December 6, 1997

LOOK AT ALL CAUSATIVE PHENOMENA AS LIKE AN ILLUSION

Do not commit any nonvirtuous actions,
Perform only perfect virtuous actions,
Subdue your mind thoroughly—
This is the teaching of the Buddha.

Then, the next advice of Buddha to us sentient beings is this.

A star, a defective view, a butter lamp,
An illusion, a drop of dew or a bubble,
A dream, a flash of lightning, a cloud—
See causative phenomena as such!

Causative phenomena means everything in our life: our body, our material possessions, the surrounding people such as family, friends and enemies, and all sense objects. The Buddha is saying to look at all these causative phenomena as transitory, like a star that shimmers at dusk, or like the object of somebody whose vision is defective, who hallucinates, like having visions of hairs dropping in their vision. When you eat you can have the vision of hairs falling but there are no hairs; it’s an illusion. There is no such thing in reality.

Then causative phenomena can be compared to a flame that is flickering in the midst of wind and can be extinguished at any moment. It’s like we are carrying a lit candle outside in the wind, conscious the flame could go out any time. Due to cause and conditions, causative phenomena can be stopped, can be destroyed, any time.

We should look at the causative phenomena as like an illusion. Yesterday, I described what is the truth and what is false, particularly relating to the I. Which is the I that exists and which is the I that doesn’t exist, the false I? Just as I mentioned yesterday, now we look at all causative phenomena as illusions.

The next one is to look at causative phenomena as like a drop of dew. One minute a dew drop is there and the next it’s not. Similarly, we should look at causative phenomena as like dew drops, transitory. Or like a water bubble that can be popped at any time. Like that, causative phenomena are transitory; they can be stopped at any time.

Then, we should look at them as like a dream and like a flash of lightning. There are two things to understand here. Looking at causative phenomena as like a dream. For example, the day when death comes on us, the vivid appearance of this life, having possessions, property, a house, family, friends, enemies, including our own body—the vivid appearance of all these things, it happens and then it’s gone. When death comes, this vivid appearance happens and it’s gone. Having had all these things, they are now gone; they are all transitory, impermanent.

The person who passed away just becomes an object of memory. And everything becomes like that, objects of memory. So, that’s one thing. It’s like last night’s dream that has happened and now it’s gone. In the dream, all those vivid things happened, but now they are nothing.

In a dream we travel, we find a friend, then we have a party. Then we get children and then problems happen in the dream, so many worries. Or in the dream we have so much wealth. We buy a huge apartment, with many swimming pools and many Mercedes. What’s the new car? What? [Students prompt] Exis! So, we buy many Mercedes or Exis. Huh? Oh! Lexis! We buy many Lexis. We become so wealthy, we have so many things, we achieve so much. And then suddenly we wake up. Then, there’s nothing!

So you see, there are all these vivid appearances in a dream, where we had all these things, we had kind of a whole life in the dream, and when we wake up they are just objects of memory. Our life is the same. Even though we cannot realize now how this life is like a dream, causative phenomena are like a dream, transitory. When the day of our death comes, we realize it is like that. At the time of death, we see our life like that, as if we woke up from a dream, transitory.

That is one way to understand how causative phenomena are like a dream, by seeing how they are transitory—there for just a short time and then gone.

The other way to understand how this is like dream, is that, as I mentioned yesterday, everything that appears in a dream came from our mind, even the dream. Our mind makes up the label, we believe in the label and then it appears back to us. This is true of all these things—friends, enemies, possessions, all this property, all this extreme luxury, the apartment or the house, the Mercedes or Lexis or whatever—all this comfort, this enjoyment and all these things, all these appearances. How they started is that first, our mind made up the label, then we believed in what our mind labeled and then it appears back to us as that. All these objects we see in a dream, all these appearances come from our own mind. They don’t come from their own side, they come from our own mind. And it is same with everything. Everything is merely imputed by the mind, but everything—all those things in a dream, our I, our body—everything appears to us as not merely labeled by the mind. Everything appears as something real, a real I, a real body, a real Mercedes, a real Lexis, a real house. They seem to have nothing to do with our mind. They appear not merely labeled by our mind.

So, all causative phenomena, including our I, our body, all these things, are exactly the same. How they exist is being merely labeled by the mind. In a sense, being merely labeled by the mind is exactly the same as what we see in a dream. These causative phenomena including our I, our self, our body, our material possessions, our friends, enemies, strangers, the surrounding families—the whole thing, all objects of the five senses—are exactly the same. What they are is merely labeled by the mind. In that way, they are exactly the same as the sense objects in a dream.

Everything we see in a dream, even though it comes from our mind and is merely labeled by our mind, it appears inherently existent. It appears to us not merely labeled by our mind. In exactly the same way, all causative phenomena, including our own I, appear back to us as not merely labeled by our mind.

They appear as something real, appearing from their own side, but if we look for these truly existing things we cannot find them. If we analyze all these things, including the I and all the rest of the causative phenomena, all which appear not merely labeled by mind, as something real appearing from there, when analyzed, they cannot be found anywhere, neither on the base nor anywhere. But when they are not analyzed, it looks like they actually exist. They are just like the things we see in a dream, appearing that way, even though they are merely imputed by the mind.

DOES A DREAM HAVE A BASE?

The Buddha tells us to look at causative phenomena as like a dream. The only difference is … I’m not sure. Maybe there are no differences! So, what are the differences in the dream? Huh?

[Student responds, inaudible]

Rinpoche: In your dream there’s no base? In your dream there’s only the label but there’s no base. Is that what you’re saying? Huh? You don’t feel pain in the dream. What about bliss? What about pleasure in the dream?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Pleasure? You can explain pleasure? So, what is it? In the dream you can feel pleasure but no pain? Hmm? Maybe we should live our whole life in a dream! Maybe we should never wake up! 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: In the dream there’s no pain. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I think maybe you haven’t had enough dreams! Some people very rarely have dreams, you know. In a dream there’s no base? In a dream, is there a label?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: What makes you have a label in the dream? Huh? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So, in the dream the label definitely exists, but the base doesn’t exist, yeah? So, is there a base in the dream?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: It’s not a base base. It’s a valid base, no? I thought it was something but it’s not a base on the base. If you label something in life, does that mean your life is a dream? Thank you very much! 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So you’re dreaming now? You’ve got your cap on! You’re dreaming you’re a human being? You’re not a human being but you’re dreaming you’re a human being? Is there a time when you don’t dream? Which time?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Do you have parents? Or not? You don’t have parents? You were born without parents? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Your I is born from parents but you are not born from parents? You said your I is; you said you don’t have parents. Hmm? Do you have parents? Are you born from parents or not?

Student: I don’t know!

Rinpoche: So you’re not sure whether you have parents. You’re not sure whether you have a nose. Do you have a nose?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: We have one person at the course without a nose! You don’t have ears? That means you also wouldn’t have ears. If you don’t have a nose, you wouldn’t have ears!

Do you see where I’m touching? I’m not pointing to the lake! Do you have a body? A mind and a body? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So you don’t have mind as well.

Student: I don’t know.

Rinpoche: The mind is not sure about having a mind but you don’t have a body, yeah? Then you don’t need an airplane ticket! You don’t need food, you don’t need shelter, you don’t need an airplane ticket, you don’t need a car. You don’t need any of these things because you don’t have a body. So it’s a great profit. You save a lot of money! You don’t need money either if there is no body. And you don’t need a job because you don’t have a body.

So, conventionally, you have a nose. Conventionally, you have everything! You have a body, you have a nose. You have parents, right? So conventionally … 

Which country are you from? 

Student: Norway.

Rinpoche: In a dream, if you become the president or prime minister of Norway… What do you have in Norway? Do you have a king? So, if you become Norway’s king in a dream—if you dreamt that you became the king of Norway—does that mean you become a king? Say, tonight you had that dream where you become Norway’s king, conventionally you become Norway’s king, does that mean tonight you’re going to become Norway’s king?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Then Norway has two kings! One is the other one, the one everybody recognizes, and the other one is you! Norway has two kings.

Student: I think Norway would be in trouble.

Rinpoche: There is a story where something like this happened. There was a family where the son was a kind of a fool, not a complete fool who could not speak, but a fool. The parents wanted their son to get married to another family’s daughter. Before they took him to see the other family, they taught him to pretend to be clever so the daughter’s parents would accept him for the daughter. They taught him to say, “This is oak,” and point to the wood of the stairs as he was going upstairs, but it didn’t work. He did that, he said, “This is oak,” as he went up the stairs but then he said the same as he pointed at all the wood in the upstairs room, even though a lot of the furniture was made of different wood. So instead of showing him to be clever it showed him to be a fool. Anyway, I just remembered that story.

What’s your name?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: What you said at the beginning about it conventionally existing is correct. But when you came to the dream, it became too much! That reminded me of this story.

Anyway, even if you dream tonight that you become Norway’s king, that doesn’t mean that Norway has two kings? That you’re going to have two kings tonight? Which one is the king? Who is the king and who is not the king?

This is the analysis we have been doing: defining what is false and what is truth, what exists and what doesn’t exist. 

So before—what’s your name?—you said in the dream, there’s a label but no base. And what do you say to that? [Rinpoche asks a Tibetan teacher nearby] What did the venerable say before? Did you hear what he said?

He has been studying philosophy, debating, in the Sera Monastery. Having studied philosophy, the Buddha’s teachings, he can slowly clarify the point. 

Now, in the dream, if the guru or the Buddha blesses you, does that mean you receive the blessing or not? If the Buddha, if a deity initiated you, or your guru initiated you in a dream, does that mean you have received the initiation or not?

IS THE DREAM IMAGE PERMANENT?

Let’s say you’re riding on a golden elephant in a dream. Why is the base that is labeled “elephant” not valid? 

Student: Because it’s permanent.

Rinpoche: Huh? Permanent. Which one is permanent? The valid base or the label “elephant?” Oh! Impermanence! What? You mean the appearance of the dream. Is the appearance, the view of the dream permanent or impermanent? Is the dream elephant impermanent or permanent? 

Student: Permanent.

Rinpoche: Huh. Permanent. The dream elephant is permanent. Is the elephant permanent? The elephant is per-man-ent!

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: First of all, why is the elephant not permanent? Because it’s produced? Isn’t the elephant in the dream produced? Doesn’t it come from causes and conditions? So, the elephant appearing in the dream doesn’t come from causes and conditions?

Student: No.

Rinpoche: Then Thomas says no. You said the appearance of the elephant does not come from causes and conditions? If the appearance exists, that means the elephant should exist, is that right? So, the appearance of the elephant in the dream doesn’t have causes and conditions, right?

Isn’t it the imprint on the hallucinated mind that produces the appearance of the elephant in the dream?

Student: No.

Rinpoche: No? OK. Those who say yes, you can stay! Say yes! Now you see, people who dream of an object they are attached to in the daytime, who see it in their dream, isn’t that appearance due to the imprint left on their mind from attachment to that object having arisen previously? Because the mind is habituated to being attached to that object, it keeps coming up in dreams. So, isn’t that appearance a production of the attachment and the imprint left on the mind? What is the difference between the dream and the appearance?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: The dream is the mind. It’s a mental aberration. If the appearance of the object of attachment that happens again and again in the dream is not caused by the attachment, what causes it to happen like that? Why does it happen again and again?

I’m talking about the appearance of the object of attachment. I’m not just talking about general appearance but the appearance of the object of attachment. What’s the reason for it happening again and again if it’s not due to attachment and the imprint left by the attachment? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Not because of attachment but because of one’s own mind?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So it is not by attachment but some other mind.

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: It’s not produced by the mind? That appearance of the object of attachment is not caused by the mind? It didn’t come from the mind? Doesn’t the appearance of the hell come from the mind? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So, the appearance of the hell realm comes from the mind; it’s caused by the mind, produced by the mind. By what mind? Can it be produced by attachment as well? Or is it still not attachment?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: In the daytime, the object of appearance that you are attached to, in reality, isn’t it that you are attached to your own view, that the view of that object is your own mind’s view? Not in the dream time, but in the daytime when you’re not sleeping, you’re not dreaming, but having the appearance of the object of attachment. At that time, in reality the appearance of the object is the appearance of your own mind, isn’t it? Did the appearance come from your own mind or from outside? Does it exist from its own side or does it exist from inside your mind?

Student: From the mind.

Rinpoche: Yeah. So, when you’re attached to a person, at that time, in reality, what you are attached to is the view, the appearance of your own mind. Isn’t it?

Student: I’m not sure.

Rinpoche: You said it came from your own mind. You are attached to the view of your own mind, right? When you are attached to an object or a person, in reality, you are attached to the view of your own mind. It is the view of your attachment. That view came from your mind, particularly attachment.

When you’re not sleeping, you’re not dreaming, the appearance of the object of attachment, a person or thing, is the appearance of your own mind. That appearance has come from attachment; it is a creation of attachment; it’s produced by attachment. Right? Is it a projection of attachment? 

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: It’s not created by attachment?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: What becomes permanent? But do you accept that the appearance is projected by attachment, it is created by attachment?

Attachment does not create the object! Does anger create the enemy or not? Maybe, according to him, it doesn’t create the enemy! What creates the enemy if anger doesn’t create the enemy?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: The enemy is not produced by anger. Is that what you’re saying?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: The enemy is not directly produced by anger but indirectly. So, the enemy is produced by anger. If you don’t have anger, will you have an enemy? If you have no anger at all arising in this life, will you still have an enemy? Will you see an enemy?

Student: Yes.

Rinpoche: So, you will have an enemy. All right. Does the Buddha have enemies? Does the Buddha see enemies? Does the Buddha have friends and enemies? [Students discuss between themselves]

Even though you don’t have anger at all in this life, you still see enemies, yeah? You can still find enemies. From your side, you will still see enemies? You still have enemies? [More discussion between students] If you don’t have anger at all in this life, you don’t find enemies. You don’t see enemies. If you don’t have anger at all, only patience. Do you see?

Here the question is, if you have no anger at all in your life, do you still see enemies? We are not talking about what other sentient beings see. Do you have enemies or not? Do you see enemies?

Going back to the point, the appearance of the enemy is produced by anger, right? Just as the appearance of the object of attachment is produced by attachment. It’s the same thing, right? Here we’re not talking about the appearance of the object of attachment in a dream, where it is also produced by attachment. In the same way, the appearance of the enemy is produced by anger.

Which is impermanent and which is permanent?

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: So, it is a projection, a creation of mind. But then you say it isn’t created by causes and conditions. Doesn’t it have a cause? Doesn’t this appearance of the object of attachment and the appearance of the enemy have a cause? Don’t the attachment and the imprint cause the appearance of the object of attachment?

Anyway, take these two instances. First, there is the appearance in the dream. You are riding the elephant or you have won a billion dollars. Then, not when you are sleeping, in the daytime, there is the appearance of the person who is actually riding the elephant or who has actually won a billion dollars. This is now something remembered in a dream—a dream ride on an elephant or a dream billion dollars—but these have actually happened. Are these two appearances the same? The person who has actually ridden the elephant or who actually has a billion dollars. That person’s appearance exists, right? So, what about the appearance in the dream? What about the person who doesn’t have an elephant but is dreaming of riding an elephant, or who doesn’t have a billion dollars but is dreaming of having a billion dollars? Are they both the same? [Students respond]

So then, tell me, what’s not the same? [Students reply] Yeah. Does the appearance in the dream exist or not? The person dreaming of riding the elephant or receiving a billion dollars, does that appearance exist or not? Does the dream elephant or dream dollars exist?

Is the dream elephant and daytime elephant the same? Is it the same appearance as the appearance when you’re not dreaming?

Student: There’s no valid base in the dream.

Rinpoche: In the dream. You say there’s a base but no valid base, so how do you define a valid base?

THE THREE CRITERIA OF CONVENTIONAL EXISTENCE

How do you define a valid base? Is it one a buddha has to see? Or one society has to believe in? One society has to agree to? In that case, whether a base is valid or not would be according to society’s decision, right? 

For example, the hell that a buddha sees, isn’t that the hell that sentient beings see, that sentient beings label as hell? In the case of hell, this is what sentient beings see and what sentient beings label as “hell” and this is what a buddha sees. They’re the same. 

How about when one society thinks something is bad and another society thinks it is good. What about that? For example, in Tibet they think this gesture is good [Rinpoche makes a gesture] but in China they think it is bad. There are phenomena that one side thinks is one thing and another other side thinks it is something else. They have different views. So that thing receives harm from the other society. So, is this thing good or bad? [Students respond]

If this is neither good nor bad, then everything is the same. Whether something is clean or dirty, good or bad, everything is the same. But there are many different views. One society thinks it’s good or clean and the other thinks it’s bad or dirty. So do good and bad exist or not? [Students seem to think they exist.]

So good and bad exist. That is according to the conventional mind, right? Good and bad exist according to the conventional mind. But what does a buddha see? Does a buddha see good and bad? Anyway, that’s better!

Whatever appears to a buddha, whatever comes into contact with a buddha’s senses, is only a pure appearance. Whatever appears to a buddha’s senses is only clean, only pure, for the buddha. Since there are different aspects of buddha, male and female, we can say according to him or her, it is only pure appearance, only pure bliss.

Other than that, what a buddha sees as pure, a sentient being will judge as good or bad. A sentient being will discriminate like this and a buddha sees that this is how the sentient being discriminates, seeing something as good or bad.

