Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 43

[Speaker 1]
All right, all right. Oh, it's time. Geshe Wangchuk Benkramer.

That's what it said. True enough. Hi, everybody.

I'm here, I'm with him. Good, good. Hi, Mike, how are you?

Pretty good. Hang in. Good.

Yeah, it's a beautiful day, evening, morning, whatever it is, wherever you are. Thanks for tuning in to Xuanzang's Tower. We're here to provide you with high grade comedy and entertainment, and hopefully some understanding of the deep and difficult concepts contained within ancient classical texts that we preserve and translate together forever.

And tonight we're working on Ben's. Okay, should I, I guess I should start, right? No, no time like the present.

Take it away. Okay. Let's see.

Something like this one. Maybe I'll just share the whole screen so I don't have to think. Whoa, everybody stop looking at my homework.

Oh, God, I've done. All right, sorry, bear with me. Naughty, you're also naughty looking at the homework.

Adam's already reciting it. Like, I remember pacing around and reciting it. Paraphrase, okay, better.

If you read it that quickly and mastered it, then you deserve the answers that you'll give. Sure. When an ordinary person cannot see an object then what can we say for certain about that object?

It's hidden. Okay, is that right? Everybody agree with Nick?

There's chats. Oh, it's absent. That's not a crazy guess.

How about this? In the meantime, why don't you give me the Tibetan? Sure.

Oscar says the object cannot be seen for them, right? Yeah, or not. Give me, if you would, please, the Tibetan term for a proof for the absence of an object.

Oh, I know what word you're looking for. Oh, good. But how well do you know the word?

You know that there is a unique word for it. There it is, there it is. Don't look in the chat.

Oh, that's so beautiful, Paul, helping you out. That's the one. Yeah, my mic baked out.

Right, cool. Interestingly, an ordinary person's failure to see an object doesn't necessarily prove anything. For example, I can't see a coin in your pocket right now, but that doesn't prove that it isn't there because I can't see into your pocket anyway.

On the other hand, if I can't see a coin in my own open hand in front of my face, then this could prove the absence of that coin since my eyes should be able to detect this object if it were in fact present in my hand. And so we have this distinction of different types of absences. There's the absence of an object for someone who should be able to see it versus the absence of an object for someone who may or may not be able to see a given thing.

And we'll have more examples of that soon. In fact, would you kindly give an example used in class for a, well, let's see, of a proof for an absence based on opposite pairs and please do give the term for a pair of opposites. Oh, there it is, Oscar, in the chat, in the three-point line.

Yeah, gelnda. Gel means to oppose or contradict. Nda means a pair.

Kunda can mean a spouse, a partner. Ndala, the moon, is the pair, the sun's buddy, I'm sure they have a position. Yes.

Say again, Pei-Ling.

[Speaker 2]
Do you need to use the example? Give the example used in class. Must give you the example that we use in class.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, please.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, I don't remember.

[Speaker 1]
I would settle, I mean, in an emergency situation where no one is answering, I would settle for any example. Let's take Stanley's house that's covered in fire. There's no continued existence of the feeling of cold.

Yeah, why not? G too. Because they're gelnda.

Okay, yeah, because it's covered in fire. Yeah, it sounds good. That was correct.

I just, in this case, the example said a place to the east, but I think Utpala's example is perfect. A place that is totally covered with raging fire. There's no consistent sensation of cold there because it's a place totally covered with raging fire.

All right. Oh, this, okay, here's a hard one. I hope, maybe not.

No, I don't hope. Within the traditional, okay, within the traditional categorization of reasons is the reason above formally considered, you get two choices, okay? It's either A, okay, let's look at it again, okay?

A place to the east totally covered in raging fire. There's no consistent sensation of cold there because it's totally covered in raging fire. So is it, whoops, a reason based on the identity of a thing since to be a place totally covered in fire is to be a place without consistent cold?

Or is it a reason which is based on results since raging fire must be a result, or maybe you could say must result. I think I should say in heat as opposed to cold. Hmm.

No. Like neither A nor B? Why?

Well. Why or why not? Go ahead, Peiling.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, thank you, thank you. If you say reason based on result, that must be a relationship, cause and effect. In this case, I didn't see there is a relationship, cause and effect, so.

[Speaker 1]
Well, raging fire must result in heat, you see? So cold would be the wrong result. So that's why it could be B.

So are you picking A instead, Peiling? Peiling? And keep in mind, I'm a dirty trickster.

[Speaker 2]
I think in this example, this is a negative logic statement, but the answer that A and B, both A and B is positive logical statement. Yay.

[Speaker 1]
Hmm, boy, very nice. Right, and Geshe Michael had a cute little note in the text at this point that says, the ma-mit-ba-nis overrides the the cause-nis or the identity-nis. So you're exactly right.

It's neither. Though we could apply concepts of identity or cause and effect to such reasons, those are reserved in our categorization system for proofs of the presence of a thing as opposed to proofs of the absence of a thing. All right, cool.

Now, as if that wasn't enough trouble, let's go here. Let's see if we can figure out where we are. Oh, I have so many.

You can't tell, but I have too many labels and windows and pictures and people and chats in front of me. Here we go. I think.

Oh, here's that cute little note. You see? Note that the ma-mit-ba-nis overrules the dre-bu-nis in the category of dot.

All right, so we just covered that. Okay, so just to double-check where we were, the first homework question was sort of covered up here in the first half of verse three. So these words explain that it's not reasonable to decide whether or not some existing thing is present based on someone's failure to see it.

We need to know more about that person to know whether or not we're interested in them having seen it or not seeing it. I'm not that interested to know that you can't see the coin in my pocket when you don't even know if I'm wearing pants. Anyway, so the next item, on the other hand, let's, who wants to read the Sanskrit?

Ooh. That's new. Was that an ooh, or was that an ew?

No, no, it's an ooh. That's not in the version of the text that I have. Oh.

I think it was up here, and I just, for ease, I took the second half of the verse and I moved it down here. Thank you. Just for this moment, for this, just to wrap my mind around this, yeah, this discussion.

Okay, let's see. Let me check the chat to pick one of the 75 people who volunteered to read the Sanskrit. I think 195 people did.

Marvelous. Let me see. Well, all right.

How about someone, how about someone, do we have someone Russian who would read it? I heard that Sanskrit is closer to Russian. We may, but this is a weird time zone for people who live over that way.

I mean, this time doesn't work so well with their time zone. Okay, that's fine. Also trying to see whose lips aren't moving for translation purposes.

Oh, look. Only if it's my lips. Yes, Maria, please go ahead.

[Speaker 3]
Asajnanya, kala, kachit, hetu, heda, vyapekshyaya.

[Speaker 1]
Beautiful, great. Thank you so much. And as reward and punishment, you can now read the Tibetan.

[Speaker 3]
Ten, sik, che, drakla, tuni, nga, shik, mi, she, dravu, chen.

[Speaker 1]
Good, dravu, good. The S at the end of the dra here, this little S makes it say dra instead of dra. Otherwise it was basically perfect, which is embarrassing for us long time students.

Let's look at the verse here and then we can come back and decide if that's an appropriate translation. Maria, don't turn off your camera. Don't go away.

Let's do one more. Here, here. Well, hold on.

I'm going to move this. So it's all on one. Good.

[Speaker 3]
Shepa, dechu, kangyi, yangrangla, nangrungdu, yu, pade, ranggi, ma, mikna, demepar, trup, nyu, pey, nangrungma, mikpey, tek, ten.

[Speaker 1]
Good. Wow. Are you learning to understand any or just read some?

Do you know any of these words? Do you know? Do you know Shepa?

[Speaker 3]
I've been out of practice, so.

[Speaker 1]
That's okay. All right. Well, you can, people can shout out or they can say in the chat, what is Shepa here?

This quote. Yes. Deal.

Quoted. Good. This quote.

Good. Yes. Thank you, Upala, Tracy.

What about day? I kind of wish Sugeng were here for that. It came a lot, came up a lot on Saturday for him.

That quote is going to be doing something. Yeah, it's that quote. Yeah.

And Upala pointed out that it's doing something, which is this little S when you squish an S onto something, then it means that it's doing something. That quote is doing something. In fact, usually, and especially in such a tiny paragraph, we can peek at the very last word usually and find the verb.

What does this verb mean, somebody? Teaches. Yeah.

Yeah. Demonstrates. Yeah, what are these words doing?

Demonstrates. Yeah, they're teaching something. They're demonstrating.

They're explainitating. Take that, translators. Good, let's see what is being explaineditated.

Ch means anyone? A number of different things. Right, in fact, that is even a potential translation of the word.

Especially if you add kang yin, which you could almost translate this as kang yin yang, any number of different things, as Upala said. Rang, rang la, I think.

[Speaker 2]
To me.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, to me. Yeah, it could be to you, could be to me, to one's self, we could say. Nang.

Appear. Yeah. Rung.

Could. Should. Yeah, should, I like could or should.

I've been feeling sympathetic towards should lately in this context. Yeah. Yipa.

Exists. Yeah. Good.

Day. That. Yeah.

Thing is. Right. Then, then, here's, rang gi, we had rang la, we had to me, or to one, and now we have rang gi, means that what's rang up to now?

What is one's self up to now? They are. Not there.

Well. Not seen. They're not meeting, yeah, great, that's it.

Gil say stepped in to straighten you folks out. Good. Yeah, nah.

If. Cool, so if you don't see that existing thing that should appear to you, whatever that thing may be, well then, day. That thing.

Yeah. Mipa. It ain't there.

Yeah. Drup, let's say Drup Nupa. You can prove.

Yeah, you can prove. That that thing ain't there. Well, how would you do it?

Well, you're gonna, what you're gonna need is a. Oh. Nang rung ma mi pay da.

Nice. Yeah, if I could trouble you for one. Mm-hmm.

You're gonna use a reason based on not seeing what should appear. So let's see if this made sense up here. Let's see.

Tensik jay dak lak tuh ne. Tuh ne? Mm-hmm.

Going backwards. From relying upon that kind of. Yeah, from relying along, yeah, what?

Tensik jay dak. Well, what Tensik we know means what? Reasoning.

Yeah, jay dak. This is, it's like. Particular reasoning.

This means, yeah, particular reasoning. Yeah, right, like chi jay dak. We say qualities and things that are characteristic of qualities.

General things and specifics. There's some specific, Tensik, right, that what, as a, have a draebu. As a result.

Result. Yeah, have a result of me she. You know it ain't there.

Yeah, of knowing that nga she is missing. Some stuff. Yeah, something or other.

That might be a good translation. Yes, something or other. You have to, yes, leave out the M with, for an apostrophe.

It's called an elision. Cool. Let's pick a reader.

Hunting. Hunting for a reader. Come on, no cameras?

There you. Let's see. Sharon, are you a reader?

You have your camera on. Yeah, yes, you. With your hand up and your finger on your nose.

You're translating. I didn't see your lips moving during my witty banter about looking for a translator. That's okay.

Oh, well, suddenly Earl Burney's camera is on. That cannot be a coincidence. Dr. Burney. Looking out for you, trying to ease your pain, man. In fact, I think you could say that if Earl Burney's camera is on, he wants to read Sanskrit. Oh, damn, Sanskrit.

Oh, what a good idea. Go for it, Sanskrit.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I want double the money though.

[Speaker 1]
Sure, I'll give you countless multiples of the money that I had planned to give you. Here we go. Virudhah kar-yo siddhir a-siddhir hetu bhava-yo dhirsya manor abhava-ta abhavar-ta nu-palab-dish chatur-vidhah.

Great, cool, and the Tibetan? Sure. Gyal-dang-dre u-dak-drup-dang gyu-dang-go-ngo-ngo-tar-rung-way.

Dak-ni-dang-ni-ma-drup-pa-mey-dun-chen-mi-nik-nam-shi. I'll take it. Thank you.

While you're here, keep going.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1]
All right, here we go. You don't have to read the numbers. Che-pe-sik-che-de-nang-rung-ma-mik-pe-tak-shi-sen-shi-dang-che?

Ye. Ye. Ye.

Ye-wa. Ye-wa. High tone.

I always hear it in the Three Stooges voice. Yay! Ye-wa-mu-su-ten-te-drel-way-rang-shin.

I'll take it. Tak-su-ke-ne-nga-la-la. Gyal-nda, yeah, gyal-nda.

We love this word today. Ngop-rang-shin-drel-mik-dang. Gyal.

Nge-dre-wu-tak-su-ke-ne-ndrel. Say ngel. Only because you keep getting this word, you poor son of a gun.

It's not fair, but that's just ngel. Ngel. Ngel-la.

Ngop-pa-ngel-dre-mik-pa-ni. Brilliant, okay, good. Thank you.

All right. What's che-pa, Earl? This'll tell us a lot about what was going on before he turned his camera on.

We had it a moment ago, but you're not beholden to be staring at our every breath. Che-pa is an ending quotation mark, if you like. We don't need beginning quotation marks.

We only do ending quotation marks, and that is sometimes very confusing. Generally, you can tell where to put the beginning quotation mark, but not always. Sik-che, do you or does anyone know sik-che?

Sik is words, like clear words or something? Yeah, it is like that, right. So in this context, what do you think?

Does that give you a feeling? Especially since you've got this day here. Uh-huh, che-pa, she-pay, tic-tac-hay.

What this verse says. Yeah, keep in mind, you just did all this reading. You wanna know what those words are?

Here's a mystery. Why don't we see the word den like we did last time, right? We had this nice moment up here where we had this nice, pretty little verb here taught or explained, followed by the che-pa.

Why don't we see it here? Because it's a run-on sentence. Yeah.

We do see it. Who's we, Kimo Sabe? Oh, yeah, we do.

That's true. That's true. Unfortunately, I think the big den is here.

Oh, it's a big den. Thanks. I've been working it out.

Hmm. Yeah. Is this where?

Yes, here. I'll move this down so we can put it all in one place. Yeah, so, day, thems, tic-chays.

Those verses are denning. They're teaching, explaining, or demonstrating. There we go.

What, let's see. Oh. Yeah.

Here we go. Yeah. What's a nangrungmamikbe dot?

We just had that in the previous paragraph. A reason that shows the absence of something that should appear. Yeah, cool.

How many of those do you suppose there are? Four.

[Speaker 2]
Four.

[Speaker 1]
Hey, you got me. Uh-huh. Now, you know what I could use if we're gonna get an understanding of these four?

It'd be great if we could just get some tenchis and some yehwahs. Yehwahs, yeah. Classical example and divisions.

Yeah, that'd be great, right? Some classical examples and divisions. Ngusu ten.

What's, well, we had ten. In fact, Nick pointed out that it's the same verb that we were otherwise gonna be patient and wait for, which is what again? Demonstrate.

Demonstrate. Yes, demonstrate. Demonstrate, explain, teach.

We're gonna ngusu ten. Or it was ngusu ten? It's the actual explanation.

It looks like it. We're gonna ngusu ten. I think we better ngusu ten.

I struggled with this because it seems like it's saying here that these words directly. Ah, shepetik ten. Teach examples and divisions.

Totally, that is what it looks like it says. But we'll look in a minute and see if we think that's true. But that's what it seemed to say to me.

The problem is I'm not convinced that the verses do that, but it does look like maybe it says that. So we can glance upward in a moment. Let's see if we can get a little further.

That dictionary that are written by people like us says that that's a phrase meaning to thoroughly comprehend. Was that ngusu ten? Oh, yeah, but to thoroughly comprehend.

The divisions in the, the four divisions in the. Yeah, but we've still got, what bothers me is that senshi. We can talk about it in a minute.

I don't see any classical examples up here. You know, look, this is gonna go on a little while. So let's glance, let's grout, let's look because I need your help here.

And time is precious. geldang dang, uh, well, here, we should probably go here first. Let's see.

Yeah, that's fine. Gel. Contradiction.

Dandrebu. Result. And it could be and, or, with, who knows.

[Speaker 2]
Those two.

[Speaker 1]
Those guys. Yeah, those two, right. In fact, I'll tell you something cute.

How do we, what is, why two? Why did doc mean two? Doc doesn't mean two.

Doc means. It's a, like, it's a pluralizer, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I'll tell you something cute. Dualizer, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you check the Sanskrit, the Sanskrit has a dual. Right. It's a, it's a dual case marking particle because in Sanskrit, if, if you got two, you gotta say two.

You can't say many. So, right, anyway, it is in the Sanskrit. Yeah.

Two. Establish. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, let's see. Dang.

Oh, okay, so gyu. Cause. Great.

And ngo. Essential something. Yeah.

Darumwa. Blatar. Yeah, what's this dar?

I came to some conclusion earlier. Do you consider? Yeah, great, I like it, yeah.

Yeah, right. Yeah. To look or read or see.

Suitable to see. Yeah, great, good, yeah, great, yeah. Reasonable to consider or reasonable to look at.

Reasonable for something to see. Appear. Dogmeat.

Self. Yeah. It is self.

It can be self. I think it means that entity in this case. That thing.

Itself, maybe that thing itself? Yeah. Madhupa.

Ain't there.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Isn't established. Yeah. Yeah.

Me. Means doesn't exist. Dun can be like the object that we're talking about, okay.

