Log In
Sign Up
Log In
Sign Up

Details

Root of The Middle Way – Session 14

Teachers: 
Collection: 
  • Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location: 
  • Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features: 
  • Subtitles ,
  • Transcripts
Session 14 revolves around different approaches of understanding causality.

Session 14 delves into Nāgārjuna’s critique of causality, time, and the nature of appearance.  The debate revolves around metaphysical versus phenomenological approaches to causality. Thomas cites dreams and illusions as examples of experiences that seem real but lack inherent existence. Nāgārjuna’s focus on non-duality and the two truths challenges conventional ideas.

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 pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So yesterday we looked at the final stanzas, which means that we're in the first chapter, which means that we have gone through the first chapter of the MūlaMādhyamaka, which is the "Analysis of Conditions." And in the beginning there was, what the commentators say is the thesis advanced or posited by Nāgārjuna, when it said, "Not from itself, not from an other, not from both and not uncaused, nowhere does anything ever arise."
So now we have gone through the whole chapter and we have tried to understand Nāgārjuna's arguments for making that thesis. So yesterday we went home thinking where we are at in terms of our perception of that thesis. Do we agree or not? If not, then what is the.. and why? And if we do, then how much do we agree? And if we really agree, do we agree so much that we feel confident to stand up and say the arguments presented in MūlaMādhyamakakārikā Chapter 1 are irrefutable? So what did you think individually?
Anyone welcome.
Student: "Well, it seems difficult from my side because all of these concepts are based on a linear notion of time and there hasn't yet been a discussion about whether or not time, as we assume it to be, in this linear fashion, actually exists or not. But if it doesn't, then there's no notion, there's like no benefit to the concept of cause and effect or arising or ceasing or coming or going or any of those things. So it's interesting to me that there hasn't yet been a discussion about time and we're meant to seemingly maintain the assumption that time exists in this linear fashion and then from that premise still dispute each of these things that we assume to be happening within the context of time and space. But actually if there isn't time and there isn't space as we understand it, then these things seem quite obvious."
So in short you say the way that the reasoning would make sense here or be really satisfactory is only if we think there is no such thing as linear time.
"What I'm saying is that it seems like time is consistently untouched, at least explicitly by these different stanzas we've looked at in the first chapter. Yet what is ultimately being criticized is the notion of a fixed sense of time. Therefore involving moments, like actual distinct moments that could then house distinct entities and distinct experiences that we would be able to link in a causally or conditioned way through the conditions that he's laying out. But all of that only makes sense within the context of time." Does causality only make sense in the context of time? "I think yes, because otherwise right now it's all talking about effectual conditions, right? So it's all still rooted within the context of the cause. That's the primary notion. In the same way we were talking about the notion of difference from the perspective of sameness, we're still talking about the notion of effects from the perspective of causality."
I guess what I'm trying to understand is why you choose particularly time to say that...
"Because how else could we define in a rigid way the connection between what appears to be happening?"
I find it quite interesting that much of general Buddhist philosophy considers time and space or considers them to be constructs made on the basis of change. So in Western philosophy there's a lot of tradition that says that time and space are fundamental, no? Like Kant for example, that's the hallmark maybe, no? One of the many hallmarks that we must think in terms of time and space. But I'm not sure that it's such a natural thing to say actually. You can say, okay, there seems to be... We don't have to say... I think maybe let's say it like that, yeah? The experience of cause and effect, is that always something that we have to say? "Oh it's because I believe in time"? I don't think so. There's something much more... Yeah, but this is not something... It's up for debate of course, it's just a matter of interpretation and philosophical point of view. But I don't think there's such a... of course you can say for cause and effect to make sense, there needs to be a sense of time, but there needs to be a sense of so many other things also.

Subject and object, action, movement, many, many things. I don't know if I'm clear. I'm just a little bit puzzled why I hear it often, like people's response that this time thing is like the main sort of ground of all of these ideas. And of course...
But couldn't we just as well say that time is a construct based on the appearance of causality instead of the other way around?
I would say we can, but it's something to think about.
Another thing, if I may sort of further analyze your answer here, when you put it in these terms it makes certain sense, it makes perfect sense in such and such context, given that there is time for example, no? Is maybe a variant of this sense that we feel that it is maybe not 100% conclusive. So there's something still that we haven't considered that would make it so that we would have to give a more qualified answer, qualified in the sense of, with qualifications, answer to the question of whether this reasoning is irrefutable. It's irrefutable if you believe in time, or it's irrefutable if something that we say yeah? So that is very interesting, no? Do we have such a sense that there's something that somehow limits the scope of what is said here? Nowhere does anything ever arise. It gives an appearance of being very comprehensive, no? And exhaustive. So is there something though, when we have gone through all of this now and thought about it very carefully, we tried to be as careful as we could, is there something that makes us say, "Yes nowhere in the sense of such and such? Anything in the sense of such and such? And ever meaning yes in such and such context, but otherwise not?" Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I mean it would be a natural response, no? Because how otherwise to accommodate that message, that nowhere does anything ever arise?
But any other responses? Just feel free to say simply what you think at this stage, about all this.


Student: "So I have come to the conclusion that it's not really possible that anything arises anywhere. I feel quite confident in that. And then I just, because we talked about yesterday if you have like a little bit of a process that's kind of squeaking, and I still have that, so the way I want to handle that is just to keep investigating things as I come by them, just to be sure. Because I think, not I think, but I feel that if I fully allow myself to accept it, then I might go a bit crazy. So I really don't want to go cuckoo yet. I'm probably cuckoo already, but in terms of, yeah, I just feel like there is something, it needs to allow a process. But every time I think about it, I just kind of get stunned and just say, yeah, nothing really truly arises anywhere at any time in any given circumstances. And I have full confidence in that. But I'm not allowing it yet. I don't know, it's kind of, it's just to a certain level, my belief systems about how things work. I'm still pretty confused about my own reactions to things. I totally react as if they do.
So it's weird standpoint." Yeah.
So I think that again, brings up the importance of having those two aspects of analysis and rest. Because this feeling very confused and to the point of feeling about to go crazy is something that it's a conceptual response, of course. So instead, if it's possible to just rest in the insight and then gently going about it very gently. And then also, as you started out when talking about what advice you had received before beginning to study, there was advice about making sure you take a break, go for a walk, have some nice conversation with your friends, stuff like that to sort of gently distract you, is actually also important. Because it is very profound and very challenging. It's not that it's dangerous at all, but on the other hand, not that it is dangerous as such, but our own sort of unskilled way of going about this kind of insight, of dealing with this insight. That can make a lot of trouble. Because we are not used to acknowledge something so profound. And we have such a strong feeling that unless this and this and this, then there's something wrong. So it's hard for us to trust. And so again, I mentioned that one time before, that I think the sense of a community where this kind of insight can be really cultivated and nourished is extremely important. It's not something that an environment that can show us how to integrate this kind of insight in a very natural and profound way, so that we don't ignore what we come to understand, but really can begin to live by it, so that we can integrate this kind of perspective in all that we do. That's our... I mean, when we hear the first Dharma talk and if it has some sort of appeal, then that's what we want. We want these profound teachings, we want to really comprehend and gain insight to the extent that we really are transformed and our whole way of being is transformed. When we begin to look below the surface with the help of teachings like this, the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā then it becomes quite clear that it is actually possible. But now it's not that we are hearing a talk about what Dharma practice could be like if we did it. It's about discovering the insight ourselves and it is a transformative insight. So of course it's not to be taken lightly and it's something that has to be dealt with very skillfully. Nāgārjuna himself says that it is like.. when coming close to the view of emptiness or when misunderstanding emptiness, then those of feeble intellect will be destroyed, just like what happens if you mishandle a poisonous snake or if you apply a spell the wrong way. If you try to catch a poisonous snake but don't know how to do it well, it turns back and bites you. And if you don't know how to use a spell, instead of going out and doing what you want in the world, it comes back to destroy yourself. So it is something to deal with skillfully. And how can we do that? Well, by seeking advice from people who have real deep experience. Not just ordinary Dharma teachers, if there is such a thing, but not just people who give lectures about Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist views and so on, but people who have real deep experience with the Dharma path and some realization. And it is amazing that we can then find such individuals in the world today and we can then begin to also seek the advice in a way that is very different from just standing there and asking for help with some advice on how I can become a Dharma practitioner. I get distracted very easily, what do you recommend? Whatever else we might sort of innocently and sincerely ask, but in a sort of, when we ask that kind of advice, we are very, very far from all the action of the path really, no? And that's also how we think of ourselves. I'm still me, I'm going there to meet my teacher and my teacher is amazing. I would like to learn something, but it's me sitting here listening as well as I can and yeah, I received something amazing, wonderful, now I'll try to apply it. That whole framework suddenly is not really available anymore, so we can meet perhaps these teachers in a different way, which is an amazing opportunity. So I asked also Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at the beginning of this course if we would be willing to give some advice about precisely this issue of what to do when we begin to understand and agree with the teaching, but then this big question mark comes up. There's a new and sort of, there's a sense of a very significant pivotal situation, but also tremendous confusion. So an uneasy point, as you said, no? So if Rinpoche would address those issues, and he agreed to do that, so I hope to be able to request some profound Dharma guidance from Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche I really encourage you all to find experienced and realized teachers to benefit really from this approach. In particular, if we keep this framework of analysis and rest in mind, then of course the more we gain success, so to speak, with our analysis, the more impactful our rest can be. So those teachers who specialize in, rest is maybe a little misleading, but this non-conceptual path, the teachers who specialize in transmitting that kind of insight, perhaps we can meet them with much greater meaning and success if we have some sense of having settled things profoundly through analysis.
Anybody else who would like to say something about this, like what they think is...
"Chime, would you like to unmute yourself and ask a question?" Student: "Thank you. Can you hear me? My question is, maybe you will find it out of context. I have been using the Tibetan version of root text and also the Mabja's Tibetan version of the commentary on this. But now increasingly I am feeling the need of the English version of the translation of root text as well. So is there any way out I get a copy of it? I don't know. I just want to ask this to the professor. That's my question. So that's... Thank you." About the root text? "Yes, professor." Sure. It should be available in the Teams group. I'll check again, but it should be there somewhere. So you can just download it. No, it's not. Then it should be there. I'll have it become available then. Thank you. And then you had something. "Thank you, professor."
Student: "I still feel a bit hung up on exactly what has been negated here. I feel like in our discussions we have shied away from establishing a kind of ground, philosophically. Are we speaking metaphysically, phenomenologically, ultimate reality, conventional reality? And I feel like most of the arguments that we've read and discussed, though they don't say it explicitly, seem to be addressing metaphysical assumptions about causality. In other words, assumptions about how reality actually is independent of observers, all in quotes. My feeling towards that is questions about metaphysics and beliefs about metaphysics tend to be poorly formed and actually impossible to answer." Very nicely put. So I sort of came to this feeling like, 'Ok, That's from my own prior experience.' Making claims about metaphysical reality, that's sort of a losing game to begin with, and can be dispensed with in ways far simpler than Nāgārjuna's myriad arguments in this. So I'm fine dispensing with metaphysical ontology here of causes and effects. But I'm not 100% there on a kind of more phenomenological account. I brought a point like this up maybe two days ago, and then somebody online responded saying, 'You can try to couch your claims in precise phenomenological language, try to avoid ontological commitments as you were talking about. But Nāgārjuna's arguments still really creep back in and they shut those down as well. But I don't feel convinced about that at the moment. I feel like properly phrased in terms of human experience, instead of some kind of vague and spooky claims about objective external reality, can actually potentially stand up to many of these arguments, because they don't rely on things like assertions about substances or assertions about independent existence. They only resort to kind of ideas about appearances and how things seem. And just on a point, you know, you began this class week one, you were asking, 'Do things seem to happen?' Right? That was one of the first questions you asked. And I think that the answer still is yes, you know, in spite of these, right? And I think asking why, one answer might be that the way that things seem to happen has actually nothing to do with beliefs about metaphysical reality. They don't. If they did, then every one of us who's very convinced by these arguments would stop seeing things as seeming to happen, right? If they were actually, if one grounded the other, then the elimination of the ground would certainly downstream effect would result in the elimination of the other. We don't seem to have that happen. So I'm curious if you feel like I've missed something here. Like maybe there is an argument that really does crack open this more phenomenological account of happening, of occurrence of cause and effect. Or if you feel like that's somehow the wrong question." Yeah, I would like to remember the last you said, just before saying that. What was that now? Oh yeah, seem versus metaphysical beliefs, if they would be grounding. So let's just remember that. Yes.
It's interesting about metaphysicals claims, the way that we, that this sort of judgment is made, this is metaphysical discourse, very much depends on who we are also, I have realized from experience. So it's very easy to agree in sort of the contemporary setting, I suppose, for certain people that we certainly don't want to do metaphysics. And that's not, or if even if we have to, that's not really what we're after. But then where we draw the line is very individual. It's just that interesting. But I think you're certainly not alone in having this kind of understanding of the message of Mādhyamaka, if you want, and both in traditional, so-called traditional presentations of Mādhyamaka philosophy, you can find this, but also in modern presentations of Mādhyamaka. That's exactly what you will see happening, that there's a sort of, a certain kind of belief is shown to be void. A certain kind of understanding of things is refuted, but then there's something else that remains unscathed by any of that. And so that, of course, then there are debates about whether that is good or not, and whether it is very good or very bad, or whether there's a kind of middle way that can be a middle way indeed between those two, that is a good thing, and so on. So lots of different opinions, but let's just say that it's possible to formulate a presentation of, that's typically what we would call two truths, the relative truth, if that is something that, what should we say?
Is the relative truth something about which we can say a whole lot?

