Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 44

[Speaker 1]
It's almost time. Good to see you all. Thank you for showing up.

Thank you for always coming and participating, which is really the greatest kind of support that we can ask for, is that people are interested in what we're doing, and participating in what we're doing, and sharing the ideas that they're learning here, going deeper in your own lives. You're really amazing. I hear somebody.

It's three. It's about that time. Welcome to Schwentzang Tower, and I want to make a special dedication here.

There's a group in Ukraine and Russia that has been supporting ALL, our sister organization, for years now, and through that also supporting our efforts, and they're called the Gold Club, and they're amazing. It's just a really amazing group of people who are very passionate about the kind of work that we do, and they pull together funds to help ALL survive for many years now. This session is dedicated to them.

Thank you, Gold Club, and keep helping us out. If you can, and we will do everything to support you guys, and that's the main announcement I wanted to make for today. I think we will have Mr. Adam Andrade joining us to share his homework, and then we will watch a recording together of the session where Geshe Michael's leading us through his book. So, Adam, if you are ready, my friend. Yeah, I'm here. I just need to black out my answers on the homework real quick.

I'll distract everybody. Adam's totally ready, and here I am just talking away. Well, I want to give another special thank you to our interpreters who translate these into like 50 languages now.

You guys are amazing, and especially, especially Gina and Marina and Francisco and Ale at Worldview Productions, who really make this all happen, and us Mixed Nuts are just lucky to have you guys. We're just, we can just lay back and do our translation work thanks to you. Thank you.

Great. Yeah, I think we're good to go. Let me share the screen here.

Let me make this a little bit bigger for you guys. Yes, thank you. How's that look?

For me, it's pretty good. What's that? A little bigger still, please.

A little bigger. Right on. How about that?

There's still people here older than me, but I don't know how long that's going to last. Is that better, Venerable?

[Speaker 3]
Well, I'm just thinking, for me, it's fine, but usually when I use a big screen, a monitor like what I think you're using, you have to go full screen in order for it to appear large for people who are using other devices.

[Speaker 1]
Full screen just throws so many of the apps into a disarray. Yeah, let's see if this will work. So number one, from the Celtrantica perspective, what two qualities can establish something as being real?

[Speaker 3]
The quality that I already agree to and the quality that I'm accepting it.

[Speaker 1]
Interesting. I like that approach. However, I'm looking for something in a slightly different category, but I like the train of thought there.

There's a mind that perceives and performs a function. I mean, it's perceived and it performs a function. What establishes reality?

Let's reword it. So from the perspective of the Celtrantica school, what do we call real? Yeah.

I mean, that would establish something as an object of an accurate perception. Yeah. The definition of an existing thing, really.

Oh. Yeah, but there are also kind of non-changing things that we would consider real. That's still a semi-myth, but anyway, that's not the answer that you're looking for.

It is not. Okay. Well, I thought it was going to be a little bit more straightforward than maybe it is.

The Celtrantica school, something's real. It consists of either atoms or moments of awareness. Oh, the can might have thrown us off too, because you said you worded the question great.

What two qualities can establish something as being real? But I was thinking it had to be two together. Oh, right.

Yeah. Well, these, yeah, totally. I mean, well, and something we're going to get into, I mean, that's a very good observation there.

And it does require that they both be present, because you can't have something that exists without somebody or something to perceive it, right? So, partless moments of awareness have to exist tandemly with partless atoms. You have to have the interplay of partless atoms and then moments of awareness to perceive it, right?

So, all right. Well, sorry. I thought we spent enough time on that that maybe it would be a little bit more straightforward, but maybe it's just the way that I worded it too.

So, let's go to the second question here. Is it, we have a hand raised. Do I need to, is there something that's unclear?

Whoever it is, you're welcome to turn on your mic and ask a question. Yeah, please. I don't want to move forward if we haven't cleared everything up.

Seems like you can go for it, Adam. Okay. So, is it possible for something to be a general category if there is only one example of something, which is it?

[Speaker 3]
Not possible.

[Speaker 1]
Not possible. Do we have anything which may support your answer? Is there any way you can tell me maybe why that's the case?

Sorry, I'm still waking up a little bit too.

[Speaker 3]
Um, not possible because how could a coffee cup can subsume many types of coffee cup?

[Speaker 1]
Perfect. Wow. Okay.

I wasn't expecting that, but that was perfect. Yeah. Something can't be archetypal.

There's only one single instance of it as a definition of achievement, which is what you were just saying, um, is anything which subsumes its members, uh, plural, right? So, according to Buddhist logic, we can't have a set which is only populated by a single thing, right? So, furthermore, we learned that in the Chichedrak section of the Dura, that there must be multiple examples of any giving archetype to qualify it as being a general category.

So, uh, the question then becomes, can two things qualify something as being a general category? Yeah. But yeah, multiple things.

It appears that in the, from the Sajara in the, in the Sajara, we learned it has to be more than two, which is weird because I would fall, I would, I would be in the same boat with you, Nick, if I hadn't have read that, you know, um, let's see if two things are such as to be one is automatically be the other. Would we be justified in saying that they are in reality the same thing?

[Speaker 3]
Cannot.

[Speaker 1]
You can't say that.

[Speaker 3]
Cannot be the same thing. The reasoning is we got, we got looking, looking at the coffee cup in the first instance, and we got looking at the coffee cup, looking at the coffee cup in the first instance.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
It's necessary to be looking at the coffee cup, but looking at the coffee cup is not always is looking at the coffee cup in the first instance.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

I think I see what you're saying there. Um, yeah, I took a slightly different approach to explaining it. Um, but I think that's very, very beautiful way of handling that as well.

Is that, was that Chloe? I can't tell. That's like, pay late.

Was it that pay pay? That was very, very beautiful though. Um, and I do, I don't agree, disagree with anything you said there.

So what we were particularly not necessarily, I wasn't necessarily focusing with this question on whether or not something was the object as we perceived it in the first moment versus the second moment, um, or the continuation of a coffee cup, let's say, um, I was more so trying to hone in on the term that we spent a lot of time, uh, treating last class, which was right. So whether or not to be if, if so, so if a coffee cup is such that, Hey, let's just go through it like this. So just because two things are such as to be, what is automatically to be the other, um, doesn't mean that they're the same thing within the context of the Gaelic interpretation of master and securities philosophy being conceptually different is enough to justify the position that the two things are different.

So what I was really trying to hone in here on is just being different, uh, from the perspective of how you, how you perceive them mentally, um, is enough to distinguish them as being two things. So you have the coffee cup, right? We can say that a coffee cup is such that to be, it is automatically be a working thing.

And likewise to be, uh, to be, it is to automatically be a changing thing as well. So we cannot say that being a coffee cup is the same thing as being a working thing, because these two are conceptually different things. And, uh, what was it?

It was, uh, okay. So I'm going to stop sharing for just one second. No, uh, uh, I have to, yeah, for some reason it, uh, I totally neglected to blow up.

I was, I was about to give you the vocab answers and, um, I want to be a little bit, I want you guys to get something out of this homework. So, okay. What was it?

Six. All right. So our vocab, the day, the Lekpar Somshik.

Think well. Yeah. Think well.

What about Takpita Tsumgitul? Um, how, something like theoretically, like, just how two things are the same. No, no, but, uh, in theory, in, in theory.

Yeah, totally. You could say a theoretical, a theoretical case or a hypothetical case. Um, yeah.

All right. So that's it for the homework. I think we can go back to the prerecorded stuff.

Um, I'm going to get some, some water here and try to wake up a little bit. Oh, really nice work, Adam. And thank you for this great homework.

And I definitely learned something today. And, uh, Gina, are you going, are you ready to play that video? Make sure she's there.

Sorry. Marina, you've got it ready. Okay.

Whenever you're ready then, uh, here comes the prerecorded class. Um, we did it very recently, but for those of you who did not see it, it is in, it was one of my favorite classes that we've done so far of, uh, Adam's, of this current text that we're working on. It was really, it was really special.

It is really special. So, uh, and then directly after class, Adam, just jump right in with your discussion, as it winds down and then hand it over to, uh, the Peachtree World News, please. Will do, man.

Yeah. Cool. Thank you.

Okay, Marina. Vamos. Oh, so Adam, here's your translation.

Uh, can you read the first sentence, please? I'd be happy to, uh, young Corsum. Uh, yeah.

What's there's no way to respond. What is Corsum, you guys? Yeah.

Basically the guy beat himself. I don't, we don't have a translation for it yet, do we? I don't think so.

Right. I didn't see it in, in the, in your previous. I don't think we have a translation for it yet.

I gotta think about it.

[Speaker 2]
And I've always wondered, I mean, I don't know if there was a historical three of something that's never been, it's just sort of, you flip flop three times or something or what is it?

[Speaker 1]
I actually don't know. And it would be worth finding out. So let's make it a homework for additional for next time.

Okay. Adam, you got to write me three days before your next class and remind me. Okay.

Yes, sir. I don't think I've ever heard it explained actually. I mean, we all know it kind of means like the guy gave an answer that killed him, but I don't know where they get the Corsum from.

Yeah. So basically, you just beat yourself. And, and here, la len me dom means, if I accuse you of beating yourself, there's no, there's no valid answer you could give me.

Okay. There's no answer possible for me saying to you, Corsum, you just beat yourself. Okay.

Adam, let's read them four, three, three. Yes, sir. ,ZHES BYA CHOS CAN, NGOS PO DANG BUM PA'I TSE GCIG YIN NA, NGOS PO'I TSE DANG BUM PA'I TSE GCIG YIN DGOS PAR THAL, ,YIN DGOS PAR THAL, NI TSE GCIG YIN NA, KHYING RGAG GCIG CHAR GCIG DGOS PA'I PHYIR, Yeah, oh my gosh, ZHES BYA CHOS CAN.

So what's, let's consider all noble things. NGOS PO DANG BUM PA is such that um, if we call it such that to be a working thing. Yeah.

Now the trick is the, one of the problems here that, this is very tricky, okay. If I say NGOS PO BUM PA DANG TSE GCIG and I put the DANG after the second thing. You see what I mean?

Then it goes one way. You're saying, are you meaning musum? Is that?

No, I mean, where it says NGOS PO DANG BUM PA. Okay. Where it says NGOS PO DANG BUM PA, the wording in Tibetan is that when you say blank, blank, DANG ZAD CIG, right?

That the DANG comes before ZAD. The DANG comes before the word ZAD. Then when you say BUM PA NGOS PO DANG ZAD CIG, it means if something is a BUM PA, it has to be NGOS PO.

You see what I mean? Okay, yeah. It's a one-way ZAD CIG.

When we say ZAD CIG, normally it's one way or the other. It can be, in GYAB NYAM, it can be MI LTAR PA BYAS PA DANG DANG ZAD CIG. You can say that.

Right, or RGYUD, right? Yeah, you can say all changing things. To be a changing thing is to be a functioning thing, like that.

You can say MI LTAR PA NGOS PO DANG ZAD CIG. So you got to learn that, okay? So I'll say it again.

You're saying to be one thing is to be another thing. So in Tibetan, you have to say the one thing that's to be that is to be the other thing, which by the way, can either be a member of a ZAD or equal ZADs, right? Okay, yeah.

So normally you would say, I don't know, RGYUD NGOS PO DANG ZAD CIG, which the only way to translate it into English is to be a coffee cup is to be a working thing. And what he's done here is he's put the DANG in the wrong place, okay? And then what it means is up for grabs, all right?

And we have to look at how the argument plays out. To translate, you have to look at how the argument plays out. If it were me and somebody said, NGOS PO DANG BUM PA TSE CIG, what it means is to be a functioning thing is to be a coffee cup and to be a coffee cup is to be a functioning thing.

Is it the yin? Yeah. Yin kyap nyam, yeah.

Yeah. It'd be equivalent. The way he has worded it here, the opponent has knocked himself open for that interpretation, unwantedly, probably.

Anyway, let's start out like that. What it says now, in my opinion, is if something is a functioning thing, it's a coffee cup. And if something is a coffee cup, it's a functioning thing.

Okay? And to translate it into English, you'd have to say something like, if it's the case, because of the yin and yang, right? If it's the case to be a coffee cup is to be a, if it's the case that coffee cups and functioning things are such that to be one is to be the other.

So the way he's structured the DANG, it has to be saying something like, to be one is to be the other, and we don't know which way. Okay. And so you're going to have to say, let's consider all noble things.

Between a coffee cup and a functioning thing, is it is to be one, if to be one is to be the other. That's how you have to translate it. If to be one is to be the other, okay?

DNGOS PO'I TSE, DANG PO'I TSE, CIG YIN GOS PA DANG Then this second, this third section that starts with DNGOS PO'I TSE, right? Yes. This is not TSE CIG.

This does not say TSE CIG. You cannot read it, you cannot phrase it by saying TSE and CIG together, because TSE CIG means to be one is to be the other. So if it's, okay, if it's a substantial working thing.

Yeah, and that's not what it says here. What it says is DNGOS PO'I TSE, DANG PO'I TSE, PO'I TSE, CIG YIN GOS PA DANG Yeah. It does not say DNGOS PO'I TSE, DANG PO'I TSE, CIG It doesn't say, yeah.

That's how I tried to hit it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it must be that the substance of coffee cup and the substance of a working thing are the same thing.

That's good translation. Good, yeah, that's a good translation. So this third, the stuff after the second comma in the whole thing is saying that if something is the substance of a working thing, then it must be the substance of a coffee cup, okay?

Yeah, okay. And then he says something else. And he says, DANG YIN TSE CIG YIN NA If those two were, and now we don't know how to read TSE CIG.

If those two were made of the same thing, or if to be one of those two was to be the other one, which is probably what he wants to say, okay? If the one of those two is to be the other one, then the last part is easy. DGE SKABS CIG TSAR BYED DGOS PA'I PHYIR No, what this says is...

They start together and stop together. Yeah, their starting must be together and their ending must be together. And we're going to have that in whose text?

We're going to have that in words text tomorrow. And it's a very interesting argument. And I'll give it to you.

And you'll understand it better. They're talking about NYON YI, which is a messed up state of mind. And the argument is, and they discuss six different parameters of NYON YI.

And one of the parameters is, what is its ethical content? Is it virtuous? Is it non-virtuous?

Or is it... Sorry. Hang on.

Yeah, sorry. No, what is the associated feeling? Does it feel good?

Does it feel bad? Or does it feel neutral? Okay.

And then they say, somebody, some guy comes up and says, it feels good. And we're like, what? And he says, yeah, it feels good.

And we say, why do you say that? And he says, because it likes things. And then we say, why do you say that?

And he says, because it's a kind of chakpa. It's a kind of desire, attachment. And then that argument plays out by saying, yes, it's attachment in the sense of attachment to the self-existence of a thing.

It doesn't mean chakpa in the sense of pleasant, finding things pleasant. It's chakpa in the sense of dakra chakpa, attachment to a self-nature. So, nyunye is chakpa.

It's attachment to a self-nature. But it's not chakpa in the sense of desire, dukchak. And then our guy says, it's, what do you say?

He says, jung dok. It's not, nyunye is not pleasure. Nyunye is not pleasure in the sense of, nyunye is not chakpa in the sense of pleasure.

Because jung dok, pleasure dang jung dok chik ma yin. Jung dok means they don't start together and they don't stop together. If you, when nyunye starts, when nyunye goes into action, it's not true that desire goes into action.

And it's not true that when nyunye goes out of existence, desire has gone along with it up to that moment, okay? And that's what khyen gag chik means. That's what khyen gag chik means.

They don't start at the same time and they don't stop at the same time. And that's the only way they could be. Jung dok chik means start and stop simultaneously.

So these are different ways of saying start and stop simultaneously. Okay, got it? So what he's saying is, if coffee cups and working things were ze chik, if they, to be one were to be the other mutually, okay?

If to be one were to be the other mutually, then anytime one of them started, the other would have to start. And when that one stopped, the other one would have to stop. So anytime you had a working thing in existence, it would automatically produce a coffee cup.

Yeah, basically, yeah, yeah. If they were really substantially one in the way you want to think of it, yeah, then to be, if that's the way you think of it, yeah, when one of them went into existence, the other one should go into existence. And when it's went out of existence, the other one should go out of existence too.

And the implication is they should continue for the same duration. Okay, yeah. And that's a test of whether something is really ze chik Yeah.

in the non-hierarchical sense. This is really interesting, again, because I wrote a small note to myself that we'll see here in a second that was just asking specifically if yin kyap nam on a relational basis was always mu sum or not and whether or not you could have, yeah, it was something I had been struggling with actually. Yin kyap nam is a very, very, very similar idea here, yeah.

It's part, yeah, you're on the right track. Yeah, that's nice. That's nice.

So anyway, basically he has said that to be one is to be the other. And he didn't make it one or the other first. He said to be one is to be the other.

And we say, well, then what one is has to be what the other is because you said to be one is to be the other. And he said, okay. And then we said, okay, so when one of those two goes into existence, the other one must pop into existence.

And when one goes out of existence, the other one must pop out of existence, okay? And the whole problem with this whole section is chi tsen and rang tsen, coffee cups are which? Excuse me, are what?

A coffee cup is which one? Oh, a coffee cup is rang tsen. Yeah, good, I like you said that.

A coffee cup is rang tsen. Coffee cups or coffee cup is? The chi tsen.

Fabulous. Chi. And when a coffee cup goes into existence, does the category called coffee cups go into existence, come into existence?

Ben and I have been talking about this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I don't say that assuming there's other coffee cups in the universe.

I mean, from like a parallel reasoning, you can say that it would have to in the sense that it would have to start and stop with whatever that phenomena is. Yeah. I mean, maybe there was the first coffee cup in the universe, but maybe when that coffee cup started, coffee cups started.

Yeah. But in general, coffee cups get to last longer than a coffee cup. They're not zhe ching.

And they're not. They are not. They're not yin kyap myang.

It's not true that cups zhe and a coffee cups zhe are ching. But it is true that to be a coffee cup is to be, sorry, it is true that to be a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup, like that. To be a member of a coffee cup.

So the problem, and this whole problem ties back to the, what do you call it? It's the contradiction of identity. Like if I see a lump of clay and I identify it as a coffee cup, then somehow I must be putting it into the category of coffee cup.

Then somehow I must be perceiving a particular coffee cup and a set of coffee cups at the same time. And then I must be perceiving a rang tsen and a chi tsen at the same time. And that's not possible.

Because according to Ben's text, the brilliant opening page of Ben's text, the job of je pak tsenpa is to perceive a chi tsen. And the job of mun tsum tsenpa is to perceive a rang tsen in the case of a lump of clay. I mean, it would seem that like from what, if I remember correctly from earlier in this text, we were talking about how when you perceive, like when you have the perception of a sound, also perceiving its impermanence, you- That's also the argument.

Yeah, that was a big part of the argument here. Is it even possible to perceive equality? And from that standpoint, you could say that the changing nature of sound is zhe chig with sound.

Exactly. And that's where he's at. That's why he's talking like this.

Okay, so is it true that a coffee cup and all working things blink out at the same moment? No. No, uh-uh.

Yeah, we'd have to say no, but let's keep going and see where he's going. And I'm happy you translated this. It's tough.

We'll see. All right.

[Speaker 3]
I'm in shock.

[Speaker 1]
So you wanna pick somebody to read the 434? I would love to. Just to get some practice.

Yeah, we've got 32 people. I see Yulia. Yulia is the first person I kind of honed in on here.

But then she promptly signed out.

[Speaker 3]
Hello, everyone.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, is that Yulia? Oh, there you are. Okay.

Oh, hi. Would you mind reading 434 for us?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Thank you. Yulia Chokhndi Khelendak Pada Khatun Dulende Parcheto.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, Khelendak Khatun, yeah. Yeah, by the way, you guys owe me for these more difficult corrections. Yeah, that one was pretty, I could see.

This one, I hate to say it, but it was a bitch. Anyway. Dila, okay, you gotta break this up differently, then you'll be okay.

Okay. Read the first part as, forget the Dila, okay? The Dila just means about this question, on this question.

Then Chokhndi Khelembadak, what does that part mean? Chokhndi Khelembadak. This is how you would respond to this position.

Good, yeah. No, it means those, all the guys who accept this concept. Oh, yeah, accept, yeah, sorry, yeah.

I'm getting the Lin Dap here at the end confused with the- Yeah, so all you guys who agree with this idea that they, to be, that these two, that to be one is to be the other mutually, okay? The way he worded it. All you guys who accept that, when they give their answer, Lin Dap, okay?

Lin Dap, when they give their answer, they speak in one car. Yeah, with one mouth. This is where I used it unanimously here.

I felt- Exactly, it's perfect. Yeah, it's perfect. No, it means that all the people who say that functioning things and coffee cups, to be one is to be the other, then when we give them this kind of argument that we just did, which was, oh, are you saying they both come into existence at the same time, and they both go out of existence at the same time?

And then we say, as far as I know, all the dudes who talk like that, they would say, yes, they do, to this telling you, to this sarcastic statement. Are you saying that every time you break a coffee cup, you break all functioning things? And he says, well, if you really believe that position, that to be one is to be the other, then yeah, if you break a coffee cup, you must break all functioning things.

Yes, duh, okay? So duh then means, yeah. Are you guys who believe that that's the mutual Zaychik of coffee cup and functioning thing, then okay, I suppose you, I suppose all you guys would say duh to this telling you, okay?

Yeah. Okay. And then, but that by chain is to give an answer, okay?

Okay. Lend depth, lend depth by chain means to give an answer. Yeah, lend depth means to answer or something like that.

Okay, and then it gets hot. Okay. It gets hot.

So we got four, three, five. Yulia, would you help us one more time? Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yes. they, that, down chain young chick, while on car cell, church, chain, your key read, down, while long, not cool, not so, key, chick, how?

[Speaker 1]
Door, not door.

[Speaker 3]
Not, not do, key, read, chick, in, but, Dao, Chodan, Te, Ni, Rik, Chik, Yun, Pa, Pei, Yi, Chir.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay, good. Deda, Tom, Jane, Yun, Chik, Rik. I think that Tom, Jane means all you guys.

Okay, so listen up, all you guys. Because the last phrase was, you know. It, yeah, it caught on.

Yeah, all of you would think, yeah. That makes sense, okay. Well, listen up, all you guys.

Yeah, let's take a, I don't know these words. I looked them up, I studied them. If you look down at the red letters, the first red letters here.

Carcel, that's from the Great Dictionary. Yeah. And it defines carcel as car top.

And you know, Tao, from words, ancient checkerboard argument. Pattern, checkerboard. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, like pattern. What it means is a spotted cow. White body, black spots, or something like that, okay.

Main body's white, and it's got some black patterns on it, okay. So let's take a white cow with black patterns on it. Okay.

Then the way he words it here, okay, again, he has worded it illegally in a sense, okay. And that's why he gets in trouble. It's category, kio kio ri, okay.

Okay. It's category. And the category of a balang nagur.

And gur without the S means a tent.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And gur with an S seems to mean, I mean, if it's me, I'm gonna translate it as something like an all-black cow or something like that. Okay. And by the way, I warn you, when you get into nomad terminology, the spelling breaks down.

Because that's the words that existed in Tibet before Buddhism got there. Anyway, nagur, I say a black cow. Yeah.

Rik chik yin bar ta, okay. Are they of the same type? And it's a very difficult question.

It sounds silly, but it's not silly. Are they the same type? Even in English, you could interpret that question two different ways.

Are they the same type? Yeah. Meaning, first way, do they belong to the same set?

They do. Both members of the set called cows. But understand that in English also, if I ask you, are they the same type?

I could, if I was crazy, or if I wanted to trip you up on the debate ground, I could be saying, are they both cows in general? Right. Yeah, yeah, totally.

Yeah, are they the same category? Well, I mean, multicolored cows belongs to the multicolored cow set, Rik. And then black cows belong to the black cow set, but they both belong to the set balong.

Yeah, they belong to the set called cows, but they are not the set cows. Yeah. Okay, they belong to the set cows.

That's dang zhe chik. But they are not the set cows, okay? So, you know.

Now, and I ask you, are they the same, Rik? Yes or no? It, I mean, I would say it depends, but yes.

Yeah, no, you should say depends. You have to come back with me. By the way, it's legal in a debate to come back with a request for a clarification of vocabulary, you know?

How would I say that? So, Rik chik, sig yi gyi re, chay dag yi rik sig yi gyi re. Are you saying a category in general, or are you saying a member of a category?

Because rik chik can mean either one. Sig yi gyi re is, what is the sig? It's a sig yi ser gyi yod pa red.

Yeah, and in colloquial, it comes out sig yi gyi re.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You know, that's why monks' letters, homes are so badly written. Because, you know, write sig yi gyi re in Tibetan letters, and then to appreciate that it's really ser gyi yod pa red. There.

So, you read my teacher's nephew's letters. You have to close your eyes and listen to it, and guess what he was saying, you know? Okay.

All right, so are they, oh, are you saying they are rik chik? And there's a problem here, because it could mean, are they the same category, or do they belong to the same category? And that's two totally different meanings, okay?

Can you, one more time, give me the distinction there? I mean, I- Yeah, I'll say it again. But I want to make sure that I- I'll ask you, is a black cow and a white cow the same category or not?

It depends. Sig yi gyi re. Well, in English, there's less of an ambiguity.

If I say, are they the same category? You'd say, no, they are different categories. One is the category of all black cows, one is the category of all white cows.

Then if I say, do they belong to the same category? You say, oh, yeah, they do. They both belong to cows, but they are not the same category.

A black cow and a white cow is not the same category. Do they belong to the same category? Yes.

Yeah. That's kind of where my mind was going, but I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, no, and you know, it's, you know, I have that friend, Gene Smith, who insisted that this was all ridiculous, a waste of time.

And I don't think so, because in the end, if you, here's where we're going. If you look at a cup and you identify it as a cup, then on some level, you must be conceiving the category cup, which is unchanging. And that's the contradiction.

No mind except the Buddhist mind can hold an unchanging thing and a changing thing at the same time. But it's undeniably true that we pick out the right object to pour our coffee into. Yeah.

You know, we must identify it as a cup if we pour our coffee into it, you know? Oh, yeah, yeah. The whole point of it is that even as low as the second school, they are aware that there's a fundamental contradiction of perception.

Yeah. And they do not resolve it. They fail to resolve it.

But at least- I've been trying, yeah. I've been wondering. Totally.

At least it makes them uncomfortable. Yeah. If cup consisted of atoms, which is what they have to say, then in theory, you would try to pour your coffee into your shoe.

You see? You wouldn't be able to identify a thing as a cup at the same time that you were perceiving clay cup. It's not possible.

And that bothers them. And it's great that it bothers them. It's gonna make them go to the middle way.

So can I rest easy in realizing that second school is never gonna resolve that issue? Yeah, no, exactly. They will never resolve it.

Okay. They will give up this school and graduate to the middle way, and they'll say the cups come from me. Yeah.

They're not made of atoms.

[Speaker 2]
So Keshi, Michael, it seems confusing here. Like he's saying that there's some jerk out there who's so dumb that they think that to be a coffee cup is to be a working thing, and to be a working thing is to be a coffee cup. And it sounds crazy to us, but it's someone maybe trying to settle or like resolve this problem.

When you say, well, are you seeing coffee cup and working thing at the same time? Because you can't see them both at the same time. They're different things.

And someone's coming back and saying, well, no, they are the same thing. My resolution is somehow to be the working thing is to be the coffee cup, and to be the coffee cup is the working thing. And that's how you can see both at the same time.

And then that's what we're disputing.

[Speaker 1]
Well, I'll give you a good answer to it. The whole discussion is itself a reaction to an earlier thought. Okay.

And the whole initiation of this argument is because they're trying to figure out how you identify a thing as a cup at the same time that you're seeing the ceramic object. And they're struggling with the difference between a Rangtsen and a Chitsen. What they're struggling with is that at the moment that you perceive the Rangtsen, you must also on some level be perceiving the Chitsen.

And it came from the ancient argument, when you perceive sound, can you at the same moment be aware of its impermanence? Yeah, because to perceive the impermanence, there's some form of reasoning going on there, but it appears that it's present with the perception. Yeah, and I've been having a wonderful time with the beginning of Ben's book, with that whole concept that when you use logic, you are in the realm of Chitsens.

And when you use direct perception, you are in the realm of Rangtsens. You see what I mean? Somewhere it's coming in here.

Well, Geshe-la, it's starting to bog us down, but just something that I've been kind of struggling with is how we directly perceive anything. Like we just have sense data, and then it appears that anytime we label anything, anytime we label the sense data, it's automatically a Chitsen. It's like you just- Yeah, the label is a Chitsen.

It's like you never directly perceive a coffee cup. You just perceive indicators and colors and shape. And then once your mind labels it in that conceptual process, then it's a Chitsen.

Yeah, and then part of this argument comes from the idea that if you drop a coffee cup and you break it, and at the moment you drop it, you look down and you see it shatter, are you seeing impermanence? Yeah. You see?

And then impermanence is a Chitsen. So how can you be perceiving a Longchen and a Chitsen at the same time? Could you also say that subtle impermanence, just like being a working thing, is also ze chig?

Well, our debater today is in a position where he feels more comfortable if you say somehow to be one is to be the other, and to be the other is to be the one. Which means he's trying to say, on one level, you perceive the Chitsen and the Longchen at the same time. And we say, well, then we go to this category state.

Do you ever see cows? Yeah. Okay, so do you agree that a black cow and a white cow are of the same category?

Do you agree that a white cow and a black cow are the same category? No. No, they're not categories at all.

You should say that. You should righteously say that.

[Speaker 3]
I hesitantly say that.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, my God, Geshe-la, you're getting old. What do you mean are they categories? No, they're changing things.

How could they be a Chitsen? Okay. So that's where we pushed him.

Yeah, then we said, oh, the category of black cows must be the same as the category of white cows. Okay. Okay.

By the way, this is really hard stuff. I love it. I'm absolutely, I'm having such a fun time with my texts right now.

And Ben's is gonna, you're gonna, your two texts are gonna help each other because they kind of intersected. Well, they intersect a lot. Here we go, 436.

[Speaker 3]
We've been trying to call each other more for emotional support lately, just for this very reason.

[Speaker 1]
It's true. By the way, Ben, the reason you didn't get your text yet for tomorrow is I haven't figured it out yet. I decided, anyway, I decided I had to fill in all the types of, two questions with your text.

Number one, he started quoting the root text and he does not explain the root text. The reason I love his commentary is he gives word by word explanation. But it turns out that at the beginning of his commentary, he decided not to.

And then that's the first problem. And then the second problem is his opening pages of the real commentary, which we just reached, are lists of arguments and he does not give examples. He gives the names of many kinds of arguments and he gives no examples.

So I'm going through and filling in the examples, just saying that's why you're not gonna get your translation text tomorrow. Okay, 436, who's gonna read it, Adam? Jackie, Jackie, would you mind helping us?

Jacqueline, one, two, three, is she there? Yes. Hey, thank you.

We're on 436, can you help us read? DO NA DE MA YIN BAR THAL By the way, that was a perfect intonation. Between up and going up and going down.

You kind of got the hang of it. BA LANG? Yeah, BA LANG.

BA LANG BAR THAL MA YIN PA DE BA LANG BAR THAL It should be BA LANG BAR THAL DE BA LANG BAR THAL GYI RIG YIN GYI RIG YIN BA LANG NAG POR GYI RIG MA YIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, good. So he said to be the category of a white cow is to be the category of a black cow. Okay, that's basically what he said.

And then we said DO NA, oh, if you agree that they are the same category, okay. No, they're not. And then he gives the definition of a white cow's category.

And that's helpful. So the definition of the GCIG RTZAN, the label on a white cow, the definition of the label on a white cow is BA LANG BAR THAL MA YIN PA'I LOG PA The opposite of all that it's not? Yeah, the concept white cow is not the same as white cow, right?

The concept or the identity called, quote, white cow is not the same as a white cow, right? Why? Because a white cow is a living, moving, functioning thing.

And the category of a white cow is an unchanging idea. And the way you get to that idea is you pancake, okay. Me and Adam are going to invent a new logic term which will live for a thousand years.

You pancake. What's it mean, Adam? What's it mean to pancake a white cow?

It's taking the negative of whatever it is. So if you've got a coffee cup, the opposite of everything that's not the coffee cup is the coffee cup. Yeah, a double negative.

You got to flip the pancake. Yeah, the opposite of all that is not a white cow. Well, why the dope button here?

I'm getting there. The opposite of all that's not a white cow is the category called white cow. It's the concept white cow, okay.

It's like white cow Z is the opposite of everything a white cow is not, okay. That's the concept white cow. That's the chitzen white cow, okay.

Now, he's not saying, when he says L-D-O-G, N-DOG PA, he's not saying DOG PA DANG MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA He's not saying flip it a third time. He's not saying that. It's a, what do you call it?

Opposition. CAR SA MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA is the DOG PA. It's the flip-flop, okay.

DOG PA here is a noun and then MA YIN PA LAS LOG PA is an adjectival phrase, clause, phrase. So the WAD GYI GUS YI is like kind of a which is.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, that DOG PA which is.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, or represented by. Reading backwards, DOG PA meaning the identity, cow-ness, white cow-ness is defined as the opposite of all that is not a white cow. The identity or the category called white cow-ness is defined as the opposite of all that is not a white cow, okay.

When you perceive the cow, when you perceive cow-ness of your cow, you are perceiving the opposite of all that is not a cow. That's a qi zhen and that never changes. Yeah.

How can you be doing that at the same moment that you use it to hold coffee which is a functioning thing, okay. And that's the eternal question here, okay. Sorry again.

Yeah, go ahead. No, I just had a question about the car cell. When you had the great dictionary entry from above, the first entry was tra wo so I've been using multicolored instead of white.

Yeah, that's fine. Oh, no, it's a white cow with spots. Okay, and then a black cow, an all black cow, not gore.

I believe so. Yeah, I was hoping that the opposite was a black cow with white spots.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But I don't think it is. I think it's an all black cow. And I'm sorry for the inconsistency.

Don't be charming. I need to apologize for Keiji. And I'll say something else though.

Let's see how it works out but it might be easier to call them white cow and black cow but he must have some reason for mixing the colors. I don't know. Okay, yeah.

Okay, so rik, the definition of a palang car cell rik, the category called spotted white cows, the definition of the category is the opposite of the opposite. That's all. And by the way, we had a word in your first book for dopa and I don't remember what it was.

Reverse. We used reverse. We called it a reverse, yeah.

We called it a reverse. Yeah, I think that's a good decision. So the reverse represented by the opposite of all that's not a white cow is the category white cow.

So I had it there before but then you said it was an adjectival clause in this case and it would be more suitable to use represented by. I would translate it probably as the reverse which consists of everything which is not a, the reverse comma, which consists of the opposite of all that is not a white cow is the category white cow. Okay.

And that's clearly not the palang nagar carik. Yeah. Yeah, it's not the category of a black cow.

Okay. The category that a white cow belongs to is not the category, sorry, no, we cannot say that. The white cow category is not the same as the black cow category even though the white cow and the black cow belong to the same category.

I'm kidding. And they're just playing with you, okay? They both do belong to the category cow but the black cow category is not the same as the white cow category.

The category that the black cow belongs to and the category that the white cow belongs to in general are the same category cow. But don't forget that the black cow also belongs to a category called all black cows. Yeah, and that's not the same as the category called all white cows and that's what 436 is saying.

Okay. Now, I love where he's going now. Finally, he's being funny.

I think if someone can be funny, they're a smart person. Let's translate 437. Oh, let's read it, Adam.

Would you help us one more time, Jackie? Yes, I will try. Di la lan dab par nu pe ka pa yang na ko bo tong dag par jau Yes, Adam, I would break this into two pieces.

Either you are a lan dab par nu pe ka pa or yang na, alternately, ko tong dag par jau. Okay, we'll help you out. Yeah, either you are a great master who is able to give an answer to this question.

Dab is the verb to give an answer. Usually, you see it as dab. Okay.

Either you're a master who can answer this question or yang na means alternately, meaning, or maybe you need me to help you out? Okay. And tong here means ropa, to give you help.

Pen dopa. By the way, it's all pen dopa. You see how he uses the word dopa here?

Yeah. Yeah, the dog is the dog, okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, good. I'll help you out. Geshe-la, by the way, we are at the time.

Yeah, we're over time. So Adam, let's continue. Can you translate four pieces, 438, 39, 40, and 41?

I think so. I think somehow I knew it was going to happen. If you've already done it for next time, just review it and make sure it fits what we said so far today.

I'll try to. Yes, I will. Okay, cool.

I'll read the notes I made to myself, because if you see notes to myself, it's hard. Can I ask you one more question before we go?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
They kind of came up. What's for my dinner? It's Indian food leftovers.

Zeychik. I was just wondering if Zeychik, could you say that all things are Zeychik with the category Zeychik? Yeah, yeah.

How would you say? Shidrupna? Shidrupna?

Sheja Yimbi Khyap. Sheja Yimbi Khyap. Or you can say, Shidrupadang Sheja Dung Zeychik.

Shidrupadang Sheja Dung Zeychik. Shidrupadang. Yeah, okay.

In that case, you could put the dung in between, right? The who in between? No, that's too dangerous.

The dung implies both ways. Oh, I thought that was supposed to be both ways. But isn't it?

Well, no, it is, but you wouldn't normally say it that way. Oh, okay. You could say that.

Then you'd say Yim Khyap Nyam, Nick, to make it clear. This use of Zeychik with a dung in between, it's too fraught with possibility of misunderstanding. And I don't think anyone would use it in a debate yet.

You could say it with changing thing and functioning thing. You could say those are Yim Khyap Nyam. Yeah, Yim Khyap Nyam.

But to say changing thing, dung, functioning thing, Zeychik, to me, in my mind, as a debater, it's too dangerous. Okay. Thank you again.

That was very, very interesting. I appreciate it. It's kind of fun to do this, Nick, with a small group.

Yeah, it is. It goes a little deeper sometimes. That was an amazing class.

That was really, really fun. Thank you for working so hard on it before we did the class, because I'm aware that it must have taken quite some hours to do this. Yeah, I feel like I understand it more than I can actually word it properly, if that makes sense.

The wording is a tough thing. I've got to show you guys something. Let me see.

Hang on. Don't go away yet. Hang on.

I have the opposite problem, Adam. I can't see it. Yeah, I've been spending a lot of time just trying to grab hold of it, because I can kind of make out what it's saying and then trying to crowbar in the English to my philosophical understanding.

Impressive. I mean, if that makes sense. I don't know why.

It's just coming to me easier. Can you stop the screen share, or I'll stop it? Yeah, totally.

That's Ava there on the right. Hi. Oh.

That's mother. She just turned five years old this week. Oh, my gosh.

It looked like two very fashionable ladies from the late 1800s or something. They're Victorian garb. Anyway, she's really grown up.

He sends me photos every day, and I just get to enjoy it. It's almost like she's in the house, and I get to see her growing up, and I really like it. Pretty sweet, man.

[Speaker 3]
Hi, guys.

[Speaker 1]
Welcome back. Yeah, so I saw that there was a question in the chat that was wanting to clarify the difference between a qi zhen and a rong zhen. So Venerable Upala put there just after.

Oh, yeah. OK, I see. You got it.

Yeah, so we have a coffee cup. I don't know. It's coming in and coming out.

We've got a toad riding a bicycle on a coffee cup here, and then we have the mental image of a coffee cup. So the rong zhen would be the actual coffee cup in my hand, and then the category would be the mental image, the archetype that I hold of all coffee cups. So, yeah, I had a really, really fun time with this class, and I have a fun time in all my classes, but I particularly enjoyed this last one.

And, yeah, I feel like Geshe-la was answering a lot of questions that I've been struggling with for a few years. So I have a lot that I feel like I could add to our discussion, but I want to hear, I want to field some observations from the crowd. So I was hoping maybe somebody would have something that they could contribute to our discussion of some things that were presented in our class today.

Anyone? Not all at once? Nobody?

Okay. So, you know, something I thought was incredibly deep, if you guys want to go a little deeper, I have a question for the audience, right? What separates seeing emptiness directly from us currently?

What are the series of things that we must do in order to, we have to have a series of meditational realizations, right? And there's one in particular that I'm thinking of that has to happen before we see emptiness directly. Can anybody, does anybody have an idea of what I'm talking about?

Choo-choo. Yeah, totally. Well, and that usually happens right after.

Yeah, totally. Choo-choo. So, okay.

So if we equate choo-choo with being the direct perception of subtle impermanence, then how could we take what we learned today and apply that to possibly being an object for meditation? So today we've been, sorry, is that word? Yeah.

Yeah, dude. Go ahead, man. I'm anxious to hear what you got to say.

Well, it seems like, you know, I'm no master of the comparing all the schools, but it seems like, you know, what we're learning is either the setup or the direct segue into chi-che-ja. Yeah. So if you understand this subject matter, like rong-sen and chi-sen well, you can understand how things can exist the way they are because of how they fit into a category, and yet we can still perceive them as an individual thing simultaneously.

And that can set you up for, you know, the prelude to seeing emptiness directly, which is called choo-choo. I think that's beautiful. Yeah, that's beautiful.

You know, if we wanted to take that a step further, because I think that was a perfect observation there, if we wanted to take things a step further and integrate one of the Tibetan terms that we learned today, or that we've been kind of going over the past couple of classes, zai-chik, right? I've been harping on zai-chik in my own meditation recently because, like, if I have a coffee cup in my hand, I can drop the coffee cup on the floor. I can see its gross impermanence, right?

But what we've learned in the past couple of classes, so we can directly perceive gross impermanence, right? Like when we take a coffee cup and we drop it on the ground. But something that I've learned that for the 14, 15 years that I've been studying with Geshe Michael, it just came to my awareness.

I've just realized that we actually perceive subtle impermanence as well. So anytime you're looking at any object and anytime you have any perception of any changing thing, you are perceiving its subtle impermanence. But they make a distinction between perceiving subtle impermanence and ascertaining it or actually recognizing it or realizing it in meditation.

So something that I've been off about for nearly 15 years now is thinking that I could only see subtle impermanence in a deep state of meditation. But what we're recognizing now is that whenever you perceive any object, if it's sound or if it's a coffee cup, any changing thing, you perceive all of its qualities simultaneously as well. I think there's a lot of good meditational kind of time that we could spend with that.

So does anybody maybe have anything they want to add about anything further or different that maybe they want to add about the class or any comments about maybe what I just said? Does anybody see how that could be potentially like a really cool meditational object? Can I ask something?

Please. It's really neat. Hi, Renit.

Hi. I haven't seen you in quite a long time. It's good to see you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. You too. You too.

Can you explain about that? How can we see not in deep meditation the changing, the subtle change in things? Can you?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. Well, I think mainly what I was trying to point out is that there's a difference between perceiving something and actually realizing it in a deep state of meditation. So anytime I hold the coffee cup up, right, I'm perceiving the subtle impermanence of this cup as I have a direct perception of it.

However, it would appear that there's a difference between perceiving something subtle impermanence and actually realizing it. Or what they would say is like ascertaining it, right, in meditation. So I thought it was weird because, you know, if you guys want to go a little deeper, how much time do we have?

Do we have like a minute or two? I guess I think we went a little over. So I mean Geshe Michael said some pretty interesting things, right?

He says like, you know, from the perspective of the highest middle way, the object that you're perceiving directly and the mental image of it turn out to be the same thing, right? And so what we're talking about right now is a good basis from which we can start to have many different ways of thinking about how and why that's possible, right? So if we say we perceive a coffee cup, right, we also perceive all of its qualities.

If we perceive a coffee cup, are we necessarily perceiving the category of coffee cup as well? I ask you all, if we perceive a coffee cup, are we perceiving the category of coffee cups?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, we are. So we're also perceiving the category of things which have a subtle impermanence. We're also perceiving not from the perspective of the second school, but from the perspective of the highest school, we're also perceiving something that is not coming from its own side, right?

So there's a lot of ways you can take this. For me, I tend to be less of a practical person. It's something I'm trying to make a little bit more.

I'm trying to get better at making real apps and learning how I can apply this in my day-to-day life. But something that I feel like I am better at than that is learning how to use these things on my meditation cushion. So if you perceive...

So what are we getting at when we study the second school, right? We're trying to refine our understanding of direct perception and inference to ultimately understand why, when I look at a coffee cup, am I perceiving an actual object that has a mental overlay, right? And why they're the same thing in the end.

And I think for me, these past few classes have been really helpful at tying a lot of that together. Because I've always wondered why Geshe Michael says, oh, they're the same thing, from the perspective of the highest middle way school. I hear him say that the mental image of a coffee cup and an actual coffee cup are the same thing.

But I've never seen or heard any scriptural proof for that. And it appears that these past few classes have given me a good basis with which I can say, oh, here's scriptural evidence. Here's K.J. saying just such a thing, right? Does that make sense?

[Speaker 3]
Can I say something?

[Speaker 1]
Please. I'm struggling here. I'm like, I'm starting to sweat.

I mean, I could really talk about this stuff for a long, long time. But we don't have that much time because I've spoken too long already. So Pei, I would love to hear what you'd have to say.

[Speaker 3]
My name is Pei Ling, not Pei.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, Pei Ling. Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you.

Won't get it wrong now.

[Speaker 3]
Knowing, knowing that. What we perceive is just a projection, projection from our seat. It is like a movie project to a blank screen.

And then about the meditation part, I would like to say our seat is constantly changing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah. You know, when I hear you say that, Pei Ling, I hear that being another description of subtle impermanence as well. Because everything's coming into existence and going out of existence.

And although I have a feeling that this coffee cup is the same object, right? Somebody else brought that up earlier. Was that you, Pei Ling?

Was saying that when we were looking at the object in the first moment versus the object in the second moment.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If I remember correctly, that was you. Yeah. I mean, that's another way that I hear of describing subtle impermanence.

And how. Yeah. Anyways, I think, yeah, that's, that's very beautiful.

I think that ties in, that ties in perfectly. Yeah. Yeah.

So what do we, I think maybe we'll have time for one more. One more person.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, please. The world news.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally. I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a chance to go. If, if there was anybody that was like dying to say something.

It doesn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, no, no.

I just wanted to make sure that like somebody wasn't going to say something that was going to instantly lead me to enlightenment. This is all very, very beautiful stuff. And I thank you guys for, for participating and yeah.

Thank you all the translators. And do we have a, oh, Christina Casca. It's like a mom teaching her kid about subliminal permanence.

If the child breaks a toy, the mom will say, don't worry, we can get another toy. Our toy is impermanent. But there are many other examples of toy that we can get.

So the mom's perceiving this all in terms of toy. Yeah, totally. Okay.

Well, who is Juan? Is Juan standing by? Yeah, there's a Juan.

Hi, sir. Hey, Adam.

[Speaker 2]
How are you?

[Speaker 1]
I'm doing pretty good. What time is it there?

[Speaker 2]
It's one 22. In the morning.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry to keep you waiting. It's okay.

[Speaker 2]
No problem. No problem. I really think what you guys are doing is very, very, how do you say?

Helpful for all of us. Keep learning. Having this time of discussion is great.

So, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No problem.

Actually, great to see you. And I'm waiting to talk to you soon about the projects you're cooking.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
All right. Let me know.

[Speaker 1]
All right, sir. Yeah, I can sort of turn it over to you.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. So here we are. I'm happy to be here to say hi to all of you, as we just say with Adam.

Right now it's like 1.30 a.m. in Kyoto, Japan. I have been here for almost five, six days, actually. And it has been just wonderful to all of you who haven't had a chance.

If you ever have a chance, I really recommend you to come. I'm just surprised on how cool, beautiful the country is, the city especially, and the events. We're going to talk a little bit about that because I have prepared some materials for you about what has been happening these days here.

But just before we go into that, I want to talk about a few events, upcoming things that are happening soon. As you know, Word started a course on energy medicine lately. I've been attending some of the classes.

We have been having three classes so far. The classes are keep going, but now next month, Lydia is going to start a course on Ayurvedic Blueprint. It's called Ayurvedic Blueprint.

It will start in April. We're going to talk to her soon in the next few classes to have a more in-depth interview about what is it going to be. But I'm letting you know in advance.

In April, she's going to launch this cool project. I am guessing it has to do with medicine, but now from the Ayurvedic perspective, that I think it will complement very well with these other Asian techniques. Just letting you know in advance.

If you want more information, there is a QR code. We're going to have her soon talking about it. Next thing, we want to talk about the release of a book, a new book called Seeds of True Success.

This is a book that our friend, Alex Rowland, she just finished writing. It's going to be very cool. Also, we are planning and scheduling an interview with her very, very soon.

She used all this content and knowledge of the system to write a book with different solutions for daily modern life. We are excited. We want to congratulate you for finishing this amazing project, this book, and we hope to have you with us very soon.

What's next? Next one, please. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Next Monday, we're going to have a special interview with Laura Joana, one of the YSI's collaborators, and Errol as well. They are preparing this project called – well, they do it once a month. It's called Fast for Hunger, and it's a very nice initiative to keep helping people who may not have the resources to feed themselves.

They're going to be talking more in depth about what's the deep purpose of this project, what are they planning to do, and the actual day of the meditation, the actual event is going to happen on Wednesday. On Monday, we're going to have this very good interview with Errol and Laura Joana. It's next to pictures just for people to see.

Cool. You will get to know more about that on Monday. Since we have little time, I'm just going to share with you a little bit of the content that I have been recording, and I just pulled together.

I want to share with you. We're going to keep sharing things because this trip is just beginning. By the way, Geshe Michael and many other friends just arrived to Kyoto yesterday.

We're going to keep you posted on what's happening. Here we are, and then we go to work for more Tibetan class.

[Speaker 1]
All right, Juan. Tell me about your first couple of days in Kyoto.

[Speaker 2]
My first couple of days have been great. We came to celebrate the springtime in Sakura. This is the time of the year when mostly people come because of the nice weather and the blossoming of the trees that are about to ripen into beautiful flowers.

We're excited to see that happen, and we hope it happens soon. Reporting from Petrie World News, springtime, Kyoto, Sakura.

[Speaker 3]
What is this?

[Speaker 2]
No humans, no dogs. No humans, no dogs.

[Speaker 3]
What is that thing? How did this start? I used to be worried that my hair would fall off.

[Speaker 1]
Because I knew some people whose hair started to fall off. I actually have a lot of friends. Because he used to have a lot of hair.

Then he cut it very short.

[Speaker 2]
And he realized, oh no, I'm bald.

[Speaker 1]
And I worry about it.

[Speaker 3]
I have dreams.

[Speaker 1]
I'm like, but it's so beautiful. Not many people have this color hair. Can you imagine bald Tim?

[Speaker 2]
What would happen? It could happen.

[Speaker 3]
I have dreams, I have nightmares.

[Speaker 2]
What do you have a nightmare about losing? My teeth. Yeah, sometimes, I don't know why.

I have a nightmare of losing my hair. But I will, right? I might not lose my hair now.

[Speaker 1]
But eventually, it will probably start turning old person white. Or I'll die. If you don't lose your hair, you lose an arm.

[Speaker 2]
Some people are so... They don't have that time. They don't have a life where they have time.

They have no resources to be able to practice.

[Speaker 1]
They don't have the economics. I know people in my town. Both parents work.

[Speaker 2]
They have four children. And they don't have the time. Look at that, eh?

Who would have thought it? Who would have thought it? Alright, look at this.

I have my own English street guide. Kyoto. Who would have...

Who would have thought it? So, what do you think about this city, Tim? I'm hungry, Juan.

Alright, let's go. Let's go. Let's go.

So, Tim, don't go. Don't go yet. We want to thank you very much for this wonderful project.

Everybody came. Did you like the program? Alright, we hope to see you next time.

And for those of you who couldn't make it, we hope to see you in June. See you!

[Speaker 1]
Bye! Hey, Juan, we're here in Kyoto. It is springtime.

I know.

[Speaker 2]
It's sakura season. We are celebrating the upcoming spring season here in Kyoto. We are here for sakura.

Yeah, the trees are going to start... I'll say, blossoming, ripening anytime soon. I guess you guys can appreciate very well the weather right now.

But... It's like Christmas, basically. It's like Christmas in sakura.

Yes. Christmas, so that proves the emptiness of spring. So, there you go.

It has been snowing lately. Not too much, but definitely raining very often. I think for those of you who were asking, sakura may be what they refer to as the beautiful spring trees that Kyoto is famous for, with the pink flower.

They, I'll say, blossom in springtime. And some of them are actually doing that. But definitely the weather is not quite what we were expecting.

It has been raining almost every day. Maybe one or two days of a little bit of sun, a little bit cold, but it's getting better. As I say, basically, Tim Lawen had run a project for five days.

He taught some courses on MGM Wisdom. A lot of people came. Well, not that many people, actually.

It was maybe between eight and ten people who attended. But I think it's growing. And they really, really like it.

We built a very nice group. And they were very happy. They're going to recommend it.

You will hear from them later. Then last yesterday, Geshe Michael and more people arrived. And they're going to start programs with the DSEU and other things very, very soon.

We'll keep you posted. And thank you very much. So we go to work.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you so much. I'm going to say one more thing. Thank you so much, Juan.

That was great. And real quick, I'll just say, I want to thank again the Gold Club. And those of you who have been supporting ALL through the Gold Club, may you coffee meditate on your wonderful support and have all kinds of great ripenings and understand logic.

So have a great day, everybody. And I'd like to hand it over to Professor Word to take it away.

[Speaker 3]
Hello.