Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 13 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 26: 11-12-05

Now we reach to the basic fourth point. The fourth point is that the emptiness and the interdependentness are oneness. In order to show that, they make two separate points. Point number one is that the lack of intrinsic existence, rang zhin mey pa [rang bzhin med pa] is interdependentness. Number two will show that interdependentness is the lack of intrinsic existence. Those are the two points. The first point, lack of intrinsic existence is interdependentness, has two points: 1) the general reasoning and 2) explaining through the quotations. So, two points: the logical and from the quotes. First comes the logical one. The logical one should be saying that one should see lack of intrinsic existence as interdependentness. When the practitioner reaches to that level, the lack of intrinsic existence should appear to that person as interdependentness. Then come these particular words. That is where we stopped. It says ‘those who accept emptiness can establish how you can really establish interdependentness.

How is it that all of cyclic existence and nirvana is possible in a system that asserts emptiness?

Here we are reaching to the fourth point, the point that emptiness is interdependentnesss and interdependentness is emptiness. That emptiness is interdependentness has also two points: 1) general logical or general reasoning explanations, and quotations. Now we are explaining the general reasoning. The question is raised, and then the answer comes:

As I will explain below, proponents of the view that all things are empty of intrinsic existence argue that this is possible by reason of things’ arising in dependence on causes and conditions.

[Audience] We should be at the top of 587 (p. 135, English edition).

This being the case, dependent-arising is tenable within emptiness of intrinsic existence, and when dependent-arising is tenable, suffering is also tenable—or suffering may be attributed only to what arises in dependence on causes and conditions; it cannot be attributed to what does not arise dependently. When true suffering exist, then the origins from which is arises, the cessation that is the stopping of that suffering, and the paths leading to those cessations are tenable; thus all four truths exist. When the four truths exist, then it is possible to understand, to eliminate, and to actualize the first three truths respectively, and it is possible to cultivate true paths; when such practices exist, then everything–the three jewels and so forth—is tenable. p. 135

That is the general logical explanation. What they are saying, logically, is that “I am making that statement because everything is lack of intrinsic existence. Since it is intrinsically not-existing, it is dependently existing. Causes, conditions. Because of that reason, I make the statement that when it is dependently arising then interdependent natural is acceptable. If that is acceptable, then the existence of sufferings is acceptable, existence of suffering. If the existence of the sufferings is acceptable, then the existence of sufferings depends on the causes and conditions. Otherwise, you cannot establish where the suffering comes from; unless it comes from the cause and conditions. Earlier we were refuting that suffering could pop up like toast out of a toaster, or that suffering comes from the wishes of somebody else, or that suffering is self-manifested. All of those have been rejected, so all that is left is that suffering comes from causes and conditions. There is no other place from where the suffering comes.

So, if that suffering is true, then suffering comes from the second noble truth. The truth of suffering is the first noble truth. The second noble truth is the cause of suffering. If that is true, then if it is produced, if it is a production, if it is caused by terms and conditions, then there can definitely be a cessation. Because it can stop, it can be reversed. It can because when you put a gear forwards it can always be put in reverse too. If it comes from somebody’s wishes, then you can do nothing; you cannot put the gear in reverse. The whole system of samsara is such that when you look at the twelve links, or when you look at the four noble truths, both the negative side and the positive side, one leads to the other. The first one that you get is not the truth of suffering. The first that you get is the truth of the cause of the suffering, and that also goes to the karmic aspects of the action-oriented cause, and the motivation oriented cause. So the cause of suffering, the second noble truth, is always divided into two, and the word they use in Tibetan is ley dang nyon mong [las dang nyon mongs1]. Ley2 means karma and nyon mong3 means negative actions and negativities. So, again. the action was caused by the nyon mong, or the thoughts. So it is reversible when one stops. When the first thought stops, then the action stops, then the result stops. That is how. When it can go forward, then it is reversible. When it is reversible, then the method of reversing, the reverse gear, is available. When the reveres gear is available, then you get to the cessation, and you can park wherever you want to park. If you can’t go backwards, then there are places you cannot park.

That is how the four noble truths are established. If these four noble truths are established like this, then you say “to know and to eradicate” [Audience: “It is possible to, understand...”]. Understanding. What is the purpose of the first noble truth? When Buddha gave the first teaching, the four noble truth teaching, the four noble truths go around three times. It is twelve steps. When it comes around a second time, the purpose comes out. The purpose of the first noble truth, the truth of suffering, is to recognize, and here they say “to understand”. The purpose of the second noble truth is to “eliminate”. To understand means not only that you feel the pain. We are not talking about that understanding. It means to recognize and acknowledge that, and to know where it is coming from, to understand that. When you understand that it comes from the karma, and that karma comes from the negative emotions, the usual things we talk about: hatred, anger, and so forth. So the purpose now of the second noble truth is to eliminate. Shey ba tang, Bo ba tang [sp?[ Right? [rtsa ba btang4]. I just say one word. This is the beauty or the problem of the Tibetan language. You don’t have to say all this. You just say “Shey ba tang, Bo ba tang”.[sp?]

Eliminate. Know, eradicate and obtain. That is it. Three words in one sentence

The purpose of the third noble truth is to get it, to actualize. If you say “to get it”, to obtain it, it can mean that you have to go somewhere and get it, or go somewhere and collect it, like “I go home and get an extra coat.” But when you think about what “actualize” means, the third noble truth follows after the fourth noble truth, which is to cultivate. “Cultivate true paths”. The word in Tibetan is “meditation”. Gom [sgom] Rung la. The word rung la is equal to yod. Particularly in this case. Technically, they are using rung la, because it looks nicer, from the grammatical point of view. If you keep on saying “yod, yod, yod” everywhere, every page would be filled up with yod. So, rung.

[Audience] So there is no extra thing from the rung, like it is acceptable or suitable? Yes.

[Rimpoche] Acceptable, suitable, yes, there is. But here, in this particular case, they are using rung to not repeat so much. The difference is that in the Western style you want to be consistent. In the Tibetan grammar, you don’t want to be consistent. Consistent is horrible, really. The worst thing you can do is to be consistent. That is why they always have to change the words. To be consistent is something you don’t do. The kids will do it. You don’t do it here. So, sometimes you have to borrow that type of things, so it happens. It is absolutely a cultural difference.

[Audience] We are right before Chandrakirti’s Clear Words.

So that is basically the second round of the four noble truths. The third round is that, yes, the purpose of suffering is to understand, yet there is nothing to be understood. The second purpose is to eliminate, yet there is nothing to be eliminated. The third one is to actualize, yet there is nothing to actualize. And finally, the fourth is to cultivate, yet there is nothing to be cultivated. So that makes four noble truths, round three times. The first round is introducing, the second round gives you the reason, and the third round gives you the key, which is emptiness, which actually cuts whatever is to be cut. That is the first two. The second two is to be strengthening. To give a sort of force within that there are the two positive truths. To cut, there are the two negative truths. There is a common Tibetan usage that means “four noble truth, three times, it is equaled to twelve”. That is what that will tell you. When you are talking about the four noble truths, if you are simply saying this is this, and this is this, and this is this, that will not do. You have to say what is the purpose of this, and how do we get rid of it, and how do I make it stop? They are all combined together. Then it is completing a presentation of the four noble truths. But when we give a normal talk, if you say: “Yes you have to get rid of it, but there is nothing to get rid of”, that makes people completely confused. So we keep our mouths shut and just give the four. But Lochoe Rimpoche is here teaching, he goes over the twelve, completely. So also does Lati Rimpoche, and all the great geshes. The always do that, automatically. But a person like me, we don’t understand this very well here, then on the other hand you don’t get confused people. So we just sort of say: the first one, maybe the second round, and the third round is kept buried. That is what happens.

When you have these four noble truths circling around three times, then you definitely have the three jewels. That is because, of the four noble truths, cessation is the arhat level. At the Mahayana level the Mahayana arhat is Buddha. And knowing, understanding, eliminating, and obtaining are all Dharma, and a person who does that is the sangha. Therefore you do have the three jewels, and that is the first point of the general reasoning system.

The second point is explaining through quotations. The first quotations comes from Chandrakirti’s Clear Words.

For those to whom this emptiness of intrinsic existence of all things makes sense, everything that has been mentioned also makes sense. Why? Because we call dependent-arising “emptiness”... thus, dependent-arising makes sense in a system in which emptiness makes sense... and the four noble truths are reasonable for those to whom dependent-arising makes sense. Why? Because only what arises dependently can be suffering, not what does not arise dependently. Since what arises dependently lacks intrinsic nature, it is empty. pp. 135-136

Once there is suffering, then the origins of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the paths leading to the cessation of suffering also make sense. p. 136

That is it, that is the quotation. Now we get to the third point. What is the third point? The third point is that you can have results. Can you read that one sentence?

Therefore, thorough understanding of suffering, elimination of origins, actualization of cessation, and cultivation of paths also makes sense.