That remains true, basically, regardless of what we find out about the ultimate truth of emptiness. So there are many who would say that certainly, yes, that's precisely what you need to understand. This relative reality is that, it's relative, conventional, deceptive too, but it's also reality. It gives an appearance of being real, but actually isn't real the way it seems, yet a cup is still a cup and water is still water, and so on. Just don't impute inherent existence to any of these concepts and you will be just fine. In fact you need to understand things this way. If you go further than that, you are undermining everything and you will be in trouble. So that is certainly one way to go about things. So whether that is philosophically sustainable or not, if we leave that question aside and just say that, let's say that it is something that you can do successfully as a philosopher, and in one way time shows that that is indeed something that you can do very successfully as a philosopher. But what is it really that you say then, if this becomes your… if we say that the seemingness as you, for example, as you pointed out, as you sort of wanted to put special attention on, if we say that the seemingness, that the seeming happening, that's all good, that's all, they are just as much no matter how much Mādhyamaka analysis we invest into this, there's still the appearance of something happening. And fine. But if we then say that it's seeming, but what really does it mean that it's just seeming then? I think that's the key question. Student: "You asked a question along those lines when this sort of thing has been brought up before, but I think it's really the same exact issue. It's sort of like saying, yeah, you've just described it scientifically, but where does God come in? You know, it's like you ask, like, what is the, what do you really mean when it's seeming? It's like you're asking seemingly about something deeper than seeming, which is the whole point is that we're not talking about that because we can't, you know? And so like this, this, I understand, of course, I have the same instinct that you want to know what's really going on, but what I'm trying to say is that intuition is actually just kind of like you're grasping at something that's just not there." Yeah, thank you. That is, I think, very, very sharp, very elegant, very useful to talk about things in this way. So still, we can ask ourselves.. so it's also easy, not necessarily easy to say it so eloquently and with such lightness and precision as you did right now, but it is nevertheless relatively easy to say these things. And so because it is quite easy to say these things and because seemingly there is a difference between what I say and what I think and what I feel and what I do, I'm afraid to say, then it is nevertheless useful to ask oneself, to ask oneself, "what did I just say?" At some point, that's probably not necessary anymore.
Someone who has really penetrated this or someone who really masters it, whatever we want to say, you know, great Bodhisattva,
a Mahabodhisattva doesn't have to do that probably, no?

Has, doesn't have to ask him or her, it-self, what, what, but what are really the implications of what I said, no? At least it's like on the sort of higher pure Bhumis, there's this sense of effortlessness and absence of negative emotions and so on. So whatever is said is probably said very well and there's no need to pause and go back and examine. But since what we say is so profound and since there seems to be often this conflict between what we can say and what we do say and what we can feel and what we do, then I think it is nevertheless very useful to ask oneself, so what really does it mean? And in a way the rest meditation is in some sense about that, no? It's allowing for instead of just going on having said what you did to then saying something else, which is totally defensible philosophically and so on to do, but it's also possible that as we say the next thing, we forget, so to speak, the significance of what we just said before.

So not that we have to go out and tell everyone, "Now you please think carefully" and "what do you mean?" and "It's very nice to say" and "where does God come in?" It's not that we have to make that our program to go out and teach people that, but sort of on a personal and perhaps it's much better if we don't, but on a personal level I think it's kind of key, yeah?
At least to the extent that we allow ourselves to take in fully what it was that we just said, yeah?
Was there online there's a couple, yeah?
"Luis please unmute yourself."
Student: "Okay, can you hear me?"
Yes I can hear. "Yes."
"Yeah, I'm in a similar place to this student who just spoke now, just analyzing this scope of what we refuted and how to relate with our experiences and I heard something yesterday that made me think that maybe finding a way to make sense of it in terms of experience that if you really look into our experience there is no experience of arising because either there is experience of there or not there and arising is like a narrative we construct based on this experience we're having of there or not there. How do you see this approach?" This is, yeah, well, so.. what is the sense of there and what is the sense of not there? I guess I would wonder, no?
Like whatever appearance we're experiencing, is this already too much? Like too much happening?" Don't you think appearance is more alive than just there or not there?
"I don't know."
There is sort of static, no? And not there is just not there. I don't know if I'm making sense. "Yeah, because like the idea of movement and then we are constructing based on this basic, basic there is an experience but there is no experience. Then we sew it together into like there are things arising and being destroyed. I don't know when I heard it made sense to me on how to relate with the experiences, with the experience in terms of what Nāgārjuna said that there is no arising." It's important. "Because arising is already a second level of conceptual construct based on this basic experience of just, yeah, experiencing." Yeah, there is also something interesting about the idea of appearance and that if we talk about appearance as such, like that which is just there, then again I'm sorry, what really do we mean by that?
We are not talking about anything that seems to happen but that which is just there. What is that which is just there?
What would you say? If my question makes sense, what would you say, Luis?
"What is just there?" Yeah, I understood what your account as saying that there is a sort of basic sense of presence that and then there can also be absence but then that things arise and so on is a more sort of higher up construction or belief about the nature of things. "Yeah, because like right now I think I'm talking to you and you're moving your body but if I just look at now, there is a presence and then I'm sewing together a lot of experiences and saying Tomas is moving, I'm talking to him, I'm here and yeah. But then the just basic presence of things, that's the most like before I construct this idea of things arising or moving and etc." And is there also a time when there's a basic absence of things?
"Maybe absence is more conceptual but there is a presence. Because I need to think about it something that was before then is already conceptual to say absence." So, yeah, what is it that makes, so what are we actually referring to when if we say it, put it that way, if we say that there's always a basic presence and that can take many forms and it's probably our construction that makes it appear in the way that it does. But there is that basic presence all the time, even time is a construct and so on and so forth. And absence as you said is a construct, then what are we talking about?
What is it that we're talking about? It couldn't be one particular thing, no? Because if it was one particular thing then it's something that is there sometimes and not other times.
So why do we have this sense that there is a basic presence, always, if we have that sense?


"Because awareness."
Yeah, then we can call it many different things. But what really do we mean?
Student: "How do we know that we haven't just fallen into some sort of logical fallacy? Because this goes against everything that we experience and we're just saying, okay, well it's either existence or non-existence, neither is true, it can't be both, so it just doesn't exist. It feels like we've fallen into some sort of logical trap." Yeah, very good point. What would you say to yourself? All of my experience says that reality exists, that things exist. So I think that's what we're pushing up against here in these questions for you. Where we're like, what about this, it's just like, we're trying to, it feels like we've logically determined that there is nothing inherently existing, that everything is inherently empty, but we haven't determined that on an experiential level. And so it feels like a logical fallacy." This is a classic objection also. Very nice. And I think the classic, if I have any understanding of that reply, is to use the example of dream. And similar examples of illusion. And then, isn't it, if someone, while I dream, comes to tell me that all of this is just complete, actually nothing happens here, I would say no, all of my experience tells me that something is going on.
What is the difference between the dream and what we're telling ourselves now?
"I can't counter that point, but I would say, isn't it the same argument as the brain in the vat theory? Like there's nothing to say I'm not a brain in a vat, right? Like, there's nothing to say I'm not in a dream, but does that still invalidate all of my experience by saying it's not real?"





I think the point is not to say that,
like the brain in a vat is somewhat different, I think, because that's the idea that there's some substrate that creates the illusion. So the point here is not to convince anyone that really you are asleep, right? It's just to show that there are times when you yourself would agree that things can seem overwhelmingly real, but you yourself would say from another perspective, they're not real at all. That's all what there is to it, to that example.
"I think the brain in the vat theory holds because it's both saying that your experience is not real and there's nothing to prove that your experience is real, but that doesn't mean to say that it invalidates everything about your experience.
We're saying this perspective, but the perspective that we provided..." But wait a minute, okay. What you started out saying was that my experience says that this is totally wrong.
It's that element that we have to look at. It's this sense of being confirmed by what seems to be one's immediate experience of things and that sense of overwhelming reality or whatever we may want to call it is stronger than the arguments. Which is something that we all get to think and feel at some point in this process. So then the classic reply is just bringing up that example and saying, "But wait, don't forget how you yourself qualify certain things that are just that in exactly the same way you say that it is just seemingly so and not at all in actual fact." So what you said is a justification for rejecting the argument, is by your own lights not a proper justification for rejecting the argument. Because in other contexts you do precisely the same and you don't think it's a problem. So this is something that really shows us something key about the Mādhyamaka approach. It's not about driving home some point to us, but it's just inviting ourselves to look at our own perceptions and ideas. And that is a very special feature of this, I think. And it's something that it's very good to keep in mind because otherwise we can easily get the impression that there is some sort of Mādhyamaka view, understanding that he wants us all to understand and get. But when you look for that, there's nothing. Instead it's a very noteworthy reply. It doesn't try to say, "But wait, it is a good argument because..." It just says, "According to you, this is not... According to your own judgments, there's nothing... According to your own judgments, to simply say that things seem so overwhelmingly real, so they must be real no matter what you say, is not acceptable according to your own standards. Because when talking about, for example, what you experience in a dream, you will do just that. You will say that it feels overwhelmingly real, but don't be fooled. It's completely unreal. It's just dream."
Thanks. Very good. Issue and point. Yeah.


"Don online, can you unmute yourself?" Student: "Good Morning. So, Nāgārjuna's arguments here, he seems to be upholding the view of non-duality. And this goes with the two truths, the way I see it, where everything that we normally experience in our everyday lives, we're mostly confused by. So we launch into a path that we try to understand more clearly. So well, in the teaching, the two truths, so all this, the five skandhas give us a sense of the world. And so from that arises this kind of dualistic mindset where we take as that relative provisional truth. And so it all goes along good with the conventional scheme of things. If you do good, then positive things will result. If you harm others, likely some bad stuff will come about, that kind of thing. Wholesome actions lead to wholesome results, and negative actions lead to unwholesome results. So as long as we don't look into that too carefully, when we start to examine it carefully, then it doesn't really always apply so clearly. So when all that is, like those attachments are dropped, and you have like the empty skandhas where names and all of that don't really hold, then there isn't anything to be said.
In the beginning, in the Homage, those four pair of eight ontological extremes, Nāgārjuna raises the feature for resolving those, and the piece that results from dropping the whole attachment to that mistaken view, that view that we seem to have because the filters of the skandhas. And when those filters are no longer attached, we don't have the attachment to them, we don't form an identity through that, then we're just resting in peace, which is the natural state.

That's what I come to after, you know, I've been working with this for a long time, and I wanted to thank you for your translation of this beautiful commentary, because it was actually the first one that I was able to get through and understand what Nāgārjuna was saying. It really helped me." Thank you. I'm very happy to hear that.
I think it's been an incredible joy and learning process to work on that translation. I don't know how it has many shortcomings, of course, but it's very nice to know that you find it useful.
Thank you. That all sounded very good. Let's then conclude here, time has run out, and then we start tomorrow, so at home you can think about what going is until tomorrow, I mean, do other things too, but begin to think about what movement is, as exemplified by walking in particular. Thank you. See 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 pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
So yesterday we looked at the final stanzas, which means that we're in the first chapter, which means that we have gone through the first chapter of the MūlaMādhyamaka, which is the "Analysis of Conditions." And in the beginning there was, what the commentators say is the thesis advanced or posited by Nāgārjuna, when it said, "Not from itself, not from an other, not from both and not uncaused, nowhere does anything ever arise."
So now we have gone through the whole chapter and we have tried to understand Nāgārjuna's arguments for making that thesis. So yesterday we went home thinking where we are at in terms of our perception of that thesis. Do we agree or not? If not, then what is the.. and why? And if we do, then how much do we agree? And if we really agree, do we agree so much that we feel confident to stand up and say the arguments presented in MūlaMādhyamakakārikā Chapter 1 are irrefutable? So what did you think individually?
Anyone welcome.
Student: "Well, it seems difficult from my side because all of these concepts are based on a linear notion of time and there hasn't yet been a discussion about whether or not time, as we assume it to be, in this linear fashion, actually exists or not. But if it doesn't, then there's no notion, there's like no benefit to the concept of cause and effect or arising or ceasing or coming or going or any of those things. So it's interesting to me that there hasn't yet been a discussion about time and we're meant to seemingly maintain the assumption that time exists in this linear fashion and then from that premise still dispute each of these things that we assume to be happening within the context of time and space. But actually if there isn't time and there isn't space as we understand it, then these things seem quite obvious."
So in short you say the way that the reasoning would make sense here or be really satisfactory is only if we think there is no such thing as linear time.
"What I'm saying is that it seems like time is consistently untouched, at least explicitly by these different stanzas we've looked at in the first chapter. Yet what is ultimately being criticized is the notion of a fixed sense of time. Therefore involving moments, like actual distinct moments that could then house distinct entities and distinct experiences that we would be able to link in a causally or conditioned way through the conditions that he's laying out. But all of that only makes sense within the context of time." Does causality only make sense in the context of time? "I think yes, because otherwise right now it's all talking about effectual conditions, right? So it's all still rooted within the context of the cause. That's the primary notion. In the same way we were talking about the notion of difference from the perspective of sameness, we're still talking about the notion of effects from the perspective of causality."
I guess what I'm trying to understand is why you choose particularly time to say that...
"Because how else could we define in a rigid way the connection between what appears to be happening?"
I find it quite interesting that much of general Buddhist philosophy considers time and space or considers them to be constructs made on the basis of change. So in Western philosophy there's a lot of tradition that says that time and space are fundamental, no? Like Kant for example, that's the hallmark maybe, no? One of the many hallmarks that we must think in terms of time and space. But I'm not sure that it's such a natural thing to say actually. You can say, okay, there seems to be... We don't have to say... I think maybe let's say it like that, yeah? The experience of cause and effect, is that always something that we have to say? "Oh it's because I believe in time"? I don't think so. There's something much more... Yeah, but this is not something... It's up for debate of course, it's just a matter of interpretation and philosophical point of view. But I don't think there's such a... of course you can say for cause and effect to make sense, there needs to be a sense of time, but there needs to be a sense of so many other things also.

Subject and object, action, movement, many, many things. I don't know if I'm clear. I'm just a little bit puzzled why I hear it often, like people's response that this time thing is like the main sort of ground of all of these ideas. And of course...
But couldn't we just as well say that time is a construct based on the appearance of causality instead of the other way around?
I would say we can, but it's something to think about.
Another thing, if I may sort of further analyze your answer here, when you put it in these terms it makes certain sense, it makes perfect sense in such and such context, given that there is time for example, no? Is maybe a variant of this sense that we feel that it is maybe not 100% conclusive. So there's something still that we haven't considered that would make it so that we would have to give a more qualified answer, qualified in the sense of, with qualifications, answer to the question of whether this reasoning is irrefutable. It's irrefutable if you believe in time, or it's irrefutable if something that we say yeah? So that is very interesting, no? Do we have such a sense that there's something that somehow limits the scope of what is said here? Nowhere does anything ever arise. It gives an appearance of being very comprehensive, no? And exhaustive. So is there something though, when we have gone through all of this now and thought about it very carefully, we tried to be as careful as we could, is there something that makes us say, "Yes nowhere in the sense of such and such? Anything in the sense of such and such? And ever meaning yes in such and such context, but otherwise not?" Do you see what I'm trying to say?
I mean it would be a natural response, no? Because how otherwise to accommodate that message, that nowhere does anything ever arise?
But any other responses? Just feel free to say simply what you think at this stage, about all this.


Student: "So I have come to the conclusion that it's not really possible that anything arises anywhere. I feel quite confident in that. And then I just, because we talked about yesterday if you have like a little bit of a process that's kind of squeaking, and I still have that, so the way I want to handle that is just to keep investigating things as I come by them, just to be sure. Because I think, not I think, but I feel that if I fully allow myself to accept it, then I might go a bit crazy. So I really don't want to go cuckoo yet. I'm probably cuckoo already, but in terms of, yeah, I just feel like there is something, it needs to allow a process. But every time I think about it, I just kind of get stunned and just say, yeah, nothing really truly arises anywhere at any time in any given circumstances. And I have full confidence in that. But I'm not allowing it yet. I don't know, it's kind of, it's just to a certain level, my belief systems about how things work. I'm still pretty confused about my own reactions to things. I totally react as if they do.
So it's weird standpoint." Yeah.
So I think that again, brings up the importance of having those two aspects of analysis and rest. Because this feeling very confused and to the point of feeling about to go crazy is something that it's a conceptual response, of course. So instead, if it's possible to just rest in the insight and then gently going about it very gently. And then also, as you started out when talking about what advice you had received before beginning to study, there was advice about making sure you take a break, go for a walk, have some nice conversation with your friends, stuff like that to sort of gently distract you, is actually also important. Because it is very profound and very challenging. It's not that it's dangerous at all, but on the other hand, not that it is dangerous as such, but our own sort of unskilled way of going about this kind of insight, of dealing with this insight. That can make a lot of trouble. Because we are not used to acknowledge something so profound. And we have such a strong feeling that unless this and this and this, then there's something wrong. So it's hard for us to trust. And so again, I mentioned that one time before, that I think the sense of a community where this kind of insight can be really cultivated and nourished is extremely important. It's not something that an environment that can show us how to integrate this kind of insight in a very natural and profound way, so that we don't ignore what we come to understand, but really can begin to live by it, so that we can integrate this kind of perspective in all that we do. That's our... I mean, when we hear the first Dharma talk and if it has some sort of appeal, then that's what we want. We want these profound teachings, we want to really comprehend and gain insight to the extent that we really are transformed and our whole way of being is transformed. When we begin to look below the surface with the help of teachings like this, the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā then it becomes quite clear that it is actually possible. But now it's not that we are hearing a talk about what Dharma practice could be like if we did it. It's about discovering the insight ourselves and it is a transformative insight. So of course it's not to be taken lightly and it's something that has to be dealt with very skillfully. Nāgārjuna himself says that it is like.. when coming close to the view of emptiness or when misunderstanding emptiness, then those of feeble intellect will be destroyed, just like what happens if you mishandle a poisonous snake or if you apply a spell the wrong way. If you try to catch a poisonous snake but don't know how to do it well, it turns back and bites you. And if you don't know how to use a spell, instead of going out and doing what you want in the world, it comes back to destroy yourself. So it is something to deal with skillfully. And how can we do that? Well, by seeking advice from people who have real deep experience. Not just ordinary Dharma teachers, if there is such a thing, but not just people who give lectures about Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist views and so on, but people who have real deep experience with the Dharma path and some realization. And it is amazing that we can then find such individuals in the world today and we can then begin to also seek the advice in a way that is very different from just standing there and asking for help with some advice on how I can become a Dharma practitioner. I get distracted very easily, what do you recommend? Whatever else we might sort of innocently and sincerely ask, but in a sort of, when we ask that kind of advice, we are very, very far from all the action of the path really, no? And that's also how we think of ourselves. I'm still me, I'm going there to meet my teacher and my teacher is amazing. I would like to learn something, but it's me sitting here listening as well as I can and yeah, I received something amazing, wonderful, now I'll try to apply it. That whole framework suddenly is not really available anymore, so we can meet perhaps these teachers in a different way, which is an amazing opportunity. So I asked also Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at the beginning of this course if we would be willing to give some advice about precisely this issue of what to do when we begin to understand and agree with the teaching, but then this big question mark comes up. There's a new and sort of, there's a sense of a very significant pivotal situation, but also tremendous confusion. So an uneasy point, as you said, no? So if Rinpoche would address those issues, and he agreed to do that, so I hope to be able to request some profound Dharma guidance from Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche I really encourage you all to find experienced and realized teachers to benefit really from this approach. In particular, if we keep this framework of analysis and rest in mind, then of course the more we gain success, so to speak, with our analysis, the more impactful our rest can be. So those teachers who specialize in, rest is maybe a little misleading, but this non-conceptual path, the teachers who specialize in transmitting that kind of insight, perhaps we can meet them with much greater meaning and success if we have some sense of having settled things profoundly through analysis.
Anybody else who would like to say something about this, like what they think is...
"Chime, would you like to unmute yourself and ask a question?" Student: "Thank you. Can you hear me? My question is, maybe you will find it out of context. I have been using the Tibetan version of root text and also the Mabja's Tibetan version of the commentary on this. But now increasingly I am feeling the need of the English version of the translation of root text as well. So is there any way out I get a copy of it? I don't know. I just want to ask this to the professor. That's my question. So that's... Thank you." About the root text? "Yes, professor." Sure. It should be available in the Teams group. I'll check again, but it should be there somewhere. So you can just download it. No, it's not. Then it should be there. I'll have it become available then. Thank you. And then you had something. "Thank you, professor."
Student: "I still feel a bit hung up on exactly what has been negated here. I feel like in our discussions we have shied away from establishing a kind of ground, philosophically. Are we speaking metaphysically, phenomenologically, ultimate reality, conventional reality? And I feel like most of the arguments that we've read and discussed, though they don't say it explicitly, seem to be addressing metaphysical assumptions about causality. In other words, assumptions about how reality actually is independent of observers, all in quotes. My feeling towards that is questions about metaphysics and beliefs about metaphysics tend to be poorly formed and actually impossible to answer." Very nicely put. So I sort of came to this feeling like, 'Ok, That's from my own prior experience.' Making claims about metaphysical reality, that's sort of a losing game to begin with, and can be dispensed with in ways far simpler than Nāgārjuna's myriad arguments in this. So I'm fine dispensing with metaphysical ontology here of causes and effects. But I'm not 100% there on a kind of more phenomenological account. I brought a point like this up maybe two days ago, and then somebody online responded saying, 'You can try to couch your claims in precise phenomenological language, try to avoid ontological commitments as you were talking about. But Nāgārjuna's arguments still really creep back in and they shut those down as well. But I don't feel convinced about that at the moment. I feel like properly phrased in terms of human experience, instead of some kind of vague and spooky claims about objective external reality, can actually potentially stand up to many of these arguments, because they don't rely on things like assertions about substances or assertions about independent existence. They only resort to kind of ideas about appearances and how things seem. And just on a point, you know, you began this class week one, you were asking, 'Do things seem to happen?' Right? That was one of the first questions you asked. And I think that the answer still is yes, you know, in spite of these, right? And I think asking why, one answer might be that the way that things seem to happen has actually nothing to do with beliefs about metaphysical reality. They don't. If they did, then every one of us who's very convinced by these arguments would stop seeing things as seeming to happen, right? If they were actually, if one grounded the other, then the elimination of the ground would certainly downstream effect would result in the elimination of the other. We don't seem to have that happen. So I'm curious if you feel like I've missed something here. Like maybe there is an argument that really does crack open this more phenomenological account of happening, of occurrence of cause and effect. Or if you feel like that's somehow the wrong question." Yeah, I would like to remember the last you said, just before saying that. What was that now? Oh yeah, seem versus metaphysical beliefs, if they would be grounding. So let's just remember that. Yes.
It's interesting about metaphysicals claims, the way that we, that this sort of judgment is made, this is metaphysical discourse, very much depends on who we are also, I have realized from experience. So it's very easy to agree in sort of the contemporary setting, I suppose, for certain people that we certainly don't want to do metaphysics. And that's not, or if even if we have to, that's not really what we're after. But then where we draw the line is very individual. It's just that interesting. But I think you're certainly not alone in having this kind of understanding of the message of Mādhyamaka, if you want, and both in traditional, so-called traditional presentations of Mādhyamaka philosophy, you can find this, but also in modern presentations of Mādhyamaka. That's exactly what you will see happening, that there's a sort of, a certain kind of belief is shown to be void. A certain kind of understanding of things is refuted, but then there's something else that remains unscathed by any of that. And so that, of course, then there are debates about whether that is good or not, and whether it is very good or very bad, or whether there's a kind of middle way that can be a middle way indeed between those two, that is a good thing, and so on. So lots of different opinions, but let's just say that it's possible to formulate a presentation of, that's typically what we would call two truths, the relative truth, if that is something that, what should we say?
Is the relative truth something about which we can say a whole lot?

That remains true, basically, regardless of what we find out about the ultimate truth of emptiness. So there are many who would say that certainly, yes, that's precisely what you need to understand. This relative reality is that, it's relative, conventional, deceptive too, but it's also reality. It gives an appearance of being real, but actually isn't real the way it seems, yet a cup is still a cup and water is still water, and so on. Just don't impute inherent existence to any of these concepts and you will be just fine. In fact you need to understand things this way. If you go further than that, you are undermining everything and you will be in trouble. So that is certainly one way to go about things. So whether that is philosophically sustainable or not, if we leave that question aside and just say that, let's say that it is something that you can do successfully as a philosopher, and in one way time shows that that is indeed something that you can do very successfully as a philosopher. But what is it really that you say then, if this becomes your… if we say that the seemingness as you, for example, as you pointed out, as you sort of wanted to put special attention on, if we say that the seemingness, that the seeming happening, that's all good, that's all, they are just as much no matter how much Mādhyamaka analysis we invest into this, there's still the appearance of something happening. And fine. But if we then say that it's seeming, but what really does it mean that it's just seeming then? I think that's the key question. Student: "You asked a question along those lines when this sort of thing has been brought up before, but I think it's really the same exact issue. It's sort of like saying, yeah, you've just described it scientifically, but where does God come in? You know, it's like you ask, like, what is the, what do you really mean when it's seeming? It's like you're asking seemingly about something deeper than seeming, which is the whole point is that we're not talking about that because we can't, you know? And so like this, this, I understand, of course, I have the same instinct that you want to know what's really going on, but what I'm trying to say is that intuition is actually just kind of like you're grasping at something that's just not there." Yeah, thank you. That is, I think, very, very sharp, very elegant, very useful to talk about things in this way. So still, we can ask ourselves.. so it's also easy, not necessarily easy to say it so eloquently and with such lightness and precision as you did right now, but it is nevertheless relatively easy to say these things. And so because it is quite easy to say these things and because seemingly there is a difference between what I say and what I think and what I feel and what I do, I'm afraid to say, then it is nevertheless useful to ask oneself, to ask oneself, "what did I just say?" At some point, that's probably not necessary anymore.
Someone who has really penetrated this or someone who really masters it, whatever we want to say, you know, great Bodhisattva,
a Mahabodhisattva doesn't have to do that probably, no?

Has, doesn't have to ask him or her, it-self, what, what, but what are really the implications of what I said, no? At least it's like on the sort of higher pure Bhumis, there's this sense of effortlessness and absence of negative emotions and so on. So whatever is said is probably said very well and there's no need to pause and go back and examine. But since what we say is so profound and since there seems to be often this conflict between what we can say and what we do say and what we can feel and what we do, then I think it is nevertheless very useful to ask oneself, so what really does it mean? And in a way the rest meditation is in some sense about that, no? It's allowing for instead of just going on having said what you did to then saying something else, which is totally defensible philosophically and so on to do, but it's also possible that as we say the next thing, we forget, so to speak, the significance of what we just said before.

So not that we have to go out and tell everyone, "Now you please think carefully" and "what do you mean?" and "It's very nice to say" and "where does God come in?" It's not that we have to make that our program to go out and teach people that, but sort of on a personal and perhaps it's much better if we don't, but on a personal level I think it's kind of key, yeah?
At least to the extent that we allow ourselves to take in fully what it was that we just said, yeah?
Was there online there's a couple, yeah?
"Luis please unmute yourself."
Student: "Okay, can you hear me?"
Yes I can hear. "Yes."
"Yeah, I'm in a similar place to this student who just spoke now, just analyzing this scope of what we refuted and how to relate with our experiences and I heard something yesterday that made me think that maybe finding a way to make sense of it in terms of experience that if you really look into our experience there is no experience of arising because either there is experience of there or not there and arising is like a narrative we construct based on this experience we're having of there or not there. How do you see this approach?" This is, yeah, well, so.. what is the sense of there and what is the sense of not there? I guess I would wonder, no?
Like whatever appearance we're experiencing, is this already too much? Like too much happening?" Don't you think appearance is more alive than just there or not there?
"I don't know."
There is sort of static, no? And not there is just not there. I don't know if I'm making sense. "Yeah, because like the idea of movement and then we are constructing based on this basic, basic there is an experience but there is no experience. Then we sew it together into like there are things arising and being destroyed. I don't know when I heard it made sense to me on how to relate with the experiences, with the experience in terms of what Nāgārjuna said that there is no arising." It's important. "Because arising is already a second level of conceptual construct based on this basic experience of just, yeah, experiencing." Yeah, there is also something interesting about the idea of appearance and that if we talk about appearance as such, like that which is just there, then again I'm sorry, what really do we mean by that?
We are not talking about anything that seems to happen but that which is just there. What is that which is just there?
What would you say? If my question makes sense, what would you say, Luis?
"What is just there?" Yeah, I understood what your account as saying that there is a sort of basic sense of presence that and then there can also be absence but then that things arise and so on is a more sort of higher up construction or belief about the nature of things. "Yeah, because like right now I think I'm talking to you and you're moving your body but if I just look at now, there is a presence and then I'm sewing together a lot of experiences and saying Tomas is moving, I'm talking to him, I'm here and yeah. But then the just basic presence of things, that's the most like before I construct this idea of things arising or moving and etc." And is there also a time when there's a basic absence of things?
"Maybe absence is more conceptual but there is a presence. Because I need to think about it something that was before then is already conceptual to say absence." So, yeah, what is it that makes, so what are we actually referring to when if we say it, put it that way, if we say that there's always a basic presence and that can take many forms and it's probably our construction that makes it appear in the way that it does. But there is that basic presence all the time, even time is a construct and so on and so forth. And absence as you said is a construct, then what are we talking about?
What is it that we're talking about? It couldn't be one particular thing, no? Because if it was one particular thing then it's something that is there sometimes and not other times.
So why do we have this sense that there is a basic presence, always, if we have that sense?


"Because awareness."
Yeah, then we can call it many different things. But what really do we mean?
Student: "How do we know that we haven't just fallen into some sort of logical fallacy? Because this goes against everything that we experience and we're just saying, okay, well it's either existence or non-existence, neither is true, it can't be both, so it just doesn't exist. It feels like we've fallen into some sort of logical trap." Yeah, very good point. What would you say to yourself? All of my experience says that reality exists, that things exist. So I think that's what we're pushing up against here in these questions for you. Where we're like, what about this, it's just like, we're trying to, it feels like we've logically determined that there is nothing inherently existing, that everything is inherently empty, but we haven't determined that on an experiential level. And so it feels like a logical fallacy." This is a classic objection also. Very nice. And I think the classic, if I have any understanding of that reply, is to use the example of dream. And similar examples of illusion. And then, isn't it, if someone, while I dream, comes to tell me that all of this is just complete, actually nothing happens here, I would say no, all of my experience tells me that something is going on.
What is the difference between the dream and what we're telling ourselves now?
"I can't counter that point, but I would say, isn't it the same argument as the brain in the vat theory? Like there's nothing to say I'm not a brain in a vat, right? Like, there's nothing to say I'm not in a dream, but does that still invalidate all of my experience by saying it's not real?"





I think the point is not to say that,
like the brain in a vat is somewhat different, I think, because that's the idea that there's some substrate that creates the illusion. So the point here is not to convince anyone that really you are asleep, right? It's just to show that there are times when you yourself would agree that things can seem overwhelmingly real, but you yourself would say from another perspective, they're not real at all. That's all what there is to it, to that example.
"I think the brain in the vat theory holds because it's both saying that your experience is not real and there's nothing to prove that your experience is real, but that doesn't mean to say that it invalidates everything about your experience.
We're saying this perspective, but the perspective that we provided..." But wait a minute, okay. What you started out saying was that my experience says that this is totally wrong.
It's that element that we have to look at. It's this sense of being confirmed by what seems to be one's immediate experience of things and that sense of overwhelming reality or whatever we may want to call it is stronger than the arguments. Which is something that we all get to think and feel at some point in this process. So then the classic reply is just bringing up that example and saying, "But wait, don't forget how you yourself qualify certain things that are just that in exactly the same way you say that it is just seemingly so and not at all in actual fact." So what you said is a justification for rejecting the argument, is by your own lights not a proper justification for rejecting the argument. Because in other contexts you do precisely the same and you don't think it's a problem. So this is something that really shows us something key about the Mādhyamaka approach. It's not about driving home some point to us, but it's just inviting ourselves to look at our own perceptions and ideas. And that is a very special feature of this, I think. And it's something that it's very good to keep in mind because otherwise we can easily get the impression that there is some sort of Mādhyamaka view, understanding that he wants us all to understand and get. But when you look for that, there's nothing. Instead it's a very noteworthy reply. It doesn't try to say, "But wait, it is a good argument because..." It just says, "According to you, this is not... According to your own judgments, there's nothing... According to your own judgments, to simply say that things seem so overwhelmingly real, so they must be real no matter what you say, is not acceptable according to your own standards. Because when talking about, for example, what you experience in a dream, you will do just that. You will say that it feels overwhelmingly real, but don't be fooled. It's completely unreal. It's just dream."
Thanks. Very good. Issue and point. Yeah.


"Don online, can you unmute yourself?" Student: "Good Morning. So, Nāgārjuna's arguments here, he seems to be upholding the view of non-duality. And this goes with the two truths, the way I see it, where everything that we normally experience in our everyday lives, we're mostly confused by. So we launch into a path that we try to understand more clearly. So well, in the teaching, the two truths, so all this, the five skandhas give us a sense of the world. And so from that arises this kind of dualistic mindset where we take as that relative provisional truth. And so it all goes along good with the conventional scheme of things. If you do good, then positive things will result. If you harm others, likely some bad stuff will come about, that kind of thing. Wholesome actions lead to wholesome results, and negative actions lead to unwholesome results. So as long as we don't look into that too carefully, when we start to examine it carefully, then it doesn't really always apply so clearly. So when all that is, like those attachments are dropped, and you have like the empty skandhas where names and all of that don't really hold, then there isn't anything to be said.
In the beginning, in the Homage, those four pair of eight ontological extremes, Nāgārjuna raises the feature for resolving those, and the piece that results from dropping the whole attachment to that mistaken view, that view that we seem to have because the filters of the skandhas. And when those filters are no longer attached, we don't have the attachment to them, we don't form an identity through that, then we're just resting in peace, which is the natural state.

That's what I come to after, you know, I've been working with this for a long time, and I wanted to thank you for your translation of this beautiful commentary, because it was actually the first one that I was able to get through and understand what Nāgārjuna was saying. It really helped me." Thank you. I'm very happy to hear that.
I think it's been an incredible joy and learning process to work on that translation. I don't know how it has many shortcomings, of course, but it's very nice to know that you find it useful.
Thank you. That all sounded very good. Let's then conclude here, time has run out, and then we start tomorrow, so at home you can think about what going is until tomorrow, I mean, do other things too, but begin to think about what movement is, as exemplified by walking in particular. Thank you. See you.
video
play-rounded-outline
17:27
Scroll to Top