Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 23

[Speaker 2]
We didn't get that far yet, I heard some aspiration.

[Speaker 3]
Are you into the birthday candy this morning?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, tired and cranky and just doing my best to push through.

[Speaker 2]
How did Amelie sleep after birthday candy?

[Speaker 1]
She did all right. She did all right. She complained of a stomach ache.

She told me that she had a splinter in her tummy.

[Speaker 2]
Next year at this time, if anyone wants to come visit Albuquerque, it's a special moment. I'm trying to recreate behind me the International Balloon Fiesta. Every year this time is a special thing and the sky is filled with balloons and something like, I don't know, several hundred, five hundred balloons go up at the same time.

And it's a magical, whimsical event and a nice reason to come visit us here in Albuquerque someday.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, you're the prime attraction.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but somehow I need the extra lifting. It's Ezra. Ezra's the prime attraction.

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 2]
Hi, boss.

[Speaker 3]
Good morning. Elizabeth and I can talk philosophy. I don't think so.

I mean, he's cute and everything.

[Speaker 2]
Believe it or not, he's certainly getting there all too quickly.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, good. All right, kids. Nick, anything?

Oh, just a real quick good morning, boss. Real quick, there are a couple of small changes to the schedule. So just everybody keep your eyes on it.

I'll try to email you Mixed Nuts to let you know if anything changes, but like Gibson's class is up today. So if it makes a difference in your life, look at the schedule. OK, I'm coming.

Let me get up this text. We're talking Mr. Adam, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 3]
OK. Kishi, Michael, your volume is low compared to others. Is that better?

[Speaker 1]
Hello? No. Let me see if I got the right microphone on.

Hang on. OK, hang on. Oh, you're right.

Wrong microphone.

[Speaker 2]
That's better. That's better. Oh, yeah.

OK.

[Speaker 1]
All right, Mr. Andrade, here we go. Hey, you're supposed to... I'm just telling you a customary thing.

[Speaker 2]
You cut out there again. I missed it. I missed it.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just saying it's customary to open both your eyes when you wake up, OK?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Keep working on that.

[Speaker 1]
All right, let me get here. Share this stupid screen. All right.

OK, progress report for Adam's text. Let's see here. By the way, Adam's first translation is coming out next month.

A major, major work on logic. By the way, that's... I think what happened a thousand years ago is somebody named Chapa Chokyi Tsengdi in Tibet.

He was writing a commentary to Master Dharmakirti. Dharmakirti is four very, very difficult chapters, as you're about to find out with Ben Kramer's text. Even the order of the chapters is debated.

In the monastery, people don't even... In the Geshe course, almost nobody memorizes Dharmakirti. It's just too difficult.

In the winter debates, we will debate a few pages of Dharmakirti for four or five years. It's extremely difficult. I think this author a thousand years ago...

I should slow down, right, Nick?

[Speaker 2]
A little bit, yes, sir.

[Speaker 1]
Named Chapa Chokyi Tsengdi, which means the Lion of the Dharma, from Chapa. He wrote a summary, or he wrote like a textbook of how to study Dharmakirti. He took the subjects out of Dharmakirti, and then he rearranged them in a very interesting order, which is very useful.

It kind of matches how we present the pen. It kind of matches how we present the pen, and it's kind of a miracle what he did. Then Adam's author, Ngawan Tashi, Tse Ngawan Tashi, he followed that system.

Then we followed that system for DCI Advanced Level 2. We're going to follow it at the Lam Rim teaching in Vietnam. Both of those will take place in Vietnam in December.

If you have time, you can catch either one in Vietnam. I believe the Lam Rim is held at Da Nang, which is one of the greatest beaches in the world. I've flown over it.

I haven't been there yet. Then I believe we're going to be doing the Advanced Level in Ho Chi Minh City. Anyway, you're welcome to come if you have time.

You will see Adam's text coming out. All the Mixed Nuts books are now coming out also in e-book. It's really easy to get them.

It's easy to use them. What I like is it's easy to gift them to somebody else. If somebody has a birthday or you have a friend that you just want to say hi, you can go on the Diamond Cutter Press website and you can gift them a book in like two minutes.

I like it. I've been sending them to my neighbors. Okay.

Anyway, we're finishing about Five Folio Faces. That's a little slow, but the material is very thick. We could speed up slightly.

This book is going to be... It's good to split this book into four separate books. Adam, we're going deeper.

Adam's new book is a commentary on all seven of Dharmakirti's greatest books. It's a huge commentary on all seven of Dharmakirti's greatest books. We went to this as a break from Adam's Durga text, which is kind of difficult.

Probably we can finish the classes for this book in 2026, January. Then we would go back to the next book of his, Durga. His Durga will take four books.

He's basically working on eight books at the same time. Four for the Durga and four for this text. We'll finish the second book in a couple of years.

All right. Mr. Nick, you ready to check Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I see a big cursor up here. I'm not a big cursor.

I curse occasionally. All right. Hang on.

Okay. Please start, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Kelte is introducing another guy's argument. It's kind of like...

What's it mean, Adam? Kelte?

[Speaker 2]
Suppose you were to say...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Let's say, suppose you were to say this. I think, BUM MED, which means BUM PA MED PA, what does that mean?

[Speaker 2]
The place where there is no coffee cup.

[Speaker 1]
This means the absence of the coffee cup at that place. Okay, ready?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Let's take the absence of a coffee cup. I think...

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

[Speaker 1]
Are you implying that it could be a shell jaw of MUN TSUM TSE MO? What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
That it could be an object considered by direct perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
By direct, accurate perception.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Can a correct, accurate perception... Shell is going to be important for your book.

In your book, this term, he's going to lay heavily on the meaning of shell. Shell means to weigh something. Mentally, it means to consider something.

It's like you're sitting at the breakfast table, and you're looking at your coffee cup. That's called your shalwa or jelwa, the coffee cup. If you walk into your...

I don't know. If you're looking around for your coffee, that you know you had it in your hand, and you walk in the kitchen, and the kitchen table is empty, can we say that at that moment you directly perceive the lack of coffee cup on that table? Okay?

Is it possible to directly... Shell, meaning to consider, basically means to perceive. What do you guys think, I mean offhand, when you...

It happens to me, like today. I make a coffee. I go back to the bathroom.

I walk around the house. I think the coffee is on the kitchen table. Then when I come in the kitchen, I look on the kitchen table, and I see the lack of a coffee cup.

I see there's no coffee cup there. Am I using direct perception, or am I using logic, deduction? What do you guys think?

[Speaker 2]
Sounds direct.

[Speaker 1]
It sounds pretty direct. I don't know. Or do I always have to figure out that there's no cup there?

That's the question, I guess. Anyway, he says, the other guy says, I think it's a direct perception. Then, DE LTA BU NGON TZAM DE PHUNG MA'I DE LA TSE MA YIN PA'I PHYIR RO Because this kind of NGON TZAM TSE MA, direct perception, is an accurate perception towards the lack of a coffee cup.

Okay? And then we, suppose we say what, Adam? Dönä.

[Speaker 2]
Well, suppose you accept that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, suppose you agree then that when you came back to the kitchen, and you looked at the kitchen table, and you perceived the absence of your coffee cup, suppose you agree that that is a direct perception, and not something you have to use logic, or that you are using instantaneous logic in your mind. Let's say it's a direct perception. NGON TZAM TSE MA'I SHES BYANG YIN NA Then it's not the case that if something is a, then it's not the case that if something is considered by a direct perception, it has to be RANG BSTAN.

Okay? Then that's not the case. If you believe that when you walk back to the kitchen, you see the lack of a coffee cup with direct perception, then it's not the case that what all direct perceptions see is RANG BSTAN.

What's RANG BSTAN, and what's CI TZIM, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
One's like the archetype, CI TZIM would be the archetype, and RANG BSTAN would be like a physical expression of that archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Yeah, so it has a different meaning here than in Madhyamika, for example. Yeah, and I like to say, and by the way, we're using your text very heavily, Adam.

When you see Advanced Level 2 for DCI, we just went straight to your text, and we made it relevant to business people, and they love it. Let's say, so RANG BSTAN means the actual, the actual expression of an archetype, and then CI TZIM means the archetype. And I like to say, your mom taught you the CI TZIM.

The first time you saw a car, I imagine Nick has had this experience, or Adam. The first time you took Ava out, and she saw a car, and you pointed to it, and you said, car, car, and she said, car, car. Then she learned the CI TZIM, kind of.

I mean, we would also say past life is in there, but she learned the archetype. You inserted an archetype into Ava's mind the first time you pointed to a car and yelled, car, car, car. And according to the second school, every time Ava sees a car in her whole life after that, it will be by looking at the thing and comparing it to her CI TZIM, comparing it to the archetype in her mind.

And if it's close enough to the first car she ever learned, she'll call the new thing a car also. So he says here, you're in trouble. And we say, why?

He says, because you used to say if something was a direct perception, it was always dealing with the actual expression of the archetype. But now you've changed your story. What's the implication here?

When I perceive the lack of a coffee cup on the kitchen table, am I seeing an archetype? Or am I seeing an actual expression? What do you guys think?

[Speaker 2]
Well, now this is saying an archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is saying that when you perceive the absence of something on the table, then you are dealing with an archetype. You are not dealing with the actual expression of the thing because there's nothing there. Okay, all right.

Let's see what we're going to say. Please continue, Adam. I can see Venerable Utpala here on my screen.

Can you help him? Nick, can you send me a basic list of participants and then I can call on people that I can't see. How's that?

Yeah, sure. I can torture them. Or else set me up on my Zoom that I could see everybody.

I don't know if that's possible. Well, if they turn their cameras on. Or if you go down to the bottom and click on the part of the menu that says participants.

Hang on, let me do that. Okay. Just click on participants and it should show up as a list that you can scroll through.

That would be the best way. Okay. If I print you a list.

Oh, okay, that's the same thing, really. All right, good. I'll do that.

Now I can pick on people more freely. I think it's a great idea. Okay.

So please read, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
LTA BA GNYIS KA BDE PA YIN NA is to say... Where's... It says, I say I agree to both of your LTA BA, to both of your sarcastic statements.

I say, yeah, that's right. You got a problem with that? Okay.

I respond to your two sarcastic statements with, yeah, that's right. You got a problem with that? What are the two sarcastic statements we just had?

Oh, are you telling me that the lack of a coffee cup on top of your kitchen table is something you can perceive with direct perception? And we say what, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Yeah, you got a problem with that? I say, yeah, you do perceive the lack of a coffee cup on top of the kitchen table with a direct perception.

Yeah, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. And then his second tell, his second sarcastic statement was, so it's not the case that if something is what you consider with a direct, accurate perception, it has to be the actual expression of that thing. We say, yeah, it's not the case.

It's not the case. You can perceive something with a direct perception, and it can be an archetype. So suppose we answer, by the way, we're not sure yet, Dr. Kramer, if we agree, but let's say we agree to both. Then he's going to say, well, didn't you at some point say that if something is what I consider with direct perception, it has to be the actual expression of the thing? Didn't you say that at some point? This is the other guy.

I'll say it again. In our conversation up to now, didn't, aren't you the one who said that if I see something with a direct, accurate perception, that something must be the actual expression of an archetype in the world? So, NGON TSUM TSE MI ZHES BYA YIN NA RANG TSE YIN PAS KHYAB PA ZHES PA NI And then we're going to say, look, when we said before that if something is under consideration by a direct perception, it has to be the expression of the archetype in the world, the actual expression of the archetype in our world.

What we were saying was KHYOD NGON TSUM TSE MI YIN NA KHO BA'I ZHES BYED GANG YIN RANG TSE YIN PAS KHYAB PA BRTEN PA MA YIN When we said that, we were not saying, we were not indicating, BRTEN PA MA YIN We didn't mean to say that if something is a direct, accurate perception, then anything under consideration by it had to be an actual expression of an idea in the world. We didn't say that. That's not what we were saying.

I'll say it again. When we said that direct, accurate perceptions are dealing with actual expressions of mental pictures in the world, like real coffee cups, what we were saying, we were not saying, we didn't mean to say that every possible thing perceived by a direct perception had to be an actual expression of an idea in the world. We weren't saying that.

So here comes the clarification. Here means, but rather, what we were saying, the key means, because it has a comma after it, it cannot be what, Adam? It cannot be possessive.

You don't say atoms at the end of a sentence. Well, I guess you can. The book is Atoms.

But normally you say Atoms book, right? So when you see a possibility hanging at the end of a sentence, it means but not, okay? But not.

So what's coming up is rather what we were saying. What were we saying? And Adam, I want you to help me here.

Sotong.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's... Generally, it's like those who have not seen emptiness, but you're not seeing this. You're only seeing this side of things.

You're only seeing one side.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It sort of means incoming. I always think of in a war, in American English, when the missile is coming at you, you yell to your friends, incoming, incoming, the missile is coming towards you.

And if you're a person who doesn't understand the pen, then you're a sotong. You believe that the world is out there and the world is coming at you. So in Buddhism, we call those people who didn't learn the pen, we have a special name for them, it's called those who believe that things are incoming.

They believe that things are coming this way. Okay? That's called sotong.

What's the opposite of a sotong, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Anyone who's... Are you looking for the Tibetan term?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean in general...

[Speaker 2]
Somebody who's had a... Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
I was just going to say in general, it's anybody who's had a good explanation of emptiness, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you could say that, and specifically who's had a direct perception, okay? So... So we are clarifying what we meant before when we said that when you have a direct perception of something, you are always dealing with the actual appearance of the archetype in the world, the actual expression of the archetype, the actual coffee cup.

And here we said if something is a direct accurate perception of a non-arya, of a non-arya, of a person who has not seen emptiness directly, then in that case what they see has to be the actual expression of an archetype in the world. Okay? That implies an exception for someone who's not a tsortang.

What do you think, Adam? Like... So let's say I'm an arya, and I see something with my direct accurate perception, then that's implying I could be seeing a...

[Speaker 2]
I mean, the lack of a... self-existent?

[Speaker 1]
I could be seeing on the table a lack of coffee. I could be seeing the archetype, yeah. I could be seeing the archetype.

If I'm a very special person, and I walk into the kitchen looking for my coffee cup, and I see no coffee cup there, what I see could be an archetype rather than an actual expression. Okay? So, certain people can deal in archetypes.

All right. He's going very deep, by the way. And this is Khenrupje.

And this book is very famous. And it's a great book if you're on the debate ground, because this kind of points are not made by other people. Please read.

And let me pull up my little list here. I can pick on all kinds of people. Tim Lowenhaupt is checking you.

Hey, Adam, if you have compassion, make some mistakes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. DE DAG MA YIN PAR KHO NGON TSUM TSE MA YIN NA KHO BA'I GZHEL BYA GANG YIN RANG BZIN YIN DU DGOS NA KUN RGYUN YESHES YIN DGOS NA Okay, you don't pronounce that D there? Not you.

Okay. RANG TSEN YIN DGOS NA KUN RGYUN YESHES GYI GZHEL BYA YIN NA RANG TSEN YIN PA'I GAL BAR THAL BA DANG RANG BZIN MA DMIGS PA'I Is that DMIGS? No.

[Speaker 1]
DMIGS PA'I Tim, you got to understand he's with Eva a lot of the time.

[Speaker 2]
MA DMIGS PA'I THAG GI CHOG CHOS NGON TSUM TSE MA'I DUG PAR ZHES PA DANG ZHAL BYA GNYIS PHYIR TSE MA GNYIS ZHES SOGS NANG RGYAL GYI KUN DU DGE ROL All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, here we go. DE LTAR MA YIN PAR What's that mean, Adam? By the way, I'm trying to find a nice picture of you guys mountain climbing while I'm stalling, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. If it's not like that...

[Speaker 1]
Okay. DE LTAR MA YIN PAR Yeah, if it were not like that, then if something were...

[Speaker 2]
NGON TSUM TSE MA'I If something was a direct accurate perception... Then... Yeah, it would have to be...

[Speaker 1]
There's two ifs here, okay? There's two ifs following one upon the other, okay? If something were a direct...

were an accurate direct perception, and what?

[Speaker 2]
And if...

[Speaker 1]
And if...

[Speaker 2]
the object considered by omniscience... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. GYUR ZHIG GYUR GANG YIN RANG TSE YIN DGOS NA If something were the... If something were a direct accurate perception, and if what it was looking at had to be the actual expression of something in the world, then let's take the wisdom of a Buddha.

Let's take the omniscience of a Buddha, okay? If something were what that is considering, it would also have to be RANG TSEN. What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
It would also have to be an expression of that archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Yeah. Good.

By the way, I've got to show off my granddaughter. They've been climbing like the highest peaks in Colorado. This is La Plata at 14,365 feet.

She climbs in a basket on the back, okay? So don't worry about it. All right.

RANG TSE YIN GUNG KHYAD YOD ZHIG GIS GSHER BYED YIN NA RANG TSE YIN MI KHYAL BAR THAL BA DANG Then are you telling me that the omniscience of a Buddha could not perceive, what? The lack of a coffee cup as...

[Speaker 2]
An archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, as an archetype. Are you telling me omniscience was somehow limited and couldn't see the lack of a coffee cup at the table as an archetype directly? Okay.

And that contradicts what? Omniscience perceives all objects in the universe directly. So don't give me this story that direct perceptions are limited to the actual object in the world because there's omniscient beings who see them as concepts or see them as archetypes because they see all things directly.

That was kind of easy and that's kind of a cheating thing. I don't know. Let's see what he says for the second thing.

RANG BZHIN MA MIG PAS BTAG We got to review what's a RANG BZHIN MA MIG PAS BTAG. MA MIG PAS BTAG means a logical statement you give your wife as to why something is not there. MA MIG PAS means you're trying to prove that something's not there.

So, I don't know, you're trying to prove that. Like your wife says, why you didn't take the garbage can out. And you say, well, honey, there is no garbage can down there.

And then you have to give a reason. Because the plastic thing that holds the garbage is not down there. I took it out already.

I'll say it again. Honey bunny, let's think about the garbage can. It's not down there in the carport because the thing that holds the garbage is not down there in the carport.

So, when you use as a reason the absence of something which is equivalent to the garbage can, that's called RANG BZHIN MA MIG PAS BTAG. RANG BZHIN MA MIG PAS BTAG Let's consider the carport. That's the SPYOD CAN, right?

Let's consider the carport. There is no garbage can there. That's the quality asserted.

What do you call it? SPYOD KYI SPYOD. Oh, sorry.

SPYOD KYI SPYOD. And then I say because the thing that holds the garbage is not down there. So, I'm proving that something's not in the carport.

That's called MA MIG PAS. RANG BZHIN means, and I'm proving it with a reason, and the thing I'm using for the reason is of the same nature as the thing that I'm trying to prove about. So, if I say, honey bunny, let's consider the carport.

Number one. Number two, there's no garbage can there. Number three, why?

Because the thing that holds the garbage is not there. Okay, got it? CHOG CHUD means one and three.

CHOG CHUD means one and three. One and three here means, honey bunny, in the carport, the thing that holds the garbage is not there. Okay, all right?

MNGON TSUL TSE MA'I DROD PAR ZHES PA Can she... CHOG CHUD DE PHYED KHYAB PA YID Maybe I got this wrong. CHOG CHUD Let's keep going.

MNGON TSUL TSE MA'I DROD PAR ZHES PA DANG Can you confirm... Who is CHOG CHUD? Is it one and three or one and two, you guys?

[Speaker 2]
One and three.

[Speaker 1]
It is, right?

[Speaker 2]
I believe so.

[Speaker 1]
So, if it's a correct reason, I have to perceive one and three, can I perceive it with a direct perception?

[Speaker 2]
So, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If I perceive that the thing that... If she comes to understand... If she accepts my reason, okay?

If she accepts the three parts of my reason, right? What are the three parts of my reason, right? Number one, in the carport, there is nothing to hold the garbage.

Okay? In the carport, the thing that holds the garbage is gone. That's the first of the TSUL BSUM.

That's the first of the three steps of confirmation. Can my wife see that in the carport, there's not the thing that holds the garbage? Yes.

Does she understand that if the thing that holds the garbage is not there, then the garbage can is not there. If three, then two, right? If three, then two.

Can she perceive that if the thing that holds the garbage is not in the carport, then the garbage can is not in the carport. Can she perceive that? Yes.

Can she perceive the SDOG BSKYABS? Now that's a difficult one. If there's no garbage can, then there's no thing that holds the garbage.

If there's no garbage can, then there's no thing that holds the garbage. If not two, not three. Those are the TSUL BSUM.

When you perceive those relationships, when you perceive the truth of those relationships, which means when you actually confirm a logical statement, are you dealing in RANG TSENS or are you dealing in CI TSENS? When she confirms that in the carport there's no garbage can, when she sees that truth, because of my debate, she sees... Well, I'm sorry.

When she perceives my reason, which is that there is nothing that holds garbage in the carport, if one and three, one is three, there's no thing that holds garbage in the carport, when my wife perceives that, does she perceive it as an actual entity in the world or does she perceive it as a concept?

[Speaker 2]
I mean, it's conceptual. Logic is conceptual. Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Let's say it again. I tell my wife, look honey, let's check the carport. There's no garbage can there.

She says, why? I said, the thing that holds the garbage is not there. At that moment she perceives that in the carport there's no thing that holds the garbage there.

Okay? When she perceives that, is she using... is what she perceives, is that...

or she goes down there and looks in the carport and doesn't see a thing that holds the garbage. That's a direct perception, right?

[Speaker 2]
I would say that's direct, yeah. Isn't that exactly what we're debating right now?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is. Is she dealing with an archetype or is she dealing with the actual thing that holds the garbage?

[Speaker 2]
We seem to agree that it's an archetype. Whether or not she can perceive it directly, we don't know yet.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. So anyway, we took our Zen as an example. RANG BZHIN MA MIG PA'I THAG Why is it called the MA MIG PA'I THAG?

It's a reason to prove the absence of something. MA MIG PA'I THAG is a reason to prove the absence of something. What's the most famous migme in the world?

[Speaker 2]
A measure of love with nothing to excuse.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, migme, it's a migme. Okay, cannot perceive it. Okay, cannot perceive it there.

MA MIG PA'I So the MA MIG PA'I part here means you are trying to prove to somebody that something's not there. Okay? And what are you using as your reason?

You're taking something which is almost exactly the same, well, it is exactly the same, as the thing you're trying to prove is not there. So a garbage can and a thing that holds garbage is RANG BZHIN GCIG. They are by nature the same thing.

Okay? They share the same exact identity. So when you use a thing that my wife can see, oh, there's nothing there holding garbage, then she knows that if there's nothing there holding garbage, then there's no garbage can.

She knows that. Okay, so, anyway... So, somebody said, okay, somebody said, when your wife sees that the thing that holds the garbage is not in the carport, she's confirming that with NGON TSAM SEMS PA.

What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
She's confirming with a direct, accurate perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, she went downstairs and went to see if there was anything holding garbage in the carport, and she saw that directly. Okay, she saw that directly. Therefore, it is possible to see...

Now I ask this, Adam, when you're talking about the three relationships, in an accurate reason, in a correct reason, are you dealing with archetypes, or are you dealing with the actual things? I'm talking about the relationships, not the actual object.

[Speaker 2]
Totally. Yeah, I'd still say it's conceptual.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you're dealing with concepts. I would say you're dealing with concepts, okay? So, the CHOG CHOS, the relationship is being confirmed with a direct perception.

She goes down there to see if there's anything holding garbage in the carport, okay? And she says, you're right, there's nothing there holding garbage, okay? That she confirms with direct perception, okay?

But what she's confirming, is a concept or an actual thing?

[Speaker 2]
She's confirming her conceptual understanding.

[Speaker 1]
Good, yeah, she's confirming a concept. When you talk about a relationship between two things, carport and thing holding the garbage, okay? When you're talking about perceiving the truth of a relationship, you're talking about conceptual, because you have to conceive the relationship before you can confirm it.

You have to glue together carport and thing holding garbage, okay? Is she having a direct perception? Yes.

Of the truth that there's nothing holding garbage in the carport? Yes. Is she perceiving something existing in the world?

Or is she doing this whole thing as a concept? Is she gluing together carport and thing that holds garbage and confirming it? Oh, that's what she's doing.

Yeah, so if you have a direct perception, accurate direct perception, you don't have to see the actual manifestation of the thing in the world. You can deal with ideas, or concepts, archetypes, okay? That's the point.

That's the point here, okay? It's not true that if you have a direct accurate perception, you have to be dealing with things you can see and touch. Okay?

It's not true. Why? Because when you perceive the truth of a logical statement, you are never dealing with the actual thing that you touch and feel.

You're always dealing with concepts. Got it? You okay?

You guys okay? When you confirm the three elements of a good reason, what you're perceiving is always conceptual and not the actual manifestation in the world. Because it's all in your head.

Okay, how about that? Okay, all right? It's very cool, okay?

Now, he throws in one more thing. By the way, that was... the whole thing there was to try to prove that a direct perception can be dealing in concepts, archetypes.

Can be. Okay? Can be.

It doesn't have to be dealing with actual manifestations of things.

[Speaker 2]
Did that prove that?

[Speaker 1]
Excuse me?

[Speaker 2]
Did that prove that though?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it did. Let's put it this way. When you perceive directly the truth of the elements of a logical statement, you are never perceiving the actual manifestation of those things.

You're always dealing with ideas. You're always dealing with idealizations of those subjects.

[Speaker 2]
But we're asserting that you can perceive them directly. I mean... Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe we're saying you have to. Okay? That's another point.

But... Okay, so anyway. That's kind of a cool thing.

I'll repeat. When somebody tells you something to prove something, and you're dealing with ideas in your head, you can directly perceive the truth of what they're saying without using actual objects in the world. It can all be done conceptually.

The perception of the truth of it is direct, but you are not dealing with actual garbage cans. You are dealing with pictures of garbage cans. Geshe-la, is it the case that anything that's not physical, or anything that's mental, is a cheat sin?

And does a wrong sin have to be a cheat sin? I think that's the way we're kind of tending here, and I asked myself the same question. I asked myself the same question.

You'll have to read Adam's new book when it comes out, and all the answers are in there. By the way, it has to do with... if you want to know, if you want to go there, it has to do with, are you somehow using the opposite of the opposite?

In a cheat sin, you are perceiving all that is not a microphone, and then you are flipping it. The opposite of all which is not a microphone is a cheat sin of a microphone. Cancel...

because think of everything that's not your microphone in the universe. Then cancel that, and what's left in the universe is your microphone. In fact, that's a perfect microphone, and that's a cheat sin, and that's what we call a luminous image coming out of your karmic seed.

We've had books, Tangtang's new book, on all the kinds of karma. We talk about seeds, seeds, seeds, seeds. No one ever talks about what's the nature of the picture that comes out of the seed and floats down on the pieces and makes the pen a pen.

Nobody ever talks about... nobody writes a book about those pictures. They write hundreds of books about karmic seeds.

You should do this, you shouldn't do this, you'll make a karmic seed. But you don't see a book that is dedicated to talking about the mental picture that actually creates your world. Adam's book does cover that, in 600 pages.

It's awesome. It's really awesome. It's the other half of dependent origination.

It's beautiful. Anyway, when you see those pictures directly, do you have to be seeing an actual thing that's popped out into the world? And the answer is no.

You can be dealing in abstractions. Direct perceptions can be dealing in abstractions. That's all.

Now this last thing we said, which was another reason why it's crazy to say that anytime you see something directly, it has to be an actual manifestation in the world. It's ZHEL BYANG NYID PHYIR BRTZE MA NYID Then NANG RGYAL. NANG RGYAL means...

then Dharmakirti, Master Dharmakirti, would have been committing an internal inconsistency, NANG RGYAL. He would have been committing the logical fault of an internal inconsistency when he said, why is there two kinds of accurate perception? This is a famous quotation from Dharmakirti.

Here we go. Why are there two kinds of accurate perception? I don't know why.

Because there's two kinds of things you can perceive. Why do we divide all accurate perceptions into direct and indirect? Well, because there's two kinds of things you got to see in the world, which are what?

Munsum and kokyur. Munsum and kokyur. Explain, Adam.

Some stuff in the world is munsum.

[Speaker 2]
Some stuff is apparent. Some things are things you can perceive with the senses, and others are things that are hidden, things that you would have to use.

[Speaker 1]
Like the amount of money in my bank account, I can perceive munsum. But why is that I have to kokyur? It's kokyur to me.

Okay? Let's say I have zero money in my bank account, and I have a huge income. Then why I don't have money in my bank account?

That's kokyur. I haven't figured that out yet. That's called kokyur.

So, because there's two kinds of objects in the universe, some are easy to see, and some are... I can't figure that out. Because there's two kinds of objects, then there's two kinds of perceptions in the world, direct and indirect logic, and direct perception.

Okay, got it? Now, why should that statement be called into question if the absence of the coffee cup has to be conceptual? Whoa.

Okay, I'll say...

[Speaker 2]
There's only one?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe. By the way, if you're translating today, I have to kiss your feet, okay? If you're a new student in this class, or even an old student in this class, and you have no idea what we're talking about, just enjoy.

Just relax. Hey, Ben, I got some geisha coffee. Good for you.

[Speaker 2]
That's big, and now you're drinking like a big boy.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so enjoy your geisha coffee, and don't worry about it. If you don't know what we're talking about today, you're learning something. If you know what we're talking about today, you're not learning anything.

I feel better when I don't understand what's going on, because I know there's something new I'm going to learn. So please be patient. All right.

Cool. So, NANG RGYAL GYI KHYUN, Dharmakirti must have been mistaken when he said, there's two kinds of accurate perception, because there's two kinds of stuff you got to perceive with your accurate perception. I went and got you the quotation, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
It's the opening of the third chapter, and here's where he says it. And you're going to need this snippet for the rest of your term, actually. Less than a minute left, guys.

Okay, you should kind of memorize it in your head. GSHEL BYA NI PHYIR TSE MA GNYIS DUS BYAS NUS DANG MI NUS PHYIR Okay. GSHEL BYA NI PHYIR TSE MA GNYIS There's two kinds of accurate perception, because there's two kinds of things that you have to perceive.

And then he says, what does he say then in the next line? What's DUS BYAS NUS DANG MI NUS? What's that mean?

What's DUS BYAS NUS DANG MI NUS mean? It can perform a function, and it cannot perform a function. It's capable of performing a function, and it's not capable of performing a function.

All things which do perform a function are changing, and not cheat sense. If it can perform a function, it's not an archetype, because it changes. And archetypes are archetypes because they never change.

The mental picture of car that Ava has in her head will never change throughout her life. That's why it's an archetype. And MI NUS BYAS means something which cannot perform a function, which is an archetype.

Then he starts getting into other types of things that can't perform a function, for example, that cannot perform a function. I'll give 20 bucks. The bets are going down.

CHA SHES What's CHA SHES? 20 bucks. It's stuck in a sink.

Yeah. Crack in a ceramic sink. A crack.

Oh, my sink is cracked. Why? I see a fault line.

I see a crack line in the sink. Then you reach down, and it turns out to be one more hair from the top of grandpa's head, which fell out. So CHA SHES is a famous example of something that seems to be real, and it's not real.

That's a famous example. All right. If you feel lost today, I repeat, it's because you are learning something.

And if you come to this class and you understand everything, I don't see much reason to come to the class. All right? You should do something that you don't understand.

All right. So thank you, Adam. Stop here.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Geshe-la. Thank you. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Geshe-la, are we going to come back to this when we come back? We have to. Yeah, he didn't say nunger and koker.

Instead, it seems more like he's reinforcing the other guy's position by saying you have two types of perception for archetypes and real things.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we are going to cover that. We spent quite a lot of time. It's a good point.

I understand your point. It doesn't seem to be contradictory. It seems to be supporting the other guy's idea.

Yeah. Okay, cool. All right.

Good job, you guys. I'm going to go have some oatmeal. How much time I got, Nick?

You got seven minutes. Whoa, you're so generous. Okay.

See you guys later. All right. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Thanks, everybody. Thank you.