Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 40

[Host]
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everybody. We are— Hi. Hey, Nick.

How's it going? I just noticed a light doppling beautifully across my face, but I'll move. Yeah.

No, that's just you. Yeah, my beautiful face. Cool.

I wasn't sure—I was going to vamp for a minute, but I didn't know you were—prompt as always, I couldn't find you in the chat. But maybe you can tell us a little bit about this special installment of Xuanzang's Tower we're doing today. Absolutely.

So, we've done this a little bit in the past before, and I think this is the first time we're officially doing what we're calling a Mixed Nuts team class as in the Xuanzang's Tower format. And team means all of us are here to work together without our gentle helper and teacher and guide in this journey, Geshe Michael. So he is traveling abroad.

This time does not work well with his time zone, and I'm sure most of you know his schedule. He's just doing really cool, important things, and I think part of it also is that he's trying to empower us to learn to lead you guys and each other through these texts without him. So we're learning, and we're doing our best.

And today's class is not an easy text to work through together. It's the text that's being translated by Adam Andrade. I'm saying Andrade because I'm living in Portugal.

He's got a Portuguese name. And there's a castle here in Portugal called Andrade Castle. Sorry, I've got to get this sun dapple out of my face.

That's better. So I bet I see his distant cousins all the time. Anyway, the book is by Kedrup Je and it's called Destroying the Darkness, or that's the title that we're using, and it's hard.

It's a logic text, and logic doesn't have to be hard, but at the very least, it requires paying attention and doing some mental exercises to work things out for yourself in a way that you might not have to for other texts. So we invite you all to summon your deepest focus and work together with us to understand the amazing, useful, and somewhat complex ideas in this book. And is Adam here?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, right here.

[Host]
Oh, good. And do you have a homework for us as well? I do have a homework.

Good. I just want to say, if I may, Nick, I just want to... It just occurred to me to encourage everybody so much.

I'm so excited that so many of you are here again. And as much as I always want Geshe Michael to be there, the reality of having a teacher in this world is that they prepare you for the times when they're not there, and there's a future, you know, if we're looking at our 500-year plan here, far into the future, what's this going to look like? What is our community going to look like far into the future?

And being here together, it's wonderful, and it's a wonderful preparation to always get together, always get together with your friends who love amazing topics and profound things. Always gather together, whatever's going on, never miss the opportunity to be together with one another. And I'm just...

I'm excited that so many of you are here again this morning, and that we get to share this time together. And I just want to say that. I thank Nick for introducing, giving me space.

Adam, thank you for taking on the mantle today of our first team class. Yeah, we'll see how it goes. I'm not worried.

Okay, and make sure you're muted if you're talking. Thank you.

[Adam Andrade]
Okay, so we finished up the outline last time, and we actually had to go back a few sections. So we haven't done any new material. So this homework is essentially just more kind of review and making sure that we solidify kind of some key points here.

So you guys, this should be pretty easy. This should be pretty straightforward. Name the two main types of objects in the universe and give an example of each.

And if I want to say objects, maybe I should say objects that you can perceive, because there are many different types of objects, right?

[Host]
Yeah, there's different ways you can...

[Adam Andrade]
There's different ways you can categorize that too, yeah.

[Host]
Is it rangtsen and chitsen?

[Adam Andrade]
Well, related.

[Host]
Changing things and unchanging things?

[Adam Andrade]
Kind of. I was going to say rangtsen and chitsen. Thank you, sir.

Yeah, thank you. But venerable cutting, that falls very much so in line with how we would also categorize them too, I think.

[Host]
Can you zoom in? Can you zoom in on the homework a little bit, Adam?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, totally. Let me pull those in a little bit. So do we have a classical example of venerable cutting?

What's the classical example of a, let's say, a changing or a working thing?

[Host]
You remember? A pot.

[Adam Andrade]
Exactly. Yeah, yeah, totally. And so in a converse manner, what would be the classical example of a chitsen?

[Host]
Empty space.

[Adam Andrade]
Close. Close. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but you seem so eager to answer that I wanted to make sure you got some...

[Host]
Oh, is it sound?

[Adam Andrade]
No.

[Host]
No, that's the changing thing, and that's a bit of a debate in this topic.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. So if the classical example is a physical pot, right, for a rangtsen, what would be the classical example for a chitsen? Are you looking for the dönchi of a pot?

Yeah. Yeah.

[Host]
Nice.

[Adam Andrade]
So...

[Host]
That's a cool answer. Nice, luminous image in the chat.

[Adam Andrade]
Very nice.

[Host]
Mm-hmm.

[Adam Andrade]
So it's just the mental image of a cup, right? So we have a physical cup, and then we have our idea of a cup, right? And that's kind of how we would bifurcate all of reality from the standpoint of the second school, I would say.

[Host]
Maybe bifurcating, split into two?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, totally.

[Host]
Yeah, I barely got that one, so I want to make sure our translators got it.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, sorry. No, no, it's good. What are the two kinds of perception?

And Nick gave us this one. Can I ask you, Adam, before we go on?

[Host]
You said this would be our bifurcation, our division, from the perspective of the second school. What do you think... Why do you think, or how do you think that might be different from a higher school perspective?

[Adam Andrade]
I know that's a hard question. Well, yeah, I was just qualifying the second school, because that's the one we're in. And I know Dharmakirti, in particular, said that there...

If I can remember the exact quote, it was, there are two types of objects, because there are two types of perception. So that's just kind of what I was meaning. But I would love to hear...

I'd love to hear what you might have to say about that.

[Host]
I don't know. I guess the answer is, I don't know. I was looking for your thoughts.

Maybe we can all think together, and in the long run, keep in the back of our heads. I want to know, what do we think in the higher school? And thoughts in the chat are also interesting.

Is a luminous image a changing thing? This is a question that I've struggled with for a long time.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. I mean, I think bifurcating all of reality, I think it just depends on what lens you're looking through. So there's the classical way between the schools of looking at just ultimate versus deceptive reality as well.

So I would say that the high school may just stay that route. Yeah.

[Host]
Interestingly, in ACI Level 7, Geshe Michael trifurcates reality. Changing things, unchanging things, and... Oh, wait, sorry.

No, you're right. At that level, it sticks with changing and unchanging things. He doesn't.

Sorry, my mistake. He trifurcates later. But maybe it could be a changing thing, which is neither physical nor mental in some branches of the way.

Yeah, that's where it falls in the way he teaches it there.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah.

[Host]
Okay. I apologize for the sidetracking, Adam.

[Adam Andrade]
No, no, no, no, no. I think this is kind of what we should be doing in this class. If we're going to...

I think everything's open for discussion at this point.

[Host]
Well, owner of the iPhone asks if these two things are the same as mental and physical things. And I would say to owner's iPhone that mental and physical things typically is a division of changing things.

[Adam Andrade]
Right. And you know what? I realized as I just highlighted this text here that I didn't actually put the two kinds of perception.

And I just said that there are two ways to perceive things. So, namely, they're going to be jepak and ngönsum, which means kind of direct and deductive or direct and inferred perception. So, sorry about that, guys.

[Host]
And so, have we zeroed in, Adam, that one is perceiving one of these objects and the other is perceiving the other?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. We spent some time earlier in the text. I want to say probably the first year that we were in this text looking at how rangtsen aligns with ngönsum and chitsen aligns with deductive or jepak.

So, what is the primary intent of studying texts that deal with the topic of accurate perception? And I'm sure there's a lot of different ways you could use this. But Geshe Michael, he spent probably five minutes waxing philosophically about this the last class.

[Host]
Well, he named your other book, The Door to Emptiness, meaning that you have to study this in order to see emptiness.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, totally.

[Host]
But I like how Venerable Katz said Bodhichitta, which sounds like a delicious Mexican food. What happened? Sorry, I'm not typing very well.

Understandable. Yeah, of course. It's terrible.

Sorry that whatever happened to you. Thank you. A small interaction with a big piece of glass.

Anyway, so sorry for the typo. It was not very clear. It wasn't really me.

I just liked the way it sounded, so I had to say that one.

[Adam Andrade]
We need some levity right now, some comic relief. It's pretty good.

[Host]
Yeah. It was for fun.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. So, yeah, one of the things that I found super interesting is that conventional reality. Excuse me.

How should I put this? Some of the things that I've seen come up in the text that we've been studying from the perspective of the second school, again, are the polar opposite of what the for the highest school believes. So it is a super, super good stepping stone.

If you can familiarize yourself with this, with the topics that we've kind of been going over, you got to get used to just negating those ideas. And then that's a good basis for meditating on how the highest school feels about certain things like conventional and ultimate reality or objects and how they exist. Yeah.

So did you see?

[Host]
I don't know if you see the chat. There's some beautiful answers here. And it's knocking my socks off here.

Let's see. And it's all said the goal is to determine how much of the world is coming from the mind and how much is out there. And I think especially if we move through the different schools, that's a that's a beautiful insight about how we use logic.

[Adam Andrade]
Sorry, guys. I haven't been paying attention to the chat. And that is that is a very, very succinct way of saying exactly what I wrote here.

And it's all. Is that we just we it's divided. So the primary concern of studying the text dealing with accurate perception is just to familiarize yourself with the two types of objects that can be perceived and the and the perception and the perceptions used to perceive those objects.

And then you learn to discern the qualities and characteristics of each. And so that's just another way of saying exactly what you said. And it's all.

Yeah. Well.

[Host]
Oh. Oh, this is a valid request. They would like for us to slow down.

[Adam Andrade]
Sorry. Yeah. I'll be more mindful of that as I drink more coffee.

[Host]
Good idea. Yeah. That tends to help.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. It generally does. It helps if you drink it through a straw.

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
I don't sip coffee. That might be where I'm going wrong. OK.

[Host]
Incidental points or something. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Yeah. Nice.

And we got the next one. You are cool.

[Host]
Necessities for a trip.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Like. Yeah.

[Host]
Indispensable.

[Adam Andrade]
Right. Yeah. I think you could probably say it either way.

Word. Thank you so much. Sure.

OK. So now we're going to dive into the deep end here. So there are a couple of different ways we can approach this, because.

And I'm happy to hear what you guys might think about this. We. Like I said, we still haven't done any new text since we switched on.

And because we. We were going to start in the middle of a debate. We had to go back like four sections to kind of refresh ourselves where we were.

And we refreshed our minds. We kind of refreshed ourselves with where we were in the debate last time. And then the class ended.

So I think it may be helpful to go back again. And to see if we could just quickly kind of figure out where we are. If.

If it's the case that nobody else can. So how do you guys feel about that? Great.

Great. I think it's wonderful. I could use the refresher always.

[Host]
Yeah, I think it's a solid plan, especially for a text this challenging. Let's see. Right.

Thanks for that homework, Adam.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I know it wasn't, you know, it's not exactly what the doctor. Do you guys do you guys see the text here? Yeah, I might want to zoom in.

But yes. Zoom. So I think we're on.

We started like four. Let me set this over to the side. Okay.

How's that? The text size. Pretty good for everybody now.

So we stop.

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Okay. We for. So the last section we did was 410.

And in Geshe La's notes. He wanted us to start back at 407. So if we can kind of familiarize ourselves with where we were, it was, I think the key.

The key, the key here is this line. So refuting the idea that if something's a work that things like working things have to be. They don't have to exist substantially.

Right. Major. So.

Let's see.

[Host]
Would you would you slow that down and say it again, Adam? Yeah, I'm hoping that if I'm struggling to grasp that, that other people are.

[Adam Andrade]
But yeah. So refuting the position. And the belief that things like working things.

So not have to exist substantially. Okay.

[Host]
So this is a somewhat complicated way of saying that we are saying that working things do have to be substantial. And so we're fighting against the guys who say that working things don't have to be substantial. Yeah.

Would you remind us, Adam, what we mean by substantial?

[Adam Andrade]
So existing as partless particles or as individual moments of consciousness. Wow. So there's a definition I want to say for.

So I used to have it memorized in Tibetan. I can't for some reason. I don't know if I've had enough coffee yet.

I would say.

[Host]
Does that come from your previous book?

[Adam Andrade]
No, it comes from this one. Yeah, it was just earlier in the earlier in the text. Wonderful.

But it's interesting. Yeah. And so that does.

I was thinking as we were reading it, that if you just kept it on the physical side and you didn't include the individual moments of consciousness, that it would be true. Right. That it wouldn't cover everything.

Right. Because you've got three different categories of [?]. So where would you put shape?

And where would you put them? And do it? Right.

So that's kind of why I think that second half qualifies all changing things that it discovering all changing. Am I still translators? Am I speaking too fast?

[Host]
Thumbs up from Christian means you're doing good as opposed to darn right. You're too fast. Yeah, I think he's looking at proving.

People are saying it's too fast. He's giving you the thumbs up. You are indeed.

Oh, he agrees. You are too fast. Yes.

He's just very joyful about the problem. Thanks. And and asked if you could repeat the definition, please.

[Adam Andrade]
Oh, OK. So for something to exist substantially would mean that it exists as partless particles or as indivisible moments of consciousness. Wow.

And once again, that's from our perspective, right? For wrong look, wrong look here in the second school. Yeah.

Dude, where'd you get the balloons?

[Host]
I do second school celebration of the future generations are going to think of Sautrantika as the balloon school.

[Adam Andrade]
The balloon school. Right.

[Host]
So turn that off. But yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
So that's kind of I think that's the operable. That's kind of the key line here. That'll help us get an idea for what we're trying to prove or disprove by looking at this line here.

And so the first. Hold on. OK, there are two.

Yeah. Because you got this dong here. Sorry.

You do have this dong. So they're like young Mopo, you know. So if something is a working thing, it must necessarily be an actual object.

Right. So it's a two part kind of thing. Sorry, I got to remember to slow down.

It's like whenever I've done this before and we've had translators like when I've been like in situations where I've had a translator next to me, it's so much easier because you can kind of hear as they're translating, you know, it's much easier to know when to slow down or when to pause. And so this is good. I'll have to get used to to thinking about you guys.

Sorry, translators.

[Host]
You have a stuffed animal that you can just put next to you.

[Adam Andrade]
So it's twofold. OK, if something is a working thing, then it must then it should be. I've been using should for good lately for Gupa.

So if something is a working thing, it should be an actual object in the world or in the universe. And can anybody just quickly remember from the quiz what an actual object is?

[Host]
Change a working thing.

[Adam Andrade]
Working thing.

[Host]
Sorry, that has to be an actual object.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah.

[Host]
Yeah. Say that. Yeah.

A coffee cup. Yeah. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
And the second part of this reasoning or the second part that we're going to disprove is that if something is the position that it doesn't have to that, if something is things like working things do not have to exist substantially. Right. And we're attacking that idea.

We're attacking both of those ideas. And here's the first. So and I would.

This is all translation that Geshe Michael has not given me feedback on. So if you see anything that stands out in my translation that you think I need to be aware of or something that I missed, please, guys, stop and let me know.

[Host]
Thank you.

[Adam Andrade]
So don't be neat. Can we.

[Host]
I like your translation there. Personally, I think that seems very clear and thorough.

[Adam Andrade]
Cool, man. Well, I was having the reason I say that I was having some. It took me a day.

I was working with two sections. Hopefully we'll get to them. And it took me a couple of days and I still could not find something that was it just didn't feel right.

You know, and then something happened and I busted out like 20 seconds, like like 20 sections. Like it was all just flowing, you know, and then I went back and looked at him. I was like, oh, you were just missing this one section or can't remember exactly what it was.

Anyways, sometimes being too close to a text. I think you for me, I've noticed that sometimes it's helpful to just step back and maybe have somebody else look at it. And you're like, oh, dude, you know, stupid mistake or, you know, anyways.

Anyways, so this 408, here's the first, right? And I was thinking maybe we'd have somebody else read if there's somebody else who wants to work on the meeting. Is there anybody that would like to read?

[Host]
Mm hmm. Let's see. Volunteers, you can do it.

Put a thumbs up. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Wonderful.

[Host]
Yeah. Thank you.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, man.

[Host]
Thanks for being so brilliant. Yeah. And Tim, thank you for your wonderful contributions in the chat.

We do notice and it is very helpful. Yeah. Yeah.

So I read from Tel, right? Tel yin.

[Adam Andrade]
I read. Let's go. Let's go from 408 here.

Yeah.

[Host]
Thank you. Awesome, brother.

[Adam Andrade]
That was amazing. Can you help us with 409 and 410 as well?

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Stick around. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay.

So if we're going to look at how. So what is the first that he's referring to here? When he says dangpo ni.

Right. What what is he what what first is he referring to? And I'm pretty sure he's referring to to this line here.

So that if something is a working thing, it's got to be an actual object. So does anybody know what? There are many different ways you can you can translate sheja.

Geshe Michael has translated it before. He made me use reality.

Let's take let's consider reality in my my first book. So here I just once he went with the classic kind of all knowable things. So if we're going to try to disprove that working that if something's a working thing, it's got to be an actual object in the universe.

Oh, yeah. And 10. Did you go up or down on your tail?

Do you even go there? I don't even know if I should bring this up or not. You certainly should.

So, hey, 10. Yes. Yeah.

So you see this tell here, this your partel. Right. Yeah.

And and I'm not I'm not putting you on the spot for any particular reason, 10, other than to just make this a point for everybody else as well. If you are reading a debate text, a text that is dialectic in nature, how would I say this? OK.

If you're having a debate, if you're reading a debate text and the line ends with tell here, you've got to choose how to accentuate this word. Right. So you either go up or down.

Right. And you generally go up. If we believe what we're saying and you go down, if you're being sarcastic.

OK, so like we'd say once on the same. Yep. Right.

And if you if you read it in that way, it's kind of more forming a consequence or almost like a question. Right. So are you saying like.

But if you were to read it like you're saying it is too. Right. And you can see how there's kind of like a parallel between the two.

Right. Just how emphatic your voice is or how displeased you are with something you just heard your opponent say. Anyways, so just to point that out.

So are you saying that there is a direct, accurate perception which can grasp a mental image as its object? Because there is a mental image which can be perceived by the direct, accurate perception which holds a coffee cup. And this is a refutation of the belief that something is a working thing.

So. Let's see. So, yeah, well, this is where it gets interesting and why I think we're all going to have to work through this together.

Because you're having a direct, accurate perception of a mental image. Right. And one of the one of the things that we highlighted in the homework was that you have two different types of perception for two different types of objects.

Right. So you've got actual objects like coffee cups that you can look at with your eyes. And you've got mental images of coffee cups, which you have to hold somewhere in the non-space of the mind.

Right. But here, KJJ, and if my translation is correct, if my interpretation here is correct, KJJ is saying that you can have a direct, or he's asking the other opponent. Are you telling me that you can have a direct, accurate perception of a coffee cup, of the mental image of a coffee cup?

Does that make sense?

[Host]
So how do you pronounce yinpar tel for us, Adam, in this case?

[Adam Andrade]
Yinpar tel!

[Host]
Awesome.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, right. Okay. Proper sarcasm.

Yeah, totally. Because there's a mental image which can be perceived by the direct, accurate perception which holds a coffee cup. Slow it down.

Sorry, man. Yeah. I get excited about this stuff.

I really do. Okay. Now, if I move on through the text too, and there's still any underlying questions that you guys have, raise your hand or put something in the chat.

I'm happy to slow down and go over some stuff as well. Don't feel shy at all.

[Host]
Don't forget we have the 15 minutes at the end to continue on with our discussion.

[Adam Andrade]
Right on. Yeah. So, Tim, can you read 409 for us?

Adam, I apologize.

[Host]
The second part here, the reason, so the sarcastic statement he's making, if I understand correctly, is to say, oh, so if you are saying then that a changing thing like a coffee cup doesn't have to be substantial, then you must be saying that I could have a direct, accurate perception of my idea of a coffee cup.

[Adam Andrade]
That's exactly it, Tim. Yeah.

[Host]
And then the proof he's saying is because there is a mental image, there is an idea of a coffee cup which can be seen like direct, like almost with the eyes directly, to see it directly.

[Adam Andrade]
And then that reason, was that provided in the previous paragraph? I didn't necessarily see it. And Geshe Michael only asked us to go back to 407.

So, I suspect that everything that we would need to garner what we need to from this particular debate should be included from 407 on. But let's go back and, I mean, I don't want to get too bogged down. No, of course.

However, I would be happy, I would be open to hearing too, if you guys think my translation matches up here. Yeah. A direct, accurate perception.

Yeah.

[Host]
Directly. With an accurate perception. Holding that, oh, holding that object.

Yeah. The idea, the generality, the archetype that holds that idea. Oh, so this is a direct perception of that cup in that way, of that coffee cup in that way.

What do you think, Nick? I'm struggling a little with this construction. It is, I think it's tricky to, it's tricky to hear it like, sungyo jinpa.

So, it's a thing which is holding its object, a direct and accurate perception which is holding its object. Dön chitsen. I think a mental image.

Which is, is that? The mental image of the thing, of the mental image of the direct perception which is holding its object. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, that's hard. You guys can see why I settled on what I have here.

[Host]
For sure. What do you think, Dr. Wordsmith? What do you think?

Do you have thoughts on the grammatical construction? Yeah, I was just looking at it. Perception which holds a coffee cup.

Yeah, the direct perception which, the tsen is, yeah, perceives, right? Perceives a coffee cup, right? A vase.

Yeah. So that part is definitely. That's right.

Yeah, the tsen and zong are the perceiver and perceived here, right? So, yeah, the accurate perception which directly has the perception of a coffee cup. That thing, that yul, is a qi tsen.

Uph here. Great. That's what it is.

Yeah, looks good, Adam. Yeah, yup. There is a qi tsen.

That sung yul holds that. Yeah. The directly perceived cup.

[Adam Andrade]
Cool. You know, just for the audience, once again, I haven't had Geshe Michael approve or disapprove any of this stuff. So it's really helpful for me because I struggled with a lot of it.

And it's just so thanks for kind of slowing down with us all as mixed nuts and, you know, plugging through some of this. So I hope this is still entertaining for some of you.

[Host]
It's highly educational. By the way, he has directly from our boss, he has requested that when we're displaying translations, as you're describing, that he hasn't had a chance to look at. We just write on the screen student translation.

[Adam Andrade]
Should that be? I had a question if that should be in every section or just at the top.

[Host]
Basically, the reason this will answer your question. Okay. The reason is because he's not keen on people taking screenshots of an incorrect translation.

And then if somebody wanted to criticize us and we missed the thing, then somebody could take a screenshot. Look how these people are translating, you know, because sometimes sometimes we missed the point.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah.

[Host]
You know, usually we get it because we're amazing. But occasionally we missed the point. And I don't think you did here.

But I know I did in my last class, for example.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. I included that in the next section because all of this stuff was from term 20. Yeah.

You see, I just didn't do it. So we'll move on. And 10.

Did you read 409 for us?

[Host]
Yeah. Ma drub na bumpai chitsen yinpa bu.

[Adam Andrade]
Yimpa Bu.

[Host]
Yimpa Bu.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. So Madrugna. Can anybody tell us what Madrugna is?

It's not a seed.

[Host]
If that ain't the case. You don't think that's. Meaning, especially if you disagree that with this reason here, if you if you say there are no mental images, there are no luminous images in your mind that can be seen with a direct, accurate perception.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. So then you'll blow your position that there is a mental image of a coffee cup. Um.

[Host]
I like your I like your translation of. Right. It's almost like spit out a stupid idea.

It's a beautiful. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Position. Well, I thought it was pretty. I got to slow down.

I thought it was pretty crappy. The Tibetans as well. Yeah.

OK. Or 1010. And thank you.

If this, you know, I don't want to imposition you to read for the entire class. Your pronunciation is so good, man. Would you do for 10 for us as well?

[Host]
Yeah. Thank you so much. Each item.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
And I could have even. Where was it? Yeah.

OK. So there would exist a direct, accurate perception which holds as its object the meaning of a word. So this would be the jargon.

Right. The literal meaning. Direct perception would involve conception and there would exist a deductive, accurate perception which could hold an actual thing.

Right. Hold on.

[Host]
Would you walk us through the. Would you walk us through the Tibetan Adam? Would you help us piece this together?

[Adam Andrade]
So this is more just a period. So would be this would be problematic.

[Host]
You're getting some strong approval in the chat room for your highlighting of the parts you're talking about.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. I don't have the chat pulled up. So, yeah.

No, that's that's what I'm telling you. It's wonderful what you do. Please, please.

OK. And yeah. And you know what?

I should have this this here. Yeah. You see.

So I missed the dinner. If you if you I'll I'll clean this up later. So, yeah, the can can generally means like what's the famous saying that we always whenever any.

Anybody. No problem.

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So there would exist a direct, accurate perception which holds as its object the meaning of a word. And this is going to be a split reason here, because you can see how there are dongs all throughout. Right.

So each one of these is going to separate our text. And this will give us the different portions that we'll look at. So which holds as its object.

Right. So you'll be shaping. The direct, accurate perception.

There would exist a direct, accurate perception. Yeah. Which would hold as its object the literal meaning of a word.

And instead of literal, I just put the meaning of a word because it's kind of, you know, those are. I mean, I think that would be redundant. And so the second part here, mun sum tok che yipa tau.

So can anybody tell us, Geshe Michael always points this out. I think anytime we see RTOG, anytime we see tok, he always points out something very specific here. And I would be happy if any of the non-mixed nuts in our call today could tell us what that is.

[Host]
Is this tok with S and without S?

[Adam Andrade]
Ten, dude. Somebody give this guy a text. Exactly, right?

So direct, and so conception, right? That's what we used here. And the che, tok che would involve conception.

And then our last piece here, rong ten sung yut che pe, che pak tse ma, yipa tau we. Or yipa tau, yipa tau wa. Let's see, the rong ten, can anybody else tell me what the rong ten would be?

[Host]
An actual thing.

[Adam Andrade]
Actual thing, yeah. I mean, look, I'm not trying to exclude you guys. I'm just hoping non-mixed nuts will start to speak up.

Okay, yeah, so the rong ten here is going to be actual thing, right? The sung yul che pe is going to be which could hold. And che pak tse ma, yipa is that there would exist a deductive accurate perception.

Is that pretty straightforward? Okay, now, yeah. And I'm pretty sure if we go back and we think about all those things, we can see how that is in accord with the flow of what KJJ was trying to disprove here.

Okay, so that kind of catches us up. And here I put the student translation.

[Host]
So if I can cross examine that a tiny bit, Adam, I'm struggling a little bit. Am I understanding then that he's saying if you think that, if you agree that there could be a direct perception which sees the idea of a cup or the luminous image of a cup, then you're saying that there must be a direct perception that perceives the meaning of the word cup or the meaning of the name?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah. Well, because the word in our own mind, this is my and look. I'm struggling with these topics.

I'm struggling with these topics. And from what I understand, the meaning of a word, the job done is the mental image. That so the literal meaning and the term that exists in our own mind are synonymous with.

So if I say the mental image of a coffee cup and the literal meaning of the word of a coffee cup, you could use them synonymously here. And I think that may be a way of just making his refutation a little bit more robust, right?

[Host]
I was interpreting it that way too. However, I have to lean on you a lot here, Adam. You know, I think some people know I'm also doing a prominent text, but Adam's been working on these texts for longer.

So, Adam, you're like my canary in the coal mine or like my point man going ahead, you know, kindly running into these topics for me in advance to help me get ready for them as they come up. And I'm sure you're letting me bug you.

[Adam Andrade]
Dude, no, anytime. Yeah, we got that text thread still open, brother. Yeah.

Anything I can, anything I can do. So I'm just trying to keep it moving here. So in the back of my mind, I'm like, I have a strong feeling that I'm losing people's interest.

[Host]
No, I think we're actually doing this class at a really great pace too. I think it's quite helpful. We're really breaking down how we make a sentence of Tibetan into a sentence of English, which is pretty freaking cool for our group here, I think.

[Adam Andrade]
Cool. Yeah, and I think I could be confusing our audience. I mean, no, no.

From my own perspective, I'm forgetting that everybody here is very interested in this stuff. And that it's, yeah, totally. It's not my presentation.

It's the material itself that's attractive. You know what I mean?

[Host]
I blame Kedrup Je. And there's this incredible gratification that I think a lot of us have had a chance to experience where we were confused for a while. And then when it all comes together, when a master teacher like our teacher or like the teachers of these books sends us wandering for a while in confusion, then the gratification when we figure it out is very fulfilling.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Yeah, I can speak from personal experience on that one. And not to say that I have a hold on this stuff, but bit by bit, I'm becoming so familiar with it that bits and pieces are standing out.

And I'm like, oh, okay, I get that. You know, oh, okay, I understand. Yeah.

And I don't kind of feel like I'm in the desert, you know, just kind of wandering. So, yeah. So this is officially new material.

Geshe Michael hasn't led us through any of this stuff. Yeah. So 412, do we have another volunteer?

[Host]
If not, you can always make Word pick one of his students.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, that's probably. Yeah, that's probably a pretty good approach. Pick Jessica.

Jessica. One. Jessica, can you help us?

[Host]
Yes.

[Adam Andrade]
Thank you. So we're going to do 412 here. Right underneath the bold that says student translation.

Okay, yeah, thank you. Very good.

[Host]
There's a request that you could move follow along with the cursor.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah, totally. Again, does that. And yeah, totally.

Yeah. Put that on my list of things.

[Host]
Thank you.

[Adam Andrade]
No, thank you, Jessica. Thank you. Yeah, so where are we at?

If you say that it isn't the case of being an actual thing. Use me for function. Yeah.

Okay. So my cabinet generally means if you say it's not necessarily the case. Right.

That being in that actual objects have to. Right. So if actual objects need to perform a function.

So this is kind of continuing on in that same line of reasoning. Right. That.

Are you saying that working things? Are you saying that actual objects don't have to do something? You know, and let's go into this shell job.

Shell job. Wrong. She.

So wrong. She here again is wrong. Zen and cheats in.

Shell job. Wrong. Nisu.

Nisu. Talks it done. So the can mean necessary, but it can also mean fixed.

Right. So like if you had a list of things and you say there are only three things on my shopping list. I don't need any more things.

Right. My shopping list is fixed at three. Right.

And so here we're saying that objects of objects that can be perceived. The shell job. Are fixed at.

Sorry. I'm a hard time highlighting this stuff are fixed at objects that can be perceived. The list of objects that can be perceived are precisely two in number.

Right. And what's this toxin doing here? Yeah.

So the reason that the number of objects can be considered this fixed it to. At the two of actual objects and archetypes is because where do we have that? Yeah, new cheer is cheer here is because they're either able to perform a function or they're unable to do so.

Okay. So I think my Tibetan here, I could probably. I don't know.

Does this make sense? It does. We I, I'm not.

[Host]
Yeah. Does this come? Do we know yet?

Of course, we'll have to come back and, and find. I hope Geshe Michael will make you do it. Right.

But he's quoting something. This is, do we think he's quoting the Pramanavarttika?

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Well, this yeah, he definitely is. This came from up here.

I want to say, I don't know how far back it is. But one of the reasons there's no footnote here is because we've already dealt with it up top. Okay.

So let's gosh, man.

[Host]
He's saying then, and we covered it already, but this does seem like a key point he's trying to give us here. And he's using this key point as a reason, which is that our book, our school that we're discussing now, our key position here is there are, as you said, only two different types of objects to be perceived in the universe. And the difference between those two is basically whether or not they actually do stuff.

Yeah. Whether it's an idea in your mind that doesn't do anything, I can have an idea, an abstraction, a thought, a picture in my head, but I can't drink coffee at it.

[Adam Andrade]
Totally. And this is going to get very interesting soon because as I was, I'm sorry, translators. I know I'm still speaking quickly.

I have to keep reminding myself. I promise in the back of my head, I'm like, you got to slow down, dude. Um, one of the things that, uh, as, because I think translation really turns into a form of meditation and the more that I sit with things, there are, um, ideas that pop out.

And one of the things that stood out to me was whether or not, when I look at a coffee cup, if I perceive it's working, if I perceive it's changing this, if looking at the coffee cup, I can perceive it's changing this. Um, and the reason I say that there are some textual kind of reasons as to why I would say that qualities, uh, the qualities of the cup, right? Like not just it's like, I'm holding a black coffee cup, so it's blackness, right?

This like shiny silver thing. These are qualities of the coffee cup. Um, however, the coffee cup does have other qualities that you can't perceive with your eyes, right?

Um, it's changing this, it's being a working thing. Um, and so in this school, something that stood out to me was that they said that when you perceive the coffee cup, you do perceive it's changing it. And that the reason that that, uh, became something that I was like, dude, I got to think about that for a little while is because we've also learned that anytime you use logic to perceive something that it automatically becomes, uh, a cheat sin, right?

That anytime you use deduction, something becomes a cheat sin.

[Host]
So was that a rule that was stated in this in the text? Yeah, that's right.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Okay. And, uh, the reason that I bring that up is because it would, it would appear to me, uh, my current understanding is that changing this is something that you must use logic to prove.

Right. Do you see what I'm saying? So I'm perceiving something, I'm perceiving a cup.

I mean, I'm not perceiving it subtle impermanence as I'm holding it. Um, however, that subtle impermanence is hopelessly bound into this object. It's like baked in to this object.

And in the second school, they say that when you perceive this thing, you're perceiving it's quality of being a working thing. You're perceiving it's changing this. And are you perceiving that directly or through?

They say direct. Indirect perception. Well, that's, this is what I'm struggling with because second in the second school, they say you're perceiving it directly.

Yeah. In the second school. And so that's kind of why I was like, you know, this is going to get interesting because the more you sit with this stuff, the more interesting questions like that tend to pop out.

You know?

[Host]
Yeah. Whoa.

[Adam Andrade]
It is.

[Host]
It is for, you know, I'm not saying we can wrap this section up and then we can move on to the, more general open discussion.

[Adam Andrade]
We did not get anywhere. Sorry, guys. Look, I translated a lot for you guys.

You see how far I went?

[Host]
You get to impress Geshe Michael with that.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. I translated a lot for you guys. And I'm sorry that we didn't hit it all.

I would. We could have done all that and understood nothing. It's excellent.

Yeah. We could go on to the discussion or we could try to make it a few more sections. And I'm happy to do both.

[Host]
I think it's important, Adam, to talk a little bit about, you know, just for 15 minutes. I think this 15 minutes is sacred to talk about why we care. Because you, probably you and I especially, can have a tendency to get into this gratification of the ideas.

And I find it very fulfilling to play in there. But I think it's so critical to talk about why. And you can, you know, if you want to start off, it's awesome.

If you want to open it up to other people, it's awesome. And then bounce off of them.

[Adam Andrade]
But what can we do with these ideas just so far? Yeah. Sorry, Nick, you have something to add?

[Host]
Oh, I just wanted to thank you for the way you did it. And I know you were feeling, you almost sounded somewhat defeated. But actually, I feel that the way that you led this class was excellent for the students.

And I'm seeing a lot of people in the chat thanking you as well. And I want to second Ben that we should continue till 4.15 with this discussion. Because Geshe Michael seemed to really want to...

[Adam Andrade]
He wants to hold that sacred, yeah, to each class.

[Host]
And then at 4.15, we'll hand it over to Juan for the Peachtree World News. Is it four o'clock over there? 4.15?

Sorry. Yeah, sorry. But yes, at 15 quarter after the hour.

And then I forgot that everybody's not in Portugal. And then after that, I think Dr. Ward will be offering a Tibetan class. So for those of you who are studying with him or would like to.

Okay, back to you. Sir, thank you very much.

[Adam Andrade]
So I kind of start with where we left this 4.12, right? So what I had here was dönja nüpa, right? If something can perform a function, it's got to be an actual object, right?

So what about your problems in your life, right? Are they dönja nüpa? Are they functioning?

Are they doing things to you?

[Host]
That's an awesome way to start this discussion. It's kind of brainless. I guess my answer, I almost want to start to say, it depends on whether you mean my real problems or my imagined problems.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah, totally, totally. So let's speak more from the conventional standpoint. Yeah, your perceived problems.

But hold on, maybe I didn't understand kind of what you were saying.

[Host]
Oh, I just mean, and I think what excites me, one of the things that excites me about this perspective, this second school is this idea that we are getting confused between the real world and the fake world that I have. I have these ideas instead of playing in the world of things as they actually are, which is almost a bad word in the higher school to say things as they actually are. But in this school, it's allowed.

And I think it's helpful to think about there's a live, active, changing world. And somehow I'm trapped in my own mind, playing with ideas that are not real, making up, as you said, Adam, stories about the world and interacting with my stories instead of the world that's alive and active and changing. And I can't help people if I'm stuck in the realm of ideas and stories, if I'm not paying attention to the real world around me in the way that it is ever changing in every moment and every part of a moment and every part of a part of a moment in a way that my ideas are not live and in play.

And if I'm trapped in my ideas that are not changing, then I am in an illusion from which I can't be of service to people. Our needs are changing. It's like a bodhisattva watching someone's face to see where their eyes go to know what they want.

When the bodhisattva sees your eyes fall on a coffee cup or the cream. A cookie. Right.

Always watching. Oh, well, they said that they wanted their coffee black, but now I see their eyes lingering on the cream. And so my ideas are not stuck.

I'm going to go get them the cream and the sugar and offer it, even though they said no the first time. I had seen this may have developed since then. And maybe they didn't like the cup of coffee that I made, and they decided it needs a little something to fix it.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah. Thank you, man. Yeah.

Yeah. I think this is, once again, I want to say we almost started the class. We didn't really go into any depth, but we just kind of mentioned in a response to one of your questions, right, is how the second school would view something versus the highest middle way.

And I think that my response was, well, it depends on what lens you're kind of looking at the objects there. Right. And so the lens being really the differentiation between the conventional and the ultimate between deception, between deceptive reality and ultimate reality.

And I think dönja nüpa could be a really good jumping off point to distinguish between those things. Or to see how our idea of one is actually ultimate in nature, realizing the ultimate nature of the things around us. Um, right.

And how would we use dönja nüpa in a step in a stepwise fashion? I'm trying to slow down. So I'm doing some self-editing too.

Sorry.

[Host]
You're doing a lot better, dude.

[Adam Andrade]
This isn't coming off too well. But if something performs a function, that means that it's changing. If something is changing, then it's changeable.

Right.

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
Right. So if something's changing, then it's changeable. How would we go about changing our reality?

And we have to understand the laws of karmic cause and effect. Right.

[Host]
Yes.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. So for me, dönja nüpa becomes this like anything in this school, because there are synonyms for changing thing. Right.

Um, and there's, I want to say there's like a list of like six of them. Right. So anytime I see one of these terms pop up or, um, the definition for one of these terms even pop up in my text, it automatically makes my mind go, um, like four steps out.

It's okay. Well, what does this mean? And if it does, then if it does this, then that mean it, it also, sorry, I'm speaking too generally.

Um, yeah. So if something is, if something is changing, right. If something is an actual object, like let's say your car and your car is broken down.

Right. Um, well, how do you get your real world example? Somebody stole my jacket this week.

I went to, I went to this hot springs and left my jacket hanging up in the changing room, changing room. So anyways, yeah, the function performing room. And so I left my jacket hanging up and I come back.

[Host]
You could never get it out of an unchanging room.

[Adam Andrade]
Exactly.

[Host]
Exactly.

[Adam Andrade]
And this is kind of where I'm going with this. Right. So, um, I come into the room.

I had a perception of my jacket being on the hook, hanging on the hook. And then I come back a few hours later and the jacket is no longer there. Right.

My perception of that jacket is no longer in my life. Right. And so if something, yeah, once again, nevermind, nevermind.

I think you, you can see kind of where I'm going with this. Um, anyways, I would love to hear, uh, because this was just my take on, we, we got one section of new material in. And, uh, this was kind of my takeaway was this, this particular thing right here.

Right. And that's how I could use that as a jumping off point for seeing a practical application for this stuff in my life. Uh, but I love what other people say.

Yeah.

[Host]
Can I ask you a question? If that is did when you lost your jacket, which I'm sorry.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah.

[Host]
Did this philosophy that you've been so buried in, in any way, help you deal with the fact that your jacket.

[Adam Andrade]
It instantly came up in my, I was like, dude, what, like what karma am I expending right now? Anyways.

[Host]
It reminds me of a conversation. I'll do this quick. I had a long time ago with our dear friend, Jeff, Eddie, he had once left his computer in a car with the window open and his laptop was gone when he got back.

And, uh, he refused to accept that somebody would have stolen it. He said the seeds ran out and it dematerialized.

[Adam Andrade]
That's really beautiful.

[Host]
It's a very helpful way for him to process.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, I appreciate that somebody whose mind can be that pure and that they can hold to that view.

[Host]
Yeah. I can't do that.

[Adam Andrade]
My mind was immediately. The thing is, and this is where it gets interesting because I didn't have a direct perception of anybody walking into the changing room. I didn't have a direct perception of anybody leaving with my jacket.

I'm using deduction and we were just talking about how we live in a world created by stories, right? My mind is trying to tie all of these bits and pieces of information together in order to read, arrive at a narrative that I've created. Oh, somebody must've taken my jacket, right?

However, the thing is, is that my jacket just poof from my own perception, right? My jacket just disappeared, right? I didn't have a direct perception of anyone walking in and walking out.

So from that standpoint, I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff. I mean, wholeheartedly. And yeah, and I think we do, we get into this, we get into, because we do this all day long, right?

Through discrimination based on how we're watching, you know, geopolitical events kind of unravel, right? As we're taking in information, we hear at the grocery store, right? The cashier is having a conversation with somebody else and there's some form of our discriminating mind begins creating a context and narrative for things that we have no direct perception of.

And that's one of the first things that in the Pramanavarttika, when I studied course four, right? That was one of the first things that we learned is, you know, you, you cannot judge another, right? And that you're using logic to prove that you can't read other people's thoughts.

You know what I mean?

[Host]
Tracy in the chat said, Tracy, would you share that with us? I know sometimes you share with us. It's nice to get someone to speak who's not wearing a suit today.

And I love this story. Would you repeat the story you just told in the chat? It just sparked a story that Gandhi, when he was on the train one time, he lost his shoe, one shoe.

And then he, he basically went out to the edge and he threw out the other shoe and he said, might as well, they find a pair.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that's, you know, from the look, I'm not nowhere near Gandhi, but I kind of had the same idea, right? I was thinking, yeah, you know, somebody needed a jacket.

[Host]
Yeah, my, my, my grandmother, when I was a kid, I went in one time and I was so excited to watch cartoons. TV was gone. And I went in, I was like, man, what happened to your TV?

And she's like, somebody needed it more than me. Her door opened to homeless people. And I remember scratching my head.

So I'm really sorry about your jacket. But yeah, when we get in there, it really helps.

[Adam Andrade]
I would be lying if I said that my immediate reaction was how much is it going to cost me to replace? However, however, the next thought was, damn, you know, somebody must have really needed a jacket and it's pretty cold out. I live in Colorado and we got eight inches of new snow and it was, you know, it was single digit temperatures, you know?

And yeah, I was like, somebody must have needed a jacket.

[Host]
I don't know if you're like me, Adam, but I have jackets in my closet.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll spare you the details of this particular jacket.

[Host]
Yeah, we'll be too sad for you.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah. So how do I pronounce [?]? Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, nothing from itself, nothing from something else. Nothing comes from both. And nothing comes without a cause.

Yeah, that's like the first, is that the opening lines of the root text of wisdom? Sure is.

[Host]
I think, oh, at least it's in the first chapter. I think it's the first verse.

[Adam Andrade]
Are we planting bad seeds criticizing others? I definitely think so. Yeah, even if we're doing so just in our mind, right?

And not verbally. And maybe I'm misunderstanding that. Yeah, but I would say definitely.

[Host]
We are at the time for Peachtree World News. But if you want to wrap it up with a closing.

[Adam Andrade]
No, thank you, guys. Thank you, guys, for letting me stumble through this text. Thank you for putting up with my inability to speak slowly and concisely, translators.

And thank you guys all for just being interested in this stuff, really. It's like I said, I stopped a couple of times. And I was like, I hope this is interesting to other people.

And I forget that this audience is uniquely kind of beautiful in this world. And that everybody's here on their Saturday morning because they love this stuff. So thank you, guys.

And I just got to remember how special you guys all are.

[Host]
Well, thank you very much, Adam. I think that was a fantastic class. And, you know, we didn't lose people.

I was watching the numbers. That's a good sign.

[Adam Andrade]
Subscribers, yeah.

[Host]
Yeah, no, no, no, we're doing great. And that was great. And I really appreciate the way that you summed some of that up here during the final discussion.

So that was awesome. Thanks for taking us on this journey of logic and pramana, clear thinking. So coming up now, we've got the Peachtree World News, either with Juan or Daniel.

I think Hasso told me it was him today.

Yeah, I'm here. I'm going to do it. And I was wondering, Adam, do you have a chance to stay for five more minutes?

[Adam Andrade]
Yes, I would love to.

[Host]
Yeah, that's awesome. Right before I hand it over to you, Juan, I will say one more thing, two more things, three, maybe. Thank you again to all the translators, the interpreters.

Thank you again to our production team, Francisco, Marina, Ale. And thank you to all of you who come and attend the Mixed Nuts classes. So now I'll give it to Juan, who will give us some very exciting information that's going on in the Worldview Network.

And then Word, am I correct, you will then host your class? Lead your class? I'll take that as a yes.

So stick around for Word's class after that. All right, cool. Thanks, everybody.

And tune in again on Monday.

Thank you very much, Nick. So yeah, I'll also use this time if any of you need to, are you going to be studying Tibetan and need to go to the restroom, this is a good time. But you're going to miss this segment.

And I'm very glad to be able to talk to you a little bit, Adam. I just want to introduce Adam from my perspective. I got to know him a little better because I had the chance to spend a few months in Colorado a few years ago.

Very cool experience, very beautiful place to be all surrounded by nature. And I think Adam is one of the people that I know with the most powerful, I'll say horsepower brain, but also he's a very interesting and fun person to hang around. He loves nature.

He's in my eyes, man, you're like a extreme powerful sport person. Because I think you've been getting involved with mountaineering activities since very young ages.

[Adam Andrade]
Yeah, yeah.

[Host]
So now that I have a little chance to talk to you and also let people get to know a little bit more of your daily life activities, I was wondering if you will be up for telling us how this relationship with nature and sports can help someone together with developing a practice, a wholesome practice. Yeah, ability also to to analyze deeply mentally, but combining these elements of spending time in nature, you see, how do you live this aspect?

[Adam Andrade]
So there's two ways I could answer this. Before I discovered meditation, before I discovered Buddhism, I spent a I had this idea in my head that I was going to be a professional mountain guide. Right.

After university, I kind of got a little disenfranchised with working in the engineering field, and I very much so just wanted to enjoy. Mother Earth, really, and being outside in the mountains, and so I spent a lot of time rock climbing, ice climbing and skiing and just being in nature, really. One of the first things that came out to me was there's a lot of fear that's involved, right?

Like if you're climbing a rock, you're kind of balancing in between remaining calm so that you can progress with what's in front of you and being so fearful that you want to bail off the route, that you just want to, you know, I can't do this. This is too much. And I've had this happen to me in the high mountains, too, you know, but there was a trick that somebody taught me.

It's not so much of a trick from our perspective as Buddhists. This isn't so eye opening, but it was very eye opening for me being a non Buddhist at the time. They said you have to focus on your breath, right?

And you have to learn to reconnect, to calm down, right? And to learn that your mind is actually making. I'll tell you guys just a quick story one if I can, right?

So one of the most prominent ridge lines or peaks in all of Colorado is this peak called Vestal Peak, right? It's got about a 1200 foot face. And for two years, I studied this peak.

I could see it from the road, from the highway. It's about a 20 mile hike in just to get to it. And I studied it for like two years.

I'd get pictures of it and I would just kind of pick out like, oh, okay, different lines. I was trying to familiarize myself with it, you know? And it was well within my climbing ability, right?

So rock climbs are generally graded. And this particular peak was well within my climbing, my climbing ability. So one weekend, I decided to make a weekend out of it and hiked in.

And I was going to climb this face without a rope, right? And because I was feeling very strong, I had been climbing all year. Kind of preparing for this peak.

And I get out and about halfway up, maybe three quarters of the way up. It had rained before. It had rained like the day before.

So I start to hit this, like the hardest part of the entire route was a little overhang. It's probably like a three foot overhang and there was water. So it makes it very slippery, right?

And my mind kept coming up with all of these ideas about like, oh, well, what happens if you can't make this move, right? Like your life is over, you know? You're dead, right?

And I kind of sat there for a second. I closed my eyes. I'd been studying with Geshe Michael for a couple years and I just kind of started meditating.

And I had to remind myself of how the mind makes things much more difficult than they actually are, right? You create all of these kind of, you create all of these situations. And their reality was that this route was very much so easy for me.

If I could just turn my mind off, right? If I could just stop the, if I not to turn my mind off or to stop the thoughts, but if I could not let them take over, you know? And at this point I was probably 800 feet off the ground and I didn't have any way to repel off.

So there was no retreat. I had to go up in order to get off, right? And so I used this time to just reconnect and pull back in.

And I made the move. Long story short, I made the move. I summited.

Everything was fine, right? But what I really, really took away from that was as I sat on that ledge breathing deeply and just listening to the wind, because the wind is immense. When you're out in the middle of nature like that, and you're up on a very jagged peak on the side of a wall, the wind is, you can almost feel it carry you away, you know?

And so I just kind of sat and went to my breath and then took the, the wind as a meditation object. And then that reminded me of my own subtle body, my internal winds and how they were stirred up, right? And really, what I took away from that was just how powerful meditation can be, you know, how focused it can make you.

There's, you can't think about anything else with debt. The biggest takeaway, really, when death is ever present in your life, you cannot focus on anything else. If I make a wrong move, I die, right?

And I think that's true for all of us, whether or not you are on the side of a wall, chiwa mitakpa, right? Death and impermanence is ever present with all of us. So whether or not you are on the side of a wall, you need to be very focused about what you do with this life, right?

If that makes sense. Yeah. And so, yeah.

So I started to understand how meditation is really, yeah, it uses us to kind of focus more on what's important. Yeah. Sorry.

Go ahead.

[Host]
No, no. I was just going to say, thank you for sharing. And I can see how these deep experiences, because it's not only that you're spending time in nature, but also in like very, how do you say, high performance sport activities.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Apparently that as probably many, many, many things in life, you can find your inside of our own passions and attractions in this lifetime. If we have this mindset or trying to find analogies and even teachings. The other day, Geshe La was saying about in the tantric text, how the wind actually you mentioned could be the speech of an angel or a Buddha.

Yeah. So I really admire how you have been able to gain some practical and philosophical learnings and knowledge from these experiences. And I'm very grateful that you're sharing here with us.

It will be very great to have you again soon to hear more of these analogies, stories. I really love the story also of the jacket you just lost. Sorry about that.

But I think it came with a big learning as well. So there is when you may think, okay, maybe the wind really could be the speech of the Buddha. Maybe the person who took the jacket could have been a bodhisattva.

Look at the result. Now, like 200 people are talking about deep philosophy ideas.

[Adam Andrade]
I didn't even think about that one, but that is very beautiful.

[Host]
Yeah. So thank you. Thank you for sharing.

And we will have you again soon. I'd love it, man.

[Adam Andrade]
I would love it. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Juan, it's good to see you, man. And always good to see you.

[Host]
Yeah.

[Adam Andrade]
And anytime you need. Yeah.

[Host]
Awesome. I'll contact you soon. I would like to finish this section to go back with work.

Just inviting everyone to... We have two upcoming events. We have a monthly show happening on next Tuesday.

I'm just going to share the screen so you see the poster of it. Here in this show, we have like an hour and 15 minute talk, interviews, news with many different organizations and people. This happens to be next Tuesday, 6 a.m. Arizona time. Geshe Michael has prepared some very cool material about his latest, his and Niklas' latest Nagarjuna translations. So he will be sharing about some very, very cool ideas and famous verses. Some others not so famous that he really finds a lot of value in them.

So he will be talking about some of the verses of Nagarjuna. Please come if you have the time. If you can, it's going to be very cool.

We're going to have general worldwide worldview network news. We're going to have some interviews as well with some of the organizers of YSI because they are having big events coming up soon and they're going to talk about what's happening there. We're going to have a special talk with Wuerth.

He's also a very, very interesting person. I have had the chance also to spend some time with him, getting to know a little bit of his background. He's great in many different forms of medicine, healing arts.

He's a deep, deep philosopher, great yoga teacher, very interesting person to get to know. So I really encourage you to come as well for that. And we're going to have our great friends again reporting and giving us some information about what's happening in Kyoto these days.

So this is happening on Tuesday. Register there. We're also sharing the information in Telegram groups.

And if you have anything you would like us to share, you can send us an email to info at pitchstreetworldnews.com. If you have a story, if you have some information or you want to promote an event, contact us and we can schedule and help you with that. And finally, just to prepare you, we are also planning a New Years event.

This is going to happen on December 31st. We are going to be celebrating the New Year 2024, but also the upcoming Dragon Year. For those of you who may not know, Geshe Michael was born in a dragon year on the Chinese calendar.

So I think it's going to be very cool. Maybe Geshe La can tell us a little bit about what does it mean to be in a dragon year traditionally and other very interesting things. We will give you more information about this event soon.

But for now, you can start getting to plan ahead and to get to know that this is happening. Okay, so thank you very much. We go back with work and I'll see you very soon.

Tuesday. Thank you.