Past Issues: July 03 | September 03 | October 03 | November 03 | December 03

The Internet Newsletter of Jewel Heart

A TEACHING FROM GEHLEK RIMPOCHE

Keep Your Practice Grounded

I mention very often that our main job is to free ourselves from the misery of neuroses such as anger, hatred, and jealousy. When you realize how difficult this is, and how much you suffer because of it, then it is important to switch your focus away from yourself alone and realize that everyone else has this problem. The people you share your home with, your parents, your co-workers, and everyone else you meet all have the same difficulty. It is vital to recognize this because the way out of your own misery is by caring for others. Rather than wondering “How can I do something for myself?” think of others and what you can do for them. This is the bodhisattva’s way. Don’t withdraw into yourself under the pretense of meditation and saying mantras. On the outside you may look like a great spiritual practitioner but in reality this can simply be another cocoon to hide in while you keep thinking to yourself “How can I develop?” or “What can I do for me?” Instead, the moment you have difficulties and wish to be free of them, think of all the others who have these difficulties and also wish to be free. Then try to be helpful.

Rather than making things more complicated and more confused by adding our own neuroses, which is a usual pattern for us, try to rely on whatever compassion you have, whatever wisdom you have, whatever caring mind you can get and then try to help. Begin with the people closest to you. They are all in the same boat. Think, “As much as I have this difficulty, they have the same difficulty.” Begin with one person at a time, rather than with all sentient beings. It has tremendous benefit, thinking of all sentient beings, no doubt. But it is a long shot to solve each and every person’s problems. And also when we are sitting on our cushion thinking of all sentient beings it is easy to imagine nameless faceless dots who do whatever we want, instead of real people who can really irritate us badly sometimes. So whatever we can do for those who are right in front of our own nose, try to help them. This is a way to keep your practice grounded. Even if it is only a small problem you will feel quite happy if you are able to help. This is the bodhisattva’s way of building happiness—by serving others.

Relieving someone of any problem, even a simple headache, with the motivation of compassion has tremendous benefit. Not because you happen to be a doctor who has given the right drug and gotten rid of a headache. Prescribing the right drug for a particular illness is not what brings this great benefit. The benefit comes from the motivation to relieve the suffering others are experiencing, which you recognize is not different than your own suffering. It also becomes very important that the sincere desire to help is not contaminated by a personal agenda. The moment you think “I will be the instrument to relieve this person’s suffering,” or “I will be given the credit for this,” you are acting with a personal agenda. If you act with a personal agenda, even if you have a desire to help, it becomes faulty. We usually have some half and half mixture, so we need to recognize this and work towards being able to help without personal agenda.

These days people’s lives are getting busier and busier. There is no time for hiding in your cocoon. There are bills to pay and most people are under a great deal of stress just to make a living. You have to make use of what is right in front of you. You have to make the teachings practical and down to earth and relevant to the life you have. Even if you don’t have bodhimind and what you do have seems artificial, continue to pray that you may develop actual bodhimind. Simply praying and wishing to develop bodhimind is incredibly powerful. Don’t ever underestimate the difference your aspiration can make. Such a mind will influence everything you do in a positive direction. Doing your laundry, ironing your clothes, shopping for groceries, standing in line, driving down the highway. Each one of these will become worthwhile because of your motivation. Slowly you will build a solid foundation for helping yourself and others.

—Edited by Aura Glaser, February 2004

THE “THRILLA IN THE CHILLER (NYC)”
ROBERT THURMAN and GEHLEK RIMPOCHE SQUARE OFF

“A good boxer is an artist—Boxing is existential—some fights are better than others.” Norman Mailer, from The Fight (1975).

In a style that more closely resembled shadow boxing than parliamentary debate, Gehlek Rimpoche and Professor Robert Thurman publicly sparred in the classic Tibetan debate format before an appreciative audience in New York City on December 6, 2003.

As we trudged our way through an evening blizzard toward Cooper Union, we hardly knew what to expect. Tibetan debate is rarely performed in the West, and it’s even more rare to see it demonstrated by two proficient lay people, rather than by Ge-luk monks. But Gehlek Rimpoche was the recipient of a first class Tibetan monastic education within Tibet, (which included years of debate practice) and Bob Thurman is one of the few Westerners to have seriously studied and practiced the Tibetan debate style. As a fundraising benefit for Jewel Heart, Rimpoche and Thurman had proposed a demonstration debate, to be performed in the classic format, at Cooper Union—on the very same stage that President Lincoln and Senator Douglas had conducted their political debates over 100 years ago.

However, having said that, all similarities between the Lincoln/Douglas and Thurman/Gehlek end abruptly. A little background information may be required here (we certainly needed it, when attending this event!). Tibetan debates involve two parties: a defender (dam bca' ba), who answers, and a questioner (rigs lam pa). The roles of defender and questioner imply very different responsibilities. According to Daniel Perdue, author of Debate in Tibetan Buddhism, “The defender puts forth assertions for which he is held accountable. The questioner raises qualms to the defender’s assertions and is not subject to reprisal for the questions he/she raises.” So, to begin the debate, the defender is obligated to present a thesis he/she thinks is true and then defend it.

But here’s the tricky part, folks. The defender is accountable for the truth of his/her assertions. The questioner, on the contrary, is responsible only for the questions he/she puts forth. His/her questions must be well articulated, must logically follow from the points already made, and must be relevant to defeating the defender. Their truth content is irrelevant, however, for his/her task is not to establish a thesis but to oblige the defender to contradict either previous statements or common sense. This is the point where Tibetan debate more closely resembles Mohammad Ali against George Frazier in Manila (“the thrilla in Manila”) than the Lincoln /Douglas debates!

Rimpoche and Thurman took turns throughout the evening, exchanging the roles of defender and questioner, debating a thesis that engaged questions about the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of things. (The most notable point we could recall involved Rimpoche’s interest in the possible continuation of consciousness taking up residence in an artificial intelligence container, like a computer. The debate itself was too difficult for this listener to follow and repeat!). But the verbal sparring is only the beginning. The second way in which Tibetan debate invokes memories of “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” is the choreography of this debate style.

Tibetan debate requires that both debaters learn intricate body movements, For example, drawing back the right hand marks one’s wish to liberate all sentient beings. Another example: when a respondent gives an answer that the questioner holds to be false, the latter must circle his opponent’s head three times with his right hand while screaming in a loud and shrill voice, “These are the three circles” ('di 'khor gsum). Rimpoche and Thurman bounced and swayed across the stage, providing us with a great visual lesson on debate movements. (See photos). Thus, from the first moment, when Thurman explained the invocation to Manjushri, done with long horn, Tibetan oboe and cymbals, sung by Jamyang and Sonam, to the last handclap by the audience, everyone was entertained.

We especially enjoyed watching those two old friends on stage, engaging one another in spontaneous debate. Was there a winner? We really can’t say. Was it exciting to watch on a cold winter’s night in NYC? You bet. A debate tradition from thousands of miles away gave a contemporary one-two punch to a delighted audience.

More photos from the debate: <photo1> <photo2> <photo3> <photo4>

—Elizabeth Hurwitz, Ann Arbor