Mimic, we don't see it. Okay, so I, look, I struggle with this. And you guys will have to help me, you all folk.

It seems that there are four.

[Speaker 3]
Chief.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Mimic nom, cases of not seeing something, okay. Or absences.

And they are. Gel and Drabo, okay. Contradiction and.

Results.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Established results. Right. There's something contradictory or there's a contradictory result or there's, there is an essence or a cause that should appear.

Okay. And then based on these four, we will decide whether that thing is Madhupa, is not there. I don't.

Found it to be, it attaches to Dakini. Yeah, right. Yeah, right.

For a thing that would be suitable to see. The absence of what, let's see. Yeah, what does not appear, right.

Somehow we've got to say that should, right. Isn't it, isn't that Agigui kind of like attaching the third line to the first two lines, like it's not specific to the, to that particular, part like one of the four, but rather it's saying these four, if these four then, and that entity doesn't appear, then it's these four kinds of absences or something. Yeah.

I think, I mean, I do think that the, probably that the Agigui is saying that it's a type of object, which would be rungwa appropriate for someone to see or consider. Even Dersh to look at, to see. An Atma, look, it's Dershi Atma.

You see? Yeah. But it's not rungwa, it's, yeah, I see.

Uh-huh. You don't, oh, well. Do you speak it out loud?

For those of us who don't see? Speak which out loud? Well, you put Atman, see?

Well, what is, does Atman? Oh, I did a highlight. Oh, here.

Yeah, Atman is dak. Atman is dak, is an entity. Dersh means to see or to look.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, sure. So let's see now, okay?

Keep this in the back of our mind. We may need to go back and compare this. But this bothered me because I don't see classical examples here.

I see yehwa and I don't see tsenchi. Right. Right.

So I'm confused because here it says these words here in terms of a thing that would be appropriate to appear that isn't appearing. These four reasons, okay? These words, it seems like, should elucidate or directly explain or thoroughly demonstrate tsenchi and yehwa.

So I don't know. Maybe he is going to. Maybe based on those words, then he's going to.

These words give the four, but then he's gonna drag them out. He's gonna help us. So let's see how well he can help us.

And there's a nice division here with this day. It seems like Geshe Michael has given us numbers for the four lesson. Uh, let's see.

Yeah. Gelwegan shin taktsu k'ne. What's taktsu k'ne?

Whatever you put forth as a reason, or just when that, yeah. Yeah, I mean, we're gonna put forth something. Whether it's a reason or not, we're gonna put forth.

Um, right. Uh, gelwegan shin. Contradictory in nature.

Yeah, right. Could be contradictory in nature, or sometimes in this context, it's meant identity. Okay, but yeah.

And then we're gonna gokpa.

[Speaker 2]
We did. Refute.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, um, gelnda. Let's ask. It's on your homework.

Contradictory. But I forget. Yeah, right.

So I guess we're going to refute, um, based on contradictory pairs by presenting, um, a contradictory nature by putting forth a reason that contradicts, okay? Putting forth a thought, a reason, that has a contradicting nature based on knowing a pair of things that should contradict each other. So if there's a whole bunch of heat, um, then we can set that forth as a reason to contradict a whole bunch of cold, maybe.

And it looks like we can do that in how many ways? I'm guessing four. Let's see.

You would think. Or two. Ah, I was hoping Paula would cleverly.

Yeah, look, it looks like there are two ways to do that. So I think these four can be divided into two pair. And it seems like these are the two, uh, which rely on contradictory pairs being set forth as reasons.

So let's see. This first one. Um, um, yeah.

Oh, is this? No, I'm sorry, guys. That, that is one.

I think actually these two, um, they're the gelmdre mikani. I was wrong. So let's see.

Okay, we're gonna set forth the first one we gave, and now I see, I think Geshe Michael put the numbers after, not before. So it looks like setting forth a contradicting nature or a contradictory identity as a reason to contradict something, or, um, let's see, setting forth. Okay, here's this kane again.

A doc, a what? Reason. Which is a drebu.

Reason. Which is a result. Yeah.

Contradictory result. Yeah, that, yeah, a contradictory result, um, to the, what, rangshin gelmik? I mean, yeah, to, so it seems like we can rule out something with a reasoning that points out the presence of something that is mutually exclusive with that thing in a way that we can call, um, like seeing a natural opposite or something, okay?

Why did you put that in quotes? What made you decide that that was like a name? I, you know, I'm thinking that one is called the rangshin gelmik and the other one is called, um.

Gelmikpa. Yeah, I am, right? A contradictory, they're seeing a contradictory nature, okay, or a contradictory identity or seeing a contradictory result.

Yeah, right, cool. Okay, and then seeing a contradictory result would be a case where you can gopa, um, deny something based on a gelmda, a contradictory pair by setting forth kune, a reason, which is a contradicting result. Now, here's what's gonna hopefully help you.

Speaking of contradict, doesn't this kind of contradict the answer to one of your questions in the homework? God, no, it's impossible. How so?

I think you said in the homework that in order to use a result reason, the two things have to be existing things. Oh, that was a, but this is a contradictory result reason, which is not the same as a result reason. Oh, so like a contradictory result reason is not a subset of result reasons.

That's right, it's not. Yes, right, you are showing the presence. I mean, I think that that's why Geshe Michael put this note up here, in fact, because it would be reasonable enough.

You see, it does seem like it's so very Drabo-y, it's so very result-based that it would almost make sense, but they put this in a different category, even though it is based on putting forth a result, and in this case, you are putting forth a reason that is a result, and let's find an example, because I think Geshe Michael had the same problem that you're having, which is why he put this note here for himself.

He's asking questions. Yeah, great, I think it's, apparently, it's the question that should come up here. And let's see, Kielse, would you be willing to read this example, we hope, of the first type of reason here?

