Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 47

[Speaker 1]
All right. What's up, party people? Welcome to Schwenzhag Tower.

Glad to be here, glad to see y'all. Hope everybody's doing well. Looking forward to another fun class.

Today, we've got exciting classes with Ben Kramer and Ward Smith, and two amazing texts in logic and mind only, so it's not gonna be easy. Get your minds ready for some gymnastics. And let's check in with the boss.

Where are you, boss? Are we set up over there? Hey, Ben.

Hey, dude, how are you? I'm ready to go. That's cool.

It's all gonna work out.

[Speaker 3]
It's okay.

[Speaker 1]
Definitely will. We could start with our homework, because I think everybody- I think Geisha Michaels is gonna be really upset if he doesn't get to see the homework. You know, he will.

He's gonna be really bummed to miss it. I know. But I think- Okay, you talked me into it.

Yeah. I suspect by the time we get through it, I don't know why- I think it'll be a good time to critique your translation, I reckon. Okay.

Okay, let's see. Uh-oh. Never mind.

Never mind. Okay, I don't mind if you don't. Well, brace yourselves, everybody.

Question number one. What absurd consequence does our author offer to dispute the mistaken idea that one could use the presence of fire's cause to deny the presence of a cold feeling? So I'll watch in the chat and I'll stall for a moment for answers.

But a hypothetical opponent maybe says, can I use a cause as proof? Can I use fire's cause, the fact that fire's cause is present? Can I use that to deny that someone on the mountain over there is chilly?

Oh, wow, Oscar, very nice. And by using the original language, you give someone else an opportunity to use the English. Look at that cutting, great.

Yeah. So does that mean that if there's a piece of firewood, you must not be cold? No, right?

Of course it doesn't mean that. So that's the absurd consequence he offers. How about the term used here for mistaken reasoning?

Hi, boss, you're there. Hey, hey, hey. It's good to see you.

I'm just trying to power through the homework so that we can devote our time to hanging out with you. We can. Nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom, nom.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
It's all around me. Okay, go ahead. Okay.

Okay. Sure, the assembled students were using the opportunity to stall so that they didn't have to offer this term given for mistaken reasoning. There are a couple options.

This would almost be like, I think like delusional reasoning or something would be the taste of it. That's okay. I won't make you wait forever.

Someone's got notes, Oscar. It's okay if you answer more than once even though you're maybe translating and juggle and drink water at the same time. That's okay.

Sure, right. You got it. Topa, topa tansik.

All right, next question. What is the name of the type of reason in which the presence of fire is used to deny the result of cold? So for example, over on that mountain over there, ain't nobody got goosebumps because there's fire there.

What's that type of a reason called? I know what it is, but I'm not, even before I started drawing it. Contradictory cause and result, something like that, so.

Nice, great. Yes, a reason by the presence of a contradictory cause. That, yeah, fire as a cause of a hot feeling contradicts the possibility of a cold feeling.

Yeah, wait, gyungel mitpe tansik, okay. Yeah, you got it. Okay.

Great. Seems like that would traditionally be a question mark instead of a comma. What is the name of the type of reason in which the presence of smoke is used to deny the result of cold?

Look at that mountain over there. Sure is a bunch of smoke, so there must not be cold sensation or goosebumps. Gyungel mitpe tansik.

Yeah, great. Yeah, nice. A reason by the presence of a result that contradicts the cause.

Nice. Yeah. Okay, got it.

I'm afraid so. Good. Okay, sorry, I put in a bonus one just because it seemed like it was important to leave off where we left off.

What other qualifications are necessary in order for smoke to refute the sensation of cold? Is just saying there's smoke enough to refute the sensation of cold, or is there anything else we would need to properly refute the sensation of cold? Hey, hey, there's no cold because there's smoke.

Is that enough, or do I need something else? And what else might I need? Lindsay said lots of smoke.

Lots of smoke makes the list. I think you could put that on the list, but there are some other key elements that are in the chat. Nobody look, Utpala saved you already.

On the mountain? Yeah, on the mountain is one of them. Yeah, on the mountain is a place.

And what we need in addition to place, in addition to maybe, you could say circumstance could be a whole darn lot of smoke, and Utpala gave you the other option, which is time, when the smoke should be happening now, and if the smoke was happening last Thursday, it could still be cold up there now, or it could be cold again. The observer should not be paralyzed. Right, yeah, cool.

So now I'm going to switch to translation mode, telling me about, I'm telling you about. Oh, yeah, Geshe Michael, your mic is pretty low for some reason. Yeah.

There's many reasons. It's, but it's low in a particular time and place that's problematic for us. I don't know if I should unmute, sorry, okay.

That didn't solve it. Yeah, you being muted might be it. But if I unmute, we get other problems, so.

That was better, a little bit better. I know, I know. Okay.

Oh, read it, please, Ben. Okay. NYID PA GSUNGS NYID DU NGES PAR GDUG PA LA NI YANG DAG GIS SKYE BAR GSUNGS DU MA GDUG PA RGAGS PA DANG BAR NANG GIS SKYE BAR YANG DAG DU GDUG PA RGAGS PA'O Good.

What's GSUNGS NYID, okay, let's translate. Here is the second session on the division of correct logical statements. We will demonstrate.

Should I turn my volume down? Yeah, I guess. How's that?

Is that better? Can you hear me, Ben? I do, I hear you.

That is better. Whatever you just did got rid of some echo, so. Okay, let's just leave it like that.

Here in the second session, Division of Correct Logical Statements. Let's read the correct mantra in here. Okay, good.

YANG DAG GIS SKYE BAR GSUNGS DU MA GDUG PA RGAGS PA Two parts to include, denying that there are more divisions to be included among the three correct ones, and then a denial that SKYE BAR should be included among the corrections. Yeah, nice. Okay, good.

By the way, just SKYE BAR, I would probably read it as a singular, that the quality of being mistaken, the particular type, which is called mistaken reasons, should not be added as an, understood as a fourth type of reasons.

[Speaker 3]
Oh, yeah, cool.

[Speaker 1]
That's all. That's, he's covering SKYE BAR, so. Yeah, okay.

LTAR NANG GIS LTAR NANG doesn't count as a category. Yeah, we're not going to count it as a fourth one. What are the three types of correct reasons?

But, you know, well here, I will give one, any kind of correct reason. RGYUD DE'I MA MI RGYUD DE'I MA MI What? RGYUD RANG BZHIN MA MI Yeah, right.

So, RGYUD DE'I RANG BZHIN MA MI Result? DE'I RANG BZHIN Result? Result, RANG BZHIN, nature.

Identity, nature. MA MI Yeah. MA MI And proof for the absence of something.

Yeah, those are the three kinds of correct reasons. Okay, you can either give a, you can give a reason which points to a result. You can give a reason which points to something which is essentially the same.

Or you can point to something which is absent. Okay. Those are the three classical types of logic.

And you use them all day, all the time. You use them every time you have a conversation with somebody and you don't know you're using them. Then there's a position in ancient times by some non-Buddhists and even some Buddhists who say that mistaken logic should be listed as one of the four types of correct logic.

Okay. As one of the, it's one of the types of, the types of reasons should include bad reasons. And we're going to prove that that's a bad idea.

Okay. All right, Mr. Bin. Okay.

DANG PO NA CI LA BSTAN PA'I TSOS PHUNG I guess, I struggled with this, but I guess this is just proving arguments about the dependence on, of the later on the former, on things that happen later, the way they depend on things that happened before. Something like that? Offhand, I would read NA CI like TSAR DANG or CI YANG.

I would read it as a noun composed by the two opposites. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Time. Progression. Relative time.

Yeah. The word for relative time is early, late. Is it sequence or something?

The word for temperature is hot, cold. The word for height is high, low. Like that.

I think it's just, it's just that. Okay. On sequence, it's sequence.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, cool.

Yeah, great. All right. Let's not do it first, because there's no way in a hundred years we'd get it correct anyway.

Okay. By the way, I mean, I'll point out something painfully obvious to me. The reason, as I mentioned, the reason I use Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk's commentary to this incredibly difficult, huge, massive foundational work on logic from 1,500 years ago is that he explains every single word.

He goes through every single word. And he's the only person I've ever seen go through every single word. And I helped edit his book.

But in the last 500 years, it's the best. And it seems, Ben, that at the beginning of the book, he didn't intend to make a word commentary. Okay.

So he leaves us with no explanation of some of the verses, unless he's going to do it somehow again. Okay? We'll just kind of pretend he's going to and not worry about it.

Okay. Otherwise, to translate your book, we're going to have to go to another commentary for the first book, which is a pain in the butt. So who's going to read this next verse?

Not the verse, Ben, but the commentary. Yeah, let's see. I'm looking in the chat.

I'm looking, oh, Dordo, would you read here? Yes, sir. Thank you.

I'm looking in the chat. I'm looking, oh, Dordo, would you read here? Yes, sir.

Thank you. I'm looking, oh, Dordo, would you read here? Nice.

Very nice, son. Okay, cool. So let's go through.

These lines demonstrate that we are not guilty of being imprecise about there being three types of correct reasons. Good. This is because the lines explain that if we take a few minutes to read a few lines, we have a field with barley, right?

An understood barley seed.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I can't, I'm sorry. Every time someone, anyway. Soil, water, fertilizer, warmth and moisture.

as proof that its result would be appropriate. Yeah, its result, right, the the nukyukye, sorry, the drenne nukyukye. Yeah, so could you put this into a logical statement?

Okay, and by the way, I know it's exciting and it's difficult and it's the best thing you can do to see emptiness and you don't believe me so that's okay. Yeah, consider the starting of I guess it's consider that field, that farmer's field, it is appropriate or suitable for the starting of a barley sprout because it is a field complete with barley, soil, water, fertilizer, warmth and moisture. Yeah, okay.

Let's take this field, it's fit to grow a crop because there's all these other things, there's earth, there's water, there's fertilizer, there's chosher, chosher, warmth, okay, sufficient warmth, okay. Those I've completed. Now, this is weird because kye rung is, how is kye rung different from kye?

He's not trying to prove that it grows, he's trying to prove that it's fit to grow, okay, and that's a delicate thing, okay. Fit to grow, he's not trying to prove something changing, okay. The fact that it's fit to grow, which is unchanging.

Facts are unchanging, okay. The sky is blue is permanent or is the sky is blue changing or unchanging? Unchanging.

It's unchanging, you know, truths are unchanging, okay, got it? The sky is blue is not a changing thing. The fact that, you know, happiness lasts for a few seconds is an unchanging thing, okay.

It's a truth which doesn't change, got it? So, that's why you can say here we're dealing with natures and not with cause and effect, okay. Fit to grow crops is a quality, okay.

Growing or growing is a changing thing, okay. It's the difference between something changing or proving something which is a fact, okay. Being a field with all the good stuff automatically means being a place where this barley could grow, may grow.

Could is the key word here, could grow, which is a fact, makes it a fact. Grow a bone instead of growing, okay. Very delicate, it's a very delicate idea.

Okay, good. So that, somehow this example came up because someone is trying to prove that there are other types of reasons aside from the classical three. The three that involve cause and effect, the three that involve things that are equivalent and perhaps unchanging, possibly unchanging, and then the one about proving that something's not there or something's not something.

And he's headed towards a fourth one. Somebody wants to posit a fourth one. And this is a very, very famous debate in the history of thought, thinking, how do you think, okay.

And someone's going to try to introduce a fourth one. That's what this, yeah. So it seems like the opponent is trying to get away with using a cause as a reason instead of a result by saying that a field is a cause, that all those things together are a complete set of causes.

I'm not sure, I'm not sure which one he is, I'm not sure, I gotta see. Okay, okay, cool. All right, should we go to the next question?

I'm not sure which one he's trying to add. Okay, all right, sure. Here, I'll put this in the next page.

I've got one last little bit here from you. Who's going to read, Ben? Kading, would you read here?

Oh, thank you. Kading, would you read that? Thank you so much.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, and you can see with what Ben has put into bold text, that our author, our commentator is trying to include the words of the ancient root text by Dharmakirti, okay? And he's not consistent, and he does some pieces of the first two lines and then he doesn't do the next two lines, okay? So, SIG CHE DE, these lines explain that even if you have a field with this complete SOGS PA TZAM GYIS GZHING YIN NA YANG, its ability to produce a spell NUS PAR GYUR BA DANG DRA NA'I, STILL MUST COME SKYE DGOS PAR BRTEN NO, SIG CHE DE, SOGS PA TZAM GYIS GZHING YIN NA YANG, even if something is a field which has all the necessary...

and by the way, this is a famous argument, just because all the necessary elements are present, does that prove a result has occurred? No, and here the root text helps us in a way it seems the commentary doesn't. Yeah, and by the way, I mean it's a bitter debate in the eight-year-old's debate ground.

Do you remember the the counter example, Ben? Famous. I think so, yeah, I think it's a crow, right?

Eating the seed. All the causes are there. There's water, there's soil, there's a seed, there's sunlight, the farmer's standing there, and then a crow sweeps down and grabs the seed and flies away.

So that's the proof that just because all the causes are present, doesn't mean the result is present. Disasters can happen. Weird things can happen.

Stuff happens. Okay, SIG CHE DE, SOGS PA TZAM GYIS GZHING YIN NA Yeah, even though it's a complete field with all that, yeah, it means GYUL YI TSUL PA, right? The collection of its causes are present.

NYON PA'I RGYUR BA DANG BRTAN NAS If it's, yeah, NYON PA'I RGYUR BA DANG BRTAN NAS Yeah, due to its connection with its potential, right? Due to its connection with its potential, it should be able to produce a result, right? A sprout, right?

Okay. Okay. I don't know.

I didn't love, I don't know, come with change or something was sort of hard. RGYUR BA DANG BRTAN NAS I feel like I kind of understand, but I'm not sure how to phrase it. Relative to the potential of the completeness of the causes shifting.

Yeah. Yeah, something's still got to happen for a sprout to happen. The completeness of the causes can change.

Okay. Something can happen. Stuff can happen.

Okay.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
NYON PA'I RGYUR means the potential could shift. Okay. The potential for crops could shift.

If a crow poops down, it seems like an unfair example because if that's the case, that you'd have to list no crows nearby, then it's endless. You'd have to say no new weapons in the next country and stuff like that. Okay.

I guess I took it as like it still needs change as an element, like it's almost another element needed in the list of ingredients. Is the seed actually changing, like transforming or like becoming a sprout? Like that part didn't happen yet.

We still need that for the list of causes to be complete in a way? I don't know. Yeah, it's just, I don't know what kind of, what new kind of cause, I don't know what new kind of reason he's proposing.

But it has to do with potential. The potential for something to happen. And then he seems to be saying potential is too slippery.

It can change too easily. So you can't say logically that corn is going to grow in that field because it has the potential to grow the corn. Too many things can happen.

That's all. Okay, let's see what... I'm sorry, just a stylistic question.

Our commentator says over and over again xie fei qi qie, tei, right? Or some formulation almost exactly like this with the verb to teach, to explain. And I'm kind of struggling avoiding what you would call the like cloying tendency of saying these lines explain, these lines teach, these lines here are saying, and I'm not sure how to balance that.

Or if you have any thoughts on, I don't know, do you always repeat those lines or how do you... Yeah, I do have thoughts because I'm working on, as you know, I'm working on Tsongkapa's commentary to Chandrakirti nowadays. And Chandrakirti is careful to change the verb.

And so is Tsongkapa. He will say shepa, b-z-h-e-d. He will say jrakpa, g-r-a-g-s.

He will say sungpa. He will say serwa. He will say denpa.

He will mix it up. And I think, and our author is not doing that. Now the question is...

No, no. Yeah, even here like he said ten twice. Yeah, so as a translator do you repeat the boring verb over and over again because he did?

Or do you try to make it sound a little better in the English? And I think as long as you don't go too far afield from the original meaning of the word, I think it's okay to use some different words. And there are many, many words you can use.

And if you're interested you could look at the last few pages of the translation by Tsongkapa this morning because they are really good at it. Chandrakirti is really good at it and Tsongkapa is really good at it. He rarely uses the same verb.

Okay, and even saying like these lines say or teacher explain that, can I say like here sometimes or like instead of these lines? You can use lots, yeah. I would say you have freedom to not make translation read in a cloying way or a boring way in English.

It's a little boring in Tibetan, but anyway. Okay, last little blurb here. Okay, and then I'm looking for victims.

Let's see. Yeah, well I mean I guess we're maybe in studio. Should I grab someone there or is that inconvenient?

No, I can grab somebody. You name an A or B and name a number. B7.

Did I sink your battleship? It sounds like Joe.

[Speaker 3]
Cool.

[Speaker 1]
I mean there's only five rows so he's in the seven. It's only a tiny sentence, but we'll have to do more. Good.

All right Joe, thank you. Good. Stay and then stay, because dunyam.

Do the who? Go ahead. I don't mind.

Yeah, good. So we're going to have some argument about, what do you call it? Dunyam means things happen at the same time.

What do you call that? Simultaneity. Okay, there's an argument about an argument, an argument which relies upon simultaneity, okay?

And now we go to my copy, right? Yeah, let's. Okay, here we go.

If you want to be. Okay. Okay.

Okay, so Joe, you didn't get out of it. Hang on, let me get a bigger person here for my favorite person. Okay, here we go.

Okay. Nice. Okay.

Okay, hang out here and we'll go through this, okay? Okay, so let's say the chod chen, okay? What's that?

The subject. What we're going to talk about, okay, is puram kyi ro. Yeah, the flavor of some sugar cane, okay?

Puram kyi ro. Nga ma, like the puram kyi ro at three o'clock, okay, the previous puram kyi ro, the taste of sugar cane at three o'clock, okay? Does it have the nyupa?

The ability. Yeah, does it have the potential of creating? And then buddha is a very strange but common contraction for buddha.

Okay, buddha means buddham, okay? Got it? Yes.

Okay, so the previous, does the taste, does the sweet taste of a piece of sugar cane at three o'clock have the capacity or the potential to produce the visual appearance of the sugar cane at 3.15? Okay, that's tricky. I'll say it again.

Does the taste of a piece of sugar cane at three o'clock have the capacity or the potential to produce the visual appearance of the sugar cane at 3.15? No, I guess I would say no. The audience here says no.

Yeah, I don't think so. Okay, then if the bhur suk tatawa, if the visual appearance of the sugar cane, okay, could you have a perception of the visual appearance of the current, the current, the 3.15, all right? Can you deduce it from the taste of sugar cane at three o'clock?

I guess not. You'd be able to see sugar cane at 3.15 if you have a sweet taste in your mouth at three o'clock. I guess no, because a crow could fly into your mouth and take the sugar cane.

Yeah, okay, good, good. That's all, that's the debate, okay? Now let's go back and put it together.

shloka nyi po means what, Ben? Second? Both, yeah, both.

Both of these two. And then he gives the Tibetan word for verse, which is sikche, and then he gives the Tibetan word for verse, which is, which is really, listen, shloka, shloka. It's not sholoka, okay?

It's shloka. But Tibetans pronounce it sholoka, okay? All right, so let's take these two verses, all right?

jepak ni kye na, in order to produce two jepaks, Yeah, two deductive understandings. Yeah, in order to produce two logical conclusions, it's mayin, gupa mayin tak nyi guk. You don't have to put forward two reasons.

Yeah, you don't need two logical statements, one to prove that the taste of the sugar cane will be there at 3.15 and one to prove that the visual appearance of the sugar cane will be there at 3.15, because if you can prove that there was a taste of sugar cane at three o'clock, that's enough to prove that there was the visual appearance of sugar cane at 3.15. The presence of the taste, the presence of the sweet taste of sugar cane at three o'clock is sufficient proof for two conclusions at 3.15, that at 3.15 there will be the taste of the sugar cane and there will be the visual appearance of it, because you couldn't have the taste without the stick there. That's what the other guy's saying. Some kinds of...

You have to include in your list of good logic this weird kind of proof that can prove two different things from one thing. You can prove the smell, you can prove the the color and the taste of the sugar cane from the presence of the taste of the sugar cane, because how could you have the taste of the sugar cane at 3.15 without the stick? Makes sense, kind of.

He's saying now you have to have a new kind of logic. You said three types of logic. Well, there's a fourth one, kind of like where the logical cause can expand by 3.15. Okay, got it? He wants a new kind of... And then, by the way, in this in this manner, there were logical schools of ancient India that said there were hundreds of logical reasons. And Dharmakirti's like, it all boils down to three.

YIN TE PHYIR BYED PO. So what's PHYIR BYED PO? RGYUD PHYIR BYED PO.

RGYUD PHYIR BYED PO, it's a deduction based on a quality that's a cause? Yeah, it's the inference that the inference of a cause, the inference of a cause, what? At three o'clock we infer that there was present the cause of the appearance of the sugar cane at 3.15. There must have been something there at three o'clock that turned into the appearance of the sugar cane by 3.15. We can deduce that. You don't have to say there was the taste of the sugar cane, and there was the color of the sugar cane, and there was a long thing, and there was a skinny thing. You don't have to say that. If you could taste it at three o'clock, we can assume there must have been the stick at three o'clock, okay?

The other guy says, okay? SHING PO GYI BRJED DAG. Why?

So there must have been the the color of the sugar cane at three o'clock. Why? Because it tasted good by 3.15. I see. Okay. Yeah, so BU RANG GI ROL NGA MA'I BRTEN GYI BOR GZUGS CI MA RGYAS PA'I NUS PA Yeah, the taste of the sugar cane in the previous time had the capacity or the potential to create the visual appearance of the sugar cane at 3.15. Okay, that's all. So we're using the one at 3.15 to prove the two at three o'clock?

We're using the DRE to prove the RGYUS? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, because he wants to name this new type of logic RGYUS CHU BYAS PO, RGYUS CHU BYAS PA.

The, what do you call it? The presumption of a cause. Okay, the inference of a cause.

The inference of something at three o'clock that created the appearance of the sugar cane at 3.15. And that RGYUS CHU is the taste of the sugar cane. Okay? When Kramer is up at the ceiling, you're in trouble.

I'm just saying, you got this thing. All right, not that I would know. Okay, here's an easier clarification, and Joe's begging to read this last two.

Okay, Joe. He's like poking me. Okay, you got that curse out there.

[Speaker 2]
I know I can do both. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah. Fair enough.

[Speaker 2]
Perna, due, takle, meyopadam, ushing, ngurwa, kepe, nyupa yopar, tope, jepak, nike, wa, shinno, she, she?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, good. She, she. She, she.

Okay, good. Ben, translate. Fair enough.

For example, using smoke as a reason, and from that, I guess the presence of fire and firewood transforming, changing? Yes, the capacity to produce a change in the firewood. Okay.

Yeah. Is that two things? Is that fire and the capacity, both fire, from smoke you're deducing two things, both the fire and the possibility or something, the potential for firewood to be transformed?

From the presence of fire on the mountain top, you are deducing that something's there which had the capacity to create a transformation of the firewood. And fire, I guess. Yeah, if you see smoke on the mountain, there must also be something there which had the capacity to change the firewood.

Yes. That's okay. Okay, yeah.

It all seems fine. Yeah. Okay.

YOD PAR RTOG PA'I. And by the way, you can keep referring to fire with countless different words and descriptions, and the question is, does that constitute a fourth type of logical statement? And Dharmakirti says, no.

You can keep going on and on and say, oh, you're not only proving a fire with smoke, you're proving that something had the capacity to transform firewood. But then we say, well, why do you want to make that an additional valid reason, an additional type of valid reason? He says, this is a valid reason where the result or the reason that's presented gives you the capacity to make an assumption about the subject.

And we said, but that's what it's doing anyway. It was always doing that. Why do you want to make a new category of logical reason?

He keeps wanting to expand the types of logical reasons. And we keep saying, look, that's included in the three that we gave you. Just the ability to reason out an additional quality of the cause from the result is just another version of result reason.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, he wants it to be separate. And apparently that was some pre-Dharmakirti, sorry, Dignanga, pre-Dignanga. These were things that were happening in the time of Dignanga.

Okay. Okay, Joe wants to retire. Joe is the next victim though.

Let's do Earl on this happy day. So I'd like to announce that Mr. Earl Burney proposed this morning, Mr. Kramer. I know, I'm so happy.

Wow, look at that. Did she say yes before or after he looked like that? And then everybody looked at me like I'm crazy.

Yeah, she said yeah. And she poked out in tears. We don't know what kind of tears.

Oh yeah, they're all doing this tiger face thing. I'm sorry Ben. Okay.

Okay, you got that cursor. Here. Ngeepa.

Ngeepa Tarnangi, Kepar Yong Daktu Dupa Gagpa Gagpala Shendakki K'upe Taklak Dendu Tenpa Ni Yeah, LD has a heavy, what? Penis. Hangden.

Hangden. Yeah, okay. Stay here and we'll do some more.

Ngeepa Tarnangi Kepar Yong Daktu Dupa Gagpa. This is about the quality of being dharnam. Yeah, of mistaken reason.

Yeah, the quality of being a mistaken reason means that good reasons should be, I'm sorry, the quality of being a mistaken reason should be added to the types of good reasons. And we're documenting that. It's denying it.

Okay. It's like what your kids would say. I should eat some candy.

Why? Because I like it. And then you say, well, that's a false reason because candy's bad for you.

And they'll say, well, but that's still a good reason because it's a type of reasoning. And we say, well, I admit it's a type of reasoning, but it's not a correct type of reasoning. He says, but it is a type of reasoning, Dad.

Yeah, it is a type of reasoning. It's a wrong type of reasoning. Yeah, so there should be four types of correct reasoning.

Three good, one bad. Okay. That's what the guy's trying to say.

Yon Daktu Dupa Gagpa. And we're going to gagpa that idea. That we're going to block the idea that bad reasons should be included into the three types of good reasons.

And then there'd be four. LA. Then to do that, GZHAN BDAG GIS DGOS PA'I BDAG.

The BDAG which is DGOS PA by GZHAN BDAGS. The reason which is put forward by other parties. Other parties, yeah.

And by the way, BDAG unfortunately can refer to reason. And BDAG can refer to an entire logical statement. Like it could be a paragraph long.

Reason. Could refer to the last part of a logical statement. Because you said so.

Or it could refer to the whole logical statement. Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. So the transcendent is responsible to decide, are they talking about just the reason by itself?

Or are they talking about the entire syllogism? Okay, so BDAG. And then HANG LDAN.

Nasty, nasty term. I don't know, it's like leftover. Like, I don't know, has unwanted implications.

Good. Yeah. LHAG means extra.

Like LHAG PHUNG. Vipashyana means to see. VI means extraordinarily.

So here, LHAG is VI. LDAN, possessing extra special. Extra special, LHAG LDAN.

Possessing something extra special. And that's an ancient, ancient, ancient, very difficult expression for mistaken. Okay, something extra.

It's an ancient, ancient, and there are many logic terms like that and you just have to learn them. I'm sorry. And by the way, when you get into the position of trying to translate these texts, you will understand why there's so many weird words used by the ancient translators because they didn't have any choice.

There's just hundreds of weird words. And then you got to finally just start making up words. So this word says excessive and it means mistaken.

And I will anticipate something and say that the excessive means outside the boundaries. And then you're going to have to, we're going to explore it now. He's going to help us with this strange word, excessive, which means a kind of mistaken mind.

Cool? All right, here we go. And these are all arguments aimed at preventing the other guy from adding a fourth type of reasoning.

Incorrect reasoning. We're like, hey, incorrect reasoning sucks. Why do you want to include it?

Okay, all right. Earl says he's in such a happy mood. I was thinking about the extra cake that he's going to bring.

My stepmother froze the cake for years and we ate it like every anniversary. So I'm just saying. Okay, Shabay.

Shabay. I'm sorry, I just want to say on that topic, today is my 14th wedding anniversary. Geshe Michael married us.

Jigme sent us in our frozen cake piece when we were in retreat, which we did partake of on the following year. And so it is an auspicious day indeed. And I'm just so very, very happy for you two.

My unofficial anniversary is three days, two days from now. So anyway, okay. SHEG PA'I SIG CHE, keep going.

SHEG PA'I SIG CHE SHLOG KA NI SHLOG KA NI PHOS LOD RGYAS PA DANG DBANG PO DANG BA It's a silent V. DANG BA LO SEL WA LEN DU CHAK JE SO POG PA JIN DU GYUR MA SOG PE THAG LE DRE BU POG PA LANG DEN LANG DEN I'm pretty sure, LANG DEN. LANG DEN RGYI THAM ZIG YIN PAR THAM PA'I PHYIR Nice.

DE SBYUG PA NI Good, okay. Ben, SIG CHE SHLOG KA NI PHOS Yeah, these two verses. Yeah, good.

And then I want to give you, I'm going to produce a talk for you, hang on. SDUG GIS MI DIR CHOS CAN SDUG GIS MI DIR CHOS CAN SDUG GIS GANG ZAG CHOS CAN SDUG GIS GANG ZAG CHOS CAN Take the GANG ZAG in the SDUG. The person in front of you?

Yeah, let's take the person standing in front of you. He or she is DUS CHAGS DANG LDAN PA They've got desires. Yeah, and it's implied sexual desire.

This person has sexual desire. Why? Their LUS is RGYAS PA I don't know, they're a big fellow like me?

This RGYAS PA just means their body is healthy. This is in ancient India where everybody was starved. Yeah, like me, what do you mean?

We have a nice, healthy... It doesn't necessarily mean chubby. It just means healthy body.

They have a very shining health. And their LHAG PO are also DANG BA. Their faculties or something.

Their powers are sharp. And their LOS are SEL BA. Their mind is clear.

Therefore, they must be having sex regularly. Okay, go figure. I mean, maybe that's an ancient belief.

If you look chipper, something must be going on. Because he's whistling. Yeah.

Okay. And we say the RGYUD MA TSOGS PA'I LTAG LAS RJES BU POG PA They have BAG PA or POG PA. They have produced a RJES BU.

A result. From the reasoning of RGYUS, which is MA TSOGS PA. Right, they're from an incomplete collection of causes.

Yeah, they've given a collection of causes, which is not enough to draw the conclusion they did. Okay, RGYUD MA TSOGS PA. They didn't mention smiling like a Cheshire cat.

Okay, all right. So yeah, RGYUD MA TSOGS PA. Not all the necessary ingredients are there.

And they're making a conclusion about this person. Therefore, that reason is called LHAG LDAN. And he's giving an example of LHAG LDAN.

Extremely difficult word. It means excessive. And it means a wrong reason.

And I take it, I had a little satori. Maybe sometimes it refers to a reason for assuming the presence of something which is too much. Yeah, right.

You're assuming extra things that are not reasonable. LHAG. Yeah, you're going too far.

Yes, he's healthy. Yes, he's got a strong body. Yes, his eyes seem to be clear.

His mind seems to be okay. That doesn't prove he's engaging in that activity. So you have gone too far.

You have drawn an extra conclusion. LHAG LDAN. Additional conclusion.

From insufficient evidence. So far, let's take it that way. I think he specifically pauses to give us a definition of LHAG LDAN.

And an explanation of the word LHAG LDAN. But for now, I'll give you that one. RTEN TZE YIN PA'I RTEN PA'I PHYIR DE'I GRUB PA NI, what does that mean?

This proves that? Now I'm going to give you a proof. Oh, here comes a proof.

Yeah, now I'll prove it. It's too much to assume your conclusion from that evidence. And now I'm going to prove that to you.

How are we doing on time? We've got two minutes from now. Dr. Kramer will lead a discussion about how can you use this in your normal life?

Ben, read this paragraph fast. And I'll translate it fast. Then we can...

Nice. Okay, here we go. ,GZHAD PA'I TSIG CHE BDE, And then he gave a verse, he gave a new verse, and he said, for example, ,THU BA means a pot.

,BDE LHAG MA CHOD CHEN, Let's consider Leftover rice? The rest of the rice in a pot. This BDE means rice.

It doesn't mean risotto. Let's consider the rest of the rice sitting in the pot. It must be TSOS PA, which means cooked.

It must be finished cooking. The rest of the rice in a pot must be must be cooked, because some of the rice in the pot is cooked. ,TSOS PA'I BDE BU DANG PHYIR BA GCIG GI SNANG DU, That other rice that we haven't tested with our tongue yet must be well cooked, because in the same pot we detected some well cooked rice.

I don't check every part of the pot. ,TSOS PA'I BDE BU DANG PHYIR BA GCIG GI SNANG DU, It should be equally well cooked. ,MI THUN CHOG LA MA THONG BA TZAM GYIS BDAG, Just because some part of it has not been detected in the opposite.

Just because some part of it has not been detected in the opposite doesn't prove that your reasoning is unmistakable. Making assumptions about a hole from a sample could be dangerous. ,YIN PA'I PHYIR ZHIG PO, That's all.

He's talking about making assumptions from a sampling of a hole. Then he says, I'm going to give you LHAG LDAN GYI MING DANG. Oh, the meaning of the word.

He says, maybe you guys are curious about this weird word for excessive. So I thought I would show... Who's he?

It's actually Dharmakirti. Dharmakirti says, you may be wondering why I use this weird word excessive to mean mistaken. I'm going to write a whole verse about it for you.

What's the LHAG LDAN in this verse? Maybe you can... Maybe you guys can work on it.

Yeah, great. For sure. It may be interesting to see the English cognates of the word for LHAG LDAN.

Great. You have the Sanskrit. You have the Sanskrit for this text.

Today, I reached the seventh chapter of entering the Middle Way. The sixth chapter is the most... Well, it's the most famous chapter in Buddhism.

It took seven years. I got through it today and I reached the seventh chapter. Then I noticed there's no Sanskrit.

Then I asked Aisha, where's the seventh chapter? She said, it's been found. I said, wow, great.

Then I said, can you send it to me? She said, they will not release it. The people who found it will not release it.

Anyway, we have it for this text. We have it for this text. Before Ben leads the conversation, I want to do an advertisement.

[Speaker 3]
Great.

[Speaker 1]
Francisco, Marina, we got this. Ben, I'm repeating an advertisement from Saturday. If you were here, I'm sorry.

30 years ago, me and John Brady, 35, 30 years ago, we worked for almost 10 years on an entire protocol for saving a civilization. It was an amazing exercise to imagine someone comes up to you and says, I'll give you all the resources you want. Can you save a civilization?

Then we said, well, we'll make you a list. That list is a thousand pages long. It's every single detail you would need to run ALL, to create ALL, to run it and to finish in 800 years.

It will take 800 years to save this civilization. We wrote the outline. We wrote the battle plan and we finished it.

Then there were all these weird obstacles that we found an extremely rich person. Can I mention their name? Third richest person in the world.

They agreed to pay for that, for publishing that plan. A thousand copies. We printed a thousand copies.

They all got lost in a car. Then some of them in another car was in an accident. Recently, we found two copies of this plan.

It has not changed in 35 years. It's still, every word of it is valid and correct. It's an amazing document.

Imagine the task of, someone says, can you save a civilization if I pay for everything? We're like, yeah. We wrote this.

It's an extraordinary piece of literature. It's an outline to save a civilization. We did it.

John Brady kicked ass and he finished it. Anyway, we found a copy and I challenged Rosa. I said, we don't have the original plates.

They even got destroyed with the car accidents and all that. We just have two copies of this book. Can you create an e-book?

She did. Then we'd like to give it away. It's free.

Just go on, do this one QR code thing and get it. There are really dull parts of that, like the coding scheme, which is 100 pages long. The rules for coding and text quality, stuff like that.

But there are amazing science fiction parts of how to preserve this as a virtual reality or something. It's amazing. Then there's a list of the 1,000 greatest books, which was our first target.

Now we've input 15,000 finished and we have 300,000 that we're working on. But the first 1,000 is the core of this civilization. It's the most important literature in this world.

There's a complete list of the English names and the descriptions, which is extremely sexy. Anyway, it's free. Get a copy online.

It's going up today. Today is the first day it will be available. Please take it and spread it.

All right, I guess we're going to attempt to have a discussion about practical applications of this class. I will tell you the rice thing happened to me this week. I'm stalling for a moment.

You have to get good ideas. I was making some brown rice and I ran out. So I added some white rice, but they don't cook at the same speed.

It's true. You have to check the whole pot sometimes to make sure that the rice is done. Just because the white rice in the pot is done doesn't mean the brown rice in the pot is done.

So that's an incredibly practical application. What I've learned every four years, which is that don't believe polls. Don't believe polls.

Yeah, totally. It's not true that 50% of Americans want brown rice. Yeah.

Francisco, were you raising your hand to say something? I hope so. I hear some shuffling, some rustling.

No, okay. You've run off. Sharon, are you raising your hand to speak or are you raising your hand to be recognized as a translator?

Okay. Who's going to help me? You've got a studio full of people.

I suppose, once again, it's important to remember just how difficult it is to use logic or logical understanding and maybe to be careful not to give ourselves too much credit for what we think is logical unless we've done a lot of work into learning how to be logical. Being intelligent in this way is such a deep art and just because you think you've been logical about something doesn't necessarily mean that you have been logical about something and it seems to me like this book is a constant reminder to be cautious about the conclusions I come to. Yes.

[Speaker 3]
Can you hear me, Ben?

[Speaker 1]
I feel as if I can. Can anyone hear me saying that I believe?

[Speaker 3]
Okay. It's Sarah. I don't know if you can see me.

Hi.

[Speaker 1]
Hi. Congratulations, my friend.

[Speaker 3]
No, no, no. Other Sarah.

[Speaker 1]
Forget it. Congratulations for just you being you, I think is a wonderful thing.

[Speaker 3]
Sarah Corn's way. I should have clarified.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. It's nice to hear from you, to see you. Yes.

Yeah, but reach over and pat the other Sarah on the back for me and give her a hug also, okay?

[Speaker 3]
We're very happy for Sarah Blackburn.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, me too.

[Speaker 3]
Okay, so I have an idea about how to apply this to regular life, which is just a reminder, you know, even like I think I can tend to think about karma self-existently. So, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Go ahead. Oh, my God.

[Speaker 3]
So, yeah, okay. So, if I'm thinking, like, I can even think about this path and the teachings and, you know, think that all I have to do is create, if I have all of these causes in line, then surely I will get the results that I think is going to happen. But, you know, a crow can come and take the seed.

So, yeah, just a reminder to, like, if I'm self-existently thinking that if I move the furniture in the right ways and that that is creating the causes for what I want, then there's still ignorance there and, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I think so. I think that's good. I think we have to always keep working and not just sit back and trust that we put all the causes in place already.

There's more work to be done. Our seeds have to be not just planted but nurtured, tended to. We need to be out there tending to the field of our hearts and making sure that we do our coffee meditations, that we are happy about the sweet things that we've done and the sweet things people around us have done.

We can do great damage to the seeds in our heart, for example, by regretting some sweet thing that we've done as opposed to being happy and reinforcing those seeds, not just doing something one time casually but building up a strong habit of the sweet ways in which we take care of one another again and again to get those seeds as deep in the ground and nurtured as we can. I think it's very wise.

[Speaker 3]
Do you want to say hi to the others?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, sure. That's a great idea. Good.

That's a practical application of us all being friends together. Hey, my friend. I'm so happy.

You two are the best.

[Speaker 3]
Woo-hoo!

[Speaker 2]
Well, thank you.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thanks, everyone. It's so beautiful to share in this with you. So thanks.

Hi. Hi, MTV fans.

[Speaker 3]
Hi, everyone. Okay, I'm going to pass this on. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Is it being passed to someone in particular? Yes. Great.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, hi. Hey, buddy. Hello.

About making assumptions about the whole, I found that a very compelling statement made tonight and relating to how the Buddha, Lord Buddha said that, you know, unless you're me or someone like me, do not judge another or you shall share with the world. And I feel that it's the great advice to refrain from meeting people as if we know the whole of who they are. I find that it's easy to get into judgments and ideas about what I think about the people that I've already met or even the people I've never met.

And so it's just really great advice to refrain from judging others and to really meet people fresh and meet them in the moment as they appear to you in that moment with your fresh perception. And I think it'll save a lot of problems for the whole world if we were to do that with every single person we meet. So that's how I would practically apply that.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. That's wonderful. I think we're at that time.

So in summary, as the Buddha said, when you assume you make an ass out of you and me, he didn't say that. I don't think he said that, but he may have. Guanhaso, I saw you raising your hand to be promoted to be able to tell us about the world news.

Are you now? There you are, looking alarmed at your computer screen. Yay.

Yay. Okay, so turn off your microphone.

[Speaker 3]
Already done. Already done.

[Speaker 1]
Should I turn my mic on the computer? Yeah, turn it off. Oh.

Then? Hold on. Yep.

Yay. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, what can I say? It has been incredible. Incredible.

It surpassed all my expectations. It's unbelievable.

[Speaker 2]
And I want to thank everyone who made this possible, and most especially, Geshe Michael. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]
And I have a feeling that the fun is just beginning.

[Speaker 2]
It's so wonderful, so beautiful, and so many experiences happened during this event. We are finishing the YSI Hatha Yoga Thalipika four. I think many people can agree with me.

It's like a whole adventure. It's like visiting a whole different world, universe, dimension. I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
A lot happened. I think we got to know each other. We got to spend time together.

[Speaker 2]
We got to make new friends, get to know new people. Many things happened between connections, between different communities, different, I don't know, groups in the world. And that was so, so, so beautiful.

[Speaker 1]
And I want to show you just a little sample of something. The other day, Rob Haggerty tells me, truly, and he's like, hey, there's going to be something at my house. Alex Rivas told me, like, you know, we have a business meeting.

And I just want to share with the audience a little bit of the beautiful scene that a little taste of some of the things that happened. Could you be kind enough to show the video we prepared for everyone? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
This is down in Greenbrook.

[Speaker 1]
This is the house of Rob Haggerty Jr., where a few friends from Mexico, especially, we are all meeting to discuss about the possibilities of a new center in Guadalajara. Yeah. So I'm arriving here to the meeting, and I'm going to be reporting how this business meeting goes.

Honestly, I'm seeing much more cars than I thought there would be, and people. So, wow, there's a lot of people. Business meeting.

What?

[Speaker 2]
I thought it was a business meeting. We all grew up in the same part of the United States. That's crazy.

I guess this is how Mexicans do business.

[Speaker 1]
So now you know. If you want a Mexican to say yes, take it out for a little business meeting, they are going to be much more open to talk about the details of the transactions and stuff. So it was wonderful.

Thank you so much. And I want to also thank very dearly and especially to all the website team. We have great news.

I would like to invite you all, the Tigers, to come up here and to rejoice and celebrate with all of us that the special goals were achieved.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, so this was the deal. You know, how to say this? If a certain amount of things were solved, then they agree that they will celebrate by wearing the Tiger's face.

[Speaker 2]
And we are so happy to say that the almost 19,000 mark was reached. So we want to congratulate them. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know if we can say that, but it's a great thing that you did. And they are helping a lot of organizations. They are helping a lot of people.

They are helping a lot of individuals in their personal life, including myself. Thank you, YSI, for existing.

[Speaker 2]
And congratulations. You all really opened my heart a lot, and the teachings and the practice. And thank you, Ms. Michael.

[Speaker 1]
So we got 641 people participating and contributing. And the total amount is 18,803.

[Speaker 2]
Also, in regards with the books, the wonderful books that you all have, where is the master of the books? Thank you for producing the books.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, three people who, for some reason, decided to remain anonymous, they bought them in the auction, and it was 7,006 the first place, 6,900 the second place, and 2,300 the third place. With a total of 16,000 and something else. But thank you so much for participating.

Make sure everyone is going to have a lot of coffee during the whole year. So don't worry about it. And we will talk to you soon again.

Thank you, YSI. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 3]
Take one. Take one. Can I make a recommendation?

[Speaker 1]
What's that?

[Speaker 3]
Can those of us who made bids but didn't win, let's still donate to YSI.

[Speaker 2]
Of course. You're welcome to do that. I didn't think I was going to say no to that.

[Speaker 1]
So if you still want to buy one of these books, you can do it for 599. Right?

[Speaker 2]
So do it. They have a special signature and special important mark in it, so you can get one too. All right.

And, and, and, and, and, we'll be back with YSI in a few more moments. But before we go back to them, I have a special person in the audience. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Tim Lowenhaupt hiding in the back. Special news, because you may be wondering, okay, now, this is wonderful. Yeah, great.

Now, what's next? What do you mean, what's next? Where are we going tomorrow?

What are you doing tomorrow? What are you doing tomorrow?

[Speaker 2]
I'll tell you.

[Speaker 1]
Actually, tonight. Where is the next business meeting team?

[Speaker 2]
So tonight, after we're done here, we're going to pack up all this stuff and go down to Phoenix, and we're flying out to Kyoto tomorrow morning.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I have to give you a ride. Yes, you do. For the record, did you see me again?

I was giving Tim a ride.

[Speaker 2]
So one of the things I wanted to mention, we have a really great program coming up starting on Sunday.

[Speaker 3]
But many of you already know about that, but there's something you don't know that's going to be happening. At the end of the program, we have a one-night extravaganza with a very famous Japanese woman named Marie Kondo, and she's going to be giving a presentation with Geshe Michael called Organize Your Mind, Organize Your World, where Geshe-la is going to talk about how to organize your inner world, and she's going to talk about how to organize your outer world.

[Speaker 2]
For us, it is important, too.

[Speaker 1]
Yes. I'm getting to realize, little by little, the outside is important, too. Then I wrote the paper, the tickets, the pens, the words, everything.

[Speaker 3]
I'm not sure what to say to that.

[Speaker 2]
Give me hope. Give me hope. I'll give you lots of hope.

So at the end of the program, so many of you who aren't coming to Kyoto, this will be available online as a separate program after the Steps on the Path program finishes. What's really cool about that program is that the director of that program, Sophie Chow, is some of the proceeds from that event are going to be going directly to the new upcoming Five Houses program. We're not going to talk too much about that, but the Five Houses that are coming up are kind of like five specialties that each one of you might have some kind of inner calm, your inner superpower.

Maybe you're interested in the classics, or maybe you're interested in meditation, or you're interested in retreat.

[Speaker 1]
Maybe you're interested in the Steps on the Path, or maybe you're interested in... I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
You're interested in being a secret practitioner who works at a gas station helping people in a very secret way. So she's going to be helping us start that program with the proceeds, and this is going to be an amazing event on December 7th, 6.30 p.m. Kyoto time.

[Speaker 1]
So whatever that translates into for you, we would really appreciate if you could come to that. And if you'd like to come to Kyoto as well, and we still have several tickets left, and you can also come online.

[Speaker 2]
So we're looking forward to seeing you. It's going to be the end of the Steps on the Path program, 14 years, and then we've got some new stuff coming up next year. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And if I can make it over to Russia, I hope I'll see you there. I hope you arrive too, Juan. I may have a delay.

Why? I have a layover. Oh, this guy is stopping in Hawaii.

[Speaker 2]
He's taking a vacation. He's leaving early. What's the business reason?

Pretty much waves and venues. Waves and venues. Maybe you can find us a venue in Hawaii.

[Speaker 3]
Maybe we can have a Steps on the Path program there. That would be wonderful. Cool.

Then I'll send you the, I'll say, yeah, no, the travel expenses.

[Speaker 1]
That was a joke. We'll talk again soon. But I would like to welcome Connie now, because she has a special message to close here.

[Speaker 3]
This is wonderful.

[Speaker 1]
Why don't you come out here?

[Speaker 2]
Morgan, you're going to sit here with me? It's not the same without Juan. Sure, sure, sure.

[Speaker 3]
So much fun, this guy. I love it. I love you just to say thank you.

No, no, no, Michael.

[Speaker 2]
Start in Hawaii's eye in 2004.

[Speaker 3]
And look what's happened. It's grown. What?

You know in the 2000s, probably 600 people maybe maximum would come to those courses. I don't know what. Only in the U.S., but it's been huge around the world. I love it. I love the Hatha Yoga Pratipaka.

[Speaker 2]
Did I say Hatha Yoga Pratipaka? Yes, Geshe-la, thank you so much for re-teaching these classes. Your hand is up for a good reason here.

I don't know why I'm raising my hand.

[Speaker 1]
I mean, Rob Hunter, do you want to pose?

[Speaker 2]
Oh, Rob's fault. Again? Anyway, Geshe-la, from all of us, from the bottom of our hearts, thank you, and please stay with us.

Don't stop teaching these classics of yoga, and we are really looking forward to February 6th to 10th, and back here in Sedona at Bogo de Diablo, the Little Devil.

[Speaker 3]
Can we show the... Besides one.

[Speaker 1]
Besides one, yes. Besides one.

[Speaker 2]
So please come.

[Speaker 3]
What's the topic? It's the Bhagavad Gita? Oh, there are no retroflexes in that.

That's awesome.

[Speaker 1]
And we have a special video to show as a thank you for having come, and we hope you keep coming, please, and keep showing up.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you. Please stay and keep taking with us.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you so much, Geshe-la. Please keep teaching us. Please stay.

Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 3]
Please teach and please stay.

[Speaker 1]
No, just last thing, of course.

[Speaker 3]
I was talking to some friends and I was telling them I don't like much the good vibes. I like more like there is more to come vibes. So, remember Bhagavad Gita coming up.

Errol shows a little bit about it and it sounds amazing. You really excite me about it.

[Speaker 1]
I'll be here February 6th to the 10th. See you there or December in Hawaii. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Thank you, Geshe-la.

[Speaker 2]
And that's it for the next translation. Where is it for? Oh, sorry, yeah.

Is your next turn?