Archive Result

14

Wisdom teachings NYC XX Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 30: 03-05-06

Today we will continue with what we did not do yesterday. Yesterday we talked about major points of the basic understanding of wisdom, and that the nature of empty is interdependent nature, and eight points on how the interdependent nature appears to the individual. Then, that was over. At the end of that, we also talked about how the earlier Tibetans accept the true emptiness. We were talking about six or seven points yesterday. It was the end of it, and I was a little tired too, so I thought it was not clear, although this is probably the third time we have visited some of them, or revisiting them the second time. I had hesitated about what I was saying because when we say “the earlier Tibetan”, there are always transcripts, and everyone is asking “who are you referring too?” or “what are you referring too?” But I am not sure whether you have to clarify it. The textbook itself says “earlier Tibetans”. “Earlier Tibetans” means earlier Tibetans. I don’t have to tell the name of this person and that person that he is referring to. Not particularly any schools, but there is a group of Tibetans that are called the earlier Tibetans.

Within the Tibetan circle, especially in the Gelukpa circle, they have somehow established the language, so if you say it is the “earlier Tibetans” they know what you are talking about. But in the West they want the meaning of “earlier Tibetans” to be clarified, and keep asking: “Are you referring to Atisha, or the old Kadampas, the new Kadampas, or the Nyingmapas, or Sakyapas, or Gelukpas, or Kargyupas? Why can’t we let earlier Tibetans be earlier Tibetans, rather than identified? When you look into and see their viewpoints, then you will know who it is referring to, rather than naming. You even do that in the West too, you don’t name some people. You say “A few people do this, a few people say this”. It is not only the Tibetans who do it. Even in the West they do it.

Those earlier Tibetans claim that their viewpoints are the perfect viewpoints of Nagarjuna or Buddhapalita or Chandrakirti. Particularly, they say they are perfectly following Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. But Tsongkhapa is saying “that might be true, that is what you say, but your views contradict Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and Aryadeva and Buddhapalita’s thoughts”. That is what it is talking about.

Incidentally, if I don’t do good today, excuse me, somehow I did not sleep last night, not at all. Whatever the reason may be, I did not sleep at all, so I am a little groggy today. The thing is that while I was not sleeping, I was lying down and not sleeping, so I got up and turned the TV on, and saw a program about biology. They were saying that when you teach biology you have to teach with the historical aspects. Is that correct?

[Audience] It depends. I don’t think it is necessary. But some ideas have evolved with time in ways that you can’t really understand where you are today if you don’t see the progress of the ideas. But it is not necessarily done in great detail. So you can tech modern molecular biology without necessarily going back into the whole story. So it really depends. It is a special question; there would be a specific answer for each thing you are going to teach.

[Rimpoche] So I was thinking that it is very similar here, because here we are looking at the history of who has claimed what, so that we can see the problems that were there, and not repeat them. Without looking in that guidance, beyond our - you can’t say comprehension - but it is beyond the majority of people’s thinking. You don’t think about those lines unless you are led to them. So, when I was looking at that, I saw that the biologists show it that way, and I think here we are showing emptiness in the same way, looking at the historical aspects, seeing what was what and what faults are there. So, this particular segment of Tsongkhapa’s text, on the bottom of page 139, is referring to what the problems were: “You are saying you are following Nagarjuna, but if you are, then your acceptance of this goes against [Nagarjuna].” Number one is that the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas have said: if there is nothing naturally existent, then what else is left? I tried to make a synopsis. Sometimes a synopsis is very helpful to make it easier for people to get it. Sometimes it is a danger that I may just look around and take a little notes and start drawing conclusions.

Do you know what the Tibetan page is? [Audience: the very bottom of 591, the very last lines] 591, that is right.

Tsongkhapa is saying, and what we have been saying, is that every phenomenon does not have the slightest natural existence at all. If there is naturally existing, then you have quite a it of difficulty establishing samsara and nirvana. When you are not able to establish samsara and nirvana, then you will not be able to establish liberation, or any of those. Liberation means, at least in the normal-usual sense, getting out of samsara and entering into nirvana. That is why samsara is suffering, nirvana is peace. It is very basic, one of the four Buddhist logos: Samsara is suffering, nirvana is peace. That is a very basic thing. When you are talking about liberation here, the liberation is liberating the individuals from samsara and getting them into nirvana, because it is getting out of suffering and entering into peace. If that is not possible, then the question of liberation does not arise. When the question of liberation does not arise, then the purpose of the practice does not arise. If the purpose of the practice does not arise, then the teachings of the Buddha have no value. The practice has no value. So it defeats the fundamental principle of practice. So we say, yeah, it is not true. Liberation is possible.

