Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 36

[Speaker 1]
I hope everybody's doing well today, enjoying some beautiful Saturday, wherever you are. Trying to give myself a nice background here. There we go.

So today we've got an exciting Xuanzang's Tower class coming up with Mr. Tim, and so far it's been an exciting journey learning about the perfection of wisdom, put your thinking caps on because I think this book is just getting tougher every time. Is Tim here? Do you have your homework ready?

All right. So I guess coming to us live from Rimrock Xuanzang's Tower Studios, Mr. Tim Lowenhaupt. Really sizable width or not.

Nick, are we here? Are we on? I can hear you now.

Yeah, cool. All right, here we go again. Thank you for the beautiful introduction, Nick.

Thanks for all your hard work making this. Hi, Geshe-la. Good afternoon.

Now I know why you went to Portugal. How's your hand? Good, not bad.

Good, healing up. Okay, good. Sorry again, I couldn't hear that.

The audio, you guys, for some reason is a little muddy. Nick, is it better now? Let me hear Geshe-la and Michael.

Yes, that's better. If you said de la boo boo boo, I got it. All right.

Is it better now? The setting of the microphone was pointing towards the audience, not towards us. I see.

Okay, good. I think we're good to go now. Thank you so much.

All right, here we go. Quiz number three. So we're going to go through the last debate before the pen ultimate.

Well, the last one we just did. So the opponent shows up and says, the definition of a good classical commentary is something that is pure speech, which both fixes and protects you. The first question is, we're thinking about what do you do in a debate when an opponent comes at you with a question or a statement like this?

What's the first thing you do when you get a statement from an opponent? And how long in a debate ground do you have to do it? Run the three tests?

Not exactly, but it's kind of like that, Nick. Or a counter example? Yay.

Kind of, but first, even before you figure out what the counter example would be. Take a breath. Take a breath.

[Speaker 2]
Ask the question to the opponent.

[Speaker 1]
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Ask question to the opponent's side based on the statement given by him. No, not yet.

What do you mean? See if you agree on the definition. I mean, well, there's a definition, but see if you agree on terms.

What do we assume about the opponent's claim that they throw at us? We assume there's something incorrect. Yeah.

So, the first thing we should do is? Figure out what's wrong. Figure out what could be wrong, right?

And then in a debate ground, how long? In the debate ground, how long do we have to do this?

[Speaker 2]
Minus five seconds.

[Speaker 1]
Minus five seconds. That's what Sunam said. Normally, you don't get much time in the debate ground before they think about it, but since we're translating and we're going slow, we're going to think about what could be wrong with this definition.

So, let's look at the definition here. The definition of a good classical commentary is something that's pure speech with both fixes and protects you. What could be wrong?

There's three possible errors here. And what could they be? Good question.

[Speaker 2]
Pure, fix, and protect.

[Speaker 1]
Could you say a little bit more about that?

[Speaker 2]
Is it really pure speech? Does it really fix you? Does it really protect you?

[Speaker 1]
Correct. Right. So, we have a good classical commentary.

Is it something that is a good classical commentary, not necessarily pure speech? Is it not necessarily something that fixes you? Or is it not necessarily something that protects you?

Okay. And so, then the debate. Yes.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry to interrupt, but people are asking if you could slow down a bit in your speech.

[Speaker 1]
It's not pure, I guess.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And it's not designed to fix. It doesn't fix you. Okay.

Those are the three options. All right. So, question three.

So, what is the counter example that we give to refute the claim? And explain how it refutes the claim. We give examples of non-Buddhist classical commentaries?

That's the debate before this debate, Nick. I'm sorry. There's a particular text that we give as a counter example.

That was about 10 debates ago. Chasing the plane. I know it was a long time ago.

It was in Kyoto. That was a lot of jet lag ago. Yeah.

Nick, you were very close to this. Okay. So, the counter example we give is a 25,000 verses on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.

And the basic reason it's a counter example is because it is something that is pure speech. It fixes you. And it protects you.

And it's a sutra. It's not a commentary. So, the definition that the opponent gives us can't be the definition of a classical commentary.

Because if it were a definition of a classical commentary, then this sutra would be a classical commentary. And it's not a classical commentary. What's the structure of the ALL database that relates to this question?

Things are separated into the Kangyur, Tengyur, and the Tibetan commentaries. Yeah. The whole ALL database comes in three great sections.

One is the sutras and tantras of Kangyur. One is the commentaries, Tengyur. And then one is the Tibetan commentaries.

So, how many books in each one? 990, 3,738 or something. Yeah, and 990 sutras and tantras survived.

Total. And we input all of them. And then 3,700, roughly, commentaries from India survived.

We input all of them. And then how many Tibetan commentaries? 20,000 and counting?

About 300,000. Only about 16,000 are finished in the database. So, we still have 270,000, 80,000 to go.

And John Brady's team is still cataloging about 400,000, 300,000 in Mongolia. They cataloged 141,000 in Russia. 8,000 in America.

8,000 in American libraries. Here's some easy Tibetan vocabulary words. What's the wrong definition of this word?

Dharma is the wrong definition. Dharma is the wrong definition. Or water.

I mean, you can probably say any other word. What's the common wrong definition of this word? Dharma, right?

What's the... And what makes this word different than dharma? It's kind of an owl.

Owl prefix.

[Speaker 2]
Let's just go on like this. The thingy. Pure speech is...

[Speaker 1]
The function of pure speech is to fix and protect. Not necessarily dharma. So, this one is just fixes.

And then you gave... Sibuti gave the answer to the next question. Protect.

Protect, right. Thank you, everybody. Yay.

Yay. Here's the translation. I didn't do it.

I tried and then I lost in the first line. And so... All right, all right.

Maybe we got a little paragraph. It beat me. Knocked me out.

Okay, Tim's going to read the first paragraph and then we'll get on to other victims. Here we go. All right.

Okay. All right. Kachik rang sompa po nam yang me pey sem chen gyi kye kai gong drel du sang pey dak nam dak kai gong drel du gyur pey ten chen nam dak kyi sen yi ser na.

Good. So he's presenting a... Wrong.

...a definition. Definition. Okay.

Something is wrong. Because the word ser is there at the end, it means... He said.

[Speaker 2]
So he blames.

[Speaker 1]
Which means this definition must be... Incorrected somehow. ...mistaken somehow. Okay. Let's go backwards. What are we trying to define?

kai gong drel du gyur pey ten chen nam dak. So ten chen nam dak is easy. That's a good or pure...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
A good classical commentary. Which is a drelpa. Which is an explanation or explains the...

The gongpa of the ga. The true meaning of the speech of the Buddha. Yeah, the true intent.

True intent. Of the speech of the Buddha. So any book which comments on what the Buddha really meant in the Buddha's own teachings is a shastra or a tenure, a tensure, okay?

And then we're going to have the definition. He's going to propose a definition for a classical Buddhist commentary, okay? So the period from wind to wind.

You can basically say... Who is that? Ashvagosha or just before Nagarjuna.

About 100 AD, roughly. Although the Abhidharma literature is more older, some of them. Up to 1000 AD, okay?

About 800, 900 years. Indian commentaries, okay? When was the Kangyur written?

Spoken. 2500 years ago. Yeah, and then there's a 600 year gap between when people were fiddling around with Abhidharma, okay?

All right. So his definition of a classical commentary is... Which comments upon the Buddha's speech.

Which kind of makes it Buddhist, okay? Because we learned already that a classical commentary doesn't have to be... A Buddhist commentary.

Okay, but now he's restricting it to commentaries on ka, which is the word of the Buddha, okay? First of all, it should be nak nam dak. Should be pure speech.

Should be pure speech. It should be composed as a dopa. As in...

Which comments are the... Comments on the true intent of the Buddhist speech. Yeah, it comments on the true idea or the true intention of the Buddhist speech.

And the tsongpapo of the shastra. The author of the shastra. The author of the shastra should be a person whose sem is nam yen me.

Not distractible. Distraction. Yeah, whose mind is free of all distraction.

That's a weird definition, but we got to go with it. Okay, who gave it? The other guy said...

The definition of a classical commentary is any pure speech which was written in commentary to the word of the Buddha by a person who had no mental distraction ever at all. Okay, so could we say this is someone who's an arhat? Or is this someone who just has single-point connotation?

I mean, that's up to you to decide.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, got it.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, okay, okay. So where could you find a person who has absolutely no distraction at all? And then we're going to be discussing where could you find such a person.

That's going to be part of our anthem. Okay, so here I want to do one more part. All right.

Okay. Okay. By the way, that's a trap, okay?

It's like, oh, I see you. It means I'm about to destroy you. Oh, really?

That's so interesting. That's what my boss used to say. He's like, that's so interesting.

No, I don't think you should have a raise. The true intent of the Buddhist speech? Yeah, commenting on the true idea of the Buddhist speech.

A classical commentary to that. The person who composed such a commentary, if someone is that kind of person, If there's that kind of person. Yeah, if someone is the kind of person who's going to write a commentary and comment on the true intent of the Buddha's own speech, then that person must be gyu la nam yen min den.

They have to be someone who doesn't have distraction in their mind. Yeah, according to you, anyone who ever writes a commentary on the Buddha's intent must be a person who has absolutely no distraction in their mind. Right?

YIN PA THA'O. That's sarcastic. Oh, I guess anyone who ever wrote a commentary on the Buddha's speech is a person who had no distraction at all, right?

He knows that you're there. Then he says, why are you saying that? After tell, he goes, why are you saying that?

CHI CHEN. Understood. Then we say, GYUL GYI DAM BYA'I THEG PA'I YIN CHEN.

Because your DAM BYA'I is THEG PA'. Because your... Your assertion...

Your assertion is... Is correct. Your opening line was correct.

You're the one who said that, not me. It means you're the one who said that. You proposed a definition of classical commentaries which said that it had to be written by a person who had no distractions.

So are you saying that everyone who ever wrote a commentary to the Buddha's speech had no distraction? He goes, why are you saying that? And we say, he just said that as a definition, duh.

All right? You okay? Yeah.

Now you can pick on other people. Okay. The YSI people just showed up.

Yeah, let's pick on them. They picked on us. So Earl, if you speak really loudly, they'll pick up what you're saying.

Starting at... You can give him a cursor. Yeah.

Don't curse at him. Just give him a cursor. DE NA DE YIN NA NYON MONG GYI LA MI DEN PA'I KYAPAR THAO TZIPA...

No, down? Yeah. TZIPA.

TZIPA. In Tibet, they said, TZANG GI. A wolf got in the house.

DE NA means, if you agree that everyone who ever wrote a Plasmic Commentary was a person who didn't have any mental distraction at all. And I don't know why they're on distraction right now. I mean, it's kind of like the last thing you'd think of.

As long as it's correct, who cares if he was watching TV afterwards? So anyway, den na, if you agree, de yin na. If it's true that everyone who ever wrote a classical commentary was a person with no distraction, then they must not have had nyonmong in their view.

They must not have any mental afflictions in their mind. And what's the weird assumption by us? If you have any mental afflictions, you cannot be a person without distraction.

That's the implication of what we just said. We said you can't have distraction and write a classical commentary. And he said, why?

And then we said, what our debater said, because you can't have mental afflictions going on in your mind and write a classical commentary. So I guess he's saying distraction is a mental affliction maybe? Okay, cool.

So he said, are you saying that a person cannot write a classical commentary if they have any mental afflictions in their mind? Are you saying that? We're saying that to the other guy.

Are you proposing that a person cannot write a classical commentary on what the Buddha really meant if they have any mental afflictions in their mind? And he says, chi chir. Why do you say that?

We just said that. Okay, we're like impatient. We're like, you just said that.

You said if a person has distraction in their mind, they cannot be an author of a classical commentary. And then we said, is it true that if you have any mental afflictions in your mind, you cannot write a classical commentary? He says, why do you ask me that?

He says, well, you're the one who just said something like that when you talked about distraction. Okay, cool? All right.

Now, then understood answers. In the debate, in the written debate, there are many understood answers that are not written down. In the Mixed Nuts Standard, we insert them because Western readers don't know about those understood answers.

So we always insert them in italics. But we didn't do it here. So, who's going to read for you?

Chunzang, could you read? Wow. Top line.

What is it? Good. Nice.

You can translate this if you think about it. You can't. Well, first of all, the implied statement is he comes back and says, well, I agree to...

Yeah, I agree that no one can write a classical commentary if they have afflictions. Any mental afflictions. He says, you know what?

I like it. Let's put the definition like that. Then we say...

You can't agree to that. No, you can't agree to that because we see Tsongpapo's obtentious. We see authors of classical commentaries.

Who are Kipak. Kipak. It's an abbreviation.

So we see non-aryas and aryas. Yeah, we see people who didn't see emptiness directly. And we see people who did see emptiness directly.

Who have mental afflictions in their mind. Who did write classical commentaries. So you cannot say that among the writers of classical commentaries we see people who are aryas and we see people who are not aryas.

Therefore, it's not always the case that a person who wrote a classical commentary, even in ancient times, had no mental afflictions at all. You can't say that. Because there were aryas and non-aryas.

Why would he have said arhat? That's a beautiful question. That's a beautiful question.

