Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 18

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. Sometimes he looks like serious like sage. Where are we?

Here we are. I think so. Is anybody there.

Are you guys there. This make noises so I know I'm not just saying my tree. Wait, you got to see my grandson he's starting to look pretty awesome.

Finally, Oh, he looks like Christina Jessica.

[Speaker 3]
My tree. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. He's got this thing coming out of his out of his mouth is not sure what it is yet. All right, here we go.

Anyway, he's a valuable member of our team. Here in Sedona, and we miss you when we wish you were here to share screen. All right.

Yeah, no crying. Where's Gibson. Are you there.

Emily kick Gibson. Gibson. Gibson you there.

Turn your mic on. I can see him. It's his picture.

Okay, forget it. I. How about Tim, you ready.

Ready. You want to come sit next to me. Come on.

[Speaker 2]
No excuses.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, don't look at his legs you guys. Okay, we're gonna start here. Okay, let's go.

He's correcting me. So gang said he wants to correct you. Sure.

[Speaker 2]
All right. You're done. Good.

[Speaker 1]
All right, why are we doing this, or yeah. We're talking... by the way, we're on the section which later became, I don't know, Sheja...

what? Sheja Namshak. Okay, this is the first great discussion.

It's about what are the words for existence itself? Okay, existence itself. All existing things.

Okay, we're going to talk about the different kinds, the different words that we use for existence itself. We're going to talk about the definition, and we're going to talk about the divisions. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
We've got leakage. Gibson. There we go.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so somebody says... by the way, you guys, please repeat. These are four synonyms.

These are four synonyms, okay? Yul. Meaning all the objects in the universe, okay?

Yul means object of perception, right? So, objects... all the objects of perception is the same as Sheja.

What's that mean? All the things you can consider. Oh, Sheja.

Yeah, and then we got Shelja. Measurable things. All the things you could ever consider, okay?

And then Yupa. Existence. Existence.

They're all synonyms, okay? We'll say it again. Any Yul, which means object of perception, any Sheja, knowable thing, any Shelja, considerable thing, object of consideration, and then Yupa.

Existence. Four synonyms. These are all synonyms, okay?

So, we're going to debate that. Somebody says, look, I can see how you say that object of perception and knowable thing. I understand how you could describe the universe as all the objects in the universe, and I understand how you can describe the whole universe as everything you could ever perceive.

I agree. Those two, those are okay. But I don't see how you can say that all the objects in the universe, and all the things you could consider, are the equal.

I don't see how you can say that. I'm not comfortable with that one, okay? DON MI GCIG It's not the same thing.

Because, why? There's a thing called DGRA BDAG BRDZIN LAS STOPS PA DGRA BDAG BRDZIN LAS STOPS PA There's a Stanley Topa, a classic Stanley Topa.

[Speaker 2]
The idea that sound is unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
Good. The idea that believes that sound is unchanging, okay?

[Speaker 2]
There's a DGRA BDAG BRDZIN LAS STOPS PA for that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which means what, Ben?

[Speaker 2]
A luminous mental image.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the guy has something in mind when he says, look, it's possible to have a sound which never changes. It is possible to have a sound which never changes. It's totally against Stanley's book, right?

What did Stanley's book say? Sound is ephemeral. Sound changes so fast you can't even cut it.

Stuff like that. You can't divide it. This guy says there's a sound which is unchanging forever.

DGRA BDAG PA'I BDUN CI Now, he has a picture in his mind. A BDUN CI, right? He has a picture in his mind of a DGRA BDAG.

[Speaker 2]
Of an unchanging sound.

[Speaker 1]
What does it happen to be, you guys? OM. OM.

The mystic syllable which survives all existence. This guy has in mind this Hindu belief that OM is an eternal sound. It's going all the time.

It never started. It never stops. It's all the time.

Now, when those Hindu guys talk about their amazing OM, and they say it never changes and it has existed for all time, what do they have in their mind? What do they have in their mind? They have a picture.

I don't know. I see this yoga studio. Sorry, Nick.

Yoga studio OM in pink colors and whatever. They have this picture in their mind of an OM, right? Are they considering that picture?

[Speaker 2]
They are.

[Speaker 1]
They are. They're thinking about that picture. Therefore, that false non-existent OM is a SHEL JA.

So how can you say that SHEL JA and YOD PA are equal? How can you describe the whole universe as all the things you can consider because you can consider things which... Don't exist.

Don't even exist, okay? But your consideration of them exists. I think that's going to be the punchline.

[Speaker 2]
Your consideration of what?

[Speaker 1]
The thing that doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
The consideration is a state of mind without an object. Wow. Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And then he has another objection. He has another objection.

Here we go. Chun Tzam is reading this one. Nick is checking.

[Speaker 2]
SHES BYA DANG SHEL BYA'ANG RGYUN GNYIS GCIG STE ZHES PA THAMS CAD ZAD MAR GAL BA'I BYAS RO ZHES ZAD THO Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Here's another claim. Here's another claim. You cannot say that SHES BYA and SHAL BYA mean the same thing.

You can't say that. You can't say that something you could perceive and something you can consider are synonyms. You can't say that.

Why? If you do say that, then all the perceptions in the universe would have to be the same.

[Speaker 2]
Everything that you can think of would have to be a valid perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. All the thinkings you could ever do would have to be... All states of mind.

...accurate perceptions. All states of mind would have to be accurate perceptions. If SHES BYA is a synonym for YOD PA, then all SHES BARS are valid.

Okay? Like when you see a white snow mountain is yellow because you have GANDES, that must be a correct perception because that's a SHES BYA. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. He's got a point so far.

[Speaker 1]
If SHES BYA is a synonym for existing, if anything you can know, and God bless you translators. I don't know how you're doing it. If anything you could know and existence are synonyms, then all states of mind, even when you're drunk and see three elephants running around your house, must be an accurate perception because you are knowing those two elephants.

Your mind is knowing those elephants. You perceive them. They are a perceived thing.

Okay? According to you, perceived thing and existence mean the same thing. Therefore, anything I perceive, anytime, drunk, sick, crazy, jealous, then it's all YOD PA.

And that state of mind is a SEMS, accurate perception. Okay? Thinking an elephant is running around your room, or thinking your wife is talking to somebody who she's not talking to because you're so jealous, is a correct perception because you are thinking it.

Okay? It's something you're thinking. Got it, you guys?

It's not a bad argument. These are good arguments.

[Speaker 2]
Well, there's no reason yet, but...

[Speaker 1]
He gave two reasons.

[Speaker 2]
No, why is it a SEMS?

[Speaker 1]
Well, if you want a nice hallmark, which I think is too much, but you could make these two into kācigs. Okay? Kācig.

,ZHES BYA LTAR ZHAL BYA CHOS CAN, ,DOD MI GCIG STE, ,YIN NA ZHES PA THAMS CAD SEMS PAR THAL BA'I PHYIR, Okay, it is an argument, yeah. It is a syllogism, yeah. Okay.

Sugeng wanted to read this sentence. He wrote me and asked me if he could read this sentence. I don't like it.

,'DI LTAR MA BA'I DGUL BA DE, ,YUL YIN NA ZHAL BYA YIN GYUD NA, ,BLO DE YUL YIN NA'ANG, ,BLO DE ZHAL BYA YIN GYUD GNYAB DU SAM PAR ZHEL LA, ,DE LTAR NA. ZHEL LA, DE LTAR NA, ZHEL LA, okay. All right.

,DI LTAR MA BA'I DGUL BA DE Okay, any debater who talks like this, okay, what they're thinking is, okay, what they're thinking is, is something is a yul. If it's true, if it's true that if something is a yul it has to be a sheljah, okay, if it's true that all existing objects in the universe are also objects of consideration, okay, in that case then, any object of a particular state of mind should also be something considered by that state of mind. Okay, so I'll say it again.

People who make these kinds of arguments are thinking, if it's true, if the statement is true, if something is an object of perception, it's something under consideration. If that's true, all objects of perception are objects that are under consideration, okay, then they're thinking it must apply to any particular state of mind. Okay, even a messed up state of mind.

Okay, got it? Now when we say yul and sheljah are synonyms, we mean yuls of accurate perception and sheljahs of accurate perception, okay, but they think we mean any object of a state of mind, and anything under consideration of a state of mind. Okay, they think we're talking about any old yul in the universe, even if it's the two elephants that a drunk person sees, okay, and anything under consideration, even if it's, you know, something somebody said to hurt you that they didn't mean to hurt you, something like that, okay.

So they think any time, they think that if we... all these words we're using are referring to any state of perception. Okay, got it?

You guys okay? Just nod. Okay, noddey shaji'i ngun nyam du.

Sampar se. Twenty bucks for the se. Only that?

What do you mean? What's it mean? And nothing other.

Give me an English, give me a common English conversational sentence similar. That's it. Good, that's it.

But it has to be dismissive, Nick. That's it. Yeah.

Yeah, it means...

[Speaker 3]
That's all she wrote.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all she wrote. Okay, I think Nick gets that. How much was it, 20 bucks?

Was it 20 bucks? Yeah. Nick gets 20 bucks for the Amalie scholarship fund.

Okay. Yeah, sampar se means that's all. That's all.

That's all they got. That's their problem. Okay, that's all.

Now, they're thinking that if it's true that every object... If something is an object, it has to be an object of consideration. Then what we mean is, the object of any state of mind has to be an object of any state of consideration.

Okay, got it? DE LTAR NA In that case, we could come back to you with a parallel reasoning which word is going to read, and Chinzom is going to criticize liberally.

[Speaker 3]
Can you talk a little louder? We can't hear you.

[Speaker 1]
Yay! That's the only thing we could complain about. Wait, did that go up or down?

Let me see. Let's talk about... It sounded like that waffling middle...

It went nowhere. Let's talk about Sejahs. They are a cause of fire.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, a word.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to give you a clue. If you go down, you're telling the guy he's crazy. Are you saying that?

Okay, if you go down. If you go up, you're saying, it's true, it's true. I'll go down.

Good. Yeah, because we are trying to be sarcastic. Are you telling me...

Right, so... Nice. You really went down.

Okay, word. I want you to translate this part. RGYUD YIN NA, BDE BU YIN PAS KHYAB The whole thing or just...

No, just that piece. RGYUD YIN NA, BDE BU YIN PAS KHYAB Oh, that means... Then the cause would have to be the result.

No, it's more profound than that. Okay, let's see. RGYUD YIN NA, if the cause, BDE BU YIN PAS KHYAB What it's saying is...Tim? It could result in everything. Every cause in the universe is also a... Result. Yeah, and that's a famous Buddhist argument.

Every cause in the universe is also a result, and every result in the universe is also a cause. Yes or no? As far as I know.

Then the Abhidharma guys come off and say, well, what about the instant before... MI NAD PA'I NYANG NGON LA'I DE PA Instant before you... What about the instant of Nick just before he blinks out when he achieves final nirvana?

It's a... It's a resultless cause. Yeah, it's a...

No, it's a causeless result. Huh? It's a causeless result.

I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3]
It's a resultless cause.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a resultless cause. It's a result which doesn't cause anything because he blinked out the next moment.

[Speaker 2]
That's not a cause. It's a result that doesn't cause anything.

[Speaker 1]
So it's a... At this level where we are, at school number two, it's a common thing to say everything which is a cause is a result because they don't accept those final blinking out nirvanas that the Abhidharma guys like to talk about. So they say, okay, man, I'm going to ask you something.

Okay, is it true that if something is a cause, it has to be a result?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And the guy says, yeah, that's true. And then we say, okay, so if it's the cause of a certain fire, it must be the result of a certain fire, right? No, because now he's saying that it has to be the same thing.

Yeah, exactly, the same thing. If something is the cause of a particular moment of fire, it is also the result of that particular moment of fire. Because you said, if something is under consideration by a certain state of mind, it should also be the yule of that same state of mind.

Even if that state of mind is wrong. Okay, you added state of mind to our shalja and our yule. So how about we just add fire to your gyu and your debu?

Okay, it's the same mistake. Okay, it's true that all causes are results, but it's not true that the cause of any particular thing is also the result of that same thing. If you particularize it, it becomes wrong.

Okay, the cause of a particular fire is that firewood, and that firewood doesn't happen to be the result of that particular fire. Although it's true that the fire itself is both a cause and an effect of different things, of two different things. Cool.

[Speaker 2]
And the corollary again is, if something is the yule of a certain state of mind, it should be the shalja of a certain state of mind?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, of that same state of mind, of any state of mind, meaning also at sema mayimba. Still seems okay. Well, it's actually not parallel, and I agree.

It's not exactly parallel, okay? Okay. But if you want a parallel one, here's one.

Okay, since you wanted it, can you read it? Utpal is going to check you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah. So let's consider the word pot or the word coffee cup.

[Speaker 1]
Well, let's consider the thing that the word coffee cup refers to.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's nice, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Which is called yule, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right, let's consider the destination of the word coffee cup. Yeah, okay. Let's consider the destination of the word coffee cup, okay?

Is that something that is known by the word coffee cup? Okay, let's take the yule, let's take the destination of the word coffee cup, meaning the coffee cup on the table, right? Let's take the destination of this word.

Let's take the thing that the word refers to, okay? Yeah. Is it something which is known by the word?

[Speaker 2]
Huh, because it's the word's yule, it's the word's object? Exactly, exactly. But that sounds like that's a nice argument for the other guy again.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, no, we're saying yinpa tao.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right, but it seems like...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, you could say that. Who's making the argument? It's not clear.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I think this is more points for Khatjik. This guy's really doing well for me on this side so far.

[Speaker 1]
If yule and sheja are synonyms, if object and knowable thing are synonyms, then if a word refers to a certain object, that object should be known by that word. Because it's the object of the word, it's what the word refers to, okay? And then if all objects are knowable things, then if something is the object of the word coffee cup, then coffee cup should be knowing that coffee cup.

The word coffee cup should be knowing the actual coffee cup.

[Speaker 2]
By the way, did he just add dun to our list of synonyms?

[Speaker 1]
He's trying to find some way to say yule without saying yule. Right. That's all.

[Speaker 2]
If something is a dun, then it's a yule kind of, right?

[Speaker 1]
Because it's... The thing that the sound refers to, the thing that the word refers to, that's all. Dun here means...

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This is a famous word, artha, used as the object that a sound refers to. Coffee cup refers to a certain dun, entity. It kind of means entity.

And it's mostly used with metaphors, in explaining metaphors. What's the dun of the metaphor? If you say life is a peach, then what's the dun of the word peach?

What is it referred to? Is this what a certain translator translates as a referent? Yeah, exactly.

Not bad. The referent of the word coffee cup. All right.

He's just stretching yule. We're stretching yule. Okay.

All right. Keep going. Who was that?

Was that Dr. Kramer? I don't remember.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
What's buh mean? Like spit that out? Perfect.

Perfect answer. Yeah. That's a $20 answer, Xiaoping, to a free question.

Buh means... In English we say you just blew up what you were thinking. You just blew it up.

Buh. Okay. Hey, Maitri.

No. Okay. He can do that.

MA KHYAB NA YOD DANG ZHES BYA DON CIG PA BOS Your position that the word object and the word knowable thing are the same in every possible sense is thrown out. If you don't accept this thing about the object of the word coffee cup. Wow.

All right. Is that Khaji saying that or is that us saying that? Well, now it sounds like the other guy's talking about the coffee cup.

No, we're talking about the coffee cup. Sorry. And then he says, look, you...

What do you call that when you change the referent of an argument?

[Speaker 2]
Equivocation.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you're equivocating. Look, that's not the YOD we were talking about when we started out. Okay.

And we say no, but you already agreed that that kind of equivocation was fine. You said it was okay. Okay.

In the case of fire, we added fire's cause and fire's result to the same fire. It could be one thing. Because you were doing that.

That's something you were doing. PHUD TZAM means the measure of spitter-audible comment you already agreed to. You're the one who started this.

You're the one who started stretching words beyond what they were meant to express. Because when we said YOD, we meant TSE MA'I YOD. Okay.

Yeah, you're the one who's playing with words. Okay. I guess, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's kind of using his own... You know, Kacik was making an absurd argument, and now we're treating him like he meant it literally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. That's no problem. Did Gibson show up yet?

He's in a meeting. I'm sorry. Stanley, I'm sorry.

You have to translate. I'm sorry. You have to pronounce.

And Ben offered to correct you. I got you, Stanley. All right.

Stanley, you're going to have to start making an intentional mistake. We've got to go slow here. We've got to go really slow here.

Because this is going to get hard. Okay. Kacik Nare.

Now he changed it. Now it's some guy say. What did Vasubandhu say here?

How did he say some guy comes up?

[Speaker 2]
Shendak? Oh, Shendak Nare.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he said Shendak Nare. And now this book was written 1,400, sorry, 1,100 years later. Sorry, who wrote this book?

Yeah, 1,100 years later people are using Kacik Nare instead of Shendak Nare. But it's the same thing. Some guy comes up.

Some guy say, I don't agree when you say that object of perception and object under consideration could mean the same thing. I don't agree that object under consideration and object of perception could mean the same thing. I disagree.

Why? Because all sheljas are rangten. Archetypes?

[Speaker 2]
No, the opposite.

[Speaker 3]
Right. Really?

[Speaker 1]
We got to change the word for rangten. Oh, this is so hard.

[Speaker 3]
I've been struggling.

[Speaker 1]
Is it rangten, archetype, and chitsen? I'm going to say rangten is the actual manifestation. I'm going to say chitsen is like the Jungian archetype.

Okay? Archetype and the thing the archetype refers to.

[Speaker 2]
Could we say like the thing itself?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know, you could get in trouble.

[Speaker 2]
There's a rang, there's a...

[Speaker 1]
The thing as it's expressed in the world, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, it has to be, yeah, manifest, expressed.

[Speaker 1]
Now, when I say when you consider something, does it have to be the actual manifestation of that thing in the world? Or could it be the mental image of that thing? When you're considering something.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like it could be either of those.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, in American, you know, in English, we would say, look, if something is something you can consider, it could be either the real coffee cup on the table, or it could be the idea of a coffee cup. You could consider either one, right? But here, the other guy says, you cannot say that object of perception and something under consideration are equal, because all things under consideration must be actual manifested things on the table.

You cannot... What he's saying is you cannot consider achitsan.

[Speaker 2]
Right, an archetype, an idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you cannot...

[Speaker 2]
A generality?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Yeah, the mental picture of a coffee cup can never be an object of consideration. Okay?

So he wants to say consideration has to be what? Like a sense perception, I don't know. Okay, let's keep going, okay?

I need one haso, can you read? Tim's going to check you.

[Speaker 2]
Haso is stressing.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, haso is stressing. Christina Kasikara, come over and sit next to me. Let's go.

Tim is checking from far away. It's got to be two syllables, actually. It dips on.

Because it's poetry. He needs a meter. He needs a beat.

[Speaker 3]
He needs a beat.

[Speaker 1]
Go on.

[Speaker 3]
Go on, no. CHES GSUNGS PA YIN NO ZHES MED ZHES MED BA YANG MA BA YANG High tone, because it has a...

[Speaker 1]
ZHES MA BA YANG MA BA YANG MTHONG NO MTHONG NO, nice. Okay. We also see people, at this point, who throw two quotations at us.

We also see people, at this point, who will start throwing two quotations at us. And they are both inscrutable. They have no meaning at all.

Let's read the first one. RANG GI TSE NYID CIG ZHEL BYA Its definition, one object of consideration. Its definition, one object of consideration.

[Speaker 3]
ZHA!

[Speaker 1]
That proves my point. We're like, huh? Its definition, one object of consideration.

Proves my point. Okay, so that's one quotation which is totally hopeless. Now, how about this one?

CIG NYID CHE NA KO'ANG DOD If you say it's just one, we can also agree. If you say it's just one, we can also agree. ZHA!

[Speaker 2]
Wish we had a good commentary to this book.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Now, if you go hunting for these two, the first one comes from...

[Speaker 2]
From Antarctica.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Dharmakirti's famous logic book. Here's the quote. RANG GI TSE NYID CIG ZHEL BYA It starts a section.

It starts a certain section in Dharmakirti's book. This is this extremely frustrating Tibetan, Tsongkhapaian lineage, author, habit of referring to something you haven't studied yet and you won't reach for two years. Okay?

And they do it all the time. It drives me crazy. Okay.

Now, I went and got you a commentary from the greatest commentary to this line, which is... Get you. And it really is the easiest commentary to understand.

So we're going to his commentary on this single line from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika. Okay? And here it is.

And I don't understand. He looks like he wants to read it. I don't know why.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Yeah.

Good. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Difficult sentence. This has been a bad day. I'm sorry about it.

Probably it'll be better tomorrow, I'm sure.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
What's dunja nupa? Everybody knows that.

[Speaker 2]
That which performs a function.

[Speaker 1]
Anything which can perform a function. Which is a... Definition of a functioning thing.

Nupal, right? Yeah. Which is a synonymous...

[Speaker 2]
Changing thing?

[Speaker 1]
Mid-time. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You can say changing thing, or you can say functioning thing. The sets are equal. Every functioning thing in the universe changes by functioning.

And every changing thing can only change by doing something. So, shel jah Okay? Means object under consideration.

Something you could ever think of. Okay? So let's talk about all the shel jahs, things you could ever think of, which are also functioning things.

Okay? Let's talk about... Let's talk about existing objects which perform a function.

Okay? Let's talk about existing objects which perform a function. Or, you could call it anything you can think of which also performs a function.

Okay? Let's talk about de. De are fixed.

NGES PA means with numbers. With numbers. NGES PA means fixed number.

No more, no less. NGES PA means no more, no less, when you have it with numbers. What's the number here?

[Speaker 2]
One.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, one. Okay? Only one.

Okay? And I'll give you an important clue. RANG GI TSE NYID here means RANG BSTAN.

[Speaker 2]
RANG BSTAN. Yeah. RANG BSTAN.

Wow. So RANG BSTAN is necessarily NGES PA is necessarily MI BDAG PA.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Yeah. Okay.

How many... Sorry. How many functional objects in the universe are there?

[Speaker 2]
I mean...

[Speaker 1]
Only one.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
RANG TSEN.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
That's a MA YIN GA. For $50. That's a MA YIN GA.

For $50. Only RANG TSEN. There are things that are not functional.

There are things that don't perform a function.

[Speaker 2]
Unchanging things are not RANG TSEN. Okay. Anything that doesn't perform a function is not...

[Speaker 1]
RANG BSTAN for $25. Okay, here we go. Of the two possibilities, functioning entities are only one of those two possibilities.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Don't exist? Don't look at the chart. Everything in the world is either RANG TSEN or...

I'm down to $3. $3. Yay!

$3. Me and Ben are splitting it now. Okay, RANG TSEN about $3.

But I'm charging you a handling fee. $5. It's just like the credit card companies.

[Speaker 2]
All right. You said we're splitting it, Ward.

[Speaker 1]
$1. I owe you. We each owe $1.

Okay, listen. Everything in the universe is either the actual thing on the table or the picture of the thing in your head. We just found a new translation for RANG TSEN and CHI TSEN.

Yeah. Everything in the universe is either the actual thing on the table or the thing in your head. Okay?

Now, if it's a thing in the universe which happens to perform a function, it can only be...

[Speaker 2]
RANG TSEN.

[Speaker 1]
...a thing on the table. It can only be the thing on the table. If a...

What that means is there's no such thing as a functioning entity which could be an archetype.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, great. Right. A CHI TSEN.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? Or you could say if it's an archetype, it can't do anything. It just sits there and be as an archetype.

And it... Why? Because archetypes cannot change.

If an archetype changes, it's not an archa-type anymore. It's not an over-reaching principle anymore. It's just a change.

It's just one version. Archetype means single overriding type. Okay?

Got it?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And this also, right, proves that in this school, changing things are RANG GI TSEN GYI DRUB PA.

[Speaker 1]
That's good. Yeah, you can say that. And then it gives you a deep insight into the word RANG TSEN, right?

Yeah. It's almost like by definition thing. Yeah.

Now, that's half of our job. We have to go back up to this guy. The guy said...

The guy... Somebody said, Look, RANG GI TSEN GYI GCIG GSHER BYA. Okay?

Only things on the table are things under consideration. Only things on the table are things under consideration. Okay?

What happened? What was that? How did we start this class off?

Geshe-la held up four fingers. He said, You, Geja, Xiaoja, and Yöpa all mean the same thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Every knowable thing in the universe, every considerable thing in the universe, every object of any perception, and all existence, are equal, completely equal. Okay, so I guess there's no GCIG GSHER in the universe. GCIG GSHER.

Because it's a Xiaoja. Sorry, it's not a Xiaoja. Sorry.

All objects under consideration must be on the table. Who said that?

[Speaker 2]
A guy. Some guy. Some guy.

[Speaker 1]
Why did he say that?

[Speaker 2]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Don't give me this BS that Xiaoja and Yöpa are equal sets. Why? Because Xiaoja excludes chitins.

[Speaker 2]
Uh-huh. Right. But he was specifically talking about Dendje N'nepa.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he was. But, uh-huh. Great observation, Dr. Kramer. That's a $50 observation. Hey, say it again, if you can remember.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Right. Dharmakirti was only talking about Dendje N'nepa, about things which...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, functional things, functional Xiaojas. The other guy didn't mention that here. He's cheating.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I see. Cheating.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, all the Xiaojas in the universe have to be on the table. But he didn't say, all the objects in the universe, which do something, have to be on the table. Okay, got it?

He's cheating. Okay. Tong O.

She Mawayang Tong O means, look, we see people who say this, but we're not going to buy that. Okay? We finished the first impossible quotation from Dharmakirti.

What's next?

[Speaker 2]
The second impossible quotation.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go to the second impossible quotation from Dharmakirti. Hey, here it is. Yeah, I'm not even going to do the rest of that sentence.

[Speaker 2]
I'll get to it. Thirty-nine words.

[Speaker 1]
CIG NI CHE NA KHO BA'ANG DU We also agree that it's only... If you say it's only one, we also agree. That's all we have.

If you say it's only one, we also agree. Okay? Let's go look at it.

Here's Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk's root text inserted into the text by...

[Speaker 2]
Geshe Michael.

[Speaker 1]
And misspelled the Che. Yay! Okay, well, he was younger.

I got... This is so cool, Ben Kramer. This is for you.

You got to read this one. I'm sorry. Allison's going to check you.

Please, Allison. Get some... Give him some...

Make him suffer. Come on.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
I got something so cool for you, Dr. Ben. Wonderful. Surtle Zeppa.

You can't even guess. That's so true. I have no idea what that means.

Come on. Word can make leaps of thought. Surtle.

I think it's related to sur, which is the other devator. No. Right.

Surtle. Surtle.

[Speaker 3]
This side?

[Speaker 1]
Oh.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Someone sees something coming from...

[Speaker 1]
Things coming from the outside in. Yeah, good. Surtle.

Outside in. Surtle. Okay?

Zeppa means beautiful. Okay? So there's a school called...

Everything's beautiful. Okay? Everything that you ever see is beautiful.

There's a school called that. Okay?

[Speaker 2]
That's Surtle Zeppa.

[Speaker 1]
And I'll show you something cool that uncle, grandpa might found out. Where is that? I hope I can find it in the...

Yeah. Here's Yeshe Wangchuk's statement. Read this, Ben Kramer.

[Speaker 2]
Oh. Oh, they're... The Kyungpembas and...

Tang... The Surtle... Zeppa...

Ni... Oh, they're both names for Sangha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. No. It's the same...

It's a name for the same guys.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no. I'm sorry. Changchenpa.

Okay.

[Speaker 1]
It's outcast, right?

[Speaker 2]
Changchenpa. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Expelled to a distance. Changchenpa. So, outcast and everything's beautiful school, it's the same guys.

Who said that? Yeshe Wangchuk says that. Very few people treat this, okay?

And now... Oh, Ben, you're going to give me a hundred dollars, I'm sure. What's the Sanskrit word for Kyungpemba?

Charvaka. Nice. I'm going to...

God, I can't believe... I'm so praising myself so liberally. Where is that?

I was jumping around the Royal Palms Hotel. Okay, here's Charvaka, right? An alternate translation.

It comes from charu. Charu, beautiful. That means beautiful.

So, charvaka means the guys who saw beauty coming in. Isn't that cool? Charvaka means the guys who saw everything as charu.

Isn't that cool?

[Speaker 2]
Now we finally have... That's just two different ways of translating the Sanskrit.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly. Isn't that weird? That's really cool.

One means everything's beautiful. And one means you should be rejected from the universe because you're so stupid.

[Speaker 2]
Wow, that's cool.

[Speaker 1]
Isn't that weird? Now we've explained that.

[Speaker 2]
You know, when we translated originally, you had to think like, well, these guys couldn't have called themselves charvaka. That must be something that was applied by others. But now you can imagine maybe they did call themselves that.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe they called themselves the guys who saw everything as beautiful. And other people said, yeah, charvaka, I get it. Yeah, more like a long way off.

Waka, waka, waka. Now I have a theory, Ben Kramer. And I wonder if these guys...

There's some obscure reference to them I found that says they did assert that everything was fine. Everything in the world is good. See what I mean?

There's a reference here somewhere. You can see I have a few notes here. Yeah, here.

Read this one, Ben Kramer. Yeah, these are synonyms for charvakas from Chankyarupi Dorje's great book on Siddhanta. And he says, they are called...

What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
Everything's beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, everything's beautiful to me, okay? Because they say, SEMS SDI LA GANG LAS TZAM GYI CHOG PA You should be chogpa about SEMS SDI LA GANG LAS. This is du che chog she, chog she, chog she.

You should be satisfied? Yeah, about what?

[Speaker 2]
Just this life.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, look, this life has some good stuff. Just take what you can get.

[Speaker 2]
You only live once, man. Live it up.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like, you know, I agree it's not perfect, but take what's nice and what comes in as nice. Just deal with that, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then they have other synonyms which are not so positive, okay? Now, why are we talking about those guys? It was...

Here it is. Now, you're getting closer. If you say it's only one, we can buy that.

If you say it's only one, we can also buy that, okay? Here's the commentary on... Yeah, okay.

So, now you can translate these three lines. TSUL ROL BRDZES PA NA, SBYABS PA BA NA RE That everything's beautiful guy said, okay? DNGOS PO MED PAS Because it's not a DNGOS PO, Yeah, it's not a working thing.

PHYIS TZEN ZHEL BYA MA YIN Yeah, it's not a...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's not a manifested thing being considered.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's not an archetype. It's not an archetype of a thing being considered.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, PHYIS TZEN, yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, an archetype is not a ZHEL BYA. Yeah, right. Because this DNGOS PO MED PAS means BDUN BYED MI NUS PA Something that doesn't perform a function.

Yeah, because it cannot perform a function. A mental picture of a coffee cup cannot hold coffee. An archetype of a coffee cup cannot hold coffee.

Therefore, it's not a ZHEL BYA. Okay, then... And only wrong sense can be ZHEL BYA.

Right. Only the actual manifest thing can be a thing to be considered. Can be held under consideration.

MED PAS Therefore, according to the Charvakast, there's only NGON TZAM TSAM MA in the universe. Wow.

[Speaker 3]
There's nothing else. There's only direct perception. Accurate perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the only accurate perception in the universe is what you can see with your own eyes. Interesting.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Ideas. The perception of ideas can never be correct. You can only believe what your eyes tell you and not what your brain tells you.

They argue. Yeah, they argue. Shana, if you say that...

We're over time, by the way.

[Speaker 2]
We're over, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, you can't stop here. What if we die? No, it's fine.

We keep going, keep going. TZAM RGYAS PA'I NGOR To a Buddhist, okay? To a Buddhist.

TZAM RGYAS PA'I NGOR ZHEL BYA'I DUN BYED NUS PAR RANG BZANG GCIG PAR GRUB MI DGOS TE You don't have to prove to a Buddhist that functional entities can only be things on the table. Because us Buddhists also would agree with you.

[Speaker 2]
Interesting.

[Speaker 1]
We agree with you. Why are you picking on us? We agree that only the things on the table are functional objects.

Somebody threw in functional. DUN BYED NUS PAR DUN BYED NUS PAR Okay, got it? So look, when we respond to the guy, he says, look, the only thing in the universe is what you can see with your own eyes.

And direct perception is the only accurate perception in the universe. Okay? Deduction can never be accurate.

Okay? And we said, yeah, we agree. With functional things.

[Speaker 2]
Oh wow.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. No, we have no problem with you. Yeah, that's true.

With functional things. Yikes. That's true.

Okay? The only ZHEL BYA'I If you're talking about things under consideration which do something, we agree. It's only the ones on the table.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's a problem. But then you couldn't have a TSEMA of the fire on the other side of the mountain.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. And that's exactly where Khedrub Je is going.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I bow down to your lotus feet. That's exactly where Khedrub Je is going. He says, okay, so look, you don't never know until the fire reaches your house that Sedona is surrounded by fire, I guess.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

But didn't Master Dharmakirti just agree to that? With knowable, sorry. Functional.

Fire is a functioning thing. Well, now we're going to get into an amazing question. Now we're going to get into an amazing question, which is that, what was the question?

Is it possible that when we use logic, we are always talking about archetypes?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we'd say Japanese restaurant, they have good food, we should go there. Is it possible that every element of a logical argument is an idealized mental image, and not a restaurant, and not Japanese food, and not getting in the car?

[Speaker 2]
Sure not going to bother us in the middle way. Right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, get out of here. All right, go, go, go.

[Speaker 2]
Sounds okay.

[Speaker 1]
Go back to New Mexico, wherever you're from. Okay, nice class, you guys. We had a hard day, and you guys are fearless.

You are fearless, or very foolish, mixed nuts.

[Speaker 3]
Did we just cover those last two stanzas there?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we did. Those are the two.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. We're never going back there, trust me.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
We didn't read it, so. It's text in five years or something. 35 years.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sure Adam will have a lot of fun with it.

[Speaker 1]
All right, cool, you guys. But take that home, think about that. Could it be possible that when we use logic to decide something, we are always working in mental images and never with the real thing?

And does that make the logic incorrect? Does that make logic inherently not accurate perception?

[Speaker 2]
Boy, I hope not.

[Speaker 3]
Our opponent couldn't say that, because he's trying to use logic to convince us.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but while you're figuring that out, please don't use any mental images, okay? Okay, bye. I love you.

I'll see you tomorrow. Take a perfect world.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Imagine if everybody understood this book.

[Speaker 1]
So you guys probably have some really hard questions on this one. I'm going to ask them in the Q&A tonight. Who's doing the Q&A?

So you can just give her all of the hardest questions. She's looking at me like she's going to kill me. I'm just kidding.

But if you guys want to come to Allison's Q&A, she is very insightful, and I think we'll be able to give you some great to share her wisdom with y'all. So I do recommend coming and asking her questions. Stanley will probably be in the background, too.

So you can probably, if you have any questions that she doesn't want to answer, she might pass them off to him. But let's see what happens. Right, Allison?