If liberation is possible, if there is “naturally existing” or “intrinsically existing”, you cannot change anything. Nothing is changeable, because it is already established. This is a very basic thing. It is already establish, it is already there, so the change cannot take place. If change cannot take place, again, no change, no liberation. No change, no development. No change, no nirvana. Nirvana remains nirvana, samsara remains samsara, and there is nothing transferring in between, because there is no change.

Nagarjuna’s point here is - and we have said it a million times - that because it is empty, because it is not [naturally] existent, because it is dependent arising, all are possible. Liberation is possible, transferring from samsara to nirvana is possible, development is possible, which means the teachings have value, it has meaning, it affects the individual, improves the individual. All of those are possible. But now Tsongkhapa is pointing out: “If there is not true existence, then what else is there?” In other words, if it is not truly existing, but is relatively existing, the division, the boundary is not made clear. That will come later, because I have noticed there is a clarification at the end. That is the number one point. Therefore, when you say there is no form, no sound, no taste, no smell, no touch, etc. Whenever the sutra says that, our understanding has to say “absolutely”. You have to say “in absolute reality, no nose, no tongue, no ear. But the earlier Tibetans have said: “You cannot keep on adding ‘in absolute reality’.”

I don’t have a personal experience on that, except one time, about thirty years ago, in New Delhi. I was talking with a Tibetan teacher, a very good one, who was teaching in Japan. He came back and was talking to me, because I started saying “in absolute reality”. He kept on telling me: “Oh, now you have to add up every word in every word, so you are going to make this textbook three times the size of the textbook, aren’t you?” He told me that sort of thing at that time. I sort of thought, at that time, if you are not going to add up the “absolute”, then what are you talking about? What else are you going to say? They didn’t say that, and we sort of made that into a joke and laughed and dismissed it. Probably in the tradition he was following, they probably say to not add up that word. Otherwise there is no reason why Tsongkhapa would say: “if you don’t add up the word...” In English you say [Audience: they use the word “ultimate”]. So you don’t add up “ultimate”. They keep on saying you don’t have to add up ultimate. So you say, no form, no nose, no tongue. You don’t say ultimately no tongue, ultimately no nose. They have to go in that way. If they do that, then the problem arises, the point we talked about yesterday. In absolute reality, or in ultimate reality, if you do not exist, it does not mean you do not exist. I think we are losing that point.

Point number one is that Tsongkhapa is telling them: since that is true, then explain how can it be that your viewpoint does not go against Nagarjuna’s. Everybody gets confused here, somehow. What Tsongkhapa is trying to show here is that the way some of the earlier Tibetans accepted emptiness has problems. Problem number one is that if you just use the words “no form, no sound, no nose, etc.”, if you take it literally, it would be too much. So you have to add up “in ultimate reality”, no nose, no tongue. So someone says, “no you don’t have to add that, you just say non tongue, no nose.” Yeah, it is true, when you just read the sutra, you just read “no tongue, no nose”. You are not going to read “in ultimate reality no nose, in ultimate reality no tongue.” You don’t say that, you just say “no tongue, no nose”. But one has to understand that you are talking about “in ultimate reality”.

What is this ultimate reality we are talking about? Again, we have to remember there are two truths: the absolute truth and relative truth. When you are talking about in ultimate reality, you are talking about in absolute truth, because there are two truths. If you keep on talking about the talking point of two truths, if you keep remembering that, then I don’t think we are going to get much more confusion here. The confusion is my fault. I am not saying you people are confused, but I am saying, when the transcript comes up, everybody is completely confused, so a zillion different questions come out. It is almost like you have to rewrite the transcript again. That is what is happening. Somehow, we have to remember in that, when they say “in ultimate reality”, we are talking about these two truths together. It is important to remember that the two truths have to function simultaneously in one subject. That is another point. Because, if the two truths separate, then we lose the fundamental focal points. The two truths have to go together in one point. Tsongkhapa is pointing out to the earlier Tibetans: your way of saying “no nose, no tongue” would be too extreme, because then you are going to lose the relative truth. If you lose the relative truth you have lost everything, and that is going against Nagarjuna. Tsongkhapa says that it the bottom line. That is number one.

The second point here says that they think Nagarjuna and his disciples are talking about liberation, etc. in the relative level, and since they also accept the relative level, therefore they don’t have the problem of going against Nagarjuna’s point.

Objection: The master Candrakirti holds that teachings on cyclic existence and nirvana–bondage, freedom, etc.–are made conventionally, and we accept these conventionally. Hence there is no fault. Lam Rim Chenmo pg. 140

That is what they think. So Tsongkhapa is telling them that they are saying they don’t have a problem. Who is saying it? Tsongkhapa is saying it. To whom is he talking? To the earlier Tibetans. because the earlier Tibetans replied to Tsongkhapa, though it is not written here. Maybe that is w here the confusion is coming from. Who is saying what? Who is who? The earlier Tibetans are saying that when Nagarjuna says “liberation, etc.”, he is talking about the relative level only.

They are saying “I accept liberation in the relative level, so I don’t have a problem.” It is a stubborn insistence. So Tsongkhapa repeats that when Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, etc., are saying that there is no ultimate existence, this is not only in the absolute level. Even in the relative level there is no ultimate existence. So now Tsongkhapa is pointing out that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti, etc. are saying that there is no ultimate existence – not only in absolute truth, also in relative truth.

Tsongkhapa says: “Since you say that you also accept no ultimate existence in the relative level, you are contradicting yourself. Not only are you contradicting yourself, the reasons you use to negate ultimate existence do not only negate liberation, etc. in the ultimate level, but also negate liberation in the relative level. Even in the relative level you accept non-ultimate-existence, which for you means not existing at all.” They are not making the division between if you don’t exist then nothing exists. I think it is a little more clear by pointing out this last word. That is the second point.

The second point clarifies more. The reason we are using non-existence. There are only two logical reasons: interdependently existing, or oneness, or separate, or those four points. Historically, there are only two logical points that are applied here. Whichever reasoning they use, the earlier Tibetans accept that non-existence means nothing. So, then, if there is nothing there is nothing to be. Then you go to completely nothing. That is what the second point is.

The third point is quite interesting, actually. I am not sure whether I am presenting this to you properly or not. The Madhyamikas have only one special quality. That quality is that in ultimate non-existence you can yet have functioning, karmic cause, results, everything functioning. That is the only special point of the Madhyamikas. The way the earlier Tibetans have accepted emptiness destroys this particular point. Why? In one point, one object or subject, in one single point, let us say a human life, or my life, or me – just make it easy – simple: “me”. If I cannot establish relative existence and absolute non-existence, without contradicting each other, then I will lose “me”. Why? Because, ultimately, I do not exist. Relatively, I do exist. But, in your way of thinking there is not much division, except the words, between relative and absolute. Therefore you lose the “me”. Get it? Now someone is shaking their head, but I don’t know.

The point is, on that point, that [they think] that if you do not exist ultimately then you don’t exist at all. That was the point they were arguing. Again, this leads to the establishment of two truths. The establishment of two truths will be shaken. The establishment of the two truths will be lost. If you lose the two truths, then you lose the fundamental, principle base on which we function. Remember. Every time, we say our practice has to have a base, a path and a result, the base here is the two truths: absolute and relative truth. That is the base on which we work. They are saying you are going to lose that base completely, because if you do not exist intrinsically, then you don’t exist at all. It is true, you do not exist – the me does not exist intrinsically.

Then the earlier Tibetans say: “That is not true. The me does exist, relatively.” Then Tsongkhapa goes back, saying what we said earlier: “Yeah. How can you relatively exist? Because the way you accept ultimately not-existing means ‘nothing’, therefore how can you exist relatively?” They think “relatively” means some kind of word, it really doesn’t mean... - the ultimate idea problem here is that truth becomes one truth, not two truths. For many of us, or common sense will say the truth has to be one. Whatever it may be, it has to be one truth. But it is always two truths. That should be enough on the third point.

The trouble was made here by not using “in absolute reality”. By not using that word, that is the actual trouble. If you don’t use the word “in absolute reality”, you are overly defeating, so are probably losing all relative establishment. There are the details they are trying to point out.

The fifth one goes beyond that, saying that the logic which negates the ultimate reality negates cause and effect. If that is so, then ultimately non-existence does not have either growing nor destruction. Then Nagarjuna’s point is that if all is empty, then there is no growing, no destruction, so then not only do you destroy the two basic truths but you lose the Four Noble Truths. The materialists, earlier, have argued with the Madhyamikas, because if you don’t have “truly existing”, then you don’t have... - this is repeating what the u ma pas have argued against the materialists, earlier. Here Tsongkhapa is repeating the same thing to the earlier Tibetan Madhyamikas – the Tibetan u-ma pas. It is the same thing.

Why is this so? This is easier to say. There is an earlier Chinese Mahayana teacher, I think the word is Ho Shang. The Tibetans say Ha Shang. I think the Chinsese word is Ho Shang. Ho Shang is a Chinese monk or master, or something. One of those Chinese Ho Shang’s, in Tibet had been teaching Buddhism, absolutely ignoring the two truths - the relative and absolute truth. The way he taught was that if you are tied (bound) by a gold chain or by an ordinary steel chain, you are tied. In a way it is true. Whether you are tied by gold or silver, it doesn’t matter. You are tied. Using that as an example, he was saying, whether you have bondage in absolute truth or in relative truth, you have bondage. That was Ha Shang’s viewpoint. The later Indian, before Atisha, somewhere in the 11th - 9th - 10th century, and Kamalashila. The Tibetans had to invite Kamalashila from India to defeat the Ha Shang’s viewpoint. They wanted to identify, clarify whether it was right or wrong. Kamalashila visted Tibet for a long time, and finally refuted the Ha Shang’s viewpoints. They even had a debate, and they kicked the Ha Shang out of Tibet, literally, physically kicked out, along with his belongings. So, probably, when we are referring to the earlier Tibetans, it refers to the Ha Shang’s viewpoint, left over. There is a funny thing that people say, which is that when they kicked the Ha Shang out they forgot one of his shoes, and that is why these viewpoint s were left. I don’t know, that is what they tell you. It can’t be true, but that is what they say.

I think the most important point is to not lose the two truths simultaneously on one point. The way to not lose it is that in ultimate reality you do not exist, however, on the relative level - dependently. Now, here we have a point. A lot of us say: “ultimately we don’t exist, relatively we do exist.” Which I think is wrong. Because, relatively, we do not even - I mean the way and how we exist relatively is that we are functioning. The way and how we are functioning is just “collectively existing”. I think that is the subtle point here. I think they are finding difficulty 1) making a division between the relative and the absolute and 2) even in the relative level, even we almost say that we do exist in the relative level. But existing is a different point here. It is quite difficult. Why? If we use a word that covers it strongly, in relative - we sort of switch something within our mind - it is some different level and we say “here we exist.” Then there is a danger of having an existentialist view. We try to balance that: “relatively we exist, absolutely we don’t exist”. That is what we are normally taught. We teach that way. The language they use in the textbooks everywhere is that way. However there is a strong question here about whether we can really say that we can exist relatively. We can definitely function. The functioning is based on the “collectively existing”. So, we may be saying “in the relative level, collectively we exist. In that case, why can’t we say “in the absolute level, collectively we exist”? These are the thoughts we have to think about and analyze. We have to get an answer by our selves, for our own understanding. I don’t think people answering and telling you “this is this, this is that” will make any sense. Because “this is this, this is that” has been taught in the books. That doesn’t convey us. In our own level, we have to see.

It is easy to look at how the earlier Tibetans have been refuted by later ones. It is very easy for later ones to refute earlier ones. There is no problem. I am not saying that Tsongkhapa is not worthwhile. But, still, the point really comes to, based on our self, within our self, how are we going to keep these two truths. Emptiness is two truths. Interdependentness is the two truths. Cause and effects, and functioning, is the two truths. Everything remains within the two truths. The establishment of the two truths within ourselves is our basis of practice. We always talk about the base of practice. That is probably the base. When you don’t have the base, then everything becomes show business, not really grounding. Perhaps that is why the practice is very difficult. Sometimes maybe it had better be an object of study. There is truth in this. If you are not going to be object of study, then what is happening is the “believing system”. If you are picking up the believing system, then it becomes

[Audience] a leap of faith

[Rimpoche] Yeah that is one thing, but I am trying to refer to something else. Some academicians say that some Buddhist practitioners are “elitist”. If you are not going to be “elite faith”, you have to be clear. You have to have reasons. You have to be clear with you. In order to be clear, in order to be reasoning with ourselves, these are the fundamental bases we have to find. The basis. That is how difficult it is. The way we are taught in Tibet, there are two different systems, in the monasteries, where there is a dialectical system. Wherever there is a dialectical system, it always goes with a completely critical attitude, completely critiquing everything, raising questions. But then again it doesn’t go too extreme. I remember very clearly when I was a very young age, I was thinking, “Yeah, it is true the Buddha is there, and blah, blah blah. But who has seen it, and how it really is? And the karmic system? How is it true, really? How is it functioning? You are taught that it is functioning. But how is it, really? Who has seen it?” It all becomes a mystery. Yet you dare to ask that question. Truly, I remember, I was very scared of asking that question. Even if your thought comes up to here, it cannot come out, you have to swallow it back, because nobody talks about it. Probably people around you are going to be extremely disappointed. And they are going to think: “Who is this guy?” Probably a devil or something.”

They extremely [very much] encourage you to see the reasons, and do all that, yet there are certain points you never raise questions about. You never raise questions about “karmic”, or “enlightenment.” We always raise questions about spiritual development: how is it, why is it, what step, how do you get to a level, and all of that, that is always a subject of discussion. But when you reach the ultimate Buddha level, then, again, there is a short explanation: total enlightenment, total knowledge, knowing everything simultaneously, past, present, future together. That is the short explanation, and you cut it there. That is elaborated in a very detailed way, volume by volume. But basic questions like “what happened to that person?” “Perhaps that person has become enlightened, what else can happen?” All those sorts of basic questions are taken for granted. Yet on the other hand it is extremely [very much] encouraged to find the reasons and see for yourself, and get to it. The “elite” people have the opportunity to debate about that. The majority of the people will not even think about it. Somehow people are led to the path, and have established trust and a belief system. They follow and the results are delivered because it is not a wrong path. Maybe that is the second point, about what happened in Tibet.

Now the question is: What is going to happen here in the United States? That is a big question. Are we going to have this much detail analyzing, analytically mediating by your self and finding results? Surely there will be people doing this, but can most of us really follow that? If we can really follow that, it is wonderful. It is a really very strong establishment, and one can never fall back, or never - not only does Buddha’s teaching and Buddhist development not remain as a mystical mystery, it becomes a real reality that one can really explain, and one can understand clearly. But the majority of people may or may not be able to do this. So, I don’t know what is going to take shape in the future here. Is it going to be a combination, just like what has happened in Tibet? Or is it going to be what good old American language calls “faith-based” functioning? Or is it going to be some kind of critiquing, and no reality. You know, extreme critiquing will lose everything.

Doubt is considered neither a virtue nor a non-virtue. It is neutral. It is changeable as a virtue, and changeable as a non-virtue. It is just like sleep (out of those mental faculties). So, doubt, which really raises good questions and helps the individual to develop and understand, that becomes positive doubt. Negative doubt will be the doubt that keeps on arising and never gets an answer. Even if you find an answer you continue to be stubborn and never accept it, then that is probably going to be harmful for spiritual practitioners. I don’t know why I am saying this, but that is what I think. Somehow this is going to take shape in the United States. When it takes shape, I do not know how it is going to take shape, it doesn’t matter, not everyone has to be great ones. But a lot of good ones will sort of uplift everybody together. Hopefully that will be happening and will happen within us. For that, individual thinking, and individual analyzing are becoming very important. Individual analyzing, and individual thinking can be done by your self, and also it can be done by discussion.

I don’t mean to speak this. However, it has come to the point where we have been giving teachings and people have been studying for years. What is lacking here is not practice. You are not lacking practice. Nor are you lacking information. What is lacking is some kind of in-between stage: the learning that follows analyzing that leads to the meditation. Somehow we have learning. We have the meditation. We have both. But in between that is missing. Michael Roach has introduced this debate system. No matter how crazy, whatever he does, that is separate. But this debate system, I don’t know how the debate system has been working. I have no idea. But that is probably the point that can bring that missing part. I looked at it carefully. It is not necessary that you have to say [Tibetan phrases] you don’t necessarily have to say all these things. But the debate system can function by an individual as a discussion, on a one to one basis. Not more than five. No less than two. You can have it just simply, without hand gestures or screaming or jumping or riding over the other person. Simply discuss, saying “what is your understanding on this?” Then the other one says “this is my understanding”. Then the other will argue: “I don’t think so, because blah, blah, blah.” Maybe you think so and say “I agree.” Then two agree and it goes to two others, saying “what do you think?” If they disagree: “Why do you two agree?” Then you give your reasons. Others give you there reasons why they disagree.

