Archive Result

Soundfile 19870100GRRTOMLOVCOM_17

Speaker Gelek Rimpoche/Robert Thurman

Location Omega Institute

Topic Love and Compassion

Transcriber Jill Neuwirth

Date 6/15/2023

RT: …Thereupon, Manjushri, the crown prince, addressed the Licchavi Vimalakirti, good sir, how should a bodhisattva regard all living beings? Manjushri replied, Vimalakirti replied, Manjushri, A bodhisattva should regard all living beings as a wise man regards the reflection of the moon in water, or as magicians regard men created by magic. He should regard them as being like a face in a mirror, like the water of a mirage. Like the sound of an echo, like a mass of clouds in the sky. Like the previous moment of a bowl of foam, like the appearance and disappearance of a bubble of water, et cetera. He goes on, actually, this is not so important, this list. All kinds of examples of nonexistent things, actually. And yet things which seem to exist, yet don’t exist, mostly. Some actual nonexistent ones. All examples of illusion. Illusory things, right? This is how a bodhisattva should regard a living being. This is how you see the insolidity of the self. (Laughs) Like this. That includes the bodhisattva seeing himself like that. Precisely thus Vimalakirti concludes, that’s sort of more or less what we’ve been over, so, although there’s some humorous ones there, like the erection of a eunuch, I like that. (Laughs) I thought that would shock Rimpoche, Vimalakirti says, like the erection of a eunuch. (Laughs) That’s the non-existent thing, you know. Like the pregnancy of a barren woman. Like- there’s another one I like that’s very funny, like a tortoise hair fur coat. (Laughs) Like the reincarnation of- precisely thus Manjushri does a bodhisattva who realizes ultimate selflessness consider all beings? Manjushri then asked further, noble sir, if a bodhisattva considers all living beings in such a way, how does he generate the great love toward them? So this is very common question we get all the time. If you see beings as nonexistent, it’s the great compassion is said to be the great compassion which has no object. Which does not perceive any object. Then how is it you have what does it mean, as such a thing is meaningless? Compassion should be really feeling sorry for somebody, feeling their suffering, and really feeling it, and then really being sorry people we tend to think, so what does it mean to say the great compassion which does not see any person who is suffering? So then Vimalakirti says, Manjushri, when a bodhisattva considers all living beings in this way, he thinks, just as I have realized the dharma, so should I teach it to living beings. Thereby, he generates the love that is truly a refuge for all living beings.

[0:02:47.1] The love that is peaceful because free of grasping. Okay, well let’s go back. The love that is truly a refuge for all living beings. Now, what is meant by that? Now, love is defined maitri, that is like the bodhisattva Maitreya, maitri, jampa in Tibetan, is defined as the wish that beings have happiness and the cause of happiness. It is like the obverse side of the coin of compassion, which is defined as the wish that beings be free of suffering and the cause of suffering. So that’s sort of the same thing, you know, one is sort of being aware of the negative situation of the beings and wanting them to be free of it, and the other one is wanting to have them have a positive situation. So they really, really affect the same kind of circuit. One is sort of taking away from them pain, wants to take away from them pain, while the other one wants to give them pleasure, happiness. Love and compassion. Now, obviously, the wish that people be happy, without any sort of ability to make them happy, is a bit of an empty wish. Therefore, such a wish in itself cannot be a refuge for living beings. I don’t think anybody will argue with that. Seems clear enough. And in fact, the wish for the happiness of beings, the compassion or love for the happiness of the compassion for their suffering and love that wishes them to be happy, when combined with mis-knowledge, when combined with that, it means precisely the failure to know either personal selflessness, or objective selflessness. Phenomenal selflessness. That, when is therefore combined with no knowledge of reality is called pai un (Tibetan phrase) [0:04:29.2] or, the great compassion which has an idea of helping beings. Or in Sanskrit, an una (Sanskrit phrase) [0:04:39.1] the great compassion that has a notion about loving them. But it is basically called a false compassion, that compassion. It is not an effective compassion, it is basically not actually what is called really great compassion. It has the mode of compassion, but it is false compassion, because it does nothing for living beings at all. In fact, it only makes the person who has it more unhappy, because they want beings to be happy, they see them as unhappy, and then they get more frustrated.

[0:05:07.8] Now, there is a very elaborate- the teaching of compassion is extremely technical, extremely elaborate in Buddhism. Indian or Tibetan or Chinese. But there are three basic things that you can remember I think, that are kind of interesting. At a certain stage, the person who feels this compassion, sees at least that beings are impermanent. Sees that they’re sufferings are impermanent and changeable and so somehow, there’s some kind of little bit of notion of the nature of reality, beginning notion of the nature of reality. And this kind of compassion is called the compassion that sees living beings as its object and is a genuine type of compassion and it is called, it is connected with the knowledge of impermanence. By having the knowledge of that much knowledge of reality, the wisdom of seeing impermanence, the person who has that notion at least somehow is able to convey to beings, through their own insight, that their situation is somehow impermanent. That they will not be stuck forever in it. So there is some hope, realistic hope of changing their suffering into happiness. But it’s not a very powerful compassion, but it is the beginning of genuine compassion. Then the person who is the compassionate one who is trying to help beings in order to be able to figure out how to help them is trying to figure out the nature of reality and become somewhat enlightened themselves, go a little further in their pursuit of wisdom, and they achieve what is known as personal selflessness realization. Without destroying their selves, they realize the lack of real self in their living self. Or, they realize that their real self is but a relative living self, whichever way you like, and therefore, when they see the living beings, they don’t take the beings’ sufferings for real on the personality level. They’re aware of beings suffering, but they do not see the beings as personality bearing beings, and so their compassion for them is already a bit more effective, because they have already realized their own selflessness, they are the, unreality, or the illusoriness, or the relativity of their personality. And so they see, they do not get caught in people’s drama of their own feeling, I’m suffering. So they’re suffering about their suffering, let’s say. So their compassion is still more effective. And that’s called the great compassion that perceives processes. That is to say, it does not actually perceive living beings as living beings with personality. It is past the illusion of personality. It perceives them as impersonal processes, you could say. And yet it sees those processes are in a state of tension, of suffering, of anxiety, and so forth. So it feels compassion for those beings who don’t know they are processes but think they are beings. Personality, egocentric beings.

[0:08:08.3] Now, finally- but even that compassion is not that powerful, because the final nature of reality is still not known, and that person is still taking for real the processes that constitute the living beings. That is, their ideas, feelings, thoughts, emotions, physical forms, and so on, consciousnesses. So, then the person goes deeper, a little deeper, and comes to shunyata, to emptiness. And by contemplating and studying, and reflecting, and penetrating, and concentrating on emptiness, that person finally comes to see through the intrinsic reality status, or the intrinsic identifiability either of processes or of persons. At which point, that person sees these beings neither as beings, nor as processes on a real level of the real reality does not see any beings at all. While still on a relative reality, seeing beings as thinking themselves to be beings and suffering and so forth. Then that is the great compassion which is truly liberative to living beings and this is therefore what he means, and great compassion is just the other side of the coin of love, right? So therefore he says, that is the love that is truly a refuge for beings. A love meaning- now, remember love means wanting to radiate a happiness to them. How could you find happiness in yourself, if all you saw was the universal suffering of everybody falling into a blazing firepit. You’d have to be sadistic to feel happiness at such a sight. Only if you have a- only place you could draw happiness, your only source of happiness would be to see through the apparent sufferings of beings and see a more fundamental bliss in those beings. Division known as the bliss void. Yes? Audience: Just a moment ago you said that beings don’t exist? RT: Right. Beings ultimately do not exist, as beings. Right? I mean, I don’t know if you want to go back to that argument and discuss that again. You understand what I mean by that? Audience: {Inaudible) [0:10:24.3] RT: Yeah, well, the status of beings, we define buddha consciousness as, enlightened consciousness from the beginning as a double exposure consciousness. A double exposure consciousness is a consciousness that does not perceive any beings in the ultimate level of reality. But yet, still can perceive beings as a relative realities, because the beings themselves are seeing themselves that way. And the beings themselves are suffering in seeing themselves that way particularly because they think that their relative reality is ultimate reality. Therefore, when you say, you said there was no beings, I’m referring to the ultimate reality, I’m saying the source of the happiness which becomes the energy of love, is the ultimate vision of beings, which is a non-vision of those beings.

[0:11:13.5] A non-seeing of those beings. The Buddha looks at beings and sees through them, totally. Sees a clear space. And that clear space is a space of bliss and voidness. And that space makes the Buddha happy. That space is the Buddha’s happiness. And the Buddha notices that space is the beings’ happiness. So therefore, that is a true refuge. That is a place because that is a place of happiness which in the presence or the field of a buddha, a being can a little bit get in touch with that in themself. There are so many stories for example in the Buddhist- I used to argue with the, with various Theravada individual vehicle Buddhists about tantrayana, for example. They used to complain about tantrayana with its teaching of great bliss. And they used to say, how can you say it’s a Buddhist teaching, a teaching of great bliss, when Buddha taught suffering? Everything is suffering. That’s completely wrong. That’s non-Buddhist. That’s something they cooked up in Tibet. A bunch of shamans up in Tibet cooked that up. Not Buddhist teaching. I’ve had this debate, I don’t know if you’ve ever had such a debate with Theravadan, but you have- that’s what they think, in case you want to know. And I’ve had this debate with them. I’ve had this debate with them. So they say, if you have a buddha having bliss, when everything is suffering, then Buddha is callous, he doesn’t care about the state of beings, they say. And that’s a really valid argument, actually. Totally valid. If we were going to say, oh, there’s got to be these real beings, don’t dissolve the beings, oh no, they’re really all here, everything’s all really, really here. If we’re going to say that, then this talk of bliss is some kind of irresponsible fantasy. Absolutely. It’s like Buddha is going off in some other realm, forget about all the beings in suffering, I’m just going to have a little private bliss here. (Rimpoche laughs) Definitely. So only if we have to understand, so I respond to them, I used to respond to them in this way, I said, How about in this sutra and that sutra, Pali sutra, I referred to many of the Theravada scriptures, I said, so many places persons came into the Buddha’s presence and when they first came in there, they were drunk, they were inflamed with anger, passion, confusion, hot and sweaty, totally freaking out, here and there, twenty minutes later Buddha says three or four things, oh, it’s all suffering, and blah, blah, blah, and all this and that, and then they attain arhatship. I don’t mean they just get a little samadhi or calm down, I mean he has people in half an hour they’re attaining arhatship. You know, that means they’ve like, seen through all of themselves. Seeing through all of the atoms. Arhats like are flying off in space sometimes. And sometimes the magical things go with the achievement of insight, sometimes. In some cases. Now, how come that is?

[0:14:03.6] How come when you and I say so-and-so to some insane person, some completely wild person all the suffering, this is the state of suffering, they don’t suddenly attain arhatship, what’s the matter? So, this is the field of the Buddha. They walk into the Buddha’s sight, the Buddha is an arhat, he’s more, he’s an arhat’s arhat, they suddenly are seen by the Buddha, they’re suddenly in a field where everything sees through itself. There is a bliss in that field that picks them right up and brings them in touch with their own wisdom, their own selflessness. It is the Buddha’s mandala, this field around the Buddha, actually, which is talked about in tantra, it is the pure environment. It is the collision of two perceptions of the environment. The perception of the environment as bliss void indivisible, the perception of the environment as ego versus the universe, which is a miserable environment, me the living being, this the universe, those the other living being, self, other, suffer, inadequacy, incompleteness, nothing ever satisfying. This perception of environment collides with the environment of everything is bliss void indivisible which is the truth, therefore overwhelms the false perception. And absorbs the false perception in a way into it, and then a few well-placed words to turn around the habitual thought pattern and boom, the person is an arhat. This is the ability- if you and I want to be a buddha, it’s because we want to be teacher of living beings. We don’t need to be buddha if we just want going to become peaceful and happy ourselves. Nirvana would be good enough. Private, personal nirvana is fine. We don’t need to be buddha if we didn’t care about other beings. Without compassion there is no need to be buddha. Who wants to go and show off, oh, I’m a buddha, and sit around and have a big thing on top of your head and golden ears and webbed fingers and toes, and Rimpoche thinks that’s mythical, but anyway, you know like a platypus. Who needs to be buddha? Go running around and leaving- nobody needs. Just nirvana is fine. We’ll all celebrate nirvana. The reason to be buddha is because you don’t want to leave other beings out of it. You want to do something for them. Therefore, you want to teach them. Therefore, you don’t want to have to go and talk yourself blue in the face and everybody go, huh? Duh? Therefore, you want to become a seal (?) [0:16:11.9] You want to become what they call, more than what is called a rain cloud of the dharma. You know the tenth stage of bodhisattva is called rain cloud, cloud of the dharma. Like a cloud. A being who’s like a cloud. Anybody who walks into the cloud somehow, it’s filled up with energy of that cloud. You know, they temporarily become part of Buddha’s mind. Like when you go into mandala in tantrayana, when you enter mandala, then you become, your impure perception, your ordinary perception, is temporarily transmuted into extraordinary perception, you kind of critique, you do what’s reversed your habitual ascent to your ordinary perception, and you adopt through imagination, extraordinary perception. And the guru has done that and practiced that where the guru actually has extraordinary perception. Then you- and initiation is the beginning like that. And then you eventually you learn to have extraordinary perception yourself. So, this, what I’m saying, the love that is truly a refuge, is a love that sees you cured. A love that sees us blissful. Then that has some meaning, I want you to be happy. If I have no idea of what is happiness, if I’m a miserable nervous, miserable wreck. I go around saying, I want everyone to be happy, what am I talking about?

[0:17:24.0] This would be completely hypocritical. So therefore, it would be impossible for someone who has no bliss in themselves to wish to share bliss with beings. It doesn’t have any meaning, you could follow that, right? So the double consciousness here comes in in the case of love, in that a buddha sees beings as perfect, as liberated. At the same time, he keeps the relative awareness of how they see themselves as unhappy. As suffering. So he sees them, and does not see them. Yes, Diana. Diana is anxious to speak. She comes all the way up, this is great. Audience: I was just wondering, when you mentioned the (Inaudible) [0:18:06.7] it does not lose except when we see that good karma for this person. We see them beyond the sufferings of this temporal problems and (Inaudible) [0:18:24.2] and then we light that lamp and he can catch on that fire. RT: That’s beautiful. That’s beautiful. I think that’s absolutely so. Baba Ram Dass said something and I heard his talk in North Hampton that I really liked. He said something quite similar at luncheon table the other day. At his talk in North Hampton he said, that his guruji used to tell him when he would get disturbed about the world and its situation and the sufferings, his guru said, can’t you see it’s perfect? What’s the matter with you, you know? Can’t you see it’s perfect, perfection. It’s brahma, brahmahood you know? Pure brahma, you know? All suffering kind of an illusion, the guru was saying. He would say, yes, guruji, it’s perfect, but it stinks. So this is the double consciousness, that’s when I just fell in love with Baba Ram Dass. That’s the double consciousness of, that’s the wisdom compassion indivisible double consciousness. Indivisible and yet double consciousness. And not only is it perfect, but it stinks; but it stinks, but it’s perfect. Either way. You can’t have the one duality going way and not the other way. Yes? Audience: Since there is this transformative effect of seeing with the buddha perception, the notion of the double exposure then, it’s seems to go click, click, and you take two pictures, what’s happening here is there’s a merging them. In other words- RT: Yes. Audience: When I say double exposure, you’re not taking into account the effect that if you hold that image as a permanent image, not taking into account the effect of- RT: Agreed. Accepted completely. All images, all metaphors, you can’t hold too permanent. They have a use up to a point, and they will all then explode if you try to really hold on to them. This particular one though I find completely useful though because of the fact that we are people who are always looking for simplistic solutions. Always like a simple answer, simplistic solution. And the cute, the interesting thing is, that complexity is the name of the game. The name of nonduality, nonduality is dualistic as well as nondualistic. Nonduality is the integration of dualism and unity. There not just a unity. It is a balance of unity. Middle way is a balance, like a tightrope. You know a tightrope, when you walk a tightrope, you’re unstable if you don’t have something sticking way out in both directions. You become more stable the longer the pole is with more weight at the ends.

[0:20:49.2] Then you become more stable on tightrope. Right? So this sort of is, duality nonduality is most interesting. But you’re right, any image if you try, if you become captured in the image, will become unserviceable at some point. Any single one. So now, so this is anyway then a love that is a secure refuge for all living beings. The love that is peaceful because free of grasping, there you go, you see? It’s peaceful, the love is calm. People feel calm with that love because the person is not grasping at that person’s situation. Baba Ram Dass said at the table the other day we were discussing, he was saying he found to his surprise, when he kind of gave up, seeing the people’s misunderstanding, when he was talking to them. When he kind of just gave them something, and kind of tried to see them as much as possible understanding it. And sort of left them with it, and didn’t have in his mind a feeling I want them to understand it, you see. Push kind of. He found that, ironically, when he gave up trying to push them to understand something, that they understood more easily. That somehow one barrier to their understanding was his preconception that they didn’t understand. Creating a kind of resistance to something that he was teaching. So there’s a full commitment to communicate something, to transmit a love therefore this kind, has a full energy of bliss that may they be happy, at the same time as seeing them as totally happy to start with. So there’s nothing being pushed over on them, so therefore such a love is peaceful, because it’s not grasping, meaning not grasping at them as needing love, not grasping them as being miserable, not grasping at wishing them to become happy, not grasping at anything. I think that’s clear. A love that is not feverish, because free of passions, sits in the same plane. The love that accords with reality because it is equanimous in all three times. This is another, of course, amazing thing about buddha consciousness again, it can only get into it by means of analogies. We can’t capture it by that analogy, but a buddha is a being who is said to, and logically has to be a being who sees all three times it is said. That is past, present, and future are equal to that buddha. That buddha does not think that the now is any more real than the future, or even the past. But in the case of the buddha the future is extremely important. Why? The buddha vows, as a bodhisattva, not to become a buddha until the whole universe is liberated. Until all beings have become freed of suffering. They will be bodhisattva to remain with beings, this is the bodhisattva vow. I will become buddha for sake of all living beings. So therefore, if a buddha was to become a buddha, while leaving bunch of beings suffering, that buddha would be breaking their commitment. Therefore, a buddha as a bodhisattva cannot become a buddha, until they see the universe as an environment where the inevitable future unfoldment of the karma of those beings will be those beings’ enlightenment. A buddha has to have the confidence that the environment of the buddha land will operate to free all beings, and that those future time of those beings coming to buddhahood is as present to a buddha as the present time. For example, I’m going to get an objection, I think, I notice. Is it? An objection from Geshe-la? But a buddha, there is a notion where a buddha has what they call- (Rimpoche speaks to RT) [0:24:26.5] RT: Right, only he groaned. A buddha makes something called a vyakarana (?) [0:24:31.2] which means a prediction, prophecy. And it’s considered a great thing in the mahayana sutra when you meet a buddha you ask, buddha, tell me how and when will I become a buddha?

[0:24:39.2] And the buddha to anyone will tell them, although different one specifically at different times and special circumstance, he will say, you will be in such-and-such a universe, a buddha such-and-such a person. And when this happens, it is considered a great fortune for that being, almost like abhisheka, kind of. Almost like an initiation because- now if Buddha is giving such a prediction, vyakarana in Sanskrit, [0:25:02.3] lung tem pa (?) If Buddha gives such a prophesy- Rimpoche: Vyakarana. RT: Yeah, vyakarana. If a buddha gives such a prediction, then he could not give such a prediction truthfully, in the relative truth, unless he’s saw the reality of these peoples’ buddhahood clearly. And as I’m arguing, he could not become buddha unless he saw the reality of every living being’s buddhahood. The fact that some are in the future means something to him, but not everything. It means that he is not abandoning them even though they may stay short of buddhahood for some period of time. But he is not stuck in some sort of absolute reality of an absolute flow of time in past, present, and future. All past, present, and future things are equally accessible to a buddha. Equally real, and equally unreal, in other words. It’s a piece of logic we can debate a lot about. Rimpoche: I don’t think (Inaudible) [0:25:54.7] RT: You don’t think it’s- so then Buddha is predicting your buddhahood falsely then? He does not see your buddhahood. Rimpoche: No, no, no. RT: OH? Then some living things he’s leaving out, then? Rimpoche: No. RT: Then? How can it not stand? Rimpoche: He predicts it fine RT: Then? Rimpoche: But I think certain- what did you give the reason? You said you give reason because Buddha sees everybody’s future buddha as a true reality. Therefore he is- RT: As true as the present reality. Rimpoche: As true as present is. RT: More true. Rimpoche: Yeah. As true as present reality, therefore he’s fit to obtain buddhahood. RT: Right. He allows himself. Rimpoche: But that is not yet become buddha, is it? RT: What? Rimpoche: The other person. RT: In their notion of timeline, it is not yet. In their notion of the reality of the present time, not yet. In his vision- Rimpoche: Will that buddha see my future buddha, did Buddha Shakyamuni see my future buddha as a future buddha, or present buddha? RT: He sees it as present to himself, since the future is present to himself, and future to you. Yes. Present to himself, future to you.

[0:27:15.1] Therefore, he shares his vision of it being present, his omniscience about future he shares with you as a prophecy. Rimpoche: Okay. Would you consider my future buddha at the time of the Buddha Shakyamuni obtain buddhahood, if- would you consider that buddha as the future buddha, or buddha of present? RT: To buddha? I would consider it present. Rimpoche: No- RT: Yeah, but you can’t ask. Rimpoche: No, I said true reality. RT: Yeah, but your question is incomplete. When you say- Rimpoche: I’m the questioner. RT: Yeah, so? Yeah, but I critique your question. Rimpoche: You don’t correct my question. RT: I do. Rimpoche: You can’t- RT: Of course I can! Rimpoche: Why? RT: Because if you ask incorrect question I have to critique! Rimpoche: No, I’m asking a question. Does that Buddha Shakyamuni see my future Buddha as buddha of present, or buddha of future? RT: He sees all buddhas of past, present, and future as equally present. That’s how he sees them. Including yourself. However, he is aware, that to you, it is future. Rimpoche: In that case, Buddha Shakyamuni sees my buddha as a present buddha. RT: Yeah. All future buddhas as a present buddha. Rimpoche: In that case, my buddha what’s my buddha, present buddha? At that time? RT: To him. Rimpoche: No, no, I’m asking. Is it present buddha, or no? RT: Well, you can’t say, is it to whom? To whom? To whom? Rimpoche: I’m not asking to whom- RT: To me? Rimpoche: In true reality. RT: Not to me. Not to you. But to Buddha, yes. Rimpoche: On reality. RT: How can you compare your consciousness to Buddha’s? To Buddha it is present. Rimpoche: Or is it present to Buddha, it has to be present, isn’t it? Or Buddha sees wrong. RT: No. I will ask you counterquestion. Since enlightenment is present- Rimpoche: Answer! RT: No, no, no. You can’t structure like that. Rimpoche: Okay. Anyway I think, you know, that has some sort of logical problem here. Number one. Number two, it’s not necessary all the buddhas, bodhisattva vow is not necessary to obtain- till I obtain, till all sentient beings obtained buddhahood, I will not obtain buddha. I don’t think it is necessary for bodhisattva because they are same thing as- RT: Definitely is necessary. Rimpoche: No. RT: Yes. Rimpoche: What is the- RT: No, I understand what you’re saying, and you’re going to say this, and I will mention this several times. Rimpoche: There is two different- RT: There’s three patterns of attaining buddhahood. Not twenty-two, but three is enough. Three is enough. Rimpoche: No, twenty-two different bodhicittas. RT: Yeah, but that’s different. The three here is the important ones. Three as important. The pattern of being a buddha like a king, where you lead the beings into nirvana. Rather than like a boatman who reaches at the same time, or like a shepherd that goes behind them. This is of course a valid thing. But, the king- that’s valid. But, there’s one point there, though. There has- we can analyze that further, you know there’s never any exhaustion to the analysis as you know, Geshe-la. And even right or wrong. And the one who is like a king, in becoming- that’s only an analogy. And in becoming a buddha like that, even though that person has not into the other beings’ satisfaction yet, transformed or led them or made them become buddha ahead of himself, that person cannot become a buddha while being unsure of whether or not that person can lead them into buddhahood. That person has to have a clear vision of the future buddhahood of the beings that he is leading. Otherwise, that bodhisattva- Rimpoche: That I don’t argue with. RT: Alright. So otherwise, the bodhisattva’s abandoning the beings. Never do it. Rimpoche: But, but, but the question is, both the bodhisattva or the buddha mind, bodhicitta, are not necessarily to be like a shepherd type of bodhicitta. RT: I know, but I’m not talking like a shepherd type. All Isaid was that- Rimpoche: If not, would you consider Shakyamuni’s bodhicitta as one of the shepherd type of bodhicitta? RT: Not necessarily, no. Rimpoche: In that case, what is the reason why Shakyamuni has to see everybody has to be- RT: Because Shakyamuni will not abandon any living being. Rimpoche: That’s not a question of that. RT: See, you are Sariputra here, you see. You are the Sariputra.

[0:31:28.6] Yes. You are being the Sariputra. Rimpoche: No, not at all. When Shakyamuni- let me ask you this question. Rimpoche: Okay. RT: When Sariputra says, this world is a pile of crap, he’s agreeing with our habitual perception. Shakyamuni Buddha says and even Brahma and some disciples with such a vision they say, no, it’s not, it’s perfect, this land. It’s a perfect land. Then Buddha puts his foot down and it’s a perfect land. Who is right? Buddha’s just trading a fantasy? Or Shakyamuni- and he’s wrong? And Sariputra’s right? Rimpoche: Both right. RT: Both are right. Who is more right, then? Rimpoche: Nobody is more right. RT: Oh, come on. Buddha’s not more right than ordinary, unenlightened being, now? So what use of attaining Buddhahood? Rimpoche: He is right! RT: Why attain buddhahood? Rimpoche: But in this case, both are right. RT: But Buddha’s more right, though. Rimpoche: -in this particular point. RT: So living being and Buddha are- so Buddha is no more right than ordinary living being. (Claps) Ya ba ta (Tibetan word) [0:32:20.6] Rimpoche: I didn’t say that. I said Buddha is more right than anybody else. However, on this particular point, both are right. And when both are right, question is more right, there’s no right. If you ask me why Buddha right? RT: More right always arises. Rimpoche: Okay. Why Buddha right? You don’t ask that question. RT: No, I know what you’re going to say, I agree that both are right. I agree that both are right, but Buddha is more right, that’s why we want to be Buddha. Rimpoche: On that particular point, both are right. When both are right the question number one, one is more right than other. No. When right is right, wrong is wrong. RT: No, no. Rimpoche: Yes, of course! RT: There’s more and less right. Come on, Rimpoche. If you have a certain good eyesight, you can- Rimpoche: I’m sorry (Inaudible) could do this. (Both laugh) RT: It’s good to argue a little bit. Rimpoche: I mean, it’s useless. RT: Especially when I win. (Rimpoche and audience laugh) No, no, no. You win. Okay, no, it’s very good. Rimpoche: Nobody wins. RT: Buddha wins. He’s more right. (Rimpoche laughs) Okay, so now, here we go. Thereby, he generates the love that it is nondual, here we go. The love that has without conflict, because free of the violence of the passions. The love that is nondual, because it is involved neither with the external nor the internal. The love that is imperturbable, because totally ultimate. This means this love is totally combined with omniscient wisdom, that is what it is. Now, I know you’re going to debate, come on, what is it, what is it? Rimpoche: No, no, no. I’m not, go ahead. RT: (Laughs) Thereby, he generates the love that is firm. It’s messianic high resolve unbreakable like a diamond. The love that is pure. Purified in its intrinsic nature.

[0:34:13.9] The love that is even, its aspirations being equal. The saint’s love that has eliminated its enemy. The bodhisattva’s love that continuously develops living beings. The tathagata’s love, the buddha’s love that understands reality. The Buddha’s love that causes living beings to awaken from their sleep. See, that is love, because that is how the beings become happy is when they awaken from their sleep. They don’t get happy be being given pill, or giving something. when they actually realize they’re- even they could still have their disease. But should they wake from their sleep of egotism of me versus the universe, of the frustrating, inevitably loser’s game of me, the ego, versus the universe, when they awaken from that, then they will be happy no matter what else may be the problem. So love wants them to have that realization. That’s all that love wants from them, and the bodhisattva’s and the buddha’s love is so ultimate because it sees them already having that. Because time is unreal. The love that is spontaneous, because it is fully enlightened spontaneously. The love that is enlightenment because it is unity of experience. This is rogchikpa (?) [0:35:30.7] This is tantric language, you know, very much. It’s so amazing, don’t you think? Rimpoche: Yeah, definitely. RT: The love that is- (Rimpoche and RT speak in Tibetan) The love that has no presumption, because it has eliminated attachment and aversion. The love that is great compassion, because it infuses the mahayana with radiance. The love that is never exhausted, because it acknowledges voidness and selflessness. The love that is giving, because it bestows the gift of dharma free of the tight fist of a bad teacher. It’s a famous one. (Laughs) A teacher who holds back something because in ancient time in India, they didn’t have tenure, they didn’t have salaries, you know, the poor teachers you know? They didn’t have institutions like that. So teacher was sort of directly paid by the student. So then, teacher wants to make more money tomorrow, you know? So he doesn’t teach everything, he keeps- guruji keeps something hiding, so then you have to go seminar next year. See? Because he knows otherwise he’ll starve next year, you see. So therefore, there was a bad- but a good teacher doesn’t care, anyway. Because they don’t think about what they want out of what they’re teaching, because they are operating on such a love which is calm, because it’s not grasping, blah, blah, blah, blah. So therefore, they don’t have such a tight fist, it is said.

[0:36:52.4] The love that is morality- now he’s going to go through the six transcendences, because it improves- what? Rimpoche: We did those six transcendences yesterday. RT: Six what? You did six transcendences? Oh great. The love that is morality because it improves immoral living beings. The love that is tolerance, because it protects both self and others. The love that is effort, because it takes responsibility for all living beings. This, by the way, Rimpoche said, someone was joking at lunch, they said, Rimpoche is building up the self and Tenzin is knocking down the self. Don’t you switch roles, Baba Ram Dass asked us, cleverly. Don’t you want to switch roles? Here's one place to switch. For example, this idea of the love that is effort, because it takes responsibility for all living being. You cannot develop the spirit of enlightenment of love and compassion, the bodhicitta, which is based on that sixth mind of the seven steps, you remember? The sixth one is what is called, high resolve, I call it. Rimpoche has usually call it special mind. But now we have a new word I’m trying to get him say, sometimes he does. Messianic high resolve. Now- (Rimpoche laughs) messianic, you have to understand is a technical term. It’s used in sociology. It means someone who has a- it’s usually used about a neurosis. A kind of sickness, actually. Someone who has the complex that they want to save the world. Because, of course, in practical, conventional, wisdom it’s impossible for one person to save the world, right? A messiah, originally meant before Jesus, it meant a king who came and really saved the whole society, successfully made peace for the whole world. That is what a messiah meant. It had a political meaning as well as spiritual one. But a messianic resolve is therefore something slightly mad. But that is what the bodhicitta is. The bodhicitta is an intensity, it is a drive where every single person says, okay maybe someone’s going to tell me Buddha is doing it, and somebody else is saving, and something, the police are coming around, Ollie North will do it, I don’t care as long as I see beings needing saving, I will do it. All of them. Whole universe. Even if it takes millions of lifetimes, I will never give up the determination to save all the beings. This is the messianic resolve. Therefore, for example, in the generation of the six stages of bodhicitta that Rimpoche taught you, one of the measurements what they call, you know, to measure when you’ve reached stage one, two, three, you know, in the Tibetan system, very systematic they call the te, dru be te (Tibetan phrase) [0:39:16.0] The measurement of having attained it. When you achieve the sixth stage of messianic resolution, you become a bit crazy. You go slightly mad. You know, you’re right on the edge of going mad, you know, like, I must save everybody, type of thing.

[0:39:30.6] You know like the madman who runs saying, I must save everybody. And then- but then the one thing that then saves you is you get back in touch with wisdom by the seventh where you then say, wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa. I can’t do this, only Buddha can do it, so I should now become Buddha. Then that calms you down. Otherwise, you’re supposed to be at a stage where you’re ready to throw your body to a hungry tiger, if necessary. But that will be a waste, to waste a very developed human body, intelligence that can develop wisdom, so then you have to fit back in with what’s practical, by saying I want to be Buddha, then I will save all beings. But then when you fit back in like that what you do is you don’t abandon that messianic intensity, you channelize it, as Rimpoche said. Right? Channelize. That’s a famous Rimpoche word. You channelize it! (Rimpoche laughs) into the quest of enlightenment so that then, when you are- that is the thing about motivation in mahayana, then you are seeking wisdom, just like an individual vehicle person might, but then you are seeking wisdom like the person who is running to get the rope to save his mother from the swamp who’s sinking with the mud, you know? You’re going to run a lot faster. Or to get people out of the burning house. You’re not just casually, I’m studying, you’re studying because you have to get that knowledge to go and help the beings. You follow me? That’s why mahayana meditations are so much more powerful, because they’re done with that intensity of, I’m doing this, even you’re quietly meditating, even you’re in retreat, there’s not another living being a long way. But you’re doing it to get back to help them. Rimpoche: Hundred percent agree. (RT laughs) RT: Uh-oh. That’s because I’m building up, you see therefore the high responsibility sixth level, taking responsibility for all beings is a very strong, without a strong assertion of the self, you cannot have such a kind of resolve. If you just say, I don’t really exist or something, you’ll never have that resolve to save beings. That’s when you have to have very powerful one to generate that. But that has to be balanced, or you’ll go mad. Such Manjushri anyway, the love that is happiness because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha. This is a wonderful passage, really, isn’t it? The love that is liberated of technique, because it shows the way everywhere. The love that is without formality, because it is pure in motivation. The love that is without deviation, because it acts from decisive motivation. The love that is high resolve, because it is without passion. The love that is without deceit, because it is not artificial. The love that is happiness, because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha. Such Manjushri is the great love of a bodhisattva. Now Manjushri, he doesn’t like these things that are going on, he starts even to question here, he says, well then, what it the great compassion of a bodhisattva? Vimalakirti says, it is the giving of all accumulated roots of virtue to all living beings. What is the great joy of the bodhisattva? It is to be joyful and without regret in giving. Manjushri: What is the equanimity of the bodhisattva? Vimalakirti: It is what benefits both self and others. Manjushri. Then they sort of stop there, those are the four immeasurables, love- (Audio cuts)

[0:42:31.6] …Manjushri says, to what should one resort when terrified by fear of life? Manjushri, a bodhisattva who is terrified by fear of life should resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha. Manjushri says, where should he who wishes to resort to the magnanimity of the Buddha take his stand? He should stand in equanimity toward all living beings. Where should he who wishes to stand in equanimity towards living beings take his stand? He should live for the liberation of all living beings. What should he then- Manjushri: what should he who wishes to liberate all living beings do? Vimalakirti: he should liberate them from their passions. How should he who wishes to eliminate passions apply himself? He should apply himself appropriately. How should he apply himself to, quote, apply himself appropriately? He should apply himself to productionlessness, and to destructionlessness. That’s ultimate reality. Manjushri: What is not produced and what is not destroyed? And here you expect an ultimate level answer again, but now he goes back to relativity again. Says, evil is not produced and good is not destroyed. (To Audience) Diana likes that. What is the root of good and evil? Materiality is the root of good and evil. This is the jik ta, mad ji ka (In Tibetan) [0:43:55.6] Ji chok. It’s a strange answer actually. Not, ji chok te saw a (Tibetan phrase) [0:43:59.8] Materiality. The perishable aggregate of things. Materiality is the root of good, it’s sep kaya in Sanskrit [0:44:09.2] It is the materiality is the root of good and evil. That’s like saying object perception is the root, basically. In other words, making something sort of intrinsically real in itself, it’s very hard to quite understand exactly what meant, but the thing in itself, existing in itself. Things existing by intrinsic identity, intrinsic reality, intrinsic identifiability, this is what he’s referring to most simply here as materiality. I believe. (Rimpoche speaks to RT in Tibetan) What is the root of materiality? He says, desire is the root of materiality. What is the root of desire and attachment? Unreal construction is the root of desire and attachment. What is the root of unreal construction? The false concept is its root. What is the root of the false concept- that is the mis-knowing mind, and then he says, baselessness is the root. That’s shunyata. What is the root of shunyata? Baselessness. Manjushri, when something is baseless, how can it have any roots? Therefore, all things stand on the root which is baseless. That’s a sort of good one, that kind of ends neatly. Rimpoche: Very nice. RT: That’s a very deep- the two of them are going at it, you know. This becomes a model for later traditions of Zen in China, especially in East Asia. All the Zen masters look to these dialogues of Manjushri and Vimalakirti as a kind of model of all the koans and things.

[0:45:35.8] These are, this is a koan. It’s like an original koan from India of at least first century B.C., maybe fifth century B.C. Now we come to the room of the- what? (Rimpoche asks about koan) Lo. Koan. Koan is the way in Zen tradition, Chan tradition, as the thing that is used as a teaching vehicle. What it means, actually, is a law case. Its original meaning in Chinese is kung an (?) [0:46:00.5] means a public case. So, in other words, the deeds of the behavior of the siddhas, you know, of the tradition, how they related to each other becomes like a legal case. You know, it’s like, this happened, you know? And then they believe, they take that as something to inquire into what is the meaning of it. And they meditate on that. So like they’re meditating on the deeds of their gurus more importantly than any sutras and scriptures. That’s the idea, you see. Rimpoche: Oh… RT: That’s what koan means. And it’s also something very puzzling and impossible to understand. And so then you have to generate this great doubt in Zen, of the iron bulls fighting in your guts, you know, in the ocean of your guts, and you have to struggle and struggle until you achieve some- until you enter with them, and it’s said, when you really meet, you meet Bodhidharma, you meet the ancient guru. The lineage master, you meet them actually. The time dissolves. (Rimpoche speaks in Tibetan) [0:46:49.9] Yes, you have a revelation visit them, yes. See their astral form or something, yes. They say they meet them. You meet Bodhidharma if you solve this and that then you will see Bodhidharma face to face. In fact, they say you pull on Bodhidharma’s eyebrow. They have a slightly aggressive way of putting it (Laughs) You pull out his eyebrow. Now, here’s what we were really- this is the room today, is goddess room, you know. Thereupon a certain goddess who lived in that house, having heard this teaching of the dharma of the great heroic bodhisattvas and being delighted, pleased, and overjoyed, manifested herself in a material body and showered the great spiritual heroes the bodhisattvas, and the great disciples with heavenly flowers. Skandai (?) flowers. [0:47:30.3] When the flowers fell on the bodies of the bodhisattvas, they fell off on the floor. But when they fell on the bodies of the great disciples, they stuck to them and did not fall. The great disciples shook the flowers, and even tried to use magical powers, but still the flowers would not shake off. Then the goddess said to the venerable Sariputra, Reverend Sariputra, why are you shaking the flowers? Sariputra replied, goddess, these flowers are not proper for religious persons, so we are trying to shake them off. He’s shaking his robe like this. The goddess says, do not say that, Reverend Sariputra. Why? These flowers are proper indeed. Such flowers have neither constructural fault, nor discrimination. But the older Sariputra has both constructural fault and discrimination. Reverend Sariputra in propriety for one who has renounced the world for the discipline of the rightly taught dharma consists of constructural fault and discrimination, yet the elders are full of such thoughts. One who is without such thoughts is always proper. Reverend Sariputra, see how these flowers do not stick to the bodies of these great spiritual heroes the bodhisattvas, this is because they have eliminated constructural faults and discriminations. For example, evil spirits have power over fearful men, but cannot disturb the fearless.

[0:48:46.0] Likewise, those intimidated by fear of the world are in the power of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and textures which do not disturb those who are free from the fear of the passions inherent in the constructive world. Thus, these flowers stick to the bodies of those who have not eliminated their instincts for the passions, and do not stick to the bodies of those who have eliminated their instincts. Therefore, the flowers do not stick to the bodies of these bodhisattvas who have abandoned all instincts. So, poor Sariputra, now he’s- this is actually mahayana view of the sainthood of the individual vehicle saint, arhat. That his arhat is on a conscious level, he’s a true saint of an arhat, but there’s some subconscious instincts, drives, that have not yet been purified in such a being. That is why it’s not a final nirvana they have achieved, not a final sainthood, because their instinctual self has not been transformed. (Speaks to Rimpoche in Tibetan) [0:49:38.3] You find this even in sutra. So goddess is saying that. Poor Sariputra can’t really speak, you know. He’s kind of stuck there. So what he always does as you know to this section where he’s having trouble with this goddess, every time he gets nailed, he changes the subject. (Laughs) This is a debating trick, actually. I think it’s called something in Tibetan. (Rimpoche laughs) When the judges, they go, whoa, whoa, whoa, when someone does it. But two people arguing, then one tries to change the subject to get out of being stuck, you know? Then, the venerable Sariputra said to the goddess, goddess, how long have you been around the house here? (Rimpoche and Audience laugh) Total changing the subject. Goddess won’t let him get away with it. She says, well, actually I’ve been here just as long as the elder himself has been in liberation. Sariputra says, well, then have you been in the house for quite a while? He doesn’t want to say, oh, long time, instead he says, well, have you been here quite a while? And she says, has the elder been in liberation for quite some time? At that, the elder Sariputra fell silent. See, this is what I said is one of the false silences. She doesn’t get impressed by that silence. She says, elder, you are the foremost of the wise, why do you not speak? (Rimpoche laughs) Now, when it is your turn, you do not answer the question? In modern America we would say, has the cat got your tongue? Rimpoche: The cat. RT: Has cat got your tongue? She does this. So then he says, goddess, since liberation is inexpressible, I do not know what to say. You know, he’s like talking like Vimalakirti, all silence, all transcends words beyond everything. She won’t have it. She says, all the syllables pronounced by the elder have the nature of liberation. Every single sound you make. Why? Liberation is neither internal nor external. Nor can it be apprehended anywhere apart from them. Likewise, syllables are neither internal nor external, nor can they be apprehended anywhere else. Like a syllable is a syllable, an internal or an external thing.

[0:51:43.7] Nor is it anywhere but internal and external. Therefore Reverend Sariputra, do not point to liberation by abandoning speech. Why? The holy liberation is the equality of all things including speech and so forth. Then Sariputra says, goddess, is not liberation the freedom from desire, hatred, and folly? Three poisons, you know? And she says, quote, liberation is freedom from desire, hatred, and folly, unquote. That is the teaching for the excessively proud. Poor Sariputra. But those free of pride are taught that the very nature of desire, hatred, and folly is itself liberation. This is again very tantrika. Sariputra says, excellent, excellent, at least he praises her, he says, excellent, excellent, goddess. Really good. Pray, what have you attained that you have attained such excellence, such eloquence? And she won’t get caught that way, she says, I have attained nothing, Reverend Sariputra. I have no realization. And therefore, I have such eloquence. Now, you think that’s nihilism? No. She’s expressing the quality of her realization which is, there’s no self. So there’s no ultimately I who is said to be enlightened. She could say, I have attained liberation, conventionally. But she’s speaking on, chooses to speak ultimate level. Because she is not perceiving herself as liberated, she has such a liberation, that means. It is like in prajnaparamita sutra, it said, bodhisattva, one who says I am bodhisattva is not bodhisattva. The bodhisattva never perceives any such thing as bodhisattva. That is how they dwell in the path of the bodhisattva, by not perceiving themselves as bodhisattva. But this is same vein, not nihilism, but her conveying honestly the quality. She says, whoever thinks, quote, I have attained, I have realized, unquote is overly proud in the discipline of the well-taught dharma. Now again, he changes the subject, he wants to labelize her. He says, goddess, do you belong to the disciple vehicle, to the solitary sage vehicle, or to the great vehicle? She says, I belong to the disciple vehicle when I teach it to those who need it. She won’t be distinguished by vehicle, either, like sectarian things. I belong to the solitary vehicle when I teach the twelve links of dependent origination, to those who need them. And since I never abandon the great compassion, I belong to the great vehicle as all need that teaching to attain ultimate liberation. It’s pretty flawless what she says. Don’t you think it’s good? Rimpoche: Oh, definitely.

[0:54:23.1] RT: Nevertheless, Reverend Sariputra, just as one cannot smell the castor oil plant int the magnolia wood, but only the magnolia flowers, so Reverend Sariputra living in this house redolent with the perfume of the virtues of the buddha qualities, one does not smell the perfume of the disciples and the solitary sages. Everyone here only hears about the buddha qualities and they all proceed to conceive the spirit of enlightenment. Now she goes on, and I read already, we already touched on these eight great and wonderful things, I think we don’t need to do again, right? Because this is the house we’ve been in the whole time, right? So what a great house- just to think about, visualize it, really, you should visualize it. Now what does it mean? It’s several things, a little bit. The golden hue so bright, it is hard to distinguish day and night, and neither sun nor moon shines here distinctly. Why is there such a golden hue? This is the golden hue of the happiness of the Buddha. What is this golden- what is gold? Gold is the color of the wisdom of equality. Isn’t it, Rimpoche? Gold is the happiness that all things are equal. That there’s no discrimination between things. You know, it is the color of the Buddha Ratnasambhava, I won’t go so far into it, but that is the color, that is why golden light. It is the golden wisdom of equality. And even sun and moon with that duality of night and day and so forth are not too distinct. The house itself is so full, it has a house of equanimity that means, it’s a house of equanimity. The moment someone goes in, they’re no longer troubled by their passions. That’s like another aspect of the mandala. They enter- it’s like I said, and even in Theravada, you know this guy he meets the Buddha. My favorite is the Buddha’s first lay disciple, guy named Yasas. Yasas was a hungover. He had a tremendous drinking fest with his friends. And he and his friends had been rolled by prostitutes, and they’d been totally drunk. And he was running around in the dawn looking for his clothes, wearing only like his skivvies, you know, and his jewels and rings he was a wealthy young man. And he was like, imagine that, hungover, you’ve been rolled, you’re walking around, you’re in a total state. He meets the Buddha, half an hour later, he’s in samadhi. Cause Buddha says, young man, you really want your wallet, or you want to catch and punish those girls, or do you want to know what is life all about? Boing! Samadhi. Now that’s entering into a house that’s in Buddha’s field, it’s in a grove, there’s no house, but that’s entering into a field. Immediately his passions just go. He temporarily leans on the merit of the people in Vimalakirti’s house temporarily lean on the merit of the Vimalakirti. When they meet the Buddha in his field, they temporarily lean on the merit of the Buddha. Which he wants to extend to them, so that they will see what their own merit can be developed to themselves. Furthermore, Sariputra, all the gods love it. This means that all the gods, you know, Buddhism used to be thought of in the nineteenth century a number of rationalists used to like Buddhism because they tried to think that Buddhism was sort of atheistic, and they were trying to use it to bolster their escape from Christianity. A lot of the early translators of Buddhism were like that in fact. And so they used to say Buddhism is atheistic. But Buddhism is not atheistic at all. Buddhism has all tons of millions of gods. They don’t totally disbelieve different gods, they have all, accept all the gods.

[0:57:42.8] They do not accept necessarily exaggerated claim of the overwhelming power of all gods. They insist that all beings- yeah, they accept supernature, too, but they don’t accept that, say, one god controls every other being, other gods and other people, they don’t accept that. No one ego, even god ego is control, even buddha ego controls everybody else. That’s sort of a philosophical thing they don’t accept. But that doesn’t mean they disbelieve existence of gods. Not only that, but the gods like the buddhas. They like beings who are trying to be selfless. They enjoy them. Gods are the first to come down and hang out with the buddhas. Because if you’re god, you get bored, you know? It’s so boring, you know? Name of the Buddha’s biography La avaristera (?) [0:58:22.3] means, the most fascinating play. Keche rolwa (?) [0:58:29.4] the most extensive, the most- the greatest show on earth. Barnum and Bailey. Really. It means the greatest show on earth, La avistera (?) [0:58:34.4] name of Buddha’s biography. It entertains the gods. Rimpoche: Jetso rol wa la. RT: Yeah, Jet so rol wa la. So, anyway, they all come, they all hang out, they never abandon anybody in this house. Furthermore, the sounds of the dharma are always here. And this relates to a kind of thing, a kind of mantra thing, the house is never empty of the sounds of the dharma discourse on six transcendences, discourses on the irreversible wheel of dharma. This relates to a kind of state where, you know, when you practice retreat, if you ever practice mantrayana, if you say, om mani peme hum, if you do long om mani peme hum retreat, you have to have a few more things, equipment and preparations. Say you did that, it is said you attain where you hear everything as om mani peme hum. Even Ronald Reagan is reciting mantras. All language becomes like, full of the dharma. It just sort of oozes dharma to you. It’s a certain state that you reach where everything, even a bird goes in the morning, caw, caw! Crow. That crow’s caw, caw, means impermanence, selflessness, you hear it like that. You can even stream going bubble, bubble, you hear. It’s kind of samadhi like that. (Rimpoche and RT speak) I won’t leave out Colonel North, either! He says, what about Colonel North? Even Colonel North’s speech is the dharma. When you attain such a samadhi. (Laughs) Rimpoche is a loyalist, really. Furthermore, in this house, one always hears the rhythms, songs, and music of gods and men. And from this music constantly resounds the sound of the infinite dharma of the Buddha. So there’s always this offering, this music harmony that means, which is offering to the buddhas at the same time it’s emanating the teachings of the dharma and so forth. That’s like a pure lands are like that. Pure lands are amazing, you know, pure lands there’s a kinesthetic mixture if you ever read the pure land sutra, you’ll be surprised. One, there will be this great jewel lotus, like sixteen miles broad, emitting eighty-four thousand trillion rays, each of which itself emanates these rays of different light, of coral, turquoise, pearl, and then the rays, they from them, emanate sounds. And from the sounds emanate like structures, and then from the structures, emanate visions, I mean, it’s like, there’s a kinesthetic mixture, you know different sensory things get totally combined in this very exquisite way. They’re really amazing.

[1:00:51.4] The Sukhavativyuha Sutra for example, pure land sutra is amazing. Further, Sariputra in this house there are always four inexhaustible treasures, replete with all kinds of jewels, so that the house is not based- Vimalakirti is a wealthy man, but his wealth is not based on a notion of scarcity. He has not deprived anybody. In fact his treasury is open at all times for everyone. And this actually is something, that I don’t know, it’s very unbelievable to Westerners, but in ancient India, ancient India was such a wealthy country, we just don’t even imagine how wealthy it was. No king was considered anything in ancient India, if he didn’t have four alms houses at the four gates of his city. That meant great treasuries of grain and whatever, and anybody could come from any country and ask for anything and he gave it to them. And in fact, the kings used to go from house to house and give whatever they could give. The greatest ones would give- sometimes, there was a buddha, and when he was a king in a former life, he gave away like the national defense, you know, he gave away like the missiles and everything to the bad king. So then they kicked him out. The people liked him when he gave to them, but then when he gave to some other people in foreign countries, they kicked him out. This particular king. He was too liberal, they thought. And eventually they invited him back when they realized that, well, generosity seems a bit self-emptying but after all, when he did that then other kings would want to compete, and then they would give more. So, this kind of generosity is sort of inconceivable to us today with our scarcity idea, but it is something very embedded in ancient India, maybe because it was such a wealthy country. Yes? Audience: Isn’t it like (Inaudible) [1:02:19.7] selling planes to Iran? (All laugh) RT: No, he didn’t give it, he sold it! But I was going to say, there are Buddhists, I know Buddhists, like my teacher, the Mongolian. He loves Calvin Coolidge. I think, I think it’s Coolidge. Maybe Hoover, I always mix them up. Rimpoche: Hoover did it. RT: Who gave so much grain to Russia, just after the Revolution, gave huge quantities and Russia, up till the World War, America was beloved for that reason, because they had practically dissolved to cannibalism after, during the Bolshevik business in the twenties. And this President sent like tons and piles and ships of grain to Kiev and so forth. And my teacher that’s Mongolian, lived in that area, the Mongolian reservation, and he said, you know, America was like the great Dharmaraja of old for that. You know, Marshall Plan, I mean, this- America is this giving country. When we used to do, and the little that we still do is in this line, yes, of course. But not arms to Iran, because he not only give, he sold, but not only that, but those as arms, and they killed so many Iraqis with them, you know? And they encouraged that maniac to send out so many Iranian young children to be slaughtered. No, Ayatollah, I mean. With those arms, he prolongs this thing, and he sends out all those little kids with a little green key to get slaughtered by the Iraqi- I mean, no. You’d have to have a hell of a samadhi to see that as something. (Audience laughs) Maybe. Maybe. I shouldn’t be dualistic, even then. Maybe Reagan is bodhisattva in inconceivable liberation who is putting the other bodhisattva in inconceivable, inconceivable, inconceivable liberation, Ayatollah, please. But it’s possible. (Audience laughs)

[1:03:58.5] Maybe Ayatollah is there to test all of us, you know? We could, actually America could learn something by taking that way, instead of the way we do take it about the Ayatollah. But this is terrible, going to the modern time, we get lost, totally. Furthermore, Reverend Sariputra, at the wish of this good man, to this house, come the innumerable tathagatas of the ten directions, et cetera. These tathagatas, by the way, are the tantric tathagatas. This is the reference to Vimalakirti’s practicing of tantrayana, making five dhyani buddhas, and creating mandala and so forth, in fact, the house is a mandala, really. This is described as a kind of mandala really. And finally, mandala does not just mean, you know, a painting on the wall like a diagram. Mandala is a building, it’s a palace. Three dimensional. It’s a universe that you enter and- I shouldn’t go, and Rimpoche, I hope he’s going to talk something about it. So anyway, these are the wonderful things I see in Vimalakirti’s house, and so who seeing such inconceivable things would believe the teaching of the disciples. Now here’s where Sariputra gets into really bad trouble. He’s pretty overwhelmed by this, so again he has to change the subject. And what- now we get a little male chauvinism, guys. This is Indian- I mean, he’s part of his own time and culture, Sariputra. This India of the day was a patriarchal culture. Absolutely. But he says goddess, he says, what prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state? Now, that’s a compliment on the one hand, because he’s admitting she’s a goddess and has power of transformation. On the other, it’s a big female putdown, how come you’re being a woman since you could be anything you want? Although I have sought my female state for these twelve years, I have not yet found it, she says. Then she goes a little bit ultimate level answer. I didn’t find any female state, Sariputra, excuse me, she says. Reverend Sariputra, if a magician were to incarnate a woman by magic, would you ask her, what prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state? Sariputra: No, such a woman would not really exist. So what would there be to transform? Here’s the use of not really exist language. Without we don’t want to say nihilist. This is important about the, ultimate is more real than relative, that is really important within nondualistic unity, the priority and the transcendentality of the ultimate is never to be forgotten because that is the priority of liberation.

[1:06:23.8] Then, just so Reverend Sariputra, all things do not really exist. Now, would you think what prevents one whose nature is that of a magical incarnation from transforming herself out of her female state? And of course, this makes her point logically, but it wouldn’t really get Sariputra until the next little trick. It does. (Laughs) Thereupon the goddess employed her magical power to cause the elder Sariputra to appear in her form, and to cause herself to appear in his form. Then, the goddess transformed into Sariputra, said to Sariputra transformed into a goddess; Reverend Sariputra? What trance prevents you from transforming yourself out of your female state? And Sariputra transforms the goddess replied, (In a high voice) I no longer appear in the form of a male! My body has changed into the body of a woman, I do not know what to transform! (Regular voice) Poor man. Imagine. Talk about castration complex. Whoop, his thing is gone. He has big breasts. He’s the goddess! (In a high voice) What? I didn’t know how this happened! (Laughs, Inaudible) [1:07:30.1] How’s that about making your point? (Audience laughs) If you had someone in the National Organization of Women, who could go and transform Reagan into a woman, and say alright, is there Equality Amendment, are you going to pass the ERA, or not? How about that? Would it work? (In a high voice) Nancy! What happened to me? I’m a woman now! (Rimpoche and Audience laugh) Nancy! Sign the amendment! Tell Phyllis Schlafly to quit it! (Rimpoche laughs) It is unique in mahayana sutras, actually. There are times when goddess transforms into male back and forth, but no one has done somebody else like that to (Inaudible) [1:08:22.6] that chauvinism. I love it. I’m sorry, I think it’s really cute. This is either fifth century B.C. or first century B.C. Now, male chauvinism is still rampant today, twentieth century. Imagine ancient world, you know. India was such an extraordinary civilization. Even with its faults, it was extraordinary. This did, after all, occur in India at that time. It’s why the Buddha visited India, we say. You know, and Buddhists say, because of the fortune of the country. So then she scolds him a bit more, you know, he says, so yes, he says, if the elder could again change out of the female state that all women could also change out of their female states. All women appear in the form of women, just the same way as the elder appears in the form of a woman.

[1:09:05.7] While they are not women in reality, they appear in the form of women. With this in mind, the Buddha said, in all things there is neither male nor female. It’s nice, isn’t it Rimpoche? Rimpoche: Uh-huh. RT: So then she switched them back, and then she just teased him a little more, she said, Sariputra, what did you do with your female body? Female form. Oh, I neither made it nor changed it, she said. Just so all things are neither made, nor changed. And that they are not made and not changed, that is the teaching of the Buddha. The he asked her a few more irrelevant things, like where is she going to be reborn, and this and that, and doesn’t quite ever get there with her, and finally he has to- Buddha saves her. Vimalakirti says, Sariputra, this goddess has already served ninety-two million billion buddhas. She plays with the superknowledges, she has truly succeeded at all her vows, she has gained this tolerance of the birthlessness of things. She has actually attained irreversibility. She can live wherever she wishes on the strength of her vow to develop living beings. So he kind of has to give up a little bit. Sariputra does. This goddess really is, you know, it says in the prajnaparamita, homage to the Lady Buddha transcendent wisdom. This is really prajnaparamita, Lady Buddha. There’s a strange thing that wisdom is female. Wisdom is a woman. The mother of all buddhas sometimes she is called. Sometimes she is called the wisdom of all buddhas. In tantrayana this then relates to a very high estimation of the spiritual potentiality of the female. Even higher than that of the male, in fact, right? Rimpoche: Mm-hmm. RT: But this is something very interesting, anyway. I won’t dwell on that. Maybe we should take a short break, having reached here. And then, we can get Rimpoche to talk a little about tantra, maybe. Little bit. Oh, we can go on with Vimalakirti, but I thought- since we finished three principle paths, and after everyone realized three principles of paths, next thing is tantra, in Tibet. I thought you’d talk about tantra. If not, then I will talk something about tantra just now, which might provoke you, actually. Before we stop. And that is that, you know, Tibetan, one of the quintessential, distinctive, characteristics of Tibetan Buddhism, is said that although it comes from the later period of Indian Buddhism, from five hundred A.D. approximately, to a thousand or twelve hundred A.D. That latter period of Indian Buddhism was a time when monastic Buddhism of individual vehicle, messianic Buddhism of universal vehicle, and what I’d like to call apocalyptic Buddhism, apocalyptic Buddhism- Rimpoche: What does that mean? RT: It mean revelational. Immediate revelation of buddhahood in immediate reality. Rimpoche: What does that mean? RT: Apocalyptic. Dor je tek pa. (?) [1:11:50.6] It means, immediate, not, you know, mahayana pure land reality manifested, in the immediate reality, rather than in a future buddha land, type of idea.

[1:12:02.1] It’s just my term. It’s an English term of the vajra vehicle, or tantric vehicle, it would unify these three in that time. You’d have Indian monk, in monastery, who taught mahayana philosophy and sutra, who practiced vajrayana ritual, its synthesis, in other words was developed already in the latter period of Indian Buddhism. During the period it was developed in India, there was no more transmission much to other Asian countries. Therefore, China, and Japan, and Southeast Asia didn’t much get it. A little bit Indonesia, a little bit Japan, little bit Cambodia. But then it kind of- all of those places it sort of more or less faded out. The one place that really got the transmission of this last period was Tibet. Cause somehow it just transferred up there, you know. And there was otherwise not that much communication with the other nations. So that’s why Tibet has this special distinction of preserving the last form of Buddhism in India that sort of fullest after fifteen hundred years of its time in its fullest development was then transplanted in Tibet, mainly, in its full form. And in one of the way it’s caused called the teaching of the unification of the sutra and tantra. Sometimes the integration of sutra and tantra or unification of sutra and tantra. And I have one thing that I love to argue with Tibetans about, about tantra. What that means to Tibetans usually, is it means that without abandoning universal vehicle, even without abandoning individual vehicle, both of whom aim to give beings freedom to lead them to freedom and enlightenment and compassion and so forth, without abandoning them, in fact, in order to fulfill them as vehicles, you enter into the vajrayana vehicle when you are prepared to do so. So they’re integrated in a sense that they lead as a series of techniques neatly to buddhahood. Even to buddhahood in one life. But, there’s another meaning of unification. I don’t like one way unifications. If that is so, then tantrayana can be found in mahayana, tantrayana, vajrayana, can be found even in individual people, or hinayana, if they want to say. So that the tantra is in the Buddha’s life. Tantra is in mahayana sutra. Tantric teaching, even tantric practice. So that even though it’s not explicitly said, this is tantra, the unification should go two ways. Now, usually Tibetans get very mad when I propose this theory. Or at least laugh. Rimpoche’s like, very calm. Rimpoche: Because I didn’t hear it. (RT and Audience laugh) I’m not there, how can I hear it? RT: Rimpoche how can there be only sutras in the tantras? Why not tantras in the sutras? Rimpoche: Tantras are definitely in the sutras. RT: What? I’m going to send telegram to Dalai Lama. (Rimpoche laughs) Rimpoche: Yes, definitely. RT: Okay, what’s his name in Penden Drakpa in Delhi got so upset when I said that. Rimpoche: What? RT: Penden Drakpa, you know Geshe Penden Drakpa? Rimpoche: Yeah, what’s wrong with him? RT: Well, he says, you can’t say tantra’s in sutras! Rimpoche: Why not? Definitely tantra in sutras. That’s why we call it ge (Tibetan phrase) [1:15:17.7] RT: Oh! Good. So I wanted to provoke him into telling us, straightening us out on tantra by saying something outrageous, didn’t work. Okay, we’ll take a break. And then please, can you give us some general discussion of what is tantra. Little bit. Rimpoche: Little bit. RT: Little bit after, after break. Okay we’ll take a fifteen minute break.

[1:15:35.8] (Rimpoche and RT speak in Tibetan) Rimpoche: Okay. Now. Well, we have been discussing the ultimate reality, the ultimate truth. The absolute truth, the ten den pa [1:16:15.2], have been discussed detailing, and also discussed the how to developed by individual person within ourself, and also discussed in the detail philosophical form, it have discussed as the dialectic between the Sariputra as well as the Vimalakirti and, whatever that goddess’s name is. (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:16:51.1] the great mother. RT: Prajnaparamita. Rimpoche: Prajnaparamita, lung chen mo (Tibetan name) [1:16:58.8] All this has been discussed it, and you’ve got more than enough information on that. Now, the question one thing I have to raised here, is you may have in mind, what will happened to that bodhicitta, the great spirit of altruistic spirit of enlightenment. How does they go with this thing? So now, what happened is, in the- very interesting thing. Unless I tell you this, you would won’t be knowing. As far the altruistic bodhicitta, the spirit of enlightenment, what we refer as bodhimind, okay, for that the relative bodhimind is considered as true bodhimind, and absolute bodhimind is sem je (Tibetan phrase) [1:17:51.6] So the relative bodhicitta is considered to be the true bodhicitta, and absolute bodhicitta is not to be considered as true bodhicitta. So the relative to bodhicitta is the true bodhicitta, but when bodhisattva, that particular person, when he understand the shunyata or if shunyata understand before and come to bodhicitta, whatever, when they combines, and then it becomes absolute bodhicitta. So (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:18:27.0] So the absolute bodhicitta is not considered as bodhicitta, but relative bodhicitta is considered true bodhicitta. So this, I mean, unless you’ve been informed you may not take it as it is. So, this is that part of it. So with the combination of the gun zu sem je (?) [1:18:50.1] and (?) sem je together the person is fit to be enter into the vajrayana practice. Professor had been using some word, I don’t even get it. What did you say? RT: Oh, apocalyptic Buddhism. Rimpoche: Apocalyptic. It sounds to me like epilepsy Buddhism. (Laughs) RT: Apocalypse is the word that means the end of time or it means an immediate revelation of ultimate reality, it’s supposed to mean. Apocalypse. People think it means the end of the world, but it doesn’t actually originally mean that. It means a revelation of ultimate reality. Apocalypso. Rimpoche: Okay, whatever. It’s known as vajrayana, okay? (Laughs) RT: Diamond vehicle. Rimpoche: Okay. I don’t know what to talk to you about this, really. RT: Yes, you should understand that Rimpoche is in an awkward position. I am placing him, asking him to talk about it. He’s used to teaching it as practice of it, but you can’t do that without certain prerequisites. So I’m asking him just to talk about to introduce it as a subject. So that’s why he’s saying it. But he’s being very kind to go ahead with it. Rimpoche: I don’t know what to say, really. When you really want to talk, you don’t even know what to talk about it.

[1:20:22.0] Generally, people do understand. I think I did mention the other day, also. The moment you talk about tantrayana, vajrayana, mantrayana, and you think something, something, something mantra to say, something to do with the, few mantras here and there, and few sexual activities here and there, and maybe some black magic here and there, and a little bit that sort of people have understanding which is totally misunderstanding of the vajrayana. So please, just get out of all these thoughts. If you have such a thought, just get rid of it. Vajrayana is one of the most important. The most important. And the only method to obtain ultimate enlightenment quickly. Quickly. Because, without vajrayana, in sutra, when we talk about this, and the five paths, ten bhumis and when we talk about accumulation of merit path, when we talk about purification level path, seeing of the emptiness path, meditation path, ultimate (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:21:59.3] effortless path, for what is it? RT: Yes. Rimpoche: All this talk about five paths and ten bhumis and all this, we are talking about number of aeons. We’re not talking what will happen in one’s lifetime. We’re not talking what is this. We’re talking about number of aeons. Aeons, not years. Not lives, but aeons. But vajrayana is the only method which makes this all different long, long, it’s unbelievable thing, you know. A really unbelievable thing. Which is the long, long, long, way is made in shortened. Shortened in such a short period. That is the only vajrayana does, nobody else does it. When we talk about this tantrayana, at the vehicle, well, every tantra there is a tantra, like a sutra, there is tantra. Tantra is the original text, or root text or whatever you may like to call it, the textbook, or whatever you may call it. There is a word, rather, a text, text that you can recite read, and read and all this. There is tantra text, every tantra has its root text. Root text, you and I may think that root text is some book somebody wrote it. No, it’s not. That particular deity, particular- here I use the word deity. I’m sure Professor has something better for this. Because the deity is wrong translation. I mean, the thing is we should look in the Taoist Chinese and Chinese mahayana Buddhism, when there are tremendous amount of books in English available, and they refer deity as protector who comes into the trance. They have to refer that as a deity. RT: Right. Rimpoche: So, what we are talking here deity, we are not talking about that for sure, so one of them has to be wrong, I do not know which one. So, I choose to call it yidam, the original Tibetan word, I don’t know what it’s called Sanskrit, I’m not- RT: Ishta devada. Rimpoche: Ishta devada. RT: Chosen deity, literally. Rimpoche: Okay.[1:24:35.7] Ishta devada. Alright. So, it is the manifestations of- now, now we are talking about, the moment we talk vajrayana, we talk about something very inconcissable (inaccessible?) [1:24:57.7] what the Vimalakirti’s house where you can fit everything and do everything, and does everything-