Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 55

[Speaker 1]
All righty, where is Mr. Ethel? I'm right here again. Can you guys see the homework?

Yeah, if you can zoom in a little bit for those of us that are aging. Well, I can zoom in myself. Okay, how's that look?

Is that a little better?

[Speaker 2]
It looks like Adam, you're using a slicer.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, you know what? Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot to black him out.

Yeah, give me just one second. Oh, nice. Now we got two handsome guys.

I don't see that on my screen. Rob, any way to help me? No.

Oh, it's gone. It's gone? The homework?

It shall return. It shall return, yes. Almost.

Instead, you get me. 10 seconds. Okay.

Ready to go? Yeah. Sorry about that.

Adam, you go ahead and do your homework, and I'll catch up. Okay. Adam, you go ahead and do your homework.

Yes, sir. Okay. Okay, is that?

Yeah, there we go. Yay. Okay, yeah, forget anything you saw.

Actually, I have little pens from Men in Black. I would just erase your memory. Okay, so KJipJ has been taking some time to really stress that when we perceive a sound or a coffee cup, we simultaneously perceive all of its qualities, but without ascertaining them.

So when we perceive a sound, we perceive its impermanence without ascertaining its impermanence. And what impact may that have upon our spiritual evolution? Well, there's not necessarily a right or wrong answer.

[Speaker 2]
But what just popped into my mind is that the Buddha nature that I have has the quality of being the same Buddha nature that the Buddha I will become will have. And so, in a sense, I'm perceiving that. No, I'm not perceiving it.

[Speaker 1]
Well, it's interesting. It's interesting because I love it. You know, and that's actually, I focused on one specific thing, but I almost included two.

And the second one that I was thinking about including very much so followed your line of thought there. You know, if we're perceiving a sound, right, or looking at a coffee cup, these are both things that we're directly perceiving with our senses, right? So something like our Buddha nature, or what I was going to focus on was a coffee cup's lack of existing from its own side.

And that is necessarily an unchanging thing. And we do not perceive that with our senses. The interesting thing there is that our Buddha nature, or our quality of being empty, is also something that we are one with, right?

But we are not zaychik with those things. To be zaychik necessarily means to be something which is changing. And to be one with something can also include unchanging aspects of any particular object.

Does that make sense? So I kind of went down that same line of thought. And I think maybe where your thought left off, Venerable Pala, was just that we need to specify between being zaychik and being chit, right?

Being zaychik means that when I perceive it with my sense consciousness, I perceive all of its qualities simultaneously. That object does have unchanging qualities that also exist with it, that are one with it, but we do not perceive those with the senses. We have to be in a deep state of meditation to perceive those things, which is obviously kind of why I left it out.

But I love it that you kind of almost took the words right out of my mouth. That was really sweet. So there are many ways to approach this question, but one major thing stands out here.

So the way that I went with it, without talking about the unchanging qualities that come along with everything, is that if we understood the changing nature of our own body and mind, we'd use our time more wisely. And our attention would be squarely placed upon adding to the two collections of merit and wisdom, right? So I would say that our practice and the strength of our practice is directly proportional to how much we've perceived our own impermanence.

But I'd love to hear anybody else got any ideas. Otherwise, we'll move on. So in his efforts to prove that we do perceive certain qualities of objects of direct perception without perceiving others, what consequence, or here we could say without ascertaining others, what consequence is given by KJJ in response to the mind-only assertion that the eye consciousness that holds blue and the color blue are a single indivisible thing?

Always hear the Jeopardy, the Jeopardy music starts playing in my head when nobody's answering. I'll give you another few seconds and then we'll just unload it. Nobody?

There was a particular argument that we were giving in response to saying that, here, we'll just go through it. So KJJ says that if it is the case that the eye consciousness which holds blue and the color blue were a single indivisible thing, then we would be looking at the foundation consciousness. So if I'm looking at the color blue, I'm actually looking at my own mind.

Basically, the assertion here is that from the perspective of the mind-only school, when we look at the color blue, we're looking at our own mind. However, there's an additional seed that ripens along with the appearance of the color blue, which gives the impression that it's out there and separate from us. So it would follow that if the perception of the color blue and the color blue itself are a single thing, then we could say that we're seeing our own mind as being over there and cut off, since we do not perceive our mind as being distant and cut off.

Therefore, assert that there are aspects of objects that are perceived and unacknowledged. Does that follow? Sorry, translators, I know it's a mouthful.

Yeah. Okay, so this next one's pretty straightforward. We were getting to a point where we're about to go off and explore the topic of self-perception, self-awareness, apperception, and Geshe-la said that we were going to write an appendix on this topic.

So the second reference that we went to was from Jetsun Kappa, and he gave a list of four things, right, which isn't an exhaustible list, but he specifically gave four things that were addressed in the last class as things that are not accepted by the higher middle way school. Apperception. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, totally.

Apperception's one, yeah. And then just gave it— Rangten on the list? Rangten, actual objects, yeah, totally, yeah.

Kunshi? Yeah, and from the perspective of the lower middle way school, that's going to be a hit.

[Speaker 3]
Ranggitak.

[Speaker 1]
Oscar said— Ranggitak, right. Yeah, I've got my chat previews turned off. I find them—they're a little distracting sometimes, so sorry if I missed your—Oscar, if I missed your contribution there, sir.

Thank you. All right. Okay, cool.

All right, so we got Nyunme. Anybody?

[Speaker 2]
Indisputable.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Nice. What, Jiang?

Distant.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, totally.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, I put kind of span or the width between two things. It could be distant. Yeah.

All right, so that's our homework, and here's my translation. So the first— Can you read Tibetan? Yes, sir.

Love to. Nice. Okay.

Let's check your translation. Of the eight provided here, four are associated with being positive positions. Yeah, so whose positions, Adam?

Higher middle way. Yeah, these are eight ideas that distinguish Nagarjuna. Okay, the highest viewpoint of emptiness.

These are six—these are eight different ideas that distinguish higher middle way from lower middle way. It's kind of strange to divide one of the classical schools of ancient India into two parts, and you might wonder why there's a higher part of the middle way, and there's a lower part of the middle way. These eight qualities are what distinguishes the two, mainly.

So, I got to see the whole thing. Yeah, so they don't accept four things, and they do accept four other things. So there's four points that they don't agree on with the lower middle way, and there's four points which they add that the lower middle way would not add.

So here's the four that they don't agree to, and we went through those four already in the homework. RANG BRTZEN RANG BRTZEN means, in the lower schools, they always distinguish between the actual cup on the table and the idea of the cup, the archetype of the cup in your mind. So, this actual cup on the table is an idea that the higher middle way does not accept.

In a sense, all things are archetypes. Everything you ever saw wasn't the image in your mind. You were making up images.

So they don't accept there's an idea of a cup, and then there's the real cup. They don't accept the second one. The highest school of Buddhism doesn't accept the second one.

Okay, very, very delicate. Then RANG GIS GYI LTAR What's that, Adam, roughly? The independent reasons.

Which means that the lower middle way school believes that words and arguments have an innate power that make them logical. So, unless the other person was insane, it often happens in the kitchen with your wife or husband. You explain something clearly, you use correct logic, and they say, no, that's not the way I see it.

And you say, but even Buddha would accept this logic because it's airtight. So the higher school is actually saying there's no such thing as airtight logic, because the logic that a person hears is coming from their mental seeds. It's very interesting.

It's very interesting. So RANG GIS GYI LTAR We don't accept, in the higher middle way, we don't accept that certain words will always be understood the same by different people. As we saw in the recent political year of...

It's so nice that that year is over, even though it's a sad ending. Okay, GUN ZHIG. GUN ZHIG is what, Adam?

Foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness. Yeah, now, is it that the higher half of the middle way would not accept the idea of a part of your mind where your karma seeds stay? Is it that the higher middle way would not accept the concept of a part of your mind where your karmic seeds stay?

Do they have a problem with that, higher middle way? Yes. They don't have a problem with that.

They do not have a problem. Okay, that's fine. You can say that.

There is no such location, but the concept is okay. There's a part of your mind where the seeds stay. That part's okay, but then the mind-only school adds one more thing.

Does it exist by definition? You could say that, but more... What's the big thing about blue, Nick?

It is your mind? You're looking at your own mind? Yeah, you're watching your own mind.

That part, the higher middle way doesn't buy. The lower middle way, what we call the ones who lean towards the mind-only school, they would say that blue, when you see blue, you're watching the part of your own mind where karmic seeds are stored. And there is no such thing as an external world.

And the higher middle way says that's going too far. That's going too far. There is an external world.

All right, and then Rang Ring. What's that, Adam? Apperception.

Yeah, and this is... Apperception is a psychology word which happens to be totally correct translation, but nobody ever heard of it. And it means the ability of the mind to see the mind in a single instant.

And the people who criticize it say, you are talking about a knife which could cut itself, or you are talking about a guy who could ride on his own back. And it's not possible in a single millisecond. It's not possible that the mind could perceive itself.

Okay, like that. It's not possible. It couldn't be the object and the perceiver at the same moment.

And then the lower middle way school, or other schools that accept apperception, or the ability of the mind in a single instant to perceive itself, right, then they would say, well, then how can you remember that you saw something yesterday? You know, there must have been a self-awareness going on. And then the higher school says, well, that's not in the same instant.

It's maybe a couple of instants later that you saw yourself. You realized you were picking your nose and you're sitting in front of the whole student, all the class, you know, and then, you know, you can remember that, which proves you were aware that you're picking your nose. But it was right after you picked your nose.

Okay. My examples are going down in history, right? All right.

We need four ideas that the higher middle way will accept, right? And these are eight concepts which differentiate the higher middle way. And I don't know if it was me, I'd always be curious, why is there a higher part of the good school and a lower part of the good school?

If it's the good school, if it's Buddha's personal school, why are there higher and lower parts to it? And these are these eight concepts distinguish the two parts of the two halves of the middle way school. The higher middle way school says there do exist chidin, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
Outer objects.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, outer objects. Blue, when you see a color blue, unless it's in a dream, for example, you are looking at something outside of yourself, okay? Physically.

And now here it gets delicate, okay? NYAN RANG GYIS STONG NYID RTOG PA I put, because I saw how you unpacked NYAN RANG as listeners or the lower paths or people we call listeners and self-made victors. Yeah, that's correct.

The realization of emptiness by practitioners of lower paths. I'm busy. I'll take it later.

Some, not all. Yeah, sorry, we had a popcorn interruption. Yeah, NYAN RANG GYIS STONG NYID RTOG PA This is an interesting question, okay?

Now, there's three tracks, three famous tracks in Buddhism. Lowest track is called listener. Second track is called self-made Buddha, and you always have to say immediately that they are not Buddhas.

And then bodhisattva track. So those are the three tracks, okay? And they are distinguished, the third track is distinguished from the two lower tracks by bodhichitta, by the fact that their motivation for undertaking their spiritual practice is to reach a place where they can serve all living beings, okay?

So now all spiritual practitioners in Buddhism are one of those three tracks, okay? And then the question comes up, in the lower middle way, unless you have bodhichitta, you cannot see emptiness directly. In the lower middle way, unless you have bodhichitta, you cannot see emptiness directly.

You can see the lack of self-nature, but you cannot see emptiness. So then that implies the lower middle way has degrees of emptiness. There's real emptiness, then there's half emptiness, and then there's kind of emptiness, okay?

And only bodhisattvas can see the real emptiness, okay? And they don't refer to the emptiness that lower track people see as emptiness. You're not allowed to use the word emptiness for what lower track people see in the lower half of the middle way school.

You're not allowed to call it... You can call it dhagme, anatman, lack of a self-nature. You cannot call it emptiness.

Emptiness means the one that bodhisattvas see, okay, in the lower middle way, okay? Then the higher middle way says, the whole thing is ridiculous. You either saw it or you didn't see it, you know?

Okay? And they say people without the motivation to serve other people can see emptiness. And I like to always point out like great physicists or something like that, you know, like a really amazing physicist or amazing psychologist can perceive that what you perceive in your life is coming from seeds in your mind.

That's possible. They could perceive that, okay? They could perceive that.

So that's all. Lower middle way, they want to have flavors of emptiness, degrees of emptiness. Higher middle way, look, you either see it or you don't see it.

And you do not have to have bodhichitta to see it. Okay? You could see it as a scientist or something, if you were super smart or something.

Okay? Okay. So that's the second unique positive belief of the higher half of the middle way.

Here's the third one. Adam. What was it?

CI TSE NYAN RANG GI MTHONG PA DEN TZIN DEN TZIN NYAN GRIB TU BRDOD PA Yeah, so we also, we accept the tendency to see things as real as an obstacle to nirvana. Yeah, so this is a difficult point. There's two kinds of BRDOD PA in Buddhism.

What's a BRDOD PA? Obstacles. Yeah, it means obstacles.

You could say obstacle. By the way, literally it means shadow. BRDOD PA literally means shadow.

And I can tell you some naughty jokes about that, but I'm not going to, which proves I have some self-control. DEN TZIN, so DEN TZIN means believing that the pen is coming from its own side. Okay?

Grasping to things as self-existent means believing that the pen is coming from its side. Okay? And there are two kinds of spiritual obstacles, and they are strange, because the first one is named from what causes it, and the second one is named from what it blocks you from.

Okay? There's two kinds of spiritual obstacles. The first one is named from its nasty nature, and the second one is named from the beautiful thing that it stops you from.

So it's not parallel. It's a little strange. One is called DEN...

Of course, it's called MYON DRID, and one is called ZHI DRID. Okay, say MYON DRID. Myon Drid.

ZHI DRID. Myon Drid. By the way, if you want to test the translation, look it up on Google.

Look up mental affliction. Somebody can do it right now. Search mental affliction on Google.

Tell me how many... You know, it'll brag about how many results it got in the first 10 seconds or something. I hope, or used to.

Oh, they don't have any more. They probably gave up. Anyway, you won't find more than 10 billion.

Okay, mental affliction. Nobody uses that word. Nobody.

We call negative emotion, right? So compare those two searches. You can ask the AI.

Nowadays you have to make it simpler so the AI can understand it. How many times does the word mental affliction occur on Google? And then ask it how many times does the word negative emotion occur on Google?

And if you're a translator, you use the one that has the more results, right? Anyway, nyun drip means an obstacle in your mind created by negative thoughts. And then shedrip means an obstacle in your mind which prevents you from reaching omniscience.

You see what I mean? It's not parallel. One is the nature of what blocks you.

And the other is the nature of what it blocks you from. And the first one is negative and the second one is positive. So if I had to ask you, if you believe that the pen is coming from its own side, is that more of an obstacle to reaching nirvana?

Or is it more an obstacle to reaching Buddhahood?

[Speaker 2]
It depends on the school.

[Speaker 1]
If you think the pen is coming from its own side, does that more block you from reaching nirvana? Or does it more block you from reaching Buddhahood? In the lower middle way says nirvana.

Which means the higher middle way says Buddhahood or nar. And by the way, the key here is that... Here's a strange one.

Misperceiving the pen is not a negative thought in Buddhism. Misperceiving the pen is not a kind of mental disturbance. It's not a klesha.

It's not a nyomo. It's not a negative thought. Huh?

Yeah, it's not klesha. It's not a klesha. The first link in the Wheel of Life is not a klesha.

The one that causes all suffering is not a klesha. It's not a negative emotion. In Buddhism, in the highest schools of Buddhism, it does not directly disturb your mind, which is the definition of a klesha.

It causes things which disturb all minds, but it doesn't disturb minds. Go figure. Okay, that's the third one.

And in the fourth one... Oh, this is hard, Adam. Let's see how you translate it.

Enlightened beings never misperceive anything they see. SANGS RGYAS KYI MTHUL SNANG ME BZHIN DU CI NAS PA SRID PA STE Yeah, good. So, MTHUL SNANG.

Say MTHUL SNANG. MTHUL SNANG means to have a false impression. MTHUL SNANG means to have a false impression.

When you're looking at a pen, you can see a pen, and then inherently you see that it's coming from its own side. Normal human being. And then a few people can see that it's not coming from its own side.

So, it says here, mistaken impression. What's the mistaken impression? This pen is coming from its own side.

This pen was made in a factory in Japan or something. That's wrong in Buddhism. That idea is completely wrong.

This pen is a Buddha who wanted to do a tricycle and couldn't do it. It became a pen instead. No, sorry, we're in the wrong school.

So, MTHUL SNANG means misperception. Now, there's DEN DANG LDAN PA and there's KUN RDZOGS LDAN PA. Say DEN DANG LDAN PA, KUN RDZOGS LDAN PA.

Ultimate reality and fake reality. DEN DANG LDAN PA, ultimate reality. KUN RDZOGS LDAN PA, fake reality.

Ultimate reality is always emptiness, which means everything else is fake reality. In the sense that it's an artificial reality. It's created by our mental pictures.

It is not coming from its own side. It's artificial. We created it.

So, either reality is ultimate reality, which is the lack of not being created, or it's created reality, artificial reality. Those are the only two kinds of reality. And here it says, now I'll ask you.

So, if I say emptiness is ultimate reality, and all other existing things are part of fake reality, or apparent reality, call it apparent reality. Now I ask you a tough question. Does a Buddha see everything in the universe?

That's what the word Buddha means. Does a Buddha see all the existing objects in the universe? Yes.

That implies they see ultimate reality objects, and they see artificial reality, or fake reality. So, if that's true, do they have any mistaken state of mind? But they see fake reality.

Okay, so only the higher school, only the higher middle way says a Buddha can be looking at fake reality, and not be faked out. Okay, that's all. And that's the fourth positive quality among the eight qualities, the first four being negative, and the second four being positive, that distinguish the higher middle way from the lower middle way, which always, you were always wondering how there could be a middle way guy who was wrong.

The lower middle way school is wrong on these eight points. That's all. If they could clean up those eight things, they'd be higher middle way.

And they're not easy. They're kind of sticky. To say that misunderstanding reality is not a clericia, is not a negative emotion, that's hard.

Maybe I'll stay at the lower middle way. All right. SIGS PA STE.

DRUG CHOG ZHI means Adam. DRUG CHOG. Is that like a positive position?

Yeah, so above, he should have said RGAG CHOG ZHI, which he should have said four negative ones and four positive ones. So here he just says four positive ones. DANG PHYED means, DANG PHYED here means hundred dollars.

But I won't... That they're associated with. Yeah, okay, Gibson got it.

Hundred bucks. See, it's worth it to come to Sedona. Yeah, it means for a total of, total, totals of.

So he had four negative, four negative assertions or four denials of the lower middle way that make it different from the higher middle way. And then four positive assertions of the higher middle way that distinguish it from the lower middle way. For a total of DANG PHYED PA, Gibson, RGAG.

Eight, for a total of eight. All right, now we can start the class. Right, Adam?

Are you done? You got more? Sorry.

Yes sir, that was it. Okay. Okay, I'll say it again.

Rob asked Google, you know, how many times typically would a person use, what was it? Mental affliction. And by the way, it's all Buddhist translations, okay?

It's no normal text. It's 1,400. 1,000 times.

How many times negative emotion? 1,200,000. And in translation, in the art of translation, we talk about statistics, statistics of common usage.

So you should always go for the more common usage, if it's accurate. Okay, all right, cool. I'm back to sharing my screen.

Here we go. Let me get this out of the way. Can you guys see me?

Am I on? Yeah. So I'll tell you what was happening.

Adam's text, which is one of the most famous texts in Buddhism. So we're lucky because we are, we are the, what in translation, the art of translation is called the classical period, which means we are in the period of the beginning of the translation of the classics of Asia. There are 300,000 high quality classics in Asia.

There are 530 high quality classics in the West. Okay, just for comparison, 530 compared to 300,000. And that's why people should learn to translate, because they're not translated.

So anyway, you got, in there, you have this word called rang rik, which means the capacity of the mind to see itself in the same moment, which you could call it self-awareness, or something like that. And the higher school would say it's possible or it's not possible. They'd say it's not possible.

You can see, you can, you can, you can have an emotion, and in the next millisecond you can feel that emotion, but you don't, it doesn't happen in the same millisecond. And that's called apperception, the ability of the mind to see itself in the same moment. And I wanted to share with you, I personally, as a translator, I would like to stop and explore this idea, because it's important enough to divide the two parts of the middle way school.

It's one of the eight ideas that separates the men from the boys. So I think maybe it's important, and I've never seen a discussion of it. I've never seen, I mean, there is the bear and the bite thing.

That's an old discussion, but Shantideva. But what I did was, I went through and took out references to it, that I would like Adam to make an appendix. I would like to have a apperception appendix, because I haven't seen a discussion of it.

And if it's 12.5%, of what distinguishes the highest school from everybody else, I think it's worth having a conversation about it. At least understand what the heck it is. So I'm doing an on-purpose detour.

I do a lot of not on-purpose detours to old man stories, but I'm not doing it. I chose some, what I think are definitive references to this apperception, and I would like to read them together. So they're not in any particular order.

They're in the order that John Brady's search program hit them. But let me start here. I'm curious if the Middle Way School famously says, there's not just six kinds of consciousness, there are eight.

If they're a big deal, if they're called, what's their other name? Besides mind only, what's their other name? Yeah, Yogachara, or they are called mentalists, because they accept eight forms of consciousness.

Every Buddhist school accepts six forms of consciousness. Eye, ear, go down, right? Eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin, and mind.

Okay, was that six? No. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin, and mind.

Okay, all Buddhist schools accept six consciousnesses. Mind only school adds two, which is alaya-vijñāna, foundation consciousness or storehouse consciousness. And, yeah, messed up mind, which is a good translation.

But, they actually accept Rang Rig also. They accept nine. They don't accept eight, they accept nine.

And then here's some statistics. In words, first translation of the mind only school, which is the best translation of the mind only school ever done into a foreign language. Okay?

His first book is the best translation about the mind only school ever done into a foreign language. His second book is going to be better, but it's much, much more difficult. So, that apperception or the ability of the mind to see itself in a single millisecond is mentioned twice in the most important mind only book ever translated.

And it doesn't define it. And it doesn't explain it. It just mentions it.

That's kind of frustrating. And then, guess how many it's mentioned in the ultimate mind only book by Je Tsongkapa, not once, which is Word's second book. It took us ten years to get on it.

It's never mentioned. And this is supposed to be one of the great ideas of the mind only school. So, I'm frustrated.

I want to go dig around and see what information we can get about it. So, here are random mentions in John Brady's 300,000 books about apperception. And maybe by the end of these quotations, we will understand it better.

And this doesn't count in my paid time. This is free. We're doing this because we want to know and not because it's in the book, which is the mixed nuts characteristic.

All right. So, I'm going to ask, I put it in the larger typeface. I isolated the important ideas.

Okay. So, Adam, who's going to read the big letters here? You know, let's see.

Who's in the audience? I remember, you know, Wan? Can Wan help us?

Yeah, and then if you want, Adam, I can ask the victims here to choose the next victim. Perfect. We covered this section already.

Okay, let's skip that one. What it says is, CI SDOD NANG BA'I NYID MED PAS It is indisputable that outer objects do appear. Therefore, KUN CI RANG RIGS YOD MIN LA There's no such thing as storehouse consciousness, and there's no such thing as apperception.

Now, which means nobody can argue that things appear to us on the outside. Therefore, I find the idea of storehouse consciousness to be mistaken. Because the concept of storehouse consciousness is that when you see a pizza, and I don't know why I'm thinking about that, you don't see it as an outside object.

You're watching something in your own mind. When you see an actual pizza, it's something in your own mind. That's mind-only school.

That's why they're called mind-only. But he says, if outer objects were undeniable, then apperception would also be impossible. You got to cook that.

Got it? If outside objects exist, then the mind-only idea that there's a part of your mind where seeds open into blue, and you're watching blue inside your own mind your whole life, you never see an outside blue. Okay, I can buy that.

If it's the case that I do spot an outside blue, and it is an outside blue, then the mind-only school is wrong. But he also says in the same breath, if it's the case that there's an outside blue, there's no such thing as apperception. There's no such thing as the mind perceiving itself if there's an outside blue.

Go figure. Some great scholar said that. Okay, who was that?

Tsongkhapa. All right. Does that have to do with the time gap?

I mean, discrepancy there? I mean, that subject and object would be ripening in the same moment? Yeah, that's a pretty cool idea.

So Adam's saying it takes time to perceive an outside object. So if to perceive an outside object is to perceive your own mind, that doesn't take any time. You don't have to go to the outside, see the object, come back, say, I saw it.

Could be. I like that. Okay, I got big letters here, Adam.

Should haso... Is haso going to read? Yeah, we could haso...

Oh, this part. We finished this part too. Yeah, we've already done this part as well.

Okay, haso, can you read this one?

[Speaker 3]
Deang? Yep.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so some other author has mentioned aperception, the ability of the mind to see itself in a single moment. Okay, and this writer is also Tsongkhapa. So I tried to choose the bigger letters.

The big gun. Now, cheser is a word you guys don't know. Che means to examine.

Ser means to be patient. But cheser is an ancient word for... How can I say?

Let me think about it. Cheser means like, I don't know, you drove here in a car, right? So can you see that car?

Yes. As a kind of a memory image, right? Like you can close your eyes and say, yeah, I drove here in a car.

What color was it? Oh, it was white. So that's a reflection.

We call it a reflection or a recollection. There's a big question in the Pramana schools, in the second school, about what is correct perception. Is recollection a correct perception?

I'll give you the background. According to that second school, which is called the detail... Not details.

Logic schools. Sutras. According to them, there's only two kinds of accurate perception.

One is direct, like your eyes, and one is logical. Like, I think my car is still in the parking lot because I didn't hear anybody steal it. Okay, seriously.

So where does recollection fit into those two? Would the second school say that a recollection is a correct perception? And if you say, yes, they would, you have to tell me which of the two it is.

Is it a recollection or is it a logical perception? Yeah, you could argue that recollection is a logical perception. You could argue that, and some people do argue that.

I'm assuming I drove here in a car because I'm here. Or something like that. But it's not really a logical process to remember a car.

You see what I mean? So where does that fit? DE YANG PHRAD SU SHES PA MA GRUB BYED It says, some people say that kind of recollection is not a pramana.

It's not an accurate perception. It doesn't qualify as strongly as seeing the glass of water or logically establishing that your car must still be in the parking lot. It's too flimsy.

And recollections are notoriously flimsy, like in a marriage. That's not what I said yesterday. Yeah, it is.

I mean, recollections are notoriously... what do you call it? Well, they change.

They change instantly. So anyway, the lower schools, there's a debate in the Buddhism. Is a recollection an accurate perception?

He says, MA GRUB. It's not. It's not a TSE MAR.

KUN ZHIG DANG RANG RIGS MED GYIR BYUD BYED PHRAD That's a proof that storehouse consciousness and apperception are not real. So recollections are not accurate perceptions is a proof that storehouse consciousness and apperception are not correct. That's Tsongkhapa.

And how he makes that leap, that's subtle. You'd have to chew on that. You got to chew on that.

Most people don't know what TSE ZHIG means, so it doesn't matter. Geshe-la, earlier in our text, like two years ago, we reached a section where we were talking about TSE ZHIG. And Ajup Jey made the assertion that it actually was an accurate perception.

Yeah. TSE ZHIG ZHES PA MA GRUB TSE This quotation says, when I say that recollection doesn't even exist, what I mean is, I'm just trying to prove to you that KUN ZHIG and RANG RIGS don't exist.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What we're doing with this string of quotations is we're taking important quotations about apperception out of many different great books. And I'm just saying by the end, maybe we'll have a clearer idea. I don't think we have to resolve every single one.

But somebody's of the opinion that it can be proven that storehouse consciousness and apperception don't exist, which means the Mind-Only School is wrong. Okay? Alright.

Now, here's more. CI DON NANG BA MYON MED What's that, Adam? Very famous quotation.

CI DON NANG BA MYON MED It's indisputable that outside objects appear. Yeah, come on. Don't tell me I'm watching...

When I look at this cup of water, don't tell me I'm watching part of my mind. Any fool can see it's not in my mind. Okay, that's the quotation here.

It's very famous. CI DON NANG BA MYON MED The fact that things appear outside... Come on.

That's all it says. That things... The fact that things appear outside...

Things can appear outside? Come on. Okay?

That's all. That's a famous quotation. Things don't appear outside?

Come on. MYON MED Okay? Alright.

CI DON NYID DGOS Outer objects exist. They're there. Yeah.

Therefore... And that proves it. Okay.

Alright. If outer objects exist, then two states of mind that the mind-only school want to add to the list of six consciousnesses don't exist. And they are KUN ZHI, storehouse consciousness, and then RANG RIG, the ability of the mind to see itself.

So far, what information do we have about these two states of mind? There are big guys who say they don't exist. Okay?

That's all. That's all we got so far, basically. Now we got a quotation from...

Oh! Tsongkhapa. Another one.

For the guy who never mentioned it in his book on the mind-only, he's got a lot to say about it. So Haso is picking the next victim, and we have five minutes.

[Speaker 3]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Francisco. I left my heart.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. Let me go back to something. I think I might have...

Chesa. I think I gave you a wrong definition of chesa, because this chesa is different and it's better. Okay?

So I'm questioning my own interpretation before. This chesa means something different. So here, what does sepa mean?

Patience. And che means to examine. And chesa means can it stand up under examination.

Okay? Can it stand up under examination? So we'll have to go back and look at the first one.

Here is one. Again, can we kind of think of it like che gong? I...

che gong. Yeah. But chesa, the classic chesa is if the pen existed from its own side, then the dog would have to want to write something.

Okay? If the pen existed from its own side, then the dog would have to write with it. Okay?

Therefore, a pen which is a pen from its own side does not stand up under examination. And that's chesa. Okay?

That's how he's using chesa here. Se means to be patient, but it means to stand up under examination. Okay?

To bear examination. Okay. Like analytical reasoning?

Yeah, that's the che. Yeah, that's the che. But chesa means can the pen that was made in the factory stand up under tough questioning?

And the answer is no. It cannot. That's called chesa, stand up under examination.

Okay? It cannot bear examination. And you say, I can't stand it anymore.

I can't bear it anymore. That's patience, right? So in Tibetan, the word is the same.

To bear examination and to bear someone else's insults are the same word in Tibetan. And they are in English. Okay, nivarangrik mi tepang.

rangrik mi te means what, Adam? That apperception is incorrect. Yeah.

To say that the mind can see itself in the same moment that it sees something else. You see, the idea is can the mind hold two objects at the same instant? Can you have a thought of being upset and can you be aware that you're upset at the same moment?

And they say no. The awareness that you're upset is a millisecond later. But in a single instant, your mind cannot perceive two disparate objects, two completely different objects.

You can't be aware that you're upset until after you're upset. Although it could be a millisecond later. Therefore, there's no apperception.

Although it feels like apperception. Are you upset? Yes.

Are you aware you're upset? Yes. But you're not really.

You're remembering that you're upset. RGYUD TZEN TSO What's the main reason why apperception is mistaken? RIG PA'I PHYES SU MED PA Because it doesn't stand up under PHYES SU reasoning.

Yeah. The idea that you could be upset and be aware that you're upset in the same millisecond is illogical. You'd have to be upset and then in the next millisecond you'd have to be aware that you're upset.

So it's illogical. PHYES SU It cannot stand up under examination. THUGS PA SNGA MA DANG DAG TE It's similar to cases we had before.

And then, here's something interesting. This is a quotation from Je Tsongkapa, right? And he's quoting DONG DUN The DONG DUN shemo which was written by who?

Khirubje. And it happens to be the book we're studying right now. Okay?

So it appears to be that Tsongkapa is quoting his student, which is strange, unusual. Because students are always wrong. Okay.

DONG DRIN LAS KHYUNG RGYUR BA means what? And by the way, we're out of time, but we're going to go one more minute. KHYUNG RGYUR BA means what?

Consequences. Yeah, the higher school of the Middle Way, Prasangika, KHYUNG RGYUR BA. They do not believe in the self-existence of logic.

They believe, above all things, that logic is... what do you call it? Subjective.

They believe that logic is subjective. Okay. So why are they called logicians?

Why are they called consequence school, which is the highest form of logic? If they don't believe that it's real. And they fling consequences based on the other person's assertions.

Yeah, they love this logical technique of, you know, a person says all fruits are orange, and you say, oh, so bananas are orange. You know, that's their big thing. They love to frustrate the other side, and they are named after that mean tendency to turn a person's ideas back on them.

Oh, I guess bananas are orange. Their name, Prasangika, means sarcastic implication. They are the sarcastic school.

[Speaker 2]
But Geshe-la, doesn't that presume that they're understanding what the words are being said in the same way that the lower middle way school does?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, very possible. Okay. We're out of time.

I'm trying to finish. These guys got to go to the bathroom or eat. Or both.

Why do... By the way, thug means to meet somebody or to come to that. You know, the ultimate reason.

Everything the higher middle way school says comes down to, thug. Okay, comes down to. Thug means comes down to.

All that they're saying about all this mind-only stuff comes down to one thing. Sorry. Sorry.

RANG SEMS THA GNYED DU'ANG KHYAD MI LEN Translate that, Adam. We can all go home. That reasons are...

That Khyad Mi Len, we don't accept the... No, don't go back that far. Just say, translate RANG SEMS THA GNYED DU'ANG KHYAD MI LEN.

That one line. And then we can go home. Yeah, so reasons are nominal.

And we don't accept that. No, we don't accept... We don't accept the...

Oh, actual objects. Excuse me. Sorry.

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking there. Nominally, we don't accept that they're an actual object. Okay?

We don't accept that they're of an actual... Okay? We don't accept that there's an actual cup out there.

Yeah. That's all. All of our...

The reason I was reading is you said... The reason we can't accept our perception is that we cannot... we cannot accept the division of reality into archetypes and things.

The reason we cannot accept your mind-only fancy states of mind is that we cannot accept the division of reality into mental archetypes and actual... and actual cases in the real world. We cannot accept that division.

I'll say it again. The reason we can't accept your fancy mind-only states of mind that you want us to agree to is that we cannot accept the division of reality into ideas, concepts, archetypes, and actual things in the world. We can't accept that division.

Why? Tell me that and you can go home. Who's talking?

Higher Middle Way. Highest School of Buddhism. The Buddha is talking.

I cannot accept your division, you lower Buddhists, of the reality. Because you're talking about them nominally. You're not saying that actual objects exist...

don't exist from their own side. It's a little bit cooler than that. I'll say it again.

I'll say it again. Mind-only school and you other guys. The reason we can't go along with you and Lower Middle Way, the reason we can't go along with our perception, the reason we can't go along with Storehouse Consciousness, the reason why we cannot accept your version of Master Consciousness is that we cannot accept a grand division of all reality into mental archetypes and real stuff.

Why? Because real stuff is mental archetypes in the highest school of Buddhism. Got it?

Therefore, is everything in your head? No. If you think so, go stand out in front of one of these cars speeding by and you will get a broken leg in your head.

But you don't have to worry about it. Got it? It's a beautiful idea.

I cannot accept your grand theory about a reality in the mind and a reality outside because it is in the mind. I cannot accept your division into things that are created by the mind and then real things. I can't accept that because real things are the things that your mind creates.

They are unified. They are the same thing. Got it?

The pen is coming from you. Got it? Cool.

Very beautiful. So I can't accept these extra mind states that you talk about because they're not necessary. We already said that.

Got it? It's very beautiful. It's very deep.

All right, we'll continue to struggle and Adam will continue to translate all the big fat letters in the next few pages to see if there's more cool stuff inside. One, two... Okay, Adam?

Yeah, I'll just keep going. For your homework, for your translation homework, translate the next two sections of big letters. Okay?

All right. And then I'll allow you to go back to the book. Okay?

Cool. All right. Thank you, Adam.

Say hi to my little granddaughter there. Definitely will, sir. Yeah.

Oh my gosh. She's getting so cool. Thank you for the class, Geshe-la.

It's really helping me, answering a lot of questions I've had. Thank you. Okay.

Bonsoir. Thank you, Geshe Michael. Thank you, everybody.

Peace. What time are we on December 13th? In Flagstaff.

By the way, he could care less if you go. I just want you to go. Okay.

All right. Thanks. Bye.

Bye. Bye.