Вступление на срединный путь (текущий курс, Аризона), занятие 8

[Speaker 1]
Let's check how you're doing, okay? First column, one, two, three. Ka-ja-ta-pa-sa.

Second column. Ka-ja-ta-pa-sa. Ka-ja-ta-pa-sa.

Nga-nya-na-ma-wa. Sixth row. Sha-sa-a-ya-ra-la-sha-sa-ha-a.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Alright?

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Now you do the whole thing. Give me the first column with a head letter.

One, two, three. Ka-ja-ta-pa-sa. Didn't change.

Give me the second column with a head letter.

[Speaker 2]
Eeeeee. Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Diamond dealer question. Come on, I want to... Oh, they got to take smart pills.

Do you got the smart pills? Get the smart pills. You were so good last week after I handed out those...

those intelligence enhancement things. I said, I got to pump them up with some sugar again. You were so good last time.

Oh, just... yeah. Take five or six, okay?

No, that's the correct dosage. Online, you guys have to eat a cookie or something, okay? Alright.

Okay, third column with a head letter. Ready? One, two, three.

Ka-ja-ta-pa-sa. Fourth column with a head letter. Nga.

Nga. Nga. Nga.

Ma. Okay? Sixth row with a head letter.

Take off Jelly Bean first.

[Speaker 2]
Sixth row. They don't get one.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Are we doing okay?

[Speaker 2]
But I want to look up something.

[Speaker 1]
Yay! It's a jelly bean blessing. Yeah, so the rest of the letters don't get any head letters, right?

Tell me which third row, I'm going to say a third row letter. Tell me if there's a head letter or not. How about dokpa?

No head letter. That means to suspect something, right? To be paranoid.

Dokpa. Now listen to this one. Dokpa.

Head letter, and that means a clod of dirt. Now listen to this one. Ndokpa.

What's that one? Which head letter? La head letter on a da.

Makes ndokpa, which means a tantric ritual for turning back evil spirits. Did you do your dok today? Yeah, I dok them.

Because I had a dokpa that they would throw a dokpa at me. Okay? Hear it?

I did my ndokpa because I had a dokpa that they would throw a dokpa at me. Okay? Alright?

And if you don't know the Deuteronomy 3, you'll just never be a good translator. So you've got to work on that. Okay.

Subjoined letters. Keep trying. Keep trying to hear the difference, okay?

Here we go. We're going to do subjoined letters. There's three letters that get subjoined.

The first one is, whoa, sorry. That's a ya. I'm sorry, this is just like the worst way to do it.

That's a ra. It reminds me of those football plays that John Madden does on the TV. The guy came around this way, and then the defender was this way.

Anyway, say ya. Ra. La.

These three can be joined under another letter. So let's do the easy one first. No, let's do them in order.

Okay, you need to know that the Tibetan ya, which is here, right? In Sanskrit, it was different. In the old days, it was like that.

In the old days, it looked like that. So when you join ya under another letter, like if you have ka, you stick it on like this. It looks like that.

The reason it doesn't look like this letter anymore is that it's coming from the older letter with this corner here. See what I mean? All you do is say the same letter, but with a ya stuck onto it.

But you must keep the qualities of that ra. You must maintain that ra. So I don't want to hear kya.

This is kya, right? Say it without the ya. Now say it with the ya.

And don't say kya, because I can't understand you. If you say ki, it means of mine. If you say ki, it's a dog.

Did you have a question? No, now it's called a subjoined letter in English. In Tibetan, it's called something else.

It's called a tak. If you spell it out loud, say ka, ya. And then stuck on is tak.

And then understood is makes kya. So in Tibetan, if a kid was reading it, he'd say ka, ya, tak, kya, kya, ka, ya, tak, kya, ka, ya, tak, kya, ra, ga, tak, ga, ya, tak, kya. Anyway, that's easy, right?

It's just a y sound stuck onto it, and it becomes a new letter. Kya. Now there's one exception with the ya tak.

I'm going to write the second row really ugly. This is the second row, believe it or not. We're going to go straight across.

So we're not going down the columns. We're going across the second row. Here we go.

Kya. Kya. Now let's go across the fourth row.

I'm getting kind of wild. Too many jelly beans. What row is this?

Fourth row. Say it with me. Pa.

Now, when you put ya taks on the fourth row, something weird happens. So we'll just put ya taks on them first. There's a ya tak for you.

There's a ya tak for you. There's your ya tak.

[Speaker 2]
You ready?

[Speaker 1]
We'll do it together. Pa, ya tak, which means pa with a ya stuck under it, equals, look at the little arrow, kya. What would you expect?

[Speaker 2]
Pya.

[Speaker 1]
You'd expect pya. Totally doesn't happen. It jumps up two rows.

It jumps up two rows and becomes exactly the sound two rows above it. Why? Write to me Sambodha, Kera, Vyasa, 9th century.

I don't know. Or whatever. I always tell people, write him.

Don't bug me. So we'll do them together. Pa, ya tak, equals kya.

Pa, ya tak, kya. In the same column. It jumps up two rows in the same column.

Pa, ya tak, kya. Ma, ya tak, kya. I used to draw it like this.

I used to put equal signs here. Oops, I boo booed. I used to put these little equal signs here.

I can't do it. That's an equal sign on its side. You get the point, right?

Oops. So we did ya sub joint. Let's do ra.

Oh, by the way, the part that gets cut off the ra, you see that bottom leg on the ra, this part here? That's the only part you use when you stick a ra under something. So up here it's connected to kya.

You're amputating this bottom leg off and sticking it onto the letter that you want to add a ra to. If the letter you want to add a ra to doesn't have a bottom right-hand corner, you can make a luo jing.

[Speaker 2]
Luo jing?

[Speaker 1]
What is that in Chinese medicine? Luo jing? Come on.

No, it's that little connecting organ, like how you get from here to here, right? Connecting channel, right? So you make a little connector here and then you have a place to put the ra onto.

You see what I mean? Well, you guys see because you've studied it for five years.

[Speaker 2]
Here we don't need a connector.

[Speaker 1]
So that's the first row with its ra sub joint under it. Now second row doesn't get any. Third row does get really ugly.

That one we add a little connector right here. You see where the leg of this one curves under the letter? And this one goes out to the side.

How do you erase? Is this the eraser? This one here?

That's cute. How do you turn it off?

[Speaker 2]
On this one?

[Speaker 1]
This one? And we got one more here. That's a fog in case you can't tell.

I'll get good at this by the time we end. Now we're going to do the sound together. Ready?

Let's do it just by itself. We left out the cha's, right? So let's do it down this column right here.

Now I'm going to show you what the ra sub joint does to this row. Note something. Do ta again.

One more time. Darcy, what part of your tongue is hitting your mouth? But more specific.

Check it out. Is it really the very tip of your tongue? Yeah, it's the top of the tip.

You get to the tip of the tongue and it's the top. And that's slapping somewhere up behind your teeth. And that's why they call it a dental.

The sound is called a dental. Just in your mind visualize what's slapping on the top of your mouth. Everybody got that?

Now take the actual tip of your tongue, or a little bit under the tip of your tongue, touch it in the same place and see what it sounds like. See my mouth? The corners of my mouth are a little spread out.

I'm kind of showing my teeth. It's like duh, duh. It's called retroflex in linguistics.

Why? Retroflex means bent back. Do ta first.

Now stop. Think. The bottom of the tip of your tongue hit that same place.

Perfect. Now you've never done that in your life since you were like three months old, right? And you've been doing all your other noises since you've been three months old.

So it's going to be uncomfortable, weird. You should stop before you say it. You should say ta ratak and then you should go duh.

And if you try to do it too fast you won't do it right. So do it one more time. Ta ratak duh.

It looks like you're about to bite somebody or something. It's perfect. You don't have to worry about it.

You just made it perfect. And all these people make it wrong. They go tra.

In English it's really weird. How do we pronounce tr like in the vehicle tr-u-c-k? We make a ch sound.

Isn't it weird? We don't go track. We say truck.

It's a c-h-r-u-k. It's really weird. That's why Indians sound strange to you because they're doing a real TR.

Can you loan me your pen and I'll go in my truck? And they don't say truck. It's not a c.

It's not an h. Why do you say truck? So people try to make tra.

It's not tra. Because you're doing that with the tip of the top of your tongue. Curl the tongue under.

Hit the same spot with the underside of your tongue. Just slightly off the tip. Duh.

I want to borrow your duck. Now we'll do the second one. You maintain the integrity of the column.

You don't start doing tra for first column. That's what column? That's second column.

Let's do it together. This one here. Tra.

And you give that second column sort of this tired sound. Tra. Tra.

Now you know what the third one's going to be. Say da. Then just curl your tongue under and do the same thing.

It's perfect. I'll say the three without the retroflex and then I'll say them with the retroflex. Da.

Ta. Ta. Then da.

Ta. Ta. Got it?

Same things. A lot of people, they get the ra part and then they lose the other part. They start going tra for first column.

Now the cool thing is... You got those old equal signs I was making last time? On their side, right?

Like this. I'm about to tell you. So check this out.

We'll do this one more time. Ta. Ratak.

Which means with a ra stuck onto it. Ta. I'm so tired.

With a ratak it's tra. Now what's cool is these and this are the same as this. All the equal signs.

So let's do this one together. First row. Ka.

Ratak. It's not kra. You'd expect kra.

It's just ta. It's the same as the one under it. Exactly pronounced the same.

This is the darn tashi dele. Tashi dele. Tashi dele.

It's really tashi dele. If you say tashi dele, a Tibetan would go, whoa, nice. If you say tashi dele, they're like, oh yeah, thanks.

There's this moment of like, what's he trying to say? Say ka. Ratak.

You tell me. Ta. Got it?

You get the pattern, right? Ka. Ratak.

Ta. Let's go down here. Pa.

Ratak. It should be what? Pra.

But it's ta. Same as the one above it. Pa.

Ratak. Ta. Pa.

Ratak. Ta. Got it?

They're all cool, right? You get three of them, you got nine of them. Now there's two more letters that take ratak.

So I'm going to teach them to you. Here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Oops.

[Speaker 1]
Tell me this first letter, but anyone who makes it low tone has to give me back their jelly beans.

[Speaker 2]
You ready?

[Speaker 1]
I don't really want them back. Unless they're not eaten yet. One, two, three.

Sa. If it was the other one, it'd be sa. So it's not lama-suh-pa.

It's lama-suh-pa. And not za-pa or zo-pa or anything else. Now when it gets a ratak, good news, it doesn't change pronunciation at all.

It's just sa in Lhasa dialect. In Ladakh maybe, which reflects what it was a thousand years ago, they still say sras maybe. And in certain parts of Mongolia or something like that, they'll say sras, sra.

But no modern Tibetan in main Tibetan territory would say anything but sa. So why stick something on it then? It's a different word, it has a different meaning.

Sa means earth. And with a ratak, it means solid or hard or concrete. You see what I mean?

Let's stick one on here. Don't make it high tone. Don't make it mid tone.

Make it ma. And with a ratak, it doesn't change pronunciation. It's just ma.

So that's easy. Since we're on such a roll, let's do the last one.

[Speaker 2]
The audience says you have an awesome way for teaching tone.

[Speaker 1]
It's really, I was trained by this incredible guy, and no one knows this stuff. I've never seen anyone teach it right, and he just demanded it. He's really great.

Maybe we can get him here someday. I don't know if he's still around, but we'll see. Here we go.

Subjoin la. Luckily this is just a little la. We'll stick it on ka.

This is a full size ka, right? Here's what it looks like with a la joined under it. Oops, sorry.

I mean that's really sloppy, but they're about the same size. The la is too big here. It should be smaller.

Here's a full size la, for example. You know what I mean? So it's just like a half size, a pint size la.

When you add a la at the bottom of any letter, except for one or two exceptions, it becomes a high tone la. So let's pronounce this last one together. Sorry, it's just a mid tone, right?

There is no low tone la. It's just la. Just normal, la la la la la.

Then you put it under a ka, and this whole thing together is not ka la. It's just la. So la means a mountain pass.

La means wages for the day. And if you don't know the difference in the sound, you'll never be a good translator. Because in your head you won't make the right sounds.

And you'll be struggling with a language without the sounds, just letters. And then you'll only have half your equipment. So like lama is a ba with a la under it.

And here's a normal size ba. I mean, it's really sloppy, sorry. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Not bad, huh?

[Speaker 1]
You had too many jelly beans.

[Speaker 2]
When we had sub-giant letters, we pronounced the letter that was on the top. Here we're pronouncing...

[Speaker 1]
It's easy. Anything with a la under it is just la.

[Speaker 2]
So it's a sub-giant la with a superscript ka.

[Speaker 1]
Well, there's one weird case, which is the one I was just looking up. There's one that might confuse you. Yeah, it's just la with a more forceful and high.

This is one which can be a little... I mean, I always forget what it is. Is this la with a ra head letter or is this ra with a la sub-giant letter?

It only makes a difference because you want to know where to look it up in the dictionary. You're going to look under ra or you're going to look under la? It's ra with a la sub-giant.

It's not la with a ra on top of it. Got it? By the way, they don't stick up over the baseline, right?

Here's where the dot goes. You don't put the dot down here. It's not like they stick up over the line of text.

So let's pronounce this one. Ra, latak, la. That's all.

Got it? One exception. You knew there was going to be, right?

Say sa. That's not sa, right? It's sa.

Latak with a la. Get this. It should be like col-sla, right?

It's not. It's nda. Okay?

N-D-A. Yeah, and this happens to be the spelling for dawa, like the Tibetan name dawa, which means moon. Okay?

Who's dawatakpa? Chandrakirti, right? Chandrakirti.

So, nda. The word ku means holy body, like the kushi is the four bodies of a Buddha. The honorific for someone's spouse is their body mate.

And da can also mean a mate, like the other ha, right? So the n is so strong that it comes out kunda. So like kunda, how is your excellency's wife?

How's your kunda? You see what I mean? Or your husband, kunda.

It means my other ha. So, or the word ganden has a strong, and it's really ga, which means bliss, and nden. But everybody thinks it's ganden, right?

It sounds like gan-den, but it's really ga-nden. Okay? We met one other nda before at the beginning of this class.

We reviewed it. Geshe Thupten Rinchen would say, Oh, your brain is in your notebook, eh? Okay, there you go.

These two are pronounced exactly the same. Say nda. Nda.

This happens to be the nda in ganden. This happens to be the da in kunda. Okay, got it?

That's all that's up, joint letters. That's all you need to know. Next class we'll do prefix letters and suffix letters, and you're done.

You heard them all. Okay? And there's no weird things in Tibetan.

Like maybe three, four words like dorje or gyansen or stuff like that. But once you know the rules, you can pronounce anything perfectly. You can fake in front of a scripture teacher at ceremony.

You can read the thing perfectly and not know what a single word means. You see what I mean? Like it's not like English.

Like everything is predictable. Once you know these rules, you can correctly sing a prayer precisely, but you may not know what a single syllable means. You see what I mean?

Okay? So in that sense, Tibetan is nice. There's no ambiguity.

Okay? Okay, so we're going to go to the text.

[Speaker 2]
Priscilla?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
Would it be more correct to say nimandawa or nimadawa?

[Speaker 1]
Yes, well, when it's two separate words, the prenasal is not as strong. You see? When it's one word, it's stronger.

You see what I mean? So nimandawa, but kunda, because kunda is one word, and nimadawa is two words. You see what I mean?

And there's a thing called an open vowel. When the syllable before ends in a vowel sound, like ku, ends in a u, which is a vowel, we call it an open vowel. I just see the word like it has an open end on the back, back end is open.

Then there's room for an end to come in, you see? Then you say kunda. Okay?

But if it was kum in front of it, in which case the vowel has been shut off by an M, you wouldn't hear the nda so much, it'd be kunda. You see what I mean? So ganden also has an open vowel.

It ends in a, ga ends in a. So there's lots of room to hear that N sound. Okay, ganden.

And like a fire arrow means what? A gun. It's called a menda, which is me and nda.

But it's a menda, okay? Like that. All right, here we go.

Except for certain words, okay? Like, just, they're spoken with a prenasa. Like nel-jor-ma.

You hear the N in there? Yogi, or yogini, vajra-yogini. A no Tibetan would ever say nel-jor-ma.

They'd say nel-jor-ma. And there's a N in there. And it doesn't have an open vowel.

But that's just a convention. Nel-jor-ma. So, you know, when we're trying to write it in a text, we don't know what to do.

Because N-E-L, L-N-J is not like a normal string of consonants for Westerners. They have trouble saying nel-jor. Like we have helm, but we don't have elm, really?

Elfin? I don't know. Anyway, you see the problem.

Do you make it exact and make it difficult for people? Or do you corrupt it? You see, and that's the question.

Okay, here we go. We were talking about the logic of Nagarjuna's, Master Nagarjuna, Arya Nagarjuna's six works on logic, right? And he was trying to demonstrate emptiness.

And he did, he demonstrated emptiness in two different ways. One, he did it through scriptural authority with a book called Collection of Companion Mother Sutras or something like that, okay? Then he wrote six different books to talk about emptiness intellectually, like proving the idea of emptiness.

Not quoting so much Lord Buddha, but giving arguments for emptiness, okay? So these are the two ways in the monastery to prove anything. Luang Rik, right?

Jampa Luang Rik. Either with Luang, which is scriptural authority, or Rikpa. So he wrote these Riktok Druk, these six books on reasoning, where he tries to reason you into emptiness rather than trying to quote you into emptiness.

Got it? So then we're looking at those six books in which he tried to establish emptiness intellectually through logic, okay? And, which by the way, you'll learn in Kristi's class, I don't know, tomorrow, tonight.

Absolutely necessary way to get to emptiness. You must go through that three-fold step. Study, think, then meditate on it.

Then you'll see it. It's not like you're going to sit there and suddenly see it. You need to prep your mind with intellectual arguments for emptiness, okay?

And then you'll perceive it. If you're a Mahayana person, how many will you need arguments? Rikpa thayye vegone.

Say, Rikpa thayye vegone. To infinite arguments for emptiness. Like, a Mahayana person says, tell me another one.

Give me another one. That's cool. Oh, the whole thing about an instant in time being unsplittable, and therefore it must be that I'm making instants in time.

And then the whole thing about the car and the chariot and the pieces, and I like that. And then that other argument you had about my boss. And then the pen thing.

That's cool too. And then, you know, like a Mahayana person wants a thousand different ways. Then they're like, oh man, give me one more.

And they say in opening lines in Madhyamika Avatara, a Mahayana person will get a chill up their back when you start proving emptiness. They're like, ooh, you know, oh, give me another one. Oh, yeah, you know.

And now they say like they get this shiver up their spine. It's like prana moving, right? And they get this, oh, give me another one.

Or they'd start to cry. Like those are traditional signs. Okay, so we went through one book.

The first book, the root text, which is the most famous one, talks about how just because a thing does a function doesn't mean it inherently exists. Like that argument, oh, holding tea must be, it's a function of this cup. I'm not putting that quality on it.

It has that quality. That's not coming from me. Is this cup self-existent?

We say no. Why? Not even the fact that it holds water belongs to it.

Fire is not hot. Are you telling me I make fire hot? Yes.

Prove it. Well, there's some people that like, they feel like this room is really comfortable right now. And there's some people that feel like it's stuffy right now.

That's the emptiness of heat. It's not in the room. You're making it uncomfortable or comfortable.

Quit complaining about the lack of air conditioning here or something. You made it. Okay, got it?

So the first book is establishing that. Now let's see what the second book is establishing. Yeah, what we use to prove things, like reasons, those don't have a power to prove anything.

Which you know, because the last person you tried to convince to do something, you wanted to do that, they didn't want to do it. The same logic didn't hold for them. Okay?

Okay. Yeah. Then somebody says, are you telling me, like, the specific features of this cup are that it holds water?

That's its specific quality. More generally, it has a quality of being breakable. With all the other breakable things in this room, it shares that quality.

Are you also saying it doesn't have that quality from its own side? Yes. Okay?

You're giving it breakability. Okay? That's coming from you.

Okay? So now that book says, the fact that it doesn't start by itself or go on by itself or stop by itself, doesn't mean it can't do something. Okay?

It doesn't have any quality of its own. But once I give it a quality, it can do stuff. It holds water.

I can drink tea out of it. Where it's coming from is another question. Who gave it the ability to hold water?

Me. Not it. Okay?

Okay? When it breaks, the ability to hold water breaks. Who broke it?

I did. So you can't blame people for busting up your stuff anymore. Okay.

What's the next book say? We didn't get there. Sorry?

I think we're on the third book, aren't we? Fourth book. The second one was Smashing Things to Dusk.

And third one is Seventy Lines on Emptiness. I don't know why I said second there, but anyway, that's okay. This is third, is Seventy Lines on Emptiness.

And then here comes the next one. I'll make them separate paragraphs so it's easier. Now, as a translator, would you add the statement the fourth book, comma, you think it's legal?

Or how do you feel about that? Sorry? Okay.

You want to compromise and say the next book that he wrote or something like that? Yeah, I did. Does that mean you want to put third right up here?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Do you mind adding fourth? I don't like to load them up with notes because it ruins the flow. How about the next book?

About his next book, which is even clearer. Whoa, psychedelic. Maybe this is...

No, my screen's okay. So you want to get that one? Is that that book?

Oh yeah, it is. I said also still because he's established that the last book explained how things can be empty but still work. And then this next book is like and this idea of some things being positive, some things being negative can still work also.

More specifically, that's just one small part of all things. It's just all things work that work even though they're empty. And then next he says more specifically, things can be negative, things can be positive and still work.

Or do what they do. Work is a... You'd have a debate in a debate ground.

Can a negative thing work? Or for example, the fact that there's no 17-foot purple two-headed elephant in this room right now. Does that do anything?

Yeah. Or the fact that there's no tea in the top corner of my cup now. You see?

But didn't the fact that Bush wasn't killed on 9-11, hasn't that affected us? You see, you could... You see, as I understand, they were going to hit the White House or something, right?

So that's a negative, you see. The White House wasn't blown up on 9-11. Does that affect us?

And if so, can an absence affect somebody? And then you get into arguments like that. Okay?

That's a long story. I'm not going to get into it. Somebody had a question?

Yeah. That's similar. That's like a double negative.

Yeah. Yeah. That's called a positive, which is achieved by negating a negation.

Okay. Okay. This is going to be a monster.

Well, I'll do it as a monster and then we'll see if we want to split it up. Yeah. I'm going to think about this.

Well, is that okay? It's accurate. I don't know.

It's... See, you have to distinguish between tough and doesn't make sense. You know what I mean?

He's tough and he makes sense and most... 99.9% of Tibetans could not read this sentence. They have no clue what it means.

You see? It would be like physics books to them or something. But that's cool.

These two, are these the last two? Do we have six yet?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. We just did four.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah? Cool. I think we're supposed to have six now.

By the way, that's what he taught in LA, I think. You know, His Holiness in 2000 or 99 or something like that. Yeah.

He likes that book. He teaches it fairly... He translated it with someone into English and they never got to the other ones.

these two books, the point of these two books is like, look, if you can perceive what Madhyamaka really means, that things can exist nomally, but they don't exist from their own side. You see? The big deal about these last two books is that's how you get to Nirvana and Buddhahood.

That's the path. That's the only path. So that's a...

It's one thing to prove that everything is empty, which is what the first four books do. But then the last two books say, and that's the only way to get enlightened, is if you understand that. You see?

Isn't that cool? So like he kind of... It's a beautiful progression through the six books.

You've got to sit there like your homework... Yeah, yeah, you two guys. Lizette and Alistair.

The homework should be like, what's the logical progression through his six books? You know, oh, this is why this one comes from this one, and then at the end he like wraps it all up. It's the only way to get liberated.

It is the path to get it. You see? About emptiness.

Okay? All right. Say again?

It doesn't say only. Did I say... Did he say only?

No. Well, he means it. Okay.

This is misspelled. I'm going to correct it in the original. We don't have yet a manuscript from Tibet.

We have a handwritten manuscript from the refugee camps, and we're working on one from Tibet, okay? Like before 59. Oh, yeah, let's start.

Let's do that. Make me do it with you, okay? Say umma.

Umma. Rinchen. Rinchen.

There's your ratak. Chenwa. Chenwa.

Dang. Dang. Rigpa.

Rigpa. Here's another ratak. Chuk.

Chuk. Chuk.

[Speaker 2]
Chupa.

[Speaker 1]
Niki. Niki. Tane.

Tane. Tu. Tu.

Yeching.

[Speaker 2]
Yeching.

[Speaker 1]
Rangshinki. Rangshinki. Mepe.

[Speaker 2]
Mepe.

[Speaker 1]
Tani. Tani. Pangbe.

Pangbe. De. De.

Ko. Ko. Na.

Na. Ni. Ni.

Tokbe. Tokbe. Yeshi.

Yeshi. De. De.

Dro. Dro. Jeki.

Jeki. Oh, there's a yatak. Fa with a ya doesn't make?

Bya. Bya. It makes ja.

So there's je. Ki.

[Speaker 2]
Ki.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, it's got that other letter on the end. We're going to do that next time. Don't worry about that.

Ki. Ki. Nam.

Nam. Du. Du.

Tembe.

[Speaker 2]
Tembe.

[Speaker 1]
Tembe. Tembe. Tembe.

Tembe. Tembe. Tembe.

Tembe. Tembe. Tembe.

Tembe. Tembe. Tembe.

Tembe. Tembe. Tembe.

verse. You see what I mean? And then it'll just, over the length of a certain amount of time, it will save me a couple hours or, you know, like that.

I replaced, I'll show you up here, okay? I replaced, sorry, this with this. See down here?

That's why these lines are cut off. And that's, every time I have poetry, that's going to show up 99% of the time in poetry. And I'm going to want the verses cut out like that.

So it just saves me like 45 minutes through the course of my, the next six years. And if you do that like 50 times or stuff, then you buy yourself a week. And if death is coming, it's worth it.

Okay. Up here, it's a common typo. Nam means very much.

It's the Sanskrit vi, vi. And with a sa like that, it means plural. And so it's a common mistake to switch them because they're pronounced the same.

Okay. What was that book called, Smashing Things to Dust? Oh, Fine Dust, good.

That was the, oh yeah, that's a number, okay. Dust, Smashing Things to Fine Dust refutes 16 different logical terms. Careful.

It's a debate ground trick.

[Speaker 2]
Fine.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, meaning, you just, it means the guy comes to debate with you and you go, bam. And there's just little particles of dust there. You know, it's the word you use for grinding barley into flour.

Okay. What is it in Sanskrit? It's a very sexy word in Sanskrit.

We had it in the yoga texts. I forget. Let's look it up.

If I did, I made a boo-boo. Is it, is it still there? Oh.

Oh, okay. Oh, there's a nice word in Sanskrit, but, yeah, it's not here. Anyway.

Anyway. Oh, here it is, Vidalya in Sanskrit. That wasn't the one I was looking for, but that's okay.

I don't think we should play around. We won't finish in six years. Okay.

Now, now he quotes a verse. And let's read it together. And then you count, okay.

I'll try to, let's see if we can get 16 without looking it up in some other book. Okay. Because I don't know this verse.

And I don't know what the 16 are. Say. Tsema.

Number one. Shelja. You keep track.

Two. Tetsam. Three.

Gupa. Four. Drupta.

Five. Yenlak. Six.

Toge. Seven. Here's the way you count in Tibetan, by the way.

You count on your, on your, on your joints. One. Two.

Three. Four. Five.

Six. Seven. Eight.

You see what I mean? So we're here. Seven.

Where were we? Ten up. Say ten up.

[Speaker 2]
Ten up.

[Speaker 1]
Why isn't that but? You'll learn. Tse.

Tse. Tse. Tse.

[Speaker 2]
Tse.

[Speaker 1]
Tse. Tse. Tse.

[Speaker 2]
Tse.

[Speaker 1]
Tse. Probably one. Darnang.

[Speaker 2]
Darnang.

[Speaker 1]
Six.

[Speaker 2]
Sixteen. Darnang. Darnang.

Sixteen.

[Speaker 1]
Sa chepa.

[Speaker 2]
Sa chepa.

[Speaker 1]
You got seventeen? Yeah, so ten six darnang goes together, I think. Let's look it up in the commentary.

This is boring for you, but I don't want to do it later. Okay. So.

Oops. Come back. Let's try to do it without looking and then we'll look it up.

Salchipa. Termination. Do we have 16?

We do? I don't know what they all are. I can tell you some of them.

Correct perception, you know pramana, right? Object considered is what you're, sheljah means, it literally means what you're weighing, but it means what you're perceiving. Doubt is like if there's doubt in the syllogism about whether something is necessarily so, then it's bad logic, right?

Necessity is good logic. Like if it's a tree, it must be a plant. In philosophical school, you have to stick to the same school when you're debating somebody.

You should know this in the debate ground, okay? Like you can't come in wearing, they call, what hat are you wearing? You can't come in wearing a Hinayana hat if it's a Mahayana argument.

You can't cheat, you see what I mean? You've got to stick to your right school. I don't know any means by branch.

Logic is just general logic. Establishment is like setting forth the reasons for something. Tse is in particular open debating.

Like, tsepe tsegedu means they're out at the debate ground tonight. They're tseping tsepe. Say tsepe tsegedu.

Tsepe tsegedu. Oh, where's the love song tonight? Oh, tsepe tsegedu.

He's out there arguing with somebody at the debate ground, okay? Statement, to state your position. Refutation, to refute the opponent.

Opponent, there's two kinds of opponents. This side, that side. False logic, there's like three kinds of that.

Logical statements, there's like three main kinds. And then the reason in a syllogism, and I don't know what termination is, but it's probably like you really wiped the guy out. Okay.

Let's look real quickly if it's convenient to go find someone that confirms the 16 by putting dungs between them. That's like commas, you see? He hasn't put commas in his verse because he's trying to save space.

And so I don't know where to cut the 16 exactly. Okay, so let's check and see if anyone's done that. I think we'll look up.

Then I'll tell you how you do this. You look for the two least common words and ask the computer to find them near each other. So let's think about it.

How about shaljan tatsam? These are pretty. And you say look for this word near this word.

Yeah? Sumbum tengir akangir. I have an interesting idea to share with you that we were thinking about today.

Christy and I were talking about it today. Because we're talking about the next introductory teaching to second term. And we'd like to continue with Malinda.

And there's something interesting that formal logic doesn't pop up in India until after the Greeks arrive. So think about that. I mean Lord Buddha debated and he taught general logic but there's no formal book on logic until after the Greeks have hit the area of Nalanda and Vikramalashila.

So anyway. Yeah. Yeah.

Christy has the dates. Okay. Sumbum.

Let's see if it's in Sumbum first. Let's see if somebody did our work first. Tengir tends to be more difficult.

Why? Well for one thing it's like a thousand years older or at least five hundred years older. And it's a translation from another language.

So it's less accurate by nature. Ah. See where my arrow is?

Here's Changyarupa Dorje. He's one of the Changyar Rinpoches who later became Bhavankar Rinpoche. This is his great two volume book on philosophical schools which J.B. Hawkins just finished publishing. Okay. So here it is. He says, Here are the sixteen elements but he puts commas between them.

Thank you. Okay. So let's see how we did.

I'll do this. This is a cool thing to do. Okay.

So I put these up. I'll put them down here. So is the first one is Tsema Dung.

Okay. That's our first comma. Yay.

And then Shelja. That's our second. Okay.

And then Tetsam is treated by itself. Then Gupa is treated by itself. Necessity.

Where are we? Uh-oh. He's got one that the other guy didn't have.

Okay. See? There's no pe up here.

Okay. It would have been right here somewhere. Okay.

Does that mean that the guy misquoted it? Let's go see. Somebody's made a boo-boo.

Things got worse instead of better. Dhrupta means philosophical school. So he put one between here.

So let's make a little mark there. Pe. Okay.

Sorry? Pe means Tempeyangda. Takes down it's impermanent because it's made.

It's just like a vase. And it's that just like a vase. It's your classical example.

Let's see. Where were we? Oh yeah.

There's the Dhrupta, philosophical school. There's the Yenlak. There's the branch.

Although nobody has explained what it is. Toge means logic. Tenlapapa means establishment.

Tsepa means debate. Jupa means statement. Sunchindugulwa.

Now he stuck these two together. He said, refute the opponent. Yeah, and you know Sun Jin from the four powers.

Number Sun Jin Be To. Rip it out from the heart. Okay.

Which one is that? Which is the power of confession which really destroys the bad karma? Well, actually it's that one.

Yeah, I'm sorry. It's not that, is it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is it?

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, Sun Jin is the regret.

[Speaker 1]
Sun Jin is the regret. Okay, so it's not the most powerful one. Anyway.

We'll take it under advisement, right? We'll put a thing here. Connect.

Okay. We'll look for another authority and we'll try to see who's right. Sunjindugulwadang.

Tenziktanang. We did a good thing there. We stuck it together and it was right.

Okay, false logic. And then, where are we? Tenziktanang.

Tenziktanang. Sikmor. Well, he's adding more.

We'll put a Sikmor. But it could be Sikdor. Okay.

It doesn't make any sense, actually. Sikmor. Takchur.

I have no idea. And it's totally spelled differently and has a different meaning altogether. And termination is still the same.

That doesn't help a lot, does it? Let's see if someone else has cheated it. Okay.

So now he's just throwing a can of worms at us. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Is that the one?

[Speaker 1]
Sorry? Tanang?

[Speaker 2]
Tenziktanang?

[Speaker 1]
Where are you? Later. Yeah, Tenziktanang.

Tenziktanang.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's false logic. It's looking... See these things flying by?

That's like doing a thousand pages for every half second or something like that. It's in Tantra right now, which is called Gyut. That's Bhairava.

You learned Raga.

[Speaker 2]
There's Vajrayogini.

[Speaker 1]
Samadhupa. Guhyasamaja, right? We're up to all the Lamrims.

Delam just went by. Lamrim Chammo just went by. Tanrim just went by.

Here are all the Lojong texts. Here are all the history books. ACIP invented all these categories and it's a really easy way to find out where you are.

Parchana is perfection and wisdom. Oh. Whoa.

It's all different. This is really beautiful.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
I would cut this out even. Yeah, I'll read it to you, okay? And watch the 16 as we go by.

We'll go back and click on them. This is why I never finish your readings on time. Okay.

He said, I'll follow the dancing arrow, okay? Here are the 16 logical, what do you call, terms, which are used to prove that functioning things really exist the way they look. Aren't you going to complain?

Aren't you going to like, you like that? Okay, so who's using, who's using these? Shende.

The other guys. So now it becomes more clear, you see? So he's not refuting the use of these things as logical tools.

He's refuting the guys who came up and said there's 16 logical tools that we can use to prove that this cup holds water by itself, from its own side. Okay? So a lot more light on the 16, right?

Which is not what I intended to do in this class, but anyway, let's do it. They say, shende da ki, say shende, da ki, they say, u ma pa la, to the u ma guys, chö tam je, all existing things, den par me pa, aren't real, mi te, it's not right, de, because, okay, tse ma dang xiao jia, say, tse ma, dang, xiao jia, ni, ye bei che, because, there are correct perceptions of objects that we're considering. So he covered the first two already.

Got it? There's a cup, and I'm looking at it. Okay?

That's their first two logical statements. Okay? You okay?

Huh?

[Speaker 2]
Because there is a cup that I'm perceiving, therefore it exists.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, how can you say it's not real? There's me and there's the cup. Come on.

Okay. Come on. That's what correct perception is.

Is it a tse ma when you see the cup, Mr. James? Yes, it is. So how can the cup not be holding water?

You know? Okay? Is it a correct perception when you see a cup?

Yes. So come on. It must be working.

Does that prove that it's working from its own side?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
But they think so. Okay. Anyway, here we go.

And what else he says? Where are we? It's in a similar section here.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Say, That literally means you have doubt about the two. Okay? About that that I'm seeing a cup.

Okay? Do we have doubt about the two? So I think they're saying, well, then you would have to have doubt about the two.

If you guys are right, you'd like be wondering, is there me and the cup? Okay? Also, there's thing in logic that you can't present an argument to somebody unless they have doubt about it.

Is the following a true statement? Nothing has any existence from its own side in the prosaic ecosystem. In the prosaic ecosystem, is it a correct statement to say nothing exists from its own side?

Yes. Yeah. Now, if I go up to Master Chandrakirti and say nothing exists from its own side, is it a correct logical statement?

In Buddhist logic, it's not. Because he doesn't have tetsam. He doesn't doubt that.

So to present that argument is already a false argument. To convince somebody of something they already believe is false logic. It's against the rules of logic.

In Buddhist logic, to go up to somebody and say, you've got to believe me. This is to Chandrakirti, right? You've got to believe me.

This teacup doesn't exist from its own side. That's considered false logic because he don't need it. Because he's not wondering about that.

Because he already believes that. So it probably means that, okay? Doubt.

Guddun na jukpa. Say, guddun na jukpa. There must be some necessity to present that argument.

Okay? So far we're doing pretty well. I think.

De la jukpe pe. And there's a reason, there's an example to prove it. It's just like a movie.

That's called a pe. Like you say, look, this thing doesn't exist from its own side. It's just like a movie.

It's being projected, you see, from your mind. And then you give them some common ground, some example that they can relate to. That's called a pe.

Okay? It's just like a movie. Now, the quotation that we first got through didn't have this one.

Now we got two quotations that say it should be there. So what do you do? Okay, I'm going to put times two here, just so I remember the two guys.

Okay. Say, nge mawa. Misspelled here.

La. Jukta. Mebata.

Are you telling me that all those guys who nge mawa are wrong? Nge mawa means third school down, mind only down, who accept that this is... Fire is hot from its own side.

Fire is hot. It's the nature of fire to be hot. The function of a thing belongs to it.

Come on. When was the last time you touched a cold fire? I mean, you know.

When was the last time you burned yourself on a freezing fire? You see what I mean? It's like that.

Okay, so philosophical school fits. Let's go to yen lat because we didn't know what it meant. Drup nga ki yen lat yipa dang.

Say, drup nga...

[Speaker 2]
Drup nga...

[Speaker 1]
ki...

[Speaker 2]
ki...

[Speaker 1]
yen lat...

[Speaker 2]
yen lat...

[Speaker 1]
yipa dang. That just means a statement trying to prove something. The parts of a statement that are...

Oh, we'll say parts now. The necessary parts of a statement are there, you know, when they say, it must be real because it has a function. Okay?

All the parts are there. Say, dun la... Dun la...

che pe...

[Speaker 2]
che pe...

[Speaker 1]
toge... toge... dang...

dang... che pe... che pe...

dun... dun... den la...

den la... papa... papa...

There must be a... Where are we? Logic.

There must be some logic that's investigating this cup and it must establish something about the cup. All right? Yeah.

Got it? So those two are okay. Say, den la...

Den la... mi ten bar... mi ten bar...

che pe... che pe... And people will argue about it.

Okay? And say different things, mi ten bar. And say, dun...

dun... den... den...

che pe...

[Speaker 2]
che pe...

[Speaker 1]
And they will state their position. Where was that? Here.

Here is their statement. de palo pah... Say.

De palo pah... sun jhin pah... And the opponent will refute it.

So, he's connecting these two. Two guys have agreed that this should be refutation by the opponent. Okay?

Then let's keep going. I'm going to go with these two guys by now. Say, tensek, tarnang, yepadang.

There should be some false logic. And kyuki, jyupa, nam, sik, dor. What did I say down here?

Maybe the guy misspelled ngur. Now why would a guy type dor for ngur? They look exactly the same.

One's a tiny bit longer. It's very common. They're both words, unfortunately.

So, you know, when I go through a text, I'm constantly thinking, is the na da? And you've got to get used to that. You'll have the same problem if you read the actual text.

I'll show you one. I got this text on this. Well, let's just look at kumbum, okay?

What is kumbum? Yeah, and the main monastery there. Why is it called kumbum?

Sorry. Should I do this? Too late, right?

We'll go back to kumbum. Did I give you this? Oh, here we go.

Well, let's get it. What happened to this thing? I don't know.

Is this the...

[Speaker 2]
Where is the magnifying glass? Next to the hand.

[Speaker 1]
Where's the hand?

[Speaker 2]
It's on top.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. Okay, like, you see this one here? The na.

Like somebody wrote over it to make it more clear. You see what I mean? And here they wrote over it.

But see how somebody might mistake them for each other. Like this one, that's probably wrong, okay? Like that.

And this one, is it da or na? It could be either, you see? And you're going to have much more trouble when you get to real wood blocks, okay?

I'm just helping you out by giving you the typing. Okay. So anyway, that's the edition of this book from kumbum.

Je Tsongkhapa's home monastery, where he grew up. Okay, so instead of logical statement, which was cik, we've got to say false logic. Now it's words.

I'm going to put their words. Why? Because you're talking about their comments?

Yes, the other guy's words. And then, I don't have to explain to the reader that it's probably something we're going to overthrow. Now, where are we?

Say len nam.

[Speaker 2]
Len nam.

[Speaker 1]
Tak chit tu.

[Speaker 2]
Tak chit tu.

[Speaker 1]
Girwa. Girwa. He agrees with tak chit, which has nothing to do with what our guy put here.

Okay? This one means reason. Tak chit has nothing to do with that.

Okay? Let's see how I treated the last one. Kyut gulwe sar chit.

Say kyut. Kyut. Gulwe.

Gulwe. Sar chit. Sar chit.

The opponent terminates you. Okay, so termination is okay. So somehow these are 16 complaints that someone made to the Madhyamikas.

Now you still need another commentary to understand them further. But one thing we have to do is look up this weird word tak chit. How's it spelled?

Yeah. I think tak is this side of the head and chit means to cut, but I don't know. Let's look it up.

There's an ancient... There's a huge dictionary that we input. Tak chit.

Say sun jin. Sun jin. Dar nang.

Dar nang. Te. Te.

Len. Len. Chinjilokpa.

[Speaker 2]
Chinjilokpa.

[Speaker 1]
This is a huge dictionary. They locked up 15 geshes and made them work for like 12 years in Tibet. After Tibet was...

You know, they decided they needed a dictionary. So it's really weird. But they did a great dictionary.

It's been translated into English and they're fighting over the rights. So God knows when it will come out. But anyway, he says sun jin means refutation.

Dar nang means false. which is to say, te len cinci lopa, a wrong answer in a debate. So he says a wrong answer in a debate.

Two sources say wrong answer in a debate. Our guy quoted it as a correct reason. What are you going to do?

He misspelled dak ca completely. It's L-T-A-G. He spelled it R-T-A-G-S.

What are you going to do? Yeah, I don't know. He left out one, and he misspelled like two of them.

[Speaker 2]
Say again? His credibility is running low.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or the carvers, if you don't know. A lot of times they just memorized it, and they didn't have a computer to check it. Is la ta ta ta sound different from ra ta ta ta?

First column with a headliner. Does it sound different? No.

You're hearing it in a debate ground your whole life. You might be thinking the wrong word for your whole life. You see what I mean?

Until you see it written down somewhere. So it's really, these are what you're going to experience in translating. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I was asking what the name of the dictionary is.

[Speaker 1]
It's called the Great Dictionary. Tsing Tzu Chamo. Tsing Tzu Chamo.

Yeah, we typed it in. We supplied a copy to them, and they swiped it. And that's fine, because then they printed it.

And now it'll be available in Tibet. And they didn't credit us. They just swiped it.

But we do that kind of stuff for free, and we just let them swipe it, and then we don't do anything. And then it means more books will get out. So the common, what is it?

I'm not even going to say. Probably I'm online. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, we do stuff like that for free. I'm going to suggest one more thing. Where did we look for that stuff?

Tsum Bum Tengyur or Kangyur? Tsum Bum Tengyur. I've got to give you guys more jelly bellies.

Six minutes to go. Six minutes to go. We looked in the Tsum Bum.

Let's see. Let's keep looking for it. What was it?

Shelja and...

[Speaker 2]
Oops. Was it Tetsa? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Oops. There you go.

We're going to keep up this nearby thing. Let's see if there's a third authority among the Tibetans. That was our first authority.

What it means is the stuff we translate turns out more accurate than the original. Which is how we've been doing it for like ten years now. Because we can look it up in like 30,000 pages.

300,000 pages.

[Speaker 2]
It's like the big debate in Judaism where they amend the text. Because they think, again, it's a spoken word.

[Speaker 1]
They heard it that way.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, they heard it wrong. So they amend the text.

[Speaker 1]
I thought you weren't allowed to amend it.

[Speaker 2]
There's a big debate.

[Speaker 1]
I thought there were two rabbis there to say it.

[Speaker 2]
Then they put it in the margins.

[Speaker 1]
Then the margins get bigger and bigger.

[Speaker 2]
But there's a big debate about it. Some accept amendments and some don't. It seems like what you read in the first passage would mean that correct perception and logic considered were one.

[Speaker 1]
It would sound like that, but I don't think he's doing it that way. I think he joined a couple of them to make them more logical. But you're right.

That means refutation by the opponent could be considered one or two. We don't know. There's the second one we found.

Oh, here's our third one. This is interesting. Who is this?

This is, I think his name is Nong, is it Nong? Poundin. He's a great Tantric writer.

We're going to study his book in the third year. It's the Tantric Levels and Paths, which was taught at Vajrapani, I think, by... It's a great book.

He's Mongolian. So I kind of think he would be really... How do you say?

Yeah, a good source. So let's go. Let's see which ones he did.

Oh, look here. Toget Sigtun Chudug. The 16 Logical Statements are refuted by misspelled Shimon Lamtot.

Smash to find dust. So we're on the same wavelength here. Here's the 16.

Say my correct perception. I'll go. Watch the arrow.

Shelja, object considered. Tetsam, da. Gongba.

Whoa. You see what he's done? He's inserted a na in the word gupa, which means necessity, which is really weird.

Okay? I'm not even going to take that one. Pei times three.

We got three votes for Pei now. Sorry. Yeah, gongba's too weird.

Okay, where were we? So Pei now got... Where am I?

What happened here? Pei got three votes. Where are we?

Drupada Philosophical School. Yenlak Parts. Toge Logic.

Tenpen? Means to help someone in an ultimate way. God knows.

What is that in the play zone? That's supposed to be tenpap. Oh, I think it's a type.

Okay. Debate Logic. Jupa Statement.

Refutation, refutation. He doesn't even give the opponent one, so he considers them to get connected. Three votes for that.

Tensik means... Ooh, that's too bad. Yeah, he has correct logic for the false logic one.

And Sigtori has the same idea. Their words. Yeah, yeah, but...

Probably. Yeah. And then the other two are the same.

No, he gets takche. So that's three votes for takche. And termination.

Now we got like two minutes to decide what we're going to do. I'm going to keep... I'm going to see if there's one more guy that took a shot at this.

The problem is these guys might be all quoting each other.

[Speaker 2]
Do you look at their dates or something like that?

[Speaker 1]
Which is... This happens in English translations. Some guy makes a wrong translation, then everybody repeats it.

Like right now we're studying old manuscripts of the Yoga Sutra, which has been around forever, because we think everyone published since it was first published by a Western press has copied the last one. And it appears like they're all wrong. And everyone just copies what they saw in the book before.

You see what I mean? So that's a possibility. This is not a relevant one.

Oh, we're in Prajnaparamita. No, that's not it. These are...

Shall we use this one? That's the book we're in. Always beware.

Okay, we don't want that one. That's all the people who ever mentioned it in Tibet in a thousand years. That we've typed in.

So... Let's try Tengyur, and if we don't find it there, we'll take a vote. It sounds like it might come from India, right?

[Speaker 2]
But...

[Speaker 1]
Hang on. This is not it. Yeah, this is not it.

Sorry? Oh, how do you...

[Speaker 2]
South Pacific.

[Speaker 1]
Ah. You know what this is up here? A commentary from the Tengyur on the crushing to find us.

Written before any Tibetan ever lived. So we'll go with that one. Right?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so Pei wins.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so let's see who wins here. Yeah, there we go. I'm just going to point them out to you.

Where was it? Correct perception. Shelja, object considered.

Tetsam, doubt. Necessity and not gongba. Okay, like the last guy said.

Is necessity. Pei is confirmed, okay? Confirmed.

Drupada spills off the school. Parts is parts. Logic is logic.

Establish is established. Sorry. Where were we?

Tsepa is debate. Jepa is statement. Sunchimba is refutation.

Ah. To oppose and thereby defeat. So these do go together.

Confirmed.

[Speaker 2]
Let me check that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's confirmed. By the opponent. Yeah, no, it's by the opponent.

It's to oppose and refute. To oppose and therefore refute, okay? Well, that's a long story.

You've got to go back and try to figure that out. You can read this debate if you like.

[Speaker 2]
And... Is it to present your argument and then the other thing?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Tensikdharanam is false logic. Ciktorwa and not ngorwa.

They're words. Takca is confirmed.

[Speaker 2]
Takca means?

[Speaker 1]
What did we say? Wasn't it... Oh, it was false refutation.

Specifically false refutation. And... What was the last thing?

Sarcepe Nenam. Yeah. Okay.

Now, you can go on for this a couple of weeks. Or you can finish your translation. You know, you've got to decide when it's just not worth it to beat it anymore.

He doesn't say anything else about it. Well, now we have enough to at least say what the quotation used to be. Is this the...

Say again? Well, he left this one out completely.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And these two we decided to connect. And this one he misspelled so bad that it wasn't even close. Okay.

So, how do you deal with that? Do you translate it the way he had it and then put a footnote or something? You see?

Or do you clean up his work for him? And can you be absolutely sure that he didn't have access to an earlier Sanskrit translation that might be more correct? You see?

You see what I mean? So, I guess what I would do... I would go ahead and translate it the way he has it.

And then I'd put a footnote that says, this is probably wrong. And here's what it says in the Tengyur. You know what I mean?

Yeah, otherwise you get into real... We've got to be like that. Rinpoche has this rule.

When you see a miscarving, you put a red X under it. In pencil. You know?

Because ten years later you might find out that it's correct. You see what I mean? And you don't correct...

You put sick. Right? S-I-C.

And then... Because we can't be so... Have such...

What do you call it? Hubris? Yeah, like we can't say they were wrong.

We don't know. Looks like. Right?

But... And it's oftentimes it's just bad carving. And in my lifetime I've seen carving...

I've seen them ruin texts with carving. Well, this one got left out. This one.

Is L-T-A-G. As far as which ones are wrong. Oh, it's one word.

He should have had L-T-A-G. Here. And then something like that.

Right. Yeah. But it...

Since he was trying to make meter, he left it out. So that's legal. It's like saying...

Instead of saying S-E-R-M-A, you say S-E-R-M-A.

[Speaker 2]
Like that. Sorry?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he added a suffix letter too. Yeah, it's misspelled on two counts. This one here?

Oh, down here? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I think we better stop there. Chrissy said I could run over a little bit.

And she's going to go later. And I'm sorry to spend so much time on that. But...

You learned them, right? Now, go home and think about... You know, it'd be fun if we had time.

And we don't have time. We're already into a commentary. We're not even doing our main text.

It'd be fun to... You know, that third author was getting into what they really meant. Why they were fighting against the Madhyamikans with these 16 terms.

And... We didn't get much further on that. Yeah?

What it looks like from the third commentator is that historically someone came up to the Madhyamikans and said you're wrong on 16 counts. You know? There's...

You break logical rules on 16 counts. And then somehow there's a logical flow through these 16. You know?

We got the one on the first two, right? I can see the cop. There does exist a correct perception and an object.

So how can you say it's not real? And do you agree... Would a Madhyamikan say it is being perceived by a correct perception?

Well, you can say valid. It's okay. Valid.

Valid is better. Good. Nice point.

The answer is a little tricky. In a debetkan you'd probably end up somewhere like it's valid that I'm perceiving a cop. My feeling about it is invalid.

You see what I mean? Like, am I having... Somebody comes up to you and says are you having a pramana?

A correct perception towards the cop? So are you referring to whether I see a cop? Are you referring to how I feel that the cop exists?

You see? In the second sense, a non-arya has never had a correct perception in their life or billions of lifetimes. Not one correct perception.

And there's an... They say that when you see emptiness directly you have the first correct perception in your billions, endless of lifetimes. That's the first correct perception you've ever had.

So that's kind of frightening. You get the point though. It's kind of cool.

Am I seeing a cop? Yes. Am I seeing a cop that comes from its own side?

No. So am I having a term towards the cop? Well, then it doesn't say in the text that you never had a correct perception.

You see, that's how you go in the debetkan. But we could go all night. Okay.

We'll stop there. But that's a little bit of... What do they call it in Christianity?

Exegesis. Exegesis. That's what it takes to do a text correctly.

And that's why it takes ten years sometimes to come out with a translation. Because if you check everything, then it will take ten years. Okay, anyway.

Anybody else? Satsang with Mooji Satsang with Mooji Okay, thanks. I'm sorry if it seems tiring to you, but also for me it's very exciting because it's the concept of making the text more pure than it was when it got there.

Is that Boy Scout thing of leaving a campsite cleaner than when you got there? Yeah. And that's exciting to me that we could actually not only...

What do you call it? Preserve the tradition, but improve it. You see?

Because normally it gets more corrupt every generation, but we could actually make it more clean or more accurate as we go. So that's very exciting to me.

[Speaker 2]
So you have two princes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and it'll get worse. There's lots of two princes running around. There's even a lot of Pak Yabses.

There's a lot of Yabses running around.

[Speaker 2]
Father and son.

[Speaker 1]
I'd probably put a footnote. I think we did put a footnote, no? Yeah.

Yeah, on each time. It was Maudgalyayana in Sariputra and it was Gyaltsabje in Kiribje. It'll come.