Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 35

[Speaker 1]
Yo, good morning 6am Sedona Standard Time, time to get this party started. Questions, thoughts? My boss used to say that.

Questions, comments. I hope you're all learning something in words classes. Maybe I had my volume down, I can't hear a thing.

Missing pretty good stuff. Yeah, great leadership quality, though. Great, great job.

Keep going. I wish I had it. I was very, like, boomer boss of me.

The hell's going on? Hey, now, watch yourself. I have to watch the recording for the exciting playback.

All right, good morning, everybody. Morning. Just ready to get started.

All right, so this is kind of just a review question to just make sure that we're all on the same page as we move forward. So what, what way can we relate the general category of shelljah, the two types of perception? The two types of perception?

Yeah, it's every bit as straightforward as you think it would be. To be a rongsen or a cheetsen is to be a shelljah? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that's what Yeah, that's one way of saying it. Definitely. You know, I was, yeah, going for shelljah can be broken down into objects that have to be perceived using either rongsen or cheetsen, or, sorry, rongsen or jpah.

[Speaker 2]
And have we have we officially decided by now that basically you use munsoom to see cheetsen and rongsen is only seen with munsoom and you use jpah to see cheetsen and cheetsen only seen with jpah?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's actually there's a quote from the, from the Promenade of Art together that says there are two forms of perception because there are two types of things to be considered. It goes, yeah, so shelljah, nyichir, tseman, nyi, and that's been a few, it's been a few terms there. So I don't know if that was, that's exactly, that's an exact quote or not.

We all know you went and memorized the Promenade of Art together, Adam. I think, I think he started backwards and finished it the first verse. Yeah, so shelljah, or that which can be considered can be experienced in two ways.

One is an actual thing that you experience via direct perception, direct accurate perception, or two as an archetype, which you would experience via deductive accurate perception. Are working things actual things? Yes.

They are? Necessarily. Well, that's a bigger answer than yes.

No question. What Tibetan word are you using for actual? We're using rangzen here.

Rangzen is, yeah, versus, yeah, yeah, that's kind of what I'm using right now. Well, you perceive it with your senses, so.

[Speaker 2]
Not as a group, right, Adam? If we're talking about working things as a group of something.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, thank you, Stanley. Yeah, yeah, thank you. So it's tricky because the term ngopo can be read as, quote, working things, which is an, or working thing, which would be an act like coffee cup or something.

A working thing, which would be, quote, a coffee cup, or working things, which would be like the entire kind of collection or group. So in one sense, working things are actual things because they do, by definition, perform a function. Yet, in another sense, the word, they're not actual things because ngopo is being used as a collective noun, which would, in that sense, it would be referencing a qizhen.

So as an archetype, it would be unable to perform a function and unfit to be an actual thing. The issue is that the same literature is notorious for playing on this particular ambiguity as a means of, I think, kind of stressing different within different intention. You know, I was actually, I was trying to think on why this particular word is because it seems very easy to kind of slip between schools and whether or not, quote, working.

It's very easy. I would think it would be easier for somebody teaching the subject to play on the ambiguity and almost slip between schools to a certain degree. Yeah.

With the ability to do this. So at this point in our text, ngopo is being read collectively as, quote, working things. And therefore, it's something which is categorical.

And therefore, it has members. So if something is categorical, it cannot be an actual thing. So thank you, Stanley.

Yeah, that was right on the head.

[Speaker 2]
Another thing is also the same. It's very ambiguous. There's two words.

Yeah, you could, of course, say the same thing about rongten. If you say, quote, ngopo is, quote, rongten. Yeah.

Right. They could both be unchanging things. And it's still true.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's true. Um, so why is it the case that if something is a working thing, then it must be partless? Are we talking about archetypes now?

Uh, no. Yeah, totally. Thank you.

Thank you, Paula.

[Speaker 2]
I struggled with this, with whether this means partless or made of partless things. It seems like most of the examples that we typically give of ngopos like a bumpa or a gala.

[Speaker 1]
Let's assume at a foundational kind of atomic level. So at one point, there's something that at an atomic level, right? It can't be broken down anymore.

Yeah. Is that the idea? Yeah, that's the idea.

Definitely. The answer is going to be split into two parts, um, because K.DripDrip treats it that way. If something is a working thing, then it must either be physical or it must be mind.

And do we remember Chachier and Chalamet? Yeah. And how would those apply to, you know, the physical component?

Uh, to, to, um, to a physical, uh, component, uh, of a work, to a working thing, um, excuse me, which is physical or working thing, which is mind. Well, there would be moments to the mental working thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And, and, but not just moments in particular, when we're talking atomically, we're talking on the smallest scale, right? Yeah. Uh, so in particular, there was something that, um, do you guys remember when we were, we were talking about the definition of a Cheatsend, right?

So the definition of a Cheatsend is something that has members that, I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but something that has members and something that covers its members. Yeah. Right.

Um, so in that sense, if something was, if, well, first off, something wouldn't be atomic if it was composed of smaller pieces. However, if something is composed of smaller pieces, it is therefore then made of parts. And technically it would become a Cheatsend as it would be covering its members.

Oh. So this is another reason at which, um, kind of abstract, excuse me, physical things would then become abstract, um, on that level. So there's another, why it has to be partless, um, from the, from the perspective of the lower schools, obviously.

Agropo can't be a Cheatsend. Yeah. Yeah.

So something's a working thing. It must either be physical or mental. If something's physical, it must be constructed by partless atoms on a, on a foundational level.

And if something's mental, it must be made up of some, on some foundational level of individual instances. Is he playing with the idea of a, um, Cheatsend here? Cause it can mean different things also, right?

Maybe. Yeah, it could possible. Definitely.

I didn't think, I didn't, I didn't think about that. Um, really where we're going next after this is, uh, excuse me, after this section, we started to touch on Zechick. And so I think that's why he's being very careful to delineate what he means when he says something's physical, uh, before we start stepping into, um, to Zechick a little bit.

Anyway. Yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
I have a question. Um, so according to this answer, uh, like a normal cup in my hand cannot be a working thing because it has parts.

[Speaker 1]
It just, it, it depends, you know, it, it, uh, where, how are you, how are you taking up this question? I mean, uh, it's, I, I, I'm confused.

[Speaker 2]
It seems like, um, question three and question two is conflict. Has some conflict because we do say a coffee cup can be an actual working thing.

[Speaker 1]
A coffee cup, a coffee cup, right? Right. The one that I'm holding in my hand right now.

[Speaker 2]
Yes. Even though it's a collection, even though it has parts. Yeah.

According to question three, it's a collection of parts. Then it couldn't be an actual working thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, um, I would take these two questions and individually, uh, I would say maybe it's the true, uh, it's true. And, and, uh, and question three, what you're pointing out Stanley, however, you, you've got to consider what hat you have on.

Uh, and maybe that's, or maybe I'm overlooking something that you're, you're saying, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Um, I, I see, I think I see that you're, what you're saying is, is there's a conflict in between questions two and three. Um, and you're asking that if something is an end, if something is a working thing, um, that it can't perform a function if it has parts.

So it would seem contradictory to have a coffee cup that you could drink coffee out of if it had a bottom and a top. And, uh, is that what you're saying? Um, well now I'm confused.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's, it was, it was my same question with number two, which is, are we saying that a thing is, uh, drawn and said, if it is partless, or are we saying something's our guns and if it's made of partless particles, like if it's reducible to partless particles, then it's as opposed to saying it has to be a partless particle itself, but then we still have the problem.

[Speaker 1]
Of soap, soap gems, right? We're generalities in terms of collections and, and a cup is that. So I would say even just reading from the text for me, at least it's not resolved.

Yeah. I mean, I guess you can say that, but, um, that's also one of the ageless questions about, um, how things exist. Um, uh, so if something goes wrong, if I, I would, it seems like a very central question to the two Buddhist philosophy.

So, uh, you have to say that, um, that it's been hammered out, um, so far in our texts, that I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that either, but, uh, so I'm just, I just want to make sure, um, we're all on the same page, mainly me and I'm going to, I'm the same page with you guys. I didn't miss something here. Um, I don't think so.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
There's a conflict. There's a conflict. If something can perform a function, it's a working thing.

If something cannot perform a function, it's categorical. It cannot perform a one, uh, uh, it cannot perform a function. I shouldn't be able to hold this cup in my hand.

However, it's right here. You know what I mean? Um, I mean, we could, we could keep, we could keep diving into it.

Um, I would say that there is, there is a conflict and I, and it's still my personal contention that that's due to the viewpoint of the different philosophical schools. When I was teaching in the prison, he said, the only way reason we have a conflict is because you're talking about my coffee cup. That's true.

That's like, that's right. Yeah. So I just want to, I want to be mindful that I'm not glossing over this.

I'm not passing over it too quickly, Stanley. Um, but at the same time, um, I think this is a very central question and, and I think obviously the, the third question is, um, well, both of these questions should be taken from the, the viewpoint of, of the second school. Yeah.

Number, number two is one in which the second school's viewpoint is threshed out based on how you interpret the word Nopal, um, contextually. What's the, what's the definition of ultimate reality in the Abhidharma school? Uh, yeah, I would say it's something that's composed of the eight, the eight.

It's when you, uh, it's when you break down a thing, uh, it doesn't go away. The idea in your mind of a thing doesn't go away when you break it down into its parts. Yeah.

No longer mentally reducible is, is ultimate reality in Abhidharma. Maybe that's relevant a little bit. Maybe, maybe the second school's position is kind of a reaction to that.

I don't know. Uh, thank you, Geshe-la. Um, so yeah, and it's, it's kind of the same thing for something mental.

So if something's partless in the sense of existing in the small, as the smallest level of individual moments, then, um, it's gotta be made of, uh, atomic parts. And, uh, it, it would be categorical, categorical and archetypal. Uh, oh, sorry.

Uh, you guys got that one for free, I think. Yay. Whoa.

It's okay. Kechik Chame. Uninterrupted instant.

Heartless. Yeah, so she, uh, we'll give this a look. Oh, you're muted again.

Um, that's the best. My wife would say that mute would be a good thing on my mouth. Uh, dude, change the Chashimin.

Uh, partlessness. Yeah, that's good. Yeah.

103.77. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
You want to read it, Adam?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay, let me check here.

It's a direct perception. Mm-hmm. Okay.

Yeah, the only tricky thing here is ngopo tsam. Uh, so when you look at our, when you, when you see a coffee cup, do you see a functioning thing?

[Speaker 2]
This is the question on the table. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, yes. How do you say yes?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I would say you say yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. When you look at a, when you, sorry, when you see a coffee cup, you see a functioning thing. But when you see a coffee cup, do you see a functioning thing?

And don't use the A. No.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's ngopo tsam. Ngopo tsam. So, functioning thing without the A.

Okay. You can say functional thingness. That's right.

Yeah. That when you add the tsam, when you add the tsam, it means function, function, functioning thingness. Okay, so that's a question for you guys.

When you look at, when you see a coffee cup, do you see a functioning thing? Yes or no? Yes.

Yes. See functioning thing? No.

No. I don't think so. Let's see what he says.

Okay, yeah, that's kind of why I use functional things as such, as such for the tsam there. Yeah, and by the way, that's why he said you can't be holding to a category. The category is the concept of the thing.

You know, chi dzin gyi lo. Okay. By the way, if it did see, if it did see functioning thing, it would be grasping to a chi rather than to a wrong thing.

Okay. All right, that's pretty easy. Let's do 378, Adam.

You got to read one more and then you get to pick on other people. That's your reward. Fine.

Okay. So he says, now let's say that if the mind sees functional things, then it's there. Yeah, if you say just because it is seeing functioning thing as a category, doesn't mean it has to be holding a category rather than a member, for example.

Then you lose the idea that it was holding to... Yeah, oh, then you lose the idea that the concept of a functioning thing is a general category. All right.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I like blow your position.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, you know, I was trying to, obviously trying to account for that buh there. It's good.

That's fine. Okay, now you get to pick on somebody else, Adam. Let's see, who do we have here?

Siobhan? Siobhan C? Would you like to help us?

Hello. Sure. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. We're on, yeah, we're on 379.

379. Perfect. Thank you.

Oh, here, tok che means conceptual. Okay, conceptual. So if you agree that...

if you agree that it can see the chi, if you agree that looking at a coffee cup is to look at coffee cups, then a direct sense perception must also be a conceptual state of mind. Tok che here means conceptual as opposed to direct sense perception. Yeah.

Cool. Yeah, you know, I used involves for that che. That's a good, that's a good thing.

Yeah. Involves the conception of direct perception? That involved is perfect.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Because maybe it has a little bit of non-conception also. Is it a synonym for jaypak tena here? Uh, that's a good question.

It's probably very similar, but I bet you could find exceptions. I guess we're back on you. Okay.

