Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 45

[Speaker 1]
Hey Stanley.

[Speaker 2]
You're muted, Lindsay.

[Speaker 1]
You scared her, Ukala. She ran away. I will be eternally in woe.

And go. Hey. Hola.

[Speaker 2]
The teacher delivered upon a beam of sunlight.

[Speaker 1]
Sorry about that. That's great. Yeah, no.

[Speaker 2]
It's sort of delightful.

[Speaker 1]
Can use this for big mix nuts marketing. Good to see you, Geshe-la. Nice to see you.

Been a long time. Yes, yes. Good to see everybody here.

Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower. It's good to be back to our normal Rimrockian worldwide selves. And almost back to normal on our normal link coming to you on our Saturday morning.

I think they just did their meditation in Rimrock, Arizona. And no big announcements. We're looking for a big and probably, I mean, a good and probably challenging class with Mr. Adam Andrade. How you doing, Adam? Pretty good. Good morning.

Good morning to you, too. Are you ready with a homework, sir? Yes.

Let me get that screen share going. It looks like an actor. Nick, who's that guy?

Who Adam looks like? The other one.

[Speaker 2]
El Pachino back in 1976.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I'm panicking. OK. God's saying it.

Is this big enough here? Can you guys see that? Can you make it bigger?

The one. Yeah, so how does the phrase can got chick char reflect the test as to whether two things are in fact, say, cheating? Oh, I can stop together is a test of whether or not they're the same thing.

Yeah, you kind of hit it. I mean. Whether they start and stop at the same time.

Is that better way to put it? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And, you know, I found some supporting.

I went and looked at the definition from the Cedro, and it's actually in the definition. So. I put that in there.

Oh, my goodness. I'll take Humphrey Bogart.

[Speaker 3]
There we go.

[Speaker 1]
So if two things are legit, they are such that to be one is to be the other substantially. And the phrase can got chick char means to grow and stop is one thing. So if two things are such that to be one is to be the other substantially, then they should also grow and stop together.

So you can take a coffee cup and the property of being a functioning thing simultaneously comes into and goes out of existence and goes out of existence along with the coffee cup. Therefore, we can say that there is a jig. So if we look at the draft for guidance, we can find that growing together as a single thing is a defining characteristic of what it means to be a jig.

And the definition as supplied by the Cedro is given as follows. I just thought it was kind of. Yeah, slow down.

Yeah, there's a request. Yeah. Let me drink some more coffee as I decide to.

That usually helps. That cost. Yeah, so I just I thought it was pretty interesting.

And because we also saw this come up earlier with the definition of Cedric as well, or there was was discussing what it means to be a member of a set or a characteristic of equality. And I started to notice that there were some similarities. And he was essentially giving defining characteristics of those things.

And you can find them in Dura. It's also true.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. So it to be one thing is to be the other. So being things that have grown and are not different things essentially is what kind of what we're looking, looking, looking at the definition.

Very educational. What possible linguistic ambiguity arises when we encounter the phrase Dong Tze Chi in a text?

[Speaker 2]
It makes it a one way.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. And can you do you want to give me can somebody give me an example of a.

Well, here, never mind. We'll just go with this. We'll move on.

I'm going to get to the. So the. The position is key as the Tibetan expression for single substance Tze Chi is very close to the expression to be one is to be the other substantially, which is Dong Tze Chi.

OK. All right. So who has cotton for me?

Oh, it's funny. This is we used to come across this a lot.

[Speaker 2]
And now. Give me. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. I I went with unanimous. I thought.

What about Dapa, Dapa or Dapa? Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Is it like answer?

[Speaker 2]
Another form of labeling, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. There was.

So what if I said what was it? What if I said. To benefit.

Yeah, we found in the in the great dictionary. Listed as one of the. Possible.

Tenses. OK. Yeah.

Right. All right, so I try to hit my translation. Should I make should I make it a little bigger?

I think it wouldn't hurt anybody. Adam, can you read the Tibetan first? Yes, sir.

Be happy to. OK, let's consider all noble things. It might be a sarcastic statement.

Then how would you read it? Are you? Are you telling me that the two of working things like conscious effort and working?

Yeah. I think it is. OK, but anyway.

Are you telling me that to be. To be something produced by conscious effort and to be something produced without conscious effort. Are this.

To be one of those is to be the other, right? OK. OK.

And then the second sentence. Are you down here at 439? Yep.

OK, again, before we move on, just to. We I went and checked the the Dura again to see how we were reading. They check.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
I had been using the what I found in your ACI translations. And it was to be one is to be the other is to be one is to automatically be the other.

[Speaker 2]
But I like that.

[Speaker 1]
But we hit this dark trick to drill. And I guess it's just to share a relationship such that be one is to automatically be the. Yeah, that's OK.

Yeah. Yep. I was trying to make it a little a little different.

Anyways, that's OK. Keep going, by the way. Adam, what's the most famous example of tsultrim?

It was the clay pot, right? What's going to come up is the sound that you produce on a white shell horn. It's going to come up.

OK, it's going to come up. It means something conscious effort. Yeah.

OK. OK. Yeah, the sound of that you make after you eat a lot of beans.

I don't know if that's conscious effort or not. OK. Drill away each ear.

Yeah, because changing things are worthy of a conscious relationship. Changing things. Changing things are worth these.

Yeah. Yeah. OK.

Yeah, the point is that both things that are made with conscious effort and things that are made without conscious effort are both automatically changing things, right? All products of conscious effort are changing things, and all products that are... And again, you have to understand products that are made without conscious effort, like the rain or something.

Both, they are types of changing things. But does that make it the case that to be one is to be the other? You got it?

If both guys are members of one set, and they are both members of the general set, does that mean to be one of them is to be the other one, right? Yeah. And it's not true, right?

To be made with conscious effort is to be made. And to be made without conscious effort is to be made. But that doesn't mean that to be made with conscious effort is to be made without conscious effort.

You see what I mean? It's like saying a Toyota is not a Chevrolet, just because a Toyota is a car and a Chevrolet is a car. OK?

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
OK.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, so he had said, if a coffee cup, if to be a coffee cup is to be a functioning thing, and to be a pillar is to be a functioning thing, then to be a coffee cup must be to be a pillar. And then we say, not necessarily the case. Just because to be a Toyota is to be a car, and to be a Chevrolet is to be a car, doesn't mean to be a Toyota is to be a Chevrolet.

Yeah, that's all. So, bu means, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, that was low. I like that. I like that translation.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I like that translation. It's cute.

Because bu means to blow a horn also. Yeah, OK. Just a quick question I forgot to ask as we passed it.

I noticed that the reason here is separated out from this argument. Yeah. Because I'll tell you why.

That's my rule when we have to insert an understood answer. Hmm. So when we get to the final translation of this, we're going to have to add a chi chir between 438 and 439.

OK. Yeah. Yeah, and so probably there should be a 439, which is an understood chi chir.

Why do you say that? And then 439 is going to become 440. So whenever there's an understood answer that we're going to supply in the final translation, I would split them.

Yeah, we haven't been doing that to this point that I've noticed, which is why I but. Yeah. OK.

Then he's going to say ma kia, right? Yeah. Yeah, so later 440 will become 441 or something.

There'll be an understood. That's not necessarily so. Yeah.

Um, they're not. By the way, it was his position earlier that if one thing was a subset of something and another thing was a subset of another of the same thing, then those two had to be subsets of each other or something like that. And then that's, we just gave a different example to prove that they're not.

Yeah. So it was, yeah, it wasn't, it was balang not gur. Basically, he was saying to be a Toyota is to be a Chevrolet, because to be a Toyota is to be a car and to be a Chevrolet is to be a car.

That's, that's all. He was stuck on that. Yeah.

No, I was trying to recall from the argument above where he was. Oh, it was something about cups and and pillars. Yeah.

He said to be a pillar is to be a cop because to be a cop is to be a functioning thing and to be a pillar is to be a functioning thing. Since they're in the same group, they should be equivalent. Therefore, to be a pillar is to be a cop.

You know, he went like that. Yeah. Yeah, if you agree that they're not, then your original position is blown.

Yeah, that's all. Yeah. Yeah.

Matsudna, tsultrim gyi du drang mi thakpar dupe, thak che dak chik du drelwar dupa dang gal. Yeah. So, we got a, he's talking about, he's talking about components of a logical statement.

And he's talking about the dak, and he's talking about the dupe je che, right? Dak che, right? Okay.

And so he says, so we have to reconstruct the logical statement, okay? To understand 442, we have to construct the logical statement. What was his che che?

Take a... Yeah, take a dung da. Sorry, the sound of a white kancha, okay?

He said, take the sound of a white kancha. Dung da che che. Then what was the dupe je che?

What did he want to prove about it? It is... Produced by conscious effort?

No, it's mi thakpar. It's changing because, yeah, because it's produced by... Because it's tsultrim, okay?

Yeah. Yeah. Now, what's the relationship between the quality to be proven and the reason in that logical statement?

Is it true that to be produced by conscious effort means that it has to be impermanent, changing? Yes. Yeah, so to be produced by conscious effort is to be unchanging.

But does it go both ways? To be... To be...

Sorry, to be changing, does that necessarily mean it's produced by voluntary effort?

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
No, right. So, is to be one to be the other?

[Speaker 2]
Only in one direction. In one direction, yes.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, only in one direction, yeah, okay? Only in one direction, okay? So, he must have said, to be one is to be the other, maybe without clarifying which direction.

And then we're saying, Gyal, your position is contradictory, okay? Cool? Yeah.

Okay, let's keep going, 443. BUM RDZIN LUN GSUM PHYIR CHEN, PHYIS RDZIN GYI LOR THAL BUM PA'I LHUNG BA'I LOD YIN PA'I PHYIR Yeah, this is, I mean, this is the essence of the argument that's been going on in your book for a couple months, I think. Let's take, what's BUM RDZIN LUN GSUM?

Let's take direct perception, which apprehends a coffee cup. Good. Are you saying that, are you saying that it's a state of mind?

By the way, LOR is short for LOD YIN PAR. LOR is short for LOD YIN PAR, okay? The long, the whole form here is PHYIS RDZIN GYI LOD YIN PA'I THAL, okay?

PHYIS RDZIN GYI LOD YIN PA'I THAL, all right? So, the LOR THAL is short for LOD YIN PAR THAL, okay? So, let's take the direct perception of a coffee cup.

Are you saying that it is a state of mind, LOD, which is ZIN PA'I NGA'I PHYIS, Adam? Which is holding a mental image. Yeah, a general category, okay?

Are you telling me it's a state of mind? By the way, is it holding BUMBA? Yes.

Now, that's a trick, okay? Because when I say, is it holding BUMBA, I could be saying, is it holding VEZAS or coffee cups as a category? Or I could be saying, is it holding a coffee cup, okay?

So, is it holding a coffee cup? Yes. Is it holding coffee cup?

No. Because its object is a changing thing, okay?

[Speaker 2]
We don't know that from this context.

[Speaker 1]
No, you don't know. You don't know. But you can figure it out from who's right and who's wrong, okay?

Okay, so let's say, let's take the direct perception of a coffee cup. Are you saying it's holding coffee cup as a, what do you call it? Object of the mind?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, as an archetype? As an archetype.

[Speaker 1]
Are you saying it's holding... And this is the huge question. This is the whole, whole question of this whole section is, how do you recognize a coffee cup as a coffee cup, if to recognize it as a coffee cup would involve the perception of coffee cups?

Because you can't hold to a functioning thing and a non-functioning thing at the same time. Therefore, how could you ever ascertain that something was a car? Because you would have to see that it was part of the group called cars.

And the group called cars is unchanging. But the thing you're looking at is changing. How can you have a simultaneous perception of a changing thing and an unchanging thing?

And if you cannot, then how can you identify a car as a car? And that's the whole debate here. To identify the rang tsen, you have to identify the chi tsen.

But when you identify a chi tsen, you're looking at something unchanging. And when you identify the rang tsen, you're looking at something changing. How can you look at something changing and something unchanging at the same time?

That's the big question. That's what's going on here.

[Speaker 2]
Can we say in this school... I'm sorry. Can we say in this school that we know that bupa in this school must necessarily be the changing physical coffee cup by virtue of the fact that it's a direct perception?

[Speaker 1]
I mean, technically, yes. But it's a valid question to ask him. When you look at a coffee cup, how do you know it's a coffee cup?

Because to know it's a coffee cup, you'd have to put it in the category coffee cup, and the category is unchanging. And the coffee cup is changing. And that's the whole problem here.

That's the whole five pages of argument. So let's follow him. Let's take the direct perception of a coffee cup.

Are you saying it's a perception of a category? And then he says, why do you say that? And we say, because it's seeing a coffee cup.

It must be seeing the category coffee cup. Then he says, why do you say that? And we say, because it's seeing a coffee cup.

How would he know it's a coffee cup? It could be a cow turd. How do you know?

Okay, got it? Is he going to resolve it, I wonder? Well, this has been going on for pages and pages.

I doubt that he's going to resolve it. Keep going, Adam. Four, four, four.

Dona, ngu su bu, ngu su ni bu. Yeah, you cannot say... When we said, oh, it must be seeing the category coffee cups, he can't agree to that, because that would be an unchanging object.

Right? Okay, so dona, ngu su bu means... That's easy.

We all agree you can't say, I agree. You cannot say, I agree. Agree to what?

You cannot agree that it's perceiving the category coffee cups. We all agree. If you said, I agree to that, then you're crazy.

Now, if you say, just because it's... Now, four, four, five says... Four, four, five.

Can you read it, Adam? Sure. ma khyab na bongpa chi yinpang bu Yeah, if you say it perceives...

It does perceive a coffee cup, but that doesn't mean it perceives the category coffee cup. Then we say, well, then the category coffee cup cannot be coffee cup. Meaning the category, okay?

I didn't say a coffee cup, okay? I'm emphasizing the identity coffee cup, okay? Just because...

What he just said was, just because it sees a coffee cup, doesn't mean it sees coffee cup. Okay, cool? Yeah.

Okay. ma druk na bongpa la druk juk gyi lo yinpang bu Yeah, if you say it's not seeing a coffee cup, okay, ma druk na means if you agree to the reason which he was seeing a coffee cup, then it can't be a state of mind which is engaging in coffee cup in a positive way. Okay, in a positive way.

Because when you see coffee cups, you have to be doing it in a negative way. You have to be denying all which is not coffee cup. Okay, Nick, we had that in DCI somewhere.

In order to see an unchanging thing? You have to cancel unchanging things. In order to find the lady with the train ticket, you have to negate all the other people in the train station, something like that.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Yeah. bongpa chi yinpa lam pung dzin ngun sum gyi bongpa thong nga chi dzin gyi lo yinpe thab min guk mi guk na ngupo chi yin na pung dzin ngun sum gyi ngupo thong nga chi dzin gyi lo yin guk pa mpa du Okay. Now, what's bongpa chi yinpa mean?

You got to read it as the fact of... or bongpa as the category. Okay, bongpa chi yinpa means...

If we specify when we say coffee cup, we're talking about the identity or the category called coffee cup. Si. Okay, bongpa chi yinpa.

Coffee cup as a identity. Coffee cup as a set. Okay.

Coffee cup as a category. When you see a bongpa ngun sum, right? What's that mean, Adam?

Directly. Direct perception. Yeah.

When you look at a coffee cup directly, are you looking at a bongpa which is a chi dzin? Are you looking at a coffee cup which is an archetype? Yeah, a category.

What do you think? When you look at a particular coffee cup, are you looking at coffee cups as a category? When we see it, I think we're experiencing directly.

If we... Yeah, good. I'd say you're not experiencing it as a...

As a matter of time. Yeah, you're not at that moment perceiving the archetype coffee cup. Si, right?

Okay. So what he says here is... When...

He's positing a general... He's positing a state of mind which is looking at a coffee cup and thinking it's part of coffee cups. Okay.

Is that a possible state of mind? Can you look at a coffee cup and think of it as one of all coffee cups? Yes, I think you'd have to say that.

You could, but then you'd have some kind of side perception of all coffee cups and that's an unchanging thing. That's the problem, okay? That's the problem.

Then what you're about to say is, Geshe-la, just because I'm looking at a coffee cup and thinking that it belongs to coffee cups, doesn't mean I'm perceiving coffee cups as an unchanging thing at that moment. That's what you feel like saying. I'll say it again.

Geshe-la, when I look at a coffee cup and identify it as one of coffee cups, at that moment I'm not perceiving coffee cups as a category because then my mind would be seeing something changing and unchanging at the same time. So, I'm aware that it's a coffee cup, but I'm kind of not directly perceiving the category called coffee cups when I'm looking at a coffee cup, okay? That's where he wants to go.

He says, chin dzin gyi lo yinpe ma kya, doesn't have to be. Just because I look at a particular coffee cup and identify it as a coffee cup, doesn't mean I'm perceiving coffee cups as an unchanging category at that moment. That's his answer.

He said, you can look at a coffee cup and you can think that it's a coffee cup without having a direct perception of all coffee cups or the category coffee cups, because that's contradictory. The human mind cannot hold a changing thing and an unchanging thing at the same time. And that's a pretty reasonable answer, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Then let's see where we go. Where do we go? Okay, let's say you say that.

Gunna, mi gunna. Okay, if you say that you can look at a coffee cup and you can identify it as a coffee cup without perceiving the unchanging identity coffee cup, then let's go to the second half of the sentence, Adam. NGOS PO'I PHYIS YIN NA NGOS PO'I PHYIS YIN NA BUM RDZIN NGON GSUM GYI NGOS PO'I THONG NA PHYIS RDZIN GYI BLO YIN DGOS PA'AM PA'I RDO Yeah, if all changing things or all functioning things was a category, NGOS PO'I PHYIS YIN NA Okay, if all changing things was a category, then when you held a coffee cup directly, NGOS PO'I THONG NA it would have to be a state of mind which was also aware of an unchanging category. But oh, that position of yours is overthrown.

He must have taken the position that when you look at a coffee cup, a particular coffee cup, you are also somehow, some part of your mind is perceiving the category called coffee cups. And we say not possible. Good though.

Well, Geshe-la, something I've been thinking about, okay, so whenever you have the sense perception of a coffee cup and go through the labeling process, that's one way of looking at it. We could also look at, I mean, the way that I'm thinking about it is that going back to an earlier part of this book, we were talking about parts. And anytime you take things and group them together, it becomes a mental image as well.

So it would seem that if you have a coffee cup, it has parts. And to perceive a coffee cup, you're going to have to perceive its left side, its right side, its handle, its color. Anytime that you perceive something that is more than one object, it's automatically a mental image.

It has, yes, it has to be. And by the way, I mean, it's only madhyamika. It's only the idea that things are coming from mental images that can resolve these questions.

And that's why we're talking about it. The whole point is that the normal way you think about, you look at a coffee cup and you identify it as a coffee cup, is impossible. You can't hold in your mind an unchanging archetype and be looking at a changing, functioning thing at the same time.

And so the only way to explain it is to say that they're both coming from seeds in your mind. You see what I mean? Yeah, that's why we're having, that's why we're studying pramana.

Okay. Okay. 448, Adam.

By the way, I'm pushing a little bit to get your material because I don't want to bog down. I don't want your text to bog down. We're basically in one idea for a long time.

By the way, we usually resolve these things when we do the final translation. Okay. Completely.

Okay, please read. Or you want to have somebody read, Adam, and you check in? We could do that.

I was kind of having fun reading. Ula, are you translating? Or would you mind helping us?

You're translating, yeah. Cornelia? No?

Pei? Pei? Would you mind helping us with 448?

Hi, Pei Lin. Hi. Thank you.

Yeah, and this one so far is easy, okay? If two things are zed chik, Adam, do they have to be chik? Yes.

No. Chik means one and the same thing. Oh, okay, so not conceptually distinct.

Yeah, so zed chik means, let's say this coffee cup here is zed chik with coffee cups. To be this coffee cup is to be a coffee cup, right? But it doesn't mean that this cup is all coffee cups, okay?

They are zed chik, but they're not chik. To be this coffee cup is to be a coffee cup, therefore zed chik. But that doesn't mean that this coffee cup and the category of all coffee cups is the same thing, right?

Yeah, I got it confused. I slipped up on my own homework question from earlier. In fact, I think we can say that if things are zed chik, they cannot be chik.

Right. If two things can share a relationship, they cannot be the one and the same thing. It's not possible.

Yeah, that was one of the things we learned in the Dura. In order to share a relationship, they have to be different. Yeah, they have to be different things somehow.

Okay, let's go to 449. Who's going to read for you, Adam? By the way, the more English notes you see I put in there, the more confused I was the first time I read it.

Okay. Pei-Ling, would you read it again?

[Speaker 2]
Pei-Ling, would you read it again?

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, Pei-Ling. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
I'm trying my best.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. By the way, Adam, let's start with the end, okay? Because it'll be more helpful.

Let's start with dini lo ma trulway. Okay, so dini lo ma trulway. First of all, let's say that the state of mind is not mistaken.

It's an accurate state of mind, okay? First of all, we're dealing with an accurate state of mind, okay? Uh-huh.

When an accurate state of mind perceives that two things are chik... Two things are the same thing, one? Yeah, one and the same thing.

When an accurate state of mind perceives that two things are one and the same thing, does it necessarily see that they are not separate? No, it's not the case. Yeah, good.

You can see that two things are one and the same without perceiving that they are not separate. That's two different things. Perceiving that two things are one and the same is a positive thing, and perceiving that two things are not two different things is a negative state of mind, okay?

The conclusion is the same. To be one is to be the other. But the way that you arrive at it is by negating the opposite.

It's not the case, okay? Different. It's different to perceive a coffee cup as a coffee cup, and it's different to perceive a coffee cup as the opposite of all, which is not a coffee cup.

Okay? There are different ways of getting to the same thing, but they're not the same perception. Okay?

Cool? Yes, sir. Now let's go back to the beginning.

Are RGYA and RGYA'I MI BDAG PA ZAD CIG? Yes. Is to be one to be the other.

In a way relationship, yeah. Is to be sound to be the impermanence of sound? I don't think so.

Oh, no. Well, they're conceptually distinct, but to be sound is to be the changing nature of sound. I thought that was one of the things we had went through earlier in this text.

I think that to be sound is to be impermanence sound, but to be sound is not necessarily to be the fact that sound is impermanent, because the fact that sound is impermanent means that sound is unchanging. See what I mean? Yeah.

I think that was one of my homework questions from last class, was being conceptually distinct is enough to make something different. So if you have sound and you have the changing nature of sound, they're two separate things, right? Just because...

Yeah. So let's go to the third line here. rang dzin mun sung kyi When you perceive a sound directly, okay, the sound of my voice right now, when you perceive the sound of my voice right now, are you also perceiving that the sound of my voice is changing?

No. No, not necessarily. You can recognize my voice without reflecting that it's a changing thing, right?

But I don't think you can hear my voice unless my voice is changing.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right? So on one level you are perceiving a voice which is changing, but we cannot say that at the same moment you are perceiving my voice and the fact that my voice is changing. Okay, cool.

To go back to the first homework question from today, the moment that sound comes into existence, it's changing nature into existence as well.

[Speaker 2]
That's true.

[Speaker 1]
But the fact that it's changing is unchanging. Yeah. The mind which is holding to the sound cannot at the same moment perceive an unchanging object.

So you can perceive that sound is changing, but you cannot perceive at that moment the fact that sound is changing.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You can't conceptualize it, okay? So here, rang tsen ngun tsun gyi chik tu mikpay cher, it's looking at both. Somehow, the perception of sound is also...

And by the way, the way he's going to get out of this later on, he's going to say, and he's going to follow Pramana Vartika, Ben, which we'll get to sooner or later, he's going to say there's a difference between mikpa and ngepa. Which means... GD and GROC.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So listen. When you listen to my voice, you're also listening to my voice as a changing thing. But you cannot be ascertaining that my voice is a changing thing.

You cannot be isolating that fact and thinking about that at the same time that you hear my voice. You are looking at a changing thing, but you can't be thinking of it as belonging to the category of changing things at the same time. It's very interesting.

You can mikpa, you can look at it, but you can't ngepa. You can't ascertain it. Because if you ascertained it, you'd be ascertaining a changing thing and an unchanging thing at the same moment.

But you can... Yeah, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
Is there a logic or a demonstration? I've heard that, but is that sort of our axiom? Or how do we establish that the mind can't perceive two things at the same time?

Or that the mind can't perceive a positive and a negative thing at the same time?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I think we'd have to establish it, but I don't think... I think it would feel to me contradictory to say that your mind is on a changing thing and perceiving it as changing, and at the same moment your mind is holding something which is not changing. I don't think your mind could do both at the same time.

I think that's the point here. The point here is there's a contradiction between identifying a sound as a sound and listening to sound at the same time. There's a contradiction.

Because in one, the state of mind would have to be holding something that's not changing. And in the other, the state of mind would have to be holding something that's changing. When you hold something changing, you're necessarily holding two states.

The way it was and the way it is. It's just saying that there's problems conceptually with the idea of identifying sound even as sound.

[Speaker 2]
Ordinary experience seems that way.

[Speaker 1]
Ordinary experience is contradictory. It's not possible.

[Speaker 2]
Sure, right.

[Speaker 1]
If things are not coming from us, they don't make sense.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
That's cool. Okay, let's go to the fourth line, Adam. LO MA THRU BA'I PHYUG TU MI NA PHYIN YIN DGOS PA'I PHYIN LO MA THRU BA'I means My unmistaken state of mind.

Yeah, good. An unmistaken state of mind. A correct state of mind.

If it perceived sound and the fact of sound's impermanence at the same time, right, if it saw them as the same thing, they would have to be the same thing. Okay. PHYIR NYAM PA Then let's keep going.

BA'I ZHIG GRUB BYED KYI THAR THUG PAR ZAD MOD BA'I ZHIG GRUB BYED KYI THAR THUG PAR Let's say, PHYIR NYAM PA BA'I ZHIG GRUB BYED KYI THAR THUG SEMS Yeah, I admit that the ultimate way to establish something would be to say that your mind did perceive at the same time sound and the fact that the sound is impermanent. Ultimately, that would be the way to perceive that sound is impermanent. You would have to focus on sound and you would have to have the recognition that it's impermanent.

I admit that. it's going to be difficult. LOM MA DRUL BA'I It's going to be difficult to decide whether that unmistaken state of mind is seeing one thing or seeing separate things.

It's perceiving the sound and the impermanence of sound as a single thing. And it is not perceiving them as separate things. But that's a different story.

To perceive that they are the same and to perceive that they are not separate is two separate states of mind. That's all. To perceive that sound and its impermanence are one, and to perceive that sound and its impermanence are not separate is two different things.

Okay? And MA BYAS PA, the last MA BYAS PA means you are failing to distinguish between those two facts. I'll say them again.

To perceive that sound and its impermanence are one, and to perceive that they are not separate are separate states of mind and you have to BYAS PA, you have to divide them, you have to keep them separate. Okay. And Geshe-la, just to be clear, he is saying that the second of those is correct and the first of those is incorrect, right?

Uh... I mean... Oh, sorry.

That's a good question, Nick. I don't know. Are we correct to say that we are not perceiving them separately?

I'd say we cannot be perceiving them separately, right? That would be two different mental events or something like that. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

You'd have to see them as one thing in order to see them. Yeah, but that means your state of mind would have to be holding a changing thing and an unchanging thing at the same time. Maybe that's the whole point, is that it's a contradiction.

Just the perception is a contradiction. He was using the word NGON SUM a lot before. Yeah.

Maybe he was trying to make the distinction between what you're seeing directly and what you're seeing indirectly or with deduction. Yeah, yeah. It's a law.

It's an axiom in Pramana studies that all objects of deduction are unchanging. Yeah. So we've got to stay away from deduction in this discussion.

Yeah. Because we're trying to talk about a coffee cup which is changing. Yeah.

So we can't talk about figuring it out. Anything you figure out, you're dealing with unchanging mental images. These are both true though, right?

I mean, the object being perceived by an unmistaken state of mind as a single thing is true. However, you could also perceive the same object as not being different. But I would say that when you say that you perceive that two things are not separate, you could argue that that's an act of deduction.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then the object has to be unchanging.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Let's go to 450. Who's going to read, Adam?

Let's see. Who's not translating? Venerable Sunam, would you help us?

Happy to do so, if you correct me. By the way, thanks for a good time at Diamond Mountain, Sunam. Thank you.

I hope you had a couple days off. Oh, we put in the Diamond Way retreaters yesterday. Days off next week.

Hopefully they'll shut up for one month and you can take a rest.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, that's my hope as well.

[Speaker 1]
But usually they have some kind of problem. Okay. ,GANG ZHIG TU, ,MIG PA YIN NO, ,GANG ZHIG TU, ,MIG PA YIN NO, Nice.

,GANG ZHIG NYAN ZHES, ,GANG ZHIG NYAN ZHES, What's nyan shes, Adam? It's the auditory consciousness.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Auditory consciousness which holds to a sound. Your ear awareness which holds to a sound, and so it's holding, oh, hey, this is a sound, okay? Your ear of consciousness is saying, oh, this is a sound.

And is it holding to a sound which is impermanent? Yes or no? Yes.

Is it distinguishing between those two facts, sound and the impermanence of sound? No. No, it cannot, because one is changing and one is unchanging.

THA DE DU MA MI It cannot focus on those two things at the same time. Is it focusing on sound which is changing? Yes.

Is it saying to itself, hey, this is sound, and this is the unchanging nature of sound? No. Yeah, it cannot.

So it cannot perceive those two facts separately. Can it perceive them in one lump? Yes.

He says no, okay? GP is not familiar. What's a lump?

Well, it cannot perceive, when your ear hears a sound of music which is changing, it can perceive a sound which is changing, but it cannot separate out the unchangingness, sorry, the changingness and the sound. It's listening to a sound which is changing, but it cannot at that moment conceptualize the fact of being changing. How are you not perceiving them as a lump, though?

I mean, is that the Dong Tze Chick from earlier? I mean, that's kind of what we've been going with, right? I don't know.

Is it possible to lump together something which is changing and something which is unchanging and see that as one lump? Yeah, and this is what we were just said earlier, that in the Pramanavartika, that there's a distinction between mikpa and ngepa. Yeah, good.

Nobody said ngepa here yet. Well, yeah, I'm just saying that, and if that would, you could infer from that, though, that any object that you see, you're going through this process of mikpa-ing it, but if you were to focus on it and ascertain that, it would seem to me that the qualities, that you are perceiving an object's qualities in a tone factor anytime you perceive anything, like you're perceiving everything along with it. But again, again, the whole argument here, the whole couple of pages, he's saying, how is it possible to know that sound is changing, which is a Buddhist principle, like it's the most basic principle of Buddhist logic. How is it possible to identify it in a category of changing things when that's an unchanging thing?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
How is it possible for one state of mind to watch something which is changing instant by instant, and at the same time hold something about it which is unchanging? How is that possible? Okay, let's quickly do 451, Adam, and then we got to figure, then grandpa's going to listen to you guys, figure out why this is relevant to our human lives.

And by the way, it could have to do with how do you make judgments about people or something like that, you know? How is that even possible? Okay, okay, here we go.

John said, nyen she kyi. Please read, have someone read, Adam. Oh, wait, it's the last one, so you should read it, I think.

Okay. John said, nyen she kyi ja thang ja yi mi thakpa tha du ha de du ma mik pe, chik du mik gun. Ja thak ya du mik par tel.

Hold on, that word, ja thak ya du mik par tel. Mik par tel, ja thak me du. Hold on, is this du ma thak me du ma mik pe chik du?

Yeah, it's not du ma, by the way, it's not many. It's as thak me, ma mik pa. Yeah, it would be as not perceived, right?

Yeah, so let's go to the end here. Ja thak ya du mik pa means to perceive that sound is what? It's selfless.

Has its own nature, does have its own nature, okay? Oh, sorry, the other, it would have itself, like a self of sound, yeah. Yeah, there would be a self nature to sound.

Because you, now listen, if you don't perceive that sound has no nature of being itself, does that mean you perceive that sound does have a nature of its own? If you don't perceive that sound does not have a nature of its own, have you necessarily perceived that sound does have a nature of its own?

[Speaker 2]
That's pretty cute. No.

[Speaker 1]
No, you haven't. Yeah, I'll say it again. If you don't perceive that sound does not have a self nature, have you perceived that sound does have a self nature?

And we say no, it's not the case, okay? It's a different thing to perceive that sound has its self nature and to not be aware that it doesn't not have a self nature. Those are two different things, okay?

It's kind of like a parallel way that he's trying to really push that. Perceiving something as being one thing is not the same as perceiving it as being different. Failing to perceive that something is not something is not the same as perceiving that it is something.

Something, yeah. Like what was it? Okay, that's all.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, an object would be a single, okay, yeah.

Yeah, and okay, failing to perceive that something has no self is not equivalent to perceiving that it does have a self. Yeah. Okay, and therefore, failing to perceive that sound and its impermanence are separate, okay?

Failing to perceive that sound and its impermanence are separate doesn't mean that you perceive that they are the same thing. Okay, failing to perceive that sound and its impermanence are separate doesn't necessarily imply that you have perceived that they are the same. Maybe you just didn't think about it.

You see what I mean? Failing to perceive that sound and its changing quality are separate doesn't mean that you are necessarily thinking that sound and its changingness are the same thing, okay? Got it?

Yeah. Failing to see that two things are separate doesn't imply necessarily that you have perceived that they are the same. Okay, that's all.

Okay, Grandpa's going to take a break. I'm going to sit here and listen to you guys attempt to relate this to human life. And then Adam, you're going to do 4.52, 4.53 and 4.54 for next time.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. So I'm just going to shut up. And then at 9.15, we're going to find out what's going on in the whole world. Thank you, Geshe-la. Thanks. Adam, it's your microphone.

I got the plane. Okay. Yeah, so let's flounder together.

As we try to figure some way to apply this to everyday life. You know, I think Gen gave us a good starting point, which is that, you know, if we're perceiving a person, right, if we're perceiving somebody that we label as being, let's say annoying, you know, or somebody that's being difficult in our life, is it the case that we could be perceiving Okay, let's go with this. Can I, can I, does anybody have any ideas?

Does anybody want to contribute anything before I take the floor? Does anybody have anything that they want to say before I go on a long spell?

[Speaker 3]
Adam, the first thing I thought of with what you just said is when I'm having an argument with somebody and I start by saying, you know, you're always like that. You always do that. And the person says, well, that's completely out of context, Tim.

What I did here is not what I did a week ago. And I'm like, no, but you're always like that. And then you just, and then an argument, there's nowhere to go, right?

What I was thinking is just, you know, when, you know, when things are one and the same, like this moment is the same as the last time you did this, as the last time you did this, then there's no place, there's no openness or place for discussion or change.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that was one of the first things I learned as a parent, when you read these different parenting methods. They say that you should specifically, specifically you should refrain from saying that your child always does this or that, that that's a very poor way of addressing any negative behavior. So, yeah, I would agree with you, even in the realm of parenting.

Because the label, I mean, sorry, go ahead. No, it's great.

[Speaker 2]
I am just jumping off of what Geshe Michael was saying and what I felt like you were leading into, Adam. And I guess I want to talk about it just so I don't lose it.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
That in a sense, when you're thinking about the way someone is, when you're thinking any truth about a person that we're implying, you're not seeing them. That if there's a changing person before you, that any truth, any conclusion you come to with the person before you is maybe contradictory to being present, aware of the person before you. Like, I think about this a lot in terms of just listening to people, just hearing people and like, not trying, you know, trying not to just plan in my head the next thing I'm going to say when that person is trying to tell me something.

And I have this theory, okay, that I'm open to challenge on. But it may be that what people want from us more than our cockamamie advice, which maybe they shouldn't listen to anyway, is just our presence, is just our awareness. Like, sometimes people want to be heard more than they want anything from us.

And the moment we think about what we're going to say, or think about what they need, or think about what your problem is this, or we're not hearing a thing out of their mouth. Like, we're not with them. We're not seeing the person before us at all.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I would agree. Yeah, I think that's a very beautiful way of applying this too. Yeah, and on the flip side, though, if there's somebody that we're having a difficult encounter with, is it the case that they're not being difficult?

I mean, you know, they are appearing that way, right? Maybe it's just that we've misaligned their ultimate nature, or where they're truly coming from.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, maybe while I'm thinking about how difficult they are, it might have even been true then. But since I'm not watching the changing them anymore, maybe they're not difficult anymore, and I didn't notice, because I'm busy thinking about when they were difficult a second ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It certainly seems like that would be a key to ending the difficulty quicker. Yeah. So not to separate it in your mind.

[Speaker 2]
By the time I know if they're difficult, I don't know whether or not they're difficult anymore.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, maybe that's the momentary hint to do it. Yeah, you know, something we went into last time was, how do we take something like this to the meditation cushion? So we specifically went into, I think, the last Q&A that we were doing with my class was, and we were talking about how do you take something like the subtle impermanence of a coffee cup, right?

Is that thing also bound up in the object? The subtle impermanence would be dong zai chik, right? And so is there a way that you can take these things onto the cushion?

There's probably something there. We talked about it for like 15 minutes last class, so I don't want to spend like the last 15 minutes talking about it.

[Speaker 2]
Adam, Shanti has her hand up because she's being more polite than she needs to be. Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

[Speaker 1]
All right, well, thanks. I just got back at midnight from Diamond Mountain where I was there for like over a month. And I will say that volunteering for a month at Diamond Mountain before, during, and after retreat is the most wicked breeding ground for karma and learning.

There were so many relationships, some that had been previous, some that were brand new, volunteers coming in and leaving all the time. And I noticed whenever I feel like I wake up one day and I'm like, the you always thing, something they did yesterday, I expect them to do today. And the karma is so quick there that they're no longer the same person the next morning after they've slept for a few hours.

And if it's you always, then it's I always. I mean, really, the mirror is so clear, especially when you're going around clearing the dust and cleaning, literally cleaning at the same time as karmically cleaning your seeds. And so it's just nothing is ever the same.

The next moment, they're not the same. And we had so many amazing experiences of people, you know, projecting their own seeds onto each other and having to figure it out and work it out. And, you know, with Sunam and Rocio and Katrina and all the people coming and going.

The other thing that was amazing about being there is like from volunteering and being there and really sinking in there, I feel like we're all equals. You know, we really are all equals. And so you're like, oh, there's the big shot who teaches, you know, on Zoom hundreds of people.

And it's like, no, they're they're the same. We're all the same. So anyway, it was just I just got home at midnight and I got a good sleep and I'm in Florida now.

But just thank you, everyone. And thank you, Keshla, for such a beautiful everyone for such a beautiful time. Yeah, Mike, Mike has his hand raised.

Thank you, Shanti. Yeah, I just wanted to say, you know, we were talking about how just because we don't think that, you know, a sound and impermanence go together, that when we're thinking of the sound, we're not necessarily thinking at the same time that it's impermanent. And I was thinking about a car alarm, like going off.

And it's like when that car alarm starts going off at three a.m., I'm sitting in my room and I'm like losing my mind. Like this is never going to stop. Like you forget that, like in like a minute or two or twenty five minutes, like someone's going to shut the car alarm off, you know.

And I just kind of related that to just kind of like my noisy thoughts. And like when things are bothering me in my own mind, like they seem permanent and I'm like, oh, my God, I feel so jealous or I feel so angry. And like like I don't I don't want to feel like this because it's going to last forever.

But then like if I can remember to contemplate something like this instead of just leaving myself stuck in it, if I can like think about like, oh, you know, the car alarm goes off like sounds and like emotions that as soon as I start getting into the. Like the pattern of thinking about things like this, it tends to like start loosening up my grip on the on the like emotional experience that I'm having. That's what I got.

Thanks. Yeah, very beautiful. And Christina had a nice comment there.

The it sounds very applicable to if you haven't read. There's there's a small essay on the flavors of emptiness, and it's very beautiful. If you can find that somewhere, that'd be really cool to read.

[Speaker 2]
I would like to say. I think the problem that we face almost same, it will repeat itself by a pattern. Is it?

I mean, my case, I believe others also same. So sometimes we get what we did to others, right?

[Speaker 1]
It's very normal. Like we out of control and do something that not so nice.

[Speaker 2]
And then we break it. So it's very normal. Until until now, I have to take very aggressive step to to to improve myself.

Like I have many, many times I I reveal and then I have to educate myself, tell my mind what's my brain. Oh, if if next time this thing happen before this thing happen, what should I do? I have to control control my mind.

And then very aggressively, like many times educate myself or not to argue with people. OK. And then things will improve.

I mean, I mean, I have to very aggressive. Wash my mind and then be very careful with my vows. Yeah.

Keeping the vows. Yes. Even on action works and on thought also, if nobody see, nobody know what I think.

I have to catch myself and and and really, really do do with this, especially the thought part nobody see and nobody know. But, you know, very careful. Keep the vows.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's helpful to have a plan on how to deal with things.

[Speaker 2]
We know that things are not so not so difficult because it is a pattern. Every every time the problem is just to repeat the same things with different situation only.

[Speaker 1]
That's very beautiful because you have to be first aware of the possible problem as it arises. And then you have to have a plan on how to deal with it. Yeah.

And I think that's a very pragmatic approach to any any problem in our life. And you never know, Peiling. You might think that you always get stuck on this pattern.

[Speaker 2]
You always have this hang up. But we are changing all the time and you're practicing and you might think, oh, when this person says this thing to me, I I always blow it. I always get mad.

I always say the wrong thing. But we're all changing quickly. And maybe today's the day that we say the right thing or keep our mouth shut.

Oh, I think it depends on karma and emptiness. Just remember, I think it depends on karma and emptiness.

[Speaker 1]
I think we have time. Tracy, if you're hand raised and I want to make sure that she she she gets. She gets to chime in if she'd like.

I just I really enjoyed this class in this discussion. And for me, it got me thinking I'm really focused on my six times book.

[Speaker 3]
And it's like when I write down, I want to do it as fast as I can. I just want to whip through it, you know. And then all of a sudden, today's the first time I had this spark of, whoa, pause.

What perception?

[Speaker 1]
Do I have the right conceptualized idea? And who is the one looking at like, how can I have this thought around what I'm going to write down and what's happening?

[Speaker 3]
So for me, moving forward, I'm definitely going to incorporate a little bit more spaciousness around writing in my six times. And what's the state of mind while I'm writing?

[Speaker 1]
That's very beautiful. Yeah. That's right.

Thank you, Tracy. I think, you know, it's 17 after. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You want to push it? Gotta go to the news, I think. Yeah, let's do History World News.

Thank you, Adam. Thank you, guys. So blessed to have you guys as friends and to be here in attendance with you all.

It's a very beautiful experience. Very high seas I have for all you guys. Say hi to my granddaughter.

I will again. Yeah. Thank you, Alma.

It was a wonderful day. And for those of you who are looking for that document, it's in the chat. And Ben Kramer shared it.

There's a link to the to a Dropbox folder that has that essay. I think I see Michael wrote the short one. Many flavors of the many flavors, if I could say that.

Yeah. Or you can do the full online course in like nine. Which is one of the best things you'll ever listen to, I think.

Uh, which I posted a link to above. Take it away, Juan. And then Dr. Word for those of you who want to learn with Dr. Word. Hey, hello, everyone. Thank you so much. Geshe-la, Adam, Nick, Ben.

Thank you for all the translators and all the audience who comes and spends some time every Saturday, every more every Monday here with us. Thank you so much for caring and giving the time to learn, become better versions of yourselves and putting that into the service of everyone. Thank you so much.

So let's talk a little bit about what's going on. As Geshe Michael mentioned, we just have a wonderful time in Diamond Mountain. And it was so wonderful that people are getting to notice.

They want to go and spots for retreat are moving quickly. I was, how to say, requested to keep inviting you to register in advance because if you want to go. The spots are moving quickly.

So I want to share with you today. I'm sharing my own screen. So here we go.

Yes, go for it, because October 11th to the 20th is going to be the next event with Geshe Michael Roach there and spots move fast. So I really recommend you if you want to go, if you're interested to go, let's do it ahead of time. Me, myself, I may do it ahead of time.

I'm learning to do things ahead of time, but that's why I also encourage you to do it. OK, so as you may have here. Oh, sorry.

What's going on? One sec. Oh, yeah, great.

Today, today we have a live Q&A with John Brady and Hector Marcel. It's going to be in an hour and 30 more minutes. So you still have a chance to register for it.

I think it's going to be very interesting. John Brady, no need of presentation. Hector Marcel, also very famous teacher in New York.

And I want to share something very cool that happened. John Brady, he just spent some time in Taiwan. He did a great, amazing event for the fundraising of ALL.

And I have a special video I want to share with you. I'll share it here. It looks very, very cool.

Thank you, Gibson and all your team, because you're doing a wonderful job with your social media. I want to admire and congratulate your work. Here it is.

Check it out. Oh, no, not this one. Sorry.

Here it is. No, no, wait. This one.

Oh, yeah, yeah. Ready. We see you and not the video.

Really? I see the video. I see the video.

Yeah, I see the video. I think it's OK. So there you go.

Thank you so much, John Brady. You're saving the world. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And everyone who made the event possible, congratulations. Also, the social media, amazing.

And for those of you who are interested to learn more with John Brady, he's planning an event on June. This one, it's a special event on the Heart Sutra. It's going to be three days happening in Japan, very nearby Kyoto City, June 8 to June 10.

So if you're interested, I talked with Sophie Tsao, and she told me there is also a chance to sign up online. If you cannot make it live, you could register online and be part of this event. So just a reminder, you know, in a few more hours, we're going to have this Q&A with John Brady and Hector Marcel.

And for those of you who are not very familiar with Hector, he's the organizers of the Three Jewels, the director of the Three Jewels in New York. They are organizing the Met Gala event on May the 2nd. And for that, we have also a little video I want you to check.

For those of you who may not know what it is about, this is just a little teaser of the Met Gala. And in short, I will be showing the QR code in case you want to go there. Check it out.

Yeah, I have here very cool things about that event. Maybe one day I personally can attend, but my friends who have gone, I think they like it very much. A few friends are going.

So yeah, you know, if you want to go, I'll share here the QR code to get more information. Here is Met Gala. And whatever they found from this event, they use it for mostly scholarships for meditation teacher trainings, as far as I understand.

So it's a great cause, having great fun by practicing this visualization, I will say, of ourselves becoming our highest self. And then whatever money we spend on it, it's going to go for meditation teacher training. So now you know a little bit of what John Brady and Hector Marcel are doing these days.

So we encourage you again to go to the class on Q&A, which is happening in a few more moments. Okay. And next, as you know, Kyoto is a great place that is growing a lot.

Many events are happening. We just mentioned about John Brady teaching in June, but also Yoga Studies Institute is organizing an event there. Mei Chang is one of the main organizers.

I had the great opportunity to meet her in person a few like last month. She told me about this event. If you happen to be around, also it's around the same day.

So June 9 to June 13. Teachers from YSI, Errol, Bernie and Benjamin Bridges, Lisa Lee are going to be there, Mei Chang. You still have a chance to catch the early bird prize.

And later, we're going to be talking more in detail about this event. I had a nice time talking with Mei Chang. We have a pre-recorded interview that we will be sharing sometime soon.

Also, what other things are happening in Japan in June? Team Lowenhaupt is teaching course number two, Steps on the Path, Protecting Your Seeds. I had the chance to be there for course number one.

It's amazing experience. I think the group energy was very, very beautiful. It's like a very private and close group.

You have the chance to be close to team. Then you have the chance to ask him personal questions. They're like, you know, he cannot hide much because, you know, it's a close place.

So if you want more like direct transmission of this course from Team Lowenhaupt, this is a good chance for you to go. June 4th, 2024, coming up soon. And if you cannot make it in June, then we still encourage you to try to do it in December because Geshe Michael himself is going to be there teaching Steps on the Path retreat.

December 2nd to December 7th, 2024. Many countries don't need a visa. I'm from Mexico and I don't need a visa to go to Japan.

I just show up there and they say, okay, you're welcome. But just in case, check if your country needs a visa or not. So yeah, that's it for now.

But before we leave, we want to also consider planning your trip to Mexico City because Geshe Michael will be teaching An Angel Depends on the Devil, a two-day event happening from June 26th to July 28th, Mexico City. It's a new attempt that the Mexican organizers are doing to expand the audience. They are now organizing an event in Mexico City.

We hope it attracts a lot of new people and also, of course, the usual committed students who are traveling around the world in order to get a little bit of more wisdom. So there is a QR code for that. And finally, we would like to invite you to our next Peachtree World New Event happening on Tuesday, May 14th.

The registration QR code is there. We're going to have a special celebration for our teachers and the teachings because the United States and Mexico, for example, have the Teacher's Day happening in May. So we decided to take this month and celebrate and be very grateful for our teachers and the teachings we have in our lives.

So that's all for today. We'll see you again on Monday if everything goes well. And we now go with Ward Smith for Learning Tibetan Language.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Juan. All right.

Thank you so much, Juan, Adam, Geshe-la, all the teachers and presenters. And let us learn about the Mind Only School and how to translate it. Who would like to read this?