Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 48

[Speaker 1]
You got seven minutes?

[Speaker 3]
One minute.

[Speaker 1]
We have one minute. Hi. Spotlighted.

Hi, everybody. It's almost time. Hi, Dr. Nick. Hi. Hi. Hey, good to see you all.

Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower. Thanks for coming back. Oh, good, me and Tim are on the screen at the same time.

So that's Tim. Nick. Tim.

Hey, guys.

[Speaker 2]
Hey, what's up?

[Speaker 1]
It's on. All right. Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower.

Happy to have you all here. Really excited that we have the big boss back today, Geshe Michael Roach, to really guide us in the art of translation. And as many of you know, if you've been getting – hello, Geshe-la.

Okay, I'm trying to do my hair. Do it. Take your time.

I'll stall. Stall, stall. If you've been paying attention and you have subscribed for Geshe Michael's daily email updates, you know that on Christmas Day, which was also Je Tsongkhapa Day.

Which was also the first day of Hanukkah. First day of Hanukkah, among other things, Geshe Michael completed his preliminary translation of Gompa Rapsa, Illumination of the True Thought, Je Tsongkhapa's masterpiece, commenting upon Arya Nagarjuna. So that's exciting.

We'll give you a vacation for that anytime, Geshe Michael. Okay. Soon, soon.

I'm excited. How's San Diego? How's your wife doing?

She's doing okay. Yeah, she's doing okay. It's been a process.

She had a brain surgery, for those of you who don't know. But she's doing well. We're going to transfer Nick's brain out, put her brain in so that he can translate better.

But they realized the harm that would have done to her. The damage to my brain is so far done. She's doing better though?

She's okay? She's doing pretty well. Yeah, thank you for asking.

Every day is a little better. And, you know, it's been a process. But it's good.

It's good. I think she made the right decision to go ahead and take a vacation.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you. It's bad when you do a surgery and you're not sure whether you should. It's always good to know that it didn't mess you up.

Take care of Rob Haggerty when he's over there, okay? Is he coming out? Oh, yeah.

When's he coming? He gets operated on on the 2nd. He'll be there on the 4th.

Let us know how we can help you out, Rob. We'll be in California. Just carry his wallet for him because it's so heavy.

Don't mind if I do. He can take me out to dinner. Hey, where's Kramer?

It's his class. I haven't seen him. Let's get going, man.

Welcome back, boss. Good to see you. Thank you.

Great. I'm happy to be back, I guess. Absolutely.

All right, here we go. Party's over. All right, let me get all these windows out of the way.

All right, folks. We had an example in the text just recently. What is it that we were able to prove by the fact that a farmer's field has the complete collection of barley seed, soil, water, fertilizer, warmth, and moisture?

Looking to you, chat or shout outs, what can we prove by having a complete collection of elements? I hear the wave. Are they doing the wave yet?

That we're not guilty of being imprecise about the types of correct reasons? In our author's example, he gave a particular thing that could be proved that didn't happen to be it. I'm going to give up soon.

I'll ask you, okay, here's a question. That seed will grow. That seed will grow.

Come on. Oh. Is that true?

Do we agree with Geshe Michael? Someone contradict him. That a seed won't necessarily grow if all the causes and conditions are present.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, we're not trying to prove that something's changing or that facts are unchanging or that truths are unchanging.

[Speaker 1]
If we can't prove that the seed will grow, what can we prove? That it could grow. Yeah, basically.

Yeah, it certainly could. The potential is there for the seed to grow. All right.

What is not proved by the presence of those elements? That the seed will grow. Hmm.

Because a crow could eat the seed. Yeah. And great.

Cool. Everyone beware of crows. That was the second part of the question.

Swoop in. Our author demonstrates, yes, the swooping is important. Our author demonstrates that the present taste of sugar cane, presumably in our mouthfuls, can allow us to logically perceive both the past and present at the same time.

What are these key things that he says we can know by the presence of that taste of sugar cane? One from the past and one from the present. That sugar cane grew?

Sort of, yeah. I mean, that's okay. That is true.

And we're eating it and it grew? Yeah. We had an earlier example where the barley could grow.

In this case, whatever was going to turn into the sugar cane. Did. It did.

Right. So there must have been that earlier cause for the sugar cane. But also that earlier cause was certainly.

Had the potential. Supported by the cause. You could say because it did change.

Yeah. Into this present. So what else would be present?

If the taste of sugar cane is present. The causes for sugar cane. Oh, a mouth.

Says the actual sugar cane.

[Speaker 3]
Or if it's a current, can you deduce that it will also be 15 minutes later? Is it going to pass the test through time?

[Speaker 1]
Or Ben he's eating sugar cane. He's got too excited. It must've been an ice cream cone.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to.

[Speaker 1]
I'm going to. He said he's going to finish that sugar cane juice. Oh, I'm sorry.

Did I freeze? It's very cold. Yeah.

It's very cold. In Florida. He's in Florida.

Albuquerque. He's out there with the Gators. Oh, it must be Florida.

Okay. Yeah. Down by the swamp.

Seriously, he's in Florida. Yeah. That explained it.

Okay. Sorry. Okay, Nick.

Let's go to the text. Oh, boom. I'm sure he'll find internet very soon.

He should be in a good coffee shop. That's his usual MO. All right, let's see here.

Boy, this is a nasty text. Okay. That's getting, it's just been getting worse and worse.

No, it's, it's about to go off the charts. Okay, share my screen. Okay.

Oh, bang. We just saw you bang. I'm so sorry.

We solved all the homework questions. We're on the vocabulary now. Oh, perfect.

I'm so glad to hear it. I think you're going to do great. Let's find that vocabulary.

I hate to slow you down.

[Speaker 2]
No, you didn't.

[Speaker 1]
Someone said it. We didn't figure out that last one. Just by one.

The result reason. You know that there was the earlier sugarcane as well as the taste. Yeah, just yeah.

There should even be. Oh, I see. Okay.

Okay. Hey, Ben, you might want to turn off your video. You, you obviously don't have the bandwidth.

Yeah. Well, I think that first vocabulary word. And Ben can't tell me if I'm wrong.

Has something. What is it, Nick? I think it has something to do with the set of causes.

Has the potential to bring about that result. J-poke is a verb made up from J-punk. Uh-huh.

Oh, okay. Okay, so like a deduction.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So to. The inference of a causally. Deduce the causes from the result.

Hey, Ben, people propose that you turn off your video. Not because you're not good looking. Well, I don't know.

Yeah. Looks like a movie star in that picture. Yeah.

I'm so sorry about this. I'm almost there. Let's try.

I'm going to try a better. In the meantime. Okay.

That makes sense. What's that mean? Sorry.

Go backwards. Yeah, it's cooler than that. Inference.

Yeah, J-talk. Inference or thought. What's a thought?

Reason. Reason, which is a. J-book.

Result reason. It's a result reason. Which allows us to.

To J-pop. To infer the qualities of a cause. Yay.

Yay. Beautiful. Okay.

Okay. I will take you. Yeah.

Okay. That's okay. Yeah, that's okay.

What would you say instead? I'm super into. I like it.

I like it. I just decided. Great.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. I'm very open to revision. Should it come?

I like it. What do we think about. It's possible.

What's possible. For something to come into existence. Yeah, great.

Sounds good.

[Speaker 2]
In this case.

[Speaker 1]
Potential maybe even. Well, because of the D, I think you'd have to say. The potential to trigger something.

You see what I mean? Oh, cool. Okay.

Well, I guess. What does the D do exactly to the verb? The D makes it active.

It makes it agentive. I see. Rather than it grew.

Now it was grown. Which we say triggers a nice verb. That's so helpful.

Thank you. Great. Okay.

Okay. How about this? You know, is it, is it like a reason where you don't see something contradictory?

Yeah. Yeah. But I figured it was relating to that.

It could be. It's not seen something. In the set of things.

That's different from the subject. So. Just because you don't see.

Uncooked rice. In the left side of the pot. Doesn't mean there's no uncooked rice in the right side of the pot.

So it's. Not seeing something. In the opposite.

That's going to come up a lot today. And. You should understand or you should mention that it doesn't refer to the subject.

It refers to the. Do teacher. Oh.

The subject together with the assertiveness. No, just the drip teacher. Just the assertive.

Yeah. Good. Yeah.

Yeah. In fact, that's the whole debate. Of your whole class today.

That's going to be the whole debate of this. Interesting. Good.

It's a good thing. We're going to have this class. Not subject.

Okay. But I want to say one thing in advance that this is probably the worst class I've ever seen. Oh, good.

Just so people get excited. I think my internet's cocking out now.

[Speaker 3]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Speaking of trouble. Here. Here is a.

A little bit of student translation. Okay, good. For your.

I don't. I won't bother you. I put a title here and then I will not bother you with the root text.

But. Okay. Yeah.

I'm not touching the root text till later. A later lifetime.

[Speaker 2]
I understand.

[Speaker 1]
But let's go to the commentary. Okay. Great.

Absolutely. I'm not being uncooperative. I don't think we can translate the root text responsibly from this commentary.

[Speaker 2]
Absolutely.

[Speaker 1]
No, that was my assumption. Of course.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yes. I understand.

Great. Great. The master.

Sorry. Yeah. Please read.

I'm sorry. No, not at all. Okay.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . Yeah.

Let's get the folks in the audience familiar with Chunchok. So. Give the classic a syllogism.

Take sound. Right, it's a changing thing because it's made. Dr. Chen, Dr. Chitra. Yeah, take sound, it's a changing thing because it's made. What's the quality you're trying to prove about sound? I'm trying to prove that it's changing.

And that's called the tun chok. And then mi tun chok means what's the opposite of that? The mi tun chok in this case would be not being made?

Sorry, not being changing, I apologize. Yeah, yeah, being something which never changes. Being something which never changes, yeah.

So do you ever see the subject here in the mi tun chok? The subject is sound. Do you ever see it in the mi tun chok?

No. Do you ever see it in the opposite of the quality being asserted? Do you ever see it in the field of unchanging things?

You never see sound in unchanging things. Yeah, is that enough to conclude that the syllogism is correct? No.

Can you think of a counterexample? That's the key here. A counterexample that would be both what and what?

I would say you have to change the reason to something that's illogical. And then just the fact that sound is not in the mi tun chok doesn't prove the whole statement. You see what I mean?

Take sound, it's changing because it's... No, made is a good reason. Take sound, it's changing because...

Well, anything that's green should change. Okay. Take something that doesn't change.

Take sound, it's changing because it's the sky. It's empty space, okay? Take sound, it's changing because it's empty space, okay?

What's the mi tun chok? What's the opposite of the quality we're trying to prove? We're trying to prove that it's changing.

What's the opposite of that? Unchanging, but not changing. Existing, but not changing.

Does sound exist in that? Existing, but not changing. It does not exist in the...

We call it the field of inconsistent examples or opposite examples, okay? So the sound, the proof is take sound, it's changing because it's... What do we say?

An unchanging thing. No. Because it's empty space.

Okay, because it's empty space, okay? So if it's correct that sound is not in the opposite of number two, which is what? Changing.

If you cannot see sound in the opposite of number two, what's number two? It's changing. What's the opposite of number two?

It's unchanging. Does sound exist in the opposite of number two? Yes or no?

No. Can you find sound which is not changing?

[Speaker 3]
No.

[Speaker 1]
Does the fact that sound is not in the opposite of the second item prove the third one? No. No.

No, that's the idea. That's the thing, okay? That's the thing.

And there was a logician who said it did. Okay? Then according to that person, who happens to be Dharmakirti's teacher, hmm, okay?

Sorry, Dignaga's teacher. Sorry, Dignaga's teacher. So what's the dhokyap here?

That is the dhokyap, isn't it? Well, you can say that's the mitunjo, okay? So just because sound is not in the opposite of what we're trying to prove, doesn't mean that the whole reason is correct.

Got it? Let's take sound. It's a changing thing.

Am I correct so far? Yeah, because sound doesn't exist in the opposite of changing, which is unchanged. So, so far I'm okay.

Take sound. It's changing. But then if I say, because it is an empty space, is it still correct?

And then that logician said, that logical statement is correct because sound is not in the opposite of number two. Okay. Okay, got it?

Yeah, so I don't have to work on it. Wouldn't you then have, but are you saying it is empty space or it's not empty space? It doesn't matter.

Well, no, that would be correct. Well, that could be correct. You're right.

That wouldn't be a reason, it's... So let's, we got to go this way to do today's class. You ready?

What's the definition of good reason for the particular group? One in which the three relationships hold? No, correct reason.

Yeah, one in which the three relationships hold. One is three. If something is three, it's two.

And most importantly in today's class, if it's not two, it's not three. Okay. Dr. Chen, Dr. Cheputcher. Take sound. It's, it is a changing thing because it was made. Okay.

What are the three elements of the correct reason here? One is three. Sound is made.

If three, then two. If something is made, it must be changing. And now the important one for today's class.

If not two, then not three. If something is not, changing, it cannot be made. Okay.

Is now, in the definition of the third, by the way, if those three relationships hold, the reason is correct in Buddhism. Okay. Then the reason is, the whole reason is correct in Buddhism.

If the three relationships hold. People are interested in the third relationship, which seems to be, in my opinion, for the last 50 years, redundant. If it's true that three is two, then it has to be true that if it's not two, it's not three.

Right. Okay. It's almost like a, it's almost like an extra check, a redundant check.

You see, number three seems to be a redundant check. Okay. Now, the authors here are going to debate about number three.

If not two, not three. Can you be, can the third quality of a good reason be proven if the subject is only not two? Take sound, it's a changing thing, okay?

Because it's not found in the group of things that are not changing things. Take sound, it's a changing thing, because it's not found in the group of things which is not changing. But what if it is found in the group of things that are not a changing thing?

Then is it a, what about non-existence? See, there's problems with it. All right.

Just because it's not found in the opposite of number two, doesn't prove that the logical statement is, logical, that the statement is logical. If number three isn't logical, take sound, it's a changing thing, because it's a fish or something. You see what I mean?

Okay. Fish doesn't apply to number one, by the way. Okay.

Sound is not a fish. Okay. But the dirty, the nasty, the nasty thing we're going to work on today is if something is not in number two, is that enough for the third quality of a good reason to be proven?

You see? And there's going to be a debate about it. And for something here, Ben, the difference between Dignaga and his teacher, whose biography we briefly read, the difference between them is that Dignaga thinks the dokya, the opposite of number two, the relationship between the opposite of number two and the opposite of number three, right?

Yes, yes. Has to be there for it to be a correct reason. Okay?

And Dharmakirti and Dignaga's grandfather didn't think that was the case. So in some things, Dignaga objected to his teacher. Grandfather means Dignaga's foster father?

No, it was, hang on. Oh, we're talking the guy in between, Ishvara Sena? Yeah, Ishvara Sena.

Long-term date? Yeah, he's master Dignaga's teacher, Dharmakirti's. Sorry, Dharmakirti's teacher, master Dignaga's student.

He taught the contendium three times to Dharmakirti. Right, okay, let's say that. Corrected him, I think.

This was a mess. I'm sorry, Ben, this is all wrong. I shouldn't even leave this on the board, but you also asked me to do a report on Wang Den.

Yeah, it is Ishvara Sena. So Ishvara, one more point.

[Speaker 2]
Yes, please.

[Speaker 1]
I'll leave this here. I just hate to have the English, because it's just wrong. Dharmakirti attacks his teacher's, his teacher, right?

A student of Dignaga? Yes, right, yes. And he, with eight different ridiculous consequences.

Right. Okay, if you believe that the opposite of sound, if sound is not the opposite of the quality we're trying to prove, that therefore the whole reason is correct, then eight ridiculous things happen. And that's what we're going to study today.

And they are hard. And they are complicated by the fact that none of the writings of that teacher survived. Okay, we're all, we're working on secondhand knowledge.

Okay. Okay, cool. Everyone's excited, Ben.

Okay. You asked me to do this report. I think Wang Den is, is this Sheshavat?

Oh, okay. Which right is a Shah, because when the T and the Shah come together, it becomes Shah. And so, Sheshavat and Den, Denbavat, it looks like Shesh means to leave.

Yeah, good. And I think, I don't even know how to pronounce this. And then sometimes I see this in parentheses, this Indo-European root, which I don't totally understand, but I guess the S sometimes falls off.

And the Ks sometimes become palatal. Gutterals sometimes become palatals. And so, K or Kai meaning to cut or split, and probably then the words discern, conscious consciousness, schism is a nice one.

Yeah. But I wanted to know if you have any opinion about why it means to have doubt. Yeah, it seems that it's unfinished.

You haven't finished your examination, and so you've left something over. I mean, I got this wrong, because I said the subject, but it seems that we can see, we can look in groups that are like or unlike. This for me, and maybe I should take this down, because I think what I wrote here is maybe not helpful, but at least in the case of the pot with the rice in it, you can look all through the area of cooked food, but that still leaves doubt about what's in the pot that remains in, or excuse me, the rice that remains in the pot.

He said if you, and I did have- You took a bite of the rice in the pot, and it was well-cooked, and then you draw the assumption that all the rice in the pot is well-cooked. And I was going to say, Ben- Right, yeah. So Ben is struggling with an ancient Sanskrit word, which is, with the Tibetan translation is hong den, which means there is still something remaining.

And it's an ancient, these words for logic are very complex and very strange. Even in Tibetan, it's kind of fun to watch Tibetans, well-educated Tibetans at the wall of the debate ground, listening to monks debate, and they have no idea what they're talking about, because this word means leftovers. It has leftovers, but it means a bad reason.

And I asked Ben as a homework assignment to figure out why, and maybe go to the Sanskrit, which must mean something left over, and it does. Sheshabad, right? Something like that?

Yeah, right. Sheshabad, hong den. Yeah, something left over.

I was going to propose inconclusive. Yeah, great. Yeah.

Sure. That sounds, yeah. Here's the syllogism, by the way, right?

Chue dre lakma, the rice left over in the pot, right? Tso pa yin te, it's cooked. Tso pa dre dang chua chiki nang du tso par sum be chir, because it's like the cooked rice cooked in the same pot.

Good, nice, okay. But it leaves doubt. Like you're only checking the cooked rice, so something is left before.

You've divided, but you're leaving something behind to leave, shish. You've left doubt on the table because it's not a thorough enough examination, I guess. Yeah, you haven't covered all the possibilities.

So I was heavy-handed, and I called it like a reason which leaves doubt. Incomplete is probably better, right? I just used a lot of words.

I would say inconclusive, yeah. Inconclusive, yeah, that's great. Yeah, we took a sample of the rice, but we took too small of a sample, and that doesn't prove that all the rice is cooked in the pot.

That's what they're talking about. Okay, okay. Cool.

So again, it helps me. Your Sanskrit helped me. And inconclusive also means there's still some question left over.

Right, and I mean, maybe we can go, we can go to your screen, boss, but I guess in this piece that I butchered, he is trying to explain the meaning of the term, that what it leaves, right, leaving a leftover, leaving a flakma, the flakma that is den, that it has, is doubt, it leaves. Okay. Tetsam, right, a feeling of tetsam.

Master Dharmakirti says tetsam, and Geshe, Geshe Wangchuk says that, that feeling of doubt remains, and thus the shish, it remains. Questions remain. Yeah, please, please take the screen, boss.

Okay. It's serving nobody to look at what I've done. Let's go somewhere painful.

Oh, good, much better. Okay, let me get you out of here. All right.

Okay, so we did this, right? It wasn't, it wasn't great. Honestly, I, we did, we did, yeah, not necessarily word by word, but.

Oh, do you want to go, let's do it word by, can you read it one more time? Che pa de. Yeah.

Che pa de, tun chok, mi tun chok, kang rung la tong yang de ni kang rung la tetsam sawa de lang den du je pay chu. Good, so we saw some of the rice in the cooked category, but we might have seen some of the rice in the uncooked category, and since we still are having, tetsam, what's tetsam? Doubt.

Yeah, since we're still having doubt about which one any particular rice grain might be in, we can call the whole logic, logic which still leaves some remaining doubt. Okay? Chak chak.

Great. Okay, okay. Okay, good.

Okay, thank you. All right, who's going to read the next one, Dr. Bin? Hello.

Dodo, you're right there in my screen, please. Oh, hello. Hang on one second, let me do this.

What are these things, system settings, animation, motion, appearance. I'm ready with you, it's okay. What do I do?

Accessibility, display, cursor. Okay, good. Dodo.

Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Yep, yes.

Oh, okay. dewa te ni nge che kyi tse ma shepa. Nice.

You are frighteningly good. So, sumpa means what, you guys? Ben, you want to read sumpa?

This is the third section that we discussed from above in which we're going to use a classical example. We're going to show how the we're going to use classical... Oh, we're going to show how the definitions of a correct reason are present in classical examples.

Good, okay, you could say that. Yeah. Yeah, you could say that.

Okay. So, how are the qualities present in the sample we're taking? How's that?

Something like that. And nge che kyi tse ma means we're going to use correct, accurate perception to determine that. And we're going to discuss this kind of accurate perception in two parts.

dak gi dong gyab drupa drelwa la dukpa tenpa. Let's go backwards, Ben. A demonstration that...

Depending on relationships. Yeah. We can establish the, right, negative...

Yeah, you could say negative necessity or something. Yeah. In other words, the third of the three qualities.

If it's not made, ma chik chak shen du dak de chik chak. If it's not impermanent, it cannot have been made. Okay?

Yes. Opposite of two is opposite of three. Okay?

Yes. So, to prove that... This is a big deal, supposedly, in this argument.

To prove the third relationship of the three relationships necessary to prove that a reason is logical, or that your husband or wife is logical, or your boss. To prove it, all three relationships have to be there. And to prove the third relationship, that the opposite of two means the opposite of three.

Okay? If something is not unchanging, it cannot be made. Okay?

Good? Yes. That you have to look at a relationship.

That's the point of today's class. You cannot examine it in a vacuum. You have to examine the question of the validity of the opposite of number two by looking at the relationship, I guess, between the opposite of number three and the opposite of number two.

Okay? Okay. There has to be some relationship underlying the validity of the third check for logic.

Okay? There has to be some relationship underlying it, which means, I guess, that the opposite of two has to be related to the opposite of three somehow. Okay?

Okay. Okay. I guess, a tipper.

And somehow, this other teacher didn't focus on the relationship. So in a vacuum, without mentioning number three, he decided that if sound didn't exist in the opposite of number two, then the whole reason was correct. Okay.

This other teacher seems to have decided, this other teacher of Dharmakirti, seems to have decided that if sound didn't exist in the opposite of number two, the whole syllogism was correct. Rather than saying sound cannot exist in a relationship of three and two, of the opposite of three and the opposite of two. Something about the relationship.

He said you cannot take the second element in a vacuum. You have to mention the third element, okay? Okay.

Okay. And then that's the part we're going to be working on now, today and the next couple of classes. And then, he wants to talk about, go backwards now.

[Speaker 2]
Explaining.

[Speaker 1]
The accurate perception of certainty of that very relationship that we're talking about. Yeah, I'll read it, I'll propose a reading, and I'll go backwards. Explaining the accurate perception required to confirm that relationship between two and three, or between the opposite of two and the opposite of three.

Okay, okay. Nyeche means that which makes you certain or something. Yeah, she has two points here.

Number one, you cannot discuss sound in a vacuum of just talking about the opposite of number two. You have to talk about the relationship between the opposite of number three and the opposite of number two. And then secondly, you have to talk about means of perception of confirming the relationship between the opposite of number three and the opposite of number two.

Sorry, the opposite of number two. Okay? And by the time he finishes those two sections, we should, you know, it should help us.

But Ben, why do you think they're talking about this here and now? We just got finished with the three necessary relationships of a good reason, which seems like a good place to start the most important book on logic and Buddhism. And then why does he suddenly go to this debate about the third relationship?

Well, I think... I mean, my feeling is just the clue that you already gave us, that this third one is suspect to the average thinking mind. It seems extra, like it needs to be justified.

Yeah, Tim said redundant. Yeah, I always felt it was a little bit redundant. Right, right.

If it's true that if something is A, something is B, then it's always true that if it's not B, it's not A. So why make them different? Why say tsu sum, tsu sum tsangwa, tayang dak yin tsen gyi?

The definition of a good reason is where all three relationships are there, because if two is there, three has to be there. You see, it seems redundant. Okay, anyway, here we go.

We're going to talk about... And I'm not 100% comfortable with the drelwa here. Somehow, confirming the third relationship, we wanted to depend...

Sorry, confirming the third... Yeah, third relationship depends on relationship, depends on relationship, and not just the opposite of the second element in the proof. In this context, it almost is problematic to call the tsu sum relationship.

Yeah, it is. Yeah, okay. Because then he ends up saying relationships aren't relationships.

Yeah, right. Okay. All right, here we go.

Who's going to read, Dr. Bin? Thank you. Ka Ding, would you read?

Yes, of course. Thank you. Thank you.

Wow. Wow.

[Speaker 2]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
Wow. Wow. Ka Ding, you're reading is getting good, and your photographs are amazing.

Keep taking them. I'm running out of photographs for my daily thing. It's getting difficult.

Double assume. Okay, talking about why a relationship is important to confirm the third relationship. Okay?

We have three parts to this discussion. Number one, we're going to deny the idea that just because mi dun chok la ma tong Just because we don't see something in the opposite of the asserted quality. Good.

Just because we don't see number one in the opposite of number two doesn't necessarily mean that the dokya drups, that the negative pervasion works out. That sounds like some kind of funky thing. I'm open.

I'm stealing it from your course 13, but I'm super into another approach. Yeah, okay. I hate it when they quote me to myself.

Sorry, I'm open. Yeah, just because the opposite of element number two, just because we don't see the subject in that group. Okay?

Just because if we flip the second part of the logical proof, we don't see the subject in that group. What's that mean in our classical example? Sound is not found in the opposite of?

Changing, which is to say unchanging. Unchanging things, yeah. Just because the subject being discussed is not found in the opposite of second element doesn't mean that the third relationship necessarily holds.

Because you could have said, take sound, it's changing because it's an unchanging thing. Okay? I mean, it works until you get to the third part.

Okay? Cool? All right.

So, we're going to deny people who say that it's enough if sound is not observed in the opposite of the second. They say that's enough to prove their statement. And we say, no, we got to hear the third one.

It might be a silly reason for the second one. Okay? And then we're going to deny that idea.

And then we're going to show what the denial necessarily suggests. That is correct. Gag pay dru pay dun means the denial itself suggests some other truth.

Okay. We're going to discuss that, which probably is going to be that you have to consider the whole three parts of the syllogism. You can't stop your logical investigation when your wife gives her what she's trying to prove before she gives her reason.

Okay? Which we often do. Okay.

And then thirdly, juk duwa, what's that? What we're going to put it together at the end. I don't know.

Yeah, we're just going to have a little wrap up. In Yiddish, what is juk? What is juk?

Roach. Cockroach. Yeah.

They call me juk in the diamond business. Oh, sorry. Hebrew also?

Okay. All right. Here we go.

Who's going to read, Dr. Bin? Oh, good. We're going to resort to people in the room, I think.

Lindsay, please. Here she comes. Great.

[Speaker 2]
The top?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, there's dung ba la here.

[Speaker 2]
Wait. Dung ba la. Duk chag.

Drup pa.

[Speaker 1]
Drup.

[Speaker 2]
Drup pa. Drel. Drel wa.

[Speaker 1]
Drel wa. Drel wa. Which one is it?

I went to B as a second syllable. It goes drel wa.

[Speaker 2]
Drel wa. Drel wa.

[Speaker 1]
Drel wa. Drel wa. Drel wa.

Drel wa. Drel wa. Drel wa.

Drel wa. Drel wa. And if you're reading out loud to an audience, the instrumental will make it long.

Chok lang jee she pa. Chok lang jee she pa dang. Mi she pa la.

[Speaker 2]
Drel wa ten pa dang. Ma tong sam. Druk chag thu.

Drup pey. Shen dey gag pa. but I'm seeing more.

[Speaker 1]
Nice, okay. Ben, let's read it together. Can you stay for another one?

She's a good reader. Damballa means the first of these, which was, we're going to prove that just seeing that the subject of the proof is not found in the opposite of the second element of the proof doesn't mean that the third relationship necessarily proves, okay? Yeah.

Right? Yeah. To do that, we have two more steps.

I'm sorry, sorry, three more steps. Dhokya, drupa, drava, la-drava. If you want to drupa the dhokya, you're going to have to drava on the drava.

What does that mean? If you want to establish the negative necessity, you're going to have to depend on the relationship or on relationships. We'll see.

Yeah, yeah. And I'm still not 100% sure what that relationship is. I assume it is the relationship between three and two.

Okay, or my guess is it's going to be either drang, or drangshin, or dre. Oh, that's true. Yeah, all dravas are that.

Yeah, that's okay. Okay, lopen choklang kyi shepa. That's the position of who?

Of Master Dignan. Yeah, so he says, he appears to be saying, in my opinion, if you're going to establish the third relationship, you have to look at, sorry, you have to look at the relationship between element two and element three. You cannot treat element two in isolation, okay?

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

That's our position. That's Dignan's position, okay? Then he says, if you me shepa with me, dowa.

Oh, if you say something other than that, then you are contradicting Dignan? No, if you don't agree, no, we're going to demonstrate contradictions in not agreeing with Dharmakirti's position. With Dharmakirti's position, or Dignan's?

Sorry, yeah, Dignan's position. Okay, okay. You point out that there are contradictions if you don't agree with the position of Dignan, that you have to look at the relationship, and not just the opposite, the second element.

Right, right. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. Then, then we're going to garpa shende.

We're going to refute the other positions. Who says that, dupa, just ma tongwa in the mitun chok is enough to stay in tokyo. Yeah, that just not seeing, what is it?

The asserted quality? Yeah, the opposite. Just because you don't see the subject of the logical proof in the opposite equality we are asserting, doesn't mean you have proven the third relationship necessary for a correct reason.

Okay, okay. Cool, okay? Yep, yep.

Now, why he goes so heavy at the beginning is beyond me. And by the way, I want to say one thing. Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk, the modern author, my teacher's teacher of this huge masterpiece, which he wrote in prison for 15 years or something, it's an amazing work.

And I think he changes horses a little bit into the text. And I don't know where, we'll have to define it. This text, to me, is worth translating.

It's worth spending 20 years translating because he explains Dharmakirti word by word, and nobody else does. But he doesn't seem to start it at the beginning. He seems to have made that decision maybe a couple of years into his book, okay?

Which is kind of frustrating for us. Because we want to translate his book because he gives word by word what Dharmakirti meant, but he doesn't do it in the opening section, okay? Frustrating.

We should write him a letter. Okay, we need Minze to read again.

[Speaker 2]
TANG PO ZHUGS KYANG GRUB PA GRUB PA GREL BA LA LTOS PA LOG DANG PHYUG LANG GI ZHES PA MTHUN PHAN Good.

[Speaker 1]
Ben, translate, go backwards. Yeah, a demonstration of what Dignaga said, that you have to depend on the relationship, or a relationship, in order to establish or prove the negative necessity. Good, okay.

And by the way, he just said that, two lines above. Word for word. He said it word for word, which means that even he admits it's a pain-in-the-ass sentence.

Okay, he thought it was necessary to repeat the whole sentence. I'll give you three parts now in my discussion, and the first part is blah blah blah, and he repeats exactly the same sentence that he gave us 10 seconds ago. It means, I think it shows that he knows it's a nasty sentence.

We're going to skip the root text. Hail Mary. I'm reading a good science fiction book on Hail Mary, by the guy who wrote The Martian.

Anyway, it's good, Mr. Kramer. Let's go to this. Who's gonna, you want Linji to do one more?

We're running out of time, we should just keep her there if we can. Okay, hang on. Okay, go.

[Speaker 2]
Nice, good.

[Speaker 1]
So there are three bad reasons mentioned here. There are three categories of bad reasons mentioned here. It's fun to learn them, and then watch your co-workers use them.

Okay. No, I mean, that's how you learn logic. You don't learn it in a vacuum, okay?

A logical reason can be illogical because it's gyalwa, because it's mangyepa, or because it's simply madrupa. What are those three, Ben? It's contradictory, it's uncertain, or it's not established, it's not proven.

Yeah, or it just doesn't work. Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
You want to give me examples of all three? Let's go. Give me an example of bad logic which happens to prove the exact opposite of what you want to prove.

Sound is an unchanging thing because it's made. Good. Okay, good.

That reason is in direct contradiction with that quality that you're trying to prove about sound. Okay, that one's easy. Sound is an unchanging thing because hungry ghosts like to listen to it.

How about you just say because it exists? Oh, okay. Okay.

Sound is an unchanging thing. Sound is a changing thing because it exists. Okay.

Okay, I'm not familiar with these three. It's indefinite. It's indefinite.

It could be true, but it's not true. It's not always true. That's what mangyepa means.

Okay, I see. And then madrupda is pretty easy. Take sound.

It's made because you smell it. It's not because you smell it. Okay, sounds good.

Smells good. Yeah, which just means sound is not something that a non-Buddha can smell normally. Okay.

Okay. Yes, yes. You can say contradictory, uncertain, inconclusive, and then just flat out.

Whoa, I'm not sure what sneezing in the middle of a debate is. Okay, now, why are we studying this? We want to shepa the nyenpo for three kinds of bad reasons.

We want to understand what is the antidote for mistaken reasoning. Yeah, what's the use of studying all this stuff that we studied today? We want to understand tenzik sung kyi nyenpo shepa che.

Yeah, we want to know how to fix those three kinds of bad reasons. Which is why tsultrim kyi tsen ne la ngejor dzepa ni. Why are we tearing apart the tsultrim kyi tsen ne?

Oh, in order to come to an understanding that the definition of a correct reason is met in these classical examples or something that we're going to give? Yeah, the reason why we're tearing apart the elements of the definition of a good reason is that we want to avoid the three kinds of bad reasons. Okay, that's all.

Okay, cool. Somebody indicated we ran out of time. I don't know.

Is that true? That's true, that we ran out. We got the handsome...

Oh, thank you, Dr. Cramer. Thank you for all your good work. I'm gonna do the thing you sent me soon.

I'm already working through people. I had long days of talking to people. I'm doing end-of-the-year reviews of people, and he's up soon.

Now, the answer to the eternal question that has recently come out on a t-shirt. Oh, I'm sorry, Dr. Cramer, you discuss. I go sit down.

Okay. Yeah, give you this plan. Great.

I sure hope that someone is gonna help me. Lindsay, you ran away, but I won't know if someone in that room is desperate to help. So, someone has to help me come up with ways to apply this to my life.

Oh, good. Just, you know, in case someone's, like, jumping up and down in the room, I need you to be my eyes and ears there. Yeah, the one, the first one who started jumping up and down to share.

I think they should be allowed, just because they were first. It only seems fair, don't you think? Oh, it's actually Michael's computer.

Can you take out the share? Can you end the screen share? Oh, yes, I can.

There we go. Okay. Oh, nice.

I just wanted to say, I honestly didn't understand why it was faulty logic until I saw an example. And so, I think just, like, that was just making me think of what else am I getting wrong? One, and then the power of, like, concrete examples.

I will, like, the second I saw an example, I was like, oh, that is wrong. But that's all I got. Yeah, that's great.

No, we just did, over the years that we've practiced together at Diamond Mountain back in the day, we used to write up on a whiteboard all the different relationships and ways of trying to come up with the correct reason. And what we found is basically no one ever does it right, at least not the first time. Like, it takes a lot of practice.

And then we would kind of take turns, like, analyzing our life to see, like, how often do I create reasons? For example, I can hit the snooze button on my alarm clock, because it never takes me more than 10 minutes to get to work. Is that a correct reason?

And then we can scrutinize it. How many of the things I do in my life, I do based on reasons? And if I can't come up with a correct reason, at gunpoint, with the correct reasons, with the proofs, or excuse me, the relationships, the tests of a correct reason written in front of my face, then what are the chances throughout my day I'm using correct reasons to navigate?

I learned a cool word. I'm going to do it wrong. Is it patamoshta or something?

I learned from the Russian speakers, because. Awesome. Yeah.

How many times a day do you use that word? How many times a day do you use the word because? And what's behind it?

You are suggesting three relationships by using that word, but they're seldom there. They're almost never there. And people don't know or think about it.

And it's so sad. The worst thing you can do is watch debates on television and listen to people talk past each other. It's so painful.

And then we have this very rare thing, which is to break down why we think the things we think. And then, I don't know, there's also something about feelings or something. It's nice to have these discussions, but in the classic Geisha Michaelian argument, we should go to the Japanese restaurant because we should go to the Japanese restaurant.

Even if you convince your partner of your logic, it doesn't necessarily change their mind. I know, because I don't necessarily, even when I think my logic is airtight, it doesn't necessarily change my wife's mind about where we should eat tonight. What do you think?

So how are we going to use all this? Will it really change people's minds? It's so hard to change people's minds.

Can this work? Can we change people's minds with logic? Do we want to change people's minds?

Well, wouldn't you want to test your own mind first? Can you test your logic in whether or not you can hit the snooze button? Whether that's a truly correct, a logical reason, then maybe you're going to hit the snooze button until you figure out a reason that is correct that would allow you to hit the snooze button.

Yeah, right. That's right. And if you turn out to be wrong again and again, if you analyze the reasons in your life and you notice that you use the word Padamasta all day long, but you don't know how to formulate a reason, then maybe Ben should shut up a sec and listen.

Stop creating all that negative karma. Yeah, right. It's probably a very powerful lesson that I should let other people do the talking more.

So would anybody else like to add anything, for God's sake? Now, just because I'm being logical, it's true that it doesn't make other people logical around me. But if it comes from me, then if I can keep being more logical, then over time, the people around me will be more logical because of the second of the four results occurring.

Yay. So political debate can become an enjoyable event. It just means I have a long way to go.

If people around you are not being logical, then I guess it's a sign that you're not being logical, that you have to keep working on it. As long as there are still partisan political debates in your world, you must not have mastered the art of civil, sensible correctness. Yeah.

Something I was thinking about is, for me, logic helps separate what I believe is true from what's actually true, right? So I have a lot of things that I believe, and then as soon as I start analyzing them, I start to see that there's kind of a separation between the two, such as where I believe things come from and where they're actually coming from, and how I operate my life is usually dictated by what I believe.

[Speaker 2]
But I did have something funny to also talk about.

[Speaker 1]
So about six months ago, I told Ava that, it's doing better. It's doing better. It's still uncomfortable.

Who shot you in the eye? Was that a little girl? It was Kate.

It was Kate. Oh, okay, okay, okay. And she got me from like 20 feet away.

With a ketchup bottle? No, with a Nerf dart. Nerf dart.

Oh, that's right. That's what made it illegal in 1982. That's right.

Oh my goodness, no, they're still everywhere. They're huge.

[Speaker 2]
But just as an aside, I told Ava that if I ever asked her to do something, that she's more than welcome to ask me why, you know? She never has to really take anything that I ask her to do and just kind of do it, because I'm asking her to. And I said that if I ever tell you to do something, because I'm telling you to do it, I said, I want you to tell me Tatmadru, right?

And I can't tell you how many times she said that to me over the past six months.

[Speaker 1]
She said, but Dad, Tatmadru. I'm like, okay, babe, thank you. Well, here's why.

This is why I'm asking you to do it. You know, it's not always the most time efficient way of getting us into the truck to get loaded up to do something. But yeah, I think we all kind of carry beliefs.

And I think it's more so, especially in the more secular world, there's kind of a lot of beliefs that are held. And, you know, I think reasoning helps establish, you know, what may be faulty beliefs from actually well-founded beliefs, you know? That's wonderful, Adam.

My mom was this way too. And she told me not to just take what she said, but if I had a good reason, if I had a good argument to make that she might change her mind. And later it made a lot of trouble for my teacher, but at the time it was very cool for me.

That's good. I'd rather her understand why I'm asking her to do something than to just take it. Wonderful.

[Speaker 2]
Anyone else? Oh, sorry. I don't mean to cut you off.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, because of course you popped me in the eye with a Nerf dart again. Thanks, man. Yeah, it was a great class.

Thank you. Yeah. I'm open to more.

We've got another minute or two. If you're champing at the bit to share, I'd be so happy to receive it. It's hard.

Oh, yes. Oh, good. It's happening.

You also have to do the next three parts of the homework. Seriously. Okay.

You have to do the next three parts for homework. The next three parts for homework, I shall. So I'm thinking like if you don't think about karma as a reason, so mostly we are either in the first not logical reason or the second or the third, but sometimes I feel it's like all the three together, like everything I think about as a reason, or at least two of them.

Like for the example you gave about the alarm clock, which exactly what happened to me this morning. I have 10 minutes. Before I go to work and to think that it would be enough to get to work on time is not certain.

And it's contradiction because the other day I didn't.

[Speaker 2]
I should do it in 10 minutes. So it's like, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So at least two are always there when you don't think about the right reason. Yeah. It's hard.

I agree. It's difficult and important. I thought I will have a good internet connection because I called the hotel in advance.

I made sure that they had a business center and it would be available to me and I could test the internet connection beforehand. But yeah, none of it didn't work. None of it turned out to be true.

And now I'm like, I'm sitting outside by the side of the road. But it's good. It was a good class.

It worked out. It was better to be outside in the dirt on the sidewalk and get strange looks from people than to be in their terrible business center. Alligator Central right there, dude.

That's right. You have to be careful around here. It's very true.

Thank you for the warning. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Well, as we now transition to Mr. Juan Hasso delivering us the Peachtree World News, I would like to make one quick announcement. Is that okay? Ben, you good?

All right. After this class, we are very lucky to have a Q&A with the wonderful and brilliant Betz Greer, Venerable Utpala. So I just encourage you all to stick around.

And if you have interest in things like meditating on emptiness or, you know, hard questions about emptiness and the different schools' perspectives, she's been studying this for quite a while. And many, many other topics. So stick around.

Can I make an announcement too, Nick? Of course. This is my on-screen advertisement.

We have decided some dates for next year, which I'd like to announce one of them. We've got requests from around the world to teach DCI Level 7 again, which is Touching the Diamond World, which is the best DCI level, which is about how to see emptiness directly. If you're interested, please come to Hangzhou, China, April 4th to the 6th.

Grandpa will be there in person, teaching it. Foreigners are welcome there. You can come.

And it's a beautiful city. It's a really nice city. It's both historical and also it's the center of some big tech companies.

So it's a beautiful combination. And if you're interested in learning to teach it, so you can teach at that event, for example, you can come to SCIM teacher training, DCI teacher training number 7 for Touching the Diamond World. You can learn how to teach that level February 21st to March 8th online.

Okay, Nick. All right. I'll try to find the handsome guy.

All right. Perfect. Thank you very much, Keshe Michael.

And while Juan gets ready, I'll just also share this very quickly with you. This is the QR code if you would like to sign up for the Emptiness Meditations Retreat, January 17th to 26th with Venerable Udpala at Diamond Mountain. There, if you can make it.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. All right, there he is. Yeah.

We have to hire you, Nick. Okay. You can do Pitch Tree World News.

Yeah. We'll talk about it. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, it sounds like a great idea.

We'll talk about it soon. And yeah, yeah. It was wonderful today.

Nick sent me this. I mean, we already have it. And you just showed this poster on Emptiness Meditation Retreats that Udpala is going to be running on February.

No, sorry, January. Very soon. And then, I don't know, I never had the awareness, but this, it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a Diamond Cutter Classics Retreat event.

So that is all the sudden I was like, oh my God. I mean, I always thought that this was like a Diamond Mountain event. Of course, it's a collaboration, which is wonderful.

I thought it was like an Udpala event. And then finally, I was like, this is a Diamond Cutter Classics event. And it's really, really wonderful.

I'm so excited to hear that you guys are doing this. And of course it's all tied together because Rosa, she's around, but she just released the new printed version of the book we're going to be showing you soon. So now I understand everything is coming up together and I'm very happy and excited to hear about it.

Let's review some events. I just want to catch up what's happening in the next few months. So people have an overview of things and then we're going to review a little bit of a very cool trip that our friend Tim just finished.

He came back from Taiwan and we're going to show you a little bit of what he did there. But okay, first, tomorrow, tomorrow. And I want to apologize with everyone here because every time before an event, I get very nervous and anxious and stuff.

So just sorry, but I just ate some, I'll say snacks, and that helps me to relax sometimes. Okay. Tomorrow here, same venue.

Everyone here is welcome. You guys can come at 2 p.m. Of course, people online, you can register. We are preparing good content, a nice review of 2024, kind of, how to say, a little bit window into the future of what's coming in 2025.

And also, excuse me, a very interesting interview with Geshe Michael himself talking about the completion, as Nick mentioned at the beginning, the completion of his own translation, Illumination of the True Thought by Jetsun Kappa. We are very excited to hear more about that tomorrow. So you can still sign up.

It's going to be in about like 21 hours or something like that. You still have time. Okay.

And at the same time, I want to just, how to say, honor and congratulate our friend Gielse. She's in Diamond Mountain right now. She already started the New Year retreat yesterday, basically, and they are going to go there until January 3rd.

We want to wish them very, very happy New Year from here. Congratulations and best wishes over there. And now, as I was saying, just to remind you, the release of the new edition of Emptiness Meditations, and I kind of joke about it, but it's actually true.

It will be wonderful if you are interested to study this text deeply. If you go to the retreat, why don't show up with your book already there, right? So, you know, you're going to be like a good student that shows with the book already.

And as I say, finally, I realized it. So thank you, Nick, for sharing that. This is a, of course, Diamond Mountain collaboration, but it's a Diamond Cutter Classics event there.

I should put it in the poster, a Diamond Cutter Classics event. It's just me. You guys decide.

And that's going to be January 17th to January 26th. Then, so you see like tomorrow we have an event. Then in January, we have an event.

Then in February, we have an event. It's going to be the Bhagavad Gita. And today the marketing people, thank you so much.

They sent me the official poster, which is the next one, where you can sign up and register now for it. It's going to be from February 6th to the 10th. It's going to be in Sedona.

We don't know yet the final venue, but we are working on it. But I can tell you, it's going to be in Sedona. So you can start planning on it, February 6th to the 10th.

And if you want to hear more about the content or what the schedule is going to be, there are going to be some information sessions coming up on the Bhagavad Gita. One of them is going to be with the famous singer, Michael Johnson. He teaches Sanskrit really, but he's also a great musician and he makes it very, very fun.

For some of you who have seen how he teaches, it's very, very funny, very entertaining, and very knowledgeable as well. There are also going to be two more information sessions. The one with Michael Johnson, you can see in the poster, is January 8th.

And I don't know why these people keep insisting on New York time, New York time, New York time. It's okay. We forgive you.

We still love you. But that's like, what is it, two hours? We are two hours earlier than New York here?

I think, if anybody knows, but that means it's going to be 5 a.m. Arizona time. But anyway, you know these guys, they insist on New York time. So that's okay.

And then Lidia is going to have one session like this two days before, January 6th. Later, I'll show you. And then apparently, Vengie and Teresa as well are going to have one on January 20th.

And for those posters, I'll reach out later. Okay, so next picture please. Then, that was February.

And then March, people are going to be going to the desert in China, Dunhuang Caves, Dunhuang Desert. It's going to be a very interesting tour. If you are planning to go, you better start getting your visa ready.

Hopefully, it's a great adventure and we all can be somehow part of it because I think the price is great. That's going to be March. And then April.

Oh, sorry, that was April also. But this is April also. Tim Lowenhaupt and some other friends are going to be producing an event on the new beginning of the five houses in Diamond Mountain, April 17 to 27.

And as far as I understand, Geshe Michael is going to be there? Yes. Wonderful.

So you see, I already gave you big events for the next five, four months. You can make your plans and be there if you can. It's really, really wonderful and it's really worth it in my opinion.

Okay, so now, as I was mentioning, just to finish with this break and informative session, Tim just came back from Taiwan and I got a video from the great producer and our friend Angel. I want to show you first because they have been supporting a lot. Oh, yeah.

Welcome. Welcome. Thank you so much for joining.

Look who's here with us. Oops. What did I do?

All right. All right. Yeah.

Gina's getting ready. So here we have a video just to really, you know, I'm from Mexico, so I'm very dear to that community, of course, you know. So thank you, Taiwan, for helping Mexico so much.

And many of my friends probably get their jobs because of you. So we want to show you and, yeah, share with you this video that Angel and Geshe Michael recorded a few weeks ago.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, this is Geshe Michael Roach sitting with Angel and who's been helping. This is the Happy Bucket Project, which has been helping a lot of amazing things among the Mexican students and Mexican people. For example, we help the refugees coming up through Mexico, trying to travel very, very poor, very dangerous.

We help them. We're helping the Spanish translation project. They have finished a lot of the ACI courses over the 10 years of this Happy Bucket Project and other projects having to do with the Mexico people.

And I just wanted to thank everybody. And I want to thank Angel for taking responsibility to keep going. And she's got all these special boxes that she's sharing with people.

So please get involved. Please help. Those people are desperate.

I saw those people. They are very, very, very, very poor. And they're in a very dangerous country.

And I think it's a wonderful thing that we're helping them for 10 years. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
So there you go. Thank you, Taiwan, once again. Yeah, it's like weird to me to say because it sounds corny, but I think everything that people are doing is like, are actually, Jose, they are doing, they're making this a better world.

And it sounds corny, and it sounds like fantasy. But when I look at it, it's real. You see, that's why I don't understand.

And we have some pictures of your trip. So as you talk about how did it go, Gina can help us. Gina, as you wish, just keep showing pictures.

And if something comes into your mind, you can talk about it. Or just share, how did it go? We were together in Kyoto.

And then right after, you go to Taiwan. What happened there?

[Speaker 3]
Right afterwards, we did a whole course on meditation. So it was intensive. And there were about 40 people there in person, we had about 30 people online.

And it was also a celebration, the beginning of the celebration of the 10 years of the Happy Can Project. So not only were we giving the classes, but we were also celebrating all the hard work that the Taiwanese people have done. Because, you know, the Happy Can Project does support the Spanish translation program.

And that's its primary function. But it also, what we find is most important is how we're at, we have humanitarian projects and putting people out there and helping real people who are suffering.

[Speaker 2]
Like the migrants?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Wonderful. Yeah. I've been in the in the shelter, big, big, big, Jose improvements because of the Taiwanese people.

[Speaker 3]
And there's all the donors right there. They were they brought all their kids, it was a really fun class with kids playing with trucks and screaming in the back of the room the whole time. But it was a really wonderful moment for all of us to start celebrating that.

And over the next full year, we're going to be having programs to highlight all the different aspects of the Happy Can Project. And specifically, we're gonna have Mexico give those classes.

[Speaker 2]
Wow. In Taiwan? No, not online.

Well, sometime in Taiwan, it will be fun. Yeah. All right.

Great. Great. And then what happened there?

You changed venues?

[Speaker 3]
They're just Angel works in a venue space called Easy Space. And so we were just in two locations around the city. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Janet is there.

And Janice, the main translator, she worked the entire time. And by the end of that, she was so tired. You could just see.

I bet.

[Speaker 2]
I know. And I had a chance to meet her. Yeah.

She's amazing producer also like and she speaks Chinese, Japanese, English very well. She actually studied in my hometown. Where?

In Pittsburgh. Wow. Wow.

Wow. Okay, cool. And then what's there?

Why Brian is there in the middle so happy? Brian gave a class.

[Speaker 3]
Wonderful. And I'm not sure which class he gave. I had Brian and Gibson give one class each during the series.

So it was really cool to see them teach and see them show off their chops.

[Speaker 2]
Wonderful. Wonderful. Okay.

Then there are some pictures if we just because we need to hurry up that one. Yes, exactly. You are doing something with these watches.

You look like a magazine model. Yeah, because I don't know if you hear about it, but many people find you very pretty. The watches are beautiful.

Yeah, the watches too. So what's all about the watches?

[Speaker 3]
They were doing a fundraiser. And during the classes, they put a different watch on me. And then someone would buy it at the end.

[Speaker 2]
All right. And then you got one too.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah. I made the mistake of saying I like this one. And then it just showed up.

So it's a beautiful watch. Wonderful. What are you going to do with it?

Just wear it. All right. Show it off.

I mean, we could auction it off if you want. For PhD World News. I hear you're in need of some funds.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, but thank you. He did the t-shirt the other day in Taiwan. And I think that fundraise like something.

So thank you so much for the effort because sometimes of course the money is great. We like money, but sometimes the support feels very special. Sometimes it's just about the friendship and the effort to support your friends and stuff that feels really, how to say, nice.

So I'm really grateful for that because the money hasn't come. He hasn't done give anything yet, but I know that support is there. The love is there.

So thank you. Thank you so much. Sounds like it.

No, that's OK.

[Speaker 1]
I'm joking.

[Speaker 2]
OK, so that's it. And then tomorrow, just to remind you, he will be here with us for the New Year's event. So thank you very much.

We're going to be talking more about the next year with big projects are coming with the five houses and other things. So thank you so much for the support.

[Speaker 3]
Really.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you. This guy came and saved the Christmas. He's really helping me with the tech table.

So thank you so much. Not really. You're saving Christmas.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. So we go to Q&A. Thank you so much.

See you later to all of you. And yeah, if you can tune up tomorrow, 2 p.m. Arizona time, very early in Asia, very late in Europe. Perfect time for us here.

See you later.