http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group/message/15006
I wanted to pass this on and criticise it, in the brackets.
From: "Kia Pierce" <pinkfish80@y...>
Date: Wed Jul 30, 2003 9:10 pm
Subject: Buddhism In a Nutshell
I found this on another list and thought it was good.
Kia
***
Buddhism In a Nutshell:
The Four Seals of Dharma
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
People often ask me: "What is Buddhism in a nutshell?" Or
they ask, "What is the particular view or philosophy of Buddhism?"
Unfortunately, in the West Buddhism seems to have landed
in the religious department, even in the self-help or self-
improvement department, and clearly it's in the trendy meditation
department. I would like to challenge the popular definition of
Buddhist meditation.
Many people think meditation has something to do with
relaxation, with watching the sunset or watching the waves at the
beach. Charming phrases like "letting go" and "being carefree" come
to mind. From a Buddhist point of view, meditation is slightly more
than that.
First, I think we need to talk about the real context of
Buddhist meditation. This is referred to as the view, meditation and
action; taken together, these constitute quite a skillful way of
understanding the path. Even though we may not use such expressions
in everyday life, if we think about it, we always act according to a
certain view, meditation and action. For instance, if we want to buy
a car, we choose the one we think is the best, most reliable and so
on. So the "view," in this case, is the idea or belief that we have,
that is, that the car is a good one. Then the "meditation" is
contemplating and getting used to the idea, and the "action" is
actually buying the car, driving it and using it. This process is not
necessarily something Buddhist; it's something we're doing all the
time. You don't have to call it view, meditation and action. You can
think of it as "idea," "getting used to," and "obtaining."
[There are many kinds of good. Some people just buy the car because it's cool or fun, without regard to the other kinds of the best in a car such as reliability.]
So what is the particular view that Buddhists try to get
used to? Buddhism is distinguished by four characteristics,
or "seals." Actually, if all these four seals are found in a path or
a philosophy, it doesn't matter whether you call it Buddhist or not.
You can call it what you like; the words "Buddhist" or "Buddhism" are
not important. The point is that if this path contains these four
seals, it can be considered the path of the Buddha.
[No matter what they're called, they're wrong.]
Therefore, these four characteristics are called "the
Four Seals of Dharma." They are:
All compounded things are impermanent.
[I've seen another formulation of this, based on an Indian quote, on #philosophy: All compounded things are unstable. Both statements are partially wrong. It is a conflicted or contradicting thing that is unstable or impermanent. Also, all noncompounded, simple things are impermanent just as well: They become compounded into systems, so their simple existence has passed. So, a compounded and nonconflicted thing will be "permanent" for as long as it's nonconflicted.]
All emotions are painful. This is something that only
Buddhists would talk about. Many religions worship things like love
with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, "This is all suffering."
[Buddhists do not know what suffering or pain is, and must redefine the term to promote a nonsensical and externally-inconsistent philosophy-religion because, otherwise, no one would follow it.]
All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent
existence. This is actually the ultimate view of Buddhism; the other
three are grounded on this third seal.
[There is no such thing as emptiness, and phenomena exist as the opposite of emptiness, so the Buddhist doesn't care that self-contradictions invalidate one's system. Rather, phenomena have inherent existences which have varying degrees of dynamicism and staticism, and in their existences qua those degrees are not empty but are what they are. What are empty are the abstractions that Buddhists form to contravene reality in order to escape it. They are as absurd and contradicting as similar statements Christians make such as to equate a person with an abstraction, which is an impossibility, such as God being love or Jesus being truth.]
The fourth seal is that nirvana is beyond extremes.
[And Cantor made the transfinite cardinal beyond all other transfinite cardinals and called it Omega, or Aleph-Omega or some such letter. It doesn't mean that such a thing could exist, even in abstraction, especially when it disregards all the abstractions in between that the new one left behind. It is fabricated and has no meaning because the interrelating definitions are wrongly placed. Being "beyond extremes" is possible only if "beyond" is properly defined to be only a qualifier to be set apart from regular qualities in that its value is indeterminate, but it cannot be separate from such extremes because the meaning of either type of quality is interdependent and cannot exist without the other. Thus, nirvana cannot exist separate from the qualities the believers claim it to be separate, special, or sacred from, if it exists.]
Without these four seals, the Buddhist path would become
theistic, religious dogma, and its whole purpose would be lost. On
the other hand, you could have a surfer giving you teachings on how
to sit on a beach watching a sunset: if what he says contains all
these four seals, it would be Buddhism. The Tibetans, the Chinese, or
the Japanese might not like it, but teaching doesn't have to be in
a "traditional" form. The four seals are quite interrelated, as you
will see.
[It is nontheistic, religious dogma nonetheless.]
The First Seal:
All Compounded Things are Impermanent
Every phenomenon we can think of is compounded, and therefore subject
to impermanence. Certain aspects of impermanence, like the changing
of the weather, we can accept easily, but there are equally obvious
things that we don't accept.
For instance, our body is visibly impermanent and getting
older every day, and yet this is something we don't want to accept.
Certain popular magazines that cater to youth and beauty exploit this
attitude. In terms of view, meditation and action, their readers
might have a viewthinking in terms of not aging or escaping the
aging process somehow. They contemplate this view of permanence, and
their consequent action is to go to fitness centers and undergo
plastic surgery and all sorts of other hassles.
Enlightened beings would think that this is ridiculous
and based on a wrong view. Regarding these different aspects of
impermanence, getting old and dying, the changing of the weather,
etc., Buddhists have a single statement, namely this first seal:
phenomena are impermanent because they are compounded. Anything that
is assembled will, sooner or later, come apart.
[Then enlightened beings are wrong. It is not the goal of life, that I already realise and apprehend, to be "enlightened" or unburdened by the mundane, fragile, vulnerable, flawed, and self-perpetuating world such as to abandon, disown, and/or reject it because in one's eyes it doesn't conform to the natural way of things. (Nature can be stupid, in many and nonparallel ways.) Rather, the goal is perfection which I have identified to be composed of three components correlating to the three basic, interdependent parts of speech: Truth n., Wisdom adj., and Magick v. After possessing those, all of the above descriptions of the world, or anything that one doesn't desire, can be changed through a personal act of will. The so-called negative, or wrong, elements can be taken advantage of, destroyed, tamed, and remoulded into either positive, negative, or other "right" or desired or ideal elements without falling into the hypocrisy and implied self-admittance of incompetence by running away from them and forming a system of belief and practice based on the converse of the above which still has never solved a thing because it is yet another biased system based on a limited part of existence. Prolonging life, obviously, is not based on a belief of living forever but will increase the experiences and influences that one will have in a lifetime, those that will never change or be destroyed because it becomes a "permanent" part of the past, an abstraction in its proper right: What was done was done, and what was was; that could never be taken away. Also, what parts that came apart will come together again. Although results are different, they still exist.]
When we say "compounded," that includes the dimensions of
space and time. Time is compounded and therefore impermanent: without
the past and future, there is no such thing as the present. If the
present moment were permanent, there would be no future, since the
present would always be there. Every act you dolet's say, plant a
flower or sing a songhas a beginning, a middle and an end. If, in
the singing of a song, the beginning, middle or end were missing,
there would be no such thing as singing a song, would there? That
means that singing a song is something compounded.
[Heh, you should listen to "The Song that Never Ends". An uncompounded thing like an abstraction is not permanent at all: It's atemporal or timeless. Time not applying to a concept does not mean it's permanent. They're completely unrelated.]
"So what?" we ask. "Why should we bother about that?
What's the big deal? It has a beginning, middle, and endso what?"
It's not that Buddhists are really worried about beginnings, middles
or ends; that's not the problem. The problem is that when there is
composition and impermanence, as there is with temporal and material
things, there is uncertainty and pain.
Some people think that Buddhists are pessimistic, always
talking about death, impermanence and aging. But that is not
necessarily true. Impermanence is a relief! I don't have a BMW today
and it is thanks to the impermanence of that fact that I might have
one tomorrow. Without impermanence, I am stuck with the non-
possession of a BMW, and I can never have one. I might feel severely
depressed today and, thanks to impermanence, I might feel great
tomorrow. Impermanence is not necessarily bad news; it depends on the
way you understand it. Even if today your BMW gets scratched by a
vandal, or your best friend lets you down, if you have a view of
impermanence, you won't be so worried.
[Yet in this self-deprecating religion even that relief is pain and suffering.]
Delusion arises when we don't acknowledge that all
compounded things are impermanent. But when we realize this truth,
deep down and not just intellectually, that's what we call
liberation: release from this one-pointed, narrow-minded belief in
permanence. Everything, whether you like it or noteven the path, the
precious Buddhist pathis compounded. It has a beginning, it has a
middle and it has an end.
When you understand that "all compounded things are
impermanent," you are prepared to accept the experience of loss.
Since everything is impermanent, this is to be expected.
[Heh, so is achieving Nirvana a compounded thing. It has a beginning, middle, and end. If it were not, then it could not be achieved. There is nirvana and there is not nirvana. They are obviously different. If one does not get nirvana now, then the religion claims that one will continue to live and re-incarnate /until/ one stops cycling, by "being free from the karmic loop", and achieve nirvana. But that is a process, so the religion even allows nirvana to have an end and be impermanent. But nirvana isn't supposed to be a compounded thing, because it's defined as the extinction (Extinction is still a process!) or absence of suffering and desire which are defined by all things impermanent. It can't be avoided, that if there is such a thing as nirvana is defined, that it cannot be achieved without involving the very same process as all other events have, only with an overall opposite motivation: the lack of motivation. Nirvana is an illusion.]
The Second Seal:
All Emotions are Painful
The Tibetan word for emotion in this context is zagche, which
means "contaminated" or "stained," in the sense of being permeated by
confusion or duality.
[What do you mean in this context? Are there other words for emotion?]
Certain emotions, such as aggression or jealousy, we
naturally regard as pain. But what about love and affection, kindness
and devotion, those nice, light and lovely emotions? We don't think
of them as painful; nevertheless, they imply duality, and this means
that, in the end, they are a source of pain.
[No, they're not a "source" of pain. Their opposite are a source of pain. They are more a sink for pain. :P This careless conflation and equivocation won't be believed by anyone who can reason.]
The dualistic mind includes almost every thought we have.
Why is this painful? Because it is mistaken. Every dualistic mind is
a mistaken mind, a mind that doesn't understand the nature of things.
So how are we to understand duality? It is subject and object:
ourselves on the one hand and our experience on the other. This kind
of dualistic perception is mistaken, as we can see in the case of
different persons perceiving the same object in different ways. A man
might think a certain woman is beautiful and that is his truth. But
if that were some kind of absolute, independent kind of truth, then
everyone else also would have to see her as beautiful as well.
[It is not mistaken. There is absolute, objective beauty in people as well as all other things. Not everyone else agrees because obviously they are wrong and too stupid to understand. The existence of controversy does not mean there is not a correct position. It's natural for there to be division. It's also natural for some things and people to be better than others, for every characteristic and skill. In any conflict, the better ones win. If there should be any conflict of beauty involving verbal, biological, psychological, functional, and creative reasons, the better people who can advance and advocate such reasons shall win also. The others who did not agree, and who could not defend their reasons, lose and thus are the wrong ones. Yes, it is painful for the losers, who are mistaken in terms of truth. And it is painful for the Buddhists, who are mistaken because they cannot successfully defend their beliefs. All religions are false. Provided I learn enough about it, I can destroy every religion on this planet. How? My positions and reason are invincible because they are not mistaken.]
Clearly, this is not a truth that is independent of everything else.
It is dependent on your mind; it is your own projection.
The dualistic mind creates a lot of expectationsa lot of
hope, a lot of fear. Whenever there is a dualistic mind, there is
hope and fear. Hope is perfect, systematized pain. We tend to think
that hope is not painful, but actually it's a big pain. As for the
pain of fear, that's not something we need to explain.
[Some minds are better than others. Some minds successfully predict and describe, whilst others fail. Because there are mountains of various heights does not mean that there is not a tallest and shortest, and those which are taller or shorter than another. Any other quality can be quantified and then categorised, with varying degrees of effort and/or intelligence.]
The Buddha said, "Understand suffering." That is the
first Noble Truth. Many of us mistake pain for pleasurethe pleasure
we now have is actually the very cause of the pain that we are going
to get sooner or later. Another Buddhist way of explaining this is to
say that when a big pain becomes smaller, we call it pleasure. That's
what we call happiness.
[Actually, we don't celebrate the smaller pain, but the act of the big pain becoming smaller. Conflations such as this is found in every other religion, and Buddhism cannot claim to be unique in thought, and is responsible for leading the stupid to believe and practise in their own niche because they don't realise how they've been deceived and misled. Of course, pain is not pleasure. But pleasure exists nonetheless. And Buddhism is attempting to deny the existence of it, and redefine it to the absence of pleasure.]
Moreover, emotion does not have some kind of inherently
real existence. When thirsty people see a mirage of water, they have
a feeling of relief: "Great, there's some water!" But as they get
closer, the mirage disappears. That is an important aspect of
emotion: emotion is something that does not have an independent
existence.
[This is an example of emotion having a dependent existence on stimuli. However, this does not mean emotion does not have an independent existence. For example, it is an independent existence that satisfaction brings relief. The former does not require stimuli because it exists on its own. Not only is drinking water a satisfactory act, in that the relief is felt automatically, it is satisfactory in itself because it continues life.]
This is why Buddhists conclude that all emotions are
painful. It is because they are impermanent and dualistic that they
are uncertain and always accompanied by hopes and fears. But
ultimately, they don't have, and never have had, an inherently
existent nature, so, in a way, they are not worth much. Everything we
create through our emotions is, in the end, completely futile and
painful. This is why Buddhists do shamatha and vipashyana meditation
this helps to loosen the grip that our emotions have on us, and the
obsessions we have because of them.
[The being completely futile and painful part is completely made up. It is a fact that emotions exist, and another that they exist for any number of reasons, and another that they can be used for reasons that co-incide with reason. Because emotions can be used in the last scenario, the effects are purposeful, successful, relevant, and their existence as a correct change in the course of things is "permanent". Besides, with skill, one won't need fears because one will succeed. The goal is to have a grip on emotions, and to bend them to one's will, not to eliminate them.]
Question: Is compassion an emotion?
People like us have dualistic compassion, whereas the Buddha's
compassion does not involve subject and object. From a buddha's point
of view, compassion could never involve subject and object. This is
what is called mahakarunagreat compassion.
[Great here is a misnomer. It should be called compassion for compassion.]
I'm having difficulty accepting that all emotions are pain.
Okay, if you want a more philosophical expression, you can drop the
word "emotion" and simply say, "All that is dualistic is pain." But I
like using the word "emotion" because it provokes us.
[All qualities are dualistic. All qualities, because they are abstractions realised through the senses, are atemporal and thus are what the Buddhists mean by permanent. Qualities exist, so they are real. So Buddhism continues to contradict itself.]
Isn't pain impermanent?
Yeah! If you know this, then you're all right. It's because we don't
know this that we go through a lot of hassles trying to solve our
problems. And that is the second biggest problem we havetrying to
solve our problems.
[People go through hassles to solve problems because they're incompetent and stupid. If they'd just stop being them, they wouldn't go through hassles and then wouldn't need Buddhism.]
The Third Seal:
All Phenomena are Empty;
They Are Without Inherent Existence
When we say "all," that means everything, including the
Buddha, enlightenment, and the path. Buddhists define a phenomenon as
something with characteristics, and as an object that is conceived by
a subject. To hold that an object is something external is ignorance,
and it is this that prevents us from seeing the truth of that object.
The truth of a phenomenon is called shunyata, emptiness,
which implies that the phenomenon does not possess a truly existent
essence or nature. When a deluded person or subject sees something,
the object seen is interpreted as something really existent. However,
as you can see, the existence imputed by the subject is a mistaken
assumption. Such an assumption is based on the different conditions
that make an object appear to be true; this, however, is not how the
object really is. It's like when we see a mirage: there is no truly
existing object there, even though it appears that way. With
emptiness, the Buddha meant that things do not truly exist as we
mistakenly believe they do, and that they are really empty of that
falsely imputed existence.
[Objects are both internal and external, dependent and independent. They all must exist, as they are interdependent. The senses apprehend a limited truth, and sometimes they conflict, but what truth is limited is still truth if one doesn't incorrectly extrapolate from the limits. If there are deluded people, then there must be nondeluded people. But the perceptions, no matter their nature or status, exist as real perceptions. I've adapted the following from my entry to the quotation script on Undernet #philosophy: "I ponder the Pleasure Machine. Even if one lives in a simulation, or an illusion, one sees all the variations and experiences of it that would not be outside the machine. Also, one knows that all of them have been /conceived/ in some form or another in the past, and that they can be traced to real entities." So, even though the mirage isn't real water, it has characteristics that each exist independently. And if they resemble water, a sharp mind can tell that it is really not water and will be immune to any disappointment. Yet water exists, and the same mind will feel relief upon drinking it because it exists.]
It is because they believe in what are really just
confused projections that sentient beings suffer. It was as a remedy
for this that the Buddha taught the Dharma. Put very simply, when we
talk about emptiness, we mean that the way things appear is not the
way they actually are. As I said before when speaking about emotions,
you may see a mirage and think it is something real, but when you get
close, the mirage disappears, however real it may have seemed to
begin with.
[Water is wet. (Look up its etymology; that's how water was coined.) Water is always wet. If it's not wet, it's not water. Water is really, actually, and properly wet. Wrong thought does not mean there isn't right thought. And it's right when it co-incides with what exists.]
Emptiness can sometimes be referred to as dharmakaya, and
in a different context we could say that the dharmakaya is permanent,
never changing, all pervasive, and use all sorts of beautiful, poetic
words. These are the mystical expressions that belong to the path,
but for the moment, we are still at the ground stage, trying to get
an intellectual understanding. On the path, we might portray Buddha
Vajradhara as a symbol of dharmakaya, or emptiness, but from an
academic point of view, even to think of painting the dharmakaya is a
mistake.
[Emptiness, like other abstractions, are atemporal. But this abstraction was fabricated as a resort from all the experienced and confirmed abstractions, just like infinity was. The fabricated abstractions that don't conform to existence and which contradict it don't exist. The West invented and celebrated infinity. The East invented and celebrated nothingness. Both don't exist.]
The Buddha taught three different approaches on three
separate occasions. These are known as The Three Turnings of the
Wheel, but they can be summed up in a single phrase: "Mind; there is
no mind; mind is luminosity."
The first, "Mind," refers to the first set of teachings
and shows that the Buddha taught that there is a "mind." This was to
dispel the nihilistic view that there is no heaven, no hell, no cause
and effect. Then, when the Buddha said, "There is no mind," he meant
that mind is just a concept and that there is no such thing as a
truly existing mind. Finally, when he said, "Mind is luminous," he
was referring to buddhanature, the undeluded or primordially existing
wisdom.
[Tell that to Descartes.]
The great commentator Nagarjuna said that the purpose of
the first turning was to get rid of non-virtue. Where does the non-
virtue come from? It comes from being either eternalist or nihilist.
So in order to put an end to non-virtuous deeds and thoughts, the
Buddha gave his first teaching. The second turning of the Dharma-
wheel, when the Buddha spoke about emptiness, was presented in order
to dispel clinging to a "truly existent self" and to "truly existent
phenomena." Finally, the teachings of the third turning were given to
dispel all views, even the view of no-self. The Buddha's three sets
of teaching do not seek to introduce something new; their purpose is
simply to clear away confusion.
[Heh, Buddha wasn't totally honest through his use then, and became a hypocrite. This reminds me of the time Jesus lied when he said that he came not to do away with the law but to fulfil it, and then later broke the law by stealing wheat, working on the Sabbath, condemning the Pharisees, and blaspheming before he died. Buddha cannot use the first turning because then those virtues performed would not be "truly existent phenomena" either. People would be left with performing neither unvirtue nor virtue, an effect which is irrelevant to the first turning. He should've skipped to the third.]
As Buddhists we practice compassion, but if we lack an
understanding of this third sealthat all phenomena are emptyour
compassion can backfire. If you are attached to the goal of
compassion when trying to solve a problem, you might not notice that
your idea of the solution is entirely based on your own personal
interpretation. And you might end up as a victim of hope and fear,
and consequently of disappointment. You start by becoming a "good
mahayana practitioner," and, once or twice, you try to help sentient
beings. But if you have no understanding of this third seal, you'll
get tired and give up helping sentient beings.
[That doesn't follow from being attached to compassion, but to the imagined effects. Compassion for compassion stands as a goal that doesn't fail, when one's attached to it.]
There is another kind of a problem that arises from not
understanding emptiness. It occurs with rather superficial and even
jaded Buddhists. Somehow, within Buddhist circles, if you don't
accept emptiness, you are not cool. So we pretend that we appreciate
emptiness and pretend to meditate on it. But if we don't understand
it properly, a bad side effect can occur. We might say, "Oh,
everything's emptiness. I can do whatever I like." So we ignore and
violate the details of karma, the responsibility for our action. We
become "inelegant," and we discourage others in the bargain. His
Holiness the Dalai Lama often speaks of this downfall of not
understanding emptiness. A correct understanding of emptiness leads
us to see how things are related, and how we are responsible for our
world.
[Somehow I see a bunch of "What would Buddha Do?" merchandise coming out of this. Buddhists are contradictory: They seek nihilism, but because they're not in nihilism they continue living as if they can no longer seek it. If enlightenment involves abandoning karma, then karma cannot be upheld. If there is a process to get from karma to nonkarma, and emptiness involves no processes, then emptiness cannot be accepted or acquired.]
You can read millions of pages on this subject. Nagarjuna
alone wrote five different commentaries mostly dedicated to this, and
then there are the commentaries by his followers. There are endless
teachings on establishing this view. In Mahayana temples or
monasteries people chant the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutrathis is also
a teaching on the third seal.
[I'll bet those commentaries are conflicted and confused. Thus, Buddhism is not objective and is wrong! :) (How is it not objective? It redefines and interprets terms, like other religions, to satisfy personal biases.) The tenets of Buddhism must be learnt and practised by people. As long as people differ, it cannot be said that those people are successful Buddhists.]
Philosophies or religions might say, "Things are
illusion, the world is maya, illusion," but there are always one or
two items left behind that are regarded as truly existent: God,
cosmic energy, whatever. In Buddhism, this is not the case.
Everything in samsara and nirvanafrom the Buddha's head to a piece
of breadeverything is emptiness. There is nothing that is not
included in ultimate truth.
[But nothing, or emptiness, is something, sort of. Either must be derived from somethingness. Ultimate truth does not prescribe things which don't exist that do, and things which do that don't. Ultimate truth does not say that everything is included because it's emptiness, and that everything that is not emptiness isn't ultimate truth. Everything is everything, and Buddhism cannot split it to claim what truth is.]
Question: If we ourselves are dualistic, can we ever understand
emptiness, which is something beyond description?
Buddhists are very slippery. You're right. You can never
talk about absolute emptiness, but you can talk about an "image" of
emptinesssomething that you can evaluate and contemplate so that, in
the end, you can get to the real emptiness. You may say, "Ah, that's
just too easy; that's such crap." But to that the Buddhists say, "Too
bad, that's how things work." If you need to meet someone whom you
have never met, I can describe him to you or show you a photograph of
him. And with the help of that photo image, you can go and find the
real person.
[What's so hard about understanding emptiness?]
Ultimately speaking, the path is irrational, but
relatively speaking, it's very rational because it uses the relative
conventions of our world. When I'm talking about emptiness,
everything that I'm saying has to do with this "image" emptiness. I
can't show you real emptiness but I can tell you why things don't
exist inherently.
[And I can tell you how they do.]
In Buddhism there's so much iconography that you might
think it was the object of meditation or an object of worship. But,
from your teaching, am I to understand that this is all non-existent?
When you go to a temple, you will see many beautiful
statues, colors and symbols. These are important for the path. These
all belong to what we call "image-wisdom," "image-emptiness."
However, while we follow the path and apply its methods, it is
important to know that the path itself is ultimately an illusion.
Actually, it is only then that we can properly appreciate it.
[It's like stepping down nicotine intake, starting with a large dose to quit tobacco. Homer Simpson said that alcohol was the cause of and solution to all our problems. So is religion like Buddhism, filled with hypocrites who don't know what they're doing or saying. If the path is an illusion, then no one follows the path!]
The Fourth Seal:
Nirvana is Beyond Extremes
Now that I have explained emptiness, I feel that the
fourth seal, "Nirvana is beyond extremes," has also been covered. But
briefly, this last seal is also something uniquely Buddhist. In many
philosophies or religions, the final goal is something that you can
hold on to and keep. The final goal is the only thing that truly
exists. But nirvana is not fabricated, so it is not something to be
held on to. It is referred to as "beyond extremes."
[It is fabricated. It is a word, a concept, and a state. Even though it's defined in terms of the absence of the above, it still holds those characteristics.]
We somehow think that we can go somewhere where we'll
have a better sofa seat, a better shower system, a better sewer
system, a nirvana where you don't even have to have a remote control,
where everything is there the moment you think of it. But as I said
earlier, it's not that we are adding something new that was not there
before. Nirvana is achieved when you remove everything that was
artificial and obscuring.
[The artificial and obscuring are arbitrary and subjective.]
It doesn't matter whether you are a monk or a nun who has
renounced worldly life or you are a yogi practicing profound tantric
methods. If, when you try to abandon or transform attachment to your
own experiences, you don't understand these four seals, you end up
regarding the contents of your mind as the manifestations of
something evil, diabolical and bad. If that's what you do, you are
far from the truth. And the whole point of Buddhism is to make you
understand the truth. If there were some true permanence in
compounded phenomena; if there were true pleasure in the emotions,
the Buddha would have been the first to recommend them,
saying, "Please keep and treasure these." But thanks to his great
compassion, he didn't, for he wanted us to have what is true, what is
real.
[I know; it's about nonascription. But the removal in the previous paragraph necessitates ascription--rather, the removal of it. By removing it, one must acknowledge that it is there. Buddha failed.]
When you have a clear understanding of these four seals
as the ground of your practice, you will feel comfortable no matter
what happens to you. As long as you have these four as your view,
nothing can go wrong. Whoever holds these four, in their heart, or in
their head, and contemplates them, is a Buddhist. There is no need
for such a person even to be called a Buddhist. He or she is by
definition a follower of the Buddha.
[Oh, so now it's about feeling comfortable. But feeling in Buddhism is an illusion, so feeling comfortable is failure. There's a subject and object in feeling comfortable. Whatever, this author is demented. -Aut]
***
Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche was born in Bhutan in 1961 and was
recognized as the second reincarnation of the nineteenth-century
master Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. This article is based on a talk
entitled, "What Buddhism Is, and Is Not," given in Sydney, Australia
in April of 1999.