Archive Result

5

Wisdom teachings NYC 12 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 25: 11-12-05

Thank you and welcome here. I would like to continue from where we stopped last night. Last night we did the fourth point, of establishing the four noble truths. And the fifth point: The system of Nargarjuna here can establish and maintain and function based on interdependent nature. With interdependent nature, everything can be established. Then we read a little bit about chapter twenty-four of Nagarjuna’s root text (Fundamental Treatise). Now we come to point six. What point six is going to do it, is that whatever we have stated above is not only OK, but is that it is also the point expressed by the Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. [Audience: We are on the bottom of page 132, and near the bottom of 585 in the Beijing edition.] Would you like to read a little bit and we will talk about it? Or would you want me to talk first and you read it? Or what? I think we are at the quotation of Nagarjuna’s Tso dok [rtsod bzlog; Refutation of Objections]. That is where the sixth point begins. So maybe you should read the verses of the Tso dok (Refutation) first, and then the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness, both of them.

For whomever emptiness makes sense,

Everything makes sense;

For whomever emptiness makes no sense,

Nothing makes any sense.

I bow down to the Buddha,

The unequaled supreme teacher,

Who taught that emptiness, dependent-arising,

And the middle way hold a single meaning. pp. 132-133

And then the Seventy Stanza verse:

The unequaled Tathagata taught

That because all things

Are empty of intrinsic existence,

Things are dependent-arisings. p. 133

Keep on reading. OK., this is from the Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning

Those who cling to the self or to the world

As though these were not contingent

Are captivated by extreme views

Of permanence and impermanence.

Those who claim that dependent things

Exist in reality–

How can they avoid the fallacies

Of permanence and so forth?

Those who hold that contingent things,

Like a moon reflected in water,

Are neither real nor unreal–

They are not captivated by such wrong views. p 133

And there is one more verse, from the Praise of the Transcendent One

Logicians claim that suffering

Is produced from itself, or from something other,

Or from both of those, or without a cause;

You said it arises dependently.

You hold that whatever arises

Dependently is empty;

There is nothing to match your roar,

“Things do not exist on their own!” p. 133

Let’s look back to the Refutation of Objections. It is almost the same as chapter 24 of the Fundamental Treatise, which we read yesterday. Nagarjuna’s point here is saying that it is refuting the objections that were raised. One who – is it one who? [Audience: here it is “for whomever”.] OK. the word in Tibetan is gang la†. Whether it is “for whom”, or “one who”, that is the translators. We cannot say they are wrong. I would have gone “One who”. But you know my English, so I am not in a position to say anything. I cannot even read it, so I take refuge to my “Miguel” for reading. [Audience] you “go to” him] Oh, I am sorry, today it becomes “”got to” rather than “take”. So I go to .... [Laughter] Anyway, we are looking at the Tso dok. It is almost the same as chapter twenty-four, it just differs by one word. What it is explaining here is that one who accepts the emptiness of reality, in that system you can also accept the four noble truths, as well as interdependent system. All can be managed. However, one who cannot accept the emptiness, then for that person, nothing is able to be really be establishes.

Who said that? This goes to Buddha. It is Buddha who said that emptiness and interdependentness means “Free of two extremes”. The center of two extremes. When you say U ma, the Middle Path, Madhyamaka, the middle means middle, it is the center. The center here is free of two extremes. The Middle Path, free of two extremes, is that emptiness (empty of naturally inherent existence, or natural existence) and interdependentness, are one thing. That itself is what the Middle Path is all about. In other words, here it says: “Buddha who proclaimed that emptiness is a lack of inherent existence and that lack of inherent existence is interdependentness. That interdependentness is lack of inherent existence, and that combination is the middle part. In other words these are synonymous.

The one who is proclaiming this is outstanding, equivalentless. And that is the Buddha, the Buddha Shakyamuni, to whom I bow. That is who Nagarjuna is bowing to. Equivalentless means there is no example, or anything that can be an example of that Buddha who proclaimed this. So we title him “equivalentless”, “no example”. And that is the Buddha Shakyamuni, I bow to him.

In the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness there is almost the same thing, but slightly different. The word comes as ngö po tam che rang shin gyi tong pa...[dngos po thams cad rang bzhin gyis stong pa...*]. The basis of everything that functions, or every phenomena. This is a little difficult. How did they translate ngö po into English? [Audience: “all things”] Maybe it is easy to say “all things”. The problem is, the word in Tibetan is ngö po Not all things are ngö po, because there are permanent ones. The definition of ngö po really means something you can use. Something functional. Impermanents are not functional but still exist. Anyway, maybe it is OK, because you are talking about the naturally existents. So if you make it the ngö po word as the whole thing, that will be fine. I think this commentary I am using has four different people’s comments, that is why it is very hard to read. I think Jambye Shepa [sp?] is trying to say here that the translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan is not right. Jambye Shepa said “One should have said ‘because there is emptiness, all things are emptiness, therefore all things are interdependentness’, that was the statement of the Buddha.” He says they should have translated it that way, rather than as “All things lack intrinsic reality and therefore it is emptiness and therefore it is interdependentness.” Instead of using the double or triple “therefore”, you should have just simply said it that way. I think Jambye Shepa is yapping in between here. So, I think those are the verse from the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness, and now we go to the Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning.

I think here we will have to extra attention, because I think these verses will have three kans [sp?] Here the translation is “Those who cling to the self or to the world”. The first “those” refers to non-Buddhists. Do you know what that means? You know what that means. What is it?

[Audience] It is when you think you exist independently, so you think that the world rexists independently, and you grasp onto that.

[Rimpoche] You care getting quite close, because you are very sharp, so you are getting close, but not. The first “those who cling to the self” is referring to a very specific thing.

[Discussion with audience in Tibetan]. [Audience: It is the childish conception of self.] [Discussion with audience continues in Tibetan].

[Rimpoche] So, the clinging to self here really means that the self is self-created. There is some kind of something deep inside of me, which is my reflection of my own, which is created by me, and that is all in one thought. I am not very familiar with those terminologies.

[Audience] The Sankyapa [sp?] have that which arises from an inherent cause.

[Rimpoche] That is the Sankya [sp?] school that thought that the self is the one who created it.

The second one, “clinging to the world” here means the principal creator of all. They are not talking about Christianity here. It is the principal creator that creates everything. Everything is manifested and created. It is all the principal creator that created the whole world, and everything is the movement and the wishes and the grantings of a creator. These people will point out that every phenomenon is included in the twenty-five different points. Each one of those twenty-five are the creation of the creator. When they are talking about clinging to the world, they are talking about that particular one, rather than just the world, or the self. So this is the first ‘those.’

Those who accept that it is not dependent, it is the self-created, or the world created by a principal or general creator are “captivated by extreme views, of permanence and impermanence.” p. 133 This particular one is saying that those who think everything is not dependent, not dependently arising, not interdependent nature, they think it is reality by itself, by it’s natural action. Though they accept cause and conditions, however, they could not establish that. Buddha calls them very naive and stupid. They think self is created by self, and everything the self experienced is a self-manifestation. Sometimes we think that, because, lacking the discriminating wisdom and having some understanding of karmic system, and having some understanding of one’s responsibility for one’s deeds. You understand that one is responsible for one’s deeds, so you think our own suffering is created by ourselves, and we create our own joys created. In a way it is, but it is your karma, it is your delusion, it is your negative emotions, and it is your positive emotions, and these are what really create it, not you. When you lack that understanding and when you have, for example, what happened after 9-11. Immediately after 9-11, a lot of those Buddhist scholars started staying that it is definitely karma. Then the people immediately started saying that they are bashing the victims. That is because, though we will not say it, we have in our understanding that our karma is made by me. I made my Karma, and I am responsible for my deeds, therefore I created that. That is almost becoming close to their view as well. It is self-arisen, the self did it, the self everything, and it almost becomes like a Vajrayana’s principle yidam is the creator of a Mandala. Which is very similar, but completely different. That is why we get confused sometimes. If one develops the discriminating wisdom, one begins to see it. But lacking discriminating wisdom, that is how we sometimes even perceive.

Now they are creating the second part, a creator-created world – though Buddha is not talking about Christianity. Buddha doesn’t know – well Buddha must be knowing everything, you can’t say Buddha doesn’t know. But the Christian views were not presented at that time. But the Sankya school thinks that it is some kind of principle who creates everything, the whole world, self, others, everything else, suffering, joy, everything else is the creator’s creation. The creator’s creation comes in because one does not clearly know that it depends on the terms and conditions. If it depends on terms and conditions, then, when terms and conditions are right, things happen. When the terms and conditions are not right, then things go backwards, things stop happening. It depends on the cause and conditions, rather than on somebody who is creating it. That is what the first ”Those who are clinging to the self, or world” is referring to that, rather than just “clinging to the world and self”.

That view also accepts the self as permanent, and self as creator of all. The second group is everything, every existence, exists because of the principal creator’s thought, and the principle creator’s wish. It is very similar to what we know: “Let there be light. Let there be water.” It is very similar to this, and I am not saying that is what we know of as the Christian view. I know nothing about the Christian tradition, so I should not be commenting on it.

Similarly, there is another group. For them, all things are neither a production nor destruction. So therefore it is permanent. It is permanent and therefore there is no production or no destruction. When it is gone, it is impermanent, it is gone completely, and there is no continuation. Therefore, impermanent here really means not a changing impermanent but instead a total annihilation, a total non-existence. There are sixty-four of these points. Buddha calls them “bad view”, “rotten ones”. Those sixty-four types of views sort of grab us, they destroy our own freedom. Destroying our freedom here really means that they are depriving us the opportunity to by liberated to obtain Nirvana, or all of those. That is why they are called bad views. The responsibility of what one can do, or one cannot do is completely shifted away from the individual to somebody else, something other than self. So the person becomes total at the mercy of that other than self, rather than having it be what you can do, or what you cannot do. What you can or cannot do is completely taken away from you. That is why the liberation has been taken from you. You have been deprived of Nirvana. The individual is deprived of the opportunity for total enlightenment. That is why they are called “bad views”.

Now comes the second “those who..”: “those who claim that dependent things exist in reality.” What the second “those who” do is that yes it depends on the cause and conditions. It is interdependent nature, but it is only dependent on the causes alone. But things naturally exist. So they accept the naturally existing, inherently existing. And these are Buddhist schools of thought. This quote goes on to say that those have fallen into the nihilistic or existentialistic views. When you say completely existing, they become existentialistic. Here I mean existentialistic, not essentialistic. Someone asked me last night “What is the difference between the essentialistic and the existentialistic?”

[Audience] I asked whether one was Sautrantika and one was Svatantrika. One was Madhyamaka...

[Rimpoche] Both are Madhyamaka. Svatantrika and Prasangika. I think this division was originally in India but not so much emphasized. They did not divide. But the literature and teachers were there, their views were there. But the Tibetans made that division, particularly Tsongkhapa made that division between Svatantrika and Prasangika. Both are Madhyamaka. One of those, the materialistic or existentialistic –the u wa ma wa [sp?]. The word u wa ma wa in Tibetan is translated sometimes as essentialist, sometimes as existentialistic. So it looks like they are using both of them. The word u wa ma wa doed not only refer to these Svatantrikas, but also to some parts of the Cittamatrins and some parts of the Do de pa, the Sautrantikas. And then you have these Abhidharma people, the Vaibashika system. All of them will fall under this label “essentialistic”. They fall under that category. The word in Tibetan is u wa ma wa. It is almost like “accepting material” point. It is not the usual American talk of materialistic, not that point, but from the Mahdyamika’s point, they are all materialistic people. Almost all three other schools, plus half of the Madhyamaka fall under that category. That is why the translators are using “existentialistic” or “essentialist”, because of that shift.

It is almost half and half. Most of those who are following the quotations, and those who are following the logic, like the Cittamatrins and the Do de pa, are divided into the same principal. Those who are quoting the quotations, they just quote quotations. They don’t talk much about it. So they are just excluded.

Those who are thinking and arguing have been included. That is whey the divisions even come in. And every translator has a choice of what words they would like to use. Yu can’t force them. If you hold Bob Thurman and Jeffery together in one room you are going to have problem. Exactly the same thing is happening, even in the tradition. When translating from Sanskrit into Tibetan, and from Tibetan in to English, the same problem is there, throughout. The similar problem existed between Pali and Sanskrit. It is a problem inherent in existence.

[Audience] So these two words, “essentialist” and “existentialist” are interchangeable here, all referring to non-scriptural Madhyamaka and Sutra schools? The scriptural ones we leave out?

[Rimpoche] No. You have to leave out the Tal gyur wa, the Prasangika. This is the Prasangika’s system we are establishing. You have to leave it out. Other than that, more or less, but don’t cut it, because it is going to change everywhere. [Joking with audience] How did I become Geshe La?

[Audience] They are calling the essentialists “mun por ma wa” [sp?]. They don’t give a word for existentialistic.

[Rimpoche] Oh, you have an index there, a glossary. We have noticed a couple times they a have been using existentialist and essentialist back and forth, they are using both of them. So, the mun por ma wa is the essentialist.

[Audience] So, when Jey Rimpoche (Tsongkhapa) “mun por ma wa” in the Lam Rim Chenmo, is he referring mostly to the non-Buddhists?

[Rimpoche] Mostly he is referring to the LigDenje, and the Cittamatrins, and the Do de pa, Vasubandhu and those. So, where are we?

[Audience] “Those who cling”

[Rimpoche] That’s right. These are the second “those”. Most of the Cittamatrins are included, and that is four Buddhist schools. Almost all of them are included, including half of the Madhyamikas also are included in that. Why? Because the Cittamatrins point of view on emptiness is that it is empty of external existence, and mind consciousness, a principal consciousness is a permanent true existence. I think that will fall under this second “those”.

Even those great Buddhist teachers accept inherent existence. Therefore they fall into one of those extremes. They have the same problem as non-Buddhist scholars, who will have to say it is both impermanent and not impermanent, together. For them impermanent becomes total nihilation and that problem will continue even to those Buddhist scholars, according to the Nagarjuna’s interpretation here.

Now the third “those” is referring to the Madhyamikas who had the best ideas. That best idea is that it is dependent arising, it depends on the definite cause and conditions. Because of that, all things are non-existents. For example, like the reflection of the moon. The reflection of the moon in the water is a dependent arising. That reflection depends on the terms, causes and conditions, such as water, moon, and light. When you have water, moon, and light, all three together, you see the reflection of the moon. Things exist in that manner. That is – there is a word here, pure and not pure – not perfect, not wrong. [Audience interjects: “neither real nor not unreal”] O.K. Neither real, because it is like a reflection of the moon in the water, it exists. The reflection of the moon in the water exists. I did not say it there is a moon in the water., but there is a reflection of the moon in the water. If you think that there is a moon in the water, what happens?

We have an interesting story about the monkey king. This is called “misleading”. When the teacher misleads his student, that is what happens. The monkey king saw the moon fell in the lake. So they had a big meeting, saying “it is a terrible thing, the moon has fallen in the water.” This was the monkeys opportunity to be outstanding and take the moon out of the lake. So, they try to hook one another to each other and hang on the tree, and try to make themselves long enough to pick the moon up. So they hook themselves to each other, and one monkey holds onto the branch of the tree. The others are hanging on, and getting deeper into the water, because they cannot yet reach the moon. The ones who are up there are saying :down there, down there, go deeper”. But they cannot find it, and after a while the tree branch broke, and every monkey fell into the water. So they are not saying here that there is a moon in the water, but there is a reflection of the moon in the water. And that reflection is dependent arising. It depends on the moonlight itself. If there is no light it will be dark and you won’t see it. Although if there is a moon there will be light, but still it depends on the water.

That is the example of not real. But what do you mean by not real? Because it is not really a moon. It is a reflection of the moon. It appears to us. We can see it as a moon. It appears to us, but as an appearance. It is not true reality. So it is neither real, not unreal. That is what this one is talking about. Because it is not real, it is unreliable. Just because it is not real does not make it wrong. However, that moon in the water cannot act or function, it is not functionable [able to function] like the real moon is. That is why it is not real.

What happens is, as a human being, when we see the self, though we depend on terms and conditions, just a combination of causes, terms and conditions, the base of everything is just combination of it, we are established almost like a combination of moon, water, and light. It appears. Although the reflection of the moon cannot function as a moon, this one, the human being, can function as a human being. So, it is not only the combination, but whether it is able to function. That is an additional point. When you just read “neither real nor not real”, it is a big problem, unless we try to clarify this. We keep on saying “the others are wrong, this guy is wrong, that guy is wrong” But we are going to be wrong too if we don’t clarify this.

Since it is able to function, that is why we call it relatively existing. Therefore, it is not really there, but it is still there relatively. Those who can accept that will not lose their liberation. That is what this quotation from the Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning is about. What they are really trying to establish is that it does not truly exist, it does not exist inherently, but it does exist relatively. What does that mean? It is able to function. It boils down to whether it is able to function. The Tibetans very often use the example, sometimes even in the Lam Rim. There was a traveler in the open field somewhere, miles of open land nothing is there. The travelers are going, and suddenly you see a tree runk standing in the middle of somewhere. The traveler thinks “Oh, there is a person coming.” Because your eyes cannot see that far, and you see something and think it is a person coming. Until our mind really sees, our mind will perceive the tree trunk as a fellow traveler coming towards you. That mind will accept that as a fact until it is refuted. A third traveler comes from that areas. Suddenly you meet on the road and you ask “What happened to the other guy”. And he says “Which other guy?”. “The guy who was standing over there.” “Which one?” “That one, way over there.” “Oh, that’s not a person, that is a piece of a tree, I saw it.” That very verification will burst the view of accepting the tree as a person.

This doesn’t really go here. I was thinking something else and then bringing that example. That is one of the qualities of relative existence. Relative existence cannot be contradicted by a perfect mind. That is what that example is about. I thought about that and lumped them together in my head. Basically, relatively existent means that it is functionable. If it can function, then it is good enough to be existent, because it functions. It takes responsibilities. It is reliable. I believe this is the most difficult part of establishing emptiness. It is the most subtle part of it. It is very hard to make a distinction, but as we go on, we will make some improvements. Basically, I think that is what this all talking about.

Those who accept those, do not lose their freedom. That was said by Nagarjuna in his Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning. Not only that, there is one more point here. That is Nagarjuna’s Praise of the Transcendent One. What does “Transcendent One” mean? The words we use is sometimes “samsaric” and “non-samsaric”. Non-samsarics are trenscendent. In Tibetan they use jig ten [‘jig rten] and jig ten la de pa [‘jig rten las ‘das par??]

They are all similar. Can you read those words in English? “Logicians claim that suffering is produced from itself, or from something other.” O.K. Why do they call them logicians? Suffering is created by self. That self has two points of self, self the person, and self the suffering itself. Maybe I am going into too much detail. What is next? “or from something other,” There are a lot of others will also say suffering is created by a causes, which probably have nothing to do with me, or is not my part of it. That is why they are talking about “others”. And “nor both, . There is especially a school who think that suffering and everything comes out of no causes, it pops up like toast out of a toaster. Really, they think that. One does not accept past, present and future lives.

[Audience] That would be like a nihilist. They don’t see any causation.

[Rimpoche] Yah, it is nihilist. But it is one of those non-Buddhist schools.

[Audience] Charvaka?

