Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 31

[Speaker 1]
SANGYE SHINGDU MIKTEI UWARGI

[Speaker 2]
JOKUN NAMDAK SHINGLA CHUPARSHO HEDAMGURU RATNAMANDAVAKAM DVAYATAYAMI SANGYE CHUDAM SOGI CHOKNAM LABDANG CHUBARDU DAGNI KYAP SUKHYI DAGGI CHEN YIN GYIPE SUNNAM GYI DROLA PENCHER SANGYE DUPARSHO SANGYE CHUDAM SOGI CHOKNAM LABDANG CHUBARDU DAGNI KYAP SUKHYI DAGGI CHEN YIN GYIPE SUNNAM GYI DROLA PENCHER SANGYE DUPARSHO SANGYE CHUDAM SOGI CHOKNAM LABDANG CHUBARDU DAGNI KYAP SUKHYI DAGGI CHEN YIN GYIPE SUNNAM GYI DROLA PENCHER SANGYE DUPARSHO

[Speaker 1]
DOKI DOKI SMART DOKI I didn't find a lot of questions today, but I got a couple.

[Speaker 2]
Alright.

[Speaker 1]
I tried to do the white cloth thing. Master Chandrakirti accuses Master Bhavaviveka of taking two positions which are inconsistent. What are these two positions?

[Speaker 2]
I'm waiting for an answer.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good idea. Somebody beside Ben. The ultimate?

Regarding the need to use ultimate? That's one of them. But it's regarding that.

You can state it more. That it's unnecessary to use it because people don't understand it anyway when you use it? Hmm.

Isn't it the next thing you don't have to? Sorry? Well, I thought this was going to be the easiest of the questions.

Ben Kramer!

[Speaker 2]
Is it about if you use the word ultimate?

[Speaker 1]
It is about if you use the word ultimate.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So, if you're using it, then you already have a contradiction.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, why? What's it contradicting? That...

They don't understand it anyway.

[Speaker 2]
If you have to use it, then you...

[Speaker 1]
It's pretty close.

[Speaker 2]
You think it has some power of its own. Yeah, now we're getting there. Good job.

[Speaker 1]
Was that your position? I forget. That was really good.

This is Chandrakirti accusica. Explain it for the Canadian. What's going on here?

So, all of... Master Chandrakirti says that Master Baba Viveka... There's a famous syllogism that was put forth by Master Baba Viveka where he used the word ultimately when he was describing...

Give the syllogism. Okay. He said, take the sense powers ultimately.

They don't... They never start from themselves because they exist. And then he gives an example.

It's like consciousness. So the point is, in the subject of that, that way that they explain the syllogism, they put it in the subject. He said, take the sense powers ultimately.

And then these middle-aged guys come back and say, why did you put ultimately? You didn't need to say the word ultimately. You can just say, take the sense powers.

Higher middle-aged guys. Yeah. Us.

And then, Master Chandrakirti is like, look, if you're going to say ultimately and you believe in Raghu-Kirtak, which is like self-powered reason, then your logic is internally inconsistent. Because... So that's a big thing that distinguishes the upper middle-aged school from the lower middle-aged school is that the lower middle-aged school accepts these self-powered reasons.

Almost like a reason that kind of has some power from its own side. And he's saying, look, if the reason has that power from its own side, then you don't need to say ultimately anyway. That's what Master Chandrakirti is accusing.

I like that. If you have to say ultimately speaking, take the I, what makes you think your audience is going to misunderstand ultimately speaking less than they understand I? Okay?

Got it? And then you get into, well, the word ultimately has some power of its own that the word I doesn't have. Which means you think half the world is coming from their side and half the world is coming from your side.

If the word ultimately has some power that the word I doesn't have, then already you're messed up. Before you present your proof of emptiness, you've already disproved emptiness. That's the point.

Second question. What, according to Master Balavidekar, are the seekers in some cases debating and what characteristics of the subject do they leave out? Everybody except them may answer.

Oh yeah, we had this. It's one of the few things we had last class. It's a pretty classic debate.

That's a hint. Okay. When they're talking about that, so they take sound as the what of the debate?

They take sound as the which of the three elements? Chöchen. Right, they take sound as the Chöchen or the subject for those of you who don't speak Tibetan.

But they're not even talking about the same thing, so how could they even take it as the... Are they now talking about the same thing? Well, that's the argument, isn't it?

Well, if they don't, if they leave out certain characteristics, then maybe they're talking about the same thing. Which characteristics would they have to be leaving out?

[Speaker 2]
Chöchen. Which is the Chöchen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which is the Chöchen, so they leave it out of the subject.

[Speaker 2]
It's like Balavidekar saying you shouldn't always include the Chöchen as part of the Chöchen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 2]
That's why you're bothering to debate.

[Speaker 1]
Right, that's nice. Everybody understand that? Pretty well.

Ben, Edward, and Geshe Michael got it. What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, I didn't hear you.

[Speaker 1]
I forgot you were... You're obviously getting it too. There we go.

Is that the answer? State an incorrect claim about the Middle Way School that people pull from snippets of teachings. And state what Gyaltsab Jays says should be done with them.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, totally.

[Speaker 1]
I remember what should be done. Stanley. Like some snacks.

[Speaker 2]
That's probably it.

[Speaker 1]
I want to hear from somebody. Yeah, Tim.

[Speaker 2]
Just because you say that the Middle Way claim there's a line that says we're beyond all positions it doesn't mean that they're just taking little pieces of that into misunderstanding. But they were never meant to. We don't really mean that.

[Speaker 1]
But they don't take any position on anything.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
They don't understand the context with the snippet. That's why it should be thrown out like trash. Okay, and then I only found two Tibetan words that some of you know.

These aren't for those of you who know them. Who? Obviously.

Tundang, anybody? Torwa, anybody except WordCamp?

[Speaker 2]
Torwa. Sorry?

[Speaker 1]
Which one? Close. Which one?

Tundang first. Let's talk about Tundang. How do we know?

What?

[Speaker 2]
Looks like it appears. It's the thing you're talking about. Do they agree upon?

[Speaker 1]
The thing that the two people agree upon. Does the thing that the two people are arguing about appear to both of them as the same thing? When you say, let's consider a pen to a dog there's no Tundang.

Because they can't even see a pen. So they're not seeing the same thing you're seeing that you took as your subject to talk about. So how can you go further?

And then the question comes up do two debaters ever have the same perception of the subject? Because if they did they wouldn't be having a debate. But if they don't you're not allowed to debate.

There's some problems. I was thinking that too. Tim, what's doro wa mean?

Toss it. Throw it out. What do you say, snot?

Yeah, they say it like snot. There's a joke in Tibetan what is it that the rich people keep that the poor people throw?

[Speaker 2]
A handkerchief.

[Speaker 1]
Rich people use handkerchiefs and they keep it in their pocket and the poor people are like OK Are you ready? Oh, I got to take the plane. OK, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks, Nick.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, thank you. I just want to recap what just came, OK? Duryodhana Tantra and Tapana When the second Buddhist group debates the Hindu group, Sankhya OK Then they are debating about is Aum an eternal entity?

Did it come from no time ever? And is it going into the future forever? And did God not even create Aum?

Aum created itself or something like that. Famous, the most famous argument ever jac chen mitak te chepay che In the monastery it's like a mantra jac chen takes sound meaning Aum, the sound of Aum It's changing because it was created It's the most famous argument So, this is referring to that argument When the Sutras, Buddhists debate with the Sankhyas and they they are going to say take sound When you say take sound you have not yet characterized it as being made or not You cannot have characterized it as being made or not You have to just take sound in general Don't say sound which is made Don't say sound which is not made Just say sound and then we can have an argument Our guy kepa ma chepa means don't make a distinction about whether it's changing or unchanging Just say take sound Simple sound Don't say take sound which is changing It's changing Okay Don't talk about Don't put adjectives in front of it Just say sound Just say sound in general Okay Then In that same way that you don't characterize it as being made or not made or changing or not changing In that same way when a Madhyamikan debates with someone from the three lower schools functionalists Can't they talk about in this case the inner powers like your I Can't they talk about it without specifying whether it's real the real one or the not real one Can't they just say the I? Do they have to say the real I? Can't we just do the same thing that we did back when we debated the non-Buddhists Okay, got it?

And that's a shena Yeah Apparently, that's not rikpa gotsum It's not parallel They're not parallel You cannot You must say something Isn't it good enough to just take the I? Why do you have to say the I which is not true den dong Which is not true or is true Is real, not real Isn't it enough just to do it like we did it back when we debated sound shena And here's the answer to it di len la In response Some people have chipped, snipped out from texts Real Madhyamikans should take no position at all Okay, in response to that you know

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's a little bit confusing

[Speaker 1]
Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
You kind of flew through the Tibetan in the previous one You didn't really cover it, you told us what it meant No, I didn't want to go through the Tibetan No, we did No, we already did it He says, can't we just do the same thing?

[Speaker 1]
And then in reply to that question some ignorant Madhyamika people say, look You don't have to answer this question because we have no position about anything And then Gyaltsabje says, come on That's a wimpy Come on That's really a wimpy thing to say You know So now Now we're up Now we're up to where we are Go! Who's got the plain hustle? Give him some hustle hustle I'll give you the guts of it in a second Okay?

The Sutras and those other guys meaning the Gyaltsabje The day here is the Sankhyas, right? They both have a tuna They both look at the sound the same way But la the Madhyamikans and the lower three schools that kind of thing is not happening Okay? It's not a parallel case It's not happening I admit that when the Buddhists debate the non-Buddhists and they say, let's just talk about let's start from south that you can do that But in this particular debate when a Madhyamikan meets a lower school it doesn't work That approach doesn't work There is no, me means there is no tuna There is no shared perception of the subject under consideration Okay?

Got it? Is this us? I hope so, because it's the only sentence I understand Okay, now let's go back and see the wording De na Which is a weak de na in my opinion Just because someone got the expression we take no position wrong and we point out that it didn't mean that that now we can say there is no tuna It's kind of a weak argument to me Anyway, de na the dodepas What's it in English?

The Sutrists Why called Sutrists? Because they rejected the Abhidharma Why? Because it wasn't the word of the Buddha Yeah, because Abhidharma was put together by human beings and the Sutrists were put together by enlightened beings We reject Abhidharma They are called Sutrists De nika la Yeah, and dang de De, you understand, is Sankhya Both of them kang gi kyang kye pa machepay If you make no distinctions at all about the sound If you don't say changing or unchanging Just simple sound kang gi kyang means at all kye pa machepay means don't distinguish them Make no qualification It's qualification If you don't qualify it in any way at all Just sound itself rang tsen pa here means sound on its own rang tsen pa here It's similar to the rang tsen in the second school But here it just means Let's just take sound on its own rang tsen pa nika de They can agree Both of them agree on such a thing They can agree that there is such a thing Therefore, they have a tun nang They share a perception of the subject under consideration They share a perception of the subject that we're debating about tun nang, chet chen tun nang wa They have a tun nang shared perception of the chet chen subject under consideration nge la, whereas So it's not so much but It's more like whereas Whereas in the case of the umapas

[Speaker 2]
Umapas and umapamalas

[Speaker 1]
Why are they called functionalists?

[Speaker 2]
Because they believe things exist They really exist because it does stuff Say again? They really exist because it does stuff

[Speaker 1]
Kind of They believe gas has something in it that can run a car They believe gas has something in it that can run a car All scientists are umamalas They believe Okay, look There may be other empty things but look, gas has something in it You put water in your car, it's not going to go anywhere That's their position Okay Okay Which means there can't be my car out there because there's no such thing as a hybrid Okay, yeah Okay, nomaweni They do not have a They don't have anything like that meaning A subject that they agree upon

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, they don't have a tonmon

[Speaker 1]
Okay, go Umaphe nirangtsen dakki ngakjar chela ngopormawan nirangtsen loju tumasharwe suksok kyi tonmong nimpe ngawalo yul tumicharwar Yeah, now he's playing on the word rangsemba in and of itself Let's just take sound in and of itself And he's playing The two debaters in this case do not have a shared perception of this thing on its own because there's no such thing as an on its own thing Okay? Alright, got it?

Yeah, rangsemba in the last sentence You see? But I take it as rangitsenikidrupa Yeah, because the other guy said Let's just take sound on its own He says, haha, we don't have such a thing We don't have such a thing Okay, and there is no sound on its own Got it? So you're saying like rangtsen as opposed to chitsen kind of is rangitsenikidrupa Yeah, kind of, you're right It is takigakja chela That's the thing we're trying to disprove That's the whole thing That's what the syllogism is for That's the gakja of our whole syllogism Okay?

Don't start the argument with Let's take the I on its own That's what we're trying to disprove Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it?

[Speaker 1]
And this clarifies the whole last term Yeah, okay Maybe Maybe Too excited The functionalist As for the functionalist rangtsen lojyo That could be an object that they It does appear to them as an object Well, they also believe that You know The I in and of itself If it were a unique quality of the I If by I by itself you mean a unique quality of the I We would also have a No, I don't see that I have trouble with this one, obviously Let's go slow The functionalist By the way What's the gakja according to the lower middle way? Something that exists independent of Oh, the lower middle way Something that exists independent of parts Well, without ranggitumo mayembe duluksu drupa Yes, I mean, is this on its own without Through some unique way of its own Okay So, can things exist 50% from their side in the lower middle way?

Yeah But is that 50% that comes from their side inherent to them? They'd say no You still need a mind to see it Yeah You would still need to have the 50% from your mind 50-50 Without one or the other, you can't have a thing So, it doesn't have any existence in and of itself independent of my perceiving it That's lower middle way 50-50 is cool But how about the lupamala?

[Speaker 2]
It does Yeah, it does

[Speaker 1]
There's something in gasoline which makes it run a car In means From its own side

[Speaker 2]
ranggitseni drupa

[Speaker 1]
It's my new translation for in and of itself

[Speaker 2]
In I am

[Speaker 1]
It's cheap, it's small In In means self-existent So, anyway lupamala ni ranggitseni means Just take this on its own Just take sound on its own lo yu du ma sharway sukso which does not appear visible matter which doesn't appear to the mind as an object

[Speaker 2]
of the mind

[Speaker 1]
etc tungma maya me ngo

[Speaker 2]
It's not an object of the mind?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I have trouble with it because they do accept They do accept the tungma maya me ngo Ok? Maybe the ma is an accident? Maybe it's something that cannot make its appearance to the mind I don't know Is it because it's tungma min and ma shar?

Is it like double negating there? Well, what he wants to say according to what he says next is that the expression Just take the I on its own is unacceptable to both of them Now, you would think that if he's trying to prove that they didn't have the same perception of the object one of them would say you can't say that and one of them would say you can say that but apparently he's going to say neither one would accept it if he said just take sound on its own I'm sorry, just take the I on its own It would be objectionable to the Madhyamikans and it would be objectionable to the functionalists but, you know it's kind of not what we wanted him to prove because that would kind of seem like a tun-ng then it would seem like they kind of have a They agree to disagree? Then it would seem like they both have the same perception of what it's not They would both have an objection to Rang-tsen Just take the I on its own What you're expecting is for him to say the functionalists think it could come from its own side and the Madhyamikans don't think it comes from its own side so they can't argue about it because from the beginning they see it differently but he proceeds to prove that they do see it the same way in a way but for different reasons they both think it's kind of unreal for the same reasons for different reasons so let's go through the grammar again the Lopamawas, the functionalists Rang-tsen just take the I on its own it cannot make its appearance to the mind it cannot appear as an object to the mind why?

some kind of unique way of being on its own cannot appear to the mind but that's a lower middle way position well, but they still say let's go on let's go on and see if it helps when you're stumped go on and come back

[Speaker 2]
which is different from giving up

[Speaker 1]
kind of ok, this sentence is easier tena rang-tsen tang te tong pa nikka lo yu tu sharwa la ma te pe suk sok tang rang yu tu sharwa ma pe kyang den pa pak nikar tu min du nge por ma we kyang min du pe chir ok, now I'll go to the second half because it's going to help the Madhyamikans would deny such a thing whichever reality you're talking about ultimate reality or deceptive reality in either case it cannot exist ok, in either case it cannot exist they would object to it in either case ok, and the functionalists would also not agree to it now what is it that they're not what is it that the functionalists are not agreeing to which the Madhyamikans are saying doesn't, isn't possible in either case it's rang-tsen just take the eye just take the eye why did someone want to say that so that we'd have a shared yeah, so we'd have a shared thing to talk about in the same way that we did back when we when we argued with the non-Buddhists about some let's just do the same thing here why can't we just do the same thing here ok, so actually ok, if you want to go deeper Baba Viveka's addition of ultimately is wrong and the pursuit of a shared Chöchen is also impossible ok, the two debaters never are looking at the same thing get over it ok, maybe ok, rang-tsen something that's just take it the way it is and we say de tomba that's a gotcha man that's a gotcha things are empty of that of that in English, by that in Tibetan things are things are empty of that man just take it on it's own don't use those words with me man ok, I don't accept on it's own ok, got it?

ok, dan de nyi ka de tomba nyi ka lo yu tu shawa la ma dupe ok, don't don't don't take it take an appearance of this object to the mind without making that distinction without making that distinction it's simply what it is or it's empty of what it is don't make that distinction lo yu tu shawa la ma dupe forget that cancel that, ok does do colors appear to the mind or not ok, don't talk to me about emptiness, gotcha the thing by itself forget all those distinctions can it just appear to my mind as it is and the umapa says, no oh, you mean ultimately, no, I mean either so don't go adding ultimately to it cause I mean either den dan den pa la den ne or kun dzok den pa la den ne whether you're taking according to deceptive reality or whether you're taking according to ultimate reality they're both impossible ok, got it so there's no point to add the word ultimately ok shawa, by the way this all derives from the opening lines of what Geshe Michael is going to teach in Diamond Mountain if he has any time to look at it which is what's the opening line?

not things don't exist, things don't not exist, neither both nor neither ok or you could say yeah, they don't arise from themselves they don't arise from something else they don't arise from both and they don't arise from neither one of those seems as though it would be normally possible

[Speaker 2]
yeah

[Speaker 1]
and Nagarjuna says no and he doesn't say ultimately speaking ok, no, that's where this whole argument comes from because Bhagavad Gita is ultimately talking about Nagarjuna it's almost like Nagarjuna should have said ultimately speaking you know, obviously three of those choices are wrong things don't arise from themselves, I understand that things don't arise both from themselves and something else, I understand that things don't arise neither from themselves or something else, I understand that but things do arise from something else no they don't that's Nagarjuna, ok Baba Viveka wants to correct Nagarjuna could you please say ultimately speaking ok ok, got it all right umapekhyandemanyikandumidum now, it gets a little easier here we go go ahead oh ok ok ok Lopan Dala Drakpa Master Chandrakirti and who's Cholam Dignaga the Naga in Dignaga by the way refers to elephants who guard the directions dig means directions digital, dictator they all mean direction but the Naga here means the elephants of the directions so he was considered someone who could support the world ok so Dignaga because if you try to find elephant in the word Dignaga, you're in trouble ok nika they both say ranggirgitendzegiyena if it's one of those independent which is how the school got its name which school the lower branch of the middle way is how this school translation is going to talk about it girgitendzegiyena ok suljubche let's talk about suljubche you gotta understand it means tulsumjubche yeah, the confirmation steps of proving the reason right, those three steps ok, one must be three, if three, two if not two, not three ok no, this means confirming the three relationships so you must translate this as confirming the relationships otherwise you're gonna get messed up suljubche means confirming in Buddhism, this is how you confirm the validity of a syllogism the thing you say first must be three one must be three, if three, two if not two, not three these are the three relationships you must confirm them to see whether it's a valid argument in the case of let's take sound it's not it's not unchanging actually because it's made what's the first su? is it true that sound is made?

yeah, sound is made one is three is it true that if three, two if something is made it must be changing yes, second one is drooped second second sul drooped now let's try to droop the third sul if it's not mitapa is it always not chepa yeah, confirmed it's a tatyanda technically you have to say didukitayanda in the context that's another story yeah, but this sul droop means confirm the three relationships suljubche kitsema it's got to be a pramana an accurate presumption tsawa semetsawa nu dro matapa this is the past tense of drondok right overestimate ok yeah, yeah what is a common example of overestimate? thinking something exists on its own side or thinking gas has the power to run a car that's drondokpa and and if you overreact to that statement and you say nothing can power a car that's kunda that's underestimating there's no good English I think yet for those two overestimating the power of gas it can run a car without my karmic seeds underestimating the gas no gas can run my car ok, alright here he's talking about drondokpa where's the dro mean by the way according to Geshe Tuttar Rinchen's videos or recordings it's been a while he took a long time on this he said dro is I remember going hunting with my father in Utah we were on a mountain and we came to a turkey farm and we were high over a turkey farm that spread across a whole valley like 50,000 turkeys making noise and it stink and smell and once a year they slaughter all of them you know so our guide was one of the guys who helped slaughter them you know, the mountain guide and we were shooting deer so anyway, he's like yeah, we use the meat and we use the feathers we cut them up and we make arrows out of them so that's a dro the feather that you attach to an arrow yeah, latching fletching is a dro dro means a piece of a feather that you attach to something meaning you give it more than it was supposed to be you add you over add that's all dro tak means to attach the feather ok, so dro matak I'm trying to stall so I don't understand this just kidding maybe ok so the mind is not overestimating yeah, the mind is not overestimating ye de, de kona ni jenpa la rak le pa it must depend rak le is an idiom that means tepa to rely upon tepa, tenpa, rak le pa all the same they're all the same she pa these two positions of these two masters, both of them meaning Chandrakirti and Dignanga they agree that that is the case ok but I'm going to go back over it me too but but they differ on the importance of it Chandrakirti says that's impossible and and therefore he doesn't accept a svatantrika reasoning aranyukitensik which is why the lower middle way school got its name Chandrakirti denies a reason which has a power from its own side he would say gasoline doesn't have a power to drive a car ok so they both share, they both have an agreement on something about aranyukitensik they agree on some point of that but they don't agree on whether it's possible or not let's see what they do agree on for you you would have to understand suchness, right you would have to understand suchness if you wanted to avoid the mind overestimating ok the engine tatsava the engine of logic which is used to confirm the tsulsum matakpar ok so if you don't basically if you don't understand emptiness you will believe that there is some power in the reason that can prove something like gasoline that there is some power in gasoline there is some chemical in gasoline

[Speaker 2]
you have to understand suchness but they don't agree on what suchness is

[Speaker 1]
right yeah I guess they both maybe they are saying that they both agree on what a svatantrika would be that it would have to have some part of it that could prove things on its own but only Chandrakirti says that's not possible they both agree on what a rangyu would be that it would have some element in it that had its own power but only Chandrakirti would say that's not possible they both agree on the description of a svatantrika of a reason that had some power on its own but they disagree on whether they exist or not ok I'm going to read it that way and we'll go back to this next time ok we'll go back to this because I want to go to the next what time we go to? we have ten more minutes good ok he would say and because Chandrakirti doesn't accept the svatantrika reason that they both agree on how it's described he doesn't accept it rangyu ki tenzig mi she meaning Chandrakirti he doesn't accept it because he Chandrakirti doesn't accept such reasoning that would have some efficacy of its own some power of its own because he says it's impossible that there could be something in it that had its own power ok got it but having something inside it that has its own power is something they both agree on would be a svatantrika ok got it whether they exist or not they disagree but they both agree that people pose such syllogisms they believe in syllogisms

[Speaker 2]
this way

[Speaker 1]
they describe the syllogism the same one of them says it's fine one of them says it's impossible ok I like the next part because I also understand this one and let's do it because I like to kind of wrap the day up on a happy note where we all understand something ok so go ahead kachik umapa yina rangikyuki jesu pakpa jawar mirik shepe tsikla tene umarang yupe umape ka mitru par dupa nimirik te ok ok this is really obscure and it's cute ok some people say if you're going to be a madhyamikan if you want to count yourself as a madhyamikan then you better not quote and then he's quoting something he doesn't say where it's from you better not rangikyuki jesu pakpa jawar mirik it would be wrong for you to use this logic jesu jepak tsema jepak tsema of the rangikyupas if you want to be a madhyamikan don't go around using these rangikyutensics ok some people heard that quotation who said it?

Chandrakirti where? prasannapada ok 6L yeah clarification of the wording of Nagarjuna's text yeah not the meaning which is what's the job of entering the middle way so Chandrakirti wrote two commentaries to Nagarjuna one explaining the wording one explaining the meaning the meaning one won out in the evolution of text I like to speak about the evolution of text you know if your translation is good it will survival of the fittest and if it's bad it will sink into obscurity quickly ok and we'll put it on the shelf for these other ones just kidding not ok so siglatene means they refer to that little snippet in the clarification of the words by Chandrakirti which says if you're going to be a umapa if you're going to be a madhyamikan don't go believing in those reasons whose engine has its own power ok some people say ok that siglatene saying believing you know having read that line in Chandrakirti they say umaran gyupe umape komicha it took me like three days to figure this out ok it's a simple naro which destroyed the meaning ok and I was looking for hapaks legaman you know this is all wrong ok it's komicha and that's a cool idiom say ko chupa ko chupa ah let me take an example yeah so somebody in our family is losing their hair and it tends to stuff up the bathtub's drain and it's not blood ah and and then we bought special the plumber taught me to buy this long needle nose pliers and you can reach down you save like $100 calling the guy it goes way down and you pull them out now the other day we lost the pliers oh no they're too big but we found out that chopsticks ko chupa yeah they can do the same thing they can substitute they can stand in for the pliers so you never know you know when you teach your students ko chupa you're going to talk about Geshe Michael's hair no because when I remember Rinpoche teaching it it's something that he was personal to him so you'll never forget this expression ko chupa can stand in for and that guy says umarangyupa ko miche umapa they cannot stand in for

[Speaker 2]
yeah

[Speaker 1]
don't call them Madhyamikans then don't call them Madhyamikans then why?

because Chandrakirti said in 6L no good Madhyamikan would go believing in this kind of reason no good Madhyamikan would go believing in this reason that has some power from its own side ok then the other guy says yeah Svatantrikas aren't Madhyamika you know ko miche why? Chandrakirti said so where? 6L ok in his commentary let's kick him out of the Madhyamika club they want 50% from its own side they don't deserve to be in the Madhyamika club ok that's his shenlug

[Speaker 2]
yeah we are

[Speaker 1]
they say come on let's let them be in the club you know they're not perfect but they're not so bad so the statement here after all this wrassling about Svatantrik reasons self effective reasons half self effective reasons the result one of the ways one of the places the argument goes to is let them stay in the club they're not perfect let them stay in the club do we have some time? oh let's go to here's by the way Kiruta Madhya uses that quotation for the same point here's the original quotation from 6L here umapa yena ranggi gyur kyi jesu papa chavaripa ma iya ma imte if you're a Madhyamikan you shouldn't be using this logic indirect reasoning right pak je pak tsema you shouldn't be using logic of this type which which says that the word ultimate has some power of its own ok got it? ok go teni ranggi mi ripa par ten kyi umapa tang ranggi khele pak ngelwar tum pak ni ma imte yeah this does these words of Chandrakirti in prasannapana they do indicate that it would be wrong to accept this kind of reasoning that has some efficacy on its own side but they are not meant to indicate tum pak that it's contradictory to be a Madhyamikan if you do accept it ok they say a Madhyamikan shouldn't accept it but it doesn't mean you get kicked out of the Madhyamika club if you do accept it ok and then he gives a funny understandable sentence and we'll go back over the last few sentences ok to prove it and you're going to translate this for me gelong monks read it first gelong chang tung mi ripa ten pe chang tung pe tung gyur ngelwar ni ma im no yeah when a monk it's mi rip for a monk to drink beer to drink alcohol by the way this is a general alcohol name when you teach somebody that ok when you give a teaching and you say it's improper for monks to drink alcohol it's not that that's a reason for them it's not that alcohol is a cause for them losing their vows they don't get kicked out of the monks club just because they drank a little alcohol which is kind of a funny criticism of the lower middle way you know it kind of has a lot of meanings there

[Speaker 2]
yeah

[Speaker 1]
they got a little drunk they came up with this idea 50% 50% they got a little drunk they came up with this idea they're not so bad people we don't have to kick them out they're just a little crazy ok got it some days they're crazy but that doesn't mean we should kick them out it's kind of cute that's guilt subject talking it's one third

[Speaker 2]
yeah

[Speaker 1]
start to nine no it's not one of the parts

[Speaker 2]
it's not a pamba

[Speaker 1]
then it gets sexier ok then it gets even sexier yeah we'll come back to this part but now we kind of know where he's going sometimes it's helpful to get get the part after the part you don't understand wait three days, come back and then suddenly it's clear like his quotation when you struggle struggle struggle there is a result it just takes time to happen thank you sashi puti joshi neto tam rira lingshi nimde genpadi sange shindu mikte uargi joku namda shinla chupasho idam guru rata mandala kamyata yamin kewa dhikhe wokun sanam yeshe shugi shmugi