Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 20
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Session 20 highlights the intricate nature of language's relationship with perception and understanding.
Description
In Session 20, the discussion delves into the paradox of language, where words lose metaphysical significance upon analysis but remain functional for communication and practical purposes. Students contemplate the shift between meditative insight and everyday life, highlighting the intricate nature of language’s relationship with perception and understanding. Key points include language as a functional tool, the concept of idiosyncratic life worlds, empirical meaning, the distinction between meaning and truth, the idea that things are compelling when not examined and the two truths in Buddhist philosophy.
Related Course Info
- Root of the Middle Way – Mūlamadhyamakakārikā A course on Nagarjuna’s brilliantly sharp reasoning, taught by Dr. Thomas Doctor at the Rangjung Yeshe Institute over a month. For everyone with an interest in the way things really are.
Video
Audio
"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."
Okay, so on Friday I suggested some things to think about. I don't remember exactly what they were.
But let's see.
Anya?
Student: "Oh sorry, yes?" That's all?
"Okay. So I should share something about what you said last, before we went on weekend?" Yeah.
"I'm just seeing, because we were talking about.. I think we ended up with talking about the screen and you.
And you know that you are identical, but who is more real? You or the screen.
I mean I'm not really sure what to say because I still have this feeling and this trust that this reasoning really makes sense to me in terms of reality but still, I mean both at the arising that nothing can arise from self, other, or both, and also that there is no coming and going so because you know when, I mean the analysis we have done the whole week that you can't find going, you can't find walking for instance anywhere if you look close. Even if you zoom out it's difficult to find the concept of walking anywhere, it's just something is happening. I have fully trust in that so..."
And why do you have trust in that? "See this is the thing, so whenever I analyze, whenever I stop what I'm doing and I'm analyzing and I just take some time to say, you know like sitting at Java coffee shop and then I look at somebody drinking coffee and I don't find drinking for instance. So that works for me and then I'm like okay there is nothing there but I can't do that just walking around and you know like if I don't sit down and apply the analysis, I just feel difficult to understand how it's informing my view because what I read some of the notes yesterday and you know and what you said is that you should embody it in a way, and it should inform a view of the world otherwise you're not really a Madhyamaka philosopher, right? If you don't let it sink in. And I'm trying to let it sink in but I'm not really sure it does because it only works when I contemplate.
I mean in my, from what I know in my knowing mind." So all of this is only kind of relevant and interesting if we already have the sense that there's something irrefutable about..
there's something that cannot be blocked about those arguments. That's when you will get to think like you do otherwise not. Student: "Yeah and I think something is, it is blocking because sometimes I can't, it's really difficult to, sometimes if I think about my thoughts like somebody said "perception," like when you perceive something, you know, then there are.. then that action you know putting like for for instance putting another verb then 'walking' or like putting something like 'seeing' or 'perceiving,' or 'thinking' even You know, then it becomes much more complex to observe and not find I guess so I'm just not there yet where I don't find anything anywhere."
Okay. "In my perception. I don't know if that makes sense." In your perception yeah, but we're not talking about not finding anything in your.. if I'm understanding you correctly no? We're talking about "just" the arguments, yeah that if they can be blocked or not, yeah?
Student: "And that's I can't find any blocking of it when I do the analysis." Right exactly. "Or when we are here in class I don't find anything." Right. "But then I go out there and then I still don't believe." Right. "Which is really weird." Yeah.
Yeah and so that's what I was, what I meant that this is only, what you say is only interesting and relevant, really interesting and really relevant if you have done this kind of analysis and feel that it cannot be blocked, yeah? Otherwise if you feel, if you haven't done the analysis then okay it seems like some, you can get in a weird space by doing this kind of analysis. Not sure I want to do it or who knows if it's like that, maybe she's just caught up in something yeah. But if you have done the analysis yourself and really cannot see any way to counter the argument, then it becomes, then it makes like a, then it's.. what to say..it's a authentic description of how one can very easily feel I think, what you say. That there's a huge difference between what we can very easily understand through reason and then what we see. It seems like a total contrast. So that is the.. to say that that is almost unavoidable when you begin to do this, yeah? But it is also clear that that can't be.. that this can't be it, no? That is also, even from just an analytic point of view it couldn't be, you know, that there's this emptiness is the nature of appearance, no? It's not something that is hiding behind the appearance. It's the nature of appearance. Student: "I think it's cultivating a new way of seeing in a way. That makes sense for me, it's just.. I mean I know it but you know I have to apply it on everything I encounter in a way." And it's not like..
it's also not.. what to say?
There are some who say that this kind of shift between conventional appearance and then understanding ultimate emptiness whether it's analytically or some sort of equipoise of resting in emptiness, that that kind of shift will continue all the way up through the Bodhisattva bhūmis. So I mean it's not strange if we feel that there is a great difference. So there are some who say that it's the sort of unique quality of a Buddha
to be able to access the two truths simultaneously. "And there's also a big danger for it to be spiritual bypassing, you know. You can really just.. I just I had like had an encounter with a very emotional outbreak yesterday, you know, and then like if somebody's really in that, then I don't think reasoning, I mean this part doesn't apply. I mean this is just, then you can say "oh, all is empty" but you feel like pain in your heart. I mean I know we talked about physical I just think that it's not easy." No, no, no definitely not, but who who said it would be easy, no? "I was hoping it would be." Yeah.
But again like think about it, it's what.. this is supposed to be like the gateway to the whole real path. So if it is that then it's not a surprise if it has a lot of very concrete and practical implications and also challenges.
I mean it's, it is a kind of sign of the importance of what we do know that, that it's not just going to class and sitting thinking some cool thoughts and then checking off I've done this, and now I know about that too. So this I often tell myself like if you.. when I started as a young person trying to understand some of these things and learn some Dharma and all of that, I really wondered that it becomes completely transformative and enlightening experience.
And yeah, one of my sort of most
great worries in the beginning was the Dharma was just another system of thought. So I think it becomes quite clear that through this kind of study that it's not just another system of thought. So then of course it also becomes much more challenging and much more real at all levels. But I think that's a good thing.
And it's, yeah really.. like some of the most brilliant minds minds at all have have thought about this, contemplated this, practiced this, written about this in in many different ways. It's not just something that a short course on something we call 'Madhyamaka Philosophy' can like, can settle. Maybe it can open, that I definitely think that is one of my sort of what I really believe is that anyone who is just sincere, and has a little bit of stamina, not very much actually, just for a few days can, through Nāgārjuna's reasoning, come to a point where everything is suddenly, the whole field is open. That I definitely, I definitely think. So if anyone feels differently I'd like to know because I think this is actually one of the special features of this is that it has that miraculous power.
Then I also asked some other things. I thought it was very interesting when we talked about it but I couldn't really remember very clearly. I did remember the this about virtual versus real. So we should definitely talk about that. But before that we had some other things as well. Is there anyone who can remember better than me?
Student: "You asked... can you hear?" Yeah, is it? Yeah oh I'm not even logged in, my goodness! Sorry, yeah.
Student: "Should I wait?" If you don't mind, yeah, thank you. I know your voice, so but still... Okay, great, thank you. "Yeah, you had asked what do we mean when we say "I walked to school"? What did we mean before? And now going through this analysis of what do we mean?" Thank you. "And I kept thinking of what is the referent of this? And what's the real thing that I'm talking about?
And just to complete with what you said later, but the idea of the screen and the real you,
which is more real? Then... I thought maybe you are more real, because we can have you without a screen, but not the screen without you. So you are on the more fundamental level than.. it seems to me that in terms of the walking there is something similar. We refuted walking but then there's something more fundamental there, which I don't know what it is. But.. or like when we can't find the composite objects but we say that there are atoms, for example, it seems like we're refuting some level of reality but I'm looking for what is like more fundamental there, if there is something. And we can't just refer to nothing, nothing doesn't seem a very satisfying concept. Because otherwise there wouldn't be any perception even of walking, even if it's a deluded perception, what is it perceiving? I don't have any answer but just reflection on that." Yeah, thank you that was all very great.
Yeah, so what do we mean? I think it's a very good thing to.. like when we have the sense that we even now probably, we say that we know what it means to walk,
and at the same time we also know that we can very quickly come to a point where we think there's no referent at all. Perhaps we are at that situation now that we can also very quickly come to a point where we find no referent at all for those words. Like they're completely empty sounds actually, they have no reference. So that is the conclusion, or that is an upshot of the analysis
that what these words point to when we try to nail it down, we fail completely. So if we fail completely in nailing it down, that's different from just from having like a bit of a handle, but not very like.. maybe realizing that there was 2 percent of what I thought about going, and the agent of going, and the place of going that was fine, but there was a whole lot that was just nonsense. And then, alternatively, being in a situation where you think that none of the terms have any bearing anywhere.
So that's why I suggested that we all think what do I mean by going now? What did I mean before? Because if we now can come to think that these.. but maybe we should first think a little more carefully. Is that saying too much what I just said? That when we analyze we find that every single element in that sentence, "I walk to school" is the one who walks, the act of walking, and the place where it takes place, where the action takes place,
that those.. as soon as I try to see what they really mean, I can't find any basis for them Is that true? Or is there some sort of basis? Like one way that you could also understand what Anya was saying is that, well, there is this particular perspective that one can take, and then it's like that, there's no they have no significance at all, the words. They're completely devoid of significance.
They don't mean anything. And then there's another time where like we have to disagree, sort of, like when we don't analyze then, then it seems that it's not true to say that. So is that more, what to say, so the fact that there is another time when we when we can't just... when the words, let's say they seem to have meaning, does that then mean that we have to be more careful about saying that they don't just refer at all? That they have no no significance whatsoever? Do you see what I'm trying to...
One thing is that when we analyze, we find nothing, no basis for the terms, they're completely empty sounds. And then another time we are in a situation where
we feel that they do have meaning. So does the fact that we find ourselves in that second situation mean that we have to qualify our statement about the meaninglessness of the words?
Maybe you have something to say.
Or is it you first? Yeah?
Student: "I had come across a quote from Chögyam Trungpa this weekend about how space and time are are understood because.. space and time have limitations and that is what makes it comprehensible for us, and if we didn't have limitations, then space and time would be incomprehensible. and it really seemed to fit with your homework for me, because just these words have a certain limitation to them, which makes them functional for us. We can communicate to each other, so like these two different times I was thinking when Anya was speaking like in one way when we're really resting the mind, and really in just this contemplative meditative mind, we can see that there is no basis. But when we go out into the world and have very like functional goals,= that we want to complete and we want to achieve our human aims and complete what we need to do to survive in samsara, then these words do have meanings to us, because we have to get what we want, and avoid what we don't want, and communicate with our friends and whatever. So these two times, for me at least, I've been noticing that in meditative mind you drop all of that, but as soon as you are out there trying to achieve some goal everything becomes a function of your survival, yourself, in the samsaric world. So.. I don't know if that kind of elucidates these two different times that we we work with our language."
Yeah so why..
Is it possible to say something about why, how, and perhaps why we get from one context to another? "It really really feels like how much we're trying to protect the self, I think. So much of this activity is just driven by perpetuation and survival of self, and that reification that comes from that process. So even though in resting meditation we might not see that there's a basis for our words and our actions, it's like our habits are just so strong, as as soon as we get off the cushion and go shopping and come back home from work, and it's just strong habits. So yeah. " So that's the thing also, what I was somehow thinking of Friday when saying that "what do we mean?" Like, okay, so when these habits become so strong, what do we mean?
Because it's not it's not like we go, what to say...
Yeah, there's also not such a clear-cut shift, no?
