Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 16 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 29: 03-04-06

So now we are in this wisdom teaching part of it. I feel that it is always important to elaborate, because we are reading certain texts, and it is scattered all over. Not all over, but completely spread. Sometimes, it is important to collect them back. The easiest way is to look at the Buddha’s own words. [Tibetan verse] Tong pa zhi wa kyel wa med pa’i dzu [sp?]. The Buddha’s one simple statement. Why are there sufferings in existence? Why do people suffer? People suffer because of their lack of realization of emptiness, of peace, and of not growing or not decreasing. From not knowing that, that is the reason all sufferings are there. That is what Buddha said. Then there are a lot of Maitreya’s and Manjushri’s words. But to get this easily, a few months ago we read Chandrakirti’s words that say the all delusions, all sufferings all come from the jig lta. When you look into the jig lta, the jig lta’s main focal point is the self. That is where the jig lta is really focusing. Because of that, the yogis need to destroy the self. I am paraphrasing. I am sure it is in the Lam Rim Chenmo itself. We have read it.

Those are the words Buddha and Chandrakirti have said. In other words, every wrong thing, every negative thing, every suffering comes from jig lta. That is the bottom line. When you don’t know emptiness, when you don’t know peace, when you don’t know no-growing and no-decrease, then people suffer. That is what the Buddha said. When you don’t know these, there is a block. The block is self-grasping. Self-grasping is a mind. When you destroy the self-grasping mind, you have to prove to the self that what you are grasping is wrong. How are you going to prove it? The way Buddha recommended is to prove to your mind that there is no such thing called self.

That is why the emptiness is divided into two categories: 1) emptiness on beings – on self, and 2) emptiness on other-than-beings, all phenomena. These are the two emptinesses, as we all now know. So, emptiness has been has been divided into two: on the basis of self and on the basis of phenomena. The emptiness on the basis-of-phenomena is not discussed or not taught in much detail, because they focus more on the self. By “taught” here, I don’t mean intellectual teaching, I mean practical – teaching on practice.

If you look at the Lam Rim Chenmo, what we are reading is absolutely a very intellectual thing. However, when you read it, up and down, in between, everywhere you see: this is not an intellectual thing, this is a simple practice. You encounter that all the time. That is because if you compare this with other Madhyamika texts, this one is quite simple. If you look in the Madhyamika texts, it is so detailed, and so refined, it works so subtly. Compared with that, this Lam Rim Chenmo – the Lhang Tong Chenmo – the vipasyana aspects of the Lam Rim Chenmo – is not so subtle. Although it becomes more subtle than those detailed ones. Really, it is much more subtle. The detailed ones spell it out. If you are going to trace the form, you are going to trace the form right from the beginning to the end, wherever it is going to go, volume by volume, only tracing the form. Then, volume by volume tracing the sound. That is how it goes. But in the Lam Rim Chenmo, everything is put together. So it is very very short compared with the u ma texts. So, it becomes difficult, very profound, trying to explain a huge meaning in a few words. However, when you boil it down to our self, we are talking about the wisdom.

The wisdom we are talking about is knowledge or understanding or wisdom. Knowing the reality. That sounds a little more romantic. “Knowing the reality”. But if you say knowledge, you immediately think of book knowledge or intellectual knowledge – information. It is information. Without information you cannot get it. Without information, we will have no idea where to look or what to do. No matter how much you keep on sitting there, intellectually thinking and meditating in the emptiness, you keep on sitting there, visualizing everything like space, and keep on sitting there focused, and all kinds of thoughts will pop up in your head. Colors will come in, to your eyes. All kinds of things will happen. No doubt about it, because that is natural. I don’t know whether it is physical or mental, but that happens naturally to everybody. But if you keep on sitting, thinking you are going to find something in there, you are never going to find anything. The information we need, that we are getting here, is that sufferings are coming from delusions – from negative karma. Negative karma is produced by our own negative actions. We engage in our own negative actions because of our negative emotions and negative thoughts. Our negative emotions and negative thoughts are coming up because of the jig lta. That is the information we get.

By now I don’t have to explain to you what the jig lta is. We spent a lot of time on that last year. But, to remind you, the jig lta is self-grasping. Why is it called jig lta? Because it is focused on the perishable aggregates, identifying that – sort of projecting that – as self and being. That is why jig lta. In Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti’s system, they say jig lta itself is ignorance. Jig lta itself is ego. Jig lta itself is the root of all samsara. And that is special in this particular school of thought, which is supposed to be reality for us.

The other schools’ thoughts are represented [in the text] Actually, someone made it very clear the last time I was here, saying it [the text] is pointing out historical points. That is exactly what it is: This school’s thoughts, that school’s thoughts, this idea and their faults, and this idea, etc. It is all a review of what had happened historically, so that with what we do presently we should not fall on the faulty points they have already presented. If we don’t know the earlier schools and thoughts, their faults and contradictions, then we have no way of avoiding them and establishing our own. Again, the idea is not to produce a scholar. The idea is that we are trying to bring emptiness in our practice, so that we gain some – not only some – hopefully a perfect – understanding of emptiness. At least emptiness, the wisdom, something that will not let us fall into the clutch of ego again.

It is not only me, but in Kyabje Ling Rinpoche’s – I don’t know who the translator is - but in the transcript of the Four Mindfulnesses by Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, ignorance is mentioned as “ego”. I don’t know whether Kyabje Ling Rinpoche knows the word “ego” or not. But in the transcript, they use that as “ego”. So I am sort of a little happy, because, without knowing anything I tried to use the word “ego” to identify what is traditionally called “ignorance”. Now, at least I have a text of a teaching done by His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s guru, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, the Dalai Lama’s senior master. In his Four Mindfulnesses the word ego is used for ignorance. It makes me feel a little more comfortable, I don’t know why. What happens sometimes, you are driven to use certain words to be able to communicate with people, but then you feel doubtful – wondering how that is going to really happen, because of my lack of knowledge. That makes me always doubtful about whatever I have used beyond the normal usage. So when I saw that Kyabje Ling Rinpoche used it, it makes me a little happy, feel a little more confidence.

