The Art of Letting Go: Embracing Impermanence in Life and Spirituality - 3 marks of existence

Peter: 00:00:07

Welcome back. Views, interpretations and opinions expressed are not advice nor official positions presented on behalf of any organization or institution.

They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Now join Ryan and Peter for another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.

Ryan: 00:00:25

Good morning, everybody, and welcome back to another episode of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast. I'm Ryan.

Peter: 00:00:30

And I'm Peter.

Ryan: 00:00:31

And we are going to talk today about impermanence and also touching on the three marks of existence, which are concepts in Buddhism. And I have some questions and interest in this topic, and so I think we'll get right into it.

So the three marks of existence is a fundamental teaching in Buddhism. Would you agree with that? And the three marks are, number one, the idea of impermanence.

Number two is the concept of suffering, unease and imperfection in conditioned experience. Wouldn't that be fair? And then the third is the idea of no everlasting or permanent empathy.

And I have some questions about that one or interest in what that actually looks like. So I guess to begin, we should introduce at least what the Buddhist concept of impermanence is.

And as far as what I understand it is the idea that no condition, no thing that is experienced in material reality has any permanence. There's this constant flux and change. Is that okay? Well, then.

Peter: 00:01:53

Let me. Let me just offer a couple other kind of versions of it. So a modern.

This is actually part of our course content, was not personal, not permanent, not.

Ryan: 00:02:06

Perfect as the three marks.

Peter: 00:02:09

As the three. It's just kind of different translations to kind of make it a little more accessible. It's also known as impermanence, emptiness and. And suffering.

Okay, so basically, so dukkha is unsatisfactory ness, but translated as suffering. Because when things don't meet our expectations or when things are against, you know, our expectation, that's kind of the idea.

And then Anatta is non self, I think literally translates as non self, which is the same as emptiness, or in a more modern way of putting it, not personal. And then impermanence is just impermanence.

Ryan: 00:02:57

That makes sense. So I was trying to see.

I had thought like impermanence seems very intuitive to me, as far as I think we can all recognize that in the conventional experience. I was looking for other indications in other philosophies and thought systems that kind of touched on this, although none came up.

I didn't do a huge search, but I was kind of surprised that this wasn't a more consistent teaching. At least it didn't come up in my search. I don't know if you're familiar with.

Peter: 00:03:32

I Mean, there are systems that directly contradict it.

Ryan: 00:03:36

Okay.

Peter: 00:03:38

I mean, look at Jude Christian tradition. I mean, the everlasting soul is permanent, unchanging, Right. Eternal.

Ryan: 00:03:48

Right.

Peter: 00:03:48

And I mean, it's interesting how directly oppositional it is to this teaching, how Christian view.

Ryan: 00:03:56

Yeah.

Peter: 00:03:56

It. Right. So there is a complete self as a soul. It is an identity.

Ryan: 00:04:01

Right.

Peter: 00:04:01

It is permanent and eternal. And. And then of course, you know, the ultimate. I kind of want to say the ultimate obsession is the absence of suffering. Right.

Is this, this holy experience of non suffering, which actually is the same in Buddhism. You know, it's just not, I think, to put words in the Buddha's mouth.

I think the orientation was you've really got to acknowledge the fact that suffering exists and be realistic about it in order to move forward.

Ryan: 00:04:33

Right.

Peter: 00:04:34

So it's like that comes first. You got to recognize that there's suffering.

Ryan: 00:04:37

But anyway, yeah.

What keeps coming to me was a previous statement that you said, and I'm kind of jumping ahead now, but it's really the core of the question that I have. And you had mentioned that Buddhism, like the idea of a soul doesn't really play into Buddhism or they absolutely refute it.

Peter: 00:05:00

Yeah, yeah.

Ryan: 00:05:02

Is that. Is the refined statement that there is no individual soul? Is that really what we're talking about when we're talking about like soul?

And when we're talking about emptiness or no permanent essence, we're talking about no permanent essence of individuation.

Peter: 00:05:23

Exactly. We're talking about the doctrine of interrelatedness or interdependent arising, I think it's called.

So everything's conditioned, everything's a combination of conditions.

Ryan: 00:05:36

Right.

Peter: 00:05:36

Like you have a self in front of me which exists because of this huge collection of conditions which are pertaining at this moment.

Ryan: 00:05:46

Right.

Peter: 00:05:46

And in a thousand years, those conditions will not pertain having changed. And therefore this self that I'm interacting with will not exist in a thousand years. But, you know, I mean, there's.

There's some complications there, I think in terms of. So we talk about our consciousness all the time and we talk about consciousness.

We've talked repeatedly and will continue about consciousness as ultimate reality. Right, right. And so, you know, to me, this description of existence is very much a description of the interface. It's a description of space, time.

Ryan: 00:06:23

Sure.

Peter: 00:06:24

It's not description of ultimate reality.

Ryan: 00:06:26

Okay.

Does Buddhism specifically indicate, I guess, kind of touching back to our previous discussion, which presumably went out before this video, but if it didn't, the complication of non existence. And you know, to me, the, the Phraseology of emptiness brings a certain interpretation with it.

And so for Buddhism, is there something that's permanent like. Or is there literally nothingness and nothing? What. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Peter: 00:07:05

Buddha nature is permanent. Okay, so. And again, it's, it's exactly what we've been talking about. Like Buddha nature directly correlates to consciousness.

Ryan: 00:07:18

Or Tao or whatever.

Peter: 00:07:20

Exactly.

Ryan: 00:07:20

Same idea.

Peter: 00:07:21

Exactly.

Ryan: 00:07:21

Okay.

Peter: 00:07:22

It's that in conventional reality, which is where everybody. I mean, this is addressed to an audience.

Ryan: 00:07:28

Sure. Yeah.

Peter: 00:07:30

Living in conventional reality, trying to deal with daily problems. And the message there is none of this is permanent.

Ryan: 00:07:39

Sure. Okay, then I agree with that.

Okay, so when I was looking up the marks, the three marks of existence, one of the descriptions of suffering and unease was imperfection. Is that just a translational thing?

What if I were to say everything is perfect is as it's intended to be, even if it, Even if we derive unsatisfaction from it?

Peter: 00:08:07

Yeah. I really think that there is a context for this teaching and this teaching.

The context of this teaching is conventional reality, and that everything in conventional reality is unsatisfactory, is imperfect. And that kind of the paradoxical ultimate reality. Right. Is that you, you become happy by learning to be satisfied with the unsatisfactory.

Ryan: 00:08:35

Okay.

Peter: 00:08:36

I mean, right. To, to accept imperfection, to. Yeah.

Ryan: 00:08:40

And by way of that, does it become perfect? I guess.

Peter: 00:08:43

I mean, it, you can say it.

Ryan: 00:08:46

Perfection.

Peter: 00:08:47

It sounds subjectively. It's true. True. Right. I mean, it then becomes perfect. You can see that it's.

You can see that in the conventional context, it is imperfect and you are completely accepting of it and undisturbed by imperfection.

Ryan: 00:09:07

Right.

Peter: 00:09:07

And therefore it is perfect.

Ryan: 00:09:09

Yeah.

Peter: 00:09:09

And it's, it's a, It's a subjective reality. I mean, the perfection. I mean, this is where. This is where again, we're, we're using words to describe. Right, Right.

So the perfection doesn't really, you know, you, you say everything in reality is perfect. Everything ultimately is perfect. You're saying that, right? Is it? I mean, does it really mean anything to say that ultimate reality is perfect?

It doesn't really mean anything to say that it's perfect. I mean, it's perfect in the sense that it excludes nothing. Right. It and. And non. Dual experience excludes nothing.

Ryan: 00:09:51

Right.

Peter: 00:09:51

It rejects nothing. Even paradox. It doesn't reject it. So, I mean, it's like, to me, words are breaking down because I think it's both. It is perfect.

You can describe it as perfect, but also perfect is then meaningless.

Ryan: 00:10:06

Sure. Yeah. I Guess I can see that. Is that, like, if everybody's a winner, nobody's a winner. I don't know.

Peter: 00:10:12

I don't know. I mean. I mean, what does perfect mean? I guess that's. That's a big question, right? Conventionally.

What perfect means, I think, is that nothing is deviating or nothing is unacceptable. I don't know. Nothing is standing out. What does. What does perfect mean?

Ryan: 00:10:28

Well, yeah, I mean, perfect in and of itself is a value judgment.

Peter: 00:10:32

There's no fault. Perfect means there is no fault.

Ryan: 00:10:35

Right.

Peter: 00:10:35

Okay.

Ryan: 00:10:36

It could also be described as meeting expectations. Right.

Peter: 00:10:41

Which is meaningless in terms of. Right. Once you get to ultimate reality, to talk about expectations as meaningless. So, sure. So then what happens to perfection?

So the question is, because ultimate reality is perfect, can we then say that everything is imperfect? Was that the question?

Ryan: 00:11:00

It wasn't the question, but it seems to make sense as an extension and kind of pointing to what I was saying. Although.

Peter: 00:11:08

Well, how are you put. How were you phrasing it?

Ryan: 00:11:12

I wasn't coming to it from a.

From a logical perspective where it's like, if everything is perfect in convention or in absolute reality and everything is absolute reality, how can anything be imperfect? Well, I mean, I guess that is kind of what I was saying is how I think about it. But also I.

I think what I was initially addressing is more around what you were saying as far as suffering, where things are and we can either be satisfied or dissatisfied with it. And for me, I think I was equating satisfaction and acceptance with perfection.

But what you were saying just now makes more sense as far as, like, a conceptual argument where I think I would also offer that. That if everything is part of absolute reality, and if. If that is perfection, then how can anything be imperfect?

And I think they tie into one another a bit. Again, everything is coming. My word of the year is this judgment concept, this judgment and forgiveness. Right? They go hand in hand, and so does fear.

Fear is. Is an out. Is a symptom of judgment. And we think of judgment as. This is going off topic of impermanence. But whatever.

We think of judgment specifically as like, thou shalt not end punishment. But I think we neglect to be aware and conscious of our preferences. I mean that.

That basically, what is right and wrong, what is moral, which I think is also. You said a big part of Buddhism is morality. Is that true?

Peter: 00:12:59

Sure.

Ryan: 00:13:00

Okay.

I think I've heard you say something along that line before, but ethics and morality and values and right and wrong and good and bad are all judgments made in material reality. There is no right and wrong. There is no good and bad. There is no values.

And ethics and religions in general have been used as value systems for a long time. But my position is that that's just to try and direct behavior in the material world. Things aren't absolutely right or wrong.

And this is where judgment comes in, because we experience fear as a consequence of fear. We. So I guess fear, the big F, fear, meaning encompassing all the variety of experiences one can have in anxiety.

And I would put expectations and attachments in that kind of realm of fear because we fear that we will lose them all, stems from judging something as good or bad, desirable, undesirable, any of that. And that each of these things that happens has no inherent value. It is only the value that we put on it that gives it that meaning.

And it's all in relation to the other things that happen. So you can be tall or short. How do you know you're tall or short? You have only to compare it to something.

Something that is taller than you or shorter than you. And if I go into a room of toddlers, I'm going to be tall, but if I go into a room of basketball players, I'm going to be short.

And nothing about my essence has changed. I just am. But those judgments, those values, those identities all stem from the relational fractal part of material existence.

Peter: 00:15:07

So. So something's not sitting right with me. And I think I want to ask what's the significance of. There is no right or wrong.

Ryan: 00:15:19

The significance is. Well, so by significance, do you mean kind of like the utility and the point of.

Peter: 00:15:26

Yeah, like, why is it. Why is it a useful statement?

Ryan: 00:15:29

Because we tend to approach values as absolute and neglecting the fact that they really are mere preferences.

Peter: 00:15:45

Sure, that's.

Ryan: 00:15:46

Sure that's the. The reason or the. The purpose behind that.

Peter: 00:15:51

Sure. So.

Ryan: 00:15:53

And to help try and bring intention and awareness to our judgments, judging is fine. But I think it's important that we understand that when we judge it is because we say that and not because there's inherent right and wrong.

Peter: 00:16:09

Oh, absolutely. Okay, now I get it. Now I get it. Yeah. And I would. I would say that it's. I'm. I'm trying to think about why I'm choosing the words I'm choosing.

So I think I often use the word skillful and unskillful, which is kind of a Buddhist orientation. It is. It is terminology that's used in Buddhist teaching. But we could equate that to useful and not useful or helpful and unhelpful. And so in those.

In that sense, I would say that judgment is unskillful, but discernment is skillful. So discernment is just being able to tell the difference between two things.

Ryan: 00:16:50

Yeah.

Peter: 00:16:51

And judgment is a hierarchical thing of, like you said, good and evil, good and bad. And I think that. I completely agree with you that these absolutes are generally unhelpful.

And what they do is they feed a certain sense of satisfaction. To say to be judgmental and to say that something is good or bad satisfies a certain inherent psychological or emotional need that people have.

And our culture is built around it. Right. Because, I mean, particularly, I would say in the west, in. In a capitalist society or, you know, kind of the context of selling. Right.

I think it's useful. Those. Those concepts are useful.

Ryan: 00:17:43

Yeah.

Peter: 00:17:43

Because honestly, in that context, conflict is useful.

Ryan: 00:17:47

Sure. Yes.

Peter: 00:17:49

So there's this. In our context, in our cultural. The culture we grew up with, these are the givens. Right.

And what you're saying, I think, is that they're not absolute and they're not particularly helpful.

Ryan: 00:18:05

Yes.

Peter: 00:18:06

In the bigger picture, but in the context of our culture, they feed.

Ryan: 00:18:11

Yes.

Peter: 00:18:12

The culture they feed. The institutions they feed.

Ryan: 00:18:14

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Peter: 00:18:15

And they're not helpful to you and me as trying to live our lives and be happy and get along and all that. Yes. Okay.

Ryan: 00:18:23

Yes.

Peter: 00:18:24

Gotcha.

Ryan: 00:18:24

So what would you say about the religion piece of it? I mean, so. So thinking. So where I'm going to push your challenge is the things we would generally all agree are good kind of thing.

And I am consistent in my interpretation of those things as just being things. And I think there is value from a societal perspective to take those judgments.

Just understanding those judgments are our society's preferences, not that there is absolute value of right and wrong to them.

Peter: 00:18:59

Okay. So again, I'm going to take what I know as a Buddhist perspective. Okay. And so I'm not sure how that fits into your idea of religion.

Ryan: 00:19:12

Sure.

Peter: 00:19:12

Okay. So when I think of right and wrong or morality and ethics, in terms of Buddhism, I think of the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts. Okay.

Now the Eightfold Path is Right. Well, let's use the word skillful. I mean, the. The way I learned it was right view, right understanding. But we can substitute skillful, I guess.

Doesn't really matter. Right view, right understanding, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right mindfulness, right concentration. That's the Eightfold Path that.

Its purpose is to facilitate your. Your progress to enlightenment. Okay. If you choose the unskillful versions of these things, they impair your progress.

And so it's not saying it's good or bad.

Ryan: 00:20:09

Right.

Peter: 00:20:09

It's utilitarian.

Ryan: 00:20:10

Sure.

Peter: 00:20:11

Okay, Now I, I'm certain there are Buddhists who would say, oh no, this is good and bad.

Ryan: 00:20:18

Sure.

Peter: 00:20:18

That's not my understanding of it. And then likewise the precepts are against killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and intoxication.

Now these are again, they're precepts that you take on in order to facilitate your progress. But people would say, oh, it's forbidden.

Ryan: 00:20:40

Okay, right.

Peter: 00:20:42

Or it's, it's bad.

Ryan: 00:20:43

Right.

Peter: 00:20:44

And that's not my understanding of it.

Ryan: 00:20:46

Okay.

Peter: 00:20:47

It's not that it's forbidden, it's that it identified as you need to keep these goals in order to facilitate your progress. Now I'm, I'm sure there are Buddhists who would disagree with me, but that's not the way I understand it.

So in my understanding of Buddhism, it is pretty absent this idea of good and evil and, and right and wrong. It's, I mean, really the premise is we are talking about Buddhism.

I mean, and I think, I think this is like kind of the message of Buddhism to the audience. Right. As an individual. Right. Why you, why are we talking?

We're talking because you want to move yourself from position of suffering to a position of non suffering. That's why we're talking. That's. Buddha would say, I'm teaching that there's suffering and that there's an end of suffering.

That's all I'm talking about.

And as I understand, he literally said this, like, this is the only thing I teach and that's the only reason we're talking this, the only reason I'm talking to you is to help you move away from suffering. And so, you know, there are, no, there's not a concept of good and evil.

Ryan: 00:22:00

Right.

Peter: 00:22:00

And even Mara, who is kind of the correlate of Satan, isn't. I mean, I think, I think he is described as the enemy.

Ryan: 00:22:10

Okay, that could be translational though.

Peter: 00:22:12

Right. But I mean, I don't think he's evil. Like, he's just the, the opposition. And, and Buddha's attitude towards him is, well, not a problem.

I'll have him in for tea.

Ryan: 00:22:28

Yeah.

Peter: 00:22:28

And that it's, it's actually completely non oppositional.

Ryan: 00:22:33

Yeah.

Peter: 00:22:33

Like his, his attitude towards it, it's like, oh, it arises and then you deal with it and you deal with it skillfully without rejecting it and just recognizing, ah, Mara comes basically your, your unhelpful conditioning shows up and you Acknowledge it and you move on and then it's not a problem.

So, so I, I, I think from a Buddhist perspective or, or I, I guess if I, I would say if you view Buddhism as a religion, then I would say no, religious religion doesn't inherently teach good and evil. Right, Right. But I would say that abramic religions that we're most familiar with do tend to do that.

I mean, but I mean they're based on a, a deity that is a commanding, commanding, demanding deity that is set apart from.

Ryan: 00:23:29

Right.

Peter: 00:23:29

A devil. Right.

Ryan: 00:23:32

Yes. At least in, I mean, modern teaching. I have some comments on that and.

Peter: 00:23:37

I do, but I mean, but I mean if that's the way you think of religion, then yes, obviously good and evil.

Ryan: 00:23:42

Right.

Peter: 00:23:42

And I think that's true of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Christianity.

Ryan: 00:23:48

And that was the context in which my statement was kind of grounded, was that. But my point was that those institutions may have co opted the, the teaching a bit in a way to encourage certain behaviors.

Peter: 00:24:07

Well, and of course Joseph Campbell and Ian McGilchrist have things to say about kind of the nature of those choices that are.

Ryan: 00:24:17

Yes.

Peter: 00:24:17

Cultural choices which McGilchrist says based on the brain.

Ryan: 00:24:22

Right. So I will want to kind of retouch on this last bit with the 10 commitments discussion that we'll have maybe next time.

Because I feel like there's an alignment there between what you were saying with the Eightfold Path and the five Precepts. Precepts and the interpretation of the Ten Commandments through conversations with God as the Ten Commitments.

And I think there's some alignment we can kind of draw there. So I would like to talk about that maybe next time. Do you have something to say? Because I have a question.

Peter: 00:25:01

So I just was trying to bring this back to the three marks.

Ryan: 00:25:06

Yes.

Peter: 00:25:07

So that was related to perfection or suffering.

Ryan: 00:25:11

Yes, perfection.

So the idea that we got on the tangent with my assertion that things are perfect and you push back on what that kind of meant and what, what does it mean to be perfect? And then I went off on the idea of judgment. Judgment and that perfection in insinuates judgment and value.

Peter: 00:25:32

Yes.

Ryan: 00:25:33

So that's how we ended up on that.

Peter: 00:25:36

I mean, I, I, maybe to your point is judgment is what introduces good and evil.

Ryan: 00:25:43

Yes.

Peter: 00:25:44

Right.

Ryan: 00:25:44

Yes.

Peter: 00:25:45

And, and so, and so in that sense, I mean if you accept that, then Buddhism definitely teaches an absence of good and evil because it teaches an absence of judgment.

Ryan: 00:25:55

Yeah. So, you know, so Buddhism is perfect. It's the best religion. It's the best.

Peter: 00:26:02

It's the Right.

Ryan: 00:26:03

One.

Peter: 00:26:05

I mean. Yeah. I mean, so what's. What's unfortunate is that we're limited in this kind of binary.

You know, it's either Buddhism or it's a abramic tradition, and we don't know, or we're not talking about, you know, shamanistic traditions or, I don't know, the Gnostic. I don't know what. All those other things that, you know, Jane.

Ryan: 00:26:29

I don't know.

Peter: 00:26:30

Or sick or.

Ryan: 00:26:32

I don't know that either.

Peter: 00:26:33

Yeah.

Ryan: 00:26:33

So, I mean, with as far as my limited understanding and my. My own interpretation and perception, the Abrahamic language, languages, religions seem to set apart a bit from seemingly everything else. I find.

Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism, Gnosticism, Shamanism, like, they all seem to really encompass a huge portion of consistent message and consistent philosophy. And I guess then this goes back to my historical assertion that the Abrahamic languages have fallen victim.

Peter: 00:27:15

Have fallen languages. Again.

Ryan: 00:27:19

I've been doing duolingo. Language has been on my mind a little bit. The Abrahamic philosophies and theosophies, I have an assertion that they came from.

And, well, I mean, Gnosticism would be a perfect example as far as Christianity is concerned. That there.

That there is an underlying message that was originally being taught that has fallen away in lieu of these more institutional teachings and that it isn't actually those. Those philosophies. Core isn't actually what is being taught right now.

Peter: 00:27:58

Well, I mean, I just remember Campbell saying that they really represent the rise of the male hegemony, that before that there were like, male and female components to theologies. And. And now it's like, nope, just the male. You know, it's like, oh, okay, you know. And again, it's like, you know, well, there's a left.

There's the way we experience from the left hemisphere and the way we experience from the right hemisphere and. No, no, just the left. That other stuff is imaginary. It doesn't exist. You can't describe it with words. So it's not real.

Ryan: 00:28:37

Right.

Peter: 00:28:38

Because only things you can describe with words are real. It's like, okay, I mean. Yeah. So, you know, from those perspectives, it really does seem kind of strange. I mean, to step out of.

Of the context, to step out of one's own cultural context and assumptions and just to say, well, there's God and there's good and evil.

Ryan: 00:29:01

Right.

Peter: 00:29:02

And to step out of that and say, well, what are other ways of seeing it? Or what do other people. How do other people live? How do other people experience the existence? It's like oh, what? There's another way, you know, like.

Oh, no. Well, that's just evil, right? Oh, it's not. Yeah.

Ryan: 00:29:22

It's not the right thing.

Peter: 00:29:23

It's not. It's heretical. It's evil. It's not, you know, like. Okay, all right.

Ryan: 00:29:31

Okay. So impermanence, which I started with and then ran us off on a tangent. How does impermanence play into attachment and letting go is.

Do you have an answer for that?

Peter: 00:29:49

The answer is, I mean, what's the.

Ryan: 00:29:55

Relationship of attachment and impermanence?

Peter: 00:29:58

So again, it's all. It's all about suffering. And that is a major source of suffering is mistaking the impermanent from permanent.

Because when you mistake it from permanent or you insist that it's permanent, then you attach to it because. Because that just makes sense, right. If it's permanent. I love my wife. She's always going to be there because I love her.

Ryan: 00:30:21

Right.

Peter: 00:30:21

And. And I'm never going to be without her. And that. That's just the way it is. I love my life. I'm always going to be alive.

And I don't have to deal with anything else because I'm just. I'm always me. I'm always going to be alive. There's nothing, you know.

Ryan: 00:30:37

Right.

Peter: 00:30:37

And we see where those things are going to come to an end. And we see, I mean, just repeatedly. Repeatedly. Because people are constantly dying, you know, see the mistake there.

And of course, even without people dying, there's impermanence before you even get there. Right, right. Before you even get to the end of your life.

Ryan: 00:31:01

Yeah.

Peter: 00:31:01

You know, your great car, which is the perfect car, it's the one you always wanted, and then it's wrecked.

Ryan: 00:31:08

Right.

Peter: 00:31:09

You know, or whatever it is. So. So that's. I think the relevance of impermanence and attachment is that you can't attach to something that's not permanent. This.

You can't attach to something that you believe is not permanent. Like there.

I think there has to be some kind of psychological assumption that a thing is permanent in order to attach in the sense that we're talking about attachment.

Ryan: 00:31:36

So how does duration and time play into that? Like, I understand my car is not going to last forever, but.

Peter: 00:31:44

Or if you die before you. As long as you die before your car does. Is that what you're saying?

Ryan: 00:31:49

No, I'm saying, like, let's take it from the. From the counter. This painful situation that I'm in. I know it's not going to be forever, like, logically, but how long is it going to Last.

And I want it to be over as soon as possible.

How does that play into the concept between impermanence and dealing with, and letting go of attachment or I would sense that it leads to attachment to some degree.

Peter: 00:32:15

Even if we understand, I mean, we tend towards attachment. That's what this is all about, right? It's how our experience tends to be. It's the universal human experience. It's the way we've evolved.

And so, I mean, I think, I think it is useful to think of it in evolutionary terms, right?

In survival terms, in reproductive fitness terms, it's useful to avoid pain and to want to arrange things to have minimal discomfort and optimal pleasure. I mean, literally, sex is pleasurable sex so that we will reproduce. Like the organism is literally, you know, what am I, what am I saying?

Seeking pleasure in order to reproduce. Right. In an evolutionary sense. So there's evolutionary fitness and utility to that. Right.

But you know, we don't think that people experience those things the same way that our evolutionary ancestors or our non human colleagues do. Right? That they have attachments that. I mean, I don't know, my cats are pretty damn neurotic.

So I, I think they're not free of attachments, but probably by association with humans, come to think of it like, oh my God, I wonder, I wonder how domestic animals compare with wild animals in terms of neuroses. Like, is, is it, is it catching, you know, from association with humans?

Ryan: 00:33:47

That'd be funny, Abby.

Peter: 00:33:48

This whole idea that animals are like noble, savage creatures. It's like if you have two animals that. Yeah, it's crazy. So, so I think that there's this loss of evolutionary fitness, right? Where something was fit.

It was a fit characteristic for a very long time. And now we're somehow moving out of that eon to where we're, we're suffering, we're, we're like.

And we're literally being self destructive, whether it's by drugs, you know, illicit drugs, alcohol, unskillful sex, gambling, you know, inappropriate eating. All of the things that we do that are self destructive because of these drives and these drives which were formerly fit. Right, right.

When the conditions were different. Exactly when the conditions were different. Because. So things have changed. So I mean, it's really all kind of interrelated, isn't it?

Ryan: 00:34:55

Yeah.

Peter: 00:34:55

So did I answer the question? So attachment, right? Attachment and impermanence.

I mean, I think you can really look at things as, as I'm kind of a biologist friend who, who coined the term evo dharma. Evolutionary dharma. And, and it was very Much the same kind of thinking about, you know, which I totally buy.

I mean, and we've talked about this before, about how these things are part of our karma, part of our remnants of our evolution and existence, without which we wouldn't exist. So it's not like it's evil karma. It's like without these survival characteristics, we literally wouldn't exist.

Like, the ones that didn't have these characteristics don't exist, no longer exist. They're not the ones that are having this conversation.

But we're clearly at a point where it's such a problem for us that we're having these conversations about it.

We're having these religions and we're having these societies and we're having all these things in opposition, trying desperately to find solutions to how uncomfortable we are with all this. Right. How upset we are that people die, how upset we are that we have a disease or a pain or a deformity or other imperfections. There we go. Right?

Yeah.

Ryan: 00:36:23

Do you think that time and evolution would. Will reconfigure us to current conditions in a. In a way that would, you know, you know, reconfigure us to.

All the conditions change so frequently now.

Peter: 00:36:41

But I mean, if you, if you do believe in evolution as a. Just a characteristic of biology. Yeah, I mean, it's a characteristic of biology. It's not an option.

Ryan: 00:36:52

Right, right.

Peter: 00:36:54

It's a characteristic of life. So will time reconfigure us? Yeah, unless DNA stops existing, sure. But that's another problem for us. Right. Because we want to identify as human.

Like there's this an idea. I mean, I guess there are post humanists who are like into it, but the majority of.

Ryan: 00:37:16

Sure.

Peter: 00:37:16

People are very interested in what's human and what's not human. Right. And even. I'll go ahead say, yeah, even to the point of like identifying as other people. Other people is not human.

I mean, it's a, it's a big, it's. It's very, very important as to the question of am I human or what's human and what's not human from a, from a conventional standpoint.

Ryan: 00:37:39

Right.

Peter: 00:37:40

Now, I think you and I, we've touched on this before. Like, yeah, it doesn't matter because inherently we're actually not human.

Ryan: 00:37:48

Right.

Peter: 00:37:49

So.

Ryan: 00:37:50

So none of it matters.

Peter: 00:37:51

You know, it's like, oh, so when things get sorted out and we are now in a form that is more fit and less in conflict with reality, good for us. Yeah, actually.

Ryan: 00:38:06

Right.

Peter: 00:38:07

You know, I mean, the question is, how traumatic is the transition Right. I mean, this is another conversation.

Ryan: 00:38:15

Historically it probably hasn't been.

Peter: 00:38:17

Well, I mean, is it a gradual thing where, you know, we kind of have overlapping forms that are coexisting or is it a dinosaur situation where it's like. Well, this entire millions of years of. I mean, that's the crazy thing. Right. It's like we haven't even been around for millions.

Ryan: 00:38:36

Right.

Peter: 00:38:36

Where the dinosaurs actually were around for millions of years covering the earth dominant life form, and then all of a sudden they weren't.

Ryan: 00:38:45

Right.

Peter: 00:38:45

Like all of a sudden the mammals were like the most fit.

Ryan: 00:38:48

Yeah.

Peter: 00:38:48

Crazy, right?

Ryan: 00:38:50

Yes.

Peter: 00:38:51

So I mean, I don't. So how, you know, it's like, so how attached are you to. And obviously individually, we're not going to be talking about.

Ryan: 00:38:58

Right, right.

Peter: 00:38:59

But I mean, that's really the big thing is how attached are we to. I mean, it's this bigger species idea of identity. If you talk about non self. Well, non species. I mean. Right, right.

But I mean, does the species think of itself? I guess it does.

Ryan: 00:39:18

Yeah, I think it does. Collectively.

Peter: 00:39:20

Yeah. So.

Ryan: 00:39:21

All right, so I'm going to ask one more question. Trying to round this out in trying to achieve the benefits the non attachment through understanding of impermanence.

How can meditation play into that and help us to understand impermanence and release attachments to things that we know are not permanent?

Peter: 00:39:46

I think, I think we've said before that the brain learns by experience. Right. The way we change the brain is to give it new experiences. I mean, you can learn things by reading about them.

But that's not, that's not deep learning. That's, you know, that's entrainment of superficial neural pathways. I would guess that's the best way of saying it.

Like that kind of learning book learning is these superficial neural pathways. Yeah. You're making your change in the brain. Yeah, but not in a deep way. You forget stuff.

Ryan: 00:40:19

Yeah.

Peter: 00:40:20

I think meditation is directed at a deeper kind of learning. The purpose of meditation is to produce the direct experience of impermanence so that you're not just thinking about it and. Yeah, that makes sense.

And. Yeah. Oh, obviously. Look at this and look at that. It's like. No, experience it inside your own experience.

Recognize how completely impermanent your experience is. That's the purpose of meditation is to give you that very deep direct experience which comes over time.

Ryan: 00:40:54

Right.

Peter: 00:40:55

You know, I mean, there, there's a saying that you can meditate for one minute and be enlightened. And it's true for the right conditions. You know, but, but for most people, most of the time, it's over a period of time that you entrain the brain.

Ryan: 00:41:11

Yeah.

Peter: 00:41:12

I mean, you might not even experience. You probably won't experience impermanence immediately because you're going to be too distracted by the strangeness of trying to meditate.

Ryan: 00:41:22

Right.

Peter: 00:41:22

You know, but over time, the purpose of meditation is, is that to produce a direct experience of impermanence and then to work with the resistance of accepting that. Because it's, it's, it is that. It's that process. It's not just, oh, things are impermanent. Okay. Now everything's fine.

It's like, no, first you see that things are permanent, and then you start fighting with it and your system will go through a bunch of shit. Yeah. I mean, I'm clearly going through a lot of that still in terms of. Yeah. Having my system throw up things in response to deepening experiences.

But I think it's reliable path. Well, geez, I don't want to overstate that. It's reliable for many, many people. We can't make blanket statements about anything. Any practice.

But that's the, that's the, that's the hope. That's the promise of it that you. That that's going to be your experience.

Ryan: 00:42:30

Yeah. Is there any particular exercise that points to it more or is it really any meditation is.

Peter: 00:42:38

Oh, it's the same. It's always the same answer, Ryan. It's always the same answer.

Ryan: 00:42:43

Whatever works for you.

Peter: 00:42:44

It's what? It's whatever works for you. Because no one thing works for everybody all the time.

Ryan: 00:42:50

Yep.

Peter: 00:42:50

It's like you have to match the practice to your experience, which is why you can't say that meditation itself.

Ryan: 00:42:59

Right.

Peter: 00:42:59

Is. And so to say. Well, which meditate. Well, the one that works. That's, you know, so it can be trial and error.

I mean, there are, there are generalities of. There's a reason that seated breath focus meditation is so successful or so popular, I might say.

Well, it's popular because it's easy to teach and it's, you know, that's why it's popular and it's easy to market. But there's also a practical aspect of it, is it is very widely successful. It's not a guarantee. Like there are many practices.

There's lots of opportunity to explore and exploration is encouraged. Unless you're with the teacher who says, no, there's only one method. Do this for 10 years. Do not deviate. You know, but I don't think that's.

Well, that's just really hard to comment on because I'm going to say, well, that's not part of our culture. It's like. Yeah, well, I mean, these are the complicated questions, right?

It's like if we're talking to people in our culture and not our, our vast international audience.

Ryan: 00:44:08

Which we do have listeners.

Peter: 00:44:11

Yeah, but then you have to take all these things into account. I mean, not. You have to intellectually, before you do anything, take into account.

But I'm going to say these are all going to be factors in your experience.

Ryan: 00:44:24

Right, Great. Well, thank you for that. And in the spirit of impermanence, this episode will now end.

But thank you everybody for joining us for this conversation and hopefully you were able to glean some wisdom and nuggets of gold through this conversation. So thank you all. We'll talk to you soon. Bye bye.

Peter: 00:44:51

Thank you for listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast. Join us next time as we continue the discussion.

Don't forget to follow us on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube and visit www.ethstudio.com for more information and content.