Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 37

[Говорящий 1]
Share a brief and hopefully easy quiz with you, and then we'll work on some more text. I know we were just on my text, and I just, I'm doing my best to balance out all of our classes with Geshe Michael, and so I took an extra team class for myself this time, as have many others. But actually, I'm really enjoying working as a team, and I even learned a lot in our last class together, and I think we have a lot to do this way together.

I'm really excited for my fellow mix nuts working with me together to make sense of these sometimes difficult texts. Here we go. Quiz time.

Let's do desktop. Can you guys see my quiz? Okay, so we didn't cover much, so I do apologize if these quiz questions are kind of like, I don't know, either hard to answer or nonsensical.

Nonsense. Let's see. Oh, how does Master Nidragarjuna, that things, how does he attempt to, how does he prove in this part of the book that things don't stop or stay by definition?

Because nothing stays. Yep. This is, I don't think I'm answering the right question.

You're answering the right question. You're answering the right question with the right answer. Starting and stopping are not pure.

Because nothing stays, starting and stopping are not pure. How on earth do things really start, stay, or stop? Indeed.

He begs us to consider that if things don't stay, then how could they truly start or stop? Okay, this is just where we're at. No major mind-blowing logical revelations here.

Nothing's super new. What idea, but the text does seem to harder and harder as we dig into this section. What idea do the detailers have about produced things that we just cannot agree with?

What belief of the Vaishnavites are we going to deny? I don't know. I didn't mean to leave that there.

Detailers don't have, I don't know, detailers say there are partless atoms with an unchanging nature. Yeah, that's right. We can't agree to that.

No, we can't. What about the Vaishnavites? Well, they just have a bad name.

No, they believe in an unchanging soul. Yeah, good. Exactly.

The detailers believe that things, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote this. I must have had something else on my mind. I was trying to see if I could, well, anyway, the detailers believe that things consist of partless atoms with an unchanging nature and the Vaishnavites, and you can call them, we can call them something else.

This is like, as I mentioned last time, this is just my memory of what you call those folks. That's what people usually call them, like Vishnu followers? Yeah, Vishnu followers.

They're not the detailists? The detailers are the Vaisheshikas, which are not the Vaishnavites. Oh, okay, got it.

We have detailers here. Right. We have the followers of Vishnu, or Vaishnavites, as I insist on calling them up to this point.

Or the Jaijakas. Yeah, Jaijakas. What do they call the detailers here?

Jaijakas.

[Говорящий 2]
Very good.

[Говорящий 1]
Vaishnavites? Khyamjukas. Yep, perfect.

Khyamjukas. Excellent. Do temporary things exist or not?

Yes. Yeah. I have no idea.

This is what we're up to now. Let's do what the great masters do. Nice segue.

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Whoops. Okay, and what's a nipkupgirwa? A temporary thing?

Yeah, I'm good. Okay. I've had too many quizzes where nobody can answer any of the questions, and I realize that I'm doing something wrong, so I tried to make these more answerable.

Have you seen my quizzes? Why do you think they're like that? Yeah, yeah.

Makes me feel slightly better. Okay, moving right on. Oh, and good.

So we stayed within our new goal. I spoke with our boss and master translator, Geshe Michael, and he has requested that we try to keep our homework and pre-translated segment of the class to like 12 minutes, and so that means he doesn't want us to not go ahead and translate lots of material, but he doesn't want us to bring lots of translated material to class. He just wants us to bring to class what he assigned us, and if he didn't assign us anything, then, you know, one or two sections that you'd be able to fit in that amount of time.

And that's because he just feels that he can probably teach us faster, and we can get through our text faster if he's not also correcting our English and whatnot. I have gone back a little bit here to look at a verse that we started covering the commentary on this verse. These two verses came together, and we did a section of commentary already which dealt with this verse, and now we're up to the section of commentary which appears to be dealing with this verse, and it's a little more confusing.

Geshe Michael did us this fantastic thing of breaking down the Sanskrit, so let's see. And he even did a rough translation of the Sanskrit, and just for my own mind, I like tried to translate the Tibetan, not just mimicking his translation of the Sanskrit, just trying to make my own sense of the Tibetan, and then seeing what comes when we try to do the commentary. But here's the Sanskrit.

And he says that which I think is something like once or at one time or in one place. Yeah, one side or one place or something. Yeah.

I don't really know what that means. Extinguished or something. Very thoroughly extinguished.

Sorry. I know my daughter is distressed. Oh, honey, I don't have one here.

Can you go ask mommy? Okay, you're gonna have to go ask mommy, honey. I'm working now.

Please. I think it's a towel that's for the whole body. Rob's saying that from having thoroughly extinguished, maybe.

Yeah, I think kashyap is like some kind of adverbial form of kashyana, like instantaneously.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, maybe. That means destruction. Yeah.

One instant, which is destroyed instantly.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, exactly. Cool. So, I guess, or shot by itself is, is.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
So, momentariness or momentary moment, we are a moment. All are. Yeah.

All aspects, perhaps. I think in this case, it says gume, but I believe it means not equal. That's based on the Tibetan and also Geshe Michael's translation.

Something that's not there. Unseen. It says unseen.

Does the Sanskrit say unseen? Anu means after. Anupala.

I think it's unupalapta. Oh, yeah. I think you're right, man.

Yeah. Like, without an outer support for the eye to rely on. Okay, love it.

Yeah, without an object, I guess you could say. Two aspects. Incorrect.

Doesn't have correct, doesn't have logic. Yeah, like your book, right? No, not like the 60 Yuktas.

Aren't they called Yuktas or something? Yeah, Yukti Shastika, 60 verses. Yeah, not that your book is illogical.

I mean, yeah, in that case, you'd have to write a letter to Arya Nagarjuna. Okay, so this is Geshe Michael's rough translation. Excuse me.

I am working, darling. You're going to have to check in with mom. Okay, baby, just a minute.

Okay, so this is my attempted translation of the Tibetan. chok chik gam ni tam ched tu sepe kye chik ngyur trang na min drawa nyi mi mik chir den nam nyi kang rik ten min. Nyi kang, I guess, so that you stay with meter.

And I'm having particular problems with the trang here, so maybe the light bulb's going to go off in somebody's head of exactly why that's there. chok chik gam ni tam ched tu. So Geshe Michael said, if it finished off in one location or it were there in every instant, and this is his translation of the Sanskrit, it looks to me like the finishing off comes after the both parts of the or.

Like if it's in one location or all at the same time, or all, by finishing off, enumerate the moments. I don't even know what I meant by that. That's the drama.

That's what you're trying to do with the drama.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, that's the drama.

[Говорящий 1]
No, I mean, I know that. I mean, I don't know what the heck. I didn't think logically of what phrase I was making, but yes, I was trying to capture.

I mean, to enumerate, it's essentially just to count off, right? So just to count the moments. It also means cold, but I don't think it's cold here.

Isn't trang without an S cold and with an S number? Exactly. So without, yeah.

What's there is cold. It should be with a suffix. And I assumed that.

Yeah, I assumed that it meant that because we're talking about one or many. I'm assuming that it has the connotation of enumerating or counting and not the connotation of temperature. You would think.

I think it's a pretty safe bet, I think, but let's see. What did you do with the choke here? By finishing.

So, yeah. It's the one, but location. Was that it?

He said one location. And I tend to want to go with what he said generally. But sometimes we just don't know how much he really looked into it.

Sometimes he's just giving a quick glance and writing his basic thoughts. And in this case, it seemed like he was just going by the Sanskrit, maybe still preparing to look at the West Chinese. So it kind of, to me, it looks like it's saying if things finished at one piece of it, like one part of things finished or all at the same time.

And you'll see why I think that because of the commentary. So if things finished off as one, just a piece of things finished off, one part, or if the things ended all together. You could count them as momentary.

Nick. Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Drang na is an idiom. OK. And it means, it indicates a question.

It's archaic. OK. Yeah.

It just means it's not the end or something. It means if it's that way or something.

[Говорящий 1]
OK. So if the end is so OK, perhaps it's not count, then it's. I'm going to go with that.

I like it. I'm sure a reputable source, too. It's from the Great Dictionary, and there's no indication of Drang without an S ever meaning a number.

[Говорящий 2]
It always means cold or some kind of exclamation or something.

[Говорящий 1]
OK. And I didn't go as far as looking at the scan to see if there was just a saw missing.

[Говорящий 2]
But it's not in the Sanskrit. There's no there's no number in the Sanskrit. It doesn't say Sankhya or anything.

[Говорящий 1]
It uses Drang again, spelled that way. Right, right, right. It does, yeah.

Right. OK, so I'm going to go with it's making a question. If I'm finishing.

And I think Siyat is a question word. Oh, perfect. Let's look at that.

Siyat. It says Yin, but that's good that you have that. I could be wrong.

I think that's right. OK.

[Говорящий 2]
Where's the Va? Isn't that it? Couldn't that be like Ang?

Like a question word at the end? Yeah, that's Ang.

[Говорящий 1]
Va is Ang.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, well, also Or. Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Could be this Kam there. Oh, yeah. OK, OK.

By finishing. OK, would they be. Let's go with this for now.

Would they be momentary? Could you count them as momentary? Yeah.

But it's. Yeah, I won't do count. And I did that in the commentary, too.

But just because. The S, the S. Yeah, they're drawing the question there.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Let's let's go with that. I'm going with this Nam without the S. That aspect.

Both of these aspects. They are both of these options. Are are also illogical.

Yeah, both of these objects, both of these options are also. Wrong, illogical. We'll see if it's an also.

It could be like. Even or whatever.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah. What's the Sanskrit say?

[Говорящий 1]
Something in there. Yeah, it's not. Is it this etad?

That means that, right? Yeah, that's probably so. That's like.

Yeah, OK.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, something like that or something. Sometimes it might be number because they use one as number once in a while.

[Говорящий 1]
Hmm, but we have. Yeah, in this case, it is one. It's definitely the but we're looking for something in the second line that might indicate like either an also or even though.

I think it made more sense in gelts of Jays. Reading below. Let's see.

So we all covered this together. Oh, and I, I, we were discussing earlier about this co-op chalk because I was like, no, it totally means they sometimes. And so I was really asserting that because I just wanted it to fit.

But there's also it's also quite likely that it means we and it's if you look here where it says Shana. It's saying that they would say. Because over here, it says, according to them, according to the detailers, and then it gives a Shana, which is like, this is what they'd say.

So I kind of think it's saying like it's kind of giving it like a quotation from the detailers like we have no problem with the idea that there are partless atoms with an unchanging nature. Shana means if you may ask, though, it doesn't mean if you say. I know what you mean, but I'm trying to make this co-op chalk fit word.

I, I think it's we too. Honestly, Adam talked about it a little bit. I think it's we.

I, I change. But there's no way that we being, you know, guilt sub J as a representative of the middle way school doesn't have a problem with the idea that there's partless atoms with an unchanging nature. That's true.

As far as I know, I mean, I don't know, but the unchanging nature thing is kind of standing out to me. So we'd have no problem with the idea that there are partless atoms, but saying that they're unchanging, that's kind of going a little far. Yeah.

I mean, it's kind of like the antithesis of, you know, the philosophical school. Mm hmm. So that's why somehow I think that co-op chalk must be them saying we.

But yeah, I don't know. Shayna, but I know, I know you don't really. Usually if it's a quote, you would just see Shay, not Shayna.

And it would be a, we have a suffix, right? But at the same time, we do have a problem with anything with its own nature, especially an unchanging nature. That's why they would be so, so much better.

Okay. Well, this, we need, we need a guess, Shay. We need specifically our guess.

It could be ourselves. They would also. Yeah.

Because there, even though you're saying we, you're saying that that's from their perspective. Yeah, totally. They, from our perspective.

[Говорящий 2]
That's yeah. That's what he was saying.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Okay. Sorry.

No, I mean, we all got to get on the same page. It's good. All right.

Somebody doesn't, somebody doesn't have a problem with unchanging, partless particles. And we're talking about, we're talking about the detailers, Jajak Bhanare. So I have to assume it's them.

So I don't want to get too hung up. Sorry, Adam, you were going to say. No, no, I'm, I'm just, I'm, I'm waiting for the next scene.

I want to see what the text is. Here's the quiz question. Do temporary things exist or not?

I don't know. We need a master. Yeah, let's see.

If the former. Help us. Let's see what he has to say about it.

If they do exist, right? Because it's Ye Tam May. So if the former, then atoms are not permanent entities that don't exist momentarily.

Because if something became permanent, if something temporary became permanent, that would constitute a change. That's how I interpret this. If a temporary thing became permanent, unchanging.

Take your weight here. That'd be a change. Pretty straightforward Buddhist logic there.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
And if they're not temporary, changing things. Here's, here's, we didn't cover this together yet. So feel free to get ready to just tear me apart.

Everybody's favorite part. It's cool. I'm in my backyard.

It's relaxed. You know. If they're not temporary, changing things, then how the heck.

That's how I translated. Should we read? Should we read the Tibetan?

Yes. Word. Would you please?

It's the great honor. Swiftly. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
Hi, Gerald. Or whoever you are. I don't know.

I have no idea what way that goes. Yeah, nice.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, I think it's a, it's a agreement. So I believe that's an up, right, Adam? Yeah.

I mean, I mean, I mean, agreement. You have a question mark here. Yeah.

And I mean, Colin, your, what does seem a little sarcastic. It is. But then it's, then I, then there's a day and then it's Mingyur.

So I'm going to tell like they could not. Oh, right. Right.

Okay. Or they don't exist or something. Right.

I mean, tech, technically for sure. Let's see if they're not temporary changing things, then how the heck could a baby really meaning through its own nature, go into a youth or then become old or anything else?

[Говорящий 2]
Okay.

[Говорящий 1]
They could not. All right. Cause let's do it together.

Sorry. Yeah. Yes.

Oh, sorry. The Mingyur war tell it's not Mingyur way down. And so that means it's an adverb Mingyur war.

I think it, I personally interpret that in this case as being the, it's just saying that that's kind of how I'm seeing it as they could not rather than they aren't. Let's go through it a little bit slowly. And then let's see what you think.

If Caltech make up a momentary, temporary, so if they are not changing things moment, temporary things, what's that mean again? In fact, in reality, in reality, yeah, no, the tender was like in reality or in fact, which I think I'll never forget now. Cause it plagues me for a part of this text.

I was so confused. And then he glosses it here. Wrong shin key.

So he's saying turn to meaning through some nature of their own. Jeepa lay should knew cheap. I was cheaper.

Everybody knows. And then I think the lay here is like from babies get to, and then it's right here in English and become a youth youth youth. The immortal words of Joe Pesci.

The two youths, and then from that, from youth, kepa, become aged, I guess, and so forth, and the like, as Juan Jasso would say, shen yi. I'm not exactly sure what the shen yi is doing, but it's in the root text. I think the shen yi is probably just referring to like, all this stuff, like babies to youth are getting older.

How do things happen? How does other stuff happen? Isn't it qualifying dundu?

Isn't it making it even stronger? Let's go back and look at the root text, perhaps. Well it's after it in the commentary, dundu and shen yi.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yes. But maybe it's in this previous verse. Oh yeah, dundu, shen yi, ga lang yi.

[Говорящий 2]
There's nothing other than that, in fact.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, in the words, can there ever be something other than that? Yeah. Or become something other.

Because now he's specifically talking about something becoming something else. So I'm going to stick to my guns here, but I'm very open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Yeah, yeah, otherness, anyatatvam.

Ah, anyatatvam, other, yes. Anya, anya, other than that. Or in English, anything else or something else.

Maybe. They could not. We can all agree on that.

Now, mingirwetel, mingirwartel. This is why I think that it's saying they couldn't. Even though, literally, it's maybe saying that's not jeru, okay?

Mm-hmm. Some douche who gets pissed at jeru. So that's saying there is a difference.

And then would mingirwartel mean because there is no difference? A difference? Yeah.

I mean, it's saying how in the world could something change from one thing to another? Isn't it?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
The te means in a positive. Kalangior and mingirwar mean the same exact thing. Yeah.

They cannot. Yeah, exactly. That's how I see it.

Anyway, all right. Nekapyang takpatersupechir. Because those temporary things, nekaps, tersupechir.

I think takpatersu means unchanging. So he's saying because those temporary things would also become, would be unchanging. Why does the ter look so unusual to me?

I had never seen this before. I looked it up. Tersuke is like unchanging things or permanent.

So I had never heard of this. So I just think that takpatersu has all like one. He's just trying to make a point or something.

Tersuke and gyurwamepa are synonymous. Yeah. Takpatersu would be eternal permanence.

Eternal, yeah. Because they're permanently unchanging. They're never going to ever change.

That may be a nice way to gloss, I mean, to translate that. Or also, they're permanently changing.

[Говорящий 2]
Be it perpetual or enduring.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Yeah. They're never going to, it's not even, are they not changing now?

They're just never, ever going to change. Something like that. Do you want to get fancy?

Which I do. You already are, bro.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
It's hot. Getting fancy in the backyard. You got a grill, man?

Yeah, well, this is a vacation rental. We're out of here in a couple days. It was a three-month thing while we looked for a place, and we found one.

So, congratulations to us. Congratulations. Thank you.

Very excited. Okay. So, I think we're all on the same page about that.

I'll read this one. So, by the way, those of you who are not MixedNuts, you're also welcome to chime in if you have an idea about what's going on here. You're all MixedNuts if you're coming to these classes.

And I see the same number of people coming most weeks. So, you probably know just about as much as I do. Someone may have these problems.

Like, you know, these problems. Keshe Michael made it clear that they were worried about something. So, this is interesting.

Ngopo rang shing gi kye chik ma. That they were momentary through some nature of their own. So, rang shing gi.

Whenever you see this, it's through some nature of their own. And in this case, it's kye chik ma. They're temporary.

They have temp yuh. They have temporariness through some nature of their own. Someone may have these problems, the ones we mentioned above.

Because they were concerned about the idea that things could be temporary through some nature of their own.

[Говорящий 2]
I guess.

[Говорящий 1]
Seems like a far-fetched concern, but okay. We want to leave no stone unturned. If they did exist by some nature of their own, that would kind of go back to the unchanging part.

The partless atoms which are unchanging. But it seems like he's saying that the reason that these, and stop me if I'm wrong, if I'm missing the point here. But it seems like he's saying that people might have the problem of needing things to be partless and unchanging.

Because they're worried about things having a changing nature through some nature of their own. So, therefore, they would have to say that things are unchanging. I'm worried about it.

So, you'd say, you may wonder. Do people have these problems because they're concerned about the idea of blah, blah, blah. I'm concerned about it.

It's not that far-fetched. I think this is probably what the average person off the street would say. That sure, things are always changing, but that is their nature.

Right. Okay. Yeah, no, good point.

Yeah, yeah. I guess where I get tripped up is then thinking that, and you're right, it's a valid concern. And I guess I believe it, too.

I'm joking out here. Cut out for one second. You were what-ing?

Chikpa. I have much chikpa about it. Yeah, yeah.

I'm scared. And then, so, therefore, would you feel better if we just said things that things are made of partless, unchanging atoms? I think it was good.

Okay. But don't forget the Shana. Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.

Yes, Shana. Oh, it's coming. Yeah, you owe me a good assuaging support for my concern.

Help me with the next words. Okay. Let's see who wants to read.

Someone who's not translating. Oscar. Yes.

Vamos. Vamos a leer. Let's read.

Now we're getting into the jungle. This is, so I'm pretty, I'm struggling here. Full disclosure.

The person who ascribes temporariness to unchanging atoms does accept impermanence. Okay. Okay.

Two unchanging atoms. Temporariness, in this case. A person who does that.

They're in acceptance of impermanence or changing this. I totally ignored this tar here so far. Something.

It just means like, I don't think it's going to change the translation much. I don't think so. Yeah.

Yeah. But I got to get full disclosure. Churchy.

And here the here the he didn't consider this on to be part of the root text. Or maybe because it wasn't, it was a Tom. That's right.

Yeah. Churchy. So it looks like he's glossing churchy with churchy.

I think if you believe that one part or it means one moment. This is how I'm interpreting it. Okay.

And then we could look at the words. If you believe that one part of it were to disappear in a moment. Or if it's all the parts at once.

Or if it's all at once and all parts disappear. Here's the or. So if you believe.

Why did I say if there's not all the way at the end. There's enough to the on to. Yeah.

Okay, good. But this I kind of think. Okay.

Let's see. This could go a few different ways. Here's the believe.

If you believe that it's one part disappears. Or. Okay.

All parts. If it's all at once. And all parts disappear.

That's how I translated that. And then I said we would count them as temporary. I don't.

I guess I had the word count my mind from Chong. Oh, yeah, there it is. Chong.

Yeah, yeah. But it's really Chong now, which means like, wouldn't they be. It's a question.

Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Wouldn't they be temporary. If that, which I think is the right translation of China. Wasn't he saying the implication of believing that they are back is that then if they're choke chick.

Then if it, if it, if it disappears.

[Говорящий 2]
Then, if all of it would go in one moment as well. Isn't it something like that.

[Говорящий 1]
These are, these are two possible justifications right to possible say pays both say pay. Yeah. In the agenda.

Right. So is, is the first say pay your reason, or is the second say pay your reason for believing that things are momentary. Is it because.

Yeah, either. Right, one, one part, or one part going away or because all of it's going away, all the parts are going away. Which of those two is your reason for counting them as cake chick.

Considering the momentary. Yeah. Got it.

Yeah. Okay. So that's the trauma.

Yeah, no, that's, I mean that's certainly how I'm interpreting it. Also, now it makes more sense now that we know what China means.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, remind me. So if, if you are, if you ascribe to unchanging this either one part goes away or everything goes away at once. Yeah, which one, which one is your reason for that.

Because I'm going to whip up on you either way. Either way. Translation.

Yeah. The person who ascribes temporariness to unchanging Adams does accept impermanence. What the choke cheeks gotta go in there somewhere.

Well, I, yeah. Do you believe one part where to disappear. So, because that breaks it up.

I think the choke cheek is like in an instant, like, is it that in one instant. You just get rid of one part, or is it that in an instant, everything goes away. Well, yeah, I mean, my specific I mean it is, it is a question I don't want to derail this, or, but the choke chick and the chat chick.

Just wondering what a different selection and in words, it seems like they're kind of identifying the same thing right. Yeah. He's glossing the word choke chick with church.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I think you're right. Yeah. What's going on.

[Говорящий 2]
The arm. Yeah, before the not even if, even if you think it's one. And when, when we say choke chick we mean chat chick to your, or do, because it doesn't say it in the, in the root text, it says the zip a but he's saying they pay distributes and choke chick means tragic.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, I think that that's right. Let's go see when we, if we demolish them thoroughly, or not, I'm sure we will. Well, usually, although I defeat myself all the time.

Wrong. Let's see. And I'm funny.

Both options, however, are illogical Oh sorry let's read this. You ready to go though you look so ready for the to read the ultimate bashing of the position. I mean, me.

Me. Me. Me.

Nice. Oh, that's amazing. Okay.

Both of these options. I translated this as however. But you could say, I don't know, even both of these options.

I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter. I think both of these options, however, are illogical.

Rick, but Don, Dan, min Bartell and he's just expanding Rick 10 men. Nope. And I'm like, check yo so here I'm just kind of like going with Keshae Michaels.

You know, notes, because I am not familiar with curel. Yeah. You always short for Gilmore, which means like a like a broken part of a brick or like some kind of pebbles or rubble.

Right. So, I'm just going with broken. Because there's nothing to that would, I mean, maybe there would be a reason to add brick or something in there but I don't know.

But he said as a brick. I don't know. Oh, he's just saying, when, when he's talking about broken off, think about it as broken off like a brick.

Right, I got that thing a brick should be in there. That's what I'm that's that's my interpretation as well so. So I just said things would be broken apart.

Because the first half of something. Probably just means piece of something but chain means half. So chain chain are first half of something.

And what stays. I guess it means like, this is how I'm interpreting this. So sorry.

Change our key, Danny Napa. What's the part that stays. Part of it that stays.

Mindra they're not similar, like one of them is changing and one of them is not, I guess. Yeah, somehow. I mean it's a it's a it's a big thing too.

And these. We frequently look at things as like from a whole right and then if you. I mean it's quite obvious if you break a piece off of it, it's not the same.

And if part of it becomes changing. You know, in the in the rest of it's unchanging. Yeah.

And it kind of goes back to that whole thing with Geshe-la talks about with like things starting or stopping and there being a gradual process. Right.

[Говорящий 2]
You know, or if it's it just happens all at once. If it just disappears.

[Говорящий 1]
And in this case. It seems like he's critiquing the idea that part of it disappears and part of it doesn't disappear right away. And he's saying if that's the case.

You know, these these two parts of the same thing are actually not the same. I think Mindrewa mik gun I think that means like if you've got the same Mindrewa mik gun you'd have to have dissimilar parts of an object.

[Говорящий 2]
Or even two different things.

[Говорящий 1]
But isn't the point that we're talking about part because it's Changar, right? So isn't part of the point that we're talking about the first half of something? And then what stays of that thing?

Daini nepe?

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, the part broken off and the part that it was broken off from which which existed in that same state would then be then would need to be dissimilar objects.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, they would have to be objects. Yeah. Yeah.

And that's it. And what stays would be dissimilar. And then you would have dissimilar things at the same time.

So Dendra would be like at the same time or of the same thing. So here here Adam is answering that. Dendra, Mindrewa, you'd have dissimilar parts of the same thing.

mimikpe chir. I don't think I included this mimikpe. I must have just glazed my eyes glazed over it.

Because you you can't see something like that.

[Говорящий 2]
You can't see both and unchanging at the same time.

[Говорящий 1]
We don't see things that are both. Yeah, exactly. We don't see.

Because we don't because there aren't things where if where the first half of something and what stays would be dissimilar. Yeah, it's crazy because I mean, you can't perceive unchanging things with your eyes. Right.

So if you had part of it that broke off, you would have a part of an object that you part of the object that you're seeing, you are perceiving with your eye, but then there's this unchanging aspect that you're not perceiving. And I'm just trying to the mic. I'm just thinking about the mic.

Oh, yeah. Interesting. I didn't even know if it was going that far, but perhaps about not being able to see unchanging things.

I thought it was more just saying like. It don't work that way. Yeah.

Well, if you've got the drama, like what is he distinguishing when you say dissimilar? And you say like what two things he's saying is dissimilar. He's saying the first part and the second part.

Right.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
The part that disintegrated while some of it stayed behind. Yeah. And I'm.

Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
And it just ends here and we get the knee, the knee next time.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Which is interesting because he didn't disprove the cha-tam-che. Did he?

Oh. Well, isn't he? Because if you break off the piece, isn't that the changing either the whole thing goes or one?

I mean, choke chick. I don't know. Is it one?

Is it one location or is it one piece? I think it's one piece. But it could be one location.

I mean, I think the whole it just has to do with like parts of one object. What? Right.

So I think I think this is his his refutation of both. Yeah. It's I mean, the cha-tam-che is kind of like built in just like the one or many proof.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Really, really similar to that.

OK, we're almost out of time. I think that we've made some meaningful progress. I mean, this gives me a lot of hope.

I think we we actually work together quite well. I'm really glad that we can discover things that I could not discover on my own by working together. Turns out it's a good idea.

Here are real quick. What's coming next? Can you talk about anybody?

[Говорящий 2]
Those. I shy. How do you say I shy.

I shy from the lights. They they think they think people are.

[Говорящий 1]
It's a soul. Cable is code for here. I think so.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Permanent. There's a permanent person in and everyone. Yeah.

So we're going to think it's a soul in this case. Yeah, they accept that we have a beat him up right in the face. So if you are the vice of rights and change.

So we'll leave.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
So belief in an unchanging.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. I think that's right. I think oh my God.

We knew something fairly definitively. Well, I'm sure it's going to get brutal as we proceed. Don't look.

No. So see you next time. Translated it there.

I could have just read it. Oh yeah. But what fun is that?

Then you'd have to see how I tried to spell vice. All right. Next exciting episode is Stanley live from where.

Right. Is that right? Correct.

Live from somewhere. I don't know. It might be live from Diamond Mountain or it might be live from Sedona.

I'm not sure. I think Sedona actually. We'll see.

So you have to think that the one also probably knows with all this Peachtree World News information. So I just want to thank you guys. Thank you everybody for chiming in.

Thank you all for being here. Don't forget to subscribe to your local good night book club to to get books and also to support this historic effort by us to preserve and translate this incredible wisdom. We love you.

We need you now more than ever. So subscribe away, tell all your friends. Tell them to tell all their friends and I'll do the same.

Thank you very much. And that's it. Look forward to the next one.

Word are you standing by to teach class? I am. Bless your heart.

Awesome. Thank you so much Word. Thanks Nick.