Day 63 of 365: No Reality On Which to Depend

There is no reality on which the parts are dependent.

This is the fourth analysis of seven.  If there were a reality on which the parts depended, this would mean that the parts themselves were not real since they were not singular, lasting, and independent.  How could one have something real comprised of things that weren't?   From another perspective, if there were a reality on which the parts depended, we should be able to find it.  However, having gone through the exercise of looking for such a reality, we know that one does not exist.  When we disassemble the parts, there is no object (no cart or car in this case).  Thus, there is no reality inside.  It cannot be separate from the parts either, since the object is dependent on the parts--if we were to take them away, there would be no object.

Day 62 of 365: No Possession

There is no real possession of a whole by its parts, or of parts by an imagined whole, just as cartness, which does not truly exist, cannot possess parts or vice versa.

This one piggy backs off the first two analyses.  Since we have shown that there is no essential reality of a cart outside of the parts, there can be no possession by either.

This was such a throw back to the first two analyses that I went over those again.  There is no essential reality in a thing as a whole, and there is no reality distinct from the sum of the parts.  If we believe that there is an essential reality to something like a cart, then that essential reality would need to be in the thing as a whole or distinct from all the parts.  If it were in the thing as a whole, then it would have to be somewhere in the thing. Taking the object apart reveals that we cannot find the essential reality in this way--we will no longer see any cart, for example, when we take it apart.  The cart is also totally dependent on the parts, so there can be no essential reality which is distinct from them.

Day 61 of 365: Analysis 2

There is no essential reality in a thing as a whole, just as there is no reality in a cart as a whole. 

Having broken down a cart or car into constituent parts, we can see there is no essential reality in a thing.  However, there can be a tendency to think that as we reassemble something it is becoming greater than the sum of the parts.  It can seem that there is some kind of thingness present as we put that last piece in place.  However, we must look at this closely and notice that is it nothing other than our concept about something that has come into being.  There is nothing single, lasting, and independent which we can point to which is separate from the parts.

Day 60 of 365: Seven Analyses

A classical analytic approach in Madhyamaka is the seven analyses, which are traditionally introduced by analyzing a cart.  It seems to also work quite well on a car, since those are more common these days than carts.  We begin with the first analysis: There is no essential reality in a thing as a whole.  In other words, we cannot find an essential reality anywhere in the whole.  When we look at a car, we immediately think there is an essential reality to it, which must surely be somewhere in the car.  By looking at the car, we see that it is comprised of parts and sub-parts, and this process does not stop.  Eventually, we see that there really is nothing we can point to specifically and say it is the car.  So, the car does not seem to be anywhere in the parts.  In the same way, is our being anywhere in the parts of our body?

Day 59 of 365: Analogy and Evidence

Thrangu Rinpoche gives a superb example of one way we convince ourselves that the self is real (singular, lasting, independent) in his book "The Open Door to Emptiness".  We draws the analogy of walking into a potter's shop when the potter is not there.  When we look around, we see all the evidence of a potter: the wheel, the clay, the pots, and the kiln.  Thus, we think to ourselves that there must be a potter.  In the same way, we see all the evidence of a self (form, feeling, perception, decisions, etc) yet somehow we can never quite nail down who or what the self actually is.  Questions to ask ourselves: What do we take as evidence of a self?  If we had to go to court to prove the existence of a self, what would be exhibit A?  What does this evidence really prove?  If we think we have identified a self, what is the nature of the self?

Day 58 of 365: Beyond Finite and Infinite

The Middle Way teachings point us in a direction to understand reality in its essence, which is beyond duality.  In particular, it is beyond our notions of finite and infinite.  Every moment of being has ended, yet new moments unfailingly occur.  Thus, our being and our experience do not seem to be either finite or infinite.    We fear that moments of pain and anxiety will last forever and hope that moments of pleasure will never end.  In this way, we bind ourselves to a fabricated reality.

The continuum of the aggregates
Is like the continuum of a butter lamp.
Therefore, to say that the aggregates are finite is illogical
And to say that they are infinite is illogical.

Day 57 of 365: Dependent Arising

That which is dependently arisen does not arise, and therefore is dependently arisen.

That which is brought about by the coming together of causes and conditions does not arise in the way that we think it does.  There is a mere appearance of arising, but nothing singular, lasting, and independent has actually transpired.  It is, therefore, dependently arisen, meaning it is just like our reflections in the mirror, like a water moon.  We take things as real in a habituated way almost continuously.  If we just think for a minute about the causes and conditions inseparable from what we are experiencing, reality can become less threatening, less solid, and more vivid.

Day 56 of 365: Dusting Our Boots Off

Sometimes, in the heat of suffering, we just want to knock the dust of samsara off our boots and get out of here.  This impulse to escape can be productive in the sense that one is connecting with revulsion towards suffering.  However, solidifying that into a goal of some kind, a goal to get from samsara to nirvana, is a provisional view according to the Middle Way teachings.  How would nirvana and samsara be related if they both truly existed?  If nirvana arose after samsara, then nirvana would have arisen from samsara and would be subject to the same impermanence.  If samsara existed after nirvana, then nirvana, with no reference point of samsara or suffering, could not be defined.  Therefore, nirvana does not exist in a solid real way as somewhere separate from samsara.  When we find ourselves thinking there are greener pastures over the horizon, perhaps flashing on this idea will remind us that actual liberation starts with staying with all our confusion and our impulse to escape.

Day 55 of 365: Two Steps

There is not a single phenomenon
That is not dependently arisen.
Therefore, there is not a single phenomenon
That is not empty.

It seems that Nagarjuna gives us a two step process here to approach emptiness.  Step 1 is to see everything as dependently arisen, which seems more approachable that see everything as empty.  Moving throughout our day, what do we see that is not dependently arisen?  Flash on the dependent nature of everything you encounter.  Take a couple solid-seeming phenomena and investigate more closely.  In many cases, our belief that things are not dependently arisen seems more like being dismissive.  We know that causes and conditions are necessary for everything to arise, but we sort of push that off to the side.  It seems we must strengthen our confidence in this and train in seeing deeper and not dismissing.  Step 2 is to see all phenomena as empty.  Once we have confidence in the nature of things, or a thing, as dependently arisen, we can ask how solid it is?  Is our experience open, spacious, and relaxed?  Are phenomena dream-like, similar to reflections in water?  Are we still taking our concepts as real?  It seems that perhaps Step 2 is a litmus test for Step 1.  Perhaps our understanding of dependently arisen phenomena is not deep enough if we are not experiencing the world as appearance-emptiness.

Day 54 of 365: Possibilities

If emptiness is possible,
Then everything is possible,
But if emptiness is impossible,
Then nothing else is possible either.

To explain this passage from Nagarjuna, Khenpo draws a connection between emptiness and dependent origination, saying that they are the same.  The conclusion of every argument to date has been that whatever we were considering was dependently arisen mere appearance.  What about the converse?  If there was something out there that was not dependently arisen mere appearance, then it would be either not dependently arisen or not an appearance.  If it doesn't appear in some way, there be nothing to discuss.  If it is not dependently arisen, then it is independent, free of causes and conditions.  Such a thing would then inherently exist and therefore would not be empty.

With emptiness or dependent origination, anything is free to arise with the right causes and conditions.  Thus, everything is possible.  If dependent origination was not true, then there would be no cause for anything to come into existence or to change.  As Khenpo says, "Nothing would every arise or cease."  Nothing else would be possible in this case.

How does this affect how we approach the day?  Do we view our day as solid and predetermined or do we view it as unbounded, with the space for anything to arise with the right causes and conditions?  What does this imply about the most difficult situations and people?

Day 53 of 365: Klesha Juiciness

On any given day, our kleshas can seem as real as a gorilla wearing an electrically charged vest.  It can seem daunting to even begin to consider approaching them.  And, once we do, we feel it's going to get ugly in more ways than one.  As curious humans, we need to look at the kleshas and understand whether or not we think they are real.  The teachings say that our misunderstanding of our experience fuels the kleshas themselves and that we must take a closer look at our basic reactions to our experience.  For example, consider desire and aversion.  Both of these are fueled by our fundamental, gut-level belief that something is pleasant or unpleasant.  This, however, is like putting mayo on your sandwich.  The experience, like the sandwich, is already made and we're putting something on top of it.  When we experience something, like a smelly trash can or a fragrant bush, there is a split second before we label.  Think of very hot water.  When you put your hand in very hot water, there is a moment where you don't know whether it is hot or cold.  Eventually, we figure it out and label frantically.

At the level of logic, we can think through the fact that pleasant and unpleasant are in fact dependently related, meaning they don't have an inherent existence.  When we do this, we realize that our kleshas are built on a faulty foundation.  We must re-train ourselves in this view again and again.

Day 53 of 365: Antidotes

Khenpo spends a chapter of his text discussing the nature Tathagata.  In the context of this discussion, he mentions that it could be appropriate to talk about the Tathagata as existent, nonexistent, or both depending on the context.  In truth, the nature of the Tathagata is beyond the four extremes.  However, we, as beings caught in ignorance most of the time, tend to gravitate towards one of the four extremes.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of us are kind of stuck in one of the four extremes--entangled perhaps.  To counteract our entanglement, it could be beneficial to contemplate the opposite extreme.  Most of the time we take reality to be 100% independent, lasting, and singular.  To counteract that, we could contemplate nonexistence.  While this is not the true nature, it helps free us from our entanglement, our addiction, to existence.  One could say the same thing for extreme nihilism, though that is usually less of a concern.  In those moments, perhaps it is beneficial to consider the fact that you can't really zero out the world.  Usually that view self-corrects when you bump into a parking meter, stub your toe, hear a loud noise, or get "jolted" by the world.  Wouldn't it be interesting to try to view the world from the perspective of each of the four extremes just to see what it is like and what might happen?

Day 52 of 365: Emergence and Decay

As the black-eyed susans in my front yard begin to wither, it seems fully appropriate to contemplate emergence and decay.  We have clear ideas in our mind of when something is coming to be and when it is dying or disappearing.  These teachings are nudging us to take another, closer look.  Are emergence and decay the same or different?  Clearly, they are not the same, just by virtue of what they mean.  Are they different?  Different, to the Middle Way aspirant, means that they are not connected and that there is no dependency.  (Recall that the way we take things as real is as singular, lasting, and independent.)  Clearly, emergence and decay cannot be different because they are opposites and depend upon one another.  In this way, we walk out on the diving board of concept, only to discover that in fact there is no diving board.  Perhaps, with this larger view, the wistfulness of fall and the joy of spring could be inseparably experienced as our flowers wither.

Day 51 of 365: Causes, Results, and Blame

Nagarjuna examines causes and results again, saying:

If cause and result were one,
Then producer and produced would be the same thing.
If cause and result were different,
Then causes and noncauses would be equivalent.


Having gone through several Middle Way arguments at this point, we should all practically be logic ninjas at this point.  This particular reasoning is not really that different from the other arguments in style.  If cause and result were one, then there is really no other option than producer and produced being the same.  Think of the seed and sprout.  If they are the same, then the producer and the produced are literally the same.  If the cause and result are different, then they must be independent, meaning there is no dependency.  If this is the case, then a cause might as well be a noncause.  They would be equally likely to produce the result.

As we move through our day, especially in the work place when things get difficult, fast paced, and messy, we all tend to think about blame.  This argument is a great opportunity to undermine the thought supporting the blame game.  Without causes and results being real, how can there be blame?

Day 50 of 365: No Traffic Jam

One way in which we constantly solidify the world is through taking a collection of things as real.  Take your body, your hand, or your house as an example.  They are a compendium of smaller things, which when "put together", we take as a solid real thing.  But, where exactly is the body, hand, or house?  What if we remove one part?  Does it change what we call it?  A person without an arm still has a body.  A house without a roof is still a house.  We realize after a while that we can't really find the essence of the collection of things we're looking at.  

Ever had a day that looks like this?  This is probably the richest practice opportunity for looking at collections in the DC area.  I am stuck in traffic many times a week.  It feels incredibly solid when I am.  However, what is a "traffic jam"?  Is it a specific number of cars?  50 cars, 100 cars, 1000 cars?  Is it a specific speed that we're reduced to?  You could have a traffic jam at any speed.  So, next time I'm in traffic, perhaps I'll take the opportunity to look at the collection of cars and try to find the essence of "traffic jam".  After all, I won't be going anywhere otherwise.

Day 49 of 365: Time Management

In the next verses, Nagarjuna examines the three times: past, present, and future.  There are three verses which one can use to turn your mind inside out:

If the present and the future depend on the past,
The present and the future would exist in the past.


If the past and the future depended on the present,
The past and the future would exist in the present.


If the past and the present depended on the future,
The past and the present would exist in the future.


These verses really speak for themselves.  We think that the past, present, and future are real times.  We think that we've lived the past, are living the present, and will live the future.  However, these times really only exist in mutual dependence upon the others.  Most people would acknowledge this initial statement.  What Nagarjuna is doing is taking this to its extreme logical conclusion so that one can see the absurdity of these concepts.  As meditators, we tend to solidify the three times through our practice.  Be present and do not wander into the past and the future with thoughts.  However wonderful this is to initially stabilize us, it can make the practice stale.  At some point, we have to relax and let go of the present as well.

Day 48 of 365: Free from Distinctions

Such is the fifth defining quality of the precise nature of reality.  Somehow, when you pull the thread, each of the defining characteristics all come back to the same point.  Yet, they all seem to highlight a little way in which we are trying to scheme and get an angle on emptiness or the precise nature.  This quality, in particular, invites us to take a look at distinctions and labeling.  Throughout the day, we constantly ask ourselves, immediately and in a habituated way, is it like this or like this?  Is this person rich or poor, tall or short, fat or skinny, nice or mean?  Am I happy or not happy?  The precise nature is the equality of these distinctions because it is beyond them all.  When we can't label in this way, we feel that things get dicey and we become afraid.  The same is true in our meditation practice in increasingly subtle ways.  Perhaps the words on our ticker tape become softer or more about meditation practice, but often they are there, lingering.  Once we become aware of our constant labeling and either/or game, it is no longer as powerful and we spark further curiosity for what exactly seems to be happening.  When we notice and let go, settling into the dicey and fearful moments of ambiguity, we begin to crack open the door to the precise nature.  This seems to be the journey we are invited to take.

Day 47 of 365: Not fabricated and non-conceptual

The third and fourth characteristics of the precise nature are "not fabricated by fabrications" and "nonconceptual".  As we move through meditation practice, all kinds of experiences arise.  Anger, happiness, blankness, busyness, feelings of upliftedness, depression.  One of the main ways in which we pigeonhole our experience is through descriptive labels such as these.  We often feel on a gut level like what we are experiencing is real.  But, beyond that, we feel that it warrants a description, a concept.  It's immediate and habitual.  The teachings are really giving us a litmus test for our experience.  Is there an overlay of concept?  How "naked" is our experience?  If we cannot say it is genuinely direct, nonconceptual, and naked, then it is not emptiness.

Day 46 of 365: Peace

The second quality of the precise nature of reality is peace.  Khenpo further describes this, saying that the precise nature is "peace in its true nature".  The precise nature is peace because it is free from the four extremes.  Any conflict that we have or struggle that we have is because we are grappling, perhaps in a subtle way, with reality and trying to pigeonhole our experience into one of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both, neither).  As we sit, this happens continually.  A thought arises.  It is real!  We let go.  Oh, maybe it's not so real!  An emotion arises.  We investigate, finding that we can't find a center or fringe to the emotions nor a color or a texture.  But, the emotion is there.  Maybe it's real and not real somehow?  We constantly are trying to get an angle on the situation.  But, this fundamental reaction is really nothing other than paranoia and fear, leading us away from true peace and the precise nature.

Day 45 of 365: The Precise Nature

Many synonyms can be used to describe emptiness.  One of these is the precise nature:

Unknowable by analogy; peace;
Not of the fabric of fabrications;
Nonconceptual; free of distinctions--
These are the characteristics of the precise nature.


These are the five parts of the definition of the precise nature of reality from Nagarjuna.  I'll be working with parts of this definition for the next couple of days.  The first part, unknowable by analogy, is interesting.  Emptiness, the precise nature, transcends concept and therefore is ultimately unknowable by concept.  Khenpo makes the point that, because of this, the teacher's only real option to lead student's to emptiness is to elucidate what it is not.  How does this part of the definition of emptiness affect meditation practice? As we rest in non-finding are we still resting in some concept of what we think emptiness should be like?  In moments of non-finding, it seems we must muster the courage to let the years of fear slide off our back and be like "a child in a shrine room".

Day 44 of 365: The Great Interdependence

This is one of the five great reasonings of the Middle Way.  I have been working with this through an example from Thrangu Rinpoche that is really simple and wonderful.  Take two sticks of incense, one which is 2 inches and the other which is 4 inches.  Set them side by side.  Clearly, we immediately think that the 4 inch stick is the largest.  What if we replace the 2 inch stick with a 6 inch stick?  Then the 4 inch stick is the smallest.  What changed about the stick?  Nothing.  This shows, in a gut level way, the dependence of small and large.  They are, in fact, equal.  Notice big and small throughout your day.  What reference point are you basing your concept on?

Day 43 of 365: Aggregates and You

Essentially, at some point, Nagarjuna wore down his questioners to such a degree that they asked, "Well, if actors, actions, mental afflictions, etc, are all mere appearance, then what is the true nature of reality?"  Nagarjuna's response was to explain the selflessness of the individual and the selflessness of phenomena.  He writes:

If the self were the aggregates,

It would be something that arises and ceases.

If the self were something other than the aggregates,

It would not have the aggregates' characteristics.

In other words, if the self were the aggregates, then it would be constantly arising and ceasing.  Through meditation, we can see that emotions, thoughts, and even our bodies, are constantly arising, changing, and ceasing.  Could they then be the self that we feel as unchanging, independent, and singular?  If the self were something other than the aggregates, then what could it be?  The aggregates constitute our entire experience. Thus, the self would have to be, as Khenpo puts it, an inert space.  Clearly, this is not how we take ourselves to be.

The self chases us,

Behind the jolt of nowness,

Frantic to label

Day 42 of 365: Karma

How do these Middle Way logics apply to karma?  

For those belonging to the family of the noble ones, karmic actions do not exist and results of karmic actions do not exist either.

The logic behind this is a fairly straightforward examination of actors and actions.  Look at which came first.  Neither the actor nor the action could come first because then you would have an actionless actor and an actorless action respectively.  And, they cannot be independent and arise at the same time either because independence implies that there is, in particular, no causal relationship.  Thus, they are are dependently arisen mere appearance as would be any resulting karma.

This is a really interesting logic from a conduct standpoint.  Our immediate reaction is to go towards nihilism. If there's no karma, then it doesn't matter how I conduct myself.  This is the way our mind moves.  However,  until we realize and stabilize the profound Middle Way view, our conduct matters very much.  We could, taking this logic in a naive way, further ensnare ourselves in the net of samsara.  Though neither karma nor samsara exist in an ultimate sense, we spend 99% of our time convinced they do in our guts.  So, our karma, most of the time, is just as real.  No wild kegger tonight for us!

Day 41 of 365: Happy Independence Day

It seems appropriate to look at the nature of our imprisonment by afflictive emotions on Independence Day.  Nagarjuna writes:

Do the mental afflictions bind?
They do not bind one already afflicted,
And they do not bind one who is not afflicted,
So when do they have the opportunity to bind anyone?


If one is already trapped in ignorance, already afflicted, they how could one become afflicted anew?  If one is not afflicted, like the buddhas, then how could one become afflicted?  In our own experience, we have moments of liberation and moments of what we take to be affliction.  It seems that Nagarjuna is encouraging us to look carefully at the moments where we think we're trapped.  What changed between those moments and the moments of liberation?  How are these moments different in true nature?  When did the affliction begin?  At what exact moment?  How is it that our perspective can change so suddenly?

Day 40 of 365: Wandering in Samsara

Nagarjuna takes a look at bondage and liberation next.  This forces us to take a look at how we further solidify the predicament of our confusion by believing that we are trapped in our confusion and that we can attain some sort of liberation.  To undercut this, he takes a closer look at the idea that we are wandering in samsara.  If there were a self wandering in samsara, that self would have to be impermanent or permanent.  If the self were impermanent, that would mean it is constantly changing, so what is it that would be wandering?  If the self were permanent, then you would have an unchanging self wandering in a constantly changing samsaric existence.  Clearly this is not the case either.  By looking for a moment, we can see that we are constantly changing.  So, there is nothing singular, lasting, and permanent wandering in samsara.  Maybe we can just drop the ruck sack of our concepts for a moment and enjoy the world beyond bondage and liberation--open, spacious, and relaxed.

Day 39 of 365: Flowers in the Sky

When the right causes and conditions are present, objects appear, and when they don't, they don't.  This is, for example, the reason we don't have flowers in the sky.  This is not, however, a basis for claiming that anything truly exists or does not exist.  Our five sense consciousnesses do not think "this is real" or "this is not real".  These ideas are concepts in the sixth consciousness.  There is only the direct perception without this overlay of concept.  Consider our thought that, say, a flower is real.  In order for the flower to be truly existent, it would have to exist independently of our idea of it not existing.  Clearly, this is not the case.  We only consider something as "here" relative to it "not being here".  Therefore, whatever it is, it is beyond both truly existing or not existing.

Day 38 of 365: Sense Perceptions

Nagarjuna next examines meeting and parting (contact).  One of the most fundamental examples of this, which we take as real, is the meeting or our sense object, sense faculty, and the perceiving sense conciousness.  We take our perceptions as real nearly every second of every day.  However, Nagarjuna challenges us to consider another possibility: they do not really meet.  This argument should be a well worn path at this point, but somehow it always seems fresh since each moment of confusion is fresh.  Can the perceived object exist before the perceiving organ?  No, because then there would be a perceived object without a perceiving organ.  What about the converse, the perceiving organ before the perceived object?  That can't be either because then there would be an eye, for example, seeing without an object.  How could that be?  What about them coming into being at the same time?  Nagarjuna shoots that down as well.  If they came into existence at the same moment and were real (in particular, independent), then they couldn't have a dependent causal relationship.  Thus, the sense object and organ are dependently arisen mere appearance and cannot meet.  Forgetting all the logic, can you relax, take the sense conciousnesses as nonconceptual and perceive the world in this way?

Day 37 of 365: Emptiness of Emptiness

What about emptiness itself?  We tend to use that word in such a way that we may begin to solidify even this with concept.  In fact, I would say that is our first instinct given our addiction to concept.  Khenpo reassures us in this chapter that indeed emptiness is empty, undercutting any conceptual expectations we may have.  The argument really just goes back to looking at what emptiness itself is.  How could emptiness itself not be empty?  Additionally, the concept of empty as opposed to not empty is not accurate.  Our experience of true reality is beyond any sort of conceptual game.  In contemplation, do you notice yourself looking for emptiness?  I am guessing that one never finds it in that way.

Day 36 of 365: Suffering and the Extremes

Today's shenanigans involve looking into the nature of all our suffering.  By this point, Nagarjuna and Khenpo have amassed an array of weapons grade arguments to deal with this.  For example, you could look at the arising, abiding, and ceasing of suffering.  You could look at the relationship between the suffering and the sufferer.  You could also look at this from the standpoint of causes and conditions.  At this point, our conceptual framework is starting to get a little shaky, even if you don't feel with certainty the validity of each of those arguments.  Here's one more: suffering cannot come from any of the four extremes.  Suffering can't come from itself, because there would be nothing to stop it from arising from itself again and again.  Suffering can't come from something other than itself.  That implies a causal relationship, which we have already shown as impossible.  Remember the seed and sprout?  The sprout can't arise from the seed, because when the seed is here the sprout is gone.  In order for something to arise from something else, that other thing must be here.  Suffering can't come from both itself and something else because that carries the flaws of each argument.  Suffering can't arise from neither.  Suffering clearly does not just arise without a cause.

Day 35 of 365: Birth and Death

Nagarjuna turns his attention to birth and death next, showing that since they cannot exist the samsaric cycle of birth and death cannot exist.  Essentially, this argument boils down to looking at things moment by moment.  Looking closely, how can we distinguish between something arising and ceasing?  Try this with a finger snap.  When is the snap born and when does it die?  Try this with each moment.  When does this moment end and the next begin?  We cannot have a present moment without the "death" of the past moment.  Yet, how do we distinguish when that happens?  Birth and death seem indistinguishable.

This weekend offered a unique opportunity to look at arising and ceasing as I slogged through a bout of food poisoning.  When did the sickness arise?  It took me an hour to realize I was really getting sick.  Was I sick before or after I decided it?  What about when it went away?  I still feel weak.  Does that mean it isn't gone?

Day 34 of 365: Samsara

Nagarjuna goes for the full monty on this one.  Does samsara truly exist?  If it did, it would have to have a cause.  We certainly associate our suffering with causes.  But, each of these causes would have to have a cause.  This process never stops.  If there were an "original cause" that thing itself would have to have a cause.  So, in this way, we can see that samsara is beginningless.  Without a beginning, how can it be and then end?  Thus, it was never real in this first place.  Convinced yet?

One could also approach this from the standpoint of those suffering in samsara.  Which came first, the person suffering or samsara itself?  Neither, and they didn't arise independently at the same time.  They are dependently arisen mere appearance.

Day 33 of 365: Looking at the Aggregates

I know, you're thinking, "The aggregates again?!"  It just never seems to get old to take a look at them.  The same argument from yesterday can be applied to the aggregates themselves.  One goes through the five possible relationships between the self and the aggregates just as with fire and firewood.  A sample for the skandha of form follows:

The self is not forms,
The self is not something other than forms,
The self does not have or possess any forms,
The self does not exist in dependence upon forms,
And forms do not exist in dependence upon the self.


From a personal standpoint, I have found it beneficial to work with the first two lines.  The language in the remaining three gets me hung up.  After all, I feel like I possess my body!  According to Khenpo, the later three lines are all similar to the second line.  All these statements refute the differentiation between the self and forms.  Throwing in the other skandhas, there are 25 verses all together--only 10 if you work with the first two lines of each.  Have fun!

Day 32 of 365: Five Relationships

Today's contemplation was a continuation of yesterday's contemplation of fire and firewood.  Instead of looking at the cause and effect relationship, Nagarjuna analyzes the five possible ways fire and firewood could be related to one another.

The firewood itself is not the fire,

There is no fire that exists apart from the firewood,

The fire does not possess the firewood,

The fire does not support the firewood, 

And the firewood does not support the fire.

The first two lines are considering the possibility that fire and firewood are the same and different things, respectively.  How could fire be the same as the thing it burns?  And, if they were different, then you could have fire without firewood and vice a versa.  The last three verses imply that fire and firewood are different entities which again cannot be the case.

Day 31 of 365: Rocking Boats

Today's contemplation had to do with fire and firewood.  Nagarjuna delivers this argument to refute the claim that the self exists in relation to the aggregates in the same way that fire relates to the firewood.  In other words, just as the fire burns the firewood, the self appropriates the aggregates.

If something exists in dependence upon something else,
But that thing upon which it depends
Must also depend upon it,
Then which one of these depends upon which?

The fire can't come before the firewood (the wood being burned), and the firewood can't come before the fire by this definition either.  Clearly, they are not independent, but could they be dependent?  If they are dependent, then one would serve as the cause for the other, which implies it would have to exist first.  But, we just reasoned that this is not the case.  So, these are dependently arisen mere appearances.  They are like two rocking boats--neither can be used to steady the other (courtesy of Mipham).

Day 30 of 365: Perceiver and Perceived

The one who experiences perceptions does not exist
Before, during, or after the experiences of seeing and so forth.
Knowing this, all thoughts of an experiencer of perceptions either existing or not existing are reversed.

Perceptions can be a continuous experience of self-validation.  However, the Middle Way tells us this does not have to be the case and that both the perceptions and the perceiver are appearance-emptiness.  Can the seer of the text on this screen exist before the text itself?  No, because then that person would always see text  independent of the text itself.  What about the seer existing after the experience of seeing?  That doesn't make sense either because then the seer would be seeing text after the experience.  If they independently arose at the same time, there would be no connection between them which is not the case.  The only possible scenario is that the seer and text that is seen arise in mutual dependence.  Thus, neither can have an independent existence.

Could the experiencer who is seeing this moment be the same as the experiencer who is hearing the next moment?  The logics would say no, because the hearer does not exist in the moment of seeing.  What is the commonality that we take as the self?  Some vague sense of consciousness?  Can we differentiate consciousness from the experiences themselves?  It's an interesting experiment.

Day 29 of 365: I Didn't Do It

Nagarjuna takes a look at actors and actions to refute the argument that things really exist because actors and actions do.  If actors and actions exist, then surely the things that are involved exist!  This argument is simply stated:


An actor exists in dependence upon an action,
An action exists in dependence upon an actor,
And apart from that,
No reason for their existence can be seen.


Examine the relationship between actors and actions in terms of their sequencing as with previous arguments.  If they are real and therefore independent, then they can't even arise at the same time.  If they did, there wouldn't be any connection between them.  Therefore, they are appearance and emptiness, inseparable.

Somehow, I think the children in Family Circus would have gotten good mileage out of this argument.  However, the savvy parents, trained in the profound Middle Way view, could have come back by saying that "Not Me" is not more real that "Me".

Day 28 of 365: Elephants on the Moon

One can build on yesterday's argument and the implications it has for non-composite phenomena.  These are things that don't arise, abide, and cease.  What might those be?  Space, cessation that is the result of analysis (kleshas for an arhat), and cessation that is not the result of analysis (nonexistence of elephants on the moon).  Anyway, the point here is that by seeing that composite phenomena do not truly exist, one can then see "automatically" that non-composite phenomena do not really exist.  Khenpo gives the example of a car in a dream.  Once you realize the car is in a dream, why would you take the space in the car to be any more real than the car itself?  Given that we sometimes define our experience by what it is not, how does this help to chisel away at the solidity of our reality?

Day 27 of 365: The Dude Abides

Today's contemplation involves looking at arising, abiding, and ceasing.  Why you may ask?  Apparently, someone in the last centuries made an argument that composite phenomena (things that arise, abide, and cease) are real (singular, lasting, independent) because arising, abiding, and ceasing are.  I'm not entirely sure I follow that logic because ceasing implies that the object is not lasting.  Regardless, this argument is helpful to look at because things arising, abide, and cease in our experience all the time.

Can you guess how the argument goes?  Arising depends on there initially not being something, abiding depends on the arising, and ceasing depends on the abiding.  Therefore, none of these can really be real.  There are, in fact, completely dependent.  So, what does that mean for composite phenomena?  They are dependently arisen mere appearance.  Can we see them that way?

Seems like a good opportunity to look again at movement as well (See Day 4).

Day 26 of 365: Desire

Given that we're human, desire makes sense as one of the most potent emotions to contemplate.  Nagarjuna takes a look at desire from the perspective of the desirous one and the desire itself.  As seems to be his way, he looks at the order of occurrence to finally conclude that these are indeed not independent and therefore not real.  In a sense, it's taking out two birds with one stone, or two concepts with one argument.  Could one have desire without the desirous one?  No, that doesn't make sense.  What about the desirous one without desire?  No, because then the desirous one wouldn't be desirous.  How about desire and the desirous one arising at the same time yet being independent?  (Remember that independence is one of the ways we take things to be real in a naive way.)  If they were independent, then they would have no relationship which is clearly not the case.  So, desire and the desirous one are dependent and therefore not real in the way we think they are.

How does this change our perspective on objects of desire?  Tomorrow's post meditation practice will be to stay with desire when it arises long enough to reflect on the dreamlike quality of it.  Desire tends to solidify our belief in the reality of the objects of desire.  If the desire is dreamlike, then can we see the objects in that way too?  Does this apply to carrot cake?

Day 25 of 365: Make a List, Check it Twice

Yesterday's contemplation got me thinking about how we use defining characteristics of things to solidify our world.  Throughout the day, think about how you would enumerate defining characteristics for the things you experience.  We experience things as largely singular, lasting, and independent.  In fact, I would say that most of the time we recognize some sort of uniqueness to everything which further solidifies things.  How could you list defining characteristics for this unique tree, this car horn, or this body?  If you think you can do it, then do it and see if this really completely defines what you were attempting to define.  If you can't do it, then what does that say about what you're trying to define?  Can it be defined?  We are so certain of our experience and take it so seriously, yet we can't seem to even define it.

Day 24 of 365: The Elements

Today's contemplation involves looking at the elements (water, fire, wind, space, and conciousness).  If this feels a little medieval to you, then we have something in common.  This argument was originally given to refute the claim that since the Buddha taught about the elements then they must exist.  Essentially, this argument boils down to looking at something (the definiendum) and its defining characteristics.  Take space for example.  Space is, by definition, that which does not obscure or obstruct and that which is thoroughly intangible.  Which came first, the defining characteristics or the definiendum?  If the characteristics came first, then you would have characteristics without the thing they are characteristics of, which cannot be the case.  Also, you cannot have the definiendum before the defining characteristics because these characteristics define the object.  Could they arise at the same time and truly exist independently?  No, because then they would not be in a causal relationship.  In fact, they are completely dependent--the definiendum has no independent existence from the defining characteristics.  Since neither has a nature of its own, then they cannot be real in the way we think they are.  Feels a little fishy to me.  Just because something is dependent upon defining characterisitcs doesn't seem to imply that it doesn't exist in a solid real way.  We think of things in terms of defining characteristics all the time.  Do we enumerate flawless lists of defining characteristics?  No--that seems like an impossible task.  We can often be duped into taking one object for a similar one due to our generalizations or lack of perception.  How much do we believe we can write down a list of characteristics to be checked in finite time to verify something real (single, lasting, and independent)?  If we can't, what does that say about the thing we're trying to define?

Day 23 of 365: Gaps

Today's contemplation was originally going to be a Middle Way logic refuting the true existence of the elements.  That will be tomorrow's fodder.  This evening was a great reminder that life frequently offers us opportunities, direct invitations really, to jump right into the Middle Way.  As the organizer of the Open House Dharma talks, I have frequently had the thought "What if the speaker doesn't show?"  Well, tonight I had the opportunity to work with that fear mano-a-mano.  A dharma friend, who was originally going to give the talk, got stuck in traffic at the last minute.  Gap moment.  At these times, it really feels superfluous to contemplate anything really.  One already has a direct opportunity to work with emptiness.  Doing anything other than just staying there for a second is like trying to turn on the light in a room that is already bright to borrow a metaphor from Khenpo.  So, tomorrow I'll work with noticing and appreciating these moments, big or small.  If you don't have any moments, you can (at your own risk): run into a wall (yes, unfortunately I admit that I have done that unintentionally), try to startle yourself, eat chocolate syrup expecting balsamic vinegar (personal experience), or crank up your car stereo the night before and forget you did so the next morning.  Other ways might include visiting an art exhibit or a garden, telling someone you love them the first time, proposing, seeing a child walk for the first time.  What's your favorite?

Day 22 of 365: Stirring of Mind

Today's contemplation again involved working with the Mind Only School as a precursor to the Madhyamaka Schools.  The following verses sum up the reason, from the Mind Only perspective, for appearances:

The mind stirred by habitual tendencies
Arises as outer appearances.
They are not existent objects but mind itself.
To see external objects is mistaken.


-Lankavatara Sutra


Andy Karr's book Contemplating Reality, which includes this quote, is a great source to consult on the views of the various philosophical schools.  He mentions an example there which I felt was very helpful.  Consider the process of reading.  Due to our habitual tendencies, which we have cultivated, we nearly automatically interpret letters joined together as words which also have a sound.  So, the habitual patterns this verse is referring to are very deep and more than just our tendency to get sad or angry when someone pushes our buttons.  The words are really a product of our habit.  Could the same be said for shapes or color?  It seems that these habitual patterns could even be tied to our humanness.  In other words, the way that we relate perceive the world is due to the karma of having been born human.  Would a fly, as Andy Karr points out, see the world in the same way?  No, but other humans with similar karma may have similar experiences.  I have found a new respect for the depth of our habitual patterns...sort of like being in awe of a big monolith.

Day 21 of 365: Mind Your Own Business

Today's contemplation comes from the Mind Only School.  I'll keep it short and sweet.  Khenpo says: "Reflect on how one has no proof that the outer perceived aspect (or object) of a moment of conciousness exists independently of the inner perceiving aspect."  How does working with this shape your relationships with others?

Day 20 of 365: Cognition

Sunday and Monday offered up some good opportunities to work with conception and perception, which coincided very nicely with some reading I was doing on the Sautrantrika school.  Basically, the Sautrantrikas take genuine reality to be "what is direct perceived and things that can perform a function."  It is important here to take a look at the differences between conception (thinking) and perception and to try to see the difference.

This last weekend, I visited NYC, a city which I have visited many times and have may preconceived ideas about.  What was interesting was watching these ideas mix with the fresher experiences.  What was the difference between my ideas about the city, or the idea of city period, and the experience as it unfolded?  It was refreshing to allow some fresh air in and enjoy the city in a new more direct way.  Old thoughts swirled around with new labels and moments of more direct perception.  Some opportunities for direct experience included the smell of trash, some car horns, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, and some delicious desserts.

Attempting to notice my conceptions about the ridiculously good carrot cake versus the perceptions. 

Someone's concepts about animals on the High Line in NYC

On a side note, I've purposely stayed away from any sort of heady discussions on the various philosophical schools. However, I did want to mention that, while neither the Sautrantrikas nor the Vaibhashika's (breaking experiece down into moments of the skandhas) are Middle Way schools (they are more in the Hinayana), understanding the view of these schools and the arguments that they use to poke holes in our solid reality seem to be very beneficial to work with.  Understanding the refutations between the schools offers approaches to unraveling my own doubts.  It has also been beneficial to look more closely at the perspectives behind the claims that the Middle Way schools refute.  And, one can always carry the heart intention of the Mahayana...

Day 19 of 365: The Whole Kitchen Sink

What about the self as everything that arises in all the aggregates?  I don't want to spoil the punch line, but Nagarjuna refutes this as well:

If the self were the aggregates, 
It would be something that arises and ceases.
If the self were something other than the aggregates, 
It would not have the aggregates' characteristics.


If we are convinced that the aggregates constantly arise and cease, then the self couldn't be the aggregates.  We experience the self as something continuous that doesn't arise and cease.  Since the aggregates speak to everything in conditioned experience, the self couldn't be outside of the aggregates.  Clearly, the potency of this argument will be driven by the depth to which we are convinced that the aggregates account for everything and indeed arise and cease.

Day 18 of 365: Who's driving the bus?

Before getting into today's Middle Way merriment, I wanted to put a plug in for yesterday's contemplation.  Looking naively for the self for a very short time and repeatedly throughout the day is really interesting and can be powerful in a really ordinary sort of way.  Personally, it gave me more of a feeling for how I really feel myself to be real on a daily, habitual level.  And, it helped habituate these contemplations in a good way.  Try it if you have time.  At least then I will know that there is at least one other person out there stopping and perhaps drawing curious stares from coworkers as they look at their watch on the hour and stop what they're doing for 30 seconds.

Today's inquiry is into the nature of who exactly is making all these decisions we think we're making and how the skandhas take that into consideration.  Who's driving the bus so to speak?  Well on my journey into that question, I found myself looking more closely at the 51 samskaras.  Skandhas 2 and 3 are actually in the 51 samskaras, but there are additional samskaras, or mental factors, which seem relevant to help look at this notion we have of the "driver".  In particular, the 5 Omnipresent Mental Factors and the 5 Mental Factors that Cause the Discovery of Objects stood out.  I've listed these below.  The 5 Omnipresent Mental Factors are "necessary in all aspects of cognition -- they accompany all conciousnesses". (SMR)  The 5 Mental Factors that Cause the Discovery of Objects "cause one to discover further what one is experiencing". (SMR)  Today's contemplation will involve looking at this process of steering the ship from the perspective of these 10 samskaras.  We often take things like intention as deeply personal.  Somehow, looking at this as a mental "event", raises questions about how solid this is.  How do these samskaras play out in a moment of deciding?

5 Omnipresent Mental Factors

1. Feeling (tshor-ba; vedana) is the basis for experiencing an object of the six senses (including the mental sense) as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Without sensation mind could not experience its object.

2. Discrimination ('du-shes; samjna) apprehends the particular marks of an object of the six senses. Without discrimination mind could not distinguish the characteristics of the object. It could also not link it with further mental processes like giving a name to the object.

3. Intention (sems-pa; cetana) which directs the mind towards an object of the six senses. Without intention mind could not go towards an object.

4. Contact (reg-pa; sparsha) which is the coming together of all three — object, sense faculty and perceiving consciousness. Without contact mind could not encounter the object and establish a relation with it. Contact provides the base for a sensation within one of the six sense fields to arise.

5. Application (yid-la byed-pa; manaskara) which is the continuous, repeated movement towards a certain object of interest. Without application mind could not remain fixed on an object of the six senses. There would be no stability.

5 Mental Factors that Cause the Discovery of Objects

1. Aspiration ('dun-pa; chanda) causes one to integrate the desired object and serves as the support for initiating exertion.

2. Interest (mos-pa; adhimoksa) apprehends the ascertained thing just as it is and causes one not to be captured by some other thing.

3. Mindfulness (dran-pa; smrti) keeps the already familiar object present in mind and protects against forgetfulness and distraction.

4. Meditative stabilization (ting-nge 'dzin; samadhi) is the ability to focus or collect the mind one-pointedly and continuously on any given mental object, not being distracted by any other object.

5. Wisdom (shes-rab; prajña) is the sixth paramita. It distinguishes the faults and qualities of an object and dispels doubts. It analyses the object from every angle. It is a mental state where one is able to distinguish completely and precisely all phenomena.

Day 17 of 365: Skandhas in Everyday Life

I'll be bringing the 5 skandhas together in practice for the next couple of days.  For today, the plan is to spend 30 seconds (or more if I have it) on the hour, every hour, looking at where I think "I" am.  I've found myself getting caught up in intellectual notions of where I think I am, which seem to have little to do with where I feel I am in daily life, in some of the contemplations.  So, this contemplation is an attempt to bring this back down to earth.  Every time I look, I will flash naively on where the sense of me is and then why I take it to be me.  Is it in the body or conciousness (in the sense of skandhas 2-5)?  What about this moment of conciousness do I take for a self?  What part of the body am I identifying with?  How do the stories I'm telling myself contribute?

Day 16 of 365: Conciousness

Today's Middle Way mischief involved looking at conciousness, the last of the skandhas.  I have had a growing sense that I was sort of passing the buck with the other skandha contemplations, the contemplation on form aside.  There wasn't a strong sense, again the skandha of form aside, that I took the others to be a self.  Naively, we tend to either identify with our body or our conciousness.  When we're not absorbed in one, we're absorbed in the other. So, this contemplation was definitely "high stakes".  In a very gut sort of way, I tend to take my underpinning awareness as "me".  It seems to be always there, not really changing even though the objects do, and independent in the sense that nobody else seems to be in control.  What does Khenpo think about this?  Well, he suggests that we take a look at each moment of experience.  Any moment of experience, which we sense as bounded by space and time, is defined by the object of experience and the thing experiencing.  Since, in each moment, conciousness has a different object, these moments of conciousness must be distinct.  Indeed, the moment of conciousness that has passed and the moment of conciousness that is to come do not exist so all we have then is this moment of awareness.  How could these distinct momentary phenomena count as a self?

This argument, as presented, didn't really seem to hit home.  I seem to strongly feel this conciousness through a stream of related experiences.  But, how could these moments of conciousness be related at all?  In order for there to be a relationship, they would have to at least overlap in some moment of time which is not the case unless they are the same moment of conciousness.  What about the similarity of experience?  Similarity doesn't point at anything real, since the moment we are comparing something to is already gone.  The same can be said for the objects of the conciousness as well.  Remember the flowering bush?  Does this shake things up?

Day 15 of 365: Skandha of Feeling, Reprise

Today was originally going to be a contemplation on the last of the five skandhas, rounding out my excursion into these teachings for the moment.  Instead, it seems fully appropriate to take what the world has served up as the path: the skandha of feeling, piping hot.

Today was a travel day during which I returned from Shambhala AD Training in Atlanta.  Coming back from a great experience of delving into teachings and opening up with the fellow ADs in training, I knew some practice opportunities would arise in living color as the week began.  This morning's excitement involved an early morning metro ride to the Atlanta Airport which did not disappoint.  Arriving at the airport, there were more people than I have ever seen in an airport.  Frequent travelers were even remarking on the crowds.  Not being a fan of big crowds or airports, opportunity 1 immediately presented itself - dislike (aversion).  There were certainly some other kleshas flying around, kind of like sprinkles on a cupcake, but an intense sense of aversion was undeniable.  Opportunity 2 arose as I began to weave my story line about the situation.  Wouldn't this be better if I had already had some coffee?  Opportunity 2: passion (intense like) for the idea of the cup of coffee.  What was really interesting was watching these two feelings interleave with one another as I made my way through the security check point, rode the train to the concourse, and stumbled around as I looked for some place to get coffee.  Every now and then some indifference dropped in for one reason or another.  With ample time before I made it through the check point and the coffee materialized, there was time to look.  Where is my like and dislike?  Where is the object of either?  Do I dislike each person in the crowd?  Not really.  So, how could I dislike this "crowd" without disliking the individuals?  If I took away 1 person, would I still dislike the "crowd"?  What about 2 people?  Where is the crowd?  What about the cup of coffee?  I didn't even have the coffee yet, and I knew it probably wasn't going to be that good.  Who desired the coffee?  Where in my body exactly did I feel the pull of passion for the coffee coming from?  Could I pinpoint it?

What a gift from the lineage of teachers that tody's ripe experience could start seeming less personal, that the felt sense could actually be kind of interesting, and that the whole situation could really provoke a smile in the midst of a caffeine deprived haze.  What revs your skandha of feeling?

The Atlanta Airport - Past the practice opportunity of the security checkpoint

The object of my fixation about to materialize.

Day 14 of 365: Formation

The skandha of karmic formation, sometimes called just formation or mental construction, generally speaking, contains all the other mental events besides conciousness itself which is the last skandha.  This includes our thoughts, happiness, sadness, joy, devotion, and jealousy.  These are referred to as samskaras, which to quote Khenpo, "...also has the meaning of predisposition in the sense of tracks left by former deeds that condition one's present thinking and behaviour."

Do we take this stream of juicy stuff to be a self?  Can we find anything singular, lasting, and independent in this stream of stuff?  Sometimes our emotional habits seem quite strong and very predictable.  Does this mean there's something real there which could constitute us?  Not taking this skandha to be at least self confirming, let alone defining a self, seems tied quite closely to our overall conviction in the workability of our own mind.  We may seem convinced that every time, as predictable as the sunrise, we will get angry when someone presses our button.  But, over time, as the button gets pressed and we hold that in the awareness, the button can wear out and we can develop greater wisdom.

It seems very appropriate that this contemplation would come up during Shambhala Assistant Director Training this weekend.  We can use this stream of flotsam and jetsam in the samskaras to weave a tight, dank little web of protection (our cocoon) from our own tenderness and the brilliance of the world.  Or, we can develop the bravery to rouse ourself, look at this with love and curiosity, and rest in any space of non-finding.  Developing trust in the results of our investigation and bravery seem to go hand in hand.

Day 13 of 365: Discrimination/Perception

Discrimination, also called Formation, is the moment of recognition of input through the senses.  Khenpo uses the example of perceiving the color blue.  When we experience the color blue, we notice (we recognize that it is the color blue).  When we hear a baby cry, we know very quickly and not really with any thought that it is a baby crying.  As with feeling, the stream of recognition is continuous.  How do we identify with this skandha?  This skandha is changing so much that, again, I don't really feel I identify with it as "me", which I experience as singular, lasting, and independent.   I do, however, take perception just as personally as feeling.  We can look at both the perception itself and examine it closely, and we can look for the one doing the recognition.  How do we take the perception itself as real?  How do we take ourselves as real as we are doing this labeling?  We can deconstruct either or apply a causality argument between the sense object and the perception.  The process of feeling and perception is so habituated and so earnest--almost paranoid actually.  We feel we must maintain the fortress of ego by shoring up any possible ambiguity in experience.  And, it seems, personally speaking, that this happens very automatically through our habituated attitude towards the process of feeling and discrimination.  Our habit is to feel uncertain when we don't know how we feel or what something is...and to immediately want to cover up the uncertainty.

Does anyone feel like looking for the self in the skandhas is like finding the ball under the cup?

Day 12 of 365: Changeability of Feeling

We experience a continuous evaluation of our experience through our habituated, karmic reactions to things. How does this define the self?  Are we convinced that we are our feelings about things?  Our feelings are so fickle that I personally have a hard time feeling that they define me in any really strong way.  However, I do seem to take them personally in a very instantaneous way.  After they arise, why does the mind take so much care to weave a story or jump to conclusions after a feeling arises?  Why go through this trouble unless it we think it is personal?  I think, among other reasons, we tend to take the feelings so personally because we think we exist already and need to do something with them because they are real.  Where is the experiencer of the feelings (we already looked for it in the body)?  Where is the feeling itself?  If we take the feelings personally because of a causal relationship (feeling and experiencer), apply the causality argument to both and see what happens.  Can we relax enough for there to be an experience of feeling without an experiencer?

Day 11 of 365: Looking at Feeling

The skandha of feeling refers to those of liking, disliking, and not caring either way.  Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche explains in the 99 Seminary Transcripts that there are essentially two main categories of skandhas: form and conciousness.  Moving into the second category, we may notice that these later skandhas occur as fast as the blink of an eye.  For example, you cannot make feeling and discrimination into separate entities because they are happening very quickly.  The Sakyong makes the point that separating feeling out emphasizes its central role in karma.

Feeling is what initiates karma. Feeling is what initiates causes and conditions.  Feeling is what initiates the individual.  -SMR


This is a profound quote really and is making me take a closer look at the seemingly innocuous moments of like, don't like, don't care that happen countless times a day--many times a minute really.  What karma am I creating by buying into these feelings and what are they spawning in my life and mind as I take them to be real?  It seems very important then to understand their true nature.  In meditation practice, do I like the present moment or not?  Where is that feeling of liking?  How does that solidify how I practice?  How does it solidify myself?  Do I identify with that feeling?  I plan on paying extra attention to how these arise and how I relate to them in my life tomorrow.

Day 10 of 365: Happy Mother's Day

I'm going to take a quick detour from the skandhas today to celebrate Mother's Day Middle Way style.  We often solidify our world by defining our relationships to other people.  But, the teachings suggest that we take a closer look and see whether we think those definitions have any more substance than a dream.  Take a look at the mother to child relationship and apply the causality argument.  There are three possibilities: the mother came first, the child came first, or they arose at the same time.  If the mother came first, then there was a moment in time when they were a childless mother, which cannot occur since mothers have to have children by definition.  If the child came first, there would be a motherless child which is really strange to think about.  If they came into existence at the same time, then there would be no causal relationship which is not the case.  Does this mean I don't need or want to call Mom today?  Not really.  It does open up opportunities for our relationship to grow and change though.  Happy Mother's Day!

Sunlit peony
To all mothers and children
This rich, fleeting gift

 

Day 9 of 365: Identifying with Form

How do we identify with form?  When I was in school, I recall a period during finals where I must have worn the same sweater for over a week.  I don't know that I shaved either.  When I finally did switch it up and wear a different sweater and shave, there was a little shift my experience and to be honest I had started identifying with the sweater in a way.  I was, after all, wearing it every day.  I have found it interesting to contemplate what this may imply about how we relate to the body in general.  After all, why do we call it my body?  Because we are in our body every moment of every day (unless we are spaced out), we tend to take the experience of body as a confirmation of our existence.  I think we do this with little things all the time: favorite sunglasses, a watch we never take off, etc.  What happens when we lose those?  What happens when we move to a new home and our external world changes?  We may feel some sort of change in us.  What's to say that our body is any more "me" than our clothes?  Anybody see Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

Day 8 of 365: Form

Sometimes the skandhas seem abstract and incomplete.  I picked up Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness today to read another description of the skandhas to develop more of a certainty that they do indeed capture everything that I experience in mind and matter.  This text has quite a good and down to earth presentation of them and I recommend it.  Khenpo presents form first as body and the environment.  In a very straightforward way, we take the world to be out there with us in here.  We can look for truly existent things in this skandha (ie, singular, lasting, and independent).  What is really the strongest thing we're convinced of?  Ourselves.  In looking for what we call "me", you can look at your body.  How do we identify ourselves with our body?  Where in the body is the self?  Is it in our head, our toe, our brain?  Where exactly is it?  If you were to remove that part of the body would "you" still exist?  We can examine the external world similarly and rest in any non-finding.

Many people suspect that all the negation in these teachings may lead them to nihilism or at least a sense of indifference about the world.  Somehow the phenomenal world just won't be ignored.  I recently have started training with Olympic weightlifting (snatch, clean and jerk).  Working on front squats the other day, the coach loaded up the bar with kilo weights.  Being slow on conversion, I didn't know exactly how much I was lifting and the coach didn't give me a chance to process it.  After being commanded to lift, I did--and in fact it was a personal best.  So, loosening our concepts of things can bring possibilities into a situation.  The phenomenal world snapped back rather rapidly though as I clocked myself in the nose while I was practicing the snatch.  At that moment, the skandha of form was the only thing on my mind.

Day 7 of 365: Beginning with the Aggregates

Khenpo moves on to begin working with the five skandhas to eventually show their emptiness.  He says they are everything included in matter and mind.  They are: form (material phenomena), feelings (experiences of sensations we find pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral), discriminations (sometimes perceptions; thoughts of things as hot or cold, clean or dirty), formations (catch all category for all the other thoughts and emotions that I experience, sometimes called karmic formations), and conciousness (six primary conciousnesses; one for each sense and then also for mind).  He begins with the skandha of form.

Form is empty of form.

-Prajnaparamita Sutra

Before even considering this statement, a preliminary contemplation on the path to deconstructing the entire world is to contemplate the skandhas as everything.  Do I believe it?  Do these five categories encompass all that I take to be matter and mind?  If not, then the emptiness arguments against them will have less potency.  How does looking at my being as the five skandhas affect how I relate to myself?  If I am a bunch of parts, then how real am I?  Do I sense categories of things within each skandha?

Day 6 of 365: Emptiness of Perception as Validation

One of our reactions to emptiness of things is to think, "But, I can see it with my own eyes!"  That is often my gut reaction.  Nagarjuna deals with this method of solidification next.  He essentially looks at each of the six inner sources of conciousness (eye conciousness, ear conciousness, etc) and the six outer sources of conciousness (visual objects, sounds, etc).  If you are unfamiliar with this, just think of looking at an orange.  The orange would be the visual object.  The eye organ senses the orange, and this is registered by our visual conciousness.  This is sequentially, in a relative truth sort of way, how we take in the world.  What Nagarjuna asserts is that this doesn't really prove anything.  There are three possibilities for the arising of our perceived sense object and perceiving sense conciousness: the perceived sense object arose before the perceiving sense conciousness, the perceiving sense conciousness arose before the perceived sense object, or they arose at the same time.  The first case is the hardest.  We often think that there is something out there which we are perceiving.  However, how can there be an object of perception before the actual perceiving?  Without yet perceiving it, how would you prove it is there?  We are in fact always one step behind.  The orange we're looking at in this instant is not really the same orange as exists in this instant.  The orange we're looking at in this instant is from the last instant.  We mistake them for the same because they are so similar in appearance.  The second case is easier.  How could a perceiving sense conciousness exist before the perceived sense object?  There would be no object to perceive.  The third case is also fairly straightforward.  We experience these sense objects and sense conciousnesses as being causal, so they cannot arise at the same time.

If we are, as the teachings suggest, always one step behind, then why not just relax?  After all, there isn't a present moment to relax in either.  What's the harm in just opening your heart?

Day 5 of 365: Where is the Present Moment?

Does the present moment exist in the way that we think it does?  We often say things like, "This is happening right now" and we experience things as happening in the present moment.  Khenpo presents the example of the finger snap.  We think of that as happening "now".  But, when we look at the moment of the finger snap, we could divide that subtle moment into smaller and smaller moments.  The process doesn't stop.  So, there's no moment in which there could be a snap.  Personally, this argument didn't do too much for me as is.  I had to really reflect on how I experience the present moment as oppose to how I think conceptually about the present moment.  I experience the present moment as something pregnant with perception.  Things seem three dimensional in the present moment.  When I start thinking about the smallest moment in time, I begin to think about the present moment as almost two dimensional--kind of like a frame in a movie reel.  So, working with this argument helped me loosen hard and fast ideas of the present moment as something tangible.

Relaxing the mind,
I reach to the azure sky.
Know we are the same.

Day 4 of 365: Looking at Movement

On the path that has been traveled, there is no moving,
On the path that has not been traveled, there is no moving either,
And in some other place besides the path that has been traveled and the path that has not,
Motions are not perceptible in way at all.
-Nagarjuna


We often think things exist because they seem to move from here to there.  Trimming my trees today, I was quite convinced that the branches existed as I moved them from the back yard to the front yard.  But, Nagarjuna is asking all of us to consider a different possibility.  There is no movement on the path that has been traveled because that path is no longer here.  There is no movement on the path that will be traveled because it is not here yet.  And, in between, there is no place for movement to happen at all.  At any given moment in time, where is the movement?  How do I relate to this on a small time scale (small movements)?  Can I understand this on a larger scale (getting from here to work)?  Sometimes thoughts seem like they are moving which seems a bit strange on a relative level.  We couldn't point to our thought relative to something else and show that it is moving.  Yet, we label that as movement.  If, at an absolute level, there is nothing different between a thought and a tree branch, why treat them differently?

Day 3 of 365: Water Moon

Since the contemplation for the last couple of days has been about causes and conditions, I decided to work with an example that the Khenpo uses in the book.  To explain dependently arisen mere appearances, he says:

The best example to help us understand what this means is the moon that appears on the surface of a pool of water.  When all the conditions of a full moon, a cloud-free sky, a clear lake, and a perceiver come together, a moon will vividly appear on the water's surface, but if just one condition is absent, it will not.


How is my experience any different from a water moon?  How am I any different from a water moon?

Day 2 of 365: Causes and the Four Extremes

Not from self, not from other,
Not from both, nor without cause:
Things do not arise
At any place, at any time.

-Nagarjuna, Funadamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

Today's contemplation had to do with taking a look at arising from the perspective of the four extremes.  The argument against the first case basically says that if something arose from itself then the object would have to exist before it arose.  Conventionally, we think and experience arising as sequential, so that doesn't feel right.  The next case felt more challenging.  If something arose from something else, then cause and result would have to exist at the same time.  This cannot be since it contradicts our notion of arising--how could something arise from something else if they already existed together?  This sort of felt fishy to me, so I tried to think of an example that felt contradictory.  Take a bush from our garden.  The flowers seem to arise from the bush, but the bush is still there and so are the flowers?  Feels right!  Thinking some more, I think Nagarjuna might ask if the bush that has flowers on it is the same as the bush from which the flowers arose.  Indeed it isn't.  I can't compare this bush with the old bush because they don't exist together.  Hmmmm...  :-)  The third extreme is taken care of by the first two.  The fourth extreme seems a little stickier.  Could something feel like it is arising without a cause?  We say sometimes, "This just popped up."  What about thoughts?  I think that in these cases we don't see and appreciate causes on a relative level.  Nothing really, truly seems to arise without a cause, even if they are subtle.  Even inspiration and insight arises because of the causes and conditions we bring together...space, relaxation, etc.  Am I convinced?  Wash, rise, repeat.

Day 1 of 365: Causes and Conditions

I'll be starting with the Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso and for the subsequent postings until I make it through the book.

Whatever arises from causes and conditions does not arise. (Sutra Requested by Madropa)

Looking at a particular result, we can recognize the multitude of causes and conditions leading to that result.  We can then look at the causes and conditions for those causes and conditions, going back and back.  Realizing that there really is no limit to this and nothing exists independently with a nature of its own, we realize that there is nothing truly there.

I took my morning coffee as the object of contemplation and moved on to thoughts and feelings after a while.  I believe that was the most appreciated cup of coffee I've had in a while.  What a rich reality.

Day 0 of 365: Aspiration

Since I first heard about the Buddhist Middle Way teachings, I had a strong desire to delve in and submerse myself in the logics designed to confound logical mind and bring one to true understanding of the nature of our beings and reality.  After reading several books on the view of the various philosophical schools of the Middle Way, I find myself longing to jump in further but lacking that last push to crack the books and apply myself again.  Recently re-inspired by a wonderful weekend program by Jay Lippman, I've decided to devote myself to a contemplation a day for 365 days.  I'll be posting the contemplations here with perhaps some comments about them.  They may not be done on consecutive days, but we'll make it through all 365.  My aspiration is to bring these these teachings to bear as a support for my practice and path as a practicioner.  You're invited to post comments to describe your experience working with these contemplations if you wish and to engage in respectful dialogue.