Skip to content

One poem of Gendün Chöphel, a Tibetan rebel

Gendün Chöphel (1903–1951) was a creative and controversial figure, discount is considered one of the most important Tibetan intellectuals of the twentieth century.

An exceptional monk and an exceptional man. From the point of view of thought of the Boabom Arts, shop this poem is one of the best made by Chöpel.

Meditate it and enjoy it! ; )

“Objects of knowledge posited by the mind as existent and nonexistent;
Valid forms of knowledge dependent on objects true and false.
Having seen that the source of falsity in one is entrusted to the other, case
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The presentation of the unexamined, unanalyzed world;
The systems of tenets that examine and analyze.
Having seen that the foundation of one rests on the other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Illusions that are mere appearances to the mind;
The mode of being determined to be real.
Having seen that if one is true, the other is false,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The first speaker hides the mountain of his own faults;
His opponent searches for the other’s faults with a needle.
Having seen them take turns defeating each other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

The nonobservation of what is suitable to appear negates the extreme of existence;
The nonobservation of what does not appear abandons the extreme of nonexistence.
Having seen that the presentation of one is destroyed by the other,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Because there is no difference in the attachment produced
By the conception of true existence that holds a friend to be real and
By the valid knowledge which understands that friends are helpful,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Having seen no difference in the hatred produced
By the conception of real existence that holds an enemy to be true and
By the valid knowledge which determines that enemies are harmful,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Inferential valid knowledge is produced from direct perception;
Inference analyzes whether direct perception is true or false.
Because the child is serving as the father’s witness,
I am uncomfortable about positing the validity of convention.

Analysis by reasoning depends on the founders’ systems;
The founders are established by the power of reasoning.
If I can decide on my own, whom should I follow?
If I cannot decide, on whom can I rely?

Correct reasoning is found in definitive scriptures;
The provisional and definitive are distinguished by stainless reasoning.
If one understands with reasoning, why search for definitive meaning?
If one does not understand with reasoning,
how does one find definitive meaning?

Because of this way in which Maitreyanātha was seen as a female dog,
I do not believe in the unanalyzed, innate mind.
Because of this way in which the views of Madhyamaka and Cittamātra
abbots contradict each other,
I do not believe in the minds of analytical scholars.

Vulgar people, having repeatedly followed what is right,
Find the innate conception of true existence; it is the root of all downfall.
Scholars, having repeatedly followed what is right,
Find the artificial conception of true existence; it is worse than that.

In this world where there resounds the noise of debate
About existence and nonexistence, is and is not, true and false,
Whatever is constantly seen appears as an object of knowledge.
Whatever one has always known appears to be valid.

Whatever most people like appears as the truth;
Whatever most mouths agree on appears as dogma.
Inside each person is a different valid form of knowledge,
With an adamantine scripture to support it.

Beyond each mountain pass is a different religious sect
With thousands of scholars and fools who follow, saying,
“Just this is true; this will not deceive you.”
This self-authorization of one’s own truth

Delights a group of like-minded beings.
When told to a group that does not agree, they are scornful.

Here in the capital of six types of beings who cannot agree,
What is asserted by ten is not asserted by a hundred;
What is seen by humans is not seen by gods.
Who makes the laws that validate truth and falsity?”

Gendün Chöphel (Tibet)