Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 01
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
The first session revolves around the introduction to the profound teachings of Buddhism, emphasizing the significant role of texts like the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā.
Description
Session 1 revolves around the introduction to the profound teachings of Buddhism, emphasizing the significant role of texts like the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. It addresses the relevance of diverse translations and their contribution to understanding Buddhist thought. Throughout the lecture, the interconnectedness of all phenomena via the principle of dependent origination is explored, challenging attendees’ perceptions of reality. The lecture highlights the Buddha’s wisdom, interconnectedness in both external and internal worlds, and the nuanced teachings of Nāgārjuna. By engaging with these concepts, participants are encouraged to reflect on their beliefs and biases, especially concerning the nature of the self, leading to a deeper comprehension of existence and causality.
Related Course Info
- Root of the Middle Way – Mūlamadhyamakakārikā A course on Nagarjuna’s brilliantly sharp reasoning, taught by Dr. Thomas Doctor at the Rangjung Yeshe Institute over a month. For everyone with an interest in the way things really are.
Video
Audio
Welcome everybody to this series
of explorations and contemplations.
I'm looking forward to exploring and contemplating together.
I thought that we could try to approach this class
as an exercise in awareness of dependent origination,
and so see how organically and dynamically that can transpire and what we can learn together
in this way by contemplating the profound "Verses of The Root of The Middle Way."
So this is Buddhist philosophy of the most classic
form possible. I think we can safely say, no?
Nāgārjuna certainly has a claim to being
Buddhism's most renowned philosopher.
There are many, of course, but that's a good case for saying that if you have to
pick one, it would be Nāgārjuna-- the most influential philosopher.
And Nāgārjuna is known also in the tradition that we are
particularly informed by here in this region and at this institute.
In that tradition, Nāgārjuna is considered a charioteer, someone who was able to open
a path to the wisdom of the perfection of insight, the Prajñāpāramitā, independently.
Meaning by the power, his own power of insight and intelligence, enabled him to deliver the intent
of the profound Prajñāpāramitā teachings in a way that is accessible for human beings like us.
In particular, a path to the profound insight, which is non-conceptual and beyond
all constructs, which nonetheless relies on constructs in a very skillful fashion,
that encourages us to be critical and use our capacity for
critical thinking, reasoning to the very best, to our very best.
So, I think we can say that that is one of the real highlights of Nāgārjuna's profound approach
is that he is able to deliver a way of going about things rationally,
by means of logic and analysis, in a way that allows ourselves
to question profoundly our own most deepest convictions.
So through Nāgārjuna's skillful approach, we are able to ask ourselves
questions, that perhaps we would otherwise never be able to formulate.
Not to mention really pursue those questions, but even just
they wouldn't occur to us, that something of this sort could be questioned.
So Nāgārjuna invites us to, in this way, follow him on a journey to insight,
that very much is about looking at ourselves: at our own beliefs, at our own core beliefs,
and then questioning how well founded those core beliefs really are.
So in other words this is a journey that takes us into
emptiness and dependent origination.
And that teaching of emptiness and dependent origination is,
we can say, the hallmark of the Buddha's teaching.
That's also what we will see in the homage that Nāgārjuna pays
to the teacher, the teacher of teachers, the king of teachers, the Buddha.
at the beginning of the treatise, he praises the Buddha as
this perfect teacher, because of being able to show emptiness and dependent origination.
It's a great challenge, of course, to try to facilitate
that kind of contemplation in a genuine fashion.
Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche has nonetheless asked me to do this,
and I'm also happy to do it because it is a very rewarding,
tremendously rewarding exercise that we can do together and
use each other as witnesses and real partners and helpers
in this process of coming to, hopefully,
increasingly profound insight into emptiness and dependent origination.
So Rinpoche just yesterday, I think it was, said something
to the effect that, the Buddha's teaching is characterized by these four seals, right?
Those four summaries of the Buddhahdharma.
That are that all conditioned things are impermanent,
everything involved, associated with negative emotions is painful.
All factors, all phenomena, all things are empty and devoid of self.
And finally, passing beyond suffering is peaceful liberation.
So, of those, Rinpoche said, the first of those,
that all conditioned things, meaning everything that is
the product of causes and conditions, is also impermanent.
Or just the fact of impermanence, the impermanence of things,
that whatever was built will have to fall,
that whatever meeting took place will have to disperse,
that birth ends in death. Those facts of impermanence are not unknown to us.
It's something that we know, and it's also something that
is quite widely acknowledged in the world's religions.
So it's a hallmark of, this is a key content of the Buddha's teachings.
It's something that always has to be there
in the context of any aspect of Buddhist teachings.
It has to fit with this message. But at the same time,
it's also something that is quite well known in the world.
Perhaps we don't spend all that much time thinking about impermanence
and just how impermanent things are, but it's not that we aren't aware
of this. We are, and we have been for as long as we can remember.
So how about the next of the four maxims,
that everything associated with negative emotions is painful?
So Rinpoche said that's also not uniquely Buddhist
to say that, to say that craving, aggression and ignorance,
close-mindedness, that those are not factors for good. It's not that this
will make us happy, but that there's a clear link with suffering there.
It's also something that we know from experience and the way
we think also acknowledges this, even if we aren't Buddhist.
It's something that the world's religions too acknowledge. It's not
as such uniquely Buddhist to say that these negative emotions are,
and what is associated with those is also painful, or suffering, or stress,
whichever way we may try to translate the term 'Dukkha' in Pali, Sanskrit.
So where do these negative emotions come from? That's perhaps not so clear to us.
But the fact that they have this association with suffering is quite well known.
But then Rinpoche said emptiness and no-self, that is not
something that is very well acknowledged, very widely acknowledged.
It's not something that we can say we know probably from experience
already, and it's not something that we can say that we understand already,
unless we are already steeped in this kind of
process of learning, reflecting and meditating.
And it's not something that is very widely acknowledged in
the world's religions, philosophical systems and so on either.
In fact it seems in many ways contrary to what we are used to thinking,
and it seems contrary to the way we experience things.
Right? I very naturally believe that I am here in a situation together with you.
It is so obvious to me that this is the case that really
I wouldn't question it under normal circumstances.
I would just be here and there would be tons of questions that I could
ask about this event and myself and you and what's going on here.
Many, many questions could be asked, but that
very question would probably not come up.
Am I here?
It's a dumb question, no?
And if it is asked, then also typically we can think a little bit
about that, as we approach the treatise that we will be studying here.
Just asking a question like that, no? We can ask ourselves
that question, how does it feel to suddenly ask ourselves
Am I here? Or who am I to be here?
How does that feel? How easy or not does such a question come to us?
And then also think, what might the reaction be, if we bring
up a question like that among others in different contexts.
At home with the family, what would happen, if suddenly
at the breakfast table I tell to my family: "Am I here?"
What would happen at the workplace, if I say that?
Either in some sort of work situation or in the break, whatever.
With my friends, what will happen if I asked these questons?
Is there a kind of place where this question would fit in?
Is there some kind of group that I know, where this
question would be like at least an okay question to ask?
Because I think in many of these cases it would be
to say, that it would be awkward to ask that question, is an understatement, no?
It would be asking for trouble certainly, no?
And why is that? So what I would like us to try together
during this course is to, in the spirit of the treatise that we study,
to keep asking ourselves these questions as we go.
So why is it, that first of all it's so unlikely
that I would begin to ask myself, am I here or not?
And why is it the case that it's such an awkward question
to ask, or even uncomfortable question to ask?
For me it's awkward to ask it and for those who
hear it they will also feel concerned, probably.
They will be concerned about me and they will be baffled.
If there was a good atmosphere before, then it's
kind of broken by asking something of this kind.
So why is that? Let's try to... So, Rinpoche also highlighted,
when I asked him for guidance on how to approach this course,
he also highlighted the way His Holiness the Dalai Lama
encourages a combination of analysis and rest.
So I would like us to try to do the same here also, during the
classes and during the day and the nights that will unfold
as we go over the next couple of months, to bring
whatever we think of here and the analysis to mind.
And then a lot of that analysis has to do with asking questions.
And then allowing ourselves to be informed by
those questions and informed by our own reactions,
the reactions that we get from others
and our own understanding as that begins to unfold.
Let us give ourselves time to be as informed as we can by that.
So, in other words to try to approach the whole
process of learning, reflecting and meditating,
which, as we know, should be an integrated process
that never really has only one element going on.
Well, an integrated process where none of these
three elements is divorced from the others,
where they are mutually reinforcing.
So, in this way we will be relying on the framework
of analytic meditation and then resting meditation.
Which both have a very long and amazing history.
The analytic approach is what is upheld in scholarly institutions,
meaning all the way back to the origins
of the Buddhist teachings in the world.
There have been teaching and listening and contemplation situations,
where the Buddhas followers have tried to comprehend,
ascertain and clarify, elaborate upon the teachings.
So also there are very old institutions for doing that
in India, in places like Nālandā and Vikramaśilā,
they have a good claim to being the world's first universities.
You could argue that, if we want to find
places where knowledge was cherished,
not just spiritual knowledge, not just religious knowledge and
not just knowledge of one particular spiritual or religious tradition,
but the whole array of philosophy and religious views that were
at play in India in those days, were also studied at those institutions.
And so were the arts and the sciences as one had them in those days.
So there is a good case, we can say, for certainly saying that
Nālandā, Vikramaśilā and institutions of that sort
are among the very first examples that we have of the idea of a university.
So in those places one learns and reflects on the
Buddhist teachings in a very comprehensive way.
And that tradition is very important to recognize,
alive still and well in the world today.
And it's one of the really profound facts
of this place, the Rangjung Yeshe Institute.
That it's a place where we can enjoy access to that tradition,
by learning from experts who are steeped in philosophical learning,
who have perhaps joined a monastic institution
when they were very young as children.
They enrolled and began a long process of studies,
which is an ongoing process on a daily basis.
Waking up early in the morning, reciting
scriptures that are to be studied later in the day.
Then we have expert teachers, who lecture
on those, that's a very lively conversation.
The teacher will ask penetrating questions and inquire among the students, the students will,
in the same way try to come up with the most pertinent and sharpest questions they can, to the teacher.
And there is this whole tradition of debating at length,
and very actively, the purport of the teachings.
So, basically the whole day is, once you join the monastic college, then your whole
day is steeped in learning, reflecting and meditating in this comprehensive way.
So if you go about things in that way with a sincere mind and with a
good motivation for many years, for nine years, ten years, twelve years,
and often this process continuous and the great scholars never stop studying of course.
As they teach many sessions a day of very different kinds of scriptural subject matter,
they also inquire with other scholars and discuss. They compose
their own writings, which then receive critique from others and so on.
So there's a very vibrant traditional
learning environment, which is still here and accessible.
And of course it's very different to study with someone who comes
from that tradition, because he or she will be really, it will be such,
will have absorbed so much of this wisdom, this comprehensive
approach to learning, reflecting and meditating
that they often really radiate a special kind of
intelligence, that is difficult to find elsewhere.
So it's a wonderful fact that this kind
of approach is still alive in the world.
and Rinpoche asked me to go through the Root Verses here in the text
of the "Root of the Middle Way."
And then the hope is, that as we study the Root Verses together,
you can after that, perhaps it will be somewhat easier for you to connect with the vast and
profound scholarship that is here with us alive in the traditional approach to learning.
So that you can receive teachings from real experts in the
scriptural, commentarial traditions, and that's a wonderful thing.
Once you begin to get a sense of where
this is going, let's see if we do that, yeah?
Because where is it going? That's one of the key questions
that we will keep in mind throughout all of this,
but once it gets to you, let's say it like that, then it is very wonderful
to have accessible, elaborate, comprehensive teaching in the commentarial literature,
and also people who can explain that.
Those commentaries on the "Root of the Middle Way,"
all the way from the times in India and up
until today, are very different from each other.
The points that they make, the approach, the way they
understand what's going on in the "Root of the Middle Way,"
of course you can say it's all Buddhist teachings, and certainly it is,
but it's Buddhist teaching presented in many very different ways,
and often there will be debates, and fierce
debate, about what is right and what is wrong.
That kind of debate is something that one can really benefit from,
if, in particular, I believe, if one has some sense,
or if one has been taken by the issues that come up in this context, then it's
very enriching to be able to listen to extremely well-studied and brilliant minds
who can develop a whole position around what
you just have one or two thoughts about.
Those thoughts were very important, but to then hear someone develop a whole worldview
out of that little insight that you arrived at in your own contemplation, is wonderful.
And in particular, if there are then different worldviews, that are equally
possible and realizable, based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā,
then so much the better. So there's a real wealth of
understanding, insight there to be discovered.
Once we have gone through the root text here, if any of you
feel like studying with a real expert in Mādhyamaka,
someone who can bring alive these commentarial traditions
and the debates also between them, then I would be very happy.
Then I would consider this class successful. If you get that inspiration and that interest
and that courage that it takes to enter this kind of immersive philosophical study.
That's about the analytic approach.
So, in the analytic approach one uses basically two things.
One uses scripture, the teachings of the Buddha,
and then those treatises that we just talked about.
The treatises and the commentaries on the words of
the Buddha and the great followers of the Buddha.
So it's a still emerging body of literature that one
studies, but not just in a passive sense of course,
subjecting whatever is taught there, to critical analysis.
So reasoning and logic is the other key factor.
There's scripture and reasoning. Those are the two tools, so to speak,
that are used in this process of gaining insight in the scholarly institutions,
in the scholarly tradition. And that's a process again, that takes
typically many years and can go on for a lifetime very easily.
But at any rate it's something that requires time and effort.
Then there is the approach of the yogi, the approach of free rest,
which can be a shortcut at times if one is of the right kind.
Meaning, if one is able to, first of all have
the fortune of meeting a qualified teacher,
and if one has the fortune of being able to see
that qualified teacher as a qualified teacher.
And not just as a qualified teacher, but with a whole lot of openness.
In fact, for the oral instructions that are
at the heart of this practice of the yogi, free rest,
it's not very much a matter of understanding them and
thinking about them, it's much more a question of applying them.
So in other words, for one to be able to really benefit from that approach,
one has to be very open and confident and beyond doubt in a way.
Otherwise, if one keeps contemplating what the instructions are
then one isn't applying them. That's quite logical.
As long as one is wandering about the character of a practical
instruction, for that long one isn't making use of it.
It could be a practical instruction for anything.
If I read the manual for turning on the radio, then while I read and
think about how I might turn on the radio, I'm not turning it on.
But the manual is there for me to figure out
how to turn it on, and indeed turn it on.
So, if my encounter with the oral instructions becomes
basically accumulating learning about oral instructions,
and in my heart of hearts still wondering about how they should
be applied, then it's not the yogi's approach of rest, right?
But if one is of that kind, it is said, then it is possible
to shortcut this whole approach of learning and reflecting,
and arrive at profound liberating insight in very short time.
But it takes a very special person to be like that.
We can ask ourselves, am I of that kind?
Perhaps we are, but probably not. Especially these days
when there is such an emphasis on, and for good reasons,
an emphasis on being critical and not accepting things
at face value, at questioning. That's what we learn in school
And as a matter of fact, of course, if we give up that,
we won't be very successful in the world as it is today.
We need to be skeptical, critical, asking questions,
do it skillfully at the right time and so on. But nonetheless,
if we give up that critical bent, then we don't get anywhere.
And that's also what our parents will tell us,
when we are small, that's what our teachers will tell us.
And so it becomes second nature, and we think that we can't
allow ourselves to be any other way, which is generally true.
But when it then comes to oral instructions,
we also think that this is how it is.
And then it is possible that we can have this
very strong interest in learning meditation,
and really being fed up with scholarly learning
and just wanting to get to meditation practice.
And yet, when we get the real key to it all, then that key
becomes our focal point that we then begin to question,
and ask ourselves questions about, rather than using it.
Now when we do analyze and investigate, in particular
the subject matter that we will be concerned with here,
then every so often, quite continuously, there will be
points when we think, oh! Whatever, however our reaction may be,
that's also something that I would like if we can try to
sort of, notice, most importantly for ourselves.
When I come to understand something, then what is my reaction?
But there will be those points all the time.
There will be points of great irritation,
and great... And then there will also be times when we think
that a new insight has arisen in our minds.
So when that happens, then we can allow ourselves
to just be with that, so to speak.
Not as a big program and now I have to sit and focus on that necessarily,
but just rather than skipping over it almost
and right into the next thing for analysis.
Try to just take it in on a deeper level.
We can try to acknowledge, in as open a
fashion as we can, what this means for us,
what it means for the world, what we have come to understand.
So that's a way... So at that point we are no longer
maintaining the scripture and reasoning framework,
we just allow ourselves to benefit from whatever we saw.
So that is a simple way of embarking on this yogic path of free rest.
And we do it whenever there is a sense of doubts and questions disappearing.
So in this way we can combine the two.
Which is what I mentioned a long while ago,
that we can try to rely on analytic meditation,
resolving the view through learning and reflection.
And then also the yogic approach, the direct approach of free rest.
And that is what His Holiness has encouraged us
to do and that's what Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche told me.
Please take His Holiness' advice and see,
if you can all go about things in that way.
And if we do that, then I think we have a good chance
of really benefiting from this process,
because they really go very well together.
It takes a lot of energy and focus and
hard work to maintain the critical spirit.
It's not so much the case that the concepts that we
will be introduced to here in the Mūlamadhyamaka
are terribly complex.
There will be some Buddhist frameworks that will be brought up,
but it's very limited stuff and very basic notions,
that will be presented typically.
So that's not the challenge, it's not that
we have to compare to learning Abhidharma,
this is a breeze, there's nothing of that sort of exotic,
complex, philosophical framework that has to be learned.
And it's not so much a matter either of
constructing arguments and developing a view either.
So that's not the challenge here really.
It's more a challenge to keep being as critical
as we would like to think of ourselves as being.
If that makes sense.
I like to think of myself as someone who is
not easily convinced when people say something.
I like to think that I have a sort of sound,
critical capacity, that I'm happy to apply.
If a politician argues something, then
I'm not just there to cheer, but I think,
and if I find it justified then I will applaud.
The same with the scientific idea, not just because
some famous scientist has said this is how it is,
so I cheer and change my worldview. I try to understand.
That's the kind of view of myself that I'd like to maintain,
that I'm this very astute and careful person.
I think often we know that we aren't like that
a whole lot of the time, but I think each one of us,
we have that with us too.
We'd like to think of ourselves, and for good reasons,
why should we think otherwise?
We'd like to think of ourselves as people who
don't get carried away by whatever people say,
that we want to keep our two feet on the ground and
make sure that we are on the same page as the ones
that we communicate with, that we are not just running off
in any direction that people tell us to go.
I think, that much probably we all have
the aspiration to be that kind of person.
But the way the reasoning works in the Mūlamadhyamaka
is very penetrating and unrelenting.
So, it can become very frustrating to be asked again
and again questions that we feel we cannot answer.
And yet we feel that we should be able to answer them.
So the challenge, what really requires stamina,
is to say I am going to be that person,
that critical, careful person throughout this whole process.
I'm not going to just give in and say,
"Oh yeah, Nāgārjuna, you're so great, and now I understand,
and please leave me alone." Of course we can do that anytime, that's fine.
And often people do that, and I do that myself also,
and it can be even quite virtuous to do that, perhaps.
But it also... not the last part, please leave me alone,
is probably not virtuous, no?
But there must be some virtue in cheering nonetheless, yeah?
So, if we do that, then basically we prevent ourselves from gaining
what is really there to be gained in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
It's crucial that we keep up the stamina
and that we are honest to ourselves,
and that we try to maintain this sort of image of ourselves
as careful, critical, discerning people.
And not in order to present ourselves
that way to others, but in our heart of hearts,
taking our own views, our own beliefs seriously.
And that is something that I think we all owe ourselves, no?
If we don't take our own core beliefs seriously,
that is really pathetic, no?
That's a wasted life, no? It's as if we don't live, no?
If we say, "Yeah, I really feel, I really believe this way, but so what?"
What kind of life is that, no?
So, that's the kind of, that is the kind of courage and the kind of
energy that we need to muster in a continuous way as we go, yeah?
So that's demanding, and then it can be very rewarding
on many levels to have the free approach of resting.
Whenever we then get a little relief, by all means take it.
And don't just think now, but okay, next thing, yeah?
So try to take that relief and see what it does to us.
to our being, our actions, our orientation.
And then it's exactly eleven o'clock.
Oh, we still have fifteen minutes, that's wonderful, fortunate.
So yeah, that's about the sort of approach
that I thought we should try to take, no?
In this period that we are together, and try to see it as
not just spending some time in the mornings doing a class together,
but as a sort of whole process, day and night.
Living and breathing this stuff, yeah!
That is actually the most meaningful and natural way to go about it.
It's not very meaningful and not very natural to confine this kind of analysis to some,
to some compartment in our life, where we are concerned with Mādhyamaka philosophy.
It's not like so many other things in life that works perfectly well, no?
Like, I take my Spanish class on Thursday
evening, perhaps, and that's fine, no?
Then I train every morning, half an hour, and that's it, yeah?
I don't have to, unless that is all what is important for me in that period
of my life, then I don't need to think in Spanish all the time, right?
And mathematics and so on, especially when we
have many things to learn, then it doesn't work.
I can't be all about Spanish, all about
mathematics, all about cooking 24/7, no?
That just doesn't work.
So, often we do have to say, "That time is when I do this," and so on.
And of course we will have formal sessions here in the morning,
but because what we are concerned with here
is of such core significance for our own understanding of ourselves,
who we are, what the world is, that's why to really benefit
and to approach this whole learning process in the most natural way,
we have to bring it to mind repeatedly.
And we can do that in these two ways.
We can work with our intellect and the teachings
and the reasoning that we are presented with in the text.
So we should do that as much as we can,
and we can do it by taking in whatever
insights we arrive at, as we just talked about.
So in that way it will be this mutually reinforcing interplay of
analytic meditation and the yogis' style of free-rest meditation.
So, how is it?
I screen share?
Yeah, that's the title, right, of the text,
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā by Nāgārjuna.
So we talked a little bit about Nāgārjuna already, and this text is...
Nāgārjuna is associated with very many different kinds of Buddhist teaching,
but this one is probably the most renowned of his treatises.
Otherwise, in the Tibetan tradition and elsewhere too,
Nāgārjuna is known for many different philosophical works
and also for philosophy of both sūtra and mantra,
and for commentaries on sūtra and mantra.
But this one is probably the one,
his most well-known and influential treatise.
So it's called "Insight" and then "The Stanzas,"
because we'll be studying "The Root Verses of the Middle Way,"
Madhyamaka, in Sanskrit.
So that Middle Way is an important Buddhist concept.
The Buddhist teaching is presented always
as a balance and avoiding extreme positions.
In all contexts of Buddhist teaching,
there is this sense of a flawless middle,
where you don't fall into either extreme.
That's in terms of conduct.
We hear the Buddha teaching to the monks and the nuns that they should not,
and to lay followers too of course, that they should not
be carried away by sense pleasures,
and at the same time they should not
subject themselves to hardship for the sake of hardship.
But in finding a golden means where
we are not carried away and waste our time as humans
in the blind pursuit of pleasures, and
at the same time don't see our pleasures as a,
and our own enjoyment of that as an enemy...
What to say?
That this sort of self-penance as a way of self-torture and so on,
that that has no relevance.
Instead, finding a natural balance so that we can learn,
reflect and meditate, be active in a way that is meaningful
for ourselves and for others, and make the best
of our opportunity as human beings.
So that's one Buddhist teaching that we
will often hear, a general Buddhist advice.
And then on a philosophical or, in terms of the way things are,
a way of avoiding extremes would be,
from sort of basic Buddhist philosophical point of view,
would be to say that there is no self.
There is no permanent, enduring, controlling individual
because such an individual cannot be found under analysis.
And at the same time it is not the case, so there is no one
in this way, who continues from one situation to the next,
and from one life to the next, and at the same time,
so that would be the extreme of permanence.
But at the same time avoiding the nihilist conclusion,
or misunderstanding, which would be to say that
there is someone here now, an individual,
but that individual ceases at the time of death.
So that would be one way of arriving at a sense of a middle.
So the way the middle is defined and explained depends on
which context we are at, at the Buddhist teachings.
But there is always this sense of a middle. And in the
Mādhyamaka sense, what is then the Mādhyamaka sense of a middle?
This we will get to right away tomorrow when we look at the
homage, Nāgārjuna's homage to the teacher.
And we will see that from this perspective of
profound emptiness, the idea that there is something,
whether it's a person, or whether it's physical factors,
the mind, mental processes, or an interplay of those--
as long as there is any sense that such things are there and
exist, then that is the extreme of permanence or eternalism.
And at the same time, to then conclude that hence
there is nothing, is the extreme of nihilism.
So, as they say, giving up completely
both of the extremes, the wise do not even remain in the middle.
Because, if there are no extremes, if those extremes have been transcended,
then the very idea of a center also loses its meaning.
So we could say, that profound middle beyond extremes,
the non-middle, the middle without any middle,
is the one that Nāgārjuna delivers insight into through this treatise.
In other words, it's the kind of middle that the
Buddha talks about in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings,
which are full of those statements.
And perhaps we can state statements of this kind,
that reality is not in terms of object and subject,
object and agent, and yet it is not without object and agent,
for example. That is a quotation from
one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
And the Prajñāpāramitā literature abounds with this kind of
statement, that we may feel it sounds profound,
we may feel that it sounds nonsensical. Whatever the case is,
it's probably hard to say what it really should mean.
The fact, regardless of all of this is,
that Prajñāpāramitā sūtras abound with that sort of discourse.
So Nāgārjuna in his "Root of the Middle Way," lays out a path
that can be taken through the use of our own simple critical analysis,
our own intellect, that leads-- he will sort of promise us,
that if you follow along on this journey,
then you will see what these statements
really mean. Not just as a matter of belief,
but through, you will understand profoundly, and on that basis
it is then possible to gain flawless realization.
So tomorrow we will begin, I think, with
the homage, which is Nāgārjuna's homage,
but it's also, the very same verses occur
in one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras,
where the Buddha speaks to Śakra,
the king of the gods in the heaven of the 33.
So he teaches profound Prajñāpāramitā along the lines
that I just tried to convey, like reality and the Prajñāpāramitā
are not in terms of object, agent and action,
yet they are also not in terms of object, agent and action.
So what do we make of that?
The middle that Nāgārjuna speaks about in the
title of the treatise is also that which he brings up here,
when he says, "That which originates dependently, does not
cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go,
is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same.
To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete
pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So there we see dependent origination,
dependent origination which is shown to be
beyond ending and coming into being, going and coming and so on.
So that's where we'll begin tomorrow.
Every day let's try to keep ample time for dialogue, so contrary to today.
And let's start in that way also tomorrow.
So whatever I've been going on about today,
if you can remember any of it, try and think,
what makes sense, what does not make sense, or what is unclear.
And let's begin tomorrow talking about that.
And we'll probably continue with that framework throughout the whole thing.
Thank you very much for today and see you again and again.
[Laughter].
I'm looking forward to exploring and contemplating together.
I thought that we could try to approach this class
as an exercise in awareness of dependent origination,
and so see how organically and dynamically that can transpire and what we can learn together
in this way by contemplating the profound "Verses of The Root of The Middle Way."
So this is Buddhist philosophy of the most classic
form possible. I think we can safely say, no?
Nāgārjuna certainly has a claim to being
Buddhism's most renowned philosopher.
There are many, of course, but that's a good case for saying that if you have to
pick one, it would be Nāgārjuna-- the most influential philosopher.
And Nāgārjuna is known also in the tradition that we are
particularly informed by here in this region and at this institute.
In that tradition, Nāgārjuna is considered a charioteer, someone who was able to open
a path to the wisdom of the perfection of insight, the Prajñāpāramitā, independently.
Meaning by the power, his own power of insight and intelligence, enabled him to deliver the intent
of the profound Prajñāpāramitā teachings in a way that is accessible for human beings like us.
In particular, a path to the profound insight, which is non-conceptual and beyond
all constructs, which nonetheless relies on constructs in a very skillful fashion,
that encourages us to be critical and use our capacity for
critical thinking, reasoning to the very best, to our very best.
So, I think we can say that that is one of the real highlights of Nāgārjuna's profound approach
is that he is able to deliver a way of going about things rationally,
by means of logic and analysis, in a way that allows ourselves
to question profoundly our own most deepest convictions.
So through Nāgārjuna's skillful approach, we are able to ask ourselves
questions, that perhaps we would otherwise never be able to formulate.
Not to mention really pursue those questions, but even just
they wouldn't occur to us, that something of this sort could be questioned.
So Nāgārjuna invites us to, in this way, follow him on a journey to insight,
that very much is about looking at ourselves: at our own beliefs, at our own core beliefs,
and then questioning how well founded those core beliefs really are.
So in other words this is a journey that takes us into
emptiness and dependent origination.
And that teaching of emptiness and dependent origination is,
we can say, the hallmark of the Buddha's teaching.
That's also what we will see in the homage that Nāgārjuna pays
to the teacher, the teacher of teachers, the king of teachers, the Buddha.
at the beginning of the treatise, he praises the Buddha as
this perfect teacher, because of being able to show emptiness and dependent origination.
It's a great challenge, of course, to try to facilitate
that kind of contemplation in a genuine fashion.
Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche has nonetheless asked me to do this,
and I'm also happy to do it because it is a very rewarding,
tremendously rewarding exercise that we can do together and
use each other as witnesses and real partners and helpers
in this process of coming to, hopefully,
increasingly profound insight into emptiness and dependent origination.
So Rinpoche just yesterday, I think it was, said something
to the effect that, the Buddha's teaching is characterized by these four seals, right?
Those four summaries of the Buddhahdharma.
That are that all conditioned things are impermanent,
everything involved, associated with negative emotions is painful.
All factors, all phenomena, all things are empty and devoid of self.
And finally, passing beyond suffering is peaceful liberation.
So, of those, Rinpoche said, the first of those,
that all conditioned things, meaning everything that is
the product of causes and conditions, is also impermanent.
Or just the fact of impermanence, the impermanence of things,
that whatever was built will have to fall,
that whatever meeting took place will have to disperse,
that birth ends in death. Those facts of impermanence are not unknown to us.
It's something that we know, and it's also something that
is quite widely acknowledged in the world's religions.
So it's a hallmark of, this is a key content of the Buddha's teachings.
It's something that always has to be there
in the context of any aspect of Buddhist teachings.
It has to fit with this message. But at the same time,
it's also something that is quite well known in the world.
Perhaps we don't spend all that much time thinking about impermanence
and just how impermanent things are, but it's not that we aren't aware
of this. We are, and we have been for as long as we can remember.
So how about the next of the four maxims,
that everything associated with negative emotions is painful?
So Rinpoche said that's also not uniquely Buddhist
to say that, to say that craving, aggression and ignorance,
close-mindedness, that those are not factors for good. It's not that this
will make us happy, but that there's a clear link with suffering there.
It's also something that we know from experience and the way
we think also acknowledges this, even if we aren't Buddhist.
It's something that the world's religions too acknowledge. It's not
as such uniquely Buddhist to say that these negative emotions are,
and what is associated with those is also painful, or suffering, or stress,
whichever way we may try to translate the term 'Dukkha' in Pali, Sanskrit.
So where do these negative emotions come from? That's perhaps not so clear to us.
But the fact that they have this association with suffering is quite well known.
But then Rinpoche said emptiness and no-self, that is not
something that is very well acknowledged, very widely acknowledged.
It's not something that we can say we know probably from experience
already, and it's not something that we can say that we understand already,
unless we are already steeped in this kind of
process of learning, reflecting and meditating.
And it's not something that is very widely acknowledged in
the world's religions, philosophical systems and so on either.
In fact it seems in many ways contrary to what we are used to thinking,
and it seems contrary to the way we experience things.
Right? I very naturally believe that I am here in a situation together with you.
It is so obvious to me that this is the case that really
I wouldn't question it under normal circumstances.
I would just be here and there would be tons of questions that I could
ask about this event and myself and you and what's going on here.
Many, many questions could be asked, but that
very question would probably not come up.
Am I here?
It's a dumb question, no?
And if it is asked, then also typically we can think a little bit
about that, as we approach the treatise that we will be studying here.
Just asking a question like that, no? We can ask ourselves
that question, how does it feel to suddenly ask ourselves
Am I here? Or who am I to be here?
How does that feel? How easy or not does such a question come to us?
And then also think, what might the reaction be, if we bring
up a question like that among others in different contexts.
At home with the family, what would happen, if suddenly
at the breakfast table I tell to my family: "Am I here?"
What would happen at the workplace, if I say that?
Either in some sort of work situation or in the break, whatever.
With my friends, what will happen if I asked these questons?
Is there a kind of place where this question would fit in?
Is there some kind of group that I know, where this
question would be like at least an okay question to ask?
Because I think in many of these cases it would be
to say, that it would be awkward to ask that question, is an understatement, no?
It would be asking for trouble certainly, no?
And why is that? So what I would like us to try together
during this course is to, in the spirit of the treatise that we study,
to keep asking ourselves these questions as we go.
So why is it, that first of all it's so unlikely
that I would begin to ask myself, am I here or not?
And why is it the case that it's such an awkward question
to ask, or even uncomfortable question to ask?
For me it's awkward to ask it and for those who
hear it they will also feel concerned, probably.
They will be concerned about me and they will be baffled.
If there was a good atmosphere before, then it's
kind of broken by asking something of this kind.
So why is that? Let's try to... So, Rinpoche also highlighted,
when I asked him for guidance on how to approach this course,
he also highlighted the way His Holiness the Dalai Lama
encourages a combination of analysis and rest.
So I would like us to try to do the same here also, during the
classes and during the day and the nights that will unfold
as we go over the next couple of months, to bring
whatever we think of here and the analysis to mind.
And then a lot of that analysis has to do with asking questions.
And then allowing ourselves to be informed by
those questions and informed by our own reactions,
the reactions that we get from others
and our own understanding as that begins to unfold.
Let us give ourselves time to be as informed as we can by that.
So, in other words to try to approach the whole
process of learning, reflecting and meditating,
which, as we know, should be an integrated process
that never really has only one element going on.
Well, an integrated process where none of these
three elements is divorced from the others,
where they are mutually reinforcing.
So, in this way we will be relying on the framework
of analytic meditation and then resting meditation.
Which both have a very long and amazing history.
The analytic approach is what is upheld in scholarly institutions,
meaning all the way back to the origins
of the Buddhist teachings in the world.
There have been teaching and listening and contemplation situations,
where the Buddhas followers have tried to comprehend,
ascertain and clarify, elaborate upon the teachings.
So also there are very old institutions for doing that
in India, in places like Nālandā and Vikramaśilā,
they have a good claim to being the world's first universities.
You could argue that, if we want to find
places where knowledge was cherished,
not just spiritual knowledge, not just religious knowledge and
not just knowledge of one particular spiritual or religious tradition,
but the whole array of philosophy and religious views that were
at play in India in those days, were also studied at those institutions.
And so were the arts and the sciences as one had them in those days.
So there is a good case, we can say, for certainly saying that
Nālandā, Vikramaśilā and institutions of that sort
are among the very first examples that we have of the idea of a university.
So in those places one learns and reflects on the
Buddhist teachings in a very comprehensive way.
And that tradition is very important to recognize,
alive still and well in the world today.
And it's one of the really profound facts
of this place, the Rangjung Yeshe Institute.
That it's a place where we can enjoy access to that tradition,
by learning from experts who are steeped in philosophical learning,
who have perhaps joined a monastic institution
when they were very young as children.
They enrolled and began a long process of studies,
which is an ongoing process on a daily basis.
Waking up early in the morning, reciting
scriptures that are to be studied later in the day.
Then we have expert teachers, who lecture
on those, that's a very lively conversation.
The teacher will ask penetrating questions and inquire among the students, the students will,
in the same way try to come up with the most pertinent and sharpest questions they can, to the teacher.
And there is this whole tradition of debating at length,
and very actively, the purport of the teachings.
So, basically the whole day is, once you join the monastic college, then your whole
day is steeped in learning, reflecting and meditating in this comprehensive way.
So if you go about things in that way with a sincere mind and with a
good motivation for many years, for nine years, ten years, twelve years,
and often this process continuous and the great scholars never stop studying of course.
As they teach many sessions a day of very different kinds of scriptural subject matter,
they also inquire with other scholars and discuss. They compose
their own writings, which then receive critique from others and so on.
So there's a very vibrant traditional
learning environment, which is still here and accessible.
And of course it's very different to study with someone who comes
from that tradition, because he or she will be really, it will be such,
will have absorbed so much of this wisdom, this comprehensive
approach to learning, reflecting and meditating
that they often really radiate a special kind of
intelligence, that is difficult to find elsewhere.
So it's a wonderful fact that this kind
of approach is still alive in the world.
and Rinpoche asked me to go through the Root Verses here in the text
of the "Root of the Middle Way."
And then the hope is, that as we study the Root Verses together,
you can after that, perhaps it will be somewhat easier for you to connect with the vast and
profound scholarship that is here with us alive in the traditional approach to learning.
So that you can receive teachings from real experts in the
scriptural, commentarial traditions, and that's a wonderful thing.
Once you begin to get a sense of where
this is going, let's see if we do that, yeah?
Because where is it going? That's one of the key questions
that we will keep in mind throughout all of this,
but once it gets to you, let's say it like that, then it is very wonderful
to have accessible, elaborate, comprehensive teaching in the commentarial literature,
and also people who can explain that.
Those commentaries on the "Root of the Middle Way,"
all the way from the times in India and up
until today, are very different from each other.
The points that they make, the approach, the way they
understand what's going on in the "Root of the Middle Way,"
of course you can say it's all Buddhist teachings, and certainly it is,
but it's Buddhist teaching presented in many very different ways,
and often there will be debates, and fierce
debate, about what is right and what is wrong.
That kind of debate is something that one can really benefit from,
if, in particular, I believe, if one has some sense,
or if one has been taken by the issues that come up in this context, then it's
very enriching to be able to listen to extremely well-studied and brilliant minds
who can develop a whole position around what
you just have one or two thoughts about.
Those thoughts were very important, but to then hear someone develop a whole worldview
out of that little insight that you arrived at in your own contemplation, is wonderful.
And in particular, if there are then different worldviews, that are equally
possible and realizable, based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā,
then so much the better. So there's a real wealth of
understanding, insight there to be discovered.
Once we have gone through the root text here, if any of you
feel like studying with a real expert in Mādhyamaka,
someone who can bring alive these commentarial traditions
and the debates also between them, then I would be very happy.
Then I would consider this class successful. If you get that inspiration and that interest
and that courage that it takes to enter this kind of immersive philosophical study.
That's about the analytic approach.
So, in the analytic approach one uses basically two things.
One uses scripture, the teachings of the Buddha,
and then those treatises that we just talked about.
The treatises and the commentaries on the words of
the Buddha and the great followers of the Buddha.
So it's a still emerging body of literature that one
studies, but not just in a passive sense of course,
subjecting whatever is taught there, to critical analysis.
So reasoning and logic is the other key factor.
There's scripture and reasoning. Those are the two tools, so to speak,
that are used in this process of gaining insight in the scholarly institutions,
in the scholarly tradition. And that's a process again, that takes
typically many years and can go on for a lifetime very easily.
But at any rate it's something that requires time and effort.
Then there is the approach of the yogi, the approach of free rest,
which can be a shortcut at times if one is of the right kind.
Meaning, if one is able to, first of all have
the fortune of meeting a qualified teacher,
and if one has the fortune of being able to see
that qualified teacher as a qualified teacher.
And not just as a qualified teacher, but with a whole lot of openness.
In fact, for the oral instructions that are
at the heart of this practice of the yogi, free rest,
it's not very much a matter of understanding them and
thinking about them, it's much more a question of applying them.
So in other words, for one to be able to really benefit from that approach,
one has to be very open and confident and beyond doubt in a way.
Otherwise, if one keeps contemplating what the instructions are
then one isn't applying them. That's quite logical.
As long as one is wandering about the character of a practical
instruction, for that long one isn't making use of it.
It could be a practical instruction for anything.
If I read the manual for turning on the radio, then while I read and
think about how I might turn on the radio, I'm not turning it on.
But the manual is there for me to figure out
how to turn it on, and indeed turn it on.
So, if my encounter with the oral instructions becomes
basically accumulating learning about oral instructions,
and in my heart of hearts still wondering about how they should
be applied, then it's not the yogi's approach of rest, right?
But if one is of that kind, it is said, then it is possible
to shortcut this whole approach of learning and reflecting,
and arrive at profound liberating insight in very short time.
But it takes a very special person to be like that.
We can ask ourselves, am I of that kind?
Perhaps we are, but probably not. Especially these days
when there is such an emphasis on, and for good reasons,
an emphasis on being critical and not accepting things
at face value, at questioning. That's what we learn in school
And as a matter of fact, of course, if we give up that,
we won't be very successful in the world as it is today.
We need to be skeptical, critical, asking questions,
do it skillfully at the right time and so on. But nonetheless,
if we give up that critical bent, then we don't get anywhere.
And that's also what our parents will tell us,
when we are small, that's what our teachers will tell us.
And so it becomes second nature, and we think that we can't
allow ourselves to be any other way, which is generally true.
But when it then comes to oral instructions,
we also think that this is how it is.
And then it is possible that we can have this
very strong interest in learning meditation,
and really being fed up with scholarly learning
and just wanting to get to meditation practice.
And yet, when we get the real key to it all, then that key
becomes our focal point that we then begin to question,
and ask ourselves questions about, rather than using it.
Now when we do analyze and investigate, in particular
the subject matter that we will be concerned with here,
then every so often, quite continuously, there will be
points when we think, oh! Whatever, however our reaction may be,
that's also something that I would like if we can try to
sort of, notice, most importantly for ourselves.
When I come to understand something, then what is my reaction?
But there will be those points all the time.
There will be points of great irritation,
and great... And then there will also be times when we think
that a new insight has arisen in our minds.
So when that happens, then we can allow ourselves
to just be with that, so to speak.
Not as a big program and now I have to sit and focus on that necessarily,
but just rather than skipping over it almost
and right into the next thing for analysis.
Try to just take it in on a deeper level.
We can try to acknowledge, in as open a
fashion as we can, what this means for us,
what it means for the world, what we have come to understand.
So that's a way... So at that point we are no longer
maintaining the scripture and reasoning framework,
we just allow ourselves to benefit from whatever we saw.
So that is a simple way of embarking on this yogic path of free rest.
And we do it whenever there is a sense of doubts and questions disappearing.
So in this way we can combine the two.
Which is what I mentioned a long while ago,
that we can try to rely on analytic meditation,
resolving the view through learning and reflection.
And then also the yogic approach, the direct approach of free rest.
And that is what His Holiness has encouraged us
to do and that's what Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche told me.
Please take His Holiness' advice and see,
if you can all go about things in that way.
And if we do that, then I think we have a good chance
of really benefiting from this process,
because they really go very well together.
It takes a lot of energy and focus and
hard work to maintain the critical spirit.
It's not so much the case that the concepts that we
will be introduced to here in the Mūlamadhyamaka
are terribly complex.
There will be some Buddhist frameworks that will be brought up,
but it's very limited stuff and very basic notions,
that will be presented typically.
So that's not the challenge, it's not that
we have to compare to learning Abhidharma,
this is a breeze, there's nothing of that sort of exotic,
complex, philosophical framework that has to be learned.
And it's not so much a matter either of
constructing arguments and developing a view either.
So that's not the challenge here really.
It's more a challenge to keep being as critical
as we would like to think of ourselves as being.
If that makes sense.
I like to think of myself as someone who is
not easily convinced when people say something.
I like to think that I have a sort of sound,
critical capacity, that I'm happy to apply.
If a politician argues something, then
I'm not just there to cheer, but I think,
and if I find it justified then I will applaud.
The same with the scientific idea, not just because
some famous scientist has said this is how it is,
so I cheer and change my worldview. I try to understand.
That's the kind of view of myself that I'd like to maintain,
that I'm this very astute and careful person.
I think often we know that we aren't like that
a whole lot of the time, but I think each one of us,
we have that with us too.
We'd like to think of ourselves, and for good reasons,
why should we think otherwise?
We'd like to think of ourselves as people who
don't get carried away by whatever people say,
that we want to keep our two feet on the ground and
make sure that we are on the same page as the ones
that we communicate with, that we are not just running off
in any direction that people tell us to go.
I think, that much probably we all have
the aspiration to be that kind of person.
But the way the reasoning works in the Mūlamadhyamaka
is very penetrating and unrelenting.
So, it can become very frustrating to be asked again
and again questions that we feel we cannot answer.
And yet we feel that we should be able to answer them.
So the challenge, what really requires stamina,
is to say I am going to be that person,
that critical, careful person throughout this whole process.
I'm not going to just give in and say,
"Oh yeah, Nāgārjuna, you're so great, and now I understand,
and please leave me alone." Of course we can do that anytime, that's fine.
And often people do that, and I do that myself also,
and it can be even quite virtuous to do that, perhaps.
But it also... not the last part, please leave me alone,
is probably not virtuous, no?
But there must be some virtue in cheering nonetheless, yeah?
So, if we do that, then basically we prevent ourselves from gaining
what is really there to be gained in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
It's crucial that we keep up the stamina
and that we are honest to ourselves,
and that we try to maintain this sort of image of ourselves
as careful, critical, discerning people.
And not in order to present ourselves
that way to others, but in our heart of hearts,
taking our own views, our own beliefs seriously.
And that is something that I think we all owe ourselves, no?
If we don't take our own core beliefs seriously,
that is really pathetic, no?
That's a wasted life, no? It's as if we don't live, no?
If we say, "Yeah, I really feel, I really believe this way, but so what?"
What kind of life is that, no?
So, that's the kind of, that is the kind of courage and the kind of
energy that we need to muster in a continuous way as we go, yeah?
So that's demanding, and then it can be very rewarding
on many levels to have the free approach of resting.
Whenever we then get a little relief, by all means take it.
And don't just think now, but okay, next thing, yeah?
So try to take that relief and see what it does to us.
to our being, our actions, our orientation.
And then it's exactly eleven o'clock.
Oh, we still have fifteen minutes, that's wonderful, fortunate.
So yeah, that's about the sort of approach
that I thought we should try to take, no?
In this period that we are together, and try to see it as
not just spending some time in the mornings doing a class together,
but as a sort of whole process, day and night.
Living and breathing this stuff, yeah!
That is actually the most meaningful and natural way to go about it.
It's not very meaningful and not very natural to confine this kind of analysis to some,
to some compartment in our life, where we are concerned with Mādhyamaka philosophy.
It's not like so many other things in life that works perfectly well, no?
Like, I take my Spanish class on Thursday
evening, perhaps, and that's fine, no?
Then I train every morning, half an hour, and that's it, yeah?
I don't have to, unless that is all what is important for me in that period
of my life, then I don't need to think in Spanish all the time, right?
And mathematics and so on, especially when we
have many things to learn, then it doesn't work.
I can't be all about Spanish, all about
mathematics, all about cooking 24/7, no?
That just doesn't work.
So, often we do have to say, "That time is when I do this," and so on.
And of course we will have formal sessions here in the morning,
but because what we are concerned with here
is of such core significance for our own understanding of ourselves,
who we are, what the world is, that's why to really benefit
and to approach this whole learning process in the most natural way,
we have to bring it to mind repeatedly.
And we can do that in these two ways.
We can work with our intellect and the teachings
and the reasoning that we are presented with in the text.
So we should do that as much as we can,
and we can do it by taking in whatever
insights we arrive at, as we just talked about.
So in that way it will be this mutually reinforcing interplay of
analytic meditation and the yogis' style of free-rest meditation.
So, how is it?
I screen share?
Yeah, that's the title, right, of the text,
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā by Nāgārjuna.
So we talked a little bit about Nāgārjuna already, and this text is...
Nāgārjuna is associated with very many different kinds of Buddhist teaching,
but this one is probably the most renowned of his treatises.
Otherwise, in the Tibetan tradition and elsewhere too,
Nāgārjuna is known for many different philosophical works
and also for philosophy of both sūtra and mantra,
and for commentaries on sūtra and mantra.
But this one is probably the one,
his most well-known and influential treatise.
So it's called "Insight" and then "The Stanzas,"
because we'll be studying "The Root Verses of the Middle Way,"
Madhyamaka, in Sanskrit.
So that Middle Way is an important Buddhist concept.
The Buddhist teaching is presented always
as a balance and avoiding extreme positions.
In all contexts of Buddhist teaching,
there is this sense of a flawless middle,
where you don't fall into either extreme.
That's in terms of conduct.
We hear the Buddha teaching to the monks and the nuns that they should not,
and to lay followers too of course, that they should not
be carried away by sense pleasures,
and at the same time they should not
subject themselves to hardship for the sake of hardship.
But in finding a golden means where
we are not carried away and waste our time as humans
in the blind pursuit of pleasures, and
at the same time don't see our pleasures as a,
and our own enjoyment of that as an enemy...
What to say?
That this sort of self-penance as a way of self-torture and so on,
that that has no relevance.
Instead, finding a natural balance so that we can learn,
reflect and meditate, be active in a way that is meaningful
for ourselves and for others, and make the best
of our opportunity as human beings.
So that's one Buddhist teaching that we
will often hear, a general Buddhist advice.
And then on a philosophical or, in terms of the way things are,
a way of avoiding extremes would be,
from sort of basic Buddhist philosophical point of view,
would be to say that there is no self.
There is no permanent, enduring, controlling individual
because such an individual cannot be found under analysis.
And at the same time it is not the case, so there is no one
in this way, who continues from one situation to the next,
and from one life to the next, and at the same time,
so that would be the extreme of permanence.
But at the same time avoiding the nihilist conclusion,
or misunderstanding, which would be to say that
there is someone here now, an individual,
but that individual ceases at the time of death.
So that would be one way of arriving at a sense of a middle.
So the way the middle is defined and explained depends on
which context we are at, at the Buddhist teachings.
But there is always this sense of a middle. And in the
Mādhyamaka sense, what is then the Mādhyamaka sense of a middle?
This we will get to right away tomorrow when we look at the
homage, Nāgārjuna's homage to the teacher.
And we will see that from this perspective of
profound emptiness, the idea that there is something,
whether it's a person, or whether it's physical factors,
the mind, mental processes, or an interplay of those--
as long as there is any sense that such things are there and
exist, then that is the extreme of permanence or eternalism.
And at the same time, to then conclude that hence
there is nothing, is the extreme of nihilism.
So, as they say, giving up completely
both of the extremes, the wise do not even remain in the middle.
Because, if there are no extremes, if those extremes have been transcended,
then the very idea of a center also loses its meaning.
So we could say, that profound middle beyond extremes,
the non-middle, the middle without any middle,
is the one that Nāgārjuna delivers insight into through this treatise.
In other words, it's the kind of middle that the
Buddha talks about in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings,
which are full of those statements.
And perhaps we can state statements of this kind,
that reality is not in terms of object and subject,
object and agent, and yet it is not without object and agent,
for example. That is a quotation from
one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
And the Prajñāpāramitā literature abounds with this kind of
statement, that we may feel it sounds profound,
we may feel that it sounds nonsensical. Whatever the case is,
it's probably hard to say what it really should mean.
The fact, regardless of all of this is,
that Prajñāpāramitā sūtras abound with that sort of discourse.
So Nāgārjuna in his "Root of the Middle Way," lays out a path
that can be taken through the use of our own simple critical analysis,
our own intellect, that leads-- he will sort of promise us,
that if you follow along on this journey,
then you will see what these statements
really mean. Not just as a matter of belief,
but through, you will understand profoundly, and on that basis
it is then possible to gain flawless realization.
So tomorrow we will begin, I think, with
the homage, which is Nāgārjuna's homage,
but it's also, the very same verses occur
in one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras,
where the Buddha speaks to Śakra,
the king of the gods in the heaven of the 33.
So he teaches profound Prajñāpāramitā along the lines
that I just tried to convey, like reality and the Prajñāpāramitā
are not in terms of object, agent and action,
yet they are also not in terms of object, agent and action.
So what do we make of that?
The middle that Nāgārjuna speaks about in the
title of the treatise is also that which he brings up here,
when he says, "That which originates dependently, does not
cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go,
is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same.
To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete
pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So there we see dependent origination,
dependent origination which is shown to be
beyond ending and coming into being, going and coming and so on.
So that's where we'll begin tomorrow.
Every day let's try to keep ample time for dialogue, so contrary to today.
And let's start in that way also tomorrow.
So whatever I've been going on about today,
if you can remember any of it, try and think,
what makes sense, what does not make sense, or what is unclear.
And let's begin tomorrow talking about that.
And we'll probably continue with that framework throughout the whole thing.
Thank you very much for today and see you again and again.
[Laughter].
Welcome everybody to this series
of explorations and contemplations.
I'm looking forward to exploring and contemplating together.
I thought that we could try to approach this class
as an exercise in awareness of dependent origination,
and so see how organically and dynamically that can transpire and what we can learn together
in this way by contemplating the profound "Verses of The Root of The Middle Way."
So this is Buddhist philosophy of the most classic
form possible. I think we can safely say, no?
Nāgārjuna certainly has a claim to being
Buddhism's most renowned philosopher.
There are many, of course, but that's a good case for saying that if you have to
pick one, it would be Nāgārjuna-- the most influential philosopher.
And Nāgārjuna is known also in the tradition that we are
particularly informed by here in this region and at this institute.
In that tradition, Nāgārjuna is considered a charioteer, someone who was able to open
a path to the wisdom of the perfection of insight, the Prajñāpāramitā, independently.
Meaning by the power, his own power of insight and intelligence, enabled him to deliver the intent
of the profound Prajñāpāramitā teachings in a way that is accessible for human beings like us.
In particular, a path to the profound insight, which is non-conceptual and beyond
all constructs, which nonetheless relies on constructs in a very skillful fashion,
that encourages us to be critical and use our capacity for
critical thinking, reasoning to the very best, to our very best.
So, I think we can say that that is one of the real highlights of Nāgārjuna's profound approach
is that he is able to deliver a way of going about things rationally,
by means of logic and analysis, in a way that allows ourselves
to question profoundly our own most deepest convictions.
So through Nāgārjuna's skillful approach, we are able to ask ourselves
questions, that perhaps we would otherwise never be able to formulate.
Not to mention really pursue those questions, but even just
they wouldn't occur to us, that something of this sort could be questioned.
So Nāgārjuna invites us to, in this way, follow him on a journey to insight,
that very much is about looking at ourselves: at our own beliefs, at our own core beliefs,
and then questioning how well founded those core beliefs really are.
So in other words this is a journey that takes us into
emptiness and dependent origination.
And that teaching of emptiness and dependent origination is,
we can say, the hallmark of the Buddha's teaching.
That's also what we will see in the homage that Nāgārjuna pays
to the teacher, the teacher of teachers, the king of teachers, the Buddha.
at the beginning of the treatise, he praises the Buddha as
this perfect teacher, because of being able to show emptiness and dependent origination.
It's a great challenge, of course, to try to facilitate
that kind of contemplation in a genuine fashion.
Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche has nonetheless asked me to do this,
and I'm also happy to do it because it is a very rewarding,
tremendously rewarding exercise that we can do together and
use each other as witnesses and real partners and helpers
in this process of coming to, hopefully,
increasingly profound insight into emptiness and dependent origination.
So Rinpoche just yesterday, I think it was, said something
to the effect that, the Buddha's teaching is characterized by these four seals, right?
Those four summaries of the Buddhahdharma.
That are that all conditioned things are impermanent,
everything involved, associated with negative emotions is painful.
All factors, all phenomena, all things are empty and devoid of self.
And finally, passing beyond suffering is peaceful liberation.
So, of those, Rinpoche said, the first of those,
that all conditioned things, meaning everything that is
the product of causes and conditions, is also impermanent.
Or just the fact of impermanence, the impermanence of things,
that whatever was built will have to fall,
that whatever meeting took place will have to disperse,
that birth ends in death. Those facts of impermanence are not unknown to us.
It's something that we know, and it's also something that
is quite widely acknowledged in the world's religions.
So it's a hallmark of, this is a key content of the Buddha's teachings.
It's something that always has to be there
in the context of any aspect of Buddhist teachings.
It has to fit with this message. But at the same time,
it's also something that is quite well known in the world.
Perhaps we don't spend all that much time thinking about impermanence
and just how impermanent things are, but it's not that we aren't aware
of this. We are, and we have been for as long as we can remember.
So how about the next of the four maxims,
that everything associated with negative emotions is painful?
So Rinpoche said that's also not uniquely Buddhist
to say that, to say that craving, aggression and ignorance,
close-mindedness, that those are not factors for good. It's not that this
will make us happy, but that there's a clear link with suffering there.
It's also something that we know from experience and the way
we think also acknowledges this, even if we aren't Buddhist.
It's something that the world's religions too acknowledge. It's not
as such uniquely Buddhist to say that these negative emotions are,
and what is associated with those is also painful, or suffering, or stress,
whichever way we may try to translate the term 'Dukkha' in Pali, Sanskrit.
So where do these negative emotions come from? That's perhaps not so clear to us.
But the fact that they have this association with suffering is quite well known.
But then Rinpoche said emptiness and no-self, that is not
something that is very well acknowledged, very widely acknowledged.
It's not something that we can say we know probably from experience
already, and it's not something that we can say that we understand already,
unless we are already steeped in this kind of
process of learning, reflecting and meditating.
And it's not something that is very widely acknowledged in
the world's religions, philosophical systems and so on either.
In fact it seems in many ways contrary to what we are used to thinking,
and it seems contrary to the way we experience things.
Right? I very naturally believe that I am here in a situation together with you.
It is so obvious to me that this is the case that really
I wouldn't question it under normal circumstances.
I would just be here and there would be tons of questions that I could
ask about this event and myself and you and what's going on here.
Many, many questions could be asked, but that
very question would probably not come up.
Am I here?
It's a dumb question, no?
And if it is asked, then also typically we can think a little bit
about that, as we approach the treatise that we will be studying here.
Just asking a question like that, no? We can ask ourselves
that question, how does it feel to suddenly ask ourselves
Am I here? Or who am I to be here?
How does that feel? How easy or not does such a question come to us?
And then also think, what might the reaction be, if we bring
up a question like that among others in different contexts.
At home with the family, what would happen, if suddenly
at the breakfast table I tell to my family: "Am I here?"
What would happen at the workplace, if I say that?
Either in some sort of work situation or in the break, whatever.
With my friends, what will happen if I asked these questons?
Is there a kind of place where this question would fit in?
Is there some kind of group that I know, where this
question would be like at least an okay question to ask?
Because I think in many of these cases it would be
to say, that it would be awkward to ask that question, is an understatement, no?
It would be asking for trouble certainly, no?
And why is that? So what I would like us to try together
during this course is to, in the spirit of the treatise that we study,
to keep asking ourselves these questions as we go.
So why is it, that first of all it's so unlikely
that I would begin to ask myself, am I here or not?
And why is it the case that it's such an awkward question
to ask, or even uncomfortable question to ask?
For me it's awkward to ask it and for those who
hear it they will also feel concerned, probably.
They will be concerned about me and they will be baffled.
If there was a good atmosphere before, then it's
kind of broken by asking something of this kind.
So why is that? Let's try to... So, Rinpoche also highlighted,
when I asked him for guidance on how to approach this course,
he also highlighted the way His Holiness the Dalai Lama
encourages a combination of analysis and rest.
So I would like us to try to do the same here also, during the
classes and during the day and the nights that will unfold
as we go over the next couple of months, to bring
whatever we think of here and the analysis to mind.
And then a lot of that analysis has to do with asking questions.
And then allowing ourselves to be informed by
those questions and informed by our own reactions,
the reactions that we get from others
and our own understanding as that begins to unfold.
Let us give ourselves time to be as informed as we can by that.
So, in other words to try to approach the whole
process of learning, reflecting and meditating,
which, as we know, should be an integrated process
that never really has only one element going on.
Well, an integrated process where none of these
three elements is divorced from the others,
where they are mutually reinforcing.
So, in this way we will be relying on the framework
of analytic meditation and then resting meditation.
Which both have a very long and amazing history.
The analytic approach is what is upheld in scholarly institutions,
meaning all the way back to the origins
of the Buddhist teachings in the world.
There have been teaching and listening and contemplation situations,
where the Buddhas followers have tried to comprehend,
ascertain and clarify, elaborate upon the teachings.
So also there are very old institutions for doing that
in India, in places like Nālandā and Vikramaśilā,
they have a good claim to being the world's first universities.
You could argue that, if we want to find
places where knowledge was cherished,
not just spiritual knowledge, not just religious knowledge and
not just knowledge of one particular spiritual or religious tradition,
but the whole array of philosophy and religious views that were
at play in India in those days, were also studied at those institutions.
And so were the arts and the sciences as one had them in those days.
So there is a good case, we can say, for certainly saying that
Nālandā, Vikramaśilā and institutions of that sort
are among the very first examples that we have of the idea of a university.
So in those places one learns and reflects on the
Buddhist teachings in a very comprehensive way.
And that tradition is very important to recognize,
alive still and well in the world today.
And it's one of the really profound facts
of this place, the Rangjung Yeshe Institute.
That it's a place where we can enjoy access to that tradition,
by learning from experts who are steeped in philosophical learning,
who have perhaps joined a monastic institution
when they were very young as children.
They enrolled and began a long process of studies,
which is an ongoing process on a daily basis.
Waking up early in the morning, reciting
scriptures that are to be studied later in the day.
Then we have expert teachers, who lecture
on those, that's a very lively conversation.
The teacher will ask penetrating questions and inquire among the students, the students will,
in the same way try to come up with the most pertinent and sharpest questions they can, to the teacher.
And there is this whole tradition of debating at length,
and very actively, the purport of the teachings.
So, basically the whole day is, once you join the monastic college, then your whole
day is steeped in learning, reflecting and meditating in this comprehensive way.
So if you go about things in that way with a sincere mind and with a
good motivation for many years, for nine years, ten years, twelve years,
and often this process continuous and the great scholars never stop studying of course.
As they teach many sessions a day of very different kinds of scriptural subject matter,
they also inquire with other scholars and discuss. They compose
their own writings, which then receive critique from others and so on.
So there's a very vibrant traditional
learning environment, which is still here and accessible.
And of course it's very different to study with someone who comes
from that tradition, because he or she will be really, it will be such,
will have absorbed so much of this wisdom, this comprehensive
approach to learning, reflecting and meditating
that they often really radiate a special kind of
intelligence, that is difficult to find elsewhere.
So it's a wonderful fact that this kind
of approach is still alive in the world.
and Rinpoche asked me to go through the Root Verses here in the text
of the "Root of the Middle Way."
And then the hope is, that as we study the Root Verses together,
you can after that, perhaps it will be somewhat easier for you to connect with the vast and
profound scholarship that is here with us alive in the traditional approach to learning.
So that you can receive teachings from real experts in the
scriptural, commentarial traditions, and that's a wonderful thing.
Once you begin to get a sense of where
this is going, let's see if we do that, yeah?
Because where is it going? That's one of the key questions
that we will keep in mind throughout all of this,
but once it gets to you, let's say it like that, then it is very wonderful
to have accessible, elaborate, comprehensive teaching in the commentarial literature,
and also people who can explain that.
Those commentaries on the "Root of the Middle Way,"
all the way from the times in India and up
until today, are very different from each other.
The points that they make, the approach, the way they
understand what's going on in the "Root of the Middle Way,"
of course you can say it's all Buddhist teachings, and certainly it is,
but it's Buddhist teaching presented in many very different ways,
and often there will be debates, and fierce
debate, about what is right and what is wrong.
That kind of debate is something that one can really benefit from,
if, in particular, I believe, if one has some sense,
or if one has been taken by the issues that come up in this context, then it's
very enriching to be able to listen to extremely well-studied and brilliant minds
who can develop a whole position around what
you just have one or two thoughts about.
Those thoughts were very important, but to then hear someone develop a whole worldview
out of that little insight that you arrived at in your own contemplation, is wonderful.
And in particular, if there are then different worldviews, that are equally
possible and realizable, based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā,
then so much the better. So there's a real wealth of
understanding, insight there to be discovered.
Once we have gone through the root text here, if any of you
feel like studying with a real expert in Mādhyamaka,
someone who can bring alive these commentarial traditions
and the debates also between them, then I would be very happy.
Then I would consider this class successful. If you get that inspiration and that interest
and that courage that it takes to enter this kind of immersive philosophical study.
That's about the analytic approach.
So, in the analytic approach one uses basically two things.
One uses scripture, the teachings of the Buddha,
and then those treatises that we just talked about.
The treatises and the commentaries on the words of
the Buddha and the great followers of the Buddha.
So it's a still emerging body of literature that one
studies, but not just in a passive sense of course,
subjecting whatever is taught there, to critical analysis.
So reasoning and logic is the other key factor.
There's scripture and reasoning. Those are the two tools, so to speak,
that are used in this process of gaining insight in the scholarly institutions,
in the scholarly tradition. And that's a process again, that takes
typically many years and can go on for a lifetime very easily.
But at any rate it's something that requires time and effort.
Then there is the approach of the yogi, the approach of free rest,
which can be a shortcut at times if one is of the right kind.
Meaning, if one is able to, first of all have
the fortune of meeting a qualified teacher,
and if one has the fortune of being able to see
that qualified teacher as a qualified teacher.
And not just as a qualified teacher, but with a whole lot of openness.
In fact, for the oral instructions that are
at the heart of this practice of the yogi, free rest,
it's not very much a matter of understanding them and
thinking about them, it's much more a question of applying them.
So in other words, for one to be able to really benefit from that approach,
one has to be very open and confident and beyond doubt in a way.
Otherwise, if one keeps contemplating what the instructions are
then one isn't applying them. That's quite logical.
As long as one is wandering about the character of a practical
instruction, for that long one isn't making use of it.
It could be a practical instruction for anything.
If I read the manual for turning on the radio, then while I read and
think about how I might turn on the radio, I'm not turning it on.
But the manual is there for me to figure out
how to turn it on, and indeed turn it on.
So, if my encounter with the oral instructions becomes
basically accumulating learning about oral instructions,
and in my heart of hearts still wondering about how they should
be applied, then it's not the yogi's approach of rest, right?
But if one is of that kind, it is said, then it is possible
to shortcut this whole approach of learning and reflecting,
and arrive at profound liberating insight in very short time.
But it takes a very special person to be like that.
We can ask ourselves, am I of that kind?
Perhaps we are, but probably not. Especially these days
when there is such an emphasis on, and for good reasons,
an emphasis on being critical and not accepting things
at face value, at questioning. That's what we learn in school
And as a matter of fact, of course, if we give up that,
we won't be very successful in the world as it is today.
We need to be skeptical, critical, asking questions,
do it skillfully at the right time and so on. But nonetheless,
if we give up that critical bent, then we don't get anywhere.
And that's also what our parents will tell us,
when we are small, that's what our teachers will tell us.
And so it becomes second nature, and we think that we can't
allow ourselves to be any other way, which is generally true.
But when it then comes to oral instructions,
we also think that this is how it is.
And then it is possible that we can have this
very strong interest in learning meditation,
and really being fed up with scholarly learning
and just wanting to get to meditation practice.
And yet, when we get the real key to it all, then that key
becomes our focal point that we then begin to question,
and ask ourselves questions about, rather than using it.
Now when we do analyze and investigate, in particular
the subject matter that we will be concerned with here,
then every so often, quite continuously, there will be
points when we think, oh! Whatever, however our reaction may be,
that's also something that I would like if we can try to
sort of, notice, most importantly for ourselves.
When I come to understand something, then what is my reaction?
But there will be those points all the time.
There will be points of great irritation,
and great... And then there will also be times when we think
that a new insight has arisen in our minds.
So when that happens, then we can allow ourselves
to just be with that, so to speak.
Not as a big program and now I have to sit and focus on that necessarily,
but just rather than skipping over it almost
and right into the next thing for analysis.
Try to just take it in on a deeper level.
We can try to acknowledge, in as open a
fashion as we can, what this means for us,
what it means for the world, what we have come to understand.
So that's a way... So at that point we are no longer
maintaining the scripture and reasoning framework,
we just allow ourselves to benefit from whatever we saw.
So that is a simple way of embarking on this yogic path of free rest.
And we do it whenever there is a sense of doubts and questions disappearing.
So in this way we can combine the two.
Which is what I mentioned a long while ago,
that we can try to rely on analytic meditation,
resolving the view through learning and reflection.
And then also the yogic approach, the direct approach of free rest.
And that is what His Holiness has encouraged us
to do and that's what Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche told me.
Please take His Holiness' advice and see,
if you can all go about things in that way.
And if we do that, then I think we have a good chance
of really benefiting from this process,
because they really go very well together.
It takes a lot of energy and focus and
hard work to maintain the critical spirit.
It's not so much the case that the concepts that we
will be introduced to here in the Mūlamadhyamaka
are terribly complex.
There will be some Buddhist frameworks that will be brought up,
but it's very limited stuff and very basic notions,
that will be presented typically.
So that's not the challenge, it's not that
we have to compare to learning Abhidharma,
this is a breeze, there's nothing of that sort of exotic,
complex, philosophical framework that has to be learned.
And it's not so much a matter either of
constructing arguments and developing a view either.
So that's not the challenge here really.
It's more a challenge to keep being as critical
as we would like to think of ourselves as being.
If that makes sense.
I like to think of myself as someone who is
not easily convinced when people say something.
I like to think that I have a sort of sound,
critical capacity, that I'm happy to apply.
If a politician argues something, then
I'm not just there to cheer, but I think,
and if I find it justified then I will applaud.
The same with the scientific idea, not just because
some famous scientist has said this is how it is,
so I cheer and change my worldview. I try to understand.
That's the kind of view of myself that I'd like to maintain,
that I'm this very astute and careful person.
I think often we know that we aren't like that
a whole lot of the time, but I think each one of us,
we have that with us too.
We'd like to think of ourselves, and for good reasons,
why should we think otherwise?
We'd like to think of ourselves as people who
don't get carried away by whatever people say,
that we want to keep our two feet on the ground and
make sure that we are on the same page as the ones
that we communicate with, that we are not just running off
in any direction that people tell us to go.
I think, that much probably we all have
the aspiration to be that kind of person.
But the way the reasoning works in the Mūlamadhyamaka
is very penetrating and unrelenting.
So, it can become very frustrating to be asked again
and again questions that we feel we cannot answer.
And yet we feel that we should be able to answer them.
So the challenge, what really requires stamina,
is to say I am going to be that person,
that critical, careful person throughout this whole process.
I'm not going to just give in and say,
"Oh yeah, Nāgārjuna, you're so great, and now I understand,
and please leave me alone." Of course we can do that anytime, that's fine.
And often people do that, and I do that myself also,
and it can be even quite virtuous to do that, perhaps.
But it also... not the last part, please leave me alone,
is probably not virtuous, no?
But there must be some virtue in cheering nonetheless, yeah?
So, if we do that, then basically we prevent ourselves from gaining
what is really there to be gained in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
It's crucial that we keep up the stamina
and that we are honest to ourselves,
and that we try to maintain this sort of image of ourselves
as careful, critical, discerning people.
And not in order to present ourselves
that way to others, but in our heart of hearts,
taking our own views, our own beliefs seriously.
And that is something that I think we all owe ourselves, no?
If we don't take our own core beliefs seriously,
that is really pathetic, no?
That's a wasted life, no? It's as if we don't live, no?
If we say, "Yeah, I really feel, I really believe this way, but so what?"
What kind of life is that, no?
So, that's the kind of, that is the kind of courage and the kind of
energy that we need to muster in a continuous way as we go, yeah?
So that's demanding, and then it can be very rewarding
on many levels to have the free approach of resting.
Whenever we then get a little relief, by all means take it.
And don't just think now, but okay, next thing, yeah?
So try to take that relief and see what it does to us.
to our being, our actions, our orientation.
And then it's exactly eleven o'clock.
Oh, we still have fifteen minutes, that's wonderful, fortunate.
So yeah, that's about the sort of approach
that I thought we should try to take, no?
In this period that we are together, and try to see it as
not just spending some time in the mornings doing a class together,
but as a sort of whole process, day and night.
Living and breathing this stuff, yeah!
That is actually the most meaningful and natural way to go about it.
It's not very meaningful and not very natural to confine this kind of analysis to some,
to some compartment in our life, where we are concerned with Mādhyamaka philosophy.
It's not like so many other things in life that works perfectly well, no?
Like, I take my Spanish class on Thursday
evening, perhaps, and that's fine, no?
Then I train every morning, half an hour, and that's it, yeah?
I don't have to, unless that is all what is important for me in that period
of my life, then I don't need to think in Spanish all the time, right?
And mathematics and so on, especially when we
have many things to learn, then it doesn't work.
I can't be all about Spanish, all about
mathematics, all about cooking 24/7, no?
That just doesn't work.
So, often we do have to say, "That time is when I do this," and so on.
And of course we will have formal sessions here in the morning,
but because what we are concerned with here
is of such core significance for our own understanding of ourselves,
who we are, what the world is, that's why to really benefit
and to approach this whole learning process in the most natural way,
we have to bring it to mind repeatedly.
And we can do that in these two ways.
We can work with our intellect and the teachings
and the reasoning that we are presented with in the text.
So we should do that as much as we can,
and we can do it by taking in whatever
insights we arrive at, as we just talked about.
So in that way it will be this mutually reinforcing interplay of
analytic meditation and the yogis' style of free-rest meditation.
So, how is it?
I screen share?
Yeah, that's the title, right, of the text,
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā by Nāgārjuna.
So we talked a little bit about Nāgārjuna already, and this text is...
Nāgārjuna is associated with very many different kinds of Buddhist teaching,
but this one is probably the most renowned of his treatises.
Otherwise, in the Tibetan tradition and elsewhere too,
Nāgārjuna is known for many different philosophical works
and also for philosophy of both sūtra and mantra,
and for commentaries on sūtra and mantra.
But this one is probably the one,
his most well-known and influential treatise.
So it's called "Insight" and then "The Stanzas,"
because we'll be studying "The Root Verses of the Middle Way,"
Madhyamaka, in Sanskrit.
So that Middle Way is an important Buddhist concept.
The Buddhist teaching is presented always
as a balance and avoiding extreme positions.
In all contexts of Buddhist teaching,
there is this sense of a flawless middle,
where you don't fall into either extreme.
That's in terms of conduct.
We hear the Buddha teaching to the monks and the nuns that they should not,
and to lay followers too of course, that they should not
be carried away by sense pleasures,
and at the same time they should not
subject themselves to hardship for the sake of hardship.
But in finding a golden means where
we are not carried away and waste our time as humans
in the blind pursuit of pleasures, and
at the same time don't see our pleasures as a,
and our own enjoyment of that as an enemy...
What to say?
That this sort of self-penance as a way of self-torture and so on,
that that has no relevance.
Instead, finding a natural balance so that we can learn,
reflect and meditate, be active in a way that is meaningful
for ourselves and for others, and make the best
of our opportunity as human beings.
So that's one Buddhist teaching that we
will often hear, a general Buddhist advice.
And then on a philosophical or, in terms of the way things are,
a way of avoiding extremes would be,
from sort of basic Buddhist philosophical point of view,
would be to say that there is no self.
There is no permanent, enduring, controlling individual
because such an individual cannot be found under analysis.
And at the same time it is not the case, so there is no one
in this way, who continues from one situation to the next,
and from one life to the next, and at the same time,
so that would be the extreme of permanence.
But at the same time avoiding the nihilist conclusion,
or misunderstanding, which would be to say that
there is someone here now, an individual,
but that individual ceases at the time of death.
So that would be one way of arriving at a sense of a middle.
So the way the middle is defined and explained depends on
which context we are at, at the Buddhist teachings.
But there is always this sense of a middle. And in the
Mādhyamaka sense, what is then the Mādhyamaka sense of a middle?
This we will get to right away tomorrow when we look at the
homage, Nāgārjuna's homage to the teacher.
And we will see that from this perspective of
profound emptiness, the idea that there is something,
whether it's a person, or whether it's physical factors,
the mind, mental processes, or an interplay of those--
as long as there is any sense that such things are there and
exist, then that is the extreme of permanence or eternalism.
And at the same time, to then conclude that hence
there is nothing, is the extreme of nihilism.
So, as they say, giving up completely
both of the extremes, the wise do not even remain in the middle.
Because, if there are no extremes, if those extremes have been transcended,
then the very idea of a center also loses its meaning.
So we could say, that profound middle beyond extremes,
the non-middle, the middle without any middle,
is the one that Nāgārjuna delivers insight into through this treatise.
In other words, it's the kind of middle that the
Buddha talks about in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings,
which are full of those statements.
And perhaps we can state statements of this kind,
that reality is not in terms of object and subject,
object and agent, and yet it is not without object and agent,
for example. That is a quotation from
one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
And the Prajñāpāramitā literature abounds with this kind of
statement, that we may feel it sounds profound,
we may feel that it sounds nonsensical. Whatever the case is,
it's probably hard to say what it really should mean.
The fact, regardless of all of this is,
that Prajñāpāramitā sūtras abound with that sort of discourse.
So Nāgārjuna in his "Root of the Middle Way," lays out a path
that can be taken through the use of our own simple critical analysis,
our own intellect, that leads-- he will sort of promise us,
that if you follow along on this journey,
then you will see what these statements
really mean. Not just as a matter of belief,
but through, you will understand profoundly, and on that basis
it is then possible to gain flawless realization.
So tomorrow we will begin, I think, with
the homage, which is Nāgārjuna's homage,
but it's also, the very same verses occur
in one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras,
where the Buddha speaks to Śakra,
the king of the gods in the heaven of the 33.
So he teaches profound Prajñāpāramitā along the lines
that I just tried to convey, like reality and the Prajñāpāramitā
are not in terms of object, agent and action,
yet they are also not in terms of object, agent and action.
So what do we make of that?
The middle that Nāgārjuna speaks about in the
title of the treatise is also that which he brings up here,
when he says, "That which originates dependently, does not
cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go,
is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same.
To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete
pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So there we see dependent origination,
dependent origination which is shown to be
beyond ending and coming into being, going and coming and so on.
So that's where we'll begin tomorrow.
Every day let's try to keep ample time for dialogue, so contrary to today.
And let's start in that way also tomorrow.
So whatever I've been going on about today,
if you can remember any of it, try and think,
what makes sense, what does not make sense, or what is unclear.
And let's begin tomorrow talking about that.
And we'll probably continue with that framework throughout the whole thing.
Thank you very much for today and see you again and again.
[Laughter].
I'm looking forward to exploring and contemplating together.
I thought that we could try to approach this class
as an exercise in awareness of dependent origination,
and so see how organically and dynamically that can transpire and what we can learn together
in this way by contemplating the profound "Verses of The Root of The Middle Way."
So this is Buddhist philosophy of the most classic
form possible. I think we can safely say, no?
Nāgārjuna certainly has a claim to being
Buddhism's most renowned philosopher.
There are many, of course, but that's a good case for saying that if you have to
pick one, it would be Nāgārjuna-- the most influential philosopher.
And Nāgārjuna is known also in the tradition that we are
particularly informed by here in this region and at this institute.
In that tradition, Nāgārjuna is considered a charioteer, someone who was able to open
a path to the wisdom of the perfection of insight, the Prajñāpāramitā, independently.
Meaning by the power, his own power of insight and intelligence, enabled him to deliver the intent
of the profound Prajñāpāramitā teachings in a way that is accessible for human beings like us.
In particular, a path to the profound insight, which is non-conceptual and beyond
all constructs, which nonetheless relies on constructs in a very skillful fashion,
that encourages us to be critical and use our capacity for
critical thinking, reasoning to the very best, to our very best.
So, I think we can say that that is one of the real highlights of Nāgārjuna's profound approach
is that he is able to deliver a way of going about things rationally,
by means of logic and analysis, in a way that allows ourselves
to question profoundly our own most deepest convictions.
So through Nāgārjuna's skillful approach, we are able to ask ourselves
questions, that perhaps we would otherwise never be able to formulate.
Not to mention really pursue those questions, but even just
they wouldn't occur to us, that something of this sort could be questioned.
So Nāgārjuna invites us to, in this way, follow him on a journey to insight,
that very much is about looking at ourselves: at our own beliefs, at our own core beliefs,
and then questioning how well founded those core beliefs really are.
So in other words this is a journey that takes us into
emptiness and dependent origination.
And that teaching of emptiness and dependent origination is,
we can say, the hallmark of the Buddha's teaching.
That's also what we will see in the homage that Nāgārjuna pays
to the teacher, the teacher of teachers, the king of teachers, the Buddha.
at the beginning of the treatise, he praises the Buddha as
this perfect teacher, because of being able to show emptiness and dependent origination.
It's a great challenge, of course, to try to facilitate
that kind of contemplation in a genuine fashion.
Chökyi Nyima Rinpoche has nonetheless asked me to do this,
and I'm also happy to do it because it is a very rewarding,
tremendously rewarding exercise that we can do together and
use each other as witnesses and real partners and helpers
in this process of coming to, hopefully,
increasingly profound insight into emptiness and dependent origination.
So Rinpoche just yesterday, I think it was, said something
to the effect that, the Buddha's teaching is characterized by these four seals, right?
Those four summaries of the Buddhahdharma.
That are that all conditioned things are impermanent,
everything involved, associated with negative emotions is painful.
All factors, all phenomena, all things are empty and devoid of self.
And finally, passing beyond suffering is peaceful liberation.
So, of those, Rinpoche said, the first of those,
that all conditioned things, meaning everything that is
the product of causes and conditions, is also impermanent.
Or just the fact of impermanence, the impermanence of things,
that whatever was built will have to fall,
that whatever meeting took place will have to disperse,
that birth ends in death. Those facts of impermanence are not unknown to us.
It's something that we know, and it's also something that
is quite widely acknowledged in the world's religions.
So it's a hallmark of, this is a key content of the Buddha's teachings.
It's something that always has to be there
in the context of any aspect of Buddhist teachings.
It has to fit with this message. But at the same time,
it's also something that is quite well known in the world.
Perhaps we don't spend all that much time thinking about impermanence
and just how impermanent things are, but it's not that we aren't aware
of this. We are, and we have been for as long as we can remember.
So how about the next of the four maxims,
that everything associated with negative emotions is painful?
So Rinpoche said that's also not uniquely Buddhist
to say that, to say that craving, aggression and ignorance,
close-mindedness, that those are not factors for good. It's not that this
will make us happy, but that there's a clear link with suffering there.
It's also something that we know from experience and the way
we think also acknowledges this, even if we aren't Buddhist.
It's something that the world's religions too acknowledge. It's not
as such uniquely Buddhist to say that these negative emotions are,
and what is associated with those is also painful, or suffering, or stress,
whichever way we may try to translate the term 'Dukkha' in Pali, Sanskrit.
So where do these negative emotions come from? That's perhaps not so clear to us.
But the fact that they have this association with suffering is quite well known.
But then Rinpoche said emptiness and no-self, that is not
something that is very well acknowledged, very widely acknowledged.
It's not something that we can say we know probably from experience
already, and it's not something that we can say that we understand already,
unless we are already steeped in this kind of
process of learning, reflecting and meditating.
And it's not something that is very widely acknowledged in
the world's religions, philosophical systems and so on either.
In fact it seems in many ways contrary to what we are used to thinking,
and it seems contrary to the way we experience things.
Right? I very naturally believe that I am here in a situation together with you.
It is so obvious to me that this is the case that really
I wouldn't question it under normal circumstances.
I would just be here and there would be tons of questions that I could
ask about this event and myself and you and what's going on here.
Many, many questions could be asked, but that
very question would probably not come up.
Am I here?
It's a dumb question, no?
And if it is asked, then also typically we can think a little bit
about that, as we approach the treatise that we will be studying here.
Just asking a question like that, no? We can ask ourselves
that question, how does it feel to suddenly ask ourselves
Am I here? Or who am I to be here?
How does that feel? How easy or not does such a question come to us?
And then also think, what might the reaction be, if we bring
up a question like that among others in different contexts.
At home with the family, what would happen, if suddenly
at the breakfast table I tell to my family: "Am I here?"
What would happen at the workplace, if I say that?
Either in some sort of work situation or in the break, whatever.
With my friends, what will happen if I asked these questons?
Is there a kind of place where this question would fit in?
Is there some kind of group that I know, where this
question would be like at least an okay question to ask?
Because I think in many of these cases it would be
to say, that it would be awkward to ask that question, is an understatement, no?
It would be asking for trouble certainly, no?
And why is that? So what I would like us to try together
during this course is to, in the spirit of the treatise that we study,
to keep asking ourselves these questions as we go.
So why is it, that first of all it's so unlikely
that I would begin to ask myself, am I here or not?
And why is it the case that it's such an awkward question
to ask, or even uncomfortable question to ask?
For me it's awkward to ask it and for those who
hear it they will also feel concerned, probably.
They will be concerned about me and they will be baffled.
If there was a good atmosphere before, then it's
kind of broken by asking something of this kind.
So why is that? Let's try to... So, Rinpoche also highlighted,
when I asked him for guidance on how to approach this course,
he also highlighted the way His Holiness the Dalai Lama
encourages a combination of analysis and rest.
So I would like us to try to do the same here also, during the
classes and during the day and the nights that will unfold
as we go over the next couple of months, to bring
whatever we think of here and the analysis to mind.
And then a lot of that analysis has to do with asking questions.
And then allowing ourselves to be informed by
those questions and informed by our own reactions,
the reactions that we get from others
and our own understanding as that begins to unfold.
Let us give ourselves time to be as informed as we can by that.
So, in other words to try to approach the whole
process of learning, reflecting and meditating,
which, as we know, should be an integrated process
that never really has only one element going on.
Well, an integrated process where none of these
three elements is divorced from the others,
where they are mutually reinforcing.
So, in this way we will be relying on the framework
of analytic meditation and then resting meditation.
Which both have a very long and amazing history.
The analytic approach is what is upheld in scholarly institutions,
meaning all the way back to the origins
of the Buddhist teachings in the world.
There have been teaching and listening and contemplation situations,
where the Buddhas followers have tried to comprehend,
ascertain and clarify, elaborate upon the teachings.
So also there are very old institutions for doing that
in India, in places like Nālandā and Vikramaśilā,
they have a good claim to being the world's first universities.
You could argue that, if we want to find
places where knowledge was cherished,
not just spiritual knowledge, not just religious knowledge and
not just knowledge of one particular spiritual or religious tradition,
but the whole array of philosophy and religious views that were
at play in India in those days, were also studied at those institutions.
And so were the arts and the sciences as one had them in those days.
So there is a good case, we can say, for certainly saying that
Nālandā, Vikramaśilā and institutions of that sort
are among the very first examples that we have of the idea of a university.
So in those places one learns and reflects on the
Buddhist teachings in a very comprehensive way.
And that tradition is very important to recognize,
alive still and well in the world today.
And it's one of the really profound facts
of this place, the Rangjung Yeshe Institute.
That it's a place where we can enjoy access to that tradition,
by learning from experts who are steeped in philosophical learning,
who have perhaps joined a monastic institution
when they were very young as children.
They enrolled and began a long process of studies,
which is an ongoing process on a daily basis.
Waking up early in the morning, reciting
scriptures that are to be studied later in the day.
Then we have expert teachers, who lecture
on those, that's a very lively conversation.
The teacher will ask penetrating questions and inquire among the students, the students will,
in the same way try to come up with the most pertinent and sharpest questions they can, to the teacher.
And there is this whole tradition of debating at length,
and very actively, the purport of the teachings.
So, basically the whole day is, once you join the monastic college, then your whole
day is steeped in learning, reflecting and meditating in this comprehensive way.
So if you go about things in that way with a sincere mind and with a
good motivation for many years, for nine years, ten years, twelve years,
and often this process continuous and the great scholars never stop studying of course.
As they teach many sessions a day of very different kinds of scriptural subject matter,
they also inquire with other scholars and discuss. They compose
their own writings, which then receive critique from others and so on.
So there's a very vibrant traditional
learning environment, which is still here and accessible.
And of course it's very different to study with someone who comes
from that tradition, because he or she will be really, it will be such,
will have absorbed so much of this wisdom, this comprehensive
approach to learning, reflecting and meditating
that they often really radiate a special kind of
intelligence, that is difficult to find elsewhere.
So it's a wonderful fact that this kind
of approach is still alive in the world.
and Rinpoche asked me to go through the Root Verses here in the text
of the "Root of the Middle Way."
And then the hope is, that as we study the Root Verses together,
you can after that, perhaps it will be somewhat easier for you to connect with the vast and
profound scholarship that is here with us alive in the traditional approach to learning.
So that you can receive teachings from real experts in the
scriptural, commentarial traditions, and that's a wonderful thing.
Once you begin to get a sense of where
this is going, let's see if we do that, yeah?
Because where is it going? That's one of the key questions
that we will keep in mind throughout all of this,
but once it gets to you, let's say it like that, then it is very wonderful
to have accessible, elaborate, comprehensive teaching in the commentarial literature,
and also people who can explain that.
Those commentaries on the "Root of the Middle Way,"
all the way from the times in India and up
until today, are very different from each other.
The points that they make, the approach, the way they
understand what's going on in the "Root of the Middle Way,"
of course you can say it's all Buddhist teachings, and certainly it is,
but it's Buddhist teaching presented in many very different ways,
and often there will be debates, and fierce
debate, about what is right and what is wrong.
That kind of debate is something that one can really benefit from,
if, in particular, I believe, if one has some sense,
or if one has been taken by the issues that come up in this context, then it's
very enriching to be able to listen to extremely well-studied and brilliant minds
who can develop a whole position around what
you just have one or two thoughts about.
Those thoughts were very important, but to then hear someone develop a whole worldview
out of that little insight that you arrived at in your own contemplation, is wonderful.
And in particular, if there are then different worldviews, that are equally
possible and realizable, based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā,
then so much the better. So there's a real wealth of
understanding, insight there to be discovered.
Once we have gone through the root text here, if any of you
feel like studying with a real expert in Mādhyamaka,
someone who can bring alive these commentarial traditions
and the debates also between them, then I would be very happy.
Then I would consider this class successful. If you get that inspiration and that interest
and that courage that it takes to enter this kind of immersive philosophical study.
That's about the analytic approach.
So, in the analytic approach one uses basically two things.
One uses scripture, the teachings of the Buddha,
and then those treatises that we just talked about.
The treatises and the commentaries on the words of
the Buddha and the great followers of the Buddha.
So it's a still emerging body of literature that one
studies, but not just in a passive sense of course,
subjecting whatever is taught there, to critical analysis.
So reasoning and logic is the other key factor.
There's scripture and reasoning. Those are the two tools, so to speak,
that are used in this process of gaining insight in the scholarly institutions,
in the scholarly tradition. And that's a process again, that takes
typically many years and can go on for a lifetime very easily.
But at any rate it's something that requires time and effort.
Then there is the approach of the yogi, the approach of free rest,
which can be a shortcut at times if one is of the right kind.
Meaning, if one is able to, first of all have
the fortune of meeting a qualified teacher,
and if one has the fortune of being able to see
that qualified teacher as a qualified teacher.
And not just as a qualified teacher, but with a whole lot of openness.
In fact, for the oral instructions that are
at the heart of this practice of the yogi, free rest,
it's not very much a matter of understanding them and
thinking about them, it's much more a question of applying them.
So in other words, for one to be able to really benefit from that approach,
one has to be very open and confident and beyond doubt in a way.
Otherwise, if one keeps contemplating what the instructions are
then one isn't applying them. That's quite logical.
As long as one is wandering about the character of a practical
instruction, for that long one isn't making use of it.
It could be a practical instruction for anything.
If I read the manual for turning on the radio, then while I read and
think about how I might turn on the radio, I'm not turning it on.
But the manual is there for me to figure out
how to turn it on, and indeed turn it on.
So, if my encounter with the oral instructions becomes
basically accumulating learning about oral instructions,
and in my heart of hearts still wondering about how they should
be applied, then it's not the yogi's approach of rest, right?
But if one is of that kind, it is said, then it is possible
to shortcut this whole approach of learning and reflecting,
and arrive at profound liberating insight in very short time.
But it takes a very special person to be like that.
We can ask ourselves, am I of that kind?
Perhaps we are, but probably not. Especially these days
when there is such an emphasis on, and for good reasons,
an emphasis on being critical and not accepting things
at face value, at questioning. That's what we learn in school
And as a matter of fact, of course, if we give up that,
we won't be very successful in the world as it is today.
We need to be skeptical, critical, asking questions,
do it skillfully at the right time and so on. But nonetheless,
if we give up that critical bent, then we don't get anywhere.
And that's also what our parents will tell us,
when we are small, that's what our teachers will tell us.
And so it becomes second nature, and we think that we can't
allow ourselves to be any other way, which is generally true.
But when it then comes to oral instructions,
we also think that this is how it is.
And then it is possible that we can have this
very strong interest in learning meditation,
and really being fed up with scholarly learning
and just wanting to get to meditation practice.
And yet, when we get the real key to it all, then that key
becomes our focal point that we then begin to question,
and ask ourselves questions about, rather than using it.
Now when we do analyze and investigate, in particular
the subject matter that we will be concerned with here,
then every so often, quite continuously, there will be
points when we think, oh! Whatever, however our reaction may be,
that's also something that I would like if we can try to
sort of, notice, most importantly for ourselves.
When I come to understand something, then what is my reaction?
But there will be those points all the time.
There will be points of great irritation,
and great... And then there will also be times when we think
that a new insight has arisen in our minds.
So when that happens, then we can allow ourselves
to just be with that, so to speak.
Not as a big program and now I have to sit and focus on that necessarily,
but just rather than skipping over it almost
and right into the next thing for analysis.
Try to just take it in on a deeper level.
We can try to acknowledge, in as open a
fashion as we can, what this means for us,
what it means for the world, what we have come to understand.
So that's a way... So at that point we are no longer
maintaining the scripture and reasoning framework,
we just allow ourselves to benefit from whatever we saw.
So that is a simple way of embarking on this yogic path of free rest.
And we do it whenever there is a sense of doubts and questions disappearing.
So in this way we can combine the two.
Which is what I mentioned a long while ago,
that we can try to rely on analytic meditation,
resolving the view through learning and reflection.
And then also the yogic approach, the direct approach of free rest.
And that is what His Holiness has encouraged us
to do and that's what Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche told me.
Please take His Holiness' advice and see,
if you can all go about things in that way.
And if we do that, then I think we have a good chance
of really benefiting from this process,
because they really go very well together.
It takes a lot of energy and focus and
hard work to maintain the critical spirit.
It's not so much the case that the concepts that we
will be introduced to here in the Mūlamadhyamaka
are terribly complex.
There will be some Buddhist frameworks that will be brought up,
but it's very limited stuff and very basic notions,
that will be presented typically.
So that's not the challenge, it's not that
we have to compare to learning Abhidharma,
this is a breeze, there's nothing of that sort of exotic,
complex, philosophical framework that has to be learned.
And it's not so much a matter either of
constructing arguments and developing a view either.
So that's not the challenge here really.
It's more a challenge to keep being as critical
as we would like to think of ourselves as being.
If that makes sense.
I like to think of myself as someone who is
not easily convinced when people say something.
I like to think that I have a sort of sound,
critical capacity, that I'm happy to apply.
If a politician argues something, then
I'm not just there to cheer, but I think,
and if I find it justified then I will applaud.
The same with the scientific idea, not just because
some famous scientist has said this is how it is,
so I cheer and change my worldview. I try to understand.
That's the kind of view of myself that I'd like to maintain,
that I'm this very astute and careful person.
I think often we know that we aren't like that
a whole lot of the time, but I think each one of us,
we have that with us too.
We'd like to think of ourselves, and for good reasons,
why should we think otherwise?
We'd like to think of ourselves as people who
don't get carried away by whatever people say,
that we want to keep our two feet on the ground and
make sure that we are on the same page as the ones
that we communicate with, that we are not just running off
in any direction that people tell us to go.
I think, that much probably we all have
the aspiration to be that kind of person.
But the way the reasoning works in the Mūlamadhyamaka
is very penetrating and unrelenting.
So, it can become very frustrating to be asked again
and again questions that we feel we cannot answer.
And yet we feel that we should be able to answer them.
So the challenge, what really requires stamina,
is to say I am going to be that person,
that critical, careful person throughout this whole process.
I'm not going to just give in and say,
"Oh yeah, Nāgārjuna, you're so great, and now I understand,
and please leave me alone." Of course we can do that anytime, that's fine.
And often people do that, and I do that myself also,
and it can be even quite virtuous to do that, perhaps.
But it also... not the last part, please leave me alone,
is probably not virtuous, no?
But there must be some virtue in cheering nonetheless, yeah?
So, if we do that, then basically we prevent ourselves from gaining
what is really there to be gained in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.
It's crucial that we keep up the stamina
and that we are honest to ourselves,
and that we try to maintain this sort of image of ourselves
as careful, critical, discerning people.
And not in order to present ourselves
that way to others, but in our heart of hearts,
taking our own views, our own beliefs seriously.
And that is something that I think we all owe ourselves, no?
If we don't take our own core beliefs seriously,
that is really pathetic, no?
That's a wasted life, no? It's as if we don't live, no?
If we say, "Yeah, I really feel, I really believe this way, but so what?"
What kind of life is that, no?
So, that's the kind of, that is the kind of courage and the kind of
energy that we need to muster in a continuous way as we go, yeah?
So that's demanding, and then it can be very rewarding
on many levels to have the free approach of resting.
Whenever we then get a little relief, by all means take it.
And don't just think now, but okay, next thing, yeah?
So try to take that relief and see what it does to us.
to our being, our actions, our orientation.
And then it's exactly eleven o'clock.
Oh, we still have fifteen minutes, that's wonderful, fortunate.
So yeah, that's about the sort of approach
that I thought we should try to take, no?
In this period that we are together, and try to see it as
not just spending some time in the mornings doing a class together,
but as a sort of whole process, day and night.
Living and breathing this stuff, yeah!
That is actually the most meaningful and natural way to go about it.
It's not very meaningful and not very natural to confine this kind of analysis to some,
to some compartment in our life, where we are concerned with Mādhyamaka philosophy.
It's not like so many other things in life that works perfectly well, no?
Like, I take my Spanish class on Thursday
evening, perhaps, and that's fine, no?
Then I train every morning, half an hour, and that's it, yeah?
I don't have to, unless that is all what is important for me in that period
of my life, then I don't need to think in Spanish all the time, right?
And mathematics and so on, especially when we
have many things to learn, then it doesn't work.
I can't be all about Spanish, all about
mathematics, all about cooking 24/7, no?
That just doesn't work.
So, often we do have to say, "That time is when I do this," and so on.
And of course we will have formal sessions here in the morning,
but because what we are concerned with here
is of such core significance for our own understanding of ourselves,
who we are, what the world is, that's why to really benefit
and to approach this whole learning process in the most natural way,
we have to bring it to mind repeatedly.
And we can do that in these two ways.
We can work with our intellect and the teachings
and the reasoning that we are presented with in the text.
So we should do that as much as we can,
and we can do it by taking in whatever
insights we arrive at, as we just talked about.
So in that way it will be this mutually reinforcing interplay of
analytic meditation and the yogis' style of free-rest meditation.
So, how is it?
I screen share?
Yeah, that's the title, right, of the text,
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā by Nāgārjuna.
So we talked a little bit about Nāgārjuna already, and this text is...
Nāgārjuna is associated with very many different kinds of Buddhist teaching,
but this one is probably the most renowned of his treatises.
Otherwise, in the Tibetan tradition and elsewhere too,
Nāgārjuna is known for many different philosophical works
and also for philosophy of both sūtra and mantra,
and for commentaries on sūtra and mantra.
But this one is probably the one,
his most well-known and influential treatise.
So it's called "Insight" and then "The Stanzas,"
because we'll be studying "The Root Verses of the Middle Way,"
Madhyamaka, in Sanskrit.
So that Middle Way is an important Buddhist concept.
The Buddhist teaching is presented always
as a balance and avoiding extreme positions.
In all contexts of Buddhist teaching,
there is this sense of a flawless middle,
where you don't fall into either extreme.
That's in terms of conduct.
We hear the Buddha teaching to the monks and the nuns that they should not,
and to lay followers too of course, that they should not
be carried away by sense pleasures,
and at the same time they should not
subject themselves to hardship for the sake of hardship.
But in finding a golden means where
we are not carried away and waste our time as humans
in the blind pursuit of pleasures, and
at the same time don't see our pleasures as a,
and our own enjoyment of that as an enemy...
What to say?
That this sort of self-penance as a way of self-torture and so on,
that that has no relevance.
Instead, finding a natural balance so that we can learn,
reflect and meditate, be active in a way that is meaningful
for ourselves and for others, and make the best
of our opportunity as human beings.
So that's one Buddhist teaching that we
will often hear, a general Buddhist advice.
And then on a philosophical or, in terms of the way things are,
a way of avoiding extremes would be,
from sort of basic Buddhist philosophical point of view,
would be to say that there is no self.
There is no permanent, enduring, controlling individual
because such an individual cannot be found under analysis.
And at the same time it is not the case, so there is no one
in this way, who continues from one situation to the next,
and from one life to the next, and at the same time,
so that would be the extreme of permanence.
But at the same time avoiding the nihilist conclusion,
or misunderstanding, which would be to say that
there is someone here now, an individual,
but that individual ceases at the time of death.
So that would be one way of arriving at a sense of a middle.
So the way the middle is defined and explained depends on
which context we are at, at the Buddhist teachings.
But there is always this sense of a middle. And in the
Mādhyamaka sense, what is then the Mādhyamaka sense of a middle?
This we will get to right away tomorrow when we look at the
homage, Nāgārjuna's homage to the teacher.
And we will see that from this perspective of
profound emptiness, the idea that there is something,
whether it's a person, or whether it's physical factors,
the mind, mental processes, or an interplay of those--
as long as there is any sense that such things are there and
exist, then that is the extreme of permanence or eternalism.
And at the same time, to then conclude that hence
there is nothing, is the extreme of nihilism.
So, as they say, giving up completely
both of the extremes, the wise do not even remain in the middle.
Because, if there are no extremes, if those extremes have been transcended,
then the very idea of a center also loses its meaning.
So we could say, that profound middle beyond extremes,
the non-middle, the middle without any middle,
is the one that Nāgārjuna delivers insight into through this treatise.
In other words, it's the kind of middle that the
Buddha talks about in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings,
which are full of those statements.
And perhaps we can state statements of this kind,
that reality is not in terms of object and subject,
object and agent, and yet it is not without object and agent,
for example. That is a quotation from
one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
And the Prajñāpāramitā literature abounds with this kind of
statement, that we may feel it sounds profound,
we may feel that it sounds nonsensical. Whatever the case is,
it's probably hard to say what it really should mean.
The fact, regardless of all of this is,
that Prajñāpāramitā sūtras abound with that sort of discourse.
So Nāgārjuna in his "Root of the Middle Way," lays out a path
that can be taken through the use of our own simple critical analysis,
our own intellect, that leads-- he will sort of promise us,
that if you follow along on this journey,
then you will see what these statements
really mean. Not just as a matter of belief,
but through, you will understand profoundly, and on that basis
it is then possible to gain flawless realization.
So tomorrow we will begin, I think, with
the homage, which is Nāgārjuna's homage,
but it's also, the very same verses occur
in one of the short Prajñāpāramitā sūtras,
where the Buddha speaks to Śakra,
the king of the gods in the heaven of the 33.
So he teaches profound Prajñāpāramitā along the lines
that I just tried to convey, like reality and the Prajñāpāramitā
are not in terms of object, agent and action,
yet they are also not in terms of object, agent and action.
So what do we make of that?
The middle that Nāgārjuna speaks about in the
title of the treatise is also that which he brings up here,
when he says, "That which originates dependently, does not
cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go,
is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same.
To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete
pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So there we see dependent origination,
dependent origination which is shown to be
beyond ending and coming into being, going and coming and so on.
So that's where we'll begin tomorrow.
Every day let's try to keep ample time for dialogue, so contrary to today.
And let's start in that way also tomorrow.
So whatever I've been going on about today,
if you can remember any of it, try and think,
what makes sense, what does not make sense, or what is unclear.
And let's begin tomorrow talking about that.
And we'll probably continue with that framework throughout the whole thing.
Thank you very much for today and see you again and again.
[Laughter].
17:26
