Details
Session 4 — Examining Intrinsic Existence
Teachers:
Collection:
- Buddhist Classics and Philosophy
Location:
- Gomde Germany-Austria
Translator:
- Anya Zilman
Length:
- Medium Session (< 45 min)
Features:
- Subtitles ,
- Transcripts
Excerpt
Khenpo Pema Namgyal examines the assumption that phenomena possess intrinsic existence and shows how Madhyamaka reasoning exposes the contradictions within this view. Through philosophical analysis, the session deepens the understanding of dependent arising and the Middle Way.
Description
In this session, Khenpo Pema Namgyal continues the investigation of emptiness by examining the idea of intrinsic existence. Drawing on classical Madhyamaka reasoning, he explores how philosophical analysis can reveal the contradictions that arise when we assume that things exist independently and from their own side. Through examples and dialogue, the session demonstrates how careful inquiry begins to loosen the deeply ingrained habit of treating phenomena as solid and self-contained. Dunne also emphasizes that these arguments are not meant as abstract intellectual exercises, but as tools for transforming how we perceive the world. By questioning the notion of intrinsic existence, the teachings guide students toward a deeper appreciation of dependent arising and the Middle Way beyond extremes.
Related Course Info
- Emptiness, Luminosity and Compassion Nāgārjuna and the Madhyamaka Tradition Teachings by John D. Dunne and Khenpo Pema Namgyal exploring Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way and the relationship between emptiness, the luminous nature of mind, and compassion.
Video
Audio
42:44
If we go further, how can we feel
non-existent phenomena?
Or are our feelings also non-existent?
Then what actually exists?
Until we haven't abandoned saṃsāra and our afflictions, feelings exist.
Just like in a dream, until we wake up, all those things that we experience, they do exist for as long as the dream lasts.
Then, well, what's there? Uh, once we are freed from all these confused experiences of happiness, pleasure and pain, what's there at the end? Well, once we are freed from these dualistic pleasure and pain experiences, We... what's there? We call it a great bliss.
And we call it a non-conceptual, primordial wakefulness that abides in the enlightened minds of all the Buddhas.
Well, we do speak, uh, giving these kind of examples, about the mind, yeah? But it's not only about our conceptual mind and the experiences that take place in the mind, it's really likewise about all the forms that we see, the sounds that we hear, the smells, the taste, the touch, right? And likewi... We call it five objects of sense pleasures. And likewise, the minds that experience them, the five or six mental consciousnesses, all of these objects, subjects, dualistic kind of framework will fall apart once we are freed from saṃsāra.
In short, you won't have any problems anymore, okay?
Our troubles really come from us having all these multitude different feelings and experiences. That will end.
Well, you see, we all kind of have these afflictions that fall into the side of either of us having all this lust, detachment, desire or aggression anger, aversion, right? This will be done, we will be done with that. Will be gone.
And when we come to realize the true nature of all phenomena, of our own minds, how they really truly are in the ultimate sense, we'll be freed from all these problems, troubles, pain.
There was a follow-up question, but I think the first one is answered. Can we walk the earth even when we leave saṃsāra? I think this was answered. And then the second question was, so basically, is time an illusion? I will translate both, right? Thank you.
Why do we claim that saṃsāra, cyclic existence, is that of, by nature is that of suffering? If we think, if we look at the presentation of the four noble truths, we have to see that it's through the power of karma and afflictive emotions, the truth of a origin, that you know that suffering arise.
Once we are freed from the origin of suffering, that is to say, no karma, well, first no afflictive emotions, then no karma, we... saṃsāra still arises. Sorry Khenpo.
Sorry, I will re-translate. It's not that saṃsāra exists. We do take birth in saṃsāra, even when we are freed from afflictions, kleśas and karma. But that birth is not the birth of suffering. There's no suffering involved in taking that kind of rebirth in saṃsāra. It's not due to, you know, it's not through the power of afflictions and karma.
We call that the enlightened activity then of the emanation body of the Buddha, of the enjoyment body, right? We call those like Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, births.
That kind of a enlightened activity, is it really real from the perspective of the enlightened mind of the Buddha himself? No.
Because the, that kind of self-display from the you know self display from the point view of the Buddha's mind is known as Dharmakāya.
And the other two bodies, the four mentioned together, we call them the form body, Rūpakāya, right? So Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, they do arise, but they eh, not arising from the kind of self-display of the Buddha's enlightened mind, that's only Dharmakāya. But they appear for the power of aspirations made by the sentient beings, and through their merit.
And that form body consists of the two enlightened bodies of the Buddha, performs all these different benefits for the sentient beings out of great compassion, right, but without any conceptuality whatsoever.
So speaking about this question about walking the earth, right, well, you are in saṃsāra when you take birth like that, but you know it's the birth of the form body of the Buddha, Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, it appears, but all the activity is carried out by that, Rūpakāya, is done without any, any involvement of conceptual thought, discursive thought.
Of the sun or the moon shining brightly, and it's always the, well ok let's say sun it's always the case, however, whether the reflection of that sun appears on the surface of the body of the water in some vessel, that's, you know, put outside, depends how clean is the water, but how unstirred is the water, how, you know, how is it muddy or not. If it's completely pure and still, then we will see many fold reflections on the surface of the body of the water, but the sun is always there.
So from the Buddha's Dharmakāya's point of view, that dimension, well, that body of, of, of Dharmas, Dharmakāya, all the activities, sorry, maybe I'll restart, all the enlightened activities of the form body of the Buddha performed in this world, it's all done while being not separated from Dharmakāya, right, whatsoever. And it's done for the benefit of sentient beings in a manyfold different ways, depending on the faculties, predispositions, interests of sentient beings and their merit.
In this way, having realized no production, well, you can say, right, that there is no production, no origination whatsoever, in other words, having become a Buddha, an awakened one, right, for that being, from the point of view of that enlightened mind, that realized mind of that Buddha, there is no saṃsāra, there is no nirvana, there is no separation between those two. However, for the beings who still are in saṃsāra, there are all these manyfold appearances, right, experiences, and they need to be guided, they need to be helped, they need to be taught, they need to be freed from all of that. And so, kind of, the Buddha teaches the beings, according to their level, you know, being stuck in saṃsāra, but from one's own enlightened wisdom, there is no saṃsāra, there are no appearances of saṃsāra, there is no nirvana. One is already beyond those kind of dualistic frames of wor, mind.
Whether the Buddha has appeared, whether the Buddha has come or not come, the true nature of all phenomena is primordially so, right, it's just how things truly are.
The next, second question was, to remind everyone, is whether time is an illusion. Khenpo la says that from the Mahāyāna point of view, um, every phenomenon is an illusion. Everything is just a label. Right? It's just a label, a name we assign, but in and of itself, it's not truly existent. And everything is like that, including time.
If cause and effect can't exist simultaneously, how do you justify dynamic equilibrium’s in various systems such as chemical equilibrium? Maybe John Dunne will have to help me. I actually didn't hear. If the, if the cause and effect is not simultaneous, then what? How do you justify dynamic equilibrium? Well, for this one, you will need to explain what's dynamic equilibrium to, at least to me.
So in chemical systems you can have two chemicals that react together and that reaction results in the formation of products and these products also react together that results in the formation of those previous reactants and they both occur simultaneously so the cause and effect of the other exists perpetually so they can both cause and effect the other existence and it continues on indefinitely so the cause and effect is visible for both at the same time.
Anya, do you want me to try? Yes, please. Um, I can... yes. Or do you want to do it? No, I will just kind of tell Khenpo la that I'll say something and then you'll probably have to step in to help.
That's what I can say and then I guess that's all.
In the chemical system, are you actually producing separate compounds? They're chemically and physically distinct. So they're different identities, yeah? And they both exist at the same time. And they both cause the other to exist. But they become different identities as compounds, yeah? But they continuously form each other. Great. Changing, transforming your substrate. But the cause and effect is still observable at the same time. For your eyes? Yeah, you can still physically see it at the same time. And even potentially it can exist indefinitely and the cause and effect is visible the entire time.
Uh, So Connor, depending on how you understand causality, maybe just to clarify a little bit. So let's take a chemical system that's in dynamic equilibrium. Uh, let's say one reactant is producing another. Does it produce it in the same exact moment or does it produce it in the subsequent moment? They produce it, it exists at the same time. No, but, no but, I mean a reactant, like if you take a specific, we have two reactants. One produces the other. No, you have two reactants, they react together to form a product. So then react together to form reactants and they exist at the same time. So overall, there's no change in proportion to either side. But actually in the time course, in the time course, they're not producing each other at the same time. Well, they are, because there's no observable change in concentration. It's still the same number at each side that's still physically observable to change. Right, but. Are you looking at the average as the substance? Yeah, because in the... we should maybe talk about this later, because my understanding of that kind of dynamical system is that it's over a time course. No, because if you have, like say two liters of something, you'll have one liter of products and one liter of reactants. That will never change, but the reactions are constantly changing. So the cause and effect is continuously observable for both things at the same time, even though there's no change. So I think this question involves a discussion about what dynamical systems are, that is. So I'll say this basic thing. The liter's volume is actually changing. So what you're doing is you're abstract, you’re abstracting the measure of a liter from the system. So when you do that abstraction, you can say that's the same, but on this model, those actually are not the same. Those are conceptual abstractions. So I can tell you more about it later, because I think it will take too much to really get into it. So I, I don't, I think that's not a count, that's not a counter example. But I... We have to take it a long time.
...
So for generally, we say, there are parents, there are children, they're present at the same time, right? We have... But this what we discuss here is not like that. Yea? It's not about that kind of dynamic of saying, yeah, they are at the same time in the same room.
Well, the Buddhists claim that if cause and result do not change moment by moment, the moment is extremely the tiniest fraction of time. Like yea. There is no, nothing could take, there will be no effect, there will be no efficacy. Nothing can be produced.
We see right now some kind of continuity right? Long term, over the long term.
At the time when we observe the result, the cause has already changed, because everything changes moment by moment. It cannot remain the same, right? It, it... So it's already something is gone, it's different.
If substance remains completely immutable, um, then it cannot be causally efficacious, cannot do anything.
If it changes, you know, then, as to say, subsequent moment is not exactly the same as the preceding one, right? It's too... There is some change that took place.
So at the time of any given result, the cause has already changed into something else. It cannot have remained the same, same completely, right?
Right, so for, let's think about the substance, right? And then there is the kind of power dynamic of that substance, and for that dynamic to increase over time, right, it needs to grow. And the growth means something was small, becoming big, so there is already a change that's been enacted, right?
So let's see. To increase that, for something to increase over time, for any dynamic of the power of any given substance, then the previous preceding moment, when the power was less strong, it has to be gone, so to say, so that the next subsequent moment where the power grows can take place. Like for us to grow as right, as beings, like the previous moment when we are small, let's say, has to disappear. It can't remain on the side also being there, right? For us to become older, the previous moment is no more there. It's gone, you understand? So there is some kind of change in terms of the growth, and it only can take place when the previous moment changes, or it's gone, and gives space for the next moment to take place.
Right now we don't have uh, you know next to us also some copy of us when we were a kid present, because it kind of remained, right? It's no more. We can only look at the pictures and videos of us when we were kids, and that's all what remains. But th, that, us actually being small, that's gone, so that we can be now ourselves, like adults.
Likewise, okay, that's kind of over a long period of time, but if you think just about yesterday, our body of yesterday is not the same body that we have today. If we compare it, there's already big change.
The hair has grown, the nails, right, the facial hair, who have it, so.
Right, and this is again kind of on the big scale, but we are still, well we assert as Buddhists that even on the most subtle moments of time the same process, the same dynamics take place, that change occurs.
But to observe it directly, there's only one, one, one instance, one occasion.
We can count and say, well, there's previous, the sequent moment, one, two, three, four, five, to you know, thousands, but at any given moment, there's only one, right? One instance, one occasion. The rest are just numbers.
So out of those, let's say thousands, thousands of moments, if we pick one, there's only one. Like if we right now want to choose one, that's it, that's the one. I'm choosing another one, that's it. This is the only one I can choose, and the previous is already gone, and the next one has not a reason. At any given moment, I can only, only point to one. The rest is non-existent.
So here we're going into the John's territory, that is to say, Pramāṇa. Buddhist logic, epistemology, when we talk about either what the uh, the gentleman was speaking about, the general systems, right, he was talking about dynamics in terms of generality, but also we distinguish between particularities and generalities, and those two, and Khenpo la says it looks like what happens is what we call, it's a very technical terms in Pramāṇa, when we fuse the object, the preceding object, with its name, with its label. Like we call it something, but... right...
We fuse the object and its name in our minds and think it's one and the same, however, it's just the label, the object, we cannot really observe, according to this.
However, there is a purpose, of course, for you know why our minds are doing that, so that we can kind of function in this world, right? Pick up a cup, well we know it's a cup, but kind of, but we fuse.
In reality, there's no any specifically characterized phenomena eh, that are truly existent in terms of specificities, right?
In the... In the middle way system, we call it continuity.
For example, to understand what we mean by that, if we come to a little stream of water, and then we come the next day to it, we think, oh, that's the water I saw yesterday, right? Ah, here's the river, but it's already way gone, the water of yesterday is no more in front of us, right? It's constantly flowing.
So this is confusion that happens on the account of similarity, something appears to be similar to its preceding moments, and that's how we label it continuity only on the basis of this similarity.
Right, so it only appears like the river, the flow of the little stream of water to be the same, like kind of the mental image of it that we perceive seems to be exactly one and the same as the previous one, and the previous mental image and the previous one, because they're similar, but if we investigate in a very subtle, subtle moment, well, they're different, they're not the same, they're not one and the same.
Oh, actually, if we speak about philosophical tenants, Buddhist philosophical schools, they all have slightly different ideas about what's real and what's true, and there are those schools that actually, well, one school, that believe that the three times past, present, future are substantially existent.
So the substances already exist, the substances of the past are existent of the present, of the future, the only issue is that some of them become apparent and manifest, right, and some are kind of hidden and not manifest, but they're already truly there. So the non-Buddhist, some non-Buddhist claim that, and also there's a Buddhist school that asserts that, so.
And in that case, from the point of view of that school, causes and results will have to be present simultaneously, because all three times are present.
But here we're discussing the middle way school, and, and from their point of view, that's not tenable.
Eh, however, please carry on this discussion with John Dunne.
Because it's really important to discuss this kind of modern science, and Buddhist philosophy.
It's based on these kind of questions that we can really analyze, investigate and understand what impermanence truly means, at a very subtle level.
And Rinpoche always, when he talks about the four Dharma seals, he always emphasizes that there's not a single phenomenon that is permanent. Everything is constantly changing and fluctuates, moment by moment.
And by understanding impermanence, in other words, understanding that nothing remains the same for just two single subtle moments, right, never going to be the same, that points us to this truth of non-origination, non-production, what we're discussing here.
And this kind of discussion prompted by this question, also really could help us to see the true nature, that is to say emptiness. Like, really we can understand intellectually what is meant by emptiness when we understand the impermanence, this kind of... on a subtle level.
So really an important discussion to have.
Any other questions?
Let's see if there's any questions online, because it takes memory to...
OK, just in the case of meditation, and if I have the impression, OK, let's say I meditate on the father of Rinpoche, and there is some special energy, it is somehow to say there's some Dharmakāya, but there's also some special Rūpakāya form body. And like when I would meditate on Rinpoche, there's um, also Dharmakāya, but it's a special other form body. So um... yeah, I just read it like this, I don't know.
I'm not extremely clear about the question itself. I mean, if you, I don't know if you're a German speaker, and it's easier for you to ask in German, and then we will translate into English.
So, yeah. Why is it a form body?
I don't know if the question is, is it all right if I meditate like that? That my, that I concentrate on Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, and I have an experience of Dharmakāya, but also it has a different energy, impression on me, because the Rūpakāya is different, than when I meditate on Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche there's also Dharmakāya, but then the Rūpakāya experience is different, because the person is different. OK.
For the beginners, like us in our practice of meditation, it's very hard for us not to rely on any kind of form, right? Some appearance, some form. Like in other words, like Rūpakāya, the form body of our root teacher, right? We meditate on that appearance of the root teacher, and then light emanates from the body of the root teacher, all this takes place, but at the end of the day, we kind of really, um... Dharmakāya is this non-conceptual qualities of wisdom, of the minds, the enlightened minds of the teachers, that that's what's meditated upon, the Dharmakāya.
One question from online before we stop, maybe? Just the last one. If not, we can answer tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. I would like to know that if nothing really is there, how the Buddhas can manifest here in the world, is there a cause and effect too? Like the sun, without any concept, always be shining.
In Uttarātāntra Śāstra, it is stated like that, the example of the sun, shining without any conceptuality on its part.
These kind of uh, two questions, we can discuss it more tomorrow.
One it pertains to the topic of guru yoga, the practice of guru yoga, another one of like the jewel ornament of liberation, the non-conceptual activity, the Buddhas.
Oh, in the page, yeah? Okay, page number nine.
sönam diyi thamché sikpa nyi thopné nyepai dranam phamjé né kyega nachi balap trukpa yi sipai tsolé drowa drölwar shok jangchup semchok rinpoché ma kyepa nam kyé gyurchik kyepa nyampa mepa yang gongné gongdu phelwar shok
Until we haven't abandoned saṃsāra and our afflictions, feelings exist.
Just like in a dream, until we wake up, all those things that we experience, they do exist for as long as the dream lasts.
Then, well, what's there? Uh, once we are freed from all these confused experiences of happiness, pleasure and pain, what's there at the end? Well, once we are freed from these dualistic pleasure and pain experiences, We... what's there? We call it a great bliss.
And we call it a non-conceptual, primordial wakefulness that abides in the enlightened minds of all the Buddhas.
Well, we do speak, uh, giving these kind of examples, about the mind, yeah? But it's not only about our conceptual mind and the experiences that take place in the mind, it's really likewise about all the forms that we see, the sounds that we hear, the smells, the taste, the touch, right? And likewi... We call it five objects of sense pleasures. And likewise, the minds that experience them, the five or six mental consciousnesses, all of these objects, subjects, dualistic kind of framework will fall apart once we are freed from saṃsāra.
In short, you won't have any problems anymore, okay?
Our troubles really come from us having all these multitude different feelings and experiences. That will end.
Well, you see, we all kind of have these afflictions that fall into the side of either of us having all this lust, detachment, desire or aggression anger, aversion, right? This will be done, we will be done with that. Will be gone.
And when we come to realize the true nature of all phenomena, of our own minds, how they really truly are in the ultimate sense, we'll be freed from all these problems, troubles, pain.
There was a follow-up question, but I think the first one is answered. Can we walk the earth even when we leave saṃsāra? I think this was answered. And then the second question was, so basically, is time an illusion? I will translate both, right? Thank you.
Why do we claim that saṃsāra, cyclic existence, is that of, by nature is that of suffering? If we think, if we look at the presentation of the four noble truths, we have to see that it's through the power of karma and afflictive emotions, the truth of a origin, that you know that suffering arise.
Once we are freed from the origin of suffering, that is to say, no karma, well, first no afflictive emotions, then no karma, we... saṃsāra still arises. Sorry Khenpo.
Sorry, I will re-translate. It's not that saṃsāra exists. We do take birth in saṃsāra, even when we are freed from afflictions, kleśas and karma. But that birth is not the birth of suffering. There's no suffering involved in taking that kind of rebirth in saṃsāra. It's not due to, you know, it's not through the power of afflictions and karma.
We call that the enlightened activity then of the emanation body of the Buddha, of the enjoyment body, right? We call those like Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, births.
That kind of a enlightened activity, is it really real from the perspective of the enlightened mind of the Buddha himself? No.
Because the, that kind of self-display from the you know self display from the point view of the Buddha's mind is known as Dharmakāya.
And the other two bodies, the four mentioned together, we call them the form body, Rūpakāya, right? So Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, they do arise, but they eh, not arising from the kind of self-display of the Buddha's enlightened mind, that's only Dharmakāya. But they appear for the power of aspirations made by the sentient beings, and through their merit.
And that form body consists of the two enlightened bodies of the Buddha, performs all these different benefits for the sentient beings out of great compassion, right, but without any conceptuality whatsoever.
So speaking about this question about walking the earth, right, well, you are in saṃsāra when you take birth like that, but you know it's the birth of the form body of the Buddha, Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, it appears, but all the activity is carried out by that, Rūpakāya, is done without any, any involvement of conceptual thought, discursive thought.
Of the sun or the moon shining brightly, and it's always the, well ok let's say sun it's always the case, however, whether the reflection of that sun appears on the surface of the body of the water in some vessel, that's, you know, put outside, depends how clean is the water, but how unstirred is the water, how, you know, how is it muddy or not. If it's completely pure and still, then we will see many fold reflections on the surface of the body of the water, but the sun is always there.
So from the Buddha's Dharmakāya's point of view, that dimension, well, that body of, of, of Dharmas, Dharmakāya, all the activities, sorry, maybe I'll restart, all the enlightened activities of the form body of the Buddha performed in this world, it's all done while being not separated from Dharmakāya, right, whatsoever. And it's done for the benefit of sentient beings in a manyfold different ways, depending on the faculties, predispositions, interests of sentient beings and their merit.
In this way, having realized no production, well, you can say, right, that there is no production, no origination whatsoever, in other words, having become a Buddha, an awakened one, right, for that being, from the point of view of that enlightened mind, that realized mind of that Buddha, there is no saṃsāra, there is no nirvana, there is no separation between those two. However, for the beings who still are in saṃsāra, there are all these manyfold appearances, right, experiences, and they need to be guided, they need to be helped, they need to be taught, they need to be freed from all of that. And so, kind of, the Buddha teaches the beings, according to their level, you know, being stuck in saṃsāra, but from one's own enlightened wisdom, there is no saṃsāra, there are no appearances of saṃsāra, there is no nirvana. One is already beyond those kind of dualistic frames of wor, mind.
Whether the Buddha has appeared, whether the Buddha has come or not come, the true nature of all phenomena is primordially so, right, it's just how things truly are.
The next, second question was, to remind everyone, is whether time is an illusion. Khenpo la says that from the Mahāyāna point of view, um, every phenomenon is an illusion. Everything is just a label. Right? It's just a label, a name we assign, but in and of itself, it's not truly existent. And everything is like that, including time.
If cause and effect can't exist simultaneously, how do you justify dynamic equilibrium’s in various systems such as chemical equilibrium? Maybe John Dunne will have to help me. I actually didn't hear. If the, if the cause and effect is not simultaneous, then what? How do you justify dynamic equilibrium? Well, for this one, you will need to explain what's dynamic equilibrium to, at least to me.
So in chemical systems you can have two chemicals that react together and that reaction results in the formation of products and these products also react together that results in the formation of those previous reactants and they both occur simultaneously so the cause and effect of the other exists perpetually so they can both cause and effect the other existence and it continues on indefinitely so the cause and effect is visible for both at the same time.
Anya, do you want me to try? Yes, please. Um, I can... yes. Or do you want to do it? No, I will just kind of tell Khenpo la that I'll say something and then you'll probably have to step in to help.
That's what I can say and then I guess that's all.
In the chemical system, are you actually producing separate compounds? They're chemically and physically distinct. So they're different identities, yeah? And they both exist at the same time. And they both cause the other to exist. But they become different identities as compounds, yeah? But they continuously form each other. Great. Changing, transforming your substrate. But the cause and effect is still observable at the same time. For your eyes? Yeah, you can still physically see it at the same time. And even potentially it can exist indefinitely and the cause and effect is visible the entire time.
Uh, So Connor, depending on how you understand causality, maybe just to clarify a little bit. So let's take a chemical system that's in dynamic equilibrium. Uh, let's say one reactant is producing another. Does it produce it in the same exact moment or does it produce it in the subsequent moment? They produce it, it exists at the same time. No, but, no but, I mean a reactant, like if you take a specific, we have two reactants. One produces the other. No, you have two reactants, they react together to form a product. So then react together to form reactants and they exist at the same time. So overall, there's no change in proportion to either side. But actually in the time course, in the time course, they're not producing each other at the same time. Well, they are, because there's no observable change in concentration. It's still the same number at each side that's still physically observable to change. Right, but. Are you looking at the average as the substance? Yeah, because in the... we should maybe talk about this later, because my understanding of that kind of dynamical system is that it's over a time course. No, because if you have, like say two liters of something, you'll have one liter of products and one liter of reactants. That will never change, but the reactions are constantly changing. So the cause and effect is continuously observable for both things at the same time, even though there's no change. So I think this question involves a discussion about what dynamical systems are, that is. So I'll say this basic thing. The liter's volume is actually changing. So what you're doing is you're abstract, you’re abstracting the measure of a liter from the system. So when you do that abstraction, you can say that's the same, but on this model, those actually are not the same. Those are conceptual abstractions. So I can tell you more about it later, because I think it will take too much to really get into it. So I, I don't, I think that's not a count, that's not a counter example. But I... We have to take it a long time.
...
So for generally, we say, there are parents, there are children, they're present at the same time, right? We have... But this what we discuss here is not like that. Yea? It's not about that kind of dynamic of saying, yeah, they are at the same time in the same room.
Well, the Buddhists claim that if cause and result do not change moment by moment, the moment is extremely the tiniest fraction of time. Like yea. There is no, nothing could take, there will be no effect, there will be no efficacy. Nothing can be produced.
We see right now some kind of continuity right? Long term, over the long term.
At the time when we observe the result, the cause has already changed, because everything changes moment by moment. It cannot remain the same, right? It, it... So it's already something is gone, it's different.
If substance remains completely immutable, um, then it cannot be causally efficacious, cannot do anything.
If it changes, you know, then, as to say, subsequent moment is not exactly the same as the preceding one, right? It's too... There is some change that took place.
So at the time of any given result, the cause has already changed into something else. It cannot have remained the same, same completely, right?
Right, so for, let's think about the substance, right? And then there is the kind of power dynamic of that substance, and for that dynamic to increase over time, right, it needs to grow. And the growth means something was small, becoming big, so there is already a change that's been enacted, right?
So let's see. To increase that, for something to increase over time, for any dynamic of the power of any given substance, then the previous preceding moment, when the power was less strong, it has to be gone, so to say, so that the next subsequent moment where the power grows can take place. Like for us to grow as right, as beings, like the previous moment when we are small, let's say, has to disappear. It can't remain on the side also being there, right? For us to become older, the previous moment is no more there. It's gone, you understand? So there is some kind of change in terms of the growth, and it only can take place when the previous moment changes, or it's gone, and gives space for the next moment to take place.
Right now we don't have uh, you know next to us also some copy of us when we were a kid present, because it kind of remained, right? It's no more. We can only look at the pictures and videos of us when we were kids, and that's all what remains. But th, that, us actually being small, that's gone, so that we can be now ourselves, like adults.
Likewise, okay, that's kind of over a long period of time, but if you think just about yesterday, our body of yesterday is not the same body that we have today. If we compare it, there's already big change.
The hair has grown, the nails, right, the facial hair, who have it, so.
Right, and this is again kind of on the big scale, but we are still, well we assert as Buddhists that even on the most subtle moments of time the same process, the same dynamics take place, that change occurs.
But to observe it directly, there's only one, one, one instance, one occasion.
We can count and say, well, there's previous, the sequent moment, one, two, three, four, five, to you know, thousands, but at any given moment, there's only one, right? One instance, one occasion. The rest are just numbers.
So out of those, let's say thousands, thousands of moments, if we pick one, there's only one. Like if we right now want to choose one, that's it, that's the one. I'm choosing another one, that's it. This is the only one I can choose, and the previous is already gone, and the next one has not a reason. At any given moment, I can only, only point to one. The rest is non-existent.
So here we're going into the John's territory, that is to say, Pramāṇa. Buddhist logic, epistemology, when we talk about either what the uh, the gentleman was speaking about, the general systems, right, he was talking about dynamics in terms of generality, but also we distinguish between particularities and generalities, and those two, and Khenpo la says it looks like what happens is what we call, it's a very technical terms in Pramāṇa, when we fuse the object, the preceding object, with its name, with its label. Like we call it something, but... right...
We fuse the object and its name in our minds and think it's one and the same, however, it's just the label, the object, we cannot really observe, according to this.
However, there is a purpose, of course, for you know why our minds are doing that, so that we can kind of function in this world, right? Pick up a cup, well we know it's a cup, but kind of, but we fuse.
In reality, there's no any specifically characterized phenomena eh, that are truly existent in terms of specificities, right?
In the... In the middle way system, we call it continuity.
For example, to understand what we mean by that, if we come to a little stream of water, and then we come the next day to it, we think, oh, that's the water I saw yesterday, right? Ah, here's the river, but it's already way gone, the water of yesterday is no more in front of us, right? It's constantly flowing.
So this is confusion that happens on the account of similarity, something appears to be similar to its preceding moments, and that's how we label it continuity only on the basis of this similarity.
Right, so it only appears like the river, the flow of the little stream of water to be the same, like kind of the mental image of it that we perceive seems to be exactly one and the same as the previous one, and the previous mental image and the previous one, because they're similar, but if we investigate in a very subtle, subtle moment, well, they're different, they're not the same, they're not one and the same.
Oh, actually, if we speak about philosophical tenants, Buddhist philosophical schools, they all have slightly different ideas about what's real and what's true, and there are those schools that actually, well, one school, that believe that the three times past, present, future are substantially existent.
So the substances already exist, the substances of the past are existent of the present, of the future, the only issue is that some of them become apparent and manifest, right, and some are kind of hidden and not manifest, but they're already truly there. So the non-Buddhist, some non-Buddhist claim that, and also there's a Buddhist school that asserts that, so.
And in that case, from the point of view of that school, causes and results will have to be present simultaneously, because all three times are present.
But here we're discussing the middle way school, and, and from their point of view, that's not tenable.
Eh, however, please carry on this discussion with John Dunne.
Because it's really important to discuss this kind of modern science, and Buddhist philosophy.
It's based on these kind of questions that we can really analyze, investigate and understand what impermanence truly means, at a very subtle level.
And Rinpoche always, when he talks about the four Dharma seals, he always emphasizes that there's not a single phenomenon that is permanent. Everything is constantly changing and fluctuates, moment by moment.
And by understanding impermanence, in other words, understanding that nothing remains the same for just two single subtle moments, right, never going to be the same, that points us to this truth of non-origination, non-production, what we're discussing here.
And this kind of discussion prompted by this question, also really could help us to see the true nature, that is to say emptiness. Like, really we can understand intellectually what is meant by emptiness when we understand the impermanence, this kind of... on a subtle level.
So really an important discussion to have.
Any other questions?
Let's see if there's any questions online, because it takes memory to...
OK, just in the case of meditation, and if I have the impression, OK, let's say I meditate on the father of Rinpoche, and there is some special energy, it is somehow to say there's some Dharmakāya, but there's also some special Rūpakāya form body. And like when I would meditate on Rinpoche, there's um, also Dharmakāya, but it's a special other form body. So um... yeah, I just read it like this, I don't know.
I'm not extremely clear about the question itself. I mean, if you, I don't know if you're a German speaker, and it's easier for you to ask in German, and then we will translate into English.
So, yeah. Why is it a form body?
I don't know if the question is, is it all right if I meditate like that? That my, that I concentrate on Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, and I have an experience of Dharmakāya, but also it has a different energy, impression on me, because the Rūpakāya is different, than when I meditate on Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche there's also Dharmakāya, but then the Rūpakāya experience is different, because the person is different. OK.
For the beginners, like us in our practice of meditation, it's very hard for us not to rely on any kind of form, right? Some appearance, some form. Like in other words, like Rūpakāya, the form body of our root teacher, right? We meditate on that appearance of the root teacher, and then light emanates from the body of the root teacher, all this takes place, but at the end of the day, we kind of really, um... Dharmakāya is this non-conceptual qualities of wisdom, of the minds, the enlightened minds of the teachers, that that's what's meditated upon, the Dharmakāya.
One question from online before we stop, maybe? Just the last one. If not, we can answer tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. I would like to know that if nothing really is there, how the Buddhas can manifest here in the world, is there a cause and effect too? Like the sun, without any concept, always be shining.
In Uttarātāntra Śāstra, it is stated like that, the example of the sun, shining without any conceptuality on its part.
These kind of uh, two questions, we can discuss it more tomorrow.
One it pertains to the topic of guru yoga, the practice of guru yoga, another one of like the jewel ornament of liberation, the non-conceptual activity, the Buddhas.
Oh, in the page, yeah? Okay, page number nine.
sönam diyi thamché sikpa nyi thopné nyepai dranam phamjé né kyega nachi balap trukpa yi sipai tsolé drowa drölwar shok jangchup semchok rinpoché ma kyepa nam kyé gyurchik kyepa nyampa mepa yang gongné gongdu phelwar shok
42:43
If we go further, how can we feel
non-existent phenomena?
Or are our feelings also non-existent?
Then what actually exists?
Until we haven't abandoned saṃsāra and our afflictions, feelings exist.
Just like in a dream, until we wake up, all those things that we experience, they do exist for as long as the dream lasts.
Then, well, what's there? Uh, once we are freed from all these confused experiences of happiness, pleasure and pain, what's there at the end? Well, once we are freed from these dualistic pleasure and pain experiences, We... what's there? We call it a great bliss.
And we call it a non-conceptual, primordial wakefulness that abides in the enlightened minds of all the Buddhas.
Well, we do speak, uh, giving these kind of examples, about the mind, yeah? But it's not only about our conceptual mind and the experiences that take place in the mind, it's really likewise about all the forms that we see, the sounds that we hear, the smells, the taste, the touch, right? And likewi... We call it five objects of sense pleasures. And likewise, the minds that experience them, the five or six mental consciousnesses, all of these objects, subjects, dualistic kind of framework will fall apart once we are freed from saṃsāra.
In short, you won't have any problems anymore, okay?
Our troubles really come from us having all these multitude different feelings and experiences. That will end.
Well, you see, we all kind of have these afflictions that fall into the side of either of us having all this lust, detachment, desire or aggression anger, aversion, right? This will be done, we will be done with that. Will be gone.
And when we come to realize the true nature of all phenomena, of our own minds, how they really truly are in the ultimate sense, we'll be freed from all these problems, troubles, pain.
There was a follow-up question, but I think the first one is answered. Can we walk the earth even when we leave saṃsāra? I think this was answered. And then the second question was, so basically, is time an illusion? I will translate both, right? Thank you.
Why do we claim that saṃsāra, cyclic existence, is that of, by nature is that of suffering? If we think, if we look at the presentation of the four noble truths, we have to see that it's through the power of karma and afflictive emotions, the truth of a origin, that you know that suffering arise.
Once we are freed from the origin of suffering, that is to say, no karma, well, first no afflictive emotions, then no karma, we... saṃsāra still arises. Sorry Khenpo.
Sorry, I will re-translate. It's not that saṃsāra exists. We do take birth in saṃsāra, even when we are freed from afflictions, kleśas and karma. But that birth is not the birth of suffering. There's no suffering involved in taking that kind of rebirth in saṃsāra. It's not due to, you know, it's not through the power of afflictions and karma.
We call that the enlightened activity then of the emanation body of the Buddha, of the enjoyment body, right? We call those like Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, births.
That kind of a enlightened activity, is it really real from the perspective of the enlightened mind of the Buddha himself? No.
Because the, that kind of self-display from the you know self display from the point view of the Buddha's mind is known as Dharmakāya.
And the other two bodies, the four mentioned together, we call them the form body, Rūpakāya, right? So Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, they do arise, but they eh, not arising from the kind of self-display of the Buddha's enlightened mind, that's only Dharmakāya. But they appear for the power of aspirations made by the sentient beings, and through their merit.
And that form body consists of the two enlightened bodies of the Buddha, performs all these different benefits for the sentient beings out of great compassion, right, but without any conceptuality whatsoever.
So speaking about this question about walking the earth, right, well, you are in saṃsāra when you take birth like that, but you know it's the birth of the form body of the Buddha, Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, it appears, but all the activity is carried out by that, Rūpakāya, is done without any, any involvement of conceptual thought, discursive thought.
Of the sun or the moon shining brightly, and it's always the, well ok let's say sun it's always the case, however, whether the reflection of that sun appears on the surface of the body of the water in some vessel, that's, you know, put outside, depends how clean is the water, but how unstirred is the water, how, you know, how is it muddy or not. If it's completely pure and still, then we will see many fold reflections on the surface of the body of the water, but the sun is always there.
So from the Buddha's Dharmakāya's point of view, that dimension, well, that body of, of, of Dharmas, Dharmakāya, all the activities, sorry, maybe I'll restart, all the enlightened activities of the form body of the Buddha performed in this world, it's all done while being not separated from Dharmakāya, right, whatsoever. And it's done for the benefit of sentient beings in a manyfold different ways, depending on the faculties, predispositions, interests of sentient beings and their merit.
In this way, having realized no production, well, you can say, right, that there is no production, no origination whatsoever, in other words, having become a Buddha, an awakened one, right, for that being, from the point of view of that enlightened mind, that realized mind of that Buddha, there is no saṃsāra, there is no nirvana, there is no separation between those two. However, for the beings who still are in saṃsāra, there are all these manyfold appearances, right, experiences, and they need to be guided, they need to be helped, they need to be taught, they need to be freed from all of that. And so, kind of, the Buddha teaches the beings, according to their level, you know, being stuck in saṃsāra, but from one's own enlightened wisdom, there is no saṃsāra, there are no appearances of saṃsāra, there is no nirvana. One is already beyond those kind of dualistic frames of wor, mind.
Whether the Buddha has appeared, whether the Buddha has come or not come, the true nature of all phenomena is primordially so, right, it's just how things truly are.
The next, second question was, to remind everyone, is whether time is an illusion. Khenpo la says that from the Mahāyāna point of view, um, every phenomenon is an illusion. Everything is just a label. Right? It's just a label, a name we assign, but in and of itself, it's not truly existent. And everything is like that, including time.
If cause and effect can't exist simultaneously, how do you justify dynamic equilibrium’s in various systems such as chemical equilibrium? Maybe John Dunne will have to help me. I actually didn't hear. If the, if the cause and effect is not simultaneous, then what? How do you justify dynamic equilibrium? Well, for this one, you will need to explain what's dynamic equilibrium to, at least to me.
So in chemical systems you can have two chemicals that react together and that reaction results in the formation of products and these products also react together that results in the formation of those previous reactants and they both occur simultaneously so the cause and effect of the other exists perpetually so they can both cause and effect the other existence and it continues on indefinitely so the cause and effect is visible for both at the same time.
Anya, do you want me to try? Yes, please. Um, I can... yes. Or do you want to do it? No, I will just kind of tell Khenpo la that I'll say something and then you'll probably have to step in to help.
That's what I can say and then I guess that's all.
In the chemical system, are you actually producing separate compounds? They're chemically and physically distinct. So they're different identities, yeah? And they both exist at the same time. And they both cause the other to exist. But they become different identities as compounds, yeah? But they continuously form each other. Great. Changing, transforming your substrate. But the cause and effect is still observable at the same time. For your eyes? Yeah, you can still physically see it at the same time. And even potentially it can exist indefinitely and the cause and effect is visible the entire time.
Uh, So Connor, depending on how you understand causality, maybe just to clarify a little bit. So let's take a chemical system that's in dynamic equilibrium. Uh, let's say one reactant is producing another. Does it produce it in the same exact moment or does it produce it in the subsequent moment? They produce it, it exists at the same time. No, but, no but, I mean a reactant, like if you take a specific, we have two reactants. One produces the other. No, you have two reactants, they react together to form a product. So then react together to form reactants and they exist at the same time. So overall, there's no change in proportion to either side. But actually in the time course, in the time course, they're not producing each other at the same time. Well, they are, because there's no observable change in concentration. It's still the same number at each side that's still physically observable to change. Right, but. Are you looking at the average as the substance? Yeah, because in the... we should maybe talk about this later, because my understanding of that kind of dynamical system is that it's over a time course. No, because if you have, like say two liters of something, you'll have one liter of products and one liter of reactants. That will never change, but the reactions are constantly changing. So the cause and effect is continuously observable for both things at the same time, even though there's no change. So I think this question involves a discussion about what dynamical systems are, that is. So I'll say this basic thing. The liter's volume is actually changing. So what you're doing is you're abstract, you’re abstracting the measure of a liter from the system. So when you do that abstraction, you can say that's the same, but on this model, those actually are not the same. Those are conceptual abstractions. So I can tell you more about it later, because I think it will take too much to really get into it. So I, I don't, I think that's not a count, that's not a counter example. But I... We have to take it a long time.
...
So for generally, we say, there are parents, there are children, they're present at the same time, right? We have... But this what we discuss here is not like that. Yea? It's not about that kind of dynamic of saying, yeah, they are at the same time in the same room.
Well, the Buddhists claim that if cause and result do not change moment by moment, the moment is extremely the tiniest fraction of time. Like yea. There is no, nothing could take, there will be no effect, there will be no efficacy. Nothing can be produced.
We see right now some kind of continuity right? Long term, over the long term.
At the time when we observe the result, the cause has already changed, because everything changes moment by moment. It cannot remain the same, right? It, it... So it's already something is gone, it's different.
If substance remains completely immutable, um, then it cannot be causally efficacious, cannot do anything.
If it changes, you know, then, as to say, subsequent moment is not exactly the same as the preceding one, right? It's too... There is some change that took place.
So at the time of any given result, the cause has already changed into something else. It cannot have remained the same, same completely, right?
Right, so for, let's think about the substance, right? And then there is the kind of power dynamic of that substance, and for that dynamic to increase over time, right, it needs to grow. And the growth means something was small, becoming big, so there is already a change that's been enacted, right?
So let's see. To increase that, for something to increase over time, for any dynamic of the power of any given substance, then the previous preceding moment, when the power was less strong, it has to be gone, so to say, so that the next subsequent moment where the power grows can take place. Like for us to grow as right, as beings, like the previous moment when we are small, let's say, has to disappear. It can't remain on the side also being there, right? For us to become older, the previous moment is no more there. It's gone, you understand? So there is some kind of change in terms of the growth, and it only can take place when the previous moment changes, or it's gone, and gives space for the next moment to take place.
Right now we don't have uh, you know next to us also some copy of us when we were a kid present, because it kind of remained, right? It's no more. We can only look at the pictures and videos of us when we were kids, and that's all what remains. But th, that, us actually being small, that's gone, so that we can be now ourselves, like adults.
Likewise, okay, that's kind of over a long period of time, but if you think just about yesterday, our body of yesterday is not the same body that we have today. If we compare it, there's already big change.
The hair has grown, the nails, right, the facial hair, who have it, so.
Right, and this is again kind of on the big scale, but we are still, well we assert as Buddhists that even on the most subtle moments of time the same process, the same dynamics take place, that change occurs.
But to observe it directly, there's only one, one, one instance, one occasion.
We can count and say, well, there's previous, the sequent moment, one, two, three, four, five, to you know, thousands, but at any given moment, there's only one, right? One instance, one occasion. The rest are just numbers.
So out of those, let's say thousands, thousands of moments, if we pick one, there's only one. Like if we right now want to choose one, that's it, that's the one. I'm choosing another one, that's it. This is the only one I can choose, and the previous is already gone, and the next one has not a reason. At any given moment, I can only, only point to one. The rest is non-existent.
So here we're going into the John's territory, that is to say, Pramāṇa. Buddhist logic, epistemology, when we talk about either what the uh, the gentleman was speaking about, the general systems, right, he was talking about dynamics in terms of generality, but also we distinguish between particularities and generalities, and those two, and Khenpo la says it looks like what happens is what we call, it's a very technical terms in Pramāṇa, when we fuse the object, the preceding object, with its name, with its label. Like we call it something, but... right...
We fuse the object and its name in our minds and think it's one and the same, however, it's just the label, the object, we cannot really observe, according to this.
However, there is a purpose, of course, for you know why our minds are doing that, so that we can kind of function in this world, right? Pick up a cup, well we know it's a cup, but kind of, but we fuse.
In reality, there's no any specifically characterized phenomena eh, that are truly existent in terms of specificities, right?
In the... In the middle way system, we call it continuity.
For example, to understand what we mean by that, if we come to a little stream of water, and then we come the next day to it, we think, oh, that's the water I saw yesterday, right? Ah, here's the river, but it's already way gone, the water of yesterday is no more in front of us, right? It's constantly flowing.
So this is confusion that happens on the account of similarity, something appears to be similar to its preceding moments, and that's how we label it continuity only on the basis of this similarity.
Right, so it only appears like the river, the flow of the little stream of water to be the same, like kind of the mental image of it that we perceive seems to be exactly one and the same as the previous one, and the previous mental image and the previous one, because they're similar, but if we investigate in a very subtle, subtle moment, well, they're different, they're not the same, they're not one and the same.
Oh, actually, if we speak about philosophical tenants, Buddhist philosophical schools, they all have slightly different ideas about what's real and what's true, and there are those schools that actually, well, one school, that believe that the three times past, present, future are substantially existent.
So the substances already exist, the substances of the past are existent of the present, of the future, the only issue is that some of them become apparent and manifest, right, and some are kind of hidden and not manifest, but they're already truly there. So the non-Buddhist, some non-Buddhist claim that, and also there's a Buddhist school that asserts that, so.
And in that case, from the point of view of that school, causes and results will have to be present simultaneously, because all three times are present.
But here we're discussing the middle way school, and, and from their point of view, that's not tenable.
Eh, however, please carry on this discussion with John Dunne.
Because it's really important to discuss this kind of modern science, and Buddhist philosophy.
It's based on these kind of questions that we can really analyze, investigate and understand what impermanence truly means, at a very subtle level.
And Rinpoche always, when he talks about the four Dharma seals, he always emphasizes that there's not a single phenomenon that is permanent. Everything is constantly changing and fluctuates, moment by moment.
And by understanding impermanence, in other words, understanding that nothing remains the same for just two single subtle moments, right, never going to be the same, that points us to this truth of non-origination, non-production, what we're discussing here.
And this kind of discussion prompted by this question, also really could help us to see the true nature, that is to say emptiness. Like, really we can understand intellectually what is meant by emptiness when we understand the impermanence, this kind of... on a subtle level.
So really an important discussion to have.
Any other questions?
Let's see if there's any questions online, because it takes memory to...
OK, just in the case of meditation, and if I have the impression, OK, let's say I meditate on the father of Rinpoche, and there is some special energy, it is somehow to say there's some Dharmakāya, but there's also some special Rūpakāya form body. And like when I would meditate on Rinpoche, there's um, also Dharmakāya, but it's a special other form body. So um... yeah, I just read it like this, I don't know.
I'm not extremely clear about the question itself. I mean, if you, I don't know if you're a German speaker, and it's easier for you to ask in German, and then we will translate into English.
So, yeah. Why is it a form body?
I don't know if the question is, is it all right if I meditate like that? That my, that I concentrate on Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, and I have an experience of Dharmakāya, but also it has a different energy, impression on me, because the Rūpakāya is different, than when I meditate on Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche there's also Dharmakāya, but then the Rūpakāya experience is different, because the person is different. OK.
For the beginners, like us in our practice of meditation, it's very hard for us not to rely on any kind of form, right? Some appearance, some form. Like in other words, like Rūpakāya, the form body of our root teacher, right? We meditate on that appearance of the root teacher, and then light emanates from the body of the root teacher, all this takes place, but at the end of the day, we kind of really, um... Dharmakāya is this non-conceptual qualities of wisdom, of the minds, the enlightened minds of the teachers, that that's what's meditated upon, the Dharmakāya.
One question from online before we stop, maybe? Just the last one. If not, we can answer tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. I would like to know that if nothing really is there, how the Buddhas can manifest here in the world, is there a cause and effect too? Like the sun, without any concept, always be shining.
In Uttarātāntra Śāstra, it is stated like that, the example of the sun, shining without any conceptuality on its part.
These kind of uh, two questions, we can discuss it more tomorrow.
One it pertains to the topic of guru yoga, the practice of guru yoga, another one of like the jewel ornament of liberation, the non-conceptual activity, the Buddhas.
Oh, in the page, yeah? Okay, page number nine.
sönam diyi thamché sikpa nyi thopné nyepai dranam phamjé né kyega nachi balap trukpa yi sipai tsolé drowa drölwar shok jangchup semchok rinpoché ma kyepa nam kyé gyurchik kyepa nyampa mepa yang gongné gongdu phelwar shok
Until we haven't abandoned saṃsāra and our afflictions, feelings exist.
Just like in a dream, until we wake up, all those things that we experience, they do exist for as long as the dream lasts.
Then, well, what's there? Uh, once we are freed from all these confused experiences of happiness, pleasure and pain, what's there at the end? Well, once we are freed from these dualistic pleasure and pain experiences, We... what's there? We call it a great bliss.
And we call it a non-conceptual, primordial wakefulness that abides in the enlightened minds of all the Buddhas.
Well, we do speak, uh, giving these kind of examples, about the mind, yeah? But it's not only about our conceptual mind and the experiences that take place in the mind, it's really likewise about all the forms that we see, the sounds that we hear, the smells, the taste, the touch, right? And likewi... We call it five objects of sense pleasures. And likewise, the minds that experience them, the five or six mental consciousnesses, all of these objects, subjects, dualistic kind of framework will fall apart once we are freed from saṃsāra.
In short, you won't have any problems anymore, okay?
Our troubles really come from us having all these multitude different feelings and experiences. That will end.
Well, you see, we all kind of have these afflictions that fall into the side of either of us having all this lust, detachment, desire or aggression anger, aversion, right? This will be done, we will be done with that. Will be gone.
And when we come to realize the true nature of all phenomena, of our own minds, how they really truly are in the ultimate sense, we'll be freed from all these problems, troubles, pain.
There was a follow-up question, but I think the first one is answered. Can we walk the earth even when we leave saṃsāra? I think this was answered. And then the second question was, so basically, is time an illusion? I will translate both, right? Thank you.
Why do we claim that saṃsāra, cyclic existence, is that of, by nature is that of suffering? If we think, if we look at the presentation of the four noble truths, we have to see that it's through the power of karma and afflictive emotions, the truth of a origin, that you know that suffering arise.
Once we are freed from the origin of suffering, that is to say, no karma, well, first no afflictive emotions, then no karma, we... saṃsāra still arises. Sorry Khenpo.
Sorry, I will re-translate. It's not that saṃsāra exists. We do take birth in saṃsāra, even when we are freed from afflictions, kleśas and karma. But that birth is not the birth of suffering. There's no suffering involved in taking that kind of rebirth in saṃsāra. It's not due to, you know, it's not through the power of afflictions and karma.
We call that the enlightened activity then of the emanation body of the Buddha, of the enjoyment body, right? We call those like Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, births.
That kind of a enlightened activity, is it really real from the perspective of the enlightened mind of the Buddha himself? No.
Because the, that kind of self-display from the you know self display from the point view of the Buddha's mind is known as Dharmakāya.
And the other two bodies, the four mentioned together, we call them the form body, Rūpakāya, right? So Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, they do arise, but they eh, not arising from the kind of self-display of the Buddha's enlightened mind, that's only Dharmakāya. But they appear for the power of aspirations made by the sentient beings, and through their merit.
And that form body consists of the two enlightened bodies of the Buddha, performs all these different benefits for the sentient beings out of great compassion, right, but without any conceptuality whatsoever.
So speaking about this question about walking the earth, right, well, you are in saṃsāra when you take birth like that, but you know it's the birth of the form body of the Buddha, Nirmāṇakāya, Saṃbhogakāya, it appears, but all the activity is carried out by that, Rūpakāya, is done without any, any involvement of conceptual thought, discursive thought.
Of the sun or the moon shining brightly, and it's always the, well ok let's say sun it's always the case, however, whether the reflection of that sun appears on the surface of the body of the water in some vessel, that's, you know, put outside, depends how clean is the water, but how unstirred is the water, how, you know, how is it muddy or not. If it's completely pure and still, then we will see many fold reflections on the surface of the body of the water, but the sun is always there.
So from the Buddha's Dharmakāya's point of view, that dimension, well, that body of, of, of Dharmas, Dharmakāya, all the activities, sorry, maybe I'll restart, all the enlightened activities of the form body of the Buddha performed in this world, it's all done while being not separated from Dharmakāya, right, whatsoever. And it's done for the benefit of sentient beings in a manyfold different ways, depending on the faculties, predispositions, interests of sentient beings and their merit.
In this way, having realized no production, well, you can say, right, that there is no production, no origination whatsoever, in other words, having become a Buddha, an awakened one, right, for that being, from the point of view of that enlightened mind, that realized mind of that Buddha, there is no saṃsāra, there is no nirvana, there is no separation between those two. However, for the beings who still are in saṃsāra, there are all these manyfold appearances, right, experiences, and they need to be guided, they need to be helped, they need to be taught, they need to be freed from all of that. And so, kind of, the Buddha teaches the beings, according to their level, you know, being stuck in saṃsāra, but from one's own enlightened wisdom, there is no saṃsāra, there are no appearances of saṃsāra, there is no nirvana. One is already beyond those kind of dualistic frames of wor, mind.
Whether the Buddha has appeared, whether the Buddha has come or not come, the true nature of all phenomena is primordially so, right, it's just how things truly are.
The next, second question was, to remind everyone, is whether time is an illusion. Khenpo la says that from the Mahāyāna point of view, um, every phenomenon is an illusion. Everything is just a label. Right? It's just a label, a name we assign, but in and of itself, it's not truly existent. And everything is like that, including time.
If cause and effect can't exist simultaneously, how do you justify dynamic equilibrium’s in various systems such as chemical equilibrium? Maybe John Dunne will have to help me. I actually didn't hear. If the, if the cause and effect is not simultaneous, then what? How do you justify dynamic equilibrium? Well, for this one, you will need to explain what's dynamic equilibrium to, at least to me.
So in chemical systems you can have two chemicals that react together and that reaction results in the formation of products and these products also react together that results in the formation of those previous reactants and they both occur simultaneously so the cause and effect of the other exists perpetually so they can both cause and effect the other existence and it continues on indefinitely so the cause and effect is visible for both at the same time.
Anya, do you want me to try? Yes, please. Um, I can... yes. Or do you want to do it? No, I will just kind of tell Khenpo la that I'll say something and then you'll probably have to step in to help.
That's what I can say and then I guess that's all.
In the chemical system, are you actually producing separate compounds? They're chemically and physically distinct. So they're different identities, yeah? And they both exist at the same time. And they both cause the other to exist. But they become different identities as compounds, yeah? But they continuously form each other. Great. Changing, transforming your substrate. But the cause and effect is still observable at the same time. For your eyes? Yeah, you can still physically see it at the same time. And even potentially it can exist indefinitely and the cause and effect is visible the entire time.
Uh, So Connor, depending on how you understand causality, maybe just to clarify a little bit. So let's take a chemical system that's in dynamic equilibrium. Uh, let's say one reactant is producing another. Does it produce it in the same exact moment or does it produce it in the subsequent moment? They produce it, it exists at the same time. No, but, no but, I mean a reactant, like if you take a specific, we have two reactants. One produces the other. No, you have two reactants, they react together to form a product. So then react together to form reactants and they exist at the same time. So overall, there's no change in proportion to either side. But actually in the time course, in the time course, they're not producing each other at the same time. Well, they are, because there's no observable change in concentration. It's still the same number at each side that's still physically observable to change. Right, but. Are you looking at the average as the substance? Yeah, because in the... we should maybe talk about this later, because my understanding of that kind of dynamical system is that it's over a time course. No, because if you have, like say two liters of something, you'll have one liter of products and one liter of reactants. That will never change, but the reactions are constantly changing. So the cause and effect is continuously observable for both things at the same time, even though there's no change. So I think this question involves a discussion about what dynamical systems are, that is. So I'll say this basic thing. The liter's volume is actually changing. So what you're doing is you're abstract, you’re abstracting the measure of a liter from the system. So when you do that abstraction, you can say that's the same, but on this model, those actually are not the same. Those are conceptual abstractions. So I can tell you more about it later, because I think it will take too much to really get into it. So I, I don't, I think that's not a count, that's not a counter example. But I... We have to take it a long time.
...
So for generally, we say, there are parents, there are children, they're present at the same time, right? We have... But this what we discuss here is not like that. Yea? It's not about that kind of dynamic of saying, yeah, they are at the same time in the same room.
Well, the Buddhists claim that if cause and result do not change moment by moment, the moment is extremely the tiniest fraction of time. Like yea. There is no, nothing could take, there will be no effect, there will be no efficacy. Nothing can be produced.
We see right now some kind of continuity right? Long term, over the long term.
At the time when we observe the result, the cause has already changed, because everything changes moment by moment. It cannot remain the same, right? It, it... So it's already something is gone, it's different.
If substance remains completely immutable, um, then it cannot be causally efficacious, cannot do anything.
If it changes, you know, then, as to say, subsequent moment is not exactly the same as the preceding one, right? It's too... There is some change that took place.
So at the time of any given result, the cause has already changed into something else. It cannot have remained the same, same completely, right?
Right, so for, let's think about the substance, right? And then there is the kind of power dynamic of that substance, and for that dynamic to increase over time, right, it needs to grow. And the growth means something was small, becoming big, so there is already a change that's been enacted, right?
So let's see. To increase that, for something to increase over time, for any dynamic of the power of any given substance, then the previous preceding moment, when the power was less strong, it has to be gone, so to say, so that the next subsequent moment where the power grows can take place. Like for us to grow as right, as beings, like the previous moment when we are small, let's say, has to disappear. It can't remain on the side also being there, right? For us to become older, the previous moment is no more there. It's gone, you understand? So there is some kind of change in terms of the growth, and it only can take place when the previous moment changes, or it's gone, and gives space for the next moment to take place.
Right now we don't have uh, you know next to us also some copy of us when we were a kid present, because it kind of remained, right? It's no more. We can only look at the pictures and videos of us when we were kids, and that's all what remains. But th, that, us actually being small, that's gone, so that we can be now ourselves, like adults.
Likewise, okay, that's kind of over a long period of time, but if you think just about yesterday, our body of yesterday is not the same body that we have today. If we compare it, there's already big change.
The hair has grown, the nails, right, the facial hair, who have it, so.
Right, and this is again kind of on the big scale, but we are still, well we assert as Buddhists that even on the most subtle moments of time the same process, the same dynamics take place, that change occurs.
But to observe it directly, there's only one, one, one instance, one occasion.
We can count and say, well, there's previous, the sequent moment, one, two, three, four, five, to you know, thousands, but at any given moment, there's only one, right? One instance, one occasion. The rest are just numbers.
So out of those, let's say thousands, thousands of moments, if we pick one, there's only one. Like if we right now want to choose one, that's it, that's the one. I'm choosing another one, that's it. This is the only one I can choose, and the previous is already gone, and the next one has not a reason. At any given moment, I can only, only point to one. The rest is non-existent.
So here we're going into the John's territory, that is to say, Pramāṇa. Buddhist logic, epistemology, when we talk about either what the uh, the gentleman was speaking about, the general systems, right, he was talking about dynamics in terms of generality, but also we distinguish between particularities and generalities, and those two, and Khenpo la says it looks like what happens is what we call, it's a very technical terms in Pramāṇa, when we fuse the object, the preceding object, with its name, with its label. Like we call it something, but... right...
We fuse the object and its name in our minds and think it's one and the same, however, it's just the label, the object, we cannot really observe, according to this.
However, there is a purpose, of course, for you know why our minds are doing that, so that we can kind of function in this world, right? Pick up a cup, well we know it's a cup, but kind of, but we fuse.
In reality, there's no any specifically characterized phenomena eh, that are truly existent in terms of specificities, right?
In the... In the middle way system, we call it continuity.
For example, to understand what we mean by that, if we come to a little stream of water, and then we come the next day to it, we think, oh, that's the water I saw yesterday, right? Ah, here's the river, but it's already way gone, the water of yesterday is no more in front of us, right? It's constantly flowing.
So this is confusion that happens on the account of similarity, something appears to be similar to its preceding moments, and that's how we label it continuity only on the basis of this similarity.
Right, so it only appears like the river, the flow of the little stream of water to be the same, like kind of the mental image of it that we perceive seems to be exactly one and the same as the previous one, and the previous mental image and the previous one, because they're similar, but if we investigate in a very subtle, subtle moment, well, they're different, they're not the same, they're not one and the same.
Oh, actually, if we speak about philosophical tenants, Buddhist philosophical schools, they all have slightly different ideas about what's real and what's true, and there are those schools that actually, well, one school, that believe that the three times past, present, future are substantially existent.
So the substances already exist, the substances of the past are existent of the present, of the future, the only issue is that some of them become apparent and manifest, right, and some are kind of hidden and not manifest, but they're already truly there. So the non-Buddhist, some non-Buddhist claim that, and also there's a Buddhist school that asserts that, so.
And in that case, from the point of view of that school, causes and results will have to be present simultaneously, because all three times are present.
But here we're discussing the middle way school, and, and from their point of view, that's not tenable.
Eh, however, please carry on this discussion with John Dunne.
Because it's really important to discuss this kind of modern science, and Buddhist philosophy.
It's based on these kind of questions that we can really analyze, investigate and understand what impermanence truly means, at a very subtle level.
And Rinpoche always, when he talks about the four Dharma seals, he always emphasizes that there's not a single phenomenon that is permanent. Everything is constantly changing and fluctuates, moment by moment.
And by understanding impermanence, in other words, understanding that nothing remains the same for just two single subtle moments, right, never going to be the same, that points us to this truth of non-origination, non-production, what we're discussing here.
And this kind of discussion prompted by this question, also really could help us to see the true nature, that is to say emptiness. Like, really we can understand intellectually what is meant by emptiness when we understand the impermanence, this kind of... on a subtle level.
So really an important discussion to have.
Any other questions?
Let's see if there's any questions online, because it takes memory to...
OK, just in the case of meditation, and if I have the impression, OK, let's say I meditate on the father of Rinpoche, and there is some special energy, it is somehow to say there's some Dharmakāya, but there's also some special Rūpakāya form body. And like when I would meditate on Rinpoche, there's um, also Dharmakāya, but it's a special other form body. So um... yeah, I just read it like this, I don't know.
I'm not extremely clear about the question itself. I mean, if you, I don't know if you're a German speaker, and it's easier for you to ask in German, and then we will translate into English.
So, yeah. Why is it a form body?
I don't know if the question is, is it all right if I meditate like that? That my, that I concentrate on Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, and I have an experience of Dharmakāya, but also it has a different energy, impression on me, because the Rūpakāya is different, than when I meditate on Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche there's also Dharmakāya, but then the Rūpakāya experience is different, because the person is different. OK.
For the beginners, like us in our practice of meditation, it's very hard for us not to rely on any kind of form, right? Some appearance, some form. Like in other words, like Rūpakāya, the form body of our root teacher, right? We meditate on that appearance of the root teacher, and then light emanates from the body of the root teacher, all this takes place, but at the end of the day, we kind of really, um... Dharmakāya is this non-conceptual qualities of wisdom, of the minds, the enlightened minds of the teachers, that that's what's meditated upon, the Dharmakāya.
One question from online before we stop, maybe? Just the last one. If not, we can answer tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. I would like to know that if nothing really is there, how the Buddhas can manifest here in the world, is there a cause and effect too? Like the sun, without any concept, always be shining.
In Uttarātāntra Śāstra, it is stated like that, the example of the sun, shining without any conceptuality on its part.
These kind of uh, two questions, we can discuss it more tomorrow.
One it pertains to the topic of guru yoga, the practice of guru yoga, another one of like the jewel ornament of liberation, the non-conceptual activity, the Buddhas.
Oh, in the page, yeah? Okay, page number nine.
sönam diyi thamché sikpa nyi thopné nyepai dranam phamjé né kyega nachi balap trukpa yi sipai tsolé drowa drölwar shok jangchup semchok rinpoché ma kyepa nam kyé gyurchik kyepa nyampa mepa yang gongné gongdu phelwar shok
