Archive Result

Soundfile 19870100GRRTOMLOVCOM_09

Speaker Gelek Rimpoche/Robert Thurman

Location Omega Institute

Topic Love and Compassion

Transcriber Jill Neuwirth

Date 6/5/2024

RT: …when it gets too integrated, you know, when you think it over, reflect upon it, it integrates. Now, we begin with the three principles of the path, one short session of three principles of the path. Content, and then we close in context. (Speaks in Tibetan with Rimpoche) [0:00:49.6] So, he’s referring back to leisure and opportunity are hard to get. And there is no time to life. Keep thinking on this, and you will turn off your interest in this life. (Rimpoche discusses with RT in Tibetan) [0:01:28.0] I’m sorry, contemplate the inexorability of evolutionary effects, and the sufferings of life over and over again, and you will turn off interest in future lives. (Rimpoche comments in Tibetan) Now, the next verse gives what is known as the criterion of having achieved the mind of renunciation. (Rimpoche quotes in Tibetan) [0:02:04.0] By constant meditation, your mind will not entertain even a moment’s wish for the successes of life, and you will aim for freedom all day and night, then you experience transcendent renunciation. Rimpoche: Okay, that is the sign. If you have that, you have developed renunciation. You don’t have that, you don’t have it. (Laughs) Too clear. So, till you get that, you have to work to gain that and use analytical, debate, importing information, analyzing them, thinking them. This is the really dealing with your life. I mean, our life, our daily affairs, our daily movement, our daily way of thinking, way of walking, functioning, dealing with people, everything. That’s what you really have to. If you are interested to be out of the samsaric which is the full of pains and miseries. If we want a way out of that, that is the one way. I cannot say this is the only way. I’m not going to claim that. But this a right way, for sure, because Buddha and many, I mean, thousands and thousands of the saints and sages and great pundits, and scholars, and teachers, up to now, up till this, up to this time, they have gone through this, experienced this, and developed. So definitely, this is a right way. I cannot say this is the only way. This is a right way. So, if you want to take that, that’s how you go. Okay? That is the- we have covered the first principle that is the renunciation. Right?

Second is, ne ju te (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:04:26.6] RT: Transcendence without the spirit of enlightenment cannot generate the supreme bliss of unexcelled enlightenment. Therefore, the bodhisattva conceives the supreme spirit of enlightenment. Rimpoche: Thank you. So, now what is that saying? Okay, with the renunciation, with the practice of renunciation, what you can achieve? You can achieve arhat level. You can achieve your own- I mean, your own, for personal purposes you have definitely achieved quite a lot. And you have gone beyond pains. I don’t say gone beyond sufferings. You can definitely go beyond pain permanently, okay. Samadhi, concentrated meditation can reduce the temporary pains. You cannot experience the pain, because you temporarily stopped. And your samadhi level can go up and up and up and up and up, like a seventeen levels. Su me shi (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:05:55.0] You can go up to the ultimate top. The ultimate top is almost like what we call it, du she me (Tibetan term) [0:06:04.8] RT: The samadhi beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. Or this peak of existence, apex of existence samadhi. Rimpoche: So all this you can go. And you can remain there harmony, transcendent- it’s not transcendental, it is a harmony, peaceful, pleasure, and without any disturbance, wonderful, you can remain there for a very, very, very long time. But, even you have remained there for aeons, not talking about years, but aeons. But you have not achieved any permanent solution. You have achieved temporary pleasure. But you have not achieved any permanent solution at all. So what happened is, the power of the samadhi, whatever you developed, can lose. Because it’s not permanent. When it’s lose, something happened. Say a rat comes and bites the- RT: The long hair. Rimpoche: The long hair over something it bites, or something happens, and you suddenly develop a anger, because you’re not cut it. So you can develop that, and that can cut everything down and you can get a fallback.

So, L(Tibetan name) a great (Asks RT in Tibetan) [0:07:51.3] RT: Arya asura. Rimpoche: He was in the different studies for a long time, and if I go and tell the story, it be too long. So finally, he had wrote after studying with Buddha, and after understanding he wrote a praise to Buddha, (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:08:17.6] RT: He said that if, in praising Buddha, he said if you follow the Buddha- if you just achieve samadhis, even though you reached the peak of samsara, if you do not have the proper view of reality, you can fall back into suffering. And if I follow your teaching, even though you don’t achieve such great samadhi, the samsaric existence gets destroyed anyway. (Rimpoche continues quoting in Tibetan) [0:08:55.5] Rimpoche: So this is the special quality where the Buddha offers to a permanent solution. You understand what I mean? So, so it is an important. That’s why it becomes important, analytical meditation. And if you do not have an analytical meditation, if you have only concentrated meditation, the concentrated meditation alone cannot cut. Cannot really do- I mean, this can give you a harmony, pleasure, you feel light, you feel light in your body, you feel light in your mind, you almost sit on the cloud, that’s all you can do that. You can get that much feelings and all this. The samadhis can bring it. However, it cannot give you a permanent solution. And if you waste our life, and if we waste our great opportunity and chance for such a thing, if we circulate it again, then it is a really wasteful. I mean, it is not like wasting couple of hundred dollars. If we lose a couple of hundred dollars, we feel sorry about it, we talk about if we lose couple of thousand dollars, we’ll go wild in hair, right? So, but on the other hand, it is no comparison. You have lose a life. You have lose opportunity which you had only once. Which does not come very often. So that is really wasteful. So one should really be aware of it. Now, okay, with that, renunciation, and here also you need emptiness. I’m not going to touch much of the emptiness part because the Vimalakirti is from the beginning to the end is full of emptiness, so don’t touch that much. But, so the emptiness is the wisdom. And other activities are method. So the always Buddhist recommended to carry on the two activities together. As Chandrakirti had said, kun zo (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:11:26.7] He has given the example of bird, when they have to cross ocean, need is two wings. The wing of the wisdom, and wing of the method.

[0:11:48.9] And he says, I don’t know. If you have only one wing, you go around. You don’t cut across. So, you need two. So you need method, and here, the method actually, whether you call that content or context, or whatever. But what I’m supplying to you is method. What professor is supplying you is the wisdom. So, the method and wisdom combined can cut the root of samsara. Can develop ignorance, all this you have to do it. Okay? So once you do it, your problem is solved. But, what about the people you care? What about the people you love most? People you care? First, forget about it. The other all living beings. Out of question. But what about the people you care? Your best friend. Your children. Your parents. Your brother. Your sister, your nearest and dearest. You see the problem on you? And they are in the same soup. And are you going to walk away and say goodbye? And I have obtained my state, and I don’t care, bye bye! Would you say that? Probably that’s bad. Am I right? How can you walk away? No way. It looks like that, but it is not possible. Not at all possible. So the next verse comes in. Han sa (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:13:48.8] Okay, not only that, we also said from the beginning, our ultimate goal is enlightenment. Even those who obtained arhat, what we call, let me call it hinayana, or you call it what? Individual vehicle. They introduce this nirvana as ultimate goal, but person who had obtained nirvana there cannot remain very long because there are other buddhas and bodhisattvas they need their help. They will come and one day and say, hey, you got enough quality, come on move now. Come on, come on, come on. So they have to go and work hard again. So then, it is like cutting across the river twice, we talked yesterday, right? You go this way, you go that way again. So it is better to go from the beginning and goes ultimate. We want the best. Who wants settle to a lower level? That also for a short period after sometime you have to work. So let us go from the beginning to the best level. So, up to here is absolutely necessary in order to go to higher. So that’s why this is the necessary part of it. Then, each that renunciation what you and I supposed to have developed now, it doesn’t have any influence of spirit of altruistic spirit of enlightenment. Altruistic spirit of enlightenment, if you don’t have any good work, virtue and nonvirtue, it is the basic guideline, right? Any virtue you do, will not go for the cause of enlightenment. This is interesting and important.

[0:16:04.4] If you have no influence of spirit of enlightenment, good work, whatever you do will not go for the cause of enlightenment. If you have no influence of the renunciation thought, the good work whatever you will do, will not go for the cause of nirvana even. That’s why it becomes a lucky karma. It’s called lucky karma. So nam ge (Tibetan term) [0:16:33.8] Lucky karma will bring result within the samsara, it will not even go for the cause of nirvana even. So that’s why how the motivation is important. We say the motivation is important, I told you. So now you can see how important it is. If you have motivated by a desire to liberation, then it go for the cause of nirvana. If you have motivation of the altruistic spirit of enlightenment, then it goes cause for the enlightenment. See you see how the motivation’s important. So ge zu (Quotes in Tibetan) [0:17:23.6] If it’s not influenced by the bodhicitta, it will not go for the cause of enlightenment. RT: That sentence without the spirit of enlightenment cannot generate the supreme bliss of unexcelled- Rimpoche: That’s right, supreme bliss of enlightenment, okay. Supreme bliss of enlightenment. So therefore, it is necessary to generate altruistic spirit of enlightenment, okay? So the next we tell you how to generate that. Okay? So, before that, altruistic spirit of enlightenment cannot be developed by saying it, or by talking, or by meditating along. It needs a lot of things. It needs good work, putting efforts, health, everything. So I’m- some people have also recommended also, yesterday, requested rather- what I was thinking of giving you the famous Tibetan mantra of om mani peme hung. It’s also introduce here, because that is the mantra of bodhisattva Avalokitesvara which you are reading in Vimalakirti- no! It is heart sutra. And Avalokitesvara is the like the Manjushri is the embodiment of wisdom, Avalokitesvara is embodiment of compassion and love. So, Maitreya is love, and Avalokitesvara is compassion. So we will introduce, I will introduce you the mantra. I do have some little present for mantra, but I left it in somewhere else and I hope you- I left in my bag in Professor’s house. So will bring it tomorrow and present you that. Well I think my twenty minutes I have used it. RT: Now are you going to give them om mani peme hung, let’s take five more minutes and do that.

[0:19:57.2] Rimpoche: Well, I do that tomorrow. RT: Oh you don’t want to give to them to recite? Rimpoche: You want to recite today? She wants to recite. RT: Yeah, so do it. Rimpoche: Well, this om mani peme hung is the very famous mantra which every Tibetans, Chinese, Japanese, and who else? Nepali, Mongolians, Indians, and everybody does that. Now very familiar with Europe and United States. I’m sure quite a number of you are familiar with that. And om mani peme hung, that is actually a mantra is actually om ma ni pad me hung. It’s not the money what you put in the pocket, okay? (Laughs) RT: Mani, m-a-n-i. Rimpoche: Would you mind please, thank you. Everybody have copies of that? This is important. That guideline I’d hate to (Inaudible) [0:21:13.2] it out. (Matthew passes out prayer) Matthew got the copies down? Good. We will be needing it next. Okay. Om mani padme hung. That is the mantra. Meaning of- RT: The P-A-D is usually just pronounced “pe” instead of “pad.” So the D is kind of suppressed so don’t be confused. Pe-me, like that instead of pad-me, by Tibetans. Rimpoche: And then the mantra is another quality of the mantra is the mantra, again here you the faith is very much counted again. And even you say wrong mantra, it works. Either you say the wrong spelling and wrong pronunciation, everything, but you have a strong mind, it really works. I give you one example here. Great Sakya Pandita and what is that other fellow’s name? tu chin dar char wa (?) [0:22:40.6] There was one siddhi called dar char wa (?) [0:22:46.9] and Sakya Pandita. Sakya Pandita is very famous scholar, and it is the last anti-Buddhist debate, they came to Tibet was this one. The Sakya Pandita, one fellow came up to debate a Buddhist thoughts. In traditionally in India, there’s always big debate goes on, and when they have the debate, they say, you know after whoever loses debate, they lose their sight. That means if there’s one Buddhist anti-Buddhist debate and the Buddhist shall lost, and he has to become anti-Buddhist. He have to give up and become his disciple and go. And vice versa. So they end up with this chap had come the last one, and this is Tibetans choose Sakya Pandita because he is learned scholar. So Sakya Pandita was sent to debate. And along with Sakya Pandita, one famous siddhi who had, tremendous magical power also was sent because in case of a magical thing. So what happened is, this fellow lost the debate, so he started flying in the air.

So (Tibetan name) [0:24:04.9] that fellow has a little dagger at his, on the belt. So he took the dagger out, om benza benza vajra khalili (?) [0:24:20.3] That was supposed to be the mantra. So he doesn’t say khalili khalili. He said chilly chilly. So he took that out and he put the dagger on the shadow, om benza chilly chilly, you know? And this fellow falls down, he can’t fly anymore, just falls down. So the Sakya Pandita thought about it. My god, he had such a developed so power, and saying the wrong mantra. (RT laughs) And if he says right mantra, would have been tremendously more powerful. Correctly. So the Sakya Pandita kept on saying that, telling, hey, you are saying it wrong. If you could do the wrong thing, but if you said rightly, say this much, you can do tremendous. So he asked Sakya Pandita, what is the right mantra? He said benza khalili khalili. So he had little doubt. So wherever he hid his dagger on the rocks. Whenever he would with mantra, it goes through. So he with doubt he said benza khalili khalili, it won’t go, so he said nya benza chilly chilly. He said even before I always said chilly chilly and in the future I will also say chilly chilly so it goes, you know? (Rimpoche laughs) That’s how it works. Not only that, in India, there’s a one fellow, and one very famous Zen scholar, and somebody went to that fellow and say, please give me a teaching. So, this is a traditional Tibetan taught, I mean, it’s going on generations, okay, through the teachings we get. So, when this fellow go, this teacher has been irritated for a little while, and he said mar le zho (?) [0:26:18.8] Mar le zho. They really said mar le zho. So this fellow thought, mar le zho is his mantra. So he go on back and keep on saying mar le zho, mar le zho, mar le zho, and he developed something. And we used to get the teachings say mar le zho means “go away.” But when I came to India, it is really truly mar le zho is take him away. It means telling somebody take him away. Mar le zho. So this fellow though mar le zho is his mantra and he developed that way. So the mantra even you wrongly pronounce, really doesn’t matter.

[0:27:06.2] Okay, I don’t want go into the detailed meaning of this, there are tremendous way of explaining mani. There are a lot of different ways. Seven, eight, nine, probably ten I know. Ten different ways I know of explaining. Commonly, a lot of Tibetans will tell you there are six letters which represent six different droms (?) [0:27:34.5] and blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay. So, what you really need to know is om is the normal Hindi Sanskrit Buddhist, every mantra started with om. Right? Well, in English we have- actually we do have om has three letters. A, O, and M. If there is no A, then om cannot be O, right? So, A-O-M, there are three letter, ah, oh, ma. The three letters will represent body, mind, and speech. The body, mind, and speech of the self, who is contemplating, or body, mind, speech of the enlightened beings to whom you’re praying, can be both. Ma ni and padme. Mani is jewel. Padme is lotus. Avalokitesvara hand implements are jewel and lotus. Hand implements are initials, like initials in the Western sense. You do initial. So their hand implements, they’re sign initial. So it has meaning. It’s not only carrying jewel and carrying lotus, it has meaning behind. Meaning is, decide that om has a lot of you know, a lot of meanings, okay, this is not only completed. Om is known as no wang (Tibetan phrase) [0:29:16.0] It is the beginning of all the mantras, and it is the mantra of the jewel holding, there a lot of meaning, okay? But mani is jewel. The jewel represents the method. Method, renunciation, altruistic spirit of enlightenment, and up to the illusion body methods. All the methods from the guru yoga devotion to illusion body is the method, which is represented by jewel. Lotus is purity. The lotus is born from the mud, but is unstained by mud. So it is purity. Purity is the wisdom. Wisdom born out of mud, but it has no fault of mud. Wisdom is born out of us but it has not stained of ours. Wisdom is borne out of attachment. It has no stain of attachment. All these are there. So that is the represent wisdom from the understanding of selflessness, ordinary selflessness to di na (Speaks in Tibetan) [0:30:57.1] What is it? RT: Objective selflessness and subjective selflessness. Rimpoche: And then the tong be ni [0:31:05.4] RT: Emptiness. Rimpoche: And the clear light and all these method from this level to that level of the wisdom is represented by the lotus, padme. Hung is not only two represented to separately, but combine them together. It is combination, the union. The union of method and wisdom. The union of body and mind. The union of male and female. The union of everything. The union of body and mind. Union of method and wisdom. Union of everything. So actually, when you say, om mani padme hung, means that union of body, mind, speech of that object may also be put here In other words, this body, mind, speech will also be unioned, with that body, mind, and speech. You get me? Okay. That is what really, one brief way, and important way, and easy way, and convenient way to explained that. Okay? So with this we have briefly introduced om mani padme hung, and if you say later om mani padme hung with us, if we have- oh, we don’t have time.

[0:32:36.8]RT: If you say it a hundred times. Rimpoche: Okay, if we can say one hundred times, om mani padme hung together with us, we say it today, and then from tomorrow after this we say om mani padme hung, and if you can say additional when you are alone, it is so important. The mantras are normally you should say when you are alone. It always helps you, protects you, guides you, whenever you have fear, you say om mani padme hung, it protects you, it has something for you to hold on. Okay? It will not let you down. That’s what it is. So the two what I choose to say is normally I go in four times. Like om mani padme hung, om mani padme hung, om mani padme hung, om mani padme hung. That’s how I say, okay? So shall we say now? (Repeats Om mani padme hung with audience. Bell rings) [0:35:51.4] gyal wa di (Recites in Tibetan) Thank you. RT: Okay, so almost finished. And what shall we do? Just a little bit. Now, we left Vimalakirti in the middle of zero room in discussion with Manjushri, and I was going to pick up from there and continue from page forty-four, but I won’t, because I will save this long dialogue on forty-four and forty-five for when we do selflessness, day after tomorrow. And I will jump to compassion. There’s this excellent discussion about how a bodhisattva consoles a sick bodhisattva but there will not be time to talk about the I habit and how to destroy the I habit and so forth. So I will save that section, although you should certainly study it yourself, forty-four and forty-five. But I will go after that sickness, therefore one who sees such a quality makes no difference between sickness and voidness. His sickness is itself voidness and that sickness as voidness is itself void. So then, but I will pick up from here because I want to talk a little bit about compassion because involvement relates to this compassion, relates to wisdom as emptiness. So I want to just read us a little bit in Vimalakirti, perhaps I will go a little longer than twelve, since lunch doesn’t really start until twelve thirty. And someone said because of Baba Ram Dass’s class the children are taken care of until twelve thirty. So we’ll go a little longer. So the sick bodhisattva should recognize that sensation is ultimately non-sensation, but he should not realize the cessation of sensation. This is like not attaining enlightenment at the wrong time. Similar type of thing, don’t go the arhat way, don’t go into the meditative way of just trying to get some kind of personal cessation, while realizing that cessation is ultimately non-sensation, that’s a double vision type of thing. He should not realize the cessation of sensation. Although both pleasure and pain are abandoned when the buddha qualities are fully accomplished. There is then no sacrifice of the great compassion for all living beings who live in the bad migrations. That is to say, attaining the cessation of sensation ordinary type of grasping sensation, to attain nirvana at the buddha time, not at another time, then nirvana does not represent a sacrifice of great compassion, it does not become an isolated nirvana, that is achieved while abandoning living beings.

[0:39:32.6] Thus, recognizing in his own suffering the infinite sufferings of these living beings, the bodhisattva correctly contemplates these living beings, and resolves to cure all sicknesses. So this is now just the same point actually as we reached in the three principle paths where you see all living beings as your mother. You recognize your connectedness to all beings, and you look at the plight the next verse, which we didn’t have time to go into, talks about the plight of living beings, how they are in such a terrible predicament, and the bodhisattva sees them in that way, and resolves to cure their sicknesses. As for these living beings, there is nothing to be applied and there is nothing to be removed. One has only to teach them the dharma for them to realize the basis from which sicknesses arise. What is this- that is to say, ultimately, great compassion is not what anything less for beings than freedom, perfect freedom liberation. Compassion is nice for them not to be hungry, it’s nice for them not to suffer. It’s nice for this and that, but finally no temporary measures will really free them, even if you feed them this life, if they do not become enlightened in this life, they will die, and they will be very hungry for billions of lifetimes. So the idea is not only, although this doesn’t mean compassion neglects temporary assistance but only ultimate assistance is ultimate goal of compassion. And the only way a living being can become ultimately free of hunger and pain and suffering and so forth, is to realize independently their own suffering where they do not have to depend on someone else to save them or help them. And therefore, ultimately, the compassion of the bodhisattva, the great compassion of the bodhisattva, wishes to share with them the bodhisattva’s wisdom and realization of selflessness. So therefore, that is what teaching the dharma means. Teaching them the dharma does not mean indoctrinating them in some dogmatic doctrine. As we proved today in our discussion the dharma, the buddhadharma is not a dogma. It is not even a verbal teaching ultimately. It is not a bunch of words. The dharma is reality itself. Teaching them the dharma really means introducing them to their own reality. In fact, not only that, but introducing them to their own knowledge of their own reality. Taking the seed, which is their own knowledge of their own reality which they do have, already, and making that develop into the flower of their enjoyment of their realization of their own knowledge of their own reality. Now, what is the basis of for which sicknesses arise, it is their failure to develop that seed. It is their involvement in their misknowledge, but misknowledge here by Vimalakirti is called object perception. What is this basis? It is object perception. Insofar as apparent objects are perceived, they are the basis of sickness. What things are perceived as objects? The three realms of existence are perceived as objects. That is, oneself is an object, others are objects, the world of nirvana is an object, samsara is an object. All these things that are reified as apparently non-empty, intrinsically real things is what he means by objects. What is the thoroughest understanding of the basic apparent object? It is its non-perception. As no object exists ultimately.

[0:43:13.1] What is non-perception? The internal subject and the external object are not perceived dualistically. Therefore, it is called non-perception. Manjushri, thus should a sick bodhisattva control his own mind in order to overcome old age, sickness, and death. Death and birth. Such Manjushri is the sickness of the bodhisattva. Now again I’m going to skip again- no, no. No I’m not. If he takes it otherwise, all his efforts will be in vain. For example, one is called hero when one overcomes all enemies. Just so, one is called bodhisattva when one conquers the miseries of aging, sickness, and death. The sick bodhisattva should tell himself, just as my sickness is unreal and non-existent, so the sicknesses of all living beings are unreal and non-existent. Through such consideration he arouses the great compassion towards all living beings without falling into any sentimental compassion. This is very important. This concept of sentimental compassion. The great compassion that strives to eliminate the accidental passions does not conceive of any life in living beings. Why? Because great compassion that falls into sentimentally purposive views only exhausts the bodhisattva in his reincarnations. But the great compassion which is free of involvement with sentimentally purposive views does not exhaust the bodhisattva in all his incarnations. He does not reincarnate through involvement with such views, but reincarnates with his mind free of involvement. Hence, even his reincarnation is like a liberation. Being reincarnated as if liberated, he has the power and ability to teach the dharma which liberates living beings from their bondage. As the lord declares, it is not possible for one who is himself bound to deliver others from their bondage. But one who is himself liberated, is able to liberate others from their bondage. Therefore, the bodhisattva should participate in liberation, and should not participate in bondage. Then there’s this very beautiful passage of the integration, I think so, because om mani padme hung, okay, I’ll go a little further with it. Mani is remember, method, or liberative technique. Or really compassion, that is. Padme is lotus wisdom, padme is lotus or wisdom. Purity. Shunyata. Primordial nirvana. What is bondage and what is liberation? To indulge in liberation from the world without employing liberative technique. To indulge in the lotus without the jewel, is bondage for the bodhisattva. To engage in life in the world with full employment of liberative technique is liberation for the bodhisattva.

[0:46:44.0] To experience the taste of contemplation, meditation, and concentration without skill in liberative technique- (Audio cuts and continues) taste of contemplation and meditation with skill in liberative technique is liberation. Wisdom not integrated with liberative technique is bondage, but wisdom integrated with method is liberation. Liberative technique not integrated with wisdom is bondage, but liberative technique integrated with wisdom is liberation. How is wisdom not integrated with liberative technique a bondage? Wisdom not integrated with liberative technique consists of concentration on voidness, signlessness, and wishlessness, and yet being motivated by sentimental compassion, failure to concentrate on cultivation of the auspicious signs and marks, and the adornment of the buddha field, and on the work of development of living beings and it is bondage. How is wisdom integrated with liberative technique and liberation? Wisdom integrated with liberative technique consists of being motivated by the great compassion and thus of concentration on cultivation of the auspicious signs and marks on the adornment of the buddha fields and of the work of the development of living beings. All the while concentrating on deep investigation of voidness, signlessness, and wishlessness, and it is a liberation. So then he goes on, I won’t have time. Then he goes on with a long passage describing this dualism, this reconciliations of dualisms by the bodhisattva. How always this double path is always preserved. How you don’t go off only on the wisdom side, and you don’t go into some sentimental compassion side. Always unifying the two things.

[0:48:49.7] And we will come back to this, because I can’t really go more with it because we haven’t really done the content more of compassion about recognition of the mother, and how wisdom is compassion, how the emptying of the self automatically opens one to the self of others, and therefore creates great compassion, and so forth. But because we want to end in context in the home, I want to take this reconciliation of dualities a little further in returning to the house metaphor as I close for another couple of minutes. By jumping to page sixty-seven, to this question about the house of the bodhisattvas. Now, Vimalakirti in this case, is asked by someone, householder, where is your father, your mother, your children, your wife, your servants, your maids, your laborers, your attendants, and so forth, where is everybody? Why is your house empty? Where is your furniture? He asked him like, where is whole ordinary life, because remember, Vimalakirti is in the zero room. So this guy asked him, after quite a bit has happened, so we’ll go back and fill that in. But he says, where is your whole ordinary life? So Vimalakirti then describes the ordinary life of the bodhisattva. In this remarkable, poetical way, of bringing together these dualities. Of bringing together house and home and building, and pond and pool, and garden, and wife, and son, and daughter, and so forth, with all of the virtues of enlightenment, and he says this poem. Of the true bodhisattvas, the mother is the transcendence of wisdom. This is padme, the lotus. Peme, the lotus. Wisdom, purity, perfection, that is the mother of the bodhisattva. The mother of all buddhas in fact it is said. In fact it is the great mother. In fact, the Buddha’s version of the great mother, the mother of all reality, actually. And then we have the true bodhisattvas the mother is the transcendence of wisdom, the father is the skill and method, or liberative technique, the leaders are born of such parents. Leaders means buddha, actually. So here is saying- but a very important way of reading this thing to keep it into our non-duality reconciliation of dichotomy is very important. This does not just mean, that mother is transcendence of wisdom. It also means that transcendence of wisdom is mother. We all have a mother. Our quote supposed ordinary mother. But for the bodhisattva, there is no such thing as an ordinary mother. All mothers are transcendence of wisdom. One’s mother is transcendence of wisdom. In some sense, all beings are one’s mother, all beings are transcendence of wisdom, but for the moment, only one’s mother is transcendence of wisdom. So there’s no duality between one’s ordinary mother and transcendence of wisdom.

[0:52:05.4] I think I can even prove it, even to Rimpoche and debate that even one’s mother, even one’s ordinary mother is transcendence of wisdom, but we don’t have time. Next session we will do that. But this is very important. It’s very easy to say, oh yes, mother is this, father is that, thinking that you’re somehow wiping out mother and father, and you’ve created some pure world of all the virtues. But the siddha reality of Vimalakirti is the non-duality is more extraordinary than that. You have not wiped anything out. Both are equally there. Both are each other non-dually. and both are individually themselves. So. not only it is no use and it is not the true reconciliation of dichotomy to say that only mother is transcendence of wisdom, unless you realize that transcendence of wisdom is mother, also. Father is skill and liberative technique, father is mani is jewel, but also skill and liberative technique is father, for the true bodhisattva. And their wife is the joy in the dharma, love and compassion are their daughters. The dharma and their truth are their sons, and their home is deep thought on the meaning of voidness. So that’s the home as zero room. The dwelling, one’s dwelling is voidness. One’s dwelling is relativity. Not by destroying one’s dwelling and sort of seeing it dissolve into voidness, but by constantly just by the fact that you see, you look at your home, you see it, you see the wall, and you realize that you can see it because you can relate to it. You can relate to it because neither you, or it, are isolatedly intrinsically and independently existing. Therefore, just because you see it, it reminds you of voidness totally. The mere perception of it is its sign of its voidness for you. Therefore, you dwell, your home is that deep thought of the meaning of voidness. All the passions are their disciples controlled at will. All their friends are accessories of enlightenment, the mental faculties derived from enlightenment, thereby they realize supreme enlightenment. But now, and here's why I wanted to end here, because we’re talking involvement room, this is the manner of involvement, making all of why it’s in fact, a great symbol of enlightenment. This is to involve everything in enlightenment. Leaving nothing out, their companions ever with them are the six transcendences, generosity, morality, tolerance, effort, meditation, and wisdom. Their consorts are the means of unification, again generosity, sweet speech, kindness, and teaching the dharma. Their music is the teaching of the dharma. The incantations, that is the mantras, the recitations, make their garden. And again their garden is their mantra which blossoms with the flowers of the factors of enlightenment- faith, compassion, mindfulness, and so forth. With trees of the great wealth of the dharma, and fruits of the gnosis of liberation. Their pool, swimming pool, consists of the eight liberations. The eight liberations mean all these various high samadhis. But for them, the high samadhis are non-dually reconciled with the pool in which they bathe. They are like a bath which they take. Filled with the water of samadhi. Covered with the lotuses of the seven purities. Who bathes therein becomes immaculate.

[0:56:09.2] Their bearers of the six superknowledges, clairvoyance, clairaudience, knowledge of other minds, others are (Inaudible) [0:56:16.5] and so forth. Their vehicle is the unexcelled mahayana, universal vehicle. Their driver is the spirit of enlightenment, the will to become a buddha for the benefit of all beings. And their path is the eightfold peace. I will return to it, I don’t want to do that much because, it’s after noon. We are off, I know you will swim in the lake. You should swim in the lake where you are swimming in the water of the eight concentrations. When you walk in the garden, see the flowers, you should the padme, the flower of the incantations. Should not be doing, oh now I escape from my practice, I escape from the dharma, and now I’m just hanging out, hanging out, and they should be irreconcilably linked. When you see the flower, the seeing of it means you and it have related. Your and its relationship is your and its emptiness. Seeing the flower becomes- deepens your samadhi of emptiness. Your samadhi of emptiness opens you more and more to see the beauty of the flower. This is the way of which I hope you will have your afternoon. (Laughs) So I wanted to end with this a little bit the involvement room, we didn’t really get to it, but that’s okay. We’ll do it more on Thursday, and, but, and to just to keep the omen of our pattern we will take just a couple of minutes even late, three minutes we will concentrate only, on the integration of technique and wisdom, or mani and padme, of father and mother, of clear light and magic body. (Bell rings, Rimpoche and RT recite prayers) [0:58:44.7] Rimpoche: (Inaudible) …in Tibetan and in Chinese. And we hope that will be some reminder you’re used to, source of strength and whatever you want to. (Inaudible) [0:59:45.8] And I don’t think I need to explain the mani anymore, because whatever we did yesterday is good enough for individual to practice for the time being. I think we got enough to think, enough to say it, enough to chant, and enough to meditate. Thank you. RT: Okay, So, on the schedule today, original schedule, we’re in what we call the wisdom room today. So, in the three principle paths, you have not yet been, we have not yet done the teaching of the conception of the spirit of enlightenment, the seven fold precepts of mother recognition or the precept of exchange of self and other, which I guess we’ll work on today. But since we’re working in the context of wisdom compassion indivisible, that’s probably okay, doesn’t matter, because I’m going ahead in the Vimalakirti into the section where he gives an outline without really labeling it as much as wisdom. And it’s the section that I skipped yesterday, we are where it is in the chapter five from page forty-four, about how the bodhisattva should console another bodhisattva who is sick. And then how a sick bodhisattva should control his own mind, these two sections.

[1:01:48.1] The first one, in a way, deals with compassion, the first paragraph. Manjushri asks, householder, how should a bodhisattva console another bodhisattva who is sick? He says, he should tell him that the body is impermanent, but should not exhort him to renunciation or disgust. Meaning that to not to go just on renunciation by itself, he means really. Not to go to extreme with the practice of impermanence and so on. To reach into the individual vehicle nirvana is the danger if you go too strongly to renunciation without combining it with compassion. He should tell him that the body is miserable, but should not encourage him to find solace in liberation. Again, not to become morbid about the appreciation of miserableness, suffering, not to consider only the first truth without thinking of the third truth or the fourth truth. The third being cessation, the fourth being the path to the cessation. That the body is selfless, but that living being should be developed. In other words, that the body lacks intrinsic reality, that it’s insubstantial, that it’s ultimately unreal, but nevertheless relatively life should be developed. That the body is peaceful, inherently, but not to see in the sense that is empty of intrinsic reality, that it is empty of any intrinsically real sufferings, but not to seek any ultimate calm. Again, all sorts of keeping a delicate touch on the impermanence and the renunciation toward here, although they are the individual vehicle teachings, but toward here in the context of about to be combined with the universal vehicle spirit of unexcelled perfect enlightenment. He should urge him to confess his evil deeds, but not for the sake of absolution, he should encourage his empathy for all living beings on account of his own sickness. So here comes the mahayana, encourage his empathy for all living beings on account of his own sickness. Using your sickness, in other words, when you are sick you should think of all the sufferings of other beings and use it as a way of developing what’s known, later you’ll see this, very powerful meditation exchanging self and other, it is called. So using, he should encourage his empathy for all living beings on account of his own sickness, his remembrance of suffering experienced from beginningless time, and his consciousness of working for the welfare of living beings. He should encourage him not to be distressed, but to manifest the roots of virtue, to maintain the primal purity, and the lack of craving, and thus to always strive to become the king of healers who can cure all sicknesses. That is the Buddha, really the king of healers, that is Bhaishajyaguru [1:05:01.3] Buddha in his form of the Medicine Buddha, Bhaishajyaguru who heals all sicknesses. Since finally all sicknesses are not just physical, nor just mental, they are physical, they are some kind of combined thing, so therefore the ultimate cure of all sicknesses is only really buddhahood.

[1:05:16.5] Thus, should a bodhisattva console a sick bodhisattva in such a way as to make him happy. So that’s a kind of preliminary. Developing kind of balance with compassion and renunciation and now going on, he goes on to wisdom. Then Manjushri asks, noble sir, how should a sick bodhisattva control his own mind? And here, is key, wisdom, remember we talked about transcendent wisdom, the lady buddha, we read it every day now? And how is it you find your own liberation which finally you must do it as to wisdom. And here he gives a pattern of the teaching and the fact of practice of wisdom, which we will get, in one sense, through reading him, but then you will work today and tomorrow on the way, that path that Manjushri the quintessence of that path given by Manjushri and Tsongkhapa. Vimalakirti, anyway, at this point replies, Manjushri a sick bodhisattva should control his own mind with the following consideration. Sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding from beginningless time. It arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions, and hence, ultimately nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick. So in these two short words, is what we already really talked about in a way, but to repeat because we can never repeat it enough. That is the fundamental ignorance is source of the world in Buddhism is ignorance. Although, it’s very tricky even to say that. Because in some sense,, the world has no source as the Westerners understand it, because the world is also beginningless. It has never had any beginning. There is no first origination or first creation of the world. Which is a radically different departure if you reflect upon it. If you think about what beginninglessness means, it has a very powerful impact on those of us who are conditioned to think of things as sort of having a beginning. And sort of us as coming from a beginning. And therefore the past time as being in some sense limited. That’s a very radical to suddenly sort of fall backward from that sense of a limited past time, and realize the teaching of beginninglessness. Now often, that beginninglessness teaching is often presented in Buddhist philosophy in contrast distinction to various forms of Indian theistic religion as being in sharp contradiction with the notion of a world creator. Ishvara, as they call it in India. And therefore, many Westerners and nowadays Buddhist Christian dialogue, or Buddhist Judaism dialogue, there is sometimes the notion that this is a sharp difference. But I don’t agree with that. It’s somewhat my own theory, but I don’t agree with it. People brought up with theistic ideas do think of god as sort of starting the world at some point. But, I would like to submit respectfully, and therefore they feel that somehow they are kind of centralized in the world because somehow the world is made with them in the middle of it, and at least eternity doesn’t sort of, dissolve them backwards endlessly backwards. But I would like to submit just a little bit idolatrous, even in the terms of monotheism. Why is that? Does anyone want to say that god is limited? Any monotheists wish to say that? Do any monotheists wish to say that god is somehow just a sort of point of nothingness in time that then it just begins like that? Isn’t god by definition something that is endless, and therefore, beginningless? And infinite, and inconceivable, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? Therefore, leaning back to a beginning in time against god is to lean on infinity. To lean on infinity means to discover beginninglessness. I would submit that therefore the monotheistic teaching that god created the world is simply a way of putting a kind of familial label over otherwise dissolving of the individual notion of infinity, or eternity. Eternity of the past.

[1:09:55.8] Since god clearly has to be by definition eternal, then god is not a beginning of the world, god has always been. Furthermore, even if this world were created by a god, let us say, who is to demand and to order, and to insist that god didn’t create another one the previous week? (Laughs) And another one before that, previous month? Who is supposed to tell god what to do? Amongst monotheists. And yet of course some monotheists will often argue very forcefully, oh no, god doesn’t just that because that’s what it said in the book. But why couldn’t god say something else in another book? God, in other words, only a not fully examined and if taken simplistically, if not taken according to the Christian mystics such as Eckhart and others, does one think that there’s a contradiction between the teaching of beginninglessness and the teaching of theistic creation. God just simply ends the inquiry for the monotheists, but it does not certainly end existence. Unless you want to say that god is nonexistent. Because I don’t think anyone wants to say. Anyway, you all can think about that, we can debate about it if you like. Yes? Although we will have a question period, but why not, just go ahead. Audience: You were talking yesterday about creating buddha field (Inaudible) [1:11:27.2] Does that have something to do with it? RT: Well, yes, but no, creating buddha field must be understood in the sense of create- now create means when anybody- the word create as far as all ways that we can imagine using it means you take some things and make something else out of them. You know, again this idea this Aristotelian notion of first cause and all these things you know, is not too sensible, it’s a sort of unique use of the word. It’s a word where it doesn’t normally mean anything that way. In other words, create otherwise means take something, make it out of something. And if one wants to say, take the doctrine of creation out of nothingness then, you have to say that god creates it out of himself, because he’s not nothing. If there was nothing else other than him, then that nothing that doctrine just means not that there’s nothing, and that he’s made out of nothing, because that’s meaningless. You can’t create anything out of nothing, not even god. Because nothing is nothing to make something out of. Yes? Audience: (Inaudible) [1:12:34.9] RT: No, I don’t think so. I think that nothing is nothing. I think if we’re going to use concepts- excuse me? Audience: (Inaudible) [1:12:46.1] RT: Yes, but it was just a human mind that uses the word nothing. So therefore, if you’re going to use things with your human mind, why then pretend somehow that you’ve made this thing that’s so wonderful, that you use, that you then can’t understand? What that rather is, is an abdication of the human being’s need to make sense.

[1:13:05.6] It’s not that the concept nothing, or something, or all concepts in the aggregate necessarily have captured the universe. But since we use them as if they were meaningful, since we live and die over them, we have no excuse to pretend that those concepts which after all, we make, are something mysterious once we don’t like the implications of what they actually do mean. You see? Audience: (Inaudible) [1:13:30.1] RT: Who? Well, that’s again something that we say. But if so- and that’s fine. It’s good. It becomes a way for theists to say that there’s something in the universe that they don’t control and don’t understand. But in that case, let me ask you, why is it that they get so excited and they say, god is called god? Why do they say god is human, anthropomorphic? Why do they say god is a male? Why do they say god did this, and did that? If they don’t understand what it is, then actually all the things they say about it are pretty… unrelevant, actually. Which the great Western, the great monotheistic either Christian, or Indian, or Hindu, or (Inaudible) [1:14:10.7] or Islamic, the great mystics admitted, always. They admitted that all that everybody said, that even the book said about it was stabbing in the dark. Was like lost in the desert of infinity and so forth. Read Meister Eckhart and such things. So the great mystics don’t make that mistake. But the people under theistic ideologies do. And then you get Crusades, you get slaughtering people, in the name of supposed god, and you get a lot of nasty business. And there again, somebody says, that’s where I have to reject. The Buddhists in general will, and even, and many monotheists will too, reject the religious notion of mystery, misuse of mystery. Because here you have a perfectly nice person, who has a family back in Italy. Has little kids, gives them toys at Christmas, goes out and comes home with a ho, ho, ho with a Christmas tree, and then he goes over, and he slaughters Muslim women and children on his Crusade, he puts people to the sword, he does all manner of atrocity and barbarity. And when he thinks about it sensibly, he thinks now why should I be killing such a woman and children? But then, what does someone tell him, some priest? They say, you can’t understand these mysteries. You can’t understand the fact that’s a living being in front of you. They don’t belong to your faith, therefore you should slaughter them. So I’m sorry, I have to reject the selective use of mystery to cover up indulgence in all sorts of negative actions which is the case of world religions. That is why in fact, in modern times, people even- often the most religious people, including for example, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, including people like Dongheld (?) or Kamara (?) [1:15:54.8] Brother David Steindl-Rast, other people, they will say, our religions have caused often more suffering than they have benefitted. And such forms of our religion should be destroyed. We as religious people should be the first to say so.

[1:16:09.2] So, if we go questioning, then we’ll talk all of the universe, I want to go down Vimalakirti a little bit, but if it’s just particularly germane, we’ll go one more time. What? Audience: Well, just that I agree with you and I follow what you’re saying. The only thing I disagree is the fact that (Inaudible) [1:16:31.4] RT: There must have been some who were nice at home. There were actually some monks who were nice, A. And B, I have to reject that too. Harry S. Truman. Harry S. Truman dropped a bomb on the Japanese, feeling given the right by god to do so, these godless people. There are many preachers in Oklahoma and here and there today who feel that the atom bomb was given by god to the Christians, and they have a right to blow up the godless communists. I’m sorry, they preached that in the Astrodome in Houston. And thousands and tens of thousands of people listen and applaud. I heard Oral Roberts once give a discourse where he said, don’t worry about the bomb, folks. When the bombs are falling and the earth is brimstone, the lord will come down on his horse with his troop, and he’ll take us up, and we’ll be saved. You know, from the pollution and the radiation. Therefore, build more bombs, and threaten them communists with them. I’m sorry that attitude is not historically finished. That attitude is still present in among us, definitely. And I feel it has to be spoken out against, although it might be a bit dangerous to do so. But it is our duty, I feel, to speak against it. And the great Christians that I know, also speak against it. Audience: (Inaudible) [1:18:05.6] RT: (Laughs) Just say I agree, that’s all. So, there’s no Buddhist way of saying it. So, it’s a good discussion, but let’s try to follow Vimalakirti, and I’ll try not to digress, and we’ll question it towards the end. Because often, he will answer himself, some of these discussions. But anyway, this issue of a process of misunderstanding from beginningless time, is a tricky one because of this issue of origin is very important matter in Buddhism. In some ultimate sense, you see, the world never has originated, also. It is not only beginningless, but it is also unoriginated. A very important form of emptiness is called originationlessness. Or originlessness. That is when you really look for something to find it, you look into its causes. It’s a very easy way to analyze something. And when you do you can find no beginning to anything, all things are unoriginated. For example, take this book. You analyze this book, you look into it, it’s like what we were talking before, you analyze the atoms of the book, you analyze when it was made. When did it first become a book? You discover- was it when the cover was put on, was it when page one was printed, was it when page ten was printed, was it when it was bound? If it was when it was bound, was it when the first three pages were bound together? The first seven pages were bound together? If you rip half of it off, is it still a book? If you rip nine tenths of it off, is it still a book? When you’re down to the last half page, is it still a book? You become to realize that actually the only reason that the book exists is because we decide to call it a book at a certain point.

[1:19:48.5] And we can dis-decide to call it a book at any other point that we want. And there’s nothing intrinsic in the book that is its origin. It is simply- a sort of, we can cut off a certain point, say we’ll call that the origins. At another point I would say we call that the end, we’ll say that between that is the book. But this is arbitrary, and it does not correspond to reality, and therefore the practice of reflecting upon the unoriginatedness of things, the uncreatedness of things, is very, very crucial. However, that’s on ultimate level of the reality of the thing. On the relative reality, it has origin- all things have origin, but no first origins on the relative level they’re beginningless. And therefore, on that relative beginningless level, what the most important origin of things is, is ignorance. But you see that this statement has to be understood very carefully. So in a way ignorance occupies the place or the creator. The ignorance is therefore, each of us in some sense is our own creator of own world. Our own ignorance is what creates our world beginninglessly. It continuously creates it. And has always done so. It arises now, therefore sickness also arises, he says, sickness by this time, he means sickness as the whole suffering of the universe of samsara. He says sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding from beginningless time, it arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions and hence, ultimately, nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick. And here, is the quest of the self. In other words, I am sick, we say. Or sometimes we say, my body is sick, or my stomach is sick, or my arm is sick. But then, we try to look, when we say I am sick, for example, what is the I? Is the I my arm? You might say, I am sick. Doctor says how are you sick? You say, my arm is sick. You’d make both statements. Is the I then the arm? Does the I own the arm? Where is the I? Finally, if someone is sick, it’s I am sick. Well, where is this I that is sick? Is the I the arm, or is the I must be above then, you could cut your arm off, wouldn’t you still be I? You see, if you really look for your self, as you feel you are there, we feel we’re here. Here we are. In our study. But look for your self. Ultimately you cannot find anything. This is a very strange experience. A very important meditation, by the way. It is the liberating meditation of all the meditations. But it is not a meditation where you take as a label or dogma and say, oh I’m selfless, oh great! No. You take two phase (?) facts. It’s not therefore a non- it’s not a non-reflective meditation, a non-analytic. It is not. Because you have to have two things there, you have to say, well, enlightened beings have said I am selfless. It sounds logical the way they present it with their reasons, enlightened beings, it makes sense, especially in modern science with its pseudo analytical, and having gone way beyond this naïve idea, this nineteenth century ideas of the indivisible atom and so on. And the infinite divisibility of things therefore they know things just dissolve under analysis. This is sort of a scientifically very sort of common sense idea nowadays, so we say it sounds sensible. So that’s one thing we could take. Yes, we could take into serious consideration, especially if we’re interested in practicing the enlightenment path, the idea of being selfless, persons and things.

[1:23:32.2] But then, when there’s no meditation unless we simultaneously acknowledge also to ourselves, but hold on a minute, that is not how I feel. That is not how I see things. I see things as if they’re really there. And definitely I feel there. You know, when I hear someone say, I am what I am, when I hear someone say I think, therefore I am, it makes great sense to me, because that’s what I think about myself. So now we have a real discrepancy, they have the fact that I feel that I’m here, and I’m really here. And I’ve been logically given a very convincing scientific analysis that my reason tells me is correct, that means that I am not here. At least, not in the way I think. Sort of really here. And maybe here in some other kind of way. Like a holographic projection or something funny, of the brain, of the atoms, of whatever, I may be here, but not the way I feel that I’m here, like a solid object. So it is that discrepancy between those two things. Our feeling, and this possibility, that then forms the meditation, because what then should you do? If you’re told you have nothing- you know you go to a shop and you’re going to buy and someone comes up and says, you don’t get in the shop, you don’t have anything. And you feel you do, wait a minute, you’re going to look through all your pockets. You’re going to look in your shoe and your cuff in your socks, everywhere, to find if you feel you have money. If you don’t find any money, finally, ok, I’m sorry, I forgot my wallet. You don’t just say, oh! I’ve got nothing? Oh goodbye! And put down the groceries and leave. You investigate your pockets. So this time, you hear you have no self. So, you feel you are very selfed. So you must look for that self. The Buddhist meditation on selflessness is not a looking for selflessness. It is a looking for self. Buddha is a great psychologist, he’s not a dogmatist. You feel you have a self- look for it. The teaching of selflessness is to encourage, and to help you deal with the problems you will get when you do look, and when you keep on failing to find. This gives people real insecurity. There was one student of Tsongkhapa, one famous story, one maralama (?) [1:26:04.0] student of Tsongkhapa, who when Tsongkhapa was teaching about selflessness once, was kind of going like this. He was like, doing this with his collar. Looked very uncomfortable. And other ones were saying what’s the matter with you? You know, you have a problem, they were snobbing on him. And Tsongkhapa praised him. He pointed out, he is really taking seriously. He’s really taking seriously the two iron bulls struggling reality of the teaching of selflessness against the feeling of self. And his feeling of self is so habitual in him when his presumed self feels like it’s dissolving under the analysis, even his feeling of self feels like it’s dissolving, and he feels like he’s kind of choking, or dying, or getting short of breath. Who is it who breathes, who draws breath? You know we go (Inhales) take a breath. Who’s taking the breath? Does it start from the self? Follow back the taking of the breath through the muscles and the nerves and the mental commands and many things if you find a self. This is the level you have to go to look for the self. And of course, you immediately begin to get into the thing where you’re looking for the self that is the self looking for the self (Laughs) Self is looking for the self.

[1:27:25.9] See it’s a strange subjectivity means by definition that which cannot be an object. That which is the subject of objects. That is why Descartes thought that it was fruitless to look for the subject because by definition it would always be the subject, it would always be the same looking. But he made the fatal mistake from Buddhist philosophical point of view, not religious, but from a scientific point of view. Any Zen master chuckled when they read Descartes. Descartes, the one thing that you cannot find by definition, you then feel that you can be sure that you have. It’s totally contradictory. Anything else that we can’t find, oh, you can’t find your driver’s license. Well, who would take anybody as a sane person who would say well, the one thing that I can’t find is my driver’s license, therefore I’m sure I have my driver’s license. The only thing I can’t find is my driver’s license, so therefore that’s the thing I’m sure I have. The only thing you can’t find is pure subjectivity, because it’s the subject that will always be looking for it. But then who says that for sure that it’s there? In fact, what Descartes failed to do is what every Buddhist monk does. If you sustain the concentration upon the unfindability of the subjectivity, you achieve nirvana. If you can really sustain that, and I mean by sustaining the unfindability of the subjectivity, I mean very precisely, do not allow yourself to find the unfindability. If you find the unfindability you will become a nihilist. You will think you found nothing. And you’ll think, hey, I’m nothing. Great. I’m free. That would be drastic mistake. But if you sustain the unfindability of the finder, if you can sustain concentration upon that, instead you will achieve freedom. As he says here, sticking to Vimalakirti, Rimpoche will come back on this from another way, in some respects an easier way. More systematic. But I want to stick with it, he says, all Vimalakirti says is, it arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions, such as the mental construction of self, and other, and many things, and hence, ultimately nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick. And nothing is perceived does not mean that you perceive nothing. Right? Nothing is perceived means you do not perceive. You become tolerant of the inability to perceive. You develop what is called the tolerance of the unperceptability.

[1:30:15.4] And that tolerance leads to wisdom, leads to liberation. If you perceive the nothing, you become a nihilist. Because that’s the ultimate mental construction is nothing. The ultimate piece of our personal insanity. Of our personal indulgence in mystification is to have a big experience of nothing, on the threshold of really discovering selflessness. And then hiding in that perception of nothingness and becoming a nihilist. It’s like, did you ever take- did you ever get sodium pentothal from a dentist? Have a tooth pulled or some drastic thing? Did you ever have a total anesthesia type of thing? Did you have the experience- I always have this terribly frustrating experience. I’m a little bit of a nihilist personally, and an escapist. Sometimes I get tired of all this hassle you know, and pay my bills and worrying about my American Express bill and all this and that. And the car and oil changes and so forth. I get tired of it. So when I’m in the dentist chair, occasionally, and I have a toothache even, that’s when I’m particularly nihilistic. You know when you have toothache, oh, you know? And then they say, okay, you know, and they put the thing in your arm and the pentothal goes in? And you feel, ah, at least I’ll have some rest. No more worry. So annoying. I’m just going to relax, and then she says, get up, get out of here, you’ve been here thirty minutes. We pulled out six teeth, you’ve been bleeding all over the place, you know? Go away, you know? You lost like a half hour of time. But there was no perception at all of being out, because that was no consciousness. So there’s no perception of no consciousness. There’s only the threshold, in and out. There could be nothing that’s in between for a billion years, and it would be nothing. You follow me? This is why people are considered by Buddhists psychologists to be very unfortunate. You can see from this, very concretely, what Rimpoche meant. But those who get seduced by contemplation, by the favor of contemplation, and who go up through the form realms, and bliss, and so forth, and then up in the formless realms, of infinite space, infinite consciousness. Wouldn’t that be great? Wow- infinite space, like a god. Infinite consciousness, I’m everywhere!