Details
Root of The Middle Way – Session 04
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Rangjung Yeshe Institute - Nepal
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
The discourse highlights the contradictions within the self-concept and introduces Nāgārjuna's perspective on the interconnectedness of all phenomena.
Description
Session 4 delves into dependent origination, revealing how our understanding of a singular, unchanging self is rooted in ignorance. This belief, often associated with our body and mind, is challenged upon deeper examination. Personal reflections, illustrate the depth and fluctuating nature of these discussions. Thomas emphasizes the power of deeply ingrained tendencies or ‘vasanas’ which often lead us back to old patterns of self-identification, even amid profound insights. The discourse highlights the contradictions within the self-concept and introduces Nāgārjuna’s perspective on the interconnectedness of all phenomena. Ultimately, the teachings focus on navigating the balance between relative and absolute truths, aiming for a deeper understanding leading to liberation.
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
So, let's begin again our session and
we begin by reading aloud the homage.
And you may notice
that lines C and D of
the first slogan have
been turned around.
A kind person made
me aware that the
sequence was off, so
now I should be right.
So let's begin by reading
aloud those verses.
"That which originates
dependently
does not cease and does not arise,
is not annihilated
and is not permanent,
does not come and does not go,
Is not different
and not the same.
To the true teacher
who reveals this peace,
The complete pacification
of constructs,
to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
And then of course if on top of refuge we can sort of bring to mind that this is something that can be an opportunity to ultimately benefit all beings, then that is a very nice way to begin I think.
So yesterday we were still trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is, from a so-called general Buddhist perspective, when we talk about the 12 links of dependent origination Out of interdependent origination, and then the interdependent origination being about how life and death and rebirth occurs by means of, in terms of those 12 links. And we are saying that the Buddha teaches these links in order to point out an unbroken circle, a revolving circle, which is based on ignorance, which is maintained by a certain kind of ignorance. And then we were trying to get a sense of what this ignorance is about. And in the general context of the teachings, ignorance has very much to do with the notion of belief in a person, the existence of a person. What sort of person? A person who is a singular individual and who is permanent in the sense of being the same from one situation to the next, and who is also the agent of actions. It's that person who does things. So I am one person, just me here, and I am in the world, of course, sharing it with other people, but here I am as one person. And I remain me as I go about doing things in the world, and indeed it is me who does these things. So those three notions of singularity, of permanence and of agency being in control of actions, that's what the Buddha says is actually, those are actually all mistaken notions, mistaken ideas.
And then we were saying yesterday, "Okay, fine, but do we at all believe in this way? Do we at all think of ourselves as singular, permanent agents?"
And that's what we tried to spend a good deal of time on, trying to notice in our own minds, looking at our own beliefs, ideas, perceptions, what seems to be the case. Do I have the sense of being one person? Do I have the sense of being an ongoing, constant in the world who performs actions? Because if not, then what the Buddha talks about may be interesting for some, but it's not directly relevant to me, because I actually don't think in this way. I don't have this perception of being an individual of this kind. And I think there was agreement. There was nobody who said, "That's not the case. That's not how I think about myself." There were many who said, "This is not the whole story." And that's precisely, you could say perhaps, the Buddha's point in the general context of the teachings. It's far from the whole story, but it's a mistake and those beliefs are mistaken. The nice thing about those beliefs is that we can show very clearly in a clean, thorough fashion, that they are just misconceptions that have no bearing on reality. And then let's see afterwards what we may have to say on the basis of that understanding. But before we get there, of course, we have to see what the Buddha's reason may be for saying that this is a misunderstanding,
a wrong belief to think of oneself as such an individual And that's why we began to ask ourselves, "So why do I think this way? What's the reason that I have the idea?" Once we have said, "Okay, this is all quite descriptive of my experience and of my beliefs, that I think I'm an individual of this kind," then we said, "But why?" I feel that we also spent a fair amount of time noticing how unquestionable the sense of being here as a person, as an individual, seems to be. How fundamental as a sort of linchpin for so much that it's hard to perhaps imagine what it would be like if there weren't such an individual.
So that may be our intuition and where we immediately think we are at. But then we also began to think yesterday, "So why do we have this very strong idea, very strong sense that certainly I'm here as a person? It's just me, singularity in that sort of simple, commonsensical fashion.
And it's just me now, just as it was just me sitting on this chair yesterday, permanence in that simple and commonsensical fashion. So why do I believe like that? What are my reasons for having this spontaneous confidence in being a person of this kind?" And then someone said, "Well, embodiment is really important. It's because there's this body, physical system, whatever we want to call it, living organism, whatever we might want to say about the body, because with that comes very naturally a notion of being an individual of this kind."
But what did we do then? We said, "Okay, let's then look at this presence of the body, and take a better look at what is it that we have there."
And when we look at the body, we notice that it is so many things. Although we can speak about the body and some sense of singularity is apparent in our minds, when we say that, to the extent that we can talk about it with each other, "My body," you're not going to insist that, but actually it's many things. It works very well to say, "My body, your body," and so on. We can do a whole lot of things on that basis. But now we are looking more closely at what is that body that we talk about when we refer in this way. And then we notice that, of course, and we know this already, the body is not just one thing. Obviously it has many limbs and body parts. And those body parts are also made of other body parts. And at a certain point it becomes sort of exotic when we get beyond what can can be immediately seen. Then with the help of science, we can nonetheless explore dimensions of the body, which seem to be there just as much as what is visually perceptible with the naked eye. If we use strong microscopes and whatever else there is of implements, then we can get a sense of very subtle things, and those subtle things, whether those are themselves beings of their own or whether they are part of just my body. Often times that's an open question in biology, what belongs to my body? what belongs to the environment? and so on... A whole lot of questions that open up. In other words, we certainly don't find simplicity looking at the body. And simplicity comes with this notion of "I am here." It couldn't get more simple. So we thought that simplicity is derived from our physical presence. But that's an absurd idea, because not only does the body not support that sort of simple individual, it's clearly the opposite. So how on earth could we think that something that is the exact opposite of what we're trying to get at is evidence of this individual? It would be like, I'm always so bad with examples now, but let's try to see if we can find a good one
We say there is water in the cup because there's fire. That sounds insane. And if we insist on that, then we are absurd.
So actually, otherwise we share the sense probably that the body, my sense of being here as an embodied being is very powerful evidence of me being a real person. We share that. And now, in just a few moments of thinking, inquiring a little further, what seemed like such a natural recognition is absurd.
So think about that. Is it absurd? It's hard to see if taking perfect counter-evidence as evidence and insisting nonetheless that it is evidence of a certain something is not absurd, then what is? So that's where we ended, I think, with the body. But of course, okay, we might say, "I am a mental being" perhaps, or "the real me, the real reason that I have this idea of being a singular individual is because I have a soul. That's what gives me this individuality."
Sorry.
So, how about, yeah, what else evidence would that be for... Like personally, what do we think if we just try again to notice exactly my sense of being one individual, not what individuality is or something like that, no? But when we think of ourselves, try to sort of observe ourselves, then exactly the kind of sense of individuality and permanence of individuality that I feel, that I notice, that I think is relevant for me, where does that come from? What's it founded on, if not the body? And what would we then say? What would be our response?
Yes, it was, Thank you. "I would think if it's not the body, I would think that "I think." So like Descartes, like you said yesterday, "I think, ergo I am." So it's my thoughts and I have some sense of power over them. I mean, I can direct them. I mean, I don't really believe that, but I have a sense of that, I think. But now it's also absurd. It's difficult to say, but I would say thoughts." Yeah. "Probably." Right. "And feelings, which is also embodied in a way. But it's the label, right? It's like tightness in the chest. It could be anxiety. Could also be excitement. It's the same experience, but related to my thoughts and feelings, I think." That also gives us a sense of being an individual. Yeah. "So my feelings, my thoughts."
So, one-- "Hey, hey. Yeah, OK. Yeah. Student: "Thomas, this is Reagan. The first time we connected was about 10 years ago in Shantideva's Chapter 9 Wisdom context. And your insights and help was so profound, and I'm so happy to be here. I just want to say on this subject that for me personally, I feel like, man, I mean, when it comes to this subject matter, it's so open air, it's so abstract and weird. Like I'll find myself, you know, I mean, like even on a normal basis, I think most people can say that they feel down today or they feel good today. And that energy is there. But I just feel like mentally speaking, like, I mean, like, you know, we're all a little bit freaked out about our experience, man. And we're all here like contemplating death and impermanence and our precious human life. And in this context, like what you're talking about there's times where I just feel like things are vivid and luminous and visceral and tangible and other times empty. And like, I don't know. It's a very strange enigmatic energy that I think we're all dealing with, and that we're all trying to like come to grasp with here. And yeah, like that. That's all." Yeah, thanks, Reagan. So yeah.
Student: "This is Mark." Thomas: Maybe just one remark about that. So I think we all, any of us who have spent a little bit of time doing this sort of exercise and contemplation, I think we'll know very well what you're talking about. Because yeah, I think you said it already, you know. So it can become very disorienting and confusing and so on. And at the same time, there's also the sense of something really opening up that we perhaps never even imagined the possibility of before. So it's suddenly very shaky ground that we then suddenly stand on. And we didn't expect it to be like that. We thought that it would be like a long gradual journey to get into, perhaps after some time, some difficult challenges and some very exciting openings. But actually, it comes quite quickly, doesn't it? When you just think thoughtfully about these questions with a sincere and open mind, taking your own opinions seriously, then, for better or worse, suddenly we're in the thick of it. It's not like Buddhist philosophy as some kind of topic that we can learn and study in school and have a relationship with, like, "I'm interested in Buddhist philosophy. You should try that too," that sort of thing. But it's the distinction between Buddhist philosophy and who I am, what this world is, and so on, it begins to disappear. And we're really in the middle of it. What that middle is, I'm not saying the big middle. That would be nice, no, if we had thereby arrived at the great Mādhyamaka . Perhaps we have, but perhaps not quite yet. So this is both the challenge and also the amazing power of these teachings that Nāgārjuna delivers To be honest, nobody expects that it will be like that. It always comes as a surprise, when suddenly the ground begins to disappear. But so, there are several things to keep in mind, because when it becomes like that, it's a very critical situation, obviously. The more serious we become about it, the more critical the situation is. So how to deal with it? In other words, we have to be very practical, and we have to, in other words, approach this as practitioners, whether we like it or not.
If we take Buddhist philosophy that far, if we take ourselves and the teachings that seriously, then it becomes a practical relationship. What do I do now? So that's what practice is about, knowing stuff like that, what to do.
And the better choices, the better... Student: "I thank you for saying that, because I think everybody here is taking it that seriously. We're taking it that seriously, that we're here, and we're listening to your discussions. I think that we're all taking it extremely seriously. For me personally, and I'm sure for everybody else, this isn't just another discourse in knowledge and information, but it's actually a life situation where we're all feeling a little bit suspended in midair. Because you start talking about emptiness and interdependence, and like you said, it's a difficult topic to absorb. For me and I think for everybody else, yeah, we're trying to digest it as best as we can, and it's intense, it really is."
Thomas: And then at the same time, it's also something that we can, again, forbid our words, it's something that we can forget about. It's something that we can take a break from voluntarily or involuntarily. And then it begins to go back to being this sort of Buddhist philosophy class again, or that book that I'm reading, Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I'm into.
So this is, again, the key is to look at our own life, at our own experience, and see what is my relationship with this stuff? And then we can notice that it intensifies, and then it becomes in the way you talked about. And then we can also just get out from the class, walk out and have a cup of tea if there's someone sitting in front of us who talks about something else, we will probably forget and be in the middle of that conversation. Or like Hume, the Scottish philosopher, said when he retires from his contemplations, which in many ways were similar to this, then he would go and play backgammon, all would be fine and dandy, or something like that. I'm not a scholar of Hume. But just to say that this is something that we do. We go in and out of these intense contemplations. But of course, if we just then retire and say, "Oh, wow, that was really weird, and I don't know what to do with it, but I guess that's how it is with this sort of philosophy," then we don't learn that much from it. At the same time, if we get totally mesmerized by the mystery of it all, and we don't know what to do, then that's not helpful either. So we have to develop some sort of skill, and skill means practice again. So just if we want to learn this as a philosophical endeavor, then we have to go about it in a practical way.
So I think that's interesting to observe in and of itself, that there is that natural link between this kind of philosophy and practice. The further you take it, the more it becomes a matter of actual practice.
And the more the practice, we become skilled in taking in this insight, presumably. Our understanding of it will also increase.
So I think what we can then tell ourselves and note down for ourselves is that probably we have to have some sessions where we do this sort of contemplation. And then we also have to allow ourselves to say, "Okay, when such and such time has passed," perhaps we say, like as we do here, we don't have an indefinite session. We say that it's an hour, and it goes from 10.15 Nepal time to 11.15 Nepal time. And that's it, and then we will do something else. We won't forget about what we learn, but we're not going to sit here until three o'clock unbroken. So that sort of simple structuring in the way that we're used to doing it, we maintain that, but with a view to this practice of exploring the profound philosophy of the Middle Way. So already that can give us some relief. We know, okay, and the advice for how to do that we can also get from very qualified people, from experienced meditators and contemplatives. They can tell us how much we should do it every day and how much time for other stuff we should make. But benefit from this kind of structure takes a little bit the burden off our shoulders. It doesn't mean that it disappears. Of course it doesn't. If we really want to get first hand of direct experience with these things, of course it's not going to be something that will fit into a structure that we just place on ourselves and our life. If it's something that has implications for everything, of course any attempt that we make at structuring will be part of the game too. But still we can allow ourselves to get some structure and relief by during the day, breaking it up in these ways. And it's not just because we are a failure. It's because people actually say that that's the better way to do it, that it just becomes too intense otherwise. Like sometimes you've got to take a break. Simple advice but profound advice. So sometimes, like I think you said, your teachers had said, go for a walk and stuff like that. No, it is very profound actually. And suddenly perhaps our experience of what we've been learning will be much richer, much more alive if we skillfully let ourselves forget about it. Then suddenly it comes perhaps much more into focus. So this just some, so much of what this text is about is really a matter of method and methodology. Like when you talk about Mādhyamaka and what it is the text says, so much of what the talk will be about has to do with practical things. It's interesting, yeah?
