Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 26

[Speaker 2]
Class, popcorn class. All right, all right, here we go.

[Speaker 1]
Nick, you ready? Are we good? Oh, yeah.

Jaru says go. He does. He's right here.

He's eagerly waiting to whisper the answers. He's got Amelie in one ear and Jaru in the other. Okay, we're going to review our last debate.

So, our khachig shows up and he says, or they say, if something is a classical commentary that is by a practitioner of the Middle Way and by an innovator, the khachig says, then it must be a classical commentary by a Middle Way innovator. And it's just sort of how it kind of misses something. So, by the way, in the black, you have to say Middle Way innovator.

Middle Way innovator. Yeah, and then above you say Middle Way innovator. Middle Way innovator has to be, then it's wrong.

Never mind. You can be a Middle Way innovator and not be Middle Way innovator. That's it, that's it.

Isn't it the the, like a Middle Way innovator? Same thing? Well, that would have been better, yeah.

So, another thing is, is that, so this guy, this person confuses a little bit. He thinks that, like, by transitive property, A equals B and A equals C, then B equals C. So, like, there's something slightly wrong.

So, can someone explain it, even though Geshe-la just did? Well, no, it wasn't me. I was worried.

Just because someone is an innovator and a practitioner of the Middle Way that writes a classical commentary doesn't mean they're the Middle Way innovator. Right. So, can you give us a, what's some classical, what's the example that we're using in in this debate?

Well, he brings forth Lectin J and Utapalita. No, no, no, that's a little later. Oh, it is?

Yeah. Oh, I thought that's where we were in the argument. Well, that's where we are, but I'm going back a little bit earlier, the debate prior to that.

Oh. So, the question is, let's take Arya Sangha. Yep.

Oh, yeah, okay, this part.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, just because Arya Sangha is a Middle Way practitioner doesn't mean he's the Middle Way innovator, because he didn't necessarily innovate the Middle Way, even though he is a Middle Way practitioner.

[Speaker 1]
Correct, yes.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, you said that. So, a practitioner of the Middle Way who is an innovator doesn't necessarily mean they're the... No, I like, I like it this way.

It's not necessarily mean that they're a Middle Way innovator. I said that just to make it simple, but this is actually closer to what it is. Okay, right.

And the point was that, what Ward just said, that Arya Sangha, just because he's an innovator and a Middle Way practitioner doesn't make him a Middle Way innovator.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
And who's the Middle Way innovator, for bonus points? Nick. I wish.

Arya Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna, right, okay. Okay, so this was probably the most important learning that we had from the last class, and so we're going to go through this piece by piece to see if we can bring it together.

So, in that first line, umapa, what's an umapa? Middle Way-er, Middle Way-er. Middle Way-er, right.

What's a techenpapa? A realized being of the greater way. Can you say it a little bit differently besides a synonym for realized being?

A being who is realized, Arya. Thank you. A bodhisattva who has...

Seeing emptiness directly. So, what is this statement saying?

[Speaker 3]
Is the tail going up or down, Tim?

[Speaker 1]
In this case, it's going up. Oh, good. If you believe it, you go up.

When it's sarcastic, you go... Down. Down.

If it's going up, it's saying, well, duh, he's got to be a Middle Way-er because he's an Arya on the path of the greater way, by definition, making him a Middle Way-er. Correct, right. So, what we learned is that if you're a bodhisattva, well, if you've seen emptiness directly with bodhicitta, then you're automatically a Middle Way-er.

Even if you're a sangha. Or a vasubandhu. Or a vasubandhu.

I thought we learned last class that if you're an Arya at all, whether or not they specify. That's true, too. That's true, too.

So, you can see emptiness directly without bodhicitta? Yeah. And that makes you a Middle Way-er?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And a Hinayana. And a Hinayana. No, I'm just kidding.

Okay. Yeah, according to whom? Well, according to the highest school, if you see emptiness directly, no matter what school you think you're in, you're Madhyamika.

Right. But no one else agrees with that. No, there's lots of people who saw emptiness who didn't have bodhicitta.

I like to think some physicists have come close. Yeah. So, they would be Mahayana.

Without being bodhicitta. Without. Without having bodhicitta.

Okay, fair enough. All right.

[Speaker 2]
So, philosophically Mahayana.

[Speaker 1]
Keshala. Yeah. Is Arya another one of those words that starts with a long A but doesn't mean not?

I don't think so. Really? I don't think so.

Uh, I think it's just a strengthening of the word to go or something. Right, to rise, right? Doesn't Arya mean risen one or something?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, I don't think it's a negative. I think it's the long A. It's the initial long A that means to go very high.

Oh, right. So, that's very in that case. Okay, yeah.

Thank you. There's some kind of verb that means to go.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2]
You know, what bothered me in this class is that we said a Thekchen Bhakpa and then, but this school is famous for talking about different levels of Aryas who see their respective versions of emptiness, which we don't expect, we don't accept that in higher middle way, but if this is lower middle way, then theoretically, couldn't a Thekchen Bhakpa, who is a mind-only or see a mind-only emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
And mind-only is part of the Mahayana, correct?

[Speaker 2]
Right, right. Philosophically speaking. Still a Thekchen Bhakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I guess that's possible, but I don't think this school, I'm not sure they would say that a mind-only person had reached that. I'm not sure. Yeah, yeah, he's definitely middle way.

He said the author of our text is middle way as well, but lower middle, but it's a lower middle way text.

[Speaker 2]
Right, he's teaching it from that perspective.

[Speaker 1]
He's not, he's pretending to be, but he's pretending to be a little lower middle way. Of course he is. All right, but let's scoot on here.

So to set up the next debate, the Kachik's like, well, wait a second. There's actually two more innovators, Master Buddhapalita and Master Bhavavidyaika. What does our Kachik claim that both of these masters innovated?

[Speaker 3]
Their particular branch of the middle way.

[Speaker 1]
Can it be, that's correct. Let's dive in, which one innovated which branch? Let's see.

So Buddhapalita innovated the consequence branch and Bhavavidyaika innovated the independence branch. Nice, cool. So just pay attention to and remember these two divisions because in the debate that comes up, the Kachik kind of screws with it or messes up a little bit with it.

And then we kind of, although I know what he did, I don't think I translated it correctly. So I had a feeling of what was going on, but just remember that these two and which branch they're associated with. All right.

Oops. Oh, I forgot the sexy Tibetan words. I'm so sorry.

It's actually really important. I hope I don't catch them. Okay, Chimala.

The next part is easy. Not the next part. Isn't it the last part?

The latter of the two parts. Yeah, the latter of the two parts is easy. And he was referring back to his previous point that he was like.

Yeah, whatever his previous point. Whatever his previous point was, it's so obvious. The second part is obvious.

The second part of my advice. Yes, okay. How about Khorasum Che?

You're running around like a dog chasing its tail with your illogical logic. What? How do you say it in the debate, though?

Khorasum. Khorasum. Big pause between the two.

Yeah, you're running around in circles like a dog.

[Speaker 2]
What's happening?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know, it's like three times around. You know when a dog goes, poops, and then runs real fast? But what it means is you did something, then you contradicted something, you said something, then you contradicted it, and then you defeated yourself.

[Speaker 2]
All right, last one.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, a lot more people are accused of courtesan than who actually did courtesan. It's very loosely used in the paper. It's just the reason why you're a courtesan.

So there's three meanings to sewa, and there's one that we're using in the text. Ooh, nice. I'm using it in a statement of consequence.

I think it's the assertion in a statement of consequence, right? Yeah, it's the assertion, yes. It can also mean clear.

Clear, correct. And also one of a category. Great.

Yep, good job. Okay, cool. And it's very difficult when it's used in one of the weird ways.

You can stare at that for an hour and not figure it out.

[Speaker 2]
Sure can.

[Speaker 1]
When it means a group within a division, it's really confusing. Wouldn't it be a noun instead of an adjective in those cases, though, Gam? Yeah, yeah, it is.

Yep. Wait, when it's chedak, it is. And what was the other one?

[Speaker 2]
A cell like a tell.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then it's a noun. Yeah, then in a sewa, it's a noun. It's a statement.

In a tellger, it's a noun.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Thank you, Gam.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, Nick, you want to talk about sysawa while we're here, in case we die tonight? Tomorrow we'll talk about sysawa, yeah, sure. Me?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, just a minute.

[Speaker 1]
We searched for it a little while ago. For what, for what? Oh, so in my text, my class is next, but we can take a minute here, I guess.

Let's do it in your class. I forgot you had a class tonight. Let's not take Tim's time.

All right, cancel that idea. You canceled, Nick, I'm sorry. Sorry.

All right, you're going to do it in your class. Okay, is this where we are? Yes, we're at the motel.

Oh, wait, you stole it from me. Wait, stole what?

[Speaker 3]
He was still driving the plane, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, I mean, I'm probably entirely wrong, so why don't we just go through? He was on that plane in Nepal, though. Oh, no.

I'm just kidding. All right, my cap. All right, you want to go back to your plane?

Let's see here. You got some, oh, oh, you have a, oh, you have a translator, forget that.

[Speaker 3]
Let me stop sharing.

[Speaker 1]
I do, but it's probably, we'll go. Okay, we'll try.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right, so this is where we were.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's where we ended class last time. Right, and then we went to the motel. Just to get familiar with the debate, right?

Right, exactly. Oh, okay. Yeah.

It is so true.

[Speaker 2]
Message. Why do you say that?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, and then you're down here, right? Right, well, yeah, because we already did this in class, but that's just to remind us where we were. Yeah, I would just say consequence branch, okay?

Okay. Why do they call it consequence? Because they like to reveal absurd consequences that will allow you to see the error of your reasoning.

Yeah, like if someone says take fruits, they're all orange because oranges are orange. And then you say, oh, well, I guess apples are all orange also. And that's a consequence.

It's a ridiculous consequence of what they said. And it's so important in that school. By the way, they say you can get deep insights into emptiness through sarcasm that you couldn't get otherwise.

So if you have a boss on your job who's tough on you, maybe it's even better. Okay. So he says, okay.

Yeah, and he says, okay. So basically what you told me to do last time, I just did a cut and paste. Okay, yeah, good.

And I saved a lot of time. So let's see. Just because Master Blueberry said, eh, Prasangika might be in the middle of the school.

And Master Blueberry is in the branch of the middle of the school. By the way, I'm always careful, and Tim was sensitive. I never call it Prasangika school.

And I never call it independent school. I always call it branch. And you got to get used to that.

And he did it correctly. Because if a monkey, no, okay, never mind. Never mind.

I have been hitting this computer quite a lot. It doesn't mean that it's in there. Good.

Okay. Yeah, I got one. Okay, good.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
So. Please read the Tibetan for our audience. Okay.

Where did it go? Oh, no, no, he says it's up because it's him. Okay.

No, I think it's sarcastic. Maybe it is. Okay.

That's okay. Okay. Okay.

It is necessarily the case that if someone is a practitioner in a middle school, they must also be a practitioner of the independent branch of the minority. Why do you say that? Because if someone is an innovator in the middle school.

That's okay. Good. I think so.

Yep. Yep. I think so.

And now the monkey is going to keep typing. Yeah. This is where it falls apart.

Okay, good. Then I don't have to inquire. Okay.

You read. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Okay. That's not.

Yeah, that's, that is true. Why do you say that? Because it's not necessarily the case that by being the innovator.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Let's keep going. Should I stop now?

Wait. Yeah, the second part doesn't mention. Just because.

Yeah, no, it's the reversed. Just because somebody is a middle way. Doesn't mean they have to be.

Doesn't mean they have to be an innovator at the middle way. I said the same twice.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, you said the same thing twice.

[Speaker 1]
Just because somebody is, is a innovator of the present giga doesn't mean they have to be an innovator of the middle.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no, really.

[Speaker 1]
But what I'm confused with this law here because isn't. Yeah, it think of the cab as cover. In this case, okay.

Which means, you know, in when the word chop. Yeah, means to spread over spread right over. Literally, it means to spread over something.

So, I'm going to tell you what she did. So Jayla. Emersion theories.

Just because somebody is a process of Giga innovator doesn't mean they have to be a magical innovator. Yeah. Yeah.

Right. Okay, so, okay.

[Speaker 2]
That's alarming.

[Speaker 1]
And then we say my job.

[Speaker 3]
No, we just said this last thing too, which means we agree.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, so let me just capture that again so just because someone just because somebody is an innovator of consequence branch.

[Speaker 2]
Right, okay. Oh, I see.

[Speaker 1]
Doesn't doesn't mean they have to be an innovator of the memory.

[Speaker 2]
Is this where we want the word. Words words.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's kind of a crutch that actually that was kind of a crutch. I'm pulling it out. Okay.

Alright so so at this point, let's, let's kill it because I was wrong there and then it ruins everything I understand. All right. But if you want to just keep going keep going but it's gonna it's gonna be wrong.

All right, it'll multiply it'll multiply out. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Doesn't this hinge on the ambiguity between a and. And is there any way to preserve that ambiguity and like not have to commit to one.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, in this case I think it's more about the idea that if you're, if you are, if you've innovated in, in the branch of the middle way doesn't mean that you were innovating the middle way itself. There, there's also. There's also debates that hinge, not on the words but on, but on accent.

He's just because he's an innovator of the middle way doesn't mean he's an innovator of the middle way. Okay. Yeah, and that's, that's just a fact of life.

Okay. You can convey different senses with your, with your tone of voice, and the wording can be the same. Otherwise, it's a logical fallacy when the wording is the same for the reason and the, and the quality you're asserting.

You can't say Mark is a master carpenter because Matt, Mark is a master carpenter, you can't say that. That's illogical. You can't repeat the quality that you're trying to prove as the reason.

But if you say, Mark is a master carpenter because he's a master carpenter, then that's legal. You know what I mean? And so if that were happening.

And by the way, it happens in Adam's text a few times and I don't want you to freak out if anyone ever reads it. So how would you distinguish it in the text? Like if you're writing it, so that as the writer.

There's no way. Okay, cool. Oh, in English, you can.

Yeah, you can, you can tweak it slightly to get that sense. You can tweak the wording slightly. If you're good at it.

All right, cool. Okay. It happens a few times in Adam's text, they illegally repeat this, the quality asserted as the reason.

You can't say he's master carpenter because he's a master carpenter, you can't say that, but you can say he's a master carpenter because he's a master carpenter. That's legal. Okay.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
Are you in a garden, midway, within either branch?

[Speaker 1]
That's a good question. He is himself Madhyamika Prasangika. Yeah, but he's still considered the innovator for the whole school, both branches, in a way.

Okay. And if you split the schools into Prasangika and Svatantrika, then you say Buddhapalita is the one for the consequent school. Because he was there when it split.

It split over Buddhapalita and not over Nagarjuna. In Nagarjuna's time, you can say there was only consequent school. There's that debate.

I feel like I'm heading into JAWS. So where are we? Yeah, okay.

This is really hard. Just because of this madhyam doesn't prove that. Okay.

Just because it's not necessarily the case that if you are Prasangika innovator, you have to be a midway innovator, doesn't prove what you said last week. Yep, so it's a big long... Yeah.

Okay. And in the Mixed Nuts Standard, in a debate text, you write out the whole thing to help the audience. And they film through it in the Tibetan.

So what I did here is, so I basically did, I wrote the whole thing. Yeah, good. But had I been correct.

Yeah. But now since I'm wrong, it's... That's perfect.

Okay. Okay. It's good.

And it's a great exercise for a translator to be forced to write them out, even when the Tibetan doesn't. Because it clarifies your own thinking. It forces you to clarify your own thinking.

Okay. But let's take a shortcut and just go to the next line. And it's going to be obvious.

We're going to learn. Yeah. It's going to tell us the punchline and we'll say, oh yeah, I get it.

So the question here is, who's speaking? Is it this? Is it the other guy?

Is it ser na ma kyep? Ser na... Ser is always the other guy.

Right, okay. Z-E-R is always the other guy. And then whatever comes after that is us talking.

So that ser na, it refers back to here, to the prior one, and then ma kyep is us. Yeah, and by the way, ma kyep... Ma kyep always means, you ready?

I agree with your answer, I agree with your reason, but it doesn't prove what you're trying to prove. So when you see ma kyep, the very last sentence is true for us. Even though the very last sentence wasn't just...

Yeah, even though he gave it as a reason. Right, okay. So we say, yeah, your reason is good, but it doesn't prove what you think.

I agree that just because somebody is an invader of the consequent branch of the Middle Way doesn't mean they have to be an invader of the Middle Way. I agree. We say, I agree.

He says, well, so I'm right. We say, no, you're wrong, because just because I agree doesn't mean that what you said is true. So in this case, the ser na refers to the prior lines here, but the ma kyep is us.

Yeah. Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
But if the ser na was afterwards, then we would have known... Exactly, then it would be him. Got it.

Okay, now we'll get to... By the way, to me, the pedagogical method of revealing something through a debate is much, much more interesting and helpful than a Western-style textbook that just lists the facts one by one. If I can hear two people punch it out like a good boxing match, and then I see somebody win, I never forget it.

I'll never forget the idea. But if you just tell me a list of five ideas that I'm supposed to believe, it's really dry. After you've had the debate method, Western textbooks are really dry.

There's no life to them. They just tell you the answers. It's better if you've struggled.

All right, please read. Tim is so short. Let's pick somebody else.

How about John Brady? Woo-hoo! He's got to put his pants on.

Okay, here we go. No, I guess you don't. Go ahead, John.

Turn on your microphone, please. Do it now.

[Speaker 3]
Can I use my computer? Yeah. It isn't saying you're a slob, John.

I know. I have too many things on my laptop. Hold on.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Let me do the next one. Say, Dönar Lopun. All right.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Dönar Lopun. Sangye Khyang Chokang Dyrta Deythir.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. If you agree, then let's consider Master Sangye Khyang. Master Buddhapalita.

I questioned if you agree. What are we agreeing to? To Marmakhya.

If you agree to all of that. Yeah. No, I'm sorry.

Somewhere he said Dharmadrupabod.

[Speaker 2]
Way up above. Yeah. Yeah.

The original, the original, way up above.

[Speaker 1]
The original statement. Are you looking for the first reason? To the original?

Okay. Wait, let me think. Umeh Tengyur Shinde Sanjaya Ma.

Umeh Shinde Sanjaya Ma. Sanamacharya. Umeh Shinde Sanamacharya.

Then... Usually, Do comes after a tel. Okay.

He's a green... Yeah, so the only tel here has been up here. Okay.

So people, to a tell you can answer two answers. What are they?

[Speaker 3]
Dön and chi chir.

[Speaker 1]
Dön means yes, I agree. Chi chir means why you say that, I don't agree. So if we say dön na, it must come, somebody must have said dön after a tell.

So you go backwards until you find a tell. Beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep. There it was.

Yeah, and he said originally, are you telling me that if somebody is, but I think, I'm not sure, but listen, are you telling me that if somebody is, do you agree that if someone is a middle-weight person, they have to be an independent branch middle-weight person?

[Speaker 2]
Right, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he said if someone is a middle-weight person they have to be a middle-weight person who belongs to the lower branch. Okay, and that makes sense, okay. And if you say, duh, if you agree to that, you other guy, well, okay, let's take Sangye Kim.

[Speaker 3]
Master Buddhapalita.

[Speaker 1]
I guess he's a lower school middle-weight. Why? Because he's a middle-weight guy.

You said if a guy is a middle-weight guy, he has to be a lower school middle-weight guy. And then you said, duh, you agree to that. So we say, well, let's take Buddhapalita.

I guess he's a lower school middle-weight guy. And they say, why? And they said, because you said any guy who's in the middle-weight school belongs to the lower branch.

You said that. Yeah, I'll repeat. The other guy said, if you're in the middle-weight school, you have to be in the lower branch.

And we said, well, let's take Buddhapalita, who is the founder of the higher branch. Oh, I guess he's lower branch, right? And the guy says, why do you say that?

They said, because he's a middle-weight. You said if he's middle-weight, he's lower school middle-weight. You said that.

And he says, oh, okay. He says if somebody's middle-weight, they're lower middle-weight. And we say, okay, let's take Buddhapalita.

I guess he's lower middle-weight. The guy says, what? And we said, but you just said if he's middle-weight, he's gotta be lower middle-weight.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
And by the way, if the guy says Dharmadrum, okay?

[Speaker 1]
I'll say it again. He said anybody who's middle-weight is lower middle-weight. And then we said, well, we'll take Buddhapalita.

Are you saying he's lower middle-weight? And he says, why do you say that? And we say, because he's middle-weight, okay?

You said, we're talking to the other guy. You said if somebody's middle-weight, they have to be lower middle-weight. And he says, yeah, that's what I said.

And we said, okay, Buddhapalita's lower middle-weight, right? And he says, why do you say that? We say, because he's middle-weight.

And you're the one who said if he's middle-weight, he's lower middle-weight, okay? And then he says Dharmadrum. I didn't say he's middle-weight.

I'll do the whole thing again, you ready? He says, if you're middle-weight, you're lower middle-weight. We say, well, how about Buddhapalita?

And he says, well, what's the problem? We say, is he lower middle-weight? And he says, well, why do you say that?

We say, because he's middle-weight. You said if he's middle-weight, he's lower middle-weight, we choose a guy. So he's middle-weight, right?

Then he's gotta be lower middle-weight. And then the other guy, he's trying to get out. He's desperate.

He says, Buddhapalita is not middle-weight. Okay, Dharmadrum. I disagree that, by the way, when you start losing in the debate, it gets worse and worse, okay?

And in the end, you just end up saying something really stupid. Like, yeah, Buddhapalita wasn't Madhyamika. He wasn't middle-weight.

Now, how will you defend? How will you prove that Buddhapalita is middle-weight? To establish a middle-weight position.

You will take the ultimate middle-weight position and say, of course he's middle-weight because he held that position. So it's a beautiful way to teach somebody what's the definition of a middle-weight person. What makes you middle-weight?

Here it comes. It's very, very important. Why are we talking about it?

Because he just said he's not middle-weight. He just said, yeah, Buddhapalita is not middle-weight. Why?

Because if he's middle-weight, he has to be lower middle-weight, and he's higher middle-weight, so he's not middle-weight. And then we say, well, he goddamn is middle-weight because he fits the definition of middle-weight. And then the other guy's going to say, well, give me the definition of middle-weight then.

And here it is. Nice. Extremely important.

Connie. Connie's extremely important?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Anybody who wake up that early is not extremely important.

[Speaker 2]
Hello, everyone. Thank you, Tim.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, when you believe something, when you're defending yourself, you go up. Okay. Do I believe this?

I hope so. Dare tell? You do.

Yeah, because you believe Buddhapalita is a middle-weight person. Okay. Ngopo denme du le par.

Wait, I want you to do the dare tell correctly.

[Speaker 3]
Dare tell?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Dare tell? It's like, no, you didn't clean the bathroom, John.

Dare tell? Dare tell?

[Speaker 3]
Ngopo denme du le par. Kelen or Kalen? Kelen.

Kelen pey teg chen, teg chen. Gyi druk ta, rah, rah-wah?

[Speaker 1]
Mah.

[Speaker 2]
Mah-wah. Mah-wah. Mah-wah po yin pey cher.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Go on, yay! Dare tell means, u ma ba, yin ba.

Yin ba ta. Yin ba ta. He is goddamn true a middle-weight guy.

Yin ba ta. Okay. You believe it, right?

You go up. Yin ba ta. I don't think it is too middle-weight because now we're going to get the definition of a middle-weight guy because he is a ma-wah-po.

Go backwards. We're going to go backwards.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
He's a speaker. Professor. He's a professor.

Of a druk ta. Of a position? Of a belief system.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Which is tek chen. Mahayana. And in which they accept, lek park, they fully support the idea that mupus are denpa mik.

Functioning, did you say functioning things or not?

[Speaker 2]
Things don't have any true existence.

[Speaker 1]
They're not real. I would say Tim's right. I don't think they're getting into same things right now.

They say nothing has any reality of its own. How's that? He is too middle-weight.

Why? Well, because he's professing a system which says that, which says sweetly that nothing is real. Okay.

Nothing is real. Okay, cool. All right.

Now, you know the definition of Madhyamika. They sweetly profess a belief system which says that nothing is real. Dashula.

Yeah. Then therefore earlier question about, do you have to have bodhichitta to be considered a middle-weight practitioner has been answered. I'm a Mahayana practitioner.

The bed's always cool. Let's go on. Dukmine te.

Dukmine te. You can't agree to the above. Oh, yeah.

This duh is to this dertao up here. We said, let's take Buddhapalita. Are you saying he's not Madhyamika?

And then the guy said, no, no, no. Are you saying he's not? Are you saying he's a practitioner?

Are we saying Madhyamika or independent branch at that point? Let's see. Lopan Sangye Gyangche and dertao, he must not be Madhyamika, right?

Because he is what? We're saying it, but then he must, are you saying he's at the lower, at the independent branch? Oh, he must be at the lower, he must be at the independent branch.

Why? Because he's Madhyamika. Because he's middle-weight, right?

And now the guy said, yes, I agree that Buddhapalita is lower school, is lower middle-weight, to this dertao up here next to Chodzhen here. He said, yeah, I agree. I agree, he's not middle-weight.

[Speaker 2]
Right? I don't agree that he's middle-weight.

[Speaker 1]
He's not independent branch. Oh, are you saying he's independent branch? The guy said, yes, I agree he's independent branch.

And then we say du min nu. You can't agree to that, because he's, he's higher middle-weight. He's Prasangika.

Okay, you all right? So this du, du min nu te refers back to this dertao up here, after Sangye Kyang Chodzhen. We said, let's take Sangye Kyang.

Chodzhen, are you saying he's lower middle-weight? Why? Well, no, what we said originally is that he, I don't agree that he is middle-weight.

Yeah, I see, I see. I'm going to start here and slap him. Right.

Okay? Slap him. And let's take Buddhapalita.

Are you telling me he's lower middle-weight? I'm telling you he's lower, right? Dertao, dertao.

Why do you say that? Because he's middle-weight. Because he's middle-weight, right?

Oh, I disagree he's middle-weight. He is too middle-weight, because he is a professor of a system which says excellently that all things are unreal. Nothing is real.

And then he says, in that case, I changed my answer before. I don't disagree anymore that he is lower middle-weight. He is lower middle-weight.

Okay? He's got nowhere to go, so he says, I'm going to change that last answer. He is lower middle-weight.

And then we say, well, you can't agree to that. You can't agree to that. He's a mutangular.

He's Prasangika. Okay, you can't say, you can't agree that he's lower middle-weight. He's higher middle-weight.

You all right? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We're at the end of our time, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Don't I have to? Oh, no, either means, I'm sorry, this is tricky. I meant either ba or ba.

You can say tengyur-wa or tengyur-pa. That's all. There's some leeway in wa's and ba's in these texts, in the debate texts.

Especially with schools. So what's the second school in Tibetan? Rangyur-pa.

Do-de-pa or do-de-wa? Do-de. No, you can say do-de-pa.

You can say do-de-pa, but you're also allowed to say, you're also allowed to say do-de-wa. That's why I meant either, chakar-tipa and any other. Okay.

Nick? We're at the wrap-up time, or we're at time, actually. I'm so glad I don't have to do the wrap-ups.

[Speaker 2]
It's Tim's problem. Go. All right.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Okay, so. Wrap-up.

So we started this, didn't really say whether or not they're innovators, did he? Who's they? Baba Vyekar innovators.

He just kind of went around that issue. Yeah. I think he'll get to it sooner or later.

Okay, well, so we started the discussion with Master Buddhapalita and Master Baba Vyekar, the kachig saying, look, these guys are also innovators as well. One of the consequence branch and one of the independent branch.

[Speaker 2]
And I said, what did we do?

[Speaker 1]
And so then we went in to say, well, look, just because they're innovators of the branches themselves doesn't make them an innovator of the middle way.

[Speaker 2]
School itself. All right. So that's fun.

What happened here?

[Speaker 1]
So then the kachig says, okay, well, if someone's a innovator of the middle way school, then they have to be an innovator of the independent branch. So somehow he's making a correlation. If you're the larger innovator, then it would be an innovator of one of the branches.

And then we didn't say that's necessarily, that's not necessarily the case. Oh, gosh, I'm sorry. This is hard.

How about the results that we came up with? So the result that we came up with is that Buddhapalita is not of the independent branch, but he's of the Prasangika branch. The consequence branch.

And we learned the definition of the belief system of the Mahayana, which was? No, middle way. Middle way, I'm sorry.

Middle way. What's the definition of middle way? But it says Mahayana right there.

No, it is a Tegchengyi Drupada. One of the two. Oh, belief system of the middle way.

[Speaker 3]
Of the greater way.

[Speaker 1]
Of the greater way. And the idea is that nothing has any reality of its own. Yeah.

And then he gets an adjective in there, which sweetly accepts that. He's advertising. All right, good.

So Tim's next assignment. Is the next term. Really?

Yeah, I'm done. Really? Yeah.

Because you had too many classes? I had five already, yeah. Oh, that's amazing.

Well, you're gonna have to read, you're gonna have to translate this in. Okay. This, this.

And then I made you a sweet note. About the six jewels and the high two. Six jewels and high two.

Gendu chokmi. The six jewels and the supreme two. Okay?

And this is their definition in the bolts. You're gonna translate what's in the bolt. And then you're gonna translate this verse in the 16 point.

Which happens to be by Randhawa. Who's Randhawa? Sokapa's teacher.

Okay, so sexy. Nobody has gotten to do Randhawa in this group yet. Okay.

I'm thinking about it. So just for a preview, how does what your notes relate to what's above? So I'm understanding the work.

Yeah, I'll tell you the flow. This is a debate about the six jewels and the two supremes. If you don't know who's the six jewels and the two supremes, you're in trouble.

So I gave you the six jewels and the two supremes and their names. And then the argument hinges on a verse by Randhawa, which everybody would know. And it happens to be a tuppa of the Gendu.

It happens to be a phrase of the six jewels. So he's saying, look, if what you believe is true, then that verse by Randhawa about the six jewels must be wrong. And if you don't know who's the six jewels, you're gonna have trouble reading it.

So you're gonna translate down to tuppa. But just the big letters. Don't worry about the small letters.

Okay. All right. Oh, I'm gonna miss you till next term.

But I'm gonna get to know my bed again. See you guys in- You still have three more days, don't worry. Five minutes, 10 minutes.

Five minutes. Do you want it to five minutes? We got butterfly burgers.

Give us seven. Seven minutes it is. All right.

Thank you guys so much. You got a tough boss, man.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right, see you. Have a good break.