Тим Ловенхопт — Книга 1: Совершенство мудрости, занятие 44

[Speaker 1]
Thank you for your enthusiasm in the chat, Adam. Gratifying. Nick?

Yo, all right. Somebody unmuted me. I hope I didn't say anything embarrassing.

Not to me, it wasn't. Good, good, good, yeah. I was glad that you could get all that off your chest finally.

It's just in front of all of my 95 greatest friends. I'm happy to see everybody. Thank you for joining Xuanzang's Tower.

Please keep coming. Your dedication means so much to us, and I think it helps. It's just this whole momentum that is the Diamond Cutter Classics Translation Team and Xuanzang's Tower, I think, gives us all incredible advancement in our skills.

Anyway, what I mean is it motivates us to learn harder and be better for you. So thank you for coming. Right now, we've got a class with Tim Lowenhaupt.

Tim, are you ready? Ready is an interesting word, but yes, I'm here. Yeah, I could tell by the look on your face.

It was kind of like a, you're good to go. Let's put it that way. I'm good to go, yeah.

I did get to talk to the boss about the class a little bit in the airport while we were jet lagged, so I get a little bit of insight into what the heck's going on. Cool. Are you back in the States?

Yeah, I'm down in Phoenix right now, and then I'm heading back up to Sedona tomorrow. Tim, do you have some sort of cinematic, gentle blur on your background or something? Because it is fantastic.

Yep. Okay. All right.

How do I do that? The answer is yes. Do you have a MacBook Pro?

I do. So I'll show you how to do it later. It's part of, it's actually- Okay.

[Speaker 2]
All right, let's talk.

[Speaker 1]
I'll do my best to learn that, but yeah, all right, all right. Is it true? Are you still planning to host that class on MacBook Pro camera filters later this evening?

Yes, it was a secret class. Okay. Oh, sorry.

You're welcome to commentate. All right. Vamos.

Vamos. Okay. Let's go to...

I apologize, translators, that I didn't get the homework submitted until maybe 15 minutes ago. So my guess is it may not have gotten to Venerable Upala, but if it has, then you have it, but you only had it for like two minutes. So here we go.

Easier. We'll start with an easier question. When we're in a thatcha in the debate format, not the debate itself, not the three parts of the debate, but the classical divisions of debates, what are they?

And please describe them. Divisions of debates or divisions within the pedagogy of a thatcha? The divisions in the pedagogy.

Let's say that. Like... How are they separated?

I'm sorry, you mean... That's excellent, but let's describe it for everybody. What does all that actually mean?

A reputation of the system of others. Presentation of our own system. And refuting...

A Terminator thing. Yeah, again, debating... The T1 comes back.

Yeah, because it's hard to stop them. I like how Geshe Michael says that they come back to try to defend their position, and then we just annihilate them. But it's always...

Geshe Michael doesn't talk about it that way anymore, but the first time I heard it, it was like the end of the Terminator movies. We've beat him, he's totally conquered, and then suddenly you see the red eyes light up. And that's...

He comes back for one more bout. Right, like you think the movie's over, but just kidding. Right?

You know, and... Yeah. I was thinking about the third section kind of being like...

When you're in a sales organization, like objection handling. It's like you've met with the client, you've sold them your... You've sold them the product, and they're like, yeah, but it doesn't do this.

And in a sales organization, like you have an objection handler where you say, well, if they say this, you give them this response. I briefly sold free vacations, and free vacations can be very expensive. And in the cubicle, they sat me in...

Was lined with responses to anything they could say about why they don't need to purchase a free vacation. And that's what these manuals do for us. Only they give you freedom instead of free vacations.

Exactly, right? So it's like we give our position, and then people still have complaints about it. And so they will continue to argue.

And then we handle their objections. Good job. It's always fun to me to think of how in this book, there's all these enemies.

And I'm like, it's really just one guy sitting down to write a book. His head is filled with all these invisible enemies. I feel kind of bad about it.

Don't judge me. It's kind of like the devil debates the angel, right? It's the...

Standing in our own minds, arguing with wisdom. Yeah. Yeah, I like that.

Because it's really like the challenge I've had with this book so far is the words themselves aren't that difficult. It's just all the other ideas that they're referring to. If you don't know what those ideas are, it makes it really challenging to even translate.

And so in a lot of ways, I feel like it's like subtle wrong ideas that we have in our minds that we're trying to clarify. So it's not really like these big debates where they're totally wrong. They're actually pretty logical and quite convincing.

The devil's quite convincing. Yeah. There's a naughty term people talk about sometimes called straw manning.

Straw man, like you make a lousy opponent so that you can beat him up. But we do a lot of what even less commonly is called steel manning, where you make yourself a nice, strong opponent. Right.

Yeah. And I think it's really cool because it's like, you know, in our own minds, at least in my mind, the wrong ideas are pretty strong. Like they're really.

And then you kind of have to like tease them out bit by bit. Beautiful. So the reason I brought that up was what are the three parts?

The three classical, I don't know if we call them divisions of a debate. I don't know what we call them. Um, parts of a debate.

We've reached the third part. Where now we're the Kachi gets to come back and give us all their objections. And so the first objection that gets because we were we were just defining what is what's considered the speech of the Buddha and where does this and what can be in the mind of a Buddha?

Is the speech of the Buddha in the mind of the Buddha? And is there something in the mind of the Buddha that's not speech? And we were kind of working through all those definitions.

So he got the Kachi comes back and says that there are four classical works of Vinaya that must be in the mind of a Buddha who is in their paradise body. What is the reason that they that they give that supports this claim? That everything is in the mind of a Buddha?

Uh, that would be not what he says. Yes, strong argument. It doesn't get us very far, though.

I don't think the paradise money. I know it was a month ago. It's kind of difficult.

I'm just I'm trying to read my notes, but I'm having a hard time reading my notes. Oh, type handwriting was setting us up somehow. Yep.

Consider the four great books of Vinaya in the mind of a Buddha. Are there disciples who have a lower way personality type? That's a little bit further along.

Oh, OK. Yeah. So this is the first reason.

The first, oh, the first objection. Right. He gives this claim and then he gives a reason to support this claim.

What he's basically doing is he's trying to set us up to say that the Vinaya couldn't be in the mind of a Buddha. That's what the country is trying to do to us. But we destroy that viewpoint a little bit later.

Anyhow, I would just give it. So he basically he basically says that. The classical works, the four classical works of Vinaya must be in the mind of a Buddha in the paradise body because the jewel of realizations is in the mind of a realized enlightened being.

Right. So so so before we move into this, like, is there anything you we know that the Kachik is going to be incorrect? Is there anything in here so far that might?

Point us to why this is incorrect. The jewel of realizations is not a Vinaya text. That's that's the that would be the first thing.

But I'm thinking of something else. The Buddha in their paradise body. Let's just focus on this part.

[Speaker 2]
Right.

[Speaker 1]
The jewel of realization is a commentary of the Buddha. Yeah, great, Adam. Right.

And so the question is. Is a classical commentary in the mind of an enlightened being and we'll get there eventually. I guess we're not not totally sure the way we're throwing around the phrase in the mind of an enlightened being that could mean something to us generally and obviously has a more specific meaning in this context.

And that is something we are learning by having this discussion, but have yet to learn, at least in my case. And then the question I have here, which will come up, will come up a little bit later in class, is who composed the classical commentary jewel of realizations? Maitreya?

Right. So let's stick with Maitreya, that part of the answer word. Is Maitreya an enlightened being when he composed the jewel of realizations?

No, no, no. Publicly, we say no. Why?

Well, secret MacBook meeting. What's the clue in the statement that Maitreya didn't come and wasn't an enlightened being when he composed the jewel of realizations? Commentary.

Classical commentary, right? So this gets very interesting a little bit later. All right, cool.

Good job. Next question. So the Kaché thinks they're going to win if we agree to this statement.

And the reason they use to get us to agree has to do with one of the five certainties which describe the characteristics of the paradise body. And what is that particular characteristic of the paradise body? They definitely have all the marks and signs in a complete form.

That's a characteristic, but it's not the characteristic that I want here. I think it's the characteristic of their core, their retinue. They are surrounded by 10th level bodhisattvas.

Sure, but that's not...

[Speaker 2]
They're in the paradise below no other?

[Speaker 1]
Nope. Only two words left. They only speak Mahayana teachings.

Yes, okay. Good. I only have one left to go.

Right, they only speak Mahayana. And what does that have... Why would the Kaché think that we would be winning that argument at that point?

Right. So that and then Vinaya is not a Mahayana teaching. And so that would somehow be a problem for the Buddha apparently to be thinking about it or having in their mind, which sounds like it's leaning more towards speaking it at the moment.

Yeah, that's actually how they uncover it. But yes. But right.

So he's basically saying that in the mind, how could the Buddha teach a lower way teaching the five classics of Vinaya if one of the five certainties of the paradise body is one where they only teach the Mahayana, the one and only, right? So the Kaché thinks they get us in that way. Oh, well, of course, there's something going on there, right?

Good, good job, guys. All right. Good job, folks.

I don't know. Is that gender neutral? Good job, folks.

Yeah, it sounds like Porky Pig when I say that. I like it. Anyway, good job, everyone.

Okay, let's go through the vocabulary. Tech man, not mixed nuts. There's lots of other people here.

Tech man, other people. Other folks. Vitamins.

No, no, no. Friesing. It's the opposite of Tech Chen.

Yeah, good. Exactly. So it's lower way.

And then Tech Chen would be.

[Speaker 2]
Great.

[Speaker 1]
Yep. Yes. Good, Chloe.

Yes. Good job, Chloe. And then.

Dharani of not forgetting nothing. Is it a Dharani? No, not really.

What does it mean, word? It's just the state or level of where you remember all the teachings that you ever got. Nice, yes.

Yeah. Also called Dharmashree.

[Speaker 2]
Extra bonus vocabulary.

[Speaker 1]
That you didn't ask. What's the Tibetan term for in the mind of an enlightened being in this case? Do we know?

So we can do our own research, as they say. Let me look at the text here. In the mind.

It's here. All right, to derail you. Janchula.

It's something with the. It's Gyu-Ki-Sangye. Okay.

Gyu-Ki-Sangye or Sangye-Ki-Gyu?

[Speaker 2]
Gyu-Ki-Sangye-Pakpe-Gyu.

[Speaker 1]
The mind stream of an Arya Buddha. Wow. Thank you.

Is that the Sanskrit? Yeah, definitely. That's a long name.

[Speaker 2]
Buddha. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
So in the mind of the paradise bodies. Yeah. Paradise of stream in.

Excellent. Thank you, Gilse. Look at that.

Sangye-Pakpe-Gyu. Let's see here. So this is what they're using.

In the mind of the paradise body. Yeah, there's a lot. Yeah.

All right, cool. All right. Good job, everyone.

Really? It's Lung-Ku-Gyu? I mean, that makes me go, what?

Because Lung-Ku is a body. I mean, the kind of like physical or close to physical body. And the mind of a Buddha is a different body, not a Ku.

That's a good point. It's the mind in the paradise body. Yeah, the Gyu in the Ku.

Weird. They always leave a lot to implication in Tibet. They shorten everything.

Like Lung-Ku is short for like Lung-Ku-Sangye-Pakpe-Gyu.

[Speaker 2]
I think it's Lung-Chupe-Gyu or something.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. You're right. Lung-Chupe-Gyu, Sangye-Pakpe, Lung-Chupe-Gyu, blah.

They just have a spreadsheet of a bunch of abbreviations. That could be helpful. Dig it up.

Spreadsheet, hard drive. The term. Hold on, let me find my...

Oh, a bunch of words. Bunch of words. Yes.

What happened in my notes here? Hold on a second. I lost my notes.

I'm unfortunate. Makes it very difficult to teach 100 notes because I cut them out. Okay, cool.

Now I have them. Let's try this. All right, cool.

There we are. Okay, so we're going to go back a little bit so that we can... Because basically where the text starts, this is where we're starting the text, which basically says, if you agreed to the previous thing, you're chasing your tail.

Which is a great way to start a class. And we could go on, but I think it's helpful to go backwards a little bit and see what we're... What the heck we're talking about.

So let's start. So we're basically in an argument about why, you know, is it in the mind of the Paradise Body? And is the Vinaya in the mind of the Paradise Body?

And here's the second reason that's given. So let's have Tracy read it from here.

[Speaker 2]
Dare tell they...

[Speaker 1]
From down here.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry.

[Speaker 1]
Good job.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
All right. What's a chiropa? Outsider.

An outsider, non-Buddhist. Okay. So in the Gyula...

Is that a mind or is that a secret book? It's mind in this case. What is the intention?

Isn't that weird? Yeah. So we have the word dampa.

Possessed. Possessed. La.

In. Chiropa. Gyula.

Oh, something in the mind of a Buddhist from a non-Buddhist book. Yeah, this is interesting.

[Speaker 2]
The outsider's classical commentaries in the mind of a Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
Probably. And what is nangpa mean? That's...

A Buddhist Buddha. That's literally what it says. I know.

So basically, he's making the claim that in the mind of a Buddhist Buddha. Actually, it says Buddhist, Buddhist, because it says nangpa sangyepa. That would have been hilarious.

So there exists in their mind, they possess in their mind, the classical commentaries of outsiders, of others. And we talked about this as like the Yoga Sutra, for example. It's not a Buddhist commentary, or it's not a Buddhist text whatsoever.

But a Buddha, a nangpa sangyepa will have that in their mind as well. Which makes sense if a Buddha knows all things, they would have those things in their mind as well. Yes, but here we are indeed talking about a Buddhist.

Buddhist. Right, exactly. But it's not, I don't know what came before, but it doesn't seem to be specifying a Buddha, unless it did just above.

We're talking about... You're right. What do I have my notes here?

