Archive Result

20060128GRAABODHI9PART V

Thank you for coming here today. I thought we would talk about the wisdom chapter 9 of the Bodhisattvacharyavatara, the Bodhisattva's Way of Life. This is based on the early Indian teacher Shantideva's great work. We have been doing that on Tuesdays for about 10 years. Now we have reached chapter 9, the wisdom chapter. This is extremely difficult, very hard. You all know how hard the wisdom aspect of Buddhism really is. Perhaps, I can't say it, but almost nobody else has tried to tackle the wisdom aspect of Tibetan Buddhism in the west. Yes, there are teachings, but most teachers pick up a few verses here and there, but it doesn't go through very smoothly. The teachings don't go through verse by verse. His Holiness has done a very nice teaching on the chapter 9, but you will notice that he has picked up verses here and there and not done the whole thing in detail. "Meaningful to Behold" by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso has something on the wisdom chapter too, but not in detail either. So nobody has done the detailed teaching on the wisdom chapter of the bodhisattvacharyavatara. You can tell that on Tuesdays and Thursdays in Ann Arbor and New York this is too hard a subject for people who walk in to hear something about spirituality. So we have taken that out now and we are doing it on week ends separately, in Ann Arbor as well as in New York. In New York I have moved the vipasyana aspect of the lam rim chen mo teachings from Thursday nights to the week end.

We do have a few guests here today, looking for wisdom, I am quite sure. We are going to read this text here verse by verse and I do hope you are not going to be disappointed. We have been doing this for 10 years and a lot of things are taken for granted.

However, I want to give you a little bit of background first. Every knowledge and information that Buddha has shared with us is coming through since 2600 years and it is all wisdom. But when we are talking about wisdom here, we are talking about a very specific wisdom.

Firstly, in Buddhism, everyone is totally responsible for themselves. No one else is responsible for us. What does that mean? Whatever we do, however we function, our deeds are our deeds. No matter if anyone else has seen it not, or understood what we are doing or not, it doesn't matter. Good deeds have good results for ourselves, bad deeds have their own consequences for ourselves. This is basically the karmic principle. Our life is run by our karma. Joy and happiness is the result of our positive deeds. Sadness and misery is the result of our negative deeds.

Negative and positive is sometimes also hard to distinguish. I often give the following example. In 1959 I came out of Tibet, when it was taken over by the communists. Ever since then we have some quarrel left with the Communist Chinese government. We sometimes play the game. I used to say, "What is good for the Chinese is bad for the Tibetans and what is good for the Tibetans is bad for the Chinese." This is a clear example that every deed is not necessarily good or bad. I am talking here about the Chinese government, not the Chinese people. The Chinese people are very kind and wonderful. Today is Chinese New Year and we wish all Chinese people a very happy and prosperous New Year.

So it is not the Chinese people, but rather the Chinese government. And within that, not even most government people, just a few, like Chairman Mao and some others. Apart from that it is policies that are giving trouble, not the individuals. That makes it hard to say whether some deeds are good or bad. Of course, if you are talking about killing people in the street, of course that is bad, no doubt about it. There is no question. But for other things it is questionable. You need some kind of wisdom to figure out what makes an action good. Even if you measure it on the grounds of what harms and what helps people, it is not that easy. Like I said: what is good for the Chinese is bad for the Tibetans and the other way round. So, sometimes, even with a good motivation, the actions can turn out to hurt somebody.

Mostly, we try to draw the line at the motivation: doing something with a good motivation that helps people is a good action. This distinction comes from Buddha's wisdom. However, within that there are still questions. So we do need some more wisdom in that area. Basically, violent actions are never positive. Non-violent actions are always better. But not every non-violent action is good. There is passive-aggressive behavior, for example. The human mind is extremely sophisticated and therefore our deeds are similarly sophisticated. There are people's manipulations involved and all kinds of things. So it is hard to figure out and that is what we are trying to learn.

All the positive karma and all the negative deeds are categorized in the Buddhist tradition of method. There is basic division between wisdom and method. Under method we group all the love-compassion related activities. Method means the way and how you achieve something. Generosity is without question part of method and so is love and compassion. Every effort we put in to say mantra, and most meditations, every morality, patience, enthusiasm and concentration, are all aspect of method.

The one thing left is wisdom. This is a very specific wisdom, not just the wisdom of knowing the difference between good and bad, between what to do and what not to do.

What I am going to say may not be right philosophically and logically. But for our understanding how it works, it may help. It is the question of "Who am I"? Personally, I am against asking that. I really think, "It doesn't matter whoever I am. What I really need to do is move forward. When I look for who I am I always need a point of reference. For example when I say, "I am John", or "I am Mary", it doesn't mean anything. What does make sense is saying, "I am Doctor Jo Blo of Sussex, England, in the 16th century." You have got the reference of time, 16th century, you got the place, Sussex, England and you got the name, Dr. Jo Blo. You even have the profession, medical doctor. So together that makes sense. Otherwise, just to say, "I am Mary" or "I am John", doesn't make sense. That is why I used to say that I don't care who I was, even Dr. Jo Blo of Sussex, England.

But now we are asking "who am I", in order to find out "What is me?" You can't say that in English, so you have to say "Who am I?" I can get away with it, because I am not a native English speaker. But tracing and finding out what really is that me, what constitutes me, what is the definition of me - that is the very specific wisdom we are dealing with. There are so many books and even bundles of books on this. What I have is just a drop in the bucket of a zillion of Buddha's teachings on this. All these teachings center on this question: what constitutes me, where is that me, who am I?

The way Buddha shared that with us is very interesting. It is almost like pointing to the other side, presenting different views. It is like saying: once upon a time there was a scholar who thought this and then there was another scholar who challenged these thoughts by saying this…and then there was yet another scholar who had the following thoughts. His thoughts were also challenged by another scholar who said this…..Finally, who is right? So then Buddha talks from his experience, his perspective. That is how Buddha presented wisdom. Without knowing that, if you just try to read a book that presents contradicting ideas of the mind- only school and other schools, it is very confusing. You are going to encounter this debate-style presentation in the Shantideva text. There will be arguments, counter-arguments and to refute those, more arguments. The whole wisdom chapter goes that way. You have to remember that the point they are raising is really the question of "me". Why is this important? We are all here struggling with our lives. We want something positive. The positive we think of is still very different from case to case. So the whole presentation looks like a history of philosophy. For example, looking at what is positive and good, there is a certain viewpoint that says:

Be merry, joyful, jolly, don't be miserable, don't get hung up on suffering. Even if you cry sometimes, turn the tears into tears of joy, manage your life with happy times. This is considered a good way to live your life.

Another view looks a little beyond that and says: that's not enough, because that is just the emotional level. Emotions sweep through the individual like waves on the ocean, or like the wind that blows. Positive emotions, such as faith, joy, compassion, love and so on come and then the negative ones such as hatred, obsession and jealousy. They sweep through and change the color and shape and attitude of the individual. They are not really a point of reference how to be happy. It is just the swing of the emotions, depending on a lot of conditions, such as mind, body and even on whether you had a good night's sleep or not and all kinds of things. It is a very temporary thing and can't be considered a point of reference whether to be happy or not. According to this view, happiness can be seen in whether a person over the course of their lives has a happy, stable, relaxed mind, or whether they are ruled by the temporary ups and downs of the emotions. The traditional Tibetan teachers give the example of eagles or vultures. They fly in the air without moving much. The small ones flap their wings a lot and go chi chi chi all the time. This person is capable to look at life as a whole rather than going with the temporary changes.

Another person is beyond that. It is fine to concentrate on this life, but actually it is a very short chapter in one's existence. Now comes the reincarnation back ground. From birth to death is just a very short chapter. This life may appear to be a very long melodrama when we review or preview the events of this life, but overall, it is very short. What about future lives? Are they not more important? At that point, everybody who wants to participate in the debate would have to be convinced or at least have the benefit of the doubt that future lives and previous lives exist. The question of reincarnation is extremely difficult and extremely important. This is because the progress of one's own spiritual path is really based on this recognition. Buddhist and most other ancient Asian traditions are based on accepting reincarnation. On the other hand it is extremely difficult to establish. We have a problem with that gap. We can see no one from a previous life who has come back. We see new people. We can see the whole world, every continent, but no one from a previous life. The only ones we know of having come back are the Tibetan incarnate lamas. Even in that case all you can go by is that So and so has said that a certain lama has come back as So and so. You have nothing more than words. Genes can't prove it. Even the mental attitude and character of the newly found individual are completely different from incarnation to incarnation.

One of the first reincarnations discovered in the west is Lama Yeshe's reincarnation, a young Spanish boy. A number of the old students of Lama Yeshe told me that this boy does not look, act or think the same way as the old Lama Yeshe. Naturally, because this is a different personality, no doubt about it. That adds even more on top of the confusion. On top of that there is often two incarnations of the same person. For example the Panchen Lamas. There is one recognized by the Dalai Lama and then the Chinese have recognized and enthroned somebody else as the official Panchen Lama. We also have two Karmapas. That adds even more confusion.

In the Buddhist tradition reincarnation is mainly established through logic. But even then, the logic is not easy to accept for us. Logically, reincarnation is based on continuation. So, to begin, you have to establish continuation itself. We don't have difficulty establishing the continuation of yesterday's me into today's me and last week's person into this week's person. Likewise, last year's person into this year's person. The age and looks have changed, the personality has slightly changed, because people become more mature and wise and because they change their mind. All that slightly changes but we don't have that much difficulty accepting the continuation up to that level. We accept that young elders become grown ups, that teens become young elders, that kids becomes teenagers. We get the problem at the birth level. How are we going to trace that continuation? In order to establish continuation of the person at that point we have to establish who is me.

When we ask that question, the natural answer comes up, "It is ME". That is the big ME. It is John, the carpenter, the electrician, the trouble maker, the trouble shooter. What is happening here is we are shifting gears between label, profession, address and so on. In India, any document you sign has to include "Son of …..". The question is: why are we shifting gears? It is because we cannot find the real identity. Because of that we presume that it was born at a particular time, continues for a while and then dies and disappears. This is all because we cannot find it. Birth itself is a big issue in this country alone. There is a very strong debate going on: when does it become a person, when does it become a human being? At the time of conception or a few days or weeks after that or at the time of birth? Wisdom is trying to see who is that person.

In the philosophical-historical presentation of this wisdom one person will come and say:

"The ME is something inside the physical body. Somebody is occupying it." If you ask where exactly that ME resides that person may say, "It is in the brain." Asians will say, "It is in my heart." If you ask, "Where did it come from and where is it going?" it is difficult to give an answer.

The next person comes and says, "If the ME is something else than the body, that something else has to have its own continuation." The body has definitely a continuation. Seeing, hearing, tasting and touching, everything is continuation. Our mind is continuation. So who is continuing? Is it part of your mind, your body, a combination, is it inside or outside?

Somebody will say, "It is inside the body." Then you say, "Show me. Take the body apart. Where is it? Is it my head, my heart, my legs, my hands, my chest, my ribs, my bones, my flesh, my nerves, which is it?" Then they can't point it out and say, "It might not be internal then. It is external." They say, "Because your mind is connecting with the external object, something is coming up. That is called external existence. It comes out of a mind that is acknowledging. That is the famous zen story. If a tree falls in the middle of forest and there is nobody witnessing it, does the tree really fall? The question is this: if there is such an external existence, how would it exist?

