Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 05 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part II

Talk 8: 3-31-05

Thank you and welcome to this segment that we are talking. I don’t know how many of these we have this time. Six? OK, we have six of them. And this is the first day we are meeting together.

Incidentally, this happens to be the 10th of March. The 10th of March is a special day for Tibetans. Most of you received the handout here; a gentleman was giving it there when I was coming in. So, the 10th of March is what they call the National Uprising day. It was about 46 years ago. It was 1959, and I do remember very well what had happened on the 10th of March at that time. So it is a very painful day for us, for me at least, even to think back today to what had happened at that time.

So, anyway, ever since then, people are keeping that as a special day, as a reminder of what happened in Tibet, all the destruction and killing of a number of people, the number of Tibetans who died since then, and so may things. And especially for me, and my life, and people of my age, this is the biggest change we had. So it is a very big change. And since that day everything has been different. The worst of all is really the destruction of the spiritual home of the world, and peace. That was the worst thing. The spiritual home has been destroyed, completely.

And that is it. Monasteries have been changed into, I don’t know, some sort of slaughter homes, and things like that. And that is, normally, you hear so many things. But since then the real spiritual home is gone. So, anyway, then we try to set up new homes everywhere, and try to set up Dharma centers, retreat centers, and institutions. So it is, to try to substitute for whatever has been lost.

So, well, that is the most [??greatest??] tragedy in the world, what happened. And for the Tibetans it is almost the end of a free Tibet. I don’t know whether free Tibet has ended on that day or that year, or ten years before that, so by the 1950’s. So, whatever it is, but it is almost the end of free Tibet for the Tibetans.

But many of you have been very kindly supporting it, and writing, going over, participating in demonstrations, things like that. A number of people told me here that they went to demonstrations here and there. So that is very kind.

And the support is really wonderful. But the support will be nice, if there is support for what really the Tibetans really want, rather than what you think the Tibetans should want. And I think that is important. What does His Holiness have in mind, what he wanted? And his cabinet, and the Tibetan people, what really they wanted. If you support that, and really truly support it. And I think that much for the 10th of March.

We should be continuously talking, discussing about the wisdom aspects of the Prajnaparamita, or transcendental thing. So basically when you look back, the whole Lam Rim teachings, the Odyssey to Freedom, that is where we really started. All of them are really the very preliminaries for our journey to the enlightenment. And we have almost come to the middle of our journey and the end of one segment. That is the sutra aspects of the Tibetan Buddhist practice. And the last of it is the Six Paramitas, for which I have been able to contribute, in my opinion, (this is my personal opinion), but I have been able to contribute quite well in two different ways. One way, through the Odyssey to freedom and Lam Rim teachings. The other one is through the Bodhisattvacharyavattara. It is sort of very detailed, and we a have contributed.

People will come and study, the lectures will go, teachings will go, come and teach and go. But the transcripts that are remaining there will be quite a good contribution to the future generations who would like to see and read. And to the present ones who would like to refresh your memories, and clear your doubts, and clarify certain points, either missing, or not in order. Or, you know, when the individual does not have spiritual development, then it is the job of the individual to see what went wrong and why it is not there.

To look back. I have mentioned a number of times here that it is nice to maintain your spiritual journal and write what you understand. Write what you can meditate. Write what you can comprehend. Write what you can sort of manage, and even gain experience of. And then, do not start looking back immediately. But within a year or two, look back and refer to what you have written. And examine your present circumstances. And if there is no progress made, then you have to find out why not. What was the problem? Is it the point of the individual practitioner? Or is it the message that you have? Or is it the study that you have? Or is it the diligence of the individual? Or is it the spiritual guide, the teacher? And what was the problem? So, looking at that is very important. Otherwise there is no beginning and no ending. You know what I mean. It is sort of going, and you have no idea where you are going. I mean you don’t know what you are doing. I don’t want to say that, I am sorry. But I think it is important.

The example given by earlier teacher/masters, they said, you are actually carried away by a current, miles down. Yet you are not completely sinking in the water, because you know how to move a little bit. So, if you still think you are swimming, and you think it is situation under control, then you may be a loser for that. Because you are really carried away, miles away. But you still think you are very much under control. And then you are not going to cut across anywhere. So then you will be too tired, and all of those, and you will not be able swim across. So that is why checking back is extremely important.

And to have a good journal, if you have it, that is very helpful. But if you try to read what I did yesterday and last week, then that doesn’t do much good. But if you have a journal that for years you have kept, and look back at what did you do ten years ago, five years ago, even two years ago, and where we are. Then if you are not making any progress, then something has gone wrong somewhere.

So when you started looking and find that something has gone wrong somewhere, you will begin to find that the either steps are not in order, or something. That is why we insist, although we don’t want to say “ten of these and five of these”, but we insist to follow the steps one after the other. Because if one step is missing in between, it is very difficult to jump from this step, let us say from step D to step F. If the E is missing, and you have to jump to F, it is difficult. So you won’t make it. You will be stuck here. Although you have a lot of information, knowledge, yet you are not moving anywhere, you’ll be stuck here.

So when this is happening you have to find out what is happening. Did I have wrong information? Did I have a broken commitment? Did I have, etc… “What happened?” And when you see it, then you have to make a correction, and then you move. So for that, it is important, it is good to have a journal.

Because if you totally have to rely on your memory, the memory is tricky. It gives you wrong information. For that matter, all minds, the minds are extremely important. Mind also will always give you wrong information. Always. That is the nature of the mind. When you talk about the nature of mind, the wonderful part of it, we can talk a lot of wonderful parts of it. When you talk about from the point of terrible aspects of the mind, they always give you the wrong information. Even people telling you straightforward truth, ten different people will have ten different versions of evidence, incidents, everything. That is because the nature of the mind is such. So that is what is happening.

The nature of the mind of the mind becomes such a way because the mind has been totally influenced, and almost based on something unreliable. Something unreliable: our ego.

You know, I like to call what they traditionally call ignorance and the combination of that along with fear and confusion together, I like to borrow the terminology of “ego” and like to identify. And that, unfortunately, at this moment, is the very basis on which we are functioning. Our thoughts are coming.

Although there is a pure aspects of it, but more or less it is completely colored through that. Colored, maybe it is the wrong English? In other words, I am thinking it is like pure, clean, clear, nice cashmere shawl, yet it has been run through a color, so the pure wool natural color has been colored when they put dye on that. So what happens is that most of our mind, though there is a pure aspect of it ... this is something very interesting, a very interesting thing.

A number of times, a number of teachers will all say it: The mind is pure, and everything is temporary, like a cloud, all those types of things we will say. We even say primordial mind is some kind of wonderful pure inside. And all of those we say. However, if you begin to look very carefully, very carefully, carefully, you know what really happens is there is not an original fully enlightened nature within us. We don’t.

The word in Tibetan is ????? Sangye rang tzashel yöpa ???? That means “Buddha within you”. It is not there, honestly. It is something that the individual has to really work through, and purify all obstacles. It is something that you have to get in. It is not the case that originally everything is the way I presented it to you with the example of the pure cashmere shawl going through a coloring system.

But in that example, it sounds like it was pure before and then went through the color and changed and now you have and impure cashmere shawl. I don’t mean that at all. If that is the case, then it has to be fully enlightened before. So, if you are fully enlightened before, then what the hell you are doing here? So honestly it is not there, though it sounds like it, so it gives you a lot of misinformation.

What you really have is the capability or possibility. It is sort of a seed. It is sort of – you know…the word Buddha nature. The other day, Matt, who is doing the Ph.D. on Buddha nature, he called it the Buddha gene. So, yeah, that is fine, but that doesn’t matter. But a gene, I believe, is physical, right? Right, it has to be physical. So this Buddha nature, I don’t think it is physical. It is something else.

Though we say Buddha nature, it is not natural. It is not nature or natural or nothing. It is a possibility. It is a probability. It can become. It is not. It can become. It can be, or will possibly be. [Audience: “Like potential”]. Yeah, potential. So, something like that, it has to be. If it is Buddha’s natural, or Buddha nature, or something, it is really – even then, when you go in detail, we divide that into two. It is the developing aspects of it and the natural aspects of it. The natural aspect is very difficult and confusing for us. Sort of thinking you have to have it, Buddha completely there.

That thought came out because I was in Denmark a few years ago when ???Rimpoche was alive. So, he had an attendant who used to be a monk, and he was very sharp monk with a wonderful mind. And he might have studied for a few years, like 4 or 5 years, and then he had to interrupt his study and he became a lay person and married. We were having a cup of tea in the afternoon, sitting around. ??? Rimpoche was also there, I was there, and we were having tea. He was telling me that some Rimpoche (I won’t name him) came there and gave a lecture, and he went to hear it. The Rimpoche kept on telling that you have ????? Sangye rang tzashel yöpa ????, which means you have already original pure Buddha within you. So he said he wanted to get up and leave, but that would look funny because he was sitting in the front. So he was talking to himself and saying “If the Buddha is naturally there, why the hell I have attachment? Why should I have hatred? What is going on? He said the Rimpoche talked for three hours, and three hours felt like more than three months for him.

So, I thought about that, and when you talk about the Buddha nature, you do have that problem. If you think there is already a Buddha within you, then you don’t need wisdom. What for? Honestly. You just don’t need wisdom, you don’t need emptiness. You just think everything is wonderful, everything is pure, everything is good, nothing is bad, almost like new age way of thinking. And you can do that way and see what happens. And, by putting a lot of efforts in one side it may develop something. It is always possible that something will develop, because you are really putting a lot of effort together.

The point that Nagarjuna raised: [quotes a Tibetan phrase].

It is the two truths as base, and two practices as the path, and two stages you can get as a result: the mind aspects and the physical aspects of it as the result.

So when you are putting efforts, if you don’t have the wisdom aspects, then you don’t have the direct cause of developing the mind of an enlightened one. Even if you don’t have that, but when you have a lot of other things, if you push through, you may be getting somewhere. If you keep on thinking everything is pure and wonderful, you may be getting somewhere, but it doesn’t really truly give you what really wisdom is. And when you really don’t get the wisdom, what happens, is, you don’t get the result.

The result we are looking for is not the happiness of physical. I was talking last Tuesday because one little verse in the Bodhisattvacharyavattara, one little verse there, I think it says something like the higher one is refuted by the supreme ones? [Audience: the ordinary person and the contemplative person are different] Yeah, true. They give you the division of the ordinary persona and the contemplative person. The division of the ordinary and contemplative is not divided on the basis of color or gender or just anything, but it is divided because of the individual’s capability of seeing the reality. Seeing the reality. And because of seeing the reality, and whatever you see the reality, the better ones refute the lower ones. That is one little verse. In Tibetan it says ????? Tibetan quote. Higher ones are refuted by the higher ones.

From the Wallace translation of stanzas 3 and 4:

3. In the light of this, people are seen to be of two types: the contemplative and the ordinary person. The ordinary folks are superseded by the contemplatives.

4. Due to the difference in their intelligence, even the contemplatives are refuted by successively higher ones by means of analogies accepted by both parties, regardless of what they aim to prove.

So I can’t just go and say the higher ones are refuted by the higher ones. I mean it makes sense, the words say this, you can read it and say goodbye and can go. But I couldn’t, so you really have to see what is the person’s perception of what happiness is.

I think I guess that is what we are looking for. We are looking for happiness. I really guess it is. If you are not, just raise your hand. The perception of happiness is something very strange for us. And we know there is happiness, somewhere there, somehow at the back of our mind, at the back of our head we try to reach something called happiness. When you are looking at that happiness, our problem is what we see, what we understand, we make that as one. That is our problem. What we see and what we get it, we make it one. What we see and what we understand, when we make that one, it shifts the vision. It shifts the perception.

And when you are looking for happiness, and we, I am looking for my happiness, the moment I say “I”, my basis on which I use this word “I”, my understanding, my thought, my idea, of what “I” is, is based on my physical identity: my form, etc., my five skandas. Either one of them or all of them combined. So that is the perception we have. So, we have based that idea of “I” on the five skandas. Yet each one of the five skandas, or the collection of all of them are the nature of destruction. It is not lasting, it is impermanent, it is destructible, it will go. So we depend on this, on destructible things. And that is our biggest problem. Everything is coming out of this. That is why we are so afraid of so many things, knowingly or unknowingly.

If you have doubt. If you are thinking “that is going to make this happen, this is going to make that happen, and that is going to lead to that problem, that is not a problem, that is a good idea, it is a good thought. It not a problem, it is precaution taking. That is not the problem, although we will laugh at that mind, we say heh,heh,heh, because it looks lGood evening. My apologies that I am not in New York today. As I informed you last Tuesday night, as well as by e-mail, I do have a court date tomorrow for the adoption of the kids. Therefore I just can’t be back, so that is the reason why I cannot do that today. Also it is interesting to be able to hear the ara pa tza singing from here, I thought it will also help.

To continue with what we have been talking about last week. We did, but not very well, so I‘d like to draw your attention to page 120, point six. Point six will be the point of entering into. Here it comes as a question. It says:

You say that all of these afflictions, karma, bodies, agents, and effects are not reality. Still, though they are not reality, they appear to the childish in the guise of reality––like a phantom city and so forth. If this is so, then what is reality and how do you enter that reality? (Page 120, Volume Three of Tsong-kha-pa’s Lam Rim Chenmo)

That is the part where we are there. This is the seventh point. We might as well as read the answer here:

ike big trouble. But it is not, it is precaution taking and that is a good thing.

However, we have a big fear, an unnamed fear, of whatever. Of loneliness, of void, of disappearing. All of them are because we are based on this desctructive [??destructible??] nature. The great Indian masers called this jig ta, or jig tso la tawa. Tawa or togpa and tenpa almost becoming the same, so we rely on the bnasis which are naturally to be destroyed. Naturally it will decay. Naturally destructive nature. So we call it “jig” is fear or dismantle. “Tah” or “Tay” becomes relied on, based on, that is what happened. So that is

Reality is the total extinction of the conception of both the self and that which belongs to the self in regard to the internal and the external, this being a result of the non-apprehension of internal and external things. As for the entry into reality, look in the Commentary on the “Middle Way” (Madhyamakavatara), which says... (ibid.):

In other words, it is quite clear here. The message it is really giving is that all delusions, karmas, agents, effects, everything is not really reality, meaning as it appears it is not reality. But for the childish, it appears in the guise of reality, and they accept reality like a phantom city. This is really telling us: if it is not reality, how do I enter into the reality? To make it easier and simple, and in reply to that, Tsongkhapa not only says, but refers to Chandrakirti’s Commentary on the “Middle Way”

Maybe I should read Chandrakirti’s words here:

In their minds, yogis perceive that all afflictions

And all faults arise from the reifying view of the perishing aggregates,

And, knowing that the self is the object of that view,

They refute the self.

(ibid.)

Those are Chandrakirti’s words. But you have to be – the English translation doesn’t go quite straightforward – so I have to be talking to you on the basis of the Tibetan that I know. [In response to] the question of how do I enter into the reality, Tsongkhapa replies: “as Chandrakirti says...” And what did Chandrakirti say? His first word is Nyu mon chö nam malu ‘jig tso lak. Here he is telling us that it is obsession, etc., all the delusions, birth, death, aging, illness, etc., caused by the obsession or hatred. All faults of life, such as death, aging, illness, birth, etc., these are the faults. Not only, if you look at it, all these faults are not by one or two or separately grown. All of the faults are coming out of it. The funny thing here is that the translation here says: “all the faults arise from the reifying view of perishing aggregates”. But what it is really talking about here is that all the faults of self and here the translation says “my and that of belonging to me” [the book’s exact words are “the self and that which belongs to the self...”] which I have been calling “I and mine”, everything, all of them we are accepting as reality or true existence. All of those are actually coming out of, arising out of, the translation says: “arise from the reifying view of the perishing aggregates”. We have been saying ‘jig lta all the time. Actually, if you read this root text itself, of Chandrakirti’s

Nyu mon chö nam malu ‘jig tso lak

lta leh chok lo ye tung jor shes

‘jig tso la lta leh chö wa

So all these delusions are the cause of all the problems and sufferings. Sufferings such as birth, death, aging, illness, all of them, not just one, one, one, or some, but all of them. All, including self-grasping, the grasping of “I” and of “my”. Self-grasping and grasping whatever is mine. Chandrakirti is saying here that all of them are coming from nowhere else, from none other than the ‘jig lta. The translation says “reifying view of perishing aggregates”. The reason is, I told you earlier, because aggregates are perishable. Therefore we are holding the perishable things as self, protecting, promoting them. Therefore it is the nature of destruction, because it has impermanent nature. Therefore it focuses on destructive points. That is why ‘jig lta, or ‘jig tso la wa.

This is half of the words that Chandrakirti has said. Then, continuing, since you know, since you understand it is coming from ‘jig lta, at least you have information that it is coming from ‘jig lta. When you understand this, when you begin to see, even if you begin to doubt, a sensible thing for the practitioners to do is that you have to be engaging your mind and try to see this clearly. Once you see it, once you know it is coming from there, then it is our duty, our responsibility to ourselves to see how it works. Or, if you can get rid of the ‘jig lta, it will be like cutting the root of the tree. Once you have cut the root of the tree, then all the branches will naturally have to dry – die. It will not survive at all.

I have a tree in my backyard. It is an ash tree, and they got [elm?] disease last year [a type of ash borer has attacked the ash trees in Michigan] Many of them have gone. When they rot there are a lot of those bugs there, the bugs get in between the skin at the root level. If it was at the branches, if you could cut it you could have saved it. But you could not, so once the root is gone, all the branches go. I don’t have to say that, but it happened to mine, and just like this, here, once you get rid of the ‘jig lta, then the results of the ‘jig lta, or the consequences of the ‘jig lta, all our normal delusions are going to be just like branches that don’t have roots or don’t have water, that are surviving like cut flowers. Even though cut flowers may survive for a few days in the bottle, they are not going to stay there very long, as we all know.

Tsongkhapa here tells us that once you begin to see this, don’t just leave it there. That is not enough. Just knowing, or having information that ‘jig lta is the source, is not enough. What the yogis, the practitioners, then need to do is [look at] where am I confused? What is the basis on which my mind has been confused? We really need to know where the confusion really is. When you begin to look into where the confusion is, then it becomes the perceptions of my mind, perceiving the perishable aggregates that appear to me as “me”. Accepting that [perception] as true, is the problem. Since you know this, then whether you call it “self”, or “I”, or “perishable aggregates”, or whatever, this is the basis on which this particular mind of ours has got confused. Since it is confused there, there is a need for us to understand it clearly. If you can prove to yourself that your ‘jig lta is perceiving “I” on the basis of aggregates – when you realize that that is not true – when you realize that that is a total confusion – when you realize that that is a lie – then we begin to see the light.

If that happens, then the yogi – the first translation – in their mind, the yogis perceive – he is referring here to not just an ordinary yogi, but the yogi who has the capability of concentrated meditation plus analytical meditation. In other words, [one who is] able to meditate and use both shamata and vipasyana. That type of yogi, not just a yogi, but such a yogi, will see ‘I” or “me” or “mine”, whatever our thoughts are perceiving on. When we really know that that projection on which we based our mind, truly, naturally does not exist (though, we see it – it appears to me). When you know this, then it is that yogi’s job to bring the powerful five points of logic. Or at least, 1) the logical points of oneness or separation; or 2) the logical reason of dependent arising (which we call “the king of logic”).

Saying the point: [take] the glass of water, the glass here, as a base. The mind asks “does it truly exist?” It appears truly existing to me, because when I look at this I see the glass here. Not only do I see this as a glass, but I see the crystal glass. It is crystal. I see the cuts, the designs in here. I see the golden rim on the glass on the top. I see water in here. I can drink the water. It works. It appears to me as a glass, it works as a glass, and it is a glass. Therefore it exists for me, as a glass. I can drink water out of it. O.K.

But that doesn’t truly exist, because it is dependently arising. If there is no water, this would not be a glass of water. Or if there is no glass, it again won’t be a glass, in the sense of material. If its plastic, then it is not a glass-glass, it is a plastic glass. To be a crystal glass, it depends on being a crystal, shaped in that way, the water in it. That crystal glass of water is dependently arising. When it is dependently arising, it does not truly exist, because its existence depends on all these things. You have heard this before. This is called “king of logic”.

Using dependent arising as a reasoning to prove that it is not truly existent on the basis of whatever, glass, or person, or whatever may be – if you utilize such a logic, such a powerful reasoning – you can really negate, or stop, the confusion of seeing self existing on the basis of perishable aggregates. Most of these are taught in the Madhyamaka “Middle Way” texts. That is what Tsongkhapa refers to, the Madhyamaka. He refers to these [texts] and says “That is what you have to find”. He further adds here, as you read it – this translation does not really exactly go as the Tibetan goes, anyway – in this translation, if you continue to read it here, it reads the commentary of Chandrakirti’s Clear Words, commenting on what we just now read, above. In that, it says

“Yogis who whish to enter reality and who wish to eliminate all afflictions and examine the question, “What does this cyclic existence have as its root?” When they thoroughly investigate this, they see that cyclic existence has at its root the reifying view of the perishing aggregates, and they see that the self is the object observed by that reifying view of the perishing aggregates. They see that not observing the self leads to eliminating the reifying view of the perishing aggregates, and that through eliminating that, all afflictions and faults are overcome. Hence, at the very beginning they examine only the self, asking, “What is the ‘self’ that is the object of the conception of self?” (Chandrakirti’s Clear Words, as quoted in ibid., pp 120-121)

So you got into the circle, right? That is exactly what we have been talking about. What is the focal point, when we say “self”, then “self” here is referring to the focal point of ‘jig lta. What‘jig lta sees, what ‘jig lta holds, what ‘jig lta perceives. So, ‘jig lta holds “self” to be truly existing because there are aggregates.

Now you are debating, yourself against your own ‘jig lta: “Is this true? Is it truly existing? Is it not dependent arising?” That is one way. Another way: “If it is truly existing, is this the same oneness with those five perishable aggregates? If it is oneness with the five aggregates, then there are five of them. So there must be five selves. Where are they? Who are those people? If there are not five, and there is only one, then all the aggregates must be all one. There cannot be five because they are oneness with that self.”

So, if you exist, whether you exist as oneness or separate, if it is oneness, it should be that all five aggregates are one, because self is only one; if it is separate, there must be five selves there, which really brings to a split personality, or something. Because there are five aggregates. Because they are one. You cannot say neither. If it is neither, then where is it?

These are the ideas that Chandrakirti gives to see. Tsongkhapa refers to it briefly here. The details are the Madhyamakavatara’s study. Though it is emptiness, it is wisdom, not very much [detail is given] over here. They refer to the Madhyamaka for this point. In other words, if you really look at it very deeply, you also, side-by-side, have to look into the Madhyamaka texts. But here, as a meditator, practitioner, not as a philosopher, not as a logician, not as a theologist, but as practitioners, then it goes on, on page 121:

Scripture sets forth many arguments refuting the intrinsic existence of a limitless number of individual things. (ibid.)

Scripture here is referring to Nagarjuna’s root text. Actually, the Lam Rim Chenmo itself really doesn’t say “scripture”, does it? Yeah, it doesn’t even say scripture. It makes sense in the translation, that is why. If you read it in Nagarjuna’s [text], every different viewpoint is visited. However, I will continue to read this one.

However, when yogis initially engage in practice... (ibid.)

Again, in the Tibetan text, when you look carefully, it will not have the word “initially”. But it is in the translation it says “initially”. When you look in the Tibetan, it straightaway goes. Straightaway it says: “when the yogi who practices, and how that individual can negate this, though the teachings may give you so many details, for us it is.” Here, I’d better read this.

... they meditate in an abridged way... (ibid.)

If it means abbreviated way, or shorter way, then the translation is correct, my apologies. If it is average way, then it is not right. So, “abridged way” is correct. A shorter way of day of doing is.

...abridged way, determining that both the self and that which belongs to the self... (ibid.)

Both self and which belongs to the self – “I” and “my”, that is it. Both “I” and “my”

...lack intrinsic nature. (ibid.)

That is how it reads here: “...that which belongs to the self lacks intrinsic nature.” What they are talking about here is – those who are seeking elaboration, the yogis who have the concentration and vipasyana, both, then should enter into de kho na nyid – suchness – through which you want to eliminate the cause and result and fault of all the suffering – both First and Second Noble Truths, completely. If you want to completely eliminate [that] from you, or get rid of it, or when you want to be free from that, the first thing for the individual to do is – this is Chandrakirti’s commentary repeating here.

What makes the individual to continue to have life in samsara? When you look into that, you will see that the root of samsara is nothing more than ‘jig lta. Once you know that, you begin to see how ‘jig lta functions with you. Once you know that, you know that. You have to see whether you can get rid of ‘jig lta or not. Once you negin that you can get rid of ‘jig lta completely, then you see what ‘jig lta is observing, what ‘jig lta is thinking, what ‘jig lta is holding. Then you begin to see that ‘jig lta is holding “I” as its focal point. ‘Jig lta is perceiving the five aggregates functioning as “I”, and holding as it its. That is how we know where ‘jig lta. was wrong.

When you begin to doubt whether ‘jig lta is right or wrong, then you have to see that whatever ‘jig lta is perceiving, is this true or not true. By seeing that, you know ‘jig lta is wrong. When you know ‘jig lta is wrong, then you begin to see it is the wrong thing, you can discard it. O.K.

Once we are holding, cherishing. perceiving self, and what the self is perceiving, we call it the self, “I”, and what that “I” is, what it’s nature is, what its aspects are, all of t hose we have to check carefully. First and foremost, we have to focus completely on that self and that self alone. That self, alone. That is what Nagarjuna says. Nagarjuna also talks a lot more about seeing the emptiness of so many things. But when the practitioners practice the shorter way, we have to see only two things. That is “me” and “my”. “Me” is referring to being a person. “My” is other than being – articles, things. In short, the teachings may give you so many things. We must abridge it to two points: 1) the point of selflessness as a person, and 2) [the selflessness] of other things other than a person. Two separate wisdoms. Two separate objects of negation. Two separate perceiving minds.

[Tibetan phrase] I think it is Nagarjuna’s words, it just popped up on my head. The selfessness is in order to liberate individuals. Buddha divided this into two categories: that of the person, and that of “other than persons”. “Other than persons” means tables, and things like that, without. I think the–either way–element and no element–or something, that is what it is. Element and no element of two things here.

If I continue to read here, it raises a question. I read “intrinsic nature”, right?

... The master Buddhapalita says that this is the meaning of the eighteenth chapter of Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise. The master Candrakirti [sic] bases his own commentary on this statement by Buddhapalita. Also, the teachings on the selflessness of the person in Candrakirti’s Commentary on the “Middle Way” are just extended explanations of the eighteenth chapter of Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise. (ibid.)

In other words, the eighteenth chapter talks about this, and all of Chandrakirti’s work is based on that, there is nothing to be explained. But the question then arises, by somebody here: “If that is your explanation of emptiness, and...” Let me read this.

Are you not teaching how to enter the reality of the Mahayana? In that case, the reality that one seeks to attain cannot be the mere extinction of the conception of both the self and that which belongs to it. (ibid.)

In other words, this person is raising the question: “aren’t you teaching mahayana Buddhism here? Are you talking – isn’t the object of mahayana Buddhism to become a Buddha? Just the mere extinction of self and selfless, and that which belongs to the self, is this enough? That is not enough, that is why your explanation of Nagarjuna’s mind is wrong.” That is the question that is raised to Tsongkhapa. The question continues:

Also, since a simple determination that both the self and that which belongs to it lack intrinsic nature does not entail a determination that objects, as distinct from persons, lack self, it is wrong to posit it as the path for entering into reality. (ibid.)

That is what I said earlier. “Just emptiness will not give you enlightenment, so why do you force this as entering into reality?”

Tsonkhapa replies.

There is no problem here, for there are two types of total extinction of the conceptions of both the self and that which belongs to it. (ibid.)

In other word’s, Tsongkhapa is trying to say that whatever you said here, your point is – you are raising the point to me, saying that my recognition of suchness, and my presentation of how one enters into suchness are both wrong, because you are supposed to be leading individuals to total enlightenment in the mahayana way. Just the lack of intrinsic existence of self and that of “I” and “my”, is not an ultimate goal here at all. That is what this guy was saying.

Not only that, just establishing selfless “I” and “my”, lack of intrinsic existence on that alone, even if you establish selflessness, you will not be able to establish the “other than self”. The [fact of] phenomena [being] existence-less cannot be established. Therefore, your presenting of this as a perfect way of entering is wrong.

Tsongkhapa replies that there is no problem. The extinction of self-[less] and others-less has two categories. You can completely finish all delusions, like afflictive emotions. You can completely exhaust all of them so they can never grow again. But you can do that two ways. One way, just to not regain, alone, is possible in the hinayana path. Here [Tibetan phrase]. Outer, inner, every existence, none of them will ever have dualistic afflictions completely exhausted, completely exhausted of dualistic afflictions. Here, when you use the word “complete” it is not just simply getting the delusions, but here they are talking about imprints also. So, also free of imprints, therefore there is no function of any dualistic existence at all. Therefore, that is total enlightenment, that is dharmakaya, so nothing is wrong.

That is one thing. Tsongkhapa goes further. Here, actually, there are basically three more layers here. Tsongkapa says: when you see the lack of true existence of self and that of “my”, at that time, when you said there is only selfless, but other-than-self is not there, I shall not accept that. Because, when you realize selflessness, when you see that “I” lacks intrinsic existence, then you will also see that my five skandas also lack intrinsic existence. For example, here he goes now:

...the utter elimination of the afflictions so that those afflictions will ever recur; however, the second is a buddha’s embodiment of truth. It is the elimination–through utter non-apprehension–of all signs which are elaborations of external and internal phenomena.

Also, when you know that self does not exist intrinsically, you also overcome the conception that the aggregates which are its components exist intrinsically-... (ibid.)

In other words, when you see that the self doesn’t exist, you see also that of “my” will also not exist intrinsically.

...–just as when a chariot is burned, the wheels and such that are its parts are also burned. (ibid.)

That is Chandrakirti’s example. Chandrakirti gives the example that when the horse cart is burned, the question of wheels and chairs having been burned does not arise. [Tibetan phrase] That is what it is really leading to. But I should read it carefully, otherwise my thoughts will jump faster.

...–just as when a chariot is burned, the wheels and such that are its parts are also burned. (ibid.)

When you are looking at selflessness, you are not just looking at whether self exists or does not exist. You are looking, as my ‘jig lta, whether the perception holding my skandas and “me” is truly there or not. That is the point where we are really checking. Normally, people say “selflessness, I don’t exist”. It is very easy, they will go. It becomes a short cut, a very short cut: “when I am not there, how can I suffer?” So, I am not there.

[Tibetan phrase] – uses the same thing. The horse cart is burnt, how can the wheel of the horse cart still be left. When I am not there, my suffering is not there, how can I suffer. It is very easy to short cut that way. But I don’t think that is what it is. What it is really talking about right here is whether the “me”, that “me” as my ‘jig lta perceives it truly exists or does not truly exist. I think that is the point.

Chandrakirti’s commentary, the Clear Words, gives more. It says, on the basis of the five skandas, we can just label it, saying “me, I am here, I am speaking, I am thinking, I am meditating. It is not just that. So, we say “yeah”. Also our ‘jig lta will see wrongly, wrongly seeing “that is self”. Though we are referring to ‘iig lta, and this and that, we are really referring to our self. How do we perceive? We go wrong all the time here. That is our biggest mistake, that is our confusion here, seeing on the basis of the skandas, we are seeing something solid, called “I”.

I think this much I can do tonight, though it is very confusing, but good. If I had been in New York, I would have entertained some questions and answers. But in the two different areas, I will not be able to do that much. Slightly getting out a little early today. If you keep on marking the page here, I am in the middle of page 121. We will continue to read a few more lines here next Thursday. I am quite sure this will raise tremendous confusion, and questions are bound to come. I don’t know whether questions can easily be clarified or not, until we read a little further. As we said, some of you who would like to have word-by-word discussion on the computer, I hope you will begin that soon, and start kicking that out soon, then people can have a lot more discussions and thoughts.

Also, my English is so bad. I try to read it straight. Before I came here, I tried to read it once, between the Tibetan and English, I don’t even know where I am going. But I tried to read it, and I hope I did not misread it. Those of you who have the books, you will know. I think it is better to read carefully, even though we are not going to finish this year. It is better to read on the basis, otherwise it starts jumping, then it may not be able to do a very good service to you. Also, since you people show a great deal of interest, that you want to go word-by-word study, then I have to also read word by word, so that it may help you. I don’t know, anyway, we’ll see how it goes.

I don’t think I have any announcement to make tonight. I did all my announcements on Tuesday, but I did not announce the Spring retreat. I think it will be a very similar subject, not going to be complicated. Since we are not basing it on a very tough book. So, it will be easier, on the mind and its reflection, and all that. So it is going to be a little easy. At the same time, I would also like to promote, and encourage people to come in to the Summer retreat. That is because it is going to be based on Tara. Not as highest yoga tantra practice, but as a general, everyday practice, for whether you are Buddhist or not Buddhist, trying to be very open for everybody, trying to be helpful, for healing. Healing physical illness, which we know it helps. No one can guarantee that no one will die, they will all die, we all die, because we are based on the perishable aggregates. But it does help health. That we all know very well. We also know it helps the mental, and emotional health. For some people it has been very helpful, for some people not that much. It very much depends on the individual. But still it helps. And it is Tara’s time, to be able to show. So I still want to encourage you very much. But I am not discouraging you, to not come to the Spring retreat. I am sort of more emphasizing on the Summer, but you are welcome to all, and that is great.

I do hope we will be able to pick up the ara pa tza na dhih too, it will also be helpful. It is the Buddha of wisdom, that is Manjushri. That is where we are, that is what we are, that is how we are, I guess that is that. I am sorry it is a little bit too early, earlier than usual, but we started a bit early too. I think that is that.

And I’d like to say thank you so much, and also, there are also 30 to 35 people here in Ann Arbor tonight too, so thank you to everybody for coming here. Hopefully I will see all of you on Sunday. Don’t forget to bring your friends on Sunday. That is a good opportunity to bring the family. Really, because that is where they can see, and find out for themselves that you are not in a cult organization. Nothing funny going beyond this curtain here. If you go beyond the curtain there is a door. If you open the door you get outside into the alley. That is what it is. If you think there is something else upstairs, you will have an empty house up there. So, that is about it. Thank you so much everybody, we say the dedication from here.

.

04/01/2005