When there is thorough understanding, etc. of the truths—suffering, etc.—then it makes sense that there will be spiritual results. Once there are results, then it makes sense that there are people who have achieved those results, p. 136

This is the third point. The third point is saying if that is possible, then there is.. The word in Tibetan is, I think, zhug ney. That translation will not say much. They will say the result of the spiritual practice [Audience: spiritual results] This is the main point here, which is that it makes sense that there will be spiritual result. “makes sense”. O.K., they are translating the rung as “make sense”. That is a big problem here, slightly. You should have said “have, have, have.” That is what has happened, the “rung” is the problem. Anyway, it makes sense to have a spiritual result.

What are you talking about when you say spiritual result?? Our normal understanding of “spiritual result”, is that we reach that stage, we reach that path, we reach this and that, we become finally enlightened. All of those are the normal understanding we have of “spiritual result”. Every practitioner does understand something. But here, specifically, you have to understand something that is called zhug ney [Zhug gnas]. Zhug means entering and ney5 means remaining, and those of you who are familiar with the Theravadan or Zen teachings, they use this word a lot. That is “stream-enterer”. They have divided that into four categories6. One is called stream enterer. The next is called once returning. The third is called no more returning, and the fourth is Arhat or Nirvana. That is how the area result has been divided in a certain Sutra system, which is accepted by all. As you remember we have the five paths. Very similarly here we also have four levels. The stream-enterer is divided into two: 1) who is entering and 2) who is remaining. Above that is it becomes once returning; in other words you have to come back to samsara one time. That also has those who are entering and those who have achieved and re remaining. Above that is no more returning, that also has entering and remaining. And then the arhat level, also entering and remaining. So four of those results multiplied by two become eight. When you say zhug ney, this is not the zhug who is sitting down, it is the zhug who is entering.

When you have a result, when they talk about the result, we have to look from the angle of those eight points. Stream-enterer. The stream means, remaining always, like water running, sort of constantly, continuously working through. That is what this word stream really is. One who enters and remains. Once-returning, enters and remains. No-more-returning, enters and remains, and no-more-learning, enters and remains. And that is that.

There is another way of dividing that and making eight that is very complicated, but this is easier. When they say “eight of those”, which means entering, remaining, etc., that is what it is.

I forgot the definition of “stream entering”. Saying “I forgot” is a nice way of talking, but it means “I don’t know”. If you forgot, it is the opposite of what you know. The opposite of what you know is what you don’t know. That is honestly what it is. We are looking at a logical point, and forgot is a very good excuse. But “I forgot” means I don’t know. When you are looking into the path of seeing, now it is not clear in my mind. My thinking is “don’t take it as reality”. Because I think that maybe half way through the path of accumulation, and path of action, is the stream entering. The path of seeing is –– no, I have forgotten, so I’d better not try to cut these eight of them against the five paths. In the monastery you have this discussion all the time, so you would never forget. Over here, you don’t have to think about it for ten years. So, now let’s read it. If you have those results, and those people who have, who remain in the result, which means you have Aryas and ordinary people. You are also talking about arhats and non-arhats. The fourth one will almost talk about the same thing, but they add one more word, and the three jewels are acceptable.

This in turn implies the possibility of people who are approaching those results. p 136

Approaching, I think they are translating this “stream-enterer” as approaching, now that is what the zhug pa is, approaching. OK. So the translators make a big difference. The stream-enterer is not the approacher.

Once there are people who are approaching and achieving these results, then the community is possible. p. 136

The community here refers to Sangha.

When the noble truths exist, then the sublime teaching also makes sense,

There they are talking about Dharma.

and when the sublime teaching and community exist, then buddhas are possible as well. Therefore, the three jewels also make sense. p.136

That is the fourth point. The fifth point is, if the three jewels, and all of them are possible, then

All profound knowledge of everything mundane and supra-mundane makes sense. p. 136

Mundane and supramundane. OK, that is what they are using jig ten [‘jig rten] and jig ten la de pa [‘jig rten las ‘das par??], samsaric and non-samsaric, mundane and supra-mundane. That word jig ten is being used here. Jig stands for perishable. Ten stands for one who is based on the perishable. A jig lta-oriented person is called jig ten in Tibetan. Today, for this label, the translator used mundane, and supra-mundane is gone beyond samsara, gone beyond being one who depends on the perishable aggregates. Gone beyond that, meaning one who is going beyond the jig lta, which is the target, or object of negation. This means when you have negated that object of negation, then it becomes wisdom oriented, and when it becomes wisdom oriented it is called going beyond. But here it is called supra-mundane.

Proper and improper conduct, the results of that [happy and miserable rebirths], and all worldly conventions make sense as well. p.136

Proper and improper conduct here is chog dang tshul ma yin pa [mchog dang tshul ma yin pa7] That makes sense in Tibetan very much. In English, proper and improper conduct doesn’t make any sense, does it?

[Audience] Yah [Inaudible]

[Rimpoche] I think we need to go and ask Pat Robertson what that means. What does Pat Robertson think about it? What happened in Pennsylvania?

[Audience] You mean the intelligent design school board?

[Rimpoche] Yeah, the school board issue. What happened?

[Audience] He said “don’t call on God, you voted him out of your community”.

[Rimpoche] Right. That is what happened. Next time when a natural disaster hits your town, don’t call on God. For you voted him out. So, it is proper and improper conduct.

The word in Tibetan is chog dang tshul ma yin pa. This is very Tibetan language. Chog dang tshul ma. If you look from one angle, it is very much like that Pat Robertson type of thing. It is like dharmic or non-dharmic, that is what they are talking about here.

[Audience] We are saying “ the results of that ... and all worldly conventions make sense as well.”

[Rimpoche] What does it say? Worldly conventions. What does convention mean?

[Audience] Something that everybody accepts. The community accepts. Like you have to pay the parking meter, it is a worldly convention.

[Rimpoche] But the point is that the parking meter might not be tha nyed [tha snyad8]. You have to pay for parking, that payment may be tha nyed. Not the parking meter. That is a funny way of looking at it

[Audience] Well, for example, driving on the right side of the road, in America, that’s tha nyed.

[Rimpoche] I heard a story here, I don’t know, it is an Indian story. One Indian guy was driving from Boston to New York on the wrong side of the road. The radio announcement comes on and says on a certain road, on that road, drivers should be careful because there is a drive driving the road. He heard it, and he said “One guy driving on the wrong side? Everybody is driving on the wrong side.” So that is tha nyed

Anyway, that is no big deal, we are making jokes here. Now this is concluding here with two sentences:

Therefore, in that way, Nagarjuna says,

For those to whom emptiness makes sense

Everything makes sense...

If emptiness did not make sense, then dependent-arising would not exist, and so nothing would make sense.

OK, now we are changing the subject here. I forgot the sixth pint, which is not translated into English, but in Tibetan, if you read it, rung rung, it just means you just have or not have. That is what this statement is here.

[Audience] Which is five?

[Rimpoche] We just read five, all of those, mundane, supramundane and Pat Robertson and parking and driving the wrong way, all of them are five. OK?. The sixth doesn’t make sense in English. Do they have anything in English?

Therefore, you should understand that “what makes sense” and “what does not make sense” here refer to whether those things exist. p.136

Can that work in the English language?

[Audience] If they mean by “exit” they mean “function”, or that kind of definition of exist that you said earlier.

[Rimpoche] It is a very good translation, really, but certain choices of words may have difficulties, because what else can you do? You read Sanskrit here, and it doesn’t make sense there, right?

[Audience] Rung was Suitability. Suitability or unsuitablity depends on whether these things exist.

[Rimpoche] True. Rung is suitability9, eligible, all of those, in normal way, but when you sometimes use the poetic form, here and there, it becomes an exceptional case, that is why there is one extra sentence there. [Tibetan phrase] Because you use a lot of rung rung, you have to understand what that means. It is not normal common usage in this language. The common usage is “suitable, not-suitable.” You are right, that can very easily go, it can fly. Suitable can fly, but have and not-have is hard to fly, but when you make a statement here saying that I mean it is have and not-have, you have to buy what the author says. It is almost saying what I said: This is that is what I mean.

Now we are changing to the second point. The second point is that the interdependent system is lack of intrinsic existence. The first is lack of intrinsic existence is interdependentness. That is over, now we are changing to interdependentness is lack of intrinsic existence, which probably comes out by eight points. This reminds me that when I was first teaching the Lam Rim in the late 1980’s, and they keep on saying “four of these, and five of these and that”, and I got an earful from everybody saying you don’t do this in America, “four of these and five of these and eight of these”. So I got an earful. But now in this Lhang Tong Chenmo, we are getting even more of these. But if you don’t divide this, and if you just read the Lam Rim Chenmo, it won’t make sense. If you keep on breaking it this way, then the Lam Rim Chenmo makes sense. That is not because Tsongkhapa does not know how to compose, but it is because our intelligent mind cannot catch what he is expressing in such a short sentences. That is why we are breaking these points that way.

The first point here is that those mun ma was, the essentialists, they are contradicting. They are presenting a point which they think is a contradiction, which they have already presented earlier. They were saying: “If there is no inherent existence, then nothing can be done”. That was the argument earlier. We spent so much time saying that “If there is no inherent existence, they don’t exist, and if you don’t exist, how can you function because you don’t exist”. All these points.

Here they are telling you that Nagarjuna himself has clearly presented that even if you do not have inherent existence, all functioning can be functioning. Nagarjuna has clearly presented that as the Refutation of Objections. The Refutation of Objections itself has said:

We propound that the dependent-arising

Of things is called “emptiness”;

That which arises dependently

Has no intrinsic nature.

Also, Nagarjuna’s own Commentary on the “Refutation of Objections” (Vigraha-vyavartini-vrtti) here says

Failing to comprehend the emptiness of things, you essentialists look for something to criticize, and argue against the Madhyamikas, saying, “Your words lack intrinsic nature and therefore cannot refute the intrinsic existence of things.” p.137

This is quite easy, because we have spent a lot of time explaining this earlier. What this is really saying is that everything is because of cause and conditions. Whatever is arising out of causes and conditions is dependent on causes and conditions. [Explanation of some Tibetan terms this transcriber could not clearly hear] If it arises based on terms and conditions, then it is dependent on terms on conditions. So you have this double ten nay [rten nas?] coming here. And that is emptiness.

The second half line is saying that one who is dependently-arisen, that itself is called lack of intrinsic existence. So Nagarjuna here is really saying that when it depends on the terms and conditions, it is dependently rising. When it dependently rise, it is emptiness. When it is emptiness it is called lack of intrinsic existence, and that is what the Madhyamaka says. That also clarified by its commentary, which says the same thing, saying and you, the mun ma wa, the essentialists, are saying that everything is lack of intrinsic existence, and that you understood intrinsic-ness as empty, which means that you have not understood emptiness. By not understanding, you told me, according to you, your words has to lack of intrinsic existence. If your words lack of intrinsic existence, how can non-existent words destroy every phenomenon that is truly existent? In other words, the commentary says that when you are raising that issue it means you have misunderstood. We have heard this same thing probably fifteen times today, again it is the same old thing, again and again, with different texts, because it is important.

Now we are moving to the second point. The second point is: because it is dependent-arising, there is no substance in it. Or there is not self-standing. Two things. Self-standing and substantial, both. Because it is dependent arising, there is not self-standing and there is no substance.

Here in Madhyamaka, the dependent-arising of things is emptiness. Why? Because they lack intrinsic nature. Those things that arise dependently are not associated with intrinsic nature because they lack intrinsic nature. Why? Because they rely on causes and conditions. p.137

That is it. It is quite clear. Do you need an explanation? Do I need to talk a little bit more?

[Audience] We have the biting part, it is the chewing that maybe the question.

[Rimpoche] The point to be established here is that there is no substance, or there is not self-standing, standing by itself, standing on its own. Or there is no substance. That is the major point. Though it is the same reasoning, because of dependent arising. Because of this, there is no standing on its own and no what we call substance. It is quite clear. Let that be enough, so when you read a little more you may get the idea. The conclusion here is that it is dependent arising. What do you mean by that? When it is dependent arising, there should not be standing by its own. Or, if it is dependent arising, there should not be something that you find and say “this is it.” That is the major point here, because it depends, and if something goes wrong, it falls apart.

[Audience] When you say “this is it”, is that what you mean by substance?

[Rimpoche] Yes. Substance.

[Audience] Then there is no substance to cause the causes and conditions either.

[Rimpoche] No, none whatsoever

[Audience] So then there is no substance to karma either.

[Rimpoche] No.

[Audience] It functions

[Rimpoche] Only functionable. Just functionable.

[Audience] But can you have function without substance?

[Rimpoche] That’s the point of argument here. That is what we are talking about. Because that is what one said: “your words lack existence, how can no-existent words destroy existent phenomena?” So this is what we are getting at here. Now were are getting somewhere. That is really what we are talking about. This is why it is repeating and repeating, and it draws the attention. I guess we should move to the third point. My clock is ticking, and I did not get to where I wanted, no way.

The third point is trying to say that because it is dependently arisen, there should not be substance. That is the whole point of the third point. They say it follows a sort of movement, one follows the other, one functions the other, so there is no substance.

[Audience] You are at the end of 588, the top of page 589 (Beijing edition)

If things had intrinsic nature, then they would exist even without causes and conditions; since such is not the case, they lack intrinsic nature. Therefore, we speak of them as “empty.”

Where did you get that from?

[Audience] It’s in this book here, Rimpoche, I got the book in the bookstore.

[Audience] He didn’t make it up.

[Rimpoche] Does that make sense in English? [Brief discussion about the translation] Right, that is the beginning of the third point. I thought you were reading the left over of the second point. That is where the second point should end, then the third point should be if it is dependent arising there should not be substance, and why? because it follows. That’s right, you have started reading the third point, sorry, it is my fault. I am still attached to the second point. I am not moving, so I was saying “where does that come from?’ Go ahead now, thank you

[Audience] I’ll read from the book, instead of making it up.

[Rimpoche] If you read from your mind it is better.

[Audience] I think you can read from my mind, Rimpoche, I don’t need to do it.

Similarly, my words also are dependent-arisings and therefore are without intrinsic nature. Because they lack intrinsic nature, it is reasonable to say that they are “empty.” Because things such as pots and cloth are dependent-arisings, they are empty of intrinsic nature. Yet a pot can receive and hold honey, water, and soup; a cloth can protect one from the cold, wind, and sun. And so it is with my words. Because they are dependent-arisings, they lack intrinsic nature; yet they are fully capable of establishing intrinsic existence. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to give the argument, “Because your words lack intrinsic nature, it is not tenable that they refute the intrinsic existence of all things.” p. 137

[Audience] So all that was three, right?

The bottom line here comes in: whether there is substance, or intrinsic, or whatever does not exist, it does not matter, you have a pot, you can put your honey in it, you can put your soup in it, it works. It is the same with a piece of cloth, you can protect yourself from sunshine, water, wind, and whatever, it works. That means the whole statement tells us the existent ness is functionable, not a substance, a functionable. Interdependentness is functionable, not “this is it”. This is bottom line statement. Actually, I should read it word by word, but that is the bottom-line. We have talked about this a lot, that emptiness is interdependentness, interdependentness is emptiness, so many times. Emptiness appears as interdependentness, interdependentness presents emptiness. You find emptiness through interdependentness, you find interdependence through emptiness. We went back and forth.

Now comes the functionable. By the introduction of the moon, water, lake and light. Now we have the soup, the, pot, and cloth. Now they are saying the pot does not exist intrinsically or interdependently, but it does serve a purpose, you can take the honey out in that, you can drink your soup, and the cloth can protect you. The essence of interdependentness is functioning. If it does not function, then it is not right. You know what happens. If I call the man a man, the man can function. But if I call the pillar or pot a man, it cannot function as a man, or a person. Its dependent-arising will now lean towards what does dependent mean. There is the word “just”, that we keep on repeating. Chandrakirti’s “just combination”. “Just combination, , is right or wrong, is functionable or not functionable. Questions will arise about exceptions. But I am not going to raise them. We can think about them straightway, there are hundreds of them that can pop up in your head: whether the handicapped person is functionable as a human being; whether the deaf can function.... All of those questions can arise. But you cannot say they are not human beings either. Maybe even hearing is not part of the human quality. That, also you cannot say, either. Hearing is a part of human qualities. You may have to make some give and take adjustments. But actually, dependent arising really comes to the functioning. That is one of the main reasons why you cannot call brass gold and gold brass. Because brass cannot function as gold. You may say it is metal, it is yellow, it is t he same thing. But not every yellow is gold. If it is so, the Tibetans have a lot of gold. The old Tibet did not have toilets, so everybody goes everywhere, so there are a lot of yellows around. That is what I am thinking.

That is the essence of the third point. There is a word called gro dog [‘gro ldog?] I don’t know where I am going to find this word in the English. But the gro dog has some extra meaning. Gro is forward, and dog is reverse. That is what I mean, it is not just a combination, it has to follow, move, function. When you say, if it depends on causes and condition it has to lack intrinsic existence, that is the word gro. I don’t think the English has that, it would be difficult, they would have to make two pages. And dog refers to the opposite, completely. If it is intrinsically existent, then it should not depend on causes and conditions.

[Audience] Here they use the words pervasion and counter-pervasion.

[Rimpoche] OK, very nice, what does pervasion mean? [Audience: khyab, khyab pa] Oh, that is not right

[Audience] Don’t look at me, I just bought the book, I didn’t write it.

[Audience] They say pervasion, and counter-pervasion.

[Rimpoche] OK, you could say that, forward and backward. That is, pervasion means forward and counter-pervasion means backward. Probably one has to interpret it that way. In Tibetan, when you study this gro dog, nowadays people will explain, but when We were kids nobody would explain it, you had to figure it out after three or four years what that means. You keep on arguing, and they say “Go, go, read, read” and three or four years later, “Oh, I see, that is what it means”. All of a sudden it comes, that way. It is the lack of teaching techniques. Chedrup Rimpoche, and Jamyang [sp?] used to talk to me, saying “Oh my god we made such a mess”. I said “what?” They said “What is tsen nyi zum [mtzshan nyid gsum10]” Which means the three combinations: kun dag [kun brtag], shen ba [gzhan dbang], and yong grub. Kun dag means “false labeling”. Shen ba means “controlled by something else”. Yod grub is “self existent”. That was the beginning things we teach in the debate system in the third or fourth year. Then we go two or three years trying to find out what it really means, debating and arguing. Chedrup Rimpoche was saying if only somebody had explained to us that kun dag means false accusation or something labeled falsely, and because of the falsely labeled you lose control and it becomes under the control of others, and lack of true existence is empty. If somebody had explained this we would not have wasted three years trying to figure out what it is. Truly. Nowadays they try to make it clear in India. But a lot of old geshes object very strongly, saying if you do this you will lose the quality of the student. We can’t counter argue with that. They say let them learn through the hard way, let them get it the hard way. If you explain it, they will have just heard it and they won’t register anything.

So, now we have finished the third one. The fourth one is easy. If one accepts that emptiness and interdependentness are contradicting then it is something else.

Thus Nagarjuna speaks very clearly about the pervasion that whatever relies on causes and conditions lacks intrinsic nature and the counter-pervasion that whatever has intrinsic nature does not rely on causes and conditions; he very clearly says that words without intrinsic nature can carry out refutations and proofs. Is it even necessary to point out that dependent-arising—the production and cessation of afflicted and pure phenomena in dependence on causes and conditions—is located right together with the absence of intrinsic existence? Dependent-arising is the best reason to use in order to know the absence of intrinsic existence. You should be aware that only the Madhyamika experts have this unique approach.

If you hold that dependent production and dependent cessation would have to be essentially existent, and you use the arguments against intrinsic existence to refute the dependent-arising of production and cessation, then those arguments—like a god transformed into a demon—will be a tremendous obstacle to finding an accurate understanding of Madhyamaka.

So, at the end, Tsongkhapa says “god turned into demon”. If you go in that way, then it becomes a god turned into a demon. Maybe I should do the fifth one.

In that case, when you develop a sense of certainty that phenomena lack even a particle of essential or intrinsic nature, you will then have no basis for developing certain knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect within your own system; you will have to posit those as others see them, etc. Or, if you do develop a sense of certainty about cause and effect within your own system, then it will be impossible for your system to foster certain knowledge of the absence of intrinsic existence. You will have to find some other way to construe what the Buddha meant in speaking of the absence of intrinsic existence. If this is the case, then you must understand that you have not yet found the Madhyamaka view.

What will help you to find the right view? As a basis, you should be pure in upholding your ethical commitments. Then strive in many ways to accumulate the collections of merit and wisdom and clear away obscurations. Rely on the learned, making efforts to study and to reflect upon their instructions. pp. 137-138

That is the fifth point. The fifth point is saying, as long as you see the emptiness and the interdependentness separately and then you have not found the profound meaning of reality. That is the main point. You remember in the Three Principles of the Path, at the end there was a verse that said: “As long as you can see these two separately you have not understood Buddha’s teaching.” That is appearance and emptiness. As long as you see these two separately you have not understood Buddha’s teaching. I am trying to rush through this. But if I rush through, I may be dosing a disservice. I was hoping to finish to the second point and then trace the outlines back. It looks like I am not going to be able to do that. Neither can I prepare to trace back the outline, but beyond that we could not do it. Nor can we finish this. So we might have to leave it here. At least we’ll make a little conclusion here.

Now you have some idea that of what emptiness is, and to know this within ourselves, as Tsongkhapa clearly mentioned here: In order to find this you have to keep your vows and commitments, and purifications, and accumulation of merit. On top of that: learning, and also analyzing and working at it enthusiastically. That is the point. To understand what we are talking about, what emptiness is all about, to be able to say what interdependentness is about, to be able to say that interdependentness is not just a combination of terms and conditions, and that is “just functionable”; to get to this point to understand is one thing; to realize is another thing. The realization really depends on he commitments of your own commitments. Sort of your own morality, in the sense of vows and commitments, rather than just talking about morality. Also purification and accumulation of merit. Then learning, analyzing and thinking and putting enthusiastic effort, all of them together can deliver the results.

The time has gone a little faster than I expected, it didn’t wait for us. OK, so that is about it, and I would like to say thank you so much for everybody, and have a very good holiday. Those of you coming Monday night we will be seeing you again. And those of you who are not coming, I wish you all the best, and look back on what you did this year. We did sum it up a little bit last Thursday. So, think about that, and add up the ‘jig lta on top of that. Add up Chandrakirti’s verse about ‘jig lta and think about all this. When you think back, you should be proud of yourself and rejoice in your learning and your practice. Looking forward for the new year, going forward. ‘Gro rather than ldog

End of the transcript of the digital audio file titled 20051112GRNYWisD13

Footnotes:

1. according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, the phrase las dang nyon mongs pa means: Karmas and kleshas. These two comprise the truth of origin among the four noble truths.

2. according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, las is defined as: 1) karma [action]. karmic action / deed, world-forming deeds. action application, application of the activities, act, deed, work, fortune, destiny, function, karma, karma and its results, karma and its consequences, the principle that every action produces result. karma/ action. Ex {sngon las bzang} past good deeds. 2) rather than/ besides, other than; other than this. than, [comp. case]. + neg. verb; not more than. activity; due to (the fact that).; than (more than); 3) says, states, mentions [when quoting a scripture]. 4) one of the {phyag rgya bzhi} four mudras.

3. according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, nyon mongs is defined as: klesha 1) disturbed, weary/ troubled/ miserable; turbulent. 2) disturbing emotions, negative emotion, passions, affliction, emotionality, delusion, affect, bad thought, conflicting emotions, fettering passions; [something that is difficult which muddies the stream of awareness], hardship; Def: sems kyi rgyu'am byed pa ma zhi ba

4. according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, rtsa med btang ba is defined as: destroy completely

5. according to the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org, gnas is defined as: 1) place, realm, site, abiding, domain, land, location, abode, environment, locale; 2) to exist, live, stay, establish oneself, come to rest, rest, reside, live on, remain, be, exist, be present, abide, subsist, endure, rest on, stay, subside, be placed, dwell, be still, come to rest, be founded. 3) sacred ground, holy place, place of pilgrimage, power place, sacred / holy place / ground, holy site. 4) stillness, place of rest, stability, stable abiding, tranquility. 5) point, topic, subject, section, object, chapter, point, ground, basis, standpoint, act. 6) ground, state of being, existence, subsistence, abiding, situation, lifetime, state, state (of rebirth). {gnas, yul, shes rgyu, gzhi} are all

6. the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following section about the four results (stream-enterer, etc.) The phrase 'bras bu bzhi refers to: Four Results. Entering the stream to nirvana {rgyun du zhugs pa} or shrotapanna. being tied to a single rebirth {lan cig phyir 'ong ba} or sak.rdagami, not returning to samsara {phyir mi 'ong ba} or anagami, and the status of an arhant. or slayer of the foe, which is conflicting emotion {dgra bcom pa} Comp. with {'phags pa'i skyes bu bzhi} four [Arya] fruits or attainments. syn {phyir mi 'ong ba'i 'bras bu} the four fruits, results, attainments, {'phags pa'i skyes bu bzhi}. the fruit / result of once-return, {phyir 'ong gi 'bras bu}; four results: stream-enterer {rgyun du zhugs pa}, once-returner {lan cig phyir 'ong ba}, nonreturner {phyir mi 'ong ba}, arhant / foe-slayer {dgra bcom pa} The four fruits, results, attainments, See also {'phags pa'i skyes bu bzhi}

7. that same dictionary provides the following that helps make sense of mchog dang tshul ma yin pa:

mchog is defined as 1) supreme, superior, most excellent, eminent, sublime; outstanding, foremost, excellent, most sublime, precious, finest, best, superior, highest, the best. 2) honorific [used after proper names and titles]

tshul ma yin pa is defined as: Improper

dang is used as a particle, like “and” to add things into a list, but also in other ways: This particle has five uses. connecting {sdud pa} distinguising {'byed pa} causal {rgyu mtshan} time and place {tshe skabs} and advice or imperative {gdams ngag} meadow, to read in a singing or drawling manner

8. that same dictionary provides the following for tha snyad expressions; designations; sophistry/ jargon; sophistries; 1) metaphor, extended meaning, figure of speech. 2) designation. 3) transactional usage, sophistry, technical term, jargon, terminology, deliberately established terminology, term, name, pointer, word. 4) conception, idea. 5) convention, conventional designation, superficial, designation, conditional, provisional idea or term, sophistry. 6) thoughts. 7) normal practice. 8) appellation, supposition, condition, conventional truth.;

There is another term that may be relevant here: kun spyod : customary or habitual work, habit, usage, general usage. behavior; 1) conduct, behavior, manner, style. 2) morality. 3) {kun rdzob tu yod pa}. conventional existence. 4) the deliberate practice of agriculture;

9. The same dictionary: rung suitable, appropriate, potential, definitely will come about, ability, to be right, appropriate, However; 1) ability. 2) to be right, suitable, potential, definitely will come about, appropriate. 3) However;

10. The same dictionary: mtshan nyid gsum: three natures. 1) {kun brtags pa'i mthan nyid} imaginary. 2) {gzhan gyi bang gi mtshan nyid} relational. 3) {yongs su grub pa'i mthan nyid} absolute.

© 2005, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved