Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 26

[Speaker 3]
Oh yeah, that's a trick that I usually do, video, and then you can make, you can switch

[Speaker 1]
it to hands-on, brighter, okay, can you switch the video to hands-on, you are already beyond

[Speaker 3]
it, oh, okay, sorry, I think so, can you guys hear, everything good, loud and clear, okay, so the other thing that happens with this computer weirdly, you go up to settings, the speaker's bad, you need to go up to settings, and go to, open up, system preferences,

[Speaker 1]
then you go to sound, so wait, hang on just a minute, while we're here, okay, go ahead, click on this button up here, go back, okay, sound, click on sound,

[Speaker 3]
sound, and then backwards, backwards, yeah, yep, oh, then we can hear them, right, because the Apple computer steals it, can you guys, can you guys say something, hello, hello,

[Speaker 1]
cool, okay, good, all right, so who's up, it's Adam, right, you guys, Adam, where is that handsome guy, okay, if I eat popcorn on the, all right, yep, as long as you remember, it's not out there, so we're waiting for Adam, right, we are, do you have any marketing to do, I do have, you guys ready, all right, let me bring it up, okay, until Adam comes, I am very pleased to announce that the cartoon book is available in book, paper book, audiobooks, and ebook, and I think it's the best book I ever wrote, it's the prequel to How Yoga Works, so if you like How Yoga Works, the story of the young lady who teaches the corrupt policemen how to do yoga, and explains the Yoga Sutra, by the way, this is the story of where she was born, how she grew up, how she tricked the Geshes into becoming a Geshe herself, even though women were not allowed to read books at that time, and it's an exciting adventure story, and so it's come out in audiobook, so you can listen to it in your car or something, grandpa, grandpa reads it, and it's also ebook, in case you want to read it at home, okay, so Noor, he can read it now, okay, he can read the book now, you just play in the house all day, okay, and he will get the seats, all right, it's nice to see him today, is Adam here yet?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'm here again.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, let's do it, Adam, I'm getting out here, I'm just selling books, okay, people are throwing stuff in here, yeah, it's very loud, there we go, how's your cold, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Doing much better, yeah, it's almost, almost totally done with it, my throat's still kind of acting up a little bit, but, okay, you look better, you look a lot better, yeah, I feel, I feel, I feel tons better today, I will feel worse with this class, okay, looking forward, so is the realization that sound is a changing, is a changing thing,

[Speaker 1]
or a cheat sin, my goodness, a realization, is a realization, a wrong center, a cheat sin,

[Speaker 3]
regardless of what it's about, so it's gotta be, gotta be, gotta be, gotta be,

[Speaker 2]
did you say, gotta be, gotta be, yeah, yep,

[Speaker 1]
except for when the student didn't learn,

[Speaker 2]
oh gosh, your internet is not very good, my internet, or Geshe-les, no, I think you're right, I only heard like two sounds out of that,

[Speaker 3]
you gotta tell your, your students in the, in the lobby there to stop watching Netflix,

[Speaker 2]
oh, I think it's okay, yeah, while sound itself is a changing thing, the realization that sound is a changing thing, excuse me, okay, is a changing thing, is itself unchanging, and therefore it cheats in, anytime something is, quote, realized, it's done so via some logical process, yeah, that's by consequence, a cheat sin, okay, so, number two, KGBJ gives a rather sophisticated argument as to why someone who perceives that sound is a changing thing may be wrong, what's the crux of this argument, and what oxymoron was used to describe this potential misunderstanding?

[Speaker 1]
By the way, Adam, going back to the first one, I would say the fact that you see that sound is a changing thing is a cheat sin, how's that?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But the, the mental state itself is wrong sin, it's a changing thing, but what it, but the whole realization, I realize that sound is changing, that, that realization is an unchanging thing, like all sentences.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Sound is a changing thing, but sound is a changing thing is an unchanging thing.

[Speaker 2]
Yep, the changing nature of sound is an unchanging thing. So, you know, I'm having a hard time seeing the screen, I'm just going to turn on one of my lamps here, so I have a little bit, I can see the screen a little better.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, sorry for being late too, I had to get a, like a run in, so I think I was only like 30 seconds late, but I had to take a shower, so I'm sorry guys. All right, so KGBJ gives a rather sophisticated argument, you guys, do you guys remember the argument, the argument?

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's a, it's a perception that's accurate toward the fact that sound is changing, but it's a mistaken perception.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Or, and it's a mistaken perception. Yeah, you perceive that sound, you perceive changing, to perceive that sound is changing is to perceive an unchanging thing, which just sounds disastrous.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, totally, I think you guys are kind of right there on, does anybody remember the term?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, tropezema?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, totally. Oh, wow, nice. Oh, yeah, that's it.

Miss a little bit more there. So KGBJ takes the deductive, the deductive Packard perception that realizes sound is a changing thing, as the subject of the argument that expresses the idea that anyone who perceives sound as a changing thing may incorrectly believe that they are also perceiving a changing thing. But we know that the perception of the changing nature of sound is actually an unchanging thing.

So KGBJ is saying that anyone who perceives the fact that sound is a changing thing and holds that perception to also be changing would be wrong. As a perception of the fact that sound is a changing thing is unchanging. So yeah, I'm gonna get the kind of got a little punchline down there.

Yeah, so what logical consequence arises when we follow the line of reasoning established in the argument referenced in question two?

[Speaker 3]
Concepts are unchanging. I mean, unfortunately, here, it would almost be saying that you, you know, hopefully this is a tongue gear, because he's sort of saying that you can't have a perception of any relationship that's not filled up.

[Speaker 2]
Well, he says as a as a consequence, that that we would have a third type of object. Oh, no, right. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Right. This is the direct indirect or the indirect direct.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. That's not, you know, that's not specifically what I was looking for. But as a result of of taking the changing nature of sound to be both changing and unchanging, that would require the creation of a third type of object, and therefore a third type of perception.

Something which is both unchanging and changing, which would require a hybrid object and therefore a hybrid kind of mode of perception.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. That's, that's nicely stated.

[Speaker 2]
And sorry, guess what?

[Speaker 1]
Well stated.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, let's all sit down, sit down.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so if the realization that sound is a changing thing, and the perception of sound is a changing thing are both occurring simultaneously, then we would both we'd have a new type of hybrid object that exists as a thing which is both changing and unchanging. And we know that this is impossible. So, question four, I told you guys, I owed you a homework question from last time.

So what is a curveball? Anybody remember?

[Speaker 1]
I know that. That's it. Curveball is a type of pitch that was invented at Princeton in 1873?

66? There's a, there's a debate about it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, curveball is one of the variety of pitches. Yeah, I thought, you know, and I thought it's not entirely, it's not entirely out of context, because you can see how there would be, you could see how using certain arguments directed at an opponent, why throwing a curveball to a debate opponent could be a means of keeping them on their toes, or by trying, you know, I could see how it'd be applicable.

[Speaker 1]
So, by the way, the prince, the president of Harvard at the time, didn't understand. And he said that Harvard pictures would not use the curveball, because it wasn't fair to deceive the matter. Bleeding hearts, huh?

[Speaker 2]
All right, so limmetto. It's kind of the only novel term or phrase that we've had. Can anybody give an answer to this non-answerable?

[Speaker 3]
You cannot give an answer.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you for proving me wrong there, Sarah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, and here's, here's Better you than me, as they say. To say that you don't agree with contradictory reports, given above which state that there are two types of things that can be considered nice.

Okay, good. If you agree to this, are you convinced? This is the main question.

You're right, I'm sure don't think.

[Speaker 2]
I'm having a hard time hearing you. There's some, some furious typing going on there. Fingers of fury.

[Speaker 1]
If you're typing fast, please turn off your mic. Yeah, I would take this CHOS to be DUP BYED CHOS. Okay, so if you say take sound, it's a changing thing because it's, because it performs a function, right?

[Speaker 2]
So the thing to be in the subject?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the CHOS CAN is easy, right? It's sound. Okay, CHOS CAN means the subject that we're debating about.

CHOS here means DUP BYED CHOS, which means the quality you're trying to prove about sound, which is the second part of a logical statement. Take sound, it's changing the domain, okay? So, when it's DUP BYED CHOS here, I take it to be DUP BYED CHOS, which means the quality about sound which is not proven yet, and which you are trying to prove, okay?

What are we trying to prove about sound? That it is...

[Speaker 2]
That...

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so now, what does it mean? ATSOGS BSTAN of sound and the thing you're trying to prove about it. What does ATSOGS BSTAN...

By the way, we had a big SONG DU in Ben's text this morning. There was these big gatherings for debate, right? So, what's ATSOGS BSTAN?

Oh, nice.

[Speaker 3]
ATSOGS BSTAN was, yeah, we had a big party last year.

[Speaker 1]
Convocation.

[Speaker 3]
But ATSOGS BSTAN must be ATSOGS CI, no?

[Speaker 1]
Well, no. Here, it's a combined object. You know, the fact that sound is changing.

You got it? ATSOGS BSTAN means a statement of two elements, okay? It must be a combination.

Okay, ATSOGS BSTAN means a combination here. Okay, let's take the combination of sound and changing thing, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, ATSOGS BSTAN is the subject of the logical statement, and the SGRUB BYED CHOS, the quality that you're trying to prove about the subject, right? Yeah?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry again, yeah, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just, I had a question, because in 329, we actually, we addressed THAG YANG BDAG GI SGRUB BYA, or GI SGRUB BYA, and that's what I was going to use for quality to be proven. So, how could I treat this CHOS here, if I'm going to treat the SGRUB BYA down here as the quality to be proven?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, SGRUB BYA is not a quality here. It's the fact that you're trying to prove, you see? That sound is changing, okay?

You wouldn't call that a quality to be proven. You see what I mean? It's the fact that, it's the fact that sound...

SGRUB BYA means what you're trying to prove in general, that sound is a changing thing, okay? You can say that SGRUB BYA... Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
No, there's a weird lag. I was just, yeah, because it's not explicitly stated here, so I just, you know, I mean, SGRUB, excuse me, draw the realization, the deductive accurate perception that realizes sound is a changing thing, isn't necessarily stated and isn't explicitly stated in 329. So, I'm just trying to figure out a better way to phrase that.

[Speaker 1]
Well, let's do it when we get there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Well, that kind of harkens back to why I was bringing that up, because I still need to figure out how to address the CHOD DANG CHOD CHEN GYI TSOG DUN DU THAO.

[Speaker 1]
We need 326, actually. Let me go look at 326. We need 326.

Oh, I don't have numbers on mine.

[Speaker 3]
How easy would it be for you to throw the previous paragraph on that screen for us, Adam?

[Speaker 1]
I just copied it in chat.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, that's pretty good. Can you see the chat, boss?

[Speaker 1]
I'll have to go over there. Hang on, let's try to find it in a different way. Here it is.

You might search on... Here it is.

[Speaker 3]
Nice, Adam. There it is, boss.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay. UN DE'I PHYI TSE CHOS CHEN PHYI TSE CHOS CHEN KHYAD DANG YANG BDAG GIS GRUB BYA YIN PA THAO Let's take PHYI TSE. PHYI TSE means a concept, really, right?

Let's take an unchanging object, okay? Unchanging principle or something. Or an unchanging fact.

KHYAD YANG BDAG GIS GRUB BYA YIN PA THAO Is it what you're trying to prove with a good reason? Why do you say that? Because it is the object under consideration by a deductive type of perception, okay?

Deductive type of perception. And why he throws in DNGOS GYIS to ZHAL BYA here, that's a tough one. In the second line on the screen here, okay?

Okay, so let's say I'm trying to tell my wife, let's take the Japanese restaurant. What? We should go there because they have good food, okay?

So the fact that the Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to, okay? The Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to, is what I'm trying to prove. Okay?

The fact that the Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to tonight, is what I'm trying to prove. Is that a changing thing or an unchanging thing? The restaurant is changing.

To be a place to go to is changing. But the fact that a restaurant is a place to go to is an unchanging change. Facts are unchanging, okay?

Facts don't change. You know, oranges are orange. You know, it doesn't...

A statement, a true statement doesn't change, okay? If it did, then oranges could be sometimes purple or something like that. You see what I mean?

Okay, so we say, SKYES BDAG YANG BDAG GIS GDUG BYA YIN PA LTA CI TZEN CHOS CAN Let's take the fact that the restaurant is a place we should go to. SKYES BDAG YANG BDAG GIS GDUG BYA YIN PA LTA Is it what you're trying to prove with a correct reason? Okay?

I would say yes. BYAS PAG TSE MA'I DNGOS KYI SHES BYAS YIN PAS BYAS Go ahead.

[Speaker 3]
Geshe-la, I think if I remember correctly, were we just... We were just getting into a discussion about whether or not all BYAS PAG TSE MA'I are done through reasoning, or whether CI TZENs are only seen through BYAS PAG TSE MA'I and then this came into the question of whether or not we could translate BYAS PAG TSE MA'I necessarily as deductive because we don't know whether or not it relies on TSUL ZIN YIN PA. We don't know whether or not it relies on a DA YANG BDAG and maybe he's fleshing that out here.

[Speaker 1]
It could be. And again, the debate might be, are all forms of... What do you call it?

It's the difference between deduction and inference, for example. Are all objects of inference also objects of deduction? Like that's a...

He's kind of going there. Okay. And you got to find words for BYAS PAG TSE MA'I And what was the other one?

DRUG CHA DA YANG BDAG GIS DRUG CHA You see what I mean? You got to... Does...

Is indirect perception always deduction? When you figure something out, when you see something without your direct senses and it's correct, are you always using logic? What do you guys think?

I'll say it again. If you see something, if you figure something, if you understand something with your mind and it's not something you can see directly, is it always an object that you see with logical deduction? And if it's not, give me an example.

[Speaker 3]
I think he's going to say no. And I think he's going to say that the image popping into your head of the first time your mother told you something was a clock is a cheatsend that you're not arriving at through deduction.

[Speaker 1]
That's a possibility. Yeah. As an archetype.

Archetypes are... Yeah. Okay?

Archetypes are... are abstractions, but they are not the result of deduction.

[Speaker 3]
And so, are the two types of tsemas, ngonsum and jepak, do they calc... neatly do they correspond to rongtsen and cheatsend? How neatly do they correspond to these two types of objects?

I think we're hoping to find out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. I have a question, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Is it possible they're making a distinction between the reasoning, which is indirect, which infers something, and the direct perception of the inference itself? Yeah, well, there's this nasty word here, ngeki, in the second line. Yeah, it's...

And I want you to put your mind on that. If I convince my wife, if I say, let's take the Japanese restaurant, we should go there tonight, because the food is good, right? Then, supposedly, if it's a correct logical statement, in her mind pops up this image of the Japanese restaurant as a good place to go tonight, okay?

Here it says, that idea that pops up in her mind, that the Japanese restaurant is a good place to go tonight, is an unchanging principle. Anytime you have a sentence, or a truth, the sky is blue, if it's a correct sentence, it is not a changing thing, it is not a working thing, it's a concept. It's a truth.

All truths are unchanging according to Buddhism. That's what makes them a truth. If they were 1% different, they wouldn't be true.

You see what I mean? So, anyway, that's a truth sentence. So, can you, with a persuasive argument, by saying the food tastes good to your wife, can you force to come into her mind what you're trying to prove here, that the Japanese restaurant is someplace we should go tonight, okay?

Yeah, yeah, I understand. With a good argument, your wife can be convinced that the Japanese restaurant is someplace you should go tonight. The fact, okay, the fact, the fact that the Japanese restaurant is a good place to go tonight is an unchanging concept, okay?

It's not the Japanese restaurant. The Japanese restaurant is impermanent, it's changing every millisecond. Good place to go is changing every millisecond.

But the fact that the restaurant is a good place to go, that's unchanging. That's a fact is always unchanging, okay? The sky is blue, it doesn't change, okay?

It can go out of existence, but it cannot change while it's in existence, okay? As long as the restaurant's there, okay? Now, the question from me to you is, you okay with that idea?

Oh, seriously, give me this face. Okay, now he accepts. That the fact, I keep saying the fact, that the Japanese restaurant is the place we should go tonight, which was the conclusion of my logic to my wife.

I said, honey bunny, take the Japanese restaurant. It's a place we should go to, why? Because it has good food.

And then she says, ah, okay, yeah, that's true. That's true. That fact that the Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to is an unchanging thing.

It's a concept. It's not an actual thing you can touch. It's an idea, okay?

And in Buddhism, ideas are unchanging, in that sense. Okay, and then, but my question to you guys is, he has a word, muk. Muk, Shantideva, why do we have to specify, and what use is it to specify that the image that comes into her mind of the Japanese restaurant as a place to go to, why does that image have to appear to her directly?

Why do you ask?

[Speaker 3]
If I wanted to find out, I would say damadrup to kedrup je, which our friend, the opponent, did here.

[Speaker 1]
So by the way, calling the fact that the Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to tonight, calling it the direct object of your mind at that moment implies that there's a case where... You're talking about indirect. So somebody give me an example of an indirect object perceived by logical state of mind.

I don't get, I don't understand. One that you've never seen before, one that you've never experienced before.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, how is it direct though?

[Speaker 1]
Well, you see, in my mind, if you establish something through logic, that's already an indirect object. You see, I mean, I don't know what you mean when you say, when he says the direct object of logic. He says it's, by the way, it's a concept, it's unchanging concept, and it's direct.

And I don't know why he says direct. That's my problem, Adam. I don't understand it.

And if you can give me an indirect one, I'll feel better.

[Speaker 3]
Indirect object of logic, detachment.

[Speaker 1]
It's already a... Yeah, I want an indirect object of detachment.

[Speaker 3]
How about this? You only go to good restaurants. You want to go to the Japanese restaurant tonight, so the Japanese restaurant must be a good restaurant.

[Speaker 1]
I'm saying... No, do you go subject, quality you're trying to prove, and reason. I have five.

Okay, wait. Subject, quality you're trying to prove about it, and reason. I want it in this format.

This is Buddhist logic.

[Speaker 3]
The Japanese restaurant that you never go to.

[Speaker 1]
You always start with consider. Consider the...

[Speaker 3]
The Japanese restaurant you never go to.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, consider the Japanese restaurant. You're going to say that? You have to say consider, right?

[Speaker 3]
I said, oh, consider the Japanese restaurant you never go to.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, that's good.

[Speaker 3]
They are a good place to go tonight, because all the other restaurants in town sucks.

[Speaker 1]
Did I just say that's not a correct reason?

[Speaker 3]
But what if it's correct, and by deductions, it does make it indirect. I'm negating that point.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I see. In that case, any logical statement for proving... We call it ma mikpay tak.

Any logical statement to prove that something is not there, is indirect, according to Stanley, right?

[Speaker 3]
Well, my point is...

[Speaker 1]
I understand. I have to go through another thought to come to that one.

[Speaker 3]
So it's indirect. Yeah, because you cancel all the other restaurants. Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's possible.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Nancy?

[Speaker 3]
Consider that my husband...

[Speaker 1]
Wait, no. Always start with the thing under. Consider my husband, for example.

[Speaker 3]
Consider my husband...

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Then say something about him that the other person might not accept right away.

[Speaker 3]
...has an opinion about how good the food is at the Japanese restaurant.

[Speaker 1]
Consider my husband. He has opinions about the food at the restaurant.

[Speaker 3]
...at the restaurant, as being good food.

[Speaker 1]
Consider my husband. He thinks the restaurant has good food. Because?

[Speaker 3]
And we should go there tonight.

[Speaker 1]
No, then you've mixed it up. Consider the Japanese restaurant. We should go there tonight because my husband says it has good food.

I'm sorry.

[Speaker 3]
Well, I'm trying to say that I'm only... What I'm perceiving is only the fact that my husband thinks that. Yeah, okay.

But I accept the thought. And then it's my perception, too. I'm just seeing someone else thinking the thought, and so I'm just...

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Consider the Japanese restaurant. We should go there tonight because my husband says it's a good restaurant.

Right? And then I have to make assumptions about what he says, or something like that. I have to figure out stuff about what he says.

For example, I have to consider him an authority.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, because he has good taste.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which they never do.

[Speaker 3]
Sometimes it makes it more indirect.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay. Let's see if he ever mentions one. I don't think he does.

But maybe it's important here. Maybe it's not important. Okay, Adam.

BDAG MA GRUB NA in... I can't read it very well. 327.

If someone said BDAG MA GRUB to 326, what were they saying?

[Speaker 2]
They don't agree that cheatsigns are something directly considered by a deductive accurate perception.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Archetypes are not something that can be perceived directly by logic. Archetypes are not something which can be perceived directly by logic.

Okay, is that true?

[Speaker 3]
We don't know yet, in this school.

[Speaker 1]
But in general, we already said that trues are archetypes. Okay. Anyway, BDAG MA GRUB NA.

By the way, who's talking at 327?

[Speaker 2]
Should be us. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The sentence ends with... Nah.

[Speaker 2]
Well, there's a BDAG MA GRUB in between. I mean, the sentence ends with BDOD PA DE PHYIR BYAS NA. That's kind of what I had for the last time.

Oh, I see, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The BYAS NA could start with BDOD NA here in 327. You're right. That's okay.

Okay, we could say that. Okay. What's that mean in general, Adam?

Because we got to know if we're going to...

[Speaker 2]
SHEL BYA NI PHYIR TSE MA NYI There are... Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Basically, it's just saying there are two types of accurate perception because there are two types of objects which can be considered.

[Speaker 1]
Good. And I'm going to throw something in here just for... Okay, just to confuse things.

It may be relevant here to talk about the three levels of reality.

[Speaker 2]
And this was a direct quote that we pulled from the Pramana Bhartika earlier, just a few sections above.

[Speaker 1]
Yep. This opening lines of chapter two, right? Yeah.

So, what are the three levels of reality? They are in a very interesting novel that just came out. The lady uses it in the debate.

Obvious, hidden, and deeply hidden. Yeah, obvious reality, which is like colors of something in front of you. And then...

Unobvious, hidden things. What's an example of kokhya? Emptiness.

Emptiness. Okay. Emptiness.

And then shintu kokhya, super difficult to see.

[Speaker 2]
The workings of karma.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the specific correlations of karma, okay? That if you interrupt a class, you will have to listen to bad rock and roll for the rest of your life. Only an enlightened being could tell you that.

All right. I'm just saying... By the way, he says because the objects are two, then the modes of perception are limited to two.

By the way, of the three levels of reality, he wants to lump the last two together. There's stuff that's obvious, and there's stuff that's not obvious. Because there's two kinds of stuff in the world, there's two kinds of perception.

For the obvious stuff, you just open your eyes and look. For the unobvious stuff, you have to close your eyes and think about it. Okay, good.

And what's the punchline in Kachin, by the way, for $100? I like it, but it's not what I'm looking for here.

[Speaker 2]
Every object has these three realities. Yeah, it's specific to who is viewing the object, and at what time also.

[Speaker 1]
Like blue, a color, is not an obvious reality to a blind person. For them, it's something they have to figure out with logic, especially scriptural authority. People tell them there's a thing called blue, and they accept it.

Okay, right? So, the important thing is to say that for different people, the levels of reality switch, switch around. For a Buddha, everything is first-level reality.

Obvious. Okay, got it? Okay, anyway.

,LTAR MA GRUB NA GSHER BYA NYID CHE SEMS NYID, So there's basically two kinds of objects in the world that you could consider, and they are hard to see and easy to see. Therefore, there's two kinds of accurate perception in the universe. Your direct perception with your eyeballs, your ears, etc., even with your mind, when you hear your thoughts. Or there's indirect, when stuff is difficult to figure out. Now, when you figure something out, though, does that... So, if a blind person figures out that the sky is blue, they cannot see it directly.

So, for them, it's kok yur, or shintu kok yur. It's very difficult to perceive. And if they ever do perceive, it's through another person's explanation, for example.

When they see blue, is it a rang tsen or chi tsen? Is it a concept, or is it an actual thing? For them, it's a concept.

For us, it's... If you have eyes, and you're not Seiji, who's colorblind, it's not a concept, right? It's not an archetype.

It's the expression of the archetype.

[Speaker 3]
You have to say that they're seeing a changing thing through an archetype. I haven't seen the sphinx, but I understand it's a rang tsen, even if I have to see it through the means of a chi tsen.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, so you're seeing a rang tsen through a chi tsen.

[Speaker 3]
I have to, yeah. I have to, because I...

[Speaker 1]
What is a rang tsen to you through a chi tsen to you?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, the physical changing thing that is the sphinx in Egypt is there, and I understand that it's a physical changing thing, but I have to imagine. I have an unchanging idea of it in my head that I come to through relying on authority.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. That's kind of where this argument came from. If you hear a sound, that's rang tsen.

That's the actual expression of a thing in the world. And then if someone explains to you that the sound actually has a subtle impermanence, then the sound switches from an actual directly perceivable thing to a concept. That sound is a concept.

The sound as a changing thing is a concept. Changing moment by moment, right? ,ZHES SOGS DANG RGYAL BDOD NA, PHYIR DANG PHYIR BYED NYID KYI TSOGS DANG Let's take the combination of the subject under consideration and what you're trying to prove about it.

Japanese restaurant is a place we should go to. Now, when you say Japanese restaurant, that's something you can see with your direct eyes and ears, right? When you prove to your wife that the Japanese restaurant is a place you should go to, does that restaurant switch from being a changing thing to an unchanging thing?

Yeah, because it's part of a logical statement. It's part of a general truth. When restaurant goes from a single thing that you see or hear or smell to a thing that you use in a fact, oh, the restaurant is a good place to go, does that restaurant shift from an actual event in reality to a concept?

I think we'd say yes. Okay, I think Adam would say yes for sure. So, if you say something is a qi zhen, doesn't it then become...

If something is used in an argument, then it has to be a concept, conceptual, even if it's a restaurant. All right, Chenna, let's go to 328, Adam. Okay.

Can you read it?

[Speaker 2]
Oh yeah, sorry again. ,GZHAN DANG DAG LA DE DAG BU'I RTOG PA CHUNG BAR BSTAN, RTOG PA RTOG PA Not an English D.

[Speaker 1]
RTOG PA RTOG PA I always say you should raise your eyebrows.

[Speaker 2]
RTOG Yeah, I mean, I always...I tend to gauge whether or not I'm doing it as you know if I've got my voice box registering.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, good.

[Speaker 2]
,GZHAN DANG DAG LA DE DAG BU'I RTOG PA CHUNG BA CHUNG BA RTOG PA ,GZHAN DANG DAG LA DE DAG BU'I RTOG PA CHUNG BA RTOG PA It's a...

[Speaker 1]
what do you call it? You're addressing somebody.

[Speaker 2]
Those of intelligence?

[Speaker 1]
What's it called in grammar?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, um...

[Speaker 1]
Vakadu. Oh, you intelligent ones. SHES BSTAN BDAG He's...

K.W.J. is addressing us, obviously. Oh, you intelligent ones. What's a THOG PA?

Yeah, I try to say it's concern, but THOG PA usually means what, you guys? Like a problem? What happened?

Is it... internet was coming out? THOG PA in modern Tibetan means a...

a doubt about somebody else. Like I have a THOG PA that he... Like a suspicion?

Yeah, suspicion. THOG PA means suspicion, okay? In scripture here, he says, I understand you could have some problems about trying to decide whether the restaurant is an archetype or a real restaurant that you can walk into once you use it in a logical statement.

I understand your concern. Who's talking? K.W.J. Hey, that's not a bad question. THOG PA BYUNG BA DEN DEN means true, right? Truth. Like the four truths.

DEN PA ZHIG Yeah, that's a pretty good question. That's a very valid question. That's a valid concern, is what he's saying.

KYIS Therefore, KHO BUD ZHIG I'm going to ZHIG PA We're going to explain it? I'll explain it to you, and you better NYON GCIG You better listen. Yeah, it's like very arrogant.

Yeah, that's not a bad question. Well, just sit down and listen, and I'll tell you what's the right thing. NYON GCIG means listen up.

Listen up. It's very funny. This is Tsongkapa and his two students.

That's the way they are. They were not serious, boring guys. They knew when to have fun.

All right. 228, 329, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Can you make your thing bigger? I don't know. It's kind of like six points for me.

[Speaker 2]
You know, it's, I'm having Don't worry about it. It's okay. The Zoom toolbar was kind of Okay.

Hiding it, but Is that okay?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, please read 329. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
CHI TZIN BYAS PAG TSE MA'I NGON GYIS ZHEL BYA YIN LA THAG YANG BDAG GIS GRUB BYA NI MA YIN NO Yeah, and this is extremely difficult.

[Speaker 1]
Do you want to take a shot at it, you guys? Let's see how your translation says. That which is considered directly by deduct actor perception is an idealist station.

What you trying to prove there? Oh, yeah. Okay, here's his bombshell statement for all of you logicians.

CHI TZIN BYAS PAG TSE MA'I NGON GYIS ZHEL BYA YIN LA It is true that when you are trying to figure out something deductively, with deduction in your head, with your eyes closed, okay, then everything you're thinking about is concepts, conceptual. Even a smell, even a color, even a restaurant, they are not changing things. When you close your eyes and try to figure out something about a changing thing, that thing becomes unchanging because it becomes a concept.

So far so good, right? Then he throws a bombshell. LA BA Curveball.

Curveball, yeah. I noticed he got the Chinese for curveball up here. It's kind of cute.

LTA YANG DAG GIS GRUB BYA NI MA YIN NO But the conceptual form here is not what you're trying to prove with your logical statement. Ken, you're calling LTA YANG DAG a conceptual form? No, a correct reason.

No, I'm supplying CI TZAN, distributing it to the second half of the sentence. So the second half of the sentence technically says CI TZAN, LTA YANG DAG GIS GRUB BYA NI MA YIN Something might be the thing under... A conceptual unchanging object may be the thing that you have in mind when you're trying to figure out something with deduction.

But the conceptual thing is not what you're trying to prove with the reason. In other words, it seems to say the Japanese restaurant is a good place to eat. When considered as what you're trying to prove is no longer a concept.

You mean you can actually eat there when it's no longer a concept? Yeah. When you're trying to figure out something with deduction, is that object a concept?

Yes. When it is what you're trying to prove, is it a concept? KGBJ says no.

What is it then? That would imply it's a wrong sentence.

[Speaker 2]
You have physical reference. You have wrong sentences which are acting as reference.

[Speaker 1]
Let me say it again. And this is the whole point here. When I use something like a restaurant as the object of deduction, it becomes a concept, an unchanging concept.

But when I use something like a restaurant in a proof, it's not an unchanging object. He's trying to make a difference between proof and deduction. Is he making the jump to once you've proved it, then you're talking about the physical thing again, or the outer world thing?

I don't know. I'm going to say it again. When you're using the second kind of accurate perception, which is deduction, we can say indirect perception.

[Speaker 3]
I think we have to.

[Speaker 1]
To see that the restaurant is a good place to eat, at that moment, the restaurant is an unchanging concept. But when you're trying to prove something about the restaurant, it's not.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, it seems like he's arguing in a way that almost tells us maybe not to use the word deduction for J-Pot, because it doesn't have to be.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's really tricky. Or, why did we get into this argument in the first place? We were originally talking about the most famous proof in the history of Buddhism.

RGYA CHEN MI RTAG DE BYED PA'I PHYIR It's got to be like a single syllable to a Buddhist. RGYA CHEN MI RTAG DE BYED PA'I PHYIR RGYA CHEN MI RTAG DE BYED PA'I PHYIR What's it mean? RGYA CHEN MI RTAG DE BYED PA'I PHYIR It's a changing thing.

BYED PA'I PHYIR It's produced by causes and conditions. All right. So, here.

PHYIT SAN BYED PA'I TSER MA'I NGOS KYI ZHEL BYA YIN LA When you're using deduction, the thing you're talking about becomes conceptual. But... So, wait.

Where all these arguments come from? Somebody said, When you're proving to a non-Buddhist, why are we picking on non-Buddhists with the sound thing?

[Speaker 2]
because they accepted that the sound of the Vedas were unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, they said the Vedas, the sound of the Vedas, and specifically Aum, the sound of Aum, they said it's eternal and therefore unchanging, even though it's produced with vocal cords and breath and everything else by an impermanent human. But that particular sound is sacred and it never changes. We say Aum chö chen, take Aum.

Midag de, it sure is health-changing because it's produced by causes and conditions. Anything which is pushed into existence by a cause and condition is moving. It's getting less every second after its birth.

It is decaying after its birth. In that case, we had trouble because... What are we trying to prove?

What's the dukcha? What are we trying to prove? Sound is changing.

Sound is changing. Now, as a thing to be proven, the fact, here we go, the fact that sound is changing, is that changing or unchanging?

[Speaker 3]
It's changing.

[Speaker 1]
Let's say it again, you sure people. Is sound changing? Yes or no?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Is that fact changing?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No. When you see that sound is changing, are you perceiving something changing or unchanging? Because you goddamn said just now that sound is changing.

If you weren't thinking about changing, then you have a problem. How can you see that sound is changing if you can't see a changing thing? How can you say that the fact that sound is changing is unchanging when you gotta see a changing thing to see it?

Got it? I would say here, look, there's a difference between the drukcha... Hey, think of sound, you guys, you got it in your mind?

Okay, it's changing, right? Yes, changing. Now, the fact of sound is changing.

Then it changes to a permanent thing, to an unchanging thing. Got it? Think of sound by itself.

Okay, boop, boop, boop. Okay, now think of changing. Yep, got it, it's changing.

Boop, boop, boop. And now think of sound is changing. Oh, that's unchanging.

Okay, got it? That's what I'm saying here. Maybe as a drukcha, sound is changing.

And maybe as something you prove, sorry, maybe as the object of a deduction, it becomes unchanging. To see the elements of the fact that sound is changing, you have to perceive two changing things, right? Sound and changing.

Okay? When you take the statement apart, sound is changing, you have to first focus on... When I say sound is changing, and before I said changing, were you thinking about sound?

Yeah. And at that point it was a changing thing. And then I said changing, and then at that point that was a changing thing.

And then I said sound is changing. And then at that point it became an unchanging thing. Got it?

As an object of deduction, it's unchanging. As a component in the act of proving something, it's changing. That's what I say is going on here.

It's 329. You guys okay with that?

[Speaker 3]
It's like sound.

[Speaker 1]
That's the dream, Geshe-la. Let me say it one more time. I'm going to tell you a sentence.

Tell me if the pieces are changing or unchanging. Sound. Changing.

Is. Okay? Now, you ready?

Sound is changing. Unchanging. And that becomes unchanging.

Got it? Now, are you perceiving something changing or are you perceiving something unchanging? Geshe-la, when you started, I was perceiving something changing.

When you made it a universal truth, it became unchanging. As a LTA YANG DAG GIS GRUB BYA, it's changing. As pieces in a logical statement that you're trying to prove, it's changing.

As a universal truth which you have established with deduction, established with deduction, it's an unchanging. It's an archetype. Got it?

That's where he's going. And I think Khenpo Jey is being cute. And he knows...

[Speaker 3]
You covered two types of jeypok sema earlier, like just two paragraphs ago you said.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to earn my money, okay? Back when I realized I did not figure that out. He said there's two kinds of deduction.

And I'm sure Ben Kramer, having been so... noticing? Perspicacious.

He said, Ah, I wonder what he's talking about. I mean, I understand two kinds of sema, right? Two kinds of pramana.

Direct and indirect. Direct and deductive. Okay, I'm okay with that.

But what if I tell you there's two kinds of indirect?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. We established this last term, too.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no. Okay, I'll give you $100 if you got it right, Adam. Just be aware you're depriving Ava of her college money.

[Speaker 2]
I don't think I heard the question.

[Speaker 1]
You said we established in the last class the two kinds of deductive perception. I want them for $100.

[Speaker 2]
No, we established that there were two different types of direct and indirect perceptions. And that those two types of direct were shuktok, ngotok, and shuktok. One established directly and one established indirectly.

[Speaker 1]
But let me finish real fast. Because he quoted the Pramana-vartika when he said there's two kinds of deduction, I went and looked it up in the Pramana-vartika to see what they were talking about at that point. It's called something we haven't studied yet, I believe.

It's called rang dun je pak. Say rang dun je pak.

[Speaker 3]
Rang dun je pak.

[Speaker 1]
In fact, these are the names of some of the chapters of the Pramana-vartika. Rang dun je pak. What do you guess is the difference?

[Speaker 2]
Reasoning establishing for the proof. Proofs being established for the benefit of other people's minds. And then proofs which establish reasoning.

Excuse me. Reasoning which establishes proof for the benefit of your own mind. A hundred bucks.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you a hundred bucks. Because that's correct. When you sit alone at the kitchen table and try to figure out what the heck went on last night in the class, that's deduction for your own purposes.

And then when you rush into the class the next night and try to explain it to a series of ten, that's called logic for the benefit of others. And those are the two kinds of logic. One is for you to figure out reality, and one is to help other people figure out reality.

Got it? Now, how the object being proved changes, whether you're using it to prove something to somebody else or you're using it to prove something to yourself. We're not going there tonight.

Because we're out of time.

[Speaker 2]
Yay! I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Geshe-la.

Yeah, I didn't know that that's what you were talking about.

[Speaker 1]
It's so important that it's the name of the chapters of the Pramanavarttika. Logic for others and logic for yourself. Logic for when you're alone at the breakfast table, in your own head.

And then logic when your wife comes in and you try to convince her of something. That's logic for other people. Okay, got it?

All right. Adam, take a shot at the next three sections, okay?

[Speaker 2]
I will. Yeah, and I'm going to try to pull some homework questions from that. I hope I'll be able to get three out of that.

[Speaker 1]
Come on, there's a hundred there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right, see you guys in the next class. Nick, I know we have negative two minutes, but you're going to be merciful on us. All right, let's take a five-minute break.

Bye. Have a good rest of the day.