Texts of Diamond Cutter Classics

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

KHYAB PA KHAS,

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

But you just agreed that it did!

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

` ,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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

` ,DE LA RTZOD PA SPONG BA LA,

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

` ,,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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

` ,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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

BEM PO DANG GZUGS GNYIS DON GCIG ,

“Matter” and “form” are synonymous.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

` ,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]

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]

‘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]

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]

‘GAL KHYAB LA ‘PHUD,

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

[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]

` ,,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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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,