Yeah, would you like to say something as well? Okay, thank you. Student: "I have similar thoughts but I also want to like build off of that, because I think your question is an interesting question about words and language. And what you're asking is something along the lines of, "If the words that we use don't have real metaphysical reference do they lose their significance?" That's one way. "I think the answer is no. And I think that to even expect that they would have real metaphysical reference is to misunderstand language in the first place." So what is the better way? "A better way to understand language is similar to what the person before me was saying
one context to another? is a functional tool for navigating worldly aims, I think. And there's a couple important things that I think are worth pointing out. To begin with whenever I use any word.." May I just? So if it's a functional tool for navigating, that means that... So we don't like metaphysics yeah we agree, but to that it's a functional tool, and a functional tool only, doesn't that imply that there's something which is beyond language? That somehow we need language to navigate in terms of? That sounds like heavy metaphysics "That's an interesting point, yeah. No, I don't think you have to have any kind of ontological commitments, it's not like you're using it upon some fixed reality that you're then navigating. You're simply create.. like, you're each individual right, is navigating a idiosyncratic life world, that is utterly distinct from everyone else's idiosyncratic life world." This is also very metaphysical. One thing after the other. "No it doesn't have to be. It's entirely like.. and in fact, by saying that it's unique to each person, right, there's no need to imply a literal external world. In fact that perspective implies only subjective realities, right? So, samsara, your samsara is not my samsara, and there is no metaphysical reality beyond your made-up dream and my made-up dream, and everyone in this room's made-up dreams. Language we use is some sort of maybe a bridge between dreams, you could think of, but that doesn't mean that it refers to anything fixed. And the other thing that I'll just say is, empirically, words have meaning, right? And this is I think an important point, if you're asking about Oh, do they lose meaning? it's like what do you, what are you really asking after? Clearly words have significance, clearly words have meaning, you're understanding every single thing I'm saying right now right? If they didn't have meaning you couldn't, If these were truly, as you said a few minutes ago, like empty expressions like it would sound like I was talking gibberish to you. But it's not. So I think that just sort of proved like clearly empirically proves that words have meaning. You understand what I'm saying, everyone in this room is understanding what I'm saying I hope. So I think to me, I don't need a stronger sense of meaning to attribute meaning to words. I can already see quite clearly that they have meaning." And truth then also, no? "Meaning does not have to imply truth, I mean truth you then on some..." If it's true that this means, what to say meaning
this is a table if that's a meaningful, why is it not true that it's a table? "Well, I mean, you can define truth such that it is true and you can define truth such that it isn't, I mean, you'd need some more I think legwork there. But meaning feels to me, the way I'm I use it and I think of it is, does this word table mean something more than like....blublublublu to you? Like that random string of syllables that I just uttered, doesn't have meaning to you Or maybe it does as a some sort of like gibberish example, but actually I would say that it does have meaning to you in that sense. But like, meaning comes from an imputed significance that is individual. Like, that computer for you, right? Actually has a different meaning than it has for me. I'm talking, we're talking sort of about the same thing, I'm looking at your computer, you sort of see it in your peripheral vision, but it doesn't have the same meaning to us. Even at this relative subjective level, your computer is the thing that you maybe do translation on, and write papers on, and do research on, and things like that. And from my perspective, it's just kind of a rectangle in front of you, right? Because I don't use your computer in the way that you do. Same and likewise for my computer. So everything in the world has this idiosyncratic meaning to each individual person, but that doesn't mean that there's some underlying reality, and that's okay. To me that's meaning enough." This each individual person, of course, also has to be qualified in the same way, yeah, as all the other things you say. "Yes ...yeah I mean again there's..." Otherwise, welcome to deep metaphysics, no? Anyway but I think it will be very hard to talk about true individuals, who are completely unique, and everything takes meaning, only in the relation to them, but it's like..so what you do is try to sort of come up with an account that kind of unifies all of this. It's just some kind of unified understanding. That's of course, very good.
When you do the analysis, sort of slowly think about these things like, for example, going and coming.
Is there a point where you feel as if the words lose their meaning? We don't have to say that they actually do that, or whether anything actually could lose meaning, but well do you have the.. do you have the sense as if suddenly you don't know at all what they should mean? "Oh yeah right now! I think we're talking, in my view, Yankees--Mets right now. We're talking football, we're talking baseball, like this is not real.
This is sort of fun, and it's good for the mind, I think, genuinely." Yeah, thank you otherwise we shouldn't do it. "No, I agree, but it's it's not unlike doing math or something, which I think is also quite good for the mind. It's just, it's not it, but it's sort of on the way. Like right now we're talking metaphysics, phenomenology like, which one? I think there's one that's more useful, a more useful way to train the rational mind, right? The rational mind is there, the rational mind in my view is incapable of grasping the ultimate. But there's a certain way that the rational mind can be such that it gets in the way of more primordial mind grasping the ultimate. And there's a way that the rational mind can be, that's makes it a handmaiden to that process. For me, I think, if any imputations of metaphysics rationally become an obstacle, versus a subjective phenomenological rational understanding of ontology, is more of a handmaiden." Yeah, thanks. I think there's one more. Luis you have another question? I see only a few selections, but I can see a hand raised by you.
Can we take one more? Student: "I think words have significance on a level, but then if we're trying to look for what's really there, then they lose the significance. And even if we establish there's nothing behind, if we analyze that it will happen the same, like the same way, it will lose the significance. So maybe they have significance as long as we don't really do this sort of reasoning we were doing with the walking. But if we don't, then they do have significance, for example, the guy said if you say table, you know what I'm talking about, or laptop, it's not like gibberish. But they don't have a fundamental significance they have a superficial significance or a coarse significance." And that's again we can remember Śāntarakṣita and others who say that they're compelling only when not examined.
And I think that is something that we can...
that is a real insight that one can come to, and that can be formulated quite concisely as well, that all of this is compelling only when not examined. And it's not that it then gradually becomes not compelling it's like basically instantaneously, once we have understood the problems that follow with any of the fixtures of the conceptual framework, then that's just how the mind works. Then we... it's just remembering that, so to speak, it is enough to see that there's nothing compelling, that's an understatement, there's no there's no basis whatsoever. So..
perhaps that in itself can
can be a sort of practical guideline.
So then we don't have to be mystified, and we don't have to ignore. So there are two ways of sort of getting stuck in Mādhyamaka. Perhaps you could say. One is if you if you're just like, "man I don't know what to make of all of this." Then that's okay, I mean, that's unavoidable. But that's not... it's not a particularly useful space to hang out in either. So to be just mystified and think: "What is all this? I don't know anything anymore, I don't even know who I am myself and.. It's not there's nothing much dynamic about that, no? But another way is to think, "Okay yeah so now I think I understood and I can also see that the world requires that I think, and act, and things seem to have meaning, so they do have meaning in this particular context. So there's a way that you can think about things, and then they are not meaningful. I can see that, okay. And then at the same time I can also see that all of this is here somehow, and that can easily become a way of actually ignoring everything that you have said and found out.
If all of.. then it's just some sort of discrete observation, that can be had that when you look at things from this perspective, then they they lose their significance. So, actually don't look like that. Look at them like that. And then if that becomes your orientation, then it just is something that fades out into the background, what could have been an insight becomes just a kind of odd fact, that is somewhere. So that's ignoring whether one thinks of it as ignoring or thinks of it as acknowledging, no? But if instead for this kind of learning and contemplation and practice to be meaningful there has to be something more dynamic than that, no? So if we think of compelling only when not examined, then okay.
What would be a way of formulating that, which which becomes a practical way to learn from both sides? But okay compelling and then only as when not examined. We are not trying to.. reach some conclusion, some sort of, "Now I've solved it, yeah now I got that," because compelling only when not examined is not a solution, right? It's just an observation. But at the same time, it doesn't say that and so you should just just sit there and space out, and wonder what's going on. There's no suggestion like that either, at all. It just says all of this is compelling only when not examined. So perhaps there's a way to take that as an instruction, no? Compelling and then at the same time we know the other stuff, like.. and then we don't have to think that, "okay, I'm justified in retreating into some sort of new version of what this world is. I've come up with some sort of philosophical or whatever else it is description scientific or otherwise, that somehow answers all the questions. So now I can go on pretty much, as I were until now." That is not what this is about.
So there's a potential for discovery. Because we haven't settled anything at all.
And we are also not ignoring anything, because it's compelling when not examined. So then perhaps it can be that what is I think crucially important is the dynamics, no? That it's not that the two truths become like they're supposed to be clarifiers of each other. So the idea with the two truths is not that we set up a system of two truths and then that's it. We have done it we can go on yeah. But the the two truths have to shine light on each other.
Yeah you have some, yeah?
Student: "Okay, all right, that you were saying that that looking at sentences like that looking at language, like "the girl walks on the path," is demonstrating the the unity of the two truths. In itself we can see that when we look at that sentence conventionally, it's relative truth, but at the same time when we analyze it, it's.. it has no meaning, so that the two are unified all the time. And I was thinking something that I think it was Dzigar Kongtrul said, is that if we kind of carry that, when we go out into the world it's like on the outside we take everything really seriously, but on the inside, we can be completely carefree, so the sort of the two kind of can be together. And taking this understanding, that's how we can begin to think and act in the world."
Student: "A moment ago you talked about how the relative and the ultimate truths have to shine light on each other. What did you mean by that?" Well, it is supposed to be that the better you understand the conventional truth, with all its, what should we call it, richness and complexity,
that itself should be increasingly as we become advanced on this path of Mādhyamaka, it should become that itself enough to see emptiness. And that the emptiness also shows how all of this is possible. That it's only because of the nature of emptiness that things can be this way. If they were any other way, they would be.. none of this could happen. If things existed independently, if they had their own, if they were something in themselves, then none of this would be the case.
So, like Mipham says that if if among all of these things there were just one that had real independent existence, all of this would fail to appear. But it's because there's not a single thing that has independent, or intrinsic existence, that there's not a single thing that is what it is by itself, and of itself. That's why this myriad events can take place.
"Going back to earlier discussions about what has true existence, does Dharmakaya have true existence?"
Thomas: Yeah that's a great question. And there's also another, the four verses by Tsongkhapa, which are really great to illustrate this. What is it..
the appearances, the unfailing appearances of dependent origination, and the emptiness beyond all claims, as long as these two, as long as these two remain separate, you have still not seen the intent of the sage. And then he says, when at one point without alternation, the mere seeing of dependent origination is the collapse of all reference points, that is the point when your analysis of the view has been perfected. So they should be able to... whatever is dependent origination should be the fact of emptiness. Whatever is the fact of emptiness should be the fact of dependent appearance, that dependent origination. And then you said Dharmakaya. So that's of course where we're going when we begin to talk about the virtual and the real. Like me sitting here and then my reflection on the screen, is the basis for all of this. So it's very common to think that there is, and...
so that could be many many variations of how we think; that the ultimate basis, or the ultimate ground is for things. It can be some sort of divinity, it can be it can be the physical reality, it can be in Buddhist terms it could be awakening, Dharmakaya and so on. So again it's amazing that with the help of these analyses it becomes possible for ourselves. We're talking about the Dharmakaya. It's something that not even a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva knows for real, so forget about us! And at the same time, just by virtue of having thought about these things, we can actually say something
quite decisive and qualified, meaning qualified, we can have a qualified opinion even about the Dharmakaya. It sounds like a joke, but we can actually by virtue of this. Because one thing we can talk about is whether exactly just that, what you just did, is whether the Dharmakaya is then different than what we have talked about so far. So why don't we since time is over now, and since this was anyway part of the agenda for today, you know, to think about the virtual and the real, and I will also remember this myself. Let's for tomorrow think about how
specifically, is there some final way to settle the question as to what is virtual and what is real? What is the substrate and what is the appearance based on that, or the emergent appearance?
And, specifically, how about if we are Buddhists and interested in the Buddha's wisdom, then is the Dharmakaya any different? More real? Is there a way of speaking of the Dharmakaya as more real than any of the things that we now are used to saying have had no meaning when investigated? Is the Dharmakaya.. In one way of looking at the result, is there more to the Dharmakaya than the word? Because of course, Dharmakaya is a word. It's quite easy now to see that that becomes as meaningless as any other word, no?
So what would you say on the basis of what you have examined up until now, in terms of the virtual and the real, and specifically awakening, the state of awakening? Is that something that we can or should think of as having some sort of privileged status?
Okay? Thanks. So this was a lot of talk and conversation, but I think it's.. I appreciated it myself and I hope it's useful. I think it is useful, because it's very easy to otherwise just begin to skate along.
And since every thing that this text is about is so profound, I think it merits pausing and trying to sort of keep it real basically, no pun intended. Thanks.
Okay, so on Friday I suggested some things to think about. I don't remember exactly what they were.
But let's see.
Anya?
Student: "Oh sorry, yes?" That's all?
"Okay. So I should share something about what you said last, before we went on weekend?" Yeah.
"I'm just seeing, because we were talking about.. I think we ended up with talking about the screen and you.
And you know that you are identical, but who is more real? You or the screen.
I mean I'm not really sure what to say because I still have this feeling and this trust that this reasoning really makes sense to me in terms of reality but still, I mean both at the arising that nothing can arise from self, other, or both, and also that there is no coming and going so because you know when, I mean the analysis we have done the whole week that you can't find going, you can't find walking for instance anywhere if you look close. Even if you zoom out it's difficult to find the concept of walking anywhere, it's just something is happening. I have fully trust in that so..."
And why do you have trust in that? "See this is the thing, so whenever I analyze, whenever I stop what I'm doing and I'm analyzing and I just take some time to say, you know like sitting at Java coffee shop and then I look at somebody drinking coffee and I don't find drinking for instance. So that works for me and then I'm like okay there is nothing there but I can't do that just walking around and you know like if I don't sit down and apply the analysis, I just feel difficult to understand how it's informing my view because what I read some of the notes yesterday and you know and what you said is that you should embody it in a way, and it should inform a view of the world otherwise you're not really a Madhyamaka philosopher, right? If you don't let it sink in. And I'm trying to let it sink in but I'm not really sure it does because it only works when I contemplate.
I mean in my, from what I know in my knowing mind." So all of this is only kind of relevant and interesting if we already have the sense that there's something irrefutable about..
there's something that cannot be blocked about those arguments. That's when you will get to think like you do otherwise not. Student: "Yeah and I think something is, it is blocking because sometimes I can't, it's really difficult to, sometimes if I think about my thoughts like somebody said "perception," like when you perceive something, you know, then there are.. then that action you know putting like for for instance putting another verb then 'walking' or like putting something like 'seeing' or 'perceiving,' or 'thinking' even You know, then it becomes much more complex to observe and not find I guess so I'm just not there yet where I don't find anything anywhere."
Okay. "In my perception. I don't know if that makes sense." In your perception yeah, but we're not talking about not finding anything in your.. if I'm understanding you correctly no? We're talking about "just" the arguments, yeah that if they can be blocked or not, yeah?
Student: "And that's I can't find any blocking of it when I do the analysis." Right exactly. "Or when we are here in class I don't find anything." Right. "But then I go out there and then I still don't believe." Right. "Which is really weird." Yeah.
Yeah and so that's what I was, what I meant that this is only, what you say is only interesting and relevant, really interesting and really relevant if you have done this kind of analysis and feel that it cannot be blocked, yeah? Otherwise if you feel, if you haven't done the analysis then okay it seems like some, you can get in a weird space by doing this kind of analysis. Not sure I want to do it or who knows if it's like that, maybe she's just caught up in something yeah. But if you have done the analysis yourself and really cannot see any way to counter the argument, then it becomes, then it makes like a, then it's.. what to say..it's a authentic description of how one can very easily feel I think, what you say. That there's a huge difference between what we can very easily understand through reason and then what we see. It seems like a total contrast. So that is the.. to say that that is almost unavoidable when you begin to do this, yeah? But it is also clear that that can't be.. that this can't be it, no? That is also, even from just an analytic point of view it couldn't be, you know, that there's this emptiness is the nature of appearance, no? It's not something that is hiding behind the appearance. It's the nature of appearance. Student: "I think it's cultivating a new way of seeing in a way. That makes sense for me, it's just.. I mean I know it but you know I have to apply it on everything I encounter in a way." And it's not like..
it's also not.. what to say?
There are some who say that this kind of shift between conventional appearance and then understanding ultimate emptiness whether it's analytically or some sort of equipoise of resting in emptiness, that that kind of shift will continue all the way up through the Bodhisattva bhūmis. So I mean it's not strange if we feel that there is a great difference. So there are some who say that it's the sort of unique quality of a Buddha
to be able to access the two truths simultaneously. "And there's also a big danger for it to be spiritual bypassing, you know. You can really just.. I just I had like had an encounter with a very emotional outbreak yesterday, you know, and then like if somebody's really in that, then I don't think reasoning, I mean this part doesn't apply. I mean this is just, then you can say "oh, all is empty" but you feel like pain in your heart. I mean I know we talked about physical I just think that it's not easy." No, no, no definitely not, but who who said it would be easy, no? "I was hoping it would be." Yeah.
But again like think about it, it's what.. this is supposed to be like the gateway to the whole real path. So if it is that then it's not a surprise if it has a lot of very concrete and practical implications and also challenges.
I mean it's, it is a kind of sign of the importance of what we do know that, that it's not just going to class and sitting thinking some cool thoughts and then checking off I've done this, and now I know about that too. So this I often tell myself like if you.. when I started as a young person trying to understand some of these things and learn some Dharma and all of that, I really wondered that it becomes completely transformative and enlightening experience.
And yeah, one of my sort of most
great worries in the beginning was the Dharma was just another system of thought. So I think it becomes quite clear that through this kind of study that it's not just another system of thought. So then of course it also becomes much more challenging and much more real at all levels. But I think that's a good thing.
And it's, yeah really.. like some of the most brilliant minds minds at all have have thought about this, contemplated this, practiced this, written about this in in many different ways. It's not just something that a short course on something we call 'Madhyamaka Philosophy' can like, can settle. Maybe it can open, that I definitely think that is one of my sort of what I really believe is that anyone who is just sincere, and has a little bit of stamina, not very much actually, just for a few days can, through Nāgārjuna's reasoning, come to a point where everything is suddenly, the whole field is open. That I definitely, I definitely think. So if anyone feels differently I'd like to know because I think this is actually one of the special features of this is that it has that miraculous power.
Then I also asked some other things. I thought it was very interesting when we talked about it but I couldn't really remember very clearly. I did remember the this about virtual versus real. So we should definitely talk about that. But before that we had some other things as well. Is there anyone who can remember better than me?
Student: "You asked... can you hear?" Yeah, is it? Yeah oh I'm not even logged in, my goodness! Sorry, yeah.
Student: "Should I wait?" If you don't mind, yeah, thank you. I know your voice, so but still... Okay, great, thank you. "Yeah, you had asked what do we mean when we say "I walked to school"? What did we mean before? And now going through this analysis of what do we mean?" Thank you. "And I kept thinking of what is the referent of this? And what's the real thing that I'm talking about?
And just to complete with what you said later, but the idea of the screen and the real you,
which is more real? Then... I thought maybe you are more real, because we can have you without a screen, but not the screen without you. So you are on the more fundamental level than.. it seems to me that in terms of the walking there is something similar. We refuted walking but then there's something more fundamental there, which I don't know what it is. But.. or like when we can't find the composite objects but we say that there are atoms, for example, it seems like we're refuting some level of reality but I'm looking for what is like more fundamental there, if there is something. And we can't just refer to nothing, nothing doesn't seem a very satisfying concept. Because otherwise there wouldn't be any perception even of walking, even if it's a deluded perception, what is it perceiving? I don't have any answer but just reflection on that." Yeah, thank you that was all very great.
Yeah, so what do we mean? I think it's a very good thing to.. like when we have the sense that we even now probably, we say that we know what it means to walk,
and at the same time we also know that we can very quickly come to a point where we think there's no referent at all. Perhaps we are at that situation now that we can also very quickly come to a point where we find no referent at all for those words. Like they're completely empty sounds actually, they have no reference. So that is the conclusion, or that is an upshot of the analysis
that what these words point to when we try to nail it down, we fail completely. So if we fail completely in nailing it down, that's different from just from having like a bit of a handle, but not very like.. maybe realizing that there was 2 percent of what I thought about going, and the agent of going, and the place of going that was fine, but there was a whole lot that was just nonsense. And then, alternatively, being in a situation where you think that none of the terms have any bearing anywhere.
So that's why I suggested that we all think what do I mean by going now? What did I mean before? Because if we now can come to think that these.. but maybe we should first think a little more carefully. Is that saying too much what I just said? That when we analyze we find that every single element in that sentence, "I walk to school" is the one who walks, the act of walking, and the place where it takes place, where the action takes place,
that those.. as soon as I try to see what they really mean, I can't find any basis for them Is that true? Or is there some sort of basis? Like one way that you could also understand what Anya was saying is that, well, there is this particular perspective that one can take, and then it's like that, there's no they have no significance at all, the words. They're completely devoid of significance.
They don't mean anything. And then there's another time where like we have to disagree, sort of, like when we don't analyze then, then it seems that it's not true to say that. So is that more, what to say, so the fact that there is another time when we when we can't just... when the words, let's say they seem to have meaning, does that then mean that we have to be more careful about saying that they don't just refer at all? That they have no no significance whatsoever? Do you see what I'm trying to...
One thing is that when we analyze, we find nothing, no basis for the terms, they're completely empty sounds. And then another time we are in a situation where
we feel that they do have meaning. So does the fact that we find ourselves in that second situation mean that we have to qualify our statement about the meaninglessness of the words?
Maybe you have something to say.
Or is it you first? Yeah?
Student: "I had come across a quote from Chögyam Trungpa this weekend about how space and time are are understood because.. space and time have limitations and that is what makes it comprehensible for us, and if we didn't have limitations, then space and time would be incomprehensible. and it really seemed to fit with your homework for me, because just these words have a certain limitation to them, which makes them functional for us. We can communicate to each other, so like these two different times I was thinking when Anya was speaking like in one way when we're really resting the mind, and really in just this contemplative meditative mind, we can see that there is no basis. But when we go out into the world and have very like functional goals,= that we want to complete and we want to achieve our human aims and complete what we need to do to survive in samsara, then these words do have meanings to us, because we have to get what we want, and avoid what we don't want, and communicate with our friends and whatever. So these two times, for me at least, I've been noticing that in meditative mind you drop all of that, but as soon as you are out there trying to achieve some goal everything becomes a function of your survival, yourself, in the samsaric world. So.. I don't know if that kind of elucidates these two different times that we we work with our language."
Yeah so why..
Is it possible to say something about why, how, and perhaps why we get from one context to another? "It really really feels like how much we're trying to protect the self, I think. So much of this activity is just driven by perpetuation and survival of self, and that reification that comes from that process. So even though in resting meditation we might not see that there's a basis for our words and our actions, it's like our habits are just so strong, as as soon as we get off the cushion and go shopping and come back home from work, and it's just strong habits. So yeah. " So that's the thing also, what I was somehow thinking of Friday when saying that "what do we mean?" Like, okay, so when these habits become so strong, what do we mean?
Because it's not it's not like we go, what to say...
Yeah, there's also not such a clear-cut shift, no?
Yeah, would you like to say something as well? Okay, thank you. Student: "I have similar thoughts but I also want to like build off of that, because I think your question is an interesting question about words and language. And what you're asking is something along the lines of, "If the words that we use don't have real metaphysical reference do they lose their significance?" That's one way. "I think the answer is no. And I think that to even expect that they would have real metaphysical reference is to misunderstand language in the first place." So what is the better way? "A better way to understand language is similar to what the person before me was saying
one context to another? is a functional tool for navigating worldly aims, I think. And there's a couple important things that I think are worth pointing out. To begin with whenever I use any word.." May I just? So if it's a functional tool for navigating, that means that... So we don't like metaphysics yeah we agree, but to that it's a functional tool, and a functional tool only, doesn't that imply that there's something which is beyond language? That somehow we need language to navigate in terms of? That sounds like heavy metaphysics "That's an interesting point, yeah. No, I don't think you have to have any kind of ontological commitments, it's not like you're using it upon some fixed reality that you're then navigating. You're simply create.. like, you're each individual right, is navigating a idiosyncratic life world, that is utterly distinct from everyone else's idiosyncratic life world." This is also very metaphysical. One thing after the other. "No it doesn't have to be. It's entirely like.. and in fact, by saying that it's unique to each person, right, there's no need to imply a literal external world. In fact that perspective implies only subjective realities, right? So, samsara, your samsara is not my samsara, and there is no metaphysical reality beyond your made-up dream and my made-up dream, and everyone in this room's made-up dreams. Language we use is some sort of maybe a bridge between dreams, you could think of, but that doesn't mean that it refers to anything fixed. And the other thing that I'll just say is, empirically, words have meaning, right? And this is I think an important point, if you're asking about Oh, do they lose meaning? it's like what do you, what are you really asking after? Clearly words have significance, clearly words have meaning, you're understanding every single thing I'm saying right now right? If they didn't have meaning you couldn't, If these were truly, as you said a few minutes ago, like empty expressions like it would sound like I was talking gibberish to you. But it's not. So I think that just sort of proved like clearly empirically proves that words have meaning. You understand what I'm saying, everyone in this room is understanding what I'm saying I hope. So I think to me, I don't need a stronger sense of meaning to attribute meaning to words. I can already see quite clearly that they have meaning." And truth then also, no? "Meaning does not have to imply truth, I mean truth you then on some..." If it's true that this means, what to say meaning
this is a table if that's a meaningful, why is it not true that it's a table? "Well, I mean, you can define truth such that it is true and you can define truth such that it isn't, I mean, you'd need some more I think legwork there. But meaning feels to me, the way I'm I use it and I think of it is, does this word table mean something more than like....blublublublu to you? Like that random string of syllables that I just uttered, doesn't have meaning to you Or maybe it does as a some sort of like gibberish example, but actually I would say that it does have meaning to you in that sense. But like, meaning comes from an imputed significance that is individual. Like, that computer for you, right? Actually has a different meaning than it has for me. I'm talking, we're talking sort of about the same thing, I'm looking at your computer, you sort of see it in your peripheral vision, but it doesn't have the same meaning to us. Even at this relative subjective level, your computer is the thing that you maybe do translation on, and write papers on, and do research on, and things like that. And from my perspective, it's just kind of a rectangle in front of you, right? Because I don't use your computer in the way that you do. Same and likewise for my computer. So everything in the world has this idiosyncratic meaning to each individual person, but that doesn't mean that there's some underlying reality, and that's okay. To me that's meaning enough." This each individual person, of course, also has to be qualified in the same way, yeah, as all the other things you say. "Yes ...yeah I mean again there's..." Otherwise, welcome to deep metaphysics, no? Anyway but I think it will be very hard to talk about true individuals, who are completely unique, and everything takes meaning, only in the relation to them, but it's like..so what you do is try to sort of come up with an account that kind of unifies all of this. It's just some kind of unified understanding. That's of course, very good.
When you do the analysis, sort of slowly think about these things like, for example, going and coming.
Is there a point where you feel as if the words lose their meaning? We don't have to say that they actually do that, or whether anything actually could lose meaning, but well do you have the.. do you have the sense as if suddenly you don't know at all what they should mean? "Oh yeah right now! I think we're talking, in my view, Yankees--Mets right now. We're talking football, we're talking baseball, like this is not real.
This is sort of fun, and it's good for the mind, I think, genuinely." Yeah, thank you otherwise we shouldn't do it. "No, I agree, but it's it's not unlike doing math or something, which I think is also quite good for the mind. It's just, it's not it, but it's sort of on the way. Like right now we're talking metaphysics, phenomenology like, which one? I think there's one that's more useful, a more useful way to train the rational mind, right? The rational mind is there, the rational mind in my view is incapable of grasping the ultimate. But there's a certain way that the rational mind can be such that it gets in the way of more primordial mind grasping the ultimate. And there's a way that the rational mind can be, that's makes it a handmaiden to that process. For me, I think, if any imputations of metaphysics rationally become an obstacle, versus a subjective phenomenological rational understanding of ontology, is more of a handmaiden." Yeah, thanks. I think there's one more. Luis you have another question? I see only a few selections, but I can see a hand raised by you.
Can we take one more? Student: "I think words have significance on a level, but then if we're trying to look for what's really there, then they lose the significance. And even if we establish there's nothing behind, if we analyze that it will happen the same, like the same way, it will lose the significance. So maybe they have significance as long as we don't really do this sort of reasoning we were doing with the walking. But if we don't, then they do have significance, for example, the guy said if you say table, you know what I'm talking about, or laptop, it's not like gibberish. But they don't have a fundamental significance they have a superficial significance or a coarse significance." And that's again we can remember Śāntarakṣita and others who say that they're compelling only when not examined.
And I think that is something that we can...
that is a real insight that one can come to, and that can be formulated quite concisely as well, that all of this is compelling only when not examined. And it's not that it then gradually becomes not compelling it's like basically instantaneously, once we have understood the problems that follow with any of the fixtures of the conceptual framework, then that's just how the mind works. Then we... it's just remembering that, so to speak, it is enough to see that there's nothing compelling, that's an understatement, there's no there's no basis whatsoever. So..
perhaps that in itself can
can be a sort of practical guideline.
So then we don't have to be mystified, and we don't have to ignore. So there are two ways of sort of getting stuck in Mādhyamaka. Perhaps you could say. One is if you if you're just like, "man I don't know what to make of all of this." Then that's okay, I mean, that's unavoidable. But that's not... it's not a particularly useful space to hang out in either. So to be just mystified and think: "What is all this? I don't know anything anymore, I don't even know who I am myself and.. It's not there's nothing much dynamic about that, no? But another way is to think, "Okay yeah so now I think I understood and I can also see that the world requires that I think, and act, and things seem to have meaning, so they do have meaning in this particular context. So there's a way that you can think about things, and then they are not meaningful. I can see that, okay. And then at the same time I can also see that all of this is here somehow, and that can easily become a way of actually ignoring everything that you have said and found out.
If all of.. then it's just some sort of discrete observation, that can be had that when you look at things from this perspective, then they they lose their significance. So, actually don't look like that. Look at them like that. And then if that becomes your orientation, then it just is something that fades out into the background, what could have been an insight becomes just a kind of odd fact, that is somewhere. So that's ignoring whether one thinks of it as ignoring or thinks of it as acknowledging, no? But if instead for this kind of learning and contemplation and practice to be meaningful there has to be something more dynamic than that, no? So if we think of compelling only when not examined, then okay.
What would be a way of formulating that, which which becomes a practical way to learn from both sides? But okay compelling and then only as when not examined. We are not trying to.. reach some conclusion, some sort of, "Now I've solved it, yeah now I got that," because compelling only when not examined is not a solution, right? It's just an observation. But at the same time, it doesn't say that and so you should just just sit there and space out, and wonder what's going on. There's no suggestion like that either, at all. It just says all of this is compelling only when not examined. So perhaps there's a way to take that as an instruction, no? Compelling and then at the same time we know the other stuff, like.. and then we don't have to think that, "okay, I'm justified in retreating into some sort of new version of what this world is. I've come up with some sort of philosophical or whatever else it is description scientific or otherwise, that somehow answers all the questions. So now I can go on pretty much, as I were until now." That is not what this is about.
So there's a potential for discovery. Because we haven't settled anything at all.
And we are also not ignoring anything, because it's compelling when not examined. So then perhaps it can be that what is I think crucially important is the dynamics, no? That it's not that the two truths become like they're supposed to be clarifiers of each other. So the idea with the two truths is not that we set up a system of two truths and then that's it. We have done it we can go on yeah. But the the two truths have to shine light on each other.
Yeah you have some, yeah?
Student: "Okay, all right, that you were saying that that looking at sentences like that looking at language, like "the girl walks on the path," is demonstrating the the unity of the two truths. In itself we can see that when we look at that sentence conventionally, it's relative truth, but at the same time when we analyze it, it's.. it has no meaning, so that the two are unified all the time. And I was thinking something that I think it was Dzigar Kongtrul said, is that if we kind of carry that, when we go out into the world it's like on the outside we take everything really seriously, but on the inside, we can be completely carefree, so the sort of the two kind of can be together. And taking this understanding, that's how we can begin to think and act in the world."
Student: "A moment ago you talked about how the relative and the ultimate truths have to shine light on each other. What did you mean by that?" Well, it is supposed to be that the better you understand the conventional truth, with all its, what should we call it, richness and complexity,
that itself should be increasingly as we become advanced on this path of Mādhyamaka, it should become that itself enough to see emptiness. And that the emptiness also shows how all of this is possible. That it's only because of the nature of emptiness that things can be this way. If they were any other way, they would be.. none of this could happen. If things existed independently, if they had their own, if they were something in themselves, then none of this would be the case.
So, like Mipham says that if if among all of these things there were just one that had real independent existence, all of this would fail to appear. But it's because there's not a single thing that has independent, or intrinsic existence, that there's not a single thing that is what it is by itself, and of itself. That's why this myriad events can take place.
"Going back to earlier discussions about what has true existence, does Dharmakaya have true existence?"
Thomas: Yeah that's a great question. And there's also another, the four verses by Tsongkhapa, which are really great to illustrate this. What is it..
the appearances, the unfailing appearances of dependent origination, and the emptiness beyond all claims, as long as these two, as long as these two remain separate, you have still not seen the intent of the sage. And then he says, when at one point without alternation, the mere seeing of dependent origination is the collapse of all reference points, that is the point when your analysis of the view has been perfected. So they should be able to... whatever is dependent origination should be the fact of emptiness. Whatever is the fact of emptiness should be the fact of dependent appearance, that dependent origination. And then you said Dharmakaya. So that's of course where we're going when we begin to talk about the virtual and the real. Like me sitting here and then my reflection on the screen, is the basis for all of this. So it's very common to think that there is, and...
so that could be many many variations of how we think; that the ultimate basis, or the ultimate ground is for things. It can be some sort of divinity, it can be it can be the physical reality, it can be in Buddhist terms it could be awakening, Dharmakaya and so on. So again it's amazing that with the help of these analyses it becomes possible for ourselves. We're talking about the Dharmakaya. It's something that not even a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva knows for real, so forget about us! And at the same time, just by virtue of having thought about these things, we can actually say something
quite decisive and qualified, meaning qualified, we can have a qualified opinion even about the Dharmakaya. It sounds like a joke, but we can actually by virtue of this. Because one thing we can talk about is whether exactly just that, what you just did, is whether the Dharmakaya is then different than what we have talked about so far. So why don't we since time is over now, and since this was anyway part of the agenda for today, you know, to think about the virtual and the real, and I will also remember this myself. Let's for tomorrow think about how
specifically, is there some final way to settle the question as to what is virtual and what is real? What is the substrate and what is the appearance based on that, or the emergent appearance?
And, specifically, how about if we are Buddhists and interested in the Buddha's wisdom, then is the Dharmakaya any different? More real? Is there a way of speaking of the Dharmakaya as more real than any of the things that we now are used to saying have had no meaning when investigated? Is the Dharmakaya.. In one way of looking at the result, is there more to the Dharmakaya than the word? Because of course, Dharmakaya is a word. It's quite easy now to see that that becomes as meaningless as any other word, no?
So what would you say on the basis of what you have examined up until now, in terms of the virtual and the real, and specifically awakening, the state of awakening? Is that something that we can or should think of as having some sort of privileged status?
Okay? Thanks. So this was a lot of talk and conversation, but I think it's.. I appreciated it myself and I hope it's useful. I think it is useful, because it's very easy to otherwise just begin to skate along.
And since every thing that this text is about is so profound, I think it merits pausing and trying to sort of keep it real basically, no pun intended. Thanks.
"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."
Okay, so on Friday I suggested some things to think about. I don't remember exactly what they were.
But let's see.
Anya?
Student: "Oh sorry, yes?" That's all?
"Okay. So I should share something about what you said last, before we went on weekend?" Yeah.
"I'm just seeing, because we were talking about.. I think we ended up with talking about the screen and you.
And you know that you are identical, but who is more real? You or the screen.
I mean I'm not really sure what to say because I still have this feeling and this trust that this reasoning really makes sense to me in terms of reality but still, I mean both at the arising that nothing can arise from self, other, or both, and also that there is no coming and going so because you know when, I mean the analysis we have done the whole week that you can't find going, you can't find walking for instance anywhere if you look close. Even if you zoom out it's difficult to find the concept of walking anywhere, it's just something is happening. I have fully trust in that so..."
And why do you have trust in that? "See this is the thing, so whenever I analyze, whenever I stop what I'm doing and I'm analyzing and I just take some time to say, you know like sitting at Java coffee shop and then I look at somebody drinking coffee and I don't find drinking for instance. So that works for me and then I'm like okay there is nothing there but I can't do that just walking around and you know like if I don't sit down and apply the analysis, I just feel difficult to understand how it's informing my view because what I read some of the notes yesterday and you know and what you said is that you should embody it in a way, and it should inform a view of the world otherwise you're not really a Madhyamaka philosopher, right? If you don't let it sink in. And I'm trying to let it sink in but I'm not really sure it does because it only works when I contemplate.
I mean in my, from what I know in my knowing mind." So all of this is only kind of relevant and interesting if we already have the sense that there's something irrefutable about..
there's something that cannot be blocked about those arguments. That's when you will get to think like you do otherwise not. Student: "Yeah and I think something is, it is blocking because sometimes I can't, it's really difficult to, sometimes if I think about my thoughts like somebody said "perception," like when you perceive something, you know, then there are.. then that action you know putting like for for instance putting another verb then 'walking' or like putting something like 'seeing' or 'perceiving,' or 'thinking' even You know, then it becomes much more complex to observe and not find I guess so I'm just not there yet where I don't find anything anywhere."
Okay. "In my perception. I don't know if that makes sense." In your perception yeah, but we're not talking about not finding anything in your.. if I'm understanding you correctly no? We're talking about "just" the arguments, yeah that if they can be blocked or not, yeah?
Student: "And that's I can't find any blocking of it when I do the analysis." Right exactly. "Or when we are here in class I don't find anything." Right. "But then I go out there and then I still don't believe." Right. "Which is really weird." Yeah.
Yeah and so that's what I was, what I meant that this is only, what you say is only interesting and relevant, really interesting and really relevant if you have done this kind of analysis and feel that it cannot be blocked, yeah? Otherwise if you feel, if you haven't done the analysis then okay it seems like some, you can get in a weird space by doing this kind of analysis. Not sure I want to do it or who knows if it's like that, maybe she's just caught up in something yeah. But if you have done the analysis yourself and really cannot see any way to counter the argument, then it becomes, then it makes like a, then it's.. what to say..it's a authentic description of how one can very easily feel I think, what you say. That there's a huge difference between what we can very easily understand through reason and then what we see. It seems like a total contrast. So that is the.. to say that that is almost unavoidable when you begin to do this, yeah? But it is also clear that that can't be.. that this can't be it, no? That is also, even from just an analytic point of view it couldn't be, you know, that there's this emptiness is the nature of appearance, no? It's not something that is hiding behind the appearance. It's the nature of appearance. Student: "I think it's cultivating a new way of seeing in a way. That makes sense for me, it's just.. I mean I know it but you know I have to apply it on everything I encounter in a way." And it's not like..
it's also not.. what to say?
There are some who say that this kind of shift between conventional appearance and then understanding ultimate emptiness whether it's analytically or some sort of equipoise of resting in emptiness, that that kind of shift will continue all the way up through the Bodhisattva bhūmis. So I mean it's not strange if we feel that there is a great difference. So there are some who say that it's the sort of unique quality of a Buddha
to be able to access the two truths simultaneously. "And there's also a big danger for it to be spiritual bypassing, you know. You can really just.. I just I had like had an encounter with a very emotional outbreak yesterday, you know, and then like if somebody's really in that, then I don't think reasoning, I mean this part doesn't apply. I mean this is just, then you can say "oh, all is empty" but you feel like pain in your heart. I mean I know we talked about physical I just think that it's not easy." No, no, no definitely not, but who who said it would be easy, no? "I was hoping it would be." Yeah.
But again like think about it, it's what.. this is supposed to be like the gateway to the whole real path. So if it is that then it's not a surprise if it has a lot of very concrete and practical implications and also challenges.
I mean it's, it is a kind of sign of the importance of what we do know that, that it's not just going to class and sitting thinking some cool thoughts and then checking off I've done this, and now I know about that too. So this I often tell myself like if you.. when I started as a young person trying to understand some of these things and learn some Dharma and all of that, I really wondered that it becomes completely transformative and enlightening experience.
And yeah, one of my sort of most
great worries in the beginning was the Dharma was just another system of thought. So I think it becomes quite clear that through this kind of study that it's not just another system of thought. So then of course it also becomes much more challenging and much more real at all levels. But I think that's a good thing.
And it's, yeah really.. like some of the most brilliant minds minds at all have have thought about this, contemplated this, practiced this, written about this in in many different ways. It's not just something that a short course on something we call 'Madhyamaka Philosophy' can like, can settle. Maybe it can open, that I definitely think that is one of my sort of what I really believe is that anyone who is just sincere, and has a little bit of stamina, not very much actually, just for a few days can, through Nāgārjuna's reasoning, come to a point where everything is suddenly, the whole field is open. That I definitely, I definitely think. So if anyone feels differently I'd like to know because I think this is actually one of the special features of this is that it has that miraculous power.
Then I also asked some other things. I thought it was very interesting when we talked about it but I couldn't really remember very clearly. I did remember the this about virtual versus real. So we should definitely talk about that. But before that we had some other things as well. Is there anyone who can remember better than me?
Student: "You asked... can you hear?" Yeah, is it? Yeah oh I'm not even logged in, my goodness! Sorry, yeah.
Student: "Should I wait?" If you don't mind, yeah, thank you. I know your voice, so but still... Okay, great, thank you. "Yeah, you had asked what do we mean when we say "I walked to school"? What did we mean before? And now going through this analysis of what do we mean?" Thank you. "And I kept thinking of what is the referent of this? And what's the real thing that I'm talking about?
And just to complete with what you said later, but the idea of the screen and the real you,
which is more real? Then... I thought maybe you are more real, because we can have you without a screen, but not the screen without you. So you are on the more fundamental level than.. it seems to me that in terms of the walking there is something similar. We refuted walking but then there's something more fundamental there, which I don't know what it is. But.. or like when we can't find the composite objects but we say that there are atoms, for example, it seems like we're refuting some level of reality but I'm looking for what is like more fundamental there, if there is something. And we can't just refer to nothing, nothing doesn't seem a very satisfying concept. Because otherwise there wouldn't be any perception even of walking, even if it's a deluded perception, what is it perceiving? I don't have any answer but just reflection on that." Yeah, thank you that was all very great.
Yeah, so what do we mean? I think it's a very good thing to.. like when we have the sense that we even now probably, we say that we know what it means to walk,
and at the same time we also know that we can very quickly come to a point where we think there's no referent at all. Perhaps we are at that situation now that we can also very quickly come to a point where we find no referent at all for those words. Like they're completely empty sounds actually, they have no reference. So that is the conclusion, or that is an upshot of the analysis
that what these words point to when we try to nail it down, we fail completely. So if we fail completely in nailing it down, that's different from just from having like a bit of a handle, but not very like.. maybe realizing that there was 2 percent of what I thought about going, and the agent of going, and the place of going that was fine, but there was a whole lot that was just nonsense. And then, alternatively, being in a situation where you think that none of the terms have any bearing anywhere.
So that's why I suggested that we all think what do I mean by going now? What did I mean before? Because if we now can come to think that these.. but maybe we should first think a little more carefully. Is that saying too much what I just said? That when we analyze we find that every single element in that sentence, "I walk to school" is the one who walks, the act of walking, and the place where it takes place, where the action takes place,
that those.. as soon as I try to see what they really mean, I can't find any basis for them Is that true? Or is there some sort of basis? Like one way that you could also understand what Anya was saying is that, well, there is this particular perspective that one can take, and then it's like that, there's no they have no significance at all, the words. They're completely devoid of significance.
They don't mean anything. And then there's another time where like we have to disagree, sort of, like when we don't analyze then, then it seems that it's not true to say that. So is that more, what to say, so the fact that there is another time when we when we can't just... when the words, let's say they seem to have meaning, does that then mean that we have to be more careful about saying that they don't just refer at all? That they have no no significance whatsoever? Do you see what I'm trying to...
One thing is that when we analyze, we find nothing, no basis for the terms, they're completely empty sounds. And then another time we are in a situation where
we feel that they do have meaning. So does the fact that we find ourselves in that second situation mean that we have to qualify our statement about the meaninglessness of the words?
Maybe you have something to say.
Or is it you first? Yeah?
Student: "I had come across a quote from Chögyam Trungpa this weekend about how space and time are are understood because.. space and time have limitations and that is what makes it comprehensible for us, and if we didn't have limitations, then space and time would be incomprehensible. and it really seemed to fit with your homework for me, because just these words have a certain limitation to them, which makes them functional for us. We can communicate to each other, so like these two different times I was thinking when Anya was speaking like in one way when we're really resting the mind, and really in just this contemplative meditative mind, we can see that there is no basis. But when we go out into the world and have very like functional goals,= that we want to complete and we want to achieve our human aims and complete what we need to do to survive in samsara, then these words do have meanings to us, because we have to get what we want, and avoid what we don't want, and communicate with our friends and whatever. So these two times, for me at least, I've been noticing that in meditative mind you drop all of that, but as soon as you are out there trying to achieve some goal everything becomes a function of your survival, yourself, in the samsaric world. So.. I don't know if that kind of elucidates these two different times that we we work with our language."
Yeah so why..
Is it possible to say something about why, how, and perhaps why we get from one context to another? "It really really feels like how much we're trying to protect the self, I think. So much of this activity is just driven by perpetuation and survival of self, and that reification that comes from that process. So even though in resting meditation we might not see that there's a basis for our words and our actions, it's like our habits are just so strong, as as soon as we get off the cushion and go shopping and come back home from work, and it's just strong habits. So yeah. " So that's the thing also, what I was somehow thinking of Friday when saying that "what do we mean?" Like, okay, so when these habits become so strong, what do we mean?
Because it's not it's not like we go, what to say...
Yeah, there's also not such a clear-cut shift, no?
Yeah, would you like to say something as well? Okay, thank you. Student: "I have similar thoughts but I also want to like build off of that, because I think your question is an interesting question about words and language. And what you're asking is something along the lines of, "If the words that we use don't have real metaphysical reference do they lose their significance?" That's one way. "I think the answer is no. And I think that to even expect that they would have real metaphysical reference is to misunderstand language in the first place." So what is the better way? "A better way to understand language is similar to what the person before me was saying
one context to another? is a functional tool for navigating worldly aims, I think. And there's a couple important things that I think are worth pointing out. To begin with whenever I use any word.." May I just? So if it's a functional tool for navigating, that means that... So we don't like metaphysics yeah we agree, but to that it's a functional tool, and a functional tool only, doesn't that imply that there's something which is beyond language? That somehow we need language to navigate in terms of? That sounds like heavy metaphysics "That's an interesting point, yeah. No, I don't think you have to have any kind of ontological commitments, it's not like you're using it upon some fixed reality that you're then navigating. You're simply create.. like, you're each individual right, is navigating a idiosyncratic life world, that is utterly distinct from everyone else's idiosyncratic life world." This is also very metaphysical. One thing after the other. "No it doesn't have to be. It's entirely like.. and in fact, by saying that it's unique to each person, right, there's no need to imply a literal external world. In fact that perspective implies only subjective realities, right? So, samsara, your samsara is not my samsara, and there is no metaphysical reality beyond your made-up dream and my made-up dream, and everyone in this room's made-up dreams. Language we use is some sort of maybe a bridge between dreams, you could think of, but that doesn't mean that it refers to anything fixed. And the other thing that I'll just say is, empirically, words have meaning, right? And this is I think an important point, if you're asking about Oh, do they lose meaning? it's like what do you, what are you really asking after? Clearly words have significance, clearly words have meaning, you're understanding every single thing I'm saying right now right? If they didn't have meaning you couldn't, If these were truly, as you said a few minutes ago, like empty expressions like it would sound like I was talking gibberish to you. But it's not. So I think that just sort of proved like clearly empirically proves that words have meaning. You understand what I'm saying, everyone in this room is understanding what I'm saying I hope. So I think to me, I don't need a stronger sense of meaning to attribute meaning to words. I can already see quite clearly that they have meaning." And truth then also, no? "Meaning does not have to imply truth, I mean truth you then on some..." If it's true that this means, what to say meaning
this is a table if that's a meaningful, why is it not true that it's a table? "Well, I mean, you can define truth such that it is true and you can define truth such that it isn't, I mean, you'd need some more I think legwork there. But meaning feels to me, the way I'm I use it and I think of it is, does this word table mean something more than like....blublublublu to you? Like that random string of syllables that I just uttered, doesn't have meaning to you Or maybe it does as a some sort of like gibberish example, but actually I would say that it does have meaning to you in that sense. But like, meaning comes from an imputed significance that is individual. Like, that computer for you, right? Actually has a different meaning than it has for me. I'm talking, we're talking sort of about the same thing, I'm looking at your computer, you sort of see it in your peripheral vision, but it doesn't have the same meaning to us. Even at this relative subjective level, your computer is the thing that you maybe do translation on, and write papers on, and do research on, and things like that. And from my perspective, it's just kind of a rectangle in front of you, right? Because I don't use your computer in the way that you do. Same and likewise for my computer. So everything in the world has this idiosyncratic meaning to each individual person, but that doesn't mean that there's some underlying reality, and that's okay. To me that's meaning enough." This each individual person, of course, also has to be qualified in the same way, yeah, as all the other things you say. "Yes ...yeah I mean again there's..." Otherwise, welcome to deep metaphysics, no? Anyway but I think it will be very hard to talk about true individuals, who are completely unique, and everything takes meaning, only in the relation to them, but it's like..so what you do is try to sort of come up with an account that kind of unifies all of this. It's just some kind of unified understanding. That's of course, very good.
When you do the analysis, sort of slowly think about these things like, for example, going and coming.
Is there a point where you feel as if the words lose their meaning? We don't have to say that they actually do that, or whether anything actually could lose meaning, but well do you have the.. do you have the sense as if suddenly you don't know at all what they should mean? "Oh yeah right now! I think we're talking, in my view, Yankees--Mets right now. We're talking football, we're talking baseball, like this is not real.
This is sort of fun, and it's good for the mind, I think, genuinely." Yeah, thank you otherwise we shouldn't do it. "No, I agree, but it's it's not unlike doing math or something, which I think is also quite good for the mind. It's just, it's not it, but it's sort of on the way. Like right now we're talking metaphysics, phenomenology like, which one? I think there's one that's more useful, a more useful way to train the rational mind, right? The rational mind is there, the rational mind in my view is incapable of grasping the ultimate. But there's a certain way that the rational mind can be such that it gets in the way of more primordial mind grasping the ultimate. And there's a way that the rational mind can be, that's makes it a handmaiden to that process. For me, I think, if any imputations of metaphysics rationally become an obstacle, versus a subjective phenomenological rational understanding of ontology, is more of a handmaiden." Yeah, thanks. I think there's one more. Luis you have another question? I see only a few selections, but I can see a hand raised by you.
Can we take one more? Student: "I think words have significance on a level, but then if we're trying to look for what's really there, then they lose the significance. And even if we establish there's nothing behind, if we analyze that it will happen the same, like the same way, it will lose the significance. So maybe they have significance as long as we don't really do this sort of reasoning we were doing with the walking. But if we don't, then they do have significance, for example, the guy said if you say table, you know what I'm talking about, or laptop, it's not like gibberish. But they don't have a fundamental significance they have a superficial significance or a coarse significance." And that's again we can remember Śāntarakṣita and others who say that they're compelling only when not examined.
And I think that is something that we can...
that is a real insight that one can come to, and that can be formulated quite concisely as well, that all of this is compelling only when not examined. And it's not that it then gradually becomes not compelling it's like basically instantaneously, once we have understood the problems that follow with any of the fixtures of the conceptual framework, then that's just how the mind works. Then we... it's just remembering that, so to speak, it is enough to see that there's nothing compelling, that's an understatement, there's no there's no basis whatsoever. So..
perhaps that in itself can
can be a sort of practical guideline.
So then we don't have to be mystified, and we don't have to ignore. So there are two ways of sort of getting stuck in Mādhyamaka. Perhaps you could say. One is if you if you're just like, "man I don't know what to make of all of this." Then that's okay, I mean, that's unavoidable. But that's not... it's not a particularly useful space to hang out in either. So to be just mystified and think: "What is all this? I don't know anything anymore, I don't even know who I am myself and.. It's not there's nothing much dynamic about that, no? But another way is to think, "Okay yeah so now I think I understood and I can also see that the world requires that I think, and act, and things seem to have meaning, so they do have meaning in this particular context. So there's a way that you can think about things, and then they are not meaningful. I can see that, okay. And then at the same time I can also see that all of this is here somehow, and that can easily become a way of actually ignoring everything that you have said and found out.
If all of.. then it's just some sort of discrete observation, that can be had that when you look at things from this perspective, then they they lose their significance. So, actually don't look like that. Look at them like that. And then if that becomes your orientation, then it just is something that fades out into the background, what could have been an insight becomes just a kind of odd fact, that is somewhere. So that's ignoring whether one thinks of it as ignoring or thinks of it as acknowledging, no? But if instead for this kind of learning and contemplation and practice to be meaningful there has to be something more dynamic than that, no? So if we think of compelling only when not examined, then okay.
What would be a way of formulating that, which which becomes a practical way to learn from both sides? But okay compelling and then only as when not examined. We are not trying to.. reach some conclusion, some sort of, "Now I've solved it, yeah now I got that," because compelling only when not examined is not a solution, right? It's just an observation. But at the same time, it doesn't say that and so you should just just sit there and space out, and wonder what's going on. There's no suggestion like that either, at all. It just says all of this is compelling only when not examined. So perhaps there's a way to take that as an instruction, no? Compelling and then at the same time we know the other stuff, like.. and then we don't have to think that, "okay, I'm justified in retreating into some sort of new version of what this world is. I've come up with some sort of philosophical or whatever else it is description scientific or otherwise, that somehow answers all the questions. So now I can go on pretty much, as I were until now." That is not what this is about.
So there's a potential for discovery. Because we haven't settled anything at all.
And we are also not ignoring anything, because it's compelling when not examined. So then perhaps it can be that what is I think crucially important is the dynamics, no? That it's not that the two truths become like they're supposed to be clarifiers of each other. So the idea with the two truths is not that we set up a system of two truths and then that's it. We have done it we can go on yeah. But the the two truths have to shine light on each other.
Yeah you have some, yeah?
Student: "Okay, all right, that you were saying that that looking at sentences like that looking at language, like "the girl walks on the path," is demonstrating the the unity of the two truths. In itself we can see that when we look at that sentence conventionally, it's relative truth, but at the same time when we analyze it, it's.. it has no meaning, so that the two are unified all the time. And I was thinking something that I think it was Dzigar Kongtrul said, is that if we kind of carry that, when we go out into the world it's like on the outside we take everything really seriously, but on the inside, we can be completely carefree, so the sort of the two kind of can be together. And taking this understanding, that's how we can begin to think and act in the world."
Student: "A moment ago you talked about how the relative and the ultimate truths have to shine light on each other. What did you mean by that?" Well, it is supposed to be that the better you understand the conventional truth, with all its, what should we call it, richness and complexity,
that itself should be increasingly as we become advanced on this path of Mādhyamaka, it should become that itself enough to see emptiness. And that the emptiness also shows how all of this is possible. That it's only because of the nature of emptiness that things can be this way. If they were any other way, they would be.. none of this could happen. If things existed independently, if they had their own, if they were something in themselves, then none of this would be the case.
So, like Mipham says that if if among all of these things there were just one that had real independent existence, all of this would fail to appear. But it's because there's not a single thing that has independent, or intrinsic existence, that there's not a single thing that is what it is by itself, and of itself. That's why this myriad events can take place.
"Going back to earlier discussions about what has true existence, does Dharmakaya have true existence?"
Thomas: Yeah that's a great question. And there's also another, the four verses by Tsongkhapa, which are really great to illustrate this. What is it..
the appearances, the unfailing appearances of dependent origination, and the emptiness beyond all claims, as long as these two, as long as these two remain separate, you have still not seen the intent of the sage. And then he says, when at one point without alternation, the mere seeing of dependent origination is the collapse of all reference points, that is the point when your analysis of the view has been perfected. So they should be able to... whatever is dependent origination should be the fact of emptiness. Whatever is the fact of emptiness should be the fact of dependent appearance, that dependent origination. And then you said Dharmakaya. So that's of course where we're going when we begin to talk about the virtual and the real. Like me sitting here and then my reflection on the screen, is the basis for all of this. So it's very common to think that there is, and...
so that could be many many variations of how we think; that the ultimate basis, or the ultimate ground is for things. It can be some sort of divinity, it can be it can be the physical reality, it can be in Buddhist terms it could be awakening, Dharmakaya and so on. So again it's amazing that with the help of these analyses it becomes possible for ourselves. We're talking about the Dharmakaya. It's something that not even a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva knows for real, so forget about us! And at the same time, just by virtue of having thought about these things, we can actually say something
quite decisive and qualified, meaning qualified, we can have a qualified opinion even about the Dharmakaya. It sounds like a joke, but we can actually by virtue of this. Because one thing we can talk about is whether exactly just that, what you just did, is whether the Dharmakaya is then different than what we have talked about so far. So why don't we since time is over now, and since this was anyway part of the agenda for today, you know, to think about the virtual and the real, and I will also remember this myself. Let's for tomorrow think about how
specifically, is there some final way to settle the question as to what is virtual and what is real? What is the substrate and what is the appearance based on that, or the emergent appearance?
And, specifically, how about if we are Buddhists and interested in the Buddha's wisdom, then is the Dharmakaya any different? More real? Is there a way of speaking of the Dharmakaya as more real than any of the things that we now are used to saying have had no meaning when investigated? Is the Dharmakaya.. In one way of looking at the result, is there more to the Dharmakaya than the word? Because of course, Dharmakaya is a word. It's quite easy now to see that that becomes as meaningless as any other word, no?
So what would you say on the basis of what you have examined up until now, in terms of the virtual and the real, and specifically awakening, the state of awakening? Is that something that we can or should think of as having some sort of privileged status?
Okay? Thanks. So this was a lot of talk and conversation, but I think it's.. I appreciated it myself and I hope it's useful. I think it is useful, because it's very easy to otherwise just begin to skate along.
And since every thing that this text is about is so profound, I think it merits pausing and trying to sort of keep it real basically, no pun intended. Thanks.
Okay, so on Friday I suggested some things to think about. I don't remember exactly what they were.
But let's see.
Anya?
Student: "Oh sorry, yes?" That's all?
"Okay. So I should share something about what you said last, before we went on weekend?" Yeah.
"I'm just seeing, because we were talking about.. I think we ended up with talking about the screen and you.
And you know that you are identical, but who is more real? You or the screen.
I mean I'm not really sure what to say because I still have this feeling and this trust that this reasoning really makes sense to me in terms of reality but still, I mean both at the arising that nothing can arise from self, other, or both, and also that there is no coming and going so because you know when, I mean the analysis we have done the whole week that you can't find going, you can't find walking for instance anywhere if you look close. Even if you zoom out it's difficult to find the concept of walking anywhere, it's just something is happening. I have fully trust in that so..."
And why do you have trust in that? "See this is the thing, so whenever I analyze, whenever I stop what I'm doing and I'm analyzing and I just take some time to say, you know like sitting at Java coffee shop and then I look at somebody drinking coffee and I don't find drinking for instance. So that works for me and then I'm like okay there is nothing there but I can't do that just walking around and you know like if I don't sit down and apply the analysis, I just feel difficult to understand how it's informing my view because what I read some of the notes yesterday and you know and what you said is that you should embody it in a way, and it should inform a view of the world otherwise you're not really a Madhyamaka philosopher, right? If you don't let it sink in. And I'm trying to let it sink in but I'm not really sure it does because it only works when I contemplate.
I mean in my, from what I know in my knowing mind." So all of this is only kind of relevant and interesting if we already have the sense that there's something irrefutable about..
there's something that cannot be blocked about those arguments. That's when you will get to think like you do otherwise not. Student: "Yeah and I think something is, it is blocking because sometimes I can't, it's really difficult to, sometimes if I think about my thoughts like somebody said "perception," like when you perceive something, you know, then there are.. then that action you know putting like for for instance putting another verb then 'walking' or like putting something like 'seeing' or 'perceiving,' or 'thinking' even You know, then it becomes much more complex to observe and not find I guess so I'm just not there yet where I don't find anything anywhere."
Okay. "In my perception. I don't know if that makes sense." In your perception yeah, but we're not talking about not finding anything in your.. if I'm understanding you correctly no? We're talking about "just" the arguments, yeah that if they can be blocked or not, yeah?
Student: "And that's I can't find any blocking of it when I do the analysis." Right exactly. "Or when we are here in class I don't find anything." Right. "But then I go out there and then I still don't believe." Right. "Which is really weird." Yeah.
Yeah and so that's what I was, what I meant that this is only, what you say is only interesting and relevant, really interesting and really relevant if you have done this kind of analysis and feel that it cannot be blocked, yeah? Otherwise if you feel, if you haven't done the analysis then okay it seems like some, you can get in a weird space by doing this kind of analysis. Not sure I want to do it or who knows if it's like that, maybe she's just caught up in something yeah. But if you have done the analysis yourself and really cannot see any way to counter the argument, then it becomes, then it makes like a, then it's.. what to say..it's a authentic description of how one can very easily feel I think, what you say. That there's a huge difference between what we can very easily understand through reason and then what we see. It seems like a total contrast. So that is the.. to say that that is almost unavoidable when you begin to do this, yeah? But it is also clear that that can't be.. that this can't be it, no? That is also, even from just an analytic point of view it couldn't be, you know, that there's this emptiness is the nature of appearance, no? It's not something that is hiding behind the appearance. It's the nature of appearance. Student: "I think it's cultivating a new way of seeing in a way. That makes sense for me, it's just.. I mean I know it but you know I have to apply it on everything I encounter in a way." And it's not like..
it's also not.. what to say?
There are some who say that this kind of shift between conventional appearance and then understanding ultimate emptiness whether it's analytically or some sort of equipoise of resting in emptiness, that that kind of shift will continue all the way up through the Bodhisattva bhūmis. So I mean it's not strange if we feel that there is a great difference. So there are some who say that it's the sort of unique quality of a Buddha
to be able to access the two truths simultaneously. "And there's also a big danger for it to be spiritual bypassing, you know. You can really just.. I just I had like had an encounter with a very emotional outbreak yesterday, you know, and then like if somebody's really in that, then I don't think reasoning, I mean this part doesn't apply. I mean this is just, then you can say "oh, all is empty" but you feel like pain in your heart. I mean I know we talked about physical I just think that it's not easy." No, no, no definitely not, but who who said it would be easy, no? "I was hoping it would be." Yeah.
But again like think about it, it's what.. this is supposed to be like the gateway to the whole real path. So if it is that then it's not a surprise if it has a lot of very concrete and practical implications and also challenges.
I mean it's, it is a kind of sign of the importance of what we do know that, that it's not just going to class and sitting thinking some cool thoughts and then checking off I've done this, and now I know about that too. So this I often tell myself like if you.. when I started as a young person trying to understand some of these things and learn some Dharma and all of that, I really wondered that it becomes completely transformative and enlightening experience.
And yeah, one of my sort of most
great worries in the beginning was the Dharma was just another system of thought. So I think it becomes quite clear that through this kind of study that it's not just another system of thought. So then of course it also becomes much more challenging and much more real at all levels. But I think that's a good thing.
And it's, yeah really.. like some of the most brilliant minds minds at all have have thought about this, contemplated this, practiced this, written about this in in many different ways. It's not just something that a short course on something we call 'Madhyamaka Philosophy' can like, can settle. Maybe it can open, that I definitely think that is one of my sort of what I really believe is that anyone who is just sincere, and has a little bit of stamina, not very much actually, just for a few days can, through Nāgārjuna's reasoning, come to a point where everything is suddenly, the whole field is open. That I definitely, I definitely think. So if anyone feels differently I'd like to know because I think this is actually one of the special features of this is that it has that miraculous power.
Then I also asked some other things. I thought it was very interesting when we talked about it but I couldn't really remember very clearly. I did remember the this about virtual versus real. So we should definitely talk about that. But before that we had some other things as well. Is there anyone who can remember better than me?
Student: "You asked... can you hear?" Yeah, is it? Yeah oh I'm not even logged in, my goodness! Sorry, yeah.
Student: "Should I wait?" If you don't mind, yeah, thank you. I know your voice, so but still... Okay, great, thank you. "Yeah, you had asked what do we mean when we say "I walked to school"? What did we mean before? And now going through this analysis of what do we mean?" Thank you. "And I kept thinking of what is the referent of this? And what's the real thing that I'm talking about?
And just to complete with what you said later, but the idea of the screen and the real you,
which is more real? Then... I thought maybe you are more real, because we can have you without a screen, but not the screen without you. So you are on the more fundamental level than.. it seems to me that in terms of the walking there is something similar. We refuted walking but then there's something more fundamental there, which I don't know what it is. But.. or like when we can't find the composite objects but we say that there are atoms, for example, it seems like we're refuting some level of reality but I'm looking for what is like more fundamental there, if there is something. And we can't just refer to nothing, nothing doesn't seem a very satisfying concept. Because otherwise there wouldn't be any perception even of walking, even if it's a deluded perception, what is it perceiving? I don't have any answer but just reflection on that." Yeah, thank you that was all very great.
Yeah, so what do we mean? I think it's a very good thing to.. like when we have the sense that we even now probably, we say that we know what it means to walk,
and at the same time we also know that we can very quickly come to a point where we think there's no referent at all. Perhaps we are at that situation now that we can also very quickly come to a point where we find no referent at all for those words. Like they're completely empty sounds actually, they have no reference. So that is the conclusion, or that is an upshot of the analysis
that what these words point to when we try to nail it down, we fail completely. So if we fail completely in nailing it down, that's different from just from having like a bit of a handle, but not very like.. maybe realizing that there was 2 percent of what I thought about going, and the agent of going, and the place of going that was fine, but there was a whole lot that was just nonsense. And then, alternatively, being in a situation where you think that none of the terms have any bearing anywhere.
So that's why I suggested that we all think what do I mean by going now? What did I mean before? Because if we now can come to think that these.. but maybe we should first think a little more carefully. Is that saying too much what I just said? That when we analyze we find that every single element in that sentence, "I walk to school" is the one who walks, the act of walking, and the place where it takes place, where the action takes place,
that those.. as soon as I try to see what they really mean, I can't find any basis for them Is that true? Or is there some sort of basis? Like one way that you could also understand what Anya was saying is that, well, there is this particular perspective that one can take, and then it's like that, there's no they have no significance at all, the words. They're completely devoid of significance.
They don't mean anything. And then there's another time where like we have to disagree, sort of, like when we don't analyze then, then it seems that it's not true to say that. So is that more, what to say, so the fact that there is another time when we when we can't just... when the words, let's say they seem to have meaning, does that then mean that we have to be more careful about saying that they don't just refer at all? That they have no no significance whatsoever? Do you see what I'm trying to...
One thing is that when we analyze, we find nothing, no basis for the terms, they're completely empty sounds. And then another time we are in a situation where
we feel that they do have meaning. So does the fact that we find ourselves in that second situation mean that we have to qualify our statement about the meaninglessness of the words?
Maybe you have something to say.
Or is it you first? Yeah?
Student: "I had come across a quote from Chögyam Trungpa this weekend about how space and time are are understood because.. space and time have limitations and that is what makes it comprehensible for us, and if we didn't have limitations, then space and time would be incomprehensible. and it really seemed to fit with your homework for me, because just these words have a certain limitation to them, which makes them functional for us. We can communicate to each other, so like these two different times I was thinking when Anya was speaking like in one way when we're really resting the mind, and really in just this contemplative meditative mind, we can see that there is no basis. But when we go out into the world and have very like functional goals,= that we want to complete and we want to achieve our human aims and complete what we need to do to survive in samsara, then these words do have meanings to us, because we have to get what we want, and avoid what we don't want, and communicate with our friends and whatever. So these two times, for me at least, I've been noticing that in meditative mind you drop all of that, but as soon as you are out there trying to achieve some goal everything becomes a function of your survival, yourself, in the samsaric world. So.. I don't know if that kind of elucidates these two different times that we we work with our language."
Yeah so why..
Is it possible to say something about why, how, and perhaps why we get from one context to another? "It really really feels like how much we're trying to protect the self, I think. So much of this activity is just driven by perpetuation and survival of self, and that reification that comes from that process. So even though in resting meditation we might not see that there's a basis for our words and our actions, it's like our habits are just so strong, as as soon as we get off the cushion and go shopping and come back home from work, and it's just strong habits. So yeah. " So that's the thing also, what I was somehow thinking of Friday when saying that "what do we mean?" Like, okay, so when these habits become so strong, what do we mean?
Because it's not it's not like we go, what to say...
Yeah, there's also not such a clear-cut shift, no?
Yeah, would you like to say something as well? Okay, thank you. Student: "I have similar thoughts but I also want to like build off of that, because I think your question is an interesting question about words and language. And what you're asking is something along the lines of, "If the words that we use don't have real metaphysical reference do they lose their significance?" That's one way. "I think the answer is no. And I think that to even expect that they would have real metaphysical reference is to misunderstand language in the first place." So what is the better way? "A better way to understand language is similar to what the person before me was saying
one context to another? is a functional tool for navigating worldly aims, I think. And there's a couple important things that I think are worth pointing out. To begin with whenever I use any word.." May I just? So if it's a functional tool for navigating, that means that... So we don't like metaphysics yeah we agree, but to that it's a functional tool, and a functional tool only, doesn't that imply that there's something which is beyond language? That somehow we need language to navigate in terms of? That sounds like heavy metaphysics "That's an interesting point, yeah. No, I don't think you have to have any kind of ontological commitments, it's not like you're using it upon some fixed reality that you're then navigating. You're simply create.. like, you're each individual right, is navigating a idiosyncratic life world, that is utterly distinct from everyone else's idiosyncratic life world." This is also very metaphysical. One thing after the other. "No it doesn't have to be. It's entirely like.. and in fact, by saying that it's unique to each person, right, there's no need to imply a literal external world. In fact that perspective implies only subjective realities, right? So, samsara, your samsara is not my samsara, and there is no metaphysical reality beyond your made-up dream and my made-up dream, and everyone in this room's made-up dreams. Language we use is some sort of maybe a bridge between dreams, you could think of, but that doesn't mean that it refers to anything fixed. And the other thing that I'll just say is, empirically, words have meaning, right? And this is I think an important point, if you're asking about Oh, do they lose meaning? it's like what do you, what are you really asking after? Clearly words have significance, clearly words have meaning, you're understanding every single thing I'm saying right now right? If they didn't have meaning you couldn't, If these were truly, as you said a few minutes ago, like empty expressions like it would sound like I was talking gibberish to you. But it's not. So I think that just sort of proved like clearly empirically proves that words have meaning. You understand what I'm saying, everyone in this room is understanding what I'm saying I hope. So I think to me, I don't need a stronger sense of meaning to attribute meaning to words. I can already see quite clearly that they have meaning." And truth then also, no? "Meaning does not have to imply truth, I mean truth you then on some..." If it's true that this means, what to say meaning
this is a table if that's a meaningful, why is it not true that it's a table? "Well, I mean, you can define truth such that it is true and you can define truth such that it isn't, I mean, you'd need some more I think legwork there. But meaning feels to me, the way I'm I use it and I think of it is, does this word table mean something more than like....blublublublu to you? Like that random string of syllables that I just uttered, doesn't have meaning to you Or maybe it does as a some sort of like gibberish example, but actually I would say that it does have meaning to you in that sense. But like, meaning comes from an imputed significance that is individual. Like, that computer for you, right? Actually has a different meaning than it has for me. I'm talking, we're talking sort of about the same thing, I'm looking at your computer, you sort of see it in your peripheral vision, but it doesn't have the same meaning to us. Even at this relative subjective level, your computer is the thing that you maybe do translation on, and write papers on, and do research on, and things like that. And from my perspective, it's just kind of a rectangle in front of you, right? Because I don't use your computer in the way that you do. Same and likewise for my computer. So everything in the world has this idiosyncratic meaning to each individual person, but that doesn't mean that there's some underlying reality, and that's okay. To me that's meaning enough." This each individual person, of course, also has to be qualified in the same way, yeah, as all the other things you say. "Yes ...yeah I mean again there's..." Otherwise, welcome to deep metaphysics, no? Anyway but I think it will be very hard to talk about true individuals, who are completely unique, and everything takes meaning, only in the relation to them, but it's like..so what you do is try to sort of come up with an account that kind of unifies all of this. It's just some kind of unified understanding. That's of course, very good.
When you do the analysis, sort of slowly think about these things like, for example, going and coming.
Is there a point where you feel as if the words lose their meaning? We don't have to say that they actually do that, or whether anything actually could lose meaning, but well do you have the.. do you have the sense as if suddenly you don't know at all what they should mean? "Oh yeah right now! I think we're talking, in my view, Yankees--Mets right now. We're talking football, we're talking baseball, like this is not real.
This is sort of fun, and it's good for the mind, I think, genuinely." Yeah, thank you otherwise we shouldn't do it. "No, I agree, but it's it's not unlike doing math or something, which I think is also quite good for the mind. It's just, it's not it, but it's sort of on the way. Like right now we're talking metaphysics, phenomenology like, which one? I think there's one that's more useful, a more useful way to train the rational mind, right? The rational mind is there, the rational mind in my view is incapable of grasping the ultimate. But there's a certain way that the rational mind can be such that it gets in the way of more primordial mind grasping the ultimate. And there's a way that the rational mind can be, that's makes it a handmaiden to that process. For me, I think, if any imputations of metaphysics rationally become an obstacle, versus a subjective phenomenological rational understanding of ontology, is more of a handmaiden." Yeah, thanks. I think there's one more. Luis you have another question? I see only a few selections, but I can see a hand raised by you.
Can we take one more? Student: "I think words have significance on a level, but then if we're trying to look for what's really there, then they lose the significance. And even if we establish there's nothing behind, if we analyze that it will happen the same, like the same way, it will lose the significance. So maybe they have significance as long as we don't really do this sort of reasoning we were doing with the walking. But if we don't, then they do have significance, for example, the guy said if you say table, you know what I'm talking about, or laptop, it's not like gibberish. But they don't have a fundamental significance they have a superficial significance or a coarse significance." And that's again we can remember Śāntarakṣita and others who say that they're compelling only when not examined.
And I think that is something that we can...
that is a real insight that one can come to, and that can be formulated quite concisely as well, that all of this is compelling only when not examined. And it's not that it then gradually becomes not compelling it's like basically instantaneously, once we have understood the problems that follow with any of the fixtures of the conceptual framework, then that's just how the mind works. Then we... it's just remembering that, so to speak, it is enough to see that there's nothing compelling, that's an understatement, there's no there's no basis whatsoever. So..
perhaps that in itself can
can be a sort of practical guideline.
So then we don't have to be mystified, and we don't have to ignore. So there are two ways of sort of getting stuck in Mādhyamaka. Perhaps you could say. One is if you if you're just like, "man I don't know what to make of all of this." Then that's okay, I mean, that's unavoidable. But that's not... it's not a particularly useful space to hang out in either. So to be just mystified and think: "What is all this? I don't know anything anymore, I don't even know who I am myself and.. It's not there's nothing much dynamic about that, no? But another way is to think, "Okay yeah so now I think I understood and I can also see that the world requires that I think, and act, and things seem to have meaning, so they do have meaning in this particular context. So there's a way that you can think about things, and then they are not meaningful. I can see that, okay. And then at the same time I can also see that all of this is here somehow, and that can easily become a way of actually ignoring everything that you have said and found out.
If all of.. then it's just some sort of discrete observation, that can be had that when you look at things from this perspective, then they they lose their significance. So, actually don't look like that. Look at them like that. And then if that becomes your orientation, then it just is something that fades out into the background, what could have been an insight becomes just a kind of odd fact, that is somewhere. So that's ignoring whether one thinks of it as ignoring or thinks of it as acknowledging, no? But if instead for this kind of learning and contemplation and practice to be meaningful there has to be something more dynamic than that, no? So if we think of compelling only when not examined, then okay.
What would be a way of formulating that, which which becomes a practical way to learn from both sides? But okay compelling and then only as when not examined. We are not trying to.. reach some conclusion, some sort of, "Now I've solved it, yeah now I got that," because compelling only when not examined is not a solution, right? It's just an observation. But at the same time, it doesn't say that and so you should just just sit there and space out, and wonder what's going on. There's no suggestion like that either, at all. It just says all of this is compelling only when not examined. So perhaps there's a way to take that as an instruction, no? Compelling and then at the same time we know the other stuff, like.. and then we don't have to think that, "okay, I'm justified in retreating into some sort of new version of what this world is. I've come up with some sort of philosophical or whatever else it is description scientific or otherwise, that somehow answers all the questions. So now I can go on pretty much, as I were until now." That is not what this is about.
So there's a potential for discovery. Because we haven't settled anything at all.
And we are also not ignoring anything, because it's compelling when not examined. So then perhaps it can be that what is I think crucially important is the dynamics, no? That it's not that the two truths become like they're supposed to be clarifiers of each other. So the idea with the two truths is not that we set up a system of two truths and then that's it. We have done it we can go on yeah. But the the two truths have to shine light on each other.
Yeah you have some, yeah?
Student: "Okay, all right, that you were saying that that looking at sentences like that looking at language, like "the girl walks on the path," is demonstrating the the unity of the two truths. In itself we can see that when we look at that sentence conventionally, it's relative truth, but at the same time when we analyze it, it's.. it has no meaning, so that the two are unified all the time. And I was thinking something that I think it was Dzigar Kongtrul said, is that if we kind of carry that, when we go out into the world it's like on the outside we take everything really seriously, but on the inside, we can be completely carefree, so the sort of the two kind of can be together. And taking this understanding, that's how we can begin to think and act in the world."
Student: "A moment ago you talked about how the relative and the ultimate truths have to shine light on each other. What did you mean by that?" Well, it is supposed to be that the better you understand the conventional truth, with all its, what should we call it, richness and complexity,
that itself should be increasingly as we become advanced on this path of Mādhyamaka, it should become that itself enough to see emptiness. And that the emptiness also shows how all of this is possible. That it's only because of the nature of emptiness that things can be this way. If they were any other way, they would be.. none of this could happen. If things existed independently, if they had their own, if they were something in themselves, then none of this would be the case.
So, like Mipham says that if if among all of these things there were just one that had real independent existence, all of this would fail to appear. But it's because there's not a single thing that has independent, or intrinsic existence, that there's not a single thing that is what it is by itself, and of itself. That's why this myriad events can take place.
"Going back to earlier discussions about what has true existence, does Dharmakaya have true existence?"
Thomas: Yeah that's a great question. And there's also another, the four verses by Tsongkhapa, which are really great to illustrate this. What is it..
the appearances, the unfailing appearances of dependent origination, and the emptiness beyond all claims, as long as these two, as long as these two remain separate, you have still not seen the intent of the sage. And then he says, when at one point without alternation, the mere seeing of dependent origination is the collapse of all reference points, that is the point when your analysis of the view has been perfected. So they should be able to... whatever is dependent origination should be the fact of emptiness. Whatever is the fact of emptiness should be the fact of dependent appearance, that dependent origination. And then you said Dharmakaya. So that's of course where we're going when we begin to talk about the virtual and the real. Like me sitting here and then my reflection on the screen, is the basis for all of this. So it's very common to think that there is, and...
so that could be many many variations of how we think; that the ultimate basis, or the ultimate ground is for things. It can be some sort of divinity, it can be it can be the physical reality, it can be in Buddhist terms it could be awakening, Dharmakaya and so on. So again it's amazing that with the help of these analyses it becomes possible for ourselves. We're talking about the Dharmakaya. It's something that not even a tenth bhumi Bodhisattva knows for real, so forget about us! And at the same time, just by virtue of having thought about these things, we can actually say something
quite decisive and qualified, meaning qualified, we can have a qualified opinion even about the Dharmakaya. It sounds like a joke, but we can actually by virtue of this. Because one thing we can talk about is whether exactly just that, what you just did, is whether the Dharmakaya is then different than what we have talked about so far. So why don't we since time is over now, and since this was anyway part of the agenda for today, you know, to think about the virtual and the real, and I will also remember this myself. Let's for tomorrow think about how
specifically, is there some final way to settle the question as to what is virtual and what is real? What is the substrate and what is the appearance based on that, or the emergent appearance?
And, specifically, how about if we are Buddhists and interested in the Buddha's wisdom, then is the Dharmakaya any different? More real? Is there a way of speaking of the Dharmakaya as more real than any of the things that we now are used to saying have had no meaning when investigated? Is the Dharmakaya.. In one way of looking at the result, is there more to the Dharmakaya than the word? Because of course, Dharmakaya is a word. It's quite easy now to see that that becomes as meaningless as any other word, no?
So what would you say on the basis of what you have examined up until now, in terms of the virtual and the real, and specifically awakening, the state of awakening? Is that something that we can or should think of as having some sort of privileged status?
Okay? Thanks. So this was a lot of talk and conversation, but I think it's.. I appreciated it myself and I hope it's useful. I think it is useful, because it's very easy to otherwise just begin to skate along.
And since every thing that this text is about is so profound, I think it merits pausing and trying to sort of keep it real basically, no pun intended. Thanks.
17:26