[Speaker 2]
I will, I'll try, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Deal, thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. I can't see all of it. I have it over here.

[Speaker 1]
Cool, super. This is a, Geln da mick bay ma mick bay doc. Do you remember ma mick bay doc, Kielse?

No, it goes in one ear and out the other, one side of my head and out the other. But then it, but it comes out purified.

[Speaker 2]
I wish. Comes out gone, it's empty.

[Speaker 1]
I wish. The reason that proves the absence of something. Yeah, great, a reason to prove the absence of something.

Of what sort? Of geln da mick bay. Yeah, I'm seeing a contradictory pair.

[Speaker 3]
Contradictory, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, exactly. Okay, so we did this one, okay? He jumped ahead, we did this, we actually covered this last week.

We didn't explain this, we just covered this example. So again, and I wrote something like it. Okay, let's see, what is a, let's see, a shargi he.

A place in the east. Yeah, and what if it were, a kshabar numba. Yeah, that's it, right.

It's totally covered in what? Fire, inferno. Yeah, yeah, a chembo fire.

Great fire. Right, you can translate that as big old. Yeah, then there may.

Isn't. Isn't a junchak. Yeah, yeah, that is a changre.

Cold sensation. Yeah, there's not a continuous cold sensation there. Chichir, why not?

Well, because yimba, it is. It's a she. A place.

That's kyaba. Is covered. By metal jumble.

Nah. Fire. A huge fire.

Yeah, great, okay, cool. So this.

[Speaker 2]
Wait a minute.

[Speaker 1]
Isn't that one of those kind of reasons that we have to throw out? Ah, right, doesn't everyone agree? No, I mean, there is slight variations to the subject.

Oh, it doesn't have the nimpey shar. The nun. Yeah, right, exactly.

Okay, sorry. Yeah, the place to the east. If you say, consider a place in the east that's covered in raging fire, there's no consistent cold there because it's a place in the east covered in raging fire, then you're in trouble.

But if you just say, because it's a place covered in raging fire, you're okay because you stopped talking about it being in the east. Now, does that satisfy the rules of a correct reason? Yes, does that satisfy the rules of a reason that's likely to be convincing is a conversation we could have at another time.

Uh, but, um, but fine. So what do we think? Is this related to nature identity result?

[Speaker 2]
This example is nothing to do with the reason of identity.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, nothing to do. Yes, because?

[Speaker 2]
Because if we reason by identity, reason by identity is to be one, is to be another. Is to be one, to be another. First criteria, the quality of something.

Second criteria, so the subject must include the quality of everything.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, yes.

[Speaker 2]
So I can say this subject, to be this subject, it must have the certain quality of, it must have the certain quality that is necessary for this subject to have.

[Speaker 1]
Right, yeah, yeah. Right, I think up here what we have are contradictory identities and contradictory results. I think we're gonna find out when dad comes home and straightens us out.

But it seems to me of the two, and he gave it a number one, which is cheating on my part. I already knew there was a number one there and a number one here, that this is likely a case of a contradictory identity, meaning you can't be a place that's totally covered in raging fire and be a place that is, where there's a continuous sensation of cold. But you're right, Pei-Ling, and you remembered from the homework that you already got right, that this is not called a reason based on identity or a reason based on result, but it probably is called a reason based on a contradictory identity.

That is because you are doing well. May it be so. Yes, I think so.

Good, Pei-Ling, to honor and punish you for your wisdom, would you read this second type of reason?

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Gaeo-la-mi-te-pa-mi-te-tak-sa-ng. Sa-i-si-na-tok-san-mi-tok-ten-pong-gyep-pa-mi-yin-te.

[Speaker 1]
Ki-chir. Why?

[Speaker 2]
Rang-la-pu-long-yek.

[Speaker 1]
Rang-dre, good. Rang-dre, go on, good.

[Speaker 2]
Rang-la-pu-long-yek-yin-tak-yo-pe-ji.

[Speaker 1]
Yo-pe-chir. Right, this part you have to get, you have to say yo-pe-chir.

[Speaker 2]
Yo-pe-chir.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, and then if you really wanna have fun, you get to clap, you get to say yo-pe-chir. Uh-huh, good, that's good luck. Good, no, thank you.

So this should be a gyeo-n-dre-mi-pa-ma-mi-pe-tak, right? This should be a ma-mi-pe-tak, which means what? Anyone?

Reason proving the absence of something. Right, of the sort called gyeo-n-dre. Of the sort called contradictory results.

Yeah, because we see, we do mi-pa, right? It's a ma-mi-pe-tak, a reason for not seeing something, a reason for the absence of something, because we do see a gyeo-n-dre. Yeah, we see a dre that gyeos a result of some kind that would be problematic for that thing to be apparent.

So jar-yi-shi-na-che-chen. Anybody? What's a jar-yi-shi?

That's a place in the east. Yeah, it is, it may-in. Is not.

Gyeo-bar-num-pa. Completely covered. With me-tok-chen-bo.

By a raging fire. Chee-chir! Why would you say that?

Well, chee-chir, because yo-pa. There is. Gyeo-n-chak.

Continuous. Steady stream. Yeah.

I guess, yeah, pu-long. Experience? I think pu-long means something like the shivers, or goose bumps, or your goose hairs, something like that.

Someone can check a dictionary. I don't see it as a phrase by itself, but. Hair standing on end.

It's what happens to bodhisattvas when they hear all these different reasons. Yeah, they get a shiver. Right, and in this case, this particular shiver is a chang-tay.

It's a result of.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, result of. Yeah, right, the shivers that result from cold, right? You do have the shivers that result from cold, and so that result, you see, that, Dre, is, gel, is contradictory to what?

To a metap-cham-po-cha-bar-num-pa. Yeah, to a big ol' fire right there. So I would guess that this is the second type of.

Um, of a. Contradictory. Contradictory thing that you do see.

And then, hopefully, we'll come back and look at it with Gish and Michael together. Which, all this raises the question, so what, who cares? Do you wanna see emptiness?

Sure, please. No, we have to understand these so we can see emptiness directly. Yeah.

Yeah, right. I'm glad you can show him right now. Yeah, could we, could you do, I don't know, could we, is there a, could we do a, a contradictory identity and a contradictory result, reason to disprove one of the husbands in the kitchen?

We got 15 minutes, we could work on it right now. I bet we could do it. Adam's got the laboratory behind him, he could.

Well, I'm not married, so. Yeah, it's a lie. So there's neither one of them in the kitchen.

Not true. Oh, sure. Okay, yeah, well, that's okay.

It doesn't have to be your husband that's a pain in the butt. As anyone who finds me annoying should know that isn't married to me. Yeah, what would be, I don't know, can anyone come up with an example of the presence of something in the kitchen that is kind of, contradictory to a husband that is yelling at you tonight for no reason at all?

Maybe the husband from whom you understand where he's coming from? Yeah, right, so a husband in the kitchen standing in that same place, right, that is yelling why? Because you yelled at your kids last week.

Yeah, right, yeah, would that be an example of? Contradictory reason, maybe. Yeah, a reason for the absence of something based on the presence of a thing that can't be in the same place at the same time as a husband that's yelling at me for no reason at all?

Only to someone who understands the relationship between karma and emptiness. Yes, exactly. Really thoroughly understand, yeah.

Yes, yeah, thoroughly, completely, yeah, yeah. Yeah, right, yeah.

[Speaker 2]
When someone say, I didn't do anything, but the husband yelling at me, this is contradicting with the reason by result, which is denote cause and effect relationship. It is impossible. I didn't do anything, but the husband yelling at me.

[Speaker 1]
The fact that it doesn't make sense that they'd be yelling at you, you're saying could be enough to contradict the existence of a husband who, I wish, I hope that works for me. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty good. Yeah, I think that's brilliant.

If you believe in cause and effect, if you believe in cause and effect, the yelling is a contradictory result. Because there's no cause. So there being no cause.

Well, I mean, don't you think that he's yelling because of traffic on the way home or something? And nothing that Maya had to do with it.

[Speaker 2]
You couldn't hold a belief in cause and effect without holding a belief in karmic cause and effect.

[Speaker 1]
For sure. Yeah, right, so cool. So we can change the thing.

We started by trying to contradict a husband that's yelling at me for no reason at all. But we can change the debate to trying to disprove, and we should as we get more sophisticated, right? Change the debate to trying to contradict a husband that's yelling at me because there was bad traffic.

Is there, can we come up with a reason that contradicts that? Well, yeah, because I was driving in bad traffic and I didn't yell at anyone. So driving in bad traffic doesn't always result in yelling at someone.

Hopefully. Yeah, uh-huh, so what's the- That's great, that's great, why? Because you did yell at people for traffic?

Nah, I don't believe it. So what's the reason then? Consider the husband, let's see, consider the kitchen.

Um, there is not a husband in it yelling at me because of traffic, because there is a, what?

[Speaker 2]
Because I yelling on somebody in the past.

[Speaker 1]
Because I yelled, uh, oh, because I yelled at someone in the past? Mm-hmm, maybe.

[Speaker 2]
Because I yelled my child in this morning, so in the evening, husband yell at me.

[Speaker 1]
I think, yeah, I think that's right, go ahead, Adam. No, I was just gonna say with the time gap problem, it's always, it always kind of messes with me to say specifically what led to something. Okay.

I could say like, you know, I just yelled in my past, you know, at some point in my past, right? In this case, there should be something in the kitchen, right, that is contradictory. And you could say you have the same problem, but shouldn't there be something in the kitchen that is either contradictory to there being a husband in the kitchen yelling at me because of traffic, or a thing that is a result of something that is contradictory to a husband being in the kitchen yelling at me because of traffic?

It's hard, right? I kind of think you have to do the thing that you're holding in your hand. Yeah, you have to do the pen and the human and the dog thing to show that relationship between the experience of a thing as a thing and its identity as a thing, and where that comes from.

Uh-huh, okay, how would you, how do you think you might phrase that or explain that? Help me, I'm almost there. In the abstract, I understand you're saying that understanding the lack of that husband is dependent upon the pen thing.

So how do I get there? I don't know, I was speaking literally. Oh.

You have to do the Getschy-Michael Penn spiel to understand the two husbands in the kitchen spiel. I'll wave it around for you. Yeah, it's interesting because there is that, I mean, Venerable Paul has a very good point because one of the requirements of any correct reason is that the person accept what you're trying to prove, just having time to be creative.

So in this case, we are trying to use, which for all of us who've been studying with Getschy-Michael, these may be good reasons. However, to a lay person or somebody who's really studied, it's not gonna cut it. Right, yeah.

And that's something, I mean, from what I understand in talk Greek, that's like a very fundamental point. They drive that home in the beginning. Right, well, typically what I guess would happen in a debate is they would say, I don't accept the thing you put forth as a reason, and then it would be your responsibility to prove that relationship.

There's no husband standing in the kitchen yelling at me for traffic because there's a husband standing in the kitchen that's yelling at me dependent upon my seeds. And then, you know, if you didn't accept that, right, the person would say, I don't accept that there's a husband in the kitchen that is yelling at you in dependence upon your own seeds. And then you would say, oh, but there is a husband in the kitchen yelling at me in dependence upon my seeds because there's a husband in the kitchen who is yelling at me that not everyone would see as angry.

Maybe, right? And then they would say, oh no, there's no husband that not everyone would see as angry. And you would say, so the husband sees that he's angry?

The husband sees himself as angry? And they, I don't know, what would they say? Yes, I can read the husband's mind.

Maybe you could corner them on that since we can't read the husband's mind. We don't know what he sees. We don't know how the husband sees himself.

I have yelled at my kid for walking towards the street where there were cars. I was not angry. I was not angry.

I was terrified. And I was sad to yell at him. I felt really bummed about it.

But I was so scared. I just wanted to freak him out a sec. I just wanted him to associate that moment with fear of the street, of the cars.

I was not angry, but he could understandably have thought that I was angry. And why is it possible that the husband yelling in the kitchen just wants you to understand that things are coming from you? Yeah, that he loves you.

That'd be nice. Yeah. That seems like as good a place as I can imagine to stop with one minute to spare.

Nice work. Juan, you're not standing by, right? You wait until it's exactly the time.

You're driving in on your motorcycle right now, hopping a wheelie. I guess so. I guess so.

I want you to leave your camera on. It's too dangerous to talk and wheelie at the same time. I stand by your decision.

Well, if anybody could do it, I'd hand it to Juan. That's true. There he is.

There he is. It's only fair, Juan. I'm sorry I rushed you.

No, no, no, it's okay. Thank you very much for being here again, everyone. And I'm glad to see you all having a good time.

I think a good time should be part and like a stamp of these kinds of programs. Thank you. This program should not be only about learning, but learning with fun.

So it's amazing to have this group of people engaged here. Thank you very much. Today we have a special activity that's gonna just happen after a quick review of events happening.

Some of them this week, some of them in the next few months. So I'll go through them quickly and then show you what we have prepared for you. Okay, our friend, Earl Bernie, he's around.

I saw him taking this class. So he may be happy to see his poster on screen. He's planning an event with YSI for next September 8th and 9th.

It's gonna be a two-day event about the inner kingdom. It's an immersion of the teachings that Geshe-la taught during his three-year retreat when he did it probably about, how's it, almost 20 years ago? Maybe something like that.

I'm not sure about it. Yeah, more than. Okay, that's wonderful.

And if you are interested to hear from Earl in this special class, he's teaching, how say, he's not teaching, he's having a special session, information session in two days from now, in August 14. So this is the informational session. So you can attend the September 7th and 8th class.

You can follow the QR code for the informational session or the QR code for the actual class. And if you want to get to know more about it, just, I don't know, contact him or some people from YSI. We will be happy to share the QR codes with you.

Then this is August. Now we are jumping to September and remind you that Diamond Mountain is having the second summit on reforestation and enhancing the environment with Sky Harvest. They are really, really doing a wonderful job and they are encouraging many people to go and learn.

They are giving us so many facilities, I don't know, accessible ways to participate. They are willing to help you with your transportation, with your accommodation, with the education feeding you and also gonna be having meditation and yoga and special classes, philosophy classes. I'm trying to go slow, so I hope it's better this time.

It's difficult for me to speak at this pace, but I hope it's good. Then also in October, our dear friend Yelze is preparing a pre-retreat getting, helping students get ready for the actual retreat on some medicine practices and wisdom practices. She's gonna be guiding people on how actually to do retreat and how to do these special practices that then Geshe Michael is gonna be teaching deeper next week in October 11.

So you can get to the event in the pre-retreat and then stay for the retreat. Next picture is just to remind you that we are celebrating. Geshe Michael has reached his 1000 page of translation on Jetsun Kappa, illumination of the true intent.

And we are collecting testimonials for people who are doing the good night book club practice. You can send us a two, three minute video on how it has changed your life or if you have seen different effects in your daily activities or your concentration, your mind. I've been trying it, it's sometimes challenging actually, but I think it's part of the practice to realize how much electronics can affect our daily life.

And then finally, I would like to introduce our friends of today's interview. As you know, we are in Guadalajara, Mexico these days. And lately I was invited to a very special event.

It's an event that is aimed to help people who is in their end stage disease phase, people who are getting ready to pass away, to transition. And some of the students of the Guadalajara and Mexico group have been very involved with this organization. Actually one of the founders of this organization, he is a doctor and he's also part of the Mexican group of students.

So here I'm gonna ask our friend, yes, tech table Gina, thank you so much for your help. We're gonna be having an interview with them. And this time we're gonna talk, they are gonna talk in Spanish, but I will be translating for you.

Welcome, Berta Velasco, and Berta Gonzalez and Maria Teresa Rangel. She's the board president these days, and she's a council member of the foundation. So it's like palliative care.

Yes, and lately they have a opening of a new house where they're aiming to have people staying there to receive this care. Last week, you invited me to be there and take some pictures and videos of it. We would like to show the audience the video that we prepare for them, and then move ahead and have a short interview with you.

Thank you for coming today. And let's show the video. ♪♪♪ Okay, so that was the inauguration of the new house you are using for having eventually people staying.

Can you tell us a little bit of what's the mission of this organization and how did you got involved how long ago?

[Speaker 3]
Nuestra fundación ayuda a las personas que tienen una enfermedad en etapa terminal para que no tengan dolor ni sufrimiento al final de la vida.

[Speaker 1]
So our organization is aimed to help people in their end stage disease stage so they don't suffer too much when they are passing away from this life.

[Speaker 3]
Ayudamos al paciente y a la familia mediante los cuidados paliativos que son varias especialidades. Es médico, enfermera, psicólogo, fisioterapeuta, trabajo social y tanatología.

[Speaker 1]
So we actually help the people, the sick person, but also their families and there are different specialties involved like nurses, psychologists, physiologists, doctors, tanatologist and social workers. Social workers, okay. Just to mention, they are both long time students of this wonderful philosophy with the Mexico group.

So we have met like 10 years ago.

[Speaker 3]
Entonces ayudamos, también prestamos equipo médico, por ejemplo, camas para hospital para que esté más cómodo el paciente, tanques de oxígeno, ayudamos con medicamento y en general, lo que el paciente y la familia requiere para que esta transición sea en paz, sin sufrimiento y sobre todo con muchísima compasión.