Is that the right book? No. Okay, hang on.

Let's don't go there. Yeah, that was us. Was it?

Yeah, that was that. Yeah. 90%, 95%, 100%.

It's funny because I'm seeing an Abhidharma text.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, we see.

[Speaker 1]
There you go. Let me put you guys up here. What number are we on, Adam?

Uh, should be on 380.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's good.

Uh, so can you pick on somebody? Yes, sir. Um, Xiaoping?

Ooh, that's mean. Want to help with Xiaoping? So I'm just going off the first, literally the first names I see.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Xiaoping.

By the way, I got to show you guys something. Ready?

[Speaker 3]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
She jumps in. She jumps in. She, she, she, she, she jumps in.

She jumps in. She. Oh, she jumps in.

Okay, okay, okay. She's, now she's in the acrobatics. Sounds like she's saying, she's in.

It's what word has, yeah, it sounds like she's saying, she's in. Uh, now, uh, is a coffee cup composed of eight different substances? Yes.

I mean, in, in this, yeah. Yeah, in this, in, in the Abhidharma especially. They are, what are the eight?

Sukh, Chi, Ro, Re, Chah on one hand, and then Sa, Chu, Me, Lung on the other hand. What are those eight, Adam? Um, like physicalness, um, um, what you can, uh, smell, um, taste.

Yeah, what you can see, what you can see, what you can smell, what you can taste, and... What you can touch, yeah. What happened to what you can hear?

Uh, they don't consider that one of the eight. Uh, right, because it's too, what, Stanley?

[Speaker 2]
Uh, what's the word? Fleeing?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, fleeting or ephemeral, yeah, yeah. Uh, it goes, it goes by too fast. It couldn't sit in the coffee cup because sound goes like that.

Uh, also, it has the four elements of, Adam? Uh, earth, uh, water, fire, and, and, uh, wind, air. Yeah, uh, and then, Adam, I think that the problem is what you said in your homework.

Um, if a coffee cup is made of those eight parts, which the Abhidharma says it is, uh, then does the coffee cup become a category, and it includes parts, in which case it's a concept rather than a working thing. Okay, uh, but, but don't forget, uh, what's the, in the, uh, Stanley, in the DCI course, tsok chi, and, uh, what's a dönchi, what's a tsok chi? Four or two parts.

[Speaker 2]
The generality and the sense of collection.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and it's always physical, it's always physical, something composed of physical parts, and that's not the same as a dönchi, or a, or, or a chi as opposed to chedar, uh, a category and its members. It's not the same in, in general, but they haven't got there yet, okay? So they're playing with this difference of members and, uh, members in the sense of a category and its members, and members in the sense of a physical object and its components, right?

Yeah. I guess we would say you could be a component without being a member, something like that, okay? Okay, uh, so he says, the guy's asking us, uh, is, is a coffee cup, uh, substantially one with its component parts or not, or is it separate from them, okay?

And generally, the test of being substantially one is, if you are the parts, you are the whole. Yeah. So if you are the hardness of a coffee cup, are you the coffee cup?

No. No. But if you are a blue cup, are you a cup?

Yeah. Yeah, so that's set and member. Cups, cups is the set.

Blue cup is a member of the set. But, uh, the hardness of this coffee cup is not a member of cup in that same sense of a category, right? That's all.

So the guy's asking us, uh, is, is to be the, is to be the hardness of the cup to be the cup. So you just said analysis. Yeah, no.

Is to be a blue cup to be a cup. Yes. Yes.

Yeah, that's the difference, okay? So he's asking us, let's talk about the hardness of this cup, or it's, uh, uh, the visible part of this cup. Is it, is to be that to be a cup?

And we can say no, right? So he's, now he's getting cute. He says, uh, if you say that to be the hardness of the cup is to be the cup, okay?

Who's going to read, Adam? I want somebody to hear real quick. Rocio?

Isabel? Isabel, would you mind helping us?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Um, this one is.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. By the way, here's the definition of the eight substances from, I cut it from Stanley's text. Uh, you want to translate that sentence, Adam?

I'll try. Something, uh, oh, so the eight, uh, the eight substances, um. Yeah, yeah.

The four, uh, from which things arise, the eight great substances from which things arise. Yeah, no, uh, no, uh, the first four are the jungwa chenpo shi. Uh, yeah, that's, I thought it was, uh, is it always written that way?

Uh, jungwa, jungwa chenpo? Uh, no, not always, but it's, it's more clear when they say it that way. Yeah.

It's such, I was thinking sachi me long shi po, and it's usually. That's it, sachi me long, yeah. So, um, jungwa chenpo shi dak dang, so the four great, um, elements.

Yeah, earth. Yeah, earth, fire, air, and, um, or earth, fire, uh, earth, water, fire, and wind. Yeah.

By the way, anytime we're in a class together, and we might have friends here who haven't heard this before, I think it's always wise to say these four are. Energies in the. Yeah, they are physical properties.

For example, earth is solidity. Water is fluidity. Fire is temperature.

Wind is motility, movableness. So, they are not some stupid ancient idea that you've got dirt in your liver or something like that, okay? That the, for example, when they're used in Chinese medicine or, or Indian medicine, they're not just some foolish idea.

Okay, so the four energies, really. And then gyur che pay suk shi te, um, I don't know, the four that involve causes, which are suk, chi, ro, rek cha, right? Okay.

So, this is the tricky thing. These eight are called ze. In the Abhidharma they are called ze, which means what?

Substance. In the sense of ingredient in a cup. There are eight ingredients in this cup.

There are eight components in this cup. And they are substantial. They are somehow very real.

They are not conceptual. They are substantial, right? They use the word substance.

Eight substances. Is, is substance the same as substantial? Yeah, I mean, I, if something is substantial, then it's made of substance.

And if something, if something is substance, then it's substantial, is it? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, maybe.

But is there a difference between ze and ze yu? Yeah. We can say the cup is substantial because it's made of eight substances.

How's that? Okay. Yeah.

The cup is a, is a hard real thing, substantial, because it's made of eight different substances. Okay, good? Now he's going to play with that substance.

All of those eight substances is to be one to be substantially the other. No. We were just talking about the hardness of a cup versus the color of a cup.

Yeah, well, let's say the temperature of a cup and the hardness of a cup, okay? Is the temperature substantial? Yes.

Is the hardness substantial? Are they together one substance? No.

Is to be the temperature to be the hardness? No, no, you got, you got. Yeah, we say no.

But here the guy says, look, if those eight components of the cup are substantially the same, then all of the eight components have to be one substance. Okay, to be one is to be the other. Okay, that's all.

Okay, are these eight qualities substantial? Yes. Oh, now when you say substantial, it means they have a substantial relationship.

Yeah, so to be the hardness is to be the temperature? And he says, look, if they are substantially one, then to be any one of them is to be the others. I mean, I see the argument.

Yeah, but you can say, right, Adam, that if the cup is hard, the cup must have temperature. Yeah. How's that?

In that case, the hardness and the temperature are linked somehow. Okay, if the cup is hard in this school, it has to have temperature. And, by the way, it has to be moving.

Yeah. And it has to have solidity. And it has to have some wetness inside.

Whoa, okay. And that's true. Okay, so he says, if to be the temperature is to be the hardness, then they're all the same stuff.

Okay, then they're all the same substance. Then the water in the cup is the movement of the cup, for example. Now, we say, okay, okay, okay, I got it.

Those eight substances are separate. Okay, they are not the eight substances in the cup, the temperature and the hardness are not such that to be one is to be the other. Okay, cool.

We change our answer. And Adam has to pick on somebody to give that answer. Let's see, let's go quick.

Quick, quick. Katerina Myrinkova. Katerina?

Going once, going twice.

[Speaker 3]
Sorry, I cannot hear you.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, no, yeah, yeah, no, no. Sounds like she's got kids. I get it.

I totally get it. Irivore? Irivore Aravena Valenzuela?

Not Octavius. Oh, hello, you there? Let's go with Octavian.

Octavian? Octavian's also wrestling with a kid, I think. Yeah, hello, I'm just...

Hi. Hi. We miss you.

Hope to see you soon. Yeah. Do you mind helping us with 382, Octavian?

Oh, let's just let those Romanian guys pretend the internet went down. In Chinese, we call it strategic silence. Oh, that's useful.

I don't think such a thing applies to an American. Adam, I think you got to try somebody else. Those Romanians, you know.

He goes out doing salsa on Monday night, I think. That sounds fun. I like salsa.

Aishan? Yes. Hi, sure.

Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Up or down, you know?

