Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 30

[Speaker 1]
Okay, if you really want to get into it, take the inner keches, right? The ayatanas, the organs of... the doors of sense.

kewa mete, they never start because they're, whatever, tenching door or something, because they come from causes and conditions. Is it necessary to say they never start, ultimately speaking? That's all.

It boils down to that. Should Nagarjuna have said, when he said, nothing comes, nothing goes, nothing starts, nothing stops, should he have added the adverbial clause? Self-existent, ultimately, you know.

According to Bhagavad-gita, this is how I understand it now, and I may change tomorrow, that you have to say, ultimately speaking, because among the four choices of Nagarjuna, things come from other things, things come from themselves, things come from both, things come from neither. One is true deceptively, you know. Three are impossible in any case, whether you're talking deceptively or ultimately, but one is possible, that things come from other things, but only deceptively, so you should add the word deceptively.

And then, if you add the deceptively, everyone's talking about the same thing. If you say there's no birth deceptively, or deceptively speaking, all of those things, okay? You see what I mean?

Sometimes he adds it to the Chöchen, sometimes he adds it to the Dukkha Chöchen. Deceptively speaking, all things, all things considered from a deceptive point of view, don't start, because they're dependent arising, or whatever. So then, whether you choose to add the, ultimately speaking, to the subject of the proof, or whether you choose to add it to the equality that you seek to prove, according to Bhagavad-Gibeka, this makes a tun-nang-wa, tun-nang-wa, dun-tun-nang-wa.

Yeah, both parties are talking about the same thing, and if you don't add it, then, you know, a lower school guy will think you're talking about birth which came from its own side, or halfway from its own side, and a higher school guy will think that you're talking about birth which didn't come from any percentage from itself, and then there's the fault that they're not talking about the same thing. But, I believe the objection from our side is, even if you said, ultimately, the lower school guy would think the ultimately different. And, there is never a tun-nang-wa anyway, so don't stress about it, you know.

And then some people say, well, how about when people debate sound? When the Buddhists debate the non-Buddhists about sound, and the non-Buddhists think that Aum is eternal, and that's where drajiche mitakte chepay chir came from, the most famous syllogism in history. Let's take sound, mitakte, it's a changing thing because it's chepay chir, because it's made.

So, that's a Buddhist school. Talking to a sangha or something? They're talking to the detailers according to...

Oh, chedapas, okay. Then are they both talking about, when they say drajiche, are they talking about the same thing? Can they see the same thing?

Okay, and... But Bhaviveka is feeling like they have to, or else they can't have a discussion. If the husband and wife are not talking about the same restaurant, how can they argue whether the food's good or not?

Okay? So, Bhaviveka feels you should have to clarify them, so that we're all talking about the same thing. And then he gives the example of how we talk to the chedapas.

Right, and the sanghas. So, should we say, in a... from the Buddhist guide, it's called nangul and chigul.

[Speaker 2]
From the guy...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, from the guy who started the debate, and the guy who's defending. Can the nangul and the chigul ever see the same thing? So, would it be helpful to have said, sound, as it comes from causes, is made?

You see what I mean? Should we have added, sound as it comes from causes? But then, you know, our wrong look, I believe, is that it wouldn't have helped, because they don't accept that.

They don't accept that anyway. So, it doesn't help to put qualifiers on a thing. And so, some of the Buddhist thinkers that we looked into, said, everything's alright if you just leave the subject alone, and don't try to qualify it.

And let them take... They will always take it differently. And just deal with it.

Don't try to add words onto it to make it more clear, because you're just adding words onto it to support your position. If you say sound, which comes from causes, and not sound that Brahma made, that pervades the universe and never was created, already you can't have an argument. Because they don't accept that anyway.

So, it's kind of like this idea that provisionally you have to agree not to agree on the chit-chin. Or there can't be a chit-chin. It almost seemed like you were doing some comedy where you were saying that that logic doesn't even work because of that, and only tongue gears are invalid.

I mean, nobody said that, but... Well, now you get the problem that the Rangyupa... Then this leaks into another problem, that the lower Middle-Earth school, because they think all things come 50% from their own side, would think that the validity of an argument and the efficacy of a cause is coming halfway from its own side, and halfway from the people giving it.

So, the problem with the chit-chin leaks to the reason.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You see, if we never agree on the chit-chin, why? Well, because one of the people arguing, lower Middle-Earth school, thinks it has to come halfway from its own side. And the other person arguing believes it comes from them completely.

But it's being used in a proof to prove that, about all things. Okay? So, if they had a tun dang war, if they both did see the subject the same way, they wouldn't be having a debate, because the debate is about that question.

Okay? So, that's the problem. And then it leaks into a belief by the Svatantrikas, the lower Middle-Earth school, that the reason, somehow, is effective from its own side.

And... Well, yeah. What is the mu and mu tok gi rikpa mean?

And... That's all. You know, that's all.

And it all came up... Where? Well, Gelsinji started to talk about the differences between the middle-earth schools.

What's the whole book about? It's a commentary to trying to prove to the lower schools, that they already accept the higher schools' position on emptiness. Yeah, yeah.

He started talking about the difference between the higher schools. That the sutras designed for Hinayana students did teach emptiness, already. That's...

You know, by accident, we kind of chose that book of the seven books of Nagarjuna. Right? Six books.

Riksoktru. Riksoktru. You're thinking of the seven Pramana books.

Yes. Yeah, that's just how I would wrap it up. And then Gelsabje properly went on a detour to the differences between the two schools.

And we added that in the appendix.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which is now 32 pages. Yeah. Why it came up in the first place...

He just, in a weird way, just wanted to talk about it or something. It somehow connects to the whole theme of the book. Yeah.

People have proofs for emptiness, but they don't get it. You know? You didn't understand that the Buddha was giving you a proof for the highest version of emptiness, even in the lower school teachings.

In the same way that the lower and middle way school didn't understand that what they believe about how something is proved already proves they are wrong. Okay? Something like that.

You see how it ties together? It's kind of sexy. It'd make a good lecture.

You know? What's the connection between him going off on the difference between the two middle way schools and the theme of the whole book, which is that Buddha taught you guys, the lower way guys, emptiness, but you didn't see that he was doing it. Your opinion how proof works is wrong.

And by the way, there's another group that does that, which is called the lower middle way. I think, you know, it'd be fascinating to explore the connections between the two themes. The lower school guys not understanding that the sutras that Buddha taught them were meant to teach them emptiness because they believe that those sutras are self-existent.

And then, you know, the belief of the lower middle way school that a proof works due to its own power, or 50% at least from its own power. And then shortly he's going to get back. He's coming back.

When he gets back, as far as I can see, there's nothing as interesting or confusing. It's all pretty straight stuff that we're used to. But let's see.

You ready? Here we go back. Yeah, and you know, as you can see from the quantity of notes, I myself, you know, this one's hard for me.

But let's try. Okay? So this is kind of one of those books where you make a provisional translation and then you learn more and you go back and change it.

Okay, go ahead. These two lines. Yeah.

This seems to say, okay, ready? This is kind of profound. So, so, leng den je, which is the proper way to say his name, okay?

Don't say lek den je, it's leng den je. Baba Viveka, he takes two positions which Dawa Drakpa says are nangyal, internally inconsistent. Okay?

He takes two positions which according to Chandrakirti are already internally inconsistent with each other. Okay? You can't take the one position and still hold the other position.

You got to give up one, at least one. Okay? So, when Chandrakirti comes to whose aid?

Master Buddhapalita. Yeah, when he shows up with the cavalry to save Master Buddhapalita from Baba Viveka's criticisms, he attacks Baba Viveka and says, you know, your two positions are internally inconsistent. Okay?

Don't go attacking Mr. Buddhapalita. You know, you yourself, the proofs you use against Buddhapalita are inconsistent, are contradict each other. Now, if we see what's the two things that contradict each other, we might get a better idea of what he's been talking about all along.

His acceptance of an independent reason and that there's no subject, that you accept that there's no subject that they're agreeing upon? When debating? I would say, you know, I would say Ringo, I still want to take it as no-ass.

And what I want to say is that the Chöchen doesn't appear the same way to the two parties. I want to read it that way. Okay?

And we took a statistical check and it was about 50-50. Somebody's wrong. And it seems to me the point is that to the minds of, or to the perceptions of, the two debaters, the subject under consideration looks different.

It appears in different ways. So, he even goes so far as to say there is no Chöchen which appears ... there is no subject of the debate which appears to the mind of ...

meaning tung dang wa. There's no shared subject of debate that appears to the minds of the two people. Okay?

He says they don't. And at the same time, he accepts a reason which has some validity from its own side. And those two contradict each other.

Who's got the plane? You like to criticize him, right? Well, he got away with a lot of stuff already.

No way, I hit all those first columns super high and hard. Later we got to criticize him for overdoing. Chöchen.

Doc. Okay, good. Good.

So we know Tung Tun Chömo. What's Tung Tun Chömo? K.J.'s famous drop of interlude on emptiness. Yeah. I was just thinking about that. Now, Siksel is Chandrakirti's famous second commentary on entering the middle way.

I'm sorry, on the middle way. On Prajna. So he wrote two commentaries.

One clarifies the meaning, one clarifies the verses, and Sik is misspelled everywhere.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
It's Siksuchepa. It's a clarification of the verses. Everyone misspells it.

Everyone that I know of in every Tibetan misspells it. It's not what the Sanskrit says. It's the clarification of the verses.

Siksuchepa, T-S-I-G-S. Which I wrote a small essay about in Illumination, if you care to read it. Okay, anyway.

It's very interesting. The whole world is wrong. It happens to me.

Siksel. And it's the second most common book he wrote. I mean, you know, come on.

So anyway. Tungton. I'm tempted to think this was an earlier work.

Because you and I in Vietnam, like three years ago, when we were sitting in the coffee shop and not at the bar, and we were trying to find out where's Tungton, we found out it's a genre. Books written about... Books to which purport to give a shortened presentation of emptiness is a genre.

Tungton. And then Kittiputje's Tungton Chemmo. He was modest enough to call it The Great Tungton.

So... This appears to be a Tungton written based on Chandrakirti's prasannapada. Pada meaning verse.

Do you remember what we decided when we were going to use this? The English of Tungton? I think we said an interlude on emptiness.

No, not Tungton Chemmo, but just Tungton. It is an interlude. Interlude on emptiness.

But that's the great one. Because tun means a short period. Tundruk, for example, is six periods on the day.

Okay? So, Sikselki Tungton. I think there's a book called...

I think there's an ancient book called The Tungton on Siksel. I'm not sure. I checked for a while.

I looked around for a while. I didn't do it exhaustively. I went to TBRC.

There is a Siksel Tungton mentioned near Randhawa's name, which is Tsongkhapa's teacher. Here you have Tsongkhapa's main disciple. Yeah, and Jamyang Shepa wrote a book explaining it.

Okay? A commentary on the Siksel Tungton. So probably in there he mentions who wrote it.

I don't see it anywhere. I can't find it anywhere. The language seems ancient.

I may be completely wrong. But if we check Jamyang Shepa's commentary, he wrote a commentary on it. Okay?

Alright? So, anyway, it's an emptiness teaching based on Chandrakirti's prasannapada. Okay, there kyewa kakpa drupje chö The drupje chö means that the quality you are trying to prove applies to the subject.

Okay? The Japanese restaurant is something we should go to. Okay, why?

Because they have good food. So the drupje chö is something that should be gone to. Okay, the quality to be proven.

Now, I would like to take you back to a version of here's who is this? Here's Nawan Pendant's version of Bhavaviveka's objectionable verse. Objectionable syllogism.

Okay, here it is. Right here. Okay, Lengdenki, he gives him a nickname.

Bhava. Sometimes he is called Bhava. He says, den dangpar nang gi kye chen nam chö chen den dangpar nang gi kye chen nam chö chen Ultimately speaking, take the inner power, sense powers.

Okay, chö chen, he doesn't say chö chen, but I added it. dar le kye war mey pa ngey te They cannot have been, they cannot have arisen from themselves. yupey chö Because they exist.

What's the kyaba? If the thing exists, it can't arise from itself. Okay, okay.

And then he gives a tunpay yang dap A proper syllogism has a classical example, which is shepa yupey nyi shen no By consciousness itself? Yeah, in the, well literally it says it's exactly the way we talk about consciousness existing. Okay.

Okay. So, keep this syllogism in mind. There are other versions of the syllogism.

Okay, yeah. But this is a convenient one for today. Okay.

What's the subject? Let's say your I. Let's say your I.

Okay. Let's just make it easy. Your I.

Yeah, ultimately speaking kama, your I is the subject. It hasn't come from itself because it exists. Okay.

Alright, got it?

[Speaker 2]
Now we can go back to the...

[Speaker 1]
Uh, not really. I say no. Someone else may say something else.

Okay, so now we go back to here. Okay, we go back here. Now we can look at this.

Dear Kewakapa jukjecha, what's the jukjecha in this proof? Yeah. Kewakapa.

Okay. A kind of coming from itself was denied. Was denied.

Chusuduppe, say, when you accept that that is what we're trying to prove, de kona, to that person alone, and not to the other person, the ten. Now ten, you can't translate these lines without understanding that ten is a synonym for chudchen. The ten comma, meaning the chudchen, meaning the basic thing about which you're trying to prove a quality, which is the meaning of chudchen.

Chud means it means jukjecha, jukjecha chudchen means... Yeah, the thing that has the quality you're trying to prove is called the subject in English. Okay, say there, kona ten chudchen, chunji lo tsang gi dak gi ngupo nyepa nyampar gyurwa togepa de, chunji lo tsang gi dak gi ngupo nyepa nyampar gyurwa.

Then you already have lost, nyam?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The idea that chunji lo tsang gi dak gi ngupo nyepa, that that debater considers it to be self-existent. Can you say that one more time?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If... Say it again. Well, who believes the chudchen comes from itself?

I suppose whoever is... The person you're debating to. Yeah, yeah.

The reason you're debating them is that you're trying to prove that nothing starts by itself, right? But haven't they already misunderstood the subject? Okay, don't they already believe that that comes from itself?

You're saying, take your eye, it doesn't come from itself, it doesn't start self-existently. Okay? But when you say that, the guy's already taking the eye to be self-existent.

Okay? Which means he doesn't see the eye. Or it doesn't say, No, because the self-existent eye doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
You see what I mean?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so you know, does he consider, is he mistaken about the nature of the subject itself? And does he take it to be something which has its own self-existence? ...

[Speaker 2]
... ... ...

[Speaker 1]
... ... ...

Is the opponent already making a mistake by the time you finish stating the subject? When you say, take the eye, has he already made a mistake?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, he has. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Then, if you feel you have to add, listen, if you feel you have to add, ultimately speaking, then that indicates you don't think he's already made a mistake.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
...

[Speaker 2]
That's what this is saying.

[Speaker 1]
That's what this is saying. If you, Baba Viveka, feel that you have to say, the eye, from an ultimate viewpoint, dun tampar nangi khe che, that was the chit-chat. Dun tampar nangi khe che.

Okay? If you feel that you have to add the words, ultimately speaking, or the guy won't be talking about the same thing, then you're already wrong. Because that's how he takes it.

Because the fact that he's mistaken about the chit-chat is denied when you add the word, ultimately speaking.

[Speaker 2]
Right. And that's what he's saying. How do the words break down?

[Speaker 1]
Take it wrongly. Take it wrongly as being an entity which exists in and of itself. ...

... ... Simply mistaken.

Okay? ... Then the idea that he's already mistaken, ...

You lost it. When you added those words. The idea that the opponent doesn't know what he's doing is cancelled when you think you have to say, ultimately speaking.

Okay? ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... He himself, You yourself, have accepted this idea.

you yourself added those words to this. I'll take it this way, okay? And it's, forget it, this is impossible.

The whole sentence is, forget it. I'll take it this way, okay? Who's talking?

Yeah, Chandrakirti is criticizing right here, okay? Zayte, he makes the following criticism. Who?

Chandrakirti, okay? And he's accusing him of being internally contradictory, okay? Which I take it to be, you know, if you believe that you have to add these words to Chöchen, then you already contradict yourself, okay?

Because it means you don't understand that the guy already, that the guy won't understand the addition either. It's canceled, yeah. The fact that you think you have to add it disproves, means that the fact that you think you have to add it proves that it won't work, and that's an inner contradiction.

Exactly, exactly, yeah, yeah. And then we can call you a Rangyupa. Then we can call you a Svatantrika, okay?

If you think, if you think that adding the words, ultimately speaking, are going to help, then you think that the words, ultimately speaking, have some power from their own side, and you are already mistaken.

[Speaker 2]
Would it be worth looking for this in Siksel? Yeah, don't worry so much about the person you're debating with being mistaken, look at your own...

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's it, yeah, that's what Chandrakirti is saying, okay? We'll deal with the words, I mean, we'll deal with it, but that's what it's supposed to say. I mean, would Siksel itself give us any clarity?

I mean, there's probably ten arguments in Siksel to this effect, but I, I think I'd rather find that book, okay? It's mentioned on TBRC in a poem, which ends with Randhawa's name, but I'm not even satisfied with it. I kind of smell that it might be older, that it might be from India, but there's no ten-year, it could be, it could be a name for Siksel, it's possible, it's very possible, it's somewhat possible.

[Speaker 2]
The Tongtong called it Siksel?

[Speaker 1]
It's possible, it's possible. In all those other commentaries that we were going through on this point, they kept quoting Siksel. Yeah, it's possible, it is possible.

And so I went through all the Siksel Tongtongs, there's 600, you know, I don't know. I still think it might be a later book, but I'm not sure, okay? Anyway, the point is this, there's some kind of introduction, internal contradiction going on.

I like the way Utpala stated it, it's more clear than it was in my mind, which is that if you feel you have to add those words, then you must believe that they have some power of their own, and then you're already contradicting the purpose of the syllogism. Something like that, okay? And when we get to the final edit, we'll add all the words in, okay?

We'll cover all the words, okay? Somehow, nyabar gyur has to be, your own position is lost, okay? Okay, chinji lok tsam gyi dak gi mu po nye po, that's really weird, okay.

There's a whole thing about chinji lok and chinji malok in Siksel, the backwards... Oh, you know what would be fruitful is to go look at Jamyang Shepa, because he has a commentary on this Siksel Tongtong, and he must mention it, who wrote it. His commentary cannot be the Tongtong, because he lived after Gyatso Jamyang, okay?

But he wrote a commentary on the Tongtong, okay, or a commentary called Tongtong, Siksel Tongtong. So we should go look it up. We should go look at it and see if he's talking about, as the Kramer school believes, Siksel itself, or is he commenting on some intermediate commentary, okay?

Let's get going, because we're going to spend a lot of time on that. So we'll keep going, we'll check that. So we got to get Jamyang Shepa's, maybe if you could cut out Jamyang Shepa's commentary, called Siksel Tongtong Gyi Tikka, I think, or Delpa.

[Speaker 2]
Is the name right here?

[Speaker 1]
I don't think I have it, but I'll show you. If you look it up, here, it's very quick. You look it up in Sheje Tern Tzu and Ming Tzu, right?

There you go. Now, the title of Jamyang Shepa's book is, you know, the Thousand Rays of Light of Pramana, which clarifies in great detail the explanation of pramana in the Siksel Tongtong. Okay, so it could refer to Siksel, okay?

And this is going to clear away the darkness in the hearts of fortunate disciples. And it's 69 folios, which is a pretty respectable piece of work. So probably we have it in our own catalog.

We may have already cataloged it. Then we have to read the first part, the first few pages, and see, is there an older commentary? Or is it just talking about Siksel?

Okay, are you? Now he goes to this argument about sound being, why did I have all these notes here? There's a large chunk of text pasted in here.

Yeah, I know, I'm just trying to figure out why I pasted it in there.

[Speaker 2]
Is Umat Tsawe Trompa Siksel Shedjawa Manamayoti Prasannapada? I guess it's verses from Prasannapada.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, here it credits the Siksel Tongtong to Jamyang Shepa. Okay, here's Siksel Tongtong. But it calls Sengok.

Sengok is disproving certain syllogisms, or pramana. But anyway, this was what I was trying to find him. I was trying to find more about it.

Here's Siksel, by the way. I did go to Siksel to dig around. This is the argument between the detailists.

This is the argument about sound. This is comparing the debate to the argument. This is comparing how Buddhists and non-Buddhists perceive sound.

Are they looking at the same thing when they debate sound? This is a famous parallel argument that is supposed to help us with this argument. Okay, got it?

[Speaker 2]
I think this is already summarized by one of our other commentators.

[Speaker 1]
It is. I'm going to go straight here because he talks about it. Your author talks about it.

Let's do this one. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, no. Shana is supposed to represent a wrong position. Just keep that in mind.

And let's go through it. This is kind of comprehensible. Which is a Mayangaka.

When the Sautrantikas, Sutras, and the Sankhyas fight with each other. And are the Chedarpas one kind of Sankhya? Anyway.

When they fight with each other and they talk about sound, they do not characterize it as either being changing or unchanging when they speak of the Chöchen. In the debate of trying to figure out whether sound is changing or unchanging, om, right? It's a debate about om.

They don't make any... What's that word? They don't...

What's the word? Qualify it as being either changing or unchanging. They just say sound.

Take sound. They don't say mitapa gyurpay dra. They don't say take sound which is changing.

Okay? They don't say that. They don't say takpa.

They don't say mitapa. kang gi kyang kye pa ma che. They don't make this distinction.

What does it qualify it? They don't qualify it. And they're just having a tunang about dra.

They're just taking...

[Speaker 2]
No. This tun is mao.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. They just have a shared idea of what sound is when they're arguing about sound. At that point, when they say take sound, neither party is pre-deciding whether it's changing or unchanging.

Okay. In the same way, okay? Now he's trying to draw a parallel.

When the Madhyamika guys and the functionalists, which is the first three schools, okay? When they get in a hassle about nang sam. Unfortunately, he says nang sam.

So... Yeah. The mere appearance of something.

He was supposed to take nang gi kye che. Okay? The classic argument by Baba Viveka considered an inner sense power.

But here he just said the simple appearance of something. They are not arguing about... They don't start out with presuppositions about whether it's dentong or not.

Whether it lacks self-existence or not. Dentong, right? They don't make any disqualifications.

They just say take this I, okay? Therefore, they do have a shared perception of what's the subject of the argument. They do have a shared perception of what's the subject of the argument.

Even if it's the I. Okay, E-Y-E. Therefore, it is disproven, Madhupa, that there is no shared perception of the subject.

Who said that? Somebody said that. Since it's Sena, it's probably wrong.

So now, take out one of the negatives and tell me what it says. Tunangme. They're not actually having a shared perception.

Yeah, there can be no shared perception. Whose system? Who believes that?

That would be the Chandrakirti system up in L.A. It seems like, yeah. Because it says here, they make the claim. Or they say.

So it seems like we're supposed to believe they cannot have a shared perception of the subject. Do they or don't they?

[Speaker 2]
We're saying not.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I mean the same opinion or I don't know. When I say sound, you generally get the same idea that I get. I mean, it's one of the requirements of a good debate.

Okay, anyway.

[Speaker 2]
Two minutes.

[Speaker 1]
How do you answer that claim? Keep going. Read.

Okay, good. In response to these guys' claim that the two parties can never have a shared or I wouldn't say shared. A common Yeah, a common perception of the subject.

Some people rushing to Chandrakirti's defense say it doesn't matter because Madhyamika people are known to take no position on anything. And that's in the final lines of the Three Principle Path. kelen mepe na Okay, it says that.

You know, we are beyond all positions. So, people who think that because somebody like Tsongkhapa has said that the highest school is beyond all positions, okay? People who think like that, they are sikhi chak chung se sung.

They are grasping to little pieces of phrases that were never meant to say that. So, sikhi chak chung se sung means they are grasping to snippets, poetic snippets as being philosophical truths. It's not what Tsongkhapa meant.

We have no position meaning about whether it exists from its own side or whether it doesn't exist at all. Those two things, we have no position on. Because they are both unreal.

Okay, got it? But they took that and they said, oh, well let's answer these guys. You want to know if we see the subject the same as you?

No. Why? We don't see anything.

Okay, got it? And then he says, Gyaltsabje says, come on. Okay, don't do that.

Don't sing u marpa la kelen me. They don't accept that answer. They don't believe anything.

LEN BDEB PA NI To answer the question that way, LEN BDEB means to give an answer, right? To answer the question that way is mongpa, dark ignorance about the namye, the divisions of denyi, of the two truths, the two realities, deceptive reality and ultimate reality. You have no clue about the difference between ultimate reality and deceptive reality if you think that Madhyamika people have no positions.

And what should we do with that idea?

[Speaker 2]
Trash it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he literally says the word trash it. Torwa is what you do with snot when it slips down your nose. No, that's the classic example in philosophy.

You know, like you're hanging over your computer and you're into it, and things come down and then you torwa. It's exactly that connotation. This idea is snot that's sneaked out.

And you should throw it from your fingers. Okay, got it? That's a pretty nice way to talk about someone's beliefs.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know what it says on the background.

[Speaker 1]
You said youth.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, youth.

[Speaker 1]
I should stop? We're out of time. Oh, I went and got it for you.

That verse. From the end of the Three Principal Paths. ...

... ... Those people have entered the path which pleases the Buddhas when they take no positions.

... ... And then that line has been abused many times by people.

Oh, so Madhyamika has no positions. Not a good way to answer the question. Oh, yeah?

We finished it, right? No, I didn't get to your text. I haven't got to his text yet.

Thank you. I'm sorry about that one sentence. I mean...