Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 30

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Kind of start somewhere. I can't jump into another week on a night of no sleep, that would be silly.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Almost been getting me up in the middle of the night almost every night but she didn't last night.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, good. Hey Tim. Hey Nick.

You make my messy hair look.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Oh, this is 100% intentional I got a cut. Oh good styled messy.

Oh, futuristic them and colored to know it's just the light in the room. The soft sunlight coming in is getting an interesting look. Well, it's, it might actually just be a little wet better both father.

I just have, I have one announcement to make I guess we should wait for the boss to get here. And I'm trying to figure out what that announcement exactly is going to be so not because I want to say something so bad I just have to get to clear on these details. Yes, today is Monday.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. I see. Gibson, are you here.

Gibson. Right. No doubt he's just out partying.

[Speaker 1]
I bet he's a motorcycle to, like, can you get a scooter. Now you just see him and Emily riding around like a big Harley.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Hey, morning. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
When those days. Okay, Mr. Tim it's your show. Just have a quick announcement, sir.

It looks like you're meeting that you were going to have after this class is going to be switched till tomorrow. And I would you be okay to do Gibson's class today. After that, as long as he's here.

So I'm going to get in touch. Otherwise we'll switch it with something else. Yeah, I could do any other class.

Okay, cool. All right, well, we'll let you all know, stay for class after this we'll let you all know which class in a minute. All right, thank you.

I'm out of here. Joe, thank you. Here we go, everyone.

Good morning. Good morning. How you doing get slow to give a nice break.

Much better yeah I had a day off yesterday. Good. All right, here we go, everyone.

This is a review of where we are in in the debate. We kind of we covered it like three times last class so hopefully we'll come up with it. So what confusion does a cut cheek make about the verses of praise.

And the verses that make the promise to compose the work and Harry Badger is commentary. And, and what's the confusion relationship, how these two are presented in our root text the jewel of realizations. He says just because this might be the second part of your question, but he says, if they are combined in one text they're combined in both and if they're separate and the other text they're separate in both.

Let's just work on the first part of your answer. Yeah, the answer would be. He just because they're I mean they're combined in Harry Badger's text right.

Correct. Well combined in the same verse yes combining the same verse exactly. And so what's the conclusion that he draws from that, or they draw from that.

Because they're combined. It's just a to do I forget I forget how exactly how he puts it. Well, because they're combined in master Harry Badger is commentary to the jewelry realization.

Oh, yeah, then they're combining the jewelryizations. Yeah, right, right. Exactly.

Yeah, so that's where we started from. Okay. And then the country, finally comes, he comes back at the, they come back at the end and says, All right, okay fine.

And he says, All right, well, actually the promise to compose the text, and the offerings of praise are not in the same verse. Hold on. Oh, that's the answer.

Sorry. All right, so it comes back. Wake up, Tim.

So it comes back with one more last ditch variation. What is that. So the word.

He says, Well, if they're separate and they're separate than they're separate in both. Right, exactly. Right.

Basically, like, he's like well okay fine. I'm going to contradict something I said before, which we know is true to make up and some other argument. Right, so basically says well, because let's then say they are separate in and master Harry butters commentary so then they must be separated in the jewelry realizations, which makes no sense but he tries to try to get us.

All right. Good job. All right.

Care but you forgot apostrophe after BCA. Yes, I noticed it and I moved on really fast. So, my question is then this is an open ended question for everyone.

What's the purpose of bringing this this refutation what the objection back at the end, like just to call attention to the facts and make sure people understood that the two commentaries are different. Okay, okay that that that's one thing so if you were a teacher like why would you. Why would, what's the value of switching it around if you're trying to teach something like what is it how how could it help a student, not just for the knowledge you gain, but maybe in logical like when you're just learning dialectical analysis.

That's a cool idea to think about things the opposite way, or to kind of wrap your mind around things differently to teaching the students how to do that. That's one of the thoughts I had does anyone else have any other I maybe. Yeah.

Any other ideas as a teacher, why you would do that. Um, well, I have 12 year olds and this is actually what people do when they argue. They just don't just flail, and when they start to feel wrong they'll just say the opposite and they'll be like well now it's like this.

Just said the opposite three minutes ago and they're like what perpetual jiggles. Yeah, I guess you know if you were to get emotional during a debate. Then all of a sudden you say the opposite or if you're the, if you're the, on the other side of it you might get confused yourself if you start feeling attacked that you, you're not able to follow everything that's being said so it teaches us to.

As Nick said, I think, to go through all the iterations very quickly, because one of the iterations may actually be correct, even though in this case, the negation is wrong. Right, so it's just teaching us to the structure versus the content. I would also say that in the monastic tradition.

There's a. There's a habit of skipping over these parts and going straight to the content. Maybe our authors trying to slow us down and make us think about those verses at the beginning.

And one other thing is, when I first started reading these texts. I got confused, I didn't know. I was like, wait, are we in the root text are we in the commentary are we in, because, like, it would be like it should you and then that should you to the to do and then the to do to the to do you're like wait what where are we.

So, it's legitimate neck in that sense as well. Between. I bought this to commentaries which is confusing.

[Speaker 2]
All right, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Let's get some words here. And at the end of the debate. We say course and what does that mean.

You're like a dog chasing its tail. Yeah, yeah, you're going around in circles with the same logic sketchy Michael specifically said it means you're going back to something that you already had agreed to, and maybe I'm trying to disagree to it or something like that. All right, cool.

Well we had said you're hopeless, just as a. But yeah, chasing your tail. Okay.

How about men knock personal advices. Yep. And then, just to review a touch.

I'm not gonna say it. Don makes nuts what's a touch. What are we doing in this text.

The whole thing we're doing. So many other texts. What did you say that was a venerable power.

[Speaker 2]
Uh huh.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't hear what you said it got cut off. We're debating debating a dialectical analysis. Yes.

Right. Gush of a quick question is for course on you can say circular reasoning for like a more precise, I think you could say that. I mean, I'd like someone to give a real example word.

I mean, just with orange and fruit or something. Oh, well, all fruit is yellow. Okay.

Let's take fruit.

[Speaker 2]
They're all. They're all yellow. Like, like this banana.

Well, I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
And then you say well what about apples and I say, nah, what about bananas. I think it's worse than that. Is it.

I think let's assign Tim to give us a. In the end, he has to say the opposite of how he started.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right. There is no fruit. They're not yellow.

Why do you say they are. Because you said all fruit is yellow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean in our text what I mean, basically the, the card trick makes the claim that they are that the two are separate right. And then he comes back and says, Oh no no no actually they're. No, he makes the claim that they're not separate originally and basis the whole argument on that.

And then comes back and says, Oh, actually I meant what I really meant was they are separate. And then it creates, and then basically creates the same logic. And then we're basically, you know, basically saying you're just being stupid you're just keep going around in circles.

That's what I don't understand what he was doing. I think we need a better example. I think somebody has to work on it.

Hey word will you work on it. With fruits. Okay, I think it's like, in the end he has to say the opposite of how he started or something that it has to be more dramatic.

And I think there has to be three steps to it. I think. So, again, how about this.

Take fruit. Take fruit. They're all yellow.

Yeah, Nana, and then you say, Well, what about red apples. I say, Take fruit. They're all.

They're all red like red apples, and then you say, Well, what about a banana with that. I think it could be like that. Yeah, I have a feeling we're missing something.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But it's close. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So I guess this apple is yellow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but then somewhere at the end he has to say, Come on, not every fruit is yellow. I think he has to end up like that, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He says, if it's a fruit it has to be yellow because of bananas. Then we say, What about red apples? And he says, Why do you say that?

And we say it's a fruit. And then he says, Well, just because something's a fruit doesn't mean it has to be yellow. Something like that.

Oh, I see. This is a tough one for the first thing Monday morning for us. I think it's easy but we're just all like.

Anyway, I think, I think that's the thing he has to end up saying the opposite of how he started. Okay, Timothy, go on, or Should I say Trip Advisor, Master Hotelier? Something like that.

Of the universe. I was thinking about the karma of it and Alice and I were talking. I think part of it is what we're doing underneath of the hotel is we're supporting so many cool projects.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You know, I mean, we can go through what we do at the hotel and how we treat our guests and how we may guest first guest experience first and everything. But I think part of it is just that we're doing that work. And I think it's just like people karmically are recognizing it, you know, it doesn't matter how we treat our guests.

In which case the award should have been given to the next night. That's pushing it. All right.

Okay, where are we. Okay, so we're starting our next debate Kesha. And I started it.

And then I got halfway through and stopped because I wasn't sure what I was doing. You did pretty well in your last class, by the way, I looked at it. Again, we got a request for your volume to go up if possible.

I'm sorry. That's tricky. Let me see here.

We had a lot of fun in Tim's class, and my class. Here we go. I'll put volume or input.

Input. Input. Input volume is hereby erased.

That's much better. Okay, good. Okay.

So what I did guess you're here where we raise my volume to. I translated the beginning of the next debate here and then I went into the text that you and I reviewed last time. Okay, so anyway, so here we go.

That chick. Bopa she tongue. Then pain.

Yeah, the guy. Good. Definition of holy speech of Buddha.

You can't see me. It's where normal speech. That's okay.

I would just, I don't, I wouldn't say becomes pure or something like that. I would just say perfectly pure speech or something like that, you know, I was trying to capture, because it uses knocking and and and and right so I'm trying to, oh that's a nice, that's a nice touch. Yeah, that's a nice touch.

Okay, I'll go for that. That was it. That's very sensitive.

By the way, there's some popo that has to associate on that very far, which was covered in Ben's text and I don't think it's related to this popo. As I said, I think you and I found out so. Okay, I like that.

I like the translation. Okay. All right, and then the text.

By the way, generally just just stylistically. I don't. I gave up capitalizing all the groups numbered groups.

Okay, because it gets too distracting, you know, six perfections for, you know, you know, so I think it's easier on on the reader. Yeah. And I think I don't know I wasn't able to figure it out but I think what's wrong in this is it has something to do with, not that the Buddhist speech doesn't have the four competencies but it has something to do with that the, that the four competencies can be possessed by other people who are not only Buddhas.

Yeah, that's, that's where the debate goes. Yeah. Yeah.

And their speech is nice and their speech has four competencies but that's not. That's not the speech of an enlightened being. Yeah.

And then you got the text you went and looked for what the four competencies are. And that's what. Yeah.

And we found it in john young ship, who's much later than kind of timber doggy. He's like 100 years later but he is Tony llamas teacher and the teacher some of our other authors so he's a heavy duty guy. Even though he's from the wrong monastery.

Well, you know you can forgive him, I suppose. Okay, cool. So we have.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, good.

That's okay. Yep. I wasn't sure I could discuss about the idea of some 10 and I made a little bit, I kind of defined it a little bit more.

Yeah, that technically in this case you're going to have to say suffering living being. Yeah. Okay, that's okay.

Okay. So just to explain that usually Sam Chen means living being and that would seem to include Buddhas, the word, English word living being, or anyone who has a mind in Tibetan would seem to include Buddhas also, but it, but it's defined in the scriptures as a suffering living being. Yeah.

Okay. And here is important. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the definition of speech in the Conqueror. No. The definition of definition of car is any singer Baba Gala, which possesses the four.

Oh, you see what I mean. Oh, I see. Okay, so we're right.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which is the definition of enlightened speech or something. I don't know how we're gonna, or the word of the Buddha. You could say the word of the Buddha, I guess, is that highest speech theory is karma, the speech of victor karma, which is possessed of the four confidences.

Okay. All right, cool. I see.

Yeah, you got it. Yeah. I had missed the...

And by the way, Jamya Shepa, we should probably use some of his books because he's very clear. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right, cool. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I like the... I like that you used, we should understand for Rick Bajau. Jampa, I think is evocative.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
No, just kidding. Yo, Maitreya. Yeah, yeah.

Yo, Maitreya. That is evocative. By the way, Buddha would not refer to Maitreya as Lord Maitreya.

He would treat him as a Bodhisattva or something. He'd say, Oh, Maitreya. And in the evocative, O is spelled just O.

Yeah, okay. Oh, Maitreya. So, this changes.

Oh, for four reasons, you see, because it's evocative, it's the instrumental on the number four.

[Speaker 2]
Four reasons.

[Speaker 1]
Or four reasons. Or because of four reasons, you see. Okay, so we should understand that for four reasons?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All true confidence is the speech of the Buddha, something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yeah, okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
There was something else here. What was that? Oh, yeah, about the title of that sutra.

Tell me what it means. Why is the sutra called that? I don't know.

Well, when you say Lhagsam Kul, it means that the teacher is... Is urging it, is asking you to be... Yeah, the teacher is asking the students to take personal responsibility, which is one of my favorite ways to spend my time.

So, I think Trigger doesn't give that feeling. Okay. You see what I mean?

It's the sutra called, you guys should take personal responsibility. You see what I mean? Okay.

Or, you know, urging us to personal responsibility. That's a nice way to... Yeah, yeah, that's good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. All right, cool. All right.

In that case, you wouldn't... That's okay. No, that's okay.

Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
You're right the first time, too.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. All right. Since it is...

... So, first of all, it's not... This is the evocative again, right?

Yes, it is Lakadu, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
What's the D referred to? I don't know. The four causes, maybe?

[Speaker 1]
Or the speech of the Buddha? I think the speech, yeah. When we talk about the confidence of the speech, what we mean is that it is dön dang denpa, and it's not dön dang min denpa.

Oh, this dön just means meaning. So, when we talk about the confidence in this context, we're talking about it possesses meaning and it's not meaningless. You see what I mean?

Okay. Possess, rather than imbue, yeah. Possessed, yeah.

Possessed of, yeah. Possessed of? Possessed.

It possesses? Well... No, I think what he's trying to say is, confidence here means you can be sure it has meaning.

Play with that idea as we go. Okay, I'm not sure yet, but I think it's that. What confidence means in this context is that you can be sure it has meaning.

And he seems to be taking the confidence off the speaker. It's sort of like the listener can be confident that it's meaningful and not meaningless. You see?

But I'm not sure yet. We've got to see. Right.

All right, next one. You had said when we talked about this that chö means something... It's not dharma, it's more...

You said something like it's religious in some way? And I didn't understand what that quite meant. I think you could say dharma here.

You know, you could be... I'm guessing it says you can be confident that it concerns the dharma and does not not concern the dharma. Something like that.

It concerns the dharma, you said? Maybe? No, you can be confident that it concerns the dharma.

See what I mean? I'm guessing. I'm still playing with the confident thing.

Okay. And not concerns it, maybe? It doesn't seem to be...

Like sometimes Buddha's called Poppa because he's not afraid to say... to walk in the four steps in each direction and say, I'm the only enlightened being in this planet. It doesn't sound like that so far.

It doesn't seem to refer to the speaker yet. I'm not sure.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You can be confident that it functions to put an end to your negativities and not to reinforce them. Something like that. I think so.

So in that way, these last two seem to... Put the confidence on the listener, right? Seems to be.

And by the way, another author might not take it that way, so we'll have to see. All right. By the way, nyonmongpa...

I would just say... No, it means anything related to the mental afflictions rather than just the mental afflictions. So that, like a human body which falls apart is nyonmongpa, but it's not nyonmong.

So it could be the mental affliction or the thing that... It produces. Like the emotion that the affliction creates or the body or something like that.

It means everything to do with the mental afflictions. Meaning also all results of the mental afflictions, which basically means your world. Yeah.

What's the opposite of that is nam jang chok, which means Buddhahood and Nirvana. You see what I mean? Everything else is nyonmongpa.

And it's very important when you're translating to catch the pa. When there is no pa, it has to be a mental function. All right, cool.

All right, and then the last one here. na yeng la'i depe yun ten tang pen yon tungpa yin kyi korway nepa pawar chepa mayinpa te, che sungpe chur. Yeah, nice.

Perfect. Good translation. Somehow you would have to...

I think he's still a quotation from Sutra. I'm not sure. You got to capture that as well.

Yeah. All right. Last part here.

Oh, this part is sexy. Yeah. He's making a joke because it's not true.

Okay. He says if something is the speech of the Buddha, it has to be a... Yeah, it has to be a classical commentary.

Because if something is the speech of the Buddha... You see what I mean? Because if something is the speech of the Buddha, it has to be classical commentary.

Because if something is the speech of a Buddha, it has to fit the literal explanation of the word shastra. You see what I mean? ten chu For example, if tenchu means something which educates you and repairs your soul, ten chu If tenchu is described as something which educates you and repairs your soul, chu, then couldn't we in one sense say that all teachings of the Buddha are tenchu?

If you describe tenchu, shastra, as that which educates and that which fixes you, chu, then can't we say that all the word of the Buddha is tenchu? Sure, that sounds okay. Yeah, but here's false logic.

All teachings of Lord Buddha himself or herself are shastras because they fix you and educate you. And then we say mar kyap. Right, okay.

But he's just joking around here. And so drache juk means it fits the senses of the word, it fits the literal senses of the word tenchu. So drache means the literal explanation of the word.

Does the chu and tenchu mean to repair? Or does the chu and tenchu mean to something that was made, written, fabricated? It's always described as repairing us or fixing us.

Oh, okay. Thank you. How do you get that out of shastra?

I'm not sure. That would be worth looking into. I think this is one of those meaning translations, like nyang ngen lay depa.

The early early Tibetan translations were called meaning translations, and they concentrated less on the literal meaning of the word, and they concentrated more on the intent of the word. Do you see what I mean? So what is the flow of the text in this case?

So we have the four confidences, and then we have this line... Oh, he's just trying to be controversial. He says, given that the definition of ka is a teaching in which you can have these four confidences, maybe we read it that way, right?

Then we can say that all ka is tenchu, because it will repair you and educate you, because you can be confident in the four ways. You see what I mean? It all ties together.

Now I see, okay. It's very beautiful, by the way. And that's where you ended.

Yeah, I just wanted you to... I didn't have to give you that last piece, but I thought it was sexy. All right.

You have a bunch of texts here that I'm not sure... Yeah, you can skip it. It's okay.

I couldn't figure out why you brought them in. I don't remember either. Okay.

All right, so let's go back to where we were. I mean, hopefully in here we'll get the jache of tenchu, which means the literal explanation of the word tenchu, which will make the last argument more cogent. Okay.

But I don't think we have to go there now. All right, so where we were is we... our kachi to find the Holy Spirit, something that has or possesses the four kakas.

And our counterexample has to be... Something that doesn't. Something that does possess the four bhobas, but...

It's not a Buddha. It's not the Buddhist speech, right. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. All right. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's consider Master Haribaja's commentary to the dual of realizations. Yeah. Oh, we're going down?

Yeah, because it's sarcastic. Are you telling me this is ka? Are you telling me this is ka?

Okay. Okay. Are you saying that Master Haribaja's commentary is to speak to the Buddha?

Good. Then the other guy says... What does he say to tell?

He says that. He says, chi cher. Chi cher.

Chi cher. Now you got to say it offendedly. Chi cher.

Something like that. Yeah, yeah. And then he says...

By the way, most of that standard is to insert the reply of the opponent in italics in the next line. Yeah, why would you say that? Because that's how you define it.

How did he define it again? He defined the speech of the Buddha as something that possesses the four confidences. Yeah, which we're guessing might mean...

It's not that the speech possesses the confidence, but anyone who hears the speech can be confident in four ways about it. You see what I mean? We're not sure yet.

I'm guessing. Okay. All right.

And this is where I kind of fell apart, so then we'll... Oh. He says...

He says Haribhadra's commentary doesn't fit my definition of God. Oh, I see. So this is what's implicit that the Pachinko says first.

Yeah, he says... Because our last statement was it fits your definition. And his definition basically had two parts.

It was totally pure speech, and it had the four confidences. I would say it deserves the four confidences. You see what I mean?

Okay. I like that. Perhaps deserves.

Okay. I'm not sure yet. We got to see how that fits.

It doesn't seem to refer to the Buddha's confidence. Okay. Then he says, I disagree that Haribhadra's commentary fits my definition of the Buddha's speech.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. And we say... We go up.

[Speaker 1]
We're going up. So we say it does? Yeah, it does.

Yeah, it does. Master Haribhadra's words do fit your definition of a Buddha's speech. They do fit your definition of a Buddha's speech.

Now, don't forget his definition had two parts. One, totally pure speech. Two, worthy of the four confidences.

And then we say, yes, Master Haribhadra's commentary does fit your definition of the speech of the Buddha, because it fits each of the two elements. Number one, it's worthy of the four confidences. And number two, it is great speech.

Okay. Well, are we saying it's pure speech? Yeah.

Based on his definition, or based on... He didn't define it. All right, okay.

And you could say it's not impure, so that's okay. Okay. TripAdvisor is also pure speech.

Right. Five-star reviews. I aspire to that from my cafe.

I don't know. I don't think I have the skills that you have. Okay.

I could teach you how I did it. I don't have time. That's why I don't have a cafe.

Okay. Okay, what's he say to that? Well, he says, well...

He says, why would you... Basically, he says, why would you say that, teacher? He hasn't replied yet.

We got to go down. We have to... That's us.

That's us. Oh, I see. Okay, so we already said that.

Yeah. Oh, I see. Okay.

Now, he's going to object to each of the two parts in order. First, he's going to say, it's not true that Master Haribhadra's commentary is worthy of the four confidences. And we say, dum-ba-da-da!

So we're saying... This is always confusing. Okay, so the part that's not in the text is worse.

Oh, yeah, the part that's not in the text is, I disagree. He says, I disagree. He disagrees that it does fit his definition.

Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, I disagree that Haribhadra's speech fits my definition of a Buddhist speech.

The two components of my definition.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. And then we give the four confidences, actually. Pat, would you like to read?

Yes. Nice. Thank you.

dung-po der-tal No, where I'm going down, right?

[Speaker 1]
That's up to Tim.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going down.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 2]
I disagree. der-tal.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, no, I'm going up.

[Speaker 2]
Am I disagreeing?

[Speaker 1]
We are agreeing.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, we are agreeing. dung-po der-tal dung-po der-tal Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. po-pa shi-den dem-me This is us talking, right? It does fit the first element.

Good. Because it is... Because number one, What's that mean, Tim?

RJE RJE DON DANG LDAN It has the... it possesses the meaning of the RJE RJE? Yeah, it has a topic which it is describing.

It does possess a topic which it is describing. So does, I mean, Hitler's Mein Kampf, but... You know, so far it's not so great.

Okay, let's possess a topic which it is describing. And I would put a semicolon. And I would put a one in parentheses before...

Yeah, good, yeah. And then two... The Tibetan is misspelled.

And it should be... It actually should be RJE GYI TZIG Okay, R-J-O-D B-Y-E-D K-Y-I Yeah, he has... maybe it's...

he thinks it's an illegal abbreviation, but I've never seen it before. Yeah, okay. RJE GYI TZIG DON DANG means what?

That it's a commentary and it expresses the meaning of the words in its commentary, something like that? That topic is related to the wording, that's all. Yeah, all right.

To the wording, just that? Yeah, yeah. Mentioned in number one.

Okay, number three. That's easy. Oh, sorry, no.

Yeah, yeah, okay, yeah. Number three. It was spoken in order to...

go backwards. Yeah, spoken in order to... what's the word?

Remove the obstacles or something like that of all the students? Yeah, it was spoken in order to remove the MI MTSAN CHOG. I feel like Attorney Wu sometimes when I go, you don't know this joke.

Sorry, I missed it. Okay, it's a Korean thing. Yeah, MI MTSAN CHOG means all the negative sides of disciples.

You said negative obstacles? I would say negative sides of disciples or something like that. Okay.

And it tempas the pinions of nyang ne. It teaches the benefits of nirvana. Yes, yep.

And he uses shiwa as an appositive for nyang ne. Will we just say lower peace maybe? Or just a peace in general?

Yeah, or peace. Yeah, yeah. Okay.

That's the four confidences. Do you see any confidence in there? I'm not so confident about that.

Let's see here. Me neither. I don't...

I mean, so far nobody has described why it's called BOD PA. So, what I do in my mind, I just remember that my translation of BOD PA is... What do you call that?

Temporary? Provisional or something. It's provisional.

And then I'll go around and try to find someone who said why it relates to these four. All right. I still think it might be the confidence that the reader can have.

For sure. But I'm not... I'm not sure yet.

Do you want to continue with this or do you want to take the plane? I'm happy where you're going. All right, okay.

All right, okay. Have somebody read. Let's see.

Christian, are you translating?

[Speaker 2]
No. All right.

[Speaker 1]
So, starting here. SRI MA DE LTAR CHOG CHEN DE YIN PA'I PHYIR Nice. Now, the definition had two parts.

A, it possesses the four confidences. B, it is pure speech. And now we say Master Haribhadra's commentary does fit the latter of your two requirements because it...

meaning it is pure speech. And here's a greasy reason. Because it is the example I mentioned.

I don't like that kind of, you know, but that's okay. He seems to do this a lot so far. He enjoys that one.

Yeah, he does. He likes that one. Generally, he likes that one.

I mean, it's not crazy, but it's a little irritating. Two minutes, guys. Oh, man.

Okay. But we're about to get to the punchline. It's okay, Tim.

Can you put a space after the comma after tau in the second line here? It's just irritating to me and Utpala. Okay, good.

All right. Much better. Thank you.

We can finish this whole thing. Just read fast, Tim. LOP PA'I SANGS RGYAS BSANG PO'I SANGS RGYAS PHAG PA YIN PA'I PHYIR YIN PA'I PHYIR YIN PA'I PHYIR DGOS PA DE PHYIR Yeah, well, since you agreed that the two parts of your definition fit Master Haribhadra, then I guess Master Haribhadra is a...

Is a Buddha. Yeah, yeah. Since his speech possesses the two qualities of a Buddha's speech according to you, then I guess Master Haribhadra is a fully enlightened being.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, all right.

[Speaker 1]
And then he says... We're going to go one more line. Then he says, you know what?

Maybe he is. He's like, yeah, man, that's okay. Maybe he is a Buddha.

Then we said, dum-mi-ni-te.

[Speaker 2]
You can't agree with that one.

[Speaker 1]
You can't agree he's a Buddha. He's a Chanjusambha. Bodhisattva.

That's not a good reason. No, because a Buddha is a Bodhisattva. Yeah, I don't like this reason.

And it's interesting, you know, later generations will get into the... They will write doctoral theses about when did the idea that a Bodhisattva was not a Buddha start? Or, you know, that a Bodhisattva was automatically not a Buddha.

You know, when did that idea start? And then they'll point to this line. Right.

Okay, all right. Yay, good job. Show me the next debate.

See the next one after that? Keep going. Yeah, do the next two headers, okay?

All right, cool. You did a really good job. I don't know how you do all this and manage your hotel and take care of your cats and everything, but God bless you and ACI.

Thank you very much, Geshe-la. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Uncle Nick, what do we do next? Thank you, Geshe-la. So next up is a 10-minute break and then Gibson's class.

How come you're more generous in the morning with the break than in the evening? Is it because you have to take your poop in the morning? It's the pooping, yeah.

Okay, okay. All right. Cool, cool.

Have a nice break, see you guys in... Well, it's eight minutes now. All right, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, I'm sending you a message about the door to the diamond way.

[Speaker 1]
I knew you were going to do that yesterday. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I would love for you to look at really quickly this morning so I can finish my work, okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, very soon. Okay, bye.