[Speaker 1]
Or let's go down. Yeah, I'll go down. Okay, good.

So, is to be the cup to be one of the eight components of the cup? Is to be the cup to be the hardness of the cup, for example? What do you think, Adam, by the way?

I would say no. I would say no also. Okay, let's see where it goes.

Oh, if you say that, then let's consider the eight substances, which are components of the coffee cup, okay? You must be saying then that there's a substance called cup, which is separate from those eight substances, okay? If you say to be the cup is not to be the cup's hardness, then there must be a hardness of the cup independent of the cup.

I mean, I see the reasoning, but I don't necessarily agree. Yeah, I don't necessarily agree there. Okay, here we go.

DE LAS ZAS THA DE'I PAS BUM PA'I ZAS GZUGS KYANG MED But if you say the eight components of the cup to be them is not to be the cup, then you cannot isolate the hardness of the cup the smell of the cup, the taste of the cup, and the touch of the cup, and the quality of hardness, its wetness, its heat, and its movement. They don't exist. GZUGS KYANG MED PA'I ZHUGS And by the way, you couldn't have the sound of the cup anyway as a component of the cup, right?

It's too... Sound of the cup cannot be a part of the cup because it moves too fast. You can't say the sound of the cup is sitting on my desk right now, because it goes away too fast.

Is the bumpa bembo, Adam? Physical matter, like outside physical matter to the chi. Yeah, good.

I like to say particulate matter, you know? You see what I mean? Composed of particles, composed of atoms, right?

Is a coffee cup composed of physical atoms? Yes. Yeah, okay, good.

Okay, but is it... To be its atoms, is that to be the cup? Not necessarily.

Yeah, I'd say not necessarily, but he says if you could have atoms in the cup that were not such that to be the atoms in the cup was to be the cup, then you couldn't have a cup, because there'd be nothing in the cup. It wouldn't be made of anything. You see what I mean?

Okay. That's what he's saying. Okay.

The next sentence is actually understandable. Let's give it to somebody we like. Let's see.

Alejandra? Alejandra Hostel? Dinara?

Mendecheva? Dinara?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, I'm here.

[Speaker 1]
Hi. Hi. Would you mind helping us with 383?

[Speaker 3]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
You guys are so good. Everybody did so good. You can't be worried.

It must be something else. It is the case because if something is chi, bamboo, atom... Something is particulate matter.

Yeah, especially on the outside. It either has to be junga or jungyer. It has to be the elements or it has to be a product of the elements.

Nice. Perfect. Either one.

Either one. Can that gangrung imply also a third possibility of both? Yeah, yeah, it can actually.

It can. So, it's either the elements or the product of the elements, or both the elements and the product of the elements, okay? Okay.

So, an outer form, an outer physical form, can be composed of the elements and their products, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a chi ten, right? Yeah. That doesn't mean it's a category just because it has members, okay?

That's a different sense of members. It's not subset and member, right? Okay.

Who's next, Adam? Elaine? Elaine Tai?

Elaine! About... Jigme?

Jigme, can you give us a hand? Are you there? Yeah, I'm here.

Hi. Hi. Good morning.

Yeah, I think we're on 384. Yeah. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. So, I'll give you a quick... By the way, Shenyang means he's going to go to another problem.

Is Bumba Zedu, Adam? Zedu. Yes.

Hold on, it depends. Really, it depends on how we're reading Bumba. I'm going to say, is a coffee cup substantial?

Yes, it is. Yeah, look, you know. Okay.

Now he says, when you add some to something, it becomes the concept coffee cup. Right. Is, quote, coffee cup substantial, Adam?

No. No, it's not. It's just an idea.

Quote, coffee cup, yeah. Uh, now, is to be... If something is a golden coffee cup, okay?

And let's say it's a little small golden coffee cup. Can we say, to be that small golden coffee cup is to be a coffee cup, is to be a golden coffee cup? Can we say that?

I think you can say that, yeah. Yeah, to be a tiny gold coffee cup is to be one kind of gold coffee cup. That's, that's serbum danze chigna, okay?

If to be a tiny gold coffee cup is to be a gold coffee cup, does gold coffee cup, in that case, exist as a thing or as an idea? Uh, as a thing. I'll say it again.

If you say gold, if you, uh, yeah, if you say gold coffee cup. I'll say it again. I have a small gold coffee cup in my hand.

Is it a gold coffee cup? Yes, it is. Is the gold coffee cup which it is, is that gold coffee cup an idea or an actual cup?

Uh, it depends. I'll say it again. Oh, it's a, it's a, it's a category.

It's a, yeah, yeah. It's a, I'll say it again. I have an actual small gold coffee cup in my hand.

Does it belong to the group called gold coffee cups? It does. Is that group something I can drink coffee out of?

No. No, right. Okay, that's all.

And that's his question here. Uh, is, is, is gold coffee cups, uh, uh, does that exist as something you can use? Or is it just a category?

Okay, that's his question here. If it's this group, then gold coffee cup as a group is something I can drink coffee out of. Okay.

Okay. And if it doesn't exist, Jason Drew, in this school, maybe it doesn't exist at all. So it's a question.

Okay, now, if you answer, Geshe-la, when you have a small gold coffee cup in your hand, and we say it's a, it's one kind of gold coffee cup, uh, when we say one kind of gold coffee cup, that's substantial. Okay, it's not a group. It's not a category.

It's something you could drink coffee out of. Okay. The whole group is something you could drink coffee out of, which is not true, right?

And, and here's our answer. Somebody said, yep, you can drink coffee out of the category called all the gold coffee cups in the world. And Adam's gonna have something to read.

Um, Gibson? Gibson, can you help us? Yes.

I don't know. He's pretty famous now because he's finished his book. I don't know if he's doing reading anymore.

We're at about time. Okay, guys. Gibson.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
If you can drink out of gold coffee cups as a category. Okay, Adam? Okay.

If it's a, if, if it's a, if it's that, then, uh, if you can drink out of coffee cups as a category, then silver cups aren't cups. That's time boss. Okay.

Maybe I want to stop there. This is called one of those surrender end of class. Okay.

Thank you guys. I was going to translate for us next time. That was really fun.

Thank you. We're just going to leave that right there like that. Yeah.

We'll figure it out next time. This is a strategy and it's going to cook in your mind. Okay.

So Adam, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389. Okay. Yes, sir.

Four parts. Yes, sir. Five parts.

Yeah. I, I really enjoyed watching Emma. She's doing this gym.

What do they call that? Where the kids do this, uh, climbing and then in the gym. Parkour.

[Speaker 2]
Jungle gym.

[Speaker 1]
Tumbling. Oh, it's called jungle gym, I think. But there's some kind of new sport like that.

Like they can win trophies and stuff like that. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Like, like ninja. Something.

[Speaker 1]
It is called ninja something. Yeah. It's a really big deal.

Like major gyms are shutting down and turning themselves into ninja gyms.

[Speaker 2]
Now they're ninja gyms. Yeah, totally. It's super cute.

[Speaker 1]
Certain kinds of kids are attracted to it. And certain kind of kids do really well at it. And I have a feeling she's going to be one of them.

Yeah. She says all the time. Ninja warriors.

She says what? She says that she wants to be a ninja. She says, I, I'm gonna be a ninja.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I have a feeling she's that kind of girl. Like she climbs mountains and she does stuff like that already.

[Speaker 2]
She's going to sing all the way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, she does actually. Anyway, she's really cute. How many big mountains she's climbed now?

Uh, she did 30, 34 of the 14ers. Um, she's done 34 mountains over 14,000 feet. Yeah.

Over four and a half thousand meters. Yeah. Is that like a record of some sort for a kid like that?

It's, it's possible. We're going to try this summer. We're going to try to finish up the rest of them.

I, I don't know, but, um, I can't see too many other four-year-olds having completed all of them. You got to do it before you can't carry her anymore. That's, that's the, yeah, that's my plan.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
Otherwise it's going to be one a year.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, she's really beautiful. You got a good kid. She's one of our oldest ones, I think.

She just turned four. Thank you again. That was so fun.

All right, handsome. We'll see you guys in how many minutes? Are you have another meeting?

Oh, yeah. Okay. I usually say this is your chance, all of you to ask Ben toughest questions that you can possibly think of.

Think of some kind of weirdo questions and ask them, okay? Yeah, really weirdo ones. So thanks, Ben, for doing a Q&A.

And see you guys later. Oh, and after that, there will be yoga with Lydia. In the afternoon, we'll have yoga with Anjali.

So try to make it to one of our classes to yoga classes. All right. See you guys this evening.