Ник Лашо — Книга 2: Ратнамала, занятие 49

[Говорящий 1]
Hi, people. Lovely to see you, although I mostly see me. I guess lovely to see me, maybe.

So here we are together again, Xuanzang's Tower. Very, very happy to be together and we're going to start this exciting translation day with my text. So I will work together.

It's a team class, as Geshe Michael had to take care of some medical business today and tomorrow. And so we can all just send him good thoughts for his health and his vision. And I think he's doing great.

But, you know, turns out as these bodies age, we have to take care of them in certain ways. I'm also learning, especially when I saw that picture of me in the little welcome slide there. And I compared that to my current image.

That was like 13 years ago or something. I'll send you guys an updated photo of the white hair. So we're going to start with me and then I'll cover some Nagarjuna with you.

And then we will have a class with the good and glorious Ben Kramer, working through some serious logic stuff with you. So ready for some Nagarjuna? Indeed.

Great. Let's get nuts. Let's get nuts.

That's exactly right. As the mixed nuts do. Oh, wait.

I can see my screen, but you guys can't. That's not the one I wanted to share with you. Hang on one second.

Something sus happening here with my computer. For those of you who are too old to know what sus means, it means suspicious. I learned recently.

Did Amelie teach you that? She's almost there. Pop music is now part of my life.

So there's that. So sorry. It's fun.

K-pop, I'm sure is coming soon. Here we go. Let me just find the space.

I don't know if it's me getting older or Microsoft Word is getting slower, but it takes longer for it to find the place in the document. More colored wheels spinning. Nice Spanish.

You've been practicing. That was good. Okay, here we go.

That's a phrase that comes up a lot in New Mexico. Oh, at the taco shop? I love it.

For those of you who didn't know, Ben said, why not both? Here we go. Okay.

So just to get us up to speed with where we're at a little bit. Recently, and I use that term relatively, at some point in recent Mixed Nuts history, we got to a part of the text, which is Nagarjuna's String of Jewels, which for those of you who are new to our classes, is a letter written from Master Nagarjuna to a king telling him how he should live his life if he wants to, with his life according to Dharma. And we are working through a translation of, or we are translating a commentary by Gyaltsabje on this wonderful text.

And we recently arrived at a part of the text where Nagarjuna said to the king, I advise you to train yourself on the idea that nothing has a self and that things aren't themselves. Like if you really want to be a good king, then you should probably learn about emptiness. And I think I'm going to talk about it for a while.

So now we've gotten to the part of the book where he's teaching us emptiness. And typically in our lineage, one of the main ways that we approach the subject of emptiness is we look for a self and we try to find it where we kind of think it should be. Like emptiness is the lack of a self or a self nature to things.

And we go looking for it so that we will come up empty. That's the typical way we tend to approach this subject. And here in the text, we've gone looking for the self in a few places where people would tend to think there is a self.

And most recently we have been looking for the self within the, does anybody remember? This is my quiz question. Does anybody remember where we have been looking for the self most recently?

In the four elements? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you for not saying in the book or something. Correct. We've been looking for the self within the four elements.

What are the four elements? This is my second quiz question. Not Utpala, I know.

And you'd answer it fast. Sa-chu-me-lung. Sa-chu-me-lung, good.

In In-gwen. In-gwes. Earth, water, fire, wind.

[Говорящий 2]
Nice.

[Говорящий 1]
Very good. Thank you very much. And is the self there?

Definitely, from what I got. Let's see. From that answer, I think we should definitely take a deeper look.

Am I falling out? I think words had a long day. Maybe.

The answer is maybe. Maybe the self is there. We're going to have to continue our examination.

I think for those of us who've been studying Buddhist texts for a while, we would tend to think that it's safe to say that the self is not there. However, in my experience, especially in meditation, it's good to try to approach these questions with a genuinely open and inquisitive and curious mind so that we can not answer the question before we thoroughly ask. Because if you didn't see emptiness yet, and I don't know, but I didn't, you probably need to keep looking and keep asking these questions so that you can not find it correctly.

So let's go. Good job with my quiz questions. Okay.

Let's translate this header here. I figure we can just work on this together, right? Yeah.

All right. Good. So does anybody remember where we would find what this header should be?

Geshe Michael has done us a solid favor. Right underneath there? Yeah.

He always puts it in large text. He pastes it and then puts it in larger font so that we can easily add it. So now we've gotten to the second section, and I'll read this first line.

What's that? It means dipa. Well, what's dipa mean?

Anybody? Collection put together? The collection.

Yeah. Things collected together. Good.

And I appreciate you not answering quickly when it's a vocabulary word. I took a breath.

[Говорящий 2]
I took a long breath.

[Говорящий 1]
It's nice to let other people do it. I appreciated it. I did notice.

And other MixNuts who obviously know these words, it's nice to give other people the chance. Collection. Anyone?

It ain't got no nature like that. Yeah. The collection doesn't have a nature of its own.

Yeah. Any. And one MixNuts standard that we've learned from Geshe Michael is he likes us to say any nature of its own.

There's a term for it, Utpala, maybe you remember it, or somebody. You kind of speak about a self nature in a diminutive way. He uses a different word, but you use certain language to make sure that it sounds ridiculous.

It doesn't have any nature of its own. Because if you said it doesn't have a nature of its own, it sounds like, oh, some things might have a nature of their own. A some nature of its own is an even more stronger example.

Does exist even stronger here? Doesn't exist. Yeah.

Maybe it doesn't exist through any. I don't know. To me, it's the same.

The collection doesn't exist through any nature of its own. Maybe it's more accurate to Drupa than because it's not Yipa. Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, I like it. It's more it's more accurate to reflect the Tibetans since we're going to see both a lot in this coming section. Yeah, I like it.

OK, I'm going to call on people to translate, which we haven't done much before. But I feel like picking on Tim right now. Tim, what does simple assume mean?

Tim, what did you say, Tim? Tim, Tim, Tim. Oh, he said Tim.

You said Tim. I got the motley cough. Here we go.

Good. Peachtree World News says this is the third of the third, and that's a good guess. And you're wrong.

The law here is more like Tim went. So I'm talking. Oh, look, it's fine.

Thank you. Jessica has got it in the chat. Jessica did it perfectly.

[Говорящий 2]
Yes.

[Говорящий 1]
Thank you, Jessica. The third part has three parts of its own. OK, I guess we don't need to type it all out.

The third part has no nature of any of having three parts of its own. OK, stop. You're going to think of our translators.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's OK. No, no, I appreciate that humor.

Trust me. Would you guys think it's helpful if I type it out as we translate it together? I think it's helpful.

OK.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, I think it's fun to build it together.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
I like it. It helps me keep track.

[Говорящий 1]
Great. Now, not that I would ever space out for a second, but if I did, then where we are would be right there on the screen. But that's never happened to me.

Nagarjuna will throw blades of grass at you if you space. And you know how dangerous they can be. Uh, I don't know.

OK, what's that mean, Ben? I mean, if you consider this, if you. Yeah.

Look at this, if you think about it, if you examine this. Yeah. If you think about it, I like that.

Oh, these are the yeah. So there's just I should do a colon here because we're just saying what the three parts are. So there's a Galois.

If you examine it to the idea that the collection, which we just said, so to examine it, there is a contradiction. To say that. The collection has any, has some nature of its own.

And yes, I realize I shouldn't capitalize that. Thank you for thinking that. I can feel that.

And I realize my grammar is not perfect here either. If you examine it, there's a contradiction. And to say that the collection has some nature of its own.

Teylangakpa. Anyone? And and a response to that refutation.

Yeah, I think it's refuting responses to that, right? Yeah, right. Yeah.

And then, but it is kind of confusing because it's really similar to Tsipiponwa. Most of us know what that is. Tin.

Are you here, Tin? My friend from from India. Maybe not here.

I am here, but I I dropped something. So I missed what was going on. Your floor is super far away.

Yes. What Tsipiponwa. Oh, you're a perfect person to answer this.

I can't see it on the screen. Is it on the screen? Yeah.

Maybe you need to go up in your Zoom screen and make sure you click on the. Next, my shared screen. Oh, I see.

Oh, yeah. It's the refute. It's the it's when we it's the third.

It's the third part of a debate where we refute their their arguments. Yeah. Yeah.

So since we just called Gakpa refuting, what's another good word? So what are we doing? We eliminate their.

OK. Yeah. Dispute.

Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Eliminating disputes.

[Говорящий 1]
It's more like eliminate. Yeah. Because we're basically destroying their anything they come back with.

Destroying. I like it. I'll keep eliminating for now.

It sounds a little too violent to say destroy. I like it personally. I mean, I mean, Paul is more eliminate than destroy.

OK. OK. Well, that's our three parts that we're going to cover today.

And here is a verse which I think will do the. Guess you, Michael, and lineage of we'll skip over it. Cover the commentary and then come back to see if we can come back and have some sort of translation of the verse.

What do you guys think?

[Говорящий 2]
Let's do it.

[Говорящий 1]
All right. OK. What's we're getting a little more complicated for our seasoned seasoned nuts.

Would you call it seasoned mixed nuts or spiced? Spiced mixed nuts. Jim, when I'm so sore, what's what's the gym when I'm so sore?

But those elements that we were just discussing. So sore. Each one of them.

Yeah. Good. OK.

Each one of those into each one of those elements, maybe individually. But Uncle Nick, why is it so sore and bold? Oh, that's a great question.

Thank you. And for those of you who have joined us only recently, when we get to the bold text in the commentary, it means that it's a word that we find in the verse, which isn't there. So that's interesting.

Should be in the verse. Am I missing it? No.

I'm like, do I need my glasses? Third line. So sore.

I was there. Yeah. Oh, it is.

Yeah. OK. I am.

And I do need my glasses. That's why it's great to support the mixed nuts so that we can get things like glasses. If you're not signed up for the good night book club, please sign up.

Oh, poor Nick. OK. I do have glasses already.

Thank you, word. Third line. So each one, each of the elements individually.

Let's see what it exactly says. But I'm just writing this down provisionally. They don't they don't have any nature of their own.

Yeah, good. And if you want and I think that we can be flexible here because it's important to make the English sound good. But if you want to stick with the way that it's phrased in the Tibetan, it says you're a man.

So it's like. There are not things which exist through some nature of their own. I mean, you don't have to do that literally, but to.

Or not we can. Oh, man. Yeah, now it's going to get a little harder.

If it's not if it's not. Those three.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, each of the other three.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, this one's tricky. If it's not three, then not each of the three. Well, what is it?

Sorry, go ahead. What were you going to say? Well, I think we have to look further sentence because it says chick.

Yeah, yeah, I know. And I think this is. So yeah, yeah.

So maybe I read it in May. May taboo like fire. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Chick made by the young. Yeah, chick made by the young means something like not even. Even one, even one like fire.

It's not even one. So it's not and it's not each of them. And it's not the other three.

It's not the other three. Exactly. And here's the end.

It's young shins for me. But there's yeah, so. Yeah, so I think the origin, the first in May is something like.

Can we look at the verse real quick, Nick? Yeah, because I mean, so miss just here. There is two.

No, look second. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, you're right.

Kelty submitted a chick made by the young soon may not. So actually, yeah, it's glossing it exactly. So why does he put three and not four?

That's my question, right? Oh, that's a really confusing thing that keeps happening that I think we're going to figure out together, but I haven't figured it out yet. Three, what is just we are talking about elements.

It's the three other elements of. Yeah, it's definitely the three other elements, right? So which one is it not?

That's that's my question. When did he say that? I think he specified that, but we can go back a little bit.

[Говорящий 2]
I think if.

[Говорящий 1]
If each of them existed without the other three. Yeah, that's what we're talking about. I see.

OK, that makes sense. Yeah, barely. So, yeah, that's yeah.

Yeah, OK. And that's why he adds he adds the shin here to make it clear about the other. Because, OK, Chen Chen Chen.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I was thinking it was something like that. I was just trying to confirm through.

Yeah, yeah. So each without the other three. Like fire, we don't even find.

We yeah, it's something like. Because we don't even find one. Which could exist individually without the other three.

Yeah, even just one any one of them. So sore has no nature of of of their own. So if you if.

If three have no nature with when each each one of them have no nature, then those three have no nature with. Without the other one, because it says to me, so that's the problem. You have to say it twice.

Yeah, without the other three. Yes. If if I do the provisionally, if each.

Doesn't also doesn't exist.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, or each each one.

[Говорящий 1]
If each one, yeah, that's even more clear. It doesn't exist without the other three. Well, first it says summa, so I'll just say without without the three.

Yeah, without the three. Yeah, there's a because here.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, because if each one doesn't exist.

[Говорящий 1]
I think it's weird to have the summa without it being a comparative the first time. Something. Yeah, I know.

I think it's. Yeah, I think it's the part that. Yeah, the art, the Latin.

At first, I thought it was each within the three, but that doesn't make sense because there are four total. Yeah, exactly. Each one doesn't exist without the three.

Let's see. Then you can't even have one. One.

Like fire. Yeah. Without the other three or or the other three, something like that.

I'll just say without the other three, you can leave it provisional for now. Oh, my goodness. I I have an idea.

I think this is very close, whatever we come up with in the end. But I think the first one is he's. Aren't a guardian and then guilt subj is just throwing it out there.

Well, if if there's no if there's no three and then each of them have no three. Like, take let's take fire. If that one doesn't exist, then the other three don't, too.

Like, he's just that's what that's what I originally thought, too. When I looked at this just before class, and that may be right. Like, I totally hear you.

And I originally thought that. But we do have the problem with why is it three and not four for one? I think Ben has a good proposition for why?

I because he doesn't say that at first, though. And I, I think he's just putting it out there. Then he explains it.

That's what I'm saying. I think it's supposed to like, you're not supposed to understand what he's talking about at first. Could be because there's no precedent.

That's why I was asking what came before. Well, it could be like if yeah, if there's no three. If the three, then there's not any one individually.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Although that's a, it's an interesting way to take the MEPAR. I just don't think he's explaining it yet.

That's all. Could be. Nick, where are you getting the conditional?

GALTE. GALTE? Is that what you mean?

Yeah. If? Yeah.

I think that's right. Well, yeah, GALTE definitely means if here. And MINTE.

I think we have a NA somewhere, too. Or maybe not. There was a NA at the end in the verse.

It's the last, the second line. Take it easy, Jeru. Yeah, Jeru.

Jeru agrees with me. He doesn't have to think about these tedious things. He knows that there's no self except for beef jerky.

Anyway, I think he's just throwing it out there. If the three don't, then the individual ones don't. What am I talking about?

Like fire. Could be. Yeah.

It definitely could be. I mean, it's already Nagarjuna. Yeah.

He doesn't always explain himself in depth. No. Okay, let's see where it goes and then see what makes more sense.

Yay. Because it could be if there aren't three, then there aren't individuals. And like there's not even one.

Like there's not even one like fire. So obviously the other three also don't exist. Yeah, I mean, I'm having trouble, you know, like you with the grammar.

But or like us or just me. We are. Oh, good.

But I guess the idea is you never see them alone. Yeah, no, and we're going to go. That is where it's going to go.

I looked ahead. Right. And so if you never see one of them without the three, then you never see one of them independently.

Like fire, you never see without the other three.

[Говорящий 2]
And that's true for the others also, right? That's also true for the other three. Yeah.

The other three also don't appear that way.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Because you can't even have one. Yeah, I think that that's what it says.

It doesn't say that it might be what it means, but it doesn't say that. Yeah, yeah, totally. I mean, I think that's and I think that's where it's going because.

Because he does start. It's not super clear to me when we get to that part, you'll see it. I mean, I didn't I didn't pick it apart as much as I would have liked to.

But we'll we'll see together. Hopefully, let me make sure we have time. So I'm going to move ahead.

OK, yeah, I think he's saying the same is true of the other three as well. OK, yeah, I'm not I'm not arguing that that's where he's going or that's the meaning. I'm just saying I think the wording is meant to be kind of vague.

It doesn't say it specifically yet. That's all I'm saying. OK.

OK, I hear you. Cool. Very good.

Muy bien. Oh, let's see. Who wants to read?

Jessica, for your brilliant answers, would you like to please read? The headsets coming off. Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
From the Sampalasum, right?

[Говорящий 1]
No, from here.

[Говорящий 2]
Chittar Dupa.

[Говорящий 1]
Ah, OK. Nice. Nice.

OK. Ah, so to the verse is saying Chittar Dupa. So it looks like we're kind of turning this into a question.

But we're also because Gyaltsabje is glossing it. He's stating the question as a debate. When he says Mingyur Wartel.

So Chittar Dupa. So what's the Dupa, Jessica?

[Говорящий 2]
Rangshin Gyaltsabje doesn't exist, any nature of its own.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, what doesn't? The Dupa. What's the Dupa?

[Говорящий 2]
Dupa is the collection.

[Говорящий 1]
Excellent. Thank you. Yeah, so the collection doesn't.

So how is it? Chittar, how does that collection not exist through any nature of its own? Kepang Yor.

Actually, Rangshin Gyaltsabje Kepang Yor. So it does exist. Mingyur Wartel.

It doesn't. The correction that arises, I guess you could say, doesn't arise or something like that. How can we say that the arisal of the collection through some nature of its own doesn't arise?

It's kind of like that. How can we say that the arisal of the collection through its own nature doesn't arise? Because it says Kepang Yor, Mingyur Wartel.

How can we say that, right? Soso Ranggi Ngowo Mbechir. Because Soso, remember?

Each one, Ranggi Ngowo Mbechir. Each one, yeah. Go ahead, Jessica.

Each, because each one doesn't have any essence of each. Of its own. Of its own, yeah.

Yeah, that was awesome. Great, because each one doesn't have any essence. Okay, so let's write it down.

I forgot. How can we say that the arisal of a collection through its own nature doesn't arise? I think, well, the te, Mingyur, is the commentary.

So I think we have to, like, we have to, there has to be some kind of break in there. Because Kepang Yor is the verse, right? The line.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Kepang Yor, yeah, totally. Yeah, and it could be why, too, by the way.

But it might be how. Yeah, yeah. Or why is it?

I mean, to me, it's kind of, I think it's saying the same thing. Okay. Like, yeah, how can you say why is it the case?

Yeah, how is it that it does exist with some nature? I think then you have to say, oh, yeah, that's it. That's, you could do it that way.

Yeah, it doesn't. It don't. It don't, yeah.

I like that. Yeah, I like that. Yeah.

I like that. How can we say that it does? How can we say that the collection does arise through its own nature?

Yeah, it does it. Because it has no essence of its own. Yeah, I'll tell you, I'll tell you one thing here.

Go ahead. This has come up a few times in this text where he does this. Like, he'll just throw in like a Mingyur Wartel.

Like, there's a te and then a Mingyur Wartel. And I translated it this way before. And Geshe Michael switched it up.

He was like, no, he made it into one long sentence.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh.

[Говорящий 1]
Now, I kind of feel like this is more in line with how the writer was thinking about it. I do feel like that's how Gyatsobje is saying it. He's like, how could it be like this?

It isn't. Yeah. It definitely fits his tone.

Yeah, Gyatsobje's tone. We love it. Otherwise, it's gyur te mingyur.

Yeah, yeah. How can we say that the arising thing doesn't arise or something like that? Yeah, I feel like it's a break, but you know.

Yeah, it is. I think you're right. So then the tel is...

It doesn't. You know what I mean? Like, consider heaps which exist through their own nature.

Not heaps, but consider a collection of elements which exist through their own nature. They don't exist. Kind of like that.

Yeah, I think so. One thing I noticed that may require looking at the scan is that Gyatsobje says chi tar. And apparently the root text says chi tar.

Okay. Cool, cool, cool. I will.

I'll check that. Thank you. I'll make a note here.

Cool. Gyatsobje, by the way, for those of you in TV land. Oh, sorry.

No, no, no. All good. You're translating.

I just have sort of, you know, an affair going on with Gyatsobje, that's all. Gyatsobje on the brain. Okay.

All right. So Geshe Michael would probably translate this as none has any nature of its own. Yeah, I think so.

I mean, he did that to me before. Let's put it that way. Yeah.

I mean, there was some middle between what I said and what I'm saying now and what I said. Right, because if you just put none, it doesn't actually capture the whole meaning. Yeah.

It's a collection of things. But if each one has no essence, then the collection ain't got no nature. Yeah.

And that's the whole point of this section, right? That's the name of the section. Yeah.

And that's what he's concluding it here, basically. But I hear what Rupal is saying, too. Yeah.

And his reason, basically, his reason here, because we just established the whole point of this whole section, which was just a few lines or one verse of root text, the whole point was to establish that the collection of the elements doesn't have any nature of its own. And then at the end of the day, the reason that the collection of the elements doesn't have any nature of its own is because each one doesn't have any nature of its own. One or many.

Yeah, one or many. Each one doesn't have a nature of its own because it depends on the other three. Yeah.

Right. And so, one of them arise by some nature of its own if it depends on the other three. But if not even one of them can arise by a nature of its own, then how could all three of them?

Or excuse me, four. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

How could the collection arise from some nature of its own if none of the parts of it can? Yeah, or any one of the parts. And we should all be thinking about how to apply this in our lives now.

Like, how could I have a pizza if I don't have all the slices of the pizza? Yeah. You've never been to New York where you can get a slice?

The slice arose with all of them together. It did. Yeah, you can't make one slice in the oven.

That's impossible. I worked in a pizzeria when I was a kid. Of course.

It's true. Okay. I don't know how to make a pizza, by the way, so don't take me as an authority.

We already translated it above. Who wants to translate it? I already translated it above.

Wrong. Whatever. Yeah, so you don't get another shot.

Refuting answers to that. Yeah, thank you. Responses, maybe?

Yeah, yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
Sure.

[Говорящий 1]
That's cool. Let's see. I said denying responses.

That's what I said before. We're in denial now? No, I like it.

Denying responses. It's fun to try to challenge oneself to be as pithy as possible when working on the garden. Well, if you're denying responses, I don't know.

That doesn't get across to me. Refuting responses. If you want to say objections.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think that's the point. I think Kramer's right.

And that's why the len kind of threw me, because I was like... Well, we don't usually say it that way. Yeah, that's why I kept it as responses, because...

[Говорящий 2]
But I think here, you might be safe.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, because we don't usually use the len like this. That's why... Yeah, it's odd.

Okay, I'm gonna leave it like this for now, but it may become objections or something like that. Okay. Oh, wait.

Do we want to go back and try to do the verse? Or do we want to see what's coming? We have 19 minutes.

Let's do the verse. Okay. I don't know.

I think it's a nice practice. Absolutely. Yeah, I feel sad when we skip the verses so much.

They're already short, you know? Like, they're gonna get lonely. This time you've earned it.

Yeah. Okay, Gaute Sumé... Oh, yeah, we're so confused about this, but let's do it.

All right, Gaute Sumé Ré Ré Mé. If it ain't the three, it ain't each one of them. Yeah, or if not each without three, maybe.

And this is why it pays to have gone ahead. I'm doing it like this provisionally because of what's coming, in which we may or may not reach during this class. Please don't use a tab when you indent like that.

Please use the indent key. It makes it so much easier on the editors. Which key?

Sorry, tell me. It's just under the word acrobat. Yeah.

Sorry, you mean you have to click on something on the screen? Yeah, just under the word acrobat. Or you can type them all left margin and then select them all and then hit it once.

I actually don't see the word acrobat. Okay, beautiful. Insert, draw, design, layout, references, mailing.

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, acrobat.

[Говорящий 1]
Look under it. Oh, here. Okay, okay, good.

Here's the indent, got it. That actually changes the margin. Yeah, I know.

Actually, when I made the outline for Geshe Michael for the other Nagarjuna letter that he was working on, and I ran into an utter nightmare because of the tab button. So I totally get it. I'm ultra sympathetic to the cause.

And then the mixture of spaces with tabs. No, no, I know. I had to erase all of my work, which was hours of work.

I restarted the entire document and did it in a whole different way. Yeah, it's a long story that I won't get into now. If none individually are without the three?

I like to keep it super like this. It can be ambiguous, you know, if not each without three. That's what I was saying.

Yeah. Okay, well, I'm going to send you a slice of pizza. I don't want, I want a dupa, not a ray, right?

Yeah, I think it's all there though, right? If none of the individuals are without the three, I think that each Tibetan word is there. And I think each English word is accounted for.

If none of the individuals are without the three. Yeah, sure, yeah, sure. We could do that.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. I think he explains what the first line means in the second line, but the first line is vague, even in the commentary still.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, cool.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. You could say are, I think, right? Yeah, I don't want it to get too long.

Yeah, because I want to, I like to keep to his short. I think it's correct. Yeah.

Yeah. There's not even one. Then, yeah, not even one.

Yeah, if there's not, there's not even one. There's not three, maybe. Yeah.

Oh, yeah. And there is not one without the three. Wait, maybe the sentence starts with sumena.

If it does, it could all make sense. If you start from the end of the second line, the whole thing could make sense. Hold on.

If without three, like that, like if without three? Yeah, if the three don't exist, then even one of them doesn't. And then each of them don't exist.

And then Gustav J added the in with the par, but in those three that don't exist. Right. Yeah.

So is it too much to say the three? No, it's okay to say the three. It's just we get into this weird place of, like we said before, where it seems like we're referring to only three elements at that point.

Right. But isn't that exactly what's happening? I mean, kind of.

No, but I don't think so. I think he actually is trying to just talk about. The other three.

Yeah, the relationship between one and the other three. Yeah, that's right. That makes the most sense.

It's just not completely in the wording is the only problem. Well, there's no the. There's no article there either.

So it's okay without the the. And there's no than either. It's actually all written in West Chinese language.

It's actually all written in Sanskrit. Smiley face. Translation.

If none of the individuals are without three. Okay, that's fine. And there's not even one.

There's not. If maybe it's something more like if there's not three without individuals. Aha.

Hold on. How about this? There's not three without each one, and there's not even one without all three.

I like that. I think this is where it's going. Okay.

Because he look, he reversed the order. Yeah, it's. Yeah, no, this actually, to me, makes the most sense.

This is an interesting. If this is right, then this can go down in history as a time when. We got it by looking at the root text and not the commentary.

Commentary. Well, kind of. But for me.

This idea that he's saying, first of all, it's not three without each one. And then we're saying there's not one without all three. So the point that you made while we were looking at the commentary, Ben.

We find in the second line, but possibly the first line is saying. That there's not three without each one, like you can't have the collection of three. You can't have a collection of three without each one.

Okay. Yeah, right. Let's see.

This will be a big fun thing to get answered with Michael. Yeah, I agree with you. It doesn't make more sense now, but then I think that.

Throws away why he said three and not four is the only issue. Agreed. Yeah, that's all.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense now.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
That was my original question. Why three? Yeah, agreed.

The question still stands. Okay. Yeah, I'm afraid I do still think it's the other way.

I think you had it right the first time. I think that the one.

[Говорящий 2]
None of them individually can exist without the other three.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, I hear you.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, but the other three can't exist without an individual one. Without one of the ones existing. It's this, like, which one would exist?

It's like this dichotomy thing that Nagarjuna loves to say.

[Говорящий 1]
One have to exist before the other, like seer and seen, right? Does one of them exist first? If you say that the scene exists first, then there's no seer.

If you say the seer exists first, then there's no scene. But instead of doing a dichotomy, he's doing a tetrachotomy or something.

[Говорящий 2]
He's doing a four-way dependence. Wouldn't one of the ones have to exist first in order for the others to depend on it?

[Говорящий 1]
But that one couldn't exist first because it doesn't have the other three to depend on yet. Yeah, yeah. I think I'm seeing it the same way.

Totally. Yeah, yeah. I think so.

All right. Yeah. Anyway, so sorry, Yipa.

Mayinte, there isn't one which exists individually.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
Jita and Dipakipangir, how could we say that the collection arises? Yeah. Or how could a collection arise?

Can you keep the... Can I just... Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back. Hold on. Sorry.

I think it's like a tell. It's like a... Yeah, right.

In which case, Geshe Michael would be correct in making that te min yur not a separate statement. If this is a tell in itself or understood to be sarcastic, you know? Right.

The theoretical Geshe Michael, which was just me. The theoretical... It was just Nick.

Well, from previous statements, it was what you said. Yeah. Okay.

Let's see if we can cover something else. One more line. We're gonna refute some responses.

No, we're not. Edit. That was a good one.

Okay. Okay, so who wants to read this? Better go cutting.

Greetings.

[Говорящий 2]
Soso rangi ngo wo yop pe, ndu pa rang shin, yi yo du shena.

[Говорящий 1]
Yito. To shena. Cool.

So shena, what did... Do you know what shena means? Pinnacle?

It seems to be a connector to the... Someone may say. Someone may say.

May say. Say that. So so rangi ngo wo yop pe.

Let's see. Ngo wo yop pe. Anybody?

We just had it. It has its own nature. You might want to say essence just because...

Yeah, rang shin. Yes, we got rang shin there. Yeah.

Someone may say that each one individually. So so has its own nature. Yop pe, which is a sa here.

So I'm going to say. And so dupa rang shin ki yito. You could just put because.

Because the collection has a nature. But isn't causality working the other way? Yeah.

Yeah. It's each one individually that's doing the work. Yeah.

So I could say... If I wanted to use because, I could say... Someone may say that the collection does have its own nature because each one individually has its own nature.

But I'm way too lazy to erase that all right now.

[Говорящий 2]
No, it's good. It's good.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Yeah. Oscar Leon, would you please read this line for us?

Like who's Scar Leon? Oh, they call him Scarface Leon. Yeah.

Because he has a baby face.

[Говорящий 2]
It's sarcastic. Yeah, good.

[Говорящий 1]
I'm sure that Geshe-la is right. And the carving is right. That says shi po.

Not shin po. All right. So Oscar, what's jungo sum?

[Говорящий 2]
The three elements.

[Говорящий 1]
Good. And dak ni chen gyi bu. The three elements that possess a self.

Dak ni, like... Yeah, yeah. I think a self.

I think, yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
But then it is like pushing me, pardon me. Like the fire of... How do you say that?

Like fire booth?

[Говорящий 1]
I'm a little bit... I think buh is... And like, you know, let's work together here.

But I think the buh here is like what Geshe Michael tells us means like you spit it out. Yeah, right. So those three, when they're split out from the collection.

Oh, he means spit out. Spit out, like buh. Like your idea is stupid.

Split out or spit out, whichever, however it's done. Kicked out. Oh, oh, interesting.

Removed from. I see. Ousted from.

Expelled from. I wasn't thinking of it that way. I was thinking of it as more like we have already dispelled that idea.

Like buh, like having got rid of that idea.

[Говорящий 2]
For me, it is like pushing me, pardon me. Like the fire of the... Of a non-existing booth fire or something like that.

Well, I don't know.

[Говорящий 1]
I think, okay, shing may par. Yeah, that'd be like fire without wood. But I thought it was kindling.

[Говорящий 2]
I think that's right.

[Говорящий 1]
I think pushing is...

[Говорящий 2]
Oh, cool, cool, cool. Yeah, yeah.

[Говорящий 1]
So there's no kindling. Okay, okay, nice word. Saved us from thinking of it.

[Говорящий 2]
Without fire without firewood.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like a fire without firewood. Okay, pushing me.

Pushing me, pardon me. Yeah, I want to make sense of it as a verb anyway, because there's a genitive anyway. It has to be a noun.

Uh-huh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I did not know that word though, bushing. That's great.

Did you verify that or you know for sure? Yeah, okay, okay, sweet. Okay, so the three elements having a self.

I think it's the without the firewood that possess the self of the three elements.

[Говорящий 2]
I think it is like the fire of the non-existing fire booth is like the three elements without no self, something like that.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. But then there's a me yi partel. So it is like the absence, or it is the absence of...

I think it's me ji me, it's why, how come there is no fire without, you know, without that kind of... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You partel it, there should be, there must be, you know, how come there is fire without that kind of firewood?

There must be. Yeah. So kind of saying something like the three elements must have a self, otherwise it would be like a fire without firewood, something like that.

No, it must not, me par. Oh, there's the me par.

[Говорящий 2]
No, no.

[Говорящий 1]
The me par is the fire without firewood. Yeah. But then there's a me yi.

Well, there's a gi, the three elements having a possessing and nature is that of fire without firewood. Yeah. Yeah.

Like...

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, the wishing is the essence of the me.

[Говорящий 1]
It's like, why wouldn't fire exist without firewood if those entities had their own nature? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Well, then, OK, let's go with that for a second. When then we have chi te, me yi partel, like the absence would exist or something like that? I'm just trying to wrap my head around that.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they would exist without it.

Yeah. So then they would exist without it.

[Говорящий 2]
Right.

[Говорящий 1]
So they would exist. So fire would exist without firewood? Uh-huh.

Oh, so yeah, yeah. If the three elements didn't have a self, wouldn't they be like fire without firewood? Yeah.

Yeah.

[Говорящий 2]
They are, right, fuel. I don't know. Right?

[Говорящий 1]
Mm-hmm.

[Говорящий 2]
Then the fire would exist?

[Говорящий 1]
Wait. So wait, who's talking? Because we're in responses now, aren't we?

[Говорящий 2]
I think this is Gail's subject.

[Говорящий 1]
Yeah. Because I think it's probably... Responding to the shena.

Yes. OK, that makes sense. Yeah, yeah, yeah, totally.

Someone may say that each one individually has its own nature, and so the collection has its own nature. And he's saying, each of the three elements having its own nature. Look up in the root text.

Here's another thing. In the root text, the chi has a sa at the end of it. Mm-hmm.

OK, that's good to see. It might be chi-te. Right.

So maybe, one, I would, you know, again, add this to the check the scan. Yeah. Because there's a sa, because the te could mean the same thing.

Yeah. Which te comes after a sa? That's the question.

Right. Yeah, yeah. I think this one does.

But anyway. Yeah. I think chi-te, it's like, why wouldn't fire occur without fuel?

Chi-te, like, as a question, chi, right? It's probably chi-te, because the te-te comes after the sa with the sa suffix. The s-t-e, or just the te?

If it's c-i-s, then it should be te. And if it's c-i, it should be s-t-e. Oh, interesting.

OK. So either way could be right. We just have to check the scan.

OK. Yeah, yeah. But either way, the meaning is roughly the same, isn't it?

Yes. Well, kind of. I mean, chi doesn't mean the same thing as chi.

Yeah, by what? Yeah, by what means or something instead of why. I mean, it's in the zone, obviously.

Right. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if it would change our meaning here, but let's see.

So then we're saying it does exist without them. So he's being sarcastic? No, no.

He's saying, how could it exist without them? Without, yeah, how could it exist? Or rather, oh, yeah, right.

No, you're right. No, he's being sarcastic because he says, mei yi partao. Yeah, why would it not?

Like, why wouldn't it come up without fuel then, right? Yeah, it would come up without fuel. Yeah.

It would come up without wood. Yeah, he must be saying, that's why I asked who it is. He must be saying that firewood doesn't need wood.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. How could the elements, if the elements depend upon a self? Yeah, I mean, I think that's the double negative.

Why does it not occur without fuel? Yeah, or why does fire, why is there fire in the absence of firewood? Well, yeah, why isn't there fire?

If it exists from its own nature, then why doesn't it just come up without fuel? Since it exists by its own nature.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Why, you know, right, yi partao exists, mei, why does it not exist?

[Говорящий 1]
So mei yi partao. Why don't we see it? I think you can't cross the te, though.

Kramer, I almost agree with you, but I think after the te, it's supposed to be a response. I think El Subjet put the te in there to clarify that it's a response after the chi. Yeah, I think that works.

I think what Ben is saying works, though, even without crossing the te. I thought I heard him say both negatives before the te. That's the only issue.

[Говорящий 2]
No, no, no. Why does it not exist? That's the mei yi, right?

And then other side of the te, without the pushing.

[Говорящий 1]
Mei yi is, it does not exist. It exists as not existing. That's the mei yi.

So where's the chi? The mei part, mei chi, chi.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, I think te is a gloss of the chi.

[Говорящий 1]
Well, I wonder if this is an indication that there is an error here, because of what's in the root text. There, chi is followed by mei directly. Here, it has the appearance that El Subjet added te as some sort of elucidation of what Arya Nagarjuna was saying.

Either way, there could be a te. It's just if it's chi-te or chi-te. Chi-me or chi-te-me.

I think it's chi-te-me. I think it's chi-te-me, no matter, either way. Well, I think that, well, I'll switch gears here just because we're seven minutes over time.

But yeah, I mean, I think that the gist of where we got, though, is El Subjet is responding. He is responding by saying, sure, if they had their own nature, then I guess you could have fire without any firewood. Because stuff exists without other stuff.

And then he's being sarcastic. Then he says, yep, so the four, shi-po, so-so-rang-gi-ngo-bu-yip-ei-chi. They do have their own nature.

So they can exist by themselves. Fire can exist without firewood. Because the four elements exist through their own nature.

You big dummy. Not anybody here. Although he's kind of in trouble either way.

[Говорящий 2]
If you say that it exists along with its fuel, then it means that the fuel is not burned up to make the result.

[Говорящий 1]
I know, I know, I know. I was thinking about that. Now we're getting into Nagarjuna territory.

Can I add one thing? Of course. The one who is answering is obviously on our side, who is asserting that the fire element must exist with the other three.

So the argument is the firewood must have the nature of the other three elements to create fire. Yeah, so that's why he's asking in a sarcastic way. If there is no firewood that doesn't have the nature of the other three elements, how come that there is no fire?

Without firewood. Right? There must be.

Because they have their own nature. They don't need the other three elements. It doesn't need the other three elements, right?

That's correct. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Nice.

Certain. Nice. That's why he's trying to call me.

I don't think so. All right. All right.

Thank you. Thank you, Dodo and everybody for all of that fun work. Now we don't get to look at this text anymore today.

Oh, I can go do it when you're not around. No, you don't get to. Actually, if one wanted to, Udpala frequently posts the links where you can find said books if you want to read along.

Thank you, Udpala. So let's see. We got five minutes for very productive, practical applications of this material.

Like, if you wanted to start a fire, what would you use? I would try to find kindling that had the other elements present within it. And that's easy to check.

Well, there is no kindling without the other elements present. Exactly. Super easy to check.

What could you call a kindling unless there was already fire? That's a good question. I always did.

Yeah, I don't know. You can call it. In Girl Scouts?

Yeah. I think you could, but would you be right? I don't know.

Yeah, I don't know. Probably not. I was like eight.

Well, it functioned that way, right? Yeah. It kindles fire.

It does. Kindling. Is an I an eye when you're sleeping?

I don't know. It's not seeing anything. I mean, you know, just I think that I don't know if everyone's being quiet because it seems abstract, but you can do it.

[Говорящий 2]
It's not as hard as it seems. It's just another attempt to show us that the what we call the normal working of the world by its own powers, by the forces, by the elements, by the causes, it doesn't work.

[Говорящий 1]
It cannot work. What you think is happening cannot be what's happening. And so you are left with this dependence upon ideas, which are the shape of your mind and your heart.

And it's the same joke he's going to pull on you every time. He seems highfalutin and full of bizarre, abstract ideas, but it's always the same joke. It can't be what you think.

It's his whole gig. It's funny. You read the root text on, you know, one of the most famous books on emptiness of all time, and it's really dense and it's really hard, but it's actually just a collection of examples of how things don't exist the way you want.

Your mind desperately wants them to. Like, oh, here, a seed doesn't exist that way. Oh, that's not enough for you?

How about stepping your foot doesn't happen the way that you think it does. You know, I heard a bodhisattva's want literally infinite proofs of emptiness, explanations of emptiness. Yeah, I do too.

Yeah, me too. But I remember sitting in class with this guy, Mojo. I don't know if you remember him.

I do. And Geshe Michael kept saying literally infinite. We were both like, literally infinite?

That's so many. There's quite a few. Hard to argue.

Anything practical today? I mean, it's practical to dispel the wrong way of thinking about the world from our minds. I know I never mean to imply that it's not.

That's the most practical thing that we can do. Because if we really want to be happy and we really want to make the whole world a bunch of happy people hanging out together, then it's really helpful to dispel, in small and big ways, our wrong ways of thinking. And it's hard.

So thank you, Nagarjuna. And thank you all for working together to try to do that for ourselves. That's why we're really here, right?

It's fun to be smart or to look smart or whatever, but it's not that fun. In the grand scheme of things. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily know.

Yes, you would necessarily know. We have arrived. We have sufficiently done our duty.

And arrived at the time where Kwan Hasa will take it away for some refreshing, fun-loving, worldview excitement. And then we will return with Ben to lead us through some more brain-busting discussion. Are you in the space formerly known as the Scriptorium?

[Говорящий 2]
I guess I'm in the college living room.

[Говорящий 1]
Oh, it's now the living room. Okay.

[Говорящий 2]
A beautiful place when one stay in the back used to host these wonderful sessions. Now a little bit forgotten place, waiting to be used again by the smart and powerful minds that are being developed in these and other wonderful classes.

[Говорящий 1]
Tell us about such programs, Juan.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah, we should be doing a documentary on these buildings. So, yeah, no, but hopefully... Actually, Gail and Tahia, they were here just a little before I saw them here.

And I think actually maybe in a few more days, DCI has some events happening downstairs. But, you know, it's a good place. I'm happy to be here.

It brings me memories. I was looking at some pictures of the first sessions. Remember the terms, the so-called terms.

They used to be in the Scriptorium. They were really terms. Oh?

[Говорящий 1]
They were really terms.

[Говорящий 2]
Yeah. And you just gave me an idea that I'm going to collect some pictures to show people soon how it used to be. Like, yeah, it was funny.

Okay. But you were right because there are a lot of exciting news coming up. And I'm going to start sharing them with you before we move on to our next class with Ben Kramer.

Let me show you. Okay. What's going on?

So I've been visiting a few different events lately. You know, the YSA events, five houses events, and weekly activities here and there. Things are growing.

And then at some point I realized what I need now cannot be accomplished if I only have two hands. Maybe so. But if I want to keep growing, I feel like I'm going to need some help.

Then I thought, okay, I'm just going to share with people. If anybody would like to contribute, be a volunteer, or create collaborations with Pitch Reward News, please follow this QR code and you'll find a form that's going to share, in order to share some information, and we can start talking about it. For example, if somebody is going to Japan next month, and you would like to help with different activities, lately we have been setting up like a live stand where we give people free lemonade and hot tea, stuff like that.

Then we share about the worldview projects and other activities, doing interviews, editing videos, operating YouTube channel. Well, there are so many much things to do, if that English wording makes sense. Follow the QR code and please let me know, because really there is a lot to do and it'll be greatly appreciated and very helpful for the worldview organizations, hopefully, as well.

Okay, now, next Friday, next picture, please. I have Pichuquino, but I didn't find a stand for him today. Next Friday, this is very interesting, next Friday, Geshe Lab will be turning 30 years of having become a Geshe.

And I thought this is very relevant for these classes, the Diamond Cutter Classics, because really, I think Ben or someone was the one who said lately that how lucky we are to have a Geshe as a teacher, teaching us this ancient wisdom and leading us through, and also teaching us how to translate them. It's really great. So it's like a very great motive for celebration.

So we'll be preparing something next Saturday for Geshe Lab. Geshe Lab is right now in San Diego. So it's going to be half a surprise for him.

I'm talking with some people here locally to see what can we organize and we'll try to share it with you as well. Just so you know, he turns 30 years of being a Geshe, November 14, and hopefully November 15 here we'll do something to share. Next, please.

Some quick birthday celebrations that we had recently. Anastasia Mansurova, she's part of the marketing and design team for Five Houses. And then we had also Tim Low and her birthday recently, last Saturday, actually, we show a video and everything, but many people didn't watch it.

So just so you know, it happened. And this Wednesday, if you want to know ahead of time, it's going to be the birthday of our dear friend, Mr. Philip Baker. I'm sure he will be very happy if you send their congratulations.

Next, please. Okay, latest news. Right now, these days, the Latin America tour is going on.

And Sofia Arellano and Lucia Pichardo, they are both in Peru. They're going to have four different events these days. So you can look at them.

And at the same time while they are in Peru, our friend Paulina and Aldo are in Colombia, where they are also just now, Aldo was supposed to translate Nick today into Spanish. But he was like, Oh, no, sorry, I cannot do it today. I have a class to teach in Colombia.

So someone can cover me, please. So congratulations and best wishes to the Latin America tour people. Now, this Friday, it's going to be the time for Anjali Nicole to have a class, a session on compassionate and compassionately embracing grief.

This is part of the Blue Sky Friends sessions. You know, first and third Fridays, Gail and Ellie have their sessions. And now the second Fridays of the month is going to be Anjali Nicole Bikna.

Follow the QR code there if you want to register for it. OK, what's also coming up next? Japan, very, very soon coming up.

Get ready, get your flights, get your accommodations. It's going to be very cool. You can follow the QR code there if you want to register for it, either in a Chinese form or English form.

Yes, the next one is OK. And one of the excitements for me, one of them, there are many, but one of them that we talked about last time is that Ben and Kendra are preparing a special course on debate. I think it's going to be super, super interesting and fun.

And for that, they share a video with the worldview that we want to share with you here. So please, Marina, if you can help us, let's share that video. But that's not the video, that's a real Ben Kramer.

I'm sure Marina is about to find it. No, Ben, don't go, don't go. I was just joking.

She's, oh, no, it's OK. Marina is preparing the video. Hi.

[Говорящий 1]
Hello.

[Говорящий 2]
Ben and Kendra here.

[Говорящий 1]
We wanted to talk to you about the December program in Kyoto. We're going to do a schtick together about debate. And we're excited.

We had a big influence in our lives from debating a lot at Diamond Mountain. It was something that we did twice a week after our classes. We would learn so much amazing concepts and ideas, but then we would take it to the debate ground and see if it rang true in our own hearts.

[Говорящий 2]
And we would try to disprove it to see if it made sense to us.

[Говорящий 1]
I think it's maybe one of the main things that helped me to come to whatever understanding of emptiness I can say that I have was talking about it with my friends. And debate is like a high form of talking about it with your friends, an efficient, powerful, profound way of talking about it with your friends or your wife. It is so fun.

It's so much fun. And it's just a wonderful way to sharpen your mind and to give you greater tools for listening to people and hearing maybe the fallacies in arguments so that you can strengthen your own beliefs. And we want to try and bring that tradition back.

So we're going to try and kick that off in Kyoto. And my favorite debate partner is coming with me. And then our little guy.

We'll see if we can get him to teach child debate or something. We have to teach him. But we're excited to share it with you.

[Говорящий 2]
We're so excited. We're so unbelievably thrilled.

[Говорящий 1]
It's one of our favorite things. And you can have healthy debate in a healthy marriage, I think. Also, even if they prove a point, you still don't have to do it, as it turns out.

[Говорящий 2]
We'll talk about that.

[Говорящий 1]
Okay. We love you. We'll see you soon.

[Говорящий 2]
We're really looking forward to it. Okay. Bye-bye.

So there you go. I'm already excited as well. It's going to be super fun.

And I hope, Ben, if you need, I don't know, help with even, like, get you coffees before you teach or something, please put me in your list of considerations. And if people want to also help and volunteer with the Peach Tree Wellness Project, then I can abuse the power of delegating. And we'll see what happens.

Anyways. So, okay. That's going to be very exciting.

And I hope you can come. If not, I hope we can broadcast it. But let's see what happens.

And another very cool thing happening in Japan is the SCA program that has been happening every year during the same dates and programs. It's like a synergy happening simultaneously almost. For that, we have our dear friend Sugeng to share a little bit of what's going to happen this year, what he has been planning for it.

Thank you, Sugeng, for coming.

[Говорящий 1]
Yes. Thank you, Juan. I would like to take some time, some of your time here to share about what we are going to do.

The main reason we are doing through this channel is that SCIM has become very, very successful. We have a lot of alumni. We have a lot of graduates.

And I just don't want to take the chance that I miss out some of you out there. A lot of people have gone through our college. So that shows that SCIM is a success.

Now, the next thing that we want to do is we want to gather all of you who have gone through the SCIM education. I believe it's a very useful and insightful and also profound trainings that we can attend. We can take part with, I would say, a pretty affordable price.

And don't let that experience go to waste. So now this year, the third year in Kyoto, we are coming back. We are going to organize an exciting event over three days and maybe worldview production.

I don't know who is controlling it. Can you please move on to page six for English? Well, yes, in this deck, I actually provided some background about why we are doing this reunion.

We call it reunion. We have different themes each year. The first year, we talk about how to meet up with everyone.

The second year, we talk about the homecoming. And now this is the third year and we are going to talk about way of the heart. Next page, please.

So, yeah, this is a picture of what we did. A little bit of picture on the top left is the memorable picture. Maybe, Juan, you can have this picture too.

Oh, in fact, we have this picture for every term. We use the term term. So, yeah, we have, I think, at least 10 terms in Sedona.

Yes, in Sedona building. And those are very, very memorable. Next page, please, in English.

So, we are going to have event from 8 to 10, 8, 9, 10. And we make it into two days plus one optional day. And we have, again, our two great professors, John Brady and Connie O'Brien, who is going to bring us further into way of the heart.

And then on the last day, we have two guest speakers, two secret guest speakers. But I think it is not secret anymore. We have Hector.

Hector is coming to give us address as well. And then we also have a Holger Wall from Germany, who is a very successful businessman and decided to spend more time into sharing and spreading the ancient wisdom. On top of that, we will have our own activities.

We are going to do with the way of the heart. We are going to help you do some soul searching. And then, most importantly, we are going to help us fulfill your dream and also Geshe Michael's dream to give opportunities and chance to you to do more teaching.

There are more details that we are going to release to let you know, to give you later when we are in Kyoto. So if you are going to Kyoto, or rather, I would say you should go to Kyoto. All right.

And you should go a few days earlier so that after Sky, you can then take part in the five house programs, the Door to Diamond Way. So looking forward to seeing everyone in Kyoto. In fact, our host today, Kentaro, is inviting everyone to Japan.

So really looking forward. And thank you. Thanks again, Juan.

And I hope I have time to take part, being your volunteer in Kyoto. Just let me know what I can do. I will do my best to join you and everybody else.

And also looking forward to Ben and Kramer's debate session there. I really look forward to Kyoto. By the way, I booked my air ticket.

I booked my hotel. I'm ready to go. Okay.

Thank you, Juan.

[Говорящий 2]
Excellent, Sugeng. Thank you so much. I have the question.

What's the venue for this?

[Говорящий 1]
It's the same. The Prince, Akasaka Prince Hotel. Just make sure you arrive earlier.

We start on the eighth morning. All right. Thank you.

[Говорящий 2]
Perfect. Thank you, Sugeng. Thank you very much.

I'm very excited. I think Japan is cooking pressure, getting ready to serve a beautiful meal of wisdom and fun. So, and many other great things.

Maybe love as well. We'll see. But thank you so much.

And let's move to the next session with Ben Kramer, the chef of the debate teacher training coming up soon or something like that.