Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 41

[Говорящий 1]
We still have three minutes. Feel free to run the ads. Hello.

Welcome. Hi. Nice tie.

Hello. Hi. All right.

Let's see. I got a quiz here. Why not?

It's about that time. Welcome to Xuanzang's Tower. I'm Nick.

For those of you who don't know, I'm a mixed nut, and I'm going to share my quiz with you. Today we're going to be focusing on my text, and hopefully it's going to be fun. It's a team class.

That means that's Xuanzang's Tower of Lingo for Geisha and Michael's not here. He's on his way to, he's not just coming here, actually. He's on his way to California to come get a final part of this medical treatment to make sure that he lives a long and healthy life.

He's doing great, and these surgeries have not been very hard on him, thankfully, from what I could tell. I'm looking forward to seeing him. And anyway, let's do our best to study together.

So far we've been doing pretty good. I definitely have fun when we work on these things together. We're not always right, and that's okay.

That's why we have a Geshe to help us out, and not only a Geshe, Geshe Michael. So here we go. Apologies in advance for this quiz.

It's stuff that we've covered and covered again, so I'm revisiting the same part that we've kind of been on for a few sessions, having now gone over the same part with Geshe Michael. So my last class, I was in Arizona. We, it was my first class in quite a while with Geshe Michael, so we went back a few sections of text and covered a section where we were talking about the, you know, according to our system, wrong beliefs of the Vaisheshikas and the Sankhyas and the, dare I say, Vaishnavites.

And at this point, we're talking about the Vaisheshikas or the detailers. So does anybody know, and you know, it's not super relevant to what we're going to cover together today, because I then skipped ahead. Let's take a look.

Does anybody remember or know what is the position that the detailers hold about changing things that they use as a reason to explain that they do not accept that things start or stop? They already don't accept that things start or stop, but not for the same reason that a Prasangika would like for them to accept it. A Prasangika being looking for partless particles.

You got it, 100%. That's it. If I could give percentages as financial incentives, then you'd get 100 of them.

They believe that things are made of atoms or particles, which are unchanging by their very nature. That's right. So, and therefore, they don't accept that things start or stop.

Do we like that? Do we think that that's a good reason? Do we think that that's a good belief to hold?

It's not a belief that will get you out of suffering. That's a great answer to my question. It's not.

According to us, I don't know, maybe they think it is. I didn't get out of suffering yet, so I can't say for sure. I tend to subscribe to the system that believes that things are changing.

But anyway, especially my suffering. How do we disprove that this is possible? That is, according to their beliefs, does the state of things change or not?

I'm trying to give you a hint with that part. Because they change. How do we disprove it?

That things are unchanging by their very nature.

[Говорящий 2]
How could a baby grow old?

[Говорящий 1]
Yes, good. That was part of it. And you gave both parts.

Yeah, it's impossible that the state of things could change because of the particles that make up. We're just saying that if you think that atoms are unchanging, then you're wrong. You're wrong if you say that the state of things, because we start talking about whether or not the state of things changes, which they kind of do accept.

They accept that things can change state. But they say that even these things which change their state of existence are made of unchanging atoms. That's their thing.

Everything at its fundamental level is made of unchanging parts, even though the state of those things changes. And then we say it's impossible. I should have put all that in the question.

It's impossible that the state of things could change because the particles that make them up, these unchanging atoms cannot change. And it's also impossible that things are not changing because how could a baby become an adult? So basically.

Then why aren't your nails like three feet long? If nothing ever changes, if those particles don't change, how can your nails grow? Your fingernails.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. How could they grow? So why aren't they non-existent?

Because how would they get to three feet? I don't know. If the pieces of fingernail I had when I was born were made of partless particles that never changed, then why aren't they still at the tip of my finger?

That's a good question. Are you sure they're not? Yeah, I've cut them times.

I need to do that too. Yeah. Okay.

Right. Exactly. So these questions are getting less and less useful.

So when these atoms do change, these partless unchanging atoms, these are these unchanging atoms, when they do change, this is just the questions that we're raising for the Vaisheshikas. And this is really all we've covered lately or in the last class. When these atoms do change, does part of it change first and then the rest follows?

Or does the whole thing change at once? Which is it? Perhaps what their position is on the matter?

No, I'm asking which is true. Which is correct? None.

Good. Who said that? None.

Good. Who said none? Oscar.

Oh, good, Oscar. Either answer you gave is illogical. That was exactly what we said.

Now for the more fun part of this homework. It's too bad Geshe Michael's not here for this, because I'm actually going through it as fast as he would like for us to go through these. Oscar.

[Говорящий 2]
What you said is illogical.

[Говорящий 1]
That's good.

[Говорящий 2]
You ain't got no brains.

[Говорящий 1]
Illogical. It doesn't have no logic, what you're saying. Excuse me for one moment.

Yes, good morning. She just woke up and it's just me. Hold on.

I got you. I got you. I got you.

Too early to say hi to the big snots, right? You want to chill on my lap for a few minutes? I got to work.

All right. You can go wake mama if you want. Sorry.

You guys have had some time to figure this one out. Double my joy.

[Говорящий 2]
Being worried about being attacked.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Excellent. Amazing.

Because they're afraid of something else that I didn't unhighlight. Yeah. There we go.

The inconsistency they've raised. Cool. That was a cool phrase.

I had never seen that before. I thought that was interesting. Because they're scared that they screwed up.

They're going to say this. Usually I think that's when they go back on their position. When Ben corners me in a debate.

He does that. Don't believe him. He just thinks fast.

He's still wrong. Word. That's part of it.

Firmly or permanently unchanging. Yeah. All right.

That's it. That's it. You don't have to deal with this homework anymore.

It's over. Sweet freedom. Yeah.

It's not talk but tear souk. There we go. So we're going to enjoy moving on now.

At least I am. Because we were just kind of going through the same section over and over. And Geshe Michael did not cover everything that we covered together in team classes yet.

But let's plow on, team. And we'll see what we come up with and are either proven or disproven as we move forward. Let's see.

Here we go. That's the one. All right.

Thank you all for doing this with me. I'm really grateful for Xuanzang's tower. And I'm grateful for all of you who show up again and again to learn this amazing, deep material and help us.

Here we are. We got to a new section. And that is a denial that parts exist through any nature of their own.

But it looks like first we're going to talk about the parts exist through any nature of their own. Verse 70 of Master Nagarjuna's String of Jewels. I took a shot at the root text.

Let's look at it. Then we'll do the commentary and see if it made sense. I certainly, I think I tried this verse.

Was totally wrong. Worked a little bit on the commentary. May or may not be wrong about that.

Came back and took another shot at the verse. And let's see. That is the way.

Yes. Yes. And completely neglected to even check the Sanskrit because I was, as usual, kind of hurrying.

And I'm in the middle of an SCIM term right now. People are asking if you could make the text bigger, Nick. Oh yeah.

You could just a little. For sure. That's great.

Thank you. Of course. Okay.

Think of beginning, middle, and end. Oh, let's read the verse. tok ma u dang tama yang ke chik shindu sampar jah tok ma u dang tama ni rang shin re kyang ma yin no So, sampar jah usually means like, think of, like, it's like a imperative or a command form of think.

Think about it. Or it could be you should think or you must think. I tried not to put too many shoulds.

It's just kind of a hard way to read this kind of literature. Think of beginning, tok ma, middle, u, dang, and tama, and ke chik shindu sampar jah, let's say ke chik shindu, like a moment. And then this is interesting.

There's a ni all the way down here. But to me, after I worked on the commentary, it seemed to make sense to get the meaning, I think, to put the ni up here, each being a moment of its own. tok ma u dang tama ni, we just covered these words, beginning, middle, and end.

rang shin re kyang ma yin They are not ma yin. They are not their own nature. So I said neither instead of saying are not.

But yeah, like that. Neither beginning, middle, nor end are their own nature. And that can probably be tweaked, because we don't usually say that.

But I'm just trying to stick with what it says in the West Chinese there. Okay, I'm going to another.

[Говорящий 2]
Do you think, Nick, about the yang at the end of the first line? Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, that's a great question. I neglected it at this point. I think it's also, I was just looking at it, I think it's also.

Yeah. Yeah. And it could be even relating to the previous verse.

Or I guess lighten here. That's true. What is the previous verse?

I don't know. Let's go take a look. And I think, yeah, I think there's a good chance it's also and then relating to now we're talking about moments.

Maybe we were talking about something else. I didn't go back. Here we go.

I know we're still talking about moments. Just how is it that moments have an end? Angela, I'm just.

Okay. Everybody absorbed that? Almost.

Would you read it? Sure. In English or?

Yeah, English is fine. Yeah, just so we all sort of. Yeah, just a moment.

Just how is it that moments have an end? Um, in the same way as when we examine the beginning and the middle. We find the essence of the three moments.

Isn't. We find the essence of the three moments. It isn't that the world resides in a moment.

Okay. And we're. With this idea.

Yeah. Yeah. So also about.

Yeah. On the subject of beginning, middle, end. So.

It's also a case. It's also. It's kind of.

I. I'm hesitant. You know, I.

Personally, my reference is to see the commentary and then circle back and deal with the reverse. Because I don't, you know. Kachi hopefully is going to get glossed a little bit.

I don't know if we will be so lucky as to have the word Kian glossed. But. Yeah.

Yeah, we could get some clarity here. That I. I'm hesitant to say anything without reading the.

Commentary pretty closely. Absolutely. First, it's such short language.

Yeah. And we'll continue that way. Okay.

Well, someone may come along and claim. Let's read the. I'll read this line too.

So. Now. Someone may come along and claim that each of these three.

Beginning, end, and middle. Do reside in their own respective natures. Okay.

All right. So this is. Doesn't.

Yeah. It doesn't have to be their own nature. It could just be like exist by nature.

What does it mean for these three to reside in their own nature? Do you suppose? What is.

Yeah. Based on having already worked forward a little bit. Yeah.

I think that it is saying. What he's trying to disprove anyway is. Well, you'll see.

Is that a beginning is a beginning. A beginning of a moment is truly just a beginning. That's all it is.

It's not. And then because what. It seems like the root verse is saying here.

Think of beginning, middle, and end. Each being like its own moment. Rather than.

And he's going to say this in the next part of the commentary. Not that it's just somehow. That a beginning somehow has a nature of being a beginning.

Purely. Well, that's that's ultimately what middle way is trying to disprove a long one, right? Is that it has a risk here?

A hundred percent. I mean, that's where it goes. So if any kind of.

You know, Koch, it comes along and says. That anything, you know, exists with its own respective nature. It's necessarily.

Going to be disturbing. Yeah. Oh, Nick.

Isn't. Just like. Just like.

Isn't he saying that if someone comes along and says. If each of these has its has any nature of its own. Some nature of its own.

Yeah, we could do that. And I do that most of the time. The what do you call it?

The pejorative use of the. You throw in some like any or some to make it sound stupider. And maybe I will tweak this, but like just because or here I wanted to throw in the respective and.

I guess I couldn't say does not reside in some each of their own. Some any perspective, any I don't know. It's just I just I'm just saying they pretty much means exist here.

That's all. Absolutely. Yeah, that's all.

Yeah. Yeah. It does.

Yeah, that's my thought. Yeah, although when translating, I don't know about you guys. Maybe it helps sometimes.

But I try to use a different word when they when they use the different word. Like if they say you use something other than exists because I would use this for Drupal. Unless that would be too confusing for the reader, which it might be.

Yeah, that's what in this case, I think it kind of obfuscates it a little bit like. But I hear what you're saying as far as composition. Yeah, you just try to try to mirror what they do as much as makes sense.

Yeah, I understand. So make each of these maybe another word that's other than reside or exist. That could be a good.

Less, you know, I don't know.

[Говорящий 2]
Present.

[Говорящий 1]
Do present in their own respective natures. Are present in their own nature. Oh, are present in their own nature.

I'm interested. Let's move on for now and just see what he's talking about. And then we'll decide how to play it.

Yay. Let's have somebody read. Last class, I said somebody.

Oh, is Lindsay here? No, OK. Tim has a house full of guests.

Tim, can you pick somebody there to read? Everybody's doing other stuff. They're like.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes. How about Gibson will start up, make it easier.

[Говорящий 1]
OK. Can you hear me? Yep, loud and clear.

[Говорящий 2]
OK. Gibson.

[Говорящий 1]
Well, all right, Gibson over here. Somebody replaced Gibson with an actual West Chinese person. So let's consider.

OK. I'm saying that that means these moments right now. Let's consider these moments the beginning, middle and end.

Here's that young. OK. You just stuck it in.

Yeah, he just kind of threw it in there. And again, I did not deal with it. I just took it as like an extra particle that was in there for meter, which it might be.

[Говорящий 2]
It seems like it's the beginning, middle and end as well of that moment.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, I see what you're saying.

[Говорящий 2]
But we also have a young coming up. And when there's when there's two youngs, they're tying things together.

[Говорящий 1]
So what comes before the first young is tying those three things along to the next young or young. It's a late young. It's even more confusing.

And this is the biggest struggle that I had with this section so far. So I hear what you're saying, Ben, and based on what's coming that I feel like that is the meaning, but then it doesn't quite make sense, at least the way that I'm understanding it. OK.

So let's see. Let's see what happens when we just finish this part right here. Let's consider these moments the beginning, middle and end.

They are not staying or starting through any self-nature. Let's see. They are not staying or starting through any self-nature.

Rangshin. Neither. Oh, and that's what I did here.

Neither their own or some other. Rangshin. Gang Lake Young.

I kind of translated this as neither. And that's pretty weird. But let's see if I can remember why.

But it totally made sense to me in the moment. No, it didn't make sense. Neither.

Yeah, self or other, because there's no conjunction or disjunction between the Rang and the Shin. Right. The neither nor is the Gang Lake Young, or just the Lake Young, I mean.

Yeah. I don't think you can say that the nei then for staying though, Nick. That's what I was talking about the last paragraph, right?

It's existence. This is... Residing.

I said residing. Yeah. I guess I can say starting residing and stopping.

Good. No, it's not or. There's a la dun.

It's saying things don't start by any nature of their own. Yeah. Yeah.

I agree.

[Говорящий 2]
In the previous section.

[Говорящий 1]
No, right here. Rang, Shin, Gi, Nei, Par, Kei, Pa, Mai, Yin. Things do not start by any nature of their own.

Either. I see what you're saying. Nei, Par.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you're right. Yeah, yeah, totally. Nei, Par, Kei, Pa.

It's one phrase. Totally. They're not staying.

It's not staying or starting. Yeah, they're not starting to exist or something like that. I'm just going to take that out.

Starting their residency. I'm just going to say their existence for a placeholder for the moment. That's a good catch.

Thank you. Uh, through any self-nature. Neither their own.

Because if we think, you know, you're coming from the root text. And meaning examine whether or not moments have parts like that. Sorry, let's go back to the tenet.

Kei, Chi, Shin, Do. Like that. Cha, Ge, Mei.

Whether or not parts like that to moments. Uh, Tak, Ching, San, Pa. If we think about it and examine.

That's what the J. If we do that. J, Na.

Tok, Ma, Dang, E, Dang, Ta, Ma, Ni, Sum. These very moments. The three.

These three very moments. Cha, Dang, Che, Pei, Chi, Er. Because they have their own parts.

Yeah. And that. Uh, they each have their own beginning, middle and end.

Yeah. Uh, Ta, Ma. So I think that he's saying.

Let's consider the moments that we were just talking about. The beginning, middle and end. Each of those.

Because then he says, Sum. Oh, sorry. He's here.

He's saying each of those has their own three. So I feel like he's not making the point until here. That's why Ben.

I don't think he's making the point up here. Oh, that's okay. Even if he's referring to the parts of a moment.

And saying the parts have parts. I don't see that that changes his point at all. Yeah.

I don't know. Because I think when we started this, you were saying. Yeah.

I still think that that name. Yeah. Consider the parts of this.

Uh. Yeah. I think it still may be the beginning of this moment.

The middle of this moment. The end of that moment. When we examine each of those.

We see that they each have a beginning, middle and end. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yeah. I see what you mean. That could.

Exactly. Then how can a beginning have the nature of being a beginning? If it has a beginning, middle and end.

That's the big question, isn't it? Yeah. It's helping us to raise.

Yeah, just so. Well, he completely flipped that cha into a different meaning with that S on the end there. Like, oh, if we've.

Yeah. He does that all the time to Nagarjuna. Yeah.

Now it means something very different. Philosophical question. Nagarjuna is saying, think about it.

And he's like, yeah, if we think about it. Because now it can mean something like. It could even be made of.

Chena. Oh. Does the fact that a beginning has a beginning, middle and end.

Contradict it being a beginning for you? Do you get that sense? Me personally?

I don't know if I do. Yeah. I mean, is that the proof?

Is it absurd that it's not a beginning? I think that he's trying to prove that it's not. It doesn't have a nature of being a beginning because it's based on.

Parts and it has its parts are a beginning, middle and end. So it's not it doesn't have this nature of just being a beginning the way that we think it does. Then it's very Nagarjuna.

Like Nagarjuna is like, you look at this. And you think it is a beginning. Like, really?

Like you think it has this nature of being like I'm a beginning. But if you look at it, if you think about it. It has it has its own beginning, middle and end.

It's made of parts. It doesn't have a nature of being a beginning. It's just another moment that has its own parts.

Then you designate it as a beginning. But if you think about it, it's not. There's nothing more beginning about it.

Then you were dividing in the first place. Yeah. And in fact, if that thing that you're calling a beginning is made of a beginning and a middle and an end, then what's so beginning about it?

If it is just as equally made of beginning as it is of middle as it is of end, then why would beginning and middle and end had to make beginning? Yeah. Do any of the three of them even mean?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This is like Nagarjuna's favorite thing to do. So Guilt of Jesus is like Nagarjuna's assistant.

Yeah, right. Not to mention. Yeah, go ahead.

But as soon as the beginning has a beginning, then the first beginning is a middle. Yeah, yeah. Well, but the beginning of the beginning is the real beginning.

That one is beginning-ish. I agree. Oh, okay.

Good point. And couldn't the beginning be the end of a previous moment, depending on how you slice it for the middle?

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, man, we didn't.

[Говорящий 1]
We didn't go there in this discussion, but isn't it true? Cool. Okay.

We didn't want to bust our brains any more than that. But yeah, I see what you mean. It could be.

It could be. Let's consider this moment or a moment or whatever, kind of whichever way you slice it, that the paragraph has the same meaning. I just, yeah, I don't know.

I guess day can be plural. So maybe it's ambiguous, but it isn't as commonly plural. No, you're right.

It isn't. I agree. I tend to do that more readily.

I tend to take more liberties with those days than I probably should. So it's a good learning area for me. No, seriously, it is good for me to kind of maybe think about.

I think it's right, though. It's like consider any and all moments. Consider moment.

That's what I think the point is. I think so. Okay.

So it's interesting. I think it's cool. Again, Nagarjuna is showing us that...

Gyaltsabje is showing us that Nagarjuna is showing us that the thing isn't what we thought it was and that we call it, we designate it. I love that word for some reason about this stuff. We designate it a beginning.

But it's really, it's just another moment with the beginning, middle and end.

[Говорящий 2]
Oscar is asking in the chat if the ni could mean always.

[Говорящий 1]
Let's see. I suppose I hear like it to mean their own. They each have their own three parts.

Because I feel like that's kind of the point. Let's see if I didn't even mess with it in the root text. I did.

That's where I took the ni. And so maybe you're right, Oscar. Because I took the ni from this third line.

And I moved it up to the second line because I figured... Because to me, it made sense even when reading Tibetan here. That that's what it's saying.

Like think of beginning, middle and end. Each being like a moment of its own. Like it seems like it's saying beginning, middle and end, each of these or each one itself isn't in its own nature.

Can you see where I made the leap to say its own? Like they're saying, because each of these itself, each of these on its own. I don't see the always, but that doesn't, you know.

I also think there's a good chance you're seeing something I'm not seeing, Oscar. Like by itself then becomes its own because it's just those for it. Yeah, that's that's how I'm thinking of it.

Yeah, it's not, it's not bad. I like it. Cool.

Yeah. I feel like that's what Geshe Michael would do, but we'll see. Yeah.

He does stuff like that. I mean, he wouldn't be shy to move a ni to a different place to make it fit English construction. Not at all.

Okay. But moving on, or anybody else would like to raise about that knee? No, please.

There are nights who say it. For all you Monty Python fans. Okay.

So here we go. Now we're back to those pesky vice nights, maybe. Let's see.

Who can read here? Is Dodo here? Yes, I'm here.

Would you read this? Just the Tibetans don't need to read the English note. Yes.

Got it. Nice. So I think because of Geshe Michael's note saying that he believes that this applies to Khamju, who is Vishnu, which was mentioned just before.

It looks like then this is saying this refutes the idea that through his own nature. Okay, so I won't do it backwards. This refutes means by this, right?

That what we just said then refutes, which seems to mean Vishnu here. So this also means refutes. So this refutes that he is a partless changing entity.

For some reason, I included changing. I don't know if I needed to. Within Ngopo, you can translate Ngopo as just thing or functioning thing.

I chose to put changing for some reason. Oh, it's funny when I question what I was thinking. Thereby, Kak Nei from denying that thereby denies that he's Rangshin Gidrupa, that he could exist through any nature of his own.

I felt okay to say because I think Vishnu is usually presented as a male. Yeah. Yeah, though you can see the argument for the other possibility, which is tempting to say that we're denying the nature of a moment, which includes Khyabje, that beginning, middle, and end in a way that is partless and changing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it could be both. Wouldn't that be cute?

Yeah. I have some confusion about it because it does seem like that they're coming back to Vishnu out of nowhere. I mean, it was not too long ago that we were discussing whether or not he's a changing being.

So, I have a little bit of prejudice because we go through these sections so slowly, I can't even really fathom how far back that was in the text. It is the end of the section, so it seems to be a wrap-up. Yeah.

And I think this proves blah, blah, blah. This is something I would be tempted to footnote. It's, I think, a nice example of a time where you can't perfectly translate this without making a choice.

And I suspect the author, as Utpala said, is very likely doing both. That's interesting, you guys. Or at least giving a nod to both.

Whichever one is intended, it too neatly points to the argument he just had, and at the same time points to an argument about a being that's been going on in a greater context here. It's too tidy to not be suspicious, in my opinion.

[Говорящий 2]
And if the purpose or beginning of this whole argument that started however many pages ago began with talking about Vishnu, and this does wrap up, here's why.

[Говорящий 1]
I like it. It is a possible footnote. That's a great idea.

OK, now it's going to get fun. Do we have some time left? Yeah.

Mm, finally. Not that that wasn't fun. I think we're having fun already.

Yeah, that was super fun. It's going to get super fun. Here is the third section.

A denial that things could exist through any nature of their own using the reasoning that things are neither one nor many. Yay! Oh, hold on, hold on.

And it says cheek, tongue, toot, draw, so we can just say using the reasoning of one or many. I think Geshe Michael fluctuates between these names, maybe mood dependent. We got some root text.

This one I feel, this first verse I feel like I did pretty well. The second one is not at all fleshed out. Let's look at this one real quick.

Let's see. Here, Dodo, do you want to read again? That was too short for you.

OK. Thanks. Nice.

Somebody replaced Gibson and Dodo with like Geshe's from Sarah or something. There we go. Because of different parts.

Because of different parts. It's not one. Something with no parts doesn't exist at all.

Without one, cheek may. There's also no many. I mean, there's probably a more elegant way to say that in English.

But that's fine. Or if it's not there, cheer. Sometimes I like to say for, for if it's not there.

Its absence is also not there.

[Говорящий 2]
I don't know what that means.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, we got to look at the commentary. There's no apostrophe there. With cheek may par.

Oh, it's absent. Right. Thank you.

Thank you very much. What is the ratak doing on the cheek may par? Let's see.

Cheek may par knee. Yeah. And then it has a knee after it.

So it's even weirder than that. Cheek may par knee. I feel like I don't.

And I feel like I've seen this before. Where they put a knee after a laden.

[Говорящий 2]
And I don't know.

[Говорящий 1]
It could be for meter, but it's weird because then he put a maang together for not meter. Right. Cheek may par.

It could also be. It could be that cheek may par is a way that makes sense in their language. To say, like, without one, like absence of one lee, you know, like, you know, it could make sense to be adverbial in Tibetan.

[Говорящий 2]
It could be. No, I think. Yeah, I think I think it's okay.

[Говорящий 1]
And we just don't do that in English from this particular context. I think that's what it is.

[Говорящий 2]
Thank you.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, yeah. Let's see if let's see if my guess has any bearing or any. Let's skip this one because I don't I don't know what the heck.

Yeah, I didn't get that far. Great, great. That's fine.

Let's come back to them after we've read. Yeah. To.

Oh, let's ask somebody else to try to rush. Let's see. Would you like to read?

You always do such a great job. Oh, thank you.

[Говорящий 2]
Chip.

[Говорящий 1]
Nice. Sookchang, you know, but I'm thinking sookchang here is physical thing. I'm open to your interpretations.

Sookchang. So I took the whole thing here. Sookchang King, but I guess should probably expand upon it now that I've gone through the rest of it and I see that he's not saying sookchang every time.

Maybe it's like consider a thing which is physical or consider a functioning thing, which is physical. How far did you go? I mean, he could be going through the three different types of changing things, too.

I mean, he could just be starting with. Yeah, that's true. Let's see.

I don't think so. I think he stops before that. But it's a good point.

It's a really good point. Yeah, because physical thing. I mean, obviously changing things aren't I mean, even unchanging things don't necessarily have not have parts.

So it's a really good point. Let's see. I can't remember because I've been up since five with my tie on the whole time.

I'm sorry. That was working. Because I like to wear a tie at five in the morning.

Consider a physical thing is not true. I'm sorry. Chikpunyi dudempa min te chokthale dang chibuchir.

It is not truly one thing. Okay, it is not dudempa truly. Chikpunyi, one thing.

Do you feel you captured the knee or? Yeah, like, I don't know. I just feel like it's making the dudempa stronger.

But I'm open to a nice way to just be tempted to say it's not truly just one thing. Well, I like it. I love it.

I can't make the dudempa stronger because it's yeah, it's before. Yeah, I think Ben's right. Yeah.

Yeah, no, I love it. I guess in my way of abstract way of thinking that still makes it stronger. But yeah, no, it's much more precise word for sure.

It is not. I think you have to say in truth. I mean, you don't have to do anything.

No. Yeah, I wrote that at first. But then I felt like I was writing that.

And it felt like that's not really how we speak English. And that just sounds like. I don't know.

It sounds more like writing a foreign language in English. Why do you say? Why do you say in?

There's not a Ludden particle in that. The Ludden particle goes. The right is on its left, not on its right.

No, there was going to be damn part, which would be truly would be. It would make it adverbial. So why do you say?

Because it's the English way, because. Because that's it's an English convention. It's not really like a.

It's not really like a preposition in that case. Then wouldn't you can't say in English doesn't exist truth. You have to put it in there.

Yeah. I mean, I just I was just trying to get my clean about it and like rearrange it to sound like more flowing English, you know, honestly. In these cases where I don't think that mean it changes the meaning, you know, a bit.

You know, I think I would I tend to opt for what sounds more like natural native English. I like it to say exist in truth is something that to me sounds like a translator. That's not that makes not now.

That doesn't mean it's the case. That's just how I was feeling in that moment. I mean, isn't isn't damn bar, right?

With the Ludden very literally in truth, like the law, the Ludden particle is the in. Right. You like it is almost like the locative.

And then from the locative, something being in truth is what we interpret as an adverb to say. Yeah, it could depend if you interpret it as Daini case or not. Oh, as true.

This is why I wonder if if this West Chinese language always had those three different declensions, those three different noun uses that we call three different cases or if Sanskrit got got squished into it. I see later on. I wonder.

For those of you who don't know the word declension, that's a word in English that we use to refer to these case marking particles. There I tried to gloss it with noun usages. Yeah, that's cool.

That helps. Noun cases. Yeah, right.

Noun case. Yeah, it's what it is. It shows the relationship that a noun has to the rest of the sentence.

Nice. Yeah. Mm hmm.

OK, this is why you come to the mix nuts. This is not it's camaraderie and our witty repartee. OK, just a few minutes left.

So introducing our fourth language. Yeah, right. Hasso, are you here?

You want to read this next one? OK. Nice.

So. And there is no problem. Can make day.

There is no problem. If you say that, the reason doesn't apply. There is no way if you say, but Geshe Michael commonly throws that in in these situations.

And I agree that it makes it super much more clear. And there is no problem if you say that the reason doesn't apply. Drew, because cheer.

A heartless physical thing, chokmeipa. Sukchen chokmeipa. So physical thing, heartless.

Doesn't exist at all. It's pretty good, right? And so, Adam.

So here he just says Sukchen.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
So, I mean, was it? Doesn't it? And he does, I think, for the rest of the section.

So does it seem like he was just being general in the first place or. Physicality even. Heartless physical thing.

Yeah, but he no, but then he's oh, maybe physicality as opposed to. What he said before, Sukchen nopal. I think if you wanted to, you could say a work, a working physical thing earlier.

And now you can say physical thing because. Yeah. You could because physical thing.

Yeah. And you get both because the thing and physical thing is the nopal. Right?

Yeah. I know. But physicality doesn't because to say heartless physicality is getting so abstract.

No, it is. It is. But Sukchen could literally be physicality is all I'm saying.

All right. Yeah, I'm not saying it applies. In this case, yeah.

Dumar denoshena. Well, does many truly exist? You may wonder.

[Говорящий 2]
I think it's. Can a thing truly be many?

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, that makes sense. He said this. I mean, maybe there's a translation somewhere in between.

I think it's just terse language. I don't think that it's a question of whether the phenomenon of manyness truly exists. That's for sure.

Can truly exist as multiple. There's the R. The R could be dainy grammar.

Yeah. Can it be? Can it truly be many?

I suspect and I think you have the same problem in the English. I don't know if this is true. That the author may be avoiding.

What we might want to avoid. You see, even just saying it, you've already stated. Yeah, I don't think it's.

I don't think it's it here. Yeah, totally. It's definitely the subject of that sentence.

I think you should put many question mark. I think you were right. I think that's very Nagarjunian.

Yeah, I'm going to go back to what I had until. You may ask, does many exist? Or do many exist?

And actually, this is I have. There's so many of these that I come up with that I. This is probably incorrect, right?

It Paula. Well, does many truly exist? You don't.

Would you put the question mark here or just nowhere? What are you saying? You're stating someone may wonder.

That's not a question, right? So then does there a question mark go here? Like and you put it in quotes or is there a correct way?

I would flip it around is what I would do as an editor. You may ask. Because then the question mark isn't in the right place and it doesn't look bizarre.

OK, well, it still doesn't change. Is there is there a correct way to write it this way? We could discuss this offline.

But I, I do want to know. Well, well, does many truly exist? It would have to be question mark.

Yes, this is why this is why we have editors. So you can like arrange things so that it's not like awkward. You don't have different punctuation marks clobbering as they try to exist.

It's it's neither illegal nor pleasant, right? Trying to put the upside down question. Bringing our fifth language in.

I think I feel like you're missing some sort of an emoji. For those of you who have kids, this is actually Maui's hook. All right.

Well, that's all we have time for for today. Oh, wait, we have time for a discussion about this. I thought I was off the hook.

I really did. OK, we'll come back to this later. I still want to know how to do this correctly.

I'll have to download a scan and then have input the Chicago Manual of Style.

[Говорящий 2]
Well, you can text me. I think you know my number.

[Говорящий 1]
I'll text you. I had like five of these questions. So I'll text them to you.

I didn't want to bug you with with them. But I will anyway, now that you've said publicly that I can. You can directly text the Verde Valley Manual of Style.

I want to know, too. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just going to put lots of them.

Now you're really wondering. All right. Is there a time when multiple question marks is allowed?

For emphasis. Another question. All right.

So how do we I can tell that some of us have thought much. Many times, at least one time, maybe many times. About how to use this to help us in our lives.

Adam appears to have a monolith behind him. Yeah, so we're due for a breakthrough. Yeah, that's how I do my thinking.

I just I go up and touch it. And then there's a monolith. Is it one?

Or can a monolith be many? It seems like it's made of parts. It would a part of the monolith be its own monolith.

I'm sorry, translators. If you do not know the word monolith, it's understandable. If you don't.

It's from I don't know. I don't even know how to. That wasn't.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, I just had in the beginning when we were talking about.

Something existing as nature, right? And that kind of popped out to me is. Yeah, being kind of the main part of the discussion.

It's like. It's kind of where everything filters from, right? I mean, that's where we're all ultimately leading.

All those streams ultimately lead into that one river. That's cool. Yeah, that's a really awesome point.

Because to me, the beauty of Nagarjuna in general. And I think we've talked about this, Adam. Is it's just that how much he's just constantly being like.

It's simple. The problem is simple. You think that it is the thing.

This is how you think the thing is the thing. And it's not. Also, the way that you think shows us that the thing is not.

Sorry, sorry. I think the. Well, for me, it's.

We were kind of talking about it. We're saying, oh, well, there is no beginning. But there actually is a beginning.

It's just that we label it that. That it's not that it doesn't. It's not that the beginning doesn't exist.

It's that we think about it. Right. That it doesn't exist in any nature from its own.

And I think the reason I'm saying is because you can. Sorry. Yeah.

The reason that I'm saying that is because we take that from that first argument into the next argument, which is appears to be a huge section where we're talking about one or many. And it's not that one doesn't exist. And it's not that many doesn't exist.

It's that they don't exist from their own side and that they also that any object doesn't exist as either or. But it could also. Oh.

You know, building on that, Adam, you know, what I always have to remind myself when we get into this peculiar space, this odd space of undermining our belief in a true nature to things out there that exists without me thinking of the world in a certain way is the idea that things are stuck, that all of our hopes and dreams are. I don't know, what do we say, a crapshoot, a roll of the dice if if we have to count on the the world to just offer of its own true nature, the things that we want. But if all of reality is dependent upon our thinking, then then there's hope for change.

You know that your mind is very changeable. You know that your practice changes you. So if reality is formed out there just the way it is, that's scary.

Then we're stuck. Then it's hard to know whether or not the actions we take are going to work out because it'll depend on the real nature underneath things that's so hard to find. But if reality is what it is because of the way that our minds are assembling things, you know that can change.

You know that repetitive practice, thinking about the world in a beautiful way, seeing the world around you changes. The more you practice just noticing the beautiful qualities of your friends, your mind becomes more practiced at seeing beauty and the world looks more beautiful to you and then it is for you. A more beautiful place by virtue of the only nature that it has, which is not a true nature.

It's the way your mind puts reality together. And so it's very hopeful when Nagarjuna takes away our assumption about a true nature that would prevent our practice from bringing us to a paradise. It's not there.

It's not there. We can all be in that place together very soon by nothing other than the power of our practice together because our minds do change. I thought you were going to say by eight o'clock tonight.

I will double your productivity. I'm expecting enlightenment by the end of the first quarter. I was just going to share along the lines of what you're saying and especially talking about practice and the fruits.

I think that there's a moment where it feels like maybe because of the good seeds that we've planted by learning about the nature of reality and studying it and just being nice to people. I've had these feelings in my own life where I feel like I have a choice or I have this awareness all of a sudden that my mind, for example, or my fear in my mind is changeable or eradicatable and that I feel like I have this moment of awareness where I'm just like, wait a minute, I'm holding on to nothing. I can just let this go right now.

And I've had that experience where I feel like I can decide because of my understanding about, I'm sure we've all had this to some extent, I can just decide to let go. And then my state of being elevated immensely for years. And that's amazing.

And it feels like you're making a decision. So you find a lot of life coaches or people who say, you just have to make the choice. You just have to make the choice to live your life this way or whatever.

And I would say they're not wrong, but the ability to make that choice isn't there most of the time for most people. I think that's where the ideas of seeds are even more powerful or why that's a deeper level of coaching. It's like, yeah, but we always want to make that choice.

We always want to make the choice to let go of our insecurity, of our fear, of whatever problems are holding us down. But if we have the grace to be able to do it, there is some deeper cause there. And that's...

I remember Ganesha Michael saying once that if someone yells at you and you're about to yell back and you start to almost catch yourself for a moment and then you yell back anyway, that pause, that little moment where you almost didn't yell back is a stab in the heart of the momentum of the suffering universe. And that made me feel so good that it's OK. And even if you yell at somebody today and then a week later you think, maybe I shouldn't have done that, then maybe it's one step closer to thinking the next day I shouldn't have done that, which is one step closer to an hour later thinking I shouldn't have done that, which is one step closer to that hang time, that moment before you yell back.

And then you yell back anyway. And so take it easy, everybody. I mean, I think it's nice.

I just found it so reassuring. Be gentle with yourself. You're fighting the momentum of beginningless time.

[Говорящий 2]
And so any little thought, any little thought you have of, oh, wouldn't it be nice if I thought a different way, is already miraculous and powerful.

[Говорящий 1]
Be encouraged. And I think the power of being glad that you had some tiny little breakthrough adds momentum to that. That's your coffee meditation, right?

The tiny, tiny wins. Be happy about the tiny, tiny wins. We need all the encouragement.

I need all the encouragement I can get. Please, please.

[Говорящий 2]
And the hard part to me is dancing between that. And there is so much suffering that I perceive that's going on.

[Говорящий 1]
I can't stand it. I must end it because it's all based on a single mistake. And I got to get this.

I got it. Yeah. Pei-Ling, did you want to also add something?

I saw your hand was up. Yes. Thank you, Ben.

Oh, so nervous. I think, yes, this is a difficult thing because it is against our own nature. We are doing something that's against our own nature.

Agree? And then I have some thoughts that I would like to share that how we manage this goal. You know, this goal, one thing, this goal that we say the highest spiritual goal, this goal is not a tangible thing.

So it becomes very difficult to measure. It's not measurable things. So we have to do something like what I can think of is we can cut this goal to a small part.

So we can measure it. For example, the six times book is a very good dose that we cut this goal to a small part. So it becomes measurable.

You know, and then one thing we should understand that this goal might not achieve in this lifetime. Of course, we want, we hope, we hope then we hope that everyone at here we achieve in this lifetime, but it doesn't mean it will happen. So it will carry a few lifetime.

So you'll become not so tension. Tension with what you are doing. You know, you manage your mind stream and your emotion, have self-compassion, have self-compassion to yourself.

Then you will go through this path nicely, easily. And most importantly, you're not, you're not easy to give up. Sometimes if you set a very difficult goal and you feel unattainable, you easily or fail, I don't want to do.

No, no, no. We try to cut it down to a measurable things. So it become easy for us to do.

Intangible goal is easy. If many intangible thing is much more difficult. Yes, Ben.

You're absolutely right. And, and I think that you, you built on what I was trying to say in a way that, that pointed out something very important to me. When we talk about the momentum of the universe and in a sense, like we're working against our own nature, this is what this book is for is to talk us out of thinking that way.

And I just heard it as you said it, that I was, that we can have this tendency to give more nature, an idea of more nature to what we're working against. And this book is trying to talk us out of thinking that that nature is real, that that momentum is real. That's exactly what's, what gets scary.

How can I work against my own nature? And this is why Nagarjuna through the vehicle of Nick is so desperately trying to talk us out of believing that there is a real nature that started and goes on over time. It's a, it's a trick, it's a trick of the mind.

And if you can see through it, then yeah, it could change. Like Nick said, by eight o'clock tonight, or maybe it was Adam. I was thinking at the end of the fiscal year.

I'll take it. We have, we have, we are over time now. So I'm just, I want to leave it there because just to respect the schedule.

Thank you, Pei-Ling. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Adam.

Thank you, Upala. And thank you all the rest of the team and friends who have been contributing to this class and discussion. It was really wonderful.

I had a lot of fun. I like talking about one or many and all that other good stuff. So that's it for today for Mixed Nuts, but stick around for the Peachtree World News with Dr. Juan Hasso. Looking good, Hasso. Thanks, Nick. Thank you, Ben.

Thank you, Adam and Word and Upala and all of you who make this possible. But also most especially, thank you to all of you who make the time to come to these programs, to have interest in learning this content, in learning this ancient language. And then put it back into practice in your own personal lives.

Test it out. I think it's wonderful to give ourselves the chance to do that. And try to change our reality with our practice, as Ben was talking about.

So thank you really all of you just for being here, just for being awesome, for really giving yourselves time to do something to keep growing in your own best version of yourself, if that makes sense.

[Говорящий 2]
So let's start with what happened, the important things that happened.

[Говорящий 1]
I'm going to be sharing my screen today. So here we go.

[Говорящий 2]
Okay, the important things that happened. Yesterday, yes, the Dodgers beat the New York Yankees 6-3.

[Говорящий 1]
And there are six more games to go to see who wins the World Series. Now, you may be wondering, why are we talking about this? Why Geshe Michael sometimes talks about this?

Why Ken Rinpoche used to talk about these things? And we want to hear what you have to say. So remember, we were collecting some testimonials for the Good Night Book Club practitioners, right?

So the invitation this time is, if sometimes you have wondered why, for example, Geshe Michael or other very advanced practitioners talk about very seemingly ordinary things and can find great and deep teachings by doing so. Share with us what are your thoughts. Maybe send a 30-second video, one-minute video on what do you think Geshe Michael could often be mentioning things about, like football games, baseball games.

What do you think? Somebody asked the other day, Geshe Michael, why do you think Ken Rinpoche was so into the baseball? He gave an answer, but I'm not going to tell the answer yet.

We would like to hear from you. What's your take? These videos then we're going to edit and share with all of you.

And also keep inviting you to, if you have tried the Good Night Book Club, send us the videos about how it has changed your life. So let's keep moving with other news. Last Monday, we had a very cool talk with Salvina.

She's about to start an introductory course on how to use the overall principles of this system for all of these people, especially that may be beginners, that may be interested in understanding what is the system about. This is a very, very good opportunity to take this course. Mostly this course is going to be taught in Chinese language.

So if you happen to speak Chinese or have people who know people who happen to speak Chinese who may be interested, people who may wonder, what are you trying to practice? What is that you are into? This is a great introductory course that you can invite them to.

It's going to be running for one month and a half. And you can find more information following the QR codes. As far as I understand, it's Telegram and also WeChat.

The course is going to talk about all the principles and basic tools that you can start using to improve and transform your life.

[Говорящий 2]
OK, different news. We are also celebrating that the team in Mexico, the teachers in Mexico, just finished with the follow-up program.

[Говорящий 1]
After Geshe Michael visited Mexico City, he taught wonderful, wonderful classes. Then the Mexican teachers organized a follow-up program who lasted for two months. Every other week giving talks about reviewing the content that Geshe Michael taught in Mexico City.

And this last Wednesday was the end of it. It was a great success. Many, many people happy.

Many, many people attend. And just wanting to share, Jose, a quick review. One of the main ideas Geshe Michael taught us there is the importance of exposing our minds to big and difficult ideas who is going to make us expand.

And not only that, but also planting the seeds for developing big creativity.

[Говорящий 2]
And this big creativity is going to be very important to solve complex problems. And not only that, but to improve our productivity.

[Говорящий 1]
So in those lines, we want to keep inviting... Hey, Juan.

[Говорящий 2]
I'm sorry. Your PowerPoint presentation seems to be a little off. So we're only seeing the one screen.

And it seems like you're on different slides.

[Говорящий 1]
What do you mean? You don't see the Shonsan Tower? We see the program PowerPoint, which is showing the first slide.

And we click the slideshow button. But we're not seeing the slideshow itself. I don't know what to do.

[Говорящий 2]
Let me see.

[Говорящий 1]
Maybe. All that I have been saying is just blah, blah, not pictures? Correct.

Okay. Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
It's great, Juan. It wasn't just blah, blah.

[Говорящий 1]
Highest quality picture was blah, blah. Nice, nice. So you don't see the picture?

Now we... Oh, we did there for a second. We did for a second, Juan.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, we saw the picture of me and Gaby on stage, I think. It wasn't?

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Okay. So quick review.

This is when the baseball team beat the other baseball team. This is the QR code. So you can send your videos about why do you think great teachers use this kind of events for teaching.

Now you're seeing the pictures? Yes, we are seeing the pictures.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, great, great. Okay. So this is Salvina's event.

[Говорящий 1]
If you're interested in the introductory course, he's going to teach November to December 31st. This is the celebration that the Mexican teachers finish the follow-up. And this is the picture that remind us the benefits of coming to these kind of classes which improve our creativity and our productivity, actually.

One thing that I wanted to share regards this picture is that for me, it was unclear at some point when Geshe Michael said you have to expose your mind to difficult classes or difficult content. I didn't know if he meant difficult content related to these kind of teachings or difficult content, no matter what it is. My suspicion, it was both, but now it seems more clear to me that he was specifically talking about these classes, these mixed notes classes, because I have here other classes for there.

He keeps talking about it that have clarified to me. So in that sense, here is a QR code if you want to take a picture or if you ever want to invite people who may want to come to these classes, just as a reminder that they are happening every Monday, every Saturday. If you are in Asia, it's Tuesday.

And we are very happy because we reached the first anniversary on the Shuangshan Tower program. It's wonderful. I want to congratulate all of the translators, but also all to the workers and volunteers that make this possible.

And of course, thank you so much, Geshe Michael, for making this possible. It's very fun. Funny, I remember like a few years ago when the translation classes were happening on big terms and we used to meet all together and go along for two weeks, wake up like five in the morning, crazy adventures.

And it's wonderful to see how this has been evolving. And I'm excited to see where it's coming later in the next few years, maybe in surfing, two week retreats in Hawaii or something. We'll see if we can convince Nick and Ben to make it happen.

I'm going to keep pushing and see where it goes. But in that sense, I want to share that the DCI Global Advanced Level 4 is happening these days at the Sedona College. Many teachers getting their certification.

They're starting the courses. And I hear also one of the emphasizes on developing the creativity is what I just shared. Keep coming to these classes.

Keep learning big ideas. They are like tools that are going to allow you to come up with new ways to twist reality, to adjust the outer and inner world to make your goals come true. So just extending the invitation.

And soon we will be having the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Get ready if you're planning to attend live. If you are not planning to attend live, but you want to do it online, there is still a big opportunity to sign up.

This chapter is going to be a lot talking about deeper and very meaningful partnerships.

[Говорящий 2]
In the sense of, well, different kind of partnerships.

[Говорящий 1]
But as far as I understand, how to develop these deep partnerships to work together at many different levels to reach the highest goals and use these highest goals to serve the whole world. So it's going to be very, very precious information. Geshe Michael just finished translating new parts of the text that have never been taught in this audience.

So don't miss the opportunity. And in these lines, next Wednesday, Professors John Brady and Connie are going to be sharing a talk about some information on how to apply these principles in your own deep relationships, if you have them. If not, how to develop them, how to have them.

And also what to go and sharing information on how this chapter four is going to be about. So this next Wednesday, this says New York time, right? Nine o'clock.

But really it's 7 a.m. In Arizona time, as far as I understand. Three hours before, right? So actually, then it's going to be 6 a.m. Arizona time, if that makes sense. As far as I understand, New York is three hours later than Arizona. You can register and get to hear more information about the chapter four upcoming in November 14. And also this at the end of this next week, just to share that Cerrone and David Stumpf, they are having a great retreat in Spain.

It's going to go from the 31st of October to the November 10th. We are excited to hear how it went, how it's going. So if any of the people who is attending want to share some videos once you're there or after you're there, they will be greatly appreciated.

Send your regards and we will try to cover and share how this retreat is going in Spain. And also Cerrone Stumpf has an event in Mexico on January 3rd. Roxana Zink is one of the organizers.

You can talk to her. She lives in Mexico in Hermosillo, Sonora. Roxana, I mean.

If you are interested to attend to this Mexico City event, it's in a beautiful, beautiful house in the forest. Talk to her. Follow the QR code.

You may still have a chance to attend. And just finally, of course, at the end of this year, December 1 to the 7th, we're going to be having this wonderful event in Japan. For this event, it was, I guess, in a way, it was a great, great success.

It booked all so quickly. Maybe there is a few chances to still go, but for that, you're going to have to talk with the organizer's team, with the team that is producing these Steps on the Path. For that will be mostly Tim Lowenhaupt and Alejaso.

Other people too, but you can reach out to them both and see what options are there. Because right now they are looking for people who's willing to stay at the hotel, which is going to be much more fun, I bet. And not only that, but they are also looking for business sponsors who may want to advertise their business or their projects during this event, who could, you know, be part of this production in one or the other way.

So just try to reach to them if you're still interested in going. Don't give up yet. There is more chances to go.

Just reach out to them and they will start a conversation on how to make it possible. And just finally, to close and finish for this weekend, a reminder that Tim Lowenhaupt is on a constant basis, every Wednesday at 8 a.m. Arizona time, taking people through the Steps on the Path textbook and using it also as an opportunity to do two things mostly. Learn the content, but also learn how to translate the ancient Western Chinese language that we are learning in this Mixed Notes program.

And at the same time, as I say, learning the content of it. So it's like a mix, like a translation class, but also a content class he's doing every week, Wednesdays, 8 to 9 a.m. Arizona time. And that's it for today.

Finally, I would just like to extend an invitation. If you have events, if you have plans, if you have projects that you would like to share with the world view audience, please don't hesitate and reach out to us. You can send us an email if you want to schedule a spot.

You can also follow our social media. And this is also an invitation. If you ever have ideas or you're interested in helping us, we need definitely help, especially with social media.

We need help with people who know how to operate a website or wants to learn to operate a website. People who can catch up with the YouTube, uploading videos, organizing them, people who want to work with social media like Instagram or TikTok or other things. So we could really, really use your help if you are interested about it.

Reach out to us. And that's it for this weekend. We want to wish Geshe Michael a very successful trip to San Diego.

Best wishes. Please stay with us. Keep teaching us.

Keep helping us. And thank you so much for all that you have done and keep doing for us. So that's all for today.

Thank you very much. See you if everything goes well on Monday. Have a great weekend.

Thank you. Juan, can I ask a question? Sorry.

Yes. Who's this? Octavian.

[Говорящий 2]
I was curious about the new DCI advanced level. What does AI from Daily Wisdom AI stands for? Ancient wisdom?

Daily wisdom? Yeah. Double your productivity with the Daily Wisdom AI.

Got to come to the event, Octavian, to find out.

[Говорящий 1]
Because I need to know how to better promote this level in our country. Yeah, honestly, I'm not sure. I don't understand quite the question.

Do you mean what is the meaning of deeper wisdom? Daily Wisdom AI. You had it in your PowerPoint.

Yeah, in the poster. And you want to understand what is the meaning of Daily Wisdom? It might be good to talk with Seiji.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Number one, I wanted to understand your question. And number two, what I was going to say is what Utpala said.

I'm going to try to do deeper research and then reach out to you to answer the question. Because I really don't know. But yeah, Seiji for sure is a good person to talk about this.

Great. Thanks, man. All right.

So, thank you and best regards. Good to see you, Octavian. Hope sometime you can come to Arizona.

See you then if everything goes well on Monday. Bye.