Whatever it is for us, it is ego: ego in the sense that ego – the proud person who is giving us trouble, who is doing all this for us – that ego is our actual true evil or devil within ourselves. That one is our own ego – that is identified as self. That is the reason “selfless” becomes important.

When you say selfless, you all know, we are not talking about “without self”. We are saying that self does not exist in the way and how we think it exists. That is the most important point. The self we normally think exists is some kind of thing within us. Some kind of solid thing we see inside our self, something that is depending on nothing, completely self-independent, efficient. Historically, almost every school, except Buddhapalita’s, accepts something in there, which is comfortable for us. When we say there is nothing, it becomes very uncomfortable.

I must share with you a story, without naming the person. I cannot name the person, because it is not nice. A very good, wonderful, learned person, who is considered to be particularly good on this particular subject, considered a very good Rinpoche, and who was a very close friend of mine. One day, he had a conversation with another Rinpoche who is at present is the [an honorary title?] who will be the next Ghanden Tripa. He is from Ladakh, a Ladakhi. This Rinpoche called me all the way from India, and told me “I was talking to kusho so and so...” When we talk among ourselves we say “kusho”. “Rinpoche” is a diplomatically polite way of speaking. Otherwise we say “Kusho, kusho, kusho” to each other. So, he said: “Kusho so and so told me that there is no single base of identity at all.” He was very surprised. And I said “Why are you so surprised?” He said: “But there is none whatsoever.”

This particular person was really a very learned one. But he went into a lot of meditation for himself, and sort of found it very uneasy [to think] of non-existence of the focal point of self. It becomes extremely uneasy for him. So he was very shocked. He made a long distance call from South India! It is very difficult to get through. He was talking to me saying “This one is saying there is nothing in there at all.” So I said: “What do you expect?” He said “Well, there has got to be some basis.” So I said “Well, if you find some basis, probably you have found the object of negation.” Then there was a long silence, complete silence on the telephone. Then we talked about something else, like “How is the weather, blah blah blah, and something.” That happened. So, sometimes it happens to great beings too. It is not a question of Nyingma, Sakya, Geluk points. Even within the Gelukpa school itself.

The idea of non-existence becomes very uncomfortable. It is almost felt. Nothing. You will see it even in Tsongkhapa’s biography. When Tsongkhapa first began to encounter with true emptiness, he was making sure that he himself existed, so he was holding the collar of his monk’s robe, and making sure that he did exist, that he was still there. Because non-existence becomes quite difficult for people to accept.

But here the problem is that non-existence is not nothingness. Non-existence is that there is not a single substance or energy or mind, or anything that is self-standing. Then, what is existing is collectively, part and parcel collected. Terms and conditions together. Sort of collectively existing. What that means is that we shift the measurement of existing. So far, for us, our measure of existing is that it is something we can hold, or see, or touch, or smell, or feel. That is our measurement of existence. Now we have to understand to shift that. [Existence is not measured by] whether or not you can hold it or see it or smell it, or nothing, but [by] whether it can function as whatever it is. Is it functionable or not functionable? Here you always have to be careful – you don’t want to say “It is.” - but the point or mark of existence is almost becomes whether it is functionable or not functionable. When it becomes functionable, it becomes functionable because of terms and conditions, parts and parcels, and all this. They talk about name and label, and all of that type, whatever it is, but when part and parcel, terms and conditions get together and become functionable, that is the measurement of relatively existing. When it exists relatively, it is good enough to be existing. When it does not absolutely exist, it does not mean that it does not exist. That has to always be remembered.

The bottom line: Emptiness, in one way, it is wisdom, difficult to find, and all this. In another way, it might not be that difficult, because as long as you can establish – the traditional word I should use is “accept”. “Accept” here does not mean whether you accept or don’t accept, that is not the point. The point is when you are able to establish interdependentness of existence, when you are able to establish that, that is more or less establishing refuting – negating – the object of negation. Because the focal point of the object of negation is – whether it is self grasping or ego grasping – the focal point of it is “something really existing, strongly existing”. When you see that it is only dependent arising, that understanding, that realization should completely overpower the other side of ego holding, self holding, the me-within-me. You should be able to refute all those while you are meditating, while you are getting used to it, while you are practicing. I think that is what happens.

Once, when you refute that me-within-me, or self-within-self inside there, when you begin to realize it is really not there, probably that is why it is said “empty”. That emptiness of the empty, it comes in. But then the words help and the words disturb. Words help because without words we cannot communicate. Words do disturb, because with the words we find layers to hide in. Another layer. Very specifically I am thinking here “it is not empty, it is emptiness.” We all say that. Even the book says that. The teachings say, scholars say, everybody say that: it is not empty, but emptiness. In one way it is true. But, on the other hand, when you are meditating, you are trying to tell yourself “it is not empty, but emptiness” we are again establishing that something else is existing there. We are hiding behind the word “-ness” – “emptiness”. So we say empty----ness. There is something that comes: “-ness”. Again, something to hold on to. That is what I mean, sometimes words disturb. But words also help. Without that “emptiness”, it becomes totally empty, and that doesn’t work. That becomes nihilistic. Yes, we have to say nihilistic, we have to say existentialistic, but we have to go quite far. Empty. Really, quite far. Empty.

Anyway, again, the total point is, like Tsongkhapa said in his praise of the Buddha. Why did he praise the Buddha? The Buddha is the one who saw the true reality, and he taught us exactly as he had seen it. Tsongkhapa says: “That is why I call him the equivalentless teacher. So I bow to the dependently arisen Buddha, the Buddha who sees dependent arising, who teaches dependent arising, and the Buddha who is himself dependently arisen. I bow to him.” That is the first verse.

Half of the second verse [Tibetan phrases] is almost the same as at the beginning, when I talked about not knowing emptiness, not knowing peace, and then Chandrakirti’s about delusions and all faults coming from the jig lta. The second half verse is almost exactly the same thing. All the faults of existence lie on the ma rig pa, the ignorance. When one has seen that and has reversed that, that is where the Buddha’s interdependentness comes from. [Tibetan phrase] Therefore the essence of the Buddha’s teaching is interdependentness. That is what Tsonghkapa comes down to. Those are the conclusions, sort of putting them together to our own practice, our own understanding, our own normal way of thinking.

Then, when we are reading this, then it really goes completely [Tibetan phrase]. The first quotation that I put from the Buddha’s thing is the [Tibetan name]’s conversation with the Buddha. They said then that Buddha engaged in 100,000 different logical points to establish for ourselves. So there are100s of thousands of logical points, these are the logical points we are reading. All these different 100’s of thousands of logical points have to have a main establishing point. That main establishing point will be that nothingness, nothing exists. I’d like to say that, because I have no worry that you people are going to go to the extreme of there is no-one, nothing. You are not going to go that far. So I’d like to say this. Nothing exists. Not nothingness, not emptiness. Just empty.

Now, that again, concluded, there is a small little verses by Pabongka [Tibetan phrase]. Pabongka’s prayer to meet Tsongkhapa’s teaching. Take the empty as one side, interdependentness as the other side. Like looking through a glass. When you are looking through the empty side you will see the dependentness – dependent arising – dependently existing. When you are looking from the dependently existing, you see the empty. [Tibetan phrase] One shows the other, one presents the other. It is like, I have somewhere hiding in the deep side of mind, it is like two faces of one coin. That is what I have somewhere in the deep side of my mind. But instead of that coming out, I got a mirror, I don’t know why. Because I have a mirror in my bathroom. On one side is a huge one, on the other – I don’t know why I got that in there. Though deeply I have two faces of the coin, but I got the mirror business, I don’t know why. Oh, yeah, because of cherishing. When you look into it, what you see. When you look into empty you see dependently existing. When you look into existence, you see the empty. That is the most important point.

This morning, a very senior Tibetan official, he is supposed to be a very learned guy, was asking me: “what does that mean ‘appearance eliminates existence and emptiness eliminated nihilism?’ You know, from the Three Principles of the Path. He was asking, how does that work, what does that mean? Anyway, even if you are a learned Tibetan you will have a problem here. Somehow, common sense doesn’t give it to you, at all. That is what it means. When you are looking in the empty, you see the existence. When you look through the existence, you see the empty. [Tibetan phrase]

[Tibetan phrase] This is even more difficult. How is this functionable? If the empty is existence, existence is empty, then how are you going to function? The basis of the function is such a subtle thing, which is simply – you know – mind recognition, mental recognition – a simple mental recognition of existing, within that simple mental recognition, every function can be functioned, and function well. That was the real essence of the true understanding of the two truths. When it is abbreviated sometimes it becomes so hard. However, that is the real truth. When you think there is something to be held (the good example for me to say is “the end of the Russian doll”) you are never going to find it. Because it is not there. The only thing that is there is “just combination”. That is the only thing. That combination itself is functionable. It functions. That combination provides the basis to have karmic functioning, the basis to carry truth. Now I have created another trouble for you.

After all these statements, now you are going to pick up “oh, that combination, is that combination continuing or discontinuing? What is it?” Then you may even establish a permanent one there. That is a slight moment, it makes a difference. A slight moment, a slight identification, a “just combination”. So, again we go: “what is that ‘just a combination’? When did that come to be, when was it born, how long is it going to be? How is it functioning?” All these thoughts will come up in our mind. It is natural, because we are taught in that way. That is how we think. So, again we are looking for something to hang on to, or hold on to. So, probably, again we are going to be establishing some kind of existentialistic view here. So we have to juggle that. But if you really think carefully, we are saying “collectively”. Collecting causes and conditions, parts and parcel, terms and the time. All collect together to make it exist. Time changes, we all know that. Causes and conditions change, we all know. That is going to establish impermanent, not going to establish emptiness. Yet impermanent goes a little more subtle. More subtle than the usual gross impermanent. A little subtle. That subtle brings us closer to the empty. I think that is how it has to be juggled around. That is what calls for meditation.

Do not misunderstand here. The meditation of the vipasyana is analytical meditation. Although it needs concentration, the major work is done by the analytical medication, not by concentrated meditation. Without concentrated meditation it cannot function. Remember, in Tsongkhapa’s short Lam Rim [Tibetan phrase]. Without concentration, no matter how much wisdom analyzes, it can never eliminate the ego. They said [Tibetan phrase] the shamatha is like a horse and vipasyana is like a horseman with a weapon in hand. This is what we call the combination of vipasyana and shamatha, what we call the meditative state of combination, concentration and analytical together. Or vipasyana and shamatha together. Or you can almost say the union of vipasyana and shamatha.

Then, basic information. When you read through we will know all this, we will have tremendous information there. But, picking up whatever is working for you, when you read the Lhang Tong Chenmo aspects of it, you don’t expect a practitioner who mediates according to the Lhang Tong Chenmo – maybe there are one or two, maybe at the most. You cannot expect it. But somehow we have collected that information, the most important conclusions, and we meditate on that, trying to reach to the same conclusions where Nagarjuna is said to have reached, trying to reach the same conclusion that Chandrakirti has reached. Trying to reach the same conclusion Tsongkhapa has reached. That is our job. Why? Because it is a very safe point. It is almost unknown, or what in English we normally call “uncharted territory”. Although there are teachings, there are books, there are people, there are songs, there are this, there are that – all of them are there – but to each and every individual it is uncharted territory. In uncharted territory, anything can happen. So it is always good to rely on someone who has done this and is accepted in common by almost everyone who has gone through this path.

Maybe that is sort of a good bottom line for how we focus ourselves on the wisdom. Again, wisdom here is like analyzing. When you analyze you have to cut the wrong understanding, wrong doubts, and misinformation. That is why Manjushri carries the sharp sword. That sword is supposed to cut the misunderstanding and wrong doubt. The wrong doubts can create a lot of problems. Ignorance creates tremendous doubts. They are all mostly wrong doubts. Wrong doubts create confusion for the individual.

That confusion makes the individuals separate from the right path. When they separate from the right path, it becomes a distance between the individual and wisdom. As long as the distance is big enough, then ego can function – ignorance can function. It is like the mice having a party when the cat is gone away. Just like that. So, the sword of Manjushri is supposed to be cutting the nets of wrong thoughts created by ego.

Again, that is so interesting to see. Even with meditation, a lot of people will tell you: “cut out all your thoughts. Focus, and focus, and focus. Cut out all your thoughts.” But whatever you are focusing on is also a thought. If you are meditating on an image of a Buddha or something, that is also a thought. That is also an idea. Imagery is a thought. If you are meditating on mind, there is no physical shape or tangible color, so it is probably blankness, almost space-like blankness. Although there is no imagery, yet still there is blankness imagery, space-like imagery, cloud-like imagery. All of them are there. So if you completely remove all thoughts out – I don’t know if you can really do it or not –even if you really do it, it probably has to be some kind of dark “voom”, a horrible thing. Normally [they say] “cut the thoughts, remove the thoughts, peel the skin of the orange, blah, blah blah” all the time. What we are saying is that actually you are supposed to cut or remove or peel the wrong doubts. Cut the ego-thrown confusion, the tremendous confusion that is thrown at the individual so the gap will be created between the self and the wisdom. Those are thoughts that are supposed to be cut through, Those are the thoughts to be peeled off. But to know what is what is another problem. So that is why all of those points we talked about in January and before that are there. Not only do we have to know the dependentness, but the dependentness also has to be emptineness-natured dependentness. We already read about this. But I’d like to bring up our points here. How do we know that the dependentness is the lack of true existence? For that, we have already talked about eight points.

The eight points are: Point 1. In case the essence of the dependent arising is not an emptiness, then who said the essence of dependent arising is not an emptiness? The materialistic people. Now I am going back, using the historical language here. We are not talking about yuppies here. Remember that. We are talking about all others except the Madhyamikas, even the Cittamatrans. Even though their name is “only mind” – citta is the part that probably means “mind”, we say the “Mind Only” school. For them it is only mind, nothing else. [But for them] even that mind becomes material here. So even they are included with the materialists. All the materialistic people have said that the essence of interdependentness is not emptiness – there is something in there. So it goes too extreme right from the beginning. Even the lowest, lowest, lowest level of philosophical presentation is indivisible existence. From that level to the mind-only level, there are eight or nine or ten different ones, one of them a little deeper or profound than the other. Anyway, because they do not think the essence of dependence is an empty, but there is something. Even this friend of mine, the Rinpoche who is known as an expert Madhyamika, also got a shock, saying “so and so was saying ‘there is nothing in there – nothing – nothing in there. Nothing, nothing – not even dust, nothing in there.’”

If there is something in there, then it is extremely difficult to function. Remember, functioning. If they hold something, when something is not there, then it becomes complete non-existence. For them, the non-existence cannot destroy existence. Therefore, your saying of the word “empty” or “lack of existence” cannot destroy existence, etc.. You remember, we read all this. That is the first point. If the essence of interdependentness is not an empty, or vice-versa, then these faults will be there. That is number one. Get it? If it is not an empty, then there is something. When there is something, when you say emptiness, when you talk about shunyata, it has to be completely gone, non-existence. When it is non existence, how can non-existence function? In a way it is very true what they say. But it is not true, because it is not a non-existence.

Why are we repeating this, again and again? Why has Tsongkhapa has repeated it in the Lam Rim Chenmo – probably fifteen times up to now, at least, maybe more, maybe thirty times? Because he wanted to make an impact, in our mind. He wants to make some dents in our minds. That is, when you say empty, it is truly empty. It is not that there is something else there. It is really truly empty. So, what is there is “things put together”. Anyway, if I talk too much it will go somewhere else. Even now I am tempted to say: “It is not there, but what is there is something we put together, combined together.” Then, immediately in my mind, thoughts come up “substitute”. It is not a substitute. It is reality. Yeah, it is true. So, if you talk too much, that is what happens.

The second point they emphasize is: If it is dependently arisen, that eliminates self-standing. Self-standing eliminates dependent arising. Yesterday, when I was flying here in the plane, I was looking in the SkyMall® shopping magazine. I saw two different bathroom accessories, you know, where you put your things, soaps, etc. There were two. One is dependently arisen, it is a long one, you have to stick one end up there in the ceiling, and the other end you put on the floor, and you adjust it, and then you have the basket to hang on it. You all know. For me, that was the dependent arising. Then there is another one, triangular, standing by itself, you don’t have to put it on anything. That is independent, self-existing. You know, really, that is what I saw yesterday. And I even thought, at that time, too - dependent arise, and independently standing. I think in the advertising, in that description they said “self-standing”. That is right. Exactly, it is self standing. Self standing eliminates - you don’t have to depend on the ceiling or the floor. But even that self-standing depends on the floor. Without the floor, where is it going to sit on?? It won’t sit on empty air. The self-standing is supposed to eliminate the dependently standing. So, dependently standing eliminates self-standing.

