The Essence of Tibetan Buddhism
The Three Principal Aspects of the Path and an
Introduction to Tantra
Lama Thubten Yeshe
|
|
| This
book contains two series of teachings given by Lama
Yeshe in the early 1980's:
The Three Principal Aspects of the Path: During
His Holiness the Dalai Lama's 1982 teachings at Institut
Vajra Yogini, France, Lama Yeshe was asked to "baby-sit"
the audience for a couple of days when His Holiness
manifested illness. The result is this excellent two-part
introduction to the path to enlightenment, in which
Lama explains renunciation, bodhicitta and the right
view of emptiness.
Introduction to Tantra: In 1980, in California,
Lama Yeshe gave a commentary to the Avalokiteshvara
(Chenrezig) yoga method. This video is Lama's introduction
to this series and constitute a wonderful explanation
of the fundamentals of tantric practice.
See here for more information
about the companion DVDs and translations of this text,
and for links to listen to these lectures online. |
Index
The Three Principal Aspects of the Path
First Teaching - Renunciation, Bodhicitta and Emptiness
At Institut Vajra Yogini, France, during an FPMT-sponsored
teaching tour of Europe in 1982, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
manifested ill health and asked Lama Yeshe to fill in for
him for the first day's teachings. The following teachings
ensued.
Today, I'm unfortunate. And today, you're unfortunate as
well, because you have to put up with me, the garbage man.
You have to put up with my garbage; I'm the garbage man. Due
to circum-stance, His Holiness is experiencing some discomfort
with his health, so we should all pray for his good health...and
so that it won't be necessary to be in this situation, where
you have to put up with my garbage. However, due to these
circumstances, His Holiness has given me permission to baby-sit
you.
Now, His Holiness has chosen a particular text by Lama Je
Tsong Khapa, which we call The Three Principal Paths to
Liberation, or Enlightenment. So today I'm going to try
to give you an introduction to this text, but going into it
in detail is not my business.
In Tibetan, we call this text Lam-tso nam-sum. Historically,
this book derives from Lama Je Tsong Khapa's direct, visual
communication with Lord Manjushri. Manjushri gave him this
teaching and then Lama Je Tsong Khapa gave it to his disciples:
Lam-tso nam-sum, the Three Principal Aspects.
This is a small text, but it contains the essence of the entire
teaching of Lord Buddha. Also, while it is very simple and
practical, it is a universal teaching that everybody can understand.
Now, the three principles are renunciation, bodhicitta and
the wisdom of shunyata; these three are called the principal,
essential paths to liberation.
I want you to understand why they are called the three essential,
or principal, paths to liberation, because in the Western
world, the word "renunciation" has a different connotation;
people get scared that they will lose their pleasure. But
without renunciation, there's no way out.
Renunciation
First of all, all of us consider that we would like to be
free from ego mind and the bondage of samsara. But what binds
us to samsara and makes us unhappy is not having renunciation.
Now, what is renunciation? What makes us renounced?
The reason we are unhappy is because we have extreme craving
for sense objects, samsaric objects, and we grasp at them.
We are seeking to solve our problems but we are not seeking
in the right place. The right place is our own ego grasping;
we have to loosen that tightness, that's all.
According to the Buddhist point of view, monks and nuns are
supposed to hold renunciation vows. The meaning of monks and
nuns renouncing the world is that they have less craving for
and grasping at sense objects. But you cannot say that they
have already given up samsara, because monks and nuns still
have stomachs! The thing is that the English word "renounce"
is linguistically tricky. You can say that monks and nuns
renounce their stomachs, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they actually throw their stomachs away.
So, I want you to understand that renouncing sensory pleasure
doesn't mean throwing nice things away. Even if you do, it
doesn't mean you have renounced them. Renunciation is a totally
inner experience. Renunciation of samsara does not mean you
throw samsara away because your body and your nose are samsara.
How can you throw your nose away? Your mind and body are samsara
--well, at least mine are. So I cannot throw them away. Therefore,
renunciation means less craving; it means being more reasonable
instead of putting too much psychological pressure on yourself
and acting crazy.
The important point for us to know, then, is that we should
have less grasping at sense pleasures, because most of the
time our grasping at and craving desire for worldly pleasure
does not give us satisfaction. That is the main point. It
leads to more dissatisfaction and to psychologically crazier
reactions. That is the main point.
If you have the wisdom and method to handle objects of the
five senses perfectly such that they do not bring negative
reactions, it's all right for you to touch them. And, as human
beings, we should be capable of judging for ourselves how
far we can go into the experience of sense pleasure without
getting mixed up and confused. We should judge for ourselves;
it is completely up to individual experience. It's like French
wine-some people cannot take it at all. Even though they would
like to, the constitution of their nervous system doesn't
allow it. But other people can take a little; others can take
a bit more; some can take a lot.
So, I want you to understand why Buddhist scriptures completely
forbid monks and nuns from drinking wine. It is not because
wine is bad; grapes are bad. Grapes and vines are beautiful;
the color of red wine is fantastic. But because we are ordinary
beginners on the path to liberation, we can easily get caught
up in negative energy. That's the reason. It is not that wine
itself is bad. This is a good example for renunciation.
Who was the great Indian saint who drank wine? Do you remember
that story? I don't recall who it was, but this saint went
into a bar and drank and drank until the bartender finally
asked him, "How are you going to pay?" The saint
replied, "I'll pay when the sun sets." But the sun
didn't set and the saint just kept on drinking. The bartender
wanted his money but somehow he controlled the sunset. These
kinds of higher realization-we can call them miraculous or
esoteric realizations-are beyond the comprehension of ordinary
people like us, but this saint was able to control the sun
and drank perhaps thirty gallons of wine. And he didn't even
have to make pee-pee!
Now, my point is that renunciation of samsara is not only
the business of monks and nuns. Whoever is seeking liberation
or enlightenment needs renunciation of samsara. If you check
your own life, your own daily experiences, you will see that
you are caught up in small pleasures-we [Buddhists] consider
such grasping to be a tremendous hang-up and not of much value.
However, the Western way of thinking-"I should have the
best; the biggest"-is similar to our Buddhist attitude
that we should have the best, most lasting, perfect pleasure
rather than spending our lives fighting for the pleasure of
a glass of wine.
Therefore, the grasping attitude and useless actions have
to be abandoned and things that make your life meaningful
and liberated have to be actualized.
But I don't want you to understand only the philosophical
point of view. We are capable of examining our own minds and
comprehending what kind of mind brings everyday problems and
is not worthwhile, both objectively and subjectively. This
is the way that meditation allows us to correct our attitudes
and actions. Don't think, "My attitudes and actions come
from my previous karma, therefore I can't do anything."
That's a misunderstanding of karma. Don't think, "I am
powerless." Human beings do have power. We have the power
to change our lifestyles, change our attitudes, change our
habits. We can call that capacity Buddha potential, God potential
or whatever you want to call it. That's why Buddhism is simple.
It is a universal teaching that can be understood by all people,
religious or non-religious.
The opposite of renunciation of samsara-to put what I'm saying
another way-is the extreme mind that we have most of the time:
the grasping, craving mind that gives us an overestimated
projection of objects, which has nothing to with the reality
of those objects.
However, I want you to understand that Buddhism is not saying
that objects have no beauty whatsoever. They do have beauty-a
flower has a certain beauty, but that beauty is only conventional,
or relative. The craving mind, however, projects onto an object
something that is beyond the relative level, which has nothing
to do with that object, that hypnotizes us. That mind is hallucinating,
deluded and holding the wrong entity.
Without intensive observation or introspective wisdom, we
cannot discover this. For that reason, Buddhist meditation
includes checking. We call checking in this way analytical
meditation. It involves logic; it involves philosophy. So
Buddhist philosophy and psychology help us see things better.
Therefore, analytical meditation is a scientific way of analyzing
our own experience.
Finally, I also want you to understand that monks and nuns
may not be renounced at all. It's true, isn't it? In Buddhism,
we talk about superficial structure and universal structure.
So when we say monks and nuns renounce, it means we're trying,
that's all. Westerners sometimes think monks and nuns are
holy. We're not holy; we're just trying. That's reasonable.
Don't overestimate again, on that. Lay people, monks and nuns-we're
all members of the Buddhist community. We should understand
each other well and then let go; leave things as they are.
It's unhealthy to have overestimated expectations of each
other.
OK, now I'd better get back to business. I think that's enough
of an introduction to renunciation. Now, bodhicitta.
Bodhicitta
Bodhicitta is like this. First, you have to understand your
own ego problems-craving, desire, anger, impatience; your
own situation, your inability to cope, your own disasters-within
yourself and feel compassion for yourself. Because of the
situation you're in, start by becoming the object of your
own compassion. It begins from there: "This situation
I'm in, I'm not the only one with ego conflict and problems.
In all the world's societies, some people are upper class,
some middle and others low; some are extremely beautiful,
some are medium and others are ugly. But, just like me, everybody
seeks happiness and does not desire to be miserable."
In this way, a feeling of equilibrium begins to come. Somehow,
deep within you, equilibrium towards enemies, strangers and
friends arises-it is not merely intellectual but something
really sincere. It comes from deep down; from the bottom of
your heart.
Buddhism teaches you the meditational technique for equalizing
all living beings in the universe. Without a certain degree
of equilibrium feeling with all universal living beings, it's
impossible to say, "I want to give my life to others."
Nor is it possible to develop bodhicitta. Bodhicitta is most
precious, a diamond mind. In order to have space for bodhicitta,
you have to feel that all universal living beings are equal.
But I want you to understand the distinction between the
communist and the Buddhist idea of equality. It's possible
for you to experience the Buddhist idea of equilibrium right
now; you can't experience the communist idea even after a
billion years-unless everybody has a gun! It's not possible.
The point is that Buddhism considers that we should have
realization of equilibrium because we need a healthy mind.
Equalizing others is something to be done within my mind,
not by changing human beings externally. My business is not
to be bothered by mental projections of disliked enemy, grasped-at
friend or forgettable stranger. These three categories of
object are made by my own mind; they do not exist outside.
As long as you have as an object of hatred even one human
being, as long as you have an overestimated object of craving
desire, as long as you have an indifferent object of ignorance-someone
you ignore and don't care about-as long as you have the three
poisons of hatred, desire and ignorance in relation to these
three objects, you have a problem. It is not the objects'
problem.
How can I be happy if Elisabeth [the French interpreter]
is my biggest problem, my enemy? How can I be happy? Equilibrium
is something to do with the inner experience. Forget about
bodhicitta-we all have a long way to go. What I'm trying to
express is that Tibetan Buddhism and Lama Tsong Khapa consider
that equilibrium is most difficult to realize. So, it's worthwhile
at least to try. Even though it is difficult, try.
Another way of describing equilibrium is to call it the middle
way. That is why, from a practical point of view, in order
for Buddhists to be healthy we should have an equalized feeling
with Western religion and eastern religion. We should have
an equalized feeling and respect for people who practice Christianity.
That's the way to be happy, and happiness is your main business.
I think it's a mistake for Western baby Buddhists to think
that Buddhism is better than Christianity. It's wrong. First
of all, it's not true, and secondly, it creates bad vibrations
and makes your mind unhealthy.
I really feel that Buddhists can learn a lot from Christians.
Recently I was in Spain and visited some Christian monasteries.
The renunciation and way of life of some of those Christian
monks seems much better than the renunciation I've seen in
many Tibetan monasteries. Monks in Tibetan monastic communities
often have individualistic attitudes, whereas the monks I
saw in the Christian communities seemed to be completely unified.
They had no individual possessions. For me, those monks were
objects of refuge. Of course, if being individualistic is
what an individual needs for his or her spiritual growth,
that's all right. That's why different religions exist.
However, you should practice equilibrium in your daily life
as much as you can. Try to have neither enemies nor objects
of tremendous, exaggerated grasping. In this way, in the space
of your equilibrium, you can grow bodhicitta-the attitude
dedicated to all universal living beings.
Bodhicitta is an extremely high realization. It is the complete
opposite of the self-cherishing attitude. You completely give
yourself into the service of others in order to lead them
to the highest liberation, which is beyond temporary happiness.
Our thoughts are extreme. Sometimes we put too much emphasis
on and tremendous energy into activities from which we gain
nothing. Look at certain athletes, for example; or people
who put all their money and energy into motorcycle jumping
and end up killing themselves. What for?
Bodhicitta is very practical, I tell you. It's like medicine.
The self-cherishing thought is like a nail or a sword in your
heart; it always feels uncomfortable. With bodhicitta, from
the moment you begin to open, you feel incredibly peaceful
and you get tremendous pleasure and inexhaustible energy.
Forget about enlightenment-as soon as you begin to open yourself
to others, you gain tremendous pleasure and satisfaction.
Working for others is very interesting; it's an infinite activity.
Your life becomes continuously rich and interesting.
You can see how easily Western people get bored; as a result,
they take drugs and so forth. They are easily bored; they
can't see what else to do. It's not that people who take drugs
are necessarily unintelligent. They do have intelligence,
but they don't know where to put their energy so that it is
beneficial to society and themselves. They're blocked; they
can't see. Therefore, they destroy themselves.
If you don't want to understand bodhicitta as an attitude
dedicated to others-and sometimes it can be difficult to understand
it in that way-you can also think of it as a selfish attitude.
Why? In practice, when you begin to open yourself to others,
you find that your heart is completely tied; your "I,"
or your ego, is tied. Lama Je Tsong Khapa [in his Three
Principal Aspects of the Path] described the ego as an
"iron net of self-grasping." How do you loosen these
bonds? When you begin to dedicate yourself to others, you
yourself experience unbelievable peace, unbelievable relaxation.
Therefore, I'm saying, with the selfish attitude [of wanting
to experience that peace and relaxation], you can practice
dedicating yourself to others.
What really matters is your attitude. If your attitude is
one of openness and dedication to all universal living beings,
it is enough to relax you. In my opinion, having an attitude
of bodhicitta is much more powerful-and much more practical
in a Western environment-than squeezing yourself in meditation.
Anyway, our twentieth century lives don't allow us time for
meditation. Even if we try, we're sluggish. "I was up
too late last night; yesterday I worked so hard...."
I really believe that the strong, determined, dedicated attitude
of "Every day, for the rest of my life, and especially
today, I will dedicate myself to others as much as I possibly
can," is very powerful. Anyway, some people's attitude
towards meditation is that they want some kind of concrete
concentration [right now]. It's not possible to develop concrete
concentration in a short time without putting your life together.
And Westerners find it is very difficult to put their lives
together; it's the most difficult thing. Of course, this is
just the projection of a Tibetan monk! However, if you don't
organize your life, how can you be a good meditator? It's
not possible. How can you have good meditation if your life
is in disorder?
I don't know what I'm saying! I think I'd better control
myself!
Emptiness
The next topic is shunyata. But don't worry; His Holiness
is going to explain shunyata. However, what I am going to
say is that these three-renunciation, bodhicitta and the wisdom
of universal reality-are the essence of Buddhism, the essence
of Christianity; the essence of universal religion. There's
no contradiction at all. Westerners easily rationalize that
when a Buddhist monk talks about these three topics, he's
on an Eastern trip, but these topics are neither Eastern culture
nor Tibetan culture.
Historically, Shakyamuni Buddha taught the four noble truths.
To whose culture do the four noble truths belong? The essence
of religion has nothing to do with any one particular country's
culture. Compassion, love, reality-to whose culture do they
belong? The people of any country, any nation, can implement
the three principal aspects of the path, the four noble truths
or the eightfold path. There's no contradiction at all.
Also, you have to understand that the transmission of these
three principal aspects of the path was passed from Lord Manjushri
to Lama Tsong Khapa and from Lama Tsong Khapa down to the
present time. It's not some exclusive Gelugpa thing; all four
Tibetan traditions contain these three principles. Do not
hold the misconception that the four traditions practice differently.
You can't say that Kagyu, Gelug, Sakya and Nyingma renunciations
are different; that Gelug refuge is different from Kagyu refuge.
How can you say that? Even if Shakyamuni Buddha comes here
and says, "They're different," I'm going to reject
what he says. Even if Shakyamuni manifests here, radiating
light, saying, "They're different," I'm going to
reply, "No, they're not."
People are easily deluded; they hallucinate easily. The first
and only thing you have to do in order to become a Buddhist
is to take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha; that's all.
How, then, can you say that Gelug refuge and Kagyu refuge
are different? I want you to understand this. We have very
limited concepts, limited orientation. I want you to see how
limited human beings are.
Let me give you an example. Vietnamese Buddhists cannot visualize
a Tibetan Buddha. Tibetans cannot visualize a Chinese Buddha.
It is very difficult for Westerners to visualize a Japanese
Buddha. Does that mean you ignore all these other Buddhas?
Does that mean you discriminate, "I take refuge in only
Tibetan Buddhas"? Or, "I take refuge in only Western
Buddhas. I give up Eastern Buddhas; I give up Japanese Buddhas."
Do you understand how we are limited? This is what I call
human beings' limitation. They cannot understand things on
the universal level and project in a culturally limited way
so that their ego has something to hang on to; the Buddha
that each nation's Buddhists hang on to is but an object of
their ego-grasping.
Also, I've checked Western people out scientifically. Many
Westerners have studied Tibetan thangka painting and the Buddhas
they create are completely different. The Buddhas they paint
are completely westernized, even though the dimensions are
fixed precisely according to the Tibetan style and the examples
they copy are also Tibetan. This is my scientific experience.
This shows that human do things through only their own limited
experience.
Anyway, I think it is such a pity that Gelugpas don't want
to take refuge in objects that Nyingmapas also take refuge
in, such as Padmasambhava. It's written in many Gelug Tibetan
texts that Lama Je Tsong Khapa was a manifestation of Padmasambhava.
Maybe I can also say that Lama Je Tsong Khapa was a manifestation
of Jesus.
Well, I tell you, misconceptions can arise from when you
first take refuge. But you have to learn that taking refuge
is not simple; it's very profound. If, at the very beginning,
you take refuge with a fanatical understanding of Buddha,
Dharma and Sangha, you freak out; you become a Buddhist fanatic.
If you are truly Buddhist, my advice is to take refuge in
the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions. In the
ten directions there's no division into west or east. Sometimes
I think that orientation through the eye sense is not so good.
Anyway, Buddha and Dharma are not objects of the eye sense.
The Christian way of explaining God as something universal
and omnipresent is good. Actually, that's a good way of understanding
things-better than "My Buddha; my Dharma; my Sangha."
That's rubbish! That itself is the problem. If you get attached
to the particular object of "my lama" or "my
things," it's ridiculous. Buddha himself said that we
should not be attached to him, or to enlightenment, or to
the six paramitas. We should not be attached to anything.
Well, time's almost up. I still feel it's unfortunate that
His Holiness could not come. I really feel that inviting His
Holiness is like having a second Buddha come to this earth.
Therefore, it is un-fortunate that he cannot be here and you
have to put up with such garbage-an ordinary person like me.
Meditation
But let's meditate for a couple of minutes. Send out our
white, radiant light energy to purify all obstacles. Especially
from our heart, we are sending white, blissful radiating light
energy to His Holiness.
[Meditation.]
And from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's heart, a white radiating
light om mani padme hum mantra comes to our heart.
[Meditation.]
Our entire nervous system, from our feet up to our crown,
is purified by the om mani padme hum mantra coming
from His Holiness's heart.
[Meditation.]
|