ACI 2 «Буддийское Прибежище», занятие 10

Geshe Michael Roach
Course 2 Tape 10
12-10-93
Transcriber: Kate Roberts

Side A
[cut]
In the monastery we do… every week, one or two nights a week, in the debate
ground, we don’t debate we just pray for the right motivation for three or four
hours and its called {goyam} and we do that , the Heart Sutra, like twelve times
in a row.       Well you know.          And it’s a beautiful custom, I like that.
[student:unclear]. Yeah, beautiful, oh, it would raise goose bumps on you if you
hear it. Incredible. It starts out really low and slow and in the end it gets higher,
as high as your voice can reach, you know. So itt’s a good custom too, they just
don’t have any debates, no class, no nothin’, they just pray that they’re doing it
for the right reason.
Okay. Tonight we’re gonna to talk about {Jampa}. Who’s {Jampa}?
[student: Maitreya]
Maitreya, okay. Maitreya comes from a word {mitra}/ {mitra} means friend,
love ones. And Maitreya’s name means love. There’s two kinds of love in
Buddhism and this is the kind of love that wants other people to have the best.
And the other kind of love is the kind of love that wants people to get out of
trouble. So this is the…this is the one, the kind of love that wants to give people
things, see them be happy. So Maitreya’s name is love. He wrote, what ?
[student: unclear]
He spoke actually.
[student: The Perfection of Wisdom]
No, that’s the Buddha, that’s Shakyamuni.
[student: unclear]
Yeah, no. [laughter, laughs]
You’re close, he wrote The Ornament of Realization, which is what you’re
studying. So you better get that down in case some lama asks you what you’re
doing. Okay. He, he spoke it to whom?
[student: to Asanga?]
To Asanga. All right? He dictated it to Asanga. So Jampa wrote this text, he
composed this text. At the beginning of the text, he, he wrote us a… there’s a
rule that at the beginning of a book, you should bow down to some holy object.
You should make an offering to some holy object and that the verse he wrote at
the beginning of his book was what I just quoted, {nyen tu shya….chak tsel lo.}
He wrote this verse, four lines, and it’s a….instead of bowing down to Buddhas
or bowing down to bodhisattvas he bowed down to the three knowledges. To
the three perceptions of selflessness. He bowed down to that. And when he
does that it’s supposed to attract people to study the book. They’re supposed to
think, “Oh if I could get this perception of selflessness I could reach Nirvana, I
would be happy.” And if you’ve had any taste of this thing this last week,
thinking about Nirvana, I don’t know if you have, I mean I was thinking about it
you know, “What would it be like not to have any irritations the whole
day?” [ laughs] You know its kinda sweet,its very, very nice. You get a taste of it
when you study it, of what the whole point is, where do you want to reach. You
would still have your body, suffering body, but your mind would be totally clear
and happy. Nothing could phase you. You’d never be upset, you’d never have
any anxiety, you’d never be worried, you’d never be irritated by anything. And
you would love everyone you came across well, not necessarily, right. But it
would be a very interesting…
[student: why not necessarily?]
Well lets say your not a…
[student: Hinayana]
Maybe you’re Hinayana, but you still have this great love, they do have great
love, they do have great compassion. So…
[student: you can have compassion and not love, can you?]
You, they come together..
[student: yeah, you can have love without compassion]
Compassion is the desire that people be out of suffering and love is the desire
that they get happiness. So I think they pretty much come together. Technically
speaking one comes before the other and different books say different things so
don’t worry about it.
[student: Isn’t Maitreya going to be the next Buddha?]
That’s exactly what this whole class is about.[laughs]
Now..
[student: is this, this, this bowing down to three knowledges [b: The Ornament
of Realization?]
Yeah. That is the opening lines of [b:The Ornament of Realization]. And
Maitreya is bowing down to that. Now normally when a person does that, he,
when a person writes a Buddhist book, he’s normally doing it for two reasons.
One is that like Dharmakirti when he wrote his root text on logic,
Pramanavarttika he said, {De na….}
{De na…..} I forgot, anyway, it goes, “I’m not writing this book for anybody else
but myself”. You know of course he is, but…so the first reason you write a
Buddhist book is to help yourself and the second reason is to help others. You
know. You’re trying to get your motivation up for writing or speaking it and
then you’re also trying to attract other people to study the book. Now there’s,
now there’s this great debate that took place about this subject and it actually,
historically took place. It was in the monastery of Sakya which is south of Lhasa
and it’s still there now. It’s one of the few monasteries the library was not
burned. It’s mainly one of the only three or four libraries that wasn’t burned.
And Gyeltsab Je, who was Tsongkapa’s, one of his two principal students, went
there. In those days it was a custom to wander around to all the monasteries and
debate. Just walk in the debate grounds, okay, lets go, you know and debate
something. And Tsongkapa himself, the way he got so, one of the reasons he
was such a great scholar, is that from the age of eight, he started wandering
around to debate grounds and debating anyone he could meet. And that’s how
he learned. So Gyeltseb Je was there debating two great Sakya scholars and
they are very great scholars, and we agree that they are great scholars. They
wrote, one of them wrote a twelve volume commentary on this fifty page text.
Okay. [laughs]. And they started getting into this debate about who is Jampa?
Who is Maitreya. Okay. Because when you read sutras, and this is the same
thing with Manjushri and the same thing with Avalokiteshvara, in the sutras
that you read, they are students of the Buddha, they are bodhisattvas. And yet
in the higher teachings, they’re Buddhas, you know, we believe they’re Buddhas.
So who are they? And I don’t know about you, but this used to confuse me all
the time, you know. It used to constantly confuse me. You know, “Why is the
Buddha, why are they asking the Buddha questions if they’re Buddhas already
and why is he already there if he’s not coming ‘til later?” And…you know, its
confusing. So, I was happy when we got to this section. It’s actually the very first
thing we studied. I wanted to save it for the last class, this is the last formal class
because I think it’s the most exciting topic for me. This is the most …this is the
one which is…and I’ll show you why later. So the debate was, is Jampa…it
wasn’t even if Jampa was a Buddha or not, it was, does Jampa have any more
paths, does he, does he aspire anymore, does he have any state of mind in which
he aspires to achieve his….to fulfill his own needs. Okay, I’ll say it again. Does
Jampa have any state of mind in which he aspires to fulfill his own needs. And
the Sakyas said, “No.”
[student: which would presume that his needs have not been…]
Well, we’ll talk about it. Okay. The Sakyas said, “No, he doesn’t, he does not
have any aspiration to fulfill his own needs.” By the way, this is the only thing
I’ve ever seen in scripture, or very rarely, of any… of what the western people
call sectarian things. You don’t see it. It’s very, very rare. You hear about it in
the west. You don’t hear about it….hen we debate in the winter, we have
Sakyas, we have Bonpos, we have Nyingmas, Kagyus, all debating together.
We don’t know who’s who. And its good debates. And theres no…don’t think
it’s like that, it’s just, you could’ve picked anybody. The point is that they’re
trying to teach us something. The Gelugpa guy is complaining about the Sakya
guy because they both want to teach us something. They’re great, great saints.
You don’t have to worry about that. So don’t think that.
[student: Sakyas another sect]
Yeah. Yeah. But I mean a lot of, Tsongkapa was a Kagyu. I mean, all our lineage
of our practice comes from the Sakyas [unclear] Our practice of the Abhidharma
comes from the Sakyas.           Our practice of Vinaya is probably Kagyu and
Nyingma, we don’t even know, they don’t really know. We have the book, we
don’t know. Nobody knows who wrote it.
It was definitely before the Gelugpas…
[student: unclear]
So, I mean, most of that is Western..
[student: is there really a major difference between the sects?]
There’s a difference in the practice. Okay. And you have to be careful to find the
one that fits you and use it. And stick to it. It’s like a medical treatment. You
know. Caroline can tell you. You know, like I don’t know. This drug might be
great, this drug might be great, this drug might be great. Mix them, you know,
do five different treatments at the same time it might kill you. You might fail
completely. And the traditions are the same. The traditions grew up a certain
way. They teach a certain way. It’s not good to mix them in the same sense that
it’s not good to mix medicine. You can get confused. One will emphasize one
thing, one may even present something differently until a certain stage and then
tell you the other way and then you’re just gonna get confused. And you won’t
be able to practice steadily. It’s not good to mix them up. They’re all good
medicine. They can all get you to great goals. But find the one that suits you well
and then commit yourself to it. That’s the better approach.
[student: are we getting one brand of this?]
You are getting pure Gelugpa.
[laughter, laughs]
And I, and I, when I started this place I lost about ten students who, who were
not Gelugpa, who came to me for mostly language study. And I said, “I’m
coming on with the files, I can’t…
[laughter]
I didn’t wear my robes. I wore a business suit and we went on like that for eight
or nine years.
You know, I’m presenting this one kind of medical treatment and I believe it’s
very effective. For me it’s been quite good. It fits my personal nature. If you,
you know, it’s good to check out everything and it’s good to carefully look at
everything. But then at a certain point, even with medicine, you have to commit
yourself to one doctor. You can’t follow three different doctors’ prescriptions or
you’d get… Rinpoche says that, “The Tibetan doctors said, told me I shouldn’t
eat fruits and vegetables and the western doctors have told me I shouldn’t eat
sugar and starch. And there’s nothing I can eat.” [laughs] [laughter] So find…
find the one that suits you and then commit yourself to it and grow in it and be
happy. And you will be. And mix ‘em up and you’ll be confused and you’ll
always be torn, never be quite sure what you’re supposed to be doing and you
know... So anyway, what I’m saying tonight is not a sectarian thing, it’s just a
historical debate that went on. And I’m sure, I’ve seen debates in the monastery
where two great monks take silly positions to teach everybody there and dumb
monks there don’t realize that it’s a game. You know, and they think, “Oh, he
won”, you know, “ He’s really smart” and the other guy after the debate says,
“Thanks for taking the opposite position, I needed someone to take the devil’s
advocate.” So, yeah.
[student: so Michael, [laughter] All right.
So, the question was, they said Jampa doesn’t have anymore aspiration to fulfill
his own needs. And so then, the debate is, “Well, are you saying that because
you think that Jampa is a Buddha or are you saying that because you think
Jampa is a bodhisattva?” You know, “ Are you saying that on the basis of
believing Jampa is a Buddha, or are you saying that on the basis of thinking
Jampa is a bodhisattva?” And that’s the way the debate starts. And..
[student: that’s the..]
That’s Gyaltsab Je’s response. The Sakya’s say, and again, it’s just, it’s not a
sectarian thing, it’s just it could’ve been Mr. A and Mr. B, it doesn’t matter. They
said, “He doesn’t aspire to fulfill his own needs.” And Gyaltsab Je says, “Well I
guess you mean either because he’s a Buddha or because he’s a bodhisattva, so
I’ll cover both. I’ll prove to you that he does aspire to his own needs, either
way.” So, they say…let’s say they say, first of all, “Oh, he’s a Buddha or he
doesn’t aspire to fulfill his own needs. He doesn’t have any intention of fulfilling
his own needs.” And then, Gyaltsab Je says, “If you say Jampas a Buddha, then
you have a very serious problem. He says, {tenpa … ma che te}, which means,
“Oh, I guess you haven’t taken much pains to study Mahayana scriptures.
[laughs]. This is common. I mean, this, they bait each other. And that’s common
in the debate. And you see some much hairier ones than that. But here’s a man
who’s just finished writing a twelve volume commentary to a fifty page text.
And Gyaltsab Je tells them, “Well, I guess you haven’t studied this subject much
because you have failed to distinguish between the system which is shared and
the system which is not shared; the teachings which are shared and the teachings
which are not shared. And then, they know what that means. What does it
mean? The shared teachings are the, are the open teachings. Okay. The non-
secret teachings. Sometimes they’re called Sutra. Sometimes they’re called the
way of the Prajnaparamita…of the perfections, I should say. The way of the
perfections. You could say it either way. You can call them the non-secret
teachings and then the other ones, by the way, why are they shared? Kiley.
Why are the open teachings called shared teachings?
[student : you can share them with people who haven’t had any special want]
Yeah, that’s one. Mainly, to succeed in the secret teachings, you must study the
open teachings. You must be a master of the sutra teachings. You must be a
master of all the theory that we’ve been talking about for the last year or six
months, whatever. That’s why they’re called shared. They are necessary for
both people who are on the slow track, you know, two hundred and ten kalpas
[laughs] seriously,[laughter], or people who are on the fast track,
which is one lifetime. Either one, both of them have to study the open teachings.
You must understand the Three Principal Paths perfectly, and you must have
some experience of them in your heart before you undertake to study the secret
teachings. So therefore, those are shared. Those attitudes of the Three Principle
Paths are never lost, you must have them in order to succeed at the secret
teachings, or you’ll not only…at best, nothing will happen and, and you can
meet people who this is apparently the case where they’ve taken dozens of
initiations. They struggle to keep their practice. Maybe they did and maybe
they didn’t and mostly they did so so. But nothing happened. You know, they
can’t say, you know they say, “ Did you change any in the last five years?” They
say, “No, nothing changed. I’m still, I’m not deadly miserable but I’m not in bliss
either. I’m trying to keep it up every night but nothing happens.” That’s the
best. And then the worst is that you, you try to follow them and you make
some big mistake and you do something wrong. And then it hurts you very
badly.
[student: what do you mean, not much? That’s best?]
No, what I’m saying is if, if you, if you’re not prepared by the teachings which
are shared, yeah, this chair is broken, [unclear] fix it. My handyman has been
out of town [laughter] if you’re not prepared with the shared teachings, it
won’t… nothing will happen. In fact, the opposite is true. If you do the shared
teachings perfectly, and you never get any initiations, you’ll still have some
amazing things happening in your life. So it’s almost as if the opposite is true. So
that what it means, what shared means, people studying the secret teachings and
people studying the open teachings both share these practices. Which are what?
[b: Three Principal Paths], which are what?
[student: renunciation ]
Renunciation. Sick of this life, you mean, no more attraction to…you’ll get there.
I mean if you don’t have it now, go through your career stage. I went through it,
you know. Do it for ten years, it’s attractive, it’s exciting, its stimulating, it’s
interesting. And you get old and it wears out. And then at the end there’s
nothing to show for it. So, ah, there’s nothing there. And then the second one is
what?
[student: bodhicitta]
Bodhicitta. The wish to achieve enlightenment. You know, basically loving
every single being as if they were your only child. It’s difficult. I mean it’s
difficult but the irony of it being difficult is that it’s a very pleasant way to spend
your life.[laughs] It makes you happy. And then thirdly, what?
[student: correct view]
Yeah, understanding emptiness. Understanding what gave you a headache last
week, okay. [laughs] [laughter]
And if it doesn’t your not… if it’s comfortable, it’s not addressing the problem
because the problem you’ve had according to the scriptures, for countless years,
trillions years, time without beginning. You know if breaking a habit were all
that easy, it wouldn’t give you a headache.
[student: so these are the three paths somebody who has open teachings have?]
These are called the open teachings, these are the shared paths. These are the
way to share, these are the guts and this is what it all boils down to. Every
practice in Buddhism can be included in one of these three.
[student: so it means that if, if somebody who doesn’t have any of those three..]
They should not, if he doesn’t a good, we call it{ kowa chakpa}is the minimum.
{Kowa chakpa} means he must have a good understanding of the principles.
[student: okay, so it’s enough to understand bodhicitta]
No, not necessary but he should have a very clear picture in his mind. {Kowa
chakpa} means he should have a good, theoretical background in the Three
Principle Paths. It’s not even necessary that he have the true renunciation. But
he should understand its benefits, he should understand what will happen, he
should understand everything about it. That’s what {Kowa chakpa} means.
That’s a requirement for the teachings which are not shared, which is tantra.
[student: [unclear] you said it takes two hundred and ten kalpas]
Ah, that’s a pretty good [unclear]. That was Shakyamuni’s time.
[student: is that because as a causal path you have to basically create the cause of
every individual you meet throughout your life?]
Oh no, not like that. It’s just that the purification of yourself takes, takes quite
long. To meet the teacher who teaches you the right thing and then to practice it.
That’s after you determine to do it. [laughs]
[student: but how long does it take to understand the studies?]
I think it depends on what stage you’re at. So anyway, Gyaltsab Je says to
[unclear], he says, “Well, if you say Maitreya is … what?
[student: a Buddha] ….a Buddha, then you fail to make a distinction between the
shared teachings and the secret teachings.” The teachings which are shared and
the way which is not shared.
[student: he’s the debater, right?]
And he’s talking about the secret teachings and the open teachings. He’s talking
about Sutra and Tantra.
[student: Michael, did you say who he is, Gyaltsab Je?]
Gyaltsab Je is the Gelugpa who was debating. In fact he’s right here….
[student: who’s at the other side?]
Kedrup Je. He’s at the right side of Tsongkapa because Gyaltsab means regent
and he was the next, he was the first holder of Tsongkapa’s lineage.
[student: who’s on the other side?]
Ah, Kedrup Je. See Gyaltsab Je was a real master of logic.
[student: can you write this down for us?]
Kedrup Je was a great master of tantra actually. You want his name?
[student: yeah]
[silence]
Oh sorry about that.
And we still have, I mean the holder of that throne, of that custom is still around.
I believe {unclear Dhargye} held that throne a while. The author of this text.
[student: is this the same as it being a [unclear] order]
It is. The Dalai Lama is not the …[unclear]. The Ganden Tipa. He’s the holder .
Because Ganden is [unclear]. And that was his [unclear]. Anyway, so he says, “If
you say
Maitreya’s a Buddha, then you fail to distinguish between the secret teachings
and the open teachings because we are here in the ….what’s [b: The Ornament of
Realization] ?
[student: open]
Open teaching. So what’s the implication? In the open teachings, Maitreya is a
bodhisattva. Because he said to the Sakyas, “If you say he’s a Buddha, you made
a…you’ve failed to distinguish between when we’re talking secret and when
we’re talking open. Because when we’re talking open, the implication is he’s not
a Buddha.”
[student: he’s even referred to as a bodhisattva , at least Avalokiteshvara is]
Yeah, by the way, the proof of it, the proof in.. the next step in the proof in the
text is why is why is he a bodhisattva. There’s a couple of reasons. Okay. This
won’t be on your homework, but just for your knowledge, he wrote another
book the [b: Uttaratrantra] which is not tantric, it’s an open text. Maitreya did.
And in that text, he says, “This is being written
so I can purify myself of my {shedrips}, my obstacles to omniscience. Which
implies that he… well which means he’s not a Buddha. It means he’s on the
eighth, ninth or tenth path.
He happens to be on the tenth level. So, according to the open teachings, he’s a
tenth level bodhisattva. Not only that, he’s a {[unclear] topa}which means he’s
got one life to go. Then in one life he’ll become a fully enlightened Buddha.
[student:[unclear] the secret teachings a Buddha? Not necessarily right?] Excuse
me?
[student: a person who knows..]
Oh, it doesn’t refer to his knowledge. In the whole tradition of the secret
teachings, Maitreya is a Buddha. He’s already a Buddha. And in the open
teachings, he’s a tenth level bodhisattva. Why? Because it’s been [unclear] in
another work of his. That’s one good reason. It states that , “I’m writing this
work in order to rid myself of my {shedrips}.
[student: so is that chronological, where he was a bodhisattva and then he had
the one life, he went through it and became a Buddha and in the secret teachings
he’s now a Buddha?]
No.
[student: it’s not chronological.]
According to the secret teachings he’s been a Buddha for a long time. There was
a point at which he was a tenth level bodhisattva and now, according to the
secret teachings, he’s been a Buddha for a long time.
[student: so he’s referred to as the Buddha]
He’s the coming Buddha.
[student: future Buddha]
That’s another point.
[student: in which teaching? Sutra or tantra?]
Sutra. He will be the next Buddha of a thousand Buddhas to appear.
[student: when?]
When he goes from Tushita to Ogmen and achieves the Dharma body and then
goes back to Tushita and sends a Nirmanakaya down to planet Earth. [laughs]
Now when is that gonna happen?
[student: were you speaking with the open hat or non open…?]
Open hat.
[student: you were speaking with the open hat]
They know the process at which he will go. You don’t have to learn that. But
the point is that he has yet to undertake those, those very high processes that
you can even only imagine in which he reaches the final thing of becoming a
Dharmakaya, achieving his Dharmakaya. So right now he’s in Tushita.
[student: what is Tushita?]
It’s a kind of paradise. It’s actually the paradise of this Buddha, Shakyamuni
Buddha.
[student: I don’t understand your main point. I’ve written down, maybe I missed
something, say if Jampa’s a Buddha then they can’t be distinguishing between
Sutra and Tantra because he wrote[b: The Ornament of Realization.]
Right. No. Because he wrote another book, it’s the sister book of [b:The
Ornament of Realization], and in that book he said, “I’m a tenth level
bodhisattva. I’m writing this book in order to purify myself.”
[student: so that’s the reason]
That’s one of the reasons. That’s one reason why in the open teachings he’s a
bodhisattva.
[student: isn’t it also that he’s actually, explicitly referred to, is he referred to as a
bodhisattva the way Avalokiteshvara.?]
He is and you’ll see there’s a quotation that it’s in your reading where the
Buddha tells, there’s a scripture and the Buddha’s telling someone, “Oh, don’t ask
me that question, go ask Maitreya , that bodhisattva who’s on the tenth level and
has one more life to go. Go ask him.” So that’s another proof that he’s a
bodhisattva according to this teaching, according to this teaching…according to
the open teaching.
[student: so how do you reconcile those two different positions?]
This is a mystery which I can’t get into. I mean, you can, we’ll talk about it.
[student: what about [unclear] logic?]
Oh, nice. We’ll get to it. Tonight we’ll get to it. See I didn’t say next year.
[laughter]
[student: could you just answer the question of why the Buddha would decide to
call someone a bodhisattva if he was a Buddha?]
Oh, it’s very, very common for the Buddha to not say what’s really the case if it
would help people. That’s normal procedure. That’s why there’s four schools.
He did teach the four schools. He did teach Abhidharma. You know the
Abhidharma is contradictory to Madyamika.
[student: why do we need to distinguish]
Well, we’re getting there. I’m going to…you know I’m going to get to the point
of why we’re even talking about this. [laughter]
[student: you’re going to finish all these things tonight?]
Yeah, yeah. So the Sakya’s say to Gyalstab Je, “He has no intention of fulfilling
his own needs or aspirations.” And then Gyalstab-Je says, “Why, are you saying
he’s a Buddha, is that why you’re saying he has no aspiration to fulfill his own
needs?” By the way, we never hear what they really think. Actually, I went and
looked it up. “ But, if you say he’s a Buddha, you’re just on the wrong track,
you’re in the wrong system. This ain’t secret teachings. We’re talking open
teachings. We’re talking about the person who wrote [b;Abhisamlamkara, The
Ornament of Realization]. So why, why if that’s why you think he doesn’t have
any intention of fulfilling his own needs, then you’re just wrong. You shouldn’t
have brought it up. You’re in the wrong, we’re talking open teachings.
 [student: why does having written [b: The Ornament of Realization] prove that
he wasn’t a Buddha?]
Yeah, it’s open teachings.
 [student: Buddha teaches open teachings.]
 That’s true too.
 [student: why does it prove that he isn’t?]
 It’s a shastra.
 [student: what’s a shastra?]
  You can divide all teachings of Buddhism into shastras and sutras. Which is
another meaning, I didn’t want to get into it. But anyway a person who writes,
you can call it commentary, {ngun tok gyan} is a commentary written by a
human being, by a non Buddha. It’s not [unclear], it’s in the TengGyur, it’s in the
whole section of books written by non Buddhas. It’s accepted to be an open
teaching. And the KangGyur is written by the Buddha. That’s the difference
between the two big collections of scripture. So it is an open teaching.
[student: well being an open teaching doesn’t necessarily make it that ah,..]
 That the author’s not a Buddha. But an open teaching which is in the TenGyur
which is written by non Buddhas, which it is ….
[student: so you don’t know the difference between sutra and tantra because..]
He didn’t say that. He said, “You shouldn’t have brought it up. If you’re saying
he has no aspiration to fulfill his own needs because you think he’s a Buddha,
you can’t bring it up in this class. We’re not talking open teachings.” We’re
talking… what he’s trying to say is only in the secret teachings is Maitreya
thought to be a Buddha. What he’s telling the Sakyas is, “Look, I understand
that Maitryas a Buddha and you understand that Maitreyas a Buddha but you
can’t talk about that right here. According to the open teachings, he’s a
bodhisattva.
[student: so nowhere in the open teachings does it say that he’s a Buddha?
Ah, there’s a debate about that too. Not really, not defensible. Some people say
the Lotus Sutra says so, but it’s not, it can’t prove it.
[student: so, then what he said was, if you’re saying he was a Buddha it’s because
you don’t know the teachings because in the open teachings he’s said to be a
bodhisattva.]
Ah, if you say he’s a Buddha, right, you’ve done something inappropriate.
You’ve brought up the secret teachings in a debate in which we’re restricted to
the open teachings. And in the open teachings it’s never said that he’s a Buddha.
It’s said in many places that he’s a bodhisattva. When you’re in an open teaching
debate stick to the open teachings. Do not bring up Tantra.
[student: ah, Michael…]
So apparently, you’ve failed to distinguish between what’s an open teaching and
what’s a secret teaching.         You failed to actually distinguish between the
appropriate time to talk Tantra and the appropriate time not to talk Tantra.
Yeah..
[student: the way you’re saying, because he stated he’s a bodhisattva, therefore
he’s not a Buddha, maybe some of the people in the class might think that either
you’re a bodhisattva or a Buddha. Isn’t it the case that Buddhas are also
bodhisattvas?]
I’m talking [unclear] [laughter]
[student: they are too seeking wisdom for the sake of Buddhahood.]
Totally, and..
[student: for the benefit of all beings]
Those two, those two. Now Gyalstab Je says, “Okay, suppose I let you say
Maitreyas a Buddha. Y ou mean to tell me the definition doesn’t fit him? He
doesn’t have any desire to reach total enlightenment?” They’ll say of course he
wants to reach total enlightenment. He wants total enlightenment. We should
say that. What is total enlightenment? What are the two bodies? You guys had it
in the first class.
[student; that changes it considerably by dropping out the reach.]
I know. [laughs] I got out of that one before I got in trouble.
And no one said anything. What are the two bodies of a Buddha?
[student: the form body and the wisdom body.]
Yeah, you should say Dharmakaya and Rupakaya. The Dharma body and the
form body. The form body’s mainly for who? For others or himself?
[student: for others.]
It’s mainly for others. I mean the reason he appears on the planet Earth is not for
his benefit. That’s the fulfillment of others needs.
[student: all form bodies, or is there a special one form body that’s not
necessarily for that?]
There is a {choko-tulku} and in fact I read it tonight and I thought of you because
[laughter] it said, “Are you saying that the ultimate Nirmanakaya doesn’t always
appear as a Buddhist monk?” And he said, “No, I’m not saying that, I’m not
saying that.” Which implies that it’s true.
[student: isn’t there a third the Sambogakaya?]
You can make three bodies or divide it into four bodies. Okay. We’re not going
to go that far. Those two divide into two each.
[student: so Sambogakaya is part of Dharmakaya?]
That’s part of the Nirmanakaya, that’s part of the form body. There are two
form bodies, there are two bodies that can be seen. One is the body he sends
down to earth and one is the body he lives in his paradise.
[student: he lives in a form body in his paradise?]
Yeah, he has a form in his paradise. He has color. You can see him if you’re a
tenth level bodhisattva, you can talk to him. And that’s what he looks like in his
own paradise, but when he comes to planet Earth , he looks like a monk, he has
these long ears, he has a top knot.
[student: his emanation body is sort of plural right?]
Well when you distinguish between the ultimate emanation and the other
emanations, he can emanate as a Buddha, as a tree, as…
[student: he can also emanate as a number of different things simultaneously]
He always does.
[student: which are you talking about? Ultimate?]
[laughs] Well, what I said was that all his form bodies are mainly fulfilling other’s
needs. And then what can you say about his Dharma body?
[student: fulfilling his own needs?]
It’s fulfilling his own needs. To get a Dharma body is to fulfill your own needs.
No more suffering, no more nothing. Omniscience. The Dharmakaya has
omniscience. And it’s
{Tibetan} it’s the definition of Nirvana also. He’s gotten rid of all obstacles. So
that’s really all you need. The form, taking form is merely for the benefit of
others because you can teach them.
[student: [unclear] not be very effective]
Sure.
[student: how come when we see pictures of Buddhas its always Oriental?]
Oh wait a hundred years or so. Jesus, you ever see his pictures ? He looks like a
nice Caucasian white guy, you know.[laughs] He probably looked like Yassar
Arafat. You know. Seriously.
[student: what does it prove?]
What I’m saying is ,you know, stick around for a while. The pictures will change.
[student: so what you’re saying is were it not for the compassion of a Buddha,
they wouldn’t need or have any form body at all.]
Mainly, mainly, we always say mainly. It’s not the only reason. [student: or
there’s no such being that has not….] The name of his body is {long …[unclear ]}
which is enjoyment body which is he’s enjoying himself in that body. Anyway.
[student: I don’t see where you can claim that omniscience isn’t directly linked to
helping others. It’s the key to effectively helping others..]
It is but it is not described as the fulfillment of others benefit because it can’t
communicate with others. That’s why, that’s why the first step in the Lam Rim is
what? [silence] [laughter]
Okay, I think we’ll do a Lam Rim course. By the way we are going to do a Lam
Rim. Did I tell that? We’re going to a…the next course will be meditation and
how, I mean…the technical, I mean we’ll do meditating but we’ll study the real
way to do it. It’s a long book , it’s very interesting, it’s precisely how to do it.
What we’ll meditate on is the outline of the Lam Rim Chenmo. The great Lam
Rim. Because if you have those two things, you can spend a nice life. {Shinyen
tenso}respecting your teacher, how to take yourself to your teacher. How to find
a teacher and then how to learn from him properly. And that’s necessary
because he’s the only laison between you and the Buddha’s omniscience. So he
might as well be a Buddha even if he’s not, I mean that’s the argument. That’s
the only way you can communicate, that’s the only window you have, the only
door that you have to the Buddha’s omniscience. So be careful with that door. If
that door gets lost, you have no…the Buddha has no way of communicating to
you. So, it’s mainly in the form body. Anyway, that’s the way it’s described. So
now, when you aspire, what’s the first part of bodhicitta?
[student: to aspire to be a Buddha.}
Yeah, to aspire to Buddhahood. And, what is Buddhahood? The two bodies. So,
you’re aspiring to fulfill your needs and others’ needs because you’re aspiring to
the two bodies. So, Gyalstab Je says, no, everybody accepts that the Buddha is
made up of two bodies. And everybody accepts that the definition of bodhicitta
is that you’re aspiring to achieve total enlightenment. “ So”, says Gyalstab-Je to
the Sakyas, “ are you inventing some new kinda bodhicitta where you don’t
want to reach the two bodies?”
[student: wait, back up please]
Why? Oh because you’re positing a bodhicitta in which you don’t care about
reaching your own needs. Now why did he talk about fulfilling your own
needs?
[student: why do you need bodhicitta if you’ve already got it?]
Because you have to want those two bodies. I’ll say it … I can imagine two, two
reasons why the Sakyas are making this argument. One is that they feel what
you just said. Look, if you’ve already got the two bodies, what’s the sense of
aspiring to the two bodies and isn’t bodhicitta …
[student: and if you’re not in danger of losing them]
  …not necessary at that point. Then what’s the use of aspiring, where’s the wish
come in. You don’t wish for something you already have. I can see that might
be one argument. And the other argument would be, what was the other
argument? He must be so noble, he doesn’t care about himself. You know, is
that what they’re trying to say? I can imagine, I think there are two flavors here.
One is they’re saying he’s already achieved Buddhahood, why should he aspire
to it? And the other argument might be, well, he’s so selflessly motivated, he
doesn’t need, he has no wish to get anything for himself.
[student: he’s already got it, he’s already achieved all of it]
That’s true.
[student: maybe you need to hold on to that wish to hold your status as a
Buddha]
[student: no, ‘cause he can’t fall]
Well there’s a lot of arguments, okay. One is that…who wrote this definition of
bodhicitta?
[student: unclear] No
[student: the Buddha]
Sem kye(……)pa tu} Where’s that from? It’s from the [b: Abhisamlamkara] Who
wrote it?
[silence]
Who wrote the jewel,[b: The Ornament of Realization?]
[laughter]
This is a Buddha defining bodhicitta. And he’s not defining general bodhicitta ,
he’s defining bodhicitta…
[student: well wait a minute, he’s not a Buddha, he’s a bodhisattva, he’s a
bodhisattva defining bodhicitta so it would make sense that he would define it
as……..]
And then in the next line, he says, { Te..(..) mey}which means, “I’m going to
divide bodhicitta into more categories and the last three are the bodhicitta the
Buddhas have. So he defines as bodhicitta as wanting to fulfill your own needs
and wanting to reach Buddhahood. He says all bodhicitta has that. And then he
says Buddhas have this point too. So Maitreya himself has {sem kye}. Maitreya
has said that Buddhas have bodhicitta . And in the same breath, he said, “half of
bodhicitta is the wish for total enlightment.”
[student: well how many are there total ?]
What?
[student: ah, wishes?]
I think you, {de ya.(..).}
Laughter.
Twenty two I think it is. Twenty two. I’ll check it for you.
Huh? Yeah, I will. That’s in my [unclear]. At least I know where. Okay, so
anyway, I’ll leave you with that. That’s all I can say . It appears to be…I mean
the bottom line okay, my teacher would never tell me these things. I t seems to
me that a Buddha never loses his desire to be a Buddha. That I think is the point.
He never loses his, his wish to fulfill his own needs as well as others’ needs. He
never loses his wish to fulfill both the needs. Even after his have been fulfilled
and the others’ have been fulfilled.
[student: well that’s not going to be for a long time. Are you using that in the
sense that once you’ve achieved that, they’re fulfilled whether the others partake
of that or not?]
I don’t say that for that reason but apparently he has fulfilled others’ needs
completely already.
[student: or has the ability to. [unclear].]
You have to chew, you have to chew on it, okay. I won’t resolve them for you.
I think this is something you have to think about.
[student: it would help to know more about the nature of a Buddha.]
That we will reach in the eighth chapter. We’re in the first chapter.
[student: so basically what you’re saying is that bodhisattvas are two kinds, non-
Buddhas and Buddhas because they, even Buddhas have not stopped their
aspiration to fulfill the needs of self and others.
Yeah, that’s true. But normally in Tibetan in the books, bodhisattvas as oppose
to Buddhas... a person who has bodhicitta is not a, they’re both people who have
bodhicitta. Its just normally, {jangchub tsema } is as oppossed to {sangye}. They
are different. They are exclusive classes.
[student: even though they both have the characteristics that make a person a
bodhisattva.]
Right.
[student: on page five of the notes you said that therefore there are Buddha and
non-Buddha bodhisattvas.]
No, I don’t think so.         It doesn’t, technically they both have bodhicitta.
Technically its bodhicitta that makes you a bodhisattva. But in practice and in the
teachings, and when you say bodhisattva, you mean a [unclear] and a Buddha is
not a [unclear].
[student: so would you summarize your main….]
[ Laughter.]
We’ll take a break. The point is this, and we still didn’t cover the second part
which is what? Maybe they’re making this argument because they’re saying
Jampa is a …
[student: a bodhisattva]
A bodhisattva. We haven’t even gotten to that yet.
[student: but he just said that he was a bodhisattva according to the open
teachings.]
Yeah but what they’re saying is, “Your argument is wrong even if he’s either.”
To say that he has no wish to fulfill his own needs is wrong, whether you think
he’s a Buddha or whether you think he’s a bodhisattva. So, we’ve covered the
first part, what? Even if he’s a Buddha, he still has the desire to fulfill his own
needs. It’s not like noble to ignore your own needs, and you never lose the
desire to fulfill your own needs.
[student: and the reason he has the desire to fulfill his own needs is because he
has two bodies, one of which fulfills his needs, one of which fulfills others.]
Yeah. Because he has the desire for Buddhahood, total enlightenment, which has
two parts, and one of them is fulfilling his own needs. He has….because
bodhicitta is defined as wanting to reach total enlightenment.                  Total
enlightenment means the two bodies. One of those two bodies is the fulfillment
of his own needs. He still wants it. Can you still want something after you’ve
already got it? Can you still aspire if you have the thing? That’s where we all, I
have difficulty too. It’s a difficult answer.
[student: not only that but the whole concept of the Buddha as a being of…for
lack of a better way of expressing it, a simultaneity . Anything that has the
concept of reaching for, attaining, just disappears, because there’s no…]
Well, yeah.
[student:: yes, because there’s no..]
So he doesn’t have mental functions anymore.
[student: no, he doesn’t].
Everyone has mental functions.
[student: if it’s a conceptual mind and if this isn’t a concept, I don’t know what is.]
No desire…well, no. Well, that’s a pretty good statement. Lets think about it
while we’re eating.
[Laughter]
You can’t get out of a debate.

[All talking].

Why, why would it be wrong to say that he doesn’t have any wish to fulfill his
own needs if he’s only a bodhisattva? He’s only a tenth level bodhisattva.
[student: because they haven’t been fulfilled yet completely.]
That’s pretty simple. And you can also say because obviously he’s a tenth level
bodhisattva, he has…
[student: renunciation]
Bodhicitta.     Which is defined in half a dozen definitions, he wants total
enlightenment. Total enlightenment means the two bodies. And one of the two
bodies is the fulfillment of his own needs. So if he wants the two bodies, he
wants to fulfill his own needs.
[student: can you also say that by definition bodhicitta is the want to alleviate
suffering…]
Yeah.
[student:… so if you have bodhicitta by definition, you want to alleviate
suffering.]
Yeah. So if you say he’s not interested in his own needs because he’s Mahayana
or because he has bodhicitta, that’s obviously wrong. Why? I mean, because he’s
a bodhisattva.
Why? Because he has bodhicitta. Bodhicitta is to want to fulfill his own needs.
It’s not contradictory to want to reach happiness yourself. And if you want to
reach it for other people. It’s not contradictory. It’s in fact quite…my first
thought is to say well, when you plant corn you get weeds, don’t worry about
your own needs, you’re going to get them.               Working for other people,
everything you want, you’ll get. Even in the world, even in the worldly sense.
[student: so how do the weeds relate to that?]
The weeds are what things you want and the corn is what other people want. So
if you work for other peoples’ needs, you’re going to get your own by accident,
by the way. You can’t avoid it. You will get everything you want. Now, the last
thing tonight, there’s a point in the debate where somebody says, “Well, I don’t
know why you’re talking about secret teachings because the open teachings
don’t accept the secret teachings.” All right. And I don’t know about you, no it’s
not a Sakya, it’s just somebody says. Okay. Somebody says, “Well, how can
you prove that the secret teachings are valid ? They weren’t even mentioned in
the open teachings.” And, I don’t know about you , but this is a big question.
[student: only for those who are only part of the open teachings.]
Yeah, right. Well mainly the question is from them, “Well then, can you prove
that tantra exists if you restrict yourself to the open teachings?” Yes, you can.
And he gives two quotations. One is from a brief commentary which is
Haribhadra. Haribhadra says, he mentions the secret teachings. And he says,
“This is also valid for the other side of the teachings.” Meaning the secret
teachings. And that’s in your reading, so if anyone ever asks you, where does it
say, Haribhadra is accepted as the greatest commentator on Asanga, on the [b:
Jewel of Realization]. So you can’t say that no one ever mentioned it. And then
there’s another, the one I like the best, and somebody asked me, “why talk
about all this stuff?” To me, it’s the closest thing to my heart. This is what, I was
assigned this debate for my pre- geshe debate.
This was the one I had to research. You have to write a debate, you have to
write a flow chart of every possible objection by your opponent and you put in
[unclear] letters, and someone writes it on a scroll, a professional, what do you
call those? Calligraphers, writes it on a scroll, and you hang it on your door and
you, and you memorize it for three or four months. You memorize every
possible answer. The opponent’s only allowed to say yes or no. It’s a real
computer flow chart. You know. But, if he says yes, I have to go this way, if he
says no, I have to go this way. So you have to memorize every possibility. And
you have to have a scriptural quotation for every possibility. So I had to have
one for this point.       And someone had, the text that I’d mentioned that
Dharmakirti… had mentioned, they say tantra exists because… because the
miracles described in tantra exist because Dharmakirti, in his book called [b: The
Commentary on Logic] ..
[student: commentary on what?]
On logic, of all things. He gives a. he gives a defense of tantra. He says that
tantra exists and this is why it works. I was very happy to see that. Dharmakirti
is, is accepted, he’s a {dodepa} half of his book is Hinayana. And he’s accepting
tantra.
[student: [unclear]
I put it in your reading ‘cause I thought you might like to read it. Try about page
four I would guess. Nope. How about page three. Three, there’s a little verse at
the bottom. Do you have one Kellie? You’re right? So it says, this is from the
[b: Commentary on Valid Perception] that is his commentary on logic. That’s
Dharmakirti, who is writing from a Hinayana viewpoint. And Mahayana, it’s a
mixture. So, he says, “There do exist the ones who know the tantra and can in
cases use the secret words with success.” These are the proof, these are the
proof, you don’t have to worry about it, but he’s proving that holy words have
causes. He’s debating someone who says that the word OM, the holy word OM
is uncaused. So you don’t have to worry about those other as proof. It’s mainly
the power of the one who taught it and following his precepts. So its very
interesting. Dharmakirti not only says that tantra exists, he says if you want a
miracle, but you know you can say that a miracle, it’s not just flying in the sky or
something like that, which happens to be the miracle he was talking about, but
you could say a miracle of reaching a diamond body in this life before you die,
of reaching paradise in this life before you die. He’s saying it depends on two
things, the tantra must have been taught by a very holy being and then what’s
the second requirement? What’s the last one on the page? You have to obey the
rules of that tantra.
[student: you don’t have to be a monk then?]
Not at all. Tantra was designed for non monks. Tantra was designed for
business people in India.
[Laughter]
[student: why do we want to learn tantra, because we want to reach
enlightenment in this life…]
Well, I want to say, let me say this in case I die. I asked him, I asked him if we
did another… a third course about the Lam Rim , you know the outline of the
Lam Rim and everything, do you think that this group could take an initiation in
the summer, because he often gives one in the summer. For tantra. And he
said, “Bring me a list.” And I said, “ If I bring you a list, can that group of people
come and request that we get that initiation?” And he said, “Okay”. So I don’t
think he would agree to have us come on mass and ask if he intended to say no.
So, let me work out the details
[student: do we have to ask three times?]
Well….If he says no, then we stay there. I mean it’s happened we were stuck
there. We didn’t move.
[cut]
[student: you mean physically did not move?]
[Laughter]
But…it’s this. It’s like, it’s a very, it’s a very ambitious thing to do but it’s the
timing in his life. His health is not good. And I think it’s important. And I think
it’s, you’ve had { unclear} what I mentioned earlier and you’ve had the
minimum. [student: [unclear] if he did it in the summer …] So technically
speaking, it’s only permission to study it. It’s only permission to start. And then
[unclear]. But it really is something we should do. When he first taught this,
fifteen twenty years ago, I remember, we were in Virginia, somebody raised
their hand and said, “I heard if you don’t keep it you will go to hell.” And he
said, “Well at least when you go to hell you can brag, I’m not here cause I
murdered somebody.”
[Laughter]

[cut]
[student: before you take the vow can you find out what it is?]
Let’s talk about it. I mean, well basically it’s this. I mean basically what’s being
offered is some special practice which will succeed, if it was taught by a holy
being, which it was, and if you follow that, which is always the failure problem
you know. [Laughs] .
[student: but what about preliminaries?]
We’ll talk about it. I mean if , you think about it and tell me next week or
whenever who’s interested and then let me talk to Rinpoche cause this is not
something I can do on my own. I have to ask him.
[student: no, I mean in terms of having taken refuge]
Well, that I’d also like to see if people are interested. Tell me next week and I
would like to ask him to give us the vows. Most of you probably already had
refuge vow and bodhisattva vow, but I think it would be nice to take them and
I’d like to take them again. And I think it would be a sign of our intelligence if
after studying it , we said, “Well we realize we didn’t keep this so good and we
didn’t really know what we were doing, how about if we take it again.” I think
that would be wonderful. So if you think about it and let me know next week
maybe we’ll take a… I don’t want to announce it in class and have everybody
raise hands and maybe you tell me privately…don’t forget ‘cos I’m very senile
and {unclear]. [student: about tantra?]
 About both. Would you like to go down before the end of December and take
refuge vows and bodhisattva vows . I mean His Holiness taught it in Arizona, I
don’t know who, the people who were there. You were there. People were all
nervous, saying, “Well I don’t know if I could do it.” [unclear]
[Laughter]
[student: it’s not true he said no.]
He thought about it carefully and somebody said, “If I’m a Christian can I take
it?” He thought about it for two days and He said, “Yeah, I don’t see any
problem.”
[student: if that person is a Christian and takes bodhisattva vows …]
Well, who knows.
[All talking]
I mean it wasn’t that easy. I mean there was a big discussion and He clarified it
all and then he…[unclear] in the end He clarified points.
[student: I hear its mainly the power of the lama, am I understanding it correctly,
I mean the reason that it worked is that you’re receiving some, because of the
quality of your teacher and the power from your teacher?]
Don’t think of it so much as the power of the one who taught it but concentrate
on the word mainly, and it’s what in Buddhist logic we call {myinga} by saying
mainly, you’re implying what?
[student: unclear]
It’s not enough. [Laughs] Concentrate on that part. Oftentimes in Buddhist
scripture, they say it’s mainly this because they want you to concentrate on what
[unclear]] on the other part. It’s mainly the power of the other person which is
to say in Buddhist scripture, once you get used to Buddhist scripture, but, by
god, if you don’t do the right thing, forget it. If you don’t from your side fulfill
your commitment, you might as well forget it.
[student: and a majority of that is the power of the person.]
Yeah, but what I’m trying to say is that ,oh, the reason that they say mainly, is
not to emphasize Him. It’s the unspoken emphasis on you.
[student: is it more than 50%?]
Yeah. But it means, what I’m trying to say is don’t concentrate on that aspect,
concentrate on the aspect, when I say, it’s mainly the lama’s power, you should
think, why is it he say mainly, what else is there.
[student: which is your own practice and understanding.]
And the following of commitments. Keeping the commitments. And the results
are, are, I’ll tell you and then we stop, this is a very holy place to stop. This is our
last formal class, which is, if things are empty, if the guy at work is empty, if he
truly has no nature of his own, then, if what you see in him is forced on you by
your past deeds, by your karma. Then is there any karma which you can collect
in this life before you die, to see that person as a Buddha? You know, to be in
paradise. Is it possible to collect such a powerful karma in this life, before you
die?
[student: to see the other person as a Buddha?]
To see the whole, the whole world as something unusual. Is there such a
karma? And I’m not talking about pretending that the world is this. I’m talking
about collecting the amount of karma that the world would become that.
[student: aren’t you [unclear] by then?]
Well, what I’m saying is that it’s the fact that we’ve been going over and over
and over and over about the asshole at work. That, that….and his emptiness
that makes tantra feasible. And that’s all. Goodnight. Our next class is a review.
We don’t have a class…..[student: no…]
[student: don’t we have confession?]
Yeah, no class on Monday. [student: no class on Monday?] No class on this
coming Monday. The next class is Thursday and then your final is on the
twentieth. By the way, on the night of your final there will be another class
going on upstairs and I want you to close your ears. [student: are [unclear]
tomorrow night at the [unclear] house?] We’re doing Friday night if you want
to come, we’ve reached the actual death meditation.
[student: you said in the beginning that you were going to explain how and why
tantra works.]
I just did.
[Laughs, Laughter]
I just told you that. Dharmakirti says, “That’s the initiation that’s required.” You
have to have an authentic tantra from an authentic source and then from your
side, you must follow it strictly. And then it will work because [unclear]. If
things weren’t empty, you couldn’t even brush your teeth. It’s a fact, nothing
would change. If your teeth were like mine, self existently yellow, then you
could never make them white.
[prayer: short mandala]
sashi pukyi jukshing metok tram
rirab lingshi nyinde gyenpa di,
sangye shingdu mikte ulwar gyi,
drokun namdak shingla chupar shok.
Idam guru ratna mandalakam niryatayami.
[prayer: dedication]
gewa diyi kyewo kun,
sunam yeshe tsok-dzok shing,
sunam yeshe lejung way,
dampa kunyi topar shok.

Be happy and rejoice about what you’re doing because there’s two hundred and
fifty million people on this country who’s worrying about these things which are
inevitable, you know, death, and the loss of all your possessions and your house.
First of all, who’s even aware that it’s flying by and that they’re falling off the
waterfall? And then secondly, who has anything that they can do about it? So
rejoice that you’re doing it and then really take upon some kind of intention in
the future that you conduct your own classes? That’s the idea, so that you, you
know don’t be lazy for me. I mean, be not be lazy for your future students.
And look at it that way and don’t lose that intention to do that in the future. It
doesn’t have to be…I hope it is in a room like this, but it could also be people at
work. You know, we flirted with Buddhism for many years with just people
we’re just sitting next to at work. And you don’t start saying, “Dharmakaya”,
you know.
[Laughter]
[student: do we have homework?]
[student: walk up to your boss and say, “Excuse me, [unclear] [laughter]
[student: in many ways it really works, cause I do it with a friend of min… I
don’t see her any more.]
So it didn’t work.
[Laughter]
[student: no, it’s me who decided not to keep in touch with her any more.]
Oh, by the way, one thing, I remember the Dalai Lama, do you remember your
friend, okay, I’ll give you an example. When these young mothers in Arizona
used to, these really sincere young women, they asked Him, “What’s the best
way to teach Buddhism to our children ?” What did he say? [unclear] Do you
remember? [unclear] [student: by example] And He said, “They’re too young
to understand words and logic and presentations, but if they see you acting
Buddhist they’ll start learning.” You know. I think that’s [unclear]
Okay.
Buddhist refuge
Course 2 Tape 11
Geshe Michael Roach
December 13, 1993

Transcriber: Kate Roberts

 [unclear]
[student: but it’s not really the cause though, it’s just one follows the next.]
We call that the main cause, in the way that the corn sprout in August is the
cause of the corn sprout in September. It grows into it. That is the main cause.
The main cause of mind is the mind of the previous moment.
[student: but, eye awareness, that’s a sense perception and so if by looking here,
and then I ‘m looking here, how is looking here the cause…]
The content changes but the, but the fact that you’re aware of what the eye is
seeing doesn’t change. And that’s what awareness is. It’s visual awareness, not
necessarily that you keep them on the same object. But it might be easier if you
think of it as keeping on the same object. So let’s say you’re staring at the same
object , you see what I mean, it’s the same cause. The cause is … each moment
causes the next moment of … each moment of consciousness causes the next
moment of consciousness. And then there’s no … this is the direct cause of this
and this is the direct cause of this. And this has to be continuous. This has to
bump up against that moment. And that’s what the meaning of direct cause is,
that there’s nothing between them. Accept that as a priority, it has to be part of
the first moment of mind that are closer to the second moment of mind than
other parts of the first moment of mind. Because if that were not the case, they’d
be, they’d be … they match and there would never be any movement of the
mind.
[student: is that the same argument used for re-incarnation?]
Oh, it’s related. It’s based on the same fact that consciousness has to cause
consciousness. If you accept that for two seconds, milliseconds in time, you’ve
just accepted past lives.
[student: what? Would you do that again?] [another student: but isn’t that where
the [unclear] a little bit …]
Once you accept that consciousness has to come from consciousness and not
from dirt, not from the parents love and semen, not from any other cause but
mind, then you have to accept past lives.
[student: except for the question of the original generation which is not
addressed]
You mean the first time it ever happened or something like that?
[student: yes, because if you have, if it has to have come from a previous
consciousness, then that’s not a good argument because, because for exactly the
reasons that you’re saying, that it came from something so what might that be?]
I say it came from consciousness because it has to come from something similar.
Same stuff. That’s true of apple trees, that’s true with telephone poles, that’s true
with vases.
[student: unless you can say what it came from .. ]
You mean the original cause, the first cause, there is no first cause. Which doesn’t
mean it has no cause. It doesn’t mean it has no cause.
[student: that’s not logical]
It’s absolutely logical. It’s not logical to a Westerner who has the, the … what do
you call it …. bias or the prejudice that you grew up with. It’s quite logical, it’s
perfectly logical. It’s just you didn’t hear it anywhere. Your parents didn’t tell
you about it when you were little. Your mind is beginningless because any point
of mind you can point to must’ve had a mind before it to cause it. And if they
had, you’d feel quite comfortable with it. And maybe not for very good reasons.
[student: okay, we’ve heard you make fun of people who are trying to advance
a point , and you say, “Well, where does that come from?” And the guy says,
“Well such and such.” And you back them up and finally they say, “Well I don’t
know.” And to me you’ve just said, “Well I don’t know”]
No, no, I can point to any moment of mind, any moment of consciousness I say,
has to have come from a previous moment of consciousness.
[student: Mexican standoff, but I defer.] [Laughs]