Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 40

[Speaker 1]
As a translator, thank you, Natasha. And so let's do homework. Oh, I just see a message in the chat.

I don't know. I just work here. They don't tell me anything.

Or you. Or each other. Anyway, it's wonderful to see everyone's faces.

Thank you so much for participating. We're going to jump right in. You're going to have to help me today more than you would usually.

Geshe Michael is traveling and Nick is camping. And so I hope that you're going to do your best to step up and help us as far as possible. Thank you.

Oh, look, Gibson's here. Everything's going to be fine. If nothing else, I'll just make Gibson do all the work.

And he's ready for it. Look at that smile. He was hoping I'd say that.

Good. Here we go. Something like that.

Let's find the homework. I couldn't agree more. Okay, here we go.

Now, again, you have to be extra boisterous and loud and helpful for me today. So I don't feel lonely and sad. All right, Ben.

Yes.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
I want to shout it from the mountaintops. I'm so excited. Thank you.

I appreciate that, Dr. Ward. Here we go. Remember, if you don't know the answer, just yell, I don't know.

Okay, folks. Um, the book we are studying, in case anybody forgot, is a commentary on a book called The Commentary on Accurate Perceptions. So we're in the realm of learning to think clearly, and we're knee-deep on Master Dharmakirti explaining the rules for learning to think clearly.

He gave a description of a result reason, or he mentioned at least a result reason, and our faithful commentator, Geshe-Geshe Wangchuk, explained what a result reason is. What is a result reason? Someone want to help me?

Explain to me, either roughly or specifically, what that is?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Good job, Ward. But also, someone was about to give the answer.

Okay. It's good.

[Speaker 2]
It's good.

[Speaker 1]
Keep up.

[Speaker 2]
It's used to help us understand the cause and result relationship.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. That's true.

[Speaker 2]
The purpose is to understand what is the cause.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. We come to see the cause by seeing the result. That's good.

You're right. Okay, here, let's look at... I tried to steal his phrasing.

So a result reason is a reason that will come about if all of its causes and conditions are complete, and can't come about if the causes and conditions are not complete. Let's do an example, okay? Then we'll talk about it a little bit more.

Does anyone remember the example that was given to us by Geshe Michael?

[Speaker 3]
Where there's smoke, there's fire?

[Speaker 1]
Lindsay, thank you so much. Great. Yes.

Consider a mountain pass where there is smoke. There is fire there, because there is smoke there. What's the result in this case?

Smoke. Yeah, right. Let me ask you this.

Could we have used a cause as a reason?

[Speaker 2]
Only if you were talking about it as it being a result. Because every cause is probably a result of something, but not in a cause, right?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's cute. Meaning like, smoke is a cause of me coughing a lot on a mountainside?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Right, yeah, that's true. It's true. Yeah, generally speaking, we say that all causes are results, and all results are causes.

Ben, you could use the result, but it wouldn't be a result reason anymore? You could use a cause? Well, could we, though?

I mean, let's come up with an example of trying to use a cause. So, me dengi lalachechen. Yeah.

On a mountain where there's fire, there's smoke?

[Speaker 3]
Duwayete. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So, what's the reason in this case? Can we say because there's fire? Because there's fire, there's smoke, yeah.

Yeah. So, there's, I think, a classical example that they talk about in some books. A red hot iron ball has fire, but not smoke.

So, there are circumstances where you could have fire. And sometimes they say it needs another condition, right? So, a condition would be, like they say, wet fuel would be another condition that you would need.

This is why it's called a result reason and not a cause reason, is because it's got to be the result. A result is a good reason and a cause isn't necessarily a good reason because we don't know if all of the conditions came together, typically. And so, Dharmakirti is not going to mention cause reasons.

Now, could we come up with a cause reason? Maybe. I mean, I'm excited if we do.

And if you get an exciting one, either in the chat or for the discussion afterwards, especially when I'm continuing to flounder to get an excited discussion occurring, would be a wonderful time to give us a reason. I think we could do it and it might be interesting. But Dharmakirti confines himself here to having basically three main types of reasons.

Okay. Three main types of reasons. And this is the first of those three.

Does anyone remember before I scroll down, you know I'm going to ask you a question about it, what the second type of reason is going to be? And then I get to have a sip of coffee while you think about it. Yes, word.

Yes, Pei-Ling was about to say it. By identity? Yes, by relationship.

Oh, well, that's, you know what? I'm going to give this one to Pei-Ling. Yeah, good.

Yeah, they are technically, these are both by relationship. So, Pei-Ling's right. And let's look at it.

What is a relationship of identity? They're in the same group. That's true.

Yeah. Goes both ways, Ben. Yeah, thank you, Christina.

If it goes both ways, fortunately, it ain't gotta go both ways. We only need it to go one way. Both ways is fine.

But one way will suffice. And let's look closer at that. So, I'm glad you said that.

Because it does require further discussion. And here we are. Discussing.

Or disgusting. So, here's the way he puts it. A correct reason by identity, or the way I put him putting it.

A correct reason by identity is a reason that simply by its essence, simply by being present, causes understanding of some proposed quality because of a relationship with that property, such that to be the reason is to be that proposed quality. Now, that's a mouthful and utterly useless without an example. And so, I know you're all champing at the bit.

Um, to give me an example of a reason by identity. And for this, if anyone's curious, you can use the most famous reason of all.

[Speaker 2]
Because it's a Toyota?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, that's true. That's not the most famous reason of all. But you can say that for sure.

Yes, consider Ben's Prius. What about it, Word? It's a car.

Because it's a Toyota. Good. Yeah, it's good you didn't pick, um, yeah, Honda.

Because they also make snow blowers. Yes, and what, someone else tell me the very most famous proof that happens to be the one that we used as an example in class. Consider the sound of the trunk shell.

Oh, that's a good one. And it's not the example we used for this particular. That's not very famous.

I mean, it's pretty famous. Oh, here comes Adam. It's all taken care of.

Dr. Jim, it's all taken care of. Good.

[Speaker 3]
What does that mean?

[Speaker 1]
It's changing because it's made. Thank you, Utpala. And I apologize and thank you, Gelsay, on behalf of Utpala.

And I warn you all, I can't easily share my screen and maintain attention on the chat and look at all your pretty faces. So if people kindly, like Gelsay, jump in and tell me what someone else said, that's delightful and very helpful to me. Like, you know, Ben, someone in the chat said, none of us have heard you for the last half hour.

That's helpful information. Do let me know. So, yes.

Oh, let's put this on the same page, like civilized people. Right. So a correct reason by identity is a reason that simply by its essence, simply by being present, a thing, a made thing, being present, simply by the fact that a made thing is present, causes some understanding of a proposed quality that is a changing thing, something being changing because of a relationship with that property.

There's a relationship between made things and changing things, okay? Such that to be the reason, to be a made thing, is to be a changing thing. Now, how does this relate to Christina's query about a relationship of identity?

Christina, you may have noticed already that this relationship.

[Speaker 3]
Can I just say something before it gets out of?

[Speaker 1]
Oh, of course you can.

[Speaker 3]
I'm sorry. I don't think that the quality is changing thing.

[Speaker 2]
I think the quality is changing. And I'm not sure this will have a difference for this particular syllogism, but it might have in the future to say the quality is changing and the quality is not a changing.

[Speaker 1]
I'm open to that. Because the quality is being made. That could well be.

I mean, it's an interesting discussion, right? So are these equivalent? Let's see.

If we said it like this. Sorry, I said that backwards, that the quality is.

[Speaker 3]
That's okay.

[Speaker 1]
No, actually, I'm totally wrong. Never mind. Let's not spend any time.

Christina. Okay, it's worthy. Look, if it comes up for you, it can come up.

And I think it's something we can think about whether or not these are equivalent. And I'm treating them as equivalent. And if we decide over time that they're not, it's worth thinking about.

I think we often treat these as similar. Changing a thing. In this case, sound.

An entity being changing. Or being a changing thing. Or a thing being made or being a made thing.

I think they're mostly equivalent. I think we're pretty good here. As long as we use things somewhat loosely.

[Speaker 2]
Thing is an entity. And changing is a process.

[Speaker 1]
That's true. And sound being a thing. If we apply that process to it.

Then that means that sound is a thing which is going through that process. Or which is, what would you say? Prone to that process.

Privy to that process. There's got to be a less obnoxious way of putting it. Possesses that quality.

Something like that. If a thing possesses a quality, is it a blank thing? Maybe.

We can keep going with that. I think it's worth us continuing to contemplate. I think they're equivalent.

At least in this context. But I agree with you that they are described very differently. One describes a process.

And this would be more explicit, right? If this said pa, right? Mitak pa, right?

It would be more explicitly a thing. And I think mitak is a little ambiguous. And I have seen it.

Mitak byyinte before. Sure. Sometimes, right?

Yeah, right. And by the way, right? Chepa is much more like a made.

You know, chepa might be made thing. Or closer. So again, I do think it's a little bit unclear.

Christina, did you know what I was trying to bug you about in regards to this example? I'm not sure. But I think maybe it's that changing things are made things.

And made things are changing things. Yeah, they do go both ways in this case, right? So could we do this, right?

Could we come up with one that did not go both ways? I want to say something like, Christina, you spell your name with a K, don't you?

[Speaker 3]
No, CH.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, just kidding. All right. Good.

I'm glad we had this talk. Christina, right? Let's see.

Is a human. I apologize if you're not. I should say appears as a human.

Okay, because she is a mammal. Does that seem okay? Is that allowed?

I don't think so. I could be, you know, a javelina. Yeah.

Okay, cool. So I wouldn't be a human. Right.

So this, so that's a one way relationship that doesn't work. But what if I do it the other way? Well, all humans are seen it.

So here we have a one way relationship. Oh, that's funny. I didn't know.

This is how I call the balloons. Balloons come to me. What's the sign for dolphins?

Come, come, my friends from the sea. No idea. I don't really know Tibetan, but they let me come anyway, twice a week.

So you can see here, Christina, a one way relationship is allowable as long as you get it in the right place. So it is important that, and we're going to go look at it again today to review one more time the rules. But the second one's got to be bigger.

You can have it go both ways. What you're doing is definitely allowable. A relationship of identity can go two ways, and that's definitely allowable.

But if it does not go two ways, the asserted quality, the second part, the thing you are trying to say about the subject better be a bigger group. Well, Ben, I have a question, though. Is there a special name for the relationships that really go both ways, like changing things and made things?

Yeah, it's... Would you say Dunchik, Adam? You know, I would have a tendency to say, to differentiate here between Mushi and Musum.

So I would say Mushi would go both ways, and then Musum would just be that one way relationship.

[Speaker 2]
And what is that in English?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, the three or the four examples you see, which in this case comes down to, is there something which is a mammal and a human? For example, Christina, is there something which is not a mammal nor a human? For example, an eggplant.

Is there something which is a mammal but not a human, like a rock hyrax? Or a cat would be fine also. And is there something which is a human but not a mammal?

And that one we don't have, and that's why Adam says three. You see, there are three. I think you could say Dunchik.

What do you think, Dr. Word?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
You leaned forward conspicuously. Dunchik, yeah, I agree. I think in a relationship where to be one is to be the other, and the other is to be the one, I think you could call them Dunchik.

Well, I mean, you could also... They're mutually inclusive. To be one is to be the other, right?

And so I mean, I think you could use mutual exclusion and mutual inclusion there too. So there are two types of relationships. Okay, there are two types of relationships.

There's relationship of cause and effect, and then there's a relationship of identity. We just talked about a relationship of cause and effect. A relationship of identity, sorry, there's two types of that, okay?

Um, so, wow. I should get some more complex balloon formation for this more complex figure, but that's okay. Zoom doesn't know.

I should get half balloons rising through the air. So there are two types of relationships of identity. We could, for our purposes here, refer to them as a one-way or a two-way, okay?

So a two-way relationship of identity or a one-way relationship of identity. And we have examples of both here. Does that make sense?

A changing and made... Changing things and made things are a... Great, how come you don't get balloons?

But you're correct. A two-way relationship of identity. Thank you, Adam.

That's better. Versus mammals and humans are a one-way relationship of identity. And this is very closely related to the topic of quality and characteristic, which is a fun party game to play with your friends to see if you can come up with examples of, maybe in this case, one-way relationships.

Um, is there a one-way relationship if... What's the bigger group here? Mammals or humans?

Mammals. Yeah, it's the big... Right.

So, and then there's humans. And then a smaller group would be Christina's.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Yes, Haley. Can I give example?

And you see, this is a beverage because this is a coffee.

[Speaker 1]
It is a beverage because it's a coffee. Okay, this is a beverage. Whoops, sorry.

This is a beverage because it's a coffee. Which group is bigger, Haley? The second one or the third one?

Two or three? Which is bigger?

[Speaker 2]
The second one, Beavis.

[Speaker 1]
Then you probably win. Now, if someone were very difficult, they might say maybe it's just coffee beans. However, you said a coffee.

So I think that we usually, when we say a coffee, I think it works. I think this is perfectly correct because this group's bigger. You see, they could be equivalent.

You could also say it's a beverage because it's a drink. You see, two-way relationship. Okay, also legal.

All right, cool. Thank you. That managed to slow us down a very helpful amount of time.

Let's go to the next one. Oh, good. I've got some nice speed bumps here.

All right, Gibson, the time came as you had hoped. I know, Gibson wrote me early today and he said, Ben, you better use the example of the sound of a conch shell horn. So let's use this example to understand the first words that Master Dharmakirti speaks about the way that our syllogism should work.

All right. So what is the quote here? Anyone want to give me chalk in Sanskrit in addition to English?

[Speaker 2]
Paksha?

[Speaker 1]
Christina made the face, but word spoke the word.

[Speaker 3]
I don't know to that. Word. Oscar put it in the chat.

[Speaker 1]
Oscar put it in the chat. Great. So what would it mean then, Christina, if word said Paksha, which he did?

Yeah, it's a good time to mute your microphone. Paksha, anyone, including the chat, but you have to tell me. It literally means direction.

But that's an easy one, and it means. Literally means direction, but here it refers to the subject matter.

[Speaker 3]
It can mean like, yes.

[Speaker 1]
It could also mean like a facet too, or your particular position on something. Yes. And critically, in this context, we know that it refers to and only refers to.

Russell, Russell. Yes, the subject. You're correct.

The subject of a syllogism in this context, it does have broader meanings in other contexts. But it's true. For zero dollars, there's a famous guy related to the topic with choke in his name.

Mm-hmm. Dharmakirti. I mean.

Almost.

[Speaker 3]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Dignaga, the spiritual daddy of Dharmakirti, though they never met in person, as I understand it, they were close. So good.

The, here, maybe we should put this on the next page also, so that we can try and wield it together. So what is the choke in this syllogism? The sound of, don't drop.

Yeah. Right. In English, is also allowed.

The sound of a conch shell. Also true. Yeah, great.

Sound of conch shell. Ooga. Um.

Yeah. Is the choke here. Okay.

That's the subject. The choke. Mm.

Right. In this case, the sound of a conch shell. What's the che here?

The, what's a, what's a che? What does it mean? Um, Christina, come on.

I know you know all the Sanskrit and none of the Tibetan, but you know this word, right? What? Che.

Oh, che. Does that mean cut? What?

All right. One of the, you're going to have to learn more Tibetan. You can't be just the Sanskrit mistress.

You've, you've proven yourself. Yes. Um, yeah.

Dharma. Great. What's a dharma?

A thing.

[Speaker 2]
A thing.

[Speaker 1]
Could be. Yeah. Often also means, oh, good.

I was hoping someone was going to say that, Gibson. Um. It, uh, makes my debate with Utpala get hotter.

Um, because Utpala said a thing, but Gibson said a quality. And it's, it's a little ambiguous. Um, it can mean either.

Dharma has a lot of meanings. But in this context, it does mean what you're trying to say about the paksha. So, uh, what you are trying to say about the subject of the debate.

What are we trying to say about the subject of the debate in this case? What is the che that applies to the, oh.

[Speaker 2]
It's changing.

[Speaker 1]
Great. Good. I had to double check myself.

Seems right. Good. So.

And remember, what are we doing with this? Okay. All right.

This is basically the definition of. Uh, of what? Dayanta.

It kind of is the definition of a dayanta. And yes, also Utpala.

[Speaker 2]
Correct reasoning.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. Yeah. You could say a correct reasoning, um, which I didn't put here, right?

He says densik in the Tibetan. What's the Sanskrit that he uses?

[Speaker 2]
Does he say pramana?

[Speaker 1]
No, it'd be cool if he did. You can base a pramana on a densik. Um.

But he uses a word, uh, that can. Can also mean a cause. Is that helpful?

Artha hetu? Hetu. Yeah, that's it.

Yeah, he says a hetu. He's going to use the word hetu a lot to mean. Uh.

A reason in the sense that it is a cause for understanding. Just ask. Sorry, they're a little bit more familiar with Sanskrit too.

Is it hetu or hetu? Eh. Hetu.

Hetu. Yeah. Yeah, hetu.

Um. There's a trick because the strengthened version of it is I. And they say, um, in the strengthened version, you'll say the weak version in the middle.

So if you try to say I, then on your way from a to saying E, you will be forced to say a. Yeah. It comes from I, I, A, I.

All of that. They're pronouncing it wrong all the years. Yeah, I met a Sanskrit teacher here who demands to call my wife Kendra.

Right, that's right. Who, Pallavi?

[Speaker 2]
Sorry, in the, in verse one, one, it has it spelled H-E-T-U.

[Speaker 1]
No long vowel. Oh, there's no way to, so draw, you don't get a line on it. That just is the E.

You can't put a line on top of an E.

[Speaker 2]
But Pallavi, they're all long, so you don't need to.

[Speaker 1]
The, the, what are called the diphthongs.

[Speaker 2]
Um, okay. There's no such word E. So I don't understand when something is held, when a vowel is held for two beats, but one, what the diphthong is.

[Speaker 1]
Which is A, I, O, O, are all considered long. And it's just the diphthong section of the alphabet. And a diphthong, for those poor translators who never encountered that word, just is the word for a vowel, which consists of two sounds.

So, like the letter I in English is I, I, am, been. Um, and on your way, and so that's considered a diphthong because it has two sounds. And in Sanskrit, we say even A is a diphthong because of its relationship between A and E.

So they're all considered long for no good reason. Yeah. What's the good reason?

Why, why is it long? It's a good reason. A good reason is because, um, Panini said so.

No, it's a Verdi of I. Anyway, we, I'm going to teach Sanskrit later this month. So you can come and learn more about this later.

It's a strengthening of I. Yeah. Okay.

All right.

[Speaker 2]
Well, which is double strengthening is the I.

[Speaker 1]
As opposed to Verdi.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right, cool. Great. So this is the definition of a hetu, okay, or a correct hetu, a correct reason.

One, it should be a ke of the cho. It should be a quality of the reason. So in this case, all right, what is the thing, um, that is the quality of the reason that, excuse me, what is the thing that is the reason which is a quality of the sound of a conch shell?

[Speaker 2]
Because it's brought about through human effort.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, great. Yeah, exactly right. Yeah.

And that is a che, okay, of the cho. It is a quality of the cho that it is brought about by human effort. So, um, cho, che, de, che, okay, what's the, um, what's de here?

[Speaker 2]
We don't, we don't know.

[Speaker 1]
We do. That's, um, go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
It's, well, it's a, de, che, chiapa is about the second and third relationship.

[Speaker 1]
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, de generally just means that same one, okay? Um, that, uh, that same one, meaning what same one?

The, um, the hetu, okay? The, the reason is, uh, chiapa by the che, okay? What's the, what's the che?

That's hard. Well, it was a part. That's a part.

It is a part. Yeah, it is a part. What part did we decide it is?

[Speaker 2]
I think it's about being made.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, great. Yeah. Uh, well, or in this case, um, what was our assertion?

Yeah, great. Um, and look, there's this little booger at the end. Okay.

What's this little, because this, you know, this is cha, okay? This means the part. Uh, but the sa does what to it?

[Speaker 2]
By the part instrumenting, instrumentalizing particle.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right. It's, it's an instrumentalizing particle and should not be explained further. Yeah.

An instrumental means like, like an instrument. Like I am playing Mary had a little lamb on the trombone. You see, uh, that's the instrument involved.

Um, so you could say, or I'm playing it with the trombone or I'm playing it by means of the trombone. Okay. Uh, would be an instrument.

So sometimes they call it instrumental. Sometimes they call it an agent. Which means I am playing it on the trombone.

I'm the agent, or I could hire the trombone to do it for me. And in which case I am the agent. And also the trombone is sort of acting as my agent or instrument in order to achieve Mary had a little lamb.

So you could say it's also, it marks the, the do work a lot of the time. And in this case, it marks the do work of what? Of Yabba.

What's Yabba? The necessary relationship between the quality and the, um, assertion. Yeah.

And what is that between the, yes, the, um, changing the J being, yeah, changing in human effort because changing is the chop. Okay. The part.

And it has to do something. It has to be, it has to cover human effort. Okay.

There are two ways to cover something. You can either be the same size or you can be bigger. If I've got two pieces of paper here, they are the same size.

Can I cover? Okay. This is the two way relationship.

Can I cover the left paper with the right paper?

[Speaker 2]
Not necessarily the same size. No, you can put one perpendicular or, you know, slide one to the left and keep the other one straight up.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, I could probably fail to cover it.

[Speaker 2]
You can.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I can. I can cover it. Right.

Um, can I cover the left paper with the right paper? Good. Did it.

Okay. It is possible to do that. What if I had a smaller piece of paper?

Then I'd only be able to cover one with the other or here. We could just say a cute little picture of Geshe Michael on my desk. Okay.

So can I cover this picture of Geshe Michael with the paper? Yes, no. You could.

But can I cover? Oh, can I cover the paper with the picture of Geshe Michael? So this.

Okay. This paper will cover this paper. Okay.

We'll cover it. This paper will cover poor Geshe Michael. Okay.

But the picture of Geshe Michael cannot Kyaba the paper. Okay. That makes sense.

[Speaker 2]
I thought Kyaba was necessarily so.

[Speaker 1]
It does mean that. It does mean that.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, then I do not agree that the first is Kyaba. Because like I said, you can move it in the other direction and it will not cover.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, it's just a metaphorical Venn diagram in order to explain the principle. Of categorical size. I am not saying that to be a piece of paper is to be a picture of Geshe Michael.

But I'm saying that in order to understand what it is for one thing to necessarily be another. That there are two cases, which is one, if they are equivalent. Then to be one is to necessarily be the other.

And if they are. If one thing is a member of a larger group, that is the other thing. You see, then the larger group covers the little group.

Like the example word gave earlier was cars and Toyotas. Toyotas are a smaller group. And Priuses are a smaller group.

And 2008 Priuses that really need their air conditioner fixed. Are a very particular group that I don't recommend. And I speak from personal experience.

Cool. Ben? Yes.

Just quickly. The last. This reason here.

Instead of human effort. Maybe conscious effort. I like it.

I think you're right. And I took it from Geshe Michael. And I think you're.

I like it. I like what you're saying. And I think it's reasonable.

I think that we're. Using the word human here a little bit. Like we have used the word consort or person sometimes in the past.

But yeah, you're not wrong. That would be more accurate. Because it doesn't got to be a human.

And in fact, I think I saw a seal play a horn at SeaWorld once when I was a kid. Um. Though he just pushed his nose against the squeaky ball.

But I think it would count. The sound of a squeaky seal horn is changing. Because it's made through feel effort.

I think would still be correct. And it's a good point. So in order for a thing to be a correct reason.

Okay, Master Dharmakirti says. Essentially two things. It should be a qi, a quality of the choke.

Okay, made through human effort. Should be something which is true to say about the sound of a shell horn. All right.

And that same thing being made through human effort. Okay, should be covered by. Okay, or to use Utpala's phrasing, which is very much correct.

Should be necessarily included by changing things. Things which are made by human effort are necessarily included by changing things. Are a smaller group than changing things.

All right. Um, this has stalled long enough that I'm confident we can't make much progress. In the text without Geshe Michael, which is good.

Because I can't make much progress in the text without Geshe Michael. But I'm willing to go take a peek now. I am saving my attempted translation for his return.

Um, because I can't tell you whether or not I've come to a meaningful conclusion about it. Um, without his presence. Um, let me see here.

I have some notes. We are all, we have been through all of this. I don't think we could have reviewed that any closer than we did.

This is what Geshe Michael assigned to me that I'm under qualified to deal with. How about, um, good. Oh, of course, my numbers are different.

Yeah. Okay. Let's see.

Adam, you're just sitting there bright eyed and bushy tailed. It'll just go faster if, if you read that for me. I'm starting in Nipa.

Yes. Uh, Nipa Tensek Yehwala. Yeah, um, what's, uh, what's Nipa?

It's with the second of our presentation on the division of reasoning or reasons. Yeah, right. And he put it here, right?

What's the word here that means division? Yeh. Yeah.

Yeah. Great. Yehwa.

Great. Um, different types of reasons. And then, um, uh, so Nipa.

Okay. Tensek Yehwala. Great.

Um, yeah, you got it. Divisions of reasons. Uh, how many divisions of reasons are there going to be?

It looks like, looks like three. Three. Sumba.

Good. And, um, and then, um, three and. What is this?

Uh, why did he say three twice? Uh, sum do yehwa dong. Oh, and this is, this is the reason why we're going to fix them being three in number.

Yeah, that's good. Right. Um, great.

It's sort of three and only three. And I better not get any sass back from you. Um, because I'm going to prove it to you.

Okay. I'm gonna, I'm gonna make it, um, uh, Nipa Drupa. Nipa Drupa is cool.

What is Nipa Drupa? Does it mean proof? Yeah.

Say again, Word. Definitively prove. Yeah, that's nice.

Yeah. I'm going to prove it till you're certain in the face. Good.

Uh, great. Exactly. Um, uh, Dr. Word. Um, it'll just go so smoothly. And it's so impressive when the smart people show off. I don't show off.

What are you talking about? Uh, come on, please do then. Oh, for you, Ben.

Drupa. I'm so sorry. I'm going to stop you.

I'm not supposed to be here. We already did this. I'm sorry.

See, this is what happens when, when you haven't, this is amateur hour. When you have, um, the, the monkeys running the ship, the monkey running the ship, I apologize. I'm a silly man.

Um, we should be, this is not where we left off. And Paula tried her best to alert me to this. Um, but that's okay.

We went through this. I'm supposed to be at one three. And she even wrote me an email when I sent the original material is saying, Oh, Ben, what would be picking up at one three?

Or are you going to review? But we already did our review. Um, so thank you for trying to save me from myself.

Um, but instead, uh, I am still me. How about instead word? You can read the, the root text for good luck.

And then let's try to understand before we tackle that. Um, so for good luck, um, would you sing us the root text?

[Speaker 3]
Um, uh, uh, same on me.

[Speaker 1]
Minjok, but Mela, Minjok, Dribu, Chen. Cool. And then, uh, what does Geshe Geshe Wangchuk have to say on the topic?

[Speaker 2]
He says, um, Cool.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Um, what's, uh, anyone at all? Um, yeah, but just means what?

Uh, anyone who, so only if you don't know. Uh, uh, uh, uh, explain cutely. Um, uh, Paula, what's a shepa do?

Would you explain cutely for people?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. I'm inherently uncute, but, um, I, it's just about experience. The end of the quote.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Great.

It's the end of the quote. I mean, how does English handle this differently than Western Chinese languages?

[Speaker 2]
It uses a closing quotation mark.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, which is, you know, slightly frustrating for translators or editors of poor translators' work to decide where the beginning quote would have been. Here it's easy because it's sing-songy. Yes, sir.

That one isn't the quotation marks. That one is saying what this is saying is, what the quote is saying. OK, I'm open to that interpretation.

But I would also say, in fact, if you sneak over here, because you'll find shē, dēn repeated at the end, you might find – you could put it either way. I'm open to your interpretation, but it also does seem to be the end of a quotation. So is – can you, in English, when you're writing English, you could use quotation marks, and when you're speaking English, you could say, OK, word said this doesn't necessarily mean this.

And by those words, he means – and then that would work as well as a quotation. I – yeah, maybe. But it's true.

He's saying, says – Indirect. Yes. It's indirect discourse as opposed to direct discourse with quotation marks.

I don't know what that means. Oh, sorry. What's indirect discourse?

Indirect discourse is word said that he was going to go to the store. Direct discourse – Oh, that's true. – quotation marks, I am going to the store, and quotation marks said word.

That's cool. That's cool. Yes.

And we even very rarely in English use – we call them air quotes. But generally, quotations are not used in spoken vernacular sometimes. Yeah.

So cool. It does indicate the end of the quotation. So the – yeah.

Who wants to help me hear more? Gibson, what about you? I know you're standing by and helpful.

Kang Yin. Whatever quality that we are going to present. Yeah, that quality.

Yeah, whatever – some quality we're going to present. That's great. Uh-huh.

Zhang Yi, it's always good if you can just get Geshe Michael to do the work for you in advance, which in this case he has done. So by somebody, okay. And tse-mei – what's tse-mei?

Accurate perception. Yeah, he said through the, which is another way of describing the instrumental case, right? This is the trombone on which you are trying to play your perception of the object, or excuse me, on which you are trying to play Mary Had a Little Lamb.

By means of, through the instrument of your tse-mei, okay, you – ma-mi-pa, Gibson. You don't see that, or you don't focus on that. You didn't see it with your tse-mei.

So then that thing, de-mei, okay, that thing. Gi-de-mei. What's ta-che?

Do you know this, Gibson? You give up the two string? Nice.

I had to look it up, but word will know off the top of his head. I like that you're confident in me. Ta-che.

Isn't that reasoning? No. Isn't that sort of reasoning?

Yeah, it's sort of like reasoning. Yeah, I mean, it's – anyone else have thoughts on that? Yeah.

Oh, verify is a gorgeous way of putting it. Yeah, verify, yeah, verify, clarify, analyze the question. Yeah, totally.

To nail down whether or not what. Things exist or not. They exist or not.

Yeah. Mi-re. Wrong.

Naughty. Inappropriate. These lines are saying it's inappropriate to do what.

Can we put it together? It's inappropriate to use a type of tse-ma, which does not have an object, to verify whether things exist or not and other such things. It's great.

You know, we're at time, which means I've really stalled well, but I wanted to use this topic going into our friendly discussion, so I'm into it. Adam? Yeah, I know.

I was just kind of thinking out loud, like something, like an object that wasn't perceived by way of accurate perception, but I don't know if that adds anything. If you don't see something, does that prove it ain't there? No, it would be inappropriate for you to try and verify that it was or wasn't there.

Yeah. If you didn't see it. Just an accurate perception.

Exactly. Yeah. In fact, tse-ma, okay, or tse-mas, okay, prominence, accurate perceptions, which min-ju-pa, which don't enter something, which don't hit something, which don't engage in something, activate into something.

He actually uses the word virti, Christina, which I think is kind of cute, right, because it can mean like a movement of mind or an activity or a presence even. Or technically, he says pra-vir-ti, okay. Accurate perceptions, which don't touch nothing, okay, do have a result, okay, a pa-la.

What's the pa-la? Okay, what do they engage in? Or excuse me, they do result in not min-juke something else, okay.

An accurate perception that doesn't touch something, okay, also doesn't touch what? Something that's not there. Something that doesn't exist.

It doesn't touch them not being there either, okay. It also doesn't touch them not being there, okay. So if I go looking, and he's talking about certain things that we can't see.

And I like this topic, okay, because it means to, I don't know, there's a, I don't know, there's a thing I saw on the internet. There's my first problem. I don't know, you know, who's going to Hatha Yoga Pradeepika that's coming up in a while or who has gone to these previous yoga teachings.

What is ha and ta in Hatha Yoga, okay, sometimes refer to the subtle energies in the body, okay. The left channel, the right channel, in no particular order. Ha often means the sun, ta often means the moon, okay.

So sometimes they say the sun channel and the moon channel. They yoga, they meet, they join, okay, in the central channel. And that this is a higher meaning of ha, ta, yoga.

If you go, okay, don't do this, all right. But if you go look this up on the internet, don't do this, all right. You're going to get an article by some guy saying that this was made up by Westerners in recent history.

Now that's not true. There is an original commentary to the Hatha Yoga Pradeepika, okay, called the Jyotish by Brahmananda. And this guy just didn't read that.

