Классика Алмазного огранщика: Верхний Срединный путь — Великие книги мудрости, занятие 32

[Speaker 2]
These questions are for everyone, not just somebody.

[Speaker 1]
Do we say that the debate between the functionalists and the numerists is a parallel example of the debate between the Middle Way and the functionalists?

[Speaker 2]
It was used as such, but it isn't actually parallel. Good. And then there's a little bit of explanation that you could give.

Because when the functionalists and the numerists talk about sound, they already agree upon what sound is. But when the Middle Way and the functionalists talk about... You talk about how that thing really exists.

Yeah, they disagree fundamentally. Good. Nice.

Perfect. Thank you. Word.

[Speaker 1]
Tun-gong? Tun-nong. Tun-nong.

[Speaker 2]
It's not a tun-nong. It depends on whether or not they have it. There you go.

They do have a common subject of debate. Between the Middle Way and the functionalists, we say that they do not have a common subject or a tun-nong. I've been in trouble.

No, I think we do do it.

[Speaker 1]
No, I think we do do it. No, A, B. A, B.

We use it for the long U.

[Speaker 2]
What is an abbreviation that Geltz and Jay used for exist by definition and how does it relate to an idea in the Sautrantica school regarding archetypes and outer objects?

[Speaker 1]
I don't remember that. I mean, I don't remember what it is. I'm sure it happened.

It did. What was it?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you're right. Okay. What does it stand for?

What's the long form in Tibetan? I don't know. Ranggitane kidupa.

[Speaker 1]
Oh. Ranggitane kidupa.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Ranggitane kidupa. I thought you said it.

Ah. And then anybody could say how, and this is tricky, I kind of just wrote it as a homework question because I'm trying to wrap my mind around it and I'm hoping Geshe-la will lend some more clarity to the idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, the opposite of Ranggitane in Sautrantica.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. That's how you would say it relates to the...

[Speaker 1]
I would say, I don't know, I mean, to me it's like, so what's the opposite of Ranggitane in Sautrantica? Ranggitane as opposed to...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Ranggitane, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's what I would say. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So, what's one possibility of how the Ranggitane kidupa and Ranggitane relate to each other? Ranggitane kidupa, as our author keeps using it, and the idea of Ranggitane in Sautrantica, which... Something with the elimination, right?

It's pretty simple. I mean, I'll just... It seems like he's saying that they're the same thing.

Really? But I don't know, maybe Geshe-la will... Maybe it will get clearer, more clear as the text progresses.

[Speaker 1]
We're going deeper on it, you didn't have to say that. Clearer I can't promise. Deeper I can promise.

[Speaker 2]
Alright. What are the tsul-truk-che? Whoa!

[Speaker 1]
Damn!

[Speaker 2]
Mole butts. What do Masters Dignaga and Chandrakirti agree about with respect to them? What do they disagree about?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, man.

[Speaker 2]
Come on, Tim, keep it coming, man. Could we end the class? You got this.

Don't you want to do a philosophy major? No, I would. I would.

Okay, okay, Dr. Philosophy major.

[Speaker 1]
Masters, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. Undergrad, it's only an undergrad. UFC goes, he's got a Masters over here.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, CG, what do you got? I'm going to buy it. I'm not going to buy it.

Don't make me bust out my GED. Good enough.

[Speaker 2]
We need Earl, who's actually a DJ Earl.

[Speaker 1]
He's degenerating into a vacation already. Come on, come on. All right, should I?

[Speaker 2]
What do they agree about with respect to them? What do they disagree about with respect to them? Give us a hint.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, give us a hint.

[Speaker 2]
It wasn't, okay, here's a hint that might help. Master, it's not that Master Dignaga said he didn't think that about them, but he didn't say that he, it's not that he said he did think a certain thing about them, it's just that he didn't say that he didn't. And Master Chandrakirti.

[Speaker 1]
Man, that made it worse. What kind of hint is that?

[Speaker 2]
Master, it helps him look at them. It has to do with the reason.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
The thing that we've been discussing.

[Speaker 1]
No, are you sure?

[Speaker 2]
Who would have thought on the topic? They agree on what a self-power reason would be.

[Speaker 1]
They disagree on whether it's possible that they could exist. Oh, good.

[Speaker 2]
That's true. Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
That's cool. And what is the Utpala theory of which of the words in the syllogism reflects this?

[Speaker 2]
Rangyu, right?

[Speaker 1]
No, the classic Bhagaviveka syllogism.

[Speaker 2]
The Utpala theory considers them. Ultimately, right? Bhagaviveka syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, ultimately. Ultimately. That's your position.

I like it. You clarified the whole thing.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it was really clear.

[Speaker 1]
That's the word that must have power from its own side. That the word I doesn't have. Oh, yeah.

Yeah, okay. Cool. If you have to add ultimately, you already contradicted yourself.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Then for 1,000 extra points.

[Speaker 1]
Because according to you, people are going to take it to be self-existent. So you have to add ultimately. But then ultimately you can self-exist.

Yeah. 1,000 extra points?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I'm interested. Does this translate into any dollars?

[Speaker 1]
Not touching the numbers. Is that why you're going for a loan to pay me off when I get the 1,000? I got to make the seeds.

No, it's 1,000 extra points.

[Speaker 2]
The dollar signs are just to draw your attention. Yes, you know us well. If someone accepts reasons that don't have their own power, does that make them unfit to be called a middle way thinker?

[Speaker 1]
I think he wanted to say do.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no.

[Speaker 1]
That do have their own power.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, oh. If somebody accepts reasons that, yeah, sorry. You're totally right.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because you just described a Prasangika.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. No, they should be kicked out of the middle way.

[Speaker 1]
No, they should not. Ben gets the 1,000 extra points.

[Speaker 2]
Yay.

[Speaker 1]
They compare it to a monk who drinks alcohol.

[Speaker 2]
All right. He doesn't have to be kicked out of the monastery. He's just a jerk.

They just broke their vows.

[Speaker 1]
They didn't lose their vows. They just think that reasons have their own power. And you've got to think.

You've got to think that he's implying that their positions are like a drunkard, like the prattling of a drunkard. Yeah. You've got to think there's a little bit of sarcasm there.

He was probably the most famous sarcastic person in Tibetan history.

[Speaker 2]
Gyaltsabje.

[Speaker 1]
He totally got taken by that girl. Yeah, he got beaten by the girl.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, really? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The cow poop. Was it like Bajirugin? Wasn't that cow like Bajirugin or something?

[Speaker 2]
All right. Can you take the plane, please?

[Speaker 1]
All right.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to have a royal approaching turbulence, please. Can I get a seat?

[Speaker 2]
Main seating.

[Speaker 1]
Just hold that pee-pee. All electronic items.

[Speaker 2]
I'm not putting my cane in the upright position.

[Speaker 1]
We really are approaching turbulence, right?

[Speaker 2]
We believe you.

[Speaker 1]
Which you can tell from the number of English words here. Put your head in your lap.

[Speaker 2]
You're buzzing by.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Please read. This is a really sexy, I mean, it's very sophisticated.

They mean those self-spot-tentacles. By the way, and the implication is they should be kicked out. Don't tell me they shouldn't be kicked out.

They should be kicked out. Why? There's the instrumental there.

Because they accept that things are true. true, or especially that functioning things have reality, which is a functionalism. That makes them mind-only at best, you see, got it?

The first three schools are functionalists. So he's saying they are functionals. That makes them functionalists, so let's kick them out.

If they believe that gasoline has something in it that can make a car go, then they're kicked out of the fourth school, because, by the way, what did they say? What lopo did they say was demba?

[Speaker 2]
What lopo did they say was demba?

[Speaker 1]
The word ultimately, the word ultimately, in a syllogism, no, in a syllogism, the word ultimately had power that the rest, you see?

[Speaker 2]
To make the nagal and the chigal agree on a tenang, yeah, you can say that, yeah, okay?

[Speaker 1]
We should kick them out, because they believe in the reality of functioning things, which he wants that to be a functionalist, which pretty much is the description of functionalism. Okay, then the answer is cool. Well, then Sankhya should be Buddhists, because they believe in no-self, because they believe the heaps have no self nature.

They believe the heaps are not atman. No, they believe they, oh, they're not, they think the soul is separate from the pooples, okay? They believe that the body and mind of a human being does not have Atman, God, Atman, capital A, okay?

They believe he's separate from the parts of a human being, so we can say they believe in no-self. So according to your logic, they should be Buddhists. If the word, if you can say no-self believer makes you a Buddhist, then Sankhyas are Buddhists, because according to you, reality-working-thing believers are functionalists.

[Speaker 2]
Right, because the word matches.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, just because the word kind of fits. Got it? Yeah.

It's kind of, it's a reverse argument. It's funny. He didn't say you're wrong.

He just said, oh, well, then Sankhyas are Buddhists, I guess. They don't believe the person is the self. They don't believe in the person of the self.

Yeah, because they believe God called person, who made a self. Got it? It's kind of cool.

All right. Please. Okay.

Please read. Yeah, you can say Dharmadukpa, but you're wrong, okay? You can say Dharmadukpa, but you're wrong.

You can say the Sankhya don't believe that Atman is the body and mind of a human, but you're wrong. You cannot say Dharmadukpa. They do believe Atman is not the body and mind of a human, okay?

So you can try to say that, but you would be wrong. You can't say Dharmadukpa to my reason that I gave you, okay? You can say that it doesn't apply, which is the way we would want to go, but even he's almost like, oh, I'm not going to go there.

[Speaker 2]
Skipped a line. No.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
He didn't. Oh, I apologize.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I just got so many notes to myself. Okay.

Someone may say. I think, you see, there's a chena here, okay? And then he has a cheer statement, okay?

And then he starts another chena. So you would think that this cheer statement has to connect to this chena, but it doesn't. I don't believe it has anything to do with that.

This is one of those statements where you start out, because he's a fool, everything he does is not so cool, something like that, okay? So I think he just leaves this one hanging, okay? I believe you have to cut it from the other ones.

And if you're going to come back, well then, we should kick them out, because they prove the existence of things with logic, meaning demba things, true things, real things. And then he doesn't answer it, you know, what, what, what, tell me we should kick them out because they prove things are loopholes? Then he just goes on.

Tell me we should kick them out because they prove things are working things, meaning they use proofs to prove things that involve working things, therefore they are functionalist, therefore we should kick them out. Then he doesn't even answer it, he's like, okay, you know, they mention the word working thing in their proofs, so they're proving something true about working things, so they accept the trueness of working things, so they're functionalist? Let's go on.

You know, I think he's not even answering, okay? It's difficult. It's nasty.

[Speaker 2]
In order to make this somewhat accessible, you might want to ask the next question.

[Speaker 1]
You massage it. Or maybe you massage it, yeah. I believe.

I mean, I may look at it again next term and say I'm wrong, but it's what it feels like to me right now. Okay. Okay?

Because the next argument, the chair, which involves chepas, is explained in the next lines, not in the previous lines. Nobody says chepa here. Okay.

Yeah, and you wrestle with it a little bit, and then I'll tell you how wrong you are.

[Speaker 2]
Cool. Perfect. Those guys also accept that the skandhas are made.

[Speaker 1]
Let me just do it for you.

[Speaker 2]
It's too hard. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Does the lower middle school accept that the heaps are made?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And do the Sankhyas believe that the heaps are made?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
If they accept heaps as such, but I mean, they're divided differently.

[Speaker 1]
A body and mind. Would they say that the body and mind are made?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
By Atman or by Prakriti or by something? They do.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And would they, can we say that if something is made, it has to be dung-made? Can, in general, can we say that if something is made, it has to have no self?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. We can say that.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. If the pen is a created thing, it cannot be coming from its own side.

[Speaker 2]
Can we say that? Every school agrees with that, right? Yeah, we can say that.

[Speaker 1]
Kyab kyung, therefore, so what I'm saying is, I believe what he's saying is, look, I can accept, I can go so far as to say that those Sankhyas, okay, believe that things are made, but I'm not saying that just because they believe that things are made, they have to believe that things have no self. I'm not going that far, okay, Shana, okay? I'm not going there, okay?

That's not where I'm going. Then we say, okay, well, dear Yang Tsun, well, it's the same thing here, okay? It's the same thing here.

If you accept that working things are real, okay, sorry, if you don't accept that working things are real, I'm sorry, since they don't accept that working things are real, and since they do accept that all things are unreal, I'm sorry, if you don't agree that working things are real, and if you do say that everything is unreal, how does that automatically make you a Madhyamikam? Okay, how does that automatically make you a Madhyamikam? It must mean that the Sankhyas in some way say that working things are not what you thought they were, meaning they don't look like creations of Atman and Prakriti, but they are, okay?

So, they don't accept that things are real. They don't accept that things are what you think they are. That's true.

Most people in the universe never figure out that these are all creations of Atman and Prakriti, but special people do, okay? So most people are believing in something that's not real, okay? They don't accept a reality which is as it seems, okay?

And, in that sense, they do accept that everything is unreal. But, does that make them a Madhyamikam? Does that make Sankhyas a Madhyamikam?

He's complaining that just because the general description, they don't accept working things as real, could be applied to lower middle way. That doesn't mean they're a functionalist. That doesn't make them a functionalist, which would kick them out of the Madhyamikam.

So, that's where this whole argument is. And it's hard, and we probably have to go through it again. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
This text kind of became a Drupada. It says Drupada on the next line. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's our cho. So, read the last line, and whatever the first two lines are saying, they're supposed to be the cause for the last line. Then all the schools of philosophy get jumbled up.

Yeah. Sankhyas are accepting some Prasangika stuff. Lower middle way are functionalists.

The whole distinction between the schools gets messed up, if we go your way. If we say, Khyabja, Khyabja, Khyabje. So, this argument depends on Khyabja, Khyabje.

Like cars and Toyotas. Khyabja is toys, Toyotas are cars. That's the Khyabje.

That's the include-er. Yeah, BYED means the include-er. Khyabje is cars.

The Khyab-er is cars, as a category. Khyabja is Toyotas. The Khyab-er is cars.

The Khyab-er is Toyotas. So, here it's kind of like the cover-er. Anyone who says things are unreal must be saying things are unreal the way Madhyamika does.

So, if a Sankhya says things are unreal, it means anyone who says that something is unreal, it must be Madhyamika. Anyone who says that some of the pen comes from the pen must be a functionalist. So, you're accepting, what you're saying is Khyabja, Khyabje, Ki, Khyaba.

Khyabja, Khyabje, Ki, Khyaba. No, it's always the case that if you're a Khyabje, you're the Khyabja. Any car is a Toyota.

Because anyone who says anything is unreal must be Madhyamika. Because they say things are unreal. So, if a Sankhya comes along and says your pen came from Prakrti and Atman and Ishvara and whatever, what soul?

[Speaker 2]
I think Prakrti's function.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, you normal people who weren't lucky enough to be born into our caste, when you look at things you don't understand that it's all an emanation of Ishvara. So, you're believing in something that's not real. If you think the pen was made in a factory, you're accepting something that's not real as real.

Because what's real is the pen that was made by Ishvara who built the factory too. So, do Sankhya people run around saying things are not the way you think they are? Does that make them Madhyamika?

It does too, because anyone who says a thing works is a functionalist. Parallel logic. And if you keep insisting that if someone accepts the Kyabje, they must be accepting the Kyabja, then all the school systems get messed up.

Then everybody believes everybody else's thing. If anyone who says something is unreal is a Madhyamika, then Sankhya has become Madhyamika. If you want to kick the Svatantrikas out, you have this problem.

Yeah, that's a difficult one. Set and subset sometimes. No, it's not teaching that.

Maybe set and subset. That's because when I grew up, when I was in elementary school, they thought it was important to teach a set and subset. Same with you?

Are you in my era? They thought it was important to teach sets and subsets.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So it's in my mind, but I'm not sure it's in people's minds nowadays. I don't know. Okay, go.

Yeah, okay. He's giving an example of a drupada tamche chelwa. He's giving an example of how the schools would all start to overlap.

We'd end up with a jumbo school. Siddhanta jumbo. Here's an example.

Dunmangi.

[Speaker 2]
The two lower schools?

[Speaker 1]
Read it first. I'll make fun of your pronunciation.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
What's a dunma?

[Speaker 2]
It's probably talking about the Chidamawa symbol. He's talking about objects. People who profess outer objects.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Chiro dundumawa.

[Speaker 2]
He's talking about the lower two?

[Speaker 1]
Chiro dundumawa. Yeah, it's the lower two schools. Who say that there are outer objects.

It can't be the third school, right? Cannot be. Cannot be the third school.

They're the main ones who say they're inner. Okay, okay. Dunmangi kyang.

They both accept, kelang, that all made things, chepa, all made things, are denme. Gyumetabu. Are unreal.

[Speaker 2]
They're unreal.

[Speaker 1]
I would say unreal, yeah. They're unreal. They're like an illusion.

According to you, they must accept it. According to you then, since the schools overlap and jumbled up, then the two lower schools would have to accept the idea that every made thing in the universe is an illusion, is not itself. Okay, according to you.

Why? Why do you say that? Because they accept dendro.

And dendro yina, denme yinpe kyap. Who's the kyabje? Who's the kyabja?

Dendro yina, if something's dependently originating, denpa mayinpe kyap. It cannot be real. This is Madhyamika.

What's the kyabje? Kyabje is someone who accepts dependent origination. No, being dependent is the kyabje.

Being unreal is what?

[Speaker 2]
The kyabja.

[Speaker 1]
Kyabja, yeah. If it's dependent, it must be unreal. If it's a car, sorry, I got it backwards.

[Speaker 2]
No, that's right.

[Speaker 1]
Not really.

[Speaker 2]
If it's a Toyota, it must be a car.

[Speaker 1]
If you're going to mix up kyabjas and kyabjes, then all cars must be telling us. No, anyone who accepts that things are dependent must be a Madhyamikan. Because Madhyamikans say that all dependent things are unreal.

Therefore, the lower schools believe that all things are unreal. Why? Because they say things are dependent.

So according to you, if someone accepts the kyabje, they must accept the kyabja. I'm very, very sorry to announce that we are entering something I understand. So he kind of, by the way, he can't let go of this argument that, he can't let go of debating the lower middle way school, and he hasn't touched the root text in the six months.

He went off on the lower middle way. We're still arguing about the lower middle way. The whole point here is if somebody wants to kick him out of the Madhyamika, we say, no, you can't.

But he hasn't come back to the root text for the longest time. He's just ranting. Which means either this is going to be a really long text, or he speeds up later.

And it's striking how many texts speed up later. They say, okay, that's enough pussy-footing around. Let's get down to the root verses.

He hasn't done a root verse in the longest time. By the way, now he's going to start to speed up. It's like when certain high lamas teach the eight verses.

They always spend three days on the first one, and then they do seven on the last day. Yeah, okay. You've seen it many times.

Okay, go ahead. I'm taking a refreshment break, and you guys are translating. By the way, I'm going to give you the Nipah for free.

It was a long time ago. Okay, so here it is. It was inside of his refuting the extreme view that things could exist, the way they appear.

And this bold is still the... I snipped it from before. This is our second major division from above.

Refute the extreme view that things could exist the way they appear. We begin with a proof by absurdity, Telangir, and then we cover some incidental points.

[Speaker 2]
So up to the incidental points? Incidental points?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and you forgot his proof of absurdity. It was...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That if things were real the way non-Aryas perceived them to be, then wouldn't they already be Arhats or something like that?

[Speaker 2]
Right, or Aryas.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that was our...

[Speaker 2]
He said Arhats, and then he clarified that he was not just a people who achieved Arhats.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. So anyway, I mean, that was very many months ago. And that everything that came since then is this one verse, which is a Telangir.

It's a proof of absurdity. You know, oh, if children could see that, then they'd already be enlightened. Okay?

Then he says, then I'm going to tell you some incidental stuff that relates to it. We reached the incidental stuff. Okay?

And now he's going to speed up. He's going to get back to the root text. I think someone told him, look, I thought this was a commentary.

You know? You can just feel he met somebody on the road and the guy's like, I've been reading your new book, but when are you going to comment on the 60 verses? You know?

It's not the three verses, it's the 60 verses. Okay. You can translate this part.

So sharchung means incidental points. Rinpoche used to constantly burn it into my mind. He'd say chung gi sharla sharla in the colloquial, sharla, not shar.

You know, chung kang gi chola du lo chu on your incidental to going to the store to buy all my groceries today, can you also wash my clothes? That was a typical day for me. Okay?

So sharla means, you know, your main job is to buy groceries, but sharla could you wash my clothes? On the way, by the way. It means by the way.

In scripture it means, you know, okay, I finished fighting this huge war, here's some mop-up things. Here's a few mop-up things. Mop-up means after a major battle there's still a few guys left alive and you take care of them.

It's called mop-up, like mopping the floor. So he said, okay, the battle's over, I killed almost everybody, now I'm just going to clean up a little bit. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
So does it say that if you have these two viewpoints, then you're not if you're relying on these two ways of seeing the world, you're not free?

[Speaker 1]
That would be tawa nyi.

[Speaker 2]
Tawa nyi.

[Speaker 1]
This is nysa tawa. Exactly. Yeah, exactly.

Here's the real word duality. Here's the real word duality.

[Speaker 2]
Essentially duality and not discrepancy?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I like to call it discrepancy. I like to call it discrepancy because duality is so confusing. No subject, no object.

That's not the point of Buddhism, to say that there's no Seiji when Seiji looks at his computer. That's not dualism. Dualism is pen appearing to be coming from its own side and the pen really not coming from its own side.

That's discrepancy. That's seeing things double. V took some medicine, really strong medicine, and I remember she's sitting at she sat down in front of the door and she looked at me and she said, there's two of you.

And I'm like, okay, we got to get to bed. And it was hard to get her into the bed. It was too strong for her stomach.

It was really funny. Anyway, it wasn't funny. But that's seeing things double.

In English we say seeing things double. They look to be from their own side but they're not. It looks like the discrepancy is real but it's not.

Things are not. It looks like things are self-existent but they're not. That's dualism.

And then to perceive that things are not two. And here he uses notice the change in verb. First thing, imagine that things are dual and then realize that they are not.

Tawa and tokpa. You see, to view things as dual and then to realize that they are not implies that the second one is true. He changed the verb.

He changed the verb.

[Speaker 2]
So freedom from seeing them that way and then the freedom of knowing that they're not.

[Speaker 1]
Nope. You got an S there. That's enough of a clue.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, because you're seeing things with this discrepancy and not free.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to demonstrate to you why if you don't see emptiness you will never be free and why if you do see emptiness you will become free. That's a pretty cool incidental point.

[Speaker 2]
Come on.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's interesting. Colleagues, thank you.

My Jamaicans. It seems like it would be more important but it's incidental. As long as you continue to view things as a discrepancy you will never be free and when you get over the discrepancy you will be free.

Okay, got it? Don't forget the bold part here is just to catch you up to where you were including the absurd statement. Now, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
We're back to root text?

[Speaker 1]
Yay! I actually had to go check that it was root text. I said, maybe this is root text.

Yeah, he went back to the root text. I didn't bold it. I didn't have time.

I didn't put the first number. You can do all that. And it's understandable without a commentary which is even harder.

Okay. And it's understandable without a commentary. So you can translate it.

And it calls back to the opening lines of Prajna. Wisdom. Nagarjuna.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, thinking that things exist you'll never get free. When you realize that's impossible. Oh, no.

If you think things don't exist.

[Speaker 1]
Good. If you think things don't exist. You will never...

This is Sipa as in Sipa Korma.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you'll never... I guess he's saying you'll never get out of the wheel.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you'll never get out of this suffering life.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but he says, di le min. Like, it's not...

[Speaker 1]
Out of this suffering life. You'll never get out of this suffering life.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, so he's referring back to the troll?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, not really. Let's go see what he calls it.

[Speaker 2]
He's just saying... Get out, but mince.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you'll never get out. Let's see what verb he chooses to use when he gets to it. Okay, here we go.

This is... This piece is... This piece is actually understandable.

Ooh. Okay, so we're probably going to go back to not thinking too much.

[Speaker 2]
It's probably the rest of that same verse.

[Speaker 1]
Then he calls the Rinchen Tower Ratna Mala. Cool. It's also called Ratna Valley.

It has two names. It has both names.

[Speaker 2]
... ...

[Speaker 1]
...

[Speaker 2]
...

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

...

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
... Yeah, he gave you a verb after di le. He gave you a verb to use when you translate to root text.

[Speaker 2]
Right, because that mean is a little...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, can't get out of. Can't be liberated from. So you're allowed to go use that in the root text.

[Speaker 2]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Because it'd be kind of weird to say if you think they're not, there's no from here. Or something like that. It doesn't make sense.

So... ... view.

tawa means to view, right? As a verb, okay? When there's no be, it's a noun.

A viewpoint. With a be, it means to see. To look at.

To view. So when you view things as if they had their own nature. I strongly prefer some nature of their own.

[Speaker 2]
Some nature of their own.

[Speaker 1]
You debunk it even in your translations, okay? When you look at things as if they had some nature of their own, okay? Then that proves you know what the hell you're talking about.

That there's no such thing, okay? You know, when you talk about something that's not there, you usually go like this, or, you know, we have an intelligent president, you know. You know, you usually do something to indicate.

[Speaker 2]
Some nature of their own makes it sound like a stupid idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what, some weird nature of its own. Because to refer to it as the nature of its own is a huge mistake. To call it a nature of its own is a medium mistake.

To call it some nature of its own is precise. And I really want you to get in that mood. For me, to be honest, if I open a book and it says the nature, I throw it immediately in the garbage.

If it says a nature of its own, I'll give the guy five minutes. If it says some nature of its own, this guy knows what he's talking about. Because he's talking about something that can't exist, and he knows it.

As if kind of helps.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, as if it's fine.

[Speaker 1]
As if it had its own nature, but I hear it's the some nature of its own. Anytime you refer to a gaccha, you should put it down somehow. It's like the opposite of the tantric vow about your lama.

Yeah, the tantric vow about your lama, as you have to say. The incomparable. We're going to get it in your text.

They're about to say, I heard this from the incomparable, beautiful, and holy lips of the great. And then they give our lama's name. And then I was thinking, well, we can date him now.

We knew who his lama was. And my approximate date was wrong. So now we can date him more correctly.

Because of how he goes off on the lama. It's very probably his root lama then. But the opposite is, when you get to a gaccha, for God's sake, don't talk about it as if it were real.

Because it ain't. Okay, go. Yeah, I'm sorry.

When you view things as if they had some nature of their own, you will never tulwa from sipa, which here is a synonym for korwa. Who said that?

[Speaker 2]
You did?

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Who's putting korwa next to sipa to explain it?

[Speaker 2]
Gatsabje, the commentator.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, hey guys, there's a lot of sipas. This one means korwa. He's glossing sipa.

Yeah, he's glossing sipa. It's in a positive. So translate it that way.

Because that's going to be in italics already.

[Speaker 2]
For sure.

[Speaker 1]
Now you can be less precise when you translate sipa, because he clarified it. So you don't have to say suffering life. You can say from life.

And then he says, life in the circle. And then everybody knows what you're talking about. You want to do it, Dane?

Yeah. Teni, okay. I'm going to go there, but let's get the words down.

Okay. Tservab. All your future lives.

Future lives. Rab with an S doesn't mean highest. It means string of lifetimes.

Tservab. It also means a ford across a river. So there's a hill called Rabme, the river which cannot be forded.

One of the partial hills. Yeah, I guess it is.

[Speaker 2]
Kind of adjacent or whatever.

[Speaker 1]
In all of your future lives, you will get a result of dendro.

