Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 23

[Speaker 3]
We're back from our break. It's time. Can you guys hear me?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Oh good. We've got Tim up first today and then we've got a Q&A session with Mr. Ben Kramer who knows a lot and he's a fun person to ask questions. So if you've got questions, stick around after this class for the question and answer with Ben. And then we've got yoga after that. Let's see, Uta from Germany and we have yoga this afternoon with Mr. Juan Hasso, both of which should be very fun classes. Thank you both for agreeing to teach a little bit. Oh, so here comes Tim. You got homework ready?

Yep.

[Speaker 3]
Awesome. All right, let's do it. Let's find the homework.

Here it is. Cool.

[Speaker 1]
All right, here we go guys. Good morning. All right.

So in our debate format, there's three primary sections or parts that we're going to go through when we go through each debate. The first one is where the cacique shows up and makes some wrong claims and then we logically destroy them or clarify or something like that. What are the second and third parts and describe their function?

So let's start with, well, what's the second part? Ram Mukshakpa, the presentation of our position. Right.

And that's pretty clear what that function is. And Gekola said something interesting that I'm just curious to learn about it. Sometimes we don't, we leave out small points to see if the cacique picks up on it later.

That was just something he said I just wanted to include. And so what's the third part? Cacique comes back.

And what's the function of that? To give them a chance to see, express whether they were wrong or another chance to prove their point. Right.

I like to call it how civilized of us. We're not just ending the argument. We're giving people the opportunity to discuss things like how it should be.

And for all of you Star Wars fans out there, when I read this, I thought about Obi-Wan Kenobi and his lightsaber being a more civilized weapon in a civilized age. Anyway, that was for a few of you Star Wars people. All right.

Second question. All right. So after we gave our position in the third section, the cacique takes the position that Lord Maitreya should be considered an innovator.

And what does the cacique use to support their position?

[Speaker 3]
He did new stuff.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, he did new stuff. That's true. Yes.

But that's one of the supports, I guess.

[Speaker 3]
Are you referring to the essence of eloquence?

[Speaker 1]
Well, you have the correct author.

[Speaker 3]
He does quote Jason Capa. I know it's six in the morning.

[Speaker 1]
Five for some of us. It's early in the morning. All right.

So yes, he quotes Jason Capa, which I'll go to in a second. Then my question is, as mixed nuts, since the cacique quotes Jason Capa, what do we do? And second part of the question is, how does our text secure the wrong look?

What do we say why that cacique is wrong?

[Speaker 3]
Well, we always go look at the quote to find out, number one, that it's quoted in the same way as the input that we have for the text. Maybe also to get some context around that quote.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. So that's what we do here. So the cacique quotes the string of golden beads saying that Lord Maitreya is an innovator.

So the first thing we did is we went to say, well, did Jason Capa actually say that? And the answer is no, he didn't actually say that. He did say he was an innovator, which was what Lord said.

He's referenced, never said he was an innovator, but he referenced him reverently. Right. And do you guys remember how we said this wasn't a good argument?

Because he's out of this world. Yes, yes. So basically, we don't even address the quote itself.

We just say that Maitreya is in Gondon. You don't even have the correct definition. All right.

Cool. All right. So Geshe-la asked in two classes ago to relate the definition of an innovator to DCI level nine.

And for those of you who've studied that, Ana Ile, for example, how do we see the primary aspects of the definition of an innovator appear in the life tools? So we have three sections here. Comment on the meaning of the sutras.

They don't follow after any other innovator and they live in this world. It's kind of a hard question because we're having to refer to another text and something you guys studied a long time ago. Uta, I see you looking there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So this, how does it relate to DCI level nine? Well, if I may say the second one stands out to me where you say that does not follow after any other innovator, whereas in DCI nine say that we do stand on the shoulder of previous giants.

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's actually the question. That's what I brought up. Oh, okay.

So that's a good question. So if we were to relate it to our definition of an innovator, how does our definition of an innovator stand on the shoulder of giants? Who are the giants in our case?

Like Nagarjuna, for instance, Nagarjuna is the innovator. And what did you say? The Buddha is who?

[Speaker 3]
The giant.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Exactly. Right.

So we're standing on the ideas of enlightened beings, right? The sutras, and then commenting on them in new ways. Any other ideas you have, especially for the ones that live in this world?

I thought what Geshe-la did was quite creative in connecting that to a modern day innovator. So the one thing he did say was that true innovators have their realm. They create something new here in a particular social and cultural context.

So I thought that was a nice connection point, that they do have their place, that they do have a place where they operate. Whereas Maitreya, not that Ganden is not a place, maybe, but it's not the same kind of place we're talking about. All right, cool.

So I got three sexy Tibetan words for you guys. First one, tenmabepa. Presentation?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, set forth a presentation. How about sedangidrela?

[Speaker 1]
Oritative commentary? Yeah. Commentary, that's correct.

Yeah, I guess. And the last one is, I'm not looking for the definition. I'm looking for the why it was mistyped into our database.

Why? Does gnas look like tas, and it's probably supposed to be she? Oh, wait.

Exactly, yes. Good job, yes. And if there wasn't a pow on it, it would be really mistyped.

Yes. Yes, so you guys can look up the definition later. All right, but can you guys see my mouse on the screen?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, so the na and the da look very similar in Tibetan. I should have actually written it out on the homework so you guys could see it. Oops.

But they look very similar, and sometimes the typist might get confused. All right, cool. All right, Geshe-la, I made some attempts at the next translation.

And where is it? By the way, if you're trying to decide whether something's a na or a da in a text, you can look at the other nas and das, and the carver will usually draw the rest of the letter also in a different way. Meaning the...

Not just the stem, not just the lower stem.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I see.

[Speaker 1]
You see what I mean? Like, oftentimes the side stroke will be angled, so, you know, on a da. So, the down stroke, I'm sorry, the left side stroke, so you can compare his other nas and his other das, and sometimes you can figure it out.

Oh, cool. And Venerable Pala, I like your comment in the chat that Ganden just isn't our place yet. That's nice.

[Speaker 3]
All right, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
All right, here's the next part, Geshe-la. All right, here we go. Good.

Hang on one second. I've got to do one thing. Okay, good.

I like it a lot, and I like... The best thing about this translation is the capital I on Innovator in the first sentence. That was really good.

Yeah, it's good.

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, could you explain why? For the editor and me, he's a little bit anal.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, when he capitalizes the I in Innovator in the first sentence, it makes it feel more like he's THE Middle Way Innovator. You see what I mean? And maybe he should have used a particle the rather than a.

You see what I mean? Are you saying that they must necessarily be THE Middle Way Innovator? You see what I mean?

Then it's clearly wrong. You see what I mean? You see what I mean?

Just because he's an Innovator and just because he belongs to the Middle Way doesn't mean he's capital Middle Way Innovator, the one and only. You see what I mean? Yes, thank you.

It was a good stroke. The rest is good. All right, so maybe we'll just skip the rest because the rest is where I fell apart.

Oh, you mean the second? And what I didn't know, because I was looking at Adam's text and trying to figure out, because at this part, it seems that the kachig speaks. It's like we're flipping who's the primary speaker until a different point, but I wasn't sure how to who was talking and what.

And this is where I fell apart in this section. So I'm not sure who's disagreeing. So we're disagreeing, the Thakma Jukde, right?

And then we're providing a counterexample? I got to be able to see the top Tibetan at the same time. So THAG MA GDUG means...

THAG MA GDUG is long. Yeah, so basically when it says THAG MA GDUG, you just repeat the third element of your whole third paragraph here. I disagree.

You just replace because with I disagree that... Yeah, okay. Okay.

But you have to repeat the third paragraph verbatim, I think. I see, okay. Do you want to read the Tibetan?

Yeah, and if it's me, I will start this last paragraph on your screen here, last paragraph in English here. I will start it with, I disagree with your reason colon.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Just because something is a classical commentary by a person and that classical commentary is by an interviewer, doesn't mean it must be. I would replace the then with doesn't mean it must be. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, good. Just because something is a classical commentary by a practitioner on the Middle Way and that classical commentary is by an interviewer, doesn't mean that it must be a classical commentary. Let's say it's okay right now.

I still can't see the Tibetan on the top, but let me see. Yeah, good. Okay, yeah, I like everything.

Let's go to your second sentence in the second paragraph. Is our standard on Middle Way hyphenated or unhyphenated? I'm just tending to leave it out nowadays.

Technically it should be there, but it gets messy with mind-only school and Middle Way school. It looks inelegant, and sometimes that's more important for me. It's a good question.

I've probably been inconsistent in the past. Let's continue now the classical commentary known as uttara tantra. We translate as the higher line.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Just to take away the word tantra, and then you have to, yeah, tell us. Yeah, good.

And then the third sentence here in the second part, it would start out with, are you saying it is, but are you saying that, I think it's, are you saying that it's a, are you saying that it was written by the Middle Way innovator? Nice. This is where I get, I, this is where I don't know what to do with these four words, and this is why I get confused.

You go to the second sentence above. I'm sorry. Are you saying that it was written by a Middle Way, by the Middle Way innovator?

Okay. So, so we just go to this part here. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah, good. Because it, and then you, you copy your first paragraph.

No, the, the first paragraph of the second section. First paragraph of the second. So, so then I copy this.

From because, yeah. And, and down to the comma. I, okay, I'm gonna have to figure this out.

Yeah. Because it is a classical commentary. Yeah, something like that.

Yeah. Okay. That doesn't make, so we're saying it's written by a Middle Way innovator, but it wasn't written by a Middle Way innovator.

Yeah, so our third sentence of the second half is sarcastic, right? Because it was written by Maitreya, right? Well, I'm sorry, the Drelpa was written by Asanga.

Right. Which, so, so the third sentence here in your second half is basically saying, are you saying Asanga is the Middle Way innovator? So, I just, so right here we would change that?

Well, no, you wouldn't state it. Okay. Yeah, yeah.

And then we're gonna prove, we're gonna, I think we're gonna reveal Asanga in the next section. Right. Yeah.

So, it's good now, I think. Yeah. Well, it is a commentary, it is a classical commentary.

It's by a practitioner of the Middle Way. That classical commentary is by an innovator, but that doesn't make him a Middle Way innovator. Okay, so we need to add that in.

Do we need to? I wouldn't add it. I mean, you shouldn't add it, but that's the implication.

Okay, so the implication is what we said in our, in our first sentence, but we're just, we have to think that it's thereby, because it, like, to me that doesn't say anything about being a Middle Way innovator, but we're just assuming that it... Are you saying Asanga is a Middle Way innovator? Why?

Because he, he did write a classical commentary. That commentary is by a practitioner of the Middle Way, and that commentary is by an innovator. And, and the implication that the thing we learned from this jorwa, from this logical statement, is that you could be the innovator of the, you could be the innovator of the mind only and be a Middle Way practitioner.

Right. That's what we're learning from this khartik, and it's very profound for us, you know. That, that's probably worth your whole term, you know.

You, you could belong to the Middle Way and you can be the innovator for the mind-only school. You could belong to the Middle Way and write the Abhidharmakosha and be a closet mind-only person. Uh, yeah.

Yeah. And it gets into Ben's... I'm working on Ben's book nowadays, and it gets into worldviews, you know.

What's his true worldview? It's kind of interesting. All right, cool.

All right. And, and we're going to get a very profound... the next debate is going to be really profound.

So, Geshe Michael, how do you, how do we as a translator know that the cheer is going to repeat the reason but leave out Middle Way?

[Speaker 3]
How do we know that?

[Speaker 1]
Well, whenever you see der tel de cheer, it means because it is what you said would prove it. You see what I mean? Well, what...

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, I don't have my notes from last time. I don't know what he said to prove it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I would say you're correct in one thing. The first sentence in the second part, Tim, should repeat the reason given above. Right.

Just because something is a classical commentary written by a practitioner of the Middle Way, it should say. Oh, you did say that. Yeah.

Okay. So, Utpala, you just basically repeat his reason. When it says der tel de cheer, you just repeat his reason.

[Speaker 3]
Well, no, we didn't. We left out Middle Way as the adjective of innovator. When we, right after the der tel, how do we know to leave out?

What words to leave out?

[Speaker 1]
Let me see your third section in the first half, Tim. Just scroll. Yeah, stop.

So, Utpala, you have to repeat the third piece here in the upper half. Yeah. So, does his first...

[Speaker 3]
No, I get that, that after the tabonga droop, you do that.

[Speaker 1]
But then, yeah, the only clear language is let's consider the higher line. And then der tel de cheer. So...

You just... What do you call it? You assume it from his last reason.

You analyze his last reason, and you draw it out of his last reason. Okay. I guess there's a really good reason why you didn't give me a logic text.

Thank you very much. By the way, you get used to it. I mean, when you're working on Adam's Durda text, you just start cutting and pasting.

And by the way, Tim, that's a safer process. Okay. Hey, that's good to work.

It's hard, but it's... By the way, with those logic formats, you have to be a hard ass in your mind. You have to say, I'm going to figure this out.

And you have to be disciplined with yourself. You can't avoid them, and you have to fight with them until you figure them out. And once you do it once, the next one is easier, then the next one is easier.

So you have to... Intellectually, you have to be tough on yourself, and force yourself to understand one, and then the next one is much easier. But if you kind of avoid it and turn the computer off, you'll never be able to read the great text.

And it's hard, and it's good for your mind, and it keeps your mind fresh, by the way. All right, here we go. So I've seen these old people do puzzles and stuff, but you guys can do Buddhist logic and...

Okay. In the nursing home. I've seen people on the plane, doing puzzles to kind of...

I guess to challenge their mind, and you can just use the Buddhist logic text. Okay. This is not the right text.

Hang on. Okay, good. Oh, and here, Tim, I just went and got you proof that that commentary to the higher line was written by a Sangha.

Okay. And to do that, I went to the colophon of that commentary. Okay, and that's here.

That's where the author identifies himself. Please read. Yeah, so in a Western book, the author's name is on the first page, and in one of these ancient books, the author hopefully will identify himself at the end.

Okay. By the way, if they don't identify themselves, you can try the classical catalog to the Kangyur and Tengur, which was written, I don't know, in the 1600s, 1700s, and it's a good piece of work. And they work hard to find out who wrote things.

Okay. Okay. Oh, here's a sentence you guys should never forget.

All right, so if you agree that... What was that? Agreeing to what?

Anyway. If you agree that it is a classical commentary by a practitioner of the Middle Way.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a Middle Way commentary, and it was written by an innovator. Just because someone was an innovator, and just because they wrote on the Middle Way, doesn't make them the Middle Way innovator. Okay.

Here we go. So if you agree that the author of that commentary, which is a sangha, is the Middle Way innovator, do not. Please read, Tim.

pakpa tokme chod chen umapay shintay sung je yinpardhau Yinpardhau. Sarcastic. Go down.

Sarcastic. All right. umapay kang shik shintay sung je yinpay chir Yeah, translate.

All right, so if you agree that... Yeah, if you agree to that, let's take... Let's take Arya Sangha.

Good. Are you saying that he's the innovator of the Middle Way? Good.

Or the Middle Way innovator? Good. And then the other guy in there, he says, Why do you say that?

Because he's a practitioner of the Middle Way, and he's an innovator? Yeah, because A... and you have to say A, B when you see the kang shik, right?

Because A, he's a practitioner of the Middle Way. He's a Middle Way-er. And secondly, he's an innovator.

So, listen, Tim. Ronglu is describing a sangha as a practitioner of the Middle Way. When he's the inventor of the mind only.

And by the way, just to give you a clue, if I'm translating this, I will put a lot of emphasis on this bhakti. Right? Because that's the first time we mentioned him as an Arya in the text.

And it's very intentional and important. Because the next line says... Go ahead.

And consider carefully first whether you're going to go up or down on the Tao. I'm going up on this one. Yeah, if you believe it, go up.

If it's forecasted, go down. du ma pa yinpa ta, thek chen pakpay yinpey je. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Now translate. He is too a Middle Way practitioner. Yeah.

Because he's an Arya, he's a Mahayana Arya. Yeah. And what's the...

if you're going to state the kelpa here, what's the kelpa? If someone is a... Arya?

[Speaker 3]
Something. Higher Way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, basically if someone sees emptiness directly, they have to be... A Middle Way practitioner. Middle Way.

And never forget this sentence, okay? Never forget this sentence for the rest of your life. There it's stated very plainly, okay?

And yay for Ketub Dhamma Dharmi. If you see emptiness directly, and you're on the Bodhisattva track, you must be Middle Way. You have to be Middle Way.

Cool. So is there going to be any kind of imagined conversation between these two lines? Or does the kachig say anything in between these two lines?

Not really, he doesn't get the same. Well, oh yeah, there is. He, of course, vehemently says, what the hell?

How can you describe a Sangha as a Middle Wayer? Okay. He says, which means Parpa Togme, a Sangha, is not A, a Middle Way guy, and B, an innovator.

Because he's not a Middle Way guy. In between, he says that. And by the way, it's assumed, and in some translations, you might want to state it directly.

You might want to fill it in. Okay, cool. All right.

Now, please read the next little line. chima sa ser na Yeah, and the chima, it means the latter part of the argument, okay? And who said that?

A la means it's easy. It's easily accepted. It's easily accepted.

Who said that? We did. No, ser na.

Ser na. Oh, he did. Oh, the other guy did.

Yeah, the other guy comes back and he says, look, that's really obvious, okay? What's really obvious? That's his last part up here, somewhere, where he said, if something is a classical commentary of the Middle Way, and if it is the classical commentary of an innovator, okay?

I'll say it again. Two things. If something is a classical commentary of the Middle Way, and if something is a classical commentary written by an innovator, it must be a classical commentary written by an innovator who is Middle Way.

Okay, I'll say it again. If something is a classical commentary of the Middle Way, And if something is a classical commentary that was written by an innovator, then it must be a classical commentary that was written by an innovator who is of the Middle Way. Okay?

Or it must be a Middle Way classical commentary. And he says, look, that's obvious. And then we come back to him.

So he's kind of just ignoring what we just said and said, oh, well, what I said before was obvious. What's your problem? No, no, because his original assertion is in two pieces.

First, he's saying something about the person. And then he's saying something about the commentary. You see?

It splits here. So in the second half, which is chi ma, right? Down here.

Chi ma la, right? The second half of his argument up here is, if something is a classical commentary of the Middle Way, and if that classical commentary was written by an innovator, then that must be a classical commentary by an innovator of the Middle Way. So, yeah, and our counterexample here, it's a classical commentary.

It was written by a writer of the Middle Way, but it's not a classical commentary by the innovator of the Middle Way. Right. Okay, good.

And then he's going back and saying, well, what I said was obvious. Yeah, what I said was obvious. And then, please read this sentence.

This is Ona. Ona. Yeah.

Now, the difficult, the word that you guys really have to learn here is selva. Okay? And selva can mean clear.

Selva can mean chedak of chi chedak. Very importantly, it has a completely different meaning. Sometimes selva means chedak of chi chedak.

And sometimes selva just means clear, like clear light. Okay? But in the study of logic, as we will learn in Adam's text when we get there in a hundred years, selva means the sarcastic part of a sarcastic logical statement.

Okay? A telangir. It's the assertion.

It's the quality asserted or the assertion in a sarcastic statement. Are you telling me that... Selva in logic books is the assertion of a sarcasm.

Are you telling me Asanga is an innovator of the Middle Way? Why do you say that? Well, because he's Middle Way and he's an innovator.

I'll say it again. Oh, so I guess Asanga is the Middle Way innovator. That's a sarcasm.

That's a sarcastic conclusion. That's called selva in the telangir. I'll say it again.

Are you telling me that Asanga, Master Asanga, is the Middle Way innovator? And the other guy says, why do you say that? And then we come back with, well, you're the one who said that if somebody was an innovator, and if they were Middle Way, then they had to be the Middle Way innovator.

I'll turn it around. Ready? He says if someone is Middle Way and if someone is an innovator, then they must be the Middle Way innovator.

He said that. And then he said you can't mess with that logic. That's good logic.

He's my selva. So we'll go back. Oh, so I guess Asanga is the Middle Way innovator.

Why do you say that? Because he is a Middle Way practitioner and he's an innovator. That's the selva, his sarcasm.

And it's okay. It's not bad logic. If someone belongs to a certain school and if they're an innovator, they must be an innovator of that school.

Is that correct, Tim? If someone belongs to a certain school. Yes, it is.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Listen, I'll say it again. If someone belongs to a certain school and if they are an innovator, are they not an innovator of that school? And we say ma kyap, not necessarily.

Not necessarily the case. Yeah, not necessarily. Okay.

So his sarcasm, he wants to hang on to it. He says, look, my logical process was not so bad. You have to agree.

What was his logical process? If you belong to a certain school and you are an innovator, well, you should be an innovator of that school, goddammit. Okay, right?

It's not crazy. He says, I'm not crazy. My selva was pretty good.

Okay. And then we say, oh, by the way, he said chi ma la, right? Which means, look, that logic is obvious.

If you belong to a certain school and if you are an innovator, you must be the innovator of that school. Chi ma la means that was a no-brainer. La means no-brainer.

And we come back with, oh, are you saying that if someone belongs to a certain school and if they are an innovator, they are always the innovator of that school? And he says, yeah, I stick to that. Then we say, aha, well, let's take this mind-only commentaries.

Let's take these mind-only commentaries and they have been written by an innovator. Are they the commentaries of an innovator who is the innovator of that particular school? If you write a mind-only commentary and you are an innovator, do you have to be the innovator of the mind-only school?

I'll say it again. If you wrote a classical commentary on the Middle Way and you are an innovator, are you necessarily the innovator of the mind-only school? I'll say it again.

If you wrote a classical commentary on the mind-only school, and if you are an innovator, are you necessarily the innovator of that school? And didn't Tsongkhapa write Changi Lekshmi Nyingpo about the mind-only school? And didn't Vasubandhu write Abhidharmakosha?

Just because you write a classical commentary on a certain school, and just because your work is innovative, doesn't make you the innovator of that school. Cool? Got it?

You all right? I'm good. No, this is good.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, good, good.

[Speaker 1]
And then he says, well, I guess you're right. I guess you're right. If you do write a classical commentary on a certain school, and if you are an innovator, then yes, I agree.

You must be an innovator of that school. And we say, kor di kor sum. Say, kor di kor sum, everybody.

Kor di kor sum. God, you are running like a dog in circles. And that's a very common debate ground.

You just proved yourself wrong like twice. You're running around in three circles. You just did a three circle.

You should have given it up when I gave you my sarcasm, but you didn't, did you? You still wanted to go there. Yeah, and kor di kor sum is always the last statement in a debate.

It's like, you're impossible. I give up on you. You can use this for your wife or your husband.

Okay. By the way, he's the greatest of the dialectical writers, in my opinion. Kiduk denpa dage.

And people who don't understand debate, they think it's silly or something. All right. Tim, you want to pick on somebody?

I'll split this to make it easier.

[Speaker 3]
Sure. How about Svetlana? Can you read this, please?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Lana, light, full of light. Po nare.

[Speaker 2]
Ju mape shinte sol chete la gongpo lu. Jup ten. Tang.

Sem sampe te la chakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Pakpe.

[Speaker 3]
Pakpa.

[Speaker 2]
Tok me ni ko nare. Drang ge pa. Drang ne.

Ne pa de mi tabar tau.

[Speaker 1]
Good, go down, mi tabar tau. Sarcastic, mi tabar tau. By the way, if you like Slavic food, you should come to Sedona.

Because, Tim, they just opened a Russian and Ukrainian restaurant in Camp Verde. What? And we went there and had good borscht and pierogi, all kinds of stuff.

Unbelievable. I don't think it's going to last for more than two weeks, but anyway. Now that I'm a famous restaurateur.

Po nare. I still can't find the current. Okay.

Po nare. Someone comes along and says, here we go. So he...

We got to go to the mi te at the end, okay? Mi tabar tau. It must not be the case that the shingde sojes in the universe, the innovators, the number one innovators, is exactly two.

Ko nare drang ne means two, no less, no more. Okay. It cannot be the case.

It must not be the case, he says sarcastically, that in the universe there are only two great innovators. And then he names them, okay? How does he name them, Tim?

Arya Sangha of the Mind Only School.

[Speaker 3]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
And the Protector Nagarjuna of the Middle Way School. Good, for the Middle Way School. He says that must not be a precise number, okay?

That must not be a precise number. And it's because he's going to give us two more. But we need somebody to read it, Tim.

Lindsay.

[Speaker 2]
Lindsay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Ching ta che. Rol nyel yen.

[Speaker 1]
Son je. Nice prenasal.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Son je.

[Speaker 2]
Yin pe cher.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Very good. You're off to a good start.

Now you got to keep working on it, okay? So he gives two counterexamples. He says, we got to add two more guys.

It's not just two innovators. We got to add two more innovators. Who are they?

Well, there's Lopan Sangye Gyang. What's that in Sanskrit? Buddha Palita?

Yeah, Buddha Palita. Okay, Buddha Palita. And then there's Master...

Baba Viveka. Baba Viveka, okay. They are both middle-way innovators.

And that's true, by the way, Tim. They are middle-way innovators. They are not the middle-way innovators, okay?

They are innovators of the middle-way. They are not the middle-way innovators, okay? Maybe we want to do it like that.

In English, innovator of the middle-way and the middle-way innovator, right? So Buddha Palita commented correctly on Arya Nagarjuna very, very early. And he kind of set the tone for the higher middle-way school, the consequence school, Prasangika.

He kind of set the tone for the higher of the two middle-way schools, the Prasangika. And by the way, he was bitterly criticized by... Who's that?

[Speaker 3]
Like Venjate.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by Baba Viveka. And then who came to his rescue like the cavalry saving people? Master Chandrakirti.

And that's why Chandrakirti wrote his book, in defense of Buddha Palita, okay? And then Chandrakirti's book, Master Chandrakirti's book, became the standard for middle-way commentaries in the universe, okay? And it was written to defend Buddha Palita, who was correctly commenting on Nagarjuna.

But he was criticized by Baba Viveka, okay? When Baba Viveka wrote his criticism of Buddha Palita, he thereby innovated the lower middle-way school, Rangyupa, the, what do you call it, independent school, okay? Svatantrika, okay?

So in a way, they are both innovators for the two halves of the middle-way school, okay? Lower half and higher middle-way school, okay? So his assertion, the other guy is that, I don't think there's only two major...

I don't think there's only two innovators in the history of Buddhism, Nagarjuna and the Sangha. I think we should add two more, because these two guys started the two branches of the middle-way school, Buddha Palita and Baba Viveka, okay? That's his assertion, okay?

And I'm going to put it back together so I don't get confused later. I'm just splitting it to make it easier to read, okay? Who's up, Tim?

How about Luka? Hey, Tim, whoever comes next, they should hold a heavy book over their head. All right, Luka, put a big book on your head.

And if they go up or down the wrong way, they should bang themselves on the head. It's a blessing. All right.

So before you speak, Luka, it's this line, if you're going up or you're going down with the towel. And that's a rule for all of us, which means you have to read the next sentence. Nice!

You don't have to bang your head. Okay, you can put the book down. You're free.

Can...

[Speaker 2]
Can Uma...

[Speaker 1]
Uma? Uma?

[Speaker 2]
Uma. Oh, okay. Uma...

[Speaker 1]
How?

[Speaker 3]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Do they...

[Speaker 3]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Sing... Hey?

[Speaker 3]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
And...

[Speaker 2]
And...

[Speaker 3]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Uma...

[Speaker 2]
Uma. Uma. Good.

Hey? Sing. Hey?

Roll.

[Speaker 1]
Chai. Song chai.

[Speaker 2]
Song chai. In pe. Chi?

Chai.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 2]
Stand now. Hey!

[Speaker 1]
Uh, okay. So there are towels. It is so true that Buddha Palita and Baba Viveka are middle way innovators because, okay, it is so true that Buddha Palita and Baba Viveka are middle way innovators because Buddha Palita is the innovator of?

[Speaker 3]
The higher middle way.

[Speaker 1]
The higher middle way. And Baba Viveka is the innovator of?

[Speaker 3]
The lower middle way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're gonna stop there and you're, I can tell Uncle Nick is getting yancy here. You gonna give us a summary, Mr. Tim? Sure.

So mainly what we've been talking about is what is it, what makes a innovator of a school? And the main argument was if someone writes a commentary of, you know, of the middle way school and they're an innovator, must they necessarily be the middle way innovator? The middle?

And so we were going through all of those permutations and we learned that no, it's not the case. That just because you write a commentary in the middle way and you're a middle way practitioner, that makes you a, and you're an innovator, that makes you a middle way innovator. So we kind of sussed all of that out.

And then we started moving into this next debate about the books. Well, also there was a thing about the books. If the book is written by a, that's all, you know.

By the way, what was the most important point of your whole class today? If you've seen Emptiness Directly, you're automatically a middle way practitioner. Yeah, it's good.

It doesn't matter if you just wrote the Abhidharmakosha or something. And what was this last debate about? The last debate is saying there's that, there's, our khatika is saying, well no, there are more than two innovators.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And started presenting two different people, Buddhapalita and...Bhavaviveka. Bhavaviveka, thank you, as possible other innovators. And we're going to determine whether they actually are or not. Yeah, because they innovated what?

The upper and lower middle way after Arya Nagarjuna. Good, very nice. That's the key there.

Now for your next suffering assignment, how about everything down to the next header? All right, cool, thank you. Okay, thanks for struggling to this text.

You'll get used to the debate format, okay? Or else you'll die because you're gonna do it for a long time. Uncle Nick, back to you.

Thank you. Thank you, Geshe-la. Thanks, Tim and everybody.

So we have a five minute, six minutes break. And you have a Q&A session with Mr. Ben Kramer. So take advantage of his knowledge and wisdom.

And we'll see you all back. And then we have yoga with Utena, as I mentioned, and yoga with Juan in the afternoon. And we'll see you guys again for some more classes later.

By the way, we all have to thank Tim again, because of his hard work on the hotel, which also has a restaurant. We are able to feed our families, and thank you for that. Trying to find a cook and trying to find one waitress.

I mean, it's impossible. I decided that you're a genius. And I should respect you a lot more.

So and you're just doing that extra work. So I'm really grateful for that.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you. It's my honor to do that, guys. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, man, keep honoring me. Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.