Archive Result

20081011LRGRwisdom3

Sat afternoon session (Wisdom 3) Lochö Rimpoche

(Long Life Prayer for His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche)

......continuing with the discussion. Because of phenomena being dependently originated one can avoid various problems, such as functionality problems. One can maintain the valid functioning of the things as well as avoid the extreme positions with regard to how phenomena exist.

17

Therefore who could challenge you?

You who proclaim with lion’s roar

In the assembly of learned ones repeatedly

That everything is utterly free of intrinsic nature?

As mentioned in the earlier verses, if the meaning of dependent origination is not understood properly, then when one tried to maintain that phenomena exist inherently one would not be able to attain liberation. Because of that it has to be clear that according to Buddha's presentation emptiness is to be understood completely in terms of dependent origination. Therefore this is like a lion's roar.

It is a supreme statement. When proclaimed in the midst of great scholars this kind of statement is something that no one can challenge. Dependent origination and emptiness are not contradictory but are understood as complimentary and go together.

18

That there is no intrinsic existence at all

And that all functions as “this arising

In dependence on that,” what need is there to say

That these two converge without conflict?

Because of this there is really no need to say more about how this is arising in dependence on that. Everything in existence, because of the functionality one can understand that this is arising in dependence on that. Then there is no need to further say that emptiness and dependent origination are the same thing. They converge on the same point with the same meaning.

19

“It is through the reason of dependent origination

That one does not lean towards an extreme;”

That you’ve declared this excellently is the reason,

O Savior, of your being an unexcelled speaker.

The dependent origination is one that makes it possible for us to avoid those two extremes and understand this unsurpassable, unexcelled view that is the Middle Way View, free of these two extreme views of existence and non existence. If dependent origination is understood properly it becomes clear that for something to exist it does not need to exist inherently. Similarly, one also understands that if something does not exist intrinsically, it does not need to not exist at all.

It is an extreme to think that if something exists it necessarily has to exist intrinsically. That leads to the extreme of eternalism. If one holds the position that if something does not exist intrinsically then it does not exist all, that is the position of nihilism.

Understanding dependent origination properly makes it possible to maintain that middle position or view. That is, that things exist, yet not intrinsically. From the very first chapter onwards in this text, the author Je Tsong Khapa has repeatedly emphasized that the understanding of the dependent origination and the definition of this teaching on dependent origination. What makes the Buddha's knowledge unexcelled knowledge is this knowledge of dependent origination. His teaching on dependent origination is what makes him an unexcelled teacher.

Further, to emphasize that emptiness and dependent origination in terms of cause and effect, the causal dependence as well as emptiness, these two are not contradictory but complimentary. To emphasize that, the preceding two chapters [verses?} mention here that all this is devoid of essence and from this arises that effect. These two certainties complement each other without contradiction.

20

“All of this is devoid of essence,”

And “From this arises that effect” –

These two certainties complement

Each other with no contradiction at all.

All phenomena, compounded or not compounded, changing or unchanging, are empty of having essential nature or status. Yet at the same time the reality of causal dependence are tenable. From wholesome deeds wholesome results arise. From unwholesome or unhealthy causes unwanted sufferings arise. The relationship between cause and result too is valid.

There are these two certainties. On the one hand there are things that are empty of essential existence and on the other hand the functionality and validity of causality are also possible. When the meaning of dependent origination is understood properly then these two do not become contradictory but complement each other.

21

What is more amazing than this?

What is more marvelous than this?

If one praises you in this manner,

This is real praise, otherwise not.

Because of this, the author's statement is truly amazing and excellent. If Buddha is praised because of these teachings that present these two as complementary and not contradictory, that is real praise. Otherwise, if the praise is intended to present something different than what was intended then that would not become the actual source of praise.

The text further says in the next following verses that if the meaning of dependent origination is misunderstand to support something inherently existing, instead of negating that, such a position is to be despised.

