Archive Result

10

Wisdom teachings NYC 07 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 20: 11-04-05

Maybe it will be helpful to briefly look through once again what we did yesterday. It will be better if I don’t try to look into the English. One of you should help me to look at the English and try to see where we are. Oh, you have one, a Tibetan edition, that is very nice. Is that Chinese edition? If you are looking at the Beijing edition, you should be on page 579. I think the translation of the English goes with this, because the numbers come in the middle of the English translation, you find some 580s there, that is corresponding with this. What is the English page number now? Page 125.

When you are looking at the actual establishment of the emptiness, it has been divided into three. The first one is that it is necessary to be able to recognize the object of negation. I am going to paraphrase, because I am not going to be going exactly, but when you are looking at it you will know. The second point is about which system to use. The system of either the – in Tibetan they say tal go pa la ta rang ka be che pa. The tal stands for tal guyr wa, which is the Prasangika, and rang stands for rang gyu pa, which is Svatantrika. So, ta rang ka be che pa. Which one really refutes the object of negation, that is the second point.

After negating, how to establish the actual understanding of the – the word they use in Tibetan they use is ta wa [lta ba*] – do they say view? In this book they call it “philosophical view”. But what they are really talking about is the ta wa. I think they call it “view” because the word ta wa really goes into how do you perceive it, what you perceive, what do really see thereafter. That is why they call it “view”, probably they call it “philosophical view” because it is part of a philosophy. So they call it “philosophical view”. After you negate the object of negation, then what can you perceive? What can you see? What can you get? That is the reason you call it a view.

Another way to paraphrase this is to say: “How does one develop the understanding of true emptiness, or the wisdom, within an individual? It develops. It comes in after, by negating the object of negation, by using the right point, whether the point of the tal gyur wa or the rang gyu pa, which ever is the right one. By using the right one, which one do you get, what do you get? It is sort of linked up. First it is necessary to know the object of negation. Second, which logical reasons, and which reasons are better at negating it completely. And third, after negating what do you really see? What is left out, what is there now. That is how this outline works. Truly, they are sort of linked to each other.

The first point, the recognition of the object of negation, also has three. First, if you do not recognize it properly, then you will not know how to negate, what to negate. Therefore it is necessary to recognize. The first one is the reasons for why you need to recognize the object of negation. Otherwise you will not be able to refute it. It simply gives you the example of “so or so is not there”, and you have to have an idea of what you are looking for. In order to begin that example, and that logical reason, they quote from Shantideva. That is the first point. I explained that last night, so we do not need to repeat it today, unless you have questions. I am sure you will have a lot of questions.

The second point they are trying to establish is that there may be so many different objects of negation, or qualities, or all sorts of things, but it is easier to make it simple, which is probably something like two points, subtle or gross, or the object of negation on phenomena or object of negation on self. So if you sort of make it two, then it is easy to handle. That is the second point. Point number one is that we need to have recognition. Point number two is that yes there are a lot of them, but it is easier to call it either gross or settle, or you may call it object of negation on phenomena or on self. So let us settle on two points rather than worrying about so many things.

The third point is that if you do not cover the subtle point of negation is not cover then you will have left out something. If you have left out something, then there is a possibility that you will fall into an existentialistic point of view or a materialistic point of view. If you do so, you will never be able to liberate yourself from samsara. The point here about why we are struggling so much for this wisdom, is that it is the only path that liberates the individual from samsara. Though everybody would like to have the emptiness right from the beginning, and put it on the tray and say “here is the emptiness”, now you begin to appreciate how complicated it is. How difficult it is to be able to really get some idea of what it is all about. That is the reason why for years we have not talked about it. At the most we gave you a gist of it here and there, but mostly we did not talk about emptiness. That is the reason, and now you begin to appreciate it. If the object of negation is too gross, or if you have left something that should be negated, if the slightest thing is left there, then the possibility is that you will fall into the existentialistic position, philosophically speaking, otherwise you will become a materialist. Why? It is very simple here. If you read the Lam Rim Chenmo at this part, it says mngon par zhen pa gye pey... Mnong par refers to material**. Mngon par zhen pa refers to attachment, so you have the desire and attachment to the materialistic. If that happens, as the result of that attachment, one does not get liberated from samsara. I don’t know whether that translation gives that clearly or not.

[Audience] They call it cyclic existence, and then they call it “real things” when they talk about materialist.

[Rimpoche] The real thing is an objectionable translation. The “real thing” is not the object of negation. The real thing is OK. But the materialistic point brings the attachment. You remember, we normally say the attachment is the glue to samsara. If you boil them down, the reasons will come here. The attachment is unlike anger and hatred. Anger and hatred are so simple to see as a negative. Everybody knows it is not good. There is no problem; almost everybody accepts that. Only very few people will say if you do not have hatred you are a wimp or something. Or the Tibetans say, “if you do not have hatred, then you do not know what good and bad is, or you have no balls.” They say it, “you have no balls”, meaning you are not a man. It doesn’t mean about man and woman. Anyway in a male chauvinist society they do that. So that is the idea.

For those of us who have an interest in the spiritual path, or those of us who have an interest in compassion – for them, for us – hatred is not that difficult to get rid of. Not as difficult to get rid of as is the attachment. The hatred is not as difficult to get rid of, simply because we see it easily. We see it as sort of “me holding it and wanting revenge”. With the exception that revenge sometimes comes in terms of justice, and if that is the case then it is a big problem. If the justice comes as a true justice then I do not think there is a problem, but mostly we bring justice more or less as a point of revenge, rather than as real justice. Then it is a problem. Other than that, it is not that hard to get it.

But attachment is something else. It is nice and it is cool. It gives you a little pleasure. And it is something that is much harder for us to get rid of. Since you are looking into the wisdom, you need to know that getting rid of it, or being free from it has three categories. Number one, the influence of gross attachment is cut down and reduced, so you don’t even see the gross level. Number two, not only is the gross level reduced, but it is also reduced in such a way that it will never grow again. Number three, it is not only reduced and not able to grow again, but even if its influences and imprints a have been totally eradicated and removed. I am talking about attachment here, but the three different categories or ways of looking at it, ways of freeing yourself, applies to getting rid of all negative emotions.

As long as you have the attachment, there is something left. That means a person can never be able to be liberated from samsara, because the attachment holds the individual. Attachment keeps us from being free, not only from samsara but even from the lower realms. People fall into the lower realms because somehow there is some little attachment that they grow. No matter how bad the condition might be, they have some kind of attachment to it. In our culture, to be able to understand that, and take that into consideration, is considered a greatness and goodness and understanding. However every sort of desire we have, every little bit of desire we have here and there, should maybe not necessarily be entertained. We have saying in Tibetan: “The dogs think the doghouse is a palace, and the pigs think that the pig house is a pure land mandala.” That is just a saying that indicates that even the worst condition can somehow work, through the individual having a little holding back. That little holding back will hold the individuals so they are unable to go. Many of those great Mahasiddhas will say: “I would like to go, just like the bird, flying from the big stone on the high hill. I would like to go and fly.” But sometimes the leg gets stuck on the stone, or sometimes there is something else, so they cannot fly.

I used to share a story with you. One of my teachers, actually the person who wrote this The Child of the Buddhas, the seven-point mind training. That Rimpoche has two disciples, old Tibetan government officials that came from Tibet. These two are totally dedicated to him. They live nearby him, move by him. They are Vajrayogini practitioners, and they are supposed to set a date when they are going to die. They have a servant they brought with them from northern India, to work for them. They even bought a train ticket to go back, and in old India it is very hard to get a train ticket at the last minute. So they gat that all done. But on the day when they are supposed to go, one of them did not go very well. He got sick and moved to hospital, and all this. Finally Rimpoche went there pretending to be a sweeper cleaning the floor. So he finally saw him, and that there was no reason why he cannot go, but he had found a new shirt. Suddenly he was thinking: “Oh what is this? Isn’t this is nice? Somebody gave me this. I like it, I think I’ll wear this today because I am supposed to be going.” A little attachment held him back, so he landed in a hospital rather than going. This is the reason why, if the negation did not cover everything, and you have left the slightest thing that brings the desire, attachment – to either what you call material, or existentialistic, or whatever – and that brings the obsession (maybe not obsession but a little attachment), that makes the individuals unable to liberate themselves. That is what these particular words are talking about.

The next sentence says [Tibetan phrase]. This is the fourth point. It if you negate too much, then the consequences of this will be that you will become nihilistic. They will present all these views later, but briefly speaking, if you overly negate, then you lose the base, the base of karmic functioning, the basis of karma, the basis of the interdependent nature, the whole interdependent system. You will lose all of them. If you lose that, the very view that you find by losing this, is called “wrong view”. That wrong perception will straight away lead you to the lower realms. That is the fourth point.

Then the very next sentence from there brings the fifth point. The fifth point is almost the same as third and fourth, but again it is important. Again it says that if the object of negation is not properly recognized, then you will definitely fall into either the nihilistic or existentialistic views, and therefore it is important. So the first basic point, about why the object of negation has to be recognized, has been established by five sub-points. That makes things easier.

So now we get to point number two [the second sub-point of the first basic point, which is (b)) on page 126]. I am sure this is worked out in the English. Do they have that worked out or not?

[Audience] They don’t break it down to five points. It is written there, but it is not indicated that it is five separate points, but logically it is.

[Rimpoche] When you read the Tibetan it doesn’t indicate that either. So you have to somehow see that the first point has been established by five sub-points.

Now we get to the second point of the basic point that you need to recognize the object of negation. That has three sub-points: 1) the reasons why you need to recognize the object of negation, which has been established by five points. Now, the second point here is that how to refute the systems of those who do not recognize the object of negation properly. What does the English say?

[Audience] It says “Refuting other systems that refute without identifying the object to be negated” p 126. That is much better, isn’t it? That clarifies more of the earlier points. Refuting those have too much covered, and refuting those who have too little covered

[Audience] They don’t say “covering”, it is really a reflection of what was said in the five points just before.

[Rimpoche] But now it is going to be different points. The first one [refuting those who have covered too much] has two, which are 1) presenting their point of view, their assertions, their statements, and then 2) showing how wrong they are. First is the assertion of different viewpoints, and that has eleven points. That is how you scrutinize it in detail.

So these eleven points are actually not the real Prasangika view. It is more the Svatantrika’s view or rang gyur pa’s view, because it is to be negated. They present this by bringing eleven points, but sometimes they bring them as characteristics of the object of negation and as conditions, in a sort of mixed way. When we read down, we will begin to know.

The first point that they are asserting here, as Tsongkhapa says: “Most of those who claim to be expressing the U ma pa, when then they say that every phenomenon, whatever exists – animate or inanimate – will come under four points.” That is the first assertion. There are a lot of sets of four points, not every set of four points is the same thing. The first set of four points that I introduced to you last night, is that every phenomenon that grows either grow from self or from other, or from both or from none. That becomes the first set of four points. They use this word “grow”. The second set, what is grown out of it is anything that is grown. Grown in the sense expressed by the Tibetan word gye wa [skye ba], which means production or produced. If you translate it directly, it is like the son is born out of the mother, or the fruit grows out of the tree. Or the trees grow out of the seed. All of these are use one word, gye wa. So gye wa can be born out of it, grown out of it, produced out of it, the consequences of it, or the result of it. It can be anything like that. That is why when you have the word gye wa, it really means the person is born. But that can be anything. So gye was is a very general word that can be used for so many things.

In Tibetan there are many terminologies. Nobody has picked up all these terms and put them together. Some language student could do a very interesting project. Goldstein, when he did the Tibetan dictionary produced a lot of new grammatical points that were never before talked about or named as grammatical points in Tibetan. Like, prataka, cheypataka, chenpataka [sp?]. They have never been heard of by the Tibetans. They say “What? What is this?” But they are always there in the language. The moment you go, the moment you sit, the moment you eat, the moment you ... He put up that verb as a part of a grammar, and when you use it, it works well. He is not interested in the Buddhist language, he was never was interested in that. The moment you get to the Buddhist language, he says “that is Jeffrey Hopkins’ job, or Thurman’s job.” He will never bother, he will even almost take it out of the dictionary. But he recognized that this gye wa goes everywhere. It can be used as production, or consequences, whatever.

So they use this word gye wa, because it covers all phenomena, everywhere, so you can use that. What they are asking, about every phenomenon is “Where does that come from? How it is produced? By whom? By me, by you, by both or by nobody? So that becomes four points. This guy here [in the text] says that if every phenomenon, whatever exists, should be covered under these four points. That is his root commitment. That is what he thinks it is, and that is point number one. Since it has to be under these four points, then the question will come, whether everything can be scrutinized by a perfect reliable mind. If it is not scrutinizable by a perfect mind, then it should not be existing. If it is scrutinizable by a perfect mind, then the perfect mind should find meaning behind that. If that is the case, then it should be inherent existence. That is the reason why it has to be covered in four points. If it is srutinizable by a perfect mind, then you will be able to find the end of the Russian doll [nested dolls]. You will have to find something that is at the end it. The perfect mind goes on and analyzes, analyzes, analyzes, etc.. At the end of it, if you find it, then they will say that this particular object, or particle, or mind, or energy, or whatever it is, can stand up to analysis by perfect mind, because at the end it can produce what it is. That is what I mean for it to be scrutinizable by a perfect mind. If cannot stand up to analysis by a perfect mind, then that means that is does not exist. So that is the point or quality or special function of the number one point.

The other way around, the second point says whether it exist or does not exist, or both exists and does not exist, or none, the four points are either way. Just before the second point comes in, at the end of that, after all, when you are blocking the four points of existing, or non-existing etc., there will be no other phenomena left that is not included in that. They are talking about four points or four sets: self, other, both and none; existing, not existing, both or none. According to that view point, if it is existing, it has to exist under these four points. That is how they even define whether you are existing or not existing. That is their system, that is the first point.

The second point comes in the next sentence. The most important point that they present here is gye gog. For gye they use “production” and gog [‘gog***] they probably use cessation or liberation. Since these are not seen by the special meditative concentrated mind, therefore they do not exist. Since the meditative mind of the path of seeing level sees that they do not exist, therefore it does not exist. Whatever they are seeing has to be the truth. Therefore, because that particular mind does not see it, production, cessation, etc. never exist.

The third point is like point number seven, almost the same as before. If production and cessation, etc. really exist, can they be again checked by perfect mind? Can it go through under the scrutiny of the perfect mind? If it can, then it is truly existing. If it cannot, then the perfect mind will reject it, so how can you say it exists?

The fourth point asks that if production, cessation, etc. are there, if you accept that they exist, do you have a reliable mind that sees this or do you not? Do you have a reliable mind that confirms what you are saying, which is that it exists? If there is a reliable mind that confirms that it exists, that has to be wisdom. But the wisdom of meditative wisdom sees nothing of that type. So how can you say that a reliable mind can identify and stand by this existence? You may say the mind cannot do that, but the eye consciousness etc. may be able to say ”It is”. If you think that, then the Buddha says that is wrong. In the Raja Samadhi Sutra (King of Concentration Sutra), it says that these are not reliable. The eyes are not, the ears are not, the ears are not, the body is not, the mind is not, and if they are reliable why should we have the Arya path? It says something like that, so that is a quotation that Buddha said so. Therefore, even if you want to say that though the meditative wisdom does not see it there are still other reliable minds, such as eye, ear, or nose consciousness that will see it, you can’t say it, because the Buddha said they are not reliable. And Chandrakirti adds to that, saying that these ordinary consciousnesses are not reliable. Therefore, now what are you going to say? Are you going to say that it still exists, even though there is no perfect reliable mind that can establish it? If you say that, then what is your definition of existing? The very definition of existence is that it has been verified, and identified by a reliable mind. So they are saying that you are wrong.

The fifth point is also simple. If you accept production, etc., you cannot say that they are not truly existing but they are relatively existing. Why? Because Chandrakirti says:

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

Those are Chandrakirti’s words. This verse has to be clarified a little more. We will do that tomorrow. In essence, this is telling us that when the reliable analyzing mind can refute the absolute production, cessation, etc., then that very mind can also definitely refute the relative existence of production, cessation etc. That is the bottom line, the essence of what Chandrakirti’s words will come to. So they are quoting this and saying that not only do production, cessation, etc., not exist absolutely, but it also does not exist relatively. So they are establishing that there should be nothing existing.

I would like to stop here. Tomorrow we will cover points six through eleven, and even more than that. Probably we will be done with the refuting points tomorrow. First you have to refute the wrong views in order to establish the right view. That is what it is refuting here. Do you have any questions?

[Audience] We would like you to clarify the distinction that you made yesterday about the difference between the Arya’s view and the enlightened view

[Rimpoche] OK, thank you. Although, I will say once again, in our perception normally, our rational mind will tell us that the views of the enlightened ones are total knowledge, and the Arya’s views are limited knowledge. However, when you talk about the total absorption, non-dualistic point, the word we use in Tibetan is morr, tsi mor [sp?****] That word gives some extra meaning. Within that extra meaning, even the enlightened, non-dualistic mind does not directly see other relative things when it is at the state of the non-dualistic view point, even at the enlightened level. That is there, but that has to be not in the normal sense, but under the word in Tibetan called morr, which means they are not direct vision. But then you will say the enlightened mind sees every phenomenon, every existence, just like putting a transparent glass, or something on your palm. However, in the direct perception of the absorption mind, when it is in a non-dualistic state – then, on the other hand there are difficulties there. All the mind of enlightened beings has to be a focused mind, all focused mind will be non-dualistic. That is there. We will clear this up gradually. I don’t think you can clear it up straightaway. When you see the other views clearly, then I think it will help to clarify it much more. When you read through them, it comes through. Do you have a question?

[Audience] It is a follow up to the other question. When the aryas have their level of direct perception of non-dualism, does that also include the experience of bliss at that point?

[Rimpoche] We are not talking about bliss here. The bliss is a Vajrayana topic. At the level of concentrated meditation you do have some kind of shin jang; the body shin jang and the mind shin jang; some great feeling. The example they use is putting a hot towel on a shaved head. Sometimes these examples are very pathetic, I think on purpose. The monastic vows are considered extremely important, so they don’t want to talk about sex or sexuality at all. They have to find some kind of example of a good feeling, so they found a hot towel on a shaved head as an example. On the other hand, in the Vajrayana they talk so much about about bliss. But when it is pure sutra level, we don’t talk about bliss at all. The bliss level comes in when the Vajrayana joins in, other than that they don’t tralk about it. I think it is the culture and the monastic vows, etc. That is much more emphasized in the Tibetan culture, especially after the 1100’s. From the 7th century to the 100’s it was quite a crazy period, so in the 1100’s they decided to cut down everything and the monastic vows are very much emphasized. So they don’t use the word bliss, they don’t use all of those. Even for the physical and mental joy they have a very pathetic example. Ultimately you get into the Varjrayana, so it is going to link up. At this level of the Vajrayana, that is why the father and mother tantra comes in. The mother tantra emphasizes emptiness and wisdom, which comes along with bliss. The emptiness is attached to the bliss at that level. That is the absolute bottom line for practitioners. In personal experience, when you experience it, it is there. But here, when it is being presented as purely a sutra path, they don’t even talk about it. When you are talking about it at the sutra level, and raise the question of bliss, they say “I don’t know what that is, what is that?” Also, the views are so different. We were talking about the Svatantrika view, and the people present themselves as Svatantrika. When you accept it and you are almost believing it, then you can understand that.

This is an interesting point. Aryadeva, Nagarjuna’s second in command, was called Aryadeva because he lost one eye. He lost the eye because when Nagarjuna left the monastery in Nalanda, he was followed by Arydeva. Chandrakirti and these others had not yet come. In between, there was an anti-Buddhist teacher who challenged a debate. In those days the debates were not like our debates here. Our debates here makes the basis of making a decision, maybe for one vote. But at that time, if you lost a debate, not only you, but also your monastery and your followers would have to follow the other teacher. That debate system is old Indian culture, with all the groups, and people joined here or joined there. That is how the monasteries and ashrams expanded. So they wanted to challenge Nalanda. Within Nalanda there was nobody who could take that challenge. They could do nothing. So the pundits at Nalanda they prayed to a big Black Mahakala. The guy was standing there, controlling the whole monastery, and trying to set up the date for the debate. He had almost conquered them. So they prayed to Mahakala and had a torma offering there, and they wrote a message on that requesting: “Nagarjuna, wherever you are”. You are going to lose the monastery and Buddhism, and this one of the only two top institutions in India at that time. Nalanda and Viramashila [sp?]. There were only at the top, like Oxford and Cambridge, or Yale and Harvard. One of them was going to fall. So they kept on praying, hoping that Nagarjuna would come. While they were making those prayers, one black crow came and took the message from the torma and delivered it to Nagarjuna.

Nagarjuna was far away in south India. He had given up the monastic life, and was living a crazy relaxed life with his disciple Aryadeva. Nagarjuna said, “I guess I have to go, because this is a very powerful thing and maybe they will lose everything, so I have to go.” Aryadeva said, “You don’t have to go, you don’t need an axe to kill a lice. I’ll go.” Nagarjuna said, “I am not sure whether you can go or not.” He said, “Let’s have a debate. I’ll give the viewpoionts of that particular teacher’s group, and you keep on debating me.” Aryadeva said, “I can’t debate you.” Finally, they agreed to put a little curtain between them. Nagarjuna sat within the curtain and Aryadeva debated from outside the curtain. Aryadeva keept on debating, and after a little while, Nagarjuna was almost accepting the view of the other school, as though he was really that teacher. So Aryadeva started doubting, saying, “What is wrong with my teacher?” So he pulled the curtain out to see if it was really Nagarjuna, thinking maybe some spirit had come in there. When he pulled the curtain out, he saw it was Nagarjuna. Then Nagarjuna said “OK, now you can go, but you will have a big obstacle.”

So, when they accept the other views, they almost come to the point of thinking as though they are that particular person and are the expert on that, and that is their subject. Similarly, when you talk about sutra, you go very strongly with sutra rules and regulations. When you go to tantra, you go completely that way. Yet they do not contradict. They combine together. That is one of the qualities given at the beginning of the Lam Rim, which is that all the teachings do not contradict each other. They give the example of a square cushion, when you pull it from any angel it will move the whole cushion. That is why. That is a very practical question. That is how it works.

[Audience] Is the identification of the object of negation accomplished through reasoning, or analysis, or through some transcendent cognitive faculty which only the people who have phag pa ye she have?

[Rimpoche] I think that reasoning and analyzing will both bring that level. Actual negation, the moment you negate it, it is the same time that transcendental cognition, that pag pey nyam sha ye sey develops. I think that develops together, the moment the negation has negated, at the very same time. It is just like that. So the negation point has been actually seen. That seeing mind will be the transcendental wisdom cognition, and that is pag pey nyam sha ye sey. It becomes that way.

[Audience] But the identification happens before...

[Rimpoche] Identification keep on looking and looking, and debating and debating, and analyzing and analyzing. When you finally negate it, at the moment it is negated, the other wisdom grows at the same time.

[Audience] I understand that. I guess my question is that Tsongkhapa seems to emphasizing that it is very important to correctly identify it, not too broad an object, and not to identify too narrow an object, but just right.

[Rimpoche] That is right, because if you go too broad, this is the problem, and if it is too narrow then you will be left out and you will not be liberated. So that is right. The way you will reach yourself to that level is by analyzing it. I should say, “meditative analyzing”, because this is a Dharma group, not an academic group.

[Audience] I do not understand Chandrakirti’s position, that says the argument which shows that the production from self and from others are untenable in the context of ultimate reality but also untenable in the context of conventional reality. I don’t understand how he makes that assertion. Is that proven elsewhere? Or are we just supposed to believe that because he says it in his Commentary on The Middle Way?

[Rimpoche] No. I think they will clarify that one or two layers down. Because this is coming as an argument. The bottom line argument is saying that this person believes that if you truly don’t exist, then you do not exist. In order to establish that, they try to quote certain words of Chandrakirti’s, Nagarjuna’s and the Buddha’s.

[Audience] But they misunderstand what he is saying, is that the idea?

[Rimpoche] I think there is an explanation on that. I probably will touch on that tomorrow if not next week. That is what I was thinking earlier, that we may have to go into that a little bit more. It must be Chandrakirti’s sarcastic debating point. So they took that as a real statement and put it in. We will get the detail later. I think that is how it is.

So, if there are no more questions, we’ll call it a day. If you want to dedicate, fine, if you don’t want to dedicate, it is fine, it is all emptiness. You know, sometimes we have in the culture here it is Christmas, so do whatever. It is Christmas.

End of the digital audio file titled 20051104GRNYWisD7

* According to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, lta ba is defined as: 1) [philosophical] view, orientation, point of view, philosophical position [wrong view / opinion, belief, heresy, speculative theory, ideology], theory, position, stand point, outlook, attitude, perspective, doctrine, opinionatedness.dogma, principles, ideology, teaching, insight, understanding. 2) {lta ba, bltas pa, blta ba, ltas} trans. v.; to pay attention to, look at, see, watch, gaze at, observe, contemplate, view/ regard/ attend to /; 3) sight, visual faculty, view, way of seeing; view; [one of the {'phags lam gyi yan lag brgyad} eightfold noble path; 4) belief, [as one of the six root disturbances];

** The dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following definitions: mngon par [Sanskrit emphatic particle]. openly, overtly, manifestly, visibly, evidently, actually;

mngon par evident, actual, manifest;

mngon par zhen pa habitual adherence, to completely cling, complete clinging, settling down, inclination;

mngon par zhen pa overt clinging/ fixation; to cling overtly;

*** The dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following definition: 'gog pa 1) cessation, annihilation, extinction, stopping, exhaustion, final extinction. 2) truth of cessation, third of the {'phags pa'i bden pa bzhi} four noble truths. stopping of suffering, to take away, to snatch, tear away, pull out. among the 16 aspects of the four truths: Def. by Jamgön Kongtrül: {sdug bsngal 'byung ba'i rgyu nyon mongs pa rnams dang bral ba'i mtshan nyid can} 3) {'gog pa, bkag pa, dgag pa, khog} trans. v.; to halt, cease, stop, block, hamper, hinder, impede, inhibit, prevent, repress; to block, obstruct, stop, hinder, limit; to hinder, 4) abbr. of {'i snyoms 'zug} 5) {'gog pa, bkog pa, dgog pa}; to be hampered;

****the transcriber was unable to find a reasonable spelling or definition for this word in any glossary.

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved