Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 29
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Nāgārjuna's teachings, the self, and views.
Description
In Session 29, students discuss Nāgārjuna’s teachings, the self, and views. The lecture highlights the alignment of Nāgārjuna’s teachings with natural thinking, questioning the need for a self theory. The discussion delves into disassociation in understanding emptiness, with students balancing deep contemplation and experiential aspects. Thomas notes disassociation doesn’t mean distancing from reality but recognizing view-constructing concepts’ emptiness. Practical path approaches and transformative understanding of emptiness are stressed.
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 ahhihilated 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 just have a discussion session today. If any sort of issues or questions or thoughts and ideas that you would like to bring up then you are welcome. And tomorrow we will then have the final session with Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at 4 pm Nepali time, meaning at Saturday Nepali time at 4, we will meet for the transmission.
Any thing?
Student: "Yeah, if you don't mind if we go on the Chapter 24th because in the next verse, because in this chapter Nāgārjuna is criticized for saying that 'everything is emptiness.' But in some verse he turns around and says actually if you say things have nature then things cannot happen." Right. "So like the verse 14 and then 18, 19 he is talking about that."
Yeah, that's a conclusion that presents itself by seeing that arising, no arising, going and coming, same and different, that they cannot be supported in reality. So then the conclusion is, okay, this is what it is, and we also know that there is no arising, no ceasing, going and coming, same and different. So in other words, contrary to what we might expect at first glance, it's not because things are different and things can be the same and it's not because things actually arise and things actually cease, that all of this is..
those two things are not two distinct facts, the fact of whatever we call this and then the fact of its emptiness are not essentially different. So in other words, for this to be what it is, it will have to be that there is no same and no different. If there really were same and different, then we couldn't think, like I couldn't think that 'I am the desirous one, I have desire and we are sort of same and also different,' like 'it's my desire so it's part of me but it's also my desire so it's something that's different from me.' All of that stuff could not be the case if it really were the case that there was same and different, going and coming. I think I couldn't have the idea that I'm the same person now who got out of the door a little earlier, if it were that there was real same and different because that person and me are neither the same and different. And that's also how I think, in many ways I think I'm the same guy and in many ways I think I'm very different. So we wouldn't be able to take all these liberties if it weren't for emptiness.
Student: "In terms of you thinking about yourself as the same or different, how does Nāgārjuna analyze the concept of the self in this capacity? What I mean to say is yes, you're saying like 'I'm neither the same nor different, I'm not that person but I'm also not not that person.' Can you just elaborate more on how the sense of self is fully let go of, where you see yourself but you also don't have this solid rigid sense of self? If that makes sense."
What you are asking for is like a theory of self basically, no? "No, not necessarily. What I mean to say is what's Nāgārjuna's.. we've spent all this time digesting the existence and non existence of phenomena, elements, self, desire, walking, all of this, right? And yet we still have this sense of myself, I am myself today and these are my things, and I will be myself until I die. And Nāgārjuna is teaching us to see that we are not the same person as we were a moment ago and we're not different from that person. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate more on how one uses the sense of emptiness to let go of the sense of like 'I am me separate from this world.'" So the.. how was it you now put it, that he's teaching us to see that we are not the same from just a moment ago and also not different?
Maybe that's actually what we think, no? It's not really, it's what we already think. It's not something Nāgārjuna is teaching us, no? That's how we're used to thinking.
So I think it's a.. so the question like…
Yeah, so that is something that we are already thinking and maybe we just notice the.. we are used to thinking that that's all very coherent and that is all…
I still think that what you are looking for is a little bit like a.. it is a bit like a theory of self, no? Like a kind of plan for how we can make it all work with the self, no? And that's of course fine, no, and many people spend time on that issue, yeah?
But so the question is how central…
and at the same time there's also something about theories of self that… like what is the most we can expect from a theory of self, yeah? Because it also sounds like you're also asking, so how can that theory really help me? Like how can it really? How can the theory be really good? And how can I apply it so that it really works very well, whatever I want to do, whatever I want to be, yeah? And that of course, yeah, is how we usually think and can and should think. But perhaps that's precisely what's not necessary here, yeah?
That's the beauty of the approach also is that we don't perhaps really need the… we don't have to have a theory in place, yeah? And then of course as a sort of roadmap as we go, no, then there are lots of theories that are useful.
Yeah, like they say, the equipoise is like space and outside of equipoise everything is like a dream and an illusion. That's like a classic theory of self maybe, actually. If you want you could say that. "Andrew online, you have a question?" Student: "Yeah, thank you. My question is about, I think there are two verses that I'm aware of which are kind of about views in general and the abandonment of views. There's this one also in 24 which is that says something like, I don't have it in front of me, but something like emptiness leads to the end of all views, but if you grasp emptiness as a view you're in trouble essentially. And then there's the famous, the closing verse, the very final verse where Nāgārjuna salutes Gautama who taught the abandoning or ceasing of all views as well. I think the obvious objection that I'm kind of asking about and I'm pretty sure was and has been raised against Nāgārjuna is, you know, what do you mean? You've just laid out 27 chapters of views. The idea that there's no inherent essence etc. will have to be a view. So I'm just curious about, Thomas, if you could maybe offer some commentary so to speak on that objection and how we're meant to understand Nāgārjuna's statements about the relinquishing of views in the general sense." That's another key Madhyamaka philosophy issue, which is treated in many different ways, very different ways. How to understand that, no view? What is your favored explanation yourself? What would you say?
"I'm not really sure. I think if I sort of force myself to go towards the beginning of an answer it might be something like provisionally speaking we can adopt some views which are useful, like the view of emptiness perhaps. But we should keep this view also sort of lightly held. That's kind of how I take him, in other words, that we can't hold any view strongly including that one. Something along those lines."
Yeah.
Thank you. Again it's like.. What can we say?
What actually does it mean to have a view?
It's also interesting to think about.
There are many, many ways that this issue has been dealt with by commentators. Often there's use of the two truths.
But you can have a view about both truths. And what he's talking about there with the view of emptiness. That would be like a view about the ultimate.
For those whose view is emptiness there is no cure. So that seems to be telling us something quite important about what's at stake with having views.
So I don't really know what to…
I feel there's something important I would like to say but I'm not really sure what it is and how to say it.
Something in the direction of also this issue, which is like classic Madhyamaka philosophy. So does Nagarjuna have a view? What does he mean when he says he has no view? Then you can write about that, you can argue about that. And that has been done and will be done. But it's also possible to look at what happens to my own views through this kind of analysis.
And try to sort of resolve the issue that way.
A view is something that… this kind of view, is a view that prevents liberation, the kind of views that he's talking about. So it's something pretty serious. And if it prevents liberation
then it can go pretty bad even if the view looks good. Then in the long run there's no guarantee at all where we might end up, with that kind of view.
We can just try to think about what's wrong with views? Like what's wrong with having a view? In many ways we need a view to… like what we were just talking about, to make sense of things and to have some sort of orientation of where to go and what to do. Why should it be so bad to have a view? I mean it's something we ask each other what's your point of view, and your view, and my view is such and such.