Right, there exists Buddhists who have shastras in their minds. In their minds, they have shastras that are non-Buddhist. So there's Buddhists who have those in their mind.

That's what they're saying, right? And that's important for the next paragraph. So thanks for that clarification.

Did you identify what the tsa-wan-do is? Isn't this it? Oh, no.

Where are you, Adam? Yeah, it said, I believe if it was tsa-wan-do-na, and then we start to go on.

[Speaker 2]
And how many sections did you go back? Did you go find the...

[Speaker 1]
No, no, I just went back two paragraphs, so we know where we are. Cool. And then we'll identify this.

This will help us identify what's going on. We're in the process of the tsa-wan-do. Yes, exactly.

It says Dhar-tal up there. So we know it's a continuation. Kind of what I was talking about.

[Speaker 2]
Right. So Adam's suggesting we need to go farther up to find what it is we're saying if the other guy agrees to.

[Speaker 1]
Right. And that's going to be... Let's see.

Where is it? It's going to be a little bit before that. If you agree to that, if you agree to that.

All of these start with that. Okay. Let's go into this part.

And then while we're doing this, I'm going to look for the other part, Adam, okay? Cool. Thanks.

All right. So, Venerable Cat, can you read here?

[Speaker 2]
Chi-ma Dhar-tal. Down? Is Dhar-tal up there?

[Speaker 1]
In this case, no, it goes up. We believe this.

[Speaker 2]
Okay. Dhar-tal. Nga-chu-ki-yun-tan.

[Speaker 1]
Want to try this word again?

[Speaker 2]
Nga.

[Speaker 1]
Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Nga. Chu-ki-yun-tan. Che-pe.

Kab-su-mang. Tu-su-den. Ni-su.

Che-pe. Ya-gyel. Dug-yer.

Pe-mang. So-la-chir-ul. Pe-ten.

Cho-mang-du. Tu-pa-la. Che-pa-ng-ang.

Yo-pe-chir.

[Speaker 1]
Nice.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So, Chi-ma, what does that mean? Next.

A ladder. Right. So this refers back to this ladder part here.

The ladder case does so hold true. Right. It does hold true that Buddhists, there are Buddhists who possess in their mind non-Buddhist classical commentaries.

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
And then why? So we have the Nga-chu-ki-yun-tan.

[Speaker 2]
The set of five good qualities.

[Speaker 1]
Right. The set of five good qualities. And what does that refer to, Venerable?

Or that's, if you remember, we did go through it briefly.

[Speaker 2]
Is that one of the 37 qualities of enlightenment?

[Speaker 1]
We went through it really fast. There's 21 groups of five good qualities that are in the Vinaya. So there's 105 total qualities.

And that's... Is it simply monks, nuns, fully ordained or not, lay people, fundamentals? Um, you're asking questions that are above my pay grade.

[Speaker 2]
Because that's five.

[Speaker 1]
That's five. Yeah. So these are the qualities.

These are qualities. What ends up being here is there's some qualities that those who are vow masters are when they're conferring vows. That's what this is ending.

Right. And so two of those in the division, in two of the divisions, the che-wa here, are su, mangta, mangta, and su. And what does that mean?

What does mangta mean? A lot of learning. A lot of teachings.

A lot of learning, like a lot of teachings. And they also possess su, which is short for don't read. Enough there.

Morality, right. So a vow master needs to be extremely ethical, living an ethical way of life. And they need to be, they have to have many, many teachings.

Much learning. Yagyal, does anyone know what yagyal means? Isn't that like alone or something or singular?

Oh, it's a group of a pair. Right, exactly. So of the pair of mangta and sutra, which one are we talking about?

[Speaker 2]
Mangta, apparently.

[Speaker 1]
Yes, mangta, right? And so then, what does he say down here? They can, go ahead.

They've, they can explain many, many of the teachings that they've had of non-Buddhist schools. Correct. So they're able to explain, Shepa, many teachings or many teachings from the non-Buddhist schools.

Mangta. So what does that mean? So what does that imply?

That they know that. That they know them. And why would it, what's the importance that a vow master is giving Buddhist vows, knows a lot of non-Buddhist teachings?

We didn't go back that far to see why we're talking about that. Oh, no, no, there's actually nothing. There's nothing more about that in there.

It's just using this as an example.

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's like what Geshe Michael says, you have a thousand dollars in your pocket, so you can give a 99 cent teaching. You know, you know, like everything and how everything all relates, so that you can do one thing, one tiny little thing.

[Speaker 1]
But isn't it based on what happened in the homework, Tim? Like as far as a Buddhist having in their mind something that's non-Buddhist? Well, it's an example that they give to counter the, the, the, the counter of the kachig.

To say like, you know, the implication of this goes to, if a Buddha can't have the Vinaya in their mind, how could, how could, how could there have ever been any monks in the first place?

[Speaker 2]
I think it's to bring non-Buddhists to realize the relevant values in taking these vows and converting them into Buddhist Buddhas.

[Speaker 1]
I think that's one way of looking at it. And maybe another way is that someone who's conferring those vows also understands the, the particular needs of other people as well, and what they're learning and what they're, what's important to them in a way that maybe makes it less sectarian. And it makes that more accessible and they're more learned and they're more compassionate towards others too.

[Speaker 2]
And that's what I was going to say is that it's, they know the relevance and where it is in each, in the people's lives and know they can connect much better. Yeah. I mean, if, if everybody is ultimately going to reach enlightenment in the end, then we're kind of all on the Buddhist path, right?

[Speaker 1]
Nice. Even, yeah, even Chiropas. Right.

I like that. I think those are all, and it's kind of this, it's a random thing that gets thrown in here as an example. It doesn't, it's not random, of course, but I think it, like, I was asking Geshe-la, I was like, I said, what, like, how are we supposed to like, learn all of these little, like all of these little details?

And he said, well, this is what they do. They would learn this one debate and then they would go four hours in the debate ground and go through all the different possibilities. And I said, well, Geshe-la, I don't have time for that.

And I said, you know, how could we, you know, how could we learn all of that? Like, maybe we should make some time to be Geshes. And he said, his response to me was, well, then I guess you can't go to Europe this summer.

I was like, what? And he, and I was like, and he's, and then I thought about it. And it's like, I was like, oh, then I wouldn't have time to go teach in Barcelona and Romania because I would be debating four hours every night and learning all these things.

And he said, that's right. He said, you know enough, we all know enough that we can help a lot of people by doing it this way. Even if we don't know all the details.

It was, I don't know, maybe it was just a teaching for me to relax me, but I was, cause I was like, ah, how am I supposed to know all this? But it was kind of a cool thing for him to say is that maybe there's, that we do know enough that we could really, really help people. And we don't have to spend four hours for 20 years every day in debate.

I don't know. I don't, I don't know if that stands logically, but we'll, we can handle that better. Are you relating to that?

We should try to be a little lazier. No, no, no. I think he, I think he was telling me I should teach more.

Okay.

[Speaker 2]
Spending 10 minutes or an hour to understand one point will make you or us way more effective in delivering this point in the future. That means 10 folds of students would understand this point because I spent 30 minutes going deep into this one thing.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, I like that Chloe. Like we just spent 30 minutes talking, well, not 30 minutes, but we've been talking about like, why, why is it important to know non-Buddhist texts? Right.

And maybe it helps expand our minds. All right. Cool.

So Adam, here's the answer to your question. How about Adam? How about you read this one short sentence?

Because you're reading the sentence. Nice. Okay.

So can you explain what we're like, what you asked me to do and why?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. So just means like the root, right? Like the root argument is being presented.

And what we're saying is two cock chick is like, if you agreed to the thing that we originally said, then.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Then, then, then what?

[Speaker 2]
Basically what we need to do is we went up to the section before, right? To kind of draw out where like to give some context to where we're going to move to.

[Speaker 1]
Right.

[Speaker 2]
It just keeps saying, dare tall, dare tall, dare tall, dare tall.

[Speaker 1]
Which are all responses. So I was wondering, yeah, like what, what was the original? What was the original?

So we're going to go back to the very original. So we're telling cut cheek your original thing. If you agree to what you originally said, because we're in the, we're in the objection handler stage, then we'll, we'll figure this last part out.

So I went back and it's, it goes all the way back and basically is the first question. The second question of the homework where he says, where he says that it must be true that it exists, that the four books of the Vinaya exists in the mind of the paradise body. Because this, because the jewel of realization as a classical commentary exists in the mind of a Arya who's already enlightened.

Okay. So basically he's saying, if you agree to the thing you originally said, what does this mean, Adam? We haven't entirely settled on it.

[Speaker 2]
It just means that the three elements have been agreed to.

[Speaker 1]
Right. And, and I asked Geshe-la, like I said, well, this hasn't been completely settled. That's exactly what I said.

And he goes, yeah, I know. And then we're moving on, you know, because basically he's going through all of these arguments. Basically.

He's saying that it's ridiculous to say, because what he, what he was originally trying to say was that it's impossible for what the Kachika is trying to get us to say is that it's impossible for the mind in the mind of the paradise, the Buddha in paradise to have the Vinaya teachings in their mind. So he's trying to get us to agree to that. There's a whole section we skipped here because we did it last time.

And then basically are all of our, all of the reasons we were giving back here basically are saying, well, that's ridiculous. And it doesn't, I kind of was sitting there like, I don't know if it is that ridiculous. And then Geshe-la said, cook it.

And he said, let's move on. That's exactly what he said. I don't know.

[Speaker 2]
I mean, I'm just so I'm just like, kind of thinking here. If we're explaining, let's say tech men or Vinaya or schools from a lower track, wouldn't whether or not it was ultimately Mahayana depend on our intentions? Like, couldn't you be teaching or speaking lower way schools from the perspective of Mahayana motivation?

[Speaker 1]
That's an interesting, that's an interesting thing to take to the debate ground. What do you get? What does everyone think?

I like that because I was kind of debating this as well of like, because the fourth, let me just copy this line here. The fourth certainty is this, right? Is that the heart?

That's what it is. Yeah. Is there, is there a Buddha who exists, who's not doing anything to eliminate the suffering of people and get them to total and complete enlightenment?

No, they don't. Doesn't do that. That's their entire motivation for being.

Well, that's interesting. Shariputra has just opened up the next debate. Nice job.

And of course, what we refer to as lower vehicles are also yoga sutras as one. I don't know why. But they're called the paths that are shared a lot of the time.

So isn't Vinaya a Mahayana teaching because it is part of the teaching that is shared with the Mahayana.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. And I totally don't want to do, I mean, yeah, that's a good point. I also think too, I feel like at some point we define specifically what, like in your texts, we define specifically what makes a teaching Mahayana or lower way.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Probably later. Yes.

We haven't done that yet. It's great. And then also, is it referring to like the paradise body?

[Speaker 2]
Like if it specifically talking about the paradise body, maybe that's distinguishing between the classic Buddha actually teaching here on this planet too.

[Speaker 1]
So that's further things you might be able to draw to on the debate. Right. Because is it the paradise body that teaches the lower way?

Would a lower way practitioner even perceive the paradise body? Well, who are they? I mean, if it's the paradise body, then who are they teaching?

Who are they teaching Vinaya to in paradise? Right. That's a good question.

[Speaker 2]
So then the question is, I think they would be surrounded by 10th level bodhisattvas.

[Speaker 1]
Right. I think that's, I think those are all, this is, I think what Geshe-la was saying to me, like this would then be a three or four hour debate where we can go through each of those points. Like would a paradise, would the paradise body even be teaching lower way?

And to whom would they be teaching? Right. That's a good question.

This is great content, Dan. I'm having fun. So bodhisattvas never do practice emanations and go to teach people who are not on the Buddhist path or teach people who are on perhaps what the higher way calls the lower way.

So no Buddha would be talking about how to teach lower weight Vinaya. Yeah. Why are there Drupada?

Like why are there Drupada teachings? Well, I mean, does, but this is specific to the paradise body. Does the paradise body teach that?

Or I mean, does the paradise body teach lower way? I mean, can't you imagine it, Tim? You and I are up there.

You're the Buddha. I'm a 10th level bodhisattva. And I'm like, oh my gosh, I just ran into this person.

One of my emanations did, and they're with them right now. You can see it, of course, because you can see everything.

[Speaker 2]
But so how do I talk about the Vinaya? Let's talk about that.

[Speaker 1]
Well, the thing is, well, is it the paradise body that's talking about the Vinaya? Or is it the nirmanakaya that's talking about the Vinaya? Well, my nirmanakaya, which is not a nirmanakaya because I'm just a 10th level bodhisattva, but I can still emanate, is they're teaching somebody Vinaya.

And, but I'm up there in the paradise with you. My other, pardon me, my other body is up in the paradise with you. And so you're giving me suggestions about how to teach Vinaya.

[Speaker 2]
How my little emanation body, my practice emanation body is teaching Vinaya.

[Speaker 1]
I think what Ben said would fit then is like the Hinayana is shared path with the Mahayana. That's how I might answer that. Sure.

I mean, it would all be Mahayana at that point. I don't know, I guess. I don't know.

Well, the Mahayana is the only one who breaks it up into two. That's also true. Right.

Shall we move on? Yes. All right.

Let's have, let's see here. Who has their camera on? It's really nice when you all, if you turn on your cameras, be very nice to be able to see your beautiful faces.

Nice. There we are. How about Persis?

Can you read this, please? That's the danger of turning on your camera. Up or down?

No, it's up. The other way. Nice.

Nice job, Persis. Okay. What does this indicate to us now?

To that we would reply? In this case, it's the kachig is replying again. He would reply, yeah.

On that subject, the kachig says. So basically we tell the kachig, look, you're just chasing your tail. And the kachig is like, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Let's try this again. All right. So we have the Chochen.

Let's consider the Nantokyan. What's that? The jewel of realization.

This is actually kind of all together. The jewel of realization. Yeah.

The shastra, right? The classical commentary. In the mind of an enlightened being in his paradise.

Exactly. In the mind of a Buddha in a paradise body. Yes.

Okay. What are we saying about it? It is speech, which doesn't eliminate obstacles.

It is speech, which doesn't eliminate obstacles. We're going to go through this a little bit more closely after that. Why?

[Speaker 2]
Why you could say that?

[Speaker 1]
Because people say after the tail, there's a what? Why would you say that? So basically, this is the kachig saying all of this.

And then we come back and say, well, why do you say that? Why would you say that it's speech that doesn't eliminate the obstacles? And then kachig says...

It is the word of a sentient being. I'm sorry, what was that? It's the word of a sentient being.

It is the word of a living being. What kind of living being? Suffering.

A suffering living being, a samchen. Because you say it's the word of a suffering being, I guess. I know they would claim saranamakya.

Yeah, which they would claim, which is amakya. Usually break that one out. Yeah.

So it's really, yeah, it should be broken out like that. Right. The saranam too.

Yeah. So with all of this, so let's consider the jewel of realization, the shastra jewel of realizations in the mind of the Buddha in paradise. It is speech, right?

Meaning the jewel of realizations, which does not eliminate the obstacles. So this is something that there's a bit of ambiguity here. And we sat with this for like 10 minutes.

And Geshe-la said what's going on here, it's called the equivocation fallacy. Which means that the terms are being switched around. Meanings of terms are being changed.

So that Kachi can win the argument, basically. Okay. And there's an ambiguity here with this.

Because he's saying that, does it mean that it's a person who has yet has not eliminated? Hold on, let me make sure I got this right. Is it the speech of a person who has not yet removed their obstacles?

Which would kind of make sense because it's a classical commentary. And a classical commentary is not by an enlightened being. Or is it the speech in their mind?

Because we're talking about here in the mind. What's that?

[Speaker 2]
Well, I was just thinking, yeah, it would have to be the speech in the mind. Like if it was the first way that you read it, then that would mean that a Buddha had not removed their obstacles. Right?

[Speaker 1]
Is that the way I heard it? Yes. So that's what it could be, right?

So the idea is that there's something wrong here. There's something wrong because it's the kachi. We have to figure out what's wrong.

Because so if we say it's in the speech, it's speech that doesn't, of a person who has not eliminated their obstacles, because it's the speech of a suffering living being. That feels pretty comfortable to me, but there's something wrong. What's the tension?

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, and you're, yeah, I mean, the subject of the debate is Lankuigyu.

[Speaker 1]
Is it or the Lankuigyuki tension?

[Speaker 2]
Well, yeah, I mean, I'm kind of, I'm kind of assuming that they're kind of same thing that if it's associated with the Buddha.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. So it'll help clarify it if we look at the Makyab. Because our response to this is, is this Makyab?

It's not necessarily the case. And what's not necessarily the case?

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's not necessarily, yeah, sorry. Go ahead, dude. I didn't mean to speak over you.

[Speaker 1]
No, that's fine. Go ahead.

[Speaker 2]
The speech of a suffering being could be the speech of somebody who hasn't eliminated their obstacles.

[Speaker 1]
That the classical commentary that's in the mind of a Buddha in the paradise body is the speech of a suffering being. Sorry about that. Yeah, just because it is the speech that came from a non Buddha doesn't mean that it's speech that came from someone who has not yet eliminated their obstacles.

I'll say it again. So just because it comes from the speech of a suffering living being doesn't mean that it's speech that came from someone who has not yet eliminated obstacles. Good.

I mean, that looks right to me. Yeah, because why? Can you explain that, Nick?

Well, the way I think of it is just because someone who's a suffering being says it doesn't mean someone who didn't eliminate their obstacles couldn't have said it.

[Speaker 2]
Because an Arya still hasn't eliminated all their obstacles, but they could have said it.

[Speaker 1]
Well, a suffering living being could repeat the same thing as a Buddha said, and then it would be the words of a Buddha said by a suffering being in attention.

[Speaker 2]
To be somebody who's experiencing obstacles could necessarily refer to the seventh level down, right?

[Speaker 1]
I guess it depends on the kind of obstacle. Obstacles, omniscience, all the way to ten. Okay.

So that's what we're saying, because what words said was, I think Nick said it too, is that a suffering being like myself couldn't repeat the words of an enlightened being. So it would be speech of an enlightened being from the mouth of someone who's not yet enlightened, right? There doesn't seem to be a...

I don't have a problem with that. That makes sense to me. Because almost all the sutras were written down that way, right?

Once I heard, and then someone wrote down the speech of the Buddha. I mean, even this book by Arya, written down by Arya Song, is that the whole point? Right.

So what is that, Makiab? The Makiab is...

[Speaker 2]
No, yeah, totally.

[Speaker 1]
Right. Okay. And then we have the next line here.

This is why I love this book, because you're like, what are you referring to? Peiling. Could you read this line, please?

[Speaker 2]
TENCHU YINPEI CHIER TENCHU YINPEI CHIER.

[Speaker 1]
Nice. All right. So now we have Madrup.

Now, what does that mean, Adam? I mean, before we try to figure out what it means, what are the words, literally? Yeah, you can say, I disagree.

[Speaker 2]
If you disagree. It's not...

[Speaker 1]
Yeah, if you disagree, yeah. Right, if you disagree. So then what are they agreeing to?

All right. You know, so there's a line in here that we have to figure out what it is, okay? And that's where it kind of gets, this is where it gets really challenging here.

So I have to disagree to something, right? What do I disagree to? It's along with the cheer there.

Right, it has to do with this cheer. So basically what he's saying is, well, then I agree that the Abhisamala Ankara, the commentary, is not the speech of a suffering being. Let me just put this in here for us to follow.

Okay. And then we say, then they say, I don't agree to that. And this is why this is so, so much fun.

So, you know, and then we say, what would this mean? Be that the Drupama Pongpeng Ngat is Simcheng Ngat. Can you translate that into English for the translators?

[Speaker 2]
That the speech of someone who hasn't eliminated their obstacles can be the speech of a suffering being. Anybody on the 10th level or down?

[Speaker 1]
Right. So basically saying, like, if you don't agree, if you don't agree to that, then we're saying, well, the Abhisamala Ankara was spoken, was spoken by going up by a suffering living person. Why?

[Speaker 2]
Because it's a commentary.

[Speaker 1]
Exactly. Yeah, because it's a classical commentary. Right.

It's a classical commentary.

[Speaker 2]
Sorry. Good, better.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. All right. Good job.

All right. So let's do this last line and then we'll be done for today. All right.

How about Elmira? Can you read this last line?

[Speaker 2]
Okay.

[Speaker 1]
All right. I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing at what it says.

Right, because it just kind of, I don't know. Basically, if you can't agree, and what are we not saying? We can't agree that it is the speech of someone who is not yet.

We have to go back to the previous tile here. We can't agree that the speech in that, just because it's a classical commentary and therefore was written by a, it's the, therefore is necessarily the speech of a suffering being, right? This is where it gets confusing.

It's referring specifically to this part. That is the speech of someone who has not given up their obstacles. That's what it's specifically disagreeing with?

Not the Semcheng-Ginax part? We can't agree that it is.

[Speaker 2]
That's just the assertion. I mean, I could be mistaken. We need a reason to go with that, I think.

Which would be the cheer from that last line.

[Speaker 1]
Well, we gave the reason. And we give the reason why it can't be someone who's given up, yet given up their obstacles. It can't be the speech of someone who has not given up their obstacles, meaning a Semcheng, what was the line here?

[Speaker 2]
Semcheng-Ginax. Yeah, Semcheng-Ginax.

[Speaker 1]
Why? He's giving the first subject as a reason. Yes.

It's in the mind of... Yeah, thanks. It's that different pronunciation, as we're pointing out.

It's where you put the inflection. That's what does it. Well, because here it's just saying is that the classical commentaries in the mind of this one down here is it's speech which is in the mind.

It's like it's just a little bit different. No, it didn't say knock before? No, it did not say knock before.

It said Tensha, right? It just said Tensha, right? The classical commentary is in the mind.

Well, of course, it's in the mind of a paradigm. That's kind of cool. It's not highly illegal then.

But it's not highly illegal at all.

[Speaker 2]
All right.

[Speaker 1]
It's slightly controversial. Yeah, so there we go. Good job, guys.

Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Good job, you. Yeah, this is really fun, Tim. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]
All right. Cool. Nice work.

Have fun dissecting this into something practical. And now I have to lie, Tim. Why?

Why? So I have some cool ideas here. I don't know.

All right. So I'm on an international flight. Yeah, I slept most of the way.

So here's an so. Here's how I would think about this. Well, before I give my ideas, what do you all think?

Let's pull it out for someone else first. What do you all think? What are your, like, insights from this short little thing?

Short, like we only did like four lines, five lines. I guess I'm thinking about what's the difference between speech in the mind of an enlightened being, speech in the mind of a nearly enlightened being, speech in the mind of a not at all unenlightened being. And this is sort of like a, I don't know, degrees of how much it can help me or how effectively it can help me.

It's one thing to have a smart friend help me. It's another thing to have an experienced practitioner help me. And quite another thing to get advice from someone who knows all things.

And if I could somehow get a hold of the last type of advice, that would be really helpful. So yeah, I guess in our life, right? We, a lot of people want to offer advice.

How do we decide who to listen to? Who we can rely on, who to trust? What does that look like?

And how do the qualities being offered to us give us a sense about who we can rely on in our life? Can you rely on your, like the words that you hear in your own mind as though they are the words of an enlightened being? I don't feel safe doing that personally.

Hmm. It's a good question. Like, you know, how would you, how could we determine if the, like, how can we determine even in a sutra that those are the words of an enlightened being?

How do we determine that? And then if they're in our mind, like if you memorize the Abhisamaya Alankara, right, and those words pop up while you're having an argument with someone or something like that. Like, and you hear those words in your mind, like I've heard my teacher's words in my mind when I'm about to do something I shouldn't be doing.

Like, I'm not going to tell that story. I'll tell another day, but it's, you know, but like those words pop in at the opportune times. Like, yeah, I mean, it's like, how do you trust the words?

Like what makes the word of the Buddha? That's what we're asking, right? Like what makes it, like what's in the mind and what's the speech?

And then how do we determine whether it is or not? Yeah, what are the qualifications of someone that we can rely on outside of us? How do we recognize?

[Speaker 2]
We've got a list of 10.

[Speaker 1]
On some level, we can't. We've got a list of 10. Yeah, but who made the list of 10?

How do we rely?

[Speaker 2]
I mean, are we talking about justifying our own beliefs from the perspective of being a Buddhist? Are we talking about, how can we have conversations about what makes a Buddha a Buddha with a Chiropa or somebody outside of it? Somebody who hasn't taken it, let's say.

[Speaker 1]
Could be either. Yeah, I guess I'm thinking about myself, like wandering about the world on a sort of ordinary level. How I can look to the people, the friends in my life.

And it may have something to do with the way that they're benefiting other people. So it's one thing to be a benefit to yourself, right? I'm just spitballing here.

It's one thing to be a great benefit to yourself, someone who has confidence in themselves, someone who feels secure, someone who feels comfortable. And then there's a sort of person whom offers comfort to others, around whom others gain some greater sense of comfort, security, and support. And maybe, right, this is the sort of person that I can rely upon even more deeply for my own support.

Those friends that are supporting other people, supporting other friends.

[Speaker 2]
You bring up a really good point. There's an Art Angles book on the path of a Bodhisattva.

[Speaker 1]
There's an entire section there that's just qualities that you could perceive in the people around you that are exhibited by Bodhisattvas.

[Speaker 2]
Bodhisattvas do this, they do this, they do this. And that's, I mean, if you wanted to trust the words of Arya Sangha. Yeah, people, that's a very beautiful thing.

Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
I think it also, where the text is going very shortly is really to define whether Maitreya is a Buddha or not. Yes. That's where this goes.

And so what is the, I don't know, there's a, I mean, what is the esoteric reading of this? And what's the sutric reading of it, right? It's like, and can we do both?

I mean, that's where we're getting to is can we do a sutric, a non-sutric reading of a text that's sutra? You know, and there's a big problem that, in my view, there's a big problem even in the biography, because it says, oh, he takes them to Tushita heaven. If Maitreya is not yet a Buddha, how the heck does he take someone to heaven below no other if he's not already a Buddha?

I think he does live there though. Well. He's pretty good.

I mean, and the reason I say that, not just to be pedantic, but in this world where we have a tendency to listen to four out of five doctors who choose crest toothpaste. I mean, an individual who is merely a 10th level bodhisattva, if this is hard, what can we get from a fully enlightened being that a 10th level bodhisattva can't offer us? And how can I discern between the two?

I don't, yeah. I mean, I would, I'm going to add another thing into that, Ben. It's like, in his biography, he's doing a sadhana to meet Maitreya.

Like, are you trying in a sadhana, are you trying to meet a 10th level bodhisattva? Are you trying to reach an enlightened being? You know, and to me, I think there's a, suspiciousness to it of like, I don't know, for me, it's like, it makes everything suspect, in a good way, like the pranaya way, where it's like, oh, well, he comes out of the cave, he's hanging, like he sees this dog, and all of a sudden the dog turns into bodhisattva Maitreya, right?

You know, maybe that's, maybe that's all his karma was allowing him to see at that point.

[Speaker 2]
You know, the definition of an existing thing, too, is anything that's perceived by an accurate perception, right? So, if anybody in the universe perceives that object in that way, does that give it credence? Does that...

[Speaker 1]
If some beings see Maitreya as an enlightened being, with all the retalking, I need help. Well, I was just going to say, it doesn't have to be confirmed by a subsequent accurate perception. Can we be...

What school are we talking about? I just want to make sure we know where... I just want to make sure we're...

[Speaker 2]
Yeah, I mean, from the perspective of the second school, the definition of an existing thing, but I don't see how that changes in the school.

[Speaker 1]
No, I don't know if it really makes... I guess what makes, I don't know, what makes being enlightened for me, or for you, or one being seem enlightened to one person, and another being seem enlightened from a different perspective, if that being is a proverbial pen, chew toy. What can I do to instill a deeper capacity for support in the people around me?

They're not really giving me bad advice or good advice. What can I do to be surrounded with people who are giving me good advice? And it comes back to this question, Tim, about whether you should drop out of trying your best to give supportive advice, and devote yourself full time to your studies, or whether doing your best to give the best advice you can to those who are seeking, who would act as a cause for something in the way that other people offer you advice.

I hope that that can help. I have cynicism and skepticism about people around me. I can be a real critical jerk.

But people have countless beautiful qualities, and countless negative qualities, if I were to dwell on one or another. And maybe the more I try to give earnest advice, honest advice, knowing I'm limited, especially with humility, trying my best, maybe over time, I'm going to get better advice from people around me. And what's the limit on the goodness of advice that it is possible for me to get?

There shouldn't be one. There shouldn't be a limit to that. It should be able to get better and better.

And the better advice I get, the better I get at knowing how to plant the seeds to get better advice, which should get me better advice, which should get me better at planting the seeds to get better advice. It shouldn't be a top. The more you think about seeds, the more seeds work.

What you made me think about, Ben, is if I'm giving the best advice that I can to people who are seeking advice, and I have an inkling of something like emptiness, pen, chew toy, to the person who's seeking advice. Who is that person who's seeking advice? Are they a seeker of advice?

Or could they be somebody else who's showing me that they're seeking advice, but really giving me the opportunity to plant the seeds so that I myself could then elevate? Who are they? Are they seekers or are they secret seekers who are teaching me something much deeper?

No. Or to who? Or neither.

Well, they're both. Well, who's looking at those? They are neither.

[Speaker 2]
They could be perceived as either, but they are neither.

[Speaker 1]
Really? Not really, at least. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, that's great.

That was great. That's a great way. Thank you.

That sounds like that's great. Thank you all for a beautiful discussion. That was a fun class.

It's very, I don't know, I enjoy this. I very much enjoy this. Thanks for humoring me today.

And Juan Hasso, I think you're up next to give us the news. Thanks, Tim. Good to see you in this side of the world again.

Here we are. Wow, look at that, man. We have to use that for the virtual news.

You can show me later, but that's cool. Very cool. Well, today, just before we start with the news, let's congratulate our great friend Ben Kramer, because he just had his birthday yesterday.

And we made a special poster and a special post on our Instagram account to just celebrate his birthday. Thank you so much, Ben, because I think really, really, you help us a lot. I have had the fortune to have some talks.

And how do you say, some guidance from you time to time. Look how excited the audience is. So no, anyways, thank you so much, Ben, because I really think you're helping in general, the community, these team of translators a lot, of course, Get Your Michaels projects.

And we are very, very lucky to have you here with us, inspiring us, bringing clarity to obscure points in the scriptures. So thank you so much. And we wish you a very, very happy birthday.

Thank you. You honor me more than I deserve. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much for just being here and doing what you do. And you know, also your birthday was yesterday. And today we also had the birthday of teacher John Brady.

So we also made a poster for him. Yes, it's the next poster we have. And of course, you know, he's doing an amazing job also preserving the ancient wisdom in this world with ALL.

Basically, what they do is like they go looking for the text. Then when they find them, they input them in the computer and then they send them to the mix nuts who later translate them. And we can have wonderful content, courses, retreats and more.

So thank you so much to John Brady as well. We're very honored to be working with you, to be learning from you. And please stay, keep teaching us, keep helping us and keep saving the world.

Thank you so much. And now we can move on with general news, which are something very cool that I hear today is that the Peachtree Cafe is actually being mentioned. And somehow I will say recognize an award by this cool online magazine website, Arizona Highways.

I was just trying to find some pictures of Ben on Facebook or somewhere. And then I saw a post by Su Gengxi and Xin Tian about this event. And I thought it's very, very cool.

Soon we're going to be talking more about it. But just in general to say that the Peachtree Cafe is doing great. I went there this morning.

It's looking so beautiful. And soon, next time, probably Saturday, I will be sharing content about it with you. Okay, so next, let's quick review a few events that are coming up in a few days.

I think two days from now, three days from now. No, five days from now. Earl is going to be leading a very cool session about the teachings that Geshe Michael shared when he was doing during his three-year retreat.

It's going to be based on the first book. I think it's the Inner Kingdom. Well, book, because it was a first teaching and then later became a book.

So if you're interested, follow the QR code. You still have time to sign up. I think it's going to be very, very cool.

That's happening just as I say in a few days. And then also in July, mid-July, we're going to have these events happening with the Innovation Retreat. Is the next poster, please?

Oh no, before that, before the Innovation Retreat, YSI and Raw Diamonds are going to have a very cool event in Burubudur. And Earl is going to be involved. John Brady, Connie, Joanne Lee, Jasmine, they are all producing and participating in this event.

The QR code is in the next picture. In case you still want to attend, there is a few weeks ahead for that. And then after that, the Innovation Retreats are going to start happening.

These are a project that Stanley is mostly organizing and producing, of course, with the help and guidance of Geshe Michael. So if you're interested, you can use the QR code. It's going to lead you to a WeChat group.

And then you can find more information there, hopefully. Okay, next picture, please. Okay, now, just to let you know, Tim is going to Europe.

He just came back to the United States, but he's going to Europe very soon. On mid-July, he's going to be having an event in Spain and then in Romania. So if you live in Europe and you really, really want to see him, maybe you can plan a quick train trip to these places.

I think he's going to be very happy to have live audience attending these events. And we want to wish you the best of success over there. And just before that, to connect it with the other event we are having in Mexico, he's going to be teaching, yes, a special review class on the Angel Debates the Devil, July 6th with Tim Lowenhaupt.

What's happening is they're going to be sharing a teaching that Geshe-la already taught, recording on that. And then Tim is going to kind of, going to lead a dynamic discussion, review and ideas about the class there. And this is on preparation for the event happening in Mexico on July the 26th to the 28th.

Mexico City, coming up soon. I think it's going to be very, very cool. Okay, and now just to share with you some very cool event that happened in Kyoto.

I prepared a video for you. So lately we have been reviewing a few of the events that happened there. First, we talk a little bit about the Steps on the Path Course 2 team and other teachers taught over there.

Then we show you the YSI PREMA event. And now is the time to show you about the Heart Sutra event that our friends, Sophie, Cao, and well, it's a surprise. Some other person also helped organize, but because the surprise is in the video, I'm going to wait for that.

