Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 43

[Speaker 1]
All right, all right, all right, all right. Almost ready. Hey, boss.

Looking good. Myself. Got it.

What's the news? Okay. You know, same old, same old over here in the Deep Diamond Cutter Classics Europe office.

Keep it.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right. How's things over there? I just got back from San Diego last night.

Okay, long drive. Yeah, yeah, it was okay. I had a, I could go to the, I went and did research at, I can always do research at cafes, you know.

And anything noteworthy? Did you learn any reconnaissance? Yeah, there was a special waffle that kind of competes with Mike's waffle.

But I'm figuring out how to steal it. Okay, where's Mr. Andrade? Reverse engineering.

I was just reading it. You know, I got to be careful with that seed. I was just reading.

[Speaker 3]
Here comes Adam from the Cairo office.

[Speaker 1]
He looks like he's in Cairo. Hey, Adam. Yes, sir.

Hey, Adam, put these guys to sleep with a good homework. I'll do my best. That was my intention.

You know, when we meditate here before translator class, it's not exactly silent. But as soon as you start the homework, it gets extremely silent. Well, this one, this one shouldn't be too hard.

All right. Yeah. We've gone over the same material three times.

All right. Yeah. Let me, let me, let me share the screen here.

Yeah, there we go. All right. Do I need to make it a little bigger?

Yeah. If you want to really leave it the same size. Okay.

So how does ketchup J describe something which is ultimately able to perform a function? He, so, um, yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, no, no. Uh, specifically, um, what, what's the topic that we're studying and, uh, in this class. And I'm not talking about specifically, but like generally what of the five, uh, subjects from the guesstate course would be studying logic now, uh, Pramana accurate perception.

Yeah. So, um, how does catcher J describe something, which ultimate, which is ultimately able to perform a function. Lindsay said direct perception of ultimate analysis.

What about a direct, accurate perception? Okay. It's way simpler.

Yeah. Thank you, Lindsay. That, uh, yeah, that, well, that would do it.

Um, the accurate perception here is the operable kind of word there that we were looking for. Uh, so is it possible for indivisible moments of consciousness to exist as a single thing? Why not?

Why or why not? I should have put that on the question. I feel like he said it has to be because, but because indivisible particles of matter exist as a single thing.

Yeah, totally. Now follow that same train of thought. And, uh, if we were going to look at from, uh, two perspectives, let's say, uh, one or many.

So I don't see why. Yeah. I don't see why it couldn't exist as a single thing.

Um, can we also give an example of something where it may exist as many things? You said indivisible moments of consciousness as a single thing. Yeah, totally.

Yeah. I don't know if you're trying to trick me. I am.

Yeah, totally. It's kind of a trick question, but it's not me. They'd still have to start and stomp and, and last for a while.

They'd still have to have three parts. Nope.

[Speaker 3]
I don't know if you could say that if you consider them as a single thing, then maybe they're a she, if you consider them together as one thing.

[Speaker 1]
That was exactly what I was looking for. Yeah, they can exist. It could exist in either way.

And, uh, I mean, I, I guess you'd have to go back to when we were talking about, um, whether or not something belongs to hidden or, um, obvious reality. So it would depend on the context and who was looking at, at the time they were looking. And, um, all right.

[Speaker 3]
Adam, what's instantation?

[Speaker 1]
Uh, instant, sorry. I should have, that doesn't pass the waiter test. Does it?

So like a single individual, um, indivisible moment of consciousness as it is experienced in the real world, uh, versus, uh, is an instantiation of the concept of an individual moment of consciousness, just in the same way that your mental image of a phone. Well, the phone that I'm currently holding is an instantiation of the mental image that I would have of said phone also. Uh, sorry.

I probably should have, I could have chosen a different word.

[Speaker 3]
Let's see.

[Speaker 1]
Well, but just, just for the translators, it's good to clear. Yeah, I totally get that. Yeah.

Thank you. But thank you for reminding me, Nick. Uh, so far we've learned that something is a cheat set if it belongs to hidden reality, excuse me.

So far we've learned that something is a cheat sin. If it belongs to hidden reality, uh, if it's seen inferentially, or if it's an unchanging thing, but KGB gives another qualification, closely parallels the definition of a cheat sin. So what reason did KGB given our last class for determining whether or not something is a cheat sin?

[Speaker 3]
Is this the one where I got so worked up after class? I immediately had to call you. Um, uh, singular.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, yeah, definitely. Definitely. Um, definitely.

And this is, this is interesting. It's something I've been kind of thinking about and I'll just throw this out there for you guys to see. Maybe I should keep it until the Q and a, or the discussion, uh, afterwards.

But go ahead. Yeah. I think something can only exist as one, one thing if it's a mental image.

And I think, uh, anything that exists in the quote unquote real world is going to have many parts. And I think that could be a distinguishing, uh, characteristic of mental images versus physical things. That's just something I'm working with.

I haven't necessarily heard that from any authoritative search source. Um, but does anybody have, uh, any ideas? What decides that something's a cheat?

Unchanging. I mean, you could, yeah, I don't know all of these things. So remember we've gotten so far in this book, like we're in, we're in the chapter, um, that is distinguishing wrong 10 and two.

So if we go all the way back for like two years, we've just been looking at like different ways of looking at, um, uh, reality. Right. So first we looked at hidden reality and obvious reality, um, and how those correlate to wrong 10 and cheats.

And, um, we've looked at direct perception and indirect perception and how those correlate to hidden reality and obvious reality and wrong 10 and cheats. And, um, so whether or not something is changing or unchanging also correlates that, that bifurcation, that division of reality. Um, so we also have another way of defining it.

Could we say subsumes members of its type? Perfect. Thank you, sir.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for there. I think I was there. Oh, sorry.

I didn't see, I haven't been monitoring the chat.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, I deleted it so that people could figure it out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I haven't, I wasn't paying attention to the chat. Sorry about that. Um, so can anybody give us the definition of a cheat sin as given in the collected topics?

I think we should probably all this memorized. Yeah, thank you again. Yeah, perfect.

I'm going to try this one again. I went back. So this is one of the same vocabulary words that we from the last class, uh, again, said he wasn't quite sure of it and, uh, he wasn't quite sure how to treat it.

Um, and I don't think we decided on anything, but I figured I'd give it another shot for all of our sakes. Yeah, I think, I think you could say that. Sometimes they add the Duma after Selwa.

Uh, can't sell, uh, do my cell. And sometimes they say, I think, uh, usually they say Ranggis Selwa, Duma, Lodges, or do it up here. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Multiple. Oh, well, I was talking. I'm sorry, guys.

Uh, I was actually talking about the vocab word, the first vocab. Oh, you gotta go down. You gotta go down.

We can't see the screen. Sorry about that. Yeah.

Okay. I think we've established, uh, the definition of a cheats and, uh, yeah. But capsule.

Uh, I'm thinking, well, I, I, it's gotten more clear in my mind, but we can cover it in a class, but it's Kielba and Selwa. It's two elements. Okay.

So when you're talking about, uh, syllogism, it's referring to both parts, like the third element and the second element of the debate. Yeah. Uh, well, don't forget what's the definition of a good reason.

Three relationships home. Three relationships home. But here there's only two.

Kielba and Selwa. Okay. So this is kind of what I put.

The necessary relationship is obvious. Uh, no, this is two different ones. It's the Kielba and the Selwa.

And the Kielba involves two Kielbas. Then you get three. That's the definition.

Right. The J-cap and the dope cap. Yeah.

The Kielba, by the way, capsule is, is components of a Prasangika. It's components.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So Kielba is the two normal Kielbas that we think of. Okay. And then Selwa is the relationship between the, the subject and what we're learning about it.

Yeah. So it's two, so it's two elements. Cap, he can't say kielba ma chung and he can't say dal ma dru.

You see what I mean? He, he can't, ngu means both.

[Speaker 2]
We got you.

[Speaker 1]
Both are obviously true. Both are obviously true. The relationship between the quality which you already agreed to and the quality I'm asserting the two relationships hold, kyab, and the relationship between the subject I'm talking about and the quality I said it has, is there also.

That's all. If, if the, if kielba and sel are ngu, if kielba and sel are there, ngu, directly, then it's a good reason, or it's a good Prasangika. It's a correct Prasangika.

Is the context in which somebody would say this, when they're just saying like, you can't argue with what I just said? Yeah, it says the only two ways out that you have are both covered. Uh, and by the way, we're going to have a good example in the reading right away, so don't worry about it.

We're going to cover it in the reading right away. Okay. Can anybody help me out with oktu?

It literally means below. Yeah. Um, some other, what, how would we use that?

Like if we were going to use that in reference to something that we've already covered in the text or something that we will cover in the text? Later?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Explain later or something? Yeah. Later on in the text, later on in the book.

In a book, below means later in the book, and kong above means earlier in the book. Okay. That's a good vocabulary.

Um, so Adam, could you make your screen much, much, much larger for this? Yeah, definitely. Thank you.

Just let me know. Uh, let's see. That's a little overboard.

Let's go here.

[Speaker 3]
That was wide enough.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Larger font type as well.

[Speaker 1]
Let's see. What we found out on my side is that I could increase it myself without without him.

[Speaker 3]
Really?

[Speaker 1]
Just zoom in on the screen. Yeah. Just do the, do the diagonal thing with your fingers.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I've got a monitor. So that doesn't work.

[Speaker 1]
How does this look? Uh, vulnerable.

[Speaker 3]
Um, live translators, please talk in the chat. Does that work for you?

[Speaker 1]
Sorry. I still, I don't have the chat up. Uh, I should probably pull it up.

[Speaker 3]
Just no, that's okay.

[Speaker 1]
Reference here.

[Speaker 3]
Okay. No one said anything, so it must be okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You're looking good from, from our side. You look good.

Okay. I mean, you don't look good, but the text looks good. Yeah.

I'm feeling pretty rough too. Oh, Christian says it's no respect, no respect at all. You look great, kid.

You look good. You're going to be just fine. Um, yeah.

So I, you know, I just, um, I'm I'll be interested to see, uh, how, how you, what, what do you think of this again? I wasn't too happy with some of these, but the way some of these worked out, um, some of them, I felt like I did a little better on than others. Um, let's see.

Uh, can you read, uh, Adam?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 1]
Uh, sure. Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. Nice. Uh, let's go to the easy part.

What's some, uh, think, think well, guys. Yeah. He made a verb out of a noun.

What's the noun? Sem.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And he made, he made, uh, what do you call it? Uh, you better think. You better sem.

Then he added an O. He replaced the E. Yeah, he made an imperative out of a noun.

So he took the word mind, sem, and he said, som shik. You better think about it. Okay.

The O is often, uh, imperative. You, you often make, uh, do it with an O in, in Tibetan. So think, you better think better, better think well about things.

Lekpar means think, you better think it over, man. Clearly, he didn't tell him to think it over badly. Okay.

Lekpar som shik. Shik is, uh, it has two possible meanings, Adam, if you want to have some fun. Uh, shik, uh, yeah, please.

A louse? Yeah, it's a, it's a bed bug. Oh, that's the context in which we mean to use it now.

You know, logic text, it probably doesn't mean that. It can also mean, you better the heck do it, do it. You better think it over.

Okay, what is he supposed to think over? Okay, uh, it exists. Kyu yin du ma yu kyang.

There are many examples of kyu yin. What's that mean? Uh, where it exists.

There are many examples that are it. There are many examples that are it. Let's take the category called people.

There are many examples of what are it. There's Sugeng, there's Shinting, there's everybody else. Okay, so there are many examples that are it.

Okay, kyu yin du ma yu kyang. But, uh, rang gi sawa la, and this is a very unusual use of the word saw. We, we see, uh saw, what's uh saw?

Yeah, in the Diamond Ring. Uh saw is clear light. Here it means member of a set.

Okay, here it means member of a set. Okay, uh, and don't ask me why. Okay, or you could say clarifications of it or something.

I don't know. So rang gi sawa la, je su drowa, je su drowa means it covers. It's a general category which covers many sub-members.

Okay, so rang gi sawa means it's members of its set. jing dro means it covers those members. Like all the people in this room are, are members of the set called people in this room.

Okay, uh, and by the way, when, when it has members, it changes to a theoretical thing. That's what you got to keep in mind with this section. When it has members, it's moded to a group, a theoretical group.

We were talking about people and Palestinians, right? So people, once you have members, then people gets, what do you call, people gets promoted to a theoretical quality. Okay, once, once something has members, then it's the name of a group, and once it's the name of a group, it's theoretical.

It's not a thing anymore. Okay, got it? Okay, so rang gi sawa la, je dro min drum na.

If you say there are many examples of things that are it, but if you say at the same time it doesn't have its members, is it possible to say that? Let me, I'll say it again, I'll say it slowly. There are many things which are it, but it doesn't, there are many things which are it, but those are not its members.

Possible or not, there are many things which are this thing I'm thinking of, but they are not its members. Are they said, possible or not? No, generally not possible.

Okay, I'll say it again. There's many different things in the world that are it, but it's not something which includes them as its categories, as its members. Then we'd say no, you're talking crazy.

Many examples of what are it, and many examples of that group's members, is the same thing. It's the same thing. There's many examples of things which are people, and there's many things in the group called people.

That's the same thing. It's the same thing. Got it?

You okay? Not a big deal. All right, Madhupada, if you don't agree, then how the hell can you say coffee cups have members?

If you say for a thing to have many things which are it, and if you disagree that that means it's a group with its members, got it? A group with its members he's defining as a thing that has many things that are it, like coffee cups. Okay, why are you guys looking so...

Look, I went away to California, and I came back, and they're all like, something happened. They need more cinnamon rolls. Yeah, Babarangi-san, so if you say that having its members doesn't mean there are many kinds of it, okay?

If you say that, then how are you going to have types of coffee cups? Lekpa soma. What's that mean?

Lekpa soma. Think about it, honey bunny. Think about it.

He's being sarcastic, okay? You better think about it. How can there be many things which are it, and it's not a group with its members?

Think about it. That's so dumb. Okay, got it?

Just nod. When you're not sure in class, just try to look like, oh, that's what you mean. Okay, next sentence.

Let's not make them suffer more. Adam, can you read that one too? Yes, sir.

Now, this is cute, Adam, and there's no way you could have got it. I'm not even going to look. Yeah, okay.

He says, listen. Okay, now listen. Are you ready?

Put on your thinking cap. Don't go ahead to peace trees. Stay here for a while.

All right. What's that mean, Adam? So if something is indivisible moments of consciousness?

Yeah. He says, by the way, he's on this thing. The smallest unit of physical stuff is atoms.

The smallest unit of mind is moments of consciousness. Indivisible moments of consciousness. Okay?

The tiniest moment of consciousness. So he says, there's two building blocks of the universe. For physical stuff, it's atoms.

For mental stuff, it's moments of consciousness. Okay, he says, shepa kye chik cha me yin na. If you have an indivisible moment of consciousness, cha me means no pieces.

Cha me means no pieces. If you have a moment of consciousness, which is the briefest moment possible, like the length of time you understood this topic. Okay?

Shortest moment possible. Okay? Then that's rangchen, of mental stuff.

Okay? Then that's reality. That's reality.

That's not theoretical. That's reality. It's the building block of the universe.

There's two things in the universe, mind and matter. Okay? Building block of matter is atoms.

Building block of mind is moments of consciousness. Okay? So he says, if you take the shortest moment of consciousness possible, we say that's reality.

That's the real coffee cup. Okay? That's the real thing.

That's not the theoretical thing. Chitsen means theoretical thing. Rangchen means the real thing in the world.

Right? Got it? The person we meditated about this morning, as opposed to people.

Okay, rangchen, she gu, she mawe. So look, if something is the shortest moment of mind stream, single moment of consciousness, then what we're saying is that has to be real, reality. That has to be reality, not theoretical.

Rangchen. Rangchen. But we never said that the shortest moment of consciousness was reality.

Now listen, listen, listen. Hang with me. He says what we said was if something was the shortest moment of consciousness, it had to be reality.

We didn't say the shortest moment of consciousness was reality.

[Speaker 3]
Oh.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I'll say it again. Sorry.

What's, chaman means partless. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
If we were going to say that reality. I'll say it again. What we're saying is, if something were the shortest length of awareness, part, indivisible, cannot be made shorter, cannot be split shorter, if it were the shortest moment of awareness, that's reality.

That's real. That's not theoretical. Now listen, if it's the shortest moment of consciousness, that's reality.

We said that. We did not say, ready? The shortest moment of consciousness is reality.

We said if something was the shortest moment of consciousness, it was reality. We didn't say the shortest moment of consciousness is reality. And we say, bullshit, it's the same thing.

Come on. You got it? You all right?

I'll say it again. He says, what I said was, if it was the shortest moment of consciousness, then it's reality. I did not say the shortest moment of consciousness is reality.

I started with the word if. And we're like, God, you guys, you really frustrate me. It's like talking to your wife or husband.

By the way, my wife counted how many times I mentioned that in my last class. She was listening. All right.

So we're pointing out this distinction? Say it again. We're pointing out the difference between these two?

He's saying, okay, I'll say it again. He says, look, all I said was, if it was the shortest moment of mind, it would be reality. I did not say the shortest moment of mind was reality.

I said if. Okay, you got it? You okay?

It's not that. Okay. Now, how are we going to answer?

Adam, you got to pick on somebody to read.

[Speaker 3]
Word.

[Speaker 1]
Would you mind choosing somebody from your class? Not at all. Thank you, sir.

I'll choose Svetlana. Please. Thank you.

Nice. Let's be a student of words. Now, I was debating at Jebung Monastery, the winter debates, and this guy kept saying, and I had no idea what the hell he's talking about.

Then you debate most of the night, and then in the early morning, like 2 a.m, everybody stops and you go to a momo bar. You go have momos together. It's really fun.

It's like 2 in the morning. You're all sweaty, and then you say, what the heck is tapa tasung yuripa? I've never heard of that.

And you learn more in the momo bar than you do in the debate ground. You're like, I don't know. I've never heard of that.

So I distinctly remember when I learned this. Tapa tasung means in the theoretical case. In the theoretical case.

It's a very difficult word. Say, tapa tasung yuripa. Yeah, in the theoretical case.

In the theoretical case. If such a thing could be, it's called tapa tasung yuripa. In theory, in the theoretical case.

Takpa means to examine. Ta means the limit, the far end. Sung means you grab it.

You grab the far end after examining. And it means a theoretical case. Is there a limit to the number of cinnamon rolls you should eat in one day?

And then you could say, well, tapa tasung yuripa. I mean, in theory, there's a number. I wouldn't know what it is.

Got it? In theory. It means in theory.

Okay. Okay, here we go. RANG BZAN GYI GZAN ZHIG BZIN PA NA When we're trying to actually grab on to a real example of RANG BZAN, the actual cup in the world, not the category cups.

Cups is theoretical. By the way, that's GZAN. Cups.

All the cups in the universe. And then RANG BZAN means this cup. This particular cup.

So he says, somebody says actual cups in the world can only be pointed to in theory. Okay. That's a theoretical thing.

Well, okay, you can't really grab onto a cup. You can't really point to a cup. Okay.

You can say in theory if there were one cup, this would be it. In theory. Okay.

They're saying somehow the minute you grab onto cup, it becomes a GZAN. The minute you think of cup, the minute you identify this as cup, you're already dealing with names and groups. Okay.

The minute you say this is a cup, you're implying cups. You're thinking cups. The minute you say this is a cup, you're already thinking about all cups, because you took one cup out of all cups.

So there is no a cup. There's theoretically a cup. You can imagine a cup, but you can't really perceive it, because to perceive a cup, you have to see cups.

You have to be thinking about cups to identify a cup. Therefore, even a cup is theoretical. There's no such thing in real practice.

There's no such thing. You can't say it's a cup without focusing on cups. You can't identify as a cup.

You cannot identify the thing in my hand as a cup unless you are picturing cups as a category. It's true. You can't say this is a cup if you're not thinking about the thing called kap si.

Therefore, the idea of a single cup is just a theoretical thing. Okay? It's just a theoretical thing.

You cannot ever have a cup, because as soon as you have a cup, it becomes a category. Got it? Okay?

That's him. That's our guy. And it's interesting, because maybe he's right.

And there's a problem. That's the problem. How can you say it's a cup?

Cup is a category. Cup is unchanging. This thing is going to break if I let go of it.

Okay? How can you recognize it as a cup? How's that possible?

By the way, it's impossible. Something must be going on. It must be coming from you.

But they never get there in this whole school. They never get there. They never see the way out.

They never see the way out. They keep bashing their head against chi tsen and rang tsen. How can you see a rang tsen without thinking about the chi tsen?

And chi tsen is unchanging, and this is not changing. This is changing. I don't get it.

The answer is, if it comes from you, everything makes sense if the cup comes from you. But they never get there. They never get there.

It's interesting. They say reality is smallest atoms and smallest moments of consciousness. They cannot accept the idea that it's coming from you, which is the only way to resolve this problem.

Okay? Got it? Cool?

[Speaker 3]
There's the concept of gac cha.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. They're all kind of gac cha. You can say there's no elephant in this room.

That's right. Every school has a gac cha, and every school's gac cha is different. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. rang tsen gyi tsen shing dzinpa na tabu tsang gi tsul du che gupa ni.

gupa means anytime you see a cup, you have to see it through the category. Anytime you see the cup, every time you perceive a single member of anything, every time you see an actual example of reality, you must be doing it in theory. Okay?

Good. You have to. Okay?

gupa ni. Okay? That idea, when he says dzin ni, it means that idea.

What? The idea that to perceive a cup, it has to be theoretical, in theory. Okay?

Good. Yeah? Geshe-la, I used shud here for gupa.

Does it need to be stronger than that? It's a noun. It's the fact that.

Okay. The fact that you can only perceive the cup theoretically as a member of a set. The fact that you can only perceive the cup as a member of the set theoretically.

Okay? Because the set is not a real thing. The set is an idea.

How would I work that out with the chig then? Yeah, so the dzin ni, when you say dzin ni after gupa, it precludes gupa being a verb. It didn't become, it has to be a noun.

It has to be a noun. He says the fact that you, the fact that you can only hold to a real coffee cup theoretically. Okay, now what's the second half of the sentence?

ga shik ngupay tsen shik tabpa tsang gi tsultrim gupa dang. Some other people have said, ga shik means some other guys, usually it's derogatory. What's that mean?

Some people say, some stupid people say, okay, ga shik ni, when you hold to the tsen shik, the classical example in the world, of a ngupo, of any working thing, anything that can do anything. Any time in the whole universe that you're holding to a functioning thing, that's also tabpa tsang. Has to be.

Has to be in theory. Can only be theoretically. Can only be theoretically.

Some people go that far. It's impossible to hold a working thing. Okay, it's only a theory.

It's only in theory that something can be a working thing. So he says, look, when these guys say that real things in the world can only be approached theoretically, it's the same as other people who say working things can only be approached theoretically. And we're going to gakpa them later on.

Wow. We're going to refute that idea later. Yeah, later.

Ok du. There's that ok du, Adam. Later on.

Okay, so the subsequent, yeah, I got this totally wrong. Totally wrong. So listen, that's a good way out.

When the debate gets really bad, you can say, ok du gakpa. Yeah, I went with the subsequent refutation here. We don't have to debate this now, we're going to cover later.

Wow, it's hard to imagine how those would do. Hopefully the student will die before the end. Okay.

Okay. Oh, I was going to explain that thing about the cup later. Just hang in there.

We'll get through it. It's we'll get through it. Okay.

Whether he gets to it, I don't know. Sometimes they forget.

[Speaker 2]
All right. On the face Keisha and Michael, don't those two seem pretty parallel?

[Speaker 1]
Well, the second one is talking about ngopos and the first one is talking about wrong sense. Now it is true that all wrong sense are ngopos maybe, but it's a different term and a different, it's a different, it's a different meaning, right? It's a different thing.

You can say that all functioning things are things in the world. You can say that all things in the world are functioning things, but they're different. To say things in the world and to say things that do something, it's a different flavor, right?

It's a different flavor. He says, listen, when you say all things in the, all things in the world are, sorry, are theoretical, can only be approached theoretically. That's the same thing as these other guys who say all functioning things can only be approached theoretically.

So let's cover it later, okay? Since the two are so similar, what? Thing in the world, actual thing in the world, and working thing in this school are pretty much synonyms.

So since we're going to cover it later with, since we're going to cover it later with working things, why don't we wait till we get there? Because in this school, working thing and thing in the world, actual thing in the world is the synonym. It's the same thing, okay?

So let's cover it later. So Geshe Michael, he does accept these two as being parallel, and he doesn't accept either of these? He believes...

Or he does accept? Well, he's, no, we're going to refute both of them later. Gagpar Jawa means we're going to deny both of these.

Why? Number one, that all actual things in the world can only be approached theoretically. And number two, all working things in the world can only be approached theoretically.

We're going to cover both of... These are basically the same thing, and we're going to cover them later. Which means I ain't doing it now, and let's go on.

Okay. It's a cheap way out, I've got to say. And we've got to hold into it.

I'm sure Adam's going to remember this six years from now when we hit Oktu. Actually, I don't think it's that much later. I think it's just...

Yeah, I think we'll get there in a couple of months. Well, five minutes later can be a pretty long thing. All right, let's do 424, Adam.

Who's going to read it? Word? Do you mind picking someone else for us?

Not at all. Let me look. Thank you.

I butchered that last section. The best of us kids. Kim, Jessica wants to read.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Here's the second point where we disprove the belief that working things do not exist. Good. And by the way, this is the second point.

What was the first point? The first point's down here. If something is a working thing, it does not have to be a real thing in the world.

He said that. He said that, and we gakpa. We denied it.

We stopped him. Okay, let's say it again. Just because it's a working thing doesn't mean it has to be a real thing in the world.

And we said, yes, it does. We finished that. We're finished with that section.

Now we're on to a new section. Somebody says you can have a working thing, but it's not substantial. And we're going to refute him.

We're going to say, no, if it's a working thing, it has to be substantial. Meaning, like, I don't know something real in the world. If it works, if it does something, it has to be a real thing in the world.

And as you get to the higher schools, that idea slips away. It just because a fire is burning doesn't mean it's real. Just because a fire is burning doesn't mean it comes from its side.

Okay, that's where we go to. And by the way, all human beings have trouble with that. All human beings have trouble with that.

They think the pen comes from the pen. Okay, everybody. All right, here we go.

425. Kim, would you mind helping us again with 425? Yes, sure, sure, sure.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, consider the direct perception which holds a coffee cup.

[Speaker 1]
It is a working thing because a coffee cup Yeah, okay. Yeah, because it's a coffee cup directly. Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah. If it sees something, it must be a working thing. That's okay, right?

If it's a perception, it must be working, right? Yes or no? Yes or no.

Okay, good. That's so easy. Let's go on.

Okay, Kim, that was pretty good. If we don't cover a few sentences, the homework writing gets difficult, right, Adam? It does, yeah.

Who's going to read, Adam? Kim, can you help us one more time? You sound so good, I don't think you need to practice.

[Speaker 3]
Sure, sure, yeah. MA GRUB NA BUD PA DANG NGOS PO TSE GCIG YIN NA GOS KYI BUD PA SNGON GSUM DU MTHONG NA NGOS PO SNGON GSUM DU MTHONG DGOS PA DPOS Yeah, nice.

[Speaker 1]
Excellent reading. Very, very good reading. Unbelievable.

I don't know what drugs... oh, no, I already said that. Okay, MA GRUB NA, if you don't agree, BUD PA DANG NGOS PO TSE GCIG YIN NA Now, this sentence is difficult.

This sentence is really difficult. What's the relationship between a coffee cup and working things? What's the relationship between this coffee cup and the category called working things?

[Speaker 3]
To be a coffee cup is to automatically be a working thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to be a coffee cup is to automatically be a working thing. Is the opposite true?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so when he says here TSE GCIG, to be one is to be the other. Please never translate this as single substance or something, because it doesn't mean anything in English. What it means is, to be a coffee cup is to be a functioning thing.

Okay, okay. If it's true that to be a coffee cup is to be a functioning thing, then when you see a coffee cup, you must be seeing a functioning thing. True or false?

Yeah, is it true that if you're a coffee cup, you're a functioning thing? Yeah, so is it true that if you see a coffee cup, you must see a functioning thing? Okay, good.

That's all.

[Speaker 2]
Until he said the buh.

[Speaker 1]
The buh means if you disagree to the last sentence we had, 425, then it's... And by the way, don't agree so easily. When you see a coffee cup, you see a functioning thing.

Don't agree. Be careful agreeing so easily. And I'll tell you why.

There's a serious question of whether you can identify a thing as a functioning thing while you are identifying it as a coffee cup. There's a serious question whether you can put it in the category of functioning things at the same instant that you're seeing it as a coffee cup. Because a coffee cup is a changing thing, and a category of functioning things is an unchanging thing.

Geshe-la, could you also say that about the changing nature of any given ngopo too? Yeah, I mean, the whole point here, and it's not stupid, and I've heard critics, Western scholars say, oh, this is all so stupid. It's not stupid.

It's a huge question. When you look at a coffee cup with coffee in it and you're about to drink it, how can you at the same moment identify it as, quote, coffee cup? Because quote, when you say quote, it's an unchanging thing.

It's a category. It's in a category. So how can you perceive a changing thing at the same instant that you're perceiving an unchanging thing?

How can you identify a cup as a cup? It's impossible. It's not possible.

Because as soon as you try to identify it, you're moving into something unchanging. You're moving into an archetype. And this guy says, no problem, it's all only theoretical.

It's all only theoretical. Theoretically, you are identifying as a coffee cup. But I mean, how could that be?

Coffee cups are unchanging. How can you be focusing on an unchanging thing when you're drinking out of the thing? It's not possible.

Yeah. Okay? You do it all day, every day, all day, all day long.

You do it all day long, every day. And you never thought about it. It's not possible that you can identify a coffee cup as a coffee cup while you're using the coffee cup.

It's not possible. Something weird is going on. Something impossible is going on.

You just never noticed it. Luckily, because you'd starve to death if you thought about it. What?

It would undermine exactly all perception, though. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right.

Next sentence, Adam. If we don't cover some sentences, you're going to have a homework crisis. Yeah.

Who's next? Who's going to read next? Can you choose someone else for us, sir?

Sorry. Is it possible to... What if I choose...

Pei? Pei Lin? Would you help us?

Can you help us read 427? Only in theory.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, cool. What's a drupe tar, you guys? A drupe tar.

Oh, yeah, it would be the drupe tar. Yeah, drupe tar. What's the Sanskrit?

Siddhanta. Siddhanta. If you don't know what it is, check out Ben Kramer's book.

It has exactly 101 siddhantas in it. It's amazing. At the end of the book, we added them up, and it was 101, so we called the book 101...

What was it? Yeah. Okay, so, drupe tar means belief system, or belief.

Okay, belief. And gyur kye len. You, Kye Len.

You, Kye Len. What's Kye Len? You believe.

You're believed. Yeah, you're the one who believes it. You're the one who believes this system.

You're the one who has the philosophical belief. Why? If it's ngön sum, it has to be a ngönpo.

If it's ngön sum, it has to be a ngönpo. If something is ngön sum tse ma, direct perception, it must be a functioning thing. It must be doing something.

If something is a correct direct perception, it must be doing something. Okay? Who said that?

You said that. Okay? You said that.

Okay? Everybody okay? Is it true?

If it's a perception, is it doing something?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Error.

[Speaker 1]
Unless you're in this class, in which case the perception's not doing anything. Okay? We'll say it again.

If it's a perception, is it doing something? Always. Always.

Even if it's misleading you, it's still doing something. Okay? Got it?

All right. Okay. Who accepts that?

The other guy. Okay? And he cannot contradict that.

He shouldn't contradict that. What? That if it's a perception, it's a functioning thing.

Okay? He should not contradict it. But he's going to contradict it.

You ready? Here we go. Should we get 428?

Yes, please. Who's going to read that one? Pei, would you mind helping us again?

Who's going to read 428? Pei, would you help us? Pei?

I don't know if she can hear. Let's see. I'll go see if I can find somebody.

Svetlana, would you help us one more time with 428? Sure. Thank you.

[Speaker 3]
du na bum dzin ngun sum bum dzin ngun sum kye chik dangpo dang dze chik gam ta de Yeah, this is much more difficult than it looks.

[Speaker 1]
What's bum dzin ngun sum, Adam? The direct perception which holds a coffee cup. Good.

The direct perception which holds onto a coffee cup. Let's split it into moments. Let's split it into moments.

Let's take the first instant of the perception of a coffee cup. So now we're not talking about... If you look at a coffee cup for two minutes, there has to be a first moment, right?

If you look at a coffee cup for two minutes, there has to be a first moment of that perception. bum dzin ngun sum kye chik dangpo dang Now, what's the relationship between looking at the coffee cup and looking at the coffee cup in the first moment? What's the relationship between those two?

Is looking at the coffee cup in the first moment part of looking at the coffee cup? I would say so, yeah. And he says, are they separate or are they the same?

Listen, okay? To look at the coffee cup in the first instant is to be that... is to be that to be looking at the coffee cup.

Is to be looking at the coffee cup to be looking at the coffee cup in the first instant? Well, you can say, not necessarily. I mean, sometimes, only in the first instant.

I'll say it again. We got looking at the coffee cup in the first instant and we got looking at the coffee cup, okay? Is one the other?

Well, looking at the coffee cup in the first instance is always looking at the coffee cup, but looking at the coffee cup is not always looking at the coffee cup in the first instance. Okay, good. Okay, so he says, chik gam ta de.

Is it to be one, to be the other? Yes or no?

[Speaker 3]
No, no.

[Speaker 1]
Going one way it is, and going the other, not. Looking at the coffee cup is not necessarily to be looking at the coffee cup in the first instance, but looking at the coffee cup in the first instance is necessarily looking at the coffee cup. Okay, guys?

All right, keep going. Before you lose that thought. Can you help us?

We have one more minute. Do you think we could squeeze 4.29 in Svetlana? Yes, definitely.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Yeah. If to be the perception of the coffee cup is to be the perception of the coffee cup in the first instance.

Okay. Then are you saying, are you saying that the perception of the coffee cup starts and stops at the same time as the perception of the coffee cup in the first instance?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
I am not. That's correct. I'll say it again.

Is to perceive the coffee cup the same thing as perceiving the coffee cup in the first instance? No. Is perceiving the coffee cup in the first instance perceiving the coffee cup?

Yeah. Does perceiving the coffee cup begin and end in the same time period as the perception of the coffee cup in the first instance? No.

Okay, that's all. That's all. So we can say that to be one is to be the other one direction, but not in the opposite direction.

Okay? To be the perception of the coffee cup in a single instant is to be a perception of the coffee cup, but to me a perception of the coffee cup is not necessarily the perception of coffee cup in the first instance because the general perception of the coffee cup doesn't start and stop in the same period as the perception of the first cup in a single instance, okay? Cool?

But listen, where is he going? Where is he going? He's going to basic building blocks.

He's going to basic building blocks. What's that? A single moment of consciousness.

Yeah, a single moment of consciousness. Does the general perception of the coffee cup consist of single moments of perception? Yes.

Does a single moment of perception consist of a perception of the coffee cup? Okay. Sometimes.

Okay, got it? What he's saying is, what's the smallest reality of mind? It's a single instant of a perception of something.

By the way, we got to talk about it in terms of an object. We have to say, we have to bring in the coffee cup. We can't have mind floating out there without an object.

We got to judge the length of mind according to the length it holds an object. We have to mention coffee cups when we talk about perception. We cannot say in theory, what's the shortest duration of mind.

Mind is only meaningful when it holds an object. Discussion of mind is only meaningful when you talk about the awareness of something. Just in the theoretical, Tapa Tatsung mind doesn't have much reference if you don't tie it to an object.

The potential of awareness is a difficult topic. You have to tie it to an object, okay? Yeah, is this where the Mitkyen would come in?

Exactly. I mean, that's exactly because we're talking about what's real. We're talking about what's real.

What's ultimately real is the smallest atom of existence, and all things are built from that. That theory, that feeling, that theory is accepted by all science. It's why a cell phone works, okay?

There are smallest parts of reality, of physical reality. Is it also true there are smallest parts of mental reality? And we say yes, but how do you judge them?

You kind of have to judge them by what object you're looking at, because in the abstract, that's a good word for Tapa Tatsung, by the way. In the abstract, we can't talk about the length of mental process without an object. You can't take the mind without an object and say how long it lasted.

It has to be with relation to an object. All of reality is essentially just atoms or matter, and the perception of matter. Reality is clumps of smallest things.

Reality is clumps of smallest things. That's the atomic theory. That's what you believe.

That's what makes a cell phone work, okay? Reality is clumps of small... Reality is conglomerations of smallest pieces.

Physically, atoms. Why are they called atom? Atom.

Why are they called atoms? Because they're smaller. They're partless.

Once you part it, it loses its unique qualities. Once you part iron atoms, it becomes oxygen or something. It changes to a gas.

The metal changes to a gas. That atom means the smallest part of you. You can keep the qualities of the thing.

So we accept in the West smallest particles called atoms. We don't talk about smallest particles of mind. But you have to, with the mind, you have to talk about it in terms of smallest smallest duration time, shortest duration time.

And you cannot define the duration time of a mental event without referring to an object. Yeah. Okay, I've philosophized enough.

I'm taking a break. Adam's gonna lead a discussion which I do not envy you. I'm trying to make this relevant to a person's real life.

Well, thank you Geshe Michael for leading the class. I'm having a lot of fun. Okay, here we go.

And then at 9.15, hopefully those bad boys are gonna show up. Okay. Go on, Adam.

Okay, yeah, I don't know how to lead this other than to open up the floor and say, okay, is there anybody that may have something they want to, any enlightening thoughts they may have had throughout the class? If not, I'll, yeah, was somebody about this?

[Speaker 3]
Anatole.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, Anatole. Good morning, sir. Morning.

I just wanted to mention that you had said that thoughts are always perceiving objects like atoms, but also thoughts can perceive other thoughts. No, it's true. Yeah, definitely.

Yeah. Yeah, coffee cups, but we could be using it's more concrete, but we could be using thinking of our thoughts. It's very, very good point.

You know, and I think it's totally relevant. The something that I'm learning more and more as I go through and study my text and I try to prepare for the class and everything is that Dharmakirti seems to be pretty intent on drawing a line between what is real and what is unreal. And he's trying to establish like what it means to be part of reality.

And I haven't entirely come to a conclusion yet, but from the point of view of the second school, we're just going to consider substance, changing things to be part of reality. And if we start throwing in thoughts and apperception, thoughts of other thoughts, I think that could get a little sticky when it comes to the school. But I would love to have other input, you know.

[Speaker 3]
Well, you could fall into this trap of thinking that everything is just what you perceive with your five senses.

[Speaker 1]
And yeah, that could be kind of like a little almost nihilistic or something. Oh, it's nihilistic. Well, I mean, this is interesting, right?

Because we have to get into why are we talking about all this stuff, right? Like if we say that we can prove things inferentially, if we can use deductive logic, Gracie, you got to give me just a second. Sorry, Gracie's downstairs.

She really needs to go to the bathroom. Let me just get this. She's like, she's actively whining at the door.

So if we can use deductive perception, so far we've established that we can, yeah, we have to be able to see other things that exist beyond our five senses. Why? Because if we could not, we could not prove or disprove past and future lives, right?

We couldn't prove or disprove the existence of things like Buddhas, right? Why would we even want to? I mean, we have to be able to prove things like that.

So that's not necessarily what I'm saying. I'm saying that inferential or deductive logic has to be used in order to see things that you can't see with your eye.

[Speaker 3]
I was thinking, Adam, this school and this methodology of thinking, this was a hard class, of course, and these classes are always difficult. And it seems like we're getting ourselves used to feeling comfortable not knowing things. There's a suggestion in the greater wisdom literature here that we study together that there's some really basic things about reality that we get wrong.

And I have a tendency to be very defensive of my ideas, especially, I think, as we get older, we don't like being told we're wrong. It really makes us mad. It's nice.

We had a few chances at Diamond Mountain back in 1932, or whatever, when kids, children would come to debate class. And I think they were better at it in some ways, because they were so used to being told they were wrong all the time, that they could just kind of go with it. They didn't, everyone tells a kid they're wrong all the time.

Don't do this. Don't do that. You got it wrong.

You got it wrong. Fix this, fix that. And adults, we learn to avoid that a lot more in our lives as much as possible.

We don't want people to tell us that. But I think the method of this book is to get you kind of going in one direction. This seems to make sense to me.

And the author comes and says, Nah, baloney, you silly person, you got it wrong again. And if there are ideas that we have about the world, if there are ideas that we have about reality that are so fundamental and wrong, that we're

[Speaker 1]
seeing the world wrong on some very basic level, that we probably, it would be so scary to make that jump, it would be so intense, it would feel so vulnerable, to make the leap into accepting that we could be wrong on such a basic level, that maybe we're going to need a lot of practice, being wrong about stuff, comfortably, in front of our friends and each other to prepare for the big

[Speaker 3]
one, that you're wrong about everything. That everyone, as Geshe Michael says, thinks that things are not coming from their seeds. Everybody thinks that things are not coming from their kindness.

And you don't want to even admit it to yourself, much less in front of other people, that you could be that wrong. But this course of study that we're engaged in together is giving me good practice at being wrong a lot in front of my friends and in front of myself. And it's okay, we can be wrong a bunch together.

And maybe we're, you know, getting more comfortable with one another, we can be more honest with one another, and then we're preparing to be right one day together.

[Speaker 1]
That's beautiful, Ben. Yeah, that's really great, man. And yeah, I don't disagree.

Mike, we got a hand raised. Mr. Mike, Mike Hoffman. Yeah, I just wanted to say I love what Ben was just saying.

And I kind of just wanted to add to it. I was thinking about when we first asked like, how we can apply this. You know, I was thinking, contemplating this makes me a little less like, reactive in traffic.

You know what I mean? It's like, if I'm thinking about these grand concepts of like, you know, what is cup compared to a cup compared to the cup, like, I'm not so it's like, it's like, we're, it's like a, you know, it's an exercise in refuge. So it's like, this is just another one of these elements where if I keep thinking about stuff like this, if I keep putting myself in this, in this alternate worldview, if I keep, if I keep myself like immersed in these concepts, it's taking me out of this, this samsaric way of thinking.

And then over time, that's doing all this practical work in my consciousness and freeing up, you know, freeing up all these, all these mental afflictions. So, you know, just not such a, not maybe not a comment on the, the substance of the text, but like, the desired result and the produced result from repeatedly thinking about this stuff and talking about this stuff, instead of thinking about like, you know, this guy just cut me off or like, you know, I'm gonna lose this thing that I like a lot, you know, like, thinking about this stuff instead. So thanks.

Yeah, yeah, I think that's, that's perfect. And yeah, that's, that's a perfect application. Yeah.

So we're using, you would be using kind of analytical reasoning to pacify your mental afflictions. Sorry, we got, Ava got a kitten. She's computer.

I think that's a great way to wrap up the class. It's 916. Thank you guys for contributing there.

And yeah, I hope, I hope you all got something out of it. Thank you, Adam, for a great class and a great talk. That was awesome.

And nice translations today. All right. We got Peachtree World News.

You guys ready? Yes. I'll take them.

I'll take a quick second to just thank our incredible interpreters. We have, for a long time now, simultaneously eight languages. That's amazing.

You guys are amazing for keeping up with us. And if you are, I don't know, if it's possible, you're doing it. And thank you.

Thank you so much. Take it away, Mr. Daniel. It looks like you're ready.

Yeah, me and Juan are gonna be together this morning. You there, Juan? I'm there.

All right. We need to show both of us on the screen. Excellent.

Oh, I like the headphones. You were translating, weren't you?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Awesome. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So you want to take it away?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So welcome everyone to another exciting Saturday morning in Greenbrook, Arizona. It's just that these days I'm actually not there.

I came to Mexico, beautiful place as well, just for two weeks. So I'm glad to be seeing all you, sending best regards.

[Speaker 1]
You already look tan. How'd that happen?

[Speaker 2]
Right? I don't know. It's just the magic of the land, I guess.

Okay. So today we want to share with you a few upcoming events, and then we have a very special segment. We're gonna have a segment we are testing.

We were thinking about sharing with people some of the skill sets that some of the worldview organizers and organizations are using lately. This idea actually comes from our friends from YSI. They came up to us very excited with this idea, and we gonna check it out today.

We have Bob Cirino with us after this few news, and he's gonna show us something very cool he has been testing lately. It's about an AI called Gemini, and how he's using it for marketing purpose. Okay.

Just giving you some heads up, but let's start with some events that are coming up, and Daniel and I will be leading you through them. Okay. So very first, as you may know, spring is coming, and one of the most beautiful places to enjoy the spring in this planet is...

Gina, please share the first. Yes, Kyoto. So as you may know, many friends of us are going to Kyoto very, very soon, and there is a chance you could come as well if you decide to sign up for this amazing program that Tim Lowenhaupt is producing.

It's happening from the 19th to the 23rd. Good thing, like these days, Japan doesn't have very strict traveling policies for some countries, so some countries can make it there without a visa, like for example me. I'm from Mexico.

Right now, I don't need a special visa. I just need to get my boat or plane, get there, sleep under a tree, do whatever, but I can be there, and that's amazing. Thank you very much for everyone who has been making this possible.

If for any unfortunate reason you cannot make it this time, which actually it will be cool if you can, then on June they are having the next event, because it's going to be a series of teachings happening there in Kyoto for like quite a few years. That's going to be the course number two. This time is course number one.

There is going to be course number two, and then on December as well, so you start making your plans, they have another event when apparently Geshe Michael Roach himself is going to be there. I hope so. I hope it's not only the picture to get you there.

I hope he's going to be there, and you can start making plans for December 2, the 2nd to the 7th. So come if you can. I have here wonderful things.

I'm excited to go and maybe see you there. So what's next, Daniel?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that sounds amazing. That next series of upcoming events in Japan is definitely something not to miss, even if you can't make it in person. Don't forget the online options are available.

So next we want to also talk about teaching an opportunity that you have to study Chinese medicine. Now everyone in the translator course has the honorable title of doctor, as we hear, but I think Word might actually be a doctor when it comes to Chinese medicine. He has studied for many years, and I know many people in the Sangha are our group of friends.

Actually, I should say the World View Network are all over the world studying ancient wisdom. Many people have had the opportunity to get treatment from Dr. Word Smith. I myself had a wonderful massage from him.

I was suffering from a little bit of excess energy in a retreat, and he noticed he offered me a massage, and I felt wonderful afterwards. So I would highly recommend. I know he spent many years prior to studying Tibetan, studying Chinese medicine.

So here's the QR code. There's the dates. So if you have any interest at all in learning how to treat yourself through the knowledge learned in the ancient Chinese medicine system, please definitely consider signing up with Dr. Word.

[Speaker 2]
And you know, Daniel, why you can tell he's a real doctor? How's that? Because he charges us one.

[Speaker 1]
I think he'll be willing to help somebody out. So I think there is a price for the course, but if I know Word, he's already made a living off of answering Geshe Michael's questions correctly. So I think he can afford to give some people help.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I myself actually want to sign up. I'm very interested, and they're gonna start on March 12th, but register soon. Awesome.

What's the next one? The next thing we want to invite you to is like this upcoming Wednesday, we're gonna have our monthly event, and this time we are celebrating, well, basically, yes, the springtime, but we decided to give this program the theme of communication and creating harmony and success with our words. We have come to this realization on how important the way we communicate, the way we use our words is very, very, it has a great impact in our success, personally, professionally, and many more ways.

So this program is going to be dedicated to this theme. We are inviting many other participants. They're going to be presenting some of their projects, but also connecting it with this beautiful and wonderful, like, way to create harmony between organizations, how to speak to each other, how to listen to each other, how to develop these skills that are going to actually transform our reality into a much, much better, harmonious, successful, and fun place to be.

So sign up. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we're going to have special segments talking about the different challenges that the directors face in their communications, as well as offering a few little words of wisdom on how we can plant more powerful seeds for communication. And of course, we have the wonderful Geshe Michael with us to give some words of wisdom as well.

[Speaker 2]
We're very lucky. All right, so sign up, and that's happening this upcoming Wednesday. We'll see you again and bump you with this beautiful content again on Monday, so expect it, but this is on Wednesday.

And then I guess, what's next? We go with Bob. How's it going?

It's going good, man.

[Speaker 1]
I'm excited for the Wednesday class.

[Speaker 2]
You have beautiful hair. Oh my gosh. I'm losing it all.

Shoot. Let me give it to you. Yeah, right.

We can share health and health. So tell us, Bob, thank you very much for this initiative you and YSI came up with. I think it's like, you talked to me a little bit of what it is, I think can be very meaningful, very useful.

So why don't you give us a little intro and take us through it? Sure, sounds good. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]
Each of us, we're doing a lot in our respective organizations, and we're often doing similar things. And so we thought that there was an opportunity to share the best practices that we have learned with other organizations, and then create an exchange of skills, an exchange of best practices. So we had an idea of making it something a little bit bigger, but we wanted to test it out today with you guys to see if you thought it was cool.

Many of you might be already doing what I'm going to be sharing with you, but for others of us, this will hopefully, I know for us, it's saving us hours and hours of work, and it's creating a better end product. The time to use artificial intelligence isn't in the future, it's now. So the question is, how?

So I'd like to share my screen with you, and we're going to go through a three-step process of how to turn any kind of manual script or meditation into marketing content in just a couple minutes. All right. So over here, YSI does a cool program called Fast for Hunger, where we invite everybody to skip a couple meals, and then donate the money they save to hungry people in their neighborhoods.

To facilitate that, we have meditations. Instead of eating, we meditate. So here is the meditation that we just did this last week.

So here's my script, and I'm going to go over here into this app called Gemini. So Gemini is a Google AI. There's a lot of other AIs that you can use.

This is the one that I use. So I'm going to go in here, I'm going to say, summarize this meditation for me. And then I'm going to paste my whole meditation right there.

And just a couple moments, it's going to spit out a summary. And if I want to promote this to somebody, or I want to get really clear on my own ideas, I can go through this. So this meditation aims to cultivate compassion and a motivation to address world hunger.

So boom, just like that, I have something I can put in an email. How are we going to do it? And it takes my meditation, and it breaks it into six independent parts.

And then it comes with the final key points. So this is really great when I'm trying to communicate to my coworkers, or if I'm trying to communicate to translators. But then I can go, great, I always say thank you.

I don't know, I want to be on the good side of AI. So I said, great, thank you. And you turn this into an IG post caption, IG meaning Instagram.

Because that's one of the hard things for us, we're such a small team, that to put it through all the different marketing channels just takes a lot of time. And so I can just ask it to do this. And boom, I have a couple options.

So I'm just going to read this one as an example. Hunger changes us. It makes us impatient, selfish.

Imagine true hunger for weeks. Now imagine millions in that state. Let's feel compassion, not ignorance, to create real change.

Okay, let's look at another one. Have you felt real hunger? How did it change you?

Now imagine that feeling ceaselessly. This is the reality for many. Can we channel that understanding into creating a world where no one goes hungry?

And then the image would be then the image. And then you could say, thank you. And you turn this into an email that will invite people to join.

And then you can add a couple more pieces of information. The event will be this Thursday. It's free on Zoom.

And then here's the kicker. If you want to take it to the next level, you would say, use a tone that is friendly. Friendly and inviting.

Okay, so you can tell it who your audience is and how you want it to talk to it. And it'll really change the messaging for you. So here's a subject line.

And then it goes through a whole email that you can just copy and paste. Here's what to expect. Here's the details.

We hope to see you there warmly, your organization. Now, I don't recommend literally just copying and pasting. You're going to want to make sure that it got all the information correct.

And you're going to want to make sure that the true essence of what you're trying to share comes through. But if you can save 80% of the time, because AI did the foundation work, and you just do 20% of polishing, then we could save us all a lot of energy. And when we're thinking about having our dollars go further, on the same one hour of work, now we can do, you know, three or four times the amount of output.

So there's lots of applications. I've uploaded entire manuals into this to help us promote courses. And it was really interesting.

So I hope that this helps you. My motivation was to help everybody save time and be more efficient with their dollars. So with the same amount of money, we can make a bigger impact in all that we're doing.

So have fun with it, play with it. And I hope that it helps. Thank you, Juan and Daniel for the time on the show.

Thank you so much, Bob. That's an awesome quick presentation. We're almost out of time.

But just a really quick question, which I think, you know, it's simple and would help people. How much does it cost to sign up for that service? Oh, there's free options that you can utilize.

But then there's paid options also. So you can do all that I just did for free through chat GPT or Gemini. And there's there's other options.

And then you get a couple more bells and whistles by paying for it. And with Google Gemini, you can integrate AI directly into your Google documents and Google Sheets. So I can do this inside of a document and then just send the document immediately to my whole team to then turn into their processes.

So that's one of the reasons I prefer Gemini. And that's I think it's twenty dollars a month.

[Speaker 2]
Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but but there's free options.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much, Bob. So what we I would like to suggest is maybe if someone in the audience feels inspired and start testing it out. And then later, maybe in a week or two, you feel inspired to share with us some other like results you have accomplished using this.

You could share with us like, look, look the poster I did with with this new program or look the email I did. Or if you run a campaign using it, it will be cool for us to see like the results of what just of what Bob just shared. And thank you very much, Bob.

I think it's very interesting. I had a chance to to go with you through this like for about 15 minutes, kind of twice the time. And I think it was it was how to say it gave me good ideas.

Eye opening in a way. So thank you very much for taking the time to share these things with you. I know your team has other things to share, so maybe we can schedule to talk about those.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Let Juan know if this is something that is valuable to you. And I'd just like to highlight what Venerable Upala said in the chat.

Please still use an editor.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks, Bob. All right. So let us know if you have things that you would like to share.

If you like these kind of segments where we share like skill sets and technologies, other like tools that people are using. If you want to present or if you find it meaningful, let us know and see you Monday. Sending best wishes and regards over there, wherever you are.

[Speaker 1]
Over to you, Word. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Juan.

We are now going to continue with how to translate a book.