Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 57

[Speaker 1]
Before we start, how is the sound okay? All right. Also, there's a rattlesnake to the Halloween.

I don't know about that. Oh, man. Hi, Adam.

Hi. Hi. Hi, Gaslight.

You got a homework for these guys? I sure do. Should be displayed now.

It's good through this. Is it big enough for you guys?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, still talking about Ron Rick. In this last class, we were discussing Ron Rick, and we learned that there are eight topics that delineate the difference between the lower and higher middle way schools.

These four were given by Jason Kappa in two groups of four. One group is being things, or these eight, excuse me, should be these eight here. These eight were given by Jason Kappa in two groups of four.

One group of four is being things that the higher middle way doesn't accept, and one group is being things that the higher, should be the higher middle way does accept. So, what four views were given as being ideas that the higher middle way school accepts?

[Speaker 2]
Outer objects.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. That's it. You're on the right track.

[Speaker 3]
I'm in trouble.

[Speaker 1]
Give a hint. If I was to say Hinayana.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, that's right. That even Hinayana practitioners, Hinayana arias and arhats directly perceive emptiness?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, totally. And, let's see, if I was to say, okay, well, you got the first two.

Does anybody have the next one before I just give it away?

[Speaker 2]
See things as real as an obstacle to move on.

[Speaker 1]
That's it. Yeah. I heard it.

And what about the last one?

[Speaker 2]
Never misperceive anything they see.

[Speaker 1]
Buddha knows everything? Yeah, totally. Yeah.

So, enlightened beings never misperceive anything they see. So, the next two questions in the homework, we're going to unpack a couple of those that I thought were of notable kind of importance. I mean, they're all really important, but.

So, explain the variance in opinion between the lower and higher middle way schools regarding the realization of emptiness by practitioners of the lower paths. Ben's kind of already like, you know, he's already stated it. But I want to know, and somebody can just put forth the position by the lower middle way and also give me the position of the higher middle way.

We don't have to go into why they have those views, but just what do they believe. Doesn't the lower middle way believe that there's different levels of realization of emptiness? Yeah, that was it.

Yeah. So, there's an implied thing that comes about. If you say that practitioners that are on lower tracks, when they see emptiness, they perceive lack of self-existence directly.

And they don't perceive, let's say, emptiness directly. And that implies that there must be varying levels or degrees of emptiness. So, let's see here.

What did I write? Yeah, so the main distinction here is that proponents of the lower middle way school hold that Hinayana practitioners or non-Bodhisattvas directly perceive the lack of self-nature. While Mahayana practitioners or Bodhisattvas alone are capable of directly perceiving emptiness.

So, this implies that the lower middle way school accepts varying degrees of emptiness. And the higher middle way school asserts that both Bodhisattvas and non-Bodhisattvas perceive emptiness directly. There's no distinction that needs to be made.

Number three, explain the variance in opinion between the lower and higher middle way schools with regard to whether or not enlightened beings can be mistaken. So, we kind of want to go through why the lower middle way may say that, right? Just briefly.

So, I mean, if I was to give a little starting point, what does omniscience imply in regards to the two truths? See both truths at the same time. Perfect.

Thank you again. Yeah, so if you see simultaneously all of deceptive reality and all of ultimate reality, right? The lower middle way would say what about deceptive reality and a Buddha's perception of deceptive reality?

That is mistaken. That they're not deceived by it? Well, the lower middle way would say that they are.

Oh, they are? Okay. Yeah.

Higher middle way is the only school that says that Buddhas are unmistaken with regards to both truths.

[Speaker 2]
They can't be faked out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we got it right from our resident Geshe, our last class. So, I found it a little bit, yeah, totally. I thought it was a little bit surprising as well.

But yeah, I almost quoted Geshe Michael with my answer. So, yeah, so from the perspective of the lower middle way school, if all things belong to either apparent reality or ultimate reality, and an enlightened being perceives all things simultaneously, then enlightened beings must be mistaken with respect to their omniscient engagement or the way that they engage with apparent reality. So, the only school, the higher middle way school, the only school that accepts that enlightened beings are unmistaken with regard to deceptive reality or apparent reality.

Nice. Cesa was the only word that kind of seemed notable.

[Speaker 3]
Exactly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally. And in regard to reasoning or a process of reasoning. The bear examination.

Yeah, can, yeah, can bear or holds up under analysis. Yeah. Nice.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So, I have to apologize for what you guys are about to see. I had the hardest times with this one and I went through it.

I started about a month ago and then left it for a little while and came back to it and was still kind of playing with it. And I'm still not happy with it. But not necessarily this section.

There was kind of a long discussion here. But just in advance, please be kind, everybody. Hey, Adam, who's going to read?

Oh, I got to show you guys something. Hang on.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, everybody. It's good being here. This is Adam's house.

I'm sorry. This isn't his house right now. The moon is arriving.

Yeah. That's so beautiful. Cheers.

Yeah. I think Katie was telling me it's the wolf moon. The third.

Tim's house. Yeah, it's right behind me right now. I don't think you can see it.

Are the coyotes howling? No, I can't. It's very beautiful.

Okay. We're on the level of the moon here. I love that moon.

Who's going to read, Adam? You can read the first one. Yes, sir.

I'd love to. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Sorry again. Yeah.

If we were going to relate the main point here, there's what? The sixth consciousness. Yeah, and something is today from the sixth consciousness.

Okay. Yeah, it's unique with respect to the sixth consciousness. So it's separate from it.

There's something which is separate from the sixth consciousness. So somebody is trying to say there's a seventh kind of consciousness, okay? We're familiar with the two in the mind-only school, which is storehouse consciousness and messed-up consciousness.

But there's another one that people don't talk about much, and it's very intriguing, and we decided that we would learn more about it because our author mentioned it. There's usually very little said about it. And he says there is thadepa from the sixth, something called kunshi.

What's that? There's a separate consciousness from the sixth called the storehouse consciousness. And then there's another one called rang ring.

Oh, and there's another one called apperception. Because apperception is coming up a lot. I don't know if...

This is almost a ninth. It's almost a ninth cut. And they don't talk about it much, but it's very important.

Shantideva spends a lot of time on it. So it came up in our book. It came up in Adam's book.

Why? He's been talking about the difference between coffee cup as an idea and coffee cup as an object. So then, if there is a self-perception, if when you see the moon come over the mountain, are you aware that it's Ronit seeing the moon?

Is Ronit aware that Ronit's seeing the moon when Ronit sees the moon? Or is it just moon being seen? Or does Ronit feel like she's watching the moon come up?

You see what I mean? And then where does that come from? That's called rang rik.

That's called awareness of yourself while you perceive something. And it appears to be simultaneous. It appears to be that when you watch the moon coming up over Tim's house, you are watching the moon come up.

There seems to be a feeling that it's me watching the moon come up. So that must be happening at the same time as the perception of the moon. There must be a parallel perception that I'm watching the moon come up at the same time that the moon is perceived.

And that's called rang rik. In psychology, it's called apperception, APP. We use the word just because psychologists already invented it, but it's kind of a weird word that nobody knows in English.

It means that you're aware of yourself while you see something. And there must be two awarenesses going on at the same moment, which is kind of weird in Buddhism. So anyway, in our reading for the next day or two, we're going to gokpa that rang rik.

We're going to refute it. We're going to deny it. And we're going to deny it in a way which is tu mung ma yinpa, which is unique.

Nobody else ever thought of denying that Ronit was watching the moon come up the way we deny that Ronit was thinking about herself while she was watching the moon come up. We say it's not possible. But some of the other schools depend on the idea that you're watching yourself see the moon come up, because otherwise somehow the moon might be more self-existent.

All right, who's going to read the next part, Adam? You can pick on any part. Dodo looks poised to jump in here, right here, specifically at Deshen.

Adam, you got the plane. Now just criticize him whether he makes a mistake or not. This is the system.

Okay, why don't you unzip your zipper a little bit? I just had to give you a little criticism before we started. Am I ready?

Sorry, sorry, Dodo.

[Speaker 2]
,DE BZHIN LTA BU ZHES PA GCIG LA'I, ,YANG PHYI YOD KYI NAM PA NANG BA'I ZHES PA GCIG DANG, ,NAM ZHES PA RANG KYIS NAM PA CAN GYIS BYIN RNAMS, ,BYIN RNAMS NYID BYIN NAS SBYOG LA Perfect, man.

[Speaker 1]
Nice! Yeah, really good. Yeah, and he's always perfect.

Just criticize him. Okay. Okay.

,DE BZHIN DU, Adam? Similarly. Yeah.

,RANG RIG Apperception. Yeah, or the ability to see me while I see the moon. Okay.

,DOD PA RNAM To assert. Proponents? Yeah.

People who accept that. Yeah, like those who assert. Those who say that there is an apperception.

Those who say that I can be aware of myself while I'm aware of the moon. I can be aware that I'm watching the moon while I watch the moon. They can happen at the same time.

Those guys... Here it's mun dzin, but we could say kang dzin. Oh, the whiteness of the moon.

Perception of the whiteness of the moon. Here it's perception of the blue. Mun dzin means perception of the blue.

Let's say you are watching the white color of the moon. Mun dzin tabu, something like that. Then there's shepa chik.

And there's shepa chik. What? There's one awareness.

There's one state of mind doing this, and simultaneously there's another state of mind doing this. So shepa chik means, well, look, there's part of your mind is... chi yu kyi nampa nangwa.

Part of your mind is taking on the aspect of chi yu, as opposed to nangwa. Like an outer object, yeah. So part of your mind is taking on the aspect of moon.

When you perceive the white moon, only part of your mind, like a mirror, is reflecting moon. Shepa chik, there's one. But then there's another one, which is nangwa.

Which is an inner appearance or inner awareness. Yeah, there's something inside yourself at the same moment, which is awareness of yourself, rang gi. And I think they misspelled it.

And it's filming Ronit. And then Ronit thinks she sees the moon. So there's a moon-seeing, and there's a Ronit-feeling.

But they're simultaneous. They're going on in the same mind at the same time. I'm seeing the moon.

And that's nangwa. That's an inner perception. Zen ni.

Ni. There's two perceptions going on at the same time. Let's chepa that.

Let's look at it. Let's analyze it. Yeah, let's look at that.

How does that work? And by the way, we're off on a tangent. We have gone to other books to explain rang gi.

It's not explained in this book, but it's mentioned. And it's described, but not clearly. So we are doing a footnote.

We're kind of off on a footnote inside of Adam's book. By the way, Adam's book is one of the most important Tibetan books ever written. And it's called dong tun chenmo, right?

No, no. Ikki munsel. Ikki munsel.

It's one of the most famous treatments of all the logics. Okay, let's do the next paragraph. Who's going to read, Adam?

Chima. Dodo, you did so good. Would you mind helping us again?

Okay. Pick on other people. Let me say something.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You even hit the... Yeah, good. Really good.

So part of Ronit's mind is observing the moon. And part of Ronit's mind is observing Ronit observing the moon. The chima, which means the latter, the second one.

Your awareness of yourself as you look at the moon. That's what we call rang gi. That's what we say is apperception, or the awareness of your own mind as your own mind is observing something.

Okay? It's the feeling of me that comes up when you look at the moon. Rang ri tu du shing.

They believe that. She pa'i rig tsam gi yul dang. There's a simple yul of your she pa.

Yeah, a simple object or object of your awareness. Simple object. Okay.

But at the same time, you're having a perception, so you're aware of the yul, which means the object of your perception, which is the moon. But you also have an awareness of the yul chem. The subject's in the mind.

The subject of awareness. The one that's holding the moon. So you have an awareness of the moon, but at the same time, you have an awareness of the state of mind which is holding the moon, which is rung nyi.

Okay? Jal wei tong kyi. Pen sin du drub.

Our position is that those two are pen sin tendrel. Du drub is a synonym for tendrel, as Sugen can tell you. Mutually dependent.

Yeah, they are dependent originating... They do not depend on each other. The perception of the moon supports the perception of rung nyi, and the perception of rung nyi supports the perception of the moon, and you couldn't have one without the other.

They are pen sin... They are mutually dependent. Okay?

You've got to have both. This is what these lower schools say. By the way, it's not accepted by the higher schools.

The lower schools say you could not have a perception of the moon without being aware of yourself at the same time. It's not possible. You cannot say, I see the moon if you're not aware of I.

Okay? You can't say, I'm seeing the moon if you don't have a side perception of I. Okay?

So we say not only are they both going on, but they support each other. Okay? One supports the other, and the other supports the one.

Pen sin du drub. Okay?

[Speaker 3]
Is it a part of the same bak chak?

[Speaker 1]
Is it a part of the same bak chak, says rung nyi? Let's see where they go with it. Let's see where they go with it.

It's a very interesting question. And he says, not only does one depend on the other, it's not that the perception of the moon depends on the perception of rung nyi, or the perception of rung nyi depends on the perception of the moon. They depend on each other.

If you took one out, the other couldn't survive. Okay. Which is more radical.

He says they are mutually dependent. By the way, not all presentations of dependent origination stress the mutual part. You can say a tree is dependent on a seed, but it's only a deep thinking on dependence which says that the seed is dependent on the tree, to be called a seed.

You see what I mean? To say they are mutually dependent is kind of an advanced idea. And that's what he's suggesting here.

Okay. All right. Who's going to read the next one?

I'm going to pick another victim here. Tin, would you help us? You can come up here.

Can I come up here?

[Speaker 2]
Tin.

[Speaker 1]
Tin from Vietnam. Tin, right? Yeah.

Tin. Nguyen. Okay.

Vietnam, lo and behold. Thank you, Tin. Yeah.

Nice reading. Yeah. Thank you.

Rang gi jok means we establish the idea of apperception, of the mind seeing, of Ronit being aware of Ronit while Ronit is watching the moon. We establish that. Why?

Because the yul chen gyi shepa... It's the object of awareness. Yeah, the state of mind inside Ronit's head that's holding the moon, yul chen, which is holding the object.

That state of mind. Now here's the key word. I'll give a hundred dollars.

Rang nge ne dupa.

[Speaker 3]
Existing...

[Speaker 1]
Self-existing. Something that exists on its own side. All right, I'll give it to you on the third attempt.

Yeah, from its own side. Okay, a hundred bucks. Try to collect it from somebody.

Does it count that I had that down here from the beginning? I mean, he probably just read your translation, which means he should split the money. Yeah, I didn't want to jump in.

I figured, you know... He should split it with Ava, so that's 25. Oh, I'm just joking.

I'm totally not concerned with it. It's getting whittled away anyway. Yeah, so that's, by the way, that's a four-letter word in Buddhism.

Rang nge ne dupa. Rang nge ne dupa. Anyway, it's a bad word.

What's it say? From its own side. They think that Ronit's awareness of Ronit, that part of your perception of the moon, should exist from its own side.

Nobody created it. Certainly the moon didn't trigger it. It just kind of popped up.

Rang nge ne dupa la de tar du jel che kye tse me. Jel che means shell jay, Ben Kramer. Shell, like a shell jaw.

[Speaker 3]
Considered thing. To consider.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to consider. It's an ancient word for weighing something on a scale. And we had a lot of trouble translating it when we worked on Ben's text, but jel che means to consider something.

Okay, think about something. Tse me. Rang nge ne dupa.

Okay, the state of mind which is aware of Ronit watching the moon should exist rang nge ne dupa. It comes from its own side. It's not like you say, I have to create my awareness of Ronit while I watch the moon.

It just comes, right? It just pops up, right? It's self-producing.

Rang nge ne dupa. Du der gu so. They say it has to be like that.

They say there has to be a state of mind which is natural, which pops up from its own side when Ronit looks at the moon, because Ronit's always aware that Ronit's looking at the moon when Ronit looks at the moon. And that awareness of Ronit, which always accompanies seeing something outside of her, must be popping up on its own. It's not like she says, I better be aware I'm seeing the moon.

It just comes up. It's just a natural feeling. Natural is another dirty word in Prasangika.

Okay. Yeah, it comes out. Rang nge du der gu so.

Must be like that. Nyam. They think to themselves, these other schools, non-Prasangikas, non-highest middle way, there must be some natural seeing mechanism that pops up in her mind that allows her to be aware that she's seeing the moon.

Therefore, they joke Ronit.

[Speaker 2]
They...

[Speaker 1]
They... They pause it. They set forth Ronit's perceptions.

Okay. Actually... And by the way...

Sorry, again. Sorry. Go ahead.

I was just going to ask about the rang nge du der gu here. Which one? Rang nge du.

The rang nge du der gu here. I mean, I know it's must, but... Oh, yeah.

Yeah. That's a good question. They say both of those states of mind should be popping up in the same millisecond.

Rang nge du means... Thank you. Yeah, rang nge du means in its own time.

In the time that the moon is being perceived, rang nge du, in the time of that perception, there should be a second perception. It means rang rig is not a memory. Our perception is simultaneous.

It's not that Ronit sees the moon and then five minutes later says, Oh, I saw the moon. The feeling that it's you watching the moon is inherent. When you look at some outside object, you have a simultaneous feeling that it's me looking at this.

And actually, if you think about it, that's two separate perceptions, because Ronit is not the moon. So it must be that there's two functions in your mind that are simultaneous and can hold two disparate objects, two different objects at the same moment. It must be, according to the lower schools.

By the way, $100, you old people. What was the ancient proof of that? A bear got bit by a rat?

A rat. You're so boring. You're kissing yourself?

Yeah, no, it's a bear. It's the old bear example.

[Speaker 3]
Like a mouse, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
A bear wakes up after hibernating and sees a sore on their body and says, I must have got bit by a mouse while I was asleep. Something like that. And they have some vague memory of being bitten while they were asleep.

Anyway, it's an old Shantideva thing. Okay. Therefore, there must be a Rangrik.

Ronit must be having a perception of Ronit at the same moment that she's perceiving the moon. And that must be the nature of all perception. Okay?

Okay. Next, Adam. Who's next?

I could read it real quick. Let's see. Who do we have?

Laya? Laya? Laya?

[Speaker 3]
I'm so surprised.

[Speaker 1]
You don't have to, but would you mind helping us?

[Speaker 2]
I can guess.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
I'll try.

[Speaker 1]
That thing is fun.

[Speaker 2]
Di? Ang?

[Speaker 1]
Diyang?

[Speaker 2]
Diyang. Rang? Gi?

[Speaker 1]
Sen?

[Speaker 2]
Sen? Yin? Yin?

[Speaker 1]
Yin? Yin?

[Speaker 2]
Yin? Yin?

[Speaker 1]
Grou? Droop?

[Speaker 2]
Droop. Pa? Kas?

K? Tu? Tu.

Tu.

[Speaker 1]
Nice, very beautiful, very good, very good.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And Adam has a wonderful translation here. Comes down to, comes down to... The verb thuk in Tibetan means to meet somebody on the street or something.

Thuk means to meet somebody. And here it's used philosophically. You cannot believe that there's two states of mind going on at the same time in your mind unless you have some other kind of misunderstanding.

It all comes down to, and Adam translated it nicely, he says, comes to what? All of this idea that there must be a second state of mind in Ronit's mind when she sees the moon, and that's why she feels Ronit is watching the moon. It all comes down to what, Adam?

He said accepting that it's established as existing by definition. Yeah, if you think that Ronit must have a second state of mind running at the same time that's aware of her watching the moon, then you must be believing that things are self-existent. Now, anybody want to say why?

That's an interesting accusation. Oh, hey Ronit, did you see the moon? Yes.

Was it you seeing the moon? Yes. Did you have the feeling it was you when you saw the moon?

Yes. Oh my god, you have self-existent practice. You're holding things to be self-existent.

You are so far from emptiness. What's the connection? That's an interesting question, right?

What's the connection? Why does our side say, oh, you think Ronit saw the moon? You must think things are self-existent.

You think there has to be a second perception going on where Ronit is aware of Ronit when Ronit looks at the moon. You self-existenter. Why?

Why does it say that?

[Speaker 2]
It's a mind-only accusation?

[Speaker 1]
We're criticizing them. We're hiring them away right now.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That feeling that the perception of Ronit is going on at the same time as Ronit sees the moon.

[Speaker 2]
You're saying that it doesn't depend on anything else?

[Speaker 1]
Maybe. Stanley said maybe it's that you think it doesn't depend on anything else. You mean the perception of Ronit?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Could be. Let's see where they go from here. But if you pause here and think for five minutes, it's probably healthier than rushing on.

If Ronit inherently feels that there's part of her watching Ronit when Ronit watches the moon, she is not understanding emptiness. You definitely used the word inherently there. Yes.

But you see, you could have that without the Ronit. If you thought you were seeing the moon as self-existently, you don't have to bring up Ronit. Lots of people look at the moon without thinking about Ronit and see it as self-existent also.

[Speaker 3]
Would you then think of Ronit as a self-existent person?

[Speaker 1]
But why would thinking that the moon comes from its own... Why would thinking that a pen comes from its own side force me to feel Michael is watching the pen? Why is there a connection between the two?

That's interesting. That's an interesting question. He's accusing those people who accept our perceptions of being especially self-existent-ish.

[Speaker 3]
If the moon wasn't there, do you still have a perception of Ronit?

[Speaker 1]
Tim had an interesting statement. Even if the moon wasn't there, Ronit would have a feeling of Ronit?

[Speaker 2]
No matter what Ronit was looking at, she'd have the feeling of Ronit.

[Speaker 1]
But we agree with that, don't we? You don't forget that you're yourself very often. Let's go on, Adam.

You got more for us? That was it for my homework. That was it for my student translation.

I'll give the plan back to you. I'm going back. Did you say my audio was cutting out?

No, you're fine. This will stop other sheets. No, sorry.

Let's see. You are destroying darkness. I'd like to think so.

I don't know where it was. I've got to go back here. 481, if you have my numbered version.

Here we go. Dark letters means we went off to another book to enjoy, to figure out what the hell is going on in our own book. That should do it.

That's all there is. I was going to be very koan-y and say, okay, you guys figured it out. Why, if you think that Ronit is also watching the moon, when you watch the moon, are you tending more towards self-existence?

Okay. But let's go back to Ketuji, is it? Yes, sir.

Who are you? Oh, you're Ketuji. By the way, it picks up at the same argument.

Don't worry. Is it Leia or Leia? Leia.

How do I pronounce it? Leia. Yeah, it is Leia.

Would you mind helping us again? You did the last one so fearlessly. Here are 42.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I will give it a try. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This could be a difficult one. You want to put those together?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Back here. Okay. You guys need this.

There we go. Okay. By the way, we were on a long detour.

We're coming back to the main text. Do not, if you agree to whatever it was, we're not even sure it's spelled right. Topa Shindu means like what, Adam?

Topa is like conceptual thought. Yeah. We're not even sure it's spelled right.

Let's say a perception.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
He's kind of saying to us, we're trying to divorce the archetype from the object. We're trying to say, when you look at a coffee cup, are you focusing on the coffee cup or are you focusing on the mental picture in your mind of a coffee cup? Which is it?

Because we say they cannot be the same thing. The lower school says they are mixed together somehow. They are somehow mixed together.

We say, the mental picture of the coffee cup is, for example, unchanging. It's been the same since you were a kid. But the real coffee cup you're looking at today, which you're applying your archetype to, that you learned from your mom, is different.

They're all different. He says, and there's a big, big question here. It very greatly affects the idea of self-existence of a cup.

When you look at a cup, are you watching a picture in your mind or are you watching a real cup outside? Because in the second school of Buddhism, which is the Sutras, there's a huge difference between the two. There's Rangsen and Chitsen.

We spent a god dang year on Chitsen and Rangsen. Apparently, he thinks it's important. Apparently, we're supposed to have a breakthrough and saw Torrey about it.

Are you watching a picture in your mind when you watch the moon? Or are you watching a real moon, which is just one of a bunch of moons that are part of the category called moon. Which one are you watching?

DOG PA means you're having an idea of a moon. GZHAN Now, suppose you have Rang Rig. At the moment you're watching the moon, you're also watching Ronin, somehow.

Because you can say later, I saw the moon. I saw the moon. You must have been watching both.

If you can say tomorrow, in Geshe-la's class, I watched the moon, you must have been having two perceptions going on at the same time. One of Ronin and one of the moon. There must have been a Rang Rig Munsen.

There must have been a direct perception of your own mind. Of your awareness of the moon. You must have been having an awareness of your awareness of the moon.

Which is called self-perception. Then, DRAG DUN NGOS SU SNANG BAR THALO Are you saying that the DRA and the DUN... Now, you've got to tear apart DRAG DUN.

DRAG DUN could be... It could be something that you separate. If I separate it, Adam, what does it mean?

If I separate DRA from DUN. If I say, DRA and the DUN must have been appearing to you. You could say the sound and the object, or the sound and the thing, are appearing together.

It would be like a reference of the thing. Like the sound that the thing refers to. Yeah, this is drawn in the sense of shabda.

This is drawn in the sense of the word. In the beginning, there was the word. Even the Bible makes very important distinction.

In the beginning was the word. The first words of the Bible is in the beginning was the word. Which comes first, the word or the thing?

The picture in your mind or the thing? DRA, shabda, word, in Buddhism, means a mental picture. It doesn't mean a sound.

In this context, it doesn't mean a sound. It means the concept, the word, which means the picture, the archetype, the chitsen, as opposed to the langtsen. So DRA means chitsen.

DUN means langtsen. What is appearing to Ronit's awareness of Ronit when Ronit looks at the moon? What is appearing to Ronit?

When you say that Ronit is aware of Ronit when Ronit looks at the moon, what is appearing to Ronit? Two things. One is the moon, and one is Ronit.

Now if I say, look, I'm not talking about the perception of the moon. I'm talking about Ronit's perception of Ronit while Ronit watches the moon. In that case, is Ronit appearing to Ronit as a thing, as the Ronit that we're talking to right now?

Or as a concept? As a concept.

[Speaker 2]
Who is observing this?

[Speaker 1]
The second that you say Ronit, it's... When you say that Ronit is aware of Ronit when Ronit watches the moon, when you say that there's an awareness of Ronit when Ronit watches the moon, because tomorrow she can say, I saw the moon, then what's the nature of the Ronit that must be appearing to Ronit as Ronit watches the moon? It's an infinite regress.

There's two objects of perception at that moment. Ronit and the moon. The second that you say Ronit, it's already applied the label.

These lower schools say that at the same millisecond, you are aware of the moon, and you're aware of yourself. Well, they say it has to be. Otherwise, the next day you could not remember I saw the moon.

[Speaker 2]
So it has to be wrong then, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yes, the moon would be wrong. They insist it's at the same moment. Now the big question is, when Ronit is aware of Ronit when Ronit watches the moon, and she must be aware of Ronit when she watches the moon because tomorrow she remembers I saw the moon, is the Ronit that appears to Ronit at that moment an idea or a real thing?

[Speaker 2]
A real thing. It has to be. It's the lower school.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, from the perspective of the lower schools, I would agree. Geshe-la, maybe they're saying that that makes you a self-existenter because then there'd have to otherwise, if it wasn't self-existent, there'd have to be another perception perceiving that and another perception perceiving that behind that one. And since there isn't, if that one's just the only perceiver being perceived, then it doesn't need a perceiver to perceive it.

Now, listen. In the next sentence he says, if you say it is, then that perception of the moon cannot be direct. Yeah.

Or that perception of Ronit cannot be direct. And in this second school, a direct perception can only deal with a sense object.

[Speaker 3]
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1]
And all other perceptions are dealing with ideas, chi-zens. The only thing that can see a rang-zen is your five senses. Okay?

So we say, when Ronit is aware of Ronit, is she watching a real thing or is she watching an idea? No, wait. Give me a chance.

Then that school says she's watching a real Ronit. It's not an idea of Ronit. It's the actual Ronit.

Then we say, then her awareness of Ronit while she's watching the moon must be a sense perception. A direct sense perception. Forget the awareness of the moon, that's a direct visual awareness.

The object is colors and shapes. That's easy. That has to be direct, accurate perception.

But what about the simultaneous side awareness of Ronit? Is that direct? It cannot be because it's focused on a chi-zen.

It's not an idea, which is called Ronit. Got it? Next line.

Sorry, I won't say anything. I don't want to slow us up. Go ahead.

You have two minutes. In 42, that's why I was trying to make it a point. I was trying to drive home conceptual thought for that exact reason.

Using perception is rather ambiguous given the fact that you can have direct and indirect perceptions. You can have sense perceptions, but you can also have perceptions that take place in the mental awareness, in the mind space. I would argue against using perception for tokpa and really sticking with conceptual thought because that's a very clear...

I don't mind. The only thing is I'm suspicious of RTOGV because it's so often misspelled. It's so often misused.

Okay. We've got one minute. Let's do the next sentence here.

Should I just read it?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Whoa. Let's take a coffee cup.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
The sook of the coffee cup... The form, the physical... The visual color and shape of the coffee cup must be zedru.

Established substantially. They must be substantial, which can I say, Adam, means like a sense perception? A sense object?

Yeah, totally. The color and shape of a coffee cup must be substantial because kyud zedru gopana... Yeah, because if you stop the physical part of the coffee cup, if you cancel it, if you deny that it could be rungten, if you deny that it could be an outside physical thing...

We're talking about the color and shape. If you deny that it's an outside thing... If you deny that the color and shape of a coffee cup is substantial or obvious or directly perceived, if you deny that it's directly perceived, then it would be appropriate to look at it and discuss whether the color and shape was the same as the color and shape or different from the color and shape, or is it the same as the coffee cup or is it different from the coffee cup?

Is the color and shape of a coffee cup part of the coffee cup or not? It's got to be. No, it's not true, because coffee cup is a concept.

Oh, okay. I see. I get it.

Then if something is part of a concept, it must be a concept. In this school, there's a stringent separation of those things which are perceived by direct perception and those things which are perceived by logic. Objects that you arrive at through logic are ephemeral.

They are ghosts flowing in your mind. And then objects that you perceive with your eyes are real. One's called chitsin and one's called wangzin.

Chitsin means concepts. Cup as a concept, as a mental picture. I wanted to remind you, I think we've got seven more minutes because we started 10 minutes late.

I want to make sure I get my time. I'm going to be a little bit stingy with this hour. There's too much news to cover.

I don't mind at all. I really enjoy doing this. Is the coffee cup the same as its color and shape?

Again, I would argue that they are. For any particular coffee cup, I would say that there is a corresponding from the perspective of the lower school, I would say that there's a corresponding. If you cancel the coffee cup, then the category that it's belonging to, you don't affect the category, but the fact that that coffee cup has to have that category to exist, when that coffee cup goes out of existence, I would say that instance of coffee cup is gone.

Think of coffee cup as a concept which occasionally shows itself in the real world as colors and shapes, which manifests itself in the real world. Wangzin. Again, it's how coffee cup, notice I didn't say a or the, how dresses in real life is in colors and shapes.

Those colors and shapes are wangzin. Those have some kind of self-existence. But coffee cup, which chooses occasionally to manifest itself in the real world, coffee cup is an idea.

There's an interesting question because you cannot see coffee cup without seeing its clothes. Without seeing the color and shape of coffee cup, you could never observe coffee cup in the real world. Somehow, the ephemeral idea-only thing has to dress up in colors and shapes for you to perceive it with your eyes at least.

What's the relationship between those two? Is the coffee cup the same as its color and shape? That's the question.

The coffee cup? Oops.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
But if you canceled all existing coffee cups, all coffee cups that are wangzin in the universe, how would that affect the category? I'm sorry, what? If you could just get rid of every coffee cup that's ever been in existence, would that affect the category of coffee cup?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, of course. But would it affect the color and shape?

[Speaker 1]
Of what? He just said get rid of. All the colors and shapes were got rid of already.

I'm just trying to make a case. I see that there's a one-way relationship. But for some reason in my mind, I'm totally wrong.

Okay, the question that we're on right now, the question that we're on right here is is a coffee cup its color and shape or are they separate? If you say a coffee cup, then it is. Yes, it is a part of the coffee cup and it can't exist without color and shape.

Now, deeper question. Is it a reasonable question to ask that if a coffee cup exists, it must either be its color and shape or it must be something separate from its color and shape? Is it a reasonable question?

I'll say it again. Is it a reasonable question to ask is a coffee cup its color and shape or is it separate from its color and shape? Is it a reasonable question to ask?

Yes, I would entertain the question. Yes. Is it true to say that it's either or?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Either a cup is its color and shape or a cup is some kind of concept which is divorced from its color and shape. Are we talking explicitly color and shape? Can we say that that's a good question?

That it has to be one or the other? By the way, the only thing being debated in this particular section is is that way of thinking correct? They're not debating whether or not it's the color or shape.

They're not debating whether or not the cup is its color and shape. They're saying, is it true it has to be one or the other. Got it?

That's the debate here. Look, it's either Rangchen or Chitsen. It has to be one or the other.

Then we say, how about Semedong? It's provable that it has to be one or the other. We're not discussing which one it is.

We're just saying it's reasonable to say is it one or the other. Got it? Khyapa means it's got to be one or it's got to be the other.

What? It's either its color and shape or it's not its color and shape and it's just an idea. But can we say it has to be one or the other?

He says, yeah, that's okay. Khyapa, Semedong. What's that?

I was just saying, we've already established so many times over that you either have to be a Rangchen or a Chitsen. From the perspective of the second school, you have to be either one or the other. Yeah, and the higher school is not comfortable with that.

Yeah. The higher school is not comfortable with divorcing cup from color and shape and the idea of the cup. The higher school wants to say the idea of the cup is the cup.

Yeah. Which is another reason why I would say it's a great question to ask the either or thing. The higher school is uncomfortable with this division of cups into real cups and ideas of cups.

They're flirting with the idea that the idea of the cup is the cup. The pen picture that's coming out of this karmic state in your mind is the pen. The lower schools are like, I don't get it.

Now, tak sel is extremely difficult here. Tak sel is extremely difficult. We are right at time.

Wait, I get seven more minutes. I'll take it. We go back to Ben Kramer's text which is talking about tsul sun drupa.

One must be three. If three, then two. If not two, then not three.

Those are the three requirements of an accurate proof. One must be three. If three, then two.

If not two, then not three. Tsul sun. Those are the three relationships required in an accurate proof.

Then, here, very difficult, the parts of logical statements' names change when that logical statement is a tellingure, a prasangika, rather than a syllogism. When you say, are you telling me blah blah blah, then the names of the parts of the logical statement change in Buddhism. Like it's not subject, quality that I want to prove, reason.

Then they take on different names. The tsul sun names when you talk about a sarcastic statement change. Tak remains the same.

Tak remains the same. Are you telling, all fruits are orange. All fruits are orange.

Let's take fruits. They have color, they're all orange. All fruits are orange.

What's the prasangika? Are you telling me a banana is orange? That has its own pieces.

That logical statement has its own pieces. The tak part is the same. Are you telling me a banana is orange?

Yeah, are you telling me a banana is orange? And the guy says, why? You say, because it's a fruit.

Because it's a fruit remains the same. That's given the name reason in a ridiculous statement, a prasangika. But the name of the second element, which is the thing to be proven, that name changes to selwa, which means the thing to be denied, the thing to be cleared up.

Oh, let's take a banana. Is it orange? You see, that's no longer the element that you want to prove about the banana, which is what it would be in a syllogism.

That's what it would be in a logical statement. Now, because it's a sarcastic statement, the second element is always ridiculous. And so we call it selwa.

We don't call it dukjechu anymore. We don't call it quality to be proven. We call it the ridiculous quality.

Yellow. Sorry, orange. Orange.

Got it? So Adam, duk here means it's a fruit. Sel means it's orange.

Okay. It's the second element in a ridiculous statement. The second element in a normal logical proof is called the thing you're trying to prove.

Sound is impermanent. Impermanent. Okay?

But in a ridiculous statement, the second element is the thing you said that's ridiculous. It's orange. Let's take a banana.

It's orange. Why? You said all fruits were orange.

Okay. Got it? Which of those two logical structures does the highest school of Buddhism prefer?

They like the sarcasm. Yeah. Oh.

Well, I guess then the thing holding your tea is an idea. Got it? Okay.

Got it? Or I guess the next day Ronit remembers seeing the moon without having been aware of Ronit at the moment that she saw the moon. I'll say it again.

Oh, really? I guess the next day when Ronit tells everybody, you should have seen the moon over Tim's house last night, that she was not being aware of Ronit at that moment. Why?

Because you don't accept apperception. You Prasangika don't accept apperception. Got it?

So I guess Ronit was not aware of Ronit when she saw the moon. Why do you say that? You say there's no apperception.

You say you cannot be aware of two things at the same time. It's like your mother says you can't eat and talk at the same time. You can't taste her food and talk at the same time.

I get accused of this constantly. Okay. Adam, you're going to translate this.

Adam, I have a cool homework for you. You're going to translate 47. I took that section 23 at the bottom of the screen, I took it out of the Abhidharma translation that I did in 1980.

It's 45 years old. That little piece was correct. You're going to tell me why it relates to 487.

I took a page out of my old translation. It's a section from the second chapter of the Abhidharma Kosha. It's not done, especially the letters.

You're going to explain how it relates to our argument here. You can't understand the argument unless you know some Abhidharma. Okay, cool?

Thank you so much, Geshe-la. You're welcome. I enjoy it, as you can tell, probably.

Okay, good night. Anything else, Uncle Nick? No, that's it.

Thank you so much. That was an amazing class, everybody. Both classes were just so lucky.

When are you going to send checks? I didn't get that. Actually, check your bank account.

It moves too fast. I'm just kidding. Thank you so much, everybody.

It's been really, really, really a pleasure. We're lucky to have you all coming, especially you, Geshe Michael. We're so lucky to get the chance.

Much more fun with so many friends who can read Tibetan because of hard work. Ben's also teaching some of them, I heard.

[Speaker 2]
See you soon.

[Speaker 1]
Bye, guys. Love you guys. Really fun hanging out.

I definitely will again. You guys have a good night. I will.

See you guys. Thank you. Bye.