Let's see. Well, because an arhat doesn't have mental afflictions. Yeah, but Earl's right.

The answer would have been more understandable if he said arhats and non-arhats. Maybe, Geshe-la, this is another argument. It's saying that because there are Sosoke Awastham aryas, that means not only aryas, sorry, not only arhats can write them.

Well, the point that Earl's making, it's a good point. If I say to you, not everybody who wrote a classical commentary had no mental afflictions. Why, Geshe-la?

Well, because there were people with afflictions and people without afflictions. So the answer would be arhats and non-arhats. But we give as our answer people who did see emptiness and people who didn't see emptiness.

People who did see emptiness are two kinds. Some have no mental afflictions like Buddhists and some do have mental afflictions like a fresh tonglam, a fresh arya. First-level arya has lots of afflictions.

They just don't have three afflictions. They have 87,900 afflictions. No, seriously, they have.

So it's a weird reply and Earl's completely correct. It's a weird reply. It's a strange reply.

It's kind of weird, but he's trying to say that he's trying to counter his definition here. Maybe. Let's see where he goes.

Earl has a great point. It's a great point right here. This kind of implies something which is not true, which is that...

An arhat can't write a classical commentary. No, that an arya has no mental... What it says here is that they do have mental afflictions.

Yeah. It's a type of arya, but not all aryas have mental afflictions, depending on the level they're at. Yeah.

Because those aryas and non-aryas can have mental afflictions. We have to translate it that way. But not all aryas have mental afflictions.

That's true, because Buddha is an arya. And arhats are arya. Okay, cool.

By the way, we drop it there. We just let it go. It'd be interesting to go further along Earl's question, but he drops it.

Because then he says... Shenyang, moreover. Shenyang means moreover.

That means he's going to change the subject. That's what your kids say when they don't know what they want. They're like, moreover.

That's a good one. You should give me ice cream. Venerable Gyalse, would you like to read loudly?

[Speaker 2]
Shenyang. Shenyang. yin bar ta ta Sarcastic.

[Speaker 1]
It goes down.

[Speaker 2]
yin bar ta ta go down yin bar ta ta IM PA LTA LA IM PA LTA IM PA, LTA LA CES DE'I PHYI MANG CES DE'I PHYI MANG Okay, this is an interesting debate.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go backwards on the first line, Tim. Let's take a Gangsakha. Let's take somebody.

Who didn't, SNYED PA as a verb. They did not figure out, or they did not ascertain, that lupos are denme. Things have no nature of their own.

Good. Then things, functional things or things, have no nature of their own, with his or her symbol. Her perception.

Who's our chodchen? Who's our example here? A person who has not yet seen with accurate perception that things have no nature of their own.

Is that a sosokhevo? Let's take a person like that. Yeah, basically a sosokhevo.

Let's take a person like that. Let's say they tsampa. They composed.

A gongdrel. A classical comment, well, an explanation of the true intent of the Buddha. Yeah.

And let's say they write a classical commentary on the word of the Buddha, which consists of one of those three, ge, jing, or du. The long, medium, or short perfectionism. Good.

Yeah. Let's say that a person who has not seen emptiness, okay? And by the way, ngepa can be logically or directly.

Let's say the person hasn't perceived emptiness, but they're writing a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. Now, that's an interesting example, right? And it kind of applies to most of us, maybe.

They want to give a teaching on emptiness, but they haven't seen it. Okay. It's mud.

They're writing some kind of commentary, or they're giving a talk online. ngepa denme du dunpay tenchu chuchen. Let's say they write a tenchu.

Commentary. Classical commentary. Which denpas as a verb.

Which teaches. Yeah, which teaches that ngepas have no denpa. That things don't have a self-nature.

A person who has not ascertained, meaning directly or indirectly, that things are empty, is writing a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, explaining why they teach that nothing has any nature of its own. Is that ngak nyam dak? Are you telling me that that's pure speech?

Is that pure speech? Because we keep throwing in pure speech, right? We keep throwing in pure speech.

How do you make speech pure? If you have no direct experience of emptiness and you describe it to somebody, is that pure speech? If you correctly relate to another person what an arya said, is that pure speech?

Yes. That's the debate here. And it's a good debate, right?

It's a serious debate. Can we teach emptiness if we haven't seen it, basically? Okay.

Or, more technically, can we write a classical commentary, which hasn't been done in a thousand years? All right. And then we say, tsun ja de yi che.

Yeah. In your definition of a classical commentary, you said it was ngak nyam dak. In your definition, you said that was pure speech.

Yeah. You said a classical commentary had to be pure speech. So I'm asking you, is it pure speech if the person has not directly or indirectly ascertained emptiness but writes a book about it, writes a book about the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra?

Is it pure speech? That's a great question. And we're talking classical definition.

Can I ask a quick question, Geshe-la? For those of us less experienced than you, I guess it's contextual, but when it says ge jring du sum gyi kye gong jo, is it just context that you know that he means any one of those three and he's not saying all three of those Perfection of Wisdoms? That's a good question.

I can answer that by saying no one could write a commentary on all three. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I would dial that up to 150,000 verses.

That would be something in the order of 50,000 pages or something. Don't worry. Okay, I got it.

That's a good question. Okay. Tim, who's going to read?

Hey, Rob. Rosa. Sorry.

[Speaker 2]
Short one. Short one.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you a short one. How about Rob? Loud.

du na de che chen rang gi she dun rang ma wang buk se ma ne pe ngak yin bar thao? I don't know. Is that correct?

Or is yin bar thao? No, that's wrong. And by the way, I'm correcting them.

I'm not... You're not even... Yeah, because there's so many.

It's under... Okay. ngak nam dak yin pe chear.

Yeah. We give a definition of ngak nam dak here. What's ngak nam dak?

[Speaker 2]
Pure speech.

[Speaker 1]
Pure speech. We give a... By the way, incidentally, we give a definition of pure speech here.

And we say pure speech is rang gi she dun rang ma wang buk se ma ne pe ngak, okay? So we just have to crack that. His definition, Rong Lu, our definition of pure speech is the following, okay?

And we can go at it slow, okay? She dun means this she, spelling of she, which is not she. She.

It's low tone she. She. There's two shes and there's two stas in Tibetan.

Sa. Say sa. Sa.

[Speaker 2]
Sa.

[Speaker 1]
Sa. Sa. Sa.

[Speaker 2]
Sa.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? This is sha.

[Speaker 2]
Sha.

[Speaker 1]
Okay? She means to explain. She means to...

Accept. Accept. Accept an idea.

She, low tone, B-Z-H-E-D, means to accept an idea, in the first line here, in the middle of the first line. She, the B is silent, right? And by the way, Z here just represents low tone, because we don't have two s's and we don't have two sh's in English.

So we had to use something, and we used Z. And then these poor lamas like Geshe Zopa, get called Zopa, because someone didn't understand the difference between pronunciation, Mark, and pronunciation. And we talked about it in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika in the last few days, okay?

And they called my teacher Tharchin, okay? Tibetan doesn't have a thar, because some idiot spelled it T-H, because they wanted to distinguish it from T. Because in their mind, T was no aspiration.

But we don't have an unaspirated T in English. We don't use it. It's all just...

If a person doesn't understand the alphabet, how can they translate something? It's weird. Okay, got it?

Okay, anyway, Ranggishendun means the point that they accept, okay? The point that they accept, Geshendun, the point that they accept. The mawapo of that point, the one who expresses a point that they accept, they must have ngepa, that point, with semba.

They must have directly ascertained that point. Not directly. Correctly.

Yeah. Correct. Accurately.

Okay? When a person takes a position, that position must have been perceived by them to be correct through an accurate perception. It could be logical, it could be direct, but that's okay.

So now we allow non-Aryas, okay? They just need semba. Nobody said wunsum semba.

Nobody said they have to confirm it directly. If they had an accurate perception about the truth of that thing, okay, then ngak nambak. Then that's pure speech.

Then that's pure speech, okay? So we can teach emptiness responsibly if you have perceived it logically and not directly. That's okay.

Your speech is still pure. Got it? Yinpata.

Ngak nambak yinme chen. Now we're saying that a person, that person who wrote a commentary to the three to the three krasna paramitas must have understood its subject matter, either directly or indirectly, but accurately. Okay?

Yinpata. If it's ngak nambak, if it's pure speech, okay? So that's kind of a relief for all of us.

You can teach emptiness, and it will be pure speech if you have understood it pretty well logically. Okay? That's okay.

That becomes... And that even qualifies as a shastra. That could even qualify as a classical commentary.

Yeah. Cool? Because you are a kepak khanru, you are either an Arya or a non-Arya, and you have an understanding which is based on correct understanding of the topic.

Cool? So we're kind of taking out the idea that doesn't... whether we have mental afflictions or not has just been...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We kind of skipped... Because we said shen yang.

Shen yang. Shen yang is a sign that you want to change the subject. Right.

Okay, yeah. Okay, there's shen yang here. Let's change the subject.

We're not talking about distraction anymore. Okay? We're just...

We aren't talking about the distraction part of his definition. We're talking about the pure speech part of his definition. That's all.

We want to clarify. What do you mean when you say pure speech? And he says you should have seen emptiness directly.

We say, no, you don't have to. You just need a pramana. You need an accurate perception, deductive or direct.

Don't forget the third kind of deductive perception. Authority.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
If you believe your teacher is an authority and you just repeat what they say without necessarily understanding it logically, you still qualify as pure speech.

[Speaker 2]
No.

[Speaker 1]
But if you change it, it's not pure speech.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
Okay.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. No, no, no.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. Dana... Rosa, this is shorter.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Dana de dak ndra ndrai gan gan bed re hoy den med dud sa se ma ne far ta lo Good.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Now, is the person with distraction that you're talking about using pure speech or not? Confused.

No, the example was a person with pure speech, but they were distracted. Yeah. Pure speech, but distracted.

And we say, if it's pure speech, they must have perceived ngopas ardenme. That things don't have any self-nature. Yeah, I don't care if they're distracted or they're not distracted.

I don't care if they've overcome distraction in their mind forever or not. Are they speaking pure speech? And the guy says, yes.

Well, then, ngopas ardenme tsenpa nge. They must have perceived that. They must have perceived that.

I don't care if they're distracted. Okay? Got it?

His definition had a couple of parts. One was that they were distracted. But one was that they had pure speech.

And we said, well, if they have pure speech, then they saw what they're talking about. So they're okay. Even if they're a little distracted that day.

Something like that. Okay? All right?

Interesting. Okay? Yes.

Traditionally, you'd like to say master, master grand master. Louder. Master Vasubandhu didn't see emptiness directly because he criticized Mahayana.

But he wrote many shastras. He did write many shastras. And it is tradition that he did not see emptiness directly.

Whether it's just because he criticized his brother or not, I'm not sure. Okay. Okay, cool.

Here we go. So what did we learn? If you're going to write a classical shastra, it has to be not number.

It has to be pure speech. It has to be pure speech. If it's pure speech, then you...

Had to perceive. You have to have some accurate perception of what you're talking about. Do you have to be unrestricted?

Apparently not. Apparently it's not necessary. What if you're not an Arya and you understand from someone else, so you can do pure speech, but you're distracted.

So maybe you're overcome by mental affliction, even though you have... You already have understood, but now you don't. I would say that while you're writing, you don't have pure speech at that moment.

How's that? So then part of your commentary is pure speech and part of it isn't? Yeah.

I believe that a person is capable of pure speech and impure speech in the same day or something like that. Oh, yeah, absolutely. You saved a minute.

In the definition, when you define it as pure speech, you're talking about lucid moments of that person or of a person who had that experience. They just are a little... I don't know, they're thinking about cinnamon rolls or something.

Okay. Tim, who's going to read? If she can speak loudly, Paulina.

I don't know if that's possible. Come closer. Why don't you come up here?

I can move. Uh-oh.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Okay. Nice.

[Speaker 1]
Good job. Translate. Well, what's ka?

What's ka? I'm coming right now.

[Speaker 2]
Word of a Buddha. Word of a Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
And what does serna mean? If you claim. If you claim.

Serna means the statement before that is wrong. So everything... Something here.

If something is ka... If something is a speech of the Buddha, it must be a classical commentary. Okay.

Got it? Somebody comes along and says the speech of the Buddha himself is classical commentary. All speech of the Buddha is classical commentary.

Okay? Interesting language. I would make her keep going.

You're giving her so much trouble.

[Speaker 2]
Nice. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Isn't that... I don't know. Sorry.

Is that incorrect? Okay, what did he say? He said a classical commentary.

All speech of the Buddha is a classical commentary. And we said, no, that's not right. That can't be right.

That cannot be right. Why? If you believe it is right, let's take Jetson.

Let's take Maitreya. Yeah, let's take the Lord. Let's take the Lord, which is Maitreya.

Let's take the Lord. He... He gave God...

He gave the speech of the Buddha. Yeah, he did speak the speech of the Buddha. And lokso means separately.

And separately. Separate from that name. Separate from that.

He also composed classical commentaries. Therefore, not all Ga is classical commentary. Because Maitreya wrote classical commentaries separate from his Ga.

Separate from his speech. From his Buddha speech. Are we allowed to say that?

You tell me. Okay, the five great books of Maitreya, like Abhishekmalankara, etc. Are they Ga?

Where are they? They're in their Shastras. They're in their Shastras.

But they were spoken by a... I mean... Did Maitreya ever speak in Ga?

If he's a teacher, how can he speak Ga? So this is claiming that he gave Ga and Tantra. He gave Ga, and then lokso means separately.

He gave Tantras. And you have to agree that the five books of Maitreya, at least by the Tibetan canon organizers, they put them in the Shastras. They put those five books in the Shastras.

But they were spoken by Maitreya. In this case, it's indicating he did give Ga. It says he gave Ga in Maitreya.

When did he give Ga? We've got to keep reading. Okay, claiming that he gave speech of the Buddha, and separately he gave Tantra in Maitreya.

[Speaker 2]
But in the Tantric teaching, he's a Buddha, no?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a good point. That's actually it. Okay.

You're going to make her read one more time? Oh, yes.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
A class of commentaries which are... I don't know why I have a hard time with this. Which are to explain the true intent of the Buddha's speech.

Commentaries that are written to explain what the speech of the Buddha really meant. They are da shin. They are like the Buddha.

They are similar to the Buddha's speech. In that they should be buddha. They should be honored.

And respected. That's interesting. Classical commentaries are to be respected with the same respect as the speech of the Buddha.

When it says so... It's honorific. That he said.

The Buddhas have said that you should respect commentaries to the Buddha's speech with exactly the same respect you give to the Buddha's speech. By the way, that's supposed to prove that that's supposed to prove that Maitreya spoke his own speech and commentaries on his speech.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, good.

[Speaker 1]
It's a little weird. You should respect commentaries on the Buddha's speech with the same respect that you respect the Buddha's speech. And that's supposed to prove that Maitreya gave Buddha's speech and commentary to Buddha's speech.

[Speaker 2]
Good.

[Speaker 1]
You got to cook that one.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
You want to pick on somebody else? Yeah. Jennifer will sing now.

Come on, sing.

[Speaker 2]
I don't have my reading glasses. Oh, yes, please. Has not worked.

Thank you. Perfect.

[Speaker 1]
We're right here. Let's get some video on you.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and I filled in what he's saying because he didn't clarify.

[Speaker 1]
Well, on another topic, moreover. Which means he's not going to help us anymore about Maitreya. Because we're on our own about that.

Since moreover. By the way, in the definition of Shinde Shilje, an innovator. Yeah.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
Can we ask that you please use the microphone, we can't hear what you're saying.

[Speaker 1]
In this world. So there might be a hang up there. Okay.

Shenyang, moreover. Let's use Parma Chöchen. Let's take the Mother Sutra, the Perfection of Wisdom.

What's Parma mean? Medium. Yeah, like Bardo.

Medium. And it happens to be, it happens to refer to the 25,000 verses. Okay.

There's 8,000 verses, 25,000 verses, 100,000 verses. So when we say the Medium Length Mother Sutra, we mean the 25,000 verses. Let's take the 25,000 verses.

Are you saying that's a classical commentary? Yeah, are you? We're talking to the debater who started the debate.

Are you saying that Medium Length Perfection of Wisdom is a classical commentary? And he says, why do you say that? And we say, because.

Because. Because that means Gyal Rinpeche. Because that is a speech of the Buddha.

Are you saying that the famous 25,000 verses Perfection of Wisdom is a commentary? And he says, why do you say that? And we say, because it's the word of the Buddha.

And you said, all word of the Buddha was also a commentary. We can skip my notes here which prove that the 25,000 is the one he's talking about.

[Speaker 2]
Want to read another one? I tried to sneak out.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if you agree that it's classical commentary, then just to clarify, are you saying that it's classical commentary which is a gelpa to the gongpa of the comment? Which comments on the true intent of the Buddha's speech. Are you saying that the Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom is a classical commentary in the sense of commenting on the true intent of the Buddha's speech?

Why would you say that? Okay. I don't think he could say no.

We're just trying to push him farther into the corner. You can feel it, right? We're saying, oh, really?

I see. Okay. Let's send him to do one more.

Because that's what you agreed to before. Which is that I don't know, that the Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom is a shastra. Oh, well, then the Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom, just to clarify, it's a shastra on the word of the Buddha, right?

We're pushing him in the corner.

[Speaker 2]
Geshe Michael, I apologize. We have quite a few people in the chat struggling to hear you just from the angle you are to the microphone.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. I read and then I squeeze. Okay, it's getting there.

[Speaker 2]
Don't freeze.

[Speaker 1]
All right, here we go. Let's go there.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, good. No, I don't need... I'm okay.

If you agree, then that supposed commentary must be a commentary on the gongpa. On the true meaning. Of the yun parma.

Of the Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom. Yeah, now you've got the Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom is a commentary on... Itself.

The Middle Length Perfection of Wisdom. Because what the hell else would it be a commentary on? Okay, let's say it again.

He's in this position of saying that all speech of the Buddha is also a commentary. Then we say, okay, that's nice. Let's take the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.

He says, okay. We say, it's a commentary, right? He says, yeah, all speech of the Buddha is a commentary.

Then we say, well, what's it a commentary on, dear? And we say, it must be a commentary on itself. Because what else would it be a commentary on?

Okay, all right. If you say that all speech of the Buddha is a commentary, then the speech of the Buddha in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra must be a commentary, right? He says, yeah.

And we say, oh, really? Well, what's it commenting on? And maybe he says, I don't know.

And we say, well, it must be the Medium Perfection of Wisdom Sutra is commenting on the Medium Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. Because what the hell else would it be commenting on? Okay, got it?

Okay. Dönpo kang shi. Why do you say that?

Why do you say a weird thing like that, that it must be a commentary on itself? Well, number one, you're the one who said that all speech of the Buddha is a commentary. And it is not a commentary on Shambheka.

On someone else's speech. Yeah, on some other speech. It's not a commentary on any other speech, so I guess it's a commentary on itself.

Right? Okay, got it? Okay.

Does he mean somebody else's speech, or does he mean some other speech of the Buddha? I ask because it uses the honorific, right? It just says other than that.

It doesn't say of another Buddha or another speech. It doesn't specify. It just says other.

Other than. Some other speech. Probably another speech of the Buddha, yeah.

Let's make her do one more.

[Speaker 2]
DON NA NON TOG RGYEN RE NON TOG RGYEN GYIS GONG DREL GONG DREL DU GYUR PA'I BSTAN CHOS BYIN PAR THAL YIN PAR THAL Sarcasm goes down.

[Speaker 1]
YIN PAR THAL MUD DOD PA'I PA'I PHYIR DOD PA'I PHYIR DOD NA means if you agree that, well, the medium perfection wisdom is a commentary on itself. On the medium perfection wisdom. He says, okay, let's say it is.

What about that? And we say, oh, really? If that scripture is a comment on itself, then the NON TOG RGYEN, the Jewel of Realizations, which is the main book that Tim's text is commenting on.

This is a monastic textbook on the root text of the Lower Middle Way, which is the Jewel of Realizations. Oh, then I guess the NON TOG RGYEN is a GONG DREL on the NON TOG RGYEN. It's a commentary on the Jewel of Realizations.

Yeah, if the medium perfection wisdom is a commentary on the medium perfection wisdom, because it has to be a commentary because it's a DGA, according to you. Well, then, I suppose Maitreya's Abhisamalankara is a commentary on the Abhisamalankara. YIN PA'I THAO They say, when you sing it.

And we say, dukpa dey che. You're the one who agreed to that. You're the one who agreed to that.

She got to do one more. We can't leave it like that. DE NA RTEN CHOD NAM DAG YIN NA RANG NI RANG NI GYIS DREL PA YIN RANG NI GYIS DREL PA YIN I guess if something is a NAM DAG RTEN CHOD it's a good classical commentary.

Yeah, if something is a good classical commentary then it's always a DRAL PA So then I guess it's a commentary on itself. Yeah, then it's also always an auto-commentary. Then all good commentaries are commentaries on themselves.

They themselves are commentaries on themselves. He says it very nice, sarcastic. Oh, rang nyi, rang nyi do.

It must be a commentary on itself. Got it? Why?

Why did we get into this problem? Because way back, he said all ka is tension. Tension.

But I'd say it is. There's no such thing as a Buddha who didn't learn from other Buddhas. There's no such thing.

It doesn't exist anywhere. Never did. Never will.

Never did. Any time a Buddha gives their speech post-Buddhahood, they are commenting on their teachers, right? That's time, Geshe-la.

Okay, we've got two more sections on that debate. Tim's going to translate that from next time. We want to see a translation, whether it's good or bad.

I can do it now because we're already in the middle of it. Well, my chop. I didn't say I can do it.

You're on the 28th? Yeah. Thank you.

All right. I think we're going to one hustle. No, I'm sorry.

We have some discussion with Tim.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And Geshe-la gets to relax. Thank you so much. Thank you, Geshe-la.

Thank you very much. All right, that was cool. This is getting a lot of, I'm starting to enjoy this a lot.

Some people say that after a year. Some people say that after 10 years. Tim said it after only a year.

[Speaker 2]
That's pretty good.

[Speaker 1]
All right, so I'm leading a discussion. I don't have to say anything. What do you guys think?

How is this, if you were, let's start with the question of could something be a commentary on itself? Like the speech of a Buddha being, could it be a commentary on itself? Let's think of it, how could that apply to your life?

In what ways do we maybe get into that trap? Or if anyone has any other random ideas, we can go on other tangents. The tangent I would go on is the ngak nam dak thing.

The pure speech. Is it pure speech? Can you talk about emptiness if you haven't seen it?

I think that's a, to me, that's like a big, big topic he brought up here. And can you give correct teachings if you are swimming in mental afflictions yourself? That's the implication here.

How can we get the seeds to bring teachings? And if you have distraction, do you necessarily have other mental afflictions? Because it seems like you said that.

That's interesting. Can you go super loud? It reminded me of a story, Geshe-la, you taught once of a teacher that wasn't an Arya that taught his student.

And then the student became an Arya. And then he taught his teacher. Like the teacher was too busy and didn't have time to do the meditation and he was teaching his student.

And then the student saw emptiness directly. And then he taught his teacher and then the teacher saw emptiness directly. Something like that?

Yeah, there are examples like that. Well, I guess in a way, if the student has pure view, right, then it's their seeds that see the teacher in a certain way. Whether the teacher sees himself, how the teacher sees himself is kind of irrelevant to how the student sees the teacher.

I mean it more like it can be pure speech because the result can happen. From whose side? Both.

By the way, there's a big question in that context. Classically, there's a big question about the student's responsibilities as far as Guru Yoga after that. What are their Guru Yoga responsibilities after that?

After they become an Arya and the teacher is not an Arya, what kind of Guru Yoga are they required to keep after that? I don't know. Wouldn't they be even more inclined to serve their teacher?

I'm just an audience. If you didn't hear Venerable Jigme said, it's your responsibility to serve them even better. That's what she's claiming.

If the student asks the teacher in understanding and realizations, what would be their responsibilities in Guru Yoga way? Help the teacher to reach those levels too?

[Speaker 2]
Become their teacher.

[Speaker 1]
No.

[Speaker 2]
It's been my experience over the years that I'm much more trouble for my teacher than my teacher is for me.

[Speaker 1]
I may have commitments in theory to my teacher and I try to uphold them.

[Speaker 2]
But over the years, it has seemed like a lot more work for my teacher to take care of me than it has been for me to take care of my teacher. I would guess that when the teacher... Yeah, you would maybe have even more responsibility at that time if you were teaching each other to take care of one another.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, that's a nice thing.

[Speaker 2]
It's coming from you. If you are an Aryan and you can't see your teacher that way, that's coming from you.

[Speaker 1]
She says if you're a student and you become an Aryan and you don't see your teacher as an Aryan, you're not a very good Aryan.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Do you agree? I don't think so.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you an interesting debate. If you become an Aryan and you don't see your teacher as an Aryan, but you see them as a Buddha. So it's a Buddha who's appearing...

And you got to say, oh, there's a Buddha who's not an Aryan. Well, you know, a Buddha can emanate as a non-Aryan. Yeah.

How about that? That feels comfortable. A Buddha can emanate as supposedly a non-Aryan.

If they can emanate as a tree, they can emanate as whatever they want.

[Speaker 2]
But they emanate as no Buddha, but in the truth they are Buddhas, right? They are Arya.

[Speaker 1]
Boy, when you get into this thing, like, they look like this, but really they're not. That's a dangerous place to go. If a cinnamon roll could be Buddha, then there's no way it could be an Arya.

Then am I killing the Buddha if I go and eat the cinnamon roll? What's up, Joe? I wanted to put what Lizzie was saying.

A little bit, sorry. Sorry, I was looking at all of you from back here. I sort of like the commentary of my own thoughts, words, and actions.

And I myself, if I have an understanding of emptiness, even if it's just intellectual, using that, that is the greatest commentary that I can make, is understanding what all of you are. Any other questions? I think Joe was saying, just thinking about what he's learned is itself a commentary, a classical commentary, even just to himself, maybe.

In a sense, he's writing a classical commentary when he thinks about other people.

[Speaker 2]
Hmm.

[Speaker 1]
Does that have to be written down? Because we're using Ngācanamdara, we're saying pure speech. But does it have to be written down?

Not necessarily.

[Speaker 2]
No, not necessarily.

[Speaker 1]
I also had a question. Yeah, just going back to that possibility, let's say your teacher is a Buddha emanating as a non-Arya. So my question would be like, how, because in a way, if your teacher is a Buddha, then they are deciding to show in that particular form.

So are they expecting you to honor that? You have to play along with that now, because they are Buddhas. As they decide to show us non-Arya, I have to, you know, it's because a reason, so I have to play along.

And I now try to help them to reach Arya, because they are Buddhas and they are strategically showing themselves as non-Aryas. So it can get complicated or sophisticated, let's say. Well, if your teacher is appearing as a non-Arya and you become an Arya, they taught you how to become that.

So that's a lot of lifetimes of, you didn't just, I mean, pop off just from those words. Why not?

[Speaker 2]
Hey, Juan, is it possible for you to play with any other projection in that moment?

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, but I don't think that's necessarily wrong.

[Speaker 2]
No, no, no. Listen to what I asked.

[Speaker 1]
If you have the perception, you have the projection of a Buddha appearing to you as a non-Arya and you're saying, do you have to play along with that? Well, what else could you play along with? That's your projection.

That's all we can play with. Yeah, because part of your projection, because what she's saying is part of what's opening up is you're seeing that person as a Buddha who's appearing, like you're seeing a Buddha who's appearing that way. So you have those things already mixed together in that same seed.

What I'm saying is like, you could also refuse to play. You could be like, no, no, no, they are Buddhas. I don't need to help them to become Aryas.

It's already Buddha. But what if your teacher is like, no, I'm not an Arya, please help me. You became an Arya, now I'm going to be an Arya.

I saw someone try to convince Ben that he was a Buddha on the debate ground, but he couldn't do it. So either you're going to play with him or not, or how are you going to play? Well, I think one other point of Hasa's question is, if they're a Buddha, they must have a good reason why they're pretending not to be an Arya.

So if you're their close disciple and you really believe they're a Buddha, but you know that they decided to pretend they're not an Arya, should you also go along with it? Should you treat them like an non-Arya, or should you say, ah, he's just BSing, he's not a Buddha? But if they thought it was worth pretending, as a good disciple, should you also pretend?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
Or should you say, ah, come on. So you shouldn't take your teeth out.

[Speaker 2]
You should pretend to pretend.

[Speaker 1]
Pretend to play. No, that's what he said. You would be pretending.

[Speaker 2]
Pretend to pretend.

[Speaker 1]
But I'll give you another thought. If you pretend too long, you might start believing it. So cookies or no cookies?

Let's say your teacher was, cookies are bad for your health, but the teacher wants cookies. You give them the cookies, or you don't give them the cookies.

[Speaker 2]
You ask his wife.

[Speaker 1]
I'll give you another thought. Maybe you collect exactly the same karma by giving the cookies or not giving the cookies, depending on your motivation.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
And since it's the same thing, I think giving the cookies. We have one minute. Anything else?

[Speaker 2]
Something Nick said earlier that maybe got lost was maybe why we should aspire to teach emptiness, even if we haven't seen it directly yet, is to plant the seeds to understand more. And then that is maybe the same as why your Lama might emanate as a non-harmonist to get you to plant the seeds, to see them that way in time.

[Speaker 1]
And then I would say if your students saw emptiness and you hadn't seen it, how cool is it to have your seeds ripen at someone else? Then you're like, oh, maybe I'm getting closer.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And you can rejoice in having seen that. And maybe that could feel it for yourself. Juan, what's the news?

Oh, and I'll just announce stick around after the Peachtree World News or Mr. Words Tibetan class if you want to join that. So thank you, everybody. Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Tim and everyone for a fantastic discussion. That was a really good one. And take it away, Mr. Hasso. Thank you, Nick. How are you doing? I'm good.

Thank you. Great. Are you surfing the States?

Yes. Yes, I am. There was perfect waves yesterday, which was cool.

I had some really many waves. It was awesome. One day we should do it together.

Definitely. I would love that. Awesome.

Yeah. Well, thank you. Let me.

Yeah. Yeah. I want to.

I want to invite. We have two special guests today. Today we have a very beautiful opportunity to have a meditation with Tina.

But I think. Yes. Yes.

And I didn't have the pleasure to meet you. But then I thought it would be very cool if people can get to know you more. And if you can share with us a little bit of your background, your story.

How did you end up here? And because she's maybe planning to be coming to Arizona very often. So I think it's great if we can get to know you a little bit more.

So thank you for your meditation. And can you tell us a little bit about your background?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. Thank you. And my name is Tina and my Chinese name is Bobo.

You can call me Bobo. Bobo.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
It's so nice that this morning I had the opportunity to guide a meditation. Geshe-la taught us in DSU. It's called Hierarchy of Motivations.

And I'm so glad that everybody enjoyed that. I'm a DCIT organizer in China now. And I'm also helping funding for DCIT with amazing Lindsay and also the Good Night Club in China with Rosa and everybody.

I started this journey and there's a training now five years with teacher Stanley Allison and Geshe Michael. And from CSP, also DSU. So now it's already five years.

And the five-year goal says push me now to the universal center of Rimrock. Yeah, I'm already starting to looking for house here. And I'm very happy.

I already have this feeling, a sense of belonging here, a sense of community here. So, yeah, myself, personally, I'm already, no, still very young, 41 years old. And I was born in Mongolia and I was a Mongolian.

And yeah, and also I am married. My husband is also my classmate in CSP. I studied with teacher Stanley Allison and Geshe Michael.

And also I have a nine-year-old daughter. I love classics very much. And I started this journey, actually, as a pure gold translator voluntarily.

[Speaker 1]
How did you learn English? I think you have very good English.

[Speaker 2]
Oh, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
How? School?

[Speaker 2]
Travelling? Yeah, English. I did my master degree in UK, in Manchester.

I studied a business degree there, MBA there, Master of Business Administration degree in Manchester University. I spent two years there. Yeah.

Wow.

[Speaker 1]
What's your English?

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you.

[Speaker 1]
And just tell us, we have two more minutes. Just tell us a little bit also about your personal likes and hobbies. What are, like, if you like doing some recreational activities, sports, or any form of art, or what kind of things you like to watch on TV?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, yeah. We have no TV at home at all. Yeah, I like, you know, in my spare time, I really like, enjoy watching Geshe-la's teachings.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
I know it sounds a little bit boring, maybe, but for me, even during my flight, I watched Geshe-la's teachings. I just laughed very loud. It was so fun for me.

Yeah, it's so fun. And I feel very lucky, and I feel really grateful to Teacher Stanley and Alison. And because of their program, Pure Gold, CSP, DSU, I missed, I attended all, you know.

So I had, I have the opportunity to continually study within, you know, very closely with Geshe-la. And this really transformed my life. Yeah.

She said she likes driving. Yeah. Now I'm the only person, Stanley said, yeah, who is the only person in this community that doesn't drive?

And he pointed to me. And I can drive, but just a little bit nervous here, first time. But next time, anyone need a drive?

Yeah, I will teach you. Yeah, I can drive. Yeah.

Anything else? I will try. I like cooking, actually.

Cooking together with my daughter. When I successfully bought my house here, you can, you're welcome.

[Speaker 1]
So thank you very much for helping Diamond Cutter Classics. And yeah, it was great. Nice to meet you.

And thank you for the meditation today. It was very nice.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So next we have another connected, interesting project regards the books. I guess in a way we are all here because of books today.

And where is, okay, here we are, here she is with us. Excuse my English. Mine is not from Manchester.

I want to invite our friend Rosa here with us. She's going to show and talk with us about this cool app and project she's running these days. How are you, Rosa?

Good, how are you? It's good to see you. Good, thank you.

Thanks for inviting me. A little bit, how do you say? Desvelado.

Desvelado. Did you sleep well? No, I didn't sleep well, but too little.

[Speaker 2]
A lot of partying?

[Speaker 1]
No, not yet. Not yesterday. I mean.

But okay, let's go back to business. Usually it's my job to make the other people nervous, but now you're making me nervous.

[Speaker 2]
Okay, okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay, tell me, what are you up to these days? What I'm up to these days? Well, we're pretty busy at the press.

We're really working very hard to catch up with Geschen Michael, which is a very, very difficult task. He actually translates and finishes books before we can even start editing, getting it ready, getting it laid out. But it's a lot of fun.

It's a great job, and I'm personally very excited to be part of it. One of our most exciting things at the moment is that we just launched our application, a reading application. And what is really beautiful about this application is that it will contain all of Geschen Michael's work free.

So all of the ACI courses, we're working with also YSI to see which courses they want to publish as eBooks for free. So we're not just a bookstore. We're actually trying to be the place, the library that people use for all this amazing knowledge that is being translated.

We're also very excited to keep working with Diamond Cutter Classics and help publish those books, not only on eBooks. We have done a lot of strife with eBooks because eBook media is very fast, and it's very easy to also sort of like share with everyone. It doesn't have the cost of shipping, so it has proven to be a very good media for our friends internationally.

But we also want to focus on the printed books. We get a lot of requests, and yes, we're working really hard on it to get them printed for you to have access to all the printed books. So how is this project connected with the Good Night Reading Club?

It's like because as far as I understand what you're saying, it's like you want to have this app. Maybe it will be good. We have a short video you prepared for us.

It's just like a presentation, and Gina is ready to show it. So maybe we can show it now just for people to see a little bit of the material and the content that is there whenever you're ready. And in the meantime, I mean, I'm talking to Gina.

Yeah, we can show it, and then we can keep talking because I actually removed the music. It's just showing a little bit about the press. Yeah, about just like the kind of materials they are and stuff.

In the meantime, what I was about to ask is like you're going to have in the app, you say you wanted to have this material for free. So then what's the plan or how are you planning to pay for the cost of production, printing the books and other like operational costs? Can people just get all the materials like that or what's the plan?

Okay, so I can clarify.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I can clarify.

[Speaker 1]
So there are books for purchases and there are books that are free. So basically the free material are the ACI teachings because, you know, they're being offered for free. So all the ACI courses, you know, so 18 Foundation courses, all of the daily practices and even Diamond Way.

If you have the proper empowerment for it, you can also have access. And we're actually working out in a way of sharing that information with, you know, the people who have the proper training for it. But those are the main the classes that are going to be available for free.

Like. Sorry, yes, I'll go slower. Sorry.

Much slower. So. So, yeah, the ACI courses mainly.

And then we're working with YSI to see what other material we can share. Because the idea, you know, Geshe Michael has written so many books and published, you know. So, again, it's like really hard to grasp the vastness of the materials that are available there.

And we're constantly working with Geshe-la and see if we can get certain material that he has published before. If we can actually publish those for free, we're constantly figuring out. And I got to say, Venerable Jigme is the champion of that.

She's always looking into material that we can share because she's, you know, she's been working with Geshe-la for so long. She's actually our archivist and she's always pulling out like, look what I found. I found this incredible teaching that he taught in 99, 96.

And we're always, you know, bothering Geshe Michael, can we publish it? So that is the kind of material that outside of the books we are also planning to share. Great.

So you are rescuing a lot of like old, well, not old, but, you know, like previous teachings. And they try to bring them back into, how to say, nowadays. I like that.

I sometimes explore YouTube and I have found beautiful teachings. I remember Geshe-la finding one that is called the Ten Promises to Myself by Kedrub Jey, I think. And it's like, you know, you find jewels, they're hidden.

So it's great that you're bringing those things, I think, back. Yeah, I don't know. But if the video is ready, probably it's worth it to watch it.

Yay. So and then people can see the logo. That's well, the name of the app is what?

Diamond Cutter Press? It's a DCP library. DCP library.

And it is available in the Apple application. Oh, yeah, there is DCP library. And it's also available in Google Play.

Great. For Android. And you can also just use the browser if you are not a phone tablet person.

You can actually also access it through using your computer and read the books on your computer.

[Speaker 2]
Great.

[Speaker 1]
So the beauty of this application is that it's going to be the most complete library available to the public from Geshe-la's translations and the Mixnox. So we want to encourage people that are interested in this kind of material. Check it out and download the Diamond Cutter Press library, DCP library.

It's free to download it. We did it the other day. It was fun.

A lot of pressure. We did it. So.

So, yeah, do it. Thank you, Rosa, very much. We'll talk to you again soon.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for having me. Very welcome. And that was it for today.

We are going to go with Dr. Ward Smith. And, yeah, I mean, I will also to invite everyone. You may know that Hatha Yoga Pradipika is happening these days.

So we had some class already. Amazing, amazing classes. Really grateful to be able to be here.

And I want to recommend you, if you have the chance, watch the classes. We're going to have a class later today at 5, 5 Arizona time with Geshe Michael Roach. So, yeah, check it out.

Don't miss it out. And we'll see you here in the Mixed Nuts Shang Tsung Tower translation project Monday. See you later.

Thank you, Ward.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you, Juan.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Geshe-la.