Log In
Sign Up
Log In
Sign Up

Details

Root of The Middle Way – Session 27

Teachers: 
Collection: 
  • Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location: 
  • Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features: 
  • Subtitles ,
  • Transcripts
This lecture underscores the complementary nature of both truths and the interconnectedness of all things, making the world full of possibilities.

In Session 27, Chapter Six, “Analysis of Desire and the Desirous One,” is explored. The lecture emphasizes the impossibility of establishing desire and the desirous one as sequential or coexistent, highlighting their interdependence. It extends the implications of this analysis to all phenomena, emphasizing the significance of dependent origination and the role of thoughts in shaping our world. We explore how this analysis influences the practice of bodhicitta and the relationship between relative and ultimate truths.

Video
Audio
video
play-rounded-outline
 
LanguageEnglishEnglish
"That which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, is not annihilated and is not permanent, does not come and does not go, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down."
Alright.
So we are in Chapter Six, 'Analysis of Desire and the Desirous One,' which is primary mind and the subsidiary mental state of desire, their relation, or it can also be thought of as a person and its emotion.
And yesterday we talked about how those two cannot be sequential. It cannot be that the desirous one exists prior to the emotion, because in that case the desirous one would have to exist without that emotion, and would then not be the desirous one or otherwise. If the desirous one is present as such, then so is the emotion. So a sequential relationship is not possible. And because a sequential relationship is not possible, then we could already conclude that, therefore, there is no..
reality, substantial reality of either one of those two, the desirous one and the desire. But then there was an objection considered where it was said that the two are not sequential, but they nevertheless exist as.. and they exist as coexistent. So we began to look at that idea of having these two factors be present together as such, the desirous one and the desire. And we also read 4 and 5, which say that, "Identical things are not coexistent as nothing is coexistent with itself." So the option that the two are actually identical and coexistent in that capacity, that is not on because what would it mean for something to be coexistent with itself? If the two are coexistent.. if the two are identical, then their coexistence does not make any sense. And "Yet if they are different, how could they be coexistent?" If they are different from each other then what do we mean when we say that they are coexistent? Coexistent means that they have to be present equally. Whenever one is the case, the other has to be there as well. And if they are really essentially different from each other, how could we rightly claim that they coexist? How could two things that are essentially different from each other occupy the same, exactly the same space or constitute exactly the same context? It does not make sense. If they are coexistent, then they cannot be essentially distinct. "If a single thing were coexistent, this would occur in isolation as well. If the different were coexistent, then this would occur in isolation as well." That's 5 and it was an absurd consequence of saying either that the two are essentially the same and yet coexistent. If this were possible, then anything could be and would be coexistent with itself. When someone is all alone and there's nobody else around that person would still be coexistent. With what? With itself. And if the different could be coexistent, then we could have coexistence of two things that have no relation to each other whatsoever, like that horse on the mountain in the east and the cow on the mountain in the west, which or similar as we talked about yesterday. They would also be coexistent if this were possible for different things to be coexistent. And now today we proceed with 6.
"If they are different and coexistent, how could desire and the desirous one be established as two different things that would then be present together?"
So that is further looking at the impossibility of things that are different from each other being coexistent. If they are different from each other and coexistent, if that is the idea that we have in mind, that desire and the desirous one are really two different things, but they are coexistent, then what we are saying is that
since they are essentially different from each other, then they are not mutually dependent. It's not the case that the desirous one is the desirous one because of desire and desires and desirous one because of the desirous one. That sort of relationship is not meaningful if we are talking about things that are essentially distinct from each other.
So, if we think of desire and the desirous one though, what we notice is this kind of dependence. We don't notice them as things that are independent of each other. And because there is this dependent relation between them, then they cannot be by their nature distinct from each other. If they only make sense by virtue of each other, then it couldn't be that they are essentially distinct. So our encounter with desire and the desirous one, so to speak, is enough to tell us that the two are not essentially distinct.
And then there is this interesting 7 that says, "If desire and the desirous one are established as different, then why would you think of them as being coexistent?" If you really think that.. if that is what they are, different from each other, then why do you at all get the idea that they are coexistent? That's asking along the same lines that we were a couple of days ago. So why is it that we have this idea? Why do we think the way we do? If we think that they are really different from each other by nature, then why do we have all these ideas about them being also coexistent?
If they would be already dealt with by saying that they are different from each other, then there's no need to talk about their coexistence right? Then we have already said that those are different from each other and so what's the point in bringing up coexistence now?
In 8, "If they are asserted to be coexistent because their difference lacks establishment, would you then also assert their difference to prove their coexistence?" So that's prodding more to see why it is we say the things that we do.
If the reason that we begin to talk about coexistence is to give us a reason to talk about their difference, like we can say, "Well, they are present together," then we're not talking about one thing, there are two things and they are present together, so they are different, right? They are not just one and the same, they are different and they are present together. So if the reason that we begin to talk about trying to understand what the desire is versus that which has the desire, if in our attempt to understand what is meant and what we mean by desire and that which has desire, if we bring up coexistence of the two in order to allow us to say that they are different, the two coexist and so they must be different, would we then also say that the reason that
we can say that they coexist, is that they are different? Then we are not saying much, then we are just pointing it's a circular argument, we are just making a claim basically, because there is nothing that grounds what we are saying in any way at all. We start out saying, "Well, there is desire, let me tell you, there is such a thing as desire and there is the one that desires." Those two coexist and because they coexist, we can also say that they are different. Okay, one thing. And why can we say that they are different? Because they coexist. So we haven't said anything, no? Perhaps we might think that we have said something, but it's not an explanation at least, no? It's just one long line of declarations. So that's another example of the instruction in superior debate method that was mentioned a while ago, that whatever one may say in order to find flaw in the teaching of emptiness always assumes what is yet to be proven, namely that things exist by themselves, in and of themselves. And so they fall, those attempts, they fail and fall. "When things are not established as different, neither are they established as coexistent. When there is a thing that is different, it may be claimed that it is coexistent." So if there is no way of separating two things, then we can't say that they coexist either. And if there is no way of saying that two things are separate.. so if we have access to some, if we have access to some things that can be separated from each other, then we could make on that basis the claim that they coexist. But if we're not able to distinguish the two, then what do we mean by talking about their coexistence?
And then there's a summary. Therefore, because of what we have seen above, looking at the sequential, the possibility that the desire, the emotion, and that which desires are sequential, and having found that that cannot be the case, and having also looked at length at the possibility of the two being coexistent, and having found that there's no grounds for making that conclusion either, then, "Therefore desire and the desirous one are not established as coexistent or otherwise."
So those two don't exist as coexistent and they don't exist sequentially. Then how could they exist in any way at all? "As is the case with desire and the desirous one, no phenomena are established as coexistent or otherwise." So then there's an expansion, rapid expansion of the implications of the argument so that now it becomes what we learned through this analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that applies to everything, that things can neither be established sequentially nor can they be established as coexistent. So in other words what are these things? Dependent origination, without cessation, without arising, without any of the.. free from all of the eight extremes that are mentioned in the beginning of the homage, which is brought forth before we begin this whole process of analysis. "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."
What is the implication then? What have we learned? Good to ask ourselves that, yeah? Now perhaps we can agree in some sense with the, or wholeheartedly even, with the proclamation that is made in the beginning of the treatise. And then what are the implications of that? Yeah, it's a good question, no? And yeah what would you say?
What's it like to learn that things are dependent origination without arising and ceasing, going and coming?
There are probably myriads of ways to answer that question, no? And there's.. certainly there couldn't be a wrong or, yeah a wrong answer either, no? One thing that I think we can..well I just said there couldn't be a wrong answer but maybe there is. Or a kind of, yeah a wrong answer, there would be a wrong answer, no? It would mean that you haven't learned it, yeah? Okay yeah, sorry. Student: "My probably wrong answer would be like that maybe I give too much credit still to relative reality, but for me, yeah, what I learned is sort of that I can experience all that, that I can experience desire or being the desirous one or that I can see somebody walking or coming and going. But that this is just a mere experience. But if analyzed, none of that is happening sort of. That is really my take-home message so far. But nevertheless it feels still not refuted that I experience it like that." Yeah no definitely that is not, that couldn't be refuted, no? That perception and experience is what it is, no? But then when we try to understand what it is that's when it becomes.. the potential for something new emerges, no?
And then it becomes perhaps also possible to sense in a different way, if we understand that the structures that we usually subject our experience to are baseless under analysis. That doesn't make what goes on or what.. any less interesting or any less important. On the contrary, no? Because then we have no preconceived frameworks that we can just say "that's what it is." Now I know what to expect, yeah? We will think like that. We will think that we know what it is and that we know what to expect. But it's not really like that, yeah? So there's a tremendous potential for learning with every moment of experience. Because it's not what we think, yeah? And it's not what we expect. And yet we do things, we think, and we expect, and so things happen in different ways. It's not just that it's all fireworks, no? It's not all, certainly not all empty space at all, no? It's a very live field, no? And it's also serious what goes on there. It would be ridiculous not to say that, no? Of course if I look for the reasons why it's serious I don't find it. But it is dramatically important what goes on, no? So again I think this also makes us understand much more clearly why Buddhism makes such a big thing about telling us that it's so important what we do from moment to moment. And that even small things that usually we don't care about and people don't think are important are actually extremely important, almost more important than what if we just, yeah, they can be more important than any of the stuff that we usually think of as important, yeah? If I have a particular kind of attitude that I cultivate, positive or negative, then maybe nobody sees it, but it's still going to influence my whole field of experience, yeah? That we can understand from having seen that all of these things are dependent origination, and that they don't rest on anything apart from just this play of dependent origination and emptiness. Then it's clear that what I think and what I believe, what I feel, is an active factor in this whole world, yeah? It's not just my private experience. It's something that really shapes the world, no? And not just my world, it's the world that we all share together, no? Because dependent origination is nobody's property, right? It's what we all are and what we all do, what we can all be, but it doesn't belong to anyone, no?
Yeah. Yeah?
"We have two online, maybe first Andrew and then Luis."
Student: "Thank you. Just to answer the question, Thomas, I was also thinking about it in conjunction with what I believe was your question last class, something along the lines of what good is this? Or what benefit do we see in going through these teachings? And I think for me the word humility comes to mind. In other words, I feel quite convinced that we can't say 'that's how it is' in an absolute or a definitive way. Not that we can't offer a contextual or provisionally useful account, but I feel very convinced that in terms of an absolute account, or saying how exactly something is, that it's not really tenable. And I think that that can give rise to a profound humility and for sure it's given rise to an aspiration in me to sort of cultivate that humility. In other words, in a very mundane example, you know, sometimes I may think that I could be in a dispute with someone I care about and they may see it one way and I may see it one way and I think human beings are a little bit prone to absolutist thinking into assuming that the way they're seeing it is the way it is. But I think if we can give up the idea that there is in fact a way it is at all, that it opens up a little bit of space for humility there, which seems like a great benefit to me." Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, humility, that's an interesting concept. And so, yeah, we get involved and think that it is the way it is, yeah. And this obviously tells us that we're wrong when we think just like that, yeah.
And at the same time, so it's humility, but it's also a source of confidence, I think you can say, you know. Because we also know something about the
..there's also..
because it's not just that we know that we are wrong in thinking that, we also know what the problem is and we can acknowledge the problem and in some sense, once we have acknowledged the problem, it's not really a problem anymore.
So this is again also something that speaks to the importance of what then happens in us and in the things that we do based on this, yeah.
Because by understanding this, we can actually..
by understanding this, the very basis for making that error, it becomes possible for us to avoid the very basis for making that error. That becomes an actual option, no? We can't say that I have no choice, no, I wish one day something, something. I mean we can say that, but at the same time, we have also seen something that is undeniably the case, no? And something that undeniably applies everywhere. So it can make me humble when I think of myself as someone, as an individual who is something separate from the rest of the world and,
but it's also something that can give me confidence when I understand that that's actually a false story, yeah? And I don't know how much sense this means, makes, but what I'm just saying is, trying to say is that it's one thing to understand that I'm really wrong, and maybe one day I will be right, and then understanding that I'm really wrong and I actually see how I'm wrong. I've seen it again and again, very clearly. And if again, if you can see very clearly, repeatedly, exactly what is wrong, then you aren't really wrong, no? So there's some confidence that is possible also there, yeah?
"Luis, did you have a question online?"
Student: "Yeah, I was wondering in the same lines as Andrew about the benefit, and I think in a similar way as Anne, maybe I give too much credit to the relative, and sometimes I go into this direction of what you said to get stuck into ignoring it, like it makes no difference, because the relative sort of keeps appearing. And yesterday we were discussing about how this may influence, like this analysis may influence our practice of bodhicitta, like the relation between relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta, this is more going towards ultimate bodhicitta and then how this relates with relative. So if you could say some words about that. And also I'd like to understand better what you said about how our thinking may influence the world, construct the world, because the way this analysis goes, it seems like my thinking has no connection with the world." But what is the world that you are out of touch with? "Yeah, yeah." No? And also I think you could say there's no way of giving too much credit to the relative truth, no? The relative truth is.. you can't overestimate it, no? If it's the relative truth, then it's there to be reckoned with, no? And the same with the ultimate truth, you can't overestimate that either, no? If it's the ultimate truth it's going to show in..
So we don't need, I think, to be, I know I think also what you mean, no? But we don't have to...
I think it's very useful to keep in mind that they say that the more you understand about the relative truth, the more you understand about the ultimate truth; the better you know the ultimate truth, the better you understand the relative, yeah? So it's not that we have to..
if we do things right, so to speak, then this kind of issue of am I putting, standing too much to the side of the relative, or too much to the side of the ultimate, is not really an issue, yeah? So yeah, and then to think that my thinking is out of touch with reality, or out of touch with the world, we don't need to think that either, no? Because what is that world that my thinking is out of touch with? That's another aspect of my thinking, no? And that thinking is not just my thinking, it's something that happens, no? Just like my thinking is not my thinking alone, no? It's not.. what I call my thinking is actually not my thinking.
It's part of the world in the same way that this table is part of the world. And we think, no? And we think together. I can't think all alone, yeah? If I were all alone in the world I couldn't just sit there and think, no? Thinking requires a world, no?
So, in other words, these things as we are used to hearing, in the Buddhist teachings are dependent arising. And when all of this is dependent arising, and dependent arising is such a nice way to talk about something that everything is, yeah? Because it doesn't at all sound like one big something, no? And it isn't. And yet it is. It's all dependent arising. But it's something dynamic, no?
Which is the case here and there and everywhere in exactly the same way, yeah?
That doesn't make the world uninteresting. On the contrary, no? It makes the world very, very, yeah...
There's no stopping us from going very, very far, no? And when we go places, we see things that are surprising and exciting and so on, no? That's just what it's like to travel. And when we see things and experience things we care, no? So perhaps that's one way of saying why compassion and bodhicitta, the wish for everything to be awakening, no? Is something that comes very naturally with this, yeah? And also similarly why if that is our cultivated sort of perspective that we make this vow of a bodhisattva to achieve awakening for everything, yeah? Everyone, every sentient being. That this is something that has an extremely expansive, infinitely expansive quality that fits very well with the expansion and infinity that is conveyed through the analysis. So that relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta, they really fit very, very well together, just as well as appearance and emptiness fit together.
Yeah, I don't know. Was that helpful in some way as a way of talking about bodhicitta?
Luis, what do you think?
"Yeah, yes, thank you. That's beautiful."
Yeah, otherwise you're welcome I mean, it's a big issue obviously, no? But I think it's kind of like that.
Alright.
Anything else? Anyone else?
Otherwise, because after this there will be a long chapter, which requires a little bit of sort of detail also. So I think it makes more sense to conclude after this Chapter Six, yeah? So I would like to say thank you for this opportunity. It's been really great for me to, on an almost daily basis, connect with these teachings to the best of my capacity and with your help, really. It wouldn't happen in the way it does if it were not for this occasion, no? So similarly, as I was just saying, thinking is not just me, no? It's something that we do together. And learning is something we do together. So thank you very much for that.
I'm sure we'll have much more to do with each other in the future also, and best of luck to everyone. Then let's conclude here for today, no?
I thought we can just sit and talk if you like, no? But I think there's no point in getting into a chapter that we really can't reach the end of.
Student: "Yeah, no, I heard that from this text from Nāgārjuna, the Chapter Twenty-Four is supposed to be the most important one." Twenty-Four? "Twenty-Four." So I want to know from you if that's relevant or not. And if it is, if you could teach…" Yeah, we can talk about that tomorrow maybe. If you take a look at it, then we can talk about some verses tomorrow, no? Because that's also a very long chapter and I think it's better if we just… Like if you have some..
"Or maybe you could pick some of the verses, like the stanzas, the most important ones. I have not read it, I just..not yet." Why don't you skim it in the today, no, and see if there's some chapters there and some verses that you think are particularly important, no? And yeah, otherwise Rinpoche also said that I should continue teaching and so on but..
but let's see what the practical circumstances may or may not be for that, no like.. But I think at this point, there's so much that we have covered already. And it's true that there are some very nice lessons there about why emptiness makes sense in terms of the relative, and why it's not opposite of that. So we can definitely talk about that tomorrow also. But I would almost encourage you, because it's a long chapter too, to just read through it and see if anything stands out. There's also nothing particularly that hasn't been covered that is in Chapter Twenty-Four, I would say.
"Yeah, I'm feeling sad you're not covering the whole text." Yeah, thank you. "But I hope there is interdependence for you to continue in the future, because even though the reasonings, it seems like they repeat, but I don't know if it's because of your own experience and knowledge and the way you teach but it feels like you always give, it's the same reasoning, but it feels like you give a different perspective." Yeah, I think we can. That's just what the text is really like, no? It's like...
it's just something very special, no? The text, honestly. No, it's not like a text. It's not like something that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, no? But it's something...
that we can discover and live from wherever we jump in.
Thank you. "Take a vacation to Brazil and from there you can continue." Thank you. Alright, but I think we will have another session tomorrow then, yeah? Anyone is welcome, no? But especially for you guys, we'll be, yeah, I'm also very excited to hear about ways that you think this can be used in your, you all said so humbly, when I talked about what you will do as Dharma teachers with this. Nobody said that they would do anything as Dharma teachers, but I certainly hope that and believe and trust that you will be Dharma teachers and that you are Dharma teachers. So whatever you think in terms of how you will use this text is also extremely interesting for me to learn more about, yeah? See you tomorrow, yeah?
"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."
Alright.
So we are in Chapter Six, 'Analysis of Desire and the Desirous One,' which is primary mind and the subsidiary mental state of desire, their relation, or it can also be thought of as a person and its emotion.
And yesterday we talked about how those two cannot be sequential. It cannot be that the desirous one exists prior to the emotion, because in that case the desirous one would have to exist without that emotion, and would then not be the desirous one or otherwise. If the desirous one is present as such, then so is the emotion. So a sequential relationship is not possible. And because a sequential relationship is not possible, then we could already conclude that, therefore, there is no..
reality, substantial reality of either one of those two, the desirous one and the desire. But then there was an objection considered where it was said that the two are not sequential, but they nevertheless exist as.. and they exist as coexistent. So we began to look at that idea of having these two factors be present together as such, the desirous one and the desire. And we also read 4 and 5, which say that, "Identical things are not coexistent as nothing is coexistent with itself." So the option that the two are actually identical and coexistent in that capacity, that is not on because what would it mean for something to be coexistent with itself? If the two are coexistent.. if the two are identical, then their coexistence does not make any sense. And "Yet if they are different, how could they be coexistent?" If they are different from each other then what do we mean when we say that they are coexistent? Coexistent means that they have to be present equally. Whenever one is the case, the other has to be there as well. And if they are really essentially different from each other, how could we rightly claim that they coexist? How could two things that are essentially different from each other occupy the same, exactly the same space or constitute exactly the same context? It does not make sense. If they are coexistent, then they cannot be essentially distinct. "If a single thing were coexistent, this would occur in isolation as well. If the different were coexistent, then this would occur in isolation as well." That's 5 and it was an absurd consequence of saying either that the two are essentially the same and yet coexistent. If this were possible, then anything could be and would be coexistent with itself. When someone is all alone and there's nobody else around that person would still be coexistent. With what? With itself. And if the different could be coexistent, then we could have coexistence of two things that have no relation to each other whatsoever, like that horse on the mountain in the east and the cow on the mountain in the west, which or similar as we talked about yesterday. They would also be coexistent if this were possible for different things to be coexistent. And now today we proceed with 6.
"If they are different and coexistent, how could desire and the desirous one be established as two different things that would then be present together?"
So that is further looking at the impossibility of things that are different from each other being coexistent. If they are different from each other and coexistent, if that is the idea that we have in mind, that desire and the desirous one are really two different things, but they are coexistent, then what we are saying is that
since they are essentially different from each other, then they are not mutually dependent. It's not the case that the desirous one is the desirous one because of desire and desires and desirous one because of the desirous one. That sort of relationship is not meaningful if we are talking about things that are essentially distinct from each other.
So, if we think of desire and the desirous one though, what we notice is this kind of dependence. We don't notice them as things that are independent of each other. And because there is this dependent relation between them, then they cannot be by their nature distinct from each other. If they only make sense by virtue of each other, then it couldn't be that they are essentially distinct. So our encounter with desire and the desirous one, so to speak, is enough to tell us that the two are not essentially distinct.
And then there is this interesting 7 that says, "If desire and the desirous one are established as different, then why would you think of them as being coexistent?" If you really think that.. if that is what they are, different from each other, then why do you at all get the idea that they are coexistent? That's asking along the same lines that we were a couple of days ago. So why is it that we have this idea? Why do we think the way we do? If we think that they are really different from each other by nature, then why do we have all these ideas about them being also coexistent?
If they would be already dealt with by saying that they are different from each other, then there's no need to talk about their coexistence right? Then we have already said that those are different from each other and so what's the point in bringing up coexistence now?
In 8, "If they are asserted to be coexistent because their difference lacks establishment, would you then also assert their difference to prove their coexistence?" So that's prodding more to see why it is we say the things that we do.
If the reason that we begin to talk about coexistence is to give us a reason to talk about their difference, like we can say, "Well, they are present together," then we're not talking about one thing, there are two things and they are present together, so they are different, right? They are not just one and the same, they are different and they are present together. So if the reason that we begin to talk about trying to understand what the desire is versus that which has the desire, if in our attempt to understand what is meant and what we mean by desire and that which has desire, if we bring up coexistence of the two in order to allow us to say that they are different, the two coexist and so they must be different, would we then also say that the reason that
we can say that they coexist, is that they are different? Then we are not saying much, then we are just pointing it's a circular argument, we are just making a claim basically, because there is nothing that grounds what we are saying in any way at all. We start out saying, "Well, there is desire, let me tell you, there is such a thing as desire and there is the one that desires." Those two coexist and because they coexist, we can also say that they are different. Okay, one thing. And why can we say that they are different? Because they coexist. So we haven't said anything, no? Perhaps we might think that we have said something, but it's not an explanation at least, no? It's just one long line of declarations. So that's another example of the instruction in superior debate method that was mentioned a while ago, that whatever one may say in order to find flaw in the teaching of emptiness always assumes what is yet to be proven, namely that things exist by themselves, in and of themselves. And so they fall, those attempts, they fail and fall. "When things are not established as different, neither are they established as coexistent. When there is a thing that is different, it may be claimed that it is coexistent." So if there is no way of separating two things, then we can't say that they coexist either. And if there is no way of saying that two things are separate.. so if we have access to some, if we have access to some things that can be separated from each other, then we could make on that basis the claim that they coexist. But if we're not able to distinguish the two, then what do we mean by talking about their coexistence?
And then there's a summary. Therefore, because of what we have seen above, looking at the sequential, the possibility that the desire, the emotion, and that which desires are sequential, and having found that that cannot be the case, and having also looked at length at the possibility of the two being coexistent, and having found that there's no grounds for making that conclusion either, then, "Therefore desire and the desirous one are not established as coexistent or otherwise."
So those two don't exist as coexistent and they don't exist sequentially. Then how could they exist in any way at all? "As is the case with desire and the desirous one, no phenomena are established as coexistent or otherwise." So then there's an expansion, rapid expansion of the implications of the argument so that now it becomes what we learned through this analysis of desire and the desirous one is something that applies to everything, that things can neither be established sequentially nor can they be established as coexistent. So in other words what are these things? Dependent origination, without cessation, without arising, without any of the.. free from all of the eight extremes that are mentioned in the beginning of the homage, which is brought forth before we begin this whole process of analysis. "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."
What is the implication then? What have we learned? Good to ask ourselves that, yeah? Now perhaps we can agree in some sense with the, or wholeheartedly even, with the proclamation that is made in the beginning of the treatise. And then what are the implications of that? Yeah, it's a good question, no? And yeah what would you say?
What's it like to learn that things are dependent origination without arising and ceasing, going and coming?
There are probably myriads of ways to answer that question, no? And there's.. certainly there couldn't be a wrong or, yeah a wrong answer either, no? One thing that I think we can..well I just said there couldn't be a wrong answer but maybe there is. Or a kind of, yeah a wrong answer, there would be a wrong answer, no? It would mean that you haven't learned it, yeah? Okay yeah, sorry. Student: "My probably wrong answer would be like that maybe I give too much credit still to relative reality, but for me, yeah, what I learned is sort of that I can experience all that, that I can experience desire or being the desirous one or that I can see somebody walking or coming and going. But that this is just a mere experience. But if analyzed, none of that is happening sort of. That is really my take-home message so far. But nevertheless it feels still not refuted that I experience it like that." Yeah no definitely that is not, that couldn't be refuted, no? That perception and experience is what it is, no? But then when we try to understand what it is that's when it becomes.. the potential for something new emerges, no?
And then it becomes perhaps also possible to sense in a different way, if we understand that the structures that we usually subject our experience to are baseless under analysis. That doesn't make what goes on or what.. any less interesting or any less important. On the contrary, no? Because then we have no preconceived frameworks that we can just say "that's what it is." Now I know what to expect, yeah? We will think like that. We will think that we know what it is and that we know what to expect. But it's not really like that, yeah? So there's a tremendous potential for learning with every moment of experience. Because it's not what we think, yeah? And it's not what we expect. And yet we do things, we think, and we expect, and so things happen in different ways. It's not just that it's all fireworks, no? It's not all, certainly not all empty space at all, no? It's a very live field, no? And it's also serious what goes on there. It would be ridiculous not to say that, no? Of course if I look for the reasons why it's serious I don't find it. But it is dramatically important what goes on, no? So again I think this also makes us understand much more clearly why Buddhism makes such a big thing about telling us that it's so important what we do from moment to moment. And that even small things that usually we don't care about and people don't think are important are actually extremely important, almost more important than what if we just, yeah, they can be more important than any of the stuff that we usually think of as important, yeah? If I have a particular kind of attitude that I cultivate, positive or negative, then maybe nobody sees it, but it's still going to influence my whole field of experience, yeah? That we can understand from having seen that all of these things are dependent origination, and that they don't rest on anything apart from just this play of dependent origination and emptiness. Then it's clear that what I think and what I believe, what I feel, is an active factor in this whole world, yeah? It's not just my private experience. It's something that really shapes the world, no? And not just my world, it's the world that we all share together, no? Because dependent origination is nobody's property, right? It's what we all are and what we all do, what we can all be, but it doesn't belong to anyone, no?
Yeah. Yeah?
"We have two online, maybe first Andrew and then Luis."
Student: "Thank you. Just to answer the question, Thomas, I was also thinking about it in conjunction with what I believe was your question last class, something along the lines of what good is this? Or what benefit do we see in going through these teachings? And I think for me the word humility comes to mind. In other words, I feel quite convinced that we can't say 'that's how it is' in an absolute or a definitive way. Not that we can't offer a contextual or provisionally useful account, but I feel very convinced that in terms of an absolute account, or saying how exactly something is, that it's not really tenable. And I think that that can give rise to a profound humility and for sure it's given rise to an aspiration in me to sort of cultivate that humility. In other words, in a very mundane example, you know, sometimes I may think that I could be in a dispute with someone I care about and they may see it one way and I may see it one way and I think human beings are a little bit prone to absolutist thinking into assuming that the way they're seeing it is the way it is. But I think if we can give up the idea that there is in fact a way it is at all, that it opens up a little bit of space for humility there, which seems like a great benefit to me." Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, humility, that's an interesting concept. And so, yeah, we get involved and think that it is the way it is, yeah. And this obviously tells us that we're wrong when we think just like that, yeah.
And at the same time, so it's humility, but it's also a source of confidence, I think you can say, you know. Because we also know something about the
..there's also..
because it's not just that we know that we are wrong in thinking that, we also know what the problem is and we can acknowledge the problem and in some sense, once we have acknowledged the problem, it's not really a problem anymore.
So this is again also something that speaks to the importance of what then happens in us and in the things that we do based on this, yeah.
Because by understanding this, we can actually..
by understanding this, the very basis for making that error, it becomes possible for us to avoid the very basis for making that error. That becomes an actual option, no? We can't say that I have no choice, no, I wish one day something, something. I mean we can say that, but at the same time, we have also seen something that is undeniably the case, no? And something that undeniably applies everywhere. So it can make me humble when I think of myself as someone, as an individual who is something separate from the rest of the world and,
but it's also something that can give me confidence when I understand that that's actually a false story, yeah? And I don't know how much sense this means, makes, but what I'm just saying is, trying to say is that it's one thing to understand that I'm really wrong, and maybe one day I will be right, and then understanding that I'm really wrong and I actually see how I'm wrong. I've seen it again and again, very clearly. And if again, if you can see very clearly, repeatedly, exactly what is wrong, then you aren't really wrong, no? So there's some confidence that is possible also there, yeah?
"Luis, did you have a question online?"
Student: "Yeah, I was wondering in the same lines as Andrew about the benefit, and I think in a similar way as Anne, maybe I give too much credit to the relative, and sometimes I go into this direction of what you said to get stuck into ignoring it, like it makes no difference, because the relative sort of keeps appearing. And yesterday we were discussing about how this may influence, like this analysis may influence our practice of bodhicitta, like the relation between relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta, this is more going towards ultimate bodhicitta and then how this relates with relative. So if you could say some words about that. And also I'd like to understand better what you said about how our thinking may influence the world, construct the world, because the way this analysis goes, it seems like my thinking has no connection with the world." But what is the world that you are out of touch with? "Yeah, yeah." No? And also I think you could say there's no way of giving too much credit to the relative truth, no? The relative truth is.. you can't overestimate it, no? If it's the relative truth, then it's there to be reckoned with, no? And the same with the ultimate truth, you can't overestimate that either, no? If it's the ultimate truth it's going to show in..
So we don't need, I think, to be, I know I think also what you mean, no? But we don't have to...
I think it's very useful to keep in mind that they say that the more you understand about the relative truth, the more you understand about the ultimate truth; the better you know the ultimate truth, the better you understand the relative, yeah? So it's not that we have to..
if we do things right, so to speak, then this kind of issue of am I putting, standing too much to the side of the relative, or too much to the side of the ultimate, is not really an issue, yeah? So yeah, and then to think that my thinking is out of touch with reality, or out of touch with the world, we don't need to think that either, no? Because what is that world that my thinking is out of touch with? That's another aspect of my thinking, no? And that thinking is not just my thinking, it's something that happens, no? Just like my thinking is not my thinking alone, no? It's not.. what I call my thinking is actually not my thinking.
It's part of the world in the same way that this table is part of the world. And we think, no? And we think together. I can't think all alone, yeah? If I were all alone in the world I couldn't just sit there and think, no? Thinking requires a world, no?
So, in other words, these things as we are used to hearing, in the Buddhist teachings are dependent arising. And when all of this is dependent arising, and dependent arising is such a nice way to talk about something that everything is, yeah? Because it doesn't at all sound like one big something, no? And it isn't. And yet it is. It's all dependent arising. But it's something dynamic, no?
Which is the case here and there and everywhere in exactly the same way, yeah?
That doesn't make the world uninteresting. On the contrary, no? It makes the world very, very, yeah...
There's no stopping us from going very, very far, no? And when we go places, we see things that are surprising and exciting and so on, no? That's just what it's like to travel. And when we see things and experience things we care, no? So perhaps that's one way of saying why compassion and bodhicitta, the wish for everything to be awakening, no? Is something that comes very naturally with this, yeah? And also similarly why if that is our cultivated sort of perspective that we make this vow of a bodhisattva to achieve awakening for everything, yeah? Everyone, every sentient being. That this is something that has an extremely expansive, infinitely expansive quality that fits very well with the expansion and infinity that is conveyed through the analysis. So that relative bodhicitta and ultimate bodhicitta, they really fit very, very well together, just as well as appearance and emptiness fit together.
Yeah, I don't know. Was that helpful in some way as a way of talking about bodhicitta?
Luis, what do you think?
"Yeah, yes, thank you. That's beautiful."
Yeah, otherwise you're welcome I mean, it's a big issue obviously, no? But I think it's kind of like that.
Alright.
Anything else? Anyone else?
Otherwise, because after this there will be a long chapter, which requires a little bit of sort of detail also. So I think it makes more sense to conclude after this Chapter Six, yeah? So I would like to say thank you for this opportunity. It's been really great for me to, on an almost daily basis, connect with these teachings to the best of my capacity and with your help, really. It wouldn't happen in the way it does if it were not for this occasion, no? So similarly, as I was just saying, thinking is not just me, no? It's something that we do together. And learning is something we do together. So thank you very much for that.
I'm sure we'll have much more to do with each other in the future also, and best of luck to everyone. Then let's conclude here for today, no?
I thought we can just sit and talk if you like, no? But I think there's no point in getting into a chapter that we really can't reach the end of.
Student: "Yeah, no, I heard that from this text from Nāgārjuna, the Chapter Twenty-Four is supposed to be the most important one." Twenty-Four? "Twenty-Four." So I want to know from you if that's relevant or not. And if it is, if you could teach…" Yeah, we can talk about that tomorrow maybe. If you take a look at it, then we can talk about some verses tomorrow, no? Because that's also a very long chapter and I think it's better if we just… Like if you have some..
"Or maybe you could pick some of the verses, like the stanzas, the most important ones. I have not read it, I just..not yet." Why don't you skim it in the today, no, and see if there's some chapters there and some verses that you think are particularly important, no? And yeah, otherwise Rinpoche also said that I should continue teaching and so on but..
but let's see what the practical circumstances may or may not be for that, no like.. But I think at this point, there's so much that we have covered already. And it's true that there are some very nice lessons there about why emptiness makes sense in terms of the relative, and why it's not opposite of that. So we can definitely talk about that tomorrow also. But I would almost encourage you, because it's a long chapter too, to just read through it and see if anything stands out. There's also nothing particularly that hasn't been covered that is in Chapter Twenty-Four, I would say.
"Yeah, I'm feeling sad you're not covering the whole text." Yeah, thank you. "But I hope there is interdependence for you to continue in the future, because even though the reasonings, it seems like they repeat, but I don't know if it's because of your own experience and knowledge and the way you teach but it feels like you always give, it's the same reasoning, but it feels like you give a different perspective." Yeah, I think we can. That's just what the text is really like, no? It's like...
it's just something very special, no? The text, honestly. No, it's not like a text. It's not like something that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, no? But it's something...
that we can discover and live from wherever we jump in.
Thank you. "Take a vacation to Brazil and from there you can continue." Thank you. Alright, but I think we will have another session tomorrow then, yeah? Anyone is welcome, no? But especially for you guys, we'll be, yeah, I'm also very excited to hear about ways that you think this can be used in your, you all said so humbly, when I talked about what you will do as Dharma teachers with this. Nobody said that they would do anything as Dharma teachers, but I certainly hope that and believe and trust that you will be Dharma teachers and that you are Dharma teachers. So whatever you think in terms of how you will use this text is also extremely interesting for me to learn more about, yeah? See you tomorrow, yeah?
video
play-rounded-outline
Scroll to Top