And great teacher, John Brady, taught about it. So just going to share the video. Hope you enjoy.

This is your chance if you want to go to the bathroom or whatever, because after this, we go to next class with Nicolas Shaw. So enjoy the video. But today we are going to visit the event, the Heart Sutra.

It's in a venue that is about two hours and 30 minutes far from Kyoto. So we're going to get there mostly by train. Hopefully everything goes well on the trip and we can show you what's going on over there.

For those of you who may not be familiar, the Heart Sutra is a very, very ancient wisdom text. It's a very, very interesting and famous teaching where everything that we experience in our lives, everything that exists basically, lacks or it's void of self-nature or self-standing nature, meaning intrinsic qualities. So these qualities do exist, but they exist through dependent origination.

So this teaching is going to be very, very cool. Excited to hear more about it. And share with you.

So here, guess who I met in the hotel? In the hallway. In the hallway.

Yeah, it's wonderful. Serendipitous moment. Yeah.

So could you tell us, Jayvila, a little bit of what has been happening these two, three days in this beautiful, beautiful venue?

[Speaker 2]
Well, it's a great opportunity for a group of Sophie Chow students who requested a teaching. And I thought, well, wouldn't it be great to give them one of the Geshe Michael sessions on the Heart Sutra?

[Speaker 1]
Wonderful. So we're doing the Heart Sutra from 2000, February of 2000, one month before Geshe Michael went into his three-year retreat. And he taught this beautiful, oh my God, such a beautiful class.

Of course, he did it for four days in California. Wonderful. And I had the good, good fortune to be there.

Wonderful. And then he went into his three-year retreat, like a month later. Just, yeah.

So we had, we're having a great time here. And I, I think for the first time, they're understanding the Heart Sutra. Wonderful.

I'm excited to hear about it. And I'm so lucky that I made it for at least the second class.

[Speaker 2]
I heard you were coming in, you know, I just popped my head up, having a coffee. And there you were, manifesting in real time.

[Speaker 1]
Totally. I was totally lost in the hotel. And then I see you sitting there so elegantly.

Amazing to see you.

[Speaker 2]
So we're going to hang out now.

[Speaker 1]
Let's go. Yeah. So glad to be here.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2]
So the guest is here.

[Speaker 1]
Gibson! Good to see you. How come you got here?

It's amazing. Long story, crazy. The map says it will take me two hours and 30 minutes.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
But it actually took me like three hours and 30 minutes because I get lost. I need to talk to people. My internet is not working.

I think your Japanese is getting better right now. It's adventure, man. But it's great to see you.

Great to see you here. Send your regards to the Mixed Nuts. Hi, everyone from the Mixed Nuts.

I'm Gibson here in Japan.

[Speaker 2]
Hashisho is quite famous in Japan.

[Speaker 1]
Also in China.

[Speaker 2]
Everybody knows Hashisho, but nobody will know what is the real meaning.

[Speaker 1]
Yeah. Yeah, there is a saying, you know the words, but you don't know the meaning, right? Oh, okay.

No, it's a universal prayer. But it is true. Like we took a deep dive and it worked.

And there were a lot of things that had to be set by example.

[Speaker 2]
So, you know, personal stories help describe an aspect of the Heart Sutra through getting it into your life to use, not just to listen and intellectually try to understand it. That was Geshe Michael's whole point when he taught it. Like, how do you get it into your life?

And I think it's brilliant to think you understand the verses and at the same time, the way he's teaching it, you can put it to work in your life. And that's what he's always done. So it's a very unique approach to defining, explaining and decoding the Heart Sutra.

[Speaker 1]
Congratulations. Say hello. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2]
My name is Hare.

[Speaker 1]
And you are doing an amazing translation.

[Speaker 2]
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]
For the people mainly in Taiwan, right?

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
What was your favorite part?

[Speaker 2]
JB's talk.

[Speaker 1]
Amazing. Yeah, I think this event is pretty precious because a lot of people from Asia may know the Heart Sutra, but didn't know the meaning of the Heart Sutra. Wouldn't find this content anywhere in the world.

And this is due to the hard work of JB because he saved this text personally from, I remember from Russian 20 or 30 years ago. And right now, this book is already being translated by Geshe-la and Jimmy. Sophie Zhao.

She's telling me that the next mission is going to Mongolia. Yes. So this year we have over 20 people.

Wow. Yeah. Go together with Steve.

How long? How many days? Eight days.

Wow.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah. From 18th to 18th. And yeah, we have to have one big time before we have to say goodbye.

We are going to have a vacation first. And we are going to experience some local culture ideas. Like riding a horse or riding a camel.

[Speaker 1]
Something like that. Wow, that's going to be fun. Hopefully we can later see some videos about it.

[Speaker 2]
Sure, sure, sure. I'll send you some. My name is Motoko.

I'm from Kyoto.

[Speaker 1]
Motoko.

[Speaker 2]
Yeah.

[Speaker 1]
And you?

[Speaker 2]
I'm Megumi.

[Speaker 1]
Megumi.

[Speaker 2]
Yes.

[Speaker 1]
And you?

[Speaker 2]
I'm Sayo.

[Speaker 1]
Sayo. Also Sayo did a wonderful yoga class today. Can you tell us where are you from and what was your favorite part of this event?

[Speaker 2]
I'm from Nagoya.

[Speaker 1]
Okay. And you?

[Speaker 2]
Me too. I'm from Nagoya.

[Speaker 1]
Wonderful. And?

[Speaker 2]
I'm from Kyoto.

[Speaker 1]
Kyoto? Wonderful. I've been there.

Great. So what was your favorite part of this event? Everything.

The hall. Amazing. And for you?

[Speaker 2]
For me? Me also hall, but Q&A was very nice.

[Speaker 1]
Q&A. And for you, Motoko?

[Speaker 2]
I learned more about emptiness. So my understanding about emptiness is more deeper. So it's very nice for me.

[Speaker 1]
Wonderful. And what do you think about John Brave? Is he a good teacher?

Or it was boring? Boring or good? Just kidding.

All right. Very good teacher. Okay.

You recommend him. Yes. Okay.

I'll give you the money he gave you for you later. I'm just kidding.

[Speaker 2]
But okay.

[Speaker 1]
Thank you very much. Check out the view. From this.

A Ouija Island hotel. Looks like a fortress. Cool hotel in a small island.

Between Osaka and Naruto. Amazing. Thank you very much.

And congratulations so much again for this wonderful production. The venue is wonderful. The teachings were very, very good.

I even had the chance to do a yoga class. Very nice. Thank you so much for the hospitality.

Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 2]
Welcome you again. And maybe we will have the following series of the heart teaching. We are talking to Jebila now.

So welcome to come again.

[Speaker 1]
Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

There you go. A little bit of what happened in Japan this June. I think it was a total success.

People were very, very happy. Engaging a lot. And apparently they also learned a lot.

So thank you, JB. Happy birthday again. And Ben Kramer, happy birthday.

Let's go back with Niklas Shaw for more classes.