The Song of the Owl Headed Dakini

precepts of the owls: adulteration

answers to questions on Ngak’chang Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen’s commentary on the ’ug gDong mKha’ ’gro sNying thig mDo

“It is the illusory quality of tralam-mé which makes it unstable. Unless it were unstable the figmental, apparitional, transitional appearances would not be at play. When we speak of the way that our beginningless enlightened nature sparkles through – tralam-mé is similar. tralam-mé is a matrix which senses, sensates, or sensationalises with that sparkling through – and this occurs according to patterns which could almost be said to be kaleidoscopic, and it is the instability of a kaleidoscope which makes it what it is.”

Question This is usually spoken of as sexual misconduct isn’t it?

Ngak’chang Rinpoche Usually.

R Victorian morality is possibly not as terrible as people imagine. The central problem with any moral system is that it is ‘form’ and ‘form’ is subject to ‘emptiness’. Where form and emptiness are undivided, there is awareness – and where there is awareness there is no need for rigid codes and immense social stigma in relation to deviating form these codes. Every society evolves social codes and every society eventually breaks those codes and creates new codes. The current ‘Victorian morality’ is political correctness – and from that point of view Khandro Déchen and I are morally reprehensible.

Q Morally reprehensible?

R In the sense that the existence of morals or ethics does not dictate our views or behaviour. We allow awareness to guide our views and behaviour. It is not that we object to every aspect of political correctness – we simply do not adhere to it as if it were truth. Political correctness is merely the new morality as far as a certain sector of the population are concerned. Moralities – whether they have worthwhile aspects or not – are often merely employed to segregate people into the ‘worthy’ and the ‘unworthy’. The useful aspect of a moral system is that it allows people to regulate themselves and to cause less harm to others. The problematic aspect of a moral system is that it allows people to see themselves as superior to others and to cause them harm by so doing. The more rigid a moral structure the more problematic it becomes – because it moves ostensibly further away from possibilities of emptiness.

Q Ostensibly, Rinpoche?

R Ostensibly—yes—because emptiness is always within the equation. The emptiness of a rigid moral structure occurs when people pretend to follow it – whilst leading secret immoral lives. Illicit sexuality was rampant in the Victorian era – simply because it was such a major taboo. People had to pretend to be sexually moral in order to maintain social status – but because a certain proportion of the population simply could not live like that—or did not want to live like that—they had to lead secret immoral lives whilst being seen to pillory those who transgressed.

Q So we’re definitely not talking about anything like that are we.

R It sounds as if you are nervous of that possibility?

Q Well – not exactly. I guess the subject brings things up.

R Quite so – and that in itself is interesting. You see – it is not possible to look at this precept concerning sexuality without looking at history. We live at a period in time—there is no avoiding that fact—and we are where we now, due to many contributory circumstances. Our thoughts and attitudes are not our own – they are mainly inherited. What our attitudes are now, what our lives have been, are all dependant on what went before. The late ’50s through the ’60s and ’70s engaged in a reaction to the bequest of Victorian morality. Ideas such as ‘open relationship’ and laissez-fair acceptance of promiscuity – came out of a reaction to a straight-jacketed morality – a morality which would not allow questioning. Due to the fact that people generally had no understanding of the principle and function of this morality, it came to be seen as a meaningless set of restrictions on human freedom and happiness. Those who espoused the existing moral dictates rarely understood them and therefore could not explain them to those who felt somewhat naturally inhibited by them. The 1950s was a period primed for rebellion. The First and Second World Wars were probably the final catalyst in terms of throwing social mores into disarray. Whenever anything is there as a taboo – merely something you do not do, because it is not allowed – eventually it cannot fail to fall apart. It is not possible to maintain a morality when it does not make sense—when the principle and function are not understood—especially when the society that maintained that morality begins to disintegrate due to the shock of unprecedented war. When the old order that maintained unquestioned moral conventions is torn apart by massive catastrophes – people begin to question: “Do I have to do this? What is the reason for doing this? If I can’t find any reason for doing or not doing what I desire to do – on what do I base my decisions?” The answer seemed increasingly to be that people created their own moralities out of expediency – out of whatever made sense in the moment or out of the plethora of philosophies of life which had been coming into being throughout the ‘Age of Enlightenment’. People discovered that people all over Europe and America had been questioning for a hundred years or more.

Q The idea grew that ‘if it’s not hurting anybody, it’s not a problem’ – and that seems to have been behind the idea of open relationships. But maybe this was not a guarantee that no one would be hurt.

R Quite so. I have never seen a case of open relationship in which no one was hurt – and nor has anybody else to whom I mentioned it.

Q Sometimes it works for a while, and then breaks apart. Even if the couple seem to get on with it OK, there are the other people who get drawn into it, and then there’s how they feel about it.

R Yes – it is a strange thing to say: “I am in an open relationship with her or with him; so my sexual liaison with you is a temporary one. You must understand that I will never let you take the place of my partner.” That is an unpleasant and disrespectful thing to say to a person – although I would imagine that in this respect it is never spelt out in that way. It is dishonest. It is insulting. The Khandro Pawo Nyi–da Mélong Gyüd (mKha’ ’gro dPa bo nyi zLa me long rGyud) goes into this in great detail, in terms of tralam-mé. The Khandro Pawo Nyi–da Mélong Gyüd is based on real openness. A real open relationship is one in which one is utterly open to one’s partner. It is not ‘self-serving openness’ in the sense of having no restrictions – but openness in a non-dual sense, in which there is utter congruence with the texture of the space of relationship. There is trust and respect—passion and commitment—emptiness and form.

Q Is that the idea of always remaining in ecstatic embrace with the khandro or pawo?

R Certainly.

Q But one does not have to be in relationship to manifest ecstatic embrace?

R No – not in terms of human sexual relationship. Ecstatic embrace with the khandro or pawo also means that ones sense-fields are open – every sense and what it senses are in ecstatic union. One is not separate from that which what one perceives – but to return to the subject of sexuality with regard to the precept, we use the word ‘adulteration’ or even ‘adultery’ because the word means ‘to dilute’. We can adulterate single malt whiskey by adding water. By adding water we make it weaker. By adding a flavoured cordial we lose the subtlety of the flavour. The original flavour is lost and it becomes bland – but maybe this merely betrays my personal preferences. When we use the word ‘adulterate’ it usually means someone is cheating – someone is selling milk which they have stretched by watering it down. If you water down a relationship it no longer serves as a cause of delight.

Now of course there are many ways of adulterating a relationship. You could adulterate your relationship with hobby interests which take your interest away from your partner. You could adulterate your relationship with self obsession. You could adulterate your relationship with televised anæsthetics. You could adulterate your relationship with lethargy and failure to communicate. These forms of adulteration often lead to adultery; according to its standard usage. Adultery is problematic—from the point of view of the Khandro Pawo Nyi–da Mélong Gyüd—because it inhibits the nyam of Khandro Pawo reflection. The nyam of Khandro Pawo reflection is the phenomenon of ‘falling in love’. Adultery weakens that propensity.

Q Can you say something more about that Rinpoche – in terms of its pragmatics?

R Certainly. But I would preface this by saying that the mechanism I am about to describe does not relate to enlightened beings. Enlightened beings are not restricted in terms of the limitations I am about to describe – because these limitations are part and parcel of duality and the method which sets out to dissolve the illusion of duality. Because the method which dissolves the illusion of duality has to participate with duality it will reflect limitations in terms of the ways in which duality is formulated. Beings who have realised the non-dual state are not afflicted with the referential imperatives which allow us causes for liberation.

Q Sorry Rinpoche – you lost me there. Could you repeat that or the end part of that, the part where you said that beings who have realised the non-duality are not affected by the referentiality which allow causes of liberation. How does referentiality allow causes of liberation.

R How can referentiality fail to allow causes for liberation? [no reply] Let me put it this way: We are symbols of our own enlightenment. All our neuroses are merely dualistic distortions of the non-dual state and therefore our neuroses are—in themselves—causes of liberation. What is the principle of Tantra?

Q Transformation.

R And so?

Q Ah – that means that non-dual beings—Buddhas—aren’t affected by referentiality – but dualised being who are referential . . . it’s that referentiality which allows causes of liberation . . . and referentially is no different to the five neuroses. I think that it was the idea of referentiality that threw me. I am used to the idea of transformation in terms of the five neuroses – but of course it’s the same thing. And so . . . can I just run this past you Rinpoche?

R Be my guest.

Q Because referentiality—or the five neuroses—are the cause of liberation through transformation . . .

R . . . or self-liberation.

Q Right – it would be the same, yes. Because they are the cause of liberation, the methods are going to be coloured by some quality of the neuroses . . . and . . . this might not be quite in line with what would hold true for a Buddha.

R Yes. If a dualised being enters into romantic / sexual liaison with more than one person, he or she will experience the consequences of that in terms of a disruption of the method of liberation. That is why the Khandro Pawo Nyi–da Mélong Gyüd emphasises monogamy. It is not that monogamy is somehow essentially virtuous. If this were the case then why would Padmasambhava have had more than one consort?

Q That aspect of it had not occurred to me before – I just assumed that Buddhas were beyond the precepts.

R Naturally they are beyond the precepts – but it is not as if they have graduated and now they’re allowed to do all the naughty things. Buddhas are non referential and their motivation is spontaneously compassionate. Buddhas do not have affairs with dualised beings or with other Buddhas for that matter. You will see thangkas for example in which the male yidam is in union with Dorje Phagmo. In some thangkas it is Hayagriva in union with Dorje Phagmo and in others it is Dorje Phurba in union with Dorje Phagmo. So is Dorje Phagmo cheating on one or the other? There is a principle here and the principle is transmission and the provision of transformative methods for dualised beings. It’s not that Dorje Phagmo is a lusty lass who wants to make it with every wrathful male yidam on the dance floor. If we look at our own motivation in terms of our sexuality we can see that it is not the spontaneous compassion of the Buddhas. Sexuality is an extremely powerful and subtle paradigm, and through sexuality we are able to realise the non-dual state – but only if we proceed in accordance with the nature of the dual-nondual context on which the Vajrayana methods are established. This is the reason for monogamy according to the Khandro Pawo Nyi–da Mélong Gyüd.

Q Rinpoche, can you tell me where tralam-mé comes into the picture? Is that different to khandro pawo reflection, or how does that work. I don’t think I understand tralam-mé.

R Khandro pawo reflection is the nyam of falling in love. Khandro pawo reflection is what occurs when we see our secret khandro or our secret pawo reflected in another person. When we see that we fall in love. When I use the word ‘see’ in this context I am including all the sense fields: seeing, hearing, fragrancing, touching, tasting, and ideating. Anyway – that reflection occurs and it occurs within an energetic field known as tralam-mé (khra lam me / bKra lam me / bKra lam gyis) which means something like vividness, brightness, or iridescence. The word pertains to ‘sky phenomena’ – ‘occurrences in the sky’ such as wind, rain, snow, hail, rainbows, meteors, the sun and moon, the stars, the Aurora Borealis – anything than manifests in the sky. Khandro Déchen and I translate tralam-mé as ‘poetic turbulence’. Poetic turbulence is not an easy term to understand – so I will explain how we compounded that term. We use the word ‘poetic’ because in poetry words rhyme with each other, and in ‘rhyming’ there is a sense of relationship between words. This is an analogy, you understand. My poetry doesn’t rhyme and nor does most modern poetry – but for the purposes of the analogy we are using the word poetic to mean ‘words which rhyme’. We are using ‘poetic’ to mean ‘that which scans and which has metre’. Then there is the sense in which poetic has connotations of beauty and mystery. When khandro pawo reflection occurs – there is poetry. Two people begin to rhyme with each other and their capacity to rhyme is linked to their tralam-mé. The word ‘turbulence’ is linked to the word ‘poetic’ in order to create a ‘non-dualism’ in which form and emptiness play. Poetic is the ‘form word’. It’s the ‘form word’ because of the rhyming, the scanning, and the metre. Turbulence is the ‘emptiness word’ – that which makes chaotic poetry, or mystery, or beauty. So tralam-mé is the energetic field in which khandro pawo reflection occurs – and tralam-mé is only as reflective as we allow it to be through cooperating with it. Tralam-mé—in a dualised being—can be adulterated. Tralam-mé can be adulterated because if is reflexive with the symbolism of our non-dual nature.

Q Can you repeat that Rinpoche? The bit about why tralam-mé can be adulterated?

R Tralam-mé can be adulterated in a dualised being because the opportunity for transformation of self-liberation is predicated upon a context which can be exhausted.

Q Tralam-mé can be exhausted . . .

R Tralam-mé can be exhausted because it is an energetic interface – an interface between realisation and non-realisation. As an energetic interface it has a potential which depends on non-dual congruence. This is not particularly easy to understand so you will have to bear with me. You will remember that I said that the method which dissolves the illusion of duality has to participate with duality. Because the method participates with duality in order to dissolve duality it will reflect the limitations of duality. A certain freshness is required here. There is a point at which there is an interface between the illusion of duality and non-duality. It is an opportunity which exists because it has not been seen before. Or rather it has not quite been seen before. It can be seen more than once and it can still remain fresh – but for it to be fresh it has to be a surprise. Is any of this making sense?

Q It is making sense but whether I will make sense of it in an hour’s time I don’t know. It’s wonderfully tenuous and as you are saying it I find myself flowing with it without quite know why I am understanding it.

R Excellent.

Q2 Could you perhaps say more – I mean, could you say something about freshness and how that works.

R The first time you see something – the first time anything enters the sense fields for the first time – it possesses a magical quality. It could be a piece of music, it could be anything. The second time you hear it is not the same. There is anticipation, and there are all kinds of concepts there. That is why you can weary of something or need something new again. If we follow that desire for something new and if we fail to appreciate then we become jaded. We see new things and we are not impressed. That is linked in some way with tralam-mé. However – the adulteration of tralam-mé is more complex than becoming jaded. Tralam-mé has a capacity or a potentiality for rhyming which remains powerful as long as we don’t cut and paste gratuitously . . . as long as we do not play two pieces of music simultaneously – I can only give analogies and none of them are sufficient to serve as explanations. The central point is that a delicate pattern can be disrupted. Even a strong pattern can be disrupted. A system or field of potentialities which resonates can lose its power to resonate if that power resides in an unstable precarious interface.

Q What is it that is unstable?

R It is the illusory quality of tralam-mé which makes it unstable. Unless it were unstable the figmental, apparitional, transitional, appearances would not be at play. When we speak of the way that our beginningless enlightened nature sparkles through – tralam-mé is similar. Tralam-mé is a matrix which senses, sensates, or sensationalises with that sparkling through – and this occurs according to patterns which could almost be said to be kaleidoscopic and it is the instability of a kaleidoscope which makes it what it is. However – the more I explain the further we move away from the nature of what is being explained.

Q If I understand correctly . . . adultery causes a problem with conflicting patterns within tralam-mé [Rinpoche nods] and somehow these patterns are too delicate to coexist without obliterating each other.

R Mmmm . . . well, that certainly expresses something at a functional level – but it is not really that the patterns conflict, it is more that they become more complex – like a dish with too many ingredients. It becomes difficult to distinguish the individual flavours, and a dish which could have been exciting becomes bland and uninteresting – but this is merely another sad apology for an analogy.

Q Can I get back to the idea of freshness in terms of adulteration – does that lie in the perception or in the appearance?

R In the perception. If you have a phrase or image—an exciting phrase or image—the first time it is heard or seen people are exited by it. It is new and fresh and then, after frequent use, it becomes a cliché. A sunset. There is nothing clichéd about a sunset – only the repeated use of that image. What makes a cliché a cliché is that freshness is lost in the eyes of those who perceive. There is the idea ‘I have seen that before’ and that idea has to coexist with the beautiful image and there is an incongruity there which adulterates the experience. That is why I often say that sexual encounter between a teacher and a student has become a cliché. This does not mean that Khandro Déchen and I think that transmission through sexual contact is clichéd – but that the cliché exists and gets in the way of transmission. The cliché is actually empty – but it is also there and has its influence on what is possible.

Q Rinpoche – in terms of painting, it occurs to me that mixing colour might be an example of adulterating tralam-mé. If you mix two colours the result remains vivid and strong but the more colours I mix to get the hue and shade I want the muddier the colour becomes. So it seems from my experience that to get the hue and shade I want together with the vividness and strength, I need to restrict the range of colours I use. The fewer the colours the better in fact.

R That is better than most of my analogies – and it is interesting, because it begs a question. What do you think that question is?

Q What causes the muddiness?

R Quite. So – what would that be?

Q Conflict between the colours?

R No—not necessarily—it is the medium. It is that which carries the colour. The medium in terms of tralam-mé is the interface. The medium is dualistic even though it is primed for transformation or self-liberation. This is why tralam-mé can be adulterated and why it can cease to allow rhyming to occur. This is why falling in love is so powerful in adolescence. It is not simply a question of puberty and hormones – although that is a strong factor. It is not simply that it is a new experience and therefore highly exciting and intriguing – although that is also true. The key point is that the tralam-mé has not been adulterated. The tralam-mé is not just adulterated by adultery – but by any form of confusing experience. Becoming afraid of being hurt can also weaken the tralam-mé – but to a far lesser extent. Loss, rejection, and sadness also play a part. This is probably why life long relationship was an idea. Serial monogamy is not seriously damaging to the tralam-mé – but if the serial has too many episodes that will also have deleterious effect. An artist can—perhaps—only have a few masterpieces.

Q And a Buddha?

R Every act of a Buddha is a masterpiece.

Q Rinpoche, why is it that a gTértön always has to have a partner?

R This is—perhaps—somewhat of a side issue, but this is also connected. gTértöns have to have a consort because their relationship replicates Padmasambhava and Yeshé Tsogyel, who initially concealed the cycles of gTér. The consort need not always be a sexual partner though. Namkha’i Norbu Rinpoche told the story of a gTértön who dreamed that he was going to discover a gTérma. The dream of clarity revealed that the consort required for the discovery of the gTérma was a woman in her 80s who lived in a little village near to the place of discovery. The old woman did not know anything about the gTérma and was not a yogini. Nonetheless she had to be approached for the job. She then had to be carried on a chair up into the mountains; and simply sat on the chair whilst the gTérma was discovered. She was then escorted back to the village. The rôle she played was simply to be present.

It is important to remember the distinction between Hindu Tantra and Vajrayana. In Vajrayana sexuality is seen in a far broader context. Sexuality is emptiness and form in ecstatic embrace – and one experiences that through the sense-fields. One experiences it in all kinds of different ways; it is pervasive. It is not simply male-female relationship; but the relationship of everything with everything.

Q Rinpoche, if one is having sexual feelings, images or fantasies about someone who it is not appropriate to have any kind of relationship with, can one redefine it for oneself on a more abstract level?

R It is a question of intention. I would not advocate repression – but if one finds oneself wanting to manifest something at a physical level, then one would have to be more abstract. As long as you have no intention to enact anything in relation to the ‘inappropriate person’, it is not particularly a terrible problem unless you fantasise. It is not a problem for tralam-mé either, if you are not in a relationship.

Q2 Is the basic problem that developing a highly conceptual sexual situation shuts down the sense-fields to real involvement, real participation – whether that is with your partner, or with the world?

R Yes. That is the problem with pornography – it gives you something unreal with which to relate, and you can condition yourself to relate with an unreal world. I remember an incident at art college . . . Often people approach art colleges with projects; especially in the graphics and illustration department. Art colleges like students to engage with real projects if they are available. A man came to see us one day from ‘Playboy’ – we all found him somewhat offensive. He tried to interest us in producing illustrations for ‘Playboy’ and trying to explain to us how ‘Playboy’ was really a high-class magazine. His mode of explaining this was to describe the other magazines as being populated by ‘dogs’. “The women in these magazines are real dogs.” We were mainly appalled by that and sat there in silence as he dug his grave with us deeper. He showed us examples of ‘dogs’ and ‘non-dogs’ and I personally was not clear on the difference. But then I happened to alight on the Readers’ Wives page and said; “Now these are real women!” He did not know what I was talking about – but these ladies were all grinning and looking is if they were having fun. These were just snap-shots they had taken at home on basic everyday cameras – but they were real. Anyhow – not long after my apparently bizarre remark he left us without any takers for his project. It is however important to deal with what is real – and even the Readers’ Wives were not real in that sense. Abstractions in relation to human beings and their sexual dimension are not helpful – a relationship with a human being is a relationship with a human being, rather than with an image of a human being you may never meet.

Q2 Would you say that it’s better to try to move as fast as you can out of the abstraction, even if you are finding yourself in a situation where maybe the full possibilities of human sexuality are not necessarily there? To nurture that possibility, rather than getting into the situation to shut down the possibilities and to continue to objectify? This precept, like the others, speaks to the way that objectifying happens; and that practitioners know that it is something we cannot completely turn off or stop.

R Yes. Really. In terms of pornography the precept involves not involving yourself further with abstractions when abstractions manifest.

Q So pornography does break the Third Precept?

R Yes—but only if you actively seek it out. Obviously if one observes wisdom display or method display on hoardings – then these displays will be interesting per se – unless you are sexually inert. It does not matter greatly if the motivation behind the existence of the display is pornographically exploitative, it only matters what you make of that. Displays will always be interesting – but if you makes special trips to leer at such hoardings you will have crossed the line, if only marginally. I do not want to make a big thing out of this—as if the excitement aroused by adventurous salacious imagery is Satan’s snare or some such thing—but there is a principle and a function and that needs to be understood.

Q There are so many shades of pornography – erotic literature, romantic movies with sex scenes, and a whole spectrum of things that turn you on.

R Fine. That is not really an issue – it is when you find yourself seeking it out. Then you need to ask yourself: ‘Why am I seeking this out?’ If something erotic occurs in a movie and you are affected by it, this is not a big deal. We are not involved in some kind of prurient self-flagellation excessive: ‘Oh hell—I got excited—now I gotta beat myself senseless!’ You would be sexually dead if you were not sparked all the time – by a great number of people. The world is extremely erotic.

Q It is a little easier to deal with it if you are in relationship. Being single, it feels like you don’t have a channel. It’s not at a kitchen-sink level, that you can take care of the intensity of the sensory . . . of buzzing all the time.

R It is alright to buzz all the time. If you are single it is not particularly a problem. It is not even a problem if you are not single – you can still buzz. Buzzing is not an issue – the issue is more where that little bee decides to dally. It is only a problem if there is objectification and seeking out further sources of objectification.

Q There is this sort of hook in the world – there is a lot of objectifying of sex, a lot of sexual stimulus that goes on. You find yourself involved deeper and deeper in objectification, instead of some kind of connection.

R The crucial point is not to cut off appreciation in order that you are unaffected. Be affected by all means. The idea is not to become a ‘precept zombie’. That makes this precept no better than the more bizarre forms spawned by Victorian morality. They used to put these little doilies around piano legs, because a good piano often had curvaceous legs, and a person might be inflamed by looking at them. If you see a piano at the house of a friend and you find the legs to be handsome, this is not necessarily an act of betrayal toward your piano. It is not too much of a problem to be inflamed by piano legs – it depends on just how many pianos you want to buy.

Q If I live in delusion and I cannot extricate yourself from that . . . even if I’m with someone and I have a good relationship, am I still objectifying all the time?

R It is not a question of objectification at that level. It is question of deliberate objectification. It is what you enact or imagine enacting. Flashes of sexual appreciation are going to occur all the time. If that were not happening, you would not be having a good relationship with your partner – but it needs to have a quality of ‘first thought – last thought’. It is where you take your thoughts. If you take your thoughts for ‘little outings’ and begin to invest time and energy in that cerebral strip-joint, you solidify that impression. We all sparkle – it is whether you solidify that with objectifications. If you objectify sexual sparkles they degenerate into crass degradations.

Q I am thinking, when you are not distracted by other people; but just within your relationship, because I am so stuck in my own conceptuality, I am not actually experiencing the other person. I just experience my own conceptual phantasy of what I am creating.

R Yes—sure—so whenever you catch yourself in that mode, you can just let it melt out. It is just having that awareness. There is no rule there; it is actually simply awareness.

Q Like everything.

R Like everything.

Q2 What Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche used to say about drinking, and people with drinking problems – reminds me of what you are saying. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche would say ‘Don’t celebrate the idiot’. There’s this way that one can get: ‘Yippee, here’s the way for me to objectify something’ – that’s ‘celebrating the idiot’.

R Yes – that is absolutely it. Don’t celebrate the idiot. The whole quality of having one partner and having a committed, long-term relationship is crucial to tralam-mé. This does not necessarily mean we have to have one life-long partner – but that possibility must be there. We need to be open-ended in that respect. We cannot have self protective agendas. As soon as you say: “This is not long-term,” you are saying “This is short-term.” Then it becomes exploitative – you are out for what you can get. You do not want it to be long-term and it is therefore a closed situation.

Q Rinpoche, let’s say that you know – based on your rational examination of the circumstances in which two people find themselves – you know that it’s probably not going to last. But in your heart you feel that if the circumstances were different, there could be . . .

R It is what you hope for.

Q Oh, that’s a lot different than what exists.

R If it is what you hope for, it is open. This particular view is actually quite kind to the neuroses. It does not have to be rational. It is simply a matter of whether you are emotionally closed or not. It is the wanting – if you want it to be long term, if you have that hope, then that would not break this precept. If it is what you desire then your desire is without impediments with regard to tralam-mé. As long as it is open-ended and could go anywhere – you would hope for it.

Q ‘Hope’ is so tricky.

R Yes, it has a barb. [Rinpoche pointed out—when this was transcribed—that he had made a pun – but that no one picked up on it – i.e. Barb (Bob) Hope. Rinpoche chose to let it go without comment.]

Q2 Would you say that as soon as you sort of ‘know’ that something isn’t going to be that way . . .

R End. Finish. Yes. When it gets to a certain point there is nothing to be gained by staggering for eternity – for the want of something better to do.

Q2 I guess the whole concept of Western marriage – that you are looking for someone with whom you are going to spend the rest of your life – the whole process is a little different than what you’re talking about.

R Certainly.

Q When you’re dating somebody, it’s not just about the container of this relationship; it has got this prototype that you are either getting or you’re missing.

R Yes. I would add to that picture that where children are involved, then the story is somewhat different. When they are not, the principle always is: It is either going somewhere, or it is over. If you do not respect the person, it is over; there is nowhere you can go from there. As soon as you start having those ideas, you either have to put it right and change, or you may as well say: ‘I don’t have the energy to invest in this’. Then it is better to extract yourself and have a good relationship with that person as a friend.

Q2 It’s almost an improvement of the relationship. We usually think of leaving a relationship as not an improvement.

R Yes – but it is a question of what is possible. One could apply this to objects as well: is this chair worth repairing – or does it go on the fire? If it goes on the fire – it might make a nice blaze. If this is a lovely old chair—even if is almost past repair—one might put a lot of energy into repairing it – but why would one go to that trouble? Because one loves the chair; one values the chair. It may be a Chippendale or Hepelwhaite that has been in the family since one was a child – so even if I have to research and find old wood from that period to repair the chair, I will. I will repair the chair because I value the chair. There has to be the energy. If one does not have the energy to repair the chair, due to lack of appreciation, it may as well go on the fire. The same principle applies to relationship. It goes on as long as there is authentic appreciation. Where there is not appreciation—where there is no trust or respect—there will be no love; and then ‘continuing’ must be based on some other principle . . . that just might not be so marvellous.