|

Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate

1 Leave a comment on block 1 0

 

 

 

Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate

A Primer on the Topics of Buddhist Logic

as Presented by the Indian Master, Dharmakirti

 

written by Ngawang Tashi, of the Clan of Sey (1678-1738)

 

translated by Adam Andrade

with Geshe Michael Roach

 

Copyright © 2018 individually by Adam Andrade & Geshe Michael Roach.

All rights reserved.

 

 

Sections may be reproduced with the authors’ permission.  Please contact:

adam.derick.andrade@gmail.com

 

 

 

Volume 76 of the Diamond Cutter Classics Series

 

Diamond Cutter Press

6490 Arizona Route 179A

Sedona, Arizona 86351

USA

 


 

 

Table of Contents

 

Translation of Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate…………………………. 8

 

 

  1. Colors, Red & White……………………………………………………………. 9

 

1) Refuting Claims on the Subject of Physical Form,

Beginning with: Red & White…………………………………………………………….. 10

 

2) White & Red………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

 

3) Colors & the Four Primary Colors……………………………………………………… 19

 

4) Colors & the Eight Secondary Colors…………………………………………………. 22

 

5) Color & Form…………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

 

6) Form & the Door of Sense of Form…………………………………………………….. 29

 

7) Our Own Position on Physical Form…………………………………………………. 34

 

8) Refuting Rebuttal on Physical Form,

Beginning with:

Elements vs. Products of the Elements…………………………………………. 50

 

9) White & White Horses……………………………………………………………………….. 53

 

10) Reality’s Not Flat……………………………………………………………………………… 56

 

 

  1. Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t………………………………………………. 60

 

1) Refuting Claims on the Subject of

Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t, beginning with:

Seeing Things Exist vs. Seeing They Do Something……………………………. 61

 

2) Things That Do Nothing vs. Things That Never Change…………………….. 64

 

3) Unmade Perceptions vs. Perceptions of the Unmade…………………………… 68

 

4) Non-Existent Perceptions vs. Perceptions of Non-Existence………………… 72

 

5) Perceptions of Perceptions that Things are Unchanging……………………… 75

 

6) Our Own Position on Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t…………………………….. 84

 

7) Refuting Rebuttal on Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t;

Beginning with:

Changing Perceptions of Unchanging Things………………………………… 91

 

8) Reality is Not a Working Thing…………………………………………………………… 93

 

 

III. The Opposite of What Is, and Is Not……………………………………. 95

 

1) Refuting Claims on the Subject of The Opposite of What Is,

And Is Not; beginning with: Nothing is Both Matter and Aware……. 96

 

2) Something Can Be the Opposite of All which is not Physical Form,

and Still not be the Opposite of All which is not a Coffee Cup……….. 99

 

3) A Smell Can also be the Opposite of All which is

Not Physical Form, and still not be the Opposite of All

Which is Not a Coffee Cup……………………………………………………………. 102

 

4) Being the Opposite of All which is the Opposite of All

Which is a Working Thing Doesn’t Make Something

The Opposite of All Which is a Working Thing……………………………. 105

 

5) Changing Sound: A Working Thing, but not Physical……………………….. 109

 

6) Existence: Something that Exists, without Performing a Function……… 113

 

7) To be Unmade isn’t to Not Exist………………………………………………………… 119

 

8) Unchanging, Empty Space: Not the Opposite of Everything

Which is Not the Opposite of Everything which is an

Unchanging Thing………………………………………………………………………… 123

 

9) Knowing What is Unchanging Doesn’t Have to Be Unchanging……….. 128

 

10) If the Individual has No Nature of Their Own, then Things

Which are not Unchanging Exist with Coffee Cups………………………. 129

 

11) Something Can Be the Opposite of All which is Not the

Opposite of All which is Not a Working Thing, and still

Not be the Opposite of All Which is Not a Working Thing

Which is the Opposite of All which is Not a Working Thing………… 133

 

12) Our Own Position on the Opposite of What Is, and Is Not………………. 136

 

 

  1. Identifying Reverses of All That Are Not…………………………… 138

 

1) Refuting Claims on the Subject of Identifying Reverses of

All That are Not, beginning with: The Foundation Form

of the Reverse of All That is Not a Thing Need Not be

the Reverse of All That is Not a Thing………………………………………….. 139

 

2) Definitions are Different than Working Things………………………………….. 141

 

3) To Be One and the Same is Not to Be…………………………………………………. 144

 

4) Things which Are One and the Same as Something Never Change…… 149

 

5) The Reverse of All which is Not a Coffee Cup

Is Not the Coffee Cup…………………………………………………………………… 151

 

6) A Coffee Cup is also the Reverse of Everything that is Different

From a Coffee Cup……………………………………………………………………….. 154

 

7) You Can’t be Different if You Don’t Exist………………………………………….. 157

 

8) You Can’t be the Reverse of All Which is Not

Something, if You Don’t Exist………………………………………………………. 161

 

9) Our Own Position on Identifying Reverses of All That Are Not………… 162

 

 

  1. Oneness & Separateness…………………………………………………… 164

 

1) Refuting Claims Made on the Subject of  Oneness & Separateness,

beginning with: One Thing Can be Another without Being It………. 165

 

2) Just Because One Thing is Always Another Thing

Doesn’t Mean They’re Substantially So………………………………………… 168

 

3) Things Can Be Other Things, Substantially, without

Being a Single Substance………………………………………………………………. 172

 

4) Things Can Be Automatic, without Being Autonomous…………………….. 174

 

5) Things Can Be the Same Kind, without Being the Same…………………….. 176

 

6) Things Can Be of the Same, and of Different, Kinds………………………….. 179

 

7) Things Can Be of the Same Kind, and Not Be Positive Entities………….. 182

 

8) Things that Belong to a Single Unit are Not

Necessarily Each Other…………………………………………………………………. 187

 

9) Two Things can Be of the Same Substance, and Not

Be Each Other, Substantially…………………………………………………………. 190

 

10) Our Own Position on Oneness & Separateness………………………………… 194

 

 

Appendices………………………………………………………………………….. @

 

Comparative List of Names of Divine Beings & Places…………………………….. @

 

Bibliography of Works Originally Written in Sanskrit……………………………… @

 

Bibliography of Works Originally Written in Tibetan………………………………. @

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate

 
[1]

[folio 1a] TSAD MA’I DGONGS ‘GREL GYI BSTAN BCOS CHEN PO RNAM ‘GREL GYI DON GCIG TU DRIL BA BLO RAB ‘BRING THA MA GSUM DU STON PA LEGS BSHAD CHEN PO MKHAS PA’I MGUL BRGYAN SKAL BZANG RE BA KUN SKONG ZHES BYA BA BZHUGS SO,,

 

Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate: A Necklace for the Wise, a Great Explanation which is Designed for All Three Types of People—those of Highest, Medium, and Lesser Capacity; and which Wraps into it the Meaning of the “Commentary on Correct Perception,” that Great Classical Work which itself Comments on the True Intent of the Teachings on Correct Perception

 

 

2 Leave a comment on block 2 0

[2]

[f. 1b] BLA MA DANG MGON PO ‘JAM PA’I DBYANGS LA PHYAG ‘TSAL LO,,

 

I bow down to my Lama and Protector, Gentle Voice.[1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.

Colors,

Red & White

 

1

Refuting Claims

on the Subject of Physical Form,

beginning with:

Red & White

 

 

 

3 Leave a comment on block 3 0

[3]

KHA CIG NA RE, KHA DOG YIN NA DMAR PO YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is a color, it is always red.[2]

 

 

4 Leave a comment on block 4 0

[4]

CHOS DUNG DKAR PO’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO YIN PAR THAL, KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the color of a white seashell.[3]

 

So, I suppose it’s red?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a color.

 

 

5 Leave a comment on block 5 0

[5]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a color doesn’t mean it has to be red!

 

But you already agreed that it did have to be.

 

 

6 Leave a comment on block 6 0

[6]

MA GRUB NA, CHOS DUNG DKAR PO’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, DKAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

In that case, I disagree that the color of a white seashell is a color.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider once more the color of a white seashell.  It is too a color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s white!

 

 

7 Leave a comment on block 7 0

[7]

MA GRUB NA, CHOS DUNG DKAR PO’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DKAR PO YIN PAR THAL, CHOS DUNG DKAR PO’I KHA DOG DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that it’s white.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider the color of a white seashell.

 

It is too white!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s identical to the color of a white seashell!

 

 

8 Leave a comment on block 8 0

[8]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, CHOS DUNG DKAR PO’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, DKAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: It is red.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider the color of a white seashell.

 

No it’s not red!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s white!

 

 

9 Leave a comment on block 9 0

[9]

MA KHYAB NA, KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DKAR PO DANG DMAR PO GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something’s white, doesn’t mean it can’t be red!

 

Suppose you say that it’s not necessarily the case.  And yet it is necessarily so, because it is impossible for one thing to be entirely white and entirely red, at the same time.

 

 

10 Leave a comment on block 10 0

[10]

MA GRUB NA, DKAR PO DANG DMAR PO GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED [f. 2a] PAR THAL, DKAR PO DANG DMAR PO GNYIS ‘GAL BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that it is impossible for one thing to be entirely white and entirely red.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  It is too impossible for one thing to be entirely white and entirely red at the same time.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because being entirely white and being entirely red are two contradictory things.

 

 

11 Leave a comment on block 11 0

[11]

GZHAN YANG, SANGS RGYAS RIN CHEN ‘BYUNG LDAN GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO YIN PAR THAL, KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Let’s consider the color of the Buddha named Ratnakara: the Source of Jewels.[4]

 

So, I suppose it’s red?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a color!

 

 

12 Leave a comment on block 12 0

[12]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a color, doesn’t mean it has to be red.

 

But you already agreed that it did have to be.

 

 

13 Leave a comment on block 13 0

[13]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS RIN CHEN ‘BYUNG LDAN GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN,

KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, SER PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the color of the Buddha named “Source of Jewels” is a color.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the color of Source of Jewels.

 

It is too a color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s yellow!

 

 

14 Leave a comment on block 14 0

[14]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS RIN CHEN ‘BYUNG LDAN GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, SER PO YIN PAR THAL, SANGS RGYAS RIN CHEN ‘BYUNG LDAN GYI KHA DOG DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the color of this Buddha is yellow.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider once again the color of Source of Jewels.  It is too yellow!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s identical to the color of the Buddha named Source of Jewels!

 

 

15 Leave a comment on block 15 0

[15]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SANGS RGYAS RIN CHEN ‘BYUNG LDAN GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, SER PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: the color of this Buddha is red.

 

Now suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Let’s consider the color of Source of Jewels.  No it’s not red!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s yellow!

 

 

16 Leave a comment on block 16 0

[16]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DMAR PO DANG SER PO GNYIS ‘GAL BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something’s yellow doesn’t mean it can’t be red!

 

Now suppose you say that it doesn’t necessarily follow.  And yet it does, because it’s contradictory for something to be entirely red and entirely yellow at the same time.

 

 

 

 

2

White & Red

 

 

17 Leave a comment on block 17 0

[17]

KHA CIG NA RE, KHA DOG YIN NA DKAR PO YIN PAS KHYAB ZER [f. 2b] NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is a color, it is always white.

 

 

18 Leave a comment on block 18 0

[18]

SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DKAR PO YIN PAR THAL, KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Consider the color of the Buddha named Amitayus, or Limitless Life.

 

So, I suppose it’s white?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a color.

 

 

19 Leave a comment on block 19 0

[19]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a color, doesn’t mean it has to be white!

 

But you already agreed that it did have to be white!

 

 

20 Leave a comment on block 20 0

[20]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, DMAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree that the color of Limitless Life is a color.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider again the color of the Buddha named Limitless Life.

 

It is too a color.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is red!

 

 

21 Leave a comment on block 21 0

[21]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DKAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, DMAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: The color of Limitless Life is white.

 

Now suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Let’s consider the color of Limitless Life.  No it’s not white!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s red!

 

 

22 Leave a comment on block 22 0

[22]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO YIN PAR THAL, SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG GI LDOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the color of this Buddha is red.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Consider once again the color of the Buddha, Limitless Life.

 

It is too red!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the reverse of all that is not the color of Limitless Life![5]

 

 

23 Leave a comment on block 23 0

[23]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS TSE DPAG MED KYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, KHYOD KHYOD KYI LDOG PA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the color of this Buddha is the reverse of the reverse of their color.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Consider once more the color of the Buddha named Limitless Life.  It is too the reverse of its reverse.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is an example of reality.

 

 

24 Leave a comment on block 24 0

[24]

GZHAN YANG, SANGS RGYAS DON YOD GRUB PA’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DKAR PO YIN PAR THAL, KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Consider the color of the Buddha named Amogha Siddhi, or Accomplishment.

 

So, I suppose it’s white?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a color.

 

 

25 Leave a comment on block 25 0

[25]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a color doesn’t mean it has to be white!

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

26 Leave a comment on block 26 0

[26]

MA GRUB NA, SANGS RGYAS DON YOD GRUB PA’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, LJANG GU YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the color of this Buddha is a color.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Consider the color of the Buddha named Accomplishment.  It is too a color.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is green.

 

 

27 Leave a comment on block 27 0

[27]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SANGS RGYAS DON YOD GRUB PA’I KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DKAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, SANGS RGYAS DON YOD GRUB PA’I KHA DOG DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: The color of this Buddha is white.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then consider once again the color of this particular Buddha.

 

It is not white!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is identical with the color of the Buddha named Accomplishment!

 

 

 

 

3

Colors & the Four Primary Colors

 

 

28 Leave a comment on block 28 0

[28]

KHA CIG NA RE, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG YIN NA, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is a primary color, then it is always one of the four primary colors.

 

 

29 Leave a comment on block 29 0

[29]

NAG PO CHOS CAN, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Consider black.

 

So, is it then one of the four primary colors?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a primary color.

 

 

30 Leave a comment on block 30 0

[30]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a primary color, doesn’t mean that it has to be one of the four primary colors.

 

But you already agreed that it does.

 

31 Leave a comment on block 31 0

[31]

MA GRUB NA, NAG PO CHOS CAN, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, NAG PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that black is a primary color.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet black is a primary color.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is black!

 

 

32 Leave a comment on block 32 0

[32]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, NAG PO CHOS CAN, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO GANG RUNG MA YIN PAR THAL, DKAR PO MA YIN PA GANG ZHIG, SER PO YANG MA YIN, DMAR PO YANG MA YIN, SNGON PO YANG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: Black is one of the four primary colors.

 

Suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Consider black; it is not one of the four primary colors.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is neither white; nor yellow, red, or blue.

 

 

33 Leave a comment on block 33 0

[33]

RTAGS DANG PO MA GRUB NA, NAG PO CHOS CAN, DKAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, NAG PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree to the first part of your reason: It’s not true that black is not white.

 

Suppose you do disagree to the first part of our reason.  Consider black.  It is not white.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is black!

 

 

34 Leave a comment on block 34 0

[34]

MA KHYAB [f. 3a] NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DKAR PO DANG NAG PO GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is black doesn’t mean that it can’t be white.

 

And yet it does mean that; because there is no one thing which is entirely white and entirely black, at the same time!

 

 

35 Leave a comment on block 35 0

[35]

RTAGS GNYIS PA MA GRUB NA, NAG PO CHOS CAN, SER PO MA YIN PAR THAL, NAG PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree with the second part of your reason: It’s not true that black is not yellow.

 

If you do disagree with this second part, then consider black once again.

 

It is not yellow.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is black!

 

 

36 Leave a comment on block 36 0

[36]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, SER PO DANG NAG PO GNYIS ‘GAL BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is black doesn’t mean it can’t be yellow!

 

It does too mean that!  Because these two—being entirely yellow and being entirely black—are two contradictory things!

 

 

37 Leave a comment on block 37 0

[37]

RTAGS PHYI MA GNYIS LA RIGS ‘DRA,

 

And the logic for each of the last two parts of the reason we gave is the same.

 

 

 

 

4

Colors & the Eight Secondary Colors

 

 

38 Leave a comment on block 38 0

[38]

KHA CIG NA RE, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN NA, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG BRGYAD PO GANG RUNG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is a secondary color, it must be one of the eight secondary colors.

 

 

39 Leave a comment on block 39 0

[39]

‘JAM DBYANGS DMAR SER GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG BRGYAD PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Consider the russet-gold color of Manjushri: Gentle Voice.

 

So, is it one of the eight secondary colors?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a secondary color.

 

 

40 Leave a comment on block 40 0

[40]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a secondary color, doesn’t mean that it’s one of the eight secondary colors.

 

But you just agreed that it does mean that.

 

 

41 Leave a comment on block 41 0

[41]

MA GRUB NA, ‘JAM DBYANGS DMAR SER GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, DMAR PO DANG SER PO GNYIS KYI YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the russet-gold color of Gentle Voice is a secondary color.

 

If you do disagree, then consider again the russet-gold color of Gentle Voice.  It is so a secondary color.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the secondary color you get when you mix red and gold.

 

 

42 Leave a comment on block 42 0

[42]

MA GRUB NA, ‘JAM DBYANGS DMAR SER GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, DMAR PO DANG SER PO GNYIS KYI YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, DMAR SER YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that that russet gold is the color you get when you mix red and gold.

 

If you do disagree, then consider once more this russet-gold color.

 

It is too the secondary color you get when you mix red and gold.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is russet gold!

 

 

43 Leave a comment on block 43 0

[43]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, ‘JAM DBYANGS DMAR SER GYI KHA DOG CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG BRGYAD PO GANG RUNG MA YIN PAR THAL, SPRIN DANG DU BA, RDUL DANG KHUG SNA BZHI PO GANG RUNG MA YIN PA GANG ZHIG, SNANG BA DANG MUN PA, GRIB MA DANG NYI MA’I ‘OD ZER BZHI PO GANG RUNG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Russet gold is one of the eight secondary colors.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then consider again the russet-gold color of Gentle Voice.

 

It is not one of the eight secondary colors.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is none of the four of cloud or smoke, dust storm or fog; neither is it one of the four of illumination or darkness, shadow or sunlight.

 

 

44 Leave a comment on block 44 0

[44]

RTAGS RE RE NAS GRUB STE, ‘JAM DBYANGS DMAR SER GYI KHA DOG DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Each of the reasons given is correct, because the russet-gold color of Gentle Voice is identical to the russet-gold color of Gentle Voice.

 

 

45 Leave a comment on block 45 0

[45]

GZHAN YANG, LJANG GU CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG BRGYAD PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Let’s consider green.  So, is it one of the eight secondary colors?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a secondary color.

 

 

46 Leave a comment on block 46 0

[46]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a secondary color, doesn’t mean that it’s one of the eight secondary colors.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

47 Leave a comment on block 47 0

[47]

MA GRUB NA, LJANG GU CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, NAG PO DANG SER PO GNYIS KYI YAN LAG GI KHA [f. 3b] DOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that green is a secondary color.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet green is a secondary color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the secondary color that you get when you mix black and yellow.

 

 

48 Leave a comment on block 48 0

[48]

MA GRUB NA, LJANG GU CHOS CAN, NAG PO DANG SER PO GNYIS KYI YAN LAG GI KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, LJANG GU YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that green is the secondary color you get when you mix black and yellow.

 

If you do disagree, then again consider green.  It is too the secondary color you get when you mix black and yellow.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s green!

 

 

49 Leave a comment on block 49 0

[49]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, LJANG GU CHOS CAN, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG BRGYAD PO GANG RUNG MA YIN PAR THAL, LJANG GU DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Green is one of the eight secondary colors.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider green one more time.  It is not one of the eight secondary colors!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is identical to green!

 

 

 

5

Color & Form

 

50 Leave a comment on block 50 0

[50]

KHA CIG NA RE, GZUGS YIN NA, KHA DOG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is form, it must necessarily be a color.[6]

 

 

51 Leave a comment on block 51 0

[51]

TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the smell of sandalwood.

 

So, are you saying it’s a color?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a form.

 

 

52 Leave a comment on block 52 0

[52]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a form, doesn’t mean it’s a color!

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

53 Leave a comment on block 53 0

[53]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the smell of sandalwood is a form.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Let’s consider again the smell of sandalwood.  It is too a form!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is something you can point to as being a form.

 

 

54 Leave a comment on block 54 0

[54]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, GZUGS RUNG GZUGS KYI MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a thing you can point to as being a form, doesn’t mean it’s a form!

 

Yes it does, because “Something you can point to as being a form” is in fact the definition of a form.

 

 

55 Leave a comment on block 55 0

[55]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, KHA DOG MA YIN PAR THAL, DRI YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: The smell of sandalwood is a color.

 

If you do agree to our original statement, then consider again the smell of sandalwood.  No it’s not a color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a smell!

 

 

56 Leave a comment on block 56 0

[56]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DRI DANG KHA DOG GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a smell doesn’t mean that it can’t be a color.

 

And yet it does mean that, because there is no one thing which is both a smell and a color at the same time.

 

 

57 Leave a comment on block 57 0

[57]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, DER THAL, DRI DANG KHA DOG GNYIS ‘GAL BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that there is no one thing which is both a smell and a color at the same time.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  It is so true that it cannot be a smell and a color at the same time!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because being a smell and being a color are contradictory to one another.

 

 

 

 

6

Form & the Door of Sense of Form

 

 

58 Leave a comment on block 58 0

[58]

KHA CIG NA RE, GZUGS YIN NA, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is form, it must be the door of sense of form.

 

 

59 Leave a comment on block 59 0

[59]

SGRA CHO CHAN, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider sound.

 

So, is it the door of sense of form?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is form.

 

 

60 Leave a comment on block 60 0

[60]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is form, doesn’t mean that it is the door of sense of form.

 

But you just agreed that this is the case!

 

 

61 Leave a comment on block 61 0

[61]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, BEM PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is form.

 

Consider, once again, sound.  It is too form.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is matter.

 

 

62 Leave a comment on block 62 0

[62]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, BEM PO YIN PAR THAL, RDUL DU GRUB PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is matter.

 

If you do disagree, then consider sound.  It is too matter.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is something made of tiny physical particles.

 

 

63 Leave a comment on block 63 0

[63]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, RDUL DU GRUB PA BEM PO’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is made of tiny physical particles, doesn’t mean it’s matter.

 

But it does mean that, because “something made of tiny physical particles” is in fact the definition of matter.

 

 

64 Leave a comment on block 64 0

[64]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED MA YIN PAR THAL, MIG SHES KYI BZUNG BYA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: Sound is the door of sense of form.

 

Suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Let’s again take sound.  It is not the door of sense of form.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye.

 

 

65 Leave a comment on block 65 0

[65]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, MIG SHES KYI BZUNG BYA MA YIN PAR THAL, RNA SHES KYI MNYAN BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is not that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye.

 

If you do disagree, then consider sound once again.  It is not that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is that object which is heard by the consciousness of the ear.

 

 

66 Leave a comment on block 66 0

[66]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, RNA SHES KYI MNYAN BYA YIN PAR THAL, SGRA’I SKYE MCHED YIN [f. 4a] PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is that object which is heard by the consciousness of the ear.

 

Let’s consider, once more, sound.  It is so that object which is heard by the consciousness of the ear.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the door of sense of sound.

 

 

67 Leave a comment on block 67 0

[67]

GZHAN YANG, BU RAM GYI RO CHOS CAN, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Consider the taste of brown sugar.

 

So, is it the door of sense of form?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is form.

 

 

68 Leave a comment on block 68 0

[68]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is form, doesn’t mean that it’s the door of sense of form.

 

But you just agreed that it did.

 

 

69 Leave a comment on block 69 0

[69]

MA GRUB NA, BU RAM GYI RO CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, RO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the taste of brown sugar is form.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Let’s consider again the taste of brown sugar.  It is too form.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a taste.

 

 

70 Leave a comment on block 70 0

[70]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, GZUGS SGRA DRI RO REG BYA LNGA PO GANG RUNG YIN NA, GZUGS YIN DGOS PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a taste, doesn’t mean that it’s form.

 

But it does mean that it’s form.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because if something is any one of the five—form, sound, smell, taste, or tangible—then it is form.

 

 

71 Leave a comment on block 71 0

[71]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BU RAM GYI RO CHOS CAN, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED MA YIN PAR THAL, MIG SHES KYI BZUNG BYA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: The taste of brown sugar is the door of sense of form.

 

Suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Consider again the taste of brown sugar.  It is not the door of sense of form.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye.

 

 

72 Leave a comment on block 72 0

[72]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, MIG SHES KYI BZUNG BYA GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something isn’t the object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye, doesn’t mean that it can’t be the door of sense of form.

 

And yet it does mean that, because “that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye” is in fact the definition of the door of sense of form!

 

 

 

 

7

Our Own Position

on Physical Form

 

 

73 Leave a comment on block 73 0

[73]

` ,RANG GI LUGS LA, GZUGS KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, GZUGS RUNG DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is where we present the position of our own school.

 

There does exist a definition for form, because “anything which you can point to as being form” is that definition.

 

 

74 Leave a comment on block 74 0

[74]

GZUGS DANG BEM PO GNYIS DON GCIG, GZUGS LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, PHYI’I GZUGS DANG NANG GI GZUGS GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

“Form” and “matter” are synonyms.  Form can be divided into two types: outer form and inner form.

 

 

75 Leave a comment on block 75 0

[75]

PHYI’I GZUGS KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SKYE BO’I SHES RGYUD KYIS MA BSDUS PA’I GZUGS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There does exist a definition of “outer form,” because “that form which is not subsumed by the mindstream of a living being” is that definition.[7]

 

 

76 Leave a comment on block 76 0

[76]

PHYI’I GZUGS LA DBYE NA LNGA YOD DE, GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED DANG, SGRA’I SKYE MCHED DANG, DRI’I SKYE MCHED DANG, RO’I SKYE MCHED DANG, REG BYA’I SKYE MCHED DANG LNGA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Outer form may be divided into five different types: the door of sense of form; the door of sense of sound; the door of sense of smell; the door of sense of taste; and the door of sense of tangibles.

 

 

77 Leave a comment on block 77 0

[77]

GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, MIG SHES KYI BZUNG BYA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the door of sense of form, because “that object which is perceived by the consciousness of the eye” is that definition.

 

 

78 Leave a comment on block 78 0

[78]

GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, DBYIBS DANG KHA DOG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The door of sense of form may be divided into two parts: shapes and colors.

 

 

79 Leave a comment on block 79 0

[79]

DBYIBS LA DBYE NA BRGYAD YOD DE, RING PO DANG THUNG BA, MTHO BA DANG DMA’ BA, LHAM PA DANG ZLUM PO, ,PHYA LE BA DANG PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA DANG BCAS PA BRGYAD YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Shapes may be divided into eight different types: long and short; high and low; angular and rounded; and flat or not flat.

 

 

80 Leave a comment on block 80 0

[80]

LHAM PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, GRU BZHI LTA BU’I DBYIBS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

An example of something which is angular can be posited, for something like the shape of a rectangle would be such an example.

 

 

81 Leave a comment on block 81 0

[81]

ZLUM PO BZHAG TU YOD DE, GOR GOR RAM [f. 4b] SGO NGA LTA BU’I DBYIBS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

An example of something which is rounded can be posited, for something like the shape of a circle, or the outline of an egg, would be such an example.

 

 

82 Leave a comment on block 82 0

[82]

PHYA LE BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, NGOS MNYAM PA’I DBYIBS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

An example of something which is flat can be posited, for the shape of an even surface would be such an example.

 

 

83 Leave a comment on block 83 0

[83]

PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, NGOS MI MNYAM PA’I DBYIBS LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

An example of something which is not flat can be posited, for the shape of an uneven surface would be such an example.

 

 

84 Leave a comment on block 84 0

[84]

KHA DOG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG DANG, YAN LAG GI KHA DOG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Color may be divided into two types: primary colors and secondary colors.

 

 

85 Leave a comment on block 85 0

[85]

RTZA BA’I KHA DOG LA DBYE NA BZHI YOD DE, DKAR PO DANG SER PO DANG DMAR PO DANG SNGON PO BZHI YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Primary colors may be divided into four: white, yellow, red, and blue.

 

 

86 Leave a comment on block 86 0

[86]

YAN LAG GI KHA DOG LA DBYE NA BRGYAD YOD DE, SPRIN DANG DU BA, RDUL DANG KHUG SNA, SNANG BA DANG MUN PA, GRIB MA DANG NYI MA’I ‘OD ZER BRGYAD YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Secondary colors may be divided into eight: cloud and smoke; dust storm and fog; illumination and darkness; shadow and sunlight.

 

 

87 Leave a comment on block 87 0

[87]

KHA DOG DANG DBYIBS GNYIS KA YIN MIN GYI MU BZHI YOD DE, KHA DOG YIN LA DBYIBS MA YIN PA’I MU DANG, DBYIBS YIN LA KHA DOG MA YIN PA’I MU DANG, KHA DOG DANG DBYIBS GNYIS KA YIN PA’I MU DANG, DBYIBS DANG KHA DOG GNYIS KA GANG YANG MA YIN PA’I MU BZHI YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

There are four permutations of color and shape: (1) things which are colors but not shapes; (2) things which are shapes but not colors; (3) things which are both colors and shapes; and (4) things which are neither colors nor shapes.

 

 

88 Leave a comment on block 88 0

[88]

KHA DOG YIN LA DBYIBS MA YIN PA’I MU YOD DE, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There do exist examples of the permutation where something is a color, but not a shape, for the four primary colors are just such examples.

 

 

89 Leave a comment on block 89 0

[89]

DBYIBS YIN LA KHA DOG MA YIN PA’I MU YOD DE, RING PO DANG THUNG NGU, LHAM PA DANG ZLUM PO BZHI PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There do exist examples of the permutation where something is a shape, but not a color, for the four of long and short, and angular and rounded, are just such examples.

 

 

90 Leave a comment on block 90 0

[90]

KHA DOG DANG DBYIBS GNYIS KA YIN PA’I MU YOD DE, SPRIN DANG DU BA, RDUL DANG KHUG SNA BZHI PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There do exist examples of the permutation where something is both a color and a shape, for the four of cloud and smoke, and dust storm and fog, are just such examples.

 

 

91 Leave a comment on block 91 0

[91]

DBYIBS DANG KHA DOG GNYIS KA GANG YANG MA YIN PA’I MU YOD DE, SA CHU ME RLUNG BZHI PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There do exist examples of the permutation where something is neither a shape nor a color, for the four of earth, water, fire, and wind are just such examples.[8]

 

 

92 Leave a comment on block 92 0

[92]

GZUGS KYI SKYE MCHED DANG, GZUGS KYI KHAMS DANG, BSTAN YOD KYI GZUGS GSUM DON GCIG,

 

“Sense door of form”; “category of form”; and “something we can point to as being form” are all synonyms.

 

 

93 Leave a comment on block 93 0

[93]

BSTAN YOD KYI GZUGS KYI MTSAN GZHI YOD DE, KHA DOG DANG DBYIBS GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There do exist classical examples of something which we can point to as being form, for the two of colors and shapes are just such examples.

 

 

94 Leave a comment on block 94 0

[94]

KHA DOG DANG DBYIBS GNYIS CHOS CAN, KHYOD LA BSTAN YOD KYI GZUGS ZHES BRJOD PA’I RGYU MTSAN YOD DE, MIG GI YUL [f. 5a] DU BSTAN DU YOD PAS NA, DE LTAR DU BRJOD PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Consider the two of colors and shapes.  There is a reason why we refer to them as “something we can point to as being form”: they are so called because they can be pointed to as being objects of the power of the eye.

 

 

95 Leave a comment on block 95 0

[95]

SGRA’I SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RNA SHES KYI MNYAN BYA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the door of sense of sound, because “that object which is heard by the consciousness of the ear” is that definition.

 

 

96 Leave a comment on block 96 0

[96]

SGRA LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, ZIN PA’I ‘BYUNG BA LAS GYUR PA’I SGRA DANG, MA ZIN PA’I ‘BYUNG BA LAS GYUR PA’I SGRA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Sound can be divided into two types: sound produced by elements which are part of a person; and sound produced by elements which are not part of a person.

 

 

97 Leave a comment on block 97 0

[97]

ZIN PA’I ‘BYUNG BA LAS GYUR PA’I SGRA BZHAG TU YOD DE, SKYES BUS THAL MO BRDAB PA’I SGRA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of sound which is produced by elements which are part of a person, for the sound of a person clapping their hands is just such an example.

 

 

98 Leave a comment on block 98 0

[98]

MA ZIN PA’I ‘BYUNG BA LAS GYUR PA’I SGRA BZHAG TU YOD DE, CHU SGRA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of sound which is produced by elements which are not part of a person, for the sound of a river is just such an example.

 

 

99 Leave a comment on block 99 0

[99]

SGRA LA RJOD BYED KYI SGRA’I SGOS DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, SEMS CAN LA STON PA’I SGRA DANG, SEMS CAN LA MI STON PA’I SGRA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also divide sound into that which constitutes a verbal expression by a living being; and that which does not.

 

 

100 Leave a comment on block 100 0

[100]

SEMS CAN LA STON PA’I SGRA DANG, RJOD BYED KYI SGRA GNYIS DON GCIG

 

“Sound which constitutes a verbal expression by a living being” and “sound which is expressed verbally” are synonyms.

 

 

101 Leave a comment on block 101 0

[101]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, SGRA MI RTAG CES BRJOD PA’I SGRA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example would be the sound of someone saying “Sound is a changing thing.”

 

 

102 Leave a comment on block 102 0

[102]

SEMS CAN LA MI STON PA’I SGRA DANG RJOD BYED KYI SGRA MA YIN PAR GYUR PA’I SGRA GNYIS DON GCIG

 

“Sound which does not constitute a verbal expression by a living being” and “sound which is not expressed verbally” are synonyms.

 

 

103 Leave a comment on block 103 0

[103]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, RNGA’I SGRA DANG DUNG GI SGRA LA SOGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example would be the sound of something like a drum, or a horn.

 

 

104 Leave a comment on block 104 0

[104]

DRI’I SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SNA SHES KYI MYONG BYA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the door of sense of smell, because “that object which is detected by the consciousness of the nose” is that definition.

 

 

105 Leave a comment on block 105 0

[105]

DRI LA BYE {%DBYE} NA GNYIS YOD DE, LHAN SKYES KYI DRI DANG SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Smells may be divided into two types: natural smells and concocted smells.

 

 

106 Leave a comment on block 106 0

[106]

LHAN SKYES KYI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, TZANDAN GYI DRI DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of a natural smell, for the smell of sandalwood would be just such an example.

 

 

107 Leave a comment on block 107 0

[107]

SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, SBYAR SPOS KYI DRI DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of a concocted smell, for the smell of incense that was compounded would be just such an example.

 

 

108 Leave a comment on block 108 0

[108]

LHAN SKYES KYI DRI LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, ZHIM PA’I LHAN SKYES KYI DRI DANG MI ZHIM PA’I LHAN SKYES KYI DRI GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Natural smells may be divided into two types: natural smells which are pleasant, and natural smells which are unpleasant.

 

 

109 Leave a comment on block 109 0

[109]

ZHIM PA’I LHAN SKYES KYI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, GUR KUM GYI DRI DANG GA BUR GYI DRI GNYIS LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of natural smells which are pleasant, for the smell of saffron and the smell of camphor are just such examples.

 

 

110 Leave a comment on block 110 0

[110]

MI ZHIM PA’I LHAN SKYES KYI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, SHING KUN [f. 5b] GYI DRI DANG MU ZI’I DRI GNYIS LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of natural smells which are unpleasant, for the smell of asafoetida and the smell of sulphur are just such examples.

 

 

111 Leave a comment on block 111 0

[111]

SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, ZHIM PA’I SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI DANG MI ZHIM PA’I SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Smells which are concocted may also be divided into two: concocted smells which are pleasant, and concocted smells which are unpleasant.

 

 

112 Leave a comment on block 112 0

[112]

ZHIM PA’I SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, SBYAR SPOS DANG DBUS SPOS KYI DRI GNYIS LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of concocted smells which are pleasant, for the smell of incense which is compounded; and the smell of incense from the Central Province of Tibet, are two such examples.

 

 

113 Leave a comment on block 113 0

[113]

MI ZHIM PA’I SBYAR BYUNG GI DRI BZHAG TU YOD DE, SMAN DRI MI ZHIM PA MANG PO SBYAR BA’I DRI DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We may as well posit an example of a concocted smell which is unpleasant, for the smell of many foul-smelling medicinal plants compounded together is just such an example.

 

 

114 Leave a comment on block 114 0

[114]

RO’I SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, LCE SHES KYI MYONG BYA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the door of sense of taste, because “that object which is detected by the consciousness of the tongue” is that definition.

 

 

115 Leave a comment on block 115 0

[115]

RO LA DBYE NA DRUG YOD DE, MNGAR BA DANG SKYUR BA, KHA BA DANG BSKA BA, TSVA BA DANG LAN TSVA BA DRUG YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Taste may be divided into six types: sweet and sour; bitter and astringent; spicy and salty.

 

 

116 Leave a comment on block 116 0

[116]

MNGAR BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, BU RAM GYI RO DANG, ‘O MA’I RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of things which are sweet; for the taste of brown sugar, and the taste of milk, are two such examples.

 

 

117 Leave a comment on block 117 0

[117]

SKYUR BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, SKYUR {%SKYU} RU RA’I RO DANG ZHO’I RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of things which are sour; for the taste of purple-leaf plum, and the taste of yogurt, are two such examples.

 

 

118 Leave a comment on block 118 0

[118]

KHA BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, TIG TA’I RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of something which is bitter, for the taste of gentian root is one such example.

 

 

119 Leave a comment on block 119 0

[119]

BSKA BA BZHAG DU YOD DE, AA RU RA’I RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of something which is astringent, for the taste of black myrobalan is one such example.

 

 

120 Leave a comment on block 120 0

[120]

TSVA BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, SMAN TSVA BA GSUM GYI RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of something which is spicy, for the taste of the tripinnate horseradish tree is just such an example.

 

 

121 Leave a comment on block 121 0

[121]

LAN TSVA BA BZHAG TU YOD DE, BA TSVA DANG SOG TSVA’I RO LTA BU DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit examples of things which are salty, for the taste of soda-salt and of Mongol salt are examples.

 

 

122 Leave a comment on block 122 0

[122]

REG BYA’I SKYE MCHED KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, LUS SHES KYI MYONG BYA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the door of sense of touch, because “that object which is experienced by the consciousness of the body” is that definition.

 

 

123 Leave a comment on block 123 0

[123]

REG BYA LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, ‘BYUNG BAR GYUR PA’I REG BYA DANG, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR DU GYUR PA’I REG BYA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Touchable things may be divided into two: touchable things which are elements, and touchable things which are products of the elements.

 

 

124 Leave a comment on block 124 0

[124]

‘BYUNG BAR GYUR PA’I REG BYA LA DBYE NA BZHI YOD DE, SA CHU ME RLUNG BZHI PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Touchable things which are elements may be divided into the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind.

 

 

125 Leave a comment on block 125 0

[125]

SA’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SRA ZHING ‘THAS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the earth element, because “hard and rigid” is that definition.

 

 

126 Leave a comment on block 126 0

[126]

CHU’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RLAN ZHING GSHER BA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the water element, because “wet and flowing” is that definition.

 

 

127 Leave a comment on block 127 0

[127]

ME’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, TSA ZHING SREG PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the fire element, because “hot and burning” is that definition.

 

 

128 Leave a comment on block 128 0

[128]

RLUNG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, YANG ZHING G-YO BA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the element of wind, because “light [in the sense of not being heavy] and moving” is that definition.

 

 

129 Leave a comment on block 129 0

[129]

‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA [f. 6a] LA DBYE NA BDUN YOD DE, ‘JAM PA DANG RTZUB PA, LCI BA DANG YANG PA {%BA}, GRANG BA DANG BKRES PA, SKOM PA DANG BDUN PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Touchable things which are products of the elements are of seven types: smoothness and roughness; heaviness and lightness; coldness and thirst; and hunger.

 

 

130 Leave a comment on block 130 0

[130]

NANG GI GZUGS KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SKYES BU’I SHES RGYUD KYIS BSDUS PA’I GZUGS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of inner form, because “form which is subsumed by the awareness of a being” is that definition.

 

 

131 Leave a comment on block 131 0

[131]

NANG GI GZUGS LA DBYE NA LNGA YOD DE, MIG GI DBANG PO DANG, RNA BA’I DBANG PO DANG, SNA’I DBANG PO DANG, LCE’I DBANG PO DANG, LUS KYI DBANG PO DANG LNGA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a division of inner form into five: the sense of sight, sense of hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste, and sense of touch.

 

 

132 Leave a comment on block 132 0

[132]

MIG GI DBANG PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG ‘BRAS MIG SHES KYI THUN MONG MIN PA’I BDAG RKYEN BYED PA’I CHA NAS BZHAG PA’I NANG GI GZUGS CAN DVANGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the sense of sight, because “that inner form which is clear and which is established as what it is by serving as the unique trigger, subsumed within a person, for the consciousness of the eye which results from it” is that definition.

 

 

133 Leave a comment on block 133 0

[133]

MIG DANG MIG GI DBANG PO DANG, MIG GI KHAMS GSUM DON GCIG

 

“Sight,” “sense of sight,” and “category of sight” are all synonyms.

 

 

134 Leave a comment on block 134 0

[134]

MIG DBANG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTEN BCAS KYI MIG DBANG DANG, RTEN MTSUNGS KYI MIG DBANG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The sense of sight can be divided into two types: the sense of sight which is supported by something else; and the sense of sight which shares a support.

 

 

135 Leave a comment on block 135 0

[135]

RTEN BCAS KYI MIG DBANG BZHAG TU YOD DE, DKAR PO DANG SNGON PO LA SOGS PA MTHONG PA’I {BA’I} MIG DBANG DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There are examples of the sense of sight which is supported by something else, for cases of the sense of sight which is looking at things such as white or blue are just such examples.

 

 

136 Leave a comment on block 136 0

[136]

RTEN MTSUNGS KYI MIG DBANG BZHAG TU YOD DE, GNYID LOG PA’I SKABS KYI MIG DBANG DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is an example of the sense of sight which shares a support,[9] for the sense of sight as we sleep is just such an example.

 

 

137 Leave a comment on block 137 0

[137]

RNA BA’I DBANG PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG ‘BRAS RNA SHES KYI THUN MONG MIN PA’I BDAG RKYEN BYED PA’I CHA NAS BZHAG PA’I NANG GI GZUGS CAN DVANGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the sense of hearing, because “that inner form which is clear and which is established as what it is by serving as the unique trigger, subsumed within a person, for the consciousness of the ear which results from it” is that definition.

 

 

138 Leave a comment on block 138 0

[138]

RNA DBANG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTEN BCAS KYI RNA DBANG DANG, RTEN MTSUNGS KYI RNA DBANG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The sense of hearing can be divided into two types: sense of hearing which is supported by something else, and sense of hearing which shares a support.

 

 

139 Leave a comment on block 139 0

[139]

SNA’I DBANG PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG ‘BRAS SNA SHES KYI THUN MONG MIN PA’I BDAG RKYEN BYED PA’I CHA NAS BZHAG PA’I NANG GI GZUGS CAN DVANGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the sense of smell, because “that inner form which is clear and which is established as what it is by serving as the unique trigger, subsumed within a person, for the consciousness of the nose which results from it” is that definition.

 

 

140 Leave a comment on block 140 0

[140]

SNA DBANG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTEN BCAS [f. 6b] KYI SNA DBANG DANG, RTEN MTSUNGS KYI SNA DBANG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The sense of smell can be divided into two types: the sense of smell which is supported by something else, and the sense of smell which shares a support.

 

 

141 Leave a comment on block 141 0

[141]

LCE’I DBANG PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG ‘BRAS LCE SHES KYI THUN MONG MIN PA’I BDAG RKYEN BYED PA’I CHA NAS BZHAG PA’I NANG GI GZUGS CAN DVANGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the sense of taste, because “that inner form which is clear and which is established as what it is by serving as the unique trigger, subsumed within a person, for the consciousness of the tongue which results from it” is that definition.

 

 

142 Leave a comment on block 142 0

[142]

LCE DBANG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTEN BCAS KYI LCE DBANG DANG, RTEN MTSUNGS KYI LCE DBANG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The sense of taste can be divided into two types: the sense of taste which is supported by something else, and the sense of smell which shares a support.

 

 

143 Leave a comment on block 143 0

[143]

LUS KYI DBANG PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG ‘BRAS LUS SHES KYI THUN MONG MIN PA’I BDAG RKYEN BYED PA’I CHA NAS BZHAG PA’I NANG GI GZUGS CAN DVANGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of the sense of touch, because “that inner form which is clear and which is established as what it is by serving as the unique trigger, subsumed within a person, for the consciousness of the body which results from it” is that definition.

 

 

144 Leave a comment on block 144 0

[144]

LUS DBANG LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, RTEN BCAS KYI LUS DBANG DANG, RTEN MTSUNGS KYI LUS DBANG GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

The sense of taste can be divided into two types: the sense of taste which is supported by something else, and the sense of smell which shares a support.

 

 

 

 

8

Refuting Rebuttal

on Physical Form,

beginning with:

Elements vs. Products of the Elements

 

 

145 Leave a comment on block 145 0

[145]

` ,DE LA RTZOD PA SPONG BA LA,

 

Here is the third major part, where we refute any rebuttal.

 

 

146 Leave a comment on block 146 0

[146]

KHA CIG NA RE, RLUNG CHOS CAN, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR YIN PAR THAL, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA BDUN PO GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

               Let’s consider wind.

 

               So, I suppose it’s a product of the elements?

 

               Why do you say that?

 

Because it is one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

 

147 Leave a comment on block 147 0

[147]

MA GRUB NA, RLUNG CHOS CAN, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA BDUN PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, YANG BA YIN PA’I PHYIR ZER NA MA KHYAB,

 

I disagree that it is one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider wind.  It is too one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is light!

 

Just because something is light doesn’t mean it must be one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

 

148 Leave a comment on block 148 0

[148]

BYAS PA LA KHO NA RE, KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, YANG BA YIN NA, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA BDUN PO GANG RUNG YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

On this point, someone may come and make yet another claim:

 

It is so necessarily the case that if something is light it must be one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because if something is light, it must be one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

 

149 Leave a comment on block 149 0

[149]

MA GRUB NA, YANG BA YIN NA ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA BDUN PO GANG RUNG YIN PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR GYI REG BYA BDUN PO ‘DREN PA’I TSE NA YANG BA GCIG LA ‘DREN DGOS PA’I PHYIR ZER NA MA KHYAB,

 

I disagree that if something is light, it must be one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.

 

If you do disagree, we still say that it is the case that if something is light, it must be one of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements.  And that’s true because—when we enumerate the list of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements—we always list lightness as one of these seven.

 

Just because—when we enumerate the list of the seven tangible objects which are products of the elements—we always list something as one of these seven, that doesn’t mean that that thing is always part of that list.

 

 

150 Leave a comment on block 150 0

[150]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RLUNG CHOS CAN, ‘BYUNG ‘GYUR MA YIN PAR THAL, ‘BYUNG BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I still agree with your original statement: I agree that wind is a product of the elements.

 

Suppose you do agree!  No it’s not a product of the elements, because it’s an element!

 

 

151 Leave a comment on block 151 0

[151]

MA GRUB NA, RLUNG CHOS CAN, ‘BYUNG BA YIN PAR THAL, ‘BYUNG BA BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that wind is an element.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider wind.  It is too an element, because it’s one of the four elements!

 

 

152 Leave a comment on block 152 0

[152]

MA GRUB NA, RLUNG CHOS CAN, ‘BYUNG BA BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, RLUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that wind is one of the four elements.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider wind, one more time.  It is too one of the four elements!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s wind!

 

 

 

 

9

White & White Horses

 

 

153 Leave a comment on block 153 0

[153]

KHA CIG NA RE, RTA DKAR [f. 7a] PO CHOS CAN, KHA DOG YIN PAR THAL, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Consider a white horse.  It must then be a color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s one of the four primary colors!

 

 

154 Leave a comment on block 154 0

[154]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, RTZA BA’I KHA DOG BZHI PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, DKAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a white horse is one of the four primary colors.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider a white horse.  It is too one of the four primary colors!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s white![10]

 

 

155 Leave a comment on block 155 0

[155]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, DKAR PO YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD RTA DKAR PO YIN PA’I PHYIR ZER NA MA KHYAB,

 

I disagree that a white horse is white.

 

If you do disagree, then once again let’s consider a white horse.  It is too white!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a white horse!

 

Just because something is a white horse doesn’t mean it’s white!

 

 

156 Leave a comment on block 156 0

[156]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, DKAR PO MA YIN PAR THAL, KHA DOG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

And suppose we had agreed to your original statement: Suppose we agree that a white horse is white.  And yet we could not, because a white horse is not white.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because a horse is not a color!

 

 

157 Leave a comment on block 157 0

[157]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, KHA DOG MA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a horse is not a color!

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a white horse.

 

It is not a color!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not physical matter!

 

 

158 Leave a comment on block 158 0

[158]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, GZUGS MA YIN PAR THAL, GANG ZAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a horse is not physical matter.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the horse.  No it’s not physical matter!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a person![11]

 

 

159 Leave a comment on block 159 0

[159]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DKAR PO CHOS CAN, GANG ZAG YIN PAR THAL, RTA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the horse is a person.

 

If you do disagree, the let’s again consider our white horse.  It is too a person!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a horse!

 

 

 

 

10

Reality’s Not Flat

 

 

160 Leave a comment on block 160 0

[160]

KHA CIG NA RE, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, DBYIBS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Consider all of reality.  It must be a physical thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a shape!

 

 

161 Leave a comment on block 161 0

[161]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DBYIBS YIN PAR THAL, PHYA LE BA DANG PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA GNYIS PO GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that all of reality is a shape.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider all of reality.  It is too a shape!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is one of the two: “flat or not flat.”[12]

 

 

162 Leave a comment on block 162 0

[162]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, PHYA LE BA DANG PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA GNYIS PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that all of reality is one of the two: flat or not flat.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider all of reality.

 

It is too either flat or not flat!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not flat!

 

 

163 Leave a comment on block 163 0

[163]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA YIN PAR THAL, PHYA LE BA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR ZER NA MA KHYAB,

 

I disagree that all of reality is not flat.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider all of reality, one more time.  It is too not flat.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not flat!

 

Hey, just because something is not flat doesn’t mean it’s not flat!

 

 

164 Leave a comment on block 164 0

[164]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, GZUGS MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

And suppose you do agree to that original idea: Suppose you say that all of reality is a physical thing.

 

No it’s not a physical thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not a working thing.

 

 

165 Leave a comment on block 165 0

[165]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that all of reality is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider all of reality.  No it’s not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it never changes![13]

 

 

166 Leave a comment on block 166 0

[166]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, SHES BYA DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that all of reality never changes.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s once more consider all of reality.  It’s so true that it never changes!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s identical to all of reality!

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

II.

Seeing Things Are,

Or Aren’t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

167 Leave a comment on block 167 0

[167]

` ,,YOD RTOGS MED RTOGS KYI RNAM BZHAG BSHAD PA LA,,

 

Here begins the topic known as “Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t.”

 

 

 

 

1

Refuting Claims on the Subject of

Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t,

beginning with:

Seeing Things Exist vs.

Seeing They Do Something

 

 

168 Leave a comment on block 168 0

[168]

KHA CIG NA RE, YOD [f. 7b] PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If someone has an accurate perception that something is an existing thing, then there must also be an accurate perception that that thing is a working thing.

 

 

169 Leave a comment on block 169 0

[169]

SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, let’s consider reality.  Are you saying that someone can have an accurate perception that it’s a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone can have an accurate perception that it’s an existing thing.

 

 

170 Leave a comment on block 170 0

[170]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because someone can have an accurate perception that reality is an existing thing doesn’t mean that they must be having a perception that reality is a working thing.

 

But you just said it did!

 

 

171 Leave a comment on block 171 0

[171]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, YOD PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that someone can have an accurate perception that reality is an existing thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider reality.  It is too true that someone can have an accurate perception that it’s an existing thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it exists!

 

 

172 Leave a comment on block 172 0

[172]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, YOD PA YIN PAR THAL, GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that reality exists.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again take reality.  It does too exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s an example of reality!

 

 

173 Leave a comment on block 173 0

[173]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: I agree that someone can have an accurate perception that it’s a working thing.

 

Suppose you do agree to our original statement.  Then let’s once again consider reality.  No it’s not true that someone can have an accurate perception that it’s a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not a working thing!

 

 

174 Leave a comment on block 174 0

[174]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that reality’s not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider reality one more time.  No it’s not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s an existing thing that does no work!

 

 

175 Leave a comment on block 175 0

[175]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED YIN PAR THAL, DON BYED MI NUS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that reality is an existing thing that does no work.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s take reality, one more time.  It is too an existing thing which does no work!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it cannot perform a function!

 

 

176 Leave a comment on block 176 0

[176]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DON BYED MI NUS PA DNGOS MED KYI MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that—just because something cannot perform a function—it does no work.

 

And yet it is necessarily the case that if something cannot perform a function it does no work!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because “something that is unable to perform a function” is the very definition of “an existing thing which does no work”!

 

 

 

2

Things That Do Nothing

vs.

Things That Never Change

 

177 Leave a comment on block 177 0

[177]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS MED DU RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If someone has an accurate perception that something does no work, then there must be someone who has an accurate perception that it is an unchanging thing.

 

 

178 Leave a comment on block 178 0

[178]

RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS MED DU RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Alright then, let’s consider the antlers on top of a rabbit’s head!  Are you saying that someone can have an accurate perception that these antlers are an unchanging thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone can have an accurate perception that they do no work.[14]

 

 

179 Leave a comment on block 179 0

[179]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because someone can have an accurate perception that rabbit antlers do no work doesn’t necessarily mean that someone can have an accurate perception that rabbit antlers are something that never changes.

 

But you just said it did!

 

 

180 Leave a comment on block 180 0

[180]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED DU RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that someone could have an accurate perception that rabbit’s antlers are things which have no work.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider those rabbit antlers.  Someone could too have a perception that they are things which have no work!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they don’t have any work!

 

 

181 Leave a comment on block 181 0

[181]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that rabbit antlers don’t have any work.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider those antlers, one more time.  No they don’t have any work!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they aren’t a working thing!

 

 

182 Leave a comment on block 182 0

[182]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the antlers on top of a rabbit’s head are not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then take those antlers, once more!  No they’re not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they don’t even exist!

 

 

183 Leave a comment on block 183 0

[183]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, RTAG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original idea: Someone can have an accurate perception that the antlers on a rabbit’s head are an unchanging thing.

 

If you do agree to that original thought, then take those antlers once again.  No there isn’t anyone who can have an accurate perception that they are an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they aren’t an unchanging thing!

 

 

184 Leave a comment on block 184 0

[184]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the antlers aren’t an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then take a rabbit’s antlers.  No they’re not an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are not one thing which is both an existing object and something that doesn’t change from moment to moment!

 

 

185 Leave a comment on block 185 0

[185]

MA [f. 8a] GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA MA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers are not something which is both an existing object and something which doesn’t change from moment to moment.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider those rabbit antlers. No they’re not both an existing object and something which doesn’t change from moment to moment!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they aren’t an existing object!

 

 

 

186 Leave a comment on block 186 0

[186]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, CHOS MA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the rabbit antlers are not an existing object.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  It is so true that the antlers are not an existing object!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they don’t exist at all!

 

 

187 Leave a comment on block 187 0

[187]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, CHOS DANG YOD PA GNYIS DON GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it can’t be an existing object.

 

Suppose you say that just because something doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean it can’t be an existing object.  It is too the case, because “existing objects” is just another word for “existence”!

 

 

 

3

Unmade Perceptions

vs.

Perceptions of the Unmade

 

188 Leave a comment on block 188 0

[188]

KHA CIG NA RE, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If someone can have an accurate perception that an accurate perception that something was never made was never made, then someone could always have an accurate perception that the thing was never made.

 

 

189 Leave a comment on block 189 0

[189]

SGRA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, let’s consider a sound.  So, I guess someone could have an accurate perception that it was something that was never made?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone could have an accurate perception that the accurate perception that it was never made was never made.

 

 

190 Leave a comment on block 190 0

[190]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

I disagree that—just because someone could have an accurate perception that the accurate perception that something was never made was never made—then someone could have an accurate perception that something was something that was never made.

 

But you already agreed that this is the case!

 

 

191 Leave a comment on block 191 0

[191]

MA RUB {%GRUB} NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that anyone could have an accurate perception that the accurate perception that a sound was never made was never made.

 

Let’s say that you do disagree to this.  Well then, let’s consider this sound once again.  Are you saying that there does exist an accurate perception that no accurate perception that it was never made was ever made?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because there exists no accurate perception where someone can perceive that the accurate perception that a sound was never made was never made.

 

 

192 Leave a comment on block 192 0

[192]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that there exists no accurate perception where someone can perceive that the accurate perception that a sound was never made was never made.

 

Well, let’s say that you do disagree to this.  But it is too true that there exists no accurate perception where someone can perceive that the accurate perception that a sound was never made was never made!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because that perception is a working thing!

 

 

193 Leave a comment on block 193 0

[193]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, MA BYAS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I agree to your original idea: Someone could have an accurate perception that a sound was something that was never made.

 

Let’s say that you do agree with our original statement.  Consider then, again, a sound.  And yet it is not the case that anyone could ever have an accurate perception that it was not made!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something that was not made!

 

 

194 Leave a comment on block 194 0

[194]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BYAS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree that a sound cannot be something that was not made.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Then take a sound, one more time.  No it’s not something that was never made!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something that was made!

 

 

195 Leave a comment on block 195 0

[195]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, BYAS PA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a sound is something that was made.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Then take sound; it is too something that was made!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a kind of physical form!

 

 

196 Leave a comment on block 196 0

[196]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, GZUGS SHES LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED GSUM PO GANG RUNG YIN NA BYAS PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a kind of physical form doesn’t mean that it must have been made.

 

Suppose you do say that it doesn’t necessarily follow.  And yet it does necessarily follow, because if something belongs to any one of three different categories—physical form, mental entities, and changing things which are neither physical nor mental—then it must be something that was made.

 

 

 

4

Non-Existent Perceptions

vs.

Perceptions of Non-Existence

 

197 Leave a comment on block 197 0

[197]

KHA CIG NA RE, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that a certain thing doesn’t exist, then someone can have an accurate perception that the thing doesn’t exist.

 

 

198 Leave a comment on block 198 0

[198]

BUM PA CHOS CAN, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD [f. 8b] PAR THAL, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, let’s consider this coffee cup here.[15]  Are you telling me that someone can have an accurate perception that it doesn’t exist?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that it doesn’t exist.

 

 

199 Leave a comment on block 199 0

[199]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that this coffee cup here doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that someone could have an accurate perception that the cup doesn’t exist.

 

But you already agreed that this is the case.

 

 

200 Leave a comment on block 200 0

[200]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, ZHI {%GZHI} GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree that anyone could have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that this coffee cup here doesn’t exist.

 

Well suppose you do disagree!  Then let’s again consider this here coffee cup.  It is so the case that someone could have an accurate perception that no one could have an accurate perception that this cup doesn’t exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because this coffee cup is an example of reality!

 

 

201 Leave a comment on block 201 0

[201]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Someone could have an accurate perception that there is no coffee cup here.

 

Suppose you do agree with our original statement—then let’s take the same coffee cup.  No it’s not true that someone could have an accurate perception that there is no coffee cup here!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone could have an accurate perception that there is a coffee cup here!

 

 

202 Leave a comment on block 202 0

[202]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, YOD PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that anyone could have an accurate perception that there is a coffee cup here.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s take that same coffee cup.  It is so true that someone could have an accurate perception that it’s here!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is here!

 

 

203 Leave a comment on block 203 0

[203]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, YOD PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG DNGOS GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that there’s a coffee cup here.

 

Well suppose you do disagree.  But there is too a coffee cup here!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because there’s a coffee cup here which is either a working thing, or an unchanging thing!

 

 

204 Leave a comment on block 204 0

[204]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG DNGOS GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that there’s a coffee cup here which is either a working thing or an unchanging thing.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Consider this cup one more time.  It is too either a working thing or an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

 

5

Perceptions of Perceptions

That Things are Unchanging

 

205 Leave a comment on block 205 0

[205]

KHA CIG NA RE, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DANG MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA GANG RUNG YOD PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that something is unchanging, then it must be the case that someone can have either an accurate perception that the thing is unchanging, or that it does not exist.

 

 

206 Leave a comment on block 206 0

[206]

KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DANG, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA GANG RUNG YOD PAR THAL, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, let’s consider a coffee table![16]  So, are you saying that someone can have either an accurate perception that it is unchanging, or that it does not exist?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that the table is unchanging.

 

 

207 Leave a comment on block 207 0

[207]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that a coffee table is unchanging doesn’t mean that someone can have either an accurate perception that the table is unchanging, or that it does not exist.

 

But you’ve already agreed that this is the case!

 

 

208 Leave a comment on block 208 0

[208]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, RTAG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that anyone could have an accurate perception that no one could have an accurate perception that the table is unchanging.

 

Well if you do disagree, let’s again consider the coffee table.  It is too the case that someone could have an accurate perception that no one could have an accurate perception that this table is unchanging.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the table is not something that is unchanging!

 

 

209 Leave a comment on block 209 0

[209]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS MED MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the table is not an unchanging thing.

 

If you disagree, let’s consider the coffee table one more time.  No it’s not an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which has no function.

 

 

210 Leave a comment on block 210 0

[210]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is not something which has no function.

 

Suppose you do disagree. Then let’s consider that coffee table again. No it’s not something without a function!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which does have a function!

 

 

211 Leave a comment on block 211 0

[211]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table does have a function.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet it does have a function!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it can do something!

 

 

212 Leave a comment on block 212 0

[212]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS PA DNGOS PO’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because a thing can do something doesn’t mean it has a function.

 

Suppose you say that it doesn’t necessarily follow.  And yet it does!

 

What do you say that?

 

Because “something that can do something” is the very definition of a functional thing!

 

 

213 Leave a comment on block 213 0

[213]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DANG, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA GANG RUNG MED PAR THAL, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PA GANG ZHIG ,MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original idea: If someone can have an accurate perception that no one can have an accurate perception that a coffee table is unchanging, it does mean that someone can have either an accurate perception that the table is unchanging, or that it does not exist.

 

Well suppose you do agree to that.  Let’s consider the coffee table one more time.  No it’s not the case that someone can have either an accurate perception that the table is unchanging, or that it does not exist.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because in fact there is neither anyone who can have an accurate perception that the table is unchanging, nor anyone who can have an accurate perception that it doesn’t exist.

 

 

214 Leave a comment on block 214 0

[214]

RTAGS DANG PO MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, RTAG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree with the first part of the reason you’ve given: It’s not true that no one could have an accurate perception that a coffee table is unchanging.

 

Suppose you do disagree with the first part of our reason.  Consider then again the same table.  It is so the case that no one could ever have an accurate perception that it is unchanging!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not unchanging!

 

 

215 Leave a comment on block 215 0

[215]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is not unchanging.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee table.  No it’s not unchanging.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not one thing which is both an existing object and a thing that does not change from moment to moment!

 

 

216 Leave a comment on block 216 0

[216]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA MA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is not something which is both an existing object and a thing that does not change from moment to moment.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the coffee table.  No it’s not something which is both an existing object and a thing that does not change from moment to moment.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is both an existing object and something which does change from moment to moment.

 

 

217 Leave a comment on block 217 0

[217]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS YIN PA GANG ZHIG ,SKAD CIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is both an existing object and something which changes from moment to moment.

 

If you do disagree, let’s look at the coffee table one more time.

 

It is too both an existing object and something which changes from moment to moment.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, a coffee table is an existing object.  And secondly, it is something which changes from moment to moment.

 

 

218 Leave a comment on block 218 0

[218]

RTAGS DANG PO MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, CHOS YIN PAR THAL, RANG GI NGO BO ‘DZIN PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree with the first half of your reason.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Consider then the coffee table, once again.  It is too an existing object.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it keeps its own nature.[17]

 

 

219 Leave a comment on block 219 0

[219]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, RANG GI NGO BO ‘DZIN PA CHOS KYI MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that—just because something keeps its own nature—it must be an existing object.

 

Suppose you do disagree that one must follow from the other.  And yet it must!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because “anything that keeps its own nature” is in fact the definition of “existing object.”

 

 

220 Leave a comment on block 220 0

[220]

RTAGS GNYIS PA MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, SKAD CIG MA YIN PAR THAL, MI RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree with the second part of your reason above; that is, a coffee table is not something which changes from moment to moment.

 

Suppose you do disagree to the second part of our reason.  Consider again the coffee table.  It is too something which changes from moment to moment!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a changing thing.

 

 

221 Leave a comment on block 221 0

[221]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, SKAD CIG MA MI RTAG PA’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a changing thing doesn’t mean that it changes from moment to moment.

 

And yet it does; because “something that changes from moment to moment” is in fact the definition of a “changing thing.”

 

 

222 Leave a comment on block 222 0

[222]

GONG GI RTAGS GNYIS PA MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR THAL, MED PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then let’s go back to the second part of the reason you gave before this.  I disagree that there is no one who could ever have an accurate perception that the coffee table can’t exist.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Take the coffee table again, then.  It is so the case that no one could ever have an accurate perception that it doesn’t exist.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the table is not something that doesn’t exist.

 

 

223 Leave a comment on block 223 0

[223]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MAS MI DMIGS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the coffee table is not something that doesn’t exist.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  No the coffee table is not something that doesn’t exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not something which no one could ever perceive with an accurate perception!

 

 

224 Leave a comment on block 224 0

[224]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, TSAD MAS MI DMIGS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MAS DMIGS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is not something which no one could ever perceive with an accurate perception.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee table.  No it’s not something which no one could ever perceive with an accurate perception.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which someone could perceive with an accurate perception!

 

 

225 Leave a comment on block 225 0

[225]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA CHOS CAN, TSAD MAS DMIGS PA YIN PAR THAL, RNAM MKHYEN GYI GZHAL [f. 9b] BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee table is something that someone could perceive with an accurate perception.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider the coffee table one more time.  It is too something that someone could perceive with an accurate perception.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something that can always be apprehended by a person who possesses omniscience![18]

 

 

 

6

Our Own Position

on Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t

 

226 Leave a comment on block 226 0

[226]

` ,RANG GI LUGS LA, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG YOD PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA, YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, YOD PA YIN NA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is where we present the position of our own school on this topic.

 

The total number of things that someone can perceive with an accurate perception, and the total number of things which exist, are exactly the same.  That is, if there exists someone who perceives with an accurate perception that something exists, then that thing must exist.  And if something does exist, then there is always someone with an accurate perception who perceives that it does.

 

 

227 Leave a comment on block 227 0

[227]

MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG MED PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA MED PA YIN PAS KHYAB, MED PA YIN NA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of things that someone using an accurate perception can perceive do not exist, and the total number of things which in fact do not exist, are exactly the same.  That is, if there exists someone with an accurate perception who perceives that something does not exist, then that thing cannot exist.  And if something cannot exist, then there is always someone with an accurate perception who perceives that it cannot.

 

 

228 Leave a comment on block 228 0

[228]

RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, RTAG PA YIN NA, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA DANG, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA, RTAG PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of things that someone using an accurate perception can perceive are unchanging, and the total number of things which are in fact unchanging, are exactly the same.  That is, if something is an unchanging thing, then there must always exist someone with an accurate perception who perceives that it is unchanging.  And if there exists anyone who perceives with an accurate perception that a thing is unchanging, then it must indeed be unchanging.

 

 

229 Leave a comment on block 229 0

[229]

DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG DNGOS PO GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, DNGOS PO YIN NA, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA, DNGOS PO YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of things that someone using an accurate perception can perceive are working things, and the total number of things which do in fact perform a function, are exactly the same.  That is, if something is a working thing, then there must always be someone who can perceive, using accurate perception, that it is a working thing.  And if there is anyone who can perceive—using accurate perception—that something is a working thing, then it must indeed be a functional thing.

 

 

230 Leave a comment on block 230 0

[230]

MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG, YOD PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, YOD PA YIN NA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of things which someone using an accurate perception can perceive cannot be perceived not to exist with an accurate perception, and the total number of things which do in fact exist, are exactly the same.  And that’s because—if something does exist—then there must be a person who, using an accurate perception, can perceive that there is no one who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that it does not exist.  If as well there is someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that there is no one who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that a thing does not exist—then that thing must indeed exist.

 

 

231 Leave a comment on block 231 0

[231]

MA GRUB NA, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA, YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA GNYIS DANG, BZHI DANG, DRUG LA SOGS PA CHA BYUNG NA YOD [f. 10a] PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that—if there is someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that there is no one who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that a thing does not exist—then that thing must indeed exist.

 

Suppose you do disagree with this point.  And yet it is true that—if there is someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that there is no one who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that a thing does not exist—then that thing must indeed exist.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because if you repeat these two elements in a statement—“there does exist someone who can perceive, with a correct perception, that there is no one who can perceive, with a correct perception, that the thing cannot exist”—in even numbers (whether it be two of them, four of them, or six, or whatever), then the thing in question must always be something which does in fact exist.

 

 

232 Leave a comment on block 232 0

[232]

RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG, RTAG PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, RTAG PA YIN NA RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA RTAG PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of accurate perceptions that certain things are unchanging which a person using an accurate perception can perceive are working things, and the total number of those things which are in fact unchanging, are exactly the same.  That is, if something is unchanging, then there must always be someone who can perceive, using accurate perception, that the accurate perception which perceives it is unchanging is itself a working thing.  And if there is anyone who can perceive—using accurate perception—that the accurate perception that something is unchanging is itself a working thing, then the thing seen as unchanging must indeed be unchanging.

 

 

233 Leave a comment on block 233 0

[233]

DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG, DNGOS PO GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, DNGOS PO YIN NA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA YIN NA, DNGOS PO YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of accurate perceptions where someone perceives that there exist accurate perceptions that certain things are working things, and the total number of those same things which are in fact working things, are exactly the same.  That is, if something is a working thing, then there must be a person who, using an accurate perception, can perceive that there does exist a person who—using an accurate perception—can see that it is a working thing.  And if there does exist a person who, using an accurate perception, can perceive that there exists someone who can use an accurate perception to perceive that something is a working thing, then that object must indeed be a working thing.

 

 

234 Leave a comment on block 234 0

[234]

YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA DANG YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD NA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA CI TZAM BRTZEGS KYANG YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The total number of accurate perceptions where someone perceives that a certain object exists, and the total number of accurate perceptions where someone perceives that there does exist an accurate perception where someone perceives that the thing exists, are exactly the same.  If there is a person who, using an accurate perception, perceives that something exists, and if on the other hand you pile up as many of these expressions as you like—“someone using an accurate perception can perceive that there does exist a person who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that something does indeed exist”—then what you come out with in the end is that the object in question does indeed exist.

 

 

235 Leave a comment on block 235 0

[235]

YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL,

 

And there does in fact exist a person who can perceive, using an accurate perception, that an accurate perception that something exists is itself a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

 

236 Leave a comment on block 236 0

[236]

YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Because the accurate perception that something exists is a working thing!

 

 

237 Leave a comment on block 237 0

[237]

YOD PA’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, TSAD MAS DMIGS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of existing thing, because “anything which someone can perceive using an accurate perception” is that definition.

 

 

238 Leave a comment on block 238 0

[238]

YOD PA DANG SHES BYA DANG GZHI GRUB DANG CHOS RNAMS DON GCIG ,

 

“Existing thing”; “knowable thing”; “thing which can be established as existing”; and “existing phenomenon” are all synonyms.

 

 

239 Leave a comment on block 239 0

[239]

SHES BYA’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, BLO’I YUL DU BYA RUNG DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “knowable thing,” because “anything which can serve as an object of the mind” is that definition.

 

 

240 Leave a comment on block 240 0

[240]

GZHI GRUB KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, TSAD MAS GRUB PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “thing which can be established as existing,” because “that which is established through an accurate perception” is that definition.

 

 

241 Leave a comment on block 241 0

[241]

CHOS KYI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG GI NGO BO’I ‘DZIN PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “existing phenomenon,” because “anything which keeps a nature of its own” is that definition.

 

 

242 Leave a comment on block 242 0

[242]

YOD PA LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, DNGOS PO DANG RTAG PA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Existing things may be divided into two types: working things and unchanging things.

 

 

243 Leave a comment on block 243 0

[243]

[f. 10b] DNGOS PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, DON BYED NUS PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “working thing,” because “anything which performs a function” is that definition.

 

 

244 Leave a comment on block 244 0

[244]

DNGOS PO DANG BYAS PA DANG MI RTAG PA GSUM DON GCIG ,

 

“Working thing,” “thing which is made,” and “changing thing” are all synonyms.

 

 

245 Leave a comment on block 245 0

[245]

DNGOS PO LA DBYE NA GSUM YOD DE, GZUGS DANG, SHES PA DANG, LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED GSUM YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Working things may be divided into three types: form, mental things, and active things which are neither mind nor matter.

 

 

246 Leave a comment on block 246 0

[246]

BEM PO’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RDUL DU GRUB BDE {%PA DE} YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of matter, because “something made of tiny physical particles” is that definition.

 

 

247 Leave a comment on block 247 0

[247]

BEM PO DANG GZUGS GNYIS DON GCIG ,

 

“Matter” and “form” are synonymous.

 

 

248 Leave a comment on block 248 0

[248]

BEM PO DANG GZUGS GNYIS LA DBYE NA, PHYI’I GZUGS DANG, NANG GI GZUGS GNYIS YOD, PHYI’I GZUGS DANG NANG GI GZUGS GNYIS LA DBYE NA RE RE NAS LNGA LNGA YOD DE, SNGAR BSHAD ZIN PA LTAR YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Matter—form—may be divided into two types: outer form and inner form.

 

Outer form and inner form may both be divided into five parts each, and we have already discussed this earlier.

 

 

249 Leave a comment on block 249 0

[249]

SHES PA’I MTSAN NYID YOD DE, GSAL ZHING RIG PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,
There is a definition of awareness, because “clear and knowing” is that definition.

 

 

250 Leave a comment on block 250 0

[250]

SHES PA DANG, BLO DANG, RIG PA GSUM DON GCIG ,MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, RNAM MKHYEN DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

“Awareness,” “mind,” and “that which is knowing” are synonyms.

 

A classical example would be an omniscience.

 

 

251 Leave a comment on block 251 0

[251]

RTAG PA LA DBYE NA, GNYIS YOD DE, RNAM PA THAMS CAD PA’I RTAG PA DANG, RE ‘GA’ BA’I RTAG PA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Unchanging things may be divided into two types: things which are eternal, and things which come and go but are unchanging.

 

 

252 Leave a comment on block 252 0

[252]

RNAM PA THAMS CAD PA’I RTAG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, SHES BYA DANG YOD PA GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of an unchanging thing which is eternal, for the two – knowable things, and things which exist – are just such examples.

 

 

253 Leave a comment on block 253 0

[253]

RE ‘GA’ PA’I RTAG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, BUM PA’I LDOG PA DANG, KVA BA’I LDOG PA GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can posit an example of things which come and go but are unchanging, for the two—the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup and the reverse of all that is not a coffee table—are just such examples.

 

 

 

7

Refuting Rebuttal

On Seeing Things Are, or Aren’t;

beginning with:

Changing Perceptions of Unchanging Things

 

254 Leave a comment on block 254 0

[254]

` ,DE LA RTZOD PA SPONG BA LA, KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is the third major part, where we refute any rebuttal.  Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Let’s consider a coffee cup.

 

               It must be unchanging.

 

               Why do you say that?

 

Because there does exist someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that an accurate perception that the cup is unchanging would be a working thing.

 

 

255 Leave a comment on block 255 0

[255]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, RTAG PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR ZER NA,

 

I disagree that there does exist someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that an accurate perception that the cup is unchanging would be a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the coffee cup.

 

There does too exist someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that an accurate perception that a cup was unchanging is a working thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because there does exist someone who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that there is no one who can perceive, with an accurate perception, that an accurate perception that a cup is unchanging is a working thing.

 

 

256 Leave a comment on block 256 0

[256]

‘GAL KHYAB LA ‘PHUD,

 

Your own reason contradicts what you’re trying to prove!  I reject it!

 

 

 

8

Reality is Not a Working Thing

 

257 Leave a comment on block 257 0

[257]

KHA CIG NA RE, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS [f. 11a] PA’I TSAD MA YOD PA’I PHYIR ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Let’s consider reality.

 

It must be a working thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because there does exist an accurate perception that there does exist an accurate perception that there exists no accurate perception that it is a working thing.

 

 

258 Leave a comment on block 258 0

[258]

‘GAL KHYAB LA ‘PHUD,

 

Your own reason contradicts what you’re trying to prove!  I reject it!

 

 

259 Leave a comment on block 259 0

[259]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, DNGOS POR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA MED PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR RTOGS PA’I TSAD MA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that there does exist an accurate perception that there does exist an accurate perception that there exists no accurate perception that reality is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  There does so exist an accurate perception that there does exist an accurate perception that there exists no accurate perception that reality is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because reality is not a working thing!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.

The Opposite of What Is,

and Is Not

 

 

 

 

 

 

260 Leave a comment on block 260 0

[260]

` ,,YIN LOG MIN LOG GI RNAM BZHAG BSHAD PA LA,

 

Here begins the topic known as “The Opposite of What Is, and Is Not.”

 

 

 

1

Refuting Claims on the Subject of

The Opposite of What Is, and Is Not;

beginning with:

Nothing is Both Matter

and Aware

 

 

261 Leave a comment on block 261 0

[261]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, SHES PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is not a working thing, then it must necessarily be the opposite of all which is not awareness.

 

 

262 Leave a comment on block 262 0

[262]

BUM PA CHOS CAN, SHES PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider a coffee cup.  So, is it the opposite of all which is not awareness?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

 

263 Leave a comment on block 263 0

[263]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not a working thing doesn’t mean that it’s the opposite of all which is not awareness.

 

But you just agreed this is the case!

 

 

264 Leave a comment on block 264 0

[264]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

265 Leave a comment on block 265 0

[265]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider a coffee cup.  It’s too a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something that performs a function!

 

 

266 Leave a comment on block 266 0

[266]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS PA DNGOS PO’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something performs a function doesn’t mean that it’s a working thing!

 

Now suppose you say that it doesn’t necessarily follow.  And yet it does, because “that which performs a function” is the definition of a working thing!

 

 

267 Leave a comment on block 267 0

[267]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, SHES PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, SHES PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: A coffee cup is the opposite of all which is not awareness.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is not awareness!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is awareness!

 

 

268 Leave a comment on block 268 0

[268]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, SHES PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, SHES PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of all which is awareness.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which is awareness!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not aware!

 

269 Leave a comment on block 269 0

[269]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, SHES PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BEM PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is something which is not aware.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too something which is not aware!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s matter!

 

 

270 Leave a comment on block 270 0

[270]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, SHES PA DANG BEM PO GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is matter doesn’t mean that it’s not aware.

 

And yet it does mean that, because there is no one thing which is both aware and matter at the same time.

 

 

 

2

Something Can Be

The Opposite of All

Which is not Physical Form,

and still not be

the Opposite of All

Which is not a Coffee Cup

 

 

271 Leave a comment on block 271 0

[271]

KHA CIG NA RE, GZUGS MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is not physical form, then it must necessarily be the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

 

272 Leave a comment on block 272 0

[272]

SGRA CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider sound.  So, is it something which is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not physical form!

 

 

273 Leave a comment on block 273 0

[273]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not physical form doesn’t mean that it is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

But you just agreed that it did.

 

 

274 Leave a comment on block 274 0

[274]

MA GRUB NA, [f. 11b] SGRA CHOS CAN, GZUGS MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree that sound is something which is the opposite of all which is not physical form.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is too something which is the opposite of all which is not physical form!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is physical form!

 

 

275 Leave a comment on block 275 0

[275]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, SGRA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is physical form.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is too physical form!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s sound!

 

 

276 Leave a comment on block 276 0

[276]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I accept your original statement: sound is something which is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider sound.  No it’s not something which is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is the opposite of all which is a coffee cup!

 

 

277 Leave a comment on block 277 0

[277]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, BUM PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is something which is the opposite of all which is a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is too something which is the opposite of all which is a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is not a coffee cup!

 

 

278 Leave a comment on block 278 0

[278]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PAR THAL, SGRA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is something which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is too something which is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s sound!

 

 

279 Leave a comment on block 279 0

[279]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, SGRA DANG BUM PA GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is sound doesn’t mean it’s something which is not a coffee cup.

 

And yet it does mean that, because there is no one thing which is both sound and a coffee cup at the same time.

 

 

 

3

A Smell Can Also Be

The Opposite of All

Which is not Physical Form,

and still not be

the Opposite of All

Which is not a Coffee Cup

 

280 Leave a comment on block 280 0

[280]

GZHAN YANG, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Let’s consider the smell of sandalwood.  Are you telling me it’s the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is not physical form!

 

 

281 Leave a comment on block 281 0

[281]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not physical form doesn’t mean it’s the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

But you just agreed that it does.

 

 

282 Leave a comment on block 282 0

[282]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, GZUGS MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, GZUGS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the smell of sandalwood is the opposite of all which is not physical form.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  It is too the opposite of all which is not physical form!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s physical form!

 

 

283 Leave a comment on block 283 0

[283]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, GZUGS YIN PAR THAL, DRI’I SKYE MCHED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the smell of sandalwood is physical form.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  It is too physical form!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the door of sense of smell!

 

 

284 Leave a comment on block 284 0

[284]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: The smell of sandalwood is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is a coffee cup!

 

 

285 Leave a comment on block 285 0

[285]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, BUM PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the smell of sandalwood is the opposite of all which is a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  It is too the opposite of all which is a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not a coffee cup!

 

 

286 Leave a comment on block 286 0

[286]

MA GRUB NA, TZANDAN GYI DRI CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DRI YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the smell of sandalwood is not a coffee cup!

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the smell of sandalwood.  No it’s not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a smell!

 

 

287 Leave a comment on block 287 0

[287]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DRI DANG BUM PA GNYIS KYI GZHI MTHUN MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a smell doesn’t mean that it can’t be a coffee cup.

 

And yet it does mean that, because there is no one thing which is both a smell and a coffee cup at the same time.

 

 

 

4

Being the Opposite

Of All Which is the Opposite

Of All Which is a Working Thing

Doesn’t Make Something the Opposite

Of All Which is a Working Thing

 

288 Leave a comment on block 288 0

[288]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing, then it must necessarily be the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

 

289 Leave a comment on block 289 0

[289]

RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS [f. 12a] LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider omniscience.  So, is it the opposite of all which is a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

 

290 Leave a comment on block 290 0

[290]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing doesn’t mean that it’s the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

But you just agreed that it does.

 

 

291 Leave a comment on block 291 0

[291]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that omniscience is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

292 Leave a comment on block 292 0

[292]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DANG, DNGOS PO GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a working thing doesn’t mean that it is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

And yet it does mean that, because these two—the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which a working thing, and a working thing—amount to the same thing.

 

 

293 Leave a comment on block 293 0

[293]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Omniscience is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider omniscience.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

 

294 Leave a comment on block 294 0

[294]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that omniscience is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

295 Leave a comment on block 295 0

[295]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, BEM SHES LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED GSUM PO GANG RUNG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that omniscience is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is some one of the three—matter; mind; and active things which are neither mind nor matter.

 

 

296 Leave a comment on block 296 0

[296]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, BEM SHES LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED GSUM PO GANG RUNG YIN PAR THAL, SHES PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that omniscience is some one of the three—matter, mind, or active things which are neither mind nor matter.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is so some one of the three—matter, mind, or active things which are neither mind nor matter.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a state of mind!

 

 

297 Leave a comment on block 297 0

[297]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, SHES PA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that omniscience is a state of mind.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too a state of mind.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s an accurate perception!

 

 

298 Leave a comment on block 298 0

[298]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, TSAD MA YIN PAR THAL, RNAM MKHYEN YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that omniscience is an accurate perception.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too an accurate perception!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s omniscience!

 

 

 

5

Changing Sound:

A Working Thing,

But not Physical

 

299 Leave a comment on block 299 0

[299]

GZHAN YANG, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can also make this point another way.

 

Let’s consider changing sound.

 

Are you telling me that it is the opposite of all which is a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

 

300 Leave a comment on block 300 0

[300]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing doesn’t mean that it is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

301 Leave a comment on block 301 0

[301]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that changing sound is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider changing sound.  It is too the opposite of the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

 

302 Leave a comment on block 302 0

[302]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that changing sound is not the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider changing sound.  It is too something which is not the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is a working thing!

 

 

303 Leave a comment on block 303 0

[303]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA [f. 12b] CHOS CAN, KHYOD MI RTAG PA DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider sound.  The changing it is too a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

304 Leave a comment on block 304 0

[304]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Changing sound is the opposite of all which is a working thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider changing sound.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

 

305 Leave a comment on block 305 0

[305]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that changing sound is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider changing sound.  It is too the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

306 Leave a comment on block 306 0

[306]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA MI RTAG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO YIN PAR THAL, LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that changing sound is a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider changing sound.  It is too a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s an active thing which is neither mind nor matter.

 

 

307 Leave a comment on block 307 0

[307]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, KHYOD MI RTAG PA LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that changing sound is an active thing which is neither mind nor matter.

 

If you do disagree, let’s consider sound.  Changing it is too an active thing which is neither mind nor matter!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

 

6

Existence:

Something that Exists,

Without Performing a Function

 

308 Leave a comment on block 308 0

[308]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS MED MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is something which is the opposite of all things that are not without a function, then it must be something which is the opposite of all which is not non-existent.

 

 

309 Leave a comment on block 309 0

[309]

YOD PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS MED MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider existence.

 

So, is it something which is the opposite of all which is not non-existent?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is something which is the opposite of all things that are not without a function.

 

 

310 Leave a comment on block 310 0

[310]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is something which is the opposite of all things that are not without a function doesn’t mean it’s something which is the opposite of all which is not non-existent.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

311 Leave a comment on block 311 0

[311]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that existence is the opposite of all things that are not without a function.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider existence.  It is too something which is the opposite of all things that are not without a function!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a thing which has no function!

 

 

312 Leave a comment on block 312 0

[312]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS MED YIN PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS STONG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is a thing which has no function.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider existence.  It is too a thing which has no function!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s devoid of the capacity to do something!

 

 

313 Leave a comment on block 313 0

[313]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS STONG DNGOS MED KYI MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is devoid of the capacity to do something doesn’t mean that it’s a thing which has no function!

 

And yet it does mean that, because “a thing which is devoid of the capacity to do something” is the very definition of a thing which has no function!

 

 

314 Leave a comment on block 314 0

[314]

GONG GI MA KHYAB MTSAMS LA RTAG {%RTAGS} MA GRUB ZER NA,

 

Now suppose that the opponent here changes their answer above from “Just because something is devoid of the capacity to do something doesn’t mean that it’s a thing which has no function” to “I disagree that existence is devoid of the capacity to do something.”

 

 

315 Leave a comment on block 315 0

[315]

YOD PA CHOS CAN, DON BYED NUS STONG YIN PAR THAL, DON BYED NUS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s again consider existence.

 

It is too something which is devoid of the capacity to do something!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which has the capacity to do something!

 

 

316 Leave a comment on block 316 0

[316]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, DON BYED NUS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, RANG GI ‘BRAS BU SKYED NUS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is not something which has the capacity to do something.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  It is too the case that it is not something which has the capacity to do something!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it has no capacity to give its result!

 

 

317 Leave a comment on block 317 0

[317]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, RANG GI ‘BRAS BU SKYED NUS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD KYI ‘BRAS BU MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence has no capacity to give its result.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  No it’s not something which has the capacity to give its result!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because its result doesn’t even exist!

 

 

318 Leave a comment on block 318 0

[318]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI ‘BRAS BU MED PAR [f. 13a] THAL, KHYOD RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the result of existence doesn’t even exist.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  In fact its result doesn’t exist.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because existence is an unchanging thing!

 

 

319 Leave a comment on block 319 0

[319]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Existence is something which is the opposite of all which doesn’t not exist.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider existence.  No it’s not something which is the opposite of all which doesn’t not exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is the opposite of all which doesn’t exist!

 

 

320 Leave a comment on block 320 0

[320]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, MED PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is something which is the opposite of all which doesn’t exist.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  It is too something which is the opposite of all which doesn’t exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which doesn’t exist!

 

 

321 Leave a comment on block 321 0

[321]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MAS MI DMIGS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is not something which doesn’t exist.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  In fact it is not something which doesn’t exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which is not established, with an accurate perception, as existing!

 

 

322 Leave a comment on block 322 0

[322]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, TSAD MAS MI DMIGS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MAS DMIGS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is not something which is not established, with an accurate perception, as existing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  No it’s not something which is not established, with an accurate perception, as existing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is established, with an accurate perception, as existing!

 

 

323 Leave a comment on block 323 0

[323]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, TSAD MAS DMIGS PA YIN PAR THAL, TSAD MA’I GZHAL BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is something which is established, with an accurate perception, as existing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  It’s too something which is established, with an accurate perception as existing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is apprehended with an accurate perception!

 

 

324 Leave a comment on block 324 0

[324]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, TSAD MA’I GZHAL BYA YIN PAR THAL, RNAM MKHYEN GYI GZHAL BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is something which is apprehended with an accurate perception.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider existence.  It is too something which is apprehended with an accurate perception!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is apprehended by omniscience!

 

 

325 Leave a comment on block 325 0

[325]

MA GRUB NA, YOD PA CHOS CAN, RNAM MKHYEN GYI GZHAL BYA YIN PAR THAL, GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that existence is something which apprehended by omniscience.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider existence.  It is too something which is apprehended by omniscience!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which can be established as existing!

 

 

7

To be Unmade

Isn’t to Not Exist

 

326 Leave a comment on block 326 0

[326]

KHA CIG NA RE, MA BYAS PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is not something which is unmade, then it must be the opposite of all which is not something which doesn’t exist.

 

 

327 Leave a comment on block 327 0

[327]

RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, MA BYAS PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider an unchanging thing.  So, is it the opposite of all which is not something which doesn’t exist?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not something which is unmade.

 

 

328 Leave a comment on block 328 0

[328]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not something which is unmade doesn’t mean that it’s the opposite of all which is not something which doesn’t exist.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

329 Leave a comment on block 329 0

[329]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, MA BYAS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that an unchanging thing is the opposite of all which is not something which is unmade.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  It is too the opposite of all which is not something which is unmade!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which is unmade!

 

 

330 Leave a comment on block 330 0

[330]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MA BYAS PA YIN PAR THAL, BYAS PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that an unchanging thing is something which is unmade.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  It is too something which is unmade.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which was never made!

 

 

331 Leave a comment on block 331 0

[331]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, BYAS PA MA YIN PAR THAL, MI RTAG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that an unchanging thing is something that was never made.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  It is too something that was never made!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something that’s a changing thing!

 

 

332 Leave a comment on block 332 0

[332]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MI RTAG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that an unchanging isn’t something that’s a changing thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  It is too something that isn’t a changing thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which lasts only for a moment!

 

 

333 Leave a comment on block 333 0

[333]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, SKAD CIG MA MI RTAG PA’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something’s not something that lasts only for a moment doesn’t meant it can’t be a changing thing.

 

And yet it does mean that, because “anything that lasts only for a moment” is the very definition of a changing thing.

 

 

334 Leave a comment on block 334 0

[334]

RTZA BAR [f. 13b] ‘DOD NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: An unchanging thing is something which is the opposite of something which is not non-existent.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider an unchanging thing.  No it’s not something which is the opposite of something which is not non-existent!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of something which is non-existent!

 

 

335 Leave a comment on block 335 0

[335]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MED PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unchanging thing is the opposite of something which is non-existent.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  It is too the opposite of something which is non-existent!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not something which doesn’t exist!

 

 

336 Leave a comment on block 336 0

[336]

MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, MED PA MA YIN PAR THAL, GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that an unchanging thing is not something which doesn’t exist.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider an unchanging thing.  No it’s not something which doesn’t exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which can be established as existing!

 

 

 

8

Unchanging, Empty Space:

Not the Opposite of Everything

Which is Not the Opposite of Everything

Which is an Unchanging Thing

 

337 Leave a comment on block 337 0

[337]

KHA CIG NA RE, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing, then it must necessarily be the opposite of everything which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

 

338 Leave a comment on block 338 0

[338]

‘DU MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider unproduced,[19] empty space.  So, is it the opposite of everything which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

 

339 Leave a comment on block 339 0

[339]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing doesn’t mean it’s the opposite of everything which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

340 Leave a comment on block 340 0

[340]

MA GRUB NA, ‘DU MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unproduced, empty space is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider unproduced, empty space.  It is too the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

341 Leave a comment on block 341 0

[341]

MA GRUB NA, DE CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unproduced, empty space is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider this same thing.  It is too the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

342 Leave a comment on block 342 0

[342]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DANG, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA GNYIS PO YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing doesn’t mean that it is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

And yet it does mean that, because the two—something which is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing, and something which is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is unchanging—are equivalent.

 

 

343 Leave a comment on block 343 0

[343]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, ‘DU MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Unproduced, empty space is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider unproduced, empty space.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

344 Leave a comment on block 344 0

[344]

MA GRUB NA, DE CHOS [f. 14a] CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unproduced, empty space is the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider this same thing.  It is too the opposite of all which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

345 Leave a comment on block 345 0

[345]

MA GRUB NA, ‘DU MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unproduced, empty space is not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider unproduced, empty space.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s an unchanging thing!

 

 

346 Leave a comment on block 346 0

[346]

MA GRUB NA, ‘DU MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that unproduced, empty space is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider unproduced, empty space.  It is too an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s one thing which is (1) an existing phenomenon but which is (2) not something which lasts only for a moment!

 

 

347 Leave a comment on block 347 0

[347]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, CHOS DANG SKAD CIG MA MA YIN PA’I GZHI MTHUN PA RTAG PA’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is one thing which is (1) an existing phenomenon but which is (2) not something which lasts only for a moment doesn’t mean it’s an unchanging thing.

 

And yet it does mean that, because “one object which is both an existing phenomenon and not something which lasts for only a moment” is the very definition of an unchanging thing!

 

 

 

9

Knowing what is Unchanging

Doesn’t Have to Be Unchanging

 

348 Leave a comment on block 348 0

[348]

KHA CIG NA RE, YOD PA YIN NA RTAG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If a thing is something which exists, then it must necessarily be an unchanging thing.

 

 

349 Leave a comment on block 349 0

[349]

RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, YOD PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider omniscience.  So, is it an unchanging thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something which exists!

 

 

350 Leave a comment on block 350 0

[350]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because a thing is something which exists doesn’t mean that it must be an unchanging thing.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

351 Leave a comment on block 351 0

[351]

MA GRUB NA, RNAM MKHYEN CHOS CAN, YOD PA YIN PAR THAL, CHOS THAMS CAD MNGON SUM DU RTOGS PA’I MTHAR THUG GI MKHYEN PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that omniscience is something which exists.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider omniscience.  It is too something which exists!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the ultimate knowledge which directly perceives all existing phenomena!

 

 

 

 

10

If the Individual

has No Nature of Their Own,

Then Things which are Not Unchanging

Exist with Coffee Cups

 

 

352 Leave a comment on block 352 0

[352]

KHA CIG NA RE, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing, then it must necessarily be the opposite of everything which is an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

 

353 Leave a comment on block 353 0

[353]

BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider a coffee cup.  So, is it the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

354 Leave a comment on block 354 0

[354]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing doesn’t mean that it’s the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

But you already agreed that it did!

 

 

355 Leave a comment on block 355 0

[355]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of an unchanging thing!

 

 

356 Leave a comment on block 356 0

[356]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PAR THAL, RTAG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not an unchanging thing!

 

 

357 Leave a comment on block 357 0

[357]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: a coffee cup is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider that coffee cup.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the opposite of all which is not an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing!

 

 

358 Leave a comment on block 358 0

[358]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA [f. 14b] RTAG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of all which is not an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all which is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which is not an unchanging thing which is the opposite of all of which is an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the opposite of all which is unchanging is an unchanging thing!

 

 

359 Leave a comment on block 359 0

[359]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the opposite of all which is unchanging is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  The opposite of all which is unchanging is too an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the opposite of all which is unchanging is something which exists!

 

 

360 Leave a comment on block 360 0

[360]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YOD PAR THAL, RTAG PA MA YIN PA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the opposite of all which is unchanging is something which exists.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a coffee cup.  The opposite of all which is unchanging does too exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because that which is not unchanging exists!

 

 

361 Leave a comment on block 361 0

[361]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA MA YIN PA YOD PAR THAL, GANG ZAG GI BDAG MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that that which is not unchanging exists.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  That which is not unchanging does too exist!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something where the individual has no nature of their own![20]

 

 

 

11

Something Can be the Opposite

Of All which is Not the Opposite

Of All which is Not a Working Thing,

and still not be

The Opposite of All Which is Not

 A Working Thing

Which is the Opposite of All

Which is not a Working Thing

 

362 Leave a comment on block 362 0

[362]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is not a working thing, then it must necessarily be something which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

 

363 Leave a comment on block 363 0

[363]

SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider sound.  So, is it the opposite of all which is not a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

 

364 Leave a comment on block 364 0

[364]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is not a working thing doesn’t mean it’s the opposite of all which is not a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

365 Leave a comment on block 365 0

[365]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that sound is the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is too the opposite of all which is not the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a working thing!

 

 

366 Leave a comment on block 366 0

[366]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Sound is the opposite of all which is not a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider sound.  No it’s not the opposite of all which is not a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

 

367 Leave a comment on block 367 0

[367]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that sound is the opposite of all which is a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  It is  too the opposite of all which is a working thing which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the opposite of all which is not a working thing is not a working thing!

 

 

368 Leave a comment on block 368 0

[368]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DNGOS PO MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the opposite of all which is not a working thing is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider sound.  Something which is the opposite of all which is not a working thing is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the opposite of all which is not a working thing is an unchanging thing!

 

 

369 Leave a comment on block 369 0

[369]

MA GRUB NA, DNGOS PO CHOS CAN, KHYOD MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the opposite of all which is not a working thing is an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider a working thing.  Something which is the opposite of something which is not it is too an unchanging thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because that is the opposite of all which is not it!

 

 

 

12

Our Own Position on

The Opposite of What Is, and Is Not

 

370 Leave a comment on block 370 0

[370]

` ,RANG GI LUGS LA, [f. 15a] YOD PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DANG, YOD PA YIN PA GNYIS DON GCIG YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, YOD PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA YOD PA YIN PAS KHYAB, YOD PA YIN NA YOD PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is where we present the position of our own school.

 

These two groups—(1) things which are the opposite of all which is not something which exists, and (2) things which exist—are equivalent: the descriptions are synonymous.  Because if something is the opposite of all which is not something which exists, then it is necessarily something which exists.  Moreover, if something exists then it is necessarily the opposite of all which is not something which exists.

 

 

371 Leave a comment on block 371 0

[371]

YOD PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA DANG YOD PA MA YIN PA GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, YOD PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN NA YOD PA MA YIN PAS KHYAB, YOD PA MA YIN NA YOD PA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR, BDAG MED THAMS CAD LA RIGS ‘DRA,,

 

The two groups—(1) things which are the opposite of things which exist, and (2) things which are not things which exist—are equivalent.  Because if something is the opposite of something which exists, then it cannot be something which exists.  This same pattern applies to all things which lack a self-nature.[21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.

Identifying Reverses of All That Are Not

 

 

 

372 Leave a comment on block 372 0

[372]

LDOG PA NGOS ‘DZIN GYI RNAM BZHAG BSHAD PA LA,

 

Here begins the topic known as “Identifying Reverses of All That Are Not.”

 

 

 

1

Refuting Claims on the Subject of

Identifying Reverses of All That Are Not,

beginning with:

The Foundation Form of the Reverse of

All That Is Not a Thing

Need not be the Reverse of

All That is Not a Thing

 

 

373 Leave a comment on block 373 0

[373]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO’I GZHI LDOG YIN NA, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is an example of the foundation form of the reverse of all this is not a working thing, then it must always be an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

 

374 Leave a comment on block 374 0

[374]

SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO’I GZHI LDOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider sound.  So is it an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is an example of the foundation form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

 

375 Leave a comment on block 375 0

[375]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is an example of the foundation form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing doesn’t mean that it’s an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

376 Leave a comment on block 376 0

[376]

MA GRUB NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I GZHI LDOG YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO’I MTSAN GZHI YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that sound is an example of the foundation form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider sound.  It is too an example of the foundation form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a classical example of working thing!

 

 

377 Leave a comment on block 377 0

[377]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SGRA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: Sound is an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s consider sound.  No it’s not the reverse of all that is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something different from “working thing”!

 

 

 

2

Definitions are Different

Than Working Things

 

378 Leave a comment on block 378 0

[378]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO’I DON LDOG YIN NA, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is an example of the meaning form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing, then it must be an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

 

379 Leave a comment on block 379 0

[379]

DON BYED NUS PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO’I DON LDOG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the description “able to perform a function.”  So, is it an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is an example of the meaning form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

 

380 Leave a comment on block 380 0

[380]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is an example of the meaning form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing doesn’t mean that it’s an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing!

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

381 Leave a comment on block 381 0

[381]

MA GRUB NA, DON BYED NUS PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I DON LDOG YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the description “able to perform a function” is an example of the meaning form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the description, “able to perform a function.”  Yes it is an example of the meaning form of the reverse of all that is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s the definition of a working thing!

 

 

382 Leave a comment on block 382 0

[382]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, DON BYED NUS PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: the description “able to perform a function” is an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing.

 

Suppose you do agree with our original statement.  Let’s consider then the description, “able to perform a function.”  No it’s not an example of the reverse of all that is not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not one and the same as a working thing!

 

 

383 Leave a comment on block 383 0

[383]

MA GRUB NA, DON BYED NUS PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO DANG GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG THA DAD YIN [f. 15b] PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the description “able to perform a function” is not one and the same as a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the description, “able to perform a function.”  No it’s not one and the same as a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s different from a working thing!

 

 

384 Leave a comment on block 384 0

[384]

MA GRUB NA, DON BYED NUS PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO DANG THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the description “able to perform a function” is different from a working thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the description, “able to perform a function.”  Yes it is different from a working thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a definition!

 

 

385 Leave a comment on block 385 0

[385]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG GCIG YIN NA MTSON BYA YIN DGOS PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is a definition doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s different from a working thing.

 

But it is the case that if something is a definition it’s different from a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because if something is the same as a working thing, then it must be the object of a definition!

 

 

386 Leave a comment on block 386 0

[386]

MA GRUB NA, DNGOS PO CHOS CAN, KHYOD DANG GCIG YIN NA, MTSON BYA YIN DGOS PAR THAL, KHYOD MTSON BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that if something is the same as a working thing, then it must be the object of a definition.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider a working thing.  It is so the case that—if something is the same as it—then that thing must be the object of a definition!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s something to be defined!

 

 

 

3

To Be One and the Same

Is Not to Be

 

387 Leave a comment on block 387 0

[387]

KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR BA’I BUM PA DE BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

A coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup is the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

 

388 Leave a comment on block 388 0

[388]

BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.  No it’s not the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not the same thing as the coffee cup!

 

 

389 Leave a comment on block 389 0

[389]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG YIN KHYAB MNYAM MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup which is one and the same with a coffee cup is not the same thing as the coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup. It is the case that it is not the same thing as the coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not equivalent to the coffee cup!

 

 

390 Leave a comment on block 390 0

[390]

MA KHYAB ZER NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD DANG GCIG YIN NA, KHYOD DANG YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, KHYOD GANG ZAG GI BDAG MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is the same thing as a coffee cup doesn’t mean it has to be equivalent to the coffee cup.

 

Suppose you say that it doesn’t.  Consider then, once again, a coffee cup.  If something is the same thing as the coffee cup, then it does too have to be equivalent to the coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?
Because it’s an example of something where the person has no nature of their own![22]

 

 

391 Leave a comment on block 391 0

[391]

GONG GI MA KHYAB MTSAMS LA RTAGS MA GRUB ZER NA, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG YIN KHYAB MNYAM MA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD YIN NA BUM PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA DANG BUM PA YIN NA KHYOD YIN PAS KHYAB PA GNYIS KA RE RE NAS MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

Now suppose that our opponent—at the point above where they said, “One doesn’t always mean the other”—had instead said:

 

I disagree with your reason: It’s not true that a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup isn’t equivalent to the coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, the let’s again consider a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.  No it isn’t equivalent to the coffee cup.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s neither true (1) that to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup; nor (2) that to be a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

 

392 Leave a comment on block 392 0

[392]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD YIN NA BUM PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA DANG BUM PA YIN NA KHYOD YIN PAS KHYAB PA GNYIS KA RE RE NAS MED PAR THAL, BUM PA YIN NA KHYOD YIN PAS KHYAB PA MED PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that it’s neither true (1) that to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup; nor (2) that to be a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.  It is so the case that it is neither true (1) that to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup; nor (2) that to be a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not the case that—if something is a coffee cup—then it must be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

 

393 Leave a comment on block 393 0

[393]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that it is not the case that—if something is a coffee cup—then it must be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider a porcelain coffee cup.[23]  Are you saying that it has to be a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a coffee cup!

 

 

394 Leave a comment on block 394 0

[394]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is a coffee cup doesn’t mean that it is a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

395 Leave a comment on block 395 0

[395]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM CHOS CAN, BUM PA YIN PAR THAL, LTO LDIR ZHABS ZHUM [f. 16a] CHU SKYOR GYI DON BYED NUS PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree that a porcelain coffee cup is a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a porcelain coffee cup.  It is too a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is an object with a rounded body, and a supporting base, which can perform the function of holding coffee.

 

 

396 Leave a comment on block 396 0

[396]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, LTO LDIR ZHABS ZHU MCHU SKYOR GYI DON BYED NUS PA BUM PA’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is an object with a rounded body, and a supporting base, which can perform the function of holding coffee doesn’t mean that it’s a coffee cup!

 

And yet it does, because “an object with a rounded body, and a supporting base, which can perform the function of holding coffee” is in fact the definition of a coffee cup.

 

 

397 Leave a comment on block 397 0

[397]

GONG DU ‘DOD NA, GSER BUM CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG TU GYUR PA’I BUM PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

And suppose you change your position, and instead agree to our point above; that is, suppose you say: “A porcelain coffee cup is a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup.”

 

In that case, let’s again consider a porcelain coffee cup. No it’s not a coffee cup which is one and the same as a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not one and the same as a coffee cup!

 

 

398 Leave a comment on block 398 0

[398]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a porcelain coffee cup is not one and the same as a coffee cup.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Then let’s again consider a porcelain coffee cup.  No it’s not one and the same as a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s different from a coffee cup!

 

 

399 Leave a comment on block 399 0

[399]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, GSER BUM YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a porcelain coffee cup is different from a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, let’s again consider a porcelain coffee cup.  It is too different from a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s a porcelain coffee cup!

 

 

 

4

Things which Are

One and the Same as Something

Never Change

 

400 Leave a comment on block 400 0

[400]

YANG KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA DANG GCIG DE BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes again, and makes the following claim:

 

Something which is one and the same as a coffee cup is the reverse of all which is not the coffee cup.

 

401 Leave a comment on block 401 0

[401]

BUM PA DANG GCIG CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider something which is one and the same as a coffee cup.  No it’s not the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not the same thing as a coffee cup!

 

 

402 Leave a comment on block 402 0

[402]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA DANG GCIG CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that something which is one and the same as a coffee cup isn’t the same thing as a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider something which is one and the same as a coffee cup.  No it’s not the same thing as the coffee cup.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s different from the coffee cup.

 

 

403 Leave a comment on block 403 0

[403]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA DANG GCIG CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that something which is one and the same as a coffee cup is different from the coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider something which is one and the same as the coffee cup.  It is too different from the coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s unchanging!

 

 

404 Leave a comment on block 404 0

[404]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD DANG GCIG RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that something which is one and the same as the coffee cup is unchanging.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider the coffee cup one more time.  Something which is one and the same as it is too unchanging!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the coffee cup can be established as an existing thing!

 

 

 

5

The Reverse of All

Which is Not a Coffee Cup

Is Not the Coffee Cup

 

405 Leave a comment on block 405 0

[405]

KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA’I LDOG PA DE BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Something which is the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup is the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

 

406 Leave a comment on block 406 0

[406]

BUM PA’I LDOG PA CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.  Not it’s not the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not a coffee cup!

 

 

407 Leave a comment on block 407 0

[407]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I LDOG PA CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup is not a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, let’s again consider the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.  No it’s not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s not a working thing!

 

 

408 Leave a comment on block 408 0

[408]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I LDOG PA CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO MA YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup is not a working thing.

 

If you disagree, let’s again consider the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.  No it’s not a working thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s unchanging!

 

 

409 Leave a comment on block 409 0

[409]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI LDOG PA RTAG PA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD KYI LDOG PA YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup is an unchanging thing.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup.  The reverse of all which is not it is too an unchanging thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is in fact the reverse of all which is not the coffee cup!

 

 

410 Leave a comment on block 410 0

[410]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI LDOG PA YOD PAR THAL, [f. 16b] KHYOD GZHI GRUB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the reverse of all which is not the coffee cup is in fact the reverse of all which is not the coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup.  That is too in fact the reverse of all which is not it.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the coffee cup is something which can established as existing!

 

 

 

6

A Coffee Cup

Is also the Reverse

Of Everything

That is Different from a Coffee Cup

 

411 Leave a comment on block 411 0

[411]

KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LDOG {%LOG?} NA, BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the opposite of all that is not a coffee cup, then it must be the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

 

412 Leave a comment on block 412 0

[412]

GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, let’s consider the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup.  Are you saying that this is the reverse of everything which is not a coffee cup?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

 

413 Leave a comment on block 413 0

[413]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the opposite of all that is not a coffee cup doesn’t mean that it is the reverse of everything which is not a coffee cup.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

414 Leave a comment on block 414 0

[414]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LDOG PAR THAL, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup is the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup.  Yes it is the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup!

 

 

415 Leave a comment on block 415 0

[415]

MA GRUB NA, GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS CHOS CAN, BUM PA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup is the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are coffee cups!

 

 

416 Leave a comment on block 416 0

[416]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD LAS MI LDOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup is the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you do agree with our original statement, then let’s again consider the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup.  No it’s not the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not the reverse of all that is different from a coffee cup!

 

 

417 Leave a comment on block 417 0

[417]

MA KHYAB ZER NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD DANG THA DAD LAS MI LDOG NA KHYOD KYI LDOG PA MA YIN PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, KHYOD KHYOD DANG THA DAD LAS LDOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

It’s not necessarily the case that if this pair is not the reverse of all that is different from a coffee cup, then it can’t be the reverse of all which is not the coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup.  It is so the case that if something is not the reverse of all that is different from a coffee cup it cannot be the reverse of all that is not the coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the coffee cup is in fact the reverse of everything which is different from a coffee cup.

 

 

418 Leave a comment on block 418 0

[418]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KHYOD DANG THA DAD LAS LDOG PAR THAL, KHYOD BDAG MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the reverse of everything which is different from it.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the coffee cup.  It is too the reverse of everything which is different from it!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is something in the universe which has no self-nature!

 

 

419 Leave a comment on block 419 0

[419]

GONG GI MA KHYAB MTSAMS LA RTAGS MA GRUB ZER NA, GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG THA DAD LAS MI LDOG PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Now suppose that our opponent—at the point above where they said, “It’s not necessarily the case”—had instead said:

 

I disagree with your reason: It is not the case that the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup is not the reverse of everything which is different from a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider the pair of a porcelain coffee cup and a glass coffee cup.  No they’re not the reverse of everything which is different from a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are different from a coffee cup!

 

 

 

7

You Can’t be Different

If You Don’t Exist

 

420 Leave a comment on block 420 0

[420]

KHA CIG NA RE, BUM PA DANG THA DAD LAS LDOG NA BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is the reverse of all that is different from a coffee cup, then it must be the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup.

 

 

421 Leave a comment on block 421 0

[421]

RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD LAS LDOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider a rabbit’s antlers.  Are you saying that they are the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup?
Why do you say that?

 

Because they are the reverse of all which is different from a coffee cup.

 

 

422 Leave a comment on block 422 0

[422]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because something is the reverse of all which is different from a coffee cup doesn’t mean that it’s the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

423 Leave a comment on block 423 0

[423]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG THA DAD LAS LDOG PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA DAD MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers are the reverse of all which is different from a coffee cup.

 

Let’s again consider a rabbit’s antlers.  They are too the reverse of all which is different from a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are not different from a coffee cup!

 

 

424 Leave a comment on block 424 0

[424]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG THA DAD MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG THA MI DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers are not different from a coffee cup.

 

Let’s again consider a rabbit’s antlers.  They are too something which is not different from a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are not different from a coffee cup!

 

 

425 Leave a comment on block 425 0

[425]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA [f. 17a] DANG THA MI DAD YIN PAR THAL, MED NGES YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers are not different from a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider a rabbit’s antlers.  They are too something which is not different from a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they don’t even exist!

 

 

426 Leave a comment on block 426 0

[426]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA’I LDOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS MI LDOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I agree to your original statement: A rabbit’s antlers are the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you do agree to that original statement, then let’s take those same antlers once again.  No they’re not the reverse of all that is not a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not the reverse of everything which is not one with a coffee cup!

 

 

427 Leave a comment on block 427 0

[427]

MA KHYAB ZER NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI LDOG PA YIN NA KHYOD DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LDOG PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LDOG PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that if something is not the reverse of everything which is not one with a coffee cup, then it cannot be the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider a coffee cup.  It is the case that if something were the reverse of all which it is not, then it would also have to be the reverse of everything which is not one with it.[24]

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is indeed the reverse of everything which is not one with it!

 

 

428 Leave a comment on block 428 0

[428]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LDOG PAR THAL, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the reverse of everything which is not one with it.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the reverse of everything which is not one with it.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is the opposite of all which is not one with it!

 

 

429 Leave a comment on block 429 0

[429]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA CHOS CAN, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a coffee cup is the opposite of all which isn’t one with it.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider a coffee cup.  It is too the opposite of all which isn’t one with it!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it’s one with itself!

 

 

 

8

You Can’t be the Reverse of All

Which is Not Something

If You Don’t Exist

 

430 Leave a comment on block 430 0

[430]

KHA CIG NA RE, RI BONG RVA DE BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LDOG ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

Those rabbit antlers are the reverse of all which is not one with a coffee cup.

 

 

431 Leave a comment on block 431 0

[431]

RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS MI LDOG PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the rabbit antlers.  No they’re not the reverse of all which is not one with a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not the opposite of all which is not one with a coffee cup!

 

 

432 Leave a comment on block 432 0

[432]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA MA YIN PAR THAL, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers aren’t the opposite of all which is not one with a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider those antlers.  No, they’re not the opposite of all which is not one with a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not one with a coffee cup!

 

 

433 Leave a comment on block 433 0

[433]

MA GRUB NA, RI BONG RVA CHOS CAN, BUM PA DANG GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, MED PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that a rabbit’s antlers aren’t one with a coffee cup.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the rabbit antlers.  No, they’re not one with a coffee cup!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they don’t even exist!

 

 

 

9

Our Own Position on

Identifying Reverses of

All That Are Not

 

 

434 Leave a comment on block 434 0

[434]

` ,RANG GI LUGS LA, BUM PA’I LDOG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, BUM PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is where we present the position of our own school.

 

We can posit an example of something which is the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup, because a coffee cup is it!

 

 

435 Leave a comment on block 435 0

[435]

BUM PA’I LDOG PA DANG, BUM PA DANG GCIG GNYIS YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN TE, GZHI GRUB NA KHYOD KHYOD KYI LDOG PA YIN PAS KHYAB PA DANG, GZHI GRUB NA, KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

The two of “the reverse of all which is not a coffee cup” and “that which is one with a coffee cup” amount to the same thing, because if something can be established as existing, then it is always the reverse of all that it is not; and if that thing can be established as existing, then it is also always one with itself.

 

 

436 Leave a comment on block 436 0

[436]

MA GRUB NA, GZHI GRUB NA KHYOD KHYOD DANG GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB PAR THAL, GZHI GRUB NA KHYOD KHYOD DANG THA DAD MA YIN PAS KHYAB PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree!

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet it is the case that if something can be established as existing, then it is always one with itself.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because if something can be established as existing, then it can never be separate from itself.

 

 

 

 

 

V.

Oneness

&

Separateness

 

 

437 Leave a comment on block 437 0

[437]

, ` ,,GCIG DANG THA DAD KYI RNAM BZHAG BSHAD PA LA,

 

Here begins the topic known as “Oneness & Separateness.”

 

 

 

1

Refuting Claims Made

on the Subject of

Oneness & Separateness,

beginning with:

One Thing Can be Another

Without Being It

 

438 Leave a comment on block 438 0

[438]

KHA CIG [f. 17b] NA RE, NGO BO GCIG YIN NA GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is such that to be it is to be something else, then it and the other thing are necessarily one and the same.

 

 

439 Leave a comment on block 439 0

[439]

DNGOS PO DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, GCIG YIN PAR THAL, NGO BO GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of working things and changing things.  So, are they one and the same?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are such that to be one is to be the other!

 

 

440 Leave a comment on block 440 0

[440]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because working things and changing things are such that to be one is to be the other doesn’t necessarily mean they’re one and the same.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

441 Leave a comment on block 441 0

[441]

MA GRUB NA, DNGOS PO DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, NGO BO GCIG YIN PAR THAL, BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of working things and changing things are such that to be one is to be the other.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of working things and changing things.  They are too such that to be one is to be the other!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re such that to be one is to automatically be the other!

 

 

442 Leave a comment on block 442 0

[442]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, NGO BO GCIG PA BDAG NYID GCIG PA RANG BZHIN GCIG PA RNAMS DON GCIG YIN KHYAB MNYAM YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because the two of working things and changing things are such that to be one is to automatically be the other doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily such that to be one is to be the other.

 

And yet it does mean that, because the concepts “to be one is to be the other”; “to be one is to automatically be the other”; and “to be one is by nature to be the other” all amount to the same thing.

 

 

443 Leave a comment on block 443 0

[443]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, DNGOS PO DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, DU MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement:  The two of working things and changing things are one and the same.

 

If you do agree, then let’s again consider the two working things and changing things.  No they’re not one and the same!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re many![25]

 

 

444 Leave a comment on block 444 0

[444]

MA GRUB NA, DNGOS PO DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, DU MA YIN PAR THAL, PHAN TSUN THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of working things and changing things are many.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider working things and changing things.  Yes they are many!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are separate from each other!

 

 

445 Leave a comment on block 445 0

[445]

MA GRUB NA, DNGOS PO DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS PHAN TSUN THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MI RTAG PA DANG THA DAD YIN PA GANG ZHIG MI RTAG PA DNGOS PO DANG THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of working things and changing things are separate from each other.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet the two of working things and changing things are indeed separate from each other!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, working things are separate from changing things; and secondly, changing things are separate from working things.

 

 

446 Leave a comment on block 446 0

[446]

RTAGS RE RE NAS GRUB STE, BDAG MED YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Each of the reasons we’ve given is correct, for neither of these is themselves! [26]

 

 

 

2

Just Because One Thing

Is Always Another Thing

Doesn’t Mean

They’re Substantially So

 

 

447 Leave a comment on block 447 0

[447]

KHA CIG NA RE, NGO BO GCIG YIN NA RDZAS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is such that to be it is to be the something else, then it must always be the other thing substantially.

 

 

448 Leave a comment on block 448 0

[448]

SHES BYA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, NGO BO GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of things and unchanging things.  Are you saying that to be one is to be the other, substantially?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because to be one is to be the other!

 

 

449 Leave a comment on block 449 0

[449]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because to be one thing is to be the other doesn’t mean that to be the one is to be the other substantially.

 

But you just agreed that it did mean that!

 

 

450 Leave a comment on block 450 0

[450]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, NGO BO GCIG YIN PAR THAL, BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that to be things is to be an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider the two of things and unchanging things.  It certainly is true that to be the one is to be the other.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re such that to be one is automatically to be the other!

 

 

451 Leave a comment on block 451 0

[451]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, SHES BYA RTAG PA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PA GANG ZHIG, RTAG PA SHES BYA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that to be things is to automatically be an unchanging thing.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  And yet it is true that to be things is to be an unchanging thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, to be things is to automatically be an unchanging thing.  And secondly, to be an unchanging thing is to automatically be a thing.

 

 

452 Leave a comment on block 452 0

[452]

RTAGS DANG PO MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA CHOS CAN, RTAG PA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, RTAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree with the first half of your reason; that is, it’s not true that to be things is to automatically be an unchanging thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider things.  It is too the case that to be things is to automatically be an unchanging thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because “things” is an unchanging thing![27]

 

 

453 Leave a comment on block 453 0

[453]

RTAGS GNYIS PA MA GRUB NA, RTAG PA CHOS CAN, SHES BYA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, SHES [f. 18a] BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I disagree with the second part of your reason; that is, it’s not true that to be an unchanging thing is to automatically be a thing.

 

If you disagree, then let’s consider unchanging things.  It is too true that to be one of them is to be, automatically, a thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are knowable things!

 

 

454 Leave a comment on block 454 0

[454]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, SHES BYA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, RDZAS MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: It is true that to be things is to be an unchanging thing, substantially.

 

If you do agree, then let’s again consider the two of things and unchanging things.  It is not the case that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not substantial!

 

 

455 Leave a comment on block 455 0

[455]

MA GRUB NA, SHES BYA DANG RTAG PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS MA YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of things and unchanging things are not substantial.

 

Suppose you do disagree.  Then let’s again consider the two of things and unchanging things.  In fact, they are not substantial!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not working things!

 

 

456 Leave a comment on block 456 0

[456]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG RDZAS GNYIS DON GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because they’re not working things doesn’t mean they’re not substantial.

 

And yet it does mean that!  Because the two expressions—“working thing” and “substantial”—mean the same thing!

 

 

 

3

Things Can Be Other Things,

Substantially,

Without Being a Single Substance

 

 

457 Leave a comment on block 457 0

[457]

KHA CIG NA RE, DNGOS PO DANG RDZAS GCIG YIN NA RDZAS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If something is such that to be it is to be a working thing, substantially, then it must be a single substance.[28]

 

 

458 Leave a comment on block 458 0

[458]

KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO DANG RDZAS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Consider the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  Are you saying that they are a single substance?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because to be this pair is to be a working thing, substantially!

 

 

459 Leave a comment on block 459 0

[459]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because to be this pair is to be a working thing, substantially, doesn’t mean that the pair are a single substance.

 

But you just agreed that it does mean that.

 

 

460 Leave a comment on block 460 0

[460]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, DNGOS PO DANG RDZAS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO’I BYE BRAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of a coffee table and a coffee cup are such that to be them is to be a working thing, substantially.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  They are too such that to be them is to be a working thing, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are characteristic of the quality “working thing”!

 

 

461 Leave a comment on block 461 0

[461]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, RDZAS THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement:  The two of a coffee table and a coffee cup are a single substance.

 

If you agree, then let’s again consider the two of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  They are not a single substance!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re separate substances!

 

 

462 Leave a comment on block 462 0

[462]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, DNGOS PO GANG ZHIG RDZAS PHAN TSUN ‘BREL MED DON GZHAN YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of a coffee table and a coffee cup are separate substances.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  They are too separate substances!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, they are working things.  And secondly, they are substantial entities which are completely separate objects, neither of which shares any necessary relationship with the other!

 

 

 

4

Things Can Be Automatic,

Without being Autonomous

 

 

463 Leave a comment on block 463 0

[463]

KHA CIG NA RE, SHES BYA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN NA, BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and says the following:

 

If something is such that to be it is to automatically be a knowable thing, then it must necessarily be an autonomous entity.[29]

 

 

464 Leave a comment on block 464 0

[464]

KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, SHES BYA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  Are you saying that this is an autonomous entity?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are such that to be them is to automatically be a knowable thing!

 

 

465 Leave a comment on block 465 0

[465]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup are such that to be them is to automatically be a knowable thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they are an autonomous entity.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

466 Leave a comment on block 466 0

[466]

MA GRUB NA, KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, SHES BYA DANG BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, SHES BYA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup are such that to be them is to automatically be a knowable thing.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  They are too such that to be them is to automatically be a knowable thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are a knowable thing!

 

 

467 Leave a comment on block 467 0

[467]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, KVA BA DANG BUM PA GNYIS CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, ‘BREL MED DON GZHAN YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Well then, I agree to your original statement:  The pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup is an autonomous entity.

 

Let’s say that you do agree with our original statement.  Consider then, again, the pair of a coffee table and a coffee cup.  No they’re not an autonomous entity!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are two different, unrelated things!

 

 

 

5

Things Can Be

The Same Kind,

Without Being the Same

 

 

468 Leave a comment on block 468 0

[468]

KHA CIG NA RE, RIGS GCIG YIN NA BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

               If things are of the same kind, then it is always the case that to be one is to be the other.

 

 

469 Leave a comment on block 469 0

[469]

BA LANG DKAR ZAL DANG BA LANG NAG RGUR GNYIS [f. 18b] CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID GCIG YIN PAR THAL, RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow.  Are you saying that to be one is to be the other?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re of the same kind.

 

 

470 Leave a comment on block 470 0

[470]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because two things are of the same kind doesn’t mean that to be one is to be the other.

 

But you already agreed that it does!

 

 

471 Leave a comment on block 471 0

[471]

MA GRUB NA, BA LANG DKAR ZAL DANG BA LANG NAG RGUR GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, LDOG PA RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow are of the same kind.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow.  They are too of the same kind!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

 

472 Leave a comment on block 472 0

[472]

MA GRUB NA, BA LANG DKAR ZAL DANG BA LANG NAG RGUR GNYIS CHOS CAN, LDOG PA RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, GANG ZAG GANG DANG GANG GIS YID GTAD PAS MTHONG TZAM NYID NAS ‘DI DANG ‘DI ‘DRA’O SNYAM PA’I BLO NGANG GIS BSKYED NUS PA’I CHOS YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the a whitish cow and a blackish cow are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow.  They are too the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are objects which any person at all, in a single glance as they turn their mind towards them, would have the thought arise in their mind, all of its own, that “These two are similar.”

 

 

473 Leave a comment on block 473 0

[473]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BA LANG DKAR ZAL DANG BA LANG NAG RGUR GNYIS CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, BDAG NYID THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree with your original statement: The two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow are such that to be one is to automatically be the other.

 

If you do agree, then consider the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow once one more time.  They are not such that to be one is to automatically be the other.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because to be one is to automatically not be the other!

 

 

474 Leave a comment on block 474 0

[474]

MA GRUB NA, BA LANG DKAR ZAL DANG BA LANG NAG RGUR GNYIS CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, PHAN TSUN ‘BREL MED DON GZHAN YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow are such that to be one is to automatically not be the other.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a whitish cow and a blackish cow.  They are too such that to be one is to automatically not be the other!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re completely separate objects, neither of which shares any necessary relationship with the other!

 

 

 

6

Things Can Be

Of the Same,

And of Different,

Kinds

 

475 Leave a comment on block 475 0

[475]

KHA CIG NA RE, SHES BYAR RIGS GCIG YIN NA, RIGS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone says:

 

If two things are of the same kind in being knowable things, then they must be of the same kind.

 

 

476 Leave a comment on block 476 0

[476]

RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, SHES BYAR RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of a horse and a cow.  So, are you saying that they are of the same kind?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re of the same kind in being knowable things.

 

 

477 Leave a comment on block 477 0

[477]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because the two of a horse and a cow are of the same kind in being knowable things doesn’t mean they have to be of the same kind.

 

But you just agreed that it did!

 

 

478 Leave a comment on block 478 0

[478]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS CHOS CAN, SHES BYAR RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, NGO BO THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of a horse and a cow are of the same kind in being knowable things.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a horse and a cow.  They are too of the same kind in being knowable things.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because to be one is not to be, essentially, the other.

 

 

479 Leave a comment on block 479 0

[479]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, RIGS THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original idea: The two of a horse and a cow are of the same kind.

 

If you do agree, then let’s again again consider these two.  No they’re not of the same kind!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re of a different kind!

 

 

480 Leave a comment on block 480 0

[480]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, RIGS MI MTHUN PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of a horse and cow are of a different kind.

 

If you to disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a horse and a cow.  There are too of a different kind!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are of two kinds which are inconsistent with each other.

 

 

481 Leave a comment on block 481 0

[481]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS MI MTHUN PA YIN PAR THAL, RIGS MI ‘DRA BA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of horse and cow are of two kinds which are inconsistent with each other.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a horse and a cow.  They are too of two kinds which are inconsistent with each other!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re of unlike kinds!

 

 

482 Leave a comment on block 482 0

[482]

MA GRUB NA, RTA DANG BA LANG GNYIS RIGS MI ‘DRA BA YIN PAR THAL, RIGS MI ’DRA BA ‘JOG RGYU YOD PA’I [f. 19a] PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of a horse and a cow are of unlike kinds.

 

And yet the two of a horse and a cow are of unlike kinds!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because we can set them apart into two unlike kinds!

 

 

 

7

Things Can Be of the Same Kind,

And Not Be Positive Entities

 

483 Leave a comment on block 483 0

[483]

KHA CIG NA RE, RIGS GCIG YIN NA, SGRUB PAR GYUR BA’I {%PA’I} LDOG PA RIGS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and claims:

 

If two things are of the same kind, then they are of the same kind in being the positive expression of the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

 

484 Leave a comment on block 484 0

[484]

BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, SGRUB PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  Are you saying that they are of the same kind in being the positive expression of the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are of the same kind!

 

 

485 Leave a comment on block 485 0

[485]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because two things are of the same kind doesn’t mean that they are of the same kind in being the positive expression of the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

But you just said that it did!

 

 

486 Leave a comment on block 486 0

[486]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, DGAG BYA RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop are of the same kind.

 

If you disagree, they let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  They are too of the same kind!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re of the same kind in the sense of excluding the same type of thing.

 

 

487 Leave a comment on block 487 0

[487]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, DGAG BYA RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, THA DAD GANG ZHIG DGAG BYA RIGS GCIG BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are of the same kind in the sense of excluding the same type of thing.

 

If you disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  They are too of the same kind in the sense of excluding the same type of thing!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, they are separate things.  Secondly, they are both negatives in the sense of being an absence, in the form of the simple exclusion of what they exclude, which is the same type of thing.

 

 

488 Leave a comment on block 488 0

[488]

RTAGS DANG PO SLA, GNYIS PA MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, DGAG BYA RIGS GCIG BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PAR THAL, DGAG BYA THOGS REG GCIG PO BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

The first point we just mentioned is easily accepted.  But suppose you disagree to the second.

 

In that case, let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  It is too the case that they are both negatives in the sense of being an absence, in the form of the simple exclusion of what they exclude, which is the same type of thing.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of what they exclude: the same type of concreteness.

 

 

489 Leave a comment on block 489 0

[489]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, DGAG BYA THOGS REG GCIG PO BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PAR THAL, THOGS REG GCIG PO BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of what they exclude: the same type of concreteness.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  They are too both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of what they exclude: the same type of concreteness.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of the same type of concreteness.

 

 

490 Leave a comment on block 490 0

[490]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, THOGS REG GCIG PO BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PAR THAL, THOGS REG BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of the same type of concreteness.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  They are too both an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of the same type of concreteness.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re both absences in the form of the simple exclusion of concreteness.

 

 

491 Leave a comment on block 491 0

[491]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, THOGS REG BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG YIN PAR THAL, ‘DUS MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are both absences in the form of the simple exclusion of concreteness.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  They are too both absences in the form of the simple exclusion of concreteness.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re both examples of unproduced space!

 

 

492 Leave a comment on block 492 0

[492]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD [f. 19b] PAR THAL, THOGS REG BKAG TZAM GYI MED DGAG DE ‘DUS MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’I MTSAN NYID YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because something is an example of unproduced space doesn’t mean it’s an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of concreteness.

 

Yes it does, because “an absence in the form of the simple exclusion of concreteness” is in fact the definition of unproduced space!

 

 

493 Leave a comment on block 493 0

[493]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, SGRUB PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, SGRUB PA MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement:  These two are of the same kind in being the positive expression of the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

If you do agree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  No they’re not the same kind in being the positive expression of the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not positive entities!

 

 

494 Leave a comment on block 494 0

[494]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, SGRUB PA MA YIN PAR THAL, DGAG PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are not positive entities.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  It is so true that they are not positive entities.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re negative entities!

 

 

495 Leave a comment on block 495 0

[495]

MA GRUB NA, BUM PA’I NAM MKHA’ DANG KHANG BA’I {%PA’I} NAM MKHA’ GNYIS CHOS CAN, DGAG PA YIN PAR THAL, ‘DUS MA BYAS KYI NAM MKHA’ YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that these two are negative entitites.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the empty space occupied by a coffee cup and the empty space occupied by a coffee shop.  There are too negative entitites.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re examples of unproduced space!

 

 

 

8

Things that Belong to a Single Unit

Are Not Necessarily Each Other

 

496 Leave a comment on block 496 0

[496]

KHA CIG NA RE, GRUB BDE GCIG YIN NA, GRUB BDE RDZAS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone comes and makes the following claim:

 

If two things belong to a single unit,[30] then they’re necessarily a unit such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

 

497 Leave a comment on block 497 0

[497]

BU RAM GYI KHA DOG DANG BU RAM GYI DRI GNYIS CHOS CAN, GRUB BDE RDZAS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, GRUB BDE GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar.  So, are you saying that they are a unit such that to be one is to be the other, substantially?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they belong to a single unit!

 

 

498 Leave a comment on block 498 0

[498]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because two things belong to a single unit doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a unit such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

But you just said that it did mean that!

 

 

499 Leave a comment on block 499 0

[499]

MA GRUB NA, BU RAM GYI KHA DOG DANG BU RAM GYI DRI GNYIS CHOS CAN, GRUB BDE GCIG YIN PAR THAL, GRUB PA DUS MNYAM GNAS PA DUS MNYAM ‘JIG PA DUS MNYAM YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar belong to a single unit.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar.  They do too belong to a single unit!

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they come about at the same time, they remain for the same length of time, and they stop at the same time!

 

 

500 Leave a comment on block 500 0

[500]

MA GRUB NA, BU RAM CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI KHA DOG DANG KHYOD KYI DRI GNYIS GRUB PA DUS MNYAM GNAS PA DUS MNYAM ‘JIG PA DUS MNYAM YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD RDUL RDZAS BRGYAD ‘DUS KYI GONG BU YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the color of brown sugar and smell of brown sugar come about at the same time; remain for the same length of time; and stop at the same time.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider brown sugar.  Its color and its smell do too come about at the same time, remain for the same length of time, and stop at the same time.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the brown sugar is a conglomerate of molecules which are themselves composed of the eight different substances![31]

 

 

501 Leave a comment on block 501 0

[501]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, BU RAM GYI KHA DOG DANG BU RAM GYI DRI GNYIS CHOS CAN, GRUB BDE RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement:  The two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar are a unit such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

If you do agree, then let’s consider the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar.  No they’re not a unit such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they’re not such that to be one is to be the other, substantially!

 

 

502 Leave a comment on block 502 0

[502]

MA GRUB NA, BU RAM GYI KHA DOG DANG BU RAM GYI DRI GNYIS CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, RDZAS THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar are not such that to be one is to be the other, substantially!

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the color and smell of brown sugar.  It is indeed true that they are not such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are such that to be one is not to be the other, substantially!

 

 

503 Leave a comment on block 503 0

[503]

MA GRUB NA, BU RAM CHOS CAN, KHYOD KYI KHA DOG DANG KHYOD KYI DRI GNYIS RDZAS THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, KHYOD RDUL RDZAS BRGYAD [f. 20a] ‘DUS KYI GONG BU YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that the two of the color of brown sugar and the smell of brown sugar are such that to be one is not to be the other, substantially!

 

If you do disagree, then let’s consider brown sugar.  Its color and its smell are too such that to be one is not to be the other, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because the brown sugar is a conglomerate of molecules which are themselves composed of the eight different substances.

 

 

 

9

Two Things Can Be

Of the Same Substance,

And Not Be Each Other,

Substantially

 

 

504 Leave a comment on block 504 0

[504]

KHA CIG NA RE, RDZAS RIGS GCIG YIN NA RDZAS GCIG YIN PAS KHYAB ZER NA,

 

Suppose someone says:

 

If things are of the same type of substance, then they are necessarily such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

 

505 Leave a comment on block 505 0

[505]

NYER LEN NAS LDOG GCIG LAS SKYES PA’I NAS ‘BRU CHE CHUNG GNYIS PO CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, RDZAS RIGS GCIG YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Let’s consider the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not.  So, are you saying that to be one of these two is to be the other, substantially?

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are of the same type of substance!

 

 

506 Leave a comment on block 506 0

[506]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

 

Just because two things are of the same type of substance doesn’t mean that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

But you just said that it did mean that!

 

 

507 Leave a comment on block 507 0

[507]

MA GRUB NA, NYER LEN NAS LDOG GCIG LAS SKYES PA’I NAS ‘BRU CHE CHUNG GNYIS PO CHOS CAN, RDZAS RIGS GCIG YIN PAR THAL, THA DAD GANG ZHIG, RANG GI NYER LEN GCIG LAS SKYES PA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I disagree that the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not, are of the same type of substance.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not.  They are too of the same type of substance.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because, first of all, they are separate things.  And secondly, they’ve grown from the same single material cause!

 

 

508 Leave a comment on block 508 0

[508]

MA KHYAB NA KHYAB PA YOD PAR THAL, RDZAS RIGS GCIG MI GCIG NYER LEN GCIG MI GCIG LA BYED DGOS PA’I PHYIR,

 

Just because these two grains are separate things, and have grown from the same single material cause, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are of the same type of substance.

 

Suppose you say that it doesn’t necessarily follow.  And yet it does, because the question of whether two things are of the same type of substance is in fact decided by determining whether or not they share the same single material cause.

 

 

509 Leave a comment on block 509 0

[509]

RTZA BAR ‘DOD NA, NYER LEN NAS LDOG GCIG LAS SKYES PA’I NAS ‘BRU CHE CHUNG GNYIS PO DE CHOS CAN, RDZAS GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, BDAG NYID GCIG MA YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Then I agree to your original statement: to be one of these two is to be the other, substantially.

 

Let’s consider the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not.  No these two are not such that to be one is to be the other, substantially.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because it is not the case that to be one of them is to be, automatically, the other!

 

 

510 Leave a comment on block 510 0

[510]

MA GRUB NA, NYER LEN NAS LDOG GCIG LAS SKYES PA’I NAS ‘BRU CHE CHUNG GNYIS PO DE CHOS CAN, BDAG NYID GCIG MA YIN PAR THAL, NGO BO THA DAD YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that it is not the case that to be one of these two is to be, automatically, the other.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not.  It is true that it is not the case that to be one of these two is to be, automatically, the other.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because to be one is not to be, essentially, the other.

 

 

511 Leave a comment on block 511 0

[511]

MA GRUB NA, NYER LEN NAS LDOG GCIG LAS SKYES PA’I NAS ‘BRU CHE CHUNG GNYIS PO DE CHOS CAN, NGO BO THA DAD YIN PAR THAL, PHAN TSUN ‘BREL MED DON GZHAN YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

I disagree that to be one of these two is not to be, essentially, the other.

 

If you do disagree, then let’s again consider the two of a larger grain and a smaller grain of barley that grow from a material cause which is the same, in the sense of being the reverse of a specific thing that it is not.  It is so the case that to be one of these two is not to be, essentially, the other.

 

Why do you say that?

 

Because they are separate objects which share no necessary relation to one other!

 

 

10

Our Own Position on

Oneness & Separateness

 

512 Leave a comment on block 512 0

[512]

` ,RANG GI LUGS LA, GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

Here is where we present our own position.

 

There is a definition of oneness—sameness—because “not being different things” is that definition.

 

 

513 Leave a comment on block 513 0

[513]

GCIG LA GSUM {%GCIG LA DBYE NA GSUM} YOD DE, RANG LDOG GCIG PA DANG, NGO BO GCIG PA DANG, RIGS GCIG PA DANG, GSUM YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

“Sameness” may be divided into three types: sameness in the sense of being the same expression; sameness in the sense that to be one is to be the other; and sameness in the sense of being of the same kind.

 

 

514 Leave a comment on block 514 0

[514]

RANG LDOG GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RANG LDOG SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There does exist a definition of “being the same expression,” because “not being different expressions” is that definition.

 

 

515 Leave a comment on block 515 0

[515]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, BYAS PA DANG BYAS [f. 20b] PA GNYIS PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example would be the two of something which is made, and something which is made.

 

 

516 Leave a comment on block 516 0

[516]

YOD PA DANG RANG LDOG GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, YOD PA DANG RANG LDOG SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “existing and being the same expression,” because “existing and not being separate expressions” is that definition.

 

 

517 Leave a comment on block 517 0

[517]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, YOD PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR, CHOS THAMS CAD LA RIGS ‘DRA,

 

And there is a classical example of “existing and being the same expression,” because “existing” would be that example.  This same pattern follows for all the things there are.

 

 

518 Leave a comment on block 518 0

[518]

NGO BO GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, NGO BO SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of sameness in the sense that to be one is to be the other, for “a case where things are not such that to be one is not to be the other” is that definition.

 

 

519 Leave a comment on block 519 0

[519]

NGO BO GCIG PA DANG {RANG%} BZHIN GCIG PA BDAG NYID GCIG PA RNAMS DON GCIG

 

“Being such that to be one is to be the other”; and “being such that to be one is to naturally be the other”; and “being such that to be one is to automatically be the other” are expressions that all mean the same thing.

 

 

520 Leave a comment on block 520 0

[520]

{%,}SHES BYA DANG NGO BO GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, SHES BYA DANG NGO BO SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “to be the thing is to be a knowable thing,” for “not being such that to be the thing is not to be a knowable thing” is that definition.

 

 

521 Leave a comment on block 521 0

[521]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, YOD PA DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example would be an existing thing.

 

 

522 Leave a comment on block 522 0

[522]

RDZAS GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RDZAS KYI SGO NAS SO SO BA MA YIN PAR SKYE BA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “to be one thing is to be the other, substantially,” because “being things that have grown and are not different things, as regards to their substance” is that definition.

 

 

523 Leave a comment on block 523 0

[523]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, BYAS PA DANG MI RTAG PA GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example would be the two of a made thing and a changing thing.

 

 

524 Leave a comment on block 524 0

[524]

RIGS GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, RIGS SO SO BA MA YIN PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of “being of the same kind,” for “things which are not of a different kind” is that definition.

 

 

525 Leave a comment on block 525 0

[525]

RIGS GCIG PA LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA DANG, RDZAS RIGS GCIG PA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

Being of the same kind comes in two different types: one where two things are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not; and another where two things are of the same type of substance.

 

 

526 Leave a comment on block 526 0

[526]

LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA LA DBYE NA GNYIS YOD DE, SGRUB PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA DANG, DGAG PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA GNYIS YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

There are two further divisions to things of the same kind where they are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.  The first is a case where this reverse is a positive entity; and the second is where this reverse is a negative entity.

 

 

527 Leave a comment on block 527 0

[527]

SGRUB PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, GANG ZAG GANG DANG GANG GIS YID GTAD PAS MTHONG TZAM NYID NAS ‘DI DANG ‘DI ‘DRA’O SNYAM PA’I BLO NGANG GIS SKYED NUS PA’I CHOS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a specific definition for things that are positive entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.  And that is: “Objects which any person at all, in a single glance as they turn their mind towards them, would have the thought arise in their mind, all of its own, that ‘These two are similar’.”

 

 

528 Leave a comment on block 528 0

[528]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, GSER BUM ZANGS BUM GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

And there is a classical example for this, because the two of a gold coffee cup and a copper coffee cup would be just such an example.

 

 

529 Leave a comment on block 529 0

[529]

SGRUB PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA LA DBYE NA GSUM YOD DE, SHES PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA DANG, GZUGS SU GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA DANG, LDAN MIN ‘DU [f. 21a] BYED DU GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA DANG GSUM YOD PA’I PHYIR,

 

There are three different divisions to these things that are positive entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.  First are those things of this type which are awareness; second are things of this type which are form; and third are those things of this type which are active entities that are neither awareness nor form.

 

 

530 Leave a comment on block 530 0

[530]

SHES PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, LHAS SBYIN GYI MIG SHES DANG, MCHOD SBYIN GYI MIG SHES GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can give examples of positive entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not—and which are a kind of awareness.  For we can point to the two of the visual awareness that John has, and the visual awareness that Jane has.[32]

 

 

531 Leave a comment on block 531 0

[531]

GZUGS SU GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, TZANDAN GYI KVA BA DANG, SHUG PA’I KVA BA GNYIS DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can give examples of positive entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not—and which are a kind of form.  For we can point to the two of a coffee table made of sandalwood boards, and a coffee table made of juniper boards.

 

 

532 Leave a comment on block 532 0

[532]

LDAN MIN ‘DU BYED DU GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG PA BZHAG TU YOD DE, SGRA’I BYAS PA DANG, BUM PA’I BYAS PA GNYIS PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

We can give examples of positive entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not—and which are active entities which are neither awareness nor form.  For we can point to the two of a sound’s quality of being made; and a coffee cup’s quality of being made.

 

 

533 Leave a comment on block 533 0

[533]

DGAG PAR GYUR PA’I LDOG PA RIGS GCIG GI MTSAN NYID YOD DE, DGAG BYA RIGS GCIG BKAG TZAM GYI THA DAD PA’I MED DGAG DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

There is a definition of negative entities which are the same in being the reverse of what they are, in a certain way, not.  And that is: “Two absences of things which are separate from one another, and which are the simple exclusion of things they exclude which are of the same type.”

 

 

534 Leave a comment on block 534 0

[534]

MTSAN GZHI NI YOD DE, BUM PA GANG ZAG GI BDAG MED DANG, KVA BA GANG ZAG GI BDAG MED GNYIS PO DE YIN PA’I PHYIR,

 

A classical example here would be the two of the fact that no person has any nature of their own, as applied to a coffee cup; and the fact that no person has any nature of their own, as applied to a coffee table.

 

 

To be continued!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

Comparative List of the Names

of Divine Beings & Places

 

English         Sanskrit        Chinese         Tibetan

 

Gentle Voice              Mañjughoṣa               文殊师利            ‘Jam-pa’i dbyangs

‘Jam-dbyangs

 

Source of Jewels        Ratnākara          宝积佛                Rin-chen ‘byung-gnas

 

Limitless Life             Amitāyus          无量寿佛            Tse dpag-med

 

Accomplishment       Amoghasiddhi 不空成就佛                 Don-yod grub-pa

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography of Works

Originally Written in Sanskrit

 

 

S1

Dharmakīrti (Tib: Chos kyi grags-pa).  A Detailed Commentary on Valid Perception (Pramāvārtika) (rGyas-pa’i bstan-bcos tsad-ma rnam-‘grel, Tibetan translation at TD04210, Vol. 65 [Ce] of the Valid Perception Section [Pramāa, Tsad-ma] of the bsTan-‘gyur [sDe-dge edition].

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography of works

originally written in Tibetan

 

B1

(Bse) Ngag-dbang bkra-shis (1678-1738).  Fulfilling the Hopes of the Fortunate: A Necklace for the Wise, a Great Explanation which is Designed for All Three Types of People—those of Highest, Medium, and Lesser Capacity; and which Wraps into it the Meaning of the “Commentary on Correct Perception,” that Great Classical Work which itself Comments on the True Intent of the Teachings on Correct Perception (Tsad-ma’i dgongs-‘grel gyi bstan-bcos chen-po rNam-‘grel gyi don gcig tu dril-ba Blo rab ‘bring tha-ma gsum du ston-pa legs-bshad chen-po mkhas-pa’i mgul-brgyan skal-bzang re-ba kun-skong, ACIP @), 158ff.

 

B2

(rGyal-ba) dGe-‘dun grub (1391-1474).  Illumination of the Path to Freedom: An Explanation of the Holy “Treasure House of Higher Knowledge” (Dam-pa’i Chos-mngon-pa mdzod kyi rnam-par bshad-pa Thar-lam gsal-byed, ACIP S05525), 205ff.

 

B3

(‘Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa sku-phreng dang-po) ‘Jam-dbyangs bzhad-pa’i rdo-rje Ngag-dbang brtzon-‘grus (1648-1721).  A Treasure Chest for the Jewels of the Teachings of the Able Ones, which Illuminates the Positions Accepted by the Victors of the Past, Present, and Future: A Commentary that Explains the True Thought of the Holy “Treasure House of Higher Knowledge,” Volume 1 (Dam-pa’i Chos mngon-pa mdzod kyi dgongs-‘grel gyi bstan-bcos Thub-bstan nor-bu’i gter-mdzod dus gsum rgyal-ba’i bzhad-don kun-gsal, Cha dang-po, ACIP S19100-1), 107ff.

 

B4

(Co-ne bla-ma) Grags-pa bshad-sgrub (1675-1748).  The Sun that Illuminates the True Intent of the Entire Mass of Realized Beings, the Victors and All Their Sons and Daughters: A Commentary upon the “Treasure House of Higher Knowledge” (Chos-mngon mdzod kyi t’ikka rGyal-ba sras bcas ‘phags-tsogs thams-cad kyi dgongs-don gsal-bar byed-pa’i nyi-ma, ACIP S00027), 211ff.

[1] Gentle Voice: That is, Manjughosha (Sanskrit), commonly known as Manjushri, or in Tibetan, Jampel Yang: the enlightened Angel of Wisdom.  A chart of these and other names of holy beings found in the text is included in the appendices, along with the corresponding Sanskrit and Tibetan equivalents.

[2] Suppose someone says: Much of Ngawang Tashi’s text is written in the form of a debate between a proponent of his own school’s position, and an opponent.  Some of the opponent’s replies are by tradition assumed, and not written in the original Tibetan.  We have supplied them in the translation together with the opponent’s other statements, all in italics—so our reader can keep track of who’s talking at any given point.  We have also numbered each paragraph in the Tibetan text, to assist scholars in locating a specific section for comment or study.  In addition, we have given a name and number to each separate debate, for the reader’s convenience; and inserted as well the folio numbers of the original Tibetan manuscript.

[3] A white seashell: The Tibetan here, chos-dung dkar-po, more specifically refers to a white conch shell which has been fashioned into a horn that is used during religious ceremonies.  It is especially significant here at the beginning of Ngawang Tashi’s text because its wide-spreading sound also represents spreading the wisdom of the Dharma throughout the world.

[4] Ratnakara, the Source of Jewels: Head of one of the famed five Buddha families, each one possessed of an enlightened body which shines in a different, unique color.  Each of the Buddhas mentioned next in the section is another family head, shining in their own traditional color.

[5] The reverse of what is not: This is a technical term in Buddhist logic, spelled ldog-pa in Tibetan; as a description of the archetype of the color red, it is particularly important to this school of philosophy, known as the Sutrist School.  {@get Sanskrit by checking logic texts in Tengyur}

[6] If something is form: The reader should note that the word “form” (Sanskrit: rūpa; Tibetan: gzugs) used in the following sections can refer to three different things: (1) the first of the five “heaps” or components of a person (Skt: skandha; Tib: phung-po), in which case it refers to the entire physical component of the person and their world; (2) the first of the twelve doors of sense (Skt: āyatana; Tib: skye-mched), in which case it refers to the object of the awareness of the eye (that is, colors and shapes); and (3) the first of the 18 categories (Skt: dhātu; Tib, khams), in which case it again refers to the object of the sense power of the eye, and the awareness based upon it.  The various arguments here depend on the potentially confusing overlap of the term for these three.

[7] Not subsumed by a mindstream: That is, not directly covered by our awareness; a classical example is the tip of a hair which is still attached to our head (we do not sense it if someone pinches it); as opposed to the root of the same hair (which we do sense, if someone pulls that hair out).  See for example Light on the Path to Freedom, the commentary to Master Vasubandhu’s Treasure House of Higher Knowledge (Abhidharma Kosha) by His Holiness Gyalwa Gendun Drup (1391-1474), the First Dalai Lama (ACIP digital text catalog #S05525, %B2, f. 32b).

[8] Earth, water, fire, and wind: Here referring to the four as the four elements, or foundational physical energies of the universe.  See for example ff. 56b-57a of the commentary to the Treasure House by Jamyang Shepay Dorje, Ngawang Tsundru (1648-1721) (%B3, ACIP S19100-1).

[9] Sense of sight which shares a support: In this case the sense of sight is not resting upon the outer object which it perceives, such as the blueness of a bowl on the table in front of us.  Rather it is relying upon mind’s imagination of blue in a dream—and sharing this support.

[10] Because it’s white!  As in the English language, the argument here in Tibetan hinges on the ambiguity of the word “white.”  We can say that “a horse is white” in the sense of “a horse is colored white,” but that doesn’t mean that a horse is white in the sense of being the color, whiteness.

[11] Because a horse is a person: First of all, be aware that the Tibetan (and original Sanskrit) words for “person”—gang-zag and pudgala, respectively—both refer, enlightenedly, to both living creatures who are humans and to those who are animals.  Secondly, we learn here the important philosophical point that “horse” refers to the idea of a horse, just as “John” refers to the idea of John.  And only then can we say that John has a body, or that the horse has a white color: If John has a body, then “John” is not the body itself; nor is a horse the white color which it possesses.

[12] Flat or not flat: Remember that, in the presentation of our own position on physical form in section #7 above, we have said that “flat or not flat” were two of the eight types of shapes of physical form we can see.

[13] All of reality never changes: The idea is not that individual members within the group of all the objects that constitute reality in general cannot be in a state of change, but rather that the group of all objects as the group of all objects never changes from being the group of all objects that happen to exist at any given moment in the history of the universe.

[14] The antlers do no work: Stay aware that the Tibetan phrase used here for “a thing which does no work”—dngos-med—can also connote “non-existent thing.”

[15] Coffee cup: The word that we’ve translated as “coffee cup” here is bum-pa in the Tibetan, or kumbha in the Sanskrit—which literally means “water pitcher.”  The point is that when a teacher in ancient India was trying to prove something to a student, they would immediately point to an object close at hand.  Given the absence of modern plumbing, almost every room in those times would have a water pitcher sitting on the table where the teacher was teaching.  Since plumbing is standard in modern times, we have chosen another, similar object which is frequently found in classrooms.

[16] Let’s consider a coffee table: Again, we have chosen an object which is very commonly present in a modern room.  The original Tibetan is kva-ba (Skt: stambha), or pillar, since almost every room in ancient Asia would have one.

[17] It keeps its own nature: This traditional definition of an “existing object” is based upon an original ancient spelling in Sanskrit.  In that language, the word for “existing object” is dharma (which later came to connote the highest of all objects—the teaching of the Buddhas); whereas the original root from which this word derives is /dhir, which means “to hold,” or “to keep.”

[18] Apprehended by a person with omniscience: It is well-known among students familiar with Buddhist logic that “something which can be perceived with an accurate perception” is in fact the definition of “something which exists.”  Here we see the deeper intent of that definition: All things which exist are necessarily objects of perception, since in Buddhism we accept the existence of beings who can see all things in all times, at the same time.  This is the Buddhist solution to the famous question in Western philosophy: If a tree falls in the middle of the forest, and no one perceives it, did it happen?  The Eastern answer is that all events are perceived, all the time.

[19] Unproduced: The normal Tibetan spelling for “unproduced” here would be ‘dus ma-byas, meaning “not produced (ma-byas) by the coming together (‘dus) of the necessary causes and conditions.”  Master Ngawang Tashi repeatedly uses the variant here, ‘du ma-byas.

[20] The individual has no nature of their own: One of the greatest truths in Buddhism is that the individual person has no nature of their own.  If something exists, then it exists within the context of this more general truth to the universe.

[21] All things which lack a self-nature: As noted before, this set is equivalent to the set of all things which exist.

[22] Where the person has no nature: Again, equivalent to saying, “Because it exists!”

[23] A porcelain coffee cup: Again, we are simply taking a common example of a specific coffee cup in modern times; the Tibetan literally refers to a water pitcher made of gold, as a variant on an everyday object that we could point to in almost any room.

[24] Not one with it: Our author breaks the normal pattern of debate here, but it seems defensible, if not a carving error of some kind!

[25] They are many: As a logical device, our author has switched between two meanings of the Tibetan word chik (gcig) here.  As we have seen, it means “one,” but can also mean “one and the same,” or “one with.”

[26] Neither is themselves: That is, neither has any nature of being itself, by itself.  As we’ve seen previously, this is a valid reason here as it is true of both groups mentioned.

[27] “Things” is an unchanging thing: Meaning that the set of “all things” never changes.  See footnote #13@.

[28] A single substance: Again, this argument hinges upon a potential linguistic ambiguity, since the Tibetan expression for “single substance” (rdzas gcig) is very close to the expression “to be one is to be the other, substantially” (dang rdzas gcig).

[29] An autonomous entity: We have done our best with a nearly untranslatable word-play, as the Tibetan for “autonomous entity” is bdag-nyid gcig, and for “to be one is to be the other, automatically” is dang bdag-nyid-gcig.

[30] Exist as a single unit: The spelling of the Tibetan here seems to be a variant, accepted by the author, of what is normally spelt grub-sde rdzas gcig.

[31] The eight substances: The eight substances referenced here are the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind; along with the four objects of visual form, smells, tastes, and tangibles.  All molecules are said to include these eight component substances; sound is excluded because of its particularly ephemeral nature.  See for example f. 41a of the commentary to the Treasure House by Choney Lama, Drakpa Shedrup (1675-1748) (%B4, ACIP S00027).

[32] John & Jane: The ancient Sanskrit here is “Devadatta & Yajna [Yajña]”; but the point is to use a generic name for ones own culture (such as “John Doe”).

Source: http://texts.10000booksofwisdom.com/fulfilling-the-hopes-of-the-fortunate/