Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 50

[Speaker 1]
All right, all right. How's everybody doing? There we go.

Good to see you. Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower. It's time.

We're going to do a couple of classes today. First, we've got Ben Kramer up as we go deeper and deeper into the ideas of perception. Hey, Geshe Michael.

Deeper and deeper into lost. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems that way.

[Speaker 2]
And then we've got a class from Gibson. So, that's all.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, from the land of dire... I mean... There's the rainy season there, whatever that is.

It's always a rainy season when you're there. What's that song Purple Rain, right? Yeah, that's a great song.

I mean, you know... It's a brown... Okay.

Now that I'm prepared for Dr. Kramer. Yeah, we all are. Man.

Okay. Anybody want to homework? They want to take a nap.

Cool. Well, this should help. Here we go.

Who's mistaken understanding of Master Dignaga's work? Is Dharmakirti arguing against from the 16th verse of the commentary? It's a fellow student, Master Dignaga.

His own teacher. Who's that? Yeah, I mean, Anatol, who's that?

I mean, I know who that is speaking. No, no, he's not guilty of this particular sin. No.

Yeah, that's it. And in fact, is correct. It is Ishvara Sena.

What were the... What are the relationship of these two masters to that, to Ishvara Sena? Yeah.

It was Dignaga's student and Dharmakirti's teacher. Cool. Yeah, great.

What's his name in West Chinese language? Wang Chu. Yeah, good.

Extra no money for you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, two zeros.

[Speaker 1]
Great. I like it. Okay.

Why can't Master Dignaga be saying that verbal proof must be given to an opponent to show that they've never seen a counter example to a necessary relationship? So you want to show that to be A is to be B, a necessary relationship. Why can't he be saying that verbal proof, that you have to give verbal proof to an opponent to show that they've never seen it?

It's very silent here. I mean, there's different kinds of silence. I know.

It's a hard question. I found this hard also. What's wrong with giving verbal proof?

How about if I ask you this? Does anyone see a two-headed purple elephant in the room right now? Under the couch, I think.

Is there any good reason why Dignaga should have to give you verbal proof of that? Yeah. What does verbal proof have to do with whether or not you've seen something?

Yeah. You don't see it. You don't need verbal proof.

So what's verbal proof for then instead? So people can study it centuries later? So perfect.

Yeah. For the sake of future confusion. To show that if you have seen something and then that implies something else, to show somebody that.

I'm not sure what you mean. So I'm going to say no. He's showing, what can I do if you're not sure?

I don't need to explain to you that there's no two-headed purple elephant under the couch. In fact, better yet, I can explain to you that there cannot be a two-headed purple elephant under the couch. How would I demonstrate that there's no way there could be a two-headed purple elephant under the couch?

Small couch. Yeah. Great.

Small couch. Yeah. Right.

A two-headed purple elephant shares a relationship with things that are bigger than the space under the couch. So that if I'd show you that, then you know, even without looking, that he's not under the couch. So verbal proofs show you what?

Possibility? Not possibility. And this is the heart of the types of reasoning.

And I think this is the heart of what we're making arguments about. That there's something at the heart of reasoning, and it's the reason why there are two types of reasons for a positive thing, uh, is because all reasoning depends on this thing that you do demonstrate with verbal proof. And it's, uh, no, I don't need to prove to you that you didn't see something.

I need to prove to you that you couldn't see something. And I do that based on, uh, to be A is to be B or, uh, to be A is to be caused by B, which are both examples of the relationship. Yeah.

Right. I use proofs to show relationships. Um, okay.

Uh, do you want to give me the, uh, Tibetan for verbal proof that he used something with knocking it? Yeah. Right.

Yeah. You and Gish and Michael make a good team. I like it.

Yeah. He gets 50 bucks and I get 50 bucks. Yes.

But you have to give it to each other. You know, good. Okay.

Uh, what is the second unacceptable consequence that would arise from misunderstanding Ignaga's position? Um, and then give an example. Okay.

Oh gosh, what was it by the way? Oh yeah. And then give an example of a mistaken reason.

Great. Uh, that Geshe Yeshe Wangchuk has offered to demonstrate an inconclusive reason here. And I have a hint for you.

Um, that may not be helpful. Um, as a hint, give me an unusual Tibetan term used here for a fruit. An only word could answer this probably, uh, Gish and Michael could, but you know, he's, uh, holding it in desperately.

Yeah. Yeah. Cool.

Yeah. It's like the tree tip, um, or something. Um, what does that have to do with a mistaken reason?

What, what mistaken reason does he give us? It's about lemons. Lindsay's got it.

Yes. Lindsay. Wonderful.

Really?

[Speaker 3]
The fruit I ate off the tree yesterday was sweet, so the other ones must be sweet too.

[Speaker 1]
The fruit I ate yesterday was sweet, so the other ones on the tree today must be sweet.

[Speaker 3]
There's one proof that all fruit from that tree will be delicious.

[Speaker 1]
Right. And that's considered a hlongden, uh, uh, in, inconclusive or, or incomplete reasoning. Maybe we said incomplete, actually.

I'm sorry. Uh, I'll have to double check, but I think it doesn't, you called it ridiculous. Oh, it is ridiculous.

Uh, some set of ridiculous in which you, you failed to go looking the rest of the way. And, um, if you accepted Ishvara Sena's position that all you have to do is not see something, um, then you would be stuck with this being okay with it being okay. Uh, you tasted a fruit, you didn't go look to see if the leftover stuff was sweet, but you're okay.

Uh, and that would be, um, wrong. Of course. Uh, great.

Look at that. Um, such smart folk. Let's see now if that wasn't bad enough.

Um, here, Casey and Michael, uh, here, I'm just going to show this cause we covered this last time. And this is the discussion we're having is this problem of fruit left on a tree tasting sweet because it grew from the same tree as Lindsay said, although Michael's example of lemons is maybe problematic for sweet fruit, but, um, now, now it gets, now I'm in trouble. Uh, this is my attempted translation.

Oh, okay. Uh, can I see the West Chinese language for that last sentence? Yeah, totally.

Yeah. It never says here that the one I ate was sweet. Um, isn't that cute?

Uh, and I dutifully didn't either. I mean, I was just wondering about it. It doesn't say that in the native language either.

Right. That's interesting.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Uh, you hear this and that we covered that last time. Uh, so you, uh, stuck me, uh, by which I mean, gave me the opportunity to, uh, translate this, uh, second part of the discussion and then these next two, um, tell us.

Yeah, good. It wouldn't have made sense. Do you want to read it?

Okay. Uh, Oh, sorry. Yeah.

Oh, no. Yeah. Okay, good.

Uh, it wouldn't have made sense for the commentary to the compendium. Who wrote the compendium? Uh, the same author as the auto commentary.

So, uh, uh, Dr. um, uh, okay. I know it's coming. Uh, yeah, good.

Uh, yeah. If you follow master, I want to, uh, what's the cure mean here? Um, I think it, I think it, it means you, Master Ishvara Sena, I guess.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Talking to him. Yeah. Uh, okay.

Good. By the way, I, I have a personal rule about Sanskrit names, which I'll propose to you. In, in bibliographies, I use one, I use just one word, like Ishvara Sena is one word.

But in the text, when I take out the diacritics, if, if either one of the two parts of the person's name is more than two syllables, I split it. Cool. You see what I mean?

Yeah. You know, see what I mean? Yeah.

That's my personal rule. So like Dharmakirti, I don't split. But Ishvara Sena, I split, because it's too much for a westerner.

Okay. Nice. Oh, that's, that's great.

That's very helpful. Then just not seeing the reason in the Sutta to Simla Kshetra, Trinamatthana, Samkhya, and Hathasutra, the Nāgāna, and the Sāṭṭhā. Okay, good.

Uh, yeah. Okay, good. Uh, can you give a, like a, just a normal explanation of that, what that means?

Let's say, drācā-seṃhitāṭṭhā is a changer. Um, yeah, sound is a changing thing because it's made. Yeah, take sound.

It's a changing thing because it's made. Okay. Right.

And what's the mītyaṁ chok? Uh, the mītyaṁ chok would be uh, unchanging things, things that are not changing. Unchanging things, yeah.

Yeah. Do you find sounds in the group of unchanging things? No.

Uh, do you find... You mean, I apologize, you mean uh, made things. Yeah, do you find made things in the group of unchanging things?

You don't find made things in unchanging things. Yeah, good. Okay.

And then he's asking, is that enough? Is it enough? Isn't it enough?

It's not, and he, bless his heart, is, is, has convinced me, I think. Um, yeah, so you were going to give us an example. Yeah, it, luckily there's one on the page.

Um, if it's enough to say, um, uh, um, ripe fruit left on a tree tastes sweet because it grew from the same tree as before. Um, the, uh, fruit that grew from the same, oh, oh, uh, within stuff that doesn't taste sweet. Okay.

Okay. Within stuff that isn't sweet, do I see, uh, fruit from the same tree as I ate from before? I didn't even taste it.

Like, I didn't see it, but I didn't even bother to taste it. Right? So in that case, I do not see, right, in the Me Too joke, I do not see in unsweet things that I ate before.

Not that I looked, you see, I didn't go tasting, but it's true that I didn't see it. So if you say that it's just enough to not see it, um, uh, Ma Tong Tsum, if that's all you need, yeah, then, then this would have to be okay. This proof would have to be okay.

Okay. All right. Okay, good.

So we're going to be exploring that. The second part is not correct for some reason, right? Yeah.

And this seems to be funky. I think all six of these complaints revolve around this Ma Tong Tsum that, that failing to see the reason in the opposite set is enough, which I kind of always probably would have thought that way.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But he makes some cool arguments here. Is it six or eight? Six relating to contradicting Dignaga, and then I, to contradicting Dignaga's words, and then apparently another two, which, uh, I, I'm a little fuzzy about it, right?

Like either contradict direct perception, or they, or they contradict how, how he presents direct perception. Okay. But I guess we'll get there.

So basically we're expecting six plus two logical statements that are incorrect because of something funny about the second part. Yeah. The second part, exactly.

Yeah. Something about, like, if you think that all you need is that third test and that all the third test is, is I didn't see it in that, in the set of things that are not like the asserted property or the. Yeah, and it goes back to that, uh, does it go back to the reason why we need three parts to a good statement instead of just two?

I think that's what we're doing now. I think that that's, because it would be, it would be tempting to think that. Of course, and I kind of always thought that, but I think that that finally is why he's spending this time here.

If there's somebody new in the class today, do you want to say what that means? What we just talked about? Yeah.

Yeah. If I say, um, Ben is a mammal because he's a human, um, then, um, is it, uh, right? The, um, the three tests.

Well, let's say, let's take three parts. Take Ben, he's a mammal because he's a human. Yeah.

The first test is good. Yeah. First of all, I should be a human.

Uh, yeah. One is, one should be three. If three, two, but why do you, if not two, not three?

That's the big question. Yeah. And we're, we're wrestling with just mostly just the second two tests because the second two tests prove something called the necessity here.

And the necessity here is apparently proved in two ways. Um, uh, first to be three is to be two. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
That's easy.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. To be a human is to be, uh, if someone's a human, you have to be a mammal. Yeah.

Right. Um, now if they're not a mammal, Right. If they're not a mammal, then they sure as heck ain't a human.

Can't be a human, but doesn't, don't those two tests seem to be superfluous? Why do you say both? They do seem to be.

And, and so, um, so what is the definition of a correct reason? Why don't you just have two requirements for a correct reason? One is three.

If three, then two. Why do you add, if not two, not three? Because isn't it always true that if three is two, then if not two, not three, you see what I mean?

That's the question. That's the whole question for this whole section. Yeah.

Right. That's the whole question. It never made sense to me.

I thought, I call it reconfirmation, which is just like superfluous, but he's, he's, this whole section is trying to prove that it's the third relationship is necessary, which means Ben, you'd have to show me a case where if three, then two is correct, but not two is not three is not correct. And, and, uh, he's going to try to do it also. But, um, since you didn't mention the first test, I can do it.

Uh, so, so, uh, Ben is a human because he's a two headed purple elephant. Uh, Ben is a human because he's a two. Okay.

So for, let's skip the first test. Okay. Because you didn't ask me to do that one.

So I'm going to forget it. We're going to set it aside. Okay.

If something is a human, is it a two headed purple elephant? No, it didn't pass the second test. Okay.

But is it true that if something is not a two headed or purple elephant, it's also not a human? No, neither is my cat. Okay.

So if something's not a human, is it not a two headed purple elephant? Like, can you find, can you find two purple elephants in, uh, the set of things that are not human? Yeah.

Non-existent things are not human. Uh, what kind of things you talking about? Yeah.

So you can find, if you can find non-existent things that way, then it's, I guess it's fine if you include non-existent things. Um, but he's you just don't see it. Like, do you find it?

You don't find non-existent things. Do you? Well, then you can't find emptiness.

Oh, emptiness doesn't exist. Well, that's a bummer. So, uh, I guess neither does dependent origination.

And he's going to make that point. He's gonna, in fact, it's one of the three we're going to cover. I mean, he can do a better job than me.

Uh, but it's a, it's the same problem because you don't, I don't see emptiness. So if I accept that not seeing emptiness is enough to prove something, then I'm also in trouble there. Uh, let's see, let's keep going and see if it gets clear.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is it true that if something's not a human, it's not a two-headed purple elephant?

No. Oh, well, two-headed purple elements aren't human. Is it true that something's not human, something that's not human, something that exists that is not human?

Oh, now you're doing this. I wonder where I learned that move. Yeah.

Um, yeah. So, uh, you know, just because something, yes, if something is a two-headed purple elephant, does that make it human? No, because there are no two purple, two-headed purple elephants.

But if something is not human, is it also not a two-headed purple elephant? Yeah, that's true. So in that sense, it would pass the third test, but it doesn't pass the second.

And he's going to mention, what if there, I think it's the, he'll cover it today, what if there's uncertainty about the existence of the reason? And another good one would be a self-existent thing, because some people might accept a self-existent thing. So if we argue with them about self-existent things, for example, Ben has breath because he has a true self or a soul.

Then that would be some, some people might believe that some people not might not believe that. So are there things? Is it true that if something doesn't have breath, it also doesn't have a soul?

Or a self or a self nature? Is it true that if something doesn't have breath, it doesn't have a self nature? Yeah.

Something that exists. Get him. Is it true?

Yeah. That's why it doesn't have self-existent self nature.

[Speaker 3]
Because I didn't say that.

[Speaker 1]
I didn't say that's why I just said it is true that there is nothing which exists that doesn't have breath. Okay, um, which, which has a soul. No, you said, if something doesn't have breath, it doesn't.

So right. Thanks for the, if something doesn't have, if something doesn't have breath, and it doesn't have a soul, right? If something exists and doesn't have breath, then it also exists and doesn't have a soul or a self self nature, if you like.

I mean, maybe soul is not the right word to use. Okay. But he'll do it.

This is supposed to be six to support my argument. I think I think now I do. Please.

I'm interrupting you. A very important announcement. Ben Kramer's book is now publicly available.

Oh, my God. Oh, that's wonderful. Yeah, it just came out the boss of the good night book club.

One of the bosses.

[Speaker 3]
Wow.

[Speaker 1]
gave it to me just as I walked in. He asked me if I'd sign it for you. Would you?

No, but you have to send me the hundred bucks for this. Well, what a bargain. If you're in the good night book club, now you have a chance to get Ben Kramer's official book.

It's big enough to hit your cat with. And now it's heavy. So but anyway, thank you, Rosa.

Thank you for bringing it up. Thank you so much. That's wonderful news.

Somehow. Beautiful. Yeah, it's very beautiful.

Okay, I, I did translate these, but you kind of told me to skip these and go to the explanation first. So do you want to do that first? Yeah, let's do the title.

Yeah, good. Is that the first one? Yeah, well, you Yeah, you assigned me three and four.

And you told me as a very helpful hint, and I thank you. Skip the title. Okay, back to it.

We don't have to do it that way. But you told me to skip this part and go to the commentary first and then come back and and and translate how he titled it. These are six fallacies.

He gives each one a fancy name that my names don't mean much. Then he quotes the root text, which also means less than that. And then he's a real example, which means everything.

So we're going to go to the real example. Okay, go. Okay.

Here it is. Who's going to read, Mr. Kramer? Kading, would you read?

[Speaker 3]
Yes. Shepard, J. Joke, Dan, Choo, chin, soon.

So, Dan, Choo, chin, son, loot, tuck, chase you do pay 10 c suit. Tell, tell, pay love my tongue sample pitch here. Pitch here.

Don't know. Kun to run gel down yellow shape.

[Speaker 1]
Oh, okay, Ben, I ship that he except as a prune. So, Dan, Choo, chin. Yeah, that's something alive, something that has life.

Yeah, and I'm trying to think if the word life in this is ever used for plants. It's not, I think. Oh, interesting.

Yeah. Okay, so let's take things which are alive and not plants or something like that. Okay.

Uh, soon the dark chase would do pretend six to 10. Uh, Doc J in day. Uh, oh, yeah, Doc J in day.

So are you saying that they have a self a self nature? Or? Uh, I'm sorry.

Doc, Doc J. Oh, you said in day is that here? And I'm Yeah, see in the what does the proof?

Oh, yeah, right. Subject of the proof is, I'm sorry, soaked in. No, it's not.

Yeah, I mean, this is referring to another proof. I'm sorry, the the subject of the proof is saying that soaked in has a that that it has a top or saying that that's proved rather, I'm sorry, the subject is saying that it's proved. This is a proof about a proof.

This is a proof. And the first proof, the proof that it's about Sarah's similar to Jen. Doc J.

Day. So then you bitch him. bodies have a soul or a self because living he living living bodies have a soul, because they are because the bodies have a soul because you don't see their selflessness, or you don't see the lack of a soul.

No, um, he's referring to another proof. This is a proof about a proof. Okay, the original proof said, soon, the church and doc J.

Day. So then in nature. Yeah, take a living body.

It must have all because it's alive, because it has life, take a living body. It must have us because it's alive. Okay.

Okay. And is it is that a correct proof? It's not but you would be implying it was if you were naughty.

Let's take a body which is still alive. Yeah, it has. So why?

Because it has life. Are they using the subject and the reason? No, this is the the proof that he's attacking.

Right? I'll say it again. Let's take a body which is still alive.

It has a soul, because it's still alive. Because it has life. Okay, who would say that?

Um, I've told you. No, no, yeah. Because we don't believe in this self.

Self nature. In the Madhyamika sense, it means that doesn't come from it's from my side. You see, just because something's alive, does that prove it doesn't come from my side?

It does not. Yeah. Okay, that's all.

But other schools would say that, especially Hindu schools, if it's alive, it has a soul. And that soul was made by God or something. It comes, it happened by itself.

No one made it. Like that. Okay.

Okay. Yes. Now he's trying to prove something about the proof.

So he takes the proof as the example of the proof. Let's take that. What does that thing you made you gave me as your reason?

It has life. Because it has life. Take a body which is still alive.

It must have a self, because it has life. Okay, so what's the subject of the sentence? A body which has life.

A body which is still alive. Okay, and what's he trying to prove? It has a self.

Okay, good. And then he says, okay, well let's take because it has life. Now he's taking the original reason as the subject of a new argument.

Got it? He's taking the other guy's reason as the subject of a new proof. Yeah.

The guy's reason was what? It has life. Because it has life.

This living body, it has a soul because it has life. Now we want to debate about the reason. So we start with the reason.

Let's take the reason called it has life. Yeah, let's take the reason it has life. Are you telling me it's a good reason to prove that a living body has a soul?

Are you telling me it's a sufficient reason to say that a living body has a soul? What would the other guy say? Yeah, that's why I gave it to you.

Okay, so we're saying let's take your reason. What was his reason? Because it has life.

And we say, okay, if you think that, let's take your reason, which is it has life. Let's take because it has life. Are you telling me that it's a good reason to prove that a living body has a soul?

And he'll say, yeah, that's why I gave it to you. Right? Right.

Well, he should say no if he is Ishvara Sena. He should say no, that's a bad reason. The subject of our new proof is the reason from his first proof.

Let's take the reason he gave. Is it a good reason? He'll say, of course it is.

Okay, all right. Okay, okay, so... But Ishvara Sena should say it's a bad reason, and that's why we're attacking him.

Yeah, yeah. Ishvara Sena is a Buddhist. He's fighting with that school, which is probably some kind of Sankhya or something.

They want to say that the world was made by God in two minutes or something. So, he's attacking him. He says, your reason, which is...

Yeah, because it has life. It's not enough to prove that a living body has a soul. Okay, good.

It's not dag me la ma tong tsam yipay chir. Yeah, right. And the opposite is true.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul. See, it passes the third test. It's true that you don't see breath in things that are selfless, because you can't see selflessness at all.

You can't even look there. So, because you don't have the ability to see that. That's what I think he's saying.

I'm sorry. Do you see possessing life among things which don't have a soul? Yes.

What do you mean, see? Do we observe possessing life among things that don't have a soul? Buddhists would say yes.

I don't know. I don't know what you mean when you say observe here. And this seems to be like, what's touching in this?

Dag me la ma tong tsam.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
It is simply not observed among things which don't have a self. Okay. Having breath is not seen among things that don't have a self.

Right. And wouldn't even they accept that? Yeah, I think they would.

And I think that's the point. Yeah. Yeah, I think they would say that.

Or we're changing the meaning of dak halfway across the river on the horse. Changing what's that? In midstream, you know this thing?

When he says dak, when he says soul, he means the spark of life given by God. Yeah. So, dag me la ma tong tsam.

Do you see life among things without that spark? According to the other guy. Do you see life in things that don't have the spark of the creator?

The other guy said, no, you cannot. There's no such thing. Yeah, yeah.

Rocks and, you know, trees and, you know, whatever. You don't see the spark of life, human life, among those things. Okay.

DUN NA KUN DU RANG BRGYAL DANG BRGYAL NO Yeah. The KUN DU is a Buddhist logic text, okay, by the grandfather of all Buddhist logic. And he wrote an auto-commentary to it.

And this statement contradicts that. Okay, this statement contradicts that. So in each case here, in his six complaints, he's going to take what another person thinks is a good reason, and he's going to take that as the subject of a logical statement, of a criticism.

You see what I mean? Okay, then you have to rebuild the original statement from the criticism. Look, having life is not enough to say a living body has the spark of God in it, because there is no spark of God.

That's all. All right, okay. Okay, good.

So in each case, we're supposed to get an illogical statement and an illogical necessity drawn from that original statement. Yeah. Let's say it one more time.

One more time, okay. Let's take a living body. It must have a soul, because it has life.

Okay. And then we say, let's take, because it has life. That's not enough to prove that a living body has a soul, because there is no soul.

Got it? Okay, so we're using his reason as the subject of a new logical statement, and we're saying it's a bad reason. He says, bah, bah, bah.

And we say, what did you say as a reason? Because it's alive. Okay, let's take, quote, because it's alive.

Is that enough to prove something has a spark of God in it? No, we say no. It doesn't make sense.

Okay, that's all. That's not quite right, is it? And I just highlighted, I did screw it up.

I mean, I think you do see things that, I mean, we would say yes to that. So maybe I'm still... Who'd say yes to what?

We would say that you see things that possess life in the set of things that lack a self. Yeah, but yeah, we would say that. And his reasoning to attack Wangchuk De is saying you don't see in things that lack a self.

Yeah, just because you don't see it in things that lack a self doesn't mean that when you see it, it is a self. Yeah. So, I don't know.

I mean, they have another problem. Just because you don't see life in things that lack a self doesn't mean that if you see life... Yeah, you also, I think even in their school, and maybe this is part of the problem, I think even in their school, they wouldn't say that you see a dot.

They wouldn't say you see it. I don't think that's the point, but maybe. Maybe.

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Yeah, okay.

I don't know. You want to see the next one? Yeah, when you're lost, go to the next one.

Okay. Is this a rare chance where the title would help us? Is there any chance?

Let's check. I doubt it, but let's check. Fair enough.

It's not great.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Yeah, it is true that you don't see life. What's dokpa chen?

What's the dokya? The dokya is, yeah, if you don't see life, you can't have a self. Yeah, our dokya or Ishvara Sena's dokya, maybe.

The other guy's dokya. The other guy's dokya would be, it's true that you don't see life in things that are selfless. If you don't see life, there's no spark of God.

Yeah, or you don't see it in that, right? I mean, it's how he phrases it, right? Also true.

Oh, no, no. His dokya is, if you don't see a spark of God, then there's no life. If you don't, I think his dokya, I think Ishvara Sena's dokya is ma tong tsam, and that's what we're attacking, is this whole idea that the dokya could somehow be established by ma tong tsam.

And up here too, right? What do you want to say is the dokya here? I want to say that he says that the dokya is you don't see life in things that are selfless.

Yeah, you gotta start a dokya bar for the if. Oh, but I think he doesn't, and I think that you're right, but that's what we're accusing him of failing to understand. You're right, of course.

What is dokya? The other thing is you don't see the reason in the mi ton chok, in the set of things that are not like the asserted property or something. I don't know what to call that.

Can you tell me the other guy's dokya in the format of if not two, then not three? I can't, because I think that that's not how he phrases it, and that's the problem. I think that's why we're mad at him, is because he's saying that the dokya, he's not saying the dokya is if not two, then not three.

That's what we would say, but he's saying that the dokya is you don't see three in two. And they seem close. They seem almost the same.

Then I don't understand what the whole thing's about. That's okay. No, I mean, officially, what would be the dokya?

How's that? Normally we would say the dokya is if something doesn't have a self, then it doesn't have breath. Or sorry, not breath, life.

Yeah, if something doesn't have a spark of God, it cannot have life. Yeah, right. Right, I think that's right.

It must have a spark of God, right? Right. Something didn't have a spark of God, it couldn't be alive.

Therefore, it must have a spark of God. Right, right, right. But I think you're correcting the problem.

I think you're correcting his problem. If you phrase it that way, you're right. So I think the way to phrase it to make him wrong is if we say that his test is, uh, basically, the latter two tests would be, you see the tensik in the tunchuk, and you don't see the tensik in the mitunchuk.

And that's how Ishvara Sena's presenting it. And so if you say that all you have to do to prove that the dokya is to say, I don't see the tensik in the mitunchuk, then look, you don't see. I understand that, but does it matter that one of the two parties in this debate doesn't accept a spark of God?

Is there a reason why he chose a logical statement that mentions a spark of God? Yeah, yeah, yeah, because if Ishvara Sena phrases it that way, then that means that Ishvara Sena would have to say that the dokya holds and that means that he would be accepting their reasoning. So yeah, it's important because Ishvara Sena shouldn't accept this.

But if he accepts that just not seeing life, right, in that set of things that don't have a self is enough, then they pass the dokya. They're good, they pass the dokya. So does that mean that they just proved a self?

Yeah, yeah. If I accepted dokya, then I'm accepting a spark of life, right? Yeah, right.

You just accepted a spark of life. Because you said, look, you said if you don't see it, if you don't see life in the set of things that are selfless, and you can't see life, you can't see it. And you don't see it.

You observe like licking your food. Yeah, but I think the word, my sense is the word tong is important. You're right.

But I don't know how else to make this statement be controversial, right? Except to really hang on tong. Yeah.

Let's go on to some more. Yeah. Okay.

I have a cat on the table here eating my snack. Probably my wife's reincarnation. Okay, who's gonna read?

Oh, let's see. Oh, there's yours. It says interpretation by your name and by your name.

But Dodo, would you? Poor Dodo, he always gets picked on. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
yang dak ma lokpa telwa ni ni Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Dodo, give me a good prenasal on LDs. LD. Let me see, LD, I want to hear a good ndo.

Like the word for moon, which is ndawa Good. Okay, good. All right, I think Dodo has to read 1.18c. ma druk telwa gyu kye mi Yeah, so this is the same structure as the last one we had. The name of this problem is unintelligible. The poetry about it is even worse. And then we're going straight to the long explanation of both of them.

Which, who's gonna read that, Dr. Ben? I mean, you know, Dodo is right here. He hasn't had the satisfaction of us trying to translate his words.

All right, here we go. Shebe. It is.

ndu rang je tang gyel gyel Okay, good. Is there more below that, Uncle Ben? I don't know.

Wouldn't that be lovely? Okay, talking about something without an example. All right.

Let's just translate, okay? Telwa sheba. Oh, yes, great.

The fourth consequence that we don't like. Yeah. dopa la tetam sama When there's doubt in the...

Dopa, he didn't say dokya, but I'm kind of assuming it means that. I want to read it as dokya. I want to read it as dokya.

Okay, deal. Right, okay. When there's doubt about the negative necessity.

It might be doubt about something being in the negative necessity. I'm not sure. Yeah, it could mean that.

Tayan da malopa Um, yeah. That, yeah, the backwards idea that that could be a correct reason. Yeah, good.

Okay. It'd be nice to reconstruct an example. This is...

And by the way, I was thinking about this book all day. And I was trying to have meetings with my friends. And...

Yeah, this book does that to me. And I don't think it's clear enough. And I don't think it's clear enough.

And I don't think it's fair for us to expect us to understand it at this point. Can I ask you a question? I mean, on that topic.

I just, because we were having this frustration. Okay, and so I did this terrible exercise to myself. Okay.

And we are here, okay, in these six... Okay. Which you'll see, I haven't even tried to tackle what these are yet here.

I guess we're technically, we're like here. Okay. But we are in...

Check this out. This presentation. Okay, so what texts were written?

Who are the translators? Various works. And then a presentation on the meaning of this work.

Okay. We're gonna do, we're gonna talk about the greatness of the authors. We're gonna do a general summary of the meaning.

Yeah. Okay. And then this is all theoretically within that.

And then... See... We haven't gotten too extensive.

There's a, there's a, I'm sorry. Oh, I put my A here. Damn, that's confusing.

There's a B. I can find it. I'm so sorry.

But this is in theory, he's giving a general summary of the meaning. And there may be... Is there any chance that there's a detailed one yet to come?

Well, like with Stanley's Abhidharma text, the first chapter is full of stuff from the rest of the book. And he doesn't explain it. You know, you have to know the rest of the book to read the first chapter.

So it's possible it's that kind of situation. And so what you would do, Ben, is search for the root text later. Does he repeat the root text later?

And he, I did not find that exactly. Yeah. Either he changed horses, either he decided to write a word-by-word commentary later.

And he didn't write it for the first part. Or he's just flirting with us at the first part, and later he's going to explain it correctly. But the way it is now, it's unacceptable.

No human being can follow it. You see here, he says he's going to give a general and then a thatchepa. Yeah, okay.

We didn't get to a thatchepa. Yeah, well, that could help or it could not help, and we'll have to wait till we get there. Right.

But I wonder if it were me, I mean, I'm going to just keep going through the text. Yeah. But if I come back to translate it, polish it, I would go find someone else to explain the six clearly, with examples.

Yeah, right. That's all. It's frustrating.

Yeah. There's no way anyone can understand this, because there's not enough information for anyone to understand it. So far.

Right. Right. So if I try to give an example, my feeling about an example would be taking something that we're, I mean, maybe we should translate this first.

Yeah, go ahead. Try. Okay.

Oh, right. I'm sorry. That's what we're just doing, right?

So there, if there's doubt, these lines say, right, or teach that in a case where there is a doubt about a reason. Yeah, right. About a reason being in the dōkya, maybe, about the dot being in the dōkya.

Okay. Then is it wrong to say that's a mangepe tensei? Basically, is it wrong to say tamadru?

Like, is it wrong to say that three is not true of one? Or doesn't have to be true of one. Uh-huh.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Right. Yeah. Right.

Because in that case, if you have doubt about that, then you don't see, then you matong, you matongchang, right? In that case, you don't see the dot in the mitunchok, because you don't know. You don't see it.

So shouldn't you say tamadru then? So are you saying that you can't call this an uncertain logical statement because here, too, you don't see the reason in the dissimilar set? Like, if I say, I don't know, like, use hungry ghosts as a reason.

Like, I don't know if they exist. I never saw that. So if I say, your special offerings, they do get eaten because they get eaten by hungry ghosts.

Um, like, I don't, I don't know. So do I say tamadru, right? Are you saying it's, um, because I can't see, um, I can't see hungry ghosts anyway?

I can't see the opposite. It could be. I don't know.

I don't know. There's, we need the actual proof. He didn't give us the proof.

Yeah. He didn't give us the proof that he's talking about. And I, and I wonder if someone didn't just list the six.

The only reason we could understand these six is if we have examples. Yeah. Without examples, it's like crazy.

Yeah. Okay. Um, I'll try.

Well, um, should I? We're, the, the, the other good news is we're out of time. It's fine, I said, I said, I promise I'll stop.

And so I could look for examples. Well, I just wonder if someone in history made a simple list of the six with examples. Yeah, that's what I'll look for.

Yeah, I'm not sure. Myself, I'm not sure. This is not something we studied.

We didn't go this deep in, in the, you know, when we worked on it in the, in the Geshe course, you know, we didn't go through these six. These six, six are pre-Dharmakirti. Yeah.

Right. Okay. Let's try.

Let's try. You try. If you want to look in the Kunturanga.

Yes. Okay. Yeah, yeah, and see if that helps.

Okay. But to, to be honest, what you're really looking for is six logical statements that we can use to, as examples. And then we can, you can rebuild it from the logical statement.

It's hard to build a logical statement from the description of it. You see what I mean? Yes.

If you have a statement about fruit trees, you can figure out what he's trying to say. But if you just have what he's trying to say, and you don't have an example, it's almost impossible. For me, it's almost impossible.

That example about soul, for example, the spark of God or whatever, that's, that's pretty clear. But this, this fourth one, he didn't give us an example. Yeah.

So do you want to, did you do five and six? No, this is where you sent me to. I mean, I wrote notes to myself about them, but I don't know what the hell they mean.

So, but, but you, you sent Ben to here. Look, look for five and six, and if you have time, look through Kunduranga and see if you get any help. Okay.

And I suspect there was some nerdy Tibetan who, who has six syllogisms somewhere. Okay. I hope.

Me too. Otherwise this section, again, if this section is explained later, and he's just going through it as a teaser, that's okay. That's very common in Abhidharma.

Very common. But I don't know about this one. Yeah.

I don't know about this term. Cool? Do five and six and look through Kunduranga.

Okay. And now I will disappear and you will discuss how you could possibly use this thing. Okay.

Bye. Okay. Thank you.

I'm going to go read this new book I got. Oh, that's so cool. I can send a copy to my mom now.

I'm sure somebody's going to send it to you. Probably Lindsay, but you have to get the valise. I have a valise, I promise.

You guys hear Michael? Can I stall by trying to find my valise instead of? Okay, no.

We got to see the valise. You're right. You're right.

It's only fair. I swear it's around here. Oh, it's next to my bed, of course.

Next time. Yeah. Believe it or not, I don't sleep in this bed.

Unless I'm naughty. Help. Help me.

What do you think? I could definitely use your help trying to think about how this is helpful in your life. Did anyone have a sense of that?

Were you thinking about it? Are you desperately raising your hand? You don't have to shake your head as you translate already, Sanam.

Yeah, that's leading the audience. So for me, it's just this class, personally, was an example of when I am confronted with a situation that is incomprehensible. When something's going on, when I have no idea what's going on, that I don't have to say anything.

I don't have to try to figure it out in the moment. I can take a deep breath and just wish everyone to have clarity in my mind. What do you do, Utpala, if your teacher assigns you to offer a translation for that section, though, for your next class?

Well, then I would call up my friend Ben. You may know him. And I would say, let's go look at these.

And let's just take one. Let's see if we can find one and make sense of it.

[Speaker 3]
Lightly.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Without trying to think what's wrong with it immediately. I like it.

You know, Kesha Michael said that he was thinking about this text all day and it bothered him. And it bothers me, too, in a way that, I don't know, it's almost cool. Like, I feel it like eating in the back of my head, like almost like I'm, and maybe this is delusional, but almost like I'm on the door of almost understanding.

I keep feeling like it's almost coming together. And that, I like that. It can be frustrating.

But also, I like that that place of struggle is really fulfilling to me.

[Speaker 3]
Well, yeah, because that's what learning is.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's what learning is. We don't know and we're struggling with what's presented for us to know and comprehend. It's frustrating as all get out when we don't know, but we're learning.

And so to be comfortable with that frustration is to be comfortable in learning new things. Yeah, yeah, I think so. I think that's right.

I teach yoga sometimes. And I think one of the hard things about exercise or yoga or staying healthy or making ourselves strong is there's something about staying in this spot where struggle is happening. And how much time we can bear to spend safely in that space where there's struggle, where we start to shake, where we're on the verge of giving up and we don't.

And then that's where growth happens. That's where change happens. That's where a shift occurs in our capacity.

And I feel pushed, certainly, with this book that feels right to me. And I'm grateful for it. We just did this beautiful with the Russian and Ukrainian speaking gold club.

We just did this cool exercise recently that we called, what was it? Clear Thinking for Financial Gardening. And there was this idea like now if you struggle with ideas like this, if you struggle with very hard ideas, then and now you go to try to solve your business problems or your scheduling problems or your personnel problems, maybe it'll seem easier now.

Like you go to the gym and you lift weights, but the important thing is that you can carry more groceries across the street for old ladies. And then the more weight you put on the bar, the more groceries you can carry for old ladies crossing streets. And then that's the real work.

But you got to put weight on the bar to get strong. And so it seems like trying to solve these profound problems about the heart of reality prepare us for the simpler problems. Oh, is that a volunteer?

[Speaker 3]
Hi, Ben.

[Speaker 1]
Hi, good to see you.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, good to see you too. You already said it, there is something in being comfortable in the uncomfortable. So it's not just about studying for me.

But when I have things in my life where I'm like, I don't know, I always want to push things, right? Oh, I'm on time. I push the car in front of me, whatever.

It's just, I don't have the seats right now to see the outcome that I wish for, either training or whatever is coming up. So being comfortable and uncomfortable when I get there, which is rare, brings a kind of humbleness. And also, then after that comes peace.

I say like, okay, then I just... Also what Utpala already said, then I just don't know. I can't help myself.

So I'm just here and smiling. Like, that's all you can do sometimes. So I always feel comfortable.

Thank you. That's all.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, yeah, that's nice. No, it's wonderful. And I like that idea of trying to be comfortable in that space.

What if I liked it, right? Like the more I could come to enjoy that place of struggle, then how quickly would I grow? Hi, Anjali.

Did you come to chat?

[Speaker 3]
Oh, good. I'm cheating. You know, Ben, it's been like 18 years you've been trying to teach me this stuff.

And I'm still going like this, you know, like what y'all have been sharing. But it's just, you have to push your mind into these things over and over and over again. So I came up with a cool syllogism here.

Let's see. Consider people who irritate me personally. They act that way because they are that way.

And I was like, well, what's the logical plan to like, save me from future pain? Okay, like, this is like my big thing nowadays. So they do irritate me.

Okay. They are that way to me, but not to everyone. So it can't be true that they are that way.

So logically, the fact that they appear to me that way is not because they are that way. And if I understood that, then I might not respond like a dumb dumb by getting upset, speaking harshly, divisively or the like. That's how I would use it in my daily life.

And thank you for teaching me logic since 18 years ago on the debate ground at DM. You know, without that, I wouldn't come up with this today. Probably.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
That's beautiful.

[Speaker 3]
And Holy Lama for teaching all of us. God bless you.

[Speaker 1]
Anatole, you turned on your camera because you're going to be helpful, right? Okay. Yeah, I'm pretty excited about this part of the book.

And it makes me think about like real life usage. There was a famous case of a military situation in Vietnam, the Vietnam War. There was a famous, I don't know, general or something.

His name was McNamara. And he relied on statistics to try to win the, to beat the North Vietnamese. And he some kind of, he was a statistics genius.

But he just like was so into the numbers that with his head in the numbers, he got some number. Because of those numbers, he said, if we send this many people to Vietnam, this many men or soldiers, sorry, then we can definitely win this war. But he just had like a zero off or something.

And then, you know, a lot of people died for not good numbers. So I'm like, in my case, just watching these last couple of classes. Um, I, I, you know, I don't know any Tibetan.

No, I just know how to say Tashi Delek. And, but I can listen to the English. And so like in the last class, to me, it seems really easy.

What, what this whole debate about Dignaga and Dharmakirti and Ishvara Sena is extremely and I just wanted to share what I what insight I got just from the English part, which is basically like, I'll give a syllogism, which is consider this serial killer. Consider this mass murder. He will make a good husband because he has good qualities.

And because of that, you need you need to go with Dignaga and not Ishvara Sena. I don't know.

[Speaker 3]
I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
I'm not that I yeah, I'd love to was that is that a true syllogism for Dignaga and a false syllogism for Ishvara Sena or vice versa? It would be a syllogism that if it if you didn't need all three, you end up marrying him. But if you need it all the other way, you didn't you didn't mention whether or not he's cute.

Yeah, he has good qualities. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we could do it, right?

We could say the mass murder is one is three. He does consider mass murder. You should marry him because he has good qualities.

Yes, he does have good qualities. His mom was very happy when he was born. He has good qualities.

He's he's friendly. I mean, what do you call he's sociable? I don't know.

He has some good qualities. It's not true. So one is three.

He has good qualities. If three, I sorry. Yeah, if three, then two, if he has good qualities, you should marry him.

Fair enough. And if you shouldn't marry him, it's because he doesn't have good qualities. No, because he has bad.

He has ungood qualities. He has some bad qualities. So if you if you skip the third one, you say, oh, I should if I shouldn't marry him is because he doesn't have good qualities.

That's wrong because he does have good qualities. You shouldn't marry him because it's just like a tree. It's a good tree if it has sweet fruits.

But it has unsweet fruits. I wouldn't over there because it's too far away. And you're going to waste most of your time.

That's nice. Sweet fruits. And then maybe you're going to have unsweet fruits.

Yeah, need the third part. It's essential. Yeah, because that in our life, it prevents like, you know, maybe like marrying people that have some good qualities.

Yeah, it should be a good one. I don't know. Anyway, that's my two cents.

Dr. Juan Hasso, you're standing by.

[Speaker 2]
Hi, Ben.

[Speaker 1]
Wow.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
Good to see you all. And I was, I don't know. Sometimes I think my sense of humor can go too far.

So I have to learn to sometimes restrain myself. But I was hearing Anatole and I was thinking of jokes about politics. And I'm just not going to tell them anyways.

In studio today in Rimrock, we have also two friends with us.

[Speaker 2]
And I would like to welcome them if they are there with us. Yvonne, and I don't know if Chloe is there or not, but it's good to see you. How are you over there?

How's the class? Can you show us really quick the audience?

[Speaker 3]
Live audience. We're having a great time.

[Speaker 1]
Best regards. Wonderful, wonderful. Okay, okay, cool.

So I've been rushed here because my other joke is like, I don't mind when I start late because it helps me to feel less bad when I go late. Anyways, it's just a joke. Good to see you, Chloe.

Good to see you, Yvonne. Thank you so much for all the support.

[Speaker 2]
I'm reporting here from beautiful city of Guadalajara. I'm at Gina's house. She's helping me with the tech.

Thank you, Gina. And sending best regards. She's in the tech table.

Doing a superhero's job. So tell us, girls, what have you planned today for today's first segment on Beach People News?

[Speaker 3]
Well, there is something that is happening in this Worldview Network that is absolutely extraordinary. It inspires me because for a long time, I've been thinking about this idea. I had in university, I had some friends who were taking a business ethics course.

And I asked them what they were doing in their business ethics course. Because I didn't understand. It was either ethics or what's the alternative?

And they said, well, you know, business. And I didn't understand. So I scratched my head about that subject for a while.

And then maybe 20 years later, there's this DSCU place that is actually is a place of ethical business where people can learn to be ethical business leaders in this world. And it's such a beautiful, such a beautiful thing. So they've got some really exciting things coming up.

And we have a beautiful video to show what's going on in DSCU.

[Speaker 1]
The first university group will graduate. We call it pioneer group because they agreed to pay for their course, but they don't get a real degree. Why?

The American government checkers give the license to the university. It takes about five years, usually ten. And so you have to run the university for five to ten years, but you cannot give a degree.

We went to the first building of Princeton University. In that building, on the first day, 20 students came. 250 years ago.

Probably those first 20 students in that room, they didn't get any paper. They get this honor to start the best university in the world. Princeton.

Then we are looking for more students like that. And we are looking for a new group of crazy people. And we want to invite you.

We are running basically three programs now. MBA program. I think it's an awesome MBA because we have something called C&C.

I think it's a great MBA program because in the MBA program, there is something called comparison. Even Princeton. I think the education is not whole.

It's only the western half. We really give the best part of the western university and the best part of 3,000 years ago.

[Speaker 2]
Recruiting new people. Can you hear me? Yes.

And we have special guest Edmond here with us doing amazing special missions. Regards that. Hello, Edmond.

How are you? Hi, I'm fine. I'm now in Sedona in our DSU office.

Nowadays, we are having a lot of meetings with our academic advisor and also the lawyers. As Gershwin-Michael mentioned in the videos. Actually, the video was recorded last year.

So he's saying in March next year. But actually, it's in March now, which means we are going to start our next cohort in next month. And now, actually, we are going to recruit our next cohort students.

I have to say that, as mentioned in Gershwin-Michael's email, it's actually a video. And also after our meeting with our academic advisor. Actually, not this year.

We are going to apply the license and autostart accreditation. So the student for this year is very, very, very, very important as part of the funding of DSU. So as Gershwin-Michael said, so maybe 250 years later, the student in DSU will say, oh, before 250 years ago, there was a group of crazy people that helped to start the university.

I have to say that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You can participate in such a great project in your life. This is a once-in-a-lifetime.

So basically, we have three programs. One MBA, as Gershwin-Michael mentioned in his video. Also, the second one is SLP, which is focused on the more successful entrepreneur.

And the last one is the YLP, which is focused on the younger people. If you have a vision to change the world in your future, this is the three programs we are recruiting. So if you are interested in this QR code, you can have more information.

Especially the last one is for the application of the three programs. Edmond, sorry, I have an echo here. The admissions are open now, correct?

Yeah, yes, yes. People can sign up. And the plan is to start in March, this March, upcoming March?

Yeah, yeah. So we only have one month. Frankly speaking, the schedule is very tight.

If you are interested, I appreciate you can sign up as soon as possible. So we can process the, finish the process before we start.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, very cool. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2]
I'm going to show the next picture also, because there are important QR codes there. Yep. And yes, in March, I know DSCU is having sessions in Kyoto.

So if you're interested, still there is one more month to sign up. Three programs, mostly I will say depending on your age, but also depending on your career. If you're already super successful, but you are 20 already, but maybe you can jump into the highest category.

I don't know. You'll have to talk to Edmond and Xiaoping probably about that. But anyways, thank you so much, Edmond.

I'll be there in March and I hope to see you all over there. And to the audience, what I can say is wonderful, wonderful programs. If you're interested in these topics, which I think are really, really deep, really, really helpful.

Consider signing up or at least check the website and see what you find there. Yeah. Thank you, Edmond, so much.

See you soon, either in Selona or in Japan. Yeah. Okay.

And in some other news, there is another event happening. There is another event happening in Kyoto as well, in Japan. And we want to invite the audience to attend.

If you are in Japan during March, you're welcome to come. So these two youngsters that, you know, have been training for about over 10, 15 years are trying to share with you some new content about a wonderful translation that Adam Andrade has done. So these two wild dogs are going to be preparing a special class trying to damage and fight these three poisonous animals and see how well can they do.

We don't know. We will have to check on them.

[Speaker 1]
We will have to check on those two guys if they can help to damage these three poisonous things. But if you're around, it's going to be our honor.

[Speaker 2]
If you want to attend, Adam Andrade is already training and preparing to teach and share these classes with you. On my side, I can say that I hope Juan Casas is doing the same because we will be watching him and we will be tough on him to see if he can help Adam to deliver this wonderful content. And we will be delivering more information soon.

Back to the RIMPROD stage with Sibone and Chloe, because they have another guest there to talk more about cool upcoming events.

[Speaker 1]
Chloe.

[Speaker 3]
All right. Thank you, Juan. So we have a very, very fresh out of the oven video from Innovation Retreat.

So let's take a look. So thank you. Thank you for the Innovation Retreat team that made this such a beautiful video.

You can transport yourself into the silence. So welcome, everyone. And if you can send a poster, you can see how to sign up and know more about this.

And welcome, everybody, to enjoy the silence and learn about Innovation Retreat.

[Speaker 1]
OK, so thank you, Juan. Back to you. We have to go to our next class, which is a Gibson class with Keshe Michael Roach.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much. And we'll keep talking about these events. There is a lot happening also in Mexico.

I hope I can get many, many people that are doing cool things. And I hope you girls can keep helping me to have cool people sharing over there in RIMPROD. Thank you so much.