Glen Svensson: Cultivating the wisdom of selflessness (part 3)

· · · silence, 1 minute

0:30 our mind and they're the root of our problems. within these three poisons we had ignorance, Report an error in the passage at 0:30 Highlight the passage at 0:30

0:41 saw in that process how the ignorance that is underlying. We can look at that misunderstanding at a few levels and the Buddha described a couple of different levels. Report an error in the passage at 0:41 Highlight the passage at 0:41

1:06 And what we can do is begin at a little bit more superficial level. Report an error in the passage at 1:06 Highlight the passage at 1:06

1:14 See at the time of the Buddha there are a number of spiritual traditions already active and many of these traditions were talking about life, many lives and they were talking about this idea of being liberated from suffering. Report an error in the passage at 1:14 Highlight the passage at 1:14

1:34 And so any tradition that talks about something after this life has to posit what is the connection, what is it that actually goes from life to life. And so many of these traditions were positing this idea of an Ātman, usually translated as self. Report an error in the passage at 1:34 Highlight the passage at 1:34

2:00 That there's a thing called an Ātman that goes from life to life and that's the Ātman that achieves liberation from suffering. Report an error in the passage at 2:00 Highlight the passage at 2:00

2:10 And so what the Buddha did was one of the first things was he refuted this idea of an Ātman, a self. We can talk about this at least two levels as well. Now the first idea of an Ātman Report an error in the passage at 2:10 Highlight the passage at 2:10

2:43 refuting was that many traditions at his time were talking about an Ātman that had three qualities. And the Ātman was the thing that went from life to life and achieved liberation. One thing first though, again this word self, we have to also be a bit careful with this word. Generally in the context of a discussion, Report an error in the passage at 2:43 Highlight the passage at 2:43

3:15 The word self is referring to a Report an error in the passage at 3:15 Highlight the passage at 3:15

3:38 belief in a certain way that we exist as a person. We believe we exist as this self. So that's how the word self is used in this context. here the word self is referring to Report an error in the passage at 3:38 Highlight the passage at 3:38

3:51 in a more general context when this discussion The discussion is not about the nature of reality. We can just talk about self and other. There we're not talking about how we exist. We're just distinguishing our self from other people. Report an error in the passage at 3:51 Highlight the passage at 3:51

4:05 But here, one idea or vatman or self that the Buddha refuted was that many traditions believed that there was this me, this self, that went from life to life and that had three qualities. Report an error in the passage at 4:05 Highlight the passage at 4:05

4:41 The self, something that was unchanging, monetary and independent. Here in me, Report an error in the passage at 4:41 Highlight the passage at 4:41

4:53 unitary means that Report an error in the passage at 4:53 Highlight the passage at 4:53

5:10 the Buddha refuted self unitary Report an error in the passage at 5:10 Highlight the passage at 5:10

5:20 independence. Buddhism, this is that Report an error in the passage at 5:20 Highlight the passage at 5:20

5:40 we would be Report an error in the passage at 5:40 Highlight the passage at 5:40

5:47 separate from the body and the mind. And we don't instinctively have a sense of me separate from our body and mind. It's only on the basis of the body and the mind that we have a sense of me. This idea would only be an idea that we came through some false way of thinking or reasoning. That we would, through some false reasoning, come to think that the real me is something that has these qualities. But there was a second idea of Ātman or Self that the Buddha refuted that we do instinctively have. Report an error in the passage at 5:47 Highlight the passage at 5:47

· · · silence, 1 minute

7:00 Self-sufficient Report an error in the passage at 7:00 Highlight the passage at 7:00

· · · silence, 1 minute

7:41 also means quite solid, existing within itself. Report an error in the passage at 7:41 Highlight the passage at 7:41

7:58 The sense of me Report an error in the passage at 7:58 Highlight the passage at 7:58

8:21 that somehow in here, somewhere, there's a me here. Who's running the show. We sort of have that a little bit in our language. You know, this idea of there's a me that's the master or controller. Report an error in the passage at 8:21 Highlight the passage at 8:21

8:38 We have this, because often we say things like, you know, I have a body. I have a mind. I control this body and the mind. I am the master. I'm trying to master this body and the mind. As if, in addition to the body and the mind, there's something a little bit more. Report an error in the passage at 8:38 Highlight the passage at 8:38

8:58 A little bit more than the body and the mind. That sort of stands apart from the body and the mind, that's a little bit self-sufficient, not really existing depending on the body and the mind. But somehow mixed in here, there's something in addition to the body and the mind, this me, that is the master or the controller that's trying to control this body and the mind. Report an error in the passage at 8:58 Highlight the passage at 8:58

9:22 You know, sometimes we have this sort of thought, maybe we have a thought sometimes, you know, we look at this body and we go, I don't really like this body. I'd like to swap it for a better one, you know, a younger, fitter, more beautiful body. Sometimes we have this thought, you know, and then we might look at our own mind and think, oh, my mind. Report an error in the passage at 9:22 Highlight the passage at 9:22

9:47 In fact, I'd like to swap it for a more intelligent, more loving, a better mind. I want to swap it for a better one. Sometimes we have these thoughts, but if we look at those thoughts, then where is this me that could do this swap? Where is the me here that could swap this body and the mind for a new one? If we look for that me, it's going to be very difficult to find it. Report an error in the passage at 9:47 Highlight the passage at 9:47

10:13 Because when we look here, then there's a body, yes, there's a mind, yes. But what is there more than the body and the mind here? It would be difficult, I think, to find something that's in addition to that. Report an error in the passage at 10:13 Highlight the passage at 10:13

10:31 Often the sense of me that we have. We have a sense of me that there is a me here somewhere that's a little bit more than the body and the mind, that stands apart from the body and the mind, that is the master of the body and the mind, that's trying to control the body and the mind. This sense of self we have. But the Buddha refuted this. And again, if we investigate and look here to find this master or controller, this me, That stands apart from the body and the mind. I think we're not going to be able to find it. So this is then this idea of selflessness. Report an error in the passage at 10:31 Highlight the passage at 10:31

11:12 That in Buddhism we can talk about there's no such self and there's certainly no such self. That the Buddha refuted these two ideas of self. And so hence we have this idea of selflessness. Because this is an artificially inflated sense of me. Both of them are, but this one's only one we would get through some wrong way of study. But this one we instinctively have, that we really do feel as if there is this solid me here, somewhere mixed in here, that is a little bit more than the body and the mind, that is the master, that is the controller. Report an error in the passage at 11:12 Highlight the passage at 11:12

11:51 And so, if we, to realise there's no such self, is this realisation of selflessness, or in Sanskrit, an-atma. Now, in some of the Buddhist traditions, it's said that this is what we need to realize, that there's no such self. This selflessness will help. If we can realize that, that's the ignorance that stopped trapping us in saṃsāra. And if we can realize that, we can achieve the state of nirvāṇa. Report an error in the passage at 11:51 Highlight the passage at 11:51

12:25 The Report an error in the passage at 12:25 Highlight the passage at 12:25

12:48 deeper level of ignorance operating, that deeper level of ignorance that's operating. Report an error in the passage at 12:48 Highlight the passage at 12:48

13:04 And so that's then... Report an error in the passage at 13:04 Highlight the passage at 13:04

13:12 So what I thought it would be nice to do to begin our discussions about this was to read a bit from Alan Wallace in one of his books called Tibetan Buddhism from the Ground Up. And the title of the section is called What is Really There? But before I do that, is there any questions about any of that? Report an error in the passage at 13:12 Highlight the passage at 13:12

13:54 Also in Christianity because... They also posit something after this life. So any tradition that posits anything after this life has to say what goes on. And of course generally in Christianity we talk about the idea of soul. But again soul is just a word and as we saw here self or ātman is a word can refer to a couple of different things here. So likewise I think in Christianity the word soul depending on who you talk to can have a different Report an error in the passage at 13:54 Highlight the passage at 13:54

14:26 Description about what it is and how it exists. So it really depends on a person's interpretation of that word. But if a person's interpretation is that the soul is something that doesn't really change, that it's a single thing, it doesn't really have parts and it exists completely independent of the body and the mind, then that idea of soul, of course Buddhism would refute, would say that that idea of soul would be good. Report an error in the passage at 14:26 Highlight the passage at 14:26

14:56 Illogical. It couldn't really exist. But I think these days, particularly in a sort of more contemplative Christianity, I think there are probably people whose definition of the word soul would fit much more in terms of Buddhist view. But again, it would depend on who you talk to, I think. I think more traditionally, the idea of soul would probably more be something like that. Report an error in the passage at 14:56 Highlight the passage at 14:56

15:28 So I think that definition of soul, Buddhism would say, well, that would be something that would be a little bit illogical to have that idea of soul. But again, I think now these days some other people's idea of soul could be much more in line and acceptable within a Buddhist philosophical context. So it really depends on our definition of that word. Report an error in the passage at 15:28 Highlight the passage at 15:28

15:58 Right, so then if that means you die and you don't go to heaven or hell, It's the soul that goes to heaven. But didn't you say when you were up, I'm hoping to go to heaven? So isn't that a bit illogical? If you say, I think I'm going to go to heaven and I have a soul and it's the soul that goes to heaven. Report an error in the passage at 15:58 Highlight the passage at 15:58

16:22 But of course maybe we're not encouraged to think about those sorts of things, I don't know. Report an error in the passage at 16:22 Highlight the passage at 16:22

16:50 Because here, Report an error in the passage at 16:50 Highlight the passage at 16:50

16:54 so that idea from a Buddhist perspective Report an error in the passage at 16:54 Highlight the passage at 16:54

17:01 about soul which would fit. So again, soul is just a word. Report an error in the passage at 17:01 Highlight the passage at 17:01

17:19 Introduce this idea, or talk about this idea of this belief in an independent, me independent world, this idea of subject object duality, which comes into the topic of sunyata or emptiness. But to begin let's read a little bit from Alan Wallace who says the following. Many of us believe that we directly perceive objective physical phenomena with our five physical senses. Report an error in the passage at 17:19 Highlight the passage at 17:19

17:48 That the mental images we perceive via our senses are accurate representations of the objects we perceive. However, neurologist Antonio Damasio refutes this assumption, which is commonly called naive realism. So now he's quoting the neurologist who says, When you and I look at an object outside ourselves, we form comparable images in our respective brains. Report an error in the passage at 17:48 Highlight the passage at 17:48

18:15 We know this well because you and I can describe the object in very similar ways, down to fine details. But that does not mean that the image we see is the copy of whatever the object outside is like. Whatever it is like in absolute terms, we do not know. Now back to Alan Wallace. In light of this neuroscientific view, with our five senses, we directly perceive images generated in the brain. Report an error in the passage at 18:15 Highlight the passage at 18:15

18:47 But these are not truly representations of anything existing independently of the brain. These sensory impressions of colours, sounds, smells and so on are no more tangible than thoughts or dreams. While we seem to experience colours and so on as they exist in the objective world, independent of our senses, this is an illusion, very much like a dream. Report an error in the passage at 18:47 Highlight the passage at 18:47

19:14 Having determined that the reality you perceive depends on our sense faculties, what then really does exist outside our senses? When we close this book and leave the room, shutting the door behind us, what remains? It is an ancient question that has been asked since the time of the Greeks. What exists behind appearances? What really exists out there? This brings up a familiar problem. Report an error in the passage at 19:14 Highlight the passage at 19:14

19:43 What happens when a tree falls and nobody is in the forest to watch it or hear it? Most people agree something happened. The tree trunk is on the ground, there is a big dent, things start to rot, ants and termites live in the fallen trunk. But what happened? Western scientists have traditionally responded to this question by trying to find primary or intrinsic qualities of the falling tree that can be measured. Report an error in the passage at 19:43 Highlight the passage at 19:43

20:14 Mass is one of those, the idea being that the tree has a quantifiable amount of stuff to it. Speed is another quality that does not seem to depend on anyone's perception. Briefly considering the history of Western scientific thinking on this point may be a useful digression that may help us better understand the nature of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 20:14 Highlight the passage at 20:14

20:38 Also by examining our cultural assumptions about the nature of reality, We can better understand and penetrate those assumptions and by so doing come to appreciate the Buddhist view. Since Galileo took his telescope and turned it on Jupiter, scientific thought is increasingly dependent on the power of mechanical instruments. Report an error in the passage at 20:38 Highlight the passage at 20:38

21:04 We get the sense, and it is widely promoted by science, that by using mechanical instruments and mathematics we stop being subjective and instead become objective. Everyone knows the senses can be misleading, it is said, so let us dispense with the senses. They are giving us only appearances anyway, and we are trying to penetrate through those. The idea of objective measurement came to be strongly emphasised during the time of Galileo, and by the end of the 19th century, scientists felt the objective science of physics was virtually complete. Report an error in the passage at 21:04 Highlight the passage at 21:04

21:43 The physics of the time was assumed, with very few exceptions, to be an absolute representation of what was really out there. At the beginning of the 20th century, this view began to break down. Scientists started to understand more clearly that their instruments of measurement were themselves contributing to the data they were detecting. Report an error in the passage at 21:43 Highlight the passage at 21:43

22:06 But the real revolution came with the development of quantum physics. which investigates the very smallest components of physical reality. It is here that the participatory nature of measurement and experimentation becomes most obvious. In quantum mechanics, attributes of mass, speed, shape and location vanish as purely objective entities. Report an error in the passage at 22:06 Highlight the passage at 22:06

22:31 All of them can only be seen in relationship to the methods of measurement. As the renowned physicist Werner Heisenberg said, What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. As scientists look still deeper, they also started questioning the objectivity of the analytical tools they use. Report an error in the passage at 22:31 Highlight the passage at 22:31

22:54 Mathematics, for instance, is one more human creation. Euclidean geometry is only one of a theoretically infinite number of geometries that can be used, and the same goes for algebra and various logic systems. The subjective element seems to be inescapable on all fronts. In no facet of science, whether we are dealing with astronomy, physics or medicine, do we get even one bit of information about any reality existing independently of our modes of questioning. Report an error in the passage at 22:54 Highlight the passage at 22:54

23:28 All our sensory experience consists of experiences that are contingent upon the sense faculties. Even by reducing everything to the subatomic level Of electrons, quarks and so forth, we are still left with nothing but appearances. What is inescapable is that all we know of the world, theoretically and empirically, consists of appearances to the mind. Report an error in the passage at 23:28 Highlight the passage at 23:28

23:52 We have access to nothing else. Report an error in the passage at 23:52 Highlight the passage at 23:52

24:00 Okay, with that in mind, let's have a look now at this view of Shunyata or emptiness. As I said, when we look out on the world, Things appear to us to exist completely independent of us. So this idea of independent existence in Buddhism, there's a number of terms that are used to describe this. Of course they all mean the same thing, they all mean independent existence, but they describe independent existence from a slightly different perspective. Report an error in the passage at 24:00 Highlight the passage at 24:00

· · · silence, 1 minute

25:25 It has the idea of things being self-existed, existing within themselves. That they have their own unique self-contained existence. The second word, Report an error in the passage at 25:25 Highlight the passage at 25:25

25:52 existing from their own side. You know, the idea of flowers existing from their own side, meaning that we are in no way contributing to the existence of those flowers. They exist completely from their own side without the need of an observer, of an agent, of consciousness. Report an error in the passage at 25:52 Highlight the passage at 25:52

26:21 The third term is true existence. In English, the word true means something existing in the way it appears to us. I mean, sorry, start again. True means something that doesn't deceive us. And so here, in terms of true existence, is something would have true existence if the way in which it appears and the way it would exist match. Report an error in the passage at 26:21 Highlight the passage at 26:21

26:51 Things appear to exist independent of us, if they really existed in that way, They would be true, meaning the way in which they appear and the way in which they exist are matching. They wouldn't be deceiving us. It wouldn't be that they appear to exist one way and exist another way. Then they wouldn't have true existence. So these three words all mean independent existence. And that's how the world appears to us. Report an error in the passage at 26:51 Highlight the passage at 26:51

27:19 And again, as we said, we just buy into those appearances, we accept those appearances. But what this view is saying is that we need to investigate these appearances and see whether or not in fact things exist in the way they appear to us. Do things in fact independently exist? And of course what the Buddha discovered was that wasn't the case. That things are not independently existing. Report an error in the passage at 27:19 Highlight the passage at 27:19

27:44 But of course the Buddha wasn't saying that flowers don't exist. What he was saying was that they do not independently exist. So therefore... If things are not independently existent, but they exist, then they must exist dependently. So the reasoning that we have in Buddhism is that Report an error in the passage at 27:44 Highlight the passage at 27:44

· · · silence, 1 minute

29:08 things Report an error in the passage at 29:08 Highlight the passage at 29:08

29:12 are inherently existent. Report an error in the passage at 29:12 Highlight the passage at 29:12

29:18 Emptiness Report an error in the passage at 29:18 Highlight the passage at 29:18

· · · silence, 1 minute

29:58 doesn't mean nothing really exists. Emptiness means that things are empty or lack a certain type of existence. What they lack is being independently existent. So emptiness means things are not independently existent. Report an error in the passage at 29:58 Highlight the passage at 29:58

30:19 Because they depend Report an error in the passage at 30:19 Highlight the passage at 30:19

30:27 what we mean then by emptiness to understand what we mean by dependent arisings. What does it mean for something to exist dependently? If we can appreciate that, then we can really appreciate the idea of emptiness better. What Report an error in the passage at 30:27 Highlight the passage at 30:27

30:56 about things being dependently existent at three levels or in three ways? The first is that things exist depending on causes and conditions. Report an error in the passage at 30:56 Highlight the passage at 30:56

31:20 This clock here. Report an error in the passage at 31:20 Highlight the passage at 31:20

31:26 Exists depending on causes and conditions. One of the first conditions we needed for that to exist, of course, is sometime in the past someone needed to think about designing this clock. Report an error in the passage at 31:26 Highlight the passage at 31:26

31:38 Then, of course, we needed to gather all the raw materials for the various components, refine those raw materials. Then we needed to make the various components of the clock. Then we needed to get all those components together and we needed to assemble the clock. So all of those materials, all the people, all the factories, all the things that were involved in that whole process are causes and conditions necessary. Report an error in the passage at 31:38 Highlight the passage at 31:38

32:06 So without all those causes and conditions coming together, we wouldn't have a clock here today. I think that's fairly straightforward, nothing magical about that idea. So Report an error in the passage at 32:06 Highlight the passage at 32:06

32:24 this clock is dependent on its parts to exist. Without this clock, of course, we need the plastic casing, we need the Display on the front, we need probably a battery, some dials, some electronic components in the middle. Without all of these parts here, there would be no clock. So again, the clock can only exist depending on all of its parts. Again, pretty straightforward. But here, remember, what we're saying is that this idea of dependent arising should be Refuting the fact that things are independently existent. Should be. That's what the reasoning is saying here. Report an error in the passage at 32:24 Highlight the passage at 32:24

33:11 But probably Truman's saying, suggesting that for all of us here, we can happily accept that this clock exists depending on its course and conditions, it exists depending on its parts, but when I walk out that door there's still a clock here, and when I walk in the door there's already a clock here. Report an error in the passage at 33:11 Highlight the passage at 33:11

33:33 You sort of can accept that. So for us, there doesn't seem to be any contradiction with accepting that this clock depends on causes, conditions and paths, and yet at the same time believe that this clock exists completely independent of us. I think for most of us we don't see a contradiction there. We're quite happy to accept the fact that this clock can exist independent of us, yet it can depend on causes, conditions and paths. Report an error in the passage at 33:33 Highlight the passage at 33:33

34:02 But this statement is saying that that's not possible. So what's going on here? What's going on is that our understanding of causes and conditions and parts is fairly superficial. We don't really understand what they mean at a deeper level. To understand what these mean at a deeper level, we have to look at the third way in which this is a dependent horizon. Report an error in the passage at 34:02 Highlight the passage at 34:02

34:39 That this clock, or things in general, are dependent arising because they depend on imputation or labeling. Sometimes here it's described as designation, conception, thought, many words used. So what does it mean for this clock to exist depending on imputation, labeling, designation or conception? Again, we might think, oh, that means that there's a thing here and I'm giving it the name clock. Report an error in the passage at 34:39 Highlight the passage at 34:39

35:12 And that's what it means that this clock is something existing on imputation or labeling or designation. That's not wrong, but again it's very superficial understanding. Report an error in the passage at 35:12 Highlight the passage at 35:12

35:27 Because, in fact, when we look out on the world, what's really going on is that we're just receiving a mass of sense data. Report an error in the passage at 35:27 Highlight the passage at 35:27

