◄ Previous Section : Kopan Course 17 Index Page : Next Section ►

Lecture 6

[Begins with commentary on the Heart Sutra]

If you can relate it like this: it starts from the “I.” I think that in the Tibetan prayer there is also, “the five aggregates are empty by nature.” I think there is something like this, which contains the explanation that not only “I” is empty by nature, but the five aggregates are empty by nature. I think they are saying that the five aggregates are also empty. There is that word “also” in the Tibetan prayer. I’ll check later. I think I have seen something like that, which means the self, the “I” that is labeled on that is also empty. This one can relate also to the “I” in a similar way. “I” is empty, emptiness is “I,” emptiness is not other than “I,” “I” is not other than emptiness. So you can relate it like that. If you have the experience of seeing the absolute nature of “I,” then you can relate it like that. You can relate it like this, and when you relate these words to “I,” as you have the experience, it becomes very real. For you the subject becomes very clear. It is like talking about your experience.

If you relate this “I” to the “I” here, on these aggregates, there is nothing clear. On this mind, this body, nothing is clear, the mind is mixed with it, like milk into water. On these aggregates, the “I” that exists is the merely labeled “I,” but something extra, something more that that. Something extra than what is merely labeled on this. It appears as truly existent. It looks like it is real, it is there. While one is not examining, when the object of conception is left as usual, it looks like it can be found, but as soon as one starts to search and analyze that, it becomes unclear, more and more unclear. Another way of saying, it is not exact but, like the water-bubble, kind of, what is the expression? Like the sky covered by fog. Even though what exists is merely labeled on this it does not appear that way. It appears that it exists from its own side. Like a water-bubble that rises up.

When one meets happy conditions, when one meets undesirable things, when one gets big shocks, when one is in a car accident or one is about to fall from a precipice, when one is in danger or when someone criticizes or someone bothers you, or when one starts to get angry. At those times, and also when one gets so excited by receiving degrees or by receiving presents, or having found a job, like a balloon, when you blow more and more it gets bigger and bigger—the emotional “I” is like that, I think.

In the West you talk about “the emotional I,” I think that is the emotional I. I think that is very helpful, that is correct, that is exact. I think what you call “the emotional I” is what we have to realize is empty. That is what is empty, and that is what we have to realize. By not realizing that it is empty as it appears, and clinging to that; clinging to the emotional “I” that exists one hundred percent, it becomes the basis for hundreds of problems to arise.

I don’t know whether there are any people here from one of the Manjushri retreats at Dharamsala, led by Tseyangla, one Tibetan nun. She guided it. Now she is in Australia translating for the geshe, Lama Yeshe’s brother. She was guiding the meditation course. I told her one day, “You should take a big stick, without the others seeing it, and keep it there, keep it with you. Then, when you reach OM SVABHAVA SHUDDAH SARWA DHARMA SVABHAVA SHUDDAH HAM suddenly you bring the plank to the floor.” First she might have thought I was joking. I said that I meant it, to actually do it.

I think the Spanish nun may have seen her carrying it, picking up the plank outside, before the session started. She covered it with her zen while she put it next to her. I was waiting to hear the noise, because my room was nearby. I waited a few days, actually. My room is next to the group room where they do retreat, my room is just outside of that, in the corner. Each session I was waiting to hear it. One time it seemed that I heard but I think it wasn’t real.

So what happened was this: one boy was sitting way back. She was sitting in the front and one boy was sitting at the back. He was sitting with his eyes open, and the rest of the group had closed their eyes, so they couldn’t see her throwing the plank, banging, hitting the plank on the floor. This one boy was probably just having a break from the concentration. He saw that Tseyangla was holding the plank. So because he saw it, it didn’t do anything to him. It didn’t cause a shock because he saw that she was the one who made the noise. I think the rest of the people had closed their eyes, so I think it gave them a great shock. Most people thought that it was a mouse—that the mouse ran away and something fell down. They figured that out.

There was one nun; I don’t know what nationality she is. Afterwards went to the Swami Baba, who can give enlightenment. I think she was sitting next to Tseyangla. She said that she recognized the emotional “I.” She said that the emotional “I” came, that it made the emotional “I” arise. I think I sent that message later, “That is what we have to realize is empty.” I told Tseyangla that even if it benefited one person, it is very good.

After she had thrown this, she was bursting with laughing. She tried to control, she tried to not make a noise, then she was laughing and covering it with her robes, so as quickly as possible she went outside and then she laughed. Then this nun came out, asking, “What did you do?” or something, she started to say something.

The purpose of this is the same—throwing a stick or giving a shock. Slaying the Ego, the Chöd practice, is regarded as a very quick way to realize shunyata because the meditation and the implements, and being in certain places cause fear to arise or the emotional “I” to arise. It creates a frightening situation, so fear arises, and that way one is able to recognize the refuted object.

Because the emotional “I,” the truly existent “I,” to which one clings, appears stronger when fear arises—much stronger, bigger—as it becomes more gross, it is easy to recognize this is what is empty. Similar to Chöd, quickly you can recognize what you have to realize as empty. So the “I” is empty, the “I” that appears from its own side. While you are looking right on top of that, you point out, “‘I’ is empty, ‘I’ is empty.” Like a balloon or like a water bubble, like the sky covered by fog. There is “I,” but something more than that, something extra, the merely labeled “I,” different from that. So the merely labeled appears to be not merely labeled, existing from its own side. Right on top of that, “I” is empty. Even if one doesn’t recognize it, you just point out the self, the “I,” not trying to point out something else, something different from that, but I the meditator, I who recites the Heart Sutra—you point it out on that.

Whether you recognize this truly existent “I” or not, you can point right on top of the self, “I” who recites the Heart Sutra, does the meditation—that is empty. Because for us, even though we do not recognize the “I” existing from its own side, even though we do not recognize it this way, even though we cannot discriminate between truly existent “I” and merely labeled “I,” even though we cannot recognize the refuted object, you see the “I” as it is mixed with true existence. Anything, books, tables, when we look at our hands, we see hand, on this there is a hand existing from its own side. It doesn’t appear as a hand that is merely labeled, it doesn’t appear that way and also we do not think that it exists as a merely labeled hand. When we see the base, the fingers and so forth, the whole thing, on this there is a hand that exists from its own side. When we see the leg, the group, the toes and the shapes, is different from the hand or the arm, which has a different base that we call “hand.” When you look at your leg, even though you see the base, that particular shape, coming down like this with pieces at the end, as soon as you see that base you have the thought that labels it “leg.” Perhaps you can say that between your thought and that base the leg exists—between, or depending on, those two.

Even though that is the reality of how the leg exists, the way the leg appears to you is completely opposite to reality. It is completely contradictory, completely opposite to the reality of that leg existing on that base, merely labeled by the force, or under the control, of your thought. The leg is labeled “leg” on that base by thought. It is merely labeled on that base but this is completely contradictory to one’s own appearance.

What appears and how it is in reality are completely contradictory. The reality becomes completely secret—the way the leg exists in reality, merely labeled, becomes completely secret, hidden. Not “cigarette” but secret (laughs.) It becomes completely secret for that person. Because what appears to him is only as truly existent from its own side, completely, and that is what he believes. So actually what appears and what he believes in doesn’t exist, that is a non-existent leg. It is a non-existent leg and he puts on non-existent shoes. Anyway, it appears as if the leg exists from its own side.

When His Holiness was giving teachings on the seven points of thought transformation, in Drepung Monastery, His Holiness Ling Rinpoche explained the refuted object like this. The base to be labeled… yes, put it this way. When you see Jon Landaw, on the body of this Jon Landaw do you see Jon Landaw existing from his own side, or do you see Jon Landaw mixed with it? Do you see Jon Landaw mixed with this body? Do you see it mixed with the base, the body, or do you see on Jon Landaw’s body there is Jon Landaw existing from his own side? His Holiness said that the definition of the refuted object is the inability to differentiate between the base to be labeled, or dak.shi, and the name that is labeled on that. You are unable to differentiate between the base to be labeled and the existence to be labeled. You can’t differentiate and they appear mixed as one.

Like this book, you can’t differentiate. When you analyze your view of this book, when you examine your view of the book, you can’t differentiate. Also, of course, somebody who has studied intellectually can say, “Oh, blah, blah, blah, these parts and this shape and material and then you call it ‘book.’” But we are not talking about, just following, the intellectual understanding of the teaching. We are trying to express how the book appears to you when you don’t analyze. If you put it into words, is it “undifferentiable?” No, you can’t say that—indistinguishable? Rinpoche said that the gak.cha, or refuted object, is seeing the base and the dak.cho, the existence to be labeled, as indistinguishable.

But I heard some sangha discussing this, and they heard that Geshe Kelsang doesn’t accept this refuted object. According to him, it is not possible for the base and the label to appear as mixed. Geshela is saying that the refuted object is like a cover. The base is there then the refuted object is on top of that. It is not oneness with the base, not mixed. But I think that it becomes different like this.

I think what Rinpoche said and what Geshela was saying was, when you do much Vajrasattva meditation, recitation of mantra, prostrations, much purification, mandala offerings, accumulating much merit, by doing those strong preliminary practices, purifying and accumulating extensive merit through the seven limb practice, the practice of correctly devoting oneself to the guru, seeing the essence of the guru as Buddha. As this gets developed, depending on this support in the preliminary practice, the root of the path, the guru practice, the way of devoting to the guru, continual, strong practice of this, then doing the practice of purification, such as Vajrasattva, prostrations and those things, purifying the obstacles to realizing shunyata. I think due to this support, when there is enough support the impression of shunyata that was left in the past is experienced. Like when there are very rich perfect minerals, everything well-organized, and the seed is planted, then it quickly produces the stem.

The conclusion is that when the person recognizes the refuted object, the truly existent “I,” the refuted object of true existence on the “I,” above the “I,” at that moment it may not appear as if it is mixed, as if the base aggregates and the “I” are kind of mixed, indistinguishable. At that time I don’t think so. Then especially after seeing emptiness but before recognizing the refuted object, he doesn’t recognize the true existence that is on “I.” He cannot recognize it as it appears. He can’t recognize it, so the person may perceive or feel that the aggregates are mixed with “I.”

So it is with any objects. When you look at the table, the table is mixed with the base—the table is inside of that, inside the particles, sort of like that. His Holiness’s expression is that the table is kind of inside the base, inside the particles. He expressed it a different way, similar to what His Holiness Ling Rinpoche said, that the base and the label “table” are mixed, indistinguishable. That is the gak.cha, the refuted object. So what I think is that those two teachings are not contradictory—the table appearing as if it existed from its own side and the base and the label “table” appearing as if mixed.

From the beginning, even before we heard teachings on shunyata, even before we met the Buddhadharma, for the perceptions, the table exists from its own side. That is what actually appears but the person doesn’t recognize it that way, so in the beginning, since he doesn’t recognize the refuted object on the table, he doesn’t recognize the refuted object of true existence, and for that person it seems mixed. The base and the label “table” are mixed.

You see, there is no blue snow mountain but, due to your perception, due to your defective senses, it appears blue or yellow. One sees the snow mountain. Then later, when the disease is recovered there is a truly existent white snow mountain, kind of like that.

So on these aggregates, the “I” that you point out, that you feel inside the chest, as if you have something there, a real “I” appears, existing from its own side: this is empty. “I” is empty. So when you actually realize that “I” is empty of existing from its own side on these aggregates, “I,” on the aggregates, first of all appears as truly existing, like a water bubble arising. So on top of that you point out the “I” that is empty. So when you realize, see the “I” as completely empty on the aggregates, completely, completely, the whole point of the “I” completely became empty. The “I” existing from its own side became completely empty, became completely empty just right there.

Then, by realizing this, by having this experience, the understanding comes. Realizing that the “I” is empty is a cause, and the result comes. What you understand is that “I” exists on the aggregates under the control of name. What comes without choice is that “I exist on the aggregates.” In experience “I” exists on these aggregates, without choice, under the control of name. So strongly, so powerfully, the thought that “I exist on the aggregates” comes.

By realizing emptiness, that cause, no matter how much you try to reject that “I” exists, there is no choice, no choice at all—the definite understanding that “I” exists on these aggregates under the control of name comes so powerfully, so strongly.

I can’t remember exactly the verses from the Three Principal Paths to Enlightenment. In the beginning it says, “Seeing the cause and result of all existence, samsara and nirvana, seeing all this as unbetrayable forever, whenever the [gap in tape] or holds mig.phe de.su, to which the ignorance clings, focuses—whenever this object is completely dissolved, that person has entered the path that pleases the Buddha.” That is the first one, seeing that the “I” is empty.

[Break in tape]

Lama Tsongkhapa says the definition of having realized shunyata, the definition of having finished analyzing the right view is when one sees, without alternative, without separation, one sees as together, unified—unbetrayable dependent arising and the object of ignorance, what ignorance holds, becoming empty. At that time analyzing the right view is finished.

What Lama Tsongkhapa is saying is that whenever, on the aggregates, you don’t find confusion, you don’t find separation; when you accept that “I” exists on the aggregates, that there is an “I,” you cannot accept that “I” is empty of existing from its own side; you can’t accept that. When you accept the absolute nature of “I,” that “I” is empty of existing from its own side; when you accept that there is no existence from its own side, you cannot accept that on the aggregates, on this base, the “I” exists. When you accept the other, that “I” doesn’t exist from its own side; when you accept that “I” is empty of existing from its own side, when you accept that, on the aggregates, you can’t accept that “I” exists. When you accept that “I” exists on these aggregates, you can’t accept the absolute nature of “I,” that “I” is empty of existing from its own side. You can’t accept it.

So without finding this separation or contradiction on one base, the aggregates, you see as unified. You see that the “I” that appears as existing from its own side is empty of existing from its own side but “I” is existing. You see, “I” exists but the “I” that appears to exist from its own side is empty—those two are unified. Dependent arising, dependent on the aggregates, dependent arising—because the “I” is empty on the aggregates, empty of existing from its own side, from that emptiness “I” exists. Because “I” is empty of existing from its own side…

[Break in tape]

…“I” exists. You see, “I’s” existence came from emptiness. Or another way of saying, because it is empty of existing from its own side it exists, on the aggregates. “I” exists on the aggregates because it is empty of existing from its own side. These have the same meaning. By depending on the emptiness, from the emptiness “I” exists, unbetrayable. Because it is empty of existing from its own side it is unbetrayable that “I” exists on the aggregates. It is unbetrayable; as long as there are aggregates, “I” exists.

When the person sees no contradiction between the fact that “I” exists but “I” is empty of existing from its own side, from one base, when they see this, the person has finished analyzing the right view.

When you realize that “I” exists but is completely empty of existing from its own side, you experience the strong definite understanding that “I” exists on the aggregates under the control of name. This comes very powerfully. However much the person tries to reject this, however much he tries to accept the philosophy that “I doesn’t exist,” there is no choice, the experience tells him that “I exists on the aggregates.” That understanding, that realization is very strong, as long as he realizes the incredible emptiness of “I.”

So now that person, as Lama Tsongkhapa explained in the Three Principal Paths to Enlightenment, sees it as unified. There is a continuation of the understanding that “I” doesn’t exist from its own side. There is this understanding, this experience. And there is the understanding of the “I” existing under the control of name on the base, the aggregates. These two things are unified: realizing the “I,” which is merely labeled on the aggregates, is illusory, merely labeled, with the understanding that it is empty from its own side. So the emptiness of “I” and “I”—the absolute truth of “I” and the truth of the all-obscuring mind—those two are unified. The person realizes, the person sees it in that way on that one base, the aggregates. So “I” is empty, and emptiness is “I.”

The second realization, which comes from realizing that “I” is empty, is the realization that “I” exists on the aggregates under the control of name; dependent arising, the base and thought, that is “I.” So emptiness is “I.” “I,” which is empty of existing from its own side, depending on the base and thought—that is “I.” So emptiness is “I.”

I think, in experience, when you first start to realize shunyata, first comes: “I is empty,” and second: “emptiness is I.” I think, relating it to experience, you first realize absolute truth and then realize the truth of the all-obscuring mind. If you relate it like that it is very clear.

I think I will just read this Heart Sutra.

You see, if the “I” that exists is a dependent arising—the thought labeling, dependently arising—the opposite is it being independent, existing from its own side. Therefore the “I” is not independent, not existing from its own side.

“Not existing from its own side” may become clear as we continue the following subjects. As “I” is a dependent arising, “I” is not independent. So therefore, the independent or truly existent “I” is empty. That is the nature of “I,” that emptiness. The base and the thought make “I” exist. Therefore, “I” is not independent, not truly existent. “I” is not an independent “I,” “I” is not a truly existent I. Same meaning. In other words, “I” is empty of independence and true existence, so separately from that “I” cannot exist.

The same thing is that you cannot leave the nature of “I,” emptiness of existing from its own side or independently, separate from “I.” You can’t split the nature of “I” and “I.” If one splits the nature of “I”—empty of existing from its own side—then “I” becomes non-existent on the base. If you separate the nature of “I” from “I,” there is no way that the nature of “I” can exist on the aggregates.

I shall read this one. “In the same way, form is empty, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other then form, form is not other than emptiness. In the same way feeling, recognition, karmic formation and consciousness are all empty.”

Similar to the experience of the “I,” one should relate all other aggregates. One should meditate as they are mentioned here.

“Therefore Shariputra … all the way up to the sphere of mental consciousness.”

The emphasis that I wanted to make is that whenever you hear “emptiness”—whether you understood the unification of emptiness and dependent arising or not—when we recite the Heart Sutra, the main emphasis is that whenever you hear “emptiness,” you shouldn’t think of emptiness as separate from the view of our senses—the way things appear. You shouldn’t think of something else. For example, relating to the “I,” whenever you think “emptiness of I,” you shouldn’t think of something besides the way “I” is appearing now. If you think that emptiness is something besides the way the “I” appears to me now, if you think it is separate, that is an incorrect meditation on shunyata. That is a big mistake. Whenever we talk about emptiness, we should relate it to the sense-objects.

When you talk about “the emptiness of I” it shouldn’t be anything other than the way “I” presently appears to you, otherwise it is not a meditation on shunyata. It is a wrong conception, wrong meditation on shunyata. You cannot realize emptiness. You shouldn’t think of something other than this. The “I” that is appearing now, the aggregates that are appearing now, the smell that is appearing now, the taste that is appearing now, the form—the way these are appearing just this moment, while we are reciting the Heart Sutra. When you are meditating on shunyata, emptiness, you should point out right on top of the sense objects, the way things appear now, so that whatever is appearing now is the refuted object. Perhaps it may not be quite one hundred percent right if somebody is debating, but this can be said from a meditation point of view, because it is more effective for the mind. From the debating side, maybe there would be some mistakes.

Anything that appears to you now, the way things are appearing to you now, right on that. We should not think of anything other than this present view. When we say these words, what we should think of are these sense objects that appear to us right now. Then it is right. They are actually empty, and this is their nature, the nature of the sense objects, and that is the way they exist. So in this way, it is correct meditation when you say the word “emptiness,” what you think is correct, okay?

“There is no ignorance ....... praised the words of the Blessed One.”

[Dedication]

Lecture 7

“At any rate I must achieve the state of omniscient mind for the benefit of all kind mother sentient beings. Therefore I am going to listen to the commentary on the graduated path to enlightenment.” So please listen to the teaching by generating at least the creative bodhicitta.

You see, when you do the meditation on the four analyses, analyzing with the four importances, what is the refuted object?

What I mentioned this morning, what the different lamas said is that having done the analysis of the four important points, after you have finished all the reasons why “I” doesn’t exist separately from the aggregates. When you finish all the quotations and everything from Madhyamaka, or from the root text Tza.wa she.rab, Root Wisdom written by Nagarjuna, after finishing all those quotations there is one “I” that is left there. Way inside there is an “I.” After you have finished all the logic, it is left there. So that is the refuted object. There is a meditator way inside there, doing all these analyses—that is what the refuted object is.

For example, you take a watch and you check its details. “This is not the watch. This is not the watch,” and so forth. Like that, you check the details. You have finished checking, “That is not the watch, that is not the watch,” and so forth, but after that there is a watch that exists from its own side. After you finished all that, there is a real watch from its own side. That is what the refuted object is. Nothing touches the refuted object. If you still see that there is a watch that exists from its own side that is actually what the refuted object is.

Gen Jampa Wangdu, whom many people here might know and many people may not know, was also my guru, from whom I took teachings on “Taking the Essence,” Chu.len. I took this teaching just before Gen Jampa Wangdu passed away. We used to talk about the refuted object and things like that, about shunyata. That is Gen Jampa Wangdu’s advice on the way to recognize the refuted object, if you find it difficult.

Gen Jampa Wangdu is the one who passed on the advice of “taking the essence,” the pill retreat, to the sangha two years ago in Dharamsala, after they finished the Guhyasamaja retreat, after the Dharma Celebration.

After Lama Yeshe passed away in America I thought to return to Dharamsala. His Holiness the Dalai Lama was giving teachings on the eight commentaries of lam-rim. I think one day was the bodhisattva ordination day and early the next day there was going to be the long-life puja for His Holiness. I took Gen by jeep up and down for two or three days. I didn’t have much time to go to Geshe-la’s room to speak, except Gen Jampa Wangdu came to Tushita. On the day of the bodhisattva ordination, Gen Rinpoche took the aspect—I think outside people could not see much, because he was still kind of healthy, so when I asked, “How are you today?”, Gen Jampa Wangdu said very quietly, “I got worse today”; very quietly. So I told Gen-la that for this heavy disease the best thing is to go to big hospitals. Just Tibetans may not take the responsibility. Maybe the best thing is the large hospitals. But Gen Jampa Wangdu would never accept to go to the hospital unless he was advised to do so by the private orders of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, no matter how heavy a sickness there was.

I had planned to ask the private office about this, to mention it. I didn’t expect that Gen Jampa Wangdu would pass away the next day, I didn’t know exactly. I think in the past, one or two years back, for two or three months, Gen Jampa Wangdu was taking the aspect of having pain in the legs and he had to use sticks. I think many weeks later finally the private office found out. Somebody must have mentioned it to His Holiness. Then His Holiness gave the advice that Geshe-la should go to Ludhiana hospital. The private office sent a translator with Geshe-la and took him down to have treatment in Ludhiana hospital. I think they did some surgery or something like that.

Geshe Wangdu explained to me how his mind was happy during that time. Gen Rinpoche said that, “I had much pain in my legs, but my mind was extremely happy, so happy.” This shows that he was well-trained in Mahayana thought transformation practice.

Once we were taking teachings from His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the lam.rim that has four commentaries. There was much rain. On the cement steps outside the private office, which were wet because of rain, Geshe-la slipped and fell down. Geshe Wangdu said that when he fell down on the cement floor he felt incredible bliss. Actually his head banged on the cement steps, but the experience was incredible bliss. Then Geshela stood up, and there was something running out, so he did like this and blood came out. I didn’t see it, but I think his Holiness prayed and immediately the blood stopped. He breathed on it, blew. Then His Holiness’ advice was to go immediately to the nursing school, which has a doctor, to have treatment.

Among the meditators in Dharamsala or Dalhousie Gen Jampa Wangdu was one of the…

[Break in tape]

At one time, His Holiness said that Gen Jampa Wangdu was “…my best friend in the east,” which means, I think, that His Holiness did not find another one who had such success or achievement.

I don’t think Geshe Wangdu had friends—maybe in a hermitage in Dalhousie or Darjeeling some meditators stayed together. Maybe the hermitages are close, so when they went to get water from the stream they met, in the mornings. One other meditator told Gen Jampa Wangdu one morning—I think the other meditator has some experience on the ninth stage of shamatha so he was telling Gen Jampa Wangdu, “I reached such-and-such a stage.” It seemed like quite quick progression.

So after that it was a great loss, coming back from America, a great loss that Gen Jampa Wangdu passed away in Dharamsala. He was extremely beneficial for the Western students who lived around Tushita in Dharamsala. He was the best, most inspiring example. If there were any problems in the practice, if they were not sure whether they were making mistakes, what is right experience and wrong experience, always there was somebody there who was a reliable, well experienced teacher that they could go to ask if there were any problems. Extremely beneficial.

Geshe Wangdu didn’t have a reputation as a learned geshe or any kind of expert, or a Lharampa degree or anything, or having done extensive studies on the five root texts of sutra—he didn’t have such things. He didn’t have a story like this, but he had the experience of the very essential path, the essence, the very essential teaching, the most important thing; he had the experience of the essential path.

Even before I took the advice of “taking the pill,” also for Lama, the best time was when Gen Jampa Wangdu comes to Tushita. It was the best party or the best time. You could hear a lot of information about other practitioners. There was very good gossip. It doesn’t develop the delusions, but it inspires the practice, only inspiring the practice of lam-rim. It only inspires to practice controlling the mind, rather than the mind becoming confused. So also Lama’s best time is when Gen Jampa Wangdu comes, this is the best time to joke. Gen Jampa Wangdu jokes with Lama, puts down Lama, and Lama puts him down.

Lama was joking with Gen Jampa Wangdu, “For you people who stay in the caves with nothing, it is so difficult to practice Dharma. I practice Dharma by having everything.” Lama joked with Gen Jampa Wangdu, “The whole world comes to me.” He put down other ascetic meditators. “But,” Lama used to say, “You, I like; you stayed being content, leading a contented life, therefore I like you.” Gen Jampa Wangdu used to make jokes to Lama, saying, “Having so many things is a cause of miserliness, and if you have more things, more attachment arises.”

So often, when we are thinking or talking about Gen Jampa Wangdu, he just appears, he just comes. Gen Jampa Wangdu is like this. When some friend or somebody is having a very hard time, sick, almost dying or something then, even though it is quite far, and nobody tells Gen Jampa Wangdu, suddenly the thought of that person comes. This is what Gen Jampa Wangdu told me: “I was doing something, but the thought of that person came very strongly, and something suddenly made me go see that person.” That happened many times, Gen Jampa Wangdu told me. So he goes to see that person and gives advice or whatever the person needs, according to the person’s problem. Many times Gen Jampa Wangdu comes like this. Whenever you think in the mind that you want to see him or something, suddenly he shows up. Then sometimes he used to bring two or three fruits.

For many years somehow, also Gen Jampa Wangdu likes us very, very much. He didn’t go to the pujas at other people’s houses, but when we had to do pujas Gen Jampa Wangdu used to accept. The point that I was going to tell is this—when Lama was there, and when I was there the last time, quite recently, Gen Jampa Wangdu brought three small fruits, oranges. Then, I don’t know what the cause of this conversation was but Gen Jampa Wangdu checked back, “Did I go to other people to ask for something for myself?” He checked back and he didn’t find that he went to see other people asking for help for himself.

Geshe-la said, “Perhaps six years ago.” It was six or seven years since he last went to others to ask for help for himself. Seven or six years, I don’t remember one hundred percent. One day Gen Jampa Wangdu checked back whether he went to see any people for himself, which means with self-cherishing thought. He could not remember anything since about six years ago. The number of years was six or seven, I don’t remember. Isn’t that amazing?

I am sure also you don’t remember, many of you might be the same. Since many years you don’t remember asking other people to do something for yourself. Anyway, it is very inspiring. It doesn’t mean that Gen Jampa Wangdu didn’t go to see other people, other monks in the hermitages—it doesn’t mean that Gen Jampa Wangdu stayed in the hermitage without going out. What Gen Jampa Wangdu was talking about is the motive, the attitude. It means, in the general view, that for six or seven years there was nothing for himself, which means that no action was done out of selfish attitude. That is what it means. That is what was mentioned before.

The way this story started, when we were discussing shunyata, was that Gen Jampa Wangdu used to give this example of a vase. After you check the vase, deeply analyzing the four important points, even after finishing, there is a vase that exists from its own side. Gen Jampa Wangdu said, “This is what I think the refuted object is.” That is profound advice, touching the right point.

Normally we do the analysis, but the “I” existing from its own side, the refuted object is left there all the time—we never touch that. As I mentioned yesterday, we never think that is what we should examine, this “I” that we feel inside, as a subject. We never think that is the “I” that one should realize as empty. We don’t think. When we do the analysis we think something else; what to realize as empty, what to search for is something else, something else. Then it becomes just repeating the words of the analysis over and over, like reciting a prayer.

If there is a fear inside, “This cannot be the “I” to realize as empty. If you search this and if you realize this is empty, then the “I” ceases, the “I” stops,” one feels like that. Changya Rolpai Dorje, one extremely highly realized lama—I think it is said in some teachings that this lama is the one who when, the second time, the whole world is conquered by barbarians from China or something, then there will be a Shambhala war, that time, this Lama Changya Rolpai Dorje, as a commander or general, will kill the head of the barbarians, who started the whole thing from the East, from China. During the Shambhala war, Changya Rolpai Dorje will be a general and kill the head of the barbarians with a spear, or something like that.

During that time of much anger, the Kalachakra teachings will spread. Those bodhisattvas will be soldiers of the army during the fighting but after that they will give teachings. During the fighting, I guess, they will be in the army form, but when that is finished they give teachings.

Changya Rolpai Dorje said in the teachings on shunyata—I don’t know how to say it, but I think what it means is “truly existent.” In Tibetan terms it is ling ling, kind of slang. It seems that the truly existent appearance is left just there, right at that place, and what you are seeking to refute grows horns. What you are seeking to refute is something that has horns. Horns?

Chuck: A rabbit?

Rinpoche: Yes, that is the actual meaning. Having horns means—actually, that is not the meaning, because there are no horns on the rabbit. The horn on the rabbit is a very, very common example in debate. “Flower in the sky,” “horn on the rabbit,” but I don’t know whether you can say since it is a rabbit it doesn’t have horns at all. You don’t see all the rabbits on this earth. Like some human beings have horns and tails, so it is possible. So why not a rabbit? But what the learned ones are talking about is the rabbit that doesn’t have horns.

Anyway, “In the face of the mother who is separated from the obscurations, it doesn’t seem that there is this truly existent appearance.” I think “mother” means shunyata. The whole existence of nirvana and samsara comes from shunyata, as I mentioned. I gave the example, the reason “I” exists is because “I” is empty of true existence. That is why “I” exists. What makes “I” empty of true existence is that “I” is dependent on base and thought. They make “I” exist. The thought labeling makes “I,” that is the way “I” exists. So “I” is dependent. If “I” is not empty of independent or true existence, there is no way that “I” can exist.

So like this, similarly, all samsara and nirvana, all existence comes from shunyata. The reason it is called “mother,” the reason Changya Rolpai Dorje calls it “mother” is because everything comes from shunyata. Like the similar explanation of the mother tantra practice, this vow of left side conduct—I think it has a similar explanation.

“In the face of the mother, who is separated from the obscuration, it doesn’t seem that there is the truly existent appearance.” You see, when you meditate on the infallible emptiness, for example on the “I,” during that time there is no appearance of “I.” Relating to us sentient beings, during those times as there is no appearance of “I,” there is no truly existent “I,” that doesn’t happen. As there is no appearance of the “I,” there is no appearance of the true existence; there is no truly existent appearance. While one is concentrating on the emptiness of the “I,” during that time there is no appearance of the “I.”

There should not be any thought, “I am meditating on I,” while meditating on the emptiness of “I.” During that time there is no appearance of “I.” “I am meditating on shunyata,” any thought, does not arise—not even thinking that this is… anyway. So there is no truly existent appearance of the “I.” That is the meaning of this verse.

“If you talk too much without knowing the right point, there is the danger of the old mother escaping.” You see, you talk much about all the logic, what is explained in the Madhyamaka, things being non-truly existent, you talk so much how one must refute the truly existent object, debating, talking so much, but you have not recognized the refuted object, “I,” yourself, which you call “me,” what you point out as “me.” “Somebody is treating me badly, somebody is criticizing me, somebody is helping me, somebody loves me.” This “me”—“I got angry, I am happy, I don’t like this, I like this.” This “I,” which is appearing as truly existent, is left there, as if this were the one that really exists in reality.

It is left there, nothing touches it. If you do analysis there is a danger of that. It is completely contradictory—if you analyze the one that cuts off the root of the danger, then there is the danger that you lose yourself. So you see, the appearance of all the six sense objects, nothing touches that, it is left as it is. The sound of coughing, all this, the noise of the birds, the smell, the appearance of the place, the people, feelings of rough and soft, all the appearances of the six sense objects are left as they are. Nothing touches them, there is not even doubt. Then you debate so much and talk about “non-truly existent” and “refuted object” and this and that, so much.

Similarly, we meditate but without touching anything that is “me,” that which you point out as “me,” the aggregates, the self and the present appearance of the six sense objects. Even meditating on the refuted object and all that, using all the logic, what Changya Rolpai Dorje says is if you talk too much, without knowing the right point, “There is the danger that the old mother may escape.” This means that nothing touched these things, they are left as they are, all the truly existent views, thinking that the refuted object is something else. We debate, we talk about it, and we meditate on it. In this way, “There is the danger for the old mother to escape,” which could mean falling into nihilism; it could also mean that. When you fall into nihilism, you cannot realize shunyata, you cannot see emptiness.

As long as you don’t touch, analyze or even doubt the “I,” the doer, the present existent object, then it’s just words. “Going to meditate on shunyata” is just words. The words are correct because you studied from the scriptures, but your way of thinking is wrong. Actually, the inner understanding is wrong. That’s the meaning of this. You can say the words but you don’t have the recognition. So you see in that way you cannot realize shunyata.

If you do the analysis and get at least a little doubt about the doer, and about the appearance of the six-sense objects; if you do the analyses right on top of using all the logic you know, and then meditate on emptiness. If you use the word “emptiness,” on these things, then even just doubt about it. When you read the Heart Sutra, empty this and that, you apply this to the present appearance of “I”, then at least some fear arises. At least, when you read the Heart Sutra, at least there should be some experience like this. Doubt, fear—that means your meditation, your way of thinking is correct. It’s hitting the point, the object of ignorance.

You see, why is there fear? Because we believe we have nothing other than this to believe in. From beginningless lives until now we have had no “I” other than the truly existent “I.” What appears to us and what we cling to is no other than the truly existent “I,” no other than the truly existent body, no other than the truly existent smell. No other smell besides the truly existent smell. No taste other than the truly existent taste. No form other than the truly existent form. From beginningless lifetimes so far, this is what has been appearing and this is what we have believed: if things and “I” exist, they should be truly existent, otherwise they don’t exist, that is how it is. That is why, when you get doubt right on top of the truly existent appearance, fear comes.

You see, this has been the way of our lives from beginningless lifetimes. Existing things appear only in a hallucinating, illusive way and then the way of believing is only in the hallucination. In this way you can see and feel very clearly what Lama Tsongkhapa said in The Three Principal Paths, the path of bodhicitta. You can see very clearly that we are trapped in the iron net of the dag.dzin, clinging to “I” as truly existent. We are trapped in the iron net, the iron cage of the wrong conception of the truly existent “I.” In this way, what Lama Tsongkhapa expresses becomes real—you can see very clearly that it is completely true.

In this way the old mother doesn’t run away. You become close to meeting the old mother, shunyata. It is said by Panchen Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen, who put together Lama Chöpa, the Guru Puja text, “By training the mind like that, whatever appears as the object of the six consciousnesses, realizing well the way that things are appearing, the actual reality will appear naturally.” What he is saying is they way the objects of the six sense consciousnesses appear—which means the truly existent appearance, the refuted object—if you analyze well and recognize this appearance, the refuted object, which is actually empty, the emptiness of the object appears without choice. For example, objects of the eye consciousness. Actually it is a bush but from a distance you see it as a person, when you walk outside at dusk. It is a bush but from far away you see it as a person. When you come nearby or when you are told by another person, after checking whether there is a real person there or not, the appearance of a person naturally becomes empty. Asking other people or yourself going near, naturally there is the emptiness of that person. There is no person, it is a bush. There is no snake on the piece of rope at dusk time. If you put a light on that rope or you get nearer, the actual reality appears naturally, which is emptiness.

So Panchen Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen is saying that this is the importance of the right view. To recognize whatever appears to the object of the six consciousnesses is the importance of right view. The whole thing, realizing shunyata, is dependent on this very first one—recognizing whatever things appear.

Furthermore, Panchen Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen is saying, in short, one’s own mind, “I,” the mind and any other existence, whatever appears, don’t cling to it, don’t cling. It means this—right now to think that this “I,” self or doer doesn’t exist, to think that these objects of the consciousness don’t exist. If you say these words, the words themselves are not correct. What I am saying is, saying “I don’t exist” and that “the objects of the consciousness don’t exist” is not correct—according to the words it is not correct. But related to our experience it is very effective to think in this way; relating to our level of mind, to think this way, if you don’t know so much. Those meditators who experience shunyata, who actually realize shunyata, sometimes give the answer in this way. That meditator thinks that the table not existing itself is emptiness or shunyata—the emptiness of the table. But you see, he is relating it to his own experience. If you debate, just the words themselves are not correct, not right—you can debate a lot. But for a certain meditator’s level of mind, for those of us who don’t recognize the refuted object, who have no idea what the refuted object is and don’t recognize it, this way is effective. We are not talking about which words are correct or not according to the teaching, we are talking about it in terms of effectiveness for the mind, to destroy the wrong conceptions of true existence; in terms of the benefit and effectiveness for the mind, to break the wrong view.

It is like the example that for some people everything is created by God. This benefits that mind more, to think that everything is created by God, everything is created by somebody else. For that person it makes more sense, it is more beneficial, and he cares more, because everything was created by God, by somebody, so you have to listen to him. If you don’t listen, if you don’t do what he says, then you will get punished. So you should practice the ten commandments, the ten virtuous actions, the moral conduct. Then that person practices moral conduct, not harming others. In that way this person creates the thought of loving kindness and compassion for others. Even if the person doesn’t have the motivation of the lower capable being, middle capable being or higher capable being, even if he doesn’t know about the different levels of motivation, he stops a certain number of actions that harm others. Stealing, which harms others; killing, which harms others; sexual misconduct, which creates disharmony for others; he stops these many harmful actions, which are harmful to him and others. So at least there is peace for others, for the people around where this person lives. Even though there is not a creator, somebody creating the whole thing, creating you and creating everything, even though this is completely wrong in reality, it is very beneficial for many people.

I am forgetting… so he says, “Don’t cling, don’t cling.” By thinking of dependent arising, practicing the awareness that this “I” is merely labeled, the aggregates are merely labeled, these people are merely labeled, these human beings are merely labeled and noises, kaka, birds and dogs and all those things are also merely labeled, existing as merely labeled.

Like this, practice the awareness that you and all the objects of consciousness are merely labeled, dependent arising, by thinking of the meaning of dependent arising. Not just throwing around the words “dependent arising” but thinking about the meaning of it. This way you don’t cling—you think that it is dependent arising, merely labeled, and then the truly existent appearance becomes weaker. The clinging to that becomes weaker. In one way, think like this. The way Panchen Lobsang Gyaltsen says to not cling to appearance is to practice dependent arising.

Another way is to think, “I am dreaming.” He explained that if you don’t know how to meditate on shunyata, then look at things, your life, or subject, object, action as a dream. If you don’t know how to meditate on shunyata, then meditate on it as a dream. Practice concentration, the awareness that “I” and the objects of the six consciousnesses—all this is a dream. When some other people are talking about dreams to you, about doing a meditation course at Kopan, when you are having a dream about doing a course at Kopan like this, when you talk about it and when other people hear about your dream, when you are talking, sometimes there could be the thought that it is not real. At the same time there is the awareness that it is not real. When other people listen to the dream, when you talk about dreams—either something very dangerous or something very pleasant, that you went to parties or you had a fantastic car that your friend gave you, and you rode on the very nice mountains or something, found a million dollars—there is the awareness that it is not real.

So bring that dream onto yourself and onto the appearance. Do one-pointed concentration just on that, a dream. Just simply like that. You are not using the words “refuted object,” or “truly existent,” but it fits—things don’t appear as something different from true existence, so therefore, even though you say that these things do not exist, that these things are a dream, I think, it comes to the same conclusion. Then some fear arises, because this is something you have believed one hundred percent so far and now there is doubt in your view. That is what is needed. That is what is supposed to happen. That is the way to lead to shunyata, emptiness.

[Dedication]

So tonight maybe we can do this last part: that you are dreaming of doing a meditation course at Kopan. You may find there is not Kopan. Kopan is empty, empty Jon Landaw, empty Lama Zopa, empty you, empty discussion, empty teachings.

Thank you!

Lecture 8

Please listen to the teaching by generating at least the creative bodhicitta, thinking, “At any rate I must achieve the state of omniscient mind for the benefit of all kind mother sentient beings. Therefore I am going to listen to the commentary on the graduated path to enlightenment.”

By going over some quotations of the different highly realized lamas of Tibet, some of the work of Lama Tsongkhapa’s disciples, the teachings taught with their experience, each word has much taste and has much importance to express. Just reading it gives one a clear experience or, even if it is a few words, since it is spoken with the experience of having found the infallible right view, just to go over or just to read it or think about the words is very effective for the mind.

So Lama Togden Rinpoche gave this teaching, “The wonderful method to realize the refuted object, to have a definite understanding of the refuted object, is said from the advice of the great pandit tutor, Yeshe Gyaltsen.” I think Yeshe Gyaltsen was the tutor of the Eighth Dalai Lama. This advice comes from ear to ear, from Lama Tsongkhapa, from ear to ear of those great, highly realized lamas. What is said is, “Understanding that the person, kang.sa, is merely labeled by thought…” Sometimes it is hard to translate tak.yo, labeled existence? Tak is labeled—tak.yo, a very tasty word. The way the “I” exists is as tak, labeled, and yo, existing. Labeled existence? That is not correct English?

Jon: You can say it, Rinpoche.

Rinpoche: Out of compassion, even though it is not correct (laughs), what?

Student: (unclear) …imputed existence.

Rinpoche: Oh, imputed existence, that is the same. Imputed existence. The person is thought, the person is tak.yo, imputed existence—what he is saying here is that it is not only labeled, not just labeled, but merely labeled on the aggregates, not just imputed existence.

It could have a different meaning, it could have a different explanation in different schools, in the lower schools—in the Mind Only School and the Svatantrika, it could have a different meaning. However, in the higher Prasangika, imputed existence is not just labeled, not just existent by thought labeling but by thought merely labeling on the aggregates. So the person, in the Prasangika School or in reality, is imputed existence, and not just that but merely imputed existence. “Lama Zopa” or “George” or “Paul” or “Pam” or “Dick” or “Janne,” the whole thing is tak.yo—imputed existence and even that is merely imputed existence.

It is similar with the things in the supermarket, everything that you see in the supermarket, all the different stuff in the supermarket are tak.yo, merely imputed existence on the base that is a certain color or shape. The thought of the people who buy them and of the people in the factory who make these things, and of the people who see these things is merely imputed on those things. Such and such a person, what other people call oneself, what one calls others, the person to whom we are so attached, the person with whom we get so angry, “he” or “she” or “George” or “Roger” or something, the person with whom one gets so angry or to whom one gets so attached—all this in reality is imputed existence, merely imputed existence. As well as this, every single and all existence, samsara and nirvana, is merely imputed existence.

Yeshe Gyaltsen is saying, “Realize the person is the imputed existence of the thought, merely labeled.” The reason he is saying “of” is because tak, imputed existence is different labels. The imputed existence of the thought, merely labeled. “This is the best method to generate the right view realizing the selflessness of the person or the absolute truth of I.” The conclusion of what Yeshe Gyaltsen is saying, advising us is that the best way, without danger, to realize the infallible right view—without falling into the extremes of nihilism and eternalism—the best meditation technique is to meditate on dependent arising, how things exist, having the understanding as much as possible of how things are tak.yo, merely imputed existence, dependent arising.

In this way, meditating how things are merely labeled by thought on the aggregates, by training the mind in dependent arising, the way to shunyata, also one is able to recognize the refuted object quickly and more and more clearly. It becomes clearer and clearer for that person. As I mentioned yesterday, once one has recognized the infallible refuted object, there is no danger of falling into nihilism. But, I think, if the person doesn’t have complete understanding; if the person didn’t do extensive listening to Madhyamaka, shunyata; hasn’t studied in full, and doesn’t have enough information, no extensive logic of Madhyamaka or the Root Wisdom, written by Nagarjuna, but somehow having the complete teaching on shunyata, even condensed in regards the experience of shunyata. Even for one who has only half understanding of shunyata it could be possible that when he has recognized the refuted object, he did so very strongly. While he was doing very strong preliminary practices such as Vajrasattva mantras, prostrations, and many other things, and also the guru yoga meditation—the way of devoting to the guru, doing the meditations on the lam-rim developing very strong devotion that the essence of the guru is Buddha—then due to some teachings, due to one or two words from the guru’s advice that express the refuted object, that are spoken by the lineage lamas, the lam-rimpas, one recognizes the refuted object.

Either start from outside, from the refuted object on the material—from the very beginning on the “I” or outside on the object. Then especially, colors. They are kind of an easy example because they are so bright to you. The blue color is so strong, blue from its own side; red color, red from its own side. They are strong, in some ways, if you look at this color of the brocade, like when you look at the sunlight you are one hundred percent sure, so strong is the appearance that they are existing from their own side. When you look at the sky, the tangkas, with these bright colors, like that, it is very easy to recognize the refuted object.

However, depending on the person, he either starts to recognize the refuted object on the “I” or on the outside object. If the person is able to recognize the refuted object on outside material then he can immediately relate it to “I.” Immediately, right after that he is able to recognize the refuted object on the “I.” Then, as soon as you know that this is what doesn’t exist, this is what is empty—immediately it cannot stay, it cannot support itself, it cannot stay by itself. As you recognize that this is what doesn’t exist, there is no choice—it cannot stay by itself. Also by using the logic of dependent arising it cannot stay by itself.

So right there, where the “I” appears it becomes empty. It becomes empty of existing from its own side; it became empty right there. If you don’t have the full teachings on lam-rim or shunyata, about the complete experience, you may think that even though what you are experiencing is correct, the “I” has become completely empty. If you go through the fear, if you let it be complete, let the experience of losing the “I” happen, then one sees or realizes the absolute truth of the “I.” One is able to find the infallible right view, what Shakyamuni Buddha and Lama Tsongkhapa have realized, what made them liberated from samsara and what made them have this capability, the perfect power to guide and liberate sentient beings from suffering and with experience reveal the teachings. It is extremely important; you are accomplishing something that makes samsaric fear end, which makes your samsara have an end. This is something that didn’t happen from one’s own beginningless samsaric rebirth so far. It is happening now, a great achievement.

But then, because you have no teaching on shunyata, you don’t have the complete teaching on shunyata, when you have those experiences you think, “I am falling into nihilism, shunyata might be something else. The right view of shunyata might be something else.” You think it is something else. “This is too much!” What is happening there is too much, so shunyata might be something else, because the fear arises. Because it is a new experience, one you never had before: the “I” became completely empty, losing the “I” completely, the self. You didn’t know about it before, this experience, why it is happening—either you didn’t hear or you didn’t know, so then that is one reason that fear arises.

It is said in the mahamudra teachings by one lama, Kelsang Rinpoche, “When you have this experience, why you feel the ‘I,’ the self itself, become completely empty, lost, as if there is no doer of the action, no doer or meditator, like the doer or meditator is completely lost, that shows that there is no true existence on the ‘I,’ it is a proof that there is no true existence on the ‘I.’ Even though you experience it like that, as if the ‘I’ has ceased, stopped or become empty, it is not realizing that ‘I’ is non-existent, it is not realizing that ‘I’ doesn’t exist.” That is what this lama said in the mahamudra teachings, “It is not realizing that ‘I’ is non-existent.”

You see, even if the person doesn’t have half his body, still there is the base, the aggregates, so “I” exists. Even if there is no body at all, no aggregate of the physical, even if there is only the consciousness left, only the fifth aggregate, the consciousness exists. The aggregate of the consciousness exists, so there is “I.” The reason there is “I,” the reason there is self, is that before this life, the stream of this consciousness entered and migrated into a dog’s body, so the previous life’s “I” existed on that aggregate. Then that body was left at death-time while the consciousness continued. That is how “I” left the dog body—the consciousness took the intermediate state being’s body, the intermediate state being of this human life. The consciousness left the dog body and migrated into the intermediate state being’s body.

So there is continual consciousness and therefore there is continual “I.” The consciousness didn’t stop so the continuation of “I” didn’t stop. So then again the consciousness migrated to a human body and entered the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb, which is the continuation of this present body, the fertilized egg. So there is continual consciousness, and therefore there is the continual “I.” So the previous life’s “I” was a dog, but this life’s “I” is a human being. There is no other reason for this than that the consciousness has taken a different body. It is according to the aggregates. The continuation of consciousness didn’t have beginning, so the continuation of “I,” which exists on the continuation of the consciousness being merely labeled, also didn’t have beginning. So this stream of consciousness, this gross consciousness doesn’t go to enlightenment, but…

[break in tape]

…even animals, even us, even ordinary people who are not meditating on tantra, when death comes, when the white vision, red vision and dark vision happen, the consciousness becomes more subtle. Then clear light happens, and it is much more subtle, then the most subtle. So when the gross consciousness starts leaving at death time, nothing can make the person come back. After the clear light the three visions happen in reverse order and gross consciousness starts again. This is similar to rebirth time—in the intermediate stage of entering the womb, during that time of rebirth, the consciousness takes place on the egg and again the same thing happens. Then again the gross consciousness starts, and becomes more and more gross after the three visions.

What goes to enlightenment is the subtle consciousness. Therefore, even when you become enlightened, the continuation of “I” that exists on the aggregates, on the stream of consciousness being merely labeled, it does not cease. “I” does not cease. As the stream of consciousness goes to enlightenment, the subtle consciousness goes to dharmakaya, and when it reaches dharmakaya there is the continuation of this “I.” As there is the continuation of this consciousness, as there is this stream of this consciousness, subtle mind, the subtle consciousness, therefore… and Buddha does the work until every sentient being becomes enlightened. After one has achieved enlightenment then one does the work until samsara ends, until every sentient being has become enlightened. So the stream of consciousness has no time. You can use this reason: the subtle consciousness has many seconds, many hours—and one second of the subtle consciousness depends on the previous second’s subtle consciousness and that is dependent on the next second of consciousness. The previous subtle consciousness causes this one, benefits this one, and how it benefits is by resulting in this one. The definition of a cause is one that benefits, so it benefits the next second of consciousness, and results in this.

This exists by being under the control of this cause, so this exists. Like that it continues. The gross consciousness ceased while you were training in the second stage of tantra, like death-time, in the equipoise meditation when the yogi of the secret Maha-anuttarayoga Tantra path meditated on the clear light. So anyway, how can the subtle consciousness be stopped? You just think about that. What makes it stop? The nature of that is that without practicing the Maha-anuttarayoga Tantra path, it only stops temporarily at death time, especially during clear light. During that time it stops, and then again it is experienced after that, because of the previous impressions. Previous impressions are left on the consciousness, so again it is experienced. The gross consciousness arises.

There is no end to the consciousness so there is no end to “I.” If the consciousness ceases completely, completely ends, then the continuation of “I” ends. As long as there is consciousness existing, there is no way that “I” ceases. You are thinking that the “I” is something “I am losing.” As if the “I” is ending, kind of ceasing. That is just an experience. The reason that “I” is not ceasing is that there is consciousness. There is the consciousness, there is the aggregate, the mind, and that is scared that “I” is lost. The mind is afraid that “I” is lost, that you are lost. There is the base, mind. If your past lives’ bodies were kept, either in church or Switzerland, was it in Switzerland? In England, I think. It could be possible. In England there is an old graveyard. I went to see it. I think it is recently opened. It is old, where they kept bodies. I think they don’t allow tourists to come, but it recently opened in England—the London Manjushri Centre people took us there. There was a crowd of people coming to see it on that day. I think maybe it was open two times a week. There was a crowd of people coming to see it. There is a whole place with coffins containing bodies, but it looks very old. I think the names are written on the side of the coffins. I heard you still could see the bodies there in the coffins. They were cleaning, a man was washing them. I don’t mean cleaning inside, the body, but just outside. There were crowds of tourists coming and one person was explaining—like in the tourist place there is a guide who explains. There is a story of the person or whatever it is; I think he was explaining all the important ones around there.

So if the human body or the animal body has been kept—let’s say it has been kept. There is the body, you recognize it. Either you know, or other people explain this, those who know that that is your body. You wouldn’t say, “This is me.” You wouldn’t say, pointing at the body of a dog, “This is me.” You would say, “This is my past life’s body,” whatever that body was. But you wouldn’t say, “This is me.”

Other people, when the father is dead, when you come to the funeral or the house after the consciousness has separated from its body, you won’t say, “Oh, I met father.” You won’t say, “I met father at the house.” You would say, “I saw father’s body,” but you wouldn’t say, “Oh, I met father at the funeral.” Then, in that case, if there are too much problems in the life, they could go much earlier into the coffin, very easily. If the father was still able to be in the coffin at the cemetery, if the father still could live there in the coffin, with the flowers around, he doesn’t need to wait until the consciousness separates. Anyway, my conclusion is this: because your consciousness has migrated into a human body, your consciousness is not with that previous life’s dog body or that human body. You don’t point out “me,” and other people don’t point out, “This is yourself.” We only say, “This is your past life’s body.” So mainly, from the body and mind and the consciousness, the base, the aggregates on which the “I” always exists you can see is the stream of consciousness. Body and mind, and among those, mind.

Anyway, when you have this experience, the “I” appearing as completely lost, it means that there is no true existence of the “I.” There is no truly existent “I.” Even though there is the appearance of “I,” the experience or appearance as if the “I” is completely lost, it is not that “I” became non- existent, it is not realizing that “I” is non-existent. There is no way to realize that “I” is non-existent, because “I” exists. “I exist on the aggregates. I exist.” Why? Because the aggregates are existing. As I mentioned just before, whenever the consciousness migrates to a different body, “I” exists on that, being merely labeled by thought.

One thing, why the fear arises, I think I mentioned this yesterday—it is said in the lam-rim teachings and, I think, also in Madhyamaka, that when the highly intelligent bodhisattvas realize shunyata, extreme bliss or extreme happiness, great happiness rises. And when the lower intelligent bodhisattvas realize shunyata, then fear arises. Fear arises because we have nothing; we have no other appearance or belief than the truly existent “I.” We have no other appearance to believe in, no other than the truly existent “I,” nothing except the truly existent “I”. You got so accustomed, you got so used to it, believing so much in the truly existent “I.” From beginningless lives, there was so much clinging to eternalism, the truly existent “I,” so much clinging to that. Therefore, we cherish this so much and it is so precious, more precious than other sentient beings, so when something happens to this we get fear. So this becomes empty and, for the lower intelligent beings, they are losing something most precious that they have been taking care of as most dear. For the fortunate, higher intelligent beings, it is like receiving some precious thing, some precious treasure. When they see the emptiness of the “I,” great happiness rises, having found some very precious treasure.

Meditate this way, on this basis. If you meditate in this way it is very clear how things are merely labeled, how things exist as merely labeled. You see, a person is called “Dorje.” The couple doesn’t have the baby’s aggregates; the consciousness has not even taken place in the mother’s womb. There is no fertilized egg. But they have the thought to give the name “Dorje” if they have a child. They have the thought to label. Much earlier they have the thought labeling “Dorje,” but they don’t have the child—there are no aggregates, there is no base to be labeled “Dorje,” to point out. They have the thought to label “Dorje,” but there is no Dorje that you can point out. Not in the stomach or outside. There is no way to point out this Dorje, “This is our Dorje.” When the consciousness takes place on the fertilized egg inside, and comes out with a complete body, okay—but now, before the base, even if they have the thought to label Dorje, there is no way Dorje can exist. Dorje doesn’t exist. When they have the thought to label Dorje, without a base they don’t have Dorje to point out. Dorje doesn’t exist.

So now, the baby came out with a complete body. There is the base, but they don’t have a thought labeling “Dorje.” At that time, even if there is a base, Dorje doesn’t exist. You see, before the parents or anybody labeled that baby “Dorje,” before they agreed to label it, before they agreed and labeled “Dorje” on that base, there is no “Dorje” before that. There is no Dorje to point out. “Dorje” doesn’t exist. Before that, Dorje doesn’t exist on that body. Think about this well. Now, after some time, the parents, friends, lama or somebody decides to label “Dorje” on that body. The base is there, so they think one day to label “Dorje” on that base. So now you can see—when you think this way, you can get some idea. “Dorje,” their thought merely labels “Dorje” on this base. Now you can see that “Dorje” exists under the control of name. By the force of thought, Dorje exists on the base.

In this way, if you think well of this example, you can see just from this, above the base of Dorje—this may not be the correct experience, but you should relate it to your experience. The English may not be correct—above the base of Dorje. In this way there is Dorje on the base, there is no Dorje from the base. From the base there is no Dorje! From above the base there is no Dorje but there is Dorje on that base. Dorje exists on that base by the force of the thought, under the control of thought. So if you think well, if you just meditate well on this, you can see that Dorje doesn’t exist from his own side. You get the clear idea of merely labeled; Dorje exists being merely labeled on the base. There is no Dorje other than this, not something else, there’s not anything more than this, merely labeled; nothing other than this.

Those who are happy, unhappy, those who wish to achieve enlightenment, those who are meditating, those who are crying, who are laughing—it looks like something more than what is merely labeled, but it’s not.

However, when Dorje appears in our conception, we are not satisfied that he is merely labeled by thought, but think that there should be something more than that. We are not satisfied with the Dorje that is merely labeled by thought, but think that there should be something more, something real, something real, something more. This is not real. There should be something more, something extra. This is another explanation of the refuted object. We have to realize this as empty. We are satisfied with the Dorje that is merely labeled by the thought on the base, but there is a conception, a belief, that this is not real, that this cannot be, that it is not true. How could it be just merely labeled, the one doing the job and doing all those things? How could it be? How could he exist just like that—his existence should be more than what is merely labeled. It should be more than that. We believe that there is something extra on that.

So that itself, believing that there is something more, that the way that Dorje exists is something more than what is merely labeled, that, which you believe, that itself is the refuted object. That itself is the opposite, contradictory to the absolute truth of Dorje. That is what we realize is a hallucination.

So the example that you should use, as I explained now, is that you should exactly check your name—yourself. “I, Lama Zopa”; meditate like that. You should use the “I,” “I,” on all the aggregates—how they are. Meditate, practice awareness of dependent arising, how each of these things exists as merely labeled. There is nothing other than that. There is nothing else, nothing the slightest bit more than what is merely labeled. In the way things exist, there is nothing the slightest bit more than that.

All the five aggregates, “I,” the group of aggregates, then each aggregate, or just the body and mind, starting from “I,” your name, Lama Zopa or whatever one is called, that “I,” everything, the whole base, the whole aggregate—everything is merely labeled. So practice awareness, one-pointed concentration. After you go through one after another, meditate, spend more time on “I,” that I is merely labeled on the aggregates by thought. Spend as long as possible on that awareness. That is extremely important. You see, if one is fortunate, just simply from this you can realize shunyata—just by thinking this. Then, after you go through all of this, practice the awareness of dependent arising of everything. The whole thing is merely labeled. Yes, like this, okay.

[Dedication]

Lecture 9

Please listen to the teaching by generating at least the creative bodhicitta, thinking that “At any rate I must achieve the state of omniscient mind for the benefit of all kind mother sentient beings. Therefore I’m going to listen to the commentary on the graduated path to enlightenment.”

The listening subject is the Mahayana teachings for the fortunate ones to approach enlightenment. These are teachings well-expounded by the great propagators Nagarjuna and Asanga. These are profound teachings, the essence of the understanding, the essence of the holy minds of the incomparable, glorified pandit, Lama Atisha and the Dharma king of the three realms, Lama Tsongkhapa. It is as if the essence of their holy minds has been taken out. In other words, this is the essence of their understanding of the Buddhadharma. It is set up as a gradual practice for one person to achieve enlightenment. There is nothing missing. All the importance of the 84,000 teachings are revealed—the whole teaching that was revealed by Guru Shakyamuni Buddha is contained in the lam-rim teaching. It is set up as a graduated practice for one person to achieve enlightenment.

This lam-rim teaching has four outlines: the qualities of the author in order to show the pure reference of the teaching, and also the qualities of the advice in order to bring up devotion for the teachings. And then, how to listen and how to explain this advice, which has two qualities. Then, how to lead the disciple: the actual advice of the lam-rim teaching to enlightenment, the way of devoting to the guru as the root practice, then the graduated path of the three—the lower capable being, the middle capable being and higher capable being. So this part of the subject is the higher capable being, the great insight.

When you meditate on dependent arising, when you practice awareness on dependent arising, and when your mind gets scattered from that meditation and you watch the “I,” do you find it different? Do you find that the way “I” is appearing is different? When your mind is distracted and comes back and when you look at the “I,” after the dependent arising? If you find that something is different while you are practicing awareness that “I” is dependent arising—how the “I” is appearing at that time. Then, when you don’t meditate or when your mind is distracted from the awareness that this “I” is dependent arising. If you find that the “I” is appearing differently, if you recognize it differently, stronger and stronger, while you are meditating on dependent arising—like when you switch on a light in the dark room, when you put on the flashlight, you don’t see the snake, you can’t find the snake at all. The snake that you used to see before doesn’t go anywhere. It doesn’t run into the bushes, it’s not that when you put on the flashlight the snake that you see on the piece of rope that has a certain shape and color at dusk runs away in the bushes or enters the holes of the earth. Where the snake appears, just there, it becomes empty. Like that, when you switch on the light, the darkness in the room doesn’t go anywhere. It doesn’t go to another room. It doesn’t hide in the cupboard, but it becomes empty.

So when you meditate on dependent arising, “I” appears from its own side above the aggregates, then, like throwing an atomic bomb, you use dependent arising right on top of that. That “I,” that emotional “I” appearing from its own side, the real “I,” that which we point out as the real “I,” becomes non-existent just there. Before using dependent-arising it looked like it could be found, but after using dependent-arising right on top of that, you completely see that it completely doesn’t exist, and you see that it is false. By using the logic of dependent arising right on top of that you see more and more that it is false. The more you meditate on dependent arising in a gross way, emptiness is that much—not subtle, not complete; gross right view, not infallible right view; there is something left.

So practicing awareness, as it is said in those quotations, on subtle dependent arising, the imputed existence of what is merely labeled, is extremely important. Subtle dependent arising is what we need. In this way we can recognize the infallible right view. In this way one can realize completely whether there is some existence from the side of “I.” We have the opportunity to realize that it is completely empty. That which appears to exist from its own side is completely empty from its own side.

Even if you meditate on dependent arising, it depends on how you meditate on dependent arising. It is dependent on that. And if you just think about causes and conditions, just the gross way, then shunyata, the refuted object, I think I have mentioned many times what you recognize is gross; and also, what you realize as empty just by gross dependent arising, the emptiness that you realize is not complete, not the Prasangika view. If you find a difference in the appearance of the “I”—that is the purpose of practicing the meditation on dependent arising, that is the purpose. To see the “I” that exists and to realize, to be able to distinguish or to be able to realize the “I” that exists. In other words, you start to realize or start to feel, it gives some idea about the “I” that exists and the “I” that doesn’t exist on the aggregates. It gives some idea, even just from this, even though we haven’t realized completely that the truly existent “I” is empty.

Practice awareness constantly that the “I” exists by depending on the base and thought, just considering that, the meaning of that, without the mind wandering.

Then sometimes you change to other words. Do the same meditation, but make it more subtle. You use different words. “The ‘I’ is merely labeled on the aggregates.” Sometimes just meditate on this, simply in this. Just continue the awareness of this. You see, one who has recognized the refuted object knows what has to be refuted. He knows so immediately, as soon as he looks at the “I,” he sees the truly existent “I” on the aggregates.

To realize shunyata there are many different sets of logic in the Madhyamaka subject, however, the most powerful, essential logic, the king of logic is this. You point out “I,” the base, one existence, such as the “I”—I don’t know how to say cho.chen, the “I,” then true existence appears; on the “I” the refuted object, true existence appears. So “I” is—I think it is translated as “I” is non-truly existent. “I” is or am? What about others’ “I?” Okay. I am non-truly existent.

Or you can do like this—if you have recognized the refuted object, then “I am non-truly existent,” and you just meditate on there. When you say, “I am non-truly existent,” even just by saying these words, if you have recognized the refuted object, then just by that, without need to use the logic of dependent arising; because you know the meaning of “non-truly existent,” besides the words, besides the intellectual understanding, you have the actual understanding from your own experience. So when you say, “I am non-truly existent,” when you say “non-truly existent,” this truly existent “I” immediately becomes empty on the aggregates without the need to use the logic of dependent arising on top of that. Then you can meditate on that emptiness one-pointedly.

It is stronger, of course, for that person who has realized shunyata, who has got at least the infallible understanding of shunyata, the thorough experience. That person doesn’t need to use the logic of dependent arising. By saying “I am non-truly existent,” he doesn’t need to use the logic of dependent arising, to see that the truly existent “I” is empty on the aggregates—“I” as a dependent arising just naturally comes in the experience. The experiences tell the person, as it is in reality, that it exists under the control of name and by the force of thought.

Then, you use the logic of dependent arising, saying “I am non-truly existent.” If it doesn’t do anything here, if it doesn’t make any change to yourself, to the way it appears, you use dependent arising, and then definitely, depending on how subtly you think of dependent arising and its meaning, you realize the truly existent “I,” the refuted object, emptiness, that much.

So just these few words, “I am non-truly existent, because it is dependent arising,” is a sufficient meditation on shunyata. That itself is a sufficient meditation for shunyata. It is incredible, unbelievable. There are few words, but when you get the explanation it contains or the experience it gives, it is incredible.

You see, especially for somebody who has a very distracted mind, somebody who can’t control the mind, somebody whose mind is very distracted, it is very good to meditate on shunyata with few words. The most important thing is concentration. Even analysis, analyzing the four important points, and many other logics, so many words, so many things, what happens for somebody whose mind is very uncontrolled, very distracted—from the beginning may have started with the correct meditation, by pointing out the self or the truly existent “I,” you may have started the logic to check whether it can be found or not, whether it is empty or not. You may have started but after some time, there are so many logics, so many words, and then you, probably, like this example: you recognize the thief at the beginning, and you have the aim to destroy him, you have planned for a long time that you will do something. You find the thief on the way, then after a long time reaching that certain place, then, “I will destroy him,” something like that. You may have started to travel with the thief in the beginning, but now, after some time the thief has escaped. So when you reach that place where you had planned to destroy him, there is no thief. You cannot find the thief there.

Like that, you can start using the reasons on the “I,” on the self or the truly existent “I,” but now after some time your logic becomes just words. The mind is so distracted, unable to accompany the truly existent “I.” Without losing this, you are supposed to do the analysis, you understand? Without losing this truly existent “I” that you recognized at the beginning, this self, without losing that you are supposed to do the logic. The mind is so uncontrolled, so distracted, and then after some time it becomes just reciting the words of the meaning of the logic. That is why there is no effect at the end, when you have finished. So for that kind of mind this is very good. Short, very simple, but very tasty, very powerful. Meditate using this short technique, which has only a few words.

Whether you recognize the refuted object or not, right on the self, the meditator, the one who wants to achieve enlightenment—that one who doesn’t want to be in samsara, just there, on that self, is non-truly existent, because it is dependent arising. The point that I was saying is this. During the dependent arising meditation, even if it has not become completely empty, the “I” has become thinner. The idea of the “I” has become thinner; this is another way of saying it. Your idea of the “I” became thinner, became unclear. But when you don’t meditate on dependent arising it becomes more real. As if it is findable, more real. So after the meditation on dependent arising, on these aggregates seeing “I,” the idea of “I” is stronger, real—that is what the refuted object is.

Again, another way of recognizing the refuted object: do the meditation on how the “I” is a dependent arising and when your mind is distracted, watch how the “I” appears. Then again do the dependent arising right on top of that. Then again, when your mind is distracted, watch the “I.” Doing this, even though the refuted object, the “I” that does not exist, is not so clear at the beginning, it becomes clearer and clearer and clearer. The refuted object becomes more and more and more clear for your mind. And while you are practicing awareness of dependent arising, it becomes less and less findable. The emptiness gets stronger and stronger. The emptiness of the truly existent “I” becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. So the stronger the truly existent “I” appears, the more definite, the quicker one realizes shunyata.

This meditation, practicing awareness of dependent arising is itself… you see, there are two things: meditation on dependent arising has two words: it protects one from falling into the eternalism of a truly existing “I,” and it helps one to realize that the truly existent “I” is empty. It helps one to recognize the truly existing “I” that doesn’t exist, so it protects one from eternalism.

The meditation on dependent arising helps one to recognize eternalism, the truly existent “I.” One realizes that the truly existent “I” is empty. So that is how it helps to protect one from falling into eternalism. One realizes that the truly existent “I” is empty, that “I” is empty of true existence and independence, and that there is no third choice: anything that exists has to be either truly existent or non-truly existent, either independent or dependent, which has the same meaning. There is no third way for something to exist. Every existence is either independent or dependent.

If you just think about the meaning of existence, what existence means, if you just meditate on the meaning of “exist,” “existing,” even that is sufficient. Even just meditating on the meaning of “exist” and “existence,” even just that is sufficient to realize that they are not independent, that they are not truly existent. If you just think about the meaning of “existence,” I think, just simply even by that. That itself explains that it is not independent. For example, the sky: the sky exists by depending on its parts—the eastern sky, the western sky, the different directions of the sky. Those parts make the sky exist—how do you translate me.gak? Me means non-existent, not having; gak is negation, contradiction or negation—me.gak, negative words, two opposite words. Do you know? Hm. Non-affirmative negation, yeah. The sky, the phenomenon whose nature is a non-affirming negation, merely not having resistance, the mere absence of substantiality and tangibility, a mere absence of resistance, to rang me ka pa? to.rang means resistance, tangible. To is resistance, rang is tangible—something that doesn’t have these things; the mere absence of tangibility, of resistance.

On such a phenomenon, which has such characteristics, thought labels “sky.” So that is how the sky exists. So you can see if you know all the characteristics of the different phenomena, just hearing the word, when you hear just “the sky exists,” the understanding that comes in your mind is dependent arising. It exists, why? Because it is a dependent arising. It is empty of independence. There is no other way that sky exists. On the base of such characteristics the thought creates, makes up, labels, and the “sky” exists.

Just thinking of the definition of “existence”: when a valid mind discovers any object, it is dependent on the object having a name that is imputed, labeled on that base. Without that, without being dependent on name, that which is labeled, there is no way that the mind can realize or discover that object. For example, even if the baby hasn’t got the name “President” or something, hasn’t got “Tashi” or “George” or something like that, even if the baby has not been given a name, to realize that it is a baby is dependent on having labeled it “baby.” To realize that baby as “Dorje” or “George” is dependent on the label—having labeled, having imputed it. So that is the way of things being objects of knowledge. I don’t think hallucinating mind is called “knowledge.” Is the hallucinating mind called knowledge—no?

After you have taken drugs you see all the earth, all the dust as worms moving; all the dust, everything moving, like piles of worms. Or when you see an Indian lady wearing a red dress, you believe there is a monk coming from there. I don’t think that is called “knowledge,” the person having knowledge. Anyway, anything that is an object of knowledge, such as the lady who is wearing a red sari, as she comes nearby the valid mind discovers that there is no monk there. The previous appearance is a hallucination, the person realizes. Without this being introduced by other people, by others, the person himself can discover this, being near—there is no monk on that base. So realizing there is no monk on that, that it is not a monk, exists. That is not a monk, there is no monk on that—this exists. That is an object of the valid mind. The previous one, when the person used to see a monk because of distance and unclear perceptions, that doesn’t exist and that perception is not knowledge—not valid mind, because even without being told by others, he himself can realize that that was false.

This is found in du.ra, the debating subjects—the different names for existence, she.cha, the object of knowledge; yer.pa, having existence; she.cha, the object to be discovered; she.cha she.drup, existing on the base she.drup; object, cho, phenomena—they have same meaning. These are the subjects that very small boys study in the monasteries. The very first subject, kind of like the ABCD, like the alphabet—this is what they study, the beginning subjects. Even though the boys are very, very small, even though they don’t know what they are saying, at least they have got the correct answer. The very small, little boys don’t know how to make kaka and all those things, how to keep their bodies clean—some intelligent ones would know the meaning. At least they have got the meaning of she.drup, the meaning of “existing on the base,” the meaning of “the object of knowledge.” If you ask, at least they have got the correct answer, the total answer, explaining their characteristics. That is why the study of the debating subjects, studying the debating philosophical subjects, makes it very clear and deepens the intelligence or the understanding of Dharma.

Anyway, the conclusion, that is the definition of existing, of things becoming the objects of knowledge of the valid mind. Just by thinking of the meaning of “existence”—otherwise there is no way to say “existing,” existing has to have support, it is a dependent arising, by depending on something it exists—so even just thinking about the meaning of “existing” makes the object of ignorance empty. It makes you discover that it is false. You see, now, in this way there is nothing truly existent. When you think of the meaning of “existence” you can understand there is no true existence, there is no independent existence. Like dependent arising and independence, another way of saying it is that existence and independence are completely opposite.

I think I am just repeating different quotations, but it’s talking about the same thing, emphasizing dependent arising.

So “I” is merely labeled. The way “I” exists is as merely labeled on these aggregates. Then, what is called “aggregates,” even that, the gathering of the five aggregates, exists by being merely labeled by thought. Then the skandha of form, the part that has color and shapes, the object of the sense of “I”—on that too, the thought merely labeled “skandha of form.”

Then feeling, the sense meeting an object, then sinking experience and rough experience; when there is sinking experience or sensation it is called “happy feeling”; on that the thought merely labeled “happy feeling.” The one that is the opposite to the sinking sensation—sinking is like water sinking into cotton; it could maybe also be said that when you are satisfied or happy—against the sinking, the rough sensation, unsinking; such as that aspect of experience, the sensation—suffering feeling. The thought merely labeled “suffering feeling.”

If you meditate on the suffering of changes it makes it very clear how feelings exist as merely labeled. How they are merely labeled, you can meditate on the suffering of changes, it makes it very clear. You see, yesterday you had a big headache, but today, by taking pills, by sleeping or something, the headache became smaller. Still there is pain, still there is discomfort, but it is much smaller today, compared to yesterday. “Today I am better, more happy, better than yesterday, more comfortable.” The only reason is that yesterday’s greater pain became less—because of that it is called “better,” “happier,” and “more comfortable.” Then tomorrow the headache becomes much smaller, and I am more comfortable, more healthy than today. So you can see in that way thought merely labels. Yesterday there was a strong headache, but in dependence on some other person who has a headache and a toothache and a stomach pain, all three, so many problems experienced together, the first person is much happier. He is healthier than the other person who has many pains all over the body.

Yes, I think I stop here.

[Dedication]

Lecture 10

[Togden Rinpoche says] in his teaching, “That base just merely appearing to the mind is a dependant arising. The understanding of non-true existence is able to arise on that base without depending on others.” This could mean without depending on other logics. What he is saying is, simply, as I was saying this morning, that base that appears is a dependent arising, and that brings a definite understanding that the base, such as “I,” is non-truly existent.

There is nothing more profound than understanding that all existence is labeled by thought, there.

Each lama presents a slightly different thing, talking about the same thing and emphasizing dependent arising, but the way each of them says it is a slightly different presentation, although they are talking about the same thing. Khedrup Sangye Yeshe says, “There is nothing more profound.” This refers to being able to derive the definite understanding that “I” is not truly existent, from the appearance of the base as a dependent arising. “Nothing is more profound than understanding that all existence is labeled by the thought on there.” “There” you should think of as the base. The Tibetan words are par tak tsam, and each word has meaning—tok.pe par tak tsam, tok.pa is superstitious thought. Par means there, tak is label, tsam is merely—so, “thought merely labeled there.” “There” has great meaning. This word “there,” par means there. I think it is similar. Perhaps it may sound a little strange in English, while you are talking about here, you are saying “there,” while you are talking about your aggregates, saying “there.” It may sound a little bit strange. I think par has the meaning of “there” and also I think it has the meaning showing the force of the thought labeling the object—par tak tsam.

So when you hear par, there, kind of with strong force from the thought, which you can understand, which you can feel from the word—when you see your mother among other people, when you see your enemy, your friend among them, do you see the mother first or do you see the base of the mother first? Which one do you see first? Do you see the enemy first or the base of the enemy first? Without seeing the base on which you label “mother” there is no way to point out “mother.” If you didn’t see the base first, then you would be able to call out “mother” to anybody there—all of those coming toward you would be your present-life mother.

Anyway, what I am saying is that first you see the base on which you label “mother.” The base has certain physical characteristics and gave birth to you. You see the base first. Among these many other people, first you see that base, then thought, superstition labels, “mother.” I don’t know whether it is the same in English—I think par has both meanings—”there” and it also means “the force of the thought imputing there.”

Par tak tsam or par tak, labeled there by thought. The understanding that comes in your mind by thinking in this way, by the force labeled there—no mother exists from there. Mother doesn’t exist from there, from that base; that clear understanding comes. “Mother” doesn’t exist from there; “mother” doesn’t exist from its own side. I think this makes us understand both—”mother” doesn’t exist from there and “mother” doesn’t exist from its own side. Perhaps maybe tog.pe par tak, “on the thought,” “with the force labeled there”—maybe something like that. You get a very clear understanding, a very strong understanding: it exists there, but it doesn’t exist from its own side. So each word has meaning, tog.pe par tak. The mother exists on that particular base.

Similarly, there is a base of a particular figure, and by reasoning that he harmed me in the past, that he disliked me, on that particular base thought with force merely labels “enemy.” Then similarly, among these people there is a particular base who likes you, who helped you in the past, and so the thought with force merely labels “friend.” So like this, what is called “mother,” what is called “enemy,” “friend,” “I”—all existence is labeled on the base by the thought with force, under the control of thought.

Referring to the commentary on Madhyamaka called Clear Explanation of Lama Tsongkhapa’s View, “In this school [meaning the Prasangika school], if you understand how things exist being merely labeled by the force of the thought, then you will immediately understand the den.dzin," the wrong conception of true existence, which holds things to be truly existent. The way these wrong conceptions hold or cling to the object is opposite to dependent arising, things existing by being merely labeled by the force of the thought. So this has two: how things exist under the control of thought, imputed by the force of thought; and showing the wrong conception of true existence, which holds existence in a contradictory way, opposite to the previous one, things being imputed by the force of thought.

In the small lam.rim, the commentary on the graduated path to enlightenment written by Lama Tsongkhapa, it is said, “The being, the self, is imputed existence, imputed by thought. The self is mere name. After saying that, this recognition of the self is the particular peerless quality of this Prasangika School. So, understanding this well, realizing this well, is a particularly good method to realize the selflessness of the person.”

It is explained in the—putting together, how do you say it, Duk Dupa—compiled? How The Essence of Wisdom is compiled—condensed. The condensed teachings, The Precious Quality: “Also all those existences are well known to be mere name. Those existences are able to be imputed by name.” What he is saying is that all existence is dependent on individual bases, then each individual, valid thought, which does the action of labeling, with force, merely labels.

You see, this book has its own base. You don’t call this one “book.” You don’t call any object “book.” It has its own individual base. The individual valid thought that does the action of labeling merely labels, with force, “book” on this base, and that is how the book exists. The base and the thought label this by connecting these two, and then “book” exists.

Similarly, you just don’t call anything “calculator.” You label “calculator” on its own base, you don’t label “calculator” just on anything. So by depending on its own base, the valid thought, its own valid thought, which does the action of labeling, merely labels it “calculator.” So, on the connection of the base and the thought labeling it, the calculator exists.

Like the book exists, the calculator exists in this way, and the rose exists, the brocade exists, the table, everything exists—the whole thing exists, the whole thing is the existence of the connection, the two things, the base and the thought labeling.

Before the person is called “Prime Minister,” the person got the vote of Prime Minister. Before the person was labeled by the valid thought, the government people agreed and labeled “Prime Minister” on that person. Before he was labeled “Prime Minister” there was the appearance of the base, but afterward they all agreed and labeled “Prime Minister,” then there was the appearance of Prime Minister. Similarly, the abbot of the monastery, before he was just a simple geshe, then after the monks voted and His Holiness accepted the Abbot, the label, the Abbot. After His Holiness accepted and gave him the title of “Abbot” there was a different appearance than before—the appearance of the abbot on that.

So that is what Togden Rinpoche is saying here in the commentary on that verse. All existence is the connection of the base and the thought that is labeling. Depending on the individual base, there is the mere appearance, the connection of the mere appearance, the mere appearance connected to that base, to each valid base. What he is saying is this: this is not a valid base for the book, and this is a valid base for the book. By depending on the valid base, there is an appearance connected to this base.

Just to finish this, “If one understands imputed existence like that, then one will understand the opposite, the refuted object, ‘I,’ well.” Perhaps you may think when you hear “thought labeled,” or “it is merely labeled by thought,” or “things exist being merely labeled by thought” that, without need to depend on the particular characteristics of the base, you can label an object anything. It is up to the mind, it is only up to the mind, it is only up to the thought, thought can label anything and you can use it—it is not like that. In that way it would be very easy—without depending on the particular characteristics of the valid base, it is just up to the mind, the existence of things is only up to the mind, thought labeling. Then even if you are living in a mud and bamboo house or a grass hut, you can think, “This is a diamond palace.” You can label it “Diamond Palace.” If it doesn’t need its own valid base, then it is only up to the mind, the thought that labels, and just in the moment when you believe, when you label, “This is a diamond palace, where I am living is a diamond palace, a diamond house,” then it would be a diamond house. You could label piles of kaka gold. If gold could exist on the base of kaka just by labeling, then you should be able to use it, to sell it.

Similarly, if things existed only by labeling, without depending on the valid base, only on the mind labeling, then if you wanted dollars, you could label “a billion dollars” and you would be able to invest it in the bank. But if you go to the bank or to the shop to buy things with this, people will think you are crazy, there’s something wrong. Then it may lead to retreat in an institution. The reason other people do not accept this is because there is something missing there—you labeled but there is something missing, so other people don’t accept it, no matter how much you explain, “This is a billion dollars.”

There are three things. Things that exist have to be qualified by three qualities or three adjectives. If they are qualified with three qualities, three particular labels, then they exist. Otherwise, they cannot exist. We just use the same example—the reason other people cannot accept that kaka is not gold is because there is no gold on that base. The base on which you label “gold” is not a valid base. And even though you believe it is gold, other people’s valid minds find mistake—that is not gold, they find mistakes. There is harm from the other valid minds.

You see, there are two things: first of all it is not a valid base, it is not the actual base on which you label gold, and second thing, because of that, other people’s valid minds find mistakes, find that it is not gold. So now how the actual gold exists, how it is qualified with the three particular labels: one is that it has a valid base, another is that it is not harmed by other people’s valid minds, and it is also not harmed by absolute wisdom.

You see, if it were harmed by absolute wisdom, it would be truly existent, but it is not. The absolute wisdom sees that the gold is empty of existing from its own side, that is, it sees the absolute nature of the gold. So that is how the gold exists. It is not harmed by the absolute wisdom, so the gold exists. The gold is not harmed by the absolute wisdom. The absolute wisdom sees that the gold is empty of existing from its own side. So the gold is a dependent arising, the gold exists. Also, it is not harmed by other valid minds. Other valid minds don’t find that it is not gold.

So you see, there are three things; you can use this gold, which is qualified with the three particular labels. You can use it for your own means of living. Whatever value it has, you can get. It is qualified by the three particular labels. The other one cannot be used, because even though you have labeled it, it is not qualified by the three particular labels. If the existence of things did not depend on having a valid base and other people’s valid minds not finding mistakes, qualified by the three particular labels, then there is no need to vote because everybody would wish to become Prime Minister or President. Everybody wishes to become President or Prime Minister, so you just label on yourself, “I am Prime Minister.” Each person in that country labels himself “Prime Minister,” “President,” “I am the President of America”—it would be sufficient. Everyone becomes President in that country, or Prime Minister, or king—there are no ministers left. Then there is no need to give all these lectures, competitions. Or one doesn’t need to study for years all those politics things.
So do you understand that there are three things? Those things that exist have three particular labels.

To go back to where I stopped this morning, the dependent arising of the aggregates; it is said in the Abhidharmakosha, the happy feeling, which has the aspect of sinking, in some ways can be “satisfied,” a more peaceful feeling—the aspect of sinking, but peaceful. That experience or sensation is labeled “happy.” Then, against that, the other sensation or experience, a discomfort feeling is a suffering feeling. Then there is a feeling or experience that is indifferent, not peaceful in nature, not in the aspect of sinking. It is neither a peaceful feeling not a discomfort feeling—on that thought we merely label indifferent feeling.

Like this, what we call the aggregates of feeling, is how they exist in mere name. They exist by merely labeling on those particular bases.

Then the compounding aggregate: the month, year, those things, the person, the self are compounding phenomena. Existence is divided into permanent and impermanent. One brings a result; one does not bring a result. The one that does not bring a result is permanent phenomena. So impermanent phenomena, which brings a result, has three divisions: one is the knowing phenomena, then substantial phenomena, and then compounding phenomena, which are neither knowing phenomena nor substantial phenomena, matter.

The aggregate of compounding phenomena: the person, the month, the year, those things, and also the impression left on the consciousness, or whatever it is called, left on the “I,” on the consciousness; those impressions are not mind, not knowing phenomena, nor are they substantial matter. “Compounding phenomena” or “compounding aggregates” are labeled on these things.

Then the aggregate of recognition: recognition of, “This is mother,” “This is enemy,” and “This is friend.” The object and the senses meet and there is recognition of the object. The knowing phenomenon that does this particular function—clean and dirty, good and bad, ugly and beautiful—on that which does these particular function we label “aggregate of recognition.”

Then, consciousness: that which continues from one to another life, from the past life to this life and from this life to the next life, is the consciousness of the mind, this particular consciousness, the mental consciousness. The other five consciousnesses mainly comprehend the essence or the meaning of the object. That is just the gross, rough meaning of the five consciousnesses. The essence, the nature or the meaning, and the qualities of that object—from those two, the knowing phenomena that mainly comprehend the qualities of that object, on that we label “senses.” Just very grossly speaking, the consciousness senses. Like the meaning of the flower and the qualities of the flower—one is mainly the meaning, and one is the qualities of that—mainly doing that function. The complete characteristics are explained in the debating subject, lo.rig, not in the general explanation.

To those different characteristics, those different functions of the mind, different labels are given. On an unpeaceful mind that wants to harm to others, that wants to hurt others, “anger” is labeled. Then the mind that stops anger from rising, the peaceful, relaxed characteristics of mind, which transforms by remembering the kindness of the enemy—on that we label “patience.”

So like this, ignorance and wisdom: on the one that is unknowing of the absolute nature of mind, on that particular characteristic of mind we merely label “ignorance.” The other realizes the absolute nature of the “I,” and we label that “wisdom.” When you study lo.rig it becomes a very wonderful meditation of shunyata; the fifty-one secondary thoughts, the twenty delusions, and the four changeable thoughts. You can do shunyata meditation on lo.rig, like this, how all these different types of thoughts, virtuous thoughts, non-virtuous thoughts, all those things exist by mere name, merely labeled. This itself becomes meditation on lo.rig, and becomes a powerful cause of renunciation of samsara, especially renunciation of the true cause of suffering. One can use the meditation for renunciation, one can use it to realize emptiness; one can use it in many different ways, for example, to generate compassion for others. As you yourself have all these wrong conceptions, and knowing others are under the control of these disturbing thoughts and karma, it becomes the cause of generating compassion and the cause to develop bodhicitta. It becomes the inspiration or reason for oneself to achieve enlightenment for the sake of others.

Anyway, from the “I” up to whatever you are called, all the five aggregates, everything, the whole thing, exists by mere name. It exists by being merely labeled. So like this, all existence is dependent arising, depending on the base and the thought, existing by being merely labeled. Thinking like this is very useful.

First the dependent arising part: The “I,” the merely labeled “I,” born from the merely labeled father and mother; born from the merely labeled parents and living in a merely labeled house. It plays with merely labeled toys and eats merely labeled food—lunch, dinner, breakfast, tea, coffee, merely labeled chocolate, merely labeled milkshake, all that. And then it goes to a merely labeled school, studied from a merely labeled teacher. Then it learned a merely labeled language, merely labeled science or whatever, all that. It got a merely labeled education, a merely labeled degree, and became a merely labeled PhD or professor. Then it met a merely labeled wife and had merely labeled children. It has merely labeled happiness and merely labeled problems.

Then it drives a merely labeled car to the merely labeled office, then to the merely labeled supermarket, and buys labeled food. We don’t have to think of other people labeling. One can think that one’s own thought labels, “Now I am going to the supermarket and then I am buying food.” Then one collects merely labeled money. Then one comes by merely labeled airplane to merely labeled Kathmandu, then to merely labeled Kopan. And one is doing a merely labeled course. Like this, in reality it is also like this. In reality, the way things exist is like this. But for our view, according to how things appear or what ignorance holds, the whole thing is truly existent. The whole thing, what I just mentioned, the whole thing is truly existent. Not labeled. Not merely labeled. That is the appearance, what ignorance believes.

According to ignorance, the belief in how things appear is like this. You see, the truly existent “I,” which doesn’t exist, is born from truly existent parents who do not exist. It lives in a truly existent house, which does not exist. It plays with truly existent toys, which do not exist. It goes to a truly existent school, which doesn’t exist. It learns from a truly existent teacher who doesn’t exist. It learns a truly existent language, science, those things, which don’t exist. It lives with the truly existent husband who doesn’t exist. It eats a truly existent breakfast, a truly existent dinner, lunch, truly existent coffee and tea, chocolate, truly existent cake, which do not exist at all, which you can’t find anywhere on this earth—even when there is a trillion dollars you cannot find it. Then, truly existent happiness, which doesn’t exist, and truly existent problems, which don’t exist; truly existent problems in life, in relationships, truly existent disharmony, which does not exist; it has truly existent friends, which don’t exist, or truly existent enemies, which don’t exist. It has truly existent strangers, which don’t exist. It has truly existent anger, which doesn’t exist, and truly existent attachment, which doesn’t exist. It has truly existent ignorance, which doesn’t exist. You see, I’m talking according to our present view.

