Адам Андраде — Книга 2: Логика. Рассеивая тьму, занятие 10

[Speaker 1]
Go easy. Thanks, Adam, for doing this and I'll see y'all later. Yeah, of course.

Should we take a short break and come back in like five minutes?

[Speaker 2]
I would say only if you want to.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, okay. No, I'm good. Just give me one second.

I'm going to just check on Ava and stuff and make sure she's good and then I'll be able to stay. Hey guys, I'm going to use the restroom and I'll be right back. Tiantian, are you staying on as translator or should I move you to someone else?

Okay, well.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I think Tiantian should stay and Yisa will help and support.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, who was it?

[Speaker 2]
Tiantian.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, all right, cool. Then I will pass it off. Oh, crap.

Sorry, I ended it. All right, okay. Now Adam is going to be host and I gotta go.

Okay, I'm back. Okay, yeah, I'll try to speak slowly. Okay, so yeah, I'm not too sure what the format for these things have kind of been working out, like people just putting their questions in the chat here or we raising our hands.

Oh, and I forgot I have to speak slow.

[Speaker 2]
I think that there's only 15 panelists and 29 people are attendees, which means they don't have the ability to speak, I think.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Unless you upgrade them, but I have no idea how to do that.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, I did last time. And if you ask the results, Adam, can I ask that is the results from our logic also come from our seeds? In other words, our seeds will affect our logic.

Yeah, so let me see if I can reformulate the question. So is the, yeah. So we're looking at, like, do you, does everybody here know the three tests of a syllogism to check for the validity of a syllogism?

Oh, yeah. Okay, so there's cut, file, and burn, but there's another one also. So the question is asking, is the, if we check a syllogism for validity, does the correct nature of the syllogism also depend on our seeds or not?

And I would say yes, because obviously everything in the universe is 100% empty. And so do our seeds affect our logic? Yeah, definitely.

Was that what you were? Yeah, Isabel, that's it. That's it, Isabel.

Yeah, one is three. Yeah, totally. So you're checking the, well, here, maybe we won't worry about going into that so much.

But there are tools that you can use. There are tools you can use to check for the validity of a statement, to check whether or not something's correct or not. And the outcome of that is going to definitely be affected by your seeds.

Does it make sense? Betts, I know you have something to add. Oh, you're muted.

[Speaker 2]
This is very much, it's very similar to the questions asked last night. So yeah, our seeds affect everything about not only what we experience, but who we are.

[Speaker 1]
We are nothing other than karma. You know, and everything we experience is the result of viping karma. Yeah, so the idea here is that, so if I give you a syllogism and I say, consider sound, it's created, therefore, it's, excuse me, so consider sound, it's changing because it's created.

Now, I could actually view that syllogism. I could look at that. I could read it.

I could sit with it and I could meditate on it. And I could actually come to a correct realization of the truth behind that statement. Someone else, however, could look at that same statement and never make any progress with it.

It wouldn't make sense and it wouldn't be true. So the idea here is that the verse itself or whatever it is that you're analyzing is empty. It's empty from its own side, right?

So whether or not it's true or not, it doesn't hold that. It doesn't hold a truth value, that thing. You bring to it the truth value.

And so whether or not it's true or whether it's false is 100%. You know, I can think of, you know, people in the grocery store. I went grocery shopping yesterday and, you know, and I can think how many people in that store, if I was to present them with a Buddhist syllogism, would it actually be valid for?

And obviously it's invalid if I'm trying to present it to anybody who isn't trying to seek that answer for themselves already. But, you know, so it's a very interesting question and I like it because I think sometimes I lose track of the fact that even Tsongkhapa's holy words are empty, that they're not holy and truthful from their own side. And I revere them and I hold them in such a, you know.

So yeah, I mean, you know, Tsongkhapa's words can be true for me and not true for my neighbor. You know, but yeah, so thank you. It's a good question, Mercer.

You got me thinking. Anybody else? I hope.

And Tauntaun, I'm sorry. I totally forgot. I have been talking kind of fast, haven't I?

[Speaker 2]
Isabelle has a question. It's a little bit up in the chat.

[Speaker 1]
After one is three and three is not.

[Speaker 2]
And what are the seeds for good logic?

[Speaker 1]
Sorry, go ahead.

[Speaker 3]
No, I mean, I was just saying what will be the good seeds for, what will be the seeds for good logic? Just to say, trying to save you time to look for it.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, right. Well, you know, it's very interesting. So we were just specifically, I was specifically talking about reading a book by Tsongkhapa.

Yeah. So let's say I want to pick up this book by Tsongkhapa. And I want every verse to make sense and to speak to me.

Well, what are some things that I can do to plant the seeds, to have correct understanding and to for that logic to actually be correct? You know, there's a few different ways to answer the question. And the way my heart wants to answer it is to say that, you know, every object in this world, every object, everything you can experience is 100% empty, right?

Once again. And because everything is 100% empty, everything that you encounter is only as holy as you make it, right? So the state of mind and the state of heart that you bring to every person that you encounter, every book that you read and the level of respect that you give it, right?

Like if you think of the refuge vows, we specifically have a vow about respecting all written words, right? And what is that doing karmically over time, right? Well, it's creating a karmic kind of like this karmic imprint in your mind that holds extreme respect for these books is going to create this state of mind where these books are actually going to turn out to be holy, right?

So you treat them holy for long enough, and they will begin to speak to you as if they are holy. And I think this is kind of in the same way that you would, in the same thing that you would kind of do with your teacher as well. You find the holiest person in your life, and you take them as your teacher.

And the more you serve them, the more you respect them, the higher they become. And the holier you treat them, the holier they become. And I think it's the same way for the books as well.

You want to pick up a book and to read it and to have it speak to your heart and to change your mind. Well, you have to respect it, and you have to treat it well. And you can do things like, I would say, support ACIP.

You're helping preserve the books. This is going to create a seed in your mind for respecting the database and the books and helping deliver it to the world, teaching it to other people, making sure that when you teach the Dharma, you teach it 100% correctly as well, or to the best of your ability. These are all going to function into creating a state of mind, which is going to ripen later into these books being incredibly holy.

But you have to treat them that way as well. So you don't leave them on the ground, and you don't step over them. There's a whole host of things, right?

And each one of these vows is specifically meant to affect us these ways. So it would be the seeds for good logic. Respect the Dharma and treat it holy.

Hi, Adam. Teacher, hello. I'd like to ask, when the logic of mathematics and Buddhism, yin-yang logic, is learning mathematics helpful for learning the logic of Buddhism?

It's very interesting. It can be. So what you're doing with logic, right?

Sorry, before I move on, I just wanted to make sure, Isabel, did that answer your question entirely?

[Speaker 3]
It actually made me think about another question. Because the other day in Ben's text, he's talking about all other non-Buddhism. It's kind of putting down other teachings.

So according to what you were mentioning about, you treat all the books, or you treat all the people, because they are holy. And you treat them, because they are empty, you treat them holy. Now, what about all those non-Buddhism teachings and all those non-Buddhism books?

They're also totally holy, but how do you kind of discriminate them?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, I think the best way to answer that would be to eventually, we get to a place where we perceive the entire world and the universe and everything that's in it, all the realms, as being 100% pure. So eventually, we need to get to a place where we see all of these, all teachings, everything, the clouds, the insects, right? Even the sound of the garbage can outside my window early in the morning.

You know, everything is 100% pure. And I think what happens, though, is you start to realize, it's like in the same way that you don't... Let's see how...

Well, first off, if you study the Buddhist books well enough, you'll have enough discernment so as to be able... You'll have the discernment to be able to say, okay, this is a correct presentation of Buddhism, right? Versus...

Or excuse me, a correct presentation of emptiness, right? Versus, let's say, an incorrect version of emptiness. Sorry, then we can't say other teachings are not correct.

It's kind of contradicted. Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah, sorry.

So to go on further, yeah, I was just reading what you wrote there. And it's kind of just following up what you said. So on this level, though, when you're looking at things from...

Eventually, you'll be able to get to a place to where everything is 100% pure. And I don't know how deeply I should really talk about that. But it's from...

If we're just going to talk about... Here, let me pitch this one to Devendra Rupala. Because I find that I want to say something, but it would be a little bit involved.

And I don't want to spend too much time. I was hoping maybe she could say something a little bit.

[Speaker 2]
Well, what came to mind for me was that I can disagree or I can challenge someone's philosophy or logic without being disrespectful. Because I can separate what's being said and the ideas that are being said from the person saying them. So I think that's a way.

I don't think that really Lord Buddha would say that Sankhyas are fools or idiots or something, right? He would respect the person and work with them with his words to get them to understand what he's teaching.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, totally.

[Speaker 2]
So I think that creates the karma for... I mean, because the way I look at it, if you focus on the person and trying to understand them, you're creating the karma to understand. And I think that's kind of what logic is about.

[Speaker 1]
Anyway, I hope I didn't just muddy the waters more. And I specifically wanted to touch on... I think it's an interesting point.

So Isabel brought up the point that if everything's only as holy as we make it, then how are we supposed to view these other teachings? And how should we be relating with them? Because we are, we're told...

I mean, we have a vow to not put them down. And I think it's an interesting question, Isabel. I'll tell you what.

Maybe, would you mind if I thought about it? And then maybe wrote you a message tomorrow with a little bit more to say about it? Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Can I just add in that my father is a different religion, follows a different religion than I do. And it was only after I started studying Buddhism that I was able to open my heart to his religion. Because I was able to see that it was making him happy.

Right? So I don't know. There's that little tip.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, the idea here is that all teachings are meant for people of some capacity. Like, even non-Buddhist teachings are all meant to eventually deliver someone to the Buddhist teachings. It's all just preparation.

So even the Hindu teachings or the Sankhya teachings or even somebody who's a quantum physicist. Eventually, I mean, all levels, all teachings, even Christian teachings are eventually meant to be conveyor belts which deliver you to Buddhism. So they're just meant for people of different capacities.

And for people who understand more or less. And so we would say that even the Buddha spoke those teachings. You know?

Okay. Anyone else? It's a question about mathematics.

Totally. It's exactly what Katie said. Oh, yeah, totally.

Okay. Yeah. So mathematics.

You know, it's interesting. We had a part... I got to talk slow.

Sorry, Tom-Tom. Um, in this text, specifically, we talked about how there are two types of logic. One which is meant to present the teachings on emptiness and another type of logic which does not present teachings on ultimate reality.

So you could definitely file something like mathematics because it's abstract data manipulation. And it is simply... It is.

You could definitely file that underneath the category of being logic. However, it is not a part of the logic which is based on teaching and understanding on ultimate reality. And the interesting part about this is that I want to say, yes, actually, mathematics can be helpful in learning Buddhism because it can stand to get your mind used to working with abstract data manipulation, which is what you're doing when you're debating, which is what you're doing.

It's what you're doing when you're translating. I mean, it's definitely... It's like a workout for your mind, mathematics.

It prepares you for working with these things. So if you have a strong mind for mathematics, I would say, yes, it would definitely prepare you for working with the debate structure, right? The interesting thing about that is really that what's the first thing that said...

Okay, the first thing that said... Well, excuse me, the second class of course one, Geshe-la goes into what's called Mushi Musum, right? And what Mushi Musum is, it's a very elementary form of what's called set and set theory, right?

And that is a form of mathematics, right? I studied set theory and discrete mathematics at university and it's very applicable to what we're doing. I mean, it's one of the first things that Geshe-la teaches.

So if you understand things like set and set theory, yeah, you're able to approach these things a little bit easier because you also have something that's called predicate calculus or second order formal statements of logic, which they're all reasoning based and they're all forms of Western logic and they're all forms of mathematics as well. So I think it's pretty cool because obviously if you've got that background, it's a lot easier to step into. Was that slow enough, Tom-Tom?

Sorry, I hope that was an okay answer. Oh, is mathematics the cause of understanding logic? No, of course not.

No, and I think it's interesting, yeah, because yeah, the only way you can really understand logic is really by helping other people understand logic. I mean, it is, but we do all come into this world with certain predispositions. And so if you have the predisposition to be mathematically inclined, I would say that you probably have the predisposition to also be able to handle debate and reasoning as well.

Let's see, question, how to prove by logic that the two-headed purple elephant does not exist? Let's see. Okay, give me the two, give me the, have you guys, who asked that question?

Ximei, Ximei, okay. Have you had DCI course seven or have you taken ACI course 13? Yes, DCI seven.

Okay, so you're familiar with the categories of existence, right? Okay, so you have the categories of existence. So you have everything in the world, okay.

If I say everything is 100% empty, okay, and that's everything, 100%, everything. We can divide that into two. Does anybody know the division, the first division?

Man, anybody can answer. Yeah, the chart, totally, yeah. What's the first division?

Changing and unchanging, totally, yeah. Okay, so in changing things, what are the three categories? What are the three types of changing things?

You got working things, you guys know them? Yeah, mental things, exactly. And things which are, yeah, active, but neither, yeah, totally.

Okay, so that's everything that's changing, okay. Now we have to go over to the other category of unchanging, right. And who can give me a list of things that are in the unchanging category?

Yeah, space, yeah. Emptiness also, right. You've also got things like, yeah, concepts, facts, yeah.

Okay, and you also have things like nirvana as well, right. Nirvana is an unchanging thing, right. Okay, and then Juan said something very interesting.

Juan said something, and that's why I started talking about the level seven chart. Juan said existing and non-existing, okay. And things that are non-existing are also unchanging, correct, yeah.

Are things that are non-existent unchanging, anybody? Okay, yeah, nobody's answering. So yeah, non-existing things are unchanging, okay.

And we just went through, okay. We just went through the list of everything that we can think of, okay. So anything that we can think of should go into one of those categories that we just described, okay.

So you asked at first, yeah. So you asked at first, how do we prove that the two-headed purple elephant does not exist? Well, you tell me which category the two-headed purple elephant can go into except for the non-existent category.

Is the two-headed purple elephant a changing thing? Is it a working thing? Is the two-headed purple elephant a mental thing?

It's non-existing, right, yeah. Well, that's how we can prove it is because Buddhism gives us this, Buddhism gives us this chart, yeah. And it says anything that you can think of, anything that you can point to, anything you can say, all has to fit into one of those categories.

And you have to be able to put two-headed purple elephants into a category so it can be in non-existing, but can it be in any other category? No, yeah, was that sufficient? Because that, I mean, that's kind of a, yeah.

But the idea here though is you think about it. So, if I say, like, here's a good example, okay. So, if you say exists in the imagination, okay.

So, a two-headed purple elephant exists in the imagination. Can we say that the two-headed purple elephant exists in our mind as a concept? Yeah, Catherine, that's, yeah, totally.

The chart is talking about existing things and non-existing things. Or, excuse me, changing things and unchanging things. So, at the first, the highest category, you've got everything which exists, yeah.

Sorry, you know, I don't, I feel like I'm not doing too good of a job explaining that. Was that, yeah, the concepts are unchanging, right. But specifically, can we say that concepts are non-existing?

You see, because what I'm trying to say to you is, it seems like they're very similar, right. It seems like a two-headed purple elephant is a concept. Like, I can think about a two-headed purple elephant.

I can think about its ears and its eyes, its nose and its trunks, you know, its legs. I can think about it, right. It seems conceptual.

So, we said that concepts are unchanging, but are they also non-existing? Yeah, totally. Second husband's a concept.

Yeah, totally, totally. Because it's the, yeah, it totally, it's something that doesn't exist, you know, it could never exist and it will never exist, right. Yeah, well, concepts, let's see, maybe you're, okay.

You know, let me just, let me pause here for a second. Okay, have I answered that clearly? Do you guys still have any questions?

Yeah, non-existing things are not changing. Yeah, yeah, they have to be. Can anybody give me an example of something that doesn't exist?

Yeah, totally. Self-existent object. Yeah, totally.

That's a perfect example. Okay, so, you know, does any, I mean, do you guys have some more questions? Luca, can somebody turn?

[Speaker 3]
Luca just saying that they're not coming from me, husband.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, totally. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's a perfect example of something that doesn't exist.

Exactly. Can you guys give me some feedback? Have I been answering these questions okay?

Okay, cool. Yeah, well, I'm more than happy to try to answer some more questions if you guys need. Ji Dao and Luca.

[Speaker 3]
Luca is saying, so that means the not coming from me, husband is not changing. So she's confirming with you. And Ji Dao is you are doing perfect.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, that's it. Yeah, totally. Yeah, because Geshe Michael always uses the example when he talks about something that could never exist, will never exist, or excuse me, has never existed.

Could never exist and will never exist. Geshe Michael always uses the example of a two-headed purple elephant. And the two-headed purple elephant, yes, is exactly the same as the husband in the kitchen who is not coming from your seats.

Yeah, 100%. And it's something which does not exist. And it's something which is unchanging.

100%. That's it. It's a great thing to do.

You guys, if I could suggest that you take some time after the session to study something, go back and study the chart of the categories of existence. It's in course 13. And it's also in DCI level 7.

And if you study that chart, and you memorize it, and you memorize the definitions that go along with it, that is the start. That is a great place to start with debating. So if you learn all of the different things in that chart, that's a good place to start working on your debate career.

And because you've got a lot of different things that you can compare. Like, do you guys know what mushi musum is? Have you heard of mushi musum?

Yes? Okay. All right.

Yeah, it's kind of a mushy thing. Yeah, so if you learn the chart well, then you can start to do mushi musum with the things on the chart. So you say, you know, you compare working things to things like Luka, like the idea of Luka, right?

And then you can start to compare the two categories to find out exactly where they meet, right? So we could do something like compare two-headed purple elephants and working things, right? But you have to understand the qualities of each one of those categories, right?

Yeah, yeah, totally. So, but, you know, if you want to debate, you got to have some knowledge first. And the categories of existence is a great place to start.

That's a really, really good place to start. And I think everybody should, I think all of you guys should probably go and study it if you haven't. If time allows, could you please talk about more, please talk about the syllogism, the three stats?

Yeah. Let's see. I'll pull open.

I'm going to open up a new document. We'll look at something here. Okay, you guys see the, yeah, pretty sure you can see it.

Okay. So you guys can see the syllogism here, right? Okay, so we've got three elements.

Okay, we're one, two, and three, right? So this first element here is known as the subject. This is the assertion.

And this is the reason. So we've got three elements here. So the first check that we're going to do is we're going to say, okay, so we have to relate the subject to the reason.

So one and three, right? Which is going to be, is sound a created thing? Yeah, sorry guys.

Okay, and so now we have to go three to two, right? Right. So it is created because it is changing.

And then number two to three. So this is the opposite, right? So you say, if it is not, if not changing and not created.

Okay, so I just wanted you guys to see that typed out really quick. So you can see the relationships we did here, right? So now I'm going to stop sharing the screen.

All right. Oh, okay. So I couldn't see the chat when I was sharing my screen.

Did everybody see what I just did in the Word document? Okay, so you go back to the Word document. Yeah, okay.

Hold on, let me just see. Yep, that's it. Okay, yeah, that's perfect.

Yeah, so Ella has, or Emily has put it in the chat here. That's great, thank you. Yeah, so what's unclear about syllogisms?

I'm happy and I love talking about this stuff. So I just need to be, is there anything that's unclear about that? About the three tests?

Isabel?

[Speaker 3]
I'm still trying to figure it out. So in any of these three steps, it require these three topics. Subject, assertion, and reason.

So then my confusion is about the second step, which is if something is three, then it must be two. I'm still sitting on this second step.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so that's what we call, it's what's called a kaba. Okay, and kaba means like the, it's what is, kaba literally means to cover, right? So when I say kaba lo, it means give me the relationship of three to two.

So I say kaba lo, right? And it says, tell me what three to two covers. You see, kaba lo, give me three to two, kaba lo.

If something's not created, excuse me, if something is created, then it's changing. Okay, so remember when we were just talking about the categories of existence, Isabel? And the first category I said was changing things, right?

Okay, so anything that is created, anything that exists, right, is coming from causes and conditions, correct?

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, anything that's created is coming from causes and conditions. That's true, right? So we can also say that if something is coming from causes and conditions, that it is also changing.

Right? So if something is created, then it's changing. Do you see the relationship between three and two now?

[Speaker 3]
Hold on a second. Can you speak slowly, like for the second step of the previous sentence?

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so this is, I mean, this is, it's really, really important. And it's very beautiful, right? So whenever you talk about the different categories within the categories of existence, each category has its own set of qualities, right?

So changing things, things that are changing are coming from causes and conditions, right? So anything that is changing is simultaneously a cause and a condition, excuse me, a cause and a result, okay? Anything that is changing is a cause and a result.

If something is a cause, if something is a result, if something is changing, then that means that it was created, right? Because you had this, you had this, remember the fundamental division was changing things and unchanging things. So if something is not changing, it's unchanging, which means that it's not created.

You see, does that make sense?

[Speaker 3]
Yes, yes, yes.

[Speaker 1]
Oh man, I just don't feel like I'm, okay. Yeah, so if something is coming from causes and conditions, you could say, then it's something that is changing, right? And so that's the relationship between three and two.

So in order to get the relationship between two and three, all we do is negate. We just negate each element, you see that? If not changing, then it's not created.

[Speaker 3]
The reason why I got a bit messed up here is my mind is still thinking about Nagarjuna, that the cause and effect are kind of doubtful.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, well, this is, yeah, this is, this is, obviously this is from the second school. Yeah, so yeah, one of the things you'll find out as you study Majamika and Uma Telangirava, the highest middle way, is that, yeah, is that cause and effect doesn't work the way you think it does. So we're in the second school.

Yeah, so you have to remember what hat you're wearing whenever we're talking about the categories of existence. But that doesn't, that doesn't also mean that you can't have a version of the categories of existence that also can be looked at through the eyes of a higher middle way. So you can use higher middle way eyes to look at the categories of existence.

Well, you know, also, Isabel, I don't think it's you. I think I'm not doing the best job explaining this stuff. And I really, I like talking about this.

And especially when we talk about some of these things, I want to talk about them for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, because I feel like we could, we can get really specific. And we can really talk about some of your questions if we give them more time. But I find that it's kind of hard to, yeah, I, yeah, maybe cook it, Isabel, but also realize that I'm always here to talk to you.

So if you want to send me an email or you want to talk about this further or something, I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. So we can maybe talk offline or something. We can keep clearing stuff up.

Let's see. Okay. So Juan has a question.

Juan says, are concepts something mental, even if they are not aware? Well, I think you have to, for me, well, for me, I see there's a distinction being made here between something being mental, like of the substance, like when we say gyun, gyun means mindstream, right? So when I say mindstream, am I referring to something that's physical?

Anybody? Juan? No, exactly.

Yeah, right. So mindstream can't be something physical, right? So what one of the categories do you think it would go into?

It's obviously changing, right? Yeah, concepts are mental. The thing here is that you can talk about something being, okay, if I say this, right?

If I say that mind, something can be mind, right? Exactly, Juan. That's what I was just about to say.

That's what I was just about to say, is that you have to make the distinction between something that is mind and something that has the character, excuse me, something that is mind. Let me think about how to word this. So yeah, well, yeah, concept of changing thing, which is neither physical nor mental.

Yeah, totally. I'm trying to think of a good example, though. Let's see.

Yeah, well, totally, like Juan, yeah. But you could also say your seeds, right? If you want to talk about more, right?

These are really interesting. I was reading a book about debate. I was reading a book about debate, and they gave some examples of things which are active or changing things which are neither physical nor mental, right?

Groups. So if I say groups in general, right? Like if I say, what about like the numbers 1 through 10 as a group?

Where would we put the numbers 1 through 10 as a group? And what group would the numbers 1 through 10 go? It's an interesting question, right?

Does anybody have an answer? Yeah, it's concept, exactly. So also, what about things like time?

What about time? Where would we put the concept of time? What category?

Changing, right? Exactly. But what group in changing things would we put time?

Exactly, yeah. Yeah, it's interesting because, see, the more you go, the more, like what we're doing right here is, in a way, we're doing mushimusum very loosely, right? We're talking about the different qualities of the different groups.

So did that help at all, Juan? Yeah, okay, cool. Yeah, yeah.

So it's 8.05. I appreciate you guys staying around. Yeah, I was kind of tired today and I wasn't feeling so good before my class. I was having some stomach issues tonight.

So I apologize. I haven't really been in my top form today. So I hope that was helpful to you guys.

And yeah, had fun. And the questions were really good. And you guys are all very, very beautiful people.

And I'm so glad you're part of this. And yeah, it's very, very wonderful to have you guys all here. Okay, guys, love you all.

And I'll see you in the morning. Bye-bye.