Archive Result

Wisdom teachings NYC 08 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 21: 11-05-05

Welcome everybody, here today. We will be continuing where we left off. I think that everything from yesterday is more or less clear, except I thought maybe we need to briefly revisit once again Chandrakirti’s quotation. Maybe they will reply to it later, but when the argument was brought up by the Svatantrikas when they were debating the tal gyur wa (Prasangikas), they will bring out anything from your own statement to make it be a contradiction to your point. That’s what we do and that’ s exactly what they do. So Chandrakirti is putting that out as a sarcastic remark or what we normally call “out of context”. Anyway, I think the reply will be there later, so maybe if we revisit that now we probably will be wasting a lot of time. And I don’t think we need to revisit Shantideva’s words. So where did we leave off yesterday?

[Audience] Point 5 of the eleven points.

[Rimpoche] So that means we are at point six. O.K. [to member of the audience] you are following the English, right? You have a mic, so don’t let me read the English. I have noticed I am trying to learn the language and then all my go into trying to see whether I am pronouncing it right or wrong, am I reading it right or wrong. Then I can’t go back. So it is easier if I read Tibetan and you read English.

The eleven points come out of the basic point two that refutes the systems that try to establish emptiness without recognizing the object of refutation. If the object of refutation covers too much it has a problem, and if it covers too little it has a problem. So it has to be right. The point is whether you have covered too much or too little. The first has two. That is if you have too much: 1) the presenting points of those who have too much and then 2) refuting them. The presenting points of those who have too much then break into eleven points.

I think the first point is over. Maybe I’ll say a little bit about those people who will think that everything has to be in the four points. There are two types of four points. First there are four points about the production of things: whether it is grown out of self, or out of other, or out of both, or is causeless. The second four points is whether it has, does not have, has both, or neither, so there are two categories of four points. However when they are talking about it, every phenomenon has to be within four points they are talking about the earlier four points. This interesting part about neither having, not having, and all of them will come out of this at the end of all these lines. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up.

The first a point that they really raise is from the form to enlightenment. This is almost like the American language “from hell to heaven”. Form to enlightenment. This is the technical language. The form is the earliest or first of five skandas. Then the ultimate consciousness is enlightenment. So every phenomenon is included in that “from form to enlightenment. Every thing should not existent because they are not really able to stand up to the scrutiny of the perfect mind, because a perfect mind is not going to find it. We have this repeatedly coming up. So that is the first point. The second point is that the production, cessation, liberation and samsaric suffering and liberation etc., all did not really truly exist, because the transcendental cognition does not see it when that transcendental cognition is an absolute absorption. That is a non-dualistic point of mind, so therefore it doesn’t see anything else, so that should not be truly existent. This is the second point. The third point, is that anything cannot stand up to the absolute scrutiny of an absolute mind, a mind that is a perfect mind. The main reason is that that mind is never going to find it. That’s what this argument is. In the reality, it is true too, some of this argument. You will see those replies will come later. But the point when you [prasangikas] reply [to the svatantrikas], you are not going to say “what you said is wrong”, but you say some of these points are true points, but I don’t have that problem. That is how it is going to work now. What happens is that no phenomenon can withstand the scrutiny of that wisdom-oriented absolute-looking mind, the absolute mind that really looks to the absolute truth. They cannot stand, because they are never going to be found.

This is briefly reviewing what we did last night. So that’s why I’m going quite fast because we did that already. This is not the usual teaching where you repeat it four times, it’s not that type of teaching, we are just reading through it for studying points.

The fourth point, is about production, cessation. etc., whether it really exists and whether there is a reliable mind that can recognize it. I think I mentioned to you definition of existence is that there is a perfect mind that will recognize and could acknowledge it. The word “perfect” I am using means “reliable”. It is not an enlightened mind, it is valid cognition. Valid cognition is not an enlightened mind, nor the mind that has the clairvoyant mind, I am not talking about that at all. I am simply talking about a valid cognition. When the valid cognition recognizes it, that is the definition of existence. Everything, they call that gye wa gyen ga [skye ba* rkyen can**] For me the word gye wa automatically means “grow”, however, in this translation they use “production”. If production, cessation, etc. is recognized by valid cognition, then they say, it has to be pag pey nyam sha ye shey [phags pa'i mnyam bzhag ye she] [Rimpoche asks audience, who responds with “transcendent cognition”. Transcendent cognition has seen that gross, etc., does not exist, so therefore maybe it has never existed. But then you may say it may exist even though the transcendental cognition doesn’t see it, but the eye consciousness, etc., may see it. But if you think that way you are wrong because in the King of Concentration Sutra the Buddha has mentioned, and Chandrakirti in the 6th chapter of the Madhyamaka-avattara has brought up the point that eye consciousness and ear consciousness are not necessarily valid cognition. Because Buddha said they don’t exist, and Chandrakirti said they are not valid cognition. So if there is no valid cognition that recognizes it, how can you say it exists? That is a very strong argument, very strong contradiction, very strong refutation. That is the fourth point.

