Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 37

[Speaker 1]
Homework. Let's see. Here we go.

Here's a button. This one. Is it true that you can now see?

Yeah, got it. Wonderful. This is a good review very healthy.

If you don't know the answers, it's okay, but I think it's very helpful what we did in the last class gave us an overview of the work we're going to be doing for many years to come. So it's nice to put your thinking shoes on or your listening shoes on or your remembering navigating shoes on. Our author divides up the whole of the book with the exception of two, excuse me, three topics.

He already covered the opening praise. He covered the pledge to complete the work and he covered some verses at the very conclusion of the commentary on accurate perception. Now he's going to cover the rest of the book.

So how does the author, how does our author Geshe Yeshe Wongchuk divide the rest of the book into two topics? What are those topics? What chapters do we find those topics in?

And as way of a hint, I will ask you for the Tibetan term for a path upon which we travel, a path that we travel upon. Total silence. I did hear the word Lam and of course that is part of it.

So what about the traveling? Traveling? Drew?

I don't know. Drew? It's not crazy or correct.

Hey Ben, how come when you have a presentation class, it's noisy and when you have a discussion class, it's silent? It's interesting. If I can just make sure that no one knows the answer, I'll offer money.

Good pay Lam, okay boss, I owe you big money. Yeah, good pay Lam is the right answer. So, um, and then this relates somehow to our divisions.

Let's divide the book up into two. Anyone? I don't know, learning logic and the path we travel to learn it or something.

Rongdun and Shendun. That's what I thought. Yeah, I was going to guess.

Oh, that's nice. Yeah. So what is Rongdun?

What are, what are we going to do? What would, uh, what would be a nice done for our Rong? What, what do we need?

Logic for ourselves. Yeah. For, for what?

Achieving our wishes, goals. Yeah. Like what?

Like Nirvana becoming an aria. Yeah. Yeah.

And the good pay Lam for getting there would be great. And then once we do that. Everyone else.

Yeah. Then how do we get everyone else there? So, uh, how about the divisions?

What do you, what, uh, how much time do we spend? How many chapters will we spend on that first topic? The three chapters on us and one chapter on them.

Yes, because I'm the worst of all of us. And so we need a whole three chapters to fix Ben and then, uh, just one little chapter should finish everyone else off. Sounds good to me.

Okay. So, uh, that's our, yes, I'm waiting. So doesn't, doesn't no one ever get to the last chapter?

We're going to be the first.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Um, so what are the three divisions offered for the first of those two sections? Again, the first of those two sections we see here is how we come to understand what is freedom. Okay.

What is liberation? Uh, and, and how we get there. So how would we divide that?

Um, which chapters cover which of those topics? In fact, we're going to divide that into three. So I want you to divide that into three for me.

You'll be shocked at which chapter covers, which not really. Um, and as way of a hint, would you tell me, uh, no primary translators may answer this question, the names for hidden and obvious. And if you have a text that you are translating as a part of this program, you can't answer.

Hidden and obvious.

[Speaker 3]
Somebody said copier.

[Speaker 1]
Great. And that's obvious. Right.

Right. What's what's obvious. It's surely in the chat by now.

Let's see. Oh, they're Oscar. I was just waiting for you.

That's good. I'm one of these days. I'm not going to let Oscar answer, but today we needed him.

So great. Now that you have this handy dandy hint, um, how will we divide the first of these two major sections into three? How do we divide coming to understand what is freedom, as well as the path for traveling to freedom?

How will we divide that into three topics? Our center is still accepted, right? Yeah, I'll tell you the.

Oh, oh, right. That's true. And speaking of Christina, the first of these three relates to or copier.

How do we come to see or how does one come to see? Maybe it would be convenient. How does one come to see what is hidden?

And then. Right. Well, no, I'm telling you, the answer is the first of these three is.

How do we come to see what is hidden? And this is presented in the first chapter. Okay.

So the first chapter is going to be okay. In our process of coming to understand what is freedom and the path for getting there, we're going to need to come to see what is hidden. Because we can't see freedom yet.

I can't see freedom yet, but we can use these techniques like logic for foreseeing in the meantime, what it is and how to get there. And then the next will be an explanation then of that thing which you come to see by the power of the techniques for seeing hidden reality. Once you learn to see hidden reality, you come to see freedom on missions and the path for reaching them.

As word said earlier, that'll be the second chapter. The third chapter, then you must have figured out by now will be how one comes to see obvious reality. Excellent.

Yeah, very nice. Yeah, great. And of course, if this seems confusing, because I don't think I need any help seeing obvious reality, but maybe we can talk about the process.

My guess is he's going to explain to us how it is. I do it because I don't know how I do it. I just kind of do it.

Maybe, maybe that means the way we see obvious reality is hidden. I don't know. We'll see when we get there.

So, how will we divide that first topic then, which is what again, it's on the screen. Oh, yes. No, Oscar, you get a chance before I let the primary translators in.

Yeah, it's related primary translators. Paula's giving Paula knows the answer. She's giving you hints to help you so she could just say it by now.

So, it's a changing thing because it's made. What did Paula just give you? Yes.

Syllogism. Yeah, syllogism. What will be our, how about in Tibetan?

Can be, or else probably thought we're going to mostly use to refer to the third part of a syllogism. I suspect we will have to see, but I think when we were. Great.

You're hired. I like it. Right.

Right. So, that was a big hint. What are the two topics we're going to cover?

Yes. The first one is. Logical statements.

Great. Which are the. Condition.

Condition. Of. Logic.

Right. Of deduction. Deductive accurate perception is based on tensic is based on.

Reasoning logical statements. Okay, so we're going to spend a lot of time on that. But as he's want to do, he's actually going to skip forward to cover the second section in the first section.

Of coming to see what is hidden. He's going to cover what this is weird. If someone knows I'll be so impressed.

Oh, look. Of course. What is that?

It's a back ass words reason. Yeah. It seems specifically he's going to show us those sorts of mistaken reasonings, which are the.

The mark of the dummies the mark of the foolish. They were like a tattoo upon their forehead. So that you may know them and not hire them for customer service jobs.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, here's the goes he's. Um. Uh.

So, since the first of those two sections that we mentioned above, which are. Tensic reasons which are the basis of deductive valid perception is going to be a huge darn section. We're going to cover that later.

We'll give a detailed explanation below. Okay. That's easy.

That's too easy. Go to something more. Don't worry.

It's this is. Then. Uh.

Uh. Uh. Uh.

Uh. Uh. Uh.

Uh. The second topic, then a lesson on the mistaken reasoning or the sort of mistaken reasoning that is the mark of the foolish. Um.

The sign of dummies will occur at the very end of the first chapter. Okay. Yeah, that's fine.

Yep. Okay. Now, here's that verse at the end of the first chapter.

he quotes here. Okay, so, yeah, go ahead, go ahead. I tried, I mean, seemed to be like screwed up, like jumbled up wisdom, so I tried to say like distortions of wisdom or something, because I felt hesitant to call it wisdom since it's backwards.

And then these are the dot, the five dot or marks or signs of those sorts of mixed up forms of wisdom that we associate with lumbos, turkeys, dummies, the foolish. Yeah, good. It can also be, I mean, don't forget that when he's saying talks here, ratatatakasatak, it could be related to what?

It could also mean reasons. Yeah, reasons. So it's kind of playing between the, what's the Sanskrit here for talks?

Should be here, probably Lakshana. Yeah, he's using Linga. Oh, sorry.

Of course. It's right here in front of me. Hey, Linga.

Sorry. So it could be a sign of a foolish person, or it could be a reason given by a foolish person. And there's a, I think it's an intentional pun, right?

Yes. Let's go. Okay, yeah, this is taking the Vedas as being accurate perception, or a means of accurate perception.

Yeah, I would say in this case, sema is more general, meaning accurate, just that they are accurate. Yeah. Don't forget sema can just mean accurate.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This game was very difficult for me. Yeah, me too. The tengyur is wrong, and Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk is correct, according to the Sanskrit, which is kasya.

And it means, in Sanskrit, it's possessive, but in Tibetan, it has to be instrumental. So it is aung-ga-a-ga, which means some of them. And then he made it instrumental with an S, so by some of them, okay, gay.

Okay, and it's very unusual, so people got messed up, even in the early tengyur days. So it means here, some people say, by, you know, by that. Some people say it was created.

And we're going to get, the next sentence in your commentary is going to explain this verse. Okay. Let's go to, did you do the next sentence, by the way?

No. Oh, okay. Okay.

Anyway, they're going to say, some people say, somebody made the world, okay? Yeah. And that there's, some people say there's a creator.

Okay, so it's some people, not some creator. Yeah, the instrumental is for the verb ma, okay? Some people say that was the creator, but we don't know what yet.

Okay. Then some people say that, yeah, bathing is, bathing where? I would assume at the base of the steps, these are the mudekpas, the guys who step down into the river to wash themselves.

Yeah, the tirthakas, yeah. Yeah. And then, rigmed, yeah, the arrogant promotion of caste.

That's a beautiful translation. And it's a correct translation. It probably should have been R-I-G-S, wouldn't it?

Right. Yeah. Now, of course, luckily, I, we had Jati here, so I trusted that.

Yeah, and I think that should be R-I-G-S. Meaning the class that you are born into. Right.

Jati means, gene, genetic comes from that, okay? Tempted to put in a... Let's see where the commentator says.

Let's see what the commentator says. Okay, okay, sure. Yeah, and jack does mean to be arrogant, yeah.

And it is certainly a 2,000-year disease in India, yeah. And it's still going on. It's still going on, big time.

Number five, Dikpa Shomchir. Yeah, good. Good, yeah.

What's the Shom mean? Dikpa Shom, Shom like to exhaust or remove. Destroy?

Like jump? I'm talking about the Tsom, Tsom. Oh, Tsom.

Tsom, it seemed like it just meant to like carry it out. Yeah, it just means to undertake, yeah, to undertake self-punishment, hurting yourself for like whipping your back or something, okay? Yeah, right, yeah, and I didn't really carry that here.

I see. Okay, now it's good. Everything else is good.

Okay, okay, I'm going to drop it. Yeah, and we had to go to the end of the first chapter to get that verse. Why?

Because first he explains throughout the whole chapter, he explains... How we see hidden reality. Intelligent reasoning, and then he gets to the end and he explains unintelligent thinking, okay?

Yeah, right. What he says in his commentary is he says, look, explaining intelligent reasoning to you is a long story, and we've got the rest of the book to do that, but I can explain the stupid reasoning to you right away, and let's get it out of the way. So he goes to the end of the first chapter and starts explaining stupid ideas by people who do not think clearly.

That's the idea. They don't think clearly, yeah. I thought it was interesting, boss.

I've just been reading a little bit about the history of the book, and some people have this theory that once upon a time, the first chapter might have been a standalone book because it's the only one that he wrote a commentary to, and of course I feel like this is the chapter on reasoning and how to make reasons is of course what he's sort of most famous for. Yeah. So I'm pretty excited about getting to study it.

Yeah, and by the way, there's no real resolution. I mean, what happened 1,500 years ago? I don't really know, but there's a lot of ideas about it.

Let me see where you are. Here you are. What happens in ancient India stays in ancient India.

Probably even at the time. Okay. Yeah, I struggled with the gay because it has nothing to do with crack open, of course.

It's just the instrumental on top of gashik. I just used the kashcheet from the Sanskrit. It was helpful.

Thank you to Aisha and David Riegel and Santosh who are working so hard to provide us with reliable Sanskrit to double check. Yeah. Okay, so he's going to explain it.

Do you want to read this first part with number one? Sure. Am I remembering that boss that you said for some reason they say there sometimes?

I'm sorry. Oh, no, they don't. Not that I know of.

Okay. There is a different reasoning. Yeah.

Yeah. Not this one. I think.

Okay. This sick J. Yeah, these this verse.

Yeah, this verse, which is a little bit. It's short, so it's hard to understand. And I have bolded the root text of the verse.

Who wrote it? Master Dharmakirti. Yeah.

At the end of the first chapter, we went to this. We went straight to the end of the first chapter. What's a chapala?

I think it's a Mimamsaka, an analyzer. We call them in the great ideas. Yep.

Mimamsa, which was one of the many Hindu schools, is called Mimamsa. And they were important in those days, 15 centuries ago. It was a big deal, like Republicans or something.

They were important at the time. Not so now. Okay.

Things change in every country. So chapala means. By the way, I've noticed myself that this is often, often misspelled.

Okay. Even everywhere, all over the place. Okay.

Which would mean activists or something. But Mimamsa means examiner. So this is the correct one.

Chokchikla means what? Like together? In agreement?

I would take it as exclusively here. Okay. Meaning they say the only exclusive source of truth.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Completely or exclusively true thing, which will never fail you, right, is the Vedas. So they believe there's only one kind of pramana, and it has nothing to do with perception.

It's not valid logic. It's not anvarowa eyesight, okay? They say the real sema, the real pramana, is whatever the Veda says, that's truth.

What you see, you can trust it, or maybe not. What you think, you can trust it, or maybe not. But the Vedas, you can trust.

Okay. That's sema. That's pramana.

They say. Then what? Like we, dakla, sokpa, is this us and others?

Well, I'm going to ask. We're obviously into other schools, besides Buddhist schools. So when they talk about a dak, if you translate it into sema.

Atma. Yeah, some big atma who's dakpa. Who's unchanging, forever.

Yeah, unchanging, creating the world or something. Big atman, okay? Or a couple of guys like that.

Instrumental. A couple of guys. A couple of unchanging dudes, like God, Jehovah, karma, whatever you want.

They made all the devas. All results from some guy like that. Yeah, some guy in heaven made everything in a day, or whatever, six days, whatever.

Okay? And he never changed, but he made unchanging. He never changed this, but he made changing things anyway.

How that could happen is interesting. Okay. Read this next one.

Yeah. What's that? Translate.

Yeah. They wash themselves on stools, or well, I guess we say on a ghat, right? On the steps descending into the river.

And then they say that this is like a great practice of, like a religious practice of dharma. Yeah. You get more religious the more time you sit in the ganges.

Or increasing goodness, or increasing your virtue. Yeah. That's the way to practice religion, okay?

Sit in that water. Okay, number four. Yeah.

Is the bop just to sit or place yourself on the stool? Yeah. It means sit down.

Dekh means a support. Yeah. And so it means sit down on a stool which is submerged in the Ganges River.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Which is actually stones that go down like a foot, and you can sit on them, and you get religious there. You get religion by sitting in this water. Okay.

Okay. And number four. Yeah.

You want to come on through? Sure, I do. I do.

That's nice. Word, can I hire you to pick one of your minions? Yep.

Who's here? The Word Army. Tracy's dying to read.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Your reading is really good, and I'm very impressed. Even though they don't have yin-tangs. Yeah.

Yeah, without any good qualities of their own, still the brahmin caste. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know. Only them, whatever.

Only... They feel pride in the simple act of being able to say, I'm a brahmin.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, sure.

[Speaker 1]
I'm higher caste. They think that's enough to say that they are superior. Superior race, right, of any place.

Right. Vik here, by the way, spelled correctly. Yeah.

Yay. Okay. Yeah, just on the basis of race or class, you are better.

That kind of opinion is among the lumbadak. Is among the, yeah, the marks or the reasoning of the turkeys, of the foolish. Proof of stupidity.

Yes. Okay. He calls it proof of stupidity.

All right. We're getting there. Okay.

Who's going to read, Mr. Ben? This is a long one. Oh, Tracy didn't get very long.

It seems like we deserve the joy of getting to hear her read a little more. On camera? No.

[Speaker 2]
This one?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Please. Nice.

Amazing. Did you fall on your head? No, never mind.

Okay. In order to shamba the dikpas of their stem, Ben. Yeah.

Yeah. To get rid of the, yeah, the negativities of their mind. Good.

In order to clean bad deeds from their mind, they will chongwa onto a dung, which has sesun. Yeah. They'll jump onto a trident, like a three-pointed, I don't know, spear.

Yeah. By the way, the way my teacher taught it to me is you get extra points if you commit religious suicide in this school. You have to take a trident, a three-pronged spear.

The prong should be offset, one higher, two lower. You dig a pit and you put the spear down in the pit with the point up. And then you have to jump at exactly the right angle for it to go through the two shoulders and the forehead at the same moment.

And then you reach nirvana. It destroys all your bad deeds. But nobody could confirm it.

Probably they taught it to their enemies as a spiritual practice. It's a technique for getting rid of people with poor reasoning.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And here's another dung, but a different prefix letter. The m-dung means spear. The g-dung means torment or something.

Yeah, good. Dung with a g is a verb that means to cause pain. And dung with an m, which is prenasal, dung, they're not pronounced the same, means to cause pain.

So they torment themselves with these spears and they really dzungpa. They really try. Yeah, they try all kinds of different ways to cause themselves physical pain and they think that purifies your bad deeds or something, which I guess it would to some extent.

These are the five signs of a foolish person. Foolish. Which indicate, tenpa, that you are an idiot.

Okay. And here's that misspelling of me. Boss, how would you translate shirup chelwal?

Well, there's a huge debate in the Abhidharma that ants have shirup, because it means intellect at any level. So that's, you know, but I agree that I would call it defective wisdom or something like that. Yeah.

It's almost a contradiction of terms. I agree. I agree with your opinion.

Yeah. When it's like that, when I have a case like that, I'll call it like in the sem sem chung, in the mental function section, when they read shirup, I will put, if it's meant as a general mental function of all living beings, I will put intelligence. And the idea is that all beings have some level of intelligence.

Even ants will try to find a hole in your wall, right? And eat stuff in your house. Where did that happen recently?

[Speaker 3]
In my house.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. We're not going to mention that. Okay.

Here's Ben's Drupadha. Ben's Siddhanta text is a wonderful resource for all these ideas. And if you don't have a copy, you're a loser.

And it's called, what's it called? Great Ideas of the East. And I use it constantly.

I use it every couple of days, because it's a great resource book. It's a reference book. And we're reading, for example, Vimalakirti Sutra.

And we've been using Ben's book every day for that, because it's a great resource. It's a great reference book. And it was a lot of trouble to finish it.

But now you can use it for many other books, to study many other books. And these are the seventh category of eternalists. Somehow they believe that things last forever, or something like that.

Here's a study, by the way, Ben, of mistakes that people made for Mimosa. So there's one mistake, two mistakes. It's not infrequent.

Anyway, yeah. I think they make that mistake, because it's both, in Sanskrit, they're both charia. They're both charia, vicharya and charia.

Vichara, maybe vicharya. But it could be. It could be.

But I think the proper, the correct one would be D-P-Y-O-D, I think. Chippa, examiner, right? I feel like that would be the, that's the one I want to use.

Okay, now we're ready to start your book, Ben. Okay, wow. I keep saying that, don't I?

You do. Who's going to read? Ward, would you pick another member of your posse?

Okay, yeah. Claudia wants to try. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, nice. Oh, you got better than the last week. By the way, traditionally mispronounced as...

Sabje. Sabje. Yeah, it means a topic in an outline, or the whole outline.

So, sabje dampa here is, first topic in our whole outline is the ten of je bak. Yeah, it's the thing upon which deduction relies. Good.

The basis of deduction, which is tensik. Syllogisms, or logical statements. Nice.

I'm going to explain them in three parts. First, I'll give you the zenny of a yang dak tensik. The definition of a correct syllogism.

Including the tsen shi of that. Um, the quintessential example? Yeah, classic example.

I'll give you the definition of a good, and I'll give you some classic examples. Second, I'll give you the yewas. Well, the divisions of correct syllogisms?

And I would distribute the tensik yang daki to each of these three, right? Of a correct, the correct syllogisms. And then...

Methods. Yeah, I see. And then explaining the...

Go ahead. Yeah, the methods of coming to see... The methods of coming to see that these classical examples meet that definition of a correct syllogism.

Yeah, confirming that the parts of the definition do fit the classical examples of correct reasons. Okay, cool. Cool, and now we start the text.

Now we start the text, and he starts, he starts viciously. So, here we go. Uh, okay, um, word, if you would, uh, peer into your entourage.

Well, we better cut this up. Let me see. I'll look at it.

I'll look at it. Uh, who's here? The little, tiny bites.

Oh, it just got easier. You can, you can pick one of your duller students, Ward. There's no such thing.

Just kidding. He doesn't, he doesn't have any. Of course not.

Uh... And you can pick an extra smart one. Okay, Oscar.

Okay. Oh, he's translating. Oh, I didn't know.

Okay, sorry. I thought you picked him because he can do both at once.

[Speaker 2]
Anne, Anne, you in? Okay, thank you. I was just thinking that you're gonna call me.

[Speaker 3]
Wrong. Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Very nice. Very, very nice. Wow.

The commentary on accurate perception. Its column is not the same as Simakuntu. Oh, it's, um, uh, it, the order that it's laid out in is not the same as the order of the compendium on accurate perception.

So who's not matching who? Names. Oh, well, uh, Master Dharmakirti did not match the previous author, uh, Master Dignaga, upon whom he based his work.

Dharmakirti is presenting his chapters in a different order than his teacher did. Okay, uh, Dave, Dave, uh, we need another reader, uh, word. Anne, Anne, keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Um, uh, Yay, wow.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Awesome. I don't know.

There must be some Chinese medicine they're taking. I don't know. Okay, first he shepa jipak sema, Ben.

First he explained deductive accurate perception. Yeah, deduction, which is ten on top. Which depends on reasoning or reasons.

First we discussed accurate reasoning. First we discussed reasoning, which depends on a reason. Okay, so therefore, Pogmar.

First. Yeah, which, by the way, thoughts here probably means syllogism, I'm afraid. Okay.

Okay, uh-oh, all right. Let's see, okay. Then he, by the way, here is one of the most important sentences in your book.

Yes, Sosanyinpa. Yeah, the definition of a correct reason is one which possesses the three qualities or tests. Yeah, or I like to call it three relationships, okay?

Three relationships, of course. A correct reason must contain in it three relationships. So I'll give you a correct reason, and Ben's gonna tell you the three relationships.

Let's take sound, it's changing, because it was produced by, you know, an instrument or a voice or something like that. What are the three relationships? The first is the relationship between the subject and the reason, which in this case is that sound is made by an instrument or the like.

Does that reason hold in this case? It does. Does that relationship hold?

Relationship number one holds. Number one is number three. Sound is a produced thing, by voice or an instrument, something like that.

What's the second relationship? The second is that if it is true, if the reason is true about something, then the assertion must be true of it, which in this case is that it is in fact true, that if something is made, such as through an instrument or something, then it must indeed be changing. Yeah, good.

Technically, you'd have to say the, not the whole drup ja, but the drup je chuh. The quality asserted, not the whole assertion. So that the reason must have a relationship with the quality that we're asserting.

In this case, it's if something is made, it must be changing. Third one, Ben. Yeah, then the third one is if it is not true to say, if it's not true to apply that quality applied in the assertion, in this case, if it's not true that something is changing, then it must also not be accurate to apply that reason to it.

It must not be a thing which is made, such as by an instrument or the like. Yeah, nice. Now, I mean, the only way I can always remember this is if three, I'm sorry, if one, three.

One is three. One is three. If three, two.

Okay? One is three. If three, two.

If not two, then not three. And just remember those three things and you'll be okay for the rest of the book. Okay?

If one, three. One is three. If three, two.

If not two, not three. And then if you just remember those three, you'll be okay for the next 60 years with Ben Cramer. So first we're gonna talk about those three relationships are the definition of airtight logic.

When you're fighting with your boyfriend or girlfriend, there you go. If you can prove those, she'll definitely agree.

[Speaker 3]
Khyapa ma chok.

[Speaker 1]
Khyapa ma chok. I knew somebody was gonna say that. Boss, can we verify, I'm sorry, can I clarify why he says kye gupe here?

Show me where that is. I'm sorry. Oh, you were there.

I'm sorry. There we go. Oh, no, you're right.

You can only generate, if you want to use that bad word, you can only generate a deductive, a correct deductive perception based on a reason or based on a syllogism. Okay, okay. So you need it in order to bring up a jaypak tsema based on that.

Yeah, the day, the day refers to the jaypak tsema at the beginning of the sentence. Yeah, okay. Okay, okay.

Okay, cool. Who's next, Ben? Who's next, Words?

Oh, let me see. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Who likes to torture? Chloe loves it.

Chloe. Come on, Chloe. Is she there?

Here she goes. She's getting serious. You guys are in trouble.

[Speaker 2]
Tak yang tak la sungko nar ke patang.

[Speaker 1]
Mipa. Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 3]
Ke patang.

[Speaker 1]
Stay. Yeah. She can do more words.

Yeah, you can be sure that these are the only three that you need for a correct reason. Nope. Translate.

You need to say translation. Dayang tak sungko nar. Oh, there are only three types of dayang tak?

Yeah, there's only three general types of correct reasons. Oh, great. Okay.

Okay. They are rang shing gi ta yang tak, ma mik pay tak. What is it?

Je bu ta yang tak, je tak, je tak, rang shing gi ta, je tak, and ma mik pay tak. Cool. Okay.

Right, so they are, yeah, reasoning that to be one thing is to be the other. That's where two and three are, to be three is to be two. And then reasoning based on the fact that something is missing, you don't see something that- Yeah.

That's actually a third one, but that's okay. Oh, ma mik pay tak, right? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Proof of why something is not there.

Okay. And then dre bu yi tak, did you say? Yeah, proof of why a thing must be there because it's a result or something.

Yeah, because the cause is there, something like that. Okay, okay. Okay.

Now, who's next, Woody? Oh, we're going to do some more suffering here with Chloé. Okay.

Please do see.

[Speaker 2]
Sun du rang nge pay yu ten.

[Speaker 1]
Go backwards, Ben. The reason, I don't know, by which you can be sure or something that there are only three? Fixed?

Yeah, when you see nge with a number, it probably means- Exactly? Yeah, no more, no less. No more, no less, yeah.

Why is there only three kinds of correct reasons? No more, no less. Okay.

Go, Chloé.

[Speaker 2]
dung draw wa la ni sun ngey pa tang.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. There are only two, there are exactly two relationships?

Yeah, there's only two possible relationships in the universe, okay? What are- Causal or- Yeah, causal effect is one. Causal effect is one with the identity.

To be one thing is to be the other, yeah. Yeah, to be one is to be the other. To be a changing thing is to be a thing.

That's a relationship. To be in the relationship between a seed and a tree. There's only two possible relationships in the universe.

That's chi ched rak. That's a long story. But yeah, generally chi ched rak is one of those, yeah.

The one of identity, by the way. Okay, last one, Chloé.

[Speaker 2]
su sam ma yin pa'i pey tak nam su khak ar nang du ten pat la Yeah, give me yuh, yuh, yuh. Yin.

[Speaker 1]
Yin, good. Yin.

[Speaker 2]
Yin.

[Speaker 1]
Good, I want a good old American Y. Okay, no Chinese Ys. Say yin.

[Speaker 3]
Yin.

[Speaker 1]
Not in. Okay, not in. Okay, good.

What's that say, Ben? It seems like something like an explanation how there do appear reasons that don't have the three relationships. He's going to demonstrate that su sam ma yin pa'i are tak dar nang.

Are tak dar nang. Oh, tak dar nang, I didn't know that term. I see, so tak dar nang means like an apparent reason which means a bad one.

Fake or incorrect, right, tar nang? Yeah, now, in logic, okay? Etymologically, tar nang means looks like.

Looks like. Looks as though. Nang means here.

Tar means as though. Etymologically, it means to appear as if. But in the study of logic, it always means false.

[Speaker 3]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Incorrect logic. So forget the pieces of tar nang and make it a new word in your head. It just means bad logic.

Cool. The kind your partner always uses. Okay, tar nang.

Okay, forget the pieces of it, okay? Although the pieces are interesting, okay? So the definition of a bad reason or a bad argument is tsu su ma yin pa.

Yes, it's a reason which does not possess the three relationships. Yeah, either one or two or all three of the necessary relationships is missing. But if only one is missing, it's still bad logic.

Okay. Boss, you just gave me a list of five what? Oh, these are the topics, I think.

Yeah, these are the topics of the whole book. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

These are discussion about deduction, deductive perception, okay? Okay, okay. Or the reasons which can produce a deductive perception.

Okay. And he's racing through the opening verses, which would normally take months. And I don't know if he's going to come back and explain them or if he's just racing through them.

If he's racing through them, it's not a word commentary. He's not explaining the wording of the root text. And knowing Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk, he's going to come back and give us word by word.

And that's what I use his commentary for. When I need to understand the Pramanavartika, I always go to Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk. He's the only person in 15 centuries who explained it word by word in a very understandable way.

It's an amazing commentary. It's extraordinary commentary. And it's extraordinary that someone in our lifetime has written it.

It's very highly unusual, almost impossible. And it's the most difficult one. So how he did it, who knows?

But I was, just to get sexy, Ben, please. You could find the five elements in the first verse if you study it. If you Rarawa first on Kapsei, on Kapsei's, okay, just Kapsei's.

Great, of course. I think you can find his five points hidden in the first verse. And that, I don't know, I just had that, I must've been Rarawa, but I think he's hiding them secretly in the first verse, kind of cool.

Okay, cool. I will look for them. Yeah, I think we're out of time, actually.

[Speaker 3]
We are.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, you're going to translate the next three paragraphs. Okay, Nyipa, Dhammo, Dhaki. Okay.

And it's not too hard. It's not hard yet, okay? It's going to get ridiculous.

Okay. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you.

Thanks for hanging in there. It's only a couple of minutes to go. Great.

That's okay. I'm here to do this. I'd love to finish, but- Just make sure Ezra knows everything you're learning, in case we have to switch to another subject.

Deal. All right. Thank you, Word, for teaching so many people.

I don't know how you did it, but I'm pretty impressed. Thank you. Thank you, Geshe Michael.

Thank you so much, everybody, for being here tonight. Thanks for sharing this place and this space with us all, for learning together, for being here. You're brave and impressive, and it's exciting that we're all here turning our minds towards the objects of truth and collecting the goodness together of enjoying our time together, which is a great goodness indeed.

And Dr. Word, are you standing by and ready to receive your people? Indeed. Thank you so much, everybody.

Thank you again. Thank you, Ben.

[Speaker 3]
Bye, see you soon. See you on Saturday.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Ben. My honor, thank you.