Archive Result

1

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

Oral explanations by Kyabje Gehlek Rimpoche

20050329GRAABWL

Talk 8: 3-29-05

Thank you and welcome tonight. I have been talking to you people about verse 5 for the longest time.

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 the ordinary people.

I talked quite in detail about this and how we perceive reality. The truth is: when we talk about wisdom, we are talking about reality. In other words, we are looking beyond the mystery of life. We try to cut through that, whatever it is, and try to see what is. The true wisdom is going beyond the mystery of life. The mystery of life is all our excitement, sadness and all of that. Also not knowing. That is part of the influence of the mystery of life. When I say that the wisdom is trying to dig down and go beyond that, cutting through the sources of mystery is cutting through the object of negation, from the philosophical language point of view. We have to go beyond the object of negation. That is the wisdom we are talking about. Looking at the object of negation that is where the point of difference lies between the contemplative and the ordinary ones. Verse 5 was all about that.

I did give you a lot of points to think about this. I can't do everything here, but I did give you quite a lot. We talked about the possibility of an indivisible object. We talked about irreducible essence. Those of you who attended the last few classes will know about it. Those who just come in today for the first time, I am sorry, you might get a little confused and not know what I am talking about. But it is an ongoing thing. It links up. The wisdom we are talking about is the wisdom that goes beyond the mystery of life. We just see what it is. The essence could be the indivisible thing or irreducible essence or some people say it is an independent existence. Some people say that the self is the body. Some people say the "me" is the mind. Some say that it is the combination of body and mind. To talk in terms of the object of negation is talking from one angle, the very philosophical angle. But before we see what it is we have to see what it is not. This is a funny way how Buddha guides us on the wisdom level.

There is no point in Buddha just telling us what it is. You will say, "All right, that's what it is. Buddha said so." There is no wisdom about that. Lord Buddha has spoken and that's about it. That doesn't become wisdom at all. In order to become wisdom the individual person really needs to know what it is really is. One has to look and think and analyze. At least you have to say, "I am doing things. I am coming and I am going, I am sitting. So who is that?" Very simple. That is the ordinary "I". We had a term the other day: the a priori "I". Are we talking about the a priori I or the ”I" that we think is the person? The simple, ordinary, a priori I is not the subject of discussion at all. The subject of discussion is "I the big one", the "I" who hates and is so sensitive, who cannot tolerate anything, who is the dictator, the queen bee, the queen ant. We are looking at that to find out: what is it? It is the mystery of life there. Until that is solved no one gets through, whether you are a thinker, not a thinker or whatever you do, you will not get through, whether you are Buddhist, Judeo-Christian, atheist or whatever you maybe, you will never go through.

That is why these days a lot of scientists are turning to this. Only last Thursday I was talking with Ben Shapiro. He told me, 'I am very interested in Buddhism because of this wisdom. I have great difficulty with the compassion because you treat everybody as the same and that is extremely difficult. The wisdom is no problem for whatsoever, because my scientific background confirms every point you are making." A lot of scientists are looking into this, studying it and spending a tremendous amount of time and energy and money. They think they will come out with something to solve the mystery of the life of human beings through scientific means in connection with looking at these ancient sources. Call it religion, philosophy, way of life or experience, it is what Buddha shared with us.

Recently I was at a conference with this artificial intelligence guy (Ray Kurtzweil) and he said the very same thing. He said, "What Mr. Gehlek is presenting here are very ancient religious points. Science had rejected these ideas and followed the facts and figures, while religion follows faith. That is where the road divided. Now science is making a 180 degrees turn. The facts have forced us to follow the insights of the ancient wisdom."

To me, truth and reality are one, whether you look at it through the scientific or through the religion's methods. It doesn't matter. That is one of the reasons why I don't buy blind faith. I do buy faith, but it has to be intelligent faith. In other words, if Buddha came and told me, "If you don't worship me, you will go to hell" I will say, "Thank you Buddha, I will go to hell then." That’s how it really is. Where is this hell and what is it? They tell you there are 18 different holes or something and I don't think it is golf!

But the point is that the essence of Buddhism is wisdom and compassion. Compassion without wisdom is blind. Wisdom without compassion makes you a soul-less person. So both are necessary. The essence of the wisdom really looks for why we get it wrong all the time, why we are in trouble all the time. First we look outside and think that somebody has provided all this for us. But that doesn't make sense. If somebody created our life why didn't they make a good one? Honestly. Why did they make all these manufacturer's defects? When there are manufacturer’s defects in a product we will return it. Even today we are returning the Ford Explorer because of manufacturer’s defects. We reject and return it. But in this case it is not. If it was an external creation we could change it. But it is not, it is internal. Ancient thinkers, irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Buddhists, came up with the idea of the indivisible, or the irreducible essence, independent existence, along with the physical skandhas. Then there is the idea of independent existence combined with mental experience, nothing physical.

Each and every one of those point though has faults. As we said the other day, an indivisible thing is not even possible. The moment you bring anything physical into space, this space is divided. The object occupies space. So it has eastern, western, southern and northern sides. Therefore there is division. In case of the mind there is division by time: yesterday's mind, today's mind, tomorrow's mind. So the indivisible is never possible. Neither is the irreducible essence. That is a very similar idea.

When you don't think carefully, the result will be something funny. There was a very well-known Tibetan minister once. He has no spiritual knowledge for whatsoever. He became governor of Chamdo, in Eastern Tibet. There he was visited by a local warlord type of chieftain of a certain caste. Eastern Tibet had a very similar culture to the native American culture. So this chieftain called on the new governor. They didn't really know what to talk about. So the chieftain asked, 'What are the so-called Three Jewels?" The governor was able to answer that one: Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The chieftain said, "Oh I see. So where are they these days?" Now the minister had no idea where Buddha, Dharma and Sangha were. He was eating and took his time chewing his food. Then he came up with an answer. He said, "They are living somewhere up there in the invisible sky, in a wonderfully radiating, crystal glass-framed altar." He had no answer, so he came up with that statement. The chieftain had nothing to say to that, so he managed to pass through the conversation. But it is totally nothing - it is not poetry, just made up something.

So when you don't really know about how things exist and you use your intelligence you will come up with all these interesting answers, like indivisible, irreducible essence and another one is that the self should be oneness with the form, or with the skandhas. The answer is: If it is one with the skandhas, look how many skandhas you have: five, all these eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body. So there has to be five "I"s as well. If you say, "Okay, the self is the combination of all these five together", then the answer is: If that is so then a deaf person will have no soul." There is something from the combination missing. You don't hear anything, there is no sound. If you are blind you won't see any form. That is very similar. All these direct contradictions will come up. When you clear each and every one of them you are gaining insight.

I don't want to sit on the verse 5 all the time. I am going to read a statement from a commentary. We have some kind of dualistic perception. We actually perceive something beyond the combination of "I and what belongs to me", as the lam rim chen mo translation says. You can also say "I" and "my". In any case, I and my perception or projection will have confused points. That is our problem. It is dualistic perception. Dualistic means double vision, doesn't it? I don't know English very well. You have to remember that this is a language that I picked up in the street and from the television and not so much from Sesame Street but more so from Days of Our Lives.

The traditional teachers give the example of the magician. I don't know whether the ancient magicians and today's magicians work the same way. I have no idea what today's magicians do. The old magicians used to just bring a little pebble or some part of a flower and then they used two powers, either material power or mantra power. That will cause you to see the little pebbles as horses or elephants or horse carts or anything they would like to project and show you.

At that moment, those of us who are watching the magician's show will see elephants, horses, rabbits and we will also think that that there is real elephants, horses and rabbits. But the magician him/herself will see horses, rabbits and elephants and so on, but knows very well that there are not horses, elephants, etc, but just little pebbles or flowers.

Even today when the magicians take out a rabbit from the hat, they don't create a rabbit. It's a trick. A magician that came here some time ago used to produce a flower in the air, but actually he took it out of the sleeves of his coat. When we don't see the flower in the sleeve and the magician suddenly makes the flower appear in the air we think that he produced it out of thin air, like Sai Baba, who produces ashes in the air. But in the magician's view, through his personal knowledge he of course knows that he brought the flower in his coat sleeves and pulled it out from there.

So there are two different views looking at the same flower: one thinks that it came out of the air, out of nowhere, the other knows it came out of the coat sleeve. One flower, two different consciousnesses, two different understandings.

Just like that it is when different people consider "I" and "my". The contemplative sees that it is not reality but appears as if it is reality. Those of us who don't know that will think it exists as it appears. When we get mixed up we see it mixed up. When we know what is right we see it right.

If you think, "Yes, I see a pebble is being manifested to appear as a horse. I see a horse but it is not a true horse', that is because you know it is a magician's show. You have two minds here. The perceiving mind that sees the horse and the knowledge that there is no real horse there. When you can make that division you don't have so much confusion.

However, in our ordinary, normal mind, when we look at a form, we will believe that to be real. The base on which we make our analysis is the magician's horse. What we negate is the true existence of that horse. That is clear, isn't it? On the basis of the appearing horse from the magician's show we negate or reject the idea of perceiving that as a true horse. Your mind is negating the existence of a true horse based on the magician-produced horse. Again, the magician-produced horse is the base and what you negate is a true horse. What you perceive in either case is a horse. Until you know it is a magician's show you will not know that there is no truth in that horse. Until then you cannot make the distinction.

Likewise, until we see the self, the "I", the dictator, the creator, we won't know that it doesn't truly exist. It is simply the combination of a lot of things. If you take them out, nothing really exists. Until you see this you will not lose the dualistic perception. We won't know that this "I" is not there. The hope is that you will find the true existence of the individual, find out what the individual really is. That is why we go through all these different possibilities. We say that such a self would have to be one with the mind or one with the body. By considering that you will see all the faults of each possibility.

It is like looking for an elephant in a house. You have to assume that there might be an elephant in the house, so you are looking for it. In one room you see a pig, in another a goat, a horse and so on. You take the pig, the goat and the horse out and if there is really an elephant there you should be able to find it. When you see that there is no elephant there you gain the understanding of the lack of existence of the elephant. Just like that, when you look deeply within you, you will see the lack of true existence of self. Yet, it is functioning.

Don't be afraid of annihilation, because you function perfectly. The ordinary "I", which has come from a previous life and is going to a future life, the "I" what enjoys life and suffers and so on, is not shaken. What you are really negating, is the projected, ego-confusion-ignorance-fear combination - that big thing. That has to be negated. By doing that you are pulling the carpet out from under your mind. That is a very important point where you are protecting yourself from negative emotions and particularly, from fear. Other negative emotions, like obsession and hatred, are the direct result of this. When you pull that out there will be no more little symptoms left, because you truly see it. You have really busted the big lie of life. You have caught red-handed the thief that is stealing the joy from your life. I should leave it there, otherwise I will not move out of verse 5. I hope that is a good enough explanation on this point. It is very difficult for people to see that it is not there, including many of the earlier thinkers. Why are we sharing their thoughts? Because whatever had happened earlier, their thoughts and ideas are our guidance. The history is the guide for our future. Really true.

Verse 6

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, for example.

The first line reflects one view: even the objects of direct perception, such as form and the like, are established.

This view says that what you can see directly, me and you, form, etc, is directly what it is. Form, etc, you don't have to think about it. You can directly see it, hear it, touch it, hold it, smell it. For example, if somebody asks, "Where is Jo Blo?" another person will say, "Oh, he has not shown up, but wait, there he is. That's Jo Blo." So you can look at Jo Blo's shape, you can shake his hand, you can touch his body, you can hold it. So this must be Jo Blo. With a direct mind you see it. Eye consciousness can see it, ear consciousness can hear it, nose consciousness can smell it, tongue consciousness can taste it and body consciousness can feel and touch it. Therefore, this is the essence.

Yes, that is true, relatively that is how it exists, but not absolute. If that was absolute, then there is nothing more for us to learn. Unless we are blind we will see it, unless we are deaf we will hear it. So nothing has to be learnt. Therefore, every human being, even every living being, should be a contemplative. There should not be any ordinary persons. But we know that is not the case.

This verse is interesting. The debate doesn't end there. It goes on: by consensus, not by verifying cognition

You see something and agree on it. That is consensus. Can you verify that by your cognition? No, you cannot. So the first view will say, "The form is the person." Now you ask, "Which part of the form is the person? Is the bald head or the bearded head the person?" The opponent may say, "It is the bald head." Then you counter, "So, if the hair grows on that head, is that still the same person or does it change? It should be a different person for you, because your recognition is based on the bald head." Likewise, if he says, "The person is the bearded one", then you say, "If the person shaves, does that make the person a different person? It should for you, because your cognition says the person has a beard. So when there is no beard it must be a different person." Try to prove that each one of those statements is wrong, even if it is a direct point.

The verse continues: That consensus is false – even though it is agreed to by everybody. It is false – sometimes.

I used to say: Where do we draw the line? I used to say, “If everybody is facing in one direction, it must be right.” I used to give the example of the Indian guy driving on the highway.

This Indian guy is driving on a highway in Massachusetts between Boston and New York. He is driving on the wrong side, because he is used to driving in India where they do drive on the wrong side, because over there that is the right side. He is listening to the radio and suddenly an announcement comes saying, “If you are traveling on that road, be careful. There is one person driving in the wrong direction.” So he thinks, “One person? There are hundreds of them going in the wrong direction!”

I used to give that as example for where you draw the line between right and wrong. But I was wrong on that, because all the great discoveries in science and philosophy and economy go against what is accepted. If everyone would be going in the same direction there would be nothing to be discovered. The consensus is an agreed point. That doesn’t mean that was has been agreed on is always right – just like in an election.

The verse continues: as is the general agreement that pure things are impure, for example. What does that mean? Form, etc, seem to be true. But in reality that is not true. It is a lie. Your face is not you, your body is not you. If my body is me, I should be fat, but I am not [laughs] – I am joking. An example for confusing pure and impure is our body. We think that the body is pure. Particularly medical people will tell you, “If you cut your body you will see that it is absolutely clean inside.” Buddha tells us that it is impure. That is a direct contradiction. He says it is impure because it is in nature impermanent and subject to decay. Doctors say it is clean, if the person is not sick. If the body is impure then you get sick, they say. The truth is if the body is pure, why should there be cancer? It is impure and unclean, that’s why. That is what Shantideva means. Common acceptance does not mean it is right.

Verse 7

The Protector taught things in order to bring people

to understanding.

[Qualm] If these things are not ultimately, but only conventionally,

momentary, this is inconsistent.

“Protector” here refers to Lord Buddha. This is all an exchange of ideas between different thinkers. So somebody could say, “If form, etc, is not truly existent, how can Buddha say it is impermanent? If it doesn’t even exist, the question of it being permanent or impermanent does not even arise. Therefore, your statement about true existence is wrong.” So this person is saying, this would be like claiming that an uncreated space-flower is impermanent. Where is the uncreated space-flower in the first place, even before you can talk about it being permanent or impermanent? The reply is: When Buddha shared things with people he couldn’t say everything directly. When a person first walks in you can’t tell them, “You don’t exist” If the first thing Buddha told a person would be, “You have no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body”, what would they think? So first Buddha will say, “You are impermanent. Your nose is impermanent. Your hair is impermanent. Your beauty is impermanent. Your strength is impermanent, your body is impermanent.” Buddha will lead you to understand the non-existence of things by telling you about impermanence first.

That is true for us. When we do the Odyssey to Freedom or lam rim, we will come through with impermanence first. We don’t say the moment we open the first class, “There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue”. Nor do we say, “The table you see here is not really a table. It is just a top and legs. If you take the legs off you have a piece of plywood, no longer a table.”

So the Buddha is trying to lead you in the right direction. He is not telling you an untruth. Impermanence is true. Impermanence is not emptiness, but it leads you to it. Subtle impermanence is quite close to wisdom. It is momentary change. I am sitting here, you are listening. We are watching each other. Every second we change 365 times. Our mind, our body, everything is changing 365 times in the time it takes to snap your fingers. That is why our body decays after a little while. If it didn’t change continuously it wouldn’t decay that easily. We try to prevent decay and put plaster on it, paint it, then decorate it and dress it up, put it in hot and cold and worry about being cold, hot, being hungry or eating too much. So it is not easy to decay, however, it is impermanent and changes 365 per second.

Not only that, there is more. If these things are not ultimately, but only conventionally, momentary, this is inconsistent.

The idea expressed here is that impermanence is not the right thing. For example, if I see Mr. X in the morning and then again in the afternoon and evening, it is still Mr. X, no matter how he changes.

The reply is: People think and accept that everything is pure, happy, permanent and has a self. But in reality everything is impure, suffering, impermanent and has no self.

I am going to stop here. This is a long, interesting, tricky debate. It is an ancient debate between earlier great thinkers. Why are they sharing that with us? It is for us to know: this is not. If then it still exists you have to find what it is. When you can’t find it you will know that is it [self]-less. When you have found that out all your hang-overs can easily go away. There is nothing to hang over.

Anyway, for those who come here for the first time, we have been discussing this text by Shantideva for many years. We are on the wisdom chapter, the 9th, and apart from the dedication, the last chapter. So it is a little tough and difficult.

Thank you

3/31/2005