Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 26
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Discussions revolve around the blurring of concepts related to entities, non-entities, and perception, focusing on Chapter Five's Verse 6
Description
In session 26, discussions revolve around the blurring of concepts related to entities, non-entities, and perception, focusing on Chapter Five’s Verse 6. The lecture questions traditional views of entities, emphasizing the practical nature of faith in Buddhism and its evolution from an emotional response to deep understanding. The analysis then shifts to desire and the desirous one, examining coexistence and its implications. Counterarguments challenge coexistence, raising questions about desire’s nature and the interplay between mental states 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."
Any reflections on what we suggested
reflecting on yesterday?
At the end of the class I said something,
which is all blurred now in my mind, but it was
I remember it as pretty coherent
and it came out anybody
remembers? Or anybody thought
of something?
Otherwise...
in verse 6, in stanza 6, in the fifth chapter, "What entity, nonentity, or otherwise would be the knower of entity and nonentity?" So this is in terms yeah verse oh there's this shift wait a minute yeah the second part of second half of 6, right? "If there's no entity, of what would that be no entity?" That's what we ended up talking about yesterday. That if there are no entities as according to what we have found, there's no way to talk of entities
because apart from things that carry characteristics and characteristics themselves, there are no entities. And carriers of characteristics do not make sense whether we think of them as existing in a sort of naked state without characteristics, ready to receive characteristics, that doesn't make sense, because those are then not bearers of characteristics; if they have no characteristics, they are nothing. And if we say that they already are present, ready-made with characteristics, then what is it that we mean when we say that there are characteristics that apply to them? So whether we think of the carriers of characteristics as present with or without characteristics to begin with, then the notion of characteristics that apply to those and are associated with those, does not make sense. And if there are no carriers of characteristics, then what do we mean when talking about characteristics, if they don't belong to anything? So in that way, since there are no bearers of characteristics and no characteristics, there are no entities. And then we ended up looking at the beginning of 6 that says, if there is no entity, of what would there be no entity? So if we say okay nothing, that there is nothing, then nothing is a no thing is an indication of thing, and since we now long no longer know what we mean by thing, then how could we pretend to know what we mean by no thing? So that is the point which is made in those two lines which is of course a super important point that needs to be made. It's a very simple point but it's one that it's nonetheless for who knows why, whichever reasons is easily overlooked, because part of it is also quite easy part of the reason for why one can miss that point is, of course, the fact that the way the reasoning operates is in terms of negating stuff, right? And if everything seems to be swept off the table, then maybe we conclude that then there's nothing, yeah? But of course if no thing makes sense, how could we pretend that nothing makes any superior sense? That's clearly a dead end, and that's been pointed out very clearly here, yeah?
So now in the last two lines of 6, it says "What entity, non entity, or otherwise, would be the knower of entity and non entity?" So then we could sort of appeal to the subject and the subjective consciousness and say because it's possible to have these that there's something that knows all of this and, therefore, if there's something that knows all of this, then there are also those things, yeah? So this could be understood as some sort of appeal to experience, no? Or subjectivity.
That there is a person who knows this, or I exist and know these things, that's also a way that we can easily think that, well but for me it really looks like there are these things, and so they must exist somehow, yeah? But who am I pointing to when I say that I exist, or there's this mind that knows this, is it an entity, a non entity, or otherwise? Those are precisely the principles that we have just had to dismiss, entities didn't work and non entity certainly didn't work. And what other than something or nothing could it be that knows all of this? Does it really, does it help to bring in the subject here? Does it provide any superior support for the seeming reality of bearers of characteristics and their characteristics for things, and absences? What would you say? Is there anything gained at all by pointing to the subject or pointing to experience, the mind and so on at this point?
Student: "Well, up until this point there hasn't been anything as an established referent for any of experience. Nothing has been validated really at all, and so it seems like the sort of tunnels of opportunity, if you will, to respond and react to this analysis with, we're sort of running out of. And then it.. it doesn't immediately necessitate a sense of spaciousness. But I think if you can build the resource to withstand the kind of dissonance that's underneath that, or that we have to push through in order to experience that, then I do think that's a potential. But otherwise it's very it's creating a lot of dissonance about experience in my view." But I don't think I understood, can you repeat again? Repeat everything? Yeah I didn't understand in which way you think that there's some scope... "I'm saying up until this point there has been no established referent, right, we don't have a single building block for experience that we can look at and validate through Nāgārjuna's analysis." Well we've been talking about things that come into being, about movement, about seeing, we've talked about.. "Right, we're talking about them, and then what is the final conclusion? That it doesn't actually exist in the way that we experience it." So now does it help at this point to begin to talk about the subject, there is this perception of things, so these things must exist? I think it is, it's necessary to talk about that otherwise people have nowhere else to go in their own response and reaction to this." And then when we go there, what what happens? "And then I was saying I think like immediately the experience I'm having is one of dissonance, of kind of, yeah discomfort around what is being kind of blurred, I guess, about my experience, which is everything. But if there's enough patience and resource and I guess faith here, then there is also moments of spaciousness that can come from just holding that dissonance there. But the hope is that it's going to inform experience in a way that's liberating, rather than just maddening, yeah? So that's still..." Do you think we need to hope about that? "Yeah, I think I do."
I mean if we say enlightening and awakening in a sort of deeper sense, no then for sure, I would, unless we are very very very unusual, then definitely. But whether it is something that...
It's a good question, no? Like it's a real at this point of a really really relevant question, I think. It comes down to what to do with all of this, yeah?
Yeah, it's a very interesting question. So at this point do we have to.. when we feel that the whole framework of object, agent, and action, of bearers of characteristics and characteristics, things and no thing, when all of that no longer is meaningful under analysis, of course, because we're not saying that we are totally perplexed all the time now by... But when we analyze, then that's what happens.
What is the outcome of this?
Do we, us people in our situation, do we have to just hope that it would be useful? Or is there some other way of benefiting concretely from it?
Well, what do you all think?
"Well, just to follow up, I think for me there has to be hope, because the way that it informs behavior would have to be very skillful. Our entire world is built around what is being shown to be a misconception, the entire global economy is built around trying to be convinced of the need for external situations to improve, and possessions to be gathered in order to feel more successful. Our entire notion of what it means to be a successful individual both in society but also on a global scale is built around actually this confusion. This isreally a profitable confusion. So I think it's not we have to be really careful, I think, in the beginning of holding this dissonance, that that's coming, you know, instead of running back to the dinner table and being like hey mom, hey dad, hey son, hey daughter, actually nothing exists the way that you think it does, you know I think we have to.. we can't assume that this kind of analysis is going to take place outside of a space like this." No, that's perhaps a different question... What I'm thinking now is us, people like us, who have spent a little bit of time trying to think about it and..
for whom that conclusion is not like a sort of something that we imagine what it would be like. It's knowing how these concepts they lose their meaning under analysis. So at that time,
do we have to just hope that it will be useful? I think that is saying a little too much to really understand the deeper implications. Of course this is like the opening of the path, you could say, you know? But if on the other hand if it is the opening of the path, then there ought to be something that we can notice also. And maybe, like what you just said about the way our world works and the way we find ourselves in the world, meaning the way we think about ourselves as living beings in this world, is then built on something that we can now see is illusory, or whatever we say like a dream yeah. So if just allowing oneself to take that in, no? I think exactly what you said, that the whole.. all what we think of as the measure of success and all what we think of as demands and necessities in this world, not just our status, but what we really need, at the most fundamental level, if it's possible to just some...
Okay, needs, if you have what you need in all regards, then fine that there are needs, no? But as soon as there's some need, that is still something that I need and is not here yet, then needs are not something that pleasant, no? And if I do get at myself, there's so many things that I feel I need, so to be able to just in a moment see that this really is illusory, could perhaps have a very deep impact. So that it's not that I just have to hope, but it's something that I can really acknowledge experientially, yeah? But then, as you say, we have to develop a skill, that's key! It's not just a matter of thinking like that and then relaxing a bit and then all is fine and dandy, but perhaps the way that those needs will then manifest next time, will be quite different. At least, they have there's no reason why they shouldn't be, come across very different. That's kind of in our own hand, no? Like the teaching says: "I show you the path to liberation but whether you take it or not depends on yourself." So all of this certainly doesn't mean that
our perceptions and, what to say...
Yeah so there's a.. I think there is a possibility to really approach it, the understanding that comes in a in a practical way that will allow in practical ways also for new perceptions. And then they may invite faith, like they say once you understand more about the truth of the teachings, if we can speak like that, in those terms, then there's a new kind of faith, the more that we become aware of the profundity of the Dharma, the more profound our own faith also will be become. And everyone.. and that kind of faith which is then..
it's also a very interesting word in the Buddhist context,
sort of delighting in and being inspired by the good and the real. So it's not so much a matter of being convinced or having sort of articles of faith. I think there's very little resonance there in the Buddhist teachings. But as a factor as a mental factor, as it is in Abhidharma, it is I think tremendously important any kind of Buddhist framework that you look into, and any Buddhist teacher, I think, will agree you know, that this is key.
But that's different from from hoping I would say.
Student: "Thomas if you feel comfortable, would you be willing to share like any example of some change that you perceived after you studied these teachings? Did it affect, how it affected your perception?
Yeah, I think in a way, all of what I try to say here is based on my own limited practical experience with this.
Yeah, so...
Yeah, so it's kind of, I mean what we're what we're talking about is something that has applicability everywhere. It 's something that there's no context where it's not potentially meaningful. So it's something that I try to acknowledge in as far as I at all can.
And I think the beauty of it is that it's also something that one can very quickly come to acknowledge this.
Like where we are at now. Okay, it took a few days, but it is nothing compared to when you think about like.. it's just a little bit of thinking, and trying to be honest to oneself and sincere in the situation. Like questioning what really do I mean? Where do I come from? What do I believe? What do I do? Then if just meeting these teachings in that kind of way we can..
If we can be in a situation where it's obvious that this is something that has infinite implications,
it can help in so many small ways, of course. And I have very limited sort of experience if you want to talk about that, no meditation experience and so on. But at least to be able to come to that point makes a huge, huge difference. And if we can really see that, then it's also not really very different to just acknowledge it as we did, as we just tried to talk about before. It's not that we then have to hope, it's something that we can actually feel the benefit of as well.
Student: "Could you talk a little bit more about what this hope-based faith article of faith-type faith is versus faith as a mental factor? How do we distinguish between the two and exercise the latter, not the former?"
Well I think a general perspective in Buddhism is not that.. Buddhism is very practical, extremely practical.
So that in itself means that it doesn't really matter how you say things, and what you think, it's more what really is going on. Like that kind of, of course, that's a very sort of very simplified way of saying it but I think it still holds. There's this kind of valuing of the practical, concrete experiential dimension, much more than anything else. So if we are used to thinking that religion is something you believe in, that religion, that Dharma is a faith, a faith that you need to be able to speak and confess your faith in and so on, then I think maybe we miss a lot of the point.
Also the fact that are these stages of faith that we can be moved by something in a sort of emotional way and just be taken by something, the beauty of some event it's like coming into.. could be seeing an image of the Buddha that just we respond to the beauty of it. That is one kind of faith according to Buddhism. So it's interesting that something like that would be classified as faith. Or if we see an act of generosity and that touches you, that's also faith. It doesn't mean that we can enumerate qualities of the Buddha and that we know the principles of generosity and so on, but just this kind of response is one kind of faith. And then at sort of more advanced stages, when one begins to think wow there's something there that I I want to get closer to, I want to be more like that, there's something there that seems worthwhile and it's not just something that spontaneously happened now, but it's also something that can make a difference in my life, and for others, etc.
And then a further stage in faith is when one then begins to understand. So you could say what we
what we are doing here is working with that, honing that capacity for faith that has seen the reason. And they become increasingly stable, become increasingly part of our continuous stream of being, the more we cultivate those.
So that's.. and then finally to be able to go beyond the whole framework of
actually the framework that is under analysis here, that the way we.. our conceptual minds structure the world, the way we think of ourselves, to be able to transcend that, and see beyond those in a very profound way is called seeing reality. And it's also referred to as as achieving irreversible faith. So it's clear that faith is not something that you either have or don't have. It's something that you can work with, that you will work with and...
So I think that is very important to acknowledge, in particular if one is used to thinking for better or worse, or rightly or wrongly that faith is very much about confessing one's faith, professing one's faith, I guess, that having the right kind of faith in a way that can be formulated and defined. And that that is really it. Of course, then what are the objects of refuge and how do we take refuge in Buddha Dharma and Sangha? All of that is something that is, can be very complex. So it's not that there are no articles of faith to study. But when we study them it's for that kind of practical application. And then I guess it's also interesting to note that in the Mahāyāna, to which these teachings belong, faith which has very much to do also with refuge, going for refuge, faith is something that is cultivated for the sake of others. So that is also I think an incredible, incredibly profound.. What to say?
..distinctive quality of the kind of faith that we talk about. I don't know another religion where it would be said like that, that you cultivate faith for others. That's very beautiful. Yeah, anything else?
So then we get to a conclusion that says, "Space, therefore, is not an entity, not a nonentity, not a bearer of characteristics, and not a characteristic." So we started out thinking that we know what space is.
And yeah, when this word is spoken, I also feel that I know what space is, like the the whole sense of it is like that. But I can also in the next second see that space couldn't be an entity, a nonentity, it couldn't be something that has characteristics and it couldn't be a set of characteristics either. So that is the conclusion that Nāgārjuna puts in our mouth, yeah? And yeah, as always, if we're not quite there yet, then we have to look very carefully at why, and where, and how it is that we are not exactly with him in drawing that conclusion. And the conclusion is extended, so there it comes to pertain in the case of the other elements as well. The other five elements: earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness, if we say those six elements, then they are in the exact same way. So earth is not an entity, not a nonentity, it is not something that has characteristics, and it's not a set of characteristics either, and so on. And that then leads to a conclusion that says in 8, "The feebleminded who see things in terms of existence and nonexistence fail to see what is to be seen-- the peace of complete pacification."
So that can, I think take us back to what we were talking about before, in terms of the benefits of seeing this, of understanding these things.
By being intimidated by this and sort of shying away from taking this approach, and insisting on seeing things that exist versus things that don't exist, then we fail to see what actually should be seen.
So continuously missing what shouldn't be missed.
So that is a very kind advice, no, to give at this point, reminding us of the profound purpose of the text, and then of course, and yeah also interesting to see what is to be seen. We just had that critique of seeing and so on. But these words can still be used but with a very much enhanced significance than what we would otherwise get from just talking about coming to see something, understand something.
And that concludes Chapter Five in the Mūlamadhyamaka. And after that follows analysis of desire and the desirous one. That is also a very interesting angle to take on this.
So the commentary says that up until this point we have.. The preceding chapters have refuted the self of phenomena, because what is it that according to Abhidharma would be something that exists but without a personal self, as we began talking about it originally when we started these talks? Those are elements, sense sources, the aggregates, those factors of the psychophysical world which don't support any self as a singular, enduring, controlling individual, but nonetheless are the components based on which it's possible to construct the existence of such an individual. But now with these analyses those very factors have been seen to be just as constructed as the personal self.
And the next three analyses will only be able to deal with the first of those three, and they, according to Mabja Jangchub Tsondru, they are concerned with refuting counter arguments. So someone says, but "But hey wait a minute," and then there's a distinct chapter to address the counter arguments. So one of the nice things about Mabja's commentary is that it explains very comprehensively a kind of structure of the text, and a relation between the arguments, sorry the chapters, which is not really there to my knowledge in other commentaries to the same extent. So it's very easy to wonder what is all this when you open the Mūlamadhyamaka, but Mabja has a very nice way of giving an interpretation of how you can see a particular progression also in the analysis. So he says that the analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that follows from as a counter argument. Someone says, "But hey wait a minute, there is someone who.. there's desire, would you deny that? And there's someone who desires. So if there is, if there's that, then it follows as well that that there's something to that is desired, there's something that one wants to avoid. Those things come in and out of existence as does the desire itself. There's movement towards those objects of desire and turning away from other things, etc. So the whole framework that you have now expended so much energy trying to deny is still there very much. And we can understand that just by noticing the way that desire and the one who desires are noticeable. So then in response to that the first stanza says,
"If before the presence of desire, the desirous one exists without desire, based on that, there would be a desire. When the desirous one exists, so does desire." So this is similar to the way we talked about the elements and space. Here we're saying that it would make sense to say that there's someone who desires, and an emotion of desire, or an affliction of desire if that desirous one, whether we talk about it as primary mind, like the main six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a mental state of desire, or whether we talk about it as a person, and that person's desire. A lot of the commentaries, they talk about the Abhidharma framework where it's the consciousness, like the manifestation of the six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a particular mental state within, or associated with that, which is desire. But we could also think of it in terms of just a person and that person's desire. So if there was something that can become desirous, then it would make.. then something like that could happen.
But that would require that there's something there to begin with which isn't desirous, and then becomes desire. But the desirous one cannot... the one who desires cannot be present before desire. In the moment there's desire the desirous one is already present. So this kind of sequential relation is impossible. "Yet if the desirous one does not exist how could there possibly be desire?" So if we say that...if on the other hand then we say that, well, those two imply one another, and there's no sequential there's no sequential relation there, then how can we say that someone becomes desirous? That doesn't make sense. So just as we talk about pre-existing mind, that the pre-existing.. just as we can talk about the... what should we say? The one that desires and the state of desire, just as we can talk, just as we can dismiss the possibility of desire and the desirous one by thinking in terms of a pre-existing desirous one, or a desirous one that doesn't exist any earlier than the state of desire, we can turn it around, of course also, and say if it doesn't make sense for there to be desire before the desirous one, nor does it make sense for there to be no desire before the desires one, yeah? "Given the presence or absence of desire, this follows also in the case of the desirous one."
So that's about sequence between the two. But maybe we don't think that's necessary, after all we're talking about a mind and a mental state. So when the desire is there, my consciousness is there afflicted by desire. So why can't we just say that they coexist as we began talking about also yesterday I think? And that's what we look at then specifically over some following stanzas. "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together. In this case desire and the desirous one would not depend on one another."
So if two things are, if two things coexist, then what is being said here is that they cannot depend on each other.
So coexist, what does that mean? Yeah let's see. As usual it's not so much a matter of understanding what the text means by a particular concept, but more a matter of noticing what we ourselves associate with a particular concept.
Yeah, coexist means to exist together and if two things exist together then they couldn't be dependent on each other. Is that intuitively plausible? Or...
In any case if.. I think also it's safe to say that a lot of our thoughts don't really reflect that, because we think that "well, my consciousness exists as a desiring consciousness because there is desire." So there's a sort of dependence. And desires desire because there's a consciousness that can partake of that kind of emotion. But here it is said that they.. if they really arise together, then.. before we looked at why they can't be sequential, and then now it is said that they cannot arise together either because in that case they would not depend on each other.
Then about the reasons for that? First, "Identical things are not coexistent, as nothing is coexistent with itself." So if we were talking about the very same thing, if it was just two ways of saying the same thing basically, whether I say the desirous one or desire, if they were one and the same then they couldn't be coexistent, because nothing can be coexistent with itself, no? Or if that is the case, then everything is coexistent with.. What is the point of talking about coexistence then, no? If one is completely alone in the world then that one is still coexistent with oneself? So that couldn't be the case. And "Yet if they are different (from each other), then how could they be coexistent?"
So the commentary has two ways of looking at that, which I think are both interesting in very different ways. One is to say that things that really are different from each other cannot occupy the same space, or fill the same situation sort of, the exact same. If it's two things that in physical terms really are different from each other, then they couldn't take up the same space, they couldn't coexist in that way. And the same if we talk about mental events, although it's a bit more.. let's say, it is perhaps easier to see the.. what is at stake in the example of physical things. But if we talk about two mental events that are really different from each other, they couldn't occur at once. If I have two different experiences that are really intrinsically different from each other, then I couldn't have them at the same time. I might be able to have them very, one after the other in very rapid sequence, but I couldn't have them just at the same time. If I could, then it wouldn't make sense to say that they were essentially different from each other. Then they would be part of of the same.
And if we say we say that things that are essentially different from each other can still coexist, then we can also in the same way as we looked at other in the past there are various sort of absurdities that follow from that when we take.. when we say that things that are really different, characteristically different from each other, can coexist. Then we can take things that clearly don't coexist, that are characterized by difference, and say that they exist. So the commentary says like a horse on a mountain in the east and a cow on a mountain in the west, they could still coexist.
Yeah, then maybe that's
that's what we should stop at for today.
Yeah, let's do that. So in other words, what we have been looking at is this counter argument where we have the idea that it's possible to have desire and then something that desires like a consciousness that desires, and because that is possible, then we'll have to accept all the other things that have been refuted anyway. And because then in response to that idea, first we have talked about how a sequential relation between those isn't possible. It's not possible to say that first there is a desirous one that then becomes desire desirous, because if the desirous one is already present, then of course also the state of desire is there. And otherwise if we say that the desirous one is not present, then we have already said it, that desirous one does not precede desire. So in whichever way we look at it, a sequential relation is not possible with respect to desire and that which desires. And then we went right into this idea that it doesn't have to be like that, that things can be dependent on each other and still be coexistent, like for example desire and the desirous one. But then we are beginning to now consider that if things really are coexistent, then any sense of dependence is lost. And ry to dwell on that at home and see
what you can you think of that. There are many examples also in Buddhist philosophy of simultaneous cause and effect. But there are also many Buddhist approaches that say some something like that is not possible. But be that as it may in our minds, how reasonable is it for things to coexist?
To coexist and be dependent?
So we talked about in 3: "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together." Desire and the desirous one would not depend on each other. And in 4, identical things cannot be coexistent, because what is then coexistent with what? It's one and the same thing. And so nothing is coexistent with itself, and yet if they are different, how could they be co-existent? So if we had two things that are by nature different from each other, then they could not be coexistent because we have said that they are in and of themselves different from each other. So how could they exist coextensively? How could the presence of one be the presence of the other? That's the kind of notion that that we're looking at here. If the desirous one is there, then the emotion is there. The presence of the emotion of desire is the presence of the desirous one. If that is the case, then they couldn't be different from each other? And then tomorrow we will continue at that point. All right, thank you. See you tomorrow.
in verse 6, in stanza 6, in the fifth chapter, "What entity, nonentity, or otherwise would be the knower of entity and nonentity?" So this is in terms yeah verse oh there's this shift wait a minute yeah the second part of second half of 6, right? "If there's no entity, of what would that be no entity?" That's what we ended up talking about yesterday. That if there are no entities as according to what we have found, there's no way to talk of entities
because apart from things that carry characteristics and characteristics themselves, there are no entities. And carriers of characteristics do not make sense whether we think of them as existing in a sort of naked state without characteristics, ready to receive characteristics, that doesn't make sense, because those are then not bearers of characteristics; if they have no characteristics, they are nothing. And if we say that they already are present, ready-made with characteristics, then what is it that we mean when we say that there are characteristics that apply to them? So whether we think of the carriers of characteristics as present with or without characteristics to begin with, then the notion of characteristics that apply to those and are associated with those, does not make sense. And if there are no carriers of characteristics, then what do we mean when talking about characteristics, if they don't belong to anything? So in that way, since there are no bearers of characteristics and no characteristics, there are no entities. And then we ended up looking at the beginning of 6 that says, if there is no entity, of what would there be no entity? So if we say okay nothing, that there is nothing, then nothing is a no thing is an indication of thing, and since we now long no longer know what we mean by thing, then how could we pretend to know what we mean by no thing? So that is the point which is made in those two lines which is of course a super important point that needs to be made. It's a very simple point but it's one that it's nonetheless for who knows why, whichever reasons is easily overlooked, because part of it is also quite easy part of the reason for why one can miss that point is, of course, the fact that the way the reasoning operates is in terms of negating stuff, right? And if everything seems to be swept off the table, then maybe we conclude that then there's nothing, yeah? But of course if no thing makes sense, how could we pretend that nothing makes any superior sense? That's clearly a dead end, and that's been pointed out very clearly here, yeah?
So now in the last two lines of 6, it says "What entity, non entity, or otherwise, would be the knower of entity and non entity?" So then we could sort of appeal to the subject and the subjective consciousness and say because it's possible to have these that there's something that knows all of this and, therefore, if there's something that knows all of this, then there are also those things, yeah? So this could be understood as some sort of appeal to experience, no? Or subjectivity.
That there is a person who knows this, or I exist and know these things, that's also a way that we can easily think that, well but for me it really looks like there are these things, and so they must exist somehow, yeah? But who am I pointing to when I say that I exist, or there's this mind that knows this, is it an entity, a non entity, or otherwise? Those are precisely the principles that we have just had to dismiss, entities didn't work and non entity certainly didn't work. And what other than something or nothing could it be that knows all of this? Does it really, does it help to bring in the subject here? Does it provide any superior support for the seeming reality of bearers of characteristics and their characteristics for things, and absences? What would you say? Is there anything gained at all by pointing to the subject or pointing to experience, the mind and so on at this point?
Student: "Well, up until this point there hasn't been anything as an established referent for any of experience. Nothing has been validated really at all, and so it seems like the sort of tunnels of opportunity, if you will, to respond and react to this analysis with, we're sort of running out of. And then it.. it doesn't immediately necessitate a sense of spaciousness. But I think if you can build the resource to withstand the kind of dissonance that's underneath that, or that we have to push through in order to experience that, then I do think that's a potential. But otherwise it's very it's creating a lot of dissonance about experience in my view." But I don't think I understood, can you repeat again? Repeat everything? Yeah I didn't understand in which way you think that there's some scope... "I'm saying up until this point there has been no established referent, right, we don't have a single building block for experience that we can look at and validate through Nāgārjuna's analysis." Well we've been talking about things that come into being, about movement, about seeing, we've talked about.. "Right, we're talking about them, and then what is the final conclusion? That it doesn't actually exist in the way that we experience it." So now does it help at this point to begin to talk about the subject, there is this perception of things, so these things must exist? I think it is, it's necessary to talk about that otherwise people have nowhere else to go in their own response and reaction to this." And then when we go there, what what happens? "And then I was saying I think like immediately the experience I'm having is one of dissonance, of kind of, yeah discomfort around what is being kind of blurred, I guess, about my experience, which is everything. But if there's enough patience and resource and I guess faith here, then there is also moments of spaciousness that can come from just holding that dissonance there. But the hope is that it's going to inform experience in a way that's liberating, rather than just maddening, yeah? So that's still..." Do you think we need to hope about that? "Yeah, I think I do."
I mean if we say enlightening and awakening in a sort of deeper sense, no then for sure, I would, unless we are very very very unusual, then definitely. But whether it is something that...
It's a good question, no? Like it's a real at this point of a really really relevant question, I think. It comes down to what to do with all of this, yeah?
Yeah, it's a very interesting question. So at this point do we have to.. when we feel that the whole framework of object, agent, and action, of bearers of characteristics and characteristics, things and no thing, when all of that no longer is meaningful under analysis, of course, because we're not saying that we are totally perplexed all the time now by... But when we analyze, then that's what happens.
What is the outcome of this?
Do we, us people in our situation, do we have to just hope that it would be useful? Or is there some other way of benefiting concretely from it?
Well, what do you all think?
"Well, just to follow up, I think for me there has to be hope, because the way that it informs behavior would have to be very skillful. Our entire world is built around what is being shown to be a misconception, the entire global economy is built around trying to be convinced of the need for external situations to improve, and possessions to be gathered in order to feel more successful. Our entire notion of what it means to be a successful individual both in society but also on a global scale is built around actually this confusion. This isreally a profitable confusion. So I think it's not we have to be really careful, I think, in the beginning of holding this dissonance, that that's coming, you know, instead of running back to the dinner table and being like hey mom, hey dad, hey son, hey daughter, actually nothing exists the way that you think it does, you know I think we have to.. we can't assume that this kind of analysis is going to take place outside of a space like this." No, that's perhaps a different question... What I'm thinking now is us, people like us, who have spent a little bit of time trying to think about it and..
for whom that conclusion is not like a sort of something that we imagine what it would be like. It's knowing how these concepts they lose their meaning under analysis. So at that time,
do we have to just hope that it will be useful? I think that is saying a little too much to really understand the deeper implications. Of course this is like the opening of the path, you could say, you know? But if on the other hand if it is the opening of the path, then there ought to be something that we can notice also. And maybe, like what you just said about the way our world works and the way we find ourselves in the world, meaning the way we think about ourselves as living beings in this world, is then built on something that we can now see is illusory, or whatever we say like a dream yeah. So if just allowing oneself to take that in, no? I think exactly what you said, that the whole.. all what we think of as the measure of success and all what we think of as demands and necessities in this world, not just our status, but what we really need, at the most fundamental level, if it's possible to just some...
Okay, needs, if you have what you need in all regards, then fine that there are needs, no? But as soon as there's some need, that is still something that I need and is not here yet, then needs are not something that pleasant, no? And if I do get at myself, there's so many things that I feel I need, so to be able to just in a moment see that this really is illusory, could perhaps have a very deep impact. So that it's not that I just have to hope, but it's something that I can really acknowledge experientially, yeah? But then, as you say, we have to develop a skill, that's key! It's not just a matter of thinking like that and then relaxing a bit and then all is fine and dandy, but perhaps the way that those needs will then manifest next time, will be quite different. At least, they have there's no reason why they shouldn't be, come across very different. That's kind of in our own hand, no? Like the teaching says: "I show you the path to liberation but whether you take it or not depends on yourself." So all of this certainly doesn't mean that
our perceptions and, what to say...
Yeah so there's a.. I think there is a possibility to really approach it, the understanding that comes in a in a practical way that will allow in practical ways also for new perceptions. And then they may invite faith, like they say once you understand more about the truth of the teachings, if we can speak like that, in those terms, then there's a new kind of faith, the more that we become aware of the profundity of the Dharma, the more profound our own faith also will be become. And everyone.. and that kind of faith which is then..
it's also a very interesting word in the Buddhist context,
sort of delighting in and being inspired by the good and the real. So it's not so much a matter of being convinced or having sort of articles of faith. I think there's very little resonance there in the Buddhist teachings. But as a factor as a mental factor, as it is in Abhidharma, it is I think tremendously important any kind of Buddhist framework that you look into, and any Buddhist teacher, I think, will agree you know, that this is key.
But that's different from from hoping I would say.
Student: "Thomas if you feel comfortable, would you be willing to share like any example of some change that you perceived after you studied these teachings? Did it affect, how it affected your perception?
Yeah, I think in a way, all of what I try to say here is based on my own limited practical experience with this.
Yeah, so...
Yeah, so it's kind of, I mean what we're what we're talking about is something that has applicability everywhere. It 's something that there's no context where it's not potentially meaningful. So it's something that I try to acknowledge in as far as I at all can.
And I think the beauty of it is that it's also something that one can very quickly come to acknowledge this.
Like where we are at now. Okay, it took a few days, but it is nothing compared to when you think about like.. it's just a little bit of thinking, and trying to be honest to oneself and sincere in the situation. Like questioning what really do I mean? Where do I come from? What do I believe? What do I do? Then if just meeting these teachings in that kind of way we can..
If we can be in a situation where it's obvious that this is something that has infinite implications,
it can help in so many small ways, of course. And I have very limited sort of experience if you want to talk about that, no meditation experience and so on. But at least to be able to come to that point makes a huge, huge difference. And if we can really see that, then it's also not really very different to just acknowledge it as we did, as we just tried to talk about before. It's not that we then have to hope, it's something that we can actually feel the benefit of as well.
Student: "Could you talk a little bit more about what this hope-based faith article of faith-type faith is versus faith as a mental factor? How do we distinguish between the two and exercise the latter, not the former?"
Well I think a general perspective in Buddhism is not that.. Buddhism is very practical, extremely practical.
So that in itself means that it doesn't really matter how you say things, and what you think, it's more what really is going on. Like that kind of, of course, that's a very sort of very simplified way of saying it but I think it still holds. There's this kind of valuing of the practical, concrete experiential dimension, much more than anything else. So if we are used to thinking that religion is something you believe in, that religion, that Dharma is a faith, a faith that you need to be able to speak and confess your faith in and so on, then I think maybe we miss a lot of the point.
Also the fact that are these stages of faith that we can be moved by something in a sort of emotional way and just be taken by something, the beauty of some event it's like coming into.. could be seeing an image of the Buddha that just we respond to the beauty of it. That is one kind of faith according to Buddhism. So it's interesting that something like that would be classified as faith. Or if we see an act of generosity and that touches you, that's also faith. It doesn't mean that we can enumerate qualities of the Buddha and that we know the principles of generosity and so on, but just this kind of response is one kind of faith. And then at sort of more advanced stages, when one begins to think wow there's something there that I I want to get closer to, I want to be more like that, there's something there that seems worthwhile and it's not just something that spontaneously happened now, but it's also something that can make a difference in my life, and for others, etc.
And then a further stage in faith is when one then begins to understand. So you could say what we
what we are doing here is working with that, honing that capacity for faith that has seen the reason. And they become increasingly stable, become increasingly part of our continuous stream of being, the more we cultivate those.
So that's.. and then finally to be able to go beyond the whole framework of
actually the framework that is under analysis here, that the way we.. our conceptual minds structure the world, the way we think of ourselves, to be able to transcend that, and see beyond those in a very profound way is called seeing reality. And it's also referred to as as achieving irreversible faith. So it's clear that faith is not something that you either have or don't have. It's something that you can work with, that you will work with and...
So I think that is very important to acknowledge, in particular if one is used to thinking for better or worse, or rightly or wrongly that faith is very much about confessing one's faith, professing one's faith, I guess, that having the right kind of faith in a way that can be formulated and defined. And that that is really it. Of course, then what are the objects of refuge and how do we take refuge in Buddha Dharma and Sangha? All of that is something that is, can be very complex. So it's not that there are no articles of faith to study. But when we study them it's for that kind of practical application. And then I guess it's also interesting to note that in the Mahāyāna, to which these teachings belong, faith which has very much to do also with refuge, going for refuge, faith is something that is cultivated for the sake of others. So that is also I think an incredible, incredibly profound.. What to say?
..distinctive quality of the kind of faith that we talk about. I don't know another religion where it would be said like that, that you cultivate faith for others. That's very beautiful. Yeah, anything else?
So then we get to a conclusion that says, "Space, therefore, is not an entity, not a nonentity, not a bearer of characteristics, and not a characteristic." So we started out thinking that we know what space is.
And yeah, when this word is spoken, I also feel that I know what space is, like the the whole sense of it is like that. But I can also in the next second see that space couldn't be an entity, a nonentity, it couldn't be something that has characteristics and it couldn't be a set of characteristics either. So that is the conclusion that Nāgārjuna puts in our mouth, yeah? And yeah, as always, if we're not quite there yet, then we have to look very carefully at why, and where, and how it is that we are not exactly with him in drawing that conclusion. And the conclusion is extended, so there it comes to pertain in the case of the other elements as well. The other five elements: earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness, if we say those six elements, then they are in the exact same way. So earth is not an entity, not a nonentity, it is not something that has characteristics, and it's not a set of characteristics either, and so on. And that then leads to a conclusion that says in 8, "The feebleminded who see things in terms of existence and nonexistence fail to see what is to be seen-- the peace of complete pacification."
So that can, I think take us back to what we were talking about before, in terms of the benefits of seeing this, of understanding these things.
By being intimidated by this and sort of shying away from taking this approach, and insisting on seeing things that exist versus things that don't exist, then we fail to see what actually should be seen.
So continuously missing what shouldn't be missed.
So that is a very kind advice, no, to give at this point, reminding us of the profound purpose of the text, and then of course, and yeah also interesting to see what is to be seen. We just had that critique of seeing and so on. But these words can still be used but with a very much enhanced significance than what we would otherwise get from just talking about coming to see something, understand something.
And that concludes Chapter Five in the Mūlamadhyamaka. And after that follows analysis of desire and the desirous one. That is also a very interesting angle to take on this.
So the commentary says that up until this point we have.. The preceding chapters have refuted the self of phenomena, because what is it that according to Abhidharma would be something that exists but without a personal self, as we began talking about it originally when we started these talks? Those are elements, sense sources, the aggregates, those factors of the psychophysical world which don't support any self as a singular, enduring, controlling individual, but nonetheless are the components based on which it's possible to construct the existence of such an individual. But now with these analyses those very factors have been seen to be just as constructed as the personal self.
And the next three analyses will only be able to deal with the first of those three, and they, according to Mabja Jangchub Tsondru, they are concerned with refuting counter arguments. So someone says, but "But hey wait a minute," and then there's a distinct chapter to address the counter arguments. So one of the nice things about Mabja's commentary is that it explains very comprehensively a kind of structure of the text, and a relation between the arguments, sorry the chapters, which is not really there to my knowledge in other commentaries to the same extent. So it's very easy to wonder what is all this when you open the Mūlamadhyamaka, but Mabja has a very nice way of giving an interpretation of how you can see a particular progression also in the analysis. So he says that the analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that follows from as a counter argument. Someone says, "But hey wait a minute, there is someone who.. there's desire, would you deny that? And there's someone who desires. So if there is, if there's that, then it follows as well that that there's something to that is desired, there's something that one wants to avoid. Those things come in and out of existence as does the desire itself. There's movement towards those objects of desire and turning away from other things, etc. So the whole framework that you have now expended so much energy trying to deny is still there very much. And we can understand that just by noticing the way that desire and the one who desires are noticeable. So then in response to that the first stanza says,
"If before the presence of desire, the desirous one exists without desire, based on that, there would be a desire. When the desirous one exists, so does desire." So this is similar to the way we talked about the elements and space. Here we're saying that it would make sense to say that there's someone who desires, and an emotion of desire, or an affliction of desire if that desirous one, whether we talk about it as primary mind, like the main six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a mental state of desire, or whether we talk about it as a person, and that person's desire. A lot of the commentaries, they talk about the Abhidharma framework where it's the consciousness, like the manifestation of the six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a particular mental state within, or associated with that, which is desire. But we could also think of it in terms of just a person and that person's desire. So if there was something that can become desirous, then it would make.. then something like that could happen.
But that would require that there's something there to begin with which isn't desirous, and then becomes desire. But the desirous one cannot... the one who desires cannot be present before desire. In the moment there's desire the desirous one is already present. So this kind of sequential relation is impossible. "Yet if the desirous one does not exist how could there possibly be desire?" So if we say that...if on the other hand then we say that, well, those two imply one another, and there's no sequential there's no sequential relation there, then how can we say that someone becomes desirous? That doesn't make sense. So just as we talk about pre-existing mind, that the pre-existing.. just as we can talk about the... what should we say? The one that desires and the state of desire, just as we can talk, just as we can dismiss the possibility of desire and the desirous one by thinking in terms of a pre-existing desirous one, or a desirous one that doesn't exist any earlier than the state of desire, we can turn it around, of course also, and say if it doesn't make sense for there to be desire before the desirous one, nor does it make sense for there to be no desire before the desires one, yeah? "Given the presence or absence of desire, this follows also in the case of the desirous one."
So that's about sequence between the two. But maybe we don't think that's necessary, after all we're talking about a mind and a mental state. So when the desire is there, my consciousness is there afflicted by desire. So why can't we just say that they coexist as we began talking about also yesterday I think? And that's what we look at then specifically over some following stanzas. "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together. In this case desire and the desirous one would not depend on one another."
So if two things are, if two things coexist, then what is being said here is that they cannot depend on each other.
So coexist, what does that mean? Yeah let's see. As usual it's not so much a matter of understanding what the text means by a particular concept, but more a matter of noticing what we ourselves associate with a particular concept.
Yeah, coexist means to exist together and if two things exist together then they couldn't be dependent on each other. Is that intuitively plausible? Or...
In any case if.. I think also it's safe to say that a lot of our thoughts don't really reflect that, because we think that "well, my consciousness exists as a desiring consciousness because there is desire." So there's a sort of dependence. And desires desire because there's a consciousness that can partake of that kind of emotion. But here it is said that they.. if they really arise together, then.. before we looked at why they can't be sequential, and then now it is said that they cannot arise together either because in that case they would not depend on each other.
Then about the reasons for that? First, "Identical things are not coexistent, as nothing is coexistent with itself." So if we were talking about the very same thing, if it was just two ways of saying the same thing basically, whether I say the desirous one or desire, if they were one and the same then they couldn't be coexistent, because nothing can be coexistent with itself, no? Or if that is the case, then everything is coexistent with.. What is the point of talking about coexistence then, no? If one is completely alone in the world then that one is still coexistent with oneself? So that couldn't be the case. And "Yet if they are different (from each other), then how could they be coexistent?"
So the commentary has two ways of looking at that, which I think are both interesting in very different ways. One is to say that things that really are different from each other cannot occupy the same space, or fill the same situation sort of, the exact same. If it's two things that in physical terms really are different from each other, then they couldn't take up the same space, they couldn't coexist in that way. And the same if we talk about mental events, although it's a bit more.. let's say, it is perhaps easier to see the.. what is at stake in the example of physical things. But if we talk about two mental events that are really different from each other, they couldn't occur at once. If I have two different experiences that are really intrinsically different from each other, then I couldn't have them at the same time. I might be able to have them very, one after the other in very rapid sequence, but I couldn't have them just at the same time. If I could, then it wouldn't make sense to say that they were essentially different from each other. Then they would be part of of the same.
And if we say we say that things that are essentially different from each other can still coexist, then we can also in the same way as we looked at other in the past there are various sort of absurdities that follow from that when we take.. when we say that things that are really different, characteristically different from each other, can coexist. Then we can take things that clearly don't coexist, that are characterized by difference, and say that they exist. So the commentary says like a horse on a mountain in the east and a cow on a mountain in the west, they could still coexist.
Yeah, then maybe that's
that's what we should stop at for today.
Yeah, let's do that. So in other words, what we have been looking at is this counter argument where we have the idea that it's possible to have desire and then something that desires like a consciousness that desires, and because that is possible, then we'll have to accept all the other things that have been refuted anyway. And because then in response to that idea, first we have talked about how a sequential relation between those isn't possible. It's not possible to say that first there is a desirous one that then becomes desire desirous, because if the desirous one is already present, then of course also the state of desire is there. And otherwise if we say that the desirous one is not present, then we have already said it, that desirous one does not precede desire. So in whichever way we look at it, a sequential relation is not possible with respect to desire and that which desires. And then we went right into this idea that it doesn't have to be like that, that things can be dependent on each other and still be coexistent, like for example desire and the desirous one. But then we are beginning to now consider that if things really are coexistent, then any sense of dependence is lost. And ry to dwell on that at home and see
what you can you think of that. There are many examples also in Buddhist philosophy of simultaneous cause and effect. But there are also many Buddhist approaches that say some something like that is not possible. But be that as it may in our minds, how reasonable is it for things to coexist?
To coexist and be dependent?
So we talked about in 3: "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together." Desire and the desirous one would not depend on each other. And in 4, identical things cannot be coexistent, because what is then coexistent with what? It's one and the same thing. And so nothing is coexistent with itself, and yet if they are different, how could they be co-existent? So if we had two things that are by nature different from each other, then they could not be coexistent because we have said that they are in and of themselves different from each other. So how could they exist coextensively? How could the presence of one be the presence of the other? That's the kind of notion that that we're looking at here. If the desirous one is there, then the emotion is there. The presence of the emotion of desire is the presence of the desirous one. If that is the case, then they couldn't be different from each other? And then tomorrow we will continue at that point. All right, thank you. See you tomorrow.
"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."
Any reflections on what we suggested
reflecting on yesterday?
At the end of the class I said something,
which is all blurred now in my mind, but it was
I remember it as pretty coherent
and it came out anybody
remembers? Or anybody thought
of something?
Otherwise...
in verse 6, in stanza 6, in the fifth chapter, "What entity, nonentity, or otherwise would be the knower of entity and nonentity?" So this is in terms yeah verse oh there's this shift wait a minute yeah the second part of second half of 6, right? "If there's no entity, of what would that be no entity?" That's what we ended up talking about yesterday. That if there are no entities as according to what we have found, there's no way to talk of entities
because apart from things that carry characteristics and characteristics themselves, there are no entities. And carriers of characteristics do not make sense whether we think of them as existing in a sort of naked state without characteristics, ready to receive characteristics, that doesn't make sense, because those are then not bearers of characteristics; if they have no characteristics, they are nothing. And if we say that they already are present, ready-made with characteristics, then what is it that we mean when we say that there are characteristics that apply to them? So whether we think of the carriers of characteristics as present with or without characteristics to begin with, then the notion of characteristics that apply to those and are associated with those, does not make sense. And if there are no carriers of characteristics, then what do we mean when talking about characteristics, if they don't belong to anything? So in that way, since there are no bearers of characteristics and no characteristics, there are no entities. And then we ended up looking at the beginning of 6 that says, if there is no entity, of what would there be no entity? So if we say okay nothing, that there is nothing, then nothing is a no thing is an indication of thing, and since we now long no longer know what we mean by thing, then how could we pretend to know what we mean by no thing? So that is the point which is made in those two lines which is of course a super important point that needs to be made. It's a very simple point but it's one that it's nonetheless for who knows why, whichever reasons is easily overlooked, because part of it is also quite easy part of the reason for why one can miss that point is, of course, the fact that the way the reasoning operates is in terms of negating stuff, right? And if everything seems to be swept off the table, then maybe we conclude that then there's nothing, yeah? But of course if no thing makes sense, how could we pretend that nothing makes any superior sense? That's clearly a dead end, and that's been pointed out very clearly here, yeah?
So now in the last two lines of 6, it says "What entity, non entity, or otherwise, would be the knower of entity and non entity?" So then we could sort of appeal to the subject and the subjective consciousness and say because it's possible to have these that there's something that knows all of this and, therefore, if there's something that knows all of this, then there are also those things, yeah? So this could be understood as some sort of appeal to experience, no? Or subjectivity.
That there is a person who knows this, or I exist and know these things, that's also a way that we can easily think that, well but for me it really looks like there are these things, and so they must exist somehow, yeah? But who am I pointing to when I say that I exist, or there's this mind that knows this, is it an entity, a non entity, or otherwise? Those are precisely the principles that we have just had to dismiss, entities didn't work and non entity certainly didn't work. And what other than something or nothing could it be that knows all of this? Does it really, does it help to bring in the subject here? Does it provide any superior support for the seeming reality of bearers of characteristics and their characteristics for things, and absences? What would you say? Is there anything gained at all by pointing to the subject or pointing to experience, the mind and so on at this point?
Student: "Well, up until this point there hasn't been anything as an established referent for any of experience. Nothing has been validated really at all, and so it seems like the sort of tunnels of opportunity, if you will, to respond and react to this analysis with, we're sort of running out of. And then it.. it doesn't immediately necessitate a sense of spaciousness. But I think if you can build the resource to withstand the kind of dissonance that's underneath that, or that we have to push through in order to experience that, then I do think that's a potential. But otherwise it's very it's creating a lot of dissonance about experience in my view." But I don't think I understood, can you repeat again? Repeat everything? Yeah I didn't understand in which way you think that there's some scope... "I'm saying up until this point there has been no established referent, right, we don't have a single building block for experience that we can look at and validate through Nāgārjuna's analysis." Well we've been talking about things that come into being, about movement, about seeing, we've talked about.. "Right, we're talking about them, and then what is the final conclusion? That it doesn't actually exist in the way that we experience it." So now does it help at this point to begin to talk about the subject, there is this perception of things, so these things must exist? I think it is, it's necessary to talk about that otherwise people have nowhere else to go in their own response and reaction to this." And then when we go there, what what happens? "And then I was saying I think like immediately the experience I'm having is one of dissonance, of kind of, yeah discomfort around what is being kind of blurred, I guess, about my experience, which is everything. But if there's enough patience and resource and I guess faith here, then there is also moments of spaciousness that can come from just holding that dissonance there. But the hope is that it's going to inform experience in a way that's liberating, rather than just maddening, yeah? So that's still..." Do you think we need to hope about that? "Yeah, I think I do."
I mean if we say enlightening and awakening in a sort of deeper sense, no then for sure, I would, unless we are very very very unusual, then definitely. But whether it is something that...
It's a good question, no? Like it's a real at this point of a really really relevant question, I think. It comes down to what to do with all of this, yeah?
Yeah, it's a very interesting question. So at this point do we have to.. when we feel that the whole framework of object, agent, and action, of bearers of characteristics and characteristics, things and no thing, when all of that no longer is meaningful under analysis, of course, because we're not saying that we are totally perplexed all the time now by... But when we analyze, then that's what happens.
What is the outcome of this?
Do we, us people in our situation, do we have to just hope that it would be useful? Or is there some other way of benefiting concretely from it?
Well, what do you all think?
"Well, just to follow up, I think for me there has to be hope, because the way that it informs behavior would have to be very skillful. Our entire world is built around what is being shown to be a misconception, the entire global economy is built around trying to be convinced of the need for external situations to improve, and possessions to be gathered in order to feel more successful. Our entire notion of what it means to be a successful individual both in society but also on a global scale is built around actually this confusion. This isreally a profitable confusion. So I think it's not we have to be really careful, I think, in the beginning of holding this dissonance, that that's coming, you know, instead of running back to the dinner table and being like hey mom, hey dad, hey son, hey daughter, actually nothing exists the way that you think it does, you know I think we have to.. we can't assume that this kind of analysis is going to take place outside of a space like this." No, that's perhaps a different question... What I'm thinking now is us, people like us, who have spent a little bit of time trying to think about it and..
for whom that conclusion is not like a sort of something that we imagine what it would be like. It's knowing how these concepts they lose their meaning under analysis. So at that time,
do we have to just hope that it will be useful? I think that is saying a little too much to really understand the deeper implications. Of course this is like the opening of the path, you could say, you know? But if on the other hand if it is the opening of the path, then there ought to be something that we can notice also. And maybe, like what you just said about the way our world works and the way we find ourselves in the world, meaning the way we think about ourselves as living beings in this world, is then built on something that we can now see is illusory, or whatever we say like a dream yeah. So if just allowing oneself to take that in, no? I think exactly what you said, that the whole.. all what we think of as the measure of success and all what we think of as demands and necessities in this world, not just our status, but what we really need, at the most fundamental level, if it's possible to just some...
Okay, needs, if you have what you need in all regards, then fine that there are needs, no? But as soon as there's some need, that is still something that I need and is not here yet, then needs are not something that pleasant, no? And if I do get at myself, there's so many things that I feel I need, so to be able to just in a moment see that this really is illusory, could perhaps have a very deep impact. So that it's not that I just have to hope, but it's something that I can really acknowledge experientially, yeah? But then, as you say, we have to develop a skill, that's key! It's not just a matter of thinking like that and then relaxing a bit and then all is fine and dandy, but perhaps the way that those needs will then manifest next time, will be quite different. At least, they have there's no reason why they shouldn't be, come across very different. That's kind of in our own hand, no? Like the teaching says: "I show you the path to liberation but whether you take it or not depends on yourself." So all of this certainly doesn't mean that
our perceptions and, what to say...
Yeah so there's a.. I think there is a possibility to really approach it, the understanding that comes in a in a practical way that will allow in practical ways also for new perceptions. And then they may invite faith, like they say once you understand more about the truth of the teachings, if we can speak like that, in those terms, then there's a new kind of faith, the more that we become aware of the profundity of the Dharma, the more profound our own faith also will be become. And everyone.. and that kind of faith which is then..
it's also a very interesting word in the Buddhist context,
sort of delighting in and being inspired by the good and the real. So it's not so much a matter of being convinced or having sort of articles of faith. I think there's very little resonance there in the Buddhist teachings. But as a factor as a mental factor, as it is in Abhidharma, it is I think tremendously important any kind of Buddhist framework that you look into, and any Buddhist teacher, I think, will agree you know, that this is key.
But that's different from from hoping I would say.
Student: "Thomas if you feel comfortable, would you be willing to share like any example of some change that you perceived after you studied these teachings? Did it affect, how it affected your perception?
Yeah, I think in a way, all of what I try to say here is based on my own limited practical experience with this.
Yeah, so...
Yeah, so it's kind of, I mean what we're what we're talking about is something that has applicability everywhere. It 's something that there's no context where it's not potentially meaningful. So it's something that I try to acknowledge in as far as I at all can.
And I think the beauty of it is that it's also something that one can very quickly come to acknowledge this.
Like where we are at now. Okay, it took a few days, but it is nothing compared to when you think about like.. it's just a little bit of thinking, and trying to be honest to oneself and sincere in the situation. Like questioning what really do I mean? Where do I come from? What do I believe? What do I do? Then if just meeting these teachings in that kind of way we can..
If we can be in a situation where it's obvious that this is something that has infinite implications,
it can help in so many small ways, of course. And I have very limited sort of experience if you want to talk about that, no meditation experience and so on. But at least to be able to come to that point makes a huge, huge difference. And if we can really see that, then it's also not really very different to just acknowledge it as we did, as we just tried to talk about before. It's not that we then have to hope, it's something that we can actually feel the benefit of as well.
Student: "Could you talk a little bit more about what this hope-based faith article of faith-type faith is versus faith as a mental factor? How do we distinguish between the two and exercise the latter, not the former?"
Well I think a general perspective in Buddhism is not that.. Buddhism is very practical, extremely practical.
So that in itself means that it doesn't really matter how you say things, and what you think, it's more what really is going on. Like that kind of, of course, that's a very sort of very simplified way of saying it but I think it still holds. There's this kind of valuing of the practical, concrete experiential dimension, much more than anything else. So if we are used to thinking that religion is something you believe in, that religion, that Dharma is a faith, a faith that you need to be able to speak and confess your faith in and so on, then I think maybe we miss a lot of the point.
Also the fact that are these stages of faith that we can be moved by something in a sort of emotional way and just be taken by something, the beauty of some event it's like coming into.. could be seeing an image of the Buddha that just we respond to the beauty of it. That is one kind of faith according to Buddhism. So it's interesting that something like that would be classified as faith. Or if we see an act of generosity and that touches you, that's also faith. It doesn't mean that we can enumerate qualities of the Buddha and that we know the principles of generosity and so on, but just this kind of response is one kind of faith. And then at sort of more advanced stages, when one begins to think wow there's something there that I I want to get closer to, I want to be more like that, there's something there that seems worthwhile and it's not just something that spontaneously happened now, but it's also something that can make a difference in my life, and for others, etc.
And then a further stage in faith is when one then begins to understand. So you could say what we
what we are doing here is working with that, honing that capacity for faith that has seen the reason. And they become increasingly stable, become increasingly part of our continuous stream of being, the more we cultivate those.
So that's.. and then finally to be able to go beyond the whole framework of
actually the framework that is under analysis here, that the way we.. our conceptual minds structure the world, the way we think of ourselves, to be able to transcend that, and see beyond those in a very profound way is called seeing reality. And it's also referred to as as achieving irreversible faith. So it's clear that faith is not something that you either have or don't have. It's something that you can work with, that you will work with and...
So I think that is very important to acknowledge, in particular if one is used to thinking for better or worse, or rightly or wrongly that faith is very much about confessing one's faith, professing one's faith, I guess, that having the right kind of faith in a way that can be formulated and defined. And that that is really it. Of course, then what are the objects of refuge and how do we take refuge in Buddha Dharma and Sangha? All of that is something that is, can be very complex. So it's not that there are no articles of faith to study. But when we study them it's for that kind of practical application. And then I guess it's also interesting to note that in the Mahāyāna, to which these teachings belong, faith which has very much to do also with refuge, going for refuge, faith is something that is cultivated for the sake of others. So that is also I think an incredible, incredibly profound.. What to say?
..distinctive quality of the kind of faith that we talk about. I don't know another religion where it would be said like that, that you cultivate faith for others. That's very beautiful. Yeah, anything else?
So then we get to a conclusion that says, "Space, therefore, is not an entity, not a nonentity, not a bearer of characteristics, and not a characteristic." So we started out thinking that we know what space is.
And yeah, when this word is spoken, I also feel that I know what space is, like the the whole sense of it is like that. But I can also in the next second see that space couldn't be an entity, a nonentity, it couldn't be something that has characteristics and it couldn't be a set of characteristics either. So that is the conclusion that Nāgārjuna puts in our mouth, yeah? And yeah, as always, if we're not quite there yet, then we have to look very carefully at why, and where, and how it is that we are not exactly with him in drawing that conclusion. And the conclusion is extended, so there it comes to pertain in the case of the other elements as well. The other five elements: earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness, if we say those six elements, then they are in the exact same way. So earth is not an entity, not a nonentity, it is not something that has characteristics, and it's not a set of characteristics either, and so on. And that then leads to a conclusion that says in 8, "The feebleminded who see things in terms of existence and nonexistence fail to see what is to be seen-- the peace of complete pacification."
So that can, I think take us back to what we were talking about before, in terms of the benefits of seeing this, of understanding these things.
By being intimidated by this and sort of shying away from taking this approach, and insisting on seeing things that exist versus things that don't exist, then we fail to see what actually should be seen.
So continuously missing what shouldn't be missed.
So that is a very kind advice, no, to give at this point, reminding us of the profound purpose of the text, and then of course, and yeah also interesting to see what is to be seen. We just had that critique of seeing and so on. But these words can still be used but with a very much enhanced significance than what we would otherwise get from just talking about coming to see something, understand something.
And that concludes Chapter Five in the Mūlamadhyamaka. And after that follows analysis of desire and the desirous one. That is also a very interesting angle to take on this.
So the commentary says that up until this point we have.. The preceding chapters have refuted the self of phenomena, because what is it that according to Abhidharma would be something that exists but without a personal self, as we began talking about it originally when we started these talks? Those are elements, sense sources, the aggregates, those factors of the psychophysical world which don't support any self as a singular, enduring, controlling individual, but nonetheless are the components based on which it's possible to construct the existence of such an individual. But now with these analyses those very factors have been seen to be just as constructed as the personal self.
And the next three analyses will only be able to deal with the first of those three, and they, according to Mabja Jangchub Tsondru, they are concerned with refuting counter arguments. So someone says, but "But hey wait a minute," and then there's a distinct chapter to address the counter arguments. So one of the nice things about Mabja's commentary is that it explains very comprehensively a kind of structure of the text, and a relation between the arguments, sorry the chapters, which is not really there to my knowledge in other commentaries to the same extent. So it's very easy to wonder what is all this when you open the Mūlamadhyamaka, but Mabja has a very nice way of giving an interpretation of how you can see a particular progression also in the analysis. So he says that the analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that follows from as a counter argument. Someone says, "But hey wait a minute, there is someone who.. there's desire, would you deny that? And there's someone who desires. So if there is, if there's that, then it follows as well that that there's something to that is desired, there's something that one wants to avoid. Those things come in and out of existence as does the desire itself. There's movement towards those objects of desire and turning away from other things, etc. So the whole framework that you have now expended so much energy trying to deny is still there very much. And we can understand that just by noticing the way that desire and the one who desires are noticeable. So then in response to that the first stanza says,
"If before the presence of desire, the desirous one exists without desire, based on that, there would be a desire. When the desirous one exists, so does desire." So this is similar to the way we talked about the elements and space. Here we're saying that it would make sense to say that there's someone who desires, and an emotion of desire, or an affliction of desire if that desirous one, whether we talk about it as primary mind, like the main six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a mental state of desire, or whether we talk about it as a person, and that person's desire. A lot of the commentaries, they talk about the Abhidharma framework where it's the consciousness, like the manifestation of the six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a particular mental state within, or associated with that, which is desire. But we could also think of it in terms of just a person and that person's desire. So if there was something that can become desirous, then it would make.. then something like that could happen.
But that would require that there's something there to begin with which isn't desirous, and then becomes desire. But the desirous one cannot... the one who desires cannot be present before desire. In the moment there's desire the desirous one is already present. So this kind of sequential relation is impossible. "Yet if the desirous one does not exist how could there possibly be desire?" So if we say that...if on the other hand then we say that, well, those two imply one another, and there's no sequential there's no sequential relation there, then how can we say that someone becomes desirous? That doesn't make sense. So just as we talk about pre-existing mind, that the pre-existing.. just as we can talk about the... what should we say? The one that desires and the state of desire, just as we can talk, just as we can dismiss the possibility of desire and the desirous one by thinking in terms of a pre-existing desirous one, or a desirous one that doesn't exist any earlier than the state of desire, we can turn it around, of course also, and say if it doesn't make sense for there to be desire before the desirous one, nor does it make sense for there to be no desire before the desires one, yeah? "Given the presence or absence of desire, this follows also in the case of the desirous one."
So that's about sequence between the two. But maybe we don't think that's necessary, after all we're talking about a mind and a mental state. So when the desire is there, my consciousness is there afflicted by desire. So why can't we just say that they coexist as we began talking about also yesterday I think? And that's what we look at then specifically over some following stanzas. "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together. In this case desire and the desirous one would not depend on one another."
So if two things are, if two things coexist, then what is being said here is that they cannot depend on each other.
So coexist, what does that mean? Yeah let's see. As usual it's not so much a matter of understanding what the text means by a particular concept, but more a matter of noticing what we ourselves associate with a particular concept.
Yeah, coexist means to exist together and if two things exist together then they couldn't be dependent on each other. Is that intuitively plausible? Or...
In any case if.. I think also it's safe to say that a lot of our thoughts don't really reflect that, because we think that "well, my consciousness exists as a desiring consciousness because there is desire." So there's a sort of dependence. And desires desire because there's a consciousness that can partake of that kind of emotion. But here it is said that they.. if they really arise together, then.. before we looked at why they can't be sequential, and then now it is said that they cannot arise together either because in that case they would not depend on each other.
Then about the reasons for that? First, "Identical things are not coexistent, as nothing is coexistent with itself." So if we were talking about the very same thing, if it was just two ways of saying the same thing basically, whether I say the desirous one or desire, if they were one and the same then they couldn't be coexistent, because nothing can be coexistent with itself, no? Or if that is the case, then everything is coexistent with.. What is the point of talking about coexistence then, no? If one is completely alone in the world then that one is still coexistent with oneself? So that couldn't be the case. And "Yet if they are different (from each other), then how could they be coexistent?"
So the commentary has two ways of looking at that, which I think are both interesting in very different ways. One is to say that things that really are different from each other cannot occupy the same space, or fill the same situation sort of, the exact same. If it's two things that in physical terms really are different from each other, then they couldn't take up the same space, they couldn't coexist in that way. And the same if we talk about mental events, although it's a bit more.. let's say, it is perhaps easier to see the.. what is at stake in the example of physical things. But if we talk about two mental events that are really different from each other, they couldn't occur at once. If I have two different experiences that are really intrinsically different from each other, then I couldn't have them at the same time. I might be able to have them very, one after the other in very rapid sequence, but I couldn't have them just at the same time. If I could, then it wouldn't make sense to say that they were essentially different from each other. Then they would be part of of the same.
And if we say we say that things that are essentially different from each other can still coexist, then we can also in the same way as we looked at other in the past there are various sort of absurdities that follow from that when we take.. when we say that things that are really different, characteristically different from each other, can coexist. Then we can take things that clearly don't coexist, that are characterized by difference, and say that they exist. So the commentary says like a horse on a mountain in the east and a cow on a mountain in the west, they could still coexist.
Yeah, then maybe that's
that's what we should stop at for today.
Yeah, let's do that. So in other words, what we have been looking at is this counter argument where we have the idea that it's possible to have desire and then something that desires like a consciousness that desires, and because that is possible, then we'll have to accept all the other things that have been refuted anyway. And because then in response to that idea, first we have talked about how a sequential relation between those isn't possible. It's not possible to say that first there is a desirous one that then becomes desire desirous, because if the desirous one is already present, then of course also the state of desire is there. And otherwise if we say that the desirous one is not present, then we have already said it, that desirous one does not precede desire. So in whichever way we look at it, a sequential relation is not possible with respect to desire and that which desires. And then we went right into this idea that it doesn't have to be like that, that things can be dependent on each other and still be coexistent, like for example desire and the desirous one. But then we are beginning to now consider that if things really are coexistent, then any sense of dependence is lost. And ry to dwell on that at home and see
what you can you think of that. There are many examples also in Buddhist philosophy of simultaneous cause and effect. But there are also many Buddhist approaches that say some something like that is not possible. But be that as it may in our minds, how reasonable is it for things to coexist?
To coexist and be dependent?
So we talked about in 3: "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together." Desire and the desirous one would not depend on each other. And in 4, identical things cannot be coexistent, because what is then coexistent with what? It's one and the same thing. And so nothing is coexistent with itself, and yet if they are different, how could they be co-existent? So if we had two things that are by nature different from each other, then they could not be coexistent because we have said that they are in and of themselves different from each other. So how could they exist coextensively? How could the presence of one be the presence of the other? That's the kind of notion that that we're looking at here. If the desirous one is there, then the emotion is there. The presence of the emotion of desire is the presence of the desirous one. If that is the case, then they couldn't be different from each other? And then tomorrow we will continue at that point. All right, thank you. See you tomorrow.
in verse 6, in stanza 6, in the fifth chapter, "What entity, nonentity, or otherwise would be the knower of entity and nonentity?" So this is in terms yeah verse oh there's this shift wait a minute yeah the second part of second half of 6, right? "If there's no entity, of what would that be no entity?" That's what we ended up talking about yesterday. That if there are no entities as according to what we have found, there's no way to talk of entities
because apart from things that carry characteristics and characteristics themselves, there are no entities. And carriers of characteristics do not make sense whether we think of them as existing in a sort of naked state without characteristics, ready to receive characteristics, that doesn't make sense, because those are then not bearers of characteristics; if they have no characteristics, they are nothing. And if we say that they already are present, ready-made with characteristics, then what is it that we mean when we say that there are characteristics that apply to them? So whether we think of the carriers of characteristics as present with or without characteristics to begin with, then the notion of characteristics that apply to those and are associated with those, does not make sense. And if there are no carriers of characteristics, then what do we mean when talking about characteristics, if they don't belong to anything? So in that way, since there are no bearers of characteristics and no characteristics, there are no entities. And then we ended up looking at the beginning of 6 that says, if there is no entity, of what would there be no entity? So if we say okay nothing, that there is nothing, then nothing is a no thing is an indication of thing, and since we now long no longer know what we mean by thing, then how could we pretend to know what we mean by no thing? So that is the point which is made in those two lines which is of course a super important point that needs to be made. It's a very simple point but it's one that it's nonetheless for who knows why, whichever reasons is easily overlooked, because part of it is also quite easy part of the reason for why one can miss that point is, of course, the fact that the way the reasoning operates is in terms of negating stuff, right? And if everything seems to be swept off the table, then maybe we conclude that then there's nothing, yeah? But of course if no thing makes sense, how could we pretend that nothing makes any superior sense? That's clearly a dead end, and that's been pointed out very clearly here, yeah?
So now in the last two lines of 6, it says "What entity, non entity, or otherwise, would be the knower of entity and non entity?" So then we could sort of appeal to the subject and the subjective consciousness and say because it's possible to have these that there's something that knows all of this and, therefore, if there's something that knows all of this, then there are also those things, yeah? So this could be understood as some sort of appeal to experience, no? Or subjectivity.
That there is a person who knows this, or I exist and know these things, that's also a way that we can easily think that, well but for me it really looks like there are these things, and so they must exist somehow, yeah? But who am I pointing to when I say that I exist, or there's this mind that knows this, is it an entity, a non entity, or otherwise? Those are precisely the principles that we have just had to dismiss, entities didn't work and non entity certainly didn't work. And what other than something or nothing could it be that knows all of this? Does it really, does it help to bring in the subject here? Does it provide any superior support for the seeming reality of bearers of characteristics and their characteristics for things, and absences? What would you say? Is there anything gained at all by pointing to the subject or pointing to experience, the mind and so on at this point?
Student: "Well, up until this point there hasn't been anything as an established referent for any of experience. Nothing has been validated really at all, and so it seems like the sort of tunnels of opportunity, if you will, to respond and react to this analysis with, we're sort of running out of. And then it.. it doesn't immediately necessitate a sense of spaciousness. But I think if you can build the resource to withstand the kind of dissonance that's underneath that, or that we have to push through in order to experience that, then I do think that's a potential. But otherwise it's very it's creating a lot of dissonance about experience in my view." But I don't think I understood, can you repeat again? Repeat everything? Yeah I didn't understand in which way you think that there's some scope... "I'm saying up until this point there has been no established referent, right, we don't have a single building block for experience that we can look at and validate through Nāgārjuna's analysis." Well we've been talking about things that come into being, about movement, about seeing, we've talked about.. "Right, we're talking about them, and then what is the final conclusion? That it doesn't actually exist in the way that we experience it." So now does it help at this point to begin to talk about the subject, there is this perception of things, so these things must exist? I think it is, it's necessary to talk about that otherwise people have nowhere else to go in their own response and reaction to this." And then when we go there, what what happens? "And then I was saying I think like immediately the experience I'm having is one of dissonance, of kind of, yeah discomfort around what is being kind of blurred, I guess, about my experience, which is everything. But if there's enough patience and resource and I guess faith here, then there is also moments of spaciousness that can come from just holding that dissonance there. But the hope is that it's going to inform experience in a way that's liberating, rather than just maddening, yeah? So that's still..." Do you think we need to hope about that? "Yeah, I think I do."
I mean if we say enlightening and awakening in a sort of deeper sense, no then for sure, I would, unless we are very very very unusual, then definitely. But whether it is something that...
It's a good question, no? Like it's a real at this point of a really really relevant question, I think. It comes down to what to do with all of this, yeah?
Yeah, it's a very interesting question. So at this point do we have to.. when we feel that the whole framework of object, agent, and action, of bearers of characteristics and characteristics, things and no thing, when all of that no longer is meaningful under analysis, of course, because we're not saying that we are totally perplexed all the time now by... But when we analyze, then that's what happens.
What is the outcome of this?
Do we, us people in our situation, do we have to just hope that it would be useful? Or is there some other way of benefiting concretely from it?
Well, what do you all think?
"Well, just to follow up, I think for me there has to be hope, because the way that it informs behavior would have to be very skillful. Our entire world is built around what is being shown to be a misconception, the entire global economy is built around trying to be convinced of the need for external situations to improve, and possessions to be gathered in order to feel more successful. Our entire notion of what it means to be a successful individual both in society but also on a global scale is built around actually this confusion. This isreally a profitable confusion. So I think it's not we have to be really careful, I think, in the beginning of holding this dissonance, that that's coming, you know, instead of running back to the dinner table and being like hey mom, hey dad, hey son, hey daughter, actually nothing exists the way that you think it does, you know I think we have to.. we can't assume that this kind of analysis is going to take place outside of a space like this." No, that's perhaps a different question... What I'm thinking now is us, people like us, who have spent a little bit of time trying to think about it and..
for whom that conclusion is not like a sort of something that we imagine what it would be like. It's knowing how these concepts they lose their meaning under analysis. So at that time,
do we have to just hope that it will be useful? I think that is saying a little too much to really understand the deeper implications. Of course this is like the opening of the path, you could say, you know? But if on the other hand if it is the opening of the path, then there ought to be something that we can notice also. And maybe, like what you just said about the way our world works and the way we find ourselves in the world, meaning the way we think about ourselves as living beings in this world, is then built on something that we can now see is illusory, or whatever we say like a dream yeah. So if just allowing oneself to take that in, no? I think exactly what you said, that the whole.. all what we think of as the measure of success and all what we think of as demands and necessities in this world, not just our status, but what we really need, at the most fundamental level, if it's possible to just some...
Okay, needs, if you have what you need in all regards, then fine that there are needs, no? But as soon as there's some need, that is still something that I need and is not here yet, then needs are not something that pleasant, no? And if I do get at myself, there's so many things that I feel I need, so to be able to just in a moment see that this really is illusory, could perhaps have a very deep impact. So that it's not that I just have to hope, but it's something that I can really acknowledge experientially, yeah? But then, as you say, we have to develop a skill, that's key! It's not just a matter of thinking like that and then relaxing a bit and then all is fine and dandy, but perhaps the way that those needs will then manifest next time, will be quite different. At least, they have there's no reason why they shouldn't be, come across very different. That's kind of in our own hand, no? Like the teaching says: "I show you the path to liberation but whether you take it or not depends on yourself." So all of this certainly doesn't mean that
our perceptions and, what to say...
Yeah so there's a.. I think there is a possibility to really approach it, the understanding that comes in a in a practical way that will allow in practical ways also for new perceptions. And then they may invite faith, like they say once you understand more about the truth of the teachings, if we can speak like that, in those terms, then there's a new kind of faith, the more that we become aware of the profundity of the Dharma, the more profound our own faith also will be become. And everyone.. and that kind of faith which is then..
it's also a very interesting word in the Buddhist context,
sort of delighting in and being inspired by the good and the real. So it's not so much a matter of being convinced or having sort of articles of faith. I think there's very little resonance there in the Buddhist teachings. But as a factor as a mental factor, as it is in Abhidharma, it is I think tremendously important any kind of Buddhist framework that you look into, and any Buddhist teacher, I think, will agree you know, that this is key.
But that's different from from hoping I would say.
Student: "Thomas if you feel comfortable, would you be willing to share like any example of some change that you perceived after you studied these teachings? Did it affect, how it affected your perception?
Yeah, I think in a way, all of what I try to say here is based on my own limited practical experience with this.
Yeah, so...
Yeah, so it's kind of, I mean what we're what we're talking about is something that has applicability everywhere. It 's something that there's no context where it's not potentially meaningful. So it's something that I try to acknowledge in as far as I at all can.
And I think the beauty of it is that it's also something that one can very quickly come to acknowledge this.
Like where we are at now. Okay, it took a few days, but it is nothing compared to when you think about like.. it's just a little bit of thinking, and trying to be honest to oneself and sincere in the situation. Like questioning what really do I mean? Where do I come from? What do I believe? What do I do? Then if just meeting these teachings in that kind of way we can..
If we can be in a situation where it's obvious that this is something that has infinite implications,
it can help in so many small ways, of course. And I have very limited sort of experience if you want to talk about that, no meditation experience and so on. But at least to be able to come to that point makes a huge, huge difference. And if we can really see that, then it's also not really very different to just acknowledge it as we did, as we just tried to talk about before. It's not that we then have to hope, it's something that we can actually feel the benefit of as well.
Student: "Could you talk a little bit more about what this hope-based faith article of faith-type faith is versus faith as a mental factor? How do we distinguish between the two and exercise the latter, not the former?"
Well I think a general perspective in Buddhism is not that.. Buddhism is very practical, extremely practical.
So that in itself means that it doesn't really matter how you say things, and what you think, it's more what really is going on. Like that kind of, of course, that's a very sort of very simplified way of saying it but I think it still holds. There's this kind of valuing of the practical, concrete experiential dimension, much more than anything else. So if we are used to thinking that religion is something you believe in, that religion, that Dharma is a faith, a faith that you need to be able to speak and confess your faith in and so on, then I think maybe we miss a lot of the point.
Also the fact that are these stages of faith that we can be moved by something in a sort of emotional way and just be taken by something, the beauty of some event it's like coming into.. could be seeing an image of the Buddha that just we respond to the beauty of it. That is one kind of faith according to Buddhism. So it's interesting that something like that would be classified as faith. Or if we see an act of generosity and that touches you, that's also faith. It doesn't mean that we can enumerate qualities of the Buddha and that we know the principles of generosity and so on, but just this kind of response is one kind of faith. And then at sort of more advanced stages, when one begins to think wow there's something there that I I want to get closer to, I want to be more like that, there's something there that seems worthwhile and it's not just something that spontaneously happened now, but it's also something that can make a difference in my life, and for others, etc.
And then a further stage in faith is when one then begins to understand. So you could say what we
what we are doing here is working with that, honing that capacity for faith that has seen the reason. And they become increasingly stable, become increasingly part of our continuous stream of being, the more we cultivate those.
So that's.. and then finally to be able to go beyond the whole framework of
actually the framework that is under analysis here, that the way we.. our conceptual minds structure the world, the way we think of ourselves, to be able to transcend that, and see beyond those in a very profound way is called seeing reality. And it's also referred to as as achieving irreversible faith. So it's clear that faith is not something that you either have or don't have. It's something that you can work with, that you will work with and...
So I think that is very important to acknowledge, in particular if one is used to thinking for better or worse, or rightly or wrongly that faith is very much about confessing one's faith, professing one's faith, I guess, that having the right kind of faith in a way that can be formulated and defined. And that that is really it. Of course, then what are the objects of refuge and how do we take refuge in Buddha Dharma and Sangha? All of that is something that is, can be very complex. So it's not that there are no articles of faith to study. But when we study them it's for that kind of practical application. And then I guess it's also interesting to note that in the Mahāyāna, to which these teachings belong, faith which has very much to do also with refuge, going for refuge, faith is something that is cultivated for the sake of others. So that is also I think an incredible, incredibly profound.. What to say?
..distinctive quality of the kind of faith that we talk about. I don't know another religion where it would be said like that, that you cultivate faith for others. That's very beautiful. Yeah, anything else?
So then we get to a conclusion that says, "Space, therefore, is not an entity, not a nonentity, not a bearer of characteristics, and not a characteristic." So we started out thinking that we know what space is.
And yeah, when this word is spoken, I also feel that I know what space is, like the the whole sense of it is like that. But I can also in the next second see that space couldn't be an entity, a nonentity, it couldn't be something that has characteristics and it couldn't be a set of characteristics either. So that is the conclusion that Nāgārjuna puts in our mouth, yeah? And yeah, as always, if we're not quite there yet, then we have to look very carefully at why, and where, and how it is that we are not exactly with him in drawing that conclusion. And the conclusion is extended, so there it comes to pertain in the case of the other elements as well. The other five elements: earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness, if we say those six elements, then they are in the exact same way. So earth is not an entity, not a nonentity, it is not something that has characteristics, and it's not a set of characteristics either, and so on. And that then leads to a conclusion that says in 8, "The feebleminded who see things in terms of existence and nonexistence fail to see what is to be seen-- the peace of complete pacification."
So that can, I think take us back to what we were talking about before, in terms of the benefits of seeing this, of understanding these things.
By being intimidated by this and sort of shying away from taking this approach, and insisting on seeing things that exist versus things that don't exist, then we fail to see what actually should be seen.
So continuously missing what shouldn't be missed.
So that is a very kind advice, no, to give at this point, reminding us of the profound purpose of the text, and then of course, and yeah also interesting to see what is to be seen. We just had that critique of seeing and so on. But these words can still be used but with a very much enhanced significance than what we would otherwise get from just talking about coming to see something, understand something.
And that concludes Chapter Five in the Mūlamadhyamaka. And after that follows analysis of desire and the desirous one. That is also a very interesting angle to take on this.
So the commentary says that up until this point we have.. The preceding chapters have refuted the self of phenomena, because what is it that according to Abhidharma would be something that exists but without a personal self, as we began talking about it originally when we started these talks? Those are elements, sense sources, the aggregates, those factors of the psychophysical world which don't support any self as a singular, enduring, controlling individual, but nonetheless are the components based on which it's possible to construct the existence of such an individual. But now with these analyses those very factors have been seen to be just as constructed as the personal self.
And the next three analyses will only be able to deal with the first of those three, and they, according to Mabja Jangchub Tsondru, they are concerned with refuting counter arguments. So someone says, but "But hey wait a minute," and then there's a distinct chapter to address the counter arguments. So one of the nice things about Mabja's commentary is that it explains very comprehensively a kind of structure of the text, and a relation between the arguments, sorry the chapters, which is not really there to my knowledge in other commentaries to the same extent. So it's very easy to wonder what is all this when you open the Mūlamadhyamaka, but Mabja has a very nice way of giving an interpretation of how you can see a particular progression also in the analysis. So he says that the analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that follows from as a counter argument. Someone says, "But hey wait a minute, there is someone who.. there's desire, would you deny that? And there's someone who desires. So if there is, if there's that, then it follows as well that that there's something to that is desired, there's something that one wants to avoid. Those things come in and out of existence as does the desire itself. There's movement towards those objects of desire and turning away from other things, etc. So the whole framework that you have now expended so much energy trying to deny is still there very much. And we can understand that just by noticing the way that desire and the one who desires are noticeable. So then in response to that the first stanza says,
"If before the presence of desire, the desirous one exists without desire, based on that, there would be a desire. When the desirous one exists, so does desire." So this is similar to the way we talked about the elements and space. Here we're saying that it would make sense to say that there's someone who desires, and an emotion of desire, or an affliction of desire if that desirous one, whether we talk about it as primary mind, like the main six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a mental state of desire, or whether we talk about it as a person, and that person's desire. A lot of the commentaries, they talk about the Abhidharma framework where it's the consciousness, like the manifestation of the six or eight collections of consciousness, and then a particular mental state within, or associated with that, which is desire. But we could also think of it in terms of just a person and that person's desire. So if there was something that can become desirous, then it would make.. then something like that could happen.
But that would require that there's something there to begin with which isn't desirous, and then becomes desire. But the desirous one cannot... the one who desires cannot be present before desire. In the moment there's desire the desirous one is already present. So this kind of sequential relation is impossible. "Yet if the desirous one does not exist how could there possibly be desire?" So if we say that...if on the other hand then we say that, well, those two imply one another, and there's no sequential there's no sequential relation there, then how can we say that someone becomes desirous? That doesn't make sense. So just as we talk about pre-existing mind, that the pre-existing.. just as we can talk about the... what should we say? The one that desires and the state of desire, just as we can talk, just as we can dismiss the possibility of desire and the desirous one by thinking in terms of a pre-existing desirous one, or a desirous one that doesn't exist any earlier than the state of desire, we can turn it around, of course also, and say if it doesn't make sense for there to be desire before the desirous one, nor does it make sense for there to be no desire before the desires one, yeah? "Given the presence or absence of desire, this follows also in the case of the desirous one."
So that's about sequence between the two. But maybe we don't think that's necessary, after all we're talking about a mind and a mental state. So when the desire is there, my consciousness is there afflicted by desire. So why can't we just say that they coexist as we began talking about also yesterday I think? And that's what we look at then specifically over some following stanzas. "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together. In this case desire and the desirous one would not depend on one another."
So if two things are, if two things coexist, then what is being said here is that they cannot depend on each other.
So coexist, what does that mean? Yeah let's see. As usual it's not so much a matter of understanding what the text means by a particular concept, but more a matter of noticing what we ourselves associate with a particular concept.
Yeah, coexist means to exist together and if two things exist together then they couldn't be dependent on each other. Is that intuitively plausible? Or...
In any case if.. I think also it's safe to say that a lot of our thoughts don't really reflect that, because we think that "well, my consciousness exists as a desiring consciousness because there is desire." So there's a sort of dependence. And desires desire because there's a consciousness that can partake of that kind of emotion. But here it is said that they.. if they really arise together, then.. before we looked at why they can't be sequential, and then now it is said that they cannot arise together either because in that case they would not depend on each other.
Then about the reasons for that? First, "Identical things are not coexistent, as nothing is coexistent with itself." So if we were talking about the very same thing, if it was just two ways of saying the same thing basically, whether I say the desirous one or desire, if they were one and the same then they couldn't be coexistent, because nothing can be coexistent with itself, no? Or if that is the case, then everything is coexistent with.. What is the point of talking about coexistence then, no? If one is completely alone in the world then that one is still coexistent with oneself? So that couldn't be the case. And "Yet if they are different (from each other), then how could they be coexistent?"
So the commentary has two ways of looking at that, which I think are both interesting in very different ways. One is to say that things that really are different from each other cannot occupy the same space, or fill the same situation sort of, the exact same. If it's two things that in physical terms really are different from each other, then they couldn't take up the same space, they couldn't coexist in that way. And the same if we talk about mental events, although it's a bit more.. let's say, it is perhaps easier to see the.. what is at stake in the example of physical things. But if we talk about two mental events that are really different from each other, they couldn't occur at once. If I have two different experiences that are really intrinsically different from each other, then I couldn't have them at the same time. I might be able to have them very, one after the other in very rapid sequence, but I couldn't have them just at the same time. If I could, then it wouldn't make sense to say that they were essentially different from each other. Then they would be part of of the same.
And if we say we say that things that are essentially different from each other can still coexist, then we can also in the same way as we looked at other in the past there are various sort of absurdities that follow from that when we take.. when we say that things that are really different, characteristically different from each other, can coexist. Then we can take things that clearly don't coexist, that are characterized by difference, and say that they exist. So the commentary says like a horse on a mountain in the east and a cow on a mountain in the west, they could still coexist.
Yeah, then maybe that's
that's what we should stop at for today.
Yeah, let's do that. So in other words, what we have been looking at is this counter argument where we have the idea that it's possible to have desire and then something that desires like a consciousness that desires, and because that is possible, then we'll have to accept all the other things that have been refuted anyway. And because then in response to that idea, first we have talked about how a sequential relation between those isn't possible. It's not possible to say that first there is a desirous one that then becomes desire desirous, because if the desirous one is already present, then of course also the state of desire is there. And otherwise if we say that the desirous one is not present, then we have already said it, that desirous one does not precede desire. So in whichever way we look at it, a sequential relation is not possible with respect to desire and that which desires. And then we went right into this idea that it doesn't have to be like that, that things can be dependent on each other and still be coexistent, like for example desire and the desirous one. But then we are beginning to now consider that if things really are coexistent, then any sense of dependence is lost. And ry to dwell on that at home and see
what you can you think of that. There are many examples also in Buddhist philosophy of simultaneous cause and effect. But there are also many Buddhist approaches that say some something like that is not possible. But be that as it may in our minds, how reasonable is it for things to coexist?
To coexist and be dependent?
So we talked about in 3: "Desire and the desirous one cannot reasonably arise together." Desire and the desirous one would not depend on each other. And in 4, identical things cannot be coexistent, because what is then coexistent with what? It's one and the same thing. And so nothing is coexistent with itself, and yet if they are different, how could they be co-existent? So if we had two things that are by nature different from each other, then they could not be coexistent because we have said that they are in and of themselves different from each other. So how could they exist coextensively? How could the presence of one be the presence of the other? That's the kind of notion that that we're looking at here. If the desirous one is there, then the emotion is there. The presence of the emotion of desire is the presence of the desirous one. If that is the case, then they couldn't be different from each other? And then tomorrow we will continue at that point. All right, thank you. See you tomorrow.
17:26
