Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 45

[Speaker 1]
Almost time. There he is. Hi everybody.

It's four, or seven, or whatever time it is. It's the hour. Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower.

Lovely to see your beautiful smiling faces, and looking forward to another exciting team class adventure. We've got Ben up first, and then we've got Mr. Adam Andrade. So, a logic-heavy Monday.

Yeah, so get yourselves ready for some serious contemplation of difficult concepts. Are you There's a thumb. Well, here we go.

I guess it's straight to homework then for you. Oh man. I know.

At least I don't have to do any homework. That's what you think. Do it, Nick.

Tell me. Describe and give the Tibetan for a reason based on the absence of a cause. Hmm.

[Speaker 2]
I think he'd send.

[Speaker 1]
It's not crazy. Not really. Let me see in the chat if everybody's just desperately answering.

Can we talk? Yeah, I was going to say that too. Probably.

What is it? Let's describe it, and then I probably did the, yeah. We say.

Whoops, there's no reason for it down there. Right, it's the and. Okay, so what is it?

Somebody help me describe what that would be. If there's no fire, there's no smoke. There's.

Yeah. Go ahead. To put it more eloquently, there's no smoke because there's no fire.

I think that's okay. What sort of example did we have? Do you remember?

It was harder than that. Consider the place in the east. If only.

It's not covered in a raging fire because there are continuous shivers. Yeah. That's a result as a reason.

Oh, so reasonable. That would be an example of a reason which is contrary. A reason which is a result that is contrary.

We're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about the types of reasons. Maybe tonight we should do a review of that.

Probably. So, I can't read Chinese, but I'm sure that those four characters are an exhaustive explanation of a gyūma mikpā. The example we had was that there can't be a memory, a recollection in the mind of someone who can't see ghosts because they didn't have an accurate perception of ghosts because people who don't believe in ghosts or people who don't have the ability to see ghosts don't have accurate perceptions of ghosts.

That would be a cause that is missing that would allow someone to have the results of remembering. That was the one we were given. I just work here.

So, that one doesn't have anything to do with the lack of an accurate perception instead of the lack of a cause or a lack of a result for that matter. They're tied together. Yeah, they are tied together.

Thank you, Adam, from the sands of Saturn. Coming to you on. Yeah, right.

They are. Yeah, as Adam said, in this case, the lack of an accurate perception in the mind of someone who can't see ghosts, like me, for example, can't see them, super doubt them, then I can't have a memory of an accurate perception of ghosts because I didn't have an accurate perception of ghosts, I think would be a simple way to put that. So, the absence of the accurate perception is the cause of not seeing.

Technically, the absence of the accurate perception is the absence of the cause because what we're using is absence of cause, not cause. We're using the absence of cause as a reason. And if you wanted to go, I don't know if it would be deeper or stay in more surface level.

In this school, you have to always get back to the McKins and the factors, and it's usually the perception of something. They relate to each other in a cause and effect way. So, the coffee cup is the cause of the perception.

So, the lack of a perception of coffee cup would be an absence of the cause. All right, I'm going to show you something cute. All right, and this is since the cat's away, as it were.

I don't know if anyone knows that saying, who isn't American speaking, they say when the cat's away, the mice will play. So, let's do something very silly here. I'm going to bring this screen over here.

And we can do this a few times just for hoots and giggles. This, I believe, is a wholesome use of AI. All right, so let's see what we think.

Okay, I'm going to go to, let's see, I'm going to get this out of the way. Okay, no GPTs, just give me this. Let's use this smart one.

Okay, can you give me a proof for the lack of something based on, here, give me some proof for the lack of something based on the fact that the cause of that thing is missing. Change the first the, maybe it'll understand. So, just remember that each time you do an AI query, it costs about a liter of water, that's taken away from the planet that can be used to drink with, or feed plants, and a lot of electricity.

Weigh that against the answer it gives you. Let's see if any of these are useful. Oh, I had some nice ones.

These are not that nice. These are all more scientifical than philosophical. Okay, I had some good ones.

Give me simpler ones, please. Maybe like orchids. Oh, yeah.

You could also restrict it to the domain of analytic philosophy, too. I like cute little ones, because my brain is cute and little. Yeah, like a five-year-old.

Now we're talking.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
If you don't plant any seeds, no plants will grow. So, there is no, there are no asparagus plants in my brain, because there cannot be asparagus seeds in my brain. Oh, it's flipping the light switch.

If you don't flip a light switch, then the light stays off. Oh, that's problematic, because the light might not be working. But how about there is no, I don't know, what do you think?

Help me come up with some cute examples. The lack of a cause for I don't have a, how about a cold headache from ice cream, because I haven't had ice cream? Or how about, can we think of any other simple examples?

We'll go on to the next one. Those are pretty good. I mean, I think those are illustrative, sufficiently illustrating your point.

Okay, let's go on. Yes. Yeah, there's no smoke, because there's no fire.

Can we say that? No, you're not. You're just, but your speakers are probably off.

You're muted now. You weren't just a second ago. Yeah, you could say.

I mean, the reason that we'd probably want to posit another example is because the traditional one of smoke and fire is usually an example of Rangchen. Right. Yeah, right.

Right. But you could say there is no smoke on the mountain, because there's no fire on the mountain. That seems okay, right?

Yeah. That's how I started my original answer. How about a reason you did?

How about a reason based on the absence of what is identical to that thing? There's no asparagus in your brain, because there's no vegetables in your brain. Yeah, I think that's not bad.

Yeah, I think you're right. Give me the Tibetan first.

[Speaker 2]
The asparagus may.

[Speaker 1]
All this time studying and you still don't know the word for asparagus. Yeah. How about the?

Yeah, this word is a clue that only a logician would use in this peculiar way. Uh-huh. What word do we only translate as identity in the context of relationships and logic, to the best of my knowledge?

You said it earlier. No, that's not the one I'm looking for. But you said it a moment ago in talking about reasons, Adam.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, right. A reason based on...

Here in this, we could also even do this if we wanted. Whoops, that's too many. Yeah, good.

Right. A reason based on the absence of what is identical to a thing. The example we had was, to my mind, a little convoluted.

I think you could say something as simple as, there's no coffee cup on my nose because I can't see it. You see, if it's the case of a thing where I should be expected to see it, we're in the study of things that you should be expected to see. So there's no pot on the stove because there is an absence of a pot on the stove.

No, because I can't see one. There are no pots on the... There are no...

What would you say? Sauce pots on the stove because there are no pots on the stove. That would be like Nick's answer.

But the example we had was, there are no accurate memories of a ghost in the mind of someone who can't see ghosts because the perception of a ghost in the mind of someone who can't see ghosts is not accurate. It's not an accurate perception, which I found a little bit difficult. We're going to go and look at the text and see if this happens.

But it's the idea of proving the absence of something by reasoning that the thing in question has not been seen by an accurate perception. It's interesting.

[Speaker 2]
I spent a lot of time over the past couple of weeks looking at the perspectives of the different schools at Rongere and memory comes up a ton and in between Satrantika and Chidamatra and the Madhyamika schools.

[Speaker 1]
One of those, Jetson Kappa says that the initial perception of a color blue and the memory of the perception of a color blue are actually the same. It's the same object. Oh, yeah.

And this is Chidamatra. Yeah. Is that according to the mind only school or he says that?

No, highest middle way. Which is why they don't. One of the many reasons why they don't accept Rongere because they say you don't actually need a self-perception because the memory of the initial perception of the color blue is actually the same object, which is weird.

But I think it's one of the reasons why we see memory being presented so much in the second school. Or to be clear, they're looking at the same object, right? Not to say that the initial memory, but they're looking at those things.

Hold the same object, which this school would clearly not accept. Exactly. Right.

But I think the reason I bring that up is because if I think now that I'm spending a lot of time with it, I'm starting to see why studying Totgrig and some of the other stuff that's presented in the second school prepares you so much for highest middle way stuff. Because I see it pop out and I'm like, oh, okay. That kind of answers some questions I've been having for a while.

Thank you, Adam. This is hard. And probably no one who doesn't have extremely thorough notes has any hope of trying to answer this.

Can I say something? Yes, please. I think it's because during the process of perception, it triggers our karma.

That's why I think what Adam said. Yeah. Yeah.

That's why the text is based on our memory. Because what we perceive, actually when we perceive the object, when the point we perceive an object, it will trigger our past karma.

[Speaker 2]
Then we start to process the information, start to process the information, how we perceive the object.

[Speaker 1]
That's why every person is perceived an object in different way. Can I say? I think that's right.

I think that's or different is the ripening of a seed. If you have the seed to see a memory of a past object, you can say that that's the same object. If you wanted to say that your image of the seed is changed or different somehow, I wonder if you could.

I think you could also have the ripening of a seed that makes those objects appear different to you, which is how I could perhaps see the same person as having been unenlightened at one time and enlightened in the future, I hope. Let's try this very hard question. I think what I said 100% is not correct.

Because what I say just now cannot prove that how some memory that cannot change. I don't know if that's true either. I don't know if that's true.

You keep cooking it, Bailing. I don't know. I would debate you on that.

I don't know. I don't know if memories can change or not. If the way you see a memory is the ripening of a present seed, then you should think about it.

You should think about it. But this is a broader question, and it's a good question. But at the moment, we have the problem of reasonings implied by other reasonings that are not explicitly or directly mentioned in our text, but that are implied in our text.

One is the presence of something that is by nature contradictory. Like, goosebumps implies the absence of heat. Goosebumps.

Is that what you mean?

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Or I'm still counting? And then... Yeah, yeah.

What about this one? So this one is suggested by the possibility of a reason based on seeing something opposite to what we deny. So the one I'm asking here, which that's...

Oh, okay. Good. It's...

Yeah, I think that's a Rangshin Gyalme. So by the fact that there is such a reason, like, yeah, the feeling of cold is contradictory to a raging fire. So consider on that mountain to the east, there is no feeling of cold, because it's covered in raging fire.

Then he said there's a, and I, you know, it's not popping up in the chat. So I'm gonna show you, okay. And here, I'm gonna move this chat window out of the way so I can see what you're seeing.

Since we can prove the absence of something by showing that there's something present, which is contradictory, okay, like a cold sensation amidst raging fire. Okay. It would suggest then, okay, that showing that something is present that necessarily includes something contradictory to the thing we deny would also prove the absence of a thing.

So... They call this, right, a Kyabje Gyalme. Yeah.

So what was the example he said? Consider a raging fire on a mountain. Oh, pressing down, right, on the area, a raging fire, really pushing on, it was like Numba, right?

Pressing upon an area on a mountain to the east. A place where that is, there is no sensation of frost, okay, cold frostiness in that place. A snowy feeling in that place, because it is a place with a raging fire.

Yes. So how is that? So what includes what?

I used the example. Oh, I used this example before. If the room temperature, if the room temperature of the building is 37 Celsius, it is not possible that the building is on raging fire, because these two facts is both contradictory.

Okay. So consider the building, it's not on fire because it has, or it's not covered in fire. It's not filled with fire everywhere because it has an internal temperature of, I don't know, I'm going to say 72 degrees Fahrenheit, because I can't convert into Celsius.

I'm sorry, it's a failing on my part not to be able to convert. Having lived in Europe, that conversion is the most challenging of all conversions, and we are severely handicapped in that. You multiply by five, subtract two, divide again by five, add two back again.

I don't know. There's some algebra in there too. Yeah.

Right. So yeah, I think that's right. And then what would be an example of a way to say, okay, if the building is filled with fire, or the building over there is not filled with fire, because it's 72 degrees inside.

Okay. So what if we say the building over there is not filled with fire, because it is, you know, a temperature that is contradictory to being on fire, or something? Does that include, I think we have to work on this one.

I'm not sure if that's different than a gillnake. A gillnake. I think maybe, right?

This is the example we had. If the presence of a raging fire on the east side of a mountain proves a lack of consistent cold in that place, then the presence of raging fire on the whole mountain proves the lack of consistent cold sensation on the east side of that. Does that seem reasonable?

Cricket. It's a larger set. So yeah, that's it.

Okay. We're all learning together. It's okay.

Let's come over here. Paula, I'm sorry. I was sort of ill prepared on some level.

Do we, do you remember the last thing we covered? I think we stopped here. Are you following along in a place in the text that tells us where we stopped last?

We did stop at the place that you say that we stopped. No, wait a minute. You mean here?

Yes. Stopped here. I don't want to look at that.

Oh, actually, I don't know that we did. Hold on. Oh, yes, we did.

Sorry. Okay, cool. Right.

And I was supposed to translate. So, and we've got a fresh verse. So that's fine.

Let's, let's skip the verse for now. And then we will, and I should blow this up, right? And then we will come back and look at the verse after we get a load of the commentary.

And if I forget, then you remind me. Okay, I made some Sanskrit notes for better or worse. Let's see.

Pei-Ling, do you want to read the, read this section here for us? Oh, basically, I'll ask you first. What was your translation of that first line under the header?

The first line under the header. Oh, thank you, Utpala. Cool.

Yeah, great. Thank you, Utpala. Pei-Ling, you've been demoted to a smaller passage.

I'm sorry. But we'll try to make it up to you in the long run. Oh, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for calling me.

Please read. Thank you. Cool.

Yeah. Do you, you're reading beautifully. Are you learning words that you're reading?

Do you understand any or only it's the reading that's become perfect? Um, I don't understand. That's okay.

That's okay. We can get people can shout out or they can put in the chat. What is, uh, how about Priya?

Yeah, good. What's, um, so what's Tsepong? Tsepong is short for something we're very fond of.

Anyone but Adam and Nick can answer. Um, maybe Utpala can't answer. Oh, darn.

I was just going to. Okay. Okay.

Um, yeah. I was just trying to look on the screen, but that's okay. Let's see.

Uh, how about if you only help them, any of the three of you by, by saying the longer version before we, uh, get desperate, uh, because, um, this language loves two syllable words made out of bigger groups of words. So, um, Tsepapongwang. Great.

Does that suddenly get somebody excited? Does that suddenly awaken any seeds in anyone to know, uh, what we're talking about, especially with the translation here on the screen, right? It's just a correlation.

Say, say again, Duoduo. Refute in debate. Yeah, great.

Yeah, right. Um, in this case I said refute objections and we know this Duoduo, why is this famous? This is, um, the third part of a three-part something or other.

Pedagogical. You don't have to know the answer. Yeah.

It's a famous thing in, um, debate texts. Uh, right. There are three parts to it, uh, debate texts and many, many texts, right?

We, we smuggled it from debate texts into the greater, um, yeah, Adam said pedagogical, right? Which means teaching, teaching method, um, that, that we use, which is part one. Um, anybody, uh, yeah.

You gave the first one away. Yeah. Gak is short for uh, Shen Luke Gakpa, right?

Uh, uh, rejecting, uh, contradicting, denying the other guy's position, the Shen Luke. Okay. And then that's right.

Wrong. Oh, look, it is in the chat. We did it.

Oh, Paula, that's cheating. You're already smart. Yeah.

Um, they're all smart. Good. I got so excited, but, um, you're only living up to my high expectations.

Yeah. Ron Luke Shakpa means presenting our own position. And then Sopa Pongwa, okay.

Sopa Pongwa, very famous. Um, see, look how smart, uh, Sopa Pongwa, uh, means the other guy gets to come back. I always think of this, um, when, uh, Geshe Michael talks about it.

He doesn't talk about it anymore, but, um, he used to call it the Terminator thing because there's this great scene at the end of the movie, the Terminator, where it seems like the good, the good guy, the good gal in this case, uh, finally has killed the Terminator. And then suddenly, you know, he's lying there in a pile and suddenly the red lights come back up. Um, no, you're thinking of a different part.

Um, yeah. Uh, so the bad guy gets to come back and give his objections here. Here's his objections.

What are we going to do with the objections? We're going to, um, refute them. So here we go.

Uh, on what topic? Here we go. Yeah.

What is this? Uh, well, we're picking on you. Um, um, what's a thought?

Thought is a reasoning. Deal. Uh, you know, mikpa?

Mikpa is you can, something you can get, something you can, um, something you can, um, um, grasp as an object. Yeah, right. Like, generally means something you can see, but in this case, you ma mikpa.

Ma mikpa is something you can't see, something you can't perceive. Yeah. Even though, uh, it would be non-wrong.

It would be wrong. It would be, um, um, it would be, uh, it would be, uh, appropriate to be, uh, manifest. Yeah, sure.

It would be totally appropriate for you to be able to see, for it to appear to you. Yeah, that's good. Okay.

So we're on that topic and then we're going to get an objection. We're going to talk about it. Oh, wow.

Um, all right. This is maybe, okay. So now we're going to go look at the objection and the issue.

We'll come back to the verse. Um, Dwo Dwo, why don't you read now since, um, we're picking on you anyway. Okay.

Yes, sir. Thank you. This is a pesky prenasal.

Great. Um, uh, what's shepa? Shepa is to know, to understand.

I can't be, uh, this is shepa, not shepa. Uh, shepa means closing quotation marks, uh, because we just had a verse. Okay.

No, not at all. Uh, what's a tzik'cheh? Uh, tzik'cheh, uh, is equivalent roughly to, uh, shloka, spelled here sholoka.

Uh, but I wonder if this, what do you think? Should this be, um, uh, what do you all think? Should this be like, what's, uh, Oh, I saw like this in, so I don't know if it was earlier in your text or in someone else's text spelled like this.

And I was wondering the same thing. Is this really how to present this Sanskrit word? I mean, the Sanskrit word is shloka, right?

So I, I wonder, but I've seen this spelling a lot. Um, but I suspect it's a corruption because you can't, if you're interested, like I, cause we did like a hundred titles recently of Tengger texts. And one thing that I could say for sure is that the Tibetans are not consistent with their spelling in Tibetan of Sanskrit words.

Yeah. Yeah. Right.

Um, okay. Yeah. Corrupted form of, yeah.

Shloka. Yeah. Cool.

Um, tzik', everybody knows tzik', even Dodo, who's kind of in the spotlight. I won't pick on you forever, Dodo, just like through this one. Oh, good.

Yeah. Um, good. One shloka.

So one shloka is going to gi, it's going to do something. Um, gi means it's going to do something. What's it going to do?

It's going to, uh, den something. Uh, what's den, Dodo? What should a shloka do?

Yeah. Deal. Cool.

Um, do you know? Uh, yeah. Well, how about this?

Uh, gongdu, gongdu. Well, um, well, good for you. That's fine.

It's, it means, uh, it's a little weird. It means like, at, like, as above. We, cause we covered already this topic.

Okay. Uh, uh, geon, gehungjwe mikbeidat. What's it?

Gehungjwe mikbedat could be you or anyone, but we're picking on you anyway. I'm sure the opposite result can be attained as a, uh, the reason that the opposite, uh, result cannot be attained or something. Ooh, ooh, yes, or something, indeed.

Right, it's a reason where the, there's a result that contradicts the presence of something. So smoke, for example, okay, is a result, a whole lot of smoke, or you could say, yeah, the feeling of cold, the physical sensation of cold is a result of being cold, okay, or a frosty feeling, getting frostbite, getting goosebumps, is a result that is contradictory to being covered in raging fire. Yeah.

What's duo? Smoke, buy smoke. It is.

Yeah, buy smoke, good for you. You buy, you're buying the buy. Right, the S means the smoke is doing something.

What is the smoke doing? We can peek over here. We know the smoke is, it's gonna goke something, or it can goke something.

What's the smoke gonna do? Did you say, Jojo? I said, go means cut off, or to block something.

Yeah, right. It's gonna block or contradict the, or it has the ability to block or contradict. Tongue.

Tongue, right. Tongue, right. Reg is touch, right?

Yeah, it is, yeah. That's right. You tell them, Taruma.

Taruma means cold, right? So it's the sense of coldness. Yeah, right.

So do a, smoke can do refute or deny or contradict the feeling of cold. And then nah. If.

If that's true, okay. Well, then how about a gyu? A reason.

A cause, like for example, may. A fire. Yeah.

So if that's your, right. If a fire exists, present, if the fire is present. Right, then can you use that as a thought?

And use that as a reasoning. Yeah, to goke. To refute.

Trongdek. The feeling, the cold sensations, the present. Yeah.

Yeah, right. If I can use a result like smoke, okay, to deny the presence of a frosty feeling, then can I use a result? Sorry, can I use a cause?

Okay, if I can use a result, a contradictory result like smoke. If I can say, if I can say, because there's smoke, you can't be feeling all frosty. Then can I say, because there's fire, you can't be feeling all frosty?

Can I use causes just as easily? Well, let's see. I need a new victim.

I need a smart victim. Someone brave and who likes being abused vaguely. Let's see.

I'm gonna look at my participant list. Oh, oh, too easy for Gibson, but I'm gonna pick on Gibson anyway, because I need someone that I can ask Tibetan questions. So I'm gonna pick on you, Gibson.

Is that okay? Are you willing? Yeah.

You might as well, yeah, you might as well show off and read, even though I know it's no problem for you, because then I can pick on you from there about the language, because I had a chance to study it before you did, which is my only advantage. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
If I can say, if I can say, because there's smoke, you can't be feeling all frosty? Cool, beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
If I can say, if I can say, if? Yeah, if what? If data.

[Speaker 2]
If that is true?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, yeah. Yeah, it is like that. Then pushing, you know, pushing?

[Speaker 2]
No, I guess it's a firewood.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, pushing, yuh.

[Speaker 2]
Yuh, yeah, if there's some firewood.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it could, it could, if there's some firewood, star, you know star? It's tricky, it looks like, but it's not what it looks like.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, it's not you?

[Speaker 1]
It's not, it's sa-la. Sa-la, oh, the earth, from the earth or from place? Yeah, some place, right?

If there's firewood some place, right? Then that could, that should be able to show that there's trang rek meh. There's no sense of frost.

Yeah, it can't be cold because there's firewood. If you can use the cause to deny the result, then you should be able to say, since there's firewood, I guess it's not cold. I don't get that.

And you don't get that, who said that? Minimal cutting. Good cutting.

If you can use a cause to prove the absence of a result, you see, then you should be able to use firewood to prove the absence of cold, because firewood is a cause for fire. So firewood, say again, gives a combination between the firewood and the fire. Yeah, right, yeah, you do.

The firewood has to be on fire. You need more to go on. And so we can use a contradictory result, but it's not enough to use a cause this way.

And in fact, this is taught as a, this dak te.

[Speaker 2]
Dak te, this reason?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, it's tu pa chen. It's mistaken.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, it's a tu pa chen gi ten si. It's a mistaken reason.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, ten eh, right? It's, right, it's then, it's thought as being that, okay? So, okay, this is harder, but that's okay.

Oh boy, man, I need someone else, whatever. That's okay, let's see. Everybody's so clever.

Too many clever people to choose from. Who wants to read? Can I get a hand or else someone say, hey, me, I'd like to practice reading.

I promise to critique you thoroughly. Yes, I want to. Thank you.

Is that ten? Yeah, yes, I am. Wonderful, okay, read for me, please.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Um, men, uh, shape, uh, seeking new, uh, trade, uh, you get me, um, to where, um, trade, uh, get, uh, trade, uh, me, uh, fun, so.

[Speaker 1]
Good, ten. Okay, you don't get off that easily. We've never met, but unfortunately for you, I have noticed how clever you are.

And, um, so now I can give you a harder time. May not ship a C. What's may not?

And what's he talking about? Yeah. I think that it is not the case.

Why does he say shape on here? Do we remember shape up? I know that, um, Duoto is desperate to tell you if you don't figure it out because he just had an incident involving ship us.

Yeah. It's the quote. So the man is the quote.

Yeah, right. So, um, with C, you know, C what? Yeah.

So when, right, the, the word may not, okay. Nuba. Yeah, it's ability, able.

Yeah. It's able to do something. Okay.

The words may not do something here. Okay. I believe this is not checked.

Okay. We're into, um, just remember we're, generally we're doing translation on our own here as a team. And so, uh, this is unchecked by the boss.

But I, you know, so I'm open to, I'm always open to critique, but you know, we're in uncharted territory. Yeah. It does something.

What does it do? I believe that these words, that the words may not have the Nuba, the ability to what? This is hard.

I think you go to the end here. To Shugla Pong. Sorry, I don't know this.

No problem. It's hard. We had this once.

What about the, the mega brainiacs? Do we remember Shugla? We had Shugla above and it kind of came up in the homework indirectly.

Nuba means to be inside. Yes. Thank you.

Word and Utpala also in the chat, indirectly suggest or imply. Knee. Tin, you know, knee.

Yeah. Two. Yeah.

Yeah. I think we have two more ways to be able to go pass something. To refute.

Yeah. Right. Which I put these little numbers in.

I think that we're at a total of eight now. Four directly mentioned and four now implied. So now how the word may not does it, we'll talk about it.

Let's see what are the two that are implied. May. Tin.

Is it by the fire? Good, by fire. Okay.

You can go by. You can refute the result of the cold. Good.

Yeah. You can deny the result of cold with fire. And this would be a.

The cause. Yeah. This is called seeing the presence of a yungel.

Go ahead, Nick. Yeah. I guess that the presence of contradictory cause.

Yeah, right. Because may is a cause that would be contradictory to what? To the sin of cold.

Yeah, right. To the result of cold. So like goosebumps.

I think you could say goosebumps. All right. Fire can deny goosebumps, which are the result of cold.

Okay. So then what about duwa? What's duwa and what can it do?

What's duwa? I don't remember. That's okay.

Not may, but duwa. Yeah, yes. Yeah.

Good, good, good. Duwa, as you know, what can it do? What can duwa do?

It can go by. Yeah. The smoke can deny the result of cold.

Yeah. So if there's a whole bunch of smoke there, then there must not be, in our theoretical idea here, goosebumps. And then that seems to be a...

The presence of the result of the contradictory cause and cause. Right. Yeah, great.

It's the presence of the result of a cause which is contradictory. The presence of a result, in this case, smoke, because smoke is a result of a cause. In this case, fire is the cause of smoke, which is contradictory to the result of cold.

So that's letting fire contradict goosebumps. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, how do the words may not imply that? I don't know. Let's go look.

Okay, let's see now. If we can look at the Sanskrit and put that in here. I guess who wants to be a next victim?

Can I have a new victim? Someone's studying with word. I can make word pick otherwise.

Thank you, teacher Ben. Thank you, Tin. It's so impressive.

It's so exciting. I like picking victims. Great, please do.

Kimchi. Yeah, I know, teacher. Okay.

Are you gonna read the Tibetan or the Sanskrit? Oh, yes, I read the Tibetan. Deal, go ahead.

Wow, reading in verse, kind of showing off, pretty good. Yeah, right. So let's say Kangyin.

Anyone, do you get, whatever, everyone should take a breath in case you're gonna say it, but does anyone know Kangyin? Yeah, like what you just said, whatever. Yeah, yeah, right, exactly.

Yeah. Kangyin, yeah, Jodhva here. How about Jodhva?

Do we know Jodhva? Act to do, to apply? Yeah, right, related to yoga even, right?

It's a formal logical statement in logic. It is that too. Oh.

You're right. No, you're exactly right. In this case, I think it kind of is.

Join you. Yeah, it's, yeah, well, you see, a prayujate, there's a yoga. I know it's exciting, isn't it?

[Speaker 2]
Yukti means like a reason too, like in Nick's book, right?

[Speaker 1]
It does, it does. Now, in theory, this is third-person singular passive, so it's a passive, so it means like to be used. So mikpa, okay, is being used, I think, okay?

And it, oh my goodness, well, that is exciting. Let's see, so seeing mikpa, a gyu. Kimchi, do you know gyu?

You didn't leave just because you read perfectly, right? Sorry, I don't remember. Okay, that's fine, that's okay.

And anyone can shout it out, especially if you don't know. Reason? Yeah, right.

Well, gyu is not a reason, although gyutsen is a reason. It's related to reason. Right, gyu is a cause, screams the chat.

So anyway, I said something like kangyin, any sort of reasoning, okay? Using, I said using here for jorwa, kind of, okay? But I think I said reasoning using, basically, a word.

So I'm trying to fulfill both of our needs. And using the mikpa, the presence of a cause, of, yeah, of that which is contradictory, is a chupachin. Oh, mistaken, we got that part, yay.

Yeah, good. Meina, because, here. Oh, if it's not there, then it is mistaken.

Yeah, what's not there? Well, whatever it is that they don't go eat. Yeah, well, gyuuten, okay?

That any such, like gyuten, a gyuten dot, okay? Reasons, okay, like that. If they are missing gyelwa, miss.

[Speaker 3]
If they don't have a contradiction.

[Speaker 1]
Gyuten, yeah, right, yeah. If they don't have a contradiction. For example, what?

What's the example? What's an example of a gyuten that is not a gyuten? No, those do have contradiction.

Fire and coal do have contradiction, but we had an example of a gyu, which did not have gyelwa. Firewood and coalness? Yeah, good book, oh yeah, great, firewood.

And on that note, let's see if this has any meaningful implications to our lives. Sorry, Nick, I know you were squinting hard. Yeah, it's suddenly, as soon as you were high lit, I could see how hard you were squinting at the screen that I took away.

My responsibility to get some glasses. Oh, it's good. I, let me know if you need a good guy for that.

Unfortunately. What do we think? I think somebody have some ideas, something that, this is hard, it's so hard.

It feels so abstract. Anyone have some thoughts on any way any of this is useful before I try to wax poetically on the fly? Mistaken states of mind can't be present with, let's say, correct evaluations of reality.

Right, so understanding where something, trying to understand where something's coming from could displace the wrong idea that it's coming from its own side. That's right, yeah, that's right. Two ideas are contradictory, right?

For something being self-existent and then for something becoming my karma are contradictory. Yeah, they're contradictory, right, that's right. So how can we prove the lack?

How many different ways can we prove? I wonder if we can prove the lack of a husband in the kitchen. How about this, okay, how about this?

All right, I'm gonna try something weird here. Here. We've had, I think, eight so far, all right?

So let's do, okay. Can we prove the lack of a husband in the kitchen using a rang shingelmik, the fact that there's something contradictory there to there being, what kind of? A self-existent husband in the kitchen.

A husband that is there yelling at you for no reason. What's a thing that's contradictory to that? A husband who's there, a wife who's there.

Because you were yelling at your kids last week. An existing thing would be contradictory to that. A husband yelling at me for no reason.

A pen could be contradictory to that. Isn't there. Because there is, here, a.

Let's say, in the kitchen to the east. I'm just kidding. There is no husband yelling at me for no reason.

Because. Well, wait a minute, isn't this something we should be able to see? Is a non-existent thing something we should be able to see?

If you were there, right? We're talking about a lack, right? So it's the lack of something that would appear.

And so self-existent things, since they appear the same way to everybody, I think I can get away with saying, yes, it should appear. So what would be a thing, okay, whose existence would be contradictory to the presence? How about, there's no husband yelling at me.

Go ahead. To somebody who's not totally enlightened, yeah. How about in the kitchen to the east, there's no husband yelling at me for no reason because.

Yeah, because there's a husband who's in the kitchen who's yelling because I yelled at my kids last week. Yeah, husband, there. Yelling because I yelled at my kids last week.

I like it.

[Speaker 3]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, boy, we could use a better rap feature, but that's okay. No, that's my fault. Let's try this.

Oh, this, I wrote the same thing. This is contradictory identity, but this shouldn't be, this should be a contradictory result. Okay, let's see.

In the kitchen to the east, there's a, there's a, hold on, yeah. Because there's one, because, yeah, totally. Hold on.

What would be a result of a husband yelling because I yelled at my kids last week? Well, it kind of, the reason I got a little gummed up is because it would appear that we could use the same, the same reasoning again. And I was trying to think of some way to rephrase it, but it appears that it may work here too.

That wouldn't be a problem, right? Because a result is a thing. A thing isn't necessarily result, but result is a thing.

That's fine. Yeah, so it should, go ahead. Yeah, Pei-Ling.

Because if you argue that you're not yelling at anybody at all, you will not yell by your husband today. Say again, say again. I'm sorry, Pei-Ling, I didn't quite catch it.

Because if you say that you're not yelling at anybody at all, you will not get the result of yelling by your husband today. Yeah, right. How about this?

It's proof of contradictory of result. Yeah, right, in a kitchen. Yeah, right.

How about this? In the place where I stand, there is no one being yelled at for no reason because I, yeah, how about in the place where I am being yelled at? There is no one being yelled in the place where I'm being yelled at.

There is no one being yelled at for no reason because I am being yelled at. Yeah, I like it, yeah. Impossible, I couldn't get yelled at causelessly.

It's not a thing. How about this? Okay, oh, a contradictory, oh, sorry, this is, and these were notes I wrote to myself.

Okay, so they're wrong. I didn't write these for you. I just grabbed them because we, I thought an exercise would be good.

But this is, there is no pause present. Okay, so the, what do you think? There is no husband in the kitchen is, right, we could say in the kitchen.

There is no husband in the kitchen yelling at me because I don't, I haven't yelled at anybody. There's, saying there's a complacent husband in the kitchen. I want to say for no reason.

How about this? I mean, there's no, in the kitchen, there's no husband yelling at me because- Is there is no one yelling at a kid last week? Oh, oh, because there's no me yelling at a kid last week.

That's good. I think that's good. I want to try to, and the reason I want to phrase it this way is because I want to talk myself out of believing in my yelling wife yelling at me because of bad traffic about that.

Because Kendra's always yelling at me. And if you know Kendra, ooh, she doesn't yell. But we'll pretend.

In the kitchen, there's no husband yelling at me because of bad traffic, because, let's see. Bad traffic's not my fault. Yeah, yeah, right.

I want to somehow, how would we phrase this in a way that points out that bad traffic by itself can't cause the husband to yell? Because he works from home. He works from home.

That's a good one, I like that. Okay, great, fine. I'll take it, right.

That's fine. I don't know if that breaks the chains of my delusion, but it's airtight. Could you say something as simple as, because I understand how reality works?

I guess as long as I'm doing it in the kitchen. You probably want a couple of steps in there to make that. Okay.

Okay. Yeah, right, as long as, yeah, there's no husband, yeah, because, yeah, it would be something cutting like because there is no one right there who traffic could cause to yell at me. No, this is, this one I'm struggling with a little bit, but let's see, there's no husband yelling at me because of bad traffic, because there is, this is a rangshin mamikbe da, okay, meaning just like the, I think just like the thing itself is no, no, I'm going to keep my husband.

Yeah, because I'm single. Yeah, right, because there is no husband in the kitchen. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's airtight. Seems reasonable enough. Okay.

[Speaker 3]
A good example.

[Speaker 1]
A thing that includes a contradictory thing. Yeah, what's the difference? I don't know.

Has to do with set size. Oh, yeah. See, but isn't that already contradictory?

This is what's hard for me. It does have to do with set size. Yeah, I get it.

Did I already do this? Is this already this? Is this also a Kyab-Jay yelling at me?

I would go with what Mike Hoffman said in the chat as more of a. Oh, good, Mike, I didn't see the chat. I'm sorry, it's hard to balance all these.

I don't know if that addresses the set size.

[Speaker 3]
Because there is a kitchen.

[Speaker 1]
It is not yelling, that's good. Because there is a kitchen, because we are in a kitchen with a husband that is not yelling or something. That might be a, well, you could have a yelling husband and a not yelling husband.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess you'd have to be standing in the same place. It depends on the size of the kitchen and frankly, the size of the husband.

Well, and whether it's a dinner party and there are a whole bunch of couples there, so there are lots of husbands around. That's good, it's enough. I'm gonna stop there.

That's the idea. We're just trying to talk ourselves out of delusion and find different ways to do it. And doing it with friends is more fun than doing it alone and helpful.

Nice try, anyway. That wasn't the strongest vote of confidence I've ever had in my life. Oh, no, no, you were great.

I just mean, nice try getting me out of delusion. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, okay. I totally took it the other way.

Juan, are you still, yeah, right. I was so hurt, Nick, but it's okay.

[Speaker 2]
Hi, Juan. Hello, Ben, Nick. Hey.

How are you doing?

[Speaker 1]
Still in delusion, but not because of Ben's class. Yeah. Couldn't quite get out of it.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I had the great chance to see Nick Lachaud live after a few years that I haven't seen you. He came to visit Arizona, it was wonderful. As many of you may know, these days, DSU is having a program, an event.

They are celebrating their second anniversary. And one of the openings for that was like a big concert with Geshe Michael's band, where Nick Lachaud was one of the guitar players, and it was just so fun. And yeah, I have a little picture of the events.

I mean, this is just like a poster to honor the DSU event that I'm talking about, that it's happening just now, these days, here in Sedona. And it keeps going. Just a few days ago, maybe some of you were lucky enough to be able to watch some of Geshe Lachaud's classes during this event.

They are very, very wonderful. The event keeps going, and actually they are going next to have some sessions and very exciting on-sites, almost, I would say like pilgrimage or something, in the sense of visiting special places. They're gonna be going to Princeton, and they're gonna be going to Andean Diamond Building and things like that.

So it's just letting you know what's happening. Geshe-la may be flying tomorrow with our friend Rob Hagerty, and they're gonna have like a wonderful five days, one week sessions, part of the DSU program there in New York, in New Jersey. So just letting you know what's happening.

Today, Geshe-la needed a day off to take care of some personal businesses or activities, but it's wonderful we had the chance to still get together, still review the books. It's also a great time for, it's my personal take, that the translators have a chance to practice and to see how much they can do helping each other. So that's also fun and exciting.

Just a little bit of context of what's happening these days. After DSU, the next big event that I'm aware of is gonna be happening in Diamond Mountain. Geshe-la is gonna be teaching there.

Of course, there is a pre-set of teachings that is happening from the 6th to the 11th with our friend Kielce. And then Geshe-la is gonna be teaching in Diamond Mountain from the 11th to the 20th. Then as far as I know, there is gonna be some Sedona College international management things happening.

In the meantime of the last part of October, if I remember correctly, and then in November, Geshe-la will be teaching the Hatha Yoga Pradipika chapter four, also from Sedona in the Sedona College. And then of course, a little after that, the Kyoto event is happening. Very, very exciting.

Probably still good time to plan for that if you haven't figured it out, but if you can, Kyoto is gonna be awesome. Along with this event in Japan, from the 1st to the 7th, along with it and at the same time, the Sedona College of Alumni Association, SKAA, is gonna be having very interesting panelist activities sessions. The cool thing about it, or one of the good things about it, is that these sessions are happening at the same hotel, in the same venue and at the same time.

So if you sign up for this and you happen to be going to the Kyoto event with the steps on the path, let's say, everything is gonna be happening there at the same time. So if you're already going, of course, we will encourage you, try to also sign up for these activities. They're gonna be wonderful, wonderful activities, very interesting, wisdom sharing sessions.

So yeah, if you wanna do that, you have to, one of the requirements is that you need to have attended or be part of the Sedona College International Management Programs at some point, if you wanna sign up. But if you have, then try to sign up. It's gonna be wonderful happening in the same venue, at the same time.

A few sessions ago, we had our dear friend, Sue Geng, talking about it and of course, inviting and encouraging students of the Sedona College to sign up. That's the overview of the Geshe-la's main events during this upcoming months before 2025. A few other things happening, we'll be telling you a little later, but these are big events that are happening.

It's good for you to know what's going on. And a little bit aside of this, but this particular week, we have the Latin America Tour having action and activities. Number one in Argentina, this is like the poster of the whole tour happening there.

They are having the presentation of one of the books that Laura Valiente, a friend of us, a student also in Argentina, she's gonna be presenting this wonderful book she wrote. That's gonna be on Friday. Posters are in Spanish because that's the main audience.

Of course, it's happening in Buenos Aires, capital of Argentina. This is gonna be on Friday. And then on Saturday, they're having like a conference.

Paulina and some other teacher guests are having this event on the 5th, October 5th, Saturday of October 5th, also in Buenos Aires. And then on Tuesday 8th, they having another great conference there as well. So these sessions are part of the Latin America Tour that many of the Hispanic speaking teachers of this ancient wisdom are doing.

But also now we have great news that Costa Rica is also having events this upcoming week. And it's a very cool session of teachings that our friends, some of our friends in Mexico are gonna be teaching in Costa Rica. It's about the teachings of the heart yoga.

For that, it's gonna be next picture, please. It's gonna be from October the 3rd to October 5th. And for that, we have our friend Alejandro Rivas, which also it's a member of YSI.

He's very involved with YSI these days, teaching many courses in Guadalajara and Mexico. He's here with us and he's gonna tell us a little bit of what they have planned for this upcoming weekend. In Costa Rica.

Here he is with us. Alex Rivas, how are you?

[Speaker 3]
Hey Juan, very good and you?

[Speaker 2]
God bless, very good as well. Great to see you, great to see you. Many of you may know Alex Rivas and I grew up in Guadalajara together.

It's like very wonderful feeling of being among friends. So I'm so glad you came today. Yeah.

So tell us a little bit, Alex, what's happening this time in Costa Rica and why you decided, maybe tell us a little bit of what happened last year when you went and what happened so you decided this time to teach about these topics.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, we're trying to follow Geshe-la's classes where he is right now in like, you know, he's finishing this book in Kyoto, the last teaching of this teachings.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, of the steps on the path. And so the last time he was teaching about the six perfections, like how to train your heart. So last time we went to Costa Rica, we saw they are very into yoga, into asana, into twisting and stretching, you know?

So we decided to take these six perfections, these like teachings to how to train your heart, how to be a good person, but into the yoga, into the asanas, that is something that Geshe Michael already did in a book. So we took those teachings and we are just taking them to the math, to how it is in the book. And we are sharing this teaching with them in their own language, in their own, how they want, how they want it.

It's the, we need to adapt to what they want and they are really, they are yogis. So this time, Alexa, Diaz de Sandy and Gina Rivera, we are going there and we're dividing the class. It's going to be a two hour class.

And yeah, it's beautiful. Costa Rica has been great. And we're going to teach in four different places.

The same class is theory and practice. And so we just want to like, to dress up for them, like to, what they need, we want to take it to them. So they need yoga, we need to take the teachings of the good heart to the math.

That's what we're doing.

[Speaker 2]
That's very wonderful. And if I may ask Alex, what's your wish or what's the vision of the future? What do you see as a potential happening in Costa Rica?

This is the second time you went. Can you tell us just very briefly, what was your general view of the scene there in Costa Rica? And what do you expect or wish for this second time?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, we want to expand to like a more general audience, not like only yogis. The last time we went to like a place where they really meditate. It's another tradition of meditation.

So they really practice. They are really into these meditation practices and yoga practices. But we need to, we want to open to a more general audience, not only like yogis or meditators, but to entrepreneurs.

We're trying to go to the University of Costa Rica and give a talk there. So that's what we're, we're going there to the university to ask for permission to teach there. That's what we're doing this next time.

[Speaker 2]
That's wonderful. And as far as I understand, eventually the idea is to be going to each one of the different countries, not only once a year, but maybe two or three times a year. And also to have somehow a follow-up like in between visits, programs about that.

Could you tell us a little bit about what you'll be thinking about it? Like maybe having a monthly sessions or what ideas have you guys come up in order to give a follow-up in between visits?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, we have a friend there who is organizing, Lucia Chaverri. She is teaching once a week yoga there. So we are sending all with her if they want a live class.

But we're also giving classes online regularly to them. Whatever they need once a month, we will get together to create community. You know, that's what we want, to create community.

They feel they belong to something, that they belong to something higher, that we are all together in this, you know? So we want to go there and let them know that they can change their reality, basically.

[Speaker 2]
That's very cool. And by the way, I have heard that Costa Rica, never been there myself, but I hear it's a wonderful, beautiful place to be. It attracts so many tourists.

They say the nature is amazing. So I was thinking maybe eventually, like if events are big enough here, things are moving so much, maybe at some point international audience may want to go there. So let's see what happens.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, a beautiful thing about them is that they don't have an army. For example, it's a beautiful thing about Costa Rica. They don't have an army and you can feel it in the people.

They are so peaceful that they think they don't need an army. So that's really great. And yeah, I went to another retreat there in Costa Rica with the Three Jewels people.

So yeah, internationally, it's a great place to go. It's beautiful and let's see how we grow there.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, let's see. Maybe one day, many, many of us have a chance to be there and either help or learn or something. But thank you so much for being doing this.

We want to wish you best. Can you say that? I don't know.

Does that make sense? We want to wish you best wishes, something like that. But we are sending the best wishes anyways.

And let us know how it goes. We have, yeah, we wish you the best. Thank you, Utpala.

And let us know how it goes. Let us know how it goes. Send videos and we'll be reporting soon.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Hope people also are happy about it and hope that, yeah, you went, whatever, for the audience, you are ready for the next class.

You went to the bathroom or did whatever you needed to or just gladly rejoice about the cool things that are happening. We'll be reporting more soon once we get to hear more or to see more. Next class is gonna be with Adam.

He just.