71 What Is a “Smordge” and How Does It Exist?

B. Alan Wallace, 09 May 2016

In the next section of the text, Panchen Lama is taking us from the limited domain of examining the self and establishing the absence of inherently existent self to the domain of all phenomena. Alan reminds us of a previous reference to the six elements in the analysis of the self. At that time, we examined these six elements individually and collectively in order to establish that they were empty of self, and that the self was not to be found outside these elements either. We have not done a meditation on the imputed sense of “mine”, but Alan encourages us to do it during our individual practice. To linger experientially not only in the discovery that these six elements are empty of “I” but also of “mine”. To see how the sense of ownership arises as something objective. And then to see how light, how ethereal it is. To scan through the visual, auditory and other consciousnesses up to the mental domain and see whether with any appearances there arises the sense of “mine”. Is it my voice or just a voice? How mine is my sensation? How about my thoughts, my emotions? Then we move on to today’s topic: the examination of the six elements themselves to see that they are just as empty of inherent existence as the self. That their ontological status is just as empty as that of the ownership of a cellphone. Before the meditation, Alan raises the question of whether these six elements are inclusive and contrasts them with the elements we know from science - the periodic table of elements. Alan points out that in Buddhadharma the elements are all about the world of experiences. The four elements of earth, water, fire and air refer to everything that arises in the physical world: the earth element is what provides solidity, the water - fluidity, the fire - heat and cold, and the air - lightness and movement. Then there is the domain of space where all these take place. And finally - consciousness which in this context covers all configurations of consciousness, all activities of the mind. In today’s meditation we examine how these elements exist. How do their manifestations and configurations exist?

The meditation is on vipashyana

After the meditation, we return to Panchen Lama’s text. We have already asked: how do we exist? Now the question is: how does everything else exist? Alan underlines that it is very important to read this 17th century text from the perspective of the 21st century and not 19th century physics. Hence he begins by quoting Andrei Linde’s article on “Inflation, Quantum Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle”. It turns out that if the whole universe is viewed as a quantum system then the element of time “falls out” of the mathematical equation. As if the universe was static. This is called the problem of “frozen time”. Andrei Linde explains that the notion of evolution is not applicable to universe as a whole, because there is no external observer with an external “clock” outside the universe. So why do we see the universe evolving? For this we need two pieces: 1) an observer with a ”clock” and other measuring devices and 2) the rest of the universe. The universe is evolving dependent on this observer and the measurements. If there is no observer, there is no evolution and the universe is static (or “dead”). Now, from this 21st century perspective, we go back to Panchen Lama, continuing to read verse 30 of the root text. Here the same sequence applied earlier in the meditation on self (way of appearing, apprehending and existing) leads to the conclusion that the six elements do not exist inherently, because they are composites. To illustrate this Alan coins a new term (a new concept) “smordge” which he makes to mean the configuration of laptop, smartphone and eyeglass case together. In this way, by designation, “smordge” comes into existence. And this means that there may be more “smordges” out there, just as there may have been “smordges” in the past and will be in the future. As long as someone designates them. And everything else is exactly like that! - underlines Alan. For example the solar system. It is also a mereological sum. Was it already out there? Does it include Pluto? Where does it end? Does it include its gravitational field? Who decides? It is a conceptual designation, it has the same ontological status as the newly invented “smordge”. Here Alan quotes a question posed by another contemporary physicist Paul C. W. Davies: “Without a miracle, how can something come to exist that did not exist before?” The answer is: by conceptual designation! Next, we read verse 32 of the root text and Alan explains the meaning of the phrase “you do not find even the minutest particle of meditative equipoise and of the one who rests in meditative equipoise”. Physical objects can be described using space and time dimensions but configurations of consciousness occupy only a time vector, not a space vector. Therefore in this context the “minutest particle” must mean particle of time (pulse). Lastly, referring to the final phrase of the commentary to the root text read today (“Alternatively, the subtle basis for imputing a self is said to be the very subtle energy-mind”), Alan points out that at any time one can designate oneself on the basis of one of the three levels of the energy-mind: coarse, subtle and very subtle. For example, when resting in shamatha, one can designate oneself “I am resting in shamatha”, on the basis of the subtle energy-mind. Similarly, in the bardo, one may use the subtle energy-mind as the basis of designation. And finally, resting in rigpa, the Buddha nature can serve as the basis of designation. In all such cases, as previously, in order to establish how the mind exists, one needs to first identify the mind.

The meditation starts at 19:33


Please contribute to make these, and future podcasts freely available.

Download (MP3 / 53 MB)

Transcript

71 - Spring 2016 - What Is a “Smordge” and How Does It Exist?

Olaso.

[00:03] So in the very next section of the text by Panchen Rinpoche, he’s taking an enormous step. He’s moving from the limited domain, enormously important, but limited domain of examining the self and the absence of an inherently existent self, which, again, is so crucial to our very existence, the way we navigate through life, through space. Starting there, kind of creating a beachhead, starting … getting some certainty there right in the center, right, and you recall, in that analysis, there was at least one reference to the six elements, right? Earth, water, fire, air, space, and then consciousness. And that list, I’m quite sure is, is meant to be inclusive, that is, everything within this phenomenal world, in that … fits within that matrix, within that context. And the previous analysis was to examine each of these six elements, earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness, and find that as one examines them, each one individually, and then they collectively, that you’re just nowhere to be found. And if you’re nowhere to be found amongst them, or you can check very briefly do you feel you might be found outside of them, and if not, well, that pretty well does it in terms of there being a you that is findable, under analysis, and what that means exactly, of course, is a you that was already there before you designated it. Where the designation, the thought, the label is what is quite literally a mere afterthought, like a footnote on the presentation of the universe, like oh, yeah, and we call it this. It’s a footnote. And then, of course, everything shifts, all the way around. So we started there and see that each of these six elements, again, individually, collectively, is empty of the identity of a person. And there’s no such identity of a person found anywhere else.

[02:30] But what we didn’t do in meditation, we won’t do it now, either. But I would really encourage you to do it, at your leisure, is to really linger in the awareness that you know, I’m quite sure you know, conceptually, you probably have no doubt about it. But experientially, it can really linger. And that is not only are these phenomena of the six elements empty of 'I', but they’re also empty of ‘mine'. And very often, you know, we, we playfully say, I playfully say, that the cell phone, you know its status is 'mine’, it’s purely nominal. Of course it is. We all know that. We all, we all know that for other people’s possessions. That their ownership of things is merely nominal. But we can check in, and check for ourselves, to see whether we ever take sense of ownership as something being objective. This is my spouse. This is my home. This is my body. This is my country. ‘My country ‘tis of Thee, sweet land of liberty…’ [lyrics from an American patriotic song] My country. Not one of these inferior countries. The best one. That’s mine, right? That’s what we learned so we are told. America number one. [laughter] Greatest country in the world. Well, in some respects, yeah. I think it’s true in some respects. It’s the greatest at being the United States anyway. So, but examining, you know, are these elements any less empty of ‘mine’ than they are of 'I'. And if we really see that, then that will change everything. To see that everything we identify as mine is just no more ‘mine’ than this cell phone being ‘mine’. And that’s pretty obvious. That it’s just a cell phone. It’s seeing the cell phone as a cell phone. It’s seeing form as form, feelings as feelings. You remember that whole thing? So that’s big, but we’re moving on now. But that’s what, that’s worth lingering there.

[04:47] Whenever you see a sense of ‘mine’ coming up, check for yourself. How are you apprehending the ‘mine-ness’ of that which you are perhaps quite accurately identifying as ‘mine’. I could say Amy is my student. I think I can see that at least for a while. Unless she tells me otherwise. She’s one of my students, right? What is that more, is that … anything more than this, my cell phone, or this is my chair? My chair. If you sit here, prepared to get kicked out. At least when I am here. And that’s my cottage over there, wherever it is, over there, that’s my cottage, my cottage. That’s my student, that’s my student. To see how utterly light that is. How it’s ethereal, less ethereal than a cirrus cloud because that actually has some things to it. So but not to linger. But this is really worth, worth doing to linger there. And as you scan through, this would be fun to do right now but we need to move on. And we will, but to scan through, you know, do that Cook’s tour of the visual, the auditory, through the five physical senses and then on into the mental domain. And to examine whether any of the appearances arising visually, whether the sense comes out ‘mine’. So as I gaze at Jeffrey’s forehead. I see the color of his forehead, I see the the patterns of his hair. Mine? It’s mine? Not really. [Snaps his fingers] Sound? Is that my voice? Or is it just a voice? Is that my finger snap? Or just, is that an anonymous finger snap? [Snaps his fingers].That’s anonymous. But my voice that’s quite distinctive. Maybe that’s my voice. Or maybe it’s just a voice that I’ve grown very attached to. And smell and taste, and then we get to touch. We get feeling. Well, that’s the sensation. That’s my sensation in my knee. How am I at that? Those are my thoughts.

[07:02] One person was very disturbed, at least one person reporting to me, very disturbed by some of the thoughts that were coming up. A lot of mental afflictions [are] coming up. In fact I think two at least. [Laughter]. We’re coming. 'Oh, I’m so disturbed. I’m so disturbed. I’m being assaulted by these thoughts. Why? My thoughts. If they’re assaulting someone else, I think no problem. But they are assaulting ‘me’ because they’re my thoughts. Or my thoughts of desire, my thoughts of craving, and so forth and so on. So why are some appearances sensory? Tactile, yes, the other ones not so much. Mental appearances, thoughts, emotions? Are they just emotions? Or are they my emotions? And is the ‘mine’ more ‘mine’ than the ownership of the cell phone, which vanishes as soon as I say, ‘Claudio, this belongs to me, you can have it now.’ So I said I wouldn’t linger there. But it is an important area, but we have to move on. We’ve done that. And at your leisure look not only into the emptiness of 'I' but the emptiness of ‘mine’, in any of the six elements. But then we move on. I said he’s … he is now making a major step to examine the six elements themselves. And to see whether they exist by their own inherent nature or whether they’re empty of themselves. Right. Are they too the six elements, are they as empty? This seems really wild, outrageous, like bordering, borderline ridiculous that the six elements, earth, water, fire air, for example, that their ontological status, their way of being the way they exist, is just as fluffy, as insubstantial, as nominal as the ownership of this phone. That would be bizarre, wouldn’t it? And that’s exactly what they’re saying.

[09:04] So as I said, I’m quite sure there, this is intended to be inclusive. And so the earth element, bear in mind, this term is [in Tibetan Jooma Jooma??]. And we translated this element has been long, I think it’s okay, I just don’t know of a better one. But we should know the etymology of this is, I think, it’s in Sanskrit [budda budda ??] and in Tibetan [Jooma?] and both have the connotation of becoming, emerging, coming forth. Coming forth, not just the western notion of element, like the periodic table of elements, sodium, boom, chlorine, boom, iron, copper, really like macho. That’s what’s out there. That’s what God sees. Right. That’s what’s really out there. From the God’s eye perspective inherently exists out there in the real world. That really brilliant chart, they just found another element, it fits in very nicely. So, so neat. You see that? New one came up here, fairly brief, very, very short. [??] But still it counts. It got the vote. I’m in. [Laughs]. Member of the club. So, but that’s not the connotation in the buddhist view, because the buddhist view from the very beginning from the time of the Buddha was not to represent a pre-existing universe as it is out there independently of any description, independent of experience. Because after all, it’s all about Four Noble Truths. And, and suffering does not exist independently of experience. And the source of suffering, karma, kleshas, doesn’t exist independent of experience, doesn’t even come up. It’s silly. Freedom. Nirvana. Notion of there’s some kind of nirvana all hanging out there like a fruit hanging from a tree, I’ve to pluck it, independent of experience, completely silly. And the notion of a path, independent of experience, makes no sense at all. And that’s the structure of all of buddha dharma, the Four Noble … Four Noble Truths. And so it’s all about loka, loka, the lived world, the world that Germans have it in phenomenology, also Heidegger, lebenswelt [German word, means: lifeworld], the lived world, the world that we live in, the world we experience, the world of our experience, right? That’s what buddhism has always been about. So that’s why some people and philosophers I know are very, very keen on the interface between Western phenomenology and Buddhism, Madhyamaka in particular. Okay, without lingering too long here, keep on moving on.

[11:13] These are emergences, but they’re emergences, relative to experience, because any entity that is irrelevant to all experience has no bearing on the Four Noble Truths. Right? Have no bearing because the Four Noble Truths are all about experience. So if there’s something independent of all experience, then who cares, you know? And so these are all emergences. Well, when speaking of just, for starters, the four elements, earth, water, fire, air, what these are referring to, of course, is anything out there. Look around. Those craggy peaks on the horizon, the soft, gently, gently rolling green, green field, fields and hills and so forth. That which provides them with their solidity, just like the Higgs boson provides all particles with their mass, right? It provides them all of their mass, well, that which provides this, the stability of the hill, of the hills, of the trees, of metal, of your kneecaps, and so forth. That’s earth element. Right. And wherever there’s fluidity, whether it’s moisture, whether it’s water, whether it’s wine, whether it’s oil, and so forth, any type of moisture that which provides us with this moisture-ness is the water element. The whole gradient from cold to heat that which provides the warmth of the sun, of the soil, and so forth, and so on, that’s the heat element. Stronger in some areas; colder in others. Right. And then wherever there’s lightness and motility, whether there’s motion, including vibration, the wind, growth, movement, and so forth, that which enables the growth, the movement and so forth, air element. That has a different connotation, doesn’t it, than a periodic table of you know, quite hardcore little nitty gritty elements. Very Newtonian. Brilliant and extremely useful, and very, very Newtonian, Newtonian. And then we have the domain in which all of these, this … all the constituents of the physical world, earth, water, fire, air, take place. And bear in mind, this goes from elementary particles all the way up to galactic clusters. It’s said, they’re all composed out of earth, water, fire, air, in this lebenswelt, in this world of experience. So it’s not in competition with the periodic table. Because that’s not a world of experience, that’s purportedly describing what’s out there, independent of our experience, that we are representing with our definitions of the various elements and so on.

[14:00] So that … that in which all of these events are enabled to take place, of course, is the space element, the space element, so we know a lot about space. So much is written about it, and we experience it. And then finally, consciousness, and I would say here in this context, consciousness, if this is indeed an inclusive set of the six types of emergences, then consciousness, this term consciousness refers not only just to the flow of awareness, but all configurations of consciousness. So thoughts and images and dreams and emotions, desires, memories, fantasies, space of … well, and all of those, all of these activities of the mind, all these formations of consciousness, they would be included there. And if we understand consciousness in that way and not just the flow of awareness, then maybe we’re done. Maybe that’s inclusive. And then the question comes, and that’s where we’re going right now is: all right, these six elements, because this is, this is not a dualistic vision of reality. By my many friends who are scientific materialists, one of them, very, very good friend of mine, very, very fine scientist. And whenever he refers to my worldview he will say, ‘You’re a dualist, you’re a dualist’, where he is a materialist, he is, is a monist, everything really boils down to matter and it’s emergent property. That’s what he was taught. Because his training in neuroscience was entirely based on 19th century physics. And so when I sent him a paper, and this is a very intelligent man, but when I sent him, sent him some material on quantum cosmology, he just, just basically rolled his eyes and ‘I don’t have a clue what this is about. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know. I had, I don’t have training in physics.’ He had enough to be an outstanding brain scientist. And you will have no idea who’s … if you think it’s Richard Davidson it’s not. So you’re not going to guess who I’m referring to. But he just couldn’t relate to it at all. Because it played no part … 20th century physics played no part in his whole training. He’s a senior scientist now, world reputation. And he looked at this and said, ‘I can’t make heads or tails of that. I don’t even know how to start.’

[16:24] So. So how do these exist? So he refers to me, in a very friendly way, we’ve had friendly debates and discussions and so forth, we’re good friends. But he regards me as a dualist, because I think of the mind as something other than matter, an emergent property of matter. And I always counter, I keep on saying it over and over again, doesn’t really seem to sink in. I’m not a dualist, I’m a pluralist. Because space is not composed of matter. He believes in space, I believe in space, so he believes in matter. And space, he’s already a dualist. Even if consciousness is just an emergent property of matter, he believes in space, so he’s a dualist. But he’s not a dualist. We also believe in time. Time is not composed of matter. So he’s a tri-logist. [light laughter]. And then I believe in consciousness, too. I’m a quadruplelist. Except that I believe in all six, six domains and as a sex … sex addict. [Laughter]. I don’t know what the word is just … just came to mind. [Laughter].

[17:38] So how do they exist? Well, that’s where we’re going right now. That was a much longer prelude than I thought, but it’s important. We’re now, we’re now going large. We could just go around thinking, well, individuals are empty of inherent nature inside but when we exist, interdependent in this real physical world out there, which scientists are doing a magnificent job of representing with their myriad branches of science. Right. And now he’s about to pull the rug out from all of reality. And ask, okay, he’s not questioning whether the six elements exist. Of course they do. Is there solid stuff out there? Is there hot stuff out there? Fluid, things in motion? Of course. Is there space out there? Of course there is. Of course. Not in question. Any more than I’m here and David’s there. Yeah. Let’s get on to something interesting. How? In what fashion? and do these manifestations, these configurations of earth, water, fire and of course, combinations, mud, the combination of earth element and water element and so on. Thrown mud, earth, water and motility. Heat it up a little bit, hot thrown mud. Have all four elements, all at once. You know, it appears to be really out there, right? Do you grasp it out there? So let’s find out. Okay, but we’re gonna go right back into the lab. And the lab is awareness resting in its own nature, and then branch out from there. Please find a comfortable position and we’ll jump in.

[19:19] [Bell rings]. [Meditation in session].

[19:46] Scientists seek objectivity; we seek balance. Which provides a possibility for objectivity, observing without bias, without disfiguring, coloring, tainting, warping, at which we’re seeking to attend to and understand. With this motivation, settle your body, speech and mind in their natural state. [Pause].

[21:37] As always, this settling process culminates in your awareness coming to rest in its own nature. Still, clear, cognizant, self illuminating, self knowing. Our starting point of knowing. This, we would know. This, we do know I suggest, more indubitably than anything else we know. The knowing of knowing. Let’s start as we explore the nature of reality, from a point of certainty. Here I stand. Here my awareness rests in its own nature, knowing itself. [Pause].

[23:11] Then let your eyes be open. Let the light of your awareness flood the visual domain. Full awareness, single pointed samadhi on the visual domain. [Pause].

[23:37] In which these myriad colors and shapes emerge, shift, transform, disappear. Intangible, immaterial. These visual forms. Keeping your eyes open, direct your attention now, your mental awareness to the domain of sound. In the heard, let there be just the heard. Very temporarily to the best of your ability, mute your tendency of conceptual designation, labeling, conceiving, associating and rest in perception, perceiving sounds. [Pause].

[25:16] Very briefly, can you detect any smells, any tastes? Also intangible, immaterial. Appearances to awareness. Still with the eyes open, direct your mental awareness single pointedly to the domain of the physical, where you have an insider’s perspective, viewing physical entity from the inside out. Observe this tactile field, the space of the body and the manifestations, the emergences of earth, water, fire, air, within this space of the body. [Pause].

[26:47] These appearances too. These somatic appearances are also intangible immaterial not composed of atoms or energy. They have no mass. They are not even located in physical space. None of these appearances are located in physical space. Briefly now direct your attention single pointedly to the space of the mind and whatever configurations, configurations of consciousness, thoughts, images, memory, and so on. Desires and emotions whatever arises as configurations of consciousness within this space, observe closely, identify their nature. These too are also, of course, immaterial intangible, having no objective existence in themselves, consisting only of appearances to awareness. [Pause].

[28:59] Now thus far we’ve muted our very habitual tendency to conceptually designate, to conceptually make sense of, to objectify and subjectify our world into a world populated with objects and subjects. Now remove the mute. [Pause]

[29:28] Allow the conceptual mind off the leash. Let conceptual designations flow unimpededly. There’s a sound of a bird, there’s the feel of the cushion, there’s someone moving his hand. Having clearly noted this matrix of appearances by way of six doors of perception observe your own conceptual mind designating objects, designating people including yourself, but designating all manner of objects and the surrounding environment. [Pause]

[30:43] Whenever you think of anyone, anything, any place, observe the mind that is designating the objects that come to mind. Observe how it designates, how your conceptual mind apprehends the objects that it conceives. [Pause].

[32:52] The mode of appearances. It’s very clear. We’ve examined them closely. The manner in which we conceptually designate, label, identify objects and subjects, should be evident, you can watch yourself do it, or watch your mind do it. But then when you identify an object that has been designated by your mind, then it’s time to ask, not whether that object exists. Let’s assume it does. How does it exist? The designated object. What is its basis of designation? Or bases? Maybe it has more than one. And is the basis of designation of any object that comes to mind identical with the object to designate upon that basis. A bird is physical composed of atoms. Its body is composed of atoms. It’s located within physical space, there’s no question about that. True. Likewise for the myriad objects in the surrounding environment composed of matter, configurations of mass energy located in physical space. We’ll accept that. So we’re not questioning whether such objects exist. We’re simply asking how. [Pause].

[36:02] If there’s a sequence here and there doesn’t need to be, but methodologically if we choose to have a sequence, attend first to the mode of appearances. In the six domains, how do they appear? In the seen, let there be just the seen in that mode. And with the activation of the conceptual mind, the mind that designates, the mind that objectifies, observe how your mind, conceptual mind, designates and identifies objects, knows objects, apprehends objects by way of conceptual designation. Designated objects upon a basis of designation. Observe how that occurs. You’re doing it. Should be in plain sight. And once you’ve identified the manner in which your mind designates objects, then examine finally, in what manner does that designated object exist? Was it already there prior to and independent of conceptual designation? If so, can you identify it? Can you see it? Prior to conceptually designating it? And that object, that physical object such as a bird or the bird’s body more specifically. Does it exist within the six domains of your experience, the six modes of appearances? Among any one of them individually? Among one or more collectively? Or does that physical entity exist independently of all modes of appearance? If so, what does it look like? How do you identify it? How do you know it? [Pause].

[39:43] If those five elements of earth, water, fire, air and space, physical space, if they’re really out there, objectively, you have seen from their own side. Prior to and independent of all appearances to your mind, to anyone’s mind, prior to and independent of any conceptual designation. How do you apprehend them? And when you do what comes to mind? [Pause].

[40:51] And if there arises an insight into the sheer emptiness of subject, objective, inherent existence, the sheer absence of any such inherent existence, then rest for a little while single pointedly in meditative equipoise, sustaining that awareness of the sheer emptiness of objective inherent existence. Let it seep in. [Pause].

[43:19] [Bell rings]. [Meditation session ends].

[43:45] So, we’ve already asked how do we exist each of us individually. Covered that. Been there, done that. And now we just move on to how does everything else exist? Other people, environment, physical universe, how does everything else exist?

[44:01] I think it’s very important as we’re venturing into this material, which is so central to the whole Mahayana tradition and Dzogchen and Mahamudra, that we read it with the advantage of reading it from the 21st century and not from the 19th century. Because from the 19th century, this just doesn’t fly. It just doesn’t fly at all. If 19th century physics is correct, all of this is hogwash, just religious mumbo jumbo. And it’s important to recognize that there are enormous, extremely powerful vested interests within academia, within the scientific community, within business, and the media, and business, for example, the pharmaceutical industry, enormous vested interests to maintain the status quo of metaphysical realism, because it seems like the whole credibility of science depends on that. If scientists are not describing what’s really out there, what the hell are they doing? Making up worlds? Eeny, meeny, miney, moe, you know. They sound like a bunch of California hippies. It’s my reality dude, oh no, it’s my reality? You know, they sound like they sound like a joke. And that’s the first thought. If Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog are right, then if they can make up their stories, and why should they have the franchise? Why should, why only scientists? Why can’t the poets, the philosophers, the artists? The gardeners? Why can’t they make up their own reality? If there’s no reality out there, if there’s no history out there of what really took place, how about religious fundamentalist? Why not just say, 'Hey, you know, if the creationists think there is six, six day creation, that’s true for them. It sounds like it’s a grab bag, which means there’s no truth at all. It’s just whatever you like, as you like it.

[45:53] So the forces to preserve the status, status quo are monumental. Enormously strong. There’s so much money, so much prestige, and power embedded in maintaining metaphysical realism. And of course, within that context, scientific materialism. I read the press a lot, and I virtually never see it challenged. New York Times, I can’t remember the last time New York Times, I read it every day, I can’t remember the time that they challenged that. They’ll cite a person who says you know that consciousness doesn’t exist. They’re happy to cite that. But the notion that consciousness might actually play a pretty important role in reality never comes up. And that’s for all the other major, major media that I look at on a regular basis. They have, they bought in, and they are preserving that, just as they made Donald Trump a celebrity. If he didn’t have the support of the media, he’d be an unknown, quirky, weirdo New York businessman, who inherited $200 million, and had a lot of fun with it. So what? So enormous vested interest there, you know. And so there’s brilliant science that isn’t being covered. And I’m about to read you some of it, just so that when we launch back into the seventh … 17th century text, we’re launching back from the 21st century and not from the fictions of the 19th century, because that every decent scientists, every bit decent, I will say that every knowledgeable physicist knows that 19th century physics was completely under in terms of its underlying metaphysical assumptions, disemboweled. Absolute space, time, matter, energy, and the notion that the universe consists of these little tiny nuggets of independently existing electrons and so forth. It’s blown to smithereens. I think we’ll never get it back. Right? That doesn’t come up much in the popular media. And even at the, at the Higgs boson, not the, [Alan snaps fingers] the Large Hadron supercollider where they have about 3000 employees, I understand I’ve read about this. And I understand that there are among the physicists there, they have actually two different factions. And it’s not like they’re fighting or anything, but just two different kinds of training. And some are very well versed in quantum mechanics. And the whole notion that particles including the Higgs boson do not exist prior to and independent of measurement. You know, they’re, I mean, they’re not censored. And then there are others, who are metaphysical realists and say, we’ve discovered, we’ve discovered the Higgs boson, which that real particle out there, which imbues all other particles. Two groups, very different ontological perspectives, living under the same roof, I think it’s pretty cool. Because no one should be able to silence another group. Somebody is wrong. So we should just in a friendly conversation find out what.

[48:34] So let’s turn now to just briefly, let’s turn back to Andrei Linde. Andrei Linde, brilliant, brilliant, he’s very distinguished. It’s not just my opinion. It’s an objective fact. Very distinguished, astrophysicist at Stanford University full professor there. He’s Russian from origin, but has been doing research and teaching, writing in the United States for years. And he addresses here, and I’m gonna quote him verbatim. And I’ll show you exactly, it’s a paper called ‘Inflation, Quantum Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle’ by Andrei Linde. And he’s addressing a topic I’ve been intrigued by for some time now called the problem of frozen time. And that is when you apply the principles of quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger wave equation mathematically, you apply that to the entire universe and view the whole universe as a quantum system, rather than thinking of quantum system as little, little places that you have to protect from the surrounding environment of classical physics. And then they disappear when you stop creating and nurturing them. Just viewing the whole, the whole shebang, the whole universe as a quantum system. Well, they’ve done that and a man, a man named Bryce DeWitt, and then his mentor John Wheeler did the mathematics for it. Superb mathematics. And one of the odd things they found about the mathematics was when you view the whole universe as a quantum system, the element of time falls out. It disappears from the equations. And if time falls out, then the universe you’re describing with that equation is static. The universe is static. Okay, nothing changes. Well, that’s not how things look. At all.

[50:13] But that’s where the equation says- the time dropped out, there’s no time. So it’s called frozen time. That if we take, if that’s all there is to the universe, then the universe should be and appear to be absolutely frozen. No time, everything static. Right. It’s called the problem of frozen time. Here in Andrei Linde’s own words, he, he responds to that problem, from the perspective of quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology. “The resolution of this paradox” … how could it be that the equation would say that the universe is frozen when obviously it’s not?, “… the resolution of this paradox suggested by Bryce Dewit is rather, is rather instructive.” I love the muted, “rather instructive.” He sounds British. “Rather instructive.” But he’s Russian. “The notion of evolution is not applicable to the universe as a whole.” In light of this frozen time business, “the notion of transformation evolution of the universe is not applicable to the universe as a whole, … since there is no external observer with respect to the universe. And there is no external clock that does not belong to the universe." So there’s no … he’s suggesting, hey, we have no, no evidence where we cannot even scientifically wrap our minds around the notion of there being some divine being who is the timekeeper, the great clockmaker, which was the medieval notion of God, one part of it. We can’t, we can’t deal with that scientifically. So let’s not rely upon God to set the universe in motion. Otherwise, it’s not science anymore, then we just call ourselves theologians. Right. But we’re trying to be scientists here. So we’re not going to give God that status of enabling the universe to evolve, because it’s just not physics anymore. It’s straight theology. But also, there’s no external clock that does not belong to the universe. So if the universe is changing, it has to change relative to some clock, some time piece, but there’s no external clock out there either. Right? However, we do not act … we do not … “However, we do not actually ask why the universe as a whole is evolving.” [you don’t ask that.] We’re just trying to understand our own experimental data. [So this is a radically empirical question.] “Thus a more precisely formulated question is why do we see the universe evolving in time in a given way?” Okay, so, not whether it does. How it does? Why it does? That’s a good question. So then we know that … we’re keeping real here, because it’s very clear, the universe appears to be changing, evolving.

[52:45] “In order and to answer this question, we should, one should first divide the universe into two main, two main pieces. First, an observer with his clock and other measuring devices and two, the rest of the universe. Then it can be shown that the wave function of the rest of the universe” … this is the Schrodinger wave function, the fundamental equation for all the quantum mechanics, when applied to the universe … “then it can be shown that the wave function of the rest of the universe does depend on the state of the clock of the observer …”, that is to say, on his time, the time of an observer. Now, relative to the time of the observer, you can say the universe is evolving relative to that cognitive frame of reference. Because it’s a cognitive frame of reference, not a spatial, we’re not asking how fast that observer is traveling. It’s irrelevant. That’s not the question. But some, but somehow we have to introduce time, and somehow someone has to be aware of the time. Okay, so we now have two pieces: the observer with his clock and other measuring devices. And of course, you make a measurement, and then the superposition state collapses, you have an actuality, right? And it happens at a certain point in time. Right? Ordinary classical quantum mechanics. And then we have the rest of the universe. So now we have subject and object, but the subject is actually necessary for the object to be able to evolve. Then it could be shown, hoa, hoa, hoa, so … “this time dependence, this time dependence, in some sense is objective." Again, in quotation marks, or inverted commas. It’s objective. “The results obtained by different macroscopic observers …”, like us, " … living in the same quantum state of the universe …", here we are on this collective reality, “… and using sufficiently good macroscopic measuring apparatus, agree with each other.” In other words, there’s intersubjective validation among multiple observers. But the observers are necessary on the subjective side with our clocks, our sense of time, and our measuring devices, and relative to that, we have the universe, and now, of course, the two are interdependent, because if you have no observer, you have no universe, you don’t have any observers. At least not with measuring … not with clocks and measuring devices. But if you don’t have observers with clocks and measuring devices, you don’t have a universe that changes.

[55:13] And that’s the empirical evidence. And that’s the mathematical formulation as well. So it’s … this is science. It’s not mumbo jumbo. And then he adds, “Thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe which does not evolve in time. This example demonstrates an unusually important role played by the concept of an observer in quantum cosmology. John Wheeler underscored the complexity of the situation replacing the word observer by the word participant. And introducing such terms as a self observing universe.” Don’t read that in the New York times every day, or in Scientific American or any of the major journals. It’s there. And again, this is, this is John Wheeler. This is Anton Zeilinger, Stephen Hawking, it’s Andrei Linde. It’s Paul Davies. They’re not flaky fringe physicists out there, you know, smoking dope, and just writing mumbo jumbo. These … doesn’t get any better than these people. But it’s not appearing. It’s not common knowledge, even among physicists, let alone other scientists, let alone the general public. But this is … this makes, this makes the whole notion of consciousness emerging from the brain as a little side product just completely a joke. Like you got to be kidding. You couldn’t have been more wrong. Imagine how you could be more wrong than that if this is true. That consciousness is just a little function of, accidental byproduct of sufficiently complex activities of neurons. It’s just like a belly laugh, like, boy, if you said Captain Kangaroo created the universe, I guess that would be sillier. Not sure. So we’ll pause there. From … but now we’ve planted ourselves in the 21st century, which is a good place to be. I mean, that’s where we are. So from that perspective, let’s go back to the 17th century text. Okay.

[57:19] So, we’ve just finished the presentation, of the lack of self of inherent identity of oneself. And then to read the last line that I read earlier for the, for the purpose of demonstrating the way to meditate on the lack of self in other persons. So we start from the center of the mandala. But of course as for oneself, then likewise for others, we apply the same analysis to other sentient beings, people and so on, and phenomena, to demonstrate the way to meditate on the lack of self or identity and other persons and phenomena, phenomena at large, everything else. The root text explains in the same way that is in the same way that the individual is analyzed, examined, in terms of how we appear, each of us how we appear to ourselves, whether in the mirror, whether looking at our bodies, whether watching our minds, how would … how do we appear? How do we designate ourselves? So here’s the sequence of that. If we’re gonna make a sequence this is as good as any, how do we appear? That’s straightforward. God, I’m watching, right? And then I’m not just watching though this mind is active, and it can see. It can like conceiving, conceiving. So how do I conceive of my health? How do I think of myself? What’s my sense of myself as an individual? How does that occur? And then once I’ve conceived of myself, I am this, I am that, without questioning whether I exist, or I am this or that. We can make mistakes, but a lot of our self appraisals are, are valid, you know. I’m an American, I’m this. I’m that. Sure okay. How is that the case? Right? So there’s the sequence. Want a sequence? Look at the obvious. What’s in your face? Appearances. How do you designate yourself on the basis of those appearances? And now that you’ve designated yourself in multiple ways? How is it that you exist? Okay. And now, in the same way, we go to the root text, in the same way that we did that, in the same way the individual elements are not real, because they are composites. The individual elements refer to the six elements that we just examined. They’re not real well, of course, here real means they’re not inherently existent. Any more than you, as this, as the, as an individual, as self, of a person, any more than your ‘real’ that is to say, existing by your own inherent nature. The same that you are not real neither is anything else. None of the four physical elements, not space or consciousness, and why but it’s interesting reasoning and not at all obvious. Why are they not real? Why are they not inherently existent? Why are they not truly existent? Because they are composites. Because they’re composites.

[1:00:03] That, for a brilliant mind, is sufficient. They’re just … a brilliant mind that was very finely tuned, very ripe, very sharp faculties would look at that and say, Yep, done, we’re done. We’re done here. That’s got to be true. And to metaphysical realists, and to metaphysical realists including very smart ones. And there are many, many who are very smart. They say that it just doesn’t follow at all. They would say, you know, because things are composite, they are arising in dependence upon causes and conditions. They’re there. What do you mean they’re not real. I mean, they were created by the process of evolution, the Big Bang, inflationary period, formation of gala … galaxies, planets, solar system, they emerge, they develop, they developed, I mean, don’t tell me they’re not real. That was all to show they are real. And he’s saying No, he turned it right on its head. Because they’re composites, therefore they’re not inherently existent. Because they’re composites.

[1:01:21] [Alan arranging stuff]. I’m running an experiment here, you have to watch. On my lap, apart from my shamtab, my lower robe, on my lap, there’s an eyeglass carrier, there’s a computer, and a little computer called a smartphone. They’re all on my lap. Three things. 1,2,3. I’m going to coin a term that I’m going to designate on the basis of the combination. It might be very useful for some people. It’s conceivable that, that there’s a single entity, it’s called a collection, it’s called the laptop or smartophono eyeglass carrier. It’s a special combination, but very useful. This, this combination, this collection, is a single entity, it’s a collection that has three parts. Like I have two parts. I have body and mind. This is slightly more complex. This collection, this entity, this one entity, this singular entity on my lap has three elements to it, right? It’s got a laptop, that’s one component of it. And it’s got an eyeglass carrier and that’s another component of it. And then there’s the smartphone component of it. It’s one thing but it has three parts. Any problem there? This house, this building here, it has four walls. It has posts. It has a ceiling. And it’s one entity. We’re living in one house, not a multiple house, not a bunch of houses. And the one house many … has many components, right? And they’re all created. They are the composite. So the house is the composite of many parts. And I’m saying here’s another component, it’s one house and we’re all in it. We all agree on that, it’s true.

[1:02:59] And I’m going to just say that in the world I’m living in, suddenly, for a little while anyway, it’s going to be useful to me to speak of a … I think ‘fribble’ was taken right? [Laughter]. Smordge. A smordge. A smordge is a unique configuration of laptop, cell phone, and an eyeglass carrier that sometimes appears on the lap, which is very useful. Because that’s all we need. Is it useful or not? Is it useful to speak of houses? Yeah, it’s useful. This is very useful. Because I’m a speaker here and I need my eyeglass, which means I can carry on. I need my laptop, otherwise I can’t give the talk. And the smartphone well it is right there. I am a dharma teacher. And so this, this is my assemblage of my, my, my accoutrements, my utensils as a dharma teacher. And the complete set consists of three parts and it’s called a smordge, a smordge. Yeah. So right now there’s a smordge on my lap. There’s no problem here, okay. It’s not unusual. It’s not weird. It’s one entity here. It’s a smordge. And you can see. You see the smordge. Elizabeth, you see this smordge on my lap? Yeh, free. Any problem. You can see the smordge, can’t you. And you can see it, it has three parts. And now there’s no longer a smordge on my lap. Because I just took, I took the eyeglass carrier. It’s this kind of like, it’s a broken smordge. It’s like, like a wagon with only two wheels. It’s kind of like broken, but I’m going to restore it. Now the smordge is complete. The smordge is like every other composite in the universe.

[1:04:41] It doesn’t matter how close they are. That is whether it’s a single entity. Doesn’t matter how close they are. I can have an enormous lap and they can be separated by a lot of space, which is the big smordge on a great big lap. Doesn’t matter how close they are. That’s not the issue. It’s just whether that configuration is there so that I can designate smordge and there it is. I’ve got a smordge on my lap. I’m now a fully capable dharma teacher. Replete with smordge. Give you the oral transmission. I’m creating smordges, you know, you need it in the 21st century. It’s hard to be a Dharma teacher without a smordge. Never let, never leave home without it, you know. This is funny. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s funny. [Laughter]. But it’s completely normal. How many solar systems are there around our sun? Nobody in his right mind would say there’s more than one. And how many planets are there in the solar system? Well, it depends on whether you still want to count Plato. Pluto. Plato’s Pluto. He got demoted. But a dwarf planet, right. So it’s like one of the seven dwarves. Little one. But I think it still counts. I guess it still counts? Yeah, dwarf. It’s not just a rock. Well, what’s the difference? Smordge and solar system? None. It’s called a mereological sum. It’s a single entity. But do you find that entity among any of the individual components? And was it already there as the collection of the planets with the sun? Was it already there before you designated it? And the demarcation. Does it include the asteroid belt? It’s an asteroid belt, right? Isn’t there an asteroid belt? [Muffled responses from retreatants] Pretty sure, yeah. Does the solar system include the asteroid belt?

[1:06:40] Where does, where does the line drawn? Well, and of course gravitational field, from our solar system with the sun of course providing most of it. That extends off into infinite space inversely, in inverse square law. So does the the solar system end, and at what point? Because the gravitational field of, gravitational field is a property of our solar system, right? Correct? It’s a property of our solar system, but the gravitational field actually never becomes zero. It’s the inverse square law just gets smaller and smaller, goes out into infinite space. Billions of light years away, it’s extremely small, but it’s not zero. So I guess our solar system extends throughout all of space. Right. But nobody really thinks that. So who brought out the cookie cutter and said, this is where your solar system ends, buster? This is our solar system on this side. Conceptual designation did that. Not reality. And who said there was one solar system rather than just one big fiery ball and a bunch of stuff around it? There’s a whole bunch of stuff. So smordge, solar system, elementary particle, which has multiple attributes, galaxies, of course, all in same ontological status. There’s nothing, there’s nothing really to laugh about among any of them. And none of them were already what they were before we designated and none of them crucially have drawn their own borders. A single electron, say Oh but, ok that’s finite, finite space. I understand I read within the last couple of years, that a single electron which I … when I studied physics, I was told that has zero spatial dimension. And then I heard more recently, no, it has, it does have a tiny, tiny bit of spatial dimension. It occupies a tiny, tiny bit of space. Fine. But the gravitational field of an electron that’s not confined to that space. So where does the electron stop? Because its gravitational field is a property of the electron. And that extends out through infinite space as well. Right.

[1:08:49] So composites, how do they exist? How does this smordge exist? This smordge came into existence, I think this is pretty obvious. When I designated smordge and then throughout the … on the rest of the planet, wherever there’s somebody sitting with a laptop, a cell phone, and an eyeglass carrier on their lap, we now know this is universally true. I mean, in Brazil and Uruguay and Iceland. Smordges suddenly crop up everywhere. They may not recognize but that’s their problem. They are illiterate. What do those Iceland people know? They don’t know a smordge when they’re looking at one. But I do because I designated it. I said, Let there be and it was. And it was throughout and it was last year too. There was smordges last year. Right? I’m not the first person to have a laptop, cell phone and eyeglass carrier on my lap. This occurred last year. They had, they had smordges on their lap. And even if I die this year, there will be smordges next year too. I’m sure somebody’s gonna have a laptop, the three, and they will have a smordge on their lap. Maybe the word will get out if you help. [Laughter]. Oxford English Dictionary, here we come. Smordge is on its way. It just depends on how useful it is. But talk about it. Talk about it, talk about it, you know. Smordge. Yeah, I have this really cool, got a new computer, my smordge was upgraded fantastically.

[1:10:22] So that’s what he’s saying here. They’re not real because they’re composites and a composite exists only because there’s conceptual designation of it, and it didn’t already exist. That’s what he’s saying basically. So we’re finished. But he’ll give us more to work than that. In accordance with that statement, there it is. And it’s … and this really is the, the king of reasonings within Madhyamika because phenomena are dependently related events, therefore they are empty of inherent nature. And if they’re dependent in any of the three ways, they’re empty of inherent nature. He’s saying right here, composite is something that arose independent upon prior cause and conditions and is a composite. An array of qualities, parts, components. That’s enough. You’re, you’re nailed, you’re convicted, you’re empty of inherent nature, because you’re a composite because you arose in dependence on cause and conditions. Exactly when did you come into existence? When is it a sprout? And when is it a seed? At what moment, moment objectively, as a seed germinates, and then there’s a sprout, objectively speaking, with no subjective input, no observer with a time clock and a measuring device. Objectively. When did the spout happen? When was the first moment of the sprout? The seed germinates, you put some water on it, okay, it germinates. When is it no longer a seed? And when did the seed terminate? And when did the sprout originate? What was the moment of cessation? What was the moment of origination objectively? Good luck.

[1:11:57] And on this note, we’ll return very briefly to another brilliant physicist, outstanding physicist Paul C W Davies. He’s very, very highly, highly respected. He’s a major proponent of quantum cosmology. He’s written about John Wheeler extensively. Theoretical physicist of excellent repute. And I just have one brief quote from him. You’re ready for this one? You’ve not seen this one before. And I give, I give the source. It’s in an article that he wrote, 'An Overview of the Contributions of John Archibald Wheeler.’ I think it was on his 90th birthday. Here’s what he says, “Without a miracle, how can something come in, come to exist, that did not exist before.” A miracle? Objectively. In that real universe, separate from the observer with a clock and the measuring …, if it wasn’t there before, it would take a miracle for it to come into existence. So that’s what a literal reading of the Genesis account says. A miracle worker created ex-nihilo out of nothing. Something that wasn’t there before. Okay, fine, then you have an answer? God did it. It’s not a scientific answer, but it’s certainly an answer. But then can you point to the God and do you have a reputable source? Who saw it? Who witnessed it? Where’s the empirical evidence? How do you measure it? How do you confirm it? How is this an interesting theory? How do you repudiate it? How do you test it? If all you’ve got is a book, and there are a lot of books, and a lot of them claim to be authoritative. So what are we supposed to do with that? It’s not science anyway. He says, without a miracle, how can something come to exist that did not exist before? How if there wasn’t a smordge here already? How could it … and it wasn’t there? How could a smordge come into existence if it wasn’t before? And there is an answer. No miracle. Just speak it into existence, conceptually designated. And that will do and the basis of designation is, laptop, cell phone, eyeglass carrier. Okay.

[1:14:19] Back to the 17th century, but it doesn’t seem like we’re really moving through time much, does it? So in accordance with that statement, when you search, when you search, you do not find even the minutest particle of equipoise, this meditative equipoise. He’s still coming … this is very much a contemplative approach. Enriched with really sharp intelligence. So it’s not just shamatha, resting in shamatha, really fine shamatha and then enriched with incisive questions. When you search, again, from the context of meditative equipoise, you do not find even the minutest particle of some reality, some entity called meditative equipoise. It’s a noun, right? It’s a noun. It’s an entity, something that exists, which means it’s designated on the basis of some basis of designation. State of meditative equipoise. You don’t find even the minutest particle of such. You’d not find even the minutest particle of equipoise, the one who rests in equipoise and so on. The agent, the meditator, you don’t find the minutest particle of some self existent phenomenon called meditative equipoise, or one who’s resting in that state, and so forth, or anything else. You don’t find the minutest particle. And not finding, right. At that time undistracted and single pointed, maintain the space-like equipoise. Having realized the emptiness of even a trace, when speaking of minutest particle, he’s speaking a bit, a little bit symbolically here. When you don’t find even a trace of anything that exists by its own inherent nature prior to an independence of conceptual designation, either in this field, which we call meditative equipoise, or the one who’s resting in meditative equipoise, the agent, the subject, the observer. If you don’t find even the trace, a whisker of an actual inherent nature. You see, the not finding of that, then undistracted single pointed come right back to your shamatha and fuse your shamatha with your vipashyana and rest in this space-like meditative equipoise.

[1:16:26] So as we’ll see, it’s hard to go through quickly for this text. It’s really dense. And I think my perspective is, it’s quite brilliant. Minutest particle will … no probably nobody really thought unless they’re really, really out there, materialists would think that when you’re resting in meditative equipoise, that state itself is composed of elementary particles. I don’t know anybody actually believes that. They might very well think that it’s an emergent property of neurons. Okay. I understand. There’s no evidence but a lot of people believe that. Hence, you must understand the underlying neural mechanisms of meditative equipoise. But does anybody really think that meditative equipoise is composed of particles or that the one who rests, the meditator? Well, I guess so if they think the meditator is a body, then the body is composed of particles, but there’s no evidence for that either. It’s just supposition. But I would suggest here, I was just reflecting on this, or just thoughts came to mind in the meditation prior to coming here, that when we speak of the four elements, for example, the various configurations, just as in modern physics, we speak of configurations of matter, energy. And everything in the physical universe is space, time and the configuration of mass energy. Well, from this loka [Sanskrit] perspective, that is viewing, viewing the lived world, the lebenswelt, then we have these six elements, we have the four elements comprising the physical universe. And they are composed of particles in the buddhist view. The abhidharma particle theory is wildly different from that of our periodic table. Doesn’t mean it’s just, it’s very, very different, because it’s attempting to do something different, the methodology. And what they’re seeking to describe is different, is different. But the the elements of the particles, that is the components of these physical entities, like trees, and mountains and so forth, they are created of particles which are to be … they have spatial extension, the rest [extensa??], Descartes, they occupy, they take up a certain region of space. The tree has a mass. It’s this, this volume within physical space. It has that. And then of course, the tree wasn’t there 1000 years ago. It won’t be there 1000 years from now. The one I’m pointing to right now. And so I’ve seen this in relativity theory, you have a graph where you have the three spatial dimensions, and if there’s a fourth, fourth vector, and that’s time. So you can, you can describe the space in terms of its layout in three dimensional space. And then you can add a fourth element on this graph, on this three dimensional graph or four dimensional graph. And that is, how long was it? When did it start? And how long did it last? Okay, space time. So the tree exists in space time, right? It occupies that region of space and this region of time, right? So that’s good, that’s very useful. And then relativity theories would work that extensively, both special and general relativity.

[1:19:51] When it comes though to states of consciousness like thoughts, configurations of consciousness, thoughts, emotions, mental images, memories, fantasies, dreams and so forth. Well, they do exist in time. How long did your dream last? And then you say it lasted. Well, I had a sense it lasted an hour, five minutes, whatever. So it’s extended in time. But how big was your dream? How much of physical space did it occupy? Just doesn’t make any categorical error? It doesn’t make any sense. Or my hopes hope that something will happen. It’s a categorical error, just like there’s just no way to answer … that’s not a meaningful question, because there’s no possible way to answer that question meaningfully, except to say, stop asking that question. Because it doesn’t mean anything. So mental events, configurations of consciousness, do occupy a space vector, excuse me, a time vector. They last for a certain amount of time, right. But not a space vector, right. Where physical objects occupy both, even this new element that was found with the periodic table. Thin brief, but brief still for a finite time, and occupies a certain region of space. So that’s different. And so when we speak of particle, well, we can say, okay, it’s, it’s meant literally for those physical phenomenon created of earth, water, fire, air. Good. I don’t know anybody really, that thinks that a thought is the thought itself, the thought of my mother is actually composed of particles. I don’t know anybody who thinks that. It’s such an obvious category, categorical error. I don’t think so. So now, let’s not even go there because nobody thinks it anyway. And that’s and he’s not, he’s not talking about silly stuff here. So let’s assume he’s a very intelligent man. And he’s not saying something that everybody knows is silly. So in this context, particle would not be a particle of matter for equipoise and the person dwelling in equipoise, it would be a particle of time. [Shawn?] I think it’s called in Sanskrit or [Decima??] a moment, a particle of time, a quanta of time, a pulse of time, right. A moment.

[1:22:15] So do you find in a state of meditative equipoise that it’s composed of particles of time, pulses of time that exists by their own inherent nature? He’s going to get to that very shortly. But that was a meaningful question. Right. We’ll find very commonly in Mahamudra and Dzogchen that the approach which is extremely obvious in Dudjom Lingpa’s writings that he asked about the primacy which one, body, speech and mind, bing! got the right answer, it’s mind. Mind is the all creating sovereign, mind creates samsara and nirvana. Mind is the creator of all. Mind is the root of all. Good. Looks like we are Chittamatrins up to, up to our eyeballs. Chittamatrin, mind only. There’s nothing out there except for mind and appearances to mind. That’s it. So cool, okay. I think we just the ship of scientific materialism just sank with all, all hands on board. I mean, it’s like whoa, did you get that one wrong. Because what we’re saying from this Chittamatrin perspective is matter doesn’t even exist. [Alan chuckling]. That which you thought everything was a derivative of doesn’t exist at all. Because it’s nothing more … all we have are appearances to the mind and they’re not material. The appearances of solidity, of moisture, of fluidity and so forth. They’re not material. And so you materialists believe in matter like theists believe in God. You can’t imagine the universe without it and yet you can’t see it. Nobody’s ever seen it. This God that exists as external creator. What a laugh. And you say you’re, we’re the believers, you people, people base the whole of reality on something you can’t see. And nobody’s ever seen. Matter as it exists independently of objective space. What a joke. So what’s he going to do with this? So commentary. For some people that may be sufficient. You don’t find even inherent existence, pulse, a temporal particle of meditative equipoise with a person who’s abiding in over time. You don’t find even a pulse that’s inherently existent. I was saying the strategy is mind is primary, mind is all creating sovereign and then what? And then what’s the next stage? Gache?

[1:24:29] [Gache replies, 'Investigate … reality of mind (inaudible)]. Investigate. Yeah, investigate the nature of the existence of mind. So you put all of reality, put all of reality on the shoulders of the mind, the mind now is supporting all of reality. And then you see the mind is empty. As it’s really empty, really quite brilliant. So it … excuse me … I’m going to sneeze. It’s going to come back. You torpedo scientific materialism because that’s just detritus. It’s just garbage. So throw that all out. And we’re left with something that’s kind of like monumental. Mind only. And then torpedo that. And if you torpedo it too much, if you’re with … what he called over-pervasive. Over-pervasive. Remember that, then you wind up with nihilism. You’re just blown away all of reality because you put all your cookies in one jar, the mind jar, and then you blow up that jar. You wind up with nihilism or the California hippie dude, that says ‘hey reality is whatever you think’. [Laughter]. Which is another form of nihilism, because that means there’s … now the word reality doesn’t mean anything. Whatever you think, you know. So there’s a middle way there. That’s why they teach, it says teach emptiness with caution. People will very, very easily misunderstand it one way or another either by by negating too little and still having their security blanket of the real objective world probably made of matter. Or objecting or negating too much, which they’re completely at a loss with nothing. They are nobody in a world that doesn’t exist. So there’s a middle way there. So he in his commentary then continues. “Also when all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, all ordinary and arya beings, the outer and inner earth element,” the inner is the earth element within your body, the outer is outside of your body, “… and likewise the water, fire, air, space and consciousness elements. When all of phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including all the above, have been ascertained as individual or collective appearances in your mind, …” That’s it. All of reality consists of individual or collective appearances in your mind. " … then analyze the aforementioned individual’s way of appearing and a way of being grasped." Okay.

[1:27:01] Everything consists only of appearances to your mind, in your mind, okay. Now examine what is the individual’s way of appearing a way of being grasped, the individual or the individual’s mind. Now take that nuke with what you’ve just eliminated a whole objectively real physical universe out there, for lack of evidence, because no-one’s ever seen it, and is unknowable, even if it did exist, is unknowable in principle, therefore, do not attribute existence to that which is unknowable in principle. You have only appearances to the mind. And so, everything hinges on mind, then probed into the individual’s way of appearing, the individual’s way of being grasped and that means, you have to go right in nature of mind and establish yourself in equipoise seeing the very emptiness of equipoise and the one who rests in equipoise. “When you do not find even the minutest particle that is truly exist, that not finding is said to be the supreme finding. And not seeing to be the highest seeing.” And of course, crucially important, I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again, it’s not that you just couldn’t find it, I got to know where I left my keys, it’s you find that they’re not to be found. You do find its absence. So, by by seeing the ultimate nature of the mind, this is the chittatha or the dharmata of the mind, it’s the emptiness of the mind. So by seeing the ultimate nature of the mind, it’s emptiness of inherent nature, that is, that is identifying the mind. So when they speak of, in Dzogchen literature, Mahamudra literature, when they say, identifying the mind, identifying the mind, searching for the mind, identifying the mind, they’re not talking about its relative status. That’s easy. I just saw a thought, it’s like seeing Beata’s face. I’ve seen Beata. Finished. I just saw a thought, I saw my mind. Finished. No, no, no, wait a minute, that was just nominal. The mind. Did you really find it? That mind that exists prior to and independent of conceptual designation. So by seeing the ultimate nature of the mind, the very emptiness of inherent nature of the mind, that is identifying the mind. So you should maintain a space- like equipoise, unwavering and single pointed, directly on the mere absence of true existence,which is ultimate reality. That’s shunyata.

[1:29:35] Alternatively, and this was so interesting, this one line here, it has enormous implications for Vajrayana and Dzogchen in particular. “Alternatively, the subtle basis for imputing a self,” the subtle basis of designation for yourself, okay, the subtle basis, the coarse bases, you’ve a whole bunch of them, right? Your body, your face, your intelligence, your memory, personal history, your gender, your ethnicity, well, just a slews of viable meaningful bases of designation on the coarse level. No problem. I’m tall, I’m this, I’m that. But then if we go to a deeper level, and we identify in a subtle basis of imputing self, the subtle basis for imputing a self, is to be, is said to be the very subtle energy mind. Pranachitta, pranachitta. The very subtle energy mind. And the practical instructions affirm one identifies the mind, in order to determine the nature of existence of the mind. So I changed that around a good bit. So we could just pair subtle to subtle, which would be, I like precision, the subtle basis for imputing a self is to be said to be the subtle energy mind. That would be a good match, good parity, right? And what continues on from lifetime to lifetime. Subtle, subtle energy mind. It’s not just the substrate consciousness or bhavanga or subtle, continued mental consciousness. Because wherever consciousness goes, there goes together with the prana, they’re always, they’re always intertwined with each other, they have the same nature of continuum. So we have coarse energy mind. And the coarse energy is what all of you are experiencing in your bodies when you meditate or whenever you pay attention. And of course, mind is what you watch when you’re settling the mind in its natural state. And then you dissolve from your perspective, you dissolve your mind, your coarse mind into subtle mind, and physiologically, your coarse energies are going into the heart chakra, right where they go when you go deep asleep. So the coarse energies are dissolving into subtle energy. You can rest there and meditate in equipoise in shamatha. And bear in mind, you don’t have duct tape over your mouth when you’re resting in shamatha. You can talk, you can think if you like. Coarse examinations, subtle analysis, you can think. And so if you wish to as you’re resting in shamatha, then you can, you can designate yourself. I’m resting in shamatha. You can say that. You don’t have again, you don’t a gag [gangwa??]. I’m resting in shamatha. I’ve achieved, I’ve achieved shamatha. I’ve achieved shamatha. I’m resting in shamatha. I’m resting in meditative equipoise. Valid, good, congratulations.

[1:32:09] What’s the basis of designation? Subtle energy mind. You’re not aware of anything else. You’re not aware of your coarse body and not aware of coarse mind is not there. So your basis of designation for I have achieved shamatha, I’m resting in shamatha. Your basis of designation when you’re leaving this body and you’re heading off into the bardo. What is the continuum that carries on? Not your coarse one that’s dependent on the brain, the body in general. What carries on from lifetime to lifetime? Isn’t that stratum the subtle energy mind? In which case you could, you could from the bardo, look back and say, Oh, I was a human being a little while ago. But now I’m, I’m in the bardo. And what’s your basis of designation that is equally valid for saying I was a human being. I’m no longer. You don’t have a human body. You’re not a human being. But I used to be a human being. I see, oh, I’m watching my funeral, there they are grieving for me and divvying up my estate. So that’s valid. Yes, you were that person. They’re all hovering over the grave looking at dead meat. And you’re watching them watching their living meat. And they are grieving for me and I’m here, I’m here. So what’s the common basis of designation? Well, it’s not the meat, not the coarse mind. Subtle mind, subtle energy mind. And you can anticipate in some time I’m going to be some place else. The bardo will finish. And I’ll be embodied someplace else. So there’s a subtle basis of designation of bardo being, right. And then the very subtle, well, the very subtle mind is rigpa. It’s the indwelling mind of clear light, primordial consciousness. And that is just like on the coarse and subtle level, on the very subtle level, the primordial consciousness is inex … inexplicably, how do you say, inextricably of the same nature as [geshe gelong??], the energy of primordial consciousness and that is where you are right now. Wherever you are, your substrate consciousness there, the subtle energies are there, not someplace else, they’re not to be achieved in the future. And right where you are right now there’s also hidden in plain sight, subtle … very subtle energy, which is the energy of primordial consciousness and primordial consciousness. So they’re all there.

[1:34:37] So at any time, you may designate yourself on the basis of any of those three tiers. Designate yourself as a woman, a man, American, Swiss. Designate yourself on a deeper level as one who has achieved shamatha or will achieve shamatha. Will be reborn some other place in the next life. Or in the deepest level, designate yourself on the basis of your own buddha nature with its concomitant energy and then if you like, you can rise as Vajrasattva, and this is valid as anything else. Equally valid. Vajrasattva, Tara, is your choice on that basis of designation. So, in such a case, he said the practical instructions affirm, how do … how do you determine the nature of existence of the mind? How it exists? It’s empty nature. How do you … its ultimate nature? How do you determine the nature of existence of the mind. Here he’s clearly referring to its ultimate nature. How do you do that? One identifies the mind. In order to determine the nature of existence, you identify the mind. You identify appearances of the mind. You identify how you designate the mind on the appearances. And having seen how you’ve designated the mind, this is my mind, my mind is agitated, my mind is calm. Then you examine, okay, what’s the nature of the mind so designated? So you identify it. And having identified, do you have a mind? Yes. Have you seen it? Yes. Okay, how does it exist?

[1:36:14] If you haven’t identified the mind, you’re in no position to ask how it exists. And that’s true for everything else. If you don’t know whether Higgs bosons exists or not, you’re in no position to ask whether they exist relative to a measurement system or whether they’re really absolutely out there. And we’re discussing … discovered as pre-existing entities with Large Hadron supercollider. You’re in no position to ask that question. If you haven’t even identified whether they exist or not. And with … if you haven’t identified them, if you haven’t found them, you’re not ready to ask the second question. But once you have, and they pretty much have now, Higgs boson exists, we did extremely sophisticated measurements, we discovered them. Good. Now that you’ve identified the Higgs boson good, how does it exist? That is only relative to your measurement system and the conceptual framework in which you can see the experiment? Or does it really exist out there independently? Metaphysical realism. Yeah.

[1:37:14] So, we’re going very slowly through a very dense text, but there we are, we’ll stop, end there for now. But he’s giving us an enormous amount to work with here. So incredibly rich. With very few words, and that’s why we’re going slowly. I just don’t feel like… I feel it would be .... I used to play piano in a very mediocre way. And there’s some pieces I really loved. The, you know, the first movement in the Moonlight Sonata is just exquisite. A lot of Chopin preludes. I love them. And when you’re playing something you really love, and you see this is just … this is just exquisite music. The last thing you’d want to do is say we’re short of time, but I’ll play it really quickly. [Laughter]. La did da la di da …[Laughter]. That was the Moonlight Sonata going around really quickly. That would be kind of a travesty. And I don’t … similarly this is more beautiful than the Moonlight Sonata. So sorry, I can’t go quickly. Take our time. So by the way, in case you haven’t noticed this smordge that was on my lap. It’s gone. Only laptop but no smordge … it’s vanished. But don’t worry, it’ll come back. [Laughter]

Transcribed by Shriley Soh

Revised by Kriss Sprinkle

Final edition by Rafael C. Giusti

Transcript formatted and posted on the website of the course by Rafael C. Giusti

Discussion

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.