Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 6

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, thanks, Bob. That was, that got me going, man. I gotta keep the morale high.

Yeah, totally. What did you give him, Bob? I told him that everything was awesome.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, especially when you're on the phone. Yeah, especially when you're part of the team. All right.

[Speaker 1]
So name the five major sciences and the five minor sciences. So why you're answering both English and Tibetan. I'm surprised you didn't ask for Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's all right. Let's, let's, you guys want to start with that. You want to start with the minor, the minor sciences.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Classical poetry.

[Speaker 1]
Study of metaphors. Yeah, totally. I think I heard Joshua say similes and metaphors which sounded nice.

I looked it up, I looked it up, and it's the study of poeticisms, like, like reflection of the moon for emptiness and stuff like that. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah. Three.

[Speaker 2]
Deb job composition.

[Speaker 3]
Totally.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 3]
You guys have my answer.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not, I'm not I'm not. I'm swearing this time I'm not seeing that I have my dog. No card dance.

And then, got to cut you. And then yeah the minor major sciences.

[Speaker 2]
Fine.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Metsan. Trarik.

Sanskrit. Tantric Rigpa. Classical Hindu Logic and Nangdun Rigpa.

Buddhist Sciences. Way to go Sugeng. Totally, man.

[Speaker 3]
You're nice.

[Speaker 1]
Woo, Sugeng! Alright, so, what did Master Basabandhu say about types of logic? about the types of logic that are not based on, or types of logic that are not based on a perception of emptiness.

Wish I had my cricket.

[Speaker 2]
And it's nothing more than scriptural authority.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice. Yeah, totally. Yeah.

It's essentially, it's- It's taking somebody's word for it.

[Speaker 3]
Just simply believing what somebody else told you.

[Speaker 2]
Deceptive and makes you discouraged. And you're dependent on two of it. So what about this?

[Speaker 1]
Two-year-olds aren't so bad.

[Speaker 2]
No, some two-year-olds.

[Speaker 1]
So what are the deciding factors associated with determining whether a text belongs in the category of Buddhist knowledge?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, it has to weaken your ignorance.

[Speaker 1]
Well, kind of the, yeah, totally. Yeah. That's, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And it has to help- Develop the wisdom which perceives that nothing is itself.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And it's an additive to all the crappy stuff in your life.

[Speaker 3]
Totally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. The text should include discussions regarding methods for weakening your ignorance and developing extraordinary training. The first one, I was a little unsure of, but I think I got it right.

[Speaker 2]
From time to time.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yay. Go up.

[Speaker 1]
Let me shake. Well, it means something else here, right? Yeah.

That's your. Great. Well, don't get discouraged if you don't know the answer.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's funny. The opposite. You're so clever.

[Speaker 1]
Discouraged. Warrior. Yeah, totally.

It's the opposite. So then, confidence. I love the hints, Adam.

I'm not discouraged at all. Thank you. Oh, good.

Yeah. That means you're using good logic. Thank you.

I have confidence now. Good job on the first one, Siddney. You did really good, man.

That's the only notes that I took. I'm sorry. Geshe-la, the screen's coming back to you.

Okay. By the way, there's a famous kyewa at the end of the Tantric vows. Main Tantric vows.

[Speaker 2]
All right. There is.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Oh, anyway. To be kyewa about the tsok.

Okay. And similar things. All right.

In which case it means like be disgusted by something. All right. Here we go.

To destroying the darkness.

[Speaker 3]
It's a little dark in my room.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's getting dark outside. Yeah, I looked up nunja for you. And it just means to know the different poetic synonyms for things.

Okay. Okay. Cause I wasn't sure about that.

Okay. I'm not gonna review where we were because it will be obvious when we read this verse. So who's your checkers, Adam?

[Speaker 3]
Let's see. I think Earl's been pretty popular.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, Earl, you gotta assign somebody.

[Speaker 2]
His mic's not on. Oh, yeah, he's on. We'll go with Alice.

Yay. Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Now, let's suppose you don't make tsampa towards the rikpe nengar. What's that mean?

Let's say you don't make efforts towards understanding the five subjects of knowledge. Yeah. Hey, hang on.

Hey, V, V. Miss V. Miss V.

Miss V. V. V.

Yeah. Make sure the island mula got paid, okay? All right.

If you don't make efforts in learning the five science, then even park choks wouldn't become tam je khyenpa. Even the highest of ariyas wouldn't become omniscient. Good.

They couldn't make that leap from being super smart to being omniscient. Therefore, you should learn how to sar che others and also je sung others. How to cut them off and bring them with you?

Yeah, sar che is a very rough expression that means to destroy another person in a debate, okay? It means destroy somebody in the debate. And je sung means how to get them into your camp.

Okay. if you want to know, if you guys want to be a kun she, you better tsumba to those two things. So this isn't kun she ja.

It's like- If you want to become a kun shaper.

[Speaker 3]
Like a kun ken. Somebody who knows all things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you better tsumba towards these two things. You better make efforts. Towards sar che and je sung.

Towards cutting them off and bringing them with you. Yeah, it means with logic, with proper arguments, okay? You have to learn how to destroy wrong opinions and how to encourage good opinions.

And by the way, this language is very, very similar to the language of the progression in Nick's text this afternoon. Where it was a negative thing. Okay, I just thought I'd point that out.

Ha ha ha. All right. How would you translate kun she?

All-knowing. In order to become all-knowing, yeah. Thank you.

You know, it's even better than that. If you want to know everything, don't leave anything unknown, okay? For example, logic, okay?

Or even mathematics or poeticisms or arithmetic, okay? If you're going to be omniscient, you're going to have to learn all the sciences. So get to it, okay?

And that's very similar to Shantideva saying you should learn how to fix a car if you get a chance. Because you can use it to help other people. Okay, so here's the source from Maitreya, okay?

And here's an objection. I like to put objection on these things nowadays. Okay, Adam, you ready?

Who's up? Vivian Wong is up.

[Speaker 2]
Vivian.

[Speaker 1]
THOG NA, DE DAG NANG RIGS PA'I RTEN GNOD DU THOG NA, THAN GZIG RIGS PA'I RTEN CHOS MA YIN NA, SHES NA You can translate that. If you guys work on it together, you can do it.

[Speaker 3]
Ah, well then.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, THOG means included into, good talks.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, had or included.

[Speaker 1]
If this stuff is, if defeating others and supporting others is included into RIGS PA'I. The collection of knowledge. NANG RIGS PA'I.

Oh, Buddhist knowledge, sorry. Yeah, the fifth of the major sciences, okay? If these are all part of the fifth of the major sciences, then aren't they THAN GZIG RIGS PA?

Oh yeah, so the MA YIN NAM, I guess they aren't.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I guess they're not a part of the classical, the collection of... Logic. The collection of classical commentaries on the science of reasoning.

Good, if they belong to the fifth major science, then I guess they don't belong to the fourth major science, right? And don't forget Vasubandhu's biography referred to the first four sciences as shared. Okay, between who and who?

What'd he say? Non-Buddhist and Buddhist. Yeah, exactly, exactly, okay?

So he says, look, if the study of logic becomes, according to you, part of Buddhist science because it's necessary for omniscience, well, then I guess we shouldn't include it in the fourth major science, right? And our answer, you can guess. Who's up next?

Who's up next? Who's a pointy? Next is Joey.

Okay, Joey, let's go. Be mean to Adam. Hi.

Hi. We miss you. We miss you.

TEN ZIG RIG PA'I TEN CHOD KYANG YIN TE TEN ZIG RIG PA'I DANG RGYUD TZIN RIG PAR ZHES PA YIN LA TSE MA'I TEN CHOD DE DAG KYANG LANG DOR GYI NE RGYUD TZIN YANG DAG YIN NGO DGOR NAS RIG PAR CHAD PA'I THAG GIS TSOR BA YIN PA'I PHYIR RO Good, okay. TEN ZIG RIG PA'I TEN CHOD Well, no, I wouldn't say that. Even though it belongs to the major science of Buddhism, the inner science, right?

Nang rig. Still, we can call it a classical book belonging to the science of reasoning. Number four, okay?

Why? Because TEN ZIG RIG PA'I DANG RGYUD TZIN RIG PAR The meaning of understanding TEN ZIG, reasoning, means to understand RGYUD TZIN.

[Speaker 3]
Reasons.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the study of logic is to study reasons. And by the way, TEN ZIG and RGYUD TZIN are both called hetu in Sanskrit. So this is an inside joke, okay?

Yeah. Okay, so really logic is the study of reasons, reasoning, or even in English, right? Okay.

Whereas LA, these ZEN MED RTEN CHOS, these logic books, okay, help you to understand the RGYUD TZIN for LANG DOR. The reasons for what you should give up and what you should take up. Great, great.

Therefore, they actually reflect the highest form of reasoning, which is how to behave properly, the reasons why you should not hurt other people, and the reasons why you should be nice to other people, because the word reason is the word for logic in Sanskrit. Yay. Yeah, that's cool.

Okay. All right, this is a long one. Who's going to check?

If it's long, it's going to be Xiaoping. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's do this together. Ketubje is claiming that there are mu shi's possible between belonging to the Buddhist science and belonging to the science of logic. He says there's mu shi, there's four possibilities.

That's very cool, right? Yeah. He starts out by saying, look, you can be in the fifth category, and there's no contradiction to be in the fourth category at the same time.

Let me give you the four possibilities. Let me give you the four, what do they call them? Starts with a P.

[Speaker 3]
Permutations.

[Speaker 1]
Permutations, let me give you the four permutations. Okay, now, can you name something which is definitely Buddhist, but not the study of logic? Only a commentary on Buddhist knowledge?

And Xiaoping, he gives the example of dulwedo. Yeah, the Sutra on Discipline. Yeah, the Vinaya Sutra, which is not a...

Sutra. Sutra. It's by Prabhaguna Prabha, right?

Okay. So that's an example of what, Adam? The Vinaya.

Which is only a Buddhist commentary. And not a... It belongs to the fifth major science, but not the...

But not the Ten Secrets. Yeah, not the fourth major science. Okay.

Now, what would you call the TSE MA DE DON? It's both a classical commentary on Buddhist knowledge, and it's also a classical commentary on reasoning. Good.

NYID RGA'I YIN PAS MU. The, what do you call that?

[Speaker 3]
NYID RGA'I YIN PAS MU.

[Speaker 1]
The thing which is... Yeah. Okay, now, this is a fun story, okay?

There was a tramsay. I'm in the middle of the fifth line, okay? There was a tramsay, a monk named Gangnik Akshapada.

He's called Foot Eyes. Okay, and I'm going to... We're going to read his history.

It's very short. It's going to be just a few sentences, okay? And you're going to understand.

But he's a famous master, Hindu master of jnaya. Okay? And he wrote a book called The Sixteen Principles of Wajing, of Reasoning.

Okay? Now, where would you put that book? In the mu shi?

It's only a book on the science of logic. It's just jnaya. And it's not...

It's not part of the fifth. The fifth science. Good, good, good.

Now, let's see if we can find something which is neater, which is probably Ava's diapers or something. All right. Good.

Yeah, books about medical treatments, okay, are neater. Now, I thought you would enjoy, since today's sort of an easy day, a little historical vignette about Mr. Akshapada, which means foot. And those of you who've been to the Bahamas for those classes, you probably heard this story.

I found you a short version. This is all. Okay?

So let's go. So who's checking, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
It is going to be Vasara Chen. Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Yay!

[Speaker 2]
Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's stop there. Let's read that much, okay? Now, Akshapada, or Mr. Eyes-on-the-Feet, is a drang song, he's a siddha, named Zepa. His other name, he's known by the name of Beautiful One. Mr. Handsome, like Adam. Okay?

And he's known by the name of Mr. Handsome One. And he was appointed to be the sungwa of Hla'uma. Who is the wife, I think, of Ishvara.

Or his daughter, I don't know. Okay, so he was appointed by Ishvara to guard, I think it's his wife or his daughter, I don't know, Hla'uma, you can look it up. And then Hla'uma had got duchak.

[Speaker 3]
She had desire for him.

[Speaker 1]
And she stood in front of him and did a lot of sexy stuff. And she, please read this one. NAM GYUR DU MA TEN KYANG DRANG SONG DE KYANG GANG BAR MIG PAG DE DU ZHUGS GSUNGS PA'I LHA CHEN YIN NAS ZHUNG TSONG BA LA'ANG DBANG DGUR BA'I Good.

NAM GYUR means to take sexy poses, okay? DU MA means, and by the way, that's another meaning, Ben, of your NAM GYUR.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
She took many poses and she displayed them, many of them. But what did he do? Can you guess?

[Speaker 3]
Eyes on his feet.

[Speaker 1]
He refused to look up. He just stared at his own feet. DRANG SONG DE KYANG BAR MIG PAG He dropped his eyes to his feet.

And he kept his TUL ZHUGS. His spiritual heart, his tapas. Yeah, that's a real tapas.

If a lady is staring at you and you just watch your feet. Then how did Ishvara react? He NYE.

I don't know this NYE. He loved it. He was very happy with Akshapada.

He was pleased with Akshapada. And he WANG KHORed him. What do you call that?

Abhishekar him to be able to TZOM A ZHUNG. Blessed him to write a holy book. Yeah, he blessed him to be able to write classics.

And then he wrote the 16 Principles of Logic. All right, okay. Finish off this little last piece here.

DRANG SONG KYANG MIG PA'I PHYIR DRAG LA DE'I RJES SU DRANG PA'I NAM LA KYANG MIG PA'I PHYIR DRAG SO Ben can help you with this if you need. He was very famous. DRAG means got to be known as.

Yeah, so this is how he came to be known as the person who stared at his feet. And those who RJES SU DRANG PA him are also called...

[Speaker 3]
Those who came after him are also called...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, his followers were also called... We're also called... We're also called foot eyeballists.

Okay, yay. All right, so we finished the MU ZHIG. And we proved that these combinations were possible.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, can I ask a question about that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
The fourth one. The example being books about medical treatment. So that means that the Buddhist medical texts don't include any treatment information?

[Speaker 1]
I'll say again, you mean the Buddhist texts don't include... I would say Hindu Sochei, how's that? Hindu texts on Ayurveda.

Hindu Ayurveda texts. That's all.

[Speaker 2]
And they're not in the medicine section?

[Speaker 1]
They're in the medicine section, but they're not in the Buddhist section. Okay, thanks. Cool, yay.

There are some... Adam, if you're bored late at night, you can read these other histories of Akyapada. Awesome.

Oh, you're so excited. Here's the Sanskrit for his book name. Shodarsha Padartha.

If you need to use it in your footnote. Okay, who's next? Who's up next?

Next is Pao. Yay, Pao.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. This is a nice sentence, okay? If it weren't this way, okay?

If you didn't do it this way that I just described with Dombayashi, then any book which teaches the two kinds of sima, which is... Direct and indirect.

[Speaker 3]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Or which teaches tensics, reasoning.

[Speaker 3]
Reasoning.

[Speaker 1]
Or which teaches logical statements used to prove something, which is called drupang, okay? Or logical statements that are used to disprove something, which are called sun gymbas, okay? It's interesting, the sun gym, right?

Yeah, it means to destroy another debater. Cool.

[Speaker 3]
We've seen a couple other texts.

[Speaker 1]
So he says, if that's not the way, then any book that teaches the two kinds of pramana, reasoning, statements used to prove things, statements used to disprove things, then they would have to be tensic rikpa, and they couldn't be nang rikpa, which is to say what? They would have to be a part of the category called reasoning and not Buddhist knowledge. Yeah, so our guy is setting him up.

We're setting him up. It's a chess match. Okay, okay, I got you.

So any book that uses these different logic devices cannot be a Buddhist book, right? It must be a logic book, right? If that's the case, then who's up next?

Who's there? It's getting dark. I can't see you.

Who's next? Disappearing. Tongtong.

Hey, Adam, say something wrong to make sure she's awake, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Those Sedona people are really sleepy. Okay, what's it say, you guys? Well, then, what about the speech of the victor, the holy speech of the victor?

No, everything the Buddha ever said must not be... Must not be a part of the category five of non-rikpe. Yeah, Buddhist.

Okay, so everything the Buddha ever said cannot be a Buddhist science. What's the implication, before you go on? What's the implication?

The Buddha never didn't... Oh, it's saying that the Buddha never taught logic. No, the Buddha never didn't use...

[Speaker 3]
Reason.

[Speaker 1]
Reason, okay. There's no teaching the Buddha ever gave that didn't have logic in it. Therefore, everything he taught must not be in the fifth category.

Okay, why? Because Buddha used seman yi. The two types of accurate perception.

And he used ten six. Reasoning. And that's how he taught.

Okay, now he's going to prove it. And by the way, his proof is going to consist of going through each... going through many of the major devices of logic and showing that Buddha used them, which is kind of a cool way to introduce the devices of logic briefly.

And later he's going to have hundreds of pages about them. But it's a sweet way to give us an introduction to the basic logical devices. Here we go.

Next is Janice. Yay, Colorado. Okay, so what was the very first logical device that they mentioned?

Seman yi, right? The two kinds of perception. So let's check and see if Buddha ever used the first one.

Direct perception. Okay, so look. In the Sutras on Abhidharma, which there's no such thing.

They're just a whole collection of Abhidharma stuff. He said, your mickey number, Shepa, Shepa's mumbo. The consciousness of your eye is aware of blue.

Good, perfect. But it doesn't nyam. I saw blue.

[Speaker 3]
It doesn't think of itself on top.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good, good. We're getting into words text, right? Mayin no, Shepa ni.

And what this is saying is that mickey number Shepa arises based on mix and suks.

[Speaker 3]
Based on colors and... Shapes. Shapes, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This suk means shapes. This suk means, sorry. This suk means colors and shapes, yeah.

Then mickey number Shepa will arise. Yeah, then the object, the consciousness of the eye will arise. Yeah, so here's Lord Buddha explaining direct perception through the senses as having come through three different factors.

Do you think he ever talked about direct perception? Okay, it's a sarcasm. The whole thing is a sarcasm.

Okay, I went and found you some... Now, when somebody like Ketubje quotes sutras, you might look in the tenger because oftentimes this era of Tibetan author will be quoting scriptures quoted by Indian scholars, right? So sometimes this...

He says, the Buddha said this, but you might look in the tenger if you don't find it in the kangyur. That's what I'm saying. And there's lots of quotations in the tenger that got lost in the kangyur.

So don't tenger. I found this... I couldn't find it in the kangyur directly, but I found it in a book by Gunamati.

And Sugeng, can you translate these first two lines here? Yes, of course. This is the teaching of the extensive Shepa.

The teaching... Extensive explanation. Extensive explanation of the dependence and arising.

The overview and the division of the dependence and the arising. Yeah. Now, this is a nice expansion on Vasubandhu's commentary, and we can use it.

It's going to be useful for us. It's Master Gunamati commenting on the same sutra, so I thought you would like this quotation. And in this quotation, he mentions this thing about seeing blue, but not thinking that you see blue.

Okay, Adam, I got that one for you. Here's a little commentary on the Nyaya Bindu. This says the same thing.

It says here... Adam, what's this say? Right here.

Chö? Chö Ngapa. Say it.

From the Abhidharma. From the Abhidharma literature. It doesn't say Chö Ngapa Do.

Okay. Yeah. Okay, so this author, who I forgot who he is, he didn't think it was a sutra.

He thought it was the Abhidharma literature. And et cetera, et cetera. Okay.

There you go. Okay, let's go to this one. Who's checking?

[Speaker 2]
Lin is checking.

[Speaker 1]
Lin, Lin, Lin. Okay, so this is... I did find this in the Kangyur.

It's a sutra on the ten teachings or something. This is a pretty famous quotation in the logic literature. It says, you can know there's Dua from...

I'm sorry. You can know there's Mei from Dua. You can know there's fire from smoke.

Yeah, and Chukyar means a seagull. You can know there's Chö from Chukyar.

[Speaker 3]
There's water around.

[Speaker 1]
There must be water around if you see a seagull flying around. Okay. Those who belong to the family of super-intelligent bodhisattvas learn to tell things from sammas.

[Speaker 3]
From signs.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, from signs. They see smoke. They deduce fire.

It means the Buddha is recommending deduction as a method, as a spiritual method. Okay, cool. That's really cool.

Here's the quotation. Okay, please read this. Who's up?

Just the first line. Just the first line. How long is up?

GZHER GSUNGS PA LTA BU'I RNAM GYIS Oh, you know, a question Geshe-la. Okay. When I was at Sera, I heard Geshe Lothar sometimes.

Would he pronounce the S at the end? Only the dakis. Or teachers trying to make a point in a class.

Okay, yeah. GZHER GSUNGS PA LTA BU'I RNAM GYIS BYAS THAG THANG DE LA BSTAN PA'I BYAS PA BSTAN CIG Yeah, now, BYAS THAG, you guys are going to learn. It's one of the three divisions of classical reasons.

And it's a reason where the presence of a result is used to prove the presence of its cause.

[Speaker 3]
Smoke and fire.

[Speaker 1]
So it's called a... Briefly, you can call it a result reason. A syllogism that uses the presence of a result to prove the presence of its cause.

For example, with...

[Speaker 2]
Fire and smoke. Smoke and fire.

[Speaker 1]
Fire and smoke and... Sea and seagulls. Yep, seagulls and seagulls.

By the way, the first one, smoke and fire, is a syllogism where there's a result at the end. But we can also say deduction, BYAS PA. So that quotation is indicating two logical devices.

So don't tell me the Buddha never used logic. Since you're telling me anyone who uses logic is not a Buddhist, I'm interested. You said anyone who loses logic can't be in the fifth major science.

So I guess this guy talking about smoke and fire and seagulls, I guess he's not a Buddhist, right? Who's he talking about?

[Speaker 3]
Lord Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
I guess he's quoting a sutra. Yay! Here's another one.

Chingying. Good. This is also from a commentary to the Pramanavarttika, actually.

Let me see if that's the only place I found it. Yeah, it's quoted in a lot of Pramana literature. It's also referred to obliquely in the Prajnaparamita literature.

In many places. So I got you one from the 8,000 lines. Here's what it says.

Anything which kyewas chung se. Anything which starts even a little. Yeah, anything which has the nature, which is dak ni, okay?

Anything which has a nature of starting even just a bit. Well, that's also gakpay chuchen. It's also a thing that'll stop.

It'll see an end. Yeah. Now, the second classical kind of Buddhist syllogism is one in which the quality you're trying to prove has a rang shing gi relationship, dak ni chik relationship, with the reason.

Rang shing, identity, right? Yeah, to be one is to be the other. Here, very interesting.

Buddha is saying, let's consider kyeway dak ni. Let's consider all things. If it's a kyeway dak ni chen, it must be a gakpay dak ni chen.

To have a nature of growing assumes a nature of... I'm sorry, let's put it the other way around. Take all things, take all working things.

They have a nature of gakpay because they have a nature of kyeway. They have a nature of stopping because they have a nature of starting. Yeah, and those two things are rang shing chik.

To have one is to have the other. So that's an example of the second kind of valid reason in Buddhism.

[Speaker 3]
Now it's rang shing dak?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's three valid types of reasons in Buddhism. One is where the reason is a result of the thing you're trying to prove, like fire and smoke. Smoke and fire.

The second one is where to be one is to be the other. So you're proving that something can stop because it started. And the third one, which we're going to get to hopefully today, is that if something is not present, the other thing cannot be present.

It's called a lack of presence reason. Negative, basically. Okay, cool.

Daini jigme dugna means a positive logical statement which is used to prove the nature of something. So this is all coming from sutras, from the Prasanna Paramita literature. Excuse me, shall we throw it into the fourth major science and leave it out of the fifth major science?

Okay, all right. Okay, he's not giving it up yet. Let's do one more, Adam.

Very famous one. Who's up?

[Speaker 2]
Linda.

[Speaker 1]
Yay. Okay. Good, okay.

Now there's two kinds of ma mikpay taks. The third kind of valid reason in Buddhism is called a negative or an absence of something. For example, you can say this thing doesn't have dependent origination because it doesn't have emptiness, for example.

And when you use these reasons, you can either try to prove something which is normally perceivable or something which is normally not perceivable. What's not a perceivable example is a preta. There could be preta standing around you and they are called, they are called mi nangwa.

They don't appear to normal people. They don't appear to normal people. Now there's another one called nang rung, which is like coffee cups.

So if you have a negative logical proof that hinges on a perceivable thing by a normal person, it's the first category. If it's a logical reason that hinges on something which is not visible to a normal person, it's called mi nangwa. Now, that famous statement by the Buddha about not judging other people has both elements in it.

Who can tell me? This is hard. This is hard.

You know, maybe the tsu sum is like judging, so that's kind of something that normal people wouldn't be able to perceive. Yeah, good. No.

But he calls it perceivable. He says that belongs in the perceivable category because it's nga.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Because it's him.

[Speaker 1]
Who? Who's talking?

[Speaker 3]
The Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the Buddha. Okay. So if the Buddha says you shouldn't judge other people unless you're like me, he's giving a kind of logic based on something which is perceivable to him.

But kansaki, kansaki tsu, normal people should not take the measure of other normal people. Then it becomes the second category of the third category of valid reasons in Buddhism, which is those which cannot appear to a normal person.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. It seems like it's the other way around.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
What normal person can see a Buddha? You have to have...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no, well, he's stretching it. I'll admit that. But don't forget the subject here, the chod chen, is an omniscient being.

So we'll let him go. Okay, we'll let him go. Therefore, okay, and we still have more to go, and I think we have to stop there, right?

Right. Therefore, Lord Buddha used direct perception. He talked about blue and the perception of blue, and he also used the three classical categories of correct deductive perception.

So don't tell me he doesn't use...

[Speaker 2]
Logic.

[Speaker 1]
Logic. Or that we should throw him into the... Fourth category.

[Speaker 2]
Non-Buddhist.

[Speaker 1]
Fourth.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, logic.

[Speaker 1]
Fourth major science, okay. I agree. I like this book, personally.

[Speaker 3]
It was a really cool class.

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, he's doing this very typical thing of guys... Well, he's doing this typical thing of guys in Tsongkhapa's time, who prove stuff at the beginning of the book, using the stuff you're supposed to learn in the book, which is mean. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It makes you want to read the book, though, right?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I remember when I studied the first great teacher's Abhidharma commentary, there's quite a few pages of arguments in the beginning, and he uses the stuff in the book. So it was very frustrating. I guess if you have a teacher, it's okay.

But... Okay, let's do Japanese food. Okay.

Wow. Well, that was amazing. Geshe-la, can I take this opportunity to make a couple of announcements before we start your Q&A?

Gladly. I'm going to move inside, but I'm going to keep my computer going, so I can hear you. Okay, cool.

Cool, that's perfect. Okay, well, one announcement.