We are hoping to introduce that in Ann Arbor in May, for three days. Three Thursdays, with a time limit of an hour or hour and a half. No discipline, no format, no supervision, no leader, nothing. Just like that, you will walk in and whoever is there will talk to each other. That is my hope, to bring this missing part. Learning, pondering, and meditation. The hope is to bring the pondering aspects of it. In the Tibetan system, when you look at it, the debating system has built that up, completely. The more intelligent and lucky ones get a better understanding. The less intelligent, less lucky ones get less understanding. That doesn’t matter. But you get something. You get something that is reliable. Something that is reliable really makes something you can hold on, which you can meditate on, which really gives you a result you can hold on to. Other than that, everything becomes sitting, sitting, sitting, sitting. You keep on meditating and saying mantras. Some mantras are good enough just by saying it itself. Not only good enough, but maybe the most important cause to take rebirth in the pure land, or something. That is some mantras. But, other than that, almost like the believing system, when you are completely in the believing system, this sort of thing is very hard to function. That is what is happening, actually.

So, I was hoping that we will be able to introduce that, and see how it is going to work. We are doing it in Ann Arbor first because we have more senior people there, senior in the sense that they have heard many times. There are many here too [in NY], but there are more people there. So that is the guinea pig, sort of experimenting there. Then, gradually we can bring it here, or anywhere else, we would like to do that. Without clapping, without doing all that, just simple discussions. Without raising their voices, too. It happens. They raise the voice, because during the debate you do raise the voice. That is another thing this debate system taught me is that no matter whoever says what, it doesn’t bother you, at all. That happens. Because during the debate, they will tell you: “Oh, you donkey.” In Tibetan, “donkey” means “not knowing anything”. Not the Democratic party donkey, but it really means “knowing nothing”. The idea came up from some kind of sutra that says if you have gold dust or sand and poured it in a donkey’s ear, the donkey will move its ear and shake its head, it doesn’t know gold or sand. I am sure that will happen to every animal, but why the poor donkey?

The moment you call someone a donkey, it means they are stupid and know nothing. So, in the debate system, it is there as part of it, every time everybody opens the mouth they say “Oh you stupid.” It is always there. I even notice myself I used “stupid” a lot. That is coming from there. But, at the same time, it doesn’t mean anything. So, during the debate, whatever you say, not only will they call you donkey, but they make you act like a donkey. The debating person rides over the person who he is answering, takes his mala, puts it in the mouth and pulls it like this, which means like a horse and donkey, giving directions by pulling the thing like this. That is what it is, telling you: “you are stupid, like a donkey”, which doesn’t mean anything. I don’t know whether it is good or bad. Whatever it may be, it is becoming some kind of shell that protects the individual from hatred and anger, and particularly from the words that hurt you the most; completely shielded. It doesn’t mean anything. Which sometimes may create a bad thing too. What else do you do to that person? Beat them up, or what? The word does not mean anything. Bad words, saying “you fool”, “you donkey”, “you stupid”, you keep on sitting there and laugh. It really doesn’t mean anything. It is like kids calling each other “you fool”. It becomes like that. Good or bad, I don’t know, it works that way. But I hope we don’t use those words in our discussion. So, we will have simple, basic discussion.

We are done with the third point. [Audience] Definitely done, you’ve already skipped down through five, Rimpoche. [Rimpoche] Oh, did I? [Audience] You quoted that “If these were all empty, There would be neither arising nor disintegration” (pg. 140). [Rimpoche] OK, good. [Audience] You are kind of at the beginning of 593.

[Rimpoche] Five is the same thing. Oh, that’s right, I am talking about five. If the reasoning of negating ultimate existence, defeats cause and effect, then you are the same as the materialists, so therefore you are going to have all the same problems Nagarjuna said the materialists have.

The sixth one is more important, because the sixth one will be that some of the earlier Tibetans say “Ultimately-non-existing has a problem, ultimately-existing has a problem. I am going to say here ‘neither existing nor non-existing’”. That is very commonly known to us. Tsongkhapa says this is not what Nagarjuna is about; Nagarjuna doesn’t say that. He almost says that Nagarjuna is not crazy. Nagarjuna’s main point is that dependent arising is the essence of emptiness, and the essence of emptiness is dependent arising. So, that is emphasized, without mentioning this. The bottom line is that. Maybe I should read a little bit.

I don’t know whether this is important or not. It looks like everything is important. But here, some say that ultimate existence and non-existence both have faults, so I don’t accept either. Tsongkhapa goes on to say that if you think the logic that defeats the ultimate existing – if you think that way – the logic which defeats ultimate existence defeats every phenomenon, because, whether you are naturally empty or not empty, but grow, and everything, you have people have accepted. [How to untangle that? 1:21:06] Tsongkhapa says that is not Nagarjuna. Chandrakirti’s own commentary had said: We the Madhyamikas will accept naturally empty. By accepting naturally empty, we have growth, destruction, and all of them. But also we establish the four noble truths. Not only that, but Chandrakirti clarified it more in his Madhyamaka texts [Commentary on the “Middle Way”].

Empty things, such as reflections, depend on a collection of causes– pg 141

They use the word “things”. “Things”. That may be a problem. Thing is thing. There are useful things and non-useful things. Useful things are known as ngos po [dngos po]. Non-useful things are known as dag pa. You have to divide it. So “thing” may or may not be right for a translation. But let’s not bother with the translation, let us try to get the message across.

Empty things, such as reflections, depend on a collection of causes– pg 141

OK. Here the word empty is not talking about non-existence of empty. Here, this particular word, this very particular world only in this place, “empty” is not emptiness-empty, not non-existence-empty. Here this particular word of empty is “lying, cheating, unreliable.” It is unreliable. The word in Tibetan is zun pa [rdzun pa]. It means “not truth”. That particular empty is not empty, it means cheat, lie, unreliable, deceptive. Like a reflection. Deceptive. [Audience] Illusory? [Rimpoche] Maybe more than illusory, I think it is deceptive. Really. Illusory is a little more that you are confused and you see, but maybe not. You can be right, because emptiness is always presented as illusory. Let’s read this a little bit, and reflections include sounds, smell, taste, and particularly when you are in an empty place and you should you get an echo back. Also, a mirage, and all of those.

What are they talking about here? All those reflections. Take a reflection. It is deceptive, because it is not there. The reflection came up because of the mirror where you look in, or water, where you see the reflection. Also, the face, whatever you have. Or the cape, you can make more noise and it reflects. In short, they are all terms and conditions, part and parcel, combined together, being existing. Otherwise it is not there. So it is deceptive. But you see it because you have the mirror, there is the face. You look in the mirror, you see your face. There is a hollow, you produce a sound. If there is a hollow, you produce sound and you hear an echo. Every existence of those has come up because of the collection. Like the reflection comes out of three things: the face, the mirror, and the individual’s perception. All three. If you are not looking, you are not going to see the reflection at all. So, three of them. Because it has collectively come up, it is deceptive. Or, you use the word illusory. What did they use? Probably not that. They use “empty”.

The second verse says:

It is not as though this were not well known. pg. 141.

Everybody sees mirages, everybody knows it is not reality, it is a mirage. Everybody knows it is not reality, it is a reflection. Yet it is there. That is the reason why it is deceptive, why it is no reality. The next two lines:

From those empty reflections and so forth

Arise consciousnesses that bear their image. pg. 141

This is very interesting. So, now, the mind of understanding developed because of the result of those deceptive things combined together. Those parts and parcels of those deceptive things are combined together, so you develop a mind of acknowledging that. This is interesting. Why? It says “develop the mind of acknowledging that”. It did not say “develop these things”. So it is not the Cittamatra, Mind Only school. But mind acknowledgement becomes extremely important. If mind-acknowledgement is not there, sometimes it almost does not exist, in the Madhyamaka. Even in the Zen, some say “If the tree falls in the middle of the forest, where nobody knew, then the tree did not fall. That’s what they say, you know, we all know. That is because there is no reliable mind perceiving the tree fall. That raises another question: in the part and parcel of existence, do we need a perceiving mind?

Similarly, even though all things are empty,

From those empty things, effects are definitely produced. pg. 141

The word where I read it is slightly different. I will say “Just like this, every phenomenon may be empty, but from the emptiness it grows.” I read it that way. But here they said. “From those empty things, effects are definitely produced”. I would say “from the emptiness it arises.” Which is the main idea of Buddha. Because of empty, everything is possible. If not empty, nothing is possible, because it is already established, it is static, it is just there. So it cannot do anything. Because it is empty, everything is possible. That really becomes the total message of “Svabhava shudda sarvadharma svabhava shuddoh ham”. I am sure my Sanskrit is terrible. That is how we Tibetans say it. That is really what it is. The example is these reflections. These are not new, even Zen teachers have them, all of them come out. But here we say, because of that it is empty, from the emptiness it arises. “From the emptiness it arises” shakes the solidness of existence. Because it is based on empty. How does it come up? Terms and conditions are right, they collectively just happen to be that, so it is functioning. As long as it is functioning, it is good enough to be existent. If is not functioning, it is not good enough to be existent. Because, even if you are as large as life, but are not functioning, then it is not good enough to be functioning.

Are statues functioning or not functioning? A statue is supposed to be a human substitute, at least from the image point of view. Or a yidam substitute. Can it substitute? Can it speak, can it function, can it think? Or maybe it is good enough to be a decoration. I believe we should move to the seventh.

The seventh is a very simple conclusion, saying that the mind that analyzes the absolute level does not cut the relative level in any Madhyamaka system. Why not? Because if it does, you lose everything. You lose the relative everything, you lose the two truths, you lose the Four Noble Truths, you lose everything. So, it is a period. The analyzing thoughts of the absolute do not cut the relative, because, relatively, you have to accept functioning, because terms and conditions are right. I am not very sure that you can say “relatively exists, absolutely you don’t exist.” Whether that is right or wrong, we don’t know. I don’t know. We have to think about it. Each and everybody has to reach their own conclusion. Why do you have to reach a conclusion? To just think it is right, or decide it is right, that won’t do. Why won’t it do? Because it is refutable. Anyone can refute it. You have no reason. They say “why do you think it is.” You say “Oh, he told me so.” That is a very unreliable reason. That is why analyzing and discussion is really important.

We do have some kind of web site distribution. Two of you have been running for a while. Yeah, it goes on a lot and then stops and then goes on a lot again. That is good, but then maybe we want to physically do it. We will start in Ann Arbor. Not necessarily emptiness. I don’t want to introduce the emptiness as a subject, for sure. It is too early to do. I would like to introduce the subject of the preciousness of the human life, or impermanence. First, from the Lam Rim, I am going to throw for discussion the subjects of guru devotional practice to karma. And outlines and breaks, and see how much people can draw the conclusions. If you can draw conclusions, you can meditate. If you cannot draw the conclusions, then you can not meditate, because you have no basis of meditation. Honestly. That is really reality. The only basis is that you have read it or you have heard it. That is most unreliable for you, because it is not yours, it is somebody else’s. So we need your own conclusion. And your own conclusion brings your own spiritual development. Any other questions? If not, then early or not early, I am going to close my shop.

[Audience] At a kind of a practice level, but related to this, if we negate the independent existence of the table, but we preserve the understanding of its functionality, with the self, and particularly with the ego, do we also preserve the functionality of the self in our understanding?

[Rimpoche] There is a question. I think this is a very important question. When we call the self and the ego as one, we may have a problem. I think we have to separate them. In Tibetan they use the word dag zey dag [dgag bya’i bdag]*, the self that has to be negated. And the self itself. Two separate ones. They use two different words here. One word, used two different ways. The self that is the object of negation, and the self that is self.

Now there is a problem, you can see it. I’ll wait. You don’t see it? That self is a permanent one, it automatically comes up in that way. It sort of goes circles around, and I don’t know where it cuts through. It cuts through, I believe, and then that really becomes that way. When you go on like that, circling around, at the end of that circling around, you begin to find the relative functioning self, which is labeled as self. But no self. I think that is getting closer to Chandrakirti. But perhaps a lot of people will think that is crazy.

No questions? Going home. OK.

Next time we are meeting is the first and second of April. Would you make sure that I don’t go back; we will go down from the seventh onwards. Probably we will come to how the real authentic Madhyamikas will answer to these points. They are not referring to Chandrakirti, and Buddhapalita. The real authentic today’s Madhyamikas are referring way down. The “earlier Tibetans” are after Chandrakirti and before Tsongkhapa. Then they become authentic Madhyamikas. [Audience] Here they call them ‘you misinterpreters of Madhyamaka” [Rimpoche] Is that right? You misinterpreters. Instead of “earlier Tibetans”. That is a translation. In the Tibetan it says “earlier Tibetans”. We always use earlier Tibetans. You misinterpreters. See, in the debating system they use all these words. It doesn’t mean anything. [Audience] It doesn’t say donkeys in here. [Rimpoche] Misinterpreters. That is not so bad.

Anyway, thank you so much.

* the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following definitions (among others) :

dgag bya'i bdag: the self-entity to be refuted,

also

gang zag bdag: individual self, personal identity.

also

rang: 1) oneself, own, self. 2) intrinsic, natural; See{rjes yi rang} himself, self, self spontaneous, oneself, myself, etc, natural, own, intrinsic; self, itself, one's own, inherent, [sva ]; spontaneous/ natural / self-/ own; very.

© 2006, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved