Archive Result

6

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

Oral explanations by Kyabje Gehlek Rimpoche

20050308GRAABWL

Talk 5: 3-08-05

Welcome to this new segment of the wisdom course. Today you will have noticed that we added up a new mantra in our prayers and that is the mantra of Manjushri. Like Avalokiteshvara is the Buddha of Compassion, Manjushri is the Buddha of Wisdom. Since we are talking the wisdom subject we have included the mantra of the Buddha of Wisdom here. In Tibetan Buddhism the image of Manjushri is available everywhere. In our sanctuary we don't have one, because some people had objected to having so many tangkhas hanging around. I also thaugbt, the simpler it is the better. We took a lot of tangkas from the walls. In any case, the pictures or images of the Buddha of Wisdom show him either in orange or white color, holding a sword and a book. The sword represents cutting through ignorance and negativities. The book is giving you the wisdom message. This is the transcendental wisdom. The mantra is

OM ARAPATZANA DHIH

If I try to explain this mantra now, it is going to take a lot of time. So lets not explain the meaning of each word. But I would like to explain the letter A at least, the first letter after OM. So the letter A is the most important vowel in the alphabet of any language. If you can't say A you will never be able to express anything. Whether it is an eastern language or a western language, you can only put consonants together by using A. It is the life of consonants. Without that you cannot make sounds. The first sound that babies make is also A. Anybody, anywhere, can't make a sound without A. It is the life of every sound you can produce. It comes from deep down, from inside. Also, you don't have much to explain. A is very basic.

That, however, gives you a strong message. It is wisdom itself, the message of emptiness, of meaninglessness, of all kinds of things. It is extremely important. I won't have time to explain the rest of the mantra, but the last syllable is DHIH, the seed syllable of Manjushi. At the end of the mantra we are saying DHIH one hundred times in one breath, very fast. There are some visualizations and meditations to go along with this. When you do this right and nicely, it helps tremendously not to lose your memory. I should and cannot say it, but it is almost like anti-Alzheimer. You won't forget, you will be very clear. That is the reality. I briefly wanted to introduce this here, since we are talking on the basis of the wisdom teachings. There are a tremendous amount of meditations just on the letter DHIH alone. This is just an introduction. I am just basically telling you what it is and what you can do with it and for what purpose. It is not the right time to explain the visualizations, like the seven ways of building the wisdoms. You can gradually get to know this. I cannot spend the time right now and it also might not be appropriate to speak about this here openly for various reasons.

You may wonder why I introduce this if I cannot explain this in detail. But we have introduced some visualization and that already will be very helpful, even if it is only a little bit.

Now I would like to continue where we left off last time. Verses 3-5 actually go together.

Verse 3

In the light of this, people are seen to be of two types: the contemplative and the ordinary person. The ordinary folks are superseded by the contemplatives.

Verse 4

Due to the difference in their intelligence, even contemplatives are refuted by successively higher ones by means of analogies accepted by both parties, regardless of what they aim to prove.

Verse 5

Ordinary people see and imagine things as real and not illusory. It is in this respect that there is disagreement between the contemplative and ordinary beings. Even the objects of direct perception, such as form and the like, are established by consensus and not by verifying cognition. That consensus is false as is the general agreement that pure things are impure.

Let me explain: We introduced the two truths in verse 2 and accordingly, there are two types of individuals, those who see the absolute truth and those who don't. Those who see absolute truth are the 'contemplatives', and those who only see the conventional, are ordinary. Contemplatives are actually the yogis. Those who have yoga are yogis. In the west, the best known yoga is the physical yoga, the hatha yoga. But here they are talking about the mental yoga. In this total existence, there are two categories, the yogis and the non-yogis. In other words, these are those who have spiritual interest and those who don't really have that much interest. It is the difference between those who are extraordinary and those who are not extraordinary, but normal. This terminology of 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' is found very often in the spiritual field.

This division is based on reason. It doesn't mean that certain people are special and others are not. It is not like one is male and another female and one is considered superior to the others. Ancient cultures may have said that too, but here that's not what they are talking about. Nor are they comparing black and white, eastern or western people, but it is the individual people's understanding of how things exist. It is the level of understanding of the individual.

At first, everybody, anybody whoever existed, is ordinary. I am not talking about God here, but about normal circumstances. Out of that ordinariness, one can transfer oneself into the category of an extraordinary being, a yogi. Normally, we think a yogi is someone who is wearing some funny dress, puts their hair up and keeps it a little dirty, and wears some little dhoti or whatever. If you don't look like that you may not be a yogi or yogini. That is our usual understanding.

But here the word actually used is jig ten. I would like to translate that as worldly people. The others would be the non-worldly people. You may think that the worldly people are those who have desire to possess things in the world and are after worldly comfort and so forth. And then you think the non-worldly people are those 'spiritual' people who don't have too much desire - true or false, that is the idea we get. But that is not the case.

The word jig ten is particularly referring to individual human beings whose interest, whose happiness and joy depends on something impermanent, something unreliable, something that by nature will go away. These are worldly people. There is a second understanding behind this world. jig means also fear. This fear is related to something that doesn't last. ten means to rely on. We have some big thing that is not reliable, fear-oriented and that is our dependence on our physical form, our body, our feelings, our five skandhas, but particularly the body. In reality, what is going to happen to this body? We all know. In the end it is going to be either packed into a beautiful box or cremated or whatever. But it is never going to remain, even though you may bury it inside a temple, inside a monastery, or inside a chapel, palace, tomb or wherever. Therefore, the nature of this particular physical thing that we rely so totally rely on, is destruction. It is going to go. Those of us who depend on that are called 'worldly' or 'ordinary'. Does that make better sense now? Those who can see beyond that and function accordingly are called yogis or extraordinary persons. You become special because you shift your base.

As long as we are ordinary we all depend on that physical form, no matter whatever you think. From the non-buddhist perspective we talk about happiness, going to the right side of God. Even if you have buddhist influence like in Theravada, we talk about samsara and nirvana. If you are mahayana or vajrayana buddhist you are talking about total enlightenment and buddhahood. We work and pray. We function and we strive for it. But still we are based on this physical base, thinking that this basis is capable of bringing us to the higher levels.

Many people here in this country do not believe in reincarnation. Those of us who believe in it, we still think we will transfer this very person to the next life. We know very well that we can't bring this physical body back, however, then we think that this particular consciousness can come back. We still rely on the unreliable. That is the reason why ordinary and extraordinary are differentiated. Each translator plays with those words and that is how it becomes 'contemplatives' and 'ordinary'. The real message is the same. The differentiation of being ordinary and extraordinary is not based on gender, color or celebrity status. It is simply on what basis the individual is functioning. We seek enlightenment or nirvana, but we still think we can transfer this particular being into nirvana. That is ordinary thinking. That is why Buddha calls us ordinary. He doesn't say that because he thinks he is special and we are not. Nor are lamas, monks or nuns any more special than lay people. The meaning is in the word jig ten, one who depends totally on something which will finally disappear, something unreliable.

In our mind, when we are seeking happiness and joy, the basis on which we are really seeking is the physical and mental identity combined together. The ordinary persons, in their perception, understanding, in their ideas of what they are seeking, who is seeking, often raise the question "Who am I?" How many people spend their life on the question, "Who am I?" They do that in the west, which is very unfortunate.

I remember an incident. It was some years ago. The Buddhist magazine Tricycle organizes regularly an event called Change Your Mind Day. I think Jewel Heart has organized one of them in Michigan one year. So Tricycle do one every year in Central Park, New York. They asked me to speak there several times and one year I did. Some friends were asking me, "What are you going to talk about? Have you prepared anything?" I said, "No. I never prepare." "So what are you going to speak on?" I said, 'I don't know yet. I like to listen to the speaker before me and pick up from there and say something." When I got there all these people started talking to me. I met Michael Roach that day too. So I couldn't really listen to what the earlier speakers before me were saying. Then it was almost my turn to speak. I tried to pay attention. There was a nice, beautiful girl, wearing a black robe, sitting there in the terrible bright sun shine, the whole day, sweating. You could see it, the water was literally dripping from her. She was the one keeping everything together. The speakers would come and go, but she stayed and kept everything together. So now she was saying, "We spent the whole day here to find out, 'Who am I?" So I thought, "I am not interested to know who I am, why should I?" Then I thought, "If I say that in my talk, maybe the audience will not like it, as they just spent a tremendous time and energy trying to find out." So I thought, "I better ask somebody". I saw Joseph Goldstein walking by and thought, "Oh, very good, I ask Joseph, because he is very aware of what these people want to know." I was sitting in the grass and had to get up, which takes me quite some time. Then I also had to run after Joseph and he is 6 foot tall and has very long legs. He was walking in great strides and I was running behind him but couldn't catch him at all. I almost followed him to the other side of the tent. Suddenly I could hear a voice from the loudspeaker, "Our next speaker is running down there. Would you mind coming up here?" So I had to go up. I don't know any more whether I said, "I don't care who I am."

From what I understand, just the very words "Who am I?" are already holding 'me' as permanent. Maybe you are thinking the 'me' is somebody who went through the change of lives. With that I don't mean menopause, but the change of lives from birth, death and rebirth. So there is continuation. But the idea of taking that as continuing identity clearly indicates our thinking that we are based on our identity. This puts us in the category of ordinary persons.

As we have seen, the ordinary perception is not really true. It can be refuted. Maybe this term is too dialectical. In other words, the perception we usually have is not true reality and that can be proved by the extraordinary mind. We will be convinced by that mind and then we will become an extraordinary person. We move from the category of ordinary persons to the extraordinary persons, because we 'get it', we understand it and know it. That knowledge and understanding is what makes the transition. The extraordinary person's understanding is transmitted to us and through that understanding we become extraordinary.

Whenever we talk about joy and happiness, what are we talking about? If we trace that within ourselves, we are talking about our identity. Joy, bliss, happiness, is identified mostly with our physical being. We may say, "I don't care about physical things, I want mental happiness." We say that and we think we believe that, but mostly it is physical and to a certain extent mental. Extraordinary persons are able to refute the validity of that. Within the ranks of extraordinary persons, there is also a differentiation. The higher ones will refute the lower ones. This is what is meant in verse 4, when it says: Due to the difference in their intelligence, even contemplatives are refuted by successively higher ones. I do not know if it is has to be by means of analogies accepted by both parties, regardless of what they aim to prove. This probably is too much thinking in dialectical points. But it shows that the extraordinary view even has a variety of differences.

For example, we ordinary persons very much rely on what we see and hear. Our hearing, feeling, seeing and the understanding that is following hearing, seeing, touching, etc, are experienced as one - no separation. What I see and what is really there is experienced as one. Similarly it goes with hearing, feeling, and so on. We don't have that separation. Without separating that we totally rely on what we see and understand. Don't let me elaborate, because that is going to create trouble. Seeing and understanding for us is one. We don't separate. That is also the reason why it is very difficult for us to understand karma. How does karma function? How do cause and effect work? We do understand it to a certain extent. But to really understand is very difficult. Therefore, we look for artificial causes. This goes sometimes so far that for many of us only the material thing count, only what science says is what we believe. We hold that as true and nothing else is true. On the other hand, for some only the spiritual is true, nothing else. To some people, even beyond that, they don't even allow themselves to take medication when they are sick. They say that it is not right. It is against something, against nature, against the wishes of God, etc. All of that is because of this problem: seeing and understanding is all one, not separated.

There are some religious traditions, even within Buddhism, which think and understand that whatever you perceive and think really exists that way. You have to take it as true, because according to them, whatever I see and hear and touch is true, because "I saw it", "I heard it", "I felt it", "I experienced it". That understanding can already transit you from the previous level I just explained. However, this understanding is further refuted by the next better understanding.

According to the Buddhist tradition, the understanding of reality can be categorized in four different segments. Two are Hinayana, and two are Mahayana understandings. The Hinayana level of understanding will more or less rely on what you see, hear and feel. The Mahayana has two major divisions. The less superior of them will state, "It is only mind. Nothing else is true. Mind is what matters. When the mind wants to do it, it can be done. Mind can manifest anything, mind can do this and that and nothing else is there." So this is known as the "Mind Only School" by some. Even though we see something, they say that it is a delusion, a misunderstanding or misinformation from within that effects us and makes us think we see this and that. They say that what you see is not real.

Even our scientists to a certain extent say that. At first you see an object upside down, which is due to some light reflection inside the eye, which then you have to reverse. They give you the example of reading something in a mirror and then without mirror. Traditionally, these examples are given to prove that what you see is not true and only the mind is what matters. It is the mind that influences and manifests everything, mind and only mind. When you reach that category you will be able to refute the view I introduced earlier.

So all that is meant by that little reference in verse 4: Due to the difference in their intelligence, even contemplatives are refuted by successively higher ones. I could just read that and leave it there, fine. But you wouldn't get the idea of who refutes what. You wouldn't get a grip, you wouldn't be able to bite the words. You wouldn't get what this is really talking about. Why am I giving you this boring type of explanation? Because it will ultimately lead you to wisdom, what it really is all about.

Emptiness on the level of Mind Only means that reality is empty of external existence beyond what is created by the mind. That is this particular level of wisdom. Whatever appears, ultimately it is only the mind, free of external existence and influence.

Now, even one level of understanding better than that: there is a school that says that mind only is not quite true. Yes, the mind has so much to do with it, but there has to be external objects. There has to be water. There has to be a glass. If there is only mind and you just think there is a glass of water, no matter how much you drink, it is not going to quench your thirst. Keep on drinking, it won't matter. So there has got to be a glass with water in it. It is not only mind. That won't work.

Why does there have to be a glass of water? The correct mind will perceive a glass of water. A correct mind is one that is not influenced by anything. It can't be a mind that is drunk, high, depressed for too long, influenced by colored eye glasses, influenced by an illness and so on. For example, if you have jaundice, you will even see the white snow as yellow and your white bed sheet will look yellow. Therefore, there has to be a glass and a true mind that correctly perceives it. That is one thing. If there is no glass of water, how can a true mind perceive it? Otherwise you can perceive glasses of water, wherever you look. Remember, there is this joke about the windshield wipers and what they can remind you of…….

The ultimate, the real true wisdom will finally tell you that all is interdependently existent. Nothing of its own exists, nor is it just the mind that is playing all the tricks. It is truly just interdependently existent. Everything, anything, anywhere, is interdependently existent. I exist because you see me. You exist because I see you, I acknowledge you, interdependently. Look at the wall over here: it just depends on the particles it is made of. Look at the table. It is the combination of parts, parcels and particles. If the particles separate, there will be no wall, no table, and even your own head won't be there. That is what is meant by "Freedom from inherent existence or natural existence". That is why when you say something is pure it is free of all faults. I don't have to explain that but 'faults' here are these kinds of faults.

So that is how the higher views refute the lower ones. I briefly brought that up. Looking at every point is very important. We are looking for a spiritual path. What type of path are we seeking? What is our aim? For that you have to check. Maybe your aim is just to become a better person. That is wonderful, but is it enough to qualify for a spiritual path? You can become a better person without having any spiritual path. There are zillions of wonderful people who are not Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or new age practitioners. They are great and wonderful. Begin to look at it. You will say, "I seek happiness." If you look for "Mitterand's happiness", you will find again what I said earlier, the happiness that is based on our destructive nature. That viewpoint can be refuted. You can say that happiness is not found by looking out for me, but also for my family and friends. You are going to find that ultimately your spiritual goal is not just happiness for yourself, not just personal freedom - although that is already great. The scope of what you are looking for and aiming for will increase and increase and increase and ultimately you reach to the best possible goal. Likewise, the way and how I can achieve that goal will increase and grow. First you say, "I don't want to harm or kill anybody." That is great, wonderful. But is that capable of delivering your goal? You have to find out. Spiritual practice is there to improve yourself. We have to improve the foundation on which we function. The method and know-how that we apply has to be approved. The goal that we are trying to achieve has to improve. This is what Shantideva means when he says, "The successively higher ones refute the lower ones." So this is true for our every day lives, not only for the attainment of wisdom or emptiness. It goes for everything.

If we don't have that, then no matter what you do, it is as the Tibetan teachers say

You are swept away by a powerful current, but as long as your head is not under the water, you still think you are swimming and in control, while being carried away helplessly for miles.

That should not be our spiritual path. I guess I have to stop here. I didn't cover a single verse tonight, just a half verse. But we have to close the shop.

Thank you

03/11/2005