Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 29

[Speaker 1]
duragham andhalam kamye dakmi kyav suci dakhi chönyen gibe sanam gi do lam pen chir sange drupak shok sange chö dam sok gi chok nam la jang chu par du dakmi kyav suci dakhi chönyen gibe sanam gi do lam pen chir sange drupak shok sange chö dam sok gi chok nam la jang chu par du dakmi kyav suci dakhi chönyen gibe sanam gi do lam pen chir sange drupak shok Do you need some water? Sure? Maybe to them can you get a glass of water?

Okay. I'm trying to make more questions out of the same subject. Over and over.

I make them less confusing. Yeah, hopefully it's getting less confusing. I don't know.

What is an early subject of Buddhist debate that is mentioned as an example of what we're currently talking about? What are we talking about?

[Speaker 2]
Sound is a changing thing. Oh, good.

[Speaker 1]
I'm so glad you guys are here. I've got people. I've got a team here.

Okay. Sound is a changing thing. So why are we talking about sound being a changing thing?

[Speaker 2]
Because we're talking about whether or not two people can debate about the same thing.

[Speaker 1]
Awesome. That's why she makes three bucks. She's paying attention.

Yeah, good. What is this subject made of? Whoa.

Yeah, sound. It depends on who you ask.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
It's actually not a bad question.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so according to... That's why they can't. Is it that they can't?

Anyway, according to the non-Buddhists, what is it made of? Anybody? Space?

Yeah. Nice. Made of space.

It's a cosmic space. Oops. Now, because I couldn't, I was having a lot of...

But what is it according to the Buddhists? The same thing.

[Speaker 2]
Om? Four elements?

[Speaker 1]
Nope.

[Speaker 2]
No, it's super simple.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Yeah, he did say that. He did say that.

But he also... Somebody's text had a more beautiful... It had the ken.

It had the chu. It had the so. It had the...

I thought it was... Jam? Jaw?

Palate? Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That was her text. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now listen. Now listen. According to the Prasangika, you are just making clicks and wheezes.

And then your karma is ripening, and you're understanding words. But you are creating the words that are being said to you. It's just clicks and whistles.

And then you hear someone explaining the Diamond Cutter Sutra, if you have the karma. Got it? That's what sound is according to Prasangika.

That's what words are according to Prasangika. The other person is making clicks and wheezes. Parotals, dentals, labials, and gutturals.

He says in the text. And then, because of your karma, you are hearing words. And words you like and words you don't like, or words that make you enlightened.

You wrote all the sutras. You created TBRC.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Great? By the way, the karma of working on this stuff for a long period of time is that it just opens itself to you. Like somebody taking their shirt off.

It's like, here I am, you know? No, it's like, it's amazing, you know? If you keep...

If you keep... I'm sorry, bad example. No, I just want to say it's like somebody going, here I am, you know?

And if you keep... Karmically, the deal they have here is they get paid to work on their own text for six weeks, and then they have to spend six weeks on the database. And it's the time you spend on the database that gives you the karma to translate.

Got it? So we have a system. Yeah, and they have to do both.

They have to alternate between the two. So... And this is the principle.

This is why, okay? Now the big question is in this most famous of all Buddhist syllogisms, which is Dracuchen, Mittakte, Cebichun, Perna, Bhubhashin.

[Speaker 2]
Bhubhashin.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now today, for today's class with me, we gotta... you gotta have your syllogism stuff down, okay? Ready?

And here's the classic syllogism of all time. Dracuchen. Yeah, so the first thing is is the subject under consideration.

Chuchen or tsushi. Second thing? Mittakte.

It's not eternal. It's not unchanging. Who thought it was?

Yeah, this non-Buddhist school, okay? It comes up in your text today, okay? Dracuchen, Mittakte, Cebichun.

[Speaker 2]
Because it was made.

[Speaker 1]
So the third slot in the syllogism is the reason. Perna, Bhubhashin. The fourth slot is an example that the other person...

give it in terms of wives and husbands in VOC.

[Speaker 2]
Aaron. No. No.

Yeah, let's talk about Minami Japanese Restaurant. We should go there. Because they have tempura.

[Speaker 1]
Because they have tempura.

[Speaker 2]
It's like...

[Speaker 1]
It's like El Patio. Yeah, it's like it is. Okay.

You guys have more expensive taste than me, man. No, I'm just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
It's like... What's that place? Mariposa or something.

Okay, got it? So, what's being discussed today is when the husband and wife fight about Minami Japanese Restaurant, do they ever see the same restaurant, right? And...

And what was the... What's Baba Viveka's syllogism?

[Speaker 2]
Arya Nagarjuna's.

[Speaker 1]
It's Arya Nagarjuna's. But it's only the first quarter of Arya Nagarjuna's. Let's take...

your physical eyeball. Let's take your eyeball.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you're right.

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

[Speaker 2]
It's a sense.

[Speaker 1]
It does not... Good, good, good, good, good. It doesn't come from itself, because...

Because it's an existing thing.

[Speaker 2]
It exists? Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because...

[Speaker 2]
It's like the mind.

[Speaker 1]
My next homework question is the other syllogism. It's like consciousness. No, I don't remember that part.

Okay. But this is... And then K.J.R.J. gives us another version of the syllogism, which was my third homework question. Yeah. Now, why are we going to... I'll come back to your homework.

But why are we going to this ancient debate? Why are we going to the first syllogism of all Buddhism? Why do we go back to the Aum syllogism?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, because...

[Speaker 1]
Are you talking about whether or not...

[Speaker 2]
People can hold the same chit-chat.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. It's still the same issue. Yeah.

Can they even see the same sound? When they're debating what is sound, are they seeing the same thing? And if they're not, if the husband and wife are arguing about the Japanese restaurant, and they're thinking of different Japanese restaurants, then what's the use of having a discussion?

If you're talking about the one in Flagstaff, Karma Sushi... There's a place in Flagstaff called Karma Sushi.

[Speaker 2]
It's good.

[Speaker 1]
It's a good restaurant. So if you're talking about Karma Sushi, and he's talking about Minami in Sedona, then how can you discuss the food, right? So that's the issue, got it?

If we're not talking about the same sound, if I say, take sound, and I'm trying to prove to you that Aum is not eternal, which is the first Buddhist argument of all time, then if we see different sounds, when I say, take sound, or if I say, take the Japanese restaurant, and you're talking about Japanese restaurants in two different towns, how can you have a meaningful discussion?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. There's a good one, a sushi place.

[Speaker 1]
And is it always the case that the husband and wife are not thinking about the same restaurant? Okay, even if they're thinking about the same one at the same address, they have a different concept of it. What are the two concepts of dra?

Shabda? No? There's the sound that's made from...

Yeah, good. The non-Buddhist guy says, dra is a nam ke yin ten. And there's a...

What's the issue that came up that's a little uncomfortable between your text and his text about this nam ke and yin ten? Do you remember? I believe, if I'm not mistaken, in your text, the yin ten is the result of sound.

And in your text, it's the opposite. There's a little discomfort here. Yin ten just happens to be the Tibetan translation of guna.

Is it that sound comes from space? Or is it that space comes from sound? Or is it that space is a quality of sound?

It seems to be a little disconnected.

[Speaker 2]
Right, but it's fine. He doesn't have to be referring to Sankhya. In fact, he was referring to Khyam Pemba's, we thought.

[Speaker 1]
We thought. We're going to see what it's made of. Okay, go.

It's whoever thinks Aum is eternal. I think we decided it was Khyam Pemba. Okay, go ahead.

What's the new version of the syllogism? Anybody remember? Well, it definitely had the word ultimately in it, but I think he moves it to the drupche cha.

Nice, nice, nice, nice, nice. Which element is the drupche cha? It's the assertion.

No, it's not. Drupche is the assertion.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, it's the assertion with the subject.

[Speaker 1]
It's the quality we're trying to prove.

[Speaker 2]
That's the assertion. In English, we call that assertion. Khyam is right.

The drupche cha is the subject.

[Speaker 1]
It's the second element by itself. It's the drupche cha. The drupche cha is one and two.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So it is in the drupche cha, in this version.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, anyway, I would suggest that inside, internally, one and two is the assertion, what the guy's asserting. Sound is changing. Sorry, sound is a changing thing.

Historically, we referred to the second element alone as the assertion. No, it's the quality being asserted. You see what I mean?

About the subject. You see? Yeah.

Because an assertion is a statement. Number two by itself is just a quality. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Manami, take the Japanese restaurant. It's a place we should go to.

I assert that. It's my assertion. The quality I assert is the desirability of going to.

Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
All right, go.

[Speaker 1]
And just for your information, he changed the subject to nyugu, which is a sprout. Yeah. And here's your Tibetan.

So he went, he made the whole assertion. Yeah. Ultimately, Well, he stuck it on the thought.

So this whole thing, I think. He stuck it on the third element. This syllogism puts it on the third element.

I thought this was part of the second element, actually. No, the second element ends at day.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it does. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I believe classically he might have added to the second one. But anyway, we're okay. Yeah, there was another version that we saw.

Yeah, we got three versions floating around. We sure do. In our three digressions within the digression.

Yeah. Explain to Jeff why we're talking about this. Like, go backwards.

Yeah, in Buddhism there's classically, in Indian Buddhism, there's the four philosophical schools. You know, the detailists, the sutras, the Meidolian middle way. The middle way is divided into two, the lower middle way and the upper middle way.

So we're studying, you know, I'm professionally translating a commentary on Nagarjuna's Sixty Verses on Reasoning in the commentary by Gyaltsabje. We got to a point in the text where Gyaltsabje digressed from one of his explanations about the differences between the lower schools, especially the the Hinayanists and the middle way. And he's like, that reminds me of the differences between the two middle way schools, completely out of nowhere.

Very artificial. He's just like, in any way, because he just wanted to talk about it. Because he just wrote a book about it.

That reminds me. He was plugging his previous book that hadn't sold well on Amazon. But what was the, I'm just, what's the purpose of the Sixty Verses?

Why did Nagarjuna write this book? To use the reasoning that's already accepted by the lower schools, to prove to them that they already accept the idea of emptiness of the higher schools, basically. Yeah.

Which is a difficult task to set yourself to. I will limit myself to lower sutras. I won't go to the perfection of wisdom.

I will stick to your lower books, and I'll prove to you lower guys that Buddha taught you the higher emptiness. That's what Nagarjuna is doing in your book. Yeah.

And then he just got on a digression, focusing on the upper middle way. So, then, how many qualities between the two Madhyamika schools? He listed ten, in the text.

In the commentary that we're studying, he listed ten distinctions between the upper and lower middle way. And classically, there's eight. So we started last term making an appendix outlining this stuff, which is super fascinating to me, and to all of us, to work on really drilling down on the differences between the two schools.

And it's been a question that I've had in my mind since I first came and started studying. I used to bug Ben about it. How does that relate to the name of the lower middle way school?

So they're called the Svatantrikas in Sanskrit, and the Rangipas in Tibetan, which means, like, independent reason. And the main difference seems to be that they accept that reasons have some kind of power from their own side, or some sort of something in the reasons that can change your mind to believe things differently. They seem to think there's something about the logic that has the power to change your mind, independent of the person hearing the logic.

And the upper middle way school believes that they imply that, anyway. And we're like, no, not even that. It's not true.

And so, that's where they got their name, apparently. How does that relate to the idea of 100% and 50-50? So, and then we digressed into the subject of the topic of conversation of whether or not a subject of a debate has something from its own side that we could talk about, or there's something about that subject that exists that we, the two people in an argument, can agree upon, so that we can even have a conversation about something.

And it seems to be that the lower middle way implies that there is, because there's a reason that proves that something, anyway. But in general, how does that relate to their general viewpoint of the way the world exists? So, it seems to imply that they would think that there is, in fact, something out there, appearing to a mind, that the mind then imbues with qualities.

Interprets, basically. Interprets, yeah. You could call them the interpreters.

They believe 50% of reality is coming this way, and then I interpret it. How's that different from the highest school? The highest school would say that even the thing that we think is being interpreted is also being projected from the mind.

Maybe in the moment before. Yeah, so you can break it down infinitely, and it's always something being projected from the mind. Which viewpoint is necessary to get enlightened?

According to us. According to the process, it's the highest viewpoint. Yeah, because you can't change your body and mind if it's coming 50% from its side.

Then it's hopeless. You should kill yourself. You'll never get out of pain.

If it's coming 100% from my seeds, then there's hope. Then there's some hope. Now, relate that to Tantra.

So, if it's true that things are 100% coming from your seeds, then if we could just learn how to work with those seeds in the most effective and efficient way, we could change the way that our mind is projecting this world. And Tantra contains the practices that make that possible within one lifetime. Because you learn how to find the highest karmic objects and work with that.

We learn the technology, I guess you could say, to transform the world quickly. So, which of the four schools of India is Tantra? Yeah, higher middle way.

Assumed. When you study Tantra, you're assuming you're in the higher middle way school. Otherwise, Tantra won't work.

If things are 50% from their own side, forget it. Kill yourself.

[Speaker 2]
That's true, too.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
In Sanskrit. Akasha, please. Isn't it?

Guna. Yes, Guna. How do you get a retroflex end?

[Speaker 2]
You retroflex. You bend your tongue back.

[Speaker 1]
If you bend your tongue back and you keep it that way, guess what you will sound like? Very good. Very good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, go.

[Speaker 1]
You finish vocabulary. Okay, here we go. Sorry.

Now, I put in a digression for the digression of the digression. I was hoping. Because I wasn't happy that I didn't understand Nam Ke Yinten.

So, we're discussing whether two opponents in a debate ever debate about the same thing, to start with. Because if they don't, you can't have a debate. Okay?

Then our guy said, Okay, forget this Baba Viveka syllogism. Okay? It's too complex.

Let's go to the oldest syllogism of all time. Take sound. It's changing because it's made.

Okay? For example, it's like a... It's a coffee cup.

Okay, got it? Let's go back to the earliest one of all times. And the two opponents never see sound in the same way.

Okay? The high middle way guys are thinking it's clicks and clacks. That their karmic seeds are organizing into words.

But the lower middle way thinks it's coming this way. How about the non-Buddhist?

[Speaker 2]
They think it somehow came out of space.

[Speaker 1]
Which specific sound? Yeah, okay. Okay, got it?

Okay. So then it said, I wanted to know what does it mean to come out of space? So you have here a footnote inside your footnote.

I'm just going to help you go to the guts of it. And we're going to read it there. Okay, this is all getting recorded with great sound, right?

I'm sort of deeply in this metaverse of quotes within quotes. Okay, we're in the middle of this is... Who is this?

Can you find out? 980, 0980.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I don't know who it is. It's a book about the two realities.

Which are? Kuntabdhamma. Deceptive reality and ultimate reality.

Okay. It's... Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

It's our Mongol genius. Okay. Alright, here we go.

Start here. Misspelled, okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, didn't we do this already?

[Speaker 1]
We did, but I just want to nail it. Sorry, did I just mess you up?

[Speaker 2]
That's for... Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Ah, you can stop. Okay. Now let's leave that.

Okay. Okay. So, if he's talking about 24 yintens, does that mean he's a Sankhya?

That would be the numerists. Okay, I didn't go backwards far enough to figure it out, okay. But I believe it has to be the Sankhya.

Okay. 24 qualities of existence. And they boil down to zegu.

Do you remember that? It's in your book.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But it was in last year. Zegu nang ne, among the nine substances, okay, kang gi yinpa, she du yu te. So if you try to discuss where the 24 qualities belong as far as the nine substances in the Sankhya school, and he phrases it as a syllogism.

There do exist a way to explain it. She du yu te, okay, she du yu te. And now we get the explanation.

Now you can read from here, I think. Yeah, right, it means touch is made of earth, water, and fire. I don't like to use touch because it can mean the action.

[Speaker 2]
Right, of course.

[Speaker 1]
So tangible things. Those are made of earth, water, and fire, and wind. All four.

Nice, nice, nice.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
And touchable, I mean seeable, or visible form, is made of earth, water, and fire, the three things. Good.

[Speaker 2]
And tasteables, things you can taste, are made of earth and water, both.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, those two.

[Speaker 2]
And smellable things are made of earth.

[Speaker 1]
Pronounce this correctly, because you were a little sloppy on me. Chi. It's not an English D, right?

Chi. Chi. Okay, it's not three.

[Speaker 2]
I thought I said three.

[Speaker 1]
I said tree, but you said sound. Sorry, I tend to get caught in my feet. Here's the punchline.

Ta-da! Sound is made of the quality of space.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
So the reason they've used the word yun ten in this discussion is because it's referring to the Sankhya school. Guna here is referring to the Sankhya school. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Right.

[Speaker 1]
In my opinion. And then I was at home, and I was thinking, well, what the hell does it matter? You know?

One impossible thing comes from that impossible thing, or that impossible comes from this impossible. Anyway. By the way, right here, it's just genitive, right?

It is a quality of space, maybe. Okay? It's not that it came from space, okay?

That's the only reason I'm going through this exercise. In this presentation, sound is a quality of space. You want to turn this off for a while?

Yeah, okay. The trick is to keep people awake. And keep them frozen.

Okay, good. Now we can skip to the rest of that digression, okay? But I'd like to go back to where we digressed from.

Uh... Uh... Uh...

Uh...

[Speaker 2]
Last turn?

[Speaker 1]
Are you saying we're going to go back to Gyatsabje, or are we going to go back to a previous Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche? Well, let's go to here. Uh...

It's a note on the Nangka Yinten for you. A free note. I'm not charging you.

Uh... And this is Lama... Okay, good.

Uh... Just read the sentence. It's going to help you a little bit.

Not gelte.

[Speaker 2]
Kelte.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, ja... Janzin nani te paropo lama drupo. Lama drupo.

Lama drupo. Oh, I see. Let me clean this up for you.

Just a second. Drupo drupo. Okay, good.

Drupo. Yeah, it's not true wo, okay? Don't ask me.

Yeah, so by the way, that's an ambiguity in the Tibetan language. It could have been so-so ke wo, but here it's drupo. Okay?

So they're talking about Minami Restaurant from two points of view.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Kelte. If it's the case...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that they're made from... that in one case they're made from the four great elements sound is. We believe it to be.

[Speaker 1]
This zin means take as the chichen. Oh, okay. We take as the chichen sound which is made from the four great elements.

Good, good, good. Then there's a problem. Paropa lama drup.

Uh... The other people don't accept it. To them it's not that way.

It doesn't exist. It's not real. It's Minami Restaurant which has good food.

Okay, got it? No, I mean it doesn't exist to them. So you can't take it as the example of what you're talking about.

To them that chichen doesn't exist, to the non-Buddhists. And now the opposite problem. One day.

And on the flip side they take the chichen to be a quality of space. If you were to take it. If one were, then Sanghepas, meaning Buddhists, that doesn't exist for them.

Yeah, to us. Rangni means us guys. Or Bhavaviveka himself, or whatever.

Sorry, I'm not going to take it. To we Buddhists. Yeah, to us guys.

Got it? So again, it's this statement that we don't see the same restaurant. So how can you talk about it?

We're not talking about the same restaurant in the first place. It's one of the rules of logic that you must be talking about the same thing or you can't have a discussion. It's one of the rules of, it's one of the basic rules of Thakrit, of the study of thinking.

If you're going to have a discussion, you have to be talking about the same thing. But he says it's impossible. It was even impossible back when we were fighting against the non-Buddhists about Aum.

Got it? That's a nice footnote. Now, going back to the digression within the digression.

This is our first, we're all the way back to our first digression. Which was, I forget what the Nipa means. Sorry, bear with me just a second.

Oh my god. No, I don't want to go that far. Yeah, it's a discussion about whether you can have, if it's possible to talk about the same thing or not.

And that's important because it's one of the eight differences between the two schools. And that's important because we're studying Gyaltsabje's commentary in the Gyanjana.

[Speaker 2]
Or at least all we know is it's one of the ten proposed differences.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well. It does come up in the eight. We found a few lists that we put in the appendix last time.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, right.

[Speaker 1]
Good question. Very good question. And it all boils down to what?

Is it coming halfway from its own side? All of this stuff boils down to are things coming halfway from their own side?

[Speaker 2]
So it seems like the Tantric Abode can see the same object.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to talk about it. It would be nice if that's what they thought. There's kind of a million gaps.

So, but here's your answer right here. Here's your answer right here. So I'm digressing to the beginning of our digression.

Nibbani, which is where we discussed can we talk about the same restaurant. Lekdenare, which means Lekdenjenare, which is unfair. If you're going to do a statistical analysis of how often Baba Viveka is mentioned in the Malayamika literature, you're going to give him out because they call him Bob.

Hey Bob. Yeah Bob. Yeah Bob.

I'm just joking. It's going to mess you up. Lekdenjenare.

I'm just going to read it because we had it before. Pernasangepe Chedapa in that om discussion is identified. Chedapa.

In Sanskrit? Not to be confused with?

[Speaker 2]
Vaibhashika.

[Speaker 1]
Just a single syllable difference. Pernasangepe Chedapa when they're trying to prove this drup means prove. When they're trying to prove that sound is changing jung gyur kyi da che chen du sung na if the Buddhist guy is considering sound a product of the elements Chedapa la mi drup.

They don't accept that. The other guy, it's like talking about a Minami restaurant which has good food. The wife doesn't even agree to that, to talk about it.

And, jung gyur kyi da che chen du sung na if the sound we're talking about is the one which is a quality of space then the Buddhist guy is not going to accept the restaurant. Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Can I translate it as if that doesn't exist for them?

[Speaker 1]
You can say that. And this should have been maybe this should have been maybe well, he's using in drup but I'm a little suspicious.

[Speaker 2]
But anyway, it's okay.

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't exist for us. And that doesn't exist for her. So how can you ever have a meaningful discussion about it?

Then we went off on a digression to find out what does it mean to say it's a quality of space. And now we're back to the original discussion. So I'm going to skip to a note on Nam Khen Yun Den which is a digression.

Can I double square brackets? I'm so nice to you. Okay, so here's three pages of footnotes.

God bless. Yeah, here's the triple square brackets. Is this so intimidating?

Okay, go. You might have noticed I had a little trouble with this sentence.

[Speaker 2]
Can I just keep going?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so obviously I had a little trouble with this sentence. And I'll give it to you as clearly as I can. They should do it in the same way No, in the same way they have trouble about the concept of sound.

The word sound. In the same way we have trouble about restaurant, we also have other troubles. Okay, got it?

We also have other troubles. Tsel chen pa Okay, what's the let's go logic logic terminology which is what, who's our specialist? Adam, okay?

This is his problem. We didn't get there yet. But the first element of syllogism is called tse chen or tse shi what we're arguing over.

tse means fight or argue. Okay, tse shi. What's the second element?

What's the third one called? And what's the fourth one called?

[Speaker 2]
No, come on, come on.

[Speaker 1]
The technical term for the fourth element. I'll give you the first word, ten. ten pe yang dak ten pe yang dak Correct example.

Yeah, good example accepted by both. ten, that they agree over. It's like it's like Rene.

Why is Rene a good example? We both agree it has good food. Okay, so it's a good ten it's a ten pe.

Okay, now let's go a little bit deeper. What's the one plus two called? jub cha jub cha, good.

What's the three relationships between these three guys called? tsu sum Yeah, tsu sum, the three relationships. What's the definition of a good reason?

tsu sum yin pa Technically you have to say de jub gi tsu sum yin pa in a certain proof. Okay, got it? What's if three, two?

jay kyap What's if not two, not three? mak kyap What's if one, three? No, this is jay kyap this is dok kyap and this is called?

tak yak po I forgot myself. Look up tsu sum in the great dictionary. jay kyap dok kyap chok kya It's the opening lines of chok kya de jay kyap gi It's the opening lines of the Pramana Mantra.

pak kya Okay which is also the word for wings Okay, so now in a ten gyur give me a ten gyur built from this thought from this syllogism, tensik You can call this a tensik or you can call it a jorwa the whole thing a syllogism can be called tensik it can be called rikpa it can be called jorwa and unfortunately it does mean other things also Now give me a ten gyur built on the same thing built on which thing? Give me a sarcastic statement built off of this off of, I mean one of the reasons Same point, I mean the same point you're trying to prove

[Speaker 2]
Okay

[Speaker 1]
I don't know

[Speaker 2]
Consider this computer

[Speaker 1]
It's gotta be are you telling me Give me an are you telling me statement which is the meaning of the word prasangika That's the meaning of the name for the higher school

[Speaker 2]
Are you telling me that

[Speaker 1]
they're apples because they're red? Yeah good, somebody says to you all fruit is orange all fruit is red, let's say that all fruit is red and then prasangika means Give me a prasangika No, you gotta have a chichen

[Speaker 2]
Oh okay, take bananas

[Speaker 1]
Let's take bananas No, don't be so sarcastic I taught you that Let's take bananas Huh, I guess they're red You know and it's effing with the guy's mind You see, right Oh, I guess they're red The guess is why And what's your thought

[Speaker 2]
No No, because it's a fruit

[Speaker 1]
Got it I'll say it again The other guy said, all fruits are red Then you go, huh All fruits are red You know those bananas Which is chichen, right Huh, I didn't know they were red I guess they're red I think it's the red Okay, that's the same Then why, he says, what if You say that, you say Oh, because it's a fruit, you know Got it, so that's prasangika Why is the higher middle way school gets their name from that

[Speaker 2]
Because they want to prove to you that you already accept what Well, this is what we're in the throes of But it's probably because we are going to believe that otherwise we can't have a subject that we can share

[Speaker 1]
Uh, no The higher middle way school is called that because they believe that simply by using sarcasm you can create, you can trigger an understanding of emptiness in another person's mind They believe that So they're called prasangika So they're called prasangika The other guys say, no, no, no That's not enough You have to have a self-existent syllogism 50% of which is coming from its own side Okay, got it

[Speaker 2]
But isn't this going to be why we did that?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, we're getting there Okay, now, I just The reason I brought this whole subject is the elements of a telangir have their own names It's not The Chudchen is the same Then there's the Selje and the Selja and they have different names According to the different schools you mean? No, in classic study of logic the elements change names when it's a telangir Oh, right, right You see what I mean? It's not called Drupche Chud anymore Because the relationship between one and two now is what?

Oh, well, take bananas I guess they're red Right Is that our assertion? Is it a drupcha? No, no, no It's the thing we want him to stop thinking It's the thing we want him to stop thinking Got it?

So in the study of telangirs it's called a selwa

[Speaker 2]
I think you're trying to clarify

[Speaker 1]
The dispelling Yeah, the dispeller It's not called drupcha anymore Why we talked about that for half an hour Selje, okay Cool, thank you, that's cool Well, I'm not quite sel about it So just in that way, the Vaisheshekas when you're trying to give them when you're trying to clarify their thinking I guess Now he's talking about the different perceptions of the damcha which is the drupcha of your assertion Damcha means assertion also Their position So here it's a verb When you are asserting to a chedakpa that sound is changing okay chepay drachu chendu sung na If you If when you think of the word sound you think of a sound which is made who would do that?

Not buddhists? No, the buddhists The buddhists guys, okay But when you're trying to clarify him When you're trying to, and you say When you're trying to When you're asserting damchawa that sound is changing to him If you take the chedakpa to be a sound which is made okay Then you mess up the seljay

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good That's right The thing that's trying to be dispelled That's right

[Speaker 1]
It doesn't work anymore The sarcasm is lost That's right, because it's already accepted Yeah, he already believes it Got it? If you say, huh, I guess bananas are red to someone who believes that bananas are yellow Right It's not logic Buddhist logic You're not allowed to present a reason to another person who already accepts what you're arguing And if you do It's illogic Now in the West You know, either it's true or it's not true But that's not the Buddhist test The Buddhist test is, is it appropriate for the other person? So if I say to you, huh You say to me, go ahead Stanley All fruits are red I say, huh, well let's take bananas You know You're telling me it's red, okay, got it? If he already agrees that it's not red Already sees that it's not red It's a bad reason Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
So if both people have the same perception to start with, that's also not a good argument So if we say Well I guess you can't make a sound Yeah I guess you can't make a sound That only works, that doesn't work To someone who believes sounds mean Right Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
It gets more complex I'm saying the Svatantra Right? The reason they were named Svatantra Which has nothing to do with Tantra, it's just a syllogism name Okay? Seljay la midrup There's no, then there's no Seljay Ngar yu khen kyi selway drang che chen du sungwa na che drapa la midrup pa Right, what you just talked about Now this is difficult for me Maybe you can help me Ngar yu khen kyi Due to the fact that it was already there It was a condition that existed before, right?

Due to the fact that it was already there What was already there?

[Speaker 2]
The agreement on the thing, the belief in the

[Speaker 1]
Maybe that he already understood it was made Okay, due to its already having been there

[Speaker 2]
Their agreement

[Speaker 1]
Due to the fact that he already understood it was made I think that's where we're going Due to the fact that he already understood it was made selway drang che chen du sungwa na che drapa la midrup Then it's a bad reason for him

[Speaker 2]
For him being a If he agreed with you already

[Speaker 1]
If he already thought that sang was made it would be a bad proof

[Speaker 2]
If you're assuming that Okay, but

[Speaker 1]
in the study of syllogisms the opponent must already accept one is three dak che chen kyi ten du drub dak che chen kyi ten du drub say dak che chen kyi ten du must Now how does it apply to the Japanese restaurant Three must apply to one In your wife's mind

[Speaker 2]
Yeah

[Speaker 1]
She must already understand and she must accept that the Japanese restaurant has tempura or it's a bad reason The opponent must see that three applies to one Okay, got it?

So what if they already saw three applies to one What is three applies to one in the ancient syllogism Yeah Is it true that sound is made Does he already see that He must or it's an illegal reason By the way he must also not have perceived that one is two

[Speaker 2]
Okay

[Speaker 1]
Should he have perceived that if three, then two Must be Has he also perceived if not two, then not three I can't beat you guys Okay, we stop here I'm going to continue from there because I'm not so clear on this sentence It's hard Somehow we're discussing does he even see the made part much less the changing part

[Speaker 2]
Okay, cool

[Speaker 1]
Alright Stop here And you know if I have time I'd like to teach you the components of a tengyur the proper terminology the proper What do you call it? Taxonomy?

No The proper use the proper names of a tengyur Yeah Taxonomy Stop here The parts of a prasangika have their own names and you should learn them You know the names now of syllogism but you don't know the names of a statement of absurdity Why absurdity? You can call that a proof by absurdity In the case of a restaurant what would it be? Are you telling me we shouldn't go to Oh honey Oh You don't want to go to a restaurant that has good food You see?

That's the prasangika Oh, I understand No, I absolutely got it We shouldn't go to Minami, you're right Because we really shouldn't eat nice food tonight That's the prasangika from the syllogism Right? And according to the prasangika it's more effective It doesn't work with partners

[Speaker 2]
Don't ever

[Speaker 1]
It's more effective than saying they have tempura

[Speaker 2]
According to prasangika it's more effective

[Speaker 1]
for getting what you want than saying tempura Oh honey Oh, you don't want to eat good food tonight Actually you probably just get them angry Let's try it, champagne That's been my experience We've had our tempura Yeah, they were not cute tempura Yeah, it was tasty from its own time Chanting