Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 50

[Speaker 3]
Come back. Welcome back.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. Whoops. They unmuted me.

Don't do that. Go Nick. Adam, are you there?

Yeah, I'm here. Sorry we're a little late. We're kind of on California time.

That's a good time to be on.

[Speaker 3]
Yes. My life, man. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So do you guys see the homework here?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 1]
Let me reposition the cameras. All right. So what's the difference between Drup Drup and Sound Drup?

Tough question. That's fun. Where's Denobo Ukpala when you need her?

[Speaker 2]
Is it operating through elimination or through using the sense powers?

[Speaker 1]
Sounds like colonoscopy.

[Speaker 2]
That's totally sense powers. And elimination actually, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So which one would refer to the sense powers and which one would refer to...

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I'm sorry. Drup Drup would be the sense powers and Sound Drup would be through elimination.

[Speaker 1]
Awesome. Okay. Got it.

I think...

[Speaker 2]
We lost your screen.

[Speaker 1]
You guys can't see the homework?

[Speaker 3]
We can.

[Speaker 1]
So the way that I chose to frame this is the two terms refer to the method in which we engage with the various objects of our perception. They appear to describe two sides of the same coin as Drup Drup is associated with positive way with the objects that we perceive through sense perceptions and Sound Drup is associated with the negative way in which we conceptualize and identify our sense perceptions through a process of cancellation. Senor Adam.

Yes. Your weekly, monthly reminder. To slow down?

Substantially. Those translators are going to have a nervous breakdown. Okay.

Please, go ahead. I'm saying no rush. All right.

No 10-minute rule. Okay. From the perspective of the Sautrantica school, what is one way that we can confer that something exists ultimately?

Well, that's one way, too, but go even further.

[Speaker 3]
Building on the last one, could you say if you can engage with the sense powers?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. It gets a little interesting when you start looking at it from that perspective. Geshe Michael specifically said that in this school, something exists ultimately if it is partless.

Yeah, partless atoms. Thank you again. Yes.

Basically, the way you can think of it is if it's irreducible. If it's physically or mentally irreducible, then it would be ultimately existent. My salary is not ultimately existent.

The second school would say that anything which is both physically and mentally irreducible is something that belongs to ultimate reality. Hence, the only thing which are ultimately real are partless atoms and indivisible moments of consciousness. When we look at a coffee cup, do we perceive its changingness?

[Speaker 2]
No. We do not perceive its changingness when we look at a coffee cup because when I look at a coffee cup, I use my slight conciseness to see the roundness and the color. But changingness is something that comes from my brain.

My brain tells me this thing.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Changingness is a characteristic that comes up from my brain. It's not from my conciseness which I can see the roundness and the color.

[Speaker 1]
Was that Pei? Pei Ling?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, Pei Ling.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. This one gets a little tricky. It's one of the reasons why I've put this same question reworded in a different way on the past three homeworks because we keep touching on it.

It seems to be so delicate that I want to make sure we all understand that we do actually perceive the changingness of a coffee cup with our sense perceptions. However, we do not ascertain that changingness. I don't know if that's a good way of framing it as far as my verbiage goes.

Let's see what I wrote here. I can't even remember. Yes, you do perceive the changingness of a coffee cup.

When the eye perceives a coffee cup, it also perceives its changingness as well as all of its co-occurring properties. If something is a changing thing, you actually do perceive that with your sense consciousness, but you don't realize that when you're looking at it. It's only when you close your eyes and you try to reason through the fact that something may be a changing thing is when you can say that you quote-unquote ascertain it.

A coffee cup and its changing nature are zaychig. You got to remember that word, zaychig. It's been popping out a lot, which is why I put this question on the homework again.

Remember to breathe, Adam. Remember to breathe. Yes, totally.

Thank you. I've been doing it for 41 years. I don't know why I've forgotten.

You just forgot all of a sudden. The autonomic nervous system is just shut down. Basically, what it means is that in the way that I'm starting to think about it is that if a coffee cup comes into existence, there are certain things that come into existence with it at the exact same time.

When the coffee cup comes into existence or when we perceive a coffee cup, we simultaneously perceive everything that comes along with that coffee cup. Make sense? If something is zaychig, it means that it has things that come into existence with it, but also go out of existence whenever that thing goes out of existence.

We can use this basic truth to look at a proof of this relationship. Since the sense consciousnesses are bound to only perceiving changing things, you could say that the eye consciousness could not perceive an object which didn't have the property of being a changing thing, right? Good.

Yeah. Therefore, a coffee cup and its changingness must be perceived as a single entity, as it would be impossible for them to appear to the eye consciousness as being separate. Nice.

That's correct. Wow. I even understood that.

This is why a coffee cup and its changing nature cannot exist independent of one another. We've been waiting for a year for somebody to make that clear. I tried doing it last summer, too.

I'll get it right at some point. We only had that one vocabulary term because I thought drup juk and selm juk would be offered as the two other. Somebody have a bopchol for me.

Who's got my bopchol? That's a tough one. That's a tough one.

Confusion. Yeah, that's one way of saying it. Totally.

[Speaker 3]
Did you say confusion? Yeah, like confused.

[Speaker 1]
Totally. I chose ill-considered, but there's other ways you could probably frame it. I think confusion is probably good as well.

Nice, Oscar. That's a tough word. On to the student translation here.

Is that big enough for everyone? It looks good from here on our side. The translation equally is.

Can you read, Adam? Yes, I'd be happy to. Sorry, gang.

Go ahead. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, so the other guy said that when you look at a coffee cup, you must be looking at all of its qualities at the same time. Because the coffee cup and its touch and its color are all basically combined. So when you look at a coffee cup, you should be aware of its color and its touch.

Then the guy comes back and says, well, when you look at a coffee cup, does your eye see its hardness? Because according to you, its hardness and its color are an integral part of the cup. There's a confusion here about when you look at a cup, are you also looking at the way it feels?

Because the cup and the way it feels are combined. They're always connected. So if you say, oh, well then, if it's that the color of the coffee cup that you're aware of it when you're aware of the coffee cup, then you should be also seeing how the coffee cup feels, because that's also an integral part of the coffee cup.

So he's giving him a tengyur. Okay. I'm going to read your translation.

If you say that... Okay, good. Nice.

Yep. The korsum still... You asked me a few classes ago to remind you to do some research on the korsum.

I did not do it yet. I'm not sure anyone's ever written about it, because it's mostly an oral thing that you do in the debate ground, but I'll try to remember to look for it. See if anyone does.

Somehow it involves three flips, and in the end you contradict yourself. That's the point of it. It's called the three triple flip.

It's probably some Olympic thing. The triple lindy, yeah. Should I read or should I ask?

I think you should pick on somebody else because your reading is too good. Let's build somebody from the audience here. First person who comes in.

Jane, would you mind helping us? 468, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Here? Okay. Let me try.

Yang nam rik pe wang du che na ngong sin mik she ki sin na cho chen yo yo yo yo ki ngong po ngong su so pa tau ngong sin mik she la ngong su rak juk juk juk juk juk gong sin kang sin ngong sin mik she wang ngong ngong po zay chik yin pe chak Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Very nice.

[Speaker 1]
Very nice. So Adam, let's go through it. Yang, when you start a sentence with yang, what does it mean?

I just even still hear it. Yeah, or like, hey, one more thing here, okay? It's like you start, we say, and one more thing, okay?

And then you translated nam rikpa, meaning? The mentalists. Yeah, what's the other name of that school?

Tsampa. Tsampa, mind-only school. Yeah, the third of the four great schools of ancient Buddhism.

Wangdu Chinna means, yeah, from the perspective is a great translation of Wangdu Chinna. That's a great translation. Let's consider, now there's a tricky thing, okay?

Everybody says dzin nam? Dzin nam. Sung nam.

Sung nam. Dzin nam. Dzin nam.

Sung nam. Sung nam. 60 verses.

It's like, if you're looking at a cup, the eye is the dzin nam, which means the aspect which is holding. And the cup is the sung nam, which is the aspect which is held. So every awareness of every object in the universe involves a dzin nam and a sung nam.

There's the object's side and the subject's side. The subject's side is alive and mental, and then the dzin nam, sung nam, is the object's side. It could be a cup.

It could be anything. Now, what's unique about dzin nams? Adam, what's unique in the mind-only school about dzin nams and sung nams?

Well, that they're not outer objects. Right. Everybody else would say the sung nam, or the aspect which is held by the mind, exists, for example, could exist outside of the person.

But according to the mind-only school, when you look at a blue cup, the blue that you see is actually a seed opening in your own mind. So in a way, you are looking at another part of your mind, which means that they have to say that in any given moment of awareness, the mind is looking at two things. What are they?

When I look at a cup, my mind is looking at two different things. You're looking at yourself looking at the cup too. Yeah, you're looking at your own mind, and you're looking at the cup.

So they believe in a thing called the perception of yourself in a single instant, which is called apperception by psychologists, and it means self-awareness as you look at a cup. So you're aware of Michael, and you're aware of the cup in the same instant. According to other schools of Buddhism, that's not possible.

You can switch between them very fast, a couple times every second, but you cannot have both at the same time. You cannot be aware that you're looking at a cup, and be aware of the cup at the same moment, because they're not the same thing. See what I mean?

So only one school of Buddhism says that's possible. The dzinnam, the holder aspect, and the sungnam, the held thing aspect, are simultaneous, only in the mind-only scheme. Okay, and by the way, there's a big, big logic behind that, which is that if there's no confirming awareness, there can be no object.

Yeah, because cema. If there's no mind to confirm the presence of an object, in Buddhism you cannot say that object exists. So they would say that then they must be simultaneous.

At the same moment, you must be aware that you're seeing a cup. You must be aware of yourself seeing the cup as you see the cup. Otherwise you can't prove there's a cup there.

So that's a big thing for them. And that's all Buddhism says. Without a mind to perceive it, an object cannot exist.

If there's no perception of an object by someone's mind, that thing cannot exist. There can be no object that exists without a subject. So they say, well, let's make it easy.

They happen at the same millisecond. You're aware of yourself looking at the coffee cup. Do both schools in the Middle Way deny that?

Yeah, but there are lower Middle Way schools that tend towards... Yeah, they might... But where that rang rik thing, the apperception comes from the idea that in Buddhism, you cannot confirm the existence of an outside object without a perception of it.

Therefore, they have to be happening somehow at the same instant, according to these guys. Other schools would say they flip back and forth very fast. And by the way, if you're into Tsongkhapa reading that we're into, you confirm that there was a perception of an object when you can remember it.

So do you remember the beach this afternoon? They say, yeah. So we say, then you must have had a mind at that point.

Because you have a memory of a beach, and you may not... That's how you confirm the subject. You can remember the object.

There must have been a subject statement. That's all. Yeah, it's called the rat bite.

Okay, good. ,GYUL GYI DNGOS PO NGOS SU GSUNG BA LTA'O, Okay, good. This is tricky.

Let's take the subject aspect of the mind. Does it directly hold the blue? What do you think?

The subject aspect of the mind, does it hold to the blue? It must.

[Speaker 3]
It must.

[Speaker 1]
Why? Because NGON ZIN GMIG SHES LA NGOS SU GRUB, The existence of blue can only be confirmed at the first raw level by a sense consciousness. Memory comes later.

Mental awareness, the awareness of your thoughts, comes a millisecond later. The first confirmation of an outside color has to be done by the senses. Then the mind catches up later.

,GRUB GYUG GANG ZHIG, ,NGON ZIN MIG SHES DANG, ,RUNG PO TSAD CES YIN PA'I PHYIR, Yeah, so the mind-only school has to say... This is a very controversial ending of the sentence here. The eye consciousness which holds blue, Adam translated, and the color blue, are such that to be one is to substantially be the other.

Only that third school says that to be the perception of blue is to be the blue. And to be one is to be the other. And that gets in...

It stems from the fact that you have to confirm blue with a state of... Therefore, they must exist at the same time. And therefore, they must be part and parcel with each other.

So that's a problem if you agree to that, which is going to happen in the next sentence. Can you read... Can you read it?

Yeah, Dena? Oh, sorry, Sam, you want someone else to read it? Dennis, Dennis, can you help us?

[Speaker 3]
And you didn't do anything at all.

[Speaker 1]
Dennis, hey, man.

[Speaker 3]
That's Tim talking.

[Speaker 1]
We're on 469? Yep. Who's going to be the reader?

[Speaker 3]
Okay, yeah, it's you.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, Dennis, can you help us? Would you mind helping us read? Hey, Dennis.

[Speaker 3]
Hey, Dennis. Nice. Yeah.

Yeah. You're doing great, man. Is this all right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Very well. Very, very well.

Dennis, that's the best reading you ever did. Thanks, brother.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, cool. Awesome.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
And thank Rosa for the book, Jim.

[Speaker 1]
I think when the temperature gets over 115 in Arizona, your mind loosens up. OK. All right.

Very, very good. So Adam, Duna? If you agree here.

Yeah, is to be the awareness of blue, to be the blue? And the mind-only guy says yes. The thing that knows the blue, and the blue which is known, are the same thing.

Are substantially the same thing. Well then, NGON TSE DMIGS SHES, that awareness of blue, of the color blue, and DE'I TSE BRTZIN NA, the holding aspect, the awareness of the blue. So we're talking about blue as an object, and blue as a subject in a sense, the awareness of blue.

So, in the mind-only school, the thing which is aware of the blue, and the blue you are aware of, are the same thing. That's why the mind can see itself. And they have to say that, by the way, because you can only confirm objects with subjects in Buddhism.

You cannot have an object which exists in Buddhism, which is not perceived by a state of mind. Therefore, they are somehow tied together. There cannot be an independent object in the whole universe if there's nothing that can see it.

So therefore, they are somehow tied into each other, even in a single instant. That's all schools. Well, all schools would say that the existence of the object has to be confirmed by a subject.

But the mind-only school goes farther and says that since they occur at the same moment, they somehow overlap. SKYES PA MED PA LTAR BA'I KHYUN BYUNG ZHING So if you're saying that all states of mind are aware of themselves at the moment they are aware of an object, then why do you talk about rang rig? And he says, well, that's what rang rig means.

It means the awareness of the mind as you're aware of the object. But those schools which say there's a rang rig also say there's a shen rig. And shen rig means the ability of the mind to see something other than itself.

Yeah, like a pizza or spaghetti dinner. So if it's true that all states of mind confirm themselves, then Mr. Mind-Only, there should be no shen rig, which means the mind's awareness of something other than the mind. Because according to you, all awarenesses are aware.

[Speaker 3]
All awarenesses are aware.

[Speaker 1]
The way you describe rang rig, the ability of the mind to see itself, if the ability of the mind to see itself also confirms the existence of objects that it's looking at, then what other perception is there? How could there be any perception which is not our perception? If all states of mind confirm themselves and confirm the objects that they're looking at, then according to you, there's only one type of awareness, which is the awareness of itself, the mind's awareness of itself.

But even the Mind-Only school accepts the idea of awarenesses of other things, that it's possible to confirm the existence of some objects without confirming the existence of the perceiver at the same moment. Oh, really? Yeah.

Like unchanging things? Yeah, they'd say like... Well, some kinds of...

Like where they put rang rig in the categories of the six groups of six awarenesses, consciousnesses, that's a big subject. I haven't seen it treated yet. I'm looking for it.

Okay. Zen nam ma ngumpa nampa ma shana. Zen nam, so zen nam means what, Adam?

Zen nam. It's the subject side. Subject aspect of the mind, yeah.

Does the aspect of blueness appear to that state of mind?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
It should, right? It should. But if it doesn't, then it would be mi te to say that you doppa ngumpo.

Yeah, it would be incorrect to say that you perceive the color blue directly. Yeah, but he adds the word directly. I wonder why, Adam.

Because you have to distinguish between zen nam and sum nam. You could say memory. Oh, che she?

Yeah, che she, exactly. And you could also say... Yeah, well, let's start with memory, okay?

So it's important that he added directly here.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You don't see blue directly, but you could have recollection. You could remember a blue, okay? Without the perceiving aspect of the mind.

Mi te la. Nampa shana, which means if to the perceiving aspect, zen nam, blue does appear. And by the way, there's a school of thought, mostly in Buddhism, that the only consciousness which can be aware of blue directly is sense consciousness, and not mental consciousness.

Mental consciousness is always a moment behind. First the eye sees blue, the visual awareness thinks blue, and then your mind is aware of your thinking of blue. So the mind is always a millisecond behind.

And they would say that the mind, mental awareness, yi kyi nampa shepa, is not aware of blue directly. So he put it here, he said directly, okay? Excellent.

Is there any connection here to when Kejri earlier presented, we had a whole section where he presented something called ngu tok and shuk tok, like implicit and explicit? You could say that. I think you could say that, yep.

Okay, so de dzin nam la shara ngunpa nampa nyi, chik yin nam ta de yin na. When you see a blue with your eye, there's a certain kind of blueness that appears to your sense consciousness. And when you think of blue, there's a certain kind of blue that appears to your mental consciousness.

Are those two the same? Are the two blues the same? Well, it's interesting because we've been talking about zey chik and making distinctions conceptually.

Yeah, so we're asking the guy a question. Is the blue that you see directly with your visual consciousness and the blue that you're aware of the next millisecond, is it the same blue or not?

[Speaker 3]
Or are they separate?

[Speaker 1]
Or are they separate? Okay, let's go to 478. Back to you again.

Okay, thank you. You did a great job, and your text is quite difficult. I'm loving it.

This is rather fun. Yeah, no, but you're doing, you know, you're brave, I got to say. It's cool.

[Speaker 3]
I'm trying to direct the person.

[Speaker 1]
No, you're doing a good job. And the fact that you didn't quit six years ago is something amazing. I think I would.

Okay, so we finished these two sections, and we're just 470. Who's going to read, Adam? Let's see.

By the way, Dennis, you did an awesome job, and I'm really happy. Venerable Khadi, would you help us?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. ,'CHI KHYI NA NYON ZIN MIG ZHES DANG DE, ,'DZIN RNAM YANG, ,'CHI KHYI NGAR BRTAL LO If the two aspects of blue appearing to the mind are not separate from each other, but they amount to the same thing, then the visual awareness of blue, the visual awareness which holds blue, and the aspect of holding to that awareness must be the same thing. The perception of blue itself must be the subject aspect.

In the case of the mind seeing itself, the subject aspect and the object aspect are mixed up. They overlap. But in this case, they must be the same thing.

The holding aspect and the mind itself must be the same thing. The visual awareness of blue, and the aspect of it which is holding and not held. That's if they are not PAD DE.

Venerable Khadi, would you help us again?

[Speaker 2]
PAD DE YI NA KYE PU CHIK YI NGYON PO CHIT LA MIG ZHES KHYI TE PA NA NGYON POY NAM PA TA DA Is it DA or DE? DA DE PAD NI CHIK CHAR NGJUNG BRTAL LO NGJUNG BRTAL LO Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
If the subject aspect, the seeing part of the mind, and awareness of blue, if they are interconnected, if they overlap, then in a single person, KYE BU CHIK means in a single human being, or a single being, any kind of being, when they look at one patch of blue, like one blue cup, with their visual awareness, when they look at the cup, there must be present at that time two separate pieces of blue. Right.

Separate. Yeah, if they're separate. PAD DE YI NA Yeah, PAD DE YI NA There would be one aspect of blueness in the perceiving mind, and there would be one aspect of blueness which the perceiving mind is perceiving.

Yeah, okay. Then there'd have to be two blues. Two blues.

Yeah, that's too sad. Okay. Okay, who's going to read the next one, Adam?

I feel like those were short. We don't have a lot of time. Could you help us one more time?

[Speaker 2]
CHO CHEN DE TSUNG RNAM TANG CIG YIN PAR THAL Up or down, I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
Just go with it.

[Speaker 2]
Say CIG YIN PAR THAL.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. Nice reading, Kat. I'm very impressed, Kadhi.

Adam, what's DO SEM mean? The Sutras to the Mind-Only School. Nice, so DO SEM means Sutra Mind.

Sutra Mind means the Sutras Philosophy School and the Mind-Only Philosophy School. And it's an extreme abbreviation. It's like calling Rob Haggerty, Rob Haggerty.

Okay. So, GANG NYID RANG DU BYED KYANG means, I don't care whether you're talking about Sutra School or the Mind-Only School. So on something they are going to agree.

The second and third of the four great schools of ancient Indian Buddhism are going to agree on a certain point here. ZAD CIG YIN NA If the aspect, if the mind perceiving blue and the perceiving aspect are the one and the same thing, then ZAD CIG YIN NA CIG YIN PA'I KHYAB If two things are such that to be one is to be the other, then they are the same thing. Okay.

If two things are such that to be one is to be the other, then they are the same thing. It's true that to be one thing is to be another thing, then they are the same thing. Meaning anything?

Anything. Yeah, yeah. So if the perceiving aspect of blue and the perception of blue are intimately interconnected, which has been the whole discussion so far, then in these two schools, it's the same thing.

They're the same thing. If they're so similar that to be one is to be the other, then you can just call them one thing. They're the same thing.

Is this where the chikchar would really come in? If they're co-occurring, then you have to say they're the same thing. If they come into existence at the same time, they go out of existence at the same time.

Yeah, I think you could say that. Don't forget the whole discussion that we're having, it's not stupid, it's not silly, it's not irrelevant. The point is, when you hear a sound, are you hearing impermanence?

Yes. Because the ear cannot decide if a thing is going to last or not. And yet we are hearing impermanence.

The sound you're hearing is impermanent, but can we say that you are hearing impermanence? According to K.J. Because if you are hearing impermanence, you don't have to study Buddhism. Nope.

You're already aware of it. You're already understood impermanence. You understand you're not going to live forever and you have to do something about it.

If when you hear sound, you also hear it's impermanence, then you don't have to study your whole life to convince yourself you're going to die. Because you already perceived it. We've got to make the distinction between perceive and ascertain.

Okay, don't go there. DE PHYI YIN PA'I PHYIR YIN PA'I KHYER BA DOD PA LA So suppose you say that when you hear sound, you are already hearing it's impermanence. Because all sound is impermanent.

And the impermanence of sound is a metaphor for the impermanence of the human being. It's a spiritual thing to think that sound doesn't last. Because it's a metaphor for life itself.

And only the person who understands the fragility of life can be truly spiritual. Because they have to be. Because they want to know what's going next.

DE PHYI YIN PA'I KHYER BA DOD PA LA KHYIN DU YANG YOD TE What's that mean, Adam? KHYIN DU YANG YOD TE There's also this KHYIN. KHYIN DU YANG YOD TE Yeah, then there'd be this problem as well.

Yeah, there's another problem here, okay? If you believe that to... If you believe that...

If you believe that to be changing is to be... I don't know how you say it. If you believe that if one thing is always another thing, then it's the same thing.

If you believe that, then there's a second problem that comes up. There's a new problem that comes up. If you believe that to hear sound, you're also hearing impermanence, and that sound is therefore impermanence, then there's another problem here.

We got a new problem here. He wants to propose a new problem. MI ZHES KYI BRDZIN RNAMS CHOS CHEN Let's take the...

The eye consciousness, which... Well, the subject aspect of the consciousness of the eye. Yeah, let's take the seeingness of the eye.

Let's take the quality of seeing of the eye, okay? That must also be... It's object, whoa.

The objective awareness of it, the objective aspect. Yeah. Object.

The fact that the eye can see must also be the blue that it sees. Okay. Why?

Why? Because they are part and parcel. To perceive one is to perceive the other.

And is that all? He's saying when you perceive blue, when you perceive a sound, you're also perceiving its impermanence, right? Therefore, he said to be one is to be the other.

To be sound is not to be impermanent, but to be impermanence. Okay? So we say, oh, well, then the object side of things and the subject side of things have to be the same side of things.

Yeah. Is he saying that because... Because you always have one when you have the other.

Because it's simultaneous, is that the main reason? Yeah, because they come in one package. Yeah, okay.

Okay. Because they always come in one package together. What?

The fact that you're seeing and the fact that something's being seen. Because they always occur in the same package at the same moment, they amount to the same thing. To be the holding state of mind and to be the object which that mind holds, if to be one is to be the other, then there's no difference between them.

Then, I don't know, the blue must be seeing you. Right, right, right. That's it, you made it, because to be one is to be the other.

Is this where the fourth flavor of emptiness comes from? Boy, I don't know where you're going. That must be 60 verses thick.

All right. Who's going to read next? We still have some time.

Yeah, we started 10 minutes late, too.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oscar, would you... That doesn't mean my...

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Oscar, would you help us here? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
DUN NA, RANG RIM DANG GZHAN RIGS KYANG GCIG YIN PAR BRTOS LO Yeah, if the seeing aspect and the seen aspect are one and the same, then you can say that the mind's awareness of itself is the mind's awareness of blue. There's no distinction between seeing itself and seeing something outside if the object aspect and the subject aspect overlap. Right.

Then the mind must be blue. Blue. The mind must be the color blue.

Oscar, would you help us with 474? Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
DUN NA, RANG RIM DANG GZHAN RIGS KYANG GCIG YIN PAR BRTOS LO Yeah, and by the way, Adam, I've been reading a lot of...

[Speaker 1]
hundreds of pages about Rang Rik in Tsongkhapa lately, as some of you know. And he often says Rang Rik Ngun Sum. And Ben Kramer, for example, I wonder if that implies a Rang Rik which is not Ngun Sum.

I don't know. It seems to me that the capacity of the mind to perceive itself could not be deductive. It would have to be direct.

What I mean is, I'm kind of tending to believe myself that if the mind can be aware of the mind, it would have to be direct. I don't think... Because every state of mind could, through recollection, you could deduce that you had a mind yesterday.

But that's not so sexy or amazing. So that's not what they're talking about? No.

The point here... I mean, Rang Rik, the mind knowing itself, to me precludes deduction. Because it's no big deal to remember that you were alive yesterday.

So therefore, I think when they say Rang Rik and when they say Rang Rik Ngun Sum, I think it's the same thing. The capacity of the mind to see itself, and the capacity of the mind to be aware of itself directly, to me they're the same thing. I can't imagine a Rang Rik which is not Ngun Sum.

It's not deep enough.

[Speaker 3]
But you could say, technically, knowing that you had a mind when you were at the beach yesterday would be a sort of a Rang Rik but not Rang Rik Ngun Sum. It's just not as sexy.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and I... I mean, yeah, in theory you could call the mind's awareness of being at the beach yesterday Rang Rik, but it's not the classical meaning of the word in the mind-only school. It means in the single moment.

In the same moment that it sees blue, it's aware of itself. Okay? Okay.

All right. 475. Yeah, so by the way, if the mind's capacity to know itself were not simultaneously a capacity to know something else, meaning the blue, then it wouldn't be an awareness of itself.

If the mind's capacity to know itself in a single moment were not mixed up with the mind's capacity to see the blue at the same time, then you couldn't call that mind's capacity the ability to see itself.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Because if it wasn't seeing anything, it wouldn't see itself also.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Tough. It's tough. I'm sorry.

Now, to make things worse, Mr. Kramer, he's going to quote dun dun dun...

[Speaker 3]
Don't run me. I just worked here.

[Speaker 1]
Quote Ben Kramer's book from 1,500 years ago. The mother book of all logic. Okay, here we go.

Who's going to read, Adam? Pei-Ling. Ooh, Pei-Ling.

You're driving the plane.

[Speaker 2]
DE YI KHO PO DONG BA YI DE YI PHYIR DE DUG ZAS SOG YI DONG NI SROG DE DANG RUG DE YAS MED KYIS ZAS GCIG YIN NA SROG DE DONG BA'I SROG MI DONG BA'I ZHAG BCAD PA'I DONG YIN NO Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Very nice, Pei-Ling. By the way, we have... well, yeah, we'll go over a little bit, Adam, because that news, that world news guy got into your time.

We'll still make it to our place on time. Therefore, and now he's going to quote two lines from the Pramana Vartika. One of them is, SDUG GI RANG GI DNGUL BA'I GCIG In essence, they are one and the same.

In essence, they are one and the same. And a second line, DE YI PHYIR DNGUL PO DONG BA'I Therefore, just by seeing an object, dot, dot, dot. What is the meaning of these two lines from the Pramana Vartika?

And I went and got you the lines here. It's the first line of a verse. We can read the commentary by Geshe Yeshe Wongchuk.

Sorry. Yeah, who's the commentary by? Yeah, Geshe Yeshe Wongchuk comments on it.

GZHES SOGS KYI BRTAN NI The meaning of these two weird lines from the Pramana Vartika is, SPYOD DE DANG, DRUG DE Word, who's the spelling master here? Oh, he had to go. Oh, really?

There's an idiom called DRUG DE GCIG. Say DRUG DE GCIG. DRUG DE GCIG And you guys should know it.

DRUG DE GCIG means part and parcel. DRUG DE GCIG So DRUG means exist or come into being. DE means group.

GCIG means one. So DRUG DE GCIG means they are inseparably combined in one object. DRUG DE GCIG It means always come together in the same package.

I think he has misspelled it here. I would not spell it this way, but when I checked it, I saw that a lot of Tibetans spell it this way. I don't like the spelling because BDE means happy.

SDE means group. To me, DRUG DE should be SDE, but that's my opinion. And a lot of people use the BDE, but I think it's wrong.

Anyway, if two things are part of one inseparable package, YER MED KYI RDZAS CIG YIN NA If to be one is to be the other indivisibly. For example, sound and impermanence changing. CHU DE MTHONG BA'I SNGON GSUM GYIS Then the direct perception which is aware of sound must also MTHONG See the sound?

No, recognize the changingness. I'm translating. Remember we said the other class, we might want to use recognize here instead of see.

So if you're aware of sound, are you aware of impermanence? Because if you are, why should the Buddha spend year after year trying to convince you that you are changing and you are impermanent? If to be aware of sound is to be aware of sound's impermanence, why does Buddha have to sit there year after year and convince you that you're impermanent?

So that you will be kind to other people. It's very beautiful. This all relates to enlightenment.

These discussions are all relating to enlightenment. If to be aware of sound is automatically to be aware of impermanence, then the Buddha doesn't have to teach impermanence, and all people will be moral. Because they know they're going to die someday.

See what I mean? That's the whole point. Probably the guy's going to say, look, you can be aware of sound and have a side awareness that it's changing, without being aware that you're going to die someday.

It's not so radical. Recognizing a sound is going to go away is not necessarily a spiritual understanding that you should be a good person because you're going to die someday. They're not that connected.

That's a discussion going on here. ,THO BA'I LUN GSUM GYI, ,THO BA'I KHYAB BYED PA'I DUS, And what he says here is, if two things are indivisibly such, ,YER MI, such that to be one is to be the other, as sound and impermanence are, then when you're aware of one with a direct perception, when you hear a rock and roll song, then you must be aware of its impermanence also. If they are glued together indivisibly, and I'll ask, is sound indivisibly glued together with the impermanence?

It is. There's never been a sound that wasn't impermanent, because I can't hear it right now. So if they are inseparably glued together, then when I hear a sound, am I not hearing its impermanence?

No, you are. I am. I'm hearing an impermanent thing.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, right, because it's impermanent.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're not aware of it. Somehow we can cancel out the impermanence of life. And not do anything to prepare for our death.

See what I mean? Okay. So anyway, these lower schools are saying, when you do perceive sound, you must be perceiving its impermanence on some level.

Because there's never been a sound that wasn't glued to impermanence.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, all right. Now, if you're brave, Adam, and since we have five minutes according to Colorado Standard Time, do you want someone to read this Dharmakirti's verse? The whole verse?

We only have one line, but we're going to do the whole verse. Yeah, that sounds great. Roxanna, would you help us?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. dun gyi rang gi ngo war chik dak ni nun sum yinpa la, tse ma nam kyi thag cha kang, ma tong cha shen chi shik yul. Now you play this whole yula.

[Speaker 3]
Well, that's three, isn't it?

[Speaker 1]
And I'll give you an off-the-cuff translation. Don't quote me. dun gyi rang gi ngo war chik The two aspects are combined in this object.

We're talking about sound and its impermanence. They are one sugar ball combined. dak ni nun sum yinpa la When that sugar ball of sound and the changing of sound is perceived by a direct perception, then it is being perceived.

dak cha It is being examined by correct perceptions. Accurate perceptions. Accurate states of perceptions.

If sound is being perceived by an accurate state of perception, then there should not be any cha of that sound, which is ma tong. Sure. Yeah, there shouldn't be any corners of the sound which are unrecognized.

Don't forget, he's using seen as recognized. Like the back of the coffee cup that you can't see. That's a beautiful example.

Yeah, that's a beautiful example. When you look at a coffee cup, you are also looking at the back of the coffee cup by implication. Always.

Unless there's some weird coffee cup that got sawn in half by a diamond saw. We're going to see the commentary to this. I propose, so that I can get to my Italian dinner with Seiji on time, I propose that Adam translates the large type here, just before 76.

Okay, for next time. Yeah, I'll do it. By the way, don't go past the big letters, because that's just another section that I included, so I could catch the page number.

Okay, I'll do it. All right, I love you, and good job. I really appreciate all the pictures of my amazing granddaughter, who's starting to look like the real movie star, Eva.

She's grown up quick. Yeah, take advantage of it before she says, Dad, you know, I don't really want to climb the 12th largest mountain in Colorado today. Yeah, I know.

The day will come. I'm trying to get it all in right now. Okay, I'm going to cast an announcement here.

So real quick, Professor Word was feeling a little ill, so he's not going to be available to teach class today. So you guys are on your own to study for today, those of you who attend Word's class. But we wish him well, and I hope he feels better really soon.

And I just want to say thank you to all of you who have been attending, and for sticking it out in these tough classes. You guys are so awesome, and just really, really grateful for Xuanzang's Tower. Grateful for all of you for making it possible.

Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you, Adam, and thank you, everybody. Thank you.

By the way, this is the toughest class that we have. Adam's the toughest guy that we have. And the next class is going to be easier, so see you next time.

All right. Thank you, Adam. I love you.

Bye. Love you guys, man. This is so wonderful to do this with you guys.

We'll be thinking of you in the surf, okay? Please. I'll be thinking of you when I'm in the mountains, too.

In the surf. Okay. Good night.

[Speaker 3]
Good night, everyone. Good night.