22

Being enslaved by ignorance

Those who fiercely oppose you,

What is so astonishing about their being

Unable to bear the sound of no intrinsic existence?

23

But having accepted dependent origination,

The precious treasure of your speech,

Then not tolerating the roar of emptiness –

This I find amazing indeed!

This is to say that it is not necessarily that astonishing to see people being enslaved by ignorance. Out of ignorance those proponents of other views don't understand the position of dependent origination, that for something to exist, it does not necessarily have to exist inherently. When such people who think that if something exists dependently it must exist intrinsically oppose Buddha when he says that nothing is inherently existing and everything exists dependently, when they cannot tolerate the Buddha's statement that everything is intrinsically empty, that is not necessarily that surprising.

0.36.32 - Those philosophers who do not propose that things are dependently originated, things that are compounded or uncompounded, if they oppose the Buddha and cannot tolerate it when he says that everything is empty of intrinsic existence, that is not so astonishing.

But having accepted dependent origination, that things exist dependently, then when you take that to be the most cherished speech of the Buddha, a very important aspect of Buddha's teaching, and then not be able to tolerate the roar of emptiness - not being able to understand emptiness as the emptiness of intrinsic existence - that is truly amazing and astonishing.

This is to say that, having accepted that all phenomena are dependently originated, how could one really still not understand that all phenomena are empty of intrinsic existence? That is the point being made here.

24

The door that leads to no intrinsic existence,

This unexcelled [door of] dependent origination,

Through its name alone, if one grasps

At intrinsic existence, how this person

25

Who lacks the unrivalled entrance,

Well travelled by the Noble Ones,

By what means should one guide him

To the excellent path that pleases you?

The very door, the very method, through which one is able to understand that nothing exists inherently, that door is the reason of dependent origination. It leads to the understanding of the lack of inherent existence of phenomena. The point being made here is that this entrance of dependent origination, if the very mention of putting things into the context of dependent origination itself, if that leads to solidifying things into intrinsic existence of phenomena, if the notion of dependent origination for them means that things must have intrinsic existence, then how could such a person be led to travel the path that is traveled by all the Aryas or Noble Ones?

That includes the Aryas of all three vehicles, the Pratyeka - Sravaka - and Mahayana. We are here primarily concerned with the Mahayana but when the verse says "the path well traveled by the Noble Ones" - that includes all aryas.

In other words, if the reasoning of dependent origination is used to reinforce the notion of intrinsic existence then there is really no method to lead these beings to the path that all the Noble Ones travel.

This statement here actually points to an uncommon, unique Madhyamaka Prasangika position. This is that all arya beings of the Three Vehicles must really the emptiness that is the absence of intrinsic existence. The philosophical schools other than Prasangika, the Sautrantikas, and so forth, do not maintain that arya beings of all Three Vehicles necessarily need to realize emptiness. The Prasangika uncommon position is that only through the cultivation of the realization of emptiness as the absence of intrinsic existence that one is able to attain the enlightenment of each vehicle, whether it is the Sravakayana enlightenment - liberation, or the Pratyeka buddha enlightenenment or the Mahayana enlightenment.

In that sense the realization of emptiness is something that from the Prasangika viewpoint is necessary to attain the enlightenment of any vehicle of liberation. It is for that reason that we find references in the treatises that the aspiration for enlightenment is a seed. The wisdom is like the mother of all the three vehicles. So the aspiration for supreme enlightenment is the bodhichitta. It is an uncommon mahayana path, whereas the wisdom realizing emptiness is a common path of all three vehicles. They all must cultivate the wisdom of emptiness. The bodhicitta is referred to as "seed" to indicate that it is like the father, whereas the wisdom of emptiness is like the mother.

For example, while the mother can be of any race or ethnicity, and give birth to children of different castes and nationalities, depending on the father. Lets say, the mother is Chinese and the father is Tibetan. The child will be considered Tibetan nationality. The same thing, if the mother is Indian and the father is a westerner or Chinese. The child then will belong to the father's caste or nationality.

