Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 5

[Speaker 2]
Which is saying something. Yes, it is. But she's also sort of like beyond gender.

She has this just exquisite beauty.

[Speaker 1]
Touché.

[Speaker 2]
It's beyond. Beautiful. Look at those eyes.

Oh, where's the other button? Those eyes are so big.

[Speaker 1]
It's not picking up my screen. Just give me one second.

[Speaker 2]
Well, we can look at her forever.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, try again, Adam. Sorry, I think it wasn't enabled. There we go.

It should be able to pick up your screen share now. Okay, Mr. Andrade, you're up.

[Speaker 2]
I love this.

[Speaker 1]
Mr. Andrade, you're up. Homework time. Give me a second.

So can you guys see the homework? Indeed. Yes, sir.

Unfortunately. Yeah, so Kentry Dre explains his intention to set forth his explanation of the eight great books on the science of logic in four sections. What are these four sections?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, all I can remember is that it's short, short, short, really long. Most of the book.

[Speaker 1]
Anybody else?

[Speaker 2]
Four sections on logic?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and how he's going to present.

[Speaker 2]
The purpose of logic?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, the necessity of studying logic, number one. They're basically like the four subjects in the Buddhist book. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. Fulfillment of the necessity.

Yeah. So reaching the goal or fulfilling the necessity depends on the commentaries themselves. So three advice on.

You guys remember or should I just go ahead and.

[Speaker 2]
No, that's to repeat the wrong idea that there is no point to logic.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's that's actually in our second question.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You're asking about the third one or the second one?

[Speaker 1]
The third.

[Speaker 2]
Then you should cherish these classics.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. And for?

[Speaker 2]
The subject matter of the book.

[Speaker 1]
Reach Nirvana. Oh, yeah. Explaining the content of the main body of the work.

All right. So number two, what are the two purposes for studying logic as stated by K2J?

[Speaker 2]
Is it the wrong idea that there is no point to logic?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Presenting the point.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally. And then, yeah, presenting the actual purpose of logic.

It's. Hey. Wow.

So number three, K2J further divides the first purpose of studying logic into three subsections. What are these three?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, refuting the wrong idea that logic has no point from the point of view of. People who want to reach liberation. Yeah, perfect.

And then the second one is relative to your circumstances.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, totally. Which is a little unclear for me. I didn't know quite, you know, with regards to where you live.

I think was actually how it was. I was translated to.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, like, oh, I've got this thing going on. So why the heck logics? That's not.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Refuting the wrong idea that even though there is a perfect purpose of studying logic, it's only a lower goal. We got some, we got some vocab words down here.

That's a sexy list, Adam. Yeah. Come on, you guys got this.

What now? So is the rest or something? Yeah, totally.

To take a rest. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Without the saw, right? No, I think it is with the saw. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Correct. Yeah, it's correct. It's related to Sojong, but it's not the same.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Can we just pick one we might know? Yeah, totally.

Go ahead. Zulu, fake news. Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Helwa Lok, to read the Prasangika, to read the. Nope. No, this one was.

It's a different Helwa.

[Speaker 2]
I only have reduced to duh. Yeah, that's it.

[Speaker 3]
Dust. Dust.

[Speaker 2]
You guys are helping me clean up my notes. Thank you. Cloud.

No, dark.

[Speaker 1]
Dark.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Dark. Oh, poison water? Yeah, totally.

Deep or dark? Or is it both? It's dark.

Okay. Rang Su, to create yourself.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I made that up myself.

[Speaker 1]
Fix yourself. Yeah, and it's almost always, what do you call that? Pejorative?

Pejorative, yeah. This just made up. You just made it up yourself.

[Speaker 2]
Really applies to someone I know. The time has come.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Yeah. To refute and prove.

Yay. Or proving through reputation. An insect, Kanju?

Yeah, a specific insect. Yeah. You can speak, by the way.

Honeybee. Honeybee.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right, the six. I was going to say, which one has six legs?

[Speaker 1]
I got it. Yay. That was fun.

That was good homework, Adam. Okay, let's get to work. No rest for the weekend.

[Speaker 2]
Wicked smart, maybe.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, to really appreciate this argument that's going to be happening today, started last class, we have to know these two things. So, who's your checker, Adam? Oh, let's see.

What about Joel? Wow. Okay.

Okay, who's going to check the first two lines? Oh, maybe Kelsey. Yay.

Okay, Adam, first two lines. vikni chungwa nga nyen ngak dang mun juk dek jor duk gar gar cik te nga'o Keep going. vikni chungwa nga so rikpa dang so wa rikpa tra rikpa tenzik rikpa nang tun rikpa te nga'o Okay, cool.

So, there's five major sciences and five minor sciences in Buddhism, according even to Indian scripture, ancient Indian scripture. The first thing I ever translated in my life was a discussion of this, and it was published in a journal. Anyway, so the five lesser sciences.

RIGS NAS. RIGS NAS means science or classical topic. The five lesser ones, the first is NYANG NA.

What's that? Do you guys know? Poetry?

Yeah, classical poetry. Then LUN BYED. LUN BYED means...

Prosody? What's the difference? Doesn't that have to do with meter?

I forgot the difference between these two. I'll check, okay? I'm pretty sure it's like meter, like understanding...

I wanted to say composition, but that's next. Depjor is composition. LUN BYED can mean poetics, but NYANG NA also means poetics.

Let me see. There's also LUN BYED can mean metaphors like friend of the sun, or things like... what do you call it?

Poeticisms, right? But it's different from poetics. Poetics, okay.

DERGAR, Adriana knows. Dance. Dance, okay.

GAR CI Astrology? Astrology. Astrology, yeah.

Calculation of the stars, literally. GAR MA CI Okay, those are the minor sciences. The major sciences are SO RIGS PA and SO RIGS PA.

You better say your low tones and high tones correctly. Here's a good example for your students. SO RIGS PA Medicine?

It's the fine arts. It means making things. SO means making things, like statuary, painting, architecture.

Those are called SO RIGS PA, making things. And then SO RIGS PA.

[Speaker 2]
Medicine.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's healing, fixing people. GAR RIGS Music? Music.

Nope. Sanskrit. The study of Sanskrit.

Yeah, the study of shabda, the study of Sanskrit, yeah. And here we go, TAN TSIG RIGS PA. Study of reasons.

NYAYA, okay. Logic, yeah, sorry. Classical Hindu logic, okay.

Or classical logic. And then NANDUNG RIGS PA means the Buddhist sciences. The Buddhist sciences.

Dharma, Dharma sciences, okay. And there's a huge list like Vinaya and Middle Way and all that, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, could LUNG SPYOD be synonyms?

[Speaker 1]
I don't remember. I'll look it up for you. I think it is.

I think it is. I think LUNG SPYOD is the study of similes and metaphors. And that's required for the study of NYANG RANG, which is poetry.

Okay, so anyway, there's going to be a problem arise from the second division for $50. Because NANDUNG has TAN RIGS in it, TAN TSIG in it. Yeah, good.

$50 for my banker, Jigme. Yay! The problem is, if you define the five great sciences and you give number four separately from number five, if number four is logic, then the Buddhist sciences cannot include logic.

You see what I mean? So then logic wouldn't be a Buddhist science, okay? And if it was a Buddhist science, there would only be four great sciences and everybody knows there's five.

You guys okay with that?

[Speaker 2]
Maybe it means, like you said first, that it's Hindu logic.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you know, here goes the argument.

[Speaker 2]
Buddha's logic could be the other.

[Speaker 1]
That's how this book starts. It's very, very... When I first worked on this book, it was very, very comforting to me that he spent a few pages proving why logic is a good thing, and why it's not a nerdy thing, and why it's not some dry thing.

And you know, it's exactly what you have to do nowadays. If you teach somebody logic, first you have to justify it for half an hour. I really like that first he establishes that basically you can't get to liberation without understanding logic.

So last week, last class, we talked about nominal logic. The logic of people like, Linge, Adam, what's his name? Did you find it?

I didn't find it. I looked. I definitely looked.

Well, maybe all you hound dogs can look for this. He's supposed to be a famous Hindu logician. It's probably Dvipaja or something like that.

I can't find it. Maybe somebody can find it. All right.

So, Linge, there's this kind of THOB PA'I THABS PA'I THAMS CAD SGO NAS ZHAG PA'I RTOG BSGYED BA Just nominal logic of chirrupas, of non-Buddhists. And then there's the one... Let's listen to the words from the Sutra Alankara of...

Master Asanga. Yeah, Asanga and Maitreya. Please read.

Who's checking? Nick. Yay, Nick.

YANG RTOG PA'I RGYEN LAS RTOG PA'I THAMS CAD MA NGES LA MA KYAG KUN RDZOGS KHYO BA BZHIN PHYI BA LA NYID RTEN PAR MDOD Yeah. Now, if I had to guess, it sounds like he's dissing somebody. Okay.

Let's just look at the vocabulary, okay, Adam? And then I'm going to take you to a commentary. RTOG PA'I?

You said disputation last time, but logic? Yeah, the Sanskrit is tarka, okay, here. And a RTOG PA'I BA, a logician, is a tarkika, okay, tarkika.

Ika means like comic, you know, I see in English as a person who does something. Okay, so let's think about it. We're going to have to choose a word for it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And maybe today's class might help you, okay? So RTOG PA'I, don't forget that this spelling of RTOG means...

[Speaker 3]
Concept, not realization.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like perceiving, but not realizing, okay? Or thinking, but not understanding. Something like that, okay?

Then, rely on distoge, rely on methods of reaching nominal understanding. Mage means what, Adam? It's not certain, it's not fixed.

Yeah, as a verb, what would it mean? Having ascertained, okay? Have not ascertained, okay?

Have not perceived, okay? Right, ascertain, right. You depend on reasoning or logic, but...

I'm almost going to use logic. You depend on logic, but you don't perceive. And there's no khyapa.

There's no relation, it doesn't cover it. Yeah, it's not necessary. It's kunzop.

Deceptive. Yeah, what's khyawa? It's like to be discouraged or feel tired.

Perfect, perfect, perfect, perfect, yeah. To be discouraged. Chiba, you know.

A two-year-old. Yeah, your one-year-old is more advanced than Chiba. You're one and a half-year-old, right?

She's a little bit ahead of Amalie. She just had her first birthday. I didn't get any cake from any of the parents.

I have drag. I don't see how they expect me to be grandpa if they don't get me a cake. Chibalani Dambardu.

We believe that you depend on it. Depend on two-year-olds. Now it's not evident what it means, so we need a commentary.

So I went and got your commentary. Let's see. Here's a nice one by some guy named Vasubandhu.

Okay. There's one which was very, very good. Let me see.

Let me see. There was one that I found a couple. I thought one of these is really the best one.

Let me see. Yeah, okay. Let's do the first two.

Here we go. Let's hear from Vasubandhu. Who's checking?

Vasubshukung. He's good. Okay.

Yeah. It is not an object in which it can... It's not an object of its activity.

It cannot play there. CHU YUL MA YIN It's not somewhere where it can play or it can act. What's that mean?

What it means is it cannot be an object of logic. RTOGS SKYES CHU YUL NI MA YIN MA RUL Then he quotes the quotation, but he takes different lines. He takes the first three lines, Vasubandhu, and he adds the next line of the next verse.

He splits it differently from his brother, half-brother. Then RTOGS SKYES BSTAN You depend on logic. Something you don't perceive or it's not definite.

It doesn't cover all the cases. It's deceptive. It tires, it makes you discouraged.

We say you are depending on two-year-olds. Therefore, it is not its object. Therefore, it is not its object.

Therefore, something cannot be the object of this RTOGS SKYES, of this kind of logic. Please read the next sentence by Vasubandhu. Who's checking?

RTOGS SKYES Vasubandhu RTOGS SKYES DE KHO NA NI MA THONG BA LA BSTAN PA NI LUNG CHUNG ZAD LA BSTAN PA YIN NO DOD GZHAN NA GZHAN DU SHES PA'I PHYIR MA NGES PA YANG YIN NO Okay, good. RTOGS SKYES DE KHO NA NI THONG BA LA BSTAN PA NI RTOGS SKYES DE KHO NA NI MA THONG BA LA BSTAN PA NI If logic is not based on a perception of emptiness, if logic is not... a logic which is not based upon a perception of emptiness is LUNG CHUNG ZAD, is nothing more than scriptural authority.

You're just believing what somebody else told you. You are just depending on... When you use logic to perceive emptiness, you are perceiving it basically through scripture and not through direct perception.

DOD GZHAN NA GZHAN DU SHES PA'I PHYIR From time to time, your understanding will change. Therefore, it is indefinite. An understanding of emptiness based solely on logic can shift depending on shifts in your logic.

You learn more logic, you forget logic, you learn more logic. This MA NGES does mean what Adam said. It's indefinite.

It comes and goes. If you are trying to perceive emptiness only based on logic, your understanding of it will be inconsistent depending on how you feel, depending on how good your logic is, etc. Who's checking?

That's Alison. ZHES ZHAG THAM CHE YONG MA YIN PAS MA KYAG PA YANG YIN NO KUN RDZOGS KYI LDAN PA YOD CHEN YIN GYI DUN DAM PAS LDAN DAM PAS LDAN DAM PAS YIN THOG PA YONG SU THUG PA RNGYUR BA'I PHYIR KHYO BA CHING YANG YIN NO Okay, good. This is a pretty clear commentary.

ZHES ZHAG THAM CHE YONG MA YIN PAS Now listen, when you perceive ultimate reality through the use of logic, you are not at that moment capable of seeing all existing things. Therefore, it is not comprehensive. Now we know MA KYAG PA means not comprehensive.

You can use logic to perceive ultimate reality, but you're never going to cover all things. That's another problem. KUN RDZOGS DAM PAS YOD CHEN YIN GYI Logic can only perceive deceptive reality.

It deals in deceptive things, words, concepts, ideas, syllogisms. But it is not something which can directly perceive ultimate reality. It is not an Arya's wisdom.

It is a method of seeing things indirectly. YOD CHEN YANG MA YIN NO THOG PA YONG SU THUG PA RNGYUR BA'I PHYIR For the reason that your state of mind, your confidence, when you're dealing with logic, your confidence has limits. YONG SU THUG PA means there might come a time when you become discouraged.

Your courage to continue fails. THUG PA means you hit the end of your BOD PA. BOD PA means courage to delve deeper and deeper and deeper.

With logic, there's only so far you can go. Then there's a chance that you might get discouraged. KYO BA CHEN All right.

Oh, sorry. Who's checking? I said, I said, what?

Hmm. Okay, but the Mahayana consists of teachings on many hundreds of thousands of scriptures. The Mahayana consists of teachings on many thousands of scriptures, hundreds of thousands of scriptures.

Therefore, you can cancel each of these descriptions. You can cancel BSTAN. You can cancel MA NGES.

You can cancel MA KHYAB. You can cancel KUN TSOR. Up to KYO BA CHEN.

These one, two, three, four, five things we talked about. Oh, you have to depend on logic. Oh, your understanding comes and goes.

Oh, your understanding doesn't cover all things. Oh, the things you understand are just relative truths. Oh, you're going to get discouraged if you keep going like this.

If you're a Mahayana person, the teachings consist of many hundreds of thousands of sutras. Therefore, we don't have the problem of BSTAN PA up to KYO BA CHEN. We don't have the BSTAN PA, dot, dot, dot, up to the end.

We don't have the KYO BA. We don't have the lack of courage, loss of courage. Therefore, the Mahayana version of things is not something that RTOG PA'I can perceive.

RTOG PA'I becomes what? Logic. It becomes non-Mahayana logic, and mostly Hindu logic.

Got it? So that whole quotation was meant to say that you can't get the same results out of the classical fourth higher science of Tarka that you can get out of a Buddhist Tarka. So they're drawing a distinction between what you might call classical logic, Indian logic, and Buddhist logic.

All right, that's a Sangha and Vasubandhu ganging up on the non-Buddhists. There's another commentary here by the first big Lama. That's not bad.

By the way, he wrote a pretty good commentary on the Pramanavarttika also. Here's a little... I thought you'd be interested that the Kalachakra Chantra uses this discussion also, but I don't think we're going to use it in our footnote.

Here's the original quotation, Adam. From the Mahayana Sutra Avalokiteshvara. What did he say, Sutra Avalokiteshvara?

I think he just said it again. He did, yeah. He did say Sutra Avalokiteshvara.

I was hoping he was wrong, but he wasn't. We are to the next section. ,DE DANG PHUN PAS, ,RTEN CHOS LA NI THOB RGYAS, ,RTEN CHOS ZHES SBYAR BA'O, May I pronounce that for you one day?

Say again?

[Speaker 2]
I was just giving him a compliment.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. As this little verse states, ,CHOS ZHES PA LTAR, ,NGOS PO DE KHO NA NYID, the real nature of objects here, not functional things, ,DON CHI TZAM GSUNG NAS, Whoa, who's yawning on their own? I was burping.

I thought my mic was closed during Andriana's class. I was like, oh man, I almost died. ,DON CHI TZAM GSUNG NAS, With logic, you can perceive the true nature of objects, but only through archetypes.

Only through mental images. ,DGONG NAS RTOG PA'I, ,THEG DGOS KYI, That's its function. That's what you use it for.

But, ,NGON DU MA RGYUR PA LA, ,RTOG BSKYED CHOS PA'O, When we say RTOG BSKYED, when we say perceiving things with logic, the implication is that it's ,NGON DU MA RGYUR, Adam. That's something you haven't seen directly. Good, good.

It implies something other than a direct perception. ,DE PHYIR DE DAG TU MI BSTAN CHE LA NI, Therefore, any classical commentary, Buddhist or Hindu, Shastra, which treats the subject of RTOG BSKYED, of how to see this thing with logic, is called a logic scripture. We call them a logic scripture.

Therefore, therefore, Adam, is the study of logic limited to the fourth major science? No. Yeah, not, because the fifth major science is Buddhism.

If the purpose of your logic is to see emptiness indirectly, and that's what you call RTOG BSKYED, that's what you call TARGA, or logic, then it's got to spread into the fifth science also.

[Speaker 3]
I wonder if you could apply that to the other sciences, whether using the other sciences to somehow adopt a view about Buddhism would somehow lead them to transcend being outside of Buddhism.

[Speaker 1]
I was thinking of yoga, for example, maybe as an extent of dance. Because Patanjali is a traditional first teacher of both. Anyway, who is checking next, you guys?

Let's have Konila. Oh, Connie.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Adam, your Thai is not strong.

[Speaker 1]
Now, we're going to be referring to two ways in which we decided something was a logic scripture. We're going to be referring to two ways in which we decided something was a logic scripture. That's called JOG TZAM.

What's the line at which you call something a logic scripture? There's two descriptions of when you call something a logic scripture. He says there's the first one, and then there's the second one.

Okay. So, I'm not sure. I want Adam to explore.

It's not... I used to know what it was, and I haven't had time to read it carefully. So, according to Ketuji, we have already discussed two ways of deciding how something is a logic scripture.

Maybe it's if it belongs to the fourth science, it's a logic scripture. Or maybe if you use it to perceive ultimate reality in a non-direct way, it's a logic scripture. Okay, got it?

But we have to go back and check. I remember reading this and thinking it was cool, and now I can't quite recall. But anyway, SEMS MED RTEN CED DI DAG BYUNG TZAM SNGA MA'I DBANG TU BYAS PA'I RTOG PA'I RTEN CED YIN PA'I KHYAD RANG YANG MING RGYUD LA If we are saying that the logic books we're talking about are logic books because they fit the first description here, even you wouldn't agree to that.

[Speaker 2]
The audio kind of was weird there. We are saying that the logic books...

[Speaker 1]
If you say a logic book is a logic book because it belongs to the fourth... I'm going to say, okay, for the sake of argument, something is logic because it belongs to the fourth major science. SEMS MED RTEN CED DI DAG If you say what makes our logic books logic books is that they belong to the Hindu logic books, KHYAD RANG YANG MING RGYUD Yeah, we would not agree to that.

You don't even accept that. Even you wouldn't accept that. Why are you bothering me?

You want me to say these Buddhist logic books are Hindu logic books? What do you want?

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Also, it doesn't make any sense to describe them as Hindu logic books because these are classical scriptures which intentionally follow a being who sees all things. These are not normal logic books. The Buddhist logic books, first of all, they wouldn't fit into the fourth category anyway because they are not Hindu logic books, but also, logically, you can't call them ultimate logic books because, I'm sorry, you can't call these non-ultimate logic books because they follow a person who perceives the whole universe at the same time.

Okay, cool. Who's next? Seiji.

Seiji, wake up, man. Seiji, you did such a great job the last month. You should sleep for a month.

,'JOG TZAM GNYIS PA'I DBANG DU BYED PA'I THOB DGE YIN PAS, ,'GRO BA DON YER LA MI GOS BAR BDOD NA, ,'JOR LAM CHOS CHOG MIN CHAD GRO BA, ,'DON YER LA MI GOS BAR GYUR TE, ,'CHOS NYID DON GYIS TSUL GYIS YUL DU BYED DGOS PA'I PHYIR RO, This is a funny argument. Now that you guys know about the pen and you know about the five paths, you can appreciate this argument. Okay, ,'JOG TZAM GNYIS PA'I DBANG DU BYED PA'I Now the other guy says, okay, let's say being part of the fourth major science is not what makes something a logic book.

Using teaching logic is not what makes something a logic book. Let's say that the purpose of a logic book is your second position above, which was that you needed to see emptiness indirectly. You have to start with your emptiness understanding by using logic.

Now, if you're saying, ,'GRO BA DON YER LA MI GOS BAR BDOD NA, if you're saying that's not Buddhist books, and that they're not necessary, ,GNYEL MI GOS BAR MI, Yeah, they are not strict necessities for those who aspire to liberation. If you say there's something wrong with even Buddhist logic, because it's less than ultimate, it's just perceiving emptiness in a conceptual way, if you say that's a problem, then let's junk JOR LAM.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Let's say, let's make four paths. Let's make four paths, and then the Heart Sutra mantra will be, ,RGA TE BAR RGA TE PAR, Yeah, just skip JOR LAM. Leave out JOR LAM.

Why? The function of JOR LAM is to perceive emptiness intellectually. Intellectually.

If you say logic is useless, because it only perceives emptiness indirectly, well then, let's just make four paths. Let's have SOGS LAM, TOGS LAM. Let's go directly from a personal tragedy to the direct perception of emptiness, without understanding the pain in between.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's not the second path either.

[Speaker 1]
Say again?

[Speaker 2]
Why have the second path either? That's just doing good stuff.

[Speaker 1]
You mean the first one?

[Speaker 2]
No, the second path.

[Speaker 1]
SOGS LAM. Or you mean JOR LAM?

[Speaker 2]
SOGS LAM.

[Speaker 1]
First path.

[Speaker 2]
JOR LAM.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, SOGS LAM is for mainly, well, you can call it, you're accumulating good deeds to see emptiness directly. Yeah, you can say that. Okay, so everything from CHOD CHOG GANG down, including CHOD CHOG, where you see the luminous image coming out and producing objects, all the way down from that to the beginning of TRUL TSE MO GSOS PA, the other three levels of JOR LAM.

MEN CHE, DU BA DON YER LA MI KHO BA RGYUR TE Well, then they are also unnecessary for people who want to reach liberation. Why? Because at JOR LAM, all you can do is perceive emptiness in a conceptual way.

DON CHE. You have to. So, if your argument is that Buddhist logic is unnecessary because it's in the wrong category of the major sciences, well, you know, okay.

I'm not... Then even according to you, it's not Buddhism. But if your problem is that logic only sees emptiness intellectually, then you should tell Lord Buddha to shorten the five paths to four paths.

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, should we already assume at this point, like even in this introduction, that our author is wearing a Sautrantika hat?

[Speaker 1]
That's a great question. I'm not sure which hat he's going to wear.

[Speaker 3]
I mean, he just talked about a DON CHE of suchness, and that's a heavy thing. I don't know what to think about that.

[Speaker 1]
I'm hoping he won't be like Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosha. Let's put it that way.

[Speaker 3]
All right, we'll see.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, when you meet the real Vasubandhu in Sugeng's text, it's like meeting a rock star. Not that Stanley's not a rock star. Okay.

Who's checking? Van Krimmel. Okay, okay.

Yeah, this is really funny. He says, it's also MI STE. What's that mean, Adam?

It's MI STE. Not correct. If you DOD PA.

If you accept that. That the Buddhist logic scriptures are not NANG RIGS PA BSTAN CHER. Part of the classical commentaries on Buddhist knowledge.

Yeah, the fifth of the great sciences. Is that what you want to say? You want to say that?

You want to say it doesn't belong in the Buddhist sciences because it's in the fourth science, which is logic? Well, you don't understand what we mean when we say NANG RIGS PA BSTAN CHER. Of what?

The fifth group of the sciences. Yeah, of the fifth great science. Of the great science called Buddhism.

Look, when we say a book belongs to the Buddhist sciences, all we mean is that it is meant to PONG BA the PANG CA of NANG RIGS PA. It's to eliminate ignorance. Yeah, and it's supposed to teach the THAG MA'I RTOG PA'I SHES RIM.

