LTF 68: Relevance of Ancient Indian Philosophical Systems in Our Times

Do We Get Rid of the Whole Package – Static, Partless and Independent – or Only Part?

We had a question about that last time, which I was able to clarify when I was in India just now with Serkong Rinpoche’s teacher Geshe Tenzin Zangpo. The doctrinally based unawareness of how persons exist refers to the whole package of one of the non-Buddhist Indian systems concerning an atman, or a self – namely, that (1) it is static, never changing and not affected by anything, (2) it is partless, either the size of the universe or the size of some tiny spark of life, and (3) it is something that is totally independent of the aggregates – so, it can go from lifetime to lifetime independently of the aggregates, the body and mind that it would be associated with in any particular lifetime. 

It Does Not Matter if We Have Never Studied These Philosophical Views; They Have No Beginning

Then we had the question: “Well, as Westerners we might not have studied any of these Indian systems, so we wouldn’t actually know them, believe them, and so on. So, how could we believe them if we don’t even know them? What’s going on here?” The commentaries say that, just as there is no beginning to the Buddhist teachings, there is no beginning to these non-Buddhist teachings of India as well. So, everybody, even animals, would have instincts of that doctrinally based unawareness from some former lifetime. OK, very nice, but what about our own ideas of a soul and so on? And this gets into the topic of incorrect consideration. 

Incorrect Consideration – Doctrinally Based and Automatically Arising

With incorrect consideration, we have, of course, (1) incorrect consideration of what is nonstatic to be static – in other words, we think that we are permanent, going to live forever, and never going to change; (2) incorrect consideration of what is basically suffering to be happiness; (3) incorrect consideration of what is basically dirty or flawed to be clean (that’s in relation to the body); (4) incorrect consideration of what does not have a soul to have a soul. 

So, we do have each of these – most of us. This also can be, as Geshe Tenzin Zangpo clarified, both doctrinally based and automatically arising. So, we could have learned from some doctrinal system that we are permanent, that we have a permanent soul. We might not have the rest of the package of the non-Buddhist Indian belief, but we could have part of it. And as I said, it could be based on some system that we learned, or it could be automatically arising. 

Now, the incorrect consideration of something that is not an atman to be an atman, that’s not a soul to be a soul – that refers to just part of this package of the doctrinally based grasping for a soul. It only refers to that aspect of a soul that exists independently of the aggregates. So, this, we could be taught. We might not think that it is unchanging or that it is partless, but we could have learned that incorrect consideration – that we have a soul that goes on – from some Western religious system as well as from a non-Buddhist Indian system. So, this is there. 

The doctrinally based incorrect consideration is part of what is gotten rid of by a seeing pathway of mind, so it would be included in the section of the emotional obscurations that prevent liberation. So, you would get rid of this doctrinally based incorrect consideration with the seeing pathway of mind as well as the doctrinally based emotional obscurations. This was the clarification that I received. 

Also the automatically arising  incorrect consideration that we have, which we have not only with regard to persons but to objects as well – like, my computer is always going to work; it’s not going to change; it’s static, this type of thing – can also automatically arise. 

Participant: So, it doesn’t have to be the whole package?

Dr. Berzin: When we talk about the first link and about the doctrinally based grasping for an impossible soul, we’re referring to the whole Indian package. 

Participant: To me it really doesn’t make any sense. It sounds like even an incorrect consideration to say that something like that is static. Why shouldn’t Indian system be static? 

Dr. Berzin: No, the Indian system isn’t static. But within the Indian system, they believe that the soul is static. Whether we have learned it or not, we have instincts of that belief. And that gets eliminated with the seeing pathway of mind. What we might have active in this lifetime is just part of that package, the incorrect consideration part. So, that we would get rid of as well. It’s just a matter of the classification system. 

Why Are These Non-Buddhist Indian Views So Important? How Relevant Are They to Us Now?

Participant: There are so many combinations of wrong consideration that we could have that I don’t know why singling out those of the Indian system is so important.

Dr. Berzin: To repeat: considering that we have so many combinations of incorrect consideration, why did Buddha point out the non-Buddhist Indian concepts? Basically, because he was teaching in an Indian society, and most people would have believed this.

Participant: Why should we keep this? 

Dr. Berzin: Why should we keep this? Why shouldn’t we keep this? What’s the problem with it? There are, within the analysis, sufficient classifications to include any of our Western beliefs as well. So, I don’t see what the problem is.

Participant: The only problem I see is because here it’s so special – this combination of…

Dr. Berzin: Why to consider it so special? 

Participant: It goes against voidness view.

Dr. Berzin: It doesn’t go against voidness. It’s just a less sophisticated level; it’s a step up on the way to voidness. 

Vows – Naturally Uncommendable Things and Prohibited Uncommendable Things Block the Way to Liberation

You see, this is quite a difficult point, actually, because what Buddha actually taught, at least, what we believe Buddha actually taught because, of course, nothing was written down at the time of the Buddha… I’ll give you an example. I was discussing this time in India this whole classification scheme of what are called… it’s a difficult term, and I have changed my translation of it just in these last weeks. I used to call them “unmentionable” or “unspeakable” things. Actually, the connotation of the term means “uncommendable”: you couldn’t recommend it to someone who is seeking liberation. There are naturally uncommendable things and prohibited uncommendable things. Naturally uncommendable things are things that would block the way to liberation for anybody, whether they have taken vows or not taken vows. Prohibited uncommendable things are for somebody who has taken vows and who is very seriously working toward liberation – so, things like not eating in the afternoon. 

The Example of Unorthodox Sexual Behavior

I was asking about sexual behavior in this context of naturally uncommendable things. And I have also changed my translation of that. It’s not “inappropriate” sexual behavior or “unwise” sexual behavior: it is “unorthodox” sexual behavior. That’s what they are talking about. There is no negative connotation; it’s just unorthodox. Orthodox is using the missionary position with your wife – full stop. That is orthodox. Anything else is unorthodox. The whole point is that any sexual behavior is an obstacle to liberation, prevents liberation. You want liberation from rebirth; you want liberation from biology. Any type of sexual behavior is going to be motivated, at least contemporaneously (which means when you actually get into doing it), by desire; therefore it is an obstacle to liberation across the board, whether it’s with your wife, the orthodox position, whatever. 

Now, the question is, how much do you want liberation? If you want liberation, and you really take that totally seriously – Real Thing Dharma, no Dharma-lite version of it whatsoever – then Buddha outlined, through the vows and so on, the steps for extricating yourself from sexual behavior. So, the first step here is that you give up all unorthodox sexual behavior. What is still OK – not really OK, but you are not ready to give it up yet – is missionary position with your wife. Everything else… well, I am on my way toward liberation, so I am going to exercise some self-control and discipline and not do anything else. 

Now, if you take a vow like the layperson’s vow and the five precepts, as they are often called – again, as clarified by the geshes in India now – it’s all or nothing. You take the vow – everything that is outlined in the text is included there. Nobody is saying you have to take the vow. If you are not ready to take the vow, don’t take the vow. 

Participant: No cherry-picking.

Dr. Berzin: There is no choosing and picking within it. 

Now, you could decide for yourself, without taking the vow, that you are going to stop part of it – let’s say, adultery – and you could promise not to do that. That would be in the category of… Now, there is also a certain type of… it’s what’s called “vowed behavior.” This is very difficult to translate; I haven’t come up with a good translation. It’s sort of an anti-vow – like a vow to be a butcher or a vow to kill, like when you go into the army. So, there is both a vow for positive things and for negative things – an anti-vow. Then there is an intermediate thing. The intermediate thing is when you promise, “I am going to give up adultery.” It’s not the full Buddhist vow, but it is more powerful in terms of constructive behavior and the positive potentials built up by it. Well, OK. So, the first step: I am going to give up unorthodox sexual behavior. The next step is to give up all sexual behavior and to become a novice and a full monk or nun.

Now, to get back to what I was saying, the early texts only speak about inappropriate partners with regard to unorthodox sexual behavior. It’s only at the beginning of the Common Era, primarily in the Sarvastivadin commentaries, that they start mentioning things like inappropriate place, inappropriate parts of the body, inappropriate time. More things get added and appear in the text as the historical development goes on over the centuries. 

So, my question, of course, was, “Isn’t a prohibited action for those who have taken certain vows something that’s in relation to the times and the society, and could that be changed? The answer came that prohibited uncommendable actions are specified only by the Buddha; that’s exclusively a category of injunction given by Buddha. Period. Nobody else can do that. What the later commentators did was to fill in Buddha’s intention (this is what it said). And what they added would be based on some sort of scriptural source; it’s not that they would just make up something new. Like, masturbation is added way, way late in the development of what’s unorthodox. Very late. Or having sex during the daytime. 

Now, you have to look within the basic teachings to see what Buddha’s intentions would be. The intention is to lead people to liberation. Therefore, you want to learn to develop discipline regarding your sexual behavior. That’s the intention. There are certain things that are general guidelines, like no sex during the day. If you only have sex at night, you are setting some boundaries in terms of your behavior. But you could say, “Well, that’s a sub-category of that vow. Somebody who works at night… well, there is no other possibility.” 

But again, it depends on you understand the vows. When you speak about vows, there is what is allowed, what is not allowed, and exceptions. These are categories of vows in Vinaya. You can’t apply that classification scheme in analyzing sex during the day for someone who works all night,  so you have to give a different classification in the scheme, which is general and specific. So, in the general, it’s not having sex during the day, but more specifically, the prohibition is for this and that person, not everybody. So, again, when you discuss with the Buddhist masters, you have to be very careful about what category of things you call it.

The Non-Buddhist Indian Views Concerning the Atman Are Important Because These Are the Views That Buddha Was Talking About

Now, to get back to your question… (It’s a long, circuitous thing. But since I learned a lot in India this time, I’d like to share it with you.) Buddha specified the Indian systems that he was dealing with that were current at his time. Well, were they really current at his time? You could argue. You have prototypes of these ideas in the Upanishads. Not even all the Upanishads were written at the time of Buddha. Some of them were later. So, you could say that these proto ideas were there. They get more developed later on in the history of Indian philosophy with the Samkhya and Nyaya Schools. They come much later than Buddha. However, history is not the forte of these Buddhist masters; it’s different from our Western concept regarding history. But if you are going to discuss with them, this is what Buddha was talking about, and this is what he specified – an atman with these characteristics. Full stop. To say, why is it so special? It’s so special because that’s what Buddha was talking about. 

Can you change that specialty now? No. No, you can’t. It’s the same thing as not being allowed to make a new proscribed thing. It’s like, for instance, in the discussion of prostitution, prostitution in general is OK; it’s not considered an unorthodox form of sexual behavior according to the list of what’s orthodox and what’s not orthodox. The only specification regarding that is that you should pay for it and not use a prostitute that somebody else has paid for it. That’s stealing, basically. So, that’s a general guideline. That doesn’t mean that if you are married, it’s OK to go to a prostitute. That’s a specific case within the general guideline. In general, if you are going to go to a prostitute, pay for it; don’t steal. You have to look at it that way. So, what we fill in now that would reflect our societal values and considerations would have to fit with Buddha’s intention. 

Similarly, even though the whole non-Buddhist Indian systems – which include not just the Hindu philosophical systems but also that of the Jains – might not be relevant to us now, that guideline about going to a prostitute is a special case, and there is no need for us to make another special case. However, for us, the emphasis could be on the different types of incorrect consideration that are more relevant to our current beliefs. And that’s fine. 

Participant: But this explanation from the commentary that the Indian system has been going on since beginningless time – that’s really strange. 

Dr. Berzin: Well, to say that everybody has these instincts because of beginningless time… I don’t know. Why would something, a philosophical position, have to be new? I don’t think that it has to be new – that there has to be a first time that somebody thought of it. 

Participant: Not new, but the combinations could be very, very numerous.

Dr. Berzin: That’s true. But so what? Ultimately, it comes down to “so what?” If they want to say that everybody has it, including animals – fine. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be the most important thing for us now. 

And when you deal with these doctrinally based disturbing emotions, this doctrinally based unawareness, and you refute the general case, then you can refute specific parts of it. But to refute only specific parts of it doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be able to refute the whole package, the whole case. So, it’s better to refute the whole package. And in refuting the whole package, you refute each of the parts as well. There is also a law in logic debate: the general includes the specific, but the specific doesn’t include or cover the general. So, I don’t see any problem.

Participant: But the general might be correctly formulated, but one of the specifics might not be according to the general. 

Dr. Berzin: There is a general one. There could be other specific ones that are outside of that general case. But if one of the specifics is incorrect, the general is incorrect. 

Examining Our Motivation to Dismiss the Non-Buddhist Indian Views as Irrelevant

What one has to really analyze when a question like yours comes up is the motivating emotion behind the question. And scusa (excuse me), but if one looks at it, it’s cultural arrogance, basically. “My culture doesn’t believe that, so why should we make this special?”

Participant: But even His Holiness, when he was in Hamburg and dealing with this Indian section, said that that might not be very relevant for us today.

Dr. Berzin: Yes, His Holiness in Hamburg said that, in dealing with the Indian sections, it might not be so relevant for us today.

Participant: He said himself that he doesn’t know.

Dr. Berzin: Right. And he said he hasn’t studied it well. But that doesn’t deny that this is what they are talking about in the text. And that’s what I said: it may not be so relevant. 

Participant: So we can skip through it. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. Mariana, there is a difference between saying that it’s not so relevant, that our time is limited, so we can skip through it… but you better believe that they do not skip through it when they are doing the geshe studies at the monasteries. There is a difference between skipping through it and what’s called “abandoning the Dharma,” which is saying, “This is stupid. Why don’t we just throw it out?” There is a big difference between that and saying, “We can skip through it; it’s not so relevant for this particular audience at this particular time.” But there is no need to deny and want to change the teachings – that this is what Buddha was talking about – because he was talking about that. He was addressing a specific audience. 

Then I gave this whole, long discussion: “If it was the words of the Buddha, it’s special; it’s considered special in this tradition.” And it is. Whether we like it or not. So, if you have respect for Buddha, you leave it. You don’t deny it, is what I am saying. You don’t deny it. It doesn’t mean that it’s relevant. It doesn’t mean you have to focus on it. But you acknowledge that this was what Buddha taught. 

Participant: Sure. In this time, it was surely relevant because it was the discussion then. But one can’t say now that it’s relevant – just period.

Dr. Berzin: I am agreeing with you, Mariana. If it isn’t relevant, just skip it. But if you really want to go as deeply as possible, then you need to get rid of all incorrect views. So, you consider all these metaphysical positions.

Participant: But one doesn’t have these incorrect views. There are so many things one has to get rid of, so why take something far-fetched, which is not really the main problem one has to get rid of? It’s not necessary to get rid of something that one doesn’t have. 

Dr. Berzin: OK, now she is saying that it’s not necessary to get rid of something that we don’t have. As I mentioned before, according to the text, we all have them on some instinctive level from previous lives. 

But if you recall our study of the Samkhya and Nyaya Schools when we were studying Shantideva’s Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, we followed the same approach. None of us would naturally accept and assert all the different aspects of these systems. However, when we examined the specific aspects of it, we discovered that, in fact, we do have that type of thinking.

Participant: They’re not that far-fetched.

Dr. Berzin: They are not that far-fetched. This is what I am saying: it is cultural arrogance that makes us close-minded. We say this is irrelevant: this is from ancient India. On the other hand, if we open our minds and look at specific points within this whole thing of incorrect consideration and see that we can have incorrect consideration of each point, we find, for example… You remember with the Nyaya view that it was sort of like sticks putting together balls. The Nyayas tend to think of different things as truly existent objects, like balls, and the relationships between them as sticks that truly exist. We have that very thing when we talk about our relationships, you know, “How are you relating to our relationship?” We make a “thing” out of these sticks.

Participant: A stick to the stick.

Dr. Berzin: A stick to the stick. So, we do have this. “I have no connection with you” – as if “no connection” were a type of stick. Or dependency and co-dependency and all of these sorts of things that they talk about in psychology – these are sticks. So, we do have individual elements of these various systems. Whether we put it all together into a mega system or not is irrelevant. 

Are Incorrect Considerations Limitless?

Participant: Also, I am sure that you can think of things that you have to get rid of that were not mentioned in the system.

Dr. Berzin: Ah, ha! So, do we need to get rid of things that are not mentioned in the system? Exactly. This is speaking about special cases like what I was saying about prostitution. Special case there is that you are married, that you have a partner already. That’s a special case within the general guideline specifying that if you go to a prostitute, you pay for the prostitute – which is basically a law against forcing yourself or stealing. Similarly, with all the various incorrect views – and there are a lot of them mentioned, especially in texts like Abhisamayalankara (The Filigree of Realizations), which has list after list of incorrect views – you can fill in further incorrect views. That’s the principle of filling out Buddha’s intention.

Participant: But they are limitless.

Dr. Berzin: Well, now we can debate whether they are limitless. They are countless, but are they infinite? If they were infinite, then you couldn’t gain liberation because there would always be more to get rid of. 

Participant: You can make lists endless.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, they would be large lists. You can’t say that you would never finish. If you would never be able to finish, you wouldn’t be able to gain liberation because there would always be something left that you hadn’t covered. So, you have to say that it’s finite. 

Participant: That’s why it’s a little bit strange that Buddha would single out this special, limited combination of five things that are…

Dr. Berzin: Why would he point it out? Because it was the most relevant. How many times do we have to say that? It was relevant to his time. 

Participant: Then it’s not so special.

Dr. Berzin: It was special to his time. And so… Now you have this clinging to one truth – that there has to be just one special. Why can’t you just leave it as “this was special at the time of the Buddha, and Buddha specified it”? It might not be so relevant to us, but what’s wrong with it being special at the time of Buddha? There is no such thing as absolute special. 

Participant: But this commentary is saying that there is. 

Dr. Berzin: This one is saying that this is the main thing. But saying that it is the main thing doesn’t discredit that parts of it are also main. 

Participant: OK.

Many of the Buddhist Assertions Regarding the Self Are Similar to Those Found in the Non-Buddhist Indian Philosophical Systems

Dr. Berzin: And if we look very carefully, then we discover… And you have to really look and analyze, which means an open mind. Don’t instantly reject on the basis of “Well, I don’t believe this, so this is irrelevant to me.” But if you look, you see that each of these three points of static, partless and independent of the aggregates… well, Buddhism asserts things that are very, very similar. Very similar. Buddhism is an Indian system. Indian system. 

Buddhism says that the self is eternal: no beginning and no end. So, it would be very easy to think that it is permanent – that it is static: doesn’t change. So, within it being eternal (no beginning and no end), we have to clarify that it changes from moment to moment. 

Size of the universe – partless? Well, this is a very confusing thing in Buddhism because the omniscient mind understands everything. So, it pervades all knowable objects, the whole universe and all of space and all of time. And where the mind pervades, you’d have to say that the subtle energy pervades – in terms of clear light mind. Therefore, a Buddha can manifest everywhere in the universe simultaneously. So, isn’t that saying that the self of a Buddha is the size of the universe – so, partless? So, you have to understand a little bit more clearly what’s going on in the Buddhist assertion because if you look at it from a distance, it sounds very much like an Indian non-Buddhist view. It’s the same idea; it’s just a variation on it. 

And that there is a self that continues separate from the aggregates… well, what about when you gain liberation and there is still a self that’s no longer associated with a samsaric body and mind – that there is a clear light mind and so on that goes on from lifetime to lifetime? Isn’t that a soul? 

So, these points, these three characteristics of a soul are things that pertain to a Buddhist concept of a self as well but that are understood very differently. Therefore, they are relevant. They are very relevant.

Remember, we had this whole issue in Indian philosophy of what the relationship between a self and a mind is. One school, the Samkhyas, said that the self had a quality of awareness, but the Nyayas said, no, it didn’t have a quality of awareness. Well, this is very much an issue in Buddhism as well. What is the basis for labeling a self? Is it the mind? Is it the foundation consciousness? Is it the mental consciousness? Is it the clear light mind? What is the basis? So, Buddhism is talking about the same issue. That’s why these things are relevant. 

Can Buddhism Be Divorced from Its Indian Cultural Context? Is There a “Pure” Buddhism?

We often want to see Buddhism as something that is beyond culture. That, I think, is not the case. Everything is dependent, dependently arising. Buddhism is an Indian system. There is no way of getting around that. Can you divorce it from its Indian cultural context? I don’t know. I don’t think you can, really, for it to still be Buddhism. 

Participant: Why not?

Dr. Berzin: Why not? It assumes that there are certain principles that are not dependent on culture… I mean if you analyze. Analyze. 

Participant: That is one point in Buddhism – that there are many things that are really relevant just for human beings or for…

Dr. Berzin: There are things that are relevant not just to human beings but to all sentient beings.

Participant: Yes, sentient beings. Then one has to look what is relevant and take this…

Dr. Berzin: But what is relevant is, for example, rebirth. Well, come on. Although there have been ideas of rebirth in early Christianity and other cultures, it’s a central theme in Indian thought. It wasn’t there in Chinese thought. And we certainly don’t have it nowadays in Western thought. This is what I am saying. And Buddhism will assert that rebirth is a universally applicable truth. Karma – that’s a pan-Indian idea. You have it in almost all Indian systems. Now, there are certain things that you find in many belief systems besides the Indian ones, such as the concept of heavens and hells and these sorts of things. Those we find in so many different cultures. But Buddhism was formulated in India for an Indian audience, and it is universally applicable. However, it’s formulated in an Indian way. 

Participant: Yes, then it is really true that if Buddhism will carry on, it is important that one gets away from the pure Indian thing.

Dr. Berzin: To get away from the pure Indian thing… This is my point: you can apply the Indian thing to Chinese culture, to Tibetan culture, to Southeast Asian culture and so on, but I don’t think you can take it totally out of an Indian context. For instance, rebirth and karma. I don’t think you can have Buddhism without rebirth and karma. No way. Liberation from rebirth – that’s a very Indian thing. All Indian systems speak about that – moksha (liberation). And the way to gain liberation is through knowledge… overcome ignorance. Almost every Indian system says that. They just define it differently. Don’t they? 

Why shouldn’t that be relevant to us? Why not? What is the objection? It can be fit into a Western way of thinking. Buddhism adopts, but it doesn’t… There is this philosophical debate: is there a pure Buddhism that is not dependently arising? No, there isn’t. There isn’t. So, to take that “pure” Buddhism out of an Indian context and to fit it into another context… I don’t think there is such a thing. I think that Buddhism, which is within a context that has dependently arisen from an Indian source, an Indian cultural sphere, can then be further influenced by other cultures. It has. 

Participant: It has to be.

Dr. Berzin: Yes. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is denying that.

Participant: I think there are very, very few people who really want to take this Indian system.

Dr. Berzin: There are very few people who want to get really involved in all these Indian systems.

Participant: No. It will not carry on here.

Dr. Berzin: It will not carry on here? I don’t think that’s the case. People here might not be terribly interested in studying Samkhya and Nyaya philosophy. However, to do away with the basic Indian religious concerns, which are how to overcome suffering – so the idea of rebirth, karma, all of that entailing suffering, how to overcome that, how to gain liberation through understanding reality – you are not going to have Buddhism without that!

Participant: Yeah, no. 

Who Are We to Say What Is Relevant and Irrelevant?

Dr. Berzin: So, you don’t want to study this or that ancient Indian philosophical school – fine. Don’t study it. But don’t deny that Buddha and the Buddha’s teachings are discussing that. What is relevant and what is irrelevant – how do we know? Who am I to say what is relevant and what is irrelevant? 

Participant: That is very subjective. This aspect is relevant; this aspect is more relevant…

Dr. Berzin: Well, it’s subjective. I am just coming from a monastery in debating, so excuse me. But relevant for what? Relevant for gaining liberation or relevant for what we are going to study this year? Relevant for what we are studying this year? Yes, for different people, that will be different and is subjective, although a teacher would be better to advice us. However, what’s relevant for liberation? I think that Buddha is the authority on what is relevant for gaining liberation. I am not an authority on what’s relevant for me to gain liberation from samsara and what that really means. How in the world would I know? If I knew, I would be out.

Now we go back to the verses in Lama Chopa: I have been involved with self-cherishing and this garbage and look where I am. Buddha figured it all out, and look where he is and what he is able to do. So, look at the difference. It all comes down, I think, to an issue of refuge and respect. Do you really consider Buddha as the ultimate authority? Of course, there is the question: how do we know what Buddha said? 

Participant: We don’t know.

Dr. Berzin: We don’t know. The texts were written down much later. How do we know that these lineages are correct? We don’t. We don’t know. But there are always two ways of answering questions. 

It’s very interesting, at the bhikshuni conference, the nuns’ conference, one of the papers… they talk so much about lineage – that the lineage has to be unbroken and all these sorts of things for ordination. So, someone pointed out, “Well, here are the names of the people in the lineage from Buddha up until the time of Shakyashribadra, who was the last one to bring a monks ordination lineage into Tibet in early 1200’s. Count the number of people; do the mathematics. According to the mathematics, it turns out that each person would have had to live two hundred and twenty years. Then you could conclude that lineage is ridiculous and meaningless. Or you could conclude (nobody mentioned this) that they only included those who were the most important in the lineage. Obviously, there were people in between. So, what’s the problem? 

There are always two ways of looking at each problematic issue. Just because it wasn’t written down at the time of the Buddha and was only written down centuries later… sure, we can say, “Well, obviously, it’s not exactly what Buddha said.” But it’s very difficult because it could be what Buddha said. Anyway, Buddha spoke, and it is said that everybody heard it in their own language. Therefore, there are many different versions, like of the Vinaya, of the monastic rules. Everybody heard them slightly differently.

Participant: I think the important point is that something works. If it is spoken by the Buddha, or if it is…

Dr. Berzin: Ah, so something works! Now you have really…

Participant: That is the only thing that is useful.

Dr. Berzin: OK, Madame, I take your point. The criterion then is: does it work? Now, all the masters who have gained high realization, whether it’s liberation or enlightenment or something a little bit less than that – what have they studied, and what have they understood? They have understood the refutation of the impossible soul as outlined in these non-Buddhist Indian systems. Ta da! They gained their high realizations from that. So, it did work, obviously.

Participant: There are some people who gained the same realization without Buddhism.

Dr. Berzin: Did people gain the same realization without Buddhism? That’s very hard to evaluate. That’s very hard to evaluate. Remember, we had the discussion in Shantideva about arhats who followed a non-Prasangika system of Buddhism. According to Prasangika, these arhats think that they gained liberation, but they didn’t really gain liberation. I am sure non-Buddhists would look at the Buddhists and say the same thing, wouldn’t they? That becomes very difficult to really evaluate, doesn’t it? But then you have to look at the definition of liberation. 

Is It Possible to Gain Liberation Without Having Studied These Ancient Philosophical Systems? Did Milarepa Study Them?

Participant: When you look at the Tibetan side, there are many, very simple people who were not sophisticated and who gained liberation. So, there must be some way besides getting into philosophical discussions. I doubt that Milarepa had… He was doing another way, and he was successful. So, it is not necessary. I think there are many different ways to proceed. I don’t say it’s bullshit, but I say there must also be ways for somebody more simple-minded who can’t follow these philosophical systems fully.

Dr. Berzin: Ahh. Now we have her statement that there must be other ways of gaining liberation other than through the philosophical studies. And aren’t there people like Milarepa and so on… did he really do philosophical studies? 

The word that you used, which perhaps you’d like to take back, is “simple-minded” people. I don’t think Milarepa was simple-minded by any means. He had to work incredibly hard and do an unbelievable amount of meditation and so on. Now, did his meditation include analysis of voidness? Well, I think he would have…

Participant: Did it include all these ancient philosophical Indian Nyaya system and this and this and this… I doubt it. I doubt it. 

Dr. Berzin: Well, well, well. Did Milarepa study and refute Samkhya and Nyaya philosophy? This is the question. This is an interesting question. Milarepa, using his methods, did he rid himself of the instincts of grasping for the Samkhya and Nyaya view of the self? Yes. Milarepa got rid of all that is to be gotten rid of by a pathway mind of seeing. He had non-conceptual cognition of voidness. So, if he had that, he got rid of all the doctrinally based garbage. Included in that doctrinally based garbage would be the Nyaya and Samkhya aspects, wouldn’t it? So, he got rid of that. Did he actively have to refute it in his lifetime? I don’t know whether he studied that or not. Probably not.

Participant: Probably not. Yes. 

Dr. Berzin: Probably not.

Participant: And he succeeded.

Dr. Berzin: Did he ever study it in the previous lifetime? Well, now we don’t know. We don’t know. 

Then the question is: what’s relevant for me and you, for each of us individually? I think one general principle that we have to accept is that liberation and enlightenment don’t come cheaply. It will require an unbelievable amount of work for three zillion eons. And even if we follow highest tantra methods, chances are it’s going to take us a really long time. So, are we going to need analysis, or are we going to need so-called meditation? Well, what is meditation? What do you do in meditation? 

What is His Holiness the Dalai Lama says… and I certainly consider him to be the most highly realized person. He constantly says that what the most significant thing about a human rebirth is is having intelligence, being able to use our minds to understand. Therefore, that is the most important: to do various practices. 

What is going on in tantra? Is it just to visualize? Non-Buddhists visualize as well. Cartoon writers visualize. Just to visualize is no big deal. Working with subtle energy systems and yoga and things like that – non-Buddhists do that as well. Nothing special with that. By itself, it’s not going to get you liberation. So, it’s only with some understanding of voidness that you are going to get that. 

Now, to get the subtlest understanding of voidness, do you need to go through the Indian systems? That, I think, is the question. I think you certainly have to go through something.

Participant: Yes, sure.

Dr. Berzin: You have to go through something. You certainly are going to have to consider questions like permanent, impermanent, the relationship of “me” with my body and my mind. Certainly, you are going to have to think about that. 

In every tantra practice, it says, “Within the state of voidness, I arise as this or that.” So, you have to have some understanding of voidness. Bodhichitta – how is it going to develop? Just like that? Well, the Chinese systems say that – that if you quiet down enough, the nature of the mind will be compassionate. Very nice, but as we all know, compassion and love are not the same as bodhichitta. They are supports for bodhichitta, causes for bodhichitta. They accompany bodhichitta, but they are not bodhichitta. 

So, we have a course of study that has been outlined, one that has been tried and tested. Why not follow it? And follow it as we did when we studied it, which is to analyze what could this possibly mean, and how could it possibly be relevant to the way that I think? Do we have to put that as our main emphasis? Well, maybe not. But just to chant and go blah, blah, blah… As His Holiness says, just to do mantras and visualization is not going to get you very far. We can’t say that it is not helpful at all. Sure, it is helpful, but not just by itself. We need to use our intelligence to try to understand. So, I must say I am very convinced of His Holiness’s position, convinced that it is correct. 

For those who are simple-minded… that means not intelligent. You could say “unsophisticated” or “uneducated.” That’s something else. I don’t think Milarepa was stupid. 

Participant: No, that’s not what I meant. If this is what simple-minded means, then I don’t mean that.

Dr. Berzin: Right. He was unsophisticated. Was he unsophisticated? I don’t know. Anyway, let’s not argue about Milarepa. That’s not the point. Your point is whether you can gain liberation without an in-depth study of these systems. That’s a different question from whether or not you can gain liberation without an in-depth study of voidness. Will you gain a correct non-conceptual understanding of voidness by just sitting down and… then it comes? Well, unless you have unbelievable instincts from past lives, I don’t think it will just come. 

Sometimes I use the analogy from one of the ancient Chinese classics (I forget which classic it was) of the foolish man from Song or whatever place it was. This farmer went out into his field and found a rabbit that had run into a tree stump at night and died. It smacked itself in the dark against the tree stump. So, he gave up farming and just sat by the tree stump all day long. Somebody came along and asked him, “What are you doing?” He said, “I am catching rabbits.” Just to sit there and expect that, in meditation, an insight of voidness is just going to come like that, like a rabbit smacking into a tree stump – hardly likely. Hardly likely.

Participant: Could one say that if you have an insight of what is in your own conceptual, cultural background – maybe the incorrect considerations that come with Christianity or whatever – and that you really succeed in getting rid of these obscurations and have an insight of voidness, you can also get rid of all the Indian misunderstandings as well? Like what Aryadeva says – that you get rid the whole package when you have the insight at a certain point,.

Dr. Berzin: The question is: if we get rid of the incorrect considerations that we have based on our Western systems, would we get rid of the whole package, including the Indian views? Then you mentioned Aryadeva. What he said was that when you understand the voidness of one thing, you have understood the voidness of everything. You don’t have to analyze absolutely every knowable object in the universe – that that understanding of voidness applies to everything. 

This is what Geshe Tenzin Zangpo was also pointing out – that the incorrect consideration of something without a self to have a self only refers to a self that is independent of the aggregates. To get rid of grasping for an impossible soul, the very minimum level, first level of it, is to get rid of the doctrinally based grasping for an impossible soul from the Indian systems – one that is static, partless and independent of the aggregates. But as you go deeper in the philosophical tenets, Prasangika will say that the view of a self that you have in the lower schools of tenets – what you are left with after you have refuted their concept of selflessness of a person – is still a doctrinally based incorrect view of the self. And that has to be gotten rid of. You are still left with a self that has some defining characteristic on its own side, as asserted by Chittamatra and Svatantrika. So, that’s a doctrinally based one according to Prasangika. So, what is to be refuted is not just the Hindu one. Hindu one is a start… or the non-Buddhist Indian one. 

Participant: I am a bit stuck because I really don’t have an idea of a soul. I was not raised with the idea of a soul. I don’t know what I should refute. 

Dr. Berzin: A soul is atman. “Atman” in Tibetan is also the word for “self” – so, “me.” I translate it as “soul” because that is the word that would fit with the Indian system of atman. So, it’s an impossible “me,” or self. Surely, you have a concept of “me,” of yourself. This is what they are talking about. So, how do you view yourself? We have these things of… we say, “I am hungry,” whereas, actually, it is the stomach that is hungry. Or you identify with the body: “I am young.” There are many misconceptions that we have…

Participant: Sure, but not all.

Dr. Berzin: Not all. But again – I’m sorry – I come back to “so what?” Why get hung up on this? 

Participant: Because it is difficult to refute something that you don’t have an idea about.

Dr. Berzin: So, you start to refute the earliest stages of it. You work up in stages. I don’t see what the problem is. 

Refuting Different Aspects of the Impossible Self

Participant: To find the object to be refuted.

Dr. Berzin: There are many different levels of the object to be refuted. So, you refute aspects of the self – is it static or nonstatic; does it have parts or not have parts; is it independent of a body and mind or not independent; is it one with the body and mind or separate from the body and a mind? We refute all of these things. 

When you look at the refutations, you are refuting one point at a time. Now, all these points go together. This is very much the Buddhist thing – that as you go through the various tenet systems, the more sophisticated tenet systems say that in your lesser refutations, you didn’t refute enough; there are still further things to refute. So, why not refute every possible wrong view that one could have? One could have each of these wrong views. And there are wrong views about self; there are wrong views about physical matter, about mind, about all sorts of things… atoms.

Do We Study the Teachings First, or Do We Examine Ourselves First?

Participant: I feel to go the other way round – to see that one has this feeling of “I” and then to look what is behind this. One feels the “I,” and then one looks what is behind it – what the idea is, how this feeling of “I” arises – and then one analyzes it. That is for me more useful than to take this and this and this…

Dr. Berzin: But, Mariana, that is not contradictory. You say it is more productive to look at the feeling of an “I” that arises…

Participant: And then some feelings of “I” don’t arise.

Dr. Berzin: So, you look at the feelings of “I” that do arise, and you look behind them and analyze them. This is what you are saying.

Participant: Yes. 

Dr. Berzin: You don’t start with a philosophical position as your basis for analysis; you start with your own experience as the basis for analysis. Well, yes, it’s correct. But when you do an analysis, you need some structure to analyze from. 

Participant: Yeah.

Dr. Berzin: So, these various…

Participant: You have to come to these results. And then you are really convinced because you are coming to these results when you really look for the “I” and then look what’s behind…

Dr. Berzin: Yes, when you look for the “I” and look for what’s behind, then you come to these results. However, there are a lot of things that can be behind our suffering, behind our disturbing emotions, like the concept of “me” and so on, that we never would have thought of. We never would have thought that it was a problem. Look, for example, at our analysis of relationships – my relationship and our relationship and how you are relating to our relationship. Well, we might not even have recognized that that was a problem. But there is an Indian philosophical position that asserts the true existence of relationships between two things. So, it gets you to think, “Well, do I think like that?” 

Could you gain similar insights from studying systems of Western thought? Sure. But how relevant is Bishop Barkley and Descartes and so on to us in any case? Most of us don’t think about that. And most Indians certainly don’t think about Samkhya and Nyaya either. However, these systems do analyze our experience in such a way that they bring out points that, maybe, we wouldn’t have thought of before. And when we think about it, they are actually relevant. They do explain some of our problems.

If you study Freud or Jung or these sorts of things, you can find them helpful for analyzing your experience and your problems. Do you study them first, or do you examine yourself first? Obviously, there are two ways of doing it. But for a lot of people, when they analyze themselves and try to observe – what do they come up with? “I don’t understand.” Don’t they? “Why am I acting like that? I don’t know. I just act like that.” “What is your confusion?” “I don’t know.” On the other hand, if you have some guideline for what to look for, you can check, “Is it this, or is it not this?” That’s helpful. 

As say – what I said to Jorge in the beginning – when we are so upset about something in the teachings, and we say, “I don’t want to do this,” or “this is irrelevant,” it’s very important I think, to analyze, “Why am I saying that? Why do I feel like that? What’s behind it?” 

If Buddha said it and many masters have meditated according to this and gained results, why not at least look at it with an open mind? Why not? Why the objection? If I am not ready for it now – fine. Nobody says you have to do it now. It’s like our discussion of vows: nobody says you have to take this or that vow. Nobody says you have to study Nyaya and Samkhya and refute it now. But don’t deny that it’s part of what they do. People who follow this path do that. Now, do they do this in the Zen monasteries? Do they do this in the Theravadan countries? Probably not. Undoubtedly not. Do they gain liberation and enlightenment? I don’t know. That’s the best we could say: “I don’t know.” 

Therefore, what is the conclusion? Conclusion is that you follow one lineage of practice that appeals to you. Nobody says you have to follow the Indo-Tibetan tradition. If you want to follow a Zen tradition, follow a Zen tradition. If you want to follow a Theravadan tradition, follow that. Do they all get the same results? I don’t know. That’s the best I can say: I don’t know. Then it comes down to the gurus, the masters. So, you look at them. “Is this the model that inspires me, and is this what I would like to do?” Then you follow that. 

But there is no point following something and then complaining about it. Nobody is forcing anybody to follow any particular spiritual path. Does that mean that you suspend all critical faculties? No. But then you analyze what is behind your criticism. Why? The only real, positive motivation, I think, in analyzing and criticizing would be “I’d like to understand why they say this?” There must be a reason. 

As Serkong Rinpoche always used to say, these guys weren’t stupid, so they must have had a reason. Nagarjuna and all these people weren’t stupid, so there must be a reason. So, you look at it. Will it be obvious and easy to understand? No, it won’t be. It won’t be. But you look at it when you are ready. When you are not ready, you leave it aside. As His Holiness said with Aryadeva, “This is irrelevant; I don’t really understand it myself,” which I think is his modesty; I am sure he understands far better than anybody else. But he didn’t deny that Aryadeva wrote this and Aryadeva considered it important. Aryadeva did, obviously. Is it relevant to us today? I think one needs to investigate with an open mind. I think so. 

As we saw with Samkhya and Nyaya, when you really look deeply, you can find a lot of things that are very relevant and very helpful. Yes, it’s good to be critical, but watch out for what they call “abandoning the Dharma.” 

We have gone well past our hour. In any case, these are important points, very helpful to discuss and to think more and more deeply about. But, you know, this is a good example of doctrinally based disturbing emotions. One gets upset and angry based on these doctrinal points. Right?

Participant: I don’t trust these doctrinal…

Dr. Berzin: The doctrinal point is, you say, “This doctrinal point is irrelevant,” and then you get angry or upset about it. That’s a disturbing emotion based on doctrinal considerations. It’s not an automatically arising thing, like the dog getting angry when somebody tries to take its bone away. So, it illustrates how we could get quite upset about certain points that deal with theories, whether we’re in favor or not in favor of a particular point, being either really attached, “You have to study this! This is the most important,” or the opposite, “This is irrelevant! I don’t have to do this.” That was why I was saying – equanimity. 

Though We May Follow Different Paths, the Insights and Understanding That We Will Need to Gain Liberation Are the Same

Do I want to gain liberation? Well, that’s such a big problem, such a big issue. I don’t even understand what it is – liberation. Once I really understand it and am convinced that I can achieve it, then Buddha is a pretty good authority about how to reach it, isn’t he? I don’t know of anybody else. Do I have to figure it out myself? I don’t know. Buddha himself said that we are not all exactly the same; we’ll follow slightly different paths. But the basic insights that we’ll need are the same. The understanding that we’ll eventually need is the same. And he is saying that the wrong views, the misunderstandings, are basically universal. This is what he is saying when he says that these other teachings have no beginning. 

Well, tell me – logically – if Buddha’s teachings have no beginning and the non-Buddhist Indian thinking and wrong views have no beginning, what about Western wrong views? Do they have a beginning or no beginning? Logically, you’d have to say that they have no beginning also. Now we have to fill in Buddha’s intention. If Buddha’s intention was that we need to refute the wrong views that were current at this time, wouldn’t his intention also be to refute the wrong views that are relevant in our time as well? Yes. You have to say yes. Does it mean that we could ignore the wrong views that they held at that time of the Buddha? I don’t think so. I think that it’s a matter of expanding the scope of those wrong views rather than alternative ones.

Do we have to put the most emphasis on the ancient views? I don’t think so. But they are there; they’re something to consider. Equanimity – not attached to it, not repulsed by it. It’s what’s in the text, so I look at it. No big deal. I think that’s the most productive approach. Do I examine within myself to see what the most relevant thing to me is now? Yes, of course. You’re right: we do do that. But these various systems, as I said, are useful guidelines for helping us figure out what’s going on. And the more systems that we learn, the more helpful it can be. I think.

This is a Buddhist thing; this is an Indian thing. It’s karma – potentials.  

Thank you.