B. Alan Wallace, 18 Apr 2016
The session starts with meditation focused on the mind. Alan instructs us to discern the origin of mental events, to observe where those mental events arise and manifest, and to determine where they dissolve. After the meditation we return to the theme of siddhis. Based on this morning’s teachings, some of the siddhis seem plausible - if one masters the nimittas and if the hypothesis put forward by Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli is right. But there is still a nagging thought - says Alan. How to caress the sun? How to stroke the moon? How are these siddhis possible? Before launching into a series of quotations from various sources, Alan reminds us of the conclusion of this morning’s session: that among all the archetypal “signs” the one that is primary is the “sign” of the mind. Comprehend the mind and you comprehend all phenomena.
The first passage Alan reads is from Dudjom Lingpa’s “The Foolish Dharma of an Idiot Clothed in Mud and Feathers“ which describes a practice similar to the one we did at the beginning of the session. Dudjom Lingpa instructs the readers to “identify the primacy of the mind”. One should then carefully investigate “the so-called mind” in terms of its place of origin. Here Alan explains that the point of the practice is to identify the referent of the word “mind” in our own language - what we call “mind”, what we understand by “mind”. He also notes that all one needs is one thought, one mental event. It is not necessary to see, to investigate the whole mind, just one of its many facets. Continuing the quote from Dudjom Lingpa, one should then investigate the mind’s location and its final destination. Next, “investigate the mind as the agent”. The mind is an agent, the mind does many things - stresses Alan. It conjures thoughts, it causes the “mind-effect” misleadingly called “placebo effect”. Further instructions from Dudjom Lingpa are: seek out the mind’s shape, its form, beginning and end, whether it really exists or its existence cannot be established. When you have determined with confidence that it cannot be established in any of these categories - you have entered the path! This practice is quintessential Dzogchen - remarks Alan. It is the sky, so now we turn to the earth: the Pali canon. Here Alan reads the story of bhikkhuni Vajira from the Samyutta Nikaya. While meditating she was assaulted by Mara who asked: By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease? Vajira recognised him as Mara and counterattacked, saying that “being” is a mere heap of constructions, where no “being” can be found. Just as with an assemblage of parts the name “chariot” is used by convention. [Note: this and all the other quotations will be made available in “Retreat Notes” on the SBI website]. Mara is a personification of afflictive uncertainty - explains Alan. Vajira’s response refers to the notion of skandhas which are empty of self. However, in bhikkhuni Vajira’s story an example of chariot is used as well which appears in more details also in another Pali text - the dialogue between arhat Nagasena and king Milinda. There Nagasena demonstrates that the chariot is none of its individual parts and it is not the assembly of all its parts and it is not another thing. So where is the chariot? When does a chariot arise and when does it dissolve? The interpretation of the Pali canon is limited to the identitylessness of persons, not of all phenomena. But Nagasena’s story goes further to conclude that the “chariot” is a mere convention. Obviously this must be true for any other phenomena. This is a Madhyamaka view. A criticism of metaphysical realism.
From the classical Buddhist texts Alan moves to modern thinkers, starting with Hilary Putnam. He reads a passage which constitutes a criticism of metaphysical realism, as well as of subjectivism. Putnam identifies the extremes - substantialism and nihilism - and rejects them both, proposing instead a view which he calls “internal” or “pragmatic” realism. He writes among others: “elements of what we call ‘language’ or ‘mind’ penetrate so deeply into what we call ‘reality’ that the very project of representing ourselves as being ‘mappers’ of something ‘language-independent’ is fatally compromised from the very start”. This is classic Madhyamika - comments Alan. But Putnam’s sources were exclusively Western, including Kant, William James and Wittgenstein.
Next, Alan continues with a quotation from Werner Heisenberg, including among others the statement that “what we observe is not nature herself but nature exposed to our method of questioning” and “let us not attribute existence to that which is unknowable in principle”. So the crucial point is this: we have been educated to believe that there is a reality out there and science offers the only valid interpretation of this reality. There is only one story: from the Big Bang to the present. And there is only matter. But the quantum mechanics destroyed this view. There is no reality out there independent of the methods by which it is observed and the conceptual designations by which it is conceived. In fact everything arises in dependence of the questions we ask and the methods of observation and measurement we use. Hence, the universe appears physical because all our questions and methods of measurement concern only the physical. Now, relativity theory and quantum mechanics shook this worldview. Alan reminds us of Descartes’ primary qualities, including size, shape, weight and movement. From the point of view of relativity theory these are no longer stable but dependent on the frame of reference. There is no objective reality out there, and all we perceive arises in dependence of the observer and the methods of observation. As further support Alan quotes the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger saying among others that: “it is obvious that any property or feature of reality ‘out there’ can only be based on information we receive”. Alan refers also to the notion of “strange loop” by John A. Wheeler, namely that physics gives rise to observers and observers give rise to at least part of physics. If this is so, then both are empty - concludes Alan. Similarly the triad: information, that about which there is information (the informata) and someone who is informed. If any of these elements are missing the other two vanish. So these, too, are empty of inherent nature. According to metaphysical realism matter gives rise to information. But according to quantum view matter is a category derivative of information - it has no existence independent of information. Alan concludes today’s session by quoting another great contemporary thinker - Stephen Hawking. According to his latest view, every possible version of the universe exists in a quantum superposition state. There is no single true past. We choose the past by choosing what questions to ask. The past, the reality rises relative to our methods of observation.
And what about stroking the sun and the moon? Alan gave us 24 hours to ponder on today’s teachings and promised to give an explanation tomorrow. So stay tuned!
In the meditation Alan invites us to explore the origin, location and destination of our own mind.
The meditation starts at 1:00
Please contribute to make these, and future podcasts freely available.
Olaso.
Let’s go right into meditation. Please find a comfortable position.
[0:47] Bell rings.
[1:20] Meditation begins.
Step by step settle your body speech and mind in their natural states. And then calm the conceptually turbulent mind with mindfulness of breathing, using any method of your choice. But count, one brief staccato count at the end of each inhalation. Count 21 breaths without losing count.
[4:42] Now let your eyes be at least partially open, their gaze soft, unfocused, resting in the space in front of you. And for just a brief time sustain this flow of mindful presence. Simply being aware in the present moment without directing your attention to any object. Just resting. Clear, alert, still. Without being distracted outwards, to any appearances, to any of the six sense fields, and without grasping onto any subjective mental impulse. Loose and free.
[6:57] Now closely apply your mindfulness to this domain of the mind, one out of six domains of experience, without deliberately or voluntarily giving your attention to appearances arising in any of the other fields…any of the five sensory fields. Of course appearances arise, but do not attend to them, do not give any attention, take no interest, stay as single pointedly focused as you can, just on this one out of six domains of experience - the domain of the mind. And whatever movements there are, whatever appearances, whatever events take place within this one domain........establish your baseline of observing, knowing the space of the mind, even when you cannot identify any activity within that space. And then observe whatever does arise within this domain of experience.
[9:09] And now examine closely…whatever appears, whatever arises…from moment to moment within this mental domain, examine closely now, where does it come from? Inspect the origin of any thought, any image, appearance, memory and so on.
[10:03] Examine with discerning intelligence....so that after the session is over, if you’re asked - what did you see? What did you discover? What are your thoughts, images and so forth, where do they come from? You’ll be able to answer - this is what I saw - this is my experience. So examine now. Prepare to report if called upon.
[10:53] While this is quite intense, very focused, see that you’re breathing flows effortlessly, unimpededly, gently, softly.
[13:33] And once a mental event has arisen, a thought, an image, a memory, whatever it may be…once it’s there on the screen, has arisen in the domain, the so-called domain, examine closely…where is it exactly? We say it’s in the space of the mind but that’s just a phrase, a turn of speech. Where is it? In front of you? Behind you? Inside your head? Inside your heart? Inside the body, outside the body? Examine very closely, what is the location of any mental event that arises from moment to moment? And be prepared to report on what you discover.
[18:52] Once a mental event has arisen, of any kind…sooner or later it fades out, it’s gone. So where does it go? When these thoughts and images depart, do they go off stage to the left or the right? Do they vanish right where they are? Where do they go? Examine closely and be prepared to report - what do you see? Not what you imagine, not what you think about. What do you observe.
[24:19] Now just rest. In utter simplicity.
[24:59] Bell rings. Meditation ends.
[26:06] Olaso.
If we were already living in the contemplative observatory up the hill and had a lot of time then I would drill you right now. [laughter] I’d really examine you - I’d say - REPORT! REPORT, REPORT! [laughter] and then embarrass you. But we don’t have a contemplative observatory, we’re here only for now, five weeks. So I’ll turn that job over to Glen. [laughter] So for those of you who have the good fortune to be meeting with him and drawing from his wisdom he’ll get to grill you on your experiences. Because if you don’t know, who knows? You know, you have the privileged access to your own minds, so if you don’t know where your thoughts come from, if you don’t where they are, if you don’t know where they’re going, then you have nobody else to ask. Don’t wait for the SETI to come up with some alien. Hello, alien…hello out there…can you tell me where my thoughts come from…? They won’t be able to tell you, okay.
Olaso, now we’re returning now to one, I think the word is - niggling. Don’t you say niggling in British English? A niggling thought. And that is…when it comes to minor siddhis like you know, like flying through the sky and walking through walls, and through mountains and walking on water, going under water, multiplying yourself, having your body blaze on fire, that sounds all quite plausible. That is, if, you know, you’ve achieved the fourth jhana, and you’ve mastered those nimittas, those signs, those archetypal forms from the form realm, if the whole theory is correct, a theory very resonant with Jung and with Wolfgang Pauli, two brilliant minds and so wonderful, they came to, that can be gathered from these two complementary disciplines. Because Wolfgang Pauli just take my word for it he was world class, he was brilliant, terrifyingly brilliant. He really terrified his peers he was so smart. I’m serious.
[28:12] And so, if they’re right, and this is a testable hypothesis, they didn’t have a way of testing but through this contemplative practice it is possible. That is plausible. The notion that the Buddha was psychotic just strikes me as impossible. That a psychotic man would have that impact on all of Asia and be revered by so many people. You know, it just, that just, that’s impossible. We recognize psychotic people when we see them, he’s not one of them, he seems to be on the other end of the spectrum. But there’s a niggling thought and that is okay, all of those, you can go through the list, all of those, but the niggling thought is - okay, you’ve achieved the fourth jhana - but how do you caress the sun? [laughter] I mean really? You’ve really got a 93 million mile arm that goes out and strokes nuclear hydrogen explosions? I mean, I don’t see how that works. And for that matter even the 237 thousand mile arm reaching up to stroke a very cold planet. Would you get frostbite if you tried to stroke the moon? I mean on the surface I think it’s very hot, so you’d either get singed or you’d get frozen if you reached around and kind of caressed, you know like cuddling, reaching around and cuddling from the back, from the dark side. It would be freezing back there so the front part of your arm would get burned and the last part would get frostbite. I mean it would be really messy. So how does that work? Or do we just say - oh he didn’t mean that part? But it keeps on coming up. It’s in the Pali canon, there it is in the Prajnaparamita, here now 17th century it’s Karma Chagme just signing that - yeah that happens. How? How is that possible? So I’m not satisfied yet. I’m quite satisfied but not satisfied completely, not for those two things. How do you caress the sun and the moon?
[30:15] Well let’s take a step back. We’re not going to leave there, but I love surprising you, with good surprises. And I’m going to cite now just a short passage from a text that a lot of you have had the teachings on - The Foolish Dharma of an Idiot clothed in Mud and Feathers, by Dudjom Lingpa. This would be a familiar passage, it’s very important - I’m going to read it briefly, but it’s right to the point. So remember where we just were, that is this morning because there’s a total continuity here - remember? Of among the various signs, the signs archetypal signs of earth, water, fire, air and so forth. That the sign that trumps them all, while they’re all derivative the one that is primary, the one that is the key to all the keys, the key that opens all the locks is the sign of the mind. That’s the primary one, remember? And then Dhammapada - all phenomena issue forth from the mind, right. And so forth, and then Ratnamegha sutra saying - the primacy of the mind, the mind, the mind, the mind. Focus there, and there will be no detours, there will be no roundabouts, making it an absolute direct path, right. It doesn’t get any more direct than that. So we’ve settled here temporarily, tentatively as at least a working hypothesis on the primacy of the mind. Fathom this - he said One who comprehends the mind comprehends all things that’s a very large statement. So here we have from The Foolish Dharma of an Idiot Clothed in Mud and Feathers, an actual composition by Dudjom Lingpa in his later years when he’s drawing on the full wealth of his wisdom and he writes, to summarize, this is right toward the beginning of the text - To summarize, novices enter the authentic path ding, ding, ding, ding, big alert - this is the important part, right, you’re not just practicing dharma, doing a three year retreat, or one month or 12 year retreat, you’re actually entering the path. Okay. Novices enter the authentic path by means of investigation and familiarization so not just by just spacing out, not just by sitting with open presence or just awareness of awareness, they actually they set out by means of investigation and familiarization. So first go, so that’s how it happens, that’s how you really launch. So first go to a place of solitude, sit on a comfortable cushion and generate bodhicitta the aspiration to achieve perfect enlightenment. With sincere devotion offer prayers of supplication to your guru and take the four empowerments. You imagine your guru, whether in the human form, in human form like that of your own guru like His Holiness Dalai Lama or maybe or a more archetypal form, the archetypal form of Padmasambhava or Avalokiteshvara. You imagine your guru in the space in front of you and then one by one from the Om at the crown you imagine white rays flowing to the OM at your crown, dissolving into, merging, purifying your body from the red AH at the guru’s throat, red light emerges, flows like a cascade into the red AH at your throat, purifying your speech, permeating your being. From the blue HUNG at the guru’s heart, indigo light flows from the HUNG to the HUNG at your heart, purifying mind. And then all three simultaneously, white, red, blue, simultaneously, blessing these three chakras, purifying, sowing the seeds of Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya, Dharmakaya, Svabhavikakaya, so you take four empowerments, that’s how you do it.
[33:50] Then identify the primacy of the mind among the body, speech and mind, dispelling any uncertainty about this point. So if you’re coming into as a materialist that may take a while, that’s okay. But you can’t proceed any further if you’re a materialist, it’s not that you’re a bad person it’s just that that will block you completely on this path. So we shouldn’t fool ourselves. You can have a really nice life, you can have a virtuous life, you can have a good rebirth, there’s no threat here, but if you want to follow this path you have to recognize something that’s already true and that’s among body, speech and mind, mind’s just primary. It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s like the inverse square law of gravity. That’s the way it is. So you don’t have to believe anything that I say but it’s still the way it is. And so you must recognize this beyond a shadow of a doubt, mind is primary. Then, carefully investigate this so- called mind Every word here is really carefully chosen. this so-called mind, that which we call mind, so don’t ask what did the Buddha say about mind? What’s the Prasangika Madhyamika view of mind? What’s Dzogchen view? Never mind that. You’re using the word ‘mind’ in your own language and when you think - mind, when you experience your mind there’s a referent for that word. Because you’re not just saying something that doesn’t mean anything - bla bla - that doesn’t have any referent, but when you in your own language, in your own thoughts, from your own perspective, when you think - mind - that word has a referent. So now examine the referent of the word. According to your view. We’re not asking you to conform to a Buddhist definition. But when you think -mind - it’s not a meaningless term, you know what it means. It refers to something and so in your view what does it refer to? Identify the referent of the mind and then that’s why so-called mind that which you call the mind, identify the referent, right. So when I say is there somebody here named Jeffrey? Yes there is. And then I point - there he is. There’s a referent, here’s a person. Jeffrey is just a word, it’s just a name, it’s a sound. But it’s a meaningful sound and it refers to Jeffrey, right. He’s the referent. So I got that one, okay. Similarly, Jeffrey, Lynn, Claudia, whoever it may be it is just a noise, just an empty sound, but we imbue it with meaning and it has a referent. Mind is just blurr, it’s just noise, it has referent, examine, identify the referent.
[36:18] As you understand it and then, Then carefully investigate this so called mind in terms of its initial place of origin Not mind as a generic concept, so this is not a fest of philosophical thinking, but any mental event. So like Michelle, I look at her face and I say ‘do I see her body?’ Yes I do. Is Michelle’s face her body? No it isn’t. But it’s enough. To see Michelle’s face is enough to see Michelle’s body and it’s also enough to see Michelle. Do I see Michelle? Yes I do. There’s no debate on that point - yes I do. Do I see all of her? No. Do I see all of her body? No, no need. I see her face, that’s enough. So you don’t have to see all your mind, you don’t have to see a generic, all you have to do is find the face. And one thought will do, one face will do. If she had a very distinctive hand…maybe there’d be a tattoo on her hand and I’d recognize - oh yes! I just saw Michelle, she just went around the corner, but I saw her hand. I saw her, yes. Did you see her? Yes she just went around the corner. Because I saw a distinctive characteristic, then I know - oh that’s, that’s, that was her. It was a tattoo on her hand, but it’s enough, right. So any thought, any emotion, any memory, whatever comes up - that’s enough. That’s enough. And then examine, examine its initial place of origin - where does it come from? Its location in the interim - that is after it’s arisen and before it departs. Where is it while it’s there, where is it? and its final destination. This is classic, classic classic. Vipashyana in the Mahamudra and Dzogchen tradition. [Tibetan? 38:02] Examine the origins, location and destination of mind.
[38:08] Analysis of these points reveals the emptiness of origin, location and destination. He just gave away the plot. [laughter]. But that’s what you find. Then investigate the mind as the agent That now goes deeper. This is really dense. Really, really dense. Then investigate the mind as the agent, the mind that does things, the agent that conjures up all kinds of thoughts What is this, this mind’s very active. The mind is actually the thing that produces the placebo effect. Everybody knows that. We fool ourselves that it you know, as a sleight of hand as if somebody’s fooled, oh. Except people do get fooled, it’s amazing. But the, it’s a mind effect of course. Because we have faith, expectation, desire, belief, trust, and then lo and behold the mind effect occurs. Not always but frequently. The mind’s doing that, right. The mind is doing that. By the power of your faith, expectation, what have you. It’s a mind effect. You don’t want to acknowledge that if you think the mind is just brain function. But there it is, they’re just in denial. And so there it is, the mind is the agent, the mind does things. The mind does things, all kinds of things, drives us crazy on occasion. Makes us delighted on occasion. Bores us to death on occasion. Irritates us and frustrates us. Does any of this ring a bell? [laughter]
[39:31] So the mind does stuff. And the mind thinks, the mind churns out, compulsively, cascading waterfall. So what is this entity, this mind? Investigate the mind as the agent that conjures up all kinds of thoughts, seeking out its shape, color and form, as well as its source, beginning and end, and whether it really exists or is totally non existent. By doing so, once you have determined with confidence that it cannot be established in any way at all, when you have established that it cannot be determined as being really existent, and it cannot be determined as being totally non existent, and you really can’t identify it’s shape, color or form, you can’t really identify its source, beginning or end, you’ve entered the path Once you have determined with confidence that it cannot be be established in any way at all, it doesn’t fit into any of these conceptual categories, really, you’ve entered the path. So he sets that out, that was very condensed, he does that more elaborately in the Vajra Essence and so on.
[40:31] But this is really very compact. And he does this before he gives the instructions, of taking the mind as the path. It’s quite interesting. It’s a quite brilliant strategy. Because after that comes taking the mind as the path, after that comes taking Dharmata as the path, really investigating the nature of emptiness. After that comes taking Rigpa as the path, after that comes the Togal -culminating face of Dzogchen after that comes Rainbow body, after that is - for as long as space remains, you’ve got a job. And so that’s from Dzogchen, that’s quintessential Dzogchen. Really powerful Dzogchen. So we just touched the sky, okay? And now let’s go back to the ground, back to the Pali Canon. You have no idea what’s coming up [laughter] it’s very cool. You ready? Here’s from the Pali Canon - This is from the Samyutta nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya - So, within the Pali Canon, but it’s a story not about the Buddha but about a Bhikkuni, a fully ordained nun. So at Sharvati, now the Bhikkuni Vajira, I love this, Vajira is Pali for Vajra, in the feminine. Okay? So she’s a Sravaka nun, an actual disciple of the Buddha and her name’s Vajra, or how do you say, she-vajra? But Vajira makes her female. Of course she’s female she’s a Bhikkuni, or in Sanskrit - Bhikkushini. So the Bhikkushini, I’m going to do Sanskrit, nah Pali it is - The Bhikkuni Vajira having robed herself and taken her bowl and upper robe entered Sharvati before noon to collect food. She went on an alms round. Having wandered through Sharvati and returned after her meal, she entered the under grove and sat down at the foot of a certain tree to rest during the heat of the midday. [laughter] You have no idea what’s going to happen, it’s really cool [laughter]. Then Mara, Mara the evil one approached the Bhikkuni Vajira and desiring to cause fear and consternation, to make her hair stand on end, and cause her to fall away from concentration of the mind, addressed her with this verse - “By whom was this being made? This being, this entity, this being, by whom was this being made?” He’s referring to her. “Where is the maker of the being? This being here, from where does a being arise? Where does a being cease?” Anything sound familiar? As we touch the earth and the sky? Then Bhikkuni Vajira thought - “who is this human or non human being who speaks this verse?” And then she thought - “it’s Mara, the evil one, desiring to cause me fear and consternation to make my hair stand on end and cause me to fall away from concentration of the mind.” So the Bhikkuni Vajira realizing that it was Mara the evil one, replied to him in verse. So this is in English, there’s some prose but in Pali it’s in verse, you know, metered verse. So he gave her a little poetic verse and then she’s going to flash right back, it’s kinda like rapping [laughter] a little bit. [laughter] A being? Why seize upon this word? A wrong view Mara surely has. She sounds like Yoda. [laughter]
[44:44] A wrong view Mara certainly has? [laughter] But she’s right! A “mere heap of conditions, this, where no being can be found and when with all its parts assembled, chariot is the word then used, so when the aggregates exist one speaks of ‘being’[in quotation marks] by convention, it is just suffering that arises, suffering just stays and suffering disappears. Nothing but suffering arises, suffering ceases and nothing else”. And Mara the evil one, thinking that - Bhikkuni Vajira recognizes me, vanished away, grieved and dejected. [laughter] Nothing like a good story. Really packed. We could spend the next 45 minutes on this one. We won’t. But you’ll have it, with a source. Mara, coming like that really seems to be in this context like a, a personification of afflictive uncertainty. There she was - concentration of mind, she was just finished her alms round, she’s resting, and she’s practicing non stop, she’s not just waiting for a cushion. Just resting, but she’s not just spacing out, she’s now in samadhi and then afflictive uncertainty comes up, personified as Mara. And then assaults her, tries to unsettle her, throw her off. Cause her to doubt her own practice, be uncertain. And you can read this again at your leisure, but then, rather than cringing, running away or saying - “I need a break”, she just turns her direct right to Mara, confronts mano - mano, you know, face to face. And said - phooo, okay, having recognized, she first recognized - okay she recognized what Mara is, she recognized what’s going on there. And then she recognized, she goes on a counter attack, she doesn’t say - ”I’m not quite sure, I haven’t thought about it,” oh no, pop, right back, counter attack - attack counter attack - she confronts him. Because I think it’s a him, it’s a Mara. it’s a being, like that, then she goes right back, “why seize upon this word?” Why grasp to the word, why grasp the noise that which you’ve superimposed upon experience? You have a wrong view, a wrong view Mara surely has. A mere heap of conditions, this. A mere heap of conditions - this. Where no being can be found. The next part, so this is very familiar right? Very familiar, that these are just skandhas they’re simply arising, they’re simply events, there’s no being there, there’s no person that owns them, there’s no core, there’s no ego, there’s no nothing like that, but then she goes, she leaps out of that and she says - as when all its parts assembled - ‘chariot’ [in quotation marks] chariot is the word then used, I want to pause there just briefly.
[48:23] When all the, all its parts are assembled, sounds pretty straightforward, right? Assemble all the parts and call it a chariot. When are all the parts assembled? At what point? At what point is it ready? At what point is it a chariot that you can just call it what it already is? How many wheels does a chariot need? We think, four. But wait a minute aren’t there three wheel chariots? What’s wrong with that? How about two wheel chariots? Sure. How about one wheel chariots? I don’t see a problem. Does it really need wheels? How many parts need to be assembled`? Is a broken chariot a chariot? If you had a four wheel chariot but one of the wheels fell off but it’s still able to creep down the road is it still a chariot? I think we’d call it a broken chariot. But it still functions. What if you, if all the wheels broke and the chariot is bogged down and all the wheels broke? It’s still a chariot isn’t it, it’s a broken chariot. Fix my chariot, hey chariot serviceman call 911, my chariot’s broken fix the wheels. When is it that all the parts are assembled? So that it’s time, you can say it now - chariot. Origin. What’s the origin of chariot? Now chariots don’t last forever, there are no eternal chariots. You may have a chariot for a while, at some time you know you have a chariot, just like a car, whatever. And at some point, later on, you don’t. It got totaled, it got burned, it got so damaged, it got chopped up, used for kindling, it was transformed into a tricycle. But at some point it’s no longer a chariot, right? I mean there just aren’t any eternal chariots. So exactly when did the chariot cease to exist? How damaged did it need to be before it objectively stopped being the chariot? Before it’s totaled. My step-daughter’s car got totaled. It was rammed from behind. It was her previous car, but she still drove it thousands and thousands of miles. She got the insurance money because it was somebody else’s fault so she got the full value of the vehicle and then she drove it for thousands of miles afterwards, because it still drove, you know. [laughter] But technically it was totaled. So was she driving a non car or a car? [laughter] Was she just floating down the highway, it’s much more, it’s cheaper, you know on the gas, if there’s no car at all, but it seems like a totaled car is still a car because she still drove it. I had a, my wife and I bought a used Mercedes Benz, it was the biggest lemon of a car that we ever bought, and after a while it was basically worth a big paper-weight. That is it just stopped working and they said it will cost you must more to fix the car than the car is worth. So you want to just get rid of it, yeah I said sure, so they gave us $1000.00 for a dead car. But was it a car? Because they were not going to fix it either, they were just going to dismantle it and sell it off piece by piece. So when did it stop being a car? When they took the doors off and the wheels off and they sold the radio and they sold the seats and they, when did it stop being a car? At what point?
[52:14] So we see, we say rather nonchalantly - when the parts were all assembled the word chariot is used ya, but exactly when does the chariot come into existence? And when does it stop being in existence? When is there no longer a chariot there? That is clearly when there are a lot of parts there there’s not, if you have a chariot kit, you know, just a whole bunch of pieces in a box, nobody says - oh let’s ride the chariot to town. It’s in a box. [laughter] So nobody thinks it’s a chariot. It has the potential to become a chariot if you assemble it properly. It’s not a chariot. But it may be sooner or later, but when? And then when does it stop being a chariot? Where does it come from, where does it go? Okay? Thank you Vajira. Good job. And now we have, we return to chariot but this time - an Arhat, Arhat, Nagasena. As far as I know the first East West dialogue. Between a major, I’m serious, between a formidable representative, like His Holiness Dalai Lama - formidable representative of Buddhism coming to the West. It happened the first time in 1979 for him to teach. It was one of the, it was the biggest honor of my life, I served as his interpreter when he gave his first teachings in the West, in Switzerland. I’m just giving you that as an example, but he was a marvelous representative of this whole tradition. Nagasena was an Arhat, he was a marvelous representative of the Buddhadharma. And this is like you know, 2000 years ago. And he met with the King, he was actually Greek heritage, one of the left overs from Alexander the Great’s invasion of India. He was a Governor and the King invited him to his court and then he had a whole bunch of questions. He didn’t come to Nagasena to study his brain or his behaviour, [laughter] or just to subjugate him, make him his slave or his secretary [laughter]. He actually thought he was a wise man and asked him questions to learn from him. Fancy that! [laughter] And so they had a conversation, and it’s one of the most famous conversations in all of Buddhist literature from the Pali, again it’s the Pali Canon. And so here it is from a Milinda Panya, the King’s name in Pali was Milinda, in Greek it was Menander, King Menander.
[54:43] So then the Venerable Nagasena spoke to Millinda the King as follows. So it wasn’t just the King asking him questions, sometimes Nagasena would flashback, just like Vajira flashed back and interrogated Mara, put him on the spot, humiliated him. And he left dejected, right. What was it - grieved and dejected. He was beaten by a woman, he must have been really humiliated. [laughter] Okay, now it’s Nagasena - So Nagasena spoke to Millinda the King as follows - Your majesty, you’re a delicate prince, an exceedingly delicate prince and if your majesty, you walk in the middle of day on hot sandy ground and you tread on rough grit, gravel and sand, your feet become sore, your body tired, your mind is oppressed, and the body consciousness suffers. Only a Buddhist would say that [laughter] Pray did you come afoot or riding? So he’s met this King right, and he’s just said - where’d you come from how’d you get here [laughter], right. So it’s an interesting way to start the conversation [laughter] and so Pray, did you come afoot or riding? the King replies- Bante, I do not go afoot [laughter] I came in a chariot. Your majesty if you came in a chariot declare to me the chariot, pray your majesty, is the pole the chariot? right, is that the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. They spoke funny back then. [laughter] Or at least the translators translated funny, I don’t know anybody that says - Nay verily, anybody! But you’ve got the message, it’s cute, okay. But you know exactly what he’s saying. Nay verily, Bante. Is the axle the chariot? Nay, verily, Bante. Are the wheels the chariot? I mean you know what’s coming [laughter]. Are the wheels the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. Is the chariot body the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. The King is very patient obviously. Is the banner staff the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. Is the yoke the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. Are the reins the chariot? Nay verily Bante. Is the goading stick the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. [everyone repeats and laughs] Good, it took you a little while [laughter] you got it. Pray your majesty are pole, axle, wheels, chariot body, banner staff, yoke, reins and goad, unitedly the chariot? So one by one- no. But how about unitedly? The whole collection of all of them? Right, unitedly? The compilation, the aggregation, are they unitedly the chariot? Nay verily, Bante. Because if they were of course all you’d need would just be a whole heap of them. You just throw on the wheels, the pole, and the just put it in a big mound and just the aggregates, them all collected in one place, if that were a chariot, then you’d have a big heap of parts and you’d call that a chariot, and the answer he says is Nay, verily, Bante. No, it’s not enough to have them just all in one place. Unified. Nay, verily Bante. Is it then, your majesty, something else besides pole, axle, wheels, chariot body, or banner staff, yoke, reigns or goad which is the chariot? So you’re saying none of the individual parts, not all of the parts collectively, so is the chariot something other than all the parts? Nay verily, Bante. Your majesty, although I question you very closely I failed to discover any chariot. [laughter] So the King told him he didn’t come on foot, he came in a chariot, and then this Arhat saying- where is the chariot? I don’t see a chariot, because we just went through every possibility, piece by piece, all of them collectively or apart from them and you’re saying - Nay, verily Bante. It was no across the boards. If not among those three options, none of the parts individually, not all of them collectively, and not apart from them, where’s your chariot? Some other idea? Although I question you very carefully I failed to discover any chariot. It doesn’t seem to be findable. Verily now your majesty the word ‘chariot’ is a mere empty sound. What chariot is there here? Your Majesty you speak a falsehood, a lie. There is no chariot. Your Majesty you’re the chief King, in all of the continent of India, of whom are you afraid that you speak a lie? Listen to me my Lords, ye 500 Yonakas and ye 80,0000 priests, Millinda the King here says thus - I came in a chariot, and being requested, your Majesty if you came in a chariot declare to me the chariot, he fails to produce any chariot.
[60:03] Nagasena’s really got chutzpa! [laughter] There’s 80,000 people listening and he’s ridiculing the King? Calling him on the carpet and saying he’s a big liar? This guy really had guts. But of course he’s an Arhat. Arhats have guts. [laughter] It’s the advantage of being an Arhat. So, he says this - I came in a chariot and being requested- Your Majesty, if you came in a chariot declare to me the chariot - he fails to produce any chariot. Is it possible pray for me to assent to what he says?: How can I agree with what he said? He said he came in a chariot and when I ask him where’s the chariot he says - no got. This is interesting hey? Because those of you who’ve studied Madhyamika you’ve just seen the classic reasonings to demonstrate the lack of inherent nature of all phenomena. And he chose a chariot. So did Chandrakirti. This is the Pali canon. So generally speaking the Theravada tradition, the Theravada interpretation of the Pali canon is straightforward, metaphysical realism. The self, the agent, the I, the person, is not findable under analysis, is not to be found among the five skandhas. Is not identified with any of them, individually or all of them collectively and is nowhere to be found and does not exist outside of the context of the five skandhas. Or as simply they say - the body mind complex. Classic reasoning, classic Pali Canon reasoning, that the five skandhas are empty of self, there is nothing in them that is the self, they are not self and they are devoid of self. It doesn’t say, and the Buddha never said the self doesn’t exist, people don’t exist, I don’t exist, but he did say none of the skandhas are the self and the skandhas are empty of the self. That he did say. And that’s usually where it ends in the Pali canon, while assuming that the five skandhas of course they’re real, suffering really arises, suffering really ceases - that’s real. It’s just the self that is nowhere to be found under analysis, that all phenomena are empty of self. Individual self. Self that the, self of a person, right? But Nagasena just blew the lid off of that. Because of course if this is going to be true for a chariot it’s going to be true for the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives mass to all the other particles in the universe, it’s going to be true of the sun, and the moon and everything else. There’s nothing special about chariots. He didn’t find a weak link, a pawn on the great chessboard of existence, it’s as good as anything else. If the chariot cannot be found nothing can be found, it’s representative of everything other than self, and he just said - is a mere convention. That’s what he just said, right. So he’s calling into question here, clearly, I don’t see how you can avoid this interpretation, that’s straight Madhyamika analysis, really, exactly. But at that time there was no, Nagarjuna hadn’t come yet, was not writing yet, as far as we know. And so it was an assault on metaphysical realism, regarding all of reality and not just self as in personal identity.
[64:13] So, Nagasena, Chandrakirti, Nagarjuna, Tsongkhapa and so forth they were not the only ones to really critique and completely, how do you say - demolish, the beliefs of metaphysical realism. I mentioned before Hilary Putnam who defined metaphysical realism so succinctly and definitively and very also, he was, he just as I said, he passed away a month ago, but very highly regarded by his peers, I mean really distinguished, Harvard Professor, widely, widely respected among his peers. He was also a practicing Jew. Which I found very interesting. His wife was also formidable person and that personally I think she’s still alive, but she’s also a philosopher in her own right. So he writes, he is an American Philosopher and Mathematician and a Computer Scientist, and he comments here, and I’ll give again the source, he said - Elements of what we call language Now here’s his critique of metaphysical realism , it’s the closest thing I have seen in Western Philosophy to Middle Way view. Because he completely demolishes metaphysical realism as untenable, indefensible, empty, false, then he goes over to the other extreme of subjectivism, instrumentalism, constructivism, where you just don’t make any comment about objective reality at all, or you deny it exists, that there’s, you know, he just identifies the two extremes of substantialism and basically cloaked nihilism, right. And he demolishes them both. It’s really quite brilliant. And he’s quite readable also, in the text that I’ve cited here. So he’s finding what he calls a Middle Way - what he calls Internal Realism. Or pragmatic realism. And he summarizes it with a really cool phrase. He says - We are, each of us, we’re like characters in a novel. And we are writing the Novel. And so here is what he says - and this is a quote - Elements of what we call language, or mind penetrate so deeply into what we call reality, so called ‘reality’[quotation marks]. And this is really precise. Elements of what we call ‘language’ - or ‘mind’ what we call mind, penetrate so deeply into what we call ‘reality’, the word, the sound, the noise that has a referent, language or mind penetrate so deeply into what we call reality that the very project of representing ourselves as being ‘mappers’ of something ‘language independent’ is fatally compromised from the very start.
Now read it without interrupting, it’s really choice.
Elements of what we call 'language or ‘mind’ penetrate so deeply into what we call ‘reality’ that the very project of representing ourselves as being ‘mappers’ of something ‘language independent’ is fatally compromised from the very start. That is classic Prasangika, classic Madhyamaka. By a person who didn’t study Buddhism as far as I know. He looked to Kant, Wittgenstein and William James. That’s his tripod. I find quite breathtaking. Brilliant. I wish I’d met him. Never had the chance.
[67:45] So there’s from one of, I think, our finest 20th century Philosophers, late 20th century Philosophers, Hilary Putnam at Harvard, distinguished, very eminent Philosopher, and Mathematician and Computer Scientist. So he really knew what to look into. And then we have one of the great founders, very famous, pioneer in the field of Quantum Mechanics - Werner Heisenberg. Again a direct quote - - everything has a source, here’s what Werner Heisenberg says as he and his colleagues,his mentor Niels Bohr, his colleagues like Erwin Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli and so forth, as they were seeing the implications of quantum mechanics, one of them, I think it was Heisenberg said - we feel like the very foundations beneath us are shaking. It was like an existential crisis, this was not an intellectual trick, this was not just a pass time, this was not just a profession. They had been, the 19th century physics was so embedded, so rooted, so comfortable, taking refuge in, really, and I mean existentially taking refuge in the notion there’s a real world out there. Whether you believe in God or not, whatever, there’s a real world out there and it’s made of particles and fields and there’s space and the time, and they’re really out there, and we are mappers of a reality that’s independent of our language, independent of our systems of measurement and we’re closing in, and then quantum mechanics comes and it just torpedoes this, or it’s like the Titanic hitting that iceberg and just ripping the guts out of it. And you see - this baby’s sinking! And there’s nothing you can do about it, whether it’s fast or slow but this baby’s going down. It cannot be salvaged. It’s been ripped. Metaphysical realism was ripped, it was the iceberg for metaphysical realism. It hasn’t sunk yet, that’s why there’s people still believe in it, but it’s actually, it’s already sunk, they just don’t see it yet. And Werner Heisenberg knew this.
[69:57] He said - We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning. In other words everything we know about nature, the world, reality, everything without exception, what we know is an answer to a question. An appearance arising to a system of measurement. It’s not God speaking, it’s not nature saying -here I am without having no questions at all, just - here I am, and seeing her, it, as nature actually is. Nature is always arising relative to a question or mode of observation, a system of measurement. We have no access to nature or anything else apart from having a question and having some mode of observation, and it always rises relative to the mode of observation. Relative to the system of measurement. Whether the system of measurement is visual perception or whether it’s the large Hadron super Collider. It’s always arising relative to your system of measurement. And if you say-ya but what the hell is going on independent of our system of measurement? Well he had a comment to that - he said - Let us not attribute existence to that which is unknowable in principle. And what is going on out there, independent of all systems of measurement, independent of all observations and independent of all questions - what’s really going on out there, objectively, absolutely objectively? Unknowable in principle. Because every time you pose a question, you just posed a question. Every time you make an observation, you just made an observation. And not from God’s perspective. From your perspective, with your instrument. And it’s always relative to and you never escape that. So if you’re asking what’s out there prior to, independent of any question, any observation, you’ve just asked an unanswerable question, it’s unanswerable in principle, do not attribute existence to that which is unanswerable in principle. Bye Bye Universe. [laughter]
(1:11:38) But we’re so accustomed we in the 21st century, I am, I was raised Western, total, we’re so accustomed that there’s one description of the universe…unless you’re living on some, you’re Amish or something like that then you simply ignore the entire 20th century and the last 400 years of science and you just bury your head in your farm and believe that whatever is in the bible is literally true, and about, apparently 40% of Americans do that, and they still believe every word in the Bible is literal or every word in some other sacred scripture is literal, whether it’s the Abhidharma, whether it’s the Bhagavad gita, whether it’s you know, whatever, whatever, but you just say - I just don’t want to deal with modernity. No thank you, my body’s here but my mind is elsewhere. You can always do that but then for people who are actually living in the 20th century you look like an idiot. Like a joke. Like a joke, like you really think science came up with nothing, right. Nothing. Four hundred years came up with nothing. Really? You’ll look like an idiot. But from this, all of our schooling, if you go to any, almost really any university, even a Catholic university, you really get the idea there’s only one story. There’s only one story, about the origins, I mean something we take seriously, that’s based upon rigorous research, that actually has consensual knowledge, practical benefits of one sort or another, there’s only one story, right? And that is that a 13.8 billion year old universe and there’s inflationary period and dadi dadi da, and here’s the planet and here’s elementary life, and here’s evolution - there’s only one story, and we’ve all learned that story. There’s only one story. Philosophers don’t have a story they just have a lot of opinions and they don’t agree so, you know we don’t look to them. Religious people have too many stories and they all disagree with each other so why would you take them seriously? And the scientists have a story that’s based upon really rigorous research, spectacular technology, and for many many people that’s the only story that’s taken seriously. And the other ones look like maybe a very nice myths, or they look stupid, but they just can’t be taken seriously. Oh they’re just interesting ideas, oh okay, Hilary Putnam came up with that idea, Kant came with that idea but of course nobody agrees with anybody so …so why should we? Why should it be taken seriously? At least the cosmologists have an enormous body of knowledge they agree on. The universe is not 18 billion years old, it’s not 6 billion years old, and so forth. There’s a lot they agree on and not just because they’re sheep, baaing in unison. They have good research.
[74:48] So it looks like there is only one story, the true story, the real story! What really happened and it was the big bang, it was matter matter matter matter matter, matter matter matter matter, and then life, and then consciousness and here we are. I think just gave the whole history of the universe, right? That’s the story we all get. Here’s what William James has to say - Everyone [he says] is prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, and they are necessities of universal reason. They being all the while at bottom, accidents more or less of personal vision which had far better be avowed as such. And that is reading the popular media, attending science classes, reading science text books, popular science and so forth, we’re simply told this is the way it is. This is, we are mappers on a language, independent reality, and this is what we’ve discovered, we’re working out the fine details but count on it. This is what really happened, right? They don’t tell you what Heisenberg tells you. Because quantum mechanics is like a bomb that remains enclosed. So the explosion can’t reach the rest of the house, it’s like a contained bomb, waiting for the shell to break and blast out the whole house. This is what really happened…they don’t tell you that this is a picture that we put together based upon questions that we posed using systems of measurement that we devised and this is the story that comes out relative to our systems measurement and our questions. Oh by the way - all of our questions where physical. And all of our systems of measurement measure only physical phenomena. They don’t mention that. They just say no - the universe is physical, stupid. Because we discovered it, that’s the story. And we’re sticking to it. It’s so wonderful we are not living in the 19th century. Because we’d really be at an impasse. There’d be nowhere to go. Any kind of constructive dialogue between, not just stress reduction or whatever, but this worldview of the Buddha, would just be like - you’re wrong, uh uh, uh uh, uh uh, there’d be nowhere to go because they were all metaphysical realists back them. In the 19th century virtually all of them. Relativity theory really shook it. Because it shows, just with special relativity, general relativity, just that, let alone quantum mechanics, that we speak, remember the primary qualities of Descartes?
[77:28] Location, extension, mass, motion and so forth. That’s what’s really out there independent of any observer.... yeah…kinda....except it’s all relative to an inertial frame of reference …in which case it’s not really there…because it depends on what, what is your frame of reference, are you accelerating ? Are you moving near the speed of light? What is the frame of reference of that which you are observing? And how big it is, how long it lasts, how much mass it has, how much energy it has, its shape, all of that isn’t an intrinsic property of the entity in and of itself.....it may be how it is observed from its frame of reference but if you’re looking at it from another frame of reference ....traveling near the speed of light…or accelerating and so on, from your perspective it will be different. Could be massively different…even simultaneity is not absolutely real because two events may be simultaneous from one frame of reference and not be simultaneous, that could actually switch order from another frame of reference. So that all always already is like, having a stroke, like metaphysical realism had a stroke with relativity theory like - I think I’m still here [laughter] I don’t mean to ridicule anything here but it’s like it had a stroke, like it’s not dead but it’s like - jittery and then quantum mechanics comes along and has a big massive stroke…hemorrhaging, it’s finished. But they’re containing it, they’re containing it. They’re propping it up like a mummy. Well who’s saying this? If it’s just me I have nothing, I have no significance, I have no authority. But Anton Zeilinger does. He’s an icon, he’s like, he’s world class I have a good, a real privilege of knowing him personally, but he’s world class. He discovered quantum teleportation, which is big. I’m just waiting for him to get the Nobel Prize for that, it was breathtaking. He’s met with His Holiness, they’ve had fascinating conversations. I got to be a part of that conversation, as an interpreter. Here’s what Anton Zeilinger has, I think it is probably safe to say he is the foremost experimental physicist working in the foundations of quantum mechanics. He is brilliant.
[79:23] Remember the name Erwin Schrodinger? He holds his chair at the University of Vienna. So this is not an opinion on my part, it’s not because I like him or whatever, he is really distinguished. Here’s what Anton Zeilinger says and I quote One may be tempted to assume that whenever we ask questions of nature, of the world there, outside - there is reality existing independently of what can be said about it. We will now claim that such a position is void of any meaning. It is obvious that any property or feature of reality ‘out there’ can only be based on information we receive. There cannot be any statement whatsoever about the world or about reality that is not based on such information. Bear in mind that information is not equivalent to reality - out there. The information refers to that reality. But not identical to it. It therefore follows that a concept of a reality without at least the ability in principal to make statements about it, to obtain information about its features is devoid of of any possibility of confirmation or proof. So if there were an existing reality out there, in and of itself, objectively real, we’d never know about it. We make any statement about it, whatever- there’s the sun - really, really, absolutely, inherently, 93 million miles away, yeah? Oh yeah? Independent of all systems of measurement? Independent of information? Yeah? Prove it. Disprove it. And you’ll find you can’t do either. To make a statement about reality independent of the information we have about the reality is to make empty noise. Meaningless statements that are not worthy of any consideration because you don’t even need to refute them. They can’t be refuted or confirmed.
[81:40] This implies that the distinction between information, that is knowledge, and reality, is devoid of any meaning. Evidently, what we are talking about is again, a unification of very different concepts. The reader might recall that unification is one of the main themes of the development of modern science. Einstein’s unification of Matter and Energy. They were thought to be quite distinct, until that cute little equation. E=mc2 unification. Space and time were thought to be quite distinct, totally distinct. Until generality came along. Unification of space died and so forth. Unification is the drive of science. You’ll want to read that a few times, you’ll have it.
John Archibald Wheeler who died in 2008, lived a very long life, he was 90 years old, he was at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. And Richard Feynman was at Caltech. These were the two big pillars of theoretical physics in the United States for the latter part of the 20th century. Two mighty lions at the gates of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Truly great ones. It’s not my opinion, it’s true. Here’s what he writes and I quote The universe consists of ‘a strange loop’ in which physics gives rise to observers and observers give rise to at least part of physics Okay, physics gives rise to observers - he knows better than any of us here about the story, and the details and the evidence behind the story of a 13.8 billion year old universe in which consciousness, human beings came along at the very, very tail end, 200,000 years ago, with you know, 13.8 billion years before us .... life came along only 3 and a half billion years ago on our planet, that’s the only one we know about. So physics gives rise to observers, right. There was a big bang, there was an inflationary period, formation of galaxies, formation of our planetary system and sun, formation of single cell organisms, evolution happened, and then observers happened. Some place along there, observers happened - physics gave rise to observers. But now he says, and this is the strange loop, it’s not complex but it is subtle - Observers give rise to at least part of physics That is - if there were no observers there would be no physics. If there were no observers there would be no information because to have information you have to have someone who is informed. To have information you have to have someone asking questions. Who gets answers, who has information and on the basis of the information a story is made. It’s a very good story, very compelling story, but it’s still a story based on information and the information doesn’t exist apart from those who are informed and they are called observers. So observers give rise to physics. No observers there is no physics. No observer there is no story. But if there is no physical universe you don’t have any observers. So that would imply to me that they’re probably both empty. Because if you have two phenomena, reality and observers....take away the observers, reality can no longer be posited as existent…but take away reality, the rest of reality, and observers cannot be posited as existent. But they’re different. But you take away one the other one immediately vanishes. Then it couldn’t really have been there in the first place. It’s like the triad of the informata, the information and the one who is informed. Informata - that about which we have information, right? Like Sebastian, infomata - something about which, about a person about whom we can have information.
Good, true. How do we know about Sebastian? By information. We look at him, we interrogate him, [laughter] and so forth, but we have information, we can do background check. We did, otherwise he wouldn’t be here. [laughter] We have information about this guy. [laughter] We have our file [laughter]. But there has to be someone who is informed. if there’s no one who’s informed there’s no information. If there’s no informata, if there’s no one about whom we have information, there’s no information. So we have a triad here. That about which there is information - the informata - the information - the information flow, and the one who is informed, take away one of those and the other two vanish immediately.
[86:06] If there’s no one who’s informed there’s no information. But if there’s no information there’s nothing to be said about the informata. Take away the informata there’s no information about the informata therefore there’s no one who is informed about the informata, the other two vanish. Take away any one of, it’s a tripod, take away any one of the legs and the other two vanish immediately which means they couldn’t have really been there in the first place. If you can take away the other two…if you take away one and the other two vanish immediately they can’t really be there. They can be there only nominally. But they can’t really be there otherwise they would be untouched. You destroy one the other would be hanging - say what about us? You’d say - oh ya, pow pow, you’d have to shoot them too. But they’re vanished in a finger snap just by one of them and take away any one and the other two vanish immediately, that means they can’t be there at all, except for in a manner of speaking - like chariot. This is the strange loop. That physics came before observers but with no observers there’s no physics, and it’s a loop, it’s a strange loop. Which would imply why neither physics or observers are inherently existent. Otherwise one would really be there, independent of the other. Because it’s not straightforward causality like here’s the seed and here’s the tree. Take away the seed no tree, no it’s take away the tree there’s no seed. The conventional view of the relationship between observers and the objective world is that matter yields information, This is the view of metaphysical realism, flat out. Matter yields information - there’s a world out there of matter and it yields information when we make observations, measurements - it yields information. That’s the conventional view. Well you know what’s coming .... The conventional view of the relationship between observers and the objective world is that matter yields information, and information makes it possible for observers to be aware of matter by way of measurements, which could be depicted as follows - matter gives rise to information gives rise to observers. This is the paraphrase of Wheeler now, and I think it’s by Paul Davies, who is an authority on Wheeler. Wheeler on the contrary proposes that the presence of observers makes it possible for information to arise, for there is no information without someone who is informed. Thus, matter is a category constructed out of information and Wheeler inverts the sequence - observers give rise to information - gives rise to matter. Matter is derivative of information, it wasn’t already there and it has no existence independent of information about it.
[89:02] That’s a paraphrase, I think it’s actually my paraphrase but you can see the source, you can see whether I screwed it up. Here’s now a direct quote from Wheeler - It is wrong to think of that past, that 13.8 billion year old past, it’s wrong to think of that past as ‘already existing in all detail.’ That is was already a done deal, that it was already objectively real, it really happened, and we’re simply mapping what really happened. Whether it’s the history of the universe or whether it’s your own history. That past, whatever that past might be. It’s wrong, he says. To think of that past as already existing, the ‘past’ is theory they’re using this a lot to show how language is embedded in reality. That’s why they keep on using these quotation marks. The “past” is theory, the ‘past’ has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. By deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present We choose the quantum registering equipment, we choose the system of measurement by making that choice, by deciding what questions our quantum registering equipment shall put in the present, the questions and the system of measurement, we have an undeniable choice in what we have the right to say about the past. The past, not just the present, the past arises relative to the questions we pose and the measurements we make. It’s not already there. It rises relative to. And then a quote from my own book Mind in The Balance - on this topic - Since the dawn of modern science physicists have been trying to understand the evolution of the universe, of the universe bottom up. Starting with the initial conditions. This is my paraphrase but there’s no me here, this is just straight telling what John Wheeler said, you can trust me on that, but check, find out for yourself - Today the beginning of the universe is conceived in terms of the big bang. But Hawking, Stephen Hawking and his colleague Hertog, Thomas Hertog, Thomas and Stephen Hawking’s founding right in this vein, exactly this vein, Anton Zeilinger, John Wheeler, now we have Stephen Hawking, we have some pretty celestial guys here, big shots. But Hawking and Hertog challenge this entire approach declaring that like the surface of a sphere our universe has no definable starting point, no defined initial state. And if you can’t know the initial state of the universe you can’t take a ‘bottom up’ approach, working forward from the beginning. The only alternative is to take a top down approach, starting from current observations and working backwards. There’s no choice there. That’s the only choice, that’s the only thing you can do. We can’t send a measuring system back into the past. All of our measurements are measurements made in the present and it’s a top down, we go from the present and then draw conclusions about yesterday and 13.8 billion years ago, but it’s all relative to the measurements we make in the present. But how you work backwards depends entirely on the questions you ask and the methods of inquiry you adopt in the present… According to Hawking - every possible version of a single universe, every possible version of a single universe exists simultaneously in a state of quantum superposition. And that is - there are multiple, multiple, multiple. Unimaginable multiple, versions of the universe all in superposition state, which means they’re not actual, they’re potential. When you choose to make a measurement, you select from this range of possibilities a subset of histories that share the specific features measured. The history of the universe, as you conceive of it, is derived from that subset of histories. In other words - you choose your past. Okay? All of this is footnoted, all of the sources are there. So if I’ve made any mistake you’ll be able to find it because I’ve just reported what was there, there’s really no interpretation from my side. Straight.
So you have 24 hours to think about that. [laughter] And then we’ll apply this back to the sun and the moon, etc. See where that takes us, okay?
Enjoy your day. If you get any sleep at all [laughter].
Transcribed by Cheri Langston
Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti
Final edition by KrissKringle Sprinkle
Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.
RSS