Buddhist Hour

Script No. 396

Broadcast live on Hillside 88.0 FM

on Sunday 28 August 2005CE  2549 Buddhist Era

This script is entitled:

Atisha's A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment part VI

Thank you for joining us for this week’s Buddhist Hour radio broadcast.  As you may remember we have in been presenting Master John D. Hughes’ oral commentary on the famous Buddhist text called “A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment”, which was written by the great Buddhist master Atisha.

Today’s program is the sixth instalment.

In the last instalment, John Hughes explained how we can identify the logic systems we are using and what the benefits are of abandoning ones that are built on false beliefs, for example disbelief in the law of cause and effect.

John Hughes then explained that it is easier for women to abandon their logic systems, but not easy to give up the system of emotions.  He said:

JDH:  You notice how the women, the women can abandon the logic system but how about the feelings of the vedana system!

We continue now with the next part of Atisha’s “A Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment.”

JOD:  Um...

JDH:  Ouch.

JOD:  Never been abandoned!

JDH:  Tell us about that.  A big silence fell over the world.  Tell us about that.

STUDENT:  Um, self torture.

JDH:  Tell us about that.

STUDENT:  Abandoning my emotional system brings peace.

JDH:  Good.

STUDENT:  Oh, sorry. Yeah...

JDH:  Yeah, if you can do it!

STUDENT:  Yeah (laughter)

JDH:  If you can do it that is.  Do you remember?

MM:  It just seems so part of everyday life, just, I don't know.

JDH:  What makes you abandon your feeling system ladies?  Wisdom, which is on your logic system.  We won't talk about men, Frank.  Explain that.

JOD:  Um, well wisdom, wisdom insinuates minds that, um...

JDH:  Insinuates. Look it up in the Oxford dictionary.

JOD:  Wisdom implies minds...

JDH:  Implies...

JOD:  That, um, automatically attach to some sort of logic system, but, not lokutura wisdom.

JDH:  Minnie?

MM:  Yes. Um...

JDH:  Do you know what we're talking about?  We're talking about logic systems.

MM: I thought we were talking about feeling. I don't know.

JDH:  Do you know what we are talking about?

DOROTHY:  Yes, it's like don't sit on your emotions.

JDH:  Do you know what we are talking about?

DOROTHY:  I can't remember what the question was.

JDH:  Stop there, and rewind the tape.

JDH:  Yeah, well hurry up.  Now the, the first thing you've got to adjust your mind to is whoever you're talking to is logical and that's very difficult.  They're logical with reference to their logical system, and that's why Lang and some of the, we'll call them modern Western psychologists, say there is no such thing as madness.  But I'd query that because the Buddha says there is such a thing.  But the extension of the, apparently what, when people do things that are not, they don't have any advantage to them, they're still following some logic system.  So the first thing you've got to observe is that, the other human beings you are talking to are logical except that they are using their logic system, not yours.

So you've got to see that every human being you talk to, essentially, with a few exceptions, is operating on a logical system which is their logical system.  The mind is chief, remember.

Now, if they've got a faulty logic system, it's faulty by the judgment of your logic system and it shouldn't surprise you if you perceive them with a faulty logic system, in most cases they will say you've got a faulty logic system.  And with that difference of view, if you're not careful, you fall into dispute with the other person.

So the main reason for the disputes in Tibet was the insight of the disciple of Atisha who said “Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.”

You must understand that the text is written in the frame of reference of the request by the disciple, therefore before you can come to terms with the text you've got to clearly understand the mind of the Atisha disciple.

At the request of, this is Atisha saying, refers to his saying, meaning his disciple, in this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing backwards and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and the broad practice.

Your own logic system brings up, or has got built into it, suppositions.  Until you can isolate and understand your own logic system, till you can really come to terms and see absolutely clearly what your logic system is, it's unlikely that you would be able to understand the logic systems of others.  For example, if you couldn't drive your own car, it's doubtful if you could drive anyone else's.  You must learn to drive a car.  You learn on your own car, and then you, it doesn't take much transition then, to getting, having learnt to drive your car.  That assemblage of parts, your car.  You can get into sort of analogous assemblage of parts called a car of a different brand or different year or a different make or whatever you like.  And having learnt to drive your car you can drive another person's car.

