Background to the Text
Today we are starting our new course on a letter that the great Tibetan master Tsongkhapa wrote to one of his friends. The actual title of the letter is A Brief Indication of the Graded Pathway Minds (or Graded Stages of the Path); but since that’s a very general title, I prefer to call it A Letter of Practical Advice on Sutra and Tantra, which is more what the content actually is.
Tsongkhapa wrote this letter to a good friend of his, a meditator by the name of Konchog-tsultrim. Although Tsongkhapa mentions at the end of the letter that this friend was, in a previous life, a great Tibetan translator, a very early translator, Ngog Loden-sherab (Ngog was his clan name), who lived in the second half of the eleventh century, nevertheless I have never been able to find any reference to Konchog-tsultrim himself, as to who he was. But in any case, it seems that Tsongkhapa considered him a great friend and wrote him this wonderful letter.
Tsongkhapa himself lived from 1357 to 1419, so the end of the fourteenth century and beginning of the 15th century, and he was one of the great figures of Tibetan Buddhism. He was extremely radical. Revolutionary. He studied with many, many teachers from all the different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. Although he was very respectful and entrusted himself to their guidance, nevertheless he found their explanations not to be satisfactory. He was never satisfied with what he learned, never satisfied with the explanations that he received, never satisfied with the commentaries that he read, and so he went, and he read all of the Indian texts translated into Tibetan, and many of them he even corrected. I don’t know if he actually studied Sanskrit, but he seemed to have some basis for being able to correct many of the translations as well. He did a tremendous amount of meditation and retreats and came up with new interpretations of most of the major points of the teachings that he had received. He also reformed a great deal the monastic system that was going on at the time — this was becoming a bit lax — and in general was a great reformer.
It was an interesting period of time that he lived in because at that time there was a general degeneration of Buddhism in Tibet. There were many abbots who basically were just sitting around and indulging themselves, and a lot of money coming in, and dealing with the aristocracy, and all sorts of things that weren’t going on — weren’t functioning very well. You had two reform movements at the time. One was this stricter monastic type of reform that went on. The other reform movement happened with the tradition of so-called mad yogis within (often) the Kagyu and Nyingma tradition that were making fun of these stuffy old abbots that were just sitting comfortably and having a lot of food and a lot of offerings; and, in contrast to that, going around like old Milarepa in hardly any clothing and acting in a very unorthodox type of way, and trying to bring that tradition back to a more meditative, renounced status. We had these two reform movements.
Tsongkhapa, as I said, reformed the understanding very much. The tradition that followed from him was known later as the Gelug tradition and the people who follow that are called Gelugpas. He wrote many, many volumes — 19 volumes — of writings, each of them about 600 folios of these long Tibetan pages, double-side, and very, very extensively on many, many topics, both sutra and tantra. Here in this letter Tsongkhapa summarizes some of the most important points for how to practice sutra and tantra.
Sutra are the texts that explain the basic, fundamental level of practice. We have within the sutras the — according to Mahayana terminology — the Hinayana and Mahayana sutras. It’s not a very nice term for the Hinayana. Basically, there are... When Buddha first taught, there was a difference of opinion. Different lineages came after him, particularly in terms of the monastic rules and different opinions of what they were, and different opinions of certain teachings. We have 18 systems that evolved — they are known as the eighteen nikayas in Sanskrit — or bodies of literature, or traditions. Those 18, one of them is Theravada, what you have in Southeast Asia. The tradition that came after that, the Mahayana, called themselves Mahayana — the great vehicle or vast vehicle — and gave the name Hinayana to these other eighteen, the lesser vehicle. It’s not a very nice name, but we don’t really have another name for it unless we call it Nikaya Buddhism, which is not a very well-known term.
In any case, sutras cover both of these aspects of the teachings. The Hinayana speaks primarily in terms of the methods to achieve liberation from samsara. Although they speak about Buddhas and bodhisattvas and how you need to be a bodhisattva before becoming a Buddha, nevertheless they don’t outline very fully a bodhisattva path. Whereas the Mahayana teachings put the emphasis on becoming a Buddha — and their vision of what a Buddha is and how many Buddhas there are is much vaster — and they outline the bodhisattva path.
Within this Mahayana we have both sutra and tantra methods. The sutra methods are the common methods followed in all of the basic Buddhist teachings of emphasizing renunciation; and love and compassion; and bodhichitta (aiming to become a Buddha to help everybody); and the concentration teachings; and the teachings on the far-reaching attitudes or perfections (and especially the teachings on voidness), the wisdom teachings, so-called wisdom teachings. That’s all sutra.
Tantra deals with the special Mahayana methods to become a Buddha more efficiently. It’s more efficient basically because we are imagining now that we already are a Buddha based on our Buddha-nature (it’s what will allow us to become a Buddha). We don’t think that we really are a Buddha, but we are working with the basic factors that we have. We imagine already (with visualization) that we have a body of a Buddha; and that we are carrying out the functions of a Buddha, imagining lights going out [i.e. going forth] and helping everybody from our hearts; and we are reciting mantras, so a more pure form of speech which everybody can understand in their language, and gives teachings to everybody, and so on; and we imagine all around us, everything, is a pure land. In tantra we have these various types of purity, we call it: pure body, pure entourage, pure activities, and pure speech. We practice in that way to build up a cause for actually achieving this more quickly. It is practiced on the basis of all the sutra teachings; it’s just something that you do in addition to that, and it acts as a container for all the sutra practices.
Tsongkhapa here in this letter is going to give practical advice on how to actually follow these practices. He doesn’t go… In terms of tantra, by the way, what he will explain in this text, which is very, very helpful, is how to actually visualize. That’s something which you don’t find very clear instructions on too easily. But Tsongkhapa here is giving quite clear advice of how to visualize yourself as a Buddha-figure and so how to proceed from there.
Opening Remarks
The text begins:
Homage to Manjughosha.
Manjughosha is another name for Manjushri, the embodiment of the wisdom or clarity of mind of the Buddhas.
Tsongkhapa begins like any friendly letter, so I’ll just read it; there isn’t so much to explain in the beginning paragraphs.
May I always be cared for by (you,) the foremost of the peerless (Dharma) expounders.
An expounder is someone who explains the Dharma. He’s praising his friend.
Your flawless knowledge and wisdom are unimpeded even concerning the subtlest points.
In other words, you’re able to understand everything.
This is due to your familiarization, over a long time, with the methods of profound (voidness) and extensive (enlightening actions, gained) through many magnificent skillful means.
You studied very hard, and you’ve familiarized yourself (that’s just what meditation does) with all the teachings on voidness — voidness or emptiness is the absence of impossible ways of existing (it’s the teachings on reality) — and the extensive actions that one does based on compassion and love and bodhichitta and so on. He says the teacher, his friend, learned these with many, many skillful methods that he practiced.
Tsongkhapa goes on:
O my excellent spiritual mentor and friend,
This friend that he’s writing to be also considers one of his teachers.
first you strove to hear and study many scriptural pronouncements. Then you spread the teachings with your excellent explanations. In the end, you made extended effort to actualize them. May your feet be firm throughout a long life!
This is very, very interesting, this verse, actually, because the order here might seem a little bit unusual. First, he studied — he listened to many teachings and studied them — then he taught them, and then he meditated on them to actualize them. To actualize them means you meditate to the point where you really achieve the goals of that. Does that make any sense? What would you normally have thought would be the order?
Participant: First actualize what to teach.
Dr. Berzin: At first you would actualize? First you would study, then you would actualize them, and then you would teach them? Well, why would Tsongkhapa make the order this way? Can you figure out why?
Participant: Learning by doing.
Dr. Berzin: Learning by doing? In a sense, yes. That when you study the teachings, what is very, very important is to learn by doing, as you say. In other words, you study the teachings on love and compassion, and generosity, and discipline, and all these other things — you know, these far-reaching attitudes — and understanding of voidness, and bodhichitta, and all these things. You study them. But how are you going to actually actualize them? Now he’s not saying that you don’t meditate. Meditation comes throughout this. But in order to reach a point where it actually jells inside you, that you actualize it, you have to practice it by doing it. Teaching is one of the best ways of doing that.
Teaching of course is based on the fact that you have superior knowledge to the students, that you’re requested by the students — you have to be requested to teach — and you do have some experience through meditation, but you’re not fully there yet. Now in teaching you have to be generous, because you’re giving, you’re giving the Dharma. You have to be disciplined. You have to be concentrated. You have to understand. You have to be patient because often the students don’t understand so quickly, or they don’t show up. You have to persevere and keep on pushing on and on, never get discouraged as a teacher. You are aiming as a teacher to be like a Buddha, to impart the teachings. You have to understand voidness, otherwise teaching becomes a big ego trip. You always have to deconstruct the big “me” that’s sitting on the throne teaching, and deconstruct the people that you are teaching, otherwise you tend to become afraid of them and it’s difficult to speak — you become tongue-tied and nervous and self-conscious.
Everything has to become clear to you in teaching, in order to explain it clearly, even more than when you are studying, even more than when you’re meditating, even more than when you’re debating. I mean, Tsongkhapa’s coming from a debate tradition. This was what everybody did at that time, and they still do in Tibet when they’re learning. The debate is intended to question your understanding. Debate has a great benefit because nobody is going to question their own understanding as much as other people will. You give up. Other people, especially teenagers, who think it’s great fun, will torment you with more and more questions and never let you go until you really have understood. The point of the debate is to get you to become confused and contradict yourself. Only if your understanding is very clear will you be able to withstand the attacks of logic that are thrown at you at great speed and great enthusiasm in a debate.
But even then, your understanding is not as clear as it is when you’re teaching. Because when you’re teaching you really have much more compassion motivation there — that I have to explain it to you, and I have to explain it clearly. The teacher gets very inspired by the audience, just by the ambiance of actually teaching. Also, if you’re teaching in a way that was coming from Nalanda monastery in India, students imagine that the teacher is a Buddha and they’re bodhisattvas in a pure land, and all of this; the teacher also imagines that they are like a Buddha imparting the teachings. That’s not coming from ego. That also helps with bodhichitta.
By actually teaching and explaining what you have studied and what you’ve been meditating on, it helps you to actualize the teachings much, much better than if you just sat in a cave by yourself. Tsongkhapa praises his friend for following that type of pattern in his development.
Then he goes on, Tsongkhapa. He says:
I have received the perfectly delightful tree of your letter together with its tasteful fruit of your presents, which you have sent, my dear friend, without being requested, out of your affectionate thoughts directed toward me.
He writes in a very flowery, poetical way. The letter is like a tree and the little presents that he sent — maybe it’s some incense, maybe it’s just a kata or a scarf, whatever it might be (Tibetans always make presents of these type of things) — and he calls that the fruit from the tree. He sent these without being requested, out of affectionate thoughts.
It goes on:
Not being quenched by the well-explained accounts (already available), as an ocean (cannot be satisfied) by a great cloud-full of rain, you have requested that I write and send you in a letter further (practical advice on) how to apply yourself to the two stages (of the highest class of tantra, anuttarayoga).
He’s praising his friend. He’s saying that his friend is like an ocean, his mind and his capacity are like an ocean. An ocean can never be satisfied with just a cloud-full of rain; it needs more and more. Although all the teachings and explanations that are available are very wonderful explanations, nevertheless for his friend they are like a cloud-full of rain — they haven’t filled his ocean-like capacity for wanting more and more teachings. Because of that, he has requested that Tsongkhapa write him a little bit further.
This is a very wonderful attitude of Tsongkhapa. Rather than getting annoyed at an email which comes in saying to explain some really complicated thing, and you don’t have time for that, and so many other things… Because Tsongkhapa was very busy. He was doing a lot of teaching, meditating, and writing, and so on. Nevertheless, he obviously did not get annoyed and wrote this rather wonderful letter and praised his friend for having such a large capacity that he wanted even more.
It goes on:
(A mind of) little intelligence can indeed be easily filled by hearing (merely a few teachings), as a small pond (can be readily plenished) by a babbling brook. Thus, it is awe-inspiring that minds of superior intelligence (such as your own) are so vast they cannot be satisfied by these wonderful accounts.
If you had just a little intelligence then all the teachings that are available would have been enough, like a little small stream can fill up a pond. But you’re not like that. Your mind is so superior and so vast that it can’t possibly be filled by what is available already.
However, granted that this may indeed be so, it is quite preposterous (for there to be any call) for someone like me to appease the mind of a great man (like) you.
Now Tsongkhapa is being very humble here — that how can I possibly satisfy your thirst for more teachings. Tsongkhapa says:
I have heard and studied few (teachings).
That’s rather an understatement. Tsongkhapa was probably the most learned master of his day.
My intelligence is low; my Dharma actions are meager.
Sounds like His Holiness the Dalai Lama saying, “Just a simple monk.”
Although I may have a few words (in my mind), I have been very lax in living up to their meaning.
He’s been very lazy, he says. Like Lama Zopa saying he’s very lazy.
Nevertheless, even dandelion seeds, animated by the wind, can soar to compete with fine-feathered birds, though they lack the power to do so on their own. Similarly uplifted by your ennobling words, I shall try to offer you something in brief.
You know what a dandelion is? In German it’s Löwenzahn. Yes, Löwenzahn (lion’s teeth). When you blow on the dandelion — these Löwenzahn — then the things flutter in the air. He’s comparing himself to that. He’s saying that even that, when animated by the wind, can fly very high like the birds, and compete with the birds to fly. He says, “Although I lack the power to explain anything profound to you, nevertheless I’m like these dandelion seeds and I am enabled and uplifted by your wonderful words of inspiration.” He will offer something in brief. I think this indicates a little bit how poetical Tsongkhapa can be. He writes very, very beautifully.
Reliance on a Qualified Spiritual Teacher
Now he starts:
Well then, (as for lowly people like myself)
He uses this pronoun, which is for very, very humble people talking about themselves, so “as for lowly people like myself.” I tried to convey that connotation, otherwise you’d just say “we.” But that’s the connotation of the Tibetan word.
we have, in fact, found the excellent working basis (of a human rebirth complete) with all the respites (for Dharma study and practice).
Tsongkhapa is referring here to the fact that we have a precious human rebirth. “With all the respites” means freedom from the worse states of rebirth so that it allows us to be able to study and practice the Dharma. If you recall in Nagarjuna’s letter to a friend, in verses 63 and 64 he lists the eight faulty states that we have leisure from, we have a respite from. Respite means a short vacation from them.
As my teacher Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey said: We are on a short vacation from the lower rebirths now that we are a human, and we shouldn’t imagine that that vacation is going to last very long. If we don’t do something about it, our vacation will be over, and back we go to the worse rebirth states. Nagarjuna — just to remind ourselves, Nagarjuna wrote:
(63) Rebirth as someone holding a distorted, antagonistic outlook,
As a creeping creature,
A distorted, antagonistic outlook means that not only do you not believe in the Dharma teachings and think that they’re wrong concerning cause and effect and karma, and rebirth, and safe direction or refuge, and enlightenment and liberation, but you are antagonistic — that you argue, and you want to put down anybody who says anything like that — as a creeping creature, it says. It’s wonderful that we have freedom from that, that our minds aren’t so closed and antagonistic to the teachings.