The method of... So is it a method of how things arise? Yeah, how to grow, how to develop the wisdom which perceives that nothing is itself.

And that's an antidote to that PANG CA that we just mentioned, which is misunderstanding. So what this sentence says is, look, how we draw the line between the first four major sciences and the fifth major science of Buddhism is that if it talks about getting rid of misunderstanding, and if it talks about how to develop wisdom, then we count it in the fifth category. It's an inner classical commentary.

Okay, who's checking?

[Speaker 2]
Let's have Xin Tian. Xin Tian is not here. Okay, let's have Tim.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, Xin Tian. ,'DI MED RTEN CHOS, ,'DI LDAG LAS KYANG, ,GANG ZHAG DANG PHYIR GYI LDAG MED RIG PAS, ,LAS PAR BRTAN LA BSPAGS NAS, ,LHAG PA ZHES RAB GYI LAS LHAG PA SO BAR THON PA'I PHYIR RO, Yeah, so what's the main thing that our Buddhist logic books teach is they describe the lack of a self-nature to things and people using reasoning. RIG PAS They describe what's the emptiness of people and things using logic.

Which is to say, they are focusing on the LHAG PA ZHES RAB GYI LAS LHAG PA. What's that? Setting it forth in a...

They are focusing on teaching the... They primarily describe the... THON PA SO BAR primarily describe the training of wisdom, of extraordinary wisdom.

Yeah, the extraordinary training of wisdom. Now, I don't know, I feel like giving some money for the next one, but I'm afraid I'm using up all my money. Let's say 50 bucks for...

No, let's do this. Adam, if you can give me a decent translation of the next sentence, I will donate $50 to Eva's college fund. Okay.

Yeah, so generally speaking... I'll start you out, okay? Yeah.

If that's not enough, if the fact that it... Oh, DE TZAM, DE TZAM GYIS. Sorry, I was looking at the CHER NAM.

Sorry. Yeah, if that's not enough... Wait, what's it?

It means it's teaching the extraordinary training of wisdom, which perceives emptiness. Now, if that's not enough to... If that's not enough to make it part of the Buddhist teachings...

The Buddhist sciences. The Buddhist sciences. Then GANG YIN PA.

Oh yeah, then you tell me what would make it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can you tell me...

Give me some goddamn other Buddhist books. If the book that describes perfectly the wisdom which perceives emptiness doesn't belong to the Buddhist... The great...

The fight... What do you call it? The major science of Buddhism.

Then what does? MU ZHIG means... Okay, man.

You tell me. Yeah, you tell me. $50, Ellie.

But not for Adam. For Ava. Okay?

For her college fund. She's going to go to Princeton on that. You mark my words.

Okay. It'd be really nice if we could do this next sentence. Adam, you're cool.

I'll check you. I'll check. ,'CHOS NANG RIG PA MA YIN PA TZAM GYI MCHO BA, ,'DON YOD LA MI KHO BAR NGOS PAR, ,YANG RNAM PAR THOGS PA'I PHYIN CHI LO YIN TE, ,RIG PA'I NI NGA LA SKAD PAR MA BYAS PAR, ,THAMS CAD KHYEN PAR MI DGYUR BA'I PHYIR RO, Yeah, good.

And let me tell you one more thing. The guy like... Ketuji is not letting it go.

Let me tell you one more thing. If not belonging to the fifth major science means that something is not necessary for people who want to achieve Buddhahood, if you say that the only things a person who wants to achieve Buddhahood needs to know are all in the fifth major science, that's a totally mistaken idea. ,RNAM PAR THOGS PA'I PHYIN CHI LO Why?

Because if you don't become a Khepa in the Rigpa-Ninga, all five major sciences, you can't get to Thamgyur-Khyenpa. Omniscience. Yeah.

How are you going to get to omniscience if you don't know how to fix a Toyota? Etc. Even if you want to say these Buddhist logic books are non-Buddhist sciences, but you got to know everything.

What, Buddha has a blind spot where the first four sciences are? Okay, got it? Okay, Sr. Adam. Thank you. Thank you. Nice job, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
What does that say behind you, Adam?

[Speaker 1]
Give a hug to my girl. And by the way, you have to pay a royalty to Arizona for using that background.