86 The Renaissance and The Revolution Can Begin in Galileo’s Homeland - Maha Mudita

86 - Spring 2016 - The Renaissance and The Revolution Can Begin in Galileo’s Homeland - Maha Mudita

Olaso.

[00:10] So today’s the day for Mudita, for Maha Mudita. And as I’m sure you’ll recall, the core theme here again in the form of an aspiration is: May we all never be parted from well being, sukha, free of suffering, in other words, flawless, tasteless, untinged well being, which, of course can only be viewed as eudaimonia. There’s no such thing as … I think there’s really no such thing as hedonic pleasure, that is completely free of any kind of anxiety, any unease, any restlessness. I don’t think it exists. I’m actually very sure it doesn’t exist. That’s what the Buddha was referring to, and, you know, suffering of change, it feels really good. And it’s still dukkha. So, there’s the theme, why couldn’t all sentient beings, why couldn’t we all never be parted? From a sense of genuine well being, that is free, entirely free of all the dimensions of suffering, right. Blatant suffering, suffering of change, pervasive existential suffering. So when this comes to mind, then what comes to my mind is: May all beings find a path, reach the path, reach the path, because only then really is there any chance of there never being parted from right? We can all have really good days. And some people may achieve shamatha and then lose it, some people may gain insight into emptiness, and then it fades out, have some genuine insight into rigpa. And then it becomes an object of memory, and it fades out. And this is true, these kinds of similar themes are true. In fact, in all the contemplative traditions of the world, this is not just a problem for Buddhist contemplatives. And so how to bring about this irreversible flow, entering the path.

[02:10] So it’s kind of a more modest level, but an enormously meaningful level, within this Buddhist context, within the Mayahana Buddhist context, it will be reaching that Mahayana path of accumulation with your shamatha and vipashyana, with vipashyana and bodhichitta and then fortifying it, sealing it, right, with insight into emptiness. And then it’s irreversible. A second change, remember, gold-like bodhicitta, that second stage of Mahayana path of accumulation. So, within Buddhist context. Then, although you know, there’ll be ups and downs, so get used to that by the way. [Laughter]. You can be well upon the path and … it was a good day, but the day before that not so good, you know, that is going to continue for a long time. That’s okay. But then you’re actually on the path, you’ll never … you’ll never be a non bodhisattva, you’ll never be off the path in any lifetime, you’d never be off, right. And then you saw if you wanted to review what are the characteristics of actually achieving the arya marga, the path of the aryas, those who have direct realization of nirvana, so you have the stream-enterers in the Theravada or the shravakayana. We have the arya bodhisattvas within the context of the Mahayana. We have the achievement of the yoga of freedom of not … freedom of conceptual elaboration on the Mahamudra path. And then we have the fully matured Vidyadhara on the Dzogchen path. If you get up to there and then you basically only have good days from then on. You know, there aren’t any bad days. It is so sublime and so profound. And then you’re just in a current. So you’re going swiftly, swiftly flowing towards the culmination of the path. Now, that’s all within the Buddhist context. But Buddhism has never been a … at least very rarely, extremely rarely has it been a militant, evangelical kind of tradition of going out and saying: Do you believe in the Four Noble Truths? No, then off with your head? You know, it’s kind of like, what? You’re going to take my head for that? What part do we need to believe in? It can be totally weird, you know.

[04:26] And so, so what about everybody else? Are we only … are we in fact praying, may everybody become Buddhist? And so we start the good evangelical movement here. Have you found the one true way? You know, I’ve heard that so many times. I feel like you know, projectile vomiting. Because you get it from science. You get it from Christianity. You get it from … keep on going. And you’ll find Buddhists of course who think they have the only way. Of course you do. It’s human, human stuff it’s called … ehm, grasping to one’s own view as supreme. And it’s one of the fundamental types of delusion. [Laughs]. So if you’re a Buddhist doing that, you kind of have to be embarrassed, you know, because you’re embracing a root suffering, a root cause of suffering, as the path to helping others achieve liberation. So it’s kind of silly. But what about the relevance of path for those who are not drawn to, do not have faith, confidence, trust in the Buddhist path? And the many not only fine people that but extraordinary people who are not falling the Buddhist path. There always have been, right. That’s so obvious, Hardly needs to be stated. But I come back to a book that I haven’t read for a long time, but I’m kind of thinking I’d like to visit again, because it made such a deep impression, impression on me about 45 years ago, when I was in Germany, reading voraciously, studying Tibetan a little bit and ready to launch head off to India. Spend 10 years there and become enlightened, that was … that was my plan. [Laughter].

[06:07] There is this Christian aphorism, I told it many times, if you want to, if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans. So the Buddha’s and, you know, whatever, the divine was watching me in Germany, they’d be getting a good chuckle out of … 10 years, ohh, long time, you made a big commitment, 10 years, wooo!. [Laughter]. But I read this book towards the closing months of my nine months of relative solitude in a little flat, right across from the central Cathedral in Göttingen, and Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy. And it really made a deep impression. And as I recall, he wasn’t saying something that is kind of sappy, like the little boy in the Life of Pi, that, you know, like, it’s all one, you know, that’s very cute, and it’s also not militant. So if you’re gonna err on the side of being, you know, harsh, sectarian, or kind of goofy, it’s all one, then go with the other one. Yeah, joined with the other one. It’s much nicer. It’s kind of stupid. But isn’t that nice, you know, the other ones are … dangerous. Aldous Huxley was no fool. He was not a simpleton. And my sense of it is, it’s a 45 year old memory, so forgive me if I’m wrong. But he, having done some scoping out of the multiple contemplative traditions of the world, drew the conclusion that they were converging in upon a common reality. And if my memory is correct, then my enthusiasm for that, my intuitive affirmation of that which I felt 45 years ago, continues to this day. That the great contemplative traditions of the world, their insights are converging in upon the most important dimension of reality that human beings can possibly know. Or that I would say that can be known in general.

[07:57] And if that’s the case, so that’s my … that’s been my working hypothesis ever since. And if that’s the case, then it immediately raises another question. Among these multiple paths, which are very different, and their starting points are very, very different. Which is your path? And then, which is your path? Because it tried to say: Well, I’m going to be 5% for Sufi and 50% Advaita Vedanta and 10% Dzogchen, but I liked Theravada so I’m going to give it 7% you know. It’s, it’s, again, kind of silly. It’s silly. I think His Holiness said it’s like putting the head of a yak on the body of the sheep. [Laughter]. It just doesn’t fit. Trying to just kind of be everything. Everything to everyone. To be … to be respectful and appreciative, and to be vividly aware of the profound insights of multiple traditions, that in many respects may be contrary to one’s own. Oh that’s just being smart. [Laughs]. Really. But to think they are all saying the same thing, of course they’re clearly not. But the notion that they’re all converging in upon a common truth, a common reality, the transcendent, the divine, the ultimate nature of reality, is something that I have been, have been my working hypothesis for a very long time. And it was quite intuitive to … sort of obvious to me when I picked up my first book on Tibetan Buddhism, that Dzogchen was the one that rang the bell. And then my revered Lamas then guided me in the Gelugpa for 20 years. And a bit of Sakya, a bit of Theravada. And then I was able to complement that with Dzogchen for the last 26 years. Moving on, though, because when we don’t want to veer too far away from this Mudita, which is the theme for this morning, what about all the others because many people are simply not drawn to Buddhadharma in any of its multiple faces, Theravada, Zen, and so on and so on. And, but this is why I mentioned Aldous Huxley’s book, and just by the way, he was not a, he was not really an academic scholar of religion.

[10:02] I think, a very creative mind. Ahh, I read a number of works by him, but, but two of the most outstanding by general consensus, two of the most outstanding comparative … scholars of comparative religion, let’s say for the latter half of the 20th century, two, two really, really stand out. And one is Houston Smith, really outstanding. And he taught for years at MIT. And the other one, and I knew him and we were quite good friends. He’s still alive, but very old, so I’ve not seen him for some years now. He lives now in Berkeley or thereabout. And the other one is Ninian Smart, and he passed away some years ago. But he taught in the department of Religious Studies at the University, University of California, Santa Barbara, where I taught, and he was there when I was teaching, when I was on the faculty there. And he was a Scot, and an outstanding scholar. I mention these two, just very briefly, because these two outstanding scholars of comparative religion, I mean, they’re really renowned. We don’t have anybody like that anymore. Certainly to me. They both were very sympathetic to or simply explicitly embraced, endorsed this idea of The Perennial Philosophy of Aldous Huxley. And they more than anybody, I know, were really well versed in the tremendous diversity, the range, the differences, the common grounds, within Islam, and Daoism, and Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth. They were really consummate scholars, and they wrote extensively. So it’s not a silly idea. Not just a new age idea that was popular in the 60's. And so, in this regard, I did a bit of poking about, pretty kind of superficial, frankly, but I think not entirely trivial. In my book, Mind in the Balance, where I am pretty familiar with the path, as we see from the Pali Canon, and how it segues into the Mahayana, Mahayana, including the teachings on emptiness, how they segues into Dzogchen, and it’s just one smooth, continuous flow to rainbow body. I’m fairly familiar with that.

[12:08] But then, as I was poking around, looking to see if I could see anything that had any kind of a scent, or something similar to the Dzogchen. Then I found it very, very emphatically in the Christian tradition, the neoplatonic tradition of Christianity, culminating perhaps in, well, one of the great ones was Nicolas of Cusa in the 15th century, brilliant man, incredible. Polymath. Something like Leonardo da Vinci. Man was brilliant in so many different ways. And his writings, which I was introduced to when I was on the faculty in Santa Barbara, really struck me wow, this looks like Dzogchen, couched in Christianity, it wasn’t like he has been, being a heretic. In fact, he was a cardinal and he was a personal emissary of the Pope. So I think he was pretty legitimate. He was not up for ex-communication. Or, you know, being condemned as a heretic and so forth. He was about as close to the Vatican as you would get. And so his writings, and then kind of an obvious one, it’s a big ripe fruit, fruit ready to drop into your hand is that Advaita Vedanta, the, the Advaita Vedanta. Vedanta means Veda anta, the culmination of the Vedas, the final flowering, the climax, the, you know, the summit of the Vedas, and I think it’s true. And Advaita means non dual. And I’ve known this for years. I see so many parallels, they can only leap out at you. And then I did a bit of poking around. There’s a very fine Matt, what is his last name? Matt? tip of the tongue. He’s done outstanding scholar in the Kabbalah. I’ll get it later, but reading in the Kabbalah, and his translating the Zohar, I think it is an enormous … [audience member says Daniel]. Annette? [audienc member repeats]. That doesn’t quite ring a bell. Not quite. I’ll get it. Not Daniel’s. No, I would not, I’ll get it later, but he’s really like first rate scholar, but reading in the Kabbalah, he says, oh when it goes to the, the ayin, A, Y, I, N. I am like, Whoa, that looks a lot like Dzogchen teachings.

[14:10] And then if one looks further, my strong premonition is you’re going to find something very similar in the Sufi, in the Daoism, and so forth. So it really struck me that I’m trying to tease that name out of my mind, out of … fishing rod, poking, trying to point to my substrate consciousness. Come on, come on. I’ll get it. If this is the case, if it’s true, that it’s not just a superficial resemblance, but in fact, they are tapping into this ultimate ground. Then, in this Mudita, the aspiration would be: May people following all the great faiths, all the great traditions, wisdom traditions, not just faiths, the wisdom traditions of the world, these religious … religions, may each of them, each one of them find their path by way of their own tradition. Not that we convert them over to Buddhism, we convert them over to some other tract. In fact, like the Dalai Lama generally advised against that, he said I don’t really want to encourage you to convert to Buddhism, you know. Rather, if you have a tradition, then go deeper into that tradition. And if you have to, well, then okay, convert to Buddhism, if there’s nothing else you can do, and that’s that was my case, I had no choice. And so, so when we bring forth this Mudita, this benevolent, open minded but you know, discerning, discerningly intelligent Mudita, then the aspiration … may aspiration may be, may people of all the great contemplative traditions, religious traditions of the world, may they find the path to genuine well being, never be parted from that, which is totally devoid of suffering. And may they find the path within their own tradition where they’re at home and come to that culmination. That’s good.

[15:56] Then there’s no coercion, there’s no manipulation, no kind of agenda of trying to get you over to my side. That’s for religion. But then it was, as I was doing this research for Mind in the Balance, I continued my studies of physics, and finding … and you’ve seen it from Thomas Hertog, from Paul Davies, Anton Zeilinger, John Wheeler, Andrei Linde, seems the state … statements coming out of the, let’s say, quantum quantum physics. You know, [ante, Latin word, meaning “before”] the physics [ante], let’s call it physics [ante], at least for the time being, perhaps it’s my, it’s my intuition. Thus far, the combination of physics, physics [ante], the cultivation of combination of physics, with coming to quantum cosmology, and you read the statements and … this looks like Dzogchen, but not from a religious perspective at all. It’s pure science. In fact, it’s coming from the materialistic basis. 19th century physicists were pretty much materialists. It came out of that. The earlier ones weren’t. Galileo. Forget it. They’re all Christians. 19th century, more, more secular, more secular. 20th century. More secular. 20th century, very secular. Quantum cosmology is coming out of the 20th century, that’s the most materialistic century we’ve ever had.

[17:11] And there it is, and it’s so profoundly non materialistic. You know, whether suggesting the role of the observer is indispensable for the universe to be here and to evolve. Boy, is that not materialistic. They shattered it. They torpedo-ed it. They nuked materialism, and by the people who know the most about matter. Who knows more about matter than people who are, you know, really have the most proficient knowledge of quantum mechanics, because right down to the very nature of the basic constituents of the physical world. Whereas with among the, among the sciences, those scientists who have the least understanding of matter, because they just don’t need to have a profound, are neuroscientists and psychologists, and they tend to be most, the most materialistic. That’s a wonderful irony. Those with the least understanding have the greatest faith in 19th century physics, 19th century mechanistic materialism. So we really as, as … what’s his name, Donald Hoffman, is pleading to his fellow cognitive scientists, catch up, you know, don’t stay behind in the late 19th century. I mean, they’re all dead, you know. Come into the 21st century and look at the physics that is relevant now. Which has completely repudiated the notion of matter that you people still have. Wake up for heaven’s sakes. It’s the 21st century, you missed a whole century of physics. So if you’re gonna be a materialist, at least be smart about it. You know, don’t, don’t rely on physics, that’s been dead for 100 years. And so out of physics out of this scientific stream, if physicists, the cutting edge physicists going into this field, who are looking at the role of the observer in nature, if they would learn how to take these insights, and be able to put them, put them to the test by deeply investigating what is the nature of the observer? Because they’re saying the observer participant is essential for reality, then wouldn’t you want to know about what’s the nature of the observer participant and not just know more about atoms and space, time, matter, energy.

[19:11] And so if they could have a path, then science itself could become a path, right out of science without having to be Buddhist or Christian or theistic or non theistic, you could just have science as your path if you introduced the elements such as shamatha, vipashyana in a way that was absolutely, absolutely compatible with … well, frankly, I think it already is. What part of shamatha, you know, is unscientific? And the types of vipashyana we’ve been looking at, what part just requires some silly leap of faith, you know, and trashing your intellect and so forth? I don’t see anything at all. Whether you’re following Tsongkhapa or whether you’re following Karme Chagme, whether you’re following Dudjom Lingpa, this is, but this is brilliant. And so physics, science itself could become a path to awakening. If they would embrace theories which they don’t have … no, methods which they don’t have, but which are completely compatible with the scientific worldview, and more profoundly consonant with the implications of quantum cosmology than anything else around. So may all the scientists never be parted from genuine happiness free of suffering. And following their own path, they don’t need to hop out of the scientific boat and hop into a Buddhist boat, stay in a scientific boat, but enrich it. We need … you … need an engine, we’ll give you an engine of shamatha and vipashyana. So you can start sailing across the ocean of samsara and not just exploring it. Right. And then we have philosophy, you know. Dear philosophy. Science started out as philosophy until 19th century. People who are doing what we call practising science, they call practising natural philosophy. To the 19th century, then the term about mid 19th century, the term science was invented, it caught on, and then suddenly, something, you could be very proud to be Thomas Huxley, and so forth, introducing now, we’re better than everybody else. We know more than any of those silly religious people.

[21:12] But William James, my beloved William James, he has some very good insight here. It’s very short, just one quote for this morning. All about Mudita by the way. And he writes: “The extraordinary progress of science since 1600,” that’s Galileo, and that, in quotes, “is due to a rather sudden finding of the way in which a certain order of questions ought to be attacked: questions admitting of mathematical treatment.” In other words, what Galileo did was he found a path, he found a path for the kinds of questions they were pursuing. Copernicus came up with a brilliant theory and had no way of testing it. You know, the heliocentric, he came up with that. Mathematically formulated it. But then they just debated back and forth like medieval scholastics, which is what they were. But there were no re … resolution in sight. They could be debating even now, if suddenly, somebody hadn’t come along, and found a way to put Copernicus theory to the test of experience, and with the reinforcement of mathematics, and lo and behold, that man was born about 45 minutes from here. Galileo, in Pisa, That’s where he was educated. And that’s where he had his first academic position. The scientific … scientific revolution started just just across the way, right. And so that’s what Galileo did. And then Kepler did and then, you know, over time, then Newton did and [Lavoisier did and Darwin did. On it goes. Right into the present day. It was a rather sudden finding of the way and that rather sudden finding wasn’t Copernicus. Because they just debated and debated. Some people like the heliocentric better. Some people like the geocentric better. But Galileo, find a way, a certain order of questions, the way in which a certain order of questions ought to be attacked. Ever heard that one before.

[23:05] And that is, gosh, my mind is so, so agitated, what can I do? Well, hmmm, why don’t you relax first. And then you might go for stability. And then you might go for clarity. Yeah, but I’m still suffering, I’m still suffering, but then you might go for vipashyana. Oowhoa. You know, it’s a certain order of addressing issues to be, if you like, the military metaphor. I do. Attacked. My mind is a swarming with mental afflictions. But it’s not enough to go ‘boohoo I don’t like it. Please stop.’ You need a sequence. Okay. How’s your strategy? Yes, they are. They’re besieging them. They’re marauders, they’re raping and pillaging. They’re bringing, wreaking havoc in your mind, your life, your relationships, and so forth. And they are doing for the whole human population. But it’s not enough to say, ‘Boy, we’ve got a problem here.’ It’s what’s your strategy, what’s the sequence of the order, the order, the certain order of questions that ought to be attacked. And so but then he concludes with this statement, which I remember for a long time. “The problems of philosophy” So he’s defining a discipline here. And a discipline in which he made major contributions, philosophy. Radical empiricism and pragmatism. He made major contributions to both of these kinds of schools or avenues of philosophy. So he was no outsider. “The problems of philosophy are those that have not yet been solved by science. Indeed the domain of philosophy may be partially defined by that criterion.” In other words, when you have a problem and you don’t have a solution for it, like they had a problem back in the 16th century, does the earth go around the Sun, or the sun go around the Earth? Well, some people say this and some people say that. It’s philosophy. It’s philosophy. Then they debate back and forth, back and forth. And it’s largely a matter of personal predilection. And for the moment what you attend to is reality, people attend to different things. And then they take different philosophical positions. And then they go by uh-huh, uh-uh, uh-huh, uh-uh.

[25:14] That’s the history of philosophy in a nutshell, if you’d like to know that. I just kind of wrapped it up from, you know, the uh-huh, uh-uh, from Plato and Aristotle, to the present. I think it was Bertrand Russell that said, ‘all of Western philosophy consists of footnotes to Aristotle and Plato’. Introspectionists like me, go for Plato, extraspectionists think Aristotle’s great. And then uh-huh, uh-uh, uh-huh,uh-uh. Like two coo-ing pigeons. [Makes pigeon sound]. [Laughter]. So what he’s saying about, is you have like, you can have a philosophy of x, until we actually know it, until you actually gain insight, until you have knowledge. Until you have knowledge of x, you have philosophy of x. That’s what he’s saying. And natural, that is a branch of philosophy which is called natural philosophy until they started, unlike all other branches of philosophy, coming up with a ever growing body of consensual knowledge that they tested with empirical means that gave rise to results that were evident to all the educated, knowledgeable people. And now we have, we don’t have a science of animal, we don’t have a philosophy of animals. We don’t have a philosophy of cells, we don’t have a philosophy of atoms. We don’t have a philosophy of galaxies. We don’t have a philosophy of brain. Right? Because we know about that stuff. We, the scientific community, knows about that stuff. They used to have a philosophy of the Earth and the Sun, which goes around which. That was before Galileo, and then Galileo, finding the phases of Venus, terminated the philosophy of the heavens. Because he found empirical means, he found strategy. This is one of Galileo’s brilliance, it’s … he didn’t tackle questions that were over his pay grade that were beyond his scope. He tackles simple questions.

[27:10] When, if you draw, drop a big heavy thing and a light thing off the Tower of Pisa, does the heavy thing, as we would imagine, hit much faster than the little light thing which Aristotle said yes. And all you needed was a heavy thing and a small thing and a tower of Pisa. And you can refute Aristotle, that’s how difficult that was. For like 2000 years, they thought the heavy thing would come down faster. Nobody thought to go, you know, find a leaning tower, you could probably do without a leaning tower. But the tower is so inviting. I’ve been up on it. And it’s like, whoa, it’s really leaning. And that refuted 2000 years of unquestioned belief. And then he didn’t have to have very sophisticated technology. Here’s a simple question: roll two balls down a ramp or roll a ball down a ramp, just one ball. Does it accelerate or go at a constant velocity? Simple question. It was so simple that you can answer it and come up with a definite definitive conclusion that nobody’s really doubted ever since. But Aristotle said they go at the same speed. They don’t accelerate. All he needed was a good clock and a ball. Chronometer, you know? So that was his brilliance. He tackled tackable problems, he found a path. That’s what Galileo did. He found a path you can build on that. To all of the celestial bodies, do they all go around the Earth? Well, no, it took him one week to see that the moons of Jupiter go around Jupiter, done. There’s no philosophy of that. There’s no philosophy of Jupiter. So would you like me to mention a philosophy? Because now we know when we say philosophy it’s a philosophy we don’t know about. It’s a philosophy of … no consensual knowledge, this philosophy of religion, I’ve studied it, all kinds of different views.

[28:58] There’s a philosophy of many things. There’s the philosophy of, philosophy of science. Oh I know, there’s the philosophy of mind. It’s still alive and well, and people are making a living at it. Which means they still don’t know what they’re talking about. Because if they did, there’d be no philosophy of mind. It will only be psychology, cognitive science. If you want an indication of this, look in the New York Times today. Last couple of days, there’s an article right there by a philosopher named Strawson. That says, you know, consciousness, mind, it’s, it’s matter. We just haven’t figured out, we haven’t explored matter deeply enough. Matter’s mysterious. We’ve had 400 years but we need a bit more time. And then we’ll figure out how it is that matter can become conscious or is conscious. Like I call this materialism of the gaps. That they’ve had 400 years for heaven’s sakes. If you still haven’t figured out how matter could possibly become conscious from its own material constituents, what do you want, another millennium? In the meantime, we’re just supposed to have faith because that’s exactly what he’s saying, Oh ye of little faith, if you’re giving up on materialism, no, mysterious are the ways of matter. We just need to understand it more deeply. And then you will, then we will prove our beliefs to be true. That in fact, yes, consciousness emerges from matter. We just don’t know enough about matter yet. I find that hilarious. And of course, in the New York Times, and the other one across the, across the way, my, my dear Miguel Graziano, or Michael Graziano saying, oh, no problem without consciousness. It doesn’t exist at all. It doesn’t exist at all. I like that very much. It solves the problem, you just don’t think about it anymore. [Alan speaks with an Italian accent, then laughter]

[30:51] I mean, these people are desperate. They’re desperate. They’ll do anything to get rid of the problem of consciousness. Oh, ye of little faith, just give us more time. Oh, you little faith, just never mind. You’re not conscious. You don’t have a mind and oh, there are no appearances either. I think we’ve solved the problem. Because we’ve all buried our head in the sands of scientific materialism. There’s another article right now in the … the Atlantic Monthly by one more scientist saying there’s no such thing as free will. Free will doesn’t exist. But it’d be good if you believed in it anyway. Gosh, they can’t even live by their own convictions, can’t even live by their own convictions. They want to tell us what’s really going on as if they knew. But they say no, it’s better for you if you believe in reincarnation, if you believe in, yeah, reincarnation. If you believe in free will, it’d be much better for you if you do, because you won’t like feeling your automa … automaton. But of course you are. Geezee. Such intellectual hypocrisy staggers the imagination that even they are not willing to live by what they say they believe. Okay, may they all be free, may they all find genuine happiness, never be parted from genuine happiness. Listen to the people in quantum cosmology, follow the breadcrumbs. And you’ll find that consciousness is more than nothing, or more than an emergent property of matter. So, one more point.

[32:21] Two hours ago, I didn’t have any idea what I’d talk about this morning. And then bla bla, bla, bla, bla. And my mind just chattered away. So it chatters some more. Path, right? So crucial. If this, if this aspiration, may we all never be parted from … that means you’ve got a path, a path, right? On the other hand, some of us are getting a bit old. Like Elizabeth and me. We’re getting kind of old. Time is running out. Mary Kaye get a little bit old. [Laughter]. David doesn’t look like any whippersnapper to me, doesn’t even have much hair. That’s a definite sign, getting old. So we hear about path, path, path and the older we get kind of like, it seems like to be receding over there, over the event horizon. [Laughs]. I wish I could have lasted longer. So then it seems like, okay, all of this, all of this drum roll about path. And yet we’re getting old, we don’t even, we don’t even have one property. You know, where we can just have nurtured people, take care of people, pay for people that are needed, just to hunker down, and, you know, revolutionize the world. But then, as we’ll see, in the coming couple of days, from Karme Chagme, this extraordinary Dzogchen master, Mahamudra master, scholar, adept. He ends on the note which he ends, he ended, also Spacious Path to Freedom of pure land, pure land. Sukhavati. And if you want to read ahead, you’ll see you don’t have to be an arya bodhisattva, you don’t have to achieve shamatha or a realization of emptiness. You don’t have to have impeccable bodhichitta and so forth, and so on. It’s really a matter of some basic things of keeping pure ethics, arousing bodhichitta, dedicating merit, dedicate and devoting yourself to the path. And then above all, you know, be a genuine Dharma practitioner. Don’t treat, treat this as something cheap. Devote yourself to dharma. But whether or not you achieve this, that or the other thing, on stages of the path or stages leading to the path, just make prayers to Amitabha. Make prayers, dedicate … prayers of dedication that all of your virtue may lead to your own, upon your death, taking birth in the pure land of Sukhavati, the very …yeah, Sukhavati.

[34:48] The joyful, Dewachen. And then he describes once you’re there, well, you’re set, you’re set. And that is from there on you just you just have this … you’ve found like the perfect retreat center in the whole universe. And it’s created by the mind of Amitabha. And he blessed it with his prayers, that anyone who directed their face to him and their prayers to him, by his power, the … by the power of his blessings when they take birth in this Sukhavati, and then really you’ve got no more worries. It’s not a deva realm. It’s not just a pleasure palace. In fact, it’s just all about Dharma, all about dharma. And from there if you wish to, you can go to other, other purelands, you can go to Shambala, for example, or different, different other purelands. Shambala is next to a human realm. It’s an anomaly, but very much a pureland as well. But in any case, you’re set, you’re set for eternity, take birth in a pureland. So that’s come as an enormous relief. And he did save that until the end. He didn’t put that in the first chapter. First chapter he said, roll up your sleeves. [?? to a for … from preliminary] practices shamatha or bust, vipashyana, don’t be a deluded fool, you know, carry on, carry on and then at the very end just before you’re about to die, he says, well, Sukhavati. And so, so then we can pray, may all beings be born in Sukhavati, because then, that will fulfill their dream, fulfill that aspiration. Be born in a pure realm. Then there’s no reason for you ever to be parted from genuine happiness. Free totally free of sorrow. But if that’s the case, then what do we need to be here for? In retreat? And having ups and downs and upheavals and bad days and headaches and nausea and energy surges and bliss and misery? And what do you need to do this? Why couldn’t you just stay home and just pray to be born in Sukhavati. Why not that?

[36:57[ And the answer is, you could. Nobody needs to be here. Now, it’s not just, you know, a free lunch. It is by the power of the blessing, the grace of Buddha Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light. And it does call as, as Karme Chagme says in one of his subsidiary text, okay, what, but what do you need to do from your side, and he lays it out in great detail. And it really is, lead an ethical life, bodhichitta, devote yourself to the cultivation of the perfections. Do dedicate your prayers to birth in Sukhavati. So it really is calling up and people have an extraordinary devotion to dharma. And then it’s the grace note there, literally the grace note is and now, dedicate the merit to be born in Sukhavati. But then why trouble ourselves with all the effort of creating a contemplative observatory and so forth, if we can all just be really good Dharma practitioners, you know, and I mean, really good, I mean, genuine, no lip service, no, nothing trivial about this, but very dedicated, dedicate merit and be born in Sukhavati. And I have an answer for that. For one’s own sake, we have [Tibetan ??] agenda, [spa after, but after??], one’s own well being and the well being of others. For one’s own well being, that’s enough. Live a virtuous life, an ethical life, a benevolent life, a life that is all oriented around bodhichitta. Dedicate merit. All your aspirations can be filled that way. I have that faith. I have that faith. I mean, these are, you know, this is Karme Chagme, this is the Buddha himself in the Mahayana sutras. This is His Holiness Dalai Lama, this is Tsongkhapa. This is, you know, these are the greatest of the greats, who are affirming this, within the whole Mahayana tradition. So if I didn’t have faith in that, then I wouldn’t have faith in Mahayana, you know. Whatever.

[38:59] So for oneself, that’s quite sufficient actually, unless one, like myself, which is to make this life as meaningful as possible. In which case, just leading, leading a generally virtuous life, and being a good person, and so forth, is not the greatest possible meaning. So in that regard for myself, now, I want to do what I’m doing. I wouldn’t take back anything for the last 45 years, because this is the most meaningful path that I can find. So no regrets, no matter what happens in the future. I want this life to be as much as meaningful as possible. And therefore it’s not just counting on my life insurance program of rebirth in Sukhavati. But for many people, it is sufficient and I have absolutely no criticism there at all, but then there’s [partvata??], the well being of others, the well being of others. So let’s imagine that, I mean there’s whole schools, but there’s one school of Buddhism I met somebody in that school, Pureland School of Chinese Buddhism. I knew him when I was in Switzerland, he was European. But that was his path. And he and he said from our tradition, he said, we don’t meditate because meditating would be kind of a suggestion or implying that we don’t really trust Amitabha. We still feel we have to earn our way. So therefore we don’t meditate. We just live ethical lives, benevolent life, and then we just do devotions, and prayers, and devotions and prayers. So it was basically, in his view, it was Christianity without the Creator. That’s what he said, because I can’t handle the notion of creator, God makes no sense to me at all. But I like the notion of heaven. I like and so I just want Christianity without God. Take out God, put in Amitabha. And I’m happy because … but Amitabha is not the creator of the universe. So no meditation for him. Because it’s just not needed. And in fact, suggests you don’t really trust in the grace of the blessings of Amitabha.

[40:58] So imagine that we, Buddhists. then kind of slipped over to that side of it. Well, after all, we’re taken care of, you know, so the world is going down. It’s horribly generally degenerate, and all that. But you know, I have faith. And so I can be born in Sukhavati, like that. But then all of the power of the Four Noble Truths, the three principles of the path, shamatha and vipashyana, the three higher trainings, the six perfections, the Madhyamaka, the Mahamudra, the Dzogchen, the six, six dharmas of Naropa. And the list goes on and on and on. Just all put into the closet, into deep storage. See, we don’t really need that. All we need is Amitabha. All we need is Sukhavati. So all this tremendous, inconceivable wealth of knowledge, of wisdom, and so forth. We don’t need that. We’re taken care of, we’ll just be born in Sukhavati. I wonder what really Amitabha will think of that if we put everything else in the closet, and just say, all we want is you, we just like what .. we like your offer, we’ll take you up on that offer. Thanks so much. But it’s more than that. And I feel this very passionately. That right now, there’s only one widely accepted paradigm, or range of methodologies for which there’s a … not universal but broad degree of consensus among educated people throughout the world of the way to know reality. There is one. It’s science obviously. And they’re so good at what they do. And they’re so good at what they do that in the minds of many people like the Politburo in Communist China, US government is basically run, the policies are basically run on this, that science is the only way. All of the grant money that always goes to science. You know, it never goes to contemplative inquiry. You know, the science, science, science, science. And what are scientists good, good at looking at? Well, they’re number one, looking outwards, not inwards. They’re very good at looking at and understanding the objective physical unquantifiable, and they’ve been terrifically successful, and who can fault them for that.

[43:14] But if those who have at their fingertips, a path of contemplative inquiry that yields direct insight, replicable into subjectively verifiable insights into the nature of reality, and we sit back on our hands, and just pray to be born as Sukhavati, then we’d left the table. Philosophers have demonstrated over 2000 years of not coming up with any consensual knowledge at all. The religions of the world as religious institutions have made it perfectly obvious from the Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so forth. They’re not nowhere, or they’re nowhere coming anywhere near approaching or even trying to approach consensual knowledge. They’re just trying to get converts. Muslims converting. The Christians converting. Jewish, pretty happy with themselves, you know, and so forth. But there’s just, there’s just no suggestion that they’re going to converge. Or they’re even trying to come to consensual knowledge, the theme of Aldous Huxley, that’s not exactly mainstream Christianity, or mainstream Buddhism, or mainstream anything else, except for Life of Pi, it’s major life of Pi. And so, if the contemplative leave the stage, we have left the stage with only one show in town. There’s only one way to truth and that’s the way of science and science since Thomas Huxley has been absolutely wed, fused with materialism. And that’s just enough to make me cry all year. But then if you accept science, you accept you accept scientific materialism. And I can’t even really imagine a worldview more bleak than that, more desperate than that, more blind than that.

[45:03] And we’re leaving the stage and saying, well, take over, you guys. I know a neuroscientist you will not know who I’m referring to so I’ll just continue. It’s not any of the big names, you know. And very sweet man, very ethical man, very good neuroscientist. And he commented to me once, knowing, you know, he had a lot of contact with me, and the people I know. And they said, ‘Oh, Alan, when it comes to consciousness, I enjoy the mystery.’ He was acknowledging that the scientific community just doesn’t understand consciousness. They don’t have a clue. They can’t define it. They can’t measure it. They don’t know what causes it. They really haven’t answered any of the questions. The big question about the nature of consciousness or the mind body relationship. As Donald Hoffman’s made so clear, there’s been no progress since Thomas Huxley and exactly what is the relationship in mind, brain, mind and brain, no progress at all, for all of the insights they have found. So my friend has said, ‘oh when it comes to consciousness I enjoy the mystery.’ And what he’s saying here speaking to me is as you know, not that I’m any authority but I know, I know a lot of Buddhists that, the implication is perfectly obvious. You people don’t know anything, of course, but we don’t and therefore since we don’t it’s a mystery, but I enjoy the mystery. You know, I could have spoken to him for 1000 hours about the insights gained. 1000 hours and you know, me I probably could. [Laughter]. 1000 hours just give me some water. I keep myself pumped up. I can do it. I know I can do I’m gonna be the little engine that could, I could sit him down for 1000 hours and talk about the insights of the nature of consciousness by the Buddha, by Nagasena, by Buddhaghosa, by Nagarjuna, by Buddhapalita, Dharmakirti, Tsongkhapa, Shantideva, [?? Santi by my tripper], Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa. I can steamroller him with people who have unveiled the mystery.

[47:04] [Tibetan??] of achieving, having achieved stability let the mystery be revealed. That’s Atisha. It’s not a mystery anymore. Unless your mind is closed to any discipline outside your own. And that’s exactly true of my friend. Nobody else knows anything besides the scientists, but you buddhists have a lot of good hunches and we really like you because you’re so sweet. And man do your left prefrontal cortex really buzz away, you must be really happy and you got all the gamma whatever that means. You want to come and let us do some more experiments on your brains because we really like you people. But they never listen to what we might have to contribute in terms of our insights. They study people practising vipashyana and never ask what insights they have. Oh, you’re stressed, your stress is greatly alleviated, oh all this has health benefits, oh it’s good for depression. Oh, they managed to trivialize the apex of buddhist meditation into something that’s good for your physical health. They trivialize tummo, which is designed of course, to manifest the in-dwelling mind of clear light, rigpa. Said, ‘Whoa, you people can really generate a lot of heat.’ They turned it to some thermometer exercise. Their ability to trivialize the Buddhist tradition staggers the imagination. The same fellow when he encountered one of my students who expressed her faith in Sukhavati. And this neuroscientist friend of mine, he said, ‘Oh, Jane Doe, she believes in Sukhavati.’ And he rolled his eyes, she believes in purelands, Jesus, as if he knew perfectly well, that’s just like Santa Claus village, as if he knew what he was talking about. He rolled his eyes in contempt that this woman believed in purelands, as if he actually knew better than she. Made me very sad. Because it’s ignorance and pomposity, the great union of ignorance and pomposity. It’s a bad bedfellows. If you’re going to be arrogant, at least know something. If you’re going to be ignorant, at least be humble. But to be ignorant and arrogant, in the same breath is really quite tragic. And this is a good man. And he’s a very good scientist. But when it comes to the mind, I just, I despair.

[49:26] If all the Buddhists would have access to these incredible wisdom, wisdom teachings, if we get complacent about the path and all of that and say, Well, after I’m taking care of, you’re taken care of, you believe you don’t, you’re taken care of. Then their voices dominate the soundwave. There’s only one path to truth, and we have it and it’s saturated by materialism. And what could be sadder than that? That we have the ability to rise up as friends, because if I have a good friend who’s really deluded, the best friend I can possibly be to that person, is help that person come out of his or her delusion. Right? If a person is a heavy smoker as never heard back in the 50's, doctors, nurses, all kinds of people were smoking, chain smoking, having no idea that it was, you know, any, any problem with it. And that was true until the 60's, I think, right? We’ve millions of people dying from this, but they hadn’t quite turned on the light yet. If you have a friend that’s a heavy smoker, starting to develop a bit of a cough, well, what kind of a friend would you be if you say, ‘Well, you know, hope you enjoy your cigarettes’, because I don’t smoke. What kind of a friend is that? So people have insight in the nature of mind by way of contemplative practice. If we just look at these people, and we just kind of smile, you got your reality, I’ve got mine. That just seems like frankly anti-compassion. Where you actually know something could help these people. And all you need is skillful means to turn the light on. So for religions, for science, for philosophy, and for all of those who don’t really care about any of those, but simply want to find happiness. May we all never be parted from happiness free of suffering.

[51:22] There’s so much possibility when he says, 'Why couldn’t’ and we end on this note? But why couldn’t? Why couldn’t all beings never be parted from such happiness free of suffering? So here we are in this lovely spot in Tuscany. And what is desperately needed, urgently needed, if it’s not day after tomorrow, let it be the day after that. A revolution in the mind sciences is the first one. And that’s what I’m going to be speaking about at the University of Pisa tomorrow. Day after, no tomorrow. Yeah, tomorrow, Thursday, where Galileo taught, where Galileo was educated. And I’m going to talk to them about following Galileo. And the need for a true revolution [in] the mind sciences. And they’ve asked me to do it. I’m not going to surprise them. They’ve already seen my powerpoints, and they still invited me. [Laughter]. You didn’t know what you’re asking for maybe, but I’m going to deliver on all those powerpoints. You see this 18 inch hole. That’s the end of the cannon. Look closely. Say ‘cheese’. [Laughter]. So Pisa is right here. And what better place to catalyze the first true revolution in the mind sciences, then in the home of Galileo. And I feel this is desperately needed. And it must be a collaborative event. It’s not religion versus science. It’s open mindedness versus closed mindedness. And there’s plenty on both sides of the fence. Close minded religion, religious people, we see them in America, a dime a dozen. Close minded scientists, a dime a dozen. Many people are. They’re not so interesting. They deserve happiness. But they’re not interesting to talk to. And I don’t. But anybody who is open minded, then let’s talk. I’ll be open. I’ll do my best. I’ll be open minded. So we have their Pisa, home of the scientific revolution.

[53:28] Then a stone’s throw in the other direction is Firenze. Florence, home of the Renaissance. How about that? We’re in the right. we’re in the right neighborhood. Home of the Renaissance. Right, Florence. This is Florence. This is Michelangelo. This is Leonardo da Vinci. This is Florence. It’s an easy drive from here. It’s about an hour and 20 minutes. Home of the Renaissance. Well, as desperately as we are in need of a revolution in the mind sciences. I believe equally we’re in desperate need of a renaissance of contemplative inquiry in the world’s religions. All of them. They have the head; they have the resources. They don’t have to become 30% even a Buddhist and 70% Muslim. Be 100% Muslim, be 100% Daoist, 100%, 100%. You’ve got it if you know where to look. Many people don’t even know where to look. But there’s [Madden??], for example, Martin Laird, outstanding scholar and he’s of the Augustinian order. Teaching at a major university. He’s done outstanding work, research. In the, like a terton is like a treasure revealer within the Christian tradition. When I wrote my book Mind in the Balance, I borrowed very heavily from him, you find mindfulness breathing, you find settling the mind in the natural state, you find awareness of awareness, and then you find things very reminiscent of Dzogchen. Entirely Christian. There was no reference to any non Christian religion in the whole book, as I recall. ‘Into the Silent Land’, you know, and so they’re there. If you know where to look in Daoism, in the Sufi tradition, in the Hindu tradition of course, in the Kabbalah. Daniel Matt. [Laughter]. Daniel Matt. Yeah, yep. Good. So we just had to get our act together.

[55:16] Daniel Matt, outstanding scholar, and I just, I’m rambling. We’re gonna start off, we’re obviously gonna go late today. But he gave a talk at UC Santa Barbara, my, my university where I taught for four years. He gave a talk on the Kabbalah and modern physics. And when I heard that it was part of a series in which I gave a lecture too earlier, but when I heard that it was kind of like part of me cringe like, oh, man, it’s gonna be so new agey, I won’t be able to stand it. You know, because it’s so easy. Quantum mechanics and the fairy godmother [from??] you know, I mean, people come up with this, so many goofy ideas, it just drives the physicists crazy, because they feel quantum mechanics, it’s just a, you know, a bullshit fest. Just say anything you like, but quantum mechanics says, you know, and so I thought, oh boy, Kabbalah and quantum mechanics. Ohh, and then I listened to him. He nailed it. Brilliant, really brilliant. I know he knows his Kabbalah, he’s world famous. But I’m very critical when it comes to physics. I mean, I’ve got my bullshit antenna up. He just went right through. It was just really outstanding. I have the link for it. He’s really, really good. So a Renaissance and contemplative inquiry and Judaism, Buddhism, and so forth, and so on. There’s a home of the Renaissance right over there. So within two vectors, home of the silent revolution, home of the Renaissance. First Revolution, the mind science please, a renaissance, renaissance of contemplative inquiry, please, and make it snappy. So that all beings may never be parted from genuine happiness, free of sorrow. And a key ingredient, you’re going to just slap your heads and groan when I say this. For any of these to be a path, whether your path is secular, it’s coming straight from science and into quantum, quantum cosmology, you need to explore the nature of mind. I mean, duh, you need to explore the nature of the observer, duh, but you must do so with continuity with relaxation, stability, clarity.

[57:18] The physicists need to achieve shamatha. They don’t have to be any less physicists to achieve shamatha. There’s no dogma involved. There’s no belief system involved. It’s pure technology, right. And then they be introduced to vipashyana. The Christians, they need to be introduced to shamatha. And they can draw from their own sources. They just don’t know where they are, unless they’re Martin Laird. The Christians need, the Christian contemplatives, they need to achieve shamatha, not just mess around with it for a month like so many buddhists do. The Hindus invented shamatha but they’re not doing it much. They’re really not doing it much. It’s mostly puja, puja, puja, you know, and the Daoists, they’ve got shamatha, but they need to start achieving it, practicing it and so forth. All of them. They need to do that and then get into gear with your own tradition. But with muscle, you know, with stability and continuity with clarity. Philosophers, they’ve been thinking about the mind for 2000 years for heaven’s sake. They still have no consensus at all on anything. Philosophers, you know, why don’t you have a natural philosophy of mind, take it, take a hint from Galileo. Start looking at it for heaven’s sake, but don’t do it with folk psychology. Don’t do it with folk introspection. You’re professionals, you’ve had 8-10 years of training as philosophers. Now compound that with 10 years of training in shamatha, so you can terminate philosophy of mind, make it dead as a doornail, as they used to have in 19th century philosophy, atoms. In the 19th century, philosophy of atoms. Chemists had one view and physicists had another view, and they made it back and forth, back and forth. Philosophy of atoms, until Rutherford and Thompson and so forth and came along, they had good technology, they found questions they could ask, there’s no such thing as a philosophy of atoms anymore. It’s science. It’s atomic physics. There’s no philosophy. It’s a joke.

[59:10] I would like to see in my lifetime that the notion of philosophy of mind becomes a joke. Anyone with philosophy of cells, philosophy of brain, philosophy of gallbladder. When you know about something, then it’s not a philosophy of it anymore. It’s the science of it means you know something, rather than merely having assumptions, beliefs, perspectives, and then lots of, lots of endless debate. So shamatha for everyone. Philosophers, the religious, the scientists, and from the school kids from five years old on, develop your attention skills, if you want to thrive in this world. ADHD is no solution. Okay. I see you, I have a very busy mind. Two hours ago I didn’t know what I’m going to say. And I just go blah blah blah for a whole hour. Okey dokey, let’s meditate. Better late than never.

[01:00: 09] [Bell rings]. [Meditation in session]

[01:01:03] With the aspiration that all beings may indeed never be parted from happiness, free of suffering. And with that aspiration arousing the motivation, the resolve, to achieve perfect awakening for the sake of all beings, set your motivation with a deep trust, taking refuge in your own buddha nature. Settle your body, speech and mind in the natural state. [Pause].

[01:02:39] Let your awareness come to rest in stillness, right there. [Pause].

[01:02:53] Right there where rigpa manifests, the very fountainhead, the wellspring of genuine happiness, of compassion, wisdom. And from this transpersonal perspective, not simply embedded in your own personal history, your own identity, on this perspective, at least at best approximation of resting in the substrate consciousness, the ground state of all sentient beings. From this perspective, then if you will pose the question and make it a real question, and reflect upon it Contemplate on it. If you can, come to some clear answer to the question, why couldn’t all sentient beings never be parted from happiness free of suffering. [Pause].

[01:05:52] If you see the possibility for light at the end of the tunnel, the break in the clouds, where the sunlight is shining through. If you see that this is indeed in the realm of possibility, that every sentient being might be so free, they’re never parted. On the sense of well being, devoid of suffering, it seems within the realm of the possible then arouse the aspiration. May it be so. [Pause].

[01:07:31] And either through your own insight or by the power of your intuition, and your imagination, rest your awareness in its ground, the ground pristine awareness. [Pause]. And from this perspective, with this basis of designation for ‘I am’, if you will, arouse the resolve, the promise, the pledge, 'I shall make it so. I shall enable all sentient beings never to be parted from suffering, from joy, from happiness, free of suffering. I shall make it so. With all sentient beings and all the Buddhists as your witness. [Pause].

[01:08:51] From this perspective, your very identity, your body, and your mind. As you see them from an ordinary perspective, are purely an illusion devoid of any substance, no reality to them. Empty appearances. [Pause].

[01:09:14] But you do relatively speaking exists at the individual that other people recognize, that you recognize. But view yourself now to the best of your ability from the perspective of rigpa, seeing your body with pure vision, the natural pure vision of rigpa, a body of light, empty, translucent, pure. Your body, the vajra body, your speech, the vajra speech, your mind, the vajra mind, manifesting now as a person, seen with pure vision, pure perception. And ask this person and invoke the blessings of the gurus and the enlightened ones, the deities that you may be enabled to carry through with your resolve to its fulfillment. So as we’ve done before, with each in- breath, in the form of light imagined drawing in the light of blessings of all the awakened ones, all the direct and lineage gurus, joyfully converging in upon yourself, saturating your body, speech, and mind, to the point of overflowing so that when you breathe out, especially from this nucleus at your heart, rays of life flow out in all directions, with every aspiration. May all beings never be parted from happiness free of suffering. As you breathe in, breathe out, as you’ve done before me, whoever comes to mind with its whole realms of existence, whether it’s regions of the globe and people in populating them, whether it’s individuals, you know, whoever comes to mind, representing all sentient beings, gaze upon them, attend to them closely. As you breathe out with the aspiration, may you never be parted, from happiness free of suffering.

[01:11:54] Let’s continue practicing for a while in silence.

[01:23:20] Release all activities of the mind and rest in what remains awareness and appearances, awareness and space non-dually. [Pause].

[01:24:33] [Bell rings].

[01:24:44] So to bring this very briefly fully into the 21st century. Just kind of the global landscape. As far as I can tell, there are two relevant to what I spoke about this morning, there are two major powerful, enormous movements that are on the rise. And one of these is religious fundamentalism. For example, it’s only one of, one example. But it’s a very big one, fundamentalist Islam, rapidly growing all over the world, East and West. Africa, Asia, North America, Europe, it’s a growth industry. In America and not confined to America, religious fundamentalism is very, very healthy, very, very robust. More than 40% of Americans believe in a literal reading of the book of Genesis, that the universe really was created 8000 years ago, and it took six days. They just look at science, and they just say, ‘screw that’. Just like, whatever. There’s no interest. So scientists wring their hands, American scientists especially wring their hands. Why is the American public so scientifically illiterate? And it’s really … if you see the statistics you kind of like, Really? I mean, really illiterate? And that’s 40%. I mean, they’re voting for Trump, you know. That’s how illiterate. Sometimes I will use a name when I see a real danger. I think there’s a real danger there. Where is this coming from? Because religious fundamentalists are fundamentalist all by … almost by definition, are militant. They’ve demonstrated countless times throughout history. And why? because they all think they have the only way. And they think everybody else’s way is worth nothing, or is diabolical in nature. That’s standard. It’s been going on for centuries. And what do they do? Dominate, convert, kill, or convert.

[01:26:42] That’s the four options. When you see somebody else following not your path, kill them, dominate them, convert them. Is there a third option? I think that’s pretty much it. They’ve been doing it for centuries. That’s why for non religious people, they look at religion. Here’s just a big toxic barrel. I mean, they’ve just been fighting until they kind of open their eyes and see, well, how about the century in which scientific materialism became very dominant? Oh, there were no bigger murderers than Mao Zedong. He killed 40 million of his own people. And weigh, weigh against all religions. Genocide, not just Tibet, all over China. Daoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, the most savage religious wars in history were waged by non religious people, they’re atheists. Stalin. 20 million of his own people killed. Warfare against all religions in the Soviet Union. They don’t, you know, all the religions, they don’t hold a candle to what Stalin and Mao Zedong did. They pale in comparison. You know. Scientific materialism is on the rise. It’s on the rise. Less and less just ordinary churchgoers, just bailing out of becoming indifferent towards religion, and then kind of siding with the New York Times site and Atlantic Monthly. What they’re getting from the media and what they’re getting from public policy wells, after all, if there’s, if there is only one way, it’s science and the, the the scientists with the microphones, because 40% of scientists in America believe in God who responds to prayer, they never get the microphone. You wouldn’t even know they’re there unless you know where to look for the polls. And that number hasn’t changed for the last century.

[01:28:22] But all the scientists who get the microphone, oh oh singing the song of materialism. That we’re basically just robots. I mean, that’s the indication. They just follow, just follow the indications, what they say they believe, but they’re not willing to live by. So these two are really on the rise. And then you look at it, it’s you know, there’s no accident there. I asked a man who’s done a lot of research into the rise of fanatical Islam, the ISIS, the El Qaeda, the Taliban, the Boko Haram. I mean, it’s like, Whoa, what’s going on here? Because Islam does have quite a militant history, but not crazy militant like this, of this. You know, those Buddhist statues in Pakistan, they were there for 1500 years. They were defaced, but they didn’t feel they needed to blow them up. The Taliban can’t even see defaced body images. And the ISIS can’t even stand to see culture like Greek culture. They’ll blow that up too. That Greek culture, those … you know, those ancient monuments, they’ve been around for 2500 years, but only the ISIS felt they had to blow them up. So something fresh is happening here. Not just ordinary religious intolerance. Something is really up, it’s really toxic. And it’s not just Muslims. It’s religious fundamentalism. And it’s, it’s … you find it in Hinduism. Find it in Christianity, you find it in Judaism. You pretty much find it everywhere and it’s militant. It’s harsh. It’s merciless, self righteous and ready to go to war. Just as the atheists have demonstrated, they’re very happy, willing … willingness to stamp out religion wherever they see it, and kill the religious people in the process. No problemo[slang of problem].

[01:30:01] So I see these two on the rise. Well, lo and behold, it’s not accident. I checked with this man who’s done a lot of research on it, that what are people like ISIS, what are they so pissed off at? Because they’re so angry. They just want to blow up women and children, just anybody. What are they angry at? As long as it’s us, but of course, if they’re not us, then they blow up each other, you know. I mean, as one, one very well informed commentator said, ‘This Muslim radicalism, they’re killing far, far, far more Muslims than they are non Muslims, because they’re easier targets in their homeland’. You can kill them in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Iraq, and so forth. They’re easier targets, women and children everywhere. Just blow them up in your backyard rather than driving to New York. It’s much harder, right? What are they angry at? And this man has done a lot of research on this. He said, They’re angry at modernity. They can’t stand modernity. They see modernity, and they say, ‘No. True Islam is what Muhammad taught 1400 years ago, and we need to go back to the good old days, when women knew their place, and everybody really followed the words of Muhammad’, you know. And the Christian fundamentalists, the same and Buddhist fundamentalists, the same and Hindu Fundamentalists, the same. So I’m not picking on Islam here.

[01:31:21] It’s a mindset. Okay, modernity. What’s that? Is it contemporary flowers or churches? What part of modernity? Materialism. They don’t .. they haven’t just hated Christianity, like they need to wipe it out wherever they see it. They’ve, they’ve, they’ve coexisted. In eastern Tibet, Muslims and Buddhists living together all you know, for centuries and centuries, no problem. Not killing each other. Muslims and Daoists living in China, no problem, you know. Not mass murder. [?? stand], they can’t stand the sight. This is something recent. They can’t stand modernity, the essence of modernity, as they see it as materialism, and they can’t stand it. These 40% of Americans who believe, you know, just basically trash all of science. Why would they … there are so many enlightened, I mean, modern, well educated Christians, including a man who is like the top person in the United States for the whole genome project, evangelical Christian. You know, brilliant scientist James Clerk Maxwell, the most brilliant physicist between Newton and Einstein. Evangelical Christian. And if you read this book, Huxley’s Church and Maxwell’s demon. Wow, the man who wins that debate is actually Maxwell. He was so much smarter. And what Huxley was was dogmatic, bigoted, but was fantastic at propaganda. Maxwell was such a subtle thinker. I would follow him any of the day, any day of the week, as opposed to Thomas Huxley, who was belligerent, arrogant and militant, and a good scientist.

[01:32:55] And so one is a response to the other. The rise of fundamentalism is they’re looking at science, they’re seeing science, totally wedded to materialism. They find materialism absolutely repugnant, for very good reasons. And then they throw the baby out with bathwater, they threw out materialism, they threw out science, they threw out modernity, and they wage war and cut the heads off of people. That’s a bit simplistic when I just said but not silly. There’s a lot of truth there, I think. And so these two, these two forces, the rising of scientific materialism with no grounding in ethics whatsoever, no regarding any social responsibility, because it makes social … most, moral responsibility makes no sense. It has no meaning if you’re a materialist, because you are your brain, your brain operates according to chemistry and physics. There’s no morality there. So let’s not pretend, and they’re on the rise. They’re dominating the media, dominating academia, dominating science, dominating public policy, and that’s in democracies, let alone places like Communist China, where people don’t even see there’s a choice, except for those who look and then they find it.

[01:34:03] These two, these two movements of scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism, I think both pose the greatest threat to humanity and the globe in the history of our planet. So call me melodramatic, but that’s what I believe. And the solution for religious fundamentalism is: come back to your roots of wisdom, of compassion, of insight. Because all these traditions have their own contemplative riches, rediscover them, rediscover them. And science, of course, has its riches. But throw off the burden of this terrible dogma that is so dehumanizing, demoralizing, and follow the best of science and discover, you know, what is the role of the observer? What’s the role? What’s the role? What is genuine happiness? So here we are these little tiny cluster of people with unusual interests. You know, and I think what we are attending to here is of global significance. And in my meditation I was imagining here around in the hillsides. Philippo, the director of the Tsongkhapa Institute, was saying, ‘Alan, I really hope the Castellina Marittima property works out for you.’ Totally supportive. There’s no competition with Tsongkhapa Institute at all. Entirely complement. I really hope that works out. I think it will work out. But if it doesn’t, I have some other properties I’d like to show you, here in Toscany. [Laughter]. And some woman who is, you know, affiliated, she knows of my work. She and her mother own a beautiful property, it’s only half an hour away. Could you come and see it? We’d like you .. would you like to purchase this? It could be a great contemplative observatory. I’ve told them all, wait, wait, wait. Castellina Marittima’s where my eyes are focused right now. We have to see whether that works out or not. But imagine if you just like to have fun with me. This will be like one minute.

[01:35:55] Imagine. I’m so obviously Buddhist. I mean, I can run but I cannot hide. So you’d have to be kind of a really weird Christian to want to sit down and meditate under my guidance for two years. You know, because you don’t know my agenda is, maybe I’m really after all trying to get you to become a nyingmapa. Now the Christian should be guiding Christians. And the Sufi should be guiding Sufis and the people 100% Hindu, they should be guiding Hindus, and so forth. Right. Imagine the hills. The hills’ alive with contemplative observatories, each one following its own tradition, impeccably pure motivation, all of them learning shamatha because they need that to deepen their own tradition. Right? That’s all I’m saying. And breath isn’t Buddhist, mind isn’t Buddhist, awareness isn’t Buddhist. Why is it any racist? I don’t think so. But then let them flower, like gardens of contemplative observatories, sprinkled around Tuscany, in the hills of Tuscany. Christians, Buddhists, and so forth. And then drawing from the scientists at the University, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa, University of Trento, up in the northeast, maybe the University of Pisa, and then other universities around Europe. Scientists coming in. Open minded scientists coming in. Can we play too? We have open minds. Can we learn together? Can we learn from each other, about the nature of the mind, its potentials, and philosophers coming in. There’s some outstanding philosophers. Michel Bitbol is excellent. French, I know him well. He’s really good. I think he’d come. There are other philosophers coming in. We’d like to turn our philosophy of mind into a phenomenological science of the mind. Can you help? We have our skills. You might be interested, and I am. I think we have a lot, so much insight’s there, but they’ve not been able to back it up with an experience.

[01:37:45] So imagine for like … bees to go to a flower to flower garden. Philosophers coming in, scientists from multiple disciplines, physics, neuroscience, psychology. Educators coming in. Do you have anything for a kid, for our kids, you know, we could really use some help here. And then contemplatives coming in and creating their own communities. A garden of contemplative inquiry. With full fledged, open hearted engagement with the scientists, philosophers and society at large. Mudita. Enjoy your day.

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

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.