(upbeat music) This podcast is brought to you by Free Buddhist Audio, the Dharma for Your Life. Our work is funded entirely by donations from our generous listeners. If you would like to help us keep this free, make a contribution at freebuddhistaudio.com/donate. Thank you and happy listening. - Mr. Chairman and friends, and enemies, if I have any. (audience laughing) Tonight, as you've already heard, tonight we come to our sixth talk. And when it's finished in an hour, rather than a quarter of time, we should be three quarters of the way through our present autumn series of talks. And we will have dealt with six out of our seven themes from the Vimalakirti Nirdesha and Mahayana Buddhist scripture. By this time, we've got, I think, some idea of the nature, of the Vimalakirti Nirdesha. We've had, perhaps, even some experience of the magic of a Mahayana Jutra. And one of the things that we've noticed, I think, is that the Vimalakirti Nirdesha is a very rich work indeed. It contains quite a number of different elements. It contains pieces of straightforward, doctrinal exposition, in which some of the profoundest philosophical themes of Buddhism are undembrated. It contains also passages of lavish description, including descriptions of all sorts, of magical feats and happiness. It contains poetry, even poetry, in the more formal sense of the term. It contains specimens of biography and autobiography and reminiscence. We might even say it contains episodes of Haidrama and it even contains, believe it or not, quite a bit of humour. So that altogether, it is a very rich, a very complex work indeed. Especially when one considers how short, in fact, the Vimalakirti Nirdesha is. It consists of only 14 quite brief chapters. And the English translation of the whole work consists of about 100 pages, that's all. The Vimalakirti Nirdesha is no longer, in fact, than a long, short story. Yet at the same time, it's full of insights, it's full of inspiration. And it brings together quite a number of very important themes as I've called them. And in the course of this series, we've time to consider only seven of these themes, taken from seven different chapters of the work. So tonight, we come to the way of non-duality. And this theme, tonight's theme, is taken from chapter nine of the work, which is entitled "The Dharmadore of Non-duality." The Dharmadore of Non-duality. Last week's theme, most of you I think will recall, was history versus myth in man's quest for meaning. And it was taken from chapter five, where Vimalakirti, Amundushri, come face to face, where they have their vigorous dialectical exchanges, where Vimalakirti explains that he's sick because beings are sick, and where he explains also how a sick body suchfas should control his mind. Since then, quite a lot has happened. Quite a lot has happened, I had to say, in the three intervening chapters. At the beginning of chapter six, entitled "The Inconceivable Liberation," or "Inconceivable Emancipation," Shari Putra has a problem. He may recollect that Vimalakirti by his magical part has made his house with its furniture, on all his attendants disappear. So that all that can be seen is Vimalakirti, himself, lying on his couch. But quite a number, in fact, an immense number, earth bodies suchfas and other hats, have accompanied Manjushri on his visit to Vimalakirti, and amongst them is our friend Shari Putra. So Shari Putra cannot help wandering where they are all going to sit. All these thousands of other hats and thousands of body suchfas. He just can't help wandering, apparently, where they are all going to sit. After all, perhaps he is thinking, body suchfas and other hats shouldn't remain standing while Vimalakirti is lying on his couch, even though he is sick. Guests, in any case, according to ancient Indian etiquette, would his etiquette shouldn't be kept standing? Now Vimalakirti, of course, knows what. Shari Putra is thinking, he has this uncomfortable faculty. He's telepathic. So knowing what Shari Putra is thinking, he puts to him quite a pointed question. He says, "Reverend Shari Putra, did you come here for the sake of the Dharma, or did you come here for the sake of a chair?" Well, they can probably imagine Shari Putra's feelings. Shari Putra, very humbly replies, "I came for the sake of the Dharma, not for the sake of a chair." And Vimalakirti then continues, saying, "Reverend Shari Putra, he who is interested in the Dharma is not interested even in his own body, much less in a chair. When he goes on in this way, in this vein, for several paragraphs, there's no need for us to follow him. Because his initial question gives us quite enough to think about, did you come here for the sake of the Dharma, or did you come here for the sake of a chair? And after all, just usually imaginations, just consider the situation. Here is this great assembly of Arrahats and Bodhisattvas. Here is the wise elder Vimalakirti. Here is Manjushri, the Bodhisattva of wisdom himself. They just had a discussion. Vimalakirti and Manjushri have just had a discussion of tremendous spiritual significance. Everybody has been highly delighted by it. Everybody has been greatly uplifted in their hearts. Nobody knows what's going to happen next, but everybody is wondering what's going to happen next. But what does Shari Putra do? He starts wondering about where everybody is going to sit. He starts worrying about chairs. So what does this little incident illustrate? What does it warn us against? It warns us against the danger of getting sidetracked. We get sidetracked due to the operation of the gravitational pull. And it's no use our nothing, or even smiling, that for all Shari Putra we have to apply the warning to ourselves because what happens? We go along, say, to a meditation class at the center. We go along to a lecture on the Dharma. We even go away on retreat, perhaps in the depths or the country's land. Perhaps we get quite deeply immersed, immersed in the meditation, immersed in the lecture, immersed in the retreat experience. But then what happens? What happens is that our attention wanders. We get sidetracked. We start wondering when the tea and biscuits are going to appear. We start wondering whether a certain attractive person that we saw last week is going to be there again. But we start wondering, especially if it's a cold day, whether the central heating is going to be turned up. So we might well ask ourselves the same sort of question. The familiarity asked Shari Putra. Did you come for the sake of the Dharma, or for the sake of the tea and biscuits? Did you come for the sake of the Dharma, or for the sake of that attractive person? Did you come for the sake of the Dharma, or for the sake of the central heating? There's nothing easier than to get sidetracked in this sort of way. There's nothing easier than to succumb to the operation of the gravitational pull. There's a lot more that could be said on this particular subject. But sidetracking is not our theme tonight. And in any case, I don't want to get sidetracked. So let's pass on to what happens next. Happens next, of course, in the sutra, in the text. What happens next is that there's a great display of magical power. Shari Putra has been worrying about chairs. So, all right, Vimalakirti gives him chairs. He gives him 3,200,000 of them, where in thought. Not chairs, but thrones, in fact. And he brings them by his magical part, from a distant woodland in the eastern direction. And all these thrones, these 3,200,000 thrones, fit into his house without crowd. The house, in fact, seems to enlarge itself accordingly. And this gives him Vimalakirti the opportunity of explaining the inconceivable liberation or inconceivable emancipation. The Bodhisattva, he says, who lives in this emancipation, thoroughly realizes the relativity of space and the relativity of time. He can put Mount Sumerum into a mustard seed without making the one smaller or the other bigger. He can make a week seem like an age and an age like a week. He has the power, the magical part, of transforming any one into any one and anything into anything. In chapter 7, which is entitled simply "The Godess," Shari Putra is again in trouble. First of all, though, Vimalakirti answers various questions put by Manjur Sree. And there's another vigorous dialectical exchange between them. And at this point, a certain goddess appears. This goddess, we're told, lives in Vimalakirti's house. And she's so delighted with the teaching that she's been hearing, that she shows the whole assembly. The Arats, Bodhisattvas, everybody, with flowers. And these flowers, strange to relate, do not stick to the bodies of the Bodhisattvas, but they do stick to the bodies of the Arats. And of course, Shari Putra is an Arat. And Shari Putra is greatly embarrassed by this fact, by this circumstance. And he tries unsuccessfully to rush off the flowers that have fallen on him, because after all, he is a monk. And a monk is not supposed to wear flowers. Well, a little later on, Shari Putra becomes still more embarrassed, because quite suddenly, he undergoes a change of sex. First of all, prompt male to female, which is bad enough. And then from female back to male, which is even worse. But all in the space of a few minutes, well, no doubt, there are several themes here. But once again, we must pass on. Chapter eight is entitled The Family of the Dhargatas, that is to say, The Family of the Wooders. And first of all, in reply to a question by Ranjushri, familiar courtesy explains how the Bodhisattva follows the way to attain the qualities of the wooder. And the familiar kidders' reply is highly paradoxical. Vimalakirti himself then asks Ranjushri what is the family of the Dhargatas? Or what is meant by the expression family of the Dhargat? And Ranjushri, too, replies to Vimalakirti's question in a highly paradoxical fashion. And this reply of his is applauded by Marghastra. A Bodhisattva called Saliva Rupa Sandarshana, then intervenes. His name means, by the way, universal manifestation. And he asks Vimalakirti a question. In fact, he asks him, I will see it as a question. He asks, or he says, householder, where are your father and mother, your children, your wife? Because don't forget, Vimalakirti is lying there on his couch, and nobody else can be seen. Your servants, your maids, your laborers, and your attendants, where are your friends, your relatives, and your kinsmen, where are your servants, your horses, your elephants, your chariots, your bodyguards, and your bearers? This, as those of you who have been to India will appreciate, is a typically Indian inquiry. And Vimalakirti replies in a long series of very beautiful verses. And these verses make up the longest first passage in the whole of the Vimalakirti's in their Russia. They last until the end of the chapter. I'm going to read the first 12 verses just to give you a taste of the whole series. Vimalakirti says, of the true Bodhisattvas, the mother is the transcendence of wisdom. The father is the skill in liberative technique. The leaders, that are to say the Buddhas themselves, the leaders are born of such parents. Their wife is the joy in the Dharma. Love and compassion are their daughters. The Dharma and the truth are their sons, and their home is deep thought on the meaning of voidness. All the passions, their disciples, controlled at will, their friends are the age to enlightenment, thereby they realize supreme enlightenment. Their companions, ever with them, are the six transcendences. Their consorts are the means of unification. Their music is the teaching of the Dharma. The incantations make their garden, which bloom with the flowers of the factors of enlightenment, with trees of the great wealth of the Dharma, and fruits of the gnosis of liberation. Their pool consists of the eight liberations, filled with the water of concentration, covered with the lotuses of the seven purities, who bathe therein, becomes immaculate. Their bearers are the six supernologists. Their vehicle is the unexcelled Mahayana. Their driver is the spirit of enlightenment, and their path is the eightfold peace. Their ornaments are the auspicious signs, and the 80 marks. Their garland is virtuous aspiration, and their clothing is good conscience and consideration. Their wealth is the holy Dharma, and their business is teaching. Their great income is pure practice, and it is dedicated to supreme enlightenment. Their bed consists of the four contemplations, and its spread is the pure livelihood, and their awakening consists of gnosis, which is constant learning and meditation. Their food is the ambrosia of the teachings, and their drink is the juice of liberation. Their bath is pure aspiration, and morality, their own guilt and perfume. Having conquered the enemy passions, they are the invincible heroes. Having subdued the four maras, they rage their standard on the field of enlightenment. In this way, we come to chapter nine, entitled, the Dharmadore of non-duality. We come to the theme of the way of non-duality. The structure of this chapter is very simple. Your maturity asks the bodhisattvas a question, and all the bodhisattvas in turn answer the question. The text actually gives 31 of these answers. The bodhisattvas then put the same question to Manjushri, when he answers it too. Manjushri then puts the same question to Vimalakirti, and he answers it. So what is the question? The question is how do the bodhisattvas enter the Dharmadore of non-duality? Or what is the bodhisattvas, Dharmadore of non-duality? With no time for all their replies, I'll give just a few of them. The bodhisattvas Sri Gandhi declared, I and mine are two. If there is no presumption of a self, there will be no possessiveness. Thus, the absence of presumption is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattvas hadra jotis declared, distraction and attention are two. When there is no distraction, there will be no attention, no mentation, and no mental intensity. Thus, in the absence of mental intensity is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattvas who Bahu declared, bodhisattva spirit and disciple spirit are two. When both are seen to resemble an illusory spirit, there is no bodhisattva spirit, not any disciple spirit. Thus, the sameness of nature of spirits is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattva sin had declared, sinfulness and sinlessness are two. By means of the diamonds like wisdom that pierces to the quick, not to be bound or liberated is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattva pratyakshadarshana declared, destructible and indestructible, idealistic. What is destroyed is ultimately destroyed. What is ultimately destroyed does not become destroyed. Hence, it is called indestructible. What is indestructible is instantaneous and what is instantaneous is indestructible. The experience of such is called the entrance into the principle of non-duality. The bodhisattva viduddiva declared, knowledge and ignorance are dualistic. The nature of ignorance and of knowledge are the same. For ignorance is undefined, incalculable and beyond the sphere of thought. The realization of this is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattva akshayamati declared, the dedication of generosity for the sake of obtaining omissions is dualistic. The nature of generosity is itself omniscience and the nature of omniscience itself is total dedication. Likewise, it is dualistic to dedicate morality, tolerance, effort, meditation and wisdom for the sake of omniscience. Omniscience is the nature of wisdom and total dedication is the nature of omniscience. Thus, the entrance into this principle of uniqueness is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattva shantindriya declared, it is dualistic to say, Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Dharma is itself the nature of the Buddha. The Sangha is itself the nature of the Dharma and all of them are uncompounded. The uncompounded is infinite space and the processes of all things are equivalent through infinite space. Adjustment to this is the entrance into non-duality. The bodhisattva shriyaamati declared, duality is constituted by perceptual manifestation. Non-duality is objectlessness. Therefore, non-glasping and non-rejection is the entrance into non-duality. In this way, the bodhisattva's give their replies to the question. And they then asked Manjushri for his reply. And what does he say? What does Vimalakirti say? The text says, Manjushri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching. To express nothing. To say nothing. To explain nothing. To announce nothing. To indicate nothing. And to designate nothing. That is the entrance into non-duality. Then, the crown prince Manjushri said to the list of Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of non-duality." Thereupon, the list of Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying, "Nothing at all." This is the famous thunder-like silence of Vimalakirti, the silence that is more powerful, more expressive than any words. And this silence is thunder-like silence of Vimalakirti, who represents the climax of the chapter. Even the climax of the entire Vimalakirti, the regression. Now, there's quite a lot that needs a little bit of explanation in all of this, at least a little bit of comment. So, I'm going to do four things. I'm going to say a few words about the question itself. I'm going to comment briefly on a few of the Bodhisattvas replies. I'm going to suggest a few alternative non-dualities. I'm going to consider very briefly Vimalakirti's silence. But first of all, a few words about the expression dharma-doh. Some of you may not have encountered this expression before, dharma-doh, that occurs frequently in Mahayana texts. In the original Sanskrit, it's dharma-mukha. Dharma, of course, is the teaching or the doctrine, that is to say, the teaching or doctrine of the Buddha. Mukha is door, entrance, opening, or mouth. So, in what way, in what sense, is the dharma-a door? It is a door, in the sense that it is a means of entrance to the ultimate truth, to the actual experience of enlightenment. But, we mustn't forget that a door, any door, has a twofold function. It opens into, but it also shuts out from. In the same way, the dharma, the teaching, can open out into ultimate truth. It can be a means of entrance into ultimate truth, but it can also shuts one out from the ultimate truth. It can be a means of entrance to ultimate truth, where it is taken as being just that. That, to say, taken as being a means to an end. And it can shut one out from the truth when it's taken as an end in itself. Because the door, or what should have been the door, becomes just part of the wall. And maybe, we even forget that it was ever meant for going through. Not just as a door, as a double function. The word dharma itself has a double meaning. It means the teaching of the doctrine, yes, but it also means the truth of reality, dedicated by that teaching, by that doctrine. The dharma is the door to the dharma. That, to say, the dharma as teaching is dharma, through the dharma as reality, provided. It is not taken as an end in itself. Now we come to the question. The question which familiar purity asks the bodhisattvas at the beginning of the chapter. How do the bodhisattvas enter the dharma door of non-duality? Or what is the bodhisattvas, dharma door of non-duality? We can now understand the question a little better, perhaps. Though still it may not be entirely clear. The dharma, or teaching, is expressed in terms of concepts. Each of these concepts has its opposite. The dharma, the teaching, is therefore expressed explicitly or implicitly in terms of pairs of opposites, better to say in terms of duality. Concepts are, of course, the creation of the mind. In yoga-shara terms, they are the creation of the Kṛṣṭa or vignana or soiled mind consciousness. This consciousness, the soiled mind consciousness, sees everything, sees reality itself in terms of pairs of opposites in terms of duality, especially in terms of the duality of subject and object. However, it is non-dual, in the state or experience of reality, all duality is transcended, even the duality between duality and non-duality. That duality is transcended in its absoluteness. It's not that dualism is wholly obliterated as it were, so that one is left with a blank featureless unity. There can be no question of a real obliteration of something which in reality does not exist. We ourselves are creatures of duality. Our consciousness is dualistic. Our experience is dualistic. Our thoughts, words, and deeds are dualistically based. Our understanding of the dharma is dualistically based. Our practice of the dharma is dualistically based. The dharma itself, as a teaching, is expressed in terms of concepts, which are pairs of opposites. Skillful and unskillful, mundane and transcendental, conditioned and unconditioned, foundation liberation, defilement and enlightenment, etc. Yet we have to use this dualistic dharma as a means of realizing that non-dual reality. We have no alternative, in fact. The non-dual has to be realized by means of the dualistic. And this is possible, because in reality there's no absolute duality between duality and non-duality. If there were, no emancipation would be possible. So, how are we going to do this? How are we going to realize the non-dual by means of the dualistic? How are the Bodhisattvas going to do it? This is what familiarity is asking them. He says, "Good sirs, please explain how the Bodhisattvas enter the dharma door of non-duality." Better to say, how the Bodhisattvas make a dualistic dharma function in a non-dualistic way? Or how, being themselves riddled with dualism, they actually follow the way of non-duality? Each Bodhisattva, speaking from his own individual point of view, therefore states a pair of opposites, states a duality. And he then shows how that duality can be transcended by means of the duality itself. By means, if you like, of the contradictions inherent in the duality itself. How that duality can be transcended in terms of the duality itself. So, let me give a few examples. Let me take just four of the replies already quoted, and make a few comments on them from this point of view. I'll take four of the more simple replies. The Bodhisattva, Padra Jotis, declared distraction and attention are two. When there is no distraction, there will be no attention. No mentation and no mental intensity. Thus, the absence of mental intensity is the entrance into non-duality. This is Thurman's translation. Lamot's translation makes the meaning a little clearer. Lamot says, the Bodhisattva, Padra Jotis, said, distraction and attention are two. If there is no distraction, there is neither attention nor reflection nor interest. The absence of interest is the entry into non-duality. So, what does this mean? Exactly what is the entry into non-duality here? The opposites are distraction and attention. The word for distraction is fix-shaper, which means floundering, the floundering, the tossing, the wandering of the mind. And the word for attention is manana, in the sense of paying attention. We could also perhaps render the word as concentration, but it's not exactly the same thing. It's more like what makes concentration possible. So this is the pair of opposites. Distraction and attention. And this pair of opposites, as I'm sure everybody knows very well, is experienced, especially within the context of meditation. Because what usually happens? We pay attention for a while. We pay attention to our object of concentration, or concentration, whatever that may be. Breath, mantra, whatever. But then, after a while, the mind gets restless. It feels uncomfortable, and it starts wandering. And sooner or later, we become aware of this. We become aware of what has happened, what is happening. We pull ourselves up, we start paying attention again. And in this way, we oscillate between the two. Distraction and attention. Distraction and attention. And sometimes we don't get very far with our meditation. What's then a way to do? Well, we have to find the entry into non-duality within the situation. How are we to do this? We have to question the very terms of the situation. That is to say, we have to question their absolutious. We have to realize that it's not enough to try to sustain attention by means of a forcible act of will. If distractions persistently arise within the context of meditation, it means that we have not understood ourselves deeply enough. Not understood ourselves deeply enough. It means that there are factors that work within us, psychological factors, of which we are not conscious. And what we have to do is to become conscious of them. We have to take them into consideration. In other words, or in a word, we have to become more integrated. If we are more integrated, the different elements of our being will form an harmonious whole. They'll all pull or push in the same direction. They'll no longer be in conflict with one another. We'll no longer have to oscillate between them. So in the case of distraction and attention, integration is the entry into non-duality. Not the integration that is to say integration within the context of meditation practice is synonymous with the experience of non-duality in the highest sense, but it certainly a step in that direction. Now I've said that it's not enough to try to sustain attention by means of a forcible act of will. But we should be careful not to misunderstand this. I don't mean that we should never try to concentrate, never try to get rid of distractions. This may be necessary as a provisional measure. In fact, it almost says that it will be necessary. But in the long run, your position between distraction and attention, which plagues so much of our meditation practice, can be resolved only if we become more integrated. Integration itself is a form of non-duality. Now for our second example. The Bodhisattvas who Bahu declared, Bodhisattva spirit and disciple spirit are two. When both are seen to resemble an illusory spirit, there is no Bodhisattva spirit, not any disciple spirit. Thus, the sameness of natures of spirits is the entrance into non-duality. This is Thurman's translation. Here, spirit does not mean spook. It means something more like mental attitude. It translates the Sanskrit chitta and its equivalents. Now much translation again is clearer. The Bodhisattvas who Bahu said, Bodhisattva mind and listener mind are two. If it is seen that these two minds are the same as an illusory mind, there is neither Bodhisattva mind nor listener mind. This sameness of the mark of minds is the entry into non-duality. In the original Sanskrit illusory spirit, or illusionary's mind is Maya Chitta. Illusionary mind is not a mind that is absolutely non-existent. It is a mind that cannot be defined in terms of existence or non-existence just like the magical show. It is a mind that has a relatively real existence. This relatively real mind sees things in a relatively real way. It sees things in terms of pairs of opposites which are mutually exclusive, for instance self and other, good and bad, pure and impure. The illusionary mind, the Maya Chitta, therefore corresponds in a way to the Kṛṣṇa-manu-vignana or soiled mind consciousness. And one of the ways in which the illusionary mind sees things in terms or rather one of the ways in which the illusionary mind sees things is in terms of gaining emancipation for oneself alone or gaining emancipation for others. If the illusionary mind identifies itself with the latter, it becomes the bodhisattva mind. If it identifies with the former, it becomes the Śrāva-kamaṇed, the listener or disciple mind. But the truth is that in the ultimate sense, the distinction is unreal, is only relatively real. One cannot progress spiritually oneself without paying attention to the needs of others, without developing friendliness and compassion. One cannot help others to progress spiritually unless one has progressed oneself. Bodhisattva mind and disciple minds are therefore not mutually exclusive. The bodhisattva ideal and the arahat ideal are not mutually exclusive. Pinayana and Mahayana are not mutually exclusive. They are products of the same illusionary mind. Both represent attempts on the part of this illusionary relative and dualistic mind to apprehend the nature of the non-dual spiritual ideal. If we understand the limitations of that mind, we will understand the limitations of bodhisattva mind and disciple mind considered as mutually exclusive. Realisation that bodhisattva mind and disciple mind are both the same as an illusionary mind will be the entrance into non-duality. This doesn't mean that we shall no longer use terms like bodhisattva ideal and arahat ideal. But it will mean using them, realizing that they have only a relative validity. They are not ends in themselves. Their function is simply to help us grow. All right, third example. The bodhisattva singer declared sinfulness and sinlessness are two. The means of the diamonds like wisdom that pierce us to the quick, not to be bound or liberated, is the entrance to non-duality. The word for sinfulness is savadya. The much translates 'blameable'. That's more literal. But who blames us? Who says we are sinful? It could be the group. It could be the individual. Let us take it for the moment that it is the group. What happens when we are blamed by the group? Especially when it's by our own group. That is to say, the group to which we consider we belong, how do we feel? Well, I think everybody knows we feel very wretched and miserable indeed. And we are ready to do almost anything to regain, to recapture the approval of the group. We may be ready to do anything, in fact, quite literally. We are completely at the mercy of the group. We oscillate between a wretchedness when we are blamed, in elation, when we are not blamed. These are the opposites. This is the duality, and the situation becomes even worse when God comes into it. Then we are found, or maybe found, not simply blameable, but actually sinful. But we are not going into all that now. That's too horrible even to think about. The situation is quite bad enough as it is anyway. So how do we get out of it? What is the entry into non-duality in this sort of situation? It is the development of transcendental individuality. That is the same, an individuality which is not at the mercy of the group, which does not feel wretched when found blameable by the group, and elated when found blameless, which is in a sense indifferent to the opinion of the group. But how do we develop transcendental individuality? It is difficult enough to develop ordinary individuality. How do we develop transcendental individuality? We develop it by means of transcendental wisdom, transcendental knowledge, by means of the transcendental wisdom that cuts like a diamond. Ordinary mundane wisdom is not enough. The impact of the group on the individual is very powerful and very persistent. We cannot help weakening sometimes. We cannot help giving in even. It is only transcendental individuality which is strong enough to resist, strong enough not to feel the pressure even. Strong enough not to be affected by the groups, blaming us or not blaming us. This is quite a sobering thought because it means that until we have entered the stream, it is only then that transcendental individuality begins to develop. Until we have entered the stream, we shall oscillate between the blameless and blameless, wretchedness, annihilation at least to some extent. Only the development of transcendental individuality is the way, is the entry to non-duality in such a situation. No doubt other more metaphysical interpretations of seeing as declaration are possible, but the one that I have given seems particularly appropriate. I am reminded in this connection of remarked by St. Augustine. He was once told that a certain other saint, apparently a rival saint, had interpreted a passage in the Bible differently from the way in which he, St. Augustine, had interpreted it. He was told about this. So what did he say? He said, calmly, "The more interpretations the better." So this principle is particularly applicable to a text like the Vimalakirti in their dyesha. The more interpretations the better. Now for the fourth and last example. The Bodhisattva, Shantendra declared, "It is dualistic to say Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The Dharma is itself the nature of the Buddha, the Sangha is itself the nature of the Dharma, and all of them are uncompounding, or as we usually say, unconditioned. The compounded is infinite space, and the processes of all things are equivalent to infinite space. Adjustment to this is the entrance into non-duality. So here, there are two pairs of opposites. Buddha and Dharma and Dharma and Sangha. Dharma is the middle term, so to speak. Here, Dharma is to be taken in its more metaphysical inverted commas sense. Not in the sense of the Buddha's actual teaching as embodied in words and concepts. In the sense of the ultimate truth or reality of which that teaching is the expression and towards which it points. The Dharma here is the unconditioned itself. This unconditioned, the Buddha has realized. He is the living embodiment by virtue of his enlightenment experience of the unconditioned. Hence, there is no duality between them. Similarly, in the case of the Sangha, that is to say, the Arya Sangha. The Sangha or spiritual humanity have bodhisattvas, other huts, non-returners, once returners, and stream entrance. All are following the transcendental path. All approximate in varying degrees to the unconditioned. In some cases, they have actually reached the unconditioned. Hence, in principle, there is no duality between them and the Dharma either. Thus, there is no difference between the Buddha and the Dharma. No difference between the Sangha and the Dharma. No difference, therefore, between the Buddha and the Sangha. Because all three are essentially unconditioned. For rather, are essentially the unconditioned. The Dharma is the unconditioned itself. The Buddha is the unconditioned as fully realized by the individual. The Sangha is the unconditioned in process of realization. In this case, in the case of the two pairs of opposites which make up the three jewels, the entry into non-duality is the realization that the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha are essentially unconditioned. So long as we see them as conditioned, we see them as three. So long as we see them as the unconditioned, we see them as one, or not even as one. From this point of view, when we go for refuge, we go for refuge. We commit ourselves not to three different things, but to the one unconditioned, non-dual, ultimate reality. Now all this sounds rather metaphysical, not to say rather abstract. In fact, the replies of all the Bodhisattvas to Vimalakirti's question sound rather metaphysical. That would say their replies to his question, how do the Bodhisattvas enter the Dharma door of non-duality? I've in fact selected as my examples four of the less metaphysical replies. However, metaphysical are not the general drift, I think, of the Bodhisattvas replies is clear enough. Dualities are created by the mind. The pairs of opposites are created by the mind, including those pairs of opposites, which are the doctrinal categories of Buddhism itself. One enters the Dharma door of non-duality when one realizes that the pairs of opposites are created by the mind. When one realizes that they are therefore not ultimately valid, realizes that they are not ends in themselves, that their only means to an end, means to the spiritual development of the individual. Moreover, any pair of opposites, any pair of opposites whatsoever can be a Dharma door to non-duality. Duality itself is the means to non-duality. Because the duality between duality and non-duality is not ultimate. However, we are still being rather metaphysical. And in any case, we spent the rather long time over the Bodhisattvas replies. So, let me now suggest a few alternative non-dualities. These alternative non-dualities that I am going to suggest are certainly not so sublime for those of the Vimalakirti Nurdesha, but no doubt they come closer to our own actual experience and as such may be useful. They may not carry us as far into the depths of non-duality as the Bodhisattvas do, but at least they'll help us move in the direction of non-duality from where we actually are now. I'll give these alternative non-dualities in the same as it were apharistic form as the Bodhisattvas. And I hope that they won't bring everybody down to earth with too much of a bump. Masculine and feminine are too. Individuality is the entrance into non-duality. Organizer and organized are too. Cooperation is the entrance into non-duality. Teacher and taught are too. Communication is the entrance into non-duality. God and man are too. Blessed for me is the entrance into non-duality. Male and female are too. Celebrity is the entrance into non-duality. Individual and group are too. The spiritual community is the entrance into non-duality. I don't propose to offer any comments on this. I'll leave you to think about these alternative non-dualities for yourselves. Now for Vimalakirti's silence. This silence has, of course, a tremendous significance. We can't understand that significance fully, can't even begin to understand it without reference to the last reply through Vimalakirti's original question. Better to say Manju Sri's reply. What does he say in reply to the other Bodhisattvas when in their term they put Vimalakirti's question to him? He says, you may remember, good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching. To express nothing. To say nothing. To explain nothing. To announce nothing. To indicate nothing. And to designate nothing. That is the entrance into non-duality. All your explanations are themselves dualistic. This is what he tells them. So why does Manju Sri say this? Why are the Bodhisattvas explanations all dualistic? They're dualistic because they are expressed in terms of concepts. Concepts are essentially dualistic. We can't therefore explain the Bodhisattvas entry into non-duality by means of concepts. If we want truly to explain it, we have to abstain from concepts altogether. Have to abstain from speech altogether. Have to remain silent. However, in order to explain all of this, Manju Sri himself has to make use of concepts. He has to speak. He has to say that silence is the Bodhisattvas entry into non-duality. So there's a contradiction here. Manju Sri's explanation itself is not entirely free from non-duality. There is still one more step to be taken. This step is taken by Vimalakirti. He remains completely silent. He puts into actual practice what Manju Sri has only expressed in terms of concepts. But here, a question arises. Is not Vimalakirti's reply also dualistic? Speech and silence are opposites. So to explain the Bodhisattvas entry into non-duality in terms of silence is surely as dualistic as explaining it in terms of speech, in terms of concepts. What is the entry into non-duality here? Well, the answer is that Vimalakirti does not have a concept of silence. He acts spontaneously according to the circumstances. After all, there is silence and silence. In chapters three and four, the other parts of the Bodhisattvas were reduced to silence when they encountered Vimalakirti, but this was the silence of stupid faction. Vimalakirti is the silence of understanding, the silence of enlightenment. Vimalakirti uses silence, not that he has any concept of using it, of course. He uses it as a means to an end. He uses it in order to communicate. But he also uses speech whenever necessary. He does not stick to silence. After all, he does speak quite a lot in the course of Vimalakirti, Nirdesh. And not only that, speech and silence are not his only means of communication by any means. He communicates also by means of marvelous magical displays. The means of communication are in fact infinite. We should be going into this a little next week when our theme will be the mystery of human communication. Meanwhile, this week, what have we seen? We've seen the danger of getting sidetracked. We've seen what is meant by Dharmadore. We've seen how the Bodhisattva enters the Dharmadore of non-duality. The Bodhisattva enters the Dharmadore of non-duality when he uses speech to transcend speech. Silence to transcend silence. Duality to transcend duality. Duality can be used to transcend duality. It can be used as a means to non-duality because the duality between duality and non-duality is not absolute. And this is the way of the Bodhisattvas. This is the way of Manjushri. This is the way of Vimalakirti. This is the way of non-duality. We hope you enjoyed this week's podcast. Please help us keep this free. Make a contribution at freebuddhistaudio.com/donate. And thank you. [MUSIC] [BLANK_AUDIO]
