Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute talk, Ven Jampa Gendun builds a three-pronged case for why practitioners should bother developing love and compassion at all — intuition (Don Juan’s “path with heart” and Dylan Thomas’s blunt “I’d be a damned fool if I didn’t”), reasoning (Śāntideva’s hand-and-foot analogy for shared responsibility across sentient beings), and direct experience (Dostoevsky’s definition of hell as “the suffering of being unable to love”). He then outlines the five-part practice of equalizing and exchanging self for others, traces its lineage through Śāntideva back to Nāgārjuna, and works through the first meditation on equanimity — illustrated by Christ’s image of rain falling on just and unjust alike and the Buddha’s “sandalwood and axe compassion.” A student question on karma pivots the second half into Buddhist logical proofs for past and future lives: substantial cause, preceding similar type, habituation, and wave-and-flame analogies for the continuity of consciousness. Suits practitioners comfortable with classical reasoning alongside practical meditation instruction.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 WtWNN 1987 09 02.mp3
UUID: 142b1905-0a8f-4460-bfaa-a11ca633bb09
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: What the world needs now (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1987-09-02
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.3 minutes
Words: ~5,931
So I thought we’d you know, we would begin to meditate on the development of the mind of enlightenment. Again, we have to have some basis, some reasoning. It sounds like a good idea to do it, but what is our motivation for even beginning to seek to develop this mind of enlightenment, to even seek to develop love and compassion? We can always try to work with our intuition, our reasoning, and our own experience in trying to investigate, trying to develop real motivating power for whatever we’re doing. If we can find some intuition, intuitive force working in our lives, if we can base it on logic, on our rational, intellectual consciousness, and if we can base it with our own experience, then we’re going to have a very firm foundation.
It’s not really going to be some romantic idea or some wishy washy dream that we have. It’s going to be a very integral part of ourselves. So we talk about from the point of view of intuition. Intuition. This is Don Juan.
He’s talking to Carlos Castaneda. Years ago, I told you that in his day to day life, a warrior chooses to follow the path with heart. It is the consistent choice of the path with heart which makes a warrior different from the average man. He knows that a path has heart when he is one with it, when he experiences a great peace, a pleasure traversing its length. So here we’re talking about intuition, aren’t we?
Something deep within our heart, When we talk about the ideas of love and compassion, the noble aspiration to benefit others, the mind of enlightenment, it vibrates something in our heart. Very much so. I don’t think we would be involved in what we’re doing now if it didn’t can become a very powerful force in our life. You come in contact with beings like the Dalai Lama, beings like Lama Yeshe, Lama Zopa, and they move your heart. They speak to something very deep within you, beyond words.
Just by their example, you aspire to something beyond what you had ever conceived of yourself. This is the path You walk, you aspire to walk a path with heart. In doing this, there’s no commercial value. People question, why are you doing what you’re doing? It becomes In fact, you have to live with yourself, to find peace, to go beyond your self centered desires.
You You’ve become like a junkie of your heart. You’re hooked, so you might as well give in and follow in your heart. This is the quality of intuition in our lives. We have to begin to pay very much attention to it and not deny it. This is again from the point of view of intuition.
This is from the introduction to a book of poetry by Dylan Thomas. This is, I read somewhere of a shepherd who, when asked why he made from within fairy rings ritual observances to the moon to protect his flock, replied, I’d be a damned fool if I didn’t. These poems, with all their crudity, doubts and confusion, are written for the love of man and in the praise of God, and I’d be a damned fool if they weren’t. So that’s something to practice, to seek to develop love and compassion from the point of view of intuition. We don’t need intellectual justification.
We say, I’d be a damned fool if I didn’t try. It’s a quality of simply knowing what you have to do, just purely from the point of view of intuition. But also that we should also rely on reasoning on our rational aspect of our mind. To fulfill what it means to be a human being, to fulfill the purposes of both oneself and others. You know, it’s from the point of view of the two aspects of our personality, the personality of our private self, experiential self, but also the self which exists in relationship to others.
It is through love and compassion that we begin to realize to its fullest extent the aspect of our self which exists in relationship to others, to our social self. Also, we’re going to talk about the equalizing exchange of self for others. This came from a lineage from the Kadampa master, Langri Thangpa. He wrote a text called the eight verses of training of the mind. And there was one Kadampa master by the name of Geshe Chekawa, who saw a verse, one of the verses written by by this master.
He he saw the verse which said, when others out of jealousy treat me badly with abuse, insult and the like, I shall I shall accept their hard words and offer the other the victory. And this struck Geshe Chekawa as being quite profound, extremely meaningful to him. And he searched out where he could find teachings on this, and finally he met Geshe Sharawa, another Kadam master. And he he talked to him about this very verse, and he said, is this verse necessary Is the teaching here, which is contained in this verse, necessary to practice? And Geshe Sharawa answered, if you hope to achieve Buddhahood, then you must practice this teaching.
So if we hope to achieve our fullest potential, realize our capacity in its most fullest extent, to realize the ultimate possibility of both our individual private self and our social self, then we have to develop that compassion, which is realized in Buddha. Also, there’s the point of view from experience, why we should develop love and compassion. This is from the book, the novel Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. It takes place in Russia, there’s a Greek Orthodox priest, an old father who’s dying. He’s on his deathbed, and all of his disciples, his students are gathered around him.
He says, Fathers and teachers, I ponder what is hell? I maintain that it’s the suffering of being unable to love. This is our own experience, isn’t it? We get tired with our own experience of being unable to, I know for myself, tired of manipulating people, using other people. Tired of looking at my own ego and everything that I see, my own narcissism, tired of my selfishness.
There’s a desire to go beyond that selfishness, in manipulating people, try to open up to people and go beyond my own self centeredness, my own exaggerated selfishness. Those few moments when we do open up, we communicate openly with another human being. We actually care about somebody else unreservedly, unreferentially, without referring back to ourselves. I think it’s a We experience, I experience a great joy, a great happiness in that. And so this sort of from my own experience, establishes the need to expand this quality within myself of love and compassion.
So both from intuition, reasoning, and our own experience, we can begin to understand the necessity why we should go about developing love and compassion. That it’s not just a romantic idea or wishy washy dream that we saw on the latest series on television. But it it’s it has a foundation which is very integral to our being, our life. We’re going to talk about the development of love and compassion, the mind of enlightenment through using the tradition of the exchanging equalizing self with others. Sorry.
The extinguishing equalizing. Extinguishing others. Extinguishing self. Equalizing and exchanging self for others. Yeah?
So this this has five parts. This method has five parts. There’s the equalizing, equalizing self and others, reflecting on the disadvantages of self-cherishing, reflecting on the advantages of cherishing others, the exchanging of the attitudes of self-cherishing for the cherishing of others, and the practice of giving and taking. This is the practice which has come down through Mañjuśrī, Śāntideva, down to Atisha, and down through the various many lineages to this day. It’s extremely profound practice, think.
It’s said that because the love and compassion generated through this method exceed that of the sevenfold cause and effect method. It has its source The main source is in Śāntideva’s text, engaging in the bodhisattva, bodhisattva conduct, a guide to the bodhisattva’s way of life. The source of this goes back to Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland, where he talks about exchanging self, your own happiness for the happiness of others. Begin with the The root text is these eight verses of the training of the mind. It introduces the practice of exchanging self for others based upon Śāntideva’s book, Engaging in the Bodhisattva Conduct.
So we begin with the first technique, equalizing, exchanging, equalizing self with others. It’s said, if you’re going to build a building, you need a smooth and even foundation. Likewise, if we’re going to develop love and compassion, we have to develop equanimity, equality of feelings of equality, of equality between ourselves and others. Also, there is an equality amongst the others also. But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your father which is in heaven.
For he maketh his sun to rise on evil and the good, and sendeth his rain on the just and the unjust. This is from Christ saying that to develop equanimity. This is Christ speaking. But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you, that you may be the sons of your father which is in heaven. For he maketh his son to rise on the evil and the good, and he sendeth his reign on the just and the unjust.
Christ is saying that God treats all with equanimity, doesn’t he? It doesn’t matter whether you’re just or unjust, he gives them both rain. Whether you’re good or bad, he causes the sun to rise up. He’s appealing to the fact this is the way nature operates. This is in accordance with the natural law of things.
He’s appealing to this quality. This is why we should treat people equally. Good or bad, nature treats them the same. The sun rises on the good just as much as the bad. The Tathāgata, the Buddha, recreates the whole world like a cloud shedding its waters without distinction.
He has the same sentient beings for the high as for the low, for the wise as for the ignorant, for the noble minded is the immoral. It’s said that the Buddha has compassion which is called sandalwood and axe compassion. Sandalwood and axe compassion. Why do they call it that? His compassion is such that if there were two people, one on each side of him, and one were anointing his arm with fragrant oils and massaging his arm very lovingly, very delicately.
On the other side, there was another person who was slowly cutting through his arm with a knife, very cruelly, very painfully. He would have the same compassion for both of them. One anointing his arm with sandalwood oil, the other one is cutting his arm with an axe. He has the same feeling of compassion, the same feeling of caring for both of them. Therefore, it is said his compassion is sandalwood axe compassion.
It’s perfectly unbiased. It’s impartial, no matter from how they may treat him. The source verse for developing equanimity is what is engaging in the bodhisattva deeds. It says, first of all, I should make an effort to meditate on the equality between self and others. I should protect all beings as I do myself because we are all equal in wanting pleasure and not wanting pain.
No one wants to suffer. Everybody wants happiness completely equally. In the text, it goes on to say there’s an objection. There’s a debate going on between Śāntideva and an objector. He says, I think that the sufferer should get rid of his own suffering.
It’s everybody’s responsibility. Why should I take responsibility for somebody else’s suffering? He should take care of his own suffering, get rid of his own suffering. I’ll take care of my suffering, he’ll take care of every his suffering. So Śāntideva answers, he says, well, if that were the case, then when you step on a thorn, why does the hand reach down and take the thorn out of the foot?
You know, the hand’s not hurting at all. It’s the foot that’s hurting. And so the objector, he thinks about this, he says, Well, they’re they’re both part of the same whole. You know, they’re both part of the same body. And therefore, it’s quite right for the hand, even though it’s not suffering itself, to reach down and pull the thorn out of the foot because they’re all part of the same whole.
Śāntideva answers, Likewise, all sentient beings are part of the same whole. We’re all part of life. As long as there is suffering, then all of life is suffering. We all share in this suffering. Therefore, it’s necessary for us to take the responsibility to remove suffering wherever it is.
No being wants to suffer. All beings want happiness. Once there is suffering, whether it is my suffering or your suffering, it is still suffering and should be eliminated. This is the the source quotation for developing the feeling of equanimity or the equality between self and others. So there’s a method using it for development of equanimity or equality.
It’s called the It doesn’t even have a name. What? It’s like I’d ask it now. Yeah. I mean, if we all live together because of the, you know, as you just described, why isn’t our karma linked?
It is. We’re here together, aren’t we? Isn’t that right? What I do what you do is happens to you and I. But how about when a mother a mother a mother who her only child is sick?
Who feels more pain, that child or the mother? I know. But I mean, it’s not but if that karma was linked, then there’s no point in trying to change your actions because everyone else is dragging down the food. I’m kinda linked. But if you I mean, the that’s just human rebirth.
It has to do with being able to change your kind of future progress. By If you have that realization. Well, karma can exist whether you know it or not. The point is that part of being a human being gives you the opportunity to change. Yeah.
But not everybody realizes that they’ve got the opportunity to change. Yeah. But that’s that that still continues. But if it was linked, if my karma was dependent on you or anybody, that would be if you did something if you went around and shot everybody, I’d be dragged down with you. Why do you say that?
Pardon? Why do you say that? Why do I say what? That if you shoot somebody, I collect that karma. Is that what you’re saying?
Well, you’re saying that collectively, they have a responsibility to help others. That’s right. And I’m saying that Ultimately What? That that’s My understanding from previous teachings discussions that I’ve attended, it’s quite clear that it’s not a universal kind of karma. That’s what the so What karma are you referring to?
Existence. We’re not linked. We’re each individually alone. You know? You’re born alone.
You die alone. You’re what you’re doing. You’re all Interdependent. So therefore, when you’re talking about the obligation to help others, it’s there’s no link there the way you were saying. What way what way was I referring that you object to?
Well, I didn’t object. I just noticed that the obligation to try to help others you were referring to. What what about the fact that every sentient being, every being in this world wants to be happy? No being wants to suffer at all. Doesn’t that make all equal in that fact?
Perhaps I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to, doc. That we have a responsibility because we’re all part of something greater than ourselves? Yeah. This feeling of isolation, of separateness, is brought about through the ego. Ultimately, there’s no boundaries between individuals.
We merely are creating the boundaries through our conception. I is dependent upon other. If there’s no conception of I, there’s no conception of other. It’s not to say that our karmas are mixing together in some big pool. There’s no question about that.
It’s the way we conceive of self as being separate from other. That’s all talking about here. Not the individual mind streams, but the I which is imputed upon those mind streams, how we conceive of that. So this has its source, this method of developing equality of self and others has its source in a teaching by Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, who was the late junior tutor to his holiness. It has It’s divided into two parts, development of the From the conventional point of view and from the ultimate point of view.
So we’ll go through this, I’ll discuss it, and then we’ll meditate on From the conventional point of view, view again is divided into two parts, from the of others and from the side of oneself. So the first step So we have conventional point of view from the side of others. This has three steps, three meditations that we go through. The first is, as we’ve been talking a great deal about, that that we don’t want the slightest suffering, not even the slightest suffering, not even in our dreams. Likewise, all sentient beings without without any exception whatsoever, don’t want to suffer, just like ourselves.
Even the smallest insect that we uncaringly, what do you say, callously, I don’t know, kill unthinkingly, as if it didn’t have any thought of its own happiness or suffering. It actually doesn’t want to suffer in the same way that we don’t want to suffer. It wants happiness in the same way that we want happiness. No difference whatsoever. The second is just an example of a way of meditation.
We’re meant to meditate from the point of view of coming along up to ten beggars. As I was talking about before, we usually see forms when we meet people. Work with your exteriors. We don’t try to penetrate into the being of the person and the interior qualities of the person. We deal very much on superficial qualities.
So we walk up to ten beggars, and they’re all equally hungry, they’re all equally starving, they all equally are in need of food. And how we’re going to differentiate which one to give to and which one to not to give to. Perhaps one of them says, please give, perhaps the other one doesn’t say please, perhaps one is better looking to the other, the other one smiles to you. This happens in India a great deal. Beggars become quite skillful in how to beg and which type of approach to use with different prospective customers.
A beggar who says, Please sir, give me money, he ‘ll get a lot more money from Westerners than one who doesn’t say, Please, even though he may not be in as great a need as another beggar who isn’t quite as skillful in the way he goes about his begging. Because we are looking at his superficial characteristics. He said, please, it makes you feel good. He’s respecting you. You’re going to give him something more in return.
And this other one said, give, give!. Some of them are quite heavy. Some beggers. The first idea was get away from me. Don’t even want to deal with them, let them not give to them.
So we always are looking at these external qualities of these people. We come upon ten beggars, they are all equally of need, but because of superficial differences, we’re going to give one more than the other, maybe not even give to some of them. So we confront this issue in our meditation. Likewise, we’re doctors. We walk into a sick ward.
All these people have the same illness, same degree of sickness. Who are we going to treat? Which one are we going to cure first? Who are going to give the most attention to? Give the most care to?
This pretty patient and this rich patient, They’re all equal, aren’t they? They’re all sick. This is another meditation we’re going to do. That’s from the point of view of others. Then there’s from the point of view of self.
There’s three reasons for developing methods for developing equanimity. So this is the fact that all sentient beings have been equally kind to us, have been our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, have treated us equally in all ways, and one considers it from the aspect of beginningless rebirth. All people have been all things at some time to us. Now, this is very difficult, isn’t it? Because if this is going to work, have to have a firm conviction in past and future lives.
So I thought, talk a few minutes about past and future lives. There’s a book called Did you go to Tibet? Anybody go to Tibet here? Anybody going? Did go.
This is written by a teacher called Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey. I heard he lives in Lhasa. I heard he’s still living. And this goes into the proof of past and future lives.
Very roughly, I thought we’d go over some of the reasonings for the establishing past and future lives. Perhaps it’ll give some benefit. He divides it up into the proof of existence of past and future lives. First all, of course, his first proof is textual sources. That means, for intent and purposes, the Buddha said that past and future lives exist.
It’s what it comes down to, and he gives textual quotations stating that the Buddha said this, that this happened in a future past life, and this is going to happen in a future life. This is a possibility of some type of proof. But then he goes on to another type of proof, substantiating lines of reasoning. He’s actually going to use reasoning logic to establish the past and future lives. So he does this in in four ways.
Proof by way of preceding similar type. That’s the first way. And proof by way of preceding substantial cause. And proof by way of prior habituation, and the fourth is proof by way of past experience. So the first is proof by way of preceding similar type.
Proof by way of preceding similar type. He gives syllogisms. Most of this is coming from a text called Dharmakīrti’s Commentary on Dignāgā’s Compendium of Valid Cognition, or Pramānavārttika. And he’s, again and again, quoting from Pramānavārttika. And he most of this is a logic text or epistemology.
He sets out syllogisms and giving proofs. He’s setting out some syllogisms, giving proofs. Similar type, we have this idea preceding similar types. Things must arise in this idea of cause and effect. There is some relationship of type between cause and effect.
From an apple seed arises an apple tree. There’s some similarity of type between the cause and effect. Likewise, the point he’s trying to make here is, from the point of view, a similarity of type. Since there’s always, we see throughout nature, a similarity of type between cause and effect, if we look at the factor of mind, what we want to establish is where, ultimately, in establishing rebirth, is where does the mind come from, doesn’t it? Does it come from the body or does it come from somewhere other than the body?
Now, if it is the case that there is always a similarity of type between cause and effect, What kind of type are we going to talk about with respect to mind and body? The essential quality of mind is that it’s clear and knowing. This is the nature of mind, clarity and knowing. If this is the essential quality of mind, and there is this law of, you know, the similarity in types between cause and effect, then the cause of mind should also be similar in type. That is, the cause of mind should also be clear and knowing.
The idea is only that which is clear and knowing can act as the cause of mind. That is the only thing which is similar in type to mind. And there is a relationship between cause and effect of similarity and type. So only that which is the essential nature of mind is clarity and knowing, that its cause must be also clear in knowing. This is similarity and type between cause and effect.
Therefore, from this point of view, we cannot say that the mind arises from the body, the brain, the nervous system, atoms, electrons, molecules, whatever, because they are not clear and knowing. They are a cause dissimilar in type. They are neither clear or knowing. From the point of view of similarity, of type, we say that the body cannot give rise The body which is not clear and not knowing cannot give rise to an effect which is knowing and clear. A little bit little bit of There’s some reasoning there, isn’t there?
A little bit of help, maybe. This is the It seems like this is the law throughout nature, this idea of similarity of type between cause and effect, and we’re just applying it to this case. Yet the mind which is clear and knowing cannot arise from something physical, which is not clear and knowing. It can only arise from something which is clear and knowing itself. What is that?
A previous moment of mind. That mind arises from another previous moment of mind, and back and back and back and back. In fact, there’s no beginning to it. This is proof by way of preceding similar type. And the second was proof by way of preceding substantial cause.
So substantial cause. All products, all things which arise in dependence upon causes and conditions arise must have two qualities. They must have two types of causes. They must have a substantial cause and a cooperative cause. Must always have both of these types of causes.
If we take the example of a pot, a clay pot, the substantial cause to a pot We have a clay pot. This is See this vase? The substantial cause to this vase is the clay from which it’s made. That’s the substantial cause. It actually enters into the final product itself.
It becomes it becomes transformed into the final product. The clay, through baking, through becomes part of the final product, the vase itself. That’s the substantial cause of the vase, the clay from which it is made. Now, also need another type of cause called the cooperative cause. That would be In this case, it would be the potter or the vase maker or the vase making machine or the tools which we use to shape the pot, used to shape the clay into the vase.
Now, that that the the cooperative cause in no way becomes a part of the final product. You know, the machine which made this vase is not a part of this vase any longer, but it is a cause of the vase. So, there’s these two types of causes. One which is transformed into the final product, and the other which just merely assists into bringing about the final product. Substantial cause and cooperative cause.
So the text goes on to say that only that matter, atoms, cannot be the substantial cause of mind. It is, in fact, a cooperative cause. We are conditioned by our body. If you’re sick, if your body is sick, it affects your mind, doesn’t it? What you eat affects your mind.
Our body is continually conditioning our mind. We we have to take care of our bodies. It’s going to have some effect on our mind. But it’s not the substantial cause of mind, it’s merely the cooperative cause. It doesn’t The body doesn’t, become a part of the final product mind.
It’s merely the cooperative cause. The substantial cause of the mind is a previous moment of mind, is the actual continuum of mind itself. And this is the idea that from a barley seed The barley seed, you know, we plant a we plant a wheat seed, plant it in the ground, we add fertilizer, water, earth, and then we get a barley, we get a wheat, a What do you call it? Seedling. We get a wheat sprout.
Yes. We get a wheat sprout. So the the seed itself is the substantial cause of the wheat sprout. The water, the manure, the earth is the cooperative causes, which are necessary. We have to have both of those in order to get the sprout.
But without that seed, there’s no way that we’re going to No matter how much water, earth, fertilizer we put together, we’re never going to have we’re never going to be able to produce wheat sprout. I use this as a syllogism. You know, if we consider the consciousness present at conception so at the very moment of conception, there is consciousness. It arises from a substantial cause, which is a preceding consciousness. Why?
Because it is consciousness. For example, like today’s consciousness. Okay. This We have to think about this. It’s at the moment of conception, at the very moment when the sperm and the ovum unite, it is said that there is a consciousness present at that moment.
Now, is what is the We have to try to find out what is the substantial cause. It is a product. Every product must have a substantial cause. What is the substantial cause of that? He’s saying, it’s a preceding moment.
Just like today’s consciousness, we walked in this room, we have a certain feeling, we have a certain state of mind at present. Right? What How did this state of mind presently come about? You know, maybe you’re feeling uneasy, maybe you’re happy, maybe you’re angry, maybe it’s something that just happened. Maybe as you walked in the room somebody said something to you, gave you a dirty look, and that that has affected your present consciousness.
That present consciousness that you have now is somehow linked with that consciousness which was walking in the room when that person gave you a dirty look. That acted as a as a substantial cause to your present consciousness. Likewise, when you’re eating Maybe something happened back when you were eating lunch. You know, when one Each moment of consciousness is giving rise to the next moment of consciousness. It’s conditioning the next moment of consciousness.
And our present moment of anger is somehow related to something happening to it, that happened to us. It didn’t arise from nowhere. So he’s saying that, you know, that the present consciousness, as we can experience with, you know, our own minds, is somehow linked to what happened to us just prior to this moment. And that moment is somehow linked to what happened to us to the consciousness the moment before that. Likewise, the consciousness which was at pre at conception, it it is linked.
Its state, whatever it is, is somehow arisen from another moment of consciousness. And that moment of consciousness must be a moment of consciousness in a preceding life. So this is proof by way of preceding substantial cause. So the proof by way of habituation. Using another syllogism, it is clearly seen that attachment and so forth come about through habituation, for they are not one’s sheer imagination, and it would be contradictory that it dropped no cause.
So the afflictive emotions such as attachment and hatred within our own present minds follow upon habituation. So, you know, where does you know, we experience anger, hatred, attachment, where do they come from? How do they arise? He’s saying that they arise in dependence upon habituation. That because we were we have been angry before and before that, that we become angry now.
That we habituate to particular states of mind. These particular habituations have had no beginning. There is no first moment of of hatred. We have never There is no first moment of attachment. Why?
He’s going to reason, you know, like the sucking reflex of a baby, when the baby is put to the mother’s breast, with the very touch of the breast, the baby responds with a sucking reflex, what we what we call instincts. This is this He said, this is coming from past lives, that these instinctive these reflex, instinctive knowledges. He’s using this as a reasoning to establish the existence of past lives. It goes on to past experiences, people who have actually remembered past lives. And then he presents some analogies, proof by way of clarifying analogies.
The first is the comprehension by a way by a disciple of his teacher’s orally transmitted recitation. So the teacher is reciting something. You know, this was part of very much of the Tibetan tradition. The teacher recites something and the student would recite back. And this is the way the the student would learn his text.
He’s saying, this is analogous to how a former consciousness is linked to a later one. Right? So the teacher says some words, and the student recites those words. From the teacher’s consciousness, passes the same memory of these words into the student’s consciousness. Now, it’s completely transformed, isn’t it?
It’s not the same words, it’s not the same memory, but there is a link between what the student understands and what the teacher understands. You’re saying this is how a way we can begin to think of how the link between consciousness, the link between rebirths. Another analogy. A flame transferred from one lamp to another, to a second. This is analogous to a migrator who, when the passage of taking rebirth, is neither annihilated nor unchanging.
So, you know, we we can pass one flame we take a candle and pass that flame onto the next candle, and take that and pass it onto the next candle. The candle the the light is constantly changing. There is no permanent flame there. But still, we can It is neither permanent nor is it completely eliminated, you know, from being transferred from one from one flame to another. There is something which is continuing on, but it’s it’s always a constantly changing phenomena.
It’s like, you know, if you’re on the ocean, you know, there’s a certain force to a wave. And if if you watch a wave, perhaps depending upon the speed of the wave, maybe every thirty seconds, every drop of water in that wave has changed. But it looks like it still has the same shape, doesn’t it? Know, the wave is moving, and the water comes up in the wave and it goes out. And it After about thirty seconds, as it moves, every drop of that water is completely new.
And not one drop of water that was in that wave thirty seconds before, The wave just looks exactly like it was before as it moves across the surface of the water. So this is the way it’s continually due to this initial force, it’s continually replicating itself in a particular pattern, Likewise with consciousness. Consciousness is continually replicating itself in the same patterns, but it’s constantly changing. There’s nothing fixed, just like this wave moving across the water.