It goes to work by truly existing car, which does not exist; works in the truly existing office, which does not exist. Same thing, get truly existing ticket, which does not exist, go by truly existing airplane, which does not exist, come to Kathmandu, which does not exist, as well as the Kopan course, which does not exist.

You see the reality and what we believe are completely contradictory. It’s completely opposite.

So you do all this, from birth until now. First of all you meditate on dependence from morning until night, from this morning until tonight. I did this, I did that. I am happy. I did this. I did meditation. I ate food. I slept. I did all this, all this story of today. I did this. I am happy today. I had pain. Whatever experience or action that you did today, from morning until night, first of all you meditate on dependent arising. Meditate on how things exist as merely labeled. Then, from birth until death, you meditate, “I did this, I do that, I am happy and I am not happy,” all those things. “I meditate, I don’t meditate,” all that; how the whole thing is merely labeled. Try to have a clear understanding of this.

Then, after that look at your normal beliefs, try to remember and watch your normal view—from birth, from this morning until tonight, from birth until death, your view of life—the truly existent appearance, the truly existent life, which doesn’t exist. Happy or trouble or whatever it is, which doesn’t exist, one meditates. This stops worry and upset, and also fear. Also, in this way it pacifies. You don’t find objects to cling to. Also, it becomes the opposite of ignorance. It is a direct remedy to ignorance.

Preparation for taking the bodhisattva vows

[Rinpoche reads the Heart Sutra]

[Preliminary prayers, long mandala, sangye cho dang…]

The great bodhisattva Shantideva said in the Bodhisattvacaryavatara, “However much happiness there is in the world, all this came from wishing others to be happy. However much suffering there is in the world all came from wishing oneself to be happy. What need to talk a lot; the child does the work for itself and the mighty one does the work for other sentient beings. Look at the difference between the two.”

You see, it is very clear how all the suffering, all the problems arise from cherishing oneself. Even those who are trying to practice Dharma, who have met the Buddhadharma so many years ago, even one who has received so much teaching, so many lam-rim teachings, teachings on the graduated path to enlightenment, those extensive sutra teachings, Madhyamaka or Abhidharmakosha or the Abhisamayalamkara, even though one has received all those teachings, even though one has heard them many times, over and over, and received all the extensive tantra teachings, the Guhyasamaja or Chakrasamvara, all the extensive, famous tantra teachings, however much one has received of the most secret, most profound, there is nothing left—what is spoken among the Tibetan lamas, what they keep secret or what they talk about, what you can hear, nothing is left, everything is received, there is no secret teachings left that we have not heard, everything is received. Nothing more profound, nothing more secret is left.

Even if we have received these things again and again, over and over—even then, in practice, not only from the time of birth but even after one met the teachings, most of our time has been wasted, as the actions of body, speech and mind did not become Dharma. Most of our time, our life has been wasted—that became Dharma and that did not become Dharma—there was so much more of life that was wasted or didn’t become Dharma. And so very little, if one precisely checks up, very little of life actually became Dharma. In one day’s life, even one day’s actions, one day’s life, because of following self-cherishing thought, the actions of body, speech and mind in twenty-four hours actions do not become Mahayana Dharma, did not become the cause of enlightenment. So that is how life has been so wasted. The infinite merit that one can accomplish in each second with the practice of bodhicitta—one has lost all that. No actions became the cause of enlightenment, so life has been unbelievably wasted.

Before, one or two years back, when I recited mantra, if suddenly the motivation was not strong, if there was no continuation of the energy of the motivation, doing for others, then I was not satisfied with reciting the mantra. This made me start all over again, it made me start from the beginning of the rosary, because I was reciting mantra but it was wasted. It was done out of self-cherishing thought, so it was kind of wasted. So I went back to the beginning of the mala and started the mantra again. But now I don’t feel anything.

The actions have not become the cause of liberation. By following the selfish attitude, clinging to samsara, cherishing the self-cherishing thought so much, clinging to samsaric happiness and perfection, even if one tries to practice Dharma it does not become the cause of enlightenment, it did not become even liberation. Even the Dharma that one tries to practice did not become Dharma. There is so much cherishing oneself, such strong worldly concern—it is done purely for reputation, for the happiness of this life, for reputation and things like that. Even if one tries to practice Dharma, it did not become holy Dharma, it became only worldly dharma. Even the Dharma that one tries to practice didn’t become Dharma.

So all this is a great waste; we have been unable to accomplish the three great purposes. Having this perfect human rebirth, one can accomplish the three great purposes. And however many times one wishes to accomplish the great purposes, one can accomplish them. Within one hour one can create so many causes of enlightenment. Any great purpose one wishes, however many one wishes, one can accomplish within this one hour. This incredibly precious perfect human rebirth being wasted, one being unable to obtain the great meaning or unable to accomplish the great purpose with this perfect human rebirth, is due to the mistake of following the self-cherishing thought.

One has received the teaching on thought-transformation so many times, again and again, so many times. And even if one has received it, and even if one can remember all the words of the teaching, however many times one has received it, nothing has benefited one, there has been no change in the mind. The teaching is set up mainly to subdue the mind, to subdue the mind—this is the heart of the teaching, the heart of the whole Buddhadharma, and it is set up, it is explained mainly to subdue the mind, to destroy and eliminate the self-cherishing thought, the wrong conception of true existence, clinging to samsaric happiness and perfection. If other teachings do not benefit, then the lam-rim is the teaching that is left to benefit the mind. There is the possibility to subdue the mind, to benefit the mind by hearing the lam-rim teaching.

But even by hearing this many times, nothing happens to the mind. Self-cherishing thought becomes even stronger than before, the wrong conceptions, more impatient instead of less anger. Lamrim is only to benefit the mind but it doesn’t do anything, it is unable to benefit because of following the self-cherishing thought, not renouncing oneself for other sentient beings. Not cherishing other sentient beings. Not having changed the attitude, renouncing self and cherishing others, only following, doing the wrong practice. What one thinks is practicing Dharma is the wrong practice, the wrong practice of the Mahayana teachings, renouncing others who are the object to cherish, cherishing the object to be renounced. Even if one thinks, “I am practicing the Mahayana teachings,” it did not become the Mahayana teachings. Even if one believes it is Mahayana teachings in reality it is not the practice of Mahayana teachings.

So thought transformation, lam-rim, is the only thing left to benefit, to subdue the very cruel, impatient, self-centered ego—like the whole body is filled with self-cherishing thought, from feet up the head, completely filled—what exists is only self-cherishing thought. Like when you see the Dalai Lama and others, you feel the holy body is completely filled with compassion, with bodhicitta, the whole body completely filled, in the nature of compassion. But one’s own body is completely filled with self-cherishing, nothing else besides “I,” “my happiness,” very unpeaceful, unhappy mind.

There is no space to think of others, except oneself alone; unhappy, very unpeaceful mind. No space to think of others. No space, except oneself alone. No space to think of the happiness of others or dedicate oneself for others’ happiness. The thought that others are important, other sentient beings are as precious as oneself does not arise; one cannot give up completely to that person. One cannot even give up one’s own happiness to the other person, or comfort to the other person—one’s place, belongings, surroundings, whatever—one cannot even completely give one’s own comfort, one’s own happiness to other sentient beings, to that person, or take the defeat, the loss upon oneself and offer the victory to that person. One cannot even think that “the other person’s happiness is more important than what I want.”

Even if one cannot think this at least see, “As I am important, as I think my life is precious, my body is important, precious, the other person is also important, his body is precious, his life is important, precious.” You should have the feeling of great equanimity, having the same wish for happiness, and not having the wish for suffering. Even if one can’t completely renounce oneself for that sentient being, at least think, “As I want, the other person also wants, so he should have.”

You see, they are exactly equal, having the same wish for happiness and not wishing for suffering. As you have the right, the other person also has the right to obtain happiness and to eliminate problems. We do not even have the thought of equanimity, not having even the thought to share, day and night, all the time—nothing else to think about except oneself. Even if one lives in the city, what one thinks about is only oneself; even if one lives on the mountain, what one thinks of is only oneself; even if one lives in the Dharma centers, what one think of is only oneself; in the monasteries, what one thinks of is only oneself—nothing else.

Even if one lives in places, which are not a Dharma center, it is the same. It doesn’t make any difference whether one is in a Dharma environment, how many holy beings one has met, one saw, that one can find on this earth, whatever holy being, the highest that one can find on this earth, even if one meets, even if one hears the teachings, still it doesn’t do anything, still it is the same mind. That most sentient beings, that most human beings on this earth cannot see and don’t have the opportunity to see, to receive teachings, even though one receives such a great opportunity, however many holy beings one meets, however many hear teachings, nothing happened to the mind—it is still the same, it is even getting worse.

The conclusion is that since the lam-rim cannot benefit, there is nothing left to benefit the mind. So it becomes more and more solid. However much one is around Dharma environments, centers, however many years, one never tried to change the attitude, one never tried to do the practice, one never did the actual, real practice. The actual practice, the real Mahayana practice one didn’t do, so even if one has heard teachings since many years ago, always around Dharma environments, centers or monasteries, nunneries, the mind has been like a stone that has been in the ocean for many years. It is a little bit wet outside, but inside there is no wetness. It is still very solid, even though it has been there since one hundred years ago.

Al this is the mistake of not actually having practiced the Mahayana teachings, not actually having put it into practice. Even if the person does many prayers, lot of other things, when somebody says a little bit bad thing the person gets completely freaked out. He can’t control the mind, he becomes completely crazy. When somebody behaves with slight disrespect in front of you, it makes you completely crazy. The whole body gets completely filled with anger just that second, so unhappy.

That is the mistake of not actually having practiced the Mahayana. Even though one is reciting the Mahayana teachings, one has not practiced, so there are no changes in the attitude. One completely takes refuge in self-cherishing thought—relying on and following that. The conclusion is this: the stronger self-cherishing thought there is, cherishing oneself, those other disturbing thoughts are stronger; stronger attachment, stronger anger, so easy to rise, stronger pride. The weaker the self-cherishing thought is, those other disturbing thoughts are less and thinner, and more difficult to arise.

So that is how the life problems, the life confusion is related to or comes from the selfish attitude. One is unable to obtain or practice the teachings, unable to obtain the advice given by the gurus. All those things are the mistake of the self-cherishing thought, taking the side of the self-cherishing thought. One finds it so very difficult to practice Dharma and to practice moral conduct. One finds it difficult to take, to practice, to keep—all this is by the self-cherishing thought. This is what made it hard, what made it difficult.

If that is what one likes, there is no difficulty. If it is something in which one doesn’t have interest, then that makes difficult, that makes it kind of solid, kind of hard, difficult. It is nothing physical; it is not a physical action. The determination is not a physical action. As the person follows the self-cherishing thought, the person finds it very hard. Even though it is just a matter of a way of thinking; whether our daily life was transformed into non-virtue or into Dharma is not determined physically, it is a way of thinking. It is mere thinking, just a way of thinking. One way of thinking, it becomes non-virtue. One way of thinking, one day of one’s life become virtue, becomes Dharma. So it is just a matter of the way of thinking. It is up to just the way of thinking. One way of thinking becomes the cause of samsara. The actions of body, speech, and mind, one way of thinking, become the cause of liberation.

It is not like an iron mountain or a rocky mountain—something like huge iron, a diamond mountain, something very solid that one has to make slices in. It is not like that, you know, so solid, but even though it is just a way of thinking, just a conception, just a way of thinking, it becomes the cause of enlightenment, and one way of thinking becomes the cause of the lower realms. Even though it is just a matter of one way of thinking, of the mind—which you cannot see, which is not physical, which you cannot see at all—by not following the self-cherishing thought, by following the thought of cherishing others, Dharma practice, everything, becomes so easy. One is able to do all the practice without difficulties, with much happiness, with rejoicefulness, with much happiness. By following the self-cherishing thought all the practice becomes so difficult, so hard. Much harder even than breaking a mountain. Also in general life, even for one who doesn’t practice Dharma, all the problems, all the confusion, how much confusion there is, is dependent on that, arises from that.

Therefore, if this attitude is not changed this year, this month, this week, even today, if this is not changed, when can one generate bodhicitta? When can one become a bodhisattva? You see, there is no way. So by thinking of all the shortcomings from the depth of one’s heart one should think, one should examine oneself, one’s own life: which has more advantage, following the self-cherishing thought or following cherishing others? You should make the determination to transform the mind to be able to do the pure Mahayana practice. Yes, I stop here.

[Dedication]

◄ Previous Section : Kopan Course 17 Index Page : Next Section ►