Having cognated your logical systems, the foundations of your logical system, get down to bedrock, you will then see that there are suppositions within the construct of your logical system and there are suppositions within the foundations of the logical system of the other person.  The logical systems work the same except there, they have one or two different suppositions within the logical system.

Now, many years ago, a friend of mine who's a Christian, he writes beautiful Christian songs, he's a nice man, he keeps morality, he does everything.  Now, whenever I talk to him, he likes me.  He's a good friend of mine.  He went to New Guinea as a teacher.  But what he said was, because he's a Christian he said there is always the mysteries, there are always the things in his view, the mysteries, he loved talking about, and we'd always boggle down.  We'd say, "ah, the mysteries," he liked.  In his logical system, to examine his religion, it was in his mind, it was an implicit article of his faith that you couldn't understand certain things hence the mysteries.

Now, if you look at that supposition from the viewpoint of Manjushri Bodhisattva, from the Bodhisattva of wisdom, there is an inherent supposition that you can understand all.  All will be revealed.  Therefore, you come to the limits, in discussion with him, we'd always, I isolated him, for him, what the limits of his system was.

And he adored the mysteries.  It's like there are things that cannot be known.  Now, there are things called indeterminate in Buddhist logic, but they can be known to be indeterminate.  But everything can be known.

Now, on your logic system, dig in to the suppositions.  What's one of the suppositions of your logic system?  Can everything be known Frank?  Or...

FTC:  Yeah.

JDH: Good.  Therefore yours are, your logic system would be praised by Manjushri.  Minnie? On your logic system can everything be known?

MM:  Yes.

JDH:  Therefore your system would be praised by Manjushri.  Monica, on your logic system can everything be known?

MONICA:  Therefore your system would be praised by Manjushri.  Dorothy?  Yes.  I know.

JDH:  So, therefore your system, by it's inherent structure, means everything can be known, up to the limit of what can be known on a logical system.  Now, you must remember the Kalama Sutra, that there are things that can be known...

JDH:  Alright, so we've just been through the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "supposition" and to understand the text you have to adjust your mind to comprehend this about the people arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic and analyse their supposition about profound view and broad practice.  With such disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

The request was specific, clear, and succinct, if you know what that means.  Do you know what succinct means?

STUDENT:  Succinct.  Uh, it means it's tight, uh, concise.

JDH:  It was a precision request.  It was a request with enormous precision in the request.  Until we come to understand in our mind the same request the text will be not clear.  Go ahead.

STUDENT:  Engirdled, confined, compressed into small compass, brief and concise.

JDH:  Brief and concise.

STUDENT:  Of persons, their speech, style, characterized by verbal...

JDH:  So the request by the disciple of Atisha was extremely precise, clear and specific.  It wasn't a general question.  It had a, it was a specific, well defined, well stated, mission statement if you want to use the word.  Because it is important to understand what the request was I'll get you to wait your turn to read.  Read the request.  And when your mind can come to get the same request you are then ready to hear the Atisha's explanation. But until you can, maybe in the process, you have to drop some of your logic systems because they're the logic systems which the other people in Tibet had that caused the dispute.  Read the request.  When you hear this request, visualize the disciple requesting Atisha as if it was happening in the present.  No mister Atisha, I request you that, and here's my mission statement, I request.

JOD:  In this area of Tibet there are person's who misinterpret.

JDH:  Big voice!

JOD:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who...

JDH:  Powerful request, as if you are requesting Atisha.  If Atisha was sitting in front of you Julie, you'd put allot of oomph into this request.  Try again.

JOD:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

JDH:  Give it to Frank. Put some oomph into this request as if you're requesting Atisha.  Put some oomph into it Frank. Bloody lay it on Atisha, with respect of course.

FTC:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

JDH:  Give it to me.  As if you're requesting Atisha, Minnie.

MM:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

JDH:  Monica.  As if you were begging Atisha.

MONICA:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

STUDENT:  In this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

JDH:  Do you see the dukkha, Julie?  The dukkha of the Buddha Sangha in disarray.  However, by the time Atisha did his job they were unified and all came good.  You're seeing the before.

Venerable Atisha, in this area of Tibet there are persons who misinterpret the Mahayana path of the Buddha's teaching.  Gurus and spiritual friends are arguing back and forth about things they themselves do not comprehend.  They all have their own logic to analyse their suppositions about the profound view and broad practice.  With so much disagreement on all sides, I beg you to clear up these doubts for us.

And so, because of his repeated entreaty, and for his sake, Atisha says, I do light this lamp for the path to enlightenment following the teachings in the sutras and the tradition.  If you ask where the lamp for the path to enlightenment is to be found, it is in the main part of my basic text from the stanza the superior person, 6, through to the last stanza 67, of the tantra.

So until you see like Julie, you see the Buddha Sangha in dispute, in disarray and your heart is moved by compassion to want a great teacher to come, to stop the bickering.  And the only way the bickerings stop is that each must, each of the bickering parties must be forced, if you like, to analyse their logic system, their suppositions because the only reason for the argument is each of them defending their logic system, their supposition, and the power of Atisha is so great that he could dissolve, make clear what their logic system was, dissolve, make clear what their supposition was, and then at that point in time all the Buddhist groups became into harmony.

The king of Tibet asked all the wise people who is powerful enough to do this?  Now obviously the king of Tibet wouldn't have requested someone else if there was someone powerful enough within Tibet, but among all those bickering Sanghas no-one was powerful enough to untangle the tangle of the different logic systems.  But that's what Atisha did and Atisha's name is revered in Tibet.

Make a commentary, Julie.  Explain to them what you saw.

JOD:  Um, just very powerful.  Not just...

JDH:  Not all of them have great power.

JOD:  Very powerful black.  Very, insanity, absolute...

JDH:  Yeah.  The bickerings of the Sangha were like, almost destroyed the Buddhism, and it got so factional.  There were political arguments, there were religious arguments.  The noise in Tibet was just one big bickering.  Very sad.  The king of Tibet, in his wisdom, knowing this asked who can untangle all this mess.  The advice he received was Atisha, who was the abbot of Nalanda University.

The king of Tibet sent his messengers and said Atisha, please come.  Atisha explained this, if I go to Tibet my life will shorten.  If I stay here as the abbot of Nalanda I will have long life.  But moved by the compassion, his mind already knew the situation.  His nickname, if you like, he was called the eye of Asia.  His Dharma eye could see the situation everywhere in Asia.  If you read the history of Atisha going to Tibet it took him years, I think about 15 years from memory, because he struck obstacles, he was kidnapped, he was held by people, he was robbed by bandits, and so on and so on and so on.  But he got there in the end.

His enormous power, just like Tsongkhapa, or Padmasambhava, was sufficient to dispel the Mara who had taken over the minds of the Buddhists.  They were destroying the Buddhism, and then in the, this is eight hundred years ago, and then he united it, the Buddhist Sanghas, the various factions, all to pay respect under this great abbot.

If your mind can duplicate the request and the intensity of the disciple of Atisha, then, when you hear the text, it will be as if Atisha is teaching you. However, if you have got some other agenda that you want answered other than what the request was, you'll have trouble getting an answer.

You must work on the assumption that the person you are talking to is logical.  You don't know which logical system I work on at the moment.  My logical system must have in it it's characteristic that I desire the bickering to stop.  If you insist on using logic that you come to a unified agreement on the system you're using, and you agree on the suppositions you can't have a system without suppositions, it's a basis of the propositions in, say, Euclid, that you start off with axioms, these are unquestioned things, that you come to the same suppositions, but you must get the correct view, samma ditthi.  Then, when the Atisha transmission comes the disagreement will stop.  Your doubts will clear up and you will understand the text.

Now, the second stanza is that in that there are inferior, or mediocre, or superior, meaning beings, or people, dispositions, people should be understood as three.  The characteristics of each are very clear, and I shall note how they differ from one another.

One who by every means he finds, seeks but the pleasures of Samsara, in other words a hedonist sort of person who only seeks the pleasures of Samsara, and cares but for himself alone, you know, I'm all right jack, I'll trample all over you, that one is known as the inferior person.

One who puts life's pleasures behind and turns himself from deeds of sin, yet cares only about his own peace, that person will be called mediocre. One who seeks, wholly seeks, a complete end to the entire suffering of others because their suffering belongs to his own conscious stream, in the sense that he is aware of the suffering of others, that person is superior.

For those pure beings who desire, whose desire, is the highest of enlightenment’s, I shall explain the right means which were taught to me by my Gurus.

So the text is not for the inferior person, the hedonist, sensuous self indulgent, ego centered person.  It's not for the being who only cares about their own peace without considering the peace of others.  But the text is for those pure beings whose desire is the highest of enlightenment’s.

Now in enlightenment in the Manjushri sense, the thing is dedicated to Manjushri, homage to Manjushri.  The highest of wisdom is omniscience, knowing everything.  Not having the mystery still embedded in the matrix of the logic.

So, this is what the commentaries have to say about the subject, says Atisha.  The Bodhisattva loves all creatures from the bottom of his heart, and also from the top of his heart, and also from the middle of his heart, if you listen.  As one loves an only child ever desire to seek, or again from another text, as the dove loves her chicks best sitting to brood them beneath her breast, so like her with aversion overcome treat every creature with affection.  That's a great being.

As the scholar Acarya Vasubhandu says, unless a man uses his resources to provide for the happiness of his conscious stream, the mediocre man is not happy and so turns aside only his own suffering but therefore remains in suffering, meaning other people's suffering.  The holy man, because sufferings exist in his own stream, has the sole care of turning aside the very basis from other's suffering and giving them happiness, for he suffers on account of their suffering.  And he adds, those who suffer because others are suffering, and rejoice at the happiness of others, belong to that class of men that for whom there is no mine, or my, or me, or whatever.  They do not look to their own happiness, but make great effort thinking I am able to save others from the great river of suffering.  They're quite aware, I am able to save others from the great river of suffering.  By its very nature their compassion rejoices both in their own suffering and the happiness of others because of the strength they have cultivated in their compassion.  They get sympathetic joy in happiness of others.

Consequently, says Atisha, the person who by nature cannot bear to see his neighbor afflicted with calamity who proposes to bar his own happiness for other's suffering, who looks upon every creature as his only child, as a father cannot bear to see his only son trapped in a blazing fire, or falling into an abyss or being swept away from flood, I praise that kind of man here as being the fit vessel of the Mahayana.

So the right means for the superior person, Atisha says, it was with that kind of great being in mind that I wrote, I shall explain the right means which has been taught to my Gurus, Atisha’s Gurus.

The footnotes are interesting sometimes.  We’ll pick them up on the second run through.  By Gurus I mean the Venerable and glorious Bodhibhadra and the Venerable Suvarnadvipa, and by the right means, you know Triple Gem, two aspects of enlightenment, super knowledge’s, accumulating union of means and insight, accumulating the extraordinary method of Mantra and the great system which perfects the good of self and others.

Thank you for joining us.  Please tune in next week for the seventh installment of Atisha’s A Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment.

May I be well and happy.

May you be well and happy.

May all beings be well and happy.

This script was prepared and edited by Alec Sloman, Frank Carter, and Anita Hughes.

References:

Recording Title: Atisha's Lamp on the Path

Tape 2, Side 2

Teacher: John D. Hughes

Date of recording: 22/09/1989

Transcribed by  Alec Sloman

Checked by: Frank Carter 23.00

CD Reference: 22_09_89T2S2

File Name I:\22_09_89T2S2A_JDHtranscribe.rtf

Recording Title: Atisha's Lamp on the Path

Tape 3, Side 1

Teacher: John D. Hughes

Date of recording: 22/09/1989

Transcribed by  Alec Sloman

Checked by:

CD Reference: 22_09_89T3S1

File Name I:\22_09_89T3S1A_JDHtranscribe.rtf

Document Statistics.

Word count: 3,995