Or as a creeping creature. That would be some sort of animal. That when you think of animal, literally it’s something that walks bent over, both in Sanskrit and Tibetan. We’re not talking about Bambi or Fifi the poodle, or anything like that, that we might think “How cute!” We’re talking about cockroaches and things that when somebody sees it, just wants to step on it. Very wonderful that we’re free from that.
a clutching ghost,
These are the ghosts that are just so tight — they’re clutching to try to get some food or some drink or anything like that.
or in a joyless realm,
That’s the hell realms. It’s defined as a realm in which there is no joy. They’re trapped there; it’s very difficult to get out.
Or rebirth where the words of the Triumphant are absent,
There are no teachings available. There also, we’d have no opportunity to learn the teachings and practice.
or as a barbarian in a savage border region,
That would be in — right, like here! But this is basically in a region where everybody is fighting with each other and people don’t value being ethical or any type of spiritual practice, or something like that. The whole community that we live in is very inconducive.
or stupid and dumb,
What this is referring to is: At that time the teachings weren’t written down, and so in order to learn the teachings of the Buddha and so on, you had to be able to hear them and recite them. If you couldn’t hear and you couldn’t speak, then you were in big trouble in terms of trying to learn the Dharma, which was only audio at that time. Referring to some sort of handicap that would make it really, really difficult to learn.
(64) Or as a long-lived god
That would be in a situation in which everything is just so wonderful and so soft and easy that you have no motivation to help others — you have no motivation to benefit yourself, I should say. As one often finds with the super wealthy, they don’t really take the suffering of others seriously. Poor people and so on, they’re just sort of — you know, they’re like playthings. But it’s hard for them to relate to the lives of poor, suffering people. That’s not a very helpful state to be in if you want to gain liberation and help others.
— rebirths as any (of these)
Are the eight faulty states that have no leisure.
Having found leisure, being parted from them,
Make effort for the sake of turning away from (further) rebirth.
These are the eight states of no leisure. Now we have a respite, a short vacation from these.
Tsongkhapa says:
we have, in fact, found the excellent working basis (of a human rebirth complete) with all the respites (for Dharma study and practice).
That’s important to appreciate in ourselves, that we have this, and how awful it would be if we were — to just use ordinary examples from the present-day life — how awful it would be if we were stuck in Baghdad or Darfur, any of these places where there are terrible wars going on and life is so difficult and so uncertain and insecure. What could we do? It’s hard to even go out to buy a loaf of bread. This type of thing. We’re very fortunate that we live in a situation in which we have freedom to be able to pursue spiritual practices.
Tsongkhapa goes on:
We have, in fact, met with the precious teachings of the Triumphant (Buddhas)
That also is very, very rare. Even if we don’t live in one of these terrible situations, how many people are there, and how many of them have met with the teachings and are interested and open-minded and willing to pursue it? Not very many. Even if they are open and just go and listen to a little bit or read a little bit, how many of them are really serious about it and really willing to put the time and energy which is necessary to make any type of spiritual progress (in other words, to lessen their anger and eventually get rid of their anger)? How many people are really working on that? How many people really know the methods that are effective for being able to do that? That’s amazingly rare. We’re very, very fortunate to be able to have that.
I think you appreciate that the most when you really face a very, very difficult situation. Most people when they face such a difficult situation, such as losing their partner (either they die or divorce) or they lose their job… Or there was just this huge cyclone in Bangladesh — a big wave comes, a tsunami comes, and washes away your house and everything, and your family gets killed. What are you going to do? It’s in these difficult situations in which, when you have studied the Dharma and you’ve made some effort and some progress in actually applying it, that you really appreciate how valuable the Dharma is. That it really, really works — it really helps — in the most difficult situations. It may not liberate us now from having to experience these ups and downs of samsara that we all face, because we haven’t reached liberation yet. But, nevertheless, it takes out the bumps and makes it much, much easier to deal with the difficulties in life.
This is fantastic and something really, really to appreciate, especially when we think “poor me,” and so on. This is what reaffirms our refuge — safe direction — that hey, we actually do have something to turn to that works. It’s not just some external force that we pray to — “Protect us!” — and we get protected, but it’s a method, a change of attitude, a change of way of dealing with things. You find that the deeper it becomes in you, the more just sort of automatically you don’t get upset at the difficulties that happen in life. You’re more tranquil in dealing with it. It’s not that you have to actually any longer remind yourself of “Well, it’s samsara. What do I expect?” and about previous karma and all this sort of thing. You don’t even have to consciously apply that. It becomes so well integrated that just automatically you feel tranquil; you’re not upset. You don’t have what’s known as the eight — well, it’s usually translated as the eight worldly Dharmas, but it’s referring to overreacting to the eight transitory things in life:
- praise or being criticized
- things going well, things not going well
- good news, bad news
- gaining a lot of things or losing things.
These are transitory things — they go up and down. Sometimes we’re praised, sometimes we’re criticized; sometimes things go well, sometimes things don’t go well; sometimes you hear good news and people speak nicely to you, sometimes you hear terrible news; sometimes you gain things, sometimes you lose things. So what? That is the nature of samsara, and you’re not thrown by that at all; you’re just steady throughout the whole thing. That’s due to the Dharma, to having internalized — meditated — really, really digested these teachings, so that automatically you’re not thrown. Then you really appreciate the Dharma teachings. They’re fantastic. Utterly fantastic. It might not be 100% smooth, but so much smoother than it would have been had this happened earlier in life, before having really worked on yourself with the Dharma.
Tsongkhapa says how fantastic this is. He says:
We have, in fact, met the precious teachings of the Triumphant (Buddhas) and have, in fact, been cared for by superb spiritual masters.
That also is very, very rare, to actually have spiritual teachers who are authentic and who are not charlatans, not trying to abuse the audience or take advantage of it for a power trip or whatever. There are people like His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Go listen to [his] teachings: he’s not on any ego trip, just genuinely, sincerely helping and showing the way on all different levels for all different people. We are cared for by superb spiritual masters. That’s very important. If the only ones that were available… I mean, either there are no spiritual teachers available, or the only ones available are really not qualified or really just putting on an act of being a guru but aren’t really teachers at all. Then we’re in trouble — we’re in big trouble — especially if we’re beginners. Then you get fooled, and when you find out that you’ve been fooled then you can easily get very discouraged and give up. We’re very fortunate to have this. He’s referring to his friend.
He says:
With such an opportunity and when we do have the power of mind to discern what is to be adopted and rejected, we must strive definitely to take advantage of such an excellent working basis.
This is another quality that we have that is remarkable; we have the power of mind to discern — to discern, to recognize, to make a distinction — between what’s to be adopted and what’s to be rejected. That is a very important quality to have when studying the Dharma, that we retain our good sense of judgment. What is correct? What is incorrect? What is something that we would want to follow and adopt? What is something that we would reject? We have a critical attitude so that we understand. If we start to question things and so on, to question things not out of hostility, not out of arrogance — “Oh I’m so smart, and the teacher is stupid and making a mistake” — but to really question and try to understand, go deeper and deeper. That’s based on this ability to discern what’s correct and what’s incorrect, what’s to be adopted and what’s to be rejected. When we have all these qualities, Tsongkhapa says, we must strive definitely to take advantage of such an excellent working basis.
This, of course, depends solely on our engaging ourselves with the Buddhas’ teachings.
Engaging ourselves with the Buddha’s teachings; in other words, you have to actually… This word engaging is a difficult word; I don’t know how to exactly translate it. Engage is also the word to enter, to involve ourselves. It’s the same word in the title of Shantideva’s text Bodhicharyavatara; it’s this word avatara in Sanskrit. Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior is the title of his text, or involving ourselves with bodhisattva behavior, or entering into bodhisattva behavior. Avatara, if you put that in the Hindi form, that’s avatar, and avatar is like an incarnation in which… Vishnu avatar; he enters into a manifestation as Krishna, for example. That’s an avatar. In a sense, what we want to be is an avatar of a bodhisattva, in terms of bodhisattva behavior. That’s another connotation of engaging in bodhisattva, is to become an avatar — and there you are, doing bodhisattva behavior. This is the term that Tsongkhapa uses here for the Buddhas’ teachings. We want to enter into it, involve ourselves with it, engage in it. In a sense, become an avatar of the Buddhas’ teachings. Not an easy word to translate; it has a lot of meaning in it.
There’s an interesting text that we can bring in here by a great Sakya master of the 12th century, Sonam-tsemo, and it’s called The Gateway to the Dharma. He speaks about how we engage ourselves, how we enter the teachings — what the gateway is for entering the teachings. He says three different things (which are very true, I must say):
- The first is to recognize and acknowledge suffering in our lives. In order to turn to the Dharma, basically what are we motivated by? There’s something unsatisfactory in our lives. There’s something wrong. There’s some problem that we’re having, and we don’t know how to handle it, and the methods that we have available to us are not enough. It’s very important to acknowledge and recognize the sufferings that we have in our own personal lives.
- Then the second is a sincere wish to get out of it and not to just shut up and make the best of it. That’s very important. If you don’t want to get out of the suffering that you have, why would you turn to the Dharma methods? You wouldn’t.
- Then the third is some actual knowledge and understanding of the Dharma and how it leads us out of suffering. In other words, you have to have interest in the Dharma as a method that could help us — and interest is based on having at least a little bit of knowledge and understanding of it — otherwise why would you turn to that? You have to have something that — some idea that this could be helpful. It could be based on seeing other people that it’s been helpful for, or it could be based on reading something, or whatever — that “Ah, maybe this will be the solution. This will help.” You take interest in the Dharma.
This, I think, is very, very basic, and Sonam-tsemo points that out; that would be the gateway for getting into the teachings. Have you found that to be true in your own experience? Why did you look to the Dharma in the first place? I mean, it could be curiosity, it could be a fad — to be cool, etc. Our friends were doing it; we want to be accepted, so we go along with our friends. This type of thing. But that’s not really what will cause us to sincerely engage in the teachings, to really enter into it, involve ourselves. What really gets us to involve ourselves is that I acknowledge “Boy, do I have problems and difficulty! I really want to get out of it. I think that this is going to be helpful because from the little that I have seen, it seems interesting; it seems hopeful.” Isn’t that it? Yeah, I think so. I think so. It’s the great Sakya master Sonam-tsemo who wrote in the 12th century.
Tsongkhapa says:
But to have engaged ourselves merely by (having) kind thoughts is not enough.
That, I think, is a very interesting point. Because sometimes… This is what I refer to often as Dharma-Lite. That if we use Dharma-Lite, basically be a nice person and have kind thoughts, and like that — be helpful to others, and so on. These are very, very helpful. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that is not enough, Tsongkhapa says, to really involve yourself with the Dharma. You don’t need… Buddhadharma isn’t the exclusive system to teach us to be a nice person and to be kind and helpful. Many other — all religions basically teach us that. You don’t even have to turn to religion. Humanistic philosophy teaches us that.
Tsongkhapa says:
Either we ourselves must know, without any disorder, the (proper) stages for engaging ourselves with the teachings or we must definitely rely for guidance on someone who does know them.
Here Tsongkhapa starts to get into a discussion of his first point of what we need to do to really, sincerely engage ourselves in the teachings, to really, sincerely involve ourselves so that we actualize them. He says we have to know, without any disorder, the stages for doing that. In other words, how to do it in a realistic way, step by step, so that we build a stable and firm foundation. If we don’t know that, we definitely have to rely for guidance on someone who does know that.
First, we have to consider “Do I really know how to follow a spiritual path, and what to do first, and second, and third? What needs to be the necessary foundation for really going on to the next step?” and so on. “Or do I have to rely on guidance from someone who does?” I think at present this is a much more difficult situation than it was in the past. The reason for that is that there are so many books available. In the past, although there were books available, they weren’t readily printed — you couldn’t get copies of them very easily — plus they were written in classical language. People who... First of all, most Tibetans were illiterate; they couldn’t even read. Even if they could read, the classical language is not like the spoken language, so they couldn’t understand what was in the texts. Same thing with Sanskrit, same thing with Pali in the Theravadan tradition, same thing with classical Chinese in the Chinese sutras. Who can read them? If you didn’t know yourself, you had to rely on somebody, and somebody — if you were fortunate enough to find a teacher who would personally guide you — would lead you step by step in a way in which one insight builds on another insight.
But now everything is available and it’s available in clear, relatively easy language, not in a classical language. We are overwhelmed with material. Also, what’s available is the most advanced type of material as well. Not knowing anything about Buddhism, you can walk into the bookstore at the bus station and buy a book on the highest class of tantra practice — this is absurd, if you think about it — knowing nothing about Buddhism. Then naturally we would get very confused. Then you buy some other books, and it’s talking about all sorts of different practices, and we don’t know where to start, what to do. You start surfing on the internet and it’s even worse, in terms of how much is available. The internet… I mean, as bad as it is in publishing a book, that there really is very little control — it’s not like in ancient days where they really controlled what was published — nowadays (knowing myself, having published books) you can find a publisher to publish anything. Just because it’s published as a book doesn’t mean that it is authoritative; all sorts of garbage are published as books. On the internet there’s no control whatsoever. You can put anything up. Not only is there a vast, vast amount of material available on all levels, but there’s no quality control either. The point that Tsongkhapa makes here is really, really essential for nowadays as well. I think it will just become worse and worse. I think that’s the real challenge of the future for Buddhism, is how to help people deal with the mountain of literature that is available and easily available.
Tsongkhapa says:
Either we ourselves must know, without any disorder, the (proper) stages for engaging ourselves with the teachings or we must definitely rely for guidance on someone who does know them.
The image that is often used is a navigator to help us navigate through the ocean, the dangerous ocean of all the information and teachings that are available.
Moreover (not any teacher will do). He or she must be learned in the essential nature of the pathway minds,
There are three things that he says, and then he’s going to discuss these three things in more detail.
Must be learned in the essential nature of the pathway minds. In other words, what are they? Pathway minds, that’s usually translated as path. But it’s not talking about something you walk on; it’s talking about an understanding, a level of mind, or an attitude — or something like that — that will act as a pathway to bring us to liberation and enlightenment. He has to know the essential nature of them. The essential nature is what they are; it’s a technical term.
learned in the definite count (of their details),
That’s the second thing. All the parts and all the details of them.
and learned in (the graded order and how to accord them with the disciples’) levels of understanding.
He has to know what comes first, second, third and how to apply them to each disciple’s level of understanding. Which level of teaching applies to this level of spiritual, emotional, and intellectual level of the student. Mind you, to find a teacher who has not only the skill to be able to do all of this but also the time to do this is unbelievably rare. Unbelievably rare. That’s why when one looks at the qualifications of a disciple, these are things to be taken very seriously. That if we would like a teacher to really take us seriously and give us time, we have to be serious. If we’re not serious, why would a teacher bother to spend all the time trying to help us and lead us along the spiritual path? It means a big commitment — commitment of time, energy — it has to be our top priority. If not, then it’s going to be very difficult to find somebody qualified that personally is going to lead our spiritual development. Then, again, we have to evaluate ourselves.
Tsongkhapa says earlier on, “Well, look how fortunate we are. We have all these opportunities. We’re not suffering the worst type of things, and we have some intelligence, and the teachings are available, and there are teachers who are available.” May not be able to be personally led by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, but there are others. But you have to make an effort. You have to make an effort. Unfortunately, things don’t come cheaply; you can’t get a bargain. Look at the great masters of the past, the difficulties that they went through and the sacrifices they were willing to make in order to really get teachings. Walking to India. Walking from China through the deserts all the way to India to get the teachings. Even nowadays going to India and living there for a long time, getting the money to be able to live there and the visas to live there, and all the hassles that you have to go through, it’s still a hardship. It’s easier now than it was even 40 years ago when I went, but it’s still difficult. You have to be willing to do that if there aren’t teachers available where you are; if you really want spiritual development, somehow you get the money together and somehow you go. That’s the tradition. That’s the tradition. To have a teacher take us seriously, we have to take the teacher and the teachings seriously. That’s my point.
Tsongkhapa says these three things: that the teacher — not any teacher will do — has to be learned in the essential nature of the pathway minds, learned in the definite count of their details, and learned in the graded order and how to accord them with the disciples’ levels of understanding. Now he explains the first one:
(He must be) like this because if he mistakes what is not a pathway mind for one that is, or one that is for one that is not, then even if we were to actualize such (mistaken) pathway minds as he has taught us, they will be of no use. Similar to having been wrongly prescribed some medicine, (in the end) we will have received no benefit and nothing but harm.
The teacher has to know (or we have to know) what actually is a particular pathway mind, a particular state of mind — love, compassion, understanding of voidness, whatever it is. As he said, we have to avoid mistaking something that’s not what we want for something that is.
Let’s say, for instance… The confusing of this, I have seen, has always been a big problem with translations. We get the wrong connotation of the Buddhist word because of the term that’s used for translation, often a term that was chosen by the Christian missionaries in the 19th century when they wrote the dictionaries which were basically written to translate the Bible into Tibetan (and bring in all sorts of Christian concepts which are irrelevant to Buddhism). We read sin for negative force or negative potential, and then you have to purify yourself of sin and avoid sin and then this brings in all sorts of guilt. Even if we actualize that, Tsongkhapa says, that’s something which is not in the teachings and not harmonious with the teachings. But if we think that that is the teachings and then we try to actually bring it into our Dharma practice, then we’re bringing in guilt, we’re bringing in having to purify ourselves of sin. We bring in maybe “I am now going to be compassionate as a martyr because I was bad and I have to punish myself by giving the victory to others, taking the defeat on myself,” as it says in the lojong (or attitude training) teachings. Even if we were to actualize it, it would be of no use, Tsongkhapa says, because that’s not the Buddha’s teachings.
Or to take something that is, he says, the teachings and to think that it’s not. That would be, for instance, we look at the teachings on… What shall we say? What’s a good example? A good example that a lot of people have problems with are ethical discipline regarding alcohol and regarding sexual behavior. Buddha’s teachings are very, very clear. Very clear on that. He says with alcohol, “not even one drop.” Why? Because you lose your sense of judgment and you lose self-control, and therefore you don’t refrain from negative behavior. To say “Well, I can control it and I can set the limit,” and so on — Who are you fooling? It’s very clear there. That would be… If we say “Well, that’s not really the Buddha’s teachings. The Buddha’s teaching was ‘Don’t get drunk and lose control.’” That’s this example of not really knowing the essential nature of the path.
Or, regarding sexual behavior: Buddhism is teaching a path to liberation. Liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth with a samsaric body, liberation from the disturbing emotions — desire, greed, attachment, anger, naivety. Sexual behavior in any form is based on desire, longing desire. Therefore, if you want to gain liberation from samsara and rebirth, you have to gain liberation from biology and biological forces, which means that you have to get liberated from sexuality as well. Because it’s based on desire. Whether you like it or not, that is the Buddha’s teaching. Buddha doesn’t say everybody has to do that immediately. You recognize that sexual behavior is based on longing desire. It will increase my longing desire, regardless of how much I might say that it’s expressing love and care for the other person. That’s beside the point. Still, there’s desire there; it’s part of the act. I acknowledge that. Then the various levels of discipline and vows concerning sexuality are basically setting limits: Am I going to act out every impulse of desire that comes to my mind? Or am I going to exercise some self-control — that certain impulses, at certain times, and with certain people I will not act out? Like that, there are stages in which eventually one aims for liberation. I mean, that’s the aim — become an arhat, become a Buddha. To say, “Well, that’s not the Buddha’s teachings. Buddha’s teaching is simply don’t hurt anybody with your sexual behavior. Be loving.” That’s very nice, but that’s not going to bring you liberation from biology, from desire.
This is what Tsongkhapa is saying, that with the teachings you don’t pick and choose and say “Well, this one I like. This one I don’t like, so let’s have a lighter version of that.” A lighter version may be what we can practice now but be aware of what the real thing is.
Participant: Same thing with the tsog puja. [continues in German]
Dr. Berzin: Right. She’s talking about the tsog (tshogs) offering in tantra pujas, tantra rituals, in which you offer — tsog is an assembly, so an assembly of people — you offer transformed alcohol and meat, which represent transforming (in some tantra systems) the five aggregates — the body, mind, emotions, and so on — and the five elements of the body. They’re represented by alcohol and meat. These are transformed and purified, saying that you’re going to use the body and its elements, working with the energies to achieve enlightenment. Or in the Kalachakra system they stand for the ten energy-winds of the body. It’s a transformation. This is the tsog offering of alcohol and meat. She’s saying: Wasn’t this taken from Christianity?
I don’t know. Certainly sounds very similar to the Mass. Whether the Christians got it from the Buddhists, the Buddhists got it from the Christians — I think that would be very difficult to prove one way or another. I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s something similar to that in Hinduism. What the origin of this was, I don’t really know.
I once did a paper when I was in university on Chinese alchemy — I was in Chinese Studies primarily at university — in which they had the use of cinnabar. Cinnabar is a red compound, a mercury compound, and they use this in alchemy as a transformational type of thing in order to bring longevity (which is always the aim in Daoist thought in China).
Participant: Daoism?
Dr. Berzin: Daoism. Yes. A traditional ancient form of Chinese philosophy.
The research that I did lead to the conclusion that this came from a tradition in which it was basically a transformation of blood, and that it symbolized blood, and coming from a blood sacrifice — that that would bring long life. Then this blood was somehow transformed into this red mercury compound, and this was used [instead].
There are a lot of these transformational ceremonies and rituals in many cultures in which… Like in Christianity, the flesh and blood is transformed, and you partake of that. That sounds very much like coming from a sacrificial type of tradition. Now I must say I don’t know enough about ancient Judaism at the time of the old temple. Do you have any idea? Because they were into sacrifice; they sacrificed lambs and goats. What that was all about I don’t know, and whether that came into Christianity from that tradition? The transformation of the blood and flesh into wine and the wafer, and blood and flesh is reminiscent of the liquids and solids of the body which are transformed in the tsog tradition. I don’t know, but I would imagine that all of this comes out of a much more ancient tradition of sacrifice.
Somehow one wants to tame, in a way — sort of sanitize these old customs and transform them in a way that they don’t involve the sacrifice. Like, for instance, the Tibetans do for the New Year. They obviously in ancient days sacrificed a goat for good fortune. Now they make — out of tsampa, this is barley grain and water — they make a little figurine of a goat head. It’s obvious that this is coming out of some sort of sacrificial custom.
That becomes interesting in terms of what we were just talking about. Is this really a pathway mind that leads to enlightenment, to have a tsog offering of a drop of alcohol and meat? Didn’t Buddha say that you’re not supposed to drink even a drop of alcohol? (What I was just talking about.) Well, can you transform it? Then you say, “Well, if you can transform one drop of alcohol, can you transform a whole bottle of vodka?” If you apply pure logic: if it’s possible to purify one drop, it’s possible to purify a whole bottle. This doesn’t make any sense. This doesn’t make any sense. One has to really question. Tsongkhapa said, didn’t he — he said just a little bit earlier — we have the power of mind to discern what is to be adopted and what is to be rejected. One has to look deeper and deeper, then, into this tsog offering and what does it actually represent. If it represents a purification practice, then one has to look a little bit more deeply at why you want a purification practice.
Now think of the monastic situation. That was the main context of serious Buddhist practice — it always has been — the monasteries and the nunneries. If you’re really, really practicing the sutra methods, what do you develop? The body is dirty, and it’s filled with all sorts of waste, and it’s a skeleton covered over with muscles and blood and pretty skin over it, and all these sorts of things. The sexual partner is also just a bag of blood and excrement and stuff like that. It would be quite natural to develop quite a negative attitude toward your body, quite a negative attitude toward other people’s bodies. That can become an obstacle. By making this transformation, you develop a little bit more positive attitude toward your body. Because if you are going to practice yoga involving the body and the body’s energies in order to reach a level of mind — through manipulating the energies — that will be the most conducive for understanding voidness, you have to have a positive attitude toward your body. First you get rid of the desire and then you get rid of the aversion.
In a sense, the transformation of alcohol and meat — it’s the same thing. In the beginning you have not even a drop of alcohol. Although most Buddhists are not necessarily vegetarian but there can be quite an aversion to meat if one takes the teachings very seriously. Now this doesn’t mean that now you are going to indulge yourself in alcohol and hamburgers all the time, or beer and hamburgers all the time. Not like that at all. But at least symbolically work on that aversion. After all, you want to get rid of the disturbing emotions. Aversion is as disturbing as longing desire. Longing desire happens to be a bit stronger because it’s more magnetic, in a sense. But then you have to work on the aversion.
The teachings are definitely not saying to transform a whole bottle of vodka and then drink it, although there are some people who mistakenly interpret it that way. This is a good example of taking something which is not a pathway mind and taking it to be a pathway mind.
This is Tsongkhapa’s point here, the first point of what the teacher must know. He must be learned in the essential nature of the pathway minds. In other words — let me repeat — he must be like this. He must know what actually is the pathway mind that we want to develop. What is the understanding that we want to develop. He must be like this because if he mistakes what is not a pathway mind for one that is, or one that is for one that is not, then even if we were to actualize such mistaken pathway minds as he has taught us (like to be able to drink a whole bottle of vodka at a tsog), they would be of no use. Similar to having been wrongly prescribed some medicine, in the end we will have received no benefit and nothing but harm.
Let’s take a few moments to just reflect on what we have covered so far, and we’ll continue next week.
We end with a dedication. We think whatever positive force and understanding has been built up by this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.