monkey see, monkey do serves as a personal blog and creative outlet for
dualism and the search for happiness
found this short talk by ponlop rinpoche on youtube, about dualism (subject/object separation) and how that relates to the difference between conditional joy and unconditional joy and happiness in the tibetan buddhist tradition; and he uses fashion and computers as his examples.
i found it interesting to watch him while he discussed this, since it’s said that he is a person who has stabilized the ability to rest and even teach while dropping attachment to a subject/object dualistic point of view. he looks quite joyful!
and i hear he is quite the computer person, he hacks his own web sites. hence, his first hand experience of a computer being obsolete as suffering. rinpoche if you read this: hello!
My transcription:
Rinpoche is reading from a Tibetan text and offering commentary. This commentary is simply about one word in the text, “Ho”.
“Ho” is an expression of wonder, or amazement and it the same thing or a condensed way of saying “Emaho”.
“Ho”, maybe we can talk about “Ho” tonight. “Ho” also expresses this quality of great joy. Expressing this pure, genuine joy, ultimate joy, that is the joy of being free from all dualistic concepts.
The reason why it’s amazing, or so wonderful, is because it is beyond all conceptual fabrications of perceiver and perceived. When we transcend all conceptual fabrications of perceiver and perceived then that’s very wonderful. It’s a happy state. Very enjoyable.
The joy that we usually experience and strive for and mistakenly think that it arises from duality: subject, object, right? We feel, oh! If I get that object - new computer - or if I get that shirt, then I will be happy. You know subject object related joy is temporary, unreliable, it is actually in the nature of suffering! It is not really joy.
The real joy arises from non-dual mind. When our mind can go beyond perceiver and perceived. Then there is ultimate joy.
As we can see how our concept of happiness our concept of joy which arises from the idea of good and beautiful is relative. We can see that very clearly how that is relative.
One clear example is fashion. Fashion is a very good dharma teaching. Right? When you see something in the window of the shop, “Oh wow! It looks so cool! This new design!” and we imagine ourselves being in that new shirt or trouser or skirt or what have you. And we have all kinds of concepts going on. What kind of bag I should carry, and what kind of shoes I should wear with it. And what kind of this and that. It goes on and on this fascination you know and we feel this is ultimate cool, ultimately cool, isn’t it! totally cool! I must get it. And we spend a lot of money. And after a few months, after a year, you open your wardrobe, closet and you see this particular shirt, particular dress that you have thought was absolutely cool. It looks so odd, right you wonder yourself why did I buy this? And especially when you think of the price that you paid, you get angry! Then that’s the time that we start to blame others. Oh! They ripped me off!
And after a year you look at it and see I must have gone crazy to have bought this and to have paid so much for this. There is no more joy, right? No more ultimate joy there. No more ultimate coolness. There’s no more even logical reason why we have this in our wardrobe, no idea! We can see it, how it changes.
It goes with the same objects. Especially with the computers. The minute you have bought your computer they say it’s already old. Six months old or something. Ya, a lot of suffering. First hand experience. A lot of suffering. Let’s not visit that.
And so therefore here when we have this experience of joy that arises from going beyond duality, our ordinary dualistic search for happiness, will have finally found the experience of non-dual resting mind. Then there we find the great joy, the great happiness, the ultimate joy. So that’s what it’s expressing here “Ho”, expressing that joy, the ultimate joy.
If you're new here, thanks for visiting! Please subscribe to my RSS feed and consider visiting my design-related blog and my meditation-related blog.
29. May 2007 at 10:18 pm :
Interesting. Many of my material possessions have been given to me by people who love me; most of the rest of them I aquired within the context of relating to someone or something in my world (i.e. I don’t care about having a car or a computer but I want to communicate with and travel to see my loved ones. I bought a jaguar mask when I was in Costa Rica to remind me of the beauty and wildness of that place and the value of that experience for me. I buy Buddhist books to help me learn how to relate to the world as it is. I still have love letters and music from my former beloveds and friends to remind me of the heart I have in my life.)
That is still all relative joy; but it feels different somehow from what Rinpoche is speaking about in this short clip. Things will not make you happy. I have the good fortune to lose things often or have to let go of things as my life changes so my attachment to them is minimal in comparison to the “average american”. What is interesting to me in contemplating what Rinpoche is saying with relationship to my experience is the dualism involved in relating to other beings. How do we keep our hearts open and relate fully with other beings without falling into the nihilism of deciding they are expendable or merely transitory in our lives OR being attached to the engagement and grappling with it in a neurotic way? Theoretically it makes sense to me to be “not too tight, not too loose” but HOW to do that is a constant effort/exhersion for me. Much harder than how/whether to relate to my computer or clothes even if someone who loves me gave them to me.
Cheryl
30. May 2007 at 12:07 am :
ding ding ding! excellent questions, really!
yes, some attachment and fixation leads us really into suffering, and other kinds seem to lead us toward less duality. rinpoche didn’t talk about that but the tibetans did really make a key distinction about different kinds of relative truth and action. some is bad for you and some is actually pretty good for you. sure, they may all still be relative. and just jumping into the absolute, non-dual view is the where we’re really headed. but in the meantime, getting into generosity, openness, getting addicted to dharma, they’re still dualistic fixations perhaps but they tend to lead us away from dualism altogether. i think that fact is the only reason that a path is possible, since when we start out all we have is a dualistic, addicted-to-concept view to work from. so we have to find dualistic things to relate to still, but it’s such good luck that some dualistic attachments actually deconstruct or suicide the whole mental process. like compassion. contemplating emptiness. etc.
i would put your material possessions that invoke your heart in that category, they still might be dualistic and conceptual but they open you further. ultimately though, they’re just in your mind. and that doesn’t really exist separately either.
and your question about nihilism and non-dualism is spot on. how can we be compassionate to countless sentient beings if they don’t exist! well, because we don’t exist either! if only the former were true, then we’re in solipsism delusion. but since we don’t exist, then any empathy we have for other non-existent sentient beings is honest and genuine, not conceptual. we see them confused about existence and we empathize, we’ve been there, and even though we see things non-dually now we know what they’re going through, we know that pain. but just like them, even though they didn’t exist separately from their environment we know they too feel pain and suffering needlessly. because we too were not really separate from our environment, and yet by mistaking that and thinking we really were separate (dual) we suffered tremendously and needlessly. so we can have genuine compassion for those non-separate, non-dual, confused beings out there… that don’t exist.
or were you asking about transience as in they don’t have a lasting impression?