Thank you very much. Thank you to the organizers. And it's really a great pleasure to be here and to speak. And I want to revisit some old questions about Torelli theorems that Arthur, of course, have very influential papers, especially with the super singular k3s. And I want to try to sort of rethink a little bit how we might phrase Torelli theorems in positive characteristics. So I'll talk about joint work with Max Lieblich. I came up in the previous talk. And just to get ideas fixed, let me begin by reviewing some basic Torelli theorems over the complex numbers. And I'll say, I have in mind other Torelli theorems, but let me talk about k3 surfaces for this lecture. But so let's say we have a k3 surface. And so what do you consider? You first consider the lattice, which is the singular comology z coefficients, which has an inner product. And so there's sort of two bits of data. There's this, which is sort of the analytic part. And then there's the Hodge filtration, which is somehow the algebraic part. So for the k3, of course, it just looks like, yeah. Well, there's really just one piece. Really, you just need to know this, which is the h0 of x kx from that and the inner product. You can get the f1. And so the Torelli theorem in its standard formulation says the following. So two k3 surfaces, x and y, are isomorphic, if and only if there exists an isomorphism lambda x. So that means including the inner product, preserving the filtrations. But it doesn't mean that you can leave the isomorphism. No, no. So this is a delicate question. So as people were going to, I think some of, yeah. So as Hofer says, so let me remark. Actually, I'm glad you asked, because I want to discuss this point in positive characteristics. So if, in general, you needed to take a scalar class to a scalar class. So let me give it a name. Let's say sigma. If sigma takes a scalar class to a scalar class, then sigma lifts to an isomorphism, put it sigma tilde, x to y. This is what you were asking, I think. And also it is unique, the lifting. Ah, if it's unique, let me not say anything on the spot. I'm not sure on my feet. More precisely, it's putting a harm of x to y, goes to harm of x to y, what do you say about the back sets? Oh, I saw the x to y. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the question, right? Is it injective, right? Yeah. No, that's the question. Yeah, I don't, I, maybe not say something wrong, so. OK, and so, right. And so in general, you can arrange this after, you can arrange this by reflecting across minus two curves. So this is somehow a very classical story. And so, I mean, you see in the very formulation, it's not clear what you should do in positive characteristic because of this integral lattice, right? So of course, August proved a Torelli theorem for super singular k threes, which is really the only result I know which uses comology as sort of the, if you have an isomorphism of comology respecting some structure, then you have isomorphic varieties, OK? So sort of the rough idea. So when you say you can arrange this, I think you also need maybe to apply minus one or not. I'm not sure because the reflection along minus two curves cannot be enough if there are no minus two. So you could have the automorphism minus one, minus the identity, certainly. Ah, ah, yes. And minus one is for a reason. Let's see. Yes, I'm sure you're right. Let me, let me, so, yeah, let me put it. You just put minus one, minus one. Well, let me just put it like that, OK? So, OK, so the rough idea here is to try to make a formulation even in positive characteristic. We'll replace lambda x here by the derived category of category of coherent sheaves on x. And the hot filtration will get replaced by, so what filtration can you put on something coming out of the derived category? Well, you can go to the growth and deep group, tensor q, which by Riemann-Roch is the Chao group tensor q. And there you have a filtration, which is a filtration. I mean, it's graded. So it gets replaced by the co-dimension filtration here. Now, this is a very, you know, loose sort of analogy, but I'll explain a Torelli theorem for k3s in this context and deduce consequences, OK? So, but in general, I don't know to what extent, I mean, it could be that this is a much stronger kind of result or condition that you could have Torelli theorems sort of in the derived sense of when it might not hold there. Will the result you're trying to explain give a new proof of the complex numbers? No. In fact, this is, I'll explain, sketch the argument for the proof which will reduce to the complex case, unfortunately, yeah. All right, so let me give a precise statement, OK? So k, let's say it's algebraically closed and characteristic, not 2, for some technical reasons. And so x over k is a k3 surface. And so some of this came up in the previous talk, but let me get it on the board. So x and y are called Fui-Muqai partners if we have an equivalence of triangulated categories between the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves. And as I said, so there's one point which I'll come back to later, but if you take the growth and degroup of the triangulated category, you have to choose this isomorphism in the right way. But you have an isomorphism here with Chao groups. And actually, for the theorems I'm going to discuss, I could pass to numerical equivalence, but anyway, that's not too important. So I view this as being filtered. This is the F2, F1, F0, so just in a simple way. And then the theorem is that if x and y are k3 surfaces over k and there exists an equivalence of triangulated categories, d of x, d of y, preserving the filtration, then x is isomorphic to y. So at least with this analogy, between viewing the derived category as an integral structure plus the hot filtration, then you have isomorphism. And the equivalence of triangulated categories is supposed to be K linear or? Ah, yes. Otherwise, you could twist by the morphs of k. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. And it is just 100 categories in the old sense, not in the any infinity. No, no infinity. No. Just derived category of coherent shoes. So what about the previous question? An isomorphism is x to y to the equivalence of k. So this I don't know the answer to. This is a very interesting question, which is, and yeah. So I'll sketch the argument because it involves deformation theory and a lot of the classical tools of deformation theory of k3 surfaces. But the proof does not in any way tell how the isomorphism you produce is related to the equivalence. Could you remind us what's known for surfaces of other canines? Because the whole class of surfaces where isomorphism is a category of bicep isomorphism. So if either the canonical sheaf is ample or anti-ample, then you know it already. So then you don't need the filtration. So what's interesting here, maybe I'll put it here, remark is that, and I'll explain exactly what the examples are, d of x equivalent to d of y is not enough. So this is sort of very classical Moukai Orlov, many people. So you can't just ask for equivalence of triangulator categories. This is not enough to imply that x and y are isomorphic. But actually, this result, as I'll explain, will tell you exactly to what extent that fails. Do you need to assume that y is a k3 surface? Now that follows from having the equivalence of triangulator categories here. So let me review. There are sort of two ingredients that came up in Francois' talk. But let me review just a few basics. So for Moukai transforms, so that's x, y are smooth, projective over k, if I have an object of the derived category of the product, I get such a functor by sending k to rp2 lower star p. So that's sort of the standard transform, pullback, tensor, and pushdown. And a theorem of Orlov, which is really the sort of key thing to get things off the ground, is that if I have an equivalence, an equivalence of triangulator categories, k linear is of this form, phi p for some p. So this tells you not only, well, it gives you some geometry. It also tells you the candidates, I mean, how you produce as came up in Francois' talk. What you do is you, I mean, how could you have a complex on the product? The most natural thing is to take y to be a modular space of sheaves on x, and then p to be the universal family. And dx is db coherent? Yes. All the derived categories will be the derived categories of coherent sheaves on smooth projective varieties. So there's no issue about finite, I mean, they're regular. Yeah, yeah. Found it. OK, so what are exactly the modular spaces? Yeah, so I want to write down. So x over k is a k3 surface. And so then let me fix normalization. So for a complex, you have the Mokai vector, which is the churn character times the Todd class of x square root. And I view this as being an element of, and for k3, it's defined integrally. In general, you would have to put some denominators. But for k3, it's there. And it just has a very simple description. It's the rank c1 of E. And then the rank plus c1 of E squared over 2 minus c2 of E. That's the formula. And let me also fix a polarization, x, or an ample class. And then you can consider the stack of, so geysiker-sevi-stable sheaves on x with Mokai vector, this vector, a given, so you fix your nu. And then you make these moduli spaces. And then, so for good, as Francois mentioned, what do you have? We have a, every semi-stable sheave is stable, which means that this thing here is a GM gerb over some algebraic space. And in fact, is a trivial GM gerb over a k3 surface, which denoted Roman font like that. And so, I mean, where the universal sheave lives on the product of x with a stack. But since it's a trivial gerb, you can descend the universal sheave to, so I'll put universal sheave E on x cross. So now you have two k3 surfaces and a sheave on it. Induces an equivalence phi E d of x d of. So this gives a supply for Mokai partners for a k3 surface. Let's see how there's another board. So let me state a theorem, which is that every for Mokai partner, or meaning k3 surface with equivalent derived category of x, is of this form. Does it mean that the equivalence is after the morphism given by the universal sheave or that there is another equivalent? Another equivalence, yeah. So I'll explain, actually, how this follows from the other theorem, which already that ambiguity is present. I'm not saying anything about I don't know how to relate the equivalence to I don't know how to lift the equivalence on the derived category to an isomorphism. In either case. So what is that of this form you mean for some phi in the corresponding meaning, you said? Let me put it here. Is a mHv for some v and h? So I should say over c, this is somehow classical. Let's see there are many names here I should put there. But I want to sketch, in the spirit of these minus two curves, how I view this in relation to the filtered result. So that's by the forward proposition. So let's suppose I have two k3 surfaces and phi from d of x to d of y, an equivalence of triangulated categories, of derived categories. Then there exists choice. Then there exists mHv and after precomposing phi with an auto equivalence of d of x and an equivalence d mHv of x, so arising in that way, you can arrange for the equivalence to be filtered. So you start out with something which is not a filtered equivalence, but then you have these basic steps you can do. You can apply the auto equivalence of d of x and you can do this game of replacing x by a moderate space of sheeps. And so once you do that, then you can make. And this is just playing games with the sort of invariance of the Chao groups. And so then the corollary is this result. So that implies this theorem here. So once you have the result that two filtered, if you have a filtered equivalence, and then there isomorphic, then from this proposition you get that every Fourier-Makai partner is a moderate space of sheeps. And this mHv sits on the x side, right? Yeah, I mean, I could do it on the other side too, but I want y to be mHv. So I precompose to make it filtered. OK, all right, so let me state another theorem, which is more subtle, which is there are only finitely many Fourier-Makai partners, and two, if x is super singular, so for a positive characteristic, then no non-trivial. So even though I think this condition about preserving the co-dimension filtration looks very strong, in the case of K3 surfaces, you can recover what's known about Fourier-Makai partners of K3 surfaces from that one sort of Torelli theorem. So I want to discuss the idea of the proofs slash deformation theory of K3s and K3s with the Fourier-Makai transforms and so on. So let me give sort of the idea over C. I think the filtered derived equivalence gives an isomorphism follows very easily from the classical Torelli theorem. So why is that? The point is that if you have x and y, then you get this phi p, which is given by pullback, tensor, and pushdown. So that passes to any homology theory. And so phi p induces an isomorphism on what Frantz-Swarck deducted h tilde. And I think my normalization is slightly different than his. I think if I change it now, I'll get confused. So let me put it. I think you had a shift by one. OK, so you do this Mokai lattice. So h tilde, sorry, my board work is not good. So I define it in this way. So you get an isomorphism on these Mokai lattices. And the filtered condition tells you that it induces an isomorphism on H2. So filtered implies you get an isomorphism on H2, preserving the hot filtration. And so we're done by the usual Torelli. So in some sense, we're imposing a much stronger condition than the usual Torelli condition. Let me just remark over here. I should have said this before. In this case, so if you think about it, if I have a point here, let's say k of z, I look at the skyscraper sheaf of a point z in this moduli space, the corresponding sheaf over here is the sheaf corresponding to the point z. So the ranks, in general, get messed up. So here, when you have this kind of equivalence, it's not going to preserve the filtration. I should have remarked that. So in general, these things get scrambled up. But once you preserve the filtration, then you're in the usual Torelli theorem setting. OK, so what do you do in characteristic p? So now we're in a bit of a delicate deformation theory problem of k3 surfaces. We want to think about how to deform x, y, and p, the triple consisting of two k3 surfaces, an object, and then derived category in the product. And so how do you do that? Well, you'd consider this very strange stack, which is the stack. A perfect complex is x cross y, sorry, on x, which are simple. And I'll put it universally glueable. So what this p is, some object of the derived category. So simple means that the automorphism functor is just gm. So it looks like a simple sheath. And this universally glueable means that the negative x, so functors, p, p is 0 for i less than 0. So you impose some condition. And if you impose these conditions, then this is an old paper of Leiblich, which is that this is an algebraic stack. So you have some geometric object to work with, because it's big and non-separated and all that kind of thing. Well, in general, if you don't put the simple condition, but the simple condition actually gives us a reasonable space here. So the simple condition implies that this thing dx is a gm gerb over an algebraic space, which maybe I'll put it on dx. So given a Fourier-Mochai equivalence p, so we'll put phi p from d of x to d of y. So you have this p in the product. You can view it sort of asymmetrically as being, if you think about y here and then here's x cross y, you can view it as a family of complexes on x parametrized by y. So here's p.  So for these conditions, you have to x 0 and the negative x. And this is happening in the derived category of x. But because this is a Fourier-Mochai equivalence, this is the same as x i d of y, k of y. So you compute the, you can bring it to the triangulated category on the other side. So these conditions are actually easy to verify when you have a Fourier-Mochai equivalence. And so what you end up with is a map from y to this stack, which is this mu given, let's say mu p. So it gives you this map and this mu p bar. And the condition that phi p is an equivalence, actually is fully faithful, is equivalent to this mu p bar is an open immersion. So you somehow translate the condition to have a Fourier-Mochai equivalence to sort of a map from this thing to this algebraic space. So all right, so what can you do with this? So let me state a proposition. Well, let's consider now the deformation functor of x. So we have a k3 surface. We have its deformation functor, which we know everything about. So a goes to the liftings. dx isn't separated, is that the point? What is your point? dx is not separated? The Roman font? Yeah, nothing is separated. I mean, I'm not saying anything about global geometry. Liftings of x to A. So we have the deformation functor of x. And I'll put it over here. Proposition, there's an isomorphism of functors. I mean, these are pro-representable. So this of deformation functors. So that's not such a big deal. But such that for every l in the Picard group of x. So I'd say x and y are k3 surfaces, k3. And I have a Fourier-Makai equivalence dx to dy. And ah, sorry, you're right. And let me further assume. OK, sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry, thank you. So when you're in this situation, so you can, after changing your choice, changing the choice of p, so you always have to do these kind of basic operations, can arrange that 1, 5p100 is 100. And so I'm assuming this is filtered also. So I'm putting a lot of conditions. But once you have that, you can arrange that. And that it takes the ample cone of x to the plus or minus of the ample cone of y. So now you see y, there's really not much control over. You start with some general equivalence, make it filtered. And then you do more operations to make further. So there's not much control. But once you do this, the proposition is that you involve some sort of reflection. Yeah, reflection. It's sort of like the, I mean, I view it by very rough analogy with the classical theory as making reflections and things like that. So then you have an isomorphism of deformation functors, delta from the deformation functor of x to the deformation functor of y, such that for every l in the Picard group, so we're looking at k3. So the deformation functor of x with a line bundle is a sub functor. And so you can ask what it does. So delta of this deformations of the pair xl maps isomorphically to the deformations of the pair y, 5l. And because of the way I set it up, this is the classical line bundle. So in other words, you can use the form of chi transform to identify the deformation spaces in a way that matches up the line bundle. I'll explain. I'll explain. Maybe I should say there's the basic problem we encounter, which I think I'll have time to mention, in the super singular case, you run into the. So here, in the classical literature, like in your papers, you consider deformations of x and an l. But you could also consider deformations of x with a bunch of line bundles. And that gets more and more complicated, the more line bundles you consider. But this is an important problem, I think, because there's a number of situations where you might try to deform. If you have a high rank k3, you might want to deform the k3 plus. Well, of course, if it's super singular, you can't deform the whole lattice, or whole neurons vary. But you might do want a big lattice. OK. Big pick hard of the generic fiber. OK. Right. So how's this going to work? So the construction of delta. Yeah. So, well, I think it's basically this picture. So you take, let's say I have a is an Artinian local w algebra, and I have xa over a. So then I get a lifting of the dx and the dy. So I get, let me do it on, I get dxa. And then here I have the dx that I started with. And then here's my y, which maps here. This is the mu p bar. And this is open. And so, well, open subsets lift uniquely. So this is open. So there it is. That's the deformation. OK, so this defines delta. Do you know why it's dancing dx? No. It doesn't matter. I just have an open subset, and I have a nupon thickening of. dx could be as bad as you want, yeah. It is nice in the sense that it is locally of finite time. Sure, yeah. Or the stuff over a is essentially flat over a. Yeah, so there's a subtle point which is special to the K3, which is that I need to know this is flat over a. Locally of finite type and so on. Yeah, that's right. I'm sweeping a lot under the rug, but the main subtle point is, I mean, why couldn't this just be dx? I mean, it was, you need the flatness of this over here. Generally, it doesn't satisfy any separation. No, I don't believe so, no. Well, there are several of such wide spaces. Certainly it is quite separated. Yes. But not locally separated or not. I'd have to sit down and think about it, but yeah, yeah. But I mean, it's an important point that it doesn't actually, I mean, you have to bear this by that it has some reasonable properties, but it doesn't have to be a projective variety or anything. You're lifting open subsets. Okay, and now, in fact, there's a little bit more here, which is you can lift the P. So you see there's an annoying thing which is that the Roman font dx is something like a course of modular space, and you really want to lift the Pore-Makai transform, too. So in fact, this takes a little more work. Can lift the P, which is really the, I mean, this is this map mu P to P a over in d of x a cross over a. So this takes some more work, but let me not dwell on that. Okay, and so now, how do you proceed? You use this here, because we want to lift a characteristic zero, you better preserve some ample line bundle so you can algebraize and get the whole thing. So now, so what do you get? You get a, let's say a mixed characteristic DVR, V, and deformations x, y, P over V, lifting x, y, P, and then... Can you just, you know, the def-x over l is flat over, you know, the d's and f. Yeah, I know, yes, absolutely. So I need that I have at least one map to a mixed characteristic DVR, right? So, and that'll mention a related point. Right, and so then generic fibers, and actually, I mean, there's a lot to check, but this deformation here, actually, if I start out with a filtered equivalent satisfying those conditions, this deformation is also gonna be a filtered equivalent, okay? Is it unique, or is it PA unique, or what? Is it unique, the PA, or the scripting, or whatever? This thing here, let's see, so I have to calculate. No, I don't need it to be unique, yeah.  How do you get this to be? Well, okay, so what do I do? I choose my enamel line bundle on X and then I look at the deformation space of XL and then it gets paired up here and then the only thing I have not sort of discussed is why you actually get this, an actual P because you only have a map to the Roman font, right? So I have a map to the course model space, I have to trivialize a germ over that to get the actual P, okay? All right, so then generic fibers admit a filtered for Makai equivalents and so then you have to replace V by another extension to get the generic fibers isomorphic and then you go back down because using some minimality of K3 surfaces, okay? And then use characteristic zero result, zero result and then go back to closed fiber, okay? So there's a lot of technical points here but I think the key idea is this kind of... Sorry, yeah, I should make a complete DVR. So the exact... It preserves the filtration of automatic in this case. Nothing has been posed. No, it's not something, yeah, it just follows from the... It comes from this big stack here, but yeah. Okay, all right, so let me make a remark. So that gives that if you have a filtered equivalents and there is a morphic, the finiteness result, how do you get the finiteness result and I think the super singular case is maybe the most interesting. Because how could you prove that, in fact, if you have a super singular K3, then any form of Chi partner has to be itself. This argument that I just sketched does not lend itself very well to that but the problem you encounter so for a super singular K3, so people who do lattice theory know that if you have a neuron severity which has ranked at least three in characteristic zero, then you don't have non-trivial form of Chi partners. So now the game becomes deform K3 surface plus a rank three subgroup E inside neuron severity of X and there's a lot to do but that's the basic deformation theory problem you encounter and so in this case you can calculate using the deformation theory of polarized K3s that you do still have a characteristic zero point of the deformation space but maybe I'll put it as a question. In general, I don't know, in general, I don't know how to describe deformations, I'll write this way, deformations of X E. So when you fix the groups on Arthur's paper there's discussion of if you have a, you can get a quadratic thing, make a quadratic extension in Delene's article and so on but in general, what is the deformation space? Something like that look like, I don't know. All right. It might not have any characteristic zero point, yeah. For a super, yeah, I mean, take the super singular case, yeah. When you look at this thing about this P and PA, so there was a GM gel there and when you have this, the opinion, the local ring deformation, it could be that you're talking about characteristic pieces so it could be that you don't know that the H2 class is zero over an opinion. So the point is that you do some trick with the determinant of the P and relate that to the obstruction class. So there is a serious argument there. I mean, it's not, but you have to do, you're right. There is an obstruction in general, but if you calculate what that obstruction is, you can relate it to the determinant of P and so if you do it, if you set it up right, you can arrange for that obstruction to vanish. Determinant of the P, I mean, you can, because it's a one-dimensional obstruction space and you have to relate what that obstruction is to something having to do with P. So it's a non-trivial point, yeah. Okay, let's see, yeah, two or three minutes. Okay, so maybe I'll just mention sort of a couple more questions here. So I don't know how to do this in general. The other point is, which was raised several times, is the way this is set up, this, you know, the isomorphism, construct the isomorphism, right? I mean, from D of X. I don't know how to just take the derived equivalents and then construct the map, right? This seems, I don't know where to do it. It's tempting to think about the Chao group of zero cycles and sort of, if it's filtered, you get a map on zero cycles, but that sort of looks like you should just see the morphism, but I don't know how to do that, yeah. And I guess the other question I won't write it is, I don't know in general whether filtered equivalents is a much stronger condition, derived equivalents is much stronger than sort of classical Tarelli. There seems to be promising progress in the hypersurface case, but I think that's about where we're at right now. Thank you. So is the last problem, the problem in generalizing to no algebraic or closed space here? No, the problem is that sort of the way I've presented, the way I understand it, I don't know. I mean, in the honest Tarelli situation, you know a lot about the isomorphism in relationship to what we do in comology, right? So you have some transformations that you understand and then you can lift it to an isomorphism if it takes the Cayley class to the Cayley class and so on. So, but here I think it's a total mess, you know, what is the relationship between the isomorphism and the quillerns of triangular categories, I don't know. Which isomorphism is corresponding to this specifically by morphism? Right, yeah, so given, you take this thing, how could you even, you know, maybe you could impose some condition that says then there's an actual map, right? That gives it, I don't know. I have a question, so we discussed the super-singular case. Yes. So the object you have the ordinary case. Yeah. And then form a modular in a nice group structure, form a tour. Ah, yes. So then what is, how does the formation theory work? I don't see it because either it's local or global and that's a true. Could you repeat the question? What is the story for all the names? Well, I guess in the ordinary case we know DX is really clear. From DEF-X, not DX, from DEF-X. Oh, DEF-X, yeah, yeah, yeah, DEF-X, yes, yes. Ah, yeah, so what have, and what happens under this delta? Well. What is the story there? Yeah, I don't know because I don't understand sort of the general Phi P, right? So, I mean, somehow. The basic ingredient was the dependent space to woman DX, and it was X1. That's right, yeah, yeah. So that was the basic ingredient to get you on. Yeah, so then I have to see what these churn classes do as it moves over to the other side. So the ordinary case was just as in X. Ah, I see, I see. Andrew Francois suggested, and I think this is another promising, it may work, to prove it using Arthur's theorem on super, to form to the super singular K3s.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we shall discuss the following question and the question says that Ben measured the height of building as 215 feet by using trigonometric results. The actual height of building is 224 feet. Find the percent error in Ben's measurement. Give your answer to nearest tenth of percent. We know that percent error is equal to modulus of approximate value minus exact value upon exact value into 100%. With this key idea let us proceed to the solution. In this question we are given that the approximate height of the building calculated by Ben is equal to 215 feet and the exact height or we can say the actual height of the building is given as 224 feet. So here we are given approximate height of the building equal to 215 feet and the exact height or actual height of the building is given as 224 feet and we need to find the percent error in Ben's measurement. Percent error is given by modulus of approximate value minus exact value divided by exact value into 100%. So percent error will be given by modulus of the approximated value that is 215 minus of the exact value which is equal to 224 divided by the exact value that is 224 into 100%. Which is equal to modulus of 215 minus 224 will be equal to modulus of minus 9 upon 224 into 100%. Which is equal to modulus of minus 9 is 9 upon 224 into 100% and this is equal to 9 into 100 that is 900 by 224% which on further solving gives us 4.01%. That is we get 4.01 by dividing 900 by 224. So we get 4.01% as the percent error and by rounding it to nearest tenth of percent we get 4.0%. Thus we can say the percent error is given by 4% which is the required answer. This completes our session. Hope you enjoyed this session.


Hey everyone, before we jump into this video, I wanna remind you we do have a small giveaway going on right now for the Mythic Edition of the Satisfy Grip for Nintendo Switch. You can see I've got one on my Switch right here. Looks pretty cool. The enter just go down to the pinned comment or the link in the description. The only requirement is that I just ask you to be subscribed to the channel. I think that's always, you know, a fair ask because we try to give back to our community that we hope that you wanna join. So thank you guys so much. Let's get right into the video. So I sometimes wonder how to start a video. How do I have an open and honest conversation with you guys about something that's just, it's not really a big deal, but it is frustrating. And it's just, I guess part of being on the internet is you're gonna see people of all types saying all sorts of things. And today we gotta talk about some Zelda stuff that triggered me a few days ago. I've actually been sitting on it for a couple of days because I don't like to do immediate responses to things when I get triggered because I might say things or it might end up being just as bad as the people who said it, you know, think before you speak, right? I think this is a lesson many of us can learn, especially on the internet when we're so instant reactionary that sometimes we need to think before we speak. And that includes myself. And so I wanted to think on this before I said anything. Now, the other day we did a video and I'll show you guys the video here that is on my computer decides to work here. We did a video here titled, you know, Massive News About the Future of the Zelda Series. And in here is a segment right around this here where it talks about the future of Zelda. And basically people got really, really upset or some people, let's just say, there's 291 comments on this video. There's a lot of people upset at the statement here and the statement reads as follows, the last two Zelda games are very different. Old fans sometimes say they prefer a classic old fashioned Zelda. Would you like to do that again? And again, this is an interview I believe that was done in the Netherlands. And Aonuma said this, it's hard to say anything about the future. That said, thanks to previous Zelda's, a game like Tears of the Kingdom now exists. This game was born from the ideas we had in the past. We have always tried to make something that offers more than previous productions. In that respect, we are not really concerned with our old games anymore. We prefer to focus on the future. And the big thing when talking about this is it upset a lot of people because Aonuma's basically saying we're not gonna make games in the old style anymore. We don't care to look back and look at the old style games and make those kind of Zelda games anymore. We care about what we're doing now with Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom and then whatever game they're already working on. Because as we know Fuji Bashi already put out there that he has ideas for the next Zelda game. So what's interesting is people got really upset because there are a number of hardcore Zelda fans that have been with this series for decades that really don't like Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom or don't like them anywhere close to the level. They like Ocarina of Time, Majora's Match, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, Link Between Worlds, Minish Cap, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, Spirit Tracks. The traditional style games with the formula that was set up with a link to the past back in the 90s. And there are people that love that formula so much, the dungeon items and dungeon keys and the more linear story paths and all this stuff that they don't want Zelda to keep going forward with nothing but open world games. They got nothing against open world games but they had always hoped that hey, they would at least revisit top-down Zelda in a more traditional style or maybe between releasing open world games. They could give us these old school traditional games. And while they are giving us remakes and remasters of those old games, they're not giving us new. If you think about it, we haven't had a traditional Zelda game. Let's say a top-down Zelda game isn't gonna happen. We haven't had one of those since Triforce Heroes in 2015 and you can go on to argue that's not a traditional Zelda game. I hear you, because it's multiplayer. That means the last traditional Zelda game was a link between worlds in 2013. Yeah, folks, it's been a decade since we had a traditional Zelda game. And then you wanna go back even further, you wanna double just the 3D games and when we all know back in 2011, that's the last time we had a traditional 3D Zelda game drop in Skyward Sword. So yeah, it's been a long time since we've had a traditional Zelda game. And Aonuma is basically saying we're not really concerned with our old games anymore. We wanna focus on the future, meaning they're not looking to their old games to do that formula anymore. This is Aonuma's own words and a lot of people are upset about it, but it's your right to be upset. I don't mind that people are upset about it. I think that it's totally fair to be mad about this sort of stuff because you're not getting what you want. But some people go a little too far, right? It's one thing to be shocked the Zelda team won't be revisiting that old style outside of remakes and remasters, but it's another to think, Aonuma, Fuji Bayashi, they should be fired. And there are actual comments that pretty much say that. Let's get to one. And again, I don't wanna show these comments on screen. I don't want people going to seek them out. I don't want people to go attack these. I'm not into the internet attack culture. So you can take my word for it. These comments are easily found through various methods and videos and social media platforms. But again, I don't want people attacking them. Let's just get to what it says. Get rid of the producer, please. So he's saying get rid of A.G. Aonuma. We need 2D Zelda back. I don't wanna wait four to seven years for a new game. Get them out of the office, please, please. So get rid of the guy who leads Zelda. Another comment. This is disgusting and disappointing. Get rid of the producer and the director now. Another comment. Get rid of the producer and the director right now. This is wrong. They do not care about old games. They do not care about us hardcore fans. The sad thing is these comments have a dozen likes. So while it might be one person, two person, three people saying this, there are a contingent of fans that feel this way. That want A.G. Aonuma gone. They want Fuji Bayashi gone. And they think getting new people in is gonna change the direction of Zelda. This is frustrating to me for a number of reasons. Primarily it's just that not getting what you want doesn't mean you should go so far as asking for people's jobs.  Their Zelda team just made back to back Zelda games that have sold over 20 million copies. To put this in perspective, if Tears of the Kingdom is around 20 million, we know that Breath of the Wild's over 30 million. That's 50 million copies sold between two games. If you look at the entire history of the Zelda franchise, those two games nearly doubled the sales of the entire franchise. Nintendo is a business. They are a for-profit corporation. They, I think as fans, we sometimes feel like, no, they're just care about their fans and they love us and they cater to it. No, they cater to their pocketbooks. Why do you think we don't get F-Zero right now? They don't think it's profitable enough. Why do you think we keep getting Kirby because it's so cheap to make that it is super profitable for what it is? Why do you think they're giving us a side-scrolling Mario again? Looks awesome, but they also think it's going to sell a lot. Nintendo likes making money. They just came off two Zelda games that not only are like the Game of the Years, right? We know that Breath of the Wild is Game of the Year and it looks like Tears of the Kingdom is gonna be Game of the Year as well. I know we don't know for sure yet. Starfield sells to come out, Spider-Man 2, et cetera, but I will say this. Tears of the Kingdom right now has more perfect scores on Metacritic than any game in the history of video games. Yeah, that's sort of big news on its own and was originally gonna be my topic for today's video, but you know what? People are tired of, oh, you know, let's just talk about that little nugget. No, no, no, no. I'm tired of attitudes like this. Look, I like old-school Zelda games and I was hoping that we would at least get top-down style old-school Zelda games. If you've been a longtime follower of my channel, you know I've said this ad nauseum fine, do these giant open-world Zelda games that are my favorite and give us top-down Zelda games in between and I'm good. So I'm an advocate for using that old-school formula, at least for top-down. Some of you guys wanted to just come back in general for 3D games as well, but my thing about all of this is you're not entitled to what you want. This is something the internet culture has made us forget. There is a sense of entitlement that if we don't get what we want, we can whine and complain and yell and scream until we do. But that's not the way the world works, at least not the way the world should work.  Also, maybe Zelda's just no longer for you. And that's okay. We all grow up. We all grow out of things and sometimes things go in directions that we're not fans of. And so you stop playing it. World of Warcraft has changed directions 10,000 times and that's why its user base is only a fraction of what it used to be. But here's the difference with Zelda. Instead of Zelda going in all these radically different directions that fracture the fan base and this Zelda's bigger than ever, they clearly made a decision with Zelda. Starting with Breath of the Wild, continuing with Tears of the Kingdom, continuing with the next Zelda game that has made Zelda bigger and more popular than it's ever been. If they lose a couple million fans along the way while they're selling 20, 30, 40 million copies of a game, yeah, they're not going to care. They don't care about you. They care about maximizing sales. And guess what? Zelda is bigger today than it's ever been in the history of the franchise. Why would they go back? Oh, well, those other Zelda games still sell well. Yeah, to you. Oh, they remade Link's Awakening. It sold four million. That did pretty well. To you. To you, that's pretty well. Oh, four million. To Nintendo, they go 30 million, four million. That's a pretty big gap. We're going to stick with the 30 million. They're going to stick with the 10 million in three days, Tears of the Kingdom. They're not going to go, yeah, four million's okay for Zelda now. No, four million was okay for Zelda back in the day. Four million ain't okay to them anymore. Their targets and projections for Zelda are way larger. Now, Link's Awakening at four million, they might consider okay because it was a remake. A remaster, whatever you want to call it. It wasn't brand new. So it didn't take as much work. It was pretty cheap to do. So yeah, four million might have been okay to Nintendo. And that's probably why we still got Skyward Sword HD, which also did around four million. And that's why we're going to continue to get remakes and remasters because they're cheap and they don't need to sell as much. But when it comes to investing in a brand new Zelda game, yeah, they're not aiming for four million anymore. They're aiming for 20 million plus. That is their goal with Zelda moving forward. And they ain't getting there by going back to the old formula. Now, this doesn't mean that they can't grab stuff from the old games and bring them into the new games. Sure.  We want to look forward. So they don't really want to look back at those old games and get inspiration from them. They just want to come up with new and fresh ideas. And that's fair. You got to keep Zelda new. You got to keep it fresh. And in this open world, one of the comments that bugged me the most wasn't even talking about getting rid of Alnuma and getting rid of Fujiwashi at the height of Zelda. Makes no sense. Well, the comment that frustrated me the most was when they said, you know, Zelda, the number of comments that there was, Zelda got into the open world game late and open worlds already getting old and stale. And, you know, we can already see a decline. Where? Game of the year last year was Elden Ring and it outsold every single game that studio has ever produced. So open worlds old and stale. Tears of the Kingdom, another open world game, took place in the same damn Hyrule as the prior one. 10 million sales, a record number in three days. Where is it that open world games are getting stale? Grand Theft Auto V is one of the greatest selling games of all time. It sold almost 100 million copies. Where are we getting this that open world games are growing stale? No, what's growing stale is everyone chasing the open world game. Because for all of these mega successes like the Zeldas and the Grand Theft Autos and the Witcher 3 and all this stuff, there's a number Elden Ring, right? There's a number of other games that have chased the open world but don't do a very good job. And because they don't do a very good job, they don't sell well or they let people down and they disappoint. Cyberpunk 2077 disappointing at launch although it's actually a solid game. The point is there's been a number of disappointments that make people go, oh, open world, we're tired of it. No, you're not. Don't lie to yourself. When a great open world game comes out like Red Dead Redemption 2 or Grand Theft Auto 6 or Elder Scrolls 6, when those games come out and they're fantastic and amazing and when Starfield drops it and if it has really good reviews, it's going to do numbers. Why?  