Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 46

[Speaker 1]
There was a distinction being made between one rate, one way to relationship, and so kind of felt, does anybody have the word, the Tibetan phrase for, to share a relationship? Do you want to start and I can give you the answer?

[Speaker 3]
Situ? No, but, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Dr. Joe. Yeah, there you go, Dr. Joe. Nice.

Yeah, it is a rather straightforward question, and you can boil it down to saying, you know, a Toyota is not a Chevrolet just because they're both beautiful. Okay, what's the relationship that they share? They both belong to, okay, so we'll go through it.

So working things produced by conscious effort and working things not produced by conscious effort are mutually exclusive. However, they do share a relationship because they're both changing things. They both belong to the category of changing things.

So what we're really homing in on here is that members of any given set share a one-way relationship with their parent category. And just because they're members of the same set doesn't necessarily mean that they're members that share a relationship, such as if you want to automatically be the other. And like I said, it's pretty common sense, but nothing too deep there.

So what famous senshi is given as an example of a changing thing produced by conscious effort? Give the full form. We reconstructed the syllogism too using the senshi.

And I was hoping that somebody could give me the full Jorla in both English and Tibetan.

[Speaker 2]
Consider the sound of a conch shell horn.

[Speaker 1]
Perfect, yeah, yeah, yeah. What's the Tibetan for a conch shell? The sound of a conch shell.

Jjongja? Jjongja, yeah, jjongja. Yeah, jjongja.

Yeah, yeah, totally. And so if we're gonna say that it's changing, what would the next line mean? It's changing because it's made by conscious effort.

Yeah, in Tibetan. Mitapa? Mitapa yinzhe.

Yeah, mitapa yinzhe. And then the last one, because it is something like, something chibi here, but another word is that? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Great. Yeah.

Right. And, you know, it appears to be a pretty, I think, probably a pretty famous one. So, I thought it would be worth putting in here.

What's going on? Oh, yeah. So, a classical example of a change in thing produced by conscious effort is the sound of a cocktail.

And you're right. I apologize.

[Speaker 2]
If, um, if there's anything we can do about your sound quality, the translators are actually having a hard time hearing you and if you can't do it, you can't do it, but they can't translate you.

[Speaker 1]
I'll see if there's some setting on my microphone here. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah.

Hold on. It is, uh, it is on a different, uh, microphone and a different, uh, one second.

[Speaker 2]
The lavalier mic that's attached to your tie right now seems to have run off with it. We can't hear you at all, Adam.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. His lips are moving. It's a, it's typically a good sign, but not in this case.

Test. Glorious. That's so true and clear.

All right. Sorry. Sorry about that.

Uh, okay. Good. Listen to those dulcet tones.

Uh, so, okay. So describe the difference between perceiving the changing nature of sound and perceiving the fact that sound is changing. What are the two terms that we're contrasting here?

Nice. Nice question. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
And the difference is when one you are perceiving a changing object in the other one, you're perceiving an unchanging object, which is a fact.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. Yeah. You could, you could.

Yeah, definitely. That's a good place to start. Um, so what we've been talking about is lomps, perceiving objects that are lomps of qualities, right?

So it's sound, right? When we perceive sound, we, hold on. Uh, yeah.

You, you, you had a good place. Um, uh, Pei-Ling.

[Speaker 3]
One is direct perceive, one is perceive with logic.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Completely.

Completely. Yeah. And, uh, let's see if we can here, it might be easier for, we'll just look at it this way.

Uh, so when we perceive sound, we simultaneously perceive all the qualities that come into existence and grow with it. And this is what is meant by the term zaychig. So for instance, when the auditory consciousness perceives, and the two words that I was looking for here is mikba and ngepa.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
See and ascertain.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. So for instance, when the auditory consciousness perceives a sound, we simultaneously perceive its changing nature because a certain changingness comes into existence and grows with that sound. However, the fact that sound is changing is something that can only be ascertained, ngepa, by conceptual consciousness.

So it's not perceivable by the senses. Is that okay, Geshe Michael? Yeah.

Yeah, you got it. Um, there's a difference between, there's a difference between perceiving it and ascertaining it.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's, it's similar to nang la mang ngepa. What's the example? Uh, nang la, uh, so not perceiving a self?

When a high school girl is texting her friend and her mother says, come to dinner, she perceives a sound, but she doesn't ascertain it. What's the nang la here?

[Speaker 3]
It's appearing, but.

