Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 30

[Speaker 3]
I'll just make a quick announcement.

[Speaker 1]
We've got classes this morning with Mr. Adam Gibson, and we have yoga with Leia, and this afternoon we have yoga with Nicole Majewski, and I think we can get started whenever you're ready, Adam.

[Speaker 3]
We don't hear you, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'm muted. I had to step to the bathroom there for a second. I always like to hydrate.

I think I overhydrate in the mornings. Can we say that recollections are objects under consideration? Can we say that Cheche is our shell and gel?

No, I guess they're not, but didn't we go back and forth about this a little bit, that it seemed like we were using shell in a wider context? Yeah, shell and gel, and I think, you know, well, here, yeah, totally. There was something that was inconclusive, it felt like, but we did reach.

Gashland made a really good point that I thought was pretty conclusive about this. Where did it go? There it is.

Okay, so yeah, so Sartranticus would say that recollections cannot be objects under consideration, because being an object under consideration would imply that the object is something which can be perceived by an accurate perception, and you got to recall that we have a list of like six different things that are synonyms for an existence or existing thing, and shell gel is one of those. And let's see, so I'll put all those down there. So given that shell gel is a synonym for existing thing, and the definition for existing thing is anything which someone can perceive using an accurate perception, we can deduce that Sartranticus say that recollections cannot function as objects under consideration.

Because the definition of an accurate perception is a fresh and unmistaken state of awareness.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, that sounds pretty solid to me.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah, it does. I could swear that we had an issue with that though where it looked like the word gel was being used in a broader context.

Your logic is airtight. But I'm not sure that we thought it was used that way in the first. Yeah.

Yeah, and I just wanted to point out for everybody that may be, you know, tuning in for like maybe new to the mix nuts. This is a pretty cool list to memorize if you didn't want to go back to. If you wanted to go to my Dura.

All these terms are defined, and there's some pretty cool definitions in there, you can go look in the wrong section of the Dura. Some pretty cool stuff to commit memory.

[Speaker 3]
So my first thought Adam though was that your first question was, well, did you say church in.

[Speaker 2]
I didn't.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, so if you'd said what's under consideration.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right. Thanks. Thanks.

Is it possible to have a deductive accurate perception of the fact that sound is changing while also perceiving a sound itself.

[Speaker 3]
Not in this school.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and you know I think this would this would actually hold between all the schools. And it's a pretty it's, you know, I had a little time, we only covered like two sections. So I had a little bit of a hard time kind of coming up with with homework stuff but.

So, it's pretty straightforward. And basically saying that you can't hold two perceptions at the same time. Right.

At the exact same time. So if we're perceiving. If we're perceiving that sound has the quality of being changing, then we can't also be perceiving sound itself.

And maybe I could be off about that but. So, why does KJ say that the second moment of perception of the color blue must not be a perception of the color blue anymore.

[Speaker 3]
As it's a perception of the memory.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah. I guess he did this parallel reason with so much time thinking about it with, with a logical perception of sound being changing, and that somehow perceiving it again later is like not needed because you already did it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that is what he said.

And particularly, it was just, you got it, you hit it right on that you hit the nail right on the head. He was just using a parallel reasoning. Yeah, KJ appears to be using parallel reasoning to point out an absurd consequence of that would not have that, but that would arise given Patrick's assertions.

Recall that the material from this class is centered on determining accurateness of a recollection of the deduction of that sound is a changing thing. The parallel reasoning here is highlighting that if it's true that a recollection of the fact that sound is changing is not an accurate perception in the second moment of our perception of the color blue must also be inaccurate, because it's recollection. And I wasn't too.

I found this in. Anybody haven't told us talking can be.

[Speaker 3]
I, I have an idea, but please.

[Speaker 1]
But I think other people should struggle.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I assure you I'm struggling in silence.

[Speaker 1]
It's idiomatic of, of that reasoning and so forth.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, totally. And I like that. I found it in one of one of the ACI courses, just logical inconsistency.

[Speaker 1]
Adam, you got to look at the chat.

[Speaker 2]
What do we see here, let me see if I can pull up the chat. What am I missing.

[Speaker 1]
To talk more slow down please. Yeah, I guess she's talking about you not me.

[Speaker 2]
Adam for slowly prying the title of bestest talker out of my hands. I was winning for a while. I slow down too much then I'll take the position back but I don't want it.

Well, I knew that I was reading kind of fast because it was one of the questions, but I figured it didn't matter because it's all written down and it's been translated. But I'll definitely slow down. Thank you for the reminder galaxy.

I feel like I'm going pretty slow this morning I woke up. The heart is slow but the mouth is willing.

[Speaker 1]
Hey Adam, can you blow this up a little bit.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, sir. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
So what does it mean.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, logical inconsistency.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So I should read these two right.

[Speaker 3]
Yes, please. Slowly.

[Speaker 2]
Definitely. Cheer colleague. Was it was a colleague.

Is that how you say slowly. Cheer team. So we're doing jail.

Tell me. Can't chase a secure one. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
So, you know, we're close to the end of this sections, I think we should have a little celebration. But, uh, I'll tell you where I've been thinking about it that I think will help a lot. And it's, it's like this.

Okay, so you finally. Finally, you're some person who thought that all the sound on was unchanging. And then, you know, somebody said to you, Dr. Chan, Dr. JP chair sound is a changing thing, because it is. It is produced by causes and conditions which change. So if the energy, which pushes a thing into existence modulates if it changes bigger and smaller. Then the result of that energy should also be changing.

So, for example, if, if a sound of my voice comes from the air in my lungs, since that quantity of air is always changing. Then the result that it produces should also be always changing. So let's say nine o'clock.

You figure out, figure that out, and it sounds good to you. And then at nine, 905, you think about it again. Okay, so at nine o'clock.

You realize that if sound is produced by the air in my lungs and that air is always changing. Then the result of that air, the sound should also be changing. Let's say you figure it out at nine o'clock.

And then 905. You question yourself again. And you, and again you use maybe even the same reason.

And at 905 you see that the sounds I am making with my voice. They must be changing because the air is changing in my lungs. Is that second perception a sama or not?

[Speaker 2]
I would say no.

[Speaker 1]
But it's correct. It's a correct perception. Let's put it now.

Here's the key, I think, and we haven't talked about it enough, I think. What's the definition of a correct perception in this school? SAR DU MI LUS DRIG PA SAR DU MI LUS DRIG PA It's an unmistaken perception, which is fresh.

A fresh, unmistaken perception. Because they say if you're sitting in a chair at 905 and you close your eyes, and you think about whether the sound your voice made at nine o'clock is a changing thing, you're not perceiving a fresh thing anymore. And so it's a memory and not a second induction.

You see what I mean? 905, especially if your eyes are closed and you're just thinking about it on the couch, that's just a memory. And in this school, a memory is not reliable.

It doesn't perceive the object 100% correctly. So the whole argument has been, if I perceive that my voice is a changing thing at nine o'clock in the morning, and that's a new perception. SAR DU MI LUS DRIG PA That object is fresh in my mind because I didn't understand it before.

And then at 905, if I think about it again, is that a correct perception or is that just a memory? You see what I mean? And if it's a memory, it doesn't fit the definition of a correct perception because it's not SAR DU MI LUS DRIG PA.

It's not fresh anymore. It's a review. I'm reviewing something.

Maybe CES SHES is like review. I'm just reviewing something I saw before. So I'll ask you, Adam.

If I figure something out at nine o'clock and then I get distracted by my daughter making noise in the kitchen and then at 905, I figure out the same thing again, is that a correct perception?

[Speaker 2]
We have been flipping. It seems like I'm still tempted to say no, it's not. So I'm not entirely sure.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I'll give you an idea I had. Is the changing quality of my voice at nine o'clock, the changing quality of my voice at 905?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Yeah, I think you could say that.

[Speaker 1]
It's a different voice by then.

[Speaker 2]
But it's still being applied to your voice.

[Speaker 1]
But it's a different voice by then.

[Speaker 2]
Changing quality is an unchanging thing though.

[Speaker 1]
And then it's a fresh perception. I'll just throw that out. And then he didn't say, he did not say the second perception of my voice changing was not a correct, accurate perception.

He said, if I go to 905, ma jeypar. Then he added this adverb, adverbial talk, ma jeypar, which means what? It's...

Without forgetting what I saw at nine o'clock. He added this phrase. I think he would say, look, at nine o'clock if you figure out that your voice is changing, that's an accurate perception.

Deduction. And then at 905, if you see your voice is changing, that's a different accurate perception because that's a different voice by 905. But if you add the phrase ma jeypar, without forgetting what you figured out at nine o'clock, then that throws the 905 perception into doubt.

Then that 905 perception might be just a recollection. You see what I mean? And then it doesn't count as an accurate perception anymore.

And then, if you want to go deeper, which I'm sure everybody does, he talked about how does the voice at nine o'clock relate to an actual object in the world? And how does the voice at 905 relate to an actual object in the world? Then he got into that.

You see what I mean? Because in a logical statement, the voice is an unchanging thing. It's a theoretical thing.

When you say my voice is changing because of the air in my lungs, all of those elements are theoretical entities. He gets into that. Is it connected to a real object or not?

He went through that. Anyway, the big question that we've been struggling through is five minutes later, if I figure it out again that my voice is changing because the air that went into it was a changing thing, is that second perception an accurate perception or is it just a memory? I think you could argue it.

But if you said ma je par, if you specify you didn't forget what you figured out before, then I think you might have to argue that the 905 perception is just a memory.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I think I get it now.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay, so what it says here is PHYIR TSE MA SNGA MA'I ZHANG BA'I BRDOD If you take the voice which was perceived by the first perception, the first logic at nine o'clock, that's what the first line here means. If you take the voice which was figured out to be changing by the accurate perception at nine o'clock, okay, just because, second line, just because you DBYEL BA it again, same verb, DBYEL BA and DBYEL BA are just different tenses of the same verb.

Okay? The first line DBYEL BA is past tense, okay? The thing that you figured out at nine o'clock, DBYEL BA, past tense, just because you DBYEL BA it again, okay, just because you consider the same object again, or just because you see the same object again at 905, which is your voice, that doesn't necessarily make it a BYED ZHES, third line.

BYED ZHES SU DBYEL BA MA YIN Just because you see the same object you saw at nine o'clock, and you use logic again at 905 and see the same object, that doesn't make it, that doesn't make the second perception an untrustworthy recollection. Because what if you figure it out again at 905?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, well then it's fresh.

[Speaker 1]
Then the voice that you're thinking of is a different voice. It's the 905 voice. So you're not perceiving the same object, okay?

Okay? That's his final position. He says, look, just because at 905 you're figuring out something about the voice that you were figuring out something at nine o'clock, that's not necessarily a memory.

Maybe it's a fresh realization. You see what I mean? Maybe you figured it out again.

And the object of that 905 perception is a different voice. Because the voice is impermanent. You get it?

Because the voice is changing, because you will lose your voice as you get closer to 70 and 75, 80. It's a changing entity. The one you see at nine o'clock, unfortunately, it's not the one you see at 905.

Then he bails out. Okay, Adam? And what's he say?

DE RGYUD TZANG RGYAS PA'OG TU CHE He bails out on us.

[Speaker 2]
We're going to talk about this later.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, let's talk about this more later. It's like he's getting tired of this class. He's like, let's move on to something else, you guys.

All right. Yay. Anyway, what he's playing with, the definition of an accurate perception in this school, it must be fresh.

But I would say, look, if the perception at 905 is not a new perception of a new object, a new logical perception, then you never have an accurate perception in your whole life because you've perceived everything before in past lives. If that's the standard, then you've never had an accurate perception in your whole life because there's nothing you haven't seen before. There's nothing you haven't thought of before, basically.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go to 339 because it's the first thing we can easily understand in the last five classes or so.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
I like your translation. The Lomba is perfect for... By the way, the Lomba is about being a Khyapa.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Most people who have delusions of being masters, you see what I mean?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Most people who have delusions of being masters, they didn't even tetsamsak about this.

[Speaker 2]
They didn't even have any doubt, concern.

[Speaker 1]
They didn't even wonder about it. They just... Okay.

What's the definition of sema? Oh, it's a new accurate perception. Okay.

What's next? And then K. Dubjay says, God, they didn't even wonder if the perception five minutes later was still inaccurate.

You know, most people, they didn't even think about it. Good. Yeah.

They didn't even think about it. And those who did think about it a little bit, okay, chung se shupa, those who wondered about it a little bit, they were completely clueless. Okay.

And I want you to catch the nangmo at the end. Nangmo.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
He's being polite. He's being polite.

[Speaker 2]
They're clueless. It just looks like they're clueless.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, he's softening his criticism. He says, I don't know. I mean, it means I might be wrong, but it looks like they have no idea at all.

They're completely... tul ma chung means clueless, you know, completely confused about this. It seems to me...

[Speaker 2]
He used ma chung.

[Speaker 1]
It seems like they might be. He's just being polite.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, good.

[Speaker 2]
And it looks... I mean, he also used ma chung par nang up there too. That's what...

It was... I didn't know if we need to... Yeah, okay.

Everyone...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, ma chung means they never even got into this question.

[Speaker 2]
Right, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. And he said it's weird if you understand the definition of an accurate perception. And the definition in this school, and not in high schools, by the way, but the definition in this school requires that the perception be fresh.

Well, what if you figure the same thing out five minutes later? You know? Then is that an accurate perception?

And if it's not, then the changing sound at 9.05 is a non-entity. It doesn't even exist. You see?

Then you get really weird. Because it's not being perceived by an accurate perception.

[Speaker 3]
Cool.

[Speaker 2]
It's not great. Yeah, it brings up... Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Then the changing sound that you perceive at 9.05 is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And that gets really weird.

[Speaker 2]
But people have lousy perceptions of things that exist all the time, of course.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but that... No, that thing that they are perceiving at that moment is a non-entity. Because it doesn't respond exactly to what you see with good logic.

[Speaker 2]
When you say non-entity, you mean non-existent, Mipham?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean non-existent. Anything which is less than a 100% accurate copy of an object doesn't exist. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
But a person could have an inaccurate perception. A person could use faulty logic to arrive at an assumption about the existence of something that Nam Khyen sees, or that someone else with good logic sees. And then we might say that that object exists, but that that person arrived at it for the wrong reason.

And thus they don't have a tsema, they don't have a pramana. But the thing exists.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it exists to the other person. How's that?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. To Nam Khyen, to the other person, to you, to me, even though that person is wrong from our perspective.

[Speaker 1]
What he's trying to get at, and don't forget, one of the whole purposes of this book is to prove that the Buddha is accurate, the unfailing person. So what they see is ultimately real. What can I see ultimately?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, in this school, we can.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and if it's seen with lesser authority, then that version of the thing doesn't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe-la, is this list of synonyms for existence, is this exhaustive?

[Speaker 1]
I can think of... Shijia is missing. Oh no, Shijia is there.

You know, you have a bunch of...

[Speaker 2]
Yujuk is there, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's one other weird one I can't remember. You got a pretty good list.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You got a pretty good list. Yep, okay. Okay, let's...

And by the way, today's class is a well-deserved entertainment by K.B.J. Okay. And he's not going to let you stay there very long, but let's enjoy it while we're there.

[Speaker 2]
That's all the new notes, Geshe-la. Thank you for all the hard work.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I sweated over you. I call them the three unbreakables. It's the Buddha's text, Adam's text, and who's the third one?

Oh, we're... I mean, Master Kramer's text is also a pain in the ass, and Steven's text is a pain in the ass. But right now, we're at a soft part in those two.

So, not so bad. By the way, Adam, I'm going to interrupt your class for one second.

[Speaker 2]
To honk your horn.

[Speaker 1]
Can you see this advertisement?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, we're having a two-day Chinese New Year show.

[Speaker 2]
One of these pictures is not like the others.

[Speaker 1]
At the Peachtree World News. By the way, this is a Mexican-Chinese announcement by Gina, who does great work. So, 2023 is the Year of the Rabbit.

And we're going to have a Chinese New Year show at the Peachtree World News. And we're going to have Seiji and his wife Nur are going to go through Peacock Warrior again. And the theme of the show is try to have a hopeful year in 2023.

And they're going to give us some poetry from ancient India and ancient Persia and ancient Arabic. And they're going to compare those two. Right, Seiji?

A little bit more comparison. And how to have hope in the new year. Then Grandpa's going to teach Shenzong.

Here's a statue of Shenzong, who walked for 17 years through India and came back and wrote some great ideas about how to have hope for the new year. Then we're going to have an auction of a painting that was made by a young man who crossed the Atlantic on a small boat last month, which is my, what do you call, stepson. And he did a painting, a beautiful painting.

The proceeds from that painting, the main part, we're going to donate to a project in Dunhuang, China, which is the Gobi Desert. And it's the caves in China where they found the Diamond Cutter Sutra. And they're trying to raise money.

The Chinese government is raising money to save those books and to save those caves. So we're going to auction that painting and give the main income to... We're going to give a little bit to the artist.

We're going to give a little bit to the cost of the show. But the main income we're going to give to the Chinese government to help save books in those caves. And then Grandpa's going to teach you how to cook dim sum for New Year's.

Because I used to cook that a lot for my teacher for 25 years. And I thought you would like to know the secrets of cooking New Year's dumplings. So if you have time, January 21st and 22nd, Arizona time.

And then Asia time, 22nd and 23rd, 10 a.m. to noon.

[Speaker 3]
By Asia time, do you mean time in China or Japan?

[Speaker 1]
Asia time means Beijing, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong. And Vietnam is a little bit different. Vietnam is one hour before bed, I think, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Okay? Thank you. All right. Here we go.

Back to Adam. Where are you?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, guys. I didn't realize that I said can be. Yeah, I've always heard the same thing.

Anything which is perceived with an accurate perception.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Confusion in there. I saw a few comments in the chat there. I was just...

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Now, this is the parkab kinship. Okay?

Parkab kinship. Do you guys remember what that is? Interstitial verse?

Yeah. When he gets through with a tough section, and other writers also do this, they give you some entertainment, like Seiji's poetry. They give you some poetry.

And it's considered kind of a break. And you're supposed to, you know, sit back, have a nice coffee, eat some yo chow or churro, and just relax. And then you start a new subject.

And it's a beautiful custom. And it's poetry. It's always in poetry.

So please read, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Okay. What's the da wei e, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
It's the light of the moon, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the light of the moon, which is supposed to be cool and cool things down, as opposed to the light of the sun. Chuxiao is a crystal. It's not a diamond.

It's a rock crystal, which traditional shape is kind of long. Right? Narrow and long.

And it's, I don't know, it's hexagonal or something. Or, yeah, I think it's hexagonal crystal structure. So you've seen them in rock shops in Arizona, right?

So when the moonlight strikes a, it's called a water crystal, but it just means rock crystal. Okay. When it strikes a rock crystal, you get a chugun zocking out.

[Speaker 2]
A stream of, what is it, zock?

[Speaker 1]
Zock means to drip out. And it's, to be frank, it's similar to semen. So zock means to drip out of something.

And he says that chugun, that stream that drips out is similar to mutig.

[Speaker 2]
What was the mutig?

[Speaker 1]
Oyster? Pearl.

[Speaker 2]
Pearl, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Those drops zocking out of a crystal, a long, thin crystal, are similar to a string of pearls.

[Speaker 2]
A string of pearls, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They have this luminescent quality when the drops drop out, okay? When the moonlight hits, and that's an ancient tradition that rock crystals actually have some kind of water inside of them. And that's what makes it clear.

And the superstition is that if the moonlight strikes a rock crystal, some kind of nectar will drop out, okay? Sea bough. Okay.

Then he says, my mind, this modest guy, my mind is like Nia.

[Speaker 2]
Sunlight.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, my mind is like sunlight. And when it strikes something, okay, when it falls down on something, you get this dap tong, sahasrara.

[Speaker 2]
Tong, I'm not sure what the dap is. Thousand petals?

[Speaker 1]
Petals.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, you get the thousand petal lotus.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, which spreads, which opens.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and it opens into lekpar shepas.

[Speaker 2]
And so, well, fine explanations.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. When my mind, the sunlight of my mind strikes these ancient books, you get huge lotus flowers opening up. NGON MED, which no one ever saw before.

[Speaker 2]
Before, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
He's being modest, okay? When the electric power of my intellect strikes those ancient books, huge lotuses of wisdom that you never heard before open up. And he's comparing it to the moonlight striking a rock crystal.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And there's drips coming out of beautiful pearls, okay? Right. Okay.

Then he says, di ni, these two images of the pearl drops and of the extraordinary lotus of my explanation, in the whole sasungs of the jikta, In the three realms, yeah. Yeah, in the three realms of this universe, zedja is the most beautiful thing. It's the most beautiful thing that has no denda.

[Speaker 2]
That has no equal, no match.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nothing can match it. Nothing can match the beauty of the pearl drops coming out of a rock crystal when the moonlight hits it. And nothing can match the beauty of the lotus of my eloquence, which no one has ever seen before.

When the sunlight of my mind strikes these ancient books, okay? And then he says, I'm just giving you a little poem in between here. Yeah.

And I looked up this Chushel myths about crystal, rock crystal, and I got into it, and you can see the notes here. And then there's some references to, it's almost sexual references, that Chushel in Sanskrit, udaka harshana, it means, udaka means water, and harshana means some kind of blissful thing. Harsh means the prickling of your hairs when you are excited, okay?

So, you know, there is some comparison of that rock crystal. The name of the rock crystal in Sanskrit is almost like linga, okay? And that's something, I don't know where he's going.

I had a fantasy, Adam, that the two metaphors were direct perception and logical perception, but I don't know, okay? I don't know what the two lights are. Maybe you cook it and give us your ideas, okay?

[Speaker 2]
I'll do.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what he's saying is my book is more exciting than an X-rated movie or something. I don't know. It's a weird verse, and I think it takes some meditation.

Maybe you'll come up with something, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Chushela.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Do you think it has Tantric undertones?

[Speaker 1]
Very possibly. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
And don't forget, Jetsun Kappa gave K.W.J. initiation within a day of meeting him. So, who knows? Okay.

Now we're going back to this huge... We're going way, way, way back in the book, and...

[Speaker 2]
I can't remember where we were.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I mean, it's impossible to remember. But we're supposed to be talking about the yewas of accurate perception, the divisions of accurate perception. That's what we're supposed to be inside.

He got way off. He got way, way off. And then we're supposed to talk about Gakshak.

So, we were supposed to hear a debate about the divisions of accurate perception, and then we were supposed to present our own real presentation, without debate. So here, according to K.W.J., are the classical divisions of accurate perception. And that's where we are.

Okay, here we go. LTA NI ZHEL BYA RANG BRTZEN DANG GCIG RTZEN GNYIS KYI RNAM PAR BZHAG PA SHES PAR BYA STE Yeah, so now I'm going to explain ZHEL BYA, all existing objects, in terms of two divisions. RANG BRTZEN and GCIG RTZEN.

RANG BRTZEN, just remember, RANG BRTZEN means the actual coffee cup. And then GCIG RTZEN is the archetype, the mental image of the coffee cup, which, by the way, the first one you confirm with...

[Speaker 2]
Perception.

[Speaker 1]
Direct perception, direct accurate perception. And the second one you confirm with logical perception. And when you think of it, when you try to figure out whether a coffee cup cup is changing or not, you're dealing with archetypes.

When you see it with your eyes, you're dealing with actual cases, which is called RANG BRTZEN. So when you see RANG in RANG BRTZEN and you can't remember if it's the mental image one or the real one, just remember RANG means itself. And then GCIG RTZEN, when you can't remember, just think like GCIG RTZEN DANG.

It's an archetype. Okay, Adam, who's going to read now? Pick up somebody.

[Speaker 3]
Let's see.

[Speaker 2]
Here's the list of participants. There we are. First person, Jasmine?

Do we have a Jasmine present? From beginning, right?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Nganjie. Nganjie.

Nganjie. Nganjie.

[Speaker 3]
Nganjie. Nganjie. Nganjie.

Nganjie. Nganjie. Nganjie.

Nganjie. Nganjie. Nganjie.

[Speaker 2]
Apa. Apa. Apa.

Apa. Thank you. Hey, good job.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
That's how you start. That's how you start. So our discussion of actual cases, and what are you going to call it, like archetypes, okay, for now.

Expressions and archetypes, okay? Actual expressions of the thing, and then the archetype of the thing. Our discussion is going to have three parts.

First, we're going to talk about how the existence of actual expressions of a thing, and then archetypes of a thing, is reflected in that SEM are required to confirm them. Okay, there's two kinds of objects in the universe. Therefore, there's two kinds of?

[Speaker 2]
Perception.

[Speaker 1]
Accurate perception. And they are munsum and jepak. He does not give you the full spelling here, right?

This is munsum, and I wish he had. I mean, it would have been... Was it munsum and jepak?

Okay, mun je, okay? So, the existence of two kinds of objects in the universe is confirmed by, there's two different kinds of perception in the universe, okay? Two kinds of accurate perception.

Munsum perceives which one?

[Speaker 2]
Munsum perceives wangtsen, jepak perceives, sorry, qizhen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Direct perception sees actual examples of things in the world, and jepak confirms the archetypes of those actual objects in the world, okay?

[Speaker 3]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
So, his first section is going to connect the two kinds of objects in the universe to the two kinds of accurate perception in the universe, okay? Then he's going to get into the dradden of wangtsen and qizhen. What's dradden mean?

[Speaker 2]
I don't want to use referent, but I mean, that's kind of what it means, yeah? Like the words.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, let's get into the literal meaning. Why are the things that you confirm with direct perception, why are they called ongtsang? Ongtsang, self-sang, wangtsang.

Why are they called, why are the actual occurrences of things in the universe called ongtsang? And why are the objects you perceive with your eyes closed, with logic, why are they called general signs? Okay, where did those names come from?

Okay, cool. That's going to be really helpful, right? Then he's going to get, again, then he's going to say, then thirdly, we'll go into the definitions and the descriptions of these two different levels of reality.

Actual cases and theoreticals, okay? All right, and that's the three categories that we're going to go through for the next six months or something, okay?

[Speaker 2]
So whenever we see dradden, we can just, I mean, because literally I see it as sound object.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's just an idiom. Yeah, it just means, hey, you want to know, do you want to know where the name Adam comes from? Yeah, which is out of months, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so anyway, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
So moho here, boss, you said is examples and...

[Speaker 1]
Here, moho means definition. Okay. Or the description.

What are they exactly? Moho means what are they? And I'm looking.

It's just about wrap-up time, Geshe-la. To maybe, Mr. Adam, can you do a wrap-up?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so we were, okay, so my J-bar, I think is the kind of the pivotal point of what we were discussing first. And we were looking at deductions based on figuring out that something has the quality of being changing. So if we look at sound and we deduce that sound has the quality of being changing, that's one thing.

Then if we come back five minutes later and we have not forgot that perception, I think my J-bar, if we have not forgot that perception, then it's still a recollection. But if we have to deduce it again, it obviously it becomes another fresh perception. Then we moved on to, what was it called?

We had a short poem by Kajub J. And then we just moved on to a new section in which we were gonna talk about, what was it, the three? So he's describing what we're gonna describe.

And then he sets down what we're gonna talk about in the next section. Mainly that there are two objects and that there are two types of perception to go along with each of those objects. And then what was the second?

Oh yeah, it was the dradun. So we were talking about the words themselves where chitsin and rangsin come from, the wire they called that. And then the third was setting down the definitions.

Tinlepapa, the ngowo, sosowat ngowo. So, wasn't it? Anyways, he's gonna talk about the individual definition.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, Adam, just a brief note. Somebody asked, Elmira asked very wisely in the chat, what's the difference between accurate and valid? Because we used to call it valid perception.

I went through some books yesterday changing valid to accurate. And this goes back to an old argument I had at my diamond company where I would make decisions as a vice president based on the information I had, I would make business decisions and then they would turn out wrong. And then the main investor guy would call me in and yell at me.

And I would say, but the decisions were valid. And he said, yes, they were valid given the information you had, but they were not accurate. So, that's the difference.

Valid means given the information you have is the decision, does it make sense at the time? And then accurate means does it turn out to be correct? And that's a big difference.

So, we have actually changed our mixed nuts translation from valid perception. See, which could still be wrong, Adam. You see, the process could be mostly valid and the result could be mistaken.

And I think it's more accurate to say accurate, which means it's correct. Okay. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks for the class.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, thank you. And that was a great session. I'm so glad we're out of it.

Thank you, Geshe-la. Okay, see you guys in how long, Mr. Nick? Nine minutes.

Yay, oh, huge break. Big break. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Thanks, everybody. See you then.