Student: "In some ways we don't have a choice. My question is about disassociation actually, because it seems as if the more we engage with these arguments the more we have the opportunity to sort of disassociate from the solidity within which we typically experience things. And I think the extent to which a view is really solid is the extent to which we're kind of trapped inside of it. And then that is going to proliferate suffering inevitably. At the same time, normally when we think of the word 'disassociate' it's usually negative. It means we're actually distancing ourselves from what's true and what's real. And so I've been thinking often about something you said a few weeks ago about the importance of taking breaks in the analysis, but also the importance, particularly the second part is what stuck with me, the importance of noticing when we took a break, because we're going to do it anyways. We're deluded, we're confused. And so if we can catch ourselves within a view and then be able to kind of look at it a little bit more distantly or a little bit more, I don't know, proximously, closer, then I think we can continue on the path in a way that is really applicable to our daily life. That said, the danger for me is of how we're disassociating from the solidity of our view. And so in some ways when we have conversations like this it feels really heady and really kind of like, "Oh, well if you just keep thinking about it then liberation will continue to get brighter and brighter and brighter." But there's a certain courage involved with staying close to the experience of not knowing again and again and again. And so to me there's like a positive and helpful conducive disassociation and then a really counterproductive disassociation that actually would be quite dangerous in the world. And I wonder if you could speak about how to like dance that dance in a way that doesn't feel so clumsy."
What we just talked about with.. why all of this couldn't be the case if things were real in the way we might think, in and of themselves. Maybe we can say if we understand that, if that is on our mind and then exactly what is in which way, that's another issue that sort of belongs to the context of the path, how to have this sort of stuff in mind in a way that is productive and dynamic. But if we have that in mind then the views wouldn't be...
The views are constructed with concepts such as arising and ceasing, the same and different and so on, right? So if it is possible to see the emptiness of those concepts, then those views are not binding anymore, no? It's also possible to see the dependent arising of views. It's not that views are something outside, like that we just have to stay clear of, no? That would be going back into the same framework that is the root of the problem, yeah?
So we can say 'dissociate' from views and taking it 'lightly.' But as we have also tried to think about before, that is also a process of actually taking things more seriously because what comes with the sense of having a view is that everything, a lot is already accounted for, yeah? The view has taken care of a whole lot for us, there's not so much that we need to be directly concerned with because the view explains it for us, yeah? What is this, that is that, this should be, this should not be. But if we can see with the help of theses analyses that that's how views are constructed but they aren't founded on any of those, all of those elements in the construction of the view, of a view, are themselves unfounded, then the view is something that happens in the moment, no? It's not something that we can look at in a view shop and choose between in that sense, no? It's not something that is distinct from ourselves. It's something that we built in the moment and again together, no? Even if I'm all alone, I am together in some way with others, no? Because these concepts, they are shared between us, no? It's nobody's concept and yet we all use them in a very intimate way, yeah? So actually all those intuitions that we have about knowledge of emptiness being something that detracts from the acuteness of experience and being really involved in this being something that doesn't, that detracts from knowledge of emptiness, all of those intuitions are actually completely wrong, no? That's something we can understand conceptually at least, that it's not like that, no? It's not that we sort of zoom in and out and we have to be careful not to be, the more spaced out we become somehow, the more closer to the ultimate we get. Of course not, no? But intuitively we often think like that, no? Because ultimate is not this, not that and so on, so.. And at the same time the brightness of, in our face quality of whatever it is that's the case, is not something that in any way is counter to the ultimate nature of things. So that in itself could not be a hindrance for appreciating the ultimate truth, no? So maybe it's useful just to think that all of those very natural, in many ways, intuitions are just dead wrong, yeah?
So maybe that's in terms of dancing, practically in practical terms it's useful to keep that in mind, yeah?
Does that make some sense? "It does but it still feels somehow distant from the juiciness of what I feel to be experiencing, which in this moment is a lot of pain, like a relative of mine is currently dying and so I'm trying to figure out how to relate to both the pain that's here but also hold the fact that maybe all of my assumptions and definitely all of my assumptions about the situation are incorrect, yeah?" Yeah, and then..
and then maybe it's possible to also use views in a way that we wouldn't otherwise be so capable of, yeah? If we understand the dependent origination of views then because we know that understanding dependent origination doesn't mean transcending dependent origination, it just means knowing and being dependent origination. The same with all what's possible then in terms of dependent origination and knowledge of dependent origination becomes possible with respect to our views also. Like the views are much more concrete and much more similar to the rest of the world, the abstract and the concrete, that distinction is also something that we construct, yeah? So by understanding the distinction between, that that distinction is.. well basically what all of this goes to show is that there's a good reason why there's so much stuff to do on the path, yeah? And why there's so many things that can be done, many different approaches to take, including very simple advice about taking breaks and so on, yeah? So it's a very.. and how to really benefit from this kind of insight in that practical way as a way of traversing the path is something that, yeah, that one then commits one's whole existence to really. You know, if one has seen the more acutely true all of this becomes, the more that kind of concern becomes very natural, yeah? Because what else should one be thinking of, apart from just how to integrate and make best possible use of this kind of knowledge, yeah? So even if one is not thinking about the path, it's still path related because everything is in the light of this, yeah? So yeah, then all the advice that is relevant for the path in terms of finding a good place to be, good companions to be with, good instructors, good schedules for how to do things, livelihood, and all of those things that are.. have been discussed and taught and practiced for millennia, those are all really relevant, yeah?
So there's perhaps like a sense of..
with this kind of understanding if we sort of try to summarize, no, what one might, what kind of situation one might be in having studied for some time. Again, it doesn't have to be so long time, but sincerely and carefully for some time there's a sense of, one understands the...
when we understand emptiness it would be lying to say that we don't understand it, no? Like I have no idea what it means unless we want to just point to the inconceivable nature of emptiness, no? But the teaching of emptiness, we can't say that we don't understand it, no? This is for, I have to study in a different class or something like that, no? We do understand emptiness and understanding emptiness means understanding a whole lot, no? It means understanding the timelessness, it means understanding infinity and so many things, no? Doesn't mean that we can go out and be super philosophers or oracles about anything like that, no? But again, like to be honest, no, we can't say that we don't understand the teaching of emptiness. Like what Nāgārjuna says in the opening verses, what arises in dependence does not cease and does not arise, without the sameness and difference, no? We have a lot of good reasons to say that we understand that, yeah? So there's a sense of having understood so much, no? And so much which is literally the same as what all the great awakened beings understand, no? By definition. So that is almost like a magical empowerment, no? And at the same time we are also very much on the spot, no? What do we then do next? And the good thing is that there are so many resources available, yeah? And nobody can tell us 'that's what you should do.' We can ask for that kind of advice and it can be useful to have that kind of advice, no? But there's.. like nobody can say for everyone what is the right thing to do and what is the most effective. But what we can say is that there's plenty of support, no?
Student: "Thank you so much, Thomas."
"Thank you, Thomas."
"Thank you Thomas. It's been wonderful." Thank you. I really enjoyed it a lot myself and I just enjoyed, I feel like I learn every day, every moment in this way. So thank you very much. "Thank you very much. Unique presentation, very clear and opened up a lot of doors that I need to examine further. Thank you." Thank you. "Yeah, we look for similar sessions in the future many times." Yeah, right. Let's do that. "I hope you will get to make yourself available for us again and again." Thank you. Likewise. Thank you. "Yeah, I also just got the mic. I don't know why but thank you very much in the name, I guess, of all of us. I think we all enjoyed that journey that was not too much an academic journey out there, but really something that is transformative and insightful. So thank you so much. And yeah I hope that you are continuing. Thank you.
Alright, so we just have a discussion session today. If any sort of issues or questions or thoughts and ideas that you would like to bring up then you are welcome. And tomorrow we will then have the final session with Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at 4 pm Nepali time, meaning at Saturday Nepali time at 4, we will meet for the transmission.
Any thing?
Student: "Yeah, if you don't mind if we go on the Chapter 24th because in the next verse, because in this chapter Nāgārjuna is criticized for saying that 'everything is emptiness.' But in some verse he turns around and says actually if you say things have nature then things cannot happen." Right. "So like the verse 14 and then 18, 19 he is talking about that."
Yeah, that's a conclusion that presents itself by seeing that arising, no arising, going and coming, same and different, that they cannot be supported in reality. So then the conclusion is, okay, this is what it is, and we also know that there is no arising, no ceasing, going and coming, same and different. So in other words, contrary to what we might expect at first glance, it's not because things are different and things can be the same and it's not because things actually arise and things actually cease, that all of this is..
those two things are not two distinct facts, the fact of whatever we call this and then the fact of its emptiness are not essentially different. So in other words, for this to be what it is, it will have to be that there is no same and no different. If there really were same and different, then we couldn't think, like I couldn't think that 'I am the desirous one, I have desire and we are sort of same and also different,' like 'it's my desire so it's part of me but it's also my desire so it's something that's different from me.' All of that stuff could not be the case if it really were the case that there was same and different, going and coming. I think I couldn't have the idea that I'm the same person now who got out of the door a little earlier, if it were that there was real same and different because that person and me are neither the same and different. And that's also how I think, in many ways I think I'm the same guy and in many ways I think I'm very different. So we wouldn't be able to take all these liberties if it weren't for emptiness.
Student: "In terms of you thinking about yourself as the same or different, how does Nāgārjuna analyze the concept of the self in this capacity? What I mean to say is yes, you're saying like 'I'm neither the same nor different, I'm not that person but I'm also not not that person.' Can you just elaborate more on how the sense of self is fully let go of, where you see yourself but you also don't have this solid rigid sense of self? If that makes sense."
What you are asking for is like a theory of self basically, no? "No, not necessarily. What I mean to say is what's Nāgārjuna's.. we've spent all this time digesting the existence and non existence of phenomena, elements, self, desire, walking, all of this, right? And yet we still have this sense of myself, I am myself today and these are my things, and I will be myself until I die. And Nāgārjuna is teaching us to see that we are not the same person as we were a moment ago and we're not different from that person. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate more on how one uses the sense of emptiness to let go of the sense of like 'I am me separate from this world.'" So the.. how was it you now put it, that he's teaching us to see that we are not the same from just a moment ago and also not different?
Maybe that's actually what we think, no? It's not really, it's what we already think. It's not something Nāgārjuna is teaching us, no? That's how we're used to thinking.
So I think it's a.. so the question like…
Yeah, so that is something that we are already thinking and maybe we just notice the.. we are used to thinking that that's all very coherent and that is all…
I still think that what you are looking for is a little bit like a.. it is a bit like a theory of self, no? Like a kind of plan for how we can make it all work with the self, no? And that's of course fine, no, and many people spend time on that issue, yeah?
But so the question is how central…
and at the same time there's also something about theories of self that… like what is the most we can expect from a theory of self, yeah? Because it also sounds like you're also asking, so how can that theory really help me? Like how can it really? How can the theory be really good? And how can I apply it so that it really works very well, whatever I want to do, whatever I want to be, yeah? And that of course, yeah, is how we usually think and can and should think. But perhaps that's precisely what's not necessary here, yeah?
That's the beauty of the approach also is that we don't perhaps really need the… we don't have to have a theory in place, yeah? And then of course as a sort of roadmap as we go, no, then there are lots of theories that are useful.
Yeah, like they say, the equipoise is like space and outside of equipoise everything is like a dream and an illusion. That's like a classic theory of self maybe, actually. If you want you could say that. "Andrew online, you have a question?" Student: "Yeah, thank you. My question is about, I think there are two verses that I'm aware of which are kind of about views in general and the abandonment of views. There's this one also in 24 which is that says something like, I don't have it in front of me, but something like emptiness leads to the end of all views, but if you grasp emptiness as a view you're in trouble essentially. And then there's the famous, the closing verse, the very final verse where Nāgārjuna salutes Gautama who taught the abandoning or ceasing of all views as well. I think the obvious objection that I'm kind of asking about and I'm pretty sure was and has been raised against Nāgārjuna is, you know, what do you mean? You've just laid out 27 chapters of views. The idea that there's no inherent essence etc. will have to be a view. So I'm just curious about, Thomas, if you could maybe offer some commentary so to speak on that objection and how we're meant to understand Nāgārjuna's statements about the relinquishing of views in the general sense." That's another key Madhyamaka philosophy issue, which is treated in many different ways, very different ways. How to understand that, no view? What is your favored explanation yourself? What would you say?
"I'm not really sure. I think if I sort of force myself to go towards the beginning of an answer it might be something like provisionally speaking we can adopt some views which are useful, like the view of emptiness perhaps. But we should keep this view also sort of lightly held. That's kind of how I take him, in other words, that we can't hold any view strongly including that one. Something along those lines."
Yeah.
Thank you. Again it's like.. What can we say?
What actually does it mean to have a view?
It's also interesting to think about.
There are many, many ways that this issue has been dealt with by commentators. Often there's use of the two truths.
But you can have a view about both truths. And what he's talking about there with the view of emptiness. That would be like a view about the ultimate.
For those whose view is emptiness there is no cure. So that seems to be telling us something quite important about what's at stake with having views.
So I don't really know what to…
I feel there's something important I would like to say but I'm not really sure what it is and how to say it.
Something in the direction of also this issue, which is like classic Madhyamaka philosophy. So does Nagarjuna have a view? What does he mean when he says he has no view? Then you can write about that, you can argue about that. And that has been done and will be done. But it's also possible to look at what happens to my own views through this kind of analysis.
And try to sort of resolve the issue that way.
A view is something that… this kind of view, is a view that prevents liberation, the kind of views that he's talking about. So it's something pretty serious. And if it prevents liberation
then it can go pretty bad even if the view looks good. Then in the long run there's no guarantee at all where we might end up, with that kind of view.
We can just try to think about what's wrong with views? Like what's wrong with having a view? In many ways we need a view to… like what we were just talking about, to make sense of things and to have some sort of orientation of where to go and what to do. Why should it be so bad to have a view? I mean it's something we ask each other what's your point of view, and your view, and my view is such and such.
Student: "In some ways we don't have a choice. My question is about disassociation actually, because it seems as if the more we engage with these arguments the more we have the opportunity to sort of disassociate from the solidity within which we typically experience things. And I think the extent to which a view is really solid is the extent to which we're kind of trapped inside of it. And then that is going to proliferate suffering inevitably. At the same time, normally when we think of the word 'disassociate' it's usually negative. It means we're actually distancing ourselves from what's true and what's real. And so I've been thinking often about something you said a few weeks ago about the importance of taking breaks in the analysis, but also the importance, particularly the second part is what stuck with me, the importance of noticing when we took a break, because we're going to do it anyways. We're deluded, we're confused. And so if we can catch ourselves within a view and then be able to kind of look at it a little bit more distantly or a little bit more, I don't know, proximously, closer, then I think we can continue on the path in a way that is really applicable to our daily life. That said, the danger for me is of how we're disassociating from the solidity of our view. And so in some ways when we have conversations like this it feels really heady and really kind of like, "Oh, well if you just keep thinking about it then liberation will continue to get brighter and brighter and brighter." But there's a certain courage involved with staying close to the experience of not knowing again and again and again. And so to me there's like a positive and helpful conducive disassociation and then a really counterproductive disassociation that actually would be quite dangerous in the world. And I wonder if you could speak about how to like dance that dance in a way that doesn't feel so clumsy."
What we just talked about with.. why all of this couldn't be the case if things were real in the way we might think, in and of themselves. Maybe we can say if we understand that, if that is on our mind and then exactly what is in which way, that's another issue that sort of belongs to the context of the path, how to have this sort of stuff in mind in a way that is productive and dynamic. But if we have that in mind then the views wouldn't be...
The views are constructed with concepts such as arising and ceasing, the same and different and so on, right? So if it is possible to see the emptiness of those concepts, then those views are not binding anymore, no? It's also possible to see the dependent arising of views. It's not that views are something outside, like that we just have to stay clear of, no? That would be going back into the same framework that is the root of the problem, yeah?
So we can say 'dissociate' from views and taking it 'lightly.' But as we have also tried to think about before, that is also a process of actually taking things more seriously because what comes with the sense of having a view is that everything, a lot is already accounted for, yeah? The view has taken care of a whole lot for us, there's not so much that we need to be directly concerned with because the view explains it for us, yeah? What is this, that is that, this should be, this should not be. But if we can see with the help of theses analyses that that's how views are constructed but they aren't founded on any of those, all of those elements in the construction of the view, of a view, are themselves unfounded, then the view is something that happens in the moment, no? It's not something that we can look at in a view shop and choose between in that sense, no? It's not something that is distinct from ourselves. It's something that we built in the moment and again together, no? Even if I'm all alone, I am together in some way with others, no? Because these concepts, they are shared between us, no? It's nobody's concept and yet we all use them in a very intimate way, yeah? So actually all those intuitions that we have about knowledge of emptiness being something that detracts from the acuteness of experience and being really involved in this being something that doesn't, that detracts from knowledge of emptiness, all of those intuitions are actually completely wrong, no? That's something we can understand conceptually at least, that it's not like that, no? It's not that we sort of zoom in and out and we have to be careful not to be, the more spaced out we become somehow, the more closer to the ultimate we get. Of course not, no? But intuitively we often think like that, no? Because ultimate is not this, not that and so on, so.. And at the same time the brightness of, in our face quality of whatever it is that's the case, is not something that in any way is counter to the ultimate nature of things. So that in itself could not be a hindrance for appreciating the ultimate truth, no? So maybe it's useful just to think that all of those very natural, in many ways, intuitions are just dead wrong, yeah?
So maybe that's in terms of dancing, practically in practical terms it's useful to keep that in mind, yeah?
Does that make some sense? "It does but it still feels somehow distant from the juiciness of what I feel to be experiencing, which in this moment is a lot of pain, like a relative of mine is currently dying and so I'm trying to figure out how to relate to both the pain that's here but also hold the fact that maybe all of my assumptions and definitely all of my assumptions about the situation are incorrect, yeah?" Yeah, and then..
and then maybe it's possible to also use views in a way that we wouldn't otherwise be so capable of, yeah? If we understand the dependent origination of views then because we know that understanding dependent origination doesn't mean transcending dependent origination, it just means knowing and being dependent origination. The same with all what's possible then in terms of dependent origination and knowledge of dependent origination becomes possible with respect to our views also. Like the views are much more concrete and much more similar to the rest of the world, the abstract and the concrete, that distinction is also something that we construct, yeah? So by understanding the distinction between, that that distinction is.. well basically what all of this goes to show is that there's a good reason why there's so much stuff to do on the path, yeah? And why there's so many things that can be done, many different approaches to take, including very simple advice about taking breaks and so on, yeah? So it's a very.. and how to really benefit from this kind of insight in that practical way as a way of traversing the path is something that, yeah, that one then commits one's whole existence to really. You know, if one has seen the more acutely true all of this becomes, the more that kind of concern becomes very natural, yeah? Because what else should one be thinking of, apart from just how to integrate and make best possible use of this kind of knowledge, yeah? So even if one is not thinking about the path, it's still path related because everything is in the light of this, yeah? So yeah, then all the advice that is relevant for the path in terms of finding a good place to be, good companions to be with, good instructors, good schedules for how to do things, livelihood, and all of those things that are.. have been discussed and taught and practiced for millennia, those are all really relevant, yeah?
So there's perhaps like a sense of..
with this kind of understanding if we sort of try to summarize, no, what one might, what kind of situation one might be in having studied for some time. Again, it doesn't have to be so long time, but sincerely and carefully for some time there's a sense of, one understands the...
when we understand emptiness it would be lying to say that we don't understand it, no? Like I have no idea what it means unless we want to just point to the inconceivable nature of emptiness, no? But the teaching of emptiness, we can't say that we don't understand it, no? This is for, I have to study in a different class or something like that, no? We do understand emptiness and understanding emptiness means understanding a whole lot, no? It means understanding the timelessness, it means understanding infinity and so many things, no? Doesn't mean that we can go out and be super philosophers or oracles about anything like that, no? But again, like to be honest, no, we can't say that we don't understand the teaching of emptiness. Like what Nāgārjuna says in the opening verses, what arises in dependence does not cease and does not arise, without the sameness and difference, no? We have a lot of good reasons to say that we understand that, yeah? So there's a sense of having understood so much, no? And so much which is literally the same as what all the great awakened beings understand, no? By definition. So that is almost like a magical empowerment, no? And at the same time we are also very much on the spot, no? What do we then do next? And the good thing is that there are so many resources available, yeah? And nobody can tell us 'that's what you should do.' We can ask for that kind of advice and it can be useful to have that kind of advice, no? But there's.. like nobody can say for everyone what is the right thing to do and what is the most effective. But what we can say is that there's plenty of support, no?
Student: "Thank you so much, Thomas."
"Thank you, Thomas."
"Thank you Thomas. It's been wonderful." Thank you. I really enjoyed it a lot myself and I just enjoyed, I feel like I learn every day, every moment in this way. So thank you very much. "Thank you very much. Unique presentation, very clear and opened up a lot of doors that I need to examine further. Thank you." Thank you. "Yeah, we look for similar sessions in the future many times." Yeah, right. Let's do that. "I hope you will get to make yourself available for us again and again." Thank you. Likewise. Thank you. "Yeah, I also just got the mic. I don't know why but thank you very much in the name, I guess, of all of us. I think we all enjoyed that journey that was not too much an academic journey out there, but really something that is transformative and insightful. So thank you so much. And yeah I hope that you are continuing. Thank you.
"That which originates dependently
does not cease and does not arise,
is not ahhihilated 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 just have a discussion session today. If any sort of issues or questions or thoughts and ideas that you would like to bring up then you are welcome. And tomorrow we will then have the final session with Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at 4 pm Nepali time, meaning at Saturday Nepali time at 4, we will meet for the transmission.
Any thing?
Student: "Yeah, if you don't mind if we go on the Chapter 24th because in the next verse, because in this chapter Nāgārjuna is criticized for saying that 'everything is emptiness.' But in some verse he turns around and says actually if you say things have nature then things cannot happen." Right. "So like the verse 14 and then 18, 19 he is talking about that."
Yeah, that's a conclusion that presents itself by seeing that arising, no arising, going and coming, same and different, that they cannot be supported in reality. So then the conclusion is, okay, this is what it is, and we also know that there is no arising, no ceasing, going and coming, same and different. So in other words, contrary to what we might expect at first glance, it's not because things are different and things can be the same and it's not because things actually arise and things actually cease, that all of this is..
those two things are not two distinct facts, the fact of whatever we call this and then the fact of its emptiness are not essentially different. So in other words, for this to be what it is, it will have to be that there is no same and no different. If there really were same and different, then we couldn't think, like I couldn't think that 'I am the desirous one, I have desire and we are sort of same and also different,' like 'it's my desire so it's part of me but it's also my desire so it's something that's different from me.' All of that stuff could not be the case if it really were the case that there was same and different, going and coming. I think I couldn't have the idea that I'm the same person now who got out of the door a little earlier, if it were that there was real same and different because that person and me are neither the same and different. And that's also how I think, in many ways I think I'm the same guy and in many ways I think I'm very different. So we wouldn't be able to take all these liberties if it weren't for emptiness.
Student: "In terms of you thinking about yourself as the same or different, how does Nāgārjuna analyze the concept of the self in this capacity? What I mean to say is yes, you're saying like 'I'm neither the same nor different, I'm not that person but I'm also not not that person.' Can you just elaborate more on how the sense of self is fully let go of, where you see yourself but you also don't have this solid rigid sense of self? If that makes sense."
What you are asking for is like a theory of self basically, no? "No, not necessarily. What I mean to say is what's Nāgārjuna's.. we've spent all this time digesting the existence and non existence of phenomena, elements, self, desire, walking, all of this, right? And yet we still have this sense of myself, I am myself today and these are my things, and I will be myself until I die. And Nāgārjuna is teaching us to see that we are not the same person as we were a moment ago and we're not different from that person. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate more on how one uses the sense of emptiness to let go of the sense of like 'I am me separate from this world.'" So the.. how was it you now put it, that he's teaching us to see that we are not the same from just a moment ago and also not different?
Maybe that's actually what we think, no? It's not really, it's what we already think. It's not something Nāgārjuna is teaching us, no? That's how we're used to thinking.
So I think it's a.. so the question like…
Yeah, so that is something that we are already thinking and maybe we just notice the.. we are used to thinking that that's all very coherent and that is all…
I still think that what you are looking for is a little bit like a.. it is a bit like a theory of self, no? Like a kind of plan for how we can make it all work with the self, no? And that's of course fine, no, and many people spend time on that issue, yeah?
But so the question is how central…
and at the same time there's also something about theories of self that… like what is the most we can expect from a theory of self, yeah? Because it also sounds like you're also asking, so how can that theory really help me? Like how can it really? How can the theory be really good? And how can I apply it so that it really works very well, whatever I want to do, whatever I want to be, yeah? And that of course, yeah, is how we usually think and can and should think. But perhaps that's precisely what's not necessary here, yeah?
That's the beauty of the approach also is that we don't perhaps really need the… we don't have to have a theory in place, yeah? And then of course as a sort of roadmap as we go, no, then there are lots of theories that are useful.
Yeah, like they say, the equipoise is like space and outside of equipoise everything is like a dream and an illusion. That's like a classic theory of self maybe, actually. If you want you could say that. "Andrew online, you have a question?" Student: "Yeah, thank you. My question is about, I think there are two verses that I'm aware of which are kind of about views in general and the abandonment of views. There's this one also in 24 which is that says something like, I don't have it in front of me, but something like emptiness leads to the end of all views, but if you grasp emptiness as a view you're in trouble essentially. And then there's the famous, the closing verse, the very final verse where Nāgārjuna salutes Gautama who taught the abandoning or ceasing of all views as well. I think the obvious objection that I'm kind of asking about and I'm pretty sure was and has been raised against Nāgārjuna is, you know, what do you mean? You've just laid out 27 chapters of views. The idea that there's no inherent essence etc. will have to be a view. So I'm just curious about, Thomas, if you could maybe offer some commentary so to speak on that objection and how we're meant to understand Nāgārjuna's statements about the relinquishing of views in the general sense." That's another key Madhyamaka philosophy issue, which is treated in many different ways, very different ways. How to understand that, no view? What is your favored explanation yourself? What would you say?
"I'm not really sure. I think if I sort of force myself to go towards the beginning of an answer it might be something like provisionally speaking we can adopt some views which are useful, like the view of emptiness perhaps. But we should keep this view also sort of lightly held. That's kind of how I take him, in other words, that we can't hold any view strongly including that one. Something along those lines."
Yeah.
Thank you. Again it's like.. What can we say?
What actually does it mean to have a view?
It's also interesting to think about.
There are many, many ways that this issue has been dealt with by commentators. Often there's use of the two truths.
But you can have a view about both truths. And what he's talking about there with the view of emptiness. That would be like a view about the ultimate.
For those whose view is emptiness there is no cure. So that seems to be telling us something quite important about what's at stake with having views.
So I don't really know what to…
I feel there's something important I would like to say but I'm not really sure what it is and how to say it.
Something in the direction of also this issue, which is like classic Madhyamaka philosophy. So does Nagarjuna have a view? What does he mean when he says he has no view? Then you can write about that, you can argue about that. And that has been done and will be done. But it's also possible to look at what happens to my own views through this kind of analysis.
And try to sort of resolve the issue that way.
A view is something that… this kind of view, is a view that prevents liberation, the kind of views that he's talking about. So it's something pretty serious. And if it prevents liberation
then it can go pretty bad even if the view looks good. Then in the long run there's no guarantee at all where we might end up, with that kind of view.
We can just try to think about what's wrong with views? Like what's wrong with having a view? In many ways we need a view to… like what we were just talking about, to make sense of things and to have some sort of orientation of where to go and what to do. Why should it be so bad to have a view? I mean it's something we ask each other what's your point of view, and your view, and my view is such and such.
Student: "In some ways we don't have a choice. My question is about disassociation actually, because it seems as if the more we engage with these arguments the more we have the opportunity to sort of disassociate from the solidity within which we typically experience things. And I think the extent to which a view is really solid is the extent to which we're kind of trapped inside of it. And then that is going to proliferate suffering inevitably. At the same time, normally when we think of the word 'disassociate' it's usually negative. It means we're actually distancing ourselves from what's true and what's real. And so I've been thinking often about something you said a few weeks ago about the importance of taking breaks in the analysis, but also the importance, particularly the second part is what stuck with me, the importance of noticing when we took a break, because we're going to do it anyways. We're deluded, we're confused. And so if we can catch ourselves within a view and then be able to kind of look at it a little bit more distantly or a little bit more, I don't know, proximously, closer, then I think we can continue on the path in a way that is really applicable to our daily life. That said, the danger for me is of how we're disassociating from the solidity of our view. And so in some ways when we have conversations like this it feels really heady and really kind of like, "Oh, well if you just keep thinking about it then liberation will continue to get brighter and brighter and brighter." But there's a certain courage involved with staying close to the experience of not knowing again and again and again. And so to me there's like a positive and helpful conducive disassociation and then a really counterproductive disassociation that actually would be quite dangerous in the world. And I wonder if you could speak about how to like dance that dance in a way that doesn't feel so clumsy."
What we just talked about with.. why all of this couldn't be the case if things were real in the way we might think, in and of themselves. Maybe we can say if we understand that, if that is on our mind and then exactly what is in which way, that's another issue that sort of belongs to the context of the path, how to have this sort of stuff in mind in a way that is productive and dynamic. But if we have that in mind then the views wouldn't be...
The views are constructed with concepts such as arising and ceasing, the same and different and so on, right? So if it is possible to see the emptiness of those concepts, then those views are not binding anymore, no? It's also possible to see the dependent arising of views. It's not that views are something outside, like that we just have to stay clear of, no? That would be going back into the same framework that is the root of the problem, yeah?
So we can say 'dissociate' from views and taking it 'lightly.' But as we have also tried to think about before, that is also a process of actually taking things more seriously because what comes with the sense of having a view is that everything, a lot is already accounted for, yeah? The view has taken care of a whole lot for us, there's not so much that we need to be directly concerned with because the view explains it for us, yeah? What is this, that is that, this should be, this should not be. But if we can see with the help of theses analyses that that's how views are constructed but they aren't founded on any of those, all of those elements in the construction of the view, of a view, are themselves unfounded, then the view is something that happens in the moment, no? It's not something that we can look at in a view shop and choose between in that sense, no? It's not something that is distinct from ourselves. It's something that we built in the moment and again together, no? Even if I'm all alone, I am together in some way with others, no? Because these concepts, they are shared between us, no? It's nobody's concept and yet we all use them in a very intimate way, yeah? So actually all those intuitions that we have about knowledge of emptiness being something that detracts from the acuteness of experience and being really involved in this being something that doesn't, that detracts from knowledge of emptiness, all of those intuitions are actually completely wrong, no? That's something we can understand conceptually at least, that it's not like that, no? It's not that we sort of zoom in and out and we have to be careful not to be, the more spaced out we become somehow, the more closer to the ultimate we get. Of course not, no? But intuitively we often think like that, no? Because ultimate is not this, not that and so on, so.. And at the same time the brightness of, in our face quality of whatever it is that's the case, is not something that in any way is counter to the ultimate nature of things. So that in itself could not be a hindrance for appreciating the ultimate truth, no? So maybe it's useful just to think that all of those very natural, in many ways, intuitions are just dead wrong, yeah?
So maybe that's in terms of dancing, practically in practical terms it's useful to keep that in mind, yeah?
Does that make some sense? "It does but it still feels somehow distant from the juiciness of what I feel to be experiencing, which in this moment is a lot of pain, like a relative of mine is currently dying and so I'm trying to figure out how to relate to both the pain that's here but also hold the fact that maybe all of my assumptions and definitely all of my assumptions about the situation are incorrect, yeah?" Yeah, and then..
and then maybe it's possible to also use views in a way that we wouldn't otherwise be so capable of, yeah? If we understand the dependent origination of views then because we know that understanding dependent origination doesn't mean transcending dependent origination, it just means knowing and being dependent origination. The same with all what's possible then in terms of dependent origination and knowledge of dependent origination becomes possible with respect to our views also. Like the views are much more concrete and much more similar to the rest of the world, the abstract and the concrete, that distinction is also something that we construct, yeah? So by understanding the distinction between, that that distinction is.. well basically what all of this goes to show is that there's a good reason why there's so much stuff to do on the path, yeah? And why there's so many things that can be done, many different approaches to take, including very simple advice about taking breaks and so on, yeah? So it's a very.. and how to really benefit from this kind of insight in that practical way as a way of traversing the path is something that, yeah, that one then commits one's whole existence to really. You know, if one has seen the more acutely true all of this becomes, the more that kind of concern becomes very natural, yeah? Because what else should one be thinking of, apart from just how to integrate and make best possible use of this kind of knowledge, yeah? So even if one is not thinking about the path, it's still path related because everything is in the light of this, yeah? So yeah, then all the advice that is relevant for the path in terms of finding a good place to be, good companions to be with, good instructors, good schedules for how to do things, livelihood, and all of those things that are.. have been discussed and taught and practiced for millennia, those are all really relevant, yeah?
So there's perhaps like a sense of..
with this kind of understanding if we sort of try to summarize, no, what one might, what kind of situation one might be in having studied for some time. Again, it doesn't have to be so long time, but sincerely and carefully for some time there's a sense of, one understands the...
when we understand emptiness it would be lying to say that we don't understand it, no? Like I have no idea what it means unless we want to just point to the inconceivable nature of emptiness, no? But the teaching of emptiness, we can't say that we don't understand it, no? This is for, I have to study in a different class or something like that, no? We do understand emptiness and understanding emptiness means understanding a whole lot, no? It means understanding the timelessness, it means understanding infinity and so many things, no? Doesn't mean that we can go out and be super philosophers or oracles about anything like that, no? But again, like to be honest, no, we can't say that we don't understand the teaching of emptiness. Like what Nāgārjuna says in the opening verses, what arises in dependence does not cease and does not arise, without the sameness and difference, no? We have a lot of good reasons to say that we understand that, yeah? So there's a sense of having understood so much, no? And so much which is literally the same as what all the great awakened beings understand, no? By definition. So that is almost like a magical empowerment, no? And at the same time we are also very much on the spot, no? What do we then do next? And the good thing is that there are so many resources available, yeah? And nobody can tell us 'that's what you should do.' We can ask for that kind of advice and it can be useful to have that kind of advice, no? But there's.. like nobody can say for everyone what is the right thing to do and what is the most effective. But what we can say is that there's plenty of support, no?
Student: "Thank you so much, Thomas."
"Thank you, Thomas."
"Thank you Thomas. It's been wonderful." Thank you. I really enjoyed it a lot myself and I just enjoyed, I feel like I learn every day, every moment in this way. So thank you very much. "Thank you very much. Unique presentation, very clear and opened up a lot of doors that I need to examine further. Thank you." Thank you. "Yeah, we look for similar sessions in the future many times." Yeah, right. Let's do that. "I hope you will get to make yourself available for us again and again." Thank you. Likewise. Thank you. "Yeah, I also just got the mic. I don't know why but thank you very much in the name, I guess, of all of us. I think we all enjoyed that journey that was not too much an academic journey out there, but really something that is transformative and insightful. So thank you so much. And yeah I hope that you are continuing. Thank you.
Alright, so we just have a discussion session today. If any sort of issues or questions or thoughts and ideas that you would like to bring up then you are welcome. And tomorrow we will then have the final session with Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche at 4 pm Nepali time, meaning at Saturday Nepali time at 4, we will meet for the transmission.
Any thing?
Student: "Yeah, if you don't mind if we go on the Chapter 24th because in the next verse, because in this chapter Nāgārjuna is criticized for saying that 'everything is emptiness.' But in some verse he turns around and says actually if you say things have nature then things cannot happen." Right. "So like the verse 14 and then 18, 19 he is talking about that."
Yeah, that's a conclusion that presents itself by seeing that arising, no arising, going and coming, same and different, that they cannot be supported in reality. So then the conclusion is, okay, this is what it is, and we also know that there is no arising, no ceasing, going and coming, same and different. So in other words, contrary to what we might expect at first glance, it's not because things are different and things can be the same and it's not because things actually arise and things actually cease, that all of this is..
those two things are not two distinct facts, the fact of whatever we call this and then the fact of its emptiness are not essentially different. So in other words, for this to be what it is, it will have to be that there is no same and no different. If there really were same and different, then we couldn't think, like I couldn't think that 'I am the desirous one, I have desire and we are sort of same and also different,' like 'it's my desire so it's part of me but it's also my desire so it's something that's different from me.' All of that stuff could not be the case if it really were the case that there was same and different, going and coming. I think I couldn't have the idea that I'm the same person now who got out of the door a little earlier, if it were that there was real same and different because that person and me are neither the same and different. And that's also how I think, in many ways I think I'm the same guy and in many ways I think I'm very different. So we wouldn't be able to take all these liberties if it weren't for emptiness.
Student: "In terms of you thinking about yourself as the same or different, how does Nāgārjuna analyze the concept of the self in this capacity? What I mean to say is yes, you're saying like 'I'm neither the same nor different, I'm not that person but I'm also not not that person.' Can you just elaborate more on how the sense of self is fully let go of, where you see yourself but you also don't have this solid rigid sense of self? If that makes sense."
What you are asking for is like a theory of self basically, no? "No, not necessarily. What I mean to say is what's Nāgārjuna's.. we've spent all this time digesting the existence and non existence of phenomena, elements, self, desire, walking, all of this, right? And yet we still have this sense of myself, I am myself today and these are my things, and I will be myself until I die. And Nāgārjuna is teaching us to see that we are not the same person as we were a moment ago and we're not different from that person. I'm just wondering if you could elaborate more on how one uses the sense of emptiness to let go of the sense of like 'I am me separate from this world.'" So the.. how was it you now put it, that he's teaching us to see that we are not the same from just a moment ago and also not different?
Maybe that's actually what we think, no? It's not really, it's what we already think. It's not something Nāgārjuna is teaching us, no? That's how we're used to thinking.
So I think it's a.. so the question like…
Yeah, so that is something that we are already thinking and maybe we just notice the.. we are used to thinking that that's all very coherent and that is all…
I still think that what you are looking for is a little bit like a.. it is a bit like a theory of self, no? Like a kind of plan for how we can make it all work with the self, no? And that's of course fine, no, and many people spend time on that issue, yeah?
But so the question is how central…
and at the same time there's also something about theories of self that… like what is the most we can expect from a theory of self, yeah? Because it also sounds like you're also asking, so how can that theory really help me? Like how can it really? How can the theory be really good? And how can I apply it so that it really works very well, whatever I want to do, whatever I want to be, yeah? And that of course, yeah, is how we usually think and can and should think. But perhaps that's precisely what's not necessary here, yeah?
That's the beauty of the approach also is that we don't perhaps really need the… we don't have to have a theory in place, yeah? And then of course as a sort of roadmap as we go, no, then there are lots of theories that are useful.
Yeah, like they say, the equipoise is like space and outside of equipoise everything is like a dream and an illusion. That's like a classic theory of self maybe, actually. If you want you could say that. "Andrew online, you have a question?" Student: "Yeah, thank you. My question is about, I think there are two verses that I'm aware of which are kind of about views in general and the abandonment of views. There's this one also in 24 which is that says something like, I don't have it in front of me, but something like emptiness leads to the end of all views, but if you grasp emptiness as a view you're in trouble essentially. And then there's the famous, the closing verse, the very final verse where Nāgārjuna salutes Gautama who taught the abandoning or ceasing of all views as well. I think the obvious objection that I'm kind of asking about and I'm pretty sure was and has been raised against Nāgārjuna is, you know, what do you mean? You've just laid out 27 chapters of views. The idea that there's no inherent essence etc. will have to be a view. So I'm just curious about, Thomas, if you could maybe offer some commentary so to speak on that objection and how we're meant to understand Nāgārjuna's statements about the relinquishing of views in the general sense." That's another key Madhyamaka philosophy issue, which is treated in many different ways, very different ways. How to understand that, no view? What is your favored explanation yourself? What would you say?
"I'm not really sure. I think if I sort of force myself to go towards the beginning of an answer it might be something like provisionally speaking we can adopt some views which are useful, like the view of emptiness perhaps. But we should keep this view also sort of lightly held. That's kind of how I take him, in other words, that we can't hold any view strongly including that one. Something along those lines."
Yeah.
Thank you. Again it's like.. What can we say?
What actually does it mean to have a view?
It's also interesting to think about.
There are many, many ways that this issue has been dealt with by commentators. Often there's use of the two truths.
But you can have a view about both truths. And what he's talking about there with the view of emptiness. That would be like a view about the ultimate.
For those whose view is emptiness there is no cure. So that seems to be telling us something quite important about what's at stake with having views.
So I don't really know what to…
I feel there's something important I would like to say but I'm not really sure what it is and how to say it.
Something in the direction of also this issue, which is like classic Madhyamaka philosophy. So does Nagarjuna have a view? What does he mean when he says he has no view? Then you can write about that, you can argue about that. And that has been done and will be done. But it's also possible to look at what happens to my own views through this kind of analysis.
And try to sort of resolve the issue that way.
A view is something that… this kind of view, is a view that prevents liberation, the kind of views that he's talking about. So it's something pretty serious. And if it prevents liberation
then it can go pretty bad even if the view looks good. Then in the long run there's no guarantee at all where we might end up, with that kind of view.
We can just try to think about what's wrong with views? Like what's wrong with having a view? In many ways we need a view to… like what we were just talking about, to make sense of things and to have some sort of orientation of where to go and what to do. Why should it be so bad to have a view? I mean it's something we ask each other what's your point of view, and your view, and my view is such and such.
Student: "In some ways we don't have a choice. My question is about disassociation actually, because it seems as if the more we engage with these arguments the more we have the opportunity to sort of disassociate from the solidity within which we typically experience things. And I think the extent to which a view is really solid is the extent to which we're kind of trapped inside of it. And then that is going to proliferate suffering inevitably. At the same time, normally when we think of the word 'disassociate' it's usually negative. It means we're actually distancing ourselves from what's true and what's real. And so I've been thinking often about something you said a few weeks ago about the importance of taking breaks in the analysis, but also the importance, particularly the second part is what stuck with me, the importance of noticing when we took a break, because we're going to do it anyways. We're deluded, we're confused. And so if we can catch ourselves within a view and then be able to kind of look at it a little bit more distantly or a little bit more, I don't know, proximously, closer, then I think we can continue on the path in a way that is really applicable to our daily life. That said, the danger for me is of how we're disassociating from the solidity of our view. And so in some ways when we have conversations like this it feels really heady and really kind of like, "Oh, well if you just keep thinking about it then liberation will continue to get brighter and brighter and brighter." But there's a certain courage involved with staying close to the experience of not knowing again and again and again. And so to me there's like a positive and helpful conducive disassociation and then a really counterproductive disassociation that actually would be quite dangerous in the world. And I wonder if you could speak about how to like dance that dance in a way that doesn't feel so clumsy."
What we just talked about with.. why all of this couldn't be the case if things were real in the way we might think, in and of themselves. Maybe we can say if we understand that, if that is on our mind and then exactly what is in which way, that's another issue that sort of belongs to the context of the path, how to have this sort of stuff in mind in a way that is productive and dynamic. But if we have that in mind then the views wouldn't be...
The views are constructed with concepts such as arising and ceasing, the same and different and so on, right? So if it is possible to see the emptiness of those concepts, then those views are not binding anymore, no? It's also possible to see the dependent arising of views. It's not that views are something outside, like that we just have to stay clear of, no? That would be going back into the same framework that is the root of the problem, yeah?
So we can say 'dissociate' from views and taking it 'lightly.' But as we have also tried to think about before, that is also a process of actually taking things more seriously because what comes with the sense of having a view is that everything, a lot is already accounted for, yeah? The view has taken care of a whole lot for us, there's not so much that we need to be directly concerned with because the view explains it for us, yeah? What is this, that is that, this should be, this should not be. But if we can see with the help of theses analyses that that's how views are constructed but they aren't founded on any of those, all of those elements in the construction of the view, of a view, are themselves unfounded, then the view is something that happens in the moment, no? It's not something that we can look at in a view shop and choose between in that sense, no? It's not something that is distinct from ourselves. It's something that we built in the moment and again together, no? Even if I'm all alone, I am together in some way with others, no? Because these concepts, they are shared between us, no? It's nobody's concept and yet we all use them in a very intimate way, yeah? So actually all those intuitions that we have about knowledge of emptiness being something that detracts from the acuteness of experience and being really involved in this being something that doesn't, that detracts from knowledge of emptiness, all of those intuitions are actually completely wrong, no? That's something we can understand conceptually at least, that it's not like that, no? It's not that we sort of zoom in and out and we have to be careful not to be, the more spaced out we become somehow, the more closer to the ultimate we get. Of course not, no? But intuitively we often think like that, no? Because ultimate is not this, not that and so on, so.. And at the same time the brightness of, in our face quality of whatever it is that's the case, is not something that in any way is counter to the ultimate nature of things. So that in itself could not be a hindrance for appreciating the ultimate truth, no? So maybe it's useful just to think that all of those very natural, in many ways, intuitions are just dead wrong, yeah?
So maybe that's in terms of dancing, practically in practical terms it's useful to keep that in mind, yeah?
Does that make some sense? "It does but it still feels somehow distant from the juiciness of what I feel to be experiencing, which in this moment is a lot of pain, like a relative of mine is currently dying and so I'm trying to figure out how to relate to both the pain that's here but also hold the fact that maybe all of my assumptions and definitely all of my assumptions about the situation are incorrect, yeah?" Yeah, and then..
and then maybe it's possible to also use views in a way that we wouldn't otherwise be so capable of, yeah? If we understand the dependent origination of views then because we know that understanding dependent origination doesn't mean transcending dependent origination, it just means knowing and being dependent origination. The same with all what's possible then in terms of dependent origination and knowledge of dependent origination becomes possible with respect to our views also. Like the views are much more concrete and much more similar to the rest of the world, the abstract and the concrete, that distinction is also something that we construct, yeah? So by understanding the distinction between, that that distinction is.. well basically what all of this goes to show is that there's a good reason why there's so much stuff to do on the path, yeah? And why there's so many things that can be done, many different approaches to take, including very simple advice about taking breaks and so on, yeah? So it's a very.. and how to really benefit from this kind of insight in that practical way as a way of traversing the path is something that, yeah, that one then commits one's whole existence to really. You know, if one has seen the more acutely true all of this becomes, the more that kind of concern becomes very natural, yeah? Because what else should one be thinking of, apart from just how to integrate and make best possible use of this kind of knowledge, yeah? So even if one is not thinking about the path, it's still path related because everything is in the light of this, yeah? So yeah, then all the advice that is relevant for the path in terms of finding a good place to be, good companions to be with, good instructors, good schedules for how to do things, livelihood, and all of those things that are.. have been discussed and taught and practiced for millennia, those are all really relevant, yeah?
So there's perhaps like a sense of..
with this kind of understanding if we sort of try to summarize, no, what one might, what kind of situation one might be in having studied for some time. Again, it doesn't have to be so long time, but sincerely and carefully for some time there's a sense of, one understands the...
when we understand emptiness it would be lying to say that we don't understand it, no? Like I have no idea what it means unless we want to just point to the inconceivable nature of emptiness, no? But the teaching of emptiness, we can't say that we don't understand it, no? This is for, I have to study in a different class or something like that, no? We do understand emptiness and understanding emptiness means understanding a whole lot, no? It means understanding the timelessness, it means understanding infinity and so many things, no? Doesn't mean that we can go out and be super philosophers or oracles about anything like that, no? But again, like to be honest, no, we can't say that we don't understand the teaching of emptiness. Like what Nāgārjuna says in the opening verses, what arises in dependence does not cease and does not arise, without the sameness and difference, no? We have a lot of good reasons to say that we understand that, yeah? So there's a sense of having understood so much, no? And so much which is literally the same as what all the great awakened beings understand, no? By definition. So that is almost like a magical empowerment, no? And at the same time we are also very much on the spot, no? What do we then do next? And the good thing is that there are so many resources available, yeah? And nobody can tell us 'that's what you should do.' We can ask for that kind of advice and it can be useful to have that kind of advice, no? But there's.. like nobody can say for everyone what is the right thing to do and what is the most effective. But what we can say is that there's plenty of support, no?
Student: "Thank you so much, Thomas."
"Thank you, Thomas."
"Thank you Thomas. It's been wonderful." Thank you. I really enjoyed it a lot myself and I just enjoyed, I feel like I learn every day, every moment in this way. So thank you very much. "Thank you very much. Unique presentation, very clear and opened up a lot of doors that I need to examine further. Thank you." Thank you. "Yeah, we look for similar sessions in the future many times." Yeah, right. Let's do that. "I hope you will get to make yourself available for us again and again." Thank you. Likewise. Thank you. "Yeah, I also just got the mic. I don't know why but thank you very much in the name, I guess, of all of us. I think we all enjoyed that journey that was not too much an academic journey out there, but really something that is transformative and insightful. So thank you so much. And yeah I hope that you are continuing. Thank you.
17:26