In that sense the father can only give rise to an offspring that is his own caste or nationality, whereas the mother can give birth to children of different nationality or caste. Similarly, the bodhicitta gives rise only to mahayana aryas. It does not produce Sravaka aryas. But wisdom is something that can be attained by Bodhisattvas, as well as Sravakas and Pratyeka Buddhas.

0.47.17 - So that is why it is mentioned here in the text: "well traveled by the Noble Ones". Someone who lacks the understanding of emptiness with dependent origination as the reason, will not be able that path that is traveled by all nobles ones.

So if the dependent origination itself fails to point someone to the reality of emptiness in the sense of the lack of intrinsic existence, then by what other means can one possibly guide him? What other method could convince such a person of the emptiness of true existence?

That is why dependent origination is the supreme reasoning to prove that things are empty of inherent existence. For that reason the reasoning of dependent origination is referred to as the "King of Reasoning". The practitioners of all three vehicles, while from the Prasangika point of all, must develop the wisdom of emptiness, knowing that all phenomena lack intrinsic nature. But it is the mahayana practitioners who employ and extensive variety of reasoning to establish that all things are empty of intrinsic existence.

For one's personal knowledge of emptiness it is not necessary to rely upon hundreds of different reasonings. But when it comes to teaching others, then it makes sense that you are aware of many different approaches and angles that point to the emptiness of intrinsic existence of all phenomena. The supreme of all reasonings are the five that were mentioned but there could be hundreds of different approaches. The reasoning of dependent origination is referred to as "King of Reasoning".

The reason why that is so is that this reasoning simultaneously can eliminate the extreme of existence and the extreme of non-existence.

Thus it is more potent and powerful. Other forms of reasoning, like that of same entity or other entity, sameness or difference, as well as the reasoning known as the "vajra slivers" that eliminate the four forms of production, and so forth, are not as powerful as the reasoning of dependent origination, because they either lead the practitioner to overcome the extreme of eternalism or the extreme of nihilism. (The extreme of eternalism means that the phenomena exist in an intrinsic way.)

When such a powerful reasoning as dependent origination cannot point someone to the emptiness of inherent existence, then you are really lost. How else can one convince them that phenomena are empty of inherent existence?

The next two verses have to do with how the idea that phenomena exist essentially and dependently originated is contradictory. From that we can understand the illusory nature of all phenomena.

26

Intrinsic nature, uncreated and non-contingent,

Dependent origination, contingent and created –

How can these two converge

Upon a single basis without contradiction?

Something that is uncreated and non-contingent cannot be at the same time created and contingent. If something exists intrinsically it has to be uncreated and non-contingent. It cannot be contingent on other factors. Something that is uncreated and non-contingent cannot be at the same time dependently originated. Created and uncreated are directly contradictory. Similarly, contingent and non-contingent are direct contradictions. A direct contradiction is when 2 positions or events or phenomena or entities are directly opposed to each other. They cannot converge on one common object. They cannot have a common basis. Direct contradictions on any object, if that object is understood as one it will automatically exclude being the other. Such contradictory events or phenomena would not only not have a common object or basis, but also will not have something that exists which is neither. Needless to say that two directly opposing contradictory events would not have as a middle ground an existing phenomenon that is neither. That cannot happen.

Since created and contingent and uncreated and non-contingent are in such direct opposition and since intrinsic existence needs to be understood as uncreated and non-contingent, one would not be able to maintain anything that is created and contingent or dependently existing? How could these two converge upon one single basis without contradiction?

27

Therefore whatever originates dependently,

Though primordially free of intrinsic existence,

Appears as if it does [possess intrinsic existence];

So you taught all this to be illusion-like.

This is to say that because of these two phenomena being directly opposed and because they are dependently originated and not uncreated and non-created, therefore they have to be free from intrinsic nature. Although phenomena are free from intrinsic nature, nonetheless they appear to be intrinsically existing. Therefore they are illusion-like.

To elaborate on this let me use an example used in the classical treatises. How do different people come to view phenomena differently? There is the example of the magician's show.

A magician, by using certain substances, influenced by certain mantras, does magical shows, through which people's perception of some pebbles and little sticks are manipulated.

Three kinds of people will have different perceptions.

The members in the audience, whose eyes have been tainted by the influenced substances, instead of pebbles and sticks they will see horses and elephants. This is a certain magic from ancient times. The distortion happens because of a certain type of smoke from certain incense. Manipulated by mantras, whoever gets this smoke into their eyes, will see horses and elephants instead of pebbles and sticks.

This unsuspecting audience will not only see them as horses and elephants but relate to them as such. They will grasp at them as horses and elephants.

The smoke is also entering the eyes of the magician and influence his or her vision as well. They also see horses and elephants instead of pebbles and sticks. But because the magician knows that they are not really horses and elephants he or she does not relate to them as such. There is appearance but no adherence to these. The perception is of horses and elephants but not the conception.

Persons who come to the show afterwards, whose eyes are not affected by the smoke, will neither have the perception nor the conception of horses and elephants. They will simply see pebbles and sticks.

So for the same entities, pebbles and sticks, there are three different reactions: those who see and adhere to them as animals, those who see but do not adhere to them as animals and those who neither perceives nor conceives them as animals.

In the same way we can relate this to how we can perceive phenomena. We ordinary beings, who have not understood emptiness yet, when we encounter phenomena, they appear to exist intrinsically. We also have the tendency to relate to them as if there were intrinsically existing. We grasp at them as intrinsically existing.

Those beings who have realized emptiness but have as yet not overcome the very grasping at the intrinsic nature, in other words, those who have seen emptiness, but are not buddhas or arhats yet, and have not completely overcome ignorance, are like magicians. When they see phenomena around them, things appear to exist intrinsically, but since they are aware that phenomena do not exist in that way they do not grasp at them as intrinsically existent. They do not conceive of them as having intrinsic nature.

For Buddhas, who have overcome all obscurations, there is neither a perception of intrinsic existence, nor the conception of it.

The main point of this is that the way the phenomena exist for us ordinary people, there is a discrepancy between the way they appear to us and the way they actually are. That is why they are called "illusion-like". They appear to exist inherently but they lack inherent status.

Now the next three verses are again praises to Buddha for expounding the teaching on dependent origination. Buddha cannot be challenged by others.

28

Through this very fact I understand well

The statement that by what you have taught

Those opponents who challenge you,

Cannot find faults that accord with reason.

Through that very fact obviously, for Buddha as an enlightened person, where he presents the dependent origination and the emptiness of intrinsic existence, through this, whoever, if properly considered, nobody will be able to challenge you on this, as it accords with proper reasoning.

29

Why is this so? Because by declaring these

Chances for reification and denigration

Towards things seen and unseen

Are made most remote.

Because of the profound emptiness that Buddha has expounded and properly presented, this removes or makes remote any chance for reification or denigration in the sense of exaggerating something into existence that does not exist or denigrate in the sense of denying something that does exist. Such positions are made most remote. Understanding emptiness properly makes it possible to perceive things in their actual nature. Otherwise, the two modes of extreme can be possible. In some cases, if emptiness is not understood properly, one may end up maintaining the existence of something when in actuality it does not exist. Or one may refute the existence of phenomena that do exist. However, understanding emptiness properly eliminates both those extremes.

30

Through this very path of dependent origination,

The rationale for your speech being peerless,

Convictions arise in me [also]

That your other words are valid too.

That is to say that by understanding that Buddha's speech about dependent origination is valid and incontrovertible. So Tsong khapa says: "when I understand these teachings you have given on dependent origination, when I see that these are valid and accord with reason, then it makes it possible for me to have conviction in your other teachings as well. I see that on this most difficult point your statements are valid and incontrovertible. That conviction makes it possible to have convictions in your other statements too."

So the teaching on dependent origination, when understood, makes it possible to develop conviction in Buddha's other teachings as well.

At this point, if you have any questions?

Audience: Does anything exist outside of dependent origination, such as space?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: Even space is dependently originated and empty of intrinsic existence. There is nothing that exists outside dependent origination. With regard to space, the way that space is understood is as the mere absence of obstructibility and tangibility. The empty that appears to us is called the basis of designation for space (tib: nam kar).

The Vaibasikas maintain that the empty sphere of space becomes dark during night and light during the day. In that sense it has color. In dependence upon this empty sphere that becomes light or dark, "space" is designated as the mere negation or absence of obstructibility and tangibility.

Similarly, the empty sphere can be said to have shape. For example, the space in a room adjusts according to the shape of the room. So if the room is square, the empty sphere inside the room is also square. The tea container is round, so the empty sphere inside of it is round. But the space in the sense of mere lack of obstructibility and tangibility has neither shape nor color. Nonetheless, it is designated upon the empty sphere that is visible and has shape and color. Therefore, space too is dependently originated. It is designated in dependence on that empty sphere.

Audience: Can you explain the statement: whatever arises from causes and conditions does not arise.

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: The meaning of this statement needs to be qualified. Whatever arises from causes and conditions does not arise intrinsically or naturally.

Audience: Does dependent origination arise dependently too?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: Yes. (laughs) It might seem a little strange. Perhaps one might feel that dependent origination is dependent on itself. But that is not the case. Rather it means that dependent origination also depends on the basis of its designation or imputation. In that sense, if you think of the dependent origination of any given phenomenon then it has to be designated in dependence upon certain factors, which are its basis of designation. Therefore all phenomena are dependently originated, based on their bases of designation in relation to other phenomena. They are dependent on causes and conditions, names, terms, concepts and so forth. In that way dependent origination itself is also designated in dependence upon its basis of designation.

Audience: Can you explain the difference between object of negation and basis of designation?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: As for the object of negation (gag zha), that might be easier to understand in a context. For example, if you try to establish any given phenomenon as being empty of intrinsic existence, the dependent origination is used as a reason. But there needs to be a subject, like a sprout or a person. Often you find in these logical syllogisms aimed at establishing emptiness the example of a sprout used as a subject. In the Rice Seedling Sutra Buddha uses the rice sprout in order to explain dependent origination, in terms of the 12 links of dependent origination. He says that "since this exists, that arises. That arises from the arising of this. From ignorance arise compounded actions; from that arises consciousness, and so forth."

So if the sprout is the subject, then you say:

A sprout is devoid of intrinsic status or nature, because it is dependently originated.

The sprout is the subject and "devoid of intrinsic status" is the predicate. The sentence that "a sprout is empty of intrinsic status" is the thesis. It is what is to be established.

The sprout existing intrinsically would be the object of negation. What is negated is the intrinsic status of the sprout. If the thesis is that the sprout is not intrinsically existent, that negates the idea that the sprout does exist intrinsically.

As for the basis of designation (dag zhi), in case of a sprout, there has to be a basis in dependence on which one designates or imputes a sprout. In this example, the parts of a sprout would be the basis of designation. When you see certain features or parts of a sprout, in dependence on that a conceptual mind imputes a sprout. We label "sprout" in dependence upon the parts we see. The entity of "sprout" is designates upon the features of the sprout.

In case of a person, the five aggregates, body, sensations, and so forth, would be the basis of designation. In dependence upon these aggregates, a person like I or you or somebody else is designated. The aggregates are not a person. But in dependence upon the aggregates a person is imputed.

Audience: Can you define functionality?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: Functionality in the causal context means that from a certain cause arises a certain result. From positive actions positive results unfold. From negative actions negative results unfold. Negative causes produce negative results. The validity of such relationships that from certain causes follow concordant results is what is referred to as the valid functionality.

Audience: Is consciousness impermanent?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: Is consciousness (nam par she pa) impermanent (mi tak pa)? Of course it is impermanent. All compounded things are impermanent.

Audience: Is mind the same as consciousness?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: If "mind" is used in a general sense, then that encompasses all different aspects of the subjective experience. Sometimes it is divided into the mere mind and the mental factors. In that case the mere mind is primary, the mental factors secondary. But it seems in the question "mind" is used more in a general sense. Consciousness is a specific state of mind. In Sanskrit vijnana refers to the primary consciousness, whereas mind encompasses the mental factors and different aspects. Consciousness and other mental factors conjoined with certain conscious states are not the same as mind, but they are not of a separate entity or substance either. They are of the same entity. But if you ask if they are one or separate, the answer is: they are separate. Consciousness refers to primary awareness. Different aspects of it, such as sensations, that would be mental factors, which are mind but not consciousness.

Audience: What is it that reincarnates?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: You can say that a person reincarnates from this life to the next, but also the mental continuum goes from this to the next life. Is that impermanent? Yes, all compounded things are. So, that includes the person and the mind. It continues, while it is impermanent.

Audience: Why isn't nirvana a permanent state?

His Holiness Lochö Rimpoche: Nirvana is in fact a permanent phenomenon. Perhaps we have to look at the meaning of "permanent". It is not necessarily lasting for a long time. It does not mean that something that is of a short duration is necessarily impermanent. If you say that something that lasts for a long time is permanent, then you would have to say that an eon is permanent. But that is not the case. Similarly, the Sambogakaya, the Full Enjoyment Body, lasts as long as samsara. That is a long period. But, although it is sometimes referred to as permanent, it is not permanent in the real sense. Similarly, something that exists for a short period is not necessarily impermanent. For example, if you snap your fingers that makes a sound. The sound itself is impermanent. But the isolate of the sound is not impermanent. It is a permanent phenomenon. It only lasts for the duration the sound lasts, but it is not impermanent. Permanence and impermanence have to be understood from the point of view of its nature or entity. If its nature is that it has arising and destruction, then it is called impermanent. If it's nature is not coming into being through causes and conditions, if it does not have undergo disintegration, it is called permanent. In this case the isolate of the sound, though the sound itself arises from causes and conditions, the isolate of the sound is a simultaneous entity with the sound. But it is not produced by the causes and conditions that produced the sound itself. Similarly, nirvana (nyang de) is to be understood as the mere cessation of afflicted emotions.

The cessation itself is not the product of causes and conditions. The mere cessation of afflictive emotions is simply an entity that exists when the afflictive emotions come to cease, are extinguished. Through the power of meditation the afflictive emotions are extinguished or transformed. Then you have cessation. But the cessation is not produced by that meditation. Nonetheless such cessations are referred to as a "separated effect", meaning that the cessation arises when the afflictive emotions are eliminated. That is simply an etymological usage of the term nirvana to say that it is a separated effect. It is not an effect in actuality. An effect is necessarily an impermanent thing. It requires a cause for its arising, whereas the cessation is a permanent thing.

The questions you raised reflect good thinking. You have asked them after having put in a lot of thought into the subject matter that was discussed earlier. So I am really happy to see these well formulated questions. I am sorry we can't finish the remaining questions today, but we may be able to do it tomorrow. At this point I will recite a verse to dedicate the merits from this teaching and after that, please make a mandala offering and we will conclude the evening here.

ton pa la na me pai dön pa dang

gyalwa den dra la mei dei yin pei

ge wa di ya dro wa ma lu pa

zhin nye dam pei dzin pai gyu ro ngo

Mandala Offering

Der ni ring du (long lam rim dedication)

end of file 3