Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 41

[Speaker 3]
Everybody got that? Cool. So does somebody need to put you in the booth?

Okay, there is.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sure Marina is on it. Yeah, she's super efficient.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you for translating Hasso. And thanks for everything else you do to help us out. Thank you, Marina, for putting Hasso in the corner.

[Speaker 1]
And usually nobody puts Hasso in the corner. Nobody puts Hasso in the corner.

[Speaker 3]
Well, it sounds like you're feeling much better.

[Speaker 1]
Well, yeah, six weeks of unknown virus. It seems to be subsiding, at least. That's good to hear.

Yeah, it's kind of, I'm fine. I'm at my parents' house right now. I'm on the East Coast.

It's awesome. Not 8 a.m. for me, which is kind of nice. Nor 4 p.m. I don't know what time it's been. I don't know when I am.

[Speaker 3]
Anyway, this is the last show of 2023. 2023 has been a very exciting year for the Diamond Cutter Classics because we launched this new model of Xuanzang's Tower, where instead of doing these intermittent translation terms, we're doing ongoing weekly classes with all of you and all of us.

[Speaker 1]
And it's been exciting and it's been fun. And we've also launched our new Good Night Club model. And if you haven't learned about that yet, please get informed.

We will keep you informed.

[Speaker 3]
We'll give you lots of QR codes to scan so that you can subscribe to some version of our subscription model where you can get books, get excerpts from books, get signed photos of Geshe Michael. Or for just a dollar a month, you can get unsigned photos of Geshe Michael.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not sure if that's true. And here comes homework. Adam Andrade is queuing up his work.

Do you have a homework? No. Yeah, I chose not to do one.

We only got through like one section last time. And I felt like it would be a little bit better if I just spent my time kind of translating and trying to understand the material that we're going to go through today. Um, so that's kind of where, yeah, that's kind of where I, where we stand.

Well, thank you, Adam. Adam's being a really good sport. He, um, he got a team class last...

Team class in Mixed Nuts language means Geshe Michael's not here. And we, the Mixed Nuts team, you could say, are going to translate together.

[Speaker 3]
And Adam got, had one last time. And he's got one again.

[Speaker 1]
Geshe Michael had a hand surgery. I think everything has gone well, but he's recovering.

[Speaker 3]
Um, so here we go. Thanks. Thank you, Adam.

And Happy New Year, everybody.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Um, all right. Can you guys see?

Should I, should I make it a little bigger here? A little bigger would be helpful for those of us who are aged. Right.

Okay. Yeah. So we kind of, we left off last, um, last class here at 412.

And I'm just trying to reposition. There we go. Yeah.

I like seeing you guys. So I'm trying to get the, um, uh, all the participants, all the cameras here on that across the, uh, the bottom of the screen. So I can still see you guys.

Yeah. So we, we left off at 412 last, um, uh, last class. And, um, Geshela had made a note that we should go back to four seven, uh, 407.

So, um, just quickly, um, what we're looking at, um, what we're going to start with today is whether or not, if something is a working thing, doesn't necessarily have to be an actual, uh, object around 10. So that's kind of the, uh, we don't, we don't, we won't spend too much time on it. We're just going to take that and roll with it.

[Speaker 3]
We've analyzed it quite a bit.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, definitely. But I just, you know, for context, you know, some of you guys weren't here last time.

[Speaker 3]
Um, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Um, do we have anybody that's willing to participate by volunteering to read? Should I just, should I just select somebody for the firing squad?

I think that's a good idea. You can always ask word to pick people. Yeah.

Yeah, that's a really good idea. Word. Would you, uh, would you help, uh, would you help us?

I, you know, I'm not sure who was in your, uh, who was in your class. Sure. Put one of your students before the firing squad.

Adam, could you first, um, um, blow up your, uh, Word doc so it's much bigger.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Um, do that. Hey, Ling wants to pronounce.

[Speaker 1]
What do you think? Yeah. Oh, that's good.

That's that's pretty good. Adam. I like it.

Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This is very brave. Thank you so much for helping. Thank you.

Okay. Um, yeah. So, uh, I mean, I guess I'll just read my English translation here, um, and we can go through the Tibetan.

He has things that I think that's okay. Um, so if you, if you say that it isn't the case that being an actual object means being able to perform a function, then, um, the lines put forth, which say, and these are two lines by master Dermy cutie. Um, from the, uh, from Antarctica.

Um, the reason that the number of objects that can be considered is fixed at the two at two, um, at the two of actual objects and mental images is because they're either able to perform a function or they're unable to do so. Um, and, uh, let's see. So the, then she, I know, but I don't see him.

Right. Right. If you say that it isn't the case of being an actual thing means being able to perform a function.

Um, then, uh, the lines put forth here, uh, Jacob, uh, yeah, Jacob, uh, and I did have a, didn't have a question for you guys, for your other nuts. Um, the draw may, um, I changed it. At first I had that, that, that the lines, um, that they would be unrelatable or unrelated.

Um, but I changed it to just would not make sense, um, for the domain. And it was just, uh, I guess my, my question was more so how much artistic, you know, artistic license we can take with things like that. Um, because.

Oh, that's what you get for changing the words from the literal meaning.

[Speaker 3]
Never do that. Oh no. The internet guys strike you down.

The load solids of the past. But we made the 10 year. I think that's funny.

Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I was just going to give context. He, he translated something. Not exactly literally.

What were you going to say word? Yeah. Guess, uh, Adam, I mean, Dashla gives a lot of wiggle room with that kind of stuff.

Yeah. I don't, I don't know if he, I don't know if he can do it here though. Um, I think that drum may, may mean I might be wrong though, because Adam's book is very difficult for me, but that it's supposed to be, it's, it wouldn't be corrected, connected directly with the two objects with that.

Those perceptions are supposed to be talking about in the beginning of master. John McHugh. Yeah, I thought it, I thought it meant disconnected here as well.

Yeah. So I don't know. We'll have to look in the upcoming lines, but I have a feeling.

Adam's working on it. And I just got a text from him. He's, uh, he'll be with us any moment.

What are we roughly talking about? Again? We're talking about whether or not.

Um, working things. Uh, right. Which is the definition of a working thing, which is can, can, can do stuff, right.

That which is able to do something right. That which is able to do something is the definition of working thing. And then, um, what is it?

Can, is it, can that necessarily be a. Or does that have to necessarily be a wrong? And do you remember what it just was?

This was a few weeks ago. No, it was seven. It was three minutes ago.

I just mean, um, in this, uh, in that section.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. Did he talk about sessions in pizza? And it's right.

Did we? Oh, it should be the same as right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So wrong. 10 is a real object in the world, according to South Tantica.

[Speaker 3]
Right. So they should be synonymous.

[Speaker 1]
It'd be the same. There's this famous thing, functionalists, right. Um, what did Mala?

Uh, no. Functionalist. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah. Right.

And this is why they are functionalists because they believe that real things. Drunk 10, uh, which is short for.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Yeah. Stuff, which is really out there.

Um, so, uh, so Adam, welcome back. Right. I guess the other guy is trying to say that, uh, a thing that exists that is established by its own nature, doesn't have to be a thing that functions.

Um, I thought that as far as I got into the sentence, um, let's, let's remember that we're being translated live in many different languages. And if we could speak more slowly, I know it's very exciting to talk about logic, but if we could, um, speak more slowly than others will enjoy it too. Thank you.

Welcome back. Yeah. Sorry about that.

Uh, yeah, I had my computer plugged in, uh, to the charger, but the charger wasn't plugged into the wall. So sorry about that. Let, and Just draw me.

[Speaker 3]
What'd you say?

[Speaker 1]
What's that?

[Speaker 3]
Oh yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for illustrating that for us. Very, it was literally, especially when you're branching out for Yeah. It's a March feed.

Um, yeah, let me, uh, you guys can, uh, would you guys, um, just give me a second here? Cause, um, when the computer dies like that, I'm having a hard time finding the last document that I had open. So I just have to pull it up.

And for some reason it's not showing up in my recently, uh, used documents. So it's probably open.

[Speaker 3]
That's happening. We'll wax poetic on, on what it means. Yeah.

You can correct.

[Speaker 1]
I felt okay about the first half of that sentence at least. And I'd love to dig more slowly through the second half.

[Speaker 3]
So my first half, at least Nick, please. Was it maybe saying disconnected from a definition that he gave a few lines above?

[Speaker 1]
Like, uh, was he saying that then you're kind of this idea of a, of a working thing is disconnected from what we define as a working thing, or this idea of a wrong sign is disconnected from what we've defined as a wrong as a working thing. Got it. So Adam, oh, I won't confuse you.

You guys got to find that document.

[Speaker 3]
We were discussing whether or not that disconnected was referring to something.

[Speaker 1]
Because first of all, um, word said, and we all agree that Geshe Michael absolutely takes liberties like that all the time and never puts a stop to us taking liberties like that. But now that said, did it, did they use drome intentionally to refer to something not being connected to something else, maybe something that came above, uh, or something that was defined earlier in the text or explained earlier, or even at the beginning of the text? Um, well, I think right here, it's kind of highlighting that you're either a functioning thing, um, or you're not right.

Um, that it's just a dichotomy, a strict dichotomy. And if, and if it's the case that, um, Kachick has said them, has said something that refutes these two lines, then they just, then are you saying that master Dharmakirti doesn't know what he's talking about? Are you saying that there's more than two options?

Right. If, if we could look, that's the way that I interpret it. Yeah.

You want to go back up for a second? No, no, no, not at all. No, I, even just this sentence here, um, to just take smaller pieces, the beginning is fairly easy.

Um, yeah. Uh, don't Jane Nepal, right. Uh, that which does stuff, um, uh, and Ronson, uh, real thing in the world, so to speak.

Um, if not, not, you say that, uh, one isn't necessarily the other, then, um, right. What meaning? What?

Any existing thing? Yeah. Um, you know, it's, yeah, totally.

It could be any existing thing. Um, right. Is this Keshala's note?

Wrong. Wrong. Ronson and cheats.

Yeah. Well, that's, that's referring to just this wrong. She here and how it's, it's, we've seen it.

We've seen Kendrick J abbreviate wrong. Just simply to run. So, and then, um, right.

Real things in the world are ideas in our head. Two meaning there's definitely two is how you're taking it. There's only two.

Yeah. Uh-huh. And then what the doc here is a reason, right?

So how does that relate as a, a reason or the reasoning that there are only two? Is that why there's a doc there? Let's see.

[Speaker 3]
Drugs are done. Gina, but, well, you just said that the reason that the number of objects can be fixed.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Would be, I'm guessing unrelated, uh, drill may write to, um, these other two to being done Jane, uh, doing something and Nina or not able to do something. So that re that these two things are divided by being either.

Uh, oh my God. So silly. That does not mean that you're right, but it's a good, this is a good, uh, attempt by being either, uh, or either they are able or not able to perform a function.

[Speaker 3]
Right. Yeah. We see your screen.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Sorry. Gracie was, uh, uh, Gracie was outside and I usually leave the door like crack just a little bit.

So she can just push on it and come back in. Um, she was outside chasing squirrels. Wait, doesn't it say you cannot necessarily say that wrong sense perform a function because they can or cannot perform a function.

[Speaker 3]
Isn't that all it says? Well, it's wrong.

[Speaker 1]
She, you see, so it's those two, it's not just wrong sense. Um, and in fact, we're attacking this person for saying they're not equivalent. So I understand then if you say that able to do stuff and real thing in the world are not equivalent, then, um, then, uh, there'd be no connection between, uh, the fact that there's only two kinds of things in the world in terms of functions and the fact that stuff can do stuff or can't do stuff.

Yeah, that's, that's the way that I interpreted it. Um, maybe not exactly the same way that, that I got to my, my, my conclusion, but that's essentially the way that I was interpreting it. Right.

That the being able to, being able to do something, um, means being around 10 and not being able to do something means not being, not being around 10, right. And if you're spewing the two lines that master Dharmi Kirti gave, which we would take as authoritative, then you would be saying that that just doesn't make sense that they're unrelated. Um, I don't know if that, uh, uh, if that kind of sums it up, but I think we're kind of saying the same thing, right?

[Speaker 3]
I think, yeah. And I think that in the, in this case could, because you asked the mixed nuts, if we think it makes sense to step out and translate drama as would not make sense.

[Speaker 1]
I think that you did understand the meaning the same way that Ben was just understanding it. And in my opinion, this might be an opportunity where you could use drama more with its literal translation, because he seems to be using it more literally. Like, I guess whether this is that, or this is that is not connected to, you know, these two other ideas.

Uh, he'd probably, I mean, you know, between you and the boss, I, um, I just, I, I appreciate you letting us go more slowly, uh, because that's what it takes for me to be able to join you in your conclusion. Yeah, this has been really helpful actually trying to prepare for, to lead classes by myself, um, because I really slow down and try to catch the philosophy. Um, and if it doesn't make sense, I've been sitting with it or going for a walk or something like that.

And instead of just kind of plowing through so that, you know, I can, I can have something to show. Um, yeah, it's been really, really nice. Uh, and I feel like I've made a couple of breakthroughs regarding some of this stuff, uh, and doing so, so let's go to four 13.

Uh, word, would you, would you mind being our I'll be a picker on somebody for us.

[Speaker 3]
Sure. I love picking on people. Um, thank you, Dr. Thanks.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Thank you. You guys are very brave to do this.

I really appreciate you helping us. Um, yeah. So, um, yeah, if you say that something is, if you say that it's the case that if something is ultimately able to perform a function, I got to remember to slow down.

Sorry if I'm, you catch me guys, uh, I'm just remind me to slow down. If you wouldn't translators, if I'm going too quickly, uh, yeah. So if you say that it's the case that if something is ultimately able to perform a function, that it must be an actual object, then you would contradict where you accepted that things like the color blue are not actual objects.

And this makes sense, right? This is pretty, this is pretty straightforward. Is this a, is this our position or is this a, the other guy?

Or what we believe. So Jetsun Kappa, what I found in preparing for this class is that Jetsun Kappa uses, um, the example of the color blue or the classical example of something that is able, ultimately able to perform a function. So our position Jetsun Kappa's position is that the color blue is the classical example of something which is ultimately able to perform a function.

So Ka-Chick has said that, um, Ka-Chick has said that the color blue is not an actual object at some point above. Right. And so we're saying like, okay, right.

Do we need to, do we need to stay with this? Do you want to go through the Tibetan? Maybe, uh, it's, it's probably always healthy.

And, um, and then I'll, I'll feel most confident if we do. Um, yeah, this is fun, but thank you guys. This is really cool.

So, uh, Dundambar, right. Uh, ultimately, like you said, Adam, ultimately Dundjanepa does stuff. If, if something ultimately does stuff, then, um, it must necessarily be Arantan, a real thing in the world.

If you say that, if something ultimately does something that it must be a real thing in the world, then you would be saying that blue Nepo and the like run run sends like that. Is that it? Um, yeah, things I just, I used, I used things like the color blue, right.

So things like for that. That it's not Arantan. This is, uh, I'm honestly confused.

Oh, right. Then disagreeing, then saying that the color blue is not Arantan would be naughty because everybody knows that blue, uh, ultimately performs a function, even though we don't accept that in the higher school. But in this school, blue, ultimately, whatever blue ultimately does, by the way, I don't know what function blue, this is where it gets interesting.

And this is why I was saying that prepping for this class really forced me to dig deeper into the exact questions that you're asking right now. And I found some pretty interesting, uh, look, you wrote right there. That's great.

Yeah. So this is a, this is a good point. Um, this is a good, uh, example for me to point out that as we continue, what I've done here is I've wrote notes to kind of help us glue some of this stuff together.

These are my notes and these aren't necessarily, um, Geshe Michael's notes. Um, so take them with a grain of salt. Um, as far as I could, I, um, I made sure that they were factual before I put them down.

Um, so, um, being that, being that we hit 413, um, now let's move to 414. And word, would you, would you pick someone else for us? That was really, really good.

Thank you guys for reading so far.

[Speaker 3]
I will pick, uh, Yiwei. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Um, okay. Let's consider the color blue. It is so an actual object, right?

Because it's ultimately able to perfunction. That Q here is just the it. Um, that is, uh, ultimately able to perform a function.

That's cool. What we're, uh, what we're trying to prove here is obvious is the cab cell. Uh, usually we use as actual, but I, as I spent some time just trying to find a phrase that would work here.

And that's kind of what I came up with. Um, so for, for $0, right. Someone should tell us where we just have an argument about this topic in another text.

There was a big fight about whether or not blue, an outer object triggers. I'm going to take a stab and I'm going to say, um, so gang. Yeah.

Does anybody remember this from our team class with Sue gang? Yeah. What triggers consciousness according to the wheel blue?

[Speaker 3]
No. Karma. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Right. Yeah. Fresh karma.

Nice. $0. Send it to just, you can just send your address.

You can write it down on a piece of paper anywhere and I'll send $0 to that address. You don't even have to show me. Really nice.

Yeah. Great. Um, and they, what school is that by the way?

Yeah. Yeah. I don't actually remember that.

I didn't actually remember that this was from class, but when I was prepping for this class, I saw that this was a major point of, uh, this is a major point. Um, and defining the viewpoints of the lower middle way and saw Toronto. So it's kind of cool to see, like I said, sometimes, um, it seems like there's, we're covering so many topics that there's a lot of loose ends.

And then some of these loose ends are getting tied up for me. Like I'm starting to see some of the relations and, uh, it's been, yeah, it's been really cool. The past couple of months, uh, I feel like my understanding of some of this stuff, although very is, is, is getting better.

I'm starting to understand it a little better. So I'm sure people are preparing for their life tools, but I, you know, I would warn you that there might be something related to the fact that the, the lower school thinks that blue is what triggers your mind and the higher school thinks that it's the way you treat other people. But I'm sure we can talk about that in a half hour.

Yeah. Well, this is going to get really interesting here in a second. Um, our text is, um, so, um, the note here that I have, uh, was kind of just highlighting from above.

Cause I had the question. I was like, huh, how can we say that the color blue is functioning on an ultimate level? And what the second school believes is that the old is that, um, things function by triggering the consciousnesses.

Uh, right. And this is where this McKinn comes in. Great.

That's very helpful. We're going to look at four 15. Can we have another one of your astute students help us?

A students. Yes. It's a portmanteau students.

[Speaker 3]
Uh, okay. Um, I pick Tracy McKenzie.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Tracy.

[Speaker 3]
So way to go.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Tracy. Yeah. If you disagree, um, and I thought I had notes here, um, tying it all together.

So if you, if you disagree that the color blue is ultimately able to perform a function, um, it does perform, uh, it is to ultimately able to perform a function. This is the dare tell. Um, because it performs the function of being an object considered by an accurate perception of ultimate analysis, um, and embrace that we've had before.

Um, which one? The dun, dum, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
An object considered by ultimate analysis or something. No, it, it, it isn't necessarily, um, no, I don't think it's something, uh, that we've had in our tech so far, but it is a pretty, um, it's a, it's a pretty major point in, uh, in the second school. Um, and so I bet we're going to expand on it later and I bet it's going to keep coming up.

So ultimate analysis. Um, okay. I'm going to ask you guys a question.

Um, open to non-mix nuts, just to make sure that you guys are paying attention. Um, what does the ultimate school, uh, hold as being ultimate reality?

[Speaker 3]
Everything comes from seeds.

[Speaker 1]
Um, there is no self-existing, anything self-existing. Second school. We're looking for the second schools.

Oh, oh yeah. Second school. What's the second school hold.

So, um, one of the ways, one of the, and Ben, I know is a master at this. Um, because when we look at Drupal, right. Drupal, um, looks at how, how the different schools view the two truths, right.

So what, how, how did the, how did, how does the first school, um, see ultimate and deceptive reality? How does the second school view ultimate and deceptive reality? How does middle mind only?

And then how does middle way? Right. And these are one of the ways that we can divide all of the schools.

So if we look from that perspective, we put those glasses on, let's put our two truths glasses on and let's look at the second school. How does the second school, what does the second school hold as being ultimate reality? This is, this is quite, this is quite possibly like the, I mean, this is, yeah, sorry.

Go ahead, man. No, it's great. It's a great question.

I wonder if anyone in the chat can do it. I'll be really excited. Um, you, I think you accidentally misspoke, uh, Adam, and I want to give credit to poor Tracy, cause you said, what does the ultimate school say is ultimate truth?

Is that what I said? Uh, yeah, I'm halfway through my conversation. I'll, uh, now that you've clarified, you're asking a very sophisticated.

It was a nice preamble though. You set up Tracy to, uh, set the table for the harder question that you're asking, which is what does the second school say? And I'm still waiting for someone in the chat.

I'm stalling for you guys. It's much more, it's much more straightforward than you would think it would be. And I'm going to give you a huge hint.

[Speaker 3]
Um, nothing is coming from their own site. It's typically the second school. What about that?

[Speaker 1]
What about that?

[Speaker 3]
There you go. There you go.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So if something is ultimately able to perform a function, they consider that ultimate reality. Um, right.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So we're talking like coffee cups, coffee cups are an example of ultimate reality for the second school, right? So this gets down to a very defining characteristic of, if you look at the ascending order of the schools from the first school to the second school to then mind only, right. We're hitting on external and internal objects.

Right. So we're saying that external objects are necessarily ultimate reality for the second school. Um, and not just, not just external objects, but also, uh, consciousness shape and demand.

Right. So the three ways of functioning things are to them ultimate reality. Yeah.

Um, anyways, I just thought we needed to kind of focus on that. That's very helpful. Because ultimately, sorry, go ahead.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I made a second try. The actual object is come from mental image.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, I mean, look, this is, this is, uh, the second school is a very, very deep study. Okay. And when we, yeah.

Um, the second school is a, is a very deep study. Um, so when you bring up, uh, that objects are related to mental images, this gets into something that we're going to discuss, uh, I think a lot later in our text, which is how we, how, how terms, how we name things, um, how we, um, how, how we label, um, things, how we know that a coffee cup is a coffee cup, um, because in the second school, all we're having is since data, right? All we have is indicators of a coffee cup.

Those come into our mind and trigger a perception. And then that perception then interrelates with a naming process. So I'm just saying that, uh, I guess what I'm trying to say is on some level, yes, you are right.

And I would agree with you. However, um, Nick, you look confused and I'm more than happy to explain what's going on in my head. Uh, I, I, you're being actually super clear and I, I think you're doing a really great.

Okay. And I know that I'm not, I'm, I want to make sure that I'm not, uh, speaking too broadly. Um, I just, um, the more that I'm studying the second school, the more than I'm realizing just how deep it is.

Okay. So that process, we will spend a lot of time on, uh, pay that. So it's, we're going to spend a lot of time on it.

Not this class, but it's, that's a, that's a huge, it's a huge area that we're going to focus on. However, I was just going to say, however, what we're focusing on here is simply, um, how are I perceives the sense, the, the sense data, right? That's kind of our, our, our, our topic of focus right now.

Um, and just, just to be clear, pay to answer what you were saying, Adam already gave you the answer. So you were taking a shot at it, pay, but he already told you and he highlighted it. He highlighted.

Oh yeah. I wasn't, uh, I wasn't clear. Yeah.

I wasn't clear. This, this is the answer. Yeah.

Yeah. I, I, I highlighted it, but I didn't specify what it was that I was getting at. So when I asked how the second school, um, what the second school's view of ultimate reality is, I highlighted this, but I did not, um, point out that this is specifically what I was looking for.

So in the second school, something is ultimate reality as something belongs to ultimate reality. If it's ultimately able to perform a function. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
The second school is the logic school, the sutras. They are the ones who focus on the Pramana Vartika.

[Speaker 1]
You could say the particular text. This is one of the classic four schools of Buddhism from India. And it's not as subtle as the middle way who we usually are talking about when we talk about seeds and the pen or, you know, we're also kind of doing a hybrid, but this is very specific to this philosophical school.

We, which is why I felt like we kind of needed to slow down because the topic of this debate has now shifted to whether or not blue belongs to ultimate reality. And I just wanted to point out why it is that we're, you know, we're, we're focusing on that right now. So KJJ is choosing, sorry, go ahead, Ben.

No, two, two things. One great question in the chat from Ana is, is, isn't ultimate reality an absence in the second school and it's not. Right.

Which is surprising. But it's, it's, it's not here. And so it's a very good question.

And it's sort of like, isn't this the way normal people sort of think? Like, how do I know if something is real? Well, it does stuff.

If I can see, hear, smell, taste and touch it, then it's real. Yeah. Now, what I wanted to ask you for my own gratification or frustration, is there such a thing as something which performs a function in a way that is not ultimately in this school?

Well, we're going to, we're going to get into that a little bit here in just a second. So I think what we're, what we're starting to touch on is once again, that interface between, between mental images, between Rong-Tin and Cheat-Tin. Okay.

And how, when you really start to, to look at this stuff, they're very closely related. Like if you asked me before today to give a definition of ultimate reality in this school, I might have said able to perform a function, but I don't know if I would have been smart enough to say ultimately able to perform a function. And I wonder what that, what those words are doing to help in this school.

How about this? Can I make a note and then we can talk about it more? Maybe next class too?

[Speaker 3]
I would love it.

[Speaker 1]
I would love to know more about it. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Can I ask you a quick question, Adam?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Dhin-Dham Chö-Che Kyi Tse-Me. Do you think that Kyi is of, or do you think it might be something else in this case?

[Speaker 1]
Which one?

[Speaker 3]
The Dhin-Dham Chö-Che Kyi Tse-Me. I mean, is it a perception of analysis or is it a perception using ultimate analysis or something?

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Well, the thing is, is when you're talking about ultimate analysis, right? We're not necessarily, from the viewpoint of the second school, analysis doesn't mean what we typically take it to be.

Analysis would hint that we're using some sort of mental function, some sort of reasoning to understand the object. When we use analysis here in the second school, we're simply saying we're seeing indicators, colors and shapes. That our sense perception is unmistaken, right?

Because we're in the school that deals specifically with accurate perception. How do we know that when I'm seeing the computer in front of me, I am having an accurate perception of colors and shapes? From the viewpoint of the second school, the analysis here is simply viewing the object.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. Moving on. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Although I suspect that this relates to a term that we use sometimes in the higher school when we talk about ultimate analysis. When you go and try to find the husband in the kitchen that's yelling at me for no reason at all. In this school, you find him as the guy who's triggering your ear awareness, right?

But in the higher school, where do you find the guy who's yelling at me for no reason at all? Oh, he's not there.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And I think they might use this similar term, right? Ultimate analysis.

It could be a way of introducing terms and then expounding on them as your studies progress.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It is. Ultimate analysis is a very common thing. Ultimately, able to perform a function is a very common thing.

We do. Here, let's keep going to see if we can find anything else out. 4.16. Let's try to make it through. I want to get into some of this other stuff. I translated so much. We're never going to make it there.

But it's okay. Better to understand. It's okay.

Better that you overprepared is always wise. And it's better that we go slow for everybody. It's possible that there's someone out there as slow as me.

And so if it takes this long for my poor brain to go through it, then it's good. I think you're going at a wonderful pace, Adam. Cool.

All right. I want people to get their money's worth out of the class. Absolutely.

I think understanding is work. Okay. Do we have another victim?

[Speaker 3]
Sure. All right.

[Speaker 1]
All right. So the DERTAL is just calling back the reason given from above. Or excuse me.

Yeah, the reason given above and restating it. So it does so perform a function. It performs the function of being an object considered by an accurate perception of ultimate analysis.

Because it's an object considered by direct perception. Oh, wow. We're saying this, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the DERTALs are usually, DERTALs are, I don't think I've ever, I don't think I've ever encountered a DERTAL that wasn't, um, where we were claiming our position.

Yeah, that wasn't wrong, Luke. Yeah. So are we saying in this school that deceptive truth, ideas, uh, ketons, concept, um, things that cannot perform a function like empty space.

Yeah. Can not, can not be perceived with an accurate direct perception. Well, direct perception.

No, that is what we're saying. And we've stated.

[Speaker 3]
It's a big deal.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. Um, because remember we had the two lines that master Dharmakirti gave above, right? That, that things that can be perceived or fixed it too, because, um, types of perception is also fixed it too.

And those things are, uh, very correlated. They, they, they, they go, they go along with one, with one another. So, um, the interesting part to me, what I thought was very interesting is that, and you'll see this as the next argument comes up.

You can see here with this header, right? He's leading us into another argument. Okay.

Um, and where we're going to end here is now we're talking about Shelja, right? Remember the Shelja came up, um, in, in one of the sections above, right? So the object being considered, um, is okay.

So now we're getting into the holder that we're getting into, uh, subject object stuff. Right. And there are four types of objects.

Um, there were, we, we went through it earlier in, and I can't recall exactly what they were. Um, there were four types of objects and they all had to deal with how you perceive them. So it's like the object held the object you believe to be there, um, how the object actually exists.

And I can't remember the fourth. Sorry for that. Sorry for that.

Um, but really, um, you're talking about, um, a mental, you're talking about, um, you're talking about something, uh, you're talking about the mind, um, analyzing, uh, a physical object. Yeah. And I always think this is a really, really cool.

I mean, when we meditate, right. And we withdraw our senses and we try to hold our mind on a single object, right. The mind is holding an object.

Um, so, and, and we're trying to focus on something physical, like let's take the husband in the kitchen, right. I always think this is really, really cool because now we're getting into the meat of the interface between the physical and the mental, right. We're starting to, we're starting to, to kind of step by step.

We're peeling layers back, you know, we're kind of peeling away and we're trying to get deeper at understanding the process of, uh, and I think what we're, yeah, anyways, I'm going to shut up because I could sit here and I could talk about it for a while. Yeah. Um, but it's good.

And this topic lends itself to that. This is a, this is a big statement and I, I know we've hinted at this before, but I think it's very important because we, even this school has a, a path of seeing. So, so on the path of seeing in this school, in a deep, deep state of meditation, are you having those a direct perception of something or other in, uh, in the path of seeing on this school, because it could not be of emptiness or even of doc May, right.

That things are not themselves. It couldn't be a direct perception of that in this school. If, if this school says you can't have a direct perception of a lack.

This is another, um, this is another huge, huge topic, uh, that I encountered that we're probably going to spend a lot of time on as we go through. We're not even through the first book. Sorry.

There are four more books, right. And we're going to encounter a lot of things. And one of the central issues is the second school's view of the selflessness of persons versus the selflessness of things.

And this is a huge distinction. And, uh, also, um, yeah, anyways, I heard somebody, um, that has, yeah, sorry. I'm just not seeing how, uh, Ben, you made the leap.

What is that? You cannot see a non-existent thing. This is just talking about, um, an object under observation, right?

I'm not saying a non-existent thing. I'm saying, uh, if it's true that, um, he's saying. And Adam, could you just scroll so we can also see 415?

Yeah. Um, so, uh, that, which is, um, being as able to perform a function under ultimate analysis. Right.

Uh, is an ultimate thing. A thing is ultimate. If you can see under, uh, with a perfect, accurate perception that it, um, is able to do stuff for real.

And, um, and we know that, uh, something is able to do stuff for real. If we can consider it with a direct, accurate perception. I don't see this as something that is implying.

It's something else, but it's not said what implying means, but, um, yeah, it'd been four 16, um, their shell, right. A thing can be considered by an accurate perception. If that proves 415, which is that it is a thing that's ultimately able to perform a function.

If anything, which is ultimately able to perform a function. Must be perceived by a direct perception. Um, you see, uh, the, or the fact that something is perceived with a direct perception proves that it must be functioning.

Then that means that if you can see it with a direct perception, it can't be non-functioning. It can't be unfunctioning. It can't be unchanging.

[Speaker 3]
But have we said that? Has he said that?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, I, I, I think this is what this says. Can I point something out in 417 here? Yeah.

Oh, that's not nice. Uh, yeah, no, I, it's very interesting. You guys are touching on this because doing my cheeky Namca is an, is a very, uh, interesting object when considered from the perspective of the different schools, uncomposed space.

Right. Um, from the perspective of the second school, um, is it something that we can have a direct accurate perception of? You're saying kids are chasing to talk about it.

Well, um, yeah, it's going to come up. It doesn't directly relate to what it is that we're talking about right here because it much Namca has not come up in this argument, but the fact that, uh, I think from what I was hearing, uh, with Paula and Ben, um, talk about was, uh, uh, lacks absences, right. Um, non-existent, right.

Um, things that are unchanging. So how does the second school, if the second school is so highly focused on changing things, right. Then what are their viewpoints on unchanging things?

You know, do my cheeky Namca is one of those specifically. And if you can have, if you can only have a direct, accurate perception of changing things, then that would necessarily mean that you can not have a direct, accurate perception of uncomposed space because it's not functioning. It's a, it's the category of being unchanging.

And the reason I kind of add up is because it, it's a very clear delineator between what we saw in our first section where master Dharmakirti says there are two types of perceptions because there are two types of objects. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. And I think it's funny to me that you're telling me I can't have a direct, accurate perception of space around me. It is.

It's very interesting. It's very interesting. And we can see that by doing the, that's so soon, right.

The three tests on, on four 16, right. Yeah. Right.

Is it true that that, which is that, which really does stuff can be seen by a direct, accurate perception. Yes. Is, is it true that everything that can be seen with an accurate direct perception must necessarily be able to perform a function?

He seems to think so. Yeah. If he accepts that.

And then is it true that if something is not able to perform a function, then it must not be a scene with a direct, a direct, direct perception. Right. Then you would have to say that that is what he accepts.

Yeah. Pretty wild. It's interesting.

It's an interesting. Since my computer died, can I request five additional minutes? I remember my computer died.

I feel like we have to ask word. Word. Is that okay?

Can I dig into your time a little bit?

[Speaker 3]
Oh no, you have to ask the Q and A people.

[Speaker 1]
It's it's go ahead, Adam.

[Speaker 3]
It's okay.

[Speaker 1]
Take a few extra minutes. Well, I just want to hit this. I want to hit just to give you guys a taste of the next argument.

I think it would be really fun to hit 418. Just give it, it'll give us something to think about. And 417.

So KJJ essentially says we're going to talk about this more later. If it doesn't make sense, cook it and we'll come back to it. That's essentially what he's saying.

Here's he leaves 417. So this should be final. He's made his point.

And he's just saying, look, if it doesn't make sense, we're going to talk about it a little later. All right. So 418, can we have somebody read this next section word?

Coffee's kicking in. I got to remember to slow down.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, you're speeding up. I was going to tell you. I will take Yulia.

Hello. Hi, Yulian.

[Speaker 1]
Hello. Thank you. Well done.

That was a long one. Thank you. So before we look at this any further, can somebody give for me the three categories of Mitakpa?

The three categories of changing things. Anyone? They'll do it in the chat.

It's going to happen.

[Speaker 3]
Physical, mental, and which is neither physical or mental.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Thank you. So I think if we're going to talk about the first two, right, I think partless atoms and indivisible moments of consciousness covers the first two.

It's going to get interesting when we start throwing in that third category. So and I think I have the Tibetan here, correct? Or the English equivalence, correct?

I was having a little trouble with this last line, particularly the Jigteng Kamna, which I would like to have you guys kind of help me to make sure that this is as close to what KJPJ is actually saying. So I'll just go through quickly the first two lines. Shepa kye chikicham me dan, dul trin chokicham chashem me pa.

Ransen du dupadang. Bumpad ransen mayyamparn dupang gelte. It's contradictory, this is the gelte, to believe that actual objects are either composed of individual moments of consciousness or partless atoms, while also believing that things like coffee cups are not actual objects.

So what did Kachik say from the previous argument? He said that the color blue was not an object, right? Yeah, he said it was not ransen, right?

So you see how KJPJ is using, he's building on the arguments. He's setting out to say like, okay, well, if somebody comes along, if Kachik comes along and says that the color blue is not an actual object, then we go through how to refute that. Then he takes whatever we learned from that last argument, and he brings it down to this next one.

So if we say that coffee cups are not actual objects, why would that mean that, excuse me, why is it contradictory to believe that actual objects are, if actual objects are partless, are made of atoms? Okay. If actual objects are made of atoms, then how could we say that coffee cups are not actual objects?

Does that make sense? Was I speaking too quickly? That was good.

[Speaker 3]
It's good. I agree with what you're saying. Yeah, it might be faster.

[Speaker 1]
But we have to, it's good, Adam, but we have to circle back. It's hard. This sentence, for my mind, would require the sort of slow unpacking that we did before, and we, it's wonderful.

And I think you've made a point here, right? That if we're going to say that this, that a coffee cup is an actual object, then we have to talk about, does that mean it's made up of actual objects? Like it'll bitty bitty actual add atoms or tiny little atoms making up, right, making your morning coffee.

Wouldn't that be delightful? And by the way, that your awareness, your, even your perception of the cup, which is made up of tiny little itty bitty moments of awareness, just like your coffee cup is made up of tiny little grains of sand. But boy, we better save that.

Okay. Well, just quickly then, can I have you other notes? Look at this last line and just tell me if this is what you guys would garner from the Tibetan here.

[Speaker 3]
It doesn't exist at all. It may not. Then it must be the case.

Yeah, I think so, Adam.

[Speaker 1]
I'm just struggling with it. Yeah, that's cool. I mean, it's about as close as I could get.

The may here was obviously the one that, how, because I was, I was looking at how to, that may partell the may partell in relation to the jiktengi kham. Yeah, I think you've got it right. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Just in the world.

[Speaker 1]
How do I think, you know, maybe he's saying that, that we can talk about in the world or something like that or that. Because he's saying that, he's saying that if, okay, he's giving you two options. He's saying either consciousness exists as many from the second line, either consciousness exists as many individual moments or it doesn't exist at all.

So then he's saying that if you say that it doesn't exist at all, then you're saying that there's not a single thing in the world that could be an indivisible moment of consciousness. Yeah, it makes sense with context. That's pretty good.

Well, thank you guys. Yeah, I was a little worried. It took my, took me a second to kind of wake up there.

So sorry about all that. You just led a really, really fantastic class, leading us through very hard philosophical material that, you know, it's hard and we have a very mixed audience. So thanks for being willing to take the time to go through the details.

This is really, really fun. I thank all of you guys for being here. Yeah, I can't really think of a better way to spend a Saturday morning.

And it's really, really good discussion. Yeah, totally. I mean, because, yeah, cartoons and cereal.

I sit here with this stuff, like in my head all day, and it's good to have somebody to talk about it with. So thank you guys.

[Speaker 3]
We have only, let's take, you know, at least six minutes and if longer, then that's maybe a couple minutes over to discuss any, anybody's thoughts, feelings, confusion, but more practical applications. Yeah, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Adam, I think he's even being more sarcastic in that last line. And he's saying that second Chame, the first Chame is being like technical, like indivisible. And I think that second Chame is being like, well, then there wouldn't even be one individual moment of consciousness in the whole world.

I think he's saying that there wouldn't even be a single one as like a sarcastic statement or something. Yeah. Just to point out, though, I'm going to make sure that I'm not about to misspeak.

It's just one Chame. The last one was a, just to make sure here. Chame Chick.

Yeah, Chame Chick Lemay. Yeah, it was just that Chame Chick Lemay. So, I agree with you.

Geshe-la often says that we're, I get the impression that I don't understand quite just how sarcastic KJip-Jay and Gelchup-Jay are sometimes. And I get the impression that Geshe-la, he tries to hit on that a lot. Yeah.

Adam, why do we care about this distinction between ideas and coffee cups that do stuff and whether or not Ben knows the difference between the tip of his own nose or a picture in his head of the tip of his nose? Or are you asking me? Yeah, well, in lieu of no one else putting forward something, I would nominate you as a really good choice of someone to pick on.

Well, this is a very deep question. If I talk to a stranger on the street and let's say, well, okay, I go to sometimes when I'm running a lot, I'm not training right now, but sometimes I go to a hot springs to help with recovery and inflammation. I do a cold plunge and a sauna.

The conversations that I have in the sauna with people in there, you would not believe. And sometimes they go on for quite a long time. And I hear some incredibly profoundly wrong things said.

But I take it as an opportunity to talk about dharma in certain instances. And if we get into a conversation where let's just say the meaning of life comes up, I hold the meaning of life, my current goal in life is to perceive emptiness directly. And that's like if you give me one central thing to focus on and I say, okay, I'm going to dedicate all of my attention and focus and all of my energy on a day-to-day basis is going to be dedicated to perceiving emptiness directly.

Well, then we got to know how to do that, right? So if I'm saying the purpose of my life is to see emptiness directly, and then now Ben asked the question, well, why does it matter between like, okay, well, I've got an idea in my head of the tip of my nose versus the direct perception of the tip of my nose. What we're doing is we are refining our understanding of emptiness using reasoned methods.

So what we're doing is we're talking about things. Okay, I'm going to ask you guys, is emptiness conceptual or is emptiness something that we almost misspoke? I was going to say, or is emptiness something that we perceive directly?

We'll get there. Yeah, we're going to get there, right? So from the perspective of the second school, what we're doing is we're building more sophisticated models of our understanding of reality in a very systematic way.

We're going through one argument at a time. Well, what does it mean to perform a function ultimately, right? What is the nature of blue, right?

How does my mind perceive things? And this question specifically relating concepts to actual objects. Okay, if I have a computer in front of me and I say the computer has an emptiness, right?

And I view the computer, right? I'm looking at the computer in front of me. Am I currently perceiving its emptiness?

If you're enlightened, yes. Not, yes. Not if you are not enlightened.

I'm an ordinary, but I'm also cute, right? I'm an ordinary. So how do we build if we say that, okay, am I perceiving its subtle impermanence?

Not directly. Not directly, right? And this is very interesting.

Something I found out was that the second school says that when you see an object, you are actually perceiving its subtle impermanence. Right. Not aware of it.

Wow, wow. So they say that the subtle, this is why the subtle impermanence of sound, this is why the impermanence of sound is so often used as an object in reasoned analysis is because the impermanence of sound is the least subtle way of exemplifying subtle impermanence. Now, if we turn that on ourselves, right?

And we look at ourselves, what about the subtle impermanence of ourself? What about the subtle impermanence of, right? What about our gross impermanence?

So, and then that, to circle back, that comes back to realizing that we're all going to die and realizing that we have to spend every waking second serving the Dharma, serving our teacher so that we can get blessings, so that we can then understand emptiness on a deeper and deeper and deeper level, so that then eventually we can get there. But the thing is, is that we have to start with something that we can hear, like a bell ringing, right? The subtle impermanence of a bell, right?

Like, or of the sound of a bell, right? And, sorry, let me just kind of tie this up. And then we go deeper and deeper and deeper with it.

And what we're finding more and more is that there are these times where, just like an everlasting gobstopper, right? So, kind of like you put these gobstoppers, these candies in your mouth, and you can sit there and suck on them and suck on them and suck on them for like, you know, weeks really, if you wanted to. And these arguments are kind of the same way.

And the more and more I sit with each individual argument, I'm finding that it's much deeper than the surface level. Like, there's one level of, like, I get one thing from some of these, but if you take, sorry. Adam, we better move on just because we have the P3 World News queued up too.

Okay, well, yeah, let me just tie this up. So, when we look at actual objects, we can use them to refine our understanding of emptiness. And I'm finding more and more when I go through each one of these individual arguments.

That it leads me to a place where I start to question my reality on a, like, I'm starting to see this very real place where actual objects meet conceptuality. And that's a fun space to be in when you're walking around. That's a fun place to be in when you're having a conversation with somebody in a sauna, right?

When you're like, oh my God, like, you know, and it starts to, so it's becoming, the separation between the mental and the physical is becoming much more pronounced. It's becoming less and less pronounced for me. I don't know, and that's kind of, if, you know, Ben said that, Ben said that he was like, you know, nobody else is speaking up.

So, if you were to ask my opinion about our perception of our nose, and our mental image of our nose, that's where it would lead me. Yeah. Thank you.

I mean, I think it's a really interesting point because we really emphasize, like, what's the life practical application that you can find for this today? And we almost put pressure. But, you know, the truth is probably, I mean, there's many cases where what we're doing is building a philosophical case against our own tendencies.

And it's not so much that there is just, like, oh, you can use this on your husband now. Like, it's really for the purpose of changing ourselves in the more long-term way. And I think that that's a really good thing that you pointed out in really excellent detail, Adam.

And I appreciate that you brought us to that. Because that's the mixed nuts.

[Speaker 3]
While we would like to offer modern-day solutions every class, sometimes, and, you know, we're digging in these texts because we're trying to change ourselves from people who feel pain to people who are permanently in the sauna, just rather than having to make your muscles sore. Yeah. So, thank you, Adam.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for an amazing class. I really appreciate you, the hard work that you put into this, and the excellent clarity with which you're sharing with us. And thank you to all the mixed nuts, all the translators, and especially our Worldview Productions team.

[Speaker 3]
We're a little behind, so let's just move right on to the Peachtree World News. Juan, take the normal time you need. And then we have class with Word for those of you sticking around to learn the fundamentals of the language.

Thank you so much, everybody. Take it away, I think, Juan Jaso. There you are.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much. I was in the corner, but not anymore. Thank you for letting me out.

Um, so I'm very happy to be here. As many of you may know, tomorrow we have an important event. It's the New Year celebration that I'll be talking about later.

But it happens to... I have to come to Arizona, so I'm in Arizona. Very happy to be here.

And just when I was listening to this class, and having the chance to try to translate it, because it can be very difficult, I was just amazed about, like Adam was sharing, how deep can these ideas go, and how sometimes they either have a very practical application, as Nick was saying, or, and, either can be planting seeds for us to later on have like an amazing realization or understanding on how our reality and life is working. So I'm very grateful for this project to be here. And speaking of that, we have again today with us to Natasha Loginova, which has been working on a very cool project.

This project is the new website of this project, Diamond Cutter Classics, including, of course, Chang-Tang Tower. We will have a conversation with her. She's going to tell us a little bit more of the workings of this website, but also a little bit of the history or the story, sorry, to how this project came to be.

Hello, Natasha, how are you?

[Speaker 2]
Hi Juan, thank you so much for inviting me. And thank you, and good day, good afternoon, good evening to everyone online, and who's going to listen to us in the recordings. Yes, I would like to share great news that Mixed Nuts or Diamond Cutter Classics have now a wonderful new site.

And I welcome each of you, please take a few moments to study and use it, because it's so important, these ancient wisdoms that we're here to learn. And one of the greatest things on this website is now we have a dedicated page to each translator. So like, for example, Adam, who had a wonderful, very difficult class today, you can listen over and over again if you go to the site.

And also, if you're a big fan of books and collect them either in e-copies or hard copies, I welcome you to also explore this page about books that this wonderful team of Mixed Nuts are really nuts. And not just discussing in the sauna, but also actually publish those books for you to read.

[Speaker 1]
Should we share the tree? Well, by the way, Natasha, let me ask you something. Is today your birthday?

[Speaker 2]
Yes, my birthday is today, yes. I think it's a great way to celebrate.

[Speaker 3]
Happy birthday.

[Speaker 1]
Very happy birthday.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Yes.

[Speaker 1]
And thank you so much for all the work you've been putting in this project. When I saw the website for first time, I thought it's amazing. I'm still thinking that.

But it was very surprising to see. If you agree, we can share the screen a little bit and we can show the website to the people. And then you can guide me if you want me to go somewhere specifically that you would like to talk about.

But you were saying, yeah, you were saying there's like sections for each one of the translators, right?

[Speaker 2]
That's right. The good thing is now, if you're particularly interested in logic, like Anna mentioned, she loves logic. Or you like stories of my session together, you're going to see Sugeng page.

Or you like everything, you can go up in the corner and choose a page for each translator. You go to our team. And then you pick any translator or a subject that you're really interested in.

Vinaya, Master Shantideva, Logic, Master Dharmakirti, whatever you want. Any flavor of your, any flavor you can pick. And then what's great about, we are actually introducing you each translator.

We're telling the story of each person. So you get to know them a little bit better. And hopefully you're inspired to learn more about the work that this translator does.

And as Juan just showed, you have every session, every recording since 2017 that existed is there. And yes, Beth is absolutely a wonderful and absolutely amazing person of this team because she's not just a translator, she's also an editor. I don't know how she managed to do this, but she edits every book, every book that you've been published, she does that.

So it's my heart and huge applause and bow to you, Venerable Utpala. It's amazing. So a great also introductions about the books.

So if you're a little bit lost and not sure what kind of subject you would like to get into deeper, we welcome you to the page about books. So whatever speaks to your heart, whatever wisdom you wanna touch, you can see here, there's the published books on top. And then also at the, if you scroll down Juan, you'll see all listed books and most of them do have descriptions.

So all those books are in the process of being translated. So you can learn about what actually translators working on right now. So also very exciting.

And of course you have a link to buy them, to download those books that have been published. And I just wanted to emphasize that this is a huge, amazing work that each of those translators do. They have big team and so much wisdom and knowledge in one place.

And it's accessible to all of you anytime, any day, anywhere in the world. We're currently translating this in six languages with a goal by the end of this year to be translated in 15 languages, which it means that it doesn't matter where you are, what is your favorite language to speak, it's there for you for free. Please take advantages because we wanted to help Geshe-la to cover this planet with this unbelievable ancient knowledge.

And we also wanted to value the work that each of those translators do because it's invaluable. It's one of a lifetime opportunity for each of us to touch, just to touch as Adam said today in the class, for me just to be on the surface of this and take time to go deeper later.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much, Natacha. I still want to have some time to talk with you about your own personal experience. Yes, yes.

Now the thing is like, now we have to go back to work, but we have to have you sometime soon again or sometime too. So you tell us a little bit about how you develop this idea, how you follow through, what advices would you give to people Oh, sorry. What advices would you give to people who want to develop projects and how to materialize them?

Because I remember as Ben was saying, sometimes there are so many good ideas, but the real challenge is to make them.

[Speaker 3]
Make it happen.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. And I connecting it with Adam's class, I will say to bring the chitzen into the ranks and meaning the idea, you put it in the actual work. But thank you very much.

And we want to wish you also a very, very happy birthday as well.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And thank you for all this work.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. It's a greatest gift for me to actually get in touch with this project and help everyone make it accessible. So the only thing I can say, this is my motivation and intention that every one of you will have a chance, maybe 15 minutes a week to read or listen to this recording.

When you're driving in the car, just play anything you want. It's there. You don't have to do extensive search.

Or if you're in the car, you can listen to the audio books. So everything is possible because we have this knowledge. It's all I can say.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. And I think the fact that it's so well organized and accessible, it's going to be really, really helpful to use for we all the audience and everyone. So thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Great, great project. And it's just that this is just the beginning. I want to say we have a huge vision for this year.

We're working with Bennett and Nick and it's only the beginning because it's going to be every year better and better and better.

[Speaker 1]
Amazing. Thank you very much, really. Thank you very much.

I'm very happy birthday and we'll see you soon again.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much. Bye.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Bye. And just finally, before we go back with work, I would like to invite you all to this new year celebration.

I'm going to share my screen to you see what I'm talking about here. This is what I'm talking about. Today, you won't imagine it's going crazy.

The production is like last minute things all the time, organizing the materials, producing the live event, the online event, talking with everybody. Crazy, but it's fun. So I really encourage you come tomorrow because you're going to be able to see many, many, many of the accomplishments that have happened in the year 2023 among a lot of the WorldView organizations.

So you're going to get a real sense of what happened, many of the accomplishments and the victories that have happened in 2023 regards the WorldView Network and also many of the plans that are coming for 2024. So if you want to join us in this celebration, come. Geshell is going to be with us live.

We're going to see how is he doing with his hand surgery. I hear it went very well, but we will hear directly from him and we will have many more guests and friends all over. So you can use the QR code to register.

Tomorrow we start at 7am Arizona time and we will be hitting the new year in Asia time. So join the celebration and I'll see you all soon. Adios, back to work.

[Speaker 3]
Bye. Bye Juan. Bye.