Four Gateways to Liberation
We’ve been speaking about tantra, and we’ve discussed many different aspects of it, as well as refuted some of those aspects several times. There’s no need to repeat again. However, there’s just one thing that I want to add to our discussion, which is the importance of understanding voidness (emptiness) and how we go about analyzing it in terms of what we’ve been discussing. The question really is how does our not-yet-happening enlightenment exist in terms of Buddha-nature? In other words, what’s the relation? We approach this analysis in four different ways.
Enlightenment: Not a Solid Thing That Is There Already and Not a Nothing
First, we examine existence in general. We look at the result, enlightenment, and how it exists. If enlightenment itself were already self-established by itself, there would be no need to actually do anything. That’s impossible. If it didn’t exist at all, if it were nothing, then how could a nothing become a something? If there were truly a nothing, it wouldn’t exist. It’s neither self-established as existing nor self-established as not existing. That’s a lot of words, isn’t it? The question is how do we understand this? I think we need to get a little bit more clarity about self-established existence. What are we actually talking about? I’m speaking from the Gelugpa point of view of how Tsongkhapa and his followers explained it. Things have a self-nature, conventionally, in other words, what they are and how they exist. Things aren’t like blank cassettes or something like that. Conventionally, this is a bottle, a chair, a leg, an arm, etc.
Also, there are defining characteristics of things, conventionally, because we have the aggregate of distinguishing. That’s sometimes translated as the “aggregate of recognition,” but “recognition” is a little bit too sophisticated here. We can distinguish non-conceptually, in other words through sense recognition, this from that, because in our visual field, what is actually appearing are colored shapes made of pixels and we’re able to put together various colored shapes into conventional objects and distinguish one from another, aren’t we? This is the work of the aggregate of distinguishing. If we didn’t have that, it would be impossible to deal with the world. It’s also with audio objects – we can distinguish one sound from the background, etc.
With our sense recognition we don’t distinguish what something is, but we can distinguish one object from another. In terms of distinguishing what something is that’s referring to the defining characteristic that’s shared in common, which would allow for fitting that object into a category, like “human being.” All these colored objects that I see, the colored shapes that I distinguish into different objects, I can fit them into the category of “human being.” Then I can distinguish them from the chairs. This is conventional reality, the conventional truth of things. This is how we’re able to deal with all the information that we take in in the world.
Now, the question is: How do we establish that anything exists? How do we prove it? What our Prasangika teachings tell us is that self-nature isn’t a self-establishing nature. In other words, it doesn’t have the power to establish all by itself. For instance, that this is a thing; in other words, it doesn’t take these colored shapes and encapsulate them into plastic and make them into a thing, does it? It’s not like in a coloring book, that there is a line around it and now it’s a thing. That self-nature isn’t a self-establishing nature. When we think about that, the body is made of atoms and energy fields and so on. There’s no line around it that separates it from what’s next to it. There’s nothing inside it that generates that, makes it into a thing by its own power, for example, a line around it or it being encapsulated into plastic. It’s not like that. And the same thing with the defining characteristic. It doesn’t have the power by itself to establish that something exists, to establish what something is.
How do we establish that something exists? Conventionally, we have these categories, what in ordinary language we call concepts. We have words that we designate on these categories, like the word “human being” or the category “human beings.” This is only natural. If we didn’t have that, we couldn’t have language and we couldn’t communicate. These categories and these words – which are actually just sounds that are designated as a word giving them a meaning – refer to something. That’s how we establish that something exists, that the categories for them, the concepts for them and the words for them refer to something and we agree on that. Although these categories and words refer to something, the actual reality is that things don’t correspond to these categories and words. We make a distinction here between a category or a word referring to something and things corresponding to the category or word. Categories and words seem to imply that things exist in a box: Here’s the box of human beings, the box of love, the box of the color red – all these boxes and words as well, “Well, it fits right here, in the dictionary, under this word.” Things don’t exist in boxes.
Think about it. I think a very nice example for that is the category of “liking somebody” and “loving somebody.” “I like you,” “I love you” – where’s the dividing line? Are there two boxes and now the emotion fits into this box and now it fits into that box? What I mean by liking you and loving you is that the same as what you think “I like you” and “I love you” means? Do you also make the same dividing line? It’s a concept, isn’t it? However, these words, these concepts of “liking someone” and “loving someone” do refer to something, they aren’t meaningless. However, from the side of emotion it’s not that an emotion is out here and here’s the dividing line on this side, and it’s in this box, and on that side, it’s in that box.
In reality things don’t correspond to these boxes, these words or categories and so on, but they do refer to something. They don’t refer to nothing. Although conventionally things have a self-nature, defining characteristics and so on; however, these characteristics don’t have the power to establish that something exists in a box, do they? Even the defining characteristic is just made up, isn’t it? Some definition we can put in the dictionary. The only way that we can establish that there’s such a thing as “liking somebody” and “loving somebody” is that we have the concepts, the categories and the words for that. We know various languages and we agree upon them. We know it’s a convention and it can be verified by our behavior and so on, and that’s all that can be established. There’s no such thing as “liking” and “loving.” There’s nothing from the side of the emotion itself. We feel something and just because we do, that doesn’t establish what it is, but we feel something. What we feel doesn’t say, “Hey, I’m liking,” or “Hey, I’m love.” It doesn’t say that. There’s nothing on its side like a little barcode or something over here that says what it is. There’s nothing on its side that sets up a big wall between “me,” “I’m liking it,” and on the other side of that wall is loving. It doesn’t work like that, does it?
However, we have these conventions. They’re established by mental labeling, which refers to conceptually putting things in categories, concepts and designations, and that’s done with words. A category can be either accurate or inaccurate, depending on convention; depending on asking other people and so on, we can verify that.
When we look at enlightenment, then there’s nothing on the side of enlightenment that establishes it already as being enlightenment, is there? It’s not self-established. Is there such a thing as enlightenment? Sure. We have the concept, the word and it can be verified by all the indications of what enlightenment is and so on. Yes, but enlightenment isn’t some sort of “thing” that all by itself makes it enlightenment. When we can establish that there is such a thing as enlightenment, it’s in terms of mental label. However, mental label doesn’t create anything. Category doesn’t create anything. How do we demonstrate, how do we establish, how do we prove that there’s such a thing? If we think of enlightenment, it’s because we think of it in terms of a concept, the category “enlightenment” and the word “enlightenment.” It gives the impression that enlightenment is a sort of a self-established thing. It’s a thing that fits in this box, but that’s like an illusion. It’s a deceptive appearance. We have to understand that it doesn’t correspond to the way it actually is.
That was this first point, that there’s that enlightenment we’re aiming for. It’s not something that is self-established nor is it something inside enlightenment making it a thing that makes it exist all by itself or that makes it not exist. The voidness of that is the total absence of anything actually corresponding to this – there’s no such thing. This means that enlightenment isn’t up here in a big bubble, that it’s plastic and we’re aiming for that thing. It’s not like that. And it’s not totally non-existent. Where is it going to come from? Is it coming from nothing? In simple language: Don’t make the goal that we’re seeking into some sort of solid thing that’s there already. If it’s there already, we don’t have to do anything. Or if it’s truly not there, it’s a nothing. If it’s a nothing, self-established as a nothing, then nothing can change that. Think about that.
[Pause]
Here’s a simple example: “I feel love for you.” What is it? I mean, is it love, some sort of thing here, like in plastic, and I’m going over here and feel it? That’s weird, isn’t it? But it isn’t that I feel nothing.
[Pause]
Our enlightenment isn’t a solid thing that’s already there up in the sky, and it’s not a nothing. This is the first way in which we look at voidness here.
The Causes for Our Enlightenment
The second way is from the point of view of the cause. Is enlightenment already sitting in the cause and just waiting to come out? In other words, our enlightenment is sitting in our Buddha-nature. There it is, self-established by itself, all by itself sitting there and is just waiting to pop out like a jack-in-the-box or something; it’s sitting in the box, we press the button and it pops out. No, that’s impossible.
However, is it going to come from no causes at all? That is also impossible. Both of those are impossible. Voidness is the absence of those impossible ways of establishing. We can’t establish that there’s enlightenment sitting inside our Buddha-nature waiting to pop out. We can’t establish it that way. We should be able to find it, but it’s not there. Even if we don’t speak in terms of a presently-happening enlightenment not being there – if it were there, it would be presently happening, which it isn’t. However, even a not-yet-happening enlightenment isn’t happening now. Tomorrow isn’t happening now. Is there such a thing as tomorrow? Yes, but it’s not happening now. It’s not yet happening. Is there no such thing as tomorrow? No. Is tomorrow self-established of what it’s going to be, and there it is? No. Many things can affect what’s going to happen tomorrow. This is a very good example actually. Tomorrow doesn’t already exist. It’s not already happening, as not everything is set for what’s going to happen tomorrow. It’s not like that. However, also it isn’t that there’s no such thing as tomorrow; tomorrow isn’t already sitting inside today waiting to pop out, is it? What’s happening tomorrow is not going to happen with no causes.
[Pause]
The Stages on the Path are Also Affected by Causes and Conditions
The third way is to think about the stages involved in attaining enlightenment. If our attainment of enlightenment is only going to happen on the basis of causality, putting in the causes, how do these stages exist, each step in the way? How do we analyze them? We have names for them and defining characteristics for them, but they don’t establish them by themselves, do they? Every stage of the way, every step, is going to be affected by all sorts of causes and conditions, which have not yet happened.
The stages aren’t set solid, as in “this is going to happen, this is going to happen and this is going to happen.” Every stage of the way, every step of the way, is going to be affected by all sorts of causes and conditions that are going to happen. It’s the same thing when we undertake a project. We can have some idea of the stages to accomplish our goal, but at each stage different things are going to be happening and it’s going to affect what we do, and we have to be flexible in undertaking a project to adjust each stage as it evolves based on causes and conditions.
It’s the same thing with the spiritual path. This is a very important principle to understand if we’re trying to accomplish anything through steps. Each stage is going to be affected by causes and conditions. We can’t predict exactly what’s going to happen or what’s going to affect our practice. Each step is going to arise dependently – an old friend “dependent arising” – on all causes, circumstances and conditions that are happening at that time. Each one is going to be affected by all sorts of other causes and conditions: our health, what’s going on in the world, our family; all sorts of things are going to affect each stage as we progress.
This whole process, step by step, to attain enlightenment doesn’t exist in these impossible ways, as if each step is established from its own side. Now, “bam,” path of seeing, and now “bam,” another stage. It doesn’t happen like that. Relax, not everything is under our control, that’s impossible. So many other things are going to affect the whole spiritual path. Our spiritual path isn’t some ladder or some staircase existing by its own power over there and all we have to do is go over it and climb up. That’s silly. That’s not how it is, is it?
[Pause]
As Practitioners We Are Established in Relation to Our Practice
The fourth way is in terms of “me” who is following the path and our mental continuum. It’s based on all of this occurring and what we’re actually doing. All of these factors depend on each other. They don’t exist separately and don’t establish themselves separately. There isn’t a “me” that’s separate and now we’re established by itself and now we’re coming over here and we’re going to follow the path, which is established over there by itself, is there? Being a practitioner is only established in relation to our practice, on what we’re really doing. Our practice is only established as a practice in terms of people practicing it and the action of practicing.
Like this, in order to practice tantra, working with the not-yet-happening enlightenment, bodhichitta that we’re focusing on and that we’re representing on these Buddha-figures and so on, we have to understand that this goal we’re aiming for isn’t just sitting up in the sky and our not-yet-happening enlightenment isn’t sitting in a box inside our head somewhere together with all the stages of the path. It’s not like a “me” over there and we’re climbing the stages on the staircase over there. Everything dependently arises, and we can only establish that all of this exists in terms of the categories, concepts and words for these, which do refer to something.
Dependent Arising in All Aspects of the Path and Our Daily Life
These four ways are known as the “four gateways to liberation” or are sometimes called “four doors to liberation.” Sometimes, we have the “three gateways to liberation,” which leaves out the voidness of the steps. When we have four, we add that voidness as well.
This is unbelievably helpful, not only in terms of our striving to enlightenment, whether through sutra or tantra, but in terms of trying to accomplish anything in our lives, you know something big like, let’s say, we’re studying to become a doctor. How do we approach that without getting all uptight? Another example I use is making this huge website project. We could use this type of example for many things: We’re going to raise a family. Does the family already exist? No. Is the family totally nonexistent? If so, then it could never happen. Is the family already sitting inside me or inside me and my partner? No. Is this family going to come about from no cause? No. Once we raise the family, we can’t predict what’s going to happen. Every stage is going to be affected by so many different things. There’s not “me” over here, the family over there and the raising of the family over there. It’s all interrelated. Even in the most everyday example, this analysis is incredibly helpful to not get all sorts of weird ideas and being uptight about what we’re doing, but to approach it in a very calm and clear way, step by step adjusting to whatever is going on at the moment. It’s dependent arising.
Let that settle for a while. All of this obviously requires a great deal of thought, meditation, analysis and so on. However, it’s so, so helpful.
[Pause]
Establishing That There Are Energy Channels and Winds
The question is about those practices that involve working with the winds and channels. How do you establish that these things are real and existent? Because, for instance, from the point of view of Western medicine, we don’t acknowledge them.
Certainly, we can’t establish them by dissecting the body and looking for them. That’s clear. However, by doing certain practices, mentally obviously, then we find that we’re able to affect what we experience from the point of view of energy. Let’s get a little bit more specific, that was a terribly vague sentence that I just said.
With energy, there’s the mental activity. When we talk about the mind, we’re talking about mental activity. That mental activity is the arising of some sort of mental hologram, and that can also be described in terms of an awareness of something. Awareness of something is the arising of a mental hologram. There’s no separate “me” doing that or no separate mind that’s the instrument with which it’s being done. Every moment there’s an arising of some sort of mental hologram. We can describe it or experience it as something we see in our mind, for instance, there are photons coming in and it’s translated into electric impulses and chemical messages and then somehow there’s a mental hologram. We’re seeing something, or without the external input we’re thinking something. That’s what it means to see or think. It’s happening from moment to moment to moment, individual continuity, and content is arising in terms of cause and effect, karma, etc. With mental continuum, there’s some physical basis for it and energy, and we can describe what’s happening from an energy point of view. Think of this.
We think in terms of clear light mind, concentrated, laser-type, single-pointed, no disturbance, no interference, like interference of a wave of stuff like that. It’s just pure and it has the ability to know everything. Anything can arise with this. There’s no distortion. Because of the force of ignorance and its instincts, karma and all this other stuff, we don’t stay like that, even though we get to that point of death consciousness. Because it’s no longer concentrated like that, then it gets more dispersed, and we have interference waves, and we get subtle conceptual thought and so on. The energy is a bit disturbed and then we’re going to have a physical basis that’s going to support that. That’s the subtle channels and so on or bardo body or something like that, some subtle thing. Then the mental activity is going to get grosser and grosser and we’re going to get all this really disturbed energy and there’s going to be a more heavy physical body. That’s going to be the basis for that. This is a problem, because now the energy has gone wild.
Then, there’s so much disturbance and interference. We get the disturbing emotions and all this horrible stuff. We can feel that if we’re sensitive enough. Even if we’re not terribly sensitive, when we drink enough coffee and we feel nervous, we can feel that energy. Or even without drinking coffee, if we’re somebody that’s nervous, we call that “nervous,” we’re worried all the time, we can feel that; our energy isn’t going smoothly at all. That energy moves through the body. There must be some sort of channels through which it moves. We can’t actually find them, but we can make some sort of diagram that’s like a concept of it, which refers to something. However, there’s nothing in the body that we can dissect or find the point, as in “and there it is.”
What we want to do, what we’re trying to do, specifically with the complete stages of anuttarayoga tantra, is to somehow get that subtle energy and the many, many levels of it to stop going in such a horrible way through the body. We want not just to have it go in a calm way through the body, but get it to stop and get back down to this laser-like clear light mind and stay there. It’s quite difficult to get it down there but even more difficult to get it to stay there, and not out of force of habit to go back up.
How do we establish that there’s such a thing as the channels and the winds and so on? We have the concepts for them, the categories and the words, and they refer to something. We can’t establish it from the side of channels and so on. They refer to something, and through cause and effect we can dependently affect them. Things happen as a result, but it doesn’t establish that there’s such a thing.
There are several conceptual frameworks of looking at the energy systems: there’s one in Kalachakra, one in Guhyasamaja, the Hindus have one, and there are Chinese acupuncture channels, and there are ways of describing what one can do to work with these subtle energies. They all have a validity. It’s not established from its own side over there. The example that I often use for these multiple systems is a dozen eggs. These dozen eggs can be divided into two groups of six, three groups of four, four groups of three and six groups of two. Is only one of them valid? No. They are all valid. Is it established from the side of the eggs? No, not really, is it? It’s just from the side of the mind how we conceive of these eggs, “Oh, I can make three omelets. No, I can make four omelets out of them.” They’re all valid. It’s like that.
Avoiding False Conceptions and Getting Rid of Projections
That’s a rather complex question. The problem is feeling of fear and hopelessness because of thinking about and meditating on the different aspects of the teachings, such as death and impermanence, the amount of our negative emotions, obscurations and so on, precious human life and also voidness, because before we got some, even if it’s small, understanding of voidness, even if it is conceptual and small understanding, we had some basis for our “me” and the world around. Then while meditating on voidness, we start to understand that this basis is rather illusionary and it basically gives us some feeling of insecurity and fear and hopelessness.
We’re insecure because we’re hoping that things exist in the ways that we imagine, but they don’t. Our false expectations and false hopes are what make us insecure. Let’s say we’re in a relationship and we think that we’re in control of what’s going to happen in that relationship. Of course, we’re not in control. There’s the other person as well and all sorts of external circumstances that are going to affect what happens. Because it’s impossible that we can be in control of what happens, we’re insecure, because it demonstrates to us all the time that we’re not in control.
Think of life in the city with such terrible traffic. If we have this false conception that we’re going to go from our home to the office or to this lecture in a half hour, of course we’re going to be insecure because we can’t be in control of that. We don’t know what the traffic is going to be like. We don’t know what’s along the way. We’re insecure, because we want to be able to be in control; we want to be able to arrive on time, but as we travel, we see that that’s not going to happen, that it’s impossible. If we just embrace the fact that we’re not in control, we see that there is no solid “me” who isn’t in control and we don’t have to freak out, “Ah, I’m not in control.” However, everything is going to arise dependently. Then we just take it, as in “How long it takes, it takes.” Then, we’re not upset, insecure or nervous and we leave enough time in order to get there, considering that there could be a lot of delays. If we get there early, it’s ok: So what?
When we pop the balloon of our illusions, our wild ideas of how things exist, then actually it enables us to calm down rather than making us feel more insecure. If we imagine that our partner is Prince Charming, then we’re completely insecure, because he doesn’t act like that. If we get rid of that projection, that image and we don’t try to be secure, hold on to something, then however the relationship develops, it develops. Accept the person for what they are. Nobody is a prince or princess. This is very helpful instruction in meditation, but it also applies to everything. Don’t have any expectations and then we don’t have any disappointments.
Difference Between Imputation, Mental Labeling and Designation
Yesterday, you explained about the pride of a deity. What exactly is it? How do you practice? Is it connected with the development stage and what is the difference between the pride of the deity and normal pride?
Pride of the deity is referring to the valid imputation of the self, “me,” on the not-yet-happening enlightenment imputed on my mental continuum on these Buddha-nature factors as represented by the Buddha-figure. That’s a lot of jargon in one sentence. I have to share with you and explain a big difference between the three terms that unfortunately in Tibetan are all translated by the same word, so it’s confusing: imputation, mental labeling and designation.
Imputation is, if we use it in a strict sense, refers to changing phenomena that are neither forms or physical phenomenon nor ways of being aware of something. It can also be used generally for all three terms, as I said all three of this is the same word. Thus, I try to restrict that term just to some phenomena, but it can be extended a little bit further than that as well.
Let me use an example. I think, more precisely, we would say that I restrict this term now to the objects that can be known non-conceptually, that’s a better way of saying it. If we think of dots, pixels, then we can impute a line on these dots or atoms and on that we can further impute a surface and then we can further impute a volume. Those are imputations, surface and then volume: one dimension, two dimensions, three dimensions. Can you see a line? Yes. Can we see a surface? Yes. Can we see a volume? Yes. However, actually, there’s just a series of dots, isn’t there? Atoms. The same thing with motion. Can we see motion? Actually, one moment an object is here, the next moment it’s over here and the next moment it’s over there. Motion is an imputation. It’s not something which is projected conceptually. It’s something that we can actually see. From the Sautrantika point of view, it’s objective.
It’s the same relation between parts and a whole. There are parts and there’s a whole. A whole is imputed on the parts. For instance, there’s a bunch of trees and there’s a forest. This is objective and we can see that. The self, “me,” is an imputation on the aggregates. There’s a body and there are sensory objects. And in terms of mental hologram, there is consciousness, there are mental factors, there is a feeling, all these sorts of things and an imputation: there’s “me.” It’s not something which is added extra from outside. A whole is not added extra from outside onto parts. A line is not something extra added from outside onto dots.
If we have a series of photographs of ourselves, we used this example before, from the time that we were a baby until now. They’re all pictures of “me.” “Me” is an imputation on them. It’s not somebody else. It’s me. It’s putting it altogether in terms of “me.” That’s the imputation. And future photographs of when we get older and so on, they’re not yet happening now, but that would also still be “me.” We’re not permanently identified with any of these, are we? We’re not a photograph and we’re not still a baby. We can extend that to all sorts of past lives, future lives, not-yet-happening future lives and not-yet-happening enlightenment as well. They’re all validly “me” as the imputation.
In terms of the pride of the deity, there’s this realization, “That’s me.” “Me” is an imputation of this. It’s not somebody else. Objectively it’s “me.” From Sautrantika point of view, there’s nothing on its side that’s establishing “me.” Let’s not go there, but just to distinguish it from something conceptual. Objectively, this is “me,” whether past, no longer happening, presently happening or not yet happening. For instance, now we’re in February. January was this year. Presently, today is this year. March, April, etc., all of that which is not yet happening is also this year. This year is an imputation on all these months, some no longer happening, something presently happening and something not yet happening. They’re all equally this year.
Mental labeling is conceptual. Now, we fit all of this into a category, a box. A designation is also conceptual. We give it a name: 2017. Putting it into a box, then we have all sorts of connotations: This is a terrible year or this is going to be a great year. All of that’s in terms of our preconceptions about that box that we fit the year into. Whether we fit it into a box and give it a number as its name or not, nevertheless, still there’s a year. I mean these are similar in a sense that there’s something that’s being imputed or labeled or designated and a basis for it and so on. From that point of view, it’s the same. That’s why they’re called by the same word. Nevertheless, there’s a very significant difference.
Pride of the deity has to do with this imputation of “me” on the not-yet-happening enlightened “me” as represented by this Buddha-figure. That’s all it is. However, as we don’t solidly identify with the baby “me,” we don’t solidly identify with the Buddha-figure “me” either. There is the understanding of voidness. We’re not frozen into one thing. We’re not a still picture. The disturbing emotion of pride is making “me” into some solid, self-established thing and in comparison to others I’m better than they are. When Shantideva uses the word “pride,” there are two meanings: “I’m going to use pride to overcome pride.” He’s using “pride” there in the sense of self-confidence: “I use my self-confidence to overcome the disturbing emotion of pride.” But in Sanskrit it’s the same word.
Excuse me for taking quite a while to explain this, but it’s really important to understand the difference between imputation, mental labeling and designation. Imputation is the objective, like a whole with parts. Mental labeling is with categories, with concepts. Designation is with words. Otherwise, we think that “me” is just a concept. Although there may be some Buddhist positions that assert that, that’s certainly not a good position.
Dependent Arising When Purifying Others
Often, we do practices where we try to purify other sentient beings. How does this type of practice with deities or other types of practices that aim to purify others, how can they work if others are actually not participating from their own side in this process?
When we speak in terms of purifying others, actually what we’re talking about is purifying how they appear to us. Rather than seeing them as a horrible person, a poor thing, the mental appearance is in terms of their Buddha-nature factors, which is also an imputation of the not-yet-happened enlightened being here. We purify how they appear to us. However, as it says, Buddhas can’t take away others’ suffering. They can’t take away others’ confusion or ignorance and neither can we.
There’s also the practice of tonglen, giving and taking, in which we imagine we’re taking on that suffering or ignorance of others and giving them happiness. In most cases, it won’t actually work, but it’s done to develop our own courage to help others and to stop just thinking “poor me.” And when it does work, in some cases it does work, it’s not by the power of what we’re doing alone. It arises dependently on the other person having to necessarily have the potential to get rid of the problem, whatever it is. Then our doing the practice provides the circumstances for that to ripen more quickly, to ripen now. They’re being rid of the problem arises dependently on all these factors, not just by what we’re doing by itself.
How to Practice When We Die
In terms of the proper sequence of what we do when we die, we live in a big city, in a little bit difficult situation. What would you recommend to perform as dying practice?
As His Holiness the Dalai Lama explains, we have these practices in anuttarayoga tantra, in which we imagine that we’re in the form of a Buddha-figure and the various sequences of eight stages, ten stages, etc. of the dissolution. We imagine that and practice with that in our meditation, what we’re familiar with when we die.
However, he says, at the time of death, in almost all cases, it’s not recommended that we try to do that, because we’re going to get too worried, too upset that “I don’t have the visualization right,” and we’re going to be very disturbed. Although we have practiced this before and we know what’s going to happen, it’s much better at the time of death to just focus on bodhichitta and the aspiration, “May I be able to continue on the path to enlightenment and, in all my future lives, meet my teachers and continue that way.” We will die with much more peace of mind and not get so much uptight about not getting the visualizations correct. That’s what His Holiness says. This is for us ordinary practitioners. We’re not talking about some super-advanced practitioners.
What to Do with the Body Once Somebody Has Died?
From the Buddhist point of view, what is better to do with the person who is deceased, namely with the corpse: bury, cremate or something else? Does it affect in any way the future of a better rebirth? What is better to do?
Once they’re dead, they’re dead. It doesn’t matter what we do with the body. What we do with the body really depends on the wishes of the family, the wishes of that person themselves and the circumstances. In Tibet, we couldn’t get wood very easily to burn a body. They fed it to the worms on the ground. For instance, we could donate the body to a medical school, to help students learn anatomy. There are many things we can do with the body. However, it depends on the wishes of the person and the family.
The great lamas usually will have a cremation. That’s the standard thing. Why? Because then the ashes can be distributed, and we can have a little bit in different stupas. People can use this as objects of veneration. They couldn’t do this by the chop of one finger and put it in a stupa or chop up a nose and put it there. That would be a little bit too weird. Therefore, they have cremation.
Everything depends. If we bury in the ground, I know at least in my family, for instance, they don’t prefer that at all, because then we have a separate cemetery and grave and people are going to come and we would have to pay to keep up the grave and all of that. Better to just cremate and disperse the ashes in a body of water or something like that. It depends on the family. Obviously, if we can offer our organs, organ transplant or something like that, this would be wonderful. It all depends on us.
Dedication
Let’s end then with the dedication: We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it act as a cause to be able to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all.