[Speaker 1]
It does appear, it appears to her, but she doesn't grasp it. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So they, they're making, it's, it's very helpful in your book when they finally say, it's not the same thing to perceive something as it is to be aware of it, or something like that.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Is there a relationship between ngepa and mikpa?

[Speaker 1]
Hmm, that's a question. I think you have to mikpa the ngepa, but you don't have to ngepa the mikpa.

[Speaker 2]
So is, um, is a ngepa a mikpa, but a mikpa is not then necessarily a ngepa?

[Speaker 1]
Exactly.

[Speaker 2]
Or do you mikpa and then ngepa?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, well, I think you would mikpa first and then ngepa, technically. But millisecond, you know, zillosecond apart. Zillosecond.

Yeah. Okay. All right.

Um, so. I have 453 and 454 for you. Will you read it, Adam?

I'll try. Yeah, I will. Mikpar tao.

Hold on. Up or down. Mikpar tao.

Mikpar. That's a mihiyo. Ma mikpar tao.

Yeah. Yeah, okay, good. BYA'N ZIN NYAN GZHAN GYIS So what's BYA'N ZIN NYAN GZHAN?

Adam? Auditory consciousness. Yeah, unconsciousness of what you hear, and you're holding onto a sound.

Right. Does it perceive the sound and the impermanence of the sound? sound together or separately?

Together, it has to. Yeah, together. Does not perceive them separately, he says.

Therefore, it must perceive the sound and the impermanence of the sound together, right? Nikjitu, as a single entity, okay? Yeah.

If you agree with that, then you have to agree that when you see sound, it must, I'm sorry, when you perceive sound, you must also be perceiving that it has a self-nature. Yeah, I can't read them. Because the impermanence of sound is inherent to it.

That's the point here, okay? It would be equivalent to say that when you perceive sound, you also perceive the changing nature of sound. You could say that, but what he's saying is if when you perceive sound, you are simultaneously aware of its impermanence, then you must be perceiving sound as an entity which exists in and of itself.

[Speaker 3]
Like it kind of comes along with the object in like a packet almost.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, therefore, that sound would be self-existent. That's what he's saying, okay? And then his reason is this.

You must be perceiving that sound as self-existent because when you perceive the sound, you simultaneously perceive all of its qualities in a package. Therefore, you must be perceiving that sound as self-existent because you are failing to perceive it as not being self-existent. Yeah.

Okay, that's all. And that's a falsity, as I made a note to myself, okay? Just because you don't perceive the absence of something doesn't mean you perceive the presence of something, okay?

But is he treating mitakpa as an absence? It's a weird thing where he's, that the whole question is, when you hear a sound, is it impermanent or not?

[Speaker 3]
Has to be.

[Speaker 1]
It has to be. When you hear a sound, do you hear a sound which is impermanent, which is changing moment by moment? Yes or no?

Yeah. Are you aware of it being permanent? No.

But you're aware of the sound and the impermanence is inherent in the sound. Yeah. This is the difference between mikpa and ngepa, then.

Yeah. Well, it's delicate, okay? Anyway, can you perceive sound without being aware of its transitory nature?

That's the question. I hope so. And somehow, if you could be aware, if you could be aware of its transitory nature, even as you hear it, you would be seeing something with a self-nature.

That's the point here. It's a little tricky.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
A little tricky, okay? If it's assumed that when you hear a sound you are aware of its transitory-ness, then that sound must be self-existent. That's the argument.

Okay. It's a little tricky. Yeah, and this was on 452.

So this was a sarcastic statement, yeah. Yeah. The bell here went down.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Isn't that sound self-existent in this school?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is. Yeah. Let's keep going.

Drayiteng. Drayiteng datme jan ze. Drayi ze yina, nyen she ki dra mikpa na.

Drayi datme mikgo kyang. Ze mam yinpe. Datme par mamikpa yinla.

Dey chir, dey chir. Dakme par mamikkyang. Dak ye par mikmi minkgo so.

Shana. Yeah, now this time you have a shen na, which means what, Adam? It implies what?

[Speaker 3]
Incorrect. That whatever's about to follow is incorrect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, we don't know how far back it started. Yeah, okay. But we definitely know that 453 is a wrong statement.

So, let's talk about it. RGYA'I RTEN DU RGYA'I RTEN DU BDAG MED What's that mean? The self is just a sound?

Yeah, the fact that sound is not itself. If you wanted to go to the highest school of Buddhism, which we're not in, well, let's say, in the logic schools, what would be the self nature of sound? Ultimately, it should be the fact that you're perceiving it.

Let's say, BDAG GCIG RANG WANG CHEN It would have to be unchanging, it would have to be singular, and it would have to be independent. In this school. Okay.

BDAG GCIG RANG WANG CHEN describes ultimate nature in this school. And also in the Abhidharma school, basically. Okay, cool.

Yeah, that seems pretty important, so I'm going to make an estimate. Out of those three, I think there's a distinction between which one of the three the two schools like the most. That's a different point, okay?

So anyway, let's say, if the non-self existence of sound is part of sound, right? And by the way, when he says ZE here, he means quality. Okay.

And when he says quality, it cannot be the absence of something. So this is where you put the positive ZE here. Yeah, you see what I mean?

He wants it to be a positive quality and not something that sound is missing. Okay. Okay.

And by the way, this subject is not as simplistic as it sounds. It's quite difficult. It's more difficult than you think.

So anyway, if not having self existence were a quality of sound, that's the point, okay? A positive quality of sound. That's the point here, okay?

Then, when you became aware of a sound with your ear, right? Then you should also become aware of the fact that the sound has no self nature. Yeah.

Okay, so if having no self nature was a positive quality of sound, then whenever you heard sound, you should be aware of the no self nature of the sound. If it's a positive quality of sound, okay? But it's not, okay?

ZE MA YIN PAS means the dogma of sound is not a positive quality, okay? Therefore, when you're aware of sound, you are not automatically aware of its lack of self nature. Yeah.

Okay? Okay. And then he says, look, therefore, even if you're not aware of the no self nature of the sound, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are focusing on a self nature of sound.

Yeah. Okay, I'll say it again. Just because you're not aware of the no self nature of sound, doesn't necessarily imply that you are aware of the self nature of sound.

Yeah. Okay? He says, and now we have to fight with him about it.

And the point is, this is all coming from the argument of, why do you have to prove to somebody that sound is changing, if when they hear it, they're hearing a changing thing already? Why do you have to prove to someone that sound is changing, if when they hear it, they're listening to a changing thing? Everyone who ever heard a sound was listening to a changing thing.

Why do you have to use all this logic to prove that a sound is changing? That's the question. They were aware of it, because they're aware of sound.

And then we say, not necessarily. They were aware of a changing sound, but they weren't aware of the changingness of sound. How's that?

Okay. Okay? Yeah.

That's been the argument all along. Okay? Yeah.

All right, here we go. Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. I was a little worried about that.

Wait, I think you missed a, did you miss a paragraph? No, we're on 454, I believe. Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, okay. Okay? Okay.

Yeah, so dopen jau implies, I think, that this is our rang luk. Okay, we say, you should say, Drupadjana, you should say. So whatever this 454 says, I guess we believe it.

Let's look at it. Duryodhana-middha-bhattagyan-vichara. Now this gets really weird, okay?

When you listen to a sound, are you listening to a changing thing? Yes. Yes.

Is the changingness and the sound separate things? No, they are. Well, they're distinct from each other.

Let's say that. Inception, yeah. They're not disconnected, but they are distinct from each other.

They are different, right? So is the fact that they are not each other, is that fact substantial? Is it a positive quality?

[Speaker 3]
No. I mean, you said fact.

[Speaker 1]
You said if- Yeah, I said cha. Yeah, cha here means the condition that they are separate. Okay, the very, very delicate word, cha.

Like cha-cha-cha.

[Speaker 3]
That's it, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So the fact or the condition that sound and its impermanence are separate, okay, is that a positive quality? No.

No, because, I mean, yeah, in order to conceptualize a difference, I mean, it takes conceptualization to recognize a difference, I would say. I think we're going back to if you recognize that sound and its impermanence are separate, it must be you're thinking about the opposite of them being the same. Okay.

The same thing. You see what I mean? I'll say it again.

If you recognize that sound and the impermanence of sound are separate entities, then you're not thinking that they are the same thing, right? And that's a negative quality, right? Yeah, that's a negative thing because you are canceling the fact that they are the same thing.

Right. If it's a cancellation, you can't really call it a positive quality. Of course, yeah.

Okay, so dze is not a substantial in the sense of being a positive quality, okay? Something like that.

[Speaker 3]
Well, that's kind of tricky right there, that cha dze, I mean, then.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, now, second line here. NGES SHES KYIS DE NYID THA DE'I DU MA MID NA When you listen to a sound, do you focus on an impermanent sound or do you focus on two objects? A sound and the impermanence of sound.

I'll say it again. When you listen to a sound, are you listening to an impermanent sound or are you focusing on two objects, sound and impermanence? I'd say you're listening to a single one.

I would say so also. And he says here, you do not perceive the two separately.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so if you don't perceive the two separately, you must be perceiving them together as a single thing. I'll say it again. When you listen to sound, is it changing?

Yes. Are you thinking, oh, listen, there's two things going on, sound and something changing? No, you don't think like that.

So you must be perceiving them in a lump, let's say, right? Yeah. As a single lump, cheek to make good, okay?

But is that lump a positive entity? Yes. He says, zesumadru.

Yeah, it's not. I mean, yeah, because it has, yeah, sorry, go ahead. I'm sorry again.

That's all, that's all. He says it's not. Yeah, then you have to listen to them together, but their being together is not a separate entity on its own.

Okay. Therefore, we say that your auditory consciousness was not listening to the impermanence of sound. Okay.

It was listening to an impermanence sound, but it was not listening to the impermanence of sound. How's that? Okay.

That's two separate things. I think so. I mean, I'm definitely gonna sit with it.

And- No, by the way, you have to sit with this. Yeah. It's deep.

And if someone says, I understand it right away, I don't believe you. And I don't understand it myself right away. I think then you have to decide, are you gonna take this home and sit with it?

Or are you gonna just make dinner? I'm wavering between the two. All right.

Next check. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

Yeah, we're back on you. I'm gonna give you the plane. Hey, Lindsay, how can I focus on this with kitties rubbing against my leg?

I got this cap. All right.

[Speaker 2]
Nearly impossible.

[Speaker 1]
Nearly impossible. I gotta go find your book, Adam. Hang on.

[Speaker 3]
I'm gonna drink this shaft of light here.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, hang on just a minute. I gotta go get your book. Adam.

This is Yuki Munstown. This is Beth. This is...

Uh-oh. Hang on. Hang on, hang on, hang on.

I don't know. Here we go. Okay.

Too many books on my screen. Okay. All right, now I can share.

Let me see. Okay. Good, right, Adam?

What number, what paragraph are we on? 1455. Okay, who's gonna read, Adam?

Okay, pull up a list of participants here. Venerable Sunam, would you help us? Venerable Sunam?

Marina? Marina. Hi, Teddy.

I just saw you. Thanks for all your help recently. Or let's see, Dodo.

Dodo, would you help us?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
You got picked on three times today. Adam, you got the plane, you got the plane.

[Speaker 3]
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, beautiful. All right. All right.

Okay, good.

[Speaker 1]
The fact that they are separate, what? I guess sound and its impermanence, right? By the way, is sound separate from sound's impermanence?

Yes. I mean, conceptually distinct, yes. So is there such a thing as the difference between sound and its impermanence?

Yes. I mean, there has to be. Yeah, but is that a positive entity?

Can you hold it? No, that's a negative entity. Yeah, in fact, it's an unchanging fact, right?

Negative. The fact that they are separate, right? Then somebody comes along and says, why do you say that the fact that sound and its impermanence are separate cannot be a positive entity?

Yeah. Separate, nice little lumpy thing, okay? Yeah.

Why do you say that? Somebody has asked the question, all right? Why do you say that?

Then we say, if it were the case that the fact that sound and its impermanence are separate existed as a separate entity, a separate changing entity, not an unchanging entity, okay? I'll say it again. Is sound separate from its impermanence?

Yes. Is that separate existence a positive separate entity? And we say, no, it's not.

There's no bump thing called the separateness of sound and its impermanence, okay? If it were a separate entity, if the fact that sound was separate from its impermanence was a separate thing itself and not just a fact, okay? Then sound and its impermanence, the fact that they are separate would have to exist self-existently.

Let's say it that way, okay? If the fact that sound and its impermanence are separate was itself a positive entity, then sound and its impermanence existing separately would have to exist in truth or ultimately speaking, okay? Does sound have impermanence?

Yes. Does sound connect to its impermanence? Yes.

Do they exist as... Is there a separate independently existing entity called sound and its impermanence together? No, because that's a concept, okay?

But if that such a thing did exist, that would be a good example in this school of a self-existing thing.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That would be a self-existing thing, okay? And if they were a self-existing thing, okay? If the fact that sound and its impermanence are separate from each other was a self-existing separate thing, then the sound and its impermanence would be separate, unconnected things.

Okay. Okay? But the main point here is that the fact that sound is separate from its impermanence, right?

That's not... In this school, that's a theoretical thing and that makes it unchanging. That's all.

It's not itself a normal working thing. The fact that they are separate is an idea and not a thing, okay? That's all.

Yeah. That's all, okay. By the way, why are we discussing all this?

It's because we have such trouble figuring out that things are not self-existent. Even though every time we look at something, we are seeing it and its self-existence, its lack of self-existence together. I'll say it again.

Every time you look at something, anything in the universe, any time you look at dinner, you are seeing a dinner which is not self-existent, but you don't recognize what you're seeing. You don't see what you're seeing, okay? You don't see the fact that it's not coming from its own side.

You cannot see it. You don't see that fact, okay? And that's understandable because that fact is not a thing.

It's a theory. It's a theoretical construct. Yeah.

And it can only be perceived by deep thought or direct yogic meditation, direct yogic meditation, okay? DE NYID DENPE THA DE'I TU GYUR LA DE LTAR NA Therefore, those two things are not such that to be one is to be the other, okay? DZAD THA DE DE NYID DZAD THA DE'I TU GYUR Sorry, they are separate entities.

WA Sound and...

[Speaker 3]
It's changing nature.

[Speaker 1]
It's changing nature. They go together, but they are separate. They are not one thing.

Yeah. And you can't... If they were one thing, nobody would ever get angry in the kitchen.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? If every time someone saw an angry husband, they also understood that that's coming from them, if they could perceive those two things together, no one would ever fight with each other. Yeah.

It wouldn't exist. And they are always together. They are never separate.

But we can't see them together. We can't see that they are together. That's all.

Okay? Cool? Yeah, very cool.

Yeah. All right, 456, who's gonna read, Adam? Another victim here.

Participant list. Juan, Juan, would you help us? Are you translating?

I'm gonna say my mantra, okay, Adam? Please. If you understood all this stuff before, you don't have to be in this class.

Yeah. If you don't understand all this stuff, you're in the right place. Okay, here we go.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Cha.

[Speaker 1]
Cha, cha, cha.

[Speaker 3]
Cha, se, su, ma, dru, par, ga, lo, gel, lo, she, na.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and by the way, Juan, why is this percentage mark here in the comma? I think it's because it's, how say, suspicious to be a mistake. Yeah, they missed a comma.

They should have had a comma there. Oh, okay. So when you see a curly bracket and you see a percentage sign, it means grandpa added something that they, the carver missed it.

And you would think that a simple comma is not so important, but here it's very important. They missed, they missed it. The carver missed it, okay?

So, so Juan, it's like this. He's going, look, one thing is true. Two thing is true.

Three thing is true. So why not? Okay.

So it's like that. The comma means, okay, first of all, draws a ze. What's that mean, you guys, Adam?

First of all, Draws, draws substantial. Yeah, it's a thing. Come on.

Sound is a thing. Okay. And impermanence is also a, The positive.

It's a, It's also a thing. Okay. Changing is a thing.

And sound is a thing. Okay. ja da mi da pa ta de kyang yin na.

And if the two things are ta de, Or separate. Then there should be a cha of them being ta de. Yeah, but our condition, yeah.

Yeah, okay, here we go. Look, sound is a thing. Yeah.

Look, changing is a thing. Look, even if sound and being changing are separate, if they are separate, if that's also, de nyi ta de yinpay cha, there should be a condition that they are separate. Yeah.

Does sound exist as a thing? Yes. Does changing exist as a thing?

Yes. Does changing apply to sound? Yes.

Are they the same thing? No. Are they distinct from each other?

Yes. Is there a condition that they are distinct from each other? Yes.

Yes. Now, if there's a condition that two things, which are substantial things, are separate from each other, then that condition, that the two substantial things are separate from each other, should also be substantial. Ah.

My true. Now, he says that. He's like, I'll say it again.

Yeah. Is this a thing? Yes.

Is this gamma thing? Yes. So, are they the same thing?

No. Are they separate from each other? Yeah.

They are. If this thing's a thing, and this thing's a thing, then the fact that they're separate should be a? Positive thing.

[Speaker 3]
A thing.

[Speaker 1]
And we say bad logic. Yeah. Bad logic.

Not necessarily true. He says it's contradictory to think that. Then we come back with, by the way, in any argument with any girlfriend or boyfriend, et cetera, wife or husband, you always start with, well enough.

Well enough, go ahead. Well then, honey bunny. Yeah.

Well then, okay. Who's gonna read, Adam? Let me pull up these participants one more time.

Teddy, Ted, man, would you help us? Yeah, let me give it a shot. Nah, rah.

Yeah, draw? Oh, nah. Oh, nah.

Oh, nah, ah, cah, chee, chah, me, don, me, tah, tah, kay, kay, kay, see, chah. Yeah. Meh, key, dag, me, yee, nah, zah, soo, groop, soo, par, Zay, soo, droop, guh, guh, guh, par, tah.

Group, par, tah. Denny, yee, nah, zay, okay, zay, soo, group, soo, shing, Denny, yee, nah, dot, me, yee, go, pop, here. Ginga, be a cheer.

Say, be a cheer. A cheer, okay. Thank you, dude.

Thank you for helping. Yeah, nice. By the way, Adam, he said, look, you're talking about a relationship between two things, right?

Yes. What are the two things? Sound and changing, changing this, okay?

Then he says, is sound a positive thing? We say, yes. Is changing this a thing?

We say, yes. Then the fact that one is not the other should also be a substantial. I don't know about that.

Well, that's what he says. And then we're going to come back with a parallel, ridiculous statement. We're about to say a parallel, ridiculous statement.

Since apples are red, and since ribbons are red, then oranges are red too. You see what I mean? We're going to say something like that.

Okay, here we go. Well then, well then is always just before you destroy the other guy. Yeah.

Oh, I see. So, and then we give him another ridiculous, okay, if something is one, if something is two, then it must be three. We give him the same pattern.

Yeah. Okay. Oh, well, is da ke chik cha meh?

Partless, it's moment, partless moments. Yeah, it does sound consist of most tiny milliseconds of sound.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. In the school, yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Da ke chik cha meh. This says ke chik cha meh doesn't, oh yeah.

Partless, if sound is made of partless milliseconds, okay, if sound is made up of little balls of time that cannot be split into smaller balls of time, okay, let's say now. Mm-hmm. And if changingness itself is also made of unsplittable balls of time.

Yeah. Okay. Well, if they are, if they are, if they have no self-nature in that sense, don't forget in this school, something cannot be self-existent if it consists of partless atoms or partless milliseconds of time, okay?

You can't say it's self-existent, why? It consists of tiny little moments. It doesn't exist in and of itself.

It's deconstructible, which is dependent in the Abhidharma school. It can be deconstructed mentally. Therefore, it's not self-existent.

That's what it means to be self-existent in these lower schools. I'll say it again. If you can close your eyes and deconstruct the thing into atoms and smallest moments, then it is not self-existent.

Okay, so let's take sound, which is composed of smallest instance of time. Sorry. Yeah, he says smallest moments of time in the duration of the sound.

Let's consider the duration of the sound. It consists of smallest moments of time. Therefore, it does have a self-nature.

It's real. Yeah, in the school. Yeah, totally.

That's reality. Time is real because you can break it down into atoms of time. Okay, yeah.

And let's say that changingness itself is made of smallest moments of time, okay? Okay. And that is their lack of self-nature in this school.

Okay. In a sense, that is their emptiness in this school. Right.

They can be deconstructed. Therefore, they're empty, okay? In this school, okay?

So then I guess they must be separate stuff. Yeah. Just a joke.

Because sound is made of tiniest parts and because changingness is made of smallest parts, then I say they must be real things. Yeah, totally. I mean, from the perspective of the school, I would agree.

Yeah, 100%. Yeah, good. Okay.

Then there's a beautiful mistake in the karmic, Z. With J instead of Z. And that's what you guys pay me for.

They need, you know, if something is one of those two, what are the two? Mitapkecic chame and drakecic chame. Yeah, if something is the sound made of partless pieces and if something is impermanence made of partless milliseconds, okay, then if something is both of them, what's both of them?

Sound, which is?

[Speaker 3]
Changing.

[Speaker 1]
Changing, that's all. If something is both, okay? Is sound itself made of partless particles?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Is momentariness made of smallest moments of time?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. No.

[Speaker 1]
He says yes, it is. It is, in this school, okay, because it's real. Therefore, if something is both of them together, what's both of them together?

It's changing sound. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If something is both of them together, then it's got to be a substance.

It's got to be a thing you can hold in your hand. Why? Because the sound is a substance and the impermanence is a substance.

And according to you, once you mix two things which are the same type of thing, you get a third thing, which is the same type. Yeah. You just said that in 456.

Okay. Okay, he said sound is a thing and changing is a thing. Therefore, the fact that sound is changing is a thing.

Yeah, yeah. And then we came back with, oh, well, I guess the fact that sound is changing has little pieces to it. Because it's made of two things that have little pieces.

Yeah. Same argument. We're just, it's rikpa gotsum, parallel reasoning.

Parallel sick reasoning. Did you say rikpa gotsum? Rikpa gotsum, yeah.

Rikpa gotsum, okay, yeah. You said if something is a certain way and if you connect it with something else which is a certain way, then the combination should be the same certain way. Yeah.

You said that in 456. Now in 457, we say, oh, well, okay, if we can do that kind of thing, then since sound is made of unsplittable moments of auditory stuff, and since impermanence itself is also composed of unsplittable moments, then the combination of the two must be a thing composed of unsplittable moments. The same thing, yeah, or the same quality.

Yeah. The same logic that you just used, we are using, okay? Okay.

And if anything is either one of those, it has to be dakme. By the way, those two are dakme. What's it mean in this school?

Those two, what are the two? Sound, indivisible moments of sound and indivisible moments of time. Yeah, good.

Impermanence and sound, okay? Those two independently, those two separately are dakme. In this school, they have no self-existence.

Okay. They do not have self-existence. Why?

Because they have component parts. Yeah. They are made of parts in this school, okay?

So the combination of them should be self-existent also. Sorry, should be made of, the combination of the two, according to you, should be made of partless particles because each of the two is made of partless particles. Yeah, I mean, I think I see where he's going.

Yeah, that's all. If sound is made of partless particles and if impermanence itself is made of partless particles, then the fact that sound is impermanent, according to your logic, should be made of partless particles. Yeah.

Because both of those have no self-nature, which means in this school, they are made of little balls. Yeah, totally, yeah. Therefore, the combination of the two should be made of little balls, but it's not because it's an idea.

Yeah, I mean, this is kind of in the, if I remember correctly, it's in the definition of a wrong tune. Yeah, so I'll say it again. Is sound made of little balls?

Yes. Yeah, is changing made of little balls of time? Yes.

Therefore, the fact that sound is changing is made of little balls. But I don't agree, yeah. Okay, good, yeah.

But by the way, if you disagree, then the fact that sound is changing in this school does have a self-existence.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Because it's not made of little balls.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I'm going to sit with it again. I'm going to have some time.

The fact that sound is changing exists without little balls, and that makes it self-existent in this school. Okay. And as all of our listeners, the same case, they are left len-me-doh.

You can't say, yeah. You can't respond. Yeah, you are left speechless.

You can't say anything, can you? And we're all like, yeah, but we just didn't understand what the heck you're talking about. That's why we're speechless.

He says he left the guy speechless. Adam, let's start the next part. I'd like you to read.

We're going to go comma by comma until we run out of time. We got one minute. Okay.

Life is made of minutes, and we should use every one. Deh-nah. Deh-nah.

Therefore, it was like that. Yeah. jah-dah-mi-tah-peh.

jah-dah-mi-tah-peh. Tse-tsu-jup-ching. Sound and its impermanence must be substantial.

Yeah, they seem to be separately, okay? Sound is substantial, and changing is substantial. Why?

Because they're made of little balls. Right, right. Now, are they tah-day?

Yes. Yeah. Is there a condition?

Is there a fact that they are separate? Yes. Is that fact made of little balls?

No. No, it's a theory. It's a theoretical thing.

We'll say it again. Is sound made of little balls? Yes.

Is impermanence made of little balls of time? Yes. Are the two separate from each other?

They are. Is the fact that they're separate from each other made of little balls? No.

No, good. We got the first two and a half lines here. Okay.

Yeah, and you're going to finish the rest, ha-ha. Are we out of time? We are.

So, but we can do a little bit more because the news was so slow. Thank you, Yen. Let's finish this paragraph.

DE NI, THA DE YIN PA'I... I just want you to do up to the next comma. DE NI, DE NI, THA DE YIN PA'I CHAD, PAS NI, KYIS MDZAS MA YIN PA'I PHYIR.

Yeah, since the fact that they are different from each other is not made of balls, that's just an idea, right? That's not made of balls. DE NI, THA DE DU NGON SEMS KYI MI DGOS.

It's not necessarily the case that if you see the balls of the sound and you're aware of the balls of the moment-by-moment-ness, it doesn't mean that you can directly perceive that they are separate because that's an idea. It's not the sound. It's not the changing.

Okay? Sir. GAL TE, what's that mean?

It must be contradictory. Yeah. No, not in GAL, GAL TE.

Oh, GAL. What is this GAL? If it's the...

If that were the case. Yeah. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, totally. If it were the case, that, yeah. If the CHA of the two, THA DE.

Okay, is it the factor? Is it the fact? Yeah.

Let's talk about the fact that sound and impermanence are separate. Let's talk about the fact, the mental construct of balls. Let's talk about them, even though the two things have balls.

Yeah. Let's talk about the fact that they are separate. Okay?

Does that have balls? You can have balls to talk about this. Jason, what do you think?

Yeah. If that's not substantial, if the fact that they are separate is not a separate thing with its own components, okay? Yeah.

Then when you perceive that they are, then your perception that they are separate is only a DOPA.

[Speaker 3]
DOPA, yeah, it's a mental, it's a conceptualization, it's a, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's just an imagination. You're just imagining it, okay? Dude, does the sound have little pieces?

Yes. Does the impermanence have little pieces? Sure, yes.

Does the fact that sound is impermanent have little pieces? No. Can you perceive the fact that sound is impermanent?

Yes. Therefore, when you perceive the fact that sound is impermanent, you are not perceiving little pieces. You are making the whole thing up.

Up with that, yeah. It's a creation of your imagination. So far, so good, right?

Yeah. Then he gives, he's good so far, and then he goes off track, okay? Okay.

I agree that sound is made of little pieces. I agree that the fact that it changes is made of little pieces of time. Yeah.

And I also can accept the idea that when you perceive that sound is made up of little pieces of time, that's an imagination. That's a creation of your mind. I agree.

I agree that that perception is a creation of your mind, and it doesn't have little pieces. Okay. Therefore, those two things are not separate.

Okay, yeah, yeah. Now, his last little piece there is where he fell off, the cliff. Since putting them together is a conception, then they're not really separate, aren't they?

They're not. Yeah. That's it.

Not really. That's good, yeah. It's great food for dinner tonight.

I'll chew on that one. And by the way, the whole conversation is not BS. It's not bullshit.

It's not a waste of time. Why can we be surrounded by things which have emptiness all day long, our whole life long, and we don't see it? How is that even possible?

How can we live in a world where every single thing around us is empty, and we don't see the emptiness? Why do we have to work for a zillion lifetimes to see the emptiness? What's wrong with it?

Yeah. All right. Yay, stopped here.

Okay, so Adam, next time, can you do 460, 461, 462, 463? They're so short. I'd be happy to, yeah.

Four parts, okay? Yes, sir. All right, thank you.

Thank you for numbering all this stuff. By the way, he's going to start quoting Ben Kramer's little book there, and we'll get a head start on Ben's ideas, okay? He's going to start quoting from Manavarthika.

Awesome. All right. By the way, if you're listening and you're lost, that means you're learning something you didn't know before, and that's a great thing, okay?

All right. See you guys. What day?

Saturday, right?

[Speaker 2]
Saturday. Thank you so much, Geysha Michael. Amazing classes.

And thank you so much, everybody, for staying with it. We have a lot of people still here in this room subjecting themselves to this extraordinary abuse. I am so impressed to be in a place where currently 244, well, it was 246 a moment ago.

[Speaker 1]
No, again, it's just so difficult in Zoom to find the off button that day.

[Speaker 2]
I'm so thrilled that there are other people like me who can find it compelling to sit through a whole class and not feel the impediment of not understanding should stop me from being here. Thank you so much, Geysha Michael, for being patient with our little brains and going slow and taking time with us and being so understanding. And thank you, everyone, translators.

I have no idea how you do it, but we're so fortunate that you do. Everyone continuing to contribute to being a part of this community and supporting this community. You can see here that minds are changing.

You can feel your brain being stretched. It's like yoga for the mind. You can feel it's stressful.

My brain is sweating. It must mean we're all growing together. And it's an honor to be in this place with you.

Thank you, Adam, for translating ahead, working hard. Thank you, Geysha Michael.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Nick. Fly safely. So no discussion after this one, huh?

No, no. Only the first one. I mean, I'm going to go discuss with Ezra, but.

Hey, Adam, give a hug to your baby for us, okay? I certainly will, sir. Yeah, I certainly will.

I really enjoy when you send me photographs, so don't forget. I'll send you some more again, yeah. All right.

Thank you, guys. I like them too. Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Thank you. Bye, friends.

Bye, class. Hi, everybody. Please stay.