Four Applications Of Mindfulness Retreat 2013 with B. Alan Wallace (part 37)

0:00 So broadly speaking, we have these two modes of inquiry, the mode of natural science looking outwards, wonderfully developed scientific methods, of which there are many, and often driven by curiosity, just to share what's going, what's happening, what's going on. And in that way, many discoveries have been made which displace ignorance, but often it was ignorance where there was no delusion, there was no misapprehension, we simply didn't know. Report an error in the passage at 0:00 Highlight the passage at 0:00

0:26 And then out of curiosity we want to know, and then we find something we didn't know. And now we know it. But there was really no delusion involved. So that happens many, many times. And so we acquire more knowledge of the natural world. It's a good thing. Report an error in the passage at 0:26 Highlight the passage at 0:26

0:40 Whereas in Buddhism, the inquiry is much more targeted. There are many, many things that one might inquire into. But in terms of Vipassanā, in terms of the real active, explicit pursuit of insight, knowledge, understanding, very targeted. But it's really examining very specific aspects of reality. The knowing of which will transform and liberate the one who knows. And that's rather rare. Many things that we get to know don't really transform us much at all. Report an error in the passage at 0:40 Highlight the passage at 0:40

1:11 So now you know the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa, but what did that really change? What decision have you made since you learned that? How have you led your life differently? Report an error in the passage at 1:11 Highlight the passage at 1:11

1:21 So it's not to say it's worthless, it's just a different kind of knowledge. So in this particular case where we were looking at or examining where do thoughts come from? Report an error in the passage at 1:21 Highlight the passage at 1:21

1:35 Where do desires come from? Where do emotions come from? Well, it's designed to yield insight as we pursue those questions. But it's not only to replace knowing with unknowing, but rather replacing unknowing with knowing and thereby overcoming delusion, misapprehension. Report an error in the passage at 1:35 Highlight the passage at 1:35

2:00 And that is, it's very easy to think that as we're thinking, that the thoughts are really coming from me. As something real, something like there's a body, and there's my body, and there's my mind, and there's three of us. There's me. You know, I'm the one that has the body and mind. I say, right hand, you ready? Go up. Okay, that's good. You can go down. Okay, good. Clearly, there's three of us here. Report an error in the passage at 2:00 Highlight the passage at 2:00

2:28 Mind, think about hands going up and down. I just did. So, it looks like I'm the owner and operator, the CEO of these two factories, body and mind, which are interrelated with each other. So it looks like there's a third entity there. Certainly there is that sense, and moreover the Buddhist tradition says that that sense of being somehow separate from the body and mind, not the same, somehow distinct, autonomous and in charge of. Report an error in the passage at 2:28 Highlight the passage at 2:28

2:56 And in charge of. The CEO. The manager. It's said in Buddhism that that's conate. We don't just learn that from our parents' environment, acculturation. We're born with it. The sense there's somebody really in here, the one who's observing and the one who's doing. The agent. And I do things to my mind and I do things to my body. Sometimes I am overwhelmed by them. So we have this tug-of-war. Report an error in the passage at 2:56 Highlight the passage at 2:56

3:21 I'm trying to be in charge of them. They sometimes are in charge of me. But nevertheless, there are three of us. And the body and mind clearly aren't the same thing. But they are as interrelated as they are. Report an error in the passage at 3:21 Highlight the passage at 3:21

3:32 So it's very easy to think that. And there seems to be a lot of evidence for it. As I said, I just raise the hand, go up, and it goes up, goes down. And so there we are. And likewise, not only with physical activity, We put our minds to, put your mind to this task. Here's a problem for you. Work on this problem. The boss will tell the employee. Put your mind to this. Report an error in the passage at 3:32 Highlight the passage at 3:32

3:54 And then we do. And the mind, you know, when it's being good, then it tackles whatever problem we're attending to. So likewise, when it comes to thoughts emerging, it's very easy to think. Very natural. To have the sense. Where are the thoughts coming from? Me. I think my thoughts. I'm the thinker. Report an error in the passage at 3:54 Highlight the passage at 3:54

4:13 Go back to Descartes. I think, therefore I am. That's my rationale, that's my empirical basis for surmising that I do exist, because after all, I'm doing the thinking here. Somebody's doing the thinking, it's me. So that's a natural assumption. I Report an error in the passage at 4:13 Highlight the passage at 4:13

4:34 have to say it, I'm guilty, I have to pause. I have to tell it, yeah. He's heard it three times now already. Descartes goes into the bar. Report an error in the passage at 4:34 Highlight the passage at 4:34

4:47 Descartes, René Descartes, he goes into the bar. He asks for a glass of wine. Bartender gives him a glass of wine. Finished it. The barkeep comes back and said, Professor Descartes, would you like another glass of wine? And he says, I think not. And he disappeared. Report an error in the passage at 4:47 Highlight the passage at 4:47

5:13 She's never going to tell that story. Okay, it's a kind of cool joke. But you know, what's interesting here is that we should all know better. Of course, that's a joke. And of course, he's a very smart guy. But we should all know better. Because when you sit down and you say, all right, here's my intention. Report an error in the passage at 5:13 Highlight the passage at 5:13

5:14 it. Report an error in the passage at 5:14 Highlight the passage at 5:14

5:30 I'm in charge of my mind, right? I own, I operate, I've got a mind. And it's my mind. I feed it, I take care of it. And so I'm going to tell the mind, I'm going to sit down for 24 minutes. Mind, I'd like you to be quiet now. We have nothing to talk about. So just pipe down, be quiet. I'm going to focus on my breath. I'll get back to you in 24 minutes. Report an error in the passage at 5:30 Highlight the passage at 5:30

5:49 Got it? Good. Okay, now be quiet. And then we focus on our breath. Report an error in the passage at 5:49 Highlight the passage at 5:49

5:57 You have an obedient mind? It says, yes, sir. Or does it talk right back at you within three to five seconds? And if it did, why do you think you're thinking that? When you specifically decided not to, and then it's happening anyway. And then it keeps on happening, you get really frustrated, you really said, how many parts of shut up don't you understand? Now do it. Report an error in the passage at 5:57 Highlight the passage at 5:57

6:22 And they say, yeah, yeah, you do it. And they have this whole dialogue with your mind. They say, wait a minute, who's in charge here? Are there multiple people? I have a multiple personality disorder? Are there multiple agents? What's going on? It seems like quite chaotic, quite noisy. And so it should be pretty obvious, especially when you do have that awareness like an unflickering flame. Report an error in the passage at 6:22 Highlight the passage at 6:22

6:39 And it's still, it's quiet, and you observe, you really observe the movements of the mind. You observe a thought coming up, and you know perfectly well you didn't do it. Just like lying flat on your back in the hotel room and you hear the conversation of the couple walking down the corridor. There's just no question. You didn't do that. Report an error in the passage at 6:39 Highlight the passage at 6:39

7:00 You overheard it. It wasn't even interesting. Then you stopped overhearing it because it passed on through. And you say, okay Descartes, we have to talk. I think therefore I am. What makes you think you did it? Simply because you grasp onto it? Simply because you identified with it? So it does get interesting. Where do thoughts come from? Report an error in the passage at 7:00 Highlight the passage at 7:00

7:26 And is it in fact true, this intuitive feeling that thoughts are coming from this third agent, not the body, not the mind? My thoughts are coming from me and they manifest in the mind. That's where they're articulated. They're expressed. But they come from me. Good. Where's the evidence? Where's the evidence that you're actually kind of an Archesian well of thinking? Report an error in the passage at 7:26 Highlight the passage at 7:26

7:45 And not only thinking, but desiring. I desire that. But are you? When you're addicted to something, you're desiring that thing? When you would really like not to be addicted? You'd really like not to crave whatever it is? You think you're doing it? Then stop. Except you can't. Therefore you're probably not doing it. And like emotions, I'm really angry? Report an error in the passage at 7:45 Highlight the passage at 7:45

8:05 Good. Where did that angry come from? You? Why don't you just stop? If you're the angry source, why don't you just put a cork in it? You know? Were it so nice? And so I found a parallel here. This egocentric view. Egocentric view of the system of body-mind interactions of pratita samupada. It seems to me there's a direct correlation between this and a theocentric view of the universe. Very common, and there are very sophisticated views of the divinity of God and some that are not very sophisticated. Report an error in the passage at 8:05 Highlight the passage at 8:05

8:36 So I'll tap into one that I think is not so sophisticated. God is out there, probably has a gender, whatever that means, because clearly it doesn't have a beard, nobody really thinks that. So God is out there, the superego, the cosmic ego, the universal ego, and God spoke. Did something and voila, he got a world. And then he controls it, he punishes, he rewards. He causes earthquakes and rainstorms and drought and disease and pestilence and good crops and bad crops and happy babies and sick babies and good jobs and bad jobs and all God's matchmaker, son of a gun. Report an error in the passage at 8:36 Highlight the passage at 8:36

9:14 He must have a lot of time on his hands. Because what did he say in the Roman Catholic wedding? What God had bring and let no man render asunder? Something like that? God makes marriages, right? That's why it's a sin to get divorced if you're a really strict Catholic. Man, God must have a lot of time on His hands. And doing it rather badly, I might add. Report an error in the passage at 9:14 Highlight the passage at 9:14

9:36 And so that's a really hands-on God that's creating tornadoes and marriages and babies and droughts and big bangs and galactic formations and black holes and supernovas and so forth. He's really got a lot of work to do. And it's all coming from this one source. Report an error in the passage at 9:36 Highlight the passage at 9:36

9:52 And you may get upset with God, but then you say, mysterious are the ways of the Lord, who can really say, but thank you God for all the good stuff, and the other rest of the stuff, I'll just shut up because I don't understand what's going on. So there's a simplistic view of theism. I think there are theists who believe that, and many who do not, they have a much more sophisticated knowledge or understanding. Report an error in the passage at 9:52 Highlight the passage at 9:52

10:11 But there is a notion, I think I didn't just make that up, I think there are theists who believe that. There is a super agent out there, and it's from that agent that all of this is happening. It's God's will after all. It's a very strong theme in Islam. The will of Allah. Everything is from Allah. I'll just walk away quietly. Report an error in the passage at 10:11 Highlight the passage at 10:11

10:31 But everything is the will of God. Well, many Muslims I'm sure believe that. Many Christians, Jews I'm sure do. I'm sure there are many Hindus as well. So it's a common view among theists that there's really one ultimate source out there. It's a person, it's divine, and that's the doer, the super agent, the unmoved mover, to use the phrase of Aristotle. Report an error in the passage at 10:31 Highlight the passage at 10:31

10:50 Does anybody see that unmover mover? Actually see the agent out there? That's a difficult one. And the Buddhist answer is no, nobody ever actually sees it. So why don't we stop believing in it? That was the Buddhist response to theism of there being a creator out there who created everything, runs the show, punishes and rewards. Report an error in the passage at 10:50 Highlight the passage at 10:50

11:10 The Buddha refuted that for this very simple reason. Where's the evidence? You know, where's the evidence? We see a lot of the manifestations happening, droughts and all of that. But where's any evidence that the one agent behind all of this who's creating it, who you can get angry at or be thankful to, worship or abhor, where's the evidence? Report an error in the passage at 11:10 Highlight the passage at 11:10

11:28 And he said, you know, that's a great big null set. Nobody ever sees that agent. Some people have divine mystical revelations and so forth, but who's ever seen the agent, some super god, creating all this stuff and doing all that stuff? Isn't this simply a figment of imagination, a projection, thinking somebody must have done it, and so they're going to call that somebody God? Report an error in the passage at 11:28 Highlight the passage at 11:28

11:49 And so by the time we get to the mid-19th century, that's getting seriously challenged because so many of the literal statements in the Bible turn out to be false. Like the age of the earth, and then of course a big one with the evolution of humanity. Maybe not created on the sixth day out of Adam's rib or out of thin blue air or blue sky. So that really kind of threw a spanner. Report an error in the passage at 11:49 Highlight the passage at 11:49

12:11 It was just kind of getting knocked out like a boxer getting into the ring and just getting punched and punched and punched. And one thing after another. In terms of literal interpretation of the Bible just proved to be false. And so by the time we get to Darwin, there was really a sea change. And more and more of the intelligentsia of Europe and then the rest of the world were saying, you know, that's a theory that just doesn't stand up. Report an error in the passage at 12:11 Highlight the passage at 12:11

12:33 And so threw it out. That's what Darwin did. But that notion. Now, so those are the believers, right? The believers are the, say, well, all right, there's no compelling evidence. But nevertheless, I do believe. 90 % of Americans believe in God. And so, don't see him, can't hear him, this creator, but nevertheless, it is kind of this intuitive feeling, somebody must have created it, somebody must have done it, so let's call that somebody God. Report an error in the passage at 12:33 Highlight the passage at 12:33

13:00 And now we have at least some kind of a relationship with the Almighty. But for the eighth of the course, that's been chucked out. It was chucked out as early as Laplace. Laplace. Famous dialogue between Laplace, the French mathematician, physicist and Napoleon Bonaparte. Report an error in the passage at 13:00 Highlight the passage at 13:00

13:19 200 years ago. 200 years ago. Yep, 200 years ago or so. A little bit more than 200 years ago. And Laplace, the mathematician, was laying out state-of-the-art physics to Napoleon and laying out, you know, kind of developed Newtonian mechanics and showing how the whole, all the causality, all the natural laws and how this gives rise to that and that, this beautiful, sophisticated vision of classical physics. Report an error in the passage at 13:19 Highlight the passage at 13:19

13:44 And Napoleon listened to all of this presentation of... State of the art physics. And he said, but Monsieur Laplace, where's the role of God? Where does he fit it? And Laplace said, Monsieur Napoleon, we have no need for that hypothesis. Report an error in the passage at 13:44 Highlight the passage at 13:44

13:58 The system works. In other words, he was giving a naturalistic explanation of the universe and didn't need any supernatural agent to come in and make it, tinker with it or run it because it all worked internally. And that's what scientists ever been, ever since then, have been calling naturalism or naturalistic. Report an error in the passage at 13:58 Highlight the passage at 13:58

14:15 That everything in nature can be understood within the context of nature. You don't have to invoke something that is supernatural to account for its origins or how it's working. That everything is an inside job. That's actually what the Buddha came to. And that is, no need for that hypothesis. Many people believe it. Report an error in the passage at 14:15 Highlight the passage at 14:15

14:33 He said, I see no evidence for it. So we're going to check that one out. And we're going to try to understand the nature of the natural world, including our presence in it, within the system rather than invoking something from outside of the system. And so he chucked out the notion, due to lack of evidence, of the outside creator and said, let us understand how the whole of loka, experienced reality, arises in terms of causes we can identify, rather than attributing them to an unmoved mover that we can't identify. Report an error in the passage at 14:33 Highlight the passage at 14:33

15:05 So let's just chuck out the notion of there being some super-agent behind the whole thing and see how this is all pratita samudbada. How everything arises in independence upon prior causes and conditions, all of them being natural, none of them being supernatural. Report an error in the passage at 15:05 Highlight the passage at 15:05

15:23 This is why his Holiness Dalai Lama has commented on occasion that he feels that theism is incompatible. Theism, the notion that there is an inherently existent, absolutely existent, objective God out there who creates everything, runs everything, influences everything. I don't think he has moved on this view. If you have heard he has changed his mind, let me know. Report an error in the passage at 15:23 Highlight the passage at 15:23

15:43 But the last I heard was, if that's what theism means, just that, and then we have the Buddhist view of Pratyasamupada, that all phenomena within the natural world, within the universe, are all, all conditioned phenomena, are rising independence upon prior causes and conditions occurring within the universe. Report an error in the passage at 15:43 Highlight the passage at 15:43

16:02 That His Holiness, and therefore they're empty of inherent nature, because they're all rising in this mutually interdependent fashion. His Holiness has suggested then, I think theism and the Buddhist teachings on emptiness are incompatible. Because if you've got a god there, that god is inherently existent. And the Buddhist tradition says there's nothing inherently existent and everything is arising independent upon natural causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 16:02 Highlight the passage at 16:02

16:24 Where Buddhism differs here from much of modern science and all of scientific materialism is scientific materialism says natural equals physical. I know a lot of materialism. We've had a lot of conversations. And whenever I pin them down, what do you mean by natural? When they say, oh Alan, I don't believe in your supernatural stuff. Report an error in the passage at 16:24 Highlight the passage at 16:24

16:43 I said, what do you mean by natural? Physical, you know, physical. I said, well, okay, that's one notion, but in other words, my emotions are supernatural, right? My emotions, my desires, my feelings, my itches, they're supernatural, right? Because you can't measure them. Report an error in the passage at 16:43 Highlight the passage at 16:43

17:02 And so the mind is supernatural, right? Because you can't measure that either. It has no physical attributes. Consciousness is supernatural? Hmm. So no, Buddhist notion of natural includes, of course, mental phenomena. Appearances, dreams, states of consciousness and so forth, they're as natural as lumps of coals and hummingbirds. Some happen to be physical, some happen to be non-physical, but that doesn't mean they're mystical or unnatural. Report an error in the passage at 17:02 Highlight the passage at 17:02

17:28 It's a ridiculous notion. I'm just astonished that people still take it seriously, but many, many do, because they feel so comfortable in equating the natural with what they can measure and what they can't measure scientifically. They say, well, that's probably an illusion. Very interesting idea. Crazy, but interesting. Report an error in the passage at 17:28 Highlight the passage at 17:28

17:49 So, as with the natural world, the Buddha's view is it's Pratita Sambhapada. It's all natural. But the natural includes mental, includes physical and so forth. But what the materialists have done is quite interesting. Taken out God, right? But now, what's the origin of everything we experience? So, we have this loka, right? This experienced world full of colors and lights and sounds and emotions and tastes and smells and touches. All the stuff that we immediately experience, right? Report an error in the passage at 17:49 Highlight the passage at 17:49

18:17 All these appearances we're getting. Of everything, including mental appearances, dreams, imagery, emotions, thoughts, sounds, colors, tastes, touch, smells, everything. So here's a loka. That's an experienced world, the Lebenswelt, the Germans called it. So where's it all coming from? Where's it all coming from? Where are all these appearances coming from? Report an error in the passage at 18:17 Highlight the passage at 18:17

18:36 And the scientific materialist and many scientists got a really snappy answer. All these appearances, they are emergent properties of one thing, one type of thing, matter. Just ask Daniel Dennett. He'll tell you. All phenomena, everything we experience, they're all consisting of emergent properties of matter. I can quote him on that one. Report an error in the passage at 18:36 Highlight the passage at 18:36

18:58 Daniel Dennett. He's a really good, solid, archetypal materialist. And proud of it. And he has many, many friends. Many, many people who share his view. Okay, it's cool. He's a smart guy. I don't think it's a very smart idea, but I think he's a smart man. But now, the whole ontological burden of reality, which used to be on God, In the beginning, God did something. And then, voila, here we have this. Or in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh. Report an error in the passage at 18:58 Highlight the passage at 18:58

19:29 Okay, again, we have the beginning, but the beginning traces back to God. So the whole ontological burden of reality and our existence here used to all stem from God. So, okay, the buck stops there, we'd say in America. The buck stops there. God did it, right? But of course, take God out of the equation, but you ask the same question. Report an error in the passage at 19:29 Highlight the passage at 19:29

19:48 Where does the buck stop? Where did... Where does everything fundamentally emerge from? And the materialists said, we got the answer, it's matter. In the beginning was the Big Bang, nobody knows what causes it, so whatever. But out of the Big Bang emerged configurations of mass energy, so let's just put those into the bundle, we'll call it matter for simplicity's sake, but congealing matter, so particles and then bigger particles and molecules and then planets, stars and galaxies. Report an error in the passage at 19:48 Highlight the passage at 19:48

20:14 But matter, lots and lots of configurations of matter. And then about five billion years ago, this planet formed. That's a big chunk of matter. And the bigger chunk of matter over there, sun keeping it warm, and the moon being a nice recreation, influencing the tides and so forth, it turns out to be pretty crucial to life on Earth. Report an error in the passage at 20:14 Highlight the passage at 20:14

20:32 But there it is, matter, matter, matter. Right? That's the picture five billion years ago. Electricity and matter, but again, for simplicity's sake, matter will do. And then we have all these emergent properties coming out. Out of inorganic matter comes organic matter. Out of organic matter configuration, more complex now, comes organic matter, comes single-celled organisms, all emerging out of matter. And then single-celled organisms, eventually, when they're sufficiently complex, that's why I beat up on the word, sufficiently complex to become animals who presumably have consciousness at some point, but we don't know when. Report an error in the passage at 20:32 Highlight the passage at 20:32

21:06 And those animals evolve, and then here we are. And everything came from matter. So in the beginning was matter. And then in the end was everything we're experiencing. And so matter now. is primary, where God used to be, and now it's matter. So instead of a loving God who's very powerful but does have moods, we have matter. Don't get on the wrong side of God. Report an error in the passage at 21:06 Highlight the passage at 21:06

21:26 He can be really wrathful. But matter, So this is what the non-believers believe in. People who don't believe in the supernatural. Who don't believe in God, don't believe in karma, reincarnation or enlightenment. No, the hard-minded people, the tough-minded people. I just believe in matter. I'm one of those tough-minded people. Report an error in the passage at 21:26 Highlight the passage at 21:26

21:57 I'm not one of you believers like you, hocus-pocus, woozy-woozy-minded, woolly-woolly-minded Buddhists and Christians and other religious people with your delusions one compounded on the other. We're realists. We just believe in matter and its immersion properties. Daniel Dennett actually calls such people bright. It's quite self-congratulatory. We're bright. Report an error in the passage at 21:57 Highlight the passage at 21:57

22:15 It's quite cute. I wonder what that makes us. Report an error in the passage at 22:15 Highlight the passage at 22:15

22:23 It's so charming. It's really charming. It's like nobody's listening, I guess. In any case, okay, everything boils down to matter. That's really cool. So, who's actually seen matter? I mean, nobody, according to the atheists, nobody's actually seen God as the creator. I mean, it's invisible. That's why a lot of people don't believe in Him, why the Buddha refuted Him. Where's the evidence? So, actually, who's seen matter? Report an error in the passage at 22:23 Highlight the passage at 22:23

22:50 And one can say, I have just bumped into it. Except for if I were dreaming right now and I picked up a dream cell phone and I went, boink, I just discovered matter. A person who's awake would say, no you haven't. I'm sorry, but you're in a dream. You don't know that, but I got a clue for you. You're dreaming. And even though you picked up a dream cell phone and bumped it on your dream head and it feels really solid, there's no matter there. Report an error in the passage at 22:50 Highlight the passage at 22:50

23:16 So sorry. There's the appearance of matter, but all you're picking up actually is earth element. Which is sensations of solidity. But you can have that in a dream, as you can have in the waking state, and there's no matter in a dream. I think we're pretty clear on that. Richard Feynman checked it out, by the way. Such a cool story. Report an error in the passage at 23:16 Highlight the passage at 23:16

23:39 Richard Feynman was an undergraduate at MIT. You like the stories? Okay, cool. We're out of time, but you know. It's a great story. So Richard Feynman was an undergraduate student at MIT, and he just was really fixated on physics. That's what he loved. But to graduate, he had to take a course in humanities. At least one. Report an error in the passage at 23:39 Highlight the passage at 23:39

23:55 Otherwise they wouldn't give him a degree, and he had no interest whatsoever. But so he said, okay, where in the humanities is something that kind of looks like science? And he found psychology. So he took a course in psychology. He could care less, you know. But he had to take it, he took it, and he had to do a research project in psychology. This is like asking an elephant to dance. Report an error in the passage at 23:55 Highlight the passage at 23:55

24:16 You know, they don't really want to, but if you insist, okay, they'll do something like dancing. So he had to do a research project in psychology. But he recognized he had a natural skill, and the natural skill was he was very gifted for lucid dreaming. Many people are. He's one of them. So he said, okay, I'm good at lucid dreaming. Report an error in the passage at 24:16 Highlight the passage at 24:16

24:35 So he asked his prof, can I do my research project on lucid dreaming? I can have them quite frequently. Prof said, yeah, sure, go for it. So he had his lucid dream, and he started running physics experiments in his lucid dream. Report an error in the passage at 24:35 Highlight the passage at 24:35

24:48 Very clever. There's a reason this guy got a Nobel Prize. He's very clever, incredibly clever. So he ran physics experiments in his dream to see whether things like law of gravity, inverse square law and so forth would work in the dreams. He found surprise, surprise, no they don't. As I discovered this morning when I was flying in my dream, and that was the cue, I think you're dreaming, Buster. And it was a lot of fun. And so he showed that in dreams the laws of physics do not hold, which would imply that dreams are not composed of physical material, which we probably didn't think anyway. Report an error in the passage at 24:48 Highlight the passage at 24:48

25:20 Richard Feynman, you got a Nobel Prize. Not for that, but... Report an error in the passage at 25:20 Highlight the passage at 25:20

25:27 So in dreams, there seems to be a lot of matter. You bump into things, you get hit by a truck. I was shot in the head once, died in a dream. You know, the bullet penetrated my skull, which didn't exist, nor did the bullet. I still died. And so there certainly seems to be the appearance of dreaming, the appearance of physical material, but it's not there. And so we say, okay, I'm observing matter. Report an error in the passage at 25:27 Highlight the passage at 25:27

25:45 Well, no, you're observing. If we really, you know, get Occam's razor and shave off, what you're really observing, if we get real here, is tactile sensations. Now, we're assuming there's a tactile sensation coming from matter, but in fact you're not seeing matter. I'm getting smooth, I'm getting warm, I'm getting earth element. I'm getting sensations. Report an error in the passage at 25:45 Highlight the passage at 25:45

26:04 You know, sensations like what a person has in a phantom limb. Those are sensations too. But there's no matter there at all, right? It's a phantom limb. And so the mere fact that we're having tactile sensations is not a guarantee of the existence of matter. Phantom limbs, you've got them. Dreams, you've got them. I imagine they're hallucinating. If you take datura, you might very well have some tactile sensations that don't correspond to matter either. Report an error in the passage at 26:04 Highlight the passage at 26:04

26:26 So the sensations themselves, though, I mean, this is for sure, the tactile sensations, they're not composed of matter. I'm going to say my knee is, because I believe in matter. But the tactile sensations are not composed of molecules. Smooth, warm, soft. Ask a physicist whether warm is composed of molecules. Report an error in the passage at 26:26 Highlight the passage at 26:26

26:46 Where the smooth is made out of molecules. I think you're going to say, what are you talking about? Of course not. How about colors that we see, like yellow? Is that composed of molecules? No, it's not out there. Yellow isn't out there. Molecules in the wall, yes. But yellow, no. Yellow arises independent upon your visual cortex. It's not out there. Report an error in the passage at 26:46 Highlight the passage at 26:46

27:04 No part of your brain turns yellow. And it's not in between either. Photons aren't yellow. So yellow isn't physical. It has no place in physical space. It's not out there on the wall. Because that's just a bunch of molecules that have no color. Photons aren't yellow, no part of your brain turns yellow. So yellow doesn't exist in physical space and it has no physical attributes and it's not composed of matter, therefore it's not matter and it's not physical. Report an error in the passage at 27:04 Highlight the passage at 27:04

27:26 That goes for sound too. Sound is not composed of matter. Molecules is not composed of electromagnetic energy either. That goes for smells. Molecules in the air, yes. Smells, no. Do not exist in physical space, nor do tastes. So I think we pretty much covered the gamut. Tactile sensations are not material, nor are smells, tastes, sounds or visual. None of them are made of matter. You don't see matter. Report an error in the passage at 27:26 Highlight the passage at 27:26

27:52 You see a whole bunch of impressions, appearances, none of which are material, none of which are physical. They have no physical attributes and they're not physically measurable. You can't measure yellow. You can measure the wavelength corresponding to yellow. But that differs actually by context. So that's interesting. All of our sensory experience of the world consists of impressions, none of which are physical. Report an error in the passage at 27:52 Highlight the passage at 27:52

28:14 And none of which are composed of matter. But how about the scientists? So we're living in this fishbowl of non-physical appearances, none of which are material, but behind the scenes, of course, they all must be emerging from matter, right? So who knows about matter? Well, it must be the scientists, because after all, they're the professionals, the ones that have given us all this knowledge. And so let's go to the physicists, let's go to the granddaddy of them all, the physicists who start the whole show going 400 years ago. Report an error in the passage at 28:14 Highlight the passage at 28:14

28:41 Physicists tell us about matter, and then what they'll tell you about if they're really clear is what we can tell you about is information. Because we're making measurements and we're getting information. Whether it's Galileo looking through his telescope, he's getting visual images. That's not physical. But then we have all these wonderful instruments, the Large Hadron Supercollider, but what are actually picking up? Report an error in the passage at 28:41 Highlight the passage at 28:41

29:00 Not matter, you're getting information. And you look at an x-ray, you're getting information. Look at a brain scan, you're getting information, EEG information. All instruments of technology are actually bringing you information. Information not physical. It has no mass, no location, no spin, no electromagnetic charge. Report an error in the passage at 29:00 Highlight the passage at 29:00

29:20 Information has no physical attributes whatsoever and it's not made of matter. It's non-physical. Information. All of information. The meaning of the words I'm saying right now has no physical attributes whatsoever. And it's not located in space either. It has no location in physical space. It has no physical attributes whatsoever. Report an error in the passage at 29:20 Highlight the passage at 29:20

29:39 And that's what scientists really measure. What they actually pick up is information and information is not physical. Just ask John Wheeler, one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the latter part of the 20th century. Information is not physical. It's not material. And that's what scientists actually observe and process and make sense of is information. Report an error in the passage at 29:39 Highlight the passage at 29:39

30:00 And what we call appearances, they call information. But appearances are not physical. They're not made of matter. Information is not physical. It's not made of matter. So actually, who is detecting matter? You know, the matter that's on the other side. The matter that's spewing out all that information. Report an error in the passage at 30:00 Highlight the passage at 30:00

30:19 The matter that, independence upon which all appearances are arising. Whoever sees matter? Nobody. Report an error in the passage at 30:19 Highlight the passage at 30:19

30:32 In fact, it's unknowable in principle. Because you can never jump beyond, you can never say, here's the information, but I'm going to jump beyond the information to the source of the information. Because what you get is more information. And the information you get will not be physical. And it won't be matter either. But no, I'm going to jump beyond that one. You've got a whole bunch of hurdles there, but you never get to matter. You just get more information. And information always rises relative to your system of measurement. Report an error in the passage at 30:32 Highlight the passage at 30:32

30:56 Information is not physical. Appearances are not physical. Dreams are not physical. Everything we experience, whether you're a scientist, a musician, a dreamer or a lover, is non-physical. Report an error in the passage at 30:56 Highlight the passage at 30:56

31:10 Nobody ever experiences matter. Nobody ever sees matter. Matter is unknowable. In and of itself is something absolutely objective. And so people who believe that matter is the ultimate stuff bearing the entire ontological burden of the universe, I call them materialogians. Report an error in the passage at 31:10 Highlight the passage at 31:10

31:29 Because they believe in something that nobody has ever seen, ever will see, and is unknowable in principle. Matter is something absolutely objective, existing out there, independent of all systems of measurement. They are the true believers. But the God they believe in doesn't give a shit about them. Report an error in the passage at 31:29 Highlight the passage at 31:29

31:52 So if there's no... If we take God out there and there's no matter out there as the absolute ontological stuff that's spewing out everything else, then we might seriously question the notion of whether there's any ego in here that's spewing out all the stuff of emotions, thoughts, dreams, desires and so forth and so on. Report an error in the passage at 31:52 Highlight the passage at 31:52

32:13 If you can't find it, if it's unknowable in principle, you might just want to draw the conclusion that such an inherently existent ontologically real self Bearing the burden of our whole personal existence doesn't exist at all. Does that mean that we don't exist? No, that's silly. That would be like saying the universe doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in the fashion that we used to believe. That it's all arising in pratita samudbada. All arising by way of dependent origination. Report an error in the passage at 32:13 Highlight the passage at 32:13

32:40 With nothing stable, nothing concrete, nothing inherently separate or real. Everything arising in mutual interdependence. And we're all in this together. And consciousness is part of the universe. Not a superficial little emergent property that occurred some time ago, but nobody knows how. So that's a revolution. Report an error in the passage at 32:40 Highlight the passage at 32:40

33:03 Enjoy your afternoon. I'll see you at 7 o 'clock. Report an error in the passage at 33:03 Highlight the passage at 33:03