Log In
Sign Up
Log In
Sign Up

Details

Root of The Middle Way – Session 11

Teachers: 
Collection: 
  • Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location: 
  • Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features: 
  • Subtitles ,
  • Transcripts
The teaching examines Nāgārjuna’s argument on dependent origination, questioning the solidity of cause and effect, existence, and non-existence. The discussion highlights the necessity of ongoing inquiry, emphasizing that true understanding arises within an environment of trust, collective learning, and engagement with both philosophical reasoning and personal experience.

The discussion explores Nāgārjuna’s reasoning on dependent origination, analyzing how cause and effect, existence, and non-existence are ultimately indefinable. The conversation highlights the complexity of causality, illustrating how seemingly structured conditions dissolve upon deeper analysis. The teaching emphasizes the necessity of ongoing inquiry rather than settling on premature conclusions, pointing to the role of the two truths as a skillful means rather than absolute categories. The session ends with reflections on the importance of trust, context, and Sangha.

Video
Audio
video
play-rounded-outline
 
LanguageEnglishEnglish
That which originates dependently, does not cease and does not arise, is not annihilated and is not permanent, does not come and does not go, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete classification of constructs. To the perfect Buddha, I bow down.
Yes. We managed to reach to the end of six, no? I mean we went through six or did we stop at four? I was not 100% sure. Four? Okay.
But, yeah, we were also going to think about where we are at now with the contemplation. And yeah, personally what we think of the thesis that is advanced in the first stanza,
what for us seems to be the most convincing part of it and just how convincing is it? And perhaps, yeah, if it is convincing then what are the implications? So, anything along those lines would be nice to hear here at the beginning.
Yes, Mikky, there is one right next to you.
Student: "Over the weekend I thought at this point I cannot really go any further with my own perceptions. I have to acknowledge that there has to be some appearance that's illusory that I'm seeing where cause and effect functions, but another reality that I can't perceive that isn't that." So, that implies the idea that there is, yeah, that there is perceiver and perceived, right? And that there is appearance and reality. So, that is something that in, well, appearance and reality is always up for analysis here, no? For investigation. But Perceiver and perceived is the topic in chapter three here with special focus on this. So, that's a way of sort of limiting the consequences of the thesis of stanza one to say that I can, to me it makes sense, but this means that whatever I perceive, whatever I think is of a delusional character. But that is still, that may still be the reality of things which is completely beyond these appearances. Student: "Because there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory way to account for cause and effect functioning. Or being reasonably predictable at least."
And then you think there might be ultimately, Like, because you structured it in those terms, no? That that's what appears to me. And then I can say about that, whatever I know from my own experience and whatever I can understand with the use of my own intellect, yes, I think I'll have to agree with the, or yes, I do agree with the thesis. So, but that's about what's accessible to me and does not necessarily have any consequences for the way things really are. But maybe you didn't intend it like that. Student: "I guess, I mean, am I wrong? But there seems to be no way from, like from, at least for me, from my experience and perception to following the steps we've gone through. Like there's, cause and effect is always disproved, but I'm experiencing it. So, I have to jump to the next sort of few chapters ahead where it acknowledges that there might be, appearance might be different from reality."
Well in that chapter, it's the very idea of the relative subject and the ultimate object, like, my sphere of perception and then reality behind appearances. That's a basic duality that also can be questioned. But typically I think what you express is a conclusion that one comes to when applying this kind of reasoning, putting some effort into the project, then yeah, it becomes very difficult if not simply impossible to defend the idea of cause and effect and no cause and effect, just as difficult. And so the sense that all of this is delusion and reality must then be different is something that presents itself almost naturally when going about things in this way. And so we have the idea of two truths. That's how you get two truths. That there's the seeming reality and then there's the ultimate. But those two truths, if they're completely different, that doesn't really work either. In fact, we already spent some time contemplating sameness and difference with respect to cause and effect. And we said in that context that we have never seen any example of pure sameness, nor have we ever seen or conceived of any example of pure difference. So, all what there is are things that we call same and things that we call different. But actually those two terms don't apply. So, of course it's possible to do the same with the two truths. There's two truths. Could they be different? In that case, there would be no connection between them. Then why would we call them two truths?
They would be altogether separate and whatever we might understand about the realm of appearance would have no consequence whatsoever for our understanding of the ultimate and vice versa. So, if they were one and the same, then why do we talk about them as two different things? So, that's I think when we arrive at this conclusion that all of this is delusional. I can't find any support, any basis for it. And so reality must be completely beyond this. Then it's good to remember that the two truths are like a device and they're meant to enhance mutual understanding. So, whatever we understand about the conventional would allow us to see the relative, the ultimate more clearly and vice versa. The ultimate is supposed to be nothing but the nature of these appearances. So, there's something misleading about that thought that all of this is delusion behind the web of appearance, that behind the veil of appearance lies the realm of reality. It clearly isn't correct when we say things in this way. Okay, any other observations or issues that came to mind during the weekend? Yeah. Thank you.
Student: "Can you hear me?" Operator: "Yeah. Is this Pallavi? Can you unmute yourself?"
Student: "Hi, Thomas. Thank you for your teachings. And really the questions are really helping in really digging deep into this vast web of interconnectedness. So, I had some kind of reflections and it was like the other day we spoke about the example of tea leaf and the idea of giving birth to a coffee bean basically or coffee, you know, the relatedness. And what I thought was basically even if you have a seed which is seemingly the main cause, you have to like put it into a soil and a seemingly like a very apparent kind of causes which needs water for binding. It needs other conditions which are not very visible to the eyes. Of course, we can't keep the tea leaf or the beans on the table and expect it to grow. And you know, but we need those seemingly conditions. But as I was reflecting on the number of conditions and the first four, the first stanza of the four conditions and when I reached the second stanza, it almost seemed like magical. Like, I mean, but as we went, I mean, there's no basis basically, but of course there are some seemingly needed causes and there's a lot of chaos, but there is some kind of hierarchy and order also in this chaos of un-seeming causes that can affect the birth of a coffee bean or coffee and also after that later. So, there are some primary causes which I see and also some un-seeming causes that are not apparent to our eyes and our knowledge of course also, forget about eyes, which so that's the chaos part I see. Like and after some point there cannot be, I feel that any order in that space, why that coffee bean cannot give rise to coffee. So, after some point it's all like the high, I feel like the hierarchy is all like chaos. There's no kind of order in it. So, initially there is some order, but after some time, after some, the other causes and conditions is all like kind of all jumbled up. Like it's all, it's yeah, that's what I feel so far. Yeah, so far it seems convincing, but maybe I need a little more investigation myself to be convinced about not itself, not another, not uncaused, not from both. So, it seems like it's sort of coming together, but I wouldn't want to kind of stop at that." You wouldn't? Student: "I wouldn't want to stop at my kind of own reflections so far. Yeah." Very good. Student: "Yeah, so this is what my kind of reflections were if you wish to, if you can add something to that." Yeah, thank you.
The, and correct me if I'm, if I'm misunderstood, understand what you presented, but what I thought I heard is that there are apparent causes like the coffee bean for my future cup of coffee, but then there are also so many additional elements that have to be in place in order for me to be able to have a cup of coffee later. And in fact, the more we study what really is involved there, the more complex it becomes. And then you kind of, you called that chaos because it becomes, yeah, very complex and challenging, basically impossible to understand the causal matrix fully when we investigate. Is that correctly understood? Student: "Yes, actually maybe chaos is like a little too harsh a word." But interesting choice, yeah? Student: "Yeah, it's basically like you can't put a finger on anything like, you know, I mean, okay, maybe you can put a finger on the coffee bean to make the coffee, but what after that? And you can even put it into the soil and you may even have water, but you may or may not have water later for it to grow at all. There might be some wind which is carried away, seemingly sown seed away to some other place and it's never grown, you know?" Yeah. Student: "So, yeah." Yeah, so I think that also makes sense to say that chaos is probably a little too strong a word because at least when the way we were using it up until now, it implies randomness that there is absolutely no, yeah, no causality as such is nowhere to be found within the structure of reality and all what happens is completely random. It may seem as if there are causes and conditions, but really there are none, yeah? So, that's not what you were talking about, but on the other hand, you did talk about a sense of being at complete odds with respect to identifying the causal structures and that probably is a very sound observation about dependent origination, that fits very well with what we have examined, what we have been thinking about here, in quiring about here. Because what is it that we keep coming back to and what is it that was said right in the beginning in the verses of praise, no, it's that there is this appearance of dependent origination, but when we look closer, when we want to know what really is this causal reality that there seems to be and that we seem to live within, then we fail to really get any further than where we were to begin with. We can find more causes, but those causes, more subtle causes, are again dependent on other causal contexts and there's no end to it. At the same time, we feel that we have to get the full picture, so we need to understand more about the causes, but the more we look, the more complex it becomes as well, yeah? And infinitely so. So, I think that is a way of understanding dependent origination and emptiness in relative terms quite well.
It's just usually we think that we haven't been good enough at it yet. We think that we have to just keep this project going, which has been ongoing for as long as we can remember. We have thought that we know something, but we need to know more.
Of course that's true on a practical level, but we think that reality is also something of that kind. It's something that you can know more about, actually, so to speak.
But yeah, but the very idea about understanding ultimate reality and also knowing more or less about the ultimate reality, that is something that comes up for question now when we look at things in this way, yeah? Because if it seems that the idea of ultimate reality is a construct just as much as anything else, and if it seems that this discovery is something that can be made anytime and anyplace with respect to absolutely anything, then what really does it mean to know a lot about this or to know very little about it? It's also something to keep in mind, yeah? So, that was about, then you said something, that was the second thing at the end, I forgot, was also very interesting. Oh yeah, that was, yeah, yeah, you said that I get the feeling that there's a sort of definitive ring to all of this, that when I work with this reasoning I find it very convincing, but it's also, it's very convincing and yet there's this sort of "but" in our hearts and in our minds. And so you said very wisely, so I won't stop here, yeah? And I think that is the key lesson for us all, like why would we stop there? If there's something that begins to make eminent sense to the point of being irrefutable, then it shows some promise, no? It would be seem wise to continue, to keep up the steam. Student: "And I think it's, sorry, sorry, sorry. And the more apparent, even the apparent causes which need like solid conditions for it to kind of give birth, like you can't keep the seed on the table and expect it to get into like a coffee thing, but, and like the seeming non-apparent causes, like multiple of them, like of course we know that there's multitude of it and unfathomable chaos situation, so all the more reason I feel that a strong compassion kind of gives rise, because you will never know unless you reach to a certain point to put a finger on a certain situation, then why is it like this?" Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Great. But, thanks for that and then let's continue with the verses.
Of course you are very welcome when you go back home and read the verses, when you then, as it happens all the time, you reread a verse and then you wonder, What was it now that I was supposed to understand there? What was supposed to be the reasoning that is expressed here? Then you're welcome to ask once more and we can take a look at it together. And again, I also recommend reading some commentary on the side if that's at all possible for you as an aid in reading the root verses. So, what is it that gives us the idea of conditions or causes, causes and conditions? It's because we have this perception that there are certain things that when present make all the things come about. That's the very reason that we can speak and want to speak about conditions. It's that observation. So, if that is the case, then let us think about a situation where we have a causal constellation which is present to a great extent but it is not complete. So, for example, there's a seed that has been planted in the soil and that soil is very rich and supple. It has also been given some water but there's no sunshine, for example. In other words, that's what we would call an incompleteness of the causal matrix. It's not complete and so what happens when something like that is happening is the case. There won't be any growth of a sprout, no? If for example the sunshine is missing, or if the sun was there but no water, stuff like that. So, we have many of the things that we want to call conditions but one thing is absent or a couple of them and so there is no manifestation of the effect. Or perhaps there's something that prevents it from happening, maybe some pest, some weed killer has been poured onto the seed and it won't grow, for example. It could be that there's an obstacle that prevents the manifestation of the result. So, at such times when there is no effect, how could we call those things conditions for the manifestation of the effect? In short, if the effect is absent, then how can we say that the things that we call conditions are actually conditions? At that time they aren't conditions, no? They're not bringing about anything. So, why do we call them conditions? They're just as much non-conditions as any other random object. So, as long as nothing arises, why would they not be non-conditions?
So, if there's a then in six, neither for the non-existent nor for the existent, could there possibly be conditions? For the non-existent, what would be conditioned? And for the existent, what role could conditions play? So, for the non-existent effect, there is nothing that conditions. It's coming into being, right? If the effect is a non-entity, non-existent, then how can we're back to the same example now, then how can we say that those are conditions because they don't bring about any effect? And things that don't bring about a particular effect are not the conditions for that given effect, right? But if the effect is there, that's the alternative. No, either it's not there, and in that case, the conditions are non-conditions equal to non-conditions. But if the effect is there, then how could we say that it's being conditioned, that it's being produced by causes and conditions? It's already there, and so it couldn't be something that is produced by causes and conditions, right? So, in that case, what role could conditions play? They have played their role already, presumably. If the effect is already there, then if there were conditions that created it, those conditions must have done what it took to create the effect, and now it's there. So, as a summary of these two stances, we can say that the only reason that we speak about conditions is because we see and think and understand that there are certain things that give rise to other things. But then when you look closer at this perception that we have, if the effect that we say we can see arising, if that is not there, then where are the conditions for it? What justifies us in calling anything a condition for a non-existent thing? Non-existent things anyway are things that can't be produced, no? They're non-existent. How would you build a non-existent house, for example?
So, as long as there's nothing there, then the conditions aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing to get us the effect, and so how can we call them conditions? Now, what about if the effect then is there, if there is an existent effect, well, then clearly there couldn't be any conditions meaningfully at that time, because whatever conditions there may have been in the past that brought about the effect couldn't be called rightly conditions for that effect now. They would, by definition, have ceased already, because now we have their effect. So, for the non-existent, what could be conditioned? For the existent, what role could conditions play? So, how does that sound to you? Yeah?
Student: "I was just wondering what is the definition of non-existent? Could you please quickly remind us that what are we talking about here?" What is to you a good example of something non-existent? Student: "Horns of a rabbit?" Yeah, for example, yeah. That's a tested idea. Student: "But for the existent, I'm really not sure, because it depends on from which perspective we look at what is existent. So, I'm seriously asking what is here the definition of something existent?" Yeah, so we're not going to hear any definitions presented like that in the text, yeah? So, I think the most fruitful way forward is to think what is non-existent for me personally, yeah? Student: "Okay, and then could you please give an example of something existent, like a house?" If you ask me, no, that's a good example of like this, a building exists. That's why we can sit here. Student: "Okay, thank you." But it's again something that we want to know. Okay, so what exactly do you mean by it, yeah? But my sense is that he means exactly what we mean.
Student: "So, when he asks what role could conditions play, is it a rhetorical question here?"
It sounds like it, no? Because if the effect is there, no, like what are the conditions for the building of this house right now, no? We're sitting here, it sounds strange to say, but where are they, the conditions?
We can say like some years ago there were plenty of conditions, no, but not now.
Student: "So I've lost my voice, oh actually it's good, yeah? I'm struggling a little bit with this part of the conditions. The way I'm starting to maybe understand it is that because we cannot really pinpoint a moment where something goes from non-existence to existence, we cannot really account conditions in the process like saying, okay, now the house is here, so what are the conditions? Before the house is, there's nothing there. We could say, oh, there's conditions, but we cannot really pinpoint a moment where this switch is happening, so that's why it's, I feel, somewhere along there I'm trying to fall, maybe I'm not sure if it's the right, I'm trying to phantom this situation, but then I come up with some examples against it. Not sure if this applies against it, but for example, growing something, a plant, a mushroom, something in a controlled environment, you can control the light, the water, you can control the nutrients into the soil and stuff like this. Then if you switch things around, you can see different results. And so at that moment, for me, those are conditions for the way the plant is growing. So, I can see somehow there's conditions, I can manage and see different results from the process of growing a plant, growing a mushroom, growing a farm or anything. So, yeah, maybe you could." Yeah, so we can try to be more precise and analytic about what is a condition for what, and that certainly is a good idea in many, many contexts. We need to be that way. But I think it's still very much the case, what you said in the beginning, that
it must be the, so, that once the effect is there, then those conditions are not there. That makes good sense. Then there was also a time where, when we think back on when this house was built, there must have been many conditions that were at play then. But in that, apart from just thinking of different events in relation to each other and sort of going by the rules of past and future and so on, then in the situation when those conditions are there, then we can ask, when those conditions were presumably there, if we think ourselves back to the time when the house was being built, then what would be the case then? Is it an existent house that they are building those conditions? No, it's not. So, how can we say that they are conditions for something, since they aren't actually effectuating an effect or the effect? So, then you said it becomes difficult to pinpoint existence and non-existence. Like, We have a perception of causes and conditions and of being able to build things and grow things, and we can do that very well and carefully, but without really being able to call anything clearly existent or clearly non-existent. That's again, it's something that you said, based on your own experience, your own understanding. But it's a very, if we allow ourselves to take that seriously, then what are we saying there? That all of this, we can't really call it existent, we can't call it non-existent, so we can't call it real, we can't call it unreal. What sort of situation is that here? It's again, the classic examples of dream and illusion and so on, they come to mind, no? What is something that is not there and not not there? It's like an optical illusion, or when we wake up and think of our dream, then we call our dream something that seemed to be there but wasn't really there. We can't say that a dream is nothing, but we can't say that it's something really either, because it's just dream. Is that what all of this is? Just like that?
Student: "You said a moment ago that you agreed that when the effect is there that the causes and conditions no longer exist, correct? And I really struggle with that because if I'm driving my car and I've stopped my car, I still exist in my car, the causes and conditions for me to stop the car, like the stop sign, if I've stopped my car to stop sign, that stop sign is still there. I feel that I'm still there in my car. Or like if two parents make a child, the mother and the father are still there, even though the child is also there. So how can we say that the causes and conditions, or at least maybe not necessarily the conditions, but definitely the causes would still exist?" So, the parents are still there, but they are not the causes, they were the causes.
Student: "But what about the stop sign? The stop sign is still there, the car is still there, I'm still there." But when the stop sign has served as a condition for you stopping the car, then it's not the condition for you stopping the car, no? The stopping has already occurred. You can't point at the stop sign and say, "This conditions my stopping the car. " It did. Student: "Yeah. So, you would say the cause no longer exists? You would say the cause no longer exists?" Well, no longer exists, it's just, yeah. We can still point at something and say, "This is what made it happen," no? But it's just something we say, yeah? We're not pointing at the condition, because that which did the job is gone, no? Student: "But we're still saying that the thing that did the job existed though, right?" Well, but then if it existed, what allows us to say that it exists, no? If there are things that really make us do things, yeah? If there are things that really make things happen, then what things do they make happen? Do they make things that don't exist happen? That's absurd, no? Things that don't exist don't happen. Do they make things that exist happen? That's also absurd, because they are already there, no? How can we claim that there's something that is making them happen?
Student: "What about if it's like in the process of making things happen? I guess that's only when it exists, we're saying, because then..." So, that is the natural thought, no? That's something called presently happening. But what is that really, yeah? Student: "It's an existing cause." Existence, so it's already 100%, yeah? But the idea of something happening or arising or as we are investigating causes, no? The presently arising sprout or something is what we want to say there is that there's something there which is there and not there, because it's happening now. It's growing force now, yeah? So it's what you were saying also, no? You can't call it existent, you can't call it non-existent. If that is presently arising, fine, no? But so is then everything else. And you haven't really...
If it is not there and not there, then in one way you can say anything about it also. That which is there and not there, it makes just as much sense to say that it's there as it does to say that it's not there. So, what is presently arising? It's hard to think of it as anything but something existent or not. And yet if we say that, our attempt at arriving at something different than that has failed here. So, for us to be helped by the example of happening now, then we need to... What we want to get from that is to have access to something which isn't there and yet is there. So, that is... And what is it that's like that? It's what is most immediately in our face, no? That's what we want to call. If I'm talking about...
It's when we have to focus on what is here right now that this idea of present arising becomes most compelling and necessary. And that's then when it becomes most clear also that the term that we find most compelling for this is not real and not unreal. Student: "What about examples like quantum physics or the actions of wave particles? And how can you say that they either exist or not exist when we don't always understand the nature of those particles? If one particle appears over here, then it must not appear, then another particle appears over there. How do we understand those as cause of effect or the wavelengths on a plant? If the seed is growing, it's either a wave or a particle. And so how can you say... That's an open question." Quantum physics is not easy. I don't think anyone will say that, no? And it would also be frivolous of me to pretend that I actually know just about anything about it. But I do know that many seeming paradoxes make sense, so to speak, there. But what were we just saying about that which is happening now? We were saying that it is not there and yet it is not nothing. It doesn't exist and it's not non-existent. That's what we Forget about profound quantum physics. That's what we now call all of this. This is not here and it's not here. So, if I can say that with such simplicity and accuracy about my hat, then it's not surprising is it that people who have thought and experimented in very profound ways with the nature of reality have discovered ways of speaking about things that don't make sense to someone like me who is used to thinking in much more simple and clearly categorical fashions, but yet make some sort of sense to great minds and which can certainly be employed to profound effects. I think it's so tempting and can easily seem a very cheap point to make that quantum physics confirms this. But to the extent that if we look at the like many people say that now about who knows what, yeah? But if we look at the homage, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, is not annihilated, is not permanent, does not go on, does not come.
So, I'm not a quantum physicist, but to say that this is something that one could say in conclusion to having thought deeply about quantum reality, I don't think that's so far fetched here. Am I making some sense? No? Okay, thanks. Thanks for pointing it out here. So, what you say is that how about entanglement and it seems that things don't have to be in the way that we think, that there has to be an existence.
All what we say here is building on our own assumptions and then questioning them. But quantum physics shows that our own concepts are often deeply misleading and that things we think are impossible and contradictory are not. But what we have done here in our very, very simple laboratory is to test how can I make sense of just the immediate experience of, for example, a seed growing or something where we can see the process a little clearer. No? Like in the next chapter we will look at walking. So how can I say that something is happening there? And then we say, well, and that this happening is causally conditioned. So, we were saying that that which is in the process of taking place, what really could it be? It could be either something which is there and so it can take place. But at the same time, if it is there, then what does it mean that it occurs? It implies that there's something that hasn't yet been completed. Like, if we say the sprout is growing, that means the sprout hasn't grown fully yet. Otherwise why would we say that it's growing? So, it's there, but it's not really there. So, that's something we have to say about all the things that are happening now. The most undeniable and immediately readily available entities and experiences. Those we all have to qualify in that way. So, neither there nor not there. And if we can say that about our simple day-to-day experience, then it's not surprising that when you really explore and with the help of very sophisticated technology examine the nature of reality that you may discover skillful ways of talking and thinking and so acting, which seem completely implausible first to the ordinary perspective. In the same way as saying that my hat doesn't exist and yet it exists seems ridiculous from the perspective of our ordinary so-called common sense. Since nonetheless we can quite readily agree that my hat does not exist and yet is not non-existent, it is simply not a surprise that it's possible for there to be many seemingly counterintuitive or paradoxical statements that I can still wear this hat perfectly well. I mean, I can put it on. I don't know how it will look, but I can put it on. Similarly these theories can be used to do amazing things. So, if you want to keep this a little bit further way of thinking about it, then in that sense it's similar to the way insight into emptiness can, we talked about before I think, that in the practice of the six parameters in the Mahayanas are meant to occur within and from the perspective of an understanding of emptiness. That's why they're called paramita. And in Vajrayana the skillful means, they too are to be employed with an acknowledgement of emptiness. So, often we hear that with this kind of understanding it becomes possible to do wonders, miraculous feats because of this kind of insight and skillful means. Science does great wonders too.
Yes! Student: "So here Meredith gave the example of for example parents and a child and you maintain, if I understood you correctly, that you maintain that if the effect is there then the cause ceases to exist. So, what's the problem?" Not that if the effect is there and then the cause ceases to exist. If the effect is there then the cause must have ceased. Student: "Must have ceased. But what's the problem of accepting that the cause became the part of the effect, like for example the DNA of the parents is a part of our body or like the Tibetan tradition says there is this blood and egg of mother and father or the cement, the cause for this house. It continues to exist in the effect. What's the problem of accepting that?"
Parents is a kind of good example perhaps, no? If we say that a man and a woman are the cause, together with other stuff too, but are the cause for a child then yes, but when the child is there then they are not the cause. Whatever it was that had to be there for that child to form must have ceased. Otherwise they would continue to. So, if the DNA is still inside and if the cause endures in there then there is something yet that hasn't happened. Otherwise why would we call it a cause?
I think down in the… Thank you. Student: "I just wonder." Oh, okay. Student: "This is my question this time. I wonder if you could, I'd be grateful if you could say something about how to experience the kindness of Nagarjuna in reading something like this. To me it seems like right from the start our basic foundation of experiencing and understanding our experience of reality is kind of wiped away, pulled out from underneath us. And then it seems that everything that you'd be looking towards to hang onto is then slowly getting cut away as well. So, there's not an immediate experience of kindness that I feel from that process. And then there's not then so much like bait to trust wholeheartedly what's happening. Even though maybe in my heart of hearts I can say, "Wow", all of this does seem true. " The repercussions feel increasingly scary, right? Increasingly maddening even. Increasingly disorienting. And without the felt warmth of the delivery, which we're grateful to have you providing right now, but it seems like a difficult journey to want to engage with and a difficult journey to want to invite others into. So you've spent 30 years doing this, so I imagine you've at some point gained some resonance with this as a skillful act. And I maybe am still stubborn to believe that just because something is true means that it is skillful or that it is kind. So, I wonder if you could speak to that." So, I think it is that the context is so super important for this.
Because the insights that we get to, they are just what they are. And it's very difficult to say much about them. Because whatever it is that we say, it doesn't really explain much. So, they are what they are, but it is very, very important, I think. And this is something that in those 30 years, and I hope I will live longer also, and if so, I get the sense that this is something that I will think and feel increasingly. That the environment where this kind of insight is cultivated or shared or whatever we want to say is so incredibly important. And in particular, that
that an environment of trust is there.
That there are exponents of this kind of insight that somehow give an appearance of being trustworthy. That give an appearance of this kind of insight actually paying off. Forget about whether it is disorienting or maddening and so on. Obviously, it doesn't have to be like that, but on top of that, there's something that makes me think that if only I could get this really, then I would be just like them. I think it's super important. And we know people like that, more or less. But if we're lucky, then we know some that are really great examples that inspire us so much.
And probably not just, It doesn't usually, one person like that is not enough. That person has to have a context also. Otherwise, we can't trust that person that much. It has to be, there has to be other people around that I can somewhat agree with and say, "Have you seen? Have you heard? Isn't that amazing? " And they will say, "Yeah, I also think so. " Then we feel some relief and we feel some inspiration to go further. But if that is not the case, if you just pick up, the first time I read Nāgārjuna was in a library. I just had the idea, I should see if I can find a book about Buddhism. One of the first books I picked out from the library as a teenager was this, the Mūlamadhyamaka. I don't know what translation it was or anything, but it was Mūlamadhyamaka. I looked at it and it didn't make, of course, any sense to me. But I thought, Okay, wow, and not more than that. But it could also have been very different and much more rejecting the text.
And it's a, And because these insights are so profound, because it is true. It's everything that is up for investigation and it is our perception of everything that is changing. That's in a way what we hoped would happen when we hear about the spiritual path. But then when it begins to happen, it's pretty real. So, that process happens together with really capable people and in an environment that is just permeated by a sensitivity to the nature of this kind of insight. I think that is what is crucial. It's a collective endeavor. And so really there's so much reason why they say Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Someone told me this many years ago, that that is an extraordinary thing about the Buddhist refuge, is that it's not just the teacher and it's not just the teaching, but it's the Sangha just as much. So that's what I would say at this point. And this is something that I feel I get more and more confirmed in and more and more aware of. I hope I will keep as well understanding this more and more clearly because I'm convinced it's true. Thank you. And then have some great days ahead and then we'll meet again in a few days. I forget when, but we will find out next week, no next week, next Monday. So a week from now. Thank you.
That which originates dependently, does not cease and does not arise, is not annihilated and is not permanent, does not come and does not go, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete classification of constructs. To the perfect Buddha, I bow down.
Yes. We managed to reach to the end of six, no? I mean we went through six or did we stop at four? I was not 100% sure. Four? Okay.
But, yeah, we were also going to think about where we are at now with the contemplation. And yeah, personally what we think of the thesis that is advanced in the first stanza,
what for us seems to be the most convincing part of it and just how convincing is it? And perhaps, yeah, if it is convincing then what are the implications? So, anything along those lines would be nice to hear here at the beginning.
Yes, Mikky, there is one right next to you.
Student: "Over the weekend I thought at this point I cannot really go any further with my own perceptions. I have to acknowledge that there has to be some appearance that's illusory that I'm seeing where cause and effect functions, but another reality that I can't perceive that isn't that." So, that implies the idea that there is, yeah, that there is perceiver and perceived, right? And that there is appearance and reality. So, that is something that in, well, appearance and reality is always up for analysis here, no? For investigation. But Perceiver and perceived is the topic in chapter three here with special focus on this. So, that's a way of sort of limiting the consequences of the thesis of stanza one to say that I can, to me it makes sense, but this means that whatever I perceive, whatever I think is of a delusional character. But that is still, that may still be the reality of things which is completely beyond these appearances. Student: "Because there doesn't seem to be a satisfactory way to account for cause and effect functioning. Or being reasonably predictable at least."
And then you think there might be ultimately, Like, because you structured it in those terms, no? That that's what appears to me. And then I can say about that, whatever I know from my own experience and whatever I can understand with the use of my own intellect, yes, I think I'll have to agree with the, or yes, I do agree with the thesis. So, but that's about what's accessible to me and does not necessarily have any consequences for the way things really are. But maybe you didn't intend it like that. Student: "I guess, I mean, am I wrong? But there seems to be no way from, like from, at least for me, from my experience and perception to following the steps we've gone through. Like there's, cause and effect is always disproved, but I'm experiencing it. So, I have to jump to the next sort of few chapters ahead where it acknowledges that there might be, appearance might be different from reality."
Well in that chapter, it's the very idea of the relative subject and the ultimate object, like, my sphere of perception and then reality behind appearances. That's a basic duality that also can be questioned. But typically I think what you express is a conclusion that one comes to when applying this kind of reasoning, putting some effort into the project, then yeah, it becomes very difficult if not simply impossible to defend the idea of cause and effect and no cause and effect, just as difficult. And so the sense that all of this is delusion and reality must then be different is something that presents itself almost naturally when going about things in this way. And so we have the idea of two truths. That's how you get two truths. That there's the seeming reality and then there's the ultimate. But those two truths, if they're completely different, that doesn't really work either. In fact, we already spent some time contemplating sameness and difference with respect to cause and effect. And we said in that context that we have never seen any example of pure sameness, nor have we ever seen or conceived of any example of pure difference. So, all what there is are things that we call same and things that we call different. But actually those two terms don't apply. So, of course it's possible to do the same with the two truths. There's two truths. Could they be different? In that case, there would be no connection between them. Then why would we call them two truths?
They would be altogether separate and whatever we might understand about the realm of appearance would have no consequence whatsoever for our understanding of the ultimate and vice versa. So, if they were one and the same, then why do we talk about them as two different things? So, that's I think when we arrive at this conclusion that all of this is delusional. I can't find any support, any basis for it. And so reality must be completely beyond this. Then it's good to remember that the two truths are like a device and they're meant to enhance mutual understanding. So, whatever we understand about the conventional would allow us to see the relative, the ultimate more clearly and vice versa. The ultimate is supposed to be nothing but the nature of these appearances. So, there's something misleading about that thought that all of this is delusion behind the web of appearance, that behind the veil of appearance lies the realm of reality. It clearly isn't correct when we say things in this way. Okay, any other observations or issues that came to mind during the weekend? Yeah. Thank you.
Student: "Can you hear me?" Operator: "Yeah. Is this Pallavi? Can you unmute yourself?"
Student: "Hi, Thomas. Thank you for your teachings. And really the questions are really helping in really digging deep into this vast web of interconnectedness. So, I had some kind of reflections and it was like the other day we spoke about the example of tea leaf and the idea of giving birth to a coffee bean basically or coffee, you know, the relatedness. And what I thought was basically even if you have a seed which is seemingly the main cause, you have to like put it into a soil and a seemingly like a very apparent kind of causes which needs water for binding. It needs other conditions which are not very visible to the eyes. Of course, we can't keep the tea leaf or the beans on the table and expect it to grow. And you know, but we need those seemingly conditions. But as I was reflecting on the number of conditions and the first four, the first stanza of the four conditions and when I reached the second stanza, it almost seemed like magical. Like, I mean, but as we went, I mean, there's no basis basically, but of course there are some seemingly needed causes and there's a lot of chaos, but there is some kind of hierarchy and order also in this chaos of un-seeming causes that can affect the birth of a coffee bean or coffee and also after that later. So, there are some primary causes which I see and also some un-seeming causes that are not apparent to our eyes and our knowledge of course also, forget about eyes, which so that's the chaos part I see. Like and after some point there cannot be, I feel that any order in that space, why that coffee bean cannot give rise to coffee. So, after some point it's all like the high, I feel like the hierarchy is all like chaos. There's no kind of order in it. So, initially there is some order, but after some time, after some, the other causes and conditions is all like kind of all jumbled up. Like it's all, it's yeah, that's what I feel so far. Yeah, so far it seems convincing, but maybe I need a little more investigation myself to be convinced about not itself, not another, not uncaused, not from both. So, it seems like it's sort of coming together, but I wouldn't want to kind of stop at that." You wouldn't? Student: "I wouldn't want to stop at my kind of own reflections so far. Yeah." Very good. Student: "Yeah, so this is what my kind of reflections were if you wish to, if you can add something to that." Yeah, thank you.
The, and correct me if I'm, if I'm misunderstood, understand what you presented, but what I thought I heard is that there are apparent causes like the coffee bean for my future cup of coffee, but then there are also so many additional elements that have to be in place in order for me to be able to have a cup of coffee later. And in fact, the more we study what really is involved there, the more complex it becomes. And then you kind of, you called that chaos because it becomes, yeah, very complex and challenging, basically impossible to understand the causal matrix fully when we investigate. Is that correctly understood? Student: "Yes, actually maybe chaos is like a little too harsh a word." But interesting choice, yeah? Student: "Yeah, it's basically like you can't put a finger on anything like, you know, I mean, okay, maybe you can put a finger on the coffee bean to make the coffee, but what after that? And you can even put it into the soil and you may even have water, but you may or may not have water later for it to grow at all. There might be some wind which is carried away, seemingly sown seed away to some other place and it's never grown, you know?" Yeah. Student: "So, yeah." Yeah, so I think that also makes sense to say that chaos is probably a little too strong a word because at least when the way we were using it up until now, it implies randomness that there is absolutely no, yeah, no causality as such is nowhere to be found within the structure of reality and all what happens is completely random. It may seem as if there are causes and conditions, but really there are none, yeah? So, that's not what you were talking about, but on the other hand, you did talk about a sense of being at complete odds with respect to identifying the causal structures and that probably is a very sound observation about dependent origination, that fits very well with what we have examined, what we have been thinking about here, in quiring about here. Because what is it that we keep coming back to and what is it that was said right in the beginning in the verses of praise, no, it's that there is this appearance of dependent origination, but when we look closer, when we want to know what really is this causal reality that there seems to be and that we seem to live within, then we fail to really get any further than where we were to begin with. We can find more causes, but those causes, more subtle causes, are again dependent on other causal contexts and there's no end to it. At the same time, we feel that we have to get the full picture, so we need to understand more about the causes, but the more we look, the more complex it becomes as well, yeah? And infinitely so. So, I think that is a way of understanding dependent origination and emptiness in relative terms quite well.
It's just usually we think that we haven't been good enough at it yet. We think that we have to just keep this project going, which has been ongoing for as long as we can remember. We have thought that we know something, but we need to know more.
Of course that's true on a practical level, but we think that reality is also something of that kind. It's something that you can know more about, actually, so to speak.
But yeah, but the very idea about understanding ultimate reality and also knowing more or less about the ultimate reality, that is something that comes up for question now when we look at things in this way, yeah? Because if it seems that the idea of ultimate reality is a construct just as much as anything else, and if it seems that this discovery is something that can be made anytime and anyplace with respect to absolutely anything, then what really does it mean to know a lot about this or to know very little about it? It's also something to keep in mind, yeah? So, that was about, then you said something, that was the second thing at the end, I forgot, was also very interesting. Oh yeah, that was, yeah, yeah, you said that I get the feeling that there's a sort of definitive ring to all of this, that when I work with this reasoning I find it very convincing, but it's also, it's very convincing and yet there's this sort of "but" in our hearts and in our minds. And so you said very wisely, so I won't stop here, yeah? And I think that is the key lesson for us all, like why would we stop there? If there's something that begins to make eminent sense to the point of being irrefutable, then it shows some promise, no? It would be seem wise to continue, to keep up the steam. Student: "And I think it's, sorry, sorry, sorry. And the more apparent, even the apparent causes which need like solid conditions for it to kind of give birth, like you can't keep the seed on the table and expect it to get into like a coffee thing, but, and like the seeming non-apparent causes, like multiple of them, like of course we know that there's multitude of it and unfathomable chaos situation, so all the more reason I feel that a strong compassion kind of gives rise, because you will never know unless you reach to a certain point to put a finger on a certain situation, then why is it like this?" Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Great. But, thanks for that and then let's continue with the verses.
Of course you are very welcome when you go back home and read the verses, when you then, as it happens all the time, you reread a verse and then you wonder, What was it now that I was supposed to understand there? What was supposed to be the reasoning that is expressed here? Then you're welcome to ask once more and we can take a look at it together. And again, I also recommend reading some commentary on the side if that's at all possible for you as an aid in reading the root verses. So, what is it that gives us the idea of conditions or causes, causes and conditions? It's because we have this perception that there are certain things that when present make all the things come about. That's the very reason that we can speak and want to speak about conditions. It's that observation. So, if that is the case, then let us think about a situation where we have a causal constellation which is present to a great extent but it is not complete. So, for example, there's a seed that has been planted in the soil and that soil is very rich and supple. It has also been given some water but there's no sunshine, for example. In other words, that's what we would call an incompleteness of the causal matrix. It's not complete and so what happens when something like that is happening is the case. There won't be any growth of a sprout, no? If for example the sunshine is missing, or if the sun was there but no water, stuff like that. So, we have many of the things that we want to call conditions but one thing is absent or a couple of them and so there is no manifestation of the effect. Or perhaps there's something that prevents it from happening, maybe some pest, some weed killer has been poured onto the seed and it won't grow, for example. It could be that there's an obstacle that prevents the manifestation of the result. So, at such times when there is no effect, how could we call those things conditions for the manifestation of the effect? In short, if the effect is absent, then how can we say that the things that we call conditions are actually conditions? At that time they aren't conditions, no? They're not bringing about anything. So, why do we call them conditions? They're just as much non-conditions as any other random object. So, as long as nothing arises, why would they not be non-conditions?
So, if there's a then in six, neither for the non-existent nor for the existent, could there possibly be conditions? For the non-existent, what would be conditioned? And for the existent, what role could conditions play? So, for the non-existent effect, there is nothing that conditions. It's coming into being, right? If the effect is a non-entity, non-existent, then how can we're back to the same example now, then how can we say that those are conditions because they don't bring about any effect? And things that don't bring about a particular effect are not the conditions for that given effect, right? But if the effect is there, that's the alternative. No, either it's not there, and in that case, the conditions are non-conditions equal to non-conditions. But if the effect is there, then how could we say that it's being conditioned, that it's being produced by causes and conditions? It's already there, and so it couldn't be something that is produced by causes and conditions, right? So, in that case, what role could conditions play? They have played their role already, presumably. If the effect is already there, then if there were conditions that created it, those conditions must have done what it took to create the effect, and now it's there. So, as a summary of these two stances, we can say that the only reason that we speak about conditions is because we see and think and understand that there are certain things that give rise to other things. But then when you look closer at this perception that we have, if the effect that we say we can see arising, if that is not there, then where are the conditions for it? What justifies us in calling anything a condition for a non-existent thing? Non-existent things anyway are things that can't be produced, no? They're non-existent. How would you build a non-existent house, for example?
So, as long as there's nothing there, then the conditions aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing to get us the effect, and so how can we call them conditions? Now, what about if the effect then is there, if there is an existent effect, well, then clearly there couldn't be any conditions meaningfully at that time, because whatever conditions there may have been in the past that brought about the effect couldn't be called rightly conditions for that effect now. They would, by definition, have ceased already, because now we have their effect. So, for the non-existent, what could be conditioned? For the existent, what role could conditions play? So, how does that sound to you? Yeah?
Student: "I was just wondering what is the definition of non-existent? Could you please quickly remind us that what are we talking about here?" What is to you a good example of something non-existent? Student: "Horns of a rabbit?" Yeah, for example, yeah. That's a tested idea. Student: "But for the existent, I'm really not sure, because it depends on from which perspective we look at what is existent. So, I'm seriously asking what is here the definition of something existent?" Yeah, so we're not going to hear any definitions presented like that in the text, yeah? So, I think the most fruitful way forward is to think what is non-existent for me personally, yeah? Student: "Okay, and then could you please give an example of something existent, like a house?" If you ask me, no, that's a good example of like this, a building exists. That's why we can sit here. Student: "Okay, thank you." But it's again something that we want to know. Okay, so what exactly do you mean by it, yeah? But my sense is that he means exactly what we mean.
Student: "So, when he asks what role could conditions play, is it a rhetorical question here?"
It sounds like it, no? Because if the effect is there, no, like what are the conditions for the building of this house right now, no? We're sitting here, it sounds strange to say, but where are they, the conditions?
We can say like some years ago there were plenty of conditions, no, but not now.
Student: "So I've lost my voice, oh actually it's good, yeah? I'm struggling a little bit with this part of the conditions. The way I'm starting to maybe understand it is that because we cannot really pinpoint a moment where something goes from non-existence to existence, we cannot really account conditions in the process like saying, okay, now the house is here, so what are the conditions? Before the house is, there's nothing there. We could say, oh, there's conditions, but we cannot really pinpoint a moment where this switch is happening, so that's why it's, I feel, somewhere along there I'm trying to fall, maybe I'm not sure if it's the right, I'm trying to phantom this situation, but then I come up with some examples against it. Not sure if this applies against it, but for example, growing something, a plant, a mushroom, something in a controlled environment, you can control the light, the water, you can control the nutrients into the soil and stuff like this. Then if you switch things around, you can see different results. And so at that moment, for me, those are conditions for the way the plant is growing. So, I can see somehow there's conditions, I can manage and see different results from the process of growing a plant, growing a mushroom, growing a farm or anything. So, yeah, maybe you could." Yeah, so we can try to be more precise and analytic about what is a condition for what, and that certainly is a good idea in many, many contexts. We need to be that way. But I think it's still very much the case, what you said in the beginning, that
it must be the, so, that once the effect is there, then those conditions are not there. That makes good sense. Then there was also a time where, when we think back on when this house was built, there must have been many conditions that were at play then. But in that, apart from just thinking of different events in relation to each other and sort of going by the rules of past and future and so on, then in the situation when those conditions are there, then we can ask, when those conditions were presumably there, if we think ourselves back to the time when the house was being built, then what would be the case then? Is it an existent house that they are building those conditions? No, it's not. So, how can we say that they are conditions for something, since they aren't actually effectuating an effect or the effect? So, then you said it becomes difficult to pinpoint existence and non-existence. Like, We have a perception of causes and conditions and of being able to build things and grow things, and we can do that very well and carefully, but without really being able to call anything clearly existent or clearly non-existent. That's again, it's something that you said, based on your own experience, your own understanding. But it's a very, if we allow ourselves to take that seriously, then what are we saying there? That all of this, we can't really call it existent, we can't call it non-existent, so we can't call it real, we can't call it unreal. What sort of situation is that here? It's again, the classic examples of dream and illusion and so on, they come to mind, no? What is something that is not there and not not there? It's like an optical illusion, or when we wake up and think of our dream, then we call our dream something that seemed to be there but wasn't really there. We can't say that a dream is nothing, but we can't say that it's something really either, because it's just dream. Is that what all of this is? Just like that?
Student: "You said a moment ago that you agreed that when the effect is there that the causes and conditions no longer exist, correct? And I really struggle with that because if I'm driving my car and I've stopped my car, I still exist in my car, the causes and conditions for me to stop the car, like the stop sign, if I've stopped my car to stop sign, that stop sign is still there. I feel that I'm still there in my car. Or like if two parents make a child, the mother and the father are still there, even though the child is also there. So how can we say that the causes and conditions, or at least maybe not necessarily the conditions, but definitely the causes would still exist?" So, the parents are still there, but they are not the causes, they were the causes.
Student: "But what about the stop sign? The stop sign is still there, the car is still there, I'm still there." But when the stop sign has served as a condition for you stopping the car, then it's not the condition for you stopping the car, no? The stopping has already occurred. You can't point at the stop sign and say, "This conditions my stopping the car. " It did. Student: "Yeah. So, you would say the cause no longer exists? You would say the cause no longer exists?" Well, no longer exists, it's just, yeah. We can still point at something and say, "This is what made it happen," no? But it's just something we say, yeah? We're not pointing at the condition, because that which did the job is gone, no? Student: "But we're still saying that the thing that did the job existed though, right?" Well, but then if it existed, what allows us to say that it exists, no? If there are things that really make us do things, yeah? If there are things that really make things happen, then what things do they make happen? Do they make things that don't exist happen? That's absurd, no? Things that don't exist don't happen. Do they make things that exist happen? That's also absurd, because they are already there, no? How can we claim that there's something that is making them happen?
Student: "What about if it's like in the process of making things happen? I guess that's only when it exists, we're saying, because then..." So, that is the natural thought, no? That's something called presently happening. But what is that really, yeah? Student: "It's an existing cause." Existence, so it's already 100%, yeah? But the idea of something happening or arising or as we are investigating causes, no? The presently arising sprout or something is what we want to say there is that there's something there which is there and not there, because it's happening now. It's growing force now, yeah? So it's what you were saying also, no? You can't call it existent, you can't call it non-existent. If that is presently arising, fine, no? But so is then everything else. And you haven't really...
If it is not there and not there, then in one way you can say anything about it also. That which is there and not there, it makes just as much sense to say that it's there as it does to say that it's not there. So, what is presently arising? It's hard to think of it as anything but something existent or not. And yet if we say that, our attempt at arriving at something different than that has failed here. So, for us to be helped by the example of happening now, then we need to... What we want to get from that is to have access to something which isn't there and yet is there. So, that is... And what is it that's like that? It's what is most immediately in our face, no? That's what we want to call. If I'm talking about...
It's when we have to focus on what is here right now that this idea of present arising becomes most compelling and necessary. And that's then when it becomes most clear also that the term that we find most compelling for this is not real and not unreal. Student: "What about examples like quantum physics or the actions of wave particles? And how can you say that they either exist or not exist when we don't always understand the nature of those particles? If one particle appears over here, then it must not appear, then another particle appears over there. How do we understand those as cause of effect or the wavelengths on a plant? If the seed is growing, it's either a wave or a particle. And so how can you say... That's an open question." Quantum physics is not easy. I don't think anyone will say that, no? And it would also be frivolous of me to pretend that I actually know just about anything about it. But I do know that many seeming paradoxes make sense, so to speak, there. But what were we just saying about that which is happening now? We were saying that it is not there and yet it is not nothing. It doesn't exist and it's not non-existent. That's what we Forget about profound quantum physics. That's what we now call all of this. This is not here and it's not here. So, if I can say that with such simplicity and accuracy about my hat, then it's not surprising is it that people who have thought and experimented in very profound ways with the nature of reality have discovered ways of speaking about things that don't make sense to someone like me who is used to thinking in much more simple and clearly categorical fashions, but yet make some sort of sense to great minds and which can certainly be employed to profound effects. I think it's so tempting and can easily seem a very cheap point to make that quantum physics confirms this. But to the extent that if we look at the like many people say that now about who knows what, yeah? But if we look at the homage, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, is not annihilated, is not permanent, does not go on, does not come.
So, I'm not a quantum physicist, but to say that this is something that one could say in conclusion to having thought deeply about quantum reality, I don't think that's so far fetched here. Am I making some sense? No? Okay, thanks. Thanks for pointing it out here. So, what you say is that how about entanglement and it seems that things don't have to be in the way that we think, that there has to be an existence.
All what we say here is building on our own assumptions and then questioning them. But quantum physics shows that our own concepts are often deeply misleading and that things we think are impossible and contradictory are not. But what we have done here in our very, very simple laboratory is to test how can I make sense of just the immediate experience of, for example, a seed growing or something where we can see the process a little clearer. No? Like in the next chapter we will look at walking. So how can I say that something is happening there? And then we say, well, and that this happening is causally conditioned. So, we were saying that that which is in the process of taking place, what really could it be? It could be either something which is there and so it can take place. But at the same time, if it is there, then what does it mean that it occurs? It implies that there's something that hasn't yet been completed. Like, if we say the sprout is growing, that means the sprout hasn't grown fully yet. Otherwise why would we say that it's growing? So, it's there, but it's not really there. So, that's something we have to say about all the things that are happening now. The most undeniable and immediately readily available entities and experiences. Those we all have to qualify in that way. So, neither there nor not there. And if we can say that about our simple day-to-day experience, then it's not surprising that when you really explore and with the help of very sophisticated technology examine the nature of reality that you may discover skillful ways of talking and thinking and so acting, which seem completely implausible first to the ordinary perspective. In the same way as saying that my hat doesn't exist and yet it exists seems ridiculous from the perspective of our ordinary so-called common sense. Since nonetheless we can quite readily agree that my hat does not exist and yet is not non-existent, it is simply not a surprise that it's possible for there to be many seemingly counterintuitive or paradoxical statements that I can still wear this hat perfectly well. I mean, I can put it on. I don't know how it will look, but I can put it on. Similarly these theories can be used to do amazing things. So, if you want to keep this a little bit further way of thinking about it, then in that sense it's similar to the way insight into emptiness can, we talked about before I think, that in the practice of the six parameters in the Mahayanas are meant to occur within and from the perspective of an understanding of emptiness. That's why they're called paramita. And in Vajrayana the skillful means, they too are to be employed with an acknowledgement of emptiness. So, often we hear that with this kind of understanding it becomes possible to do wonders, miraculous feats because of this kind of insight and skillful means. Science does great wonders too.
Yes! Student: "So here Meredith gave the example of for example parents and a child and you maintain, if I understood you correctly, that you maintain that if the effect is there then the cause ceases to exist. So, what's the problem?" Not that if the effect is there and then the cause ceases to exist. If the effect is there then the cause must have ceased. Student: "Must have ceased. But what's the problem of accepting that the cause became the part of the effect, like for example the DNA of the parents is a part of our body or like the Tibetan tradition says there is this blood and egg of mother and father or the cement, the cause for this house. It continues to exist in the effect. What's the problem of accepting that?"
Parents is a kind of good example perhaps, no? If we say that a man and a woman are the cause, together with other stuff too, but are the cause for a child then yes, but when the child is there then they are not the cause. Whatever it was that had to be there for that child to form must have ceased. Otherwise they would continue to. So, if the DNA is still inside and if the cause endures in there then there is something yet that hasn't happened. Otherwise why would we call it a cause?
I think down in the… Thank you. Student: "I just wonder." Oh, okay. Student: "This is my question this time. I wonder if you could, I'd be grateful if you could say something about how to experience the kindness of Nagarjuna in reading something like this. To me it seems like right from the start our basic foundation of experiencing and understanding our experience of reality is kind of wiped away, pulled out from underneath us. And then it seems that everything that you'd be looking towards to hang onto is then slowly getting cut away as well. So, there's not an immediate experience of kindness that I feel from that process. And then there's not then so much like bait to trust wholeheartedly what's happening. Even though maybe in my heart of hearts I can say, "Wow", all of this does seem true. " The repercussions feel increasingly scary, right? Increasingly maddening even. Increasingly disorienting. And without the felt warmth of the delivery, which we're grateful to have you providing right now, but it seems like a difficult journey to want to engage with and a difficult journey to want to invite others into. So you've spent 30 years doing this, so I imagine you've at some point gained some resonance with this as a skillful act. And I maybe am still stubborn to believe that just because something is true means that it is skillful or that it is kind. So, I wonder if you could speak to that." So, I think it is that the context is so super important for this.
Because the insights that we get to, they are just what they are. And it's very difficult to say much about them. Because whatever it is that we say, it doesn't really explain much. So, they are what they are, but it is very, very important, I think. And this is something that in those 30 years, and I hope I will live longer also, and if so, I get the sense that this is something that I will think and feel increasingly. That the environment where this kind of insight is cultivated or shared or whatever we want to say is so incredibly important. And in particular, that
that an environment of trust is there.
That there are exponents of this kind of insight that somehow give an appearance of being trustworthy. That give an appearance of this kind of insight actually paying off. Forget about whether it is disorienting or maddening and so on. Obviously, it doesn't have to be like that, but on top of that, there's something that makes me think that if only I could get this really, then I would be just like them. I think it's super important. And we know people like that, more or less. But if we're lucky, then we know some that are really great examples that inspire us so much.
And probably not just, It doesn't usually, one person like that is not enough. That person has to have a context also. Otherwise, we can't trust that person that much. It has to be, there has to be other people around that I can somewhat agree with and say, "Have you seen? Have you heard? Isn't that amazing? " And they will say, "Yeah, I also think so. " Then we feel some relief and we feel some inspiration to go further. But if that is not the case, if you just pick up, the first time I read Nāgārjuna was in a library. I just had the idea, I should see if I can find a book about Buddhism. One of the first books I picked out from the library as a teenager was this, the Mūlamadhyamaka. I don't know what translation it was or anything, but it was Mūlamadhyamaka. I looked at it and it didn't make, of course, any sense to me. But I thought, Okay, wow, and not more than that. But it could also have been very different and much more rejecting the text.
And it's a, And because these insights are so profound, because it is true. It's everything that is up for investigation and it is our perception of everything that is changing. That's in a way what we hoped would happen when we hear about the spiritual path. But then when it begins to happen, it's pretty real. So, that process happens together with really capable people and in an environment that is just permeated by a sensitivity to the nature of this kind of insight. I think that is what is crucial. It's a collective endeavor. And so really there's so much reason why they say Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Someone told me this many years ago, that that is an extraordinary thing about the Buddhist refuge, is that it's not just the teacher and it's not just the teaching, but it's the Sangha just as much. So that's what I would say at this point. And this is something that I feel I get more and more confirmed in and more and more aware of. I hope I will keep as well understanding this more and more clearly because I'm convinced it's true. Thank you. And then have some great days ahead and then we'll meet again in a few days. I forget when, but we will find out next week, no next week, next Monday. So a week from now. Thank you.
video
play-rounded-outline
17:26
Scroll to Top