Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 49

[Speaker 2]
Just try to get everything positioned here.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, you guys can see it? And so let's see, where do we stop here? Okay, so we're going to shift gears from the Abhidharma Samuccaya and to, we'll go from some mind-only perspective on Abhidharma to accurate perception here.

What I thought, there's a very interesting crossover though, because coming towards the end of what I hope, the material that I hope we'll be able to get to, towards the end, we actually see K. Drip J. start to interpret some of the second school's positions from a mind-only perspective.

So I think that's kind of an interesting segue in between the two texts. So we stopped here at 467 last time. We'll go ahead and read it to see if we do need to go back a couple of sections for a little context, but we'll see.

So, typically means to be one thing, is to be another thing substantially. So what were we talking about?

[Speaker 3]
Parts in a whole.

[Speaker 1]
What's that? Yeah, parts in a whole. Yeah, exactly.

But even further, in relation to what two aspects of a given object that we were talking about. So we're talking about the cup, we're talking about the cup itself, but we're also talking about its touchability, right? So the cup as a whole, right, has many different aspects, many different qualities, and one of those qualities would be its touchability, right?

Your ability to pick it up and take a sip from it. So typically this com here means or, so you're given two choices. Either a cup's touchability and the cup are such that to be one is to be the other substantially, or they're two separate things, right?

[Speaker 2]
So, Adam, when you say to be one is to be the other, versus saying to be one is to be the other substantially, would you say those, at least at this moment in the text, are the same?

[Speaker 1]
Well, I think what's going on here is a very interesting distinction between physical reality and conceptual reality. So to be the other could be applied to something non-substantial, right, which could be conceptual. So our cheats and are Ricci's and Dunchy's similar?

[Speaker 2]
They are both ideas. Ricci is an idea around a certain type of thing, and that Dunchy is an idea around something specific that we've seen. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So mainly what I'm trying to get into is that there's a very, there's a very kind of strict line that's drawn between working things and, or changing things and unchanging things. And so I think the substantial here, when we use, when we see substantial, we're specifically relegating our talk to changing things. And, but if we were going to say, I think your question was, why the, why do we use the word substantial and what's the, you know, what's the importance of making sure that you put ze in there?

And I, it's just my own opinion, but I think if you weren't to put it in there, it could leave open the discussion to things which are unchanging as well. Okay. Like to, to be unchanging is to also be a negative phenomenon.

[Speaker 2]
And is that touchability that the cup possesses? Is this yupe toke reikja?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Which is like what existing as a thing, which is touchable.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That has some sort of structiveness to it. Okay.

Yeah. So we gave him the option. We said, okay, well, things are either substantially the same, substantially one thing.

Geshe Michael specifically said he doesn't like the translation of to be substantially one thing. So if we say, yeah, so anyways, but for the simplicity and the sake of our translators, I may from now on just say substantially the same. Okay.

So we gave him the option. We said that if, if a cup exists, then the cup itself and the touchability have to be substantially the same thing. Right.

Or they could be separate, but you can't say that they're separate. Why not kind of part like, okay. So can in order for anything to be real, right.

In order for anything in reality to exist, it has to either be one with its parts or separate from its parts.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And this, this same argument would apply to anything in reality. And if it's not one with its parts, or if it's not separate from its parts, then it doesn't exist and it's not real. So he just contradicted himself based on an earlier position that he took here in four 66.

So at some point he said, it's impossible for the whole of the parts to be substantially separate from the parts. That makes totally, that makes a bunch of sense. Why?

Because is Adam his arm? No. Is Adam separate from his arm?

I don't think he can say that either.

[Speaker 2]
Right. We're saying yen lot or, or part or aspect or something, which to me, like Adam's quality of being a person is a little different than a part. And I think that's what I'm trying to wrap my mind around.

If I would say Adam's arm, that's different than Adam's arm, but is Adam a person? So what different kind of question?

[Speaker 1]
Well, one of the things that, so in the first part of this book, if we go back, I think it's almost three years now that we've been doing this book. Towards the beginning of the book, Geshe Michael outlined that there were, there's a set in the ancient Indian tradition of, of logic, let's say, and accurate perception that there is an Indian school that we're constantly kind of going back and forth with, that there were a lot of ideas that were held in ancient India, that these arguments that we're being presented with by Khedrup Jey are a direct response to.

One of those things was in response to a school called the Nyaya, and the Nyaya assert that there was a whole that exists separate from its parts. That's kind of like, in a different way than like the Sankhyas, right? Like the Sankhyas have this idea that prakriti, or nature, is this thing that kind of exists separate from any existing object, but along with.

So what we're combating here specifically is the idea that there can be a self, which is separate from the parts. Okay. Right.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
So if I can ask, I hope it's not too tedious, but I'm hoping that it'll be helpful for other people if, if I'm stuck. Yeah, yeah. But hopefully someone else is stuck.

I appreciate the back and forth. I like, yeah, I love it.

[Speaker 3]
As long as you got this done, slow the tempo just a little bit.

[Speaker 1]
Cool. Thank you. I need a metronome.

[Speaker 2]
To be Ben's arm is not to be Ben. The thing that's Ben's arm is not Ben, because you need to hold Ben. But Ben is a person.

So if we say person is a bigger group, and person is a quality in the sense that to be a person is, it's something that's true about Ben. So we can say that I have the quality of being a person. And we could say that I am zei chi with person, in the sense that being Ben is being a person.

Now, to be a person doesn't go both ways, because you could be Adam, there's another person. And, and so I'm, I'm, I'm wondering if we're still in this zone here, being person is different than being Ben, because person is a bigger group, but Ben is a person. And so I'm zei chi.

You could say substantially, right? Geshe Michael also says to be one, to be Ben is to be the other is to be a person. Are we in that realm at the moment?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, yes, very. Um, you know, I would say that's parallel to where we're going. If you wanted to just go ahead and jump in, because I've been spending a lot of time preparing for the class.

So I've kind of looked ahead. And I've been trying to wrap my head around where we've come from and where we're going. Um, the crux of, uh, where we're at in this text, and let's step away from personhood.

Let's step away from what it means to be Adam. Uh, and let's just look at a, a coffee cup. Okay.

Um, okay. So coffee cups, right. Have parts, they have colors, they have ability.

Yeah. They have a handle, a left part or right part. Um, and what's going to happen is the more that we reduce this thing.

Okay. Because in this school, the only thing that's real is heartless Adams and part list moments of, of, of consciousness, individual moments of consciousness. So when we look at the coffee cup, right, we have to consider the fact that it's made of, of Adams, right?

So we're going to reduce it down to it's, it's, it's, it's most basic components. And if we were to look at a coffee cup and say, okay, well, is the, when you have a direct perception of a coffee cup, um, you're not perceiving Adams. You're, you're perceiving a collection of Adams, right?

So from the standpoint of, um, of this school, we'd have to say that there's some sort of a mental overlay. There's some sort of a labeling process that's taken part.

[Speaker 2]
So, so at this point in the text, Adam, if, if I say that the coffee cup is a touchable thing, that, that a quality of the coffee cup is it's touchability. You can touch it. I just happened to have a delightfully touchable coffee cup here.

And it is to be a coffee cup is to be a touchable thing. Yeah. But just because you're a touchable thing doesn't mean you're a coffee cup.

And I want to say that that's a little different than the way I think of a part. The part is the handle or the, um, the work, the paint, but the quality is touchability.

[Speaker 1]
Well, one of the things that we, we explored in the collecting topics were how relation, right. And so how parts relate to holes and it might be something to sit with. It's just something that I'll touch on, but for our audience, um, it's something that won't make sense at face value.

And it's something that you have to take to the meditation cushion parts and holes, uh, in a relational way. Um, from the perspective that 466 is looking at this, this particular issue would say that the handle would have to be present. Uh, the, the whole would have to be existent in every one of the parts.

So the handle would have to, if you separated the two, it would not, the, the status of the thing as a whole would not change. Does that make sense? Like the, the, the, the, I didn't, the, the relationship of, of the unit that, okay.

So when you think about a coffee cup as a whole, um, you've got this whole thing, but your eye isn't necessarily perceiving that thing as a whole. Okay. Your eye, when it sees it, it sees different aspects of that thing.

Okay. Now what, what we learned in the collected topics, and the reason that I brought that up, um, is to mention that the handle, if you were to take the handle away, the cup would still be the unitary thing that you started with. Okay.

And we know that that's not true. So basically what the argument that I'm presenting is one that is a very, that's held by an ancient Indian school called the Nyaya school. Um, and what's called Nyaya holes.

And, uh, what they believe is that if you take the handle away, the thing still exists as a unitary whole, as the thing that you started with.

[Speaker 2]
So, um, parts and holes, parts and holes is to be, I just, yeah, I wish he had chosen the handle instead of touchability. Uh, it's, he, he didn't consult with me and that's okay. Uh, you shouldn't need to, but, um, touchability seems like a difficult choice because here's where we're going.

[Speaker 1]
What, what, what we're about to be. And I think this is a very good way to lead into four 67. I don't want to, I don't want to cut you off.

Um, but I think the, the touchability, uh, aspect of the coffee cup, what we're about to look at is, um, okay. Right. Uh, that thing, which is held by the consciousness of the eye.

Okay. So when you hold the coffee cup with your, with the perception of your eye, okay. When you, when you take this, this object, coffee cup that Ben's holding up there, does your eye also perceive its touchability?

Maybe. Well, what does it learn? What we've learned for the past four months is that yes, it does.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Because you're perceiving a touchable thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So you're seeing the quality because every time you, sorry, I would warn everybody because this is about to break down in about five sections. This is, this is about to break down and, uh, there's going to be a, a spoke, uh, a stick that's going to be stuck into the spoke of our bike.

And, uh, yeah. So, um, what we've been learning, uh, for the past four months, we've been on a very long, um, uh, a very long debate, um, about whether or not, um, things as a whole, um, whether or not your perception of a coffee cup means that you're perceiving every aspect of it simultaneously. Right.

So, um, I think it's a very interesting, uh, choice that he chose. Right. Because now he's getting into the fact that like, well, does, does the, does your eye consciousness perceive the smell of pizza whenever there's a new pizza placed on the table in front of you?

Does your eye consciousness perceive the smell?

[Speaker 2]
No, but it does perceive a smellable thing.

[Speaker 1]
A smellable thing. And it, yeah. So anyways, so let's see, let's see where we can go from here.

Um, I hope I didn't, um, too many, I didn't open up too many, uh, doors and confuse anybody further.

[Speaker 2]
So there was a nice note in the chat, Adam, uh, Tim just pointed out that it's not just about speaking slower, but also offering a lot of pauses. And the only reason I point that out is because there were a conspicuous number of hearts and prayer hands attached to it. So that must mean that the translators feel that this is a very useful piece of advice for people like you and I.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. My chat's not coming up. So, uh, with that in mind, I'll try to speak at a slower pace and I'll also try to take more pauses.

There's only one way to get better at, uh, speaking via translators and that's just to do it. So I welcome the practice. So if you say that there is such that to be one is to be substantially the other, then you must be saying that the eye consciousness, which holds it also sees its touchability.

[Speaker 2]
Um, so we're paying wisely said this in the chat earlier that you can't see the touchability because you're not touching it with your fleshy hands.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Well, yeah. I mean, that's an interesting, I think it's a very interesting talk because what did we hear about, uh, the quality of being changing and sound our ear and the consciousness of our ear actually does perceive the changing nature of sound.

So there are qualities that we perceive, right? Um, is that necessarily, um, sequestered? Is that, uh, is that reducible to the sense, the sense spheres, the KJs?

Um, can they only perceive, um, qualities that are, uh, in accord with their, their particular object.

[Speaker 2]
Um, so, and I, I want to, I want to, yeah. Yeah. Oh, right.

Yeah. Good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, yeah. So, um, no, it's a, it's a very good point.

Uh, so droop joke here, this from the way that I first encountered it was to think of it, like you're engaging the object totally. Um, however, it's the way that gash Michael is, um, is, am I doing a little better translators? I'm trying, I feel like I'm almost being too conscious to be slow now.

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. I noticed that the pauses are priceless. I don't think you can be too careful in a topic like this.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So what we're about to, to, to juxtapose, what we're, what we're differentiating between here, uh, is droop juke as a positive engagement by the sense conscious and a conceptual or negative, uh, perception of those perceptions, right? So you can think of these as oppositional terms.

Um, you have, uh, the process of, of elimination that the mental images, uh, use, to conceptually understand, um, the sense data, but you also have this positive aspect, uh, here. So when you see droop juke, what you should be considering is that you're specifically talking about sense data. Okay.

Okay. So you're, you're specifically talking about what's coming in through, um, through the eye, the ear, the nose, right?

[Speaker 2]
So it seems anytime we say we're engaging in a thing in a positive way, we can assume we're talking on the realm of the five senses.

[Speaker 1]
A hundred percent. A hundred percent.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And I think the more that you work through texts like these, I've been spending a lot of texts. I spend all day kind of inside, uh, this material. So what I've started to see jump out is that there are, uh, terms like droop juke that, uh, make me, make me realize that, oh, master Dharmakirti is talking about this in a certain way.

Um, so, um, this Kong shit here is usually a split reason. It's always a split reason, not usually. So, um, what we're going to look at now is the reason, um, that he gives project for, for saying, um, so, so a consequence, excuse me, of what he said, our opponent, uh, is discerning.

So first it's something which is engaged by a positive phenomenon or a positive perception. And secondly, it's touchability is such that to be a, is to substantially be the other. Um, so this, uh, Korsum K means that kind of going all the way back here where he was given the choice between it either being Zaychik or being Taday, right?

He blew both of those. He contradicted himself because we kind of showed that, well, it can't be substantially one, but it also can't be the other, uh, excuse me. It can't, it can't also be separate.

[Speaker 2]
Uh, so let's see, should we go through the, yeah, you, you and I had a talk, Adam also, uh, that everyone wasn't there for about the difference. And it might've been a text, um, about the difference between, uh, like me talk Bob versus, um, me talk by Yimba. Yeah.

Um, and I'm wondering if that's relevant here. I'm going to put those terms in the chat just to be helpful that for example, a coffee cup is me doctor. Um, it is a thing that's changing, but me talk by Yimba means is changing and is changing is a concept.

Whereas me talk by changing thing is something that you could engage in or look at directly with your eyeballs and you can't look directly with your eyeballs at the fact or the Yimba, the truth of a thing being changing. And so that made me feel sensitive about the way that he said, Rick job touchability. Is he saying it is touchable or is he saying touchable thing?

And can you tell by the phrasing what he's, which one of those he's saying?

[Speaker 1]
You know, I can't tell from the phrasing, but, um, just from the three years of familiarity that I've gotten from dealing with this stuff, I, I kind of see that he, he appears to be talking about, uh, touchability in a categorical way and not necessarily as an, if you see, uh, if I see cell phone in front of me, also see the category of changing thing, the two cannot exist apart from one another. So this cell phone, this particular cell phone, um, when I look at it, uh, I'm also seeing the category of, of, of it being a changing thing. Uh, and in that same way, when you look at a cell phone or a coffee cup, uh, you are seeing it belonging to the category of things which are touchable.

Now, this is something that for years, ever since I first studied course 13, nearly 12 years ago, um, the, I had this assumption that yes, there are two clear versions of reality. Um, and one of those being conceptual and one of those being, um, changing, right? So one of them being changing and one of them being unchanging.

And I had it in mind that anything that was categorical was necessarily, um, unchanging, right?

[Speaker 2]
But it doesn't seem that way to you. It does not seem that way now.

[Speaker 1]
No. After 13 years of, of sitting with this, um, and going through periods where I thought harder about it than other times. Um, I have a run and basically that's thank a hundred percent.

It's 100% due to get Shane Michaels. He's been so patient in explaining this stuff. And, um, it takes, it takes a while.

And, um, it feels like just, just the past few months, there's been a lot of things clicking and it's 100% due to the kindness of my teacher. There's a lot of misconceptions that I've had, um, that I still don't feel like I've cleared up, but I feel like I'm getting, I'm getting a stronger hold on. And, uh, it's very, very important stuff.

I feel like, you know, I feel, um, I feel like getting a hold on whether or not you see the aspect of changing this in an object to me, I feel like is one of the most important things that I could be meditating on from day to day. And, uh, one of the things that, that I feel like I've gotten a little closer to, um, and I hate to throw in a new term, but soak cheese. Soak cheese are very interesting.

Yeah. They're very interesting when you begin to, to think about, um, I've heard, uh, in some of my research I've heard, uh, and I've seen scriptural, um, I've seen scriptural, um, kind of reference to, uh, soak cheese, not being real cheese. That soak cheese exists, uh, as a way of tying things together, which, um, I think is kind of where we're going.

So it's a very interesting thing to me because, uh, for a long time I had the, now, Ben, you said something earlier though, that I have to push back on a little bit when you said the fact that, so if you use the fact, um, to describe any characteristic of any object, it necessarily is a conceptual thing and it necessarily is unchanging. I'm not talking about the fact that things are changing. What I'm trying to really drill down on is that when you perceive any object, you are perceiving its moment, to its momentary nature.

You are witnessing the product, uh, of, of, of, of an object breaking down from moment to moment, uh, in this constant state of flux. And we're not perceiving it on an atomic level, but we are necessarily in some way, um, uh, tying, tying these objects and all these parts together into a single, into a single thing.

[Speaker 2]
Um, so, so if I, if I have a, this, again, this fine product from the little bear coffee company in Albuquerque, New Mexico, please come visit anytime I'll buy you a coffee that goes for anybody here. Um, I'm looking at a specific, uh, thing. Um, but this little bear coffee cup is a coffee cup.

So in the sense that I'm looking at a coffee cup, there's a category that I'm seeing with my eye, perhaps I'm seeing coffee cup. In fact, I'm also seeing the bigger category cup. I am looking at a cup.

No one could say, I'm not looking at a cup. No one could say that I'm not looking at a touchable thing. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
One of those categories would be that it is changing. So when you pick up an object, it feels very static. It feels right.

There's a touchability to it. There's an aspect of physicalness. Uh, but you are handling and you are touching that thing's changingness.

Um, which is a very, to me, uh, that was kind of, uh, eyeopening one, because when you think about, um, to go back to the, the, the concept of Ben, the mind body complex of Ben, or the mind body complex of Adam, uh, I'm neither, I'm, I'm, I, you know, I'm, I'm something which is neither physical nor mental, but I'm still changing.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So the, the category of diminishes is a very interesting thing when you apply it to any physical object, because not only are physical objects, the result of, uh, uh, atomic collections right now, particles of indivisible particles, but they're also the collection of moments. And there are stream of moments. So from that same standpoint, um, not only are there physical, but you have to consider the object as, as a stream of instances.

And the only way that I can really, um, make sense of that is that, um, there has to be a placeholder, a placeholder category for things to exist, right? Like, um, from moment to moment, to moment, to moment, to moment, to moment, to moment.

[Speaker 2]
Uh, like you need, when you say a placeholder, you mean you need one word that sticks around for a little while, while the coffee cup does it's changing.

[Speaker 1]
This is the thing. Yeah. That's, and that's changing this.

And that's why, that's why changing this is diminishing.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's a changing thing, which is neither mental nor physical. Cause it could be either because sometimes you got physical changing things. Sometimes you got mental changing things.

So the category isn't either.

[Speaker 1]
Well, physical things in reality itself. If you want, you have to reduce everything down. This is why earlier, um, I began by saying like, well, when we look at a coffee cup, you have to be ready to, to go a level deeper and to reduce it a level deeper.

And so when you look at the definition of reality, that's given by master Dharmakirti, uh, he says that reality is the interplay. Okay. Of, of objects of, of, of atomic matter.

Okay. And heartless moments of awareness. Okay.

So reality is a bunch of atoms making up everything that we see that are directly causing us to perceive it. Okay. So the cause of our perception are the objects that are out there in this, in this school.

And, um, the objects themselves have to have some continuum to them. They have to be some, so, you know, without going too deep into it or without getting really lost in the wheat, um, you know, uh, yeah, I, I started to really want to know as much as I could about Denman Duchess, you know, um, it really made me start to think a little closer, um, to it. And that was all because we were talking about how, uh, uh, how sound and its changingness are actually substantially one thing.

And for years, I always considered them separate say, oh, if you're going to, but that's also why Geshe Michael made a very clear point to distinguish between ngonsum, perceiving something directly, and ngepa, ascertaining it. So there's an object that's held, right? And you're, you're holding sound, you're holding a coffee cup.

You're perceiving a coffee cup. You're perceiving its changingness. However, you are not ascertaining the changingness because in order to ascertain inequality is necessarily a conceptual process, and it's something that can only be done through abstraction and reasoning.

So, um, I think it's interesting that he brought up touchability here because now you're presented with the, um, the very clear kind of weird feeling that your eye, as a consequence, right, should also be perceiving the touchability of an object, which is a little weird. Like, you know, if the ear is perceiving changingness, then why can't the eye perceive touchability? They seem equally plausible, right?

Okay. So should we, should we go on? Let's see where we go.

[Speaker 2]
Let's try.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you for your patience.

[Speaker 1]
Dude, I, I could literally hours. I would, I would love to just sit around and talk about this stuff for hours, man. Um, young, uh, non Rick pay.

Wanda, Chana, Wanda, Chana. So, uh, young with this furthermore here, um, kind of continuing on from the same, uh, he just wants to drill down a little further to say, okay, if that's the case, then, you know, what about this too? Um, so non Rick pay Wanda Chana.

Um, so from the perspective of a self perception, okay. Yeah. This is where it starts to get a little crazy in here.

Uh, it starts to get a little wild when you, when you bring up, uh, okay. So, um, so hold on. Uh, if we consider the aspect held by the eye consciousness, right.

Um, and this here, this is like I said, after spending years with master Dharmakirti, um, there are, um, kind of words and phrases that pop out. And Zen nom is one of those that we're really gonna, we're really gonna focus on right now. Um, Zen nom and, um, zone.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So these are two different aspects of how we perceive things. So Zen nom, uh, is what I chose to translate as subjective awareness.

Okay. And so not, or how you perceive something directly, right? He says right here, so soon, uh, so the way that I think of soon, when, uh, we're talking about perceptual theory, um, is on an objective basis.

So once again, you have a very clear oppositional, um, oppositional terms here. Okay. So this song and Zen are subjective and, uh, yes, subjective and objective perspective, uh, perceptions respectively.

Okay. Zen nom being your subjective awareness and soon, um, or the Muslim song, he'll, he'll, he'll use, uh, soon nom down here. Um, we'll see it come up.

Um, and what, what, what we're, what we're talking about now, and the reason he's bringing those up is because, um, he brought up what?

[Speaker 2]
I have a question about this. Isn't he saying from the perspective of the mind-only school? That's what I believe.

The non-Rikbas are the Chittamatras, right?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, yeah. Yeah. The Simpsons.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Who was it? Right. Yeah.

Right. The non-Rikbas. What is it?

Uh. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, remember how I told you guys what we're going into and why I thought Stanley's book was a very good segue into our particular section today, because we get into a Yogachara interpretation of Master Dharmakirti.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
These particular sections. Um, so that's kind of why I led off with, was saying that it's kind of seems, uh, serendipitous. Yeah.

So, but yeah, I, I agree. And there, I do agree that non-Rikba here, uh, is from the perspective of the, uh, this, uh, the, the Simpsons, because I don't know where, but yeah, here it is. Look, you see.

Yeah. Right. So he's like, he's looking, okay, the sutra and the mind only school.

[Speaker 2]
Do you see? I'll, I'll tell you, there's even, there's a section in my book when they talk about the mind-only school, which gets into a big debate about different groups of mind-only school, depending on the relationship between what's in the mind and what's being held. And they use this word, Nampa, the thing you're looking at or how it's represented.

Are you seeing the whole thing out there and the whole thing in here? Are you seeing a bunch of little bits out there and a little bits in here?

[Speaker 1]
Well, we have to say first off, uh, that yes, Nampa, Nampa is, uh, and I was hoping word, if word was here, I was like, actually I was, I have to slow down as I was preparing for the class. Um, as I was preparing for the class, um, I was hoping that word, um, may have some things to add, uh, as well, because from what I've seen, Nampa is a very, um, it's a, it's a widely used term within the, um, um, because it, what, okay. And what we're getting into here, uh, because we were saying that Zen Nam and the Sung Nam or the Shinrik, right?

And the Namrik, okay. Are you guys right? Shinrik, Namrik.

Here, let's, let's get through this paragraph and we'll get to it.

[Speaker 2]
Namrik, Namrik. Okay. What's appearing to you and what's appearing in the mind?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. A subjective, objective appearance and an objective appearance.

[Speaker 2]
So I look at this, happen to have this thing here still in my hand and there's the thing. Um, and then there's the, the picture of it in my mind, right. Um, or the picture of it in my eye.

In fact, sometimes you see like in a high school science class or something, they say like, there's an upside down picture of it in the back of your eye or something. And that picture of it floating in your head that represents the thing out there is a subjective Nampa. It's a subjective picture is the one in my head.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Now the interesting thing, so from the Western, the, where the Eastern perspective, I think differs from the Western perspective is what we're really trying to zone in on is where do those two things meet? Okay.

How, how does the conceptual awareness make contact with a physical object? See what I'm saying? Like that's a very profound.

[Speaker 2]
I see that it's a problem.

[Speaker 1]
How, how, how, how does, um, since data turn into a concept, Oh, please tell us how does that, how does that happen? I mean, this is a very central question and Nampa they say is the intermediary between the two Nampa Nampa Nampa is the medium through which physical reality interacts with the conceptual awareness. Cool.

Yeah. So that's why, uh, from what I can tell, uh, my very limited understanding of these texts, um, that's why Nampa is brought in here because we've been talking about what touchability of, of coffee cups. Yeah.

Um, how, how do you see this? Right. Is touchability something that is abstract or is touchability something that exists in the physical world?

Um, right. And so what we're going to do is we're going to try to, we're going to try to find out in the next 10 minutes, we're going to try to go there. Um, so, uh, yeah, so I agree.

Um, I do agree. Um, but I don't know, I, I didn't go back and, uh, and really, um, reach this, not this non Rick pub, I think probably should be, uh, in some way referencing mind only school, um, instead of this self perception here. So, but I think everything else should still stand.

Uh, so because, uh, it is directly and positively engaged by the eye consciousness. Like we said, any sense perception is necessarily a positive phenomenon and any sense perception is engaged with its object in a positive way. And when I say positive for non English speakers, it may be better to say, um, or it may be better to give some context and saying that, uh, positive, uh, is opposed to negative or the conceptual realm.

Okay. Does that make sense? So you have two ways of engaging with objects.

You have two ways of engaging. You have, you have many different, okay. You have, you have direct perception.

You have inferential perception. Yeah. You've got also what we learned earlier in this text was you have implicit perception and you have explicit perception.

You have wrong sense and you have cheat sins. Don't you, you have conventional reality and you have ultimate reality. So you have positive phenomenon and you have negative phenomenon.

And I I'm, I'm just, I'm drilling in on that because there's a bifurcation. There's a, there's a division of reality that KJJ and Master Dharmakirti are continually going back to saying, you got physical stuff and you got mental stuff, right? You got wrong sense.

You got cheat sense. You got ultimate reality, which he says is physical. And you have a conventional reality, which he says are fictitious things like concepts.

Okay. So once again yeah, there's another, there's another division of reality into two here. And that is subjective and objective.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
And this one less relating to the logic school and more relating to the mind.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, I mean, because we've always heard, right, that there was a certain subset of the Sautrantika school that tend, and the Sautrantika's following reasoning, right, tend to be Yogacara or mind only. That there's a certain subset of the second school which interprets Master Dharmakirti from a mind only perspective.

And I'm interested to see how the next like, you know, 1500 pages of this book go, because if we're 68, I don't really know where else we're going to go.

[Speaker 2]
So where we're at then is he's saying, and this is the other guy, I guess, because we're not allowed to agree to this, but consider the blue or the picture of blue being held by the eye. It is the blue that you're seeing directly that's out there essentially, because it's the blue that's being held by the eye. And it's also the blue that's being understood by your visual awareness.

[Speaker 1]
A hundred percent. Let's go to 469. Yeah.

Yeah. That's where we're at. That's where we're at.

Do you guys mind if I read just so we can kind of... Now, was that too fast for the translators?

[Speaker 2]
I was just a joke. Just a joke. So I'm being silly.

No, it's no problem for them.

[Speaker 1]
So if he accepts, right, if he accepts that the objective awareness of blue and the subjective awareness of blue are substantially the same, then how are we... The problem arises that for an objective awareness, there would be no difference between an eye consciousness which holds the color blue and the two aspects held by self-perception. So we're going another level deeper here, because there's an idea that self-perception or apperception, what's wrong, Rick, here, always has a perception of his self.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So let's see. Yeah.

So the no difference. So the Kepar Mepartel, I went, let's see. Okay.

So these two aspects, right, between an eye consciousness which holds the color blue and the two aspects held by... Wrong, Rick.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So... Okay.

So the blue being held by the visual awareness and Dei-Zen-Nam? What's the Dei here?

[Speaker 1]
Remember that Zen-Nam is always subjective. So the Dei is the subjective awareness of the color blue. So the color blue outside and the color blue inside, right?

What we're saying is that wrong, Rick, has to have a perception of both of those things.

[Speaker 2]
So the state of mind that sees you seeing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, the subjective awareness has to be aware of the object that's outside. If it wasn't, then how could you ever have any kind of perception of anything?

You know what I mean? And the self-perception also has to be aware of the subjective experience of blue. So you have this thing called self-perception.

You have this internal perception of blue, and you also have this perception of blue outside. You have a perception of a coffee cup outside of you, and you also have a perception of a coffee cup that's inside, right? And there's a part of your awareness that is aware of both of those things.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So basically, if you say the picture in your mind is the same as the thing out there, then these two great divisions of awareness, which is awareness of objects and awareness of your own awareness, would have to be the same. Because your awareness of your own awareness should be an awareness of the outside object, if they're the same.

If the outside object and the inside object are exactly the same, then when you look inside to see what it's like to see what is Ben seeing, what you see is the cup and not Ben's mind.

[Speaker 1]
Well, then why would you need Shinri then?

[Speaker 2]
Why would you need to see outer things if all you got to do is look at your own mind to see the real cup?

[Speaker 1]
If your subjective awareness is having a perception of the external object and the internal object, then why do you need a separate awareness that is only capable of seeing outer objects? Because it would seem that Shinrik is doing both of those things. Do you see what I'm saying?

It seems that Rongrik is doing two jobs, and so why would you even need a Shinrik? Because Rongrik is only performing the same function.

[Speaker 2]
Everybody knows you've got awareness of objects and awareness of awareness in this school. And so if the awareness of an object is the same as the object, if the awareness of coffee cup is the same as the coffee cup, then how in the heck can there be a difference between awareness of objects and awareness of awareness?

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So just to tie it up, I think it's time, right?

[Speaker 2]
Boy, oh boy.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we just need time.

[Speaker 2]
Not a bad cliffhanger, maybe.

[Speaker 1]
Just to tie it up though, I need the chat or whoever's participating. What are the two types of perception?

[Speaker 2]
Moonsum and Jaepak? Is that the ones, direct perception and idea perception or deductive perception, conceptual perception?

[Speaker 1]
So is there a third type?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
There is. There is. Nouns or a guinotone?

Oh, sure. Okay. They actually consider that to be a separate type of perception.

Okay. So when you begin to expand and you go up through the ladder of the schools, okay, there's about to be a fourth one presented. And the fourth one, the fourth type of perception is self-perception.

Is wrong, right?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Perception of your perception.

[Speaker 1]
So they say there are actually, in total, there are four types of perception. From the perspective of the second school, there's only two. Two, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Right? Oh, the mind-only school you're saying has four.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And I believe that's also going to hold true up through Prasangika.

[Speaker 2]
No, it's Svatantrika.

[Speaker 1]
And then Prasangika has a problem with it. With Rangrik. Yeah, being a separate type of perception.

We don't like that. You would know, do you?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I thought everyone had a problem with Rangrik except for those mentalists.

[Speaker 1]
The mentalists.

[Speaker 3]
And those other ones who lean toward them.

[Speaker 1]
Like Criss Angel?

[Speaker 2]
It's going to have to be a problem with knowing if I have a problem. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so thank you, guys. No, thank you. Amazing, Adam.

I'm really eager to see just how much differently and how much more skillful Keshe Michael can do by leading us through this when we come back and meet next time. Because I'm sure it's going to be a lot more insightful. But thank you for your attention.

And thank you for giving me somebody to really just kind of pontific and think about these things. It's really inspiring to see how deeply you're considering all of these concepts. Yeah.

Love you, guys. It's always fun. This is really nice.

[Speaker 2]
Love you, Adam. Thank you so much, man.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, everyone.

[Speaker 3]
Here's some balloons. See you all.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to leave, folks. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 3]
See you on Saturday for more Schwann Songs Tower. Word, are you taking over? You're taking the plane?

[Speaker 1]
Yes, thank you.

[Speaker 3]
All right. Stay tuned for Word's class. Thank you, Word.

Ciao, everybody.

[Speaker 1]
Peace. Thanks, Adam. Bye, everybody.

[Speaker 2]
Bye. Thank you, Word.

[Speaker 1]
OK. Another amazing mix-up.