Бен Крамер — Книга 2: Драгоценность истинной мысли (Геше Йеше Вангчук о Дхармакирти), занятие 51

[Speaker 1]
Good morning, Ben, good morning, how are you sir? All right, I just noticed my ties look very good. Unfortunately Geshe Michael isn't feeling well, so he's needed, he's needing a little extra rest.

I think he's going to be better soon, because I've been hearing from him and he seems like he's working, but he needs a little extra rest. So we have the pleasure of having a team class with Dr. Ben Kramer today, oh and then Warren Smith. Hey there.

You got spotlighted. Oops. Hey, get back here.

Hey, there we go. And there's, and we've got a, there's the three of us, there's other mixed nuts here, it's going to be great. We're going to have a good time.

I hope Utpal is here, Utpal are you here? I'm here. Yay.

You're my favorite person to argue with. Yay. That's not true.

[Speaker 2]
In this class.

[Speaker 1]
As usual, we need to make sure we're specific, that's mixed nuts style. Do you have something for us to look at, Ben? Oh, gosh, thanks.

No one's ever asked me that before. Thank you. Sure.

How about a homework? A homework? Oh, man.

All right. Let's see. We wanted pictures of Ezra or something.

I'm sure that's also possible to arrange. A real guy. The real guy may make his appearance.

No, he's at a soccer game. Oh, right on. Okay.

It's very cute. Although, they haven't won a game yet this season. I think we're 10 games ahead of them.

He's giving me flashbacks to my own Little League. Oh, they're terrible. That's very cute.

They're learning and they're playing. They are. They're learning, they're playing.

It's very wholesome. All the other teams seem to win. I'm going to be the sacrificial lamb.

I mean, I didn't go to school for math, but. I got my butt kicked by Amelie in soccer yesterday, so. Great.

Wow. I wonder if we could draft her. Or maybe you should be on our team.

Yeah, it seems fitting. It sounds like it would fit right in. Out of the way, squirt.

Well, here we go, friends. We are in a section of the text about how to recognize the elements of a correct reason within some examples. And there are two parts to this section.

I can't imagine anyone remembering this. I didn't remember this question as I was reading it to you. So I remember a month or two ago after having my last class with the boss.

So, you know, if anyone wants to take some stabs in the dark or bless your heart, knows the answer. I promise to go look in the chat. I'm sure the chat is filled with the answers, with the answer, filled with iterations of the answer.

Dennis put a smiley face. Is that it? That's it, Dennis.

Yes. No, emojis, alas, did not come until later in human history. I'll just tell you about that.

I asked which one are we in, but this says this is two, so good luck. But we are, I think we're in the first of these. So the idea is we're trying to demonstrate that a correct reason depends on relationships.

What's a relationship? There are how many types of relationships? At least two.

At least two. I think at most, I think, unless we subdivide, it's two and exactly two in this system. And this always confused me as a young Dharma student.

Now that I'm an old Dharma student, I get less confused and maybe I'm wrong more. You can't be wrong if you don't know. But the two types of relationships are what?

Identity. Identity, meaning to be one thing is to be another. So you could say to be A is to be B, but that doesn't necessarily mean to be B is to be A.

[Speaker 3]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Could we give an example? Fruit and all fruit and apples? Yeah, fruit and apples.

An apple is a fruit. So an apple has the identity of being a fruit. Do fruit have the identity of being an apple?

Only when they're apple-ish. Yeah, right. The group fruit doesn't have to be an apple, but apples have to be fruit.

That's what we used to call a one-way relationship of identity. What would be a two-way relationship of identity?

[Speaker 2]
Changing things and produce things?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I like it. Changing things and produce things. Changing things and things that are made.

To be made is to be changing. To be changing is to be made. To be an apple is to be a fruit.

To be a fruit may or may not be to be an apple. So that's one of the two types of relationships. And what's the other type of relationship?

[Speaker 2]
Cause and effect?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, great. For example?

[Speaker 2]
Apple seed and apple tree?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's right. Though you picked a fun one because we could argue about which one is the cause and which one is the effect. We'd have to know which seed and tree we're talking about.

Particular tree that then produced that particular tree thereafter?

[Speaker 3]
Yeah, right.

[Speaker 1]
George the apple tree came from Steve the apple seed or something. Maybe that's too weird. But this always confused me because we use the term relationship more broadly in English, of course.

And so, you know, you have a relationship with somebody you met and it's going quite well. And this just doesn't mean that. And so I know that we use the word more broadly in English.

And I think it's one of those cases where we have to remember that we're using these terms like relationship to translate older terms. West Chinese language or Sanskrit language. And they don't always mean the same thing in this context.

So when we use relationship in this context, we're talking about a very specific technical term which only applies to these two sorts of things. Which are identity relationships and cause and effect relationships. And sort of wish someone had told me that 20 years ago.

But I hope it's helpful to you now. Let's move on, shall we? I'm looking forward to learning how to accurately recognize such relationships.

We are in the middle of six consequences of Ishvara Sena's wrong way of understanding necessity. That's probably a lot to unpack. That'll kill some time when the boss isn't here.

Who is Ishvara Sena? He's a teacher who came potentially in between Dignaga and Dharmakirti. Or he was a student along with Dharmakirti.

No, you're right. You had it right the first time. You often hear about Dignaga and Dharmakirti as a father and son relationship.

What are some other famous father and son relationships in the history of classical philosophy? Master Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Yeah, that's a super good one.

There's some father and son relationships. Yeah, that's a fun one. He's got the twins there.

And what did we just have? Buddha Palita and Baba Viveka? Oh, no.

They were adversaries, right? Yeah, right. Well, no, I thought they were sometimes seen as related in that way.

I don't think so. Baba Viveka was very mean to Buddha Palita. I thought he came a bit later, too.

And Chandrakirti had to show up later and verbally punch Baba Viveka in the belly for all of his sins. Lord Atisha and Jomtamba. Yeah, Jomtanjay.

That's a fun one. Yeah. These all sound good.

I'll take it. That's great. So these two, okay, Dignaga and Dharmakirti, Milarepa and Marpa.

Oh, that's sweet. Yeah. Yeah.

You'll see it. What did they say? Yabse, right, is typically the West Chinese term we see.

It's a neat idea of a relationship. And there's, you know, me and Geshe Michael and his many other children. Geshe Michael had many children.

Many children. Geshe Michael. That's Abraham.

Oh, I always get that confused. Thank you. Right.

They say the same thing about Brahman, which is spelled similarly. That always bothered me. I wonder if there's a connection.

And his wife, Sara Swati.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
So they never met Dignaga and Dharmakirti, but they're very famous for being father and son. There's a fella between them, a teacher between them named Ishvara Sena. And he is a direct disciple of Dignaga and a direct teacher of Dharmakirti.

And as legend has it, he taught all of Dignaga's most famous work, which is. A Compendium on Valid Perception. A Compendium on Valid Perception.

Right. Pramana Samuccaya. Semakuntu.

He taught all of it to Dharmakirti three times. And what was it? On the first time, he understood.

On the second time, he understood. On the first time, he understood as well as Dignaga. On the second time, he understood it better than his teacher.

And on the third time, he realized the mistakes that his teacher had made. And went to explain them to his teacher, who said, Oh my gosh, you're right. I messed this all up.

We need you to write a new commentary to fix my boo-boos. Which is really beautiful. And this is the heart of what we're dealing with right now.

Is what's the boo-boo? What were the boo-boos? So, what is necessity?

I wrote this word here. We're in the middle of learning about Ishvara Sena's wrong way of understanding necessity. What does that mean?

Does anyone want to explain what necessity means? The second of the two tests? Well, that is an example of necessity, yeah.

But why not the third?

[Speaker 2]
Because it's called negative necessity?

[Speaker 1]
I think you could include those as two forms of verification of the necessity. I think so. So, are you just talking about the second part of a logical proof then?

I think you could say it's the relationship between the reason and the quality that you're trying to prove about the subject. Right? So, sound is a changing thing because it's made.

Sound is a changing thing because it's made. The relationship between made things and changing things, in this case. And we talked about that, right?

Word pointed that out already as an example of a two-way relationship of identity. But if I say this pink lady is a fruit because it's an apple, you see? It would be the relationship between fruit and apple.

To be a fruit is to be an apple. That's a one-way relationship of identity. Or I could say there's on the mountain there is fire because there is smoke.

That's that relationship between smoke and fire that is necessary. So, this is necessity. And Ishvara Sena had a dubious way, an incorrect way of trying to establish necessity.

And especially the third test. His problem is the third test. What we call the negative necessity, which is part of proving the correct kind of relationship between the second and third part of a logical statement.

There should be a relationship of necessity between the second and third part of a logical statement. And he proved it weird. Who would Ishvara Sena be in contradiction with?

In this part of the text, and this is the part of the text we're in, is six contradictions with somebody that Ishvara Sena would be guilty of if he made this presentation about the necessity. Who would he be contradicting?

[Speaker 2]
He'd be contradicting Master Dignaga, right?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, right, exactly. Yeah, great. Yeah, good.

Which is his teacher. And the joke is here that he is presenting his idea of what Dignaga meant. And Dharmakirti is saying, if you take Dignaga that way, then you would be contradicting all these other things that Dignaga said.

So it can't be right. You can't take that position because Dignaga said other things that show that your idea on the relationship between the second and third part of a logical statement would have to be wrong. What's that position?

What is his naughty idea that can't be right? How do you prove, and we can make it easier, state Ishvara Sena's mistaken position about the negative necessity under attack here? It's hard.

That just, I mean, I know it only because we've talked about it so much. Yeah, that's great. Just not seeing something in the Mithun Chok, which we can talk about, is enough to prove that something is something else, or that it's enough to show that there is a necessity just by not seeing something in the case of opposite examples.

So hard to talk about, right? It's hard to put it into English words. It's such a technical book, and it's difficult, but let's, whatever, we can spend a moment on it.

Yes, Master Ishvara Sena would contradict the words of his own teacher, Dignaga. He mistakenly claimed, oh, shoot, I should have held that for you. Did you sneak a peek already?

Do you want to say not seeing? Here, Master Ishvara Sena mistakenly claimed that the negative necessity, the third test of a correct reason, could be proved simply by not seeing the reason in the set of things which are unlike the quality to be proven. Let's hear it.

We'll explain it, and then we'll do the West Chinese. Because that's too hard. That's an extremely accurate and unwieldy translation, but it's probably the best possible.

I know, it's so hard. So let's look at this. Over on that mountain, there is fire because there is smoke.

Over on that mountain, there is fire because there is smoke. What's the first relationship? There's smoke on that mountain.

If you look at the mountain, you see smoke. Cool. What's the second relationship?

If there's smoke, there must be fire. If there's smoke someplace, right, there's got to be fire over that place. Yeah, totally.

What's the third relationship? If there's not fire, there ain't going to be smoke in that place. Yeah, if there's not fire, there ain't going to be smoke.

If there's not fire, there ain't going to be smoke. There's this idea about this middle part, the quality we're trying to prove. What's the quality we're trying to prove about the mountain over there?

There's fire. That has got fire on it. We can't see the fire, but we're trying to prove that there's fire on it.

There's two types of things in the universe. Two types. If we were to divide everything in the universe into two types that are important for our discussion, in this logical statement, we could divide them into things that do or don't have...

Fire? Yeah. You see?

And things that do have fire are called the tun chok, which means the similar set. The harmony side, I think. Right, the harmony side.

A mixed nuts barbershop quartet. Okay, so you could say that there's all the stuff that's got fire, or all the stuff that... Ain't.

Doesn't gots fire. Okay, we would call them mi tun chok, alright? You got the tun chok, the stuff that's like the quality you're trying to prove, or the mi tun chok, the stuff that ain't like the quality you're trying to prove.

So now... Ishvarasena said you could prove that what doesn't have smoke doesn't have fire by just looking in all the mi tun choks, all the places where there's no fire, for smoke. Do you see three in the mi tun chok?

In all the places that don't have smoke. Did you ever see fire? Right.

Did you? Yeah. I've seen fire in places that don't have smoke.

Yeah, right. Yeah, like a lighter. Yeah, right, sure.

Yeah, I'll take it, Juan Josso. Hot and burning, you can say that for fire, it's fine. So is it enough, right?

There's a problem here. Is it enough to say I'm gonna look in all the places that don't have fire for smoke? You got it, you...

Sorry, for smoke, right? I think you had it backwards, Nick, or maybe I did. What are we looking for?

We're looking for the reason. Smoke. Smoke, right.

Did you see smoke anywhere where there wasn't fire? I have seen, but... Where?

Oh, maybe. You could argue. Yeah.

Well, in an extinguished fire, for example. Yeah. Yeah, maybe.

Yeah. So this is what Dharmakirti's mad about. He says there are a bunch of problems vaping, says Kristen.

[Speaker 2]
If that counts as smoke, I don't know.

[Speaker 1]
I don't know if it counts as smoke either. We will have to define smoke. I know, Juan, you said that.

I agree. Dust is not smoke. That's a good point.

It's not. Neither are rocks. Juan's not going to let us leave things undefined, which is wise.

Smoke bomb. Smoke is... I haven't seen a smoke bomb in a while.

I just caught a whiff of that. It's the visible suspension of carbon or other particulars, particles in the air. I would probably try to cover my rear end by saying, by defining smoke as the dusty, misty stuff produced by fire with moist fuel or something.

There's a tradition that you have to say with moist fuel, because like Nick said, you could have fire without smoke. But you can't have smoke without fire. You can.

If the fire was recently extinguished, you're still going to have smoke. You can have fire without smoke, but you can't have smoke without having had fire? Oh, that's a different story, yeah.

Is that okay with that? Maybe. Okay.

How about the West Chinese language for simply not seeing the reason in the set of things which are unlike the quality to be proven? That's a mouthful, right? Have we successfully explained what that part in quotes would be?

I see the forehead rubbing of translators. But look, it's written here. Would it be more helpful for translators if we talk over each other?

[Speaker 2]
Mimic me? What's simply me?

[Speaker 1]
Me is not simply. I hear it's some. Oh, my goodness.

Be careful. There's a tear gas grenade in the chat. I raise you a me tune choke.

Okay, so me tune choke. Mimic some. We're looking in the me tune choke.

But we don't see it there. Mimic? And then Utpala, what was the merely word?

Simply? Some. That's it.

Look at us as a team. We are certainly a whole translator.

[Speaker 2]
A whole sentence, at least.

[Speaker 1]
That's actually a phrase. I didn't want to point it out for shame, but it occurred to me. Okay, good.

Look, we survived that. Oh, consider the following logical statement. Consider a living body.

It must have life. Because it has a soul or a real self or the spark of God, perhaps. Okay, maybe I'll say a real self, but I mean like these things.

All right, like a soul, a magical spark. Okay, let's say here first. What is the dokya?

What is a dokya? The third test.

[Speaker 2]
Negative necessity?

[Speaker 1]
It is the negative necessity. Yeah, right. Which is the third test.

Thanks, Nick. Yeah, right. Exactly.

The negative necessity meaning wherever there's no two, there's no three. Right? Wherever there's no two, there's no three.

The negative necessity present for Ishvara Sena or in this, can we do this exercise now to see, is the thought in the mituncho, is the reason in the set of things that are not like the quality to be proven. For a loud, boisterous class, it suddenly got very quiet. The real self is a non-existent thing, so I don't know where that leaves us.

Well, do you have any real selves in your coffee cup this morning? Here's the thing. I don't even have a coffee cup this morning.

That's upsetting. Yeah, it's tragic. No wonder you don't have life.

No, no, I don't have a soul. Yes, the spark of God, I'd like to call it in my coffee cup. Okay, how about in your left foot?

The real soul, the spark of God? No, not there. No, not there.

What about in things that have life? Oh. That's the tunchoke.

Yeah, I was going to say, why don't we flesh out the mitunchoke first. I want to say for either, could we find it anywhere? No.

There's the spark of God, but there's not a real spark of God. So if we can't find it anywhere, then can we find it in the left side of the room or the right side of the room? If we can't find it in the room, then is it in the left side of the room?

No. You can only find it in James Brown. If that man has real soul and he's super bad.

That's what I'm saying. Yes. That's a good point.

So if something doesn't exist, could it be in the right side of your room? Nope. Could it be in the left side of your room?

Nope. So if we divide everything in the universe into two types of stuff, that which has life and that which doesn't have life, could a non-existing thing be in either group? No.

So does this logical statement have a dhokyap, a negative necessity? According to Ishvarasena, is it true that you don't see a soul in things that don't have life? Yes.

Yeah, it's true. Yeah, yeah. If something doesn't have life, then there is no soul.

Correct. It's true. It passes the negative necessity.

That's a problem. Well, what about the other one? The jhokyap.

What's the jhokyap? What does jhokyap mean? If something does have a real self, then it must have life.

If something... yeah, if something does have a real self, then it must have life. Can we think of anything with a real self?

Nope. Well, then no problemo. Then since we can't think of anything which has a real self, we're not going to find anything that has a real self and also life.

Because we can't find anything that has a real self. So can we find real selves in the set of things that have life? No, according to the philosophical school we're studying.

No. Sounds good. So don't be too alarmed.

It hasn't shown itself to be a correct reason, but it does seem like, at least if we accept Ishvara Sena's standard here, we could have a relationship between two and three where it passes one of the tests but not the other test. Right. I think you're already saying this.

It's not necessarily problematic because it doesn't pass the first test. Yeah, right. But what does this prove about the three relationships or the three tests of a correct reason, perhaps?

Well, why there's three of them? Because there may be examples of the existence of one or more of the others and not be a correct reason. Yeah, three.

That's it. That's it. You need three.

That's the main thing I would say it's supposed to prove. At least according to the way that Master Ishvara Sena interpreted it. Right.

Yes. Well, I would hope if you had three tests of anything that you, I mean, I would just assume if there were three tests for proving the existence of something that it would have to pass all three. Otherwise, you know, if you only needed two, then you'd talk about two.

Right. Or if you needed five, you'd talk about five. Well, I wonder if the first two tests are enough still.

I am still struggling with that. It does seem clear to me that test one and three would not be enough, but I'm not sure whether test one and two would be enough or not. So let's keep watching for that and you can nudge me later on.

That's something I'm still trying to piece together. Let's go look at the text for a moment, shall we? Let's see here.

Here first is what the boss said. Let's see who would like to read. I feel like I owe Duoduo because we ignored something he said in the chat.

Duoduo, would you want to read? Would you let me atone for my sins? Now I'm sure you're indisposed and not pouting elsewhere.

Oh no, he needs to be unmuted. Are we having some sort of issue with the mute? Is that it for you?

Here, I can press a button. Hi, I can talk now. Boy, can you.

Good. What did you say? You had a point to make, Duoduo, that I didn't fully understand.

There's three kinds of muting chucks. I checked ACI 3.13. Someone in your room has to turn off their microphone. Or not their microphone, their speaker.

Doesn't have to be you, but one of the people in your room. Sorry, you'll find it. He's never going to talk to us again.

Nice going, Ben. We did it. I'm asking him to unmute again.

I pressed a button. Okay. Perfect.

Except for the echo. Except for the echo. You have two speakers on.

I think we got it. You did get it. Okay.

There are three types of muting chucks, you said. Yeah, there's three kinds of muting chucks. One is a muting chuck.

It means the muting chuck of nonexisting things. It is possible to find something with a real soul in the muting chuck. If we include that muting chuck.

So the third rule actually, you know, we can actually pass the third rule. Or, you know. Wow.

So the muting chuck of nonexisting things would be what in the case of. So if you want to find something that has a real soul, you know, in the muting chuck of whatever we are, the quality of whatever we're trying to prove. I forgot.

Well, the problem is here. It's not the muting chuck that was Mepa, right? Or it was not the muting chuck that was Mepa.

It was not the. What do you call the? The quality to be proven here was it has life.

You see. So the set of things that have life or the set of things that don't have life. Those are both existing sets.

I mean, I understand. I think I think what we we've been referring to as muting chuck is the muting chuck, which is defined as Galway muting chuck. The opposite set.

Yeah, but but it doesn't include nonexisting things. Oh, so you're saying a muting chuck could include nonexisting things. Yeah.

Things that don't have life include nonexisting things. Things. Because nonexisting things don't have life, right?

Yeah. So consider a rabbit with horns or say a sky flower. Because I used to live in Arizona and there are jackalopes sometimes that have horns.

But consider a flower growing in midair. Yeah. That's an example of a thing that has life or does not have life.

That doesn't have life. Okay, right, because it's not real. So it doesn't exist.

Yeah. So does it have a real self? No.

So still, even with a nonexistent muting chuck, even with a muting chuck that includes nonexisting things, you still can't find the reason within that set? We're saying that it doesn't pass the third, you know what I mean? It does pass Ishvara Sena's, right?

Because in the set of things that don't have life, which as you point out could include nonexisting things, we still don't find a true self. Well, we find a true self because a true self doesn't exist. So a nonexistent thing has a true self?

It doesn't. So no nonexisting thing has a true self? Yes.

So we can't find a true self possessed by anything in the set of things that don't exist? Well, wait, he's got to prove that the nonexistent thing has a self. And I don't know how the heck you're going to do that.

Yeah, I think it would be hard. So even if you said the idea of a nonexistent thing, like you could say, if you said nonexistent thing as a thing that doesn't exist, or if you said true self? Can we go back really easily?

Because we were talking about the real self, which I think we believe is something that doesn't exist. And we can find it in the Mebamitunchak of the things that have life. That means this proof doesn't pass the third law, which means the proof is wrong.

Because we don't find it in the Mebamitunchak? Yeah, yeah. That thing also doesn't have a true self, right?

Which thing are you referring to? I'm sorry. A true self that exists in the set of things that don't have life?

Yeah, but I think we are overcomplicating that. I'm simply pointing out that if we expand the Mebamitunchak, because we are basically only using Gelwey Mebamitunchak as Mebamitunchak. If we expand the Mebamitunchak, then we will be able to find.

The third one is something that's too big. I forgot the Western Chinese name. Something that's too big, like every existing thing.

Oh, something that's, okay. Some said it is too big. Okay, would you write that to me?

Yeah, sure. Let me know. It doesn't have to be this moment.

But at your leisure, would you do it? It's helpful. Thanks, Tulga.

Wonderful. No problem. Sorry for the confusion.

I was just trying to make it simple. I think it's wonderful. I think it's really, I think it's helpful.

We have this time while the boss is away, and the mice can play, and we can all learn together a little bit. I think, I hope it's healthy. I think so.

Do you want to, oh, yeah, do you want to read here? Yeah, yeah. Yes, sir.

Okay, this is the easy part. I didn't find the reference. Okay, whatever he just said.

Okay, du na, what's du na? If you agree with that. Yeah, if you agree with whatever that was.

Then what? What's kunturangdra? It's just auto commentary of the compendium.

Yeah, right. Written by who? Written by Master Dignaga.

Yeah, Dangal. Dangal is something which is opposite to. Yeah, you'd be contradicting it.

Right, so there's supposed to be six examples of contradicting Dignaga, and in this case, it's an example of contradicting his auto commentary to the compendium, his auto commentary to his most famous book. Okay, and then let's try and figure out how one would contradict it. So, chepa de refers up here.

What's chepa de?

[Speaker 3]
As said.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. As said here, right, this is our closing quote. We just have a quotation.

So remember, we're explaining the words of Dharmakirti. Right, so with those words, essentially. Here's what he's saying, you know, nyanja?

No, is something the object of, I don't know. Nyanja, anyone? Object of hearing?

Yeah, right, something you can hear. Okay. Ja, you know.

Yeah, sound, okay. Sound being something you can hear. Mitakpa dang takpa.

Changing and unchanging. Ika. At the same time.

Yeah, or, yeah, both. Both. Yeah, jupa.

Jupa means proven. Yeah, you would be proving that sound is both takpa and mitakpa. Changing and unchanging in the same time.

Right. With this dokya. Dokya means negative necessity.

Yeah, right, so you would be proving a negative necessity. Okay, with nyanja, okay, with saying that something is hearable, you would be proving somehow the negative necessity for both. So, consider sound, it's a changing thing because you can hear it.

Alright, it's a hearable thing. Or, consider sound, it's an unchanging thing because it's hearable. According to your way of presenting the dokya, this should prove both.

Why? Can you make the text bigger while we wait for the why? How's that?

Yeah, totally. Okay, why? Here's a cheer.

Because. Because both cannot be found in the opposite set of things. Yeah.

Both cannot be found is maybe, I would argue, a generous way of putting that. Matongcam. Does matongcam mean cannot be found?

Cannot be, you cannot see. I think it means you just didn't see. You just didn't see, okay, or just not seen.

Simply isn't seen, right? Which I think might be different than you couldn't see. I suspect.

Let's try to make an argument about it. I tried here, let's say, alright. I'm sorry, I've got too many windows here.

Oh my god, they're getting worse. They're multiplying and attacking. It's hard to have the chat and the, oh no, please stop.

Alright, I have to move you over here, but then I can't see all your pretty faces. What a ripoff. Here we go.

Sound is unchanging because it's heard. Is being heard seen in unchanging things? No.

Right, so it's matongcam, right? Is it true? Okay, or sorry, I should say in changing things.

I'm sorry, the mitunchok is changing things, right?

[Speaker 3]
We're going to do both.

[Speaker 2]
We're going to do both.

[Speaker 1]
I did it in the wrong order, okay? Is being heard seen in changing things? No, it's not seen if you're using the word seen as something that you would do with your eye.

What if I just say observed? Well, then fine, yes.

[Speaker 2]
Then that would be better.

[Speaker 1]
What about, okay, and this is what I think he's saying, alright. What about an opponent, this is Ben's cockamamie theory, alright. We have to get together with the boss and test this theory.

I can't stress this enough, alright. What about with someone who doesn't understand that sound is a changing thing? If someone doesn't understand that sound is a changing thing, do they see that hearable things are in changing things?

Not until you prove it to them. Yeah, I think that for someone who doesn't understand that sound is changing, it doesn't mean they don't know that sound is hearable. Of course they know sound is hearable.

Everyone knows sound is hearable. That's what sound means, you see. But for them, they can't see the reason, hearable thing, in changing things, which is the opposite set.

Changing things are opposite of unchanging things. So for them, ma tong cham, they just don't see it. But that shouldn't be enough to prove it.

But it would prove it for them. You see, for them, it would prove that sound is unchanging, if you accept that this is enough. The same should be true for the opposite.

Do you see, does the opponent, or do you see or observe hearable things in unchanging things or changing things? No, you don't see it in either one, especially if you are someone who is not convinced yet that sound is a changing thing. Too hard?

Alright, we gotta go. Does that make sense? Yeah, that's pretty clear.

Okay. I have not yet found, Gishamichael gave us some possible culprits, but I didn't find this in the wrong drill. I didn't find this in the auto commentary.

Oh, interesting. So, I don't know, that remains to be seen. Let's look at, oh my goodness, we have to go fast, which is the best way to absorb information.

Do we have to go fast? Do you know what we can do instead? Is we can, we were supposed to go back and then give the name, and I think it's useful and a good use of our time, and then that's enough.

To go back and name this telwa. This is the fifth telwa. Let's have someone else read this.

What about Juan? It's come to my attention recently that Juan has been neglected as a reader. He blamed it all on Dr. Word, which I think is fair.

[Speaker 2]
What is your definition of reading? Looking at colors and shapes of something that could convey a message, I don't know, it's difficult.

[Speaker 1]
What's your definition of a rhetorical question?

[Speaker 2]
Let me tell you, let me tell you.

[Speaker 1]
Juan, my heart soars when you demand a definition.

[Speaker 2]
Nice, nice, good. I hope that's good. I don't know if it's a compliment or a critique.

[Speaker 1]
No, it's a high compliment. It makes me the happiest kid in the world when you demand definitions. How do you pronounce this first word?

Five. I'll take it. I'd have also said na.

Na. Okay, would you read this line? Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
The telwa? Yes. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Telwa ngapa.

Taksurikpar telwa ni. Oh, that's the definition? No.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. No, this is, we've been going through six of these, and they each have a name. These are six ways that you would be in conflict with Mr. Dignaga. Six ways you would be in conflict with Master Dignaga if you accepted that the Dok-Kyap were proved by simply not observing the reason in the set of things that are not like the quality to be proven. I would love to have an easier way of phrasing that, but here we are. What's telwa, then?

[Speaker 2]
The implication? Yeah, ngapa. The necessity, sometimes?

[Speaker 1]
Ngapa. A five. The fifth.

Yeah, it's the fifth one. Okay. You know kyapar?

[Speaker 2]
No. It's like the implication?

[Speaker 1]
Kyapar. Anyone? Specially?

Yeah, especially, okay, or like a special feature or something. Maybe like a particularity or a particular characteristic or feature. Something that sets something apart from other things.

Nyenja, this is a test of how closely you were listening. Otherwise, Duoduo is going to take it from you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I think he will take it. Just something related with hearing, I will say.

[Speaker 1]
That's pretty good. Good, yeah, right. Okay, that's fine.

No, the hearable thing is fine. Tak?

[Speaker 2]
Well, without the S, it's like you're, I don't know, imagining.

[Speaker 1]
Keep the S. It's just a highlight.

[Speaker 2]
Asserting from, yeah.

[Speaker 1]
In this context, it means. It just means reason here, which is.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Wait, you say the reason that you are establishing? Okay, check it out. This is the telwa, which you said is the.

Implication or necessity. That it would be rikpa. Correct.

To use a tak. As a reason. A kiepar like nyenja.

[Speaker 1]
For the. A special feature. Okay.

You see like your ability. How. What, what is a thing that has here ability.

What, what's the thing that's terrible. In this case. Down.

Yeah, right. And that's, that sounds main. Stick.

That's the main thing about sound is that it's hearable. So apparently did Naga said. Come on, you can't use a reason like.

Because it's hearable. To prove something about sound. Because if they don't know it's true about sound.

They're not going to know it's true about hearable things either. Because everyone knows that sound is hearable.

[Speaker 2]
And I think. To be one is not to be the other. It's almost like.

Can you name a hearable thing? That is not a sound.

[Speaker 1]
I don't think so. I think you can't. Because that sounds special.

Yeah. Yeah. You see that sounds special feature.

Something like that. I think, I think that's the idea. Immediately applicable to our lives.

Obviously. Okay. We've survived this much into class.

That I don't know if that was the hard part. Or if applying it to our lives is the hard part. You're going to write me.

You're not going to forget to write me. Right. About the three types of.

How can I reach you? Oh, here I'll put my. Anyone can reach me here.

I'm putting email in the chat. I'm here. I'm here if anyone needs me.

Slow to respond. Anyone can email me. I'm slow to respond.

In general, but not to people who I asked to please write me. Okay. I did too many things, but thank you.

And if anyone else wants to write me, I'm, I'm never hard to find. I'm always here. What are we going to do?

What do we do with that? What's the point? Of.

Not using my tongue. Why is that important? I mean.

Just in the, in the general. Application of logic. I'm the general.

I would say that that is, tends to be our first. Line of reasoning for most of us is like, I ain't seen that happen. So I don't believe it.

You know, like. Yeah.

[Speaker 3]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
Most of humanity's first. Way of examining whether or not something is true. Whether or not they have seen it directly to be true.

Perfect. Yeah, that's what I was praying. You would say.

I guess. I did also mean to like, understand it. Like, is it the.

Is it the first quality of someone that's. That's suitable to debate. Oh, I think that came up particularly in this discussion that we have to.

Pay attention to who we're debating with. That's right. Because this particular person doesn't know.

That sound is changing. So, so they're not going to understand that hearable things are changing. You have to take into consideration who you're talking with and.

And I dare say, listen to them too, and not just talk at them. As I have done to you for the last hour. But we have to be good listeners to be good talkers.

We have to be sensitive to people. And where they're at, or we can't really help them. And there are a lot of specific rules about.

For example, yes, deaf and mute people. Would find me pretty tedious, I would think, though. I language.

But not. Yeah, I think that's a very important thing. And, and Nick, there's a.

I don't know. A phrase I heard someone say that struck me as very useful and concise. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

Yes, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Especially I feel as. Those of us learning.

Multimillennial tradition of wisdom of knowledge. I've often heard people say things to me that I didn't hear of. I've been studying for, you know, a couple decades.

Full time. And there's a lot of stuff I didn't hear of. A lot, a lot.

And I think when we're talking about thousands of years of information. You're not going to catch up. There will continue to be things that you didn't see.

And that doesn't mean they're not there. And, and I think this is what. Master Dharmakirti is trying to point out to master each photo.

You can't be everywhere and see everything you're going to have to come up with a higher standard of clear thinking, then. You didn't see it. And he's going to try to use this idea of relationships.

Does this help me at home with my family? What do I do? Can we imagine an example where I might have a tendency to.

Try to use my own. Personal experience more broadly than I should. Well, maybe we already said this, but along the lines of what we were just talking about.

Didn't we, at some point, and I'm not sure if this is in the 13th foundational course. Somewhere along the lines, we decided that if somebody. Our reason is incorrect.

If the person doesn't accept it, like if they don't. If they don't know about that, that they don't accept something as being true, then that's not even considered to be a correct reason. So you have to be able to prove that reason to them.

Which is contributes to the flow of how an actual debate goes right. I think that's wonderful. Yeah, I think that's right.

Emphasizes what Paula said also. Yeah. Just the next step.

So when we, when we learn debate, which I think is also just practical for conversation. If you give a debate and then, you know, the third. Part of the debate is the reason and the person's like, no, that's not true.

If they're talking about the reason, then the third part becomes the second part, right? Because then you have to give a different reason. That's right.

Yeah. Right. We have to be patient with people and where they're at.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And that can be. Yeah.

Difficult. Right. Right.

I also think. We have to be sure that someone is willing to debate with us honestly and sincerely. You have to make sure that the person you're debating with is.

Open to being wrong. Yeah. And it doesn't seem like we have to be open to being wrong.

Yeah. And that's hard. And I.

In the long run, I am. I'm not always that way at first. I'll fight tooth and nail and then.

You know, two days later or something, I'll. I'll wake up and realize that I was wrong and then I'll have to admit it. To someone else before I admit it to the person who showed me I was wrong because I'm not ready yet.

To admit it to them. And then years later, I'm forever grateful. But we're very.

And sometimes the best debaters are very defensive. They give it a good fight. And I think that that's a good mental exercise.

But then you also have to be able to drop it. It's it's good to give it a good fight. It's it's it's great.

And sometimes you make breakthroughs that way. But I think a lot of people are having. What do they call bad faith arguments with each other where they already have a desired outcome?

And I think this happens in the world a lot. My theory is that. And I know we have a preference and I will adhere to that preference for not directly discussing politics.

So I'm not going to. But I do believe that underlying a lot of debate is a lot of just greed, like our simple tendency towards greed. And we want the things that we have and we don't want to share them.

And we're afraid to share the things we have. And so someone could accuse us of being unfair or racist or biased. And we will fight that and try to show we are not racist and we are not biased.

But in the end, do we really care about that? Or are we just trying to find ways of not having to share, not having to share? And so we're pretending to have these sincere debates and we're not having sincere debates.

We're just trying to chase you away from our stuff, from my position, from my possessions, from money, because I don't want to lose anything. So I think it takes a lot of honest looking into our hearts to see. And then I do believe the most powerful way to stop selfishness is to understand the self that you're trying to get all the stuff for is not who you really are at all.

What other thoughts could someone share on the topic of sensitive debate with one another or the bias that we come to debate with? Yeah, go ahead, Nick. I mean, I would love to hear from somebody else if somebody wants to speak.

I'm just on the screen so I feel obliged to talk. Well, one thing related to what you were just saying a moment ago is just, I think, being aware of deflecting the conversation is something that's kind of hard. I mean, it's what you were saying.

I'm just clarifying a little bit. Like on the topic of greed and that being the thing that people are trying, you know, really they're just trying not to share. So if there's a debate, we can easily start debating specifics like, oh, I'm not racist or whatever.

But at the end, what I find happens, especially in more, it can happen in more just small scale discussions, is it's easy to deflect the conversation and never really talk about what we were trying to talk about or what the other person is just really trying to get at. And this can cause, I think, fights and disharmony in general or on an intimate scale or on a national or global scale. You know, but just deflecting a conversation so it goes completely off track seems to be the MO of or like, you know, kind of the main tactic that happens a lot for people.

So I feel like really being willing on the part of both parties in a discussion to try to understand where it should, where the person is really trying to go with it rather than just deflecting. So I'm just, I feel like I'm just clarifying what you were saying. I like to use that word deflecting because it's been a thing, a distraction.

If I'm wrong, it would be good to know it. I think that there's a way of talking about truth, especially in this school, especially in Sautrantika, especially in the lineage, in the tradition of Dharmakirti, that truth is that which works. You see?

And if what I think is not true, it's not going to work, and I'm not going to get what I want. There's a, I don't know, there's an idea in the world, I don't know, maybe this is dangerous to say out loud, but that somehow abundance could be powered by greed. That somehow personal gain, the hope for personal gain could somehow be this engine that powers growth and abundance for everybody.

And if that's not true, you see, if the more obvious thing is true, that generosity powers abundance. You see, that the source of abundance is providing for one another, then it'd be good to figure that out. And whatever I'm getting wrong, I may be resistant to it, but I pray, you know, going into conversations with friends and whatever trouble, thank you, Dwo Dwo, just emailed me, I saw it come through.

I pray to be corrected, because only if you're corrected can you get everything you want. Only if you're corrected will the things that you do and think and say work. Dr. Juan Hasso.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Ben. I like what you say. I like what you say about greed, using greed and other negative emotions as fuel to get what we want.

I almost feel like if we add the magic ingredient of wisdom and love, and we mix it with that already very powerful emotion, negative emotion, but then we come with a new tonic that makes our hair grow or something like that, you know. But because if I really want, let's say a car or a house, and I'm greedy about that, I already have a strong emotion, but then I'm smart about it. And I hear that if I want something, I should give it to others.

And then because of my greed, I throw myself into love and service acts to plant the seeds for my car. May work. I like it.

And then at the end, everyone is happy because I helped them and I got my car. And you can say that I'm a very greedy person, but my greed made me help so many people. Interesting idea.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, we'll keep working on it. Let's keep debating it with an open heart, hoping that we narrow in on a path that gives everybody what they want.

[Speaker 2]
Sure, sure, sure. Thank you. It's just interesting.

Thank you. Let's keep cooking on it. And in the meantime, I'm going to share some cool things that are happening and will happen as well in the worldview organizations.

So this morning, just before this class, Paulina and Dr. Wordsmith and Dr. Paulina Franco, they were having the first session on their set of classes on the end of the most sort of pain. This is an initiative of the G-Box where Diamond Cutter Classics translators match with ancient wisdom teachers and then explain or make accessible the content of the books they have been translating with Geshe Michael in the next, sorry, in the last, what's now like about eight years, right? So, yeah, and it was so cool, so cool.

They gave a very beautiful introduction of what is the plan for the course. You still have time to catch up. It's the next picture.

You can see they're going to be doing it every Saturday for this month of May, just before these sessions. So you can, next one, catch up, and I'm sure somehow they're going to find a way to put the recordings on YouTube. So you probably can watch as well the session that we just had and tune up for the next sessions.

And we want to congratulate them because I think they actually, maybe, I'm not sure, but probably they surpassed the number of attendees that the Weldon, Adam, and I did for a few, maybe for a two or three. I don't know. We'll have to check, but it's, to me, it's a sign that people are interested and it's a good class.

OK, next picture, please. So last week, while we were in Diamond Mountain, actually the last day, I think, of the Diamond Mountain program on the five houses, Geshe Michael gave a very cool talk for this organization called Paramparam. The second video, because this is the second year Geshe Michael teaches with them or for them, this last video is not yet available on YouTube, but you can watch the video one, the video that Geshe-la did one year ago.

And I think it's a great video. If anytime you want to explain or share with someone the general idea of the system, of the SID system, you can use this video. This kind of video is a very good introduction.

So I don't know if anytime your family or friends are like, why are you studying? What is this about? And you feel like sharing a video with them, this kind of video is very accessible and also very, it hits the crucial points of the system.

So you can use it as well for sharing with other people. We hope soon the second video that happened last week is available. Next picture, please.

Then last week also we had a very cool sharing of a session that Geshe Michael taught in DSEU together with another teacher called Roxanne Helms Stevens, where she was teaching about the different kind of strategies inside a negotiation. So you can watch the recording. DSEU share it live.

It was a prerecorded class, but they had a session where they shared this content on April 29th. But now they are sharing on YouTube. You can watch the recording of the recording and the full session.

If you follow the QR code, it's going to take you to YouTube, to their YouTube channel. And it's very cool content there. You can find many, many cool parts of their programs and things like that.

So thank you so much for sharing. And next they want to invite us to another session they are about to have. And this is going to be about their new SLP program.

It's called Stratospheric Leadership Program. We have a video to give you some context of what is it going to be about. And then you can follow the QR code if you want to tune up next Wednesday.

So let's watch the video, please.

[Speaker 3]
I have a special plan for SLP. Right now I'm working on a translation.

[Speaker 1]
It's a translation of Nagarjuna. It's the mother, mother, mother book about Kongxu. The name of the book is Wisdom.

In this world, it's the greatest book. And I waited until the end of my life to work on it because it's extremely deep.

[Speaker 2]
I want to reach as much information as I can before I translate. I would like to use that for SLP.

[Speaker 1]
So I propose a special stratosphere class for special people. And it's designed for people who are older. Already you had your first business.

And actually you're wondering what's next. And as I said the other day, the second half of this life is the first half of your next life.

[Speaker 3]
There's a way to create that very beautiful, very, very, very sweet and no fear. Everything you dream involves in the second half of your life doing some good things for other people.

[Speaker 1]
So basically we're going to work on that. Use Nagarjuna. Then my other friends, they ask me, what about us?

You refuse to teach us Nagarjuna? What comes out of the teacher comes from you. If you're trying to help other people a lot, you will pull Nagarjuna out of the teacher because of the pen.

If other people ask me for that, even I want to give that, they can't hear it. So I believe this group is ready for this. So I offer it to you.

If you like it, take SLP. Then if it's not time for you, it's okay. My granddaughter, I give her some candy.

She goes, okay, let's try another one. Then the teacher has to give the candy which the people like. All the candy is good, happy to eat all the candy.

Anyway, SLP, it will be special. But that's because we worked hard for eight years and now everything's okay.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, I don't know. In my end, the video was, I'll say, freezing a little bit. I hope it's me and not the video itself.

But we want to show the QR code in case you want to watch the next session they are preparing. It's going to be this Wednesday, May 7th. And this time is very accessible for the Western audience.

So it's 8 a.m. Arizona time. And you know, also for Europe, it's very accessible. And even Vietnam, Asia, very accessible.

Great timing. I like that timing. You can follow and watch.

So thank you so much, DSU. This is going to be this Wednesday. And finally, before we move on to our guest of today, a reminder that Geshe Michael and Jon Foley are thinking, are planning to go to Vietnam on July, I think it's 11th.

They are going to be teaching a course. It's a DCI course. Ms. Jumi from Vietnam is one of the main organizers. And I don't know, I'm nervous because I don't see the other poster. And I don't know if my Internet is working or not. Am I online?

Who knows? Only an omniscient being or someone like him will know. Oh, yeah, okay, I think I'm online.

So, yes, it's going to be cool. I think it's going to be very interesting. They're going to be live from Vietnam July 11th to the 13th.

Then after Vietnam, Geshe-la goes to Mexico City. And that's going to be from the 18th to the 21st. Registration is now open.

Yes, thank you so much, GLCIC. Good to know. I just didn't know because.

I don't know. If you cannot make it live to Mexico for whatever reason, there is another event, simultaneous event, being organized in Asia. Last time was in Malaysia.

I think all the time it's the same place. But I will have to double-check that. So you can attend the live event, the simultaneous live event that's going to be happening in Asia.

And, of course, same dates. Well, pretty much because it's in Asia. So they are living the future.

And, yeah, you can sign up for that. If you're interested, follow the QR code for WeChat. And what else can I say?

Our friends, we interviewed them last time, Apache. He said that if you want to go to Mexico City, you can arrange with them someone to pick you from the airport, to take you to the hotel, to kind of help you move around in Mexico City, to have like your personnel. What's the name of that?

Not only chauffeur, but like concierge. You arrange with them, Paulina and Apache. If you need help moving around the city, they can help you.

It's going to be fun and cool. Okay, so that's it for today. But we want to talk with our guest of today, which is Maria Makarova.

She's visiting from Russia. A long time I didn't see her. But now she's here with us.

And I think you're in Rimrock right now, right, Victoria?

[Speaker 3]
Hi, Juan. I'm so happy to join your class today and join your Pitch Tree World News. So my name is Victoria.

And I'm not in Rimrock. I'm next to Rimrock. I'm in Sedona now.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, very cool. So it's nice. The reason I wanted to invite you today, it's because, one, you are visiting from Russia.

And it's like a good chance to have guests who are visiting. And for a few, I guess, years, really, I didn't see you. I didn't know what you were doing.

So I would like to catch a chance to share with the audience what you've been doing. And this great news that you're planning maybe in the near future to invite Geshe Michael to go to Russia. That was very exciting news I hear during the event in Diamond Mountain.

So can you share a little bit of what you've been doing and what's next for you?

[Speaker 3]
Juan, I hope you hear me okay, because I don't have my headphones today. So thank you. Thank you, everyone.

I'm really happy to be here with you today. And I deeply appreciate, Juan, for the invitation. So, yeah, for quite some time, I was kind of like maybe disappeared from all of you.

But we've been working in Russia anyway because we are moving with the wisdom and we are creating more environment and society in Russia for the people who would like to know about the wisdom and who would like to study the wisdom. So I was really happy to join 5 Hours, this event in Diamond Mountain and deeply appreciate for the whole team of ACI, for whole team of Diamond Mountain who created such amazing, amazing event. So thankful.

And for me, it was kind of reconnection with all of you. And so it was fun. So recently in Russia, you know, we are kind of people like when I start, like let's start like this.

When I start working with Cash Michael like 10 years ago, I try to approach businesses and business people to explain them about the wisdom. And they told me like, oh, you know, it's kind of nice, but maybe we will go on. And we know now like we are living more and more and see more and more like the world is changing so fast and we're living in uncertainty and people started feeling that.

People started seeing that and realizing that. And so recently, like probably last two years, business people started turning to us, asking like, oh, I remember you talked about those kind of nice things. Can you just like promote better?

Can you do presentations for us? So and slowly I started doing presentation and talking about the pen and the basement of the wisdom. And so now it's growing and people are really in touch with this wisdom.

They really would like to grow and put their businesses in those wisdom, in the seed system. And they're putting their businesses. They're sharing with each other.

And I have many requests now with the businesses who would like to put their businesses in this wisdom. And I'm really, really happy and happy for them because they see at some point that their previous old methods, old tools didn't work for them. And the topic you picked up this time with the Mixed Nuts class and Ben I think shared very beautifully like the business people, they think they will be abandoned all the time.

They will go on with this and they will kind of saving everything for themselves. And now I don't know about any other places, but in Russia I started seeing people started turning around and being more generous. They're taking care of their businesses, about their employees, about their people, about top management.

And it's really beautiful because the business started growing and they're really happy about that. So that maybe in a short version what is going on. So we're going, we're moving, we're creating.

[Speaker 2]
Very cool. And something I like a lot about this idea of helping people to do business with this content is that business at the end of the day are made with people. You know, it's people who make business.

And when you do business, you interact with a lot of people. You have your clients, you have your providers, you have your suppliers and your employees and things like that. But if they inside the business like these principles are applied, you're already making lives of people better.

Because I will argue that it's better to deal with an employee, with a boss, with a supplier, who knows about the seed system and the pen. It's going to be a nicer experience than to deal with a person that doesn't. So micro interactions at the end of the day is what make your day.

And, you know, life is made out of years and years are made out of months, weeks, days, little interactions. So having a business with these principles is already changing the world for real. It's not just a romantic idea.

It's practical. It's there. So I like it very much.

Thank you, Victoria. So we don't know yet exactly when is this amazing trip for Geshe-la to Russia. What's your guess?

It's too soon to say?

[Speaker 3]
Let's put it like this. We talked with Geshe-la and he's interested to come to Russia. And I was really happy to hear that.

I hope everyone also. And so we are in the process, as I said to you, we are in the process of discussion now. For sure, not this year, because, you know, Geshe-la will have a pretty tough schedule for the whole year.

So I hope next year. So we just we will be planting more seeds to see him in Russia. But we would like to see him in Russia for sure.

We are waiting for him. It was a long time ago we met with him there in Moscow. So I hope it will happen and we will make it and we change the world.

And so we're working on that. Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Excellent. Excellent. We will be excited to hear more news when they come.

So thank you very much, Victoria. Probably see you very soon in Wimbledon.

[Speaker 3]
Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone. Have a nice day, evening, morning.

So see you soon. Thank you, Juan.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you as well. Yeah. Thank you, everyone, for holding on there.

Thank you to the Diamond Curator team and the translator as well. I'm still, believe it or not, trying to speak slower for you. Okay.

Thank you so much. Have a great weekend. And we see you again on Monday.

We hope.