[Rimpoche] What is Charvaka?

[Audience] The materialists. Only what you see is what you get.

[Rimpoche] That is it! Only what you see is what you get. What is real is real. There is no karma, no causes, nothing. What you get, you get. Why you are happy? Because you happen to be happy. Why are you not happy? Because you happen to not be happy. So there is no cause, nothing. The Charvakas are called the Gang phen pa in Tibetan [rgyang phan pa**]. Or sometimes it is Tsu dze pa [tshu rol mdzes pa***]. For them, anything that is right in front of us, if that is nice, that is good enough, there is nothing to worry about, nothing to think about. Whatever is here, that is it. If it is not here, it is not there.

If you are not careful, even some Buddhist schools will only accept the present, not the past, not the future. They will have a similar problem to these Gang phen pas. That is the reality. Because, if time is only in the present and nothing is in the past, nothing is the future, if that is the case, then Dharmakirti, or someone, has been debating with these thoughts, in that case, why don’t you, the father marry your own daughter? I don’t remember what they answered, but that was the argument. They say that only what is here matters, nothing beyond that, and everything comes out without any cause. They are called the logicians. Tog ge wa [rtog ge ba****], they might have translated as logicians. The problem with this is that logic is extremely important to use, but the moment you use the word Tog ge wa, which seems to be translated as “logician”, then there is a problem. The word Tog ge wa gives you a meaning behind it, that is that you are only talking about it, you are only mouthing it.

[Audience] In the Greek tradition, they call these kind of people “sophists”. Just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Rimpoche] Yah, just arguing for the sake of arguing, nothing beyond that you can think, or analyze, or practice, or anything. Just blah blah blah. This is what we call Tog ge wa. Even among the Tibetans, when we joke around, a lot of Nyingmapas will tell Gelukpas: “You Tog ge wa. You just keep on arguing just to argue, you have nothing solid to think, but you are arguing on points.” Then the Gelukpas will make a joke back and call them “thoughtless”, saying “You just sit there and believe everything when it happens, thoughtless.” That is a joke among them, it is not fighting. There are people who are fighting, but they say different things. These are the jokes they use.

But if you make the word Tog ge wa into “logician”, it may not convey that message of just arguing with nothing to hold onto.

The next words are referring to “You have said it arises dependently”. You hold that whatever arises is empty; There is nothing to match your roar, “Things do not exist on their own!” p 133 This here is referring to Buddha. Even those Buddhist scholars and teachers and great masters, they are all interpreting Buddha’s thought. Probably I am taking something for granted, maybe I have to say a little bit more about something that you have to know. When y are looking into the Buddhist teachings, Buddhist traditions about Buddha’s teachings, all the Buddhas teachings all into two categories. The first category is interpretable. The second category is non-interpretable. That is commonly accepted by all the Buddhist teachers, including Buddha and the seven who followed him as the most important substitutes. All of them have accepted that some are interpretable and some are not interpretable. The word in Tibetan is tan dun [drang don; expedient meaning [requiring interpretation]] and nye dun [nges don; definitive meaning]. Tan dun means Buddha was thinking of something else, he had something in mind when he had something in mind. Nye dun means it was a perfect straightforward statement. For this reason they give room for all these different interpretations. Because of that, everyone can use their intelligence and their mind and can translate and interpret what Buddha really was talking about. Because of that, there is a variety of levels of emptinesses. From the point of the compassion side you get not so much that is interpretable. But in the case of the wisdom aspects you get a lot of those interpretables.

Even the Buddha’s teachings are divided into three categories, called the first circle, second circle and third circle. There are certain Buddhist schools that say the first circle is direct non-interpretable teachings. Some will say the second circle is non-interpretable and the third and first are interpretable. That is how these Buddhist schools and thoughts have come up. When we are sitting here, when we try to think, when we try to get some idea about what emptiness is, we are not going to even reach their thoughts. Without guidance, we would be worse than what they have been saying, we would not be able to make it empty at all, nor would we be able to make it existing. Neither empty nor existing is what will happen to us if we leave it. But to help us they have all these different interpretations and views. They have refuted and counter-refuted, and finally have come to draw a conclusion. That is because the point of emptiness is extremely hard to get. Hard to get, as we know here. Even when we talk about it, half the words don’t make sense. It is also that the literature is so beautiful and poetic, so much so that sometimes the words just like gang, this guy is translating gang as “those”, but gang can be this and that, anything. But one word can be meaning thirty different things, or maybe three thousand different things. So that makes an additional difficulty. Even though all of them all of them come down too, it helps us to understand better, to get it as best as one can. Anyway, let’s continue here.

So, the Buddha, you have said “interdependentness”. Whatever that interdependentness is, you have accepted that as emptiness. “You hold that whatever arises dependently is empty.” p 133 In other words, here, you read that backwards. Take the word tong par, which means emptiness, and shey [rjes, or bzhes?], which means accept. “What you accept as empty” Then you go back two more words. “Whatever is interdependentness.” What is interdependentness? Read backwards. The third word here is “ You who have stated that every phenomenon is interdependentness”. Now you read forwards again. “You have said every phenomenon is interdependentness. Whatever arises dependently arises is interdependentness. Interdependently arising whatever it is, all of them you accept as emptiness.” If you read it backwards once and read it forwards once, you get the message: Dependent arising is empty, empty is dependent arising. So, Tsongkhapa claims that Nagarjuna’s main point is that the essence of emptiness is interdependentness and the essence of interdependentness is emptiness. One brings the other. One shines the other. On introduces the other. One expresses the other. One brings the other experience.

Does that make any sense to you? No? O.K.

Things are not independent. “All existents are not independent” is the lion’s roar of your sound, referring to Buddha. Why do they say “lion’s roar”? The lion’s roar overpowers every yapping and chirping of little animals. There is a verse that says all these different yapping and chirpings, going yap, yap, yap, can be completely overpowered by the lion’s roar. The Lion’s roar of the Buddha is that emptiness is interdepedentness and interdependentness is emptiness. That is called the lion’s roar of the Buddha, by this particular praise to the Buddha.

Tsongkhapa’s conclusion here. Because it is dependently arising, it is free of inherent existence. Just as we say, sound is impermanent because it is created. If it is created, it has to be impermanent. Nothing that is created can be seen as permanent, including the Statue of Liberty. You know, it is really a permanent, solid, huge thing, but it all becomes impermanent because it is created. So everything created has to be impermanent. Just like that, everything that is dependently arisen has to be empty. The King of Logic tells us that the grain is not truly existing because it dependently arises. You can use grain, or anything. It is called the base. Not truly existence is the point of establishment. Because it is dependently arising, you reason based on that base to establish the point you are trying to establish. These are called the three major components of the reasoning. If you don’t have the base you will just be throwing words into the air. People will say I don’t know what you are talking about. So you have to find a basis on which you are talking, you have to round it on a basis, such as you, or me, or a grain, or house, or world, or whatever it is. That basis is your presenting point on which you would like to establish that it is not truly existing because it is dependently arisen. Like a grain is not truly existing because it is dependently arisen. The reasoning point of establishment, the base, is called the three systems. If you don’t have those systems, you keep on arguing and talking a lot of blah, blah blah, it really disturbs here. Here you have to use one or two words to establish it.

When I was a kid in the monastery you are not allowed to explain. You just say “yes, no, yes, no” and the logic will follow it and lead to the point where you can clearly see that you are absolutely wrong. You can still insist “I am right”, then they will treat you like one of those crazy wild ones. You are sort of taken out. Other than that, you are supposed to go “yes, no, yes, no, yes, no” rather than explaining. During the debate, when the person who is answering tries to explain, the debaters will normally say: “I did not come here to get a teaching from you. I am here to argue with you, to debate with you.” They will always say that. So you have to say “yes, no, yes, no” and stay within the framework. Otherwise it becomes crazy and goes nowhere.

The last sentence, please:

Thus Nagarjuna says that it is precisely because of being dependent-arisings that phenomena are empty of intrinsic existence. This explanation that dependent-arising is the meaning of emptiness–that is to say the absence of intrinsic existence–is the unique system of Nagarjuna the Protector. p. 133

In Tibetan it says [....,], which means the essence of interdependentness is the lack of inherent existence and that is Nagarjuna’s unique system. That we have covered in point number six. That number six is accepting the statements [inaudible] of Nagarjuna and his spiritual son, Aryadeva. So that is the sixth point. The seventh point is almost the same as the first point. It says that lack of inherent existence can establish samsara and nirvana. Can you read that?

Therefore, a dependent-arising does not mean accepting emptiness–the absence of intrinsic existence– for oneself as a Madhyamika, while leaving teachings on dependently arisen cause and effect to others because on is uncomfortable with having them in one’s own system. For Nagarjuna’s statement in the Fundamental Treatise, “For those to whom emptiness makes sense...” means that all of the dependent –arisings of cyclic existence and nirvana are admissible in a system that teaches absence of intrinsic existence.

Thank you. That is the seventh point. What this seventh point is telling us is that some people accept that the lack of inherent existence is emptiness, yet they have difficulty to establish causes and effects. When you establish cause and effect strongly, then you cannot really establish the lack of existence. So, they say cause and effect is because of something else. Something else happens. Mostly they talk about reflections of this, reflections of that, but not really reality, it is a reflection. There was an English book, I wish I could remember the title. I believe it was written by Deepak Chopra. There was some kind of sorcerer, and there was some kind of fight going on. Was it Camelot, or something. Anyway, the sorcerer is creating this, and some kingdoms are fighting, and people are getting killed, and everything is going. And the sorcerers keep on saying it is the sorcerer’s magic show, nothing is really happening. I just thought about that. I am sort of thinking out loud. Thinking out loud happens to be talking out loud. But that is what is happening. It is a sorcerer’s creation and is not real. However, the people are really getting killed, and there is some kind of palace, a pure land or something? Camelot. Camelot is losing, and the enemy is taking over, and all of it is real, but that that person it is all a sorcerer’s thing, and not really. But people are dying, lives are being lost, all of that. That is what happens when you go too extreme. I am not saying Deepak Chopra is the one, I am not saying that, please. But that completely becomes in that manner. People get killed, everything but it is a sorcerer’s trick.

If you are not careful, it also happens in our Vajrayana too. If it is a subject of destruction, then with all these wrathful activities you can destroy, provided if you can liberate the person. So, sometimes it is very similar to that too. So I am warning you about a hazard. It is very similar to this, so it is extreme, because it is just a magician’s show, just an illusion, not reality. It becomes that way sometimes. So one has to be a little more aware. That is where the beauty of Nagarjuna’s balancing point comes in. Emptiness and interdependentness is balancing, because the moment you lose that balance, these things happen. I don’t think this only happens in the spiritual path. I think this happens even in the material world. Not knowing where to draw the line. Not knowing what really is protection. How much is protection and how much is aggression. Those are just my thoughts.

Let’s take a little break.

End of the audio file titled 20051112GRNYWisD12

† according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, gang is defined as: what, which, who, where; what, whatever; 1) the one, someone. 2) that which. 3) what. 4) vi. to be filled up, to be full. 5) one, full, complete. 6) [+ adj. comp.] as. as possible. 7) full, covered. 6. on, upon. 8) who? which? however, what, how, etc.; full; whoever.

*according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org

dngos po thams cad is defined as: totality; rang bzhin gyis stong pa is defined as: empty of nature, void of self-existence.

**according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, rgyang phan pa is defined as: hedonist, a follower of the Charvaka school, materialists.

***according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, tshu rol mdzes pa is defined as: hedonist.

****according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, rtog ge ba is defined as: [speculative] philosopher, dialectician, sophist, logician, intellectual, arguing, reasoning, dialectics, sophists, dogmatist.

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved