Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 24

[Speaker 2]
Hello.

[Speaker 3]
Where are you today? This is Lego, Washington, D.C. Whoa. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That's a lot of Legos. Indeed. They have, uh, they have a lot of Legos over there at Legoland.

[Speaker 3]
And they got, they did in Manhattan, San Francisco, L.A., Washington, D.C., New Orleans. There's more. It's ridiculous.

Do the kids love it?

[Speaker 1]
Amelie likes it, but she's more into, like, the, um, the water park.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, there's a Lego water park? Yeah. Legoland is like, it's like a little Disneyland.

Oh, all right. Like, Lego is family owned still. That's amazing.

[Speaker 1]
I just read that Zildjian, the company that makes the symbols, that company started by alchemists in the 1600s or something. Yeah. That's amazing.

Okay, Adam. All right. Can you guys see my homework there?

Yes, sir. All right. Um, okay.

So, uh, first question. Um, identify whether the lack of a coffee cup in a place where there is no coffee cup is either a wrong sin or a cheat sin and provide a reason justifying your answer. Can we do that?

It's tricky. I feel like we could be wrong either way. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we're kind of, yeah, we're kind of in the middle of figuring that out. Um, but we did, uh, we kind of reached something that I felt like was a conclusion at one point in the class.

Um, but I'm sure you actually will tell us otherwise. I'm not answering the homework. I'll say it's a cheat sin.

I'll start the conversation by saying it's a cheat sin because it's unchanging. Yeah. Thanks, Nick.

Yeah, totally. Um, yeah. So can we give a reason?

Because it's unchanging. Yeah. Um, well, I mean, and yeah.

Why? Why is it unchanging? Oh, uh, if it got any less than what it is, something would be there.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. There's no, there's no physical expression of the archetype.

So kind of the way I worded it. Um, I mean, that's essentially that's, that's right. Um, that's one way of saying it, Nick.

Um, so first we should point out that cheat sentences and, uh, that cheat sentences are synonymous with archetypes. Wrong sense can be thought of as being physical expressions of those archetypes. The lack of a coffee cup in a place where there is no coffee cup is conceptual in nature.

Therefore, it must be a cheat sin as there is no physical expression. I would say that's the operant. Like that's the kind of operator there.

Uh, Adam, does it have to be physical? Could it be like a state of mind or something? A cheat's a wrong time.

I'm just curious. I don't remember your book covered it. Um, you know, um, if you're asking me, uh, specifically, I think it was still a little ambiguous.

Yeah. I don't think it, I was, I had the same question. Well, because we're, we're actually, we're, we're sorry again.

I didn't mean to step on your words there. I'm going to go look it up in your book while you guys are going on.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I think around section, section 292 gives, gives us specifically the three, um, three different types of, uh, direct and indirect, um, types of perceptions. Not Adam. It was 293 for sure.

I was expecting word to correct on that. Yeah. I think that wrong.

No boat. Uh, me talk, uh, and then done down by should all be didn't cheat. Okay.

I'm checking. Yeah. Well, there was, um, so is there a, is it possible to have a direct perception of an indirect.

Uh, to experience a direct perception indirectly. And that was, do you see where there were, there was, um, it was, it was the entire, the entire point of the book last term. And, um, the third section.

Um, actually, you know what, I could just go and look it up right now. Also. Uh, let's see here.

Um, just to be a little bit, I just want to be specific. So yeah. And 292 for my end again, um, in 292, um, we identify three different topics that we were going to look at.

And we are currently in the third of those topics. And the third of those topics is looking at what it means to be an indirect act. What it means to be, uh, we're looking at exploring indirect, accurate perceptions, which are either direct or indirect.

Yeah. So this is the J-POC. Yeah.

So, um, we were actually exploring indirect, accurate perceptions, which are either direct or indirect. So from what it looks like here, you can have J-POC, which is also direct. Um, a direct form of J-POC.

Weird. And that's what I'm saying. It's, it's, it's ambiguous.

And I just don't know precisely how to answer guess this question. Um, other than just saying it looks like it's possible. Um, but I can't give supporting reasons as to why or supporting examples.

Um, so. Sorry. Sorry.

So number two, um, is it possible to have a direct, accurate perception of the lack of a coffee cup in a place where there is in a place where there is no coffee cup? And what counter example can be given to support the idea that it is possible to have a direct perception of an archetype? Um, well, I was going to say yes.

But then when you say example, it makes it sound like it would have to be no to the first question. Well, no, you should be able to say yes to the first question. And then also give a counter, an example, meaning a counter example to the possibility to, if somebody were to say no to, to the first part of our question, then we should be able to provide a counter example to their no statement.

Yeah, and he did. And I don't remember what it was. It was, you know, it's a pretty go to one.

Um, what if I said non can. Oh, excuse me. Um, on the shoes.

Yeah, yeah. Specifically, the wisdom of omniscience, which considers, which considers. Oh, sure.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, everything directly. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Again, isn't. I remember that now but isn't it kind of cheating when you start talking about Buddhism, like, I agree with word, especially.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I mean, it wasn't. Sorry. Go ahead.

From what I, from what, because, you know, my whole thing is, it wasn't directly stated that it has to be the perception of an ordinary being. So if you're just asking in general, is it possible to have a direct accurate perception perception of boom may, then yeah, we can give an example of some instance in which it is. If you wanted to limit that to ordinary kind of ordinary beings, beings who don't possess beings on the first four, first, first four tracks, the first, excuse me, the first four paths.

Then, yeah, I think you'd have a hard time finding a point at which you could posit something that would. I mean, it does feel kind of like a go to just this kind of blanket example that you can give.

[Speaker 2]
I think they also have this thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is the example in the text.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But they also have this thing right. Nope. No, I'm joining some, or, which we haven't covered.

Oh yeah yeah yeah totally yogic during having this school so I wonder. Interesting. I didn't wonder if they didn't clarify but I wonder if the Buddha's direct perception of negations is director yogic director.

No, totally. Yeah. Yeah, and that is honestly thank you for.

Thank you for that, because that's definitely a second example. And specifically, I think, actually I actually mentioned the awareness of an area in the last class. Say again.

I was aware of an area. Yeah, no, you know I think that's pretty much it. I think we get the gist of it.

Number three, specify which type of reasoning is used to prove the assertion in the following syllogism. Consider a place where there is no coffee cup. There is no coffee cup there, because there's nothing there which is cup like and performs the function of holding a coffee of holding coffee.

Also, you have the Tibetan phrase for this reasoning. So this is. And this is a technical term from the Tibetan logical tradition.

In reference to the relationship between one and three. Choke to choke to, but it, it's a it's a little bit more specific than that. So, one in.

So when you look at one in three, the choke to, and you're trying to establish the presence of the subject in the reason or the relationship there between that there is exists one. There is a further way that you can look at the way that you prove the non existence of something. Yeah.

And that has a specific kind of designation within the logical tradition. I negation. I don't remember the Tibetan proving, but yeah, we had, we had done.

What if I gave you what if I gave you one of the words. Nick, and then I said, my mic. Oh, oh yeah, I didn't hear what you said.

Make something. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean, that's it. Yeah, that, but, but we need, we need.

Okay. You remember what we're talking about. So, I used a different syllogism.

There's no coffee, or excuse me consider coffee cup there is no coffee cup or place where there is no coffee cup. There is no coffee cup there because there's nothing there which is coffee like performs the function of holding coffee.

[Speaker 2]
Could you speak any faster because I think the live translators are taking a nap.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. Sorry about that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
My mic. Yeah. Then, yeah.

Okay, I'll try to slow down. Sorry about that. In our last class.

gasoline gave us an example of consider the trash can. It is not there. It's not, it's not, it's not in the garage.

Because there's nothing, there's no plastic thing that usually holds garbage there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And what we're looking at is a the subject, the trash can. And then three.

The third element. The reason being there is no round thing, right, which holds trash. It's there.

So we're looking at the nature of a trash can I just gave you the keyword nature. What's, what's, what's the Tibetan word for nature that we usually see, I mean they're wrong. Yeah, and now wrong shin mom make it dark.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There you go. All right. So pulling teeth and time.

So the reason employed here is, sorry, I'll slow down. The reason employed here is the reasoning where one proves the non existence of something through its nature. And I haven't seen that you've translated this as a, I mean I'm sure you have translated this again.

But I have, I didn't find it in our data. So, can I get your approval or disapproval for this here? I wouldn't present nonexistence to me.

I would say, which establishes that a, that something of a reason that is, well it's a long story, but that's okay. Provisionally, let's leave it like that. Okay, good enough.

Good enough for now. And I translate. Okay, and I can show you the book.

Yeah, is it yet. The green book. Yeah.

I'll go. It was pretty good. Do we have a PDF of that funny chance.

Let's change the subject. Do we have a PDF of which one. I would love to know.

Yeah, we have a, we're running out of time you guys. We'll talk about it offline. Okay, sounds good.

Seriously though, me too though. So, with respect to the short algorithm. So, and by short algorithm, I guess I could have just put full zoom.

With respect to the short algorithm we apply to discern. I need to slow down. With respect to the short algorithm, we apply to discern the validity of a given syllogism.

What is the technical term for the first step in this algorithm, and is the relationship something that we perceive directly or deductively. I know that's a question. Choked you.

Right, yeah. And maybe it depends on the situation of whether or not, because you could be debating something that's right in front of you. Can we agree that logic is always deductive.

Yeah, Nick, we're talking about a relationship. Relationships are always conceptual. I would agree, actually.

I'd say the nature, that's kind of the nature of universals.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
From a Western philosophical standpoint. Yeah. When we consider things like species, and how, yeah, it's something I've been reading about.

Yeah, so I think, even from the point of view that we were looking at in the collected topics in my first book, when we got to the section on relationships, and what it means to have for a relationship to exist between two things. You kind of have to have a consciousness in order to, yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Can I ask you a question, Adam, about that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, please, go ahead. Consider the grass, it photosynthesizes because it's green. Okay.

The grass is green. I was going to say Tara, but yes, it seems direct. Well, what about beings who are, like, let's say colorblind?

The green of the grass is direct perception, but the grass is green, it's always indirect perception. The grass is green. That opens up some interesting problems.

Wouldn't you break that down, then nothing would be direct perception when you follow that to its logical extreme? The perception of green is direct perception. When you have raw sense data, when you're experiencing raw sense data, that is direct.

So, green is direct perception, but no other perception of green is direct perception. Right, the perception of green is a direct perception, but then the blade of grass is not a direct perception, right? No, it's not, and there's a huge debate about this with people.

You can't perceive a person directly. It seems that you wouldn't even be able to perceive a blade of grass. When you say person, you're talking about...

A concept. A concept. Okay, we got to get to work.

Yeah, so kind of the way I answered this, the way I... And, you know, this may or may not be proven. Sorry, the technical term.

I may find out that this is incorrect. I like... By the way, Choctaw is the first two words of the Pramanavarttika, so...

Interesting. You can make fun of somebody who misunderstands it. Yeah, so the technical term for the relationship between the first and the third elements of a syllogism is known as the Choctaw.

And this relationship always be deductive because logic by its very nature belongs to the realm of mentation and abstraction. Sorry for those words. I couldn't quite think of any other less of a way of describing it.

I guess I could have, I just didn't give it much more thought. Class discussion. This is just something I had a question about myself, which is why I bring it to you guys.

Just like maybe 10 sections before the one that we're currently in. This was actually given as a subject. And currently we're exploring Pome.

So I was trying to figure out why the Satchok was dropped and because it feels like there's a difference. It feels like I could come up with a few reasons as to why maybe, but I'm not entirely sure. I'm definitely not sure.

I mean, I feel like there's. And for everybody out there. So Satchok Kibume is essentially the place, a place where there is no coffee cup.

Pome is simply the lack of a coffee cup. So I was trying to figure out why our author Kejup J chose to use Satchok Kibume at a certain point in our text and why he used it. He uses simply Pome currently.

But you know, if nothing's coming to you off the top of your head guys, then we can just move on. I mean, we've kind of, we spent a little time. There's a famous discussion of all the emptinesses in this room.

You know, the table has its own emptiness. Connie has her own emptiness. JB has his own emptiness.

So I'd say from that point of view, Satchok Kibume, the lack of a coffee cup in a certain location is certainly different from the lack of coffee cups. Totally. Yeah.

Okay. And I'll just have to cook it. I mean, by the discussion we just had, in fact, it seems like one of those you could see directly and the other you couldn't because one is just not seeing a coffee cup and the other is applying that lack of coffee cup to a location.

According to you guys, Nick and I aren't convinced. Well, let's see. Let's see what happens in the next section then.

Because we were just about to give. Yeah, we were just about to hit a section in the Department of Artica that discusses why there's only two. Never mind.

We'll get to it. Yeah. So anybody?

Someone who sees things coming this way generally is applied to the people in reference to non-Aryans. There you go. Yeah.

Oh, by the way, that's probably one of the most important words ever invented. It means one of the five most important words in the universe. Wow.

If you think things are coming at you, then you have a problem. And if you only understood that, you'd probably have a good life. Thank you.

So get ready to shred this up for me, Geshe-la. Shred, shredder. Let's take the carport.

I did not say garage, Adam, because I don't have a garage.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I'd like to have a garage. No, I'm just kidding.

I don't want to have a garage. Don't send me a garage. We'll build you one.

We'll get you a garage from Amazon. You're going to have hippies on your doorstep within minutes. I like not having a garage.

Okay. So, yeah. MA MED PA'I BDAG GIS CHOG CHED ZIN MED GRUB DANG Yeah, so if you say, let's take the carport, there's no garbage can there, because there's nothing there that's plastic and holds garbage, right?

The RANG BZHIN, by the way, is that the BDAG, which is a plastic thing which holds garbage, and the thing which is not there, garbage can, have the same nature. To be one is to be the other. Right.

So if two things are such that to be one is to be the other, and one of them is missing, then the other one is always missing. Like functional and changing. Functional and changing.

If nothing functional is in the room, then nothing changing is in the room. MA MED PA'I BDAG GIS CHOG CHED ZIN MED GRUB DANG You can perceive the fact that in the carport, there's no plastic thing that holds garbage, right? LUNG GSUM SEMS SHES BYAMS MA YIN NO It cannot be the object of a direct, correct perception, right?

Let me see. In that case, suppose you were to say... Suppose you were to say that there are accurate perceptions established in the relationship in the reasoning where one proves the non-existent entity to its nature, but there is no object.

You could say that. LUNG GSUM SEMS SHES BYAMS MA YIN NO Don't forget we're talking about the relationship between one and three. The carport or the garage, and the plastic thing that holds garbage.

So when you... When we're talking... Okay, here's the full logical statement.

Let's consider the carport. There's no garbage can there, because there's nothing plastic there that holds garbage. The CHOG CHED is the existence...

Well, it is the fact that there is no plastic thing that holds garbage in the carport. That's the CHOG CHED. That's the first of the three necessary relationships.

So, could you perceive... He says you could never perceive that CHOG CHED with a... It could never be the object of a direct perception.

And I would sort of agree, because it's... Or not. According to what you said while he was doing the homework, you definitely made that case.

Yeah, so... I agree with the other guy. Right now I agree with the other guy, but he's always wrong.

He's saying you can't see it direct, or you can? He said you can, but you cannot. The relationship between one and three cannot be perceived by a direct perception.

Because there's no object. Now... Now, the only thing we're connecting it to is existence, right?

Like, Nick was trying to connect green to grass, but here we're just trying to connect a plastic place for trash to non-existence? I'm sorry? We're trying to connect the absence of plastic thing to the carport.

I mean, that would be the CHOG CHED. No, in it. Connecting to whether or not it's in the carport, yeah.

The lack of a plastic thing that holds garbage in the carport, can you perceive that with a direct perception? I think you said you could last class. I don't know.

He says you cannot, and he's supposed to be wrong. Remember, when we also... Right as we were finishing class, Geshe-la said that this hinges on mayimba le lokpa.

Yeah, yeah. You remember it? And in order to go through that process, what has to happen?

It has to find everything in person. Yeah, and this is definitely a mental exercise. That's not something that happens directly.

So even in order to perceive the absence of a coffee cup, you have to go through the opposite of everything, that it's not the lack of a coffee cup. Hold on, am I wording that right? Is that not true about the color green?

What's not true? In order to perceive the color green, does your mind not have to go through everything that's not the color green first? I don't know.

I would say that's not the case. I see where you're trying to go with that, Nick. Sorry.

Yeah. You have an archetype for the color green. Right?

And even if it is a direct perception we're still not talking about it. Because I think what we're doing is we're conflating two ideas here. Relationships being one aspect.

Forming relationships between one and three and different objects versus the mental image of something that is perceived directly. And I think we could be getting to a point. Although I think I see where you're trying to go with that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, not to mention seeing something directly without a mental image in this school. Which is probably not the same as seeing something through Dunchy in this school. Okay, we got it.

Hopefully we find out. Please show me.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Should I give the plane back to you, boss? No, but I think you should do 317.

Okay. 317, let me check it. For now, let's take reality.

Are you saying it isn't necessary? Oh no, this is a different thing. Where he's going with this conversation is not whether the relationship between one and three is perceived by a direct perception or deductive perception.

That's not where he's going. He wants to say, is the word drupa equal to the word shalwa or jelwa? When you say it is established by an accurate perception, when you say it is considered by an accurate perception, are they yin kyab nyam?

Okay, I'll say it again. Are these two sets equal? Set number one, all the things in the universe which are established by a correct perception, and number two, all the things in the universe which are considered by an accurate perception, are they equal?

I'd say yes. Seems so. That's all.

He says that other guy is trying to draw a distinction between considering and establishing. This would be a good argument as to why nam khingyi shel jah is a... would be a...

because nam... It's a synonym for yupa. Exactly.

And also for something that can be established as existing via drupa. shel jah, shel jah, yupa, denchik. shel jah, shel jah, yupa, denchik.

So, all the things in the universe which are considered, all the things in the universe which are known and existent are synonyms. Yeah. I'm kidding.

The point he's trying to make at 3.17, the only point he's trying to make is, look, are you trying to draw a distinction or a difference between considering something and establishing something? Because in the study of Buddhist logic, they are exactly the same. Yeah.

Okay. That's all. Yeah, I get it.

Now, why he accused the guy of that, the other person in this debate used the word consider rather than establish. And we're trying to suss out, is he thinking there's a difference between consider and establish with an accurate perception? If you establish it with an accurate perception, it must exist.

Can we say that if you consider it with an accurate perception, it must exist? Yeah. Yeah, we say they are the same thing.

Okay, that's all. Now, because we want to know if to the opponent it means the same thing to establish something with a direct accurate perception and to consider something with a direct accurate perception. Are they the same?

I'll say it again. To establish something's existence with a direct form of accurate perception, is that equal to to consider something with a direct form of accurate perception? Yeah.

We say they are equal. They are the same thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's all. 3.17 3.18 If you say there's a difference between establishing with an accurate perception and considering with an accurate perception, then they cannot... then all the things in the universe which are established are established and all the things in the universe which are sorry considered are not the same, are not equal.

Okay? But they are. That's Rang Lug.

Rang Lug says everything in the universe which is established with an accurate perception is equal to everything in the universe which is considered by an accurate perception. Okay? That's all.

That's all he's saying. He didn't go where we wanted him to go. We wanted to know if it's a relationship between two things, can we see it directly?

Or do we have to figure it out? We were hoping he would go there and he didn't go there. He just wanted to play with the difference between two verbs.

Establish and consider. Drupun Shalja. Drupun...

He says Shalwa. Yeah, the present tense is Ngelwa. And they...

when they're making a noun, they use the future tense.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Shalja.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Namkhen can't see chukchuks? Namkhen can't see chukchus? Chukchus.

Because it only sees things directly.

[Speaker 1]
If Namkhen wanted to, could it see something indirectly? No. Could Namkhen imagine...

[Speaker 3]
I don't think so.

[Speaker 1]
Could Namkhen imagine how I see something indirectly?

[Speaker 2]
And would see that directly. Does Namkhen see things indirectly?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Does Namkhen see all things?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Because there are two different kinds of objects of knowledge, there's two different kinds of perception. Oh, that's exactly where we're going, in this next section. Yeah, let's go.

It is. It is, actually. We could probably win that debate, Kramer, I have to say, if I wasn't being stubborn.

I can't. I can't count on it. I think you could probably win that debate.

All right, here we go. If you weren't stubborn, you wouldn't have stubborn students. That's probably true.

There's this thing. But I would miss out. I wish I could move this menu bar thing.

I don't know how to do it. Go to more. What?

[Speaker 2]
Go where? Go to more on the right side.

[Speaker 1]
Go to more?

[Speaker 2]
Yep. Then go down to hide floating images. Oh, cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yay, okay. Thank you. All right, where are we, Adam?

Oh, we're here. That one and then us. We should be on ona now.

We're on ona, right? Mm-hmm. Okay, please read.

Nick traditionally picks on the first person. Ona. GYUN DRES KYI BRAL PA YANG NGON GSUM SEMS SHAL JAR THAL DE'I GRUB PA'I PHYIR DON NA GYUN DRES KYI BRAL PA DROL RTAG MA YIN PAR THAL LO SHES NA Yeah, this is nice.

Well then, the dralpa between GYUN DRES, what's that, Adam? The relationship between a cause and an effect. Yeah.

He was talking about the relationship between the subject of a logical statement and the reason in a logical statement. He said that it could be perceived by a direct perception, a relationship. Then we just chose another relationship to make sure that's what he really believes.

A classic relationship to choose would be GYUN DRES. Okay. Well, let's forget the relationship between the first part and the third part of a logical statement.

Let's go to the relationship between a seed and a tree. Is that relationship perceived by a direct accurate perception or an indirect accurate perception? Do you need logic to see that there's a relationship between a seed and a tree?

Yeah. Yeah, you know, once you take it to the realm of time, the seed is gone by the time the tree is there. To see a relationship between a seed and a tree, you must be using logic, because one of them is not there anymore.

You can't see it with a direct perception. Impossible, I think, personally. So we say to him...

Oh, by the way, no, he's saying to us, are you saying that you could see the relationship between a seed and a tree directly? Or you could consider it directly? Okay, why?

Because that relationship can be confirmed by a direct perception. Then we say, let's suppose we say DOD. Yeah, you can establish the relationship between a cause and a result with a direct accurate perception.

Suppose we say yes. He says, suppose we say yes. Then the relationship between a seed and a tree must not be conceptual.

It must not... And here DROG DAG doesn't mean overestimate, as it means in the what school? Mind only.

Yeah, there's the mind only. He owns the mind only. Yeah.

Here it just means fabrication, not necessarily in a negative sense. It's not overrating here, as it was in the study of the interpretation, the art of interpretation. So look, and this is my feeling too.

I mean, it's my natural feeling. The relationship between a cause and a result, the relationship between a seed and a tree is a concept. You know what I mean?

Because the seed is gone by the time the tree is there. You can't see it directly. Therefore, he says, if you think you can see the connection between a cause and an effect directly, then you must be saying that that relationship between a seed and a tree is not conceptual.

It's not a fabrication or a creation of the mind. You okay? All right.

It's a good argument. Not bad. All right.

Dr. Kramer, you're checking. Hey, Adam, I'm so jealous that you have the same last name as my favorite singer. Yeah, I still haven't listened to any of her stuff.

Well, I can play it for you, but it's illegal, right, Nathan? It is illegal. Don't do it.

Tell me not to do it. It happens to me. Okay, anyway.

Adam, you want to take a one-minute break and take some water or something? It's not going to go away. The water's not going to help.

I'm starting to come down with something, I think. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Maybe you can tell by the background he's in a very dry place. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Yeah, subpar medical facilities.

[Speaker 3]
Camel spit.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's how we're treating stuff nowadays. MA YIN MI DGOS SO Yeah, so he's kind of saying something I don't agree with.

It's good, right? DE YANG SNGA MA BDOD CING SNGA MA means your previous statement. RGYUN RJE KYI BRAL BA YANG SNGON GSUM PA'I ZHIG BYAR I agree to your first part there.

I agree that the relationship between a seed and a tree could be perceived, could be... what do we call it? Considered by a direct accurate perception.

Geshe Michael is saying no. This guy says, we say, we say, yeah, I agree. What?

I agree that the relationship between a seed and a tree is something you could see with direct perception. Direct accurate perception. So first of all, I agree with that.

That's RANG LUG, that's us. Don't confuse the MA in SNGA MA for not DOD. PHYI MA LA BSKYAB PA MED What was the PHYI MA?

Oh, in that case, the relationship between cause and effect must not be a fabrication of the mind. You don't put it together. He said the relationship between a seed and a tree is not put together by the mind.

And we say, BSKYAB PA MED That's not necessarily the case. It's not necessarily the case that... Well, NGON TZAM MTSAN MED GSHEL BYA YIN NA I'm sorry.

LTOS NA RGYUN PAS KYI BRAL DAG MA YIN PAR BRTAL LO Yeah, if it's... I think he's saying you could see a construction directly. We're saying that.

You could see a construction directly. Let's follow that. KO WO means we say.

And here he throws in SOS MTHONG. So he's restricting it not only to non-Buddhists, he's restricting it to non-Aryas. And now that gets sticky.

That gets strange. Whether or not you can see relationships directly, with direct perception, depends on whether you've seen emptiness or not. So that gets a little...

So anyway, we say, SOS MTHONG GI NGON TZAM MED NA If something is the direct accurate perception of a person who has not yet seen emptiness directly, CHOS DE BRAL DAG MA YIN DGOS PA YIN It cannot be a construction, a mental construction. I'll say it again. If you didn't see emptiness yet, and you see something with direct perception, that thing you see cannot be a construction, cannot be a mental construction.

Direct perception, direct accurate perception of a person who hasn't seen emptiness directly yet cannot perceive a fabrication or a construction. But... CHOS DE NGON TZAM SEMS SHES BYA YIN PA LA BRAL DAG MA YIN PA MI DGOS If something is...

But if something is the thing which is considered by a direct accurate perception, I didn't say it couldn't be a construction. So he's making a distinction between considered and perceived? I'll say it again because it's hard for me too.

[Speaker 2]
That would be super.

[Speaker 1]
If something is the direct accurate perception of a person who has not seen emptiness directly, TSUL STONG GI NGON TZAM YIN NA CHOS... DGOS DAG MA YIN CHOS DE LA TSUL STONG GI NGON TZAM YIN NA If something is perceived by the direct accurate perception of a person who hasn't seen emptiness directly yet, then that thing which they see cannot be a construction, a mental construction. That's always the case.

But... There's a but. If something is the thing under consideration by a direct accurate perception, it's not the case that it cannot be a construction.

This... Yeah. This is...

Okay. Yeah. He's closing the non-Arya the second time.

We should probably distribute it, right? No, I don't think we do have to because he's very much implying that a non-Arya, I think, might be able to do it. He's closing the non-Arya loophole.

Okay. Oh, well, there you go. He could be just over...

He could be using a gun to kill a mosquito. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You see what I mean? He could have just said an Arya in the direct perception or a Buddha could see it, but... Yeah.

Yeah, I think he's saying that one could have a direct perception of a fabrication, just not bent. Right. Oh, well...

Well, when in doubt, keep going. Yeah. Five minutes.

Please read, Adam. By the way, we didn't get through much material, but we actually thought about the content, so maybe that's not a bad thing. A good bonus.

Seiji, I'm just looking at Seiji and thinking about my grandson that they never bring to see me. Can you check Mr. Andrade? Sure.

SHES NYANG SHES KYANG CHOS CAN KHOR NGON SONG TSE MA YIN CING KHOR CHOS DE LA TSE MA YIN NA KHOR CHOS DE LA NGON SONG TSE MA YIN PA'I KHYAB PA BRAL CHOS DE NGON SONG TSE MA'I SHAL JA YIN NA CHOS DE RANG BZIN YIN PA'I KHYAB PA'I PHYI RO Okay. Okay, good. Oh, by the way, before we read this one, I have to take you somewhere else.

This is further ahead in a text by a great textbook writer who put out a book called The Door to Emptiness, or is putting it out in November. This is from his future book. I got a look, I got a peek ahead at his future book, which is Mr. Adam. And I want you to read this sentence right here, Adam. NGON SONG KYIS NGON SONG KYIS TSE MA'I NGON NGOS SHAL DANG RANG BZIN DANG NGOS PO RNAMS DON GCIG Yeah, you made it to... Oh boy.

Yeah, I asked the question of whether a RANG BZIN could be a state of mind. Right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, you did.

[Speaker 1]
We were saying physical, it had to be physical. There's my grandson. Don't give my grandson pickles.

If he starts liking him, we won't get along. All right. NGON SONG TSE MA'I NGON NGOS SHAL That thing which is directly considered by direct accurate perception.

And RANG BZIN, the actual... What do you call it? The actual...

Physical expression. Yeah, the actual... That's why I don't want to say physical expression.

Right, right, right. Expression or manifestation. Yeah.

And changing thing or functional thing. DON GCIG SHES PA CHUD CHEN SHES PA CHUD CHEN, right? Uh-huh, yeah.

RANG BZIN YIN PA DANG Come on, say CHUD CHER. CHUD CHER Oh, CHUD CHER. RANG BZIN YIN PA DANG RANG BZIN YIN PA DANG If you say BDAG MA GRUB, I say, SEMS SNGA BA'I BRTAG ZHIG GI SUM PA'I PHYIR SEMS SNGA BA'I BRTAG ZHIG said so in the Dura.

Yeah. All right, anyway, I think it's going to apply here, but unfortunately... Did we run out of time?

So, yeah, same problem that non-Khen is. Yeah, just before. The non-Khen is not unsung.

So, this whole course is supposed to teach you how to teach. And what's very important is to bail out. Just...

Time's up, you guys. No one went to bail out. You think I'm kidding, okay?

Why am I a successful teacher? Oh yeah, I know Nabila. Okay.

But you said nam she, but what about just a single thought, like... Oh, that's easy. Same thing.

Okay. Mental event, let's put it that way. Okay, okay, okay.

Okay, we'll take this up next time. Hopefully I'll figure it out by then. We need to exercise or something for this one.

Yeah. Yeah, it's actually, Geshe-la. Thank you.

Thank you, boss. Thank you, Adam. Five minutes.

Five minutes, man. Five little minutos. I'm not shy to eat in front of a hundred people.

Okay, I'm not going to be shy. We'll just be jealous. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Geshe-la. Thank you, Adam.

Thank you. Not easy. Good to see you guys.

Look at that beautiful girl. Oh my God, that's my other grandson. Granddaughter, sorry.

That proves I'm genetically related to her. She's so pretty. Yeah, she's just getting over.

She's like, she just got her fevers but getting better day to day. She had something wrong with her ears, right? She had two ear infections.

She had an ear infection in each one. She's kind of been carrying a cough and a little bit of a fever. Actually a pretty, pretty high fever there for a few days.

And she's been on antibiotics and... I think most of my students have two ear infections also. In a good way.

Infected with the Holy Dharma there. Nice, Adam. Nice counterattack.

Okay, see you. Hey, Adam. Did you check the advanced level two manual that Geshe-la sent?

I checked it. I didn't read it. I definitely looked at it.

[Speaker 3]
Check it out. It's incredible.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I meant to, actually I've been wanting to print it off and to go through and read it. I think I do better with physical books. I mean, I read online too, but I just try to limit how much I spend reading on a screen.

Right, right, right. So if you have time, check it out. I think it's brilliant.

Dude, thanks for the heads up. Yeah. And if there's ever a good reason to check it out, man, it's because it's been recommended by Mr. Arao.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's a book, man. It's really cool.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. No, yeah. I went through and kind of in our introduction to the collected topics, we went through and we're looking at the ways that the different chapters from the collected topics could be applied in a DCI way.

And yeah, it just made me want to kind of, yeah, I wouldn't mind actually spending a little bit more time with it to see how Geshe-la treated it, you know? Yeah. Yeah, man.

You're looking good. Thank you. You too.

Yeah, brother. Okay, I'll give you a little preview. In one of the live tools, he explained the relationship between object holder, object realized, object of clear thinking, true image, yielding, I'll send you the list.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It'd be good, man.

Thank you, dude.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I am gonna go get something to drink now. I think I'm coming down with something too. I'm getting, been coughing a lot.

[Speaker 2]
All right, cool. See you guys in a few minutes.