dcc yt ben jewel of true thought c042

[Speaker 1]
Morning. Hey, where'd you guys get that picture of Ben in front of the fiery sky? Whoops, I was just at the Inner Kingdom teachings with Earl and they wanted me to use a pretty background, but you don't need that from me.

You can handle the real me. Oh, that is quite a photo. Dang it.

Wow. It's beautiful, isn't it? Adjust background and effects.

Here we go. You're stuck with plain old me. Oh, man.

Hey, got you, Michael. Hi, boss. Hola, Kamkaro.

Kamkaro. You even got me. How are you?

Oh, Indonesian again, you said. I need a little bit of background. Yeah, that's okay.

All right, kids. Okay. It's time, Ben, if you want to start your homework or whatever.

Let us. Okay. Here we go.

All the drinks you guys could come up with. Do we see my screen? Do we see a homework?

Yes, sir. Okay. Yes.

What are the two requirements Master Dharmakirti suggests for a correct reason? And give the relevant words from the root text, the commentary on accurate perception. In fact, let's try to do that first, if we can.

Does anyone know the verse? I'm going to try to memorize it. Which means I didn't yet.

So don't feel bad. I just remember there's a day in there. You would think it's a day.

Yeah, day is going to be helpful. Yes, great. We're getting we have three of the five words, I think.

What's the first test? What's the first of the three tests or qualities of correct reason? Chok.

I heard Oscar, of course. Yeah. And then Nick.

I'll take it. Great. Good enough.

There's a Yi in there that isn't immediately relevant to this discussion. But great. Agreed.

What does he intend with these lines? What does it mean? What are the qualities of a correct reason?

The three rules, the one goes with three, three goes with two, and if not two, then not three. Okay, but it's so chok chuh. The reason is true of the subject.

Yeah, a reason should be a chuh of the chok. A reason should be a quality of the subject. The reason should be something that's true to say about the thing we're talking about.

And then de kiava, de che kiava. The assertion about the subject pervades the reason. Yes, but how could we say pervades?

If what you've said about, if the reason is true, then what you've said about the subject must hold true. I've been playing with the word includes. Maybe just playing with it.

Maybe the assertion includes the reason. Okay. Or you could say it's easier if you say it kind of backwards, the other way like Geshe Michael did back in the day.

I think it's easier to say that three is necessarily two. I think that's the smoothest. The thing you offer as the reason is something which is necessarily the thing suggested.

Isn't the word covers kind of perfect because in English that means both? I think covers is not bad. Yeah, I think it's pretty good, but it almost, yeah, I think it's a good word.

It sounds a little metaphorical to my taste, but it's correct. I think it's good. Quarters cover dimes and quarters also cover quarters.

Let's be quick. Would you kindly give and briefly describe the two types of reasons used for proving the presence of something? So we could have reasons for proving the presence of something, or we could have a reason to prove the absence of something, and there are two types of reasons used for proving the presence of something.

What are they? I remember, but I'm not going to say. Is it identity?

It's about results? Yeah. Identity and, yeah, it was an effect.

Yeah, cool. That's right. They were taught in the other order, I think, so I'm going to ask you first before I reveal it, which is when you say cause and effect, what would that be like?

What's that? Briefly describe a reason. If there's smoke, there's fire because fire causes smoke.

Yeah, that's right. I think the way that he puts it here is essentially that the reason should be a effect, a result. Yeah, right.

The reason should be a result. Yeah, great. Yeah, wonderful.

Good. And then how about an identity reason, if you like, or a reason by identity? How would you describe that?

The reason should be what? Identical. It's sensitive.

Go ahead, Oscar. Just like being present. You have to be careful when you say identical.

It's close to identical, but it just means that to be the reason, to be a thing which is the reason, or to be a thing which the reason is true about, is to be the assertion. Yes, essentially, right. So it's a one-way relationship of identity, at least.

It could be two. If it's identical, that's okay, but you don't have to be identical. A reason by identity is that reason which has an identity such that to be it is to necessarily be the quality you're trying to prove.

And then finally, what are the two types of absences we may set out to prove with a reason for the absence of something? So we talked about proving a positive thing. Now we're talking about proving the absence of something.

And there are two types of absences, importantly, that we may set out to prove. And there's a difference in the way that we would set out to prove them. What are those two?

This is hard. No. One of them is that normal people don't see those things.

Yeah, yeah, right. And then the other is something you normally would see. So if there were such a thing as a hungry spirit or something, and Ben doesn't see it, that doesn't prove it ain't here because, of course, Ben doesn't see it.

He doesn't know how to see things like that. That doesn't prove that it's not there. If there's something, so the two types are those that we reason for the absence of something that you typically wouldn't see, an ordinary person typically wouldn't see, or the reasoning for the absence of something like a pot that you typically would see, a coffee cup.

Okay, cool. Let's look at issue, Michael, you gave me a very difficult assignment. Yeah, it's about time.

Good, okay. Enough biographies. Right.

This was tough. Whoops, here, I have a highlighted thing that I'm just used to. Okay, something like that.

Do you want me to read? Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, please.

[Speaker 1]
We can't see the whole thing, can you? Yeah, okay, now we can. Okay.

Okay. Sushi. Good.

Sushi. Sushi, yeah. Okay, good.

Okay, so this is going back to the famous opening lines of the Pramanavarttika which is chok chud de che khyabiyi, which is the definition of a valid reason, and they use the word chok, which in Sanskrit is paksha. Paksha. Yeah, which can also mean the wing of a bird, so it implies a side.

So chok means a direction, and chok chud means the relationship between the subject of the logical statement and the quality you're trying to prove about it. Let's take sound, touch sound. It's impermanent because it's made.

So sound is made. Is the major premise something like that? It's something that we would agree to already.

We don't agree to one is two, but we agree one is three. Let's take sound. It's impermanent because it's changing.

Everyone agrees it's changing. We're not sure whether it's changing moment by moment or not. Okay, so tsu shi is a Japanese food that's pretty good if it's fresh.

No, I'm kidding. Tsu means to fight, and tsu means to argue, and it is the Tibetan word for debate, for formal debate. So like an argument between a husband and a wife, it's the same verb as formal debate, arguing.

Tsu shi means the thing that you're fighting about, which in this case is sound. Sound, tsu shi. Then he states it, sound.

Then he says, let's take sound as something that we're trying to figure something out about. Tsu shi. So yeah, consider a topic of debate like sound.

chok tsen yipang ma yin te It is not a real... technically you can say technically. Art accepted exquisitely before a decision is made about it.

drup chenpa drupay ngel du Yeah, that's fine. Your translation is fine. But the whole...

Why we're studying this, we are studying an extra quotation. We went out of the book. We went to a different book, and we're trying to get a clear answer about the first line and a half of the Pramana Vartika, which is huge.

Thousands of lines. The first line and a half are very famous, because they define a correct reason. You could live the rest of your life on the first line and a half without the other thousand lines.

We debate them for many, many years. Just the first few pages. So yeah, he's trying to explain chok chod de che kyapay He's trying to explain the first line and a half.

That's why we're studying this citation. We took it out of John Brady's database. Because it offered some clarity on this weird wording, which says, direction, peace, covered by, reason.

Okay? It's unclear. We're trying to get some clarity on it.

Okay, all right. Your translation is good so far? Okay, well, that's nowhere to go but down.

Oh, this is hard.

[Speaker 2]
Let's see.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, I have to... Okay. Oh, do you want me or someone to read this?

Do you want to have someone read, Ben? Yeah. Oscar, would you read this?

Yes, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Oscar's a graduate of a nice program that Ben's a graduate of, which is to go study the language among the Native people and debate among the Native people.

I went four times. It doesn't count, Oscar, until you get very sick. Yeah, until you go to the nearby hospital, which is just short of death.

All right, Kathy. There was an American doctor there, Geshe Michael. It was okay because he was both American and a doctor, though I believe his medical education was in Cambodia.

Yeah. And the medicines were made in that local country, which makes them a little bit better than motor oil. Nagarjuna, a reason is to call the sunrise by the park.

Chog chud de che khyapa. Yeah, okay. All right.

Sheyma Miripatel. Yeah, good. It's not quite right to give the definition of a reason that the greatest logician in history gave.

Okay? All right. No, it's not correct because choknyi tsushi.

That's because choknyi tsushi. Tsushi. I keep getting these...

The chat keeps blocking me. That's because of debate. Can I turn it off?

Yes, you can hide it. Okay, good. All right.

Yeah, what he's saying is the word chok means what we're fighting about. Tsushi, okay? Good.

Chok refers to the subject of the debate. Tsushi, foundation of debate, which happens to be sound. The most famous debate in history is, let's take sound, it's changing because it's made.

That most famous logical statement in history was presented to whom by whom? By Buddhists to Hindu schools. Yeah, it was presented by Buddhist schools to Hindu schools who said that the word Aum was eternal.

And that it never changed. And we say the moment you say Aum, it's already changed. Which is Buddhism in a nutshell.

So that's the most famous logical proof of all history. Let's take sound, it's changing moment by moment because it was produced by your vocal cords, etc. Chok means tsushi.

So the chok in this case, paksha, the side, which can mean position, but in this case it just means the subject of the debate, which is what?

[Speaker 2]
Sound. Sound.

[Speaker 1]
So he says chok or side means the object of debate, the thing that you're fighting about, which is sound. And cha means what? Cha-cha-cha?

It's a part. Cha means part. So cha should be part of the chok, part of the extended chok.

So we divide chok into brief chok and extended chok. So chok is what we're fighting about, sound. But in a broader sense, we're arguing about whether or not sound is changing.

So the word cha, a part of the argument, a part of the assertion. What's the assertion? Sound is changing.

What's a part of the assertion? Changer, two parts. And sound is also.

So the way Dharmakirti starts his famous book, after he finishes the unbelievable preface, he says chok chu de che khyabpay, he says the part of the assertion, which means the quality that's asserted, which is changing. Sound is changing moment by moment. cha ni de chok chik yinpe, tsul shi chok chik.

So tsul shi means what we're fighting about, what we're arguing about. Chok chik means one part of it, or one direction of it. Chok chik.

It should khyabpa the dak. What's the dak, the reason given? Let's take sound.

It's changing. It's... No.

Sound is changing because it's made. So what's the reason? It's made.

It is made. What's the relationship, in a good reason, between the quality you're trying to prove and the reason you get? In this case, it's made and changing.

The quality you're trying to prove should necessarily include the reason. Good. It should either equal the reason, or it should be a subset of the reason.

And then the reason is true. And then the logical statement is true. So what comes third should be equal or bigger than what comes second.

How's that? Other way. Sound is changing because it's made.

If it's made, it should be changing. It should either be equal to changing, or it should be less than changing. It should be a subset of changing, at least.

Minimum. But here, you can say the quality asserted covers the thing in the reason spot, right? Yes.

No, but your position is the reason should cover the quality asserted. It's not my position. So if it's the reason, it should be the quality asserted, right?

That's true. Oh, the quality asserted should be equal to or less than the reason. How's that?

Yeah, right, because the assertion is the cha that does with the khyaba in... Yeah, so the reason should be equal to or less. It's the agent, the doer, the subject.

Yeah, the problem in Dharmakirti's original opening line is the word cha, which means part. So part of what? It says here, part of the cho should cover the dak, right?

Right, yeah. But that's wrong, right? Well, no.

See, that's the problem, yeah. You know, Geshe Michael, I missed you, and I wish that we did a team class without you. And I don't want to do that, and I never want to have a class without you, please.

But it gave me a lot of time to work on the problems. And I just wanted to show you, I did some work on the auto-commentary, because I had nothing to do to contemplate this question. Okay.

And it was really interesting, because I found something in the Sanskrit that was missing from the Tibetan, and it seemed to be Dharmakirti's glossing of the word paksha. And so he says, okay, the cho is the subject, but what wasn't in the Tibetan, it just goes on. The Tibetan just goes on to say that there's a figurative usage or something, right?

He says, but in the line before it, he talks about this upachara, right, of a member, or excuse me, of a whole for the member. You see, because I guess a cho can include both the subject and the thing you're saying about the subject, right? But he's not using it that way.

He's using it metaphorically. When he says cho, he just means the subject. But he's using a word for the position.

He's using a word that can mean both the subject and the asserted quality. But he doesn't tell you that, so it's confusing. So I guess I took that to mean that it can have two parts, but he doesn't necessarily mean it that way.

I don't know. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I think he might be saying that he's using, he might be saying that he's chosen the word bhaksha for allegorical reasons.

Yeah. But normally bhaksha means the whole position of somebody. Yeah, right.

And here he's used it in an allegorical way or something, an upachara, where the combination is used to mean one of the parts of the combination or something. It could be. I think.

So I took it that way in trying to understand this verse, that che, the part, means, even though bhaksha means the subject of the debate the way that Dharmakirti is using it, when he says cho, he does mean part of that position. He means the part that is the assertion in the jukja. You mean the quality ascending?

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, okay. I think.

Anyway, this is a dissenting opinion at this point, and I think it's the first, Mr. Diep. Let's go to the next Tibetan and see if it helps. When in doubt, move on.

Yeah, great. Who's going to read, Ben? It's too nice to hear Oscar.

Can you do one more, Oscar, before we are deprived of the pleasure of your reading? Oh, come on. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So this is a kind of a recondite sentence.

But on the face of it, it means kyun me de. What's kyun me mean? Yeah, that's not a problem.

In general, the word cho, part, refers to the cho. Drup je cho, right? Can I say drup je cho?

Yes. The quality to be proven. Yes.

Impermanent. So cho here means drup je cho, the quality to be proven. In general, part in Dharmakirti's opening line refers to the quality that you're trying to prove, which is impermanence, changing moment by moment.

Dule la. But don't forget that... Okay, here's your savior, Ben, I think.

Can I see your translation? I can't see it. Oh no, why?

It's on the screen. I'm not sure. Yeah, okay.

Okay, now I can see it. Because part here refers to that which appears intensely expressive. Yeah, that term itself can't express it.

Yeah. It means we decide the meanings of words according to the juddu, which is what, Ben? The intent of your words?

The intent of the expression or something? What did the speaker of the word mean to say? And what...

We decide what a word means by trying to figure out what the person who's saying it meant to say, and not by the meaning of the word. Okay? RGYUD RJE GYI DRA Words that are used to express ideas, they should be interpreted as following the intent of the speaker, and not what the words say.

That's kind of a defense for saying CHOG CHUD DE CHA doesn't refer to the assertion. It refers to the... Sorry.

That refers to the assertion and not to the quality that we believe in. See what I mean? When you say the...

It doesn't refer to one is three. It refers to one is two, because that's what he meant. But it's not what he said.

Okay? Thank you. The debate between me and Ben is, should item number two be bigger, or should item number three be bigger?

What do you think? Let's take sound. It's impermanent because it's changing.

Sorry, it's changing because it's... RGYUD RJE GYI DRA Yeah, it's impermanent because it was made. Okay.

Which one should be bigger? Three or two? In this case, they're the same size.

Yeah. Two is bigger in general. Yeah, two can be bigger than three.

But three can never be bigger than two. Let's take sound. That wouldn't improve anything.

Because it exists. That would be wrong. In that case, two would be bigger than two.

Okay? So two either has to equal three, or two has to be bigger than three. Right, Ben?

Correct. Yeah. That's my understanding.

I think it's correct. YANG CHOG CHUD DE BYAS Yeah, it's just the problem that he doesn't say that. He says three should be bigger than two.

But that's not what he meant. That's this author's position. I think that DE CHA means like what you would other consider part of the CHOG, right?

Assertion. Yeah, right. Yeah, right.

It means the part of the Drup JA because CHOG can mean Drup JA, but it means the Drup JA CHA in this case because the Drup JA CHA is part of the Drup CHA, which sometimes is what CHOG means. Yeah. Okay.

So anyway, CHA should refer to two, but it refers to three. Can we say that? No.

CHA refers to two.

[Speaker 3]
CHA should be bigger.

[Speaker 1]
CHA does refer to two. Oh, yeah. CHA means part, but it doesn't mean part of one plus three.

It means part of one plus two. Yeah, right. Yeah, great.

Yep, I think so. Okay. Okay.

That's all. He said it's part of one plus three, but he meant it's part of one plus two. Can I give you the point?

Yes. Right. It could be, it's a little ambiguous.

It could be taken either way. So I guess, but I guess he's saying you have to study it. No, once you say CHA, once you say CHA, CHA has to refer to the second element of the three elements of the reason.

Right. Yeah, right. Yeah, right.

According to Kramer. Yes, especially with the adjective, right, which is in the Sanskrit, too. It says not, I'm Shana.

Yeah, that's a problem. The problem is it's clearly instrumental in the Sanskrit. Yeah.

Yeah, right. And some people drop the S in the Tibetan, but the Sanskrit is instrumental. You can't get out of it.

And I did, I also looked at our, you had checked a version of the auto commentary. Oh, is this the, to see. It looked like there was an in the auto commentary he had used.

Oh, I want to find it, but I went and I looked oh here. Yeah, in the version of the auto commentary that we had. Right, he, he adds a...

Oh, day. Right, but that wasn't in the, it wasn't in the Sanskrit. So I'm not sure what that indicates.

Right, yeah, because here's the Sanskrit. It just says thud, and thud is a nominative, not genitive. Yeah, somebody, somebody added the past the VI.

Yeah. Right, I think so. Yeah.

Seems like. Yeah, okay. Yeah.

Cool. All right. It's a mystery, and to tell you the truth, we don't debate it.

We debate this for many days, and we never debate that. So it's kind of cool. Yeah.

It's cool that you, that you debated it. All right. And it's not meaningless.

It's the whole definition of a good reason. If we don't get that straight, I don't see how we can go on. How far did we reach, Ben?

Did we really stop here? No, we circled back to here.

[Speaker 3]
We went further?

[Speaker 1]
So I think we are at... There's another mark down here. Yeah, there is.

Here? Let's see. It's one...

I think we're at 1.3. There's yet another mark. 1.3. Yeah. We kind of went backwards to cover this thing.

Here we go, Ben, stop here. Okay. All right.

I artificially put in the root text. Thank you. I added the root text.

As I mentioned before, anytime I need help with Pramana Vartika, anytime I need to translate a quotation from the Pramana Vartika, I go to Yeshe Wangchuk. I go to this modern author who's the teacher of my teacher. He was detained for 30 years.

He wrote a commentary. He had time. It's an amazing commentary.

We got a copy. We printed it. It became a very popular book.

Finally, he was able to come and check it. We worked on it together. Then he passed away in a car accident.

Any time I need to translate a piece, I go to his commentary, because he does it word by word. Nobody else does that I'm aware of that clearly. It's extremely unusual that in the last 1,500 years, the person we go to is someone we knew.

But I have a bad feeling that when he started his commentary, he wasn't trying to cover every word. Yeah, he's close. So we're kind of stuck.

Yeah, he's close, and then he slides into covering every word later. But for these first few, for these first half chapters, we're going to have to deal with it ourselves. Okay, so anyway, here it is.

Who do you want to have read the original line? By the way, we're fortunate that we have the Sanskrit. It has survived.

But Christina's busy, so... No, we got to cover something. All right, who's going to read these things, Ben?

Tracy, would you read?

[Speaker 3]
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And then let's read the rest, Shepa. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 2]
I'm sorry. Yeah, good, nice.

[Speaker 1]
Your reading is quite good. Again, mysteriously good. Let me get here.

Where am I? Accessibility. Display.

There's a pointer in here. Okay, good. DE PHYIR GANG YIN GANG YIN YANG What's that mean, Ben?

PHYIR GANG YIN YANG PHYIR GANG YIN Anything that they're... Yeah, no matter what thing we may be talking about, okay? No matter what thing we may be talking about.

RANG GIS means by anyone. If it hasn't been ma mikpa by somebody, semma... Yeah, if they didn't see it with an accurate perception.

Yeah, if they have not perceived it with an accurate direct or deductive perception, then it would be mirik to touch it. Yeah, it's unreasonable to come to a conclusion or to analyze whether or not that thing exists. Yeah, good.

Touch it means to come to a final conclusion. In this case, okay? It would be...

I see. It means final cut, right? It wouldn't be logical.

Unless you have proved it to RANG GIS TSE MA'I MA MIKPA, if you haven't seen it with your own eyes or with your own logic, it's unreasonable to decide whether it exists or not. That's just a basic Buddhist proposition. And then he's done with that half of a verse, okay?

Three A. Now he moves on to the second half of the verse. Who's going to read that, Ben?

Could we have one more, Tracy? Thank you. Are we at shepa?

Tensik first. Oh, sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Tensik Tse Drakla Tse Ne Ngasikme Tse Dribhuten.

[Speaker 3]
GZHES PA DE CHOS GANG YIN YANG RANG LA NANG RUNG DU YOD PA DE RANG GIS MA'I MIG PA'I DRUG NUS PAS NANG RUNG MA MIG PA'I RTAG BSTAN Good.

[Speaker 1]
There are generally three classifications of all logical reasons. One is where... Wait a second.

DE RANG MA MIG PA'I One is where, yeah, there's a cause and effect relationship. One is where there's a relationship of identity. And then the third is where there's any kind of negation.

And by the way, we should point out that... What's this note from Geshe Michael mean here, Ben? The MA MIG PA'I NUS overrules the DRIBHUTEN.

If nothing exists, then it doesn't seem... Go ahead. Word, I think.

If it doesn't exist at all, then it doesn't matter if it's a result, as far as categorizing it? Yeah, the point is, in categorizing a logical statement, first you look at whether it's negative or positive. Is it trying to prove something, or is it trying to prove something it's not?

If it's trying to... If it's not... And then you make the first division.

You say either it's a positive proof, or it's a negative proof. A negative proof may talk about cause and effect, and a negative proof may talk about identity, but the negativeness first throws it into the third category of reasons. Okay, got it?

That's what I'm trying to... Because you'll say, we'll have a negative logical statement in here that depends on a cause and effect relationship, and you'll ask me, why didn't they put it into the cause and effect logical statements? And I'll say, positive or negative goes first.

If it's negative, it goes negative back. If it's positive, you check if it's cause and effect, or if it's a relationship of identity. Okay, got it?

Okay, okay. That's all. It just occurred to me that it would be confusing.

Yeah. Does it say that later again, or in some other commentary? No, it never says that.

That's a gift from Geshe Michael. Okay, nobody ever said that. Okay.

CHOS GANG YIN YANG, what's that mean, Ben? Again, anything that there could be? Yeah, no matter what.

No matter what. CHOS, in this case, doesn't mean Dharma. In this case, Dharma means entity.

No matter what entity in the universe we're talking about. If it's NANG RUNG, what's RUNG mean? Appropriate or reasonable for it to appear.

Expected, almost. Yeah, NANG RUNG means appearable to you. Appearable to you.

Are there ghosts in this room? I don't know. There may be, but they're not NANG RUNG to us.

At our level. If we were Buddhists, they would be NANG RUNG. So NANG RUNG means appearable?

They could appear. If they were here, you would see them. So all negative reasons, all negative logical statements are divided into two types.

We're talking about the absence of something that you could see if it were there, and then we're talking about the absence of something that you personally wouldn't be able to see anyway if it was here. Got it? It's kind of confusing.

And by the way, that's a personal thing. So when you're categorizing a reason, you have to state who's the opponent. If the opponent is a Buddha, there's nothing that's not NANG RUNG.

Everything appears to them. If there's ghosts in the room, they should see it also. If a Buddha's sitting in our room and they don't see a ghost, there's no ghost.

Then it would be a different category of logic. All Buddhist logic is highly dependent on the perceptual capacity of your opponent. If you misjudge the perceptual capacity of your opponent and give them the wrong reason for them, it's your fault.

Your logic is illogic. It's very interesting. The honest or the responsibility for a reason to be correct depends on your judging the capacity of the other person.

It's very interesting. A logical reason is not logical in Buddhism if it's presented to a person who cannot understand it. It's very interesting.

The definition of what's logical and what's not logical only depends on the capacity of your listener. It's very, very revolutionary. It's similar to the definition of morality in Buddhism.

It's not what you would expect in the West. In the West, what's moral? Something that doesn't hurt other people.

In Buddhism, what's moral? Something that doesn't hurt you. If you underestimate an opponent and you give them a correct statement, but it's one that they cannot confirm, then you have spoken illogically.

You are not speaking logic. It's amazing. It's cool.

Like if the other person is insane, you cannot present logic to them. Anything you say would be illogical. Is it considered hurting them?

Maybe. At least not helping you. Okay, anyway.

Nangrung, you got to get it in your brain. It means if it were there, you could see it. That's called nangrung.

YOD PA DE RANG GI MA MIG NA If it's something you could have seen if it was there and you don't see it, then it's mik. It's not there. If we're talking about an object that you could have seen if it were in the room and you don't see it, then it doesn't exist there.

Got it? NYOD PA That's called nangrung ma migpay dak. A negative proof, a proof for the absence of something that you could have seen if it was there.

That implies there's other kinds of proof for the absence of something that you could not have seen if it was there. And there are such proofs. All right, so now we finished that.

We finished the first of the two categories of what kind of reason. The reason to prove something is not. Negative reason.

All right, who's going to read next, Dr. Ben? How much time we got? Are we okay?

Ten minutes.

[Speaker 3]
We're fine.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to push this down a little. Let's have someone read the root text for good luck, Ben. How about Ruksana, that other graduate of that fine program?

[Speaker 2]
ngel dang drebu thak druk tang gyu tang lo-o tharung way dak nyi tang ni ma drukpa me tun chen ni mik nam shik Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Some people go to study and come back. They go to the Isle of Jewels and come back with jewels, and some people come back with diarrhea. All right, who's going to read this one, Ben?

Ruksana, would you continue?

[Speaker 2]
Shepe tsik che. Tse nangrung ma mikpey. Thak shee tsen shee tang yewa.

Ngesu tente. Ngelwey rangshin thak su. Kone gel ngak ngokpa.

Rangshin gel mik tang. Ngelwey drebu. Thak su kone.

Ngen ngak ngokpa. Ngel dre mikpa nyi.

[Speaker 1]
Good. tsik che means what, Ben? In this case, the words at the first, the words at the commentary.

Yeah, those four lines. They are giving how many kinds of negative reasons for proving the absence of something that you could have seen if it was there? There's four.

There's four different categories of reasons you can give to prove the absence of something that would have been visible to your opponent if it was there. We give the tsen shees. We're going to give classical examples of all four.

These are four different reasons for proving that something's not there, which your opponent could have seen if it were there. We're going to give the divisions. Ngelwey rangshin thak su ku.

We are going to present a kind of reason where, I don't know, you could say cold water is not in the room because it's full of hot water. The presence of something that contradicts the thing that's absent proves that it's absent. This room is covered with ice.

Therefore, there's nothing in the room that's going to burn your finger. Something like that. Gyalm da means what, Ben?

Like a contradictory pair? Yeah, good. So da, nga, all of these ZL words, which by the way are ND, they're pronounced nga.

They mean the second, they mean the double of something. Like what's ku? Ku sung thuk.

Ku means body. Kun da means the high honorific for wife or husband. Body second.

Body, and the word moon is dawa because it's the match of the sun. So da means the one partner of a pair. Da means one partner of a pair.

So gyalm da means the touch of a red hot iron rod in conjunction with the touch of a piece of ice. They are gyalm da. They are a contradiction pair.

Got it? Gyalm da. So two things can be contradictory.

Two things can be such that one proves the absence of the other, either by nature or by cause and effect. So the presence of a red hot iron rod precludes what? The presence of ice.

Okay. Or you could say, I don't know, the presence of a fire sprung from a match precludes the presence of peas frozen in the fridge, or something like that. And what I did, Ben, for this whole discussion, I went to the database, and I pulled out the actual classical syllogisms for each one.

And normally a young student, 13, 14 years old, would memorize these to learn the different types of reasons. To learn the different types of syllogisms, a baby monk in the Geshe course, first year Geshe, first of 25 years, they would be required to memorize a representative syllogism for each one. And they're much more educational than the descriptions.

Once you know the classic example of a syllogism, you never forget what it refers to. So I've gone in and supplied them for you. Here we go.

And let's read, Ben, since we don't have a lot of time, we've got five minutes. Let's do the first one together with you, and then you're going to translate the second one, okay? Okay.

Please read the first line, just for pronunciation purposes. gyong dang mikpay ma mikpay dak Yeah, ma mikpay dak means a logical reason, a valid reason for proving that something is absent. ma mikpa means absent.

What's the famous mantra? mikpay tse ma mikpay means not perceived, not there. ma mikpa means same thing, not perceived.

So ma mikpay dak is the third kind of classical reason, a reason for something not being true or not being there. And there's many categories, and you're going to learn this category by learning an actual example. And then you will never forget it.

And this is a proof that something is absent because of the presence, mikpa. The ma mikpa, the absence, is being proved by the presence, mikpa, of a gyong dang. An opposite.

Yeah, good. The lack of oppressive heat in this room is being proved by the presence of massive amounts of ice. That's all.

You proved that something is absent by showing that its opposite is present. It's incompatible opposite. They cannot sit in the same place.

Here's the classic example. Here's the classic syllogism. If you were really serious about the next ten years with Ben Kramer, you will memorize them, or at least be able to give them.

So here's the first one. Please read, Ben. Let's take, and by the way it's a little bit odd, let's take at a location.

Let's take at a location. He doesn't say let's take a location. He says let's take at a location, which happens to be shar.

In the east, yeah. To the east. He's trying to specify an area.

Let's take the second room in Stanley's house. He doesn't say Stanley's house. He says let's take a specific spot in Stanley's house.

Let's consider to the east, back of the house. That location is numbered by a kyabpa of me. This nun can mean to poke somebody with a needle, but here it means it is pervaded by a holocaustal fire.

It's not that someone has a lighter. It means the gasoline was poured all over the floor and somebody threw a match. Kyabpa nunpa means totally immersed in fire.

Kyabpa means spreading. Kyabpa nunpa means immersed and spread. What's dop chen?

Powerful fire. Let's take a room in Stanley's house, which is covered by a massive inferno. We're not talking a cigarette lighter or something.

Please read, Ben. chang re gyun chak su me te gyun chak su is an adverb which means in a flow. This chak means to form there or to develop there.

Gyun chak is an idiom that means there's no continued existence in that room of chang re, of freezing cold. Feeling of cold. There's no continued presence of someone shivering in a room which is covered by a massive inferno.

That's a gyel ndar. What's gyel ndar? It's an opposite.

That's a pair of opposites. That's a pair of opposites. One cannot exist in the presence of the other.

One cannot exist in the presence of the other. It's covered in flame. Therefore, there's no ice-cold feeling there.

Going on in a flow. Maybe somebody threw an ice cube in there and it'll last for a second. But he says it has to be in a flow.

It has to stay for a while. Why not? Why can't there be a sustained coldness in that room?

Because I just said it's covered in an inferno. It's covered in an inferno. By the way, it's illegal logic to repeat an element in your syllogism.

It's illegal. You can't say he's an asshole because he's an asshole. You have to say he's an asshole because he's a big asshole.

Something like that. You have to change the element. He took out the word...

East. Sharp. He took out the word east.

Let's take the second room in Stanley's house, covered with an inferno of gasoline flames. There's no ice cube sitting there, because it is a room covered in massive inferno of gasoline flames. He doesn't repeat the word east.

You cannot repeat the word... You cannot repeat the element. Word for word, you have to change it slightly.

You have to change it slightly. By the way, you hear this kind of logic in a bad argument with your wife. You shouldn't go to that restaurant because the food is bad.

Why? Because the food is bad. Like that.

You have to change it. You have to say, the food is really bad. All right, Ben, you're going to translate reason number two, and you're going to translate number three.

Okay. I've given you classical examples, and you're going to translate two and three. To me, to be honest, they're more instructive than the sentences between them, but that's another story.

Okay. Should I... If you memorize the basic syllogisms, you will always remember the categories that they represent.

What was the category here? Yelnda. Yelnda.

There's things which are... What do you call that? Incompatible.

They cannot stay in the same place. Okay. Cool.

You did pretty well. Nobody fell asleep. Everyone's still pretending to be interested.

By the way, to prove emptiness and to save your life, you must be able to reason. There's no other way. I can explain it to you.

You can say, Geshe-la said, it's not as convincing as figuring out yourself. Okay. Okay.

That's what we're doing. Hey. Geshe-la, where did you...

All right, Ben, I'm going away. Yeah? Where did I get all these guys?

Yeah, I was just wondering where you... You can search the database, and you will find them. Certainly will.

Just... By the way, take a string of six syllables, search it in Gopher, and you will find all the places where they are located. I did not create any.

I might have adjusted some to make them better. Seriously. They weren't very clear.

Okay. All right. You okay, Ben?

Ben, you look a little dazed there. Don't worry. Oh, yeah.

I plan to stay that way for the next 50 years. You're going to try to convince everybody that this is important for their real life. Okay.

And by the way, Ben, at the end, at the very end, leave us one minute for singing off-key, happy birthday to Gyelse, and doing her mo from the book. Okay? You bet.

Okay. Okay. I thought I should share.

Okay. I thought maybe to ask some sharing some advice, maybe about reasoning. I was thinking of the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

Not everyone knows who that is, but he's a famous American founder, one of the founders of America, and his autobiography is cool. He was neat. He kept a book.

I wonder if it's one of the ways Gisha Michael got the way that he presented it to us, because Benjamin Franklin kept his morality in a book like this. And he was also a vegetarian at a time that it was not popular to be a vegetarian. But he loved fish.

He just loved to eat fish. And he said he was out on a boat one day, and he saw fishermen catch a big fish, and the fishermen cut open the fish, and out of the fish fell a bunch of smaller fish. And he thought to himself two things.

One, surely if he can eat those fish, then I can eat him. And two, how wonderful is the reasoning, the logical capacity of humans that we can come up with some reason to justify whatever we already want to do. So I was thinking about arguments with my wife, and I'm good at coming up with reasons, but it's hard to see sometimes.

Are you doing it because you're right, or trying to get to some higher truth, or are you just finding clever reasons to do what you want to do anyway? And I'm wondering what you would tell me or offer me some advice. I need help.

I'm that guy who loves to come up with reasons and try to find a way to get my way. Now my wife is too smart for me, and she says I don't care what clever reason you've come up with. We're still not going to that restaurant.

But how do you try to watch yourself for that? Help me. Somebody help me.

Help me. You have to help me. If I ask for help, you have to speak, because you're all wisdom warrior saints in training at least.

One thing that you could ask is, is the outcome of this argument, is it possibly going to be helpful to not just me, but the whole family or the whole dynamic, the whole relationship? Is it something that can bring us to a better place, or is it just something that is going to further my interest in this small-scale goal? Yeah, and also we were learning too that this is something we've – if we're going to use like a syllogism with somebody, it has to be kind of on their own terms too, right?

So it has to be something they've already accepted. So just coming up with the reasons to try to get our own way kind of makes the statement illogical from its outset, right? And it's a little bit dicey because, as we all know, because we were asked to memorize this line, judge not unless you are as I am.

So there's no way we can judge whatever self-understanding is.

[Speaker 2]
If I cancel the label of this, I just see there is a line.

[Speaker 1]
Sarani said something very beautiful in the chat, which is use that skill to come up with reasons for the other person to get what they want. Can you come up with counterarguments to your own arguments? Of course, I don't want to because I want to get my way.

I can almost feel it, right? You can almost feel it, right, when you're pushing it. But it's so subtle when I notice that I'm trying to get my way.

I can kind of feel it in the back of my heart. And when I can just barely feel it in the back of my heart, then that I'm being naughty, that I'm just trying to get my way, then that is a hint to me that probably a bunch of the times I didn't notice it. If I can barely feel it sometimes, then there are probably other times when I ignored it.

I bet you. What do you think? How do I call myself out?

How do I catch myself? Intuition is a good place to start. It's how your heart feels, right?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's true.

[Speaker 3]
And that's basically motivation before opening mouth. Yeah, but how do you do so, right? Two things, the six times book and meditation, because you need strong session.

That's true.

[Speaker 1]
I think we can put the facial expression of our wife into the consideration of the logic. If you know what I mean. Yeah, I do.

I have one, Ben, for you. Great, please. There's a ferocious bookkeeper who will help me.

You know, in sales, we had this thing in the cycling industry about everyone's the hero of their journey, and you have to constantly be in a place where you're trying to think. Kendra's the hero of her whole story, and so you have to kind of put yourself in their mind, basically, in order to help them. I would never sell anything that wouldn't be the best thing for that person.

It was kind of what we were talking about before. You never use a logical statement, which they don't already accept. So in this case, all of Kendra's best friends are going to be there or something like that.

I think it's a win-win situation where you're doing what's best for them is also best for you, I think. Do you know what I mean? That's nice.

I do. It just made me think about that exchanging self and other sort of mentality where you're like, you know, somehow I'm trying to convince her to go to that restaurant, but it's really beautiful because you're really putting yourself in their shoes. There's this cute saying, right?

They say, happy wife, happy life. I don't know. It's a cute saying, and I think it's nice.

I think it's really, if we look at our motivation, what's going to make me happier? People also say sometimes, like, don't be dependent on other people's happiness. You should be happy in yourself for your own reasons.

And it always kind of bothered me. I am dependent on other people's happiness. I am, though.

And I do, and the foundation of our relationship is one another's happiness. And I don't think that's unhealthy. I think it's very wonderful and very beautiful.

And am I going to be more happy if I get some garbage food instead of, when Ezra and I, when my son and I hang out together and mom's away, he'll say to me, dad, can we get dirty boy food tonight? Because mom eats unhealthy food. But in the end, am I going to be happier if I get the dirty boy food?

Or am I going to be happy in the presence of the person who I love so much in life being happy? We should do Gilse's song and Mo, happy birthday, Gilse. I love you.

Because I have the screen, I get to say that personally. Can we sing? We always sing so beautifully as a delayed Zoom group.

[Speaker 2]
Before we sing?

[Speaker 1]
Ben, I don't know where my tie and my suit went. Okay, we're going to sing. Do you have a Velcro one that rips off?

Yeah. One, two, three. Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Gilse. Happy birthday to you.

Happy birthday. The presence of terrible singing. I destroyed all the good singing.

I wanted to say something to you, Ben, which is, if you're already catching it sometimes, then you can dedicate that to catching it all the time. Inshallah. Thank you.

Okay, she's about to open the prediction book. Quickly, because Hasso has to do his new show. Yeah, so cup of rice to Mo and Gilse.

I shall fetch for you the cup of deathlessness.

[Speaker 2]
May it be so.

[Speaker 1]
That's a dang good birthday wish. All right, happy birthday.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. Okay, I'd like to introduce the amazing Juan Hasso, who's going to tell us all the news. Thank you, senor.

Don't forget those two syllogisms you have to translate. Okay, here we go. I don't know.

This is for the presentation later, but for now, this is good. Good. Okay, hello, everyone.

Thank you. So, of course, we start with congratulating Gilse. Happy birthday.

Thank you for everything you do for us. Many years, I worked with her in Diamond Mountain. A lot of good stories.

It's part of the adventure. So, thank you so much. Happy birthday.

So, today we want to share with you a few things happening. Very cool things happening. This time, especially, well, let's go step by step.

Okay, just to get you know, just to share with you guys that Sanskrit classes are happening. And Cristina, can you share the first slide, please? Yes, she is leading the Sanskrit classes every Thursday, 9 a.m. in Arizona time. That poster was the first class. So, that's why it says June 20, but it's happening every Thursday. So, if you want to join, if you feel curious about it, just follow the QR code and it's going to take you to a Telegram chat where you can join the classes.

You can find information of what's happening and everything you need in order to be part of it. I think it's very cool. Congratulations, Cristina, that you are doing this.

She's an expert. Graduated from Harvard University. The second, third, oh, yeah, I thought second, but third.

I see. So, the third best university. Still very good.

So, yeah, you can join. Just check it out. You can come.

No pressure. People can join freely if they like it. Keep coming.

If you don't, just make other plans. Fun all the time. Great.

So, congratulations, Cristina, and I think it's a wonderful opportunity for us to start learning organic Sanskrit. Okay. So, what's happening in Asia?

I want to share a little bit of something happening today there. Not today here in Arizona, but today there in Asia, already 7th of July. And John Brady is having a great public talk called the Art of Gratitude.

It's happening in Indonesia. He has been doing like an Asia tour for the last few, almost like a month now. Very interesting.

So, today they are in Indonesia having this event. And then in a few more days, they are going to go to Borobudur, which is the next Borobudur. Borobudur?

Sounds like that. Yeah. Earl is going to be there as well.

Connie is going to be there. Of course, John Brady, Jasmine, Joanne Lin. They're going to be having the second series on the Borobudur event.

I don't know if it's maybe too late to join, but you can try. It's the next picture with the QR code. It's just happening in a few days from now.

And then after that, after Indonesia, they are going to Singapore, where they are having other events, where they are going to be honoring, it's the next picture, some of the donors that have been supporting the translation centers of this ancient classic wisdom. In order to do that, they are preparing like a special event on the 19th of July, together with music, which I find very cool. Lately, John Brady has been interacting a lot with the musical scene in order to present wisdom and to connect people with these classics of ancient Asia.

So they are going to be also having some musicians and like a combination, a synergy between music and wisdom happening on the 19th. And then on the 20th, like more like one day seminar, open talk class for everyone who wants to go deeper and find balance and transcend it as the name of the topic. After that, they're going to be going back to the project, one of the centers that they are supporting.

And finally, after Singapore, they are going to Malaysia, which is the next picture. They are right now in Indonesia, then Singapore, and then later Malaysia. And just to finish with this presentation, I would like to help you remember that October.

Next picture, please. Yes, October, Diamond Mountain is having a celebration on wisdom. Geshe Michael is going to be there sharing with all of us about Arya Nagarjuna teachings and some medicine, health, improving techniques.

It's going to be happening in October 11th to the 20th. But just before that, Gyalse, which is her birthday celebration today, is having a pre-retreat slide into retreat in Diamond Mountain, where you can go deeper into this wisdom that Deng Geshe-la is going to be taking us in depth. And if you really, really, really have the time, even a little before that, you can go to September event, Ask the Waters to Stay.

Because Diamond Mountain is having this project where they are really, really doing wonderful job about restoring the environment there. They are working with a lot of experts in the topic, and I've seen the results. It's just so wonderful.

If you feel interested about it, planting trees, bringing water to the environment, to the atmosphere, creating a nice place for animals, people, plants to co-exist, this is a great opportunity to do it. And speaking of that, about planting trees, planting flowers, we want to mention that the Peachtree Cafe was awarded lately. Well, it was mentioned in one of the very...

With the Arizona Highways, how do you call it? Online magazine? Online newspaper?

And they are doing very, very wonderfully. I was there like last week, and I was just so amazed on how the gardens and everything is looking out there. So then I decided to talk with one of the persons responsible for that, and I want to invite our special guest today, Dennis Moore, to tell us more about it.

And for that, I'm going to be sharing in my screen a wonderful presentation he prepared for us. So it's here. And can you guys see?

Okay, yeah. And you can control it. Oh, cool.

Yeah. Thank you, Juan. Welcome.

It's good to have you. Yeah, thank you for coming. We've been planning this for a long time, I think.

Yeah, I know. The idea of the Peachtree Morning Show kind of came up while I was working at the cafe, and so it... Let's see.

They have the big screen? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You can see it's happening there, it's happening here.

So yeah, yeah. You've been part of the process of the happening of this wonderful project, Peachtree Cafe, in many stages. So here in the screen, we can see the very beginnings of...

Well, I don't know what's that, but you can take us over. What are you doing? Well, yeah, so I guess a lot...

One of the main questions people ask is, well, how did you get to meet Geshe Michael? And for a lot of us, it's coming to the teachings, right? It's a big question that we like to ask each other.

And so one of the things that came up really early on was, well, oh, you're the gardener. And throughout my experience at Diamond Mountain, I kept hearing this word, gardener, and fell in love with... I embraced that idea and I actually brought that with me.

I went to school for landscape architecture and was gardening in... Connecticut, right? In Connecticut, yeah.

Yeah. And so the picture with all the machines is, that's my cousin and my uncle, and my dad would come by every day. And so I was in the dump truck there.

I was listening to Foundation Course One, my earbuds. So take us through the presentation you have made, because I think you have wonderful, wonderful pictures about sharing what you've been doing at the cafe. Yeah, so thanks.

I'm glad to hear that people like what they see. So the way the gardens at Peach Street Cafe are kind of set up is that they're broken down into smaller pieces. And so if you're driving up to the cafe, the front yard is the first thing that you would see through the window.

You're just like, oh, wow, we made it to the cafe. And so the flower garden there, it faces the street, and it's kind of framed by two bushes. And that's kind of a way that many of the gardens were meant to achieve like a level of finishing where things are organized into bays.

And so that as you're walking, there's like a meter to it. So where did you get that inspiration from? Well, I worked with Veronica, and we talked a lot about what we were going to do for the cafe.

And that was from a book, and it was from a book called Professional Planting Design. So she helped me to kind of identify that that's what was going to be helpful. So here is like a map of the Peach Street Gardens, and just to kind of see that there was some organization down to a smaller level.

And when I look at taking things to like the next level, then that's kind of how it falls. Like there's more meaning to some of these places. So it's not really random at all.

You have a very strategic plan on where and how you want the garden to grow. Maybe, yeah, I wouldn't take too much credit for it, but it fell into place this way. Okay, that's wonderful.

So here's some of the earlier photos from last year and the year before. I don't want to spoil it for anyone planning to come soon. And here's baby blue eyes, just in a bed with some blue grass under the sign.

And then here's so this is what I came to see in 2021. Yeah, I remember. That's the before.

And then so here's like, for example, here's the Peach Street Garden bed. And so it was meant it's peachy, right? The colors like between the blue and the yellow and in the wall and noticing some of the.

Yeah, what I think it's very impressive is like you have to consider so many elements. And you have to say you design how you want to see the place to be in the future. So you plan ahead of time.

And this time when we were driving together this morning, remember when I asked you like, Hey, Dennis, remember how in the book like we have here, the King of the Dharma, one of the faces of Tsongkhapa is to be a gardener. So how do you connect like for you to be a gardener on how that helps you to understand reality in general? Like what's your how do you take being a gardener to the enhancing of your daily life?

Maybe that's a fair question. I think for a long time, I was lucky to have the same job for many years. So it became very routine, like what my actions were physically.

And that allowed me to kind of rest in thinking of like my teachers. And there's many in this group and throughout the day and some of their advices and what they would say. And yeah, I think that identifying what is helping me like to change my reality.

Like what are the what are the good mental seeds that are able to work with just by illuminating them? And then what what is all this stuff that's just happening that's beyond that? That's not going to help me change my day.

And so I think working in a beautiful place helps to because through enjoying and nature inspires in that way. Nature and you get to see the growth. So you do visualize a lot of what you want to see.

And somehow you come up with a strategy like this has to happen first. I have to plant here so many months in advance in order for this to happen. And this is going to, I'll say, allow certain other things to happen.

I think you work a lot with processes. What I've seen is like you have a very I'll say you can foresee in the future what's going to happen. And somehow you prepare in advance for make it happen.

Well, yeah. Well, so here's on the screen is a fountain. That's kind of a good example.

And for a long time, the big mound of rock that I put there was too big. You know, I had also had a boss and is too big and we have to take it down. And so I left.

The process was that I discovered was that it needed to be sculpted needed to be taken down like a river takes a mountain down. And so that was kind of one of the corners that I turned. And then if you see in the bottom right how it's been, the earth has been sculpted.

The rock we chose to get rid of was taken away. And there's a boulder there. And then so the fountain project was a big part of last year.

And so we got this big rock in the center there that we put it into place and built the fountain around it. So there were things that, you know, that could have been planned for. And then there were things that needed to evolve and grow.

I see. So you live, you learn, basically. Yeah, I see.

I see what you mean. So there. Yeah, in the closer to complete stage, but not spoiling it for you.

And then here's a friend I got to work with while we were at the cafe and I think that was a big like shift. He was really thankful to be able to have the grounding of coming somewhere every day. Yeah, I think just simple things that really worked for us.

Yeah, for sure. The cafe is a great space to build up community. And I want to take the chance to really thank all the people that has been involved and people who came up with the idea.

Especially Geshe Michael for giving the community a place to just hang out and make friends and talk to each other. You know, it's wonderful. And I think what you have done and Malibu, it's wonderful.

And Malibu. Yeah, look at her there. She tells me when to stop.

Yeah. Yeah. I think we have to finish now.

The time is up. But it's very interesting. I would like to keep having you time to time.

So keep reporting what are your plans, how you are designing the garden and also sharing the wisdom that you learn through gardening. Because I think there is a lot to it. So maybe if you want to say something else, you're welcome.

And then we have to wrap it up. No, this is great. Thanks for having me.

Just really blessed to be a part of this community. And yeah, I love when I see when people come. And yes, we have it.

We have it in the Google Drive now. There's more. Yeah.

You're welcome to steal it. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you for coming.

And as I was telling you, this is only the first time. There are more times you can keep coming, sharing new projects or experiences that you have been doing through. And he is my roommate.

But the way these days. So thank you very much for the hospitality. It's great to be here.

Thank you, everyone. And see you next time. See you Monday.

Have a great weekend. Happy 4th of July. Yeah.