Isn’t it like that? Anyway, we’ll stop here.

Student: What about suffering?

Rinpoche: A buddha sees sentient beings’ suffering. To a buddha’s senses, there is only pure bliss, only pure appearance, but a buddha sees what sentient beings experience. Like blissful tea!

Now I’m just playing a game. But it is mentioned in the philosophical teachings that appearances in the waking state and in a dream are the same. Appearance exists. The appearance of the dream exists, but the objects we see in the dream don’t exist. The appearance of the dream exists, it’s permanent, but the objects we see in the dream don’t exist.

It’s the same with the object of the hallucinated mind and the dream. Like people who take drugs and then see many people talking or the whole ground filled with worms. The appearance exists but what we see does not. The worms or the many people talking don’t exist.

Now, the objects we see in a dream or when the mind is hallucinated with drugs or possessed by spirits—worms or people talking, running over the cliffs or all kinds of hallucinations—for these objects to be able to exist, there must be a valid base, one that shouldn’t receive harm from other conventional, valid minds, un-hallucinated minds. It should not receive harm from either another valid mind of a sentient being or the valid mind of a buddha. Neither should it receive harm from the wisdom directly perceiving emptiness. If the object receives harm from that wisdom, it doesn’t exist.

So, for the things we see in a dream or with a hallucinated mind to exist, they should have these three criteria: a valid base, not receiving harm from other valid minds and not receiving harm from the wisdom realizing emptiness. If those three criteria are there, the object exists.

Now we dedicate.

“Due to all the past, present and future merits collected by me and by the buddhas, bodhisattvas and sentient beings, may the bodhicitta which is the source of all the happiness and success for me and for all sentient beings be generated within my own mind, in the minds of my family members and in the minds of all sentient beings, without delay of even a second. May the bodhicitta which has been generated increase.

“Due to all the past, present and future merits collected by me, and by the buddhas, bodhisattvas and sentient beings, may all of my kind mother and father sentient beings have happiness. May the three lower realms be empty forever. May all the bodhisattvas’ prayers succeed immediately. May I be able to cause all this by myself alone.

“Due to all the past, present and future merits collected by me, by the buddhas, bodhisattvas and sentient beings of the three times, that which is merely labeled by the mind, may the I who is also merely labeled by the mind …”

Here, we have to understand that being merely labeled means it exists. Until we understand the exact meaning of that, it sounds like it doesn’t exist. When “merely labeled” is mentioned, it sounds like things don’t exist, but actually what it’s saying is they do exist. Saying “merely labeled” actually clarifies what exists—the I and the three times’ merits that are merely labeled are what exist. And by showing what exists, the term “merely labeled” also shows what does not exist—the I that is not merely labeled by the mind and the merits that are not merely labeled by the mind, the enlightenment that is not merely labeled by the mind and the sentient beings who are not merely labeled by the mind. None of these exist. 

The way to understand it is this. If we haven’t studied well those essential points, if we don’t know the real meaning of merely labeled, then it might sound like things don’t exist. It sort of implies that things do not exist, but actually, by specifically mentioning merely labeled, what it is emphasizing is that these things exist: the I exists, the merits exist, the sentient beings exist, enlightenment exists. They all exist by being merely labeled by the mind. All those things appear to exist from their own side, as not merely labeled by the mind, however, by saying that they are merely labeled this shows that they are not inherently existent.

It shows that the three times’ merits, I, enlightenment, sentient beings—all these are the unification of emptiness and dependent arising. They are all empty and, at the same time, while they are empty, they exist. They exist in mere name. And while they exist, which means existing in mere name, they are empty from their own side.

That is the same as what we recite in the Heart Sutra, “form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” That is the same meaning. Like this, all phenomena are empty, and emptiness is all phenomena. In this way, it shows the middle way view that is free from the two extremes: the extreme of eternalism and the extreme of nihilism. Eternalism means what is inherently existent, believing there is something additional, something extra than what is merely labeled by the mind. Nihilism is totally the opposite, believing that nothing exists, and even conventionally things do not exist. Here it shows the middle view, free from the two extremes.

“Due to all the past, present and future merits collected by me, by the buddhas, bodhisattvas and sentient beings, who are merely labeled by the mind, may the I, who is merely labeled by the mind, achieve Guru Shakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment, which is merely labeled by the mind, and lead all the sentient beings, who are merely labeled by the mind, to that enlightenment, which is also merely labeled by the mind, by myself alone, who is also merely labeled by the mind.”

Thank you.