35:39 And then, of course, we have to make some meaning out of all of this sense data, otherwise we'd never function. So what we do with all this sense data that's appearing to us is we draw lines around various collections of data and we make them into objects, that collection of data, to make sense, to make meaning out of what we see. Report an error in the passage at 35:39 Highlight the passage at 35:39

36:06 But of course we don't exist in isolation in this world. We need to communicate with others. So on top of that we have to give a name to those things so we can communicate. So labelling, Report an error in the passage at 36:06 Highlight the passage at 36:06

36:20 Or designation or imputation is already happening when we're drawing a line around a collection of data. Even before we give it a name, we've effectively labelled that that is coming to existence. For example, and the way we divide up the world is not fixed or arbitrary. I mean it's not fixed, it's arbitrary. Depending on the meaning that we want to get out. For instance, if you're looking in this direction here, then... Report an error in the passage at 36:20 Highlight the passage at 36:20

36:52 We could simply, around all of this data that you're receiving, just draw one line and say altar. Or you could draw three or four lines and say there's three or four statues there. Or you could draw eight lines and say there's eight offerings there. Or you could draw five lines and say there's five cupboards there. Report an error in the passage at 36:52 Highlight the passage at 36:52

37:18 Depends completely on the meaning that you want to get out of that data. So is there one thing there? Is there three things? Is there five things? Is there eight things? How many things are there depends on the meaning we want to, the way we draw the lines. Report an error in the passage at 37:18 Highlight the passage at 37:18

37:39 Then same thing with the clock is that when we look in this direction, most often we would simply draw a line around this collection of data, conceptually isolate this collection of data here, make it into one object and then give it the name clock. So even when we draw the line, we've already labelled. So the clock comes into existence when we interpret that data and draw the line and give the name. Report an error in the passage at 37:39 Highlight the passage at 37:39

38:12 So actually, there's no clock to be found here. The clock is something which is merely labelled on the basis of this data in this area here. So that's what it really means to impute or label something. Report an error in the passage at 38:12 Highlight the passage at 38:12

38:30 Now let's go back and have a look at the first two based on this idea. Report an error in the passage at 38:30 Highlight the passage at 38:30

· · · silence, 1 minute

39:53 But the Report an error in the passage at 39:53 Highlight the passage at 39:53

39:59 question is on this topic, Report an error in the passage at 39:59 Highlight the passage at 39:59

40:27 independent of our conceptual framework, if that's the case, and a plant is a plant from its own side, independent of our conceptual framework, it should be obvious at what point the seed stops and the plant starts. There should be a fixed point. It shouldn't be determined by our, because things exist independently. That's all we believe. Report an error in the passage at 40:27 Highlight the passage at 40:27

· · · silence, 1 minute

41:49 question that we can think about is the seed to exist? So again the question is, does the seed cease to exist before the plant comes into existence? Report an error in the passage at 41:49 Highlight the passage at 41:49

42:17 seed ceases to exist before the plant comes So the I was going to say the gap is very small. Where do I know? We have to logically answer this question. You said yes. Yes means the seed has ceased to exist before the plant comes into existence. So the seed ceased to exist. Where is the plant coming from? There is no seed there anymore. Where is the plant coming from? Report an error in the passage at 42:17 Highlight the passage at 42:17

42:48 So if you say yes, you have the problem, there is no seed, where does the plant come from? If you say no, what you are saying is that the seed then exists at the time of the plant. Illogical. Law of cause and effect, Report an error in the passage at 42:48 Highlight the passage at 42:48

43:17 but we don't think about these. Report an error in the passage at 43:17 Highlight the passage at 43:17

43:30 He Report an error in the passage at 43:30 Highlight the passage at 43:30

43:39 gives us all these logical absurdities of a belief in independent existence. It would imply this. And so those sorts of reasonings can also help us to really appreciate that independent existence is just illogical. Whereas for us here, with the computer, we don't have that problem. It's when we simply change our designation. Report an error in the passage at 43:39 Highlight the passage at 43:39

44:06 So we don't have that. And so reasonings like this... Report an error in the passage at 44:06 Highlight the passage at 44:06

44:22 does like 27 chapters of this. so he keeps pulling the rug from under our feet, saying, you believe in independent existence? What about this situation? What's the story? So Report an error in the passage at 44:22 Highlight the passage at 44:22

44:38 we say Report an error in the passage at 44:38 Highlight the passage at 44:38

44:51 this pen exists depending on its path. But we believe there's a pen existing there independent of our conception. We say this is the pen. But where is the pen here that we believe in? Report an error in the passage at 44:51 Highlight the passage at 44:51

45:09 Is this a pen? Is that a pen? On Report an error in the passage at 45:09 Highlight the passage at 45:09

45:22 the end a pen? Is the ink in the middle here a pen? Just the ink. Is this metal tube on its own a pen? Is the little round ball thing at the end a pen? Where's the pen? Where's the pen? Report an error in the passage at 45:22 Highlight the passage at 45:22

45:46 Then people say, ah, the pen's the collection. That's usually what people say. Ah, so there you go, there's the collection. Is that a pen? Report an error in the passage at 45:46 Highlight the passage at 45:46

46:00 Right, so the question is, when does a pen come into existence? Tell me, okay? Pen yet? Will you have a pen yet? Pen Report an error in the passage at 46:00 Highlight the passage at 46:00

46:13 yet? Report an error in the passage at 46:13 Highlight the passage at 46:13

46:19 We've got a pen? We've got a pen? Tell me exactly when the pen comes into existence. Don't miss it. Don't miss it. You've got to tell me. Report an error in the passage at 46:19 Highlight the passage at 46:19

46:37 No, no, no. Not Report an error in the passage at 46:37 Highlight the passage at 46:37

46:45 said yet. Report an error in the passage at 46:45 Highlight the passage at 46:45

46:50 That's not a pen, still. So Report an error in the passage at 46:50 Highlight the passage at 46:50

46:58 the question is, when does a pen come into existence? The pen comes into existence when this collection of data... It resembles or matches our concept of pen. Our concept of pen usually has two things. Most of our concepts have at least two things. Appearance and functionality. So when this appearance matches our concept of pen, plus functionality matches, then the pen comes into existence. Report an error in the passage at 46:58 Highlight the passage at 46:58

47:25 Not before. So for us, we have a concept of pen usually which is a sort of long thing and a tippy thing on the end. And that a pen's function is that you can write with it. If a caveman walked in this door, would there be a pen here? No. Probably some sort of weapon, you know, stabbing something. If a dog walked in the room, is there a pen here? Report an error in the passage at 47:25 Highlight the passage at 47:25

47:55 Some sort of toy or chewing thing. So is this a pen, a chewing thing, or is it a weapon? Report an error in the passage at 47:55 Highlight the passage at 47:55

48:06 Yes. So again, We can appreciate then that the pen is something labelled depending on these parts. Now here's a point that can help us to know whether our understanding of emptiness is going somewhere. Report an error in the passage at 48:06 Highlight the passage at 48:06

48:27 Normally we think, we say, this is a pen. That the pen is the collection of the parts. That's what we normally think. The pen is this collection of parts here. That's a pen. Report an error in the passage at 48:27 Highlight the passage at 48:27

48:41 The second statement this view is saying is that the pen is merely labelled depending on this collection of parts. So the two statements are the pen is the collection of the parts versus the pen is labelled depending on the collection of the parts. If we can appreciate that those two things are not saying the same thing, we're beginning to understand something about emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 48:41 Highlight the passage at 48:41

49:09 And here is exactly another example of cognitive fusion, our old friend the cognitive fusion. The basis, the label are two things. There's a basis here of data. We have a label pen that we're applying to the basis. But we fuse the pen and the basis and we say this is a pen. So that's again, we are fusing the label with the basis. Report an error in the passage at 49:09 Highlight the passage at 49:09

49:40 Whereas this view is saying that the pen is something we merely labelled depending on the basis. So the pen is not the basis, but that's what we believe. Report an error in the passage at 49:40 Highlight the passage at 49:40

49:55 But again, also same with anger. We have to have an agent who has the anger. So to have an object, to have a behaviour, you have to have an agent. So to have a pen, you have to have a basis. So they're dependent but they're not the same thing. But that's what we believe. Same as we identify with anger. I am angry. Report an error in the passage at 49:55 Highlight the passage at 49:55

50:19 That is a nasty person. We're identifying two things making them one. Same here. We've got the basis and we've got the label. In fact, we can call this what's called basis of designation and the pen is the designated object. So the basis of designation depends on the designation and the designation depends on the basis. Report an error in the passage at 50:19 Highlight the passage at 50:19

50:48 But they're not the same thing. And they're not two independent things. They are dependent. Report an error in the passage at 50:48 Highlight the passage at 50:48

50:58 But again, the old cognitive fusion makes them one. And then, problem. This is a pen. I mean, correctly, we should be saying a pen is something we're labelling on this basis, if we want to be technically correct. Report an error in the passage at 50:58 Highlight the passage at 50:58

51:18 So again, our language is reinforcing this false view. Like our language, I am angry, that's a bad person, is reinforcing problems for us. Same here, our language is reinforcing these ideas. Report an error in the passage at 51:18 Highlight the passage at 51:18

51:42 Now, again, what we do, of course, is when we look out on the world, we have to draw lines and give names. Otherwise, we couldn't function. Report an error in the passage at 51:42 Highlight the passage at 51:42

51:57 I think actually a newborn baby can't even draw lines. They don't know how to draw lines. In fact they have to learn that. And actually we ourselves are constantly improving our line drawing ability to make better and better meaning out of the things we see. But the problem of course is that we don't realise that we're doing this line drawing all the time. We believe that the world is already divided up. Report an error in the passage at 51:57 Highlight the passage at 51:57

52:27 into these separate things as soon as we see them. You know, we look and it looks to us as already there's a single thing there called a chair. We don't realise that actually there's just a mass of data coming in here and I am drawing a line there turning that collection of data into an object and labelling chair. Report an error in the passage at 52:27 Highlight the passage at 52:27

52:48 We don't realise we're doing that. So what we're doing is we're turning this line drawing into boundaries, hard boundaries. So we believe the world is full of boundaries, full of separate discrete things. Now of course when we look out on the world, one of the very first lines we draw is we draw a line around here and we conceptually isolate the observer or the me, the experiencer. Report an error in the passage at 52:48 Highlight the passage at 52:48

53:18 Because we have single experience. There's a single experience. Within experience there's two aspects. There's the experiencer and the experienced. Subject and object. Observer, observed. However you want to. Me and the world. However you want to give the labels within that experience. And of course we have to draw that line and give the label me. Otherwise, like I said, a baby can't even do that. Report an error in the passage at 53:18 Highlight the passage at 53:18

53:44 A baby can't even distinguish itself from the world. And so it can't really do anything. So there's no problem with drawing a line labelling me. But the problem is again, We don't realise we're doing that. We believe that there's already an independent separate me here. And to highlight that example, I always use an example like the following. Report an error in the passage at 53:44 Highlight the passage at 53:44

54:12 Is this big? Is this big? Report an error in the passage at 54:12 Highlight the passage at 54:12

54:20 So maybe we can take, we'll just take the little black thing on the tip. So big can only exist relative to small. You can't have big on its own. It just doesn't make sense. Like you can't have up without down, in without out. And you can't have me without not me or the world. You can't have subject without object. You can't have observer without observed. It just does not make sense. But what we do, of course, is that not only we draw a line and give a label me, but we split ourself off from the world. Report an error in the passage at 54:20 Highlight the passage at 54:20

54:58 We contract around the me part of the experience. We believe that there's a boundary here between me and the world. A boundary. There's an independent me here and an independent world there. But that belief is exactly the same as saying this is big. It just does not make sense. How can you have big on its own? Report an error in the passage at 54:58 Highlight the passage at 54:58

55:22 How can you have me on its own? Because me can only exist relationship to not me or subject to object or observer to observed. It just does not make sense. That's what we believe in. We grasp, we contract around the me part of the experience, we turn that line into a hard boundary and this is called self-grasping. Report an error in the passage at 55:22 Highlight the passage at 55:22

55:44 Grasping onto this independent me, independent world. And this is where the problems begin. To Report an error in the passage at 55:44 Highlight the passage at 55:44

56:03 understand that a little bit better, that that's really what's going on, is very often in our experiences we are consciously aware of the agent, the me. I am going here. I am doing that. I am seeing this. I am being there. You know, I, I, I, I. So either consciously or a little bit subconsciously, we're continuously contracting around the me part of the experience with this self-grasping, splitting ourself off. Report an error in the passage at 56:03 Highlight the passage at 56:03

56:39 And of course when we do that, then we're completely out of sync with reality. When we're seeing ourselves as independent of the world and on that basis we act, we're completely out of sync with reality. And so then we struggle and we're fighting against reality. We fight against reality, we struggle, we suffer and the people around us suffer. Report an error in the passage at 56:39 Highlight the passage at 56:39

57:05 But sometimes in our experiences we're not so consciously grasping onto the me, contracting around the me. And often this happens... In situations where we are quite focused. If we are focused on some activity, we are often then focused more on the activity rather than me doing the activity, me going, me saying. Report an error in the passage at 57:05 Highlight the passage at 57:05

57:32 More on the activity. So then the contraction around the me is a little bit relaxed, not so strong. And we all have this experience. For instance, we are absorbed in a good book. Absorbed in a movie, absorbed maybe in solving a problem at work. When we're in those situations and there's less grasping onto the me, generally our experience is much better. Report an error in the passage at 57:32 Highlight the passage at 57:32

57:58 Generally things flow a lot better, time seems to go quite quickly, things seem to be more harmonious. And that's because we're not so actively contracting around the me, splitting ourselves off, we're not so out of sync as we normally are. That's why things go better. And this is very much highlighted in people who have a high level of concentration. Like people who have trained for many years, maybe like professional athletes, professional musicians, who have trained year after year after year, focus, focus, focus on their activity. Report an error in the passage at 57:58 Highlight the passage at 57:58

58:35 And so often these people report that when they're in that state of playing the music or engaging in the sporting activity, They say they're in the zone or in the flow state. And so there, due to the high level of concentration, the grasping onto the me is very, very much reduced. And so then they often report that there's no real longer any sense of an agent. There's just the music. Report an error in the passage at 58:35 Highlight the passage at 58:35

59:05 There's just the sporting activity. That's what they report. And they also report optimum performance, peak performance. Why? Because the grasping onto the me is very low, very much reduced, not struggling against reality, more harmonious in sync with reality. That's why things flow better. That's why they have peak performance. Report an error in the passage at 59:05 Highlight the passage at 59:05

59:30 Of course here we're talking about reducing the contraction through the power of concentration. So we're not eliminating the contraction, it's just subdued a little bit through the force of concentration. If we want to eliminate the contraction, We need to eliminate the ignorance. We need to develop this wisdom, this wisdom of emptiness and shunyata. So if we develop this wisdom of emptiness and shunyata, we can completely eliminate the contraction, be completely in sync with reality. Report an error in the passage at 59:30 Highlight the passage at 59:30

1:00:00 And so that's what we need to do. And of course, by the concentration, we are simply reducing the amount of contraction. With wisdom, we are coming to realize the fact that there's no boundary between us and us. As long as we believe there's somehow a boundary here, there's a me here and then there's them there, it becomes quite difficult to fully develop love and compassion for others because we'll still see that feeling of separateness. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:00 Highlight the passage at 1:00:00

1:00:49 So if we really want to fully develop love and compassion for others, we need to overcome this sense of separateness, this sense that there's somehow a boundary between us and others. And so we can do that with this wisdom of emptiness. Now, to help us better appreciate again this idea of emptiness, very often in Buddhist teachings when some topic is being introduced, particularly if it's not so easy to understand, then often they... Report an error in the passage at 1:00:49 Highlight the passage at 1:00:49

1:01:22 An analogy, a simple analogy is used to help better understand the more profound topic. And so here in the idea of emptiness there are many analogies that are presented. One that really I like a lot that's used quite often is the analogy of a dream. Now when we're dreaming, while we're in the dream, within the dream there really appears to be a dream me and a dream world. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:22 Highlight the passage at 1:01:22

1:01:53 That there's a dream me and an independent objective dream world out there while we're in the middle of the dream. And then of course if in the dream we meet, we see a monster in our dream, then of course we develop a lot of fear in our dream and try to escape from the monster. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:53 Highlight the passage at 1:01:53

1:02:14 But if in the dream suddenly we realise we're dreaming within the dream without waking up, what's called lucid dreaming, then... When we realize that this is just a dream, then of course the dream doesn't stop, but our perspective of the dream is completely different. We can come to directly experience the fact that even though this dream world appears to be out there, we realize in the dream that this is just a product of our mind. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:14 Highlight the passage at 1:02:14

1:02:50 Therefore, if a monster comes then, and we're in the middle of a lucid dream, Actually it would become very difficult to be afraid of the monster because we'll know, we'll understand that this monster is a product of our mind. So if the monster appears we may say, oh hi Mr Monster, how are you? You look like you're a bit upset, can I help you? So our dream would actually become much more enjoyable and it would be difficult to develop any disturbing emotions in our dream. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:50 Highlight the passage at 1:02:50

1:03:21 Likewise what this view is saying, in our waking world, We are now asleep with ignorance. We believe that just like in a dream, that there's a waking me here and a world out there completely independent of us. So what this view is saying is if we realize emptiness, if we wake up from the sleep of ignorance and we realize that this waking world is also a product of our mind, that it's not something independent of our conceptual framework, then, again, no matter what occurred in our mind, world, it would become very difficult to develop any disturbing emotions with respect to anything we perceive, and we would enjoy life a lot more. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:21 Highlight the passage at 1:03:21

1:04:05 So that, think, is a very good analogy to help us better appreciate what we mean by this view of emptiness. Now another way to understand if we are understanding something about this view of emptiness is that now for us There's two possibilities. Either there is this solid, real, functioning world, or there's no world. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:05 Highlight the passage at 1:04:05

1:04:37 There doesn't seem to be a third possibility. Either there is a solid, objective world there, or there's no world at all. There doesn't really seem to be a third possibility. That's it. Now, when we investigate this view of emptiness, and we investigate this supposed real, objective, solid world. Emptiness undermines the fact that there's this solid independent world out there. So for us, emptiness seems to be saying that there's not really a functioning world out there, that it's all some hallucination. Report an error in the passage at 1:04:37 Highlight the passage at 1:04:37

1:05:18 So nothing really exists. So for us now, emptiness seems to contradict the fact that there's a real functioning world and a real functioning world out there. Seems to contradict that things are empty of independent existence. So these two ideas appear to be contradictory. A functioning world. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:18 Highlight the passage at 1:05:18

1:05:41 But as we work on our emptiness understanding more and more, then instead of thinking them to be contradictory, we'll start to say things like, okay, despite the fact that things are empty, they do work. And despite the fact that things work, they are empty of independent existence. So that's a measure of progress. But the real measure that we're starting to understand emptiness quite well is if we can come to the conclusion that because things are empty of independent existence, they can function. Report an error in the passage at 1:05:41 Highlight the passage at 1:05:41

1:06:22 And because things function, they must be empty of independent existence. If we can really appreciate that, we are starting to appreciate emptiness quite well. So here what we can say is that emptiness and dependent arising or functioning world are like two sides of one coin. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:22 Highlight the passage at 1:06:22

1:06:43 Emptiness of independent existence, dependent arising functioning world are two sides of one coin. In fact, if this clock was a clock from its own side, if its nature was to be a clock, it couldn't do anything. You couldn't destroy it, it couldn't change, you couldn't create it, because its nature is to be a clock from its own side. That's its nature. Report an error in the passage at 1:06:43 Highlight the passage at 1:06:43

1:07:13 It's inherently a clock, independent of conceptual framework. Therefore, in fact, it couldn't change, it couldn't function, it couldn't do anything. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:13 Highlight the passage at 1:07:13

1:07:23 As well, that would imply that, yes. But because things are empty of independent existence... Therefore, they can change, they can function, they can get created, they can be destroyed, they can change. So, in fact, this idea of change and impermanence is also something helpful in this view of emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:23 Highlight the passage at 1:07:23

1:07:47 If we really can experientially appreciate impermanence, the fact that things are constantly changing, that can be very helpful in understanding emptiness. It's not the same thing, but it's a good step. It helps us to move in that direction. So impermanence is also something helpful in coming to appreciate emptiness. Report an error in the passage at 1:07:47 Highlight the passage at 1:07:47

1:08:20 Any questions? It's Report an error in the passage at 1:08:20 Highlight the passage at 1:08:20

1:08:24 time for a break. In fact, that's exactly where I wanted to round it off what I wanted to say. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:24 Highlight the passage at 1:08:24

1:08:36 Any last questions then before we take a break? Okay, let's take a break. Tea break. Report an error in the passage at 1:08:36 Highlight the passage at 1:08:36