The fifth point is that if you think it exists relatively and does not exist absolutely, if you are going to say that and you are going to hide there, that is not right. Because the logic that refutes absolute existence will also refute the relatively existence as well. Therefore your argument is not right, that is the fifth point. That’s where we stopped last night. Let me look up once again a little bit here.

When you are analyzing the absolute truth, that truth, that particular mind when it is really sort of scrutinizing, it probably sees who produces the production. So when they produce the production, who produces it? Is it produced by me, or by an other, or by both? Dha dag zhen ley kyel wa ring men de. Dha dag zhen means self and other, as well as both and none. Who produces what? When you really go through deeply cut through, you will see that none of them has produced. Dha dag zhen ley kyel wa ring men de. So neither is it possible to be produced by self, nor is it possible to be produced by others, is it possible to be produced by both, nor is it possible to be produced by “both not” (neither you nor me). So that is the four points that I’ve been talking about earlier, so when you look at Chandrakirti’s words in a little detail, you will see it. Such a valid cognition, when it analyzes will not only see that production etc. does not exist by being produced, but also that the person who produces also never exists. Such a valid cognition also sees not only an absolute level but a relative level as well. Such a valid cognition will also not only see that it is not produced in absolute nature, but this mind should also see that it is not produced even in relativity. Therefore, that production, etc., is neither seen nor recognized by the transcendental cognition nor by non-transcendental cognition. The ordinary normal cognition such as eye consciousness, etc., has not seen it, not recognized it. Even if it did it so they are not valid cognition. So where has your production etc. ever existed? Neither can you can accept it. By the time you reach the last word of Chandrakirti, we are reaching to the fifth point. The fifth point is that production etc. has never existed, even in the relative level.

What that does it is say that this particular cognizing mind, when it is looking into detail, it cut the four corners (four points) of every existence. Therefore you know that the valid cognition that cuts absolute existence should also be able to cut even the relative existence. So when you are saying “production, cessation, etc.,” what are you talking about? Because it never existed. So what are you talking about? You are bringing something non-existent. This is exactly what we do in our normal case when we don’t want to acknowledge, or don’t understand or something, we normally say “I don’t know what you are talking about.” That is exactly the point that they are bringing: “Because it is non-existent, what are you bringing here? It doesn’t exist at all.

I think that should be good enough to clarify Chandrakirti’s quotation, unless you have any more questions.

[Audience] When you say about valid cognition, that it does not have to be an enlightened mind, does that mean it is an arhat? Would a valid cognition be an arhat?

[Rimpoche] No, valid cognition can be with anybody else. How to make it valid and not valid it has some kind of completely different system in the logical lines. Actually, to understand what we mean by “valid” here you should think about “reliable”. Reliable means “one who does not let you down”. So valid cognitions normally has to follow from valid reasoning. Valid reasoning has to have three points: first, the basis on which we are talking has to be understood clearly by both sides, whoever is debating, but both sides.

Point number two: the reasons must cover what you are talking about. Let’s talk about the point of sound. We know, you know and I know sound. If I want to establish the correct understanding within you that sound is impermanent, I will say sound is impermanent because it is produced and it is created. What the person has to know as the basis is that every created thing has to be impermanent. That base has to be established. That becomes point two.

Point three: by establishing that and when you see the base is created behind that, the base underlying this, the person has to gain understanding that sound is impermanent because it is created. Since you have reliable knowledge that everything created has to be impermanent, what you gain, without saying what is behind it, is that sound is impermanent. That becomes valid reason. The valid reason followed by the valid cognition is recognizing mind. From that valid reason you will gain valid understanding that sound is impermanent, and that is the valid cognition. So that’s how it works, this is a simple mundane example I am giving. That is the basic idea of how reasoning works. I mean you can be stubborn and crazy and say yeh yeh, every created thing is impermanent but I don’t how sound is created, the sound is always there the sound, it’s always remains there, it never goes away. You can argue and be stubborn there, and that is a different story. But the reasoning is important.

The reasoning also has to have a framework. When you have been stubborn, trying to go beyond, trying to say your point, to keep on pushing it, that is going beyond being intelligent, and getting off somewhere else. When that grows bigger and bigger, there are five points, five signs of what we call a stupid person. How do you know that person is stupid? There are five points, five reasonings. It’s sort of a wild crazy – I don’t want to say a wild wisdom. If you translate it, it can become a wild wisdom, but it really means not a valid reasoning, but sort of a crazy reasoning that goes beyond, has no limit, doesn’t follow any system. So these are the five signs of stupidity. When you have too much stubborness, you fall in that category. Like the example “Yeh, yeh, sound is produced, but it is always there, I can get a machine and catch any sound anywhere that anybody has produced. You can go on doing that, but that is invalid reasoning, stubborness. You know it has been produced and once it has been produced it has to be impermanent. It does because every production has been a dependent arising. That is the reason why subtle impermanence is not emptiness. However it comes closer to the emptiness. That is reason. You know Pabonka’s Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand says “I’ll explain the subtle impermanence, though it is not an emptiness, it brings the individual closer to emptiness, and that is his point. Subtle impermanence is not emptiness, but it brings you closer to the emptiness because of the reasoning about “produced”. That is probably why they choose the word “produced”, because the word “created” becomes funny, because we say “God created the world”, so probably they wanted to avoid that. Probably that is why they use “produced”. Maybe. We don’t read the translator’s mind.

[Audience] I have a question about valid cognition. You were talking about on the basis of reasoning. But a more simple example of valid cognition, if I label this a book, is that a valid cognition?

[Rimpoche] I will ask you why is it a book?

[Audience] So valid cognition is only based on reasoning, it is not an eye consciousness seeing a base, and a mental consciousness correctly labeling it? Is that not an example?

[Rimpoche] Yes it is, but I asked you why is it a book? Because somebody has introduced to you that this is a book. Because of that earlier introduction, whoever and whenever, maybe when you were a baby, somebody said book, b-o-o-k, book and you get a book idea that is introduced to you. That introduction is correct. Because of that reason, thereafter you see anything of that type, you say it is a book.

[Audience] So it is a valid cognition?

[Rimpoche] It is a valid cognition, yes. It becomes a valid cognition because it follows that valid reason that it was introduced to you. Even though nobody has told you today that this is a book, you have that. It came out of something valid that happened to you before. That reason follows this. Every education, every understanding, every bit of knowledge, either right or wrong, has come out of reasoning about something. The valid becomes true and the non-valid becomes not true. What we are trying to do is to see the emptiness, bringing valid cognition that recognizes emptiness, which we call wisdom, by reasoning through it. That is what is happening. Why is this a book? Because somebody told you it is a book, and you know it is a book. That is a valid reasoning. I don’t want to go into that very long now because there is no point, so let me get back to the Lam Rim Chenmo.

So the sixth point is saying this doesn’t exist because it neither exists nor not-exists - all these four points - if you still think that there is an existence, even though it doesn’t fall under any of those four points and if you said that, then you have to have some production which does not fall on one of those four points, then are you going to accept that? That is point six.

Furthermore, these persons say that if we assert that production exists despite the lack of an effect which is produced from any of the four– itself, something other, and so forth–then when we try to carry out the Madyhamaka refutation of production through investigating these four alternatives, we will fail. For we ourselves would have already allowed a type of production which is not among these four. p 128

You can’t have a production that is not among the four, it’s not even possible. If you keep on going down that road there is no end to it, that is what it is saying. That is reaching point seven. Point seven is that out of these four, when you don’t have a produced or grown by others, since you have decided that production, etc., has to be within those four, but there is nothing produced by others, then you are only left with the three. Out of three, if you think all three of them produced together, then those three will be me, both, and causeless. And you don’t accept that. When you don’t accept that, the only one left out of that four is growing from the others. If it is growing from others, you cannot say growing from others because Chandrakirti says has already said “Production from another does not even exist in the world”. p 128 So that is the seventh point.

The eighth point is – can you read that in English, I think it will be quite easy.

Therefore these persons say that you should not add the qualifying word “ultimate” when refuting production, for Candrakirti’s Clear Words refutes the addition of this qualification. p 128

That’s right. Qualify by saying “absolute”. We do that very often. We can deny that everything is absolutely existing, we take this as sort of an escaping a cocoon. When you talk about absolute, and there is nothing there, it becomes almost non-existent. And then if it is relatively existent, we are sort of happy. We do that very often in our own understanding. We are taking a sort of shelter in that. We are saying that we don’t exist absolutely, but relatively we are here. Since Buddhapalita has a special point of saying if it is relatively existing, it is good enough to be existing, we are taking shelter under that, saying that we never bother anything about the emptiness and we will throw everything into the garbage bag of absolute. As long as I am existing, relatively functioning, I am happy, I am OK. Anything absolute is not existing. It doesn’t matter, I can throw it into the “absolute” garbage bag. We do that very often. But this point is telling you that you cannot do that. Chandrakirti himself has said you cannot add “absolutely” and escape everything. It’s true. So now let’s move to the ninth point.

Ninth: there are two different view points. One of them says production, cessation, etc. relatively exist. One of them says they do not even relatively exist. So that is number nine.

Number ten is interesting. All of them actually reject the true existence. How does the English read?

However, all of them stick out their necks and argue: “It is undeniable that the system of the master Candrakirti is a rational refutation of essential or intrinsic nature, for he refutes intrinsic existence in terms of both truths. Thus, if something does not intrinsically exist, how else could it exist. Therefore adding the qualification ultimate to the object of negation..” p 128-129

No, no, you are going beyond. Before therefore. The “therefore” gets us to number eleven.

The major point of the number ten is that all of them will accept rejecting intrinsic existence. What did you say? They stick out their necks? So the idea that both of these truths is lack of intrinsic existence is accepted by these systems. That is number ten.

Number eleven will be a problem, because number eleven points out that if you do not intrinsically exist, then what is left? This means that if you do not exist absolutely or exist intrinsically then where are you ? Nothing there. If you do not exist absolutely, then you must not exist, because you do not exist absolutely. In other words you know when I said earlier when it is produced it has to be impermanent, just like that, this one thinks if does not exist intrinsically then it should not exist at all, so that’s what this point is.

Therefore adding the qualification “ultimate” to the object of negation is the procedure only in the Svatantrika-Madhyamaka system.

It doesn’t say “I clearly pronounce”? There is nothing else there? [discussion of the translation about “sticking their necks out”] The words in Tibetan, what Tsongkhapa is saying is that this is only the Svatantrika system, I can clearly pronounce it, I can clear my throat and shout it. That part is translated as “stick their necks out.” Probably whoever is translating that one is probably mixing up this point eleven and ten. They don’t divide it at all. Maybe they don’t divide the point at all. If you read the Lam Rim Chenmo like this, you don’t see the divisions. If you don’t see the divisions, then you won’t know what you are doing, because they all are mixed up.

[Audience] They divided them up by paragraphs except for nine, ten and eleven, those are all mashed together in here.

[Rimpoche] That is not there even in Tibetan.

[Audience] Here they divided them up by paragraphs.

So, probably, up to here, these are the eleven points that are [Audience: stating others assertions]. That’s right. They are divided. Every point must go under one division. That is how you know, when you are reading it, you begin to know where you are, what you are doing, at least get the basic idea.

As we are going through this translation it is quite good, except were we got to the “stick your necks out”. That is probably, maybe it is professors who are looking through dictionaries, and are being particularly careful. That happens, and this is a very simple statement. Really, what it is saying in Tibetan is again: “I will clear my throat and say it loudly, this is the Svatantrika view.” It does not mean “stick my neck out”.

Anyway, now we are changing to the basic outline number two, the section on refuting the eleven point qualities of the views of others. They say “Showing that those assertions are wrong”. That also has two dividions: 1) “Showing that those systems contradict the unique feature of Madhyamaka.” 2) Showing that the Madyhamaka critique does not eradicate conventional existence. The first of those has three divisions: 1) “Identifying the distinguishing feature of the Madhyamaka”; 2) “Showing that those systems contradict this distinguishing feature”, and 3) “How a Madhyamika responds to those who negate the distinguishing feature of Madhyamaka.”

That is the basic point we have to keep in mind. The Madhyamaka has unique points, and now we are moving to the identifying the distinguishing features of Madhyamaka. That will not say it in the translation, but you have to look that that also has four points. Point number one is the actual Madhyamaka points. Number two is how the materialistic people debate these. And point three, even though there is not intrinsic existence but still Samsara and Nirvana are all acceptable. Point four will be that emptiness and interdependentness are one thing, so that will probably be the basic four points.

Out of those four points, the first is about what is the real distinguishing feature of Madhyamaka. That is quite interesting. Here I may have to explain a little more. By two types of accumulation of two types of virtue one will create the two kayas of the result level, the enlightened level. The Madhyamaka’s important point is that in order for the individual to gain total enlightenment, it is based on the total enlightenment itself being two kayas: that is the physical aspect of the form and the mental aspects of the form. So where do you get these two? You get these two results by the path, or effort or practice level, through the accumulation of two types of merit. The two types of merit are based on the foundation of the Two Truths. In other words, the basis of the practice is two truths, the path. What you do is to accumulate the two types of merit. And the result of what you are looking for is the two aspects of the enlightened level, that is the physical aspect and the mental aspect of it. So those are the base, path and result.

We normally emphasize that this is always very important. Every practice that you do, you must know what you are basing it on, you must know what your path is all about, and you must know what result to you hope to obtain. Otherwise we call it wishy-washy practice. Also it doesn’t become serious. It doesn’t become grounded. I have talked about this a number of times. You are saying “I am flying” and I didn’t know what you mean you are flying. You are not getting grounded. To be grounded you must have a base, you must have a path, you must have a result that you are looking for. It is almost like “what for” and “how”. This is basically just a fundamental basis of any practice you do. If you don’t find it, then it is wishy-washy, or what Trungpa Rimpoche calls “love-light”. That is what it becomes.

In order to see this, one needs to have a proper understanding that by creating this as the causal level I am going to get this and that at the result level. That is the causal result, or karmic system and that is definitely a very important point to have completely established within the individual. You have heard this a million times, but it is the most important point. Otherwise what happens is there are certain levels where some people think: “I have come to the point of realizing, so therefore I’m beyond the karmic rule, the karmic rule does not apply to me.” There is no such person, or no such thing where the karmic system does not apply. The karmic system even applies to the totally enlightened Buddha. Buddha remains a Buddha forever because there is an inexhaustible virtuous karma only available to that level. That’s what they came to. The total exhaustion, total finishing, of all negative karma, all negativities. That’s what enlightenment is all about.

There is no one who is out of karmic system. In order to see this base, path, and result, it is important to the individual to have the correct understanding, a reliable understanding that this karma brings that result. That is one side. Then, the other side is that every phenomenon – no matter what it might be – every phenomenon, whether it is and article or a living thing, every phenomenon has not a single - not the slightest - intrinsic existence. There is no such existence at all. These two: the absolute understanding of karmic functioning (base, path, result) on the one hand, and on the second hand that there is not a single slightest existence of intrinsic-nature existence of anything – these two not only do not contradict each other, they complement each other at the one-mind level. Only the U ma pa or Madhyamaka path can bring that. That is the special distinguishing quality of the U ma pa or Madhyamaka.

This is quite a difficulty, according to our tradition. I don’t mean only Gelukpa tradition, and not only Tibetan, but almost every one of the early Indian Mayahana (I can’t say all Mahayanas because the Cittamatrans are Mayahana too), but almost all of the early Indian Mahayanas accept this. And it is hard to understand, other than the U ma pa. What does the U ma pa know about it? What is so special, what are they bragging about? They are bragging about the idea that the meaning or essence of the emptiness is interdependentness. Because it is interdependent, because of that it depends on the causal conditions. Everything depends on the causes and conditions. Now you see that causes and conditions do not contradict emptiness. Because it is empty, the cause depends on the causes and conditions. Because it depends on the causes and conditions, there is nothing that has an independent nature, or is naturally existent, or intrinsically existent. So you are free of all this because you are dependant on the causes and conditions. That brings the essence of emptiness as dependentness, interdependedness.

The essence of interdependentness becomes the emptiness, because the essence of the emptiness is interdependetness, Interdependentness is the cause and the condition. The cause and condition is the one that brings the suffering, pain, or joy. So that is why the essence of the emptiness becomes the compassion. You see all these the people bragging all the time, saying we have the wisdom that is essence of the compassion. Because the essence of emptiness is interdependedness, and interdependedness depends on the cause and the conditions. Because it depends on causes and conditions, and because the negative causes bring suffering, that is why you can see that the essence of emptiness is the essence of compassion, and the essence of compassion is also the essence of emptiness.

Such is the distinguishing Madhyamaka point, which has been attacked by the earlier points. They are attacking it because they could not make the distinction between the non-intrinsic existence, and production etc.. They cannot separate them. They appear to contradict each other, and because of misunderstanding, the earlier arguments are actually attacking both of those important points. Because that one thinks that if it does not exist intrinsically, how could it be existing? There is no way it is existing, because it doesn’t exist intrinsically.

You remember the reasons you are using for whether something can stand at the test of valid cognition? They are raising these points because in their minds, if you do exist you have to exist, and if you don’t exist you have to not exist. That sounds correct for us. Anyway, in Nagarjuna’s root text, Nagarjuna clearly pronounced that if it has an interdependent nature then it has to be empty. Nagarjuna has clearly stated that in his root text. But the earlier arguments have misunderstood that. Instead they turn it around completely to the opposite way, thinking that if it does not exist intrinsically then it should not exist at all. So because of that, everybody uses Nagarjuna’s Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning. This is very common. Everybody uses this, and particularly, I have noticed that within the different Tibetan Buddhist centers, of many traditions, many of them are using this as a dedication in their centers:

Through this virtue may all beings

Amass the collections of merit and wisdom

And attain the two sublime embodiments

That arise from merit and wisdom. p 129

Many centers, especially many Tibetan Buddhist dharma practitioners, I have found them saying this all the time everywhere. That is what they are talking about. They are talking about the point I was just talking about. When they are referring to virtue, they are referring to the virtue that causes, the virtue that makes sure that one does obtain the result. Because of that, all sentient beings – they say all beings. The word kun in Tibetan means all, but it means more than all, it gives you a little more emphasis than “all”. It means “without leaving out any single one”. You know when you have most of them, when you have 99.9% then we can call it “all”. But here there is the emphasis on “not a single one left out”, by using the word kun rather than tam je or yong dzo (sp?) or something. Kun is without leaving any single one. Tso nam probably is the merit and wisdom merit. In the Tibetan Buddhism this is known as tsok nyi, two things to be accumulated, two things to be collected, or in common usage you also say tsok dza, so accumulate the collection. Tsok [tshogs] means collection, not the offering tsok. Tsok means collection. When you are hungry you remember tsok offering, but it is collection. Collection of merit, and collection of wisdom merit. Not only a collection, but in such a huge way, in a very vast way it has to be accumulated, it has to be saved. By saving that, because of that saving one may obtain the result that comes out of merit and wisdom merit. For our understanding point of view, not for a theoretical view, the merit, virtue, all of them, are almost positive karma. You can think that way. If you go and argue and debate, then maybe there will be some slightly different points. But you can think that way.

When you say merit and wisdom merit, the merit refers to anything that we normally call “methods”, referring to love, compassion and that type of category, any virtuous work falls under the category of merit. The category of wisdom merit covers anything which is influenced by an understanding of emptiness. So that’s how it’s divided.

And that brings us another point, that brings you back to “do re mi”. So here you are talking about wisdom merit and merit. So what about all the good works that I have done? Remember, when you look back at the karmic system, when you are looking in the positive karmic system, you have three categories. Even the positive karma (tsonam gelek [bsod nams gelek]) also has categories. We distinguish between the positive deed that was not influenced by the mind of renunciation, and positive work that was influenced by renunciation and bodhimind. So even when they say here that merit and wisdom merit brings the two kayas, the two forms of the enlightened, whatever is not influenced by the bodhimind is excluded here. That’s why I say we go back to do re mi. Because, without the influence of bodhimind it does not become the cause to bring total enlightenment.

Here we are talking about enlightenment. It is not acceptable in this system to talk about the ultimate yana in three ways. The ultimate yana is one yana. This Madhyamaka system has one ultimate result yana, not three. Even if you accept three, even at that level, to be free from samsara you must have the influence of renunciation. That is necessary. Without renunciation, all the good works will bring samsaric goodies within samsara. Samsaric picnic spots within samsara. So it doesn’t bring nirvana. Likewise, without the influence of the bodhimind mind, every virtuous activity does not bring enlightenment at all. So when you are talking about merit and wisdom merit, you have to keep that in mind [transcriber’s note: in this sentence Rimpoche actually spoke “mind and wisdom mind”, but in context that looks like that was mispoken]

Nargarjuna made important points. What are these two kayas called in English? [Audience] “sublime embodiment of truth and the sublime embodiment of form.” [Rimpoche continues] Sublime. Well that is OK, a good translation, because the word dam pa kun nyi, the word dam pa in Tibetan means something not ordinary, something better than ordinary.***

Now everybody is wearing jackets. Why do we have to air conditioning? [Audience] Somebody turned it on. [Rimpoche] You know, we depend on the conditions. The conditions depend on the individual. Thank you. It stopped, good. Now we are getting heat [laughter]. Now everybody will be taking jackets off soon. Thank you.

Tsonam yeshe ley chun we. The word ley chun we means these two, sublime body and mind, sublime truth and form. Truth refers to mind. Technically we call it Dharmakaya. That is what they are talking about. The form is the physical aspect that is produced out of it these two merits. So we are talking about only the Mahayana level, because the Madhyamaka applies only to the Mahayana level. That doesn’t mean the lower level, the Shravakas and Pratyekas don’t have emptiness. I have stated very often that the emptiness presented in the Hinayayana level is the same emptiness as in the Mahayana and Vajrayana levels, it is the same emptiness. There is no separate emptiness. The emptiness may become more powerful or something, that is possible, but other than that it is the same emptiness. However, here we are talking about the Mahayana level only.

In the Mahayna (it is also called Buddhayana) you accept only one ultimate result. There are Buddhist schools who accept three yanas, who divide it into three yanas. When we talk about three yanas, that is not the point in the west where you say Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. When the Buddhist texts are referring to three yanas they are referring to Shravakayana, Pratyekayana and Buddhayana. Shravakayana and Pratyekyana are the Hinayana level. Shravakas are the ones who listens, hears and passes on the message. Even these Shravakas told the Buddha “when you give teachings on the Mahayana, we become like a log burning on a fire. However we have listened to that and we carry the message, and pass it on” (meaning we don’t practice it). So they are known as thö dok [thos sgrog; hearer proclaimer] or one who listens and one who talks about it. Thö: he heard, dok: messenger, carries the message.

Pratyekayana, rangye, means self-liberation. There are a lot of those, without depending on anything, liberated by self, self-liberation. Many of them remain solitary ones, remaining by themselves alone as solitary ones. The period when they are supposed to come is before the official Buddha, in between the official Buddhas. At the end of the earlier official Buddha’s period and before the next official Buddha appears, a lot of those pratyeka buddhas sort of carried on by themeselves. So these are the three yanas. But in the west, when they talk about Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana, that is also not wrong, from the point of a practitioner, there are systems of counting that, which is very well known in the west. The other, normal, official way are not well known in the west, I don’t know whether it is because of Trungpa Rimpoche or because of Suzuki Roshi, I don’t know the reasons for why it is this way in the west. But when they talk about the three yanas and they are talking about Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana, people always think that way, instead of Shravakayana, Pratyekayana and Buddhayana.

I talk about these three yanas because there are schools in India who accept three ultimate levels, which means ultimate results. For them, if you become “no more learning” in the level of Shravakayana or Pratyekayana they consider that you have achieved the results and there is no more learning. No more learning is also divided into two categories: one who has a little left over of the first noble truth and one who does not have left over of the first noble truth. That is the body. The way they tell it, it is like the candlelight. When it has exhausted all the wax, naturally the candle will fall, and there will be no more candlelight. Likewise when the causes of the first noble truth (that is the second truth) are completely exhausted, there will be no more left over. Two categories. So according to that, it somehow looks like it has disappeared. When you obtain the no more learning stage, until the leftover comes. That is called something that is left over.

But the Mahayana points are different. The Mahayana does accept the arhat level of the Shravakayana and Pratyekayana. However they say, this is an ordinary thing, they did not reach the ultimate level. So, according to the Mahayana level, all these arhats who have reached what we call dag chun pa, who have destroyed the enemy, which means negativity, negative emotions. Out of two blocks [obstructions] nyon drib [afflicted emotions] and she drib [obstruction to omniscience], this is completely cutting the nyon drib, not the she drib. So, nyon drib. You know the difference between garlic and the garlic smell, that is the difference. They have cut out all nyon dribs, gross level of all negative emotions, and negativities. Not only do they cut it out, last night I mentioned three different ways of doing that. They refute it, so it is no longer there, but they refute it so it can never grow again. However, the smell is not gone. Like that, the leftover imprint smell is not capable of growing again, but you have to get rid of it, clean it. So that becomes the ultimate enlightenment level.

That tells you the negativity that you have to get rid of at the arhat level is the first block. That is the gross level of the block. And at the enlightened level, what you get rid of, the second part, that is the mental-oriented part, which is like a garlic smell, that we call she drib. According to those who accept that the ultimate is one, they will say that these arhats have had a little picnic for a little while. Somehow they have been reminded by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas and somehow they will lift from that fifth level of the Hinayana no more learning, into the third level of the path of seeing in Mahayana and thereby follow the fourth path, the path of meditation and go to the enlightenment. So that is the reason why in the Lam Rim teachings, why they will always tell you why you have to cut across the river twice. It is always recommended right from the beginning, geared towards the Mahayana path.

Almost every Tibetan teachings, no matter whatever the tradition might be, Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug, it is geared towards the enlightenment level. I don’t know about the Bönpos. Now they call it Bön Buddhist, I don’t know. But when they call it Bön Buddhist, it is true. In this particular point it becomes true. I will give you the reasons why later, but however, if it is really the tradition of Bön, then it is not Buddhist, it is the pre-Buddhist religion in Tibet. It is called Bön. Today the Bön Foundation here, and the Bön people, they really teach true Buddhism, and they even they call it Bön Buddhism, and that is fine. So almost every tradition will accept the ultimate yana as one yana. Why do I have to mention this? Because the foundation of the base, path and result, foundation of what to do, what, who and what for, all of them are totally the reason why I am bringing this.

For these people the result is the sublime truth and form. Truth here is referring to the mind, and form is the physical aspect. How do you get that? During the path, that totally depends on method, as we stated earlier, which means the love and compassion. It is also a wisdom. It is a wisdom that knows the relative path of truth. Wisdom itself is absolute wisdom. That is why two truths are called the relative truth and absolute truth. Not separating these two, not contradicting these two, but combining them together brings the result of the truth of the ultimate body. If you separate it, then it can’t give you the result. Chandrakirti has said that the relative and absolute are like the two wings of a bird. You have heard that so many times, I am not going to repeat it. In order to cut through you need these two. If you separate it, if you lose one, and then you become this Australian boomerang. You go in circles and come back. It doesn’t cut through. So that is why it needs to be together. I think that is applicable to almost all the yanas, anyway.

When you are talking about the positive effort and positive result directly here, there is something indirect behind that, something to read in between the lines. What you have to read between the lines is that when they are telling you here that you accumulate merit and wisdom merit, you should also read “if you accumulate negativity and negative karma” then when it says the result will be “a sublime truth and body” the hidden message between the lines is that instead that you will get lower realms and suffering and so forth. This is exactly how one has to read these particular words here.

So the last one is the sublime truth and body. The merit produces the form and wisdom merit produces the mind. Wisdom merit here is referring to knowing that everything, every existent does not have intrinsic existence at all, seeing that, clearly understanding that from the bottom of the heart. Such wisdom is called “exactly wha it is”, you remember “suchness”.

I guess that is about it. This will also give the practitioners inspiration, inspiration that one should be totally looking for this from the bottom of the heart. That interest will develop, so that is that point. And that also tells you, whether you have the interest of learning it – I use the word “learning”, because every spiritual development, every development, every wisdom has to follow learning, analyzing and meditation. Without learning you cannot analyze, without analyzing you cannot find a point, when you cannot find a point you cannot meditate, without meditating you cannot get the result at all. That’s why it is very much interlinked. When you say learning, some people may say they are too old. Or I don’t really need to learn, I just want to practice. But what are you going to practice? If you don’t learn, what are you going to do, just sit? Sitting is fine. You can see the next person, how he is sitting, out of the corner of you eye, he is doing this, and we do. If you don’t know how to do it, you can look at somebody else who know and do all the physical gestures.

Many of those geshes are very good at understanding, but do not know anything about the mudras or anything. Some of the geshes have been learning for 13 years the real essence of the Buddha’s message, and not only learned, but practiced, and become really great. But when they go from the big monastery to the tantric college, where there is all this tantric practice, and you have all these different mudras, etc., some of the geshes don’t know how to do it. When they don’t know how to do it, there is a compulsory thing, one of the geshes will have to stand at the deputy abbot. They make it compulsory, because these geshes are so learned that they won’t learn, so they make it compulsory. So, they are known as “copy” [did I get that right??] geshes. So a lot of those copy geshes are sitting face to face with the deputy abbot, they try to learn from some well-known learned guys who know those things, and then may be sitting in the second row or the third row behind someone, and say “I’ll watch you, would you show me”. The geshe will sit there and sort of see what the other one is doing. So he will go, and there is one nice geshe, one nice person also, that guy is great, although he is not a geshe that way but he is really great. Even Gyabje Ling Rimpoche thinks he is really fantastic. He is a very joking guy. One kind of well known geshe sort of relied on him. So he is doing those mudras and he is looking at him. Since the geshes don’t know them well, they do not take their hands completely out, so they will sort of move a little bit here, so he keeps going like that, he keeps on sitting at the back, nobody has been looking except this guy. So he keeps on doing those, and in the middle of it he puts his finger in his mouth, and the geshe almost copied him [laughter]. So if you don’t learn, if you have to look at it, if you have to meditate, that’s what is going to happen, you will put your finger in your mouth.

So when you say learn, it does not mean you have to be a scholar, but it means you have to learn what you need to do. You may think I am not going to learn anything, I am old, I am retired, I am sick, I am too busy. There are a million different reasons you can give to yourself, and that is laziness. Sakya Pandita has advice on that: even if you are dying at the eleventh hour, and you are going to die the next hour, even then you keep on learning, because if you don’t become learned in this lifetime, in the next lifetime you can take it easily as though you have left something with somebody else so you can come back and collect it easily, without putting efforts of creating it. So that is the point. A little bit of learning is necessary. If you don’t know, you won’t know.

The Tibetans have a joke: somebody says “Have you ever been to Lhasa the capital” and they say “No I have not”. Then you say “Then you I can tell you whatever I want to tell you, you have no way of knowing it”. So the guy asked what is sha kering doing in Tibet. Sha kering in Tibet means there is one really big prayer flag, they put it on one stick. Those of you who have been to Tibet have seen it. So sha is the word East, as well as meaning “deer” too. So the guy replies “It is just drinking a little water, and eating a little grass”. And you say OK, this deer is eating a little grass, and drinking water. So that is exactly what happens if you have no knowledge. That is why Nagarjuna insists that we must learn what we are doing. You may think that you can meditate on emptiness and wait for the emptiness to come to me. You can wait till the cows come home, it still won’t come. That’s it. So I guess we have done point number one.

End of the digital audio file titled 20051105GRNYWisD8

*according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org “skye ba” is defined as: I) 1) birth, generation, arising, production, origin. 2) arising, origination, as one of the fourteen non-concurrent formations {ldan min 'du byed}. 3) rebirth, birth, life, lifetime, manner of birth. 4) rebirth as one of the twelve links {rten brel bcu gnyis}. II) {skye ba, skyes pa, skye ba} intr. v.; 1) to be born, be reborn, originate, arise, come into play, dawn, happen, take place, grow, come into existence, come into being, be produced, become, begin to exist, grow, bud, germinate, sprout, come out newly. 2) give birth to, give rise to, bear, be pregnant, be with young. 3) to feel, think. 4) to progress, increase. Def. among the {rten brel bcu gnyis} by Jamgön Kongtrül: {skye ba'i yan lag mngon gyur gyi dbang du byas nas/ mngal du nying mtshams sbyor bzhin pa ni skye ba yin}, {nang gi 'du byed kyi rgyun yod pa skye ba dang skye ba don gzhan bsal nas sngar ma byung ba las gsar du byung ba'i cha'o}.;

**according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org “rkyen can” is defined as “having a cause, having a consequence.” The transcriber has doubts that this is a correct hearing of Rimpoche, but it is plausible.

***according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, “dam pa” is defined as 1) the best, most superior, excellent, holy, sacred. most holy, perfect, holy. true, holy, sacred, sublime, best, superior, excellent; syn {'phags pa} noble, eminent. true, holy, pure; sacred (i.e. things)/ holy (i.e. people); 1b) the holy ones, sublime masters 2) the late, the deceased 3) adj. comp. of {dam po} 4) a good, 5) bound by an oath, vow, consecrated, tightness; unfettered;