But I find one strange thing. When it was translated into Tibetan, they called the same word yanglak, and that means complete. That's exactly what it means. There was, apparently, seeing the possibility behind it. So the Tibetans, who were very, very careful translators, who, in the beginning, had even to create a special philosophical language according to the Sanskrit model, they did not allow people to translate the Sanskrit books into Tibetan, but they had to be qualified people, they had to go through a special examination of the highest council, and only then were they allowed. And there was a way, that once the philosophical terms had been settled in Tibetan, there was a kind of a dictionary, and every translator had to use, by government law,

[01:04]

had to use the same expression for the same word, so that people could not be able to envision different things of it. And due to that, Tibetan translations are the most exact translations in the world. They are not comparable to anything else, because, for instance, if you take the Chinese texts, which are very beautiful and very interesting, but you would never be able to re-translate any text from Chinese to Sanskrit. But you can take the Tibetan, and you can re-translate it, word by word, from Tibetan to Sanskrit, and you get the same rhythm, the same structure, the same meaning. While in Chinese, you have ideograms, which express a certain idea, which is beautiful, but you can never see which word has been used. You get a general idea, but not a word. So therefore, if you translate from Chinese, you will get a very beautiful version of what may be said by the Buddha, but it is more, I would call it a poetic version.

[02:09]

It is not an excellent, direct translation. So, we have to be very careful with translations in general. Translations, even by Buddhists, are, with all good intentions, very often something that has been created by former people. And there is one other example. I don't know whether you know the books of, for instance, a very good man, Krishnasambres, who was the head of the Buddhists in England. He has written some very beautiful books. He is a very good Buddhist, all that. But he came originally from the Theosophy, and his idea, I think, was a kind of amalgamation of various religions. I mean, he had the idea to show that Buddhism really, in many respects,

[03:12]

resembles Christianity. It was a good intention, and he was right in many respects, but not in every respect. He could not quite forget his Christian background, and, for instance, he reported the last words of the Buddha. Now, the Buddha said, simply two words. That were his last two words. That means, strive with diligence. Full stop. What did he say? He translates this, strive for your own salvation with diligence. There is no question of your own salvation. It is absolutely un-Buddhistic. We never should think of our own salvation. Neither the word salvation, nor the word own is there. It has been simply inserted in it, because I thought it sounds very good. Well, it doesn't sound right to me. So, therefore, we have to be so careful to observe the actual expressions of the Buddha.

[04:14]

They are so much clearer than any translator. They are so... So, you tell me, I mean, there is no radicality, there is no uncertainty about it. Everything the Buddha said. Please don't follow me, because I have said it. If you experience it for yourself, it's all right. But if you don't experience it, it's up to you. You wouldn't believe me, because I don't want to be believed. I want to be, to be found out to be correct. And if you agree, if you have come to the same point of view through your own experience, then you are a real follower. Otherwise, you are just a believer, like any other people in the world, who may have different religions, and who just believe because it's written. So, that is, what to my mind, what I explained earlier, the question here, the happiness, the cause of happiness. So, the Eightfold Path is the next part of the Buddha Dharma,

[05:15]

which really belongs to the very old core of Buddhism. And if you remember this, this simple thesis and antithesis, and the origin and the outcome, then one must think that Buddhism is based on very clear logic. And yet, the Buddha said, logic is not all. Logic is all right to express my words in a comprehensible way. But don't you believe that you can arrive at anything beyond my logic, because there are many things which are much deeper than that. And that is what we must not forget, that Buddhism points to something which may be inexpressible, but here, as far as the Buddha's words go, they are understandable for anybody in the world. And that means it's Buddhism. So, I'm pleased that you have got any questions. Any questions? I would really like to hear what you have to say,

[06:37]

because it's a great help to me. So, therefore, I would be interested if you have any particular idea about it, because, after all, I can only talk what I feel, but it may not be all. I'm quite conscious of the fact that there are so many evaluations, so many possibilities, and so many beautiful truths. Yes? Could you talk a little bit more about the sense of you suggesting using the word complete instead of right, or right view? And I wonder if you mean that in the sense, say, of perfect, or finished. That's right. It is right. The word perfect might be used, but only with a certain caution, because people think perfect means something which can't be made better. I use the word complete,

[07:38]

because it can still be understood in a deeper way. And it is not to say it is perfect. Perfect is, in most human languages, the word perfect has always an idea of finality, but in Buddhism there is no finality. And I would say that even the term nirvana is not a termination of everything. It means only a certain way of seeing things. That means to see things in their completeness, not only to see them as something agreeable or disagreeable, or this or that, but to see them in their fullness. And I remember there was one word which I recently read about when a Tibetan Buddhist said, he defined nirvana as the perfect understanding of samsara,

[08:38]

or the perfect understanding of this world. That means unless you have understood this world already, then you can't ever attain nirvana. You can't just jump over it. So that, I think, is a very profound idea. It is the world, what the world is in itself, that we don't know. We can either see the world as samsara, or as nirvana. But it's up to us how we see it. And it is not the world itself. The world is neither good nor bad, but we make it like that. We make it either good or bad. So the concept of nirvana has nothing to do with the idea of heaven or paradise, or anything like that. There may feel like a paradise, but nevertheless, the idea in Buddhism is that even if you were to go to heaven, you would have to come down again, and you would have to go through kratos, or fall down before, because you would only see one side. So therefore, in Buddhism, the word heavens,

[09:40]

the word devas, or gods, they do not denote necessarily perfect beings, but only beings perhaps of a higher stage. That's nirvana. So we have to be careful to understand they are perfect. We should always make it clear that they do not mean this perfect and ultimate idea, but rather something which is, for our feeling, perfect, but which may be able to be improved. Could we use the word perfecting? Is that closer to what you're saying? I would say, I would say that the translation perfect use would be right in the sense of a complete view, because if you make the restriction you're not perfect. Otherwise, there is no, you're not being right, you're simply not at the right point there, because I have tried

[10:43]

to find better translations, and I have hinted at the word perfect, but I am conscious that it might be misunderstood as something finer and entertaining, because people might say, how can I have a perfect view from the beginning? But you can say, even in the beginning, you may see, you may understand that you shouldn't see the things only from your own point of view, but also from other points of view. And that is, that means we can all the time increase our knowledge. Yes? Questioner 2 You indicated that the Buddha didn't want to be believed, he wanted people to find for themselves, not to follow what he said, but to check it for themselves if it's correct. But the element of faith is very, very critical, and if somebody is trying to get to the point of a higher wisdom, you're not supposed to have some sort of faith. For example, he wrote, which is faith, which means truth. The words are the same, but only when you're anchored to something of pure faith do you find truth. So, for example,

[11:45]

if I have a fear of the truth, it is full faith. If I don't believe in him, can I believe in the words of truth? If I don't have belief in him, I have to... Well, first of all, it will pass. No, no. You must have faith. First and foremost, you must have faith. Well, you see, I would, from the very beginning say, if you have faith in Buddhism, you better have it. Because the Buddha does not want you to believe, but he wants you to understand that between believing and understanding is a vast difference. You can believe in even the worst things. You can fully believe in it, but it doesn't look like you can abide by it. But if you can understand it, then you have certainly achieved something, because at least you know what you are talking about. So I think the main difference between Buddhism and all the other religions in the world is that there is... All the other religions are based on faith, or belief, rather. Buddhism is based on understanding. And if you have understood it,

[12:46]

you really have faith in the sense that you have confidence in the Buddha. That's all right. Faith in the sense that it's a different thing than belief. I mean, I make a difference between the Buddha and faith. So you can have faith in the Buddha if you understand what he says. Otherwise not. In the Perfection of Wisdom in Ten Thousand Lines, Karma translates the first line as, Call forth all you can of faith, of love, and of respect. I can't hear. Please talk louder, all of you, because Rama's hard of hearing. So please, whatever your questions are, make them short and make them loud. In the Perfection of Wisdom, Sutra, Perfection of Wisdom, translated by Edward Kansa. Kansa, Kansa. Yes, I know him. He translates the first line as, Call forth all you can, the order might be wrong, of love, of faith, and of respect. How does he mean faith?

[13:49]

How should we understand faith in that? In what way that comes in? In which, uh... In a question parameter? Question parameter. Faith, he can, that's faith. It's not wrong. Because faith means, in the Buddhist sense, doesn't mean, it's not equal to belief. If you look at, for instance, if you go to the university, and you enter a room, let me say, to a particular college or for a particular professor, you do so because you have the faith that that man knows something more than you. If you hadn't got that faith, that conviction, that he knows more than you, you wouldn't go to learn from him. So therefore, this kind of conviction you must have here, especially the Buddha, that all of this, all conviction, should be based on certain facts. It means, we should be convinced that what the Buddha has to teach corresponds to reality. On that basis, we can listen to him. We can find that what he says is true for ourselves.

[14:50]

But if we find what he says is not true for ourselves, then we should feel quite open, don't we? That's not for me. So is this conviction based on facts, which we understand with our heart? Well, in Buddhism, the understanding is not a matter of our intellect, but rather more of our heart. So therefore, I would say that if it means understanding in Buddhism means more than what we generally assume to be his word to mean. So, the conviction is a thing which is grounded in the heart, but in the thinking heart. Yes? I would like to offer the definition of the word faith simply as the intensity of interest. The faith is the intensity of interest.

[15:51]

The intensity of interest. I think that is not sufficient. I may be interested in something, but I may not be interested in it at all. I may be interested, for instance, in certain arches of science, but that is not quite sufficient to convince me. I would say, well, maybe so, maybe not so. So, but, therefore, in Buddhism, we expect that we have some reason for our faith. Without a sufficient reason, there is no point in it. Was this reason that you found in our correspondence between our own experience of our own lives and these ideas that we're interested in? I don't quite know. We have no idea. Were the reasons that we have because of the correspondence between our own personal experience of life and the ideas in which we're interested? Well, certainly, our own experience may not be the same

[16:52]

as the Buddha's, not so complete, but I think that certainly, in a certain way, there should be a correspondence. And that means that our own reason might confirm the ideas which are given to us. If we find that the correspondence with us, with our own experience, with ourselves, with our own experience, then, in that case, we can proceed on the path of the Buddha. Well, therefore, you see, he begins his first thesis with a very general, on a very general ground. Everybody experience suffering. That is a, that's a cannot be denied. So if we, if we experience the fact of suffering, then we can go to the next point. We can ask ourselves, why? What for? What is the reason? And then the Buddha gives the reasons. He said, great hatred and ignorance. And I found that certainly great hatred and ignorance are the cause

[17:52]

of most of our sufferings. And again, we can, we can go even one step further. We can say great and hatred are based on ignorance. And nobody can deny that because if you were that ignorant, you couldn't become wiser. So the Buddha's thesis is so fundamental that it is beyond all its proficiency. You know that even in mathematics, if you, if you say, um, 2 by 2 is 4, well, that's an axiom. You can't prove it. Or 1 by 1 is 1. You can't prove it. It is simply an axiom which you have to accept as a fundamental fact. It assumes that the Buddha takes an axiom which is so universal that you can't deny it. And then he beats on that, you see, like a, like a physician. He asks first, he makes a diagnosis of suffering, what we are suffering from, and then he comes to the diagnosis, what are the reasons of our suffering, and then he shows the way from the suffering to a state of

[18:53]

renewal of that suffering and coming to a state of happiness. So that's all very clear and logical explanation. It is, and I say, the Buddha did not start with any metaphysical idea. For instance, when he was asked, how did this world come into existence? He said, it's a silly question, because if this world is, if you explain how the world came into existence, then the next question would be, well, what happened before that? And then they have no answer. And why not answer, then why not deny the question altogether? I mean, if you have to answer, if you have to, well, this is the way to another question which you can't solve, then what is the use of worrying about such questions? And I remember that one day when I was traveling with everybody, I was on a camcorder on the rear end of the ship, and I was very comfortable

[19:54]

and was very happy to see all the places and so on, on the banks of the Irrawaddy, on every stage the different Buddhist communities would come and see me. And one day, we landed in one village, and there came a missionary. He looked at me, he said, oh my goodness, how miserable, how I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry for you. I said, why are you sorry? Not to see me in this state? What is this state? I'm very happy. And I'm telling him I'm like a secret passenger and I don't need any luxuries, and I get everything that I wanted. And I've got all the rights of the people I wanted. Then he said, look at the sunset, look at the sunset. I said, yes, I see. Who has made this? I say, and who has made God? Then I said, if he has not been made by anybody, then why could I just sit and wait for him to be made by somebody, by nobody?

[20:54]

You see, so people are on the so-called metaphysical grounds and forget altogether how illogical they are. Who was first, the chicken or the egg? It's the same question. That one. Any more questions? This must be the last one. The last question, please. So let's finish. That's it for you. Thank you very much. Well, I think we've come to the end

[22:03]

of our talk. Thank you very much.

[22:06]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