The first class of the new series about Nagarjuna’s analysis of going and coming starts by questioning the path. If one is going, then that action of going must be ascribed to a certain path. Is this path then the path gone over, the path yet to be gone over, or the path being gone over?

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class begins with the analysis of the third verse of Nagarjuna’s text. Although the verse could appear as a mere grammatical word-play at a first glance, if understood correctly, it carries a profound meaning which can deeply challenge the way we experience objects in our day to day life. If objects would exist as concretely as they appear, then in the analysis of going in the statement "the being-gone-over is being gone over", one going would be used up for the "being-gone-over", since there is no second action of going, the expression "is being gone over" would be without a going, thus making it meaningless.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

Class continues with the debate about going - in the statement "the being-gone-over is being gone over" - could there be two goings? Where would be the fault in asserting such? The class then continues with even more thought-provoking questions: Is a goer going or is a non-goer going? When does a goer become a goer? Does a non-goer become a goer? Although these questions can initially seem as just a kind of game, they actually touch the core of how objects normally appear to us.

Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The debate continues with the objectors' insisting that just a goer is going. Nāgārjuna gives further proofs why this is untenable, saying that one going is needed to designate a "goer" and another going is needed to designate the "is going". Of course, since two goings would imply two goers, an inherently existent going is thus refuted. The objector then tries to prove that going exists because its beginning exists. Nāgārjuna shows that this is not so, because the beginning of going does not exist. Why not? Because going does not begin on the gone-over, not on the not-yet-gone-over, and not on the being-gone-over.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class discusses the object of negation, which is often mistakenly taken to be an object itself instead of inherent existence of an object. Following the explanation in Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom, the class then shows what is the difference between seeing everything as like an illusion, and seeing everything as an illusion. Correctly seeing the phenomena as like an illusion will protect oneself from being drawn into accepting phenomena as they appear, and in this way positively affect all of one’s activities. At the conclusion, professor Hopkins explains what an ultimate analysis means in Gelug, and how surprisingly simple these reasonings are.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

In order to go deeper into the reasonings presented by Nāgārjuna in his Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Called Wisdom, the class starts with the study of Tsong-kha-pa’s commentary, called Ocean of Reasoning. After the introduction, the general structure of the chapters and reasonings is presented. The class then begins with the first reasoning: a refutation through analyzing the object (path).

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class begins with the discussions about different translations for the bden pa ba, and the implications that these different translations could imply. Continuing with Tsong-kha-pa's commentary, an important distinction is brought up and examined: what is the difference between saying that something is imputed upon an aggregation of minute particles, and saying that something is imputed in dependence upon an aggregation of minute particles?

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class analyses objectors' criticism of Chandrakirti’s refutation of the third category. Objector disagrees with Chandrakirti’s refutation, because in his view it would eliminate the third category completely. It would absurdly follow that the foot’s stepping on the being-gone-over would not occur. It would not occur because:
1. the front portion does not step on the being-gone-over (because the front portion is the not-yet-gone-over and is in the future while the being-gone-over is in the present), and
2. the back portion does not step on the being-gone-over (because the back portion is the gone-over and is in the past while the being-gone-over is in the present).
So, if neither the front nor the back portion step on the being-gone-over and since there is no foot besides those two portions, then nothing at all steps on the being-gone-over. This would absurdly eliminate the third category completely.

However, Tsong-kha-pa responds to the objector that only an inherently existent being-gone-over is being negated, conventionally existent being-gone-over is not.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class discusses the difference between a foot and a foot that it is established by way of its own character. Although Tsong-kha-pa puts great emphasis on the importance of making out the distinction between the two, it is very difficult to observe this difference in our own experience because when a foot appears, its being established by way of its own character appears along with it. Thus the first step is to understand well the distinction on a verbal level. The class then discusses also other difficulties which arise when trying to develop an understanding and meditate on emptiness.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class addresses a possible misconception that Nagarjuna is eliminating the being gone over completely. However, as is clear from Tsong-kha-pa's commentary, the being gone over does exist. Otherwise if being gone over could not be posited, then there would be no action of going left, and the whole fundamental teaching of dependent arising would be undermined. The class then continues with Tsong-kha-pa’s explanation of Nagarjuna’s first verse:

Respectively, the gone-over is not being gone over,
The not-yet-gone-over is also not being gone over,
A being-gone-over without including the gone-over
And the not-yet-gone-over is not known.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class reviews the explanation of Nagarjuna’s first verse which says that none of the three paths are being gone over. The objector disagrees, stating that the area stepped on by a foot that is presently going is the being-gone-over. Tsong-kha-pa answers that a foot has many parts, which can be subsumed into two: (1) the area in front of the particles of the heel, and (2) the area behind the particles of the toes. Thus, from the perspective of inherently existent paths, third area is not feasible.

The class then clarifies some often misunderstood key points regarding the process of imputation. For example, an important distinction is made between stating that a foot is an aggregation of minute particles, or saying that it is imputed in dependence upon the aggregation of minute particles. Another common misunderstanding is that object imputed is just a word or a label, and not an actual object.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class analyses Tsong-kha-pa’s response to the objector's claim that (inherently existent) being-gone-over exists, because it is the area stepped on by the foot. Tsong-kha-pa answers that this is not feasible, because foot is posited upon being imputed in dependence upon an aggregation of minute particles. These particles (i.e. parts) can be subsumed into two groups: in the particles of the front half of the foot (which is the not-yet-gone-over of a goer), and in the particles of the back half of the foot (which is the gone-over of a goer). As there are no other parts left, there also can not be an (inherently existent) third area.

The class continues with Tsong-kha-pa’s explanation about how the foot is imputed in dependence on its parts, and how an inherently existent being-gone-over can’t be found. The text then continues with objector’s response in which he tries to show that such an explanation is not logically feasible. The class also contains interesting discussion with the participants about various possibilities of what the third category in this paragraph could mean. Does it mean the whole foot, the area in the middle of the foot, or maybe even something else?

The class expands on the objection in which the objector criticizes Tsong-kha-pa’s explanation about what is the third category. Tsong-kha-pa responds to this criticism that he would indeed be at fault, if he would negate third category completely. However, he negates only inherently existent being-gone-over. Conventionally existent being-gone-over is not negated.

In the class Jeffrey Hopkins unsuccessfully tries to find his foot by patiently and slowly moving through all the likely parts. The emphasis is made that such an analysis has to be done thoroughly, and that one should consider even the possibility that the foot might be somewhere else, for example in another room. After that, one can come to a shocking conclusion that that which is not a foot, is designated as a foot!
Note: video is not complete due to technical issues.

The class addresses common mistake in understanding Tsongkhapa’s explanation of dependent arising as if we already see things in this way. Indeed his explanation is very subtle, even to the point, that some scholars would say that Tsongkhapa’s explanation is too subtle for people to understand and put into practice. Then the class continues with the second stanza:

Where there is movement, there is going,
And that also is on the being-gone-over of a goer,
Not on the gone-over, nor on the not-yet-gone over;
Therefore going is on the being-gone-over.

The class discusses two possible meanings of the second verse stemming from two different interpretations of the sanskrit words by Bhāvaviveka and Buddhapālita, and looks into the commentary given on the issue by Chandrakīrti and Tsongkhapa.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class first reiterates how important it is to connect these teachings to our real, emotional life in order for the teachings to affect us, and that they do not merely remain an intellectual game.

The class then continues with objector's (incorrect) assertion that the stanza 1 explains that the gone and the not-yet-gone are directly contradictory, and thus refutes the possibility of the third category, that is, the being-gone.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class first talks about how Nagarjuna's analysis is relevant to our everyday experience - if things exist as solidly as we imagine it in our ordinary behavior, not intellectually when we think about it, then they would have to follow the rules as Nagarjuna sets them in refuting inherent existence. Then the class moves on to the following verses:

3. How indeed would going be
Feasible on the being-gone
When a being-gone
Without going is not feasible.
[Or: When two goings are not
Feasible on the being-gone?]

4. For whoever [asserts] going
On the being-gone, it follows
That there is a being-gone lacking going
Because I am going on the being-gone.

5. When going is on the being-gone,
It follows there are two goings,
That by which there is a being-gone
And further the going on it.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

Chandrakīrti says that in chapter 2 an objector requests Nāgārjuna to provide some new reasonings to refute going. An analysis follows where if going would inherently exist (as we experience it), it would have to be findable among the three paths—the gone, the not-yet-gone, and the being-gone. However, such cannot be found. Another analysis is as follows: a goer can’t begin going because a goer is already going; also a non-goer can’t begin going because a non-goer is necessarily not going. So, who is going? We need to recognize how such analysis connects to our ordinary experience and how to apply such reasonings.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class discusses verse 2, in which the objector asserts that going exists on the being-gone-over:

2. Where there is movement, there is going,
And it is on the being-gone of a goer
Not on the gone, nor on the not-yet-gone;
Therefore, going is on the being-gone.

Nāgārjuna answers in verse 3 that this is not feasible, because an action of going is used to designate an area as a being-gone-over and the same action cannot be used to designate also a person who is going, because this action of going was already used up.

3. How indeed would going be
Feasible on the being-gone-over
When a being-gone-over
Without going is not feasible.
[Or: When two goings are not
Feasible on the being-gone?]

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two

The class continues with verse 3, in which Nāgārjuna points out how one action of going cannot be used to designate both the area and the agent who is going. To understand the issue and answer more clearly, the use of imagination is suggested: imagining the area, the action on the area, the legs, action on the legs etc. Imagining this process clearly and substantializing it will serve as a big clue how to do this and the following meditation in different chapters. Otherwise it will be just words and the impact will be missed.

Main reading:
Jeffrey Hopkins: ANALYSIS OF GOING AND COMING: Is Going Possible?
Chandrakirti’s and Tsong-kha-pa’s Commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way, Chapter Two