Archive Result

9

Wisdom teachings NYC 06 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 19: 11-03-05

Before we read and talk, I have to tell you that I have looked through the texts carefully about the wisdom aspect of it: the wisdom teaching here in the Lam Rim Chenmo, and in Ann Arbor, the ninth chapter of the Shantideva text. As you have already seen, both of them are very hard. Those of you who are coming for the next couple of days, please look into pages 125, 126, 127 of the Lam Rim Chenmo. Read about ten or fifteen pages and see how it goes.

The English and the Tibetan texts are working slightly differently. In the Tibetan it just says the second actual presentation about emptiness has three outlines. It is very simple. But in the English it has quite a number of lists here. I don’t know how that works, there is (b”) and (1”) and (a)), (b)), etc.. Anyway you know how that works better than I do. So I am going to read it as I know it. Probably what is (b”) in English must be what is the second point in the Tibetan. Now it is actually talking about the emptiness. Basically you have to look at three outlines.

Number one here is quite interesting. The section on the actual determination of reality, determining the view of the reality, has three parts. Those are the three outlines I am talking about. First is identifying the object to be negated by reason. (And then within brackets it says Chapters 10 to 17; these references to chapters are referring to the chapters in this English translation of the Lam Rim Chenmo.) In the Tibetan they don’t talk about it, it says only three. The first one is about the reasons why we have to properly identify the object of negation. That is what I am reading in Tibetan. Here it says “identifying the object to be negated by reason.” The second point is about one who did not properly recognize the object of negation. And they are going to show how that person has a faulty position. The third is about your own way of recognizing the object of negation. These are the three,

The way it works in this system it is quite simple. They always tell you what is necessary. Then they will put up all the things that are wrong with other people’s views and they will debate against that and finally present your own understanding, whatever it is. That is the basic structure of how it works.

First, why do you need to identify the object to be negated? Why is it necessary? Why you have to actually identify it? It is very simple. It goes on to say that if you want to say “Mr. X is not here”, in order to gain an understanding of “Mr. X is not here” you have to know who Mr. X is. It’s very simple. You say “Mr. X is not here”. When you want to convince yourself that Mr. X is not here, you have to know who Mr. X really is. If you don’t know who Mr. X is, then you have go and ask: “are you Mr. X?” - “are you Mr. X?” - “are you Mr. X?”. You will have to ask each and every one of them. You go on asking, and they will say no, no, no, no. If you ask a hundred of them, you may have to ask a hundred times, and it is very difficult to understand that Mr. X is not there. Therefore you at least have to understand who Mr. X is. Who Mr. X is, is also different here.

Let me read that little bit of English here if I can read it. I don’t think I can read it very well. Oh yeah. According to the English (Lam Rim Chenmo), there are three parts to identifying the object to be negated by reason.

1. Why the object of negation must be carefully identified.

2. Refuting the other systems that refute without identifying the object to be negated (Chapters 10-16).

3. How our system identifies the object of negation (Chapter 17) p 126

The object of negation must be carefully identified. “In order to be sure that the certain person is not present, you must know the absent person.” p 126 That is what I am talking about with Mr. X. But the question is that you must know in order to know Mr. X is not there, you must know Mr. X. But do you have to know Mr. X personally? Perhaps not.

At least you have to have an understanding of Mr. X. Even if you don’t know Mr. X, you have to know that Mr. X is a male. At least you have to know that Mr. X is a man, or has short hair, is about 5 feet tall and weighs this much. You have to get that sort of understanding. We have three types of that sort of this understanding.

I might as well talk about the three types of understanding tonight. The first kind of understanding is what we call dag ghi “following the sound and description” [??bdag gzhis; labeling basis*] You have heard about it. You heard the sound of someone talking about it. You have an understanding that follows from hearing about it. Not from the sound of “Mr. X” but through the words of one who is describing Mr. X. So you get a picture of Mr. X that follows from the description. It means a general understanding that follows from sound. Normally it can be written descriptions, but we don’t talk about it that way. We say “somebody told you”. Even if it is a written explanation, the understanding that follows from that is the lowest level of understanding, it is called dag ghi. The second level is better than simply description. You have seen it. You may have not met the person, you don’t know the person but you seen it, but you have an understanding of it, you have a picture of it. You have a picture that follows from actual knowledge, not necessarily followed from a description. Either you have seen it or you identified it before or have something like a picture that links up to knowledge of seeing or really understanding. The third category of knowing is direct knowledge. You have been introduced. You have been told this is Mr. X. You identified it, and the identification is confirmed to be true. This is another additional thing that is not very much commonly used. In order for it to be reliable understanding, not only do you identify it, the identification has to be confirmed to be true. Then it is called reliable understanding.

So, there are three levels of understanding: the level that followed from description, the level that followed actual knowing knowledge, and finally there is reliable. Reliable means sed ma [tshad ma; true, proven, genuine; ideal, validity, valid cognition; authentic (standard)/ standard of authenticity; valid cognizer [when related to cognition]...*]. In Tibetan it is called sed ma, which means absolutely reliable, which means one doesn’t cheat, one doesn’t let it down, one can never fall down, and that is the reliable level. So one has to have three levels of understanding. So in order to find that Mr. X is not in the room, you have to have one understanding of Mr. X in order to confirm that. The best is the absolute reliable knowledge confirming that Mr. X is not there. Second is confirming the understanding of whatever Mr. X is, confirming that Mr. X is not here on that basis. The third is that I find no one that fits the description of Mr. X in here, so I presume he is not here. That is sort of three categories of good or mediocre types of understandings. So that is why I say “do you really have to know Mr. X. Maybe not, but you have to have a basis on which you say that this person is not here. That is what I believe. If I keep on reading English, I’ll lose my Tibetan. If I lose my Tibetan then I’ll lose my foundation, and in English I don’t understand. In order to understand this English I have to look back in the Tibetan.

So what is this thing? We are saying self-less, eye-less, my-lessness. You don’t say “my-lessness”, that is broken English please, forgive me. But when you say this, before you say [dag me] “I am not”, whether you say “I am not”, “I am not there”, “I don’t exist”, or “intrinsically I don’t exist”, whatever you say you have to know what you are talking about. Whatever you say, you have to know what you are talking about. It is definitely important to recognize what you are talking about. But if you have no idea what you are talking about, and you try to negate it, you can negate anything. Even if you negate something, you are going to be completely wrongly negating it . So, for this reason, the text says

Likewise, in order to be certain of the meaning of “selflessness” or “the lack of intrinsic existence,” you must carefully identify the self, or intrinsic nature, that does not exist. For if you do not have a clear concept of the object to be negated, you will also not have accurate knowledge of it’s negation. p 126

That is quite simple. But Tsongkhapa does not leave it at simple. Tosngkhapa goes beyond. He asks “why?” Because in the Bodhisattvacharyavattara Shantideva says:

Without contacting the entity that is imputed

You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. p. 126 of the Lam Rim Chenmo

I am not sure whether this translation really corresponds to the other Bodhisattvacharyavattara translations. Probably not. I don’t think anybody is carrying Stephen Batchelor’s Bodhisattvacharyavattara translation, but it is interesting to look at whether the English comes out the same way, or perhaps, it comes out completely different. That happens very often with the different translations. One has to look at it quite carefully.

I don’t think we have to talk about Mr. X being not here. When they say, if you don’t have the understanding of what you are going to negate, then the actual negation will not be accurate. It says “in order to be certain of the meaning of “selflessness” or “the lack of intrinsic existence,” you must carefully identify the self, or intrinsic nature, that does not exist. For if you do not have a clear concept of the object to be negated, you will also not have accurate knowledge of its negation.” p. 126 I have to talk to you a little bit more here about the accurate knowledge. The accurate knowledge of emptiness is not just a correction of wrong knowing. What do you negate? You don’t negate something that exists. Whatever you are negating, you are negating something that is not there.

I think is a language problem here, at least for me. What do we normally say? We normally say that emptiness is accurate knowledge of negation. That accurate knowledge is not something wrong corrected. But again it doesn’t work very well. It works perfectly in Tibetan, it says emptiness is not ma yin gag [ma yin dgag; affirming negative]. It is med gag [med dgag; non-affirming negative], which means something that is not there. What is negated which is something that has not ever existed. Did you get it? When I say in Tibetan, I get an understanding of what I say. When I try to say it in the English I don’t get it. I know what I am trying to say, however even myself, I don’t get it in English. In other words emptiness is established to the people not by negating something wrong. Instead of that, what is negated is something that we perceive to be reality, yet which is not there at all.

It is not just a wrong object of negation that is corrected. It is that we somehow confirm that something that does not really exist is not there. So what you need to understand when you use the word “accurate” here, the translation of the label “accurate” is that emptiness is not a correction but what is negated is something that never existed,

yet we thought it existed. The understanding that follows from negating something which never existed (yet we thought it existed) has to be emptiness

In other emptiness is not “I was wrong, I am sorry, I thought that, it is going to be that other one”. That is not the point. The point is what you are negating is something that never existed. So this is a hard one. In Tibetan it is easy, you just say med gag, which means what you negated is something that is not there. By saying that one word you understand. I think that is the culture, and the language. That culture and language somehow are both not easy to put in English. I am putting time here and the efforts here try to say this because this becomes the fundamental difference. If it is wrong, correct it. If it is wrongly perception-corrected emptiness, then it can be shan dong [gzhang stong; empty of other] empty of something else. When it has to be rang dong [rang stong; empty of self], the self empty, that point will link to this level. That is why I am trying to put effort in here, and that is the difference of the shan dong and rang dong. We will rely on this.

Shan dong is so simple, if what I understand is correct, or what I have heard is correct. The pillar being free of the table is shan dong and the pillar being free of the pillar itself is rang dong. So if something is not something else, and if that is corrected, then the pillar being free of table becomes the emptiness of pillar. But if something [e.g. a pillar] never existed though we perceive it to have the solid intrinsic existence of the pillar, and the pillar is free of a solid intrinsic existence, that becomes the pillar’s rang dong. So that is why we have to have accurate knowledge here to deal with this. It is absolute, reliable knowledge of knowing that something which never existed is not there. The knowledge that it is free of that existence has to be accurate knowledge of emptiness. It is not “free of wrong knowledge”. Again, in the English, that is wrong knowledge, so when you correct that it becomes wrong knowledge. Anyway, the translators here just use the word “accurate”, and other than that, they didn’t identify anything more here.

So, now, Tsongkhapa said, not only have I presented, but Shantideva has said

Without contacting the entity that is imputed

You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. p 126

Imputed. Imputed means tag yod. We talked about that the other day, it means something which you have put a label on. What do you call it here, “entity that is imputed”, meaning here the wrongly knowing thinking that true existence is being labeled here. What has been labeled here? The label of intrinsic existence. True existence has been labeled. Ma rig pas. If you don’t get labeled true existence in your mind, or if that doesn’t touch you, then the mind that knows what does not truly exist can not go with you. You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. If you don’t clearly get the entity that is labeled as true existence, how can you get that it does not exist. That is what Shantideva’s two lines try to show here. In order to understand that, you have to get it.

There is a limitless diversity among the objects of the negation, but they come together, at the root; p 126

Ok, what root? Now, actually, we are getting to point two, the actual negation you have to do. Basically there are two objects of negation. Gross and subtle. Or the self and other than self. Things that exist, actually “me and my”. So we always say that there are two types of emptiness: emptiness on self, and emptiness on other than self. These are the true. As Tsongkhapa has said in the Lam Rim Chenmo there are many but when you refute these you will refute all objects of negation. All objects of negation, at the root are almost like the two, we have to understand that.

Now it comes to the third point:

Moreover, if you leave some remainder, failing to refute the deepest and most subtle core of the object of negation, then you will fall to an extreme of true existence. p 126

When you have to negate, again, this is Madhyamika, middle path, central path so therefore free of the two extremes. So if your object of negation is too strong, you will lose everything, you will lose the fundamental basis of the functioning “I” as a human being, “I” as person. And the fundamental basis of I is the basis on which my karma works. You may even negate all of them, you may negate karmic functioning, karma and all of those. That is too extremely nihilistic. And if you negate too little, then you may still leave that ego, some parts and parcels, intact. If you still leave that, you will not be able to be liberated. That is why negation not only has to be clear to the individual practitioners but it has to be right. Sort of the right measurement, free of the two extremes. This is what this whole thing is about.

If you just read it you can see it.

...extreme of true existence. You will cling to the idea of real things, whereby you will not be able to escape cyclic existence. If you fail to limit the object of the negation and overextend your refutation then you will lose confidence in the causal progressions of dependent-arising, thereby falling to a nihilistic extreme. This nihilistic view will lead you to rebirth in a miserable realm. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the object of negation carefully, for if it is not identified, you will certainly develop either a nihilistic view, or an eternalistic view. p 126

So that is the first reason for why the object of negation is extremely important. If you negate too much you have one problem and if you negate too little you have the problem.

The second point is almost the same thing: “Refuting other systems, that refute without identifying object to be negated” (p 126) has two parts:

Refuting an overly broad identification of the object to be negated (Chapters 10-15)

Refuting an overly restricted identification of the object to be negated (Chapter 16) p 126

So let’s read this, it is not too late. This is a very tough subject, so if we do it on Thursdays, it will be very difficult, but we’ll do it with the smaller group, with whoever comes in tomorrow and Saturday and next week. Similarly, next Thursday I will try to sum up whatever we did this year. When I tried to sum up in Ann Arbor last Tuesday, there was actually nothing to sum up, because we didn’t do anything. We couldn’t find anything here. I concluded we are not getting to the emptiness, but we know where emptiness is living. So we saw this house, but we are not near the door or ringing the bell or banging the door, we are throwing stones at the door. That is what it is so really, I can’t sum it up more than that. But when we are done this we won’t be there, we will be inside this room. But it’s really hard to get through.

So the second point is the same thing we just talked about briefly now. If it is too extreme, this is what is going to happen. Now they are going to present the view of the others. To understand this, you really have to refer to Nagarjuna’s root text. [Rimpoche recites a quote in Tibetan]. After the first phrase it says “it is neither borne out of me nor born out of others, nor it is born out of me and others, or nor it is born without any cause.” So it is like four corners or four points: either it is out of me or out of others, or both, or none. That is exactly the four points they are talking about here.

One of those views here is that every phenomenon has to be totally part of either of these, if it exists. Any phenomenon if it exist, it has to exist with me, with other, with both, or none. So they say, if it exists it should be able to be found by a perfect mind, a mind that looks into absolutes. The perfect mind that looks into absolutes should be able to find it.

It is examinable by a perfect mind. If a perfect mind cannot examine it and it cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the perfect mind, it is a clear sign of not existing. These are the different views, people are saying. What does that mean? That means that if a perfect mind can look and find it and scrutinize that and find something, that is called “perfect mind examinable”, it can stand up to the scrutiny of the perfect mind. When it cannot, it can not. So they look at this as a sign of existence, or sign of non-existence. If it exists, some perfect mind should be able to find it. If some perfect mind cannot find it, that is a clear sign that it is not existing.

Do you remember when his holiness came here to this theater? When he was talking, he was showing Jambyang Shepa’s [sp??] ideas like all the stones together, there is no cementing at all. Remember that, it is very hard, that is what this is all about. It all goes like this. That’s one point, you just have to remember that. So, they say every phenomenon, from form to enlightenment - this is a Buddhist terminology - as a lower grows as form, to a subtle difficulty as enlightenment. To say from form to enlightenment is almost like what you say in American culture, from hell to heaven or from heaven to hell.

So, everything, every existence, is the object of negation of an absolute mind. If not, if not a negation, if not the object of negation by absolute mind, then it should exist. If it exists, it should either exist with me, with others, together, or nothing. So neither of those. In addition to that, the mind of the total enlightenment, is not a total enlightenment mind. Though he used the word total enlightenment, this guy is not referring to total enlightenment, he is referring to the first direct-perceiving emptiness mind, the mind of those Aryas, the special people on the third path, the “path of the seeing”. He is talking about that “path of seeing” mind should be able to see it but they don’t see it. Therefore it doesn’t exist, so they don’t see it. Naturally, in the real perfect view of the meditative perfect absolute absorption view of the path of the seeing, nothing exists, except emptiness itself, and that is what’s called non-dualistic, absolute absorption. The mind at that directly-involved meditative level sees nothing else but emptiness. It is not what we hear called the meditative equipoise during the nine stages, we are not talking about that, it has gone beyond that level. That absolutely absorbed mind that encounters the emptiness directly sees nothing but emptiness. Within that mind’s view , in the view of that mind, in the perception of that mind, nothing else exists except emptiness. If something exists other than emptiness, it becomes dualistic. This why as you call it absolute absorption, or why you call it “special person’s meditative absorption” because it doesn’t see anything else. The word in Tibetan is pag pey nyam sha ye sey [phags pa'i mnyam bzhag ye she; holy equanimity intuition, the wisdom of the composure of a noble being*]. Phags pa is special, nyam sha is meditative, ye she is wisdom, the meditative wisdom of a special mind. At that level, nothing, non-dual. Non-dual here is different than non-dual at the enlightenment level. Non-dual here at this level means they see no other than emptiness. Dual means two, and since here they don’t have a second view, that is why it is non-dual. At the enlightened level they do have both together, both combined together, so non-dual again. So they are different. That is the difference between from ordinary and enlightened.

That is a contradiction point, because the meaning of existence is that a reliable mind can perceive it. The definition of existence means a reliable mind can perceive it. So, this guy will say from form to enlightenment nothing is existing because a reliable mind of that special meditative mind cannot perceive that. If they perceive this, then that is not absorption, and blah blah blah. That is the first blah blah blah. You are refuting the other’s view, so you have to know what they are talking about. The second point they raise is that if it existing, is it really perceived by a reliable mind? Reliable means a mind that will never cheat, a mind that will never let you down, a mind that is absolutely reliable. You can rely on it. If you go beyond that there are logical points, such as “how does that qualify?” But forget about it. So, if they exist, that a reliable mind should know it. If that reliable mind knows it, then that reliable mind has a dualistic view. And then you may say, that particular mind may not know it, but the other mind such as eye consciousness, and so forth will know it. Then this one says you can’t say that because eye consciousness and eye perception are said to be unreliable by Buddha. So they all call on that.

Basically I think that should be enough to get to that point. Now if you read it, see whether you can’t understand it better.

Most of those who today claim to teach the meaning of the madhyamaka say that all phenomena ranging from forms through omniscient consciousness are refuted by rational analysis of whether production and such exist as their won reality. For when reason analyzes anything that is put forward, there is not even a particle that can withstand analysis. Also, all four possible ways that something could be produced– also, all four possible ways...p 127

self, other, common, none, that is four from Nagarjuna’s word in the root text. Not from self, not from the other, not from both and not from causeless.

When we assert that production and such do exist, these persons ask, “Are these capable of withstanding rational analysis of their reality? If so, then there would be things that can withstand rational analysis, and thus there would be truly existent things. If not, then how is it possible for something that has been rationally refuted to exist? p 127

Remember, the meaning of existence means a reliable mind can establish it.

Similarly, when we hold that production and such exist, these persons ask, “Does valid cognition establish them?” [581] If we claim that it does, they reply that since the sublime wisdom perceiving reality perceives production as non-existent, it is impossible for that wisdom to establish production. Further, if we argue that production is established by conventional visual consciousness and such, they reply that it is impossible for such conventional consciousness to be valid cognitions that establish production, because scriptural sources refute the claim that those conventional consciousness are valid consciousnesses. The King of Concentrations Sutra says: . p 127

The eye, ear and nose consciousnesses are not valid cognitions... p. 127

This is how they refute. You give your one reason and you give you rone quotation, and say “Now what are you going to do, who are you going to buy? Your view or the Buddha’s view? That is how it is.

...The tongue, body and mental consciousnesses are also not valid cognitions.

If these sensory consciousnesses were valid cognitions,

Of what use to anyone would the noble being’s path be? p. 128

It is saying “what would be the use of the path”. I had better read in Tibetan, otherwise I get completely lost.

If the valid cognition can really produce and can really synchronize and if something can be shown, then it becomes existent. If the valid cognition cannot show it, then it does not become existent. Not only is there Buddha’s word, even Chandrakirti also said that the normal samsaric things we see are not reliable. Yet if you would say that something is not established by valid cognition, yet it is still existing, neither you accept nor can I accept such a thing, so that has to be wrong.

If you accept that this is something that exists yet does not absolutely exist, if you don’t accept it absolutely, then you also cannot accept it relatively, because Chandrakirti said that “When the valid cognition cannot really see it, self or others, then that valid cognition cannot even see it relatively. So when you say it is growing, what kind of growing, what kind of existence are you talking about?

The argument which shows that production from self and from other

Are untenable in the context of ultimate reality

Also shows that production is untenable even conventionally.

As this is so, what argument will demonstrate the production you believe in? . p 128

In conclusion, if phenomena are existing, then, for this person’s view, it has to be existing from its own nature. In this person’s view, if you do not exist naturally, then you cannot exist. Such a way of saying it is from the Svatantrika’s view. That is how it is presented here. Tomorrow we can refute that view. It is going to get a little bit easier once you get the refutations of the different views. The views are not clear, we see a lot of different views, so we get confused about that. When it comes to the actual presentation it will be easier.

Basically, what we have covered today is finding the object of negation. That object of negation is something that is not existing but we think and perceive that it is existing. That has to be negated within our mind, because what we negate is not going to be negated in the open air, but within our mind. Negation here really comes to actually convincing the individual “O.K. I cannot find it here.” That is negation. When you say “I cannot find it”, it is not there. Out of the “It is not there” comes the emptiness. So emptiness is not something you can search for. Instead, you keep on negating what you think is. That is why emptiness is interdependentness and interdependentness is emptiness. That is how it is, because emptiness really does not mean empty at all. That is why the negations are important. You keep on negating, negating and finally you are not going to find it. Then you have to accept – realize – it is not there. Even in our courts of law, if you cannot produce, then you go. It is exactly the same way. When the reliable cognition, the reliable mind cannot find it, that is clear sign that it does not exist. And who are you searching for? Self, “I”, the ego.

*This Tibetan transliteration and definition was found in the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved