Archive Result

1

SHANTIDEVA’S GUIDE TO THE BODHISATTVA’S WAY OF LIFE CHAPTER 9: WISDOM PART I

Oral explanations by Kyabje Gehlek Rimpoche

20050201GRAABWL

Talk 3: 2-01-05

Good evening, everybody. As I told you last time, sometimes, when we talk about wisdom, it is going to be very hard. But that’s where we are. We are in the middle of something very hard to [figure out].

It is the second verse of Chapter 9 that we have been looking at:

Verse 2

This truth is recognized as being of two kinds: conventional and ultimate.

Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect.

The intellect is called conventional reality.

This translation refers to the two truths are conventional and ultimate. Stephen Batchelor calls them deceptive and ultimate. Other translations call them relative and absolute.

Conventional reality and conventional truth is talking about the same thing. I could just leave it there and be satisfied with reading that there are these two truths. But you have to get some kind of understanding. In order to get this, just knowing that there are these two words, conventional and ultimate, doesn’t do much good for you. Beyond that, you have to know what is meant by conventional and ultimate truth. Also, what does it mean: Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect? You know, the translators can also twist the words a lot. When he is using the term ‘intellect’ here he is actually referring to mind. Then he says, The intellect is called conventional reality. That looks like it is saying: because mind is conventional reality, therefore it can’t see the ultimate truth. I think some other translator even explains it that way in English too.

The other day I said that this is wrong. So I have to come back here and tell you why that is wrong. Actually, to know these two truths is quite difficult. Why is Buddha called ‘enlightened’? The reason is that at that level you see the conventional and the ultimate both. Sometimes you hear statements that say that we see things alternately. The aryas, the extraordinary people, see the ultimate truth, but while they are seeing the ultimate truth, they cannot see the conventional truth. When you are totally enligthened you will see both of them together. The example given is putting a mirror on the palm of your hand and being able to see the mirror as well as the lines of the palm of your hand, together, simultaneously.

In Buddhism, or in fact anywhere, anything that can be known has fall either under the conventional truth or under the ultimate truth. There is no third way. There are a lot of reasons. I will come back to that later.

What does it mean to say: Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect.?

I think intellect is refering to our mind. Stephen Batchelor does in fact translate it as ‘mind’. The Tibetan text talks about mind. The statement seems to say that the mind cannot know ultimate truth. But probably that is not right. If that is the case we are putting limitations on the mind. And the mind doesn’t have limitations. The scope of the mind is to know anything that is knoweable. You canot put a limit on that.

I think there are two categories of mind. The mind that perceives ultimate reality and the mind that perceives conventional reality are both true. Our ordinary mind cannot perceive ultimate truth. To make it easier to communicate let me say it this way, although that might not absolutely be the meaning of this particular verse: our ordinary mind is a dualistic mind. Therefore it cannot perceive non-dual reality. Therefore, the ‘intellect’ cannot see the ultimate, as this translation says.

That, however, does not mean that the mind is a conventional truth and therefore cannot see ultimate truth. That is really wrong.

You may ask: give me an example of ultimate truth and and an example of conventional truth. That is difficult. You know why? Because the example would be the same. I could take anything. Take this book: it is the example of ultimate truth and it also the example of conventional truth. The normal way of thinking does not work here. That makes it difficult. It is easy to say: the ultimate is the understanding of wisdom and that is emptiness and the conventional is the mind that does not see emptiness. You will say, ‘Yeah, yeah’, but you won’t get it. The thing is that both, ultimate and conventional truth, have to go in one point.

Take this vase. That is a very often used Tibetan and even Sanskrit example. This vase is conventional truth and it is also ultimate truth. The ultimate truth of this vase is no different than the vase itself.

Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

Form is no other than emptiness,

Emptiness is no other than form.

That is from the Heart Sutra. So the conventional truth is no different from the ultimate truth and the ultimate truth is no different from the conventional truth. However, ultimate truth is not conventional truth and conventional truth is not ultimate truth. But when you give examples, that is how it is. You can use anything as example. Why? The ultimate truth of this vase is the fact that this vase is free of inherent existence. And that is this vase itself. The non-inherently existing vase is no other than this vase itself. If it was something else, than it would become the emptiness of something else. If I find that this glass, for example is the non-inherently existing vase, it would mean that this vase is free of this glass. That is not the emptiness of this vase. It is not self-empty, it would become other-empty. That is no big deal. The hand is free of being the leg. The leg is free of being the hand. The butt is free of the head and the head is free of the butt, which is no big deal! Honestly.

That is why the statement

Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect.

The intellect is called conventional reality.

is the most difficult point to struggle with. It is easy to say that there are two truths. But it is a different matter to go and find out what these two truths are all about. For example, let me apply the two truths to myself. When I look for my truth, I cannot find the conventional truth of me other than myself, nor can I find the ultimate truth other than myself. If I do so, one of them is wrong.

The Tibetan translation of a sutra where Buddha himself refers to this, uses the term jig ten. The English translation of jig ten is most often ‘ordinary’ as opposed to ‘extraordinary’. But the word itself doesn’t mean ordinary. Jig ten almost has the same meaning as jig ta, the ignorance we have been talking about. Jig ta means ‘fear-perceiving’. The reason it is called that is that this is the perception we are born with. Everyone of us is simultaneously born with fear. We are afraid of being lost, we are afraid of some kind of void, that we are going to get hurt, die and disappear. There is something uncertain we are afraid of and which is always there. I am sure that originally, there is a Sanskrit term for that but I don’t know it. In Tibetan it is called jig ten lhen kye, ‘simultaneously-born, fear-based perception’. This perception is there because whenever for example I look at ‘me’, the perception of ‘me’ is based on one or more of my skandhas, either one, two or more or all five of them. They are form, sound, smell, taste and touch, either one or all of them. All of these are by nature impermanent. So they are all going to be destroyed. Therefore, that perception is called ‘fear perception’.

Now, jig ten, ‘ordinary’, really means: ‘one who relies on this impermanent basis’.

Suppose, I ask myself, “Who am I?” I am focusing on something inside me, something based on the body, but more than the body. We are beyond calling our body our ‘self’. A lot of people will just point to their body and say, “That is me”. We know now that the body is not me. But still, there is some body-based ‘me’ inside of me, some kind of consciousness functioning inside the body. We almost feel like we have entered into this body and are doing all kinds of dances. It looks like we are wearing different masks and doing different performances. That means we are depending on the impermanent nature. The reason why we do that is because of the dualistic mind. Normally, dualistic means seeing two different things. Here I am not sure whether we are seeing two different things or not, but we are certainly not seeing one. When we see the one non-dually, it does not really mean we are becoming one with the object. A lot of people think, “When I see the object, I become the object.” That may be true to a certain extent, but I don’t think so. I think that non-dual here means that the act and the actor become inseparable. The object is not necessarily inseparable, maybe, but not necessarily. Mainly it is the act and the actor. Now we definitely see that as separate. We say, “I did it”, or “I did not do it”. We see act and actor as two separate things.

Let me go back to the ultimate. What does that do? At the non-enlightened level, the person who sees the ultimate, can only see that ultimate, but can’t see the conventional. This is the case for the aryas or pak pas, in English ‘special’ or extraordinary, whatever you may call it, in contrast to the jig ten, the ordinary, fear-based perception. The perception of the aryas is not fear-based. It is beyond that. But when the aryas are in the meditative state, they only see the ultimate truth, not the conventional truth. On our level we only see the conventional truth, not the ultimate truth. Then, when you go beyond even the aryas perception, at the totally enlightened level, you will see ultimate and conventional truths together. That is why we have the example of the glass or mirror in the palm of the hand through which you can also see the drawings in the palm of the hand.

Enlightened beings see the ultimate truth of the vase and the relative truth of the vase as inseparable, in one-ness, yet in separate perception. I used to talk to you that love and compassion are one mind with two separate aspects. Love wishes whoever you are thinking about to be happy and joyful. Compassion wishes them to be free from pain, suffering and misery. Similarly, here, we have the same base, but two different aspects. One aspect is the freedom of inherent existence, the other aspect is whatever we perceive.

A lot of people believe that what we perceive is absolutely wrong because it is not the truth. What we just heard tells you that this idea is wrong, because what we perceive we do perceive right. It might not be ultimately right, but it is right. Lets go back to our verse:

Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect.

The intellect is called conventional reality.

The intellect is not called conventional reality. The intellect sees conventional reality. The translation is not wrong, however. That is what the words do say in Tibetan: mind is conventional truth. Like the vase is conventional truth, the glass is conventional truth. The person is conventional truth, I and you are conventional truth. Did you get some idea now about the ultimate and conventional truth? It is all about the perceiving point, from what angle you perceive. The word we use in Tibetan is ngo wo chi la tog pa ta de. That is what I was told when I was a kid. I didn’t even know what that meant. But I could say it. It really means: there is nothing separate from whatever it is, like the glass or whatever. But the aspects are either: free of inherent existence or what you are observing.

Hopefully that will give you some opening. We cannot hope to make that absolutely clear here. We won’t. I believe that will only become absolutely clear when you become enlightened. I think that is how you measure enlightenment. But it is a great thing. Such a simple, little verse can convey that much of a message. The verse after that will probably follow.

But before we go into it, the 2nd verse raises another question: is emptiness, the freedom of inherent existence, beyond the scope of mind? That is a big question, honestly. If it is beyond the scope of mind it should not exist. Right and wrong has been judged by this. We have a tremendous problem to decide between right and wrong. If everybody says it is wrong, we will also say it. If everybody says it is right, we will agree that it is right, especially when we see people we trust saying it is. And if they say it is wrong, we also would like to say that it is wrong. Many of us, if we are close to the liberals, when they say it is right, we will say, ‘That is a good one.’ That’s what we do. When the conservatives say that something is good, many of us will say, “Oh no, that’s not good – because the conservatists said so.” That’s what we do, right?

Sometimes we have good reasons. We say that environmental policies are good, because they don’t hurt the elements. But many times we don’t have good reasons. We have great difficulties to judge right and wrong. Buddha shared with us that every experiential mind is not necessarily a reliable mind. A lot of us would like to say, “To have something absolutely reliable becomes very intellectual. I am not interested. I like to have experience.” How many of us think that way? But experiences are not necessarily correct. Experiences can be contradicted by absolute reliable minds. The basis of right and wrong is based on whether an absolute reliable mind can contradict it or not. When it contradicts and finds it wrong, then it is wrong. When it agrees and finds that it is right then it is right. We cannot judge the future until it actually comes in. When the future has happened, then we can look back and say, “Oh that was wrong. How wrong I was”, or “I did right.” Again, the base is this.

To conclude, when this verse says that “the ultimate is beyond the scope of mind”, it really means that the ultimate is beyond the scope of dualistic mind. The ultimate truth as seen directly by the extraordinary mind at the meditative level cannot be seen by us. That is “beyond the scope of the dualistic mind.” It doesn’t mean that mind cannot see the ultimate reality. If mind does not see ultimate reality then ultimate reality does not exist. If ultimate reality does not exist, what are we trying to do here? Why do we put so much effort into the spiritual path? Why should we do purification, study and what are we trying to gain? You cannot gain something that doesn’t exist!

We may like to think: we are looking for wisdom. That is emptiness, which doesn’t exist – because it is empty. But it doesn’t mean that.

The text I am reading from goes further. It says

Buddha is known as the totally enlightened one because he sees both truths as they are. He knows and sees emptiness.

We have been saying on the first day that the base on which we work is the two truths. Every existence is either ultimate or conventional truth. The text goes on,

There is no ultimate separate from the relative. There is no relative separate from the ultimate. Ultimate emptiness is relative and vice versa. Without one the other won’t be there. It is like the created and the impermanent.

Remember, one of the Buddhist four seals is that all created phenomena are impermanent. The example is sound. Sound is impermanent, because it is created. So ‘impermanent’ and ‘created’ are based on the same object: sound. There is nothing separate. The same goes for the two truths. That is the reason why we say: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. And that is why we are free of the two extremes: existentialism and nihilism. That is because form and emptiness are one. If they were other, then it would go to one of the extremes or to both.

Actually I learnt that when I was a kid, ten or eleven years old. So when I started reading this afternoon it was as though I had never read it. This particular book is written by one of my teachers.

In the Tibetan tradition we make a statement and then we prove it by quoting from Buddha’s writings. Then we try to prove it by reasoning. You always have both, quotation and reasoning. The reasoning in regard to the two truths is that reliable and not reliable are direct opponents. If it is reliable, it won’t be non-reliable. If it is non-reliable, it wont’ be reliable. There can’t be a third way. That sounds like there is no gray, just black and white.

When I first came to the United States my friends kept on telling me, “You don’t know gray. Everthing is either black or white.” I think it is on this basis. If you find something reliable it is clear that it is not non-reliable. If you find something that is not reliable it is clear that it is not reliable. There is nothing in between. There is no gray here – maybe it doesn’t exist. Therefore, for the perception that finds ultimate truth, whatever exists, that does exist and whatever doesn’t exist for it, it doesn’t exist. This is because it is the perception that finds ultimate truth. We don’t have that yet, but we will get it, for sure.

Earlier I asked, “Is the perception of freedom from inherent existence an object of mind or not? If not, it should not exist.” Now you can see it. It is because mind is reliable. That doesn’t mean that our mind is reliable, nor are all minds reliable. By negating non-reliable minds you gain reliable perceptions. That is also the reason why we say, “By negating negativities, you gain positivities.”

I often say that ultimate enlightenment and all spiritual development is becoming free of negativities and negative emotions, rather than finding something different, like being struck by lightning, which is something which we always look for. This is also said by many traditional Tibetan teachers.

When we first teach Buddhism we use that explanation. This is based on the blessings, transmissions, and so on. Even in Tibet, these are the first points we talked, because it makes it easier for people to get it and understand. You may not get it completely then. I don’t want to say you just think you are getting it, but somehow you are brought in within the framework and thereby get a chance and opportunity to go through with it.

Ultimately, spiritual development is nothing transmittable. Sure, we give some transmissions, but they are seeds and capabilities, not the real understanding, not the real spiritual development. Buddha himself said,

Negativities cannot be washed away by holy water.

Actually, in vajrayana we always do that. We visualize that the holy water comes and washes all the negativities away. Also the initiation is full of washing away negativities. But in his statement, Buddha himself said that. Further he said,

Spiritual development is not transferable, nor can the Buddha remove sufferings with his hands.

That is why he taught the Truth of Suffering. If sufferings could be taken away by hand, there should be no truth of suffering. Why should people have to suffer? So Buddha said that all that can happen only by knowing the truth. And this is the truth we are talking about. Absolute reality is the truth we are talking about.

When I teach the Three Principles of the Path I always say,

“The essence of emptiness is relativity.”

When you start looking for emptiness you can’t find something called zero. You have to look through. That is the reason why form is emptiness and emptiness is form. That is why the emptiness of the vase is the vase itself. Nothing other than the vase is the emptiness of the vase. But just by seeing the vase, you don’t see the emptiness of the vase. Even the impermanence of the vase is not the emptiness of the vase. If that were so it would be easy. We could pick up the vase and break it on the floor and we should see the impermanence of the vase there. That doesn’t give us the true nature of the vase.

If you do get the true nature of one thing, whether it is a vase, the mind, a wall, or anything, then it covers everything. Nagarjuna said,

Once you see the true reality of one thing, you will see the true reality of everything.

You don’t have to go one by one; your truth, my truth, his truth and her truth. One covers all.

I hope I was able to very roughly explain this verse:

Ultimate reality is beyond the scope of the intellect.

The intellect is called conventional reality.

Actually, I have not yet explained the second half of the verse. So far I did say that the vase is ultimate truth and conventional truth, both.

There is one other thing I wanted to tell you. That will become clear from the next two verses.

Verse 3

In the light of this, people are seen to be of two types,

contemplative and ordinary persons.

The ordinary folks are superseded by the contemplative.

The translator uses the term ‘ordinary’. I used, instead of ‘ordinary’, ‘one who depends on fear-based perception of impermanence’. ‘Superseded’ means that they know better than you do [laughs]. I don’t think that it is quite what it says, but lets talk about that next week.

Saying that the ultimate is beyond the scope of the mind is telling us that the wisdom we try to develop is discriminating wisdom. I want to make that clear to you. Normally, discrimination is considered not to be good. We want to let the mind go as much as it wants to, let it fly wherever it wants to and find whatever it could find, without any limitations and restrictions. However, our goal is ultimate enlightenment, freedom.

Freedom is everybody’s goal anyway, spiritual or non-spiritual. The goal is freedom. Everybody wants to be free of suffering, have less pain, more happiness.

But here we have a very specific thing: we want to become enlightened. At least we want to be free of all fear-based activities, all samsaric activities. When we are looking for the specific wisdom that can lead us to that level, then it becomes discriminating wisdom. Mind is such that if you let it go it will go. There is no limit for whatsoever. If you have all the time in the world to find the truth there is the possibility that mind could find it. But it may take a long time. So far, from the beginning of existence until now, for millions of years, our mind did not find it. Only a few people have found it, such as Buddha, Jesus and so forth, not all of us. That is why discriminating wisdom is necessary. We don’t have all the time in the world. When we die everything will be totally different. Whatever we built up, except spiritual realizations, but everything else, including all the intellectual knowledge, even certain kinds of intellectual knowledge on the spiritual path, will all go. When we die it is all gone. It will be taken away by the shock or whatever it is. Our time is limited. Therefore, discriminating wisdom is recommended. The Buddhas has already found it and thereby all the others have found it. That is why discriminating is necessary for us.

Wild, unlimited thoughts have their own qualities. But on the spiritual path it is not a great thing to follow indiscriminate thoughts. We may not have enough time to find true reality by these thoughts. What we need is a very specific wisdom. This is called ‘emptiness’ or ‘selflessness’ or ‘I-lessness’. That is why there is the need to discriminate. It is not that we are trying to be conservative and restrictive. We are not trying to be traditionalist or religious fanatics. But it is the idea that we won’t have to again and again try to find out but rather catch what Buddha has already found out and follow that.

I very often say and feel it sometimes: Had Buddha been a Caucasian male and written down everything he found, today that would be called ‘scientific understanding’. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way. So it is called ‘spiritual’. If you water it down even more it becomes ‘faith’. And you can water it down even more.

But if you look how it is all explained through solid reasoning you will be convinced. The reasoning is sometimes very old style. It may be difficult to conjunct it well with our mind. That can sometimes become a problem. Otherwise, I like to say that this wisdom is very, very grounded. I can’t call it scientific, but it is based on very solid reasoning and on very logical points. Professor Thurman likes to call it ‘Inner Science’. Whether there is a difference between inner and outer science I have no idea. But what I know is that it is very logical. And this is trying to lead to a very specific wisdom on one point. All the minds will ultimately be directed to one point and one point only. That is not a matter of faith, but it is really based on reasons. That is why even in the beginning of the chapter Shantideva points out the two truths. And I could just leave it there, say that there are two truths and go on. But by raising questions and doubts you should get something to think and get it. The ultimate wisdom you can really only get this way. Otherwise you could try to find it with indiscriminate thoughts for 200 eons. That is why the sutra system says,

First you generate bodhimind and then you contemplate for three countless eons.

This is because of indiscriminate thoughts. So now I have given you the difference between discriminating wisdom and indiscriminate thoughts. I like to call it wisdom, otherwise you can also say: discriminating thoughts and indiscriminate thoughts. That’s what it really is.

Today we talked about the two truths, the conventional and the ultimate. We made it clear that both are one. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form. The two truths are based on two perceptions of two separate individuals, extraordinary and ordinary. The ordinary perceive a self within one or more of the five skandhas. We try to identify the self as one of these skandhas, which include mind. All of these are impermanent and that is why this perception is based on fear. Someone who goes beyond that is supposed to see ultimate truth. The perceptions of these two categories of people are called conventional and ultimate. No one can see both together, unless they are enlightened. I think we have come to that point.

Here I would like to close my shop. Next week it is going to be easier than today. The two truths are a very tough nut to crack.

3-2-2005