Archive Result

SUMMER RETREAT

2013

SECTION 6 / JULY 7

GELEK RIMPOCHE: For today's session, if you continuously are reading the -- looking at this where we were continuing yesterday, and I'd like to begin today with the quotation from 400 Verses.

Tibetan 19:47.

So the definition of intelligent, definition of learned, intelligent here, it says: First you should reverse the unfortunate ones. And maybe would you like to read that English in that part?

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: First, reverse your meritless state. Next refute the self. Finally, the one view refutes all. He who knows this is skilled.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: That's it. You have the same thing? No? Different version slightly. Let's see, let's hear it. You've got them here already read like that already. Yes.

ANNE WARREN: The first?

GELEK RIMPOCHE: No. Anne doesn't get it.

ANNE WARREN: First, overcome what is nonvirtuous, then overcome belief in a self, finally, overcome all belief in entities. Wise is the person who understands this.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: One word and two different language, you know. Anyway, for me, it is sort of same thing, a little easier, what Anne read it.

Tibetan 21:35

The first what you have to reverse is what. What are you supposed to be reversing anyway? Better follow the Pabongka. First, nonvirtuous. He's not referring to any ordinary nonvirtuous but just extraordinary nonvirtuous, wrong view. Wrong view. Wrong view is normal when you're talking like Sunday talk. I'm not going to emphasize on that wrong view because wrong view is becoming very much, to some people it will be just a Buddhist thing and nothing else, right?

Are you too hot? You want to sit somewhere where not overly crowded three people there? You're in the middle and Jim is not small, but he may be big, but he's very thin. He's not like me.

Anyway, so nonvirtuous here really refers to the negative -- very strong, negative wrong perception view. Anne has a very interesting explanation she give me. Would you mind repeating that theory view and it's from Greek.

ANNE WARREN: I just mentioned that the word theory in English comes from the Greek theoria, which comes from the word to see and it was used to mean how you look at things, and later, it was used as how you look internally at things. So it's just interesting that when we think about theories, I hadn't included that aspect of it in my thinking for awhile.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Thank you. So anyway, some people may say it is Buddhist doctrine and that's why. We call that low bro da wa, 24:48 XXX wrong view, like not having a karma is not true. There is no do whatever you want to do; it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

So there is a funny. Early, there was early, early during the earlier time, there was a school which is called XXX young pemba 25:15, I forgot the name in Sanskrit, but this school does not believe anything of previous life and future life. And when you look today, the majority of the people are, they don't believe in future life. They don't believe in previous life. For us, whatever it is, it is. So today, so do whatever you want to do, sometimes we do say that. We say that very happily and proudly, do whatever you want to do, touch whatever you want to touch. Say whatever you want to say all this, remember we say that. Suck whatever you want to suck. Remember that.

So anyway but earlier in Buddha's time, there was a school. Looks like they're all purposely made for us to show, and so these thoughts doesn't believe in past and future, so when you don't have past and future, you will not have -- you cannot accommodate karma, because karmic thing does not complete within one lifetime. At least two or three lifetimes karmic circle completes or more. So within the one lifetime, it is impossible to complete karma.

So when you are accepting karma, good deeds bring good things and bad deeds bring bad things, you're automatically knowingly or not knowingly you're extending your view beyond the one lifetime.

Tibetan 28:00.

So avoid negative things first here means the nonvirtuous and these things, what do you call it, not having a karma, not having a Buddha, Buddha in the sense ultimate spiritual achievement, not having a dharma, these are considered wrong view and that, and these wrong views are first to be discarded.

So the first right view or the first point what you accept in is the karma, refuge, et cetera. So when they -- when Nagarjuna says discard the first negativities, it's really referring to that difficulty which is very -- which is the ultimate view or the -- not ultimate view. That's wrong, totally wrong. But which is one of the major achievements during the common with the lower, or principle one.

You all watch, I eat chocolate.

Tibetan 30:08.

So the first.

Tibetan 30:20.

So in the middle, discard the self what -- what did you say?

ANNE WARREN: Belief in a self.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Belief in self.

ANNE WARREN: In a self.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: In a self. Yours is different?

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: Yes. Next, refute the self.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Refute self. Anyway, ego grasping that self. Refuting is the second step. And third, refuting existence in all phenomena so

Tibetan 31:18

So whoever knows that, this is called wise or learned or scholar.

Excuse me. There's chocolate melting on my finger.

Greg Labo says keep your chocolates here in case and he's right.

Tibetan 32:00.

So when you say in the middle -- the first refutation of not having a karma, not having a life after life, reincarnation and not having perfection and all of those are actually counted in the ten nonvirtues, but it's not so simple for us. I mean for people who are here, that's sort of understood or accepted, but for everybody it's not so simple to accept that, because it is not the usual western culture.

People like me, fortunately or unfortunately, born in that culture, and brought up in that culture, whether I like it or not with all kinds of pinches and spanking and I don't know hits and hats and all that sort of thing. I do remember one time one of my teachers, I was studying, that was in the first month of the Tibetan calendar, in Lhasa, during the Malam festival. And I don't know what happened, I didn't memorize enough or something, and also what happened is one of my teachers was hitting me with a wooden, which covers -- you know, the books are kept with the wooden film, you know, with the big wooden plank, thick one, solid oak wood or something, thick, thick, thick. And they're going to hit me and I got up, so two forces together coming down and me getting up and hit on the head, so for about three or four weeks I saw all sun and moon and all and everything double vision for awhile. So in one way it's horrible, but on the other hand, and half is hitting and half is -- one sort of horrible and in one, but one way it is good serotonic release. So sometimes it's helpful.

So by this, either by gentle, by wrathful, by anything, I was pushed in it, so somehow I understood or not understood, drug through. So when I say when this -- when I say myself not having karmic consequences is actually huge, shocking, because of my culture, but other culture in which I grew, and my own personal culture. I don't not necessarily mean the Tibetan culture, my own personal culture it is something very shocking, but that's what it is. Somehow for me it is culturally or the background has discarded for me. When I'm thinking it myself carefully, and then I get convinced that karmic is something genuine and I don't have enough strong reason to discard that, having karmic is not genuine, I might not see enough time to complete all the karma because I don't see neither my past nor I see my future so I don't see it, however I don't have enough good reason to discard, so I accept it. Not only I've been taught it is, I accept it.

And temporary reasons where you see good things brings good, bad things bring bad deeds. So for example, I do strongly believe the generosity brings wealth. Generosity brings wealth. I do strongly believe morality brings joy. It's very true in the many times, small morality brings joy. Very true. The generosity really brings wealth. There is no doubt, for me. That is not my stubbornness, because various reasons, various instance, various things happens. So that is why I do believe I have discarded -- I've already discarded the karmic not existing, not true or not true, all of those already, for me, discarded. That first step.

So you people should think about it, just don't follow because I said so. Don't believe because Tibetan Buddhism said so, so don't. You have to analyze yourself, think about it. You analyze and see whether you can get it or not get it, and then do it and you also, equally, you don't have good enough reason to say it's not true, you can't say it or you don't have enough reason. If you do have enough reason, say it, believe it. And until you have that, don't say it, don't say it. And also don't help people to create, because you may be doing disservice. So that's what I do.

Tibetan 41:30.

So and then the second you discard -- oh, I see a new bearded one who I haven't seen it for awhile.

42:00 Tibetan

The middle, discard the self, right.

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: Refute the self.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Refute the self. That has two kind of self, self that on the -- no, wait a minute. That is the self based on personal -- what was the outline there earlier yesterday?

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: Nonexistence of personal self.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Nonexistence of personal self and that's what it's referring to, nonexistence of personal self. So this sounds very funny, nonexistence of personal self. Who's getting round, walking around, the ghost or what, all the ghosts are running around. Maybe all of us are zombies, because personal self is not existent. So somebody's moving around for sure, because I see it, it's true, I cannot refute, so it's moving around, maybe the zombies? Or one male zombie and one female zombie we are running around everywhere together, so maybe that's what it is.

So anyway, refuting, that is the second step, and finally, refuting the self existence of all phenomena. So these are sort of the order in which we handle it. So the first one is a little easy to understand. We already talked. Second and third, and whenever we're talking about nonexistence, and whether we are talking about nonexistence, that self in the personal sense or nonexistence of self in the sense of phenomena, whether the basic non self has no difference, but that self, dealing with personal as me as a person or dealing with the other than inanimate objects. And so these are the basically how this true emptiness is handled.

It says here

Tibetan 45:55

So the Pabongka says here, in order to establish the emptiness, there are such as king of reasoning, such as seven points of reasoning, also whether you are -- if you exist, you are existing with the oneness within yourself or separate in yourself. So all these are there, however, Jambu Lama Tsongkhapa and his followers to introduce with the four major points, and from that level they introduce the object of negation.

So object of negation is important because Shantideva said

Tibetan 47:30.

So Anne, what is your translation for that Shantideva's verse in Pabongka's Liberation?

ANNE WARREN: Without grasping the fabricated mode of being, its nonexistence cannot be realized.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: That seems to be simple. Something you say is not there, so you have to know what you're talking about. Who's not there, right? That's really

Tibetan 48:00

So when you wanted to negate self or existence, what existence, what self, you have to recognize. Otherwise, you can't really negate. If you don't see the target -- I think Pabongka says the same thing here. If you don't see the target, if you try to shoot arrow, then you'll be shooting arrow in the forest, whether you're going to hit the target or not, you don't know when you don't recognize, right? Not only arrow, but even if you have gun or whatever, no matter how big, automatic machines and whatever, all those files -- what do you call those, files? So even if you don't see the target, it all goes, whatever, 180 or whatever the number of the bullets may be, you just shoot it. Because you don't see the target, you never know what you're going to hit. Instead of hitting the right target, you may hit somebody else, another person, so you never know.

So it is important to recognize, which it's true. Before we say it's not there, what are you talking about? Before you recognize so and so has -- so and so is the thief, but you have to know who the so and so is before you accuse of being a thief. So it is important for us to see the object of negation, what are you going to negate.

Tibetan 50:15

So when we say not truly existing of the truth, not naturally existing of the nature and not in front of me, it is all nature, doesn't exist of the nature, so we have to see what it is. The commentary on that 400 Verses says

Tibetan 51:45

This commentary of the 400 Verses, which says -- maybe Anne, can you read that translation?

ANNE WARREN: Regarding that, the term self means an independent, intrinsic essence or nature that entities are wrongly believed to possess. Selflessness is the absence of that.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: And you have the same thing?

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: The meaning is the same.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Yes, meaning has to be the same, I know it, otherwise --

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: The words are different. The thing known as the self is an entity whose nature is not to be the outcome of any other functional phenomenon. Selflessness is its nonexistence.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: So my reading is, and not dependent on the others. When you're dependent, the nature of the dependentness is what we are rejecting. When you don't have nature of dependentness, then you are dependent. When you don't have nature of dependentness, you're not dependent, you're independent. When you're not independent, you're dependent. Independentless is dependent. So when you say selfless, we are talking about that self. We are talking about naturally not existing. We are talking about that nature. We are talking about it sort of nature, it is really deep, something perfect, self standing, nothing dependable, nothing depending on anything, self standing, that solidness is the self that we'll refute. That is the refutable base.

Pabongka continuously says

Tibetan 55:10.

Pabongka says it doesn't depend on the causes and the conditions of others, self natural existing, don't depending on others by your own natural self standing and that is what we are talking about. Am I reading it right?

ANNE WARREN: It's the same.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: The quotations by Pabongka himself says, right?

ANNE WARREN: Yes.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Okay. So Pabongka continuously says such a thing, such a statement, which I said earlier, is good enough during the debate to shut out other opponents, but if you don't have a personal experience, then you're not going to recognize object of negation. You can say nonindependent, nondependent, not there. You can say it by words. You can make your opponent's argument shut down, but that won't help. You have to feel it. You have to experience.

For example, if you want to say there was a thief; the thief was a human being and that thief is wearing white dress. That doesn't help to catch the thief. I mean it does nowadays of course, it does give you some clue to show it is a human being who has stolen your thing, so thief is human being. Also thief is wearing white dress helps a little, but not good enough, right? Not good enough.

So Pabongka emphasized that you yourself really has to experience within your own mind. So if you do not establish the object of negation, no matter how many reasons you use, it doesn't exist. As I said earlier, not only you have gun, but you have automatic, those huge files you're carrying, and if you shoot it, if you don't recognize the target, no matter how much you shoot, it's not going to happen to anything else, right?

Sometimes, if you use so much reasoning without knowing which is your object of negation, then sometimes you will destroy the dependent origination also. So if that happens and you will land into nihilist instead of getting good wisdom. Pabongka continues here, for example, if you are talking about a vase, vase where you put the water, the name and the label of the vase kept in your mind and then you say the spout of the vase is not vase. The top of the vase is not vase. The bottom of the vase is not vase. So then there is no vase. People do that. Top of the table is not table. The leg is not a table. Take that out. Take the table top out, leg out and say hey, there's no table. You say that, right? And maybe that's -- some people say that is the emptiness of table. And if you think that is emptiness of table, you have not established basis of the emptiness. What is empty of it? What is empty of it? And all these are missing. Let's see. That's exactly what it is.

So then actually destroying the relative truth of the table or relative truth of the vase, which has destroyed, saying table is there, so you proved table doesn't exist, so which means true table has been destroyed in your own mind. You destroyed your true table, and that's not the emptiness of a table.

Many people think that is the emptiness of table. I recognize emptiness of the table. Take the top off, take the leg off, where is the table, there is no table. It is -- the idea of existing table is delusion. This is the proof there is no table. This is table top. This is table leg. This is side; this is front side; this is back side. There is no table. So what happens is true -- relative, true existence has been destroyed. That is not emptiness on table, and Pabongka uses here vase.

When we try to find object of negation, so the object of negation really is when I say my, me and my, what I'm thinking, what sort of thing I perceive saying me, the natural grow, natural mind, how, what sort of thing it perceives, what sort of thing appears to it, what do you perceive. So that's the thing you have to see. We have to -- what we have to see when we say table is emptiness, we really have to see table empty of what. We can't say table not there, because table is there. Table served the purposes. Table functions. So taking a table physically into the path does not establish the emptiness of the table. So when you want to establish the emptiness of the table, when you want to negate the object of refutation, the object of refutation does not rely on the subject of table. Object of refutation relies on the mind of my who are perceiving the existence.

So how do I, what has appeared to me? How do I perceive? When you are looking at Mr. X, we will see, we perceive Mr. X. We don't think Mr. X as mind. We don't think Mr. X as a physical body. We think body/mind mixed lump called Mr. X. It will appear by itself naturally, big existence, identify, self identify, I am Mr. X, and I perceive that. The actual perception, whatever I am perceiving, not about the body, not about the mind. In other words, it doesn't divide body mind, physical and mental. It's combination of it, something truly existing, and that is the actually perceiving point, what we want to negate. So if you read Pabongka's teaching here, we should clearly give us that.

Tibetan 1:07:55

So when you are perceiving yourself, it is the combination of mind and body together saying that is me, not only when I am looking at Mr. X, but when I'm looking at myself. We have I perceive myself as neither I talk about it or think about it mind, nor I am thinking about the body, but I think somewhere in between, combined together, something called me. I perceive that. We all do, everybody.

Pabongka says even the ants do that not this Anne, but ants do that. And that is how we perceive self, so that self who has nothing to do with mind, who has nothing to do with physical something solid, we perceive, which is truly it's not there. That is truly non existence. However, we perceive this and that's why we say that mind is wrong, it is delusional, confused and all of those, and that is something independent. Something is not there which we projected to be there. So when you recognize not there which was projected, which is confusingly accepted, when I see that is truly is not existing, that is called emptiness, recognizing non existence as truth.

There's another point: This is not that, this is not that, this is not that. That is called the not has been corrected. That's not true emptiness. True wisdom cannot reject anything that exists. They will only reject which does not exist but we perceived to be existing, that's why when we say in Tibetan.

Tibetan dong nee es mega 1:12.

Which means emptiness is something which is refuted as not existing. It's not something which is refuted as wrong existing. Wrong existing is wrong existing, but still it exists. It may be wrong, but it exists. Wisdom does not refute. Wisdom only refutes nonexistence, and so there are Tibetan schools even say wrong corrected is correct wisdom. Some Tibetan schools say who only refute the nonexistence.

So Jambu Lama Tsongkhapa says nonexistent refutation is true wisdom. So something is not exist, somewhere our mind projects it and that has to be recognized as the recognition of object of negation. So how do we know we are perceiving, we are watching, we are seeing how our mind ordinary normal usual mind perceives me. If you read it through here, they will tell you that three types of self recognition. One of the self recognition is, those of you who understand -- no, those of the people who understand emptiness, they have a way of looking at self, which is not a big issue for us.

One thing is like everybody, when you talk about self and you have one way of accepting me. You're not talking about whether naturally exist or naturally not exist or whatever, just say me, I am going, I am sitting, I'm doing all that and that is one way of perceiving me, which is relative truth, I think, which is really relative truth. One will say one self is naturally existing, it is true. You know just me, me, me, it's just simply me, I am going, I am sitting, I am walking, I am eating. All this is one way.

But then the other one takes more than that, more than that in the sense I am truly here. I'm solidly really here, taking one more step in simple existence. So these are the three different ways of perceiving when I say I am, I am. Maybe everybody doesn't have that. In general it does exist. So when you are perceiving yourself and which one you're perceiving, you should check.

If you have understanding of emptiness -- not understanding, realization of emptiness, then you perceive self as some kind of illusion. So it's a show. It is all, but it isn't. And then without anything me, I'm going, I'm sitting, this is genuine, normal, natural, reliable me. That's not object of refutation. Then taking one more step, I am solid, I'm really here, this is me. So truly, when you look, it's not there. So that is object of negation.

So meanwhile, if you read this, if you have time, read Pabongka's Liberation, about a page within that. Is it a page or two?

ANNE WARREN: What we've done today?

GELEK RIMPOCHE: No, no. Below that, up to the next, the second point of negation, second point.

ANNE WARREN: About six pages.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: Six pages? Okay. So there's about six pages in that.

ANNE WARREN: About four or five.

HARTMUT SEGOLLA: Four or five pages in this one.

GELEK RIMPOCHE: I thought it's about a half a page. So anyway, whatever it may be, think about it, and you think about that. If you're busy with lunchtime, then think about in the evening and try to really get some idea of what I said, me, when I'm perceiving, it's I get hurt. That is our problem. I get hurt. So when I get hurt, when I think I get hurt, so who got hurt? Who is it? Which who are you talking about? In one way, if you get there, if you get too much in there, you may become a little insensitive; I don't know. It doesn't become -- you become a little dull, you can't get it, whoever said it, whatever. Maybe. I don't know. So anyway think about that, who's getting hurt, what it is? Who felt insulted? Who felt I've been looked down, which one? So think very carefully, and there is no one. So that is so you don't see no one until you refute object of negation, until you refute. So we are looking at the object of negation, actually self.

Actually, you're looking at the ego, which one is it? How is it? When do I see it? If you look down there, if someone told you, hey, you thief, in the middle of a lot of people and at first you'll say, excuse me, and the second you say, what, you're calling me thief? Me, what did I steal? What did I steal from you? What are you talking about? And that big shock, combination of embarrassment, combination of hurt, combination of shock, certainly me, and that is actually object of negation.

This happens -- Pabongka uses I think a tipping tip, also when you're about to fall off from a cliff, I'm going to fall. Certainly that I pops up. Otherwise, normally, I was hit, I heights between my body, my speech, my name, anything that doesn't come out. It only comes out when there's a sudden shock, emergency, and things.

Pabongka advises us -- or Jambu Lama Tsongkhapa advises us, when that happens, keep your mind on that. Say what sort of I am I perceiving? Along with that, little another mind, another piece of mind, observing how it's seeing, how it is perceiving, how you're getting hurt, perceiving this. A lot of mental activities here. So you have to do that, and then you begin to see what are you projecting, something not exist, and that really is torture to some people, whole life, sometimes, some people are very much tortured by the depressions. Sometimes people are very much tortured by this and almost become crazy, unstable, because this, this very object of negation is the one who drives. So we have to recognize and refute.

But you cannot refute if your stomach is empty. You can't get empty until you have some physical moment, so Dimitri is kind enough to show us some physical kind of moment and then followed by lunch and then the usual program. Thank you.