[Speaker 2]
Happiness?

[Speaker 1]
Opposite of... Opposite of...

[Speaker 2]
Help? Oh, I know what you're saying. Semchenyawa.

Ngensong.

[Speaker 1]
Ngensong. Yes, the opposite of ngensong. What's ngensong?

[Speaker 2]
Ngensong is the lower three realms.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So dendro means the higher three realms. Yeah, the good goings.

[Speaker 2]
Good goings.

[Speaker 1]
Debu, you will get a result of a good rebirth, and you will get a result of good feelings. Pleasant feelings. Debu chen yinpe chen.

Debu mepar taway chen le, but if rather than that... Okay, I'm sorry. No, this le is karma.

I take it back. Yinpe chen len de. Mepar ta.

But if you hold the viewpoint that there's no karma and consequences, if you hold the viewpoint that there's no karma and consequences, neither then would you be freed from this sipa, which means korwa. So he's giving... Yeah.

This is the explanation of me in the verse. So there's two mistakes you can make. You can believe that ngepos have erlangchen, yu, or you can believe that there's no karma and consequences, me.

And let's go back to the verse. Those who believe that things are don't get freed. And those who believe that things aren't also don't get freed.

Okay? But Gyaltsabje hands us what they think exists, means functional things that have a nature. And then what he thinks that don't exist is karma and its consequences.

Now, you've got to read this acting time of clause comes after what it modifies. So it's weird. A belief in karma and its consequences is the cause of going to higher birth and all your rebirths.

And it is the cause for the result of good feelings. And because of that, if rather, you think that there is no such lende, so lende here, karma and its consequences, he doesn't introduce it clearly. He's introducing it in weird language.

[Speaker 2]
He's tying it to the result of having a happier rebirth and he's saying, but if you don't believe in that kind of...

[Speaker 1]
Well, he should have probably put a period here or something, you see? It should have been two sentences. Look, if you do believe in karma and consequences, everything is cool, period.

But if you don't believe in karma and consequences, the same thing is going to happen to you as the yuppa guy, as the guy I described first, who believes that everything does exist. So it's a very confusing syntax here. But it's clear what it has to mean.

In general, a belief in karma and its consequences will lead you to the higher birth and to good feelings. Stop. But, if you don't believe in it, if you view that it doesn't exist, you have met part, that's in the root text, then you're not going to get free from this sansara either.

So whether you believe that things exist or whether you believe that things don't exist, the result is the same.

[Speaker 2]
Really? Well, no. Because he says, he's talking about the positive.

He's not thinking that way in the first place.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he introduces it. And then, by the way, I'm going to re-add this to the sentence. I'll just read this, and then we'll stop.

Right? Am I right? So, nyepa tab je kyi chung ne su gyur pa.

This is the word for ratnakara, akara, which means the source, like the spring from which the water comes. Yeah, the source for every problem that could ever happen to you, gyur pa, and the source for all bad rebirth, and the source for all crappy feelings. That thing which has that result is to the viewpoint that karmic consequences don't exist.

[Speaker 2]
But you came earlier in the text.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so it's kind of weird. He's got karmic consequences, and everything before is what happens if you do believe in it, and everything after is what happens if you don't believe in it. But the syntax is psychedelic.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, because you used the same phrase to work for both sentences. It's pretty weird.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 2]
It's almost like he was being efficient or something. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But it's confusing as hell. Because you don't need to put the subject at the end of the sentence.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Right.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, he's going to pull out this quote from the Ratnamala, which says, gyur pa pa. And I checked it, and it's not wrong.

[Speaker 2]
Is it believers?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, those who say things are go to the higher realms. Those who say things aren't go to the lower realms. But they both go to samsara.

But they both go to samsara. Okay, understood. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Is that true?

[Speaker 1]
Well, in a certain way.

[Speaker 2]
Like if you believe in God? Do really good? Meditate all the time?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's like that. Yeah, it's like that. Okay.

Thank you. I'll tell you what I told the people downstairs. Take a rest for two days, okay?

Don't get all busy, and don't try to...