Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 47

[Speaker 1]
So we're just going to hit the ground running. I'm going to pull up my text. I've got some preliminary stuff that I translated that I'm kind of embarrassed to show you guys.

But we'll see how it goes. And let me just start.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you so much, Adam. Adam agreed very last second to do this class because we had one scheduled, but they couldn't make it today. So Adam very graciously agreed to.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and I just want to apologize. I had, you know, if it does get rough or if it's a little dirty for all you guys.

[Speaker 3]
We'll write a letter to Kendrick, Kendrick J. Dude, hold on.

[Speaker 2]
Where did they go? There you go.

[Speaker 1]
You guys want me here? Let me make it a little bigger. Oh, too big.

Is that big enough for you guys or should I make it a little bigger here?

[Speaker 3]
That could be a little.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
It's pretty good.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
So, yeah, we left here on 460. And these notes down here, it's kind of, it's a way that when I go through and I try to prepare for class, if I see something that stands out in what we're currently studying, I kind of go back to some of the other texts that we've worked with to try to give me some context. So these are my notes.

They're not Geshe-la's. It's just like some basic stuff to kind of keep my head in the right places when I'm trying to translate. So, ʻonaʻa ʃeja tʃoʻo tʃen tʃoʻo yīna ʃi ma dʒu pe kia pārtaʻa tʃoʻo pe taʻpa saʻa yīna tseme ʻndapaʻa bāpe tʃeroʻa.

Um, does anybody get the ʻonaʻa for me? Well then. Yeah, totally.

And I, like, I, yeah, I'm, I'm totally open. You guys like really helped me go. And I didn't know if, if just kind of on the fly, if you guys wanted to go through and just get the general concepts or if you actually wanted to stop and translate each one of these.

Yes. Okay, we'll do both. All right.

ʃeja tʃoʻo tʃen.

[Speaker 3]
Consider all things.

[Speaker 1]
Right. pe kʷunzo yīna. If they are deceptive.

Yeah. Are you saying that something's deceptive? If something's deceptive.

ʃi ma dʒu. When it doesn't exist? Yeah.

It establishes existing, right? And then what about the, does anybody like that? Feel free anybody to speak up.

Does anybody out there have what a kaba usually is? Well, necessarily. I was kind of hoping that some, you know, other people in the chat might join in.

But so whenever we read it, the tell here, if it's sarcastic goes up or down. Sarcastic goes down, right? So how would read it?

ʃeja tʃoʻo tʃen. ʃeja tʃoʻo tʃen. Yeah.

Right. So let's consider all things. Are you saying that anything which is deceptive is necessarily, or necessarily can't be established as existing?

Does that look right to you guys? Yes. Top it up.

I totally agree. Okay. Things are.

You can see, obviously, these question marks down here mean that I got to a place to where I usually, like I said, I usually have like twice as much time to kind of come back and sit with these things. And I kind of look at it. I look at it a few times, a few times before we go into class.

So this is kind of, I left off here. These question marks obviously mean I was having a hard time with it. So I need your help.

Not Adam. What's outflow, Bob? Yeah, totally.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And the reason that I was thinking to use Bob was because it kind of fit in with it. Same in Napa.

Like, like having like a logical out, like a logical consequence. Almost like the logical, like the, the outflow of a certain logical reasoning. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 2]
Adam was this, is this related to four 59? Let's see.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it definitely.

[Speaker 2]
What happened in four 59?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, with the Shana. And I will. If it was two weeks in the future, I would know.

[Speaker 2]
We kind of need it though. Right. And fortunately I don't think we have to go back to.

Or do we have to go back to four 58? Right. Can we get away with just knowing what four 59 is?

[Speaker 1]
And. Yeah. Let me go.

Some of this stuff would stand out far enough. Let's just look at it. So therefore.

So if something can be established as a, both being sound and the. And unchangingness. Being unchanging.

Then. Right. Changing.

Changing. Yeah. Yeah.

Changing this. The quality of being changing. So.

Those two things would have to be separate. They'd have to be different. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Yeah.

So an aspect or a characteristic that cha right there. Those. They would have to be separate.

Separate characteristics. Right.

[Speaker 3]
Condition to the.

[Speaker 1]
It can be conditioned.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And I mean, I think it's just a. Really a choice of words at that point.

[Speaker 3]
You know, We said.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, great. Oh, great. Thank you.

That's sometimes when I go with aspect. And like, yeah. So Danny.

Let me highlight these things. And I feel like I'm getting a little. I'm a little nervous.

[Speaker 3]
I was just going to say, Adam. I know that it would be nice to move ahead and we started and it felt like a flow, but you don't have to rush through this. Even though.

Just because I want to make sure our translators have time to know what we're talking about.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I'm getting also make sure that we have time to know what we're talking about before the translators can figure out what we're talking about.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. 100%. So you can't say those things are substantial.

Because those, those two aren't substantial. Okay. Because, and, and I think one of the reasons, if we wanted to grok from it, one of the basic concepts that I've carried over from the Dura is that anytime you consider two things as being separate, it's necessarily conceptual, right?

That's a conceptual process. Making distinctions is conceptual. So you can't necessarily say that.

Yeah. Yeah. Anyways, I don't want to waste time on that.

Does that make sense?

[Speaker 3]
The act of dividing two things is.

[Speaker 1]
It's conceptual, right? I mean, cause you have to have, you have to say like, okay, part a is different from part B. There's some sort of.

You know, conceptual kind of like distinctions, distinctions in themselves are inherently conceptual. Okay. So I think that's one of the, that's kind of like what I've caught from in the past, like 10 or 15 sections that we've been through in the past couple of classes has been that we're, we're still making the, to say that something is one is a conceptual process, but also to say that, that something is.

Two or that, that there are two aspects of one thing is also a conceptual process. So we're still kind of going between we're flowing between direct perception and inference. Right.

And we're still trying to hone in on like, okay, well, what, what makes something direct? What makes something inferential? Right.

What makes something deductive? And so we're, he's kind of, he's kind of going through like what I've noticed. And there is something that I think I've realized something that I think I've picked up on is that he's touching on things that we've already hit in the Dura.

And he's saying like, yo, like, cause we had a whole chapter called chick dunk today. Right. And like the past, like the past, like three classes has all kind of been a discussion about whether or not something is one or different.

And even when you consider it from the aspect of something being like, say chick, right. Like say chick, like we're still trying to distinguish because we keep hitting on this, this interplay between the two of them. And we can't quite find like, oh dude, like, you know, You're telling me if I look at something like this computer, it might, am I going off too far?

I'm just trying to give some context maybe into to where we've been.

[Speaker 2]
What is the thing that is substantial or not substantial here? Say Sue, is it the, the difference between the two or is it the combination of the two?

[Speaker 1]
This is where the wrench got thrown into my under my conceptual understanding. So we have always been taught by Geshe Michael, right? That you have sound sound is a changing thing.

Sound itself is to perceive sound takes a direct perception, right? Via the auditory consciousness that we've been going off of, but what about the quality or the aspect of sound, which is changing? And what we've touched on.

And the reason that I've been struggling with this for the past, like six months is because it appears that whenever we have a direct perception of sound, we also perceive it's changing this. We have a direct perception of his changes, but we do not ascertain it. And that's when he was making the distinction between NEPA, right?

He was saying NEPA, like to ascertain something is much different. So if you're asking me what's substantial here, I'm, I'm a little, I mean, I still don't know. I don't know because I think you get to a point when you're, when you're analyzing direct perception, it always kind of deconstructs itself into this inferential process where you've got these, these sense perceptions that you're having, right.

But then you have to label those things. And the minute you label anything, you know what I mean? Like, so.

[Speaker 2]
Up to the first cheer. Yeah. I want, I want to say, um, the changing that's sound changing is substantial, is a real thing in this school, but those two things, and those two things are different.

Okay. And those two things are different, but, um, the difference between those two things is not substantial. When that's not a real thing or a changing thing.

And that's true because you don't see the difference between them with direct accurate perception. Yeah, exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks for summing it up, dude.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Um, so, okay. All right.

[Speaker 1]
But I mean, and this, it has, and if that's true, not guilty.

[Speaker 2]
And then if that's true, then what, then, then what do we do?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, and guys, everybody.

[Speaker 1]
Yes.

[Speaker 3]
All of us.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. Right.

[Speaker 2]
The difference between those two is not something, which is seen by a direct accurate perception, which makes sense.

[Speaker 1]
That's what we're just saying, right? Anytime you see a difference in something, anytime you say, okay, the left side and the right side of this here cell phone, or the left side and the right side of this here laptop, that's a conceptual process, right? To make a distinction between left or right or up or down or colors or anything ultimately goes back to.

And so, yeah, he's saying, no, it's not. It doesn't necessarily, it, it necessarily isn't that me go. Right.

And it cannot be direct and accurate.

[Speaker 2]
And then if that's true, right? Not Kelty. Then the Todd day Yimba of those two, the difference between those two that are the aspect, the child that is the difference between the two.

And that is not a thing which is Jason. Substantial.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It's not a thing which is like prove to be, or like establishable or established as being.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You can see where the distinction is coming in here because the topic comes in, right? Is there a chair or like these, these two like directly opposing kind of like ways of seeing things.

Yeah. I mean, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Good. And then right. Danny Todd day, the difference between those two Yimba is some is merely labeled.

[Speaker 1]
What? Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I didn't even, I didn't see it until the opposite of this a trooper.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, nice. Yeah. The opposite of really there is took, they talked some.

Yeah. Cool. Probably we agree in this school and even in the higher school where we don't accept that anything is truly established as substantial.

Right. Although I don't know, I don't know. It doesn't say truly established.

We might have, do we have substantial things? The, sorry. Sorry.

We have substantial things. In the middle way, we have substantial things, but they're not really substantial. Do we have substantial things in the middle way?

Interesting search. That are merely labeled as substantial. Are we allowed to do that in the middle way?

[Speaker 1]
The way that they describe ultimate reality in this school is directly oppositional to the higher middle ways description of reality. This one in particular, I can't remember. I don't have the Tibetan definition in mind, but it is specific.

They specifically say some things which are not ultimate reality. Reality are things which exist without being a projection.

[Speaker 3]
Right. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then, and so it is, it's like 100 it's diametrically opposed to the middle ways.

[Speaker 2]
So, but I don't know how. So then, and this is Shana, which means it's the other guy, right? Because the last words are Shana.

If somebody says this, and it seems like their last sentence is, so then that means that those two things being different is only what a dummy would say, that you can't say that they're different because their difference is just an idea, which would be an extreme that someone who doesn't understand that concepts exist in a certain way, right? Would say if someone didn't understand that something can exist merely through labels, albeit maybe deceptively, if someone didn't understand that, then they would say, well, then the difference between those two things can't exist, or it would be wrong to say that these two things are different since the difference can't really be seen.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And I was wondering if that Shana actually just applied to this last line or not.

[Speaker 3]
I'm guessing not, but I can see why you would think that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So then at least maybe we have some more sense of what we're attacking in 460, that that's the idea that we're up against.

[Speaker 1]
We've been going off on it, man. And cause we did a, we did an outline like at the beginning of the year, we got a new outline of the next like, you know, 20 folios or so and he's, he kind of goes off on this like super aside for a little while. So we've kind of been talking about, yeah, similar stuff for a while now.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Oh good. This is great.

Then this does follow. You see? Yeah.

Good. This is good. So then we go back to what we said earlier, consider all stuff you could know if it's deceptive, which for us is synonymous with Tok Pei Tak Tsam, if it's merely labeled which is by the way, synonymous with Tok Pei Tak Tsam, probably in this school and the middle way school because everything is Tok Pei Tak Tsam is just labeled into existence.

Then you can't even say it's existing. I guess we're saying is what they're saying. We're accusing them of saying that that means that if something's deceptive, it doesn't exist because they're saying that it's Tok Pei Tak Tsam and if something is Tok Pei Tak Tsam, then it is.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. There's, there's a distinction here though. He, KJJ uses, sorry, Ngun Tsam, right?

And down here he uses Tse Ma. Okay. So the difference between a direct perception and an accurate direct perception, which is why I went looking for the Shiju up here.

Can you see that? I mean, it's subtle, right? But not all direct perceptions are accurate, correct?

You see what I'm saying? So there's something from, from what I've been meditating on and thinking about is how or why that plays into this. Why, why that plays into a rebuttal.

A refute, like a refutation. How or why this next line uses accurate perception. And we're super, super, super comfy, but I was hoping, I was hoping you would look at this, this last line and, and help me work it out, man.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. 460.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I was thinking about that Tse Ma and the Bop. And I don't know.

I mean, Tse Ma can also mean correct, right? Like just without perception or not. But I think with the Sa instrumental particle, it's by the, yeah, by that valid perception, which Bop, because by that valid perception, that, that Bop, you put outflow.

I don't know. I think it just means like, like in Tenla Bop, like presenting.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, okay. Oh, that would be better. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I don't, I don't know, but I think, yeah, that having a valid perception that comes about within damage, you know, Nipah would go against what you're saying.

[Speaker 1]
So presenting your argument that way would harm, would, oh, this presentation is, oh, that's good.

[Speaker 2]
This presentation is overturned by accurate perception. Accurate perception contradicts this position, essentially. Something like that.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And that's kind of why I put this down here. Cause you can establish it.

But, well, the thing is, is, and the reason you get down here, right. Is because what's the kind of, I mean, the main point of the definition of, of Shidra, right. Is accurate perception.

Right. And what are you doing? You're considering all existing things.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. It's saying, if, you know, if all things are indeed a, merely a label, a labeled projection or whatever, a labeled label, then any valid perception would then undermine what you just said.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
That's what I think.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I'm going to come back. I'll massage the translation. Okay.

We'll go over it when Geshe-la is here.

[Speaker 3]
Awesome.

[Speaker 1]
All right. 461. If you disagree, so if something is distinct, it's mostly it.

It's it. Hold on. Yeah.

It's merely a construct.

[Speaker 3]
Or is it saying, if something is distinct and thus merely a construct, then...

[Speaker 1]
If something is distinct, where would you get the thus, okay, and thus?

[Speaker 3]
Because just because it's yin-na.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You got to have that if, I use, I use, yeah, I get tied to the if-then statements when I start hitting nos.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I didn't see where it goes yet, so I could still be wrong too. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Tare yinpam mi te guhpam buh.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. You can blow your position. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. If, if the difference between things merely exists conceptually or through labeling, then you would have to be saying that it's wrong in that case for those differences to exist. And you'd be a dummy.

That's a stupid position. Yeah. Spit out that naughty position of yours out your mouth, please.

[Speaker 3]
Say it again, Kramer?

[Speaker 2]
I didn't get it. Yes. If you don't agree with that, then you'd be taking a position which you, whatever, a despicable spit on a pole position, which is that if the difference between things, tare yinpa, is tope tatsa, merely labeled, then it's inappropriate mi ta, mi te, to say that there's a difference between things.

[Speaker 3]
Right. Oh, so, so they're saying if something's tope tatsam, then it doesn't exist?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. If your position is that when something is tope tatsam, then it doesn't exist, it can't be established, then, then that means if a difference is conceptual, then you can't say it's different. Got it.

Yeah. I got it now. Thank you.

Yeah. And I spit on your shoes if you think that, he says.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so let's, 462, want to hit 462? Might as well. Okay, well, let's go real slow.

And I would have to say too that Gesture Michael does not like using quotation marks to establish something as being, as belonging to a category. I guess, you know what I mean? And I sometimes, I get in the habit of doing that when I'm working through translations.

Working things as the category is kind of what I mean here. And he said, I think that it was like, it was being too direct. If I remember his, like exactly what I said, like you, you want to leave it up to the reader a little bit more.

[Speaker 3]
Adam, can you read your English from the audience?

[Speaker 1]
If the reason that the direct perception which holds a coffee cup completely engages the coffee cup is because the coffee cup and, quote, working things are such that to be one is to be the other substantially, then we can say that you must be saying, quote, working things.

[Speaker 3]
Sure. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You must be saying that you, if, if they're, if they're, then you must be saying that you can see the category of working things. Right. Which in one way, like when you, when you really start thinking about it, it does appear that way.

Right. Like the, the cheat sign. Yeah, totally.

I mean, one can't, it can't exist. So the cheats and can exist without something instantiating it, a coffee cup, like an actual coffee cup. Right.

And so one of them has to come, like it, it comes into just in the same way that it has the quality of being a working thing is, is the same. I mean, not the same, but is, is parallel to the quality of being a changing thing, which is what we started off by talking about. And so if you say that, if you say that when you see sound, you see the quality of being a changing thing, then you could also say that when you see sound, you see the quality of being a working thing directly.

[Speaker 3]
Hmm. Got it.

[Speaker 2]
So, uh, boom's in right. Holding whatever the, or, or Bunzin, uh, moon soon. Right.

A direct perception, which holds a coffee cup. Right. Which is looking at a coffee cup.

Okay. That, um, yeah, that's great. Yeah.

Totally. Completely. Yeah.

With a direct perception. Yeah. Then, um, the thing that, um, oh, uh, it is the thing that you are looking at.

Right. But like for, because since you could, you'd send me, he could be since. Right.

Uh, since it's the thing that you are looking at. Is that what that is? The thing you are looking at is.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's the way that. So like when you look at a coffee cup, if it's red. Right.

The quality of it being a red thing is something that you, and so basically what it's saying is you engage with all the qualities of an object when you engage with it. That's why the completely engage it there. Um, because when you engage with the center, you're engaging with.

You're, you're, you're completely, you're engaging with the, the, the object and all of its qualities simultaneously. This is kind of what the last time we talked, then I said that one of the ways I was thinking about data now was in a packet data way. Like when you think about information theory and protocols and, you know, like there's, there's a lot of information that comes in a single object.

Uh, and like, you know, it's got the quality of being silver. It's got the quality of like, you know, being changing. And also it's got the quality of, uh, what was it?

What we're looking at right now.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And then if that's true, then, um, essentially that would mean, um, um, which means, and is there an order necessarily when you say that right to be one is to necessarily be the other. Okay.

Is how sometimes likes to translate that. Is there an order? Like which comes first is necessarily the other thing like to be one is to be the other hierarchical way.

He did.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. We did talk about that. Yeah.

Is there grammatically a rule to, if you have thing a and thing B, um, and you say that to be one is to be the other, that, you know, which one would be the bigger group or which one would be the subgroup in that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Relationship.

[Speaker 1]
It's whether or not Don comes before the day chick. If Don comes before the day chick, then it's a three-way relationship. Excuse me.

It's Muslim. So it's, it's one, it's one way.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So here, meaning that here it's two way.

[Speaker 1]
Dude, I mean, look, this is, we're, we're all dealing with this at the same time, man.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, is that how you're taking that? I mean, when you say Don coming before.

[Speaker 1]
Well, this is the battle that's going on in my mind, dude, in between the two schools, like the, like how you answer that question is really what depends on what worldview you're carrying, you know, what hat you have on. From the second school, you, you have to say that it's one way.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You know, you, you have to say that.

[Speaker 2]
Well, and Pumpa is necessarily a coffee cup is necessarily a working thing. I think we can all agree.

[Speaker 1]
Not all, not all working things are, are Pumpas.

[Speaker 2]
Right. But since you're saying that when you see a coffee cup, you see all of its qualities, right? Then that means that since, right, since you say, when you see a coffee cup, you see it's all of its qualities.

And since to be a coffee cup is to be a working thing. Well, then that must mean that you have to be seeing working thing when you're looking at a coffee cup. Yeah.

According to that guy. I think this is still an accusation. And Tom, he uses, you know, C seems to me to very much be implying eyeball.

What do you guys think? Correct perception. Yeah.

Your eyeball should be seeing working this, which really guess is not what we're going to decide. We accept. But so he's probably still accusing the other guy of saying when you're looking at a coffee cup, your eyeball sees it's changing this or sees it's these, the quality of being changing Want to head into some uncharted territory here?

[Speaker 3]
Wait.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 3]
I have one question. Between 461 and 462, what did we say?

[Speaker 1]
I don't see any reply. So it ended there. And this is, I mean, I guess it's a continuation of the same argument.

Right. I, yeah, I think he's just like, oh, if you say this, then you would kind of, you know, you would, you would be refuting yourself. Right.

And then he comes back attacking him another way. I think so too.

[Speaker 3]
Furthering his point. Yeah. Fortunately, this is what would happen.

No, it's okay. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Not at all. No, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the thing is, is I think we're all on the same page. And I think we're interpreting the text correctly so far. I mean, it's, it's all has been kind of straightforward.

I mean, from that, you know what I mean? Like everything we've gone through, it hasn't really given me that much. And you know what I mean?

Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
It seems to be clear that the position that he's taking.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. A hundred percent. I think, I think we're on to yeah.

Bunny, bunny, fluffy paratrooper. Keep going and see if we can circle back to understand and let's see if it stays consistent. I'm sorry, Adam.

Go ahead. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

By seeing. Right. By seeing working things.

yun, ten, ta, dak, all of its qualities. You are seeing all of its qualities. Is it by seeing?

[Speaker 3]
Excuse me. Or is it when we are seeing? I know it's a yi and it's by but at the day chair, therefore, nu po tong wa yi, when we see the working things, yun, ten, ta, dak, we're seeing all these parts, all the qualities, tong wa yi, just by seeing them.

[Speaker 1]
Dude, I love doing this with you guys.

[Speaker 2]
Well, and this is quoting the Pramanavartika, right? That's a direct quotation. And you can see it's clearly in verse, right?

Oh, look.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, that's why there's a double she. That's cool. Mm hmm.

[Speaker 2]
By the way, uh, to pay a bar meet JP. So lest we take that at face value. We don't accept that even though we're quoting the root text, it seems like we're quoting the root text, giving a false idea of someone else.

Which is a right a danger. It's a good thing. Casey, Michael went and found the root text, or we could be in trouble here.

[Speaker 3]
Um, what's, what's a notchy again? Fish, a fish that looks like silver. What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, no.

[Speaker 3]
Where do you see their first line, root text 96 be turned but tongue while a No, no, no word.

[Speaker 2]
We don't have to know the answer to that. How dare you?

[Speaker 3]
Okay, go on. But I'm looking.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Mother of Pearl.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Silver, the silvery aspect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, cool. All right. Well, the Tony chapay shoe you don't say so the the our primary root text is quoted right the meaning the meaning of the of from the from the prominent of Arctic is because I think in this school the shoon is referring directly to the prominent of art again.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, I think so.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, don't talk pay. So what about Okay, so can we can we say that done done? Well, let's say to pay low draw.

I'm just spitballing here. Could that be equivalent to took pay talks on? I doubt it.

[Speaker 3]
No, it's like a Aria's mind or something. Somebody who's just saying, No, it's just saying that the intelligence, the intellect is realizing the meaning of what it says in the Vartika.

[Speaker 2]
I think so. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Why is it a genitive? Why not? The entity understanding of in the mind of someone who realizes or of the Oh, I see what you're saying.

[Speaker 2]
The mind, which understands.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Realizes. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
I think that in this school, talk about with a saw sometimes just means, you know, it's not as fancy as in the middle way where talk about realizing the thing is a much bigger deal. It just, I think maybe like Shay and dog with a saw are much closer knowing something.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Because you talk about things you, you realize things just with it's Emma, an accurate perception knows things in this school accurately.

[Speaker 3]
And in this, in this particular sentence, I think he's just saying, you don't understand the meaning of the root text. Like, if you say that you just, you don't possess that kind of understanding in your mind.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Oh, yeah, there is no understand. There is no.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, you don't have it.

[Speaker 1]
It's like Yeah, there's no, it's not until it wouldn't be said by someone with intelligence.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
You ain't got the brains to understand the meaning of these words.

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Of these particular words.

[Speaker 2]
Drachi.

[Speaker 1]
Just a drudge.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 3]
It's like a guy talking about the Eiffel Tower who ain't seen it. Yeah, basically.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, what Cole means though, is that like a Bob show means random. Yeah, you're just starting off random stuff you heard about without knowing what you're talking about.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Yeah, great. That's wonderful.

Chame. So indivisible, indivisible parts, the form, which doesn't have any parts.

[Speaker 3]
Well, is it?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Does it exist? Or does it not exist?

[Speaker 3]
Doesn't have any moments. Is that what that says?

[Speaker 1]
Like, it's a it's a and moments of consciousness. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Do they exist or not? Is he saying?

[Speaker 1]
Well, okay, this would be the wrong belief of hold on. Sorry.

[Speaker 3]
No, take your time. We're all eating that time.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, talk cheeky soup is, um, means like, stuff with which gets in the way of stuff. Like, like real stuff, like, as opposed to like, empty space lacks this. This is like obstructive material, or something obstructed, like partless of forms, which are like obstructive, partless forms, which get in the way of other stuff, real stuff, real partless particles, which should be what a substantial thing is.

That's the only thing that's real in this school. Yeah, is it there or not? You don't make all right, dude.

Oh, my God.

[Speaker 1]
If it ain't there, it doesn't exist, then you're kind of refuting yourself, were you above you had mentioned that, that, that, that the, the, the form of a coffee cup? Or would this be? Yeah, that it's, it's partless.

Hold on.

[Speaker 3]
If it ain't there, let's go back. Yeah, how about this?

[Speaker 2]
If you're saying that the, the difference between things, I mean, maybe, right, that you see every quality when you see a thing, right? Then are those qualities or like the difference between things? Do they?

Do they exist? Do they exist substantially? Then are that is that made of partless particles or not?

Is that made of real stuff?

[Speaker 1]
He specifically, once again, he brings up Keiichi, right? So, so, okay. Boom, boom.

So we're talking about the, the visual appearance of a coffee cup, right?

[Speaker 3]
Is it visual physicality of it? I think it means I think so.

[Speaker 2]
I think so.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so the physical form of a coffee cup, and I probably wouldn't translate it that way. You know, just provisionally, right? Mm hmm.

Now, this is where it, I think, you know, we just, because I kind of like talking about these things, and you were the few people on the planet that we can kind of, I can kind of just like talk with about this stuff. Keiichi Chame. So the individual moments, which make up a single coffee cup, right?

You have a coffee cup on your office table, right? And that thing is changing from moment to moment. However, there is an overall kind of continuum of that thing.

That's what I'm wondering about what he's talking about here, because he didn't say doltrin. He says Keiichi Chame.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, is he saying Chame or Chame?

[Speaker 1]
There is no aspect. I mean, yo, Keijip J and Yotsub J both kind of seem to play with, yeah, there's kind of subtle distinctions like that. Like, there's double entendres, you know, kind of coming.

[Speaker 2]
I didn't, I didn't follow. I'm sorry. What are you asking again?

[Speaker 3]
Because we've been using cha to mean like a part or condition. So it is, in this instance, are we saying a Keiichi Chame? Are we saying a Keiichi, which is Chame, you know?

[Speaker 2]
Yes. You think it's both? I think it is.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Cool.

[Speaker 2]
I think so, because that's a real thing.

[Speaker 3]
It's a real thing, not a real thing.

[Speaker 2]
Well, yeah, I mean, he is, is Pumpa tsuk? I mean, is Pumpa? I think that he's saying that, I don't know, you would have to, well, the yupa at the end bothers me.

But we wouldn't say, obviously, no one thinks that a Pumpa is indivisible. And I'm hoping that he's trying to say something as outrageous as that, that somehow you would have to be saying that you can't break a coffee cup.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, it can't. That's what he's, that's why there's a buh at the end.

[Speaker 2]
He's like, right, come on. What are you saying? You can't break coffee cups.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, you said a coffee cup can't have parts. Yeah. He's saying, yeah, if that, I don't know why it starts with me now, because it looks like he's saying, no, I know.

But then why does he throw, oh, so the yuh is the absurd consequence, the way he phrased it here.

[Speaker 1]
If you say they don't exist, then they don't. Yeah, but, and then the part where it's just up, like from our, in our last class, it was either in our last class or the one before, our opponent took the position that bumsuk kechik chame.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, Hey guys, um, by the way, if we scroll up for a minute, um, Gishon, Michael, look, look, all caps. Don't go yet. He tried to help us think you're so clever.

All right. Let's see if this is helpful in any way.

[Speaker 1]
This would be a new part, right? So that when you see a, um, a working thing, uh, you just see all of its aspects, all of its qualities, just by looking, just by seeing it, then it's, it's a mistake, which cannot, cannot be ascertained.

[Speaker 3]
You cannot be, you can't say it's definite. You can't say it's certain, certainly that way.

[Speaker 2]
I will, I will also submit, um, that what Gishon Michael presumably would do would be to try to translate the explanation of this verse before we try to understand the root text, just in case.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
And especially if he went through the trouble to provide it. Um, let's, let's see if this is the missing verse to our brains.

[Speaker 1]
The direct perception, which holds a sound. So could we, uh, we could, I mean, I wonder if we could use the che here as, uh, yeah, like talking about, yeah, it's yeah. All of it's different.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Like every facet of sound. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Three out of four people who don't understand agree.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Tongue must be metaphorical, right? We're talking about sound. That's a good point.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
It was a funny way to say that though.

[Speaker 1]
This is real. We could taste it too.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. He corpse it. Also, Jason, you can hear it, but not also not ascertain it, uh, not ascertain even though you don't can't.

Yeah. You also can't make certain the fact that it's a changing thing. You can't establish that.

What's he talking to me?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, which one I'm not going to talk.

[Speaker 2]
Uh, so, uh, speech and labels, maybe it would also be nice because we're reading, maybe not, but because we're reading the prominent of Arctica for doc to mean reason. Hey, two would be convenient here. Um, doesn't mean it's true.

[Speaker 1]
What's the, how does that, how would that feel like the knock and the talk would have to be parallel kind of, uh, in the way that we would interpret them, like they'd kind of have to go in a pair, right? Yeah, I guess it doesn't have to, but it doesn't have to, but that's kind of like, you know, that's what my intuition is kind of going that way.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. There is a lot soaked by there. So it could be like, you know, stuff like speech and I don't know.

Thoughts. Yeah. Labels.

Like, I think like you said, words you say or ideas, you impute stuff like that.

[Speaker 1]
Your speech and your thoughts, uh, things that, okay. Um, so this go, gotta be, yeah, it's got, okay. And then, um, which me talk par driven.

Sometimes when I see Drew, uh, I just use B like that have like, can be established or like almost like, like again, can exist.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Are, yeah. Are, are, are, are changing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Like sometimes I try to stick and just always using like, can be, or is it established as, or, you know, probably mostly.

[Speaker 2]
If you can't see all the qualities of a thing directly, um, if it's not clear, right, you cannot be certain of it then, um, establishing drama talk pod, the, um, changing nature of sound would have to be something, um, I don't know, which involves, uh, words, reason, stuff like that. Yeah. Which is kind of, you'd have to use words and reasoning since you can't see it.

[Speaker 3]
Uh-huh. Hmm. Yeah, you might.

I think it's the reasoning here. You got it. That's right.

Cause that's the whole point of the section, right? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I kind of started ranting a little bit, pulled myself back in. That's kind of what we were talking about.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. You got it. Now let's look back at the root text and see if that helps us.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Uh, what about the true thing? Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
My name is the same as my name is the same as my name.

[Speaker 1]
So you can't ask her, it'd be mistaken. Um, oh, to, to not ascertain them that way to not think mistaken things cannot be ascertained would be missing. Yeah.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
And then what about the, how their, um, their existence, um, Oh, that S pay me JP that, um, by that lack of ability to ascertain mistaken things. Oh, is, is how you engage in their existence. That's what it says.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. Well, that's crazy because, um, well it feels like you're going through like a negation in there.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Right. Hold on a minute there.

We have four minutes just so everyone knows.

[Speaker 1]
We started, we started a little late.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I don't care. Yeah.

We can go over heads up in five minutes. Just a couple of minutes. Yeah.

I think five minutes sounds reasonable.

[Speaker 2]
So you come to establish things by being unable to come to some certainty about what is wrong about them, which may be right. This would come very close to this idea that Dharmakirti is kind of famous for, which we didn't really get to yet that, um, about, um, establishing the conceptual through negation. And so I'm wondering if he's making a statement about this, that you are engaging in, okay, Rob to Jupa, you are engaging in this proof or this establishment, this Drupa by not coming to some other kind of certainty by something else, not being, uh, shown to you, which by the way is, isn't true.

The, a thing that isn't true won't be shown to you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I think he's saying specifically by not, uh, ascertaining things, which aren't true.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. By the fact of you not coming to some certainty about what a coffee cup isn't, you come to some engagement with what it is.

[Speaker 3]
Now we're going to need puppy rainbows, man.

[Speaker 1]
Dude, I should think, uh, self and the touchability that the cup possesses. Those are two aspects of it, if you're holding a cup in your hand. Okay.

So if you say then, um, it either has, they either has to, so the physic, the touchability of the cup that you're holding in your hand has to be substantially one. And I know Gessler doesn't like that translation, but it has to be substantially one with or separate the cup. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Is, is, is, is one necessarily the other or are they different things?

[Speaker 1]
Once again, that's the, yeah. Is it two way relationship? One way relationship?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Um, or not. No, this is, um, it could be, um, could be a two way relationship or a one way relationship, but in either case, right.

If to be one is to be the other, whether it goes one way or both ways, right. Is, is it the case that to be one is to be the other, or is it the case that they're different?

[Speaker 1]
Well, this is interesting because you frame it for like, say it this way to yourself to be the cup is to be the touchability of the cup.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Right. Because cup belongs to touchable things.

[Speaker 1]
Totally. And if they're coming in a singular packet of sense information, then you have to say that. Right.

Well, yeah, totally. You'd have to be able to separate them out. Right.

And, and one of the reasons I think, uh, you, okay. We, we established earlier, like two or three classes ago that anything that is substantially one with another thing has to come into existence and grow along with that thing. So if, if you're saying the reason I say that is because like, if you're saying that the parts are separate from the thing, then you must be saying that they're substantially different and that they don't come into existence and grow along with the coffee cup.

So he, he would, he, yeah. I mean, does that, does that follow? Do you guys see kind of where I'm going?

Like the definition of, we, we went through the definition of being of Zaychig. And one of the aspects of being Zaychig is like the coffee cup and the touchability of the coffee cup have to come into existence at the same time and they have to grow and stop at the same time. Right.

So anytime the coffee cup comes into existence and by grow, I think, you know, it just means progress along a continuum. Right. Anytime the coffee cup comes into existence and it's sitting there in my hand, every moment that I'm feeling it is necessarily a part of that coffee cup.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Yeah. You're saying it would be impossible for the thing to possess those substantial qualities, which are different than its own substantial qualities, which are different than it.

[Speaker 1]
You, you, you'd be, it's impossible for the touchability of the cup to be separate from the cup. Yeah. Because we're considering, we're considering, we're considering that as, as a Yenlock.

[Speaker 3]
Yet another way to say component.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And that's a necessary component. You're blowing, you're blowing your position.

You're blowing your position where earlier, dude, you were, you just said, you just said it was impossible.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. It's parts different from that. Right.

From that lay substantially different from the thing would have to be, you know, it's impossible for the thing to be substantially different from the thing it possesses. And I think it is, I don't know, is it, I mean, here's the question, right? Is how, how different from a cup is the changing nature of a cup?

Right. That's what we're trying to figure out.

[Speaker 1]
If you're talking about a singular cup you almost have to say that physically they are indistinguishable, but mentally, as soon as you start distinguishing aspects of anything, that's the conceptual realm, but physically they're all like bound up, you know, they're all this unitary thing, you know, but it's not, I mean, that's like a paradox. It's a straight up conundrum because then you'd be saying that, Oh, like coffee cup doesn't have parts and he's drilling down right here too. So it goes even further down to the Zaychik, right?

Zaychik, you know, date, is it okay if I move on? I mean, I, I feel like we understand what it says.

[Speaker 2]
We, we're, we're reaching time. I mean, I, uh, I, I think we've done a good job. I mean, we, um, it's good.

We, um, we could do one last one. Oh, look, there's a, so there's a period at the end.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. You got me. Oh, if they're the same, substantially the same, right.

[Speaker 2]
If they're one in the same, the cup and it's touchability. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Make sure then the eye consciousness and the, uh, the, which, which sees that right. Yeah. With the wreck jaw too, though.

Um, form. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, it sees the, uh, well the touchability cause he used, he used touchability for wreck jaw just above. Interesting. And it sees that things touch, right.

[Speaker 2]
Then, um, then you see the things such ability to join positive perception.

[Speaker 1]
So guess what has been, guess what is using positive perception here for the juke that we were talking about is the completely engages up a ton, right? Uh, so it's split reason. Um, it's either this, Oh, hold on.

It is a, because of a and B. Yeah. So, uh, because the wreck, because the touchability is one in the same as a coffee cup and, uh, no, not because, uh, the touchability, sorry.

So you get the, because, uh, because, because it's because the, the, because the touchability of the cup is set to be one is to be the other.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Slow down, slow down, slow down. And our last moments, let's say that again, uh, for the, for the translators who might not have followed you.

So it wouldn't be me.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Because the, because the, the touchability, uh, of the coffee cup is such that to be one is to be the other substantially to be, it is to be the coffee cup to be is to be the coffee cup. Another way of saying it Kong shit.

So that would be a, uh, or excuse me, a would be up here. That would be B sorry. Um, a lot.

And because, um, it's engaged with and a positive as a positive perception.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Those would be the, those, that would be the split reason given, uh, and this, this tell would be going up here. Right.

[Speaker 2]
Uh, if they are one in the same, you could say if to be the touchability is to be the cup, um, then the, I, whatever the visual awareness, um, that sees that, um, it sees the fact that I think it's sarcastic. It sees the cups touchability, uh, because, um, the touchability is, uh, because it wholly engages in that thing. Because to see the thing is to be everything about the thing and, uh, that thing.

And to be that thing is to be touchable.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So I guess you see it's touchability.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. It's definitely a, which is sarcastic down, right?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, yeah, down, but at the same time, of course, okay. So that's, that that's accepted. Uh, we, and we were supposed to guess Michael was kind of, we, we know that course zoom is something that has to be present in order to fully prove something.

[Speaker 2]
Right. Well, I think he's saying that, um, the other guy agrees that they're different. Um, but, uh, thinks that that difference can't be established conceptually.

So we're, um, trying to show that it's equally stupid, uh, to think that somehow your eyeball can see it's touchability or your eye awareness can see that since the other, the other guy doesn't think that the other guy doesn't think that they're different.

[Speaker 1]
The other guy does that. It's impossible that they're, that they're separate things that they can't.

[Speaker 2]
No, I think we're saying that you'd have to be saying that, but on the other hand, um, right. Would that be a stupid position? And I think he's doing something very cute here, which maybe you, whatever I spaced out for a second.

Um, but he's doing very, something very cute in using the word Dongla with the word Rick job. Yeah, yeah, completely. Right.

He's saying, I guess you can, I sense power the object of touch sense power in the second school.

[Speaker 1]
One of the things we, and maybe in the Abadama as well, but I believe in the lower two schools, uh, the sense spheres have to engage with objects in separate moments. They can't be active at the same time. So your consciousness can't be active at the same time that the tug consciousness is, it has to happen in succession or in discrete kind of moments.

[Speaker 2]
Uh, I, sorry. Uh, I would just like to point out that until about three minutes ago, uh, 200 people somehow stuck it out this far. We've dropped by, um, no, it's one or it's a miracle.

We've dropped by only about 11 in the last five minutes. The fact that there are 200 people who subjected themselves to that sort of abuse is proof of miracles. Uh, and I salute all of you who stayed with us in this process of trying to learn together and banging our heads against the wall of reasoning.

Yeah. Sorry. And next time will be the name of my commentary to this work.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Try to be a little bit more prepared next time.

[Speaker 3]
Oh dude. No, that was, this was, this was great. I just appreciate you bringing, bringing this to the table for today.

And I think that it was kind of cool for us all to just look at it together. Freshly. I really enjoyed it.

I think it's a good, it's a good exercise for us as a team to, to, to, to do that and just kind of explore together all 200 of us that were here too.

[Speaker 1]
But thanks for the extra time.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, of course we should though we should let people be free.

[Speaker 2]
So they don't talk to our word. Are you staying and teaching? Yes.

Thanks. If we go on any longer now, we've lost 12 now, so we should get out of here before word has no students left. There were only 186 people left.

[Speaker 3]
I'll get rid of the rest.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you friends. Thank you all friends. And thank you mix nuts and live translators.

What on earth? How? How?

No, half of them just, so just kidding. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Yeah, man.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
I miss doing with doing this with you guys, like at the college too. It's nice to see you guys. It's been a while.

Miss you guys.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Yeah, me too. Yeah.

Well, see you Saturday. Is it Saturday for everybody? Or does it span the realm into Friday or Sunday for some people?

[Speaker 3]
No, that's a Saturday for everybody.

[Speaker 2]
Actually, Saturday for everybody on me.

[Speaker 3]
It's just late night in Asia.

[Speaker 2]
A year on Saturday. Enjoy words class. Thank you for teaching word.

[Speaker 3]
Welcome. See ya. Bye.

Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Thanks.