Медитации на пустоту: объяснение шагов к пониманию того, что ничто не является самим собой, занятие 37

[Speaker 2]
Today I'm going to give you a lecture on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

[Speaker 1]
So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

[Speaker 2]
So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

[Speaker 1]
So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

[Speaker 2]
So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body. So, I'm going to give you a brief introduction on how to get rid of negative energy in the body.

[Speaker 1]
body. Because, if something were real, so the yunna has to be translated as, if something were, and it's not very elegant English, you could say if something is real, but it's supposed to be the theoretical. You're showing off your skill if you say were, because it's impossible.

Okay, if something were real, it would have to be one or the other. I mean, maybe both, but that's impossible. Yeah, it would have to be one of those two.

There are only two choices. Either it's a real singular thing, or it's a real more than one. Okay, cool.

So, that proves the Kyabpa. Not really. I mean, it only proves it one way.

But he promised us the Suldrupa. Okay, anyway. You'd almost think I translated it right.

He didn't make it plural. He basically just covered the J-Kyabpa. Yeah, he didn't express the Do-Kyabpa directly.

I don't think so.

[Speaker 2]
There are four phrases, though. If something is this, it must necessarily not be that.

[Speaker 1]
He did do both. He did do both. That's cool.

Thank you for saving me from Kramer. Okay. Ni-pa-chok-chu-du-pa-la-ni-le-tang-po-ni.

What's that say?

[Speaker 2]
As for how the quality relates to the subject, there are two ways in which the quality relates to the subject. Here's the first one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by the way, he's explaining why the relationship between one and three is true. Meaning, sprouts are neither a self-existent one nor self-existent more than one. And I like to sometimes play with it that way because it points out that this contradiction is all-inclusive.

It's neither one nor more than one. So it's an all-inclusive. It's more obviously all-inclusive than one and many.

Although one and many is all-inclusive, but people don't hear it. So, he's going to prove why a sprout is neither self-existently one nor self-existently more than one. And he's going to split it into two, which I presume is proving that it's not a self-existent one.

And then in the second part, he's going to prove that it's not a self-existent many. And he uses this opportunity to get into the emptiness of parts, which is cool. It's kind of something we always wanted to hear.

Okay, so there's a long, nice presentation here of parts and wholes. Whole car, parts of the car, okay? And it's nice.

I believe he gets into atoms. Yeah, he's going to get into atoms, the emptiness of atoms. He's going to do the Better History of Time talk.

Okay, he's going there. He's going into atomic theory, okay? He's proving science is wrong.

Thank you, Choney Lama, Honey Lama. I like to call him Honey Lama. I like to call Veronica Honey Lama, too.

Okay. Which one were we on?

[Speaker 2]
Just the one above where we are now.

[Speaker 1]
The second part, in which we prove the relationship between the subject and the reason, is going to have two parts. The first of these two parts is the following. Okay.

Okay, go. Phil, you still have the plane. Somebody point out a subtlety of the second part that we're going to have ...

that, you know, if you want to be really precise, you're going to have to translate. There's something in the second part here, tendu kuchita me de, which is subtly ... we're going to have to change our translation, subtly.

[Speaker 2]
Because there don't exist as forms?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly, as. He added the word as. Okay, he added the word as.

He hasn't mentioned it before. As being ... Yeah, and by the way, this is the misspelling, spelled correctly here.

This is why people make that mistake, because after a G, you must use a T, when it's a preposition. Okay, so this is a Daini grammar case, which means, technically, if you deem it important, and I haven't decided yet, you have to say, it doesn't exist ... it is not something which exists as one.

[Speaker 2]
Truly exists as one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which exists as one truly. Okay, that's it. So you have to add, it is not something which ...

you see what I mean? If you really want to follow, if you want to be super precise, whether he has a reason for doing that, I don't know. We don't know yet.

But he probably does have a reason for doing that. Yeah, because it ... chache.

Say chache. Chache. Cha-cha-cha.

Cha-cha-cha. Chache. Chache.

Chache. What's it mean? It possesses parts, yeah.

It comes with parts. It is a thing which ... I'm sorry?

[Speaker 2]
It is a thing with parts.

[Speaker 1]
It goes really well with that thing to say yin instead of cha.

[Speaker 2]
But usually yin is when it has something. But it is a thing which has parts that you want to emphasize.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no, it already ... Chache is the same as cha-yu. They are synonyms.

Cha-yu, yin may change. Yeah, she wants to say cha-cha-yu, which would actually be incorrect. Yeah.

That would mean things with parts exist, is the reason. And that's unchanging. And they get messy.

Things would get messy. Okay? All right.

All right. Cha-cha-cha. By the way, cha probably came from cha.

But that's another story.

[Speaker 2]
Cha-cha-cha. Cha-cha-cha.

[Speaker 1]
Kyab-a-lop. Kyab-a-lop. Show me the kyab.

Give me the kyab. And you're working from the first statement, which is on the screen here. It's the first thing on the screen.

Kevalo. Give me the kevalo. Give me the jekyab it means, not the dokyo.

[Speaker 2]
There is a sprout that...

[Speaker 1]
No, whenever I say kevalo, go to the reason, and then say, if it is, and then go to three, and then say two.

[Speaker 2]
If it is a thing, it has parts.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it must be. If a thing has parts, it must be...

[Speaker 2]
It must be not existing as one truly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it cannot be a self-existent one. If a thing has parts, it cannot be a self-existent one. And then we say, why do you say that?

And we say, well, if it were... Okay. And again, any time, as a translator, you get close to the gaccha, start throwing in words that show that you know it doesn't exist.

Yeah, if in the stupid possibility it could exist. But, you know, don't use... What do they call those things?

The... Don't use articles which are ambiguous, that might be taken to mean it does exist.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. So, Dendukichi, you know, if something were a real existence, a self-existent single thing, then it would have to be one thing that had no parts. Okay.

Now, he's throwing us an a priori. He's throwing us an a priori. Oh, he proves it, I'm sorry.

Okay. He proves it, okay. You got it?

So say it to me. If something were a self-existent one thing, then...

[Speaker 2]
If two exist as one, then it would have to be a thing that has parts.

[Speaker 1]
Chame.

[Speaker 2]
That had no parts.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it'd have to be a single thing which has no parts. If a thing were a self-existent single thing, it'd have to be a single thing that didn't have any parts. But then we're kind of like, why?

You know, can you prove that? Yeah, if we're going to take that as a priori, if we're going to... A priori means start from this truth, without proving it.

Without proving it. If you're going to say that's true from the beginning, you know, could you just slow down and prove why that's true? But he does.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, can I ask a question?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Would you say it's something we're truly one, rather than saying a self-existent thing which we're one?

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm just using self-existent because it's comfortable for you guys. Uh-huh. You definitely can't use it here.

You cannot use it here.

[Speaker 2]
You said something like truly one in a translation.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Truly one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or you could say in truth.

[Speaker 2]
One in truth, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but there's cases where you can't fool with it. Like, uh... Dön...

Dön Dampa Drupa. And Dön Dam Dönpa. One exists, definitely.

One doesn't exist. So you got to be careful. You might want to follow his format.

Because sometimes it matters. Sometimes it matters. Okay.

Uh... Okay. Dön Tam.

It is true that if something is a... Let's just say real. That's legal here.

If something were a real single thing, it would have to be a single thing. Don't forget you have to repeat single thing here. Okay?

With no parts. Okay? He didn't say chamay yin gu.

He said chamay jik yin gu. It would have to be a single thing with no parts. Okay?

Dön Tam. Well, that is the case. Because...

Go ahead. This is kind of difficult. Do you want to try it?

[Speaker 2]
If there were a thing with parts that is divided?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if a thing can be divided into parts. Yeah, chashay together is part. And we talked about it.

And some bad typist will correct it to SHES. And the frequency, you can check it. It's probably 99 to 1.

It's definitely 99 to 1. I bet you. So chashay kyi yewa yunna.

If a thing is divided into parts, Okay? If a thing is divided into parts, then those parts must pensen dön. And here is Sugeng's dön.

And if you ever get the dön, I'm going to make you a choro. Yeah, okay. But you got to say rely.

You have to use a different word than depend because it's used as the definition of dependence. Okay, so you must say rely. You must use another verb for depending because it's used to explain dependence.

Okay, all right. So pensen means? Mutually.

But what does it mean here? Who's mutual? When you say mutually, you need two things.

[Speaker 2]
The thing and the parts. The thing relies on the parts. And the parts rely on the things.

[Speaker 1]
I kind of go with Nick, but I'm not sure. It must, since it exists in a way where there's a reliance between these things with each other, an interdependence, you might say that there's an interdependence both ways. Okay, this depends on this and this depends on this.

I would take it to be the parts. Yeah, like the left side has to get along with the right side. And then if the parts had to rely on each other, if it depended on the parts, if there were parts interacting, then it's contradictory to say it was existing.

He just says dendro. Then it existed in truth. You can say in truth, exist in truth, dendro, dendardro, exist in truth.

If a thing is divisible into parts, then? Those parts, since those parts exist in an interdependent relationship, the thing could never be real.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, how is the agenda that's working here?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry? Oh, because, since those things would have to be ... This ne means through.

That means since. The pe is since. The pas is since.

Since they would have to exist in an interdependent relationship. Since they would have to exist in an interdependent relationship, then they could not be real. Then the whole could not be real.

[Speaker 2]
It's contradictory to say that they're real.

[Speaker 1]
Not that they're real, that it is real. Would you scroll back a notch? What's the tel?

Because this is a na, not a tel, right? They're tel. Okay.

It's just this is what he's teaching. If something were a real singular thing, then it would have to be a singular thing that had no parts. Because if it had parts, it couldn't be real.

Why? Because those parts would have to interact with each other.

[Speaker 2]
And if it did that?

[Speaker 1]
It couldn't be real, according to him. It couldn't be really real. He hasn't explained why.

He didn't say it couldn't be real. No, he didn't say one. It couldn't be really one.

No, he didn't say one here. Where did he say it couldn't be real? Right here.

He didn't say chik. You see? Ah, but the chikchen is still up above, because this is dirt.

Well, you could assume the chik, but he hasn't stated it. Where's the chikchen? Oh, no, that chik.

I thought you meant this chik. He didn't repeat this chik. But he's using it because he just said ter tel, so it's te.

[Speaker 2]
Isn't that the tel's under teaching you now?

[Speaker 1]
The tel is, you don't flip this tel. He already stated the kelpa. He's stating the kelpa.

So you don't have to reverse these two. You see what I mean? He's already in a kelpa.

Yeah, so you don't have to... Yeah, here you have to reverse. If three, then two.

But here he already stated. If three, then two. So we just repeat it.

And we have the kelpa. Okay? You alright?

The point is here he didn't say one. Okay? Meaning, neither could it be a self-existent many.

But it's just a general truth, that if one thing, or we could even say two things, okay? I'm just doubting. Existed in such a way that its parts were interdependent, then that thing, or those things, could not be real.

[Speaker 2]
It's more general.

[Speaker 1]
But he's talking, the assumption is he's talking about a single thing. Okay? Cool?

Because, I'm just saying this is a general truth, applying to the whole universe. Okay? If a thing has, if a thing exists in a way where its parts interact with each other, it can't be real.

Okay? Okay. You know, you already lost the waiter, right?

The waiter went back to the kitchen already. We lost the waiter. Oh, we lost the waiter doing Adam's plan.

[Speaker 2]
Now we're free to do what we want. All the waiters now have PhDs.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's true. Which you will find out if we lose our sponsorships. Okay?

So tuck your money away, okay? And later I'm going to tell you, I said it 20 times, garner your resources, you know? Take care of the money you're getting now, because it may be hard to repeat.

Okay?

[Speaker 2]
GONG GI BTAG DER Tell?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, GONG, GONG. If you say GONG, it means egg. Okay?

GONG, GONG. Yeah, you must say that deep-throated, sage-y sound. GONG, GONG.

Did you sing? Do you ever sing? No.

Oh, you might have a beautiful voice.

[Speaker 2]
GONG GI BTAG DER Tell?

[Speaker 1]
GONG GI BTAG DER Tell? Give me a better GONG SHIG. GONG SHIG It's like, you say, GONG SHIG So we go up on the SHIG?

No, it's just dramatic. You pause between the GONG and the SHIG. GONG SHIG GONG SHIG In English, the voice tone goes up.

It has lousy food, and it has lousy service. You know, you go up, and it means, I have a second part coming, if you think about it, in English. First of all, it has lousy food, and...

and then there's two high tones, right? Okay, anyway. No, but it's...

I want to make you Tibetan, that if there were Tibetan in the room, he'd say, those guys sound like Shakespeare. You see? I don't want to do sound like this, like human computer sound.

[Speaker 2]
I'll have it in 20 more years.

[Speaker 1]
No, you're halfway there. Okay, GONG GI BTAG DER Tell? Give me a better GONG SHIG.

It's been about 20 years. CHA MA'I SHES JA LA MI SRID PA'I PHYIR Whoa! Is it 30 bucks for CHA MA'I SHES JA LA MI SRID PA'I PHYIR?

For the reason. Just for the reason. Translate the reason.

Half the reason. The second half of the reason.

[Speaker 2]
Is it possible for a part of this thing to be known?

[Speaker 1]
You mean SHAKE JAY? Are you translating SHAKE JAY?

[Speaker 2]
No, it's impossible that there's an existing thing that has no parts.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 2]
It's impossible that...

[Speaker 1]
How much was it?

[Speaker 2]
...any of it has no parts.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm going to cut off $10 for lying.

[Speaker 2]
It's impossible that a thing that has no parts is the whole thing. Whatever mother. No, no, it's an interesting answer.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. I'm sorry, say again. I'm sorry.

We apologize.

[Speaker 2]
We apologize for...

[Speaker 1]
Okay, go ahead. GONG GI BTAG DER Tell means, my last BTAG. It is so.

Okay, GONG means above, right? The last BTAG I gave is true, which means what? PHEN ZIN THUN DE THUG PAS BRAL DU YIN PAS Okay, if something...

If it's true that if something exists... If it's true that something has parts and they interact, then the thing can't be... Then it's contradictory to say that it's real.

That's my thought. That was my last thought. That is true.

If something has parts and interacts with each other, it cannot exist really. It's contradictory to say it exists really. Then we say GONG GI BTAG DER THUG.

That is true because this thing... It exists, okay? Whatever you're talking about exists, okay?

And secondly... Okay, that's your $30. Earn it.

And secondly... And secondly... Yeah, there is no thing that doesn't have parts.

Whether you're talking about... If you want to get cute. Whether you're talking about...

Blah or blah.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, something that's one or many.

[Speaker 1]
I don't want you to go there. What's the classic division in DCI Level 7 of all existence? Oh, no.

I'm taking back $29. I'm taking back $29. Word had it right.

Listen to Word.

[Speaker 2]
Say how you translated that phrase. Say how you translated that phrase. It's impossible that there's an existing thing that doesn't have parts.

He should pay me.

[Speaker 1]
Now it's gone. Pell drip. We've got a pell drip situation here.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The amount of money he's getting and the intelligence of his answer... It's going like this. Okay?

The unintelligence of his answer and the amount of money are in a pell drip relationship. Okay, the point is, which you might miss here, or you might not think about here, is that Chan Mei also applies to chas. When you can talk about chas, he's not talking about parts of things that change.

He's talking about parts of things that... Everything. Yeah, so his thought here implies that parts apply to everything.

Everything. Changing or unchanging. Space, emptiness, fish.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it? Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's the thing you should be aware of as you go through this, as you pass these places in your car. Okay? When he says, chan mei she jang la mi si, he didn't say, what?

Chan mei ngu po la mi si. Or he didn't say, chan mei mi tak pa la mi si. He didn't say, every changing thing has to have parts.

He said, every existing thing has to have parts.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it? So that means that the talk we're talking about here is not the most previous one, but the first one, because now we have the chima.

[Speaker 1]
Aren't we talking about the chima next? Which is the last... Oh, yeah, yeah.

You can say that. The second part of my reason. Okay.

So the talk... No, he's talking about the chima of these two. Here's one.

Here's two. Okay? He's talking about one and two.

Okay? So now he's going to prove two. Nothing can exist and not have parts.

So chima means, let me prove that to you. Let me tell you why that's the case. Always the case.

Tell. That if something exists, it must have parts. If something changing has to have parts, that's comfortable.

But he went further right away. He went further right away. He went to Pabongka Rinpoche's Three Principal Paths commentary to the lower middle way, right away, and said the emptiness of directions.

Okay? Like that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Parts of an unchanging thing. Okay. Okay.

Go ahead. Chima is intelligent? Hey!

He went there too. And I did not look at him. Which means he's intelligent.

[Speaker 2]
Tell. Chima chelang me. Chima chelang me.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Good. What's it say?

And what's a, what's an alternate way he could have said this same sentence? In Tibetan.

[Speaker 2]
There's not even things that are put together, nor are there things that aren't put together.

[Speaker 1]
Put together is extremely illegal for this word. We should toss him out of the room. Like a nut, like the shell of a mixed nut.

[Speaker 2]
Created by the coming together of its causes and conditions.

[Speaker 1]
Created. Produced. Produced.

Yeah. The next time somebody says composed for, produced, I'm going to throw him out the room.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it was the same thing.

[Speaker 1]
It was, okay, got it? This is talking, in common language, what is this, the distinction between one and one? What's another way to say this in Tibetan?

[Speaker 2]
In Tibetan.

[Speaker 1]
Finally. It's like pulling a molar. Yeah, you could have said, mitapa and takpa, right?

You could have said, mitapa, sorry, yeah, mitapas and takpas. You just reversed it, right? Got it?

Yeah. Okay. And the long?

Both.

[Speaker 2]
Either or, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Either or. Both.

They don't, a partless thing doesn't exist whether, long means, whether you're talking about duches, or whether you're talking about dumiches. And in Tibetan, you repeat the yang. Kala yang yabu mendu, shab ji yang yabu mendu.

Say, kala yang kala yang yabu mendu yabu mendu shab ji yang shab ji yang yabu mendu yabu mendu kala The food's lousy, and the shab ji and the service is lousy. But in Tibetan, you have to say, the food is also bad, and the waiters are also bad. You have to repeat also, in Tibetan.

Okay? Comfortable? Yeah.

Okay. Here it means, a partless entity doesn't exist whether you're talking about produced things, or you're talking about unproduced things, unproduced existing things.

[Speaker 2]
Unproduced existing things. That's how you would translate it?

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, I mean, I would make it smoother. I'm just trying to, yeah, I'm trying to avoid rabbit's horns. Now, we're hoping that he's going to prove those sequentially.

Prove, prove that produced things have to have parts, and now prove that unproduced things have to have parts. And now, things, in English, can mean existing things, and it cannot mean existing things. So that's an unfortunate thing.

[Speaker 2]
It's unfortunate. No, no. Is that an unfortunate existing thing?

[Speaker 1]
It's just unfortunate that, you know, thing, in English, is not very clear. It doesn't always imply existing things. Okay.

And I've had people fight me about thing. See, you just said it. He just said it, non-existing thing.

You see what I mean? So, unfortunately, thing in English doesn't necessarily always imply existing. Yeah, it just, yeah.

Okay, here we go. What method is he using to prove that produced things?

[Speaker 2]
He's shooting him real fast.

[Speaker 1]
His author did it. His author used this same method when he was discussing... Yeah, by elimination.

But what was the example in his case?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
He said, Bach Chalks are neither blood, Bach Chalks are neither blood, and Bach Chalks are neither blood, therefore they are blood. Give me those four for a hundred dollars.

[Speaker 2]
Damn.

[Speaker 1]
Hey! Ouch, ouch, ouch. Therefore, they are...

No. I save my money.

[Speaker 2]
Therefore, they are...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they just exist as ideas. Wow, that was close. Thanks.

Thanks for having mercy, Word. Okay. Trouble that, huh?

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and he's just going to do this. There's many ways you can prove something.

He's going to split all duches into three. Then he'll prove one by one that they have to have parts, and we're out of the woods. Because, no, we're not out of the woods because we have to go to Dumatine, which is going to be more interesting.

Okay, got it? You okay, Utpala? Yeah, this is that thing where you show your fingers in English.

The food's bad, the service's bad, and it's expensive.

[Speaker 2]
Exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I could kiss you, but you're too far away. Okay. Perfect, perfect, yeah.

Okay. Now, if he's going to be, you know, honest, he has to go through each one of those. One minute for each one.

[Speaker 2]
Don't go there. Tell us.

[Speaker 1]
Now, more illuminations. Sorry. Sometimes you do the main thing, and there's a little bit left, when you're illuminating.

I don't think you want to say physical. Sorry?

[Speaker 2]
You don't need to. Just physical.

[Speaker 1]
It's not true of gross physical objects, and it's not true of subtle physical objects. Okay, got it? Ah, yeah, here he could have said suk.

Suk rapa la'ang me. Suk trawa la'ang me. Okay, it's not true of either gross physical things, like molecules, or subtle physical things, like atoms, that they don't have parts.

[Speaker 2]
Don't go there. Tell us.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, man. He's going crazy.

[Speaker 2]
...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the first is true about gross physical objects, like a table, okay? Or, sorry, like a coffee cup. If we take a gross physical form, such as a coffee cup, those things, numbs, they have directions.

They have front, back, left, right, okay? They have directions. And then he does a mayinga for $10.

[Speaker 2]
Man, I saved a lot of money this morning.

[Speaker 1]
I just want to thank you guys for being so slow, and I really appreciate it, especially the guys who are asleep. V won't come home and my bank account's empty. Come on!

You can see that with your eyes! What's the mayinga? What's the mayinga?

No, we are going to get to things that you can't see with your eyes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
No, atoms, atoms. Okay. It's not atoms, it's the sense powers.

No, it's atoms right here. Don't try it out. It comes next.

Yeah, okay. Okay, with big things, you can see they have parts. With little things, okay, then the guy gives it up.

He says, with big things, you can see with your own eyes they have parts. Then the guy says, yeah, but what about atoms? Yeah, but what about atoms?

Okay, they don't have parts.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's going to say, yeah, but what about atoms? I think it's a cool place to have to stop because this is going to be a long argument. Oh, but it's going to be next time?

That's why it hurts. I'm so sorry. End of term.

End of term six.

[Speaker 2]
Only 17 more classes to go today.

[Speaker 1]
I enjoy it. It's okay. I really don't mind it.

I like to kvetch, but...

[Speaker 2]
Just for fun.

[Speaker 1]
Just because I should. Especially to Seiji. He did not contact me last night with a new thing to do.

And I got to sleep. I got to sleep. I got to sleep.