B. Alan Wallace, 10 May 2016

NOTE: only the first 50 seconds come from the back-up recorder, and the quality is not optimal. Apologies for that.

Alan begins the session by commenting on the difference between the way phenomena appear and the way they exist. It’s very common when we are pointing the finger at something, at an object or a person, to reify that object or that person. But that object or person appearing really over there, from its own side, autonomous, objective, is a lie, it doesn’t exist.

The meditation is on the emptiness of all phenomena.

After the meditation, before returning to the text, Alan expands on Martin Buber’s explanations of I-it, I-You and I-Thou relationships. He then resumes the oral transmission and commentary of Panchen Rinpoche’s text.

Meditation starts at 21:00


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

Download (MP3 / 60 MB)

Transcript

73 - Spring 2016 - The Emptiness of All Phenomena

Olaso.

[00:06] I remember years ago, Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey at one point was commenting that, he said a really knowledgeable geshe, a really good geshe, he could take a single text, and interpret it in 10 different ways. And each of them valid, each of them useful, relative to this person, that person, this context, that context. He made quite an impression on me, because he was very very erudite. His love of practice, but also just his love, he was like voracious, really voracious, like if he ever had any spare time, he would just be over the text, just learning more and more and more, he just never stopped being a student, always more to learn, always more to learn, and yet he wasn’t just a scholar. Nobody can fake it … try it. Go ahead and try it, sit for three hours, cross legged without moving and not be screaming. [Laughs]. So I’m no, I’m not a good geshe. I’m not a bad geshe. I’m not a geshe at all. But in terms of this very sharp, simple approach that Panchen Rinpoche takes for vipashyana, which I’ve not seen anywhere else, it may be everywhere else. I just, I’m not very knowledgeable. But it really struck me in this one, you’re familiar with it. Now I think you’ve all memorized it. And that is you’re probing into, attending to the phenomenon in question, whatever you’re focusing on, you’re looking at how does it appear? How does it exist? And how are you apprehending it? Just so there’s very … I’d like for there to be great clarity on this point, right? So you know exactly what the words mean. Because if the conceptual understanding’s fuzzy, it’s going to be very difficult to have a very sharp practice, if your conceptual understanding is fuzzy, vague. So I should think we should never, how do you say, disparage or underestimate, the importance of having a very clear conceptual understanding. Sometimes, oh, … my understanding is only conceptual. That’s a good start. That’s where we need to start, right? understanding from hearing and then reflection, and then when you’re ready, when you have that crystal clear, very sharp, tested, like a blade you put on the fire and tested, tested, tested. Okay, now I’m ready to meditate.

[02:17] And so, one term there that readily invites multiple interpretations is this [nelug in Tibetan], the way of being present, the way of abiding, the way of existence, nature of existence. And clearly, an undebatable point is that phenomena, such as David, for example. David exists, his way of existing conventionally, relatively, is as a human being, and so forth, and as an ongoing stream of a sentient being who is caring about, you know, suffering and so forth, as described earlier, and that just doesn’t go away. No matter what we do, no matter what deep insight we might have into emptiness, it never negates that. David never disappears, never negated, is untouched, you know, untouched. So, and so when we had that kind of that conjunction, just by the sheer sequence of the retreat, where we were looking into Panchen Rinpoche’s teachings on vipashyana, but in the morning we’re practising loving kindness, it just didn’t seem to me on that occasion, the most optimal to go for the ultimate mode of existence. So Brendan, for example, Brendan’s ultimate mode of existence, that’s easy, empty of inherent nature, has just purely nominal existence, nothing more than not merely conceptual designation. But if I’m leading you into a practice of the cultivation of loving kindness, and now I say, now, here it is. Focus on all sentient beings, as conceptual designations, and wish them well. It might be a bit of a stretch, right? So better to focus on, well how is Brendan? How is David? How are they present? And yes, we can say from this ultimate perspective, as a mere name, mere label, mere conceptual imputation but it’s also true, is there an ongoing … let’s just come back …is there an ongoing person throughout the course of the life from lifetime to lifetime? And the answer is yes. Yeah. So, but now we’re going deep into vipashyana territory. So last time, that is when I first introduced this triad from Panchen Rinpoche, that I highlighted this nature of existence, a way of being present, emphasize the relative nature of it that although we appear in myriad, various ways, sometimes angry, compassionate, generous, and stingy, myriad appearances, agreeable and disagreeable, underlying that, so I’m repeating myself a little bit. But I don’t take any of that back. I think it’s all true.

[04:41] But now we’re going, we’re going for the gold. It’s vipashyana time. It’s time to really try to penetrate into, by way of ontological probe, ontological analysis, what is the way the person, the individual, the entity, how does it actually exist? Right. And in this regard, I’d like to set up the next meditation briefly, going to front load it a bit. But I’m going to interpret differently. So I can’t do it in 10 different ways but two different ways I think I can handle that. And that is when you see these two terms paired: [nelug in Tibetan] the way of appearing and the way of existing. When you see that normally in Madhyamika literature, it’s very clear what it means, how it appears, that’s conventional relative, right. How it exists. Well, this is where the whole issue of the contrariness, the incompatibility, how appearances mislead, right? Because as I gaze over at Wendy, Wendy appears to be from her own side, she appears to be over there. Big lie, right? As His Holiness says very pointedly, when I saw him do this, it really left a big impression. He said, when you especially you jab your finger, like, like that, especially if there’s some attachment or anger, some mental affliction operative, and we start poking our fingers at people. ‘When they didn’t I tell you to clean up before yesterday, what’s wrong with you?’ That’s something like that. When that kind of … there’s some energy behind that, right? That what you’re pointing your finger at. That’s what doesn’t exist. Right there. He said, [Tibetan Xuxa??], what you’re pointing your finger at. That’s what doesn’t exist. It’s not that Wendy doesn’t exist, but Wendy there from her own side, self, self supportive, autonomous, really over there, really objectively. That’s exactly what doesn’t exist. But she certainly seems to. So when speaking of nelug it’s that sheer absence of existing from her own side. That’s the nelug. That’s the ultimate mode of existence. That’s what this meditation is all about - to realize the emptiness of all phenomena.

[06:44] So now we go to the meditation, I’d like to just put a little bit of a different twist on it. I suspect it’s probably what Panchen Rinpoche had in mind when he paired these two; way of appearing, way of existence. And again, it’s almost always highlighted. Look, they’re different. They’re really, really different. And then how do we recognize the difference, not simply believe it, not just simply get the right answers at the end of the book. You know, you know, the right Madhyamika answers, how can and without getting caught up in a lot of philosophizing, cogitating, reasoning, logical arguments, and so forth, all over the place. I’m not disparaging that at all. But he is giving us a more slender route here. Really slender, as in just like an arrow, hitting a target, you know, boom, just like that very Mahamudra, very Dzogchen. And so here’s, here’s a method, I think, is what he had in mind. First of all, attend to how phenomena appear. In the seen let there be just the seen. So just try to get good signal to noise ratio. That is, when you’re attending to appearances, appearances of the world around you, by way of the five senses, physical sense doors, appearances arising in the mind, just try to get a … and this is where your shamatha is going to be enormously helpful. The more you have, the better it will be, try to get a good, you know, clear signal, really low noise, just see what’s appearing, see the appearances as appearances with as much freedom from additives as possible. Any type of additives at all, just naked, right? So try to get a good take on that, like, gotcha. Tibetan word [niaba??], ascertain that, right? But now in the practice, we’re about to do, we’re not going to suppress, or how do you say marginalize or peripheralise, the conceptual apparatus, by which we’re making sense of the world. So it’s more in the mode of settling the mind in its natural state, open the Pandora’s box, if the mind wants to talk, let the mind talk. If it wants to go blah, blah, blah, let it go, blah, blah, blah, let it come out with a lot of nouns. It’s going to do it anyway. But don’t make it shut up. A lot of nouns, the nouns refer to objects, right? Objects have qualities. They’re out there, they’re in here. It’s people, it’s trees, it’s plants, it’s thoughts, it’s emotions, it’s me. It’s mind. Those are all nouns, which means they have attributes.

[09:14] And so when we allow the conceptual mind off the leash and let it designate away, as he keeps on saying, but he must really mean it, Panchen Rinpoche, from the state of equipoise, remember? from the state of he’s always saying, you did get the shamatha right, you did get it because you need that now, from that you did or you didn’t skip it, did you? So from that our best approximation, what can we do? We’re here for eight weeks and not for eight years. From that, observe your objectifying phenomena, not just seeing appearances as appearances, but seeing Wendy, seeing, seeing Danielle, seeing Brendan, they’re not just appearances. They’re people. Very importantly, they look back. Appearances don’t look back, right. And so as you designate, then this is where the really intelligent introspection comes in. This is where we’re definitely into vipashyana territory. We’re not just trying to stabilize the mind here. And that is as you designate this or that, anything, anything that comes up, and you can do it deliberately, you don’t just have to wait for it to happen spontaneously, you can from that state of equipoise, deliberately bring some one, some thing, some place, some object or some subject to mind, a noun, bring it to mind, designate it, and then watch very carefully. If .. first of all, almost like holding in working memory, you’ve got a clear sense of the way appearances are rising. They’re just empty appearances. Right? It’s kind of easy to see that they’re just appearances. The color, the smells, the sounds, the tastes, the thoughts, the images. It’s kind of like, yeah, they’re just, they’re just images arising in the space of awareness. They’re just empty appearances. That’s not too hard. It’s when we start objectifying things. That’s … that’s when the reification comes in. So when you do when the conceptual mind does designate, here it is you ready because this is the part to remember.

[11:15] When you see that your mind, your conceptual mind is objectifying something, identify what’s the basis of designation of the designation. Okay. So I said before, you remember in settling the mind in its natural state. I said, it’s enough if I, if I gaze over at Maria’s face, just as an analogy, I gaze over at Maria’s face, and somebody asks me is Maria … do you know where Maria is, yes, she’s right over there. That’s perfectly fine. So that’s enough to see Maria, I don’t really need to see anything more. I don’t need to see her back or her right shoulder and so forth. Face is enough. It’s, it’s a… it’s a perfectly good basis of designation. We say Maria’s right there, right? Right. That’s fine. When you’re settling the mind in its natural state, you’re observing the mind by way of whatever comes up, thoughts, mental images, desires, emotions, space of the mind, they’re all suitable, that basis of designation for the mind. But now we’re not just satisfied with, with that. When an object comes to mind, and you designate, then ask, see, what is the basis of designation? For right now, and I look for Maria, I mean, I just naturally look at the face. And then I naturally say, oh, there’s Maria. Right. But then when you’re doing this in meditation, then note, here comes a really important point, note, her face, was my basis of designation for designating her by which I identified her, she’s there. And her face is completely empty of Maria. I mean, you could take every atom of the face collectively, individually, the shape, the colors, and so forth, you could do a full scale, total complete analysis of her face. And nowhere in any aspect of the face individually or collectively, will you find even the tiniest trace of a person. The face is empty of Maria. The basis of designation, here’s the crucial point, the basis of designation is totally empty of the designated object. As a cairn, a pile of stones, is totally empty of a person. Right? He said that right? As a striped rope is totally empty of a snake. The appearance is empty of anything you impute upon it. That doesn’t mean though, that Maria doesn’t exist. But right now we’re distinguishing. That there’s a mode of appearance. It’s an appearance of a face. I simply, I just designated, ‘Oh, there’s Maria over there.’ Now I know apprehend means how do you identify, how do you know? What’s your way of identifying the mode of apprehension? So it can be perceptual but it’s also can be conceptual. Where is she? Oh, she’s right over there. I remember Maria. That’s conceptual, embedded in a conceptual framework. Right.

[14:16] And so, note, again, you’re in the seen, just the seen, mode of appearances. Then mode, and note how you identify whatever comes to mind, any noun, could be a verb for that matter. And then note the basis of designation. And holding in mind that yes, I am apprehend, I am apprehending Maria, I’m not delusional here. I’m apprehending someone who does exist. So that’s not delusional. But now how does Maria exist? Well, she’s not there objectively. She’s not there from her own side. And the basis upon which I designated her, identified her, imputed or named her, is completely empty of Maria. Just as when you gaze at your reflection in a mirror, and the mirror is two meters in front of you, and you see the reflection two meters behind the surface of the mirror, there’s absolutely nothing there, two meters behind the mirror that in any way corresponds, I mean, there’s just nothing there at all. It could be granite, it could be anything, but what it is, is totally empty of that reflection. There’s no reflection there. And yet you can photograph it. And the camera lens will tell you, that’s where it is. That’s the remarkable part. I discovered that one, you know, millions of people know this, but I discovered it when I was 20. Photographing, I was in Germany, I was photographing very close to the surface of a little pool outside of Götting. And I was focusing in with my lens six inches away from the surface of the water, and was focusing on the reflections of the trees on the far bank, and I wanted to get the trees in focus. And lo and behold, I was, I was starting like, okay, two feet, or six inches, and then oh, oh, oh, I’m looking right down there, and the image is 40 feet away. Quite a surprise. And that’s where the, that’s where the trees come into focus when you snap the shutter. That’s where their focus, they appear there. In a manner of speaking, in a manner of speaking, they are there you can photograph. And of course, there’s no image down in the mud, 30 feet below the surface of the water, there’s an image, I don’t think so. And yet, that’s where it is, and it’s not anywhere else.

[16:42] So there’s the point. Is it clear? How things appear, that’s straightforward. But you do need to get a clear signal. Because if we don’t, and this is where bare attention comes in, this is where vipashyana is so popular, for good reason. But just bare attention, just be aware of whatever’s coming up, whatever is coming up here and now, non judgmental, they’re trying to get a good signal. You know that’s valuable. It’s not yet vipashyana and it’s not shamatha. But boy, i it’s laying the good groundwork. If people would actually move from there, they would really head out on a path. If they stay there, there won’t be any path at all. Generally speaking, unless you’re Bahia, and it’ll be something special. And so, mode of appearances. Got that. And then observing the basis of designation, whenever you identify anything, including your mind, now, we’re not going to be satisfied. Oh, I saw a thought, that’s good enough, I saw my mind. No, your thought is not your mind, a thought’s a thought. A thought isn’t the mind. An emotion isn’t the mind, the space of the mind is the space of the mind, it’s not the mind. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a quality of the mind. And it’s called the space of the mind. Therefore, it’s not the same, it’s not the mind of the mind. It’s the space of the mind. And you can continue going there. And every single time, there’s going to be a difference between the basis of designation once you designate upon it, and the basis of designation is always empty of that which you designate upon it. And therefore, this immediately follows. Therefore, the designated object does not exist from its own side. If it is, you’d find it. If it is, you’d find a basis of designation, which actually is identical to the designated object. Never the case. At least that’s the hypothesis.

[18:30] So I will guide this meditation. But now it’s a very different take, right? And we’re not going to be worrying. And we’re not gonna be worrying right now. But oh, but I don’t want to just, I don’t want to dismiss all sentient beings. Don’t worry, we’ll get back to them tomorrow morning. They’ll be there. And we have to be bold when we’re looking for the middle way, don’t be afraid to bounce off of extremes. A number of you when you met with me privately, one on one. You said, Oh, your last meditation is like you’re banging me against the wall, this way and this way. Beating you up, bang, bang, because this wall and that wall. Yeah, I’m good. I’m good at it. [Laughter]. I do my best. And why? Because you find the middle way only by banging up the extremes. I don’t know anybody … there’s a middle way … I’ll just go there. And you’d see those two extremes, stream right by you. Oh, thank goodness, I’m not there. Again, they’re always exceptional people. But the rest of us, we find the middle way by saying, 'Ah, that was, that was substantialism, I won’t call it eternalism. But when we’re going on, we’re really feeling the heart open. And in the moisture of loving kindness, of affection, really is flowing. Will there be a bit of reification of the people we’re attending to? Probably so. Yeah. Don’t worry too much. That’s the time if you slip over into bit of substantialism, okay. Cost benefit analysis. On the other hand, when you’re really going for vipashyana, and you’re saying, yeah, there’s Lyn but she’s not there. She’s not really there from her own side at all. She’s empty appearances and [matrix??] of empty appearances, then Lyn starts to slip away a little bit. Or maybe I start slipping away, getting a bit afraid like if she doesn’t exist, probably I don’t exist either. And then grab my collar or something. [Laughter]. If you get a little bit afraid, when you didn’t expect it, good. Some of you told me I got a little bit afraid, I smile. Good. If you’re not at all afraid, you’re either doing really, really well, or you’re not. [Laughter]. Get a little bit afraid, okay. All clear. [in Italian, tutto chiaro] How do you say? [ in Italian, tutto chiaro, molto bene]. Good. Find a comfortable position. I’ll beat up your mind but at least your body should be comfortable.

[21:00] [Bell rings. Meditation in session.]

[21:27] As if you’re a pilot getting into a cockpit and checking the whole control panel to see that everything is in working order. Everything’s smooth and then you take off. Similarly before you launch into the wilderness of vipashyana, see that your body, speech, and mind are settled in a state of dynamic equipoise, settled in their natural state. [Pause].

[23:15] From that still point of awareness, simply resting but with no vector, no directionality. From that stillness, that sense of ease, freedom from grasping, clear signal, no noise, let your eyes be open. And let’s briefly follow the scenic route that the Buddha led Bahia on, direct the full force, direct the full force of your mental awareness to the visual field and in visual appearances let there be just visual appearances. See how they appear. [Pause].

[25:11l] Then turn your attention to the auditory field. In the heard let there be just the heard. [Pause]

[25:36] It’s like we’re running multiple cinemas simultaneously now, the eyes still open, the visual, the visual show still presenting itself from moment to moment, now the auditory show chimes in, we now have a duet. [Pause].

[25:57] Non overlapping shows. You don’t hear any colors or shapes. You don’t see any sounds. Turn your attention to the tactile field. You don’t hear any tactile sensations or see them. But observe in the felt let that just be the felt. Tactile sensations arising in the space of the body as ownerless as are colors and shapes and sounds. Mere appearances having no owner. [Pause].

[27:09] We’ll overlook smells and tastes, probably not much signal there. Direct your attention now to the space of the mind. Whatever appearances arise within this domain, now of a quartet, visual, auditory, tactile and mental. [Pause]

[27:57] You recall when we first entered into the practice of settling the mind in its natural state, I said a … an entry into the practice was to deliberately generate a disc … a discursive thought, a mental image, or possibly a desire, or an emotion. Doing it very deliberately. And then once it’s been generated, observe it closely until it fades away. But now we move into vipashyana territory. So to start this, do something very easy. Deliberately think of anything you like. Bring someone or something to mind, from the surrounding environment. Identify it. And now with precision identify the basis upon which you’ve imputed this person or thing. Distinguish between the designated object and the basis of designation. [Pause].

[29:49] And see for yourself: was the designated object already there? Did you simply give a label to what was already there objectively? Was it there on the basis of designation? Was that identical to the basis of designation? You must examine for yourself and come to certainty. [Pause].

[30:50] And if that basis of designation is completely empty of the object you’ve designated upon that basis, does it not follow then that the designated object doesn’t exist there. It’s empty of subjective inherent existence. It’s purely a designation, having only a nominal status. And that’s how it really exists. Is it true or false? Let’s examine for yourself until the clarity and certainty comes to mind. [Pause]

[31:54] You can continue in the practice now not only in this domain of the mind, but with your eyes still wide open, your ears open, tactile sensations, clearly appearing. See how the mind identifies objects in the visual field, the auditory, the tactile. Note, how you apprehend, how you identify, how you know these objects that come to mind. And what this means is identify the basis of designation, identify the designated object, see whether they are the same or different and if they are different, see what that designated object is already there in the basis of designation, or whether that basis is utterly empty of the designated object. Let your mind roam freely now. [Pause].

[33:55] The mind is very liberal, very generous in its designations. It designates objects in the visual field, the auditory, the tactile, and the mental. Within the mental it may designate objects from the past, remember … may remember events or people, places, things from the past. Examine the basis of designation and so on. You may imagine events, people, situations in the future. Designation has occurred. Examine in the same way each time. Distinguish between the mode of appearance and the mode of existence and the role of designation. [Pause].

[35:44] We quite rightly say that we’re engaging in this meditation with our minds, we’re putting our mind to this, our mind to that. So now we turn the same ontological probe in upon the mind that is aware. You must have some sense, my mind, or the mind when this noun comes to mind. And it does many times. What’s the basis of designation of mind? The designated object, of course, is mind. What’s the basis of designation? And is it identical to mind as you understand the term. Examine closely. [Pause].

[39:27] Then we have this term we’re all familiar with. It’s meaningful, it makes sense to all of us here. All of us living … listening by podcast. The flow of awareness, the stream of consciousness, we’ve been resting in it, observing it. So there’s a noun. Consciousness spread out over time. The stream of consciousness is a noun. What’s the basis of designation? You know what the right answer should be. But the basis of designation should not be identical to the object designated upon it, but is that the case? Have you now finally, finally found something that is inherently real. Truly existent. Consciousness existing by its own inherent nature, independently of any conceptual designation. [Pause].

[40:53] Is it so? Or is it not? Examine the basis of designation upon which you impute consciousness or stream of consciousness and examine closely. Are they the same or different? [Pause].

[42:41] You are the meditator or are you not? You’re the one doing this practice. You’re the one resting to your best ability in meditative equipoise. [Pause].

[42:59] When you identify yourself as such, what’s the basis of designation? [Pause].

[44:00] When some insight arises into the emptiness of inherent nature of the designated objects, rest, sustain that flow of awareness, that cognizance, that realization. Dwell in it. Let it seep in.

[45:01] [Bell rings]. [Meditation session ends].

[45:24] So it occurred to me that something obvious and that is there are different ways of viewing other sentient beings. But here more specifically while identifying oneself as male, female, Brazilian, German, what have you, identifying that? And probably reifying because that’s what we do, you know. I’m over here. So in this case, American male, California, Stanford PhD. [Light laughter]. Viewing that and of course, that’s true as far as it goes, but then reifying it because that’s what we do. I’m over here, you don’t have a Stanford PhD. I do. Right. Reifying. And joking aside, but just basically reifying oneself as a human being over here, then it’s very easy. It happens, especially when we’re in the thralls of attachment or anger, mental afflictions to simply objectify other human beings, and let alone other sentient beings, animals and so forth, objectify them what has been called the ‘I-it’ relationship, right? The ‘I-it’ relationship. Very cruel. Right. To view another sentient being, human being or otherwise as an ‘it’ as having no more sentience than an eyeglass carrier. That’s very cruel, right? Because it’s denying the very existence, the integrity, the … not only the humanity, the sentient beingness of others. That’s why you know, so much passion … sometimes it’s ridiculous … I think I look like a character, like a cartoon, when I keep on so vehemently critiquing scientific materialism. Because they’re doing that all the time. Your brain, your brain, your body, your body, but the brain isn’t a sentient being. And the body isn’t a sentient being, and your mind is just an emergent property of matter. That’s not a sentient being. So to my mind, it’s worse than racism. Racism tends to target a group, skin color, ethnic background, religion, or what have you. And according to those people off…, you are merely animals. You are not really human. You’re subhuman. And then we, and then any kind of brutality is okay. Right. In the slave trade, it was just unimaginable what these good Christians would do. It defies the imagination, like, how could they? Well, very easy. There’s an answer to that question. They dehumanize them. They don’t have feelings like us. So it looks cruel, but don’t, don’t be upset. They look like they have feelings and emotions like us. But it’s not true. They do …they’re really just animals. And this is right in the current where Descartes was still very powerful.

[48:13] Animals don’t have feelings. Animals don’t even have consciousness. And that’s 400 years ago. But when we look at the, the savagery throughout human history, when one, any group does that towards another. I might as well start at home, the European Americans, how we treated the Native Americans. Unbelievable. Well, that’s because they’re savages. Right? They’re savages. They’re not like us. They’re animals. They’re just really animals. That’s what philosophers of mind are telling us all the time nowadays, you’re just an animal. You’re just a product of evolution. They are saying to all of humanity, what the racists said, of the Native Americans, to the blacks, to the Chinese, to any other minority group that they kind of felt, you know, negative against. Irish, Scottish, Italians, and so on. And as soon as you’ve done that, it’s no holds barred. You can do anything. That’s why such passion arises in me, because this is so incredibly dangerous to view all human beings and of course, all other sentient beings as mere appearances, ‘I-it’ relationship, making that a profession, and suggesting there’s scientific credibility behind that. Oh, that gets me excited. That gets me going. Because I adore science. I think I hope that’s obvious by now. I’m going to have to quote some science pretty soon. With all such respect. So that’s really savage. That’s so dehumanizing, but it’s beyond dehumanizing. It’s de-sentient-being-ising, you know, it’s really treating sentient beings as rodents, birds, reptiles, and so forth as having nothing more than … I feel no qualms at all about slapping. I can spit on it. I can stamp it into my heel. My eyeglass carrier, I have no qualms at all. No problem. I’m not hurting it, but [slaps and makes a slapping sound] …it’s doesn’t doesn’t matter. My head hurts a little bit. It doesn’t hurt at all, you know. No problem. So that’s really, that’s really awful. It’s really grotesque. I mean I just try to find stronger and stronger adjectives for this because it allows any type of savagery. It allows everything. Just as I would have no qualms about ripping this to shreds, cutting the pieces, burning it, torching it. No qualms, no problem. Why should anybody care? Now imagine that’s not, that’s not, that’s been .. that’s not a sentient being. We’ve been doing it a lot.

[50:33] So moving beyond that type of catastrophic and malevolent dementia. Operating out of simple … okay let alone the joking business about Stanford and all of that, I’m just a human being, I’m American and I’m a man. Okay, that’s, that’s safe, that’s okay. But then you’re not, you’re not American, you’re not a man. And so, but I’m attending to, as I look over at Wendy, I’m attending to Wendy. And I’m attending to someone and I can see it’s very, very strong, very clear. Somebody is looking back. She’s not a brain. She’s not just a body. She’s a human being. I’m a human being. She’s not me, because I’m very different. But, but I recognize something coming back. So now I have to take that seriously. Right. Martin Buber called the first one ‘I-it’ relationship. That is just like, so toxic. You can’t even find a word big enough. You know, but now it’s an ‘I-you’ relationship. But it’s polarized. But at least for heaven’s sakes, I’m acknowledging you’re there. And somebody is looking back. Right? I’m reifying myself, and I’m reifying Wendy. But if she looks like she’s in pain, any normal person would come back, ‘Oh, Wendy, what’s wrong? Are you in pain? It looks like you’re really having a trouble there. Can I help you?’ You know, that’s just normal. That’s where I have no reason to block. You know, she’s sub-human or can’t stand those Brits, you know. No problem, no barrier coming up. So I see her apparently in pain, which is just a natural thing. You don’t have to cultivate it. Just do the natural thing. ‘Are you okay? Do you need help?’ Just totally natural, right. Spontaneous. Because there’s no barrier there. It’s an ‘I-you’ relationship. Reified myself, reified you. I’m aware that I’m acting courteously, kindly, empathetically. That’s good. That’s a step in the right direction. Right. But this point here that I’m really emphasizing, attending to someone and having the sense they’re looking back, they’re at the center of their mandala, the center of their mandala is over yonder and the center of my mandala’s over hither. Yeah. So in other words saturated by dualistic grasping, right. But nevertheless, boy is that better than ‘I-it’ relationship, just inconceivably better. Still delusional. But, boy, is it not like that. Right.

[53:00] Going deeper and viewing from subtle mind, so that was coarse mind, right, male, American, all this, all the adjectives you want to add? Go deeper down to subtle mind. Imagine you’re viewing sentient beings from the continuum of subtle mind. Now the commonality is much much deeper. Because Wendy’s subtle mind is very similar to mine, much more than her body as being similar to my body. Some very obvious differences. But you go to subtle mind, the differences are not so evident at all. And moreover, my body doesn’t look much like a lizard or a fly, or a hummingbird. But then the, the subtle continuum of consciousness of a bot … fly [butterfly], hummingbird and so forth. All very similar, very similar. So, but it’s still over there, right, still over there. But now that common ground, that sense of empathy. St. Francis having that, that such an open heart for animals. So famous for that. Shantideva the same. Shantideva you probably know the story when he was meditating in his cave. This was after he left Nalanda. He flew away, he levitated away. And then he appeared some place. Just … just living anonymously as a yogi up in a cave. And the villagers, they didn’t know who he was. Anonymous guy, you know, some shaman whatever one of those guys, and … but animals kept on coming into his cave. Remember the story. And the villagers started getting really suspicious. That yogi’s pseudo-yogi. Animals are coming in and he’s luring them in and he’s eating them. They thought he was butchering all the animals that came into his cave. So they went to … because shaman shouldn’t …a shaman shouldn’t do that. They shouldn’t be carnivores, killing animals. So they went in to kind of accost this yogi that was devouring all the … they were expecting animal bones all over the place. The animals were there with him. They just gathered around like coming to a warm fire on a cold evening. So for those really with great depth, like a St Francis, like Shantideva, the animals get it, the animals get it. You know, they know there’s no, there’s no danger, all those other human beings, there will be the most dangerous. This one is okay. So that’s deeper.

[55:12] But still a very important point, there’s someone looking back. I hurt, that person hurts. If I speak harshly, that person will hurt. Hurt, just like I hurt, you know. Very dualistic. But what a breath of fresh air, as opposed to let alone being a materialist being aloof, indifferent, and egocentric. And really not being concerned with the well-being of others, just kind of bullying one’s way through. Regardless of world view, you may call yourself a Christian or Buddhist, in a way who cares because you’re treating other people like ‘it’, and that happens when the mind is dominated by craving, self-centered detachment, and so forth. But now, let’s go deeper. We can only … this is imagination unless you’re very realised. But imagine you cut through. You see the emptiness of inherent nature of your own subtle continuum of consciousness. Seeing that too was empty. That too is not really over here. And you see that, you cut through that, which means, of course, that the subtle continuum of consciousness of Wendy or Maria and so forth, is not really over there. And you cut through that. You cut through that to pristine awareness, to rigpa and you’re dwelling in rigpa. You don’t have to close your eyes, you know, you can open your eyes when you have … when you’re dwelling in rigpa. And that’s the idea. Eyes closed, eyes open. On the cushion, off the cushion, your practice is simply very simple. Don’t do anything and continue to maintain that view. Resting in rigpa at all times. Your practice now is extremely simple. It doesn’t need to be complemented, balanced with anything else. Because you’re resting in ultimate bodhicitta, relative bodhichitta will come up, no worries. Come up for free. This is a perspective that is now completely transcending all dualistic grasping. So there is now no notion: I’m viewing from over here and you’re over there.

[57:08] If Martin Buber knew Dzogchen, then he would call this the ‘I-thou’ relationship. Where the sense of intimacy, the sense of affinity, the sense of non-duality is there, that there’s simply a ‘field’ awareness that is not polarized into you and me, subject and object, and so forth. It’s a non-local awareness, because rigpa isn’t located inside my head, or where I am over here. Therefore, if I attend to you, I look over to Gauche, I’m not attending to her rigpa over there. Because her rigpa has no center. My rigpa has no center. They are non dual. So this one’s unimaginable. But then you transcend the very notion, that person is looking at me from over there. Because there’s no over here. If there’s no left, there’s no right. If there’s no up, there’s no down. And if there’s no over here, there’s no over there either. That will be good. Okay, I thought that might be useful. It came up, what can I say, came up.

[58:20] So I want to go back very briefly to something he alluded to, very briefly, in the text. Back to the text. Where he said something very briefly and then moved right on. And that is he said the individual elements are not real because they are composites. He’s talking about everything from elementary particles right up to the universe, galaxies, galactic clusters, and so forth. Everything. From the most minute to the largest. Because that’s those individual elements or six elements that was to be, intended to be all inclusive. The galaxies are composed of the four elements within space. We’re aware of them with consciousness, elementary particles are … consists of just, to varying degrees, four elements. Some are maybe kind of like extremely minute, like, I don’t know how much moisture there is in an electron. But in any case, they have material attributes. And so when he says they’re not real, they’re composites.

[59:22] And we looked at that briefly, but I wanted to return briefly. And that is, a cell phone is obviously a composite. So obviously, get earth element, water in it, not much water right now. Could. But as some degree of fire element, otherwise it would be absolute zero Kelvin. And it has, I mean, it’s, it’s on, it’s turned on. It’s …, it’s got some activity in there, there must be air in it, but most importantly, it’s a composite. It’s got a face, it’s got inside, and so forth and so on. So it has a basis of designation. You can find it yourself. Am I holding a cell phone in my hand? Yes or no? Look at the basis of designation, when you identify correctly, you apprehend that I am holding a cell phone in my hand. And then you can examine the basis of designation: is that a cell phone? And I’ll be very certain that it’s not, but you can decide that for yourself, right. But here, if we were reading this from the 19th century, one might very well, very reasonably, very intelligently say, I get your point, but your point is trivial. And that is okay. The cell phone, definitely the cell phone as a cell phone. This is clearly a label. And it’s imputed upon an aggregation of particles, of molecules, elementary particles, and so forth. There’s energy in there as well. It’s turned on, energy in there as well. And so yes, the notion ‘cell phone’, ‘smartphone’, ‘iPhone’, these are just names. They’re just conceptual constructs. And they are being imputed upon what’s really in my hand. And what’s really in my head is not by its own intrinsic nature, the cell phone, etc, etc.

[1:01:14] But from 19th century like 1870, for example, right when psychology began, they can say, well, that, that’s all true, but you’re missing the point. And that is, there is something that’s really here, in my hand, really here. Regardless of what you think, regardless of what you call all this fancy business of conceptual designated objects and bases of designation. There’s something that just kind of like, superficialises everything you’re saying here. And that is what’s really in my hand, objectively, inherently, absolutely real. Is there are material particles? And you can call them anything you like. But there are material, there are atoms here. And there’s energy in there. So there are fields generated. Electromagnetic fields. Let’s say it’s post-James Clark Maxwell, so what 1879 or so, so okay, we got a notion of fields. And that electromagnetic fields. They, they demonstrate wave properties, very well known by 1880, 1890. And that’s what’s really here. Now, you can call it anything you like. I don’t care what you call it. But there are molecules here. There are atoms here. And before long, maybe by … by the turn of the century or so they started to identify electrons. I think that was 1910 or so. JJ Thompson, I believe it was. So elementary particles are cropping up during the first decade, two decades of the century, 20th century. And that’s what’s really here, and they’re inherently existent. So all these, these larger configurations of trees? How is the tree different from a bush? When does a tree become a tree? When does it, when does a seed germinate into a sprout? This, I’m sorry, but you people who’s gotten caught up in your head so much, you’ve lost touch with reality. Because what’s really there from the seed germinating to the sprout, and so forth. I don’t care whether you call it a seed or a sprout, that’s just a manner of speaking. What’s really there’s molecules, atoms. And if I throw a seed at you, it’s gonna hit your forehead. And you can call it what you like. But I just threw an inherent existent seed at your forehead and it bounced off your inherently existent head. And that’s because there’s a certain density of the molecules in your head and a density of the kernel of the corn and bing! And so that’s how I disproved Madhyamika by throwing a kernel of corn against your head and watched it bounced off. Are we finished?

[1:03:47] So frankly, I’d say it would be very difficult to introduce Madhyamika into the 19th century. Because they say this is just … you’re doing what philosophers do. You get caught up in your heads with all this fancy jargon and so forth. But we physicists, we’re dealing with stuff, that’s real. Particles and fields. And you can call them anything you like, but they were there already, and we discovered them. Right. Then, lo and behold, you come back to Buddhist philosophy, and you say, wait a minute, wait a minute, I’m sure I’ve heard this before. Have I heard this before? That the configurations are merely conventional, they’re relative. And some people may call this a doorstop, and some people may call it a paperweight. And some people may call it a telephone and other people call it a camera, and other people call it you know whatever. It’s called Vaibhashika. It’s considered the most, frankly, the most primitive, the most fundamental, most simple, coarse, not refined of all the philosophical schools in Buddhism. And what Vaibhashika says, and this is the Abhidharma, this is Vasubandu, and so forth, is that what’s ultimately really here in my hand are the atoms that make up the entity. They’re really real, absolutely real. And the configurations, well, what configuration? When does a cell phone break? How much has to be there for it to be a cell phone? That’s nominal. Is a broken cell phone still a cell phone? If I take off the face, is it still a cell phone? That’s nominal. It’s just words. But what’s really absolutely, ultimately there are the molecules. And doesn’t matter what you call them, how you designate them. That’s all just airy fairy philosophical shenanigans. What’s really there are the particles and then you say, well, what about the mind? What about the mind? I have moods. I have thoughts, emotions, and so forth. And when I look at the basis of designation it’s never the same. Yep, you’re right. Yep, moods, thoughts, perceptions, image, and so forth. Yep, they’re conventional too. But there’s something that’s ultimately real mentally. And those are the individual moments of consciousness, those pulses of consciousness, primitive, raw, inherently existent, pulse, pulse, pulse, pulse. Before they get into configurations, I call, I’m feeling drowsy. I’m feeling upset. I’m feeling ambivalent. Those are configurations. Call them whatever you like. Those are configurations. They’re not ultimately real. They’re configurations.

[1:06:11] But we’re being an ontological reductionist here, as a Vaibhashika, which has always been looking, buddhists are always looking equally at, you know, right [ignore??]. There’s material phenomena and mental phenomenon. And there are things that are neither mental nor material, nor, nor neither mental nor physical. This has been old hat. So we have to get out of the rut in modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind to think you’re either a monist, everything boils down to matter, or you’re a dualist, as if those are the only two options like. Get an imagination. Severe symptom of imagination deficit disorder, which buddhism has never suffered from at all. They’ve always been multiple, always pluralistic and it’s open ended. So we don’t have to be a Descartesian and we don’t have to be, you know, devotees of Thomas Huxley either as a materialistic monist. So there it is. So Vaibhashika. Chew on that one. That what’s ultimately real are individual moments of consciousness, and individual atoms and all the configurations of them. Moods, perceptions, emotions, blah, blah, blah, and tables and chairs, and galaxies, and so forth. They’re conventional, but the raw nitty gritty, the ball bearings of the mind or the individual, [Tibetan shena??} individual moments, pulses, of cognizance, of awareness. And what out there physically individual atoms it’s Democritus all over again, except that Democritus was a materialist and buddhism never fell into that trap. So what do we do about that? That’s why I’m so glad not to be teaching this in the 19th century. Because it’ll be all of science against us. And it looks like we’re just, you know, doing weird stuff with our minds. So let’s not read this from the 19th century, because that physics is completely discredited, completely discredited. Nobody who knows quantum mechanics or relativity can with a straight face, say, yeah, yeah, space, time, matter, energy, absolutely real, existing by their own characteristics independently of context, like relative inertial frame of reference. Nobody can say that. Not if you’re at all informed. And if you study quantum mechanics, you can have a real hard time. It’s basically refuted. It’s gone. So let alone 20th century, let’s go to the 21st century.

[1:08:26] And, I’m now when I cite quantum cosmology, and citing Stephen Hawking, Andrei Linde, and so forth, John Wheeler, I want to very freely acknowledge number one, there’s just no question, these are absolutely world class physicists. Top drawer. And so that doesn’t mean they’re right. But it does mean this is not fluffy, new age physics. This is really mainstream physics. But does this mean that all physicists, all knowledgeable people working in the field of quantum mechanics, that they all agree with these statements? The top down approach to history? The observer participancy that John Wheeler spoke of? Do they all agree? Is this now consensual knowledge accepted by all knowledgeable physicists? No, no, they are intelligent, it’s cutting edge. Cutting edge in any branch of science means they don’t, they don’t all agree. That’s why it’s called cutting edge. The consensus is on the backside of the knife. But the cutting edge is where there’s still reasonable intelligent, discerning disagreement. I’ve cited them because I think they’re exactly on the right track. And I have deep, deep confidence in Madhyamika and Dzogchen. That’s what gives me my confidence in John Wheeler. Not vice versa. Right. But are there assertions within quantum physics, for example, that are not controversial that on the backside of the knife, whether it’s widespread consensus, and not because they’re all sheep baahing in the same way, but because the evidence is overwhelming, overwhelming to people who are very well informed, have … sufficient professional acumen, to be able to assess very compelling evidence. Is there anything like that? Well, of course, it is. There’s an enormous body of knowledge within quantum mechanics where they say, ‘well, this is non debatable.’ And here’s where we’re going to interpretation. Some people interpret this way, that way. Okay. So I’m going to now quote Anton Zeilinger, who people who know … the people … who know who’s who, within experimental physics, within the foundations of quantum mechanics. You know that there’s is probably just nobody better. He now occupies Erwin Schrodinger’s endowed chair at the University of Vienna. He’s been on the front page of Scientific American. He was the first one to achieve quantum teleportation, which is kind of a big deal. I hope he gets his Nobel. You have to wait 20 years usually, but sooner or later. I mean, Higgs had to wait, what 40 years, wasn’t it? About 40 years from the time that Higgs, as in Higgs boson, he formulated … Higgs. The boson should exist. 40 years later, when he’s an old man, they kind of you know you want a Nobel Prize? [Laughter].

[1:11:05] And you know, so Andrew Wiles, who you know, solved Fermat’s Last Theorem last year, they gave him the Abel prize, which is a Nobel Prize of mathematics. Gave it 20 years after he did it. It was 1995. And then they gave to him a few months ago, like 20 years. He got old during that time. And we say can it be speeded up a little bit. If it’s good, why not just give him a handshake and a prize, you know, within a year anyway. Okay, Anton Zeilinger is top drawer, brilliant, he’s also … I knew him, he’s a lovely man. He is sort of a mighty?? delightful scientist and human being. And so this was the, from the conference, the conversation that took place between Anton Zeilinger and a number of other outstanding physicists in 1997. And it was written up by my mentor, Arthur Zajonc who taught me physics at Amherst, in a book called The New Physics and Cosmology Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. And Anton Zeilinger was a very, very enthusiastic participant in these conversations. And I’ve quoted them verbatim. Okay. So you know, there’s no interpretation from me. And I would say, with a great deal of confidence, I can always be wrong, of course, that what I’m about to quote from him verbatim is widely accepted. And it’s in sharp contradiction, completely annihilates, the 19th century notion of individual little bitty granules of hardcore matter that exists objectively, non locally, that is locally and objectively real, prior to an independent of measurement. Here’s what he says. And then we’ll go right back to the text. So he says, and I quote, "you can have different concepts like particle and wave, which for us exclude each other, which is if something’s a particle it’s not a wave, you look at all the attributes of particles, look at the attributes of waves. It’s about as different as Planet Earth as we see it from the multiple photos from outer space and Mount Meru and the four continents. One entity cannot be Mount Meru and the four continents with all the concentric oceans and the planet earth that we’re all familiar with, and by and large, assumed to be inherently real. One entity can’t be both.” I heard one time a geshe trying to map the four continents onto Africa, and North America and so forth to try to. And I was translating for him. And it was actually the most embarrassing moment I’ve ever had as a translator. Because he’s trying to do this. And I was just … I, it was as much as I could do not to burst into hilarious laughter. It was so completely not possible. And yet, this is a fine geshe and I’m a student, and so forth. And he saw me going [makes facial gesture with sound] as his interpreter, which is not polite. And he kept on cranking away, you know, here’s the western continent, here’s Africa and so forth [makes sound again]. After this was going on for a while, he said, he turned to me and said, never mind. [Laughter]. He never brought it up again.

[1:14:09] So no, don’t try to …don’t try to find Mount Meru on the North Pole, or find, you know, the Western continent in Europe, because they have a lot of cows. It’s not a good match. Or go to North America. We all know, the more … that North Americans have no sense of ego, Americans, especially. [laughter] The map just doesn’t work at all. Any more than you can somehow massage a particle into having the attributes of a wave. Or you can kind of collapse a wave and squeeze it down and crunch it and break all the bones and make it into a little particle. Can’t do it. They’re completely different. It’s tomato and a giraffe. It’s Mount Meru and Planet Earth and it is not going to work. Right? That’s what he says. I said it more emphatically. Which for us excludes each other. One thing cannot objectively really be a particle and a wave and that is widely accepted, kind of for obvious reasons. We don’t know how to make sense of them together. Why does Bohr, this is Niels Bohr one of the great architects of quantum mechanics, why does Niels, why does Bohr say these two exclusive ideas are complementary? Why did he say that? And then he answers because the apparatus that you use to see the wave is different from the apparatus you use to see the path of the particle. And the two apparatuses are complementary. Because neither one is not like one’s right and one’s wrong. They’re both right, but not in the same way. Back to him, the important point which is new in modern physics, that’s 20th century physics. Goodbye 19th century physics. “The important point which is new in modern physics is that the observer, the experimentalist, decides by choosing the apparatus which of the two features, particle or wave, is reality, which exists. The observer has a very strong influence on nature, which goes beyond anything in classical physics.”

[1:16:19] There’s no observer in 19th century physics. We’re dealing with a make belief universe in which observers don’t exist. Consciousness doesn’t exist. Mind doesn’t exist. It’s all objective. It’s all exterior, and there is no interior. The Taboo of Subjectivity. And that’s the world by and large when neuroscientists are still living, and that’s why they so casually say, oh the mind is the brain, mind is just the function of the brain. If you were living in the 19th century, what else would you say 'cos there’s no interior. There’s no mind anywhere to be found, the scientific study of the mind hadn’t begun. And they felt they were pretty much complete. Lord Kelvin. We pretty much got a complete picture of the universe now, with no reference to the mind at all. The mind is so irrelevant, so insignificant, we could not talk about it. And we wouldn’t miss anything important. And check out your cosmology textbooks to this day. I challenge you from the Big Bang to the present. And show me the reference to consciousness and how it emerged. Good luck with that. Maybe things have changed in the last 30 years since I studied cosmology. I doubt it. So that statement, what do you say, Philippe? His statement, is that representative? That’s not controversial. I don’t know. Anybody who knows quantum mechanics, Oh, no, no, no, no that was … that is solid, it was a consensual knowledge. And I knew that I’ve referred to this before, but of course, I listened to his translating for him when he said it. Here’s the one that sometimes I forget about, we shouldn’t forget it. Because we think of light. Light. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? Is it an electromagnetic field? Or is it a photon? Right? What we forget is the next statement from again, direct quote from Anton Zeilinger. “If you could use the right apparatus, then you would see wave particle effects for everything.” It’s not just photons, it’s electrons and protons and neutrons, it’s atoms, it’s molecules. He said everything, that does mean actually everything.

[1:18:23] So let’s put this down as I’ve finished with him. That’s just mainstream. That’s, that’s consensual knowledge. And moreover the beauty of this is when he was telling this and the Dalai Lama was so deeply impressed and loving it. Then Anton’s response … he said, he’s a radical empiricist. I mean, he’s really an intense empiricist. And, and when we had that conversation, I decided earlier than Anton’s invited him, as I said earlier, I’d love to bring you to my lab in Innsbrook, back then he was in Innsbrook, and I’d like to show you how we’ve empirically come to this conclusion, we have empirical evidence, supporting everything I’ve said. This is not just some airy fairy kind of theoretical stuff. He’s a brilliant experimentalist. I can show you how this … these are unavoidable conclusions based upon the evidence. And then His Holiness said, Yes, I’m coming. And then he took it, I was there. These two great men. And I was there. Translating, as he went from one laboratory experiment to another. That was so … one of the highlights of my life.

[1:19:27] So, so, now let’s apply Madhyamika to this. And it’s really easy to do. You’ve got an apparatus that when used and you’re measuring light, it shows unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt that light is, is a field, it’s a wave. It shows wave interference patterns. I mean, he’s got absolutely telltale signs that it can’t cannot not be a wave interference patterns and all of that it’s just enough that you can’t find a conclusion like sound waves, waves and water and so forth. Wave properties of their wave interaction properties are there, cancellation and so forth, augmentation is there. It’s nailed, it’s certain. But of course, are you seeing the wave? When you use your apparatus? Are you seeing the wave? Light? Are you seeing light waves? No, you’re seeing appearances which are the basis of desig designation for imputing, wave. The appearance is the data you have. Is that a wave? Is that a lightwave? No way? Are you correctly designating on that basis, light is a wave? Yeah. Doesn’t get any better.

[1:20:40] It’s like looking at Mary Kay. So there she is. Yeah, that’s Mary Kay, we’re finished. We’re done. There’s nothing more to be said. Was the basis of designation Mary Kay? Never. But that is as good as it gets? Do I need to say something more? No, that’s quite sufficient. You’ve identified Mary Kay. She is that person there. Right. So the basis of the designation is not the same as the designated object. The basis of designation is empty, of lightwaves. And if it is, show me the lightwave that exists independently of the basis of designation. Try that one out. Here’s one wall, here’s another wall, you can bang your head as much as you like. You’re not going to find the lightwave within the basis of designation and you’re not going to find it outside of the basis of designation. And that’s because it’s not there objectively, independent of the conceptual designation. It’s not there, not on the appearances, not on the data, and not independently of the data. It’s not there. Light is empty, of being a wave. It’s designated as such, based upon the type of appearance that arises when you use one kind of apparatus. And then thank you for the affirmation. And then you have another apparatus and now you see unequivocally that light. It consists of photons, which are like little bullets, like little bb’s, little packets of something, and they hit and they make an impact just like little bullets. Little bullets of energy, little packet of energy. Right. And it’s perfectly clear. Is the, is the appearance, are you actually seeing little bundles of energy? Nobody’s ever seen. Nobody’s ever seen a photon. No. Can’t even imagine what they wouldn’t look like anything. They’re transparent. They don’t have color, they don’t have shape. So how it would it would even mean to see a photon. But you do have very compelling evidence. I mean, incontrovertible evidence, using this apparatus light is, does consist of, these little packets called photons, quanta of light. There’s no question, anybody who’s well informed, you just can’t throw that one away. It’s the same thing. The basis of designation is empty of photons. You don’t find photons in them, you don’t find photons independent of them. Photons exist as a conceptual designation using this apparatus.

[1:23:06] And light is a wave using this apparatus. And both of them are equally empty. So it’s a really good thing that we’re in the 21st century. Because it’s the physicists themselves that detonate the metaphysical realism of the 19th century, and they do it with empiricism. And in fact, it’s not so obvious. Because we don’t have that many contemplatives who are achieving shamatha and vipashyana, and then demonstrating what can you do if you have that realization? We don’t have or maybe we have a lot and they’re hidden yogis. Now for me to say, I don’t know. But you know, there’s a few yogis here and there who will conjure up with their minds a leopard or deer. One lama that I met from Oregon, northern Oregon, a Nyingma Lama. He really felt, he’s been teaching in the west for quite some years. He has a nice center up there with a lot of students. And he’s from Tibet, he really … he left Tibet only fairly recently. And he decided, he thought, you know, we, I’m going to paraphrase what he said, 'We buddhists look a little bit whimpy and we have all the big talk, but we don’t have many people who demonstrate siddhis.’ The physicists, they got … they can demonstrate their, their siddhis. Unbelievably, Mary Kay just sent me a video of a guy, an engineer, who’s creating avatars with virtual reality. He’s having a conversation with somebody who appears there. And he’s, his body is elsewhere. And the ground in which he is appearing is Mars, and having a conversation going back and forth. And of course, he’s completely empty of inherent nature. So they’re showing their siddhis and that’s very cool. It makes me really believe, whoa, they really must know something about light about holographic images. They actually they know a lot because they’re showing it. I mean, I have this little you know, my wish-fulfilling gem here. It gives me clairvoyance, clairaudience. Knowing the other’s minds and so forth, I can even tell you would like to know where my wife is. We’re pals, I can tell you where she is right down to 100 meters, by just going to friends, right? Friends. I have the app. I have to keep an eye on her. She’s a mischievous girl. [Laughter]. Where were you last night? Oh, okay, you were home, okay. Find friends, find your spouse. [Laughter]. So I know where my wife is, I can find out. I mean, that is to say, basis of designation of my wife is her cell phone. [Laughter].

[1:25:42] Maybe that certainty is no quite so certain.... So this this lama from Oregon was saying, you know, I want to find some, some, some, some Tibetan yogis that can actually show that, you know, when you have insight, when you have some good really powerful samadhi, and you have insight into emptiness, that actually you can show stuff. And not just give a really good Dharma talk. You can show stuff, just like with our understanding of holographic, holograms of light, of quantum mechanics, crucial for that. You can’t do this, quantum mechanics. Then you can show stuff, you know, and it’s, and it’s going to get more and more interesting as they come out with this virtual reality and so forth. They’re showing their siddhis. It’s amazing. It’s wonderful. So I think, I know I’ve told this a few times, and I’m rambling a bit, but it’s kind of cool. That he went back to Tibet looking for some Tibetan yogis who could display siddhis. And then he found one, he found one, was out there in the wild lands of Kham in Eastern Tibet. And he is known as being a wild yogi. Wild yogi. So he found him and he found him and either he saw it with his eyes, or he had it based on a very clear report, that someone came to this yogi and the yogi pulled out a gun and shot him three times. [Laughs]. I’m dead. [Laughter]. I’m laughing because after he’d done that, he brought him right back to life again. Unharmed and the guy hopped on his horse and ran away as fast as he could. [Laughter]. And this lama from Oregon said he really has siddhis, but I’m afraid of him. So I have to find another one who doesn’t shoot so quickly. [Laughs]

[1:27:38] And so he did. He did, he found another one. [Laughter]. And I’ve told his story many times. Lama Karma [?name], and he’s the one that burned holes in my skin five times, you know, with a little kind of a stone he put into his mouth, he heated it up to about 1000 or 2000 degrees and then burned holes in my skin as he did a number of other people. It wasn’t like he was just fooling around, like, let’s find somebody to burn like, like a cigarette. It’s a form of healing. And he’s healed many 1000s of people. They line up by the 1000s when he goes to Beijing, Shanghai. And it is his wrathful mode of healing that he received a boon, a siddhi from Padmasambhava. He demonstrated it. I saw that. He did it on me. And it was very intense. I mean, he’s melting your skin with something that’s about 2000 degrees, and you feel it. And that’s taking it right out of his mouth, and then putting the stone in your skin and he burns a hole in it. And you can see the smoke coming. It’s all … I have it all in video. I’ll see him again in June, a couple of weeks. He’s coming to Los Angeles. I think he’s gonna burn me again. [Laughter].

[1:28:46] Because he said I needed it four times. So I’ll come out like a leopard. Look at my spots. [Laughs]. So that’s just flat out impossible because I saw him do it. Any he invited, the lama from Oregon, invited scientists. Would you like to see? There’s no, there’s no wires, there’s no trickery here. You. You see. Is he actually putting a stone into his mouth, going into samadhi and then bringing it out and it’s 2000 degrees and burns holes in people … in people’s skin. You see it for yourself. No scientist was available. If you’ve achieved shamatha, then vipashyana, then you can do stuff. Not because you’ve drawn some really cool conclusions. But actually, it’s not the same as but it’s comparable to being lucid in a dream. In the dream, what can’t you do? Want to walk through a wall, walk through a wall, want to fly, fly, want to breathe underwater, breathe underwater, want to walk on water, walk on water. And you don’t need to use those nimittas, those signs from the form realm because they’re all empty. So there is some technology that goes with that.

[1:29:59] Okay, now let’s finally get back. Oh my goodness. It’s 6 o’clock. [Laughter]. Let’s read a little bit more otherwise I’ll just be so embarrassed. But he went through this so quickly, you know, they’re not real because they’re composites. Like y’all got that, right. But I figured, well, you know, we should read that from the 21st century and see poor Vaibhashika is wrong, classical physics is wrong. This makes the world a lot more interesting. Let’s read this a little bit more.

[1:30:32] So, on the other hand, okay, so the last thing he said was about the basis of designation, going all the way down to very subtle energy mind. Identifying the mind in order to determine the nature of existence of the mind, we did that. Then back to the root text just very briefly now I have to make a little bit of headway in the text. “On the other hand, in that state of equipoise,” or back to shamatha, keeps on coming back to that, “in that state of equipoise, the mind is an immaterial clear vacuity, unobscured, unimpeded, where various things arise and proliferate.” Well that’s clear from a phenomenological account, boy, is that true. It is an unceasing stream of clarity and awareness, which I’ve translated as luminosity and cognizance. Tomatoes, tomatoes. This is all very familiar. This is what you witness. This is how the mind appears. This is how awareness, the flow of consciousness, appears. That’s how it appears, immaterial, clear vacuity, space of the mind, empty, unobscured, all kinds of appearances arising and proliferating, dissolving back in the space. And the awareness of all of that is this continuous stream of luminosity and cognizance. But then we have the mind that engages with objects.

[1:31:54] Okay, now he just covered awareness, right? Just what we did in the last session. We rest in awareness first, but then we allow the mind to conceptually engage, identify, conceptually designate the mind that engages with objects uninterruptedly. The mind that does this, that conceptually designates, there’s an object over there, there’s Wendy over here, I am over here, and so forth. The mind that is not actively involved in conceptually designating reality, objectifying phenomena that mind, uninterruptedly appears as independent. Something is really over here. And the referent objects we apprehend are as stated by the guardian Shantideva. So called continua and collections, like rosaries, armies and alike, are deceptive, which is to say misleading, their way of appearance misleads you, is contrary to the way they actually exist. The referent objects, these are the objects of the mind, right? The mind that apprehends them, on the one hand, as something that appears, seems to be really over here, on the subjective side. And the referent objects, the object you’re attending to, that we apprehend, they are continua, they are collect collections, like rosaries, armies, and the like. They’re deceptive, they’re misleading.

[1:33:22] “That said, informed by scripture and reasoning, settle in meditative equipoise in the state where things do not exist the way they appear.” Boy, he’s very concise. We’re gonna pause there, and I’ll end with … because that’s really loaded, and I’m going to linger just a little bit more. This whole theme of continua when we look inwards, and I ask this difficult question, so don’t feel frustrated. Ahh, I don’t know what you’re talking. I don’t know how to do that. When you direct your awareness inwards, right upon the mind, and you ask, as this mind that appears to be independent, really in here? What’s the basis of designation? That’s hard enough? What’s harder than in my experience, is let alone the mind, just awareness, the flow of consciousness, right? That, isn’t that inherently real? Isn’t that prior to an independent of any conceptual designation? Which would make you a Chittamatra. Because all that really exists then is just a form of awareness and all the appearances to awareness. And that’s it. There’s nothing more. Elementary particles and all of that, these are just concoctions created by the conceptual mind imputed upon things that are immaterial. Appearances to the mind, is all just like a novel. But awareness. Isn’t that real? And awareness, of course, is a flow. It’s a continuum. It’s a stream like rosaries. No, I don’t have my rosary with me but no bead is a rosary, right. But get them all in the continuum. And can say ‘Oh, there’s my rosary.’ An army. Just having a bunch of people in uniform is not an army. Right. A bunch of people in uniform with weapons is not an army. It’s just a bunch of people with weapons and uniforms. That’s not an army. Right. No individual’s an army, having a whole bunch of these people in the same place is not an army. It’s just a bunch of people with armies with, with uniforms and weapons, which is that’s all it is not an army. But there are armies. They certainly exist. They’ve been existing a long time. What’s the basis of designation for army? The collection of guys in uniforms with weapons, and nowadays women as well. And so is the basis of designation, is it identical to or different from the designated object.

[1:35:41] So these are two things in space, rosary, no single bead, having a whole bunch of beads in a row. That’s not a rosary. Rosary is something designated upon that which is not a rosy basis of designation for the rosary is not found in any individual, individual bead or in the string or in a whole bunch of beads collectively. It’s not inherently a rosary, the designation upon something that is not a rosary. But what about when we take this to, to, to consciousness, because that’s what he’s saying. The mind or the flow of consciousness is a continuum. It’s a continuum. And here I’m going to linger just a bit more so I can feel at peace that I got you somewhere through the text, a little bit of progress. So he quoted Shantideva. Well, the classic commentary to Shantideva’s text, The Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life is called Panjika. And it’s never been translated into English, but it’s there in Sanskrit. And so when my wife and I were translating the text from Sanskrit and Tibetan, we’re the only people that translated from both languages. Then, here’s what the commentary says, right to that verse. And is very relevant to our practice and then we can go. I’ll let you out.

[1:36:56] Chapter 9101, verse 101, wisdom chapter of course, he said, and so the the commentator here, quite a definitive commentary from India, “the continuum of consciousness,” like a series, “… and the aggregation of constituents,” like an army and the like, an army, rosary, and so forth. So we have, these are both composites, right? The army is composed of many people, weapons, and so forth and so on. And a continuum is composed, it’s also a composite, the flow of consciousness is a composite, not spread out in space, but spread out in time. It’s continua, pulses, moments of consciousness, okay? So, the continuum consciousness like a series and so on, one hand consciousness, there’s the subjective side, and the aggregation of constituents, 'so like a rosary, like an army, like an elementary particle, which also has parts has constituent parts, like galaxies, and everything else in the physical universe, “all consists of composites.” So now we have one extended in time, the other one that’s extended in space and time “… are unreal. The continuum of consciousness like a series and the aggregation of constituents like an army and the like are unreal.” The Panjika in his commentary reads, and I quote, “A continuum, a continuum, or in Sanskrit [santan??], does not exist as some ultimate existent entity.” Continuum is not inherently real. “However, it has the form or appearance of a successive stream of moments that have arisen as, as the condition of causes and effects”, that is continuum arises in dependence upon cause and effect. Each pulse of cognition is also condition arises in dependence upon causes, produces its effect. “It has the form of a successive stream of moments that have arisen as the condition of causes and effects because of the non perceptibility of a distinct moment.” So how is it that you can see a continuum, the flow of your own consciousness, make it very personal. Let’s not intellectualize this, just to get lost in thought, let the words just bring us to the finger to the moon, right back to your own awareness, your awareness of awareness, your awareness of your own continuum of awareness. And the assertion here is that this flow is comprised of individual extremely brief moments of consciousness. And the fundamental units, the shortest pulse of consciousness is non perceptible, of a distinct moment of an individual moment. We’ll linger there a bit longer. If you don’t mind your dinner getting cold, won’t be too long. This is not technical, but useful. Otherwise, I think we’re not going to penetrate this.

[1:39:42] And that is in the classic Abhidharma, Abhidharmakosa in the Tibetan tradition. When they speak of the call of [duta kijima??], the shortest, the shortest moment of time, the pulse of time, pulse of, for example, consciousness, what’s the briefest? Well, they say it’s finite. It’s finite. Conceptually, you can say, well, what’s half of that? Was a 100th of that? What’s a millionth of that? Conceptually, of course, you can divide it as much as you like. But in terms of observation, phenomenologically, without just conceptually dicing and dicing, phenomenologically what’s the briefest pulse? And they say it’s one 1/65th of a finger snap, the duration of a finger snap. Okay. So I did the obvious thing. How long does a finger snap take? About a 10th of a second. If you’re a big, meaty person, you know, big, big, fat fingers, maybe it’s only a fifth of a second. If you’re like, Gache, it could be 1/20th of a second. [Spanish word, Arriba, arriba, means in his case: let’s go! get up!] Really fast, you know, wind people, they’re very fast. So their finger snaps could be a bit shorter. But if you are just ordinary like me, about a 10th of a second. Okay? So if the basic unit, most primitive, the shortest pulse of awareness of consciousness is 1/10th of a finger snap, finger snap is 1/65th, 65 per second, what did I say? 60, 60. What did I say? I got it right. I know that. Oh, yeah. 65 pulses in your finger snap, and finger snap is 1/10 of a second. This means one 650th. Roughly about two milliseconds, probably about two millisecond would be the basic unit. Okay.

[1:41:24] Well, I work with Paul Ekman, and so forth. I know a number of people who know a lot more than I do. And I actually participated in a very brief study. And from the last I heard, which is about 10 years old, what psychologists can ascertain, and they’ve got really good technology for this, that the briefest moment that you can actually ascertain something, and then the experiment that I was involved in, Paul would project an image on a screen something really primitive like a triangle, a square, projected on a screen, so you’re looking right at it, and they can do this with, you know, extreme precision, but something really primitive. Square, circle, triangle, something like that. Project it, maybe mask it, if you don’t mask it to them, then there’s a repercussion effect in the brain. And it gets sloppier, smudged, it gets smudged. But they would flash it there for like 1/10th of a second, 100 milliseconds. And you pretty much … if you’re paying attention, you probably get it. 200 milliseconds, you almost certainly, unless you’re really drowsy. 1/5th of a second, you’d get it. Get to 100 second, 100, 100th, 100 milliseconds, 1/10th of a second. Some people get it, some people don’t. Get down to 1/20th of a second. 50 milliseconds. That takes some training. Paul knows how to train people, when he’s doing facial recognition. And being able to identify extremely fleeting, very, very brief facial expressions that come and go really, really quickly. He can train people so that you can identify a square, triangle, a masked image. It comes on for 1/20th of a second and get it right. From the research that I was aware of 10 years ago, that’s pretty much the limit. It goes down to 20 milliseconds, 10 milliseconds, 5, 2 milliseconds. You could be looking right at it, variant with great interest and focus. And you won’t see it. It’s just too short. Have you heard anything different since then? You know, anything? Okay. So it’s right ballpark, that it might be a little bit tweaked by them. But Paul knows what he’s doing it and it was with a colleague of his at UC Berkeley.

[1:43:31] And so what that is called in buddhism, it’s called [Jajo Ki cheek MA??] in terms of consciousness. It’s a moment that enables an activity to be completed. And the activity is in question was, it was a square. Not saying it that’s, that’s the, you know, the exhaust after the event is taking place. But you actually recognized as you were gazing right at it 50 millisecond flash and masked and you ascertain it, that’s, you’ve just completed an action. You’re able to distinguish a square from a triangle to, from what, you didn’t see anything at all. And so the … a moment, the moment that is required for an action to be completed, that’s, that’s not set. It’s not, it’s not the same for everything. For example, if you’re experiencing ambivalence or uncertainty, shall I, shall I go learn Tibetan in this place? Or shall I just go into retreat? They both have merits. Shall I or shall I not? That’s called uncertainty. It’s not afflictive uncertainty necessarily, but it is uncertainly … haven’t made up my mind yet. This has certain advantages. This has advantages. This has limitation. To experience doubt. As you’re oscillating between two alternatives, that’s a lot more than 100 milliseconds, right? That could be a second. It could be two seconds, much longer. Square. 50 milliseconds. But the point he’s making here, Panjika is making, Panchen Rinpoche is making, Shantideva is making, is that when you impute stream of consciousness upon the units that make it up, the units themselves are invisible. The individual units, those two millisecond bursts. If they weren’t there, then you couldn’t have a compilation of them and an aggregation of them. Wondering, shall I or shall I not go to that, you know, Tibetan language school? If there are no moments, then there would just be nothing happening at all. Right? It’d be in like an army with no soldiers. Right? But it’d be like viewing an army from afar where you can’t see any of the individuals. You can’t make out one. But you can see, poah, there’s a large army coming over the hill 10 miles away, whoa, that’s a big army. Can’t see a single individual. But if there were no individuals, couldn’t see the army. You can’t see the individual spikes of consciousness, but spread out over time, you can designate them.

[1:46:12] So that’s what he’s getting at here. That the basis of designation once again is not identical to that which is, that what you are imputing upon it. The army is not the individuals and it’s not the collection of the individuals. The very notion of collection of individuals is itself a designated object. When does an army … when does a bunch of soldiers become a collection? How close do they … do they need to be holding hands? Do they need any … tight you know in a good, a good cluster so that you can bomb them easily? Or like good soldiers for, for who now how long? When they see the incoming artillery, they … what do they do? Spread out? Right? Is a spread out army still an army? What if they’ve divided into three parts? And they’re coming in like with a good mallet? You know, get them from the flank? Get them from the rear? Is this still an army? Now it’s over here. It’s over there. It’s over there. Yeah. When did it become an army? It’s some guys over there and some over here and over here. When’s it, when did it become an army when you conceptually designated it as an army? Right. And they’ve designated themselves as an army. That’s where they’re acting in coordination with each other. So it gets interesting, yeah. But the last stronghold in this strategy, the last stronghold, when you’re about to take the king, you know, if this were chess, is that which you know, most indubitably, awareness. That’s real. Whether I’m thinking or I’m not thinking, that’s real. Appearances are real. But even when there are no appearances in our sensory deprivation tank, the perfect one, no appearances, there’s something still real. Awareness. Until you check out, that’s a noun, what’s the basis of designation and the basis of designation is empty of the designated object and the chess games is over. [?Sanskrit?] Everything’s empty, equally empty.

[1:48:19] Final point on that one. Because this is, the air is very thin here to be sure. But you know, the whole issue of boundaries, demarcation, where does an electron start? Where does the army end? Is it on the skin of the guy who’s out on the flank? Is that where it ends? Really? What if he goes inside? Now where’s the … now where’s the boundary? Where exactly is the boundary? You know it until you think about it, until you examine it. If you have two soldiers here, is the boundary between them is kind of like an invisible membrane? You know, the guys on the outskirts, the space in between them? Is that where the boundary is where there’s nothing there at all? Well, boy that’s about as clearly imputed, imputed as you could ever imagine. Because there’s nothing there at all. But you just decided that’s where this army started. What about when two armies clash in the old days, you know, swords and bayonets and all of that. Now, where’s the army? When they’re all mixed with each other stabbing and jabbing and shooting and gouging and so forth? Now where’s the army? Where’s the boundary? Colours? Blue civil war, blue and gray. That’s where the army is. My army’s invaded your army. And they got wiped out. Now my … ohhh. Conceptual designation all the way through. Upside downside everywhere. Boundaries. The boundaries are conceptually imputed. The boundary of an electron, we look at gravitational field has … it does have a gravitational field. It has an electromagnetic field and it goes on in all directions. Where are you gonna bring out your cookie cutters and say, okay, this is where the electrons start. The body seems to have a skin, but of course you’re emanating energy, you’re emanating thermal energy, or electric, emanating electromagnetic energy from your body. So where does your body start? Just because where you see it? Don’t think so. Why? That’s just a conceptual designation. Right?

[1:50:19] So, when it comes to awareness, in our experience, almost invariably, awareness is always aware of something. Appearances, thoughts, images, colors, people, deer. Where’s the boundary? Where’s the boundary between awareness and not awareness? Because appearances are not awareness. Appearances are not aware of anything. Color … red is not aware of something. Right? Awareness and its objects. A stone of which you are aware is not aware of anything. You’re aware of it, it’s not aware of you. So whether it’s a thing like a stone, or whether it’s a color or a sound, the sound is not awareness, you’re aware of the sound. Where’s the boundary? Where’s the boundary between awareness? Went this far. And then it stopped? Where’s your boundary? Where’s the boundary between awareness and that of which you are aware? The appearance or the object? Either way, where’s the boundary? Because if you say awareness is really there, then you’re not saying you’re omniscient. Right? You’re not saying your awareness permeates the whole of the universe. That’s not your experience. It must have some boundaries. Where’s the boundary? If awareness is inherently existent, really existent, independent of conceptual designation, then it also has to have its own inherently existent boundary. The demarcation point between awareness and not awareness, awareness and appearances to awareness. Where’s the boundary? Oh, yeah. So now your dinner is all cold. [Laughter]. But not inherently so. If that’s any consolation, which I assume it’s not. So that’s, that was fun. Jolly good.

Transcribed by Shirley 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.