So that's that. And furthermore, one thing that is really important to keep in mind also is that in the same way that we have the structure during the day of sessions and breaks and just noticing, even if it's not that we have said my day is structured in these ways, just noticing the way we go in and out of breaks and sort of acknowledging that and trying to benefit from that natural pulse as much as we can. Another thing, similarly, the contemplation itself, like the session of analytic meditation is also... has some structure. Just like the day as a whole has structure, the analytic meditation is also very structured.
Because right now we are considering just one question, yeah? We're considering at this particular time, we're considering only one question, and that is if the body is not evidence and in fact counter evidence for the existence of a simple, singular, permanent agent, then what else are my reasons for believing that there is such an agent? That's the only question that we need to keep in mind. So that also enables us to go further, because otherwise it can very soon become like, but "hey, wait, then what? What about everything?" All sorts of questions begin to come in. That's fine. Also, of course, sooner or later we will have to deal with those questions, but not now. We don't have to do that now, and we shouldn't do that now, because if we do, OK, we can do it, but quite soon we'll notice that we aren't getting very much further by just... then we're beginning to maintain our natural tendency to just think about things. We can call it contemplation or what, no? But it'll be our usual tendency to... very nice and profound tendency that human beings have to think about things, but it's not this sort of penetrating analysis that Nāgārjuna otherwise can force ourselves into, or invite us to engage in. So it's very important to keep in mind what is the issue right now? And then if we come to a conclusion, like we said, now we have reached a conclusion about the body. The body is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a simple individual. That's just one thing that we can check now. So whenever we begin to think again, but you know, "I have my body, so I must be an individual," then we can tell ourselves, "no, that doesn't work at all. I know that very well." So that means we have actually progressed, and there's a whole range of things that we don't need to think about anymore. So that is the amazing thing in the way that Nāgārjuna takes this structure, that it allows us to make all these checks. And then we'll see.
So what we were now considering is if the body is not that sort of evidence, then what? And someone said that I have thoughts, I think, and so I am, and I have feelings. It's me who has those feelings. It's my thoughts. And about that, we can say that even the way we speak about it is evidence of this not really being what we want here, and what we need here, which would be like we're looking for; okay, we say that it is evidence of the existence of me, but we're not identifying those thoughts with me here, because we do indeed say my thoughts and my feelings and so on. So there's a clear separation between me and then the thoughts. But then why do we take them as evidence of me?
Why it's the same thing that we noticed with the body, we can notice about mental events too, the myriad of them, they are very different. Like also, it was already mentioned, now we go through so many experiences, so many perceptions, ideas, thoughts, sensations. It's never the same, literally. So if it's never the same, then again we have come to something that is the opposite of permanent. And if it is so many things, then again, we have come to something that is the opposite of single, singular, simple. So again, we were looking for simplicity and constancy, and instead we find complexity and change. So why? Why is, could that possibly, how could that possibly be evidence of my existence? Any thoughts about that?
Student: "I'd like to speak more to the habit of self, if possible, the habit of self and the habit of eye clinging. So I feel like I can have, one can have all these experiences of non-self, no-self, very obvious the aggregates are not a self. Objects of clinging, I go throughout my day and there's, it's just more like reactions, right, or habits. And yet, even after experiences of non-self, someone annoys me and I snap at them, or yesterday was my birthday and so I had all these thoughts about that it's my birthday, which is really very silly because I've had seven bodies, or no, I've had a body every seven years and it's just that people tell me that my body was born on that day, that body's not, I'm not a baby.
So this resting in the nature of reality and then, we can have these moments and then returning to habit of selfing. One time I was talking with Khyen Lodrö Thayé about this and asking like, you know, why? And what is the cause of ignorance? Okay, it's a cycle, but like, how does this arise? And he said, it's just like when the mind rests in non-dual awareness and then returns to samsara. And so, like, that's no different than how sentient beings arise in the first place. And my understanding is that, you know, over time, as I practice on the path, you know, this thins, the habit to selfing thins, or the habit to, I should say grasping at a provisional self thins. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with just like, you know, it takes time. But I'm wondering if you can speak to that, you know, because I feel like we're talking about this, like, do we perceive a self? And then there's sort of a discussion of like, yes, and you know, maybe if only I could perceive no self. But I think that for so many people on the path, there is the experience of no self over and over again, and yet we return to samsara. So I'm wondering if you could speak about that habit to picking up samsara again, picking up the self again. And yeah, and like, obviously at a certain, you know, this habit thins. And it's also difficult, right? Because we're people, you know, one of the things I think that perpetuates the habit is our environment. People telling us, "You are this." And yeah, it takes a lot of confidence to move toward a greater reality, I think. And a provisional self isn't bad or useless. It's useful, especially if we want to bring benefit to beings. I mean, it's a lot easier with a body to give a meal, right? And then I need to keep giving meals to myself if I want this body to continue doing these things." things. CORTAR ESSE But we were just saying that the body is not that. So this is like one example of how we can then remember what we have gone through, you know, is to say that a body is useful. It's suddenly very, very useful. But the body is not self. So for example, but thanks a lot, there are many things there. And I think this is something that we can and should keep in mind continuously as we go. And probably the relevance of what you say will become increasingly clear as we go on as well. Because first, perhaps what it makes a lot of difference if we have like if we say, okay, self is habit.
And what else did you say? Yeah, habit.
But it makes a lot of difference if we have tried to see, okay, first of all, do I think of myself in the way that the Buddha says sentient beings perceive themselves? As singular and permanent individual in control of actions. Not that that's the whole story about sentient beings, far from it. But there is something about being a sentient being that has to do with this. So are those beliefs actually founded in something, or are they only half good? Are they somehow partially okay, but there's also a lot that is wrong about it? Or are they completely baseless? If we have figured, if we have thought very hard about that and come to some conclusion about that, then the whole question of the self being habit and what happens when things happen, when the kind of clarity that we feel we have come to suddenly disappears, and there's something else that seems much more completely as usual and mundane and painful, whatever we have.
What is going on then? That question takes on a very different flavor if we have gone through the investigation. So this is what we're trying to do, begin at the beginning, so to speak. And then your question and the points that you address, they will be there with us as we go, and they will probably, whatever answers we have, will probably change as we go also.
So at this point we have said that the body is not evidence of a singular, permanent agent, and nor is the mind, perceptions and so on. They are not only evidence that we cannot use, but they are evidence that force on us the opposite conclusion of what we wanted. Because the complexity of consciousness and experience and perception is the opposite of the simplicity of individuality and constancy.
And then we can ask ourselves, then we can contemplate a little bit, "okay, if we come to the point where we can say, yes, I can't see it any other way, the body and mind are not evidence of self in any way whatsoever." Self, what self? Again very importantly, a singular, permanent agent. When I look at my body, when I look at my mind, I find zero evidence of that. I can think of such a thing, of course, such an individual, but it's just one thought and that thought is not the individuality that we're talking about. So if we have come to that kind of conclusion, then we can rest in that and just acknowledge that now I know this, that says, has a whole
lot of, I thought these were like supernatural reasons for explaining my belief in self that I have a body and I have a mind, I see things and so on. But now I realize that they don't work at all, on the contrary. So then if we can just take that in as the Dalai Lama encourages us to do in this context, to rest in the insight that we arrive at. Then, yeah, then I
think that is important that we do, that whenever it is the case that we have come to a very clear understanding. So whether we have that or not, of course, is an open question. If it's still not clear to us that the fact of the body and the facts of mind are not in any way evidence of singular permanent agency, then we have to keep it going and explore further. But whenever that sense of, "yeah, this is amazing, I thought there was such a natural connection, but now I see there's none whatsoever. In fact, how could I ever get that idea? All the evidence seems to point in exactly the opposite direction." Then just allow that understanding to sink in, in whichever way we might let that happen.
Because then once we continue, we can move on to something, to other questions. And our perspective will have changed now. Our understanding will have changed. And our feeling and perception of things will also be flavored by whatever it is that we have understood.
In the general context, among Śrāvakas, I suppose it's fair to say that this kind of insight is very crucial, because
when we do that, when we try to take in the message that we have received through our own inquiry relating to the questions that are being presented in the teachings, then when we come to that understanding, then we can go back to the twelve links of dependent origination and ask ourselves: "So, how can they then run that way, if there isn't someone there actually? If there isn't someone there to experience the whole and perpetuate the whole process, then why? If there is not this individual who owns these perceptions, who owns this body, who is in charge of it, who is responsible for it, who has to deal with it, then why these strong emotions that I need to prevail, I need to get what I want, and I need to avoid any threat?" Who am I talking about? Who is it that needs to be protected and who is it that needs to be taken care of? And in other words, it then becomes possible to loosen the grasping that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. The loosening of the grasping is possible because of insight into the absence of this particular type of self. By virtue of that, in meditation practice and in our daily lives, we can become less bound by our own tendencies. So that is what the fundamental Buddhist teaching is, I suppose, that by becoming increasingly aware of this absence of any person of this kind, this non-existence of personal self, then actually all the bounds and all the ties of existence can be cut through, and it's possible to arrive ultimately through a process of familiarizing oneself with this insight, and being in tune with it, acknowledging it, acting in a way that acknowledges and is informed by this insight, it's possible to break the conditioning that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. And so complete freedom, complete liberation, that is the Buddhist promise, that if you keep the contemplation, the process of learning, reflecting and meditating on the basis of healthy rules for living your life, if you keep that going, then the entire burden will fall off your shoulders, you will be completely free. That is the ultimate fruition then of the path of Śrāvaka, to become someone who has conquered the enemy of the negative emotions. But what we can also notice is that here we have not there are so many things that remain, and that's all okay. There are so many things that are not, in in fact, all what there is, a is that which is not that person, not that individual who is singular and enduring and in control. Apart from that, it's all here.
And that's perfectly good and necessary and a factual observation according to these teachings. We have dependent origination is not a story of an individual, it's a story about, or it's an account of psychophysical elements, the aggregates, the sense sources, and so on, that interact, and in their interaction there arises this mirage of a self, an individual who becomes a focal point, that ties everything up, and so there is bondage where there could be complete freedom.
But that, in a sense, is all what we need to acknowledge. Then we just need to live our life in a way that supports the contemplation of this kind, just quote and quote, but nevertheless, it's a simple, peaceful insight that we can bring to mind continuously, and we just need to find, going about things in a practical and balanced way, a way to live our lives that supports that insight. Then the journey towards liberation is unfolding.
But now, when we read the homage, then what is it Nāgārjuna says? "That which originates dependently," like the like the links of dependent origination, "does not cease and does not arise." So the whole account of life and death, if if there's no cessation and no arising, then what?
All those things that we said are there regardless, regardless of the insight into the non-existence of a person. What now to say of all of those? Nāgārjuna says that the Buddha teaches that dependent origination equals no cessation and no arising, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming and no going, and also difference and sameness.
So that the path to that we just began to notice before, that we just began to notice the possibility of, by thinking how it's possible to loosen the grip of the kleśas, by understanding that there is no individual, by understanding very clearly, first of all intellectually, and that's what we've been trying to do, that there is no such person, period. And then not just leaving it a belief, but taking it as a fact, as we kind of owe ourselves, if we have come to a 100% clear conclusion, to the extent that we can't, then we owe it to ourselves to also take that as a fact. If we have said, "I've given it all I can and I've come to this conclusion, I'm sure," then at that time, whatever it is that we're sure about, we can rely on as a fact. So by relying on the non-existence of a permanent singular individual, we saw that it's possible to now be in the world in a very different way, in a way that is not driven by negative emotions, but instead a sort of unraveling of the ties that otherwise hold us. So now when we hear this account of dependent origination or this declaration of dependent origination, what happens to that path? The very notion of moving along from one stage to another, and saying goodbye to certain things and welcoming others, that seems to be just as unfounded as the idea of the person came to seem. At this point, we're just looking at the words, and what do they say? They say that dependent origination, whatever it is that originates independence, does not cease and does not arise. It doesn't come to an end and it is not constant. There's no coming and going. And dependent origination, these things that arise in dependence are not identical with each other and they're not different either. And then he says that
this particular, the ability to explain dependent origination in this way, which in some way seems like just sheer contradiction, dependent origination, entails a notion of something coming into being. But yet Nāgārjuna says because the Buddha shows that dependent origination is unceasing and unarisen, then that is why he is the best of all teachers. So it's exactly 11:15 and perhaps we can then for tomorrow,
yeah, spend some time going over what we have done in the past few days, which basically has been trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is generally in Buddhism. That's the outer dependent origination in the world. And then very specifically, and that's sort of the highlight of the Buddhist teaching is to explain that there is also dependent origination of the inner 12 links, which we then have spent time looking at, from the perspective of the analysis of the self, trying to ask ourselves the question, "Is there a singular and permanent individual in control of actions? in the way that I think that there is?" And so that I suggest we stick to that, and and try to get some real clarity about that. If we say no, then why do I have the so strong notion of there being such a self? And then again think of the body that we take as such a natural evidence of there being a singular and permanent individual. Think of the thoughts and feelings and whatever else there may be that we ascribe,
that we think of as evidence of such an individual. And then just notice the mismatch, the complete mismatch of the presumed evidence and that which we are seeking to prove. And then let's try to take that in and see where that then takes us. And also notice all the things that are not damaged, so to speak. What it's like to just see that there is no singular, permanent agent anywhere. What happens to our experience, what happens to our ideas, what happens to our perceptions when we do that? And in particular, what is there then? Try to acknowledge that. And then tomorrow we will get into the first verse of the analysis of conditions which will question
all whatever it is that we may say that there is nonetheless. Okay, thanks a lot for today and see you.
And then of course if on top of refuge we can sort of bring to mind that this is something that can be an opportunity to ultimately benefit all beings, then that is a very nice way to begin I think.
So yesterday we were still trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is, from a so-called general Buddhist perspective, when we talk about the 12 links of dependent origination Out of interdependent origination, and then the interdependent origination being about how life and death and rebirth occurs by means of, in terms of those 12 links. And we are saying that the Buddha teaches these links in order to point out an unbroken circle, a revolving circle, which is based on ignorance, which is maintained by a certain kind of ignorance. And then we were trying to get a sense of what this ignorance is about. And in the general context of the teachings, ignorance has very much to do with the notion of belief in a person, the existence of a person. What sort of person? A person who is a singular individual and who is permanent in the sense of being the same from one situation to the next, and who is also the agent of actions. It's that person who does things. So I am one person, just me here, and I am in the world, of course, sharing it with other people, but here I am as one person. And I remain me as I go about doing things in the world, and indeed it is me who does these things. So those three notions of singularity, of permanence and of agency being in control of actions, that's what the Buddha says is actually, those are actually all mistaken notions, mistaken ideas.
And then we were saying yesterday, "Okay, fine, but do we at all believe in this way? Do we at all think of ourselves as singular, permanent agents?"
And that's what we tried to spend a good deal of time on, trying to notice in our own minds, looking at our own beliefs, ideas, perceptions, what seems to be the case. Do I have the sense of being one person? Do I have the sense of being an ongoing, constant in the world who performs actions? Because if not, then what the Buddha talks about may be interesting for some, but it's not directly relevant to me, because I actually don't think in this way. I don't have this perception of being an individual of this kind. And I think there was agreement. There was nobody who said, "That's not the case. That's not how I think about myself." There were many who said, "This is not the whole story." And that's precisely, you could say perhaps, the Buddha's point in the general context of the teachings. It's far from the whole story, but it's a mistake and those beliefs are mistaken. The nice thing about those beliefs is that we can show very clearly in a clean, thorough fashion, that they are just misconceptions that have no bearing on reality. And then let's see afterwards what we may have to say on the basis of that understanding. But before we get there, of course, we have to see what the Buddha's reason may be for saying that this is a misunderstanding,
a wrong belief to think of oneself as such an individual And that's why we began to ask ourselves, "So why do I think this way? What's the reason that I have the idea?" Once we have said, "Okay, this is all quite descriptive of my experience and of my beliefs, that I think I'm an individual of this kind," then we said, "But why?" I feel that we also spent a fair amount of time noticing how unquestionable the sense of being here as a person, as an individual, seems to be. How fundamental as a sort of linchpin for so much that it's hard to perhaps imagine what it would be like if there weren't such an individual.
So that may be our intuition and where we immediately think we are at. But then we also began to think yesterday, "So why do we have this very strong idea, very strong sense that certainly I'm here as a person? It's just me, singularity in that sort of simple, commonsensical fashion.
And it's just me now, just as it was just me sitting on this chair yesterday, permanence in that simple and commonsensical fashion. So why do I believe like that? What are my reasons for having this spontaneous confidence in being a person of this kind?" And then someone said, "Well, embodiment is really important. It's because there's this body, physical system, whatever we want to call it, living organism, whatever we might want to say about the body, because with that comes very naturally a notion of being an individual of this kind."
But what did we do then? We said, "Okay, let's then look at this presence of the body, and take a better look at what is it that we have there."
And when we look at the body, we notice that it is so many things. Although we can speak about the body and some sense of singularity is apparent in our minds, when we say that, to the extent that we can talk about it with each other, "My body," you're not going to insist that, but actually it's many things. It works very well to say, "My body, your body," and so on. We can do a whole lot of things on that basis. But now we are looking more closely at what is that body that we talk about when we refer in this way. And then we notice that, of course, and we know this already, the body is not just one thing. Obviously it has many limbs and body parts. And those body parts are also made of other body parts. And at a certain point it becomes sort of exotic when we get beyond what can can be immediately seen. Then with the help of science, we can nonetheless explore dimensions of the body, which seem to be there just as much as what is visually perceptible with the naked eye. If we use strong microscopes and whatever else there is of implements, then we can get a sense of very subtle things, and those subtle things, whether those are themselves beings of their own or whether they are part of just my body. Often times that's an open question in biology, what belongs to my body? what belongs to the environment? and so on... A whole lot of questions that open up. In other words, we certainly don't find simplicity looking at the body. And simplicity comes with this notion of "I am here." It couldn't get more simple. So we thought that simplicity is derived from our physical presence. But that's an absurd idea, because not only does the body not support that sort of simple individual, it's clearly the opposite. So how on earth could we think that something that is the exact opposite of what we're trying to get at is evidence of this individual? It would be like, I'm always so bad with examples now, but let's try to see if we can find a good one
We say there is water in the cup because there's fire. That sounds insane. And if we insist on that, then we are absurd.
So actually, otherwise we share the sense probably that the body, my sense of being here as an embodied being is very powerful evidence of me being a real person. We share that. And now, in just a few moments of thinking, inquiring a little further, what seemed like such a natural recognition is absurd.
So think about that. Is it absurd? It's hard to see if taking perfect counter-evidence as evidence and insisting nonetheless that it is evidence of a certain something is not absurd, then what is? So that's where we ended, I think, with the body. But of course, okay, we might say, "I am a mental being" perhaps, or "the real me, the real reason that I have this idea of being a singular individual is because I have a soul. That's what gives me this individuality."
Sorry.
So, how about, yeah, what else evidence would that be for... Like personally, what do we think if we just try again to notice exactly my sense of being one individual, not what individuality is or something like that, no? But when we think of ourselves, try to sort of observe ourselves, then exactly the kind of sense of individuality and permanence of individuality that I feel, that I notice, that I think is relevant for me, where does that come from? What's it founded on, if not the body? And what would we then say? What would be our response?
Yes, it was, Thank you. "I would think if it's not the body, I would think that "I think." So like Descartes, like you said yesterday, "I think, ergo I am." So it's my thoughts and I have some sense of power over them. I mean, I can direct them. I mean, I don't really believe that, but I have a sense of that, I think. But now it's also absurd. It's difficult to say, but I would say thoughts." Yeah. "Probably." Right. "And feelings, which is also embodied in a way. But it's the label, right? It's like tightness in the chest. It could be anxiety. Could also be excitement. It's the same experience, but related to my thoughts and feelings, I think." That also gives us a sense of being an individual. Yeah. "So my feelings, my thoughts."
So, one-- "Hey, hey. Yeah, OK. Yeah. Student: "Thomas, this is Reagan. The first time we connected was about 10 years ago in Shantideva's Chapter 9 Wisdom context. And your insights and help was so profound, and I'm so happy to be here. I just want to say on this subject that for me personally, I feel like, man, I mean, when it comes to this subject matter, it's so open air, it's so abstract and weird. Like I'll find myself, you know, I mean, like even on a normal basis, I think most people can say that they feel down today or they feel good today. And that energy is there. But I just feel like mentally speaking, like, I mean, like, you know, we're all a little bit freaked out about our experience, man. And we're all here like contemplating death and impermanence and our precious human life. And in this context, like what you're talking about there's times where I just feel like things are vivid and luminous and visceral and tangible and other times empty. And like, I don't know. It's a very strange enigmatic energy that I think we're all dealing with, and that we're all trying to like come to grasp with here. And yeah, like that. That's all." Yeah, thanks, Reagan. So yeah.
Student: "This is Mark." Thomas: Maybe just one remark about that. So I think we all, any of us who have spent a little bit of time doing this sort of exercise and contemplation, I think we'll know very well what you're talking about. Because yeah, I think you said it already, you know. So it can become very disorienting and confusing and so on. And at the same time, there's also the sense of something really opening up that we perhaps never even imagined the possibility of before. So it's suddenly very shaky ground that we then suddenly stand on. And we didn't expect it to be like that. We thought that it would be like a long gradual journey to get into, perhaps after some time, some difficult challenges and some very exciting openings. But actually, it comes quite quickly, doesn't it? When you just think thoughtfully about these questions with a sincere and open mind, taking your own opinions seriously, then, for better or worse, suddenly we're in the thick of it. It's not like Buddhist philosophy as some kind of topic that we can learn and study in school and have a relationship with, like, "I'm interested in Buddhist philosophy. You should try that too," that sort of thing. But it's the distinction between Buddhist philosophy and who I am, what this world is, and so on, it begins to disappear. And we're really in the middle of it. What that middle is, I'm not saying the big middle. That would be nice, no, if we had thereby arrived at the great Mādhyamaka . Perhaps we have, but perhaps not quite yet. So this is both the challenge and also the amazing power of these teachings that Nāgārjuna delivers To be honest, nobody expects that it will be like that. It always comes as a surprise, when suddenly the ground begins to disappear. But so, there are several things to keep in mind, because when it becomes like that, it's a very critical situation, obviously. The more serious we become about it, the more critical the situation is. So how to deal with it? In other words, we have to be very practical, and we have to, in other words, approach this as practitioners, whether we like it or not.
If we take Buddhist philosophy that far, if we take ourselves and the teachings that seriously, then it becomes a practical relationship. What do I do now? So that's what practice is about, knowing stuff like that, what to do.
And the better choices, the better... Student: "I thank you for saying that, because I think everybody here is taking it that seriously. We're taking it that seriously, that we're here, and we're listening to your discussions. I think that we're all taking it extremely seriously. For me personally, and I'm sure for everybody else, this isn't just another discourse in knowledge and information, but it's actually a life situation where we're all feeling a little bit suspended in midair. Because you start talking about emptiness and interdependence, and like you said, it's a difficult topic to absorb. For me and I think for everybody else, yeah, we're trying to digest it as best as we can, and it's intense, it really is."
Thomas: And then at the same time, it's also something that we can, again, forbid our words, it's something that we can forget about. It's something that we can take a break from voluntarily or involuntarily. And then it begins to go back to being this sort of Buddhist philosophy class again, or that book that I'm reading, Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I'm into.
So this is, again, the key is to look at our own life, at our own experience, and see what is my relationship with this stuff? And then we can notice that it intensifies, and then it becomes in the way you talked about. And then we can also just get out from the class, walk out and have a cup of tea if there's someone sitting in front of us who talks about something else, we will probably forget and be in the middle of that conversation. Or like Hume, the Scottish philosopher, said when he retires from his contemplations, which in many ways were similar to this, then he would go and play backgammon, all would be fine and dandy, or something like that. I'm not a scholar of Hume. But just to say that this is something that we do. We go in and out of these intense contemplations. But of course, if we just then retire and say, "Oh, wow, that was really weird, and I don't know what to do with it, but I guess that's how it is with this sort of philosophy," then we don't learn that much from it. At the same time, if we get totally mesmerized by the mystery of it all, and we don't know what to do, then that's not helpful either. So we have to develop some sort of skill, and skill means practice again. So just if we want to learn this as a philosophical endeavor, then we have to go about it in a practical way.
So I think that's interesting to observe in and of itself, that there is that natural link between this kind of philosophy and practice. The further you take it, the more it becomes a matter of actual practice.
And the more the practice, we become skilled in taking in this insight, presumably. Our understanding of it will also increase.
So I think what we can then tell ourselves and note down for ourselves is that probably we have to have some sessions where we do this sort of contemplation. And then we also have to allow ourselves to say, "Okay, when such and such time has passed," perhaps we say, like as we do here, we don't have an indefinite session. We say that it's an hour, and it goes from 10.15 Nepal time to 11.15 Nepal time. And that's it, and then we will do something else. We won't forget about what we learn, but we're not going to sit here until three o'clock unbroken. So that sort of simple structuring in the way that we're used to doing it, we maintain that, but with a view to this practice of exploring the profound philosophy of the Middle Way. So already that can give us some relief. We know, okay, and the advice for how to do that we can also get from very qualified people, from experienced meditators and contemplatives. They can tell us how much we should do it every day and how much time for other stuff we should make. But benefit from this kind of structure takes a little bit the burden off our shoulders. It doesn't mean that it disappears. Of course it doesn't. If we really want to get first hand of direct experience with these things, of course it's not going to be something that will fit into a structure that we just place on ourselves and our life. If it's something that has implications for everything, of course any attempt that we make at structuring will be part of the game too. But still we can allow ourselves to get some structure and relief by during the day, breaking it up in these ways. And it's not just because we are a failure. It's because people actually say that that's the better way to do it, that it just becomes too intense otherwise. Like sometimes you've got to take a break. Simple advice but profound advice. So sometimes, like I think you said, your teachers had said, go for a walk and stuff like that. No, it is very profound actually. And suddenly perhaps our experience of what we've been learning will be much richer, much more alive if we skillfully let ourselves forget about it. Then suddenly it comes perhaps much more into focus. So this just some, so much of what this text is about is really a matter of method and methodology. Like when you talk about Mādhyamaka and what it is the text says, so much of what the talk will be about has to do with practical things. It's interesting, yeah?
So that's that. And furthermore, one thing that is really important to keep in mind also is that in the same way that we have the structure during the day of sessions and breaks and just noticing, even if it's not that we have said my day is structured in these ways, just noticing the way we go in and out of breaks and sort of acknowledging that and trying to benefit from that natural pulse as much as we can. Another thing, similarly, the contemplation itself, like the session of analytic meditation is also... has some structure. Just like the day as a whole has structure, the analytic meditation is also very structured.
Because right now we are considering just one question, yeah? We're considering at this particular time, we're considering only one question, and that is if the body is not evidence and in fact counter evidence for the existence of a simple, singular, permanent agent, then what else are my reasons for believing that there is such an agent? That's the only question that we need to keep in mind. So that also enables us to go further, because otherwise it can very soon become like, but "hey, wait, then what? What about everything?" All sorts of questions begin to come in. That's fine. Also, of course, sooner or later we will have to deal with those questions, but not now. We don't have to do that now, and we shouldn't do that now, because if we do, OK, we can do it, but quite soon we'll notice that we aren't getting very much further by just... then we're beginning to maintain our natural tendency to just think about things. We can call it contemplation or what, no? But it'll be our usual tendency to... very nice and profound tendency that human beings have to think about things, but it's not this sort of penetrating analysis that Nāgārjuna otherwise can force ourselves into, or invite us to engage in. So it's very important to keep in mind what is the issue right now? And then if we come to a conclusion, like we said, now we have reached a conclusion about the body. The body is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a simple individual. That's just one thing that we can check now. So whenever we begin to think again, but you know, "I have my body, so I must be an individual," then we can tell ourselves, "no, that doesn't work at all. I know that very well." So that means we have actually progressed, and there's a whole range of things that we don't need to think about anymore. So that is the amazing thing in the way that Nāgārjuna takes this structure, that it allows us to make all these checks. And then we'll see.
So what we were now considering is if the body is not that sort of evidence, then what? And someone said that I have thoughts, I think, and so I am, and I have feelings. It's me who has those feelings. It's my thoughts. And about that, we can say that even the way we speak about it is evidence of this not really being what we want here, and what we need here, which would be like we're looking for; okay, we say that it is evidence of the existence of me, but we're not identifying those thoughts with me here, because we do indeed say my thoughts and my feelings and so on. So there's a clear separation between me and then the thoughts. But then why do we take them as evidence of me?
Why it's the same thing that we noticed with the body, we can notice about mental events too, the myriad of them, they are very different. Like also, it was already mentioned, now we go through so many experiences, so many perceptions, ideas, thoughts, sensations. It's never the same, literally. So if it's never the same, then again we have come to something that is the opposite of permanent. And if it is so many things, then again, we have come to something that is the opposite of single, singular, simple. So again, we were looking for simplicity and constancy, and instead we find complexity and change. So why? Why is, could that possibly, how could that possibly be evidence of my existence? Any thoughts about that?
Student: "I'd like to speak more to the habit of self, if possible, the habit of self and the habit of eye clinging. So I feel like I can have, one can have all these experiences of non-self, no-self, very obvious the aggregates are not a self. Objects of clinging, I go throughout my day and there's, it's just more like reactions, right, or habits. And yet, even after experiences of non-self, someone annoys me and I snap at them, or yesterday was my birthday and so I had all these thoughts about that it's my birthday, which is really very silly because I've had seven bodies, or no, I've had a body every seven years and it's just that people tell me that my body was born on that day, that body's not, I'm not a baby.
So this resting in the nature of reality and then, we can have these moments and then returning to habit of selfing. One time I was talking with Khyen Lodrö Thayé about this and asking like, you know, why? And what is the cause of ignorance? Okay, it's a cycle, but like, how does this arise? And he said, it's just like when the mind rests in non-dual awareness and then returns to samsara. And so, like, that's no different than how sentient beings arise in the first place. And my understanding is that, you know, over time, as I practice on the path, you know, this thins, the habit to selfing thins, or the habit to, I should say grasping at a provisional self thins. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with just like, you know, it takes time. But I'm wondering if you can speak to that, you know, because I feel like we're talking about this, like, do we perceive a self? And then there's sort of a discussion of like, yes, and you know, maybe if only I could perceive no self. But I think that for so many people on the path, there is the experience of no self over and over again, and yet we return to samsara. So I'm wondering if you could speak about that habit to picking up samsara again, picking up the self again. And yeah, and like, obviously at a certain, you know, this habit thins. And it's also difficult, right? Because we're people, you know, one of the things I think that perpetuates the habit is our environment. People telling us, "You are this." And yeah, it takes a lot of confidence to move toward a greater reality, I think. And a provisional self isn't bad or useless. It's useful, especially if we want to bring benefit to beings. I mean, it's a lot easier with a body to give a meal, right? And then I need to keep giving meals to myself if I want this body to continue doing these things." things. CORTAR ESSE But we were just saying that the body is not that. So this is like one example of how we can then remember what we have gone through, you know, is to say that a body is useful. It's suddenly very, very useful. But the body is not self. So for example, but thanks a lot, there are many things there. And I think this is something that we can and should keep in mind continuously as we go. And probably the relevance of what you say will become increasingly clear as we go on as well. Because first, perhaps what it makes a lot of difference if we have like if we say, okay, self is habit.
And what else did you say? Yeah, habit.
But it makes a lot of difference if we have tried to see, okay, first of all, do I think of myself in the way that the Buddha says sentient beings perceive themselves? As singular and permanent individual in control of actions. Not that that's the whole story about sentient beings, far from it. But there is something about being a sentient being that has to do with this. So are those beliefs actually founded in something, or are they only half good? Are they somehow partially okay, but there's also a lot that is wrong about it? Or are they completely baseless? If we have figured, if we have thought very hard about that and come to some conclusion about that, then the whole question of the self being habit and what happens when things happen, when the kind of clarity that we feel we have come to suddenly disappears, and there's something else that seems much more completely as usual and mundane and painful, whatever we have.
What is going on then? That question takes on a very different flavor if we have gone through the investigation. So this is what we're trying to do, begin at the beginning, so to speak. And then your question and the points that you address, they will be there with us as we go, and they will probably, whatever answers we have, will probably change as we go also.
So at this point we have said that the body is not evidence of a singular, permanent agent, and nor is the mind, perceptions and so on. They are not only evidence that we cannot use, but they are evidence that force on us the opposite conclusion of what we wanted. Because the complexity of consciousness and experience and perception is the opposite of the simplicity of individuality and constancy.
And then we can ask ourselves, then we can contemplate a little bit, "okay, if we come to the point where we can say, yes, I can't see it any other way, the body and mind are not evidence of self in any way whatsoever." Self, what self? Again very importantly, a singular, permanent agent. When I look at my body, when I look at my mind, I find zero evidence of that. I can think of such a thing, of course, such an individual, but it's just one thought and that thought is not the individuality that we're talking about. So if we have come to that kind of conclusion, then we can rest in that and just acknowledge that now I know this, that says, has a whole
lot of, I thought these were like supernatural reasons for explaining my belief in self that I have a body and I have a mind, I see things and so on. But now I realize that they don't work at all, on the contrary. So then if we can just take that in as the Dalai Lama encourages us to do in this context, to rest in the insight that we arrive at. Then, yeah, then I
think that is important that we do, that whenever it is the case that we have come to a very clear understanding. So whether we have that or not, of course, is an open question. If it's still not clear to us that the fact of the body and the facts of mind are not in any way evidence of singular permanent agency, then we have to keep it going and explore further. But whenever that sense of, "yeah, this is amazing, I thought there was such a natural connection, but now I see there's none whatsoever. In fact, how could I ever get that idea? All the evidence seems to point in exactly the opposite direction." Then just allow that understanding to sink in, in whichever way we might let that happen.
Because then once we continue, we can move on to something, to other questions. And our perspective will have changed now. Our understanding will have changed. And our feeling and perception of things will also be flavored by whatever it is that we have understood.
In the general context, among Śrāvakas, I suppose it's fair to say that this kind of insight is very crucial, because
when we do that, when we try to take in the message that we have received through our own inquiry relating to the questions that are being presented in the teachings, then when we come to that understanding, then we can go back to the twelve links of dependent origination and ask ourselves: "So, how can they then run that way, if there isn't someone there actually? If there isn't someone there to experience the whole and perpetuate the whole process, then why? If there is not this individual who owns these perceptions, who owns this body, who is in charge of it, who is responsible for it, who has to deal with it, then why these strong emotions that I need to prevail, I need to get what I want, and I need to avoid any threat?" Who am I talking about? Who is it that needs to be protected and who is it that needs to be taken care of? And in other words, it then becomes possible to loosen the grasping that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. The loosening of the grasping is possible because of insight into the absence of this particular type of self. By virtue of that, in meditation practice and in our daily lives, we can become less bound by our own tendencies. So that is what the fundamental Buddhist teaching is, I suppose, that by becoming increasingly aware of this absence of any person of this kind, this non-existence of personal self, then actually all the bounds and all the ties of existence can be cut through, and it's possible to arrive ultimately through a process of familiarizing oneself with this insight, and being in tune with it, acknowledging it, acting in a way that acknowledges and is informed by this insight, it's possible to break the conditioning that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. And so complete freedom, complete liberation, that is the Buddhist promise, that if you keep the contemplation, the process of learning, reflecting and meditating on the basis of healthy rules for living your life, if you keep that going, then the entire burden will fall off your shoulders, you will be completely free. That is the ultimate fruition then of the path of Śrāvaka, to become someone who has conquered the enemy of the negative emotions. But what we can also notice is that here we have not there are so many things that remain, and that's all okay. There are so many things that are not, in in fact, all what there is, a is that which is not that person, not that individual who is singular and enduring and in control. Apart from that, it's all here.
And that's perfectly good and necessary and a factual observation according to these teachings. We have dependent origination is not a story of an individual, it's a story about, or it's an account of psychophysical elements, the aggregates, the sense sources, and so on, that interact, and in their interaction there arises this mirage of a self, an individual who becomes a focal point, that ties everything up, and so there is bondage where there could be complete freedom.
But that, in a sense, is all what we need to acknowledge. Then we just need to live our life in a way that supports the contemplation of this kind, just quote and quote, but nevertheless, it's a simple, peaceful insight that we can bring to mind continuously, and we just need to find, going about things in a practical and balanced way, a way to live our lives that supports that insight. Then the journey towards liberation is unfolding.
But now, when we read the homage, then what is it Nāgārjuna says? "That which originates dependently," like the like the links of dependent origination, "does not cease and does not arise." So the whole account of life and death, if if there's no cessation and no arising, then what?
All those things that we said are there regardless, regardless of the insight into the non-existence of a person. What now to say of all of those? Nāgārjuna says that the Buddha teaches that dependent origination equals no cessation and no arising, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming and no going, and also difference and sameness.
So that the path to that we just began to notice before, that we just began to notice the possibility of, by thinking how it's possible to loosen the grip of the kleśas, by understanding that there is no individual, by understanding very clearly, first of all intellectually, and that's what we've been trying to do, that there is no such person, period. And then not just leaving it a belief, but taking it as a fact, as we kind of owe ourselves, if we have come to a 100% clear conclusion, to the extent that we can't, then we owe it to ourselves to also take that as a fact. If we have said, "I've given it all I can and I've come to this conclusion, I'm sure," then at that time, whatever it is that we're sure about, we can rely on as a fact. So by relying on the non-existence of a permanent singular individual, we saw that it's possible to now be in the world in a very different way, in a way that is not driven by negative emotions, but instead a sort of unraveling of the ties that otherwise hold us. So now when we hear this account of dependent origination or this declaration of dependent origination, what happens to that path? The very notion of moving along from one stage to another, and saying goodbye to certain things and welcoming others, that seems to be just as unfounded as the idea of the person came to seem. At this point, we're just looking at the words, and what do they say? They say that dependent origination, whatever it is that originates independence, does not cease and does not arise. It doesn't come to an end and it is not constant. There's no coming and going. And dependent origination, these things that arise in dependence are not identical with each other and they're not different either. And then he says that
this particular, the ability to explain dependent origination in this way, which in some way seems like just sheer contradiction, dependent origination, entails a notion of something coming into being. But yet Nāgārjuna says because the Buddha shows that dependent origination is unceasing and unarisen, then that is why he is the best of all teachers. So it's exactly 11:15 and perhaps we can then for tomorrow,
yeah, spend some time going over what we have done in the past few days, which basically has been trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is generally in Buddhism. That's the outer dependent origination in the world. And then very specifically, and that's sort of the highlight of the Buddhist teaching is to explain that there is also dependent origination of the inner 12 links, which we then have spent time looking at, from the perspective of the analysis of the self, trying to ask ourselves the question, "Is there a singular and permanent individual in control of actions? in the way that I think that there is?" And so that I suggest we stick to that, and and try to get some real clarity about that. If we say no, then why do I have the so strong notion of there being such a self? And then again think of the body that we take as such a natural evidence of there being a singular and permanent individual. Think of the thoughts and feelings and whatever else there may be that we ascribe,
that we think of as evidence of such an individual. And then just notice the mismatch, the complete mismatch of the presumed evidence and that which we are seeking to prove. And then let's try to take that in and see where that then takes us. And also notice all the things that are not damaged, so to speak. What it's like to just see that there is no singular, permanent agent anywhere. What happens to our experience, what happens to our ideas, what happens to our perceptions when we do that? And in particular, what is there then? Try to acknowledge that. And then tomorrow we will get into the first verse of the analysis of conditions which will question
all whatever it is that we may say that there is nonetheless. Okay, thanks a lot for today and see you.
So, let's begin again our session and
we begin by reading aloud the homage.
And you may notice
that lines C and D of
the first slogan have
been turned around.
A kind person made
me aware that the
sequence was off, so
now I should be right.
So let's begin by reading
aloud those verses.
"That which originates
dependently
does not cease and does not arise,
is not annihilated
and is not permanent,
does not come and does not go,
Is not different
and not the same.
To the true teacher
who reveals this peace,
The complete pacification
of constructs,
to the perfect Buddha I bow down."
And then of course if on top of refuge we can sort of bring to mind that this is something that can be an opportunity to ultimately benefit all beings, then that is a very nice way to begin I think.
So yesterday we were still trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is, from a so-called general Buddhist perspective, when we talk about the 12 links of dependent origination Out of interdependent origination, and then the interdependent origination being about how life and death and rebirth occurs by means of, in terms of those 12 links. And we are saying that the Buddha teaches these links in order to point out an unbroken circle, a revolving circle, which is based on ignorance, which is maintained by a certain kind of ignorance. And then we were trying to get a sense of what this ignorance is about. And in the general context of the teachings, ignorance has very much to do with the notion of belief in a person, the existence of a person. What sort of person? A person who is a singular individual and who is permanent in the sense of being the same from one situation to the next, and who is also the agent of actions. It's that person who does things. So I am one person, just me here, and I am in the world, of course, sharing it with other people, but here I am as one person. And I remain me as I go about doing things in the world, and indeed it is me who does these things. So those three notions of singularity, of permanence and of agency being in control of actions, that's what the Buddha says is actually, those are actually all mistaken notions, mistaken ideas.
And then we were saying yesterday, "Okay, fine, but do we at all believe in this way? Do we at all think of ourselves as singular, permanent agents?"
And that's what we tried to spend a good deal of time on, trying to notice in our own minds, looking at our own beliefs, ideas, perceptions, what seems to be the case. Do I have the sense of being one person? Do I have the sense of being an ongoing, constant in the world who performs actions? Because if not, then what the Buddha talks about may be interesting for some, but it's not directly relevant to me, because I actually don't think in this way. I don't have this perception of being an individual of this kind. And I think there was agreement. There was nobody who said, "That's not the case. That's not how I think about myself." There were many who said, "This is not the whole story." And that's precisely, you could say perhaps, the Buddha's point in the general context of the teachings. It's far from the whole story, but it's a mistake and those beliefs are mistaken. The nice thing about those beliefs is that we can show very clearly in a clean, thorough fashion, that they are just misconceptions that have no bearing on reality. And then let's see afterwards what we may have to say on the basis of that understanding. But before we get there, of course, we have to see what the Buddha's reason may be for saying that this is a misunderstanding,
a wrong belief to think of oneself as such an individual And that's why we began to ask ourselves, "So why do I think this way? What's the reason that I have the idea?" Once we have said, "Okay, this is all quite descriptive of my experience and of my beliefs, that I think I'm an individual of this kind," then we said, "But why?" I feel that we also spent a fair amount of time noticing how unquestionable the sense of being here as a person, as an individual, seems to be. How fundamental as a sort of linchpin for so much that it's hard to perhaps imagine what it would be like if there weren't such an individual.
So that may be our intuition and where we immediately think we are at. But then we also began to think yesterday, "So why do we have this very strong idea, very strong sense that certainly I'm here as a person? It's just me, singularity in that sort of simple, commonsensical fashion.
And it's just me now, just as it was just me sitting on this chair yesterday, permanence in that simple and commonsensical fashion. So why do I believe like that? What are my reasons for having this spontaneous confidence in being a person of this kind?" And then someone said, "Well, embodiment is really important. It's because there's this body, physical system, whatever we want to call it, living organism, whatever we might want to say about the body, because with that comes very naturally a notion of being an individual of this kind."
But what did we do then? We said, "Okay, let's then look at this presence of the body, and take a better look at what is it that we have there."
And when we look at the body, we notice that it is so many things. Although we can speak about the body and some sense of singularity is apparent in our minds, when we say that, to the extent that we can talk about it with each other, "My body," you're not going to insist that, but actually it's many things. It works very well to say, "My body, your body," and so on. We can do a whole lot of things on that basis. But now we are looking more closely at what is that body that we talk about when we refer in this way. And then we notice that, of course, and we know this already, the body is not just one thing. Obviously it has many limbs and body parts. And those body parts are also made of other body parts. And at a certain point it becomes sort of exotic when we get beyond what can can be immediately seen. Then with the help of science, we can nonetheless explore dimensions of the body, which seem to be there just as much as what is visually perceptible with the naked eye. If we use strong microscopes and whatever else there is of implements, then we can get a sense of very subtle things, and those subtle things, whether those are themselves beings of their own or whether they are part of just my body. Often times that's an open question in biology, what belongs to my body? what belongs to the environment? and so on... A whole lot of questions that open up. In other words, we certainly don't find simplicity looking at the body. And simplicity comes with this notion of "I am here." It couldn't get more simple. So we thought that simplicity is derived from our physical presence. But that's an absurd idea, because not only does the body not support that sort of simple individual, it's clearly the opposite. So how on earth could we think that something that is the exact opposite of what we're trying to get at is evidence of this individual? It would be like, I'm always so bad with examples now, but let's try to see if we can find a good one
We say there is water in the cup because there's fire. That sounds insane. And if we insist on that, then we are absurd.
So actually, otherwise we share the sense probably that the body, my sense of being here as an embodied being is very powerful evidence of me being a real person. We share that. And now, in just a few moments of thinking, inquiring a little further, what seemed like such a natural recognition is absurd.
So think about that. Is it absurd? It's hard to see if taking perfect counter-evidence as evidence and insisting nonetheless that it is evidence of a certain something is not absurd, then what is? So that's where we ended, I think, with the body. But of course, okay, we might say, "I am a mental being" perhaps, or "the real me, the real reason that I have this idea of being a singular individual is because I have a soul. That's what gives me this individuality."
Sorry.
So, how about, yeah, what else evidence would that be for... Like personally, what do we think if we just try again to notice exactly my sense of being one individual, not what individuality is or something like that, no? But when we think of ourselves, try to sort of observe ourselves, then exactly the kind of sense of individuality and permanence of individuality that I feel, that I notice, that I think is relevant for me, where does that come from? What's it founded on, if not the body? And what would we then say? What would be our response?
Yes, it was, Thank you. "I would think if it's not the body, I would think that "I think." So like Descartes, like you said yesterday, "I think, ergo I am." So it's my thoughts and I have some sense of power over them. I mean, I can direct them. I mean, I don't really believe that, but I have a sense of that, I think. But now it's also absurd. It's difficult to say, but I would say thoughts." Yeah. "Probably." Right. "And feelings, which is also embodied in a way. But it's the label, right? It's like tightness in the chest. It could be anxiety. Could also be excitement. It's the same experience, but related to my thoughts and feelings, I think." That also gives us a sense of being an individual. Yeah. "So my feelings, my thoughts."
So, one-- "Hey, hey. Yeah, OK. Yeah. Student: "Thomas, this is Reagan. The first time we connected was about 10 years ago in Shantideva's Chapter 9 Wisdom context. And your insights and help was so profound, and I'm so happy to be here. I just want to say on this subject that for me personally, I feel like, man, I mean, when it comes to this subject matter, it's so open air, it's so abstract and weird. Like I'll find myself, you know, I mean, like even on a normal basis, I think most people can say that they feel down today or they feel good today. And that energy is there. But I just feel like mentally speaking, like, I mean, like, you know, we're all a little bit freaked out about our experience, man. And we're all here like contemplating death and impermanence and our precious human life. And in this context, like what you're talking about there's times where I just feel like things are vivid and luminous and visceral and tangible and other times empty. And like, I don't know. It's a very strange enigmatic energy that I think we're all dealing with, and that we're all trying to like come to grasp with here. And yeah, like that. That's all." Yeah, thanks, Reagan. So yeah.
Student: "This is Mark." Thomas: Maybe just one remark about that. So I think we all, any of us who have spent a little bit of time doing this sort of exercise and contemplation, I think we'll know very well what you're talking about. Because yeah, I think you said it already, you know. So it can become very disorienting and confusing and so on. And at the same time, there's also the sense of something really opening up that we perhaps never even imagined the possibility of before. So it's suddenly very shaky ground that we then suddenly stand on. And we didn't expect it to be like that. We thought that it would be like a long gradual journey to get into, perhaps after some time, some difficult challenges and some very exciting openings. But actually, it comes quite quickly, doesn't it? When you just think thoughtfully about these questions with a sincere and open mind, taking your own opinions seriously, then, for better or worse, suddenly we're in the thick of it. It's not like Buddhist philosophy as some kind of topic that we can learn and study in school and have a relationship with, like, "I'm interested in Buddhist philosophy. You should try that too," that sort of thing. But it's the distinction between Buddhist philosophy and who I am, what this world is, and so on, it begins to disappear. And we're really in the middle of it. What that middle is, I'm not saying the big middle. That would be nice, no, if we had thereby arrived at the great Mādhyamaka . Perhaps we have, but perhaps not quite yet. So this is both the challenge and also the amazing power of these teachings that Nāgārjuna delivers To be honest, nobody expects that it will be like that. It always comes as a surprise, when suddenly the ground begins to disappear. But so, there are several things to keep in mind, because when it becomes like that, it's a very critical situation, obviously. The more serious we become about it, the more critical the situation is. So how to deal with it? In other words, we have to be very practical, and we have to, in other words, approach this as practitioners, whether we like it or not.
If we take Buddhist philosophy that far, if we take ourselves and the teachings that seriously, then it becomes a practical relationship. What do I do now? So that's what practice is about, knowing stuff like that, what to do.
And the better choices, the better... Student: "I thank you for saying that, because I think everybody here is taking it that seriously. We're taking it that seriously, that we're here, and we're listening to your discussions. I think that we're all taking it extremely seriously. For me personally, and I'm sure for everybody else, this isn't just another discourse in knowledge and information, but it's actually a life situation where we're all feeling a little bit suspended in midair. Because you start talking about emptiness and interdependence, and like you said, it's a difficult topic to absorb. For me and I think for everybody else, yeah, we're trying to digest it as best as we can, and it's intense, it really is."
Thomas: And then at the same time, it's also something that we can, again, forbid our words, it's something that we can forget about. It's something that we can take a break from voluntarily or involuntarily. And then it begins to go back to being this sort of Buddhist philosophy class again, or that book that I'm reading, Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I'm into.
So this is, again, the key is to look at our own life, at our own experience, and see what is my relationship with this stuff? And then we can notice that it intensifies, and then it becomes in the way you talked about. And then we can also just get out from the class, walk out and have a cup of tea if there's someone sitting in front of us who talks about something else, we will probably forget and be in the middle of that conversation. Or like Hume, the Scottish philosopher, said when he retires from his contemplations, which in many ways were similar to this, then he would go and play backgammon, all would be fine and dandy, or something like that. I'm not a scholar of Hume. But just to say that this is something that we do. We go in and out of these intense contemplations. But of course, if we just then retire and say, "Oh, wow, that was really weird, and I don't know what to do with it, but I guess that's how it is with this sort of philosophy," then we don't learn that much from it. At the same time, if we get totally mesmerized by the mystery of it all, and we don't know what to do, then that's not helpful either. So we have to develop some sort of skill, and skill means practice again. So just if we want to learn this as a philosophical endeavor, then we have to go about it in a practical way.
So I think that's interesting to observe in and of itself, that there is that natural link between this kind of philosophy and practice. The further you take it, the more it becomes a matter of actual practice.
And the more the practice, we become skilled in taking in this insight, presumably. Our understanding of it will also increase.
So I think what we can then tell ourselves and note down for ourselves is that probably we have to have some sessions where we do this sort of contemplation. And then we also have to allow ourselves to say, "Okay, when such and such time has passed," perhaps we say, like as we do here, we don't have an indefinite session. We say that it's an hour, and it goes from 10.15 Nepal time to 11.15 Nepal time. And that's it, and then we will do something else. We won't forget about what we learn, but we're not going to sit here until three o'clock unbroken. So that sort of simple structuring in the way that we're used to doing it, we maintain that, but with a view to this practice of exploring the profound philosophy of the Middle Way. So already that can give us some relief. We know, okay, and the advice for how to do that we can also get from very qualified people, from experienced meditators and contemplatives. They can tell us how much we should do it every day and how much time for other stuff we should make. But benefit from this kind of structure takes a little bit the burden off our shoulders. It doesn't mean that it disappears. Of course it doesn't. If we really want to get first hand of direct experience with these things, of course it's not going to be something that will fit into a structure that we just place on ourselves and our life. If it's something that has implications for everything, of course any attempt that we make at structuring will be part of the game too. But still we can allow ourselves to get some structure and relief by during the day, breaking it up in these ways. And it's not just because we are a failure. It's because people actually say that that's the better way to do it, that it just becomes too intense otherwise. Like sometimes you've got to take a break. Simple advice but profound advice. So sometimes, like I think you said, your teachers had said, go for a walk and stuff like that. No, it is very profound actually. And suddenly perhaps our experience of what we've been learning will be much richer, much more alive if we skillfully let ourselves forget about it. Then suddenly it comes perhaps much more into focus. So this just some, so much of what this text is about is really a matter of method and methodology. Like when you talk about Mādhyamaka and what it is the text says, so much of what the talk will be about has to do with practical things. It's interesting, yeah?
So that's that. And furthermore, one thing that is really important to keep in mind also is that in the same way that we have the structure during the day of sessions and breaks and just noticing, even if it's not that we have said my day is structured in these ways, just noticing the way we go in and out of breaks and sort of acknowledging that and trying to benefit from that natural pulse as much as we can. Another thing, similarly, the contemplation itself, like the session of analytic meditation is also... has some structure. Just like the day as a whole has structure, the analytic meditation is also very structured.
Because right now we are considering just one question, yeah? We're considering at this particular time, we're considering only one question, and that is if the body is not evidence and in fact counter evidence for the existence of a simple, singular, permanent agent, then what else are my reasons for believing that there is such an agent? That's the only question that we need to keep in mind. So that also enables us to go further, because otherwise it can very soon become like, but "hey, wait, then what? What about everything?" All sorts of questions begin to come in. That's fine. Also, of course, sooner or later we will have to deal with those questions, but not now. We don't have to do that now, and we shouldn't do that now, because if we do, OK, we can do it, but quite soon we'll notice that we aren't getting very much further by just... then we're beginning to maintain our natural tendency to just think about things. We can call it contemplation or what, no? But it'll be our usual tendency to... very nice and profound tendency that human beings have to think about things, but it's not this sort of penetrating analysis that Nāgārjuna otherwise can force ourselves into, or invite us to engage in. So it's very important to keep in mind what is the issue right now? And then if we come to a conclusion, like we said, now we have reached a conclusion about the body. The body is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a simple individual. That's just one thing that we can check now. So whenever we begin to think again, but you know, "I have my body, so I must be an individual," then we can tell ourselves, "no, that doesn't work at all. I know that very well." So that means we have actually progressed, and there's a whole range of things that we don't need to think about anymore. So that is the amazing thing in the way that Nāgārjuna takes this structure, that it allows us to make all these checks. And then we'll see.
So what we were now considering is if the body is not that sort of evidence, then what? And someone said that I have thoughts, I think, and so I am, and I have feelings. It's me who has those feelings. It's my thoughts. And about that, we can say that even the way we speak about it is evidence of this not really being what we want here, and what we need here, which would be like we're looking for; okay, we say that it is evidence of the existence of me, but we're not identifying those thoughts with me here, because we do indeed say my thoughts and my feelings and so on. So there's a clear separation between me and then the thoughts. But then why do we take them as evidence of me?
Why it's the same thing that we noticed with the body, we can notice about mental events too, the myriad of them, they are very different. Like also, it was already mentioned, now we go through so many experiences, so many perceptions, ideas, thoughts, sensations. It's never the same, literally. So if it's never the same, then again we have come to something that is the opposite of permanent. And if it is so many things, then again, we have come to something that is the opposite of single, singular, simple. So again, we were looking for simplicity and constancy, and instead we find complexity and change. So why? Why is, could that possibly, how could that possibly be evidence of my existence? Any thoughts about that?
Student: "I'd like to speak more to the habit of self, if possible, the habit of self and the habit of eye clinging. So I feel like I can have, one can have all these experiences of non-self, no-self, very obvious the aggregates are not a self. Objects of clinging, I go throughout my day and there's, it's just more like reactions, right, or habits. And yet, even after experiences of non-self, someone annoys me and I snap at them, or yesterday was my birthday and so I had all these thoughts about that it's my birthday, which is really very silly because I've had seven bodies, or no, I've had a body every seven years and it's just that people tell me that my body was born on that day, that body's not, I'm not a baby.
So this resting in the nature of reality and then, we can have these moments and then returning to habit of selfing. One time I was talking with Khyen Lodrö Thayé about this and asking like, you know, why? And what is the cause of ignorance? Okay, it's a cycle, but like, how does this arise? And he said, it's just like when the mind rests in non-dual awareness and then returns to samsara. And so, like, that's no different than how sentient beings arise in the first place. And my understanding is that, you know, over time, as I practice on the path, you know, this thins, the habit to selfing thins, or the habit to, I should say grasping at a provisional self thins. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with just like, you know, it takes time. But I'm wondering if you can speak to that, you know, because I feel like we're talking about this, like, do we perceive a self? And then there's sort of a discussion of like, yes, and you know, maybe if only I could perceive no self. But I think that for so many people on the path, there is the experience of no self over and over again, and yet we return to samsara. So I'm wondering if you could speak about that habit to picking up samsara again, picking up the self again. And yeah, and like, obviously at a certain, you know, this habit thins. And it's also difficult, right? Because we're people, you know, one of the things I think that perpetuates the habit is our environment. People telling us, "You are this." And yeah, it takes a lot of confidence to move toward a greater reality, I think. And a provisional self isn't bad or useless. It's useful, especially if we want to bring benefit to beings. I mean, it's a lot easier with a body to give a meal, right? And then I need to keep giving meals to myself if I want this body to continue doing these things." things. CORTAR ESSE But we were just saying that the body is not that. So this is like one example of how we can then remember what we have gone through, you know, is to say that a body is useful. It's suddenly very, very useful. But the body is not self. So for example, but thanks a lot, there are many things there. And I think this is something that we can and should keep in mind continuously as we go. And probably the relevance of what you say will become increasingly clear as we go on as well. Because first, perhaps what it makes a lot of difference if we have like if we say, okay, self is habit.
And what else did you say? Yeah, habit.
But it makes a lot of difference if we have tried to see, okay, first of all, do I think of myself in the way that the Buddha says sentient beings perceive themselves? As singular and permanent individual in control of actions. Not that that's the whole story about sentient beings, far from it. But there is something about being a sentient being that has to do with this. So are those beliefs actually founded in something, or are they only half good? Are they somehow partially okay, but there's also a lot that is wrong about it? Or are they completely baseless? If we have figured, if we have thought very hard about that and come to some conclusion about that, then the whole question of the self being habit and what happens when things happen, when the kind of clarity that we feel we have come to suddenly disappears, and there's something else that seems much more completely as usual and mundane and painful, whatever we have.
What is going on then? That question takes on a very different flavor if we have gone through the investigation. So this is what we're trying to do, begin at the beginning, so to speak. And then your question and the points that you address, they will be there with us as we go, and they will probably, whatever answers we have, will probably change as we go also.
So at this point we have said that the body is not evidence of a singular, permanent agent, and nor is the mind, perceptions and so on. They are not only evidence that we cannot use, but they are evidence that force on us the opposite conclusion of what we wanted. Because the complexity of consciousness and experience and perception is the opposite of the simplicity of individuality and constancy.
And then we can ask ourselves, then we can contemplate a little bit, "okay, if we come to the point where we can say, yes, I can't see it any other way, the body and mind are not evidence of self in any way whatsoever." Self, what self? Again very importantly, a singular, permanent agent. When I look at my body, when I look at my mind, I find zero evidence of that. I can think of such a thing, of course, such an individual, but it's just one thought and that thought is not the individuality that we're talking about. So if we have come to that kind of conclusion, then we can rest in that and just acknowledge that now I know this, that says, has a whole
lot of, I thought these were like supernatural reasons for explaining my belief in self that I have a body and I have a mind, I see things and so on. But now I realize that they don't work at all, on the contrary. So then if we can just take that in as the Dalai Lama encourages us to do in this context, to rest in the insight that we arrive at. Then, yeah, then I
think that is important that we do, that whenever it is the case that we have come to a very clear understanding. So whether we have that or not, of course, is an open question. If it's still not clear to us that the fact of the body and the facts of mind are not in any way evidence of singular permanent agency, then we have to keep it going and explore further. But whenever that sense of, "yeah, this is amazing, I thought there was such a natural connection, but now I see there's none whatsoever. In fact, how could I ever get that idea? All the evidence seems to point in exactly the opposite direction." Then just allow that understanding to sink in, in whichever way we might let that happen.
Because then once we continue, we can move on to something, to other questions. And our perspective will have changed now. Our understanding will have changed. And our feeling and perception of things will also be flavored by whatever it is that we have understood.
In the general context, among Śrāvakas, I suppose it's fair to say that this kind of insight is very crucial, because
when we do that, when we try to take in the message that we have received through our own inquiry relating to the questions that are being presented in the teachings, then when we come to that understanding, then we can go back to the twelve links of dependent origination and ask ourselves: "So, how can they then run that way, if there isn't someone there actually? If there isn't someone there to experience the whole and perpetuate the whole process, then why? If there is not this individual who owns these perceptions, who owns this body, who is in charge of it, who is responsible for it, who has to deal with it, then why these strong emotions that I need to prevail, I need to get what I want, and I need to avoid any threat?" Who am I talking about? Who is it that needs to be protected and who is it that needs to be taken care of? And in other words, it then becomes possible to loosen the grasping that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. The loosening of the grasping is possible because of insight into the absence of this particular type of self. By virtue of that, in meditation practice and in our daily lives, we can become less bound by our own tendencies. So that is what the fundamental Buddhist teaching is, I suppose, that by becoming increasingly aware of this absence of any person of this kind, this non-existence of personal self, then actually all the bounds and all the ties of existence can be cut through, and it's possible to arrive ultimately through a process of familiarizing oneself with this insight, and being in tune with it, acknowledging it, acting in a way that acknowledges and is informed by this insight, it's possible to break the conditioning that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. And so complete freedom, complete liberation, that is the Buddhist promise, that if you keep the contemplation, the process of learning, reflecting and meditating on the basis of healthy rules for living your life, if you keep that going, then the entire burden will fall off your shoulders, you will be completely free. That is the ultimate fruition then of the path of Śrāvaka, to become someone who has conquered the enemy of the negative emotions. But what we can also notice is that here we have not there are so many things that remain, and that's all okay. There are so many things that are not, in in fact, all what there is, a is that which is not that person, not that individual who is singular and enduring and in control. Apart from that, it's all here.
And that's perfectly good and necessary and a factual observation according to these teachings. We have dependent origination is not a story of an individual, it's a story about, or it's an account of psychophysical elements, the aggregates, the sense sources, and so on, that interact, and in their interaction there arises this mirage of a self, an individual who becomes a focal point, that ties everything up, and so there is bondage where there could be complete freedom.
But that, in a sense, is all what we need to acknowledge. Then we just need to live our life in a way that supports the contemplation of this kind, just quote and quote, but nevertheless, it's a simple, peaceful insight that we can bring to mind continuously, and we just need to find, going about things in a practical and balanced way, a way to live our lives that supports that insight. Then the journey towards liberation is unfolding.
But now, when we read the homage, then what is it Nāgārjuna says? "That which originates dependently," like the like the links of dependent origination, "does not cease and does not arise." So the whole account of life and death, if if there's no cessation and no arising, then what?
All those things that we said are there regardless, regardless of the insight into the non-existence of a person. What now to say of all of those? Nāgārjuna says that the Buddha teaches that dependent origination equals no cessation and no arising, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming and no going, and also difference and sameness.
So that the path to that we just began to notice before, that we just began to notice the possibility of, by thinking how it's possible to loosen the grip of the kleśas, by understanding that there is no individual, by understanding very clearly, first of all intellectually, and that's what we've been trying to do, that there is no such person, period. And then not just leaving it a belief, but taking it as a fact, as we kind of owe ourselves, if we have come to a 100% clear conclusion, to the extent that we can't, then we owe it to ourselves to also take that as a fact. If we have said, "I've given it all I can and I've come to this conclusion, I'm sure," then at that time, whatever it is that we're sure about, we can rely on as a fact. So by relying on the non-existence of a permanent singular individual, we saw that it's possible to now be in the world in a very different way, in a way that is not driven by negative emotions, but instead a sort of unraveling of the ties that otherwise hold us. So now when we hear this account of dependent origination or this declaration of dependent origination, what happens to that path? The very notion of moving along from one stage to another, and saying goodbye to certain things and welcoming others, that seems to be just as unfounded as the idea of the person came to seem. At this point, we're just looking at the words, and what do they say? They say that dependent origination, whatever it is that originates independence, does not cease and does not arise. It doesn't come to an end and it is not constant. There's no coming and going. And dependent origination, these things that arise in dependence are not identical with each other and they're not different either. And then he says that
this particular, the ability to explain dependent origination in this way, which in some way seems like just sheer contradiction, dependent origination, entails a notion of something coming into being. But yet Nāgārjuna says because the Buddha shows that dependent origination is unceasing and unarisen, then that is why he is the best of all teachers. So it's exactly 11:15 and perhaps we can then for tomorrow,
yeah, spend some time going over what we have done in the past few days, which basically has been trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is generally in Buddhism. That's the outer dependent origination in the world. And then very specifically, and that's sort of the highlight of the Buddhist teaching is to explain that there is also dependent origination of the inner 12 links, which we then have spent time looking at, from the perspective of the analysis of the self, trying to ask ourselves the question, "Is there a singular and permanent individual in control of actions? in the way that I think that there is?" And so that I suggest we stick to that, and and try to get some real clarity about that. If we say no, then why do I have the so strong notion of there being such a self? And then again think of the body that we take as such a natural evidence of there being a singular and permanent individual. Think of the thoughts and feelings and whatever else there may be that we ascribe,
that we think of as evidence of such an individual. And then just notice the mismatch, the complete mismatch of the presumed evidence and that which we are seeking to prove. And then let's try to take that in and see where that then takes us. And also notice all the things that are not damaged, so to speak. What it's like to just see that there is no singular, permanent agent anywhere. What happens to our experience, what happens to our ideas, what happens to our perceptions when we do that? And in particular, what is there then? Try to acknowledge that. And then tomorrow we will get into the first verse of the analysis of conditions which will question
all whatever it is that we may say that there is nonetheless. Okay, thanks a lot for today and see you.
And then of course if on top of refuge we can sort of bring to mind that this is something that can be an opportunity to ultimately benefit all beings, then that is a very nice way to begin I think.
So yesterday we were still trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is, from a so-called general Buddhist perspective, when we talk about the 12 links of dependent origination Out of interdependent origination, and then the interdependent origination being about how life and death and rebirth occurs by means of, in terms of those 12 links. And we are saying that the Buddha teaches these links in order to point out an unbroken circle, a revolving circle, which is based on ignorance, which is maintained by a certain kind of ignorance. And then we were trying to get a sense of what this ignorance is about. And in the general context of the teachings, ignorance has very much to do with the notion of belief in a person, the existence of a person. What sort of person? A person who is a singular individual and who is permanent in the sense of being the same from one situation to the next, and who is also the agent of actions. It's that person who does things. So I am one person, just me here, and I am in the world, of course, sharing it with other people, but here I am as one person. And I remain me as I go about doing things in the world, and indeed it is me who does these things. So those three notions of singularity, of permanence and of agency being in control of actions, that's what the Buddha says is actually, those are actually all mistaken notions, mistaken ideas.
And then we were saying yesterday, "Okay, fine, but do we at all believe in this way? Do we at all think of ourselves as singular, permanent agents?"
And that's what we tried to spend a good deal of time on, trying to notice in our own minds, looking at our own beliefs, ideas, perceptions, what seems to be the case. Do I have the sense of being one person? Do I have the sense of being an ongoing, constant in the world who performs actions? Because if not, then what the Buddha talks about may be interesting for some, but it's not directly relevant to me, because I actually don't think in this way. I don't have this perception of being an individual of this kind. And I think there was agreement. There was nobody who said, "That's not the case. That's not how I think about myself." There were many who said, "This is not the whole story." And that's precisely, you could say perhaps, the Buddha's point in the general context of the teachings. It's far from the whole story, but it's a mistake and those beliefs are mistaken. The nice thing about those beliefs is that we can show very clearly in a clean, thorough fashion, that they are just misconceptions that have no bearing on reality. And then let's see afterwards what we may have to say on the basis of that understanding. But before we get there, of course, we have to see what the Buddha's reason may be for saying that this is a misunderstanding,
a wrong belief to think of oneself as such an individual And that's why we began to ask ourselves, "So why do I think this way? What's the reason that I have the idea?" Once we have said, "Okay, this is all quite descriptive of my experience and of my beliefs, that I think I'm an individual of this kind," then we said, "But why?" I feel that we also spent a fair amount of time noticing how unquestionable the sense of being here as a person, as an individual, seems to be. How fundamental as a sort of linchpin for so much that it's hard to perhaps imagine what it would be like if there weren't such an individual.
So that may be our intuition and where we immediately think we are at. But then we also began to think yesterday, "So why do we have this very strong idea, very strong sense that certainly I'm here as a person? It's just me, singularity in that sort of simple, commonsensical fashion.
And it's just me now, just as it was just me sitting on this chair yesterday, permanence in that simple and commonsensical fashion. So why do I believe like that? What are my reasons for having this spontaneous confidence in being a person of this kind?" And then someone said, "Well, embodiment is really important. It's because there's this body, physical system, whatever we want to call it, living organism, whatever we might want to say about the body, because with that comes very naturally a notion of being an individual of this kind."
But what did we do then? We said, "Okay, let's then look at this presence of the body, and take a better look at what is it that we have there."
And when we look at the body, we notice that it is so many things. Although we can speak about the body and some sense of singularity is apparent in our minds, when we say that, to the extent that we can talk about it with each other, "My body," you're not going to insist that, but actually it's many things. It works very well to say, "My body, your body," and so on. We can do a whole lot of things on that basis. But now we are looking more closely at what is that body that we talk about when we refer in this way. And then we notice that, of course, and we know this already, the body is not just one thing. Obviously it has many limbs and body parts. And those body parts are also made of other body parts. And at a certain point it becomes sort of exotic when we get beyond what can can be immediately seen. Then with the help of science, we can nonetheless explore dimensions of the body, which seem to be there just as much as what is visually perceptible with the naked eye. If we use strong microscopes and whatever else there is of implements, then we can get a sense of very subtle things, and those subtle things, whether those are themselves beings of their own or whether they are part of just my body. Often times that's an open question in biology, what belongs to my body? what belongs to the environment? and so on... A whole lot of questions that open up. In other words, we certainly don't find simplicity looking at the body. And simplicity comes with this notion of "I am here." It couldn't get more simple. So we thought that simplicity is derived from our physical presence. But that's an absurd idea, because not only does the body not support that sort of simple individual, it's clearly the opposite. So how on earth could we think that something that is the exact opposite of what we're trying to get at is evidence of this individual? It would be like, I'm always so bad with examples now, but let's try to see if we can find a good one
We say there is water in the cup because there's fire. That sounds insane. And if we insist on that, then we are absurd.
So actually, otherwise we share the sense probably that the body, my sense of being here as an embodied being is very powerful evidence of me being a real person. We share that. And now, in just a few moments of thinking, inquiring a little further, what seemed like such a natural recognition is absurd.
So think about that. Is it absurd? It's hard to see if taking perfect counter-evidence as evidence and insisting nonetheless that it is evidence of a certain something is not absurd, then what is? So that's where we ended, I think, with the body. But of course, okay, we might say, "I am a mental being" perhaps, or "the real me, the real reason that I have this idea of being a singular individual is because I have a soul. That's what gives me this individuality."
Sorry.
So, how about, yeah, what else evidence would that be for... Like personally, what do we think if we just try again to notice exactly my sense of being one individual, not what individuality is or something like that, no? But when we think of ourselves, try to sort of observe ourselves, then exactly the kind of sense of individuality and permanence of individuality that I feel, that I notice, that I think is relevant for me, where does that come from? What's it founded on, if not the body? And what would we then say? What would be our response?
Yes, it was, Thank you. "I would think if it's not the body, I would think that "I think." So like Descartes, like you said yesterday, "I think, ergo I am." So it's my thoughts and I have some sense of power over them. I mean, I can direct them. I mean, I don't really believe that, but I have a sense of that, I think. But now it's also absurd. It's difficult to say, but I would say thoughts." Yeah. "Probably." Right. "And feelings, which is also embodied in a way. But it's the label, right? It's like tightness in the chest. It could be anxiety. Could also be excitement. It's the same experience, but related to my thoughts and feelings, I think." That also gives us a sense of being an individual. Yeah. "So my feelings, my thoughts."
So, one-- "Hey, hey. Yeah, OK. Yeah. Student: "Thomas, this is Reagan. The first time we connected was about 10 years ago in Shantideva's Chapter 9 Wisdom context. And your insights and help was so profound, and I'm so happy to be here. I just want to say on this subject that for me personally, I feel like, man, I mean, when it comes to this subject matter, it's so open air, it's so abstract and weird. Like I'll find myself, you know, I mean, like even on a normal basis, I think most people can say that they feel down today or they feel good today. And that energy is there. But I just feel like mentally speaking, like, I mean, like, you know, we're all a little bit freaked out about our experience, man. And we're all here like contemplating death and impermanence and our precious human life. And in this context, like what you're talking about there's times where I just feel like things are vivid and luminous and visceral and tangible and other times empty. And like, I don't know. It's a very strange enigmatic energy that I think we're all dealing with, and that we're all trying to like come to grasp with here. And yeah, like that. That's all." Yeah, thanks, Reagan. So yeah.
Student: "This is Mark." Thomas: Maybe just one remark about that. So I think we all, any of us who have spent a little bit of time doing this sort of exercise and contemplation, I think we'll know very well what you're talking about. Because yeah, I think you said it already, you know. So it can become very disorienting and confusing and so on. And at the same time, there's also the sense of something really opening up that we perhaps never even imagined the possibility of before. So it's suddenly very shaky ground that we then suddenly stand on. And we didn't expect it to be like that. We thought that it would be like a long gradual journey to get into, perhaps after some time, some difficult challenges and some very exciting openings. But actually, it comes quite quickly, doesn't it? When you just think thoughtfully about these questions with a sincere and open mind, taking your own opinions seriously, then, for better or worse, suddenly we're in the thick of it. It's not like Buddhist philosophy as some kind of topic that we can learn and study in school and have a relationship with, like, "I'm interested in Buddhist philosophy. You should try that too," that sort of thing. But it's the distinction between Buddhist philosophy and who I am, what this world is, and so on, it begins to disappear. And we're really in the middle of it. What that middle is, I'm not saying the big middle. That would be nice, no, if we had thereby arrived at the great Mādhyamaka . Perhaps we have, but perhaps not quite yet. So this is both the challenge and also the amazing power of these teachings that Nāgārjuna delivers To be honest, nobody expects that it will be like that. It always comes as a surprise, when suddenly the ground begins to disappear. But so, there are several things to keep in mind, because when it becomes like that, it's a very critical situation, obviously. The more serious we become about it, the more critical the situation is. So how to deal with it? In other words, we have to be very practical, and we have to, in other words, approach this as practitioners, whether we like it or not.
If we take Buddhist philosophy that far, if we take ourselves and the teachings that seriously, then it becomes a practical relationship. What do I do now? So that's what practice is about, knowing stuff like that, what to do.
And the better choices, the better... Student: "I thank you for saying that, because I think everybody here is taking it that seriously. We're taking it that seriously, that we're here, and we're listening to your discussions. I think that we're all taking it extremely seriously. For me personally, and I'm sure for everybody else, this isn't just another discourse in knowledge and information, but it's actually a life situation where we're all feeling a little bit suspended in midair. Because you start talking about emptiness and interdependence, and like you said, it's a difficult topic to absorb. For me and I think for everybody else, yeah, we're trying to digest it as best as we can, and it's intense, it really is."
Thomas: And then at the same time, it's also something that we can, again, forbid our words, it's something that we can forget about. It's something that we can take a break from voluntarily or involuntarily. And then it begins to go back to being this sort of Buddhist philosophy class again, or that book that I'm reading, Nāgārjuna's philosophy that I'm into.
So this is, again, the key is to look at our own life, at our own experience, and see what is my relationship with this stuff? And then we can notice that it intensifies, and then it becomes in the way you talked about. And then we can also just get out from the class, walk out and have a cup of tea if there's someone sitting in front of us who talks about something else, we will probably forget and be in the middle of that conversation. Or like Hume, the Scottish philosopher, said when he retires from his contemplations, which in many ways were similar to this, then he would go and play backgammon, all would be fine and dandy, or something like that. I'm not a scholar of Hume. But just to say that this is something that we do. We go in and out of these intense contemplations. But of course, if we just then retire and say, "Oh, wow, that was really weird, and I don't know what to do with it, but I guess that's how it is with this sort of philosophy," then we don't learn that much from it. At the same time, if we get totally mesmerized by the mystery of it all, and we don't know what to do, then that's not helpful either. So we have to develop some sort of skill, and skill means practice again. So just if we want to learn this as a philosophical endeavor, then we have to go about it in a practical way.
So I think that's interesting to observe in and of itself, that there is that natural link between this kind of philosophy and practice. The further you take it, the more it becomes a matter of actual practice.
And the more the practice, we become skilled in taking in this insight, presumably. Our understanding of it will also increase.
So I think what we can then tell ourselves and note down for ourselves is that probably we have to have some sessions where we do this sort of contemplation. And then we also have to allow ourselves to say, "Okay, when such and such time has passed," perhaps we say, like as we do here, we don't have an indefinite session. We say that it's an hour, and it goes from 10.15 Nepal time to 11.15 Nepal time. And that's it, and then we will do something else. We won't forget about what we learn, but we're not going to sit here until three o'clock unbroken. So that sort of simple structuring in the way that we're used to doing it, we maintain that, but with a view to this practice of exploring the profound philosophy of the Middle Way. So already that can give us some relief. We know, okay, and the advice for how to do that we can also get from very qualified people, from experienced meditators and contemplatives. They can tell us how much we should do it every day and how much time for other stuff we should make. But benefit from this kind of structure takes a little bit the burden off our shoulders. It doesn't mean that it disappears. Of course it doesn't. If we really want to get first hand of direct experience with these things, of course it's not going to be something that will fit into a structure that we just place on ourselves and our life. If it's something that has implications for everything, of course any attempt that we make at structuring will be part of the game too. But still we can allow ourselves to get some structure and relief by during the day, breaking it up in these ways. And it's not just because we are a failure. It's because people actually say that that's the better way to do it, that it just becomes too intense otherwise. Like sometimes you've got to take a break. Simple advice but profound advice. So sometimes, like I think you said, your teachers had said, go for a walk and stuff like that. No, it is very profound actually. And suddenly perhaps our experience of what we've been learning will be much richer, much more alive if we skillfully let ourselves forget about it. Then suddenly it comes perhaps much more into focus. So this just some, so much of what this text is about is really a matter of method and methodology. Like when you talk about Mādhyamaka and what it is the text says, so much of what the talk will be about has to do with practical things. It's interesting, yeah?
So that's that. And furthermore, one thing that is really important to keep in mind also is that in the same way that we have the structure during the day of sessions and breaks and just noticing, even if it's not that we have said my day is structured in these ways, just noticing the way we go in and out of breaks and sort of acknowledging that and trying to benefit from that natural pulse as much as we can. Another thing, similarly, the contemplation itself, like the session of analytic meditation is also... has some structure. Just like the day as a whole has structure, the analytic meditation is also very structured.
Because right now we are considering just one question, yeah? We're considering at this particular time, we're considering only one question, and that is if the body is not evidence and in fact counter evidence for the existence of a simple, singular, permanent agent, then what else are my reasons for believing that there is such an agent? That's the only question that we need to keep in mind. So that also enables us to go further, because otherwise it can very soon become like, but "hey, wait, then what? What about everything?" All sorts of questions begin to come in. That's fine. Also, of course, sooner or later we will have to deal with those questions, but not now. We don't have to do that now, and we shouldn't do that now, because if we do, OK, we can do it, but quite soon we'll notice that we aren't getting very much further by just... then we're beginning to maintain our natural tendency to just think about things. We can call it contemplation or what, no? But it'll be our usual tendency to... very nice and profound tendency that human beings have to think about things, but it's not this sort of penetrating analysis that Nāgārjuna otherwise can force ourselves into, or invite us to engage in. So it's very important to keep in mind what is the issue right now? And then if we come to a conclusion, like we said, now we have reached a conclusion about the body. The body is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a simple individual. That's just one thing that we can check now. So whenever we begin to think again, but you know, "I have my body, so I must be an individual," then we can tell ourselves, "no, that doesn't work at all. I know that very well." So that means we have actually progressed, and there's a whole range of things that we don't need to think about anymore. So that is the amazing thing in the way that Nāgārjuna takes this structure, that it allows us to make all these checks. And then we'll see.
So what we were now considering is if the body is not that sort of evidence, then what? And someone said that I have thoughts, I think, and so I am, and I have feelings. It's me who has those feelings. It's my thoughts. And about that, we can say that even the way we speak about it is evidence of this not really being what we want here, and what we need here, which would be like we're looking for; okay, we say that it is evidence of the existence of me, but we're not identifying those thoughts with me here, because we do indeed say my thoughts and my feelings and so on. So there's a clear separation between me and then the thoughts. But then why do we take them as evidence of me?
Why it's the same thing that we noticed with the body, we can notice about mental events too, the myriad of them, they are very different. Like also, it was already mentioned, now we go through so many experiences, so many perceptions, ideas, thoughts, sensations. It's never the same, literally. So if it's never the same, then again we have come to something that is the opposite of permanent. And if it is so many things, then again, we have come to something that is the opposite of single, singular, simple. So again, we were looking for simplicity and constancy, and instead we find complexity and change. So why? Why is, could that possibly, how could that possibly be evidence of my existence? Any thoughts about that?
Student: "I'd like to speak more to the habit of self, if possible, the habit of self and the habit of eye clinging. So I feel like I can have, one can have all these experiences of non-self, no-self, very obvious the aggregates are not a self. Objects of clinging, I go throughout my day and there's, it's just more like reactions, right, or habits. And yet, even after experiences of non-self, someone annoys me and I snap at them, or yesterday was my birthday and so I had all these thoughts about that it's my birthday, which is really very silly because I've had seven bodies, or no, I've had a body every seven years and it's just that people tell me that my body was born on that day, that body's not, I'm not a baby.
So this resting in the nature of reality and then, we can have these moments and then returning to habit of selfing. One time I was talking with Khyen Lodrö Thayé about this and asking like, you know, why? And what is the cause of ignorance? Okay, it's a cycle, but like, how does this arise? And he said, it's just like when the mind rests in non-dual awareness and then returns to samsara. And so, like, that's no different than how sentient beings arise in the first place. And my understanding is that, you know, over time, as I practice on the path, you know, this thins, the habit to selfing thins, or the habit to, I should say grasping at a provisional self thins. And I'm okay with that. I'm okay with just like, you know, it takes time. But I'm wondering if you can speak to that, you know, because I feel like we're talking about this, like, do we perceive a self? And then there's sort of a discussion of like, yes, and you know, maybe if only I could perceive no self. But I think that for so many people on the path, there is the experience of no self over and over again, and yet we return to samsara. So I'm wondering if you could speak about that habit to picking up samsara again, picking up the self again. And yeah, and like, obviously at a certain, you know, this habit thins. And it's also difficult, right? Because we're people, you know, one of the things I think that perpetuates the habit is our environment. People telling us, "You are this." And yeah, it takes a lot of confidence to move toward a greater reality, I think. And a provisional self isn't bad or useless. It's useful, especially if we want to bring benefit to beings. I mean, it's a lot easier with a body to give a meal, right? And then I need to keep giving meals to myself if I want this body to continue doing these things." things. CORTAR ESSE But we were just saying that the body is not that. So this is like one example of how we can then remember what we have gone through, you know, is to say that a body is useful. It's suddenly very, very useful. But the body is not self. So for example, but thanks a lot, there are many things there. And I think this is something that we can and should keep in mind continuously as we go. And probably the relevance of what you say will become increasingly clear as we go on as well. Because first, perhaps what it makes a lot of difference if we have like if we say, okay, self is habit.
And what else did you say? Yeah, habit.
But it makes a lot of difference if we have tried to see, okay, first of all, do I think of myself in the way that the Buddha says sentient beings perceive themselves? As singular and permanent individual in control of actions. Not that that's the whole story about sentient beings, far from it. But there is something about being a sentient being that has to do with this. So are those beliefs actually founded in something, or are they only half good? Are they somehow partially okay, but there's also a lot that is wrong about it? Or are they completely baseless? If we have figured, if we have thought very hard about that and come to some conclusion about that, then the whole question of the self being habit and what happens when things happen, when the kind of clarity that we feel we have come to suddenly disappears, and there's something else that seems much more completely as usual and mundane and painful, whatever we have.
What is going on then? That question takes on a very different flavor if we have gone through the investigation. So this is what we're trying to do, begin at the beginning, so to speak. And then your question and the points that you address, they will be there with us as we go, and they will probably, whatever answers we have, will probably change as we go also.
So at this point we have said that the body is not evidence of a singular, permanent agent, and nor is the mind, perceptions and so on. They are not only evidence that we cannot use, but they are evidence that force on us the opposite conclusion of what we wanted. Because the complexity of consciousness and experience and perception is the opposite of the simplicity of individuality and constancy.
And then we can ask ourselves, then we can contemplate a little bit, "okay, if we come to the point where we can say, yes, I can't see it any other way, the body and mind are not evidence of self in any way whatsoever." Self, what self? Again very importantly, a singular, permanent agent. When I look at my body, when I look at my mind, I find zero evidence of that. I can think of such a thing, of course, such an individual, but it's just one thought and that thought is not the individuality that we're talking about. So if we have come to that kind of conclusion, then we can rest in that and just acknowledge that now I know this, that says, has a whole
lot of, I thought these were like supernatural reasons for explaining my belief in self that I have a body and I have a mind, I see things and so on. But now I realize that they don't work at all, on the contrary. So then if we can just take that in as the Dalai Lama encourages us to do in this context, to rest in the insight that we arrive at. Then, yeah, then I
think that is important that we do, that whenever it is the case that we have come to a very clear understanding. So whether we have that or not, of course, is an open question. If it's still not clear to us that the fact of the body and the facts of mind are not in any way evidence of singular permanent agency, then we have to keep it going and explore further. But whenever that sense of, "yeah, this is amazing, I thought there was such a natural connection, but now I see there's none whatsoever. In fact, how could I ever get that idea? All the evidence seems to point in exactly the opposite direction." Then just allow that understanding to sink in, in whichever way we might let that happen.
Because then once we continue, we can move on to something, to other questions. And our perspective will have changed now. Our understanding will have changed. And our feeling and perception of things will also be flavored by whatever it is that we have understood.
In the general context, among Śrāvakas, I suppose it's fair to say that this kind of insight is very crucial, because
when we do that, when we try to take in the message that we have received through our own inquiry relating to the questions that are being presented in the teachings, then when we come to that understanding, then we can go back to the twelve links of dependent origination and ask ourselves: "So, how can they then run that way, if there isn't someone there actually? If there isn't someone there to experience the whole and perpetuate the whole process, then why? If there is not this individual who owns these perceptions, who owns this body, who is in charge of it, who is responsible for it, who has to deal with it, then why these strong emotions that I need to prevail, I need to get what I want, and I need to avoid any threat?" Who am I talking about? Who is it that needs to be protected and who is it that needs to be taken care of? And in other words, it then becomes possible to loosen the grasping that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. The loosening of the grasping is possible because of insight into the absence of this particular type of self. By virtue of that, in meditation practice and in our daily lives, we can become less bound by our own tendencies. So that is what the fundamental Buddhist teaching is, I suppose, that by becoming increasingly aware of this absence of any person of this kind, this non-existence of personal self, then actually all the bounds and all the ties of existence can be cut through, and it's possible to arrive ultimately through a process of familiarizing oneself with this insight, and being in tune with it, acknowledging it, acting in a way that acknowledges and is informed by this insight, it's possible to break the conditioning that otherwise keeps the wheel spinning. And so complete freedom, complete liberation, that is the Buddhist promise, that if you keep the contemplation, the process of learning, reflecting and meditating on the basis of healthy rules for living your life, if you keep that going, then the entire burden will fall off your shoulders, you will be completely free. That is the ultimate fruition then of the path of Śrāvaka, to become someone who has conquered the enemy of the negative emotions. But what we can also notice is that here we have not there are so many things that remain, and that's all okay. There are so many things that are not, in in fact, all what there is, a is that which is not that person, not that individual who is singular and enduring and in control. Apart from that, it's all here.
And that's perfectly good and necessary and a factual observation according to these teachings. We have dependent origination is not a story of an individual, it's a story about, or it's an account of psychophysical elements, the aggregates, the sense sources, and so on, that interact, and in their interaction there arises this mirage of a self, an individual who becomes a focal point, that ties everything up, and so there is bondage where there could be complete freedom.
But that, in a sense, is all what we need to acknowledge. Then we just need to live our life in a way that supports the contemplation of this kind, just quote and quote, but nevertheless, it's a simple, peaceful insight that we can bring to mind continuously, and we just need to find, going about things in a practical and balanced way, a way to live our lives that supports that insight. Then the journey towards liberation is unfolding.
But now, when we read the homage, then what is it Nāgārjuna says? "That which originates dependently," like the like the links of dependent origination, "does not cease and does not arise." So the whole account of life and death, if if there's no cessation and no arising, then what?
All those things that we said are there regardless, regardless of the insight into the non-existence of a person. What now to say of all of those? Nāgārjuna says that the Buddha teaches that dependent origination equals no cessation and no arising, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming and no going, and also difference and sameness.
So that the path to that we just began to notice before, that we just began to notice the possibility of, by thinking how it's possible to loosen the grip of the kleśas, by understanding that there is no individual, by understanding very clearly, first of all intellectually, and that's what we've been trying to do, that there is no such person, period. And then not just leaving it a belief, but taking it as a fact, as we kind of owe ourselves, if we have come to a 100% clear conclusion, to the extent that we can't, then we owe it to ourselves to also take that as a fact. If we have said, "I've given it all I can and I've come to this conclusion, I'm sure," then at that time, whatever it is that we're sure about, we can rely on as a fact. So by relying on the non-existence of a permanent singular individual, we saw that it's possible to now be in the world in a very different way, in a way that is not driven by negative emotions, but instead a sort of unraveling of the ties that otherwise hold us. So now when we hear this account of dependent origination or this declaration of dependent origination, what happens to that path? The very notion of moving along from one stage to another, and saying goodbye to certain things and welcoming others, that seems to be just as unfounded as the idea of the person came to seem. At this point, we're just looking at the words, and what do they say? They say that dependent origination, whatever it is that originates independence, does not cease and does not arise. It doesn't come to an end and it is not constant. There's no coming and going. And dependent origination, these things that arise in dependence are not identical with each other and they're not different either. And then he says that
this particular, the ability to explain dependent origination in this way, which in some way seems like just sheer contradiction, dependent origination, entails a notion of something coming into being. But yet Nāgārjuna says because the Buddha shows that dependent origination is unceasing and unarisen, then that is why he is the best of all teachers. So it's exactly 11:15 and perhaps we can then for tomorrow,
yeah, spend some time going over what we have done in the past few days, which basically has been trying to get a sense of what dependent origination is generally in Buddhism. That's the outer dependent origination in the world. And then very specifically, and that's sort of the highlight of the Buddhist teaching is to explain that there is also dependent origination of the inner 12 links, which we then have spent time looking at, from the perspective of the analysis of the self, trying to ask ourselves the question, "Is there a singular and permanent individual in control of actions? in the way that I think that there is?" And so that I suggest we stick to that, and and try to get some real clarity about that. If we say no, then why do I have the so strong notion of there being such a self? And then again think of the body that we take as such a natural evidence of there being a singular and permanent individual. Think of the thoughts and feelings and whatever else there may be that we ascribe,
that we think of as evidence of such an individual. And then just notice the mismatch, the complete mismatch of the presumed evidence and that which we are seeking to prove. And then let's try to take that in and see where that then takes us. And also notice all the things that are not damaged, so to speak. What it's like to just see that there is no singular, permanent agent anywhere. What happens to our experience, what happens to our ideas, what happens to our perceptions when we do that? And in particular, what is there then? Try to acknowledge that. And then tomorrow we will get into the first verse of the analysis of conditions which will question
all whatever it is that we may say that there is nonetheless. Okay, thanks a lot for today and see you.
17:27
