Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 31

[Speaker 3]
Hey, Nick. Looks like it's time to go. Can you hear my family yelling in the background?

[Speaker 2]
How's the dog or the coyote that got hit?

[Speaker 3]
Oh man, that was crazy. Aaron was there, I wasn't there, but Aaron saved a coyote today. A coyote got hit by a car and it was on a really dangerous corner where there were people flying around the corner and the dog was kind of in the road and she managed to protect the coyote until the authorities came, which was like a 20 minutes or a half hour.

I called the Humane Society for her, she called me. And then she was kind of like standing in the road directing traffic and then one of the neighbors came out and put a blanket on the coyote. It was in pretty bad shape.

But it sounds like she made it.

[Speaker 2]
All right, ready. That's really traumatic, man. You can never kind of unsee that stuff.

Yeah, you know. Yeah, so we covered some stuff last class. We didn't cover too much new material.

We kind of spent some time rehashing some stuff. And then we covered like one verse of prose. And then we discussed what we were going to be talking about today.

So I only have one homework question for you guys. I'll try to make up for it next time though. We'll get the balance of it next time.

So is it possible to have a fresh and unerring perception of something that we've already had an accurate perception of? If we see it again. Yeah, okay.

So how does the act of forgetting play into whether or not something is fresh and unerring of a subsequent kind of perception?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, it seems like what better what Upala said you kind of like your mind has to lose hold of it. And then you grasp it again freshly. And then it's an accurate perception, right?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah. Sorry, I didn't.

Yeah, just to get maybe I've got too much water. I just took a shower. I clean up my ears.

That's got to be what it is. Yeah, so okay. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

I won't bore you guys by reading verbatim what I have down there. But yeah, just yeah, it all kind of centers around whether or not you've forgotten it or not. And if you've forgotten.

[Speaker 3]
So I guess not forget is my JPA. Yeah, totally. Not forgetting.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, sorry about that. Oh, no, I think it's cool. Not forgetting.

Yeah, it's better with the apostrophe. I don't know what was going on there. Okay, so.

The meaning of the words.

[Speaker 3]
The literal meaning.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, the literal meaning. Yeah, meaning words. Yeah, there you go.

[Speaker 3]
Look how nice.

[Speaker 2]
Tell me about it. Oh, yeah. And Churchill.

This is like the crystal crystal crystal crystal. Yeah, it's because it's got water in it. Pearl necklace.

That's right. Yeah, a string of pearls. Datong.

Sahasrara. Nice, yeah, that's good.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, datong is... What is that? Sahasrara is siptong.

Oh. Sip means wagon wheels. Spokes?

Spokes, that's it. Anyway, I'm not sure what the play is.

[Speaker 3]
Pedal, Stanley. This is matchless.

[Speaker 1]
No, but I mean, I'm not sure what the sense is.

[Speaker 2]
You know, unrivaled. That's kind of what I have here in this context.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, again, is your microphone not plugged in? I think I realized after. You're right.

It's hard to hear you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, so sorry about the... Maybe I went through too quickly when I was writing that first question. So on the homeworks that Venerable Upala uploaded to the Google, whatever.

Yeah, the Google folder, I think is what we're calling it. What they call it. There's going to be a spelling mistake up there.

So sorry about that. All right, and I did what I could. And I found, you know, there was a couple of spaces where I kind of, I tried to suss what I thought Kejri was trying to cover.

And then I tried to brute force my translation into the Tibetan. So, yeah, I'm ready for as much criticism as you can give me because...

[Speaker 1]
But first I want to criticize your pronunciation.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Danny Rangshin Oyi.

[Speaker 1]
Nothing to criticize. Yeah, so it's kind of he's turning to a real commentary here. And I don't know if he's going to keep doing that or if he's going to go off on some tangent.

But, and I don't know why I have to see someone go off on tangents. But he's quoting the root text in several places here. So there are two kinds of accurate section because two kinds of objects can be considered.

Good, nice. This quote is given for the sake of proving, that there are only two kinds of accurate perception. The reason that there are only two kinds of objects to be considered in the same way.

Actual objects on the mental images. Good, okay.

[Speaker 2]
And this, I definitely wanted to make sure I saw. So in the past, I've seen that you've translated Rangshin as definitive objects. Object that exists in and of itself, I guess, from the perspective of the second school.

What else? There were a few, I went through trying a few and I ended at actual objects because I was trying to meet some sort of a parallel with what mental images would also be. Like you'd have the archetype and then you'd have the actual, because for a while we were using an expression of the archetype.

[Speaker 1]
That's a good point, an actual case is not.

[Speaker 2]
It gets a little unwieldy though, in cases like this. It gets a little, yeah. Anyways, yeah, I liked it too.

I guess I just wanted to make sure that actual objects was okay. It's not like a final, but.

[Speaker 1]
No, I'm okay for now. We'll decide when we get there. You're talking about the cup on the table and you're talking about my image of a cup, right?

[Speaker 2]
Right, yeah. So the next one.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry, dude. Yeah, me too.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, let's leave it like that for now. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, that's fine. What does it mean, boss?

[Speaker 1]
Well, the moral part is the hard part, I think.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead, Adam. Go slow though, Adam. Talk slow, talk slow.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, we'll do. I'll remember. So maybe this is a point where I could use that Southern draw.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Make it work for you, man.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I remember in one of the classes. I want to say it was actually in our last class. KJBJ went through a list of what we were going to cover in the next section.

And when you got to MOWA, you said instead of essence, you were saying like the definitions. So I wanted to say, if I'm remembering correctly, I heard you say that MOWA in this context was almost like a definition of what it means to be, like for something to be done for yourself and for other people.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not sure what it means yet. I was kind of waiting to see what he says. Did you catch the talk with the S on it?

[Speaker 2]
I tried to. Let's see.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's the perception. Okay. All right, good.

I'm not sure why the MOWA is here. But there is a big distinction made in the Pramana Vartika about perception, which is for one's own purposes, and perception, which is for others' purposes. And there's a big, big division like that.

Like you're trying to help others and then you're trying to figure out things for yourself. So he's probably going that way, but let's see where he goes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I couldn't, yeah, I didn't find, I couldn't find the flow between those two. So that's as close as I could get. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. By the way, I think he explains it here, but go ahead and read between them.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, this is kind of getting us into hot water here. Anything which is an object perceived by direct perception, right? Yeah.

Yeah, he's, he's... Yeah. NGON TSONG MTSAN MA SONG BA'I ZHEL BYAR RANG BRTZEN Those objects which are perceived by direct perception, those objects which have been used to have a direct perception are called RANG BRTZEN, the actual case of the thing.

And then those which are used to establish something as deductive perception are called CI TZANS, okay? Right. General case, archetypes maybe.

GAL PA'I PHYIR Because there's only two choices, either you are, either you are the object of perception of a direct perception or you are the object of perception of a deductive perception. Therefore, there are only two kinds of TZAN MA, NGON and RJE, NGON TSONG and RJE PAR. Yep, okay.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
And in support of that, ZHES PA'I MED PA'I RTAG TSUL RANG PHYI GNYIS SU NGES PA THOB PA MA YIN Right. Okay, let's see.

[Speaker 2]
This is kind of what I had here.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, what this says is, look, you want me to give a reason why there are two and only two, GNYIS SU NGES PA kinds of accurate perception, direct and deductive. Well, I'm not going to use RANG TZAN and CI TZAN to prove it.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay, the fact that there's, the fact that there's two varieties of objects, the actual things and the archetypes of things, it's not why the types of accurate perception are two.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay.

[Speaker 1]
So, like, we're waiting to see what is, why are there two accurate perceptions, two, okay? Right, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, GNYIS SU NGES PA MA YIN DE John, now he says something controversial for us, I think. DRA MI BDAG RTOG GI BYED PAR GYI TSE MA The deductive perception which you use to perceive that sound is a changing thing, right? DRA MI BDAG PA RANG TZAN LA BYED PAR GYI TSE MA YIN PA'I PHYIR Holy moly.

Yeah, that's an accurate deductive perception towards the actual occurrence of the fact that sound is changing, okay? And that's, yeah, somebody said holy moly, probably Kramer.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I would agree, because I thought anytime you close your eyes and figure something out, then what you're perceiving at that moment should be, should be GYIS TSE and should be an archetype. You should be dealing with archetypes. So why, by the way, he's, again, he's just throwing, he's just trying to be controversial, okay?

I guess. And hopefully we get some explanation of it. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right. Oh my god.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, back to the last paragraph.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right. You got something wrong here, right?

[Speaker 1]
No, he said in the last paragraph, he said, we don't say that all accurate perceptions can be divided into direct perceptions and deductive perceptions. We don't say, because on the basis of it's fixed, that there's only two kinds of objects to perceive. It's not because there's only two kinds of objects to perceive that we say there's two kinds of accurate perception.

And now in the 345, he says, and I'll give you another reason, which is not why there's two kinds of accurate perceptions. And because in the third line, in the middle, he says, mayante, you want another reason? You want another thing that's not a reason why there's two kinds of accurate perception?

It's because if something is what you perceive with a direct perception, it has to be an actual case of something. And if something is what you perceive with deductive perception, it has to be an archetype. And that is true.

Khyap, third line. I admit it's true. So that khyapa means, look, I admit it's true that if something is the thing which direct accurate perception perceives, it has to be the actual case of a cop, for example.

And if something is the thing that a correct deductive perception perceives, it must be an archetype. I agree with that. That's khyap.

That's true. But that's not why we divide all perceptions into direct and deductive.

[Speaker 2]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And by the way, hopefully he's going to tell us why. Because here's a second reason why not.

[Speaker 2]
That doesn't contradict what we said a second ago, boss. That somehow the deductive perception that sees, that sound as a changing thing, is seeing nodang tsen. Didn't we just say that in the last paragraph?

And isn't this contradicting that?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, yeah, but I think he's got some kind of greasy case of a deduction that sound is a changing thing. Maybe it's listening to the words as someone proves it to you.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, boy. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that. He's got something up his sleeve, I think. Okay.

So let's start with the third line at the end. dumpe dakpay sa chok gi bu me tabu The fact that there is no coffee cup in a location where there is no coffee cup, okay? The fact that there is no coffee cup in a location where there is no coffee cup, that is an archetype.

But you can perceive it directly with... You can perceive it with an accurate direct perception. So what he's saying is, look, there are archetypes that you can perceive with a direct form of accurate perception, okay?

And give me... Okay, give me an example of something. Give me an example of an archetype.

That you can perceive with direct perception, direct accurate, with a direct form of accurate perception. And he says the lack of coffee cups on a table where there's no coffee cups, you are perceiving... That's an archetype and you can perceive it with a direct perception.

Direct accurate perception.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, okay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is that true? I mean, let's think about it. I mean, I'd rather just read on, but let's stop and think about it.

Well, I hope it's true, because otherwise can we see emptiness directly? Well, don't get into that. But anyway, you're going to get into some nonsense.

Let's imagine a table where there's no coffee cup, and I'm looking at it, and I'm seeing that there's no coffee cup. I'm seeing the lack of a coffee cup. And according to this sentence, that's an archetype.

And it's not an actual case of something. Okay? He says...

In the fourth line, ga shik, which means what, Adam? Ga shik in the fourth line at the end. Ga shik, just by itself, what does it mean?

Some. Yeah, there's... He's saying, look, there's some special cases.

Ga shik means some special cases where an archetype is the object perceived by a direct form of accurate perception. Okay? And by the way, if he just proved that there are certain archetypes that you can see with direct form of accurate perception, what would be the logical thing for him to prove next?

Another group of weirdos.

[Speaker 2]
Actual objects that you can perceive through deduction?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. The opposite. And there's also actual cases of things that you can perceive through deduction.

And he claims to give us one. dra mi dakpa tabu And see, now, Ben...

[Speaker 2]
Tabu?

[Speaker 1]
Listen. The appearance of it? No, wait, listen.

Sound is changing. The first one was sound is an unchanging... sound is a changing thing.

And the second one is changing sound.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, I think he's playing like that. Unfortunately, in Tibetan, they're the same thing. dra mi dakpa can mean sound is an unchanging...

Sorry, sound is a changing thing. And that's a fact. And to me, you got to perceive that with deduction.

But if you say dra mi dakpa, which means a sound which happens to be changing at that moment, then what you're focusing on is a sound that is changing. And that's a direct perception, direct form of accurate perception. He's just being cute on us.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so if we say in your second example, dra mi dakpa and then dra mi dakpa.

[Speaker 1]
Good, dra mi dakpa.

[Speaker 2]
So because we're talking about an actual object, which we perceive through deductive accurate perception, it would be okay to translate it here as the changing nature of sound, right?

[Speaker 1]
You could say that. Yeah, you could say that.

[Speaker 2]
Sound is a changing thing.

[Speaker 1]
I would say...

[Speaker 2]
Versus sound that is changing, or sound which is a changing thing. Exactly, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Changing sound would be comfortably ambiguous here.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, by the way, if you're translating right now, I've got to take my hat off to you, or my hair even. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
That was it.

[Speaker 1]
But let me do this last one. Let's say that it says changing sound, sound which is changing, not the fact that sound is changing. Let's say it's focusing on a sound, and that sound has to be changing.

And that sound happens to be changing. Let's say that you have a perception which is focusing on sound, and at the moment you focus on it, the sound happens to be getting louder or softer, or something like that. Is that a rangchen or a chiten?

Is that an actual sound? That would be a rangchen, yeah. Yeah, that's an actual sound.

Yeah. Now, how would you perceive that with a deduction?

[Speaker 2]
Maybe instead of perceiving, being aware of it? Maybe focusing in on the fact that it is changing?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe some scientist told you that by the time you can tell the sound has changed, it has changed a bunch of times already, or something like that. You know, I guess that's authoritative.

[Speaker 2]
If there's a lag between perception and then awareness of the perception, and you're aware of, like there's kind of background noise, and then you focus in, you say, oh, well, it is getting louder or softer. Yeah, sorry. Maybe it's a bunk.

If you have earplugs in and you see someone strike a bell, you see the cause, and by virtue of the cause, you know that it's resulting in a changing sound, even though you're not hearing it directly.

[Speaker 1]
I'll go with the earplug theory. Okay, all right, good. Well, I think he's just being difficult.

I think a lesser author would have just said, look, if it's deductive and the thing you're thinking about must be the archetype, right? And if it's direct, the thing you're thinking about must be the actual thing. Anyway, he's just being his normal, difficult self.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, Adam. We still have the problem, though, don't we, of the first two lines. I still don't know why he's saying, uh, munsum tseme shel jai yin na, dang tsen, right?

And vice versa, right? Doesn't that seem like he's saying, look, I agree. If it's something considered by munsum, it's dang tsen, and if it's considered by jaypak, it's chi tsen.

Sure, of course, everybody knows that. And then he gives examples of when it's not true. No, he says it's sometimes not explained that way.

Oh, oh, oh, detar shepa mayinte.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, yeah, even though it's always true, we don't talk of it that way. We don't describe it that way.

Even though it's the case, we don't describe it that way. We don't say it that way. Okay.

I think there's exceptions. Maybe he wouldn't use the word khyapa, you know?

[Speaker 2]
It's true, but we don't say it that way. Wow, that's interesting.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Hey, Ben, if we go on, I'm sure it'll clarify it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right, yeah, totally.

[Speaker 1]
That's J.P. Michael's retreat mode, not spiritual retreat. Okay. Adam, you ready to go on?

Let's do it. I thought you were going to get to the easy part. He had poetry.

He kind of set us up, you know? He lulled us into, what is that? There's all the emails I have to answer, you guys.

Oh, my word. Stop whining.

[Speaker 2]
Send our love.

[Speaker 1]
My wife says, stop complaining about what you created. She's no fun anymore.

[Speaker 2]
She keeps talking like a Buddhist all the time. Yeah, so how do you think? Did I get close enough to be considered?

[Speaker 1]
No, you did great. No, you did great. Yeah, it's extremely difficult stuff.

Extremely difficult stuff. And by the way, he's taking very important parts out of the root text. There's some hope that he's going to actually write a commentary.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Because this is Seima Dejun, it doesn't have to necessarily be Pramod Vardhika. Yeah, well, yeah. I was wondering if there's some way we could correlate what sections he was going to already and pulling from which books.

I mean, we're like 100 pages at least. And so there's points at which I've stopped and I've wondered, okay, well, what book is he drawing this material from?

[Speaker 1]
That's true. In this section, he does have direct quotes. So that first part of this paragraph comes from here.

And I blocked it out for you. And the next part is going to come from here. And he seems to be skipping around to the major chapter breaks or something.

He seems to be hitting the most important points. I don't know if he's... Ben's text is the only text I've seen that goes through the whole root text wording in an understandable way.

I don't think that's Ketub-Jay's goal in this book. I think he just wants you to understand his ideas. Okay.

Do you want to choose somebody, Adam? Because your reading is good enough. Maybe there's somebody we could have learned to read.

[Speaker 2]
We just did that one, Shilpa.

[Speaker 1]
We just did this one.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, like, geez, this looks familiar.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm sorry. I was just tricking you to see if you remember. All right.

[Speaker 2]
I'll pull up the participants here and have them sit over in the side. Okay, random. Let's see.

How did I say this? Puregold Aldis? Is that Aldis?

Aldis? Hello.

[Speaker 3]
Hi. Adam?

[Speaker 2]
Hi. Do you mind helping us here? Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
I don't know how to pronounce S-P-Y-I-O-P.

[Speaker 2]
Do you know S-P-Y-I-O-P?

[Speaker 1]
Thank you so much, teacher Adam and grandpa. Thank you so much. Oh, you're going to...

keep going, keep going. You're going to be good. You can call me Agor Ye Ye.

I'm okay. Thank you, Agong. All right.

de na rang tsen sung yu de che ne When you take rang tsen as your sung yu, what does that mean, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
When an actual object is taken as an object that you're holding.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. When you're talking about the actual cup as what you are perceiving, okay? And in that case, you jelwa a shell jar.

[Speaker 2]
You consider an object to be considered.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or you perceive something to be perceived. When you perceive something to be perceived in the manner that the object you are perceiving is the actual case of a coffee cup, okay? And chi tsen sung yu de che ne When you take a chi tsen as your sung yu...

[Speaker 2]
When you take a mental image or an archetype.

[Speaker 1]
When you take... let's say archetype as what you're perceiving, right? And in that way, you perceive what you're perceiving, okay?

There's only those two ways of perceiving things. No more, no less.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Now, this came up... I was wondering, because I had...

[Speaker 1]
Talk slow, talk slow.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Long breaths.

[Speaker 1]
Long breaths.

[Speaker 2]
nyu sung ngepay tak We had an occurrence of it in one of the verses that I was responsible for. And I was just wondering how the talk functioned here at the end.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm about to tell you. Hang on. tsu nyu sung nge means, look, there's only two ways of perceiving objects, okay?

There's only two ways of perceiving objects. Then he says, I'm going to prove something using that fact as my reason. Right.

Okay. I'm going to prove something using that fact as my reason. So it's going to sound like this, bada bada bada, because there's only two ways of perceiving things.

And we don't know what he's proving yet. He says, I have a reason in mind. What's your reason?

Oh, there's only two ways to perceive objects. What are they? Well, you can either do it with an actual cup, or you could do it with an archetype of a cup.

Okay. And now I'm going to use that to prove something else. And that's what's coming next.

I'm going to say, blah, blah, blah, blah, because there's only two ways to perceive things, either by holding it as the actual cup, or by holding it as the mental image of the cup. And what's he going to prove by saying there's only two ways to hold things? There's only two things you can hold, either the actual thing or the image of the thing, the mental picture of the thing.

What's he going to prove? He's going to say, tse mang ngun je nyi sung nge pa drupa nyi. And by the way, that should probably go up here.

There's only two ways to hold things, either as the actual cup or as the mental picture of the cup. Therefore, dak gi means, because of that reason, it's absolutely nge pa, that there's only two tse mang. Because there's only two things to perceive, that proves there's only two kinds of...

[Speaker 2]
Perception.

[Speaker 1]
Perception, that's all.

[Speaker 2]
Accurate perception, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's all. Tse mang, yeah, accurate perception. And then he says, you need a person to read this next piece, Adam.

And they have to do it quick before Grandpa forgets the point. Cindy?

[Speaker 2]
Pure Gold Cindy? Okay, three. Once.

Twice. What about Elena? Elena Hao?

Pure Gold Elena Hao? What about Doreen? Okay.

Okay, Doreen's here. Cool. Thank you.

Xiaojia? The first sentence? Yeah.

Yeah. Xiaojiang? Xiaojiang.

Xiao jiang. Xiao jiang, jin. Yingde.

Nijia? Nijia. Okay, thanks for teaching.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, Adam, let maker do it, maker do it. Tse mang. Tse mang.

Yeah. Okay, Doreen, say sema, sema. Sema.

Good. Adam, what should she say next? Nyi.

Nyi. Say nyi. Okay, keep going, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, shepe.

[Speaker 1]
Shepe. Good.

[Speaker 2]
Don yin te.

[Speaker 1]
Don yin te. Nice, yay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
How lucky I am.

[Speaker 1]
Now you can turn off your microphone. All right. Okay, Sheljai Nietzsche is so many.

He quotes the opening line of chapter three, so I have to, I have to feel like he's trying to get to the root text. And he's touching on the major points he says, because there's two kinds of things you can perceive. That's why there's two kinds of perception.

Okay. What's the two kinds of sheljahs, Adam?

[Speaker 2]
We've got rangten and chitzen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, nice. Because there's only, because there's only two kinds of things you can perceive, therefore, there is only two kinds of perception. Okay.

And he says that's what, that's what they mean when they say that. This whole first two, this first sentence, first part of the section here is the reason why you can say there's two kinds of perception, because there's two kinds of objects. And who's going to read next?

[Speaker 2]
Hold on. Quick, quick, quick. Ming Chang.

Three, two, okay, so moon, moon. That's a beautiful name, I like that. Mark Liao, Liao?

Mark Liao?

[Speaker 1]
I suspect your accent sounds Mississippi even then.

[Speaker 2]
I bet, I bet. I'm trying my hardest. And can never get away from it, I guess.

Karen, Karen Guo. Karen Guo. Jackie and Matt.

What about Jackie? Or Matt? Hello, Adam.

Hello, Geshela.

[Speaker 3]
Hi. Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Xin. Go. No.

No. Yeah. Go.

Go. Go. Yeah, no walk.

Go. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. This one.

Cheers. Cheers. Like cheers.

Cheers.

[Speaker 3]
Cheers.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Xiaojia.

[Speaker 2]
Xiaojia. Ya. Ni.

Ni.

[Speaker 3]
Yi. Yi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Ni. Yeah.

Su. Xie. Xie.

Xie. Xie. Xie.

Xie. Okay. So, thank you.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
de ni rang she ngo yi do chu she, yan yi su she. It's some kind of root text, right? So, this yi means, because of the fact that their nature is either self or other.

Because of the fact that their nature is either self or other, and through that you perceive them. You perceive them through their own essence or some other essence. That's why we say, Shea, there's exactly two kinds of perceivable objects.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so when you say their own essence, this would be applied to like Ronson. You're perceiving them through their aspects, their colors, their shape. And then if you're perceiving them through something other than themselves, you're doing it by way of your mental perception.

Is that kind of it?

[Speaker 1]
I would say that, because when you perceive something through some nature that it has itself, you are perceiving an actual case of a coffee cup. And when you perceive it through something else, like I didn't hear the sound of the cup falling on the floor, which is shen, right? Something else.

Therefore, I perceive the qi zhen of a coffee cup. I perceive the mental image of a coffee cup, which is still there even though my eyes are closed.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah. Okay, so now that verse that I was translating earlier makes a little bit more sense.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe. I think the point is that you cannot perceive a qi zhen with an accurate perception directly. You have to use a reason.

You have to use a reason. I would guess that. Who's up next?

[Speaker 2]
Let's see. Joel? JC?

What about Hardy? Hardy? Okay.

Sharon? Sharon? Is it me?

Okay, I don't really know how to do this. Oh, it's okay. Yeah, we'll walk through it together.

Help me, please. Yeah, definitely.

[Speaker 1]
He's got a lot of practice with his daughter.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh, yeah, miniature. Okay.

Yeah. song in Dong Shang Dong. Yeah.

Don't change. Don't change. Don't change.

So soon. Yeah. Okay.

Chippa. Chippa is long. Don't be new pair.

Young to get pair. Yeah, good. Not Shah Goni Goni Goni Yeah.

So yeah, so yeah, so yeah, the last one, Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe Joe But What? Yeah, soon. Knee.

Remember on the only thing that's silent right there on that the knee is the G there. Okay. He Me.

Yeah, you want to put that and you're using this one. He said, son, no. She ha your sorry.

Yeah. Patriot Patriot said song so she's so shit. Yeah.

Ciao. Ciao.

[Speaker 1]
Good job.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
That's if you get better every day, it will get better every day. Therefore, and then he quotes the second line of the third chapter, which is changing the dominant cause, because something you need to perform a function or not perform a function. Yeah.

Because either the thing can do something or is it cannot do something. Okay, just so he didn't count just so he didn't count means, hey, you want to know what that means. I'll tell you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
When you take a dungeon new page as the sumo when you take something that can't form a function as the object that you're holding. Yeah, when you take something that can do something as what you are perceiving. And when you take a dungeon mean new page.

So you do Japa and you are going to distribute dungeon here. Okay. You're going to add in your mind, you're going to add a dungeon in front of me nearby.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So when you take a dungeon mean new page as your son, you when you take something that cannot perform a function, an unchanging thing. Yeah, so whether you are, whether the thing you are perceiving can do something. And by the way, it's assumed that it exists.

And whether the thing you are perceiving cannot do something, and it's assumed that it exists, yeah, we can say that it therefore, all shall just are exactly to no more no less. Okay, all perceptions of things are either holding things which are dungeon new book, or things which are dungeon mean new book. What's that mean?

[Speaker 2]
All perceptions are perceptions are all objects that can be perceived are either something that function or something that doesn't function.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and somehow that acts to clarify that there's only two kinds of perception. Yeah. Okay.

Good. Okay. Shepa Jala means that goes way back up here somewhere.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Right up here. Okay. Okay, that you can understand what I set up above from these different quotations that I'm giving you.

Okay. There's a nice baby deer walking by. I'll show him to you later.

All right. Here's the root text.

[Speaker 2]
What what folio is this one from?

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry. Check this out, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
I cheated because I put the whole page. So I put the whole page because I have to catch a page number, right? Yeah, I had I wanted to catch this page number.

And between the page number and our quotation, luckily was shade Jawa. The end of the second. Yeah, that's the end of the second chapter.

Sorry. Therefore, your quotation must be the opening of the third chapter.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, third chapter.

[Speaker 2]
They assume. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And I hope he gets into the order of the chapters and all that. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
We came to an easy part.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Warning. I think we get the easy part. Two minute warning.

Two minute warning.

[Speaker 2]
One minute warning.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. One minute warning. Seriously?

It's one. Yeah. Okay, Adam.

I'm I'm off the hook. It's your turn to give us a summary.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
One more class. So don't despair. We will end his classes on an easy part.

[Speaker 2]
All right, let's see if I can remember this. In the section that I translated, there was a there was a line that said that perceptions can't perceptions aren't always explained as being fixed it to as either direct or deductive. And what we've been discussing is possibilities for why that may have been said.

And we got so yeah, I think that's that's about as far as I can go with it. I apologize if if that's not if that's not as in depth as you guys need.

[Speaker 1]
Just that he's the main point he's making is is that how many kinds of perception are there to which are direct and deductive? Yeah. And how many kinds of objects are there to which are wrong and wrong?

Yeah, say it in English.

[Speaker 2]
The actual object and then the expression of the archetype and the archetype itself.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, let's say the real coffee cup and then the idea of the coffee cup.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Those are both real. Okay. Ideas are not coffee cups, but they are real ideas.

So there's only two kinds of real things in the world. Either they are the real things, or they are the mental images of the real things which are also real. And therefore, there's only two kinds of accurate perception in the universe.

Okay, that's all. And just to say, there's only two kinds of stuff in the world. And there's only two kinds of perceptions in the world.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
By the way, there's only two kinds of there's only two levels of functionality of stuff.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it either functions or doesn't. That's, yeah, that was the biggest that I left out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's just like people either they're working or they're not. Okay. Yeah.

So those are three sets of two. And somehow they all support each other. How's that?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. For your, I know you have one more class because I checked. So you can translate this next section on your own.

GNYIS PA DGRA DUN ZHES PA NI, CI PHYIR, RANG GI NGUL, and the one where I said emphasis, okay? Those sections. And this is going to be a DGRA DUN, which is, why do we call it RANG CAN, and why do we call it CI PHYIR?

That's right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's nice. Why do we call it the actual coffee cup? And why do we call it the idea of the coffee cup?

Okay. All right. Good job.

Where's my granddaughter?

[Speaker 2]
She's on a trip to the dog park.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, with Gracie?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, Gracie and Kate rescued a dog a little over a few months ago. So we've got a new new dog. His name is Sully.

He's a really, really cool guy.

[Speaker 1]
How do you name a dog, Sully, if I may ask?

[Speaker 2]
Sullivan. And I don't know where he's from, but Sullivan, yeah, I like it. Ed Sullivan, okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you again. Thank you. This is a great class.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Well, we understood more than usual, I have to say. Okay.

I don't say everything.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Professor Nick, how much time we got here?

[Speaker 3]
Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 1]
Two minutes.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Two minutes. You want to take five?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, five minutes.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Thank you, everybody.