II.  SECOND DIVISION: THE TEXT

Up to this point we've been going through the introductory part of the text, which begins with the paying of homage and a statement of the author's purpose in writing the text. Once introductory parts of any given text are dealt with, you come to the main body of teachings. This is what we're about to commence now, the main body of ideas contained within this text.

A.  THE FOUR MAIN TOPICS

Summary of the Four Main Topics

The main body of the text is explained from the point of view of the seven questions that are being asked and the answers that the author is giving to the seven questions that he himself is posing.

First, from the point of view of how the seven questions are asked, he discusses the way in which these questions are asked, the classification of the questions, the benefits of answering them, why these questions are important ones, and the benefits and advantages of coming up with the correct answers to these questions.

Secondly, he discusses the defects of engaging in too much speculation and elaboration concerning the way things seem to appear as opposed to their true nature.

His third discussion regarding the seven questions is the enumeration of what is being asked, the actual questions that are being asked.

Finally, there is a section in which he quotes scripture and uses reasoning to establish how the answers to the seven questions are to be given, so that the answers are being given from two points of view: one by quoting scriptural authority to prove a certain point, to back up a certain point; the other by using reasoning.

These are the ways in which Mipham Rinpoche discusses how the questions were asked in the first place when he wrote this text.

In the first case, concerning how the questions are asked and the manner in which the questions were asked, he begins with the statement:

Thus to the sage or the seer of mind
The upstart beggar asks the following seven
Questions in order to engage
In philosophical nit-picking.

In actual fact the person asking the questions and the person answering the questions are one and the same. It is Mipham Rinpoche himself asking the questions, but it is one aspect of his mind asking another aspect of his mind the questions. When he was pursuing his hearing, studying, and contemplating of the teachings of Madyamika, he found his ordinary mind asking these kinds of questions, almost to itself. So he is approaching it from that point of view, saying that these are the kinds of questions that the ordinary part of his mind, which he is comparing to a kind of wandering mendicant pilgrim (Tibetan, dongopa, Sanskrit, sadu) in India begging for his or her living in an aimless or meandering fashion. I'm not sure if you have people like this in your culture and or you call them if you do, but in Tibet it's a well known phenomenon.

This wandering aspect of ordinary discursive thought poses the seven questions to the side of his mind which embodies discriminating wisdom.

Throughout the text, he will be establishing the position of the Nyingma school regarding the seven questions, but from a non-sectarian point of view. It isn't as though he said, "well I like Nyingma and I don't like Sakyapa, Gelugpa, or Kagyupa -- that's why I'm writing this text". Rather, he is establishing the authentic Nyingr, "sage of mind" -- that aspect of his mind which has a discriminating, intelligent quality.

This upstart beggar poses the following seven questions. This aspect of his ordinary mind, which thinks in terms of ordinary concepts, indulges, as he says, "in philosophical nit-picking". The word togawa in Tibetan refers to someone who doesn't really think of the meaning, but only of the words, and who loves to debate about the words without really paying much attention to the deeper meaning of those words, the meaning to which those words point.

He is saying that through the blessings of Manjushri an aspect of his mind is imbued with intelligent discriminating wisdom. It is to this aspect that the ordinary aspect of his mind is posing these questions.

So, in fact, there is no distinction to be made between the one asking the questions and the one answering them. One aspect of his mind merely poses these questions to another aspect of his mind.

In the next verse, he talks about the benefits and advantages of answering these questions in an authentic and correct manner, by saying

How can one be learned if one is only repeating what others have said?
Rather one should use one's own discriminating awareness carefully,
And then answer these questions in a very careful, very methodical manner,
And the answers will become evident just as they are understood,
Perceived by this inner faculty of discriminating awareness.

He's saying here that if you're going to pose these questions and then the questions are going to be answered, they need to be answered correctly and in the proper manner.

The words that are the legacy of the Buddha, the words of the Buddha Dharma, are not words that are easily accessible. In order to truly understand them, a person must have accumulated great merit and have the good fortune and intelligence to be able to perceive and understand the meaning of what the Buddha was saying.

But too often, people who don't examine the deeper meaning of what the Buddha said cling to certain sectarian points of view in a superficial, half-baked way. They tend to speak, not from some depth of understanding, but from their attachment, aversion, and stupidity. They'll say, "My position is right and yours is wrong; what I say is right and what you say is wrong," without having understood the issues that are being discussed.

