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
Second Teaching - Emptiness
Good afternoon. Again, unfortunately, I have to come here
and talk nonsense to you. However, I heard that His Holiness
is feeling much better this afternoon.
This morning I spoke very generally on the subjects of renunciation
and bodhicitta. Now, this time, I will talk about the wisdom
of shunyata.
From the Buddhist point of view, having renunciation of samsara
and loving kindness bodhicitta alone is not enough to cut
the root of the ego or the root of the dualistic mind. By
meditating on and practicing loving kindness bodhicitta, you
can eliminate gross attachment and feelings of craving, but
the root of craving desire and attachment are ego and the
dualistic mind. Therefore, without understanding shunyata,
or non-duality, it is not possible to cut the root of human
problems.
It's like this example: if you have some boiling water and
put cold water or ice into it, the boiling water calms down,
but you haven't totally extinguished the water's potential
to boil.
For example, all of us have a certain degree of loving kindness
in our relationships, but many times our loving kindness is
a mixture-half white, half black. This is very important.
Many times we start with a white, loving kindness motivation
but then slowly, slowly it gets mixed up with "black
magic" love. Our love starts with pure motivation but
as time passes, negative minds arise and our love becomes
mixed with black love, dark love. It begins at first as white
love but then transforms into black magic love.
I want you to understand that this is due to a lack of wisdom
- your not having the penetrative wisdom to go beyond your
relative projection. You can see that that's why even religious
motivations and religious actions become a mundane trip when
you lack penetrative wisdom. That's why Buddhism does not
have a good feeling towards fanatical, or emotional, love.
Many Westerners project, "Buddhism has no love."
Actually, love has nothing to do with emotional expression.
The emotional expression of love is so gross; so gross-not
refined. Buddhism has tremendous concern for, or understanding
of, the needs of both the object and the subject, and in this
way, loving kindness becomes an antidote to the selfish attitude.
Western religions also place tremendous emphasis on love
and compassion but they do not emphasize wisdom. Understanding
wisdom is the path to liberation, so you have to gain it.
Now, as far as emotion is concerned, I think for the Western
world, emotion is a big thing, for some reason. However, when
we react to or relate with the sense world, we should somehow
learn to go the middle way.
When I was in Spain with His Holiness, we visited a monastery
and met a Christian monk who had vowed to stay in an isolated
place. His Holiness asked him a question, something like,
"How do you feel when you experience signs of happy or
unhappy things coming to you?" The monk said something
like, "Happy is not necessarily happy; bad is not necessarily
bad; good is not necessarily good." I was astonished;
I was very happy. "In the world, bad is not too bad;
good is not too good." To my small understanding, that
was wisdom. We should all learn from that.
Ask yourself whether or not you can do this. Can you experience
things the way this monk did or not? For me, this monk's experience
was great. I don't care whether he's enlightened or not. All
I care is that he had this fantastic experience. It was helpful
for his life; I'm sure he was blissful. Anyway, all worldly
pleasures and bad experiences are so transitory-knowing their
transitory nature, their relative nature, their conventional
nature, makes you free.
The person who has some understanding of shunyata will have
exactly the same experiences as that priest had. The person
sees that bad and good are relative; they exist for only the
conditioned mind and are not absolute qualities. The characteristic
of ego is to project such fantasy notions onto yourself and
others-this is the main root of problems. You then react emotionally
and hold as concrete your pleasure and your pain.
You can observe right now how your ego mind interprets yourself,
how your self-image is simply a projection of your ego. You
can check right now. It's worth checking. The way you check
has nothing to do with the sensory mind, your sense consciousness.
Close your eyes and check right now. It's a simple question-you
don't need to query the past or the future-just ask yourself
right now, "How does my mind imagine myself?"
[Meditation.]
You don't need to search for the absolute. It's enough to
just ask about your conventional self.
[Meditation.]
Understanding your conventional mind and the way it projects
your own self-image is the key to realizing shunyata. In this
way you break down the gross concepts of ego and eradicate
the self-pitying image of yourself.
[Meditation.]
By eliminating the self-pitying imagination of ego, you go
beyond fear. All fear and other self-pitying emotions come
from holding a self-pitying image of yourself.
[Meditation.]
You can also see how you feel that yesterday's self-pitying
image of yourself still exists today. It's wrong.
[Meditation.]
Thinking, "I'm a very bad person today because I was
angry yesterday, I was angry last year," is also wrong,
because you are still holding today an angry, self-pitying
image from the past. You are not angry today. If that logic
were correct, then Shakyamuni Buddha would also be bad, because
when he was on earth, he had a hundred wives but was still
dissatisfied!
Our ego holds a permanent concept of our ordinary self all
the time-this year, last year, the year before: "I'm
a bad person; me, me, me, me, me, me." From the Buddhist
point of view, that's wrong. If you hold that kind of concept
throughout your lifetime-you become a bad person because you
interpret yourself as a bad person.
Therefore, your ego's interpretation is unreasonable. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. And because your
ego holds onto such a self-existent I, attachment begins.
I remember His Holiness once giving an audience to about
twenty or thirty monks at a Christian monastery and His Holiness
asking one of the monks, "What is your interpretation
of emptiness?" One of them answered, "From the Christian
point of view, non-attachment is shunyata." What do you
think about that? For me, somebody's having an experience
of non-attachment is super. Don't you think it's super? Attachment
is a symptom of this sick world. This world is sick because
of attachment. Do you understand? The Middle East is sick
because of attachment. Oil-producing countries are sick because
of attachment. Am I communicating with you or not? And that
Christian monk experienced non-attachment. What do you think
of that?
From the Buddhist point of view, it is very difficult for
a person to experience non-attachment; it's very difficult.
For that reason, for me, it is extremely good if somebody-even
somebody from another religion-experiences it. And that, too,
is a reason for having the confidence to respect other religions.
How many Buddhists here have experienced non-attachment?
None? Surprise, surprise! Well, excuse me; I'm just joking.
But it is very important to have the experience of non-attachment;
it is very important for all of us.
Now, I want you to understand what attachment means. We can
use this piece of electrician's tape as an example. From the
Buddhist philosophical point of view, attachment for something
means that it's very difficult for us to separate from it.
In this example, the attachment of the electrician's tape
is no problem because it is easy to loosen, easy to reattach
and easy to loosen again. But, we have a very strong attachment-strong
like iron-for the things we think of as being very good. So,
we need to learn to be flexible.
Let's look at this flower from the Buddhist point of view.
My attachment for the flower is a symptom. It shows that I
overestimate the value of the flower. I wish to become one
with the flower and never separate from it for the rest of
my life. You understand now, how sick I am? It is so
difficult for me to let go of it. What do you think? Am I
crazy? This craziness is attachment. But, non-attachment is
flexible; it is a middle way, a reasonable way. Let go.
Do you understand? The psychology of attachment is over-estimation;
it is an unrealistic attitude. That's why we are suffering;
and for that reason Buddhism emphasizes suffering, suffering,
suffering.
The Western point of view is that Buddhism overemphasizes
suffering. Westerners can't understand why Buddhism talks
about suffering so much. "I have enough money. I can
eat. I have enough clothes. Why do you say I'm suffering?
I'm not suffering. I don't need Buddhism." Many Westerners
say this kind of thing. This is a misunderstanding of the
term "suffering." The nature of attachment is suffering.
Look at Western society. The biggest problem in the West
is attachment. It's so simple. From birth, through school
and up to professorship, or whatever one achieves, the Western
life is built by attachment. Of course, it's not only the
Western life-attachment characterizes the life of each and
every sentient being-but why I'm singling out the West is
because Westerners sometimes have funny ideas about the connotation
of happiness and suffering.
Philosophically, of course, you can research shunyata very
deeply; you can analyze the notion of the self-existent I
a thousand ways. But here I'm talking about what you can do
practically, every day, right now, in a simple way. Don't
think about Buddhist terminology; don't think about what the
books say or anything like that. Just ask yourself simply,
"How, at this moment, do I interpret myself?" That's
all.
Each time you ask yourself that question you get a different
answer, I tell you. Because sometimes you're emanating as
a chicken; sometimes as a pig; sometimes as a monkey. Then
you can laugh at yourself: "What I'm thinking is incredible!
I'm a pig." But you shouldn't worry when you see yourself
as a pig. Don't worry; just laugh. The way you check, the
way you question yourself, should just make you laugh. In
that way you get closer to shunyata. Because you know something-through
your own experience, you know that your own projection of
yourself is a fantasy and, to some extent, you experience
selflessness. You no longer trust your own ego, and your concepts
become less concrete.
Analytical meditation shouldn't make you sad or serious.
When you really understand something, you can laugh at yourself.
Of course, if you're alone, you shouldn't laugh out loud too
much, otherwise people will think you're clinically sick!
Milarepa is a good example. He stayed alone in the snowy mountains
and laughed and sang to himself. What do you think about that?
Do you think he was sick? No. He laughed because his life
was rich and he was happy.
Your entire life is built by dualistic concepts. If it's
not, you can't function in society, in the relative world.
In order to become a part of normal society, you have to develop
incredible dualistic concepts. Many of the things in this
world that we consider to be knowledge, wisdom and education
are aspects of the dualistic mind; the reaction they bring
is just more suffering.
What is the dualistic mind? Actually, "dual" means
two, but in Buddhism, our complaint is not that two phenomena
exist. The problem is their contradictory, competitive nature.
Is the competitive mind comfortable or not? Is the competitive
life comfortable or not? Is competitive business comfortable
or not? The mind is irritated. The mind in which there are
two things always contradicting each other is what we call
the dualistic mind.
Simply put, when you get up in the morning after a good night's
sleep, do you feel peaceful or not? Yes, you feel peaceful.
Why? Because during sleep, the dualistic mind is at rest-to
some extent!
As long as the dualistic mind is functioning in your life,
you are always irritated; you have not attained the peace
of ultimate reality. That's why single-pointed concentration
is very useful. Single-pointed concentration is very useful
for cutting the gross dualistic mind, especially when you
want to recognize and contemplate on your own consciousness.
It's very powerful for eliminating dualistic concepts. This
is what is taught in Tibetan mahamudra, or dzog-chen.
The purpose of meditation is to stop the irritating concepts
that we call dualistic mind. Of course, there are many levels
to this. The dualistic mind has many gross levels and many
subtle levels, and the way to eliminate it is to start with
the gross [and progress to the subtle].
But now I don't know what I'm talking about, so instead of
my going on, "Blah, blah, blah," why don't we do
some questions and answers? If I keep on talking, I'm sure
I'll just create more con-fusion-more dualistic mind-for you.
Therefore, it's better that we have a question and answer
session.
Q: If you think that detachment is necessary, non-attachment
is necessary, why should we be attached to one philosophy?
Lama: We should not be attached to any philosophy.
We should not be attached to any religion. We should not have
any objects of attachment. We should not be attached to God.
We should not be attached to the Bible. We should not be attached
to Buddha. That's very good. Thank you; that's a very good
question. That question is very important. It shows us the
character of Buddhism. Buddhism has no room for you to be
attached to something, for you to grasp at something. Buddha
said even grasping at or having attachment to Buddha is wrong.
As long as you are sick, even if you possess diamonds, you
are still sick. All symptoms of attachment have to vanish
for you to become a completely liberated human being. For
that reason, Buddhism has room for any philosophy, any religion,
any trip-as long as it is beneficial for human growth.
Q: What is the difference between attachment and compassion?
Lama: Compassion understands others' lack of pleasure
and their suffering situation. Attachment is "I want;
I want"-concern for our own pleasure. Compassion is concern
for others' pleasure and the determination to release other
sentient beings from their problems. But many times we mix
our compassion with attachment. We begin with compassion but
after some time attachment mixes in and it then becomes an
attachment trip. Thank you; thank you so much.
Q: Are non-duality and bodhicitta the same thing?
Lama: No. Remember what I said at the beginning: it
is not enough to have just renunciation and loving kindness
bodhicitta. That's not enough for us. We need wisdom to cut
through dualistic concepts and see the universal reality behind
them. This is very important. Without wisdom, our bodhicitta
and love can become fanatical. If we understand non-duality,
it's all right-bodhicitta can develop easily.
[The following three paragraphs are not on the video:]
Q: There's a Zen koan that says if you see the Buddha
on the road, kill him. Would the interpretation of this be
that if you see the Buddha on the road, you have attachment
to Buddha, so kill the attachment, not the Buddha?
Lama: No. But this can be interpreted in many different
ways. Let's say I see you as the Buddha. I probably have an
incredible projection, so it's better that I kill that. First
of all, the way to seek the Buddha is not outside. The Buddha
is within; that's where we should seek. When we begin, we
seek in the wrong place. That's what we should kill. But we
should not kill like Jim Jones did, by poisoning his followers.
Q: Is it enough if we stop the conceptualization of
the mind so that the "I" ceases to exist?
Lama: Yes. For practical purposes, yes. But philosophically,
it's not so clear. Practically speaking, whether we talk a
lot about it or not, we know that in our own lives, it is
extremely difficult to stop our obsessed concepts. And we
are not flexible. Therefore, it is better to stop them as
much as you can, but you can't stop them completely, just
like that-unless you completely extinguish yourself.
Q: Is mantra important to destroy the ego?
Lama: Yes. But of course, it has to be an individual
experience. By the time you're a first stage bodhisattva,
you no longer need mantra. Then, there's no such thing as
an external mantra. You yourself become the nuclear essence
of mantra, because at that time you have discovered the absolute
mantra. At the moment, we play around with the relative mantra,
but let's hope that we eventually discover the absolute mantra.
Q: I understood from what you said before that emotions
are negative, but is not the quality of the emotions the qualities
of the person, him- or herself?
Lama: I said if your daily life is tremendously involved
in emotion, you are completely driven by them and psychologically
tied. Therefore, you have to learn to sit back instead of
being impelled by your emotions. Also, I did not say that
emotions are necessarily negative. Emotions can be positive
too. But what I'm saying-and I'm making a generalization-is
that in the Western environment, when we relate with each
other we get tremendously emotional. In other words, our physical
emotions get too involved and we don't understand the functioning
of our six sense consciousnesses.
Q: How can we live without attachment and without
desire? It's too difficult.
Lama: I agree with you! Yes. It's too difficult. That's
why we human beings do not find it easy to develop responsible
attitudes and stop our own problems-we need to be involved
in doing this our entire life. Being mindful, being conscious,
is not an easy job. You're right. But there's a way to transform
desire, a way to transform attachment. In that way, the energy
of desire and attachment becomes medicine, the path to liberation.
It's like when you mix poison with certain other medicines
it can become medicine. What is an example? Marijuana and
hashish can be medicine, can't they? They may not be good,
but when you can transform their energy they can become medicine.
That is the beauty of the human being; we have powerful methods
for transforming one thing into something else.
Tibetan Buddhism has many methods for transforming desire
and attachment into the path to liberation. We place great
emphasis on these methods. Red chili, for example, is not
so good alone, but when you mix reasonable quantities of it
with your food, it becomes delicious.
Therefore, I want you to understand this question. According
to the Buddhist point of view, there is no human problem that
cannot be solved by human beings. Each one of you should understand
this personally and encourage yourself by thinking, "I
can deal with all my problems; I can solve my problems."
That attitude is essential for your spiritual growth. Even
though we may not be much good as meditators or spiritual
practitioners, I truly believe that if we have some understanding
and encouragement, we can all solve our problems. Most of
the time, we fail to understand our own capacity. We put ourselves
down. That's why in Tibetan Buddhism we see ourselves as Buddha.
I'm sure you've all heard that kind of thing. [Video ends
here.] Don't make a tremendous gap by thinking that Buddha
is way up in the sky and you are way underneath the earth.
That is good enough.
Thank you; I won't take up any more of your time. Thank you
so much.
|