You are currently logged-out. You can log-in or create an account to see more talks, save favorites, and more. more info

Challenging Essence: Nagarjuna's Radical Wisdom

(AI Title)
00:00
00:00
Audio loading...
Serial: 
RA-02780

AI Suggested Keywords:

AI Summary: 

The talk centers on Nagarjuna's teachings, particularly the concept of "essence" and the rejection of causal efficacy. The discussion delves into Nagarjuna's arguments against the inherent existence of essence in entities such as oak trees and acorns, using the perspective of dependent co-arising. It challenges conventional beliefs in essences within conditions and the role of causes and effects. The speaker highlights how Nagarjuna's philosophy aims to dismantle perceived metaphysical truths, advocating for a view where all phenomena are interdependent without inherent essence, aligning with Mahayana principles and the Bodhisattva Path's commitment to liberating beings from delusions.

Referenced Works:

  • Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: Central to the discussion, it outlines principles of emptiness and critiques the idea of inherent existence and causal efficacy, laying the foundation for subsequent arguments on dependent co-arising.

  • The Jewel Mirror Awareness: Cited for its caution against excitement as a spiritual pitfall, related to Nagarjuna's teachings.

  • The Heart Sutra: Referenced in connection to reactions to emptiness and non-duality, compared to historical teachings and their impact on audiences, exemplified through Dung Shan’s experience.

  • Nagarjuna’s Discussion of Conditions and Causes: Discusses the four kinds of causes and conditions—such as "sabaga" (similar cause) and "alambana" (object)—and how Nagarjuna critiques the notion of inherent essence within them.

Key Concepts:

  • Dependent Co-Arising (Pratītyasamutpāda): Essential in understanding the lack of inherent existence in phenomena and the interdependent nature of reality, as proposed by Nagarjuna.

  • Essence and Emptiness: Explores how Nagarjuna repudiates the presence of an intrinsic essence in all entities and conditions, emphasizing their empty nature.

  • Bodhisattva Path: Discussed as the practice of engaging with delusions to aid beings' liberation, reflecting the Mahayana focus on compassionate wisdom and emptiness.

By examining these teachings, the talk invites reflection on the rigidity of metaphysical beliefs and encourages the audience to explore how these principles apply to understanding self and existence.

AI Suggested Title: Challenging Essence: Nagarjuna's Radical Wisdom

Is This AI Summary Helpful?
Your vote will be used to help train our summarizer!
Photos: 
AI Vision Notes: 

Day:

Additional text: SONY, CD-R AUDIO, COMPACT disc DIGITAL AUDIO Recordable, 80 min

@AI-Vision_v003

Transcript: 

Thinking about your response, thinking about your response to this teaching of Nagarjuna, I noticed I was getting a little excited. And then I remembered the phrase from the jewel mirror awareness, which says, if you're excited, it becomes a pitfall. So this teaching, Nagarjuna is teaching, being one of our ancestors, he's teaching the same jewel mirror awareness. He's teaching the same practice of suchness. And when you see it, manifesting you see it starting to come alive in the world uh you you might get a little excited but yet be careful when you get excited about this otherwise you can fall into a pit and i feel like you're responding to this material as though this was like really you know you know it's touching your lives apparently

[01:21]

I sometimes wonder, you know, why people don't get more upset when they're reading the heart sutra, why don't they sort of storm out of there or, you know, say, you know, I don't know what. Why don't people get more upset? I guess maybe because nobody else did or something. But anyway, when you bring this new teaching in, which is basically the same kind of The same kind of teaching in the sense that it's a total affront to almost all of our entrenched habits. Since it's new and you're all exposed to it at the same time, you can also say, you can all say together, does that guy actually have any clothes on or not? Look naked to me, but they say, or rather, it looks like the guy has clothes on and they say he doesn't. So, like, when Dung Shan heard the Heart Sutra when he was a little boy, he said, but I have ears and I have eyes and nose and so on, so what's this business about this Heart Sutra?

[02:39]

So you people are responding, you know, and just like little Dung Shan, is that Nagarju is talking to you and you say, but I have essences in these things, I can see, you know, the callable essence working and so on, so I don't know, what's he talking about? Anyway, so that's good that you're actually feeling this is pushing on something in you or in your society or in your friends or something. It's pushing on some sense that there's an essence in things. And one person, you know, graciously offered that she actually thought there was an essence of oak tree in the acorn, that we can see it. And getting more scientific about it, she pointed out that it's in the DNA, the essence of the oak tree is in the DNA, actually it's an essence in that.

[03:41]

And that there really is a thing, and not only is there an essence of oak tree in acorns, but oak trees also have essence. which is in their DNA. So there actually are essence there, some people think. And Nagarjuna is saying, well, no. And he's not just saying no, he's taking the arguments of those who say there's the essence and playing them out. And we could maybe play them out in some ways that he didn't, because this is a short text. We can think of other examples and other deductions you can make from the position of things having essences that would lead to some other incoherent results. Also, I looked up the word efficacy, just in a regular dictionary, and it said that efficacy is the power or capacity to produce a desired result. power or capacity to produce a desired result, the ability to achieve a result, that's efficacy.

[04:50]

So Nagarjuna is saying that there are no causes like that that have efficacy. There are no conditions that have efficacy. That's what he's saying. Also effect, the word effect is something brought about by a cause or an agent. And a result is also something that occurs or exists as a consequence of a particular cause. So Nagarjuna is challenging the reality of these words, that there are such things as these words propose. There are words, as you all know, in the English language of things that don't exist, right? Are there even words which are pointing to the fact that some things don't exist? Like there's the English word delusion. In other words, you can think that something exists or that things are a certain way and it's not true.

[05:54]

Nagarjuna is saying, that a cause, an effective cause, is just something that people have dreamt up. There is not such a thing. There are not such things. He rejects that there are things that have efficacy. And I've been writing this book about the precepts and I talked about how if you observe the causes and conditions, the dependent core arising of evil, watch how it happens, that evil will lose its efficacy. But I'm going to change that to say it will lose its efficacy which it never had. If evil does have efficacy, just meditating on the causes and conditions of it probably won't rob it of it. But actually evil does not have efficacy and nothing else has efficacy either. Good also does not have efficacy, but who cares? Good doesn't need efficacy. It's good enough as it is. So good is good enough without efficacy, and fortunately evil doesn't have any efficacy, and neither does good.

[06:57]

But evil, if you meditate on evil, you see that it's not efficacious. You understand. If you study dependent core arising of evil, you will realize that it has no efficacy. It is ineffective, fortunately. And you might be sad to find out that good isn't effective, but again, don't be too sad because if you've got good, that's enough for a non-greedy person. For those of you who want more than that, that's called getting excited. So, here we go, into the breach. So the first Karaka, again, is where he, right off the bat, explicitly rejects the existence of efficacy and points to cause.

[08:06]

The word cause says there are no such things. Then, in the next character, he introduces these four kinds of causes, and you don't necessarily need to know exactly how to follow this, but maybe it might help a little bit. So we have four kinds of causes, four kinds of conditions. In a sense for it is... H, T, U, [...] T, Right, yeah, yeah.

[09:08]

Next one is, uh, um, someone, um, you know, uh, yeah, the last one, uh, [...] So K2, as I said before, means cause. So it's the condition of cause, but not cause and sexualization. Cause in the sense of all those things that can be construed as which were construed as some details of causal factors are included under the heading of this condition.

[10:20]

And so, for example, one of the causes is called sabaga. Sabaga means similar cause. So there is this kind of causal relationship would be the additional relationship where similar things seem to be . But you can see that connection without saying that they're either . Another one is Or as I said, it's Quran 8-2, which means that the 8-2 of basically allowing under this heading is to be a condition. But again, what Nagarajin is rejecting, we reject the causal power in affirming dependent polarizing.

[11:32]

So that's what he said was happening. The next one is called Alambana. Alambana means alum. L-A-M there means to hook onto. Alambana is something to hook onto. It's an object. So one of the conditions by which we co-arise with, one of the conditions we co-arise with is objects. Objects of consciousness, objects of relationships, and so on. The next one is samanantaprajaya. Samma means same, and then probably should be a long name there. And then an means not or without.

[12:38]

And antara means gap. So same immediate condition. Maybe same means not same, but complete or proper. So what it means is that there's a condition, which you all have noticed probably, that whenever anything arises, it always arises immediately upon the ceasing of what was there before. Or what's happening now has to stop happening for something else to happen. That's a condition. The stopping of what's happening now is a condition for something else to happen. But I might just point out for you to consider, is the essence, this is a condition, but could you make this into a cause?

[13:40]

It would be pretty hard to make this into a cause that you would imagine that in the ceasing of something, so that something else could happen, the essence of the thing that next happened was in the ceasing. So nobody's making a big case for that right now, but that's the point is that it's conditioned. You have to have that happen, logically, for what's happening has to stop something else to happen, has to cease in order for something else to happen. So whenever anything happens, it happens conditioned by or supported by, you know, co-produced with the fact that something else ceased. But also, the ceasing of that thing, co-dependently arises with the new thing happening, because you can't have something cease unless something else happens. So you see, they co-create each other. It's not like one has the productive power and the other one is produced by it, and therefore it's not like one has the essence and the next one's produced by that essence and then carries on the essence.

[14:46]

And the next one, avipati prajaya, is what I said before, is something called dominant dominant condition and that's very similar to the Karana Hetu just that it's allowed to happen okay so he Nagarjuna in the second verse lists them he said there are these things he doesn't say there's not these things doesn't reject the conditions Then in the next verse, he says that in these relational conditions, in these conditions, the self-nature of entities cannot exist. From the non-existence of self-nature, the other nature cannot exist either.

[15:52]

So he's just saying that in these conditions there isn't like a self nature, there isn't like an inherent existence in these conditions. There's not an essence in these things. There's not an essence of things that you can find in these conditions. So a condition, so far anyway, up till this point, most of us agree, I don't know, I actually haven't done a survey, but some of us agree that one of the conditions for acorn trees is acorns. We don't have any acorn trees without acorns. One of the conditions for acorns is also acorn trees.

[16:54]

A lot of us would agree. But what Nagarjuna is saying is that in the conditions, the essence of the thing, acorn, or the essence of the thing, acorn tree, is not found in the conditions. So we talked about this yesterday. The other conditions for oak trees is water, earth, Air, carbon dioxide and oxygen, nitrogen, so on. Sunlight. These are other conditions, right? And some people could see, oh, those are conditions, yeah. If you took those conditions away, you wouldn't have an oxygen. But it's interesting that almost no one in our little discussion group thought... You have a question? No, no, you didn't. We had chosen yesterday. Oh, okay. And the acorn essentialist was looking on this. So he really got into acorns and oak trees.

[17:56]

So in that discussion, we thought of other conditions for oak trees. And we noticed that most people would not think that in water was the essence of oak trees, or that in the earth was the essence of oak trees, or that in the nitrogen is the essence of oak trees, or that in the sun is the essence of oak trees, or that in whatever the other things were, you would find conditions that most people would list after studying the life of an oak tree, things that people would list as necessary conditions for the oak tree that you would have the essence in there. Aren't we also a necessary condition for the oak tree? And us too, right. Yeah, put us on the list. Whatever you want. You can put anything you want on the list. I welcome you to do so. And then we'll only take it off the list if somebody says, no, that's dispensable. But, yes, go ahead. It seems that there, then, isn't really anything that's dispensable.

[18:57]

And I'm wondering if there's really nothing that's dispensable, then why would you bother categorizing and seek admission? We talked about that, too. So, I talked to somebody about this last night, that when a certain person was born, in a certain room in a hospital. There was a fireman outside at that time. But they didn't list that fireman as one of the conditions for his birth. But strictly speaking, he was there. He was one of the conditions. And some people may say, what was the fireman doing out there? Was there essence of baby in that fireman? So in the totality of what happens, actually, everything is the cause for everything, actually. And it's only for human explanatory regularities and for negotiation in the world that we limit the list at all.

[20:05]

But in fact, when we usually talk about the birth of a human baby, we don't usually list very random people off the street as primary cause of practice. Or even as conditions. We list the conditions that are of interest to us. Like often we list the parents. The parents' social security numbers. Their insurance policy numbers. These are causes which we're interested in. But all, you know, they're all relevant. They wouldn't be in that hospital if they didn't have insurance and so on. But we actually, it's interesting that although you could make the list very big, still some people thought that there was not essence of oak tree in the water, but there was essence of oak tree in the acorn. Therefore, the acorn is an example of when we think the essence of something is there. And that essence of oak tree that's in the acorn, then, would get transmitted into its effect. But the effect would also carry the essence.

[21:08]

So that acorns have oak tree essence, and oak trees have oak tree essence. Now, I think some people, some early phases of human science, may have thought that the water contained the essence of all things. Or something like that. I don't know if they did. That water contained the essence of oak trees, pine trees, and so on. That they saw the essence. This is a kind of metaphysical insight. Nagarjuna would say metaphysical delusion. That you can see some very subtle, mysterious essence in France. From which all this stuff emanates. The self. Brahma. which emanates out into all these forms. And then the essence of Brahman goes into, you know, Aghi, which is the spirit behind fire. There's an essence of a self behind the fire, and there's a special subset of the essence of self behind the fire, the fire.se. And then fire has essence and so on. The self is transmitted.

[22:08]

So there is an essential and inherent existence of things, which is transmitted from the basic sense of substantial essence of things. But still, even the conditions are just, you know, Nagarjuna's not saying these are the conditions and these are really the conditions. It's just simply by regularity. If there's regularity, a fireman outside the room when the babies are born. You know, we watch. There's a mother there, and regularly the cervix gets pressed and opens, and the baby comes out, and the baby cries. These are things which are regularly associated, but gradually we notice. In recent decades, we have noticed, why was this a fireman lurking outside? You know? Is this new, or did we get to miss this before? Let's do a little experiment. Take the fireman. Let's keep all firemen away, and notice the babies don't come out. And they bring the apartment back in and just everything flows smoothly.

[23:11]

Very mysterious, but it's one of the conditions we hadn't expected. So then we would say, well, that's a condition. But someone else would say, well, how about the earth? Of course, yes. We forgot to mention that, but yes. How about the sun? Yes. How about the air? Yes. So in all the causes and conditions that are necessary, we'd specify the ones that are for our purposes explanatorily useful in order to discuss and to observe how things happen. And this we can actually see, you see. And if we can see how things happen, and you can add on the list as much as you want, but if you can see enough to disabuse yourself of the idea of essence, the job's done. That's all you have to do. I was just going to add that, you know, the example of the fireman's birth seems, you know, the same facility, but we do have a causal concept like that. We have the idea of catalysts.

[24:13]

You know, we don't know what they do in the way you should dip in because you know apparently the direction, but events only take place in the present. In this part of the year, they think about Well, firemen needed the third. That firemen was a condition for all third. You could say it was a good one condition for that one. But of course, there's always firemen somewhere, so firemen are not conditioned for all third. Everything in the universe. And someone said, well, isn't there essence of everything in everything? And in a sense, that's right. There is the essence of everything. So what is the essence of everything according to the . The essence of everything. Everything has the essence of having no essence. That's what essence is. Everything is marked or characterized by being empty of an existence. is in everything, and that thing that's in everything allows everything else to happen.

[25:15]

Because I have no inherent nature, I allow you all to be the way you are. Fundamentally, I have no agenda for you to be any particular way. Therefore, you can be however you are, moment after moment, day after day, and you also are that way, you also allow yourself and everybody else. So our actual nature, you know, our non-imperient existence is what allows the world to be freed. However, we have a tendency, because of our psychology, and it's blocked through that emergence, to project self-existence all over the place. And then, because of that, essences get established and then things don't move very well. Because, you know, This is really the way things are. And it's not just something which dependently coerose according to various, with a bunch of conditions.

[26:17]

Yes? You said, like, when we start listing conditions for things that we're doing it for our purposes, there's something... I didn't say we were, I said we can. do it for our purposes. If your purpose would be to make the longest possible list, then you would just keep going definitely. If your purposes were to explain the situation in order to figure out how to get the lights on, then you'd stop at a certain point, maybe, when your purpose was fulfilled. Depends on what your human purpose is. And your human purpose is determined by, you know, what type of being you are. I can see, you know, that it seems to get beyond the wooden help, just navigating the world, that the very process of listening to commissioning sort of tends to make it kind of a metaphor, which often there seems to be assumptions in that.

[27:21]

I mean, we're doing, in other words, there seems to be some varied purpose here when we do it. Well, what is it? But that's the thing I said. That's not hidden. That's right on the table here. That's always there. You're always trying to bolster your sense of self. That's always there. It's sometimes hidden, but it's always there. So that's definitely the whole point here. Definitely. It's always lurking there trying to pull another one off. Get another point for, you know, number one. That's going on all the time. Just walking around, you know, so I just, you know, can I turn the lights on? Is that okay? I mean, can I have a lunch? And, uh, sure, fine, no problem. Well, you know, could you tell me a little bit about the conditions for lunch? Like, what room is it going to be in? What's it going to be in? What time? And am I actually allowed to have lunch? And... Are there forks and spoons?

[28:23]

This is the kind of stuff I want to know about. And I want to know that partly because I regularly associate lunch with a particular time and a place. And I usually use utensils, so I want to know about that. However, all along, any explanation I try to establish to negotiate, all along, my main thing, My main purpose, more important by far than having lunch, is to keep the self going. That's the only reason why I'm eating, basically, is to keep the self going. That's the basic trick. And that's why lunch is not very fine anymore. Because I'm eating not for the proper, for the real reasons, the happy reasons, I'm eating to keep this whole why going. And in order to keep this lie going, it's better if I'm unconscious if that's really why I'm eating. But that's why most people, as far as I can tell, are eating. They're eating to keep the lie going.

[29:25]

They're not eating for hunger. They're trying to keep the lie of this essentially existing self alive a little longer. When you eat not for that reason, of course, eating is much more enjoyable. And then you can make all kinds of causes and conditions for, all kinds of conditions anyway, for how eating happens. And it's just a joyful, creative process. And you've got, you know, and probably, and your tendency to eat for this selfish reason is still working in your neighborhood, but you've got it, you know, you've got it on a leash, you know, you've got to have obedience training or whatever. It's not really a problem anymore. You take it with you everywhere. It's not like you're going to lose this ability. It's just that you see it all the time. All the time. And if you don't see it all the time, then you don't see it, but it's always there. So at any point, at any point, any description or any explanation of what's happening for whatever purpose, the selfish motivation can always come and contaminate it.

[30:34]

That we make lunch into something we can use, rather than something that's just plain happening. Something that I can use, that I can grasp, that I can relate to rather than a dependently co-horizon event that I have no control over, I can't get a hold of, I don't know what it is, but I can have lunch. Which, if you prefer, most people would rather get a hold of lunch than have lunch. You have to have a choice of being in this totally new world where you were totally left out in the cold And starved, most people would rather starve than lose their self, if they thought about it. But the person who's saying that is the self, is the essentialist, is holding to that position of believing in causal efficacy rather than believing in dependent, trusting dependent co-arising. That is the... Who is it?

[31:39]

It's a lie. It's a lie is what it is. Well, I call it a lie. It's just a lie. It's not even floating around. It's just a lie that you're telling right now. That you're saying things essentially exist. I don't say it exists. Why do you not say it exists? That would be another lie. Pardon? Why not say falsehood? Why not say ignorance? I'll say those words too if you want. Want me to say those words instead? Ignorance. Ignorance doesn't exist. Inherently, ignorance doesn't have an essence either. It's not like, you know, it's not like enlightenment doesn't have an essence, oak trees don't have essence, people don't have essence, but ignorance does. No, nothing has essence.

[32:42]

Ignorance, and that's why, ignorance does not have, what do you call it, efficacy. It doesn't, fortunately. Otherwise, we'd be totally, it would just do its thing. Ignorance would cause these effects and we'd be done for it. But Buddha saw that happening, saw how ignorance was a condition, but by seeing it as a condition, you can turn it around. It can be turned around because it's not like an essential thing. Is it possible to view lying without making people clear to stop the world? Maybe that's correct what you just said before I said it was correct. I don't know. But she said yes. That might not have been a medical support searching. I don't know. It didn't seem like that. I didn't even pick up a medical center. I just saw her going yes. At that time, we'd have to like, you know, open your head up and see if there's anything. Maybe she didn't understand what you said, so it's a second language, you know.

[33:45]

Maybe she told you I asked something else. I don't know. For example, if you should pinch my nose, I might go, oh, or I might say, Jeremy, but not really think, you know, anything metaphysical, just sort of like blurt it out. Right. Well, similarly, when we say I, making a localization of that thing, it definitely has to be survived. Definitely. And so one who no longer believes in the inherent nature to say I in community. Right. That's why I get to say this stuff, you know. I didn't hear him say that. I misheard him like this. I thought he said, what is it? He said that afterward. I mean, he said, you're using the word, I, you, people, person, and at some point he said, what is it?

[34:48]

I was responding to what is it? And you said, it's a lie. And it's not clear to me that the use of the word. No, no, no, no. A metaphysical attachment to the word. I wasn't responding to that question when I agree with you. Okay. I was answering the question. The question I was answering was when he said, what is it? He had this I. He's saying, what is it? I think he's asking me, what is it? It is nothing other than a lie. It's existence. It doesn't have an existence. I thought he said, well, you've got this stuff. What is it there? What is the thing behind the I? There's nothing behind it. But it's a lie to say that it is something. The what is it, the is it part, the is it is a lie. That's the lie. That there is it, is it. That's a lie. That's ignorance. There is no such thing, according to Nagarjuna. There's no such thing there. Yes. Do you have to grasp the thing, but at the same time, see it as anything? I mean, it's like there has to be something that's anything.

[35:57]

No. There doesn't have to be something that's anything. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing there to the end. It seems to me that at least the way I'm finding is that I guess I'm understanding it as an attribute or a characteristic. That's not a characteristic. It is more like a It's an outcome of a thing being a thing that is empty. It comes along with everything being a thing. But maybe it's an attribute. Just stay with this earlier thing you had. Now, we had this idea that in order to grasp something, there must not be something there. Well, we say there's nothing inherently there. So there's something that seems to be there.

[36:59]

Something that seems to be there. with an apparent meaning. Yeah. So you say there must be an apparent thing there for something to try to grasp it, or for you to grasp it. That's true. But to say that there's something apparent in there is a little bit different than to say there must be something there. There is a something there, and you think that something appears to be there. Yes. That's what I meant by we have to grasp. We have to grasp an object in a way. In order to have consciousness, we have to grasp an object there. We have to do that. As human beings, we have to grasp all of this, otherwise we lose consciousness. And obviously grasp all of it are just apparent objects. They don't have an apparent existence. But we say they do. We do that. We do that. We don't have to do that part, but we have that ability and we use it most of the time. But it's always like... with how we form it.

[38:02]

There's always form an infinite threat. And the very fact of the way that form is, that is its emptiness. It's not like the very fact of the way form is, is what is . But because of our, because tied right into that, thing about meeting an object is that as the object arose, and we're able to think of objects as external to ourselves, a sense of self as boring, and then in order to, whatever, complete the process, a complete picture with projecting itself back out into the object, and being the object itself. So then, we see in all of nature, we see these objects as having essences. all over the place. And it's a big change to stop seeing essences in things.

[39:04]

Big change. Or not so much to stop, but to realize that what you're seeing when you see the deluge, when you see the essence in something, that you are now observing yourself in a deluded state. And then to enter into how that delusion works. that causes the conditions for that delusion. How does it happen? And as you see the delusion dependently co-arising, as you see your belief in the essence of what you're looking at arising, that is called the emptiness of the thing. And seeing the emptiness of the thing will liberate you from grasping. The essence is non-existent, like God. The final definition of the essence is a thing in a thing, it makes a thing itself. Yeah, that would be an essence, and there are no such things as a thing in a thing that makes a thing itself. There are no, huh?

[40:05]

That was a nice definition of that essence. But Nagarjuna does not see any of those essences in anything. There's a conventional essence, there's an essence which we just nicely define right over there. That's our working definition, our conventional understanding of what essence would be. But there are no such things to be found. You can imagine various other things that are not to be found. And there is a constant production of things which do not have essences. Things are constantly happening which don't have essences. Things are constantly produced which do not exist inherently. And also, what is constantly produced is the belief that things exist inherently. There is, Nagarjuna would say that there is, maybe he wouldn't, but a Sangha would say, that there is a constant production. It's true that there is a constant production of existing, of the belief in existing things.

[41:06]

We are constantly producing things which are not true, namely existences. We do that all the time. Every moment we produce existences and essences to those existences. We're doing that all the time. So that's going on. And, however, if you just only go with that and think that that's true, if you hear that there's a constant production of things which don't inherently exist, and then you forget that not inherently existing part, then you're totally caught by the process. For each of us, that there's a constant production of some things which do not exist inherently. Yeah, it's like that. Right, you come into this class, things happen, and then there's a constant production of, well, this is what's going on in the class. Well, now I get it. Well, yeah, first of all, this is this. Now I see this is what it is, and then I'm not. So I get it. Once you can find it, you can get it.

[42:07]

Maybe. The other night, I was reminded of the idea of eating time. I met in the United States of the Trinity, and I was at the positions. And so I just went this morning, and that's what we talked about, being in time, and how there's something we also called the Lord, or the ordinariness of everything. But this can follow. At the beginning of the practice period, there was some theory I had that I was trying to define or something, and I read the word Don't look around and activate your mind. Then you think, oh, if I look around and see a famous object, then my mind starts to get that characteristics. And I make up this whole object and story about how it relates to me and everything and everybody else. And so I went back to, oh, eternity.

[43:11]

what you're talking about is drawn out is what he's talking about is drawn out and that is Karaka 18 of 24 where the emptiness, the pinnacle rising and the what do you call it the the conventional meaning or the conventional existence of things exist in a kind of triangle or the triad of the pentacle rising, emptiness, and what does it say? Temporary or provisional, yeah, provisional. So there's a provisional, like there's a provisional thing of the pentacle rising of the idea of essence, it's emptiness, and it's provisional or conventional existence in will. Nagar been in it all into, you know, totally four conventional appearances.

[44:21]

But for him, all there is is conventional appearances. There aren't even like real appearances. There's not like a kind of like a real thing out there. An essence, a truth. It's all just conventional. It's just, you know, kind of like oak trees and, oh, acorns and water and people. Just like, you know, however you want to work it. That's what it is for him. There's no kind of like essence out there. It's truth in there being somewhere. Which goes with the Soto Zen teaching of there's nowhere to spit. Conventional world is entirely holy. It's sacred. Because, because it's just conventional. That's why the practice of joining your poems and borrowing them is an expression of understanding of emptiness. You don't just bow to the essences. You bow all around, to all beings. But the reason why I bow to all beings is because they have the essence.

[45:26]

You bow to remember that they don't have essence. You bow to respect that all you've got to work with is a conventional world, ordinary, common world. So this teaching comes in and is actually coming in and peeling away all this essential metaphysical stuff and leaving the world just kind of like naked and raw and ordinary. Without any kind of like special essences put in things. But it also leaves out you. And then after you're left out, the world comes forth and you get to live again. Which is kind of a nice place to be. But if you hold on to the self, it's the same as holding on to your philosophical positions, which he's pointing out. If you let go of your philosophical positions, your self will go with it. Because your self is hooked into them, and you have hooked into yourself. And then you're just back in the ordinary world with anybody, without any leverage.

[46:37]

Yes, that too. Is there a purpose of all things of allowing you to have your process of illusion? Yeah, I could... I can... We're all together. We're all together. We're not the only ones that are diluted, but we're diluted in a different way from the way the mountains are. I think we have a different role in the process than they do. But the mountains allow us to be how we are. And to the extent that we recognize how we process, how we function, how we change, to the extent that we totally are, you know, tuned into that, the mountains get to tune into the mountains.

[47:52]

To the extent that the mountains cause us to be the way we are and we don't appreciate the way we are, to that extent, which is sometimes major, the mountains are harmed. When they give us the gift of our life, and it produces beings like we are, and we don't appreciate and understand how we are, the gift that they've given us is not appreciated fully. And they are somewhat offended and discouraged. Of course, that's also totally happening and real. That's the Dharma too. But it is the Dharma of the mountain being, you know, their feelings being hurt or sometimes actually having their faces ripped off. But at least their feelings are hurt. But their feelings are different from, you know, our feelings are, you know, mostly physical. Physical feelings. They're dealing with, you know, that part of things. They don't have, like, an idea of self, as far as I can tell. Dogs, for example, also don't, most dogs don't have an idea of self, but they're very sympathetic to the problem that we have with our understanding of ourselves.

[49:01]

So our suffering is very important to dogs. And they're really hoping that we get our thing together. Because then their life will be much more harmonious too. You know, they're very concerned. They want us to be relaxed. They want us to be happy. They want us to be safe. Because when we're not that way, they're not that way. But they don't have the problems that we have. But they share our problem. They're in the situation with us. Everything's with us. And we're with everything. But we have our own special problem. Namely, we are the ones who see essence as all of us. Particularly fear. But we also are the ones who can do something that apparently none of the other ones can do. We can look around us at all the things that causes us to say they're not us. We can say everything's outside of us. However, we're also built such that when we do that, we hurt. It hurts us. We don't just do that for free. It hurts and it causes anxiety. Therefore, we know there's some cost in this.

[50:03]

And then we're also told, of course, as part of our society to ignore that anxiety. That's another one of our problems. But anyway, once we're back in touch with the anxiety and we realize that this sense of separation, of not appreciating that all things are the conditions for our existence and therefore all things support our existence. Not in the sense that they're essence flutes of us all over the place, that everybody's contributing to some total us up, but rather that we are nothing besides all the things that give rise to our life. Therefore the feeling of gratitude goes with this realization. And also a feeling of no essence. And therefore, anything is possible. And what anything possible means, you can adapt appropriately to the circumstances to pay your respects back to everything that gives rise to you. But we have this ability to think that these things that are giving rise to us are external to us rather than identical to us.

[51:04]

But the way we're built is that we have a sense that what is external to us is identical to us. being as a contradiction. So our existence is self-contradictory. And I don't know if the other beings' existence is self-contradictory, because I don't think they think of themselves as separate from us, as far as I know. Moms don't think they're separate from us. Even though they give us our birth, and the sun too, even though it gives us our birth, and so on, I don't think it thinks that we're separate. I think that's, in some sense, the breakthrough. If you want to make human existence something special, that's the breakthrough and special contribution of human consciousness is that evolution happened in this section of the universe, such as to produce something in the universe which can look out and reflect the universe back. And that's something, as far as we know, is fairly a rare occurrence in the cosmos. But the price of it is.

[52:07]

a mistake. The president object acknowledges the mistake of thinking that what we see is actually external. No, yes. Other beings or other parent beings had consciousness that was similar to the kind of consciousness we think we have, would we be aware of? Well, I don't think we would necessarily be aware of it. But I think if we watch carefully, we might be able to see that they acted in certain ways. For example, if we watch dogs, we see that they're neurotic and that they have nightmares and stuff. They seem to worry. They malfunction. But mostly, you know, when I watch, I see mostly in relationship to humans. Right, but they think this time scale and analogy of perceptual might be so different. Yeah, right. I agree. No, no, I think not necessarily.

[53:10]

And it might not be possible for one generation of humans to detect these beings. It might take hundreds of generations or thousands of generations of humans to detect these other beings who respond on such a different time scale that although they kind of wince, or twist out of self-clinging, just like we do, which is one of the ways you can spot if an organism's clinging, that certain patterns, you watch the natural flow of movement and you say they're holding on something, something catches in the flow, you observe. The way the cloud patterns move, or the water moves, or the way the blood moves, something chipped there, you know? What was that, see? And it's repetitive, you know? And certain things stimulate it. It seems like the things got itself. You could spot that, maybe. But you're right, that some organisms that might have this ability might move it so slowly, or so quickly, so quickly that we haven't yet been able to see it, or so slowly that we haven't studied over enough generations. to see that actually there's something out there that's kind of just like us, but it's on a different time scale. But it's not so much that I want to... I actually think there are other beings who are basically doing the same thing because I think there's a natural evolutionary tendency to develop consciousness and then also to develop reflective consciousness and therefore develop a sense of self and therefore suffering.

[54:25]

But then, as a result of the suffering, to look back and study the whole situation and be awakened to the total potential of the universe, which is our, you know, incredible and wonderful opportunity that in the same form we can understand What's going on? That's not so much the purpose of the delusion, because the delusion is wonderful in itself. The delusion is wonderful. It doesn't need any purpose as far as I'm concerned. But the pain seems to be what's very necessary. The suffering is the part that One might wonder, why haven't you suffered? Why not just let people imagine whatever they want? Why not just go ahead and think of the essences? Well, the only problem with that is that it's not correct. It's not true. It doesn't hold up. The whole system, by its own definition and the way it works, doesn't hold itself up. So you should appreciate the natural conclusion of the thing is that it's no problem at all. However, we would not go to the trouble of studying this if it weren't paid.

[55:31]

Because in order to study it, you have to do something more than just, you know, carry out the program that you believe in. You have to turn around and look at what you think is true. You have to turn around and look at the delusions. You can't just be deluded. You have to study the delusion. Buddhas are born in delusion. They got delusion too, just like we. The difference is that the Buddhists have exhaustively studied delusion. Why would a person study delusion if they want some problem? It's not that interesting all the time. So once in a while it is. Especially other people's delusions are sometimes interesting. But even if people think other people's delusions are really interesting, get bored sometimes and say, I've had it. Well, Buddhists don't do that. They don't like having certain hours to stop and then have the night off. Because it's always going on in there. So the purpose, you know, the purpose of the pain is to get us to look at the delusion. The purpose of looking at the delusion is to realize where it is.

[56:34]

But the delusion, as it is, is nothing wrong with it. It's just a certainly wonderful way of seeing that it's very rare in the universe, which we are a part of. Namely, seeing something eternal, believing it really is, having a self, this is great, as long as you understand what you're doing. And the causes and conditions for it are cosmic. But who would look at that? Not too many people would study it exhaustively unless they were in real pain. And also seeing not just their own personal pain, but seeing other people in pain and realizing that that is the problem for all, basically all pain in the world. So then you'd say, well, okay, I'll study it. And is there any books that help? Yeah, well, here's one of the main ones. And it's painful to study because it's painful to study. This is painful. It was painful for me for many, many years to study this. It's pain, [...] uncomfortable, not interesting. Pain. Anxiety. Fear.

[57:34]

That's what happens when you read this stuff. That's why I'm so restraining myself from getting excited because you're having the proper reactions to this. Your feistiness, your aggressive energy, your belligerence and negativity and resistance to this are natural reactions to when somebody tries to reorganize your universe. So that's fine. It shows you're actually listening to it rather than sort of like, I'm not going to read this book. Well, that's good, too. That's good, too. That's fine. But to read it and just to read through it and not even notice if anything's bothering you, it hasn't struck home yet, unless perhaps you're one of these people who doesn't have any attachments. Then, of course, it wouldn't bother you. They just be kind of like... Oh, you're asking, do they have an actual intimacy and we have an apparent tendency?

[58:47]

I think we are equally intimate with the universe with the animals in the mountains. We're willing to make the mountains longer than without. This is not our genius teaching. We're all completely intimate. And not nobody is more intimate than anybody else with anything. All right? However, most human beings are terrified of being intimate. if they think about it, and if they don't think about it, and they just sort of jump into it, they're totally anxious about it. Whereas animals cannot have anxiety because they can't have an object with what they're intimate with. If you realize what you're intimate with, if you realize what you're intimate with, would you feel anxiety if you saw it as external to yourself? As they say, this closeness is heart-rending if you seek it outside. It's partly very difficult for us, because we can see it outside. We take the same frequency, but don't make it outside.

[59:50]

Therefore, they're comfortable with it. It's exactly the same as life. Intimacy is life. For us, intimacy is life also, but as we approach it, it's not pleasant. It's not cuddly, warm, and creamy. Or we sometimes say, you know, there's broken glass in the milk. Milarepa said, I was raised on the milk of dependent colorizing. That's what he drank when he was a kid. But there's glass shards in me. Or us. But the glass shards are not because of dependent colorizing. The kind of horizon doesn't have it. All beings are dangerous to us because we make them external. And they're pressing on us because they're external. But actually, they're not external. They are exactly keeping with us. And if there's any distance, it's painful.

[60:51]

Is it time to stop? Okay, three minutes, four minutes. Yes. Well, I was wondering if you could involve a little question on this. If you could just talk about how seeing our delusion of attributing selfhood to things and to ourselves is also somewhere that Mahayana vow of liberating all beings. And tie into that, an early question of Tom Rafe is how when we become liberated, we're doing the pain correct and all things become liberated. Well, the first thing was, you're wondering, is there a willingness to experience the belief in selfhood? Is that part of the Bodhisattva Vah? Is that what you're saying? No, he didn't, but I just rephrased it. Is that what you're saying, though? Do you want me to say exactly the way you said it?

[61:52]

Just kidding. Did that sound like a rephrase of what he said to you? I want to answer his question. The answer to my question is yes. The Bodhisattva is willing to enter into all forms of delusion, but in order to benefit beings. If you meet the deluded being and the deluded being tells them some story of delusion, they're willing to try that on and see how that feels and try to understand what that person might be talking about. Oftentimes, bodhisattvas, though right away, have already gone through that themselves and know exactly what the person's talking about. But what did you tell you to ask your question again if I didn't get it? The latter part, Tom. So the first part was addressed? Yeah. Did everybody follow the idea that you have to be willing to go down into delusion?

[62:54]

All different types. Bodhisattva is one of the... There's three kinds of all knowledge. One's called Sarvajnana. which means all knowledge. The other one is called sarva-marga-nyan, which means knowledge of all paths. The other one is called sarva-akara-nyan, which means knowledge of all mode. So the arhats have knowledge, all knowledge. They understand themselves and they become liberated. Bodhisattvas now understand their own stuff, but they understand all the different paths that all the different beings have to go, all the different margas. they learn. They know all the different paths people have to take, all the different delusions that they're on. And Buddhists know, akkara means aspect, they know all the different aspects of all the different margades, of all the different self-analoges. So they look at all the different things in all the different ways. So bodhisattvas have to go into all states of delusion and talk to all beings.

[63:56]

They have to, but also they vow to do that. Even before we were able to do it, we were willing, theoretically, to talk to anybody. So actually doing that and studying just by watching how the conditions that they attribute themselves. Right. And listening to stories, yeah, and listening to stories about it that Nagarjun is telling about these very stories and listen and watch how people argue with him and try to defend their positions and listen to his response, follow that. And maybe you can see some of that stuff maybe that you think that way to some extent, too. And can you understand that you're capable of following either one of those lines of reasoning and to see how one line of reasoning is incoherent and the other one makes sense, but only makes sense enough to sort of like release you from your holding. And after that's done, there's nothing more to it. Like we say, like, you know, the only purpose of Zen is to, you know, unload the saddlebags and take off the blinders and melt the glue and pull up the nail.

[65:07]

That's enough. Once this stuff's released, there's no more to be done. You have to then put stuff into people. And people will just respond according to circumstances. They don't need to carry anything with them after that. Pulling the stuff out, you have to go down into the place where the saddlebags are, and where the blinders are, and where they're colluded, and where the nails are. You have to go in there, get into the situation, in yourself. And if you can release it in yourself, then you can cope with other beings and the releasing starts spreading. That's the idea. That's why that Buddhist love is to release beings from being stuck. Once they're released, they're fine. Then we're just experiencing the intimacy with all of the universe. And from that intimacy, we respond appropriately. As we always have been, but it's hard for us to see because we think this essence is all over the place.

[66:14]

Nagarjuna just talking, saying what he has to say. Karaka 11 is somebody criticizing Nagarjuna on Karaka 11. Okay? That's when a dialogue between him and his critic starts. So realize that that's not him saying, that's somebody criticizing him, that Karaka, and then him responding. See how long, see if you can tell how long the conversation goes on. No, chapter one. Chapter 1 of Karaka 11 is not Nagarjuna. It's him talking, but he's speaking. He's criticizing himself. He's setting up this argument now. It's going to be going on for a few verses. Can you see the argument and see who's saying what and see how the one goes on when I switch it back out of the argument?

[67:16]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.88