For example, a Gelugpa practitioner of this type may say, "Well, I believe everything Tsongkapa ever said. I don't necessarily understand all of those issues, but whatever Tsongkapa said, that's the truth." Or a Nyingma practitioner of this type might believe the same thing about Longchenpa or one of the other great Nyingma masters, and say "Well, whatever he said was fine. Whatever is in the writings of so and so, that's it."

They are simply affiliating themselves with a particular figure of a particular lineage out of a personal sense of loyalty, without really understanding the issues. This is not what Mipham is interested in here. He says, "How could one be learned if one is simply parroting or repeating what someone else said, and saying that it is the truth without having ever gone into it one's self." Instead, he says, "You must use your own faculty of discriminating awareness. You must use it carefully."

This has been the ideal throughout the history of the Nyingma tradition. All of the great scholars of the tradition have insisted upon this point, that ultimately you cannot rely upon someone else's opinion. You must discover for yourself, by using your own discriminating awareness, what the truth of the matter is. Then you don't need to rely upon any other factor.

That is the implication of the first line of this verse, where Mipham says, "How could one be considered learned simply by repeating the words of others, simply by parroting what someone else has said."

According to the construction of the verse, this wandering beggar of the ordinary mind poses these questions to sage of intelligent discriminating wisdom. One is in fact saying to the other, "Look, I'm going to ask you these questions. I'm going to know whether the answers are true or not, whether they are really based upon your inner qualities or not. Just as though I held a mirror up and we could see your form reflected in this mirror, I'm going to know whether your answers are coming from deep inner experience or whether you're just parroting the words of others."

So this upstart beggar of ordinary mind is posing this challenge to the sage of Mipham's intelligence, his intelligent awareness, saying to him, "How could you be considered learned if you're just parroting the words of others? Carefully use your discriminating faculty, the discriminating awareness of your mind, and give me my answer. Answer these questions carefully and it'll be evident to me whether or not the question has been answered correctly."

The second topic he discusses regarding the questions concerns the defects of indulging in too much speculation and too many concepts on the level of the seeming appearance of things.

Even though a person who has heard
A great number of teachings may extend the reach
Of his or her learning on the intellectual level,
This is like someone who lives in a well
Unable to appreciate the vast extent of the ocean or a huge lake.
They have some taste of water, but only a small limited experience.
For someone like this to continue to hope to gain fame as a scholar
Is like someone from a very low caste or class of society
Lusting after the queen.

The idea here is that even though a person may have heard many teachings in his or her school of thought, if the person is only concerned with the concepts, the person is being described as being like an elephant who has a long trunk that can reach out to grasp things. The person has a breadth of exposure to the teachings, but despite this the person is limited in his or her experience.

The image of the well and the great lake is based upon an Asian fable of a frog that lived in a well. The frog assumed that the little well in which it lived was the whole world. He couldn't conceive of there being anything bigger than his little puddle of water at the bottom of the well. He had no idea that there was such a thing as a lake or an ocean.

One day, the well was visited by a frog that lived next to a huge lake. The frog in the well said, "where do you come from?".

The other frog answered, "I come from the shore of a great lake. It's a huge body of water".

The frog in the well puffed himself up and said, "betcha it's not as big as this" while pointing at the water in the well.

The frog that had come from the great lake said, "Oh no, it's much, much bigger than that".

The frog in the well said, "What do you mean? Bigger than this whole well, my whole big well?"

The frog from the lake said, "much, much bigger".

The frog in the well said, "I don't believe it".

So the frog from the lake took him to the shore of the lake. As soon as the frog from the well saw the lake his head exploded. He couldn't handle it because it was so huge. He never thought of anything that big.

So a person who has heard many teachings, but only heard them intellectually, may have a sophisticated grasp of the concepts. But, if that person has only been concerned with extending their knowledge and not with deepening their knowledge, then he or she is like the frog in the well who can perceive the water in the well but not the water of the huge lake.

The huge lake is the lake of the Dharma. The implication here is that our own narrow little orbit is nothing compared to the extent and depth of the Buddha's teachings. To assume that we have any kind of wisdom when we're just living in the well is like, as he says, someone of a low caste lusting after the queen. Of course this takes into account the social structure of ancient India, where the caste system was very highly regulated and it would be a crime punishable by severe penalties for someone of a low caste to look at the king's consort with desire or lust in his heart. It would be considered completely ignoble, inappropriate, and taboo.

And so for anybody to have this very narrow view and still hope to be famous as a scholar or to be some great intellect is equally ignoble, inappropriate, and out of the question.

His third discussion is the categorization, the enumeration of what is being asked, the actual questions that are being discussed.

The first question posed is:

Which view do you profess or uphold,
Which of the two kinds of negation?

In the history of Buddhist philosophy as it developed in India and Tibet, the various masters who appeared, wrote, debated, and so-forth initiated a very large number of controversies over the finer points of philosophy. To summarize the controversies, we can talk about the two kinds of negation.

To negate something is to deny it to be such and such. One kind of negation is an absolute, or total, negation; the other is a provisional, or partial, negation. To give you some idea of what is meant here, I'll include a couple of examples from philosophy texts:

When you say, "the fat man, Devadata, does not eat by day" (a traditional example), you state a provisional negation. You are saying that he doesn't eat by day. But he's fat, so he must eat by night.

But if you say, for example, "the Brahman does not drink alcohol" (another traditional example), you state an absolute negation. In the ancient culture of India, the Brahman never touched alcohol, that was one of the rules of their social order. So to say that the Brahman does not drink alcohol is an absolute negation.

This has been a prosaic way of explaining the difference between these two kinds of negation, the absolute negation and the provisional negation.

The Buddha taught the non-existence of self from two points of view: the non-existence of a self of an individual personality (the "I" or "ego"), and the non-existence of self-nature in phenomena.

In the case of the non-self of an individual (the non-existence of any individual self in any ultimate sense) the Hinayana and Mahayana schools are all in agreement: the paths of the Shravaka and the Pratyeka Buddha in the Hinayana and of the Bodhisattva in the Mahayana. Nowhere in the five skandhas of the mind-body complex can any eternal, ultimate self or "I" or "Atman" or "soul" be found. This is something all Buddhist schools accept.

Regarding the non-existence of self-nature in phenomena, there is some debate.

In the case of the present text, Mipham, as a Nyingma scholar, is approaching self-nature from the point of view of the early translation school (the Nyingma). This beggar of ordinary mind is posing this question to him and saying to his intelligent discriminating awareness, "Which of these kinds of negation do you accept? Do you maintain that the true view is a complete negation or only a provisional negation?"

That's the first question.

The second question is

Do Hinayana practitioners realize
Both the non-existence of the individual self
And the non-existence of the self nature of phenomena
Or not?

While this may sound like an abstract issue, it is in fact a crucial point. Because, if on the one hand we say, "yes they do realize the nonexistence of both kinds of self, the individual self and the self-nature of phenomena," then what distinguishes a Hinayana practitioner from a Mahayana practitioner? (In the Mahayana one ultimately realizes the non-existence of both of these levels of self, self and self nature.)

But, on the other hand, if the Hinayana do not realize the non-existence of both of these selves, how is it that they do not?

That's the second question.

The third question concerns formal meditation:

When one is resting in equipoise,
Is there any way in which one maintains
That state of rest or not?
When one is authentically practicing meditation
Is one actually holding the meditation
In some specific way
Or not?

Again there is a major issue at stake. Some people say that, in order for meditation to be authentic, there is absolutely no means of holding the meditation. Because, if there is, it is somehow contrived and incomplete. Others would say, "well, if you say there's absolutely nothing then you're making an error which does not accord with the proper Mahayana view".

A view was brought to Tibet by a teacher called Hashang. This teacher stated that absolutely nothing exists. It was a nihilistic approach. It is used as an example in the Tibetan tradition as an error in thinking, because it denies everything. So to say, "when you're meditating, there's no particular way in which you hold the mind in meditation" to some people seems like a nihilistic denial.

The issue that the ordinary mind is here posing to the intelligent discriminating mind is, "when one is resting in formal meditation, is there any specific means of holding the mind in that state of maintaining that state or not?"

That's the third question.

The fourth question asks,

Is meditation an analytical process
Or is it a process of letting the mind settle?

In other words, when you meditate, does meditation consist of using the mind constructively to think about things in a certain way, or is it simply letting the mind settle, rest without any specific train of thought taking place?

That's the fourth question.

The fifth question is in regard to the relative and absolute levels of truth,

Of the two levels of truth
Which is most important?

Given that there is ultimate truth and relative, or conventional, truth, which is the more important?

Different Buddhist schools throughout history held different opinions and positions on this. It isn't really the case that any authentic Buddhist school denies one or another of these levels of truth, but there is sometimes a difference of emphasis. The tendency is toward emphasizing the ultimate level of truth at the expense of the conventional level of truth. So the fifth question the ordinary mind is posing to the discriminating intelligence is, "Which is the more important of these two levels of truth, ultimate or relative?"

That's the fifth question.

The sixth question concerns the true or correct way in which phenomena manifest in the perceptions of different kinds of beings. To understand this, you need to understand, for example, the hypothetical case where you place a bowl of water in front of beings from the six classes of cyclic existence and they each see it in a different way. A hell being would see a bowl of molten metal. A preta would see a bowl of pus, blood, and foul matter. A human being would just see ordinary water. An animal, if that animal were a Naga or a fish that lived in water, would see it as a home, as an environment in which to live. A deva, a god, would see it as nectar. A Buddha would see it as the essential nature of the feminine consort Lamaki. Which of these is true? That's the question being posed. Given that there are all these different ways of perceiving phenomena based upon the particular realm in which one is existing at the time, which is true? Which is the correct perception?

That's the sixth question.

The seventh question is,

In the Madyamika school
Is any formal position taken or not?

This was a matter of intense debate. Some people would say that if you are truly following the middle way you cannot hold any particular position, because if you do, you don't have the authentic view, because you're indulging in grasping at the idea of self and self nature.

The other school of thought would say, "if there is absolutely no position, then it's just like Hashang the nihilist, who says that absolutely nothing exists. So the seventh question asks, "is there or is there not some 'official position' from the point of view of the Madyamika?"

Summary of the Seven Questions

This is a list of the seven questions Mipham's ordinary mind is posing to his discriminating wisdom as a kind of challenge saying, "come on, tell me:

1. Which of the kinds of negation do you hold to be the view?

2. Do Hinayana practitioners realize the non-existence of both the self of the    individual and the self-nature of phenomena?

3. Is there any specific way of holding the mind in meditation or not?

4. Do you meditate by analyzing or do you meditate by settling?

5. Which of the two levels of truth is most important?

6. Which of the various ways of perceiving phenomena is the true one?

7. Does this middle way truly have a position or not? Does the position have a    stand to make on some philosophical level?"

These are the questions that one aspect of Mipham's mind posed to the other aspect of his mind.

Mipham now invokes an answer. The ordinary mind is again posing these seven questions to the wisdom aspect saying, "Give me an answer that is based upon your reasoning but that also does not conflict with the scriptural authority of the Buddha's teachings. I want you to answer these seven questions concerning the profound nature of emptiness in this way!"

This is a kind of exhortation from the ordinary aspect of mind to the wisdom aspect of Mipham's mind. From this nit-picking upstart beggar aspect that is thoroughly caught up in the concepts and is trying to find the right answer to these questions, posing them to the wisdom aspect of his mind saying, "these questions that I have just posed to you, these seven questions that deal with the profound view of emptiness: Answer these! Answer me now! Give me an answer that is established by reasoning but does not conflict with the scriptural authority of what the Buddha said, so that there's a harmony between what the Buddha said and what one discovers by one's own reasoning."

The text states that the garlands or streams of words that peasants use, people who are only concerned with the words and not the meaning, are like a nexus of thorns. Even though all of these thorns are brought to bear on the true nature of reality, they will not penetrate through to the true nature because they are just words and concepts. The literal statement is, "the garlands of words of the peasants are like a knot, and even though a hundred thousand of these thorns try to penetrate, they will not penetrate."

Those who consider themselves great because they are adept with concepts are ignorant regarding the questions being asked. In order to help them, he says literally, "extend your tongue like a fork of lightning to speak of these matters".

Here it is still the ordinary aspect, the lowly beggar, the upstart, speaking to the sage saying, "The garlands or streams of words that peasants use." The word "Peasant" here, (togawa in Tibetan) means someone who is only concerned with the words, not really understanding the meaning of what the Buddha was saying, but getting caught up in and obsessed by the words; one who loves to debate words, loves to talk about them, loves to get into the words of the teaching rather than into the ultimate meaning.

The Buddha himself said that a person with this approach cannot realize the ultimate point of what the Buddha was talking about. The Buddha spoke of what he termed the four reliances, the four things you should rely upon, and one of them is, "Do not rely just upon the words, rely upon the meaning to which the words point."

However, there are many people who do become caught up in the words. And it is this lowly beggar of the ordinary mind caught up in these words that is posing these questions to the great sage or seer of discriminating wisdom, saying that all of these words and concepts we peasants use are like so many thorns that we try to use to penetrate to the ultimate meaning.

In order to explain to us deluded ones these difficult points, he says, "extend your tongue like a fork of lightning." The tongue being the idea that the author is reciting the text which is then taken down and published. So he the ordinary mind is exhorting the wisdom aspect to speak quickly, to address these issues quickly. Just like a fork of lightning flashing in the sky.

Returning to the four main topics of the discussion, first he has talked about the questions, the way in which the questions have been asked by ordinary mind to the wisdom aspect of mind. Now he begins to talk about the particular way in which the answers are being given.

The first of these aspects is the kind of enthusiasm that is aroused for answering the question on the part of the wisdom aspect of mind.

The second aspect is that ordinary wisdom of a mundane nature, whether it is something one is born with or whether it is something one has trained in, cannot by itself understand these issues in a flawless manner.

The third aspect is that it is therefore only fitting that one should swallow one's pride. One should lose one's intellectual arrogance and pray to one's deities for blessing and guidance.

The fourth aspect is gaining confidence in this way in which one is actually able to answer the questions in accordance with scriptural authority and by using one's powers or reason.

The first aspect, concerning the way in which the questions are answered, is the kind of enthusiasm that is aroused in the wisdom aspect of mind to answer the questions of the ordinary aspect of mind.

Mipham states that the exhortation is like a wind stirring that touches the heart of this sage, this wisdom aspect of mind, shaking it, causing it to move or stir. It is as though the wisdom aspect of mind is resting in deep meditation. Then these prodding questions of the ordinary mind cause it to stir..

He says it is like mountains being shaken by the winds at the end of a kalpa, that completely scatter the entire physical world with their power. In the same way, even though the wisdom aspect of mind is thoroughly immersed in a deep state of meditative awareness, there is a shift that takes place due to the questions posed by the ordinary aspect of mind.

In response, the wisdom aspect arises from its state of silent, inward, equipoise and is encouraged to answer.

The second aspect of how the questions are answered, is from the point of view realizing that ordinary wisdom, whether inborn or trained, cannot answer these questions in a definitive and flawless manner.

He is examining his own ability to answer the questions he has posed to himself, saying, "How can I ever answer these questions?" Saying,

Alas!
If hundreds of individuals in the past,
Great masters, have already carried the burden
Of these difficult points and have examined them
Again and again and again with their sharp intellect
So that their combined wisdom is like a huge fire
Blazing greater and greater,
If they are not able to answer these questions
Successfully, how then can I?

The ordinary aspect of Mipham's mind is asking the wisdom aspect of Mipham's mind these questions, and Mipham himself is at first a little bit daunted. He says, "Alas!", the sound of sorrow or despair. How could I answer these questions? How is it possible for me to truly answer these questions if there have been hundreds and thousands of masters in Buddhist India, in Tibet, in Bhutan, in Sikkhim, and in all the other areas of the world where the Buddha's teachings have spread? Each of these teachers has carried the burden of these difficult points for all of these centuries, and their combined wisdom is like a huge fire burning greater and greater. If they're not able to answer, how can I?"

There's an awareness of his own shortcomings.

The third aspect of answering these questions is that of swallowing one's pride, of practicing humility so that one is not indulging in intellectual arrogance. In the case of Mipham, it means swallowing his own pride (which he might otherwise indulge in as a great teacher) and praying instead to his deity for inspiration. In this case, the deity would be Manjushri, the Bodhisattva of Wisdom.

He says, "with someone such as I, the power of mind I was born with has waned and I have not had a long time to train my mind (remember that he's speaking at seven years of age). So how could someone as lowly as I have anything to say about these things?" And he said, "When I thought of that I cried out with yearning to Manjushri". So here he is, at seven years old, when most of us barely know our alphabet, composing this text, Neshe Rinpoche Dronme, "The Precious Lamp of Certain Knowledge".

Even so, he is aware of the fact that it is necessary to swallow one's pride, to show humility rather than to presume arrogantly to know everything. Remember that Mipham was an emanation of Manjushri. How many of us at the age of seven could have composed anything of this nature? We were starting to learn these kinds of things. But, when a seven-year-old actually sits down and composes a text like this, we already have indications that we're dealing with a remarkable individual, a brilliant intellect. His formal education probably began around the age of six or seven so he may have been studying for a few months or maybe a year when he wrote this text, and he says, "I haven't had a long time to train my mind.

He's basically saying, "I don't know, without the blessings of Manjushri, how I could possibly proceed" So he calls upon his deity for the divine inspiration to compose the text.

[This is the end of Tape 3, which is all that has been transcribed and edited as of 7/15/98.]