Karma
The Personal Police State
the
inconsequential eccentric yogi sNgags pa chos dByings rGya mTsho
utterly acknowledges his endless joyful appreciation of his Lamas
– without whose direct inspiration he would have nothing of any
interest to say to anyone, anytime anywhere, concerning anything
Ngak’chang Rinpoche, Roath, Cardiff –
October 1981
I would like to say a few words about
‘ego’. Ego is a term which has different meanings for
different people. It has its Freudian implications—and also, it
seems to have a plethora of general usage implications. Let us forget
about these implications; I do not think that they are going to be a
great deal of use to us as people exploring Vajrayana. Often we think
of ego as something that we are attempting to ‘get rid
of’, as if it were some form of psychic-surgery by means of
which a disagreeable organ could be avulsed. This unlikely concept has
rather repulsive ramifications. Imagine it: were all beings to attain
enlightenment there would be a festering morass of accumulated
post-operative egos with which to contend. Somehow this concept is not
particularly intelligent, without even commenting on
‘dualism’. I think we would do better to forget
‘ego’. Attaining the non-dual state is not concomitant
with attaining the status of a spiritual amputee.
Let us look at it another way. Let us ask ourselves why it is
possible to be egoless. Impermanence and change characterise our
world. The ‘stuff’ of our world is constantly moving:
forming, disintegrating, arising, dissolving; but nothing is ever
lost—the universe is what it is. In terms of endlessness and
beginninglessness – addition and subtraction become a
meaningless irrelevance.
The only reason that we cannot lose ego is because ego does not
exist.
Ego is merely a style of being—a mannerism—a
habit. Where is your fingernail-biting habit when you no longer bite
your nails? Where is your smoking habit when you no longer smoke?
Where is your depression habit when you are cheerful? Where is our
dualism habit when we find the presence of awareness?
Because ‘ego’ does not exist, I do not talk about
ego. When I do discuss the issue of the ‘I-dentity’, I
often use the term ‘distracted-being’ – because
‘ego’ is a verb rather than a noun. ‘Being’
is also a verb. Ego is a verb trying to prove its
‘noun-ness’ along with the ‘noun-ness’ of
everything else. Ego in this sense is wilful
illiteracy. Distracted-being is process rather than product. It is not
a thing, it is a style – and the ‘patternistics’ of
this style are known as karma.
Karma is sometimes known as ‘the law of cause and
effect’—as if it were an intergalactic high court
ruling. Laws can be broken, however, and laws can be
changed. Fortunately ‘the law of karma’ can also be
changed. If ‘the law of karma’ could not be broken there
could either be no enlightenment or enlightenment would have to be
causal. The ‘law of karma’ belongs to the world of dualism
which, like ‘ego’, like ‘distracted being’ or
the famous ‘I’—is illusory. The legal system of
karma has no jurisdiction in the non-dual sphere.
When we realise our unlimited beginningless enlightened nature, the
law enforcement agencies of karma evaporate, they boil away into
space: they were our unenlightenment.
The spaciousness of Being is unrestricted by cause and effect; so
when you realise the non-dual state it is hardly likely that the
‘karmic boys in blue’ are going to tap you on the shoulder
and say: “We realise that your
perception is now completely uncontrived, but we still have a warrant
out on you for gross insensitivity in a public place.” You will
not be hauled off to gaol, and from there to a court, and from there
to a place of punishment where you will be forced to endure a
protracted newage poetry recital.
Perception and response are inherently and simultaneously crime and
punishment. Any concept of being extradited for ‘sentences
unserved’ and ‘crimes unpunished’ is nonsensical in
terms of Dharma.
This may sound slightly shocking to some people. It could well
offend your sense of spiritual law and order. You might feel
moral outrage about the fact that we are all our own punishment. Each
one of us is the worst punishment we could ever fear – and best
reward we could hope to achieve.
We may well need to take a look at ‘law’, in order to
understand its function. The existence of laws within a society means
that there is little or no awareness in that society. It means
that such a society has no confidence in awareness or personal
responsibility. The need of law signifies that we cannot trust or
rely on awareness – because law is instituted as a substitute
for awareness and personal responsibility. Where there is awareness
and personal responsibility, there is no need for law. Where there is
awareness and personal responsibility, there is no need for
rules. Where there is awareness and personal responsibility, there is
no need for moral or ethical values. Where there is a lack of
awareness and personal responsibility – we rely on laws, rules,
ethics, and morality.
Where there is no awareness and personal responsibility law serves
a function – but law undermines personal responsibility and
obscures awareness.
So, we have our societies where laws and rules are implemented or
enforced, either for the benefit of people or to their detriment. This
is inevitable with any fixed measure because no law, rule, or moral
standard can possibly apply in all circumstances. Laws, ethics, and
morality are always expedient, and their implementation approximates
to awareness and personal responsibility. In this way vehicles other
than Dzogchen contain methods which approximate the non-dual
mien. This can be a helpful practice for encouraging openness –
but ultimately ‘good and bad’, ‘right and
wrong’ are inapplicable from the point of view of
Dzogchen. Dualistic moral concepts dissolve into the pure
appropriateness of the non-dual condition. Morality is a means, not an
end. Seeking the ideal and infinitely applicable moral philosophy is a
fruitless quest. Morality is an expedient device which we employ
skilfully until we find awareness.
We can all agree—for example—that it is good to be
truthful and that it is good to be kind. I do not imagine many people
here would wish to argue with that. However, it is not difficult to
conjure circumstances where truth and kindness are in direct conflict.
Say, for instance, that my dear and significantly aged auntie asks me
at someone’s wedding whether I like her hat. It may be that in
that situation it is impossible to be both truthful and kind. The hat
in question may appear to be the most farcical abomination to disgrace
a human head. Were I to speak ‘the truth’ according to my
subjectivity I would have to say: “Sorry, Aunt Ivy, I think it makes you an object of
ridicule—surely you have noticed people sniggering about it
behind your back?” This may be truly what I feel, and I may be
expressing myself accurately according to my own subjective perception
– but kindness would appear to be lacking. If truth and kindness
are fixed aspects of my ethics then I would be faced with a moral
dilemma. Without awareness we are continually faced with moral
dilemmas. It is impossible to construct the perfect moral philosophy
applicable in all circumstances. The only perfect morality is
awareness. The only perfect morality is awareness, because all
actions which spring from awareness are choiceless pure
appropriateness.
Let us look more closely at the problematic ageing auntie
situation. She is maybe a little nervous about her
appearance—with good reason, we may think—but in need of
reassurance in order that she can enjoy the afternoon. She is at a
wedding. She is in no position to change her appearance –
even if she desired so to do. Maybe it is a new hat. Maybe she has
taken something of a risk with it. Maybe it is the kind of risk she
has wanted to take for years. I am not to know. She is not
realistically asking for my honest opinion; even
though—externally—these are the words she has used. Only
our closest friends will ask us for our honest opinions—and
that, only rarely. What is this ‘truth’ anyway? Only the
‘truth’ as we perceive it. Only ‘truth’ in
terms of accurately expressing our limited value judgements. Nothing
is ultimately beautiful or ugly. Maybe we should try to bear this in
mind before offering opinions and subjective value judgements.
Kindness is as close as we can ever come to a ‘moral
approximation of awareness’. Having a good heart. Intellectual
elaborations are not important. Kindness is something we feel –
a warmth and expansiveness which flows from our growing
openness. Kindness is our contact – our strongest link with our
intrinsic enlightened nature.
So much for ‘law’. The essence of the teachings is
anarchic. Not anarchy in the distorted popular sense in which the word
is understood—in the sense of ‘dog-eat-dog
chaos’—but anarchy in terms of ‘no external
government’. Anarchy is the naturally manifesting inner
government of awareness – unconditioned, present, direct, and
utterly responsible.
Enlightenment means relinquishing the police state of karmic-vision
and assuming personal responsibility. Karma is the sum total of our
perception in all its excruciating intricacy. The ‘law of
karma’ is different from externally enforced societal law
– because ‘karmic law’ is directly consequential and
self-implementing. We perceive the world in a certain way – and
react to it in accordance with that style of perception. That is what
is meant by karma.
There is no injustice in this kind of ‘law’ apart from
the injustice to enlightenment perpetrated by karmic patterning.
No one else is responsible for how we perceive the world. We accept
and reject society’s influences and the influences of our
parents and friends on our own terms. We fabricate our own
perception, and unless we discontinue the process and de-structure our
perception, we will merely continue to be oppressed by our personal
totalitarian regime.
The responses we make to our environment will remain the same and
we will attract the kind of circumstances which will match our
perception.
If we feel impoverished, we experience the objects of our
perception as confirming our impoverishment. We tend toward aspects of
life that show us what we want to see. We continuously recondition
ourselves. We attempt to hoard pleasant experiences – but this
is merely another way of accentuating our impoverishment through
contrast. Through such contrasting – we crush the life from
our pleasant experiences.
We either positively or negatively reinforce our conditioning. No
matter how much we hoard, we never realise our wealth. We never
realise the abundance of our wealth because it is hoarded. It is
dormant, and therefore we can never spend it or be generous with
it. We are too concerned with ensuring that its only function is to
fend off poverty. Our capacity to endlessly enrich our lives and the
lives of all beings is frozen by our fear of poverty. We actively
‘feel’ our environment—seeking out anything which
will justify our perception as being accurate.
This is karma. This is the law we are trying to break. It is here
in the present, and constitutes our
perception—instant-karma—there is no external agency with
which to reckon.
Our karma is entirely how we perceive the world – moment by
moment. So the ‘law of karma’ is not just law, it is the
entire legal system. It ranges from the inception of the legislature
to the nature of law enforcement and punishment. Our perception is the
legislation and our responses enforce it. We are our own judge, jury,
and prosecution. We sentence ourselves, gaol ourselves, and execute
ourselves. This is the only entirely accurate legal system—but
its accuracy only exists within its own frame of reference.
Meditation is our only weapon against this repressive regime and
constitutes civil disobedience in the form of ‘passive
resistance’. By allowing the development of experiential space
through shi-nè—through letting go and letting be—we
discover our own intrinsic awareness. The Four Naljors of Dzogchen
Sem-dé is one of the ultimate crimes against the ‘law of
karma’ and is punishable by enlightenment—the final
revolution and overthrow of the legal system.
If anything in what I have said is of any help in making
the teachings clear and applicable to you, it is entirely due to the
endless kindness and wisdom of my Tsawa’i Lamas Kyabjé
Düd’jom Rinpoche; Kyabjé Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche; Kyabjé Künzang
Dorje Rinpoche and Jomo Sam’phel; ’Khordong gTértrül
Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche; and Khamtrül Yeshé Dorje
Rinpoche. If there are any errors in what I have said, it is entirely
due to my own lack of clarity and shamefully limited intelligence.
Ngak’chang
Rinpoche
Typed by Ngala ’ö-Dzin Tridral, on the
ever-wonderful Psion Series 5mx, from an original article in the
handwriting of Ngak’chang Rinpoche. 23rd of June 2000,
travelling to Oxford to see Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche the
1st of July 2000, travelling to York for a week’s
retreat. Ngak’chang Rinpoche’s article was based on a
typed transcript of a talk he gave in Bath, England in 1978 –
the original of which has been lost. At the time Ngak’chang
Rinpoche had no typewriter and often wrote short pieces in longhand
for apprentices. ‘Rainbow of Liberated Energy’ was
entirely handwritten through three stages of editing, as was
‘Journey into Vastness’ and the first four chapters of
‘Wearing the Body of Visions’ – which were once lost
on a Nepalese bus between Kathmandu and Khakabita, on the way to
Sikkim.
|