Archive Result

Soundfile 19870100GRRTOMLOVCOM_08

Speaker Gelek Rimpoche/Robert Thurman

Location Omega Institute

Topic Love and Compassion

Transcriber Jill Neuwirth

Date 5/5/2024

Rimpoche: …maidservant who had not development for whatsoever, could escape the fire, and those who are able to fly, they had to die. So they asked the Buddha, and the Buddha gives a long, long, thing, and why in that place they burn all this villages and did this and that and this and that, and that’s the result why all die, and because she had not committed any of that karma in that group or separately, so she doesn’t have a karmic which joins and which clicks, and she doesn’t have to die by burning. So that’s why she escaped. So that’s why if you create one karma, no matter time, duration, whatever it may take, you have to pay something. And if you did not create karma, nothing will happen. The plane full of people crashed, and somebody fall down with chair together, nothing happens, right? (Audience laughs) Landed on the ground. Maybe get cut a little bit and don’t die. And these sort of things are the really example. I mean, in the war, you go, you go to bed now, or something, I mean, really. You got somebody got shot here, somebody shot here, you don’t get bullet. Okay, I think that’s enough. Is it okay? RT: Other questions? Rimpoche: Yes?

[0:01:39.1] Audience: The last thing we talked about yesterday in the Vimalakirti book was the liberation of the Buddha be sought in the prime mental activity of all living beings? And I was sort of contemplating that last night and I guess I really didn’t understand it. RT: Do you want to comment on that, Rimpoche? Rimpoche: Please go ahead. Now it’s your turn. (Laughs) RT: Well, um, I’m not sure I understand it, I’m not sure- I think you have to be a buddha to understand it, first of all, I should say. But second, I think it connects to the idea of selflessness, which I said was a pleasant distinction, distinctive characteristic of Buddha’s teaching. Contrary to many religious teachings, and in fact, contrary to many versions of Buddhism. I mean, you could understand Buddhism, for example, as if you focus too much on the first noble truth, if you focus too much on ignorance, then you focus too much on humility, and sort of think of Buddhism as a religion, then you think that, well, Buddha came out from the bodhi tree and he, what he mainly came out with was a gigantic put-down. Everyone is stupid, nobody knows nothing, everything is all wrong, and it’s a hopeless situation. Right? Buddhism was known as that for a long time, as a gigantic put-down. There’s so many missionaries who went to India and China, they said, oh, what a terrible world-denying, world-negating, pessimistic religion. And in fact, all religions have that element. You know, you have sin, you’re so sinful, humans are so incapable, most of the theistic religions believe human beings cannot understand the nature of reality, you know, that’s pride to think they can. They should just like have blind faith even in some senseless, irrational, and completely senseless thing, because the mind just doesn’t work right, because it wasn’t made right to where it’s supposed to work, but it doesn’t work. So, when you’re going- I understand Vimalakirti there as wanting to emphasize initial Buddhist things- why, when Buddha came out from under the bodhi tree had a big smile on his face? Extremely happy. He actually turned golden, turned totally golden. Some guy- in fact, the first guy, talk about lack of good fortune, karma, first guy who met the Buddha was a naked ascetic. A Jaina. He said, hey, you’re golden color. You look really happy. What happened to you? And Buddha said, oh, I attained perfect enlightenment, I’m a buddha. So the guy said, oh, isn’t that nice? I’m a Jain. Goodbye! And he left. (Laughs) He didn’t ask him, like- he just thought buddha was another label, like belonging to another system or something. So he said, oh, that’s nice, yeah, I’m a Jain. Goodbye.

[0:04:46.9] So, just to show example probably, of how you can have a jewel in the hand and not notice it. And so, Buddha was smiling, not because he had discovered how completely screwed up everybody was. He was smiling because he discovered everything was alright. He had found a way in which, he had found an elixir, a medicine. A way in which everything was alright. He had seen the reality that it was alright, so he was happy. Why would he be happy if everybody was all totally screwed up? So what he saw was, that more important in every living being’s being, than their ignorance and their suffering, than their confusion then their difficulties, more important than that, was their liberation. Their freedom. He saw that the nature of reality is freedom. In other words, if the nature of reality was misery, if the nature of reality was bondage, then how would anybody ever get free? It would be some unbelievable thing, incredible thing. Only if we can get- even though reality is that you’re not free and it’s horrible business, somehow by stubbornly insisting somebody’s going to get free. That’s not very practical or reasonable. The reason that Buddha announced- Buddha’s great announcement was not suffering, really. His great announcement was the cessation of suffering. Nirvana. You know, I have discovered a truth, du ze (Tibetan) [0:06:17.4] I have discovered a truth that is like an elixir. That doesn’t mean I have discovered everybody’s totally screwed up. That means I have discovered the way in which everyone is alright. Now, in fact, in order to become alright, from having been habitually convinced that you’re screwed up, is to recognize just how screwed up you are habitually convinced that you are. So he starts with suffering. It’s like he starts with that as a diagnosis. As an observation of a symptom. But his real thing that made him happy was he found the cure, okay? So the liberation of the buddhas is found in the prime mental activity of the Buddha’s means, that we are already all selfless. We are already all free. We are more free than we are screwed up. Therefore, the process of liberation in Buddhism is not a matter of doing some impossible thing. For example, there are some teachings that say you have to throw away your ego, lose your ego. But at the same time, such a teaching says you have a big ego. So then you’re in a big problem, you sort of have to go out and commit hari kari or something, you think. People will still do it, they’re so amazing. People will do it. I have a big ego, but I’m going to get rid of it. It’s like practically training to commit hari kari. Whereas the Buddha says, hey- you have no ego at all. There is no ego, in that sense of an intrinsically real self. There’s no such thing. To start with, you’re free of it because it doesn’t exist.

[0:07:48.7] Now, in fact, you have a habit of thinking you have one, that you have to free that you have to work so that you will no longer attend to being unfree, but you will pay attention to your freedom. And the fact that you can do that, and he smiled because it’s a cure that works, is that the freedom is more true than the unfreedom. Therefore, it’s more powerful. Truth will always defeat falsehood in the long run. This is something we can observe. So that the liberation of the buddhas is in the primary mental activity of all living beings, as a way making nondual buddhas and living beings. Alright, is that helpful? I think that’s what Vimalakirti meant. However, we have to keep thinking about it, struggling with it. Other questions? Audience: In the Yoga sutras Patanjali says even if it’s not yet come to be (Inaudible) [0:08:58.0] so in other words, karmas that haven’t unfolded yet. RT: Karmas that haven’t unfolded yet can be avoided. (Rimpoche and RT discuss in Tibetan) [0:09:06.5] Rimpoche: That’s right. Karma is definite means once the karmic result is started functioning, you know, the karmic result are started functioning, then you really have to go through it. There’s no way you can skip it. But there’s a possibility of avoiding it. Yes. That does not contradict with karma is definite. How can we avoid is, it’s not totally avoiding. Now, for example, karma is a subject to be purification. The bad karma is subject to be purification. Good virtuous works karmas are subject to be destruction by anger. So when this is happened, if you create tremendous good work, I mean, you got angry, you destroy that. You create- you have bad karma developed, and you purify, and you destroy it. So what happened is, when the purification is perfect, I mean, excellent purification, then it’s totally destroyed by- suppose if you have a karma which will probably fall into the lower hell realm for a little, say for a quite a long period. You probably have a little illnesses in this life, and that will take care of all of it. Or, even falling into- all these sort of small, little thing, a small little thing which can substitute for big pain that we will have to pay. You know what I mean? It all depends how you carry on the purification. So carry on purification is also a karmic work, it is definite. Are you following me, or you’re not? Okay. So, it is avoidable, especially you can avoid to have the temporary aggravator. As I talked yesterday, the pujas, the prayings, and the people working hard, all these will either postponed, or avoid totally getting the temporary aggravator. Or even you get the temporary aggravator, get lesser type of thing. Lesser type of thing. You know what I mean? Okay. Now, these days it really doesn’t work much. But in earlier period, when there is not a medical what’s slowly developed so much, what happened is great persons, great persons, person of great standard, when there is some kind of illnesses going around, what you call it? Bacteria? Sort of illnesses, epidemic going around, one of those great person get it. And sort of got sick and some may even die. And then it cuts there. Sort of helps to stop, totally.

[0:12:57.9] So for him, he had sacrifice his life. However, it is good for him to develop, for further development if at all left. And also for service to the other human beings who are not developed to be saved. So these rooms are available in karmic, and that’s why it meant avoidable. It does not contradict with definite. Are you happy with that? RT: I feel totally happy. Ah ha! There will be a debate. (Laughs) Rimpoche: That’s fine. RT: No, I think it’s important to debate a little bit, this one, because of several points. So I just want to add, I mean, I agree with everything he said, first of all. But second of all, there are a couple of things, first a historical footnote to make. In the Buddha’s time, among the different teachers who were there, there was one guy whose name was Sanjaya, who taught that karma is totally determined, deterministic. He had one great speech he used to make, at the end of which he took out a ball of twine that he had, and he would throw the ball of twine holding one end. And the twine would unravel and then it would stop going because when the ball was gone, and it would unravel, then it would fall to the floor, the thread would, you know? This was his big speech. So he was a fatalist, in short. He was an adviyaka (?) [0:14:35.0] He said your karma will just unravel itself and then you’re liberated- Rimpoche: adjivapa? RT: Adjivaka was- that’s Sanskrit words, name of sort of movement he founded. Therefore, no effort to make and do anything. It’s just all totally determined. You don’t have to strive to achieve liberation, you don’t have to worry about it, you may have to go through some suffering, but when your ball of twine unravels it’s finished. And that was his great thing, his favorite thing was to throw this ball of twine. On the other hand, there was the charvakya (?) [0:15:03.3] kind of nihilist who’s very much like an American. And he said, there’s nothing definite about cause and effect of actions. It’s completely random. You know like, atoms are jumping, everything is jumping, it’s total accident. All of life is complete accident, lo bo dwa (?) [0:15:22.3] Everything is totally accidental. So there’s no coherence at all between cause and effect, and karma is stupid, doesn’t mean anything, and don’t even worry about it, have a good time. He was eat, drink, and be merry type. So they have these two complete extremes, and between that, there were so many different forms of Brahmanism, and different philosophical teachings, sort of near that end and near that end. And why Buddha’s teaching has been so powerful and eventually influenced Indian, all of the Indian religions, even Hinduism, and even Brahminism, in a sense it helped create Hinduism, was that it was sort of in the middle. Karma is not too tight so that nothing you do can affect it. But it’s not too loose, so that what you do cannot be determined in its effect. So in that sense, the statement karma is definite is made. However, there’s a very important point to make, and that is liberation and buddhahood itself would of course be totally illogical, impossible, if karma were completely determinant. In fact, Buddha has to cut, in some degree, chain of karma. This is why I say we’re going to have a little debate.

[0:16:29.4] Because, for example, tantrayana, you attain buddhahood in one life, it is said. You have to cut, some kind of karma had to be cut in some way, by a more powerful action of liberation. So, when you get into this area, where you really press with the inquiry, like in certain kind of apparent contradictions, you then come up against another teaching of Buddhism called the teaching of interpretable meaning, and the teaching of definitive meaning teaching. Dom de and dom ye (?) [0:17:02.1] That meaning that when the Buddha teaches sometimes his teaching is what you call interpretable. Doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, it means that it’s valid in a certain context. And sometimes the Buddha’s teaching is definitive, that is, it sort of not changeable in any context. And then this is then becomes very interesting. Because what is interpretable, and what is definitive? Now in fact, within Buddhism this big arguments between different forms of Buddhism, how to decide which are interpretable and which are definitive, because the Buddha was very tricky fellow sometimes, great teacher. And so when he would teach one way, he would say this is definitive, and he would even give a whole system of interpreting what he said. But then another time, he would say no, I was only being interpretable that time, and that this is definitive. (Audience laughs) So it would get confusing, and in fact, for thousands of years, the Tibetan Geshe-las love to debate and they go like this (Claps) and you are wrong (Claps) and no, you are right, and wrong (Claps) and they go on for days like that. They get red in the face, they clap their hand, they shout. I think that Rimpoche- you would all be afraid, you come and hold us back. You think we were mad, you know? But this is the way they train to do. They don’t in fact, ever punch each other (Laughs) but they look like they’re about to. They’re trained like that, you see, because they feel in Tibet, to become great to get your reason, you see in the West you think that intellect and reason has no connection with understanding, that’s only because intellect and reason is so feebly operating. If you can bring your emotion together with your outlook, with your view of reality, it will very powerfully not only affect but determine your understanding. So to really develop philosophically, you have to learn to debate with others so you can really debate in yourself and analyze and critique your own shoddy ideas, and to really debate with others you have to bring your emotion into it. And therefore they have these beautiful systems that Tibet inherited from India of how to really inquire into something in a public way with real forceful emotion, and yet they don’t (Laughs) they stay calm, even though they get quite upset sometimes.

[0:19:11.1] I once, when I was first in Tibetan monastery in Drepung, and there was the evening when the younger monks were training go out and debate, all this kind of- the teacher has told them all this karma, this and so and so, and in the evening they go out and they debate amongst each other, the students have to debate, take different sides. I thought there was a riot. (Rimpoche laughs) I was having a cup of tea with one older lama, until I heard this tremendous hubbub. Like in a real- I thought they were having a riot or something, or like the Communists had landed on the what, you know? And then all it was was all these students like a whole college full of students, such a beautiful thing, you know? If we ever had that at Amherst or Harvard or some college it would be fantastic. All of them were out there and they were just debating away, you know Buddha is like this, and Buddha is like that, and they’re going on different views. Karma is definite, no it isn’t, you know? And they’re getting so excited, and their whole heart was in it, totally. So you could tell they would come to some real understanding that way. Now, in that light, therefore now, having that preface, it is said that only the teaching of emptiness, only teachings about ultimate reality are definitive. Ultimate reality as being all things being empty with respect to intrinsic reality, all things being free in some sense something like that. That’s only definitive teaching of the Buddha. All teachings about teachings, all teachings about relativity are all contextual, that is all interpretable. So, teaching of karma, for example, is something to- very useful within context, and actually true within context. But, never absolutely true. This is how Buddhism in fact avoids dogmatism. You sort of, this is it, you know? This is that, this is it. Buddhism always leaves room for the individual free understanding. It's kind of scientific in that sense. It means that all descriptions of relative reality are some sense hypothetical, like a scientific theory. They’re all awaiting disproof. So while karma is definite, you can disprove that if you attain buddhahood yourself. That’s the best way to disprove it. But otherwise, until you attain buddhahood, it is totally definite and there’s no escape. And so you have to accept your consequence that way. But we don’t want to lock it in as a rigid dogma, or we’re missing about interpretable and definitive. Is that alright, or do I get rejected now? Rimpoche: I mostly agree with you, (Laughs) but I can’t accept one thing. RT: Ah ha! Rimpoche: That is, you have made statement saying that karma has to be cut when you obtain enlightenment. Would you mind give little explanation for that? RT: He wants me to hang myself higher. (Audience laughs) Yes, um, now I know, for example, there is a teaching, I know what you mean, that there is a teaching that, even Buddha, when he attains parinirvana, Shakyamuni Buddha, shows the form of dying, makes the act of dying, as we say, or really it isn’t quite like dying, but parinirvana anyway. This is to illustrate impermanence, we have such a statement of course, in teaching that even Buddhas are caught with the karma, it says. Rimpoche: No, I’m not thinking that way. RT: Oh, you weren’t? I thought that was- Rimpoche: No, I’m not thinking that way. What I’m thinking is cutting karma means, do you mean it’s going beyond karma, or what do you mean? RT: Yeah. Yes, I do mean that, going beyond karma, yes. Rimpoche: So do you think that the buddhas will go beyond karma? RT: Yes. Yes I do! Aww, he’s going to get me (Laughs) Rimpoche: So let’s not go to that debate, but in case, where do you- which level you cut the karma? RT: Which level? Well, because- Rimpoche: Is it ten bhumis, or (Inaudible) [0:23:07.7] or five paths, or…? RT: No, what I’m saying is that the dharmakaya of the Buddha, the Buddha’s truth body- Rimpoche: Mmhmm, mmhmm… RT: In its objective sense- natural truth body. Rimpoche: Okay, would you consider that as result of any virtuous work? RT: Natural- no. Natural truth body is not a result, because it is not caused. It is uncaused, uncreated.

[0:23:32.1] Unmade. It is outside of causality by definition. Rimpoche: Alright. That means the three kayas are the result of without any virtue’s result? RT: No, I didn’t say that- oh no, no, not three, just dharmakaya (Audience and Rimpoche laugh) All the Buddha’s form bodies are totally involved with karma, totally result of virtue- Rimpoche: Oh, I see. That means nama (Tibetan term) [0:23:54.2] you say is not the result of virtue- RT: No, I didn’t even say that, I didn’t even say that. (Rimpoche laughs) The subjective body, and there’s two- and you can divide body of truth, you know Buddha had three bodies, or you know, it has truth body, and form body. Form body divides into beatific body and emanation body. Beatific and emanation body are result of compassion, definitely. A truth body, like shunyata, and that is unresolved because it is uncaused, uncreated, unmade, and so forth, in some sense it is eternal, there’s many things about it. However, Rimpoche’s absolutely right, if you divide it into two, there’s two kinds of truth body, one is called the natural truth body, one is called the wisdom truth body. Now, the wisdom truth body is of course caused by the Buddha’s effort and understanding, and so the Buddha’s realization of the truth body in some sense is caused, so I’m wrong to say truth body is beyond karma, because the achievement of realization of it is related to karma. However, the objective truth body itself, nirvana itself, cannot be part of karma. Rimpoche: Nagarjuna’s gyan de (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:24:57.6] go against that. RT: No, we’re saying, lo- Rimpoche: gya wa di (Repeats quote) RT: By this virtue, all beings- (Rimpoche quotes again) [0:25:13.9] They accumulate the stores of merit and with- and by having developed the karma of both merit and wisdom, or of merit and knowledge, they achieve the supreme two bodies. So, the truth body is achieved as a result, he wants me to argue with this verse, he’s quoting Nagarjuna. You see, this is the way you debate, you don’t just debate, like yourself, you have to bring in authoritative verses, you see. So, he's really got me up a tree now, but, I have some answer. (Rimpoche laughs) First of all, I don’t say that the achievement of the dharmakaya is not somehow related to good karma, or virtuous karma of knowledge. However, however, what is achieved, is precisely the cutting of all karma. Again, because dharmakaya has been said to be uncaused, uncreated, beyond causality, karma it means causality, how can you say that the dharmakaya or nirvana is part of causality? Rimpoche: Okay, would you want accept that sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya is the result of the creating of good karma? RT: You can say yes, I think it’s more sensible to say that, yes. Rimpoche: It is the part of karma? RT: Yes. Rimpoche: It is at the Buddha’s level? RT: Yes. Rimpoche: The karma is at Buddha’s level? Buddha didn’t cut the karma yet? (Laughs) RT: Not in that context- (Audience laughs) Not in that context, but- he could not develop those without also cutting. Rimpoche: Actually you’re right.

[0:26:49.7] But you know, I can- (Laughs) RT: This is excellent. See this is how you have to think about the death, you see. Rimpoche: This is the analytical meditation as well. RT: It is meditation. Rimpoche: Yeah, it’s created meditation, this is the analytical meditation. RT: You have to debate yourself like this. If you say- in Buddhism, it is a strange thing. In Buddhism, they say that all is selfless. Do you think that means Buddha wants you to think all is selfless? Absolutely not. That means Buddha wants you to think, and to recognize honestly you feel big self. And you should look for it. And then you might come out not finding it, then you remember he said selfless. But to take selfless and hold that up as a dogma Buddha would- that is not the procedure. Am I right? Rimpoche: Accurate. RT: Similarly, when he says everyone will die, do you think Buddha wants you to think I’m going to die? No!. Buddha wants you , the teaching wants you to say, I don’t feel like- find out where you don’t think you’re going to die, and then debate with yourself just like this, and then reject yourself the way Rimpoche reject me. Rimpoche: Not in rejection, but this is the way- (Laughs) RT: This is very important. Rimpoche: This is the way you really proceed. RT: In Buddhism you- in Zen, they have a statement that when you really practice Zazen, it is like two iron bulls at the bottom of the ocean bashing each other. This is true what they call the Great Doubt in Zen, the liberating doubt. Real practice of Zen. Now, what do you think those two iron bulls are? This is like, is there cutting karma, isn’t there cutting karma? Will I die, won’t I die? Am I a self, am I not a self? This is the reality of our mind brought out to its fullest extent. It is not some half-baked throwaway your reason. Don’t think! Am I right? Rimpoche: Yes. Very good. RT: I thought you were going to say I was wrong! (All laugh) Rimpoche: That’s good enough. Yes ma’am? Audience: In cutting the karma, what about killing yourself? What happens? RT: Killing yourself? Do you want to take that suicide- okay, we’ll both do it. You want to do? You go. You go first. Rimpoche: Killing yourself is a killing a human being, whether it is you or other. You have a very heavy non-virtues for that. If you are ordinary person, and if you’re vajrayana practitioners, you’re not only killing yourself, but you’re killing a deity. It’s even worse. So, killing- taking one’s life, though some people may think my life is belong to me, so I can do whatever I want to do, but I have big question for that. You’re going to say something? RT: No. I totally agree with that and I’m going to only add, that not only is killing yourself murder, and taking life, breaking first commandment, first law of karma, and the most destructive thing someone can do to themselves. Not only is that the case, and their karma that’s not at all cutting karma, it’s creating a very negative karma, rather than cutting any karma, in other words transcending the web of causality, it is like completely going negative in it. Not only that, but also it is ultimately irrational within the Buddhist cosmos, because in the Buddhist cosmos, to kill a body, to destroy your body, is not at all to destroy your continuative experience.

[0:30:24.6] And in fact, if you are a human being who is precisely gripped by powerful emotions and a victim of your emotions, and not yet mastered your passions and emotions, to then cut yourself off from the temporary stability of the precious jewel of the human body which is this close, in the respect of the overall ocean of evolution is that close to buddhahood, human being is like an angel, you know, from a Buddhist point of view, it’s so close to enlightenment. Of all life forms, it’s better than even a god’s life form. So, to cut yourself off from the temporary stability of human embodiment, with human intelligence and so forth, and throw yourself back to the sea of emotions where more likely you’re going to become a tarantula, a cockroach, a hell being or something, is the completely irrational thing. It’s like- if someone kills themselves thinking they have a bad headache, or they’re very ashamed, or they have some different problems, or they’re going to take vengeance on somebody, you know, punish somebody who ignored them in love or something, they are doing such harm to themselves they can’t even imagine, and it is so popular in the modern world it is a byproduct of materialism. It is very much a byproduct of the ideology that you are nothing, so therefore killing yourself is a kind of anesthetic. You’re going to become nothing as soon as, if you can just pull that trigger, then you’ll be nothing. There’ll be no further feeling, so it’s an attempt to anaesthetize you bad feeling, and it’s a completely confused thing to do because you’re just going to have so much more bad feeling. Do you follow me? So, whenever I hear an especially a young person or someone who kills themselves, it makes me so upset about the false ideology of materialism because, really, no matter how bad it got, a person who had conviction about karma, who saw the future life as just as real as you and I see going to lunch at noon, not a big truth belief in some mystic thing, I mean, the future of a few hours from now we’re going to go have lunch, is not a big mystic thing to us. But we all think we’re going to do it. So if people felt that way about future life, almost no one would ever commit suicide. It would be too irrational. Rimpoche: Thank you. Can I add one more, please? On the other hand, (Laughs) if you can sure, guarantee you’re going to be a better life, next going to be definitely a better, then you may do so. That is totally different status, a different level. And also, I’d like to add one more here. Not only a question, but anybody would like to comment, please speak and welcome. We had the lady here first.

[0:33:10.8] RT: That’s true, but I want to- I have one more thing about this. Then we’ll commentate. And that is, on the other hand, such a spiritual person, such as Rimpoche has in mind, there were certain Tibetan lamas, who when they were taken by the Chinese communists to be beaten up, or even worse, the villagers, their own devotees would be forced at gunpoint to beat them up and spit on them and this kind of thing. There are many stories of such lamas who simply just didn’t inhale. They would sit down, say thank you very much, light some incense, and they would not take another breath, that’s all, They wouldn’t even go choke or do anything weird, they just would not take another breath. So they would in a sense leave their body. But what I want to say is, I don’t call that suicide. Why? Suicide means self-killing. Self, for such a person, their self, their living relative self, not some ultimate self, but their ultimate self is a spiritual self that have no way killed. They have simply moved away from associating with a certain body. They’ve achieved a stage where their way of identifying themselves- they have a body of dharma. A spiritual body that they moved into a better place, because this place was going to be cause of other people’s suffering, and they want to teach those materialists communist soldiers something, and they wanted to save their people from the what the people would feel was a terrible sin of beating up on such a holy person. Or else getting killed by refusing to do it, you see? I just want to say that I don’t call that suicide. I don’t want that to be used to say well, Buddhists condone suicide in certain circumstance, because such a person is not at all committing suicide. I mean, if you and I have the ability of the mastery of, not only the emotions, but also the autonomic nervous system, where we could just stop breathing without even choking, just happily don’t take air because other people need it. That’s the definition of enlightenment, not a definition- and a person like that could not commit suicide, they have a boundless life, basically. Excuse me, okay that’s the last- unless you want to say- Rimpoche: No, no. Audience: The other thing that I would like to throw into this RT: Yes. Audience: Since we’re kind of into debating, what about the moral implications of quite the reverse, which is arbitrarily deciding to prolong a life that should be over? Which medical science not only can, but does do, in excruciating agony every day. For instance, years ago, the old person’s friend was a form of galloping pneumonia, they got sick, and instead of being in agony to the last minute, they would get pneumonia, die in a day. We can prevent that now with antibiotics. Then when they really get in agony, we can put them on machines, we can put them on IVs, we can keep that shell going almost forever. What are the moral implications of the people who choose to do that, and what about the choice of the person who says, I don’t choose for that to happen to me, I will take action before those people take over. Because once you’re in your hands, they got you. And you have no rights, and they will keep that shell breathing as long as they choose to, to cover their ass from the legal system. RT: Right.

[0:36:14.4] You want to go? I have two things but you do too. Rimpoche: You go ahead. RT: Well, the Tibetan doctor of my friend used to get this question quite a bit. And there’s two contradictory answers about it in some sense. First of all, he would say to shock people, and he admitted he didn’t do it just to shock people, but it did shock people, he would say, actually, human life is so precious, and, one doesn’t actually know what a person in a coma, you know like brain dead, you know? One doesn’t even know that inside their subtle nervous system, in their heart chakra, their soul, let us say, is integrating certain input and output, and certain events from their lives, and if they even stay a year there, they may actually develop something, out of their rest of their human life on some subtle consciousness level that is very, very, valuable. And so, developing a technological ability, and even using it out of a reverence for life is fundamentally in tune with the preciousness of human life, and it’s incredibly valuable, even if it costs millions, whatever it is, fundamentally it’s totally great. And it’s excellent, okay? Now on the other hand, so that would be one thing, people get very disappointed who are looking for some rule to use against the legal system. But then on the other hand, of course, he would then quote the fact that in the history of Tibet, surgery, which was inherited from India, from Buddhist medicine from India, in a very refined way, I’m talking about brain surgery, complicated, all sorts of complicated surgery, was done even in Buddha’s time. And the tools, and the equipment, and even anesthetic and thing, exists in the Indian and Tibetan medical texts long before supposedly invented here and there in the West. But surgery was discontinued at a certain stage in Tibet for a certain reason. Namely, that in the process of a person’s dying, the way their consciousness withdraws from the subtle, into the subtle nervous system, and then in the subtle nervous system goes sort of certain ways, there are good and bad ways of doing that. In general if the consciousness goes down, in the subtle nervous system, it’s generally bad, can tend to lead to a bad rebirth. If it generally goes up, it leads to like phowa, you know, it leads to good rebirth. Now, these subtle channels, if the person is like heart surgery or something, their nerve system is cut a lot, scar tissue, blockage, so forth, flesh put in the wrong places, nervous system tampered with, it could disturb that process of dying, and it might be better for a person to die with their body untampered with for their next life, than to have a few more years of this life with a screwed up nervous system. So he would say, therefore, sometimes these technological interventions shouldn’t be used, even though they might get a little more life in this physical body out of it, because it would disturb the process of dying and therefore ruin future lives. So he would this two kinds of answers. And then, we are still left with the inquiry of individual cases, how much suffering is in fact produced, what other people are suffering and causing by that, and you get into this area, which is mahayana ethics of life and death where it’s a kind of- individual cases have to be, as they say, only a buddha finally can understand the full scale karma of something. So one has to really develop, again, enlightenment to be really sure. In short of that, one should use one’s reason in individual cases as best as one can.

[0:39:58.0] But there’s no dogmatic answer that this will settle it and you can just, oh yes, let this one die, and that one not. You can’t do that. At least, so far I didn’t discover that. Perhaps Rimpoche has something. Rimpoche: Can I add one more? Sorry. One more comment on this. I don’t want to go, I mean- this historical reasons, and all this sort of thing are very nice. Wonderful. Generally, human life is so important, very precious we all know. What does human being means? (Speaks In Tibetan to RT) The definition of a human being is one who can speak and one who can understand. Speak means not only making noise, but one who can communicate with the other through sound, through a certain ways. And who can understand. Right? So that is the general definition of human being. And if you have that, you have the value of human being. If you are losing that, okay, now you may see (Inaudible) [0:41:24.4] that and them and all this sort of thing. But they may not be able to communicate through speech but can communicate through other ways. Write, physical signing, all this, I mean there are ways and means of doing it. However, when you are having something like sixty, generally I’m talking, I’m not avoiding debate, okay? Generally it’s a true statement. Generally, when you go something like sixty to seventy percent of the quality is even you don’t have full hundred percent, or if you have sixty, seventy percent quality is there, it is the human being, you should save it. If you have no understanding for whatsoever, you have no communication for whatsoever, neither you can communicate to them, nor they can communicate to you, it simply does the pumping of the air with the machine, I think it’s totally useless. Not only a useless waste of the- I mean, I don’t believe the doctors have a moral right to do that, because this is somebody else’s life. It’s not his or her life. Even his or her life, I do not know whether they have the right. Number one. Number two. How do we know he or she is keeping that person in life? What proof do you have that it’s still in life? What reason can you give that piece of vegetable is human being? RT: But Rimpoche, I have to debate that one, one point, only. On this same point. When a person is sound asleep- Rimpoche: That’s different. RT: The senses are not functioning, they are not communicating, but yet, they could be visiting pure land and talking to Buddha in dream. Rimpoche: Yes, yes. I don’t deny that. RT: Now, a person in a coma could be, have dream existence, like dream type of existence short of the bardo existence, which is another dream type of existence, but a kind of bardo or between stage intermediate between state existence, still connected to human body given certain stability because still connected to former shell, of human body, and if you gave them more time, they meet Buddha, they might attain three principle path, they might finish this that sutra, you can’t say, but can you say no?

[0:44:04.5] Rimpoche: No. I can say something. (All laugh) I cannot say no, but I can say something, provided if that person is going to be functioning again, then you can definitely consider it. But, how- 99.9% that person is not going to be functioning again. And when that’s not going to function again, I mean, it’s almost that individual it is the next step. As a matter of fact, I do not really believe they’re holding it. They are holding the human consciousness in that. It's very hard for me to buy, the human consciousness is holding there. And it is very much possible those spirits around, what we call the talk yesterday, that rin je (Tibetan word) [0:45:05.9] What you call those? RT: The sort of birth associated spirit. Rimpoche: Birth associated spirits, they are definitely around. I doubt it very much whether that individual’s around. If that individual’s around, that individual cannot remain unconscious for very long time either this way or that way, they have to do it, unless the person is highly developed and he has all the airs collected and shug ne (?) [0:45:41.0] stabilized, then it’s different matter. Otherwise, it is almost impossible to remain there. (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:45:53.8] those associated- RT: Associated spirits. Rimpoche: Okay, I normally go simultaneously born, but sort of associated spirits, they’re always hiding beyond, they’re always looking for identity, they’re always looking for shelter. (Audio cuts and starts) And that can remain for years together. For years together they can remain because they find shelter where they can hide. RT: So point is, this gives you an example of how Buddhism is a realm of discourse where you can debate and discuss these matters. And it’s very interesting the angles it brings, it brings like spiritual angles, but yet it still remains an undissolved and unresolved question. It’s a matter of debate. I would still maintain even the body is intensely valuable. Keep it permanently, if you could. If you could afford it, the whole society just sit and pray for that person, that would be ideal. That’s practically you couldn’t sometimes, and Rimpoche would have his reservations. But Buddhism will not, in other words, dogmatically answer this one way or another. Rimpoche: She’s been waiting for a while. RT: Yes? Audience: I had a very agonizing experience. It’s almost like reality to me. I was- I had a an experience where somehow you could call it a dream- I was dying on the operating table, and I was anesthetized. I had a tumor of the brain, but the experience was such agony, there was this anesthesia, and I was dying in such a circumstances. And then, the next thing I know I’m being exposed and embalm the body and the same twenty four hours, the body is buried. So the people put out the body and the (Inaudible) [0:47:57.7] and still flesh decaying and I had to get to the people to take me back to the operation table and was crying all the time, you know, to get someone to tell them please, put me back. Put me back, because if not, I never leave this horror of mine. And someone in that case was a gentleman, an old gentleman, who experiences this. And he is telling the doctors, you have to, but she is dead, and he said. And then, to show that I was not dead, I grabbed the hand and everybody got so frightened. They said that they would take me, even though I was diagnosed dead they would still take me back to the operations table. And I was telling this experiences and when you take me, take off everything from me because wherever it will go it will live. And they do it and then I’m at peace. Rimpoche: Good. Well, that is different, totally different. That is good thing.

[0:48:59.7] And that’s what happens, and because when your physical rough bodies are not, rough elements are not functioning but your subtle elements are functioning, so you’re not that at all. People do make- lot of doctors do make mistake on that. I mean, that’s what, one thing I always cried for is, I mean- now it is better. In a few years ago, I used to say that, you know. When you stop breathing, that doesn’t mean people is dead, for sure. And that was the diagnosis of death for the, as far as the medical doctor’s concerned few years ago, right? Now they talk about brain dead and this and that. And I’m not sure whether that is either great or not. I’m still not sure. I mean, to know the people really that is very hard. And also people who are dead already it’s also tell them and it’s still alive it’s also, it’s really, it’s very tricky and very hard. But person has to be really well qualified, and qualified not only in the Western medical sense, but qualified in all the ways. You know, spiritual sense and medical sense, both. Then such a person I think can really judge. Truly speaking, that is very hard, and almost impossible. But, still. It is possible. RT: By the way, and parenthetically- Rimpoche: And beside that, I mean, I have number of people, number of friends who have been sort of they call themselves dead and come back. I mean, your experience is interesting experience. But I have person who go much beyond that. Much more than that, you know, much more than that. Beyond that. Sort of really almost like, maybe I exaggerate if I say days, but sort of, you know, really long way is gone. And they come back and tell you all the relate their experience, what had happened during that period and all this. And I have quite a number of them. Really. So, it is very hard, really to judge when this person really died. I mean, stop breathing, and no more pulse here, or no more pulse there is definitely not sign of death. For sure. But you cannot go on and say prolong and say, you know, you keep on pumping a machine there and gorr, gorr, gorr, all the time you can’t do that. I don’t believe that’s either right to- yes? RT: I just wanted to say one thing about what she was saying. Okay, just one second. You’re not saying that you actually died and came back, you were talking abut a dream you had, right? Audience: I had the way I could never be happy. It was a horror- RT: But what you’re to describe was a dream, not an experience of dying. It was a dream. I just wanted to make- he was understanding it was an actual- Rimpoche: Oh, it’s actually- RT: That’s A, and B, second footnote, and we’ll go on with the death description. Second footnote is that in Tibetan way, in Buddhist way, they have huge volumes of dream interpretation texts, you know, in the medical system, also in tantric system they have many dream interpretations things. And in the categories of dream interpretation, a dream of dismemberment of being taken apart in some way, is considered very, very, auspicious, and very excellent, not bad. Am I right, Rimpoche? Rimpoche: Yes. RT: It means taking apart all the structure of habitual ignorance and so forth, and somehow getting new life. So therefore, such dreams of being taken apart, even sometimes even dreams of dying in certain ways are good dreams. That means getting rid of impurities and things. Even though they may be difficult and rough to go through, they are considered very, very auspicious, generally.

[0:53:23.9] Am I right? I just wanted to make the footnote and excuse me, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Audience: Even that they’re in any system, call it religion, whatever, there are no absolute answers to any question. Rimpoche: No. Audience: They’re open to debate and to reason. In Buddhism then, what is the role of conscience in terms of moral choices? Do they recognize intuition, conscience, and following one’s conscience, since the mind is very limited in the way it can deal with things of life and death (Inaudible) [0:54:05.0] RT: Yeah, well, conscience is the- conscience and also what you could call a sense of shame, namely that a socially oriented and an internally oriented sense of self-monitoring of one’s actions and faults are two very important mental faculties and mental functions in Buddhism, especially in the ethical teachings. And in other words, not doing- restraining negative tendencies because of being observant of one’s self, that’s how conscience is defined. A shame is restraining it because of feeling that others will be offended, and so forth, to avoid the disapproval of others. Both are considered very positive mental functions. Sem jung (?) [0:54:52.0] And they are of the eleven virtuous mental functions in one type of analysis, they are two of the most important of them. And so, and conscience is a kind of internal, critical faculty of observing yourself, and being mindful of what you do and not only what you do, or what you say, and what you think, because all of those are kinds of actions. So they have a very powerful role. However, that role, if you mean, is there some sort of way of claiming that one can now do something because of some internal intuitive feeling that it’s not right, have to do something else, then that’s not exactly- it isn’t that conscience is something separate from what can be debated, what can be publicly determined, what public reason the public discourse- so it’s an internal discourse, it is an internalization of the public discourse. It’s still, Buddhism is fundamentally very scientific. Even spiritual level. Buddhism has a very powerful spiritual science. It believes that the invisible matters, the psychological matters, the spiritual matters, can be scientifically investigated and rationally understood, and try to- even, for example, elements that you find that you say, well, you can’t understand, you have to just experience, but you can come to that as an understanding. So, the Buddha was really the supreme we say in Buddhism, inner scientist. Internal, or interior scientist. He was the ultimate psychologist in the sense of, did not say- you know, in the West when you say spiritual, you think, oh that’s sort of realm of religion, sort of mysticism, sort of murky kind of thing no one can figure it out, and material, that’s where science works. That’s not the case in the Buddhist civilization. Science is wisdom, wisdom is coming to understand the nature of reality, its subtle and invisible elements and aspects as well as the visible and coarse aspects.

[0:56:48.3] So conscience is simply the internalization of as much wisdom as one can get, and it is a very important factor ethically, and the highest cause the person who has become enlightened will then have kind of ultimate conscience in a way. Rimpoche: Yes Sir? Audience: I want to go back for a moment if I can, to the prime mental activities? Rimpoche: Good. Audience: As I grapple with it, I also had a sort of preliminary question in terms of the fundamental activity of all living beings. So to me that includes, small organisms, large organisms and so forth. RT: Prime mental activity. (Speaks to Rimpoche in Tibetan) [0:57:42.9] Audience: And while I could, sort of intellectually relate to the answer you gave, you know, selflessness, in terms of going inside and saying what is my prime mental activity that was common to all living beings, fundamental. I come out with something like, is the capacity to sense or perceive in some basic way, which is the capacity to take in something that is not self. And that in a sense, in the pure form of perception without any overlays, that there then, it’s like hearing a bell ringing or something, where is the sounds? That’s what I make out of it. RT: I think that’s great. That’s very illuminating. (Rimpoche speaks to RT in Tibetan) What he says I think it’s very, very correct. Rimpoche is relating there is a kind of a, what is your doctrine that you’re talking about, de me sem. What did you mean by that, then? Rimpoche: I don’t know. RT: That original thought, he’s talking about a certain doctrine of certain sects that talk about some kind of original thought, which he says is rejected philosophically in some other school. And he’s worrying if this is that. But I’m saying it isn’t. But, how would you describe that original thought? Rimpoche: I don’t know. RT: It’s a kind of primordial- well, I can describe that thought that’s rejected. What that thought is, that idea of original thought is, that it’s a kind of exaggeration of the doctrine of buddha nature, so as to say, that somehow everyone is fundamentally enlightened, which is a little bit similar to what we’re saying, but it’s saying that that fundamental enlightenment is so overwhelmingly prior, that there need be no effort achieved to become enlightened. In other words, you just quiet- it leads to, sort of, again, don’t think, just dismiss your thoughts, make no effort to virtue, and you will be buddha. That is what is rejected about- he’s referring to certain doctrine that arose, and its related to this doctrine that we’ve also been critical of about just, don’t think, just be thoughtless. You know faultless meditation is enough to achieve enlightenment. It connects with that. That is the fault with that. But this idea that is in this sutra and many other mahayana sutras, is the idea that, enlightenment is not to be found from outside, it’s inner nature of a being, it’s like the buddha nature theory, because each being is emptiness. Each being is shunyata as buddha nature is defined by (Inaudible) [1:01:37.2] shunyata.

[1:01:39.5] So, in that sense, this is what is means. (Rimpoche discusses with RT in Tibetan) Yes, yes, don’t confuse everyone. (Rimpoche laughs) High Buddhist metaphysics, you know, this is too much. Rimpoche: Okay I’ll keep quiet. RT: No, no. I don’t mean to keep you quiet. Well, go ahead, you wanted to- Rimpoche: No, no. I think it would really confuse them. RT: Within the idealistic, you see there are schools of idealism, relativism, nominalism… there are very elaborate philosophical schools of Buddhism. He’s referring to different subdivisions within the buddha nature theory, that natural buddha nature- (Discusses with Rimpoche in Tibetan) and the transformative, or transformed, buddha nature, and this is within the idealistic school especially developed, the school of idealism, which is not considered the ultimate school, it’s like an interpretable school, the ultimate one rejects those differences. This is kind of complications I think will drive you all mad. But what he’s saying is very interesting, Rimpoche, I think you- Rimpoche: I couldn’t understand. RT: No, what he said was, the fact that a being if alive, if you think that a fundamental characteristic is alive- something like you said about a human being is that they can perceive something. You know they have awareness. One fundamental characteristic of awareness is, before you sort of make a whole thing out of being aware of something, you sort of opened up to what is not yourself. You follow me? In other words, when you perceive something, you sort of open receive something that isn’t yourself. You know, it’s like, a sight, if something comes into you, you open up to something that is not yourself. That is like a fundamental way of describing what is awareness, if you want to say. Do you follow me? Similarly, to communicate, you said the definition of human is to communicate, communicate would mean to somehow be relating to something that is not yourself. To communicate, why would you communicate if everything was yourself? Communicate means relating to something that is not yourself. So therefore, what he wanted to say, his way of understanding this was, that therefore, if a fundamental characteristic of life is to relate to what is not self. (Rimpoche speaks in Tibetan) [1:03:57.0] Something like that, yes. What is not the self- (Rimpoche speaks in Tibetan to RT) Rimpoche: Is that so? RT: What? No, no. He’s not saying that. He’s saying that if a fundamental characteristic of life- Rimpoche: Somewhere I’m totally confused. RT: I know, I know. Because you’re worrying about some high philosophical matters, instead of simple things. What is the- in other words, to see something which is not yourself is a fundamental characteristic of life, in that sense every being at all times is therefore automatically being selfless just by being alive. Not being rigidly stuck in themselves. For example, a kind of sickness what is called psychosis, you know what is certain mental disease a person who is completely shut off the world, you could hit them on the head, they don’t know, they have a kind of samadhi, where they close themselves up in themselves completely. They can’t recognize anything not themselves.

[1:04:51.3] It’s a kind of disease that leads to death, actually. They can’t eat finally, they won’t be able to digest food, even if they eat it their blood won’t metabolize it. And they actually die. So he’s saying if a fundamental characteristic of living beings, is to be able to be selfless, then to say that the liberation of the buddhas which is selflessness, is the prime mental activity of all beings, you mean that beings in their living mind are enacting selflessness, whether or not they are ignorantly thinking that they are a big self, and the other, et cetera, et cetera. This is what he’s trying to say. Rimpoche: So we answered already. RT: What? No, there’s no answer, he was making, that’s not an answer. Are you now claiming to be confused, too? (Laughter) Rimpoche: I’m still confused. RT: You’re claiming to be confused. So what is confusion? Rimpoche: Ignorance. (RT laughs) RT: No. Rimpoche: Do you want to say some more, or no? That’s what you really want to say, okay. As you already said, there’s no really (Speaks to RT in Tibetan) I don’t really think there is an answer for that. Really, I don’t know. I think it is right. It is sort of basic fundamental- I hate to say the nature is a pure wonderful, yet, sort of you know, original nature is beautiful, shining, wonderful all this, yet it’s sort of covered with the delusions and occlusions, like that of sky, the sky is empty, beautiful green- or blue (Laughs) and suddenly the clouds come and cover it and all this, when the cloud dries away it is by nature it is space is wonderful and beautiful. But if you think human nature in that manner, I hesitation, I have hesitation for that. RT: Oh! So, therefore, what is this hesitation, Rimpoche? You think every people should be originally ignorant then? Rimpoche: Well, what this detail is about this you know, human nature is a capability of developing as a fully, well let me call it potential- rik, the potentiality, the potential is there, excuse me by the way, if you do not understand what I’m talking, because I never learned this language, okay. RT: No excuses and pretentions about English, onward! Rimpoche: No, no really. RT: Everyone understands. Rimpoche: Please stop me and raise hand. It’s really good, you know, please. Because if you still pretend you know what I’m saying, if you do not, so just it’s not very good. So the potential is there. RT: Yes? Rimpoche: And, human has the potential to develop as a total enlightenment. And that’s why we have to work, and meditate, and put on, put efforts and all this. But it is by nature, it is the pure. It's a fully developed from the beginning. It’s a beautiful nature. Then the delusions it has covered. And what guarantee do we have, again we work hard and purify and obtained enlightenment and all this, but again, what guarantee do we have it’s not covered again? Like a dust is? You know, I got a car I drive around, and I clean it up, right? And a few days later, and it gets dust again. Then that goes and clean it up once again. And then it gets dusted again. RT: Wait, wait, don’t jump up into analogy now. You say there is potential, but where then does potential come from?

[1:09:09.5] What is source of potential? Rimpoche: the rik re RT: Well, what does that mean? That’s just you’re saying nature. But what is from nature, the rik re nature? Rimpoche: Yeah. It is the human nature. RT: What nature? Human nature? Ultimate reality is human nature? True reality? Ultimate? Rimpoche: What do you mean ultimate reality? RT: That’s what I’m saying you say nature, human potential for enlightenment is because of nature, what is that nature? Rimpoche: It is the nature- it’s not only a human nature, it is nature of all sentient beings have it. RT: Yes, and what is that nature? What is that nature? Rimpoche: It is the sort of seed. RT: What is that seed? Rimpoche: It is the seeds to be developed. RT: But what is that seed? It can be developed, not developed, but what is it? Rimpoche: It is the seed of virtue. It is sort of (Inaudible) [1:10:04.5] RT: Is ultimate nature, is the seed of virtue? Of any seed, is it so that is has intrinsic reality as seed? Rimpoche: What do you mean by- RT: Rangshyin. (Inaudible) [1:10:12.3] Is rangshyin de trupa a seed? Rimpoche: Rangshyin (Answers in Tibetan) RT: It has no intrinsic reality as seed, then. No. But what is its intrinsic reality then? Rimpoche: It is emptiness. RT: Emptiness! Rimpoche: Yes, but- RT: Ah ha! Rimpoche: No, no. RT: Then all beings are emptiness. Rimpoche: It is nature of emptiness. RT: Yes? Rimpoche: But I don’t claim that as emptiness. RT: But it is emptiness. Rimpoche: No, it is nature of emptiness, but it’s not empty. RT: Emptiness is not empty? Rimpoche: No. Certainly not. RT: Then the teaching of Nagarjuna of emptiness of emptiness is a false teaching? Rimpoche: No. It is right teaching because- RT: Ha! Rimpoche: emptiness is not empty, that’s why you have that. RT: Because emptiness is not empty, you have teaching of the emptiness of emptiness? Rimpoche: Yes because emptiness is not empty. RT: (Exasperated) So many contradiction! (Audience laughs) Rimpoche: That seed, what I’m planting, is a nature of emptiness. Okay? It is the nature of emptiness. RT:…Yes? Rimpoche: But if you say, is this empty, I say no. Because it is the seed. It is available. RT: Well, if you say it is empty, you say no, but you don’t mean- Rimpoche: It is nature of empty. RT: yeah, but that nature of empty itself is also empty. Rimpoche: It’s not a complete zero. RT: Is nature of empty not empty then? Rimpoche: Yeah. RT: Nature empty is non-empty? Rimpoche: Yes, sure. RT: Nature of emptiness is not empty? Rimpoche: Yes. Audience: I agree. (Laughter) RT: That doesn’t help! Buddha and Nagarjuna do not agree. Rimpoche: That is support! Rt: Why do you not agree? Audience: Because we say that how do you originate good, it’s came from emptiness? Tell me, then how would you originate good? The good is in the nirvana. How would you originate, give me an explanation of it.

[1:12:08.9] RT: You do not originate good. Good you do not originate, although you have to say what you mean by good, if you mean good as the opposite of bad, then good originates itself in the sense that there is a beginningless lineage of good in the universe. There’s no first origination of good. However, not to jump onto that point, nature of emptiness, the essence of emptiness being empty, is precisely that it is not a solid emptiness, that is precisely what allowed good and bad also to exist. But now, what Rimpoche is doing, you see, Rimpoche is very uncomfortable with the idea of the notion of primordial emptiness, primordial liberation, this idea, although this is a statement that is in many Buddhist sutras. Many. Buddha himself talks about prakiti paramita ta (?) [1:13:02.4] rangshyin... He talks in many of his sutras, but Rimpoche says uncomfortable with this, because he’s afraid people will take this to mean, that they can just without any effort, sort of sink back, and they’re going to be enlightened. This is the reason why he doesn’t like, he hates to say it, he doesn’t like it, he wants to talk about potential. He wants people to do a lot of hard work. Okay? Agreed. Agreed. (Rimpoche laughs) But the point is, all hard work would be without fruit, if it were not that the actual nature originally to be realized, was not in fact enlightenment, was not in fact emptiness. If that was not the true nature of things, emptiness, then you could not ever come to its realization. Just like- so we have to make the distinction that we’re observing here is this. There really a difference between emptiness and the realization of emptiness. If the prime mental activity is that unconscious awareness of emptiness, which is what I would interpret it to mean- Rimpoche: And also the emptiness and nothingness. RT: That’s a core difference, too. Rimpoche: That’s what I mean. RT: No, but you have- you’re emptiness which is not empty, is a nothingness, that’s all you have. Rimpoche: No, no, I’m- RT: That’s what you have! Rimpoche: I’m saying that. Yeah, nothingness. It’s not nothingness. RT: No, but when you insist that your emptiness is not empty, then you’ve got nothingness. Rimpoche: No, no, no, no. RT: You have emptiness which is full of nothingness! Rimpoche: No, no, because I put something there, how can there be nothingness? (Laughs) RT: Yeah, but then that thing is something! Because you think nothing is something. Rimpoche: No. Nothing is nothing. RT: Nothing! (Laughs) Rimpoche: When you have something there, it’s not nothing. Because something’s there. RT: That’s right. Rimpoche: So therefore, emptiness has something there. It is not nothingness. RT: No, emptiness actually- Audience: Well, something is there. Rimpoche: Yes, something’s there because not nothing! Audience: Can I pull it back to something- (Inaudible, Laughter) [1:15:04.3] Rimpoche: I think you know what they want is full participant, otherwise you know, there’s not so much purpose.

[1:15:11.4] Audience: When I was talking about awareness of perception- RT: Yes? Audience: In order to be aware, to experience awareness, there has to be emptiness. Otherwise, there’s no awareness, it’s all full. So, if the prime activity, at least that I come down to, is the awareness is only possible in emptiness. And that the development is the realization of the act- it is sort of like a realization of that whole process. (Rimpoche speaks to RT in Tibetan and laughs) But not the same judgment (Inaudible) [1:16:04.4] RT: Conscious emptiness. Audience: Unconscious. RT: Unconscious emptiness. Yeah, well, I think, I’m arguing that Buddha’s vision- (Rimpoche speaks to RT in Tibetan) Yeah, that’s right. Sure, we all agree on that. [1:16:34.4] He’s sneakily talking in Tibetan, Rimpoche, you can talk in English. Now- Rimpoche: One minute, let me just say, he is, in a way, you are right, because when there is no emptiness and awareness, and there is no possibility of pointing empty and awareness. For example, like that of east mountain and west mountain. If there is no east, there cannot be west mountain. You know, eastern wall and western wall. Eastern wall is possible because there is west. If there is no west, there cannot be east. So they’re dependent. They are dependent arise. Okay. (Laughs) Arising because of their dependent. And awareness and emptiness is also such a thing. It depends to each other. Okay. When you understand that that dependent arise- let me catch here, okay? When you understand the dependent arise, it is the beginning of a moving through a right direction to understand the emptiness. RT: So that is prime mental activity of all beings, you said it now. You got it. All beings primarily understand relativity or dependent arising. You couldn’t be alive without understanding relativity, or dependent arising. So that’s what Buddha is saying. Rimpoche: Fine. RT: And, as you know, dependent arising and relativity is in fact, emptiness. Synonymous. Rimpoche: That’s right. RT: So we have no problems. Rimpoche. No problem. Because we have to take that- (RT laughs) otherwise you cannot argue. When we cannot argue, we cannot come to that. RT: Right. Relationality is the fundamental characteristic of life, but mental activity means some kind of awareness of relationality. Not well articulated. And also, the notion of primary, Rimpoche, does not mean as you think in Tibetan Buddhism, some sort of primordial. Rimpoche: Yeah, yeah, yeah well that’s- RT: Primary means all is covered over by secondary. Secondary means, mine, I me, egotism. Rimpoche: Well, I have a very limited knowledge of English, so whether I understand primary, you know, really- RT: The excuse! Yeah I’m sure. (Both laugh) Rimpoche: Yeah, really. RT: What were you going to say? Audience: This may be a simple connection back. You two have been talking, you’ve been context and content, talking about matter and void. Last night two of us were having a discussion. Is content or context the matter or the void? If you were going to create some equations there?

[1:19:34.4] Rimpoche: One person go first. RT: The context content dichotomy was in relationship to the fact that we are trying to learn the path of love and compassion and through its Tibetan quintessence, while dwelling in the home of Vimalakirti. This is sort of symbol of this event, right? So context is the home, the place where our dwelling is the home of Vimalakirti. We’re still in the zero room, in fact now, you could say. Empty room. And content is the teaching of the path. So, yeah, you could take matter and voidness, and you could do either with- you could put either in either. You could say that voidness is only the content of the material framework of reality, that once you’re stuck in the notion of materiality, that then you see the essence of that materiality as voidness. Voidness, why it is the essence of materiality? It’s because materiality is fundamentally relationality. Even though material things seem to be independently existing, clearly none of them can exist without relationality. Voidness does not really mean a big nothingness at all, it means relativity. Their pure relationality means there’s nothing, no non-relational core in anything. That’s what voidness means. So say matter is voidness means that matter is devoid of its apparent independence. Voidness as matter means voidness is devoid of its apparent independence. Voidness is not non-void. And that therefore, since it is not non-void, it is nothing, and it is actually just matter. So that means this floor (Thumps floor) is actually voidness. We are in shunyata. This is nirvana. Voidness and nirvana are synonymous. And this is nirvana (Knocks on floor). We’re not going to like, blow this up somehow, destroy it, see through it, fade out of it, and fly off into voidness. This all here is voidness. All of it. What? (Rimpoche speaks to RT in Tibetan) [1:21:53.1] Yes. But just a minute. Don’t, don’t, don’t be mean. (Rimpoche laughs) Now, so therefore, you could make matter and or voidness completely simultaneous, you see? That’s why voidness is none other than that, that why its making that point. But it’s because- it’s basically just a dichotomy. So you don’t have to want to come up with a rigid alignment, one is context, one is content. Because they’re both mutually relational dichotomies. They have no meaning one without another. Sideline here, we had a thing, you mean emptiness is the same as nirvana? In some sense, dharmakaya, nirvana, emptiness, ultimate reality, uncreated, are of course all more or less, same vein of negational expression referring to ultimate reality. Rimpoche: Shen je (?) (Rimpoche speaks in Tibetan) [1:22:47.4] RT: Well, on some level, they’re all in the same area. They come from different contexts towards same unreal reality. Rimpoche: I don’t want to do it now (Laughter) RT : Then we’ll take a break because we had a good long time of this, we will take a break, although actually you look like you really have something on the tip of your tongue?

[1:23:10.5] Audience: I was just going to ask you this simultaneous perception of voidness and matter mentally purification in common? RT: It’s the most ultimate method. Most ultimate, but most difficult. Rimpoche: But I don’t think simultaneous contents and what you call it? Context and voidness- RT: Doesn’t matter, any such thing. Absolute and relative. Rimpoche: Yeah, absolute and relative. Simultaneous viewing is only available at enlightened level. Simultaneous viewing that. RT: Only available. However, Rimpoche- (Rimpoche quotes in Tibetan) [1:23:50.5] RT: Yes, yes, yes, but- you’re the first to say however, that the procedure of imitating that simultaneity is the supreme short of buddhahood, path. Now- (Answers in Tibetan) but what’s called the divisibility of appearance and voidness? (Rimpoche answers in Tibetan) RT: Ah ha! It’s not like that! (Rimpoche and RT laugh) Rimpoche: Okay, we stop here. RT: Okay. We’re not just playing around, I mean we’re trying to engage your own- the point is debate in Buddhism is crucial. Please don’t ever, I hope never to hear, oh, some empty scholars are going it’s A and B and C, it’s just some foolish game. It is not a game. After all, your own, what is your argument of your life? It is am I enlightened, am I not enlightened? Am I existing, am I not existing? Therefore, this is the recognition of the nature of our own mind. Our own binary minds. And it’s an ancient thing, not just Tibetan, it came from India. Buddha himself used to say, don’t accept what I tell you because I’m a buddha. Step on it, cut it, burn it, chop it up. Digest it with your analysis, and if it withstands your own use like a what, Rimpoche? Rimpoche: Gold. RT: Goldsmith, cutting, burning, rubbing its gold on touchstone, and then accept that gold. This is how to take what I say. Don’t just say, oh Buddha said it and I take it. That’s useless, Buddha used to say. Cause then you just you’ve given yourself up to some outside thing. Oh I believe this, oh I believe that, or I don’t believe it. You haven’t grown your own mind. Rimpoche: Can I add one more? Because without that, I don’t think you really have a spiritual development also much. Because everything, whatever you gain out of that is the brief understanding which are followed by somebody else’s words. But you don’t really understand your own. You know, even understanding, if you look carefully, the first you get one understanding, tu yung (Speaks in Tibetan) [1:26:15.3] RT: Yes, understanding born of hearing. Rimpoche: Born of hearing. And that itself is not a spiritual development. And when you utilize that, and think over it, argue over it, you can understand better sung jung (Tibetan term) [1:26:29.4] RT: Then this is called understanding or wisdom borne of reflection, and inquiry. Analysis, debate like this. Rimpoche: And then after that, you concentrate it and then you get real development. RT: Wisdom borne of meditation. So those three steps must go like that. Now we take a break. Rimpoche: But when you take a- when we have these discussions, please participate. And don’t you ever think, any question is stupid. I have something to have in my mind, but I think that may be stupid, so I’d better not say. Don’t do that. Then you’ll be really left behind. But whatever you have inquiry, it is intelligent inquiry, always, so don’t hesitate, just raise it, okay? RT: So we’ll take a break for ten minutes and then we’ll do a little bit Vimalakirti a little bit compassionizing after stop today.