Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 27

[Speaker 2]
It sounds 90s, do you?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. It does. Oh, I was just thinking about this question when I was driving.

[Speaker 1]
Destroying darkness. I'm in a good mood. What do you have for dinner there, Nick?

Nothing, I just forgot to have dinner. Oh, I see. I think I'm just ready to, I'm looking forward to not waking up at five in the morning.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, you're not doing the medicine Buddha retreat?

[Speaker 1]
If I do it, I'm going to sleep in tomorrow. I need to catch up. I'm not doing well.

[Speaker 2]
It's hard.

[Speaker 1]
I can only do so many days. You ready, Mr. Adam? I think so.

You look awesome with that background. What's, oh yeah, that's Chamonix, man. That's the birthplace of mountaineering.

Really? Is it Switzerland? No, the French Alps.

Wow.

[Speaker 3]
I did watch the climbing finals last year in Chamonix.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's a pretty special place, man. Yeah, I got to spend some time there. Because I've been reading about it for years, and I finally got to go there a few years ago.

Wow. It's pretty special. Now I want to go, is it near like, it's Andorra and Switzerland and that whole kind of?

Yeah, I think it's like probably two and a half hour drive from Geneva. Yeah, not too sure.

[Speaker 2]
These are extra credit questions, right?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah, don't forget. No, no credits.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
Everybody ready?

[Speaker 3]
Maybe.

[Speaker 1]
Well, let's try. Are truths or flashbacks? Yeah, are truth or facts changing or unchanging?

I'll say unchanging. Unchanging.

[Speaker 3]
There you go. There you go.

[Speaker 1]
Because if, for example, it's daytime right now, it's never more or less daytime. It either just is daytime or it isn't daytime. Totally.

Yeah, there's a couple of different ways you can kind of butter this bread. If you know what I mean. Yeah.

That's the one we're looking for, you know, in as much as. So we know the facts and truth are by nature unchanging. Facts either describe a state of reality, which is true, or they don't exist.

There is no middle ground. Facts are never anything less than 100% true, and hence they never fluctuate, which is kind of what Nick was saying there. So all of reality and its individual constituents can be categorized as belonging to either changing things or unchanging things.

And changing things are objects that come into reality through causes and conditions, meaning that they would degrade over time. So unlike changing things, facts only describe reality and cannot interact with it.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, that's a nice way to put it.

[Speaker 1]
You're very cogent when you get over a cold. Thank you, yeah. So yeah, I do still only have two homework questions for you guys.

But yeah, because we stayed on this one point. Like, yes, we did a lot of the last class. So at what point does something stop being something you can interact with and become conceptual?

And what example did we use to demonstrate the kind of the more subtle aspects of what happens when you begin exploring that? Well, this was the really, this was that point. Yeah, totally.

And I'm not entirely sure that I answered the question myself in the answer.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's something like when you arrive at it by negating all that it is not.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, because that's kind of, that's one of the things that we brought up in the class before. Definitely.

You know, more specifically, if I was to give you a couple of hints, like drachachin, mitakhte, chepichere, right? So the two elements that we're considering are sound and the fact that it's changing. So if we state that, if we state it together, sound is changing.

Am I leading you guys someplace that's kind of bringing up anything? Are we talking about relationships? Yeah, we are.

More specifically, what has to happen for something to be related to something else?

[Speaker 2]
It has to be conceptual.

[Speaker 1]
Not only is it conceptual, you have to have two elements, right? Yeah. Don't you have to see each one as a langsang before you connect them?

[Speaker 3]
Exactly. Yeah, totally, totally.

[Speaker 1]
Well, mostly.

[Speaker 3]
So I'll see if that sums it up. I need to be able to hear it.

[Speaker 2]
Michael, can you plug in your mic, please?

[Speaker 1]
Yes, I know what to do. All right, so let's put this in context by looking at it through the lens of the classic example used in class. Consider sound.

It's changing because it's produced. Taken as the object of deduction, it is unchanging. Hey, Tim, can you just for a second?

Sorry. I'm having a hard time hearing you. Sorry, go ahead.

Tim's got it. Okay, sorted. Uh, yeah, this is pretty clear.

And there was something in the class. I want to see that section again. I guess we'll look at it.

But it was really specific. It said, like, and maybe this is it, but it seemed like it was referring to a syllogism by one phrase and saying, in that case, it's unchanging, and then referring to a syllogism with another phrase and then saying, in that case, it's changing. Talk.

So, yeah, totally. We were talking about Chodong Chechen, and Geshe-la was saying that the Che, he was taking to being in reference to the Chokche, I believe. Excuse me, the Drupja.

The Drupja. So, and then I think what you're talking about, Nick, is the Takyamdaki Drupja. I think you're right.

Yeah. Which is kind of what I was, yeah, kind of what I was pointing out. So, in order to put together, in finality, the phrase sound is changing, you have to consider sound individually and then changing individually and then kind of combine those two together.

And then that kind of harkens back to that term that we're about to see in this next. Uh, what's the, what's the Mushi Musum between Drupja Che and Takyamdaki Drupja Che? What's the Mushi Musum?

Yeah, that's going to be really helpful. Are you asking me to come up with that right now? Should be, should be four.

We could do it together. Does it go both ways?

[Speaker 3]
I don't know. Yeah, I think it's a, I think that's a four. Oh, yeah.

Oh, I see. Maybe it's a three. It's a three.

[Speaker 1]
Let's hear it. Well, the point is, if you're a Drupja Che, you don't have to be correct. Right.

Okay, so it is three. Yeah. Like all your wife's arguments or your partner's arguments are Drupja Che, but they're not Drupja, but they're not Takyamdaki Drupja.

Musum, yeah. All right. So when sound is taken as an object of deduction, it's conceptual and unchanging.

But when we're trying to prove something about sound, in this case, that it is changing, it's non-conceptual and changing. In other words, receive the elements which make up the unchanging fact that sound is changing. You must perceive two changing things, which are sound and changing.

Quote sound and quote changing is a few of the terms. But so we had these two terms. Anybody?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah. Soften was a combined object. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And somebody else besides the, is there anybody else besides us nuts that besides us mixed nuts that could answer this one? This is what what you're trying to prove. Nice.

Yeah, Oscar. Yeah, so it's literally it's like, is that a good literal translation there? Trying to prove that to be accomplished.

That's kind of stretching it, but it's OK. Would established be better? You could say that.

You could also say prove. It's OK. Proven.

Proven.

[Speaker 3]
OK. All righty.

[Speaker 1]
Well, you're 10 times better at him.

[Speaker 3]
What's that again?

[Speaker 1]
You look 10 times better. Yeah. Yeah, I've only coughed a couple of times today.

I'm feeling pretty good. Somebody in the in the chat is asking for the and in English. OK, yeah, that's one of the things we're about to hit on right now.

Oh, perfect. So the is is what let me point it out to you guys and just find it in here. What you're trying to prove with the correct reason.

[Speaker 3]
Mm hmm.

[Speaker 1]
So that's talking on Dr. Joe. And what was the other one they were looking for? Drupal.

Drupal. Drupal is just in here. And that's just whatever you're trying to prove.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So one of them is one and two and the other is just two.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Drupal is just two. You're just two. OK.

Drupal is one and two. It's just the quality. I'm sorry.

Sorry, Adam. No, yeah, yeah, yeah. I've just always understood it as being not what you're trying to relate that the quality that you're trying to prove about your subject.

Yeah, it's true. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You want to go to an important place right now?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, definitely. I always want to.

[Speaker 1]
Does a good opponent always perceive the jukje chuh in general, not in the context of our proof?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. They have to, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So they have to. Like if you take an apple, it's red because it's a fruit or something, which is a bad one.

If they don't know what red is, that's a bad one. It's a fault. That's their argument.

You can't make that debate with them, right? Yeah, so Adam, if they have to know what red is, which is the jukje chuh here, the thing you're trying to prove about apples, if they have to see it at that moment, is that red a chi tsen or a rang tsen? That's the point.

[Speaker 3]
Red.

[Speaker 1]
I guess for them, are they looking at an apple? Or just in the mental image of an apple, they'd have to have it beforehand. Yeah, it would be a chi tsen, I would think.

I don't know. I'm not sure. But what I'm saying is, the whole argument here is the difference between the jukje, right?

And the relationship between the chuh chen and the jukje chuh. It's interesting. You know, relationships between parts of a syllogism obviously are conceptual.

But whether sound is changing, that could be observable. That's the argument, right? So what I mean is, when you give an argument to anyone and you say A is B, if they have not already perceived A, and if they have not already perceived B, it's a bad argument.

If they don't know what changing means, or they don't know what sound means, then to tell them sound is changing is... So first they have to have confirmed sound as a thing, and they have to have confirmed changing as a thing. And the point I think that Thaydubje is making is, are those perceptions perceptions of an actual thing in the world?

Or are they perceptions of concepts? If I say you take sound, it's changing because it's me. Then there's a rule in logic that you have to know what sound is, and you have to know what changing is, for me to say that to you.

If you don't know what those mean, if I say shabda, chodchen, nitya, anitya, if I say something in Sanskrit and you don't know Sanskrit, then I made a logical mistake. So the assumption is that the opponent has always perceived the subject under consideration and what you're trying to prove about it before you made your statement. They know what sound is.

They know what changing is. Now the question that's coming up here is, at that point, are they using archetypes? Or have they used actual occurrences of the thing in the world?

Before you made the argument to them about sound being changing, did they confirm sound? And did they confirm the meaning of changing directly in front of them? Or was it for them some kind of conceptual exercise?

What do you think? I mean, it would have to be something physical or something directly experienced, right? Yeah, at some point they would have had to see, like I broke a cup today at my house.

They would have had to see that, you see, to know what impermanent means or changing means, right? But I think what Keterje, the point he's making, I've been chewing on this for days and days. What he's saying is, when you see changing for the first time, maybe it's the real thing in the world and not an idea.

And when you experience sound for the first time, it's not the idea, it's the real thing in the world, right? But when you come to the realization that sound is changing, then both are conceptual. They change from actual to conceptual.

Geshe-la, can I ask you a question? Yep. Are you saying that...

You get the point though, before you ask me a question? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Yes, I understand what you're saying.

I say sound is changing. That's a statement. And then the words sound and the word changing in that statement are purely conceptual, okay?

But when I say, look, I want to make an argument to you, but I just want to check first. Do you know what sound is? And do you know what changing is?

And you'll say, yeah, I heard some music today, or I saw a car get in an accident. I saw it change. Those are directly observed manifestations of an archetype in the world.

But it's funny, when you tie them together into a statement, they both move into the realm of conceptual. They move out of the realm of archetypical. They move into the realm of archetypes.

So a drachi, is it a rangchen? No. Drachi is a chitan?

Yeah, so... I mean, roughly it's a chitan, okay? There may be mushi, musim, I don't know.

Because it sounds like what you're describing is a drachi. Well, it's one kind of... What is a drachi?

It's like when you've heard about something, or it's like a memory of something. A drachi is when you've just heard about it, and a dunchi is when you've seen it directly. By the way, your thought just now that it's a memory is coming up soon.

The role of memory in this discussion is about to come up. But a dunchi is a chitan also, typically, right? I would say they're both chitans.

I mean, whether you are closing your eyes and thinking of the Eiffel Tower because your history teacher told you about it, or you are closing your eyes and thinking about the Eiffel Tower because you went there five years ago, in both cases they are conceptual, I would say. Archetypes. One is called an archetype based on your direct previous experience, and one is called an archetype based on a report of your history teacher in high school.

And I won't take any, I'll just take, just to close the loop on the thought that it, so based on what you were saying, it sounded like you were saying like your experience, like when you say sound, don't you know what that is? And I'm like, yeah. I heard some Cuban music just before the class.

That's why I was late, in fact. If I say Cuban music and then you think about it now, isn't that a dunchi? Like, isn't that an archetype?

That's an archetype.

[Speaker 2]
And also, it seems like the way you're asking the question, Nick, right? Like we're kind of smooshing together the object, the idea, and the mind looking at the idea. So if you say like, when I'm looking at a thing, which of these is it?

I think all three of these are involved a lot of the time. So we can't just say, which is it? Like there's a thing out there that may be a changing thing that in this school we say is real, then I have an idea of the thing, which may be what I'm actually looking at when I think I'm looking at the thing.

And my mind is neither of those.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, we have a question in the house here. You want to, Nancy?

[Speaker 2]
Isn't it just, you know, you can't hear sound and then think sound without it changing from a changing thing to an archetype.

[Speaker 1]
That's going to come up. That argument's going to come up. By the time you perceive a sound, it's not the sound it was when it started to head towards you.

And there's an argument here that all personal perceptions are memories or ruminating. They call it ruminating. Okay, let's get back to Adam's text.

He'll never finish anything. He won't have a lousy homework next. Okay, I'm going to check your translation.

Okay, the nonetheless is easy. That's correct. There are two types of deduction.

Oh, this is a quotation up to Chepa in the middle of the second line. All the way up to Chepa, okay. Yeah, and it's in meter if you check it.

,CHE BAG DANG NIR RANG BZHED PA'I, ,YI SEMS DANG LAS BDUN DO YIN, So he's quoting the Pramanavarttika.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. I'll kind of, yeah, I'll go back and do that, I guess, whenever.

[Speaker 1]
Deductive perceptions are of two different types depending on whether their point is perceived through, or their point is perceived through a reason, a logical reason in the process of the three confirmations. Okay, and by the way, I'm sure you guys all remember what the two Jepas here.

[Speaker 3]
For oneself and others?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, RANG BZHED PA'I. Say RANG BZHED JEPA'I.

[Speaker 3]
RANG BZHED JEPA'I.

[Speaker 1]
GZHAN BZHED JEPA'I.

[Speaker 3]
GZHAN BZHED JEPA'I.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so here's the RANG BZHED here, okay. Got it? So this quotation from Master Dharmakirti, by the way, his text is incredibly thick, okay?

Extraordinary. We debate one page for four or five days, okay? JEPA'I RNAM NYID, period.

Okay, Adam?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Deduction is of two different types, period. RNAM NYID, the kind that is used to prove something to yourself, you see? Like you're by yourself in your house and you're trying to prove this thing to yourself.

That's called RANG BZHED JEPA'. It's a beautiful distinction, right? When you're trying to prove something to yourself and when you're trying to prove something to somebody else, okay?

And how does the logic differ when you're trying to figure out something yourself and then when you're trying to convey it to somebody else, okay? So anyway, JEPA'I RNAM NYID, stop. Deduction is of two different types.

RANG BZHED NYID, the kind that is meant to be used by yourself when you're sitting alone at the breakfast table, okay? Depends on seeing the fact that you're thinking about, seeing the conclusion, right? DON MTHONG, the process of a reason which is complete in the three required relationships of a good syllogism.

One is three. Three, two. If not two, not three.

Okay, cool. Okay, JEPA'I RNAM NYID RGYAL TE Yeah, he says, I'm not contradicting that statement, okay? I'm not contradicting that statement.

But why? ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA, LTA YANG DAG GI DU BYA ZHIG RGYAL BA'I KHYAB That's a profound statement in the argument that we've been struggling through. I'll say it again.

ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA What's that mean? Yeah, Adam translated it. If something is a deductive accurate perception, then LTA YANG DAG GI DU BYA ZHIG RGYAL BA'I KHYAB If something is an accurate perception resulting from deduction, it must be ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA It must be ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA And here's the present tense, ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA This is ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA This is ZHUNG DE BYED PAR TSE MA YIN NA in sheep's clothing. That's what I had for evaluating.

Yeah, it's fine, okay? So it must... I'll say it again.

If something is deduction, deduction perception, perception based on correct deduction, it must be a case where you are considering the proposal of the other guy in light of a good reason. What's the proposal of the other guy? All sounds are changing.

And then, well, what's your reason? Because they're main. So here it says, you're trying to analyze the DRUG BYA, his assertion.

All sounds are changing, right? DBYAL BA You are weighing his statement through a BDAG YANG DAG, okay? Through a reason, because they're main.

Because they're main. You are trying to evaluate the truth of his proposal, all sounds are changing, by thinking about or considering... Maybe consider is good for DBYAL BA.

We've been using that for SHEL BYA. Yeah. Well, DBYAL is SHEL.

You see what I mean? It's the present tense of SHEL. We see SHEL BYA because that's the future tense of DBYAL.

Okay? It's very confusing. Okay?

When you see DBYAL, forget it. It's SHEL. Okay?

It's just a tense thing.

[Speaker 3]
Okay?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. BYAL BA TSE PA BSTAN PA'I YIN GYI BYAS PA'I TSE MA'I SHES BYANG YIN NA It is not saying that if something is under consideration by a deduction, it doesn't have to be a word that's conveyed when you're translating something. And if I can...

DA YANG DAG GIS DU BYED YIN DGOS PAR BSTAN PA'I Yeah, that's correct out of your translation. It's a tough translation, but that's true. Good.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
I think we were...

[Speaker 1]
Which the main point here is... Here, you ready? So put your seat belt on.

All right. BYAS PA'I TSE MA'I SHES BYANG YIN NA If something is being considered by a state of mind which is deducing, a deduction, and it's correct, DA YANG DAG GIS DU BYED YIN Sorry. If something is under consideration by correct, by deduction, by accurate deduction, if something is under consideration, it doesn't mean it has to be proven by a correct reason.

You can think about the truth of a proposal. Your thinking can be deduction, but that doesn't mean that what you're trying to prove is related to a correct reason. And I think it means...

When someone presents a logical statement to you, first, you have to go through that thing of confirming each element in the statement from your own personal experience with wrong sense, with actual things in your life. And then, once you've done that, you can go and make generalizations. Yes, your statement is true in every case.

And when you make... When it shifts from evaluation to conclusion, evaluating the separate pieces of an argument and seeing if those things exist in your world, and then it shifts to a general truth, then the objects you're dealing with change from personally experienced objects to general... to archetypes.

Then they become archetypes. And they're the same things. That's the frustrating thing.

The sound is still sound before someone proves you something about it. And then, as they prove it, or after they state their proof, it changes to a concept. The same word, the same thing.

Sound. The sound of Sima funk, Cuban music. When you're experiencing it, it's a thing in the world.

It's an actual thing in the world. It's not an archetype. And then if somebody says, I think that music's bad, then because I don't like the bass player, then that becomes a concept.

Then the band which used to be a direct object of your personal experience becomes a concept when it's part of a truth statement. The band's no good because the bass player's no good. See what I mean?

The same band, which used to be a personally perceivable object, becomes a concept. That's the whole point of this whole argument. I think.

And then, I mean, they're not just, and I think about this when I'm in the bathroom. Today, every time I'm in the bathroom, when you're 69.9, that's pretty frequently. When I'm thinking, I start to think, well, why are they talking about all this, right?

And the point is, is it true when you perceive anything that you are seeing the opposite of everything it's not? When I see this glass here, am I perceiving this glass by canceling everything that it's not? See?

What's the glass, Geshe-la? Well, think about everything in the room that's not the glass. Okay, I got it.

Now cancel all that. What's left? Oh, there's this glass hanging in empty space.

And at that point, it is luminous. It is very similar to the object that comes out of a karmic seed. It's very interesting.

Okay, so that's where they're going with all this. They're going with all this. And is that luminous object an unchanging archetype?

Whereas when you were holding in your hand and the guy was starting to talk about what is this thing, at that point, it was a personal experience. I think Anatole and I were talking a little bit about this too, and how it would apply to sound rather than just cups or things that are objects or objects of the eye consciousness. This would also apply to objects of the ear consciousness, right?

Yeah, now, first, great Lama, if you know who I'm talking about, he said, visual experience is about 60% of human perception. What you see with your eyeballs is about 60% of a human's life is visual. So, we live in that realm.

So, for us, visual, it's easier when you're trying to prove subtle truths to talk about something visible, like the mind only does. They say, don't talk about blue. They keep talking about blue.

Sound is okay, but according to the Abhidharma, Stanley, are you there? I don't know, you're sick probably. I think- I'm here, I'm here.

Yeah, I said, what does the Abhidharma say about sound?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's so fluctuable. Hey, that's a word.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it comes and goes so quickly. Yeah, that is not- It's not, yeah, it's somehow, it doesn't have the same ontological status as colors. It's so temporary that it's hard to grab onto.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, I would say, Adam, in answer to your question, it's that, in general, I would say taking sound as the object of a discussion, a logical discussion, is less desirable than taking something you can see, because you kind of experience it differently. Okay, yeah. Because I was, yeah, I was trying to think, I think one of the reasons I was asking, I was kind of having a discussion with some people after the last class, and I was trying to figure out that even when you say sound is changing, even when you say sound, you're still going through this process of kind of negating it, or you're still going through this process of trying to establish what sound you're experiencing versus what is not. And so you're canceling everything that's not that sound.

So even if I say sound, that still seems to me to be archetypal. Yeah. Like if I'm posing, like you were breaking it down into the two separate elements, but I saw this kind of, this point at which it doesn't matter, you could reduce it down to each letter and spelling it out.

And each one of those individual letters, or each one of the individual kind of components of a sentence would end up being its own concept. Yeah, by the way, that's how the Abhidharma school defines emptiness. They say if you can reduce something mentally to parts, it's empty.

That's their definition of emptiness. It's very interesting. You were flirting with the Abhidharma idea of emptiness right there.

If it can be reduced mentally, it's empty. It has no self-nature. It's interesting.

What I've been, you know, Adam, I spent a lot, sorry, I spent a lot of weeks working on your text together, your first book, and it's coming out, when's it coming out? In a month or something. December, it's coming out in December.

And it's a major, major, major contribution to the wisdom of the world. And in there, what I mean is, if all these schools were taught by the Buddha, okay, and if he taught them purposely because he knew they would help you get to the highest one, if I ask you, Adam, how are these difficult ideas helping us to reach the highest idea of things being produced from karmic seeds in our mind? Well, it's a graduated kind of stepwise process that one has to go through.

Yeah, these ideas are setting us up for that. And they're not just some kind of, I mean, I used to think they were dumb ideas of a lower school. And now I think they are time bombs put in your mind by the Buddha.

Set cut purposely to go off later. Yes, that's, I mean, I wasn't trying to necessarily just go through this kind of add, like this kind of reductio, kind of add infinitum process with individual kind of elements. I think what I was trying to highlight is that, like if I hear the sound of a fire engine kind of going by outside, my mind has to go through the process of establishing everything that it's not in order to arrive at what it is.

And like you were just saying, that once you do that, then it becomes this kind of luminous image. And it could be called unchanging at that point. Right.

If the sound of the firetruck is being considered as the opposite of all that it is not, that double reverse we call it in Adam's text is an unchanging object. And that's why it's luminous. It's interesting.

Yeah. And I think, well, that's kind of why I was, so I appreciate what you're saying. I definitely appreciate what you're saying about the Abhidharma presentation of emptiness.

But yeah, I guess I was, yeah, I guess what I was trying to say in reference to what you were just saying about how I was kind of drawing these connections between that and this establishment of physical objects as mental images appearing in my world. And I was relating that almost to the highest school. Yeah, I like it.

I think if you had to make a mind map, you get the seeds in this logic schools, the Pramana guys I call them, Dharmakirti and Vijnanagara, then you get the seeds planted of archetypes. They want to talk about archetypes a lot. And then when you move up to the next school, they're saying in a way that archetypes are all there is.

And there is no cup personally experienced on the outside. Everything is archetypes. Your mind is always dealing in archetypes only.

And then it's like they went too far on the highway. They moved to the right lane too far. And then my speaker guys say, no, no, no, come back to the center a little bit.

You're going to kill somebody walking on the sidewalk. You know what I mean? That's too, come back a little bit and you can talk about archetypes, but the archetypes are so goddamn good that outside things do exist.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Nancy has a question.

[Speaker 2]
Can you talk about luminous?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, luminous is a good question. It's a great, great question. And it's answered in Adam's book extraordinarily.

So if I just think of the cup without considering it much, right? In which here is being called as an object of, sorry, as an actual thing in the world, right? Just without examining it.

It's easy. Here I got a cup in my hand, okay? Now, if some philosopher comes along and says, do you realize that what's really going on when you see a cup is that you are thinking of everything that's not the cup and you are canceling that to arrive back at the cup.

But the cup you arrive back at is a concept. It's an archetype. Before you did the double flip, it was a normal old guy cup.

And then you perceived it, then you thought of it as the opposite of all that it's not. I like to call that the bus station. Why?

Or the train station. Why? Oh, you are looking for someone with a ticket.

Yeah, this is an actual experience I had in Germany. We ran to the train station. We need to catch a train quickly.

And it was Sylvia Engelhardt, I think. And what, Anatole? Where's the tickets?

In this story. Come on, you got to learn all grandpa's stories. That one, because I didn't hear that one.

So you were in Germany on a train? Yeah, no, it's a real story. And then we said, Sylvia, where's the tickets?

She said, well, I don't have the tickets. And we're like, well, well, well. With the train's leaving in three minutes.

She says, somebody's delivering the tickets. Somebody in the station has the tickets. There's 1,500 people milling around us.

And I'm like... And then you go through a process of elimination that's very important in this school. That's very important in this school.

Is the person with the ticket male or female? And then they say female. So you automatically cancel all the males in the train station.

You're not looking at males anymore. Then you say, is she tall or short? They say tall.

And then you immediately cancel all the short ladies. And the more she adds, the more people get rejected. And then one person stands out.

And that person by that time is a luminous image. Because they are the opposite of the opposite. They have moved from a real person in the train station to a concept.

Because they are no longer a person in the train station. They're everybody in the train station who's not the person who don't have the tickets. It's very interesting.

And then their mode of reality changes to purely archetypical. And that's only a mental image. And that's shining because it's crafted by the mind solely.

In the mind. It's a pure product of imagination. And it has a subtle experiential nature.

When you first see it, you will say it's shining. Somehow it's shiny. It's luminous.

By the way, that's what comes out of a karmic scene. When it's built. And that's wow.

All this stuff ties together to very amazing stuff. And what's the whole purpose of this in the end? $100 question.

To be able to catch the seed cracking open in your mind and see the luminous image coming out. Yeah, but how can that help you? I mean, in this process, you're able to kind of progress through the five stages.

[Speaker 3]
Wait, wait.

[Speaker 1]
The birth, dependent origination, then emptiness. I'm going to raise the bet. $300, okay?

I'm going to- Put him back in the kitchen.

[Speaker 2]
I want a single- He's trying to load the image into the scene.

[Speaker 1]
I want a single phrase from the Yoga Sutra. We must become as gardeners. Yay!

But I want it in Sanskrit in a time. I hate to shake a truck around. Wow.

If you understand all this stuff, you can design your future. Oh, that's what Rosa said. $150 for Rosa.

And who was the other person?

[Speaker 3]
I don't- Anatole. Anatole.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, $150 to the Kairi School Fund. $150 to the Rosa's Cat and Dog Fund. Get that kid some rain boots.

Let's go. By the way, you guys have to collect your own money. I told this story.

I went to Japan a couple weeks ago. There's this older gentleman in the class and he was on fire. I was like, wow, who are you?

I said, how did you get here? He said, you bet me $100 like two years ago and you never paid. I was like, oh my god.

So you guys got to... This is a self-collecting system. You have to contact L.A. to collect your money. It's not my problem, okay? Don't come to a talk two years from now and start with me. Okay, Adam, I'm sorry.

Let's go to $300. We finished $329. Oh, you got two $330s.

You're special. Oh, yeah, sorry. Yeah, I meant to...

I've got to go back and renumber. We changed. Yeah, don't stress.

It'll change a couple more times. So you don't actually have to spend this. Okay, let's see $331 here.

Can you read it, Adam? Yes, sir. ,'ONG NA, ,'BYED PAR GSAN MED, ,'BYED PAR GSAN MED, ,'CHI TZIN GEL NA, ,ZHI DANG GEL BAR GEL BA'AM, ,MAN GEL BAR GEL GZHAN NA, Yeah, don't forget this.

Gel is actually the present tense of? Consider. Shell, shell.

G-E-C-H-A-L, power shell. Yeah. Okay, good.

,'ONG NA, Who's talking, Adam? Well, we're posing a hypothetical question that someone else may ask. We can say the other guy is talking, okay?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, in fact, we even give him mannerisms. Well, then.

Well, okay, well, then. ,'BYED PAR GSAN MED, If G-E-P-A-R GSAN MED gels a chi tzin, what does that mean? If deductive, correct, accurate perception gels a chi tzin, what does that mean?

It considers something, considers a conceptualization is what I have. Archetype, yeah. If you perceive an archetype with logic, logical process, okay?

Is that archetype necessarily related to a certain object? Okay, she means, does it have a referent? Does that archetype refer to something?

Or does it not have to refer to something? Can an archetype just hang out there in your head without reference to something in the real world, for example? Okay, or without a connection to another part of a logical statement.

[Speaker 2]
Purple elephants. Well, you would have to be having a G-E-P-A-R GSAN MED of it, so I don't think it can just be purple elephants.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sorry. If deduction perceives something which is an archetype, does that archetype have to be related to something else or not? I think it does in this case, if it's a G-E-P-A-R GSAN MED.

Yeah, and by the way, I think he's talking about the TSUL TSUL. I think he's talking about the three relationships in a good logical statement, okay? What you're talking about has to be the...

Okay? One has to be three. If it's three, it's two.

If it's not two, it's not two. These are the three. I call it the three confirmation steps.

If a statement is correct, there has to be three confirmations. One has to be three. If it's three, it has to be two.

If it's not two, it has to be three. In the case of... Let's take sound.

It's a changing thing because it's made. The other guy has to see that sound is... Yeah, he has to see that sound is made.

He has to see that one is three. He has to agree to that already. And he has to see that if it's made, it must be changing.

He has to see the relationship between three and two. And he has to see that if it's not two, it's not three. If it's not made, it couldn't...

I'm sorry. If it wasn't changing, it couldn't be made. So when those terms or when those components, changing, made, and sound, when they're hanging out there on their own, you know, maybe you can experience them directly.

But as soon as you put them in a logical statement, they become concepts. They become archetypes. You're talking about pictures of things in your head.

So his question is, and I think especially in a logical statement, if you're trying to... Let me make sure that I see. If you're trying to...

If you're trying to reach a conclusion about an archetype in a logical statement, does that archetype have to be related to something else? And I would take that on two levels. Does it have to correspond to an object in the outside world?

A, related to an object on the outside world? Or can it just hang there as an idea? First question.

Second question. Does it have to have a relationship to the other parts of the logical statement? Okay, does changing have to have a relationship to made?

Does made have a relationship to sound?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
All right. When you put that object into a logical statement, and it becomes conceptual, archetypical, and it's not the real cup anymore, it's not really changing there, does it have to have a connection to something else or not? Can an archetype just float out there on its own without interrelating with anything else?

That's his question. In a deduction, in a deductive statement. He says that.

It's a nice question. And then what's the answer, Adam, in 332? ,ZHIG RANG SBRAL BAR SBYAL BA'I SKYAB STE, ,SKYAB STE, ,'JES PAR TSE MED RANG GI ZHAL BYA YIN NA, ,THAG LA BRTEN NAS SBYAL BA'I SKYAB PA'I PHYIR RO, Yeah, and our answer is, we always, we always, that thing is always under consideration by a human mind in relationship to another object.

Okay, never by itself. It's always in relation to another object. What is the other object in this case?

,JES PAR TSE MED RANG GI ZHAL BYA YIN NA, ,THAG LA BRTEN NAS SBYAL BA'I SKYAB PA'I PHYIR, You cannot perceive one of the general truths of this logical statement if you're divorced from the correct reason. Okay, the sound and the fact that it's changing only have meaning if you're considering them in light of them being made. If you're talking about the elements of a logical statement as archetypes, then they have to relate to the reason.

They have to. They don't have any other reality. They have no archetype reality on their own.

They got to be connected with something else. What is this something else? Because it's made.

And this proves that there have to be unchanging at this point. I would say, I would say that, yeah. And then that relates to the luminous image in the highest school coming out of a seed, which you first experience when?

At which point in the five paths do you first directly observe a luminous image? PHUR LAM CHOD CHOG Yeah, two hours before you see emptiness directly. Only then.

That's the first time. That's the only possible first time. Okay, if you can get there, that's why the hell we're talking about archetypes.

You know, if you can see an archetype in your mind, you are two hours from seeing emptiness directly. And if you're on a Bodhisattva track, you are two hours from stepping from planet to planet to every existing planet in the universe. That's kind of cool.

Maybe I will study this. I'm serious. You can even make four pizzas manifest.

[Speaker 2]
So if we're not talking about a cup or a physical thing, if we're talking about love.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is it that the concept love is related to its definition? You could be how it fits into this statement. Yeah.

In this argument, they're saying, well, I think they would, but they would start by saying of the three kinds of changing things, what are the three kinds of changing things? Physical changing things, awareness changing things, the changing of your perceptions, and then those changing things which are neither physical nor mental. And those are concepts like Michael is the classical one, or karmic seed is a classical one, and love is a classical one.

It's a concept.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But if you're talking about love as an experience in your mind, like as a sensual, mental... Yeah, no, if we're taking it out of the physical... If you're talking about love as a concept, it's a demonduchi.

It's a changing thing which is neither physical nor mental. And similar to the status of existence of a karmic seed, which is simple potential.

[Speaker 3]
Is it in the brain?

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Does it perceive things? No.

Is it mental? No. It doesn't perceive things.

It's not alive. It's a possibility. It exists as a possibility.

Is it changing? Yeah, if it doesn't change it, I'm not going to get the pizza. If the seed doesn't come out into a pizza, yeah.

So it's a changing thing, right? Yeah. Does it perceive things?

No. Is it physical? No.

So let's put it in category three of changing things. It's changing things which are neither mental nor physical. And what he's saying here is that...

The luminous image, where do you put that? That's the question. The seed is an interesting question.

The seed is a possibility. It's the energy. It's a potential.

It has no physical reality. You can pile all the seeds from billions of lifetimes on the tip of a pin because they have no physicality. And neither do they perceive anything themselves.

They are not mind. Okay, but they live in the mind. Okay, how's that?

Okay. Anyway, what I want to say is Adam's first book was really hard to get through. And they kept playing games with us.

Like, what's the opposite of the opposite of the opposite of the opposite of the opposite? You know, and then we're gonna... Yeah, yeah.

This kind of thing that kids debate in the monastery. And they do, right? And it's funny because in the monastery, that book is kind of looked down on in a way.

Oh, that's what I studied when I was seven. That's what they taught me before I got into the debate ground. You get to come into the debate ground at age 15.

You're not allowed before. So before that, you have to sit and read this little logic text book. Primers, they're for kids.

But when we translated it and we worked on it, it's amazing. It's extraordinary. Just the first argument, can red be white?

Can white be red? It has extraordinary implications for, can we make a perfect world? You see, it's unbelievable.

It's an extraordinary book. And I took Adam's book, section by section, and turned it into a DCI business program. And that's coming out in December.

And it is, it's a kick-ass. It's awesome. So anyway, that's what we do with it.

That's what the Mixed Nuts do. Nobody's ever gonna buy our books, okay? Get used to it, you guys.

I mean, your mom will maybe. But my mom did. But if you know how to, like Nick has been working, he's in charge of that department for DCI.

They take the books and they turn them into real life strategies for your personal life, for your business life. That's awesome. That's what the Mixed Nuts do.

I claim that these three little sections that took us a whole hour to cover, can go immediately into somebody's business plan. And they will make the largest diamond jewelry company in the world with no experience. And Warren Buffett will buy it.

Okay? Okay. Back to you, Nicholas.

Thank you. Thank you, Geshe-la. Thank you for a good term, Geshe-la.

Thank you. Thank you, Adam. And thanks for hanging in there.

I know you haven't felt well. And I know you're, I don't know. By the way, Adam with his daughter has climbed like the five highest peaks in Colorado recently.

We've done many more than that. We've done many more by now, yeah. I just see the ones that are in the signs.

But anyway, I'm amazed that, I think all that exercise helps your brain work, actually.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, definitely does.

[Speaker 1]
All right. I got a message from Allison that she will be coming to the next class. They had a lot going on because they just got back from traveling.

Okay. All right. All right, let's take five and come back for that class.

Okay. See you then, Nicholas. All right.

Thank you, Geshe-la. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for hanging in with this tough stuff.

Yeah, tough stuff.