The Four Noble Truths. Литагент HarperCollins USD

of the nature and relationship of these Two Truths are you in a position to fully understand the meaning of the Four Noble Truths. And once you understand the Four Noble Truths, then you have a sound foundation on which to develop a good understanding of what is meant by Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels.

      QUESTIONS

       Q: What is the difference between individuals gaining insights and the buddhas’ perfection of those insights?

      HHDL: Let us take the example of gaining insight into the subtle impermanence and momentary nature of all things and events.

      For an individual who starts with an understanding of things as being permanent, at the initial stage his or her grasping at the permanence of things could be quite strong and intense. Now in order to loosen that grip you need some form of critical reasoning which, even if it only casts a doubt in the person’s mind as to the permanence of things, can in itself make an impact because it has at least had the effect of loosening the grip on the idea that things are permanent or eternal.

      However, that is not enough. You need the further reinforcement of more critical reasoning to point you towards the impermanence of things. Even that is not enough. You will need yet more conviction than this, and that can be gained through constant reflection, which can lead to what is known as the inferential understanding of impermanence.

      The process is not over yet. For this understanding to have a definite impact on your behaviour, you need to gain direct insight, or intuitive experience, of the impermanence of things. That in turn needs to be further perfected, because the point is that our grasping at permanence is so deeply embedded in our consciousness that just one single insight is not enough to dispel it. It requires a long process of deepening our insight, so that eventually even the smallest tendency to grasp at permanence has been eradicated.

      The process would be the same in the case of insight into the emptiness of things, or of any other principle in fact.

      However, there are certain aspects of the spiritual path which have less to do with experiences related to knowledge, and more to do with the enhancement of our good heart. For the latter, at the initial stage, you have to develop some intellectual understanding of what compassion is, of course, and you have to have some notion of how it could be enhanced. Then, as a result of your practice, you may gain some kind of simulated experience of your good heart. For example, when you sit and reflect on it, you may arouse your compassion, but that compassion is not long-lasting or pervasive, and does not permeate your very being. So what is needed is a further deepening of that experience so that your compassion becomes spontaneous, so it is no longer dependent upon intellectual simulation. It has to become a truly spontaneous response to occasions that demand that response. That experience of compassion can be further deepened again, until it becomes universal. So this is a different aspect of the path, which again entails a long process.

      These two aspects of the path are known in traditional Buddhist terms as the Method Aspect and the Insight or Wisdom Aspect, and both must go hand in hand. For insight to be enhanced and deepened, you need the complementary factor of bodhichitta from the Method Aspect. Similarly, in order to enhance, deepen and strengthen your realization of bodhichitta, you need the insight which grounds it. So we need an approach which combines method and wisdom.

      Likewise we need an approach which combines several different methods, not an approach which relies on only one. If we take the previous case of insight into the impermanence of things, although that insight might in itself enable a person to overcome grasping at permanence, in practice you need further complementary factors in order to perfect that particular insight. This is because there are so many other fetters that constrict the mind at the same time. The person’s problem is not just grasping at permanence in isolation; it is also grasping at the independent, objective reality of things, like grasping at abiding principles, and so on and so forth. All these factors can be counteracted together by developing insight into emptiness.

      So what we are dealing with here is the very complex process of the progression of an individual’s consciousness towards perfection.

      

       Q: Can you say more about exactly what is meant by Going for Refuge?

      HHDL: I feel that the essence of Going for Refuge is the development of a deep conviction in the efficacy of the Dharma as a means to liberation, as well as a deep aspiration or desire to attain that liberation.

      Generally speaking, Buddha is said to be the teacher who shows us the path, Dharma is the actual object of Refuge, and the Sangha are your companions on the path. So therefore a deep conviction in the Dharma is a precondition for developing deep faith and respect in the Buddha and the Sangha.

      In his Commentary on the Compendium of Valid Cognition (Pramanavarttika), Dharmakirti tries to rationally prove the validity and reliability of the fact that Buddha is an enlightened teacher. He defends his argument by subjecting Buddha’s own teaching to profound scrutiny, and by demonstrating the reliability of his teaching on the Four Noble Truths because it is grounded in both reasoning and valid personal experience. The point here is that we should first appreciate the truth of the Dharma, and only on that basis recognize the Buddha as a genuine teacher.

      Only in relation to extremely obscure areas is the reverse logic sometimes applied; in other words, that Buddha’s statements on such matters can be relied upon because he is a reliable teacher. This is a complex process of reasoning. In order to follow it, we actually proceed from our own conviction in the reliability of Buddha’s teachings on the Four Noble Truths, which are open to critical reasoning. When we have gained personal insight into the truth of these, we develop a deep conviction in the reliability of Buddha as a teacher. Since Buddha has proven to be reliable and rational in areas that are open to reason, we have the confidence to take Buddha’s testimony on trust in other areas which we find more obscure.

      Taking Refuge in the Three Jewels therefore derives its full meaning from the act of Taking Refuge in the Dharma.

      

       Q: What is the purpose of Taking Refuge in a ritual or ceremony if one can take refuge within one’s own heart alone?

      HHDL: In Buddhism we have a number of different precepts or vows. For example, there are bodhisattva vows, tantric vows, pratimoksha vows (monastic vows), lay person’s precepts, and so on. It is said that you can take bodhisattva vows in front of a representation of the Buddha (a statue or painting, for example) and do not need to take them from another living person. However, it is necessary to take Vajrayana and pratimoksha vows from another living person, because you need an unbroken continuum. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is that taking vows in the presence of a master or other living person brings a greater sense of commitment. It reinforces your own conscience, and gives a sense of personal obligation. If you wish to pursue the reasons for this further, then I must admit we would have to defer the question to the Buddha himself.

      

       Q: If we see someone engaging in a wrong action which will lead to their suffering, should we try to prevent them from carrying it out, or would that be imposing on their karma? In other words, is it better for us to experience our own suffering so we can learn from it?

      HHDL: As you know, a practising Buddhist is deliberately engaged in a way of life that is dedicated to helping others. Here we should know that, in the Buddhist sense, we are talking about helping others find their own liberation through engaging in the right path; that is, engaging in a way of life that accords with the karmic law, where the person avoids negative actions and engages in positive actions. So generally speaking, when a Buddhist sees others engaging in wrong actions, it is right to try to stop them from doing so.

      However, this does raise several questions. To what extent can we impose our own morality, or our own sets of values, on to another person? We might even wonder whether the Buddha’s prescription to his followers to live their lives according to the moral discipline of avoiding the Ten Negative Actions⁷