Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 14

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's go. SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING

[Speaker 1]
SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING

[Speaker 2]
SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING

[Speaker 1]
SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE CHENG CHENG PAR DU DANG NYID KYANG SU CHING SANGYE CHENG YEN GYI PASANG NAMKHE Okay.

So, we're at a place where we are trying to prove...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it seems to be that we're kind of referring to lower middle way and mind only guys. It seems like they want to say there is a kind of a solid me because there's the consciousness at the end of the line or there's the foundation consciousness. So there is part of all of my parts, there's one part which is so solid it could count as me.

And I believe that's the substantial here. So, the consciousness at the end of the line, the awareness of all the other consciousnesses, it's called GYI KYI RNAM PAR BSHAD PA, right? Awareness of your thoughts.

Awareness of your mind. So that's kind of at the back of everything, okay? There's nothing aware of it, okay?

It's just a silent witness of thoughts going by and impressions going by. It's the watcher, okay? And there's nothing behind it.

So that's lower middle way. Or you could say the core of Michael is Michael's storehouse where all Michael's seeds are living. So when you teach DCI to people, I think they sort of naturally start to believe in a kunshi without talking about kunshi.

You keep saying over and over, things are coming from your seeds, and then in their minds forms this little blob inside of their brain where all these seeds are sitting, okay? I mean, we don't talk about it, but people start to feel like that. There must be like a little area of my mind that's about three inches wide and all the seeds are staying there.

And then, you know, my husband's coming out of there. So that in these schools is called substantial. Either the consciousness at the end of the line or that little blob in the middle of the head.

Then we have to prove why that's not a self-nature. Why that's not a self-existent me. And then we're going to do that.

We're going to deny that kind of ze, that kind of substantial thing, or solid thing. We're trying to deny it. So we're going to do it in two steps.

We're going to give a reason, and then we're going to prove the relationships within that reason, the three relationships. Take this coffee. It's better than the last one because it's made well, or something like that.

So the three relationships are, one is true, one is true.

[Speaker 2]
Coffee's made well.

[Speaker 1]
Then if three, two. If it's made well, it's better than the other ones. And if it's not better than the others, it's not made well.

Not two, not three. If the second relationship holds, the third one must. There's no case in the universe in which if the second relationship holds, the third one doesn't.

So when you study logic more deeply, you will see that, and you'll wonder why they made three. It's just sort of a reconfirmation. It's not a new thing.

It's not new information. If three, two, is the same as if not two, then not three. It's the same thing.

But it's just tradition that we reconfirm. So anyway, what we're expecting here now is a formal proof. Someone's going to...

How many parts to a formal proof?

[Speaker 2]
Three or four.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'd like you to say four. Yeah, good. If you give it seshi.

So take blah, blah. It's blah, blah. Because blah, blah, it's like blah, blah.

So the one I didn't mention yet, there's people like Siddhartha who are new to logic, Buddhist logic. You can often give a fourth part, which is you compare it to something else that people accept. DGRAG BZHIN DAG TU BYAS PA'I PHYIR DPER NA DGON PA BZHIN So take sound.

It's changing because it's made. It's like a coffee cup. You say it's like a blah, blah.

So there's four parts. When you're proving your relationships, you don't worry about this one. You're just talking one, two, three.

How come we're not trying to establish the relationship between one and two? Because two is what we're trying to prove about one. Yeah, one is two is what you're trying to prove.

So relationship, when we say relationship, it means something the opponent already recognizes. Something the opponent already accepts. And the only thing they don't accept is that one is two, because that's what you're trying to prove.

So we don't call it a relationship. Not in the three relationships. And they all have names in the study of logic.

GRUB BYA, GRUB BYED CHOS, CHOG CHOS, BYED KHYAB, DOG KHYAB, SEMS SHING RNAM DAG, TSEN PA'I YANG DAG They all have their own names. And you should learn them someday.

[Speaker 2]
Those are the names of the relationships?

[Speaker 1]
Those are the names of the relationships? Well, the three relationships are CHOG CHOS, BYED KHYAB, and DOG KHYAB. What you're trying to prove is GRUB BYA.

The quality you're trying to prove is GRUB BYED CHOS. The subject about the quality is called the CHOS CHEN RNAM DAG. The reason is called DAG YANG DAG.

The example is called TSEN PA'I YANG DAG. They all have their own names. Logic words.

Anyway, here's our proof. And it's going to have four parts because we're going to have a... Say TSEN PA'I YANG DAG.

TSEN PA'I YANG DAG Okay, TSEN PA'I YANG DAG. TSEN PA'I YANG DAG Okay, you can say it that way. Okay, misspelled to start with.

And you can't blame the typists. I could do a statistic vote for you, but it's certainly a thousand to one between RGYA and RKYA. You can't blame them for correcting RKYA, which only happens here in a million pages.

And RGYA, which happens on many, like one out of five pages. Somebody can run it if you're in the mood. Don't forget to put a space after it.

And a space before it. Okay, so our... Oops.

Our example, the CHOS CAN, is let's consider the self, which appears to be self-standing. Let's talk about the self nature, which appears to be self-standing. We're discussing two kinds of self right now.

What were they again? Substantial in the sense of being self-standing. No, the...

Oh, the KUN GZHI and the YI GYI MED PA SHES PA. The awareness of your thoughts and your seed bank account. Seed bank account, okay?

Those two. 1,000 to 87,000. 1,000 to 87,000.

One to a hundred. RGYA. Yeah.

By the way, this one only got that many points because it also means oar of a boat. I believe. Or SKYA, I'm not sure.

Okay, so let's take the self, which appears to be self-standing. What is it referred to? The KUN GZHI.

YI GYI MED PA SHES PA or KUN GZHI. It appears like they don't lean on anybody behind them. So you get this more appreciation for what self-standing means here.

You see, everybody else is relying on KUN GZHI MED PA SHES PA, right? They're seeds. Your husband, your job, your foot, they're all flowing out of...

They go back to, they rely on KUN GZHI MED PA SHES PA. All your thoughts, all your impressions, all your memories, all your perceptions, they come back to the witness. But the witness doesn't rest on anybody.

And the seed bank account doesn't rest on anybody. Okay, got it? So you get a feeling for what RANG RGYAS PAD PA means here.

Self-standing. What does self-standing mean? The buck stops here.

I'm not leaning on anybody else. I'm me. I'm the core of Michael.

The rest is flowing out of that core. And the rest rests on that core. But the core is self-standing.

It's not waiting for somebody else. Okay? So I want you to get a feeling for what self-standing means here.

It refers to those two guys. They're not waiting for someone else. They're the end of the road.

They're the big boss. The buck stops here. Harry Truman.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
For the part, you translated that rock as to be. And is that because there is no such thing?

[Speaker 1]
No, this R is as.

[Speaker 2]
We said it is as substantial. Doesn't that give some idea it does exist?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, no. You see, I can say, take the mirage that appears to be water.

You can say that. When you say appears, then the water is already false. You see what I mean?

Okay. Yeah, do you have to use one of those could be or would be or might be? Not here, because you used the word appears.

This already implies falsity.

[Speaker 2]
Right. I'm just thinking that for sometimes RA doesn't always mean as, because if we used as, it would be giving a different message.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you could say as though it were. As though it were. If you wanted to be sure that people got it.

PHUNG PO DANG ZIN NYID MI THUB PA'I RANG NYID THUB PA'I BDAG TU MED PAS Now, you have a new element here. This is the number two of the proof. It's the second element of the proof.

It's the quality we're trying to prove. What's the quality we're trying to prove? It doesn't exist as a self-nature, which is self-standing, and which is ZIN NYID MI THUB PA'I from the parts of the person.

It doesn't contradict the parts of the person. Well, ZIN NYID means definition, right? MI THUB PA'I means not in accord.

We're going to have trouble translating this word, this term, this phrase. Try to think of it as soul. How soul relates to your body and mind.

When you're a kid, mom says, if I die before I wake, pray the Lord myself, okay? Body will die. Mind will be gone.

Then soul is somehow... Essentially separate from? Yeah, good.

Something like that. Essentially inconsistent with the stuff of the five heaps. Not only is it self-standing, it's of an entirely different nature, which is even inconsistent with the nature of the five heaps.

This is inconsistent, right? Inconsistent with the nature of the five heaps. It must be some kind of stuff.

Soul must be some kind of stuff which is totally foreign to the five heaps. When I was a kid, it was made of crystal that looked like a marble. It was about this big, made of glass or something.

It definitely wasn't skin or blood or bones or thoughts. It was made of crystal, and it lived inside of me. That's what they're getting at here.

What is it referred to in this case? The place where my seeds are, or the witness, who's behind all that stuff, watching all that stuff, and somehow eternal, and somehow unchanging, and somehow unaffectable. Self-standing.

If all that stuff went away, soul would still be there. It's like got in it. Okay, you got the feeling.

So don't forget ksang yi mi dunpa. What's inconsistent with the nature of. That's the second part.

Don't forget. Maybe we should even number them. I don't know.

Let's number them for right now, just because we're going to have to say it in not one, but two, stuff like that. Okay, it'll make our life easier. PHUNG PO DANG RANG RGYAS THUG PA'I GCIG DANG RANG RGYAS THUG PA'I THA' DE'I GANG RUNG DU MA GDUG PA'I PHYIR It doesn't exist as either one thing.

How do you say it? It isn't self-standingly one with the heaps, and it isn't self-standingly different from the heaps. It's not the same thing as the five parts in a self-standing way, and it's not a different thing than the five parts in a self-standing way.

It's very similar. This logic is very similar to GCIG DU DANG. It's very similar to the proof of one or many.

Because you have to say self-existent one or self-existent many. Okay, got it? So instead of just replacing self-existent with self-standing, it's not self-standingly, it's not the same as the five heaps in a self-standing way, and it's not different from the five heaps in a self-standing way.

Great point. By the way, when you talk about soul, which one are you thinking? In the one I just described, when I'm a little kid and mom says, if you die, your soul's going to go to...

No, which of these two? Yeah, yeah. I feel like it's separate.

It's a self-standing separate from my body and mind. Because mom said, if you die, your mind stops, your body stops. This doesn't stop.

So I think it must be the second one here. It must be separate. Self-standing separate.

But to be thorough, he's going to use both. It's like saying neither one nor many. Because that way you cover all possibilities.

If something is neither one nor many, it's definitely... Doesn't exist. Got it?

So this is one of those proofs where you use two possibilities which are called all-inclusive opposites. Like Adam's just been doing all morning. Dharpa and mitharpa cover everything.

Everything has to be dharpa or mitharpa. If it's not dharpa or mitharpa, it cannot exist. So either this self is separate from my body and mind, or it's somewhere in my body and mind.

In both cases in a self-standing way. Okay, got it? All right.

Then we say, then the Thimpa Yantrak is pretty weird. What is it? Take antlers of a rabbit as Adam translated it.

I like that, Adam. That's a very nice translation. That's a really nice translation.

Because antler is so foreign to rabbits. Like horn you could almost imagine. But antler is a great translation.

It's cool. Yeah. Okay, here's one of the rare usages of an asana.

It's called asana. You got a piece of paper? I got a piece of paper.

Okay. So this is this. You have ka.

Okay. And it's called an asana. And they say it's a small...

Some people say it's an ah. And you chop this off. And it got put here.

Oh, I see. I thought it was a wa. Some say wa-su.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so that's wa. And you cut this part off.

[Speaker 2]
That's what I was talking about.

[Speaker 1]
Some people call it ah-su. Some people call it wa-su. You can do a vote.

Z-U-R after W-A. At least there's an ah-chung too, right?

[Speaker 2]
That's a separate thing.

[Speaker 1]
Either a wa-su or an ah-chung. Take a vote. Okay, how am I doing?

Apostrophe, A, space, Z-U-R. Apostrophe, A, space. Space, apostrophe, A, space.

Space, apostrophe, A, Z-U-R. Space, Z-U-R. Space, apostrophe.

No, space, apostrophe, A, space, Z-U-R. Space, apostrophe, A, space, Z-U-R. And then just do W-A, tab.

W, no, I'm sorry, different here. Then W-A, Z-U-R. Okay, W-A.

And I'll, wait, I'm going to have to do it. 50-50. I'm going to say people disagree equally.

Alright, I'm hoping it's wa-sur-chun.

[Speaker 2]
Me too. Because that's what I've been thinking for a very long time. For that reason.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think this has much to teach it. I guess so. For wa-surs.

For wa-surs?

[Speaker 2]
And no a-surs. No a-surs. Alright.

[Speaker 1]
That doesn't mean it's right. It just means more people think it. We could probably find, like, Lexie Yun Wong somewhere in here.

He doesn't go through that stuff, does he? Who? Young Ginger by Dorothy.

He does. He does. Yeah, you could take, search in the grammar if you want.

But anyway, if it's not in the whole database, it's not in the grammar. Correct. There's a ring to that.

You could try the danger. Okay. Or you could try the young cat like that.

Until I'm right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
For example, there's your dungpa yang dak. Now the dungpa yang dak is supposed to be something which has the qualities expressed in two and three. The classic example, the similar example, is supposed to possess the qualities expressed in two and three.

We don't say two and three. We have to say the qualities expressed in two and three. The kata yin, the kata mayin, the kata yu, the kata me.

It's supposed to have the qualities. So what's this quality? Something that's essentially distinct from that.

Is a rabbit antler a self which is self-standing and is essentially distinct from...

[Speaker 2]
It's parts.

[Speaker 1]
It's inconsistent with the nature of the piece. Is a rabbit's horns inconsistent with the nature of the five parts? Body and mind.

Sometimes I like to translate. Nowadays I'm thinking of five each as body and mind with no space.

[Speaker 2]
I'd say no, because the horns are on his head. No, I'm trying to understand.

[Speaker 1]
Because it's a male.

[Speaker 2]
So I must misunderstand number two.

[Speaker 1]
Well, let's see. Number two is a self who is self-standing and is of an inconsistent nature with the body and mind. And then this one is either the same as the self-standing and the same as the body and mind or self-standing and separate from the body and mind.

So rabbit horns are supposed to have both those qualities. But isn't the assertion that it's not? Yes, it doesn't.

It doesn't. The two is not. Yeah.

Okay? You all right?

[Speaker 2]
I don't get it, but that's all right. No, you didn't realize.

[Speaker 1]
You have to turn around. Yeah, we need to turn around.

[Speaker 2]
I can write the words down. That's okay.

[Speaker 1]
If you say, dracichen mitakte chepay chir...

[Speaker 2]
That's a thing that doesn't exist at all.

[Speaker 1]
No, just listen. Dracichen mitakte chepay chir takes down its changing because it's made. You take these two qualities, which are changing made, and you try to find another thing that has those two qualities, which is a vase or a water pitcher.

Now do the same thing here. A self-standing self, which is inconsistent with the body and mind. Okay?

A, like mitakpa. And two, it is either the same as the body and mind or separate from the body and mind. So the rabbit's horns.

Okay, those are the two qualities.

[Speaker 2]
So the rabbit's horns don't exist, so number two is fine. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Do they have these two qualities? No. No, rabbit's horns don't have qualities.

Nor are they self-standing. They just don't have qualities.

[Speaker 2]
Unless we're using it as a funny example because those two things can't exist anyway, so we're just coming up with one.

[Speaker 1]
Let's keep going. Let's keep going and then, you know, if you don't understand it by the end, let's come back. Okay?

Now this is an amazing misspelling. Because this is a word. Dungpo means...

Yeah, circular, and it comes in the monk's robes. It comes in... You're supposed to wear a...

You're supposed to wear a... A tube. A tube.

It means a tube. You're required to wear a tube. It can't be a piece of cloth that you wrap or something like that.

It can't be a lungi. It has to be a tube. So dungpo is a word, and it can also mean to be joined together.

And so, it took me a while. When I got here, I didn't have the karmic. Okay?

But this is a kind of logic, okay? Say, drong da.

[Speaker 2]
Drong da.

[Speaker 1]
Ma mikpay tak.

[Speaker 2]
Ma mikpay tak.

[Speaker 1]
Ma mikpay tak means proof that something is not there. Or proof where you use the absence of something to prove that something else is not there. Proof that you use the absence of something.

Or proof that something is not there. So ma mikpay tak is confusing. What's ma mikpay mean?

[Speaker 2]
Not there.

[Speaker 1]
Not there. Okay? So, if you say a reason, ma mikpay reason, what does it mean?

It means because something's not there, then something else is X or Y. Because of the lack of this. Yeah, well, there's an ambiguity here.

Does ma mikpay tak mean you're trying to prove that something's not there?

[Speaker 2]
Well, it sounds like it's just a...

[Speaker 1]
Or does it mean it's the absence of something, which if it's absent, the other thing is not there, or is there? I think it's that one. Okay, okay.

I'll go for that one. So there's two kinds here. Gyel da mikpa or gyel da ma mikpa?

Say gyel da.

[Speaker 2]
Gyel da. Mikpa. Mikpa.

[Speaker 1]
Gyel da. Gyel da. Ma mikpa.

Ma mikpa. Gyel da mikpa means take the color of this liquid. It's not red because it's green.

The presence of a color which contradicts another color proves that the other color is not here. If it's green, it can't be red. So if you establish that green is here, then you establish that red cannot be here.

That's called gyel da mikpa. The presence of a gyel da. Gyel da means a match of one of a pair.

The ancient word for husband or wife is da wong or kunda, body match. The honorific for husband or wife is kunda. That comes from the idea that the dawa is the match of the nima.

The moon is the match of the sun. You want to go deeper? So that came to mean the double of the sun.

The moon is the double of the sun. It's called the double. So husband or wife came to be called body double.

That's your body double. Then the repetition of a mantra came to be called doubling. What do you call it?

Dorje depa. Repeating. So repeating a mantra is called doubling.

It comes from the word for moon. Is it like depa in Sanskrit? Got it?

It's a Tibetan thing, yeah. I don't think you can find it in Sanskrit. It's chandra and it's hata.

Anyway, don't go there. Okay, so either you can say this is green. If it's green, that excludes the possibility that it's red.

The presence of green excludes the possibility that it's red. That's called presence of a contradiction double. Presence of a contradiction double.

Red and green are called contradiction doubles. If one is present, the other cannot be present. Got it?

Now the opposite of that is called delna, which means relationship double. And if one is present, the other one is present. So if one's not present, then...

If one is missing, the other one cannot be there. So if there's no liquid in this cup, there's no... Green drink.

Okay, got it? Those are called delna. They are doubles, but they are connection doubles.

You see, you have connection doubles and connection doubles.

[Speaker 2]
So they don't have to be exactly the same because you could say there's liquid, but it's not green drink.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could, yeah. It depends on what order you give them in. There's no liquid here.

Sorry, there's no green drink here because there's no liquid here. It depends which one's a subset of the other one. Yeah, but sometimes they're equal sets.

So anyway, there's two possible relationships here. In your text, it's going to be called gal-del-kin-dom-shab. It's coming in his text.

It's called contradiction and relationship. Cool. Red excludes...red disallows green. But green drink requires liquid. Okay, so green drink and liquid are pairs that have to... If one's there, the other has to be there.

If you want to have green drink there, there has to be liquid there. They're called relationship pairs.

[Speaker 2]
But it doesn't go both ways.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it could.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it could, but it doesn't have to.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. But green and red?

[Speaker 2]
Make brown.

[Speaker 1]
They're contradiction pairs. So if you want to prove something's not there... You ready?

Yeah. Hold on to your seatbelt. If you want to prove something's not there, there's two ways to do it.

Number one, prove that the contradiction pair is there. Or prove that the relationship pair is not there. I'll kiss you, Stanley, but you're too far away.

Okay, got it? Now, this happens to be... So what he says here is the reason that we're using to prove that the consciousness at the end of the line, whether it's foundation consciousness or mental consciousness of your thoughts, what we're using to prove that the consciousness at the end of the line doesn't exist as a self-standing thing, doesn't exist, is we're using an absence of a relationship pair.

There's no liquid, so there cannot be a green tree. Now, what's present is the non-existence of... Oh boy.

Anyway, I thought just to get you in the mood, I'll give you the classic Djan Dhamma Mikpa. This is going to take a couple of classes. Just this section, just this page is going to take a couple of classes.

I want to give you the classic Djan Dhamma Mikpa. What's it mean? Something doesn't exist because a partner that would be required for it to be there is not there.

Okay. If you made a vow never to be separated from your partner, in a room, and then we said, Nick and Aaron, and then if we say Nick's not in the room... And Aaron's not in the room?

Yeah, we're proving that Aaron's not in the room. That's called Djan Dhamma Mikpa.

[Speaker 2]
How do you spell the D? Is it just D-A?

[Speaker 1]
It's D-L-A. It's right here. I spelled it for you correctly.

Djan Dhamma Mikpa. Now, the carving had doom. I think you should give me like a dollar for figuring that out.

No, because it's not that common. It's not that common. Djan Dhamma Mikpa is not that common.

It took me about ten seconds. No, it took me a little longer. This is a traditional discussion of reasons for the absence of things by Choney Lama in another book.

I wanted to read you one of the classic Djan Dhamma Mikpa talks so you would remember. This is a classic Djan Dhamma Mikpa talk. Proof of something's absence because the one that's always the partner of it is gone.

The proof that Aaron cannot be in the room because Nick is not. Okay? Got it?

Now, if Nick can't stand somebody, like Stanley. Let's say they hate each other and they never sit in the same room. Cannot bear to be in the same room.

Then I'll say, is Stanley in the room? I say no, because Nick is in the room. That's Djan Dhamma Mikpa.

They're both reasons why something's not there. They're both reasons why something's not there. But one is because something else is there and the other is because something else is not there.

Okay, so here we go. SDUG GI ZHIG GI CHOS CAN This is a really classic CHOS CAN. Take the place right in front of me.

Right here. So forget the word she and don't worry about it. It means take this spot right here.

Right in front of Geshe Michael. Right here. ZHAG LTAR GAL DANG NA SONG BA'I GANG ZHAG GI RGYUD LA DE'I NGES PA'I CHES BZHED DON TAN MED TE We have CHES BZHED downstairs.

We studied it a while ago. Yeah, recollection. Is it the same thing as memento?

Recollection? It's close. It's very close.

Oh, it's fancy. Almost the same. A little bit more correct is recollection.

For CHES BZHED, because I like, sometimes you choose a second English word for a Tibetan word because there's a first Tibetan word for memory, which is called tenpa. So tenpa is very common, smriti. Very, very common.

So we kind of reserve that for memory. And for CHES BZHED we want to use recollection. It's just because there's two Tibetan words.

CHES BZHED is less common. Much less common. So recollection is less common in English.

So you choose a less common word that kind of means memory. There's no CHES BZHED of a day. There's no CHES BZHED which perceives.

This NGES PA means perceives. It's not an adjective, it's a verb. Viniścaya, something like that.

There's no recollection where a person perceives that. That here happens to refer back to here, shastra. Meat to eat.

BZHED ZA What kind of pizza? BZHED ZA Meat eater. And this is a scriptural word for a preta.

It's a synonym for a preta. Yida. BZHED ZA OM MED TA ABHISHMARA It's in the Vajrayana.

Abhimara Vajrayana. Okay, anyway. Abhimara.

We call Abhimara, but it's Abhishma. It's Abhishmatsara. Anyway, it means meaning.

And it's a synonym for preta. So pretas are not visible to normal people. You know that.

There could be pretas in this room. Now, GAL BDOD means almost like kokyar. It's a logic term.

You won't see it anywhere else. It's part of the logic vocabulary. It means like kokyar.

GAL BDOD, the song which it means, has gone into being an object which is hidden to normal person. Or GAL BA can mean doubt. Something they can't be sure about.

You can say invisible to a normal person. Invisible to a normal person. So a person for whom a preta is normally invisible could not have in their mind a recollection of having seen one yesterday.

If this person is a person who cannot see a preta, then could they have in their mind a recollection of seeing one yesterday? No. Which means, if you have a recollection of having seen a preta yesterday, it means yesterday you must have had a pramana of a preta.

So these are DAL DA. These are relationship pairs. They are like Nick and Aaron.

If in a human being's being, there's no original perception of a preta, there cannot be a recollection of the preta that they saw with their sema, with their pramana. These are DAL DAs. There's two kinds of DAL DAs if you really want to know.

Positive and negative? Because there's two kinds of DALAs. Identity or causation.

Yeah, yeah. There's two kinds of relationships between things in the universe. One is cause and effect.

And one is to be. Is to be. Like car and Toyota.

Car didn't cause Toyota. Car and Toyota exist together. They have a relationship.

If you're a Toyota, you're a car. We call it a one-way relationship. If you're a Toyota, you're a car.

If you're a car, you're not necessarily Toyota. It's a one-way relationship. The causal would be like fire and smoke.

Yeah. Or it would be like the original perception of a preta. Tomorrow's recollection of a preta.

The next day's recollection of a preta. Okay, got it? So that's a DAL DA MA MIG PA.

Okay? The MA MIG PA part means there is not present in that person's mind stream a recollection. I'm sorry.

A valid perception. Yeah, an original valid perception of a preta. Since there isn't that, they can't have a memory of having seen it.