The way wisdom tries to get at these questions is almost like a laboratory. Unfortunately there is no equipment, but otherwise it is like scientists finding out what is what, not physically or chemically, but only with logical sharpness. According to my understanding, the main point Buddha was making, boils down to non-existence. That's why this particular wisdom is called "emptiness." Empty, because non-existent. Now you may say, "What do you mean, non-existent? I am very much here, sitting here, talking, eating, drinking. Here is my nose, me years, my tongue." I am mentioning that because in the Heart Sutra, the Essence of Transcendental Wisdom, it says, "no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue…" Maharishi Yogi, Swami Muktananda and others are actually teaching that. TM, Transcendental Meditation, is trying to achieve Transcendental Wisdom. Why transcendental? It transcends beyond our projections, our imagination. This is expressed in the mantra GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SOHA - GONE GONE GONE BEYOND TO ENLIGHTENMENT SOHA. Allen Ginsberg's and other Beat poets' writings, like Jack Kerouac's are all concerned with that. Then from the vipassana angle that is practiced in Burma and so on, it is the same thing. You are looking inside. So the wisdom of the Asian traditions is based on that. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are looking inside.

Earlier I said, "I don't care who I am". I might have overlooked the fact that at some point it is good to ignore who I am and at other times it is good to explore that. Why do you have to ignore the "I" at certain times? Because we may just want to boost our ego. "I like to find out that I was George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln in a previous life. That would be great." That is the time to ignore the search for the "I", because the search is misdirected towards ego-boosting. When you have abandoned ego-boosting, then it is good to look for the "I", because actually, you are not going to find it. When you don't find the "I", it doesn't boost your ego, but on the contrary, it cuts your ego. It pulls the red carpet from under the feet of the ego. That is wisdom. And that is why Buddha talks about non-existence. Buddha says that deep down there is nobody, not me, not you, nobody. Non-existence however, does not mean that we are not here at all, but rather that we are not here the way we think we are. I am very much here, I am talking to you, you are listening to me. All kinds of different thoughts are going through your heads. That is all real. Or is it not? Maybe we are all dreaming that we are all in this room, sitting on uncomfortable chairs, moving around. Am I sleeping, dreaming or awake? What time is it? Twelve midnight or twelve noon? No, you are not dreaming. It is not twelve midnight. It is around twelve noon. It is us sitting here, really, the mother, the father, the brother, sister. This is reality.

How does that work now - non-existent, yet here? The answer is: dependent arising. I am here, but interdependently. I depend on my name, body, mind, causes, conditions, time - everything is conditional. I am here, because the time is right. I am here because the terms under which I can be here, are right. My body is right, my mind is right. All of those are right. Just the combination of all these factors being right is the definition of my existence. If one thing goes wrong, I cease to be here. If my body does not function, I cease to be here. If my mind does not function, I will be a crazy person. I won't be here as a properly functioning person. I don't mean just having a couple of screws loose. We all have some screws loose, but if you miss a lot of them, then you land in an institution. The dependent arising is the actual idea of existence. We don't exist truly, because we exist dependently. We do not exist independently. Our idea of "Me" being established independently is very wrong - although we work for our wholes lives to become independent. Even at the kindergarten level we are taught to become independent.

In Chapter Nine of Shantideva's Bodhisattvacharyatara there are debates trying to establish an external "me", an internal "me" and even mind only. The mind only proponents say that only the mind matters. According to Buddha even that is wrong. Yes, mind plays a very important part. But likewise the body does. So mind-only is very wrong. There are a lot of reasons. There are countless reasonings. Which mind is being talked about in the first place? The mind that sees, hears and feels, or what kind of mind?

So, finding out about wisdom is really like a laboratory, where you take apart body and mind and find out about all the parts and where they fit. That's what wisdom is all about. At the end you will find that just the combination of all makes something exist. Take for example a clock. There are so many parts interacting that make the hands of the clock move. One little wheel pushes the other and it has to be powered either by winding it up or by putting a battery in. You got all these parts, put them in a little box and call the whole thing "clock". That is how a clock is established. Just like that, "me" is going to be established. That is the interdependently arising me. That is the emptiness of me.

We always want it to be the end of the Russian doll. We always want to see "This is it". But we are never going to find it. The scientists too have been looking for the smallest particle. They found atoms and thought, "That's it". But there was more. And more and more. There is a mantra called "essence of interdependence", it goes

om ye dharma hetun trabhawa / hetun tekan tathagato ewam denta / tekan tsa yo nirodha ewam wadi / maha shramanaye soha.

The essence of interdependence is that now matter how small and subtle it may go there will never be the end of existence. There never will be the smallest Russian doll. That is what Buddha said 2600 years ago. In other words Buddha says that east never touches west. That is the essence of interdependence. East depends on west and west depends on east. If there is no east, how can there be west? If there is no west, how can there be east?

If east meets west, they merge into one another. This side depends on that side. Without that side, this side is not there. In politics we always want an enemy. We had the fascists, then the communists, then Saddam Hussein. It looks like it is because we depend for our existence on the other side. I am joking - don't take that seriously. The Democrats seem to depend on the Republicans and vice versa, otherwise they can't function. The statement of Buddha tells us two important things about how things are established. One is that no matter how subtle and small you go, there is no end. Everything is dividable.

That means that if you put anything into open space, no matter how big or how small, it will divide space. That very moment the directions are created and that object has sides, eastern, western, southern, northern. And that is how it becomes dividable. This automatically happens. The same goes for time. If there are no physical forms, there is still time. The past never touches the future. The past continues into the future, but it never becomes future. So there is division in the realm of form, but even the form-less is dividable. Wherever you look, this happens. The scientists today agree with that.

In the spiritual path it is therefore established that there is no such thing as an indivisible self. It is divided by sides, by time and everything. This refutes indivisibility. And that raises a lot of questions regarding our thoughts, ideas and projections of our self.

This is the basis of wisdom, of emptiness, of the lack of independent existence. Perhaps establishing emptiness establishes interdependence. Establishing interdependence establishes terms and conditions. That in turn establishes cause and result. That establishes karma. Karma establishes individual responsibility. Individual responsibility establishes that we are our own protector, as Nagarjuna had said

You are your own leader, you are your own protector. You are responsible for

yourself.

From the dismantling point of view, you can dismantle everything. From the establishing point of view, you can very well establish yourself, as your own leader. That is the basis of karma. That is the basis of the independence of the individual. That is the basis of self-determination of the individual's life.

after lunch…….

I am glad you are all back. It is a good sign that you are not so bored.

Some time ago in a center in Bloomington, India a geshe from India came to teach. The first day there were 35 people. The teaching was supposed to go for seven days. He was hard to follow. Every session the number of participants dropped. By the third day the sponsor told the lama: "You don’t have to teach any more now, because nobody is coming!!" The geshe was telling stories from the lam rim, for example that in Buddha's time a monk was accused of stealing a calf. The monk denied doing it and he actually didn't. But the others didn't believe him and searched his place. He was cooking something and he said that he was coloring his robes. But when they looked in the pot it was a whole calf boiling in there! The Buddha said that he actually didn't steal the calf but that because of his karma of getting blamed the whole incident actually materialized. Buddhists really believe that it works that way. But these sorts of things we don't tell you people (great laughter from the audience). This lama did tell it and it was so unbelievable to the listeners that they all left!!

But this is how Buddha taught. His teachings happened because of a whole series of incidents. People would come to Buddha and tell him something and he would explain why it happened. If you follow the stories and take them literally, sometimes it seems unbelievable. If this monk didn't steal the calf, how did it get into his cooking pot? Did it jump into the pot by itself? Maybe it is like in this part of the world, when a deer jumps in front of your car!! Maybe the calf did jump into the pot!!

But the vinaya stories are like that. Almost all the vinaya rules came up that way. The vinaya teachings are the morality teachings of Buddha. They tell you about the vows and what kind of behavior breaks the vows. When you go against your vows, that is considered immoral. When I was young, I was in the monastery and had the opportunity to study the Five Subjects: transcendental wisdom, logic, wisdom aspects, vinaya and metaphysics. In the monasteries we spend decades studying these. Out of all these five, for me the easiest were the vinaya subjects. Unfortunately I am no longer a monk, so the vinaya becomes useless for me. But that is the subject I learnt most easily. Maybe it was because of my age. I started my training at age 4-5. By the time I reached the vinaya level, I must have been 15-16. I remembered the vinaya much better and understood much easier. You can go and debate, read and argue, but that doesn't mean that you have learnt it at all. But still, vinaya was the easiest for me.

Vinaya is also like history. Buddha never said that when you take this and that vow you can't do this and you have to do that. He gave all different vows, novice vows, full-fledged monks- and nuns vows. But in the monastic community then somebody would do something funny and the people would come to Buddha and tell him, "So and so did this and that. Is that right?" Then Buddha would say, "No, that is not right" and that is how all these rules came up. It has been completely incident after incident after incident. Each time they went to Buddha and asked, "Is it okay to do that?" and Buddha would say, "No, that is not okay." Lets say, some monk was having sex with a cow or a buffalo and the monks would go to Buddha and ask, "Is that okay?" and he would say, "No, that's not okay." The vinaya has completely been built that way. The rules on stealing developed that way too. Somebody took somebody's things. They asked Buddha what to do about it and he said, "That is certainly not okay. This is called stealing. It is terrible and hurts the people." Then the different rules and levels of stealing came in. For example, the thing that you steal has to be of value to the owner. Without value you cannot measure the act of stealing. Then a question came up about a particular act of stealing. Somebody had hung some shirts to dry. One monk came by and tried to steal one shirt. In the hurry he grabbed two. Only when he came home he found out that he had taken two. Buddha said it was an act of stealing, but he only got the full downfall of stealing one, because that was his intention. For stealing the second shirt, he only got half of one downfall. In that case he didn't have the motivation wanting to steal it and also not the satisfaction at the end, thinking, "Now I got two shirts." This half-downfall is called "bumpo", meaning thickness, in Tibetan. It is heavy, but not a full downfall. This is how the vinaya came together. When you look at the ancient stories that are at the base of it, it looks almost unbelievable. People sometimes get bored, sometimes it sounds interesting and even unbelievable.

Of all teachings, the aspect you are likely to get most bored with are actually the wisdom aspects, figuring out "who am I". This is very important and very difficult. According to the Buddhist traditional way you are supposed to present all the non-buddhist views first, starting with the anti-buddhist schools and their thoughts. Then you go into the buddhist views and find out how they refute the early Indian thoughts. As a matter of fact, His Holiness gave that very teaching in the Beacon Theatre in New York City over four days a couple of years ago. It was really very hard. A great number of people kept on attending it, because it was His Holiness who was teaching. His Holiness himself commented during the teaching that he had heard that it was very hard for people and he said, "I am sorry it is hard, but don't forget." His Holiness then blamed the text book author Jamyang Shepa for making it so hard by quoting Geshe Sherab Gyaltsen. He was a very famous geshe in the 1940s and 50s. He also became the president of the Buddhist Association of China. He visited India and Sri Lanka in that capacity. Geshe Sherab Gyaltsen said, after reading Jamyang Shepa's work himself, "It is not smooth. It is like two stones touching together. It is tough."

Actually, it is the subject itself that is tough. It is not His Holiness's fault, nor Jamyang Shepa's. It is just really difficult. When you are searching for the definition of the self you have to look carefully. It is extremely difficult to find. According to traditional early Indian Buddhist texts there are four main schools of thoughts. All of them are talking about the presentation of the Two Truths.

In Buddhism there are always two truths. Normally, we think that truth has to be one. If this is right, then the other should be wrong. But Buddha said there are two truths. This is different from the Four Noble Truths. Existence consists of two truths. I think it was Nagurjuna who said,

The person with total knowledge, without having to listen to other people's views, has described all of existence as part of the two truths. There is never a third truth. These truths are the relative and the absolute truth.

When we hear 'relative', we may think that it is sort of true in a way, but not really. According to the Buddha that is not right. Of course, absolute truth is true, but relative truth is also true. The presentation of the two truths is the basic foundation on which you build your path or practice. Buddha always emphasizes, "If you are interested in the spiritual path you should be grounded, not flying." Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche called that "Love and Light". I don't know exactly what he meant. I shouldn't quote his words so much; that can get me into trouble. For example, he also used the term "Spiritual Materialism". I used that term a couple of times and apparently he had written a whole book with that title, but didn't really explain spiritual materialism according to that book. That is what I was told. Then, I was interviewed by Shambala Magazine, which belongs to Trungpa Rimpoche's group. They asked me to talk about spiritual materialism. I was not really sure what Trungpa Rimpoche had in mind when he used that term. But I think he seemed to use it in the sense of people who are not really grounded. However, he also used the term "love and light". So then in the interview I had to come up with something that is right. I took if from the level of attachment to basic material things up to the level of contaminated mind. I made a very big explanation of spiritual materialism. This is because I know that Trungpa Rimpoche mixed in the explanations on ego into the subject of spiritual materialism. In that sense ego is the direct opponent of the path of seeing. The article became quite long and I think went over 10 or even 14 pages. So, with that in mind, I better not talk about love and light too much, otherwise I have to explain it in detail.

Normally I use 'love and light' in the sense of flying, not being grounded. I am not necessarily only referring to people who are doing the spiritual shopping, going through the spiritual yellow pages. But there are some people who seem to be very strongly dedicated to a certain spiritual path. However, that person him-or herself may not be well grounded in themselves. In Tibet we have the saying lama pe sung dribu tor song. The lama has come, the bell has rung and that was it. In the Indian culture there is a similar expression aya ram jaya ram - Ram has come, Ram has gone. That happens to a lot of our spiritual practitioners. The practice is there, I am saying the words, I say the mantras, I ring the bell, I wash my feet, but there is no effect at all. Spiritual practice has to effect the individual. Otherwise it is useless. That is one thing. Then grounding the individual in the practice is the next thing. First you have to be effected. You have to feel it, see that it is helping, that it is bringing a positive change. That is important. Otherwise, change always happens anyway. Even the dogs and cats change our lives. We all know that. When you look at the spiritual field, you are looking for change for the better. When you realize it changes your life, that it is helpful and you like it, then you want to keep doing it.

To me, that level - that is my personal view - is the view of someone who is interested. There is some give and take. There is gain and there is some effect. But you are not really in it yet. You may be spending two or even five hours a day, but even then you are not really in there. You are interested, you say the mantras, you like to show off a little bit. That is that level.

The grounding is much more than that. You have to know where you are standing. You have to know what you are standing on. Then you have to know what you are doing, where you are going with that, how far you can reach, what you hope to gain out of that. All of that has to be taken completely into consideration and has to be woven into your whole practice. That is what I would begin to call grounded. In order to get this grounding, the base and foundation on which we stand, according to Buddha, is the two truths, the absolute and relative truths.

Truly speaking, the spiritual practice is based on that. But even where I come from, from my background, the good old great spiritual country of old Tibet, I didn't learn it that way, but first learnt by saying prayers and mantras. Coming from that direction was one thing, and then we came in from the direction of studying. Then at the end, the prayers and mantras and what you have learnt in your studies will meet. They fit each other. This takes time. First you memorize and just follow, without knowing anything. That is the old-fashioned way. But even you people are very kind, saying all these prayers in Tibetan. You are happy to say it, but probably are not getting anything. Many people have memorized many of the Tibetan prayers. It amazed me that Philip Glass had the whole lama chopa memorized and also the whole long sadhanas of Yamantaka, Vajrayogini and Heruka - all in Tibetan. That is really amazing, and I don't expect everybody to do that. But the point is, it is good to have the words memorized, whether in Tibetan or in English. Then one day, they will click with you. Not only the commentaries we have given you, but even by yourself there will be moments where you say, "Oh, this is what that is all about." You will begin to understand. It clicks. When that happens you are really becoming quite good.

Let me talk more about the two truths. All the following arguments and counter-arguments are based on the two truths. I am going to give you the explanation of the two truths, although according to the traditional teachings that is absolutely wrong. That is not the way I learnt. Traditionally, the teacher will let the student find out what it is, leave it up to them. Then you will learn better. If I tell you straight away, it goes against your capacity to learn, to pick it up. But anyway, there we are in the mid-west, in Michigan, in the middle of nowhere. That's what it is - honestly. I am Michigander myself, so don't get upset with me. But somehow, since this is the 21st century, everything is supposed to be easily available at your finger tips.

Truth is divided into two. So both have to be true. There is absolute and relative. The emptiness that Buddha talked about, all the talk about self, "I", existence and non-existence, and so on, is based on these two truths. In absolute truth, nothing exists. I don't exist, you don't exist, nothing exists. But in the relative truth, we all do exist. I function and you function. Everything works perfectly, according to how we know it works. That is the relative truth. In absolute reality nothing exists.

Now, this gives you some kind of funny confusion. Yes, I did say that absolutely we don't exist. But that does not mean that we don't exist at all. If we did exist in the absolute, we would have to exist independently. If we exist independently, we should not exist dependently. This looks like a word game. But when you look closer, you find that we do exist dependently, don't we? If we don't have a body, we become a ghost or spirit. Maybe that's a good thing - a free spirit, right? [laughs]. But when you become a spirit you don't exist as a human being. So we do depend on our body. It becomes our identity. The best identification we have right now is our physical appearance. It is far better than a driver's license or passport, which are issued by the Secretary of State and the National Passport Center. This is definitely a far better identity. You know, in our culture, if you don't have a Social Security Number, driver's license and credit card or birth certificate, you virtually don't exist in our system, do you? Truly, you don't. But we are here. So we have a better identity in our physical identity than in all these different numbers, such as credit card, bank account, social security and all kinds of account numbers. For old people like me there is the medicare account. We depend on it. We almost don't exist if we don't have these.

Likewise, in general, if we don't have relative truth we don't exist at all. We depend on our identity, our mind, our conditions, our terms - everything. When everything is just right, we exist. All conditions have to be right. That is called dependent arising. We exist dependently. That is good enough to be existing. We do not exist independently, because we do exist dependently. So, not existing independently, absolutely, does not mean you don't exist. Did you get it? It is a little bit like a tongue twister, like she sells sea shells on the sea shore or Peter Pepper picked the pickled pepper. If Peter Pepper picked the pickled pepper, where is the pickled pepper which Peter Pepper picked?

It may sound similar when you say: it doesn't exist absolutely, but relative it does exist. If you exist dependently, you don't exist independently. Not existing independently means that you don't exist absolutely, which is not good enough not be existing. See? However, if you exist dependently, it is good enough to exist. That is how we establish the two truths.

I don't blame anyone who doesn't understand this right away. We went through this for years. Absolutely we do not exist; that is the absolute truth. Relatively we do. That is the relative truth. That does not mean we really do exist or don’t. We don't want to say that. To say that relatively we do exist is good enough. It is good enough to be able to function. The point of existence, whether it is right or wrong, is based on whether it is functioning. Traditional teachings tell us: lets say you are riding a horse on the high plateau. There are no other people. In the distance you can see something that looks like it could be a human being. It could also be a tree stump or a piece from a collapsed wall. You think, "There is person coming this way. I will ask them whether I am riding in the right direction." Within this plateau there are some canal-type of valleys, so from time to time you go down and come up again. For a while you don't see anyone. You think that the other person is coming closer, but all of a sudden a different person pops up. You ask that person, "What happened to the other person I have been seeing? The one with the whitish-looking dress? He should be here by now." The other guy now says, "That was not a person; that was just an old tree stump."

The idea of having seen a human being, projecting that he or she is coming closer to you, has been completely refuted by the perfect mind of this other human being who had come that way, telling you, "This is not a person, but a tree stump." Now you no longer think that there is a human being, but you think it is a tree stump. Next time you come up from a canyon and look at that thing you will think, "Yes, it really is a tree stump." You will see it as a tree stump and function in relation to it correctly. We call that a reliable source. When a reliable source contradicts our projection or imagination, then the rule for us is to accept that our view was wrong. If you don't accept the evidence you are a "stubborn person". A stubborn person would insist in the face of being told that it was a tree stump, "No, no, you are wrong, it is a person. I am going to prove to you that it is a person. I have to get there and show you." This is called stubborn-ness. On the wisdom path the stubborn ones don't pick up the wisdom. Stubborn-ness is an obstacle to understanding. Understanding depends on the logical reasons. Logical reasoning is a reliable source. If a reliable source contradicts you, you can't remain stubborn.

But it is not always the case. A reliable source, which is supposed to be a reliable source, can be wrong. You cannot rule that out either. In one statement, Chandrakirti says, "If everybody has accepted something, don't go against it." On the other hand, there are new discoveries, new knowledge and there is something to gain sometimes by going against the current or against what is commonly accepted. So even the reliability can become questionable.

The question still is: Who am I? For me the answer should be easy: I come from Tibet. But that is the relative truth. Absolutely, I don't know where I come from. Probably from everywhere. If you think from the reincarnation point of view, we do come from everywhere. According to the idea of reincarnation there is no such life that we didn't have before. There is no such place that we have never been born in before. That is what Buddha himself said. I consider Buddha to be a reliable source, yet even his statements are interpretable. Interpretation is one of the biggest problems in Buddhism. You always have to check if Buddha's statements are interpretable or literal. It is just like with the two truths. Who knows where to put what, but I can tell you that the statement on reincarnation is not interpretable. I am joking! Actually, these are the spiritual problems we see in Buddhism. The results coming out in form of Buddha's statements are tremendous. But there are the problems of interpretation. We have to overcome all of these.

This is mainly in relation to the wisdom aspects. If you are looking for a simple practice, and want to become a good person and so on, there is also a huge room for that in Buddhism. We welcome anybody in Buddhism who wants to do that, and in that case you only have to follow the system. But actually, in the long run that is not encouraged. Buddha really encourages us to be our own judge. Buddha himself repeatedly said, "Don't buy it on the basis that I said so. If you believe something because I, the Buddha, said so, it is an unreliable reasoning." That is considered to be the worst kind of reasoning. You have nothing else to say in order to explain your words, so you have to drag the Buddha down and say, "It is true, because the Buddha said so. Are you are going to accept what I said or are you rebelling against Buddha?" That is the most pathetic way of establishing a point of wisdom. Every point you want to establish actually needs wisdom. Even if you want to say OM MANI PADME HUM, you need wisdom. Being generous, giving a piece of food to a hungry dog needs wisdom as well. You want to keep good morality. That needs wisdom. You want to be an enthusiastic person. That needs wisdom. You want to be compassionate. That needs wisdom. Buddha even said,

Wisdom is the only one that sees; all others are blind. If you want to lead a bunch of blind people to the city of happiness, you need a guide. Wisdom is that guide.

You can never reach to enlightenment, you never reach the result of the spiritual practice, without wisdom. You also don't have the base on which you stand - the two truths. We human beings stand on two legs. The spiritual practice is based on the two truths, absolute and relative. All these verses, chapter after chapter, are the historical presentation of the absolute truth - of me. It is not just the absolute truth of something on the other side over there, no. It is about me. I am talking about everyone of us. It is our absolute truth.

Lets read now from Shantideva's root text, the ninth chapter of the Bodhisattvacharyavatara. We had reached up to verse 18. This verse tells you that the sword, no matter how sharp it is, cannot cut itself. No matter how bright the lamp, it cannot make itself clear.

Verse 18

Just as a sword cannot cut itself, so it is with the mind.

[just as a lamp cannot illuminate itself..]

Mind cannot perceive mind. Self cannot grasp self. Because of that the idea of external and internal existence came up. This is the thought by a particular school, "I am inside of my, but the me from inside comes up outside of me. Because you can see me and acknowledge me, I suddenly pop up." The definition of existence is something that can be acknowledged, seen, used. So this school argues, "If you don't see yourself, nobody else can see you and therefore you don't exist. So I have to see myself and in order to see myself I have to get outside of me."

One Buddhist school therefore says, "Yes, I can see myself", and another school will say, "No it is impossible to see oneself." These are the different interpretations according to the different schools. Self-seeing is called in Tibetan rang rig. The question is whether it is possible to see myself. [= whether mind can recognize itself] A logical refutation is: "No you can't. You can see anything, but you can't perceive yourself, just like a sword, no matter how sharp it is, can never cut itself."

Likewise, a light is very clear, it makes everything clear. But a light cannot shine light on itself. Why? If light can shine on itself, then darkness can also block itself. So darkness would have to block darkness. But how can be possible? Darkness is darkness. What do I mean by blocking? For example if I take my scarf off and put it over this glass of water, then you can't see the glass, because the scarf hides the glass. But that does not work with darkness. Darkness cannot cover darkness. Darkness cannot block darkness. Darkness is darkness. Therefore, since darkness cannot cover darkness, and light cannot illuminate itself and a sword cannot cut itself, you cannot perceive yourself. Self cannot see self. This is how the debate goes.

verse 19

The second point in this argument is about jewels. This is about the blue color. We are reading mainly from Alan Wallace's translation. There is another translation, by Stephen Batchelor, but that has commentary mixed in. He says,

Take for example two kinds of blueness, blueness that appears in dependence on another blue-colored object, like the blue reflected in a clear piece of glass. Then there is the blueness that does not appear in dependence on something else, like the actual color of blue in blue lapis lazuli.

The comparison between blue glass and blue colored objects is used here. One school states: "self can see self - just like blue glass." This is meant in the sense that glass by nature is clear, not blue. Normally, glass is not blue. By nature it is not blue. However, it can be effected to look blue. If you take a blue piece of cloth and put one of these paper weights made of clean-clear glass on top of it, then because of the reflection of the cloth that paperweight looks blue. That's one side. Another type of blue object is the lapis lazuli, the semi-precious stone. These stones come mostly from Afghanistan. If the Afghanis don't keep themselves busy producing opium they have this natural resource. Unfortunately, for the last decades they only produce opium. That's why they are very rich. Their natural karmic resource, however, is lapis lazuli, like the Middle East has oil and South Africa has diamonds - if they let them go - and the Burmese have rubies. Geographically, Mother Earth has provided enough for everybody to use, however, nowadays, we don't do that. We do different things.

Anyway, lapis lazuli is glass-like, but by nature it is already blue. The blueness is not dependent on other conditions. Likewise, the self seen by us, including the five skandhas, could be of two types, one that is depending on other factors and one that can function independently. So, in answer to the school that holds the view that self cannot see self, the other school says that there are two categories: glass that is effected by a blue cloth, so it looks blue and then on the other hand lapis lazuli, which is naturally blue. So you have both. With that they are trying to counter the argument that self cannot see self, just like a sword cannot cut itself and the light cannot shine on itself and darkness cannot cover darkness. So they use the blueness-example to show that there are two kinds of self, one that is naturally self-seeing and another self that is dependent on other factors. That is how they keep their argument going.

Now again, there is a counter-argument to that point. And that says: The statement that lapis lazuli's blueness doesn't depend on other factors is a wrong statement. Lapis lazuli does depend on the lapis lazuli's causes and conditions. Lapis lazuli is created. Existence is basically divided into two categories: created and uncreated. This is not saying that one is natural and one is not. Today we often divide things in whether they are natural or chemical, right? Sometimes we also divide natural and artificial. Chemicals are not necessarily artificial. They can be real. But they are not naturally made.

Audience: What about natural flavoring and artificial flavorings though? Artificial flavorings are synthesized through chemical processes. Artificial flavorings are just as adulterated and mixed up as chemical ones, but they came from a plant.

Rimpoche: Still, there is a general perception in society that natural things are good and other, made-up ones are not good. However, yesterday I learnt on CNN that all the coloring in "natural foods", like juices and so on comes from beetles, some kind of insects. They were even talking about whether that was kosher or not. A rabbi thought it was not kosher. Also could it still be considered to be vegetarian or not? In any case it would also be naturally flavored. This is quite confusing. I get myself often confused by the use of the words "nature" and "natural".

Audience: Mipham's is saying in his commentary u ma gyen that you can't look at the two truths as separate. Relative truth will reveal the absolute. Whether you are call something artificial or natural, in truth they are both chemical, if you know your periodic table.

Rimpoche: That is right. Absolute and relative truths both function on one base. Both are reality. Absolute truth has to be found on the basis of the relative truth. I always make the statement that when you are looking for emptiness don't look for empty or zero, but look into existence. The idea of emptiness comes because things are created. So it doesn't mean that there is nothing there. That would be nihilistic and not the position of the centrist or madhyamaka or middle way school. The point of reference of the middle is to be free from the two extremes. These are the extremes of nihilism and existentialism. The true wisdom is the middle way, not as extreme as George Bush and not as extreme as John Kerry, but in the middle - like Hillary. [great laughter from Rimpoche and audience]. I am kidding.

Now you go and search for the self, whether the body or the mind is me, keep on searching, whether I exist in oneness with the body or separately from it. If I exist in oneness, then since I have five physical aspects such as form, sound, smell, taste and touch, which one is the me? Or do I have five me's? If there are five me's, I would be schizophrenic [Rimpoche: schizophreniac]. Nobody wants to be a schizophreniac, but at least you would be free of loneliness! But that is not good enough to be free. So it is not oneness with form.

Now you check if the "I" is separate from body and mind and look if it is somewhere outside. You have to do this, because the "I" is not findable. You assume that if it were really there you should be able to see it. So you go looking for it. In the American culture we would say, "Come out, show yourself." It is never going to show. You could sit there till the cows come home. So the only thing you can do is trace it, but when you do that you cannot find it. When you conclude that you are not there at all you become nihilistic, because relatively you do exist. You are functioning. The basis of good and bad deeds, helping and hurting and all of those must exist. The functioning aspect should relieve you of the nihilistic extreme. I am going to contradict even that later on, but not now. Otherwise I destroy everything. Those who have been studying with me for some years will know how that is also contradicted. That is according to the verses of the Three Principles of the Path.

Further, appearance eliminates the extreme of existence.

Emptiness eliminates non-existence.

Emptiness itself is cause and effect.

Understanding this protects from these extremes

That is one more twist oh the subject. But before you go into this twist you have to hold on for a while, otherwise you slip through and bounce everywhere. That's why the Buddha chose to teach the wisdom through the historical development of the different schools. It is going through how these views came up and contradicted each other and proved the different views wrong, until at the end there is something left which is correct. You have eliminated everything else and the one thing left has to be the truth.

Here being free from nihilism is through seeing existence. You are functioning. You are eating, drinking. Don't you sleep, don't you yell and scream? Don't you walk? So who is walking? It is not Dead Man walking, it is a person walking there.

So the point is to cut the nihilism as well as the existentialism. These are the two extremes that you don't want to fall into. If you do you really go completely wrong. Being free from the two extremes, you are in the center. That is the Middle Path. I cannot be the body and the body cannot be me. If my body is me, am I oneness with the body or separate? If I am oneness, then just as I have 5 different physical aspects, I should be five me's. If I am separate, how can I function as a person, what would be the connection?

Yes, I am not my body, but I depend on my body. It is very hard for people to see that that is not me. We do say sometimes that it is just my body but not me. We do depend on the body, otherwise we become spirits. The way I exist is a dependently arising person. Thus dependent existence eliminates independent existence. Why do people walk with a walking stick? Because they cannot do without. They depend on the walking stick, unless the walking stick is just used as show biz (like Charlie Chaplin). Depending on the walking stick means you are not functioning independently. Functioning dependently is good enough to walk. Walking with a walking stick is good enough walking. Likewise, relatively existing is good enough to be existing.

If there are no questions I am going to close the shop now.

Audience: Talking about relative and absolute truth, is the emptiness of good and bad karma included into these two truths? How would that we understood in terms of reincarnation?

Rimpoche: Karmic functioning is included normally in relative truth. That is very much connected with the functioning of impermanence. Every impermanent and karmic function is a matter concerned with relative truth. The absolute truth of karma is emptiness. The emptiness of karma itself is the absolute truth of karma. Again, that emptiness does not mean empty. It is dependent arising.

Audience: Does the beginningless and endless mind stream exist in the absolute truth?

Rimpoche: Yes. I am not sure about beginningless and endless. According to the Buddha every being is beginningless. It is very much like saying that all souls are old souls. That is very much within Buddhism too, because of the reincarnation. The ending is a different story.

Audience: When we are doing this investigation, are we trying to overcome our intellectual ideas of emptiness? When we meditate on that we are getting the direct realization, right?

Rimpoche: No, I don't think so. Without the process of analyzing you will never get there. Analyzing will find some kind of definition of wisdom itself. Then you meditate on that with focused concentration meditation. That will bring stabilization within that. The philosophical exercises we are doing here, are the analytical meditation on wisdom.

When you are doing an analytical meditation on the Buddha's image, that would be figuring out how bid the head is, putting the legs together with the body in between and then combining all the aspects into one image. Analytical meditation on emptiness is what we have been doing here, thinking about what is the self, what are the two truths, how we exist, in oneness with or separately from the body and keep on tracing the self, until you begin to see, "Wow, it is not there. There is nothing to pick. Yet it is functioning. There is a base for karma to function." You find that terms and conditions must be just right, so it is a dependent existence. This balances between the extremes of existentialism and nihilism. That is called the Middle Path. That is the true emptiness of ourselves. First you learn this theoretically, then you project an image and third you have the direct encounter. If you don't learn it first here you will never find it.

Audience: Isn't there a difference between intellectually formed views of the self that are delusional and innate ones? Does the philosophical part overcome the obstacles to the constructed view of the self?

Rimpoche: No, all of them.

Audience: So what is in the transcendental wisdom then?

Rimpoche: This is the transcendental wisdom (prajnaparamita). This is GATE GATE PARAGATE… and the third GATE is the path of seeing. I guess I can close shop now. We are really just trying to break ground, nothing has really gone through yet. Next time we meet on Saturday, March 25.

We also have a tsoh offering today. One of our teachers who has been here a number of times, Ribur Rimpoche, has passed away two weeks ago. This tsoh is a ritual that connects Tibetan Buddhism with Tibetan culture. We do something special every 7th day, for seven weeks.