He just didn't know. He didn't know there's a commentary. It's okay.

Commentary is about 400 years old. He didn't happen upon it. That's okay.

People ask me all the time. Ben, did you, you know, I heard this thing about Buddhism or history or history of language. And, and I ain't heard of it.

Does that prove it's not there? No, it does not. Does the fact that this guy never heard from his teacher or never happened to read the thing about ha and ta, meaning the sun and moon channel.

Does that prove that some turkey made it up recently? No, we're talking about a multi-millennial tradition. Many multi-millennial traditions coming together on what I think is currently or about to be at least the most populous continent on earth.

Though, you know, it seems like, yeah, or country on earth, excuse me, seems like China and India are doing battles for the most people. And it's very impressive. So over the last few millennia of ancient Indian history, how many things have I heard of?

I'm trying to collect a lot of stuff and it's going well and I'm enjoying the process. And the number of things that I didn't see still vastly outweigh. So now he's talking in particular that there are certain things that we are not tuned to see, I think.

That there may be forces around us that are not always obvious to us. He's even going to talk to some extent about spirits. I'm not telling you to believe in spirits.

I have no idea if there are spirits because I never saw spirits. And the fact that I never saw spirits also doesn't verify that there are no such thing as spirits. Because they're already supposed to be something that I couldn't see anyway.

But can you see, looking around the room, can you see emptiness? Can you see with your eyes the fact that the world is made out of the extent to which you have crafted a loving heart? You can't see it.

You need some other tools to be able to see that. Like a whole Pramanavartika or something. A commentary on clear thinking, essentially.

We can see emptiness if we have a direct perception of emptiness, right? Yogic. Yeah, well, yogic.

I mean, Adam adds the word yogic because he and I had a very sweaty conversation the other night, concerned about this problem of direct... Was it us? No.

Yes, maybe. Direct perception and how that's... Yeah, how yogic direct perception is going to work?

No, maybe it wasn't. We had another sweaty conversation. We sometimes call each other in desperation about dharmakirti.

Yeah, it's a special kind of direct perception. Oh, I think it was Nick and I. Yeah, they say a yogic direct perception, which is supposed to be a funny kind of direct perception because in this school...

You know, Adam, you've read more on the school than me now. I'm just still stuck on the baby levels. But it should be illegal to have a direct perception of selflessness in this school because selflessness is an unchanging thing, right?

Yeah. Yeah. But it's weird, though, because I started to...

Like at some point in your book, your first book, we went through the divisions of the second school and there was a distinction made about followers. There is actually a subgroup within the second school that tend to lean more mind only. Yeah, I remember that.

So there are actually followers or practitioners of the second school which tend towards mind only belief. Belief in the only school, which I thought was pretty interesting because it appears that Master Dharmakirti will stretch his ontology. What will stretch his kind of view of what exists and what doesn't, depending on where he needs to go.

Yeah, right. Any yogic direct perception would fall into that particular area. It's its own whole special category of meditative.

You could almost, in this context, I think, use the word meditative direct perception. You could translate yoga here as in-deep meditation. Let's talk practical applications while we have a few seconds.

I just wanted to mention... No, I asked you, I thought. That was a...

[Speaker 3]
I was coming at you.

[Speaker 1]
I thought you were very skillfully kind of already directed into the discussion there, sir. That was a very nice segue. I hope.

My big thought was humility, was just always remembering. I saw in another yoga book recently, I don't know, they phrased it really nicely. They said, lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack.

Lack of evidence is not evidence for a lack. I thought that was a very elegant way of putting it. And I find helpful to myself to remember, just because I ain't heard of something.

Well, Ben ain't heard a lot of... There's lots of stuff that Ben ain't heard of. And that doesn't really prove a whole heck of a lot.

That Ben didn't happen to have heard of something. Yes, Christina. Medieval logic.

They had a black swan problem. They proposed that, are there black swans or not? And people hadn't seen any in those days.

And they said, just because nobody's seen one doesn't mean there are no black swans. Great. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, typically, I want to say that the application here would be towards proving something like the fact that karma has results, right? I mean, it's also something you can't see or something like past and future lives.

And these are directly applicable to our practice, our day-to-day life. I mean, in a sense, they would inform our every movement, our every thought, our every perception. So, I mean, and this is just the way I kind of understood maybe where logic and reasoning applies to the path, which is you have to use them in order to deduce that things like past and future lives exist or that something like karma and its results are true and efficacious.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And then you have, yeah, you kind of got to follow that through to the path of, you know, from the perspective of the second school on to nirvana. That's great. Anyone else, any meaningful application to your life?

Did you think, oh, you know, that's going to fix the rest of my day or what I have to do tomorrow? Now that I know that, because please, Dojo, it's wonderful to see you. I've been so happy seeing you in class.

[Speaker 2]
Please say hi to Kendra. I will. I figured out something that's really interesting, if you would like to listen to this.

When we talk about mushimusu, right, the two things, they can't be equal to each other. If they are, then mushimusu doesn't stand.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Right? It's true.

It's one of the basic premises of mushimusum is that they have to be different things. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to belong to the same, that they can't belong to the same category. Excuse me.

They belong to different categories. However, those things, you can't compare things that are synonymous.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but when we are saying that something, if something is changing equals to something is made, we're using that, you know, we're using that. We were even trying to do the mushimusu on them, but it's invalid because, but we can't, we can't. But the logic proof is valid, right?

Because there will be, if changing is equal to made, then it's not mushimusu, it's muni, right? Because A not B doesn't exist. B not A not exist.

Both A and B exist, but not A and not B.

[Speaker 1]
Wait, wait, wait, wait, slower. A changing thing. Okay.

Something that is both changing and made, for example. Yeah. Sound.

Great. Something that is neither changing nor made, for example. Emptiness.

Yeah, great. Something that is changing but not made.

[Speaker 2]
Not a thing.

[Speaker 1]
Should be illegal. Something that is made but not changing.

[Speaker 2]
Doesn't exist.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, great. See, Duoduo is saying that, look, it's not true that any two things in the universe are necessarily mushi or musum because you've only got mu two here, muni. Adam says, look, it is true because those ain't two things.

Yeah. And that is typically what they say, is that these are ways of comparing two different things. Yeah, that's, it's good.

It's a, yeah, it's a good point. Can you do anything with that, Angela? Is that gonna, when you leave your house, apartment, or ethereal bubble to go walk into the world today, can you use it?

[Speaker 2]
I don't know. It's just, I feel like I'm a logic freak here.

[Speaker 1]
Just a quick- Welcome aboard. I mean, I don't know. I'm just riffing here.

