Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 49

[Speaker 1]
Oh, thank you. Thank you. That was a very cool news show, Juan.

Thank you. Now I know where Juan is. Okay, Dr. Kramer, you're going to take us through some unique suffering today. Let's try. Thank you. Here we go.

Okay, folk. In the logical statement, sound is a changing thing because it's made. What are the similar and dissimilar cases?

We had this discussion around the similar case and the dissimilar case. So you got to tell me what that is and feel free to give me the original language for that in no particular order or any particular order. All at once.

What should it be similar or dissimilar to if? It's a functional thing, correct? Oh, interesting.

Well, maybe, but it's something from the syllogism. So you got to take one of the elements of this syllogism and decide something that is similar or dissimilar to that. So you got three choices, I guess, huh?

Well, isn't a functional thing similar case to something that's made? Yeah. Well, a made thing is the similar cases, right?

Yeah. Okay. So similar to, well, that's the...

So how about this? Subject, asserted quality, okay? Or reason.

Is it the subject sound that we want to be similar or not similar to? Is it the thing we're saying about sound that it's changing that we want to be similar or not similar to? Probably that one since you didn't like my reason originally.

Okay. That's good. Your logic proves you ready to take on this task.

Cool. Yeah. So the similar case is changing things, okay?

Stuff that's changing. Maybe other stuff that's changing. I don't know.

We've got to find out more about that. But in general, changing things are what we're being similar to. How about the...

Someone want to translate that for me? The tin choke and the tin choke, similar.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, great.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, tin choke. What about... Do you want to try Sanskrit?

This didn't come up, but I went looking for it because it was in the verse. We didn't talk about it. I will send $1 to...

I know. $2. I don't know.

Paksha? Yeah. Oh, good.

Oh, there you go. $2 for Dr. Nix. Yeah, I believe it's Paksha.

[Speaker 2]
The word said Paksha.

[Speaker 1]
No, you get the money. He said Paksha. You said Sapaksha.

Paksha is technically the position or something. Sapaksha, I believe, is correct. So what's the dissimilar case?

The tin choke. Yeah. What would it be in the case of this logical statement?

Sound is a changing thing because it's me. I talked about an unchanging thing. Yeah.

Okay, cool. Yeah, unchanging things. Cool.

Word, do you want to redeem yourself with the Sanskrit? Sapaksha.

[Speaker 3]
Sapaksha, that's cute. It's creative.

[Speaker 1]
I like it. This one was in the verse. Another chance for $2 for someone.

Three, make it four. Okay, that's all right. Okay, I'm pretty sure it's Vipaksha.

Yeah, seems to be in the verse. Okay, cool. Let's move on with our lives.

I'd like to still defend my answer that I think my original answer is still part of the group of similar cases. What was your original answer? My original answer is part of the group of similar cases of changing things, but you were just looking for what is the similar case in the syllogism.

Yeah, I mean, you might, and that's why I hemmed and hawed when you said functioning things, because it does seem that functioning things would also relate to changing things in that way. But technically, you would say the group of stuff that's just like the asserted quality. So if someone didn't know that functioning things and changing things were the same, then they could get confused.

Okay, I rescind my complaint. Wrong, exactly. Does the fact that a reason, like made things, is not found within dissimilar things, like unchanging things?

Okay, prove. Does the fact that made things is not found in unchanging things, does that prove that made things is found in changing things? Okay, or does it prove necessarily that made things has to be found in a similar case?

Does that fact alone, the fact that the reason is not in the dissimilar set, does it prove that the reason is in the similar set? That's a very, very fine question. It's a beautiful question for where we're at in the book.

It's a great question. Thank God. No.

If we don't prove that this thing exists, then it works. If we don't set up that this thing exists, then this logic doesn't work. Oh, my God.

Very good. Yeah, I've tried to come up with an answer for 20 years ago. It's really annoying for you to get it so quickly.

Yeah, that's what I came up with. By itself, no. If we say, for example, sound is a changing thing because it's self-existent.

All right. Sound is a changing thing because it's self-existent. Then let's try and check.

Are self-existent things found in changing things? No. Thank goodness.

Okay. Is it true, however, that self-existent things are not found in unchanging things? In existing unchanging things.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is it true? Is it true that they're not found there? Yeah.

It is true.

[Speaker 2]
It is true. It is true.

[Speaker 1]
So it passes test three, but doesn't pass test two. Oh, nice, Ben. Oh, what are we calling this?

Oh, do you want to try? I don't know. I'm sorry.

I was supposed to have asked you this question. What's this kind of a reason called? Finding them.

Oh, good. You're hired. I see a good future for you, Geshe Michael.

Thanks. I can tell this is going to be a lot of work. Okay.

Yeah. None today, twice as much tomorrow. Understanding the three tests of a reason prevents us from making three types of wrong reasons.

List them with their Tibetan name and give an example of each. Well, it's a good homework, Dr. Kramer. Thanks.

I did very badly, I thought, in the last class, and I tried to work hard to redeem myself. You spent some time on it. I mean, people have to spend time on them or they won't be good.

Yeah. Public embarrassment is very good for encouraging one to redouble their efforts.

[Speaker 3]
Anyone?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, are there answers in the chat? Sorry, it's very hard for a person to understand. There's a great answer in the chat.

There's a great answer in the chat. Oh, result identity and the proof for the absence of something. That is a wonderful answer, but those are three types of correct reason.

So, one in one. Oh, my goodness. Oscar, bless your heart.

Wow. Oh, my God. It just keeps coming.

Yes. Cool. Great, Oscar.

A contradictory reason. Would someone give me an example of, oh, how about the Tibetan for contradictory reason while we're in the vicinity? It's as obvious as you might think.

Shall we talk? Deal. I said tensic here, but sure.

What's an example? Let's say sound. Text sound, it is made because...

Text sound, it's a changing thing because it's not made. I like it. Yeah, totally.

I went the other way, but it's fine. Unchanging because it's made was the way we did it in class. But in this case, it seems the reason proves exactly the opposite of what you meant to prove.

And then Oscar gave uncertain as a next response, which is excellent. What's an uncertain reason? Or rather, give me an example, because how to define them is something I'm hoping we're going to eventually develop, and I'm a little fuzzy on those.

But let's come up with an example, as we did in class last time. Text sound, it's changing because bananas. Because it's a banana.

That is uncertainty.

[Speaker 3]
Because you can hear it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry. My bananas change right away, I don't know. Sorry, how about the Tibetan?

Yeah, sorry, I showed it like a turkey. Good. Oh, of course you didn't.

Um, yeah, the example we did was sound is changing because it exists. Okay, an unestablished reason, or something. I'm just dabbing at a translation of this to help you come up with the Tibetan.

Because Michael just said it's like, kind of like a reason that just doesn't work out or something. I think it means maybe doesn't apply to the subject in this case. Maybe that's helpful to you.

So, try to translate.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, translate? Unestablished?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, you're also hired. Give me an example, if you would. I don't remember what I said.

And Gelsay said take sound, it's a changing thing because it's a fish. There it is. Oh my god.

I'll take it. If we can't agree that fish are smelly, then we should just start from scratch. Okay, good.

I, um, well, one, instead of quitting while I'm ahead, I will instead, Michael, my translation. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. Let me go back here.

This is up here. I apologize. Here we are.

Can you read, Ben? Yes, I can. Okay, this is, this is, this is hard.

I agree. By the way, I like, you know, when I was in, back in Russian class in the university, they said divide and conquer. So, split it up, split up the sentence.

So, that's what you did. Let's treat these two verses together. This is the door of logic.

Yeah, good. By the way, I mean, this riggo and the first line, it's rigbego, which means the doorway of logic. And it's often misspelled as riggo with no s.

And so, you know, it looks like it can be translated as the door of awareness or something. And so, you got to catch the correct rigs here, which is nyaya, right, in the Sanskrit. So, okay.

So, Dignaga wrote a book called The Door of Logic. And he said, the antidote for uncertain reasons is the expression of truth, through logical states that relate equality to dissimilar cases. That's okay.

Good. Okay. As you say, Master Isvara Sena, merely not seeing something in the sentence.

If, as you say, merely not seeing something dissimilar, Okay, good. The expression of such verbal truth. Yeah, good.

Okay. That's nice. Wow.

Okay, cool. Very hard. It's quite difficult.

Brutal. You asked me down here in the notes, there was a note somewhere that said, hey, Ben, go make a bibliography entry. So, in fact, it said make a correct bibliography entry.

