Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 02
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Central to the discourse is the principle of dependent origination, which offers a lens through which attendees can view the intricate web of interconnectedness governing all phenomena.
Description
Session 2 underscores the significance of Mabja Jangchub Tsondru’s “Ornament of Reason” as the main commentary on the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. Central to Buddhist thought is the concept of dependent origination, which highlights the interconnectedness of all phenomena. Discussions delve into topics like the nature of space, perception, and the idea of the ‘unmoved mover’. The Buddha’s wisdom is seen as the embodiment of understanding this principle, revealing the essence of the true Dharma. Nāgārjuna further deepens this understanding by suggesting that anything arising dependently neither truly arises nor ceases.
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
Let's begin by thinking
about what was brought up
yesterday and perhaps
you have some thoughts,
responses, etc.
That would be nice to hear.
But before that we
should also think of what
it is that we are about
to do here, profound
contemplation of the
nature of reality with the
help of a very extraordinary
treatise, delivered
by a very extraordinary
master, one of the
foremost followers of the
Buddha and tremendously
impactful figure in the
transmission of the Buddhadharma.
So we should make
sure to acknowledge just
how rare and profound
it is to be face to face
with something
of this sort and make
the wish that it is
meaningful what we do,
not so much for ourselves,
but acknowledging
the impact that something
like this can have
for absolutely everyone.
So with a mind for all sentient
beings, let's begin the session.
And yes, was there some response, thoughts on what we tried to address yesterday? You are welcome to share.
Anything sounded particularly...
challenging or particularly compelling, or particularly anything you are welcome to share a little bit. You don't have to but if you have any thoughts. Because I guess I tried to speak about methodology to some extent yesterday and that is really key to getting something out of this type of study. There are many ways that this looks like traditional philosophical learning and study. But there are also many ways in which this is very very different. And so to really get a feeling for how to approach this text in a constructive way is crucial; and how to approach means what frame of mind to be in oneself, what to expect, what not to expect. All of these issues are extremely important.
But if there is nothing at this point, then we can begin. Maybe not. I should say something about the translations and the texts that we have available here. And in that regard, those of you who have access to Teams you will find somewhere on Teams that there is a book available, a book printed in China by Professor Yao-Hsing Xiong-Yi, who has prepared a comparative edition of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā where he has edited the Sanskrit text. He has edited the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva and also provided a Chinese translation, a contemporary Chinese translation, and he has an edition also of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā that is found in Tibetan translation in the Derge Kagyü And it's very high quality, his editions, there's a general consensus about. So it's very fortunate and extremely kind of Professor Yi that he has agreed to make that book available to us all as we study the text. But of course please acknowledge that this is just for the sake of this course and not something to distribute obviously. So this is a very special kindness that he has showed us, and it's wonderful that we can use this very authoritative work as we go. And then in terms of English translations, there are also many that are available. And I, in particular, would like to recommend the translation by Katsura and Siderits.
So a few years ago, a decade or so and that is a very lucid and clear translation and it is especially very helpful because it has also lucid, clear commentary, which moreover is based on the extant four commentaries from India that we have access to in the case of Candrakīrti, in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, but otherwise in Tibetan. So as the commentary proceeds in this translation, then you will be able to hear remarks and points made by the classic authors of India, the four that we have extant works of today. So that is a really special and valuable resource for reading the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. But there are many others because this text is so important. It has been translated many times and each translation has its advantages. And as a translator it's always necessary to make choices obviously. That's what translation is about. So whichever way you go, there will also be, when you go in one direction you can't go in another. So that also speaks to the value of having many different translations available. Sometimes translations can themselves become a bit like a commentary to the text. So I would encourage you to take a good look around what is available.
In this course here we will be using in terms of the English translation, the translation that is contained in Mabja Jangchub Tsondru commentary on the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. And that is a translation made based on the Tibetan version of the text, not from Sanskrit as what is the case with Siderits and Katsura. Their translation is based on the Sanskrit. So we use Mabja's commentary and not because I translated it, I mean probably partially because of that because then I am more acquainted with that than other translations. So there is a certain familiarity advantage, hopefully. But also because that commentary really is quite amazing. Not to speak of the quality of the translation, of course, we can say has many shortcomings. But the text itself is really quite wonderful, very comprehensive and yet not overly elaborate. So that is what is in English translated as and published as "Ornament of Reason." So it is a commentary that is comprehensive, it is quite a thick book, but it is not a commentary of the kind that I was going to say digresses, it is not really digression, it is a feature of many amazing commentaries and treatises. But there is this tradition or there is a certain style of making a commentary where the author will every once in a while and it can happen seemingly for no particular reason suddenly there is a whole opening of a distinct discussion which is almost like a little essay in itself. So that is a very exciting way of...it provides for very exciting text but also one that obviously will take one away in many different directions. So Mabja's commentary is not like that, it is always focused on the text itself and yet it is quite exhaustive. And it is a commentary that has had very much influence in Tibet, not necessarily explicitly so, but it is clear that Mabja's commentary has been key for the development of Mādhyamaka thought in Tibet. In particular Mabja's commentary is one of the first, very first to rely on Candrakīrti as an authority in interpreting the Mādhyamaka.
And in particular he makes an effort to work with arguments and reason in a way that is deeply influenced by Dharmakīrti. So that kind of approach of combining Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti, of course, those of you who have studied and those of you who are studying the history of Mādhyamaka thought will know that that becomes a very prominent feature, something that people do. Although Candrakīrti is strongly critical of Dharmakīrti, he is moved to nevertheless rely on much of the apparatus that you have in Dharmakīrti. So Mabja's text is a very rich example of that and perhaps the first one to do so. So it starts a whole tradition. But it's also because it is of that sort, because it is an incorporation of Dharmakīrtian logic.
Like the Dharmakīrti was one of the greatest logicians of Buddhism in India, and to incorporate his framework into an exposition of Dharmakīrti will necessarily mean that there will also be a whole lot of critique of Dharmakīrti. Anyone who tries to do that will have to also say why this isn't just straight Dharmakīrti, because Candrakīrti spends a lot of time rejecting the whole project of pramāṇa. So that too is a very exciting element that you can see developed in the Mabja commentary. So I would also encourage you as course requirement those who take this course to begin by reading the full commentary to the text, then study the "Root Verses" as we do here and then at the end of the program read once more on the "Ornament of Reason" to get the full commentary once more. And then on that basis it should be possible to begin to, if we have been just somewhat successful, it should be possible then to benefit from a whole lot of Mādhyamaka literature, different commentaries and also really benefit from experts lecturing on the Mādhyamaka, as as you can find it in the traditional monastic institution or in the academic world. Many of the excellent teachers of Mādhyamaka in the academy, you should be able to also really gain something from following their courses.
So that was about the texts, the translation, I still have to do the screen sharing. So this is the homage
that follows the title. So after the title, the next we see is this: "That which originates dependently--dependent origination-- does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down."
So as I mentioned yesterday this is the opening of the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the verses of homage to the teacher explaining why he is the perfect teacher, because he is able to present dependent origination just as it is. That homage is also found in a short, very short Prajñāpāramitā sūtra which is called the Kauśika Prajñāpāramitā. So the Buddha himself there speaking to Kauśika and a vast retinue, himself ends his discourse with these words there. But here they are brought, are spoken by, we assume, we understand by Nāgārjuna.
And they are really like a summary of the whole text. If we understand this homage then we have understood the treatise. And if we have understood the treatise, then as the one sūtra says, those who see dependent origination see the Dharma, those who see the Dharma see the Buddha. So these are extremely profound verses. If we can with the help of a statement of this kind understand dependent origination, then so to speak we have direct perception of the Dharma and then the sūtra says direct perception of the Dharma means direct perception of the Buddha. So dependent origination that has to do with how things happen. There's a notion of things and there's a notion of something happening, and something happening which is based on something. Not just random but there's a sense of dependency. Something that, some constraints we could say on what happens and what doesn't. When certain causes, certain conditions are present then something happens, and when those are not present, then that particular thing will not happen. So it's causality if you want very matter of factly and something that I think anyone can agree is noticeable about the world, no?
That our perception is one of dependent origination. We wouldn't perhaps say it with such a technical term,
but what we see, what we feel, what we think, what we do, all of that is something that we see, feel, think and do in a way that is dependent on certain factors. It doesn't happen completely randomly, it doesn't happen just utterly spontaneously but it's when certain things come about that we will say something, and when that's not the case then we won't. Like if someone comes to say hello, good morning, it is quite likely that we will say something similar in response, if it is indeed morning. So another kind of causal dependence that needs to be in place. When that's the case then, if it is morning, someone comes and says good morning then it's likely that we will say good morning and had that person not come we would not say it, had that person come and said good morning in the evening we would probably say something different. It's very simple stuff but it seems very,
something that is... so one thing we can begin to think about here at this point is, is this a principle of dependent origination that things happen and arise based on other things? Is this something that we can notice everywhere? Or is it something that applies to perhaps many things, very many things perhaps but not to everything? That is one sort of key question that we can begin to contemplate.
So perhaps we can even think of that right now. What do you think? Is dependent origination a sense of dependency on other factors that somehow determine whether something happens or not Always the case from our experience? from what we can sort of think of and try to intellectually determine. Is it the case that absolutely everything is of this kind? Dependent on something else or not? Any suggestions?
What about space? Yeah, so that's a good question though. What about space and why would space be different?
Because it's immaterial and yet somehow a concept that we can understand.
If it's a concept that we can understand, concepts that we can understand, aren't they somehow causally determined or dependent?
Yes. So then space is not anything but dependent origination, no?
And if it's not a concept that we can understand? Why would it then be not dependent origination? What makes you think of space as an example of something that is not dependent origination? Because in a class I took one of the Khenpos was speaking about relatively, how it doesn't really fit into the category of relative or ultimate in terms of establishment, and so it seems like a bit of an outlier with respect to an example of something that we could conceive of but not necessarily be in direct contact with.
It seems that, again please?
We can see space but we cannot touch it, and it seems to be a phenomena that has different characteristics than something that we could look at, that would have like a valid base and characteristics that we could all unanimously agree upon, or perceive similarly. It is different than something that we could all unanimously agree about? Yes. So when we are talking about whether something is dependent origination, is an example of dependent origination, then it means does the thing in question just exist as it is, independently of anything else? Or does it not? So if it is something we can see, if what we see is space, is that what we see independent of causes and conditions?
This is a beautiful way to begin actually. No, the Buddha says beings widely proclaim that they see space but examine here the meaning how do you see space? And then that is the, I think it continues now all things, all factors are in this way. So, with space it is interesting because in some way it seems to be like an absence of things, so not a thing in itself but like the very fact that there is not a thing, and then we need to consider whether an absence of things is actually in itself a real thing, or just a concept, and if it is a concept it is obviously dependent on our own concepts basically. The other thing is if we can see it, then it must be part of dependent origination because otherwise we could not interact with it in any way.
So I question the notion of space actually being a thing. It is for me rather an absence of things.
So if space is a concept, then concepts arguably depend on other concepts. I guess not all philosophers will say that, there are also like self-existing concepts. But this we will have ample time to explore as we go. But yeah,
if we have a concept of something, of red for example, then what is red? To sort of, to explain that, we have to talk about other things, no? If someone has not seen red and we want to explain what red is, then the only way that we can get at that is to do more than just say red, no? Red we will have to say, well you know, you have probably seen other colors like you saw yellow yesterday, remember? So red is also a color and so on and so forth. And that arguably is the way it is with concepts, no? That as soon as we are dealing with a concept, we are already in a web of concepts. But let's see whether that is so, no? That sounds already sort of like Buddhist philosophy. But yeah, there is something about concepts that certainly suggests dependence. And then there is, you also said if it is something that we see, so if it is something that we perceive, then perception too is something probably, you know, that takes place in a causal framework, no? It's when certain things is the case, we see certain things. And when those things are not the case, we won't see that particular thing. But again that is not necessarily the case either, no? We could have an idea of like a perception that just is what it is independently of anything else, like the perception of the truth, perhaps the ultimate truth, perhaps the perception of God. This is something that we can keep in mind. And then finally you mentioned absence, so what to do with absence? This is also something that we can really try to get a sense of what do we mean when we talk about absence, and the notion of perceiving absence or not perceiving absence, is absence perceptible or not? This is all something that we can spend time exploring. I think there were some other questions with, maybe you first, yeah?
So maybe you've been talking about something like an independent origination, you know, if all is a sequence of cause and effects, you might think, you know, you go back to the beginning there was some first cause, like some type of unmoved mover maybe? So the unmoved mover would be something that is not causally dependent, yeah? There would certainly be, presumably that is a very wildly held position, no? Like if we believe in a... but not only if so, but if we believe in a permanent creator or in a, of all of this, someone who sets in motion all of these dependent events, then the idea with that immovable mover is precisely that, like the divine principle, or the creator, is not itself subject to causes and conditions. Because otherwise, certainly the notion of an omnipotent God cannot be maintained. No, if God, him/her/itself is dependent on causes and conditions apart from himself/herself/itself, then then it couldn't be an omnipotent God, right?
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Okay, do you think that Nāgārjuna gives a hint to a possible answer of your question of what would not pratītyasamutpāda influenced by saying that it's the pacification of proliferation of constructs and that it's auspicious or peace, shivam? Because these two things would often be associated with an idea of, I don't know, like something like a Buddhajñāna, for instance, so that implicitly he answers this by just using these terms. Would you think that it's valid interpretation? I mean, you studied it much more. That's a brilliant question.
I think there are many ways that this can be interpreted, no?
I would say at this point,
at this point the most promising is to... so what you were saying is that dependent origination, so you are somehow saying that the Buddhajñāna is--the Buddha's wisdom--would be an example of something that is not dependent origination, yeah? And that is this complete pacification, or the auspiciousness of the pacification of constructs, that this is something that is not dependent origination.
I think the..
like if we read the text here, it says "that dependent, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go," and so forth. So in other words, dependent origination itself does not arise and does not cease, and that is the, therefore the perception of dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and therefore seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. So the question of whether the Buddha or the Buddha's wisdom is different from dependent origination sort of falls away, because it is the perception of dependent origination itself without ceasing and arising, that is the true Dharma. And the, the wisdom of that is the Buddha's wisdom. But this is something that we can go back to, there's obviously, there's an amazing rich and wonderful literature on this, yeah? This is one of the key points that have been discussed in volumes in the Tibetan literature over centuries, yeah? So that is one of the really amazing things about this text also, is that it brings you, it brings us into an environment which is so full of amazing voices and brilliantly sharp and wise minds. And it's not just that we can walk around there in awe and sort of marvelling at their... what all they can do, but we also ourselves have a real basis for appreciating what they are talking about. If we study the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, then something of that kind, a topic of this kind that you just brought up, whether the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination, is something that we will have... think about what could be, what from a Buddhist point of view at least, what could be more profound to think about? Like the nature of the Buddha's wisdom, what is it? And if we can say whether it's dependent origination or not, then we know a whole lot about the Buddha's wisdom. But who knows if the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination or not? If we just, unless we have studied this already at length, then this will seem like a, yeah, wow, I guess Buddhist philosophers can say something about that, but what do I know? But believe it or not, when we just spend a little bit of time going through this, just you know, the first chapter already, our own opinion will be extremely informed. That's amazing, no? That doesn't mean that we can go, that now we are accomplished Buddhist philosophers, but it means that we know something which is really key and really central to the whole discussion. Like what could be more key and central than the very nature of causality in its relation to awakened wisdom? And this is something that we will definitely, through our own efforts of just working with the text and taking our own opinions, our own biases, our own inclinations, our own beliefs very seriously. And not by trying to follow some sort of program, philosophical program and adopt a certain set of views. It is all by focusing on what really do I mean? What do I really believe? What is my own perspective? Taking that very seriously and then allowing Nāgārjuna's critique to meet our own opinions and beliefs, in that way we will certainly arrive at a point where we can have a very meaningful dialogue with these amazing voices from the millennia, the centuries, and also very accomplished philosophers in the world today in this matter. So this is something that is very special about this text. Many other...
To learn Buddhist philosophy, as we talked about yesterday, is something that requires a whole lot of time, a whole lot of energy, years of really focused study, learning, reflecting and trying to gain from one's knowledge in meditation.
But in this case it's possible to arrive in the center of everything, so to speak, just by focusing on this text. That's why in many ways, or some say that the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, although it's so profound, it is also like a perfect beginning for the whole journey of Buddhist philosophy.
So all of these things, let's note this down. What seems to be the case in terms of dependent origination, in terms of the world as we know it, in terms of our own beliefs and perceptions? What seems to be the case about dependent origination? And also what are the candidates for not being dependent origination? Like we talked about, whether space might be so, absence,
the immovable mover, the divine creator, whether that might be something that isn't dependent. And we talked about the Buddhist wisdom. So let's keep all of those examples in mind and any other that you can think of. So this is a good place to ponder already here. But the Buddha's teaching is certainly famed for being a teaching of dependent origination. The Buddha talks about the external world in terms of dependent origination, typically with the example, or very often, the use of an example of a seed, which when planted in the soil and the right conditions are there, will give rise to a sprout. And that sprout, again, when the assisting conditions are present, will grow to become a plant that has many leaves, can grow flowers and fruits perhaps. So this is dependent origination in the external world. But then we also know that the Buddha is not just concerned about what things happen in the external world, but primarily really concerned with how life unfolds in terms of the inner arising of dependent origination, where the first link of the 12 links of dependent origination is ignorance. And because consciousness is ignorant, then there's the karmic conditioning that plants seeds of karmic ripening in consciousness. And so, just as it is the case in the external world, consciousness will keep unfolding on that basis as seeds are planted in ignorant consciousness. They grow fruits of ignorance and defilement. And this process does not end until ignorance ends. That's why the 12 links of dependent origination are a circle. The last of the 12 links is old age and death. And old age and death is not the end of the story. Because the basic ignorance remains, there will be
a new round of birth based on ignorance. So in the basic teachings of Buddhism this is of course a very central topic--dependent origination--coming to understand how consciousness evolves in this way, always conditioned, dependently originated, always conditioned by what took place before. And until the original misunderstanding has been set straight, then this kind of wheel is continuous, the wheel of samsara, the wheel of dissatisfying painful existence is going to continue in an unbroken fashion. So how to correct the error that maintains this? Like if the first link of dependent origination is ignorance, then there must be ignorance about something, right? If it is because of ignorance that painful existence continues life after life, death after death, then so what is this ignorance about? And in this regard the Buddha talks about our belief in self.
It is because basically I believe that I exist as an individual separate from others, like you guys, and separate from things in the world, I am an individual who is here in the world. It is because I have this natural, if you want, perception of things that I will also, as soon as we have that kind of orientation, then with that comes a sense that I am fragile, because I am here in the world, I don't have control over the world obviously, so there are things that can threaten me. And I am also here right now in the world, but I am not all that I could be, I am not all that I would like to be, and so there are certain things in the world that I want. That comes with the very idea of self, that there is a sense of threat which is a form of fear that feeds aggression, right? Because if something then comes to hurt me, I am going to react. How could I do otherwise? If my very existence is threatened, I fight back of course. And even just to maintain my existence, it seems there are many things I need. I am not in control of my own existence and yet I exist here in the world as a distinct individual, but somehow at the mercy of other things, and there are things that I need, so craving becomes second nature too. So I am ready to become aggressive any moment, and I am also constantly in need of things. So whenever that is the case, then
it is very limited really what I can do. What I will do is quite predictable. Indeed if someone comes to threaten, I am going to try to look as threatening as I can in return or react more strongly than that. Some way, try to find some way to overcome that threat that is present. And I will also spend a whole lot of time trying to get at the things that I feel can help me thrive in the world. So it becomes a very predictable existence, and it is also an existence that typically it is quite limited what can take place when that is the perspective. If I feel that I am someone who is basically under threat, and I need a whole lot of things, it is perhaps not the most
then that makes me feel that I have some urgent needs that I need to take care of right now. Just if we think about what comes with the notion of self? What does it do to a mind to think in this way? I think it is a fact that when that is the case, then the scope of mind becomes very limited. It becomes very limited and what goes on in the mind will be very much determined by what is right in my face. Because those needs for survival and for thriving are the most fundamental that there is to me. So it becomes very limited and how good are we at then avoiding the threats, and how good are we at getting the things that we feel we need? Well, we can think about it, no? It seems unlikely that we will stumble upon some method that can take care of our enemies for good, it seems like. Who really believes that? That we can overcome our enemies permanently? And who really believes that it is possible to get what you need forever? So it is quite a miserable struggle that we have to face. And that is not something that Buddhist philosophy tries to... well maybe Buddhist philosophy does try to convince us about that, but it is something that we already know. And it is something that religions of the world know, it is something that philosophy has spoken about for millennia in all parts of the world too. This is, I suppose, what Rinpoche had in mind when he said these things, that impermanence and suffering are core elements of Buddhist teaching and yet they are not really uniquely Buddhist, in the sense that because this is common knowledge too,
that we are always under threat, that there are always things that we need to get and that there is no real end in sight
So it could be of course that if we would just have this one miserable life and then or try to make the best of it, whatever we say, but a life of this kind, a life of trying to stay alive and trying to get certain things, because we can't get all that much in one life, trying to get as many nice things as we can in one life. If that type of existence would then be come to an end when we die, then that would be a sort of limited issue really, because it would be just a matter of a certain duration of experience and then naturally everything would come to an end. But the Buddha says that's not how it is though, because the very idea of self, that which creates the miserable life is actually not founded in anything factual. There is no self of the kind you think there is. In other words, there is no individual here who stands in opposition to the world, or who is a separate individual in a world outside it.
There's no enduring singular agent here. So that is a mistake really the Buddha says. And if you see that mistake, then think about it. The reason that I thought I needed to protect myself was because I believed that I am such a thing, that I am someone who needs protection by all means. And the reason that I thought I had so many things to chase after was because I thought I am someone who can actually get things and miss things. And that's why I need to be on my toes to chase them. But what then if that's not the case? And I don't know... We can perhaps as a beginning for tomorrow we can think about the basic critique of, yeah let's do that.
The sort of general Buddhist critique of the idea of a self, let's try to contemplate that for tomorrow, and then we meet and pick up there tomorrow. The reason that we would do that is because this opening verse is about dependent origination. And dependent origination is about causes and conditions, causes and conditions that we can notice at play in the external world, and causes and conditions that we can notice in our own experience. The Buddha is known as the teacher of dependent origination because he explains this way that we can witness dependent origination in the external world, but also see that our own experience of things, our own life, death and rebirth is conditioned. The twelve links of dependent origination is the key teaching of the Buddha. So that's what Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being able to do, but he also qualifies that notion of dependent origination in an extraordinary way. He says that whatever is like that, whatever is dependently arisen actually does not end, ever, and never arises. That seems to be like a cancellation of the very idea of dependent origination, no? Origination means that something comes into being, and if something comes into being, things need to go out of existence also. Otherwise what's the process of dependent origination? Coming and going...without movement, how can there be dependent origination? If everything is static then what dependent origination is there? Annihilated and permanent things, if there's nothing that is different from anything else and if we can't say that certain things are same as something else, then how to understand dependent origination? What kind of dependent origination is that, which is neither different things nor things that are of the same kind? So in other words Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being the teacher of dependent origination as we know he is, the wheel of dependent, the twelve links. But then he says all of that which is of this kind whether it's internally in the way of the twelve links or externally in the world, seed sprouts and so on, what have you, myriads of things, whatever is of that kind actually never arises in the first place, and never ceases. And that's why, because the Buddha shows this truth, this profound, auspicious, peaceful truth that is why he is the Teacher of teachers.
So in order to first get a little sense of dependent origination in general in Buddhism this may be worthwhile that we think of the critique of the individual. So we're already one minute past but just very briefly the exercise that we can then do until tomorrow is to think of, "Okay do I have a notion of myself as being an individual?" And probably we will say yes. If not then that's fine also right. And please note it down and the point here again is not so much to try to get what I'm talking about, but more of course you need to somehow get a sense of what I'm trying to talk about but then on that basis it's much more important what you think. Not going along with what I say, but noting what you would say yourself in response to this. So do I have a notion of being an individual? Yes, I would say and do I have a notion of just being one individual? I would also say yes because if you call my name, I'm not going to sit and be confused for a moment thinking, "Who are you speaking to?" It's just me, that's just me, not many. Then of course if I think about it at length I can say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday and so on, but the immediate response is sure I'm one individual.
And am I a permanent individual? Yes, I sure am because although I say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday it's still me. It's still me who was a different guy yesterday, but now has learned something or has, who knows what? Changed in some way so that I can now look back on myself yesterday and say, "Well it's a different person." The very fact that I can do that is evidence of my belief that I'm an enduring, and in that sense permanent individual. So at home please try to think do you agree that you are single, enduring individuals? One person? And do you agree that you stay the same in your experience? That your view of yourself is one of a lasting, enduring person? And if you say "No," then note down so that you can mention it why you don't think so. And if you think "Yes," then note down what the reasons are that you have this belief. If you say "I don't think so," then what are the reasons or the justification for having that belief? And if you say "Yes I am a single person who endures, is ongoing in time," then why do you have this belief and what is the justification of it? Yeah, thank you very much.
And yes, was there some response, thoughts on what we tried to address yesterday? You are welcome to share.
Anything sounded particularly...
challenging or particularly compelling, or particularly anything you are welcome to share a little bit. You don't have to but if you have any thoughts. Because I guess I tried to speak about methodology to some extent yesterday and that is really key to getting something out of this type of study. There are many ways that this looks like traditional philosophical learning and study. But there are also many ways in which this is very very different. And so to really get a feeling for how to approach this text in a constructive way is crucial; and how to approach means what frame of mind to be in oneself, what to expect, what not to expect. All of these issues are extremely important.
But if there is nothing at this point, then we can begin. Maybe not. I should say something about the translations and the texts that we have available here. And in that regard, those of you who have access to Teams you will find somewhere on Teams that there is a book available, a book printed in China by Professor Yao-Hsing Xiong-Yi, who has prepared a comparative edition of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā where he has edited the Sanskrit text. He has edited the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva and also provided a Chinese translation, a contemporary Chinese translation, and he has an edition also of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā that is found in Tibetan translation in the Derge Kagyü And it's very high quality, his editions, there's a general consensus about. So it's very fortunate and extremely kind of Professor Yi that he has agreed to make that book available to us all as we study the text. But of course please acknowledge that this is just for the sake of this course and not something to distribute obviously. So this is a very special kindness that he has showed us, and it's wonderful that we can use this very authoritative work as we go. And then in terms of English translations, there are also many that are available. And I, in particular, would like to recommend the translation by Katsura and Siderits.
So a few years ago, a decade or so and that is a very lucid and clear translation and it is especially very helpful because it has also lucid, clear commentary, which moreover is based on the extant four commentaries from India that we have access to in the case of Candrakīrti, in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, but otherwise in Tibetan. So as the commentary proceeds in this translation, then you will be able to hear remarks and points made by the classic authors of India, the four that we have extant works of today. So that is a really special and valuable resource for reading the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. But there are many others because this text is so important. It has been translated many times and each translation has its advantages. And as a translator it's always necessary to make choices obviously. That's what translation is about. So whichever way you go, there will also be, when you go in one direction you can't go in another. So that also speaks to the value of having many different translations available. Sometimes translations can themselves become a bit like a commentary to the text. So I would encourage you to take a good look around what is available.
In this course here we will be using in terms of the English translation, the translation that is contained in Mabja Jangchub Tsondru commentary on the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. And that is a translation made based on the Tibetan version of the text, not from Sanskrit as what is the case with Siderits and Katsura. Their translation is based on the Sanskrit. So we use Mabja's commentary and not because I translated it, I mean probably partially because of that because then I am more acquainted with that than other translations. So there is a certain familiarity advantage, hopefully. But also because that commentary really is quite amazing. Not to speak of the quality of the translation, of course, we can say has many shortcomings. But the text itself is really quite wonderful, very comprehensive and yet not overly elaborate. So that is what is in English translated as and published as "Ornament of Reason." So it is a commentary that is comprehensive, it is quite a thick book, but it is not a commentary of the kind that I was going to say digresses, it is not really digression, it is a feature of many amazing commentaries and treatises. But there is this tradition or there is a certain style of making a commentary where the author will every once in a while and it can happen seemingly for no particular reason suddenly there is a whole opening of a distinct discussion which is almost like a little essay in itself. So that is a very exciting way of...it provides for very exciting text but also one that obviously will take one away in many different directions. So Mabja's commentary is not like that, it is always focused on the text itself and yet it is quite exhaustive. And it is a commentary that has had very much influence in Tibet, not necessarily explicitly so, but it is clear that Mabja's commentary has been key for the development of Mādhyamaka thought in Tibet. In particular Mabja's commentary is one of the first, very first to rely on Candrakīrti as an authority in interpreting the Mādhyamaka.
And in particular he makes an effort to work with arguments and reason in a way that is deeply influenced by Dharmakīrti. So that kind of approach of combining Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti, of course, those of you who have studied and those of you who are studying the history of Mādhyamaka thought will know that that becomes a very prominent feature, something that people do. Although Candrakīrti is strongly critical of Dharmakīrti, he is moved to nevertheless rely on much of the apparatus that you have in Dharmakīrti. So Mabja's text is a very rich example of that and perhaps the first one to do so. So it starts a whole tradition. But it's also because it is of that sort, because it is an incorporation of Dharmakīrtian logic.
Like the Dharmakīrti was one of the greatest logicians of Buddhism in India, and to incorporate his framework into an exposition of Dharmakīrti will necessarily mean that there will also be a whole lot of critique of Dharmakīrti. Anyone who tries to do that will have to also say why this isn't just straight Dharmakīrti, because Candrakīrti spends a lot of time rejecting the whole project of pramāṇa. So that too is a very exciting element that you can see developed in the Mabja commentary. So I would also encourage you as course requirement those who take this course to begin by reading the full commentary to the text, then study the "Root Verses" as we do here and then at the end of the program read once more on the "Ornament of Reason" to get the full commentary once more. And then on that basis it should be possible to begin to, if we have been just somewhat successful, it should be possible then to benefit from a whole lot of Mādhyamaka literature, different commentaries and also really benefit from experts lecturing on the Mādhyamaka, as as you can find it in the traditional monastic institution or in the academic world. Many of the excellent teachers of Mādhyamaka in the academy, you should be able to also really gain something from following their courses.
So that was about the texts, the translation, I still have to do the screen sharing. So this is the homage
that follows the title. So after the title, the next we see is this: "That which originates dependently--dependent origination-- does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down."
So as I mentioned yesterday this is the opening of the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the verses of homage to the teacher explaining why he is the perfect teacher, because he is able to present dependent origination just as it is. That homage is also found in a short, very short Prajñāpāramitā sūtra which is called the Kauśika Prajñāpāramitā. So the Buddha himself there speaking to Kauśika and a vast retinue, himself ends his discourse with these words there. But here they are brought, are spoken by, we assume, we understand by Nāgārjuna.
And they are really like a summary of the whole text. If we understand this homage then we have understood the treatise. And if we have understood the treatise, then as the one sūtra says, those who see dependent origination see the Dharma, those who see the Dharma see the Buddha. So these are extremely profound verses. If we can with the help of a statement of this kind understand dependent origination, then so to speak we have direct perception of the Dharma and then the sūtra says direct perception of the Dharma means direct perception of the Buddha. So dependent origination that has to do with how things happen. There's a notion of things and there's a notion of something happening, and something happening which is based on something. Not just random but there's a sense of dependency. Something that, some constraints we could say on what happens and what doesn't. When certain causes, certain conditions are present then something happens, and when those are not present, then that particular thing will not happen. So it's causality if you want very matter of factly and something that I think anyone can agree is noticeable about the world, no?
That our perception is one of dependent origination. We wouldn't perhaps say it with such a technical term,
but what we see, what we feel, what we think, what we do, all of that is something that we see, feel, think and do in a way that is dependent on certain factors. It doesn't happen completely randomly, it doesn't happen just utterly spontaneously but it's when certain things come about that we will say something, and when that's not the case then we won't. Like if someone comes to say hello, good morning, it is quite likely that we will say something similar in response, if it is indeed morning. So another kind of causal dependence that needs to be in place. When that's the case then, if it is morning, someone comes and says good morning then it's likely that we will say good morning and had that person not come we would not say it, had that person come and said good morning in the evening we would probably say something different. It's very simple stuff but it seems very,
something that is... so one thing we can begin to think about here at this point is, is this a principle of dependent origination that things happen and arise based on other things? Is this something that we can notice everywhere? Or is it something that applies to perhaps many things, very many things perhaps but not to everything? That is one sort of key question that we can begin to contemplate.
So perhaps we can even think of that right now. What do you think? Is dependent origination a sense of dependency on other factors that somehow determine whether something happens or not Always the case from our experience? from what we can sort of think of and try to intellectually determine. Is it the case that absolutely everything is of this kind? Dependent on something else or not? Any suggestions?
What about space? Yeah, so that's a good question though. What about space and why would space be different?
Because it's immaterial and yet somehow a concept that we can understand.
If it's a concept that we can understand, concepts that we can understand, aren't they somehow causally determined or dependent?
Yes. So then space is not anything but dependent origination, no?
And if it's not a concept that we can understand? Why would it then be not dependent origination? What makes you think of space as an example of something that is not dependent origination? Because in a class I took one of the Khenpos was speaking about relatively, how it doesn't really fit into the category of relative or ultimate in terms of establishment, and so it seems like a bit of an outlier with respect to an example of something that we could conceive of but not necessarily be in direct contact with.
It seems that, again please?
We can see space but we cannot touch it, and it seems to be a phenomena that has different characteristics than something that we could look at, that would have like a valid base and characteristics that we could all unanimously agree upon, or perceive similarly. It is different than something that we could all unanimously agree about? Yes. So when we are talking about whether something is dependent origination, is an example of dependent origination, then it means does the thing in question just exist as it is, independently of anything else? Or does it not? So if it is something we can see, if what we see is space, is that what we see independent of causes and conditions?
This is a beautiful way to begin actually. No, the Buddha says beings widely proclaim that they see space but examine here the meaning how do you see space? And then that is the, I think it continues now all things, all factors are in this way. So, with space it is interesting because in some way it seems to be like an absence of things, so not a thing in itself but like the very fact that there is not a thing, and then we need to consider whether an absence of things is actually in itself a real thing, or just a concept, and if it is a concept it is obviously dependent on our own concepts basically. The other thing is if we can see it, then it must be part of dependent origination because otherwise we could not interact with it in any way.
So I question the notion of space actually being a thing. It is for me rather an absence of things.
So if space is a concept, then concepts arguably depend on other concepts. I guess not all philosophers will say that, there are also like self-existing concepts. But this we will have ample time to explore as we go. But yeah,
if we have a concept of something, of red for example, then what is red? To sort of, to explain that, we have to talk about other things, no? If someone has not seen red and we want to explain what red is, then the only way that we can get at that is to do more than just say red, no? Red we will have to say, well you know, you have probably seen other colors like you saw yellow yesterday, remember? So red is also a color and so on and so forth. And that arguably is the way it is with concepts, no? That as soon as we are dealing with a concept, we are already in a web of concepts. But let's see whether that is so, no? That sounds already sort of like Buddhist philosophy. But yeah, there is something about concepts that certainly suggests dependence. And then there is, you also said if it is something that we see, so if it is something that we perceive, then perception too is something probably, you know, that takes place in a causal framework, no? It's when certain things is the case, we see certain things. And when those things are not the case, we won't see that particular thing. But again that is not necessarily the case either, no? We could have an idea of like a perception that just is what it is independently of anything else, like the perception of the truth, perhaps the ultimate truth, perhaps the perception of God. This is something that we can keep in mind. And then finally you mentioned absence, so what to do with absence? This is also something that we can really try to get a sense of what do we mean when we talk about absence, and the notion of perceiving absence or not perceiving absence, is absence perceptible or not? This is all something that we can spend time exploring. I think there were some other questions with, maybe you first, yeah?
So maybe you've been talking about something like an independent origination, you know, if all is a sequence of cause and effects, you might think, you know, you go back to the beginning there was some first cause, like some type of unmoved mover maybe? So the unmoved mover would be something that is not causally dependent, yeah? There would certainly be, presumably that is a very wildly held position, no? Like if we believe in a... but not only if so, but if we believe in a permanent creator or in a, of all of this, someone who sets in motion all of these dependent events, then the idea with that immovable mover is precisely that, like the divine principle, or the creator, is not itself subject to causes and conditions. Because otherwise, certainly the notion of an omnipotent God cannot be maintained. No, if God, him/her/itself is dependent on causes and conditions apart from himself/herself/itself, then then it couldn't be an omnipotent God, right?
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Okay, do you think that Nāgārjuna gives a hint to a possible answer of your question of what would not pratītyasamutpāda influenced by saying that it's the pacification of proliferation of constructs and that it's auspicious or peace, shivam? Because these two things would often be associated with an idea of, I don't know, like something like a Buddhajñāna, for instance, so that implicitly he answers this by just using these terms. Would you think that it's valid interpretation? I mean, you studied it much more. That's a brilliant question.
I think there are many ways that this can be interpreted, no?
I would say at this point,
at this point the most promising is to... so what you were saying is that dependent origination, so you are somehow saying that the Buddhajñāna is--the Buddha's wisdom--would be an example of something that is not dependent origination, yeah? And that is this complete pacification, or the auspiciousness of the pacification of constructs, that this is something that is not dependent origination.
I think the..
like if we read the text here, it says "that dependent, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go," and so forth. So in other words, dependent origination itself does not arise and does not cease, and that is the, therefore the perception of dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and therefore seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. So the question of whether the Buddha or the Buddha's wisdom is different from dependent origination sort of falls away, because it is the perception of dependent origination itself without ceasing and arising, that is the true Dharma. And the, the wisdom of that is the Buddha's wisdom. But this is something that we can go back to, there's obviously, there's an amazing rich and wonderful literature on this, yeah? This is one of the key points that have been discussed in volumes in the Tibetan literature over centuries, yeah? So that is one of the really amazing things about this text also, is that it brings you, it brings us into an environment which is so full of amazing voices and brilliantly sharp and wise minds. And it's not just that we can walk around there in awe and sort of marvelling at their... what all they can do, but we also ourselves have a real basis for appreciating what they are talking about. If we study the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, then something of that kind, a topic of this kind that you just brought up, whether the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination, is something that we will have... think about what could be, what from a Buddhist point of view at least, what could be more profound to think about? Like the nature of the Buddha's wisdom, what is it? And if we can say whether it's dependent origination or not, then we know a whole lot about the Buddha's wisdom. But who knows if the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination or not? If we just, unless we have studied this already at length, then this will seem like a, yeah, wow, I guess Buddhist philosophers can say something about that, but what do I know? But believe it or not, when we just spend a little bit of time going through this, just you know, the first chapter already, our own opinion will be extremely informed. That's amazing, no? That doesn't mean that we can go, that now we are accomplished Buddhist philosophers, but it means that we know something which is really key and really central to the whole discussion. Like what could be more key and central than the very nature of causality in its relation to awakened wisdom? And this is something that we will definitely, through our own efforts of just working with the text and taking our own opinions, our own biases, our own inclinations, our own beliefs very seriously. And not by trying to follow some sort of program, philosophical program and adopt a certain set of views. It is all by focusing on what really do I mean? What do I really believe? What is my own perspective? Taking that very seriously and then allowing Nāgārjuna's critique to meet our own opinions and beliefs, in that way we will certainly arrive at a point where we can have a very meaningful dialogue with these amazing voices from the millennia, the centuries, and also very accomplished philosophers in the world today in this matter. So this is something that is very special about this text. Many other...
To learn Buddhist philosophy, as we talked about yesterday, is something that requires a whole lot of time, a whole lot of energy, years of really focused study, learning, reflecting and trying to gain from one's knowledge in meditation.
But in this case it's possible to arrive in the center of everything, so to speak, just by focusing on this text. That's why in many ways, or some say that the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, although it's so profound, it is also like a perfect beginning for the whole journey of Buddhist philosophy.
So all of these things, let's note this down. What seems to be the case in terms of dependent origination, in terms of the world as we know it, in terms of our own beliefs and perceptions? What seems to be the case about dependent origination? And also what are the candidates for not being dependent origination? Like we talked about, whether space might be so, absence,
the immovable mover, the divine creator, whether that might be something that isn't dependent. And we talked about the Buddhist wisdom. So let's keep all of those examples in mind and any other that you can think of. So this is a good place to ponder already here. But the Buddha's teaching is certainly famed for being a teaching of dependent origination. The Buddha talks about the external world in terms of dependent origination, typically with the example, or very often, the use of an example of a seed, which when planted in the soil and the right conditions are there, will give rise to a sprout. And that sprout, again, when the assisting conditions are present, will grow to become a plant that has many leaves, can grow flowers and fruits perhaps. So this is dependent origination in the external world. But then we also know that the Buddha is not just concerned about what things happen in the external world, but primarily really concerned with how life unfolds in terms of the inner arising of dependent origination, where the first link of the 12 links of dependent origination is ignorance. And because consciousness is ignorant, then there's the karmic conditioning that plants seeds of karmic ripening in consciousness. And so, just as it is the case in the external world, consciousness will keep unfolding on that basis as seeds are planted in ignorant consciousness. They grow fruits of ignorance and defilement. And this process does not end until ignorance ends. That's why the 12 links of dependent origination are a circle. The last of the 12 links is old age and death. And old age and death is not the end of the story. Because the basic ignorance remains, there will be
a new round of birth based on ignorance. So in the basic teachings of Buddhism this is of course a very central topic--dependent origination--coming to understand how consciousness evolves in this way, always conditioned, dependently originated, always conditioned by what took place before. And until the original misunderstanding has been set straight, then this kind of wheel is continuous, the wheel of samsara, the wheel of dissatisfying painful existence is going to continue in an unbroken fashion. So how to correct the error that maintains this? Like if the first link of dependent origination is ignorance, then there must be ignorance about something, right? If it is because of ignorance that painful existence continues life after life, death after death, then so what is this ignorance about? And in this regard the Buddha talks about our belief in self.
It is because basically I believe that I exist as an individual separate from others, like you guys, and separate from things in the world, I am an individual who is here in the world. It is because I have this natural, if you want, perception of things that I will also, as soon as we have that kind of orientation, then with that comes a sense that I am fragile, because I am here in the world, I don't have control over the world obviously, so there are things that can threaten me. And I am also here right now in the world, but I am not all that I could be, I am not all that I would like to be, and so there are certain things in the world that I want. That comes with the very idea of self, that there is a sense of threat which is a form of fear that feeds aggression, right? Because if something then comes to hurt me, I am going to react. How could I do otherwise? If my very existence is threatened, I fight back of course. And even just to maintain my existence, it seems there are many things I need. I am not in control of my own existence and yet I exist here in the world as a distinct individual, but somehow at the mercy of other things, and there are things that I need, so craving becomes second nature too. So I am ready to become aggressive any moment, and I am also constantly in need of things. So whenever that is the case, then
it is very limited really what I can do. What I will do is quite predictable. Indeed if someone comes to threaten, I am going to try to look as threatening as I can in return or react more strongly than that. Some way, try to find some way to overcome that threat that is present. And I will also spend a whole lot of time trying to get at the things that I feel can help me thrive in the world. So it becomes a very predictable existence, and it is also an existence that typically it is quite limited what can take place when that is the perspective. If I feel that I am someone who is basically under threat, and I need a whole lot of things, it is perhaps not the most
then that makes me feel that I have some urgent needs that I need to take care of right now. Just if we think about what comes with the notion of self? What does it do to a mind to think in this way? I think it is a fact that when that is the case, then the scope of mind becomes very limited. It becomes very limited and what goes on in the mind will be very much determined by what is right in my face. Because those needs for survival and for thriving are the most fundamental that there is to me. So it becomes very limited and how good are we at then avoiding the threats, and how good are we at getting the things that we feel we need? Well, we can think about it, no? It seems unlikely that we will stumble upon some method that can take care of our enemies for good, it seems like. Who really believes that? That we can overcome our enemies permanently? And who really believes that it is possible to get what you need forever? So it is quite a miserable struggle that we have to face. And that is not something that Buddhist philosophy tries to... well maybe Buddhist philosophy does try to convince us about that, but it is something that we already know. And it is something that religions of the world know, it is something that philosophy has spoken about for millennia in all parts of the world too. This is, I suppose, what Rinpoche had in mind when he said these things, that impermanence and suffering are core elements of Buddhist teaching and yet they are not really uniquely Buddhist, in the sense that because this is common knowledge too,
that we are always under threat, that there are always things that we need to get and that there is no real end in sight
So it could be of course that if we would just have this one miserable life and then or try to make the best of it, whatever we say, but a life of this kind, a life of trying to stay alive and trying to get certain things, because we can't get all that much in one life, trying to get as many nice things as we can in one life. If that type of existence would then be come to an end when we die, then that would be a sort of limited issue really, because it would be just a matter of a certain duration of experience and then naturally everything would come to an end. But the Buddha says that's not how it is though, because the very idea of self, that which creates the miserable life is actually not founded in anything factual. There is no self of the kind you think there is. In other words, there is no individual here who stands in opposition to the world, or who is a separate individual in a world outside it.
There's no enduring singular agent here. So that is a mistake really the Buddha says. And if you see that mistake, then think about it. The reason that I thought I needed to protect myself was because I believed that I am such a thing, that I am someone who needs protection by all means. And the reason that I thought I had so many things to chase after was because I thought I am someone who can actually get things and miss things. And that's why I need to be on my toes to chase them. But what then if that's not the case? And I don't know... We can perhaps as a beginning for tomorrow we can think about the basic critique of, yeah let's do that.
The sort of general Buddhist critique of the idea of a self, let's try to contemplate that for tomorrow, and then we meet and pick up there tomorrow. The reason that we would do that is because this opening verse is about dependent origination. And dependent origination is about causes and conditions, causes and conditions that we can notice at play in the external world, and causes and conditions that we can notice in our own experience. The Buddha is known as the teacher of dependent origination because he explains this way that we can witness dependent origination in the external world, but also see that our own experience of things, our own life, death and rebirth is conditioned. The twelve links of dependent origination is the key teaching of the Buddha. So that's what Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being able to do, but he also qualifies that notion of dependent origination in an extraordinary way. He says that whatever is like that, whatever is dependently arisen actually does not end, ever, and never arises. That seems to be like a cancellation of the very idea of dependent origination, no? Origination means that something comes into being, and if something comes into being, things need to go out of existence also. Otherwise what's the process of dependent origination? Coming and going...without movement, how can there be dependent origination? If everything is static then what dependent origination is there? Annihilated and permanent things, if there's nothing that is different from anything else and if we can't say that certain things are same as something else, then how to understand dependent origination? What kind of dependent origination is that, which is neither different things nor things that are of the same kind? So in other words Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being the teacher of dependent origination as we know he is, the wheel of dependent, the twelve links. But then he says all of that which is of this kind whether it's internally in the way of the twelve links or externally in the world, seed sprouts and so on, what have you, myriads of things, whatever is of that kind actually never arises in the first place, and never ceases. And that's why, because the Buddha shows this truth, this profound, auspicious, peaceful truth that is why he is the Teacher of teachers.
So in order to first get a little sense of dependent origination in general in Buddhism this may be worthwhile that we think of the critique of the individual. So we're already one minute past but just very briefly the exercise that we can then do until tomorrow is to think of, "Okay do I have a notion of myself as being an individual?" And probably we will say yes. If not then that's fine also right. And please note it down and the point here again is not so much to try to get what I'm talking about, but more of course you need to somehow get a sense of what I'm trying to talk about but then on that basis it's much more important what you think. Not going along with what I say, but noting what you would say yourself in response to this. So do I have a notion of being an individual? Yes, I would say and do I have a notion of just being one individual? I would also say yes because if you call my name, I'm not going to sit and be confused for a moment thinking, "Who are you speaking to?" It's just me, that's just me, not many. Then of course if I think about it at length I can say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday and so on, but the immediate response is sure I'm one individual.
And am I a permanent individual? Yes, I sure am because although I say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday it's still me. It's still me who was a different guy yesterday, but now has learned something or has, who knows what? Changed in some way so that I can now look back on myself yesterday and say, "Well it's a different person." The very fact that I can do that is evidence of my belief that I'm an enduring, and in that sense permanent individual. So at home please try to think do you agree that you are single, enduring individuals? One person? And do you agree that you stay the same in your experience? That your view of yourself is one of a lasting, enduring person? And if you say "No," then note down so that you can mention it why you don't think so. And if you think "Yes," then note down what the reasons are that you have this belief. If you say "I don't think so," then what are the reasons or the justification for having that belief? And if you say "Yes I am a single person who endures, is ongoing in time," then why do you have this belief and what is the justification of it? Yeah, thank you very much.
Let's begin by thinking
about what was brought up
yesterday and perhaps
you have some thoughts,
responses, etc.
That would be nice to hear.
But before that we
should also think of what
it is that we are about
to do here, profound
contemplation of the
nature of reality with the
help of a very extraordinary
treatise, delivered
by a very extraordinary
master, one of the
foremost followers of the
Buddha and tremendously
impactful figure in the
transmission of the Buddhadharma.
So we should make
sure to acknowledge just
how rare and profound
it is to be face to face
with something
of this sort and make
the wish that it is
meaningful what we do,
not so much for ourselves,
but acknowledging
the impact that something
like this can have
for absolutely everyone.
So with a mind for all sentient
beings, let's begin the session.
And yes, was there some response, thoughts on what we tried to address yesterday? You are welcome to share.
Anything sounded particularly...
challenging or particularly compelling, or particularly anything you are welcome to share a little bit. You don't have to but if you have any thoughts. Because I guess I tried to speak about methodology to some extent yesterday and that is really key to getting something out of this type of study. There are many ways that this looks like traditional philosophical learning and study. But there are also many ways in which this is very very different. And so to really get a feeling for how to approach this text in a constructive way is crucial; and how to approach means what frame of mind to be in oneself, what to expect, what not to expect. All of these issues are extremely important.
But if there is nothing at this point, then we can begin. Maybe not. I should say something about the translations and the texts that we have available here. And in that regard, those of you who have access to Teams you will find somewhere on Teams that there is a book available, a book printed in China by Professor Yao-Hsing Xiong-Yi, who has prepared a comparative edition of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā where he has edited the Sanskrit text. He has edited the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva and also provided a Chinese translation, a contemporary Chinese translation, and he has an edition also of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā that is found in Tibetan translation in the Derge Kagyü And it's very high quality, his editions, there's a general consensus about. So it's very fortunate and extremely kind of Professor Yi that he has agreed to make that book available to us all as we study the text. But of course please acknowledge that this is just for the sake of this course and not something to distribute obviously. So this is a very special kindness that he has showed us, and it's wonderful that we can use this very authoritative work as we go. And then in terms of English translations, there are also many that are available. And I, in particular, would like to recommend the translation by Katsura and Siderits.
So a few years ago, a decade or so and that is a very lucid and clear translation and it is especially very helpful because it has also lucid, clear commentary, which moreover is based on the extant four commentaries from India that we have access to in the case of Candrakīrti, in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, but otherwise in Tibetan. So as the commentary proceeds in this translation, then you will be able to hear remarks and points made by the classic authors of India, the four that we have extant works of today. So that is a really special and valuable resource for reading the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. But there are many others because this text is so important. It has been translated many times and each translation has its advantages. And as a translator it's always necessary to make choices obviously. That's what translation is about. So whichever way you go, there will also be, when you go in one direction you can't go in another. So that also speaks to the value of having many different translations available. Sometimes translations can themselves become a bit like a commentary to the text. So I would encourage you to take a good look around what is available.
In this course here we will be using in terms of the English translation, the translation that is contained in Mabja Jangchub Tsondru commentary on the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. And that is a translation made based on the Tibetan version of the text, not from Sanskrit as what is the case with Siderits and Katsura. Their translation is based on the Sanskrit. So we use Mabja's commentary and not because I translated it, I mean probably partially because of that because then I am more acquainted with that than other translations. So there is a certain familiarity advantage, hopefully. But also because that commentary really is quite amazing. Not to speak of the quality of the translation, of course, we can say has many shortcomings. But the text itself is really quite wonderful, very comprehensive and yet not overly elaborate. So that is what is in English translated as and published as "Ornament of Reason." So it is a commentary that is comprehensive, it is quite a thick book, but it is not a commentary of the kind that I was going to say digresses, it is not really digression, it is a feature of many amazing commentaries and treatises. But there is this tradition or there is a certain style of making a commentary where the author will every once in a while and it can happen seemingly for no particular reason suddenly there is a whole opening of a distinct discussion which is almost like a little essay in itself. So that is a very exciting way of...it provides for very exciting text but also one that obviously will take one away in many different directions. So Mabja's commentary is not like that, it is always focused on the text itself and yet it is quite exhaustive. And it is a commentary that has had very much influence in Tibet, not necessarily explicitly so, but it is clear that Mabja's commentary has been key for the development of Mādhyamaka thought in Tibet. In particular Mabja's commentary is one of the first, very first to rely on Candrakīrti as an authority in interpreting the Mādhyamaka.
And in particular he makes an effort to work with arguments and reason in a way that is deeply influenced by Dharmakīrti. So that kind of approach of combining Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti, of course, those of you who have studied and those of you who are studying the history of Mādhyamaka thought will know that that becomes a very prominent feature, something that people do. Although Candrakīrti is strongly critical of Dharmakīrti, he is moved to nevertheless rely on much of the apparatus that you have in Dharmakīrti. So Mabja's text is a very rich example of that and perhaps the first one to do so. So it starts a whole tradition. But it's also because it is of that sort, because it is an incorporation of Dharmakīrtian logic.
Like the Dharmakīrti was one of the greatest logicians of Buddhism in India, and to incorporate his framework into an exposition of Dharmakīrti will necessarily mean that there will also be a whole lot of critique of Dharmakīrti. Anyone who tries to do that will have to also say why this isn't just straight Dharmakīrti, because Candrakīrti spends a lot of time rejecting the whole project of pramāṇa. So that too is a very exciting element that you can see developed in the Mabja commentary. So I would also encourage you as course requirement those who take this course to begin by reading the full commentary to the text, then study the "Root Verses" as we do here and then at the end of the program read once more on the "Ornament of Reason" to get the full commentary once more. And then on that basis it should be possible to begin to, if we have been just somewhat successful, it should be possible then to benefit from a whole lot of Mādhyamaka literature, different commentaries and also really benefit from experts lecturing on the Mādhyamaka, as as you can find it in the traditional monastic institution or in the academic world. Many of the excellent teachers of Mādhyamaka in the academy, you should be able to also really gain something from following their courses.
So that was about the texts, the translation, I still have to do the screen sharing. So this is the homage
that follows the title. So after the title, the next we see is this: "That which originates dependently--dependent origination-- does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down."
So as I mentioned yesterday this is the opening of the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the verses of homage to the teacher explaining why he is the perfect teacher, because he is able to present dependent origination just as it is. That homage is also found in a short, very short Prajñāpāramitā sūtra which is called the Kauśika Prajñāpāramitā. So the Buddha himself there speaking to Kauśika and a vast retinue, himself ends his discourse with these words there. But here they are brought, are spoken by, we assume, we understand by Nāgārjuna.
And they are really like a summary of the whole text. If we understand this homage then we have understood the treatise. And if we have understood the treatise, then as the one sūtra says, those who see dependent origination see the Dharma, those who see the Dharma see the Buddha. So these are extremely profound verses. If we can with the help of a statement of this kind understand dependent origination, then so to speak we have direct perception of the Dharma and then the sūtra says direct perception of the Dharma means direct perception of the Buddha. So dependent origination that has to do with how things happen. There's a notion of things and there's a notion of something happening, and something happening which is based on something. Not just random but there's a sense of dependency. Something that, some constraints we could say on what happens and what doesn't. When certain causes, certain conditions are present then something happens, and when those are not present, then that particular thing will not happen. So it's causality if you want very matter of factly and something that I think anyone can agree is noticeable about the world, no?
That our perception is one of dependent origination. We wouldn't perhaps say it with such a technical term,
but what we see, what we feel, what we think, what we do, all of that is something that we see, feel, think and do in a way that is dependent on certain factors. It doesn't happen completely randomly, it doesn't happen just utterly spontaneously but it's when certain things come about that we will say something, and when that's not the case then we won't. Like if someone comes to say hello, good morning, it is quite likely that we will say something similar in response, if it is indeed morning. So another kind of causal dependence that needs to be in place. When that's the case then, if it is morning, someone comes and says good morning then it's likely that we will say good morning and had that person not come we would not say it, had that person come and said good morning in the evening we would probably say something different. It's very simple stuff but it seems very,
something that is... so one thing we can begin to think about here at this point is, is this a principle of dependent origination that things happen and arise based on other things? Is this something that we can notice everywhere? Or is it something that applies to perhaps many things, very many things perhaps but not to everything? That is one sort of key question that we can begin to contemplate.
So perhaps we can even think of that right now. What do you think? Is dependent origination a sense of dependency on other factors that somehow determine whether something happens or not Always the case from our experience? from what we can sort of think of and try to intellectually determine. Is it the case that absolutely everything is of this kind? Dependent on something else or not? Any suggestions?
What about space? Yeah, so that's a good question though. What about space and why would space be different?
Because it's immaterial and yet somehow a concept that we can understand.
If it's a concept that we can understand, concepts that we can understand, aren't they somehow causally determined or dependent?
Yes. So then space is not anything but dependent origination, no?
And if it's not a concept that we can understand? Why would it then be not dependent origination? What makes you think of space as an example of something that is not dependent origination? Because in a class I took one of the Khenpos was speaking about relatively, how it doesn't really fit into the category of relative or ultimate in terms of establishment, and so it seems like a bit of an outlier with respect to an example of something that we could conceive of but not necessarily be in direct contact with.
It seems that, again please?
We can see space but we cannot touch it, and it seems to be a phenomena that has different characteristics than something that we could look at, that would have like a valid base and characteristics that we could all unanimously agree upon, or perceive similarly. It is different than something that we could all unanimously agree about? Yes. So when we are talking about whether something is dependent origination, is an example of dependent origination, then it means does the thing in question just exist as it is, independently of anything else? Or does it not? So if it is something we can see, if what we see is space, is that what we see independent of causes and conditions?
This is a beautiful way to begin actually. No, the Buddha says beings widely proclaim that they see space but examine here the meaning how do you see space? And then that is the, I think it continues now all things, all factors are in this way. So, with space it is interesting because in some way it seems to be like an absence of things, so not a thing in itself but like the very fact that there is not a thing, and then we need to consider whether an absence of things is actually in itself a real thing, or just a concept, and if it is a concept it is obviously dependent on our own concepts basically. The other thing is if we can see it, then it must be part of dependent origination because otherwise we could not interact with it in any way.
So I question the notion of space actually being a thing. It is for me rather an absence of things.
So if space is a concept, then concepts arguably depend on other concepts. I guess not all philosophers will say that, there are also like self-existing concepts. But this we will have ample time to explore as we go. But yeah,
if we have a concept of something, of red for example, then what is red? To sort of, to explain that, we have to talk about other things, no? If someone has not seen red and we want to explain what red is, then the only way that we can get at that is to do more than just say red, no? Red we will have to say, well you know, you have probably seen other colors like you saw yellow yesterday, remember? So red is also a color and so on and so forth. And that arguably is the way it is with concepts, no? That as soon as we are dealing with a concept, we are already in a web of concepts. But let's see whether that is so, no? That sounds already sort of like Buddhist philosophy. But yeah, there is something about concepts that certainly suggests dependence. And then there is, you also said if it is something that we see, so if it is something that we perceive, then perception too is something probably, you know, that takes place in a causal framework, no? It's when certain things is the case, we see certain things. And when those things are not the case, we won't see that particular thing. But again that is not necessarily the case either, no? We could have an idea of like a perception that just is what it is independently of anything else, like the perception of the truth, perhaps the ultimate truth, perhaps the perception of God. This is something that we can keep in mind. And then finally you mentioned absence, so what to do with absence? This is also something that we can really try to get a sense of what do we mean when we talk about absence, and the notion of perceiving absence or not perceiving absence, is absence perceptible or not? This is all something that we can spend time exploring. I think there were some other questions with, maybe you first, yeah?
So maybe you've been talking about something like an independent origination, you know, if all is a sequence of cause and effects, you might think, you know, you go back to the beginning there was some first cause, like some type of unmoved mover maybe? So the unmoved mover would be something that is not causally dependent, yeah? There would certainly be, presumably that is a very wildly held position, no? Like if we believe in a... but not only if so, but if we believe in a permanent creator or in a, of all of this, someone who sets in motion all of these dependent events, then the idea with that immovable mover is precisely that, like the divine principle, or the creator, is not itself subject to causes and conditions. Because otherwise, certainly the notion of an omnipotent God cannot be maintained. No, if God, him/her/itself is dependent on causes and conditions apart from himself/herself/itself, then then it couldn't be an omnipotent God, right?
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Okay, do you think that Nāgārjuna gives a hint to a possible answer of your question of what would not pratītyasamutpāda influenced by saying that it's the pacification of proliferation of constructs and that it's auspicious or peace, shivam? Because these two things would often be associated with an idea of, I don't know, like something like a Buddhajñāna, for instance, so that implicitly he answers this by just using these terms. Would you think that it's valid interpretation? I mean, you studied it much more. That's a brilliant question.
I think there are many ways that this can be interpreted, no?
I would say at this point,
at this point the most promising is to... so what you were saying is that dependent origination, so you are somehow saying that the Buddhajñāna is--the Buddha's wisdom--would be an example of something that is not dependent origination, yeah? And that is this complete pacification, or the auspiciousness of the pacification of constructs, that this is something that is not dependent origination.
I think the..
like if we read the text here, it says "that dependent, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go," and so forth. So in other words, dependent origination itself does not arise and does not cease, and that is the, therefore the perception of dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and therefore seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. So the question of whether the Buddha or the Buddha's wisdom is different from dependent origination sort of falls away, because it is the perception of dependent origination itself without ceasing and arising, that is the true Dharma. And the, the wisdom of that is the Buddha's wisdom. But this is something that we can go back to, there's obviously, there's an amazing rich and wonderful literature on this, yeah? This is one of the key points that have been discussed in volumes in the Tibetan literature over centuries, yeah? So that is one of the really amazing things about this text also, is that it brings you, it brings us into an environment which is so full of amazing voices and brilliantly sharp and wise minds. And it's not just that we can walk around there in awe and sort of marvelling at their... what all they can do, but we also ourselves have a real basis for appreciating what they are talking about. If we study the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, then something of that kind, a topic of this kind that you just brought up, whether the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination, is something that we will have... think about what could be, what from a Buddhist point of view at least, what could be more profound to think about? Like the nature of the Buddha's wisdom, what is it? And if we can say whether it's dependent origination or not, then we know a whole lot about the Buddha's wisdom. But who knows if the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination or not? If we just, unless we have studied this already at length, then this will seem like a, yeah, wow, I guess Buddhist philosophers can say something about that, but what do I know? But believe it or not, when we just spend a little bit of time going through this, just you know, the first chapter already, our own opinion will be extremely informed. That's amazing, no? That doesn't mean that we can go, that now we are accomplished Buddhist philosophers, but it means that we know something which is really key and really central to the whole discussion. Like what could be more key and central than the very nature of causality in its relation to awakened wisdom? And this is something that we will definitely, through our own efforts of just working with the text and taking our own opinions, our own biases, our own inclinations, our own beliefs very seriously. And not by trying to follow some sort of program, philosophical program and adopt a certain set of views. It is all by focusing on what really do I mean? What do I really believe? What is my own perspective? Taking that very seriously and then allowing Nāgārjuna's critique to meet our own opinions and beliefs, in that way we will certainly arrive at a point where we can have a very meaningful dialogue with these amazing voices from the millennia, the centuries, and also very accomplished philosophers in the world today in this matter. So this is something that is very special about this text. Many other...
To learn Buddhist philosophy, as we talked about yesterday, is something that requires a whole lot of time, a whole lot of energy, years of really focused study, learning, reflecting and trying to gain from one's knowledge in meditation.
But in this case it's possible to arrive in the center of everything, so to speak, just by focusing on this text. That's why in many ways, or some say that the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, although it's so profound, it is also like a perfect beginning for the whole journey of Buddhist philosophy.
So all of these things, let's note this down. What seems to be the case in terms of dependent origination, in terms of the world as we know it, in terms of our own beliefs and perceptions? What seems to be the case about dependent origination? And also what are the candidates for not being dependent origination? Like we talked about, whether space might be so, absence,
the immovable mover, the divine creator, whether that might be something that isn't dependent. And we talked about the Buddhist wisdom. So let's keep all of those examples in mind and any other that you can think of. So this is a good place to ponder already here. But the Buddha's teaching is certainly famed for being a teaching of dependent origination. The Buddha talks about the external world in terms of dependent origination, typically with the example, or very often, the use of an example of a seed, which when planted in the soil and the right conditions are there, will give rise to a sprout. And that sprout, again, when the assisting conditions are present, will grow to become a plant that has many leaves, can grow flowers and fruits perhaps. So this is dependent origination in the external world. But then we also know that the Buddha is not just concerned about what things happen in the external world, but primarily really concerned with how life unfolds in terms of the inner arising of dependent origination, where the first link of the 12 links of dependent origination is ignorance. And because consciousness is ignorant, then there's the karmic conditioning that plants seeds of karmic ripening in consciousness. And so, just as it is the case in the external world, consciousness will keep unfolding on that basis as seeds are planted in ignorant consciousness. They grow fruits of ignorance and defilement. And this process does not end until ignorance ends. That's why the 12 links of dependent origination are a circle. The last of the 12 links is old age and death. And old age and death is not the end of the story. Because the basic ignorance remains, there will be
a new round of birth based on ignorance. So in the basic teachings of Buddhism this is of course a very central topic--dependent origination--coming to understand how consciousness evolves in this way, always conditioned, dependently originated, always conditioned by what took place before. And until the original misunderstanding has been set straight, then this kind of wheel is continuous, the wheel of samsara, the wheel of dissatisfying painful existence is going to continue in an unbroken fashion. So how to correct the error that maintains this? Like if the first link of dependent origination is ignorance, then there must be ignorance about something, right? If it is because of ignorance that painful existence continues life after life, death after death, then so what is this ignorance about? And in this regard the Buddha talks about our belief in self.
It is because basically I believe that I exist as an individual separate from others, like you guys, and separate from things in the world, I am an individual who is here in the world. It is because I have this natural, if you want, perception of things that I will also, as soon as we have that kind of orientation, then with that comes a sense that I am fragile, because I am here in the world, I don't have control over the world obviously, so there are things that can threaten me. And I am also here right now in the world, but I am not all that I could be, I am not all that I would like to be, and so there are certain things in the world that I want. That comes with the very idea of self, that there is a sense of threat which is a form of fear that feeds aggression, right? Because if something then comes to hurt me, I am going to react. How could I do otherwise? If my very existence is threatened, I fight back of course. And even just to maintain my existence, it seems there are many things I need. I am not in control of my own existence and yet I exist here in the world as a distinct individual, but somehow at the mercy of other things, and there are things that I need, so craving becomes second nature too. So I am ready to become aggressive any moment, and I am also constantly in need of things. So whenever that is the case, then
it is very limited really what I can do. What I will do is quite predictable. Indeed if someone comes to threaten, I am going to try to look as threatening as I can in return or react more strongly than that. Some way, try to find some way to overcome that threat that is present. And I will also spend a whole lot of time trying to get at the things that I feel can help me thrive in the world. So it becomes a very predictable existence, and it is also an existence that typically it is quite limited what can take place when that is the perspective. If I feel that I am someone who is basically under threat, and I need a whole lot of things, it is perhaps not the most
then that makes me feel that I have some urgent needs that I need to take care of right now. Just if we think about what comes with the notion of self? What does it do to a mind to think in this way? I think it is a fact that when that is the case, then the scope of mind becomes very limited. It becomes very limited and what goes on in the mind will be very much determined by what is right in my face. Because those needs for survival and for thriving are the most fundamental that there is to me. So it becomes very limited and how good are we at then avoiding the threats, and how good are we at getting the things that we feel we need? Well, we can think about it, no? It seems unlikely that we will stumble upon some method that can take care of our enemies for good, it seems like. Who really believes that? That we can overcome our enemies permanently? And who really believes that it is possible to get what you need forever? So it is quite a miserable struggle that we have to face. And that is not something that Buddhist philosophy tries to... well maybe Buddhist philosophy does try to convince us about that, but it is something that we already know. And it is something that religions of the world know, it is something that philosophy has spoken about for millennia in all parts of the world too. This is, I suppose, what Rinpoche had in mind when he said these things, that impermanence and suffering are core elements of Buddhist teaching and yet they are not really uniquely Buddhist, in the sense that because this is common knowledge too,
that we are always under threat, that there are always things that we need to get and that there is no real end in sight
So it could be of course that if we would just have this one miserable life and then or try to make the best of it, whatever we say, but a life of this kind, a life of trying to stay alive and trying to get certain things, because we can't get all that much in one life, trying to get as many nice things as we can in one life. If that type of existence would then be come to an end when we die, then that would be a sort of limited issue really, because it would be just a matter of a certain duration of experience and then naturally everything would come to an end. But the Buddha says that's not how it is though, because the very idea of self, that which creates the miserable life is actually not founded in anything factual. There is no self of the kind you think there is. In other words, there is no individual here who stands in opposition to the world, or who is a separate individual in a world outside it.
There's no enduring singular agent here. So that is a mistake really the Buddha says. And if you see that mistake, then think about it. The reason that I thought I needed to protect myself was because I believed that I am such a thing, that I am someone who needs protection by all means. And the reason that I thought I had so many things to chase after was because I thought I am someone who can actually get things and miss things. And that's why I need to be on my toes to chase them. But what then if that's not the case? And I don't know... We can perhaps as a beginning for tomorrow we can think about the basic critique of, yeah let's do that.
The sort of general Buddhist critique of the idea of a self, let's try to contemplate that for tomorrow, and then we meet and pick up there tomorrow. The reason that we would do that is because this opening verse is about dependent origination. And dependent origination is about causes and conditions, causes and conditions that we can notice at play in the external world, and causes and conditions that we can notice in our own experience. The Buddha is known as the teacher of dependent origination because he explains this way that we can witness dependent origination in the external world, but also see that our own experience of things, our own life, death and rebirth is conditioned. The twelve links of dependent origination is the key teaching of the Buddha. So that's what Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being able to do, but he also qualifies that notion of dependent origination in an extraordinary way. He says that whatever is like that, whatever is dependently arisen actually does not end, ever, and never arises. That seems to be like a cancellation of the very idea of dependent origination, no? Origination means that something comes into being, and if something comes into being, things need to go out of existence also. Otherwise what's the process of dependent origination? Coming and going...without movement, how can there be dependent origination? If everything is static then what dependent origination is there? Annihilated and permanent things, if there's nothing that is different from anything else and if we can't say that certain things are same as something else, then how to understand dependent origination? What kind of dependent origination is that, which is neither different things nor things that are of the same kind? So in other words Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being the teacher of dependent origination as we know he is, the wheel of dependent, the twelve links. But then he says all of that which is of this kind whether it's internally in the way of the twelve links or externally in the world, seed sprouts and so on, what have you, myriads of things, whatever is of that kind actually never arises in the first place, and never ceases. And that's why, because the Buddha shows this truth, this profound, auspicious, peaceful truth that is why he is the Teacher of teachers.
So in order to first get a little sense of dependent origination in general in Buddhism this may be worthwhile that we think of the critique of the individual. So we're already one minute past but just very briefly the exercise that we can then do until tomorrow is to think of, "Okay do I have a notion of myself as being an individual?" And probably we will say yes. If not then that's fine also right. And please note it down and the point here again is not so much to try to get what I'm talking about, but more of course you need to somehow get a sense of what I'm trying to talk about but then on that basis it's much more important what you think. Not going along with what I say, but noting what you would say yourself in response to this. So do I have a notion of being an individual? Yes, I would say and do I have a notion of just being one individual? I would also say yes because if you call my name, I'm not going to sit and be confused for a moment thinking, "Who are you speaking to?" It's just me, that's just me, not many. Then of course if I think about it at length I can say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday and so on, but the immediate response is sure I'm one individual.
And am I a permanent individual? Yes, I sure am because although I say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday it's still me. It's still me who was a different guy yesterday, but now has learned something or has, who knows what? Changed in some way so that I can now look back on myself yesterday and say, "Well it's a different person." The very fact that I can do that is evidence of my belief that I'm an enduring, and in that sense permanent individual. So at home please try to think do you agree that you are single, enduring individuals? One person? And do you agree that you stay the same in your experience? That your view of yourself is one of a lasting, enduring person? And if you say "No," then note down so that you can mention it why you don't think so. And if you think "Yes," then note down what the reasons are that you have this belief. If you say "I don't think so," then what are the reasons or the justification for having that belief? And if you say "Yes I am a single person who endures, is ongoing in time," then why do you have this belief and what is the justification of it? Yeah, thank you very much.
And yes, was there some response, thoughts on what we tried to address yesterday? You are welcome to share.
Anything sounded particularly...
challenging or particularly compelling, or particularly anything you are welcome to share a little bit. You don't have to but if you have any thoughts. Because I guess I tried to speak about methodology to some extent yesterday and that is really key to getting something out of this type of study. There are many ways that this looks like traditional philosophical learning and study. But there are also many ways in which this is very very different. And so to really get a feeling for how to approach this text in a constructive way is crucial; and how to approach means what frame of mind to be in oneself, what to expect, what not to expect. All of these issues are extremely important.
But if there is nothing at this point, then we can begin. Maybe not. I should say something about the translations and the texts that we have available here. And in that regard, those of you who have access to Teams you will find somewhere on Teams that there is a book available, a book printed in China by Professor Yao-Hsing Xiong-Yi, who has prepared a comparative edition of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā where he has edited the Sanskrit text. He has edited the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva and also provided a Chinese translation, a contemporary Chinese translation, and he has an edition also of the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā that is found in Tibetan translation in the Derge Kagyü And it's very high quality, his editions, there's a general consensus about. So it's very fortunate and extremely kind of Professor Yi that he has agreed to make that book available to us all as we study the text. But of course please acknowledge that this is just for the sake of this course and not something to distribute obviously. So this is a very special kindness that he has showed us, and it's wonderful that we can use this very authoritative work as we go. And then in terms of English translations, there are also many that are available. And I, in particular, would like to recommend the translation by Katsura and Siderits.
So a few years ago, a decade or so and that is a very lucid and clear translation and it is especially very helpful because it has also lucid, clear commentary, which moreover is based on the extant four commentaries from India that we have access to in the case of Candrakīrti, in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, but otherwise in Tibetan. So as the commentary proceeds in this translation, then you will be able to hear remarks and points made by the classic authors of India, the four that we have extant works of today. So that is a really special and valuable resource for reading the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. But there are many others because this text is so important. It has been translated many times and each translation has its advantages. And as a translator it's always necessary to make choices obviously. That's what translation is about. So whichever way you go, there will also be, when you go in one direction you can't go in another. So that also speaks to the value of having many different translations available. Sometimes translations can themselves become a bit like a commentary to the text. So I would encourage you to take a good look around what is available.
In this course here we will be using in terms of the English translation, the translation that is contained in Mabja Jangchub Tsondru commentary on the MūlaMādhyamakakārikā. And that is a translation made based on the Tibetan version of the text, not from Sanskrit as what is the case with Siderits and Katsura. Their translation is based on the Sanskrit. So we use Mabja's commentary and not because I translated it, I mean probably partially because of that because then I am more acquainted with that than other translations. So there is a certain familiarity advantage, hopefully. But also because that commentary really is quite amazing. Not to speak of the quality of the translation, of course, we can say has many shortcomings. But the text itself is really quite wonderful, very comprehensive and yet not overly elaborate. So that is what is in English translated as and published as "Ornament of Reason." So it is a commentary that is comprehensive, it is quite a thick book, but it is not a commentary of the kind that I was going to say digresses, it is not really digression, it is a feature of many amazing commentaries and treatises. But there is this tradition or there is a certain style of making a commentary where the author will every once in a while and it can happen seemingly for no particular reason suddenly there is a whole opening of a distinct discussion which is almost like a little essay in itself. So that is a very exciting way of...it provides for very exciting text but also one that obviously will take one away in many different directions. So Mabja's commentary is not like that, it is always focused on the text itself and yet it is quite exhaustive. And it is a commentary that has had very much influence in Tibet, not necessarily explicitly so, but it is clear that Mabja's commentary has been key for the development of Mādhyamaka thought in Tibet. In particular Mabja's commentary is one of the first, very first to rely on Candrakīrti as an authority in interpreting the Mādhyamaka.
And in particular he makes an effort to work with arguments and reason in a way that is deeply influenced by Dharmakīrti. So that kind of approach of combining Dharmakīrti and Candrakīrti, of course, those of you who have studied and those of you who are studying the history of Mādhyamaka thought will know that that becomes a very prominent feature, something that people do. Although Candrakīrti is strongly critical of Dharmakīrti, he is moved to nevertheless rely on much of the apparatus that you have in Dharmakīrti. So Mabja's text is a very rich example of that and perhaps the first one to do so. So it starts a whole tradition. But it's also because it is of that sort, because it is an incorporation of Dharmakīrtian logic.
Like the Dharmakīrti was one of the greatest logicians of Buddhism in India, and to incorporate his framework into an exposition of Dharmakīrti will necessarily mean that there will also be a whole lot of critique of Dharmakīrti. Anyone who tries to do that will have to also say why this isn't just straight Dharmakīrti, because Candrakīrti spends a lot of time rejecting the whole project of pramāṇa. So that too is a very exciting element that you can see developed in the Mabja commentary. So I would also encourage you as course requirement those who take this course to begin by reading the full commentary to the text, then study the "Root Verses" as we do here and then at the end of the program read once more on the "Ornament of Reason" to get the full commentary once more. And then on that basis it should be possible to begin to, if we have been just somewhat successful, it should be possible then to benefit from a whole lot of Mādhyamaka literature, different commentaries and also really benefit from experts lecturing on the Mādhyamaka, as as you can find it in the traditional monastic institution or in the academic world. Many of the excellent teachers of Mādhyamaka in the academy, you should be able to also really gain something from following their courses.
So that was about the texts, the translation, I still have to do the screen sharing. So this is the homage
that follows the title. So after the title, the next we see is this: "That which originates dependently--dependent origination-- does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go, is not annihilated and is not permanent, is not different and not the same. To the true teacher who reveals this peace, the complete pacification of constructs, to the perfect Buddha, I bow down."
So as I mentioned yesterday this is the opening of the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the verses of homage to the teacher explaining why he is the perfect teacher, because he is able to present dependent origination just as it is. That homage is also found in a short, very short Prajñāpāramitā sūtra which is called the Kauśika Prajñāpāramitā. So the Buddha himself there speaking to Kauśika and a vast retinue, himself ends his discourse with these words there. But here they are brought, are spoken by, we assume, we understand by Nāgārjuna.
And they are really like a summary of the whole text. If we understand this homage then we have understood the treatise. And if we have understood the treatise, then as the one sūtra says, those who see dependent origination see the Dharma, those who see the Dharma see the Buddha. So these are extremely profound verses. If we can with the help of a statement of this kind understand dependent origination, then so to speak we have direct perception of the Dharma and then the sūtra says direct perception of the Dharma means direct perception of the Buddha. So dependent origination that has to do with how things happen. There's a notion of things and there's a notion of something happening, and something happening which is based on something. Not just random but there's a sense of dependency. Something that, some constraints we could say on what happens and what doesn't. When certain causes, certain conditions are present then something happens, and when those are not present, then that particular thing will not happen. So it's causality if you want very matter of factly and something that I think anyone can agree is noticeable about the world, no?
That our perception is one of dependent origination. We wouldn't perhaps say it with such a technical term,
but what we see, what we feel, what we think, what we do, all of that is something that we see, feel, think and do in a way that is dependent on certain factors. It doesn't happen completely randomly, it doesn't happen just utterly spontaneously but it's when certain things come about that we will say something, and when that's not the case then we won't. Like if someone comes to say hello, good morning, it is quite likely that we will say something similar in response, if it is indeed morning. So another kind of causal dependence that needs to be in place. When that's the case then, if it is morning, someone comes and says good morning then it's likely that we will say good morning and had that person not come we would not say it, had that person come and said good morning in the evening we would probably say something different. It's very simple stuff but it seems very,
something that is... so one thing we can begin to think about here at this point is, is this a principle of dependent origination that things happen and arise based on other things? Is this something that we can notice everywhere? Or is it something that applies to perhaps many things, very many things perhaps but not to everything? That is one sort of key question that we can begin to contemplate.
So perhaps we can even think of that right now. What do you think? Is dependent origination a sense of dependency on other factors that somehow determine whether something happens or not Always the case from our experience? from what we can sort of think of and try to intellectually determine. Is it the case that absolutely everything is of this kind? Dependent on something else or not? Any suggestions?
What about space? Yeah, so that's a good question though. What about space and why would space be different?
Because it's immaterial and yet somehow a concept that we can understand.
If it's a concept that we can understand, concepts that we can understand, aren't they somehow causally determined or dependent?
Yes. So then space is not anything but dependent origination, no?
And if it's not a concept that we can understand? Why would it then be not dependent origination? What makes you think of space as an example of something that is not dependent origination? Because in a class I took one of the Khenpos was speaking about relatively, how it doesn't really fit into the category of relative or ultimate in terms of establishment, and so it seems like a bit of an outlier with respect to an example of something that we could conceive of but not necessarily be in direct contact with.
It seems that, again please?
We can see space but we cannot touch it, and it seems to be a phenomena that has different characteristics than something that we could look at, that would have like a valid base and characteristics that we could all unanimously agree upon, or perceive similarly. It is different than something that we could all unanimously agree about? Yes. So when we are talking about whether something is dependent origination, is an example of dependent origination, then it means does the thing in question just exist as it is, independently of anything else? Or does it not? So if it is something we can see, if what we see is space, is that what we see independent of causes and conditions?
This is a beautiful way to begin actually. No, the Buddha says beings widely proclaim that they see space but examine here the meaning how do you see space? And then that is the, I think it continues now all things, all factors are in this way. So, with space it is interesting because in some way it seems to be like an absence of things, so not a thing in itself but like the very fact that there is not a thing, and then we need to consider whether an absence of things is actually in itself a real thing, or just a concept, and if it is a concept it is obviously dependent on our own concepts basically. The other thing is if we can see it, then it must be part of dependent origination because otherwise we could not interact with it in any way.
So I question the notion of space actually being a thing. It is for me rather an absence of things.
So if space is a concept, then concepts arguably depend on other concepts. I guess not all philosophers will say that, there are also like self-existing concepts. But this we will have ample time to explore as we go. But yeah,
if we have a concept of something, of red for example, then what is red? To sort of, to explain that, we have to talk about other things, no? If someone has not seen red and we want to explain what red is, then the only way that we can get at that is to do more than just say red, no? Red we will have to say, well you know, you have probably seen other colors like you saw yellow yesterday, remember? So red is also a color and so on and so forth. And that arguably is the way it is with concepts, no? That as soon as we are dealing with a concept, we are already in a web of concepts. But let's see whether that is so, no? That sounds already sort of like Buddhist philosophy. But yeah, there is something about concepts that certainly suggests dependence. And then there is, you also said if it is something that we see, so if it is something that we perceive, then perception too is something probably, you know, that takes place in a causal framework, no? It's when certain things is the case, we see certain things. And when those things are not the case, we won't see that particular thing. But again that is not necessarily the case either, no? We could have an idea of like a perception that just is what it is independently of anything else, like the perception of the truth, perhaps the ultimate truth, perhaps the perception of God. This is something that we can keep in mind. And then finally you mentioned absence, so what to do with absence? This is also something that we can really try to get a sense of what do we mean when we talk about absence, and the notion of perceiving absence or not perceiving absence, is absence perceptible or not? This is all something that we can spend time exploring. I think there were some other questions with, maybe you first, yeah?
So maybe you've been talking about something like an independent origination, you know, if all is a sequence of cause and effects, you might think, you know, you go back to the beginning there was some first cause, like some type of unmoved mover maybe? So the unmoved mover would be something that is not causally dependent, yeah? There would certainly be, presumably that is a very wildly held position, no? Like if we believe in a... but not only if so, but if we believe in a permanent creator or in a, of all of this, someone who sets in motion all of these dependent events, then the idea with that immovable mover is precisely that, like the divine principle, or the creator, is not itself subject to causes and conditions. Because otherwise, certainly the notion of an omnipotent God cannot be maintained. No, if God, him/her/itself is dependent on causes and conditions apart from himself/herself/itself, then then it couldn't be an omnipotent God, right?
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Okay, do you think that Nāgārjuna gives a hint to a possible answer of your question of what would not pratītyasamutpāda influenced by saying that it's the pacification of proliferation of constructs and that it's auspicious or peace, shivam? Because these two things would often be associated with an idea of, I don't know, like something like a Buddhajñāna, for instance, so that implicitly he answers this by just using these terms. Would you think that it's valid interpretation? I mean, you studied it much more. That's a brilliant question.
I think there are many ways that this can be interpreted, no?
I would say at this point,
at this point the most promising is to... so what you were saying is that dependent origination, so you are somehow saying that the Buddhajñāna is--the Buddha's wisdom--would be an example of something that is not dependent origination, yeah? And that is this complete pacification, or the auspiciousness of the pacification of constructs, that this is something that is not dependent origination.
I think the..
like if we read the text here, it says "that dependent, that which originates dependently does not cease and does not arise, does not come and does not go," and so forth. So in other words, dependent origination itself does not arise and does not cease, and that is the, therefore the perception of dependent origination is seeing the Dharma, and therefore seeing the Dharma is seeing the Buddha. So the question of whether the Buddha or the Buddha's wisdom is different from dependent origination sort of falls away, because it is the perception of dependent origination itself without ceasing and arising, that is the true Dharma. And the, the wisdom of that is the Buddha's wisdom. But this is something that we can go back to, there's obviously, there's an amazing rich and wonderful literature on this, yeah? This is one of the key points that have been discussed in volumes in the Tibetan literature over centuries, yeah? So that is one of the really amazing things about this text also, is that it brings you, it brings us into an environment which is so full of amazing voices and brilliantly sharp and wise minds. And it's not just that we can walk around there in awe and sort of marvelling at their... what all they can do, but we also ourselves have a real basis for appreciating what they are talking about. If we study the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, then something of that kind, a topic of this kind that you just brought up, whether the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination, is something that we will have... think about what could be, what from a Buddhist point of view at least, what could be more profound to think about? Like the nature of the Buddha's wisdom, what is it? And if we can say whether it's dependent origination or not, then we know a whole lot about the Buddha's wisdom. But who knows if the Buddha's wisdom is dependent origination or not? If we just, unless we have studied this already at length, then this will seem like a, yeah, wow, I guess Buddhist philosophers can say something about that, but what do I know? But believe it or not, when we just spend a little bit of time going through this, just you know, the first chapter already, our own opinion will be extremely informed. That's amazing, no? That doesn't mean that we can go, that now we are accomplished Buddhist philosophers, but it means that we know something which is really key and really central to the whole discussion. Like what could be more key and central than the very nature of causality in its relation to awakened wisdom? And this is something that we will definitely, through our own efforts of just working with the text and taking our own opinions, our own biases, our own inclinations, our own beliefs very seriously. And not by trying to follow some sort of program, philosophical program and adopt a certain set of views. It is all by focusing on what really do I mean? What do I really believe? What is my own perspective? Taking that very seriously and then allowing Nāgārjuna's critique to meet our own opinions and beliefs, in that way we will certainly arrive at a point where we can have a very meaningful dialogue with these amazing voices from the millennia, the centuries, and also very accomplished philosophers in the world today in this matter. So this is something that is very special about this text. Many other...
To learn Buddhist philosophy, as we talked about yesterday, is something that requires a whole lot of time, a whole lot of energy, years of really focused study, learning, reflecting and trying to gain from one's knowledge in meditation.
But in this case it's possible to arrive in the center of everything, so to speak, just by focusing on this text. That's why in many ways, or some say that the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, although it's so profound, it is also like a perfect beginning for the whole journey of Buddhist philosophy.
So all of these things, let's note this down. What seems to be the case in terms of dependent origination, in terms of the world as we know it, in terms of our own beliefs and perceptions? What seems to be the case about dependent origination? And also what are the candidates for not being dependent origination? Like we talked about, whether space might be so, absence,
the immovable mover, the divine creator, whether that might be something that isn't dependent. And we talked about the Buddhist wisdom. So let's keep all of those examples in mind and any other that you can think of. So this is a good place to ponder already here. But the Buddha's teaching is certainly famed for being a teaching of dependent origination. The Buddha talks about the external world in terms of dependent origination, typically with the example, or very often, the use of an example of a seed, which when planted in the soil and the right conditions are there, will give rise to a sprout. And that sprout, again, when the assisting conditions are present, will grow to become a plant that has many leaves, can grow flowers and fruits perhaps. So this is dependent origination in the external world. But then we also know that the Buddha is not just concerned about what things happen in the external world, but primarily really concerned with how life unfolds in terms of the inner arising of dependent origination, where the first link of the 12 links of dependent origination is ignorance. And because consciousness is ignorant, then there's the karmic conditioning that plants seeds of karmic ripening in consciousness. And so, just as it is the case in the external world, consciousness will keep unfolding on that basis as seeds are planted in ignorant consciousness. They grow fruits of ignorance and defilement. And this process does not end until ignorance ends. That's why the 12 links of dependent origination are a circle. The last of the 12 links is old age and death. And old age and death is not the end of the story. Because the basic ignorance remains, there will be
a new round of birth based on ignorance. So in the basic teachings of Buddhism this is of course a very central topic--dependent origination--coming to understand how consciousness evolves in this way, always conditioned, dependently originated, always conditioned by what took place before. And until the original misunderstanding has been set straight, then this kind of wheel is continuous, the wheel of samsara, the wheel of dissatisfying painful existence is going to continue in an unbroken fashion. So how to correct the error that maintains this? Like if the first link of dependent origination is ignorance, then there must be ignorance about something, right? If it is because of ignorance that painful existence continues life after life, death after death, then so what is this ignorance about? And in this regard the Buddha talks about our belief in self.
It is because basically I believe that I exist as an individual separate from others, like you guys, and separate from things in the world, I am an individual who is here in the world. It is because I have this natural, if you want, perception of things that I will also, as soon as we have that kind of orientation, then with that comes a sense that I am fragile, because I am here in the world, I don't have control over the world obviously, so there are things that can threaten me. And I am also here right now in the world, but I am not all that I could be, I am not all that I would like to be, and so there are certain things in the world that I want. That comes with the very idea of self, that there is a sense of threat which is a form of fear that feeds aggression, right? Because if something then comes to hurt me, I am going to react. How could I do otherwise? If my very existence is threatened, I fight back of course. And even just to maintain my existence, it seems there are many things I need. I am not in control of my own existence and yet I exist here in the world as a distinct individual, but somehow at the mercy of other things, and there are things that I need, so craving becomes second nature too. So I am ready to become aggressive any moment, and I am also constantly in need of things. So whenever that is the case, then
it is very limited really what I can do. What I will do is quite predictable. Indeed if someone comes to threaten, I am going to try to look as threatening as I can in return or react more strongly than that. Some way, try to find some way to overcome that threat that is present. And I will also spend a whole lot of time trying to get at the things that I feel can help me thrive in the world. So it becomes a very predictable existence, and it is also an existence that typically it is quite limited what can take place when that is the perspective. If I feel that I am someone who is basically under threat, and I need a whole lot of things, it is perhaps not the most
then that makes me feel that I have some urgent needs that I need to take care of right now. Just if we think about what comes with the notion of self? What does it do to a mind to think in this way? I think it is a fact that when that is the case, then the scope of mind becomes very limited. It becomes very limited and what goes on in the mind will be very much determined by what is right in my face. Because those needs for survival and for thriving are the most fundamental that there is to me. So it becomes very limited and how good are we at then avoiding the threats, and how good are we at getting the things that we feel we need? Well, we can think about it, no? It seems unlikely that we will stumble upon some method that can take care of our enemies for good, it seems like. Who really believes that? That we can overcome our enemies permanently? And who really believes that it is possible to get what you need forever? So it is quite a miserable struggle that we have to face. And that is not something that Buddhist philosophy tries to... well maybe Buddhist philosophy does try to convince us about that, but it is something that we already know. And it is something that religions of the world know, it is something that philosophy has spoken about for millennia in all parts of the world too. This is, I suppose, what Rinpoche had in mind when he said these things, that impermanence and suffering are core elements of Buddhist teaching and yet they are not really uniquely Buddhist, in the sense that because this is common knowledge too,
that we are always under threat, that there are always things that we need to get and that there is no real end in sight
So it could be of course that if we would just have this one miserable life and then or try to make the best of it, whatever we say, but a life of this kind, a life of trying to stay alive and trying to get certain things, because we can't get all that much in one life, trying to get as many nice things as we can in one life. If that type of existence would then be come to an end when we die, then that would be a sort of limited issue really, because it would be just a matter of a certain duration of experience and then naturally everything would come to an end. But the Buddha says that's not how it is though, because the very idea of self, that which creates the miserable life is actually not founded in anything factual. There is no self of the kind you think there is. In other words, there is no individual here who stands in opposition to the world, or who is a separate individual in a world outside it.
There's no enduring singular agent here. So that is a mistake really the Buddha says. And if you see that mistake, then think about it. The reason that I thought I needed to protect myself was because I believed that I am such a thing, that I am someone who needs protection by all means. And the reason that I thought I had so many things to chase after was because I thought I am someone who can actually get things and miss things. And that's why I need to be on my toes to chase them. But what then if that's not the case? And I don't know... We can perhaps as a beginning for tomorrow we can think about the basic critique of, yeah let's do that.
The sort of general Buddhist critique of the idea of a self, let's try to contemplate that for tomorrow, and then we meet and pick up there tomorrow. The reason that we would do that is because this opening verse is about dependent origination. And dependent origination is about causes and conditions, causes and conditions that we can notice at play in the external world, and causes and conditions that we can notice in our own experience. The Buddha is known as the teacher of dependent origination because he explains this way that we can witness dependent origination in the external world, but also see that our own experience of things, our own life, death and rebirth is conditioned. The twelve links of dependent origination is the key teaching of the Buddha. So that's what Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being able to do, but he also qualifies that notion of dependent origination in an extraordinary way. He says that whatever is like that, whatever is dependently arisen actually does not end, ever, and never arises. That seems to be like a cancellation of the very idea of dependent origination, no? Origination means that something comes into being, and if something comes into being, things need to go out of existence also. Otherwise what's the process of dependent origination? Coming and going...without movement, how can there be dependent origination? If everything is static then what dependent origination is there? Annihilated and permanent things, if there's nothing that is different from anything else and if we can't say that certain things are same as something else, then how to understand dependent origination? What kind of dependent origination is that, which is neither different things nor things that are of the same kind? So in other words Nāgārjuna praises the Buddha for being the teacher of dependent origination as we know he is, the wheel of dependent, the twelve links. But then he says all of that which is of this kind whether it's internally in the way of the twelve links or externally in the world, seed sprouts and so on, what have you, myriads of things, whatever is of that kind actually never arises in the first place, and never ceases. And that's why, because the Buddha shows this truth, this profound, auspicious, peaceful truth that is why he is the Teacher of teachers.
So in order to first get a little sense of dependent origination in general in Buddhism this may be worthwhile that we think of the critique of the individual. So we're already one minute past but just very briefly the exercise that we can then do until tomorrow is to think of, "Okay do I have a notion of myself as being an individual?" And probably we will say yes. If not then that's fine also right. And please note it down and the point here again is not so much to try to get what I'm talking about, but more of course you need to somehow get a sense of what I'm trying to talk about but then on that basis it's much more important what you think. Not going along with what I say, but noting what you would say yourself in response to this. So do I have a notion of being an individual? Yes, I would say and do I have a notion of just being one individual? I would also say yes because if you call my name, I'm not going to sit and be confused for a moment thinking, "Who are you speaking to?" It's just me, that's just me, not many. Then of course if I think about it at length I can say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday and so on, but the immediate response is sure I'm one individual.
And am I a permanent individual? Yes, I sure am because although I say I'm not the same person today as I was yesterday it's still me. It's still me who was a different guy yesterday, but now has learned something or has, who knows what? Changed in some way so that I can now look back on myself yesterday and say, "Well it's a different person." The very fact that I can do that is evidence of my belief that I'm an enduring, and in that sense permanent individual. So at home please try to think do you agree that you are single, enduring individuals? One person? And do you agree that you stay the same in your experience? That your view of yourself is one of a lasting, enduring person? And if you say "No," then note down so that you can mention it why you don't think so. And if you think "Yes," then note down what the reasons are that you have this belief. If you say "I don't think so," then what are the reasons or the justification for having that belief? And if you say "Yes I am a single person who endures, is ongoing in time," then why do you have this belief and what is the justification of it? Yeah, thank you very much.
17:25
