Day One, Session One

Let us recite the verses for taking refuge and generating bodhicitta together.

Today we are gathered here, a large number of people from different walks of life with different languages, different cultural backgrounds, societal backgrounds and so forth. We are not gathered here for a business purpose nor are we here to watch a performance or spectacle. We have all been drawn here together by a single objective which is to participate in a ceremony which is religious and which has to do with the Buddhist path and practice. I would like to extend my greetings to all of you and express my appreciation to those of you who have come here with great interest.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all the individuals who have been involved in organizing this event. They have all worked very hard to make this event possible. So I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to them. I am also grateful to perform the Kalachakra ceremony in this famous city of Barcelona. I gather that Barcelona is a city that takes great interest in the diversity of cultures and also in a diversity of religious traditions. Barcelona’s fame has been even made even greater by the staging of the Olympics here. Incidentally this hall where the teachings are being held was built during the Olympics and during the Olympics it was used in some sense to demonstrate the excellence of physical and athletic prowess. Today in contrast although in terms of physical expression we are all sitting here rather relaxed but what we are engaged in here is in an act where we are trying to sharpen and refine our mental, intellectual and spiritual faculties.

In this multitude of faces I can see quite a number of faces which are familiar and those of you may find little new in what I have to say. To those of you perhaps you can use these teachings as something to refresh your memory and reinforce your understanding and commitment. However in the audience there are many new faces and to these I hope my teachings will give something new to think about, something new that they can reflect on, something they can practice.

All of us who have gathered here and in fact all human beings, and also all sentient beings, one thing that is common to all of us is that we have right from birth a natural tendency, instinct to seek happiness and avoid or overcome suffering. It is this basic, fundamental instinct to seek happiness and overcome suffering that in some sense drives us as individuals, living beings and it is on this basis that we also insure our survival. One can also understand the whole process of evolution in terms of this fundamental, basic instinct that is common to all of us.

So what distinguishes us as human beings from other forms of life? One principal characteristic of the human species is that we are gifted with a much higher faculty of intelligence, the ability to understand. Unlike animals we have the capacity, the faculty of intelligence and capacity to determine the long and short-term consequences of our actions. So in this sense of course we are distinct, we are unique but at the same time this unique faculty, this unique gift of intelligence sometimes one could say creates more problems and sufferings. For example many of the pains and sufferings that we experience are in some sense products or constructs of our own imagination. Hopes, aspirations, frustrations, doubts and so on constantly characterize our lives. These are things in some sense products of our intelligence.

Even within humanity if we compare human society and the lives of individuals at our present age with that of the past, it is plausible to say that people in the past where dogged by less anxiety. In some sense their lives were simple and one could say that was because there was less progress, economic development and also less educational development. Even in the current age if we make a comparison between two societies, one where there is high economic development and education compared to a less developed, simpler society, between these two contemporary societies, the more developed one is dogged by more anxieties, frustrations and expectations.

The crucial question arises that since our fundamental aspiration or fundamental desire is to overcome suffering and at least to lessen or minimize suffering, and if we know that our faculty of intelligence often becomes another cause for additional suffering, are we better off without developing our intellectual faculty? So far as I am concerned the answer is definitely no.

The reason why I say that the answer is definitely no is because the degree of calmness, temporary freedom from such anxieties which comes from inadequate knowledge due to a lack of education is a product of ignorance. Therefore even though it might be comparatively a more calm state, but it is not reliable; it is not enduring because the potential for disturbance is present. What is required is that to be able to appreciate the faculty of intelligence properly and to see what it is for. If we examine the faculty of intelligence, in itself it is neither positive nor negative; it is neutral. It has the potential to be used negatively or positively at the same time. So what is important is to be able to appreciate its nature and then utilize the faculty of intelligence to understand a situation properly, to be able to look at a problem or suffering through the application of human intelligence. Through this way in some sense transcend the problem by the application of the faculty of intelligence. Once one can confront and overcome suffering through this way then the result is much more reliable and enduring. This is what needs to be sought.

When I look at materially advanced societies the impression I get is that although there has been much human progress made and a tremendous increase in human knowledge there is also a tremendous appreciation of the importance of education and intellectual understanding. But I feel that no comparable emphasis is placed on paying attention to taking care of what could be called the human individual, the person who possesses that faculty of intelligence. In other words there is not enough attention paid to nurturing and enhancing the fundamental human qualities of love, compassion and the feeling of connectedness with fellow human beings and so on.

There is not enough attention or energy expended towards the enhancement and nurturing of that aspect of the human psyche. Not only that but also there seems to be an assumption that when it comes to talking about nurturing these humanitarian qualities, it is something which is private matter of religious practice. It is not something that is the concern of the average person as it were. This I think is a great mistake. When I talk about goodness and positively and negativity in this context, I’m not talking in religious terms; I’m not talking about religious faith being positive and non-religious ideas being negative. Rather I am talking at a much more basic human level. I’m talking about goodness and badness in relation to fundamental human existence such as the qualities of love, compassion and the feeling of connectedness, which form the core of human values. These are values, which can not be neglected and ignored by even non-believers. So long as we are human beings we cannot exist as a fully human being without nurturing and enhancing these qualities. So it is in this respect and it is in these terms that I am talking about positivities and negativities.

When we think about these human qualities for example like compassion and love, we know from our own personal experience the significance of these basic human values. For example like compassion, the altruistic and compassionate a person is, not only does it bring about immediate calm and tranquility in the mind of the individual but also that individual creates a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere and them. This atmosphere is enjoyed and benefits by other fellow human beings as well. On the other hand if the person is nurturing ill-will, hatred and so on within themselves, not only does it immediately destroy calmness of the individual and brings about disturbances within that individual’s mind but it also creates a very disturbed environment around that person. It immediately affects other people in a negative and destructive way. So this is something we know from our own experience.

So what happens in such situations is that as you nurture this ill-will, you project it on to others and then you start to see other people in very suspicious terms. You feel that they are hostile towards you; you see in some sense the whole world as being hostile towards you. This is because you are projecting what you feel inside and what you harbor inside. So if on the other hand as societies and as individuals we can pay equal attention to the development and enhancement of these fundamental human qualities like love, compassion and so on along with attention to intellectual and educational development, then not only will we create healthy and more full human individuals but also we will create a healthier society.

On the other hand if you have an individual whose fundamental outlook on life is altruistic, who naturally and from the depths of their heart always takes into account the wellbeing and welfare of other fellow beings, then if that person is in a professional life such as a scientist, economist or politician all of their activities well become humanitarian. All of their activities will become truly human activities. On the other hand if these activities are separated or divorced from these fundamental human feelings then there is no guarantee that they will serve human society in a positive way. As in the case of intelligence they are in and of themselves neutral; they can be used either positively or negatively.

What we are engaged in is trying to find a way, the best way by which we can apply this natural faculty of intelligence that we are gifted with to transcend and overcome suffering, the fundamental problems of existence and so on. But intelligence alone is not adequate, we need another factor that will compliment it. This would compensate for intelligence such that we do not push too far, to the extremes of using our intelligence faculty alone.

The importance of the combination of these two factors can be understood quite clearly if we look at the way we relate to question of objectivity. We all know that when we are analyzing a situation, objectivity is very important otherwise our prejudices, feelings or whatever will color our perception of that situation or event. What is needed in order to understand fully any situation correctly we need a degree of objectivity. Yet at the same time if we go too far in our insistence on objectivity then we may end up in a very absurd situation where we are even detached from our own feelings, pain or suffering. We may end up looking at our own experience like as if it were something “out there”, totally unrelated to ourselves. This is not what we want.

What is needed is an extra factor, a sense of involvement, a sense of engagement or a sense of concern. So the faculty of intelligence should be combined with a sense of involvement or a sense of engagement that in some sense cater to the feeling side of our psyche. At the same time if the feeling side or the sense of involvement is too prominent again we will lose the objectivity and end up looking at the situation in a very prejudiced way. What we need is a fine balance between the use of the faculty of intelligence so we have a degree of objectivity yet at the same time we are not too detached from the subject of our investigation so that it remains a human endeavor. Of course even in ordinary language when we criticize someone as being too cold we are using the word in a pejorative way. We don’t like to be called a person who has no feelings or a person who is cold.

The fact that this supposed objectivity divorced from feeling is impossible can be understood by taking an example of a cultural custom. For example in the West in modern society death is a taboo subject; nobody wants to talk about it. People try to avoid thinking about it. Even to use the word death in some sense is sort of a taboo. What this indicates is that there is this fear, almost subconscious hesitation to take about death as the pain and suffering associated with the idea is so great than you don’t want to be involved with it. So this tells us that as human beings we are an intelligent species, but also we are a species with a component of feelings. So what is needed is a combination of the faculty of intelligence with a sense of involvement or a sense of concern.

Of course when we talk about the sense of involvement or a high motivation, strong motivation, it is possible to see that our selfish instincts or impulses can give us a strong sense of involvement and engagement. But if you examine it carefully such a sense of involvement or concern is very limited and also quite narrow-minded. Whereas if the sense of involvement or sense of concern is derived from an underlying compassion and altruistic attitude concerned for other fellow sentient beings, then that sense of involvement is much more firmly rooted and also reliable. It is because of this that in Buddhism there is this repeated emphasis placed on engaging in a path where there is a combination of wisdom and compassion.

So in the Buddhist context when we talk about wisdom, generally speaking there are two principal types of wisdom that are mentioned. The first is the five principal types of conventional wisdom that deals with matters that are relative and conventional and then the second type of wisdom is the wisdom that principally deals with the ultimate meaning or the ultimate truth. Of these two of course it is the wisdom related with the ultimate truth, which is felt to be more important. However it is only on the basis of the difference of the objects of the two wisdoms that distinctions between the two wisdoms are made. So far as the subjective experience of these two wisdoms is concerned, no distinctions can be made. So because of this there is an emphasis placed on a union of emptiness and compassion.

Now the question may be quickly raised as to why it is considered so important in Buddhism to understand the nature of emptiness. Why is it so important that we should understand and cognize emptiness? This is related to wider questions about our knowledge of the world in general. Generally speaking when we examine the nature of our knowledge we find that even in our ordinary life, the day-to-day experience, we constantly confront situations where we find a disparity between the way we imagine a thing to be like and the way things actually are. There seems to be a constant gap or disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things naturally are. There need not necessarily be a conscious will on the part of a person to deceive us. We often find ourselves in a situation where we are deceived.

So there is this disparity between appearance and reality and this is something quite natural or common. Especially if we were to reflect on the findings of modern science then the disparity between appearance and reality is something that is quite understandable. Similarly in Buddhism emphasis is placed on understanding this point that there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. In order to enable us to deal more appropriately and more correctly with the appearance of things what is required on our part is to have a greater and deeper knowledge of the underlying reality. It is in this respect that the understanding of emptiness is crucial.

We find that from our own experience that there are events and things in which there is a disparity between appearance and reality. There are also events and situations where there is no such disparity. So in order to enable us to determine whether or not there is such a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are Buddhism suggests that we apply a formula of analysis. This is based on looking at the reality in terms of two levels or technically known as the Two Truths.

So far as the technical term of Two Truths is concerned it is not something that is not unique to Buddhism. Other ancient non-Buddhist Indian schools such as Samkhya uses the terminology of the Two Truths and use this model of reality, looking at reality in terms of two levels. For example in the Samkhya philosophy where the entire expanse of reality is divided into twenty-five categories out of which prakrit which is the primal substance or substratum is considered to be the ultimate truth. All the other remaining twenty-four categories are seen as in some sense effulgence or illusory manifestations of the underlying reality. So they have the idea of two truths even in a non-Buddhist school like Samkhya. Using this model of reality where you look at reality in terms of two levels of truth is quite a common feature in other non-Buddhist Indian schools as well.

Similarly of course in Buddhism all the four major schools such as the Vaibhashika, the Sautrantika and so on, all speak about the doctrine of the Two Truths. However it is only in the Mahayana schools that the understanding of the Two Truths in terms of identity or sameness is understood. According to these Mahayana schools the Two Truths are seen in terms of ultimately being identical yet with unique or distinctive features.

As I mentioned earlier although the language of the doctrine of the Two Truths is something common to many ancient Indian schools including non-Buddhist schools, so far as the deepest understanding of the doctrine of the Two Truths is concerned, it is only in the Madhyamika schools of Mahayana Buddhism that we see the fullest development of this doctrine. According to this school the Two Truths has to be understood in terms of an identity of the interdependent world of appearance and its underlying emptiness of intrinsic identity and existence. It is this unity of appearance and reality that is the deepest meaning of the Two Truths.

The essence or the deepest meaning of the doctrine of the Two Truths emerges at the level where one’s understanding of the doctrine is so advanced that by the very perception of the efficacy in the relative world of interdependent origination that in itself will give rise to an understanding of the emptiness of inherent existence or intrinsic reality. Given the validity of the interdependent laws, the laws of interdependent origination we realize that it is only by dependence upon other factors, the multiplicity of causes and conditions, interacting with each other that can give rise to a thing or an event. The very fact that things and events come into being as a result of such a multiplicity of causes and conditions, they lack an independent status. They are absent of independent, intrinsic reality. This absence of independent existence is emptiness.

The world of our everyday reality where we see a multiplicity of things and events, a diversity of causes and conditions where there are distinct phenomena which enjoy distinguishing and unique features and characteristics, the whole multiplicity of our empirical world is in Buddhism known as conventional reality or the relative world. It is a world, which we posit without any metaphysical or philosophical postulations. It is the world of our everyday, lived experience. This is for example when we talk about causes and conditions we do not talk in terms of metaphysical constructions we are talking at the level of the way we experience the world. Our understanding of reality at this level is known as the wisdom cognizing the conventional aspect of reality.

However when we examine the existential status of these things and events, not satisfied by the mere label or convention, if we probe further and try to seek the true reference behind the terms and labels, what we find is the total absence of things and events. This absence or the unfindability when sought in such an analytic process is called the ultimate truth or in other words emptiness. Wisdom or insight understanding this nature is called the wisdom realizing emptiness.

One could say that multiplicity is the world of appearance and unity is the world of reality. In other words they are sometimes described as the multiple appearance and the ultimate world of one taste or single taste. When we think about this contrast between the multiplicity of the world of appearance and the unity and singularity of the world of ultimate reality, here it is important to understand how we generally relate to an object, how it appears to our mind. Generally speaking there are two manners in which we can conceive an object.

Generally when we relate to an object, it appears to our mind in two possible manners, either in affirmative characteristics that the object has definite features and characteristics or in contrast, what it is not in terms of its negation. When we think about the world of ultimate reality we can approach it only in terms of negation. We can not approach ultimate reality in terms of any affirmative or positive characterizations as it is the total absence or negation of independent existence that is ultimate reality.

When we look at the nature of reality in terms of this model of the Two Truths, we find it very intimately linked with the manner in which we understand reality, the manner in which our consciousness or mind operates when its engages with reality. As explained earlier the multiplicity of the world of appearance is the conventional world or conventional reality and the unity of the underlying absence is the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth. So immediately we find here that the Two Truths are in some sense defined with regard to how we know or perceive reality. It is because of this that we find in Buddhism there is extensive discussion of the nature of knowledge, how we develop knowledge and what means or methods exist in terms of generating such knowledge.

It is in this respect again that the importance of applying our faculty of intelligence comes into the picture. As I stated earlier that in our quest to find solutions to the problems of existence we need to use the faculty of intelligence. For example in the case here when we talk about generating knowledge of the ultimate reality, ultimate truth or the conventional truth and the relationship the relationship between the two of them, what is required is not just mere understanding but rather true knowledge or insight into reality. Then the question is raised as to what means do we have that would help us verify that our understanding is correct, that the understanding we develop is true knowledge and not mere assumption?

Here it may be quite useful to draw a parallel with scientific experimentation. In modern science in order to prove something the scientist needs to go through certain procedures of methodology. Initially the person through experiment thinks that they have come up with a new discovery. Now it is not enough for someone to claim that one has found this through experimentation, the person needs to verify it. One of the ways verification takes place is whether someone else can repeat the same experiment and arrive at the same conclusion, come up with the same result. This is seen as verification that the initial discovery is correct. On the other hand if someone else proves the supposed discovery incorrect the supposed discovery is seen as suspect.

Similarly in the case of our knowledge when we arrive at an understanding we must have means by which we can test the validity of that understanding and to verify that it is a case of true knowledge, not a false belief. But this can not be done by the knowledge itself we need the case of another knowledge, which would be able to put the previous knowledge to a test. Through this way it can be verified. What we find here is the importance of understanding the very concept of knowledge and also verification.

What we find here is the basic standpoint that when we asked a question whether or not something is true or whether it exists, what are the basic criterion that we use in determining whether or not something is true or whether something exists? In Buddhism of course the answer lays with knowledge; anything that is an object of knowledge exists and anything that is not an object of knowledge is non-existent.

Then the question arises how do we know that an instance of understanding is true knowledge and not a false belief? Here some Buddhist schools maintain that there is something called a self-cognizing faculty to all instances of consciousness, that the object is certified by an understanding, which is a state of consciousness, and the validity of that consciousness is certified by a self-cognizing faculty of that mind. This is how the problem of verification of that knowledge is solved in some schools of Buddhism. The main reason they come up with this strategy is because they are uncomfortable with the idea of mutual dependence between subject and object. This mutual dependence from their point of view entails that both subject and object have equal power of validation or verification. So far as they are concerned it is the consciousness or the subject which has greater power in validating or verifying an existence. Therefore they postulate this faculty which is known as the self-cognizing faculty.

Now in other schools of Mahayana Buddhism such as Madhyamika-Prasangika, they do not accept such a faculty, self-cognizing faculty of consciousness. The reason for this is that the acceptance of a self-cognizing faculty, which in some sense is the primary validating faculty, would entail believing in an intrinsic power or reality of consciousness. So far as Prasangika-Madhyamika is concerned all things and events including consciousness, including all states of mind are all dependently originated phenomena. Nothing exists on its own; nothing exists in and of itself. Nothing possesses intrinsic identity or inherent existence. All things and events are dependent; they lack independent status. So because of this it is contradictory to posit a faculty which is self-validating. As far as the Madhyamika-Prasangikas are concerned of course existence is determined in terms of whether or not something can be known or something is an object of knowledge. However Madhyamika-Prasangikas argue that the reality of subject and object can be established through mutual dependence; just as subject is dependent on the object so is the object dependent on the subject. There is nothing seen wrong with this formulation of verification.

So the fundamental criterion of existence that the Prasangika-Madhyamika school comes up with is that something to be conventionally known as long as that convention is not contradicted or negated by another convention or another validating consciousness. In some sense whatever is known should be verified by another instance of knowledge, be it a subsequent state of knowledge or understanding or a third person’s verification. So as far as the Prasangika-Madhyamika is concerned they accept this mutual dependence between subject and object. Just as the object exists dependently and by the power of the subject similarly the subject exists in dependence or by the power of the object; there is a mutual dependence.

Not only this but also Prasangika-Madhyamikas accept that all states of consciousness must have an object even if it be a mental object like an image. All states of consciousness must be a consciousness of something. In this regard or in this respect all forms of consciousness are a consciousness of something; it is a state of awareness. But this is not to say that we can not make distinctions between a false belief and true knowledge. That distinction between false belief and true knowledge is made on the grounds, on the basis of whether or not an understanding that one has is controverted or negated by an instance of knowledge, which would directly contradict it.

(Break)