Archive Result

Soundfile 19870100GRRTOMLOVCOM_12

Speaker Gelek Rimpoche/Robert Thurman

Location Omega Institute

Topic Love and Compassion

Transcriber Jill Neuwirth

Date 3/01/2023

Robert Thurman: … you know, the some certain kings were for it, but even they couldn’t prevail against the some different nobles and ministers and things who said it was a useless waste of national money, a waste of manpower, some sphere outside the ruler’s control, what do we want with that? Put everyone in the army instead. The Tibet was this unique country that had no army, no military whatsoever. And yet, people would be- and they had thirty percent monastic. Thirty or forty percent monastic. Nowadays, young Tibetans who escape to India still even now in the 80s, after being brought up under communism, not allowed to learn their own native language, Tibetan. Not allowed to learn, of course, anything about Buddhism. Beaten and drilled and brainwashed and et cetera, all the thought reform, all this about Maoism. When they get out to India in their twenties, that person, hardly ever seen a lama or a non-broken temple, by the thousands they go and enroll in the Tibetan monasteries in India. Because of the suffering they’d lost parents and children and lost country, been oppressed, and they realize suffering and they want to attain enlightenment with the rest of their life. They don’t into training to go into business. There’s some, but great number go into monasteries. It’s baffling. (Laughs)

[0:01:20.6] And really, I think really intelligent, but may be baffling to the materialist, of course. Yes? Audience: Why cannot the monastery sort of support itself as did the (Inaudible) [0:01:34.7] monasteries in Europe? RT: The monasteries did support themselves in Tibet in the sense that they were the school and the hospital, et cetera, et cetera. They very well supported themselves. But the theory in Buddhism, that originally, that the monasteries and monks are not supposed to have to support themselves. They’re not supposed to try to support themselves. People are supposed to support them. It’s the luck of the people to be able to support them. One incident in Vimalakirti that you didn’t notice was where he scolded Mahakashapa (?) [0:02:06.7] And why he scolded Mahakashapa, because Mahakashapa only would beg his lunch in the streets of the poor people. So, he said, why are you being so partial towards the poor? Don’t you want the wealthy to have the good fortune of being able to feed you? Because they were already wealthy? They had fortunate previous lives you’re neglecting their moral and meritorious health in this life and favoring the poor? How can you be so discriminatory as to not give the wealthy the chance to support you, since the giving of something to someone who is developing enlightenment then becomes a great act. So that was in the original theory of Buddhism. Later in different cultures, especially in cultures where the economy was less abundant than it was in ancient India, which was the most abundant culture on Eurasia, originally. Most abundant river valleys of all Asia are were- are still actually in India. They ruined nowadays, got overpopulated. But definitely, the most richest place in Eurasia. The original Garden of Eden, anybody’s ever been there and seen the flowers at different times of year, you would just be surprised. In spite of the poverty, it’s extraordinary place. And was much more so then. So, in other countries they changed that rule somewhat, you know. Because, you know, to be practical.

[0:03:18.9] And they did some work, and the Zen people planned that with people. It wasn’t rigid, it was for the original time. But the principle is rigid. The principle of the monastic is not here to do, invest their energy into the purpose of this life. They are the people in the society who are investing their energy in some higher thing. And so, the society wants to, since society was unable to do that personally, wants to be able to support someone else to do that. Because then as a whole, it becomes a sort of liberation society. Liberation-oriented society, and not a beehive. Just busy, busy, busy, busy society with no one getting anything out of it but death at the end, and no spiritual development. However, His Holiness has the plan that a the modern monastic in a place like Tibet or elsewhere, could do more active outreach work for society. Like you could have priest psychiatrists. You could have monastic factories. You could have monastic bands and musicians. You could have monastic hospitals where they really, not just occasionally, but just really had beds and things, you know. Like the Christians do. He feels that Christianity has had a longer experience in dealing with industrial civilization. And has therefore developed more ways of dealing with a materialistic world. About which has some good aspects, he feels. Materialism is not all bad. And so, Buddhism should he feels, follow that as it’s restored. At the same time, he feels definitely that the Christian monastics must definitely recover certain meditational attitude and technique and little more transcendentality, little less notion of just service, service, all the time. And a little more just spiritual development type of thing. And, you know, not just feel that faith and faith is it, but have to really achieve something. You know? For example, like what Rimpoche told us earlier today that’s very priceless. I mean, I don’t know if you all really realize what a great treasure that teaching is. It’s so extraordinary. My original teacher- and this is a book some of you might find interesting- it’s called The Door of Liberation by a man named Geshe Wangyal, W-A-N-G-Y-A-L, who is Mongolian. And when he used to teach this teaching of the seven steps, you know, the eleven steps, et cetera, he would invariably break down. He would- and many people would just completely weep. And almost every time. Like regular. (Laughs)

[0:05:42.4] I mean, he wouldn’t just- I mean, he would very lucidly explain it, and you would get it, you know? And it is an amazing- it is a great treasure that he did such an extraordinary teaching. Because it’s great to say, love everybody, love, love, love. All that love everybody. You can’t. Your mind just can’t. Just like that. Just because someone orders you to, you can’t. It’s somebody’s opinion their opinion- how are you going to love them? You have to see through the way you are seeing them that you see them only as a pain, you know? Have to dissolve that aspect of them that seems to be- see through it, see other aspects to them. Have to slowly work out in this way, you know? And that precept is so extrao- now for example, I predict for certain, that within half a century that precept in some form will be like regular fare at Cistercian monasteries and Benedictine monasteries and this kind of places. [0:06:35.9] Carthusian monasteries. It will be completely- it will have taken out references to Buddhism, or maybe fortunate- they’ll be generous enough not to totally take out. They’ll have a few buddhas and bodhisattva angels maybe. But even if they do, it doesn’t matter, that will be there. And they will perhaps reexamine this dogma about the person only having the one life. And that official life either heaven or hell, but then basically that means two, total. Total two. One future, either heaven or hell eternal, and maybe a limbo in between, and then nothing previous. Which is a bit irrational, actually, you know? Audience: (Inaudible) [0:07:15.2] RT: Just let me finish. So, I would say that there should be such a cross fertilization. And for example, in such a western country, The Dalai Lama in particular, he does not have the aspiration of filling America with the Buddhist monasteries. There are some Buddhist monasteries in America. Not really hardly any that really observe the Buddhist monastic regulation very, very thoroughly. Zen ones do not, for example. Most of the people are married. Although they call themselves monks, they’re married.

[0:07:39.7] Which does not fit the definition at all. You have to be celibate. And there’s one or two quite small Tibetan ones. Most Tibetan places are dharma centers and not monasteries. So, there are a few, but you know, there’s no notion of sort of, filling up the place with Buddhist monasteries. Rather, there’s the idea of refilling the society with people who are monastic in the sense of seeking some higher fulfillment. And why shouldn’t they use the many empty buildings on the millions of Christian monasteries that there are. For example, why shouldn’t they adopt some of those forms? Why shouldn’t actually the Christians invite people who are sort of, philosophically Buddhist to use their facility and to join with them in this common enterprise? It may happen. Dogma might break down and it could happen. Someone like Merton, for example was quite- yeah, Merton was very into it. He was very close to His Holiness. They loved each other. And Merton was totally into that. Unfortunately, he passed away suddenly. But anyway, this could be some sort of a positive future. But I think it’s very- one thing about traditional religions that the Tibetans are quite careful about, His Holiness The Dalai Lama in particular, although he openly said that he feels Buddhism is the most useful path for someone who wants to develop. He does not hide that he loves his own path. On the other hand, he feels that it is past the time when religions as great institutions should compete with each other, and basically fight with each other to have signed adherence, you know, like below nominally to them, in other words. You know, get members, you know. You feel this is bad, then that becomes another level of conflict, like national conflict, racial conflict, religious conflict, armed in the nuclear modern technological age, this is no good. So rather he feels that each member of each religious tradition should seek to convert all other people to that very highest in their own tradition. And have them truly realize their own tradition. But of course- although, he doesn’t address this, His Holiness doesn’t, but actually I do. Speaking as a westerner in sort of, you know, dialogue conferences, I’m sort of little bit notorious for this.

[0:09:49.8] There are certain tenets of certain religions that do preclude a full embrace of other religion. And those have to be abandoned. And those, you can affirm the other religion totally, but there should be certain aspects of those religions that would then preclude or exclude you, the other religion. That can’t go. That’s the kind of thing that should be discarded by all of them. In other words, some- if there’s a Buddhist tenet that you cannot be a full person, you cannot be enlightened unless you’re a signed member of some Buddhist order or another. That has to be abandoned. And if there’s a notion that you can only be saved by one person, say, Jesus Christ, that should be abandoned. Yes, Jesus Christ can save many people who choose him. But that doesn’t mean that the other people like, Buddha, that doesn’t mean that Buddha is in hell. That’s absurd for them to go on saying that is bad, because what it can lead to is eventually, it could read to the rationalization of like Harry Truman. Bomb them. They are less than we. And that should- those things I think we have to address critically in the proper occasion, and we have to face them, if you have to look for their sources as having developed in their religion historically as they did. And I think we have to try to find some sort of common human denominators within the particularity of the non-harmful individual religious forms. In other words, you can’t go completely one way the other, in other words. That’s my personal. The Tibetans will not say that because they don’t- because being sort of outsiders culturally and racially as well as religiously, they don’t want to be perceived as sort of attacking in any way, you see. You know, sort of, prolonging religious conflict. So, they’re more reserved about that. But as a sort of, person in between cultures in a certain way, I do argue that. And I haven’t yet been refuted. Mm-hmm?

[0:11:46.8] Audience: I think that this wouldn’t be so difficult if people went back to the base of the Christianity and then instead, it falls- I believe firmly Christ, or Jesus, or whatever you call him, never said that I’m the (Inaudible) [0:12:05.0] It was added by people later. If we have shift, I don’t know that, perhaps it might be worth discussion but- RT: I think so. (Laughs) Audience: No, but you see- RT: No, but I welcome what you say, and I can agree, although I don’t think that’s quite the right tack. That will usually offend a Christian believer. The point is that the Christian believer should be allowed to say, Christ is the only one for me. He’s speaking to me, and I choose him that way. After all it says Christ is love, right? The word, et cetera, blah, blah. I- and they should be allowed to say that. But someone else should be able to have their only one. I mean, you know, you marry someone, you say, you’re my only beloved. You don’t mean someone else doesn’t have an only beloved. Should everybody else get divorced because you got married? So, if you embrace as an only one, this one is going to be your path, if you embrace Avalokitesvara, if you embrace Manjushri, if you embrace Maitreya, why should you arrest, or consider as inferior beings, or brainwashed, or attack, or antagonize or whatever, someone who chooses someone else as their only one? Do you follow me? Audience: Yes, I do- RT: You can take only one, in other words, as an emotional, devotional statement, and not as some sort of census statement. Like I know one Tibetan lama, and you’ll laugh, and we should laugh. I know one Tibetan lama who was so baffled in a Buddhist Christian conference. He was an older one who is passed away now, didn’t speak English even. He was so baffled by the idea that God had only the one son. He found it baffling. He asked this minister who was propounding this theory very dogmatically, one protestant. He said how many children do you have? Four, the guy says. So how can you have four, and God only can have one? (Audience laughs) He then asks. And the guy sort of looked very pitched, like, you know, like very benign, like the guy was like, really like simple, and he went on with some other theories about only one, and this went back and forth along that vein. And the lama’s asking, well, how do you know he can’t have another one later? Or maybe, isn’t there some people on another universe that he would have one for, I mean, how come this thing about only, only, only? Finally, he gave up, the lama did. He said in Tibetan, he kind of joked, he said, guess the only boy had only one shot in him! (Audience and RT laugh)

[0:14:22.2] He didn’t really ask- he didn’t want me to translate it, and I definitely didn’t, in that day. I said, oh he just said that’s so interesting. (Audience laughs) But I had a hard time, he was exploding with laughter. Audience: Would you say, I get the impression that you think that the century or whatever it is, B.C., had an intellectually developed frame of thinking that was in many ways superior to what has happened subsequently. Can you put that in some perspective? RT: No, I don’t really think that. No. The traditional Buddhist view is that, you know, those who met the actual Buddha were sort of very fortunate, and when praised to be reborn the time of the Buddha Maitreya to attain Buddhahood, that’s a very traditional kind of view. And that has merit, certainly. And I think that those in the orbit of the Buddha at that century, and other great teachers of the time, in other cultures, because there was kind of a great figure in every culture at that time, at least in Eurasia. Were very fortunate, yes, and very developed and I think the Buddha’s insight is met- unmatched, you know, except by other Buddhas. And so, I would, I will adopt language like, you know, the ultimate sociologist, the ultimate psychologist, the ultimate physicist, and I think I can argue it, and I do believe it. But he himself proclaimed the backwardness of his own society. And he himself said, for example the Mahayana teaching is not for everybody here, just now. Thought four or five hundred years from now that people would be ready for it. He said. I mean, it’s recorded in the sutras as saying. Vajrayana teaching all the more to be sort of like, kept a little bit carefully. Even more esoteric. And the Hinayana and individual vehicle was the main thing needed at the time, because of the roughness of the society. You know, men at least had to develop a certain level of individualism. If he’d given out this sort of social teaching of the Mahayana right away, he could have been misabused by various sort of dictator type, you know, bad kings, you know, imperialistic kings. So first he had to create a space, kind of beachhead for his teaching of these free spaces out of the control of those kings, you know. Out of control of the armies. For the monastics. Because he himself saw the backwardness of society at that time. And this is relates to why I now feel that monasticism is still very important today, because having become older, I’ve become more, more, you know, confronted, and more accepting of the backwardness of our time. I mean, the Ollie North sort of thing. You see, the like Ollie North sort of blind action mentality, kill, or whatever, you know, being the training of people to be ready to die for some, whatever idea, usually patriotism, usually hate of somebody else. That’s a kind of monasticism.

[0:17:15.2] Some of the people- he wasn’t originally happy to die for anything particularly. You know, he was in his football team and this and that. And he was taken boot camp, et cetera, ideology you know, then they would become ready to die. See that’s like a monastic thing. You sort of transcend, that’s a kind of cheap end of renunciation, in the service of hate, and imperialism, and patriotism. Now as long as there’s such a huge force of that on the planet, you have so many huge armies everywhere, where everybody’s brainwashed to be inhuman to others, there must be institutions, there must be a counter army. It must be a peace army. Not just peace individuals who will go out in front of those armies like flower children now and then to say please stop. Or cast an occasional vote, and then go home and sort of dodge the bullet. There has to be institutions that will be developing the same level of militancy for peace. For self-transcendence. For love. You follow me? Boot camp of love, in other words. Like doing the Rimpoche thing, but hundreds of thousands of people throughout the different nations. Given full force and free time to do that and the university, or a course at Omega is not enough. It may be enough for certain, rare persons. And it’s certainly good as much as any person can do. But it would not be enough on the sort of large, macro level, like sociological level. Much more minds have to turn much more radically.

And so, renunciation will mean that there have to be institutions that they can really seek to pay attention to the purposes of this life, as it’s called in Buddhism. The interest in this life. Really give it up. Not worry about their next meal or whatever, and just really put their effort into that. You follow me? So that’s what Buddha created, you see, he created- in the time, that was not a peaceful time in India. The many kings and the many vying kingdoms, the very wealthy kingdoms in India at that time were all vying for supremacy, and empire, and dominion within India, and they were jockeying with Iranian empire and so on. And there were many empires in India (Inaudible) [0:19:08.3] in then a huge and populous place. So, his developing of that monastery is like, an awesome business, the Buddha is doing that. It’s completely awesome. As I grow older, I get more and more awed by it. You have to imagine, a metaphor I use for my students is this. You have to imagine some guy goes to West Point from Alabama in 1840. I don’t even know if it existed, but the equivalent of West Point. Okay? And halfway through, drops out, has a vision, comes up to Woodstock, or to Omega, the equivalent, up through Hudson here, and sits there with Rip Van Winkle and meditates for a few years, gets a big insight, wanders back to his familial plantation in Alabama, wearing an orange robe with his hair shaved off, and says, guys, there’s something higher to do and Governor, or Mayor, or whatever, I want the whole of Central Park here, and I want anybody who wants to follow me to develop their higher self to be able to be provided free lunches will come down to the planter’s club and we’ll go up and down every day, and I want anyone who’s a slave to be released from being a slave to do that, and I want anyone who’s a soldier, if they’re genuinely sincere to be released to do that, and their daughters will also have their own separate monastery as well as sons, and don’t you think it’s a nice idea?

[0:20:27.2] What do you think would happen to that guy? Tarred, feathered, lynching, I mean, we can’t even conceive of what would happen to him. And immediately then, create an institution in which, former owner and former slave and then all different castes in between, are totally rubbing shoulders. In fact, the seniority is by whoever was ordained first. So, if you were a former owner, and a former slave becomes a monk two minutes ahead of you, he’s your senior and your superior, you get up for him for the rest of your whole existence in the monastery. Now this is a turning inside out of social stratification and taboos, and caste system things, that is unbelievable. How did he get away with that? Besides, it became immensely popular in India, enormous numbers of people flooded to these monasteries. And the kings were deprived, drastic drain on military and productive labor manpower. And still he got away with it. How? What was going for him? He had no bodyguards; he had no nothing. He had been a king, but his own kingdom was really upset about it, because a lot of the equivalent of the young cadets, the young West Pointers, his sort of schoolmates, were all joining the monastery. They were left without an army, actually. His kingdom then got badly invaded by another kingdom, in fact, during his time. Because so many became monks, because they sort of had association with him, that they left the ranks of the defense system, so to speak, and they became a bit defenseless. And they got beaten up for it. Audience: So, what’s your answer? RT: To what? Audience: How did he get away with it? RT: (Laughs) Well, I don’t really have an answer, but clearly the Vimalakirti sutra provides you with an answer. I mean, you know, man who can put his toe on the ground and then like, everybody sees something different, I mean, the kings are not likely to mess with him. The gods come and support him, and I mean, he went from the level- it was like, it would be like, if the- how the guy in Birmingham would manage it, I would say, that the guy in Birmingham, if he went to the planter’s club, just as they were all about to lynch and shoot and whatever, you know. If he like, rose up in the air and flames shot out to half a league out of the upper part of his body, and water flowed all over the place out of the lower part of his body like some sort of sprinkler system. And then, Yahweh, and some African gods, and a few people, and Jesus Christ, and Moses, and I don’t care, anybody, whole bunch of them suddenly appeared, made themselves visible, you know, like big visions, to the vision of everybody, not just the mystics, and said, don’t mess with this guy, we like his- it’s great. That’s a great idea, give him the park. (Audience laughs)

[0:23:04.5] I don’t just mean like one mystic reporting they heard this from Jesus Christ. I’m saying like Jesus Christ appeared and said, okay, give him the park. I think then, they’d give him the park. In some real visible way where this happens in Buddhist cultures, this kind of visible thing. It’s a funny thing, we’re going just now, I’m going to Tibet next month to this mountain of Manjushri’s. Supposedly sacred land of place of Manjushri, where everyone is more or less guaranteed a vision of Manjushri. It’s not too far from Peking. A friend of mine came back from there, summer before last, and was quite frustrated because having been there a few weeks, there developed a mass vision over one of the famous five peaks. Where sort of everybody was coming from every village and seeing this like thangka, you know, like a painting like this, just like this. With the deity there. Sort of, not talking particularly, but just shining there. You know like a big hologram. It was staying there day and night. Place was lit up like at night. So, the Chinese cordoned off the area and evoked a law that, there’s a law in China that it’s against the law to have a spiritual vision in public. (Audience laughs) It is! Against the Marxist law. To have a spiritual vision you have to go away, leave it or you get thrown in prison. And this police guys were seeing this, and they still cordoned it off. It’s so funny. (Laughs) It’s really funny. I hope that happens when I go, that’s all I’m saying. Before they cordon it off.

[0:24:35.2] So, anyway, you know, I will do a little bit on this inconceivable liberation. It’s fun to also discuss, and it’s good to do that. But- and I hate to do it without Rimpoche, but I just want to do a little bit about it. Let’s open it up since I can’t be here tomorrow. Now, this inconceivable liberation teaching, chapter six, page thirty, does begin, of course, on the previous thing we’ve been talking about very much shunyata foundation. Shunyata emptiness compassion foundation. Perception of selflessness. Critical, as you put it- I forgot your first name. Deanna? Excuse me. As Deanna put it, you know, the critical undermining of all sorts of false views to create a kind of empty slate. So, there’s a kind of foundation like that, that should be established to go into to move into this teaching of inconceivable liberation. A critique, in other words, of what we should call, the routinized imagination. The imagination as routinely invested in this and that conventional object, thinking that it’s really real. That is actually the faculty of imagination. You wonder why your imagination, people feel, I have no imagination, somebody- such an artist has a rich imagination. It’s not just a matter of being born like that. Although it could be from former life. It's a matter of cultivation. We all have incredibly rich imagination. We’re all building this whole world that we live in, the houses, the trees, our imagination is processing photons that are hitting neurons that are zooming and bubbling around, and creating this world with very powerful construction all the time. So, the imagination is very powerfully operating in all of us, but it is routinized in most of us most of the time, because we don’t want to have to stop and think, now well, what should I make of the photons today. Shall I make a building? Shall I make an earth? Shall I make a New York? We sort of just want to be, you know we want to like cancel those things and take them for granted and move on to other things. It’s like a way of- it’s a sort of pragmatic thing, to routinize them. But it then ties up- but then when we forget, that they are in fact not just what they- they are not in themselves what we are constructing them to be. Then it’s an imprisonment of our imagination, in fact. And it’s delusory. But now the critique of the yoga of selflessness, the continuous meditational quest of the self and the proper handling of that, which Rimpoche will be talking more about tomorrow, so as to not allow it to become a nihilistic thing, not allow it to become a frightening thing, and so forth, but the handling of that so that it remains integrated with the general growth of open-mindedness.

[0:27:11.1] Is the way of liberating the imagination. So, this chapter begins with Sariputra having a thought. Poor Sariputra. He’s the one- it isn’t that there’s something wrong with Sariputra. It’s that Sariputra is the smartest guy, he’s known as the wisest person. So, he thinks what everybody’s thinking. He’s also very enlightened, and he’s calm so he can take it when Vimalakirti dishes it out, you know, but he’s sort of just the representative of what everyone is thinking. So, it shouldn’t really feel that there’s just too much picking on Sariputra. Although they do a bit pick on him, and there’s this one goddess who really gives him trouble, which we’ll get to. On Saturday. Anyway, Sariputra has a sensible thought. They’re in this house, there’s thousands of very venerable saints and bodhisattvas and angels and gods and who knows what kinds of creatures, and there is not even a single chair in this house. Where are these disciples and bodhisattvas going to sit? And remember when he says disciple it’s sort of like, maybe I should translate that apostle, really, they’re really holy beings. They’re not just like some, some students there are, when he says disciples, he means like the apostles. You know, the great people. So, there’s a logical thought. They’re going to stand there all the time while Vimalakirti sitting on his sick couches, the one chair of his sick couch. He’s kind of lying there, feeling bad. Unfortunately, the Licchavi Vimalakirti read the thought of the venerable Sariputra and said, Reverend Sariputra, did you come here for the sake of the dharma? Or did you come here for the sake of the chair? (Laughs) Oh, I came for the sake of the dharma, not for the sake of the chair. Reverend Sariputra, he who is interested in the dharma is not interested even in his own body, much less in a chair. And that’s renunciation.

[0:28:56.1] You see. Presupposing. You’re not to be interested in your own body, it means you’re not investing in it. You recognize the its limitations. And you’re not harming it either. You take care of it, but you’re not interested in that sense. You don’t seek some ultimate thing out of it. You know it’s not going to provide that. It’s going to disappoint you. So that’s what he means by not interested. Reverend Sariputra, he who is interested in the dharma has no interest in matter, sensation, intellect, motivation, or consciousness. Those are the five aggregates. Five sort of, components and processes of the psychophysical entity that is a human being. Or in any living being, actually. He has no interest in these aggregates or in the elements, or in the sense media. You know like sense objects or the sense faculties, this kind of thing. Interested in the dharma, he has no interest in the realm of desire, or the realm of matter, or the immaterial realm, those are the three realms. The realm of desire is this ordinary physical universe, the realm of pure matter is a realm of real heaven, sort of pure light and energy heavens. There’s some desire realm heavens too. Which like are sort of like the city of the blessed, one of them is on a kind of Mount Olympus, others are sort of floating in like pearly clouds kind of thing. So those are called desire realm heavens. And then there’s form realm heavens where there’s no such land or no such gross form and everything is pure energy. And there’s seventeen different levels of those. And they’re billions of gods in them.

[0:28:56.1] And then there’s the formless ones, where there are also billions of purely mental gods which are those realms that I mentioned the other day of infinite space, you know, mass becomes infinite, so you get infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothing that’s beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. Those are the four formless realms which also have billions of beings in them. So that’s the universe, in other words, the way of saying the universe. So, one who is interested in the dharma is not interested in that whole universe, much less in a chair. Interested in the dharma, he’s not interested in attachment to the Buddha, attachment to the dharma, or attachment to the sangha. Now this is very important about what we were talking about. You see, this shows the sources of Buddhist open-mindedness in their own scripture. Buddha, dharma, and sangha are known as the three jewels. If you want to become a Buddhist you perform a kind of mental act and eventually a ceremony which is called taking refuge in the three jewels. It’s considered very auspicious, has a huge tradition with it, it’s a very wonderful thing, it’s a way of coming to feel sort of safe and under a benevolent sort of universe, and saves one from going to hell, and blah, blah, blah, they have a lot of sort of religious thing about it. It’s a very nice and pleasant thing to do to take refuge in the three jewels. But here he’s saying dharma, which is actually one of the jewels in a way, but here Vimalakirti in a more intense way of saying interested in the dharma, meaning interested in the truth, in ultimate reality, in wisdom in achieving something for the sake of all beings, not just interested in being refuged, is not interested in being attached to the three jewels, even. So, you see, that’s a basis for not being dogmatically attached to Buddhism as a religion, if you understand. It’s clearly right there in the scripture. The Reverend Sariputra, he who- which is in no way to depreciate the great value in Buddhist cultures or even Buddhists would think for anybody even to take refuge in the three jewels, they consider it a wonderful event in anyone’s life. But yet it’s not the ultimate thing. The ultimate thing is to be Buddha, not a Buddhist. Reverend Sariputra, he who is interested in the dharma is not interested in recognizing suffering, abandoning its origination, realizing its cessation, or practicing the path. And those as you recognize are the four holy truths, or the four noble truths. And so, he’s saying to Sariputra who is a member of the individual vehicle, that the fundamental teaching of the individual vehicle the four noble truths, are not something to be attached to. That does not mean that the universal vehicle does not use or accept, or put into practice the four noble truths. They do.

[0:32:46.1] But in the sense that Vimalakirti means here, they’re not interested in them. They’re not attached to them. Why? The dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Who verbalizes suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, the path should be practiced, he’s not interested in the dharma but is interested in verbalization. They’ve reduced it to a kind of formula, they think they’re happy because they will recite the four truths, and they haven’t really- if to attain the cessation, the third holy truth, you would no longer need the dogmatic attachment to the four truths. Reverend Saripurta the dharma is calm and peaceful. Those who are engaged in production and destruction are not interested in the dharma are not interested in solitude, but are interested in production and destruction. Furthermore, Reverend Sariputra, the dharma is without taint and free of defilement. He who is attached to anything, even to liberation, is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in the taint of desire. Even to desire Buddhahood in a sense, he’s saying. Even that, from the point of view of an attachment, is to be removed from the dharma. Which is reality itself. Because it’s not that you’re attached because buddhahood actually is a being in the reality itself. Buddhahood is not what one who is a non-buddha would conceive buddhahood to be. So therefore, by leaving intact a conceptualization of yourself as a non-buddha, and the Buddha as some thing that you think that you’re going to be, you are engaging in delusion, you are engaging in conceptualization, and you’re not in fact, seeking buddhahood which would be to be interested in the dharma, which is the reality of your situation. And if you’re interested- cause if you are interested in that, you will realize that, when you realize that you will be Buddha.

[0:34:34.1] Without desiring to be. You follow me? Is what he means. I really wish Rimpoche was here because I like to debate these things. The dharma is not an object. He who pursues objects is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in objects. That’s easy enough. The dharma is without acceptance or rejection. He who holds onto things or lets go of things is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in holding and letting go. The dharma is not a secure refuge. He who enjoys a secure refuge is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in a secure refuge. Now that’s very interesting. Because, well, on some simple level as a doctrine again, that relates to like the three jewels and we don’t want to interpret it in this case that way because it would be repetitive, redundant. He’s already said not interested in the Buddha, dharma, and sangha, so the sort of simplistic level of refuge is not what is meant here by secure refuge. What is meant here by secure refuge is, the picture of the Buddha, as a being who has some sort of a hold of a realization of selflessness, whose dharmakaya, or dharma body is something he’s sort of got his feet planted in, and then he stays in there, and then he kind of like creeps out of it, or reaches out of it to do something for somebody, and leaving it somehow, and then goes and hides in it. It’s a dualistic idea, you see, of dharma as an ultimate reality beyond this reality. But dharma as an ultimate reality, ultimate reality is ultimately is not beyond superficial or relative reality. Because the dharma is ultimately non-duality. And non-duality means that the dharmakaya is this relative reality. So, to realize the dharmakaya as the Buddha realizes it, is to realize that this relative reality with its insecurity, with its participation in relativity, with its interaction with living beings, and loving them and so on, and bearing their injuries tolerantly and so on, this existence is the dharmakaya. So, while it is in some sense for Buddha totally secure, it is not a refuge, an escape from something. It’s very- don’t you think that’s interesting? I think it’s interesting.

[0:37:00.4] So we might think, well, when we realize shunyata, we’ll feel so safe. Buddha must be sitting around feeling safe. And there is language that says that Buddha is safe, undisturbed. There’s language says Buddha never really leaves the dharmakaya, and yet he interacts with all beings. But are we secretly in our dualism visualizing that like Buddha is some sort of hollow person? Who has like, sort of like an inner self that’s kind of sitting in a void happily, in sort of anesthetically? And then it’s a big show with no feeling? So, if a Buddha went and went ouch, it wouldn’t hurt? So, a buddha couldn’t really understand another being’s hurt? Because Buddha was somehow in some insulated, isolated realm? Isn’t that a tremendously dualistic vision? Is it not rather that even other hurts, even feelings of other hurts is itself not apart from the dharmakaya? Even insecurity is not apart from the dharmakaya. Therefore, there’s no problem with even being insecure. You can be securely insecure. And that is therefore why Buddha is totally with being, not somewhere aloof and separated from them, in fact, through non-duality. Isn’t it nice? I like it. He who enjoys a secure refuge, is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in a secure refuge. The dharma is without sign. He whose consciousness pursues signs is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in signs. This thing about signs is interesting. It’s a lots of dip thing (?) [0:38:36.1] and one way you can think of it is this way, you know, you look over there, look at he letter Y. We see that letter Y, without any effort, it pronounces itself to us. We hear a little voice inside go, Y. You drive down the highway, you see like, Smoke Marlboro, it reads itself in your brain. It’s like that, just to stay simple, the letter Y seems to have the sound Y in it. It stands for the semivowel (?) [0:39:05.5] “e”. You know, bod-y. Right? And it seems to contain that in it. Doesn’t it? It’s a sign of the sound “e”, bod-y. Right? Or sometimes, Y. It sounds “I,” right? But do you think a Chinese looking at that, it’s going to say “e” or Y? Definitely not. Have you ever been in an Asian country, unless you happen to know Chinese characters in either Japan or China. Have you ever been- or even in Chinatown, have a weird feeling suddenly? You have all these signs and they don’t speak anything to you? They look totally weird, like sort of chicken scratch or some kind of weird thing? But they are full of noise to a Chinese. But what that means is, you see, that signs have no inherent signification. It’s pure constructedness. It’s some whole learned thing that triggers. And there’s nothing inherent in it. Y- for the shape for D could be Y. If some guy making the alphabet somewhere had decided to make the shape for D, Y. Audience: It’s fun to do that with like, Greek. Because we were doing that the other night with P. A P (Inaudible) [0:40:11.4] But if you go to Russia, it’s Rrr! RT: That’s right. So, this whole issue of signlessness has to do with getting into this level of the routinized imagination where the apparent signification inherent significance of things, intrinsic identities of things, you begin to see that they are not intrinsic, but they are constructed. But it’s a very diff- you have to really work to deprogram. That’s getting down to deeper programming.

[0:40:37.6] Signlessness in other words, is a version of ultimate reality, a label of ultimate reality, voidness or emptiness is one, and signlessness is a little deeper one, actually. It goes into a kind of linguistic, a little bit more subtle realm. Emptiness is still in a kind of ontological, or metaphysical realm. The dharma is not a society. He who seeks to associate with the dharma is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in association. The dharma is not a sight, a sound, a category, or an idea. He involved in those is interested, but is interested in sight, sounds, categories, and ideas. Reverend Sariputra, the dharma is free of compounded things and uncompounded things. The duality of created and uncreated is also something that the dharma transcends. He who adheres to compounded things and uncompounded things, that would be like samsara and nirvana. Nirvana’s uncompounded, space is uncompounded. He is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in hearing to compounded things and uncompounded things. Therefore, Reverend Sariputra, if you are interested in the dharma, you should take no interest in anything. (Laughs) This is like, his just reiterating the kind of foundation for the teaching he’s going to go on to give, really. That’s what this is. It’s like, don’t just invest in the apparent realities of chairs and this and that. Get your mind out of that kind of worldly concern. Take no interest in such things. The dharma, the transcendental dharma, is beyond all those things. Do not take interest in them if you want to take an interest in the dharma. And now, having done that, here's where we see Vimalakirti’s not just an underminer. Now, what does he do? He gets some chairs. And what sort of chairs does he get? And this is why tomorrow I say, we have to practice and visualize you’re in a throne room.

[0:42:31.5] He says, Manjushri, by the way, Manjushri, where have you seen the best chairs in which universe, lion throne is just a- means really, just a throne. In ancient India and Iran and these places, you know, royalty and emperors and stuff were set on thrones borne by lions, you know, by carved lions. Although the mythical tradition is that the Buddha actually was upheld by these eight lions. His throne was. Actual lions. Symbolizing that the teaching was like, a king of beasts, you know, king of teachings type of thing. Especially the teaching of selflessness of shunyata is said to be the lion’s roar of the Buddha’s teaching. So, the lion is a symbol of the sort of irrefutability since when anybody hears the teaching of selflessness, somehow they all know that it’s so. So, the irrefutable about it. In spite of the fact that almost no one- I mean technical selflessness. Everyone taught ethical selflessness who had half a brain, at least to some degree. Because without some ethical selflessness, no society could even function for two minutes. But metaphysical selflessness, you know, ontolo- reality selflessness, cause no one else ever taught this. You think of the world’s philosophers, no one, teaching of voidness is no one. Even modern scientific relativity is not purely relativistic. Therefore, it is not purely emptiness. It maintains certain pseudo-absolutes. So he says, which universe do you see the best lion thrones? These are royal thrones, you know? That poor Sariputra. He’s really going to get a chair. Manjushri says, well, noble sir, if you cross the universes, the buddha-verses, to the east, which are more numerous than all the grains of sand of thirty-two Ganges rivers. If you ever see the Ganges, it’s like the Mississippi or something. The bowl of grains of sand in the riverbed of such a vast thousand-mile river, that’s a lot of grains of sand. Thirty-two such- it’s a funny way of counting, but it means a lot of galaxies. A lot of buddhaverses. One will discover a universe called Medodvaja (?) [0:44:42.4] Medo is the name for the axial mountain of any particular universe. The axis, or the central axis of a universe. So, the banner of the axial mountain. There dwells a tathagata buddha called Merupadiparaja (?) [0:44:56.4] His body is measures eighty-four hundred thousand leagues in height. And the height of his throne is sixty-eight hundred thousand leagues in height. And the bodhisattvas there are forty-two hundred thousand leagues tall in their own most superb thrones are thirty-four, their own thrones are thirty-four hundred thousand leagues high. Now obviously that’s a very- that’s a universe where the planet is like, huge.

[0:45:26.8] And everything is in a much larger dimension. I mean there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a dimension or a planet like that. If you go that far, beyond as many other buddhaverses as there are grains of sand in thirty-two Ganges riverbeds, then you might find almost anything. What? Audience: (Inaudible) [0:45:45.7] RT: Right. So, he’s- this Manjushri has been there, apparently, and he said they’re pretty good thrones. The best he’s ever seen. So, at that moment, the Licchavi Vimalakirti, having focused himself in concentration, performed a miraculous feat, such that the more tathagata Meruparadiparaja in the universe Medodvaja, sent to this universe, thirty-two hundred thousand thrones. These sort of created sort of like a kind of space warp, you know, and then beamed down thirty-two hundred thousand thrones, thirty-two hundred thousand miles tall, fitting them into Vimalakirti’s zero room. You see how big the zero room can be? These thrones were so tall, spacious, and beautiful, that the bodhisattvas, great disciples, chakras, brahmas, lokapala [0:46:34.2] and other gods had never before seen the like. The thrones descended from the sky and came to rest in the house of the Licchavi Vimalakirti. The thirty-two hundred t thousand thrones arranged themselves without crowding, and the house seemed to enlarge itself according. The great city of Vaisali [0:46:51.8] did not become obscured. Neither did the land of India, nor the world of the four continents. Everything else appeared just as it was before. So, this is, you know, a total inconceivability, obviously. And one wonders what is this doing in here, you know, Buddhism is supposed to be rationalistic. People are very puzzled. Even Buddhists pretend not to notice, kind of. Especially you know, sort of modernistic ones. You know, gee, that’s some sort of strange thing. But the level of imagination is so incredibly extravagant. Thirty-two hundred thousand thrones, which are each thirty-two hundred thou- no, thirty-four hundred thousand leagues tall. League is about seven miles. It’s the amount of distance an ox cart can go in a day. The Indian league anyway. And that’s like, what is that- it’s like two hundred thousand miles tall. Thirty-two hundred thousand. And they all come and fit easily into this house. It seems to get bigger, but yet it doesn’t blot out the planet. Even the town it’s in doesn’t blot out. And the people in the room when these come in the room, of course, they feel, cause they’re only five, six feet tall, they feel like ti- like, worse than mosquitos, like atoms. Like subatomic particles. This means they suddenly feel overwhelmed by this magnificence. It’s a kind of visual analogy for extreme humility.

[0:48:16.6] Extreme sense of insignificance, isn’t it? Whatever really the status of such a miraculous like description is it conveys emotionally the real feeling of being completely wiped out. Right? By the glory and grandeur of something beyond your imagining. Then Licchavi Vimalakirti said to young prince Manjushri, Manjushri, let the bodhisattvas be seated on these thrones having transformed their bodies to a suitable size. Then those bodhisattvas who had obtained the superknowledges transform their bodies to height of sort of magical powers, transform their bodies to a height of forty-two hundred thousand leagues and sat upon the throne. But the beginner bodhisattvas were not able to transform themselves and sit upon the throne. Then, quickie course in magical powers, Licchavi Vimalakirti taught them a teaching that enabled them to attain the five superknowledges which is clairvoyance, clairaudience, reading other minds, magical powers, and knowing past and future lives. And having attained them, they transformed their bodies to a height of forty-two hundred thousand leagues and sat upon the thrones. But the great disciples still were not able to seat themselves upon the thrones. The Licchavi Vimalakirti said to the venerable Sariputra, Reverend Sariputra, take your seat upon a throne. Good sir, the thrones are too big and too high and I cannot sit upon them. Now, these disciples also do themselves have magical powers by the way. They go to hells, and they go and rescue people and they do many things. But they are of a different order is what is indicated. Vimalakirti said, Reverend Sariputra, bow down to the tathagata Medopadiparaja and you will be able to take your seat. So temporarily by faith you can do it, he’s saying. So the disciples then bowed to the tathagata who they could see at the end of that time warp, you know, space warp tunnel, the tathagata, that giant tathagata was sitting out there like in the end of it, and they bowed to him, and then they were suddenly big enough to sit on the chairs. Then the venerable Sariputra said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, noble sir, it is astonishing that these thousands of thrones, so big, and so high, could fit into such a small house. And that the great city of Vaisali [0:50:29.9] the villages, cities, kingdoms, capitols of Jambudvipa, the other three continents, the abodes of the god, the nagas, the dragons, the ogres, the fairies, the titans, the eagle people, the horse people, and the serpent people and all of these should appear without any obstacle, just as they were before.

[0:50:51.1] And now he gives the teaching. Now they are all enthroned on these thrones, and they are all forty-two hundred thousand leagues tall. Presumably Vimalakirti changed size accordingly. And so Vimalakirti replied, Reverend Sariputra, all the tathagatas and the bodhisattvas, there is a liberation called inconceivable. The bodhisattva who lives in the inconceivable liberation can put the king of mountains Sumeru [0:51:14.9] and this, in our modern cosmology we should think of the planet earth, really. Or the whole planet. What is it- sixteen thousand miles in diameter? Is it- or is it eight thousand? I always forget. Is the radius eight thousand or the di- I think the radius is eight thousand, the diameter is sixteen. Audience: (Inaudible) [0:51:33.9] RT: Oh no, then it’s eight thousand diameter. Kilometer? I thought it was miles. Twenty-four thousand miles around, I thought. I think it’s miles. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. It’s a huge thing, the planet according to our point of view, right? It’s rather big. It’s not even as big as one throne. All the way around it’s only twenty-four thousand. It’s not as big as a single throne. You could wrap a throne all the way around it. But still, it’s pretty big from our point of view. So, when they say Sumeru, which is sort of the big axial mountain of their local planet, and so forth, they’re thinking about that size. So, the bodhisattva- we could think that way when we think about this. So, a bodhisattva who lives in the inconceivable liberation can put the king of mountains Sumeru, which is so high, so great, so noble, and so vast, into a mustard seed. You know how small a mustard seed is? He could perform this feat without enlarging the mustard seed and without shrinking Mount Sumeru, or without shrinking the planet. And the deities of the assembly of the four guardian kings, that’s kind of Olympian deities, you know they live up around North pole or something. And the thirty-three heavens. That is actually Olympus, the thirty-three heavens, do not even know where they are. Only those beings who are destined to be disciplined by miracles see and understand the putting of the king of mountains, Sumeru, or the planet earth, into the mustard seed.

[0:52:56.1] And that, Reverend Sariputra, is an entrance to the domain of the inconceivable liberation of the bodhisattvas. Now, what, on earth, does that mean? We thought we were doing serious dharma, philosophy, religion, practice, Buddhism, blah, blah, blah. We were practicing renunciation, we were practicing compassion, we were practicing wisdom. Suddenly, we’re told to understand the inconceivable liberation, one must put the planet inside a mustard seed without enlarging the mustard seed. Without shrinking the planet. What, is going on? Is this undermining? This is different. This is something totally different. Audience: (Inaudible) [0:53:44.1] RT: Hamlet? Audience: (Inaudible) in a nutshell… [0:53:47.1] RT: I didn’t remember that line. But too big, a nutshell’s real big, and he’s not that big. He’s- and so it’s not quite as drastic, but this is maybe something related. Anyway, this is puzzle- time is more or less gone, but this is puzzle I’m leaving you with. And I’ll pick it up myself again on Saturday, because I’m going to start it over a little bit again because I want Rimpoche to like get this cause it’s kind of so strange. But this is like, not just in this sutra. There is a sutra, he explains later in this chapter, this what he tells them is a tiny fragment of the sutra called The Sutra of Inconceivable Liberation, which is in fact, what is known as The Flower Ornament Sutra in English. Two volumes out of three have been translated from Chinese by someone. And it is much more extravagant even. It’s incredible business. What is this teaching? It is a teaching; I’ll just give you some clues. It is a teaching of the imagination. You see, when you deroutinize your imagination, by the critical wisdom of emptiness, and you disinvest it in the maintaining the conventional objects of the ordinary world, the imagination becomes extraordinarily free and it becomes a new power that you never realized was there. You realize it was the power upholding your conventional world, you didn’t know that. So, there is not- and that fact is the byproduct of the realization of selflessness is not left unattended to in this extremely sophisticated ancient wisdom. In fact, there’s a yoga of that liberated energy. But it is again, something very extraordinary. Now he does not say, notice, that the person who lives in inconceivable liberation like he gets to be thousands of miles tall, he goes and he becomes like Mount Sumeru, he takes and throws around Mount Sumeru or something. He says he puts it in a mustard seed, and he doesn’t hurt the mustard seed at all. Now the mustard seed is in- nor does he shrink the mountain which- so the big mountain and the small mustard seed are two poles in the, on the rough metaphor of dimensions of conventional objects of reality, material objects.

[0:56:03.8] So this means that these two things that are this extraordinary reality where suddenly there’s like a mountain in a mustard seed, not in the molehill, but in a mustard seed, is an extraordinary reality. But the mustard seed in the mountain itself aren’t ordinary reality, and the ordinary reality is not disturbed. So, this liberated imagination is not destructive even of the conventional imagination. This is very crucial and very interesting. And yet, as you will see as he goes on, the liberated imagination can be used to liberate beings, to help them. The reason bodhisattva does such a kind of thing of course is not just to do it for the fun, to benefit beings. He says, they make for those beings who will be helped by that such a bodhisattva can make a moment seem like a passing of an aeon. Or an aeon seem like a moment. And so they have all these different things. So, it is somehow a demonstration of the power of mind and imagination and creativity in this whole area of transforming the universe into a buddha land, in this whole area of compassion’s way of benefitting living beings in a very radically, powerful way. And so therefore, I leave you to contemplate on the putting of the king of mountains Sumeru, or the planet earth if you like, into a mustard seed. Without destroying the mustard seed, without shrinking the planet earth. What? How do you reflect on that? Let’s reflect on that for just a very short time. And then we’ll stop for today. Thank you everybody. I’m very sorry I will miss you tomorrow, and see you on Saturday morning.

[0:57:50.9] Rimpoche: Okay. Welcome for today’s session, and what is it called, hilltop house? [0:58:06.6] (Laughs) And- we have a very good session of a saying mani mantra this morning. (Laughs) In normal, when I’m doing my, sort of, doing things, I would have gone mani about five hundred thousand times I do. But here we have done today about two hundred, quite good. And it gets touch with you. To some people it brings happiness, joy. To some it brings sad, sadness to the extent of feeling like crying. To some people, it may not have much feeling but definitely harmony and all this sort of thing. There it gradually works. So that part is that. And again, the reason why we do so much they say mantra of mani, is because it is the mantra of Avalokitesvara who is the embodiment of the compassion of all the enlightened beings taking form. So when you say that mantra, it is helps to develop compassion within us. So now we know what is really compassion is. What really great compassion is, what really love is, what great love is. And in addition to that, there are four immeasurable practices that we do. In conjunction with the development of the altruistic spirit of enlightenment we do the four, what you call it? (Laughs) She might have lost. Welcome- I’m sorry, we didn’t- no, no. (Speaks to audience member about seating) [1:00:39.3] So in addition to that, we do four immeasurable. Sometimes it’s called four limitless. In English, whatever you call it, doesn’t really matter, you know? As far as I’m concerned, that is borrowed language. Even Tibetan language is borrowing language. Even Sanskrit is borrowing language. You have to communicate, really. One to the other, the meanings, you know, really, I mean, from the deep person to person. That is the importance. You know it is the language is the, it is the media through which we utilize that. And there is a lot of shortage of the media. Number one, person like me not knowing English, so have a tremendous shortage of a vocabulary. I mean, I can’t say half the thing what I wanted to say, really. And when Professor Thurman is here, I can yap and yap in Tibetan so he can say in English, you know? But when he’s not here, I can’t say the half what I wanted to say. However, even those who speak English properly, even then they have the shortage. I mean, the language, no matter whatever the language may be, it has- it is not enough, not enough to communicate person to person.

[1:03:11.0] Now, Sanskrit’s supposed to be the best. And the Tibetans claim the Tibetan language is the mixed with Sanskrit, whatever it is available. Perhaps for spiritual matters, yes. But we have tremendous amount of vocabularies. I mean, when you try to make a dictionary and you don’t never find any equivalent English. And then every professor will say we have to go back to Latin, and we have to borrow from French and Latin and German and Spanish, so all they have to put it in. So, it could be you know? But I don’t know. So, anyway, for we have to communicate from the really from the deep person to person. So the language is the sort of, we use a media, but it’s a borrowed one. So, whatever we call it now, immeasurable or limitless, or whatever, there are four of them. The first is the limitless of compassion. The compassion, the limitless of the compassion. Now, I present you idea, okay? I present you idea. How I present you idea is I will say, this is the mind. The mind will think that way, the object of the mind is this, this mind will perceive the object like that. Okay? Did you get me clear? If you did not understand me, please do not hesitate to stop me, okay? Do not. Otherwise, I have a handicap of language. In addition to that, then we have, what you call it? In addition to that, we don’t have enough communication through the language. In addition to that, if you don’t understand what I’m saying, you have a third disadvantage, so please stop, and say what do you mean by that? Or, just raise your hand. Or just yell it. So doesn’t matter. Audience: Can you just begin at the end- I heard and I didn’t- I sort of understood that like- I just-

[1:05:21.2] Rimpoche: Okay. I said in addition to this spirit of enlightenment, or bodhicitta, what we described yesterday with the practical meditations how to develop it. In addition to that we have a four limitless practice. We’ll call it four limitless. Okay? So how do I present this limitless? I said this is the nature of the thought, this is the object on which these thoughts apply, and how this mind perceives. Okay, so this is how I have to present. Otherwise, there’s no way I can present this four immeasurables, or four limitlesses. First is, limitless of compassion. That object to which- in other words, on what you focus, is you focus on all sentient beings, all living beings. All living beings. I mean, that is the object to, like talking to, thinking to, thinking on. That’s what I mean, object. You understand clear now? Thinks on all sentient beings. And when you meditate, you visualize that all sentient beings are always in human form, okay? Never visualize in the form of cockroaches, or alligators, or scorpions, or things like that. Or horses or elephants. But always visualize them in human form. Two reasons. Number one, to have good omens for them to obtaining human body. Number two, for you to be able to help them through a spiritual practice when they are fit as a human being. With these two good omens. You know, omens, and reasons. That’s why you visualize in the human form. You don’t visualize in cockroaches form, all the cockroaches become human beings, all alligators will become human beings, all elephants become human beings, okay? So, in human form. So, and look at them sort of, the huge universe as I described yesterday. I mean, if you can think trees, houses, and round inhabitants, it’s fine.

[1:07:59.9] If you don’t think that way, it’s sort of open field, where I mean- the field is bigger than ocean where you can see the field is not ending. The sky is almost closing to the field, like that. It’s filled up with human beings almost touching to each other, sitting, you know, almost one movement can move everybody. Sort of that fills up, you know, totally filled up, and then you yourself is sitting there, and looking at them. Then visualizing, thinking, putting thoughts on the sufferings that go through, as you are going through, as you went through. And each one of them have their own problems. And every one of them trying their best to gain a little pleasure, little harmony. As we do. We try to gain little cool harmony and different environment. We struggle up on the hill. (Laughs) So similarly, in that manner, every sentient beings are, they are struggling to gain pleasure and harmony, and joy. They are struggling. But, what they’re getting, what they’re really working is opposite direction. They’re creating always, I mean, we always create problem. We. Now, take example. I’ll give you the story. There was a great master. I mean, not great master. He is the master of my master’s master. Known as Thampalama (?) Rimpoche. [1:10:07.8] He’s great ordinary monk. When I say ordinary monk, you may have question, what is ordinary monk means? In the old Tibetan system, we have a lot of ranks, you know? It’s a hierarchy like a Pope, and Cardinal, and all this, that style we have huge titles and ranks and all this. And this fellow, has no title, no rank for whatsoever and he’s- that’s what I said ordinary monk. I mean, that is the my culture background, okay? But great master. He sits on the very high hill and meditates up there, you know, I mean, he sits up there on very high hill in the Drakpo (?) area. [1:10:59.4]

So one of his disciple, friend, or benefitter send one servant to deliver- I don’t know, what did he send? To deliver some teas, you know, the Tibetans have the dry tea bricks. And each brick has four teas in it. Four teas in it. Die (?) [1:11:33.9] tea bricks. And then some butter. So, he was carrying that and climbing on the mountain. It’s not like this, you know, really big step mountain. You know, really, I mean, not like this. We have to climb it up. So, while he is going up, he had been cursing the lama. He said, lama re don da (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:11:55.9] He said, this lama is looks like wild animal. Sitting up there, up in the top of the mountain, have no compassion for us at all. And so, carrying it up, going up and up. And then after some time he said, well, my this, I mean, for whom he’s working. He said, there was no way he’s going to tell that lama what he had send it because they would never knew, and all this. Sort of, he looked through what they have sent it. So, he found those expensive teas. The old expensive teas. Tibetans like a lot of teas. So, they drink tea throughout. So, they also go for the older the tea as possible. So, I mean, before the- I mean, it's bad. But before the Chinese communists come in 1959, teas what I’m drinking was probably sixteenth century teas, you know? Locked in that period. So that sort of tea, so it’s old, expensive tea. So he thought, let me divide this tea, and said, this lama have no way of knowing, and my person who sent it, he will also not know at all. So, in one brick, one block, sort of block, they have four bricks in it. So, I think he had sent two blocks or something. So, he took one block completely, and out of second block also he cut it, some of them, and he used his knife and cut it. Left inside. And then he had forgot his knife over there. He had forgot to put his knife back. So, he divided, and then finally he went up. And when he reach up there, this lama received him so welcome, and give him all, sort of tea, and a lot of good, what we call it, tsoh. It is during the- we do twice a month. During the- it is the some commitment of the dakinis.

[1:14:20.1] Female tantra commitment. We do tsoh offering. Tsoh is some kind of sweet biscuit type of thing we make it out of butter, cheese, and sugar, and all this. Sort of very nice one, always. So, he gives him lot of tsoh, so he really enjoyed. And then he said, well, (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:14:46.5] He said, the tsoh is so excellent. And that lama is so great. The blessings are fantastic. That’s what he’d been saying it. When he is going up, he was saying that. Just before he going, he was leaving, and that lama give him a big piece of meat. The Tibetans always eat meat because you may think, what is this meat-eating business? They should be vegetarian, but you know, we are, some people are on eighteen thousand feet. And there is- we don’t have fertilizers and glass houses. If you don’t eat meat you will die, probably. So that’s why it is common food in Tibet. So, like you eat potato here, we eat meat that way. So, he gives piece of huge meat to him. But without a knife. So, he doesn’t know how to eat it. And try to take the knife, and he doesn’t have it. Oh, my knife, I had forgotten. And the lama said, oh, when we had dividing the tea, you forgot on that place. (Laughs, Audience laughs) When you were dividing the tea, you had forgotten that place. (Laughs) So he was feeling so bad, and by the time when he went up, and he was cursing and all this, but he put hard labor to go up When he was putting the hard labor to go up, he had been purifying, lot of his non-virtuous. Had he been not cursing it, he would have been quite a worthy that carrying it up. However, even then he cursed it, but when he was made a little embarrassment, they said it has covered little bit of balanced of his cursing it. And while he is going down, and he was totally devoted. He said, instead of saying that this lama looks like wild animal, instead of saying, oh, lama is so great, and blessings so good, and tsoh is so delicious. (Laughs) And he said as he was going down. So similarly, we had a little hard labor to put it up today, to come up and it was really, I mean, sweating, at least for me, but- (Laughs) might have been a good we put a little sweat, little bit for dharma’s sake. So, it will purify a little bit for us. So be happy about it now. After all, we are here.

[1:17:35.7] Now, what are we talking? Okay, four immeasurable. So, the first one is the immeasurable of compassion. Compassion, while looking at all these living sentient beings and their way of thinking way of proceeding and how they think, you know, the virtue and non-virtue, this what Professor wrote on this green board here. The virtue and non-virtue. Though it looks killing, lying, stealing, and all this, but everything is, even the thoughts, the thoughts make body and speech is hard to complete. But action by mind is easy to accomplish. Because nobody is watching your thought. You think. Though there are people watching your thoughts. But you think nobody is watching your thoughts, because your thoughts are only your private prerogative or whatever. Whatever, but it is exposed to so many people. You may think your thoughts is only known to you. But that is not true. Our thoughts are exposed to the highest standards spiritual persons are totally exposed. They have to know your thoughts. If they do not know your thoughts, how can they talk to you? No way. So, effectively get in touch with the person. In other words, person to person level, when you really get in touch with, they knew your thoughts. Not only that, the higher peoples, the higher spiritually developed person read your mind. You all know that. We all know that. Don’t doubt it. (Laughs) It is true. So our thoughts are not only, not only our privacy, but it is known to a lot of people. It’s definitely. But no one will claim and say I know what you’re thinking. No one will do it. If they are doing it, it is sign they’re not knowing it. Clear. Yes, it is sign they’re not knowing it. Because as a spiritual developed person will never claim. It is the rule. The more the spiritually developed you are, you will be the much harmful. And more, sort of, respecting others and become much, much, humbler. It’s not going to be like that. Much harmful. The great masters had given example of a- what you call it, crops. You know the wheat. When the wheat grow, and one- you don’t call that, one stalk. When the had a heavy lot of wheats in there, it bow down. Right? And when it’s empty, it stands up. Okay? That is the example. When the spiritually higher the person is, it will be humbler.

[1:21:29.5] Humble. When spiritually not higher, then it goes like this. So, that’s it. When somebody tells you, I know you, or I read your mind. I don’t believe it. Those are the person who claiming it’s very hard for them to know. Okay? It’s the same goes to the black magic as well. I was invited by the Thurman, Professor Thurman, in his Institute of Buddhist Studies to give a teaching for about two or three weeks, two months ago. So, some higher tantric teachings and then some public talks. And I got two threatening letters. I mean, incidentally I mentioned in Boston area. Somebody sent me a threatening letter. Saying we are some kind of conservative orthodox group or something, and we heard you speaking and you are touching the hearts of our people, and it is not fair, and we have to destroy you and something like that (Laughs) I can’t really- or you stop talking, or I (Laughs) didn’t bother. Then I received on a funny kind of tape recorder which is recorded in that. So, I never bothered. And that was received in Case Western when I was there and this office secretary. I was in the department of Anthropologies helping some professors to do a Tibetan history. So, the secretary was quite shocked and she said, what is all this? And I was looked at that letter and I said, well, there’s a funny things you get it. And she said, can I listen to the tape recorder tape? I said, go ahead. And they put it on. And they really shocked. They said you should inform police and this and that. I said, forget it. Nothing happens, you know? (Laughs) I said, if there is good black magician who wanted to play black magic on me, you know what I mean? They will not write to me. It’s most stupid, right? (Laughs) It will not write to me! When they try to write to me and try to say, hey, I’m going to destroy you, I say, welcome, you know? (Laughs) I didn’t even reply. But I said, don’t forget about it. And just before I was leaving here, I received another letter and tape recorder. From same voice, and same letter, saying that very sorry about it and blah, blah, blah, and some they give even name, some lady who had played and was now very sick, it was terribly pains and miserable, and would you please help her to release whatever she did to you is gone back, and blah, blah, blah. And it says, Gelek lives, and Gelek prosper, and all sort of funny things (Laughs) I’d never heard all this, you know. It’s very funny. But I didn’t bother. Never bothered.

[1:24:41.6] So it is same way. When somebody tells you, they’re going to do something to you, when you’re threatening them, it is not right. So similarly, somebody pretend that they know you. They know your previous life, they know your future life, they know your present thoughts, that’s also not right. Ninety-nine point nine percent, it’s hard. It’s easy to tell the previous. Difficult to tell the future, okay? Anyway, some people have way of reading it, I mean, you can’t deny that. Okay? Anyway. That’s that. And that also nothing to be surprised, okay? There are two ways. Spiritual power is reading, and the karmic power reading, and the mantra power reading. And the material power reading. Spiritual power reading is because of the spiritual level you are higher, you automatically sort of begin to sort of know things different things. That is spiritual reading. Mantra reading is by saying a lot of mantras and mantra develops some kind of power. And that, through that you’ll be able to see and read and understand. That’s mantra reading. Material reading, the doctors read through all these sort of telescope and this and that, all this, this is material reading. Material understanding. Buddha said they’re equal. Power of, power what the material can catch, the power what mantra can catch, power what spiritual can catch, is equal. But the material has to depend on the material. Mantra has to depend on mantra. Spiritual power is you don’t depend on anything. Okay. Out of them, which is better, if you measure it? Buddha has- you’d be surprised. Which is the worst? Mantra. The mantra power is considered to be the weakest. Because if you do something wrong with mantra, everything collapse. Second is material. If some material is missing, it won’t work. Some parts and parcel missing, it won’t work. Then comes karmic power. Karmic power will, you don’t depend on anything else, because you got that karma, till that karma finished. So, it- no matter whatever you do, you get it. And last is spiritual. That everlasting power, spiritual power. I do not know why I mentioned this, but level may have interest. That’s why.

[1:27:38.1] Okay, now, let me go back to the four immeasurables. Okay, the immeasurable- limitless compassion, or the object to whom you look, you’ll meditate is all these living beings. And what does nature of the thought, what they do? The nature of the thought will do wishing them, wishing them to be totally free. Free of pains. Free of all the pains and imprints of pains. Wishing all the sentient beings from the pains, I use pain, but that means suffering of suffering, changing, all these three pervasive as I mentioned yesterday. Wishing them from all different pains, and cause of the pain. Not only the, direct pain, but cause. You know called cause, right? Which creates. That is the negative forces.