Dzogchen Retreat 2015 - Realising our true nature (part 25)

0:20 So we're seeing a view or a vision of nature of reality, big picture, emerging from all of this. And it's presented in a radically empirical way. That is, you don't have to believe this, that or the other thing before you start. You plunge in and you examine with all the precision, care, open-mindedness you possibly can muster. Report an error in the passage at 0:20 Highlight the passage at 0:20

0:41 All your intelligence you can muster. You'll need every bit of it. And you put all the hypotheses to the test of experience, and the real glory of this is that it's not just coming up with a bunch of answers at the end, but the very process is radically transforming the one who's engaging in the inquiry, which is the whole point. Report an error in the passage at 0:41 Highlight the passage at 0:41

1:00 It's not just to get more data on your hard drive. But we'll see in this whole vision here... Which again by many is regarded as the pinnacle of all of the Buddha Dharma and within the Vajrayana corresponding to the word empowerment, the final culminating empowerment before you're entirely perfectly enlightened. Report an error in the passage at 1:00 Highlight the passage at 1:00

1:18 We're seeing that mind plays an absolutely central role. Not just in human life but in the universe at large. That one simply cannot understand the universe without understanding the nature of the mind and the role of the mind. So it's not enough just to understand that atoms or galaxies Or empty of inherent nature, you must understand how the mind is involved in bringing reality to rise. Now one point, even though our time is running out, I have to mention this because it's very important. Report an error in the passage at 1:18 Highlight the passage at 1:18

1:47 When I speak of the multiple perspectives on the Dalai Lama driving by, for example, multiple perspectives on fluid, seen in these myriad ways, then one might, and we should use all intelligence possible here, one might conclude, well then, Oh, you mean there's no room for anybody's error? That is the psychotic person, the brilliant genius, anybody that... Now we're back to smoking dope and saying, hey, it's your reality, dude. Report an error in the passage at 1:47 Highlight the passage at 1:47

2:11 So is that where this is leading? This complete subjective relativism that whatever you think, well, that's your reality. You think the Dalai Lama is a wolf in sheep's clothing? Well, that's your reality. And Kandolasin, oh, that's her reality. So everything has gone bland. land no significance of any sort. Because it makes no difference. There's now no incentive to investigate reality, because you already have your opinion. Report an error in the passage at 2:11 Highlight the passage at 2:11

2:36 My opinion is that, you know, someone might say, my opinion is the earth was created 7,000 years ago, because that's the literal reading of the Old Testament. And that's as good as anybody else's. But that's not so much, Is there a possibility of error getting it flat out wrong? And if you believe that, you're wrong, you're delusional, your perspective is invalid. Is that possible? The answer is absolutely yes. You can make mistakes. Report an error in the passage at 2:36 Highlight the passage at 2:36

3:02 But then how do you determine mistake from non-mistake? Because in this view, there's no objective referent of how things absolutely are out there that you can compare with. But as Werner Heisenberg of others have pointed out, Even if there were some absolute objective referent out there, you have no way of accessing it because every time it arises relative to perspective. You can't jump over the fence into having no perspective, what Thomas Nagel called the view from nowhere. Report an error in the passage at 3:02 Highlight the passage at 3:02

3:31 He's a very, very fine philosopher. It's still alive, I might be to say. There is no view from nowhere. And so how do you determine a mistake? And William James said this, and then Tsongkhapa and other Madhyamaka masters have been saying it for centuries. William James got it right, though. When he was referring to introspection and whether introspection can be a valid mode of inquiry to come up with legitimate discoveries, knowing full well that, as he said himself, introspection is fallible, it's prone to deception, you can make mistakes. Report an error in the passage at 3:31 Highlight the passage at 3:31

4:03 But he said, like every other mode of observation, fallible, prone to mistakes, then how do you know when you've made a mistake? If there's no outside reality independent, that is the way things really are, how do you know? It's utterly internal and pragmatic. If you want to see how this is articulated philosophically with great astuteness, go for Hilary Putnam. Internal realism, pragmatic realism, it's quite brilliant. Report an error in the passage at 4:03 Highlight the passage at 4:03

4:28 But I won't elaborate on that right now, but here, to answer the question. You make an observation, you draw a conclusion, and now you keep on inquiring. And if you can, if there's any way you can do this, refine your system of measurement, hone your observational skills, Increase your analytical abilities. Develop your intelligence. And know internally that you're smarter now than you used to be. Your observations are clearer now than they used to be. Report an error in the passage at 4:28 Highlight the passage at 4:28

4:55 They're more precise than they used to be. You have to know that internally. If you can't figure that one out, then you can't play the game. You have to know internally. Just like with the issue that came up yesterday, laxity. Well, you have to see what it's like to be clear, and then it's not, and this is better and that's worse, and it's internal. Report an error in the passage at 4:55 Highlight the passage at 4:55

5:12 And you don't have to do a brain scan, you know it internally. So here it is, and it's quite extraordinary. I mean, I love this. It's William James, it's Hilary Potten, it's Chandrakirti, it's Dharmakirti. But Chandrakirti in particular, and that whole current, you simply go within the system. You have to appraise it from within. You can't ask God, you can't ask Buddha, because whatever you hear from Buddha, it's going to be from your perspective. Report an error in the passage at 5:12 Highlight the passage at 5:12

5:37 Always have your perspective. So what you need to do is... Hone your mind. Develop ethics and then samādhi. Hone the mind and make it more sane, more sharp, more clear, more precise. Hone your intelligence. Now we go to prajna, through hearing, thinking, meditation. Hone your intelligence. And now continue inquiring and as you do so, you'll come up with deeper insights that invalidate older insights. Report an error in the passage at 5:37 Highlight the passage at 5:37

6:02 And then continue and you'll have another insight that invalidates an earlier one because you see there were false assumptions involved. Report an error in the passage at 6:02 Highlight the passage at 6:02

6:10 Einstein surpassing Newton. James Clerk Maxwell surpassing Galileo. Science does evolve. That's the magnificence of it. It's not just a bunch of people agreeing or disagreeing. This is the mighty coupling of technology and science. No technology you would not have seen what we've seen over the last 400 years. Report an error in the passage at 6:10 Highlight the passage at 6:10

6:29 It had to be. But the science enhances the technology and the technology enhances the science. And it's been one of the greatest successes in human history. And also it's destroying the planet, which is kind of a bummer. Not that the scientists and technologists, but that kind of power and knowledge in the minds and the hands of greedy, closed-minded, stupid people. Report an error in the passage at 6:29 Highlight the passage at 6:29

6:49 Then we're just much more efficient at eating, devouring the earth than we were before. So it's kind of a shame, because it's really good science and really good technology, but put in the minds and the hands of people who have not made one inch of progress in the last 400 years in terms of learning how to purify the mind. Report an error in the passage at 6:49 Highlight the passage at 6:49

7:06 That's a problem. Same degree of craving, greed, hostility, aggression, and all of that, but no longer do we just have swords and sticks to poke each other with, we have nuclear bombs. And we can ravage the earth much more efficiently. So that's too bad. That's really a shame. There needs to be balance there. Report an error in the passage at 7:06 Highlight the passage at 7:06

7:25 But that's it. It's an inside job. And then you recognize earlier mistakes because you have gained greater clarity. And the technology in Buddhism, it's Samādhi. And the science is Pipashana. Report an error in the passage at 7:25 Highlight the passage at 7:25

7:41 And they go back and forth, back and forth. Two swords sharpening each other. Your samādhi gets deeper, sharper, more penetrating. The samādhi enhances your intelligence, your wisdom, your Vipassanā. Sharper, sharper, sharper, sharper, sharper, sharper. And eventually you just cut through all the roots of delusion and you're awake. And then job done. Report an error in the passage at 7:41 Highlight the passage at 7:41

8:03 But this view of reality, it's hard to imagine a view of reality that is not simply flat-out insane, that could be more diametrically opposed than this view, than materialism. Because materialism is not simply insane, there are a lot of very intelligent people who embrace it, and they're not in mental institutions. But that worldview of everything boiling down to matter, mind being either non-existent or a mere epiphenomenon or a function of matter, Mind not really doing anything at all because the brain is doing everything. And that view is now ubiquitous in the modern media and really quite ubiquitous in the writings and psychology, neuroscience especially. Report an error in the passage at 8:03 Highlight the passage at 8:03

8:45 That view where the brain is the agent, the only thing that matters is matter and the only avenue, now we have good old kind of Abrahamic, we have the only way attitude, which is characteristic of Abrahamic religions. Oh, now science is the only way. Science is the only way to reality. So two short quotes and I'll get back to the meditation. So I'll read this quote and then some of you have heard it before, not many. Report an error in the passage at 8:45 Highlight the passage at 8:45

9:14 Here's a quote by one of the most powerful thinkers, major thinkers, influential thinkers in the 20th century. And his statement is this. The problem of a world constitution that takes no account of the mental apparatus by which we perceive it, that is the world. Report an error in the passage at 9:14 Highlight the passage at 9:14

9:31 That world constitution, that vision, that worldview is an empty abstraction of no practical interest. He's just described modern science. To a T. Because here we have this whole materialistic vision of reality, and I've studied cosmology, there's no reference to mind or consciousness in the whole picture of 3.7 billion years of cosmic evolution. Report an error in the passage at 9:31 Highlight the passage at 9:31

9:54 There's no reference to the mind or consciousness because it's considered to be so insignificant that the mind has no role whatsoever. And this person whose name was Sigmund Freud says, such a worldview, such a completely materialistic worldview with no role for the mind, no understanding of the mental apparatus by which we understand, perceive the world, is an empty abstraction of no practical interest. Report an error in the passage at 9:54 Highlight the passage at 9:54

10:17 In other words, he's saying whole scientific worldview is just an illusion. Is that what you meant, Dr. Freud? That all of science is just an illusion because it missed the most important thing of understanding the role of mind and nature? Is this what you mean? That science is an illusion? And wouldn't this naturally imply that we should look outside of science, like to contemplative inquiry, which has been developed for thousands of years, and tap into those insights? Report an error in the passage at 10:17 Highlight the passage at 10:17

10:41 Is this what you mean, Dr. Freud? Oh, he answered me. Thank you. No, our science is not an illusion. What would be an illusion would be to think that we might obtain elsewhere that which science cannot give us. Report an error in the passage at 10:41 Highlight the passage at 10:41

10:58 So there is block-headed religious fundamentalism at its worst, I'm sorry to say, because he was very smart in many ways. But that's just flat out stupid. Report an error in the passage at 10:58 Highlight the passage at 10:58

11:09 Disagree me if you like. I'm right. And that attitude, unfortunately, is very characteristic in the 21st century. If science can't figure it out, nobody has. So back to it. Observe the objective, physical, quantifiable, because that's the only way. And if any anomalies come up, ignore them. Report an error in the passage at 11:09 Highlight the passage at 11:09

11:31 It's sad to call that science. So let's be heretics. Let's be subversives. Let's go back and be radically empirical like Galileo was and like Darwin was. And throw all this dogmatic nonsense to the winds. One session coming up, it will be guided. And no one ever has to agree with me, but that goes without saying. Report an error in the passage at 11:31 Highlight the passage at 11:31

11:51 How could I make you agree with me? What would I do? Twist your arm or what? I don't know what I'd do. So, no. I'm throwing up ideas. They're either true or false. Investigations should show one way or another. Report an error in the passage at 11:51 Highlight the passage at 11:51

· · · silence, 1 minute

12:42 Then settle your body, speech and mind back to a state of equilibrium. Relaxed, still and composed. Wide awake, clear. Report an error in the passage at 12:42 Highlight the passage at 12:42

12:59 And let the dust of the conceptually turbulent mind settle. And one effective way of doing that is by way of mindfulness of breathing. Every out-breath, release and release and release. So Report an error in the passage at 12:59 Highlight the passage at 12:59

· · · silence, 2 minutes

15:19 with this basis of some degree of meditative equipoise, of mental balance, which means sanity, is free of cognitive imbalances and so on, as much as possible. Report an error in the passage at 15:19 Highlight the passage at 15:19

15:35 Then we investigate, we inquire, using reasoning and careful observation. But also having the second type of evaluation which is pragmatic. Thus, do our investigations help to alleviate the afflictions of the mind? Do they help in arousing virtue and a greater sense of well-being? Both epistemic and pragmatic evaluations as we investigate the nature of reality and we turn now, following exactly the teachings of Dujjum Lingpa, to investigating once again that which we call, each of us calls, our mind, Report an error in the passage at 15:35 Highlight the passage at 15:35

16:17 the referent. When we say my mind, we now turn to it in a radically empirical way and Report an error in the passage at 16:17 Highlight the passage at 16:17

16:28 call to mind what you mean when you think my mind. Report an error in the passage at 16:28 Highlight the passage at 16:28

16:37 Identify the referent. No Report an error in the passage at 16:37 Highlight the passage at 16:37

16:44 one can do this for you. No one has your perspective. Report an error in the passage at 16:44 Highlight the passage at 16:44

16:57 So we pose a few questions. Report an error in the passage at 16:57 Highlight the passage at 16:57

17:05 Mind in which all thoughts and appearances arise. Report an error in the passage at 17:05 Highlight the passage at 17:05

17:12 Does it have a center? Can Report an error in the passage at 17:12 Highlight the passage at 17:12

17:20 you identify a center? You Report an error in the passage at 17:20 Highlight the passage at 17:20

17:46 might quite reasonably assume that you are in the center. Where else would you be? That's a good hypothesis. Report an error in the passage at 17:46 Highlight the passage at 17:46

17:57 Then it naturally invites the question, where are you? Report an error in the passage at 17:57 Highlight the passage at 17:57

18:06 Where is this center in which you feel yourself to be? And Report an error in the passage at 18:06 Highlight the passage at 18:06

18:20 what's the nature of this observer that presumes to be in the center? Report an error in the passage at 18:20 Highlight the passage at 18:20

· · · silence, 1 minute

19:19 Is the center unfindable? Report an error in the passage at 19:19 Highlight the passage at 19:19

19:25 Is the space of the mind empty of a center? Report an error in the passage at 19:25 Highlight the passage at 19:25

· · · silence, 1 minute

20:57 If no center is to be found, how about a periphery? Are there any outer boundaries? Is it your skull? Report an error in the passage at 20:57 Highlight the passage at 20:57

21:08 But of course, if your eyes are open, you see many appearances that are evidently not inside your skull. Report an error in the passage at 21:08 Highlight the passage at 21:08

21:16 Imagine, you go out on a clear night and you gaze into the depths of space. All Report an error in the passage at 21:16 Highlight the passage at 21:16

21:27 those appearances arising in the space of your mind. How big now is that space? You gaze through a telescope, you see distant galaxies, distant in space and time, and those appearances are arising in the space of your mind. Report an error in the passage at 21:27 Highlight the passage at 21:27

21:47 How big is that space? Report an error in the passage at 21:47 Highlight the passage at 21:47

21:52 Does it have a periphery? The Report an error in the passage at 21:52 Highlight the passage at 21:52

· · · silence, 1 minute

23:20 Hubble Telescope astronomers were able to observe galaxies. As they appeared, as they existed 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light years away, and those appearances arose, were perceived in the space of the mind by looking outwards, not in upon neurons or synapses. Report an error in the passage at 23:20 Highlight the passage at 23:20

23:47 How big is the space of the mind? And does the mind have any beginning or Report an error in the passage at 23:47 Highlight the passage at 23:47

23:57 any end? How big is your mind? And Report an error in the passage at 23:57 Highlight the passage at 23:57

24:13 is there ever anything that is known by anyone? Report an error in the passage at 24:13 Highlight the passage at 24:13

24:20 That appears outside the space of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 24:20 Highlight the passage at 24:20

24:30 Or is this space the ground of all being, of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, of all possible worlds, all arising in the space of the mind? Report an error in the passage at 24:30 Highlight the passage at 24:30

24:43 Is it true or false? Investigate your own mind. Report an error in the passage at 24:43 Highlight the passage at 24:43

· · · silence, 1 minute

26:09 Through such investigation arise experiences. And Report an error in the passage at 26:09 Highlight the passage at 26:09

26:25 when some insight arises, some discovery, some opening, Report an error in the passage at 26:25 Highlight the passage at 26:25

26:34 then comes a time to rest. Simply rest in that... Stillness, that luminosity, that cognizance of your own awareness and Report an error in the passage at 26:34 Highlight the passage at 26:34

26:50 to that awareness realization arises. Let's continue in silence. Report an error in the passage at 26:50 Highlight the passage at 26:50

· · · silence, 10 minutes

37:15 So you remember this triad of investigation giving rise to understanding, meditation giving rise to experience and then just resting giving rise to realization. This is a very Dzogchen kind of format. The investigation is done with the intelligence, with the intellect. And then meditation is done when you're doing things, and that's done with the mind. You're meditating with your mind, of course. But the realization of Dzogchen, the realization of pristine awareness, transcends the intellect. Report an error in the passage at 37:15 Highlight the passage at 37:15

37:46 There's no possible way the intellect can wrap itself around, take home and acquire pristine awareness. And pristine awareness transcends the mind as well. So that's where there has to come a time when you set aside investigation, you release your mind into a state of profound inactivity. Because only pristine awareness can know its own face. Pristine awareness alone can know its own nature. So now he continues though. Report an error in the passage at 37:46 Highlight the passage at 37:46

38:14 Now sentient beings seem to perish due to little things such as weapons. Little things like that. You know, atomic bombs, swords. Yet the heat and cold of the hell. So he's couching this of course in a Buddhist worldview. He is Buddhist. He's speaking in a Buddhist country. And for people there, this is just... Report an error in the passage at 38:14 Highlight the passage at 38:14

38:35 What the Buddha saw and many other contemplatives have seen as well. There are six realms of existence, from the hell realm to the deva realm. So he's going to take this, okay, let's take this seriously. How do these hell realms exist? And so forth. So yet the heat and cold of the hells and the hunger and thirst of the Pradas do not kill those beings. How come? They should be torched. Report an error in the passage at 38:35 Highlight the passage at 38:35

38:54 They should die of starvation. This fact reveals the fallacy of their true existence. Hell realms are nowhere to be found in reality and they don't exist of their own nature. And neither the praetor realms with all their pus and blood and their big extended bellies and so forth. They have no true existence. They're not really there. As they are nothing more than delusive appearances and experiences. Very similar to a nightmare. The nightmare can be terrifying, can be frightening, can be painful. Report an error in the passage at 38:54 Highlight the passage at 38:54

39:23 No question about it. But it doesn't exist anywhere and all the appearances in a nightmare are delusive. They're misleading. And so are the experiences of them. If you examine the cause and conditions such as a blacksmith who forges the burning iron ground, that's one of the hot hells. So if you imagine such a blacksmith, so a hell creator, you know, the architect, the carpenters, that make a hell realm. So let's start with a blacksmith who forges the burning iron ground and buildings and creates the flames and firewood of hell. Report an error in the passage at 39:23 Highlight the passage at 39:23

39:54 You must recognize that these are merely delusive appearances having no true existence. No one's made them. Not God, not maras, not hell beings. Nobody's made the hells. Nobody constructed them. They have no true existence. They're not there. Report an error in the passage at 39:54 Highlight the passage at 39:54

40:08 Moreover, where is the ripening of the sins and karma of the masters and workers in hell? So the Buddhist depictions are, you know, there are these beings in hell who torture, who throw you in the cauldrons of fire, all these horrific images. Very much like Auschwitz, frankly. But in Auschwitz there were masters and workers. But in the hell realms, where are these masters? Where are the architects, the carpenters? Where are these workers? Where are these worker bees? Report an error in the passage at 40:08 Highlight the passage at 40:08

40:31 These worker bees in hell. What kind of karma they're accumulating. There's no reference to that. Because they're not sentient beings. They're not there. They're apparitions. They're delusional displays. Like a nightmare. And if there's no ripening of karma for them, they're not accruing just a massive amount of terrible karma by torturing people for century upon century. Report an error in the passage at 40:31 Highlight the passage at 40:31

40:50 If there's no ripening of karma for them, then why should anyone else have to experience it? If you examine these points, you will ascertain that from their own side, they're like the appearances of a dream, apart from their mere duration. The only difference between a hell realm and a dream? Dreams are shorter. But all of these hell realms that are described, the praetor realms and so forth, all of these are nothing other than creations, creations of your own mind stream, conditioned by some pretty terrible karma, some very bad imprints. Report an error in the passage at 40:50 Highlight the passage at 40:50

41:24 And they create the hell realm. It's your hell realm. You created it. When the fuel is gone, the hell realm vanishes. It doesn't go anywhere. And it wasn't there before you arrived. Any more than a nightmare was waiting for you and then lingers after you've woken up in some kind of a nightmare storehouse. No such place. Report an error in the passage at 41:24 Highlight the passage at 41:24

41:42 Ascertain that all sentient beings subject to their own dualistic grasping involving the I and my, subject and object, all these sentient beings are under the domination of the delusive cycle. of the three realms of existence. All of these are equally unreal, all the appearances of the three realms are all equally misleading. Like a body in its shadow, they, that is all sentient beings, hold their ground relative to the objects of their own thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 41:42 Highlight the passage at 41:42

42:09 So one phrase that I've encountered long ago and I like it, every sentient being is in the center of his or her mandala. Every sentient being is in the center of one's own world and I think it has to follow. Report an error in the passage at 42:09 Highlight the passage at 42:09

42:23 That rather than there being one universe created by one god who has the absolute correct perspective on that one creation that he created, and then we try to emulate it with science, technology and so forth, there's one view never accepted in Buddhism. Report an error in the passage at 42:23 Highlight the passage at 42:23

42:40 And contrary to that, the view here is that there's one universe for every sentient being. I don't see any way around that. There's one universe for every sentient being. Every sentient being is in the center of one's universe. There's a lot of overlap, a lot of shared experience, we know that. But you're in the center of your universe, not just the center of mandala, the mandala is your universe. And as you purify your mind, you purify your universe. Report an error in the passage at 42:40 Highlight the passage at 42:40

43:05 And when you purify it to a very high extent, you look around in all directions and your world is Akhanistha. Other people looking at you, they're looking at you from their center and that may be Detroit or Darwin. Report an error in the passage at 43:05 Highlight the passage at 43:05

43:18 But from where you are, it's Akhanistha or it's Sukhavati or it's, who knows, Pshambhala. One universe for sentient being and you have to purify your whole world as you purify your mind. You purify your mind, you purify your world because the two are utterly, utterly and essentially entangled with each other. Report an error in the passage at 43:18 Highlight the passage at 43:18

43:40 You don't have a universe without your mind, without your being here and you don't exist here without your universe, mutual interdependence as usual. Like a body in its shadow, they hold their own ground relative to the objects of their own thoughts. The objects of their own thoughts comprise the whole universe in which they think they dwell and everyone in it. Report an error in the passage at 43:40 Highlight the passage at 43:40

43:57 This is an enduring process of habitually adhering closely to those various objects. Adhering closely to means reifying and then of course identifying my country, my planet, my kin, my race and so forth. Even during dreams at night, don't you reify and identify with the objects of earth, water, fire, air and space? Report an error in the passage at 43:57 Highlight the passage at 43:57

44:19 Thinking as well as all buildings, relatives, friends, loved ones and all manner of sentient beings, don't you reify them all and then identify with certain, this is my building, those are my relatives, those are my friends, these are my loved ones. Report an error in the passage at 44:19 Highlight the passage at 44:19

44:34 Doesn't that permeate all of your experience in a dream equally and in the same way as it does during the day's time? Not to mention all fears, joys and sorrows. The fears, joys and sorrows in the dream are every bit as real as those in the daytime. So as he says, Don't you reify and identify with all these things in the dream, just as you do in the daytime? But once you've awakened, you're awake, now you look back on the dream and you slap your forehead and say, oh man, why was I suffering so much? Report an error in the passage at 44:34 Highlight the passage at 44:34

45:03 That was just a dream. That was a nightmare. It was all an illusion. What got into me? Why did I think that was real? That's because you're awake. But as long as you're there in an anomalous dream, that's as real as it gets. A Buddha's awake, we're sleeping. If you successively examine all the... Periods of years, months and days that have gone by. In all your surroundings, friends, loved ones, possessions and houses, they are no different from subtle and coarse dreams. Report an error in the passage at 45:03 Highlight the passage at 45:03

45:32 If you examine the past, whatever it was, surrounding, friend, loved one, activities, places, when you think of them, what comes to mind, whether it was a dream or whether it was waking reality, once it's gone, there's no difference. Report an error in the passage at 45:32 Highlight the passage at 45:32

45:50 Moreover, there's not the slightest bit of difference between the 360 daytime appearances. This is in the lunar calendar where there are 360 days per year. So there's not the slightest bit of difference between the 360 daytime appearances and 360 nighttime appearances of one year. Nighttime appearances being, again, referring especially to dreams, apart from... Report an error in the passage at 45:50 Highlight the passage at 45:50

46:12 So all the appearances during daytime and nighttime, there's no difference apart from the mere degree of subtlety and coarseness of those experiences. Neither one is more real than the other. Neither one exists from its own side by its own inherent nature. Both have causal efficacy and suffering and joy arise in both. Where do the subjects and objects of daytime appearances go at night? Report an error in the passage at 46:12 Highlight the passage at 46:12

46:34 Where do those appearances, appearances of your loved ones, family, friends, your body, your environment, all the appearances, where do they go when you fall asleep? The appearances, the qualia. The subjects and objects of nighttime appearances are nowhere to be found during the daytime. Again, there's no dream storage bin. Report an error in the passage at 46:34 Highlight the passage at 46:34

46:55 All those appearances, they don't hang out someplace. They're not stored someplace. They don't exist anywhere. And the daytime appearances don't exist anywhere in your mandala from your perspective when you're fast asleep. Look to see if they're hidden somewhere, those nighttime appearances during the daytime. Report an error in the passage at 46:55 Highlight the passage at 46:55

47:13 Are they hidden somewhere? And you'll find that they are alike. They are not other than your own mind. Observe the difference between the birth and death of sentient beings in a dream and the birth and death of sentient beings that appear in the daytime. Observe that this is a matter of delusive appearances and experiences. They're both delusive and both appearances and experiences. Even though you recognize the phenomenal world as consisting of mental apparitions, if you see that, if you grasp at the deluded agent, Yourself as a subject, the one in here as being internal and delusive appearances as being external, like an illusion and an illusionist or a dream and a dreamer. Report an error in the passage at 47:13 Highlight the passage at 47:13

47:56 If you're still reifying the distinction between the subject in here and the object out there, you are tightly bound by chains of dualistic grasping. Report an error in the passage at 47:56 Highlight the passage at 47:56

48:07 And again, no one's denying that if you're in a dream and somebody calls to you in a dream, say, Pema, where are you? You say, I'm over here. That's true. Report an error in the passage at 48:07 Highlight the passage at 48:07

48:17 And then you're looking, and Pema's looking around, and where are you? Because the person's hiding behind a tree. And the person says, here I am, and pokes the head out, oh, there you are. That's true. Report an error in the passage at 48:17 Highlight the passage at 48:17

48:27 Is the person really there from their own side behind the tree? No. And are you really here from your own side? No. But within the context of the dream, yeah. Yeah. Seipala's over there. Pema's over here. That's true. They're not one person. They're not glued. They're not fused. You're over there. I see you. Can you see me? Report an error in the passage at 48:27 Highlight the passage at 48:27

48:44 Oh, you can? Good. Hi. Relatively speaking. Yeah, both in the dream and the daytime. No problem. The reification's the only problem. Report an error in the passage at 48:44 Highlight the passage at 48:44

49:02 Oh yeah. So you're tightly bound by the chains of dualistic grasping. Instead, rather than being, you know, free yourself, instead know that the conceptualized self that is grasped as I. Grass means a hero especially reified as I, somebody really in here, and all aspects that are established as the outer physical world and its inner sentient inhabitants, all of these are arising within the expanse of the all-pervasive essential nature of the mind. Report an error in the passage at 49:02 Highlight the passage at 49:02

49:35 Essential nature of the mind, now we're going down to pristine awareness, devoid of center and periphery. They do not exist beyond the expanse of that essential nature, just as the reflections in a mirror do not exist beyond the face of the mirror. Report an error in the passage at 49:35 Highlight the passage at 49:35

49:53 Big statements. Interesting to read, interesting to investigate, interesting to meditate on. Most important to find out whether it's true or false. And that's what this is. This is a method to determining whether it's true or false. And determine if it is true and you know it, whether it already liberates you. Report an error in the passage at 49:53 Highlight the passage at 49:53

50:14 So it's a great big bonus. There are many scientific truths. I think it's very cool they did enough research to discover that the Higgs boson exists. I think it's cool. It's good science. No criticism at all. Did anybody get liberated by that, by finding the God particle? Did anybody have less anger, craving, delusion, less anxiety, depression, unhappiness? I kind of doubt it. Report an error in the passage at 50:14 Highlight the passage at 50:14

50:35 And so much marvelous knowledge about the brain. It's a great science, a really good science. Report an error in the passage at 50:35 Highlight the passage at 50:35

50:44 But is anybody suffering less from our ordinary delusions, delusion, craving, hostility? Has a level of ethics gone up, compassion gone up, virtue gone up? Is there greater genuine happiness now that we know so much more about the brain? Don't think so. It doesn't mean it's worthless. It just means its value is very limited. That's my sense of it. It's hedonic science. That's what it is. Report an error in the passage at 50:44 Highlight the passage at 50:44

51:08 Western science is pretty much hedonic science. And there's nothing trivial about that. We all like to be healthy. We like to have clothing and shelter like transportation and communication. Nothing trivial about it. But if that's all we have, that's pretty thin. That's pretty thin. So this is eudaimonic science. Report an error in the passage at 51:08 Highlight the passage at 51:08

51:26 And now we don't have to choose. Which side are you on? We're against delusion and ignorance. Number four, knowledge. Hedonic knowledge is extremely useful and so does eudaimonic. Between the two, eudaimonic is more important. Enjoy your lunch. Enjoy your hedonic lunch. And see you at two o 'clock. Report an error in the passage at 51:26 Highlight the passage at 51:26