Archive Result

9

Wisdom teachings NYC 05 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 16: 10-06-05

Thank you, and welcome here tonight.

We are talking here about emptiness. That is because we are trying to bite something we cannot chew very well, that is why we are doing it. We are doing it is because when we are looking for enlightenment as a goal for our practice, what we hope to get out of the practice we do, our goal is enlightenment, not simply to be liberated ourselves or just be happy, more than that, our goal is total enlightenment.

When we are talking about enlightenment, the enlightened beings have physical aspects of enlightened beings and mental aspects of enlightened beings. Unlike ourselves, at the level of totally enlightened, both the physical and mental are the same frequency. I used to say the same frequency, but, in other words, whether it is frequency or not, what is happening is that both mind and body become a union, become almost a oneness. Body is mind and mind is body, yet they are separable. Each of one of those, the mental aspects of the enlightenment and physical aspects of enlightenment are the results of the positive karma we create. All our karma that is generating compassion, love, bodhimind, generosity, enthusiasm, patience, all of those, including concentration will become the body aspect of the enlightenment. But a body without mind, or a body which has no mental function is not very useful, so therefore the mind aspect of it is necessary. The mind aspects of enlightenment is the enlightened mind. Technically we may call it Dharmakaya, or what we call in English the “truth body”. Dharma is also “truth”. You can read dharma as the dharma you practice, dharma as phenomena, dharma as truth, and dharma as ultimate reality, which is truth anyway. According to the Buddha, ultimate reality is what we call emptiness. Emptiness is an ultimate reality. So therefore any efforts we put towards developing the emptiness, to understand emptiness, to make sense of what we talk about emptiness, what it is all about, and to try to practice that, all of those are to establish the truth body, or the mind aspects of the total enlightenment.

When you compare the body and mind, although it becomes oneness at that level, when you look at it separately, the most important is the mind aspects of it. Body without mind, you have a name for that. We don’t want that. We want something alive, which is the mind aspect of it. Sometimes we refer to that as “clear light”, or “emptiness like that of space”. When you say “emptiness like that of space”, there are so many ways of explaining that, some people will explain that space is very pervasive everywhere and it is the nature of all existence, and all that. They explain it that way, which is also true. But in the tradition I follow, Tsongkhapa’s tradition, they explain space as nothing blocking, “free of all blocks”. That is representing the nature of reality, emptiness, that is how they talk about “space-like” emptiness.

Whatever we say, space like pervasive nature, or block-less (which means free of something) when there is nothing there, then that becomes free of something. When we look into the emptiness, we are looking at “free of something”. To know what that is is our number one purpose for looking into that. There are number of different thoughts to introduce to you what that is. What is the essence of a being, what is the self, what is me, what is my ego, all of those boil down to one little point, what we call ta in Tibetan, or self, or “I”. Naturally, it becomes “I-lessnesss” When you talk about “I-lessness”. You know, “selflessness” is confusing to me. It might not be confusing to you. Because people may understand as selfish-less, which will go towards compassion, love, and bodhimind, etc. Here, when you say “selflessness” or “I-lessness”, the question we are raising is not the selfish point of self, but real true ego, I, self, what we cal ta in Tibetan.

The number one point to establish here is that the yogi who meditates, analyzes, and is able to refute that particular self or ego, that person should be able to see or comprehend that selflessness, I-lessness, egolessness, all of those. Before we even do that, the question arises: “what is the ego, I, self, whatever we call it?” The ancient scholars, or philosophers, or teachers, or practitioners, all combined together have a different type of definition for what that is. We have talked many times about “indivisible self”, I do not need to repeat it here.

There are four Buddhist schools in India. I am not sure whether the lowest school even accepts emptiness or not. I don’t think they really accept emptiness. Probably, emptiness is talked about by the three higher schools, although in the 18th chapter of the Abhidharmakosha they talk about a little emptiness, if I remember correctly. But other than that, at the Abhidharmakosha level I don’t think they really accept emptiness, because they don’t identify it, unless I have completely forgotten. But I don’t remember how they identify that self or ego.

Above that, the Do de pa. Do de pas normally accept some external existence. When you search within you, you don’t find it, but you find something external. It is almost like an indivisible thing, but an external thing. When you are looking inside you are going to find something external. It is very complicated, anyway. They call it a material, a substance, a particle, almost an established thing, by looking, by observing. That very particle which is almost like something indestructible will be identified as self, ego, whatever, will become an external thing.

But at this level, we are at the level where doubt and debate are coming up. Actually, the debate here is between what are called the “U ma wa” which is not necessarily the “mind-only” school, but also the...

Actually, let me put it this way: You need a little background, so there are four different schools in traditional Indian Buddhism, four different schools, which we continuously follow in the Tibetan tradition.. Two schools are considered Hinayana schools, and two others are considered Mahayana schools. The higher Hinayana school, and the lower Mahayana school are combined together, and in the Lam Rim Chenmo they are referred to as u ma wa, which means somebody who is establishing existence. Both of them come together to a certain level, although within that there are tremendous divisions. Within the “Mind Only” school there are two divisions, one follows the scriptures, and the other follows the logic. Anyway, you just have to get an idea.

The mind only school does not accept external identity as the lower one does,. It rejects it. However, it is called Mind Only because the accept that everything exists because of mind. Not that everything is mind, but because of mind. Mind itself they consider to have true existence. They do not accept the external existence. As a matter of fact, “free of external existence” is considered emptiness in this particular school. Yet mind is considered to have true existence, meaning true inherent existence, almost like permanent. I don’t think they use the word permanent, but almost like permanent. IT is the mind that previously, mind that was here, mind that will be in the future, mind is truly existent. That is why it is called “sem tsam pa”. Sem tsem pa is “only mind”.

There is a point for them, because the sem tsam pa will argue, they will say that because there is no perceiving mind therefore things do not even exist. The madyhamaka people will talk about illusions, and this and that, and the mind only person will say “what are you talking about? Where is the illusion. Who perceives the illusion? If it perceives illusion, that is wrongly perceiving and therefore it is not mind. So illusion does not even exist. That is the long argument in the Bodhisattvacharyavattara at this level. I read it last Tuesday, that is why I remember it clear. That is how the Mind Only schools think about it.

The mahdyamika people have a different way of seeing it. The difference here is that “free of external existence” is not really emptiness. That is what they say. But then there is a Tibetan tradition, which I always doubted very much, because I don’t know it myself.

There is a school and teaching tradition, they call zhan tong [gzhan stong, parasunyata]. Transcriber’s note, Please note that I am not certain that I am hearing this correctly, but it fits with the glossary in Newland’s book on The Two Truths. Zhan is “other” and tong means “free of that”, so zhan tong means “empty of others. Rang is self, and tong is “free of that”, so rang tong [rang stong, svasunyata] is empty of self, and zhan tong is empty of others. I may not be doing a good translation, but word-wise, if goes exactly that way. I don’t know well enough myself to comment what this is about to really present emptiness here. I don’t know. I studied this, tried to study this, and I asked a number of people who know this, including Lochoe Rinpoche. Lochoe Rinpoche made it so easy, he said, “yeah, zhang tong is so easy”. Zhan tong is “free of other things”, which means the bottle of water is free of microphone, and is that emptiness on the bottle of water? I am not sure. If that is the case, then it is so simple, but I don’t know. So I don’t really know about this zhan tong. In order to read and understand and study what zhan tong is all about, first I have to get myself straight on this rang tong itself. Otherwise I will not have – we have a saying in Tibetan about the lady who runs between the river, and she can neither pick up the cow dung on the other side of the river, nor can she pick up the basket over here, so you will be without anything. So I don’t want that. But also, I am thinking, maybe if that is true, and “free of external existence” is considered as emptiness, is this the same thing we are talking about, except using different terminologies? But other than that, are we in reality talking about the same thing? I don’t know. These are the questions we have to think about.

I am quite sure that people who are following the zhan tong, I am sure they have a long and sophisticated explanation of it. It has to be. Otherwise the pillar is free of a pot. You know, the pot is free of a pea. It doesn’t make emptiness on the pot or the pea. I don’t know what zhan tong really means. When you talk about “free of other existence” these thoughts pop up anyway. I should not be talking too much, I just wanted to bring us to the point, which is that when we are talking about emptiness, we are talking about emptiness. We are not talking about empty, we are talking about something. But what is that something? That is our biggest thing.

I want you to remember this. The teachings always emphasize that when we are looking for emptiness, we are not trying to negate something which is existing. We are trying to find out, to realize, that something that doesn’t exist really does not exist. Emptiness is not negating something that is there and destroying it. It is that we want to realize that something that is not there is not there. [Note for later transcripts, I believe this is referring to the “non-affirming negative”, or med dgag, prasajyapratisedha]

What is that? That is the ego. We call it the ego. I use the word ego, and it is so amazing for me today, we are having this retreat coming up tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday and half a day on Monday, the Four Mindfulnesses. Most of you will think the moment we use “mindfulness” you may be thinking about mindfulness of the body, of feelings, like the usual four mindfulnesses. No, we are not! Not all. We are talking about mindfulness of the guru, mindfulness of compassion, mindfulness of emptiness, mindfulness of deity. That is how it is. It was the teaching given by Manjushri to Tsongkhapa, which is not openly available very much. I took this teaching from

Kyapje Ling Rinpoche. maybe twice. The last teaching I took was in Tibet House. in New Delhi. Luckily they recorded it and they have transcripts available. So I found the transcripts, but I did not get to read the transcripts until today on the plane. It is a fantastic transcript. I don’t have to teach, I can just give you the transcripts and sit there and relax. It is really going to be fantastic. But also, in that very transcripts, Kyapje Ling Rinpoche used the word ego as ta. He used the word ego. I’ve never seen the word ego used anywhere beside me, and I am always thinking it is ego. In this transcript he used, in English it said ego. I don’t have the Tibetan transcript, but in English they used the word ego. This gives me a little comfort, because I have been using, without anyone else using the word ego, so suddenly it turns out that Ling Rinpoche was using ego as the particular word he used. So I am a little comforted by that. So with this comfort, we talk about what is that ego, we have given a lot of explanations here and there. We have said it is confusion combined with ignorance, and blah, blah, blah. All of those, they are all blah blahs until we can really see it by the individual, who suddenly realizes “Ah, that is what I am talking about”. Until then, whatever words we use, it is blah blah. But we have to use blah blah, because we have nothing to hold onto except the blah blah’s. So when you keep on holding onto that blah blah ... [inaudible due to a microphone problem]

[inaudible due to a microphone problem] ...indivisible. When you think about it, when you put a particle into the middle of open space, straightaway it divides the open space. The moment it divides, it becomes east and west. Directions come in, so it becomes a division. The sound has no form, it does not cut anything, but it is divided by time: past, present and future. When you think about this, you think “oh, yeah, that is really what it is”. We get that understanding. Similarly, when you talk about the ego, you have to get that kind of understanding. Until you get that understanding, everything is blah blah, but blah blah is the only thing we have to use.

Although the “recognition of object of negation” is considered most important, and yes, the object of negation is important, however, I don’t think you will see something like “hah, this is my ego.” It is not going to happen, because it is not there. What you are going to get is “wow, yeah, that is what it is talking about, yeah, that makes sense.” We are not going to get “oh, yeah, that is my ego” because it really does not exist. What we are going to find is that we are going to realize that the ego we think is there is really not there.

First, we get the message through sound. Either you read it through a book, or teachings are taught to you. Or, second, you get it by analyzing, for yourself. It is very much a mental exercise, by analyzing. You are going to recognize the ego-lessness by analyzing, not by concentrated meditation. Once you recognize that, realize that, then you focus on the essence of what you are getting, with concentrated meditation. That is the beginning of meditation on emptiness for ourselves, which gradually improves over a long time. It becomes stronger and better, and starts to cut the other opponents of it. I think that is how it develops. That is why during the teachings we say if you search for zero you are going to find zero. That is why we say you are going to find emptiness through interdependentness. You have heard all of those a number times, you have read a number of times, you really did, a number of times. That is what is really meant, at the end of all the words you have heard.

The wisdom is such a thing that a number of us don’t really want to go into much detail [about it]. We don’t want to. We just want something simple for me to do. Rather than finding out what the five skandas are, what I am made out of, what my elements are, what I have to do with elements, what my colors are, what do I have to do with my colors? We almost say we don’t want to. It is true, in a way. But when you are talking about wisdom, and you are talking about analyzing, you need to have them done. That is why we put this at the end of everything. Not only I or we, but even the teaching traditions, when you look at the lhag thong [lhag mthong, vipasyana], the special seeing, comes at the end of everything else. If you start reading the book backwards, then you are going to read the lhag thong first. It is the last one.

These are the reasons why. There are some kinds of analyzing, some kinds of understanding of different schools’ presentation of their ideas of ego, and their refutation of that by using true logical means of analyzing. In between that, a lot of thoughts and doubts will appear. Anyway, that is what we have been doing. If we look here in the Lam Rim Chenmo text, if I remember correctly, we really never went beyond Chandrakirti’s words

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.

That is probably the key to what wisdom is. They refute the self. Here they do not even talk about selflessness. Selflessness is a terminology we made up. They say they refute the self. So what self are they talking about? In Tibetan they say dag med. Dag [bdag, atman] is self, and med is no, so “no self”

I think I would like to read here. We are on page 12o. Chandrakirti’s Clear Words also says: “Yogis who wish to enter reality and wish to eliminate all faults and afflictions and faults examine the question....” Actually, this is the self commentary by Chandrakirti for his own words (quote above: “In their mind yogis...”) The commentary on that little verse is by Chandrakirti himself. If we do not have have any questions about Chandrakirit’s comments, then I think we can jump, because the meaning is exactly the same. So, unless you want me to go over an explain that, probably you don’t need me to.

[Audience] It depends on where you are going to jump to.

[Rimpoche] I am not going to jump far, I am only going to jump past the commentary.

The next section talks about the eighteenth chapter of Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise. I dont’t think we need much explanation, because it is quite clear. Right? No?

[Audience] What is the topic of the eighteenth chapter?

Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakaavattara, especially the 6th chapter is talking about the 18th chapter of Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way. Self and entity is Nagarjuna’s eighteenth chapter, and Chandrakirti’s 6th chapter of the Madhyamakaavattara.

If you read this, somewhere it will say that this is not for the philosophers to think about in a philosophical way, but for practitioners to meditate. Therefore, if you want to know the details, read the 6th and eighteenth chapter. Here I am going to focus more on teh practical practitioner’s practice point of view. This is supposed to be a meditator’s meditation practice manual rather than a philosopher’s debate and argument point. But when you look at it becomes very big.

That raises the question (page 121) “Are you not teaching how to entire the reality of the Mahayana?” They are talking about selflessness, I-lessness. Why I-lessness? Why selflessness? Because, exactly as Chandrakirti’s words say: All the faults and delusions are coming from the jig ta, or the reifying view of the perishing aggregates. They are coming from that ego. When you look at the ego and ask “what does that do?” What do it think about it? What is ego focused on? What does ego want to do?” Suddenly you see the ego is focused on nothing, but ego thinks “what is me?” Ego doesn’t see ego as ego. Ego does not see ego as ego because mind doesn’t see mind itself. The example is that no matter how sharp the sword may be, the sword does not cut the sword itself. Light doesn’t light itself. These are the examples given by Buddha. The ego doesn’t see ego. The ego sees something which it thinks is me and has to be protected. When they look at it they see the perishable aggregates. Perishable means you cannot hold it, it is going to go. You can’t hold it, like a perishable vegetable it is going to go yellow and mushy. Therefore something that has a nature of being perishable, something that has a nature of being descructible is considered to be me, as a focal point. That is why it is called the jig ta.

So, when the yogi starts thinking “what does this jig ta do? What is it focused on?” Then you begin to see “Ah it is focused on me, on self”. Though the ego thinks the aggregates are the self, it is focused on self. What wisdom is trying to prove to the ego or to me, to the mind, is that there is no self. That is why the dag med comes in: no self. No matter what you think, there is no self. Of course that is the difference between Nagarjuna and Chankaccarya [sp?] Self is called “atman” in Sanskrit. That is the difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Is there atman or no atman? We are neither going to say that Nagarjuna is wrong, nor say that Chankaccarya is wrong. That is why the greate Tiebtan tradition is such that they will say “In this system, this is what it is, that is how the tradition has carried on for over a thousand years. That is how it explains these things. “According to this system...”. But somewhere behind that, they will say “Nagarjuna’s viewpoint is right”. But here, when you are talking about it, you don’t talk about it that way. You say: “according to Nagarjuna’s view, interpreted by Buddhapalita it is this way, interpreted by Bhavaviveka it is this way, according to Buddhapalita it is this way. That is how we say it. We will explain certain teaching traditions, but we follow Buddhapalita’s system, because it is right. We have already explained that one at the beginning here.

You are talking about selflessness, lack of self existence. This question in the text is a very funny sort of side question. Aren’t we talking about a Mahayana teaching here? Can just talking about selflessness achieve total enlightenment. That is the bottom line of this question. Can talking about selflessness achieve total enlightenment. If you cannot achieve total enlightenment, aren’t we Mahayana people? Aren’t we talking about Mahayana? What is the goal you hope to achieve? Is it just liberation or total liberation? That is the question.

So it becomes the question of what you hope to get or obtain as emptiness. Do you have emptiness on other than self. That is what the bottom line is: other than self. This goes on to say that you should read the details in Chandrakirti’s text because here I am talking about practitioners. From the point of view of a practical basic minimum practice, you must have two emptinesses. One emptiness of self, the other emptiness of other than self. Emptiness of phenomena: the pillar, the house, the cushion, the microphone, the bottle, the clock and watch, the shoes, emptiness on all of those, and emptiness on self. So this questioner was thinking, in his mind, when you have emptiness on other than self, then you are going to get total enlightenment. Until you have that you are not going to get total enlightenment. Half true. Without emptiness on other than self you cannot become enlightened, because the key to enlightenment is wisdom.

There is a word in Chandrakirti’s Madyhamakaavattara. I don’t remember the first words, I remember the last words. The first words give the reasons. The last one says chödak khasa yelwey namye tsol sp?? Anyway, the Buddha himself has presented emptiness in two categories: emptiness on self and emptiness on others. Others are like phenomena, tables, shoes, and all that. Without emptiness on tables and shoes and others, emptiness on me. This is easiest way, emptiness on me and my. This guy was thinking that when you are talking about selflessness, you are only talking about the individual self. You are therefore going top get one emptiness, but not the other one. So this would not be a Mahayana teaching, because it will not deliver Buddhahood, therefore it is not right to be part of a Mahayana teaching. That is the bottom line argument. Although when you read it, it sounds different, but that is the bottom line argument.

The reply talks about this in two ways. Yes, this emptiness will cut all delusions and negativities, not only cut it, but cut it so it will not grow again at all. However, there are two levels of producing that. One level produces cutting the negativities and negative emotions to completely not grow back, yet the imprint of it is not cleared. When the imprint is not cleared, you become an ordinary arhat, which is available even at the Hinayana level. The Mahayana level of the fifth path (no more learning) is only when you clear the imprints of those delusions. An imprint here is not like a seed. If it is a seed, then when the conditions are right it can grow. It is not like a seed, because no matter what the conditions may be it will come to the point where it can not grow again. It is badly beaten up by the meditation on emptiness. Therefore it cannot grow again, at all. Yet the imprint is still left. Therefore, the example given for the imprint is the garlic smell. When you use a cutting board to cut garlic, when you remove the garlic, the garlic is gone but the smell of the garlic will still remain unless you wash the cutting board properly with the right detergent.

Even though the garlic smell is left there, no matter whatever conditions are right, the garlic cannot become garlic, because the garlic is gone. Yet the smell is still there, and it will bother the people. you don’t have the good taste of garlic, but the smell is going to be there. You don’t have the kicks of the samsaric delusions, but the imprints of the effects are still there. That is how, when they talk about the two blocks, nyon mongs pa’i grib pa, zhi jey grib pa [sp??]. The delusion oriented block means “real like garlic” and zhi jey grib pa, the imprint is the smell. So, when you get totally free of garlic smell (Don’t take me literally, someone might say “He said to get enlightened you have to get the garlic smell out”. you know I don’t mean that. I won’t be surprised if I hear that back, really. Not particularly people hear, but there are people listening on line. I don’t want that misunderstanding).

The total eradication of ego and ego’s effects. I think that is the reply, am I right or wrong? That should have been the reply. Then it continues here, and that is how it is refuted. This particular school’s presentation of the two emptinesses differs from the lower schools’ presentation of emptiness. It is a little complicated, and we are in the habit of saying “it is in the scripture so it is right”. I am going to have to say; “it is in the scripture, therefore it is wrong”. Yeah, because that is how it works, and that is how Buddha encourages us to work it out through our own mind, through our own way, to get it, rather than rely on the scriptures. Even when I said earlier that the Mind Only school is divided into two categories, one is the “scripture follower”, the other is the “logic follower”. Which is considered higher and better? The logic people, not the scripture people. These are a lot of reasons.

I don’t want to jump, but I am not going to get there. What I wanted you to emphasize is another quote of Nagarjuna’s. It is a little way down there. That is what I wanted you to be able to take home. It is on page 122. “As long as you conceive of the aggregates, you will conceive of them as ‘I’.” This is the bottom line.

So when you are talking about the recognition of emptiness, you are really talking about going beyond the aggregates. That is what all of these Gate Gate Paragate, going beyond and beyond are all about. As long as you see the aggregates as truly existing, then you are still holding on to I and ego. As long as you have that holding onto the aggregates, then you have “I”, which means ego. And as long as you have that, yours samsara continues. That is Nagarjuna’s bottom line here, at this level. There will be a lot of bottom lines, but at this level, that is what it is. So if a person thinks “do I understand emptiness? Am I in the middle of the emptiness?, the question arises “how do you perceive your aggregates?” Do you perceive your aggregates as truly existing? Then clearly you are not there. If you make up your mind, by suggestion, saying “I don’t exist”, that is a wrong statement, because you do exist, right?

Form is empty, emptiness is form. That is the idea behind that.

Anyway, I am looking forward to talking here continuously for three days, twice. Because you may be able to bite something, and try to chew something. Because one talk comes, then something happens, then we are not getting anywhere. That is what it is, so I’d better cut it out here, I know you have a lot of questions, but you do a lot of good study on line. So this is a very good thing what comes up, the questions are great and comments are very good, and so let’s hope we get something from there.

We do have more days twice in November twice, and that will probably seven or eight hours solid. I am looking forward to being able to do something more then.

OK, thank you.

10/06/2005

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved