Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 51

[Speaker 1]
That I was leading class today, but I'm sure we can get through it. Yeah. Hey, let me just pick it up.

Let me just pick the text up. For some reason, I just didn't see the schedule. All right, so let's see.

Where do we stop here? Is that big enough for you guys?

[Speaker 3]
I think we stopped with 475.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I'm about to search. I've got this spinning rainbow now.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I see. We can't see your spinning rainbow.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Only in private does my rainbow spin. All right, so 473?

[Speaker 2]
475.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sorry. I apologize. It's a little bit, but I don't see why this should pose too much of an issue.

We should be able to still kind of pick our way through this. Uh, although, yeah, I haven't been surfing, but, uh.

[Speaker 3]
Apparently it doesn't help that much.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, so I have a private spinning rainbow issue going on here again. Give me just one second.

Let me get my, there we go. This isn't even my latest document. Um, well here, but we'll save some time and we'll just go from here.

Um, I just pulled up the first one that kind of came up. Okay. Well, we'll go from 475.

My, uh, my cursor is still in an utter, uh, my computer's kind of going a little slow for some reason right now. It would make perfect sense as to why that would happen just right now. Let me close a couple of things there.

And that should save us some more processor intensive stuff. I'll close Zoom. I think closing Zoom would probably help.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, wait.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, okay. 475. You could blow it up a little bit more when you eventually get that ability.

Yeah, let's do it. 475 and 160, 170. Let's go to two.

Look at that. It's looking good, isn't it? Uh, okay.

Yeah. Uh, so do we have, uh, let's see. Should I choose a victim at random here?

Uh, Gibson, Gibson. I love hearing you read, sir. Would you help us?

[Speaker 2]
Hey, Alan. Yes. All right.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. So, uh, the day not here, therefore, uh, don't get wrong. You know, we'll check.

Um, and then the, so I took the done here and, uh, that's why I have this. What is meant by the line such as these? Um, so the meaning of its own singular essence.

Um, let's see. Is anything standing out to you guys? Uh, the chase out here.

Line such as these there. We've got two different quotations.

[Speaker 2]
What just happened?

[Speaker 1]
Um, let's see. Let's look. Um, he's just referencing.

Um, so we have them down here. Um, he didn't say anything above, but this is, this is what we were going to lead into in our next class. Um, with Geshe-la, but we're going to try to hit it here.

Okay. And we were having some sort of a, um, I don't know, was it a debate exactly, or at least some distinctions between, uh, mind only school and the sutras? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, regard to. Kind of.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. We dove off into the deep end and, uh, Zechik led us into a discussion of Nampa and aspect, which was then kind of blurring the lines between Satrantika and Yogachara. Uh, and then that brought in, uh, Rongrik and Shinrik.

So, um, uh, you know, I mean, we could go back and like, kind of catch up for context, but, uh, dude, what's going on with my, my computer? Obviously, like, as soon as I have a, a class that I wasn't super prepared for, and now my, my cursor's just spinning. So sorry.

Give me one second. Acrobat. Acrobat's always gonna.

All right. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

So if you disagree here, well, I mean, we can go back like one, just to figure out kind of what we're leading into, uh, my truth. Nah. Tate a lot wrong.

Right. One soon. My young part.

Hello. So if you disagree here, then you must be saying that self-perception isn't direct. Uh, if you disagree with saying that self-perception and the perception of something other than self are a single thing.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. And it seems then like the quote, like four 75.

It seems like Gayshane Michael needed the Ramanavartika section that came after it for clarification.

[Speaker 1]
So, yeah, I mean, he, he could also just be throwing that in for, I mean, yeah, totally. I wouldn't doubt that, but also probably supplementing for a footnote to, um, although, you know, he does like to never try to understand Master Dharmakirti without Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk.

[Speaker 2]
So, yeah, to understand the lines. Yeah. But it seems like, um, if it was just a footnote, he would have just given you the quotation in the Vartika, but it looks like because he went and grabbed Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
We started translating in there.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I see what you're saying. Yeah.

So let's see. Therefore, what is meant by the line, such as the meaning of its own singular essence, um, which this is the first time this has come up, uh, in a while. So, and for this reason, working lines, working thing is seen.

So what we've been talking about so far is Zechik, right? So once again, if you see something, do you see the fact, do you see its qualities as well? And then that brought into question, um, that, that brought up two different terms, which were opposing.

One was, uh, what was it? It was Drup Drup and Selm Drup, right? So the idea of engaging an object as a whole and the idea of engaging an object through an eliminative process, right?

So once again, we're looking at, uh, so anyways, so if you think about Drup Drup, which is, uh, engaging an object as a whole, uh, that necessarily means that you're engaging the object in all of its qualities simultaneously, right? Which is another way of saying, like, uh, it's an, it's another way of, uh, of saying that something is, uh, is Drup Drup or excuse me, it's Zechik, right? So if something is Zechik, uh, then you perceive all of its qualities at the same time, which is the same thing as saying that you engage it totally or as a whole, right?

Um, now I thought it was kind of interesting just as a side note, uh, because I've been talking with some people and just kind of going through what it means to belong to ultimate reality in the school. And we got to this point where we were saying that ultimate reality means that something is irreducible, that it's a, it's a singular object, right? And, but how do you perceive something like a coffee?

How do you perceive something like a bumper, like a coffee cup? If you're not perceiving the individual atoms that make it up, because we can all agree that we don't perceive the atoms of any given object, but we perceive the assimilation or the, the congruent, the, the conglom, you, you perceive all of the atoms as they're taken together as a whole to be like a coffee cup, right? And so just as a side note, uh, it led me into thinking that you have to be perceiving the individual atoms, right?

Because you're perceiving it, uh, in a, in a complete way, right? Like to perceive droop droop, to perceive any given object means that you perceive all of its qualities, then you must be perceiving all of its components, right? Which also means that that's why I'm, I'm saying this because I think this is why KJJ brought up the difference between, uh, perceiving something and ascertaining it, right?

So you can perceive something. I perceive a coffee cup. However, I don't ascertain all of its individual atoms necessarily, but what we have been saying so far is that we perceive a coffee cup.

However, we don't perceive its quality of being a changing thing. However, what I'm, what I'm proposing is that those two things are very, those, they're, they're the same, they would be of the same, uh, nature qualitatively. Parallel.

Parallel logic sort of. Yeah, totally. So to perceive, to perceive a coffee cup is to perceive the changing nature of the coffee cup, but to perceive the coffee cup is also to perceive the individual atoms that make up the coffee cup.

However, however, however, you don't recognize those things individually yet. Right. So, uh, so this is kind of why the working thing here, uh, which is that was a little context for this.

So, and for this reason, working thing, uh, is seen.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I see.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So is that if something is such that to be, it is to be inseparable and substantially co-occurring with another, then seeing that thing invariably means seeing it directly. So, uh, I thought it was interesting because it looks like we're getting a definition of what it means to be to be inseparable and substantially co-occurring.

Yeah. And it's hard to say here if, if this is better phrased as working thing or a working thing. Yeah, totally.

And that's kind of why I was winning that off. Yeah. Yeah.

Just working things for some reason felt like, right. At the moment.

[Speaker 2]
Right. We can't tell you for sure. I mean, I'm hoping that we're about to get some clarity about that.

[Speaker 1]
Now, if some of this stuff doesn't really stand out, we can go through the individual parts of the Tibetan. We left off right here. So we're about to slow down considerably.

I think as we hit this next part.

[Speaker 2]
This is, this is great. I think this is probably the best place to look.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
For some reason, your microphone is not picking up your voice very well to see if it's turned off or something. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
So we're going to need somebody. Let's see to read here. I'll just go through it real quick.

Okay. Yeah. So I'm going to need some help.

I'm definitely gonna need some help. I don't have my newest document opened up and I'm a little concerned that if I try to pull it up, my computer is going to wig out again. Um, so there's it's kind of the same thing as up here.

So these are meaning of the question. Yeah. So what, what does it mean to be of a singular essence?

Um, and then, uh, uh, um, so if something engages something, uh, so if the, if let's see, um, to say that, uh, to say that, uh, the cot conceiving sound is if something, so if something conceives, let's see, how would you phrase this?

[Speaker 3]
Um, the conception of sound, something is the perception of sound, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Something is clear. The perception of sound.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. The chaper tay though.

[Speaker 3]
Um, oh, that's not saying that's not just saying this from this quote, like what we're talking about.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, this is, oh yeah, that's right. Because this is Geshe Wang Chu. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. So he's just commenting on this line. So he's just saying what this line is saying is that if something is a perception of sound.

[Speaker 1]
No, for some reason, I keep forgetting that we're looking at Geshe, Geshe Wang Chu and not master Dharmakirti. So I was wondering why he was like, So so so do you see every aspect of sound? Does the auditory consciousness?

So does the sound, which is, uh, the, the auditory consciousness withholds, which holds sound, um, perceive every aspect of sound. Um, right. And what, what's every aspect of, uh, true.

[Speaker 3]
Do you think it's important, Adam? He's using Tongwa. Like he's saying, does the auditory consciousness see?

[Speaker 1]
Like Geshe-la? Yeah. Geshe-la was, yeah.

Well, I mean, the thing is, is there's a clear, um, there's a clear, look, look, okay. When you're talking about the auditory consciousness and seeing something, right. So Tong as experiencing or Tong as seeing, seeing the auditory consciousness, right.

Does it see, so I, I mean, I guess it's just, you know, another way of kind of saying perceive. Um, however, uh, Geshe-la did really point that out the last time. And that's why I have seeing here, experiencing or perceive or, um, yeah, but I mean, look, I think this is really interesting because what, what you're talking about now is that the, okay.

So we've been talking about, um, perceiving qualities. So can different sense, can the different sense spheres perceive objects, uh, in their totality? Right.

So does like the, does the like smell of a croissant perceive it's like the, the impermanence of the, of the croissant. Right. You see what I'm saying though?

Like, and I really think that's why, I think that's why Tonga kind of jumped in here, because there is this kind of ephemeral nature to sound that, um, like we learn, right. And you guys don't have to help me on this, but when I, if I remember correctly, they're the building blocks, right? So from the Vibhashika standpoint, there's four rudimentary kind of elements, the Jungwa Shippo, right?

Yeah. Jungwa Shi. But they call it Shi Chimpo sometimes like the, the four great ones, um, and have the other, the, the other five sense consciousness, uh, sense consciousnesses along with those.

However, sound is usually left out. Right. So every right.

Like, um, I'm trying, I'm trying to remember that. So sound is the sound is kind of not needed or they said it's ephemeral or something.

[Speaker 3]
It's, uh, it's too subtle or something like that.

[Speaker 1]
That's it. Like, yeah. So, I mean, subtle ephemeral, I think, yeah, there's, there's kind of this nature here when we're talking about sound in particular, and we're talking about the building blocks of reality.

Um, I think that's one of the reasons we're starting to jump into, uh, the different sense spheres because, uh, to talk about sound can get a little, uh, you can get a little caught up, I think. Um, there's a lot to discuss there, uh, I think so. Well, like, does, you know, here, does the auditory consciousness pick up the color red?

No, it doesn't. Right. But it can perceive the impermanence of an object.

Right. I mean, that's kind of why I'm, yeah, up on it a little bit. Um, it's a good point.

[Speaker 2]
You perceive the totality of an object, which I, I don't, I don't know if that makes sense. I don't see that you can directly perceive an object in its totality, because then you would have this problem.

[Speaker 1]
Perceiving the back of the cup that you can't see.

[Speaker 2]
Perceiving the back of the cup. Right.

[Speaker 1]
Or your nose perceiving its color.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Or, or right. Your eye perceiving. Yeah.

The back of the cup. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, these are, I think, you know, I don't know. I don't know the answer, but, uh, it's fun to think about. Right.

Yeah. Right. Well, that seems, yeah, it does.

It seemed to seem to contradict the possibility that direct perception could see a thing in its totality. Yeah. And, uh, I think this is one of the reasons we're playing, um, right.

Obviously some of you can find some of these contradictions when you start to root out, uh, the second school's views. Right. Um, there seem to be some contradictions at some points and it would make sense that they're coming up right now as we're touching on yoga chart views.

Right. Um, so there may be some solution that's provided. Uh, yeah.

I mean, we can, let's keep, you know, keep plugging through this. Yeah. So, um, so again, oh, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Go ahead.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Let's see. So we're right here.

[Speaker 2]
Oh my.

[Speaker 1]
So I shouldn't do, uh, yeah. So this, uh, tongue was shouldn't do should, uh, be together and the stage on pay, could have paid trying to talk. So, okay.

Um, yeah. So the nom comes in here again. Um, yeah.

And once again, the last time we were here, um, I was hoping word could help us out when nom came up. Uh, I think there's some unique aspects that he's probably dealt with a lot in this text. Um, but I'm all ears.

Oh, this is not, I mean, none with the sash should just mean plural. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That's true. So, uh, we don't have to stress about it. We're just talking about multiple accurate perceptions in this.

[Speaker 1]
Accurate perceptions. Uh, fortunately don't, don't leave or anything word, but yeah. So your expertise that way just to get.

Oh, was it? Oh, um, the tongue I was, uh, yeah, I did some research. If I remember correctly, like I said, this is one of my old, this is one of my old documents.

Um, so I did some research on the tongue and I saw that it could actually refer to subsequent like cognition, like subsequent kind of perceptions. So you see an object and we were talking about how, in order to be earlier in this text, it came up that in order for something to be considered an accurate perception, it, it has to be my Lua. Right.

And what does me Lua me. Right. And then strong was giving me problems here and I couldn't figure out exactly why.

So I kind of dug into it. Um, but why would you ever need a separate perception? So maybe, um, yeah, maybe you guys can give me a little help there.

[Speaker 3]
To which word are you referring? Oh, Tron, uh, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right. I mean, if I remember correctly, yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Literally to pull and more figuratively to interpret or something like that.

[Speaker 1]
So once again, um, so is this new here, this new has got to be ascertained. Right. So, um, do subsequent, um, awarenesses, um, and ascertain all aspects of sound.

[Speaker 3]
Is the subsequent supposed to be indirect at that point? Is it supposed to be?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Well, that's kind of where I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1]
I'm using, I'm using, I'm using for Tron. Yeah. Because it was giving me problems and I remember spending like, like a while on it and going through a few different.

Yeah. I, I don't think it's, it could be, you know, I don't know Tron as much as you studied it, but I, I just, it means, um, interpreted instead of direct.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Like, yeah. And especially because the, the nation here is set up in opposition to the so you have the state of mind or the awareness that hears, as opposed to the awareness that recognizes or something. Oh yeah.

I see what you're saying. Yeah. The gay came, the gay came in, so it would go along with Tron.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
That's right.

[Speaker 2]
Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Well, uh, so you have an accurate perception, uh, that let's see. Um, okay, well then what about the Dunmay down here then? Um, meaningless.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. I mean, it's literally, Oh, it comes meaningless.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Accurate perceptions. Uh, yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Realize things like impermanence and stuff become meaningless.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Or pointless.

[Speaker 1]
Um, okay. Well then that would mean that. But is it, or is it that they, they no longer, that perception no longer has an object.

[Speaker 2]
Right. I, that could easily be, um, and, um, yeah, so the, this, um, jumping, the, whatever the, uh, I don't know, like, um, understanding or something, the, the drawing out of the state of mind that understands things. Right.

Are we, um, I don't know, are we good by like having to say that it may understands to cool, like every quality of sound, that state of mind that understands it, um, like draw, draw me, talk about right. Sound being a changing thing or something like that.

[Speaker 1]
Um, and there's that in opposition to the hearing state.

[Speaker 2]
When you recognize that a thing is sound, then are you recognizing all of its qualities? Right. And this is what's in opposition, right?

Uh, Chukung Tonga versus Chukung Nge. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Well, and then also, isn't then Nge being opposed to the talk? Well, I, in this case, I think that it's more what you said before, Upala, that

[Speaker 1]
the Ngepa is, he's just, I think it's saying, if you can ask, I think that meaning the same thing in a way, if you're asking, if you're necessarily ascertaining all objects, when you

[Speaker 3]
perceive sound, then why would you need, what would be the point of realizing, of having a separate perception that realizes impermanence of sound? Like it's totally unnecessary.

So I think the Ngepa is like, meaning the thing that ascertains all of those objects and poke is like the realization, like you don't even need to realize it.

[Speaker 2]
It's nice then because Dönmepa kind of splits the difference between objectless and meaningless to be pointless.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's what it is. I'm pretty sure that's what it says here.

Yeah, that's exactly right.

[Speaker 2]
It would be pointless then for there to be accurate perceptions that realize, right, that come to understand things like the changing nature of sound, right? Sound being a changing thing. If they are realized.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. If you're already ascertaining it just by perceiving it. Yeah.

Well, I mean, that's definitely in the discussion. However, it's talking about ascertaining all of the qualities and not necessarily perceiving all of the qualities.

[Speaker 3]
I wonder, yeah, we haven't gotten clear yet on exactly what the difference is, but here it almost seems like...

[Speaker 1]
Ascertaining would be like, okay, well, taking the fact that sound is impermanent, taking that into an analytical meditation and then perceiving that with your eyes closed, right? Independent of an auditory perception, right? So on the meditation cushion, you're looking at a singular aspect of sound, not necessarily any particular sound, but just sound in general.

And then you're weeding out, right, its different qualities through meditation, right, in order to kind of generate tokpa and understanding about each one of these things. So perceiving, like going to a concert and listening to a song, right, it's one thing. They say that you perceive the impermanence of sound, the changing nature of sound, but it's not ascertained.

And I think what I'm saying is that I totally agree with you guys. But here, in particular, it's the first time that this has come up, that all aspects are ascertained. Like what note is being played and for how long and like all that?

You talked about it like with vittarka and vicharka. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, would we say tokpa with a sa here and ngepa are equivalent? Can you, these two terms, if you realize something or know something, do you recognize it or ascertain it necessarily and vice versa? That would be my temptation.

[Speaker 1]
I would say so. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Okay. Okay, good.

Right.

[Speaker 1]
But dude, this is super fun. I'm sorry. I wish I was a little bit more loose and like that I had been kind of like I kind of moved ahead away.

So it's been a little while since I've looked at this section. But no, man. Okay.

So, but, you know, Geshe-la's got this down here, obviously, with his note. Why would you ever need a separate? I need to slow down for the translator.

Why would you ever need a separate perception that confirmed that sound was changing?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you ascertain all aspects, right? Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I don't want to step on your words. But if you ascertained all aspects of any given direct perception of any object of direct perception, then why would you ever need a separate perception to kind of identify its qualities?

[Speaker 2]
Sounds good. So let's can we go up and look at that previous paragraph now and see if that yeah, what's meant by these lines? Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
That was kind of the two lines that we were looking at here. So inseparable and substantially co-occurring. I think the argument here is that if something is inseparable, hold on.

I think the argument that we're arguing against, that is, if something is inseparable and substantially co-occurring with anything else, like sound and its changing nature, right, are inseparable and substantially co-occurring. That then when you perceive it, that doesn't necessarily mean that you perceive that you what was it? Chukunge, right?

So just because something substantially and co-occurring doesn't mean that you perceive that you ascertain, excuse me, all of its characteristics, right? And because of the dunmei down here, the dunmei par giro. So then if it was the case that you perceived, if it was the case that you ascertained all qualities of any object of direct perception, then that would why would you need subsequent?

Why would you need any further accurate perceptions about that object? Like if it could all happen in a single instant.

[Speaker 2]
Then why would you ever have to have a direct perception of emptiness? Because you've already ascertained it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great example. Yeah, sure.

[Speaker 2]
A pot is already empty. So every time you look at a pot, if you see all these qualities, then you've already seen its emptiness. And by the way, directly.

[Speaker 1]
So that kind of makes sense, right? I still I still don't know the this. I mean, the seeing does seem like it's being singled out for some reason to stress some aspect of all of this.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, I mean, you know what I mean? Yes.

[Speaker 1]
You guys want to move on a little bit further? Here, let's go. Yeah, so we kind of went through some of this stuff here.

Already, I could totally. Okay. All right.

Here, I'm going to just take this out because it's just going to confuse us, I think. Let's have somebody else read. Who's who's available?

Gibson or Oscar? I saw Oscar.

[Speaker 3]
Hi.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, sir. We're at 476.

[Speaker 3]
Bamba.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Therefore. Okay, so the Chache here is obviously parts.

Okay, part like the. I don't want to use aspect, but the characteristics, the qualities, I mean, you could even go there with K bar. And then here's the nom again without that saw.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it is.

[Speaker 1]
So this is yeah. I mean, I'm not going to make it horribly like. It's I'm probably trying to make it a lot harder than it actually is, but.

Anybody have any ideas about how this this first is going to go here?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, no, I mean, what Bamba, right?

[Speaker 1]
We're if that's true, right? Or since that's true, right? Right.

Bamba to what? What are we getting rid of here? We're eliminating the the part that is a Nampa, the special part that is the Nampa, the aspect or the what the picture in your mind of the thing out there.

Yeah, I mean, to get rid of, to abandon.

[Speaker 3]
Seems like it seems like he's saying we can we can not even worry about distinguishing these between these parts because it's all ascertained within that direct perception. It's all ascertained directly, like why we don't have to think about these different aspects that you might perceive with different kinds of realizations.

[Speaker 1]
Let me think about that for a second.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Okay. Kipachachi is distinguishing these different parts, meaning the different aspects.

I mean, I'll let you think about it. Sorry. I just wanted to.

[Speaker 1]
No, no, no, no, no, no, totally. Totally. Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 3]
And Nampa, these different aspects. Pampa, don't dispense with dispense with considering these different aspects. Run Tsumugi by direct perception.

Tsumupa, you get it. You grasp it all.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Yeah. Well, let's see.

I mean, we probably have commentary to this as well, because this is also this is the root text.

[Speaker 3]
This is this is quoting root text, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it is.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Shea. So it says that.

[Speaker 2]
It does. And this is pithy. So we should be careful trying to understand, obviously, these lines without.

[Speaker 1]
Hopefully, there's some geshi, yeshing, wanchu just below what we see on the screen. No. Yeah.

There we go. Yes, there it is. Okay.

Which probably is what we need. Let's see. Is there is anything highlighted?

Let me just give me. Let's see if we can find it. Yes.

And there's.

[Speaker 3]
Number five. Yeah, there it is.

[Speaker 1]
The beginning of it's further up. It was bolded. Oh, it was a larger.

I think that was it. Are we looking at the same one?

[Speaker 3]
Are we looking from an article?

[Speaker 1]
Like I said, this was the when I when I control clicked on my word, I just pulled up the first document that I had.

[Speaker 2]
This is what was in the latest version.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, yeah. I apologize. Yeah, I was a little on the spot.

I told you where it is. Sorry about that. It's no, it's good.

[Speaker 3]
We got it. We got it.

[Speaker 1]
Where this is large. Okay, great. Good.

That's what should be large. That's the root text. The section that is being referred to.

What was it? There was a there was a in there. Is it?

Yep. There it is. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, so what he did, he just found it two places in the.

[Speaker 1]
In two different. So then he goes down to what you're showing on your screen, which is. Yeah.

Sorry. I haven't had. Where he just talks about Chakshay Nampa.

[Speaker 2]
No more commentary after this. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Thanks. Okay, so could go the direct perception, which holds sound. So they're inseparable.

And I've been using co-occurring. But I hate to say. But you may want to go up a little more.

You see how he made a note about perceived by elimination, which means that. Oh, totally. Yeah, well, that's that sound.

It was worth it to him to grasp to gloss that part. Yeah. Yeah, it looks like that's kind of where his.

At least his notes start. And there's a KFR Chakshay up there. Yeah, how did I miss this?

[Speaker 2]
How did I?

[Speaker 1]
A little bit higher. There it is.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, so these lines.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, these lines here.

[Speaker 3]
The spelling of Soong is different.

[Speaker 2]
It is stressing me out a little bit, if I'm honest. Yeah. I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Soong.

[Speaker 3]
No, up in the text, it says this. Oops. Hold on.

It's the wrong keyboard. Soong.

[Speaker 2]
And then down in the code, it says. Soong. It says.

This. Yeah, that's an easy enough booboo, at least. Hmm.

Well, I was trying to look up the one with the saw, and I was like having troubles with Soong Pa. That wasn't showing up anywhere, nor was Soong Wah. So it was helpful to me.

To know it doesn't have a saw at the end.

[Speaker 1]
So what. I'm just going to show the perception that. Let's see if anything stands out.

Yeah, sure. I mean, so Shinde Kanlala, oh, sure, oh, because it's a dofa.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
The Duradang De Chuhnong, the sound, right, with its qualities.

[Speaker 2]
Uh. Right. Yeah.

Chik Soong, right to grasp those.

[Speaker 1]
There's that Kuhn again.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, all of them all together. Kuhn Soong.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So. Well, there's. And I.

If I mean. Never mind. I'm not gonna.

I'm not gonna bring the subsequent discussion back into it for. Is this true? Oh, it's true.

You. I don't know if they go together. I've never.

I don't remember. Sound like an idiom or anything.

[Speaker 3]
I don't know about the saw. It's can be a cause for a mistaken perception. If the gear doesn't have a saw at the end.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we got to remember that this all runs down. Yeah, right. Okay, right.

And I would like. I would like me new Bob more than I would like my new. I don't know if that's a possible there, right?

But certainly. A delusion should not be able to be a cause for. Recognition for ascertaining something.

A delusion would not yeah. Oh, I was looking at the previous delusion. Yeah, yeah, totally.

And then I think they run together here. Right. Me knew about it shouldn't be able to write.

And since it shouldn't be able to do that. Then that delusion. Um.

[Speaker 2]
What is a is a is a conceptual?

[Speaker 1]
It's a distinguisher. Yeah, so the idea of the second school is the opposite, right? So it's the opposite of everything that's not right.

So if you get a pen. That's kind of why my I jumped to it. Because it kind of sticks out.

Didn't quite know how it was playing into whether or not. Oh, well, you know what? It makes sense because.

Dharmakirti argues against the the idea that conceptions are real. That universal for real. So it would be mistaken in the sense that to be a dope is to belong to the conceptual world.

Which would then lead to further the subsequent here. This young and the causing more. Incorrect or mistaken perceptions.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's very concerning, really, because if we've decided that we can't. See all the things qualities through direct perception.

[Speaker 1]
And then instead, we need some sort of. In direct perception, some other kind of perception. Would be tempting to say a dope, right?

Like a process of elimination. Yeah, well, this is who comes to certainty about a thing. But this seems to be saying that delusion cannot.

Okay, well, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to argue that sound you. Sound you creates dope. Yes, it does.

Argument accepted. So, I think once again, where we're really button heads here is with. The idea that in this school, and let's say, master Dharmakirti.

That once again. She sends are not necessarily they don't they're not real.

[Speaker 2]
Right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and they would be they would be mistaken. And I think there's a lot of argument for this because. It goes back to whether or not even language can refer to.

Objects in a correct way. How conceptual. Your your idea of things is just an approximation of your sense perceptions.

It's not actually the real thing. Right? Your mental image of a coffee cup.

Is just that it's a representation of. Sense data, which is what makes it mistaken, which is what makes it.

[Speaker 2]
And this is all a cut cheek, right? Obviously, before Shana. I think, right?

Like, if if one were to say.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I mean, this is this is.

[Speaker 2]
It is right. But I think it's being. That is rude up to cure, right?

And then shapes, shapes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, yeah, right.

[Speaker 2]
Like these, these. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
These four lines. Right. Oh, you know what?

I am going to have to bring in the subsequent. Argument that I had for using subsequent for Trong earlier. Because the Nama here.

[Speaker 2]
Nama. Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
So one of the one of the things that KJJ apparently. So something that I've been really finding out as I've spent more time trying to make sense of this stuff is that KJJ there that. Gatsby and KJJ sometimes will even interpret things differently among between the two of them.

And that one of those things is apparently the idea of. What whether or not the memory of the coffee cup that you saw, right, is valid or not. Right.

Because the definition of an accurate perception. Right. Is fresh and unmistaken.

Right. So what does the Malua mean? Right.

And the Malua should be when they mean fresh. They're speaking about. I guess that's Sardu.

Sardu Malua. Yeah, yeah. Excuse me.

Yeah, yeah. Sardu Malua. Right.

Yeah. So. That's I think that's why I was using Trong for subsequent.

Now, how that plays in. But it's obvious here that Ngaise Ngame Sung Zen is talking about previous perceptions. Right.

And that's a giant it's a it's a giant topic. It turns into, you know, it's heavily treated in different texts is the idea of what makes something. But yeah, what makes something accurate?

Right. And so if I because the thing here and the the interesting thing about is if I have a pen in my hand, I'm not actually perceiving the pen in the moment. I have no I have no access to a present pen.

Like, I have no access to a pen that currently exists. It's all, you know, in the previous moment that now. And this is also I you know what?

Hold on. I'm getting some there's the gears are firing now. This is one of the reasons for this exact reason is one of the.

One of the arguments that goes to support the existence of an aspect of Nampa, because we've been talking about in that past this past class with Geshe Michael, we were looking at how physical objects. Right. How does how does consciousness?

How does how does consciousness interact with physical objects? And how does the how does the awareness interface with any any physical object? And one of the so the solution to the to saying because then you'd have to say that you're never having an accurate perception in the moment.

You see, because you're always perceiving you're always perceiving a pen of a of a latter second.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
You see what I'm saying?

[Speaker 2]
When you're talking about the Nampa, you're talking about the representation of that external object inside.

[Speaker 1]
Now, but I'm actually I'm actually and maybe I'm missing something. I love that, Ben. But I'm arguing that that is actually a solution to that problem.

And meaning that the aspect having an intermediary aspect between your conception of a pen and the pen in my hand, which is somehow blending into the sky. But there's an intermediary aspect between your conception of the pen and the pen itself. And those can actually happen simultaneously.

If you have an aspect, if if if the the remember because we were talking about soon soon Nam and Zen Nam.

[Speaker 2]
Well, the external thing is also sometimes called the Nampa, unfortunately.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Well, yeah, they're both are. But they OK.

So here and then. So, yeah, I've spent like a month. Like I spent so much time.

[Speaker 2]
You don't need a Nampa to go from the Nampa to the Nampa, I hope.

[Speaker 1]
No, no, no, no. But that's why that's why they were talking about Zechick for so long. Because they'd say that the subject and objective aspect of the Nampa are actually Zechick.

OK, that to be the external thing is to be the internal thing, to be the thing that exists externally is to be the thing that you see. It sounds like a mind blown paper. Well, that's why.

Yeah, totally. That isn't that. Yeah.

And that's why we've been linked to it. Like that's it doesn't accept that anymore, right? No, it doesn't.

Yeah, right. And so then you get into this whole thing of like, OK, well, was Master Dharmakirti a Satrantika or a mind only God? And this right here, like essentially what we've talked about for the past five minutes is what created the whole Satrantika Yogachara school, right?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, interesting.

[Speaker 1]
You see, because now you've got this aspect of reality. This and I'm using the term specifically, this aspect of perception, which is in between. Conception.

So wrong. Wrong sense and cheat sense. You've got this thing that that works in between them.

And if you have an aspect, which is once again like like a crystal and then you hold a blue cloth underneath the crystal, the crystal takes on the aspect of the blue cloth. And that is a that is a simultaneous occurrence. Those things are co-occurring.

And and if if my hunch is if my hunch is correct, that's why we're we see the Nama here. And that's why we saw the Trang earlier. And that's also why we see.

Yeah, totally.

[Speaker 2]
Well, may it may it be that Geshe Michael comes next time and clarifies it for us.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, I'm sure I'm sure all that isn't going to be unpacked in the next class. But, you know, we're going to get there. We're going to get.

Yeah, yeah. We should wrap it up, though, because we're over time and we're going to let her go. But thank you so much.

And I'm sorry that you you know, I'm sorry for any miscommunication. But yeah, I just I started thinking to myself. I was like, you know, my class was on the 5th of August.

And so I just forgot that maybe I'd have to look.

[Speaker 3]
Today was actually meant to be a not a team class. And it was became a team class at the last minute. So I'm working hard to balance the schedule.

So everybody's getting more equal classes with Geshe-Lan. And you and I and others have had a lot more team classes lately. And so anyway, we're devising a system that hopefully will work better.

But this was great. And I had fun. I've been having a lot of fun in your classes.

[Speaker 1]
And sorry, man, I was flailing there a few times. It was great.

[Speaker 3]
And I'm grateful to you for jumping in and not being intimidated.

[Speaker 1]
We got it.

[Speaker 3]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
But I'm going to leave it here and say good night and a good day or to you. I say whichever it is. Good afternoon to everyone.

[Speaker 3]
I mean, that wasn't you, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
But what are you teaching now?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, I am. We're almost done. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
That's awesome.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Thank you, Adam. Thank you.