This is the second point. Who is me? Me is the person dependently standing, doing my job. Minding my own business, doing my own job, but dependently standing. That eliminates independently standing. Which means I am totally dependent on me, my parts, my parcels, my body, my mind. If I have a mind, but don’t have a body, I become a spirit. If I have a body but don’t have a mind, I become a corpse, a dead body. So that is quite clear, because if you combine them together it is me. So I am dependently arisen. Dependent eliminates independent. That is the second point we have read. Dependently arising – dependently existing – not only eliminates self-standing, but also eliminates self-standing substance, whatever it is, energy, material. I don’t know whether energy is called substance or not. So, there is nothing there. It eliminates something. It has to be completely eliminated. That is the second point.

The third point is: It is dependent on the cause and the result - like my life. There is a tremendous amount of causes to have this life. The result is this life. The combination of me having this particular life is a dependent arising from the causes and result. Being existent because the cause and the result means dependently arisen. If I am self-standing, independent, then I will not depend on causes or conditions, or terms, or time, or part, or parcel, on nothing. Therefore, I am dependent arise. If I am not, if I am independently existing, I depend on nothing for anything. Which is not rue. That is the third point.

The fourth point. If one thinks empty and existence are direct opposites, which we may think, in our normal sense – if we have not been taught or bombarded with words saying “we don’t exist, essence of emptiness is interdependentness, essence of interdependentness is emptiness” then we may think empty has nothing to do with existence, and that it is the direct opposite of emptiness. The direct opposite of emptiness is existence. That is common sense. That is why people will always ask “How come appearance eliminates emptiness?” Because our common sense goes directly opposite to this. If we accept that, Tsongkhapa calls this “your god became your devil.” We have only one way of helping our self, and that is the wisdom. But we made that wisdom into a devil. That is what Tsongkhapa calls it. Because that is the only one on the basis of which we have the hope of eliminating ego. But then you make this into a completely solid establishment of ego, so it changes your god into a devil. I think we will cut that, because you have already read the reasons so many times.

The fifth one. If one sees dependent arising and empty as separate, as having nothing to do with each other, that is the clear sign the individual has not understood the profound wisdom of Buddha. It is never understood, as long as we see these two apart. When that happens, one can never establish the interdependent system, at all. One cannot establish it, at all. You can say it is, you can write about it, as I did here, but that does not mean it is established. Established means as your true understanding. Your own reality, for you, has to be this. In your own reality, if dependent arising and empty have nothing to do with each other, then you can never establish dependent arising. Because it is totally there. What is depending on what for what? Nothing. If one can establish dependent arising, then you can shake the self-standing, the ego grasping. You know, we call it “ego is the boss”, “I Rimpoche”, the “queen ant”, all of those. Because we are thinking it is something solid. That will be shaken if it is dependent. Now, I don’t know whether you get any idea now or not.

Now, if you think about it, here you go: “How does the wisdom cut the root of suffering?” That is this one. Wisdom that is the dependent arising cuts the root of suffering, ego, the self-standing, independent, permanent, self-standing, coming from previous life, staying here, going into the future life, functioning, even admitting and committing to become a Buddha. That is not the Buddha nature, that is the ego one. That is where you are cutting it. Because with “dependent”, you are talking about where did that independent, where did the big boss go. When it doesn’t function, it is gone. It only hides in the White House, it doesn’t go to New Orleans. You don’t have it there. That is a joke. But the joke sometimes helps us remember.

During the Lam Rim teachings, there are a tremendous amount of jokes taught. Not beginning in a month or two, but three or four or five months later, we forget all the teachings, but remember the jokes. And when you remember the jokes, the joke will trace back to the teachings. Somehow this joke was said at that level, and that will trace you back. I don’t know, maybe that is helpful. Our jokes will make not so much long-term value, because Bush is going to go in four more years in two and a half. This time it is definite.

If interdependent could not eliminate self-existing, then we interpret the words of non-existence. We have to interpret them and do something. In this level, Tsongkhapa advised us to have perfect morality in order to gain that proper understanding. That is almost as a fundamental basis, perfect morality. Plus, accumulation of merit and purification. These are the points that the individual has to establish. That is one of the reasons why it always says “emptiness is not easy to understand, so you need a lot of merit and purification.” Always you will hear that from here and there. Not so much, like you hear emptiness means existence, etc., not in that way, but in so many ways you hear it. I don’t know. Sometimes, or not so many times you hear it. But I think that is the point here. The point over hear is that it depends on the morality. Almost every achievement in the spiritual path, particularly in the wisdom level, particularly where you cut the samsara, you really need the moral basis, morality. The three basket teachings of the Buddha are required here. The morality, concentration and wisdom. In order to get the wisdom, it depends on the morality. Actually, it depends on concentration. Concentration is based on morality.

In one way you can see this as religious doctrine. On the other hand, you can see this as dependent arising. I will tell you how it depends. Wisdom cannot be achieved unless one has a strong focus and concentration. You know that, we know that very clearly here. You cannot. You really have to have it. Otherwise it will be like the birds or some kinds of animal body going “pick-pick-pick” here, “pick-pick-pick” there, but it doesn’t get much. The bird may get filled up. But the bird is going to poke a little bit here, poke a little bit there. That little drop doesn’t really get you anywhere. It really needs constant, continuous effort. Constant continuous effort of analyzing cannot be achieved unless you have a strong focus, because you are going to lose the focus. When you lose the focus, it is going to be pick here, pick there, pop there, pop there, up here, up there, down there, all kinds of words and thoughts. It becomes sort of a messy variety of things, nothing properly arranged. It is going to be like this. That is because of a lack of concentration.

Remember. This is a part of the Lam Rim. At the beginning of the Lam Rim teaching you say that one benefits here is that you will establish a basis in you for organizing. The metaphor given in the old Tibetan is the salt container, sugar container, and tea container. If you find a little tea, you can put that in to the tea container. If you find a little salt, you put in the salt container. If you find a little sugar, you put it in the sugar container. So it is organized and it is useful. If you don’t have that, and you have a handful of sugar, you cannot mix them together, unless you are going to make some kind of sweet-sour thing. Otherwise it almost becomes useless. One point of the Lam Rim is to try to have focusing and organizing. That applies throughout the Lam Rim. It applies here. When it applies here, what is applied here is that the focusing is the fundamental basis of analyzing. Analyzing will not go deep enough if it is “poke-poke-poke”, then it goes out to somewhere else, “poke-poke-poke”, like birds that come on the house. What do you call those? Little birds in the wooden house? Woodpeckers. But woodpeckers will not make a complete house. There is a commercial that shows the woodpecker making a hole completely. That is a focused woodpecker. When you are not focused, you make a tack-tack-tack here, tack tack-tack there, it doesn’t really get you anywhere. That is why the fundamental basis is the morality.

Why is an individual unable to focus? It is the attraction. Whether the attraction comes out of obsession, or out of anger or hatred, or something, which draws the focus away. The morality helps to establish that. On that basis, you establish focusing. On the basis of the focus you establish analyzing. With the combination of focusing and analyzing together, that woodpecker can cut the whole door, and whoever wants to fly in can come in. That, plus purification, accumulation of merit, from a variety of ways, on top of that, learning and pondering, and gain understanding, and then enthusiastically putting through efforts. We have read that already, on the fifth point. I am bringing here the last two. The last one is also the answer to the earlier one where we say the god becomes the devil. Both of these are answered by those.

The sixth one. Now this empty and interdependently existing work together, each one complementing the other. Once you re able to se this, this is the real measurement that one has seen – that one has comprehended – emptiness. Remember, in the Three Principle Aspects of the Path. [Tibetan phrase] The time will come, without alternating, when you see dependent karmic situation. The moment you see the dependent karmic situation you see the essence of the emptiness. The jig lta is completely gone. When that happens, that is the measurement that the individual comprehends the emptiness wisdom. That is the measurement. It is extremely difficult to find. When one has found this, one has to take care and maintain that. That is your key for your liberation. That is the sixth point.

The seventh point. When it is not with one, not with two, that is what we check. Especially the example is very simple. You have a table. Take the legs out, the top out, they say now there is no table. They say now there is no table, and then they say this is the emptiness of the table, and he says this is not. That is actually the relative table destroyed. It is not the emptiness of the table. A lot of people will tell you this is the emptiness of the table. It is not. Or, sometimes, what really happens is that the true table, when you break the leg, pull the leg out, take the top out, you destroy the table. You did not find the emptiness of the table, that is a difference, isn’t it. Even if you do not destroy it, in your mental image of the table, you take the legs out, right, left, this one, that one, they all fall out. The top - boom - hits the bottom. Even if you do that only in the imagination, you have destroyed an imaginary table. But that is not the emptiness of the table. Similarly, if you say “it is oneness and separate” is the logic that Buddha has recommended to apply. However, to think you have understood emptiness simply like that is totally a misunderstanding, and it warns against that here.

The eight one is almost the same as the sixth one. I think I went over a little bit. The seventh one says, out of this, when you see the interdependentness – existence itself, as empty, this is most important. One should really cherish that, and carefully utilize it. That is what they call it. It is teachings.

So these are the eight points of establishing the relationship between dependently arising and empty. This is the eight-point way of showing us how these two are one. I don’t know whether I made it clear for you or whether I made it worse for you, which we don’t know.

[Audience] When we think about everything existing as part and parcel, terms and conditions, like let’s say the table, or whatever. When we think about every part and parcel, each part exits by part and parcel. So it is sort of like, I am here but I am made of molecules, the molecules are made of atoms, the atoms are made of quarks, infinitely reducible. And each of those things is existing dependently on other things that also exist on everything else. So it is sort of like every block depends on every other block, and all those blocks are changing. So it is sort of like everything is infinitely related.

[Rimpoche] Well I believe it is. It is. I don’t know whether the spiritualistics like us, or the scientists, are going to finds emptiness first. But I think it is probably reality. Someone showed me an article the other day, some professor in London wrote. A

[Audience] A professor of quantum information. He said that as far as he can tell the only thing that exists is interrelationships. There is nothing else. Interrelationships are the only thing. He speculated on what his work means for how quantum people work. He said, as far as he can tell, the only thing that actually exists are all the interrelationships. It is exactly the interdependent nature of reality.

[Rimpoche] Relationship, yup.

[Audience] Interdependence, it is the same thing.

[Rimpoche] Yes. It is so funny, because the last time, where I was giving a talk somewhere else, they said if Einstein had never come up, we would have a great deal of difficulty talking about the interdependent system. Some lady afterwards came up – it was a big talk, somewhere, there were a lot of people there – some lady came up, all the way, with great difficulty and finally she said: “you think Einstein is Buddha?” I don’t now whether it was her sarcastic remark, or what she really thinks that. I said: “I don’t know”.

That sort of understanding, we have to hold within us. Tsongkhapa made these eight points. We already read it in so much detail: this one says this, that one says that, this one says this, etc. and the early Tibetan u ma pas say this, and the materialistics say this and that. And we don’t really get it. In between that we begin to lose things. So I wanted to bring those eight points together. Even the eight points, to me are extremely easy in Tibetan. When I am reading here, I don’t know, for myself, trying to say it in English, it becomes difficult. Whether it is a lack of English language, or my notes are too short. I don’t know which it is. I did not use the traditional Tibetan system of using Xxx, you know. As kids when we were taught how to read Tibetan, at the beginning we were taught all the spellings of each word, then combine them together, then combine them a little faster, then cut them – tack - tack - tack - tack - tack - tack - tack. Then read them together. After that they will have two or three words, with one or two crosses in the middle. You are supposed to know what the crosses are supposed to be. If you don’t then, you get “pung” here, straightaway. The second cross comes and you get “pung” here, straightaway. That is the worst thing, you get it, true. After a little you really find, one line, two lines across you are supposed to know. That was when I was about at ten or eleven years old. So I learned that way. So you get a lot here, sort of red and hot all the time. At the beginning, there are so many crossings. That is the way they train you. The teachers will not hesitate to hit you because you will never learn. So, if you learn and use your mind, somehow you get it more or less right.

I have tried to make a little synopsis of this. I don’t know how much I have managed to do it.

The second group of the debating system talks about earlier Tibetan u ma pas. This almost repeats the u ma pa’s debate against the materialistics. But when you are referring to earlier Tibetan u ma pas, Tsongkhapa is the one [saying that]. There are two points here.

One point is that it is commonly known that Tsongkhapa’s acceptance of emptiness is called med dgag*. It is not something wrong corrected, but something that is never there has been completely negated. Sort of a negation of a non-existence itself is almost like emptiness. I think I am saying this wrongly in the language. I might not be saying the words wrongly, but when the sentence is put together, it may be getting a different understanding. You know, the emptiness is something which you have negated. The point of negation is not something that is wrongly understood, or the wrong thing corrected, but something that is truly not there. Whatever is not there, truly not there, has been completely negated. That negated result [negation] that has been established to the individual is considered as emptiness. This is a slightly different point of accepting emptiness from the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas. The earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas are also accepting that emptiness is something. I am not very good at this. Maybe I had better not say it. You know why? If I say it, and I am not good at it, I not only create a misunderstanding within you, also I may be misinforming you and doing a disservice to you. We have a saying in Tibetan. It is nicer if those images sit down and are not so active standing, it is much better. So I like to follow in those footsteps. I am not going to say.

But [for] Tsongkhapa, accepting emptiness is a negation of something that truly does not exist; it has been negated, it is confirmed, and the confirmation of that is realizing that as emptiness. When that is emptiness, it is slightly different from that of earlier Tibetan u ma pas ways of presenting emptiness. So there is a section on negating the earlier Tibetan’s way of presenting. Tsongkhapa is not negating Chandrakirti or Nagarjuna or all of those, although, who knows who Nagarjuna is? Traditional Tibetan teachings think Nagarjuna lived 600 years. That is probably not true, there must have been six or seven Nagarjuna’s have come in between that. What do the scholars say, really?

[Audience] Jeffrey Hopkins said in his Ph.D. dissertation that Nagarjuna lived 600 years.

[Rimpoche] And what do normal scholars say?

[Audience] I don’t know.

[Rimpoche] I mean, it is not possible, honestly. There must be a couple of Nagarjunas who came in. Nagarjuna is a name, you know. Nyawang Gehlek is a name. There is another Tibetan guy named Nyawang Gehlek. This morning he has been elected or appointed to something having to do with some association. It is a name. It can be anything. But, let’s say there are six Nagarjunas. Not all six of them can be the similar type, there must be one Nagarjuna who really had a true understanding. Then you, know a funny thing happens. In the traditional Buddhist tradition, sometimes the students write things in the name of the teacher. That is very traditional Buddhism. So, maybe Nagarjuna’s followers put a lot of things on Nagarjuna. If you put together all the books available today by Nagarjuna, he would have to have lived 600 years. So that is probably not true. Even Nagarjuna’s extraordinary, whatever may be. There is no reincarnation system like the Tibetans, like the previous Karmapa, the Second Karmapa, the Third Karmapa, they all write Karmapa, Karmapa, Karmapa. Or the Dalai Lama, Dalai Lama. It is the same thing. With every other reincarnation, they write their names. It looks like one person. They did not have that in India. But maybe the Buddhist disciples were writing books in the name of the teacher. They do that very often in the Buddhist tradition. I think that might have happened. I don’t know.

But whichever Nagarjuna that might be, these six texts of Nagarjuna’s really are by one person. That now becomes the main source of Manjushri’s way of bringing the wisdom to us, which is followed by Chandrakirti (that one there was only one) and Buddhapalita (I believe there was only one, no 600 years or 200 years). Then, followed by a great many. Almost every Tibetan school claims to be followers of Nagarjuna. Everybody says that. But then everybody interprets. Even Tsongkhapa interprets. Interpretation. The difference will come over here, whether the elimination of non-existence is emptiness. If you look from other points of view, if there is no horn on the rabbit’s head, if you realize there is no horn on the rabbit’s head, it doesn’t mean you have understood emptiness. That is true. But nobody said that, though it is that a non-existent has been negated. They are not talking about the non-existence of the horn on the rabbit’s head. They are talking about the non-existence of ego - self. Non-existence of ego - self. This becomes a frightening thing, the moment you hear “non-existence of self”. [Non- existence of] the ego is fine, comfortable. With “self”, you begin to be a little scared, if you are thinking. So, when the non-existence of the ego and the self is well established within you, then you are getting the emptiness of the self-less-ness. Do you get it?

Then, if it is something other than that, according to Tsongkhapa, then you say you have kept the devil inside you and are still trying to chop something else outside. It will get you nowhere. When they are talking about the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas, I think they are talking about this. That is the same thing as the materialistic point: 1) they say that if non-existence – truly naturally (we have to play around with those words) – if truly, naturally non-existence, then how can you have liberation? All these liberations are going to be eliminated, truly, naturally. That is the word here again. So, the earlier Tibetan Madhyamika says: “if there is nothing of self, from the self’s own nature, then there is no self at all. And if there is no self at all, how can that self be born and die?” So, in absolute reality - we used to add a word. No form, no sound, no smell, nothing, nothing. So we add a word here, and say “in absolute reality no form”, “in absolute reality no smell, no taste, no tongue...” The earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas said you don’t have to add that “in absolute reality” for your understanding. If you don’t add that, then it is truly going to be non-existence. If it is truly going to be non-existence, then the question of liberation does not arise. Nagarjuna says the question of liberation is possible for individuals. So, you, the earlier Tibetans’ view contradicts Nagarjuna’s acceptance. We reviewed that a little bit last month, didn‘t we? But we did not go very far into the essence. The point one here that Tsongkhapa is explaining is that “your way of accepting that you do not need to identify, qualify ‘in absolute reality’ will become total destruction. If it is total destruction, then, in that case, how can there be growth as well as liberation. So your way of presenting is definitely going against Nagarjuna’s way. If not, explain.” That, in essence, is what Tsongkhapa is saying.

The second point. These earlier Tibetan masers reply that when Nagarjuna is talking about liberation, he is talking about the relative level. They reply: “I have not negated the relative level, therefore my view is not going against Nagarjuna’s view.” To that reply, Tsongkhapa goes on and says: “Nagarjuna is going beyond that. Self-existence is negated even in the relative level. Don’t you know that? Nagarjuna’s negation of self-existence negated the relative existence of the self as well. Since that is the case, negation of self-existence will negate liberation, even relatively.” Tsongkhapa adds a third point: “Not only that, in this case, you are now destroying the liberation. Lack of true existence and liberation are going against each other. Putting the two together is the special point of the Madhyamaka, and you are destroying that.” That is Tsongkhapa’s third point.

The fourth point: “If that is not the case, why can’t you add the words ‘in absolute reality’?” The fifth point: “If you accept the negation of true existence, if that reasoning destroys causes and results, then the lack of true existence cannot establish cause and result, growth and destruction. So your words have no difference from the materialist’s words.” The sixth point says: “Whether it is a lack of true existence or not, both have a problem. Therefore I do not accept both. I accept either existing or non existing.” So they establish some kind of funny view in between, neither existing or non-existing. This is an important point. The reasons they give you: [Tibetan phrase] It is not really existing because a true mind has not seen it. It is not non-existing because it is the basis of all cause and conditions and functioning. [Tibetan phrase] All these are points Tsongkhapa considered.

I think I cannot do more than that. The difference between the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas, I think there are seven or eight or nine points. I came to the sixth point, and then I begin to think and forgot. So, in other words, there is a big difference between the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas and Tsongkhapa’s way of presenting emptiness. Then, on the other hand there is another one. The first Panchen Lama very clearly says that there no difference, it is all the same, and very much emphasis was made. He even tried to make one thing [Tibetan phrase]. The first founder of Buddhism was the Buddha, then came Guru Padmasambhava, then comes Atisha, then Losang Dragpa, they are all in one person, one viewpoint, one everything. All of that is one way of doing it. I guess we call it wisdom studies. So we have to know all of those. I don’t think we draw any conclusion, because the conclusion is already drawn in the Lam Rim textbooks and the other textbooks. They have already drawn conclusions.

To gain our wisdom, we have to get our conclusion logically, with reasoning, with thoughts, not with brainwashing. Logically with reasoning, with thoughts, we try to reach to the textbooks of Tsongkhapa (if we are following Tsongkhapa). If we are not following Tsongkhapa, then whoever you are following, their textbooks. You have to reach your conclusion not by just saying it, but by analyzing it, by having it make sense to ourselves. That is what we are supposed to do. That will be the conclusion of our wisdom studies. At the end that is what we would like to do. We are not here to establish whether the Cittamatrans are wrong or the materialists are right, or the Madhyamikas are wrong or right. We are following the Madhyamika system, we have to take that.

It is the same thing when you are studying Tsongkhapa’s Lam Rim Chenmo. You draw the conclusions according to what the Lam Rim Chenmo has drawn. Or any other of Tsongkhapa’s texts, except the two-volume “The Golden Rosary”. That is a Pranjaparamita text, and Tsongkhapa himself later refuted the conclusions in that text. So, except those two. Tsongkhapa has drawn the same conclusion everywhere else. We hope to reach to that level by our own way. Not because the book says it, so it must be. That doesn’t work. That its not wisdom. That is oral transmission. That is not wisdom. Wisdom needs all of those: analyzing and drawing conclusions. In order to draw the right conclusions, we need purification and accumulation of merit, and concentration, on the basis of the morality. Tsongkhapa somehow brought this all out so nicely, but in just a few words here and there. They don’t emphasize it, don’t highlight it, they just give you a little here or there. So it looks completely like a dialectical book or a philosophical book. But in that, you have all of those, in the midst of everything. That combination helps us reach the conclusions. We collect this information here. The discussion and analyzing is the individual’s job, and drawing the conclusion wherever you can reach. That is how you are going to go. That is probably where you will reach your wisdom level of the Madhyamika’s point, or the Cittamatran’s point, or the four or five or six or seven or eight different. All of them are OK, see which level one gets in. That is probably how it goes.

The other Rimpoche, I told you, got a big surprise. He had completely studied, no doubt about it. But he must be drawing his own conclusion in the different level. So, he is reading there. So, when that comes up, with the Madhyamika’s points, he gets a shock. Learning is one thing. Analyzing and meditating is the second thing, interconnected. One is based on the other. That is something one has to gain, no one can bring that and put it in your mouth. It is not like a Tibetan momo that you can put in the mouth.

I am going to stop here. It is a little bit early, but we have to do a tsok today. So we will take a little break and then do the tsok.

* in the glossary to Geshe Sopa’s Cutting Through Appearances (Snow Lion, 1989), the word med dgag is defined in English as “non-affirming negative”.

© 2006, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved