Archive Result

19960528GRAABWL

[Tape 3 side A 05/28/96]

Actually, we cannot completely denounce the translator here. I was reading through a commentary by Gyaltsab je and also Pabongka’s commentary. Neither of them do explain dom in verse 1b as vows, but on the other hand, Togme Sangpo’s commentary does explain it as vows. So I might have been too quick to correct the translation of that line. Ngulchu Togme Sangpo however, twisted ‘vows’ to mean morality and pointed out the three moralities: the morality of collecting merit, the morality of patience and the morality of committing yourself to helping others. So it might be too easy to say that the translation of dom as vows in this case is wrong. As I told you: that same word, with the same spelling, can also mean functioning, a system - actually the workings of a mechanical system. That is what it should be. Once it is translated as vow, then what is a vow? It is morality. So I thought I should share that with you.

Buddhists have a big worry about teachings and rituals that are made up and are not followed from the Buddha onwards. This making up is considered terrible for spiritual practitioners. If you try to make up something and write it down, it becomes non-authentic. Having become non -authentic, it does not guarantee the perfect result for the individual practitioner. As a result of that, the whole thing can be lying and cheating. That is the biggest point where the traditional teachers in India as well as in Tibet always tried to make sure that this was not done. Because of that, all the texts translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan, will say that it was done ‘in accordance to the sutras or scriptures’. This is trying to prove that this work is authentic, based on the Buddha’s personal experience and that of the disciples that followed. One of the objections of Buddha, Buddhist teachers and spiritual masters throughout the lineage is the cooked up stories. In the ‘Liberation in the Palm of the Hand’ at Day Eleven it says:

It is the essence of the teachings of the Buddha and his disciples and not a made up story.

It is the path accepted by the great forerunners of the Buddhist teachers and not a cooked up story.

This shows how important it is to be authentic. Even if somebody has composed new words in between, they have to be traceable to Buddha’s teachings. That is so important. That is why you read everywhere statements like ‘I have condensed the meaning in accordance with the scriptures’. That is how you check whether the spiritual path you have is true or false, whether it is in accordance with the Buddhist scriptures or not. Even in the Hindu tradition they will also check whether a text follows the earlier great Hindu masters or not. That is one of the bottom lines, when you want to check if a practice is capable of delivering the goods or not. As Buddhists we make a judgement if it was accepted by Buddha or shared by Buddha or explained by the Buddhist masters thereafter. If something comes up new since the 13th or 14th century, we will not follow that. The Tibetans have a saying,

If you want to drink pure water, you must see that the water comes from the snow mountain. If you want to have a pure, perfect practice, you must see that the tradition traces back to Buddha.

So in statements like ‘This is done according to scriptures’ you have a hidden message.

The hidden message is that if it is not done in accordance with scripture, you cannot take that as a guaranteed path, because then you never know. If you look around, you will get these messages here and there and it will help you to judge the spiritual path which you are going to follow. In this country there is no such system. So anybody can come up and provide something nicely worked out and present that as a spiritual path. There is no counter check, no checks and balance. I have been telling all the Tibetans that we are very lucky. The critics don’t know how to criticize us, so we don’t get any critics. They have no idea how to criticize, because they have not got the base to do so. That is what is really going on at the moment. But traditionally these are the points for which a critic will look when any new books come up: What is it following? So in old India, every author who had something to say, would have emphasized that this was in accordance with the scriptures. This gives you the authenticity of the teachings. It is particularly important for the United States in the 1990s and the year 2000, because there is no way of judging. In any eastern tradition you will see messages like this thrown in here and there. A lot of hidden messages are there. You may write something new today, but you have to be able to prove that every single word is right because in the Buddha’s teaching - the kan gyur, or the commentaries on this - the tan gyur, it says this and that. If you can prove that, you are okay. If you cannot prove that but just say that you have put something together which was said by somebody here and there, then it does not work.

Another of the qualities of the Buddhist teachings is that whatever the subject you are teaching, you have to follow everything according to that particular system. Lets say you are talking about guru devotion. So anything you talk on that, every reference you bring in is collected on this subject itself. You cannot pick up a technique from somewhere in the six paramitas and try to bring it into and cover the practice of the guru devotion. You also cannot select some practice out of the Vajrayogini tantra and bring it into the Yamantaka practice or vice versa. If you do that, you are making a mistake and you are misleading people. It has to be authentic, in accordance with the tradition. Each and every individual yidam has their own specialty. You have to leave it there. That is a basic Buddhist and particularly a Vajrayana rule. You have to follow that very carefully. If you don’t, it will not be ‘in accordance with the scriptures.’ That is how the critics should judge. But then, there is a great limit on critics, so it is a period of great freedom [laughs]. But within a very short period people will pick it up. Then we will get into trouble.

verse two

There is nothing here that has not been explained before

And I have no skill in the art of rhetoric;

Therefore, lacking any intention to benefit others,

I write this in order to acquaint it to my mind.

With that, Shantideva is saying, ‘I have nothing new to explain, nor do I have a great rhetoric. I know only three things.’ Right? Remember, he looked and wondered, ‘Why do I have such a huge throne? Is it an insult or is it respect? It is definitely meant as an insult’. So therefore he is throwing in these words.

Shantideva says that ‘there is nothing here that has not been explained before’. That is very interesting. If there was something new, then what proof could there be that it is authentic? Who could you say has developed a spiritual path through it? Who is there who has attained enlightenment following that? That is the question. So Shantideva says here that the path he is going to share with us has been explained by Buddha and his disciples. So there is nothing new that is being said. If there was something new that has not been said by Buddha and his disciples, then look at it as a fault.

So this is one of the great qualities of the traditional Sanskrit texts translated into Tibetan and has great meaning and really explains how wonderfully it works. Even Shantideva at his level says that there is nothing here that has not been explained before.

Next he says, ‘And I have no skill in rhetoric’. He said that because he is known as the person who only knows three things. In another way, however, what he has produced is beautiful art, but you don’t blow your own trumpet. In the West it is the normal system that people blow their own trumpet. If you know ten words you say that you know hundreds and thousands. In a way you do have to blow your own trumpet, because otherwise people will consider you to be useless and worthless - unless they really know you for a long time. Then it is different. Otherwise, if you keep quiet and try to be very humble, they will humiliate you. But in the tradition, even someone like Shantideva will say, ‘I have no skill in rhetoric’. We can clearly see that there is a great skill here and he has just been flying up onto the throne also. But still he says that. You know why this is done? You do that to cut down your ego. You pull the red carpet from under the feet of the ego. That is what the authors always do. If you read the Three Principles of the Path, you see it too. You will read that anywhere, except in the Buddha’s sutras. Otherwise everybody will say, ‘I have no knowledge. I don’t know anything about that. I have nothing to say.’ The tradition considers that to be a quality rather than a humiliating statement. Sometimes, however, it can be overdone. I get some letters where the writer will say, ‘I am the most stupid person you have come into contact with in your whole life’. That is maybe too much. But cutting down your ego is very, very important. There is a hidden message too. Whoever is blowing their own trumpet, you have to be cautious around that person. This is according to the traditional system. Especially, if somebody says, ‘I know everything and I am your teacher’, you should run away at a hundred miles without looking backwards. Traditionally, nobody advertises their own development. Naropa did not do that and neither did Tilopa. Naropa saw Tilopa as some crazy fisherman who ate live fish. He bit the fish through in the middle and then swallowed them. That is how Naropa perceived Tilopa. Marpa perceived Naropa as another crazy guy. Naropa did not approach him, saying, ‘I am Naropa and I am here to teach you’, no. Nor did Milarepa perceive Marpa in that way. Milarepa ran to Marpa and said, ‘Hey, give me teachings!’, but Marpa slapped him and shouted at him to get out. This is exactly how traditionally it used to function. These days of course it is the western culture. We advertise ourselves and do all sorts of funny things, but according to Shantideva that is the wrong way. He is one of the greatest persons in the Tibetan Buddhist teachers’ lineage and goes on and says, ‘I have no skill in the art of rhetoric’.

When His Holiness came to visit Ann Arbor, I worked out my little speech in which I was going to say, ‘His Holiness does not need any introduction’. Then somebody said, ‘In this case, people will think, ‘Shut up then, what are you doing?!’’ So I changed my line to saying, ‘It is my privilege to introduce His Holiness...’. It is the same thing here. If you have nothing to say which has not been said before and if you have no art of rhetoric, why don’t you shut up? [laughs]. To answer that, Shantideva himself says in the next line of this verse

I write this in order to acquaint it to my mind.

So he says that he is writing it down in order to build up his own understanding and development, inspire himself, familiarize himself in accordance with the scriptures as well as putting it into an order which makes it easier for people to understand. This is what the words tell you directly. But there is also an indirect meaning. He is confirming that ‘I am going to explain’. The confirmation is extremely important. Confirmation is commitment. To honor your own commitment is morality. That is why it becomes important. It is said that great beings will not commit to so many things, but if they commit once, it is like a carving in stone. No matter how long it will take, no matter how difficult it might be, no matter how many times it will be interrupted, no matter how many difficulties are being faced, one will complete this. This is the commitment of a great being. They will not commit to anything unless they can make sure that it will materialize. It is becoming like a vow for them. So Shantideva is saying that he will commit himself to teach this, write it down, talk about it. So directly he is saying that it is just for his own understanding, confirming his own development, not meant for anybody else. But indirectly he is saying, ‘I am sure it will help somebody else like me’. He is putting himself in the lowest category which, if it helps him, may also help others. For some lay person who would like to work with this, there is the possibility that it might help. So with that in mind he is writing, composing and talking about that. This is the indirect message.

So great beings, once they commit to something, it is like a carving in a stone. You know, snow may fall on that stone and ice may develop. But when that snow stops and the ice melts, the carving still remains in the stone. Dust may come and cover it, but when the dust goes away, the carving in the stone still remains. Water may run in a brook, but the stones will remain. So the strongest commitment is like carving in the stone. The short text ‘Three Principles of the Path’ has that commitment too, where it says, ‘I will explain as good as I can’, or something like that. So the commitment here is almost like a vow. If you break that, it is immorality. So that is the indirect message.

Having said that, in order to be helpful, there has to be four reasons.

1. What is the message- what are you going to talk about?

2. Why? What is the need?

3. What is the connection?

4. What is the ultimate purpose?

So when Shantideva is saying that perhaps this might be helpful to others, it means that it is capable of delivering ultimate enlightenment. This is the ultimate purpose why you have to write.

The subject to be talked about is the path leading to enlightenment, the Mahayana path, the Bodhisattva path. How is it being done? In a very organized way. For example, the first chapter is about the benefit of the bodhimind.

There is one line in verse 2 which we have not mentioned.

‘Therefore, lacking any intention to benefit others,’...

This is interesting. A lot of the traditional teachers will say that. The root text of the pramanavartika, the root of logic, has that too. It says,

Almost everybody is busy with attachment. They have no wisdom at all. They are people with bodies and without minds. They all move around like zombies. Even if somebody does say something good, everyone will be very jealous of it. Therefore I have no hope that this will be helpful to anybody else, but I am writing this just to satisfy my own ego.

That is the beginning of the whole root text of the pramanavartika by Dharmakirti. This is typical for the old Indian Buddhist tradition. The Tibetans have watered it down quite a lot from there. They do it more in the manner of saying, ‘I will explain as much as I can’, or something like that. Now in the West we will say, ‘I have something to say which nobody else can say or do. I am capable of doing it. Here I am!’ Look how much it changed from Buddha’s time up to today. That is what is called ‘Degenerate Age’. True. The earlier masters, these are the people who really had these great experiences and they say, ‘I have nothing to say, I don’t know anything about it’. Then the Tibetans, between the 11th century up to the 1950s, would say, ‘I will explain as much as I can’. That is already watered down a lot. Now we have to say, ‘I am going to say something that you could never even imagine!’ We go to that extent. This is how the spiritual path becomes degenerate.

So in this sense Shantideva is saying that ‘lacking any intention to benefit others’. He is saying, ‘I don’t think this is going to help anybody’. There are two purposes. One is to reduce one’s ego. He is saying, ‘I have nothing to say that could help others. Therefore I have no intention that would help others.’ So this is like putting your ego under your feet and stepping on it. That is one way.

On the other hand, great people who have really developed, really think that they have nothing to say. They have such great respect for everybody that they think that everybody else must be better than them. For a long time they think that, until they come to sit down and talk. Then they begin to realize, ‘Oh, I have something to say.’

That is how the minds of Bodhisattvas really work. They never think, ‘I am great. I am the Chosen One.’ If you think, ‘I am the Chosen One’, it is a good sign that you are not a bodhisattva. Now in that case, why write anything? Why not just shut up? Shantideva gives the explanation that it is at least a good exercise for his own positive development and that he is making sure that his own exercise goes according to the Buddha’s teachings. And indirectly he is saying, ‘If there is anybody like me, then there is also the possibility of helping others.’ This is one point.

Another point is, indirectly Shantideva is saying, ‘In case there is a mistake in this work, I am apologizing’. He never claimed that he had something to say or even have the art of a good presentation. He is saying, ‘If I made any mistakes, please forgive me, it is for my own sake that I wrote it.’. This is the easy way to waive your responsibilities - I am just joking.

end of side A of tape 3

Tape 3 side B 05/28/96

Verse three

For due to acquaintance with what is wholesome, the force

Of my faith may for a short while increase because of these (words).

If, however, these (words) are seen by others,

Equal in fortune to myself, it may be meaningful (for them).

You know, I have been explaining this ahead of reading the root text. I am sorry.

What does ‘wholesome’ mean? I am going to explain according to the Tibetan.

I think ‘what is wholesome’ means ‘virtuous activities’. In Tibetan it says ‘virtuous actions’, that means the whole path. But all virtuous actions are not the total path. So ‘wholesome’, can that mean ‘wholeness’ as in ‘complete’? So probably here it is not only virtue, but also the complete path. Why the complete path? The subject in this book that is going to be explained is the complete Mahayana path. So Shantideva says that he is writing this in order to get acquainted himself and also build up his own personal inspiration. The word used in the translation is ‘faith’, but I would like to call it ‘personal inspiration’. So I think the commentary to Stephen Batchelor’s ‘wholesome’ will have to work this way. Not only virtue alone, but the whole path, because the subject of this particular book is the whole Mahayana path, the whole thing together, not just a bit here and there. It is the wholeness of it. The translator may have been thinking that way. In Tibetan it just says ge wa, which means virtue. Every single positive action is virtuous, but here, when you are committing to writing something, you are not pointing out a single virtuous action. It has to be understood that the wholeness of the path is meant. So the translation as ‘wholesome’ can be justified with that in mind.

Then in the next line it says, ‘the force of my faith may increase for a short while’. In Sanskrit and Tibetan this ‘short while’ is also mentioned. This is because our inspiration is such that even when we are inspired, we can only keep that going for a short period, not for very long. That is our habitual pattern. We are so much used to the negative, that whatever positive inspiration we get, we lose it very soon, because our own negative habitual pattern is so powerful, it will overtake. So in one way that is the message.

In another way, it also gives you the message of impermanence. There will be more on that in the next verse, so I will not go into it here.

The rest of the verse I have already explained earlier. It gives you the message that the person writing this is not full of pride.

For next time, I would like you to read the verses four and five together with the commentary ‘Meaningful to Behold’ and any other commentaries that you might know. If what you read contradicts any other teachings you have studied before, mark that and bring it up as a question. Just reading alone will not help. Read the root text, then the commentaries, then read the root text again. Check if the commentaries contradict each other. The next verses are very similar to what you have learnt in lam rim. There is a lot of opportunity to compare and if there are doubts, it is good to raise them. That way you can gain stronger confirmation within you, which will give you inspiration for your own development. It might not help anybody else, but it will help yourself. [laughs]

Audience: Did you say earlier that the cause of the negative karma is our neuroses?

Rinpoche: The negative karma is coming from our own negative thoughts such as anger, hatred, jealousy, etc. These are our neuroses, what else? These neuroses of ours are really the creators of our own negative karma. That is what I always say. It is simple. Negative karma is negative actions. When you complete or half complete a negative action, that is negative karma. If we did not have neuroses, we would not commit such actions. So the neuroses are really the cause of negative karma which is the cause of suffering. Indirectly the Second Noble Truth, the cause of suffering, truly speaking is nothing but our negative emotions.

Audience: Can you clarify what you have said about the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma?

Rinpoche: This is something which the Tibetan tradition has taken for granted. But somewhere the Dalai Lama has said that the system of the Three Turnings of the Wheel is not available in the Theravada tradition. But according to the Tibetan tradition, the first Turning of the Wheel is the teaching about the Four Noble Truths. That also three times each with different purposes, which makes it twelve rounds.

The purpose of the first round is to acknowledge:

1. This is suffering

2. This is the cause of suffering

3. This is the cessation of suffering

4. This is the way out

The first is what is to be acknowledged, the second what is to be avoided, the third what is to be obtained and the fourth what is to be practiced.

In the next round there is the wisdom. You are saying that while you have to acknowledge suffering, there is nothing to behold. You have to understand, yet there is nothing to be understood. You have to obtain, but there is nothing to be obtained. You have to develop, but there is nothing to be developed.

In that way there are twelve rounds which altogether constitute the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.

Then the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is the naked teachings on interdependent relationship and the ultimate emptiness, whether it is the emptiness of persons or that of phenomena other than beings. These are the two kinds of emptiness.

The Third Turning is the method, like bodhimind, love, compassion and the six, five, four or nine other paramitas.

Having said that, if you read the Dalai Lama’s book ‘The world of Tibetan Buddhism’ it does not say that. But even though it does not say that, it does not matter, that is what it is.

Audience: Does that mean that you can analyze the teachings in more than one way?

Rinpoche: This is not a question of analyzing. It is the technical description of the teaching.

By the way the next full moon is the wesak day according to the Tibetan calendar. That is the day Buddha was born, obtained enlightenment, and also died - altogether. I mean it clearly shows that the record is not straight. But that is how it goes. But what happens is that whatever positive work you do on that day is considered to be multiplied by a hundred thousand times. So if you don’t eat meat that day, it equals not eating meat for a hundred thousand days. Thinking that eating meat contributes to animals being killed, if with that mind you stop eating meat that day, it will definitely be of great help. With that mind, if you take a vow of silence and cut down the unnecessary chattering and gossiping, it will be great. You can do that, even if you don’t take all the eight precepts. Those of you who have taken the eight precepts before, you can take them by yourself in the presence of the Buddha. For those who have not taken them, I will request Chödrak Rinpoche to give them to you. You have to take them in the pre-dawn period. When you take these precepts for a day, you promise to only eat one meal that day. You also cannot drink juice or milk in the afternoon. If you go on drinking carrot juice, tomato juice, etc, it is not right. You can drink light tea. Milk is not okay, whether it is soya milk or rice dream or half and half. If you want to drink coffee, it should be the caffeine-free variety. And do something positive. People normally will go and save lives. If you see somebody killing a lobster or fish, buy it and save it. It is easy to go to a Chinese restaurant and get the lobsters and don’t cook them. If you can commit to talk less and get less angry, etc, for the whole week, it would be good. But if you have to, you can’t help it.

end of tape 3 side B