1st Part of the Podcast

Richard and Eddie are doing a final project podcast for their Philosophy of East and West class. Richard is focusing on Neo-Confucian philosophy, specifically how it responded to the spread of Buddhism in China. He talks about the oneness of everything in the world, the concepts of Qi and Li, and the idea of reaching harmony on earth. Eddie, on the other hand, discusses Buddhism and its Four Noble Truths, as well as the relationship between conventional reality and ultimate reality. They both express their excitement for the podcast and their motivation for exploring these philosophies. They plan to discuss topics such as love, the nature of human beings, and the role of emptiness. They believe that a podcast allows for more spontaneity and deeper connections compared to other forms of expression. Hello, this is Richard and Eddie, and we're doing our final project podcast for Philosophy of East and West. And so what we're planning on comparing are Confucian philosophy, which I will be doing, and then Buddhist philosophy. I'm primarily focusing on Neo-Confucian philosophy, particularly because when Mentis and Confucius were writing, there was never really—within Chinese culture, there wasn't quite a debate about metaphysics, but as Buddhism spread and became very popular in China, these intellectuals started having to kind of respond. And then also they felt like Confucianism was getting stale. So the two brothers, Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi, kind of first created the study of the Dao, which was the first kind of like recognized Neo-Confucian school. And the fundamentals of that school were that everything in the world was—well, there was a oneness to everything in the world. And then after that, there was Qi and Li. And so this Qi is kind of like the biolessness, which was in Mentis, but appears in a fundamentally different form. Not fundamentally, that's not true. And then Li was kind of the pattern, or Tianli, which was like heaven's principle, which kind of forms everything, and then it's almost the difference between reality and then kind of God's wish, or like the will of heaven. And so a lot of the ways that they—so like when Mentis is talking about Dao, or like human nature, or heaven, it's all really talking about like the same thing to the Neo-Confucian philosopher, as it's kind of like all pluralistic, but also singular thing. So where the Qi and Li very much interact, but they also come—they also are inherently the same thing, just kind of the physical manifestations. But that's getting a bit too deep into it. But—and then, so the study of Li continued to progress throughout the Song dynasty, and it was—it's basically positing that you can find like heaven's principle in the way—like in the world, like if you—you can kind of see the pattern of nature is the same thing as the pattern of like heaven, or the oneness, and which became the kind of predominant school. However, the school that I will be talking about is Xing Shui, which sees a lot of—kind of believes that looking for the kind of conventional world, to use a Buddhist term, is not the correct way to pursue the Dao, because it is transitory, and not—yeah, not a container of like the real truth, but they vary in specific ways. And so this kind of line of Xing Shui goes from Cheng Hao to Zhang Zai, and then finally Wang Yangming, and so there's kind of the intellectual tradition that I'll be talking about, and—but I will also be bringing in like Manchus, and then kind of the four classical Confucian texts as needed, because that was the basis of these studies. Yeah, yeah, and so—sorry. Yeah, so that's kind of my—the historical background to Neo-Confucianism, which I will explain a bit more throughout the podcast, but, you know, I'd like to pass it over to Richard. Yeah, thanks, Eddie. I appreciate that. So what I wanted to talk about specifically was Buddhism, and for me, I have a very particular relationship with Buddhism, because I grew up in a Buddhist household. I grew up always around Buddhism, but never with a true fundamental understanding of what it was, or what it meant to certain people. And for me, this class has been a really great medium for trying to understand it, even though now I feel like I understand it less than I did before. And so, for me, the things that I wanted to talk about, in particular with Buddhism, had to do with the Four Noble Truths—the truth of suffering, the truth of arising of suffering and craving, the truth of cessation of suffering through transcendence, and the truth of the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to Nirvana. Something that interests me is just this idea that Nagarjuna and basically all Buddhist philosophers kind of conceive this notion of conventional reality and ultimate reality. Kind of this idea that our thoughts and our beliefs are very relational, and according to Nagarjuna, it would be something that's empty. And so, in his relationship with emptiness and conventional truth, he kind of rejects the metaphysics that Eddie wants to talk about. And so a big part of what this podcast hopes to do is explore that relationship between Neo-Confucianism and Buddhism and the role that emptiness plays, but then also a whole bunch of different topics that we have lined up. Yeah, definitely looking at the practical implications of each. And I think, while there's definitely a certain extent of Buddhism that is reifying something, and reifying kind of the world, I think there's a bit of a different claim, like with the soteriological claim or the claim for salvation. In Buddhism, you have to kind of transcend the world that you're in right now. And I think there's a different claim in Neo-Confucianism, all of Confucianism, that you can reach harmony on earth, and that it's like by harmonizing the people, you will then harmonize heaven and harmonize the earth. And so you'll have bountiful food and whatnot, everything will go your way. But I think, once you get into Neo-Confucianism, even that conception is seen as products of the great void, tai shu. But they still have very meaningful implications. And so the idea that harmony can be reached during your physical life is, yeah, I think that can lead to a number of the differences between Buddhism and Confucianism, but definitely not all of them. Yes. And in terms of, before we get into the very clear-cut questions that we set out in our podcast, we kind of wanted to talk about our motivation for wanting to do something like this to begin with. And for me, I think the nature of a podcast, the beautiful thing about it is that even though they're structured in terms of the quotes that we want to talk about, or the comparisons that we're making to these philosophers, just the spontaneity of ideas that me and Eddie would be able to share by balancing off each other. I think, like, with an essay, for example, I think it would be something that would be a bit more fixed in terms of what I would want to talk about, and something that, you know, while still obviously explores different dimensions of Buddhism, would lack a bit of perspective that would be present in something like a podcast. Um, and also, you know, this is like my final assignment ever for a class, and I think that this is a really good way to go about it, just because I'm able to connect, you know, on a deeper level with Eddie about these philosophies. And I think, just in general, both of these philosophies, you know, a major theme is connectedness. And so, yeah, I'm super excited to talk about that. No, I completely agree. I'm, yeah, I think it's a, I mean, especially compared to kind of class, where it feels more like you're being perceived by other people when you're opening your mouth, like, I think having more of like a conversation is definitely helpful for me too. And it's also, um, I get, you know, just like you talking to Richard, and I got, you know, after class, like, we always kind of talk about it, and like, oh, like, what do you think about this? I think I'm making this into a more formal process has been really, really fun and exciting for me. And so I'm excited to kind of learn, great to see what we, what we glean from this. And then also, yeah, make these comparisons. Um, yeah. Um, I think we should start with our first question, or like first topic that you want to talk about. And so something that I think relates both to the theme of connection is the idea of love that's present in both Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism and Buddhism. And the way that we interpret the relationships that we share with other people. And so like, what I would ask, Eddie, for example, would be, what does like, love look like, in our Neo-Confucian, Neo-Confucianism? Like, what does that look like to you, not just in terms of like actions or feelings, but in terms of relationships to oneself and with the world? Most definitely. Yeah. Also, I think love in a very big way is like, kind of relationally dependent. And so like, the way that a father loves his son is not the same way that a son would love the father, or even the way that the king loves the people isn't the way that the people love the king or the minister. And I think like, I think that's a very important aspect of Confucianism in terms of, you're supposed to act in accordance with like, your specific position. And which, but this is also kind of expanded upon, with it for the Neo-Confucianist, especially like Wang Yongmin, where he's, for him, the perfect moral agent, and operates in a state of oneness, like a felt state of metaphysical unity in which oneself is like, not really lost, but more like expanded. And when you're acting in this state of oneness, there, you're not thinking about yourself at all. You're like, completely self conscious, or unconscious, and that state of oneness is derived from clearly manifesting your humanity or ren, which Mencius talks about, but that's a bit too metaphysical, I think, for this point in the discussion. But I think love is a reciprocal relationship, like it was in the construct of Neo-Confucianism. And, and I think, yeah, I mean, I think like, to be able to love someone properly, you have to understand the way your relationship to them, and then act in accordance with that. So that's kind of finding like the highest good. And yeah, and then like sticking to the mean. That makes sense. Yeah. A question that I would have, honestly, is because I feel like in class, we've kind of spoken about, like the nature of human beings. And I know that Mencius has a different perspective about like, what it means to like care for others, and whether or not we are innately, like good people, like whether or not we're cultivating our ren. And so like, I guess, more for me, like within Neo-Confucianism, do you feel like I'm serving others or loving others is like, something that's innate? Or do you feel like it's something more that's developed within the philosophy? Well, I think it's an interesting concept, because ren, like Mencius, that's a fundamental concept within Neo-Confucianism, that ren is something like innate within you. It's like part, it is part of kind of like, heaven's nature, and it's something that everything has. So then like the, so the same way that Mencius says, like the human heart can't bear to see suffering. Yeah. Only when he says, when he sees plants broken and destroyed, he cannot help feeling of pity. It shows that his humanity forms one body with plants. It may be said that plants are living things, aren't living things as he is yet. Even when he sees tiles and stones shattered and crushed, he cannot help feeling regret. This shows that his humanity forms one body with tiles and stones. And this means that even the mind of the small man must have the humanity that forms one body with all. Such a mind is rooted in his heaven and down nature, and is naturally intelligent. And so I think there's an important quote, because it's really saying that everyone, even everyone and everything has this kind of mind, this capacity for compassion. And, and then, but they're obstructed, because of like selfish desires. And so the whole, the, you have to kind of clarify that nature within you, that root, or the sprout within you in order to act virtuously. So I think in a way, it's almost, it's both of what you're saying, where there is that goodness within you. But if, again, if you don't attend to that, and allow it to completely envelop you, then, then there isn't goodness. Yeah. Yeah, to add on, I think Buddhist philosophy is very similar to that, in terms of the needing of reflection, and being mindful in order to understand what you're doing, and to accept that. So like, within Buddhist philosophy, something that is almost like, vital to the philosophy is, like, having compassion for other people. And I think a big part of that compassion for, for other people is rooted in the connectedness that you share to them. And so we've, we've already talked about this in terms of like, being connected to other people. But this idea of being selfish towards others is kind of rooted in the lack of human connectedness that you share with other people. And I also believe, like, you know, I think Buddhist philosophers would also agree in the sense where it's like, the same pain that you're inflicting onto other people would be the same pain that you, you yourself feel. And that like, it's often a projection of what you have, until you can, again, be mindful of these emotions, that you can't really like, solve what you're going through. Something for me that I thought was really important within Buddhist philosophy, again, again, with being mindful, but just understanding that these emotions are fleeting. And I feel like a lot of people, when they let their emotions guide them, that's often when they're making these compulsive decisions, decisions like such as like, doing harm to other people. And like, I think like the Dalai Lama, for example, would kind of agree that like, a lot of the suffering that people have is kind of an ignorance of and lack of understanding of oneself, kind of that you don't need to do these things, and they aren't necessary, but they often occur. And it kind of leads to the first noble truth of, like Buddhism, and the middle way that like, suffering is inevitable. Because we are, I mean, maybe in the ultimate reality, but like, in the conventional reality, we're navigating these emotions every single day. I think, practically speaking, what you can do as a person who studies Buddhism and Buddhist ethics is to, again, be mindful when you're meditating, and then to be reflective of those, of those feelings. And I think that is very deeply rooted in Buddhist philosophy. Yeah, most definitely. Do you think, like, you know, like attachment to emotions, kind of causes those, that suffering? But do you think it can be the same way with maybe like an attachment to, to disattachment, or to, yeah, or to, or to, like, yeah, removing yourself and being more... So like, I think when we think about attachment, we kind of view it in a very physical way, like physically being connected to someone in some shape or form. Even being too detached, I feel like that adjective almost prescribes the level of attachment that's, that's present. Kind of like when you're over something, you're not, you're not on either side of being either really angry or sad about it, you're kind of at peace and like mindful of that emotion. I think Buddhism is, is very similar that way. And I think there's, I think there certainly is a difference. Maybe it's different in Neo-Confucianism, but I, I believe that there's a difference between being attached to something and then being connected to that thing. And I do believe that, you know, any form of attachment in itself leads itself to an innate feeling of suffering. Like even before we were on our way here in terms of like doing it, like doing this podcast, like I think when there's expectations about, like expectation I think is a form of attachment. Like when we're doing this podcast, you're a bit worried about like, oh, like, what are people going to think? Like, oh, the professor's probably going to think this thing is good. But I feel like when you are able to detach from those feelings by being mindful of them, I think that is when you're able to express yourself more creatively. And I think that does create a level of joy that I've seen in my, like my own practical application of Buddhism as a, as a way of life. Well, I was just going to ask, I guess, how do you conceive of connection in a Buddhist concept? Because, because, yeah, like, how do you care about something in front of you? How do I care? Like within the, yeah, within a Buddhist conception, how, how does that connection function? Yeah, so I think this is particularly prevalent in the diamond that cuts through illusion. It's just this idea that in order to be connected to others, that one needs to be connected to themselves. This is actually, I think, in my opinion, is actually a common theme across like basically every single philosophy. Like, I mean, I don't want to talk about every other philosophy, but we can talk about Gandhi and his exploration of what it means to discover truth, like his purpose. You can talk about Mencius and being connected through nature and through different means. And so I think a big part, sorry if I'm going on a bit of a tangent and stuff like that, but I think a big part of what it means to be connected to other people or to sustain that without developing any form of expectation is to cultivate oneself internally. And I feel like that's a similarity that both Neo-Confucianism shares and something that Buddhism certainly has as well. So then I guess that almost brings me to the question of no-self and how that works within love. Because, yeah, you know, how can you cultivate a self if there's no self to cultivate? No, yeah, for sure. So I certainly believe that, you know, I have nowhere near Nirvana as a person who's practicing this. I guess in terms of the cultivation of a non-self that's present, I think the traditional view of the self is kind of like one that kind of, like, we have our mind and we have our bodies that are like completely separate. It's something for me that I noticed that I think Buddhism kind of touches a bit, especially when we're talking about the conception of no-self. To me, the moments where I feel closest to being a non-self is when I'm in this flow state, this flow state that's present within swords or like we're speaking, that there almost seems to be a full connectivity within my body of like having a particular objective and knowing what to do. I certainly feel that that touches the closest I feel like I've ever touched the non-self. But no, yeah, I certainly agree that like in terms of the relationship that you can share with other people and having the non-self, obviously, ideally, if you are in like a Nirvana state that you don't have those connections to other people, those attachments. The only thing I can say is that I've paid the consequence of having those attachments to other people, that my attachments to other people, even though I choose to have them and I believe that they're worth having, nonetheless come with the fact that I'm going to suffer in some shape or form, that my life is going to be suffering just because of that noble truth that's present within Buddhist philosophy. So I wouldn't necessarily say that I've found like the middle way in terms of navigating that relationship that I share with other people. But no, yeah, I think that certainly. So yeah, I mean, I guess like, I was thinking about kind of nihilism when you were talking about that. And like, I guess, like, like, it feels like if you're completely disattached, and it is somewhat nihilistic. But like, maybe the way that the connection is, is conceived, is like allows you allows you there for still further, like you, like you, I mean, you exist, I feel like, within the Dargeness framework, you know, it's just like, there's not like, the independently arising thing. So like, I guess, how do you think like, yeah, I guess like, how do you not become like, nihilistic in your search for detachment? In my search for detachment. Like where you, yeah, I mean, where you still value people? Where I still value people. Like relationships. I think. Oh, yeah, the one about like, how, like, when you first see it, you see it as a mountain. And you see things as they are. And through that journey, that second, that midway portion is not seeing it as what it is. But then the third part of, again, like, coming back full circle, like, this is what it is. But you don't share that same relationship to those things. I guess, if I were to, I mean, we're getting deep into like, what it means to be non self, right? Um, I think connection is interesting. Because you can share these things and have these things, regardless of the attachments of the labels that you put onto it. And so like a really good example that I think about sometimes, or like I've just come up with on the spot, is kind of this idea that like, with some of your best friends, like some of my best friends back home, I don't have any pictures with them. Kind of this idea, like we never, there's never been a point where we're like, Oh, yeah, we've labeled what we like, labeled things with expectations about what they should be. It was kind of just like, naturally, like, kind of referring back to that flow state of like, the things that occurred, like, obviously, this person's my friend. But I've never consciously, like, been like, Oh, yeah, that person's my friend. Like, I think that relationship and that connection that you share, um, didn't need any, anything attached to it for it to be real. But... No, I think that's very interesting. Like, when the concept is in discussion with, you know, with Confucianists, because it's like, yeah, the way that like, there almost does, it almost feels like there does need to be labels for that relationship to be real. And that like, yeah, that it is, it is like, yeah, I got fulfilling a specific role in accordance with like, in accordance with the Heaven's principle. Um, yeah, which I think, like, I guess a question that I would have is just like, you know, certainly, upon reflection, we discover things that we want to do and aspirations that we have. So like, I guess, in terms of your personal experience with like, alignment with Heaven, like, what is your perception of that? Like, in terms of, do you agree with, like, how that's cultivated? Because I know that, that almost seems a bit, like, too metaphysical for you to be honest, like, understand, like, the way of Heaven, for example. And I know you wanted to talk a bit about like, that balance too, of like, yin and yang, but yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's, I mean, I think, I think the metaphysical portion of Buddhism is, it's an era of Confucianism, so it's, it's, it's really interesting. But I think it like, at the base of it, it is, um, what Mencius is describing of the, of like, your, through self-cultivation, and like, the investigation of things, you know where to, like, stop at this, at this highest point of virtue. So something that, like, really, um, really grabbed me when I was first reading Huang Yang Ming was his assertion that knowledge and action are not different. That, like, if, again, that, yeah, again, like, it's, um, it's knowledge, like, knowledge kind of enforces action, and action, like, enforces knowledge. And if you say you know something, but don't act in accordance with it, you're not, you don't actually know it. And like, I mean, definitely, and then also, I think, like, this is virtue ethical position that Confucianism takes, where there, yeah, there's not just one principle that you're supposed to act in accordance with, even though I said that there was, but that is, so that principle really is, like, the ultimate reality that you're supposed to connect yourself with, which is why you, like, once you're, which is very, very hard, like, practically, you're, you would never, like, you would never reach that point of connection with, like, the myriad of things and the heaven and earth. However, like, that is the kind of ultimate principle that guides things, or that, that, like, creates everything, and it's not an ultimate, like, there isn't, and it's, like, you can't describe it or describe it. It's not, like, you can't, yeah, you can't really articulate exactly what it is, and it's been within a specific circumstance, but it's been kind of, yeah, like, aligned with that, and then knowing what you have to do based on, based on that conscious. I actually, sorry. No, no, no, no. I was in, like, with the question, because I know, you know, when we speak about wisdom, wisdom is also something that's very apparent within Buddhist philosophy, and I feel like a big part of wisdom within Buddhist philosophy is having a level of compassion for other people, and having a kind of, like, a non-dual understanding of the person's perspective, because if you can understand them, it becomes much easier to accept them. My question is, like, with regards to what you were talking about, about knowledge and action, like, knowledge, action being a fundamental part of knowledge, what role does, like, intention within those actions play with doing something, right? Because, like, if we're going to bring it back to, like, just, like, regular philosophy in terms of, like, you know, there's, like, results that, you know, for some people determine, like, the morality of an action, and then the intention that plays a part in that. So I'm interested in understanding, maybe, like, what role that, like, what intention plays. Yeah, so, yeah, that's, again, I think that's what he's trying to kind of elucidate, is that intention and outcome aren't necessarily, like, the same, or are kind of the same thing. Like, there is, like, if your intention in doing, like, an action isn't proper, if it's, you know, like, just on the surface level, like, oh, I want to do this to look good, or, like, whatever, then that isn't real knowledge, and the action isn't, like, effective. But, like, in the end, it is somewhat of a consequentialist philosophy in terms of what, like, Mantis talks about with, like, if the true king will order the state, so in that way, that virtue has a very tangible impact on the world, and then, like, you know, virtue doesn't dwell alone. Like, there's the interactive process of, yeah, of, like, of attaining that knowledge. Like, the intentionality of an action is fundamental in discovering the knowledge of that particular action. Yeah, exactly. Like, there, you can't, like, really separate the intention from the action itself, because that action wouldn't, like, the way that you're acting it out wouldn't be in accordance with the Tao. Like, the way that you're acting it out wouldn't be in accordance with the Tao, and that, in turn, would have a negative impact on Heaven, which then has a negative impact on, like, reality. So, it's, like, the, that's the most, it's important, like, your intention has to be aligned with Heaven, and the action is also aligned with Heaven, and so it's not, yeah. Different, but that's, yeah. I guess, kind of, in our last, I guess, five-ish minutes of this, of this segment of the podcast, you know, I'd like to ask you about, like, yeah, really, like, how do you think, like, generosity is, like, functions? Because, like, with the Diamond Custer illusion, I think it's a Bodhisattva who depends on notions to practice generosity, is like someone walking in the dark. They can't see, so, yeah, how do you practice generosity without notions? Without notions. No, I certainly believe that, like, anything is, kind of, like, a skill that is practice, and so something that a lot of Buddhists actually do is, like, in order to keep themselves humble, they actually, like, go out and just, like, beg, which, to me, I, you know, from someone who looks out from the outside, might be quite judgmental of that particular action, but understanding, like, the type of relationship they're trying to uncover with themselves, I think that, when you understand it, you kind of are, like, oh, that kind of makes sense. I think, to answer your question about generosity, kind of, like, what, or, like, what role that plays in, like, the development of it within Buddhist culture, I think it's super interesting because I think, you know, the, like, the doctrine of, like, karma and rebirth are present within Buddhist philosophies, and for me, karma, I think, is, like, the fundamental belief that, like, I feel, like, I feel strongest about personally in Buddhist philosophy, just that, you know, when you're committing these actions intentionally towards people, the universe will almost hit you back with what you deserve to get hit with, you know, and so I think a big part of generosity is maybe understanding that when you are being generous, not that you'll get rewarded for it, but that the universe will, kind of, come and hit you and give you what, not what you deserve, but give you what was meant to be. But do you think if you practice, if you, if you're practicing generosity with the intention that you're going to get something good out of it, it undermines, like, the, the no self, almost, or, like, because, because I guess, like, it is, like, like, through the acceptance of the no self, like, you realize that you have, you winning over someone else isn't going to do you any good, or, like, and that you benefiting someone is just going to, like, it benefits you because there isn't, like, a distinct individual thing that is you that can benefit from, like, putting that, like, being over someone. Yeah. So, yeah, like, yeah, do you think, yeah. So, I guess my part in that is just understanding intentionality, and how intentionality, to me, if I were to reify it, is an action, like, this idea that, certainly, you can tell the, like, not always, because people are deceptive, but when you understand a person's intention with that action, it does increase or decrease its value. And I think that a big part of, you know, having good karma is having proper intentions with what you're doing. And so, you know, even if in the back of your heart, like, you kind of, like, know you're doing it selfishly, like, it's not as hidden as you think, in terms of the way you're displaying yourself to others, and the way that you're presenting yourself. And I think those, like, it manifests itself in, like, numerous ways, like, trying to be, like, deceitful, or if you're hiding something, like, if you're feeling shameful, like, you might think that those particular feelings are things that you can bottle up, but they pop up in, you know, so many different shapes and forms. And I think it's really important to be aware of that. I also think, like, this quote from the Diamond Cuts to Illusion is very, like, related to that. It's, like, greed, anger, and ignorance cloud our perception so that when we're in contact with something, we can't see its real nature, and so we create an image of it. Therefore, when we're angry or upset, we're upset in our image and not in the thing in itself. And so the reason why I relate it to, like, karma and intentionality is because, you know, there's people who act selfishly or have the intentions of acting selfishly, but genuinely don't believe that they're doing so. And so, like, while having greed and anger are rather, like, clear feelings that you can feel and are aware of, I think ignorance is literally the opposite of that. Like, you can't, like, if you're being ignorant, you can't, like, you don't know that you're being ignorant. But thus, like, that doesn't change the fact that it's clouding your perception of of what a situation is and the way that different people will interpret that. And also, the way that shapes your relationship with, like, what karma is, in terms of it being intentional action towards other people. So, sorry. No, I mean, I think, like, I definitely think that at least in the way that I go about intentionality is, is very important. But then, um, I guess, how do you combat ignorance in a, in a Buddhist sense? Like, like, what, yeah, I guess what, what acknowledgement do you think allows you to? Mm hmm. So, if I'm going to relate this really quickly to Nagarjuna, I think that when we talk about the non-self or, like, current reality and ultimate reality, I think from a Buddhist perspective, what they would kind of say is that no matter what perception you kind of have, that it's not, like, it's not the right, it's not the right perception of it. That, that in itself is rooted from so many subconscious biases that you believe or want to believe, you know, that delusion is ruined ignorance. And I feel like the only way you could ever combat ignorance is, I mean, I guess this is like, obviously, you know, if you're being ignorant about, like, a political issue, like, we're talking about data and that's different, but I mean that more, like, generally, overall, in terms of, like, all your ignorant thoughts, is to understand kind of, like, I guess it's, like, it's hard to say, oh, it just doesn't exist, or, like, it's, like, it's relational, like, it's super relational on you and, like, your experiences and, and who you are. And I think that's the big part of what that transcendence into nirvana is, not just understanding, like, who you are on a conscious level, but who you are on a subconscious level as well. And then being mindful about that so that you can transcend into nirvana, like, and it's still kind of weird because nirvana is still not in, like, Buddhist literature, like, or Nagarjuna, like, nirvana isn't necessarily, like, heaven, like, I feel like we conceive nirvana to be, like, similar to heaven in theology, but it's not. It can literally be, it can literally be, like, right in this current moment. You know what I mean? Yeah. And yeah, I guess, like, that's, like, a big, like, a big, a big part of understanding that is well, I guess that, like, really, that kind of reminds me of, like, the confusion notion of, like, harmony, is that it is, I guess, something more metaphysical, and, like, expand, you know, encompasses multiple different aspects. But like, it is, yeah, you can experience it, right at this, like, at this moment, if you're aligned with the, you know, ultimate reality, the universal principle, or, like, you know, the Tao, like that, like, and then you're free from, like, you're free of tranquility, because, because you are aligned through that. And, and yeah, and so there's, yeah, not even conceptions, like how to act right and wrong. You're simply, like, expressing, like, I'm unthinkingly expressing the Tao, just, like, because it is radiating from, from you. Yeah. How, how similar do you think that, like, the no-self is to the Tao? Like, what are the comparisons that you would draw, like, in terms of, like, them being somewhere different? Yeah, yeah, definitely. So I think, I think the biggest comparison that I've, uh, kind of identified, I guess, is, I think the, the no-self is much, is much more like a, I don't want to, like, negative claim sounds like that, but it is, like, it is the, or it's, it is claimed, like, there's no-self, and it's all, um, the causation of dependent things. And, and then, like, especially the way that Nagarjuna uses it, um, because everything is empty, there isn't a, um, there ultimately is nothing. There's not, like, you know, the true seed of, like, of, like, peacefulness that, like, the Buddha, Buddha can teach. It is, it, but by recognizing the relational dependency of everything, you, like, yeah, you then become, um, entwined with that. So first you have to, like, see the emptiness of everything in order to, kind of, reach that point of, like, nirvana, or not, I'm sorry, not nirvana, but, but, uh, like, recognize, yeah, I guess recognize good action, like, proper compassion, generosity, bodhisattva state, maybe. But I think in Neo-Confucianism, it's a much more, like, positivist claim, because it's something that is, like, uh, the, the li is inherent in your mind, in your ren, and so you have, you're, it's more about expanding the conception of yourself, of your, not even sign up, the conception of yourself, but, like, oh, well, yeah, it would be to, like, everything around you. It's, like, the rocks, and, like, birds, and people, and so that, so it's your, your everything in the world is me, and I'm everything in the world. So it, there's, um, it's, uh, uh, there's only one principle, so this is, uh, Cheng Hao in Yi Xu, um, there's only one principle under heaven, and it's so efficacious throughout the world, it has not changed since the time of the three kings, and remains the same, so the ten thousand things all have principle, it's easy to follow it, but difficult to go against, and I think, like, um, you, you know, you have to, like, positively clarify that principle to, like, yeah, to engage with, with, to positively clarify yourself to engage with, uh, kind of the oneness, and something you become a part of, and so while there is, like, no self inherent in that, there's, like, nothing that's independently existing that calls you, you still have to be becoming a part of something that is independently existing within, like, the conventional world, which is, like, the principle, because that's something that you can speak about in perfect clarity, um, yeah, oh yeah, yeah, it's just, like, uh, through, like, I think through the acceptance and clarification, and obstruction of, like, other things, you can become, you can align yourself with that oneness in Confucianism, whereas through, kind of, like, the negation of, like, the conventional way of seeing it, or, like, the common sense way of seeing things with a, like, a swabhava, or an independent self, you then become, kind of, like, aligned with that more higher thing, if that makes sense for, for Nick Archenau, but we're almost eight minutes over, I think we're going to continue kind of talking about metaphysics in the next one. Thank you so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed.