Avalokiteshvara Expounding the Sutra

The sutra begins:

These words have I heard.

It is very interesting, this phrase. Each Sanskrit syllable of it is explained as having very deep meanings and many different levels of meaning in the commentaries to the Guhyasamaja Tantra. The first word of it is evam (thus), with “e” and “vam” representing method and wisdom, and there’s a tremendous amount of commentary on that. However, this is not the occasion to go into that, but we should just be aware that this is actually a very significant phrase with which so many of the sutras and tantras begin.

At one time, the Vanquishing Master Surpassing All

That’s bhagavan. As I explained, that’s an epithet of Buddha, and it was also an epithet used for the teachings itself in the female form. As I also explained, each of the three syllables has a specific meaning: bhagavan, chom-den-day in Tibetan (Tib. bcom-ldan-’das). There are so many different epithets of Buddha: Tathagata, Sugata, etc., and each of them has very full meanings, so if we want to understand what the qualities of a Buddha are, it’s important to understand the various names with which a Buddha is referred to. Buddha has “vanquished,” so gotten rid of all the mental obscurations, both emotional ones and the cognitive ones, and “mastered,” has gained all good qualities and possesses them all. The Tibetans added “surpassing all,” the syllable “day” (Tib. ’das), at the end because bhagavan is also used for various Hindu deities: Shiva, Vishnu, etc.

At one time, the Vanquishing Master Surpassing All was dwelling at Vulture Peak Mountain by the Royal City of Rajagriha together with a great assembly of the monastic Sangha and a great assembly of the bodhisattva Sangha. 

Rajagriha was where one of Buddha’s great patrons lived.

When the word “Sangha” is used here, it’s referring to the Sangha Gem. In other words, when we speak of The Three Gems – the three sources of safe direction or refuge – the Sangha Gem is referring to the Arya Sangha. That’s the community of those who have had non-conceptual cognition of the four noble truths, or if we want to be more specific, of voidness. There’s both a monastic Sangha and a bodhisattva Sangha. The bodhisattva Sangha includes both aryas and non-aryas and both monastic members and laypersons. This indicates that one can attain enlightenment not only as a monastic but also as a layperson, although it is much easier as a monastic because you don’t have any other responsibilities, a family, etc.

And at that time, the Vanquishing Master Surpassing All was totally absorbed in the absorbed concentration that expresses the multiplicity of phenomena known as “the appearance of the profound.” 

Absorbed concentration on the multiplicity of phenomena refers to the Buddha’s omniscient mind being absorbed in meditation on the appearance of the profound. “Profound” refers to voidness – voidness is the deepest truth of things – and the “appearance” refers to conventional truth. The Buddha’s omniscient mind is in deep absorbed concentration on the two truths of the multiplicity of all phenomena simultaneously. Buddha’s mind does that by focusing simultaneously on the voidness of both.

As the mind of a non-enlightened being, our mind projects the appearance of findable things, which means findable as something self-established from its own side and truly existing independently of merely being what a word for it refers to. This is an impossible way of existing, and that appearance of something impossible is conventional truth. Minds that are not yet liberated from misknowing these appearances (what is usually called “ignorance”) consider them as true.

Roughly speaking, the Svatantrika tenet system accepts that there actually are self-established objects and that although, conventionally, they appear to be truly existing, nevertheless on the deepest level, they do not exist in that way at all because it is impossible. They assert that because of their voidness of true existence, cause and effect function on the basis of objects still being self-established by something findable on their own sides. 

The Prasangika system refutes this and asserts that there are no findable objects. There is just an appearance of findable objects, and that appearance does not correspond to anything findable. Nevertheless, there is a difference between accurate and inaccurate appearances of what an object is and what it does. And so, conventionally, we say that there are such accurately appearing objects and, although nothing is findable, cause and effect function on the basis of these accurate, though ultimately false, appearances. This is the Gelug Prasangika position. 

When we focus on voidness, we focus on an absence of these impossible ways of existing. We focus on “there’s no such thing” – they do not correspond to anything real. We can’t cognize, at the same time, an appearance of something impossible and an absence of something impossible. But it is possible for an omniscient mind that can encompass all appearances of what is impossible to focus simultaneously on the voidness of all these appearances (the multiplicity of phenomena), as well as on the voidness of the voidness of them all. 

The multiplicity of phenomena, then, refers to the appearance of the entirety of all seemingly findable objects. None of these appearances correspond to anything truly findable; they are all devoid of existing in the impossible way in which they appear. Referring to voidness as “the profound,” these appearances are appearances of the profound – the appearance of the multiplicity of phenomena that are actually profound, meaning that they are actually devoid. They appear precisely because they are devoid of existing in an impossible way because, if they existed in an impossible way, they could not appear.  

The multiplicity of phenomena functions because of the voidness of all of them, which means they function on the basis of dependent arising. Conventionally appearing as what the names and concepts for them refer to, the multiplicity of phenomena function dependently on causes, parts, and their names and qualities (such as large and small) being designated in relation to each other. 

We’ll get into that in more detail as the weekend unfolds. This whole idea of the two truths describing how cause and effect function because of the voidness of all phenomena is the basic theme of the whole sutra.

In the presence of the Buddha deeply concentrated, totally absorbed in this, Avalokiteshvara and Shariputra were inspired to have this conversation. This whole presentation of something inspired by the realization or concentration of somebody else is actually a phenomenon that occurs. I’m saying this from my own experience. I remember being in the presence of Yongdzin Ling Rinpoche, the late Senior Tutor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, so one of the most highly realized Tibetan practitioners. I remember some of my meetings with him early on in my stay in India. You know I lived in India with the Tibetans for 29 years, and in the early days of that, my spoken Tibetan was quite poor. Although I had learned the written language before I went to India, I had to learn the spoken language there. However, being in his presence, I could understand; my mind was so much clearer than when out of his presence. It was really a very remarkable experience. Although it sounds a little bit “New Age,” so excuse me, but it was almost as if the clarity and focus of his mind made the whole room, the whole environment, in focus. Being in that environment, your mind as well got in focus; it got very sharp and clear. It was a very remarkable experience. Anyway, Avalokiteshvara and Shariputra were inspired by the Buddha to have this discussion.

Also at that time, the bodhisattva great-minded mahasattva, the Arya Avalokiteshvara,

A bodhisattva is somebody with bodhichitta – both conventional and deepest bodhichitta. Bodhichitta is focused on our own individual enlightenment that has not yet happened, but which can happen on the basis of our Buddha-nature factors if we develop their abilities. Conventional bodhichitta is focused on the nonstatic Bodies of that enlightenment – the Form Bodies and the omniscient mind, so Nirmanakaya, Sambhogakaya and the Deep Awareness Dharmakaya. Deepest bodhichitta is focused on the static bodies of that enlightenment – the Svabhavakaya, which is both the voidness of an omniscient mind and the true stoppings on that mind.

The motivation that’s behind both is compassion for all beings (the wish for them to be truly parted forever from true suffering and its true causes) and, taking universal responsibility to bring this about and realizing that we can only do that if we become a Buddha ourselves, having the full intention to lead all beings to liberation from suffering and to enlightenment and the full intention to achieve enlightenment in order to accomplish that. When we have this state of mind in an “unlabored” fashion, we have it automatically all the time. We don’t have to put any effort into building up to this state of mind by the steps of bodhichitta meditation, like everybody’s been my mother and has been so kind, etc. 

Great-minded being is the translation of mahasattva, which is another term for a bodhisattva, someone with a Mahayana (Great Vehicle) mind. Such a mind is great because it’s aimed at the greatest attainment, which is enlightenment, and is for the sake of the greatest number of beings, which is everybody.

Then comes the Arya Avalokiteshvara in the text. The name “Avalokiteshvara” means the “Powerful Lord Beholding All Around.”  “Avalokita” means he beholds the beings all around the universe and helps everybody. “Ishvara” means, like a powerful lord, he has mastered all good qualities and has all the abilities to be able to help them. The names of all the various Buddhist figures have a lot of meaning to them; the Tibetan commentaries, the Indian ones as well, always explain the meaning of the names.

What was Avalokiteshvara doing? 

He was conducting his behavior in profound and far-reaching discriminating awareness, and he was beholding all around, in detail,

Conducting his behavior means that he was actually acting. He was bringing his understanding of voidness into action, into daily life. He was conducting his behavior with profound and far-reaching – so, profound means that it was with a correct understanding of voidness, and far-reaching, as I explained, means that it was with bodhichitta. He was beholding all around, so with complete bodhichitta, he was compassionately beholding all beings, wanting to help everybody, and beholding the voidness of his mind as well so that he could behold how it was possible for him to be able to reach the state of a Buddha where he could fully help them all. In detail means in all the details involved. He’s beholding this, which means that not only was he looking at it, but he understood it.

What was he looking at? He was looking at the five aggregate factors of his experience, his own five aggregates. I always translate this as “aggregate factors of experience.” It is what comprises each moment of our existence, of what we are aware of, of what we experience. When we look at the definitions of happiness and unhappiness as comprising the aggregate of feeling, the aggregate of feeling a level of happiness – the definition of feeling is how we experience the ripening of our karma. 

What arises in our experience? Well, it’s not just like information coming up on a computer screen. A computer doesn’t experience that information; we experience it. Like on a computer screen, there are sights and sounds, and other information that arises to the mind, doesn’t it, like a mental hologram. “We experience it” means that the way that we cognize it, the way that we’re aware of it, is, unlike a computer, with some level of happiness or unhappiness. Having some level of happiness or unhappiness about that information means to experience it, even if it’s on a very low level of happiness or unhappiness.

For example, the computer doesn’t feel happy or unhappy about what appears on the screen, does it? We do. If there’s a mistake or it says “system failure” or something like that, we feel unhappy. The computer doesn’t care; not that the computer doesn’t care, the computer doesn’t feel anything. There’s always, in every single moment, a feeling of some level of happiness or unhappiness, even if there isn’t a great deal of attention to that. For instance, when we’re asleep, if we feel comfortable (which is like a happy feeling), we stay in that position. If we feel uncomfortable, we turn. Why do we turn? There’s some level of unhappiness, isn’t there? Avalokiteshvara is focused here – in daily life as he’s sitting there, and so on – on what he is experiencing, what’s happening, in every single moment, and the five aggregate factors make up what he is experiencing each moment.

He’s experiencing these in detail (so, very carefully) and experiencing them, it says here and even those as devoid of a self-establishing nature. It’s not as deep an absorption as what the Buddha has, as the Buddha’s omniscient mind has, but Avalokiteshvara is here applying the understanding of voidness to each moment of what he is experiencing. He is understanding that nothing of what he is experiencing has a self-establishing nature.

As I mentioned, our mind, when we’re not a Buddha, makes things appear in an impossible way, and when we focus on voidness, what we are focusing on is a total absence, there is no such thing. In more detail, what our mind makes appear is like a mental hologram. From the point of view of science, there are all these photons that come into the eye, and they’re translated into neuroelectric impulses and neurochemical signals that go to the brain. What we actually see is something like a mental hologram, a mental construct derived from all that neurochemical and neuroelectric information. This is true not only in terms of a visual hologram, but also a sound hologram, a smell, taste, and physical sensation hologram, and thoughts. 

That hologram has two aspects. There is an aspect of what something is and an aspect of how it exists, and in a moment of cognition, there are two aspects of the cognition – each one focused on one of these aspects and each of these aspects that appear and each of the aspects that cognize them can be accurate or inaccurate. For example, if I take my glasses off, I see a blur in this room. There’s a mental hologram of a blur with a lot of colors, but that’s not accurate; it’s not that there are a lot of blurs sitting here in the room. 

So, the appearance of what it is can be accurate or inaccurate, and how it appears to exist can also be accurate or inaccurate. It is accurate that there are people sitting here, not blurs, but the way the people exist is as if they were self-established things. It seems as if they popped up in this room self-existing like they look now, independently of their childhoods, their backgrounds, etc. This appearance of self-established existence isn’t accurate, but the mind cognizing it is accurate if it cognizes it as merely being like an illusion and inaccurate if it cognizes it as corresponding with how it actually exists.

How does our mind make things appear? The analogy that I often use is either like ping pong balls (self-contained, separated from everything else around it) or like packages wrapped in plastic. So, I see you in front of me, for instance – actually, I see you simultaneously with seeing your body – and they appear encapsulated in plastic just by themselves. I’m not aware of your childhood, the entire life that you’ve led. I’m not aware of your family and all the other things that you were involved with throughout your life, but obviously, all of that is involved with this person here; however, all that I see is – blam! – what’s appearing right there in front of my eyes, as if you existed like that by some self-establishing power findable on your own side.

“A self-establishing power” means something findable inside you that, by its own power, establishes your existence as actually corresponding to the way in which my unenlightened mind makes you appear to exist. Actually, your conventional existence is established merely by what’s called “dependent arising,” so dependent upon many things: upon all the causes, your childhood, all your relationships with others, etc., and everything that’s happened to you. Your being here is dependent on all of that. It’s not just “there you are!” It’s also established by all your parts, all the different parts of your body: the digestive system, the circulatory system, your brain, everything. That doesn’t appear to me. I don’t think of your circulatory system when I look at you, the veins and arteries, I mean, who thinks of that?

Also, what establishes your existence is what’s usually called “mental labeling,” but which I think is more accurately “conceptual labeling.” That’s quite difficult to understand. It has to do with things existing as “this” or “that” dependently on the words and concepts for “this” or “that,” and with “this” being established as “this” only in relation to “that.” An example that His Holiness the Dalai Lama often uses is our fourth finger. It is established as long compared to the fifth finger, but it’s established as short compared to the third finger. It being short or long is not established from something on its own side; it’s established only in relation to how we label it in comparison to the fingers next to it. So, I’m looking here at a woman, and the woman is young compared to older women, old compared to younger women, and is woman only compared to a man. 

The whole concept of “woman” arises dependently on the concept of “man,” doesn’t it? There’s woman, there’s man, and we have traditionally decided to divide human beings into men and women. Well, it could have been possible that we divided human beings according to another conceptual scheme, like the color of their eyes. Just as within the categories of men and women, there are some with brown eyes and some with blue eyes in each category, so too within the categories of brown-eyed and blue-eyed human beings, there are men and some women in each category. It’s totally arbitrary, isn’t it? 

This is at a very basic level – there are many more profound levels of how we explain conceptual labeling – but as our first level of understanding it, we can understand that things are established as what they are: a man, a woman, etc., or, as a Latvian compared to something else. For a place to exist as Latvia, there had to be other countries that are not Latvia and so it is Latvia and not Lithuania. There had to be the concept of a Latvia and then somebody drew a line around a piece of land and said that’s Latvia. I mean, this is all mentally constructed. A piece of land existing as Latvia is not established by the power of something inside that piece of land. It’s Latvia because some people marked a piece of land off from land around it and named one side “Latvia” and one side “Lithuania.”

So, what makes you Latvian? Is it where you live? Well, if you lived on the other side of a line that somebody drew on the ground, then you’re not Latvian? Is it the language that you speak? Is it some piece of paper in a little book that is labeled “passport?” What makes you Latvian? Is there something inside you that makes you Latvian? There’s nothing inside you that by its own power establishes you, independently of absolutely everything else, as a Latvian. You are a Latvian dependent on a conceptual label, a concept, that some people made up and also made up a word to assign to it from arbitrary syllables, “Latvia,” and decided that this is what constitutes a Latvian. Okay? Nothing has a self-establishing nature. Everything is devoid of that.

I don’t know if there are two different words in your language, Latvian – but in English, I am very strongly pushing the word “voidness” rather than “emptiness.” “Emptiness” is used for a glass: a glass is empty if there’s nothing inside it. So, the word “empty” is talking about a container that doesn’t have something inside it. That fits the Svatantrika view of voidness that self-established things are empty of truly established existence. It doesn’t fit the Prasangika view at all. 

The Sanskrit word shunya is also used for zero, nothing, and that means that there is a total absence of a findable “thing” corresponding to how things appear to us. Our minds give rise to an appearance of self-established Latvians sitting here. That’s a conceptually constructed hologram. It’s the Svatantrika view that there are self-established people here that are empty of being Latvian independently of their being labeled as Latvian and that they are accurately labeled as Latvian and not inaccurately labeled as Lithuanian. The Prasangika view is that this appearance of self-established Latvians doesn’t correspond to anything, although the conceptual label “Latvian” is conventionally accurate, whereas the conceptual label “Lithuanian” is conventionally inaccurate. There are no such things as self-established Latvians – that total absence of there being any such thing as self-established Latvians is a voidness.

Another term that’s used is there’s no “focal support” (dmigs-rten). A focal support is like a diagonal piece of wood that holds up and supports a piece of scenery in a play. It’s something findable that is behind and holding up an appearance of self-established Latvians, for example, and that is the focal object we seem to see when we look around us. It’s merely a conceptually fabricated representation of an actually findable “thing” out there as if holding up the mental hologram that our minds create. But there’s nothing holding up this hologram; something holding it up is impossible. There’s nothing behind it, nothing supporting it. 

So, that absence is voidness. In the discussion of voidness, Tsongkhapa says very, very strongly that if we have any focal support left to this appearance of what’s impossible, we haven’t gone deeply enough in our refutation. We have under-refuted; we have not gotten rid of all focal supports. There’s nothing behind this appearance of what’s impossible. It just doesn’t correspond to anything, even if it’s being conceptually labeled as Latvian is conventionally accurate. On the other hand, if we are left with thinking that no one is sitting there, we have over-refuted. We have only correctly understood voidness, Tsongkhapa says, when we have understood it as meaning the dependent arising of illusion-like appearances that are conventionally accurate and that function but that are devoid of self-established existence.

The text goes on. 

Then, through the might of the Buddha, the Venerable Shariputra addressed these words to the bodhisattva great-minded mahasattva, the Arya Avalokiteshvara. 

The might of the Buddha refers to the inspiration of the Buddha, the power of the inspiration of the Buddha as the ultimate teacher.

In Buddhism, the teacher, even the Buddha, is not supposed to teach unless asked, unless requested. It’s not that we go around as a Buddhist teacher advertising ourselves as “Buddhist teacher for hire.” We don’t just hang up a sign, stand up on a box on the corner of the street and teach. We have to be requested. 

What makes a teacher? What establishes somebody as a teacher? This has been asked to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and he says that if there are those who want to learn from us, in other words, if there are students who wish to learn from us and who ask us, that establishes us as a teacher. Then, of course, we have to have the qualifications as well. We have to have some knowledge and experience to be able to teach, but just having that knowledge and experience is not enough. What establishes us as a teacher are those who want to learn from us. It’s a little bit like what establishes us as a mother is a child. If we didn’t have a child, we wouldn’t be a mother. If we didn’t have students, we wouldn’t be a teacher.

So, this is what Shariputra asked:

“How does any spiritual child with the Buddha-family traits need to train, who wishes to conduct his or her behavior in profound and far-reaching discriminating awareness?”

Shariputra is asking Avalokiteshvara: “How does someone train in order to be able to do what you’re doing?” That indicates that Shariputra understands that no one can reach Avalokiteshvara’s level of attainment without training. It’s not that Avalokiteshvara was established as a bodhisattva mahasattva by the power of some self-establishing nature findable inside him. 

Buddha-family trait is usually translated as “Buddha-nature.” It’s not just that Avalokiteshvara has a findable Buddha-nature inside him that, by its own power, establishes him as a bodhisattva with this profound, far-reaching understanding. On the basis of his Buddha-nature factors, he needed to train. Since all spiritual children – we’re all children in the Buddha-family (the family of those who can grow up to become a Buddha) – we all have Buddha-nature. So Shariputra is asking, since we all have Buddha-nature, how do we all train on that basis? 

First of all, what is Buddha-nature? There’s no Sanskrit or Tibetan word that literally means “Buddha-nature.” The word is a “family trait,” gotra in Sanskrit and rig (rigs) in Tibetan.  “Family” means those who have the characteristics or the traits that will allow them to become a Buddha. So, that includes everybody. 

Buddha-nature is a very extensive topic. There are different explanations according to the different Mahayana tenet systems: there’s a Chittamatra explanation, a Sautrantika explanation and a Prasangika explanation. 

There’s certainly no time to go into all of them, but if we look at just the Prasangika presentation, the Buddha-family traits refer to the factors we all have that will either transform into the various Corpuses (Bodies) of a Buddha, or which allow for them to be the case. On the most general level, we all have a body, speech, mind, good qualities, and some type of activity. They all can be developed and transformed into the enlightening body, speech, mind, qualities and activities of a Buddha. The fact that we all have what are called the “five types of deep awareness” –the mirror-like one that takes in information, the equalizing one that puts things together so that we see similar things in the same category, and so on; all of them can be developed and transformed into these types of deep awareness that are unlimited in a Buddha’s mind. 

The main factors discussed in the sutras, however, are our networks of positive force and deep awareness, the so-called “two collections.” These also can be built up further so that they transform into the Form Bodies and Dharmakaya of a Buddha. It’s a little bit complicated, so no need to explain how that is so. These are the evolving factors; in other words, we have to build them up more and more for them to transform into the unlimited physical bodies and omniscient mind of a Buddha. The abiding trait is the voidness of the mind. Because the mind, the mental continuum, is devoid of impossible ways of existing, that allows for the causal process of transformation to take place to become a Buddha. If that weren’t the case, we couldn’t become a Buddha. Voidness doesn’t change into anything. The voidness of our minds before becoming enlightened and the voidness of our mind as a Buddha are the same. 

Now what’s very interesting is to understand these family traits, these so-called Buddha-nature factors, in terms of dependent arising and voidness. We speak of basis, path and result very frequently in the Buddhist texts. This comes from the text by Maitreya called Uttaratantra in Sanskrit, The Furthest Everlasting Stream, Gyulama (rGyud bla-ma) in Tibetan. This is a very famous text. The basis is the Buddha-nature factors, the path is all the practices that are involved in developing these Buddha-nature factors, and the result is these various Corpuses or Bodies of a Buddha. 

Are these various traits established on our continuums by the power of something findable on their own sides as the basis for our becoming enlightened? No. They’re only established as a basis in relation to something else, the path and the result. If there were no path and result, they would not be a basis for a path or result. And our Buddha-nature factors only function as a basis when we engage in the practices that constitute the path and we are aiming to achieve their result. 

We’ve not yet attained enlightenment, but we’re aiming for it with bodhichitta. We’ve taken bodhisattva vows, which are now a part of our network of positive force (the so-called collection of merit) and are enhancing that network, and we’re engaged in bodhisattva behavior in order to reach that enlightened state of a Buddha, which enhance it further. We all have the basis, these Buddha-nature factors, as a basis for becoming a Buddha, but they only function as a basis for becoming a Buddha in relation to our training in the bodhisattva practices and aiming for their result. Otherwise, these Buddha-nature factors are just things that even a worm has. 

So, when we understand a little bit about dependent arising and voidness, it makes much more sense of what we mean when we talk about Buddha-nature. We’re talking about the whole package of these factors and the practices to enhance them and the result we are aiming to achieve by that. It’s only within the context of that whole package that we can really work with this idea of Buddha-nature. 

When we are looking at all beings with our compassion, we’re not just wanting them to be free from suffering, but we are seeing that they can be free from suffering; otherwise, we’re wishing them something they can’t possibly attain. So, when we are focusing with compassion on others’ suffering with the wish for them to be free of it, we’re also focusing on their Buddha-nature factors as a basis for their attainment of enlightenment within the context of the path and its result. If they follow the path of training themselves with the bodhisattva practices, they can achieve their individual enlightenments that have not yet happened, but which are valid imputation phenomena on the basis of the abilities of their Buddha-nature factors on their mental continuum. It is not that these abilities do not exist there already, and they only come into existence when we conceptually label them. They are there like the age of someone is there as a factor of their body. What we want to do is to help all beings to train in these path practices to achieve that enlightenment and we actively engage in helping them do that. 

Buddha-nature factors, like the two networks, can only function as causes for the attainment of enlightenment because they have on them as a basis of imputation, the imputation phenomena that are the abilities to transform into the Bodies of a Buddha when all the causes, such as the practices of the bodhisattva path, are complete. But the existence of these Buddha-nature factors as bases for imputation and the existence of abilities to transform into Buddha Bodies as imputation phenomena on them, and even the existence of our mental continuum as a basis for imputation and the existence of Buddha-nature factors as imputation phenomena on them, can only be established as merely what the conceptual labels “basis for imputation” and “imputation phenomena” refer to. There is nothing on their sides that establish their existence as such, or even that establish their existence as Buddha-nature factors and so on. This is very profound.  

One of the consequences of what I’ve explained is that it’s not inevitable that everybody will become enlightened, despite the fact that we are all spiritual children with the Buddha-family traits, as Shariputra calls us. Attaining enlightenment requires training and so Shariputra is asking Avalokiteshvara how we all need to train, specifically when we wish to conduct our behavior in profound and far-reaching discriminating awareness, which is the best method for enhancing our two networks and so for attaining enlightenment. 

It’s also not that everything is getting better and better, and each year more beings are getting enlightened, and eventually, we’ll all be there. We all have the Buddha-nature factors with these abilities, that’s true, but only if we actually train ourselves to conduct our behavior in profound and far-reaching discriminating awareness can we attain enlightenment. It’s not that everybody is definitely going to train in all these practices. With compassion, we can try to teach everybody to do all these practices. That doesn’t mean that they’re going to do them. They need to wish to practice them. That’s why Shariputra says, spiritual children who wish to train.

So, it is possible for everybody to achieve enlightenment, but it is not inevitable that they will, even given endless time. Does that mean we get discouraged with this bodhisattva ideal, “I want to help everybody attain enlightenment?” It’s not that we have this bodhisattva ideal with some idea that eventually our work will be finished and then we can relax. It may go on forever! 

Then, the text goes on. 

Addressed like that, the bodhisattva great-minded mahasattva, the Arya Avalokiteshvara, addressed these words to the venerable Son of Sharadvati.

Sharadvati is another name for Shariputra. “Putra” means son; he was the son of someone called Sharadvati. 

Now, Avalokiteshvara speaks and says:

“O Shariputra, any spiritual son with the family traits or spiritual daughter with the family traits, who wishes to conduct his or her behavior in profound and far-reaching discriminating awareness, needs to behold all around, in detail, like this:

It’s very clear that this not a sexist teaching. Both Shariputra and Avalokiteshara refer explicitly to spiritual sons with the family traits and spiritual daughters with the family traits – they didn’t say animals, but anyway. Regarding this whole gender issue, it is just like the issue of being a Latvian or a Lithuanian. Latvian and Lithuanian are conceptually labeled as conventions and are established in relation to each other on the basis of conventionally chosen characteristic features defining each, like which side of a line some people drew on the ground that they were born on. Male and female are also conceptually labeled as conventions and are also established in relation to each other also on the basis of conventionally chosen characteristic features defining each – chromosomes, the sexual organs we were born with, the ones we now have, our dress, our behavior, how we identify ourselves, how others identify us, and so on. Male and female are not established by the power of something findable on the side of someone’s continuum, not even by one of the criteria I just mentioned. Afterall, our continuum of aggregates has no beginning, so in each lifetime we would have had a different basis for being conceptually labeled with the category male or female by either ourselves or others.   

In any particular lifetime, the form that the body in that lifetime will have is something that arises dependently on various karmic causes. It’s very complex and not at all clear what the karmic causes are to be reborn as a cockroach or as a grasshopper or a chicken or a human or a ghost or whatever? Or why you’re born in Latvia and not in Lithuania or in Zimbabwe? Similarly, there are karmic causes for any particular lifetime to be born with the chromosomes that, conventionally, are conceptually labeled as being male or female chromosomes. There are various causes, and it’s not so clear really what those causes might be. There are several explanations in the Buddhist literature. 

Obviously, the power of prayer is effective here because when Tara developed bodhichitta in some previous lifetime, she prayed to be reborn as a female in all her lifetimes up to enlightenment in order to inspire women and that came to pass. So obviously, the power of prayer has something to do with it. 

That brings us to the end of the portion of the text that is leading up to the main teachings of how Avalokiteshvara explains voidness and how to meditate on voidness and that we will leave for tomorrow. 

This is a very packed teaching. “Packed” means it’s packed with a lot of things in it. It is the essence. That’s what it says, the Heart Sutra. It is the heart of all this enormous Prajnaparamita literature, so one needs to be patient that there’s going to be a lot in here. It requires some time to digest what we have been speaking about.

Let’s end then with the dedication. We think whatever positive force, whatever understanding has built up from this discussion, may it go deeper and deeper. In other words, may we think about it, try to understand it, and try to familiarize ourselves with it more and more. Once we’ve understood it, through what’s called “meditation,” then may we do as Avalokiteshvara has done, conduct our behavior with this understanding. In that way, the positive force and deep awareness from this will build up more and more, especially when we network them with everything else that we’ve understood and all the other positive force that we’ve previously built up. May all of this act as a cause for all of us to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.