So, I took that to mean that you wanted to criticize it. So, I offer you that opportunity. By the way, I collect every bibliography entry I ever make.

And we have to update that collection. I think the last one I have is four years old or something. And it takes a lot of my time.

And if people could learn to do it, which there's no reason you can't, it would be wonderful. So, let's check this. Manju Kosha Naya Stignaga.

Yeah, but you didn't catch Semitensha in the English. Oh, right. Yeah.

Yeah. That's right. So, what's it say, Semitensha?

He's introducing it. Right. That's a, yeah, a work on accurate perception.

Yeah. Entering the science of logic, comma, a classical commentary on accurate perception. Something like that.

Okay. Yeah. All right.

I'll fix it in post. Don't capitalize translation. Yeah, right.

Of course. I should have used chat GPT. This is a very unusual book because the page numbering goes backwards.

Yeah. Yeah, that's weird. That's not ideal.

It's probably one for me. I'm guessing. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's a bummer. Yeah. And add the word section after the word theory.

Yeah. Okay. Right.

Yeah. Okay. I mean, that's, getting the page numbers is pretty brutal.

Yeah, that's okay. The rest is fine. You know, nowadays I mostly copy and paste the last half of the thing.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

I have another, maybe even worse. This was the other, the last bit. Ben, why don't you have somebody else read it?

What a good idea. Dodo as punishment for outsmarting me. I condemn you to show your prowess further.

[Speaker 3]
Thanks for the blessing.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, too. Nice. Dodo, for a G by itself, it's not an English G.

It's called ko. Okay. It's not an English G.

Yeah. Okay. It's low tone.

Yeah. Okay. When they emanate, they have, whoa.

Yeah. Good. Okay.

Just the fact that you didn't see it, would be taken as proof. Okay. In our own system, these verbal proofs, are used to bring the recognition that the reason is important.

Okay. That's okay. Nice.

Good. I like it. It's nice.

There's a little touchy around. Yeah, right. Yeah, that bothered me.

Is it the object? Is it the meaning? Or you're seeing that object?

You're seeing the negative necessity? Yeah, which would be dokpay dun. You see what I mean?

Chalwa goy, when you understand the relationship, dokpay dun, dok, it seems to say you would understand the opposite of the dokya. Or how about, maybe it's saying, I think it's probably saying, the dokya is the dun-dok of each of its elements. Oh, what's a dun-dok?

Just reverse it. Flip it. It means flip it.

Oh, I see. Do you want to get to the dun-chok, or the mi-dun-chok? Just flip the dun-chok.

You see what I mean? I think that's what he's talking about. Yeah.

I took dok as being like an idea here, or like, you know, a concept or an understanding. And I'm wondering if later, if that's going to relate somehow, like when he gets into shen-sel, it made me wonder if the way that we arrive at mental objects through exclusion is going to be related to this concept of seeing negatives in a debate context. Yeah, you're talking about mayimba-le-lokpa, yeah.

The opposite of what it is not. Yeah, right. Yeah.

Yeah, you're taking dun-dok like that. That's okay. That's interesting possibility.

Let's see where he goes. Oh, please. Okay.

I'm going to give you the screen, but I would also like to alert you that there's some notes in between. I'll give it to you to do them at your pace. But I'm sure we shouldn't skip them.

That's fine. It's a good point. I think one of them is important.

Let me see. But you had a good homework, and I appreciate it. I appreciate that you spent the time.

Which is not always the case with these things. I got to go put your text up. Hang on just...

It's really hard. It was really hard. I really got some new wrinkles in the process.

Wrinkles are how you learn. Okay, yes, you want to. Here we go.

All right. Oh, good question. I can tell you for sure we are discussing verses 16 and 17.

Is what we just covered. I went to the end. Here, right?

No, sorry. Here. Probably.

I need a little more to go on. No? No?

Maybe. Just about. That's where we stop.

I'm sorry. You're right. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. 16, 17 below.

Good. You ready? Oh, did you want to cover those notes?

Yeah. You finished this part, right? I think here's what we're just doing.

Oh, you mean above. Give me a reading of the notes. Okay.

Oh, sorry. I'm in the wrong year. Okay.

Hang on.

[Speaker 2]
No, you're in the right place.

[Speaker 1]
No, you're right. Believe it or not, that's right. So scroll down just a little bit, boss.

You're in the right place. And then just a little bit lower. 16.

Yeah, that's where we were. Those are those notes. These are them.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I know what you're talking about. This is it.

So I covered the verses immediately before and after the notes, but I left the notes for you to discuss. You didn't translate the two paragraphs or sections that are before this. Really?

You mean this?

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
I would believe her.

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's definitely your option.

[Speaker 1]
The way I'd like to go, though, with the class, just for purposes of pedagogical purposes. Yes. Yeah.

I wanted to discuss, there's a word, did we... so you worked on this paragraph, right? Yes, I did.

Yeah. Mi ten jor kyi dub na, the third line. Mi ten jor kyi dub na.

Yes. I went and found the definition of it.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's a special case of logical usage, okay? So, you know, if you just read the wording, it says a positive assertion applied to the field of dissimilar cases or something like that, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
It's a positive assertion that applies to the field of cases which are not the same, or the... what do you say for field? Maybe.

I don't know. Yeah. Chok.

Bak cha. Oh, the side. Yeah, I see.

Yeah. Or it could mean wing. It kind of always implies a duality, okay?

So, I don't know this word. I don't know this kind of logical statement. And when you're doing your book and you find a name, a new name of a logical statement, it's really helpful to go get a real example of one, because the names are not helpful and the examples are definitive, you know?

So, here's the example, okay? We're going to go to that. And by the way, I just showed them to you, but they took a lot of work, okay?

And I'd like you to read... or you can have someone read this. You can read this larger print.

It's wonderful. Okay. Lindsay, wherever you are, find a microphone.

I know she's coming. She found one.

[Speaker 2]
They can hear me.

[Speaker 1]
Great.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, can you hear me? Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
So, here's the name. Say, a positive logical statement having to do with... which applies to the opposite thing, okay?

And here's his example. If you say... so, what's our classical proof is, take sound, it's changing because it's a made thing, okay?

And then he flips two and he flips three. He says, if sound were unchanging, it could never have been made, which is really the dok kyang, right? If not two, then not three.

If sound were not changing, then it couldn't be made, okay? Then he... so far, so good.

He's expressed the dok kyang. He's expressed the third of the three requirements for a valid reason in the particular circumstances, which is what you always have to say with valid reason. Per na, for example, it is similar to du ma che kyi nam ka, okay?

So, he's put a tunpay yang dak. He has given a tunpay yang dak, a good example. He's given a good example, which is a tradition after you give a logical statement.

You know, I think we should go to the Mexican restaurant tonight because it tastes good. It's similar to the Thai restaurant, which is the only two restaurants in my town. So anyway, so we have to give an example.

We say, for example, it's similar to nam ka, okay? Now there's a big debate in the opening lines of the Abhidharmakosha about nam ka, akasha. When you say space, what are you referring to?

I don't know if you have studied the DCI. We talked about the three or four kinds of spaces. And so, in the ancient language, they say, is nam ka a blue canopy?

No. Do we mean du ma che kyi nam ka? Yeah, good, yeah.

So, when you say sky, you might be referring to the blue canopy, the blue half bowl overhead. And that is a changing thing. If it is blue, someday it will become black when the star burns out, and things like that, okay?

So that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an absence of things, which we call empty space, okay? And it doesn't even mean outer space, which is full of stuff.

So it means du ma che kyi nam ka, a space in the sense of something which was never created. It's true. Du ma che means gyu dang kyen kyi du ne chepay che, something which is a creation of factors and causes, okay?

So in that case, has he so far been, is he legal? Oh yeah, seems okay. Yeah, so far so good.

He said, if something is unchanging, it cannot have been produced by causes and conditions. For example, you can take that version of space which refers to space which was never created by causes and conditions, okay? But which exists, okay?

Which can be the space in which an object rests, for example, okay? Just like that, okay? He uses that as a tempeh.

Tempeh means that's his, what they call concordant example, or it's an example to fit the case, right? A fitting example. And then he says, just like that kind of space, sound is also made.

Uh-oh. So is it a du ma, is it a positive logical statement? Yes.

Does it have a gyu che che? Is it trying to prove some idea? Yes, that something is not made.

But is it concordant, you know? Does it make sense? Is it all in harmony with itself?

And you say, no, you know? The last part here where he was supposed to give a concordant example, a fitting example, he gave a not fitting example, okay? So if you said nam ka chö chen, du ma che kyi nam ka chö chen, let's take space which has not been created by causes and conditions, okay?

Then they say, it must be not made because it's unchanging, okay? It must be not made because it's unchanging. That's okay so far.

It cannot have been created because it's not changing, okay? Then as his tun pe yang dak, he said, it's just like sound, or it's just like how the sound was made, okay? And he could be messing around with people who think that Aum is eternal or so, but anyway, the point is, the form of logic that he has mentioned in the last paragraph is a weirdo form of logic that doesn't work, okay?

In fact, it's a self-destructive logical statement, okay? Okay. So therefore it's me, therefore it's me too.

It's internally inconsistent, okay? Take empty space. It's not made because it never changes, okay?

And it's just like sound, okay? Okay, yeah. That's all, that's all.

So now you can better translate this weird tun jor kyi duk ngak here, okay? A positive logical statement where there's an internal inconsistency, okay? All right.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I was so happy to find that example. Okay. Who's going to read Dr. Kramer?

Oh, good. Let's see. Well, it's just so easy to pick on Tin because it's so nice to listen to him read.

Yeah. We already did that in our name at home, huh? Oh, we did do that.

We did do that together. That's okay. Yeah, so I guess there was a, just a quick introduction to this section that Utpala correctly pointed out that I'm afraid we did skip, which is a tiny bit higher.

I'm sorry, it's this Utpala? Is that right, the tangpo? Oh, there's one right beforehand, but that's okay.

Okay, one right beforehand. Yeah, we're, I'm going to go to here. This is back a few, a few pages, okay?

And if we have, if we have, if you have a wrong idea about Dignaga's statements, okay, who would do that? Oh, in this case, probably Ishvara Sena. Yeah, his teacher had wrong ideas about Dignaga's ideas.

Okay, good. And if you don't accept Dignaga's ideas about dokya, you get into six ridiculous consequences, okay? If Ishvara Sena, if you don't agree to the ideas about the negative necessity as taught by Dignaga, then you've got, you're going to have six, six ridiculous things would have to have, are going to happen to you.

We covered one already. Yes. You translated the first one.

Now we're going to go to the second one. That's why we have numbers here. And by the way, it's a rare case where the number was carved into the wood.

Okay. It was a printed book, though. Oh, well, but they, they got it from, oh, maybe they added it, but...

It's Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk. You edited this book. Oh, I edited it.

I'm sorry. Please, thank you. It's, we're very grateful.

In his manuscript, he put a number two under the, by the way, in Tibetan, you put the number under the thing it refers to. So, okay, yeah. Okay, so here's the second ridiculous consequence if we follow these criticisms of Master Dignaga by his teacher, Master Ishvara Sena, okay, about the dokya, okay?

Cool? Yes. This one, good.

Now is your chance, Tim. Sorry for delaying you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, thank you, teacher. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
So, I just want to make a point about the, the root text here, okay? And, and, yeah, I was the person who inserted the root text for the author, but what, what the, the Mixed Nut Standard is, is to give the whole Sanskrit verse, which is two lines, and then if he's only talking about the first half of the Tibetan verse, I will give only the first half of the Tibetan verse, and I will number it 18A, okay? Because, here's the reason.

Oftentimes, the Tibetan two lines, by the way, it's two lines of Tibetan for every line of Sanskrit. Most two-line Sanskrit verses are, require four lines in the Tibetan. They, that might require six to eight lines in the English, okay?

English is less efficient. You saw how extraordinarily efficient Chinese is in, in the Abhidharma Samuccaya, but anyway, the, the standard for Mixed Nuts is, we'll put the whole Sanskrit verse, two lines, and then if the author only wants to talk about half of it, we're going to have to put two lines of Tibetan under it. You see what I mean?

Because the two lines of Tibetan that come first often relate to the second line of the Sanskrit. Oh, no. Yeah, there's a syntax, there's a syntactical incongruity between Tibetan and Sanskrit, okay?

So anyway, I just want to point that out to you guys. You can't simply cut the Sanskrit into two and get the first line of the Tibetan. It doesn't work like that.

Okay, okay, because Tibetan requires word order and Sanskrit doesn't. It's a, it's a different syntactical word order, yeah, yeah. So it would mess you up.

You know, if you try it a few times, you'll see you can't do it. All right, so anyway, and by the way, sooner or later he's going to have to give the second half of this verse, and we'll call it 18b in the Tibetan, and we won't have any Sanskrit there, okay? Okay.

The person has to come back. Okay, tewa nyipa means what, Ben? This is the second problematic implication, naughty consequence of not accepting Dignaga's presentation.

On dokya, yeah. If Master Ujjwara Sena doesn't agree with Master Dignaga's treatment of the negative statement of necessity, right, this is the second ridiculous consequence. Here it is.

Cholangki, Master Dignaga, his statement that hangden reasons, which means inconclusive reasons, are mistaken would have had to be done. Yeah, yeah, it must have been wrong. If you're right about Master Dignaga's understanding of the negative necessity, then he must have also made a mistake about inconclusive logical statements, okay?

Okay, all right? Yes. And that sounds very complex, and that sounds very complicated, and our author has a very nice pattern throughout these six.

He will give the technical wording of the logic, the syntax, and then he'll give a very common logical statement that everyone can understand, and then you can forget the technical name of the logic and just remember Okay, so here's the statement. Who gets to read it, Ben? Oh, well, Tin barely had any fun at all.

It was just a couple words. This is what he really deserves. Yeah, thank you.

[Speaker 3]
I'm going to cut it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, sorry, Tin. Party's over.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Okay. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
You're awesome. Sikang means line of verse, right? Maybe it should have been six, I don't know.

But anyway, these two lines in the Tibetan, right? Not the Sanskrit. Yes.

They are describing the following simple case. I'll give you a simple case, and everybody will understand this weird name. First of all, you have a shinto, which is the ancient word for debu.

Jay. Jay. Jay, yeah, okay.

It means a fruit, okay?

[Speaker 3]
A fruit.

[Speaker 1]
Like the end of a tree, like the tip of a tree sprouts into something. Exactly, yeah, the acne of a tree. You've got a fruit, and I'm not talking about this one fruit on the tree.

I'm talking about the phagmas. All the other fruit, then that. Yeah, yeah.

So forget this one fruit hanging off the peach tree. Let's talk about all the other fruits hanging off the peach tree, okay? Yeah.

They must be normal. Sweet. Yeah, they must have a sweet taste, because this one, now you can guess the rest.

Yeah, because the one on the tree tastes sweet. Yeah, the one I ate yesterday, yeah, the one I ate off, the fruit that I ate off this same tree, shingpung, means, shingpung is an ancient word that means same tree, okay? Because I ate a fruit off the same tree yesterday, and this one that we're trying to decide whether it's going to be sweet or not has grown from the same tree.

They are equivalent. The two fruits are equivalent. Why?

They have grown from the same tree, okay? Yeah. So is it logical?

Let's put it, let's say it again. Those of you who have a peach tree, if you pluck one peach off the tree in the summer, early summer, and it happens to be delicious, does that prove that all the other fruits hanging off the tree are going to be delicious? No.

Many, many peach tree farmers, such as me and my wife, have been misled this way, okay? So what was the other similar example we had about rice? Yeah, the rice that left over in the pot must be cooked because the bite that I had from the same pot was cooked, or something like that.

Yeah, all the rice in this pot should be cooked well, because the one spoon that I took out was cooked well. But that assumes that the fire is evenly distributed, for example, which we don't know. Well, yeah, and I haven't seen uncooked rice in the mitun chok.

I haven't seen uncooked rice in the rice that I didn't even bother to check. Yeah, exactly. Okay, so anyway, if Master Dignanga's description of what doesn't fit the logic is wrong, then all the fruits on a tree should taste the same, okay?

Or it's illogical to say that not all the fruits are going to taste the same as one, okay? Yeah, just because I haven't tasted an unsweet one in the fruit other than the one that I tasted, but I didn't taste them at all, actually. Yeah, good, nice, cool.

Yeah, okay. What if I said probably? To what?

The other fruits are sweet. Oh, yeah. How about if I said likely?

I can't imagine how you would calculate such a number. Okay, who's going to read this next one, Ben? Oh, okay.

Oh, venerable Kading, would you be so kind? Always good luck to touch Diamond Mountain. By the way, Ben's on his second book.

The first book was A Breeze. Now we're on a sixth book, so don't get frustrated. I'm sorry.

It's been eight years we've been on this stuff, okay? I feel like a breeze at the time.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Your reading is getting hot, okay? And I appreciate the photos you've been sending of Diamond Mountain. Okay.

By the way, anybody who wants to send me cute photos of anything, I'll use it in my daily translation message. I'm like, cute kids and stuff like that. Okay.

By the grandfather of Buddhist logic, okay? That kind of reason about the tree, the peaches, is called prang den, inconclusive, right? And it's true pachinko.

It's mistaken, because it's inconclusive. Okay, cool. And that has been described in the auto commentary to Dignaga, which was written by Dignaga.

Oh, Dignaga. True question. I would owe you money if I got that wrong.

Yeah. Now, I don't know if you want to bother, but if you want, we could go looking for it. I'm happy to, or I'm happy either way.

It seems you suggested you can make me do it, or we can do it together. It's also a healthy exercise as a family. I support either approach.

Let's do it. I'll show you how I would do it, okay? Wonderful.

There's a few tricks here that you guys can use if you get into it, okay? So, first of all, I personally do not want to search 4,600 books to find something, okay? I don't want to restrict the search to Kanye Tengu.

I would restrict it to Tengu, so there's only 3,700 books to look through. Then, if I was in a rush, like it was my morning translation time, I would rather just search the logic section of the Tengu. Yeah.

Volume one, by the way, I believe. Yeah, which is like 12 sections in Tengu, so then you narrow it down to a couple hundred books. Then, if I was going to be cute, I would go find the Tohoku catalog number, and then my search can be narrowed down.

Before I even start, I can narrow it down to the correct volume of Tengu, and each volume has an average of, I think, I don't know, five books and five works, okay? So, I got to see if this weird peace tree thing is in that volume of the Tengu. There's 210 volumes that survived from ancient India.

They constitute 3,700 works, okay? So, rather than search 3,700 works, I'm going to search five or ten or something like that, okay? First, so first thing, so we need the Tohoku catalog number of that book, okay?

Okay. Now, if you don't know what's the catalog number of a book, if it's a commentary to another book, it'll be in the Tohoku catalog right after that book. Yes.

Okay, do you want to go do it together, or you got it there? I do have it. It's 4204.

Okay, remember the number, 4204, okay? Right, following 4203, which is the root text. Yeah, we got two minutes.

Let's see if we can do it. By the way, we are searching three million words. We can't see if you mean for us to be able to your gopher window.

I'm not there yet. Yeah. Oh, sorry, wasn't sure.

But the reason I kept up your document is I want from you a suggestion about unique words in this, in these lines that we can do our search. And this is where Joel Crawford proximity search is essential. So, seems pretty wild.

Exactly. I would look for Shintok. Yeah.

Near Shintok, there's going to be one of those, maybe. Yeah. What about Shintok?

That's nowhere. Shintok is like, this is a hot pox leg of mine. This is a single occurrence in all of scripture.

Okay. By the way, word, we can have an or, we can make an or statement. You know, we have, what do you call that?

We have Boolean operators. Okay, so here we go. Now we're going to switch to Shintok.

I'm sorry, Shintok, was that a misspelling? Shintok was an idiom for a single tree, which literally means a pile. A big old tree?

One tree pile. I'm going to go get a gopher for you guys. So I have millions of them up all the time.

Here's one. Well, here's one. Let's use this one.

Okay. You can see it, right? Yes.

Okay. So, we're going to search for that strange word, shingpun, right? Yeah.

We can't see your, yeah, we can't see your framing. I don't, what do you mean? Can you see it?

No, we can't see your fields. You can't see what? We just, it's not changing.

You can't see my fields. Let me just show you all my stuff. You have to do the dreaded show all button.

I hate that. How's that? It's just dangerous.

I get so many emails from people. Okay. All right.

Okay. We're going to search for shingpun. Okay.

Yes. And we would like to have it near shingtok. And I happen to know that it's sometimes spelled that way, just for fun.

Okay. Yes. Now, let's avoid searching the whole 3,700 books of the Tengyur.

Let's create a new field. We say add. Then we go to the Tengyur.

Here. Then we go to logic, which is here. Section number 11.

We have 20 volumes to choose from. It's in one. We first, we click on the first one and we look at these shadow numbers on the side.

What, what was your catalog number, Ben? It's 4204. 4204.

So, it's the second work here. Yeah. So, if I do the search in this volume, I'm going to restrict the search to like 11 different books or something or a little more.

13 different books. Okay. Which is a lot better than 3,700 books.

Okay. Here we go. By the way, we're assuming that our author has quoted, has used the same words as the ancient book, which is not a necessarily correct assumption.

Not. In fact. Did I even, yeah, yeah, not there.

He does not mention shing, shingtok, near shingtok. Now let's look up shingtok. You don't even need proximity with such a small search, I feel.

All those proximity is obviously critical. Yeah. He never uses the word shingpun.

Okay. Okay. So, that's our author.

And that's the problem. Let's see if he uses shingtok. He does not.

Okay. Let's see if he uses dibunir on a tree. And somehow, shingtok is without the H too.

Yeah, yeah, it can be. We should hit it this way. You ready?

We're just searching for trees. Are we in the right book? We are not exactly, however.

But it's, you know, it's a, it is a commentary on that book. But it's not the auto commentary, right? No, this is the root text.

It's the root text of its, it's. Yeah, yeah. That's, by the way, when you skip text, you don't necessarily hit the next one in numerical order, just so you know.

Uh-huh. So, I gotta get this. I gotta move this thing.

Okay, here we go. Let's go to next. I go next file, okay?

I'm not interested in this book. Right. This is, this is the auto commentary to Dharmakirti's work.

Yeah, not, not, it's not our book, right? Right. But it's interesting because it's talking about the similar stuff.

Let's go to the next book. And that's not it. What'd you say the catalog number was?

4204? 4204. Yeah.

Okay. There's 4203. This is the root text.

And this is the auto commentary. Okay. Yeah.

That could be it, okay? Yeah. It's possible.

It's not conclusive, I would say. Okay. Let's see if there's another one.

Yeah. Still in the same book. I don't think that's it.

No, it doesn't. That shing is, I think that shing is and, Gen. Yeah, I think so too.

Let's try and, we got, by the way, there's only one more hit. Which is still the right book. This could be it.

Oh, this is Chimitin jar, right? Oh, yeah. It's pretty, it's pretty tasty.

This one's pretty tasty. Okay. So anyway, we'd have to read it carefully and make sure, but.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Okay. I can research more too.

Yeah. Let's go back. Okay.

Deal. We're out of time. We're quite over time.

Yeah. Do you want to give me an assignment, boss? Yeah.

Did you reach to, we finished the second one, right? Or we didn't. We just, no.

Well, yeah, we finished that one. But we're going to start, we're going to work on here, right? Yeah, exactly.

Stop here. Okay, good. So please work, Ben, work on the second half of this second logical statement.

How many are there going to be? Eight? Did you say six?

I forget. Six. Six consequences if you misunderstood Dignaga.

Okay. And why don't you do three and four? Okay.

Okay. And I'm going to give you a clue that will save you some hair. Oh, thank you.

Go first to the second part of each number, which is the actual logical statement, like about the fruit trees, and then from that you can rebuild the technical name of the syllogism. I apologize. Would you restate that or rephrase that one more time?

Like here you have number four, right? Yes. So don't try to translate this line and a half here.

Go straight to line after that, because that's going to be the actual fruit tree thing. Cool. Yeah, great.

And then go backwards to the ridiculous name of the syllogism. Perfect. That's very helpful.

Thank you. All right. All right.

Just a suggestion to save you hair, because I lost mine and I don't want to see you do that. Okay. That's kind.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Okay. I appreciate it. If anyone survived this class, I got to say you are special people.

Okay. 352 people survived this class. It's unbelievable.

I can't imagine in the whole world. Probably somebody thought it was Netflix or something, Ben. It's hard to turn off the video when you're asleep.

Okay. Thank you. Say hi.

Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you so much.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Geshe Michael, so much. Say hi to Amelie.

I definitely will. Is Erin doing okay? Yeah, she's getting better all the time.

Thank you for asking. Okay, cool. If she's bored, she could go to my hernia doctor.

Actually, she just went. Never mind. I don't want to know.

Hernia doctor? Cool. You know, Haggerty said, Geshe-la, this hurt more than I thought.

I'm like, yeah, I know. True. All right.

True story. He's chiming in. Thank you, Geshe-la, for the amazing classes.

Please, everyone. Thank you for studying. Thank you for cooking.

Bye.