Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 39

[Speaker 2]
Would you kindly give me the Tibetan phrase for a result reason? Start there. What's a result reason?

Easy, schmoozy. You can handle it.

[Speaker 1]
You're really good, sir?

[Speaker 2]
Trey, Jack, yang, dak.

[Speaker 1]
Juan says jay, da, yang, dak.

[Speaker 2]
That sounds kind of cool.

[Speaker 1]
That could be true. If you need the address to send $100 to.

[Speaker 2]
It's pretty good. That sounds like a correct reason based on the result, and it's not the term that we used, but I like it. What would be a term that doesn't specify whether or not it's correct, Juan?

And what's another word for – rather than dot, which does mean reason, but it's not typically what we have found in this context. What's another word for reason?

[Speaker 1]
You'd say?

[Speaker 2]
Also can mean a syllogism.

[Speaker 1]
Oh.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah, cool. And what did you say result is again?

Yeah, Treble is result, but Trebrand is – let's see.

[Speaker 1]
That's another thing. He says David Dark.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah. That's not bad, but if you meld that together with words insight about an alternate word, which not only means reason, but also means syllogism, then you would have – that's right.

[Speaker 1]
Trebrand. Yeah, great.

[Speaker 2]
I'll take any of those. Yeah, great. That's good.

Great thought. Now, what is it? What is a result reason?

Explain or define. It's when number threes, it causes number two. That's perfectly wrong.

No?

[Speaker 1]
Number three is result.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, number three is result of number two. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, two should be the proposed quality. Should be the cause of that result, which is the reason, your blessed dreytag or yantag dreytag, as you said earlier, which is great. What example did we use in class of a result reason?

Fire and smoke.

[Speaker 3]
Smoke in a mask.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Give me a whole syllogism, like kind, civilized, gentle folk.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, now, he's getting serious now.

[Speaker 2]
Holy moly. Brace yourselves. So thank you.

It is considered a mountain over in smoke. There must be fire because there is smoke. I like it.

Sounds good to me. Okay, good. Yes, a result reason leads to an understanding of the presence of a cause due to the cause and effect relationship of the asserted quality, in this case, fire, and the reason, in this case, smoke.

There's smoke there. Cool. Sounds good.

So then, how about the Tibetan phrase for an identity reason or a reason based on identity, if you like? Or some other translation we'll come up with later, if you like. Yeah, great.

I like it. Yeah. So, what is that?

That's when to be one, it automatically means to be the other one. To be which is to be which? To be three is to be two.

Okay, that sounds nice. Good. And what example did we use?

To be something made is to be something changing. Sound? Sound, yeah.

Sound is changing because it's made. Sounds good to me. I like it.

Okay, good. Okay. Now the Tibetan phrase for a negative reason.

And you can also give another name for this type of reason, but let's generally how about a Tibetan phrase for negative reason. That's the alternate one and I like it. But I kindly anonymous wrote in the chat.

Oh no, it wasn't. I'm sorry. It was Utpala, of course.

Is it dak-dak? Yeah, great. Gak-dak.

Gak-dak is a negative reason. And then the other one that you said, the mamikbe-dak, what does that mean? You want to try and translate that into something?

Yeah, it's a reason where something is absent or the thing is not observed. Nice. Brilliant.

Yeah, wonderful. Okay, what example did we use? Oh, sorry.

What is it or define it or give me a sense of what exactly is a negative reason?

[Speaker 1]
Any reason you write this?

[Speaker 2]
It's so negative. It's all negative. It's just so negative.

Something about, are you talking about like, if three, then not two? Don't overthink it. So what are you asking?

I'm asking how you would define, no, we're not an example yet, but just how we define a negative reason. It may be simpler than you're thinking.

[Speaker 1]
For the presence of one thing denies the presence of something else. Yeah, it's a reason to prove something isn't there.

[Speaker 2]
That's it. Yeah, that's it. Juan got it.

It's just a reason that proves something isn't there. That's it. In fact, he's going to say today, I think, generally we could divide all proofs into proofs of something and proofs of the lack of something.

And then a call, or excuse me, a result reason and an identity reason are two ways of proving that something that is there. But if you want to prove something isn't there, then you use a negative reason or I'm going to make that. Okay.

What was the example we used? Again, you were talking about sound, but this time it's considered sound. It's not unchanging because it's made.

Beautiful. Sounds good. Gorgeous.

You're too good for us. We don't deserve you. Okay.

Dr. Geshe-Michael, I present you with some attempted... I don't know if it's worth looking at. We don't have to look at that.

Just for funsies, I played with the verse, even though my task was to focus on the explanation.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I would read... Yeah.

A logical statement where the reason is a double, right?

[Speaker 2]
A logical... Okay. Whatever.

Oh. Yeah. Okay.

As opposed to is a reason. Okay would be is a logical...

[Speaker 1]
You got to read it backwards across the second and third line.

[Speaker 2]
Cool. Okay. Yeah.

He did a naughty thing where he... I think he uses tensik. It seems like he uses tensik twice.

He uses the same word twice. It seems like he uses it for the drebu above and he uses it for the rangshin below, but he doesn't specify. He just uses the same word twice.

[Speaker 1]
Does he say drebu? I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
We're about to find out.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the rangshin is the debatable thing here. The word rangshin. You notice he doesn't use rangshin in his commentary.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
So it's a little tricky. Okay. I take his rangshin to be the gyuken.

You see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
The gyuken. Yeah, like the factors that cause or something like...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. He does not use the word rangshin.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Yeah. Right.

Right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So whatever various natures the cause may have.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Meaning qualities or something.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Like everything altogether that's needed for the cause, I guess. I mean, the cause and everything that comes with it or something.

[Speaker 1]
I would say that. All the implications of the cause and things like that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. It seems fairly clear in the commentary, I guess.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I hope.

[Speaker 1]
There's two and a half lines. Yeah, I'm glad you got the two and a half.

[Speaker 2]
You wrote it for me. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Oh.

The thing will happen if they are tsang. The thing will not happen if they are ma-tsang.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The result will happen if the gyus and khyens, if the causes and conditions are complete, tsang. Yes. Then the result will occur.

And if they are not complete, it will not occur. And that's his definition of the result.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Great. The causes and conditions are complete and will not occur if the causes and conditions are not complete.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Great.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good. I'll fix that. Can we go on?

Yep. Okay, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, and I'd like you to, I want, in each case for the next few pages, I have gone and gotten you a classical example. And I'd like you to translate it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. And we used this one already. And so, yeah, a mountain, consider a mountain pass that has fire, sorry, excuse me, a mountain pass that has smoke.

[Speaker 1]
Good.

[Speaker 2]
It has fire.

[Speaker 1]
Right.

[Speaker 2]
Because it has smoke.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And that's a classical JTOC result.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Right.

So everything involved with the fire, everything that's involved in bringing about smoke should have come about.

[Speaker 1]
We have some expressions like that in English, you know, where there's smoke, there's fire.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we do. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Referring to politics, usually.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. Oh, and then, yeah, see, maybe he does cover Drangchen. And I took it that way.

Oh, no, did I?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Maybe I didn't because I think he does it in the next verse. So I guess I took the next Drangchen. It seemed to me, boss, that sometimes he comments on what came before and sometimes he comments on what's coming next.

And I think in this case, he's commenting on the verse that's coming next.

[Speaker 1]
I think so. Yeah. Yeah, that's okay.

Yeah. That's okay. That's okay.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. And then I took the, I don't know, I took that, I took the shesikche tangyitong and, you know, brought it up to here instead.

On the assumption that that's what he's covering.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's fun to confuse the hypertextures.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, as you've been saying for years, I think of it every time I do that. I think of you saying that.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. This means in the Tibetan, the whole phrase is radically different place on the page. In English, it would come before.

In Tibetan, it would come after. Where do you put it when you make a book, bilingual book? That's a question.

The Tibetan should come later. In English, it should come first. And hypertexture means some days the AI people will try to connect each Tibetan word to each English word, and they're going to have trouble.

We did a radical difference in the paragraphs. But that's their problem.

[Speaker 2]
And I guess this one, see, this is what I mean is, is the last word from that last line was hetu, was tensik. So it kind of seems like Nat, like he was saying trebui tensik, but now he's saying tensik jangshin. And somehow he's using the one word without doubling it to stand for both meanings.

To stand for result reason and identity reason.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe he said reason twice already. He said a reason of, what do you call it, a reason of identity, a reason of cause and effect. And then there's the other one.

He didn't say reason. That's true. Yeah, that's just by, yeah.

I just want you to read the dangdrawa across the line, that's all. yu tsam dangdrawa. So that's an idiom in Tibetan, right?

dangdrawa. You could say part, part, whole, dangdrawa in English, in Tibetan. Part, whole, dangdrawa.

The part is connected to the whole. In Tibetan you say it part, whole, and connected. You don't say the part and the whole are connected.

You don't say that. So that would be dangdrawa across the line. Okay.

Okay. And what's that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so, ja chö chen, consider sound, mi tak de, it is a changing thing. che pay che, because it's made.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, just to be orderly, I put a reason after every one. They're going to get more complex. These are the simple ones.

They're going to get much more complex. So each time he describes a kind of reason, I went and got you an example from other logic books. Because they're going to get more complex.

Okay, ma mikpay dangdra. Oh, okay. Yeah, when you say mikpa in this context, when you say ma mikpay dangdra, and you say mi nangwa ma mikpay dakwa nangu ma mikpay dangdra, this is a reason to prove the presence of something that the other person could normally see, or a reason to prove the presence of something that the other person could not normally see.

And a prime example is spirit beings. So there are supposed to be spirit beings in this room. So nangru means they could be seen by a normal person, like popcorn.

Popcorn is nangru, can appear to a normal person. And then mi nangwa means would not appear to a normal person, like the presence of a spirit being in this room. But there are proofs for both.

So you can prove things that do appear to a normal person. You can prove the presence of things that do appear to a normal person. And then you can prove the presence of things that do not appear to a normal person.

And we're interested in the second one, especially with emptiness. Not with spirit, somewhat. So ma mikpa means to prove the absence of something.

So there's two kinds of here, two kinds of reasons to prove the absence of something. Number one, a reason which would prove the absence of something that the other person couldn't normally see anyway. And then secondly, to prove the absence of something that the other person could normally see.

It's not here, and they couldn't have seen it anyway. Or it's not here, and they should have seen it. But there are proofs for each.

Here's the example. So they're both ma mikpa tar. They're both reasons why something's not there.

And one is involving something which they couldn't have seen anyway. And the second is involving something which they could have seen normally. And here's the examples.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I went to hear. I'll get it to you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. I'm going to get those two reasons, and then I'm going to do what I want to do, which is amazing time.

[Speaker 2]
Yay!

[Speaker 1]
Wait, that's not it.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yes, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, here's where you stopped, I think. I'm going to mark that. And we'll get into some reasons.

I put some reasons here for you. We'll do them later. So I wanted to go somewhere for this class.

I want to go backwards to something that we had before. And this is line one of the most famous book on perception in two and a half thousand years. This is the first line.

And it's like a mantra in the monastery, in the Geshe course. I must have used it a thousand times. And then I had this assumption about what it meant.

And Ben said, I think it's wrong. And then I was pretty offended and confused. So I went and looked at it.

And it's very interesting, to me anyway, because I must have said it a thousand times on the debate ground. And Ben has a good point. And I thought it would be nice to look at it and see why he has a good point.

So I'm going to go through this first. It's the first line of the most famous book on Buddhist pramana ever, on how to perceive things that you can't normally see, which is the key to emptiness. So you're going to learn a lot.

And we won't get past the first line. So, say bhaksha. Bhaksha means, for example, a direction.

Or it can mean one wing of a bird. Bhaksha. And in logic, it has a term.

It's translated into Tibetan. And by the way, the translation of Sanskrit logic words into Tibetan was like an LSD trip. They're extremely strange.

And no normal Tibetan can understand them at all. They just basically chose words, but they were consistent. They kept it the same for a thousand years.

So bhaksha means chok. Chok means P-H-Y-O-G-S. Hayata chana or chogasa chok means direction.

And it's an ancient word for the subject under consideration. The direction. So what is it in text sound?

It's changing because it's meant. By the way, I'd like to use a different syllogism in this class today. And I took the syllogism from Adam's book, from Adam's last class, because it's better for our purposes today.

And let's go look at... Here's Adam's syllogism. Ben, can you read these three lines?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Consider the sound of like a conch shell for religious ceremonies.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. Sound of a conch horn, shell horn, made from a shell from the ocean.

This is a famous example. Take the sound of a conch shell horn.

[Speaker 2]
It's a changing thing.

[Speaker 1]
It's a changing thing because?

[Speaker 2]
It's brought about through human effort.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Perfect. Yeah.

It's brought about through human effort. Anything which is accomplished through human effort is by definition changing. It's not going to stay the same.

Whether you're talking about cities or countries or dinners, it will not stay the same. So keep that in mind. So where's the choke here?

Yeah, dungar, the conch shell sound. It's the subject that we're talking about. In Tibetan and in Sanskrit, it's called the direction.

But in English, we call it the subject. What are we talking about? Dungar.

We're talking about a shell. But you just drill it slightly and you make a horn out of it. And the best ones curl this way so you can hold your right hand in it, and then the cheaper ones curl the other way.

And the curl depends on the hemisphere in which the shell grew because of the spin of the earth. It's very interesting. So you can kind of roughly tell which hemisphere it came from.

So he says, let's take... So the subject, chok chod. Chok is the subject.

Here is the horn. The shell horn. Chod means quality.

Dharma. Chok chod together means the combination of the thing we're talking about and the quality which we all agree it has, which is the reason. The quality which we already agree.

It's the second part that we're fighting about. We say, let's take sound, it's changing because it's made. That assumes that the listener agrees already that sound is made.

He's just not sure if it's changing or not. So when you say one, two, three, chok chod means one plus three, which he already agrees to by definition. Take sound, it's changing because it's made.

When you say because it's made, you're going to say something which he already agrees to. He already recognizes that sound is made. He's not sure if it's changing yet.

Chok chod means the first of the three relationships. One is three. Remember?

If the three relationships are there, it's a good reason. The first relationship is one is three. One is three.

What's the second relationship? If three, then two. What's the third relationship?

If not two, not three. Chok chod means one plus three. In our case here, the conch shell is...

Sorry, the sound from the conch shell is...

[Speaker 2]
Made by human effort.

[Speaker 1]
Made by human effort. That's one plus three in our reason here, in our logical statement here. The conch shell sound was produced by human effort.

Somebody blew into the horn. That's accepted by the other guy. He does not accept the proposal, the proposition.

He doesn't accept yet that conch shell sounds are changing, impermanent. He doesn't accept that yet. But he does accept our reason.

He accepts that the conch shell sound was produced by human effort. Chok chod... By the way, the definition of a good logical reason is defined in the first nine syllables of this book.

The three relationships are presented in nine syllables. One, two, three. It's unbelievable.

That's really cool. Which in the Sanskrit is half a line. Yeah, yeah.

He defines a good reason. He defines a good logic. Good logic means relationships are there.

One is three. If three, two. If not two, not three.

He defines it in half a Sanskrit line. It's unbelievable. Chok chod refers to the first one.

The first word of the next line is good logical reason. So what's between the chok chod in this verse and the beginning of the next line should be the other two relationships. Got it?

Chok chod means the first relationship. Tenzing means it's a good reason. Whatever's between them, it's got to be the second and third relationships expressed in only five syllables.

Try that in English, it's impossible. So, de che khyapa has to describe the second and third relationships. If two, then three.

If not two, not three. Just those few. It's really four syllables.

De che khyapa. They have to be described. Khyapa means they're describing some kind of necessary relationship.

If it's this, it must be this. If it's this, it must be this. And you can think of it in set theory.

If the two sets are equal and one is laying above the other, then we say khyapa. Cups and all things which you can use as cups, and cups. It's equal.

The set is equal. However many are in this set is equal in this set. We say khyapa.

This set covers this set. This is cups. This is all the things in the universe you can use to drink water from or something.

And it's exactly the same number of things. But sometimes khyapa can mean subcategory. Red cups and all the things in the world you can use to drink water from.

Red cups are still khyapa. They are still covered by the general category. Cups.

Cups covers all things you can drink water from in the universe. And it also covers all red things you can drink. Okay, got it?

So khyapa relationship means this lower one is part of this one or all of it. That's what khyapa means. If something is in this group, red cups, it's automatically in the group called cups.

Does the reverse hold true?

[Speaker 3]
No, not necessarily.

[Speaker 1]
Doesn't mean you're a red cup. It could be equal khyapas, all things that you can use to drink water from and all cups in the universe. Sometimes it's equal.

Sometimes this is smaller, this is bigger. Okay, got it? So here, in our example, take the sound of a horn.

It's changing or impermanent because it was made through human effort. Who's the khyapa-er and who's the khyapa-yi? Which set's bigger?

All changing things. And then it has changing things that were produced through human effort and changing things that were produced not through human effort, like the weather or something. So the coverer, the bigger set or at least equal set is all changing things.

And the thing that's covered is the reason. It was produced by human effort. Okay, got it?

So now the word de in the first line here means what? That. Okay?

And cha means, without the S... Part. No, that's cha.

Cha means part. Part. And you know, for 25 years, I took it to mean the part of the chok chur, the part of the first relationship.

One is three. Okay? The part would refer to three.

De cha. De cha would mean its part. If you read it, chok chur de cha, one plus three or a part of one plus three, which would be three, for example.

Okay? I always took it that way. For 25 years, I took it that way.

Ben's like, I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. Then I'm like, hmm.

It really upset me. So I always took it that way. So what's the cha?

And what's the de? Don't forget that these four syllables, de che khyapa, are supposed to describe the second and third relationships. Okay?

Okay. So what Ben was saying, Geshe-la, who's the khyapa? In our example here, here's our, okay, let's take our, let's take, let's take the sound of a conch horn, okay?

It is a changing thing for one per minute, okay? Because? Because it is continuous.

Okay, got it? So if I say chok chö, right, chok chö, the subject and the quality that we already believe, what is it in this case?

[Speaker 2]
That sound is produced by human effort.

[Speaker 1]
Chok chö, the first of the three relationships, let's put a number here, de, one, two, three, okay? So what's the first of the three relationships? If something is a conch horn sound, wah, it must be produced through human effort.

What's the second relationship that's required for this to be a good reason? If three, then two. If it's produced through human effort, it must be a changing thing, okay?

That's supposed to be expressed in these four syllables, de che khyapa, okay? One has to be a bigger set than the other. Between two and three, one has to be a bigger set than the other.

Which one of them is bigger? Two is bigger. That's what Ben was saying.

I'm like, wait a minute, he's right. You know, it's very irritating. He's very irritating.

Yeah, the bigger thing is two, okay? So if it's supposed to be the bigger thing, de che khyapa, okay? But here it says it's covered by a part of something.

So who's the part? It's the part, Ben, you ready? It's the part of the assertion.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Okay, I mean, once in a thousand years, you know, a monkey bangs on a typewriter, they will come out with one of Shakespeare's plays. Yeah.

So the de, okay, Ben? The de has to be, in my opinion, and I agree with you, it's the drup ja. It's one plus two.

It's what the other guy's trying to prove. The sound of a horn is changing, okay? And what's part of that?

What's part of... Two, yeah, two. Changing, okay?

Because changing is what has to cover here. Changing has to cover... produced by human effort.

Changing has to be fatter, or bigger, or at least equal to number three, which is produced by human effort. So if anybody is the coverer, or the coverer here, it has to be two. And Ben's correct.

I always thought it was three. Okay, got it? You all right?

You all right so far? You all right so far, right? Two has to cover three, okay?

And two is part of something else. He said cha. Okay?

And that means part of the assertion. What's the assertion here? In numbers, what's the assertion?

[Speaker 2]
One is two.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, one is two. What's the other guy trying to prove? One is two.

One is two. What's his reason?

[Speaker 2]
Three. Three. Because three.

It's three.

[Speaker 1]
One is three. What's his implication? If it's three, it listens.

If it's three, it's got to be two. If it's a voluntary sound, it has to be a produced sound. Okay?

Changing sound. Okay, got it? So I like it, Ben.

It's kind of exciting. I mean, chok chö always refers to one plus two. Sorry.

One plus three. And then, so the day doesn't refer to chok chö at all. Okay?

Normally, in Tibetan, day follows what it refers to. If you say mik she de, it means those eyeglasses. You say those after the thing in Tibetan.

You say eyeglasses, those. Whatever came just before those is what you're talking about when you say those in Tibetan, but not here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's kind of radical.

[Speaker 2]
Well, I guess maybe is it, could it be because thud in the Sanskrit is not as strict in that way, even though te is a very correct translation of thud?

[Speaker 1]
Well, now I'm going to, I'm going to play with you, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, please.

[Speaker 1]
This first line has been spelled like different by every single scholar in the last thousand years.

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
That's not how I learned it. That's not how I learned this line. It was de che.

D-E apostrophe I che. And sometimes we didn't have to say che, we could say chak. De chak chabay.

Okay? So here's a question, Ben.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If the de is D-E apostrophe I, that's going to change things. If it's not instrumental, che, if it's chak, it's going to change things. Now, let's go on a trip through history.

Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. Here is Sarah Jetson, the great master of Sarah J, and the teacher of the great master from Sarah May. And, I don't know, he says, de che.

He quotes it correctly.

[Speaker 2]
That's our way, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, ours were... By the way, I took it out of the tenure, okay? Okay.

I took it out of the tenure, so supposedly it's correct. Oh, that's right. Here is...

Who is this? Kachen Jambatugden. This is a great scholar.

Now, he says... Where is it? Chok che de che khyabay.

He uses the same spelling, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Here's the auto-commentary written by that's what an auto-commentary is.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He spells it differently. He says, de che. That's...

Okay? And he wrote his own commentary about his own book. Okay?

One of them is probably wrong. All right?

[Speaker 2]
But he wrote it in Sanskrit, no?

[Speaker 1]
He did.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Yeah, we'd have to see that.

[Speaker 1]
We're going to get there.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Here's Choney Lama, who's normally extremely dependable, and I'm in love with him, and every time I think about doing another book, I think about him.

[Speaker 2]
He used the instrumental.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and he didn't say de yi. He said de. No, he didn't.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Lama too.

[Speaker 1]
Here's Tse Ngo and Tashi, the great logician that wrote The Key to Emptiness. De che kyapa yi. He agrees.

Here is Khachen Lodron Supa, the great master from Tashi Thungpo, in my time. De che kyapa yi. He's okay.

Okay. First dialogue of Gendun Drew. Okay.

He likes my interpretation, and he's the only one. Okay. And his interpretation is radical.

It's totally radical. He reads it the way I read it. And we'll see.

When we get there, we'll get there. Okay? There's the opinions.

So to go back... And by the way, if you're a real scholar, if you're a real mixed nuts, you should look it up in five, six different books and see what they say. And it's very slow.

It takes many years to finish a book. And it's totally accurate. And nobody's going to do that.

Nobody. Except mixed nuts. Let's put it in Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I'm shit. We'll put it up in Sanskrit. Okay?

So luckily we have the Sanskrit. Paksha dharmas. Okay.

Chok chö. Chok chö. Okay.

Relationship number one. Paksha. The...

Paksha. The... The side.

The wing. The group. The object under consideration.

Chö chen. Chö shi. What we're arguing about.

The thing that we're arguing about. Classically it's sound. Here's the sound of a conch shell.

Okay. He calls it simply the direction. Paksha.

And then he says dharma, which means the quality of the Paksha. Which means it is produced by human effort. One plus three in Sanskrit is called Paksha dharma.

The quality of the... By the way, it's also important in Gendun Drup's interpretation that Paksha can mean an argument. A position.

Chö. You know. Chö.

Chen chö. My position. Your position.

Okay. Chö. Chö can mean a side in an argument.

Okay. When you say take sides in an argument, it's chö. Okay.

So he says, you know, that's an argument. Then, okay, the de is definitely not possessive or genitive because in the Sanskrit it's nominative. Thad means de.

It doesn't mean de, which is how I learned it in the debate ground. But who uses de also?

[Speaker 3]
Paksha.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know if I believe it.

[Speaker 1]
I think this is de, where the apostrophe are in his auto-commentary. Somebody translated it that way. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I'd like to see if that's true.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Then anshar. Anshar means chö.

Chö.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Anshar means part. Part of a whole. Anshar.

And here is in the instrumental. Ena is the instrumental ending. By the chö.

Through the chö. And the Tibetan translator has correctly added s, which is instrumental in Tibetan. Chö means part.

Chö means by the part. Big difference. I learned chö chö de chö.

I learned de chö in the debate ground. De chö. So what that means is the part of something has to be number two.

And that was what bugged Ben. And I thought it was crazy. But when I thought about it, it was disturbing.

Chö means part, but part of what? So the answer there is who's supposed to be doing chö? Is it one, two, or three?

Who's supposed to be covering the other one? Two. Yeah, two.

Because if he covers it, then it's necessarily what you said, three. If to be created by human effort means that it had to be changing, then the khyab-ar-er, the cover-er, is two. It has to be two.

So chá here, since it's in the instrumental before the verb cover, covered by, it has to be referring to two. And then what is it a chá-er? He didn't say covered by number two.

He said covered by the part. It's very irritating. And I take it, Ben, to be the part of the druk-ja, which is our assertion, which is one plus two.

What's a part of one plus two?

[Speaker 2]
Two. The druk-ja.

[Speaker 1]
And two has to be the cover-er of? Three. Three.

And why would Khen-she-la insist on using the conch-shell sound for this discussion rather than the most famous logical statement of all time? Why? Because two and three are equal in the most logical statement.

Yeah, it's so confusing when two and three are equal. I wanted to choose a logical statement where the covering was obvious, red cups and cups, produced by human effort and a changing object, because there's produced by human effort and there's not produced by human effort, but produced. So this covers both.

Changing covers both produced by human effort and produced by other kinds of effort. So I wanted to have a case where two and three were obviously different in extent. Okay, cool.

So that you could see who's covering who. Who's covering who?

[Speaker 2]
Two.

[Speaker 1]
Two covers three. Two has to cover. That's what bothered Ben.

And the minute he said it, I started to freak out because I was like, by the way, if you noticed, I just went on into class last time and tried to ignore him. But it bothered me when I got home. I was like, hmm, I think he has a point.

Okay, got it? That's all. That's all.

But during Ben, I went to see if anybody ever just went through what we just went through and nobody ever did. Only Gendon Droop. And then his interpretation is off the wall, but maybe correct.

Okay, completely radically different. Okay, and I don't know. Maybe if you want some fun, Ben, how about I give you that as homework?

Try to figure out Gendon Droop's sentence. Are you in the mood? Okay, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, very much so. Okay, it's not easy.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, that's great. It's good for me. I like it.

[Speaker 1]
And I capitalized the parts that I thought were really important.

[Speaker 2]
That's kind of you.

[Speaker 1]
It starts with sushi. Okay? We got five minutes, right?

We got four minutes. Let's read the first, let's read some pieces of the first. Let's make sure you know all the pieces.

And then you put it together. It's not easy. It's very radical.

What's sushi?

[Speaker 2]
For debates?

[Speaker 1]
No, breshi, gishi. It's the basis of argument. And that's an old word for chöchen.

Okay? Sushi, chöchen, it means number one. It means number one.

In English, sushi is hey, what the hell are we arguing about?

[Speaker 2]
Okay? Yeah, like sound, for example.

[Speaker 1]
And chö means arguing. So sushi, and here he gives it, da.

[Speaker 2]
Right, sound.

[Speaker 1]
Let's take something that we want to argue about. For example, da, sound. You can see he's going to the classical argument, which I would not have preferred because the khyabas are equal and it's confusing.

Okay? Sushi, double chöchen. Let's take sound.

It is not chök, senyupa. And I told you, consider that baksha can mean sushi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's right. Sushi, right.

[Speaker 1]
What you're arguing about. The word chök, by itself, not chök chö, just chö. Okay?

Baksha. And refer to what you're arguing about. The sign.

Okay? The thing you're arguing about. Okay?

So he says, let's take sushi. What's that?

[Speaker 2]
What you want to debate about.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. What you want to debate about, which is sound. Let's consider sound.

Chök, something to fight about. Chök, senyupa, real. Mayan.

[Speaker 2]
It's not really something to fight about?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It's not really, it's not really the object of the debate here. It's the, you know, first big teacher.

And he's radical. This thing is radical. Normally he's quite mild.

Okay? He says, chök senyupa mayan. Okay.

It's not a real subject to talk about because the juk cha...

[Speaker 2]
Sound is changing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Which is the assertion. What we're trying to prove.

One plus... Two. Two.

One plus two. Ma juk pay. Rao du is a way in Tibetan to say before you prove it.

Yeah. In Tibetan we say before you don't prove it. But in English you say before you prove it.

He says, when you say let's take sound, you already have a problem because you cannot take sound. And then we're like, why? And he says, it's not a real subject to debate about.

And then we say, why? And he says, because it already existed before you proved your assertion.

[Speaker 2]
Wow. Okay. All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Before your assertion, before you proved that sound was changing, it was already there. Therefore, it's not chök.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Okay.

Right. Okay. So that's what's going on.

He's saying chök. As soon as you say chök, you are saying somebody's side.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
When you refer to sound as the object we're debating about, that's okay. But as soon as you say, you call sound a position, aksha, then you have trouble, because then you've established something before the proof is finished. You haven't proven it yet.

How can it be part of a proof in process if it was already... Say, ma drub pa'i ngelwa du, drub sen means, hey, that existed a long time ago. It's not a paksha.

It's not something to be used in a proof, because it was there a long time before anybody made a proof. This is Mr. Vindman-Drup's position. It's very radical.

It is. And he gets more radical. By the way, and then the other guy comes back with the first line of Dharmakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And then he comes back with, yin mei de.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. No problem.

[Speaker 1]
And he says, the child refers to the church, which was GMR's old position. So, okay, but you're going to figure out the big letters here, okay?

[Speaker 2]
I will.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good luck.

[Speaker 2]
Or I will definitely try. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, far out. Well, thanks for admitting I didn't understand it for 20 minutes.

[Speaker 2]
No, yeah, thanks for taking the time. You didn't say that. I mean, I rewatch these videos every time.

You said you would go back and research it and get back to me is definitely what you said. And I appreciate you taking the time. I was frustrated and stuck, and you did research for me, and I'm very grateful that you're willing to do that for me.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, I think there's a way you could read it my old way and still get away with it. But let's see what this person here says. All right.

[Speaker 2]
We'll see if you can make me get the first big teacher to help you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Boss, thank you for a great night. Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Ben.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks, everybody. Stay tuned for class with Mr. Word.

[Speaker 2]
Bye-bye, everybody.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

Ciao. Take it away. Thanks again.

Thank you, Ben. I'm not sure. It's kind of a toss-up.

All right.