Archive Result

77

20120526GRGRHS03

00:00 Chanting Long Life Prayer for Gelek Rimpoche by Lochö Rinpoche

0:10

Welcome back to the afternoon session.

Ja kar ke du/ arya bhagawati prajna paramita hridaya/ pö ke du/ phag pa chom den de ma/ she rab kyi pha röl tu chin pai nying po

In the language of India (Sanskrit) “(Arya) Baghavati: Prajnaparamitahridaya;” – in the language of Tibet, “Pak pa chom den de ma she rab kyi pa röl tu chin pey nying po.”

Earlier we started with chom den de. Maybe we should say a little bit about what that means. The translation here simply says “Buddha”. But in Tibetan there are three different words: chom den de. Even among Tibetans when you ask what that means many will say it means sang gye – Buddha. But chom means one who has destroyed certain things. Normally teachings will say that Buddha has destroyed and overcome the four evils: the delusional evil, contaminated form evil,. Normally teachings will say that Buddha has destroyed and overcome the four evils: the delusional evil (nyong mong gi dü), contaminated form evil (chi da gi dü) [son of god evil] lha yi pu yi dü,

Evil here means something that destroys you or everybody. It doesn’t have to be somebody in physical form with fangs and horns. Evil can be thoughts, our ideas, mostly what we call afflictive emotions or delusions. Openly speaking, they are the Three Poisons. Most Tibetan Buddhist know what the Three Poisons are: obsession, hatred and ignorance. Those three poisons within us will destroy our purity, the good part of our person. That’s why they are called evil. Evil really doesn’t have to be some person who comes and disturbs you, but a person who destroys your own goodness.

To overcome that we have chom. So officially it means to have destroyed the four evils. Den means to have obtained the six qualities and de means having gone beyond. That is how you have to understand, I believe.

chom den de gyel pö kap/ cha gö pung pö ri la /ge long gi gen dün chen po dang/ chang chup sempei gen dün chen po dang / tap chik tu zhuk te

The Buddha was residing in Rajagriha at Vulture Peak, together with a great assembly of monks and a great assembly of Bodhisattvas.

Then gyal po kab. Most of us know it is a place in India (Rajgriha). But traditionally speaking it is the land of gyal po se sang gi seg. Then there is Vulture’s Peak - cha gi pung po ri. The sutras talk about hundreds and thousands of monks and bodhisattvas and lay people attending, but it is just a tiny, little mountain. Maybe that’s where the non-human beings’ attendance fits in. Then Buddha remains in meditation. That mediation is called Profound Radiance - sangmo nangwa.

Sang mo means profound.

0:17

So the Buddha went into meditation on emptiness. Then,

yang dei tse/ jang chub sem pa chen po chen po/ pak pa chen re zik wang chuk/ she rap kyi pa röl tu chin pa/ zap mö chö pa nyi la nam par ta zhing/ pung po nga po de dak la yang/ rang zhin gyi tong par nam par ta-o.

Also at that time, the Bodhisattva, the Great Bodhisattva, the Exalted Avalokiteshvara, was investigating the practice of the profound, perceiving that even those five heaps are empty of inherent nature.

What does bodhisattva (Tib: jang chub sem pa) mean? It is a Sanskrit word.

I don’t know whether I can explain the Sanskrit, because I don’t know it myself. So I will explain it from the Tibetan. Jang chub is the mind of perfection, the Buddha mind. Theoretically that may or may not be correct. It is a person who has obtained Buddha’s mind. That is the mind of compassion and love. One who has obtained that very mind of compassion and love, just like Buddha, is a jang chub sem pa, a bodhisattva. There are many great bodhisattvas and among them is the great Avalokiteshvara (Tib: chen re sig).

Tibetans do not separate the syllables of chen re sig. Some western Tibetan Buddhist teachers do explain each of these syllables separately. I don’t know where that gets to. Actually it is just the name of Avalokiteshvara.

So at that moment the great bodhisattva was thinking or meditating about the profound activity of dealing with the five skandhas (Tib: phung po nga). These are the five aggregates. The combination of these five provides us with what we call a “being” or “sentient being”. We have physical form, feeling, perception or discrimination, then impulse or compositional factors and finally consciousness. (Tib: sug, tsor wa, du she, du che, nam par she pa).

Form really means the collection of particles, whether our own physical form or a table, house or whatever. It is the collection of particles making a physical shape.

0:25

For us human beings our body is the physical form. I will only mention it very briefly. Otherwise if I go into it, there is so much. So let’s say that form here refers to physical particles. Eyes, nose, ears, etc, are all part of form. These are known as kye che in Tibetan. All these senses are born out of the physical form. So they are part of the physical form.

The second is tsor wa – feeling. I did the mind and mental faculties teaching. It really refers to that. There are five that always follow the mind. If anyone of those is missing your mind is not functioning properly. So you really have to look that all those five are there. Then there also five ascertaining mental faculties. If something goes wrong with those you are either becoming cuckoo or not straight or something here and there goes wrong. So tsor wa is feeling or sensation.

What is sensation?

Audience: Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.

Rimpoche: I think that’s the official line. It is the pleasant, unpleasant and neutral that we feel and recognize and which makes you happy or not happy or not have feelings. These are really basic things of the human being.

The third one is recognition (du she). We recognize the feelings we already have with like or dislike. It is sort of grabbing or grasping, knowing them, telling yourself, “Oh this is good”, “This is not good”, making it known to you.

Then the fourth, (du che) is impulse. Then consciousness is consciousness.

That makes up the five skandhas. So we have form, feelings, then we acknowledge those, then develop likes and dislikes, discriminating, and then mind. That basically becomes five. There may be hundreds of different ways of counting five. There are lots of different ways of counting in the metaphysical texts. But basically, that’s what we are talking about.

0:34

So Avalokiteshvara was perceiving that these five are empty of inherent nature. Yes, there are five aggregates. I can feel and understand and acknowledge them.

It is not its nature. The translation used here is inherent existence. I believe that term means that it is coming from somewhere, very original and nothing is changing. Nothing is moving. It is continuing from its own side. It is really what it is, not depending on anything else. Whatever happens, it doesn’t depend on anything else. It is there by itself. It is not only there automatically, it also will not change. I believe that’s basically the understanding of inherent existence (Tib: rang zhing gi drub pa).

What does lack of inherent existence mean (rang zhing gi tong)? It is there, but there is no solid nature there. So it becomes conditioned. The conditions are whatever they are and according to the conditions, things happen. If all the materials are put together, then it happens. As a kid I got a big surprise when I was playing with colors. I had red color and yellow color and I mixed them together in water and I got orange! That’s how conditions change things. So orange depends on the parts of yellow and red combined together. Then you get orange. That was a surprise to me when I was playing with that.

If you use language like “lack of inherent existence” in Tibetan it is dharma language and only known to the monks and if you leave it there it won’t work. So first, in order to know what lack of inherent existence means we looked first what inherent existence is. Then we went back and discovered that such a thing is not there. That’s not it. So that’s the lack of inherent existence. Then you find that if different parts and conditions mix things happen. So they are dependent origination. That’s what it is. Lack of inherent existence means dependent origination. When you cannot stand independently you depend on something. When you cannot walk independently you depend on a scooter or walking stick. That becomes dependent. Yes, you are there, yes, you move. Yes, you get there. Yes, you are participating. But you didn’t come independently, you came dependent on a scooter or walking stick. As a matter of fact, we all came here dependently. We either flew here or drove. That is a very gross way of looking at dependence.

So Chenrezig or Avalokitesvara was investigating the practice of the profound, perceiving that even those five heaps are empty of inherent existence. You may say that Avalokitesvara was meditating on profound wisdom. That is very rich and heavy language, but it doesn’t tell you anything, honestly. He is meditating. That much is what they tell you. Then you read that Avalokitesvara was investigating the practice of the profound, thinking, “What is the profound business all about?”

Then the answer is that it is all emptiness. So Avalokitesvara meditates on emptiness, examining how is that working with the five heaps, like form, etc.

de ne sang gye kyi tü tse dang den pa sha rii pü/ chang chup sem pa sem pa chen po/ pak pa chen re zik wang chuk la/ di ke che me so/ rik kyi bu gang la la she rap kyi pa röl tu chin pa/ zap mö che pa chong par dö pa de/ ji tar lap par cha/ de ke che me pa dang

Then by the power of the Buddha, the Venerable Shariputra inquired of the Bodhisattva, the Great Bodhisattva, the Exalted Avalokiteshvara: How should any son of the lineage train who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound Perfection of Wisdom?

Shariputra actually has the name of his mother. Her name was Sharadati or something. Her son becomes Buddha’s close disciple, so he was called Shara’s son, Shariputra. Sutras are not necessarily what Buddha said from his mouth. In this case Buddha blessed Shariputra to be able to raise that question to Avalokiteshvara. Then Avalokiteshvara replied. That is part of the sutra, the discussion between Avalokiteshvara and Shariputra. So Shariputra asked him, “Those who want to learn this profound thing, what do they do and think about? How do they go about it?”

That’s a very simple question if you want to make it simple. But if you don’t want to make it simple, then it is becomes a very funny question.

Shariputra could have just said, “Yes, Avalokitesvara, how does this work?” and Avalokitesvara could have just answered. But they have to call him Bodhisattva Mahasattva, great being and so on. Why? The whole idea is not to make this profound dharma cheap. That’s the bottom line idea. It is not like saying, “Hey, John, what’s that?” Then nowadays someone would have just answered, “Yes, Rimpoche, it’s this and that.” That would be perfect now. In those days it would have been a little too straightforward.

In Indian culture, if a king raised a question the person replying won’t just say yes or no. They would say “King of kings, God of gods, owner of all, the outstanding person in the world, I think it is.” So the titles will be much longer than the reply. In one way it is the Indian culture and Tibetan Buddhism justifies that by saying that it shows the quality and preciousness of the dharma. So nobody raises a question. That’s a good answer.

Many Tibetans will say, “This is the wish of the Dalai Lama.” Then nobody will raise any questions. Whether it is really the Dalai Lama’s wish or not, who knows, but they say it. So you go and see His Holiness and say, “I want to do this and that” and he will say “It’s great.” Then you come back and say, “His Holiness blessed it and agreed it is great. So it is His Holiness’ order.” That’s how people do it, right? And nobody will question it. The commentary says it is said this way in order to show the qualities.

0:52

sha ri pu/ rik kyi bu am rik kyi bu mo/ gang la la she rap kyi pa röl tu chin pa/ zap mö che pa chö par dö pa de/ di tar nam par ta par cha te/ pung po nga po de dak kyang/ rang zhin gyi tong par nam par/ yang dak par je su ta-o

The Bodhisattva, the Great Bodhisattva, the Exalted Avalokiteshvara, then declared to Venerable Shariputra: O Shariputra, any son or daughter of the lineage who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound Perfection of Wisdom should view [all things] thus: Even those five skandhas should be regarded as being in essence utterly empty of [inherent] nature.

So that’s where the real answer begins. The fives skandhas are the essence of us, the person. If you point to “me” you have nothing more to show than the five skandhas, including the 6th, consciousness. But even then, that essence is utterly empty of nature. Whatever we say “me” or “my essence”, when we examine it, is totally empty of nature. And here they put “inherent” in brackets. I think Avalokiteshvara is saying here that when you look at emptiness, all these five skandhas are the emptiness. That’s what it is. There is no other. That is emptiness itself. That is empty and emptiness. To further that,

zuk tong pa-o/ tong pa nyi zuk so/ zuk le tong pa nyi zhen ma yin/ tong pa nyi le kyang zuk zhen ma yin no/ de zhin du tsor wa dang/ du she dang/ du che dang/ nam par she pa nam tong pa-o

Form is empty. [Its] emptiness is form. Emptiness is not [something] other than [its] form. Form is also not [something] other than [its] emptiness. In the same way, feeling and discrimination and compositional factors and consciousness are empty.

So what is emptiness? Form itself is emptiness. If someone ask you, “Show me the emptiness!” you show form itself. You have nothing else to show, because form is empty. So emptiness is the form itself.

Some people make it very difficult and profound and that’s fine. But truly, what is emptiness? Form. Emptiness is form. Form is no other than emptiness and emptiness is no other than form. So if someone asks you, “Give me emptiness”, you have to give them whatever it is. That is emptiness. It is like saying, “Give me the glass”. Glass is emptiness. Emptiness is the glass. Both are one. But what we see is the physical shape that is labeled or named “glass”. We don’t name it “emptiness”. But truly speaking there is no separate emptiness.

1:00

When in Tibet we learnt as kids they would introduce us to the opposite of pot. The opposite of pot is non-pot. The opposite of non-pot is pot. Here it is the other way. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Emptiness is no other than form and form is no other than emptiness. In reality Buddha is expressing through Avalokiteshvara that knowing everything is emptiness. This is very profound, because it destroys so much of our emotional bondage, so much of our hatred, obsession, etc. All of them are built on not knowing that truly all is empty. If all is really empty and we know that we would not make such a big deal about hatred, obsession and engage ourselves in so much suffering. We subject ourselves and everybody else to so much suffering, because we think something else will exist. Ignorance is probably not the word we are really talking about. The Tibetan term is ma rig pa. That means not knowing, ignorance, confusion, all combined together. The root of samsara is ma rig pa. We don’t know that form is not different from emptiness and emptiness is not different from form. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Not knowing that we engage in so much suffering, trying to make something into this and that and have “my way”. We are afraid it is not professional and we want it to be very perfect. So we pull and push so much, thinking that something solid will be there. Truly knowing the emptiness there is not so much solid there at all – everywhere.

1:05

Our struggle within obsession and hatred, these are the biggest struggles we have. If you really see that what you are fighting for is not there you are pulling out the red carpet from under your feet. What are you fighting for? Just torturing yourself and giving a hard time to other people. There is not really anything solid there. But some people go to the other extreme and say, “All right, if that is so, then let everything go, whatever it is. I don’t care.” For the people who do that it is fine. They will find their way. But is that fine for everybody? No. There is relativity, which will balance. In absolute, it is true [there is nothing solid there], but there is relativity. You have to honor relativity, otherwise you become crazy. You go too far in society. The relativity is guided by society and its norms. In the absolute, society doesn’t guide. That’s how it really is.

de zhin du tsor wa dang/ du she dang/ du che dang/ nam par she pa nam tong pa-o

In the same way, feeling and discrimination and compositional factors and consciousness are empty.

Just like we are talking about form, the feeling, recognition, conceptualization and consciousness are exactly the same. We really have to remember that when you say, “Please present emptiness to me”, what you have to present is form itself. There is nothing else to give as emptiness – honestly. When somebody says, “Give me form”, you give them the form. When they ask for emptiness you give them the form. That’s it. There is not two separate ones. That’s the main point. We always think there is something else. Even if we acknowledge things are empty, we hide under words such as “in absolute” or “lack of inherent existence”. But we don’t really think it’s not there. The truth is that it’s not there. It only comes out because conditions are right and if one of those conditions is lost then it changes. It becomes something else. We can’t accept that. We say, “A minute ago it was this, so it should continue to be this.” And you go around searching. But in reality it changes. We always look back. This is our habit. We want to find something back. We make a big deal talking about legacies, memorials and so forth.

1:10

Society considers that as important and of value. You cannot say it is not important. It is important, but only to a certain extent. This is the memorial weekend, but if you think, the memorial is not the real thing, I am sorry. I shouldn’t be saying that on Memorial weekend, but it is not. I guess this is the easy way of looking simply and straight forward. I didn’t look in the commentaries because they give you huge, different explanations. Then we get lost. So I am just reading it.

This translation calls the aggregates, form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness and these are also empty. That’s it.

Any questions anybody? No, so we are five minutes early. That’s’ fine. Have a good dinner. Bye, bye.

1:13