They're sick of the bad open world games because people chase trends and when you chase trends, you end up with a number of really, really bad games. You also end up with a number of pretty good games. There was the, you guys remember when people were chasing all these, I forget what they call them, you know, the fortnights of the world, the PUBGs and so people got really mad that everyone was trying to be like PUBG. Well, Fortnite did a good job and guess what? Call of Duty Warzone did a pretty good job at it as well. There's a number of up for every Call of Duty and for Warzone for every Fortnite. There's also like a dozen games that bombed at it. But, but some did it really, really well and when people get it right, people are happy. It's the bombing at it that we're upset at. So for me personally, when I see things like calling for the head of a, you know, not really, you don't want, I don't think anyone's asking them to die. They just don't want them to be part of the Zelda anymore. They want them to be fired. I just find it to be infuriating because it's taking our personal desires and like injecting them into this industry that everything must cater to us. No, you need to accept it's okay just to move on because Zelda is gonna keep being what it is today. Why? Because it sells. It wins game of the year and it sells. It gets 10 out of 10s and it sells. There's no reason for them to go backwards right now. As much as I love those older Zelda games, it would be a horrendous business decision to go backwards. Yes, remakes and remasters. Good. Brand new Zelda games. Yeah, they're aiming for a different sales to you now and you might go, well, well, well, well, well, who they can sell the smaller team and sit there and work on top downs, they could. But then that takes away from the larger team, which means it takes even longer for the games that actually sell like record numbers to come out. They'd rather have all hands on deck on that. They'd rather do that than worry about having a smaller team working. Well, Grezzo could, I agree. I thought Grezzo might be the team to make top-down Zeldas. Apparently Anuma disagrees. He just doesn't wanna go backwards. He's got no interest in going backwards. And that's fine. This is what Zelda is now. Breath of the Wild, tears of the kingdom. Love it, hate it. It's what Zelda's gonna be. It keeps selling.  That's their problem, not ours. This was true in the old Zelda formula too. Well, in the old Zelda formula, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me. Yeah, they had to come up with new and fresh ideas in that formula too. They couldn't just repeat the same thing every single game and get away with it. They had to come up with, why do you think the art style was always changing? Why do you think the setting was always changing? Why do you think that the dungeon items were always changing all the time? Why do you think the bosses were different every time? Why do you think the story was different every time? Why do you think sometimes Ganondorf wasn't even the final boss every time? Like, they had to do new and fresh different ideas with the old formula too. So this isn't even a new concept. Like, whatever formula a game takes, you need new and fresh ideas every time. So yeah, the next open world Zelda game needs new and fresh ideas. Duh. Oh, it's just fresh looking. So look, I want to just end this by saying this. I realize that these comments don't represent even close to a majority of Zelda fans. Maybe, you know, a higher contingency that aren't happy with Aonuma's comments. You know, you can maybe say there's like a 5% of the Zelda fan base that maybe is really upset that this is the future of Zelda. But then you have like that even smaller percentage that wants Aonuma and stuff gone and even smaller percentage of that that thinks that everything is just trashed today from Zelda. I get it. This does not represent a majority of the Zelda fan base. So I know the title might feel like I'm calling out more people than I actually am because most of you guys are just fine and lovely people, but as a Zelda fan, it's just frustrating seeing these comments. And you know what? I got triggered a couple of days ago. I'm good now. Happy Fourth of July. And you know what? I'll catch you guys tomorrow because we won't be live streaming tonight. I'm doing some things with some friends for the Fourth of July slash my birthday. Tomorrow's my birthday. Don't give me, don't say happy birthday. Don't, no, tomorrow. Tomorrow's when you say happy birthday. We'll actually have a birthday live stream. Anyways guys, catch you guys in the next video.


Hi everyone. Hello, hello. Welcome once again. I'm Peter. I'm going to be your host for this all day movie workshop. And here in Mexico, we thought we could possibly have a hurricane coming, but now it seems to have disappeared for now. And if it does come back, we'll have the monastery as a backup. So no matter what, we'll have our all day movie workshop. Today, I'll just let you know how we're going to flow. So we're going to start with David and the movie. Afterwards, we'll have a 10 minute break in our breakout rooms, where we can share whatever came up for us during the movie. And then we'll have a longer 45 minute break, followed by our closing session, where we can have more of a one on one experience. So with that, I'll pass it over to you now, David. Thank you. Thank you, Pete. Welcome, everyone. Welcome to another Saturday movie gathering. We have a really good one. It seems like we always get blessed with these amazing movies. Absolutely amazing. And this one, of course, came through the prayers of you praying and submitting the themes that you would like to have addressed and to come into a living experience of the theme in your heart, which is the joy of living, of the joy of having the spirit come through you and feeling so connected and so content and so relaxed and so joyful. That's it. That's why we come together, just for that and nothing more. So it's beautiful and it's very, very simple. So the poll that you gave, the combined poll of English, Spanish, and our tribe contributors now, we have a triple stream coming into the combined poll and giving us what it is that we really want to focus on for this week. So in the combined poll coming in, number one, was living spontaneously and without a future. Just think how joyful that is, living spontaneously and without a future. We're talking Akuna Matata. No cares, no worries for the rest of your life. Akuna Matata. I mean really, really in that state of mind where you have such trust that you can really embrace the present moment. Now with the Disney Lion King, Akuna Matata, they ate bugs and we don't necessarily advocate that you have to take a diet of bugs to go for Akuna Matata, but we are saying that the present moment offers you everything that you could ever want or ever need. It's all right here right now. So that's our first theme, living spontaneously and without a future. That had 83 votes. That's by far the top theme. So we had to come up with really a movie that shows and demonstrates living spontaneously and without a future. Then second was releasing the need for validation or approval. Again, how freeing, if you didn't have that voice in your mind wondering what other people will think, will they approve? Will they like me? Will I still be loved and accepted if I do what I feel called to do? It's releasing, people pleasing basically is releasing the need for validation and or approval. And that really is releasing the self concept of the past because it's only the past that has taught us we have to earn respect. We have to earn the love. We have to earn the honesty. We don't have to earn anything. Christ is a gift from God and everything was given in our creation. So we don't have to earn it or somehow develop it. It's a given, but we do have to accept it. We have to accept it. We have to accept ourselves as God created us. That's the key point. The third one is undoing the doer by being done through. So this is a conflict for many that are on the spiritual journey. They feel like they transfer this obsession with doing, this obsession with being productive, this obsession with earning their way and proving their worth and demonstrating that they are enough. It's an obsession, but the ego invented the body, which is the doer, and then as soon as you believe that you are the body, it obsessively hammers the mind with guilt. Have I done enough? Did I do what I should have done? Was my behavior appropriate or not? Was I a good enough doer as a father, as a mother, as a citizen, as a daughter or a son? Was I a good enough doer? And this theme is saying undoing the doer by being done through, letting the spirit come through so graciously, so effortlessly, so simply that you become identified with the purpose of forgiveness with the spirit. And this third theme reminds me of a quote from Jesus in A Course in Miracles where he says, it cannot be difficult to do the task that Christ appointed for you for it is he who does it. In other words, Christ upon invitation will do all things through you. And even Jesus said, you know, greater things than I will you do, meaning the Holy Spirit's going to light up your mind and the things that I seem to do 2,000 years ago are going to be just a wisp of a memory as you experience being done through by spirit. And you experience more of what we'll call an involuntary life.  You just enjoy what comes from being surrendered over to the spirit. Do it through me, speak through me, love through me, laugh through me, smile through me, hug through me. Let you be the one that inspires the use of this puppet, which we call the body. In the Bible it was said it is not I that live but Christ that lives in me, meaning if I'm under Christ control, then my worries are over. If I'm under egoic control, if I think I personally have to run the show or figure things out or be the one that does the things required for salvation, you'll feel pressure, stress, expectations, you'll feel heavy. But if you are not the one in terms of the person who's responsible for saving the world, thank good it's a presence of love that's in your heart that's going to save the world, not you as a person. You don't have to worry, you're off the hook. It's not like you're being called as a personal savior, but you do have a part to play and that part is your special function and that will be given to you moment by moment. It's just again, living spontaneously in the moment without a future. Then forgiveness is the key to happiness and we're not talking about necessarily forgiving a person, we're talking about being able to just see the false is false. In this movie today, our main character, he comes out of India and he comes out of the, we'll say the Hindu tradition and his holy scripture was not the Bible. It wasn't a course in miracles. It was the Bhagavad Gita and the ancient Vedic teachings from India. What's so great about the ancient Vedic teachings they're non-dual. Anytime you get your non-dual teachings, I don't care if it comes through in China, in India, or through a modern day scripture like A Course in Miracles, which is extremely non-dual, that is coming and bringing your mind into the focus and alignment with God is one. With reality is one. Spirit is singular. The soul is singular. Everything that comes back to oneness, pure divine love and oneness is non-duality. As they say, neti neti in the east, not this, not that. And non-duality is basically is teaching us that that reality is not two, reality is one. Even though our five senses show us a multiplicity and a dualistic world of up and down and hot and cold and fast and slow and male and female and masculine and feminine, everything we perceive through the five senses is dualistic until we forgive. And that's why forgiveness is the key to happiness. There is a way of looking on this world where the body's eyes continue to report differences, but the healed mind has put them all into one category. They are not real. Oh, that's non-dual. There's your non-dual happiness. And then the ego says, oh, yeah, you're not going to survive if you go in that direction. Oh, you'll do more than survive. You'll be in the sweet grace of my, my sweet Lord. Hallelujah.  We're going to go with George again. George seems to be breaking into all of our movies. George, George, I feel you with us now. Every time we have a celebration movie, George is there, George Harrison. And what a heart. One of these days I'm going to show, I'm going to have to do it over two Saturdays though, because I've got a documentary on George Harrison called Living in a Material World. No, it's not the Madonna song, Material Girl. They know it's George Harrison living in a material world, but it's so big. I think it's three hours and 47 minutes. So I have to show it on two Saturdays. We have to do a double header, a double version first and second, but George is coming in again today. George always comes shining in to bring the love, to bring the happiness, to bring the truth. And last one is trusting in mighty companions. Many of us have believed that, that the journey to God is a lonely journey all by myself. Don't want to be, yet we do want to be all by ourselves. We want to be with our, our divine self and not a lonely body wandering in time and space, lost in space. We want to know the truth. We want to know the joy. We want to know the happiness of our eternal moment that goes on forever and ever and ever. So trusting in mighty companions means just having the willingness to be done through and to let the spirit direct our relationships. We're going to see the main character is a Swami who's going to come from India to the United States up to the New England area. He's going to come to New York City like Paramahansa Yogananda did. Paramahansa Yogananda one day woke up and he had this, this strong feeling inside that his guru was telling him he needed to go west and he needed to go to America. It's the same with our, our Swami today. He's going to wake up but unlike Paramahansa who was, who was still a fairly much of a young man, our gentleman today, he's going to, he's going to wake up and he's 70 years old, 70 years old and he's going to hear that he's to come to New York City from Calcutta and he doesn't have any money. That makes for a very fun ride.  That is how the spirit really opens your heart wide when you are taken way beyond your expectation, beyond your imagination, beyond what you would consider the safe probabilities of how your life could go. Whoa, that is on another level and in one sense this is going to show us, the Swami will show us that age is not an excuse. If, if this man can follow the spirit at 70 years old and is penniless, then we, none of us have an excuse. We are, we have absolutely no excuse. If he can, if he can give his self over to the Lord, which for him is in his context growing up in, in great traditions of India, this is Lord Krishna and Jesus and Lord Krishna are, they're really good friends because they're one. I've had people, I started putting some, some George Harrison things and posting a few things over the years, the music, my sweet Lord and, and all about peace and everything like this. And then somebody made a comment on one of my YouTube's David, the Beatles had a different Lord than Lord Jesus. And I was like, Oh my God, here we go again. Who is Lord? Well, we actually know that the Lord is one. In case we're concerned, if it's the right Lord, there's only one Lord and the Lord is the Lord of life. And there are many pathways to God and Christianity is one of them. And there are many, many others. And yet God is one. So the many paths disappear in the experience of the one. The one has always been the one. The one is not many. The one is one. Guess who invented multiplicity? Guess who invented diversity? Guess who invented duality? It's called ego. Edging God out. It's called ego, death wish ego. Multiplicity and diversity and duality are not coming from the love of eternal life, the heavens. The Lord is one. I just, when I saw that quote or that little post that somebody made a comment saying the Beatles were not following the same Lord, I just was like, Oh my God, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. What's the problem with one Lord? Why is everybody getting all hung up about different Lords? So I actually, I did the same thing the Beatles did at some point. The Beatles decided to go to India and they went to Rishikesh, this little tiny little village up there kind of north, north of Delhi, northeast of Delhi. And the Beatles went to Rishikesh and they met with a guru and I went to Rishikesh. I actually got to, yeah, I got to meet with some gurus. There was a woman who just came to where I was staying and she took my hand and she led me into an ashram in India. And I got to meet the gurus and I got to go down by the Ganges River and be with all the parties and celebrations and bright colors and chanting was fun. It's fun. Let's not be too stuffy with our course in miracles. Let's realize that we're all the same one. We're all the same one. It's a big celebration. And I had a wonderful time. I actually gave us very small satsang. I gave a satsang and I wasn't very well known in Rishikesh. So two people came to my satsang and a monkey and the monkey sitting in the window. And the monkey stayed there and listened to me the whole time. I probably talked for two or two and a half hours. That monkey was going nowhere. He was very attentive to the love I was extending. But we have to remember we're all the same one. That's the teachings of a course in miracles. That's the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita. That's the teaching of the ancient Vedas. We are the same one. We are the same self. We've always been. We're not buying this trick of differences anymore. We are the same, not separate. We are the same, not divided. Sameness is real. Differences are insane. When you heal, when you forgive, you realize that differences do not matter and they were never real. Not even for an instant are differences real. And that's where the happiness comes in. So are our swamis coming across from Calcutta? He's going to come to New York City. He has to be there and face winter time. He's never seen snow before. He doesn't have any money. He's come all the way on a cargo ship across from India.  And he's just trusting in divine providence. He's following the present moment. He's following his inspiration. He's following what he was meant to do for the Lord of Life. He is a follower of the Lord of Life and he is a devoted follower of the Lord of Life. He has much to teach us all about devotion. He is devoted. He doesn't waste time. That's what I know about. I really like about this movie is he just doesn't waste time. He's so in the moment and he's so fully in the moment that he's so fully in the service of the one that it never really occurs to him to struggle about what should I do because he is done through. What is so good about that is because he's happy. He is really happy and happiness is the best teacher. If you're going to learn from a teacher, learn from happiness. Don't settle for less than happiness. Why would you want to learn from something other than happiness? And I'm talking happiness based on a present moment contentness. I'm not talking happiness based on outcomes in this world. That won't ever work. This is just from a very simple, pure, inner happiness that is radiated out. The other thing is he doesn't seem to have a dichotomy between work and leisure. Some people say this guy seems like he's working all the time. I think he's always in leisure. He's smiling so much that I think he's just tapped into the present moment leisure of being carried by the spirit. He's carried. He's not got to care or worry. If you ask him, he'd say, oh, well, yeah, I've gone through some struggles in my life. The other thing I like about this Swami is his conditioning. I'm always talking about how we have to undo ego conditioning. We have to undo all this programming, ego programming. The course is saying this course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love. For that is far beyond what could be taught. It aims at removing the obstacles to the awareness of love's presence. And that's, I would just say, that's unwinding from all this past conditioning. Well, let's take a look at our Swami. Back in 1920, we'll see a photo of our Swami with nice big black mustache in 1920. Handsome young man back in 1920. And as we hear him talk, we're going to hear him talk about his father. And what he has to say about his father is his father did not want him to use his life making money. What? What? His father did not want him to use his life making money. Well, there's a different direction than most of us faced with our programming. Imagine having a father whose one wish for you is to live your life devoted to God. That's it. What about expectations about education? What about career? What about making money? No, no, no. Nada, nada, nada. Well, well, now we start to see how he can travel to New York City without a penny at 70 years old.  He had a father who did not want his son devoted to making money. He wanted the son devoted to God. And wow, he got one. The other thing is that you can relate to him in the sense that as he goes through his life, he does get married and he does have a child. So this guy is you can relate to him. He is a father like that, which maybe we'll say he's got a real good booster start with a father like that. He's not undoing the whole idea of what should I do for a living. It's not there. The seed was never planted. Whoa, that comes from a lot of Indian tradition, too. This is not so unusual to have a father like that. Second of all, he has a teacher. He has a guru and the guru is telling him about love. The guru is telling him about happiness. And in Indian culture, you have lineage. So the guru had a guru, had a guru, had a guru. His guru has a lineage of 5,000 years. Whoa, that is deep. His guru is teaching him based on a lineage. And it's just a concept of time. But I mean, that's a pretty strong symbol. It's been passed on from teacher to teacher and teacher for 5,000 years. And that's right. The Vedas go back a long, long way. This is a powerful, non-dual teaching. At Veda, Vedanta, not too. That's the teachings of the lineage that this guru comes from. Not too. Wow. A 5,000-year lineage of not too. And so let's take a look now at our young swami. He's got a guru who's got a 5,000-year lineage of not too, non-duality.  You should devote your life to God. Well, there you go. That's the roots of this smile. You're going to see a smile. That's what's underneath the smile. It's not necessarily education. It's not necessarily wealth. It's not necessarily a cushy, cushy life of convenience. There's a 5,000-year tradition of gurus and a father who said, don't use your life to make money. That's what's behind that smile. That smile is not there by accident. So we're gifted here is we're going to get to watch a movie about this guy and what happens when he lands in New York City without a penny. Whoa, teaching time. And I can give you one little clue is if you're going to teach, it's best to teach with something that's practical. I find that non-dual scriptures are extremely practical. I find that singing is extremely practical. I find that dancing is extremely practical. What happens when you put together a teaching demonstration that involves non-dual scriptures and singing and dancing? And then you throw in the Beatles and you throw in George Harrison on top of that. Oh my goodness. You've got a perfect storm ruined there. Non-dual scriptures, singing, dancing, and George Harrison recording a song that points to you. Whoa, watch how this is the spirit doing it all. The spirit is going to light the place up. What is he lighting up? I'm talking about Planet Earth. He's going to light up Planet Earth with a seven-year-old man who's penniless, who takes a cargo ship across the ocean to New York City. And he's not even received in New York City. There's nobody waiting for him. There's nobody waiting for him. He's going in blind, which is a good thing too because you don't need to know what your future would be because all we have is the present moment. And that's all he has. That's all he has is the present moment, even with the symbols of the 5,000-year teachings of non-duality and his guru. Still, you can't carry those in your pocket. Those are just things that are buried in your heart that are just a desire to serve the Lord. So in this case, it's going to be Lord Krishna. Now, when I was in Rishikesh, I like that I went around to the different places and I got to see all the statues and I like it. I like it because I finally got to meet the statue of Lord Krishna and it's not every day you get to meet a blue man.  You're not going to find many blue saints. And that really, that was exciting. And I thought, well, but now even more than the blue Krishna, now you're going to get to see the smile of the face of someone who cares, of someone who who extends love to everyone around him, who brings a blessing wherever he goes, who has people that are excited to meet with him every day because they don't know what he's going to say or do. He's so in the present moment. That's exciting when you meet somebody and you don't know what they're going to do, but you know how they feel. You know the love that comes from them. You know the love that emanates from them. And that is what draws you. You're not being drawn to some kind of a program, future program. You're not being drawn to some future hope. You're being drawn to the present moment from the presence of the Lord. And it seems to be coming through this. Most people would say it elderly man, elderly man. So what a ride. What a ride we have today. What an exciting ride. We're going to let the Holy Spirit and Jesus show us the way through a parable that I'm so grateful it was recorded. I'm so grateful it was recorded. I feel like we're honored to be able to come across movies where we actually can see a living demonstration. And we love our movies. We love to have the Spirit show us through the commentary that we all are the same one. Metaphysically, but every once in a while we have a demonstration that comes along and we're just honored to be able to behold that demonstration because it's a witness to our own mind. It's a witness to our own heart. It's what we want in our heart of hearts. And when we see a demonstration of it, then we go, wow, yeah, that's it. That's it. That's it. In a world of distractions, in a world of fragments, in a world of multiple images, we need a witness of that simple, pure unity. We need a witness of that because it reminds us of our pure, simple unity. That's why we need it. We need it to be reminded. And that's the Holy Spirit coming through, in this case, a tradition of Swami from the East. So sit back, enjoy this beautiful witness, and I will pop in during the movie for different times to maybe join and point out a few things, bring in a few more ideas from the Holy Spirit and Jesus, but just really savor this. This is another one of the