Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 10 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 23: 11-10-05

As you know, we have been reading the part of the Lhag Thong Chenmo part of the Lam Rim, which is the vipasyana aspect of it. Today, on my last Thursday night for this year, I am supposed to sum up what we have done, from the beginning of the year to today, however many Thursdays we have sat together and talked. When you ant to sum up, actually there is noting to sum up, because it looks to me like we did not do anything. We have tried to reach to emptiness, going around from everywhere, trying to bite but we could not chew, can’t even bite. We tried to get to emptiness, not even getting close, throwing stones at the door where the emptiness is inside. That is what we did.

We have been sort of moving around, trying to get close to emptiness. Although we say we did not do much, if you really look back, we sort of touched in various places. We did not pin-pointedly say that we have read this, taught this, that is what you have understood. There is nothing comfortable in that way. However, when you look at it, we touched all sorts of places. Whatever we may say, we did not know, but we have known something absolutely clear to us, and that is that the emptiness is interdependentness. Interdependentness is emptiness. That is an extremely important thing, and we are aware of that.

We are also aware that when you are talking about “empty”, we are not talking about non-existence empty. When we say “empty of what?”, it is not empty of something that is existing. It is empty of something that does not really exist. That is also quite clear to us. It is empty of something which does not exist, which means something that we have confused, that we have accepted and are taking for granted that is existing. Emptiness tries to make it clear to us that that is not really existing. So, somehow, we all understand that. By having that understanding, what happens to us, what we really establish, is that we begin to look into everything, every existent thing. We begin to see that every existent thing is dependently arising. When you see that they are all dependently arising, you begin to the see lack of – but I am not even going to use this term “intrinsic existence”. I should say it, but I am not going to use the term “intrinsic existence”. Why? Because it keeps us escaping somewhere. Yes, when we say “intrinsic” we immediately hide, instead of exposing ourselves to the truth. We sort of begin to hide under the word “intrinsically existing” or “naturally existing”. If you skip all these words, and you really know that everything is dependently arising, this really gives us an understanding that we do not exist. I like to say that we do not exist in the way and how we perceive that we exist; in the way and how we think we exist; in the way and how we think “who I am”. All of them really do not exist, because they are dependently arising. Depending on what? Not only on causes and effects. That is one way of looking at dependent arising. Another way of looking is to look at conditions, though this is not separate. It depends on the terms and the conditions. Terms and conditions come together. Just coming together is capable enough for it to be able to function. It is capable enough to provide the basis for the working of Karma. Capable to be responsible. That is what the working of Karma means: be responsible.

I think that we came to notice this, quite clearly this year. Also, we know that if you go beyond that – if you keep on searching for what is really me – we will also know that we are not going to find anything. I think we came to know that too. But we also came to know another important thing. By knowing that my body is not me and my mind is not me, if then you think “I am not there” and that is emptiness, we also have come to know that that is NOT emptiness.

Remember we worked on this with the example of the chariot or horse cart. We kept on saying that if the wheels of the chariot fall off, the top falls off, the body falls off, if they all burn, then there is no chariot. We went through this repeatedly, and spent a couple of months talking about that. What we came to know out of that is that just the lack of it, just not being able to pinpoint and find it, and saying it is not there, that is not the emptiness of the chariot. What we know about the chariot we also know about ourselves. We know that my body is not me, my mind is not me, my ears, my nose, my legs, hands are not me, and then say “oh that is my emptiness” But that is absolutely wrong. That is not emptiness. I think half of us know that, and half of us might not be very clear.

Emptiness means something a little more than that. Because that is a very easy one to get. You can think it easily: throw this table top out, the legs, that part whatever, and hah! there is no table, there is emptiness of the table. We now know that is totally, please excuse my language, it is B.S. It is true that it is not there. But that does mean that is emptiness. If it was, then everybody will know emptiness. It is not. In its essence, emptiness means interdependentness. Technically it is not right, but if someone asks you “What is emptiness”, and says “Present me emptiness here”, what would you present? You would present interdependentness, and say “This is emptiness”. The example given by Pabonka in his Liberation in the Palm of Your Hands, says if you depend on the walking stick it assures that you are unable to walk independently. Your walking depends on the walking stick. So, when you are depending on something, it means that you cannot function independently.

By this weekend we will know, but by now we have sort of come to know that there is no such thing as existence, nor is there non-existence, although, some traditions will say there is non-existence. You remember we saw those arguments saying it does not exist because that particular wisdom, the Arya’s special meditative wisdom, the sublime transcendental cognition has not seen it, so therefore it does not exist. Some people will say that is does not exist, because this transcendental cognition mind has not seen it. But it is not non-existing, because it is the base for functioning on a karmic basis, and all of those. At least we now begin to doubt those other statements. By this Saturday, or by next Saturday, we will be beginning to deal with this, and we will clearly know that neither existence nor not-existence are possible.

By looking at those things, although we are unable to chew anything, we did make a lot of attempts. And we did gain some quite good points, some very important points here. Although the viewpoints of the different traditional Buddhist schools, or “tenet systems” are not yet absolutely clear to us, still we know quite a lot. We know about the idea that external existence as self does not exist because the external existence is built up out of the internal existence, and you cannot find an “end of Russian doll” basis for its existence internally. At least we know that kind of non-existence is not the correct view of emptiness. We also have gone beyond the Mind-only school’s position, and know that it is not correct to think that there is no externally-established true existence yet still think that true existence is established on the basis of mind. Also we have touched on the Svatantrika’s views of establishing self, the idea that things do not exist because their intrinsic existence is not seen by a reliable mind. We also have at least been told that is not right. We have also been told that the Prasangika, or Buddhapalita’s and Chandrakirti’s explanation of Nagarjuna’s or Aryadeva’s understanding of the emptiness is considered the correct one. We have heard that, we have talked about it repeatedly, but we still do not know it yet.

I think these are important points that we have sort of come to know this year by spending Thursdays here. Particularly, we know the most important thing: Emptiness is not a zero, not empty. The moment we talk about it, a number of people will be searching from something empty. What you can you really search for in emptiness? Nothing. So, instead we are finding emptiness by looking at how we exist. So the real essence of emptiness is not only that emptiness and interedependentess are one, but the real essence of emptiness is interdependentness. The real essence of interdependentness is emptiness.

One more thing that became quite clear to us is that because of the emptiness, because of existence becoming dependent on terms and conditions, then you can have everything: You can have impermanence; you can have change, you can have development; you can have purification; you can have compassion. As a matter of fact, compassion becomes the essence of emptiness, and vice-versa, emptiness becomes the essence of compassion. Because it is dependent arising. If it is not dependant arising, if it is a solid thing, then we will have a problem of establishing all of them.

In short, when we say truly or absolutely, or intrinsically, one not exist, that does not necessarily mean it is not there. To not exist intrinsically is not enough to be a definition of non-existence. That we now know. We also know that just a combination of terms and conditions that are capable of functioning is good enough to be existent. I think we have come to know this year. There may be a little more, maybe not many more, but this sort of gives us a little basis. I am not saying we have learned it. I am not saying we have developed emptiness. But we do have some idea. We have established something. We are not simple or blind.

I think I read last Saturday that difficulty that lies ahead now, is that it is difficult right now to draw the line at just a combination of terms and conditions, capable enough to function. That is why we have been saying that if the point of refutation is too small, you left out something and you will not be able to liberate, if it is too large, if it is too much, if it covers too much, you lose true existence and become nihilistic. That is the difficult part of it. How much is too much, how little is too little. We use the words “just a combination”. These two have a connection, and this is the difficult point where we will be struggling now. Once we begin to know how much is too much, and how little is too little, then we will automatically be able to know what the words “just a combination” means. I think this is one of the most difficult points, although there are eight difficult points of the Prasangika understanding. There are eight difficult points, but out of all these, that particular point is the most difficult one. Because of that, the point of refutation becomes really important. Whatever you refute, that shapes or sort of produces our understanding of our emptiness.

Although we think we did not learn much and that we did not pick up much, when you look at it, we have come up with quit a lot. We also know what is our struggling point. This is not only us, but many of the earlier great teachers, great learned ones, have struggled on that. That is why emptiness becomes difficult, although everybody likes to know the best, right from the beginning. Everybody would like to have emptiness right from the beginning. Now you begin to see, and we begin to realize how difficult it is to get it. If we begin to talk about it right from the beginning, we are not going to get anywhere. We would get nowhere. This shows how solid it is, how fragile it is. I guess that is where we are. I think that is my conclusion, to sum up we did. That is what we have done, that is where we are, and that is how we get in. When I am thinking about what we have done, I was thinking we did nothing, just circled around and danced around. Then you begin to see that we have really made a dent, he have done at least a little bit. At least now we know what is our struggling point. I have nothing more to say, I am sorry. If you have any questions, according to this clock, we still have some time.

[Audience] Rimpoche, in regard to the statement that the essence of wisdom is compassion and the essence of compassion is wisdom. As I understand it, that implies a recognition that there is a conventional reality, and the functioning of karma, so that you recognize that there is suffering. Is there suffering if you annihilate, this jig lta? Is there still suffering? And if so, what suffers?

[Rimpoche] Who suffers, who is the sufferer, right? I think that we will probably read about this tomorrow. That is really true. That is one of those arguments that comes up. And that argument point says that if everything does not truly exist, then your sound or your word does not exist. If the word itself does not exist, how can it destroy the object of negation? And then again, it says who destroys? Because you are not there. So all of those will come up.

Your question is an interesting question. Yes you do negate – I think that is the point. When we were reading through last weekend, about the recognition of the point of refutation, too much, too little, etc. If it is too much you lose the basis of karmic functioning if the self. If it is too much you become nihilistic. When you say that you lose the basis of karmic functioning, that means you are losing the basis. When you don’t lose the basis, that means you have the basis. The word says: “If you lose the base of karmic functioning then you have become nihilistic”. What you have to read between the lines is that you do not reject everything, but you establish something. What you establish is the something that is basis of karmic functioning and a responsible being – a person. And that very person destroys – refutes – this self to be refuted. That very responsible base of self is the person who does refute the ego. That was your question, actually, I forgot what you said, but paraphrasing your question: Who is the person who will refute what?

[Audience] And that responsible person who recognizes just existing also recognizes the fallacy of jig lta, of identifying with the perishable aggregates, and recognizes that self doesn’t exist.

[Rimpoche] That very person, that “just existing” person, is the functioning person, is the responsible person, is the person who goes, who sits, who thinks. All these activities are capable enough to be able to do it, just the combination of this. This is a little extreme. In the Prasangika point, beyond the “just combination”, nothing else exists. That becomes very fearful. That is why the different tenet systems below that keep on trying to establish something, trying to put something in who will take the label and who has something. That is why they talk about a person who will be able to stand by itself, or a substance that is able to stand by itself, or an independent self, itself, or the “indivisible person”. They have to come up with all of those because when they say “beyond just the combination there is nothing” it is very frightening. When it is becoming frightening, you try to inject something in there. That is what is happening. Even among the great earlier teachers, many of them had extreme difficulty establishing that it is “just combination”, because they were so afraid of being completely nihilistic. So they tried to inject something, and all of the different thoughts and tenets and identifications of self came because of that.

[Audience] In the Heart Sutra it says “no hindrance in the mind, no hindrance, therefore no fear. Is that hindrance and that fear what they are describing? And trying to have something existing beyond what you said “just existing”, but a little more?

[Rimpoche] That is why the Heart Sutra says: “form is empty, emptiness is a form. Emptiness is no other than form, form is no other than emptiness”. That is just because of that. That is my thinking.

[Audience] When you get to establishing this responsible existence which is based on karmic functioning, then I jump in to “does this have a relationship to the continuous discontinuity of man, or is this another – do you follow? – or is that trying to put something into it?

[Rimpoche] I do not know, but I think you try to put in something there on just underneath the skin of “just combination”, and try to put in something which is the continuation of discontinuity. You are trying to put some substance in there. Maybe, I do not know. I think the “just combination” itself is a continuation. It is a continuation –[Audience; in itself, that is it] – Yeah, it is a continuation, but when you try to dismantle it, there is nothing there. But when it is “just a combination of”, it is a continuation. That is why it is responsible. That is why it can carry. And that combination alone, itself – even the Buddha is impermanent – I do not know, it is hard to say in Sanskrit or English, but in Tibetan if you say sangye, which means Buddha, is a permanent. When you sangye phagpa, referring to the person, then it is impermanent. That is a division I can make in the Tibetan language. I am sure you can make it in Sanskrit, but I do not know Sanskrit, so I do not know the different words for the person and the general name of a Buddha. Who is the Buddha? The Buddha the person, and Buddha. The Buddha is permanent, and Buddha the person is impermanent. It is easy in Tibetan, you just add one little word in there “phagpa”. Yah, “Arya Buddha”. Arya Buddha is impermanent. Buddha is permanent. That becomes difficult, so let us not touch it. Actually is not difficult, but it is a complicated theoretical point. The point is that just a combination of that existent person’s subtle continuation of that is the point really becomes the enlightened one. But then you don’t have “one”, but it is just a combination of it. The moment you separate it, try to dig in to it, you don’t.

I have tried to make “easy emptiness”, though the teachings say: “Don’t do it”. Like taking the spout of the vase out, and the top of the vase out, and the stomach of the vase out, and then I say there is no vase. Or we do the same thing with the table, and then say it is not there. I did it. This is the United States. You see the land of the US, you see the people of the US, you see the government of the US, and when you talk about the government of the US, you see three different segments, or three different parts of it. You see the legislative branch, you see the executive branch, and you see the judicial branch, and when you combine them together it becomes the United States. If you take one, it is the judiciary branch, or the legislative branch, or the executive branch. The moment you start cutting into it, the moment you go deeper, the land is not the United States, the land belongs to the New York state, or the whatever, or Michigan, or Illinois, or California, or whatever. And they all belong to that, and you put them all together, the people, the government, the land, all together, you have that huge thing called the United States. The United States is definitely emptiness, no question. So that is what I mean, empty. The “just a combination” of it became the United States. That is what the teaching told you not to do, but at least we can see it that way easier. Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know.

[Audience] You were very careful to avoid “intrinsic existence” today, and you said that the mind will do funny things with the word “intrinsic existence”, can you expound on that a little bit.

[Rimpoche] The moment you use “intrinsic” existence or “natural” existence, immediately we are escaping something, we find a little cocoon we are going to hide behind. You do not want to say “I do not exist”, so you would like to say “I intrinsically do not exist”. So we are really hiding behind that. But, on the other hand, when the terms and conditions are just right, and that is “just existence”, that existence is good enough to be existing. That is the difficult part again. I mean this is what the books will tell you, the teachings will tell you, they are correct when they say “intrinsically non-existent”, “naturally non-existent”, and all of those. But when you begin to think about it sometimes we like to hide behind it, completely. It is a very good hiding spot.

Anything that is attacking that ego has been protected by this word “intrinsic”. That is why I do not want, so that is why I do not like to use the word. I don’t mean for everyday use, I mean, when you are thinking. Sometimes if it is used as a shelter, then we have to remove it.

The whole idea is bursting the ego. That is the whole point. So if it becomes the shelter for the ego, then you have to remove it. At that moment, if you have to substitute something. You may not have anything to substitute.

[Audience] We have heard many times that compassion is the essence of emptiness and vice versa, emptiness is the essence of compassion. When I think about that, I think that if I was to really understand emptiness, and go deeply into it, when I understand emptiness, I will therefore also understand or experience compassion and vice versa. MY understanding of that –

[Rimpoche] I don’t think so. Although, the essence of emptiness is compassion, I don’t think that when you trace the emptiness you are going to find the compassion. I don’t think it is. I don’t think they are saying it. Whether we have read it or have not yet read it. I do not think you are seeing it. Nagarjuna’s root mandala said – it is one of those arguments that the materialistic groups have put against it the Madhyamikas – as one of them said: “If you do not truly exist then you do not have the four noble truths”. We read that. So, it is going to go beyond that. When you look down into that, you find that because there is no intrinsic existence, therefore all four noble truths do exist for you. And if you have intrinsic existence, then you will not have the four noble truths established to you. This is exactly how they reply. When they point out to you a fault, you point out the fault backwards to them. When there is no intrinsic existence there is impermanence. Impermanence because there is interdependentness. Interdependentness because of terms and conditions. Because of terms and conditions, there are the four noble truths. Because of the four noble truths, there is suffering. Because of suffering there is the cause of suffering. Because there is a cause of suffering there is cessation. Because of cessation, there is a path that leads to the cessation. So, when you are looking at it from that angle, this emptiness, or lack of intrinsic existence, provides the compassion. It brings compassion because it sees the suffering. Because you have seen the suffering, you see compassion. That means, in one mind level you have the wisdom of seeing the lack of intrinsic existence, as well as, from another aspect, just like love and compassion, just like that, another aspect is seeing the suffering and the compassion, without contradiction. I think that is what it means to say that the essence of emptiness is compassion and that the essence of compassion is emptiness. Rather than meaning that when you trace the emptiness it becomes compassion, or when you trace the compassion and deep down emptiness pops out. I do not think it means that. I think it goes without contradiction, within the one mind, two different aspects, complementing each other. That is my interpretation.

[Audience] This is a follow-up question then, maybe this is wrong, or maybe it is just a different level, because I am sure there is a million explanations on that statement, but I was thinking that if you understood emptiness – if I saw that I was not rigidly separately here, and I did not exist separately – I would actually feel deeply connected to all beings, and I would no longer feel like I was more important than others. So I would then genuinely be able to feel compassion, because I would not be faking the altruism. In the absence of the wrong view that I exist separately, I would feel this huge flooding of warmth and realize that I am interdependently existing with all other beings. So that would explain how compassion would come out of emptiness. On the other side, I thought that if I got deeply into compassion, then what is the best way to help others? Wisdom. Without that I cannot help them. So, by really wanting to help others, it really leads you to at least seeing that you need emptiness in order to be compassionate. Because without that you only have the desire but not the skill to be helpful. Is that incorrect or is that just another level.

[Rimpoche] I do not know, I honestly do not know. I cannot even say if that is correct or incorrect, because I do not know. What I do know is that when you say the essence of emptiness is compassion, and the essence of compassion is emptiness, I think it has to be looked into in that way rather than looking at “the real meaning of emptiness is compassion”. Although compassion is emptiness. There are some people who develop wisdom before they develop bodhimind. Some people develop bodhimind first and develop wisdom later. That is why I said “I don’t know” about your question. They are both. It is not that compassion comes first and wisdom comes later, nor is it the other way. So, really, I don’t know. But the links, and dependentness, and terms and conditions, if you look at the big picture, the whole world is interdependent. And if you look at the smaller picture, at causes and effects, at the physical basis as being just enough to establish the self, I don’t know. Honestly I do not know, I am sorry about that.

[Audience] Since the heart sutra says “form is emptiness and emptiness is form”, does this mean that in our investigation, or in our analysis, we should not only see entities in terms of their interdependence with things, and their being comprised of parts, but we should also study how are mind takes that interdependence or that dependency and then constructs or falsely imputes something whole. Do we need to study the entity, and also how we perceive the entity at the same time?

[Rimpoche] I believe so. On the other hand, it is also more than that. When you say form is empty, the moment you say form, form means something solid, some physical thing, some collected thing, something brought together, something compounded. The translation of the form in Tibetan is tsuk [‘dzugs*?]. Tsuk means that physical form being. The picture you immediately get, the moment you say form is a combination of a lot of particles. And that itself is emptiness. People make it very difficult. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. And they make a lot of explanations. But if you really look straight at that word “form”, it is a collection of a lot of things, particles and all kinds of things, combined together. Say “pillar”, I am used to using that. What do you see the moment you say “pillar”? You see all kinds of things, that have been put together to be able to function to lift the ceiling beam. Then you are looking at it, you see the combination of all things in there, and that itself shows the emptiness. Then, the moment you ask “what is the emptiness of the pillar?”, it is the pillar itself. There is no other than pillar, you cannot separate a thing called emptiness of a thing called pillar. It is very straightforward, form is emptiness, emptiness is form, emptiness is nothing other than form, form is nothing other than emptiness. So it is very simple, straightforward. But people like to make it very complicated, and I think they are right. But also you can simply straightforward look at it and you see it. The word tsuk itself means a collection of all kinds of parts and parcels combined together, made into something tangible that you can hold, feel, etc. All of these come in because of the combination. I do not know, maybe I am stupid, but that is how I see it. I don’t need to go around and try to spin around and say form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Because of that, I think just simply look at it, see it.

[Audience] I think that just by the virtue of the fact that you can see something, perceive something, just that conveys its emptiness.

[Rimpoche] I do not know whether that is the basis of emptiness or not. The form is empty, to me it is a straightforward statement. It does not have to be interpreted, but everybody else says it has to be interpreted. But it is very simple, straightforward. I am sorry, I don’t know whether I have communicated with you or not, because the moment you raise those words, I began to see that.

[Audience] I had always thought that form, we have been talking about the Platonic form of form. [Rimpoche interjects: “what does that mean?”] Not the physical, column that is right there, but the thing of its column-ness. The idea of the column, the abstract ideas that make it a column, but not the particles added up. And you are saying that is not form.

[Rimpoche] No, the particles added up is also form.

[Audience] Now, what I am saying is that what I always thought form was, which is the Platonic idea of form.. [Rimpoche interjects: “both, definitely both”]. It is not the particles themselves, it is almost like the concept of a column versus a table are two different forms.

[Rimpoche] Yes, both are there, for sure.

[Audience] It is easier to see that the concept is empty, because it is obvious that the concept is empty.

[Rimpoche] See, you say ”obviously” the concept is empty. Which means you are really seeing that it is a collection of it. Which means that you are seeing the sign of emptiness. And then, the concept of the form is also emptiness, again, because it is dependent on terms and conditions. I don’t know, this is a little naive for me, but that is how I see it.

[Audience] So both the physical thing and the concept.

[Rimpoche] Yah, why not

[Audience] Actually, that is another part of the Heart Sutra.

[Rimpoche] The Heart Sutra does not say that form is interpretable for sure.

[Audience] Is the Platonic concept different from labeling?

[Audience] Yes. When you are thinking about a concept, the label is already there. A concept is an idea. The idea is already labeled.

[Rimpoche] If you don’t label it, how can there be, who will no that is the concept. When you don’t know English, when you have not been introduced to English, a concept means what you have just explained. Until then, the label of the concept is not put on it. The moment the label is put on it, then the concept is established in the mind of the individual person. Either you have the translation of it in different languages, or you have the introduction of the label and the object on which you put that label. So then you establish that. When you establish that, it again becomes dependently established. Not cause-and-result dependent, but part-and-parcel dependent.

When you don’t know that this is called a pillar, you have to talk to the person “You know that thing standing in the middle of the room holding up the beam”, and they will say “Yah, yah, yah, this is – and then some language will come – and that is the introduction of it. And that is the labeling. That becomes an important part of this. That is why they talk about labeling all the time, because that is the word that is introduced to identify.

[Audience] I am still trying to understand what happens at the third path of seeing emptiness directly. I understand you to say that when someone sees emptiness directly they are not seeing conventional reality.

[Rimpoche] At that moment, when they are absorbed completely, the word order we use in Tibetan is morr [sp?] which really means “mind that is non-dualistic mind that is completely absorbed in that emptiness”. At that moment, it just doesn’t see any other conventional thing, by that mind, at that moment, in that mind, directly at that time. In Tibetan the morr is really easy, but in English you really have to add up all this.

[Audience] So if that is the case, then what does it mean to say that emptiness and dependent arising [interdependence] are the same?

[Rimpoche] Emptiness and interdependent arising are the same, however, when you see the emptiness, you do not have to see the interdependentness directly, the same way, the same thing. Interdependentness is becoming the reasoning part of that, and that is leading you to see that there is nothing is there.

[Audience] So that is what you see post-meditation, after you have had the direct perception of emptiness.

[Rimpoche] I see pre-meditation state, you see this interdependentness, and that will lead you to the direct seeing path. At that moment, the dependentness is somehow shifted for a minute, and the non-dualistic complete absorption. Then you become the post-meditative state and you have this little problem of adjustment and all of those. You call it illusion-like [illusion-like aftermath]. I think that is the post-meditative state. The word in Tibetan is jey top [rjes thob]. When you look in the Lam Rim, I am sure they will say jey top.

Thank you so much for everything.

End of the transcript of the digital audio file titled 20051110GRNYWisD10

*according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org 'dzugs means: found, settle, establish, introduce; to insert, to hold [a meeting etc.], to found, establish, set up, to build, to make up, form, constitute.

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved