Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 25

[Speaker 2]
Hey everybody. Good morning. Hi, Nick.

[Speaker 1]
Hi.

[Speaker 2]
You've got a new vista today, huh?

[Speaker 1]
Just gotta switch it up. You don't want to see what's really behind me. Adam, you ready?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's, uh, well, it works out there.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Morning, Geshe-la. Good morning, Adam.

Good morning, Nick.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, good morning, Gien. Good morning, Geshe-la. Yeah, so kind of, we didn't really, we didn't cover a bunch of material in our last class.

So I was only able to get you guys, I was only able to source a couple of questions. I guess I owe you one for next time work. So, hopefully, yeah.

Okay, so is the relationship between a seed and a tree something which is perceived by a direct accurate perception or an indirect accurate perception? Indirect. Indirect.

[Speaker 3]
That is at least currently, currently is certainly our position in the matter at this point in the text is as far as I would go, but I think we've got a problem with nomkin. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So if we consider the fact that when that tree has appeared, the seed is no longer there. We must conclude the relationship between a seed and a tree is indirect in the sense that it takes a deductive accurate perception to link the two together. So what terms were included in the list of things which are synonymous with quote that which is directly considered by direct accurate perception.

From what text we draw this reference, and also give the Tibetan phrase for that which is directly considered by a direct accurate perception. Sheldon shade. Nepal.

Nepal. Ronson. Ronson.

That's right. Yeah. Does anybody have the phrase.

Directly. Oh, talk.

[Speaker 1]
Talk.

[Speaker 2]
Nope. Nope.

[Speaker 1]
Nope. No, it was meant to open my tech net hope or something in my text.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so and then any anyways here I actually I gave you guys the, the reference. So we pulled those from the, the Dura. And, and the text here is the moon show, I think is the Michelle is the opera, opera kind of term there.

So vocab. Roxanna says fabrication. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Overestimated. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Could you plug in your microphone, please.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, the fabrication is, we came up with in class. All right.

[Speaker 3]
Hope you feel better, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah you know yesterday was pretty rough, but I'm feeling pretty good today, I had some pretty bad like fever headaches. No, I'm feeling I'm feeling I'm feeling much better this morning so just still got something hanging out in the throat.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Shall we go. Shall we dance.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
As long as it's not the boogie woogie.

[Speaker 1]
I don't even know that one. Let me do some housekeeping things here. Come on, come on.

I don't want to do that.

[Speaker 2]
In this thing.

[Speaker 1]
So let's maybe I'll concentrate on other people reading and how's that.

[Speaker 2]
I don't. That's fine again that's it's totally up to you I don't mind. I don't mind reading.

[Speaker 1]
Well let's start with you and then we'll do some other people here, this is where we are right justice.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, sir. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Let me try one more time my, my cursor here it's, it's not working very well. Let's see.

No, it's not doing very well. Okay. Please read the first one Adam.

[Speaker 2]
She young. She got your chin. Call me once I'm going to coach or tell us my coach or tell us soon.

Sure. Sure. Sure.

[Speaker 1]
Moreover, what's a shade.

[Speaker 2]
Let's talk about reality let's let's consider reality.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And that's just an artificial beginning. Okay.

And then he starts a separate sentence and it's kind of difficult to read. Okay. He says, let's take the whole universe.

And then he says, call, which in modern Tibetan means him. Impolite, impolite him. But here it means, if something is.

When some summer. Yeah. If something is a direct form of accurate perception.

And culture did not send my inner. And if, if it isn't correct perception towards something. Culture then I'm going to send me a big hat.

Are you telling me that it has to be a direct perception. Okay. If something is a, is a direct accurate perception.

And if it is an accurate perception towards anything. Is it always an accurate perception towards that thing which is direct. Okay.

Should they want some semi Shedja you know. Because if something is something which is perceived by a direct perception. It has to be a wrong 10.

Okay. So just basically. Is it the case that if I'm having a direct.

Accurate perception of something. Then that and I'm not a Buddha. Let's say I'm not a Buddha.

Okay. Then is that thing wrong 10. Meaning the actual thing in the world like a coffee cup.

Or is it a cheats and meaning the archetype of the thing in the world. Okay. If I'm seeing it directly.

With my direct senses. Is it, is it some kind of. Archetype or some kind of ideal coffee cup in my head.

Or is it an actual coffee cup in the world. Which one Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Wrong 10.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, it should be the actual thing in the world. Right.

Then he says, okay, he's setting up a trap, by the way. Okay. Please Serene and Nick's gonna check you.

Yeah. So, then let's consider. A deduction, you know, you figure out.

That sound. Is a changing thing. Okay, you finally, you know.

By the way, that was one of the big uses of early logic. Because why. They were debating against the non Buddhists.

Yeah. Thing that lasts forever. Yeah, they said the word om was eternal and never changed.

Okay. And then we were saying, look, if you can hear something. It has to be changing.

Okay. It's going through the air. You know, it's vibrating.

It's, it's moving. It cannot be unchanging. They said.

And they were a little bit mixing two things, which was what. For $20.

[Speaker 2]
Who is mixing two things.

[Speaker 1]
When you say stock drop. What does it mean when you say sounded. Oh, what's it.

A permanent and unchanged. Yeah. Yeah, it means on changing it doesn't mean permanent.

Yeah, they were mixing up. By the way, 20 bucks for Mr word as usual. They were mixing up the two kinds of duck.

You know, the two connotations of taco. One kind of doctor means no beginning, no end. Eternal.

Permanent. Okay. And then the other kind of doctor means on changing from moment to moment.

Okay. And a lot of a lot of translators got stuck on this. They will translate this as permanent or impermanent.

Impermanent, which is what it means in what literature. Lam Rim Lam Rim in the Lam Rim when they say to me talk about what does that mean.

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, impermanence in the form of death you ain't gonna last forever. You know, in that case it means impermanence, but, but here, it means on changing. Okay, so, and the question is kind of cute and it took me.

It only took me like two weeks to figure it out. He's saying the fact that sound this. Okay, the fact that sound is changing.

Is it what kind of semi you're going to see it with Adam, the fact that sound is on changing. I'm sorry, the fact that sound is changing. What kind of perception you're going to see it with.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's got to be deductive.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, then it has to be what rungtsen or chitsen. Is it an ideal concept? Is it a concept or is it an actual thing in the world?

[Speaker 2]
The chitsen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a concept. It's a general concept in your head. And concepts are always...

[Speaker 2]
On changing.

[Speaker 1]
On changing. So how the hell can you say sound is changing, is on changing? Not kept.

See, he's trying to get us. He's trying to get us on it. You got it?

And that's why he took that example. If you throw on, if you throw changing into a sentence, is that sentence an actual thing in the world? Or is that sentence a general concept, unchanging concept?

Is it a chitsen or a rungtsen? Let's take all sentences. All sentences, all statements are chitsen.

What about statements concerning changing things?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, they're still chitsen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they're still unchanging, okay? Okay, that's the whole point here. He's trying to be cute, but it's an interesting idea, right?

DRA MI BDAG SDOGS KYI BYED PAR TSE MA'I CHOS CAN Let's take the deduction where you figure out that sound is changing moment to moment, okay? GYUR DRA MI BDAG PA LA CHOS PA'I TSE MA YIN PA LTA Are you telling me it's a CHOS PA'I TSE MA? What's that, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
CHOS PA I'd say it's contrived or imaginary.

[Speaker 1]
That would be PH, and this is KH means mistaken, okay? DRA MI BDAG PA LA CHOS PA'I TSE MA YIN PA LTA Is it mistaken towards the fact that sound is changing? So what have we got so far?

Somebody figured out logically that sound has to be constantly changing. Then we say, oh, so it must be a mistaken perception towards the fact that sound is changing. Now, why did we go there?

I have no idea. Let's see why. CHOS PA'I TSE MA YIN PA GANG ZHIG It must be a mistaken perception because number one...

I'm sorry. We say it must be a mistaken perception towards the fact that sound is changing, right? And the guy says, well, why do you say that?

And we say, well, number one, it's a mistaken perception. And secondly, it is an accurate perception towards the fact that sound is changing. I'll say it again.

Here's the whole argument again. This is us, okay? And KDPJ is very proud of this argument.

And he says like, wow, you'll never get this anywhere. DRA MI BDAG DOG TU BYED PA'I TSE MA BYED CHEN Let's take a deduction where you figure out that sound is changing. KHYAD DRA MI BDAG PA LA CHOS PA'I TSE MA YIN PA DANG It must be a perception towards the fact that sound is changing, which is wrong.

Then we say, well, why do you say that? What's after this tell understood, Adam? We say YIN PA DANG.

Wow. He says, G-G, why do you say that? We just had a correct, accurate deduction.

We just had a correct deduction that sound is a changing thing. And now you say it must be mistaken about the fact that sound is changing. Then he says, well, why do you say that?

And then we say, KHYAD DROD PA'I TSE MA YIN PA GANG ZHIG Number one, it's a mistaken perception. And number two, it is accurate perception towards the fact that sound is changing.

[Speaker 3]
A CHOS PA'I TSE MA, that's not something we've covered at all yet anyway, right? A mistaken, accurate perception?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's just throwing it in. But it should mean TSE MA YIN PA. Okay?

Right, yeah. Yeah, it should mean that. By the way, that word is used in the word, well, no, two-core, meaning like a magical, illusory machine, like we had in many examples in the Vajrayani practice, right?

KHYAD DROD PA'I TSE MA YIN PA'I PHYIR LEN MED DONG What's that mean, you guys?

[Speaker 2]
LEN MED DONG You can't give me an answer.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's no answer. Thanks, K.D.J. He says LEN MED DONG. LEN L-A-N means there's no...

You can't give an answer to that, okay? All right? Now, why did we say it's a mistaken perception?

By the way, what is it? It's a correct, accurate perception towards the fact that sound is changing. Okay?

Correct, accurate perception towards the fact that sound is changing. Why do we accuse him? Why do we accuse that of being an inaccurate perception?

[Speaker 2]
I'm just looking at your notes here.

[Speaker 1]
Well, my feeling is DRA MI BTAG PA is a slippery pig, you know? Why? It's unchanging.

But in Geshe-la, it says sound is changing. Yeah, I know, but it's a cheat sign. It's not a changing thing.

Okay?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, wow. So if you're seeing DRA as changing...

[Speaker 1]
You're seeing an unchanging thing.

[Speaker 3]
Right, you're seeing an unchanging thing, and so if you're seeing the object that you're seeing as changing when you're seeing an unchanging thing, then you're wrong.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly.

[Speaker 2]
So if you're specifically talking about the fact, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, exactly, exactly, exactly. The fact that sound is changing is unchanging. Okay, so you're looking at a changing thing and telling me it's unchanging.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
He's like, what?

[Speaker 2]
That's funny.

[Speaker 1]
And by the way, when I was driving to the college last night and chewing on Adam's text, which is why I almost get into traffic accidents a lot, so I'm thinking, go through the process, Adam. Is there any point in the understanding that sound is a changing thing where you do see a RANG BZIN?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Then how can you... Yeah, when you take the example and you say, let's consider sound, when you put your mind on sound in a debate, if the guy says, take sound, it's changing because it's functioning, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, even to be asked to consider something, like even being asked when you state, like we said, all statements, all sentences are necessarily cheat sentences. So if somebody gives you a CHO CHEN, then you're considering, I mean, you're considering something. It's abstract.

[Speaker 1]
I love it. I love it. And there's a huge debate about this.

They say, when you figure out that sound is a changing thing, are you ever perceiving sound during that process? Or are you always perceiving some conception of sound in your mind, as Adam said? When you put a term inside a logical statement, take this, it's that because it's that, does that term automatically become an unchanging thing?

And I think, Adam, you're pretty close there. It is conceptual. When you say consider sound, then somehow that becomes an idealization of sound.

[Speaker 2]
We were specifically, we were getting, I think one of the reasons that we led into this had to do with that, with using shellja, meaning considered. Whether or not something that, ngun sum kitsema kitselja. Yeah.

Anyways, sorry, I'm kind of thinking out loud.

[Speaker 1]
No, I like it. That's why we're here. Okay, but don't blame grandpa if there's no homework next time.

No, I won't.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry again.

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm okay. I'm fine. Okay, I don't know if he's going to help us, or if he's going to just blow us off.

Let's see. Please read, Adam. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
THOG PA'I MA CHIS SO Yeah, yeah, yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
So there's a basic statement in the Pramanavarttika, from the very beginning. It says, PHYIR DE LA SEMS PA YIN NA If something is what, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
If something is a direct, accurate, or an accurate perception, sorry.

[Speaker 1]
If something is an accurate perception towards something that exists, right? If something is an accurate perception towards any existing thing, it has to be either...

[Speaker 2]
J or NGON RJ. NGON RJ.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Which means what, for our audience?

[Speaker 2]
Either direct or indirect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it has to be direct, accurate perception, or indirect or deductive, accurate perception. Only two choices, okay? That's our DEP PA'I TSOR.

That's our DEP PA'I TSOR. What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
That's what we accept as being... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's our main thing, guys. That's our main thing.

That's what we really believe. Then he's trying to CHUNG BA, which I take to be SEMS CHUNG BA. What's SEMS CHUNG BA or SEMS CHUNG BA?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, to rip, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to destroy this idea. He's trying to destroy this idea, okay? If you...

This whole argument that we just had about sound being changing challenges the idea that all accurate perceptions are either direct or indirect, okay? Why, you guys? Why would that last statement...

The guy was trying to throw us a curveball, right? Oh, by the way, I was reading the Princeton Alumni Magazine on The Special Place yesterday, and the curveball was invented at Princeton in 1876. I'm just telling you.

So, he threw us a curveball. He threw us a curveball. He said, let's consider the fact that sound is changing.

Now, is that a changing thing? Sorry, is that a RANG BRTZEN? Or is that a CHI SEMS?

Because, if it's a RANG BRTZEN, the perception that perceives it must be a...

[Speaker 2]
Detective.

[Speaker 1]
NGON TZAM BRTZEN MA RANG BRTZEN RANG BRTZEN Okay. If the fact that sound is changing is an actual thing in the world and not a concept, then it must be perceived by a direct accurate perception.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And if we're talking about sound is changing as a concept in your head, well, then the perception that perceives it must be a deductive actual action. Okay?

Now, if I can find you, Adam, an example of a thing which could be perceived by both at the same time, a direct perception, RANG BRTZEN, and an indirect perception, CHI SEMS, then the whole basic principle of our school, that there are two kinds of accurate perception because there are two kinds of objects, is overthrown. Because you're having both towards one thing in that case. Okay?

And that one thing would trigger two perceptions. Now there's three possibilities. The object triggers an accurate, direct perception.

Sorry, the object is a RANG BRTZEN, the object is a CHI SEMS, and the object is a hybrid between RANG BRTZEN and CHI SEMS. And then, how many SEMS do you have, please? And we say, well, we always said there was only two, direct and indirect. Yeah, but you got here a correct perception, which is both direct and indirect.

And I say, then there has to be three kinds of objects in the universe. So your whole school, that there's only two kinds of accurate perception because there's only two kinds of stuff in the world, is SON CING BAR. And you know this word, we had it the other day, SON CING PA'I THOB.

One of the four powers of confession, which tears out the root of the bad deed. Which one is it? I can see Stanley's trying to remember.

Me too. It's the second one. I think it's the second one, which is...

Destruction. Intelligent regret. Intelligent regret, nice.

Okay, good. Yeah, okay, good. YIN LA.

And then K2J sits back and says, here's a word, I'll give 20 bucks for it. If someone can tell me whose text we saw it in.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, that's me. I deserve that one.

[Speaker 1]
What was the text?

[Speaker 3]
Well, it's the biographical section of Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk's book on Dharmakirti, who went to go learn the secret word from the mudekhas.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in that case, it meant Tantra, right? Hindu Tantras, okay.

What does it mean here, Adam? RIGS PA'I SONG CIG, with an S.

[Speaker 2]
RIGS PA A wrong conception?

[Speaker 1]
No, SONG CIG, SONG CIG.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, well, I mean, yeah, I'm not entirely sure. I would say SONG generally means secret, and CIG usually means word, but Ben's already given that, so I don't quite know how to elaborate.

[Speaker 1]
What's RIGS PA mean? What's RIGS PA? Logic, right?

Reasoning.

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

[Speaker 1]
So he says, by the way, KO WO means me. KO means him, right? We had it just above.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, like KO RANG, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, KO. We had it up here, KO, him, it. Now we got KO WO, which means me, okay?

KO WO LA. RIGS PA is, I got millions of these things, secrets of, I got millions of secrets of logic, okay? God, I could lay them on you all day.

YI GE KYANG. But I'm afraid, what? YI GE MANG.

[Speaker 2]
Too many words.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm just afraid this book would get so long that Ava would have to finish it. Okay? Ava would have to finish the book, okay?

Therefore, I have MA CHI.

[Speaker 2]
I don't have to write it. I'm not going to write it down.

[Speaker 1]
You know, I could go on all day about this for you guys, but I'm not going to write it down, because this book would go on too long. I'm just, you know, me and Seiji are going to write a commentary to Bodhicharyavatara. I think, Seiji, we can use this whenever we get stuck.

That's so secret. We just described that some other time. All right.

[Speaker 3]
Or a DCI teacher trying to answer a question, too.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, I'm afraid we'd run out of time. Okay, Adam, now you're going to choose other people to read and criticize them roundly.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, let's go down to the list here.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, as Nick taught me, you can click on...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I've got it up.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and pick somebody who hasn't had a chance yet.

[Speaker 2]
Hasn't had a chance. Is he a Hannah Hannah?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Hannah Hannah?

[Speaker 1]
Nobody is exempted.

[Speaker 2]
You there. What about Hardy? Hardy Tao?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Hardy's good.

[Speaker 2]
Hello.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, just try. Adam, Grandpa's going to take a break, have some coffee. Stanley, it's your coffee.

Thank you. It's delicious. Oh, and Kramers, email me your address.

I'm going to send you some of the really good stuff.

[Speaker 3]
Amazing. All right. I can't argue with that.

It's the light of Shenzhen, by the way.

[Speaker 1]
I believe that. Okay, Hardy, go for it. I'm sorry, my cursor's not working today.

Adam, you're up.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
You. The.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Yeah. Sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure.

Sure.

[Speaker 3]
You had it.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. No.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Key.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Cha, cha. Shell.

Shell. Shell. You added the first line too.

Cha. Cha. Cha.

Cha. Na. Good.

Da. Da. Da.

Da. Duck. Duck.

Yeah. Duck. Duck.

Young, young duck. Oh, yeah. Young duckie.

Mm-hmm. Droop. Mm, droop.

Droop. Droop. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, thank you. Oh, thank you.

Thank you. It's kind of difficult, yeah. But it gets easier with time, so thank you for doing such a good, yeah, for trying.

[Speaker 1]
I think Adam's remembering his first day when he tried it, yeah. I remember my first day. I understood one syllable in the whole hour.

Okay. What's Dhani, Adam? Dhani?

[Speaker 2]
This?

[Speaker 1]
It's not Dhani, it's Dhani.

[Speaker 2]
Excuse me? Or now? Yeah, now.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, it's a cheerful change of subject. Dhani! Well, we got messed up on that last one.

Let's look at another question. When he starts out so cheerfully and suggests that we investigate something new, it's trouble coming. Dhani, chepa cha.

Let's look into this next question. Yeah. Cheer.

[Speaker 2]
Cheer.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, generally speaking, if something is the shell jaw of a jaypak, if something is the milky shell jaw of a jaypak sema... By the way, this ngun doesn't mean ngunsum sema. This ngun means...

[Speaker 2]
Directly?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if something is the direct thing, which is under consideration by a...

[Speaker 2]
By a deductive accurate perception?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and now we're going to have to deal with this question I wrote in the English here, which I think has been bothering all of us. Is all indirect perception deduction? Do you always run a logical statement through your mind when you discover something with an indirect perception?

Is it always tied up with a, you know, susum, with a tensik, with a three-part logical statement? Generally speaking, if something is the... I don't know why he said direct, okay?

If something is the thing being considered by an indirect perception, is it always something which is established by a dak yang dak?

[Speaker 3]
By correct reason.

[Speaker 1]
By a correct reason, okay? Anytime you see something indirectly, are you always using reasoning, okay? And he says, kya pa ma kyap.

What's that mean, Adam? Kya pa ma kyap.

[Speaker 2]
Kya pa ma? Too sure about the ma. It's not necessarily the case that...

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to give you a damkar, okay? It could have been spelled like this.

[Speaker 2]
Could have been ba-am. Okay, so sometimes it is...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it would have been more clear if he had said ba-am. And by the way, it should have been pa, right? Well, actually, if it ended in a B, maybe he wanted...

maybe it's okay. Kya pa ma kyap.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, this comes back to one of the things I was making note of in our last class. I just went back and looked at section 292, which is what preceded all of this. And we're given three different types.

We're given three different kind of categories that we're going to look at, three different types of perception. And in the third one, we're looking at jaypaksema. I remember going through this in the last term.

We're looking at indirect accurate perceptions, which can either be direct realizations or indirect realizations. He was saying before we started all of this that there would be two types of indirect accurate perceptions.

[Speaker 1]
So, you would support ma kyap?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, say it in an English sentence, in a full sentence.

[Speaker 2]
I believe that it's not necessarily the case that... what? Hold on.

I just caught myself, as I was saying. Yeah. So, the thing is, if we say that something's being considered directly, then it can only be one type.

But if we're just simply saying deductive accurate perceptions, there are two types. Okay. Or indirect.

Maybe we want to say indirect. Yeah, indirect. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, we can say indirect. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, your position is that if an indirect perception is seeing something in a way, raw or directly, it is always involved with a logical deduction. Right?

[Speaker 2]
Kyap.

[Speaker 1]
If we put ngun gyi shel chak, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, let's see where he goes, okay? Okay.

Now, suppose you had not said that. Suppose you said, nah, it could be either deductive or not. It's not necessarily the case that we are using logical deduction to see things indirectly.

Okay? When we use jeypak tsema, indirect accurate perception. We say, if you say it's not necessarily the case, then what about that quotation that says, and by the way, how do you know it's a quotation?

Because, da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Okay? Jeypak nangyi rang du nyi, tsu sen da le dun tong yin.

Okay, it must be some kind of a quotation. We don't know where it's from yet. But tell me what the end of this sentence says.

JI LTAR ZHES ZHES or CHES It's explained like that. No, question.

[Speaker 2]
JI LTAR JI LTAR Why would you explain it like that?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, how could anybody say that? If you're correct, and it's not necessarily the case that all indirect perceptions are logical deduction, then what the heck is... Then why did somebody say BYAS PA RNAM NYID RANG BDUN NI TSUL BSRUNG LTA MA'I BDUN MTHONG YIN And grandpa went and got it for you.

Where is it from, Dr. Kramer?

[Speaker 3]
Pramana Samachaya By? Master Dignaga Dignaga, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and how did the first lines start out? What was the story of the writing of this book? The first lines?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I don't remember the lines, but I remember the story.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what happened? Just in one sentence.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, he was writing on a wall, and there was a naughty bad guy hiding and erasing his first lines as he wrote them on the wall. And so they had to have a debate, a dance battle, to scare him off.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good, good. And I have another question for you guys. Either Dr. Kramer or Annam. Why is Dharmakirti's, the most famous book on logic in history, Pramana-vartika, it's a commentary, it's a vartika on something else.

[Speaker 2]
This book, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this book. So why does it say a commentary on accurate perception? Why is that the name of Dharmakirti's book?

[Speaker 3]
This is the Tsema-do.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that Tsema, in Tsema-nam-do, is Tsema-do by Dignaga. Okay? When you say the most famous book in the history of Buddhist logic is Pramana-vartika, a commentary on accurate perception, the accurate perception mentioned in the title is an abbreviation of the title Tsema-do, the Sutra on Accurate Perception, which is another name for Pramana-samuccaya, right?

Cool? Now, if the mother book of the mother book says something, it must be true. What's it say here, Adam?

What's this little quotation say?

[Speaker 2]
Je-pa nam-nyi rang-de-nyi There's only two types of, or there are two types of deductive accurate perception.

[Speaker 1]
Good.

[Speaker 2]
Just deduction. Yeah, and tsu-tsum tak? I'm not sure, I mean, how would...

[Speaker 1]
Oh, a tak which involves tsu-tsum.

[Speaker 2]
The three, yeah, totally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the three confirmation steps, okay? Right. By using that, you tong de dun.

[Speaker 2]
You see the meaning of...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you come to a realization of something.

[Speaker 2]
You reach a conclusion, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, because you have used logic, okay? So don't tell me mar kyap. Okay?

Don't tell me all indirect accurate perceptions are not deduction. Dignaga said they were deduction, okay? Dignaga said they did depend on a logical process.

Using... When you say tsu-tsum, Adam, when you get to a tsu-tsum, the statement has to have three parts. A chö chen, a duk je chö, and a tak yang dak, right?

Something you're talking about, something you're claiming about it, and a proof of your claim, right? So, the minute he says tsu-tsum here in this line, you can't have three relationships if there's not three parts to the statement, right? So, he's saying all indirect accurate perceptions are deduction.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
They aren't logical deduction. So, don't tell me mar kyap. Don't tell me all indirect accurate...

It's not the case that every indirect accurate perception is a deductive perception. Don't tell me that. Because Dignaga himself said they were.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, I'm still looking at this last line. So, chepay shung, because all the major texts have said, so why would you say that? Chepay shung, ji tar che?

[Speaker 1]
No, this, I mean, if you want to translate it literally, it says, why the hell did Dignaga write this if it wasn't correct? This chain means to write the shung. Or you could say, how are you going to gloss these two lines from Dignaga and still hold your position of mar kyap?

Ji tar che. How are you going to explain these two famous lines from Dignaga and still hold your position that not all indirect accurate perceptions are deductive accurate perceptions? How are you going to hold to your belief and still respect Master Dignaga who invented the whole thing?

I went and got you. Now, there's a little bit of a problem here if you want to get funneled. Jey pak nam nyi could be the end of a previous statement.

You know, I mean, there's a way out of this. We got to confirm. We got to go to Dignaga and see what was the line before that, just to make sure we're reading it right.

Just to make sure we're reading it right. I went and got it for you. Can you read this part, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and then he says jey pak nam nyi rang ne mi tsul shing dang ne dun tong wang jey bu ngaw shing yin dang ni ngo tsul min deng yi kyi Okay. Where do you put... What is the sentence that came just before that?

Do we have to consider it when we gloss this quotation from Dignaga? Are there some words before jey pak nam nyi which are important to our debate?

[Speaker 2]
It looks like it's from the chapter on direct perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but listen. The name of the chapter in great Indian books always comes at at the end of the chapter.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Well, that makes sense.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, it doesn't make sense, but it would make sense why you would ask that question.

[Speaker 1]
So now we're not dealing... We just finished the chapter on direct perception and these are the first words of the chapter on indirect perception. Okay, cool.

And by the way, now because of this argument, we have to decide internally do we have to say indirect perception or do we have to not mention deductive perception for jey pak? We got to think about it, okay? Because he's saying there's some exceptions between the two.

Not necessarily indirect is deductive. Otherwise we couldn't have this debate. Okay, so we got to think about it, but it's a little too much.

Yeah, that's cool. So what I mean to say is Grandpa was concerned that the words jey pak nam ni was the second half of a previous sentence. But now we know what?

It's the first lines of the second chapter. Yeah, it stands by itself. There is nothing before it because it's the first words of the second chapter.

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's kind of what I went into just assuming.

[Speaker 1]
I know, but that was a dangerous assumption. It could have said anything before that. It could have said, I disagree that there's jey pak nam ni.

You see what I mean? You got to go. Now we got another objection coming, another headache.

Five minutes. Five minutes out of Adam. I like that you helped Hardy.

I think that working with Ava all day is making you a good teacher. Can you choose another person and make torture again?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I hope Hardy comes back. I'm afraid she's going to run away.

[Speaker 2]
Aleftina? Is that how you say it? Maybe that's not how you pronounce it.

Vernette? Hello. Hi.

Good morning, or good afternoon, good evening.

[Speaker 1]
Good everything.

[Speaker 2]
Good everything. Vernette? Can you help us with this next paragraph?

[Speaker 1]
Don't be shy. Just say something.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Okay. Great.

You're doing really good. Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, it goes down. Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's stop there, Adam. I think I should have cut that. Nice job.

[Speaker 2]
You've been practicing. That's really, really good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice job, Aleftina. Let's read this. What's that mean?

Somebody's raising their hand. Wait a minute. But what about if you say kya above where we said if you say ma kya, before we said if you say it's not necessarily the case that if it's an indirect accurate perception it has to be a deductive accurate perception, then now we say well, suppose you say it's always the case.

It's always the case that if it's an indirect accurate perception it has to be a deductive accurate perception. So, listen, he's going to block us both ways. If you say yes, here's your problem.

If you say yes, I'm sorry, if you say it's not necessarily the case, you're contradicting Dignaga. If you say it is necessarily the case, I got another problem. Hey, Adam, this is just like talking to your partner, right?

She says, if you say it's not the case, you're wrong. Okay, honey, it is the case. You're also wrong.

Okay, chit sen, chit sen. Let's consider what's a chit sen?

[Speaker 2]
Consider mental images or archetypes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, like an archetype. Like the coffee cup you see when you close your eyes and you think about coffee cups. Let's talk about this mental picture of a coffee cup.

Are you saying it's what a correct reason is trying to prove? And I believe here, are you saying that if something is a mental image, that it's always established through logic only? Because if it's true that all indirect accurate perceptions have to be deductive accurate perceptions, then every time we establish the existence of a mental image, every time we say it does exist, we must be using logic, right?

That's our... We say yinpak hao. We must be using logic.

And then the guy says, chi che, I didn't say that. And we say, well, yeah, it is, jepak seme ngu kyi shel jang yinpe che. Because when you see a mental idealization of something, it can only be perceived, it can only be considered through a jepak sema, through a deductive perception.

According to you, you said, you said there's no way to ever perceive a mental image, an ideal mental image. You said every time you perceive an ideal mental image, it has to be through deduction and there's no other way. You just said that.

Now what's going to happen, Adam? He has to find something which is perceived. He has to find a chi tsen, right?

He has to find an archetype which is not perceived through deduction, but still is perceived through indirect accurate perception. He has to come back with a counter-example.

[Speaker 2]
So, can we say that anytime something is considered directly, anytime something is considered, it's considered directly?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I believe that ngeul gyi is going to cause us trouble later. Right now, grandpa's ignoring it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I noticed that. That's exactly why I said that.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe you noticed that. I'm hoping that. Not only that, Adam, but grandpa's going to pull rank and say, time to stop the class.

Very good.

[Speaker 3]
I'm hoping that ngeul gyi is in opposition to what you threw at Diane Dodd. I know we don't know.

[Speaker 1]
That ngeul gyi is a greasy thing, I got to say. It's going to cause us trouble in this. Mark my words, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Thank you guys very much. Thank you again. I owe you guys a homework question, so I'll have a beefy homework for you next time.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's okay, Adam. Thanks for choosing members of the audience. Let's try to do that more, okay?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it sounds good. Thank you, guys.

[Speaker 1]
Uncle Nick, how much time we got here? Thank you, Geshe Michael. We have eight minutes, but I have a quick announcement.

The schedule said we were going to have Q&A with Sugeng. Some people were unavailable. We had to make a couple changes.

Next will be Stanley's Abhidharma class. Thank you, Stanley, for being flexible. Thank you for classes, Geshe-la.

My pleasure. If I didn't have you guys to teach, I'd have to sit at home and probably do gardening.

[Speaker 2]
Directly.

[Speaker 1]
I'm very grateful to you guys. See you in seven minutes or so.

[Speaker 2]
Have a good break.