Archive Result

1

Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life–The Wisdom Chapter Part 4

with Gehlek Rimpoche

Ann Arbor – October 11, 2005

Good evening everybody. Welcome here tonight. We are in the middle of the teqaching on the Bodhisattvacharyavatara, the Bodhisattvas' Way of Life. Bodhisattva is a term used in Buddhism for those who are working towards becoming a Buddha. We have to be aware that not every Buddhist tradition introduces buddhahood as their goal. If you look into the Theravadan tradition, their maximum achievement of the spiritual practice is to become an "arhat'. Their level is known as nirvana, meaning freedom from the cycle of life after life of suffering, a continuous running cycle of death, bardo and birth. It keeps on continuing, without control. That is called samsara. In Tibetan it is known as kor wa. That literally means circling, because kor lo means wheel. What is circling here? The individual is bouncing from birth to death, to bardo and to the next birth and so on. That is actually the idea of reincarnation.

I am coming from the background of reincarnation. My background is Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism, and actually all Buddhism, does accept reincarnation. A number of people may think that reincarnation is something great and desirable. We talk about incarnate lamas. The true reality is that reincarnation is not great at all. Nagarjuna, the great Indian scholar, has said,

Try not to have reincarnation. You can achieve nothing better than that.

Does that mean that the individual is discontinued if you can stop reincarnation? I don't think that is correct. We don't discontinue. The lives continue. The beings continue. They may not necessarily be human beings all the time. Beings continue under the control of suffering or in a peaceful or joyful nature. This is the true question. When talking about samsara we talk about beings continuing in suffering. It is no secret to us that our present life is full of tremendous amounts of suffering. We may think that we are great and wonderful. We are Americans, the richest nation in the world, the most scientifically advanced in the world, the greatest military and economic power in the world. Absolutely true, and yet we continue to suffer. Our society is indeed very advanced scientifically, which has made our life much easier than it used to be, even decades ago. However, we continue to suffer. We had 9/11. We endured Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes thereafter. Now we just had a huge earthquake. I heard in the news today that there are over 30,000 casualties. That is in Pakistan alone. In India there are at 1800 dead and the number is bound to go up.

When we are sitting here, talking about Dharma, saying prayers and so on, we should dedicate our positive virtues to those who unfortunately experience directly the first Noble Truth in the worst way, by losing their lives. Remember, I often say that when these kinds of incidents happen in the world it is no fault of ours, nor is it the fault of anyone else, or God's fault. It is as Buddha has said: the Truth of Suffering in a very vivid way. Losing one's life is the worst expression of the First Noble Truth. As spiritual practitioners we should dedicate all our positive virtues so that all those who died can purify all negativities and connect with their positive karmas and take proper rebirth. We should do that not only with regard to the earthquake in the India/Kashmir/Pakistan area, but also by thinking about the mudslides in Guatemala and coming close to home, the death of our member Dennis Gilligan from Cleveland. He passed away yesterday, at around 2 pm. I received a request to pray and actually I heard that he passed away very peacefully and nicely. Our Cleveland Dharma coordinator Anne Warren was present at the time and was doing Avalokiteshvara prayers and the long mantra OM NAMO RATNA TRAYAYA…Then, she said, somehow she had to switch to the guru mantra and at that moment he breathed his last. She thought that went very well and I thought so too. So he passed away not only very peacefully, but with a mind connected to Guru, Buddha and so on. Buddha has guaranteed that if you die in that way you will not fall into lower realms in your next life.

It is good to take that into account. But it doesn't mean that we don't have to pray any more. We still need to dedicate our virtues of studying and praying, all our usual prayers and so on, to firstly purify all negativities and secondly, to make a positive karmic connection. When you breathe your last while being connected to Buddha and Guru and saying mantras, you will be able to connect with a good life, but such a good life also should have the 10 endowments and 8 leisures, so that you can continue the dharma practice and obtain enlightenment in that very next life time. That is what we owe to our members. Teacher and students are putting together their thoughts and energy and dedicate it to those purposes in general, to those who lost their lives in the disasters and particularly to Dennis Gilligan.

We are talking about samsara and about what makes samsara continue and what makes samsara continue is the ego, nothing else but ego. What can cut samsara? It is nothing but wisdom. In this case it is the wisdom understanding reality. In the Buddhist tradition we call that "emptiness". We are talking about what emptiness refutes. We are talking about the object of negation.

When you throw out a glass of water, you say that now the glass is empty. Different earlier scholars have different thoughts on that. We have just come to the Mind Only School's way of thinking about that. Their idea of emptiness is the emptiness of an external identity - not only external existence, but external identity. We have been talking about the debate between Mind Only and Madhyamaka. Last time we have covered the verses 16-19. Yes, I can continue to read on. However, I would like to do something different at this point. Last week in Garrison I did a teaching on the Four Mindfulnesses. The moment you talk about the four mindfulnesses, most people will say, "Yes, I know about that. It is the mindfulness of body, feelings, mind and phenomena". These are the four mindfulnesses that come up in the context of the 37 wings of enlightenment. However, the set of four mindfulnesses we covered in the teachings last week end is something else.

This set of four mindfulnesses is a secret teaching given to Je Tsongkhapa by Manjushri himself. I do remember, I always experience some uneasiness when I hear the term "Lama Tsongkhapa", though some Tibetan teachers themselves use that term. If you are really thinking about "lama" in the sense of being a guru or so on it is okay. But often we think of a lama as somebody who wears red robes. It is a little uneasy to think about Tsongkhapa in that way. That uneasiness was confirmed when I reread the transcripts of Kyabje Ling Rimpoche's teachings on the Four Mindfulnesses. He kept on referring to Je Tsongkhapa and never said Lama Tsongkapa. I remember he actually told me that he doesn't like the term "Lama Tsongkhapa". In Tibetan he really used kam sum cho gye gyal po Tsongkhapa Chen po, which means: the great Tsongkhapa, the dharma king of the three kinds of existence.

So, in this set of the four mindfulnesses, the first is the mindfulness of the guru, the second is the mindfulness of compassion and bodhicitta, the third is the mindfulness of the divine body and then lastly the mindfulness of emptiness. I don't want to repeat here everything I taught in Garrison last week end, however, since we are talking about wisdom here, I want to bring in some of the important points concerning emptiness from that teaching. This was a teaching given by Kyabje Ling Rimpoche, which has been translated into English at that very time and then transcribed. There were a number of professors present at that time. So I would like to go through some of the most important points of that teaching.

The advantage is that this condensed teaching gives you some good idea about emptiness. When we talk about the object of negation, sometimes it is good to talk in extreme detail, in an almost extravagant way. At that time it may seem that the subject is scattered all over the world and there is nothing to hold. A condensed teaching, on the other hand, like this one by Kyabje Ling Rimpoche, gives you something to hold. I would like to bring something from that teaching to you, though it may be redundant to those of you who attended that teaching in Garrison. I think it will be helpful. Whenever I do something nice anywhere I like to bring it back home and try to share it with you people here.

So let me read a little bit from that transcript about the Fourth Mindfulnesses. This teaching of Manjushri to Tsongkhapa was put into words by the Seventh Dalai Lama in form of a song. The translation does not really do justice to the original words, but it is better than nothing.

The Seventh Dalai Lama says

Throughout the circle of appearing and occurring objects of knowledge pervades the space of clear light which is reality, the ultimate, an inexpressible mode of being of objects is there.

Forsaking mental fabrications, look to the entity of immaculate emptiness,

not letting your mind stray, place it within reality,

making your attention unforgetful, maintain it within reality.

Then, according to the translator, Kyabje Rimpoche explains,

Now for the fourth contemplation…...

The translator keeps on using the term contemplation, but actually, it is mindfulness, because the title of the Seventh Dalai Lama's Song itself is "Song of the Four Mindfulnesses" and also Kyabje Rimpoche said 'mindfulness'. The translator probably thought that to use the word mindfulness would cause confusion with regard to the other set of the four mindfulnesses and therefore chose the term contemplation. However, in Tibetan the same terminology for the different teachings has been used purposely. This Song of the Four Mindfulnesses is a little bit secret. So when we use the same title people will ignore it, thinking, "Oh, I know what the four mindfulnesses are". And they won't be too interested in looking at this teaching. That is how you can keep teachings secret.

At first, Tsongkhapa's secret teachings were kept separately at the end of one volume. Later, the editors took all these secret teachings apart and distributed them all over the 18th volume, one verse here in this chapter, one verse there in another chapter. That is how the Tibetans keep things secret.

That reminds me that once there was a very nice geshe from Ganden Changtse monastery. He unfortunately died. Otherwise he would have been the Ganden Tripa by now, no doubt. He was working in Tibet House. In those days money was very rare. The Tibetan monasteries in the early refugee days in India were not yet organized and so if there was any money coming in they would give it to some reliable person for safekeeping. I used to keep money for Gyuto too. So Geshe-la kept some money for Ganden Changtse. Then suddenly he got sick with cancer. By the time he realized it was cancer it was too late. He died within three, four days. He started hiccupping and died very soon. When I got there, he was still alive and he told me, "You will find some money in my garbage, which belongs to Ganden Changtse." It was close to 100,000 rupees. The monastery had asked him to keep it for them. So he made little bundles of bank notes and kept them in his garbage can. He swept his floor and put the garbage on top of the money. It was in a garbage bag. So when he died I told the Ganden Changtse monks, "Your money is in the garbage." Incidentally, I remember that some people keep money in their boots, but when the boots are gone, the money is gone as well. But the garbage is safe. No thief will take your garbage!

The Four Mindfulnesses are purposely called the same as the usual Four Mindfulnesses, so most people will ignore it. Now let me read from Kaybje Ling Rimpoche's teaching

Now for the fourth contemplation, of Emptiness or Shunyata, the first lines refer to the fact that anything within the realm of samsara or nirvana, all that can be known or perceived is pervaded by Emptiness.

In other words, emptiness is pervasive. Every animate or inanimate object, whatever we see, is in the nature of emptiness.

The nature of all things, without any exception, is that they lack true existence. Just as there is no place which is not pervaded by the sky in space, there is no place not pervaded by Emptiness.

Inexpressible mode of being" means a fully-realized Arya's understanding of emptiness cannot be described in any words, and it cannot be explained how such an Arya arrived at that understanding. It says: "Forsaking mental fabrications, look to the entity of immaculate Emptiness". In order to understand Emptiness we have to understand its nature. Emptiness is egolessness; we have to understand what is being refuted, otherwise, "Emptiness" gives rise to many intellectual misconceptions and misunderstandings. We must eliminate wrong concepts, and mental fabrications concerning Emptiness. Shunyata, egolessness, etc. are synonymous. What is egolessness? The lack of a self-existing or truly independent "bdag" or ego. So there is the lack of true existence of the ego in terms of personality. In this realm there are many other things apart from personalities or persons: there are phenomena, and their lack of true or natural existence is called the egolessness of phenomena, while the lack of true or natural existence of the ego is called egolessness.

For those who don't know, Kyabje Ling Rimpoche is the senior guru or master of the present Dalai Lama. He gave this teaching in New Dehli, in Tibet House. It is better than what I have been saying, so what he says here is that there are two types of emptiness, one is self-lessness, the other is phenomena-lessness. In Tibetan these are kang sar gyi dag me and cho gyi dag me, the selflessness of person and the selflessness of phenomena.

We touch on that very often in our current Tuesday and Thursday teachings. Chandrakirti also stated that

Buddha has divided emptiness into two categories, based on the animate and on the inanimate

In other words, emptiness is based on beings and all things other than beings, like tables and glasses. This is important to recognize. Even though emptiness is emptiness, you have to see them as different, because for some individual people it is easier to recognize the emptiness of persons and for some it is easier to understand the emptiness of phenomena. That is why it is important to distinguish both of them. Otherwise, it is like in the example of the yak that has only one eye and while enjoying the beautiful grass growing in high altitude with pure air and pure water, it will only see the grass on one side and the grass on the other side will be left. Therefore, both are necessary. Some people may think, "Truth is truth, there is only one truth", but in Buddhism we tell you, "No, there are two truths."

To continue with Kyabje Rimpoche's teaching:

To establish this understanding there are many methods and forms of reasoning. The two main methods are: a) the separation of one and many; and b) dependent arising, which is called the king of reasoning. The separation of one and many has four points:

(1) ascertaining the object to be refuted,

This is necessary to figure out because not every "I" is to be refuted. There are some "I"s that have to be refuted and some that have to be maintained.

(2) establishing the pervasion,

(3) one, and

(4) Many.

When we talk about egolessness we have to determine what it is that is 'less'. The term in Tibetan is "bdagmed"-no ego- so we have to determine what is "bdag" ego? What is it that we are trying to refute? If you saw a thief and noticed that he was wearing clothes of a certain color, then you can recognize him again and point him out to the police. It is extremely important to understand what one is refuting. There are two types of ego and one is valid. If we deny the one that is valid we will find ourselves in the position of being nihilists, denying everything, which is a very serious mistake. The ego that is valid has functions, it is the relative ego, and we must be careful not to deny its functions. It is said that those of very small wisdom can fail by making this mistake. When we speak of the Madhyamika philosophy, 'madhya' refers to a middle path, between nihilism and externalism, a path without extremes. If you have a narrow path, you have to walk very carefully without falling to the right or left, between the mistakes of nihilism and mental fabrication, externalism. When Shakyamuni Buddha became Enlightened in Bodhgaya he spent a week without saying anything, as he felt it would be too difficult for people to understand him. He said: "I have discovered an indescribable teaching on Voidness. It is extremely profound and vast, and will be very difficult for people to be able to understand". Then he wandered off into the woods for forty-nine days, and only started to teach later at the request of Brahma and Indra.

You might have heard this: Buddha said,

I found something very profound and vast. If I try to explain it to anyone, nobody will be able to understand. Therefore I choose to keep my mouth shut and remain in the forest.

Indra and Brahma are Hindu gods. Buddhists also accept them. They went to Buddha and urged him to teach by saying, "Why did you become a Buddha, if you want to keep quiet? Please share your experience." In making that request, Indra gave Buddha a golden chakra, a wheel, and Brahma gave him a conch shell. So the wheel has become a very important symbol since then. Also the conch shell is a powerful symbol for giving teachings. You blow on it and it makes a sound.

Kyabje Rimpoche continues,

So there are two types of ego, one which exists and one which doesn't. How are we to recognize them? The false self appears as something which is independent of, or apart from, the five aggregates. For instance, when we are falsely accused of being thieves, we immediately get angry; thinking "Why am I being accused?"

I think the translator added a few words here. Kyabje Rimpoche uses this example very often and Pabongka used it and many great masters in the past have. When you really want to know what your ego is, imagine a situation where you are sitting with a couple of people and all of a sudden someone walks in and points the finger at you and shouts, "You are a thief". First you may think it is a joke but when you realize the accusation is serious you will feel, "Me? A thief?" The sense of "Me" that you feel then is somebody very solid, with big horns, standing inside of you. This is a glimpse of the ego that needs to be refuted.

Another example is this: you are standing at the edge of a huge cliff and you are about to fall. You then think, "Oh my God, I am going to fall". There is a very strong "I" or ego that appears to you at that moment. This strong ego not only appears when you are falsely accused or in great danger but also when you are very upset and angry. Behind that anger, the powerful force is that ego. At other times you may feel deprived of something that you felt entitled to. You think, "I have been denied my promotion." "I have been bypassed." What pops up in all those situations is the ego that is to be refuted.

[Kyabje Ling Rimpoche]

Without thinking of the five aggregates we get a strong feeling of '1'. This is a small taste of the false self, the one to be refuted. When we get this feeling of a strong 'I' without any relation to the base of the five aggregates, since the five are the basis of the self, we have to conclude that there is no such thing as this independent and natural false self as we feel there to be.

In other words: when we see the independent self or "Me" we have to conclude that this is not there.

[Kyabje Ling Rimpoche]

So we have to analyze and establish logically whether it exists as one with the five aggregates or separate from them, i.e. whether it is the same entity or separate. If this false self exists independently, if it has natural existence as one with the five aggregates, as the same entity, then there must be five selves, since they are inseparable from the five aggregates.

If it truly exists as one with the five aggregates, means it must be existing truly, inseparably, as oneness. If that is so, there are five aggregates, so there must be five selves. Plus there are the four elements. So there should be four further selves. There should be nine selves within me. Does anyone of us accept that we have nine different personalities within us? Everyone will say, "I have no split personality. I am me." That shows that the self does not truly exist as oneness with the aggregates and elements. Otherwise there should be nine selves.

[Kyabje Ling Rimpoche]

Here there is the fault that there cannot be five aggregates as there is only one self. The basis of the five aggregates and self are not independently self-existent one. You can understand this by thinking of what happens at death-the form aggregate is left behind and disposed of. Is the self burned or buried along with the body?

If the self exists in oneness with the aggregates, totally inseparable from them, what happens if one of them, the form aggregate, dies? The physical form will be cremated, buried or fed to the birds. So then, does the self disappear, if the aggregates are destroyed?

[Kyabje Ling Rimpoche]

If so, the self would disappear at the same time as the body. So here there is the fault of denying that the ego continues on to future lives. In short there isn't an ego that doesn't rely on the five aggregates.

If we say that the naturally existing or independently existing self is separate from the five aggregates, then there would be no relation whatsoever between the two, but that is not the case. When we are hurt, we don't say: "Oh! Someone stuck a needle into my form aggregate!" -we say: "Someone stuck a needle into me!" The reference is not to the body aggregate, but to a self. So the self does not independently exist as one with the five aggregates, nor as separate from them.

That's it. It is neither one nor many. That is the other side. If the self is separate from the aggregates, then where is it? It can't exist apart from the aggregates. Further, it can't be in between either. It has to be either one with or separate from the aggregates. So the big bossy ego does not exist at all. If it exists, where is it? It has to be one with or separate from the aggregates. If one with them, there has to be as many selves as there are aggregates and elements. But we don't have split personalities. Then it must be all together mumble jumbled up. But then, at death, when the body is burnt, do you cremate the self too? Do you bury the ego? No, we don't. We travel on to future lives.

So now you have to draw the conclusion. Such a self cannot exist in oneness with the aggregates, nor separately from them. Therefore, because there can't be a third possibility, such a self does not exist at all.

I want to quote Kyabje Rimpoche one more time, when he talks about brten brel, pronounced ten drel, the interdependent nature of existence.

The great Guru Chone Lama Rinpoche has said: the word "brtcn" is to demonstrate the void nature of the ego; it explains the lack of true existence of the self.

Ten means you depend on something. You cannot exist by yourself.

The second word, "brel", explains the interdependent nature, the functions in keeping with the experience of ordinary people.

The King of Logic says, "Because ego is dependent arising, it cannot truly exist." You depend on other factors to exist, so you don't exist truly, from your side. Nor is there a total lack of existence, because again, you exist dependently. So this reasoning works in both ways. It refutes eternalism, because you exist dependently. It refutes nihilism because you arise dependently.

Take the subject of ego. Does ego truly exist? No, because it is dependently arising. Is it completely non-existent? No, because it does dependently arise. This is exactly how it should be working and therefore it is the King of Logic.

At this level of the discussion in the Bodhisattvacharyavatara, the debate between the Mind Only and Prasangika-Madhyamaka schools is all about looking for the object of refutation. The teaching of Kyabje Rimpoche gives you the completely condensed bottom line meaning of emptiness, something that you can grasp. Then you work all this out in detail, arguing and comparing, figuring out which logic follows what. If you keep on tracing all that you will finally reach an unshakable understanding of the non-true existence of the ego.

No matter whatever you do has to be logically concluded. Sitting, praying and meditating will help but will never give you the wisdom, never ever. You need to mentally establish it. That is why Je Tsongkhapa insists that there are two types of meditation, analytical and concentrated. Je Tsongkhapa and already Buddha, also emphasized that you need both, shamata and vipasyana. If you don't have shamata, you have no vehicle. If you don't have vipasyana, you don't have a weapon. If you want to fight the war against the ego, you need both, vehicle and weapon. When you look to emptiness, meditation alone does not do it. You have to have reasoning. You need to meditate, but in the framework established by reasoning. You cannot just sit there, thinking, "Here is a cloud flying by, there is no ego. It is like the cloud flying by, I feel it. It is wonderful. It is there and then it is gone." That won't do any good. It will get you nowhere. It is total waste of time.

Likewise, even if you have all the intellectual and spiritual reasonings, you also need concentration. Then, even if you have all these, you still cannot reach to the deepest conclusion, because you also need merit. This is not in Kyabje Rimpoche's text at this point, but somewhere in the beginning of the teaching he says that this cannot be realized by intellectual means alone, this cannot be reached by mere meditation, it cannot be reached by meditation and intellectual contemplation, but it needs merit and the unbroken lineage of guru, the lineage blessings and the prerequisite understanding. With all of that you can definitely achieve this.

If the conditions are right, if there is qualified guru, qualified disciple, qualified reasoning, qualified concentration, qualified merit, etc, then buddhahood can be produced just like an artist produces a work of art. It is not that difficult. This is what we are and that is what we are trying to do here in all our Tuesday and Thursday teachings.

Thank you and good night.

10/13/2005