Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 15 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 28: 01-15-06

Thank you for coming here today. We are continuing to read Tsongkhapa’s Lam Rim Chenmo. I don’t know whether some of you have received the e-mail this morning sent throughout Jewel Heart. Some of you might not have received it, but Ribur Rimpoche passed away last night. It was during our night, and it was 2:22 Indian Standard time in south India. We know he has been not well, and he made it absolutely clear that he would like to go. That is how he left the United States. The last time I spoke to him, I was in Singapore. Rimpoche’s students in Singapore asked me if I could ask him to go to Singapore, which I did. Rimpoche said “I have been here too long, I have to go now. I have been here too long.” “Yes, Singapore is a very good place to go, he says. And I am going to go.” So the people went there immediately to bring him to Singapore, but actually he did not come. Probably when he said “I have been here too long”, this didn’t mean too long in India. It meant too long in this world. That is probably what he must have been saying. Before he went back to India, I had a meeting with him in Washington. He was sort of ready to go. He told me “whatever you are doing is great, be helpful.” As far as he was concerned, he told me: “I have asked Lama Zopa Rimpoche, and I am asking you as well, to take care of my reincarnation. I have already selected who is going to be my reincarnation’s teacher.” And all of those types of things. He made it quite clear, and then left. It was sort of obvious. He went to India to the Sera monastery to pass away, to change his physical body. So, actually, that has happened last night.

My thought is that he would probably leave on the Full Moon day, which is probably two days ago in India. My sister talked to him two days ago, and she told me that he was very sick and could not say much. But he said “please wait for me two days, I’ll be there.” So I think he extended two days. My thinking was that he will probably leave on the Full Moon day. But it happened to be last night.

So, having said that, the passing of Ribur Rimpoche, or, for that matter, any great lama, is not so much an inconvenience for them, especially. It may be a great occasion. But for us who are left behind, it is two things: 1) an opportunity to pray. As you all know, the day one of your teachers passes away is considered very-very important to the individual practitioners. Although it might not be a tsoh day, or anything, it is considered important. 2) and we do make tsoh offerings, and we do practice more, and do some very important spiritual work. It gives us an extra opportunity.

For themselves, as we teach in the Lam Rim, what you need to achieve before you die, first is to be in the position to be looking forward for the passing away, because that is the time when you will be able to transit from the ordinary into the extraordinary enlightened level. Second, even if you don’t, you will be received by the dakas and dakinis in a pure land. So you will fulfill your wishes, which means getting enlightened, and so forth. So that is why you are looking forward to it. One should not have hesitation to the passing, because you know you are going to be OK. It is a matter of changing physical identity. So it is going to be OK. That is the number two goal for the spiritual practitioner, is to not have any hesitation at the time of death. Third, at least, the last one is that one should have no regrets. These are the three goals introduced in the Lam Rim*. All of you have heard this a number of times. But at occasions like this, when you repeat it once again, it may make a special point on the people’s minds. That is why I like to emphasize that.

I requested through e-mail to every branch of Jewel Heart, wherever they are, to observe and make tsoh offerings. Especially, many of the Jewel Heart people have received teachings and initiations from Ribur Rimpoche, particularly Heruka and Vajrayogini initiations, both the body mandala and five deities. For those people especially, to be able to do this is a great opportunity for our self to accumulate merit and purification. If there a number of people, if they have a central place to meet, they may make arrangements to meet, to make sure to do tsoh offerings. So, for today, I would like to change the schedule a little bit. After a little while I would like to do tsoh offerings here. That is one thing. Also, they asked me if I could be there. I thought about it, and I though if I go there, it will take at least four or five days to get there, to get an Indian visa, two days of holiday, all of that does not make sense. So I told them I won’t be able to be there, but Jewel heart will be represented by may father’s reincarnation. So I requested him to go there. He is very great now, almost becoming a Geshe, top in his classes every year, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama has told me a number of times that he has become extraordinarily great. Every time when I see His Holiness he keeps telling me that. So he is going to go there to represent Jewel Heart and me, and himself. Because when my father’s previous incarnation passed away (during the cultural revolution in Tibet), all these physical services were done by Ribur Rimpoche. So I think it is appropriate that he will go there and do this.

Within a year or two, my father’s reincarnation will be done with his studies, and he will become Geshe. Both sutra and tantra studies will be over. Hopefully he will participate in Jewel Heart. He may visit this year sometime just for a visit. He may be able to participate in Jewel Heart, although His Holiness told me that he throughout his incarnation lineage, it has been the person who has been substituting for the Dalai Lama when the Dalai Lama is not there. So he said “I am looking forward to his doing that.” If he does that, he might not be able to participate much in Jewel Heart. But I think he will. I am just casually mentioning that.

I think we will do the Lama Chopa tsoh today after we take a break at three-something. Normally what we pray – the praying is almost the same thing – but particularly when a great person like Ribur Rimpoche passes away, the once special thing to pray for is that whatever his profound wishes are to be fulfilled, whatever they may be. Then, the personal connections, anything that has made him not happy, or something like that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, pray that any negativities there may be purified. So blessings have been obtained. Then usually, we pray to benefit all living sentient beings, and for him to have a good reincarnation, to quickly return as a non-controversial reincarnation for the benefit of all beings. And we pray that the reincarnation may be able to do exactly the same activities as the previous Rimpoche has been doing, and that his activity of helping sentient beings will continue. So that is what we normally pray. Other than that, everything we pray is the same as usual.

A number of times people have asked me: “What can I do that is special when somebody passes away? There is not so much to do that is special. Your usual daily prayer is very special. And if that is not helpful, then there is nothing else you can do. I am just mentioning that, by the way. That is what you have to do. When you go to some loved one’s passing away, or when they have passed away, you do your daily prayers, and dedicate your virtue to the benefit of whoever has passed away, loved ones in this case, to fulfill the profound wishes. That is about it. Of course, people who do rituals will have different rituals, but that is different.

The Lama Chopa especially is something very great. Though there are very special prayers, like nine different prayers that are called the “collection of prayers”, for us the Lama Chopa is the most profound daily practice we can ever have. There will never be anything better than that. So, make use of this. And the Lama Chopa has certain changes, like the Lama Chopa in connection with Heruka yab/yum, or Lama Chopa in connection with Guhyasamaja or Yamantaka. There are changes there. You may be aware of that or not, but that is not a big deal, not very important. Just the basic Lama Chopa is extremely important. Although it is very clear that Ribur Rimpoche’s major practice is Heruka yab/yum, particularly that of the Heruka body mandala, our Lama Chopa today is going to follow the usual Lama Chopa, rather than switching to the Heruka. We do have that text available in English, but still we should stick to the usual Lama Chopa. Then, we will dedicate our teaching, particularly this wisdom teaching and the Winter Retreat of Vajrayogini teaching for the fulfillment of Rimpoche’s profound wishes.

OK, I would like to say that much here. Then we will do what we are supposed to do here. What were we doing yesterday?

[Audience] You were about to finish up the seven points of the view that contradict the unique characteristic of the Madhyamaka.

[Rimpoche] Did you say Madhyamaka is “centrist”? According to this book? [audience inaudible] They only use Madhyamaka. Middle path, Madhyamaka, centrist. OK. You may notice that I always review. Because when you are reading it, it is complicated, and it goes scattered, and it always needs to be reviewed a little bit.

So, what are the distinguishing features of the Madhyamaka? Point number one is that there is nothing whatsoever with inherent existence. According to this particular language, there is not even a single smallest particle of inherent existence. There is no intrinsic existence or inherent existence, not even a particle. Point number two is that if there is an inherent existence, no matter how subtle, even a particle of inherent existence, then you can not have the functioning of samsara, nirvana, creation, exhaustion, and all of those functions. Yesterday somebody was asking what is a “function”.

By the way, we have to get someone who will go and buy some tsoh material [followed by activity of gathering money for getting materials the tsoh, deciding who will go shopping, etc.; while this is happening, Rimpoche describes the process by which he was notified of Ribur Rimpoche’s passing].

I was dreaming about Tsong Rimpoche. Tsong Rimpche was busy doing something, and suddenly my phone started saying plung – plung – plung. I listened two or three times, and nothing was there. Then suddenly I saw there was a text message saying Ribur Rimpoche just passed away this very minute. I don’t know from where it came from. Then I called my sister and woke her up, and she said “No, I just spoke to them a couple of hours ago, and it is OK. “ I said “there is a message on my machine”. Then they called, and I got a call from them too and it is confirmed. The old Tsong Rimpoche, he looks very young, very active, doing something in my dream. Then my phone started going plung – plung... etc.

OK, lets go back to what we are talking about. Please sit down now, if you start getting up, we will not do our job. This is more important. This is dedication, teaching. learning, it is also to the service of all the teachers, to the service of all living beings. To the service of benefiting people, Buddha’s teachings, and all of this. This is one of the best things we can do. So, we are talking about the unique character of the Madhyamaka, the middle path, of Nagarjuna’s, which is that there is not even a single inherent existence, not even a particle. And if there were an inherent existence or intrinsic existence, then nothing can be done. Therefore, all the functioning of nirvana, samsara, liberation, bondage, and all of them are not possible, because it is an inherent existence.

The third point is that if that is the case, then there is no liberation, no bondage, all of them. This particular textbook, at this moment, is talking a lot about liberation and bondage. I don’t know what picture you are getting. They are not talking about liberating the slaves, or prisoners, or birds or fishes, that normal picture we may get. They are not talking about that. The idea of liberation here is the liberating of the individual from the clutch of the ego, from samsara, all of them, and reaching nirvana and total enlightenment. That is the liberation they are talking about. In other words: the results of the spiritual practices. They are talking about the third noble truth. If the third noble truth is not possible, then there is no purpose for the fourth noble truth. If there is no purpose for the third noble truth, then the second noble truth (cause) is defeated. If that cannot be dealt with, then there is no way of handling the first noble truth. The moment you are talking about bondage and liberation, you are expected to get the idea of the circle of the four noble truths, both positive causes and results, and negative causes and results. That is what should to come to mind, rather than liberating slaves, etc..

Tsongkhapa is pointing to this contradiction that we find in the thoughts of the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas. Tsongkhapa is directly telling them, since that is what happens, therefore the lack of inherent existence has to be accepted. There are three points: 1) there is not even a particle that is inherently existent; 2) If there is inherent existence, then samsara and nirvana cannot function; 3) If that is so, then liberation is not possible. Therefore the four noble truths are not functionable. These are three main points to remember. Because of that reason we are almost forced to accept non-inherent existence. That is the unique – distinguishing – feature of the Madhyamaka.

So, when we are talking about wisdom, emptiness, you have to have all this in the picture. That is the distinguishing feature that Madhyamaka carries. Not as philosophical thoughts, but as reality. Philosophical thoughts have to be based in and tally with the truth and reality. The idea of a wrong philosophy or right philosophy, or proving, is on the basis of reality. That is what it is. It is not about a wonderful thought and a clever statement; a wonderful thought that can go a long way. That does not mean it is a right philosophy. The whole idea of refuting the five non-Buddhist philosophical viewpoints, plus the three – let’s say for this purpose – inferior viewpoints of Buddhist schools, plus one within the Madhyamika itself, all four of those are being refuted. They are being refuted because the don’t tally with truth and reality. That is what it is when you say you cannot have liberation and all of those. If it contradicts reality, then it becomes a wrong philosophy.

What the word “philosophy” means - and no doubt the philosopher is searching for the truth - however we also have the understanding that some kind of clever scholars presents a lot of things that are half true and half not true. Like the book you call “Ten Million Little Pieces”. That sort of thing is not Buddha’s idea of philosophy. It is about really dealing with reality. It is quite clear here: if there is inherent existence, then it is static, there is no change. When there is no change, how can there be liberation? How can there be bondage? If it is in bondage, then it will be in bondage all the time. If it is liberated, then it is liberated all the time. That is the point you have to see. The Madhyamaka’s unique feature has these three important points. These three important points establish that one has to accept that the nature of reality is a lack of inherent existence. OK? So that is established.

What they are contradicting here is that “Like the ‘materialistics’, you also think that if there is no reality that is really existent, then nothing is left. When there is nothing left, then who is doing what? There is no creator creating. There is no functioning person, and nothing to be functioned. There is no goer. There is no place to be going.”

When I say “goer”, it means going from samsara to nirvana. That is supposed to be the spiritual goal. So there is no growth, there is no cessation, no increase, no decrease. That is how these people think. Why? Because they just cannot establish the definition of existence. Not only the definition. The definition may become philosophical or logical terminology. What we are talking about is what you mean by “existing.” If there is no inherent existence, then what do you mean by existence? That is what we have been talking about all day yesterday, saying “just a combination”. Not only yesterday. Throughout our talking about wisdom, right from the beginning where we started the Three Principals, from that point onwards we have been saying “just a combination”. Just a combination of just the right terms, the right conditions. If it is a little bit too much, something else happens, it is no longer there. Something else happens. So, just a combination. And you can function on that basis. That is what it means to be existing.

Because of the greatness of Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita and Je Tsongkhapa, we can say this. We have to refute the wrong views. We can refute them. We can establish views and we can say “that is wrong”. You can say all this because of their kindness and their gift. That is what they left with us. Otherwise, we would never get to that point. Since we can refute them, we can say “your definition or idea of existence is ‘true’ existence, and that is wrong.” That is what we are saying. We can say it, but if we watch our own mind, we have that. We do. Our idea of existence is a solid existence. Some of you may have heard it for the first time during the wisdom teachings. But many of you have heard many times that it is just a combination of the right terms and conditions. But you may not get it. If you are a scientist, you can get it, because you talk about “just right”, but then not everybody is a rocket scientist.

Just to help our mind adjust to this, as well as protect us from the fear we talked about yesterday, we use words like “inherent existence”. Yesterday we said “Hey you are not there.” This will be very threatening. Not only threatening, but extremely frightening of complete annihilation or negation. So we utilize terms like “lack of inherent existence”, lack of natural existence”, or the “reality existence”, or “in absolute reality you don’t exist”. That becomes a comfort zone. But some of those earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas said you don’t have to use the word “natural reality” or ”in absolute” etc. You can just simply say “it is not there”. If you go that way, then it becomes truly non-existence. If it is truly non-existence, then nothing is really left; then everything is gone. So when you are not there, how can you have growth, cessation, etc.. We have said all of those things, and that was the first point we tried to establish yesterday. I don’t know how far we have established it, but when you review it, it helps to put things together.

The second point we tried to establish yesterday was that “Oh yeah, I don’t have a problem, because that was in relative reality.” The second point is that we can say to them “Not only does Nagarjuna accept that in the relative level every phenomenon does not have inherent existence, we accept it. Even you have accepted that. Under that circumstance, the idea that refutes inherent existence will also refute existence in the relative level. If existence in the relative level is also refuted, then, again, even in the relative level you have no liberation, etc. All those points are there.” That is the second point. The Lam Rim Chenmo makes it a little more clearly than I have. The Lam Rim Chenmo says the argument, or objection – it looks like litigation going on in the court – the objection they are raising here is “Oh yeah, I know that. But Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, etc. are talking about liberation and samsara and all of them at the relative level, not at the absolute level. I accept that at the relative-level existence, so therefore I don’t have that problem.” [See the Objection on page 140]

Did you get that there is a subtle difference? Yesterday we were not seeing the difference at all, no matter how I went around it. But I hope today you will be able to see a little more subtle difference there. I don’t know. Everybody has a long face, anyway.

[Audience] Could you say it again? Please?

[Rimpoche]. It is quite simple, you know why? I am sorry, honestly. Here there is a big argument saying that if you defeat existence completely, and then if it is really truly existent, then there is no liberation then there is no liberation, no bondage, and all of those. That is what they say. Then they raise an objection, saying: “No. Nagarjuna’s is not talking about liberation at the absolute level, but at the relative level. I accept that, at the relative level, so therefore I have no problem with what you are talking about.”

[Audience] So it is my acceptance that makes it not a problem?

[Rimpoche] That is what they are saying: “Because I accept it at the relative level, therefore I don’t get those problems.”

[Audience] Who is saying that?

[Rimpoche] Whoever you are refuting.

[Audience] That is what I mean, we have had this problem before, about who is who and who is you.

[Audience] Not, it is the objector is saying, and then the Madhyamika answers.

[Rimpoche] No. Here it is not a madhyamika and non-madhyamika argument. It is a discussion between the earlier Madhyamikas and Tsongkhapa’s points. Did you get it?

[Audience] Yeah.

[Rimpoche] Ok, that is what it is.

[Audience] Is the argument that they are seeing that “we see there is no existence absolutely, but we believe that in conventional reality there still is.” Is that what the objection is?

[Rimpoche] No. The first one says: ‘You are going to be defeated. You have everything in intrinsic reality. You don’t make a difference, so, if it is intrinsic reality, then there can not be change, no liberation, no bondage.” Then they move to the second point, saying: “Hey, that is not right. Nagarjuna’s liberation, etc. is talking about the relative level. I accept that, at the relative level. What are you talking about? I don’t have the problem that you said I had in your first point.”

[Audience] You accept the relative level of inherent existence or the relative level of non-inherent existence?

[Rimpoche] If you read it, take some notes, you will know. If you just don’t read it and don’t take notes, and just say it, it doesn’t make any sense at all. I don’t mean you, as any individual person, as you. So, here, the argument is between the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas and Tsongkhapa’s argument. So “they” are the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas. Earlier we went through a whole chapter on the arguments between the Madhyamikas and the materialists. That period is over. Now the period is coming where we look at the earlier Madhyamikas and Tsongkhapa’s viewpoint. When they say “they” they mean earlier Tibetans. Every point, wherever you get it, all these seven or eight, plus there will be thirty or something, all of them are going to be earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas and this.

[Audience] I think the confusion is about what it means to accept the relative level. What does that statement mean, to say: “I accept existence on the relative level”?

[Rimpoche] I think “accept” here means they are saying “you are talking about the absolute level and I am talking about the relative level. Apples and oranges.” The way the Tibetan logical arguments go, the “accept” or “not accept” is mostly about what you are talking about**. Within that, do you think this is the one or this is not the one. When you say “this is the one”, that is your acceptance of it. And when you say “this is not the one”, you are rejecting it. It is not only Tibetan, but everywhere else, isn’t it? The point they are supposed to be saying here is that “You don’t have to say that nothing exists in absolute reality. You simply say ‘nothing exits’ – ‘in reality nothing exists.’ Or you don’t even say ‘reality’, you just say ‘nothing exists.’ ” Then comes “Oh, if nothing exists, how can there be liberation and bondage, how can you have the four noble truths?” Then comes “Oh!. You are talking about that. Nagarjuna is talking about that, at the relative level, not at an absolute level. I accept that, at the relative level, so I don’t get those problems.” Is that better?

[Audience] Ok. That’s better.

[Audience] They are saying they accept that there is no intrinsic existence on the relative level, but they are not going any further than that.

[Rimpoche] Alright. That is what they are talking about.

[Audience] Phew! [general laughter]

[Rimpoche] Then, it is not Tsongkhapa saying it. It has not reached to that level, the later Tibetan. These are the new Kadampas who are saying this – I am not talking about Gshe Kelsang Gyatso’s “New Kadapmpa”, I am talking about the real new Kadampas – the new Kadampas are saying it. Even if you said that, it is not right. It is not right because Chandrakirti and Nagarjuna, etc. said “all phenomena are not intrinsic reality. Even relatively, even from the relative point of view, there is no inherent existence. You even accept that. You yourself have said ‘When Chandrakirti and all of them are talking about lack of inherent existent they are talking about the relative level.’ You even accept that. The logic you are using to refute the inherent existence will also refute inherent existent even in the relative level. Even in the relative level, inherent existence is refuted. If that is so, the liberation, etc. has been refuted by the logical points, even at the relative level. It is quite clear. Why are you making a circle around it? Why are you repeating the circle, trying to hide between the words and try to circle it?”

That is what the second point is all about. Which means: “give us new thoughts”. Looking at you people, when I say: “refuting the inherent existence in the absolute level”, everybody says “yeah, how, who?’ And then we think it has not been refuted at the relative level. The point is that it has also now been refuted at the relative level. So, here we are back to the point of establishing the lack of existence, emptiness, and what existence is. I think that is the problem we are really struggling with. Well, we are not really struggling, but we try to study how they (meaning the earlier ones, including Tsongkhapa) have struggled with it and how they have refuted. Even Tsongkhapa is earlier than us and goes into that category. So, we are studying what they have struggled with, and what they have refuted. At the end of that studying, we hope to find some conclusion as to what it is all about. That is the whole idea behind this.

They go on changing, all the time. Here we are talking about the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas, that period before Tsongkhapa. It is not necessarily objecting to Nyingma, Sakya, Kargyu, but to the Madhyamikas within the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kargyu, within these traditions, and some who are not part of that at all. In the Tibetan tradition there are single great scholars who do not fall into those categories. So, all of those views are being referred to here. This really affects the individuals coming up who are trying to see the wisdom of emptiness. Emptiness is the lack of existence. And the lack of existence is not just “not existing”. So where are you going to put it?

This is what [someone] was trying to point out to me yesterday, it is like contraction and expansion. When that is not just right it explodes. Probably it is exactly at that level what they are talking about when talking about existence. That is what I have said, the scientists probably can manage this. But we have a problem.

When Tsongkhapa says “nothing beyond existence” he really means that if you are really thinking of something to catch, like “this is me” or “this is my existence” then, yes, there is something called my life. But that is different from being “me”. That is also, like a combination of a period and conditions combined together. Isn’t it? It is. I mean, really. Absolutely, in our lives, if you look at it. I have a good life. I have a bad life. I have no life. At the point of reference, a period, conditions, all combined together, that is what we are referring to. Maybe I am stupid, but that is exactly what it is here. Is this point getting clear? A little better.

We are spending a whole two days on this same point. I wanted to make it a little shorter, because my notes may be a little too short. To me it makes perfect sense. That is the problem.

[Audience] To you it is obvious. To us it ain’t.

[Rimpoche] Yes. That word “obvious”. You have that.

[Audience] I notice you are avoiding using it today.

[Rimpoche] You have already influenced me to not use the word “obvious”. So it is getting out of my vocabulary, completely.

[Audience] You are really talking about the evolution of this idea in Tibetan thought, and it is an extremely complex idea. As it was evolving and developing, arguments and counter-arguments were made to define emptiness in just this precise way, so it is compatible with the fact that we have lives. But in fact there is no intrinsic existence. So every time, historically, when someone came up with an objection to one point of view Tsongkhapa has recorded that objection and then come back with his argument from Nagarjuna. So it is really intellectual history we are looking at here, and it is a very complex intellectual history. It is just hard for us to trace every idea immediately as to exactly what brought it up, because looking at it five centuries later it is not that clear what the problems they were facing then. I think that is the challenge.

[Audience] Five centuries in another culture, on top of that.

[Audience] So, we are looking at this in a different way, because we have had the benefit of a lot of processing of thoughts about emptiness. Now we are trying to go back into the logic of that period where Tsongkhapa is dealing with the different struggles of ideas at that point. I think that is where the impediment occurs here. It is not that the ideas are impossible. It is just hard to follow each logical position five centuries ago.

[Rimpoche] That is right. That is a very good clarification. But why do we need this? That is another point.

[Audience] I think we need it because it is so subtle that if we don’t hear every bit of this, we are going to miss the target. As you have said many times, you have to find the target you are aiming at. We are going the miss the wrong target, and we could become nihilists, for example, if we do not understand this appropriately.

[Rimpoche] That is exactly it. Try to avoid this. You are quite right. I didn’t think that way, looking at the historical aspects of it, and then arguing. That is really what it is. In that way we get the right point. The mistake here is so subtle, just the slightest mistake can put the individual completely off the track. That is why this is quite complicated. To say “om svabhava shuddha sarvadharma svabhava shudda ham” “all is empty” and sit there nicely, open, blank, is actually extremely easy. Yesterday in our reading it came clearly, saying that you look at the objects the text used, which is the vase. You look at the vase, and take the spout off the vase, and the handle off the vase, and the pot off the vase, and base off the vase, and the top off the vase. Take them out and you realize there is no vase. I use the table, which is sort of easy for us. Take the top out, leg out, sides out, and suddenly the table is gone. Then you realize there is no table. When you realize there is not table, you ask the question: “Who says there is not table?” Who is the one who knows there is no table? Then you start looking at the person who has found that there is not table. You take them into parts, just like the vase. There is a body part, a mind part, emotions part, a consciousness part. Take them out, and suddenly you realize there is no person. Then you say “Oh, this is the profound finding of emptiness.” Tsongkhapa calls this “the easiest thing in the world,” saying that this is not the emptiness. Probably, for us, the idea is jut that.

We are somehow trained to close our eyes and say “om svabhava... all is empty..” We get just a blank. But if you trace that training of getting that blank, it is because when you analyze the object and take it apart, then you thought that that is the finding of emptiness. Then Tsongkhapa points out that is the easiest thing in the world That is not the emptiness that Buddha is talking about, that Nagarjuna is talking about. That is not the emptiness that cuts your negative emotions. That is not the emptiness that cuts your ignorance. Then what? That is how we are moving.

Then we say “lack of inherent existence.” What does that mean? That is what is going on. What does that mean? Somebody else said earlier: “this is the lack of inherent existence.” And so, it was wrong because of this, this and this. And that fellow comes back and says: “your points are not right, that does not bother me, because I am talking about the relative level, I am not talking about the absolute level. And Nagarjuna is talking about the relative level, Chandrakirti is talking about the relative level. I accept the relative level. I have no problem.” Tsongkhapa revisits this, saying that is the reply they give. But the reply is wrong. Why? Because Nagarjuna’s refutation of existence even refutes existence at the relative level. So what are you talking about?” That is where we are, here, at point two.

Point three is the Madhyamika stating: “You people are saying that the lack of inherent existence cannot have liberation, bondage, etc.” Tsongkhapa is saying that this is a unique Madhyamaka point, that the lack of inherent existence, emptiness, that emptiness itself has to be able to establish the functioning of karmic birth, rebirth, liberation, samsara, all of them. He says this is the unique – one of the unique characteristics – distinguishing characteristics of the Madhyamaka. Your idea has refuted that also. Which means that if you have refuted that, then you have gone too far and have become a total nihilist. That is the third point, quite clear. In the English?

[Audience] Yeah, he says it a little different, but he is saying the same thing. I don’t think he is making that conclusion quite yet, except that they are denying the unique feature.

[Rimpoche] Each one of them are talking about very similar points, but slightly subtle different points are there in each one of them. What does that make? It makes the individual perfect. That is the idea behind it.

The fourth and fifth are very related. The fourth says “if that is not true, then the logic that refutes the growth, and everything, will defeat everything. So what is the use of that whole idea, at all?” The object that is refuted by this logic, whether it is relative level or absolute level, or wherever, whatever it is, it works the same way. If it refutes liberation, etc., then what is the purpose of this logic that Nagarjuna is introducing? So you are refuting that. That is the fourth point.

The fifth point is; if the reasoning establishing emptiness refutes – I don’t think they will say emptiness, what do they say?

[Audience] They say, if all these were empty, he is talking about you couldn’t have noble truths, and your words would not...

[Rimpoche] Could you begin to read, before the quotation?

In that case, it is quite clear that your position does not differ in the slightest from the essentialist argument set forth in the twenty-fourth chapter [of Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise]:

If all these were empty,

There would be neither arising nor disintegration;

It follows for you

The noble truths would not exist.

Nor does your position differ at all from the essentialist argument set forth in Nagarjuna’s Refutation of Objections:

If all things

Are completely without intrinsic nature

Then your words also lack intrinsic nature

And thus cannot refute intrinsic existence. pp 140-141

In other words, this one is saying: “Your way of accepting this, and the materialistic way of accepting this are not different. When there is no difference, what Nagarjuna has argued against the materialists, you have the same problem.” That is what they are saying.

What are they talking about? You remember that yesterday we covered that they are talking about that it is not there because there is no intelligent mind that sees it, there is no enlightened mind that sees it, therefore it doesn’t exist. Just like talking about taking the table apart. There is no table existing. Who know that there is no table existing. Take them apart and there is nothing, therefore it becomes non-existent because no intelligent mind has seen it. Therefore it becomes non-existent. Yet it is not non-existent, because we are functioning. It is a basis for functioning. So try to be in both levels: Neither is it existent, nor is it non-existent. Sort of a non-committing point. That is one point here. Another point is that both it does exist and does not exist. Both. What it is really refuting is these two points: neither non-existence, nor existence, both. It doesn’t exist, because an intelligent mind has not seen it. Buddha has not seen it, so it doesn’t exist. Yet at the same time it does exist, because it functions on the basis of my functioning. He is talking about a self; talking about me. This is what is being refuted here. That is one point. Two points are both: it is not existing nor non-existing, or not both. There is a point where he says, because I have a non-committal point, I don’t accept existence, I don’t accept non-existence, I have no committal point. Therefore I have no problem of existence and no problem of non-existence. I don’t commit myself in any way. That is another point. They are refuting these points together. So is probably our problem. Did we talk about the sixth point?

The sixth is the same thing: lack of intrinsic existence and not having a lack of intrinsic existence, both face the same problem of losing liberation, etc. So, we neither accept the lack of intrinsic existence or intrinsic existence. We don’t accept any. When you say this, the sixth point says: “That is not what Nagarjuna is talking about, hey, you are stupid.” That is exactly what it says: “Hey, you, stupid, that is not what Nagarjuna is talking about. Read Nagarjuna quite clearly. Nagarjuna says I don’t have those problems. Not only don’t I have those problems, I am also able to establish the four noble truths.” Even in the root texts, of the Madyamakamula as well as Chandrakirti’s Madyamaka-avattara. Both say this. You try to say I neither commit here nor not commit here. You sit in between. That is not following the idea of Nagarjuna, because you are contradicting what Nagarjuna is saying. That is the sixth point,

The seventh point, which we did not do yesterday, is a very short statement here. The word begins in the Lam Rim Chenmo with shen yang [gzhan yang***] The word shen yang refers to “in addition to that”. Not saying specifically this point and that point, but “in addition to this”. If the logic which refutes the inherent existence refutes liberation, etc., then in absolute reality, no logic can refute anything. So whatever is refuting is refuting in the relative level. It is almost the same thing we said earlier. In the relative level, if you refute samsara and non-samsara, then you become a new Madhyamaka that has never existed before. That is what this says. In other words, if the reasoning which refutes inherent existence also refutes functioning, then the functioning cannot be refuted in the absolute level. It has to be refuted in the relative level. Then you become a strange Madhyamika, who cannot even establish the functioning of samsara and nirvana, even in the relative level. Such a Madhyamika has never existed before. That is the seventh point.

What is the reasoning? The logic they are using is two things. Let’s talk about one thing: the King of Logic. That is dependent arising. Let’s take a grain, like wheat, rice, etc. I don’t know why the Tibetans choose grain all the time. Not only Tibetans, the earlier Indian philosophers use grain all the time. The grain does not truly exist, because it is dependently arising. In other words, the dependent arising should refute inherent existence, but should not refute existence. That is where the bottom line has to be drawn. They refute absolute existence, but they should not refute existence. If it refutes existence, then you have all these problems. Again it is the same thing. Where you put the definition of existence. Not the definition – the measurement of existence – no – the establishment of existence. Is that right? Where you put the establishment of existence. That is making a difference.

That way, to establish something is easy – not so easy – but I used the example of the table yesterday, turned the other way around. The way I turn it around is to put all the parts back together. Suddenly the table does exist. Not only does it appear, but it does exist. Why does it exist? Because you can use the thing as a table. It can function. If it functions and you can use it, that is the definition of existence. So, the table does exist. Suddenly it falls into pieces, and suddenly it does exist. Why? Because the terms and conditions are just right. I used that yesterday. Nobody does use that, I hope I am not doing something wrong, but that sort of helped me to get that it appears just when the terms and conditions are right. Not only does it appear, it just exists. So, if you put the parts together, the table does exist. And that means it is dependent. The parts and parcel, and the causes and conditions on which that thing depends are just right. So it functions. It is like a computer. When it is just right, it functions. I think so.

When something is not right, it doesn’t function. I am not talking about not having electricity. Even all of those parts together. The watch. The clock. All of them show us that “just right" functions. If you are going to go beyond just functioning, just right, if you are going to search for something more than that, then you are not going to find anything. Maybe this is the easiest thing in the world, as Tsongkhapa said. Going beyond nothing existing means just the combination of functioning. When the watch is not working, we check with the watchmaker. The watchmaker looks in, with experience. He says; “Oh, this part is wrong.” He takes the parts out, puts the right part in, the watch functions again. And that might be the case of every existence. We see, in the watch, in all these cameras, radios, computers, in all of them we see it. But in our own reality, our self may be the same way.

When some parts and parcels of ours does not function, then we call it “the person died.” A brain hemorrhage, or anything. A stroke, or something.

[Audience] So consciousness itself has to be the same thing.

[Rimpoche] Consciousness is not a person. Not me. It is my consciousness. It becomes funny. If you think my consciousness is me, then it all looks like you are putting on a mask. If a person goes on changing inside, that doesn’t become the person’s lack of intrinsic existence. Not only does the person not become becomes the lack of intrinsic existence, but it almost establishes intrinsic existence, because it is like, you know – but on the other hand – OK, forget it.

[Audience] Maybe I didn’t listen properly. Was she asking whether consciousness is a functioning thing?

[Rimpoche] No, she did not say that. I am just saying that consciousness is not me. It is my consciousness. That is what I said.

OK, I have my schedule. In March I have March 4th and 5th, and in April I have April 1st and 2nd. Then June 10th and 11th, then July 22nd and 23rd, September 16th and 17th, and October 14th and 15th for this.

The wisdom in Ann Arbor, the 9th chapter. Ann Arbor has only one day, because we can only do Saturday, because Sundays we have some programs going on. The program people do not want to disturb that. So we have Saturday morning to evening, 10:00 to 5:00. That is January 28, March 25, April 8, June 3, July 29, September 30, and October 21.

OK, that is that. So we will take a little break and put up the tsoh and we will do the tsoh. Thank you.

Footnotes

*for example, see Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, page 342,

** Transcriber’s note. The questions raised by the audience here highlight an issue that this transcriber has struggled with many times. I am rendering Rimpoche’s literal phrase “I accept the relative level” as “ I accept that, at the relative level”. That rendering makes sense in the context of the text. If there is anyone reading this who is knowledgeable about Tibetan grammar (I know you are out there :-), I am requesting some feedback here. Also, for the rest of you, this may be a helpful discussion. You probably know that it is difficult to render meaningful some of Rimpoche’s spoken grammatical constructions. This may be because English as a language is quite redundant, partly out of necessity, because English does not make optimal use of its verb forms to convey additional meaning. For example, English is somewhat “lazy” in the use of verb conjugations to convey an implied agent of a verb. In Latin-based languages it is often easier than it is in English to determine something about the nature of the agent based on how the verb form is constructed. To this transcriber’s ears, there is also a different “laziness” in English that makes Tibetan grammatical constructions (which Rimpoche uses) difficult for us. It would appear likely to this transcriber that Tibetan verbs also have an implied object. We know that actions are usually (not always) exerted towards an object. So, when one uses a verb, there is usually an object. For the Tibetan linguists among you, I wonder whether Tibetan verb forms are conjugated differently relative to implied objects, in a way that is similar to the way Latin is conjugated relative to implied agents. Even if they are not conjugated differently relative to their objects, I wonder whether it is customary in Tibetan to not necessarily include the implied object as an explicit element of the sentence? I don’t know enough about Tibetan grammar to know whether this is or is not a correct impression, and I would ask that those who are more expert than I am please confirm or disconfirm this through communication to Hartmut, which he could convey to me. This is a point for more than idle curiosity, as the answer could help make some of Rimpoche’s English constructions more readily interpretable for all of us. In any case, I think that the object is often not explicitly stated in Gehlek Rimpoche’s sentence constructions. The way this works out in this section of the transcript is that I am rendering Rimpoche’s literal phrase “I accept the relative level” as “ I accept that, at the relative level”. Rimpoche indicates that this is the case, when he says: “The way the Tibetan logical arguments go, the ‘accept’ or ‘not accept’ is mostly about what you are talking about.” So, to this transcriber, the word “accept” has an implied object, i.e., “I accept that.” The implied object (i.e., “that”) is the logical argument itself. The object is not the explicit object (i.e., “relative reality”), it is the implied object, i.e., “that”, which is the logical argument about relative reality. So, my gloss on this, which is in keeping with the text, is that it is not that the earlier Madhyamika is accepting relative reality. It is that the earlier Madhyamika is accepting Nagarjuna’s logical argument about relative reality. I would really like some feedback on this from those who know the Tibetan language. Please convey that feedback to Hartmut, and he can forward it to me. Thank you.

*** the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following definition for gzhan yang: furthermore, also, besides this; furthermore; otherwise/ alternatively.

© 2006, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved