detailists. There's a non-Buddhist group called detailists.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh.

[Speaker 1]
Dramitabhadrupana, when they prove that... Good. When they prove that sound is a changing thing to them, because Buddhists think it changes second by second.

They think it's unchangeable forever. Om. Okay?

Madhumna, misspelled, jung gyur, okay? There's jungwa and jung gyur. Jungwa means the four...

[Speaker 2]
elements. Four great elements.

[Speaker 1]
Satchumelung. Satchumelung. Which are they?

[Speaker 2]
Earth, water, fire, wind. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, the Abhidharma, his book, talks about the four elements, and the jung gyur. The eleven products of the elements. The products of the elements.

We had it in Adam's text. That was in my text. Oh, maybe it was in both.

No, we had it in Adam's text. It was in mine also. Remember it was like...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
It was like verse 35 or something. So, when a Buddhist argues about sound, they're thinking of something that's a result of certain elemental forces. Gravity, inertia, you know, like this.

Okay? And, ja chö chen du sung na, they hold, sung, jin, they hold, that the thing that their guys, the two guys are arguing about, is sound as a produced thing of the elements.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? But, the chö dakpa, say, min du, it's not that. There is no such sound.

It's a good Moscato restaurant. Okay? When the, when Michael starts talking about Moscato restaurant, it's like heaven.

Okay? Got it? And it's not the one you're thinking of.

Got it? This is pretty, this is pretty cool. And the other guys, nang kye yun ten kyi dak, they think sound is a thing that is a quality of the sky.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I went and got it for you, which is the digression, and the digression, and the digression. I went and got it for you. Okay?

Because you need it to make a footnote. Chö chen du sung. So, who dak, who takes the chö chen to be nang kye yun ten?

The... drum... The chitarpas.

[Speaker 2]
Chitarpas.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? The opponent takes sound to be a quality of space. Because it's eternal.

Okay? Got it? Yeah.

The Buddhists, when they're arguing about sound, they're thinking of sound, which is produced by movement of the palate, and the tongue, the teeth. Okay? It's a famous thing.

Therefore, the thing they're arguing about, the thing that the opponent's arguing about, doesn't even exist for them. And the thing the Buddhists are arguing about, doesn't exist for the non-Buddhists. The Moscato restaurant that the Buddhists want to argue, doesn't exist for the non-Buddhists, and the Moscato restaurant that exists for the non-Buddhists, doesn't exist...

Who's talking? The Buddhists. I mean, Lek Den Nare.

Okay? Lek Den Nare. Who says there's a problem of Chö Chens?

Yeah, you better add ultimately. Okay? Why?

Because otherwise, you're not talking about the same thing, which is illegal.

[Speaker 2]
Got it?

[Speaker 1]
Now, if it's me, and I'm in the car, and Jigme's driving, and I'm listening to rock and roll, what song was it? Jimi Hendrix. A bad Jimi Hendrix.

Yeah. We kind of got stuck on a bad Jimi Hendrix, we couldn't turn it off. I will go look up Nam Khyenten, because I don't understand.

I don't understand it. I never heard of this.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's the quality of the sky.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, why do they think it's the quality of the sky? If I'm a translate whore, understand everything or don't translate. Take time or don't translate.

You make a choice. You can't be a translator, if you want to go fast. Okay?

If you don't understand it, stop and go back. Until you understand it, then go forward. Okay?

Or don't get in this game. And don't get in this room, if you don't want to do 10 years of it. Okay?

Okay? Got it? Here we go.

So, I went and got it for you, so... You have two minutes over.

[Speaker 2]
I... Come on, he started late. I just work here.

I'm not going. I'm just letting you know.

[Speaker 1]
We got to at least know about the quality of the sky. I agree. I'll give you the easy answer, and then we'll do it more in detail later.

Okay? We'll do it more in detail in your next class. Start here.

Rekja? Oh. Rekja-ni-sa-chu-me-lung-shi, kye-yin-ten-yin-la, suk-ni-sa-chu-me-sung-ki, yin-ten-tang, ro-ni-sa-chu-nyi-ki, yin-ten-tang, ju-ni-sa-yi-yin-ten-tang, ja-ni-nam-ke-yin-ten-tang.

Stop there. There's your answer. Yeah.

Okay? This is their school, in a long, long explanation on their school.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
What year is this from, basically? Uh... Gelong-shirvambu...

Is it a Drupada? It is a Drupada text. I don't know which one it is.

F... nine-eight... oh-nine-eight-oh?

I'll find everything in here. Now, here's the... here's the answer to your question.

Rekja is a quality of four elements. Uh-huh. Sa-chu-me-lung?

Yeah. All four elements. Sukh-nir.

Sukh. In a list of... objects.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-uh.

[Speaker 1]
In a list of... of corresponding to the senses. What Sukh have to be?

[Speaker 2]
Visible things.

[Speaker 1]
Visible things.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
Don't translate this physical here.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Oops, sorry. I'm getting excited.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Things... things you touch are made of all four elements. Uh-huh.

Things you see are made of... Sa-chu-me. Sa-chu-me.

Just three of them. Who got kicked out? Uh...

Wind. Wind. I don't know why.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
You can't see the wind. Tastes are made of... Earth and water.

Yeah. Kicked out fire and air. Tastes fire.

It smells. Maybe somebody's saying, well, I don't know. It smells.

It's just water. It's just earth. And sounds are space.

Okay, got it? Whoa. Okay.

Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
See, if you don't look it up, you'll never know.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
This is some weird idea they have. It was so weird, it wasn't even in your text. Or was it?

[Speaker 2]
I was just double-checking for weeks.

[Speaker 1]
Did you do that?

[Speaker 2]
Uh... This is technically by Shishika, but they agreed that this song is...

[Speaker 1]
Uh...

[Speaker 2]
Space comes from sound, wind comes from tangible things, water comes from tables, wind comes from smells. We could do that.

[Speaker 1]
And not from... What did the Buddhists think? Uh...

[Speaker 2]
The four elements. All four elements.

[Speaker 1]
All four elements. They say it comes from a fifth element. Fifth element.

That'd make a good movie.

[Speaker 2]
Got it? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, got it? Yeah. It's awesome.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. That's cause Jigme drives me around all the time, buys groceries, pays my bills. She gives up her time to give me time.

And she's done it for many, many years. Thank you, Jigme. Thank her.

Tomorrow.