Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 56

[Speaker 1]
At that time, everybody, welcome to short and dark. I got stick at a hotel. I didn't think I was going to be out here, but it's very cold where I am, but I assure you I'm wearing a three-piece suit under this jacket just to keep it fancy.

It's getting close to Christmas, which is a big holiday for us out here in the US and some other countries. So I'm ramping up for the festivities and why not start with an amazing class with Adam. So we're going to cover some logic today, destroying the darkness.

So not easy, so everybody please get your brains ready. And as usual, an extra special thanks to how much the worldview productions team has been supporting us with all of their amazing hard work, maybe even more lately than ever, but probably always. And all of our interpreters.

You guys are incredible for interpreting this work, this really fast, difficult discussions that we do have. If you're all ready, Adam, are you ready? Hello?

Hey, hey, hey. Okay. Good.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Camera back in. Yeah. I got sick this week too, man.

I've had COVID all week. Oh, I'm really sorry to hear that, dude. Everybody in the house has got it.

We were like, kind of worried about the grandpa. Oh no. Yeah.

He tested positive too. Yeah. Oh.

Yeah. We brought it back from a dance recital. Anyways, I didn't sleep at all last night, so you guys just got to bear with me.

I'm not trying to complain, but I'm not fully operational this morning. That's it. Okay.

All right. Well, all I would say is don't worry, less is more. Take it nice and slow.

Take it easy. Even if we just cover a few lines, you know what I mean?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. For everybody.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Well, so what I thought to do instead of, you know, in lieu of having a homework, just because we're not meeting with Geshe-la, I've got a list of four things. Let me share my screen here.

I've got a list of four things that I've, they're kind of like questions or things that I've been just kind of dealing with. You guys see? Yes.

Right here. Okay. All right.

So you guys see it? Do I have the right document highlighted? Is it a list of four things here, Geshe-la?

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

So like I said, no homework, but I thought maybe we could have a pre-class discussion about these four things, which have kind of been giving me some, they've all been things that I've been spending time thinking about. So, and I just wanted to bring them to the Mixed Nuts and the worldview community to see if maybe anybody could help me progress my thinking. Cool.

Cool.

[Speaker 3]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
This is great. So the first one, so we're currently discussing, we're spending time studying Rangrik right now or apperception. So the thought crossed my mind.

It was like, well, you know, is, you know, are Zaychik, excuse me, are Cheche, meaning recollection and Rangrik, could we say that they're the same thing? Can we say that they're Dunchik? And what, and if not, what's the difference?

So I think there's a difference, but I'm having a hard time kind of verbalizing it to myself. And it's more than, you know, it kind of feels like a hunch more than like anything I've proven myself. So Cheche versus Rangrik.

And isn't Cheche a particular kind of recollection, like a particular flavor of recollection? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, does anyone else have any, I mean, do you think they're subsets of one another?

Excuse me. Do you think Cheche, anybody else agree with Nick that Cheche is, could be considered under the group of Rangrik? Oh, I was thinking, I was thinking Cheche was a particular kind of like Jampa or something.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And I, I would just say one quick thing. So somebody said recollection and what Rangrik is that perception, right? Or perception, the mind ability to perceive itself.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So Cheche Michael often makes the distinction that Rangrik, and this is probably the answer, but I could be wrong. Cheche Michael often makes the distinction that Rangrik is the mind's ability to perceive itself in one, in the same moment. Whereas a Cheche would be the mind's perceiving itself in a previous moment.

No, that's a, yeah, that's a really good distinction. Yeah, totally. I think the time gap problem and the subject object duality thing that arises out of that, it probably is central to understanding the difference between the two.

If we were going to try to put them and arrange them in a hierarchical way, what where would we put Cheche and where would we put Rangrik? Why? Um, I'm not exactly sure why we're putting those two together.

I, um, Cheche, I, right. I think of more as recollection or I guess maybe in, in Sautrantika or in the books that you and I are working on, Adam, and we think, but we haven't totally come up to it. Right.

Can be like a, a conception of the object or something that, um, that is no longer direct or something. We haven't really gotten into the technicalities yet. Yeah.

And, um, it's actually one of the topics. Uh, this is one of the topics that I found discrepancies between what Jetson Copper writes about and what KJJ writes. And also what Goutsub J they all seem to seem to say different things, um, specifically regarding, uh, Rangrik.

Now, the reason that I'm trying to include Rangrik and you, because you said, you and I don't know why we're putting them together. Um, and the reason that I kind of gripped it is because, um, they're both operations of the mind. I think, you know, contextually and out of, uh, uh, uh, uh, if we take them out of a situation, if we take them out of any, how do we put, how do I put this?

Um, yeah, no, they're both just operations of the mind. Uh, so the JJ being related to a prior awareness, right. It is central.

Right. And the, it's going to become a huge talking point as to whether or not the original, um, perception of a, of the color blue, let's say, um, whether or not, uh, that is direct or not. And what it's.

So the, the memory of the perception of blue, right. Um, Jason Kappa seems to say that the memory is that, that the, the memory is actually, um, no different than the, um, the original, um, impression, right. The, the original perception is actually the same, um, as you're chasing it.

Sorry, dude, I've got COVID brain. This is actually, uh, we're going to, yeah, it's fine. Let me get warmed up here as soon as, you know, I just got to get the neurons firing.

Yeah. Keep going. You don't have to apologize for yourself.

You're doing fine. I'm not, you know, um, so, um, it's going to become a big thing, right. As to whether or not, if there is, so how is recollection any different than wrong Rick?

I mean, and, and this is actually, we're going to, there's, there's one particular section here that we're going to get, get to that, um, alludes to wrong Rick being the awareness of, uh, a simple knowing. Yeah. And this is, it's a really interesting topic for me because I think, um, there's a, there's an interesting problem even in like, I don't know, modern science or psychology of mind where people talk about this question, they call the hard problem of consciousness.

Yeah. Right. It seems to relate to not just like, okay, I see the color blue.

Um, and we can talk about a computer detecting the color blue, but how do we talk about what it's like to perceive blue as if perceiving blue is somehow different than what it's like to perceive it? Like what is the quality of the experience?

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Well, that's the receiving blue. That's the distinction that Dharmakirti makes as well. Right.

Yeah. There's a phenomenological difference, right? The experiential aspect of experiencing the color blue is direct.

Yeah. The experiential aspect is direct. I don't think in the middle way, you know, like I, my, my feeling is, I don't think that you can say much about the experience of blue other than blue.

I'm very, I'm skeptical. And I think it may be that we would consider in other schools. Okay.

That don't accept wrongly that we would, that we would say that the idea of some sort of like what it's like to see blue that's different than blue is a sort of an ignorance. I suspect. Uh, yeah, totally.

You know, this is exactly what I was hoping would happen, man. I appreciate the, the back and forth. I like fleshing these things out.

Um, and certainly something I'm struggling with too. Yeah. Um, I think every in, in everything that has been said so far has really kind of, it's given me a couple of different ways to think about it.

So I appreciate it. Um, so, uh, I had another, yeah. So, um, chase up.

Right. And what's the difference between chase, uh, and Jay Gome. Oh, right.

Uh huh. Is it or BS PSG? I think.

Yeah. So anyways, let's, let's see. Uh, okay.

So does anybody out there know what Jay Gome is? Yeah. In the chat.

That's where the nerve is. It's, it's just S G O M by the way.

[Speaker 3]
Is it just, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Um, anybody. Analytical meditation. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Is this thing on? Yeah. Um, yeah.

Jay Gome analytic meditation. So Geshe-la brought up the term chase. Uh, uh, where was it?

I think it was. Yeah. Just here.

And I thought it'd be interesting to look at his, his note here that you made it himself. So say Mar. Right.

Um, what would given, okay. Given Geshe-la's note there, um, about chase. So, um, could we maybe distinguish?

Is that helpful in trying to distinguish the, uh, differences between, um, Jay Gome and chase, uh, saying that it's a, uh, let's say the object of analytic meditation. Um, what it was to stand up under investigation. Like it, it passes investigation.

You could investigate it and it, and it stands. Yeah. Yeah.

And Geshe-la said that the classic example of chase. So was, um, that if the pen had any nature, uh, from its own side, then a dog would write with it. He said, that's the classic example.

Um, knowing that, right. Um, could we say that chase, uh, is something that we use in Jay Gome? Yeah.

That makes sense. Or, or we're looking for the chase in Jay Gome. We're taking an object and exposing it to analysis and we may or may not have an object that stands up.

Yeah. I like it. I like it, man.

Um, okay. So, um, going back again, once again, whoa, this has been happening in Venerable Upala. Um, my, the, the, the, it's like the spool, the spool, I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
The scroll bar. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Well, um, you know, I don't touch the scroll bar. It's just at random times and I'm moving through my document. It'll jump all the way back to the beginning.

And I've tried updating and, uh, it hasn't really solved it. So, uh, I didn't have a problem. I know I have some electrical interaction with electrical things, but I don't think I'm causing that one.

Too far away. We'll see about that. We're going to Jay Gome and see if it does.

Do we get a chance? Does the audience get a chance to try to read the binary? Hold on.

That was supposed to be a joke. Uh, so I, I took the liberty of translating this into binary for you guys and you can't read the binary. I put the hex right here.

So anyways, now that that jokes, uh, yeah, I thought. Sorry, sorry. No, no, it's okay.

It's probably pretty confusing anyway. So, um, yeah, so we're looking at, okay. Now what about you can, um, and this isn't necessarily, um, comparing the two terms.

This is more so something that, um, I kind of felt like we've been talking about and I've kind of, I felt like I've had a hard time explaining it. And then, um, the, the idea kind of came to me that, um, we couldn't. So as we've been talking about, we've been mentioning it, mentioning it in reference to, um, impermanent qualities that are not perceived, but are experienced, excuse me.

They are perceived, but they're not understood. Right. So a coffee cup has qualities that come along with it that we perceive, but we don't understand them and we don't recognize them.

Right. So what we've been saying are, are things like it's subtle impermanence, right? We perceive the cup subtle impermanence, but we don't recognize it.

Um, now I think it's also, uh, totally okay. Right. You guys call me on this, uh, to say that the cup has permanent qualities that come along with it as well.

Right. Yeah. There are sets of qualities that come along with every object that we perceive.

One of those sets of things are going to be impermanent qualities and the other, the other side are going to be permanent qualities. And like the fact that it's impermanent or something like the fact that it's impermanent. No, it's a perfect example.

Yeah. Every single object is going to have two sets of things, no more or no less. And every object will have both sets of those things.

Impermanent qualities and impermanent qualities. As long as you can perceive them, right. As long as there are things that can be perceived, meaning things that are changing.

So with that being said, coffee cups have sets of permanent qualities that come along with them. Namely it, their, their ultimate nature. Right.

Uh, or yeah, the, the fact that they're empty of having any nature of their own, uh, of their own. Right. That's a quality that's going to come along with any coffee cup that I ever sip out of.

Now, what are the two distinguishing qualities between permanent qualities and impermanent qualities? Well, I'm not sure what, what do you mean when you say impermanent qualities? You mean that they, uh, because of course a quality in this school is right.

It's unchanging, but you mean a quality that's true about the cup as long as the cup exists. Yeah. Yeah.

Like the fact that it's going to be changing, excuse me. Uh, it's changing this, not the fact that it's going to be changing, but it's changing this. Um, so the reason I have you can here next to say chick, um, is because, um, you can say that the emptiness.

Right. Is going to have, is the, is emptiness caused now? Right.

Yeah. I mean, according to many books, it's not right. Right.

Right. And also, um, so now is, is a cups quality of being, is, is a, is a cups, blueness, uh, caused or uncaused is a cups, blueness caused or uncaused. It depends on what school you're talking about.

I think we're in this school. We're supposed to say no. Yeah.

It's not caused. I think that's the idea in this school. I think that qualities in this school are unchanging things.

Um, because they are all, um, arrived at by Chen cell because qualities are, are not, uh, because they're cheat, they're cheats and their generalities, they're not specifics and only specifics can be, um, wrong. Zen can be changing things. So it doesn't perform a function.

Does it? I think not. What's that?

It's blueness.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
What about that? What about the, um, what about the cups changing this? The cups changing mess doesn't change.

Hmm. In which way? Uh, in, so the changing this is present.

Um, not one iota more or less over the course of the life of the existence of the cup. Okay. Is what I would try.

Does it have the, does it have the quality of being a changing thing? Um, does the cup or does the changing this have the quality of being a changing thing? Yeah.

So we can make the distinction between a material form, right. And the cup as a singular entity. So the cup is a singular entity that we're referring to.

Okay. Um, singular entity means one thing composed of arts. What do you mean singular entity?

Yeah. Well, I'm trying to make the, I'm trying to make the distinction here, but that in this school, yes, doesn't exist. And that the only thing that does exist in this school are partless atoms and indivisible moments of awareness.

Yeah. Um, so you would say exists really or something? Um, ultimately they say ultimately.

Sounds good. Yeah. Sounds good.

They say ultimately. So, um, the distinction here that I'm trying to make and, uh, let me, let me draw back out. So whenever, or excuse me, let me, let me, I just need to zoom out here for a second.

Um, the okay. So a cup, a cup, a cup can be blue, right? Yeah.

If we refer to the cup blueness, right. What are we referring to? Are we referring to the category of the cup belongs to if it's blue?

Yeah. Or are we talking about, or are we talking about the word blue? Right.

Cause now we need to make a distinction, especially when we come into linguistic kind of understanding is that every word is going to have a reference, right? Yes. I don't think it's going to be the quality that the cup belongs to.

Cause you're talking about the cups blueness. So blueness is, uh. Okay.

I think that the, what I'm trying to do, and maybe I'll just be more direct here. I was trying to be skillful. I was trying to kind of like, uh, I was, I was trying to have like a mini kind of like debate.

Um, so where I think this would ultimately end up is in saying no, no changing things can have qualities. If I'm understanding what you're saying, Kramer. And, uh, the reason that I have to say that a cup can have the quality of being blue.

Right. Is because it's something that the cup possesses the cup possesses because it's a referent of that, that term. So the cup possesses blue.

Right. Okay. Yeah.

I, I, I liked your idea that, uh, it belongs to the set of things which are blue. I was actually in favor of that one. All right.

Well, you know, so ultimately what, uh, what, and I, yeah, this is great. I'm really loving this. I love talking about this stuff and I don't get to, um, so in between and, um, right.

We're talking about, um, let's say causal conditions. Right. And what would be the, okay.

So if I have a cup and that cup has many different qualities. Right. Yeah.

You got a call. Yeah. Thanks man.

Um, you, that cup has permanent qualities as well as, uh, impermanent or changing qualities. So we have changing qualities and unchanging qualities bound up. Right.

Excuse me. Yeah. Go ahead.

Oh, I agree. You put hot tea in it and then it's hot and then you drink it and then it cools down. Yeah.

So, and once again, it, it also has, uh, the quality of being empty. Right. Yeah.

So the main distinction that I'm trying to make here, right. Is that you have a single object and it has many qualities that are bound up in it. And some of those qualities are going to have different.

Right. Some of those qualities. Sorry, I've got a new button and it's not working.

Anybody notices that they have a baby in there near their microphone. We got it. Good job.

Good job. Well, some of those baby would just hit the new button. So the, the, the changing qualities and the unchanging qualities are going to have different.

Right. Or at least we could say that the changing side is you can meaning causal. Yeah.

Or something.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Totally. I've seen it like empowering. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Totally.

[Speaker 1]
So, um, yeah, so we can, we can say that unchanging things are caused, excuse me. Changing things are caused and unchanging things are not caused. Right.

So this is almost a proof. It's, it's, it's a, for me, when I, when I was thinking about it, I was like, oh, well, this is kind of a proof that there are different aspects of any given object, excuse me, of a coffee cup that I perceive, but I don't understand because I'm, I'm, I'm perceiving right. This, this bottle.

However, I'm not understanding its emptiness and we know that there have to be, uh, there have to be unchanging qualities that accompany every object, because if there weren't, then those objects could never exist at all. Right. There would be no, um, ability for them to exist.

Uh, there'd be no way. Um, so, uh, for me, the more I thought about it, um, it was, it was kind of just another way of coming up. That's a chick problem, right?

Because the emptiness of a coffee cup is going to be substantially, uh, substantially the same thing as, um, as the coffee cup and the, uh, changing the changing this. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. It's a chick. It's a chick.

And, and, and I would highly, highly recommend, um, that if anybody wants a really deep look at to go to my first book, uh, I didn't realize how important it was going to be until the past six months. And I've really, really been digging in and there are probably, I think five, four, four different, um, there, there are four different types of, uh, of Zaytchik. Right.

I remember that are presented. So, um, I can say that there are, um, unchanging qualities that are Zaytchik with the coffee cup. Adam, when you say Zaytchik, do you mean in both directions?

Like to be one is to be the other in both or just one way? Yeah. Just one way.

Um, so like, I mean, we can explain that for the participants. One, one of the clearer ways that we've learned what Zaytchik means is to be the coffee cup is to be something you can drink from, or like, so it's Zaytchik, a coffee cup and something you can drink from. And when we say one direction, we mean a coffee cup is to be a coffee cup is to be something you can drink from, but to be something you can drink from is not necessarily to be a coffee cup because it could be.

A thermos or something, whatever. Yeah. And then Adam, could you, um, remind us what emptiness is precisely in your school?

Uh, um, okay. This is, uh, this is, well, so I kind of had the same, so we wouldn't call it emptiness. We would call it selflessness.

Right. And there's, um, also there in this school, the big distinction is in between, uh, the, let's say the, uh, the two truths. So if something belongs to conventional reality, it's considered ultimate in this school.

Excuse me. From, from, from our pers from the perspective of the higher middle way, it is the exact opposite. It is, uh, any, if you wanted to, in relation to a coffee cup, you know, it is the exact opposite of, uh, existing, uh, independent of, uh, projections.

Seriously. It's, it's, uh, it's that ultimate. Yeah.

It's diametrically opposed. It actually came up earlier in, in, in, in destroying the darkness. Yeah.

And the way that we described ultimate, ultimate, the way that we described, um, yeah. The way that we described ultimate reality was, um, whether, so the, the distinction here lies between, uh, Ronson and Cheetson. Right.

So there are, there are, there's a bifurcation that you see come up, uh, probably five, five. There's a, there's a splitting or a dividing of reality into two that comes up in three or four different ways in this book. Um, the first, um, you could say Ronson and Cheetson.

Okay. Let's say the second overlay would be ultimate reality and deceptive reality and Cheetson. They follow the same line just for the viewers at home.

Right. I mean, just to remind people, right. Ronson and Cheetson meaning actual, actual objects and archetypes, or you could, you could say, um, concepts or conceptual thought and, and change and the versus the changing world.

You could say the realm of ideas and the realm of actual stuff. Yeah, definitely. And that bifurcation fall, that division follows, um, the, the, the, the division, uh, of reality into ultimate and deceptive.

Yeah. Ultimate objects are actual objects and, um, conceptual thought is belongs to deceptive reality. So if you wanted to ask me for the second schools, um, definition, I would, I would fall.

I would say that it very distinctly follows those lines. Um, and you could break it down into, uh, subjects and objects as well. Um, there are, yeah, there's actually a few different, a few different ways of looking at it.

Um, yeah, I think you would say just every single coffee cup in this school, every single coffee cup is different. Every single coffee cup is utterly unique. No two coffee cups are the same.

All they are totally peculiar, unique, distinct from one another in every way. And the ideas that unite them, the idea of coffee cups, sharing common qualities, even such as being called coffee cups is put upon them by mind. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But the, I mean, it's super, super interesting because, um, yeah, I mean, you, you will, if, if you understand how to negate, um, you start to, you start to understand how this is really like a, uh, a doorway, um, or stairway leading to, um, higher Maja Mika, um, because it is, it's direct.

The, the definition of ultimate reality is the direct opposite of, of what's found in the higher middle way. Um, and meaning that, um, and let's say if higher middle way says that everything exists in name only, right? That everything is nominal.

Everything's a projection, right? Everything exists only independence upon labels, right? So, um, that is diametrically opposed.

It's 180% opposite to what the second school would say in that coffee cups exist, uh, independent of my own projections. And they define that coffee cup that exists independent of my own projections to be ultimate reality. So if you, if, if we can say that, um, uh, in order to belong, this is, this is what I I've read, um, in order to belong to any individual school, right?

To say that we hold, um, Vibhashika views or I'm a, I'm a Satrantika or I'm a mind only guy that that's in reference to whether or not we've actually generated those realizations in meditation. Right? So if we're going to say, what object are we going to be focusing on?

And I think Venerable Pala's, um, upcoming retreat is going to be great to focus on this. Um, understanding the object of negation that's presented the Gakcha in each individual school is going to be key, right? And moving up that ladder.

So in understanding, uh, what ultimate reality isn't, if we start to understand how we can learn to negate certain wrong views that we may hold. And, uh, I think, um, obviously there's, there's a reason why this is 180% the opposite direction because we're learning to get used to the, um, the, the reasonings, right? That you would hold if you held these views of the second school.

And if we get familiar with those reasonings, then we become, uh, more, it's, we become more adept at fighting those off in meditation, right? If you're familiar with the arguments, you know, how to, how to, how to, how to oppose them. You know how to fight them, right?

Um, it's becoming familiar, uh, with the other schools. And oftentimes, you know, I thought, you know, my philosophical journey, when am I going to consider it complete? You know?

And I was like, I want to be able to argue any given point from any given school. Yeah. From the perspective of any school.

I want where, where I would ultimately hope for my understanding of, of, of, of, of, of, of let's say Buddhist philosophy. Um, uh, it's kind of where I'm trying to get to. I want to understand every school such that I could argue competently from their perspective.

This school believes, yeah, this school believes that we are trapped in the realm of ideas and that behind all of those ideas is a true reality.

[Speaker 3]
Totally.

[Speaker 1]
And this school has mastered the art of analyzing our ideas to try to seek the true reality underneath them. And when you dig deep in meditation, uh, it's the same techniques that we use in the middle way to go looking for true, true reality underneath all of our ideas. It's just in the middle way, we realize you don't find one at the bottom of all your ideas.

That's preventing your ideas from becoming the only reality that you will ever meet. Yeah. You said, and you said something that would lead us.

Um, that's a great segue, uh, and do some of the material that we're recovering right now. Um, when you say that, um, the second school, um, sees that there's like this veil that's in between us and our experience of reality, right? Um, why exactly can we say that?

And let's try to unpack that a little bit more and to understand why Ze Chig is being used. It's very interesting. Sorry, I'm just digress here for a second.

It's very interesting because, um, something that I've seen as I've worked with my text, um, is that KJJ is building on these ideas to take us to more subtle, more and more subtle kind of concepts. So he's introducing this kind of, you know, uh, physical things, right? But then he's getting more and more subtle with the way that he's talking about them.

And, um, this veil that Kramer was describing in between our, let's say, awareness and our perceptions, right? Where is that veil? And why or how could that actually, um, relate to Ze Chig and how does Ze Chig relate to, um, our Nampa, right?

Or the aspect of our awareness. So how we've, how we've gotten currently, right? We're in a discussion about apperception or wrong read.

And how is that related to, um, the veil that Kramer's describing, right? And how is that related to, um, our perception of objects as being Ze Chig? And I would suggest to you that there is a very close relationship, right?

Um, if we say that objects are Ze Chig, excuse me, um, our perception of the object is an experience, right? It has to be direct, right? If I touch something that's direct, if I see it, that's a direct perception, right?

It's confirmed by my visual awareness, right? I know that there's an object out there. Now, where does that, um, perception, um, meet our mind?

How are the two related, right? There has to be an, uh, the way that I think about it is kind of like a, like an invisible lens, right? Almost like a, like a, um, like a mirror from the, from the perspective of like the mind only school, right?

A mirror and the, a mirror and the object that appears in the mirror are Ze Chig, aren't they? A mirror and the object that appears in the, a mirror and the object that appears in the mirror are very much so like the, um, the dzinnam and sungnam that we've been discussing. And what I'm suggesting here is that the two are Ze Chig.

And that's why, that's why Kajrup J started the discussion of Ze Chig was to lead us into, um, a Yogachara understanding of perception. Because if you really understand, uh, excuse me, and I don't really understand, but, uh, you know, from what I have seen and from what I'm getting familiar with is that, uh, this is, this is where, I've said it before, where the distinction between the Satrantika's following reasoning and the mind only school follow reasoning overlap is right here. And it's because of this particular topic, right?

So, um, that veil, once again, that Kramer's talking about is, is, is he's saying that the second school, because we're kind of still talking about, um, kind of, uh, the emptiness or selflessness, uh, Dakme, from the perspective of the second side, the second school. Um, and Kramer is saying that the, the real world is hidden to us. We, we, we don't experience that, excuse me, um, our understanding of the world is indirect.

And we, right, we have sense data and we have to interpret that sense data, right? But any interpretation of sense data is conceptual. And what the second school is saying is that that's unreal, that can't be trusted because it's, it's just, it's just overlays by the mind, right?

Some of the, uh, or at least one of the, uh, Goutsubje actually has a pretty good response to this. And he says, well, if you're telling me that reasoning can't be trusted, how in the hell are you going to use reasoning to prove that? He said you're using, you're using reasoning to tell me that reasoning can't be trusted.

Yeah, a hundred percent. Yes. If you're going to tell me that the three relationships, right, don't belong to ultimate reality, you're going to tell me that reasoning, right?

That you're going to tell me that reasoning can't be trusted. Well, this is one of the ways that he's showing inference and how inference can be trusted. Right?

So, uh, but I, this is the distinction. This is another way of looking at the distinction between ultimate and deceptive in the second school. Right?

Because things that are hidden... Whether there's a base reality, you mean?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Things that are hidden belong to ultimate reality. Right? Because remember, you remember when I said there are like four or five, um, ways that you can distinguish reality.

Right? And the division follows too. Rangchen Chitsin, ultimate deceptive.

Right? Yeah. Now, another one of those is hidden and unhidden.

Yes. Remember? Yes.

The other one is nguento. Nguento. Yeah.

Uh, excuse me. Obvious. Yeah.

Obvious reality and hidden reality. Those two, those two follow that, that division. Okay.

It's none... Excuse me. There's nothing in one category that belongs to the other.

And every object that you can think of, see, hear, smell, taste, or touch can be put into one of those categories. In the same moment. And never do they overlap.

Right? So, uh, yeah. There was a discussion, I believe, in that same part of the book about how something can go from being kokir to ngungir or something like that.

Right? I don't know. Okay.

All right. Well, it was a while ago. Yeah, it has been a while ago.

Well, it's interesting because we also get into the distinction between, uh, well, direct and indirect perceptions. Right? Do direct and indirect perceptions follow that same division?

Yeah. Yeah. They do?

You see, direct and indirect perceptions follow that same bifurcation. Like, you can't... If you perceive something with logic, you can't perceive it directly?

Or you're not at the same time. Yeah, or you're not... Yeah.

Right. And remember, there was a... That's an interesting question.

Yeah. Well, there's a discussion about, um, uh, context. Right?

So, there has to be context. And you have to say, for one person. Right?

Right.

[Speaker 3]
One time in one place. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
This time. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and, yeah, once again, like, Upala said, and Verbal Upala said, in this place.

Right? So, those all refer to where any given person is able to place any given object into one of those two categories. Right.

So, you've got hidden. Right? Hidden things are in, uh, are, uh, indirect.

Indirect perception. Are perceived by indirect perception. Yeah.

Yeah. And they also belong to, um, or, do you experience those, uh, uh, directly or indirectly, hidden things? Indirect perception.

Indirect. Do indirect perceptions belong to either ultimate or deceptive reality? Oh.

Right. Indirect perception.

[Speaker 3]
From the perspective of this.

[Speaker 1]
Deceptive. Deceptive reality.

[Speaker 3]
Deceptive reality.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Right. Are they, are they changing or unchanging?

Unchanging. Hidden things are unchanging, right? Yeah.

Hidden things are unchanging, right? Yep. Yeah.

Unchanging. Yep. Yep.

It all seems fine, Adam, with, with a huge exception in my mind, which is when it comes down to the idea that there is some basic sense data that is, especially if we talk about, um, partless particles or atoms, some atoms that are not collected. They are not collections. They're not generalities in the sense of being collections.

And that that's the only true obvious stuff. We can't see that stuff. It's too small.

So we're back the only stuff that we in theory should be able to see directly. We have to use indirect means again to try to see because it's just too small.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So it seems like there's still a problem with what is called Nungir or obvious reality on this level. And I suspect that what we're going to find is that we're going to have to allow for some sort of direct perception of composed changing objects, not just the ideas, but a coffee cup. Now the name coffee cup, the idea that it's a coffee cup, the qualities applied to a coffee cup.

I'm not saying that. They go minimally. But I'm saying that we're going to have to say that the collection, right?

Tsogchi, a collected generality, as opposed to a rikchi, okay, or a right, a generality, a category, the quality, but the tsogchi, the collection of stuff here that I think we're going to have to say at some point is an actual thing. Is real in this school. Yeah, right.

is junjie noppa, right? Like canoe stuff. Well, from the perspective of the classical Indian schools, they may say differently, even from the perspective of the second school.

Now, the interesting thing about a commentarial tradition and its kind of export into Tibet is that the the the the Gaelic have taken a commentarial tradition and have interpreted what Dharmakirti was saying. So you may have Gaelic interpretations of Dharmakirti that contradict what Dharmakirti said as well. And one of the things that one way very simple is that you have to say that coffee cups are rungton.

Right? You have to. Because if they weren't actual things then you couldn't perceive them.

Yeah. And they can form a function like holding coffee. You couldn't see them directly.

Right? So yeah. And collections are a big, big topic.

So there's there's something called like first I think it's like first order first order maybe like no there's middling order and large order ways of looking at reality. Right? So this kind of small order is on the you know the microscopic let's say molecular atomic.

Right? And when we look at the universe we can't see the atomic you know kind of nature of reality. And by atomic I do mean like indivisible.

Right? We can't going down. So on this next order right?

You say that then we're in the reality of coffee cups and computers and you know and then large order we're going to think of you know galaxies and the universe as a whole. Right? So in between this first order and this second order kind of way of looking at things you've got this kind of in between area that some people may say are real and things that some in between the first order and the second order way of looking at things you have something called you have a way of referring to things as being collections.

Right? You do. And less so less so than a coffee cup but they specifically and this is where I thought it was interesting because Geshe Michael has always said the only thing that you can see is colors and shapes colors and shapes.

It's the only thing you can see is colors and shapes. So if we take that at face value then we don't see coffee cups. We see images of coffee cups.

definitely. So what I'm suggesting is that maybe there's even but I don't know I'm conflicted with this idea because I have heard I have heard prominent lamas from our tradition say that you can see coffee cups and coffee cups have to be real because you do see them and they function right? So but Geshe Michael and my first book say also that all you can see is colors and shapes.

Okay? So I'm saying that may be something to meditate on. Yeah.

Now I do want to hit this up though these last two things. Right. A Buddha's omniscience and wrong right?

So what we're going through and what we're in right now on Geshe Geshe-la's notes is an appendix I'm supposed to be writing an appendix on self-perception. Okay. So one of the ways that if if we say from the perspective what possible problem may arise if we say that from the perspective of the higher middle way self-perception does not exist.

There's no such thing as self-perception from the perspective of higher middle way. And why may a Buddha's omniscience pose a pretty big problem to asserting that? You would have to say that an omniscient being would perceive themselves in directly in the same moment that they're perceiving other objects.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, because Buddha's omniscience perceives all subjects and all objects and all times. Right, right, right. So the Buddha would have to gain at the least according to the highest school.

You know, maybe, maybe there's a you talked about different orders. Maybe a Buddha's omniscience is at an entirely different order. Yeah.

No, not just like or abilities, but like time is blown away. To say all time does not mean three times. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's one thing. Yeah, that's nice. I was thinking that too.

I mean, I think whenever we come up with discussions where we're trying to talk about what a Buddha sees, you're always like, yeah, it's, yeah, it's ineffable. It is ineffable. It's, they say that the perfection of wisdom is beyond words and thoughts.

So, I mean, you, those discussions are, uh, traipsing right on that ground in between things that, yeah, you just can't even, you can't even think about them. They're non-dual. So, uh, yeah.

Did you see what Sarani said in the chat? No, I don't have my chat pulled up. Oh, she says, what if one's identity of self includes all existence?

Then there would only be wrong, Rick. I like it. You guys are clever, man.

Uh, I really like that. Yeah, I guess it, it just depends on what, yeah, what concept do we like to draw around ourselves and how limiting do we want to be and how expansive do we want to be about what we include within our own identity? Yeah, that's your Shanti Deva.

That's a choice, right? So, um, what schools accept, Ron? Uh, two, three, and a whisper of the lower middle way.

Yeah, two, right on. Now, within, within schools two and three, can we be a little bit more specific if we break two and three down into two themselves? You mean Sautrantika and the Sautrantika leaning mind only?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And the mind only leaning Sautrantika. But what they do specifically say is they say following reasoning.

So the second, okay, so the first, the first school doesn't accept self-perception. Second school has two sub-schools, right? And the lower, the lower part of the second school tends to follow more Sutras ideas.

Okay? Now, the second, uh, school, excuse me, the higher school of the second school, uh, we could say the Sautrantika's following reasoning follow Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Oh, who, who are the other second schoolers that are, who are the canonical teachers of the other branch of the second school, if not Dignaga and Dharmakirti?

I can't remember. Um, I think it's that some of, I think that more, more, more, there are, there are more shared ideas with Vasubandhu than, you know, than, uh, let's say Dharmakirti and Dignaga. Okay.

Um, now within the second school, we've got the, uh, let's say the Sautrantika's following reasoning and they, uh, accept apperception or self-awareness from the perspective of the third school. Yeah. The lower half of the second school also, uh, accepts self-perception.

Excuse me. It would be all of the mind-only, all the mind-only. Right, I think so, yeah.

Yeah, and then the lower half of the higher middle-way school, right? So the lower half Sautrantika school. Lower half of the middle-way.

The middle-way. Yeah, did I say mind-only? Yeah.

Um, yeah. So you guys want to hit up a little bit of the text? I think that we're out of time.

We'll just, this, this was awesome though. I mean, I, it's not that, right? Yeah, this is, yeah, sure, whatever you got.

Uh, yeah, we won't be able to go that far. I, uh, I think it's, I think it's really, uh, profound, Adam. I, I, um, I had a, a message written to myself on a post-it note.

I had these post-it notes in retreat on my, covering my, um, pantry to remind myself of things. And it was something very profound I read in, um, foundational course 12. Um, and I can, you know, I'll even, I'll put this in the, in the chat for people because I think it's a beautiful quote.

And it is, um, it is Gail Subj, uh, because we tend to think of, um, and I'm sorry, it's big. Um, but he, uh, we tend to think about concepts and ideas like understanding that the world is made of concepts and ideas is this very upper middle way thought. And that somehow this, this practice though of looking for true reality looking for real objects at the bottom of it all developed by this school that you and I have been focusing on.

they believe that there is a true reality at the bottom of all these things and the upper middle way does not. However, um, what, um, what Yeltsin says is if you're not satisfied with just an object that's no more than something created by concepts, if you're not satisfied with an object that only exists nominally and you resolve, you decide to then go and look for the, the thing that your concept or name applies to, then that qualifies as an examination as an analysis into suchness. So, so, as opposed to accepting that things are ideas, accepting that things are conceptual, being satisfied with the realm of projections, that's fine and it's useful, but that's that's consideration even in the higher school, that's accepting of the world of projection, that's analysis into dependence or analysis into projections and so if you think that they're being somehow naive or silly by going and looking for a reality that we middle weyers think we know better than um it's these same techniques it's these same techniques that are developed in this school that that we use in the higher middle way to go looking for a reality because you believe in this reality we believe in this reality of course it feels like there's a veil over the secret reality there's a veil over the way things really are and the only way to see that there isn't one is to go looking for that very very that we're saying doesn't exist in the higher middle way and does exist right yeah the one we think does especially yeah right go find it try to find it do try to find it don't don't give up on that because some llama told you it's not there go try to find it because some llama told you it's not there and that's what a good debater does a good debater right always takes the other side a good debater is not afraid to take the wrong position a good debater or someone like me who whether I'm a good debater or not I use debate as a crutch to help me when I'm confused I go to my friends and I say please let me argue aside because I'm stuck right poor Nick you know I do this damn all the time I can be a real pain in the butt you know he's in the middle of something and I'm like no no shut up I need to argue this with you because I'm frustrated and I don't think I believe in the position that I'm making but I need to argue it because I'm uncertain and if you believe that you're certain in the claims of the higher middle wave then boy you're making a very high claim indeed um I I think that if you truly agree with Tsong Khapa you have to accept that you don't agree with Tsong Khapa because he says you won't be able to agree with him yet so you can't can't agree with him if you agree with him and so you have to have the guts to argue with him and these are beautiful tools for that that go try to find the real stuff at the

[Speaker 3]
bottom

[Speaker 1]
of it all I want to add something a very simplified version of something that Allama once told me into what you're saying it was just that when we sit down to meditate and especially galukbas like us or you know people who study these very intellectual heavy ways of investigation you know investigating like we have already learned over and over again the conclusions that we're supposed to draw and the kind of conclusions that we're supposed to arrive at in our chagoms in our analytical meditations and it's really one of the challenges maybe that some of us face is letting those conclusions that we know we're supposed to arrive at somehow figuring out how to put those aside and so spending some of the effort of our meditation or whatever to rest on what we really believe and try to untie that rather than just coming to like oh yes and I'm supposed to realize that nothing has any self like you know and it's hard it's it's actually one of the bigger challenges when you know what you're supposed to think I mostly can't do it.

Can I ask you guys a question why why may I say confidently that Sema aren't actually accurate because of the time gap problem because of the that that could be one but let's say from the perspective of the higher middle way yeah what does Sankapa say about all perceptions before yeah before you see

[Speaker 3]
before

[Speaker 1]
before yeah yeah that

[Speaker 3]
they're all wrong

[Speaker 1]
they're all wrong yeah so can we say that we have wrong incorrect accurate perceptions yeah on some level it would seem so yeah I mean can we not say that they are accurate as to the existence of the object but inaccurate as to the nature of that existence yeah yeah yeah I think that comes it comes up exactly that way somewhere

[Speaker 3]
I think that's how the diamond

[Speaker 1]
cutter would answer that yeah yeah you know I mean I'm almost certain that that's exactly what is being what what what's being drilled you know drilled home in the diamond cutter sutra okay by the way everybody we are we're into the discussion period we have eight minutes left if anybody if people want to if the if the external world people who aren't coming from my mind want to chime in adam and ben you guys are coming from my mind uh coming to you live from next mind um oh sweet nice actually yeah yeah go ahead i just put a i just uh just for silly billy oh dude i just put a picture in the chat of my one of the pictures of my pantry and retreat all these little notes that i wrote to myself and and the orange one is this quote from yeltsin j i saved it yeah yeah download that while you got the chance or no not the uh no the quote not the pig uh but uh i saved the quote just because i wanted to go back and kind of look at it and uh see if i could uh just sit with it um well um so if we wanted to think about practical applications right it i kind of come back to this it i don't know if i'm just uh not so creative when it comes to these things or um no one can say that about well you know yeah i need to be more uh i need to be more gentle with myself too so yeah i mean i i have sometimes i'll just put it this way my i i got i'm pretty critical uh self i got a lot of self you know stuff anyways so um just trying to learn how to be more gentle with myself and and a lot that i do in my choices and decisions and the way that i describe myself so um uh but yeah i digress i digress once again um whenever i go thinking about ways that i can take second school um ideas and implement them into my life it it comes back uh consistently into if we're talking about um duotran chow mein if we're talking about indivisible atoms and partless moments of awareness we're sucked up into those all day every day right like our entire experience is i mean i'd say 90 percent of what we interpret our about our experience of reality is visual when i wake up in the morning it's not until i really open my eyes and i see this influx of visual perceptions all these colors come rushing in it's almost like then my consciousness turns on you know and i'm like oh okay now i'm awake right but it's 90 percent visual and i have sounds but it doesn't seem like those are the main meditation object that i have right if i wanted to be say if i wanted to say that as i step out of bed i put my feet on the ground even when my feet hit the ground i'm not so aware of my feet hitting the ground i'm more so aware of the visual awareness of my feet hitting the ground right like that most of my experience is visual and that i would and i'm not arguing this from anybody else's perspective uh because obviously some people are going to be attuned differently but from my perspective my my my reality tends to be 90 percent visual and if i wanted to um if i wanted to say you know what i'm going to try to extend my meditation off the cushion and into my day-to-day life right then what's what's a good meditational object would be to pick something that's always present in the same way that you do with tonglen right you have a meditational object that's there 24-7 right it's your breath you know it's not going anywhere you know so if you wanted a meditation object you got one 24-7 and i would say that it's the same way for visual objects and i tend to be an analytical person and as i'm walking into my reality um one of the ways that i try to stay mindful is by pulling up these things that we go through in class right and i try to catch myself like oh how am i constructing deconstructing labeling right my reality and then as i'm doing that how i'm what are the impressions behind that right how do i how do i feel about these things right are those things empty right and so um it becomes a very uh for me um like i said i'm not arguing this for anyone else but myself but my simple experience of reality can become a uh shifting between shiné and uh the pashyana i can take my entire experience right of reality to be this walking meditational engagement and you know obviously you got to go into a convenience store sometimes and this can be hard to have a conversation with somebody if you're doing that but um you know uh if i'm analyzing and looking at where things are coming from and i'm looking at how i'm creating uh my reality uh either voluntarily or involuntarily right um then i can also start to extrapolate once again how those things exist uh uh really truly right um first it's identifying uh the objects in our reality second it's so like i said for me um i tend to think that these things are very helpful and very um very useful because they they do they train your mind they give you different techniques right if you go and look at the entirety of the first book um of my first book the of the the collected topics um it's a series of tools right that build upon one another that give you this this this toolbox of things that you can go in to tinker with reality and how you look at it right and i would argue that um karma gets stronger right depending on your understanding of reality right and how um how well you understand uh emptiness can highly influence how big or small a seed is and how quickly it will ripen so i argue that the more i the more these things the the the greater my ability to program reality right if i'm if i if if i'm a programmer and i'm creating my reality then all i have to do is tinker with the code and the the more that i understand the code um the greater i am my the greater my ability to uh to dictate what happens in my reality uh that should be you know if you study with geshe michael for any short length of time you should i mean that's what kind of gave me hope um was uh it was the greatest gift i think i've ever received from geshe michael was just the understanding of how great things can be and a that i'm the i'm the you know i'm the programmer here it really is dude i'm neo you know um you know what i mean and and it should be i mean i think that's anybody who's who's who's come to a point where they they realized uh that geshe michael is uh delivering um the truth of ultimate reality right um i think has tasted that exact same thing at one point or another where they've they've seen like and they've gotten this this level of hope in their heart right which is then a great diving board for for understanding bodhichitta and you know coming into all these greater concepts and these these things that are just mind-blowing um but for me first off i had to understand why and how i was misperceiving reality in order to understand you know how i should be perceiving it right um and that all comes with the you know the the pen right and uh so i don't think you're gonna get anywhere which there's a seven-point reasoning that chandrakirti developed you know has developed around describing chariot and you know i think that is what or where the pen came from right so if you want to understand reasoning you got to understand these things and on a day-to-day level on a moment-to-moment level just remember that you always got meditation objects and meditation doesn't have to be left on the cushion you can be thinking about these things all day and it's the mundane things that you should be considering the higher reality of that's just my opinion that's just my opinion that's beautiful

[Speaker 3]
are you calling mundane then in that case?

[Speaker 1]
we're at time and and that was a really great beautiful class i think it worked great i'm glad you came up with these questions and i think it sparked a really fascinating discussion amongst us and everyone and just really great psychological things to be thinking about i think can be helpful for all of us so thank you adam and i'm sorry i hope that your whole family and household recovers quickly and we did not notice that you we didn't notice that you didn't sleep other than you telling us so thank you so and we've thank you all for coming thank all of these hundreds of amazing people who are coming and participating with us we're really so grateful for you all um and we've got the peach true world news coming up and then and then we'll break for the until monday so uh is juan here this week he is look at him look at that looking sharp the triumphant return yes cleaned up i don't know i don't know i kind of like the other lady i got used to a high standard i i hope you can step back in

[Speaker 2]
i asked her if she wanted to present something no answer so it's difficult to get in it's gonna be

[Speaker 1]
sure sure

[Speaker 2]
we're gonna need more budget nick

[Speaker 1]
i like how we only laugh i will personally fund the peach true world news yes

[Speaker 2]
we only laugh handle that for us anyways thank you so much and i'm happy to be back but i haven't recovered fully yet my sleeping schedule is crazy like i go to bed at 5 p.m wake up at 3 a.m let's see what keeps happening hopefully soon but good news here we are and what i can say is that what i've seen in the few days that i've been in arizona back in arizona um the peach tree cafe still thriving it's a wonderful wonderful place peach tree cafe is going into a small vacation time i think they are back after christmas but i had the chance to be there uh yesterday and all the staff it's exciting thank you tatiana thank you irina so much for all the support you show and yeah also guess you michael is gonna be taking some days off to recover he's gonna spend christmas with family so we will keep reporting that's it for today thank no i'm just kidding um we want to show you some of the actual events that are happening and i was talking with ben kramer and we are start kind of planning on having a talk and an interview with a one of the developers and also together with ben kramer about this new gopher that it's being developed from a guy i think his name is more moorley or something like that from india and those are gonna be great great news because having a new gopher probably is gonna help the the overall project of translating and cataloging this text and of course accessing them much much better so it's cooking it's in the oven but my job is just to keep reporting that it's it's ongoing right and you want to see do you want to see the tiniest preview just so tiny sure sure let's do it

[Speaker 1]
okay okay uh here um look at that dark mode and one two three search fields and it works okay we we can talk more about it soon but look how attractive that fine fancy new gopher is

[Speaker 3]
let's see the drop down list on those connector oh

[Speaker 1]
well the important thing is that they work of course okay hubba hubba come on look at this okay that's it that's it i'll i'll get out of the way one

[Speaker 2]
oh wonderful wonderful because for all of the students that probably almost everyone who's here and they we are all interested and attracted to these topics and ways of accessing these wonderful information these tools are like a game changer 100 percent so it's wonderful to know that it's it's it's almost done it's almost ready thank you so much for the hard work and we'll be reporting more about it soon and speaking of that for people who are interested in developing more how to say tech skills um brian mendoza one of the members of worldview productions this organization who helps many other organizations to produce their events he has uploaded a series of courses teaching you how to use software like zoom and many other tools electronic tools in order to provide this kind of wonderful service right the cool thing about this or one of the cool things is that it's specifically designed for what we most of the worldview organizations use so if you learn these skills you're gonna be very capable let's put it in the way of helping volunteering or working for the worldviews because it's exactly what what so many of the worldviews look for when they look for someone that could help them so if you're interested you can access these courses they are free and it's like how to say tutorials on how to use this like like technology tools so just a reminder maybe later we will have a talk with brian because he told me in the past there was like three or four courses but now there are more courses there okay what else coming up we have uh the new year new year retreat that gil says doing from december 29 to january 3rd coming up very very soon and as a reminder uh the emptiness book that it's already printed and available for how's it printed edition physical edition it's gonna be the topic of the event that in january utpala is organizing also in diamond mountain yeah the emptiness meditation retreat happening very much mid january i will say 17 to the 26th of january so there you go what else oh yeah in february the bhagavad gita is happening just letting you know but in the context i just came back from japan as many of you know and i had the chance to attend one of the ysi collaboration events uh together with prema prema is one of the distributors in asia run mostly by may chan and her daughter yuki many of you may know and i want to share with you a little bit of the experience that me as a pitch tree world news member experience there so i prepare a video to share a little bit of the overall experience of this event happening in the it's called koyasan mountains it's like a two-hour drive from kyoto so thank you yina for helping me preparing the video and i hope you guys enjoy another special guest sometime they celebrate if i could only be some kind of boy if i could have my

[Speaker 1]
way with words if only for a day i would tell you what i feel to you know so

[Speaker 3]
and the next time you walk through that door i really need to try to talk to you but every time i do i end up like

[Speaker 1]
i don't know what to say it's always like this if i know it if i could only be some kind of boy if i could have my way with words if only for a day i would tell you what i feel to you to you know cause i would know

[Speaker 2]
just what to say if only i was some kind of boy if only i was a boy if i was some kind of boy

[Speaker 3]
if only i was a boy if only i was a boy if i was some kind of boy we are currently in Koya mountain, more or less two hours from Osaka it's a great ancient place with a beautiful garden they allow you to stay for your trip you get to eat this traditional food, vegetarian food we are with 47 students we are having such a great time i'm teaching the yoga class Alfonso is giving an alignment class every afternoon Earl Bernie is teaching a beautiful beautiful text from Jetsun Kappa that is called The Source of All My Good our dear Connie O'Brien is teaching meditation every afternoon it's also JB here for some days

[Speaker 2]
this retreat is about The Source of All My Good, it's a very nice teaching Earl is guiding this teaching we are teaching it starting from the end

[Speaker 1]
when we start from the end, it's very inspiring because we start from perfection we start from our perfect selves

[Speaker 2]
in this perfect world and then reverse engineer our way to where we are now instead of being where we are and trying to think how we get to where we want to be we start from where we want to be

[Speaker 1]
so it's really exciting, it's a great way to have this retreat

[Speaker 3]
I think the pure magic of being in a beautiful quiet retreat space where people have meditated for a long long time, great yogis that we are here with great teachings and the magic of having different traditions come and teach something that all of it fit together so beautifully and of course the students were pure

[Speaker 1]
magic, they are the best biggest takeaway was something special happened, if you can see it snowed on the first day and it snowed on the last day and everything in between was really magical, we reviewed the whole steps on the path, met a bunch of really beautiful people, I feel so lucky, I feel so blessed.

[Speaker 3]
My biggest takeaway, all of the beautiful community that was created here, I got to meet some new teachers who became my new friends and seeing all the participants come together and have their hearts opened by their new friends on the path was so beautiful to see, so when everyone meditates together and does yoga and learns these teachings, it opens their heart and then they are more available to love people they've never even met before, so it was so beautiful to see that, definitely the best takeaway.

[Speaker 2]
Okay that was it for today, it was a very wonderful trip, it's like in the mountains and when you are going up in the highway, I really come to understand more have you seen these Japanese movie cartoons when they or many cartoons or anime when they the Japanese people usually describe or depict the forest it's like a fairy fairy tale forest and I was able to see that, like the forest in Japan is like, it almost seems like out of a fantasy movie it's just different, you know, every forest is different, but the Japanese forest is something really like a fairy tale and the place is wonderful very into the mountains, into the nature so if you ever have the chance to, I don't know, if you go to Kyoto for example, of one of the many events happening every year now and you have a chance to explore this place, it's Koyasan Mountains really, really recommended so I had a great time and I want to thank Mei Chang and Yuki and all the YSI teachers for having me allow me, for having allowed me to be there and for the hospitality, thank you so much and to all of you guys also I hope you have a great weekend thank you for staying in and yes, thank you so much Gina, a last reminder that we finally have our time and date how to say, confirmed by the master schedule Rob Hagerty Jr now we have confirmed that the New Year's event we are producing is going to be at 2pm Arizona time, it's just going to be a one hour program and then we're going to be organizing a little maybe a two hour kind of lunch party there at the Peachtree Cafe, so if people are in the how to say, in town in Sedona, you're super welcome to join for the program and for the lunch as well thank you very much, you can register in the QR code, it's going to be very fun, at least I'm going to try to make it very fun and meaningful, so hopefully see you there and for now, let's just hope that we all make it until Monday and we can meet again, thank you so much, have a wonderful, wonderful weekend, thank you so much Juan, great to have you back, thank you so much Ben, thank you everyone, see you

[Speaker 1]
soon, please enjoy, everybody have a good day thank you Adam, beautiful class see you guys