Archive Result

;;;;

Soundfile 20000828GRSROTF02

Speaker Gelek Rimpoche

Location SR

Topic Odyssey to Freedom

Transcriber Helen Breault

Date November 21, 2019

Welcome for the evening session today. Before I forget the schedule, might have said there’ll be White Tara fire puja tomorrow. It’s not going to happen. Jamyang, and Londay and Tim went down today to buy the materials for fire puja. So it is Monday; happens to close the shop.

[Pause to 1:30]

I’m going to keep my excuse as shop is closed, but however they bought it. Jamyang said they managed to get everything. But still it’s not going to be tomorrow. I’m going to reserve my excuse there. That is simple excuse. You have to wash them and dry them anyway. So it’s not going to happen tomorrow. It will happen some time, I don’t know when. And that’s it.

[2:11]

(Talking to audience members)

And then I heard about this bee incident. That’s not so bad. Maybe it’s sort of a little gentle kiss of a bee. [laughter] Just joking. But I’m sorry, really, for those who have to suffer. And the lady with the hand problem, is she okay? Somebody’s sleeping…Christine. So please be aware of those things a little bit because we’re in the world and those things we get. But be aware of it, okay? And I believe they’re going to spray in that area. So those who are allergic to spray, be aware of that too. [laughs] Be careful from both angles. Aura was telling in the afternoon saying that I have to be careful of two things: if the bee stings me I get very sick and if they spray I get sick. I have to go in… But it’s going to be outside, open-air so I don’t think it’s going to be that bad anyway.

[4:00]

Then this evening’s earmarked for…Anybody have any questions? I think there’s two people, Rochelle and Tony are the two who are collecting the questions and who are actually going through the questions, and a couple of questions that you are sort of selecting out. That’s supposed to be their job. I don’t think they’ve done their job. It looks to me like they have a huge amount of questions. So it’s a clear indication they haven’t done their job. [laughter]

Anyway, let’s go through. Rochelle, you want to read it?

Questions and Answers

Rochelle: You mentioned that the visualization for the Supreme Field of Merit should be held throughout the meditation. Why is that important? And are there any tips on how to hold this while adding the other elements of the meditation?

Rinpoche: Well, I should not say it’s a good question. No, I’m going to say bad question. So, anyway. It’s an important question.

[6:00]

Yes, the reason why the Supreme Field of Merit is there, it gives you the very point. The point is in our normal understanding we seek things from the enlightened beings. Even our usual Judeo-Christian background we pray and seek grace or whatever you call it. It looks like we beg from the enlightened beings and we get it. That might not be exactly true. However, we’re very much within the framework of dealing with the enlightened beings. And the Buddha is the source of information, source of strength, and all of those. And lineage masters are definitely source of information. And force behind. They all work together. It also keeps you on focus, keeps you on track. You don’t get off the track. And that’s another reason. If there’s a lot of time I can give you a lot of funny stories here and there. So that is important.

[7:55]

It’s not that we seek positive developments from the enlightened beings, however they’re definitely connected and their support. All of those reasons that’s why we do together. Even normal Lam Rim, if you read the Tibetan they will say [Tibetan 8:17]. While meditating the Lama who is inseparable that of lha. In Tibetan if you make direct translation it is “god,” that will be small “g” god. That’s how it will be meditated.

Okay, can I think there? And can I think here? No, you can’t. At the beginning we’re not capable of it. But, sort of, you know, you have this Supreme Field of Merit here—either on your crown or right in front of you— so don’t let it go, don’t let it go, don’t dissolve. You’re sort of presuming it’s there. And then you think the subject whatever you think. When you’re free of that you think that’s there. In our capacity right now we can think one thing, we cannot think two things together. That’s what we do.

[9:29]

But, you have to train yourself to be able to think one or two things together. Remember, those of us who do the sadhana, development stage is built on top of another rather than reach through and go by. So those who say sadhana you build on top of another. First you build the air mandala. Then you build earth mandala. Fire mandala. And water mandala. And then earth mandala. And then you build on top of each other. Not only that, you build the inhabitants and environment and everything. It is sort of building on top of another. That is necessary. But at the beginning we’re not capable of doing that so we’re sort of presuming it’s there. Sort of do we use the word “presumptuous”? Anyway, so presuming it’s there. And then keep on thinking about it. Okay, that’s how you do anyway.

[10:47]

Rochelle: Most of these questions are about visualization in the beginning.

Rinpoche: Okay, whoever wrote that question are you happy with that answer? You’re okay with that answer. Good.

Rochelle: If you’re reluctant or uneasy about formulating or visualizing a “person” can you substitute nature since nature is the Great Mother. Can you take refuge in nature? Can nature be my guru?

Rinpoche: Interesting. Does nature have a mind? That’s a good question. Does nature have a mind? We talk about Mother Earth. It is extremely important, basis of ourself’s function. But is Mother Earth a person? I don’t know. So think about that. What little I know, I never learned that nature could be guru. I learned the nature is extremely important. It is the fundamental basis of our survival, surviving. I never learned that nature can be guru. I’d like to put it that way. I’m neither going to say yes or no. Do I know? No, I don’t know about that. I don’t think the person is satisfied with my answer, whoever, wherever the question’s coming from. Interesting. Well, if it’s your questions then I’ll probably say, “Will I do it? No.” Why? Because I don’t know it is being. I don’t know it is being, it a person or being. So it is very important, extremely important.

In the true Buddhist point of view, very strong Buddhist point of view, people taking refuge to trees and flowers an all that, Buddha does not recommend that. I don’t think he accepts that too. During the Buddha’s lifetime there were a number of discussions on that.

[14:00]

So generally Buddhism does not even accept that the tree has life. But that doesn’t mean every tree doesn’t have life. Tree as in general. There’s a big long debate in India 2500 years ago whether tree has life or not. The reasons why they give the tree has life because they sleep at night, while closing the leaves and sleep. Buddha rejects that debate. But that doesn’t mean every tree doesn’t have life. There are certain trees that definitely have life, no question. So I claim to say no. But I could be wrong.

Rochelle: There’s a series of quick questions. What’s the difference between the Supreme Field and Refuge Field?

Rimpoche: It’s okay. Same thing.

Rochelle: Visualization. Do we have all sentient beings with us in both?

Rimpoche: Supreme Field and Refuge Field, actually it is the same thing. However, one is called “Refuge Field” because you take refuge. One is called “Supreme Field” because you’re making accumulation of merit and purification. I like to answer that way. But I also know why this question’s coming. Because you sometimes witness two different drawings, different tangkhas. Some tangkhas you have Buddha Shakyamuni at the center. To some tangkhas you have like Tsongkhapa or Padmasambhava or something in the center. So they’re labeled differently. One is called “Refuge” because you take refuge to Buddha Shakyamuni. That’s why Buddha in the center is called Refuge Tree. And Tsongkhapa in the center is called the Supreme Field of Merit because in the Lama Chopa that’s what we use and that’s what it is.

[16:28]

So if you’re looking from that point of view, yes, it’s two separate ones. But from a practical point of view, when you’re having a single, solid, solo refuge object, in that case it is same thing. So technically there’s a difference. Practically no difference. So I’d like to answer that way. Are you happy, whoever raised that question? Would you like to pick up your own question? Who’s question is it?

[17:28]

Audience: It was a question that came in our group and it was a kind of a mix.

Rimpoche: So I hope the mixed person is happy with that.

Rochelle: Well the mixed person has several more questions. Do we have all sentient beings with us in both visualizations of the Supreme Field and Refuge Field?

Rimpoche: What does that mean?

Rochelle: I guess when we’re taking refuge do we have all sentient beings with us?

Rimpoche: You can and you should. It would be nice. If you do so, they probably may say, “How do I do it?” How do you do it? You just think you’re there on behalf of all sentient beings, taking refuge to Buddha, dharma and sangha. And you sort of —this is what normally I object— but here I have to use Zen thing. There’s a lot of dot-dot-dot-dot-dot. You have to think all sentient beings fill the ground. And object of refuge filled all the sky. And that’s from whom you’re taking refuge. That’s the way it is.

Rochelle: Can you visualize more than one being in the Supreme Field or can you visualize White Tara?

Rimpoche: You can White Tara for sure. Can you visualize more than one being? Sure you can. Because if you really look in, like, the Lama Chopa tree or something, and how many are there? Zillions of them there. Even the lineage alone. So you can definitely do. Can you manage? That’s a different question. That the individual person has to answer. Am I capable of managing that? Maybe not. Then you want to add up one by one—or whatever you want to do you can do that. Or you can think they’re all there. All of them is okay.

[19:31]

Yes, the answer is, “Yes.” Whether you can manage, whether I can manage or not—it’s a different question. I have to answer that.

Rochelle: When generating the bodhisattva motivation, I feel that perhaps I don’t really want to become a bodhisattva because I may lose something connected to my family and my life.

Rimpoche: Very honest statement. But before I go to this I have to say one thing before that. Can White Tara? I don’t think the person is asking, “Can I include White Tara in there?” I sort of answered in that way. But I think the person is asking can I meditate White Tara alone to be the Supreme Field of Merit? Is it one individual’s question or mumbo jumbo mixed question. So is that the question?

Audience: Yes.

Rimpoche: Yes, White Tara is object of refuge, yes you can. But inseparable that of your own spiritual master, inseparable that of Buddha. That portion has to be emphasized more. Then you can, sure, why not?

Now, to go back to the question after that, what makes you think you have to lose your family or family’s interest if you have to generate boddhimind? I don’t know where this misunderstanding’s coming from. Is there something to do with the renunciation? Or is that something to do “all sentient beings” and then losing the importantness of a single individual or single family? Or where the idea’s coming from?

[22:04]

Audience: [Inaudible]

I’m trying to find who the questioner is. It could be a misunderstanding, that’s why… Okay maybe answer this way. The questioner doesn’t want to raise his or her hand. If you think, “Because I have to have renunciation so I can’t leave my family” or something, then you’re totally mistaken. Because nobody told you have to leave your family. Unless you want to become a monk or nun—then of course. But otherwise we emphasize so much [23:56 Tibetan]. The liberation and enlightenment one should be able to achieve within the family, living with the family. We have given the example like Marpa: not only the great translator but the founder of Kagyu tradition. And all of those. And no one said you have to leave your family. If someone thinks that then you’re mistaken. Before you sort of throw that thing out, it would be nicer to check with yourself and with your friends. I very much emphasize, out of Three Principles, the principle one not to be called renunciation. But may call it “determination to be free.” Or even “developing love and compassion for yourself.”

[25:25]

So that will be the Principle One rather than renouncing. No buddha had ever encouraged all practitioners to renounce. If you’re going to go and become a monk or nun, then you leave family, you go away from. But I was a monk for about twenty-four years or so. Did I leave my family? I don’t think so. We were visiting all the time. On my holidays, I’d go home. It’s like going to boarding school and going back home for holiday. It was in that style.

I don’t know why you have to be afraid of losing family. Which group is it coming from? Gloria’s.

Would you like to clarify a little bit more on that?

Audience: I think she was saying, more or less, and she can correct me. I think she was saying not necessarily losing the family as far as leaving the family but losing the importance of family only. In the sense, if you have boddhimind you’re going to care about everybody equally. And then you feel you’re going to lose a special connection to certain people. And then also the sense of losing—thinking you’re going to lose something if you go into that.

Rimpoche: I think that’s a valid question, very important, very valid thought. However, I don’t think… You know, interesting thing. When I was a kid I had a little cave. I’ve been there, a place called Gompasa [28:05] between Sera and Drepung. And that cave where I memorized and lot of things. One of my sort-of entertainments was, there’s another meditator who is the disciple of my first teacher. When I was a kid there’s two of them. They’re learning Lam Rim from my teacher. So they meditate at night in the courtyard. I was put in between two of these people. I was supposed to meditate but I didn’t know what to think. I just had to sit there. And I look to the right and the guy’s sitting like this [demonstrates], very well known teacher. Later in India, even His Holiness Dalai Lama took a lot of teachings from that person. So he was called Geshe Renzen Demba [26:16] from Kone. Kone is in northern India. So he’s Indian. He always had a very strong body odor. Then there’s another person next to him. He was a businessman. We called him Tsong Dem [29:37], which means a “business leader.” He sits like this. [demonstrates]. So when I was maybe sixteen, seventeen or maybe thirteen, fourteen, when I was in that cave the source of another relaxation is Tsong Dem comes up in the afternoon and sits and talks with me. That is one of my big entertainment, actually. Then I don’t have to memorize or yell or scream or shout because Tsong Dem’s talking and I have time to gossip and all that. So I almost look forward.

[30:39]

But then if he did not finish his own practice he will not come, I think it must be around 1:00 or so. So until then he won’t come. And then when he walks out of his place I can see it from the cave up the mountain. So I always look for him. He always brought a bowl of yogurt, always, every day, whenever he comes.

One day he was talking to me. We were talking about the Communist Chinese.

And he said, “They call it ‘liberation.’”

I said, “Yeah. They call it ‘liberation.’ They must be going to liberate.”

And he said, “No, no, they’re not going to liberate. They’re going to equalize everybody.”

And I said, “Oh? How?”

“They’re not going to make the poor people rich. They’re going to make the rich people poor. So they will equalize.” [laughs] So that’s what he said.

[31:46]

I remember that all the time. They’re not there to make the poor people richer, but the rich people poorer. They equalize that way. So I remember that all time.

The idea of a bodhisattva is not making the individual poorer and losing the family connection and helping less. But it’s going to make it richer and more important and more purposeful and more meaningful. That’s my thinking. It’s not going to have the Communist way of making the richer poor and equalizing, but the other way around: giving an opportunity and people can make it if they have a talent and capability. And that’s how the boddhimind works. So I don’t see it as losing. But in our mind, a delusional mind, may think, “Oh I’m losing the importantness of it.” That importantness of sort of holding something special; it is ego effect. How does ego work? The first [33:36 Tibetan]. Even the basis of the compassion itself is, we develop compassion to ourself, we develop compassion to others, we develop compassion to our family.

[33:57]

We’re not developing compassion because we think, “Oh poor thing, they’re suffering.” No. We notice the first, it is me, me, me, me. I, me, me, me. Me, the most important. Then, my. My, my, my. My friend, my enemy, my cup, my pleasure, my this, my that. That gives the opportunity for the ego to make use of ourself as a slave. So one who sees this, and that is the compassion comes in. One who sees the suffering of the people, the way it’s continuously going down the drain. Is it because of the ego effects? First I, then my, and then you have the aversion and attachment and all of those and that’s how it makes it.

So when you begin to see this truly, I think we have opposite effect. It becomes much richer and much more meaningful and more connected, more closer than a distant. Perhaps the lack of understanding of compassion, very often we interpret compassion as something very, you know, oh poor thing. Sort of a pampering type of look. I don’t know. Don’t you think so? Very often in our identification of our compassion is really is poor thing, poor thing. It’s almost like looking down.

[36:57]

Looking down. Give me a better word. Condescending. It’s more or less condescending. You know, how do you know? If that person is not so much weak and not so much difficulties, if they sort of pick up a point or something then you’re going to hate straight away. Your dislike will come, “Well, I treated [him/her] very well, now look at what they’re doing.” And that indicates you, the compassion that you had earlier might not be true compassion. It might be, I don’t know, it’s very hard to say. Very hard to say. It might have been some sort of a little bit of ego service of the individual who tried to— I won’t say pamper, but—who tried to be, what is the word, condescending? I think it is doing more or less or ego-service of that individual rather than pure compassion. If you look very carefully you’ll see it with the mind of really watching. And if you just let it go, let it go. It is compassion, very kind, blah blah bye bye. That’s okay.

[38:55]

So if you look in that compassion very carefully you have a different effect. It becomes much richer. But that’s very important question, whoever raised it. But I said they’re not going to say it. [inaudible]

Rochelle: This is a clarification question. Supreme Field of Merit. Did you say someone to share your thoughts with or someone to share your faults with?

Rimpoche: Oh, I said “faults.” To be able to purify.

Rochelle: Which takes us back to, again, another question on the four powers. Please clarify the four powers, does the order switch and why? And what is the difference between compensation and antidote action?

Rimpoche: Oh. Compensations are part of antidote action. However, order doesn’t matter. You need four powers. You don’t have to exactly follow the A, B, C, and D. So it doesn’t matter as long as you have ABCD there, that is good enough. Whichever comes to you, whichever pops up, whichever is easier. But “not going to repeat” is definitely follows the “regret.” There’s no way they do. But otherwise it doesn’t matter whatever way you do.

The compensation is an antidote, no doubt, part of antidote action. But what we can compensate is actually taking refuge and generate boddhimind. That is the compensation that we’re doing. We’re not paying, we’re not apologizing, we’re not paying money or anything of that sort. When I use the word “compensation” I mean compensation through spiritually. I don’t mean compensation through legal way—through suing and that way. That’s mean, again I’m sorry. Is that clear? Because I sort of went very briefly so maybe many people are confused on that. Whoever raised the question, are you happy with it or what? Nobody wants to raise their hand. Somebody’s smiling over there.

Rochelle: I guess it came up in several groups that they couldn’t count four and they said it several times.

Rimpoche: Now, they can count four, right?

Rochelle: Even now they can’t count four. It came back in the group process today that every group had to go through them all in the group.

Rimpoche: So, after that, is it clear or not?

Audience: Rimpoche, you used to call compensation the base.

Rimpoche: It doesn’t matter what the label is. It’s the same thing.

Audience: I know, but I think that is what the confusion is about. Because people are lumping compensation and antidote together as one and then you only get three. But if you call it “base” instead…

Rimpoche: Okay, so then compensation and then antidote. You count them two separately. So what?

Audience: Because they mean the same thing.

Rimpoche: I don’t think so. That is the source of the confusion. In English antidote and compensation is the same thing?

Audience: Very similar in this context.

Rimpoche: Well there’s a big dictionary here. This morning we talked and they gave me a big dictionary so there you go. I don’t want to take so much time but let the dictionary explain that.

Kathy (reading from dictionary): “Compensation. The act or state of compensating, the state of being compensated. [laughter] Something given or received as an equivalent for service, debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, indemnity.”

Rimpoche: Okay, hold that. That’s what I mean, “compensation.” Now, antidote?

Kathy (reading): “A medicine or other remedy for counteracting the effect of poison, disease, etc. Something that prevents or counteracts injurious or unwanted effects.”

Rimpoche: That’s it. That’s the difference. Well, quite clear, really. [laughter] What’s the matter with you?

[45:20]

You know I said, “Compensation is you wanted to do something to that person whom you have hurt.” So either you—that’s why the dictionary explains too. So, maybe you have love/compassion meditate or take refuge to the person. Antidote, you may not be able to undo what you did but you make it purified so you don’t have to suffer, you don’t have to…it will not materialize, the seed that you put in will not materialize. Like if you have a disease, take medicine or you know, try to reverse that. That’s antidote action.

Kathy: (reading) It’s under a psychological definition. It’s “a mechanism by which an individual attempts to make up for some real or imagined deficiency of personality or behavior by developing or stressing another aspect of the personality or substituting a different form of behavior.”

Rimpoche: I don’t know whether this contributes or adds to confusion. One minute, I’m not having the discussion yet. Or otherwise I will not go through that. You don’t mind, okay?

So that’s what I mean. There’s two different things. Really very clearly you can see it. One, you want to compensate something. I don’t mean, you go to legally, you go to the court and pay money. But through different ways. Try to give something: love, compassion or refuge. And then antidote is antidote. You try to diffuse the negative we have created, try to diffuse by adding another chemistry on top and make it diffused. So, that is the antidote. Why is it so difficult? Mark, what would you like to say?

Mark: It’s getting clearer. Can you give us an example?

Then I think we’ll be done.

Audience: I have one. The compensation is you lose a cow but you get a horse back. And then the antidote is you get the cow healed or restored somehow.

Rimpoche: [laughs]

Audience: The antidote is that it restores. The compensation is something else comes back and bounces. But the antidote is that you restore healing. I think that’s what they’re saying.

Jonathan: My question about the antidote is, is the antidote to counteract the specific negativity, like you had a bad thought or did a bad thing? Or is it to counterbalance the seed so as to eliminate that kind of negativity from your consciousness?

Rimpoche: Well, this is a very specific question. So I have to answer it very specifically if I can.

[49:37]

Two things. Like, for example, if you have destroyed a life, save a life. That’s sort of a direct thing. However, the main thing is to cancel the seed. So it is sort of more or less recommended antidote action is like meditating on shunyata. I don’t even want to use the word emptiness. Or meditation on boddhmind or love/compassion, you can use that. Or saying a Vajrasattva recitations or some of those. So I think what they really use is in general to all, and specifically if you have something very specific, that’s what it is. But actually antidote recommended you use is to totally diffuse the seed. And that’s why this shunyata meditation or the love/compassion meditation. Very generally giving it more important than specifically taking flower and touching on the head, like that.

[51:18]

Like a little kid. Buy two candies and pat a little bit on the head. They don’t recommend that. So is it more clear now? Aura, you want to say something?

Aura: I have four sort of action words that help me keep it really clear. So I thought it might be useful to share those. And it’s regret, refuge, remedy, refrain. And I think it kind of makes it a little clearer… Anyway if people find it useful they can use it. And if not they can discard it. But for me it’s been a useful way to kind of think of these antidotes as actions and as actions that have a kind of trajectory.

Rimpoche: Good, thank you. And Alan used to say “Four R’s,” remember? All the time, Four R’s, he used to say that. But the thing is, by this time when you really know how to purify then it doesn’t matter what language you use. It’s there. So by changing, by switching the language, it makes you— I was hoping—it makes you more easier and more…you know exactly what you’re talking about rather than getting confused.

[53:19]

You know we have a saying in Tibet in the monasteries.

[53:23 Tibetan]. Tsa tsa means when you’re debating, you have contradicted, you lost yourself. So the person wanted to know example of what is impermanent. Then somebody said “a pillar.” The other debater said, “No, you’re wrong. So your teacher might have said, ‘A pillar,’ my teacher says, “Pot.” Tsa tsa, tsa, meaning you lost.” So it is the same thing. Whether it’s a pillar or pot. It doesn’t matter. It is. Oh yeah, this is the example of impermanent. What is it? Somebody’s teacher said, “Pillar.” The guy says “Pillar.” No, my teacher says, “Pot.” Tsa, tsa, tsa. Which means, hey, I did not get the exact word what I’m thinking about so therefore I’m not happy, I’m confused. Which means pre-conditioned, pre-perception. You’re holding it and it’s not matching with your perception because it sounds different, spelled different.

[55:25]

Kathy: Rimpoche, I’m still curious to have a clear understanding of one piece, if I might ask. Please. Previously for the point that was referred to as “base” or referred to as “refuge” and you mentioned “compensation” today. Before I looked at the base as being that I was purifying due to a negativity that I brought about and that in my relationship to where, the base upon which I had done that I was also taking refuge. It’s like, to compensate I’m going back to my relationship’s previous standing which is a relationship to the enlightened, taking refuge. A relationship to all other beings hoping to generate boddhimind. So that’s the compensation in my mind, is returning what had been taken away, going back to that as the base. And then from there building that regret or because of the regret paying attention to that relationship. Is that true? Is that what the base or compensation is referring to— the injury or the harm done initially?

Rimpoche: No, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. The reasons why you take refuge and love/compassion is not to maintaining the relationship and going back on that. I think you wanted to do something, you know, like remember I want to do something nice for it, so what can I do? So then you have this choice. Actually what they really say is the compassion. You want to meditate compassion on that person. But if that person is an enlightened one, the meditation on compassion might not be suitable compensation so therefore you take refuge. So that’s the reason why you’re taking refuge there rather than maintaining a relationship or building a connection. It becomes a package. Refuge comes in the package. But not a purpose of taking refuge but a purpose of doing something good to that person. So I believe that’s what it is.

Kathy: So then looking at the aspect, I’m curious to take that further, because if I’m looking to have something nice done where something not nice was done—as you just described but saying it differently— then antidote differs in terms of the diffusing of seed?

[58:37]

Antidote you need something will be able to diffuse. Will refuge taking is capable of purifying, maybe. Maybe not. So the recommended antidote action is shunyata, boddhimind or something like that. So you need a little more fire over here to be able to shoot that out. Am I making it clear to you? All right, thanks. If you’re happy that’s good.

Rochelle: When visualizing the Supreme Field of Merit, at what point are they front-generated and at what point on your crown?

Rimpoche: Doesn’t matter. Your choice. Whatever’s convenient to you. Those, you know, the rules will tell you something. Don’t take it so rigidly. Some people will make it very rigid. It has to be this. It has to be that. I don’t think that works. But you know, is it necessary? Yes. But whether you like it over here or you like it over there—whatever’s easy for you is okay. Do you have to have it? Yes. As long as you have it. It’s okay as long as it’s not underneath you or something. In the pot, that probably won’t work. Remember, when you meditate lama or guru or Buddha either you meditate in front of you, at your heart or in your palms or over here. You know, all these are okay. Do you need it? Yes. Where can you have it? Anywhere else. Except the wrong places. [laughter]

Rochelle: “Request to remain until total enlightenment.” Does that mean my total enlightenment or everyone’s total enlightenment?

Rimpoche: Sure. My concern is my concern. So my total enlightenment. If you want to think everyone, that’s also fine. But I’m thinking “my.”

Rochelle: Is accumulating merit the same as accumulating positive karma?

Rimpoche: More or less yes. Technically no. But practically yes.

Rochelle: And, in keeping with that, is purifying negativities the same as purifying negative karma?

Rimpoche: Oh yeah. That may be my language problem. Personal language problem. But it is.

Rochelle: You say that anger will never protect. Attachment may protect us a little but it is the sticky area. What did you mean with that last statement?

Rimpoche: Very good question. Thank you. Anger will never protect. I did not say attachment may protect you. Attachment may give you some picnic spots. If you remember I said that. Maybe I have to turn the time back. [laughs] I’m just joking. I did say the “sticky stuff.” You know what sticky stuff is all about it. You know better than I do. That part I’m quite sure. Sticky rice, you put your finger in there it sticks.

[1:02:27]

Rochelle: Please talk about the difference or similarity between the term “merit” and “positive karma.”

Rimpoche: Merit is more or less sort of luck. And it’s also good karma. Good karma is also luck. [laughs]

So more or less I think it’s the same thing. When you really boil down to, I think they’re all more or less the same. Again, technically, I can’t say that. From a philosophical point of view, no. But a very practical point of view for us, yes.

Rochelle: Can jealousy, anger or fear ever be a positive emotion if you’re motivated by caring or protecting a loved one or securing one’s survival?

Rimpoche: That’s right, it is. Jealousy and what did you say? Anger and fear. I wish the questioner used attachment. Then I can very easily say yes. But when you use the word anger and when you use the word jealousy, when you use the word fear, it is a little difficult to say yes.

[1:04:06]

It’s for me it’s very difficult to see positive anger. And also very difficult for me to see positive jealousy. But competition—what do you call it— competitiveness can definitely be positive. Fear, yes, can be positive. Anger becomes difficult for me. If you use love, definitely yes. Anger by nature, by the virtue of the word definition of anger to me— whether anger as anger or anger as hatred—it has hate-ness and that becomes hard to be positive. You know what I mean? So that’s the point. Fear, yes. Every fear is not necessarily bad. If you’re walking somewhere in the dark alley and you hear some different noise, you get a little fear developed. That fear can even save your life. Not necessarily that bad. So when you use the word “anger” it makes it difficult because of the definition of the word anger or hatred. Is that okay? Whose question is it? Yours. Very interesting question.

Audience: (Inaudible)

Rimpoche: Oh that might not be a full definition of anger.

Anger, hatred definition. I’d rather look at the hatred.

Audience: I don’t see them as synonymous. I think hatred is when anger is aimed destructively. I think anger can be a source of energy for creativity if it’s focused.

Rimpoche: You may be right. This is English language. And I’m really thinking in Tibetan. You might be very right. And I’m looking at hatred as the anger that has been further developed and becoming sort of a thing. You might be very right, you know, from the language point of view.

Audience: I would use the word hostility for what you’re describing.

Rimpoche: You might be right, you might be right. What do you think, Mark?

[1:08:10]

Mark: The term righteous indignation which feels a lot like anger but is used to positively stop some harm from happening.

Rimpoche: You might be right. I don’t know. This is my language problem. You might be right. I know what you’re getting at. But I’m not in the mood of going in that discussion tonight. I think it’s a different point. In those Vajrayana you can have the wrathfulness. That is more or less showbiz rather than actual wrath. So that’s why I’m not willing to go in there. It’s showbiz.

Kathy: (Reading from dictionary) “Anger: a strong feeling of displeasure or belligerence aroused by wrong, wrath, ire, trouble. To arouse anger. Synonym: resentment, exasperation. And then hatred: Hate is to dislike intensely or passionately, feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility towards. To detest. To be unwilling, feel intense dislike, etc.”

Rimpoche: When we’re talking about the three poisons that has to be hatred. According to this definition it has to be hatred. That’s why I’m saying you might be right. And that’s possible in that anger. But the anger when we understood in Tibetan language as tror or contror [1:11:02] then it does not have the same coverage, same as what you get with “anger” in English. And that’s what it is. Really it is. That makes the difference for me to think.

Rochelle: Are deities real or merely symbolic? And can you do without deities in Vajrayana or do you need to have them?

Rimpoche: In Vajrayana, it has its own rules. Yes, you have to have it. Either it’s symbolic or real. To me it’s real. But to those who think it’s not real it’s not real to them. It is. It is dependent arise and so it depends on the observer and observing, and its’ using and using person, and object what you use. It’s all dependent on that. So to me it’s real. To some people it’s not real. Both are true.

Rochelle: The person is concerned because they accidentally killed a mosquito and how should they handle that with the four powers. And how do you feel about mosquito bombs? [laughter]

Rimpoche: We’re using one tonight. Again, you know, there a lot of things we should not do. And a lot of things we should do. But can we do everything we should do? No. Can we not do everything we should not do? No. So you have to see what is more important. I would like to share with you a story.

Founder of Drukpa Kagyu tradition, one of the Kagyu traditions, called Drukpa Kunlep [1:13:25], sort of a little crazy wisdom type-of-person. He has a book carrying on his shoulder, object of refuge representing dharma. Then a dog came by and bit him. So what he said [1:13:49 Tibetan] “The objection is very strong, but meat is equally stronger. So great auspicious the bump on the head on the dog.” That’s how he hit it. That’s exactly what we have to do. And in today’s world, at this level, exactly that’s how we manage. Yes, there’s very strong objection but the needs are sometimes more important than the objection. So you have to follow it. But with all care, otherwise everything creates suffering anyway, whatever it is. So that’s what it is.

[1:06:50]

That’s why one shouldn’t be so much righteousness. If you try to be right, everything right, right, right and then you do a hundred different wrong things just to be right. So it won’t work. Okay? Any more questions?

Rochelle: Please talk about the problem of how to deal with low self-esteem without encouraging or cultivating pride.

Rimpoche: Can we do that tomorrow? You have any more questions here?

Rochelle: Rimpoche talked about ignorance being the bare bones of ego. Is there a positive ego?

Rimpoche: There is no such thing called “positive ego.” If there is a positive ego we don’t call it “ego” we call it “me.”

Tony: Where do the enlightened beings live? Where are they?

Rimpoche: Ah! I have a very interesting story. There was a very famous governor of East Tibet. He had no idea about Buddha, dharma, and sangha. I mean, he was a monk. An Eastern Tibet-type leader asked him, “How are the three precious jewels today? Are they well? And where are they these days?” He’s a very clever witty person. So he’s thinking what to say. He had no idea. He’s eating dinner. He keeps on chewing and thinking, buying time, you know. After a while he says, “Yes, the precious three jewels are nowadays staying in a beautiful glass house in the middle of the sky with the shining lights.” That’s the answer for that. [laughter]

Audience: So when we imagine them, how do we know we’re not crazy?

Rimpoche: Doesn’t matter! The light radiating up there. [laughter] It sounds like Karen. [laughter]

Audience: The person wishes to remain nameless.

Rimpoche: I’m sorry then. Did you say it’s you? Aha! [lots of laughter] You know, but it’s good. It thinks that way it’s great. I like it. I’m sorry. It’s a good way to go that way. We can’t prove it. But you cannot deny. So there you are.

[1:18:35]

Rimpoche: We’re not crazy. We know that. I’m not crazy. You’re not crazy. We’re all okay. [laughs]

[1:18:38]

Rimpoche: In that case, thank you. I was hoping I could do a little more teaching but didn’t go through. But the questions are important. Some of them I give very short answers. But I don’t mean I’m not treating it as not important. But I have no authority to say yes or no. I have to explain a little bit. But some of them I did that because you will find the reasons more or less if you read those Lam Rim books. Or even in “Odyssey to Freedom” you’ll find reasons why I said “no” or “yes.” And if you still wanted to know, come back tomorrow and we’ll talk about it. And thank you so much and good night.

[1:19:46 Closing prayers]

(Rimpoche talks to the Umsei] Tomorrow in the first session we do just like today except the lineage prayer. And if you look up the lineage prayer and we have to cut the lineage prayer a little bit shorter because it takes quite a long time. So if you look in the Panden Tsama Lama and thereafter Puntsok Gelek and then thereafter what else? Katchen Chupay. Then Ganchen Tsuken Tsongkhapa. [1:22:19]. And then skip all of those four. Then that would take us to Rabten Sonam. I think that will be easier to do. Okay, so that’s what we do tomorrow.)

[1:23:06 Tape ends]