Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 19

[Speaker 2]
Oh, hello.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we're back. Now, what's the situation with Mr. Andrade? Is he still...

I think he's still ill. He's here, but I... Okay.

Adam, if you want to talk, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just going to go. Okay.

He's very sick from the virus. He's got the virus. I'll send him a text just to make sure he got that message.

Okay. Okay, here we go. I'm calling up this text.

Here we go. Here we go. What did we decide on?

Okay, I'm going to share the screen. We're going to... Butterfly here?

Yeah. Okay, good. That's easier.

All right, here we go. Sash, have some sashimi. Sashimi.

Okay, we talked about all this. Generally, we were saying that... What are four things that all mean existence, you guys?

Anybody give me something. For $0. $1.

$1. $1. $1.

$1. $1. $1.

$1. $1. $1.

[Speaker 2]
$1.

[Speaker 1]
$1. $1. CHOS means, you know, existing entity.

YOD means object that exists. SHES BYA means normal thing. But the difficult one is SHEL BYA, which means a thing you can consider, an object of consideration.

And in the classical logic text, SHEL BYA is a synonym for YOD PA. Any object under consideration by the mind is the definition of existence. I mean, it's one of the many definitions of existence, okay?

Then the other guy said... No, but SHEL BYA's objects of consideration have to be what?

[Speaker 2]
LANG TZEN.

[Speaker 1]
LANG TZEN. Which means what, Dr. Kramer? I have a new audience here.

Help them out.

[Speaker 2]
It means an actual manifested thing, and it has to be a changing, positive thing out there in the world.

[Speaker 1]
As opposed to?

[Speaker 2]
CHI TZEN, which is an idea, an abstraction, a thought, a conception, an archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Good. And we say any functional manifestation of an archetype has to be... Sorry.

Anytime something is functional and it's an object of consideration, it has to be LANG TZEN. It has to be an actual manifestation. It cannot be the idea of a thing, okay?

All right. Let's keep going here. Geshe Wangchuk, help us out.

Okay. Dr. Kramer, since you're the SEMA expert here, and Seiji is going to correct you. Yay!

[Speaker 2]
CHI TZEN SHEL JA MA YIN PAR MA WA NI. JE SUG PAG PA TSE MA MA YIN PAR. MA WA KYANG PHEN PA RING LUK TZIN PA TE.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Nice. Anybody who goes around saying that a CHI TZEN cannot be a SHEL JA, translate, Dr. Kramer.

[Speaker 2]
Anyone that goes around saying that a conception cannot be a considered thing.

[Speaker 1]
Good. A mental archetype cannot be something under consideration by the mind. If people go around saying that...

[Speaker 2]
They are denying deductive, accurate perception, and are thus no better than those lousy Charvakas.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Yeah. Those non-Buddhists.

They are denying the whole concept of any perception which is not direct. They're saying you can't decide to go to the Japanese restaurant by logic, because those are all theoretical mental constructions. Japanese restaurant, the food they serve there, whether or not we should get in the car, those are just all in your head.

They don't exist outside. It's not like you're looking at the restaurant. It's not like you're tasting the food.

Those are all ideas. They say ideas are not real. They're not the real thing.

The idea of a Japanese restaurant is not the Japanese restaurant. The food in a Japanese restaurant is not the food in a Japanese restaurant. The idea of getting in the car is not the idea of getting in the car.

Things you decide through logic are abstractions, and they don't have reality. They are not reality. If you say that abstractions have no reality, you are therefore denying that deduction can be pramana.

Then there's only one kind of pramana, which is seeing things directly. Because anything you close your eyes and think about, that's an abstraction. According to these guys, that's not real, which is not a bad argument.

Therefore, and we say, oh, if you think because you have to have an abstraction to have logics, and therefore those things aren't real, what's the ring in Ring Luke, Mr. Kramer?

[Speaker 2]
Ring Luke, I don't know. I was taking it to mean like as far as the position, you would be as far off as the position of the Gyanpampo.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I'm going to teach you something. Yay, you learned something new today. Ring Luke and Gupta are exactly equal.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow. Okay, so it's a system. Ring Luke is a system.

Luke is a system also.

[Speaker 1]
Yep, that's true. And the ring doesn't have any particular meaning that I know of. Okay.

Maybe it's siddha somehow, like siddha, I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But anyway, Ring Luke means Gupta, okay? So when you say that mental constructions are not an object that you could consider, could be under consideration, they're not real somehow, well then actually what you're denying is all logic, because logic only deals in abstractions, okay? And then you know better than those Hindu guys who say seeing is believing.

[Speaker 2]
Seeing is believing, yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they say if I can't see it, I don't believe in it. Okay, show it to me, I'll believe. Prove it to me, in theory, that's just in theory.

I don't accept it. Seeing is believing, okay? They say that.

The Buddha was nuts when he told us to cut it. Now, I have to say that the arguments against this idea are comfortable, because we can understand them. So we're about to go into a few minutes of comfort, and then on the other side we'll get back to normal.

Okay, here we go. So gang, you ready? Let's go, let's go.

Who's checking? Tim is checking. Tim.

Hey, Tim. DE LTAR NA, BYAS PAG TSE MA MI ZHIG PAR THAL CI TZAM ZHAL BYA YIN PA MI ZHIG PA'I PHYIR BYAS BYOS NA CI MA BYAS BYOS NA CI MA CI MA means, hey, so what are you going to answer to me if I say to you, BYAS BYOS NA, okay? CI MA What are you going to say if I put it into a telangira for you?

I'm going to put it into a prasangika for you, okay? You ready? Okay, so it's impossible to have a deductive perception of something.

Why? Because mental abstractions are not things you can consider. They're not objects.

They don't exist. They don't really exist, okay? Then if I say that, how does that feel?

You like that? Okay, we're talking to the guy. You like that?

And keep going, Sugeng. Because, wait, Tim's going to say MA KYAR. MA KYAR He said MA KYAR, okay?

And he said, just because abstractions are not objects of consideration doesn't mean that I think that deductive perception is impossible, okay? And we say, it is, too, because. Okay, Sugeng, go.

MA KYAR NA MA KYAR NA, ZAL BYA MED PA'I TSE MA SRID PA'AM BYAS PAG TSE MED ZHAO BYA YIN NA RANG PHYIR GNYIS PA'I KHYAB PA GANG RUNG GCIG KHE LEN RIG PAR THAL RIG PAR THAL RIG PAR THAL MA KYAR PA DE'I PHYIR Okay, if you say not necessarily so, okay? If you say not necessarily so, then there are two impossible choices you face, okay? I'm going to give you the two implications of your statement.

If you say, hey, that's not necessarily true, then I'll tell you, you're saying one of two things, okay? What? Number one, you are saying it's impossible to have an accurate perception.

I'm sorry, ZAL BYA MED PA'I TSE MA SRID... Sorry, this is not MI SRID, this is... I'm going to make...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, that's terrible.

[Speaker 1]
This is not MI SRID. It is TSE MA. Okay, yeah, ZAL BYA MED PA'I TSE MA SRID PA'AM.

Oh, so there must be possible an accurate perception which has no... It's not thinking about anything, okay? Is that okay?

Is that what you want to say? It is possible to have an accurate perception which has no object. Are they right?

Yeah, they're right. About what? Who knows?

Okay, that's your first choice. That's your first bad choice. Then the guy says, no, no, what's your second bad choice?

I think I'll go with that one. Okay, here's the second bad choice. If something is an object of consideration of logic, okay, then it must be an actual outside object.

Do you want to give up logic? Do you want to give up deciding the Japanese restaurant is good because it has good food? No, I don't want to give that up.

So you want to stick to having deductions in your life. Yeah, I still want to have deductions. And you say we don't want them to deal with abstractions.

Right. Okay, so you're just thinking microphones and popcorns and real popcorns. Okay, is that what you want?

Okay, you want deduction with no abstractions? Okay, let's take deduction with the real things in your head. When you think about popcorn, it's like you got to ask your head, do you want butter on there?

Got it? Or there's no deduction at all. I'm sorry.

Or there are objects of perception that don't have a... I'm sorry. Or there are correct perceptions which don't have an object.

You choose. Because what you... Saying that because deductions deal with abstractions, they cannot be real.

They cannot be logic. Then you have these two choices. All right, here we go.

KHYAD LEN PA THABS GANG RUNG GCIG KHYAD LEN PA THABS Oh, it must be right to accept one of these two ridiculous ideas. GANG RUNG GCIG means one of these two ridiculous ideas. What?

Number one, that there could be an accurate perception with no object. Okay, well, give me the other choice. Tell me the other bad choice.

That if something is the object that deduction deals with, that it must be the actual manifestation of the abstraction. The actual microphone is in your head. Okay, got it?

Here's your choices. There's your choices, okay? Why do you say I only got these two choices?

My kid, you said my kid, not me. You said not necessarily so. So these are your two bad choices.

Okay, all right. Then he changes his story and says, Duh, yeah, I agree. I agree with what?

BYAS PAG TSE MA MI ZIN PA Duh. Okay? Yeah, that's it.

He said, when we said MI ZIN PA THABS, oh, there's no such thing as correct deduction. He says, you know what? I think I'll change my position.

Duh. Duh. What's that mean?

Yeah, there's no such thing as as deductive accurate perception. You can't make a decision about going to the Japanese restaurant. It's impossible.

You can't logically decide to go to the Japanese restaurant. It's impossible. I agree.

Okay? So he changed his story. Okay.

Then who's reading? I can read. I'm sorry.

Mick, go ahead. Or Amelie. Whoever's closest to the screen.

You'll hear her in the background. I don't mind. I love this.

So far. Yeah, okay. Okay, so we have a...

Yeah. Can you have an accurate perception that has no object? Can you have an accurate perception that's not thinking about anything?

Yes. He says yes. Okay.

Then you can have a gyu without a dybu. Cause without result. No, I'm sorry.

You can have a gyu without a dybu. Cause without a result. That's what you said.

Yeah. Okay. So I guess there's such a thing as a cause which has never and will never create a result.

You can call something a cause even if it will never have a result.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, what? I thought we had it the other way.

[Speaker 1]
No. There must exist a cause which has never and will never create a result. Why?

Because there's a correct perception that doesn't have anything it thinks about. And okay, Kramer, you're the only one who understood the sentence. Cause you're confused.

No, because you're confused. It's the other way around.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
I know. That's the whole point. It feels like it should be the other way around.

But look, that sema is the cause for the object.

[Speaker 2]
That sema is the cause for the object because it's going to be mikve yupe tseni?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 2]
Because what? I didn't hear it.

[Speaker 1]
chen me mikpa yupe tseni This statement here depends on understanding the definition of existence in Buddhism, which is that which is perceived by an accurate perception. Therefore, the presence of a thing must post-date the accurate perception because the definition of the existence of a thing is that you have perceived it with an accurate perception. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Which came first, the accurate perception or the existence of the thing? It still feels wrong. The perception establishes the existence.

Which is the cause, which is the result? The result. Existence is result, the accurate perception is cause.

Okay, good. But perception is an object. Now, he said, I accept the idea of an accurate perception without any object under consideration.

So we say, oh, then there must be a cause. And you must be able to call a thing a cause, even if it never has a result. Got it?

Okay. Okay, got it? Yay!

[Speaker 2]
Like it has to be wrong for the school though, right?

[Speaker 1]
No, that's exactly what this school says. We're in the second school. We're in the second school.

We're in the Kramer school, actually.

[Speaker 2]
But wouldn't the second school say that the actual object, the rungtsen, causes the tsampa?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe that's possible. But if you define existence as that thing which is perceived by an accurate perception, then the perception of something as accurate is what causes it to be what it is. But the thing also must have triggered the perception.

You could say that. Okay, anyway. Let's keep going.

Whenever in doubt, keep going. With great chutzpah. Stanley is reading.

Kat is checking. Kat would love to criticize Stanley. Come on.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Nice! Oh, your prenasals are sexy, Stanley. Okay.

If you can perceive something using accurate deduction, then if it has to be the actual thing on the table, now that was your second choice, right? If something is perceived with an accurate deduction, according to you, you said it had to be the actual thing, because you said abstractions don't really exist. Okay.

Okay, let's say that. Well, then, ttopa tam jeng rangtsen yu de mi chepa then it's not true that all, what do you call that, discursive thought processes have to use abstractions. I mean, when you close your eyes and think things, are you using abstractions or not?

Yeah, you are. And he said that to us already. All processes of the mind, after you close your eyes, that perceive things are perceiving, cannot be perceiving the actual thing out there.

Okay, you close your eyes. All things that you think up in your mind, and that you're considering in your mind, like should I do this or should I do that, they cannot be the actual manifestation of those objects, because there's not room in your skull to fit all those objects. He said that before.

So we said, well, then you just contradicted what you said before. Because now you say, anytime something is an accurate perception, it must be dealing with the actual manifestation of the thing. Okay, so let's take deduction.

It must be dealing with the actual manifestation thing, right? He said, yeah. Well, is deduction a kind of thought?

Yes. Is it dealing with abstractions? Yes.

So abstractions are not abstractions. Yeah, good, good. Okay, I'm sorry we got...

We should have spread out these headache books. We should have had Alison between each one. Don't cook pizzas on the second day.

Oh, Alison said she wanted to read. Oh, you're so lucky. Sugeng is checking.

Shunle.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
Shepale. Nice. Your pronunciation is getting really good, Shunle.

It must be that humidity in Singapore, I think. Okay. This chiro doesn't mean non-Buddhist.

Chiro tu gyurpa is an idiom that means, you are now outside our system. Okay? You're outside of the system.

You've gone too far. What system? The shun.

Shunle. Chiro tu. Now you have...

This second le down here. You have now gone outside the system of the great books. Which great book are they talking about?

Pramanavarttika. Dignaga... Sorry.

Dharmakirti himself. Everything you said about abstractions, blah, blah, blah. Now you're just outside of Buddhist logic.

Now you've stepped outside of Buddhist logic. Why? I filled in the Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk words here that would help you make sense of the quotation.

Otherwise the quotation is nothing. It's inscrutable. The quotation says, because it is definitely non-existent, what is under consideration, it is not.

It is not certain. Or, I don't know, ascertaining that, second accurate perception itself... I mean, this is Dharmakirti without Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk.

Which is hopeless. Which is why we're translating Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk. So, chi tsen as a yul.

Abstractions as an object of perception, me, nge, they're definitely not real. They have no real existence. Abstractions as an object of perception are definitely not real things.

That's okay. So far so good, right? Okay.

Therefore, they are not shell jar. They cannot be an object that you're thinking about. An object under consideration by an accurate perception.

How's that? Since abstractions certainly don't exist, since it's sure that abstractions don't have any real existence, then they cannot be the object of a valid perception. Okay?

Because they don't exist. Valid perception's function is to confirm that something does exist. The definition of existence in Buddhism is confirmed by a valid perception.

Okay? All right? Therefore, abstractions cannot be objects under consideration, because if they were under consideration, by a valid perception, they would exist, and we know they are not the real thing.

Okay? Got it? Then, doesn't that draw into question, ma nge pa nyi dam, it's a question, dam is a question, doesn't that draw into question, isn't it drawn into question that they are not a shell jar?

[Speaker 2]
That what are not a shell jar?

[Speaker 1]
Things that don't exist. Chit-chan. Chit-chan.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Do you believe that abstractions, I'll say it again, do you believe that abstractions can be perceived, do you believe that abstractions are objects of correct, a valid perception, yes or no?

[Speaker 3]
Hear no.

[Speaker 1]
No, hear no. Okay. Then that, wouldn't that call into question whether they existed or not?

Well, no, it wouldn't call into question, because if they're not an object of valid perception, they're not in existence. Right, it would flatly say they're not. Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, ma nge.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, if abstractions, if it's questionable that abstractions exist, then what you're really saying is that they cannot be perceived by a valid perception. Okay, right? Okay.

Then what you're really saying is, nyipa here means a second kind of valid perception, as the Yoga Sutra puts it. What's the second kind of valid perception? First one, obvious.

Colors, shapes, you know. What's the second one? It's perception.

What's it, how's it said in the Yoga Sutra? Okay, anumana is indirect perception. It's deduction.

Now, what Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk didn't do, Kramer, he didn't give you the first word of the next line.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you for checking.

[Speaker 1]
Which is me. Goddamn.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, right. Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So according to you, right now it says, according to you, there is a second perception. But he didn't give us the first word in the next languages. Don't, there is no second perception.

Here's the actual Pramanavarttika, okay? Okay, thank you. Thanks a lot.

It's nasty. If it's not illegal, it should be. Okay.

So, look, the position you've taken, that abstractions in the mind are not really objects, are not existent, then what you're really saying is there's only one kind of valid perception in the universe, which is directly seeing things as they are. Okay, that's all. That's all.

That's the necessary conclusion from your position. If thinking about things in your head with your eyes closed, if those things don't have some reality, then that proves, the lack of a result proves the lack of a cause. There could not have been an accurate perception in your mind.

Therefore, there's only one form of accurate perception, which is direct perception. And you are a non-Buddhist. You are a Charvaka.

[Speaker 2]
Yay. He picked a really frustrating example though, right? Which was that sound is unchanging.

So he picked a concept that happens to be something we would disagree with. So it compounded.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And by the way, we were playing about Charvakas because the Sanskrit word Charvaka means outcast and to a distance, like get out of here. And so we've been translating in Ben's text, especially where we have their positions, we've been translating Charvaka as outcasts, which is the meaning of their name.

But Charu, which is the root of Charvaka, can also mean beautiful. And Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk says, they can also be called the beautiful ones. The ones who say everything is beautiful.

Charu, Vak, voice. Charvaka, beautiful. People who talk about beauty.

And then there's a tradition that they thought their philosophy was kind of the opposite of those Greek... What's the Greek death, everything is terrible? Poetics?

Cynics. Cynics, I think. Isn't it the sophists?

I think it's cynics, but they say everything's crap. This is the opposite. Yes, that was cynic in ancient Greek school.

And these guys are the opposite. They say, look, everything's beautiful. Just take the beautiful part of life and keep that, and don't worry about the bad stuff.

And therefore, since they talked about beauty, they were called Charvaka. Okay, so anyway. We should find this guy.

You should find that guy and invite him to class.

[Speaker 2]
The Dave guy?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. He's amazing. Yeah, there's a guy who does this kind of work, and I think he'd really love to hear about our classes.

Okay, here's some studies about those beautiful guys. And it's a lot of footnotes. Good luck.

Okay. Who's reading now is Allison. Yay!

Today, tomorrow, no.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I want word to translate this sentence. You don't need me for this.

I can take a coffee break. Okay. You may ask, Chena.

If you say. Okay, okay. If you say, duh.

If you agree. To our tsawe tungur. To our main absurd statement that is.

Yeah, to our main sarcastic statement, which is to say, I agree that it's impossible for there to be a second kind of sama, which is logical. Yeah. He says, you know what?

You sold me. There's only one kind of accurate perception in the universe. It's seeing direct things.

You're right. Because I need to hold the position that abstractions are not real, I cannot say there's a second kind of accurate perception. Because if there were, it would be seeing something that's not real.

Okay. I'll let it go. There's only one kind of accurate perception.

Okay? Now we're going to beat him again. Okay.

All right. Tim's going to read. And Sage is going to check in.

It's got to be true. It's got to be true. It's a false statement.

All right. Well, it's hard to say, it's a real verdict. I don't want you to know anything about it at all.

It's an abstract statement.

[Speaker 2]
It's sarcastic.

[Speaker 1]
How do you know whether to go up or down? I don't remember which one is sarcastic. Yeah.

Right? No, down. Down.

Down is sarcastic. In English, you go up. Are you telling me you are?

No. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Well, let me say, yeah, I'm going to go.

[Speaker 1]
Go. Go. Go.

Go. Go. Go.

[Speaker 2]
Go. Go. Go.

[Speaker 1]
Go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Do you only want one accurate perception in the universe?

Perception. Okay. That was good.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Right.

[Speaker 1]
So, anytime you find something which is co-cure, and not be perceived by a symbol.

[Speaker 2]
Must not have been. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, anytime you, anytime you see something which is not obviously in front of your eyes, then you must be seeing that without an accurate perception. Okay?

Got it? And he says, Gigia, why you didn't say that? We said, well, you're the one who said there's only one kind of accurate perception.

Okay. Doba digia. You said that.

Now, what if he says, you know what? You're right. When I conclude that Nora is out there with Maitri, because I just heard Maitri, without being able to see them.

Yeah. You did perceive it, but not with an accurate perception. Okay.

All right. Okay. So, I guess, SKYE BANG SNGA PHYI Sugeng, I want you to translate this, okay?

I'm going to give you words, and you're going to give me the translation, and I know you're tired, and I know you're tired. We just finished the, we're finishing the fifth hour of our five hours today. Grandpa's also tired.

Okay. But we're going to crack this thing. Okay.

All right. So, there's no SKYE BANG SNGA PHYI. SKYE BANG SNGA MA and SKYE BANG PHYI MA MED PA THAL Oh, there's no SKYE BANG SNGA PHYI.

There is no starting at the start and starting at the end. You first principle guys, you get stuck on SKYE BA as starting. I want SKYE BANG SNGA PHYI.

Oh, SKYE BANG SNGA PHYI, the SEMS LAU PHING ZHIG Birth. No, I want birth, okay? Birth, old, and yeah, yeah, the birth.

No, but now I want SKYE BANG SNGA MA and SKYE BANG PHYI MA, previous birth and future birth. There's no birth. Okay.

So, we say, oh, I got it. There's no past life and there's no future life. I got it.

Yeah, you're right. Okay. Why?

There's no deduct, sorry. There's no accurate perception which can see things which are hidden. Okay.

So, you're right on, man. I always thought there wasn't any past life and future life. Okay.

And there's no SANG YAS. There is no BUDA. Yeah.

And where there's a ME, there's no DUA. I'm sorry. Where there's DUA, there's no ME.

Yeah. Where there's smoke, there's no fire. Yeah, I understand.

LALA means I'm in the mountain pass. All right. Don't worry about that.

Okay. Yeah, okay. So, smoke in the mountain pass.

Sorry. Fire that you fire as a deduction of smoke doesn't exist. I understand.

Buddhists don't exist. Right on. No past life, future life.

Yep. Okay, Mehta. Right.

Why don't they exist? And here's an important part of today's class. If you don't take anything else home today, take this home.

SEMS MED MA MIG PA'I KHAR ZHIG YOD NA MIG RUNG YIN PA'I PHYIR Those things don't exist because if they did, they should be perceivable by an accurate perception. Okay. And they're not.

Oh. If something exists, somebody must be able to see it with an accurate perception. And nobody, therefore, they don't exist.

According to you. Copious, copious, hidden things. According to you, they don't exist.

Why? SEMS MED MA MIG PA'I, they are not established by a correct perception. And if something, if they existed, they would be perceivable.

If they existed, they would be perceivable. Okay. If they existed, they would be perceivable, and they are not perceived.

What's the conclusion? They don't exist. Okay, I'll say it again.

And if you don't take anything else home today, take this home. Okay. If they existed, past and future lives, Buddhas, and fires that are under smoke that you see, but the fires aren't visible, okay?

If they existed, they should be perceivable. A. And B.

They are not perceived. By any perception. Because they're coquia.

They can only be seen in the abstract. Got it? So take this principle home.

Big principle in all of your scriptures. Big scripture. Big principle.

If it existed, it should be perceivable. A. B.

It's not perceived. Therefore, it doesn't exist. You cannot perceive these things.

[Speaker 2]
No karma, no seeds.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's impossible to see them with the correct perception, because according to you, deduction is not allowed. Therefore, they can't exist. Okay?

what do you think of this gospel? It is gospel. All right.

You guys, do we still have any time?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, 10 minutes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, let's go. Kramer, read to me.

[Speaker 2]
SON NGA MA SKAD LA'ANG This is what you said about- What was that?

[Speaker 1]
No. SON NGA MA SON here means two parts of a statement. The first part is in the corner, like cancer, rinpoche.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, so this is if you accept the latter one? I'm sorry, the earlier one?

[Speaker 1]
You already accepted. You already accepted the first part of my statement. You said, what's the first sura of his statement?

[Speaker 2]
SEMS MED MA MIG PA Right, well, yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Those objects are not perceived by an accurate perception. What objects? Past and future lives, enlightened beings, and fires that you can't see that are hidden by the smoke.

You already accepted the first part of my statement. What? SEMS MED MA MIG PA Isn't that NGA MA SKAD LA'ANG though?

You already accepted that. No, NGA MA SKAD LA'ANG Oh, wow, sorry. Yeah, be careful.

NGA MA SKAD LA'ANG You already accepted the first part. They can't be perceived by an accurate perception. Why?

Because they would have to be seen by a deduction, and you said it's not an accurate perception. They're hidden, okay? You already accepted the first part of my argument.

Stop fighting with me. Okay. Then he says, KYA MA MA'I CHUNG Just because it's true that if something existed, it should be perceivable, and these things are not perceived, that doesn't prove, okay, that there's no second perception.

All right, here we go. KHYA BA YOD TE Who else we got? Kat, Reid, just throw yourself in there.

KHYA BA YOD TE Your mic's off. Your microphone is off. Turn on your mic.

KHYA BA YOD TE Wait, listen, Kat, we could have guessed what you were saying, but deduction is not an accurate perception. So we need the microphone on.

[Speaker 2]
KHYA BA YOD TE It's on.

[Speaker 1]
KHYA BA YOD TE Okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
KHYA BA YOD TE YIN PHAR BZHED PA'I PHYIR DANG Yay, I like the slap.

[Speaker 1]
All right, I'd like to slap this guy too. KHYA BA YOD TE Okay, what I said is necessarily the truth because MIG GZU RUNG BA'I MED PA NI The non-existence of a thing which is normally perceivable, I'm reading Roach's translation from this afternoon. The non-existence of a thing which should normally be perceivable is established through no other way than saying we don't see it here.

You can't say something's not there if it's generally perceivable and you have an accurate perception. If it's something which is established through an accurate perception and it's not here, well, that means there was no accurate perception. You can't say something's not here unless you can say there was no accurate perception to confirm it.

You can't confirm that something's not here unless you can accurately say there was no accurate perception of it. All right. BYAS SBYAR BA LA SOGS PA DE DON GYI GZHUNG DU MED A billion books.

Sorry. All of the books in the seven groups, the seven group which is the subject of this book. What's the seven books of Dharmakirti?

His most famous seven books. We don't count the book he was commenting on with his seven books. Which is?

[Speaker 2]
Dharmakirti.

[Speaker 1]
Dharmakirti. Yeah. Dignaga's mother book.

When we say the seven books, we're not including the mother book. He says, look, DE DON GYI GZHUNG DU MED Lots of the seven books say that YOD NA MIG RUNG If something exists, it must be perceivable through an accurate perception. And if something is not perceived, then it doesn't.

That's what it means to say it doesn't exist. Does this exist or not? I say it exists.

Okay, then there should be an accurate perception that confirms it. Oh, okay, I say it doesn't exist. Okay, then there should be no accurate perception which could confirm it.

Okay? You guys okay? All right.

How many times did the seven books say that? LEN GCIG MA YIN PA What? Not even once?

Yeah, and this is an old sarcastic... This is an old sarcasm in the ancient books. They said it.

They didn't say it once. Okay? You get it?

The seven books said, what? If it's there, you should be able to perceive it with an accurate perception. And if it's not there, you must have not perceived it with an accurate perception.

How many times did they say it? Was it once? He's being sarcastic.

LEN GCIG MA YIN PA SHES PA'I PHYIR They said it, duh, not just one time, in a million times. All right. Yay.

Yay. Maitri supports us completely. All right.

We're getting burned out. Everyone's tired. We got four more minutes.

Hang in there. Christina Kasica's going to read. Ellie's going to check her.

Okay, last shot, last shot. Suck it up. When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

YOD NA MI'I KHRUNG MA MI'I STE Oh my god, three negatives. MED PAR MI'I DRUB NA Is that re-wong? Re-bong.

Like rebound. Re-bong. Re-bong-gi-yo-go Go-la And is that wa-mi?

Ra. Yeah, the V is silent.

[Speaker 3]
RA MI'I PHA PEI DRUB PEI DRUB CHE ZHANG GANG YANG MED PAR GZHAN GANG GZHAN GANG YANG MED PAR DE NYID KYANG MED PAR DRUB NI NUS PAR NYID RGYUR RO RGYUR RO Okay.

[Speaker 1]
NUS PAR NYID RGYUR RO Now try to hang in there, okay? We got two, three more minutes. Just don't worry about it, okay?

If it's true that for something to be there it has to be confirmed by an accurate perception, okay? If that's true, okay? Which means that if you cannot perceive it when an accurate perception is not there, if you don't buy this principle which was stated in the seven books not one time, okay?

All right? If you can't buy that, well, then there's no proof that rabbits don't have horns. Okay?

Then there's no proof that rabbits don't have horns. I'm going to swing it around this way on you, okay? Why?

Well, if they were there, they should be perceivable. And they're not perceiving. But that's not true, so they must be there.

Got it? Just watch. Just be careful when you go out, Sedona Sky Rabbits.

You might get your ankles poked. All right. Ribon di go la, on the top of the head of a rabbit.

Ra me pa duk che. Can you prove? How would you go about...

Okay, I got a question for you guys. If you wanted to prove that rabbits didn't have horns on their heads, what would be a good reason to give? Look, Geshe-la, take rabbits.

They don't have horns on their head because...

[Speaker 2]
Nobody ever saw one.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, no one ever saw one. But that doesn't work anymore because you just refused that logic. Therefore, rabbits do have horns and we should get stronger automobile tires on our cars.

Because if it's not true that you can prove something is there with an accurate perception, then you can't prove that something's not there because you never had an accurate perception. Got it? Me pe.

De nyi kyang me pa duk mi nupar gyurl. So it must be the case that it cannot be proved by anybody that rabbits don't have horns. Because seeing is not...

Confirming with a perception is not where it makes something there. Why? Because you can have...

You can establish things in your head through abstractions. We all know that. But they're not real.

They have no reality. Okay. So therefore, you couldn't make decisions based on ideas.

Did you have a question? The word rabbit is commonly accepted to indicate an animal that doesn't have horns. Well, that is a kind of...

Third kind of logic in DCIA is Level 7. Convention. Convention.

There's a word for that argument. That's another kind. Well, if you're using the convention of calling it a rabbit, and the word rabbit refers to an animal with no horns...

Yeah, I agree.

[Speaker 2]
Convention is a part of logic. Convention is one of the three types of logical perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we had it in DCIA 7 with all the DCIA people here in Mumbai. Okay. All right.

We're over time. Just so you know that. God bless.

All the people sitting here, thank you, Nick. I don't make the time pass. This book is amazing.

So I'm really glad that we're doing it. Adam, we miss you, and I hope that you're able to participate in this. We miss you, Adam.

You're a nut, man. We miss DC and Birmingham.