Session One

Brothers and sisters, I am extremely happy to be here with you and have the opportunity to explain about the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths as you know are the basic Buddhist teaching, the foundation. In fact without understanding the Four Noble Truths and without experience drawn from this teaching then it is impossible to practice Buddhadharma. Therefore I am extremely happy.

At the same time it is my belief that the major world religions also have the great potential to serve humanity. This means to produce good human beings, nice human beings. Good and nice does not mean a pretty face but a good heart, a compassionate heart. All the major religions have this kind of potential. This is quite clear. Therefore I usually always advising people that it is better to follow one’s own traditional religion.

Those people who really feel that their traditional religion is not very effective and for some radical atheists then the Buddhist explanation may have some attraction. It is better for people to have some kind of religious training rather than radical or extreme atheism. For those individuals who feel a true attraction to the Buddhist approach, the Buddhist training of mind, in that situation it is important to think very carefully. Once one really feels Buddhism is best approach and suitable for oneself then it is right to adopt Buddhism as a personal religion.

I wanted to say this at the beginning because when the actual explanation of the Four Noble Truths of course I have to say the Buddhist way is best! Also if you ask me what religion is best for me I will say without hesitation Buddhism is best. That does not mean Buddhism is best for everyone. Certainly not! Clear? I want to further emphasize. When I say that the other religions have great potential I am not just being polite. First whether we like it or not the entire human race can not be Buddhist. Clear! Fact! Similarly all of humanity can not be Christian or Muslim. Even in Buddha’s time in India everyone did not become Buddhist. I have noticed a genuine warm heart, loving kindness, and some kind of very forceful loving kindness in the minds in followers of other religions. My conclusion is that these other religions do have the potential to produce a good heart.

It doesn’t matter what philosophy, belief in a creator or other things, a person believes, that doesn’t matter. For the non-Buddhist ideas like nirvana or rebirth seems like nonsense. Similarly to Buddhists ideas like a creator looks like nonsense but it doesn’t matter. In the actual result a very negative person can through the various religious traditions be transformed into a nice person. That is the purpose or result of religion. That is sufficient reason for respect. Now I will speak through my own language.

I have been given the opportunity to introduce Buddhism. I always make it a point to explain Buddhism in terms of two principals. One is the development of a philosophical viewpoint based on an understanding of the interdependent nature of reality. The second principle is non-violence, which is the actual action of a Buddhist practitioner deriving from the view of the interdependent nature of reality. The meaning of non-harming or non-violent behavior is that if possible one should help others and if not that at least refrain from harming others. This is the essence of the principal of non-violence.

To explain these two principles in technical Buddhist language then they are known as taking refuge in the Three Jewels, Triratna and what is known as the generation of the altruistic mind or enhancement of one’s good heart. It is very evident that the practice of generating the mind entails committing oneself in activities aimed primarily at helping others. Whereas the practice of taking refuge in the Three Jewels lays the foundation for the individual practitioner to live a way of life within an ethically disciplined lifestyle that avoids engaging in actions harmful to others thus living according to the laws of karma, causality.

Therefore unless the individual practitioner has a good foundational experience or practice of taking refuge in the Three Jewels it is not possible to have a high level of realization of bodhicitta or generation of the altruistic mind. From the Buddhist point of view the demarcation or line that distinguishes between a practicing Buddhist and a non-Buddhist is made on the basis of whether or not the individual has taken refuge in the Three Jewels.

When one talks about taking refuge in the Three Jewels one should not have the notion that it involves a ceremony where one take refuge from a master or something like that. It is not simply participating in a ceremony that one becomes a Buddhist. This is not the point. The point is that even without a master, as a result of one’s own reflection one becomes fully convinced in the validity of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as the true, ultimate objects of refuge and entrusts one’s spiritual well-being to these objects of refuge, this is the point where one becomes a Buddhist. Whereas if even if one has participated in a ceremony, if there is any doubt or apprehension in one’s mind about the validity of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as being the ultimate source of refuge, this suspicion or doubt excludes one as being a practicing Buddhist.

Therefore for a practicing Buddhist it is important to understand who or what these objects of refuge are. When one speaks about Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and particularly about the Buddha, one should not confine one’s understanding of the term Buddha only to the historical person who lived in India and taught a spiritual way of life. Rather one’s understanding of the concept of Buddhahood should be based on levels of consciousness or of spiritual realization. It is a spiritual state of being that has to be understood. The Buddhist scriptures talk about Buddhas of the past, present and future.

The question now is to try to develop an understanding on how a Buddha comes into being. How does a fully enlightened being come into being? When one thinks about Buddhahood certainly one reflects on the question of whether or not it is possible for an individual to attain such a state or to become a Buddha. The key lies in understanding the nature of Dharma because if Dharma exists then certainly the Sangha exists, members who have engaged in the path of the Dharma and have realized and actualized the Dharma. If Sangha members exist who have reached levels of spiritual states where they have overcome at least gross levels of negativities and afflictive emotions, then one can envision the possibility of obtaining total freedom from these negativities and afflictive emotional states. This is the state of a Buddha. The key then is understanding the nature of Dharma.

When one talks about the Dharma, one is talking about two dimensions or aspects. One is the path that leads to cessation and the other is the cessation itself, the cessation of suffering and the afflictive emotions. When talking about Dharma one needs to be able to make distinctions between the usage of the term Dharma as a generic term for the Buddha’s teaching and the realizations based on the practice of the scriptural Dharma and the Dharma Jewel. The Dharma Jewel should be understood as true cessation and the path leading to it. It is only on the basis of the understanding of the true cessation and the path leading to that cessation whereby one can have an understanding of Arhatship or the state of liberation.

Therefore in one of the sutras, the Pratityasamutpada Sutra, Buddha stated that whoever perceives the interdependent nature of reality, the principle of dependent origination, sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha or Tathagata. When one tries to understand this statement of the Buddha from that scripture if one were to approach it from the perspective of Nagarjuna’s teachings or the Madhyamika School then one could arrive at the most comprehensive understanding of this statement. When it comes to discussing philosophical viewpoints of Nagarjuna if one were to criticize me saying that I am biased towards it, I would certainly accept that criticism.

When one tries to understand this fundamental Buddhist philosophical principle of pratityasamutpada, dependent origination, the understanding that is common to all Buddhist schools is in terms of causal dependence. Pratit means to depend on. Samutpada refers to origination. The understanding common to all the Buddhist schools of thought is to look at this principle in terms of causal dependence, to appreciate and understand that all things and events come into being only as the result of the interaction of various causes and conditions.

The significance of making the statement all conditioned things come into being purely as a result of causes and conditions is to deny two possibilities. One is the possibility they can come into being from nowhere without causes or conditions, causelessly. The second possibility being negated is that things come into being as the result of a transcendent creator. However there is another dimension to the understanding of this principle. That is to say understanding the principle of dependent origination in terms of parts and whole, how all material objects can be understood in terms of how parts compose a whole. The very concept of wholeness depends on the existence of parts. So there is dependence in the physical world and similarly in non-physical entities like consciousness then one can look at them in terms of their temporal sequences. The very idea of unity and wholeness of consciousness is dependent upon successive sequences that compose a continuum or wholeness. When one looks at the universe in these terms then not only can one understand all conditioned things as dependently originated but also the entirety of phenomena can be understood by the principal of dependent origination.

There is a further dimension to the meaning of the principle of dependent origination which is to say that all things and events comes into being purely as the result of the mere aggregation of many factors. When analyzed one understands that it is simply in dependence upon others that all things come into being and they lack any independent or intrinsic identity or intrinsic existence. There is no autonomous existence or identity to anything. The identity or existence one perceives in things is contingent as it comes into being as the result of an interaction between one’s perception and the existence of reality itself. However this is not to say that things do not exist. They do exist however they do not exist with independent, autonomous reality.

Corresponding to these three different dimensions or levels of meaning of the principle of dependent origination one can also read three different meanings into the concept of Dharma referring back to Buddha’s statement. Seeing dependent origination leads to seeing the Dharma here relates to the first level of dependent origination in terms of causal dependence. By developing a deep understanding of the interdependent nature of reality in terms of causal dependence then one will be able to appreciate the workings of karma or karmic law. One understands how experiences of pain and suffering come into being as the result of negative actions, thoughts and behavior. Similarly how desirable experiences like happiness and joy come into being as the result of causes and conditions that correspond to these such as positive actions, emotions and thoughts. By understanding the principal of dependent origination in causal terms one will be able to develop a deep understanding of the law of karma.

Once one develops a deep understanding of the principle of dependent origination in terms of causal dependence it gives one fundamental insight into the nature of reality that everything one perceives and experiences comes into being as the result of the aggregation of causes and conditions. One develops a fundamental perspective towards one’s own experiences and also towards the world at large. Once one sees everything in terms of this causal principle and once one has this kind of philosophical outlook, one is able to locate or situate one’s understanding of karma within this principle. The operation of karmic laws is an instance of the overall general causal principle.

Similarly when one has developed a deep understanding of the other two levels of dependent origination, dependence on parts or whole and the interdependence between perception and existence, then one will be able to develop a deeper philosophical perspective on the world. One appreciates that there is a disparity between the way things appear to one and the way they really exist. What appears as having some kind of intrinsic, autonomous, objective reality “out there” does not fit the actual nature of reality. Once one is able to develop this perspective, this understanding that there is a disparity, a fundamental gap, between the way things appear and the way they really exist, then one will gain an insight into the workings of one’s own emotions and reactions towards events. One will gain an insight that underlying one’s strong emotional responses to situations and events there is an assumption of an independently existing and abiding object, an objective reality “out there”.

Once one is able to develop the understanding and appreciation of this fundamental disparity between appearance and reality, then one will be able to understand that underlying many of one’s strong emotions, emotional responses towards events and situations, there is an assumption of an independently existing reality “out there”. This gives one insight into the various functions of the mind and the different levels of consciousness that exist within one’s mind. If one is able to develop the understanding that within one’s own mental or emotional states there are certain states which may seem very real and are related to objects which seem so real and vivid but in reality these are illusory states. The objects related to the emotional state do not really exist. Through this way one can gain an insight into what in technical Buddhist terminology is called the origin of suffering.

The afflictive emotional experiences or states lead to confusion, misapprehension and afflict the mind. When this is combined with the understanding of the interdependent nature of reality at the subtlest level then one will also gain insight into what in technical Buddhist terms is called the empty nature of reality, the emptiness of all things and events. Each and every object and event lack intrinsic or independent reality. They come into being only as the result of the aggregation of many factors. They do not posses an existence or identity that is independent or autonomous. Once one gains insight into this emptiness then one will understand that any apprehensions which conceive reality in the contrary way, thinking that things exist intrinsically or independently, then one will know that these apprehensions are misconceptions pertaining to the nature of reality. One will also realize that they have no valid grounding either in reality or in one’s own valid experiences. Whereas the empty nature of reality has a valid grounding both in reason and also in one’s own experience. Through this way one will be able to understand and appreciate the possibility of arriving at a state of knowledge where one can eliminate misapprehension completely. This is the state of cessation. The point is that by developing a deep and profound understanding of the principal of dependent origination one can understand both the truth of the subtle origins of suffering and the truth of cessation.

This is the explanation of the Buddha’s statement that by seeing dependent origination one sees the Dharma. Through this way one can see the truth of cessation and the path leading towards that cessation. Once one understands the path and the cessation the path leads to then one can perceive the possibility of Sangha members who have realized and actualized these states and also Buddhas who would have perfected these states and experiences. To sum up, this is the meaning of the Buddha’s statement that by understanding the principal of dependent origination in causal terms one understands the law of karma, the causal principle that operates fundamentally in reality. Also by complimenting this understanding of the causal principle with dependent origination at a subtler level then one understands the nature of Dharma in terms of cessation and the path leading to that cessation. Once one has gained an understanding of cessation and the path then one understands what Tathagata means or what the Buddha means.

Therefore I feel that in order to develop a profound or comprehensive understanding of the Four Noble Truths it is necessary to have an understanding of the Two Truths. Therefore Chandrakirti says in his Prasannapada, Clear Words if one can appreciate the principle or doctrine of emptiness, if one can posit emptiness, then one can posit the interdependent world, the world of dependent origination. If can posit that then one can posit causality, the causal relation between suffering and its origin. Once one can except the causal relation between suffering and its origin, one can also conceive and accept the possibility of its cessation. If one can do this then one can also accept the possibility of individual Sangha members who have realized and actualized these states. If one can do this then one can also conceive of Buddhas who have perfected these states of cessation.

This is how one can appreciate the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of the Two Truths. It is from the understanding of the phenomenal world of experience; the everyday world of lived experience, that one can appreciate what is known as the world of lokasamvrtisatya, the world of conventional reality where the causal principle operates. Once one can accept this then one can also accept the fundamental empty nature underlying reality, which according to Buddhism is the ultimate truth, paramarthasatya. Here on can see a relationship between the two aspects of reality as the world of appearance is used not so much as a contrast or an oppositional world to the ultimate truth, but rather is used as the evidence or basic ground on which the ultimate nature is accepted. Once one can understand the relationship and the nature of the Two Truths, the world of conventional reality and the ultimate truth, then one is in a good position to fully understand the meaning of the Four Noble Truths as taught in the scriptures. Once one can understand the Four Noble Truths then one has laid a profound foundation to develop a good understanding of what is meant by taking refuge in the Three Jewels.

When I speak about the Two Truths you must keep in mind that I am speaking from the perspective of the Madhyamaka School, the Middle Way School of Buddhism. Of course the very term Two Truths is not confined to this school alone but is found in other schools of Buddhism; Vaibhashika, Sautrantika and Cittamatra. Also the concept of the Two Truths can be found in non-Buddhist philosophical schools as well.

Now the question is why the Four Noble Truths? Why do they exist? Why did the Buddha teach the Four Noble Truths? Here one must relate this to one’s own experience as an individual human being. It is a natural fact of existence that we all as individuals posses the innate desire to seek happiness and overcome suffering. This is a fact of human existence. This is instinctual and innate and does not need any validation or justification for its existence. Just as it is a natural instinctual desire so do each of us have the right to fulfill that aspiration. Of course suffering is something everyone wishes to avoid and we also have the right to try and overcome that suffering. Happiness is something everyone aspires to achieve of course everyone has the right to fulfill the aspiration to attain happiness.

If aspiring to achieve happiness and wishing to overcome suffering is a natural state of being then the question arises how does one go about fulfilling these valid, natural aspirations? Here one finds in the teachings of the Four Noble Truths an understanding of two sets of cause and effect. On the one hand one has suffering which is what everyone tries to avoid and suffering comes into being from its own causes and conditions. Similarly one has happiness on the other side and cessation can be seen as the highest form of happiness. Here when one discusses happiness one should not confine one’s understanding to only the level of feeling states. Certainly cessation is not a state of feeling. One could say that cessation is the highest culmination or form of happiness as it is a true state of the freedom from suffering. True freedom from suffering or true happiness again does not come into being from nowhere or without any cause. Of course here from the Buddhist understanding because cessation is not a conditioned existence, it can not be said to be produced by something but the actualization or attainment of this cessation depends upon the path, on an individual’s effort. One can not attain cessation without making effort. One could say that the path that leads to the cessation is the cause. Within the teachings of the Four Noble Truths what one finds is two sets of cause and effect which are all aimed at enabling the individual to fulfill one’s fundamental aspiration to be happy and overcome suffering.

The question could be asked why is there a specific sequence? Why are the Four Noble Truths taught in a particular order? One should understand that the order has nothing to do with the way things come into being but rather it has to do with how an individual can go about practicing the Buddhist path and attaining realizations based on that path.

Maitreya states in his Uttaratantra, The Sublime Continuum, one must first recognize that one is ill, then one needs to know the causes of illness to be avoided. The state of cure must be sought and then the medicine leading to the cure must be taken. Similarly suffering is something one must recognize, the origin of the suffering must be abandoned, one must aspire to the cessation of suffering and then the path leading to that cessation must be realized. The analogy of a sick person is used here to explain the way in which realizations based on the Four Noble Truths could be obtained. In order for the sick person to get well the first step is that the sick person must know that they are sick. Without this knowledge the desire to be cured from that sickness will not arise. Once one has that recognition one will try to find out what conditions led to the illness and what conditions worsen the illness. Once one has recognized these factors one gains an understanding if it can be cured or not. Once one has recognized what are the conditions which led to one’s illness one will also have a stronger desire to be free from this illness as one has a conviction that one can overcome the illness. Once one has this conviction then one will adopt the treatment.

Similarly unless one knows one is suffering, one’s desire to be free from suffering will not arise in the first place. The first step for a practicing Buddhist is to recognize one’s state of dukha, in the nature of suffering. Once one has this recognition then will then look into the causes and conditions giving rise to the state of suffering.

It is very important that one understands the context of the Buddha’s emphasis on developing the profound recognition of being in a state of suffering or dukha. Otherwise there is a danger of misunderstanding the Buddha’s spiritual approach or outlook thinking that Buddhism demands a lot of morbid reasoning, being pessimistic and thinking only about suffering. The reason the Buddha emphasized suffering and developing a profound insight into the nature of suffering is because there is an alternative, a way out. There is the possibility of freedom from suffering. This is why the recognition or realization of the nature of suffering becomes very important as the stronger or deeper one’s insight into the state of suffering is the stronger the force of one’s aspiration to gain freedom from suffering becomes. It is important to understand that the emphasis on the nature of suffering and the Buddhist spiritual path is in the context of a wider perspective where there is an appreciation that there is a way out. There is the possibility of freedom from suffering. Otherwise if there were no possibility of freedom from suffering, no liberation from suffering, then it would be totally pointless to spend so much time reflecting on suffering. It would be useless.

One could say that these two sets of cause and effect that I talked about earlier refer to the process of an unenlightened existence on one hand which leads to the causal nexus between suffering and its origins, and then the process of an enlightened existence which pertains to the causal nexus between the path and true cessation on the other hand. When the Buddha elaborates on the understanding of these two processes then he taught the doctrine of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. This chain starts with ignorance leading to volition followed by consciousness and so on. This is in some sense an elaboration on the teachings of the Four Noble Truths. When the causal process of an unenlightened existence within the framework of suffering and its origin is elaborated then one has the sequential order of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. These links show how an individual sentient being as a result of certain causes and conditions enters into the process of samsaric or unenlightened existence. Whereas the same individual as the result of certain practices can engage in a reversal process of the order, which leads towards, processes ending in enlightenment. Here the Twelve Links are reversed and this leads to true cessation.

For example, if one ceases the continuum of ignorance then the continuum of volitional actions will be ceased. When volitional actions cease consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases then name and form cease. One can see that the teachings on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are in some sense an elaboration of the two sets of causes and conditions.

Question: Your Holiness spoke about individual practitioners gaining insight into the Four Noble Truths then spoke about how the Buddha perfected those insights. What is the difference between individuals gaining insight and Buddha’s perfection of these insights?

Answer: To give an example of gaining insight into subtle impermanence, the momentary nature of all things and events, an individual at the initial stage may have an understanding of things as being impermanent but still has strong grasping at the permanence of things. In order to loosen the grip of grasping one needs some form of critical reasoning, which in the least can cast doubt or suspicion in the individual’s mind as to the permanence of things. This in and of itself will have an impact on the individual’s mind as will start loosening the grip of things as permanent or eternal. This is not enough. One needs further reinforcement of the critical reasoning to point one more towards the impermanence of things. Even this is not enough one needs further conviction and this can be gained again through constant reflection. This leads towards what is called the inferential or intellectual understanding of impermanence.

This again is not enough in order to have a strong impact on one’s behavior. One must gain direct insight or intuitive experience of the impermanence of things. This again needs to be further perfected as the grasping at permanence is deeply imbedded in one’s consciousness. One insight can not dispel it. It is a long process of deepening one’s insight that will eventually dispel even the smallest tendency towards grasping at permanence. It is the same for emptiness.

However there are certain aspects of the path, which have less to do with cognitive experiences and more with enhancement of the heart like compassion and bodhicitta. In these areas at the initial stage one needs to develop an understanding of what compassion is and a notion of how it could be enhanced. As a result of one’s practice one may gain at the initial stage a simulated experience when one sits down and thinks about compassion. That compassion may not be long lasting and does not permeate one’s very being. What is needed is a further deepening of the experience so that compassion becomes spontaneous. This experience of compassion is not dependent on intellectual thought rather it is a truly spontaneous response to occasions requiring such a response. Through this experience of compassion can be further deepened and become universal. Here again it is a long process.

These two aspects of the path are known in technical Buddhist terminology as the method aspect and the wisdom or insight aspect. These two must go hand-in-hand. Method and wisdom must be combined. In order for insight to be enhanced and deepened one needs the complimenting factor from the method aspect such as compassion or bodhicitta. Similarly in order to enhance and deepen and strengthen one’s realization of compassion and bodhicitta one needs the factor of wisdom or insight, which grounds or enhances them. One needs an approach where there is a combination or union of method and wisdom.

In the case of insight into impermanence although this very insight will enable the individual to overcome grasping at permanence, this does not mean that deepening, even perfecting this insight alone would lead to total liberation. One needs further complimentary factors to overcome other obstructions in the mind such as grasping at the objective reality of things, grasping at abiding principles or grasping at intrinsic reality. These also need to be counteracted through developing insight into emptiness. What one sees is a very complex process of progression of an individual’s level of consciousness through spiritual processes towards perfection.

Question: Is there a difference between thought and action related to cause and effect? That is to say, can a thought cause and action and vice versa?

Answer: When one talks about the Buddhist concept of karma, karmic action, it is not confined to bodily actions alone. It also embraces mental or emotional acts. For example when one talks about acts of covetousness or harmful intention, these do not necessarily manifest in behavior. One can have a full action of these thoughts without being expressed in action at all. One can see a completion of these acts even at the level of mind or thought.

Question: It is a well-known fact that you are a very busy person with many demands on your time. Could you advise a layperson with home, family and work on how to develop a systematic routine of practice?

Answer: Generally speaking one must know that when one talks about practicing the Dharma or meditating on the Dharma, it is something which needs to be done twenty-four hours a day. This is why in the traditional Buddhist explanation one makes a distinction between actual meditation sessions and the post-meditational periods. The idea being that both while one is in the meditative session and also when one is out of the session one should be fully within the realm of practice.

In fact the post-meditational period is a real test for the strength of one’s practice. During the meditation one is equipping oneself so that when you come out of the meditative session one is better equipped to deal with the demands of everyday reality of one’s existence. This is analogous to recharging one’s battery. The very purpose of recharging a battery is that one can use it to run something. Similarly once one has equipped oneself in one’s meditation through whatever practices one engages in, as a human being one can not avoid the daily routines of one’s existence, interacting with others or all the everyday realities of life. These are activities as human beings one can not avoid and it is during these periods that one should be able to live according to the principals of one’s Dharma practice. This is one’s test.

At the initial stage as a beginner one needs periods of concentrated meditational practice so that one can have at least a base from which to begin. This is very crucial. Once one has established this base then one will be able to adopt a way of life where one’s daily activities will be made at least to accord with the principles of the Dharma. What this points to is the importance of making an effort. Without effort there is no way to integrate the principals of Dharma into one’s life.

For the serious practitioner a serious effort is very essential. Without this, just a short prayer, some chanting or a recitation with the mala is not sufficient. It can’t change. Our negative emotions are so powerful so in order to change them we need a constant effort. Through this way definitely we can change. Some of my Western friends they request the quickest, easiest and most effective, then perhaps another question the cheapest! I think this is impossible. I usually feel this is a sign of failure.

Question: What is the difference between self-realization and goal realization?

Answer: I don’t know.

Question: Would His Holiness say he is free from suffering?

Answer: Certainly not! Lot of suffering and some suffering here, coughing, coughing. This is also a kind of suffering.

[End of first session]