[Speaker 1]
What we do is we make sure the person and their family have everything they need. So the person, the sick person can do the transition with a lot of peace and compassion. They make sure they have like hospital beds, medicines and any other form of care they may need.

Can you tell us how long ago and how did you get involved in this? ¿Hace cuánto y cómo se involucraron?

[Speaker 2]
El fundador que fue Gustavo que salió ahorita en el video, él empezó esta fundación hace 32 años, pero hace ocho años, esta fundación estuvo a punto de desaparecer.

[Speaker 1]
So the founder, one of the guys who was in the video, he founded this organization 32 years ago, but then just eight years ago, the organization was in a real danger to disappear and he contacted and invited you to participate, right?

[Speaker 2]
Sí, otro compañero fue el que nos habló a varios que somos compañeros de estas enseñanzas maravillosas y sin saber nada, pero con mucho amor entramos a trabajar en ella y hemos estado pues felices desde entonces.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so the founder who was actually another student in the classes, in the wisdom classes, he requests help from another student of the wisdom classes, friend of them too. So the founder is Gustavo Montejo, the other friend is Gregorio Reyes and Gregorio Reyes invite them both to be part of this mission. They say they didn't know anything about it, but they commit themselves to learn and help the foundation.

[Speaker 2]
Sí, tomamos clases de cuidados paliativos y de tanatología para estar preparados y realmente sí, nos han ayudado mucho.

[Speaker 1]
So we both took classes and courses of palliative care and tanatology to be well educated and ready to provide the service. I have next question. Why do you think doing this service for people is important?

[Speaker 3]
What's the, what meaning do you find in doing this activity for others?

[Speaker 1]
¿Cuál es para ustedes la importancia y relevancia de hacer esta actividad y prestar este servicio para otros?

[Speaker 2]
Las personas que atendemos generalmente vienen del hospital civil. En el hospital les dicen, ya no hay nada que hacer al enfermo, lléveselo a su casa. Entonces ellos se sienten desamparados.

[Speaker 1]
So most of people that we take care of, they are being taken care of by the public hospital. And a lot of times these institutions just send them home with no hope, saying that there is nothing else we can do for you.

[Speaker 2]
¿Y cuando llegamos nosotros a apoyarlos, ¿de verdad la mayoría nos dice que somos como unos ángeles para ellos? ¿Que se sienten apoyados, ¿que saben con quien acudir, ¿que los enseñamos que es lo que tienen que hacer con el paciente?

[Speaker 1]
So when we introduce ourselves to the family and to the sick person, many of them say they see us, meaning them, as angels that have come to rescue and help them in their transition.

[Speaker 3]
Es importante mencionar que atendemos a la población más vulnerable, es decir, gente muy pobre, que no tiene recursos para comprar medicamentos y para dar los cuidados necesarios a su paciente.

[Speaker 1]
We also would like to mention that the most of people we help is very poor people that don't have enough resources to either take care of themselves or to take care of their family members. So is there, just to finish with this interview and segment, is there a particular story that has created a big impact on your hearts or like something you have learned or become aware by doing this service? ¿Alguna historia que quieran compartir?

[Speaker 3]
Antes que eso, quiero darles una gran noticia, que no solamente logramos mantener la fundación, sino que estamos por abrir el primer hospice de la República Mexicana.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, before telling a story, I want to share with all of you that we already achieved becoming the very first institution in all Mexico country to be able to open a hospice for sick people in this category in the whole country, Mexico.

[Speaker 3]
Por eso es tan importante que todos nos apoyemos para hacer el hospice, para habilitarlo, pero sobre todo para mantenerlo con sus gastos operativos, pago de enfermera, médico, medicamentos y los insumos que se van requiriendo.

[Speaker 1]
So right now, the challenges that we are dealing with is to fundraise for it, so we are able to have nursing assistants, medicines and also rent and other expenses.

[Speaker 3]
Y lo más ambicioso de este proyecto es que queremos hacer un modelo para que se replique en el resto de la República Mexicana.

[Speaker 1]
What we are trying to do is to make a whole model that can be replicated in many more states in Mexico. The goal is to expand to the whole country.

[Speaker 3]
Ya que Jalisco, Guadalajara es un estado pionero en cuidados paliativos.

[Speaker 1]
We have made Jalisco and Guadalajara the pioneer on palliative care because of this organization.

[Speaker 2]
Agradecemos el apoyo de muchísimas personas que ya están dando sus donativos, pero realmente necesitamos mucho más. Entonces queremos que se abra su corazón para ayudar a todas estas personas que transiten sus últimos días de vida con paz, amor y sin dolor sobre todo.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, so we are very grateful for the many people who have been helping us already.

[Speaker 1]
And we are requesting if you could and you feel a call, if your heart opens to this project, any donation or contribution could be very, very meaningful for us.

[Speaker 3]
Muchísimas gracias por la entrevista, Juan, por darnos la oportunidad de participarles de este bonito proyecto. Hagan lo suyo también.

[Speaker 2]
Muchas gracias, abrazos a todos.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much for your attention and thank you very much, Berta. Thank you very much, Maria Teresa. We hope to see you again with more news about how's your organization going.

Thank you very much to everyone and we go to Seyil's class next. Seyil es la clase que sigue. Hola, Berta, chachis.

No lo vemos. Una cosa, el código QR no funciona. ¿Pueden mandar un link?

I was just telling them that the QR code, it says the link doesn't exist. If you can send another link.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, we will send the link in a few more moments in the chat. Muchas, muchas gracias, Seyil. Saludos.

[Speaker 1]
I think what we need is the name of who we're making the donation to because I put in FMMP and I get a list of five different options. Okay, we will send the website, the official website in the chat. Thank you.

Thank you as well. Gracias, Seyil.