So we were talking about— just in case there are some new people,
this is about two truths.
This is not a…
What I want to say is—this is very intellectual, academic, and kind of technical,
but this kind of discussion is very important
in order to deepen and strengthen the understanding of Buddhism.
Love and compassion and meditation and mindfulness and nonviolence…
and all of those—fantastic.
They're just so venerable, they're so wholesome
—something never enough in the world.
But those things alone doesn't make Buddhism.
The serenity, gentleness, nonviolence— this really does not make [Buddhism.]
Those are not unique ingredients of Buddhism. You have to understand that.
And just to emphasize:
even the beloved mindfulness does not make Buddhism.
It's a wonderful thing, of course. Mindfulness is a great thing.
People should be mindful, of course.
But if you want to study Buddhism,
and if you really want to deepen your understanding of Buddhism,
you have to understand, you have to really explore the truth—
the technique and the system of how Buddhists dig out the truth.
Of course, ultimately, the purpose of understanding the truth
is to liberate oneself from all the delusion.
The purpose of pages and pages of Buddhist discussion on ultimate and relative truth
has got nothing to do with just intellectual satisfaction—
like coffee shop conversation with cognac or whatever. It's not just that.
And for that there are many…in order to actually get the truth for the liberation, there are many methods.
We have many methods, not because
it's kind of fun to have lots of methods— it's not because of that.
We have many methods because there are many different types of people
who have different capacities to relate and chew and digest these methods.
As Longchenpa said, 'Yang na lön po dé pa chen.'
There's a type of people who, from the conventional point of view,
they're not smart. They're kind of idiot.
But this kind of person, for them, a genuine demonstrator of truth can do it
in the most unexpected way of demonstration of the truth.
Such as… whatever, doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, most of us are not these idiots.
Unfortunately, we are somewhat a smartass.
And it is this, you know… and that's the challenge.
So we sort of have some sort of understanding,
and this kind of partial ability to comprehend makes life so difficult.
So this is why Buddha himself taught so many, many, many different ways.
Sometimes—many times—Buddha said things like, 'Once upon a time, when I was a rabbit…'
'When I was a monkey…'
See, in those phrases, he indicates there is an 'I' and there is a past life.
OK. Then there are other teachings, such as the Vajracchedika Sutra, where Buddha said,
'If someone thinks Buddha is a form and some sort of a consciousness—a being—
they have a total misunderstanding.'
Again, this is something that the Oxford people would not accept.
Because I think…. OK, to be fair to the Oxford people,
generally, the Oxford and like —and like—
they're so stuck with anything that has a record.
If you go to anthropology department, that's all there is—record.
That's all they study: record, as if that's the ultimate truth.
The Roman records, the Egyptian records, Babylonian records, all these records.
If they find some sort of records,
if they could dig it out from some unknown desert or whatever, then they just fall for it.
Bear in mind record is very, very… to trust a record is really very dangerous.
We never know how those Romans wrote, carved—
it may be carved on the stone, chiseled out from the stone,
but we never know, this carver— what kind of state they were in.
The Romans eat and vomit, and eat and vomit.
And we have to trust this kind of people's carving?
Now, India has never been good with records.
Still today I'm sure they are not so good with records.
Even as I grow up, when I was studying Buddhist philosophy,
not keeping a record is actually a pride— it's a matter of pride.
We are told everything you have to learn by heart
because this is a spiritual path.
What's the point of writing it down, carving on a stone?
You learn by heart; you learn by mind.
So this is what has been emphasized for hundreds of years.
And, of course, now this is being laughed at.
And in a way you could say it's backfiring.
Here I'd just like to tell you: at the end, you are your own master;
you have to use your own intellect to value whatever you are pursuing.
Only you can do it.
You have to be critical and analytical.
You can't afford to be a sycophant.
–'Sycophant' means like…? –Following whatever…
The Buddhist philosophy study is actually a study to make you learn
the tools of how to analyze, how not to be sycophant,
how to be critical in a good way, productive way.
Anyway, coming back to the subject here, we are trying to establish—
we are learning the art of establishing the truth.
For the sake of analysis, we are giving two ways to think of this,
by dividing the truth into ultimate truth and relative truth,
and which, by the way, I remind you, are both relative truth.
Which, by the way, you can always argue, saying, 'This is your Buddhist term, like "two truths".
Why can't we have three truths, or five truths?'
Sure. No problem. But, you know, more likely you will have to end up agreeing [with] the two truths
Because, you know, fake or non-fake, this…
OK, so we were talking about the relative truth,
and we were talking about having two kinds of relative truth,
and at the moment we are trying to characterize or define what is a valid relative truth—
what makes relative truth valid relative truth.
Yeah. What makes something 'valid relative truth.'
There're four different reasons—
there are many others, but in this text we are presenting four:
[1] consensus;
[2] function,
because of the function that's why it's something; that's why it's valid.
Shoes, for instance, is a valid relative truth because it functions as shoes, not as a glove.
[3] And also that which is product of cause and condition.
That's quite important because we are talking about order, order.
Marigold—you plant marigold, marigold comes out. You know, that kind of order.
Yeah, actually, the third one is a very big subject. In this subject, we talk about karma.
Again, here, there's a lot to say about the British.
But we don't want to dwell too much on this one for now.
By the way, when I say British,
I'm not talking about Manchester United or Chelsea Football Club.
I'm talking about the British Buddhist,
and especially those who are holding prominent positions,
who are supposedly teaching at some of the best universities in the world, like Oxford, Cambridge.
And sometimes, I really feel that they are sort of closet extremists who are teaching Buddhism.
Anyway, let me cool down this one.
As I'm getting old, I'm getting really so strong about this.
At the moment I'm only using generic term like British Buddhist.
Very soon, in about a year, I'm going to actually name them,
and put their birthdays and address and everything.
And, really, you need to hear this because…
especially the younger generations, the university students, you need to hear this.
OK. The fourth.
[4] The fourth reason, which we use the word 'falsifiable' yesterday.
What makes something valid relative truth?
That which can be—well, we used the word 'falsifiable'—that which can be falsified.
And this is really, really the most important reasoning. So important.
It… Actually even practically speaking, if you're a meditator, if you're a practitioner,
this argument will help you.
Basically, everything we accept as a valid relative truth,
like chairs, shoes— whatever, doesn't matter—
the floor, the ceiling, the Bodhgaya, the path, the enlightenment,
the death, the birth, the old age, the sickness,
if you analyze them, they fall apart.
We will do it; we will analyze it.
The very famous analytical method of Chandrakirti— the seven analytical method of chariot, for instance.
Like chariot, which you can see here, by the way, not as a decoration, but as actually a functional thing.
Chariot, if you analyze, is the wheel chariot? Is the horse chariot?
Each and every single bits and pieces, if you slice them, deconstruct them,
you will not find a single entity that which is real chariot.
What is the word 'caprice'? Caprice?
Whim? Whim. What does that mean?
Without reason. So it's arbitrary. Arbitrary?
(It can be. Caprice is like—it's not necessarily arbitrary, but it isn't profound.)
It's not profound. OK, good. It's just imputed from impulse, right?
So, one of the aspects of valid relative truth is actually everything is just arbitrary.
And it works, by the way; I'm not saying it doesn't work.
Chariot works as a chariot— you can ride on it and it will reach somewhere.
All of this. But all this happens on an arbitrary projection of an impulse—
caprice, whim, whatever you want to put it.
It's like, temporarily just hanging together, like…
And we are saying that all of us is an arbitrary projection of impulse—all of us.
And not only just human beings— everything. Everything is arbitrary.
'Ma tak, ma ché, nyam ga,' we call it in Tibetan.
Without analysis, without any digging out, trying to find whatever is the truth, like slicing, deconstructing.
'Nyamga' is like just accepting at its face value, so to speak.
But it functions. It has an order.
This is how everything exists, as arbitrary as whatever I've been saying—
the shoes, the chariot, enlightenment, Buddhism, buddha, dharma, sangha, all of this.
I have to say this: reincarnation.
And I have to say this because the British Buddhists—
those who calls themselves non-religious Buddhists, whatever—
they claim themselves Buddhists, but they always shy away or they
sort of look down at the concept of reincarnation as it is something to do with the Tibetan thing.
This proves that they have no idea about what is relative truth.
If you do that, you are underestimating relative truth.
If you underestimate relative truth, you become nihilist.
You have the full potential wearing an explosive around your waist and blow up yourself.
You are an extremist.
These British Buddhists are extremists. I'm telling you.
You can carve it on your door or something.
Of course—just because we are talking here—
if you overestimate ultimate truth, you are also an extremist.
To put it in a more layman's language—
You see, this is what happens with these British Buddhists; this is what they do:
they wear a…
I need a help. Rowan.
What's that—not a beret, but something that the British always wear—that hat?
Bowler? Bowler, yes. They wear a bowler hat.
They're usually kind of bald.
And then they begin with saying like, 'Oh.' You know like [that].
And you know what? They take pride… You see, they laugh at reincarnation,
and they take pride in laughing at reincarnation as a result of analysis.
This is why it is wrong.
Because if you analyze—forget reincarnation— there is no bowler on the top of his bald head.
And these are the same people who promote mindfulness, by the way,
as if this is the thing that saves the world.
And if you analyze the mindfulness, it does not exist.
Because mindfulness is arbitrary, imputed by impulse.
This is why when you meet next time these people,
you should really check what they are wearing on their waist.
And imagine, these are the people who are actually teaching at some of the biggest learning centers in Europe.
And getting paid
with the taxpayers' money,
because they have a degree.
Anyway, going back to the real thing.
But you know, this is really important. Really. Relative truth is an arbitrary projection of impulse.
'Ma tak, ma ché, nyam ga ba,' we call it—no analysis.
OK. So what is invalid relative truth?
Now this one is a difficult one.
OK, first, just briefly, just as example,
valid relative truth, I've already said, like moon in the sky.
And invalid relative truth is like a painting of the moon,
or a reflection of the moon in a mirror or a lake.
You know, the opposite of the four things—consensus [etc.]—
like the painting of the moon, it doesn't work; it has no function.
And even if you talk about consensus,
nobody will say this is a real moon— it doesn't function as a moon.
Of course it is a byproduct of a cause and condition as a painting of the moon, but it's not the real moon.
And also you can deconstruct the arbitrary imputed painted moon,
but you cannot deconstruct this as a real moon. You understand?
Basically, you don't have to tell anyone that this is not a real moon.
Right? OK. But now that's kind of easy to understand.
But now, this is a very big argument in the Buddhist study.
OK. So for a Buddhist, this lotus is a valid relative truth.
The god, the almighty, the creator, which is imputed by the religious people,
is not even valid relative truth— it is invalid relative truth.
This is really big.
Within the Buddhists, if you ask a guy like Chandrakirti, he would say,
'Anyone who is not a follower of Nagarjuna, their thesis, their view is invalid relative truth.'
Now this is a big statement. This has so much argument.
But here because of again always the time, I'm only presenting you
this definition of these two relative truths— valid and invalid—very briefly.
There're so many, many different studies, and deeper studies on this.
So just to give you an example. OK.
For the Buddhists, especially Mahayana, they will say like this:
Like samsaric life, whatever we have,
like wealth, health, body… all this is valid relative truth
because you can use it— function, there's a function.
Because you can use it as a base of things, like impermanence meditation.
Because it is impermanent, it is decaying, it is falling apart, all that.
Whereas concepts such as 'almighty creator' is totally useless.
Again, I want to remind you:
ultimately there is no such thing as relative truth and ultimate truth.
OK. Remember I was saying,
really there's much deeper studies on these two relative truths—not ultimate,
we are not touching the ultimate truth here— valid and invalid relative truths.
OK, I will just choose one.
We are now being very specific, so this is little technical,
and it's going to be a little difficult.
But just for a taste of how deeper we can study, so to speak.
OK. Let's say a practitioner,
how does the relative truth function with a practitioner?
A practitioner. OK, a struggling practitioner.
When he or she sees or hears or tastes things, but do all of that with mindfulness,
then what he sees, what he hears, what he tastes, what he feels—all of this is valid relative truth.
Every time he doesn't have a mindfulness, all of that is invalid relative truth.
Such as the daydream.
You know? Your mind goes out, your mindfulness is already gone,
you are entangled, you are planning.
OK. I'm explaining this because there's quite an important reason which I will tell you later.
Once you reach the first bhumi,
then a practitioner who has reached the first bhumi, for him or her,
all the perceptions during the post-meditation time is valid relative truth.
Remember definition of relative truth?
Deceiving, cheating… It's a deception, right? It's cheating, it's not true, it's a delusion.
So, this raises a question:
so does the tenth-bhumi bodhisattva during the post-meditation time…
is his experience deceiving, cheating, delusion? Yes!
Then all the Buddhist fanatics will go, 'Wow! How can that be?! They're great bodhisattvas!'
They do not accumulate any more cause of delusion,
but the effect of the previous emotion and grasping [is] still there.
Like if you keep a sandalwood in a box
and even if the sandalwood is gone, the smell of the sandalwood remains.
OK, the reason why I need to tell you this is [that] for the Buddha there is no valid relative truth.
Does that mean that he only sees the ultimate truth? No.
Remember? Ultimate truth and relative truth is relative truth.
For the Buddha, he can't understand why we're talking about relative truth and ultimate truth.
'What is that?!'
'What's the complication for?'
Even though this was taught by him. You understand?
For the Buddha, distinctions and the boundary of the two truths is exhausted.
Just to… Because I know there's so many tantrikas here.
Anyway, who claims.
The visualizations,
deities,
no matter how many heads they have,
no matter what kind of incredible attributes they hold,
they are all valid relative truth.
Actually there's an argument.
Some say… Yeah, I don't want to go to that argument right now.
They are valid relative truth. They are arbitrary. They're imputed from an impulse.
They're usable, by the way. They're usable.
OK. Now this is of course a very, very generic understanding of deity.
If there's anybody who wants to defend British Buddhist, now is the chance.
Rinpoche, I thank you very much for your teaching these two days.
So Rinpoche talked about the valid relative truths and their four characteristics.
And the first three are kind of understandable from our daily life.
But the fourth one, falsifiable, can you explain this? It's quite hard to understand.
As I said, like the chariots,
if you deconstruct, you will not find the one that you call the 'real chariot.'
Basically, that's it.
Albert is an ex-student of one of those British…
Now he is a good chap.
You better check if I've got any bombs around my waist.
No, actually, I just wanted to ask, from a very mundane, practice point of view,
how do we apply this to, on a day-to-day level, when we have arising of disturbing emotions?
How can we actually apply it?
Is it more like doing analytical meditation, analytical analysis of the kind of….
Because disturbing emotions would be valid relative truth in this reckoning.
Yeah, like you said, for a lot of people it works as an analytical thing.
Also it's always good to establish the view.
But the most important is, for a practitioner, especially in the Mahayana Buddhism,
the biggest thing that you should really, really be cautious of, after many many years of meditation
is coming to conclusion.
When you come to a conclusion, it can be very dangerous.
This is why, like even the Mahasandhi, you know, Dzogpachenpo, they say:
'As long as you think this is it, it's never it.'
And this kind of thing always helps.
That's why I'm telling the British people who…
I think in English they have this expression called 'cherry picking.'
It's exactly that: 'Oh, the mindfulness, this is alright!'
This is something they like. Reincarnation, now that's…
Because that goes against their whatever— you understand—that monotheistic gene.
And then they get rid of it. That's absolutely criminal.
You know, I get torn a lot—torn apart.
Because the nonviolence, the mindfulness, Buddhism, it's kind of a good packaging.
So in this way, it's sort of helping Buddhism, sort of good image.
You know, it's like, so I'd like to keep quiet.
Because if you lose this analysis,
and if you only teach mindfulness as how it is taught at the moment,
I could really turn around and argue about mindfulness being the ultimate cause of constipation.
I'm serious.
If you lose this argument, it is the cause of constipation.
I'm serious.
Because you're so paranoid that you're not mindful, that alone must be killing you.
You know, effortlessness —the path of the sugata, effortlessness.
You know like, instead of this 'tight', that sort of confined, puritanical—that's not Buddhism.
I mean, how do you measure what is mindfulness, to begin with?
It will become very dangerous, I'm telling you.
OK? Any more, other? OK, Badri. Actually, Badri, I want to ask…
Oh, you want to ask first? Why don't you ask.
My name is Amitov, and actually I follow a different tradition.
I will try to speak clearly. I wanted to ask you a question.
You said that all those are relative truth, right?
So do you think that it is because the essence of teaching is beyond mind and speech?
It's beyond mind and speech— the essence of teaching is beyond mind and speech.
Do you think that's why we can say everything is a relative truth?
Because we are having problem hearing, are you saying that because of mind and space…
Because the essence that we are talking about in teaching, ultimate truth, that is also relative—
whatever truth is there in teaching, that cannot be explained by mind or by speech.
Does he mean that?
Yeah. The ultimate truth cannot be.
You know, that aspect that cannot be taught— that actually is not exclusive to Buddhism, by the way.
So-called Hinduism also has that.
You know, I think, like the first shloka of Tao Te Ching.
–If you permit me one more question, Sir. –Yes.
What I think [is] that whatever we see from mind is basically name and form, right?
So that's relative truth. Is it correct?
Yes. Whatever we see, the moment we think we see, we hear,
it always ends up becoming a thing at the moment.
That's why you are right— that's why it's so difficult to get out of this zone.
But there is a way. There is a way. There's many ways—not only one way.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
OK, actually, I want to expound this a little bit.
So whatever we see, hear, taste, feel— it's a 'thing'.
And a thing is a zone.
We are already in this zone, and we have to get out of it.
So we feel sometimes, 'How? How can it be possible?! '
Because even to want to get out is a 'thing.'
You might find like you are in a prison where there's just no way out.
There's no access, somebody can come in and rescue you. You understand?
You are like completely in a 'thing-zone'.
But, actually, this is where I think Buddha excels.
What he's saying is this 'thing-zone'— everything—has its own fault,
and we have to take advantage of that fault.
You know. You understand? It has a fault.
Right now we are not taking advantage of this fault. We are trying to mend the fault.
We are trying to fix it and fix it and fix it, but actually if we…
It's like all this 'thing' is self-destructive actually.
They will destroy each other. We just have to take advantage of that.
Then it will fall apart.
When it falls apart, there's no such thing as 'outside of this zone.'
Because when there's no 'this zone', there's no 'outside of this zone' anymore.
To give you an example: like impermanence meditation,
we are bringing nothing from outside.
Impermanence is the character of this zone, and we basically take advantage of that—
meaning we use the character of the samsara to destroy the samsara.
All the way to guru devotion.
Guru devotion is an emotion.
Again, it's 'this thing'. It's a zone. It's within this zone.
And we use the guru devotion to deconstruct the guru,
the guru devotion, the whole paraphernalia of guru business.
Yeah, you have to learn to use the samsaric virus, so to speak, to harm themselves.
Of course, it's not that easy because there's that habit that, 'Oh, you know, we can fix it.'
Basically, so-called ngondro practice is a repetition of practice of 'I can't fix it.'
Just this morning I told somebody to chant one million times 'I can't fix it.'
If you feel like doing, yeah, why not?
Badri?
Rinpoche, I am most grateful for your teachings. It literally felt like the Lion's Roar.
And it really put the monlam in the correct perspective for me. Thank you.
I just want to clarify: you mentioned that for the first bhumi bodhisattva,
the post-meditative experience is that of valid relative truth.
What about the meditative experience of the first bhumi bodhisattva?
We will be talking about it—tomorrow? Are we teaching tomorrow? Yeah.
We will be teaching about this tomorrow, but it has something to do with the union…
Well, anyway, the meditative state
of the first bhumi bodhisattva has no concept of relative truth and ultimate truth, OK?
But because he's not the Buddha yet,
he slips into post-meditation.
But, as Chandrakirti said, talking about these first bhumi bodhisattva onwards...
We said, 'Khyö kyi sang ba di ni nyé gyi ma lak so.' It's like…
This is Chandrakirti, OK? This is not me.
He said that arhats are like a small insect that makes a small hole in the wood.
And then they stay inside the wood, and they think that this is the sky.
And then talk about sky. You understand? These insects, 'Oh, the sky - the vast sky!'
You understand? That's how it is with the arhats when they talk about emptiness
and the meditative state of the first bhumi. It's a bit like that.
Many times the first bhumi bodhisattvas will willingly, happily slip into post-meditation time.
Because it is in that time, in one moment
they can see one hundred buddha, and listen to one hundred different teachings.
So it must be a lot of fun, you know?
Any other questions?
This is a delicate one.
I think I heard you say that
if the British Buddhists don't understand reincarnation,
they don't understand relative truth. Is that right?
If they say, if they cannot accept reincarnation after analysis—
meaning they are violating the game of relative truth—
then they cannot understand the truth. Then they become nihilist.
The four tests of valid relative truth, Rinpoche.
I'm not quite clear on whether something has to pass all four tests to be valid,
or whether there's some kind of priority, or whether it's just one of the tests.
Hmm, this guy is good, yes.
Actually, I think one is all.
Yeah, it's just for the sake of study.
This is not only it; there's so many other categories.
That's why these monks, they spend nine years studying just this,
and they never get a job afterwards.
But then if I have consensus with a couple of people that
in doing circumambulations is not helping with anything,
and that's my experience— there's no function there.
Then that's valid relative truth? For me, for everybody?
Yes.
So valid relative truth and invalid relative truth can be different for different people?
Yes, it's very, very… Now you are going really deeper, and finer and finer points.
Yes, it overlaps a lot.
Because we are talking about relative truth— arbitrary, impulse, caprice, whim. Remember?
That's why I was saying you have to sort of accept reincarnation on that level.
Because if you analyze and say 'This does not exist,' you are in trouble.
But if you analyze, if you just accept heaven and hell or something as an alternative model
which supports you and works for you, then that's fine?
Will you translate that first? Actually, yeah, that's important.
The last one, the hell realm, can you repeat that, please?
Yeah, so if you don't accept reincarnation but as an alternative model which works better for you
—can you just use heaven and hell for example—is that OK?
OK. Now this is opening up some Pandora Box here. OK.
See the thing is this:
If you do not accept reincarnation, you are talking about not accepting continuity,
which means you are automatically asserting the ultimate end.
That is the problem.
So those people— those so-called atheists or whatever—
who sort of pride themselves not accepting the reincarnation,
they, without knowingly, they end up becoming theistic actually, almost.
Because then by consequence they end up believing in Armageddon.
So what's the point of cherry picking the mindfulness?
Why be mindful if there's no reincarnation?
Why not just go out and rob bank and do whatever?
As long as you're not caught— which you can try your best not to be caught,
and a lot of people get away with it.
Why behave? It's so painful to behave.
Because, more specifically to answer your question,
the hell and the heaven that you are talking about
sounds like it's The End.
Then it won't work; ultimate end won't work.
Because if you believe in the ultimate end, you are…
by consequences, you are not believing that time is relative.
–OK. I'll give it to somebody else. –No, you can ask.
OK, yeah. It's not the specifics of heaven and hell and I'm not suggesting that that's a better model.
I'm just trying to understand whether… It's just about finding the best model.
And the specifics of the reincarnation model are….
I think… OK, to be fair— I forgot to be fair, by the way.
I think the word 'reincarnation' got contaminated by the Tibetans a bit, which I accept.
Because there's something called reincarnated tulkus and all of that.
Yeah. The reincarnation is really… The Tibetan word for reincarnation is 'yangsi'.
Yang-si meaning 'again exist'.
As simple as that: again exist. Basically we're talking about continuity.
And continuity is arbitrary.
Wow. Things like continuity, infinite, all—
these are some of the prize-winning arbitrary stuff that we came up with.
It's just so ridiculously arbitrary, but it's just so much used.
What do we mean by 'all'? What does that mean?
What does it include— 'all', 'all are welcome'?
You know, like the 'all'— what does that mean? Infinite?
–'We came up' as in Buddhists came up, right? –No, human beings.
By the way, don't think that this is just some intellectual words, like throwing back and forth.
Because, for instance, like ourselves,
we have this notion that today's me is yesterday's me—the same thing—
which is another absurd thing.
What do we mean by 'same,' anyway?
If you look at all our words, it's all vague.
All our words are vague. 'Same', what does that mean?
Because I went to toilet yesterday, does that mean that I don't need to go today?
It's the same person, right?
It's not true.
We cannot also say that we are two different entities—yesterday's me and today's me.
Again, the same thing, but it's different.
So all this, now these are really good description of relative truth.
Better not analyze too much.
Because if you analyze, you fall into the ultimate. And then the Vajraccheddika wins.
I mean, when I say 'better don't analyze,' I'm saying:
since we are trying to establish what is relative truth, to understand what is relative truth, better not analyze.
Of course, as a practitioner, that is the purpose—we analyze.
OK? Yeah?
Just one more. Sorry.
So relative valid truth—is it fair to say that the power of prostrations is in the consensus element of it?
And if I genuinely came to believe and therefore experience that doing press-ups, for arguments sake,
has got rid of my pride, then that would be equally functional.
Yes, because…Ok, probably not so much of the actual act of falling and folding the hands together.
That is just a trick.
It's a necessary ritual—trick— until somebody came up with another idea.
–So it's just the consensus? –Wait. First [translate this]…
Consensus in this case is like:
'Pride is not a good thing. Everybody sort of agrees that.'
'Falling down at the feet of somebody is really, really, a big sacrifice,
so let's do that 100,000 times.'
You know, on that level of consensus.
So for this reason, to be Buddhist does not mean that you have to have 100,000 prostrations.
You have to defeat the pride.
And if that means something else— like cooking omelet 100,000 times—
if that's what it requires, then that's…. That depends on your own individual coach.
OK. I think this will… Oh, one more? Yah.
OK, Rowan. Two more. This and here, and then we will finish.
I'm stuck between two questions, but I'll take the most straightforward one.
You have to take… You have to represent the British.
Well, I was going to. I was wondering…
And I can't represent the British— my brothers and sisters in Britain—properly,
but I really was wondering whether you were being fair to them. Because...
I just was wondering whether their view,
they're saying—and I really don't know— they're saying there's no reincarnation.
But I was wondering whether they were implying that
the perhaps Tibetan view of reincarnation is very much about one person becoming another person.
And that they're not against yangsi. They don't believe that there's an end,
but just the continuation is more subtle.
And if you say, 'Well, how does that affect behavior?'
I mean, 'Why is it important to behave in a certain way?'
As long as time is relative,
the reason it's good for me to behave well is to stop my world from becoming a hell realm.
You know, it doesn't matter that… if you say, 'Well, it's going to end at that point'—it doesn't end.
We transform into different forms of energy; my memory will maintain in different ways.
It doesn't just end, it's just…
If I was a person of great merit, there would be no actual tulku of Rowan.
And I think that they gesture towards…
Can you repeat the last bit? No, no. I really missed it.
It's not an appropriate image. I was saying if I were a person of great merit,
and I died, and I managed to become, through you, a great practitioner.
The British Buddhists would say there wouldn't actually be a tulku of Rowan.
You know it's just a rather useful thing to continue things.
They're a bit suspicious of all that, but they don't say everything just ends.
There's no feeling that yangsi— that there is no continuum.
And when you say, 'Well, why should you behave?'
Well the reason you should behave is because of cause and effect,
because if you behave badly, you'll create…
Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah. If you believe in that kind of continuity, yes, definitely you should behave.
But what I'm saying is, if through the analysis… You see, it's the consequence thing.
You see, my argument is this:
You accept the mindfulness, which is as arbitrary as reincarnation.
By accepting the mindfulness, and by sort of not accepting the reincarnation,
it implies to me—you understand what I'm saying? —that this does not exist, and this exists.
And this is dangerous.
Because if reincarnation does not exist— meaning if there's no continuity, then you become…
I mean, there are actually Buddhists who says that
you will become part of the dusts and the particles and part of the universe, and all of that.
I'm serious. Tthere are many Buddhists who says that, and it is WRONG!
What's the difference between a hoodlum in New York and the gangsters in London,
and the practitioners in Bodhgaya practicing?
We will all become a part of the universe anyway.
And those guys are having a lot of fun.
And here we are in the dust.
You are missing a lot.
Anyway we are going to be part of the particles of the universe.
So why behave? That's what I'm saying.
I will have to extend my battlefield a little bit here.
The Buddhists who believe that we'll become parts of particles, parts of the universe,
is not just British Buddhists— it's the French and Vietnamese.
And I'm sure as I get old, more fanatical, and more desperate, and more frustrated,
in the very near future, I will be mentioning the names.
If you become parts of the universe— particles of the universe—
the whole point of the 1000 buddhas coming under the bodhi tree is WASTED!
Total waste.
When you say 'you' there, Rinpoche, to what independent functioning entity are you referring to?
What? What are you saying?
Rinpoche, when you said, 'Well, if you become particles of dusts…'
which isn't what I'm implying, but what is the 'you' you're referring to?
Is this independent entity the thing that is going to become reincarnated?
Well, I would not have any problem if…. Because, you see, my 'you'—
are you talking to me or the Vietnamese? Because they will have a problem of answering your question.
Because their 'you' does exhaust. My 'you' is arbitrary.
It's an impulse, arbitrary, caprice, whim. Remember?
It's a real whim here. And for me my position is totally intact.
Therefore, my 'you' can be analyzed
and then can get realized the egolessness— 'youlessness,' basically.
Whereas these people, they will have no 'youlessness'.
Because their 'you' become a part of the particles.
Their 'you' become bigger!
At least my 'you' is only, what, 157 centimeters, and, you know, like this.
Their 'you' will become the big, big universe—my God, big problem!
If these Vietnamese become as big as this universe,
and the French, we will have so much blue cheese.
I have a different question regarding the Mahabodhi Temple and the tree we are sitting beneath.
If you could give us some explanation how we can get most of this place.
Yeah, if you can give some more details about this auspicious place.
Buddhists believe in cause and condition. Everything is cause and condition and effect.
This is one very supreme cause and condition.
This is a cause and condition that you will share with 1,000 buddhas.
This is a cause and condition that you directly share right now with the Shakyamuni Buddha.
And it has to be cause and condition,
because you, instead of drinking beer somewhere in Germany, you are here.
You are pulled, pushed.
So this cause and condition need to be taken advantage.
So you can also pray and aspire that one day you will also be just like all these 1,000 buddhas.
Supposedly very, very special place here.
OK. Well, I'm sorry sometimes I get carried away a bit.
And sounding more and more like Suresh and Aspi.
I should try not to have conversation with them, but
somehow the karmic link and debt seems to pull and push towards them.
OK, so tomorrow.
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz GLC-Klasse GLC 250 d Coupé 4-Matic Ambition Exclusive Automaat,Trekhaak - Duration: 0:57. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 350 4MATIC Lang AMG Line Plus - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz GT AMG GT S -----MEGA DEAL!----- € 50.595 KORTING! - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 350 d 4MATIC Lang AMG Line - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse AMG S 63 4MATIC Cabriolet - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 350 d AMG Line | Panoramadak | Memory | COMAND | LED - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz GLC-Klasse Coupé AMG GLC 63 S 4MATIC Coupé - Duration: 1:02. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 400 d Lang Automaat Premium - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 350 d 4MATIC Lang AMG Line - Duration: 0:55. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 450 Lang Automaat AMG Line | Premium Plus - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse AMG C 63 S Limousine - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Berliner U Bahn - Duration: 2:37. 
For more infomation >> Pinwheel Sandwiches - Duration: 1:47. 
For more infomation >> Paris : les provocations de certains policiers du XIIe - Duration: 1:37. 
For more infomation >> Audi TT Roadster 2.0 TFSI TTS quattro S-Tronic 310PK Virtual Cockpit Nekverwarming Leder Fijn Nappa - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Laeticia Hallyday : un bien triste anniversaire en perspective | Nouvelles 24 - Duration: 2:32. 
For more infomation >> LEGO® Star Wars: General G...
For more infomation >> 2 manières naturelles d'éliminer les stries - Duration: 7:58. 
For more infomation >> Emma Smet : Son message d'amour à Laura et David Hallyday - Duration: 2:35. 
For more infomation >> Demande d'une attestation de présence - Duration: 1:36. 
For more infomation >> Classe de maître d'alto | Viola Master Class (Eric Nowlin) - Duration: 1:57. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse C 180 d Estate Automasat Sport Edition - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz B-Klasse B 180 d Automaat Business Solution - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz V-Klasse V 250 d Edition XL Automaat - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz V-Klasse V 250 d Edition XL Automaat - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz E-Klasse E 220 d Limousine Automaat Lease Edition - Duration: 0:43. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz A-Klasse A 180 d Ambition Line Style Automaat - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz E-Klasse E 200 d Limousine Automaat Avantgarde - Duration: 0:42. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse C 180 d Estate Business Solution - Duration: 0:56. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse C 180 d Limousine Automaat Sport Edition - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz GLE-Klasse GLE 350 d 4MATIC Coupé AMG Line - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz GLC-Klasse GLC 250 d 4MATIC Automaat AMG Line - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse C 200 d Estate Automaat Business Solution - Duration: 0:44. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz E-Klasse E 220 d Limousine Automaat Exclusive, MassageStoelen - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz B-Klasse B 180 d Automaat Business Solution Plus - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz B-Klasse B 180 d Automaat Business Solution Plus - Duration: 0:41. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse C 200 d Estate Automaat Business Solution AMG - Duration: 0:43. 
No comments:
Post a Comment