Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 18 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part IV

Talk 31: 04-01-06

Thank you for coming here. We will try to read this together and see what we can figure out. As far as I am concerned this time, I did not read anything. I could not get any chance to read anything at all, so it will be the blind leading the blind today.

We are on page 141 of the English and 593 of the Tibetan edition. I have to read the Tibetan. Page 593 of what I have here begins with how the real u ma pa answers to this. You have to trace back to what the real u ma pa is answering to. What is the problem that is presented above here? How do we refute the system that was presented as point one? They are going to repeat here almost the whole thing that we have already read. Because the actual Madhyamika person is replying. This is not referring to the early Indian Madhyamikas. I think this is referring to how the later Tibetan Madhyamikas are going to reply to the first debate between the materialists and the Madhyamika, Middle-Path people. There are like seven points that we already covered earlier. Let’s repeat that a little bit.

The first point is the contradiction between true existence and liberation, etc. These are talking to earlier Tibetans. We already covered the Indian debate and are now coming down to the Tibetan level. The first point is that if you accept true existence, how can there be liberation, and all of those? The second point is that they reply saying that liberation is done relatively, not in the absolute level. So the second point is that not only is liberation going to be blocked absolutely, it will also be blocked relatively. Because whatever we are talking about, we are talking about the relative level, not an absolute level. The third point is that if you accept liberation and accept true existence, these two contradict each other, so you are losing the system of not having that contradiction, which only the Madhyamikas have. The fourth point is that if it is not so important, then why don’t you say ‘truly’ existent? The fifth point is that your way of thinking is not different from the materialist’s way of thinking. The sixth point is that if you say it truly exists there is a problem, and if it does not truly exist there is a problem. I accept both. I accept neither: it neither truly exists nor does not truly exist. Then they say that is a silly statement, it doesn’t mean anything. The seventh point is that if you do this, the true logical points will cut the basis of positive and negative karma. That is the seventh point.

If these are the problems you are pointing out to the earlier Tibetans, then how would you answer the debate that the materialists have pointed at the Madhyamikas? How would you answer? I think we are that that level. The heading must be saying “How does the Madhyamika answer to that?”

[Audience] It says “How a Madhyamika responds to those who negate the distinguishing feature of the Madhyamika.”

[Rimpoche] They are referring here to the Tibetan Madhyamikas, and are asking how they are going to refute those problems that have been pointed out.

[Audience] I think we mentioned last time that in here they are calling them “misinterpreters of Madhyamaka.”

[Rimpoche] The earlier Tibetans. In the Tibetan text here, they don’t refer by name very much, but they say “you, you, you”. Then you have to go and see who the “you” is. That is where you get the biggest confusion, because “you” is confused with “you”. Here, the Madhyamika refers to the real Tibetan Madhyamikas, and asks “How are you going to refute those materialists’s objections?”

First, the materialists have said that if phenomena are naturally empty, how are you going to establish existence? That is very simple. Existence here is referring to cause and result, samsara and nirvana, reincarnation. That is what it is referring to. If it is not truly there, how are you going to establish the karmic situation? Is that how it is translated here?

[Audience] They say “the causes and effects of cyclic existence and nirvana.”

[Rimpoche] How are you going to establish causes and effects, samsara and nirvana? If you don’t have it, how are you going to have samsara and nirvana. How are you going to be liberated from samsara? Who is going to obtain nirvana? Because nobody is there. That is what their point is. That is clear.

Now the Tibetan Madhyamika are saying that Nagarjuna – the early Indian founder of the Middle Path – has said “I should raise for you the very question that you have raised for me. If everything exists, how can causes produce results? How can there be a change from the causal to the result level, from the samsara level to the nirvana level? How can change take place? Because it is a completely solid piece. So, ‘truly existing’ means it cannot change. I should have asked you that. But in stead of me asking you that, you ask me how anything can exist.”

We have a saying in Tibetan. The questions that the accused should raise have already been used by the accuser. There is a metaphor that goes with this. You know, in the old Tibet Tibetans would keep dogs at their houses, for protection from thieves. So when somebody would come in, you would know it. I don’t think we will see that in Tibet now. Anyway, if you know that some visitor has come, the owner of the house will come out and hold the dog back so it does not bite the visitor. But, instead of the owner holding the dog back, the thieves started holding the dog back. This is a sarcastic remark, about something not functioning the way it is supposed to function. That is what Nagarjuna is saying “I, the Madhyamika, should have raised that question to you, but instead of that you raised it the other way around.” So, “I the owner of the house should hold the dog back, not you thieves. But you thieves started to hold my dog back, instead of me, the owner holding it.”

When the thief can catch the dog that means the thief has already invaded the home. The only protection is the dog. There is no gun there. Nobody will shoot from inside. Nobody will say “freeze”. (If you don’t know what the word “’freeze” means you will get shot. Do you remember a few years ago a Japanese boy was shot.) You don’t have that in Tibet. The dog is the only protection against thieves. So, in order to let the visitor come in, the owner will hold the dog back. But here the thieves are holding the dog back. It means you have already invaded my home. So Nagarjuna is saying “I should have raised that. That is my question to be raising against your thoughts. But you raised it against me.” Is that the way the English says it?

[Audience] They don’t mention the dog, Rimpoche. [general laughter]

[Rimpoche] No, that is my metaphor. Are you sure that you are reading it clearly? [laughter] Do you need different glasses or something?

[Audience] No, these work OK, it is what’s inside here that is the problem.

[Rimpoche] So, Nagarjuna has to continuously raise these questions back. Whatever you ask me, I have to ask you back. It says this in the 24th chapter of Nagarjuna’s fundamental treatise, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. (Mulamadhyamakakarika). Mula is “root”. In chapter 24, it says:

You take your own fallacies

And turn them into ours,

Like someone who while riding on a horse,

forgets that very horse.

If you regard things

As existing intrinsically

Then you regard all things

As having no causes or conditions. (p. 142)

Is that a little more clear to you? If you accept that things intrinsically exist, then you cannot have causes and conditions. Because it intrinsically exists. Does anybody have a problem with that? Do you know why? Because to exist intrinsically means it cannot be changed. The basic foundation of dependent arising is one thin: dependent arising. The interdependent nature of existence is the fundamental basis of the Madhyamika. Interdependent means depending on causes and conditions, parts and parcels, time, and all of those are counted. The moment you go beyond that, then it becomes intrinsic existence. If it becomes intrinsic existence, it cannot change. It almost becomes permanent and solid, that is the point.

I think we have read that already at least three times. The first time, the materialists are pointing their finger at the Madhyamikas. The second time the Madhyamikas are replying to the materialists. The third time, the earlier Tibetans make a statement. The fourth time, we are replying back to them. So the whole thing repeats four times. It is almost the fourth repetition. If you read it through you probably are going to find the fourth repetition here. All the quotations are the same. Everything is the same: “When you are riding the horse you have forgotten you are riding the horse, you accuse me, blah, blah.” This is all the same thing again. If it is not empty, there will be no growth, no decrease, no increase, and you will lose the Four Noble Truths. Sounds familiar? We have read that three or four times already. This is what it is.

The main argument the later Madhyamikas are making is: “You are saying that if there is no natural existence, what else is there left? But, if you take a grain, for example, you are not making the difference between the grain not existing naturally and the grain not existing at all. I am sure it is said quite clearly in the English translation, if you read it.

Therefore, it is clear that those who argue, “If there is no essential intrinsic existence, then what else is there?” have unquestionably failed to distinguish between a seedling’s lack of intrinsic existence and a seedling’s lack of existence. Because of that, they have also failed to distinguish between the existence of a seedling and the existence of a seedling by way of its own essence. (p 142)

If that is true, then they are also not making the difference between the existence of the grain and the “intrinsic” or “true” or “natural” existence of the grain. Because, they are saying “you don’t make a difference between not truly existing and just not existing at all. If that is the case, what exists for you must be truly existing. You don’t make a difference between that and something just existing.” That is clear, I don’t think there is a problem with that. Did you get what I said? It is OK? If that is the case.

[Audience] It is just that I can understand that things exist because of cause and effect, terms and conditions. And so there is that question, though, of what – and I don’t know whether you are going to go into this – but what is it that continues, and what is it that can be [inaudible], if, I know that we talk about a continuation of consciousness, and my consciousness going, so is it that my terms and conditions keep repeating?

[Rimpoche] If I understand your question correctly, I do understand that terms and conditions exist, and then what did you say, the second part?

[Audience] So, things exist because of cause and effect, because of terms and conditions. So, my consciousness that continues, that I am wanting to attain an enlightened state, is a continuation of these terms and conditions that are my consciousness. Is that [inaudible].

[Rimpoche] I think you are raising an important question, because one of the problems we face is that we cannot establish – we have a great deal of difficulty establishing our existence. We always think – our habit, or our thoughts naturally think – that there is an end of the Russian doll, called “me” or “I”. That is what we always think. But here, they are saying there is no end of the Russian doll. So what is the last one we can point to? This is one of the most difficult points, because, just as you have said earlier, you have heard so many times about terms and conditions, causes and results. But what we are not getting a clear picture of is that just the right terms and conditions is good enough for the definition of existence. We cannot find anything beyond that. The Madhyamaka or Middle Path is stating that nothing beyond that can be found. So, the definition of existence is just that the terms and conditions are right. The definition of existence is causes and conditions, parts and parcels being just right. If we can somehow figure that out clearly, then I think our problem has been halfway solved.

We can say the words, terms and conditions, causes and results. We can say all these as words. But in our deep consciousness we think there is something more than that, which I would like to refer to and identify with as my consciousness. Again, the word consciousness is a dressing. It is like putting on powders, or something. But deeply what we are looking for is “me” in there. Consciousness is simply a word of dressing. Deeply you are looking for “me” in there. That means, again, that we are looking for the end of the Russian doll. And that is our understanding. That is our habit. Somehow, we cannot manage without that. Again, if we take it too far, it almost becomes that we don’t exist. And that becomes another problem. I think the lack of capability to accept that existence means just a combination makes it so that we think that when one combination is lost, we lose the whole thing completely.

You raise the question: if that is the case, who has come from previous lives to here, and who will go from this life into the future, who is it? The answer is: it is a continuation. Continuation here means some kind of continuity. Nothing really solid, but somehow continuing. I am just now thinking about something – that is so funny – when I saw the movie, The Little Buddha, I did not get the picture quite clearly. But they were talking about continuity. The Chinese actor was behaving like a Tibetan teacher and actually looks very much like someone in Dharamsala. When they were talking about reincarnation, he broke the teapot. The teapot broke, and the tea from the teapot went out on the floor. He got a little towel to soak up the tea, so from the floor the tea soaked into the towel. He squeezed the towel, and some liquid came out of that. That is the continuation of the tea in the teapot, on the floor, in the towel... It may or may not be drinkable, but it is still the continuation of the tea. The metaphor is not that great, but it gives you some idea. I just now thought about that. So that is what we are talking about when we say continuation.

We do a similar thing with the nectar pills. Vajrayana practitioners have nectar pills. The nectar pills are not so available, so we have them in the inner offering. We put a drop of inner offering to each other, and we make that continue. That is the continuation we are talking about. It is really a big question as to whether that continuation is really coming from there, the parts and parcel of it. It is. But at the same time it is really this one? Probably not. That is where the difficulty lies.

The great earlier teachers – whether they truly think that way or whether it was a demonstration for us to understand better, whatever it is – when they say the Madhyamaka point that you are not existent, you are nihilistic, because it is no longer existing. There is nothing. I don’t know whether this book tells us or not, but the so-called materialists will debate to the Madhyamikas, saying “for you, the way you think, there is no person continuing, so it is not a reality that that future person pays for the previous person’s karma, because there is no person continuing.” Just because it is some kind of functioning that is continuing, is it a real person? The Madhyamika will say it is because it is a continuation, blah, blah, blah... However, this is something we have to take very seriously, before we get into actual emptiness. Actual emptiness is coming out of this.

Try to avoid being nihilistic. Try to avoid being existentialistic. Get in the middle.

That is your question, I think, whether it has come from our own habit of thinking it has to be something solid, or a very serious thought about what it might be. I think that is the very difficult question we have. I do not know whether we have an answer for this at this moment. We have an answer in words. The word is “just combination”. That is the word answer. However, what do we think? How do we really get a hold on this? That is something that takes time, something we really have to think about, something where really have to find our own answer. The way they have presented this, historically, they have said: “this is this, this is this, this is this. This one says this, this one says that. This is this fault, that is that fault, that is that fault.” That is very easy. We have done that already. But now it is almost time that we turn around and think by ourselves. Then the “just combination” may not be so difficult. But the continuation will become more difficult if it is “just combination”.

[Audience] I think this is really kind of the central point. Just to expand on one aspect of this that I am confused about. You agree that we take away all the Russian dolls. There is nothing there. There is just a chain of causality. Out genes, our environment, our consciousness from a nanosecond before determines where we are this nanosecond. And we flow on to the next nanosecond. All of that flowing through. There is no me there, there is no internal last Russian doll. And that can create great fear, because there is nothing there. And you say, OK, but now I know that is sufficient. There is no fear. That is sufficient. I can just flow like that, like the stream. All these things are flowing through. The only existence now for me is derived in that nanosecond before. It is going to move to something completely different in another nanosecond. Then the question is, if there is anything to be passed on once the material part dies. Are there teachings about how there is individuation of whatever is passed on. Because I can see that this is a great stream of events. The material body is going to become bacteria, it will become earth, it will become many other things. The consciousness may be preserved in writings or something. But how does that hang together as something that is not named, that is not an internal Russian doll? Are there teachings about what the nature of that thing is?

[Rimpoche] That is exactly the same question I am trying to raise. You have said it very eloquently. That is the same thing I am raising. We do have the word answer, historically.

[Audience] The words I get. But I am talking about that last little thing that happens to be individualized instead of just being generic - the flow of consciousness is everything.

[Rimpoche] Right. We go on, “continuation”. We say that. That is the word answer. But somehow we have to catch that continuation. This is the level we bring ourselves to. Here we will try to make sure that we don’t completely go. I think that is the difficult point. At least we have reached to this point now.

[Audience] The teachings say that once you get this, don’t become a nihilist.

[Rimpoche] No! The teachings don’t say that. They have already tried to protect you from being a nihilist. That is the way “just” and “combination” and all of those have been thrown in there to protect you from being nihilistic. If it is nihilistic, then what happens is at an extremely subtle level, a very subtle level. Whether that has gone beyond – the form, sound, any one of those – something gone beyond.

[Audience] I think the importance of this is that it keeps you – the worst thing is the ego – so this drives that away. This has the power of just wiping that out. You don’t have that any more.

[Rimpoche] Completely. Wiping that out completely.

[Audience] But then if you are curious about what is that little that is trickling behind there, aside from the chain of causality – that is a challenge.

[Rimpoche] That is the challenge. Really, truly I don’t know how to answer that. Let that challenge be there. So, I see a lot of hands up. So, now who? OK, you.

[Audience] I don’t understand what [other audience person] is saying. You said “aside from the chain of causality.” I was kind of thinking that that is what makes the individual thing. Whatever karma I have created is different from what anyone else has created. Is there something aside from the chain of causality [inaudible]?

[Rimpoche] The chain – this karma has to be linked to something, ride on something. You need a base on something. We were talking about a horse here. It needs something else. If you lose the base, then this just goes like that. I think the karmic chain has to based on something, so we are looking for what that is.

[Audience] Between when your consciousness leaves the body and goes...

[Rimpoche] Well, let’s just forget about that. OK, alright, if you say that, that is coming back to a little more gross level.

[Audience] I was thinking..

[Rimpoche] Oh, yeah you can think that.

[Audience] ..that there is something, what would the base be except the subtle body and subtle air. At that point, until it meets up with.

[Rimpoche] That’s right, subtle body and subtle air. What are they?

[Audience] Don’t ask me.

[Rimpoche] Right, right, right. Honestly, that is what it is. I think that is our challenge. Let it be there. So there are a lot more hands raised.

[Audience] I have a couple more questions. One of them piggybacks on what you just said. At one point you said that in the state of enlightenment you go beyond the karmic imprint, that the karmic imprint no longer pertains or exists. So, that is another state, but I have heard you say that.

[Rimpoche] I raised a question about that, true. I don’t know whether the enlightened state goes beyond karmic influence. I don’t think so. There are Tibetan teachers who say you go beyond karmic influence. But, to me, it is not going beyond karmic influence. We say about the buddha level that it is “faultless”. Having all qualities and no faults is based on karma. All the negative karmas are completely finished, and no more negative karma is being created. Therefore only positive karma remains. I think that is how that point comes out, although certain Tibetan teachers do say that “when you reach a certain level you have gone beyond the level of karma, so I can do anything I want to, because I am enlightened”. Some accept it that way. But Tsongkhapa does not accept that at all, as far as I know, as far as I have read. Particularly in this book. Buddhas become faultless because there is no more faulty karma, and no more faulty karma is being created. That is the solid reason why a buddha becomes faultless. Still, the challenge we had earlier still, stands.

[Audience] I want to have some explanation in this discussion about the statement that the wisdom of the guru sees the inseparability of appearance and emptiness. How does that relate to what we have been talking about?

[Rimpoche] You are talking about non-duality. Non duality of object and subject. That is a big question, again, but a completely separate question. That is a different question. It is very difficult. Does the subject become object? That is a very difficult question. I don’t think the subject becomes object at all, so what do you mean by “non-duality”? That is another challenge. We have to keep those challenges. We have two challenges today. Now you have been raising your hand. And you are still keeping the microphone.

[Audience] It works. The microphone is working now. He fixed it

[Rimpoche] It is working. That is the change, right? The continuation of the same old microphone. Working and not working.

[Audience] If we speak of a continuum, then we like to think of it in terms of time. The unit “nanoseconds” was used earlier. One nanosecond, another nanosecond, causally related to each other, but without having any true essence which is present in the different – uniting the different – nanoseconds of existence. But even those individual nanoseconds, or whatever unit of time you want to split the continuum into, those themselves would not have any true existence even in that absolute sense. A nanosecond would just be...

[Rimpoche] As far as I know there is no true existence at all, no matter how short or small, whatever it may be. None whatsoever. This is where the mind gets bothered. This is where the fear comes in. The fear comes in and you ask “Where am I going? There is no me.”

[Audience] Even the nanosecond would not have any true existence.

[Rimpoche] This is the first time I am hearing that “nanosecond.”

[Audience] It is a very small unit of time.

[Rimpoche] Yeah, I could figure that out.

[Audience] It is just an idea, but there is no existence even in that time.

[Rimpoche] Right, even at that time, there is no existence whatsoever. So I think the challenge is really thrown at us. I am glad you got it today. Even in a nanosecond there is no existence. That is what the Madhyamika, Buddhapalita is supposed to say. Bhavaviveka differs with Buddhapalita on that point. Bhavaviveka thinks there is something to hold onto. That is why the Tibetans divide the rang gyu pa and tal gyu pa, the Svatantrika and Prasangika. The Tibetans make a bigger division on that than the earlier Indians do, I think because of that reason.

[Audience] I was thinking of the teachings you gave in the Fall, about Kyabje Ling Rinpoche’s last teachings, on “The Four Mindfulnesses”. You were defining the self functionally, even though non existent. That small, dependent, delicate awareness that arises in the moment and continuously arises, like a clockwork. All the intricate pieces. That was such a beautiful thing, that hit me.

[Rimpoche] Why thank you. I do remember talking about that. That is what I really think it is.

[Audience] So it is functionally a kind of self.

[Rimpoche] Yeah, that is the point. Functioning. Buddhapalita moves on the functioning. Bhavaviveka holds onto some substance to be put in. Buddhapalita goes on functioning. Cha jey te ma des. Cha jey la bo to wa [sp?] They use the word cha jey*

[Audience] I just wanted to be clear, because from what I thought read in this, it says there is no intrinsic existence, but there is relative existence. There is dependent arising exisrtence.

[Rimpoche] I think you have to go a little more subtle than that, we have already done that. They are all nice words, if you being to think you can go down there more.

[Audience] I have been thinking about this question that have raised for a while, and I have been thinking about it twofold. I don’t know if I am thinking about it correctly. This kind of won’t make sense. I kind of describe it as indescribably delicious.

[Rimpoche] True.

[Audience] Because, and I am not really a cook, but when you cook, based on wherever you are cooking, nothing turns out the same as when you first cooked it. The second way I think about it is – if there was something that remained the same, absolutely the same, I guess a particle, or whatever that continued. The other way I think about is that then we could not be liberated. If one little piece of some thing solid continued exactly the way it was, then we could not become free from cyclic existence, samsara, or be liberated. That is the way I have been thinking about it, I don’t know if that is correct or not. But that is how it comes up.

[Rimpoche] I think that is a good way to think. I think we all need to think that. I don’t think we should be quick to bring an answer. If we bring an answer, then we get the answer the book says. But that is not the answer. I think we find the answer ourselves. I believe that, honestly. Somewhere in between that there is an answer for sure.

[Audience] In my mind this kind of relates to what someone said about subject and object. But I don’t know. Where does mind fit into all this?

[Rimpoche] Good question. Can you pass the mic to [laughter]. I am sorry. I think that is what we are looking for with the issues of does it continue or not continue, is this mind or something separate from mind, what is mind? All these will come up. I am not trying to dismiss your question. That is exactly what we are talking about.

[Audience] My question is, practically, about trying to stay with this material and not trip into nihilism. Is there any material to do with formless kinds of meditation that would help us to a stay with this material? We are trying to understand something that we can’t understand. Yet we do come up with all this material, which is not it, not it, not it. It reminds me of the constant need to eliminate what is. Without - in other words - to handle the fear of losing the ego as well as to stay where you are at, but know that you are seeking something that doesn’t meet your usual forms, that doesn’t meet, quite – How do we stay in the middle on this, without –

[Rimpoche] The point is how to stay in the middle.

[Audience] Because automatically you go into an ego state of an answer. Or I do, even if it is a nanosecond answer. It seems eventually I do, I just can’t let it go. Or you experience fear if you see you are under attack, your ego is really – yet it is very useful, very productive in another sense.

[Rimpoche] Right. But formless –

[Audience] I don’t know if that relates. Some practice almost, or some way of tolerating it from the middle.

[Rimpoche] Right. [extended pause] I think we have three or four things we are putting together here. If we separate that, I think we still remain on the same challenge.

[Audience] Yeah. I am looking for a way out. Still.

[Rimpoche] I think we all are, yeah.

[Audience] I just keep going back to what Tsongkhapa says about emptiness being dependent arising. So we are looking for something in that dependent arising process or mechanism to grab onto. That is where I stop. I don’t know where to go with that.

[Rimpoche] That’s true.

[Audience] How subtle does that get before it dissolves?

[Rimpoche] Does it ever dissolve? That is another question. I think what [person in audience] brought to this one point was very clear today. When you drive to that level, all of your ego is completely wiped out. That is quite true here, quite clearly. Because there is nothing to hold on to. Now the challenge comes for us is to not go too far on the other side. So, what you are raising is dependent arising. What we are afraid of is that we accept dependent arising by word, by sound, by thoughts. But in our mind we are not settled in dependent arising. We still want it. We still want to look, and that means we have not really driven to that point yet. Because in our minds we are still looking. We accept all the words: dependent arising, conditions, karma, all of them. But still we think something will come there. Some of us may be accepting that it is impermanent, cuts. Trungpa used the words “continuation of discontinuity”. Very thoughtful, I thought. A lot of others use the word “ice cube put together – melted together – frozen together”. I don’t know what happens. A lot of people use the example of the mala. But then there is a thread inside. I don’t know. I am glad we have come to this point.

[Audience & Rimpoche discuss in Tibetan] How to establish existence.

[Rimpoche] This is exactly what is happening. [Rimpoche reads a passage in Tibetan from the Lam Rim Chenmo (see quote below) then continues in English] They are saying, “if there is nothing truly existent, then what else is there?” Which means clearly they have not understood the difference between the grain not intrinsically existing and the grain not existing at all, they have not been able to make a difference.

Therefore, it is clear that those who argue, “If there is no essential intrinsic existence, then what else is there?” have unquestionably failed to distinguish between a seedling’s lack of intrinsic existence and a seedling’s lack of existence. (p 142)

If that is not clear, the grain’s existence and the grain’s natural existence are also not clarified for you, so in your mind if it is existing, it has to be truly existing. If it is not truly existing then it doesn’t exist at all. That is the point where we are. .

Because of that, they have also failed to distinguish between the existence of a seedling and the existence of a seedling by way of its own essence. Therefore, they clearly hold that whatever exists must exists essentially, and if something is not essentially existent, then it does not exist. (p 142)

Somewhere around here it mentions Chandrakirti’s four different division of true existence and existence, true non-existence and non-existence, and that if that has not been clarified by Chandrakirti, then we are really in trouble. That is Tsongkhapa’s bottom line remark. It is right here, at the end of this page, at the end of 594 and the beginning of 595.

The glorious Candrakirti distinguishes intrinsic existence from existence; he also distinguishes the absence of intrinsic existence from the absence of existence. Unless you know this you will no doubt fall to both extremes, and thus you will not know the meaning of the middle way which is without extremes. (pp. 142-143)

The problem is you have to make four divisions, not two divisions. Truly existing, existing, truly not existing, and not existing. Now either it becomes a philosophical gimmick, or it gives you the basic understanding. What are you thinking? You don’t want to comment, that is fine.

[Audience] No, I was actually thinking of an aspect of [other person’s] question –

[Rimpoche] His statement.

[Audience] Or statement, where he was saying that the descriptions, or the way we are trying to understand this process is something very generic. Were does individuation come in? Where does the infinite variety come in?

[Rimpoche] That is what we are talking about. Actually, he drove to the point. What is it that continues? I believe the answer is that that continuation is also dependent.

[Audience] There may be a lesson on the physical side, where there is a continuation of discontinuity. Because if it is a person, and then a sperm and an egg get together from two different people, and then another person. It is not like a person transforms into another person. There is not continuity that way. The physical way in which the next body appears, the next material living body appears is by virtue of something that would be unimaginable if you had not studied all the mechanics of exactly what goes on. To actually proceed through two little cells to come up with the next adult animal. that is kind of a bizarre idea. If I just heard that for the first time, back in pre-Tibet, it would be inconceivable that there might be information transferred that way, from one generation to the next generation by virtue of two cells actually carrying that information that is going to come up with a new way of putting that information together. Subsets of information. So that is how the physical being goes on, with that kind of continuation of discontinuity. So I wonder, we may be trying to grapple into something too concrete in thinking – once you accept causality and dependent origination, and you go down to that is all that there is, I think we may be trying to apply something too concrete to that, based on our limited understanding of what this is all about. Just as if you had tried to do something that simplistic on the physical side, you would never get it right. It would be impossible to make up that one person and the next person comes by virtue of this whole process of developmental biology and two cells carrying all the information, and that kind of thing.

[Rimpoche] Non-physical. I don’t know whether it is mind, or something other than mind, has got to be continuing in there. Again, it becomes very questionable. That continuation may be completely beyond a physical level, maybe beyond vibration and whatever, way beyond that. You cannot completely cut it, because then you completely lose the whole idea of reincarnation and responsibility, and the whole foundation of the karmic functioning. It is exactly on this point that you lose the four noble truths, the basis, and all of those. It completely comes back to the same point. So there is something non-physical that is continuing. On the basis of the physical formation we are able to call it a next life, or whatever it is. That also is dependently arisen, yet also functionable.

So that is where we are. I don’t know whether we have answered or have raise doubts. We have definitely raised doubts, but in a positive way. I don’t think we have answered. I think the answer lies somewhere around that area. We are trying to be better than Buddhapalita and Bhavaviveka.

[Audience] I can’t remember when, but in the last month or two you were talking about this subject, and I think you were talking about karma and I think you related it to quantum mechanics.

[Rimpoche] What does that quantum something do? It disappears?

[Audience] Yeah, it is there and then it is not there.

[Rimpoche] What happens? I have no idea. What does that mean? It goes there and then disappears and pops up there?

[Audience] Yeah, there is a distance. Then, everything is supposed to appear out of a quantum vacuum. It is pretty weird stuff.

[Rimpoche] Weird stuff.

[Audience] That is my question. Whether that is a good metaphor for something that is there and then we want to say it is not there, but it actually is still there, it is just not visible. Then it pops up again in another place. Is that a good metaphor for us to not hold on to substance. There is something.

[Rimpoche] It may be. I don’t know what it is. So I really can’t say.

[Audience] I thought you were the one who said it.

[Audience] I have some background in this. They say that consciousness – the particles appear – they are in a quantum wave, it is called – non-differentiated. What causes the particle to break out of that non-differentiated wave is consciousness. Our consciousness. That is the going theory.

[Audience] It is the act of perception. The act of perceiving it, when you identify it, that is how you bring it into our real physical world. But the understanding of what is behind it –

[Audience] So it is through imputation.

[Audience] Without the consciousness, that quantum wave would not differentiate, so it would not be anything ...

[Rimpoche] Is that possible? When you cannot identify that period on that level, completely gone beyond the physical level, not even a wave or vibration, or anything – completely gone beyond that – physically unable to trace it, yet suddenly you see it somewhere later when it becomes a little more gross. I really don’t know.

What I do know is this. It is not completely gone. It is there. That also is a dependently arising continuation. Because you cannot lose the responsibility. That becomes a big issue. Responsibility is a big issue.

[Audience] This is a series of questions addressing what we perceive to be the end of things.

[Rimpoche] What do you mean by “end of things”?

[Audience] For example, what happens at the end of this form life, this physical life, we still have this idea of a me, and the fear –

[Rimpoche] Eh, Eh, Eh, I think it happens every minute.

[Audience] True

[Rimpoche] I don’t think it is a question about ends, at all.

[Audience] So we go back to the same circle again, which is that if there is something, no matter how subtle it is, something that continues, does that – to me that implies that it has an inherent existence.

[Rimpoche] What did you say? [laughter]

[Audience] She just said it has inherent existence.

[Rimpoche] Oh, I see, yeah.

[Audience] If there is a something, whatever, we can’t even get our mind around it, but if there is a something that exists, no matter how deeply subtle it is, that continues doesn’t that imply an inherent existence?

[Rimpoche] It could. It very well could.

[Audience] It seems that Buddha and Nagarjuna speak about certain functions: samsara and nirvana. And certain Madhyamikas want to say that if there are these functions (samsara, suffering and liberation) there has to be some substrate, some place where that takes place. Or someone with whom that takes place. Then Chandrakirti and Tsongkhapa turn the question back and say that no, in order for there to be a substrate such as a sufferer or a liberator then there has to be the function. You can’t have either of those without relation. So, at one level, you don’t need to get too subtle or something continuing, it is just the relationality that has to do with a function taking place and someplace that has to take place. None of those can exist independently.

[Rimpoche] Right. That is definitely right. But, on the other hand, you have the karmic responsibility. That is what is bothering us here. The karmic responsibility. I create the negative karma and I am responsible to pay for this. I create positive karma, and I am responsible to have my good results. If I have lost that completely, who is responsible? Why should we bother? That is comes in equally at the same level. That is the other side of the problem.

[Audience] The responsibility and the person who is responsible. that also has to be defined relationally. It exists, but it also has to be defined relationally.

[Rimpoche] Sure. But at the same time, the responsibility. That is why we have to have continuation, or whatever it is. We have to bring in all of them because of that.

This is not just a mere philosophical talk. What we are really are trying to see is how we create negative karma and how we purify it. And this is how we liberate ourselves. This is really where it is. Normally we can say that liberation is not done by somebody else. Buddha cannot wash your negative karma, nirvana is not transferable, etc.. The bottom line comes down to here. That is why the question really is that when the ego is too bad, we jump up to this level and the ego is completely dismantled and gone, there is not even a question. But now we are going too far and saying: alright, the ego is gone, that is no problem. However, what about the responsibility? Where does the karmic functioning basis go?

It is true, about relationship, and up to that level it is cut. I believe this is the reason why emptiness is difficult. When we get through this, we will make it.

[Audience] I was thinking about the wave theory [inaudible] I see it in terms of intention. Like I have an intention to study with you in my next lifetime. That is my intention. And if it is very strong, I almost try to send it into the future. Like send it out there. I don’t know when I can catch that ball, but I try to send it flying, and then maybe somehow, through whatever conditions or circumstances, I’ll be out there to catch that ball later. But it is not even, it is an intention. It is not tangible. I try to send it out really strongly. Not that time even exists, but if it did exist, at some time in the future I could catch that ball. I call that my version of the quantum theory.

[Rimpoche] Why did you say that time doesn’t exist?

[Audience] I don’t know if it does.

[Rimpoche] I thought you said it doesn’t exist.

[Audience] It is a very fluid thing. What is time? That is a whole other thing, whatever, anyway. But I have to have some way of thinking about it, so that is one of the ways I think about it, so I send this. I remember once before, many years ago, we were looking around at a bunch of people, you were giving a teaching, and I said “all the e people look so divergent, they don’t even look like they should know each other”, and you said “but we’ve known each other before”.

[Rimpoche] That’s true.

[Audience] To me that implied that there was a continuity. That I could get this again. If I don’t get this this time, OK, just send out the intention to get it next time.

[Rimpoche] [laughter]

[Audience] OK, so I can’t get it. My intention is to get it, so I’ll just keep plugging, you know?

[Rimpoche] Probably this is how motivation works, right?

[Audience] Right, strong motivation

[Rimpoche] Anyway, whether we read any more or not, I think we really got to a good point today. Don’t expect to get an answer. No, honestly. What we know here is that it is wrong to completely say we are not there. We have to reach to this level, then what we have to hold from here is the basic responsibility of the karmic foundation basis. That is what the Madhyamaka Middle Path is all about.

[Rimpoche] What do you want to say? Tell me, how come you are no longer schpilkis-man? You used to get up all the time, 15 or 20 times in 20 minutes. Now he is not getting up at all. He is holding a pillar and is learning completely relaxed there, and you are losing your title. What happened to the schpilkis man?

[Audience] It’s a discontinuity.

[Rimpoche] They are not continuing. That is the problem. We are losing the basis of that title. What happened to it? Identity hijacked?

[Audience] The identity does not intrinsically exist, because he is no longer schpilkis-man.

[Rimpoche] Or is it identity hijacked?

[Audience] It looks like the challenge is that we are trying to kill the ego, but not the person who continues the karmic responsibility. It is much more comforting for me, the answer that the other school gives. They give you a little something. So you say I’ll kill 99%. I’ll be liberated, I’ll kill the ego, and something a little will stay. Like the Madhyamika Svatantrika, give me a little something to hold onto. To that I say OK. Or the Mind Only school. So what I am asking myself why do the Madhyamika Prasangika insist that it is much easier for us to get the right answer, to challenge ourselves to completely get rid of any base of something truly existing.

[Rimpoche] A very good question, no doubt about it. I think that is why the quality of emptiness probably differs. It must be.

[Audience] How can the quality of emptiness vary – differ?

[Rimpoche] Not all apples are the same. They have different qualities. One of you has an apple on your lap. Different qualities. Ultimately, when one becomes fully enlightened, or before one becomes fully enlightened, one gets to the ultimate level. That is why they give you all this variety of things, you know: “you are wrong, you are wrong”, etc. pointing out the historical points. But it is very uncomfortable to say “you are not there.”

[Audience] Even Tsongkhapa did not start there, historically. He did not start there, but suddenly he understood something that he wanted to teach us.

[Rimpoche] Right. If you read his earlier collected works, they do have that existing there. You are right. I don’t have an answer for that. That is good.

[Audience] I just want to comment on the thing you just said, that it is very comfortable that you are not there.

[Rimpoche] I did not say it is very comfortable that you are not there.

[Audience] You said it is uncomfortable.

[Rimpoche] Uncomfortable, for us.

[Audience] Because in the little glimpses I have gotten, I actually find that it is much more comfortable when you are not there, because all the discomfort comes from being there – from thinking you are there – and all it is much more free and open and much more comfortable when you let go.

[Rimpoche] That is fine, that is great. Actually, really it is fine. I believe that is how it works. For different people different things come in. And somehow what feels uncomfortable has to get to the level of feeling comfortable. That level of emptiness becomes a better emptiness, I believe.

[Audience] If existence is interdependent nature, then we don’t have to worry about not existing. We will always exist.

[Rimpoche] True, but we don’t want to go into the nihilistic point. That is what we are worried about. Somehow we are going to exist anyway, whatever it is.

[Audience] Just a comment. Part of the problem is that we tend to think three dimensionally.

[Rimpoche] Why?

[Audience] Because we are thinking very literally. The world is actually multidimensional, beyond three dimensions. Some of these concepts are beyond our ability really to impute in a three dimensional world. When you start adding additional dimensions some of these things are probably easier to understand.

[Rimpoche] I don’t know what to say.

[Audience] I don’t think so. It is very hard to understand even multidimensionally. It is very hard to grasp under any circumstances. I think. There is no short cut of another dimension making it all clear.

[Rimpoche] It has gone over my head.

[Audience] I disagree, I think if you add – there is one image that keeps coming to me with this whole discussion, which may be the wrong image, but if you just meet the ocean, we just put you in the ocean, if you try to maintain one point in the ocean you go down. But if you let go and accept the [inaudible] open then you can surf and move. That is the fourth dimension of time. It is when you let go of trying to cling to one thing and in effect connect everything, that is what allows you to surf and move and have much more freedom. That is the movement of time. Time is the fourth dimension.

[Rimpoche] I don’t know anything about that part. I’d better shut my mouth. What I do know is that we have to drive to that level of not existing. Now we have to make sure we don’t go completely empty. That is what we know, that is where I am, and that is that. I think no matter how much we read, that is what is going to get in anyway. Honestly. If you read a couple of lines here, it tells you exactly the same thing. If you could read a little bit, almost this whole page.

[Audience] Beginning of 595 or the end of 594 in the Tibetan, the bottom of 142 in the English.

The glorious Candrakirti distinguishes intrinsic existence from existence; he also distinguishes the absence of intrinsic existence from the absence of existence.

[Rimpoche] That is the four divisions I talked about, right?

[Audience] Right

Unless you know this you will no doubt fall to both extremes, and thus you will not know the meaning of the middle way which is without extremes. For when it turns out that a phenomenon utterly lacks essential existence, for you it will be utterly non existent; then, since there will no way at all to posit cause and effect within emptiness–emptiness of intrinsic existence you will fall to an extreme of annihilation. Also, since you accept that a phenomenon exists, you will have to assert that it essentially exists. In that case, it will be impossible for you to treat cause and effect as similar to illusions in the sense that they appear to exist intrinsically whereas they do not. Consequently you will fall to the extreme of permanence.

Therefore, to avoid falling to the extreme of existence, you must realize that from the outset all phenomena lack even a particle of essential existence. And to escape the extreme of nonexistence, you must develop definite knowledge that things such as seedlings nevertheless have the power to perform their own functions; that is, they do not turn into non-things which are empty of the capacity to perform functions. (p. 143)

[Rimpoche] Thank you. That is quite good here. This means that intrinsically existent, existent, intrinsically non-existent, and non-existent are the four different points has to be cleared. Basically that is what it is. That boils down to self. You are not looking outside. You are looking for self. It is no wonder we call it self-less. Because nothing could really get it. In other words, you are driving to this level, which means the object of negation is what we have called right from the beginning the jig ‘lta. Something which is focused on the perishable things as self. Now we are driving up to there being nothing of that. Which really means, now we are calling it self-less. Isn’t it? Probably that is what self-less is all about. The “ness” is just a word they try to add to avoid going to the extreme of nihilism. So you don’t leave “empty” as “empty”, you call it “emptiness”. Emptiness is not empty, it is fullness. That is Thurman’s famous statement. That is the protection from nihilism. No wonder we call it “self-less-ness”.

[Audience] It is self-less but it is comparing it to some other kind of self, which means self-less but existent. Not intrinsically, but functioning.

[Rimpoche] You don’t want to lose the functioning. So what we think of as the self is completely gone.

[Audience] But the self-less is still functioning.

[Rimpoche] But self is not functioning. Self-less is functioning. I think that it is what it is, isn’t it.

[Audience] And continuation exists dependent on...

[Rimpoche] That self-less is continuing.

[Audience] So it exists dependent on our responsibility and karma.

[Rimpoche] If we lose that we lose it completely.

[Audience] So it is dependent on that to exist. It is not independent, not essential.

[Rimpoche] I think we have gone much more subtle than independent and all that. One more question and I am going to close my book.

[Audience] This will be so simple, you can close your book. I notice that someone used the phrase like “kill the ego”. I have heard a lot of people use that. I thought that was interesting, because it is almost like when I hear people talk about ego, it is almost like it is objectified. But I think of it only as a useful function, like a tool. Why would you want to kill a tool or a function?

[Rimpoche] Ego is not a functionable tool at all.

[Audience] You are describing it as a section of the self?

[Rimpoche] No, I am describing ego as a combination of fear and confusion combined together.

[Audience] Oh, that is your definition?

[Rimpoche] That is my definition.

[Audience] Fine, then I understand.

[Rimpoche] Thank you. I am not killing the ego that the psychologists want to a have – the self respect, self esteem – I am not killing that ego.

[Audience] Yeah, because that is different, I was sorting that out.

[Rimpoche] Yeah, thank you. I am not killing that ego. That ego has nothing to do with me. I think we will stop here today.

* the dictionary at www.diamondway-buddhism.org provides the following definitions:

'char gzhi. plan, basis for manifestation; ground for the arising (of things/ appearances); (lit. plan, design) perception/ basis of manifestation/ arising, appearing;

khyad gzhi 1) particular or special object. 2) subtraction; particular object, the basis of a quality, substratum, characteristic-basis, [the basis / object which is endowed with the {khyad chos} superior basis; the characterized; basis of particular/ special features.;

© 2006, Gehlek Rimpoche, All Rights Reserved