Like, if you have sound but you can also have the opposite of everything that is not sound, right? Would those two be the same thing? Or are they referring to the same category?

Ah. I would present that maybe we could consider it that way. I have to give the reins over to Juan here in a second, who I assume is standing by, okay?

And I just, I want to part with some words just so that we're not left in a, you know, a morass, a dull drama, a thick swamp of general ramblings of logic. Master Dharmakirti is offering us a way to think clearly and to use reasons. How often in your life do you use reasons?

Pretty much all- Everything you do. Yeah, great. Pretty much all the time.

The alarm clock goes off in the morning, and I don't know if everyone in the world has snooze buttons or if it's just a sickness that was wished upon American culture. But you have this button where you can say, I want to sleep later than I decided I definitely needed to get up. And then you think to yourself, well, I can sleep a little longer because...

Okay, or whatever, Ben's trying to lose some weight here, but I can have another bite of food, or I can have dessert because...

[Speaker 3]
I'm on holiday.

[Speaker 1]
I'm on holiday, after all. Or I should shut up and stop talking because it's not fair to take time from the Petri World News. How often are we using reasons?

I would put forth that probably we're using reasons for everything we do all day, and we don't know how to make reasons. But we're doing it anyway. It's like we're flying blindfolded a high-speed aircraft through the critical details of our life.

And we're learning how to drive. We're learning how to drive our lives by learning how to think clearly and try to understand. In the end, the goal is to understand the mechanism of reality, to understand this relationship between our heart and the world we see.

I've got, I don't know, what, 20 people? No, 25 people on my screen? Is that how it works?

But there's 187 people here who all see me a little bit differently, even than I see myself. And who's right? Yeah, what's the one perspective that beats them all?

What's the final perspective that is not under the influence of the way you've treated others in the past? No such thing. There's no such thing.

Your version of me is correct for you, and my version of me is correct for me. And Kendra often points out when my version about me is dubious. And so that means we can change.

And that means we can change. And that means our service of one another changes the shape of our heart, changes the shape of our eyes. They have a saying, putting on rose-colored glasses, you see the world more.

You could say putting on love-colored glasses or something. It doesn't take anything but filling the people around you with as much love as you can, surrounding yourself with as much love and kindness as you can. And then you'll be helpless but to see the world through love-colored glasses.

And it will be true what you see for you. And then you just have to help Ben learn to put on the same glasses. Juan, are you standing by?

Hello, Ben. We win. Hi, my friend.

How are you? Good. I'm so glad you're here.

Thank you so much for doing this twice a week. You're good at this. It's been really fun.

I'm glad to hear, and I think it's very beautiful to be able to provide fun time for people. Just today I was talking with Tim and other friends about it. And it seems to me that when we have fun together and we develop some form of friendship, any other project flows or develops beautifully.

And we get some form of energy when we are having fun. It contributes to the success of our virtuous missions and ideas. So, God bless.

That's wonderful. Yeah, it's a great virtue. There's this old story I think of the one of the first Panchen teacher, who supposedly he had this long life and did all these virtuous things.

And someone asked him, what was the most virtuous thing you ever did? And he stopped wars. He like walked out into battlefields and stopped wars.

This was an incredible guy. He said, the coolest thing I ever did was start a prayer festival in my hometown, a Dharma party. Because he said, rejoicing in the teachings is a goodness without measure.

Having a good time around deep thoughts is a goodness without measure. So, thanks. Thanks for letting us have a good time and bringing us a good time every time.

And I'm going to shut up now and hand you the reins. Thank you, Juan. Well, thank you.

Thank you so much for your encouraging words and for everything that you're doing as well. Today, I want to just share with you that I made it to Kyoto. Because as you may hear in these segments, we have been talking a lot about this wisdom party that is happening in June here in Kyoto.

And I'm going to be reporting and sharing with you some of the ongoing events that are happening. Just first, before we move into that, I want to mention something very cool that is about to happen. Actually, Cristina already talked a little bit about it, but then we're going to go in depth for it.

Just to introduce this idea, I want to share some pictures with you, just to remind you what's happening here, right? So, as you know, we are having these sessions every Saturday, every Monday. Tuesday, if you're in Asia, and it's basically the Shuangshan Tower project, the translation project.

I would like to share these pictures with you. Just in case you find them useful or helpful, you could take a picture of the poster or a screenshot. And then if you want, you can share with your friends if you want to encourage them to sign up.

But the idea of this project is, of course, for one, we learn the content of these ancient, ancient and wonderful ideas. But also, we study the ancient classics, the sources of these amazing topics. And we learn how to translate them into modern language from their original language, mostly, in this case, Tibetan language.

So, in order to keep this project going, there is like a very cool initiative that Geshe Michael came up with. And then I think finally I learned to pronounce it well. And it's the Good Night Book Club.

I hope it's okay. And this includes this idea that if you sign up for it, you're going to get this valise where the idea, the game, the dynamic of this plan is. At nighttime, we put aside our electronics.

We stop like spending time in front of the screen. And we instead try to spend time reading some of the wonderful translations that are the result of this program. And that's the next picture.

So, for people that want to sign up for this, the first level that you sign up with, if you want to get access to get these materials and to get books on a constant basis, you can start. Well, depending where in the world you are. But let's say the United States, you start with $30 a month.

But now, the reason why I'm talking about this right now, or one of the reasons is because right now there is going to be an extra value added to this topic. Sorry, to this project. If you sign up for the Good Night Book Club, now you're going to get entitled to another very cool project.

And we have Ina here with us to talk a little bit about what is this going to be about. So, I would like to welcome Ina and tell us what are the exciting news that are going to be included if you sign up for the Book Night Reading Club. Now I say it wrong.

[Speaker 2]
Good Night Book Club. By the way, here is my valise.

[Speaker 1]
Amazing.

[Speaker 2]
And the locker. And the book. The valise is not for the book.

It's for the computer. So, I would like to thank Christina Kasica because she volunteered to set up a baby Sanskrit course. Because Sanskrit is a very important language in our lineage, in our system.

And this is a language all the Buddhists speak and your body speaks, right? It helps to make progress in your practice just to try to learn it. And we do not want to overwhelm people.

And for subscribers, we decided to do a small course. Christina is here. Maybe she can give more details.

But we were talking like about 10 classes that will help you to start pronouncing correctly. I didn't realize it's that much different from our, I mean, I speak four languages, right? It doesn't sound like any of them.

So, you will be able to pronounce correctly and especially pronounce your mantras correctly if you do mantras. So, if you are a Good Night Book Club subscriber, then we will offer for you for free this opportunity to attend these classes with Christina. And they will be on Thursdays, 9 a.m. Arizona Central World Time, 11 a.m. Chicago Central World Time, 6 p.m. European Time. So, join us. If you are a subscriber, then you will get an invitation via your emails. And also, we will share more information next week.

[Speaker 1]
Very well, very well. Thank you very much. We'll be excited to get the QR code.

Oh, there is Christina. Hi, Juan and Inna. May I just also say, I was talking to Geshe Michael about it the other day, Inna.

And he said he doesn't so much like the idea of a baby class. He said, make it bigger. So, what I'm thinking is that we will have a first series, which will be kindergarten.

Kindergarten, yeah. But let's think of it, if there is interest, it could become part of something bigger for a Sanskrit series.

[Speaker 2]
You know, interesting, because I was thinking that this will be our, like, can I say a trap, you know? Like, it is easy, will not take much time. Like, no homework, you know.

And then it will be like level zero. But more profound, you will learn the cool Devanagari alphabet. And then it will be too late for you to back up.

Right, we'll get you. But we're going to, I think, and I will write to you about this, but he just said it.

[Speaker 1]
He said, let's just call it organic Sanskrit. And this could be series kindergarten. Yeah.

Okay, so people in the chat are already excited and interested about it. They want to know how to sign up for it. And as Ina say, as far as I understand, you're going to get, if you are already registered for the Good Night Book Club, you're going to get an email with a special invitation.

But also soon we're going to be sharing with you a QR code or a registration link with a poster or something very pretty, I bet. To keep encouraging you to join and to attend these classes of organic Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and if you are a Good Night Book Club subscriber, then you will get the email automatically as an invitation. So don't worry if you are subscribed already.

[Speaker 1]
Perfect. So thank you very much. And soon we will be hearing more about this project with you.

This is just the very first time of the many we will be talking about it, I hope.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you all the translators for your work.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much. And just quickly, I would like to share about something very cool that happened today. Today was the, well, first, just to let you know, as Ben mentioned before, Geshe Michael is already traveling to Asia.

And among other programs, they're going to be having a CSP program in Mainland China these days. We have a picture for that. That's mostly the reason I understand that he was not in class today, because over here in Asia right now, at least where I am is 1.30 in the morning. So I hopefully want to think that he's hopefully taking a good rest. But this is one of the events that he's going to be attending right now. And here in Kyoto, what just happened is today was the end of Tim's step on the path.

Course number two. It just finished today is the next picture. Yeah, and it was wonderful.

And soon, you know, today it was just like trying to get all the materials, but soon I will be sharing some cool shootings from it. What I want to say is like now next he's planning a very cool thing happening in July 14 and 15. He's going to Taiwan.

And in order to talk about that, I just want to show you a quick video that very kindly Angel I. She she made for us. So could we share the video?

And Tim is one to tell you what's happening in Taiwan.

[Speaker 3]
Hi, my name is Tim. I'm the executive director of the Asian Classics Institute. In this July, we're going to be coming to Taiwan.

I'm July 13, 14 and 15 to give you some special classes on meditation. Not only will learn how to go deeper into their practice, how to develop new skills on how to sustain your meditation and have a consistent practice. We'll also go into how to plant some very powerful seeds and transform our life through meditation.

And in that we're going to learn about the power of generosity. Generosity towards others. Generosity towards ourselves.

And what powerful seeds we can plant to help create the world we want to see. Not only will be doing all of that, we're also going to be releasing Happy Camp 3.0. So we're looking forward to telling you all about that, what that's going to look like. We have a wonderful team in Taiwan planning this event and we're looking forward to seeing you very soon.

Cool.

[Speaker 1]
So there you go. Basically, as I understand what's happening, it's like a two day retreat plus an open talk the day before. A talk the day before, then two days where Tim is going to be talking with the Taiwanese team about, for one, the power of generosity.

And also techniques to start learning to do circle days or like retreats, personal retreats, silent retreats. Soon Tim is going to be joining us to talk more about that. And also one of the main producers, Ai-Chi Angel, she's going to be also soon talking more about this with us.

Just lastly, I would like to let you know that also today in Japan, great teacher John Brady started his series on the Heart Sutra. And we have just a poster to show you what's going on. The poster on the event of J-BILA.

This program is going to be running from, well, whatever today means here. It's June 8th to June 11th, actually. It's going to be extended for a little bit longer.

Here in the poster says the 10th, but actually it's going to be a little longer. And Petri World News is going to try to be there very soon to also catch some of the content and share with the audience what's happening there. It's in a different city, actually.

It's more nearby Osaka. But nothing that a good train cannot help us achieve. And tomorrow the YSI event is also starting.

Here in Kyoto is Errol, Benji, Lisa Lee, Mei Chang. They are organizing this event early morning tomorrow. They are going to begin and we will going to be sharing with you also ongoings on this.

And finally, just to let you know that on the 18th of June, Geshe Michael and Xiaoping Stanley, they are going to be starting their course on DSEU here in Kyoto. And we will try to keep you posted on that as well. So for now, because it's already time, we're going to stop there.

And we're going to try to keep you informed and share more and more materials in these upcoming days. Also, if you want to get to see more about this, you can follow us in social media, especially in Instagram. I'll be trying to share with you stories and what's happening on more like a live face to face situation with the great organizers and events that are happening here.

And we'll see you if everything goes well. We'll see you again on Monday. So for now, that's it.

Have a great day, a great night. Thank you very much. So sending best wishes over there.

Thank you, Juan. Go to sleep. I will.

Thank you for staying up so late. You must love us to be willing to do this. I really appreciate this.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I do love you.

Good night. OK. All right.

Everyone think nice dreams to Juan and Dr. Ward. Yeah. Please.

Oh, yeah. You're going to do the same thing as me. No, you go to sleep.

You're done. That's it. Put your eye mask on.

Good night, my friend. Dr. Ward, are you ready to receive your people? Are you doing that today?

Maybe that's it. Is that it? Is today not a Dr. Ward day?

[Speaker 2]
He's not in Zoom. I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know. Did he? Are there people who?

It's up to him. He gets to decide. I think maybe did he decide he's not doing Saturdays?

I don't know. If he reappears, then oh, no more Golden Key Saturdays. Only Mondays.

Thank you, Mike. OK. No.

Everybody go to sleep or go face your day or make dinner. Or take a nice walk around the block. It's been a delight.

Thank you so much, everybody. Have a beautiful day. Have a beautiful sleep.

Have a beautiful evening, afternoon, morning. And we will see you in just a couple days on Monday. Bye-bye.

Thank you so much, Worldview Production Team. Translators. Friends.