Dzogchen Retreat 2015 - Realising our true nature (part 24)

· · · silence, 1 minute

0:33 So in this very concise text, which is both revealing a path and also so autobiographical in nature, recounting his own experiences, Dujum Lingba's central point, I would say, is presenting a viable, accessible path, a path to awakening even in this very lifetime. But its path always comes back to that. And there are many people, I'm sure, during his time and many people during our present time. Report an error in the passage at 0:33 Highlight the passage at 0:33

1:05 Who are teaching Dharma. Who are teaching a wide variety of meditative practices. Of course Buddhist and non-Buddhist. And now we have a plethora of quasi-secular approaches or very secular approaches coming up. The whole mindfulness movement is very secular. And many, many others. And many are presenting themselves as this is the cutting edge. This is the best. This will do it. My favorite one is where you just put on the headphones and you hear some chimes. Report an error in the passage at 1:05 Highlight the passage at 1:05

1:33 And the chimes are the frequency of alpha. And the blurb for this is even if you don't have time to do this during the daytime, you can put it on while you're sleeping. And this will bring all the benefits of meditation because it will put your brain in sync with alpha waves. And after all, that's what meditation is all about. Report an error in the passage at 1:33 Highlight the passage at 1:33

1:53 So all the benefits. And you don't have to spend years and years meditating like those Zen Roshis or other yogis. You can do this in your sleep. I like that one. Report an error in the passage at 1:53 Highlight the passage at 1:53

2:05 So there's variations on that theme, but there are a lot of many teachers, many of them very fine teachers, teaching a wide variety of techniques, vipassanā, just sitting, sadhana practice, empowerment, discursive meditations, shamatha, and so forth. And yet when one looks, where is the path? Sometimes it's very hard to find, because what you have is just a nice assortment of practices, but with no real sequence. Report an error in the passage at 2:05 Highlight the passage at 2:05

2:33 From decade to decade, if you're looking for some real progress in terms of path, it may be really hard to find because it's not there. Path means irreversible transformation. If it's not that, it's not a path. And so he's presenting a path here. And the real question is, how can we practice? Because everybody here is sincere. Report an error in the passage at 2:33 Highlight the passage at 2:33

2:52 Otherwise, you wouldn't even be here. Now, there are, of course, depths and depths of the degree of dedication to the path. But here it is. And I would imagine many, many people, perhaps all, who knows, watching this in terms of the video. Sincere, really wanting to practice Dharma. That's a wonderful motivation. But does your Dharma turn into the path or not? And that's the real critical one. And it's a question that can be answered. Report an error in the passage at 2:52 Highlight the passage at 2:52

3:15 And I'm going to answer it. But not in any novel way. I have nothing fresh to offer. I'm just kind of highlighting things that have been there all along. But sometimes we just forget about them. And it happens an awful lot in all schools of Buddhism, let alone outside traditions, other traditions. And that is, if you'd like to bring about irreversible transformation, Then you have to place a higher priority on eudaimonia than on hedonia. That's real simple. And we are tugged in both ways. Report an error in the passage at 3:15 Highlight the passage at 3:15

3:43 And the whole current, the massive current of modernity is 100 % flat-out single-pointed samādhi on hedonia. That's what it is. There's no question about it. That's what sells. And that's what's being marketed. And that is something, whether it's a drug, it's stimulation, it's doing this, it's doing that, doing the other. Report an error in the passage at 3:43 Highlight the passage at 3:43

4:02 Something to arouse, to stimulate, and to bring you some pleasure. And there's all types of meditative experiences, or facsimiles of them, that you can get in all manner of ways. Everybody's got a new pitch. Somebody just sent me a pitch. I'll keep it anonymous, but I went onto the website and said, this is the best way to bring about the best way. Report an error in the passage at 4:02 Highlight the passage at 4:02

4:26 This is the best program for finding self-fulfillment. Something brand new, of course. The best way. And so, well, there's a foundation. Let's get back to how do you turn Dharma into the path. And that is, if there is not that priority, it's not going to happen. Because hedonya will just come in and it will appropriate. This happens an awful lot in practice nowadays. Hedonya coming in and appropriating practice for the pursuit of hedonic ends. Report an error in the passage at 4:26 Highlight the passage at 4:26

4:52 Practice meditation, practice mindfulness. This is going to be really... Increase your productivity and creativity in the marketplace. This will reduce stress. This is going to have all kinds of physical benefits. You'll be able to run faster, think quicker, and have a much better sex life. Meditate. It's all over the place. And almost all the scientific research is showing the hedonic benefits of meditation. That's all very well, but it's called a hostile takeover. Report an error in the passage at 4:52 Highlight the passage at 4:52

5:21 And so it's simply recognizing age-old wisdom. There's no sectarianism in what I'm saying here. We find this in the ancient Greeks, we find it in all the great spiritual traditions of the world, that there's something beyond hedonia, and that's, oh, that's the meaning of life. And this is universal. It's all over the place, cast in different contexts, theistic, polytheistic, and so forth and so on. That's fine. Report an error in the passage at 5:21 Highlight the passage at 5:21

5:45 We're not trying to superimpose one ideology. But eudaimonia is a common denominator of all the great wisdom traditions of the world, including the fledgling tradition of positive psychology. That's asking good questions. Unfortunately, often thinking they have all the best answers and ignoring everything that's gone behind them or before them. But, you know, that's what we do. Report an error in the passage at 5:45 Highlight the passage at 5:45

6:06 That's kind of human nature. My view is the best view. So there's the priority. And then with that prioritization, if one really becomes significantly disillusioned with the samādhi of hedonism and consumerism, then, of course, one needs, with that motivation, to establish a foundation in ethics. And that is fundamentally non-violence and benevolence. With those two together, the prioritization, the motivation, authentic motivation, what the Buddha called authentic intention among the Eightfold Noble Path, and ethics, which covers right livelihood, right speech and right action, then with that, then you have a foundation for really cultivating some irreversible mental balance, exceptional mental balance of the four kinds, cognitive and so forth, that I've spoken about so often. Report an error in the passage at 6:06 Highlight the passage at 6:06

6:55 Which comes under the rubric of samādhi. Samādhi is not just single-pointed attention. It's exceptional mental health and balance. And if you have that foundation, that root system of authentic motivation and ethics, then you can really bring about some sustained, durable and evolving, exceptional and even more exceptional mental health and balance. Report an error in the passage at 6:55 Highlight the passage at 6:55

7:17 And that's just got to be a good thing. And this is not making any reference to any ideology, dogma, belief system so far. Ethics is an ethic. You don't have to believe in God or karma to lead an ethical way of life. And you don't need to believe in God, karma, angels, heaven, hell or anything else to develop exceptional mental balance. Report an error in the passage at 7:17 Highlight the passage at 7:17

7:35 And that is necessary. So it's shamatha. It's samādhi. It's developing this. Now, if you get very gung-ho, you hear, you know, somebody real charismatic leader talking about shamatha and you get all excited and you learn the techniques and you go for it. But you haven't shifted your priorities to yudaimonia and you have not cultivated an ethical foundation where you can practice 12 hours a day for six years, you're not going to progress. Report an error in the passage at 7:35 Highlight the passage at 7:35

7:58 Because you keep on, it'll be eroded again and again and again. And you won't practice 12 hours a day for six years, you'll give up. That's what happens. I've seen it happen many times. Something else will look more attractive after a while when you see how hard this is. Not because shamatha is hard, because you're dredging your psyche and that's hard. Shamatha without shamatha. Report an error in the passage at 7:58 Highlight the passage at 7:58

8:19 Again, so many people are practicing vipassanā with little or no shamatha. That's because it got sex appeal, it's cool, and you know, it's vipassanā, it's the cutting edge, it's the peak. Report an error in the passage at 8:19 Highlight the passage at 8:19

8:32 And many people have found if you're practicing vipassanā, and that could be any kind of vipassanā, without the shamatha, no irreversible change takes place. The mind isn't up to it. The mind keeps on tipping over, tipping over, tipping over, either into laxity or excitation. And excitation just is wrought. It just erodes whatever insight should come up. Report an error in the passage at 8:32 Highlight the passage at 8:32

8:56 It clouds it, it overcasts it. It's like a dust storm. And so without shamatha, yeah, you can have spikes of insight. There's no question about that. But they cannot be sustained because the mind you bring to it is unstable and very grimy. And so the mind needs to be made serviceable, and that's what samādhi is all about, to establish the mind. Report an error in the passage at 8:56 Highlight the passage at 8:56

9:17 Now let's just leap for a moment to Dzogchen, to Mahamudra, to Chan, to Zen, and that's just within Buddhism, let alone outside, and I'm not discounting anything outside. But let's jump to these really profound wisdom traditions. Zen, Chan, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, of course there are others, and they have enormous appeal. Report an error in the passage at 9:17 Highlight the passage at 9:17

9:37 This is why Zen, that was the first one before Theravāda really got off the ground, beat Zen. Beat Zen, that was back in the 50s. Report an error in the passage at 9:37 Highlight the passage at 9:37

9:46 Theravāda, Vipassanā, didn't get launched until the 60s or so. And so it has an appeal, you know, this kind of direct, it's mystical, it's transcendent, it's something very cool. So Zen and then Vipassanā started coming in really bigly, but Vipassanā, of course, reducing all of Samādhi just to momentary Samādhi, which is frankly a joke. Report an error in the passage at 9:46 Highlight the passage at 9:46

10:08 Well, let's just go right to this type of practice. And that's just very, very popular again. Nowadays, Dzogchen, Mahamudriya, everybody wants to practice that, or many, many, not everybody. And so, and again, just kind of run quickly through everything prior to that, including shamatha, that's after Hindus, you know, and Vipassanā, that's just intellectual. Report an error in the passage at 10:08 Highlight the passage at 10:08

10:31 And just go for open monitoring. In other words, there you are, you're doing your marmot meditation with no foundation whatsoever. And who knows, you might get a pointing out instruction from some very fine Lama. And you might really have a taste. It happens. I'm not questioning that. With hardly any preparation at all, you remember a weekend retreat with a really good Lama and giving point instructions, and you may have some genuine breakthrough. Report an error in the passage at 10:31 Highlight the passage at 10:31

10:56 I've heard it many times. I don't question it. I think people are giving authentic accounts of their actual experience. And what is uniformly the case is they can't sustain it. Report an error in the passage at 10:56 Highlight the passage at 10:56

11:06 Uniformly the case. I can't say universally, but what the absolute norm is. People going to Zen and having some spike experience and then it becomes a memory. And the same thing in Chan, Mahamudra, Dzogchen and so forth. Some real breakthrough and then the clouds cover over and then you're wondering, how can I get it back? It's kind of like having lost your marbles. Where did I leave my marbles? I'm sure they're around here someplace because they were such good marbles. Report an error in the passage at 11:06 Highlight the passage at 11:06

11:31 Where did I leave my marbles? And then kind of hearkening for, I hope that happens again. And now you sit hoping, hoping, hoping. Anytime now, hello, I'm here. Except if it's not coming back, or maybe it'll come back once and it'll flirt with you and then disappear again. So what's the problem there? Report an error in the passage at 11:31 Highlight the passage at 11:31

11:49 Well, of course, probably you haven't prioritized eudaimonia. Probably ethics could be looked at again. The shamatha is almost certainly not there. But there's another key ingredient, and that is we may have breakthroughs to the subtler dimension of awareness. It does happen, even without great preparation. It can happen spontaneously. Report an error in the passage at 11:49 Highlight the passage at 11:49

12:07 But then, as Dujjalimba was saying of his own experience, he falls off the wagon, something comes up, and then we fall right back into the ruts of reivocation, and then all that that entails, and we're right back into the spin cycle. So this is why as the shift to an authentic motivation and ethics is simply indispensable for bringing about a path. Report an error in the passage at 12:07 Highlight the passage at 12:07

12:32 Some irreversible transformation, balancing of the mind to exceptional levels of mental balance. You can't have that without this. You can't have sustained Vipassanā, deep insight into Vipassanā, whether it's insight into non-self or emptiness, what have you, cannot be sustained without Samatha. It'll be a flirtation, but it will not be a path. Samatha is necessary for Vipassanā. But then it turns out that if you don't have Vipassanā, which takes some hard work. Report an error in the passage at 12:32 Highlight the passage at 12:32

12:58 Investigation, critical analysis, intelligence, careful scrutiny. If you don't have that and you just go, never mind that, I'm just going to practice open presence, choiceless awareness. That's fine, you may have some insights, but you'll fall off the wagon because the tendency of reification will come right back in and you're right back into the addiction of reifying everything you touch. Report an error in the passage at 12:58 Highlight the passage at 12:58

13:23 So this is why we see he had himself, it's so marvelous that he's so clear about his own experience. He did break through, he did cut through to this ground pristine awareness and then he found he couldn't sustain it. And so where does he go from there? What we did yesterday afternoon, back to Vipassanā. And that's what we're going to do again this morning because that's where he's taking us. Back to Vipassanā because just as shamatha is the big bodyguard, the bodyguard for the minister of Vipassanā, so is Vipassanā. Report an error in the passage at 13:23 Highlight the passage at 13:23

13:50 The bodyguard for protecting your insights into pristine awareness that comes through, for example, Dzogchen practice. Without it, it won't be so much craving and hostility necessarily, but it will be the root delusion of reification that comes down and beats you to a pulp and takes you off. And once again, there's no path. There's no path. So what I've just said, I think, is actually very transparent. It's not a dogma of this or that. Report an error in the passage at 13:50 Highlight the passage at 13:50

14:17 I think we find these in multiple traditions. It's not just Buddhist. Buddhist makes it very explicit. He makes it radiantly clear that each of these stages is necessary. The former protects the latter. Authentic motivation, ethics, that protects any degree of mental balance that you develop. It protects it, like the bodyguard. The shamatha protects the vipassanā, and the vipassanā protects this delicious non-meditation. Report an error in the passage at 14:17 Highlight the passage at 14:17

14:45 So that it doesn't just wind up being sitting there, kind of like in a tepid jacuzzi, resting in open presence in an ocean of reification, just resting in your dualistic mind, which is really going nowhere. You may be, well, be treading water halfway between here and Los Angeles. Lots of luck with that. So each one protects the other. But with this foundation like a pyramid, the authentic motivation, the ethics, the mental balance of samādhi, the insight of Vipassanā, Then you come to this Buddhahood without meditation. Then you can come to non-meditation. And all of that can be sustained by the proceeding. Report an error in the passage at 14:45 Highlight the passage at 14:45

15:24 That all becomes a path. And the possibility of actually achieving a rainbow body in one lifetime becomes something to be carefully considered as a possibility. Report an error in the passage at 15:24 Highlight the passage at 15:24

15:35 Let's have two sessions. The first one, I'm going to have to give a bit more preface because I'd like to not have to talk so much during the meditation. The first one will be shamatha, find your method. To make the mind serviceable and for this simple reason and that is we're going to be going into Vipassanā again in the second session and the crucial element there which we're going to see coming up momentarily that is when we return to the text is can you distinguish between the reality that's appearing which is moment to moment always changing always in a state of flux and consisting this array of appearances all of which have no inherent existence or inherent nature from their own side. Report an error in the passage at 15:35 Highlight the passage at 15:35

16:13 In the midst of this ongoing flux of appearances by way of all the six sense doors, can you determine through your own experience how concepts are projected upon that and the static nature, that's the term, static nature of the concepts we superimpose upon experience. There's a technical term called dunci in Tibetan. It's a generic idea. Whenever we conceptually apprehend anything, We're doing it by investigation or by memory when we remember something in the past. It's by way of an idea. It's called a generic idea. Report an error in the passage at 16:13 Highlight the passage at 16:13

16:46 A generic idea. And generic ideas, when we're thinking about something, when we're conceiving of something, we do so by way of the filter of a generic idea. And so we are attending to the object in question, whatever that may be, but it's screened by way of a generic idea. Report an error in the passage at 16:46 Highlight the passage at 16:46

17:05 so he Here's a fundamental premise, and that is we do this regardless of religious, not religious and so forth, and generic ideas are static. They're static. The world of perceptual experience is utterly in a state of flux. Now when I think of myself, do I ever engage in static superpositions? All I have to do is to think of George Bush. George Bush. Report an error in the passage at 17:05 Highlight the passage at 17:05

17:30 Because I watched his eight years of domination of American politics and the people behind him who pulled his strings. And watching that for eight years, then a rather dense, generic idea arose in my mind. George Bush is this kind of person. I won't elaborate. I'm not here to be sarcastic or ridicule or anything, but a generic idea had come up, and it was based upon a lot of experience. Report an error in the passage at 17:30 Highlight the passage at 17:30

17:58 But if I think of George Bush now... And when I was thinking of George Bush a year ago and George Bush five years ago, in fact, that's the same generic idea. It hasn't been challenged. He's not doing anything to challenge that generic. He keeps on reinforcing it. Every time I see him prop up in the news, he's saying, yep, your stereotype of me is right. But it's not. Report an error in the passage at 17:58 Highlight the passage at 17:58

18:23 But it's not. All we get from the news is clips. And of course, that was edited by somebody, selected and edited by somebody. So my idea... My stereotype, what comes to mind when I think of George Bush, actually isn't changing much at all. And yet he's changing every single moment. Report an error in the passage at 18:23 Highlight the passage at 18:23

18:41 And sometimes, I'm sure he's benevolent. He's not an evil man. He has benevolent moments. I'm sure he has his intelligent moments. Oh, ye of little faith. Report an error in the passage at 18:41 Highlight the passage at 18:41

18:54 Okay, that was my sarcasm. I'm trying to really be objective here. But I'm saying, here's an icon. He represents a lot for a lot of us. And the icon is static, whereas the man himself, the one that his wife is in love with and his children, I'm sure, love him, and the Dalai Lama loves him, he said so, and I believe him, you know, that this man is in a constant state of flux. Report an error in the passage at 18:54 Highlight the passage at 18:54

19:20 He's always in state of flux, you know. And yet, when I think of him, what I come out is always the same grid, always the same. Oh, that guy, George. Hello, George. And it's not just George Bush. I just chose one that everybody knows. We all know Mickey Mouse. We all know George Bush. There are a number of icons that have now become universal. And so that's the problem. Report an error in the passage at 19:20 Highlight the passage at 19:20

19:43 That's the problem. Is that we conflate the generic idea, which is static, with reality. And then we reify. The George Bush that I... I'm not going to, but if I could describe... Here's my impression of George Bush. I could describe him to you. And then the tendency is to reify. To make that, oh, you've nailed him. Yeah, that's a very good, you nailed him. That's how he really is. And he's really always that way. Report an error in the passage at 19:43 Highlight the passage at 19:43

20:14 Because that's who he is. And that's what we do. I'm choosing an easy target. But there are many, many targets. Think of anybody else. Your family, your Lama, your religion, your country. That's what we do. When we think of them, We think of them by way of generic ideas. The generic ideas are static or they change just once in a while. They get adjusted and then they lock in again. Report an error in the passage at 20:14 Highlight the passage at 20:14

20:39 It's like an ice cube that you melt a little bit and then freeze it up again and melt it again. Maybe you crush it, but then it freezes up again. It keeps on freezing up. That's what generic ideas do. They always wind up being static, even if they change on occasion. They're not immutable. They're not eternal. But when they're set, they lock in. Report an error in the passage at 20:39 Highlight the passage at 20:39

20:57 They can be changed. I can imagine George Bush coming out and blowing my mind, in which case my ice cube will shatter, but then it will reform again in a somewhat different way. And so this tendency is something which is to be discerned not with shamatha and not with open presence, not with Dzogchen, and not with faith or belief or devotion or purification like Vajrasattva. Report an error in the passage at 20:57 Highlight the passage at 20:57

21:22 The only effective approach to understanding this and Removing the confusion is vipassanā, or insight practice, discriminating, discerning inquiry to discover for ourselves what is reality presenting moment by moment in terms of this array of appearances, this vast matrix of appearances, and in what manner am I right now superimposing the generic ideas, then conflating the generic idea with the entity in question, and then reifying it. Report an error in the passage at 21:22 Highlight the passage at 21:22

21:58 And then standing back and saying, not me. No, that's how George really is. It has nothing to do with me. No, George, we agree, don't we? And then find one other person that agrees and then you say, okay, we've nailed it. We've agreed that this is how George really is. Right? That's what we look for. Report an error in the passage at 21:58 Highlight the passage at 21:58

22:16 We look for a little bit of support. We find one or two people or maybe one or two million that agree with us. Say, no, well, that proves it. We agree. That's how he is independent of our perspective. That's how he... It really is. And if you disagree, well, you're wrong. And religious fundamentalists have been saying this forever. Scientific materialists say this uniformly. Report an error in the passage at 22:16 Highlight the passage at 22:16

22:37 Dogmatists of all kinds say this. But it's not just other people. This is how the mind works. The superposition of a static, generic idea, the conflation of the idea, which is the confusion, the fusing together of that idea with the referent of that idea. And then the reification of it as existing out there and then stepping back and saying, I just witnessed this. This is just what I saw. It has nothing to do with me. Report an error in the passage at 22:37 Highlight the passage at 22:37

23:01 I'm an innocent bystander. That's just what I saw because that's what's out there. It's very interesting, isn't it? And so right in CERN, this magnificent research facility where they have the Large Hadron Super Collider, I've been told by people I think are very savvy that there are two groups of scientists there, broadly speaking. Report an error in the passage at 23:01 Highlight the passage at 23:01

23:23 There are atomic scientists who are persuaded, working within the matrix of metaphysical realism, that these, you know, the Higgs boson and neutrinos and so forth and so on, all these exotic quarks and so forth, they're absolutely out there. And we built this $7 billion contraption to discover them, because they're out there. The God particle. The best of all, the God particle. You know, and they did. Report an error in the passage at 23:23 Highlight the passage at 23:23

23:49 It seems like they really did. Congratulations, they're good science. And so there are those who have that sense, this great big contraption with its high energy physics is actually discovered things that were already out there by their own inherent nature long before the Large Hadron Super Collider came along, long before physics came, we are discovering what's out there and we are simply representing it with our theories. Report an error in the passage at 23:49 Highlight the passage at 23:49

24:15 So there are many like that. They're metaphysical realists. They're good old-fashioned 19th century physicists wearing 21st century hats. And then in the same cluster, in the same community, there are those who have received very sophisticated training in quantum mechanics. And in quantum mechanics, before you make a measurement, that which you're measuring exists only in a superposition state, which means it's not really there. Report an error in the passage at 24:15 Highlight the passage at 24:15

24:43 And every entity you ever measure is arising relative to your measurement system. That's when the probability function collapses and that Higgs boson, neutrino, whatever it may be, does exist relative to your measurement system and independent of your measurement system. It has no existence whatsoever. It's something you pull out of the hat. It does rise and it is true. So it's not a fiction, it's not a fabrication, it's not pseudoscience or fantasy science. Report an error in the passage at 24:43 Highlight the passage at 24:43

25:11 It's good science, but it's relativistic science, not only in the Einsteinian sense. But it's relative to your system of measurement. And this is very widely known. It's not some zany idea by fringe people in quantum mechanics. And it gets really to the core when you go into quantum cosmology. Take the principles of quantum mechanics and apply them to the whole universe. And so in that regard, yes hallelujah, the Higgs boson does exist. And it was predicted by this wonderful Scottish physicist, Higgs, and they discovered it. Report an error in the passage at 25:11 Highlight the passage at 25:11

25:43 But does it exist there independently of the conceptual framework? of modern atomic theory and independently of the systems of measurement, by means of which we make observations of elementary particles. No. Does it exist? Yes. Did they discover something that is self-existent, independent of all conceptual frameworks and systems of measurement? Report an error in the passage at 25:43 Highlight the passage at 25:43

26:05 No. So they're right in the same community. There are those that say, yeah, congratulations, this is superb science. You've discovered Higgs boson. But of course it has no existence whatsoever. Independent of your systems of measurement. So if it's a God particle, it's a God you invented. So it's everywhere. Report an error in the passage at 26:05 Highlight the passage at 26:05

26:25 Viewing reality by way of conception, by way of generic ideas, conflating the two, and then reify them. Happens everywhere. But it is delusional. And whether it's by brilliant physicists or country bumpkins, it's still delusional. And so this Vipassanā is designed to cut through and to see the process. Report an error in the passage at 26:25 Highlight the passage at 26:25

26:48 See the process by which this superposition of generic ideas occurs to determine for yourself, are they static or are they in tune with the ever-fluctuating, ever-changing nature of an actual reality? And if they're not, if they're static, might be a useful device, but it's not useful if you conflate the generic idea with the entity and then reify them both. Report an error in the passage at 26:48 Highlight the passage at 26:48

27:13 That's not useful. That's called root-core endless delusion. And it lies at the root of saṃsāra. So if that's not cut through, any type of glimpses of pristine awareness will be ephemeral, cannot be sustained, and you'll keep on falling back into the rut every time something comes up, as Dujjom Lingpa found from his own experience. Report an error in the passage at 27:13 Highlight the passage at 27:13

27:37 So, first one, let's throttle back. And the point of shamatha is let the dust settle. It's extremely difficult to practice Vipassanā in any way that is truly effective, let alone irreversible. Report an error in the passage at 27:37 Highlight the passage at 27:37

27:52 As you're trying to bring in, do the kind of practice we'll do in the second session, of really discern how does conceptual imputation occur? Are the concepts static? What is the process of revocation? This is really precise contemplative science. It's high level contemplative science. It's sophisticated. Report an error in the passage at 27:52 Highlight the passage at 27:52

28:10 It's sharp. It's fine. You need a laboratory for this. And the laboratory is a clean, quiet, clear mind. But if that laboratory of your mind is... It's filled with a dust storm of just obsessive, compulsive ideation, ideation, ideation. It's going to be hard to see anything clearly because the dust is in your eyes. Report an error in the passage at 28:10 Highlight the passage at 28:10

28:33 And so the dust needs to settle in a relaxed way. If it's tense, you're just going to get burnt out. It needs to be relaxed and then stability. The dust needs to settle and then a settling of dust. Don't fall asleep. And that is be clear and be clearer. And now you can get on with an enormous task, the great task of finding the path, proceeding along it to freedom. That's it. Report an error in the passage at 28:33 Highlight the passage at 28:33

29:00 That's Dujjom Lingva's agenda. And it's so core Buddhism. Really core, not some tangent way out in left field in the bunis of Tibet. It's a really core message. So, let's practice. First one, mellow out. Let the dust settle. Relax. Choose the shamatha method of your own choice. Report an error in the passage at 29:00 Highlight the passage at 29:00

· · · silence, 29 minutes

58:15 With your body, speech and mind settled in their natural states, states of dynamic equilibrium, let your awareness be still and bright and let the light of your awareness illuminate all the six domains of experience with Report an error in the passage at 58:15 Highlight the passage at 58:15

58:36 the eyes gently open and Report an error in the passage at 58:36 Highlight the passage at 58:36

58:42 all the sense doors open. Report an error in the passage at 58:42 Highlight the passage at 58:42

58:49 And to return to a familiar theme, rest in the stillness of your awareness, which is not static, but which is still. Report an error in the passage at 58:49 Highlight the passage at 58:49

59:01 And simultaneously with this stillness, be aware of the movements. The arising and passing of appearances in all the six doors or six domains of experience. Report an error in the passage at 59:01 Highlight the passage at 59:01

59:26 This is like creating your own observatory, setting up the telescope. And you want the telescope, your observatory itself to be still, not mounted on a train or in a truck, let alone passing over a bumpy road. So let your awareness be still, unagitated, clear. Report an error in the passage at 59:26 Highlight the passage at 59:26

59:54 While abiding in that stillness, observe the comings and goings, the rising and passings, from moment to moment, of appearances, all arising in this space of awareness, illuminated by way of the six modes of perception. Report an error in the passage at 59:54 Highlight the passage at 59:54

1:00:37 Let your awareness be still, but let your mind be active, as if you were settling the mind in its natural state. Let thoughts and images flow unimpededly, but without being carried away by them. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:37 Highlight the passage at 1:00:37

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:01:32 Conceptually, and are designated upon certain appearances with them as the basis of designation, whether it's a bird, a jet, Report an error in the passage at 1:01:32 Highlight the passage at 1:01:32

1:01:46 or a tingling of vibration in the knee. When the words and concepts arise, note how the words, the names, are the same names we used a year ago and five years ago, ten years ago. The names are relatively static, and yet the appearances, the phenomena, are in constant change. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:46 Highlight the passage at 1:01:46

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:03:34 Observe the process of conceptual designation, how a name and a generic idea of objects arises and is projected upon appearances. And note how that which is projected, the generic idea, the label, the name, is static, while that on which it is imputed is Report an error in the passage at 1:03:34 Highlight the passage at 1:03:34

1:04:01 constantly in a state of flux. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:01 Highlight the passage at 1:04:01

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:05:29 As a laboratory experiment, you may consciously, if you wish, if you're bold enough, you may consciously arouse a mental affliction. Some resentment you feel towards someone, some grasping, clinging attachment you feel towards someone, or something. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:29 Highlight the passage at 1:05:29

1:05:50 And it is said whenever mental affliction arises with its object, the object is always reified. It's grasped onto as being inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:50 Highlight the passage at 1:05:50

1:06:01 And as such, here's the hypothesis, that the object as it arises in our mind's eye, which has been reified, appears to us as static, unchanging. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:01 Highlight the passage at 1:06:01

1:06:20 And whether that object is ourselves, another person, a situation, a place, an activity, once reification gets a hold of it, it freezes it in the mind's eye and appears to us as unchanging. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:20 Highlight the passage at 1:06:20

1:06:42 So is this true or not? This is a hypothesis to be tested empirically with all the intelligence we can muster. Is it true that insofar as we reify ourselves, other people and the world around us, the Report an error in the passage at 1:06:42 Highlight the passage at 1:06:42

1:07:01 world of reified objects is static, frozen, unchanging and therefore utterly unhinged, disconnected and therefore deserves the name delusion. Examine closely. Put the hypothesis to the test of experience. The Report an error in the passage at 1:07:01 Highlight the passage at 1:07:01

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:08:50 point here is to use the sharp blade of Vipassanā wielded with the strong arm of Samatha. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:50 Highlight the passage at 1:08:50

1:09:01 To cut the root of reification, reification of ourselves as inherently existent sentient beings according to our self-concepts, to cut the root of reification of others and the entire environment, recognizing that the object of reification, Report an error in the passage at 1:09:01 Highlight the passage at 1:09:01

1:09:27 the reified object, has no existence whatsoever. All the appearances of the entire phenomenal world are empty of Report an error in the passage at 1:09:27 Highlight the passage at 1:09:27

1:09:44 these reified objects. Which are nowhere to be found among appearances or outside of appearances. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:44 Highlight the passage at 1:09:44

1:09:55 Is it true or not? So this is to be investigated with all of our intelligence and careful, careful observation. Let's continue practicing now in silence. Report an error in the passage at 1:09:55 Highlight the passage at 1:09:55

· · · silence, 13 minutes

1:22:39 Lama Tsongkhapa, let's pick up right with the text. Here on the bottom of page 18, he said earlier to expand on this chant that he received from Dojitollu, he'd have this... Three-fold analysis, first of all seeking out the source of names, we covered that yesterday afternoon, and now destroy grasping at the permanence of things. Report an error in the passage at 1:22:39 Highlight the passage at 1:22:39

1:23:01 So you'll see this is now an explanation of the practice we just did. If whatever is established as an entity, if regarded as existent, is definitely truly existent and permanent in its own nature, it's really there abiding durable over time, if that's so, Report an error in the passage at 1:23:01 Highlight the passage at 1:23:01

1:23:25 Then it must be replete with seven qualities. These are called the seven qualities of avajra, which really signifies immutability. And these seven qualities are namely invulnerability, indestructibility, reality, incorruptibility, stability, total unobstructibility and total invincibility. Well, the crucial point here is that the implication, and it is a very core assertion in Madhyamaka, and here we're finding in the Dzogchen context, that as soon as we reify something, Then that which we reified, the reified object, if it were to exist, if it were to exist, it would, that is truly exist, if the entity in question, whatever it is, if it were to truly exist, it would be immutable. Report an error in the passage at 1:23:25 Highlight the passage at 1:23:25

1:24:10 It appears to the mind is immutable and it would have to actually be immutable and therefore by implication endowed with all of these seven qualities of avajra, which is a very symbol of immutability. And it's also the symbol of pristine awareness. Even though things resemble this, in seeming to be firm, heavy, solid, existent and permanent, that's how things appear, and that's how they are reified, if all houses, earth, stone, fire and water were destroyed, controlled, blown out and dispersed, they would suddenly vanish like a dream or an illusion. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:10 Highlight the passage at 1:24:10

1:24:47 So it goes right back to the world of phenomena, the actual world, where there are houses, earth, stone, planets, elementary particles, and so forth. If all of these were destroyed, and they could be destroyed in one way or another, and eventually they will disappear, then they would just vanish like a dream or an illusion, in which case they would demonstrate that they are not permanent. Report an error in the passage at 1:24:47 Highlight the passage at 1:24:47

1:25:07 Fathom this by ascertaining them as empty, as emptiness, devoid of inherent nature. All phenomena, from elementary particles, Right on through the whole scope, the whole framework, the spectrum of reality, everything equally devoid of inherent nature, dreams and waking reality, everything. In general, the whole physical world, the universe, and its sentient inhabitants, wherever they may dwell throughout the entire universe, with all their forms, colors, shapes and appearances, these, the physical world and its sentient embodied inhabitants, these arise from the five elements. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:07 Highlight the passage at 1:25:07

1:25:44 So it's not denying the five elements, and as I've been told quite emphatically by some of my Madhyamaka teachers, one in particular, we're not refuting the existence of elementary particles, fields, waves, molecules, atoms and cells and so forth, not refuting that at all. Or if we go to kind of the Buddhist cosmology, which is very common, earth, water, fire, air and space, they do arise from these physical elements, yes, that's not being refuted, and though they arise from the elements, they are empty. Report an error in the passage at 1:25:44 Highlight the passage at 1:25:44

1:26:14 of their own identities, their own intrinsic nature, disappearing into the expanse of space like clouds and mist. So they arise phenomenologically from the five elements, and yet sooner or later they simply dissolve back, and they dissolve back into space. But even if you know that they are primordially empty from their own side, you ascertain the emptiness of inherent nature of all these phenomena. If you do not recognize them as subjects and objects of dualistic thinking, There's no benefit or harm. So it's not enough to do this ontological probe, ontological analysis, to see whether phenomena exist from their own side or not and then come to the conclusion they don't. Report an error in the passage at 1:26:14 Highlight the passage at 1:26:14

1:26:56 That can just lead you to nihilism. That, aha, now I get it. And I remember reading years ago Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Piercyk, I think. I really enjoyed it. But he dabbled, unfortunately, in Indian thought. And then said, well, those Indians, Pindus, Buddhists, you know, tomatoes, tomatoes, they say everything's an illusion. And then he thought, yeah, but what about atom bombs and Hiroshima? Report an error in the passage at 1:26:56 Highlight the passage at 1:26:56

1:27:26 And therefore he, with citing an atom bomb, he thought he just refuted all of Indian philosophy. Not very deep. And so, but if that's as far as you go... I just think, oh, it's empty of inherent nature. Then you might think also then everything's empty, therefore everything is nihilistic, everything is meaningless, and that's the other meaning of empty, in which case you've missed the whole point. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:26 Highlight the passage at 1:27:26

1:27:47 I mean, profoundly missed the whole point. And so in addition to recognizing how phenomena are empty, how they don't exist, one needs to find this middle way to be realistic. You need to see how they do exist. And how do they exist? How do they come into existence? Well, they arise independence upon the five elements, but that alone is not sufficient. In fact, we'll run through that right now. It's very core. This is central themes of prasangaka, madhyamaka. Report an error in the passage at 1:27:47 Highlight the passage at 1:27:47

1:28:17 How do phenomena exist? Okay, they don't exist by their own intrinsic nature. All very well. How do they exist? And here it is in a nutshell. Okay, here's the hypothesis. Can be tested, should be tested. And that is phenomena. So houses, take a house, take anything you like, but let's say a house. The house arises, as he says right here, independence upon the five elements. It has hard physical stuff like rocks or cement. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:17 Highlight the passage at 1:28:17

1:28:43 It has moisture, that is the water that goes into cement. And then it has heat, the fire element. It's going to be there to some extent. There's motility. There's motility in the atoms, the electrons and so forth. And so it arises independence upon the house, the various building materials that went into the house. Report an error in the passage at 1:28:43 Highlight the passage at 1:28:43

1:29:01 If you don't have building materials, you don't have a house. So it does arise independent upon the causes and conditions of which it's constructed and that includes the architect and the carpenters and so forth and so on. Many, many causes and conditions coming together and then, voila, house. And the metaphysical realist would say, that's very good, stop right there, you finished. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:01 Highlight the passage at 1:29:01

1:29:25 And then Madhyamaka says, no, not quite finished. And that is, when does a house come into existence? Well, first of all, the house is not simply a single entity, but the house has many attributes. It has walls, it has ceiling, floor and so forth and so on. And that's indisputable. And how many houses do you own? Well, if you own, you probably, most of us own one. And how many parts, how many attributes, how many component parts does your house have? Report an error in the passage at 1:29:25 Highlight the passage at 1:29:25

1:29:51 Well, a lot more than one. And so therefore, the house has many attributes. That's simply... Perfectly clear. It has many qualities, none of which are identical to it. It has many parts, the floor, the walls and so forth, none of which are identical to it. Nor is simply throwing all those things in the same place a house. That's a house kit, but it's not a house. And so the house has many parts, attributes, and it does not exist independently of those parts. Report an error in the passage at 1:29:51 Highlight the passage at 1:29:51

1:30:18 If you say, I just want the house, but you can have the walls, the foundation and the ceiling. And I'll just have the house that has all those attributes. You're looking at a whole lot of nothing. The house doesn't exist independently of those attributes. But by the way, you can't speak of the parts of a house without a house. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:18 Highlight the passage at 1:30:18

1:30:36 If you go out into the outback and you find a door, you can't say, oh, look at the part of the house. What house? It's a door. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:36 Highlight the passage at 1:30:36

1:30:47 And so the house exists independent upon the prior causing additions that gave rise to it. Lumber, the building materials. Architect and so forth. But the house also right now, let alone what happened in the past, because now it's built, the house right now as a single entity exists independent upon its various qualities and component parts. Report an error in the passage at 1:30:47 Highlight the passage at 1:30:47

1:31:09 Take them away, there's no house. So one can say, okay, I think we're finished now. Except for the question, when does a house come into existence? Report an error in the passage at 1:31:09 Highlight the passage at 1:31:09

1:31:20 Not with a house kit, and apparently it doesn't go out of existence, even if it gets burned down for some people. Because the designation is still there, so that's the deal. The third element, and then we're finished, is this house exists as a dependently related matrix of events. It is in constant flux. It arises independence upon prior causing conditions. Right now it exists independence upon its component parts and attributes, and it comes into existence by the power of conceptual designation, and it goes out of existence when that conceptual designation is withdrawn. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:20 Highlight the passage at 1:31:20

1:31:54 And that third one, that's the key. That's the deep one. That shows the role of mind in nature, the role of mind in reality as a whole. No conceptual designation. Without that, there is no house that has parts and attributes. Report an error in the passage at 1:31:54 Highlight the passage at 1:31:54

1:32:10 And without a house that has parts and attributes, it doesn't matter how many building supplies and how many architects and carpenters are, there's no house. So it's those three elements. That's quite deep, actually, and it does lend itself to empirical investigation. So, but this is what he's saying here. If you merely realize it's emptiness, then that could just be nihilism or meaninglessness or just nothing. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:10 Highlight the passage at 1:32:10

1:32:33 So you need to recognize how subjects yourself, your own mind, and objects do arise by the power of conceptual designation. And it is this dualistic mind that designates subjects over here, objects over there. And that in and of itself is not a problem. That in and of itself, that you're over there, no problem, you are. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:33 Highlight the passage at 1:32:33

1:32:54 And I am over here. And how? If there were no over there, there would be no such thing as over here. If there were no you, there would be no I. If there's no I, there's no you. So there's this mutual interdependence everywhere. If there were no apprehended, there would be no apprehender. If there's no apprehender, there would be no apprehended. It is all this mutual independence. Report an error in the passage at 1:32:54 Highlight the passage at 1:32:54

1:33:13 The fact that there is an apprehended and an apprehender, not a problem. The reification is a problem. Where we grasp onto any of these things as inherently existent. So we see that they're not inherently existent, but they do arise, they do exist, and they're brought into being by the power of dualistic thinking. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:13 Highlight the passage at 1:33:13

1:33:31 Without that, there's no benefit or harm in realizing everything's empty. Big deal. Like a beggar eyeing someone else's treasure chest, your knowledge is useless and trivial. So you can write a philosophical tract about it, and a few philosophers will read it, they'll refute it, and that's about it. So that's the second part. Now we move right on. Collapse the false cave. So this is the third part of his analysis. And you've seen this before, how he collapsed his false cave as he received that teaching from Deutsche Tollet. Report an error in the passage at 1:33:31 Highlight the passage at 1:33:31

1:34:07 From that time onward, due to this sign, I knew that these were pith instructions for collapsing the false cave of appearances. Which is to say, again, appearances do seem to be existing from our own side. Colors seem to be out there. Sounds seem to be coming. We walk into a room that smells as if the smell was already there. I mean, it really feels that way. Walk into a really stinky room and say, oh, man, this place stinks. Report an error in the passage at 1:34:07 Highlight the passage at 1:34:07

1:34:32 Let's get out of here. And now we feel the stink is left behind. Or this food, I bit into a, you've all done this, I'm sure, bit into an overripe kiwi yesterday. It was out of my mouth very quickly. Because I didn't want, you know, because the kiwi, the kiwi. It was overly ripe. It was rotten. Gotta get that taste out of my mouth. Spit it in the garbage can. Now that yucky taste is in the garbage can, right? Report an error in the passage at 1:34:32 Highlight the passage at 1:34:32

1:35:02 Where the yucky rotten kiwi is. Right? Except the yucky rotten kiwi down there has no taste at all. It's molecules. The taste was in my mouth. And now it's no longer a rising independence upon the molecules that hit my tongue and my taste buds. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:02 Highlight the passage at 1:35:02

1:35:21 That's the false cave, is things appear to be existing from their own side. And then we say, yup, and grasp onto them. Whether it's a rotten kiwi or a Higgs boson, the tendency is the same. It was already there, right? And we just discovered it. If you have understanding, experience and realization, okay, now you remember that? Report an error in the passage at 1:35:21 Highlight the passage at 1:35:21

1:35:44 Understanding from hearing, experience from meditating, realization from simply resting. If you have understanding, experience and realization of the manner in which All in which saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are not other than your own mind. This is a profound and potent point. So this goes beyond emptiness. Simply seeing that phenomena are empty of inherent nature is a half-cooked egg. Because you have to see how they do exist. Otherwise your knowledge is useless and trivial. Report an error in the passage at 1:35:44 Highlight the passage at 1:35:44

1:36:13 So you may understand how phenomena are empty of inherent nature, how they do come into existence by the power of conceptual designation. But you may still not realize. That all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are nothing other than effulgences, displays, creative expressions of pristine awareness. That's a very big deal. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:13 Highlight the passage at 1:36:13

1:36:37 It's more than simply realizing they're conceptually designated. This is a profound and potent point. Nevertheless, release your mind there. In its own essential nature, loose and free. So that's just what we did. We sought to approximate. Rest in the stillness of awareness. Relax, loose and free. And now investigate it. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:37 Highlight the passage at 1:36:37

1:36:57 Now he's saying investigate your mind, investigate it, the periphery of your mind, what you're experiencing right now as your mind. It's periphery, center, beginning and end. By doing so, if it can't be established as anything, an established, the term, means if you can't nail it down as something that's really there, your mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:36:57 Highlight the passage at 1:36:57

1:37:20 In other words, as something inherently existent. And if you carefully analyze and investigate how big and spatially pervasive it is, you will see All the three realms of the physical world and its sentient inhabitants as a totality within the all-pervasive expanse of space. That space is Dharma Datu. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:20 Highlight the passage at 1:37:20

1:37:39 That Dharma Datu is indivisible, non-dual from the space of your own awareness. You'll see that the whole of the universe and everything in it, desire, form and form realms, all of these, all of these are to be found within the expanse of awareness itself, non-dual from Dharma Datu. If you do not know that and determine it, Ascertain that all kinds of realms of saṃsāra are delusive experiences. They're all misleading and are not even remotely established as truly existent. Report an error in the passage at 1:37:39 Highlight the passage at 1:37:39

1:38:10 So you have to keep on coming back to that. In order to sustain some insight that not just the appearances to your mind but the whole of the universe exists as nothing other than creative expressions of pristine awareness, ground awareness, to have insight into that and to sustain it. You have to protect, guard, safeguard that inside by realizing that none of these appearances, none of these objects exist inherently. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:10 Highlight the passage at 1:38:10

1:38:42 And then he's going to bring in this relativity of perspective. With respect to a single fluid, hell beings see it as lava, pretas see it as pus and blood, animals see it as drink, humans see it as water, devas see it as ambrosia and so on. Report an error in the passage at 1:38:42 Highlight the passage at 1:38:42

1:39:00 And so all of these have their own Systems of measurement. That's what it is. It's a system of measurement. If you're a preta, you have a preta system of measurement. A preta way of seeing, viewing, hearing, experiencing, driven by your very existence as a preta. And you have a lot of intersubjective commonality with your fellow pretas. You can do a poll among your pretas. Everybody, please look here. What do you see? Puss and blood. Puss and blood. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:00 Highlight the passage at 1:39:00

1:39:24 Got it. It's really puss and blood. But if the observers... Are human beings with a human brain and so forth, they'll lock it and say, yep, it's really water, it's really water. And the devas, really ambrosia, really ambrosia. And then we can ask, yeah, but what is it independently of the hell, the preta, the animal, the human and the devas, what's really there, independent of any measurement? Report an error in the passage at 1:39:24 Highlight the passage at 1:39:24

1:39:49 Unanswerable question. And Vena Heisenberg, I'm going to pop him in here, says, do not attribute existence to that which is unknowable in principle. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:49 Highlight the passage at 1:39:49

1:39:59 It's also Buddhist epistemology. Right there he nailed Buddhist epistemology. And that is, what is that fluid? Now why do we even call it a fluid? Because the hell beings, pretas, animals, humans and devas are all seeing it as various types of fluid. From lava to pus to ambrosia and so forth. There is a commonality in all of their perceptions. And that is fluid. But very different kinds of fluid from lava to ambrosia. Report an error in the passage at 1:39:59 Highlight the passage at 1:39:59

1:40:24 But they're all seeing it as something fluid. So then one might think, okay then, What is common to all of them is it's a fluid. Therefore, what's there independently by its own inherent nature is a stem fluid. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:24 Highlight the passage at 1:40:24

1:40:38 As it's not yet configured as pus, lava, ambrosia and so forth, stem fluid, raw, primordial, inherently existent fluid. Except for that's just a way of talking because nobody ever sees stem fluid. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:38 Highlight the passage at 1:40:38

1:40:53 That's just one more projection rooted in delusion. Independent of any system measurement, there's not even fluid there. That just happens to be the commonality, the one common denominator between lava and ambrosia. They're both fluid. But there's no fluid there independent of everybody's perspective. And that's core quantum mechanics, core Madhyamaka. For each one, for each of these types of beings, from hell beings to devas, for each one it arises as their own perception and experience. Report an error in the passage at 1:40:53 Highlight the passage at 1:40:53

1:41:25 For each one it arises relative to their mode of observation. But bears no true existence of its own. Nothing outside that. Some inherently existent single fluid that is simply seen from multiple perspectives. That inherently existent single fluid. Well, that's just not there. That's just a projection. Because it's assuming, but there must be something common. Just as in a room of people. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:25 Highlight the passage at 1:41:25

1:41:50 A room of people. There are many, many psychological studies of this. A room full of people like a movie theater filled with people. And somebody in the midst of that screams with a panic-stricken voice, fire! And maybe it goes on, fire, it's a terrorist, it's a blah, blah, blah. They say something and then people freak out and they run for the doors. And then the psychologist rounds them all up afterwards and said, what just happened? And of course, they found this is mob psychology. Report an error in the passage at 1:41:50 Highlight the passage at 1:41:50

1:42:22 They find that, in fact, people hear things that were never said. They see things that were never appeared. Their memories are diverse. But there's some commonality. There's some commonality. But people do see things that don't exist, hear things that don't exist. They don't see things that were there. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:22 Highlight the passage at 1:42:22

1:42:40 They don't hear things that did occur. And so you can get a lot of variety there. But then you can kind of sift all of that out and say, OK, what's the common denominator? What did everybody agree on? And then one might quite understandably think, OK, that's what really happened. Except, no, not really happened, as in independent of anybody's perspective. Report an error in the passage at 1:42:40 Highlight the passage at 1:42:40

1:43:00 No, that just happened to be the shared part. But now what if, what if the Dalai Lama drives by? And among the people watching are really hardcore members of the Chinese Communist Politburo. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:00 Highlight the passage at 1:43:00

1:43:16 And what did you see? I saw a sheep in wolf clothing trying to tear apart the motherland. He's a separatist. That's what I saw. Right? And other ones will see a nice old man. And other ones will see their Lama. And then Kandola's there. And she sees thousand-armed chenrizi. So who's really in the car? A wolf in sheep's clothing, which is like lava, or thousand-armed chenrizi, which is like ambrosia. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:16 Highlight the passage at 1:43:16

1:43:47 Who's really in the car? And then one could ask, well, why don't you ask the Dalai Lama? Except for the Dalai Lama's perspective is the Dalai Lama's perspective. And that doesn't negate everybody else's. Any more than the Buddha's perspective, pure vision negates the fact that we're sentient beings. Report an error in the passage at 1:43:47 Highlight the passage at 1:43:47

1:44:07 It's one more perspective. It's a very noble one, but it's not the one that sees reality as it is. So the whole ideal that has driven science for more than 400 years of seeking to approximate a God's eye perspective, the absolutely objective, authentic, accurate, comprehensive view of reality, and science trying to rise up to meet that and replicate, create a representation of what God would be seeing independently of any human perspective, that has turned out to be a chimera. Report an error in the passage at 1:44:07 Highlight the passage at 1:44:07

1:44:38 And Stephen Hawking has commented on that recently in his most recent book. He said, in contrast to his earlier one, I used to think there was a place for God and all of that. But now he's basically said, you know, it's pluralistic. The universe is pluralistic. There is no God's eye perspective. So then where is this ultimate God standing outside of creation who has the absolutely objective and accurate view of reality? Report an error in the passage at 1:44:38 Highlight the passage at 1:44:38

1:45:04 Because reality is always rising up relative to different systems of measurement. So then the role of God is kind of finished. God as some entity, some truly existent entity observing his truly existent creation now has no place at all. In quantum cosmology the theory is now finished. So we'll do a little bit more. So for each one it arises as their own perception. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:04 Highlight the passage at 1:45:04

1:45:30 For each one it's accurate. For the hell being it is lava. It smells like lava, feels like lava, tastes like lava. It's lava. And for the preta, it is pus and blood. That is true for them. No one thing can be lava and pus and blood, but relative to the preta's system of measurement, it is pus and blood, and that goes for all the rest. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:30 Highlight the passage at 1:45:30

1:45:53 And again, we have the wave and particle theory of light that is in the same theme, different system of measurement. It is true for that perspective. And this here is something that's entirely incompatible with that. That is true from this perspective. And if you try to then superimpose what's really there independent of any perspective, just by the very phrasing of that you should know. Report an error in the passage at 1:45:53 Highlight the passage at 1:45:53

1:46:14 That imposing that question, you're doing so with a perspective. And that's just going to be relative to that perspective. There's always a perspective. Now we take a break. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:14 Highlight the passage at 1:46:14

1:46:28 Ten past. Let's reconvene. Back to the drawing board. Report an error in the passage at 1:46:28 Highlight the passage at 1:46:28