Summary of Previous Sessions
We have been going through this letter that Tsongkhapa wrote to his disciple and friend Konchog-tsultrim. In this letter Tsongkhapa has spoken about how it’s necessary to become fully involved with the Dharma in order to be able to practice it; and in order to become fully involved, we really need to rely on a teacher. The teacher needs to be qualified, and — without going into the long list of the qualifications of a spiritual teacher — Tsongkhapa emphasizes that the teacher needs to know basically three main things:
- The essential nature of the various pathway minds that we need to develop. The teacher is instructing us to develop what is the actual pathway mind that will lead us to the goal of liberation or enlightenment and not teach something which is inappropriate.
- Has to know the definite count of all the details of the various pathway minds. In other words, all the steps that are needed for developing them without adding any and without leaving any out.
- The teacher also knows how to apply these teachings to each disciple individually, so that the disciple will develop them in a way which is appropriate to his or her disposition, level of understanding, level of maturity, and so forth.
Also, what Tsongkhapa said is that the teacher needs to have gained certainty about this from studying with his own teachers, going back with an appropriate and proper lineage, and also studying it in such a way that it is based on the actual great texts. In other words, the teacher himself or herself needs to have been led through these stages by their own teacher according to the texts and teach according to the texts. The teacher needs to realize, and we need to realize of course, that the various personal instructions are based on the great texts, and we shouldn’t think that there’s a difference between Dharma for study and Dharma for practice. That is what has been covered so far, that all the personal guidelines are based on the great texts.
There is something that I mentioned last time that afterwards somebody asked a question about, which indicated that I needed to clarify what I said. this was in terms of a story that I was relating about myself — that we need to be willing to practice whatever our teacher suggests or tells us to do; and how when I took initiations at the beginning, that we didn’t know, and I didn’t know, and nobody knew really what any of the recitation commitments that we had meant, but it was very good for overcoming arrogance to just do them, and eventually we got explanations. Somebody wanted some clarification about that.
There are two different types of situations. One is when you receive or take an empowerment (or initiation) and there are practice commitments from that. Now this is what I was referring to. That when we go to an empowerment or initiation… Empowerment and initiation, it’s the same. I prefer the word empowerment — it’s a little bit closer to the actual meaning — rather than initiation. But in any case, when we go to one, if we really want to receive that empowerment, it is totally on the basis of first having a deep commitment to not only Buddhism, not only to the Mahayana path, but to tantra, based on having some understanding of what tantra is all about. We have conviction that this is a worthwhile path and a path of practice that I really want to follow. Then on that basis, and on the basis of taking the vows which are involved with the empowerment — either the bodhisattva vows, or if it’s two highest classes of tantra (yoga and Anuttarayoga tantra), the tantric vows in addition — so on the basis of taking them, with the full intention of trying to keep them for not only this lifetime, but all lifetimes until enlightenment, then there’s also the practice commitment.
Now in terms of the tantra vows, like the monk and nuns’ vows, the actual traditional way of taking them is that you’re not even supposed to know what they are beforehand, but you have such a strong motivation that you’re willing to take whatever they are. Say in the case of tantra, because your compassion and bodhichitta is so strong that I’m willing to do anything in order to be able to reach enlightenment as quickly as possible. By relying on tantra (so we have confidence in that) and by relying on this particular spiritual teacher whom also we have checked out very, very well and have complete confidence in — that this teacher is qualified, and qualified not only in general, but there is a connection that I have with this teacher so that I can be inspired and led by this teacher in a full way — then in addition, in the empowerments which are given, there is a practice commitment.
Now sometimes when these empowerments are given in the West, the teacher realizes that nobody’s going to keep the practice commitment anyway, and so they give a very minimal commitment, if anything at all. But traditionally there’s quite a large practice commitment. The only reason for taking the empowerment is because you want to do the practice. There is no other reason for receiving it. If you want to do the practice, here’s the commitment of what you are promising to do every single day for the rest of your life.
Participant: Or you can take empowerments for blessings.
Dr. Berzin: Right. You can take empowerments for blessings. This is the alternative. I was getting to that.
If we’re taking the empowerment with the full intention to actually do it, keep the commitments and do the practice, because we have confidence in it, then this is the case that I was talking about — that we do it whether we understand the practice or not. It would be arrogance not to do it, on the basis of saying, “Well, I don’t understand what I’m doing.” This was the situation that I was in when I then did all these practices in Tibetan without understanding the Tibetan text yet, of what it was. It took quite a while before I had the language skills to be able to actually receive a discourse and understand a discourse on what it actually meant and be able to translate the text. This is what I was referring to.
Now if we do not have the intention to actually do a daily practice, whatever the commitment might be... In the actual traditional way, you’re not even supposed to know what the practice commitment is beforehand, but you’re willing to do whatever the teacher says, whatever the commitment might be; it’s not a matter of bargaining. But if we’re not prepared to do that, then we can go to the empowerment as — what in the West is referred to as a blessing. Which is basically not receiving the empowerment but going for inspiration. It is very inspiring to go, and we can participate in some way or another. In my Kalachakra book, Taking the Kalachakra Empowerment — I think I call it Taking the Kalachakra Initiation, because more people are familiar with the word initiation — I explained what people could do if they’re taking it just for the inspiration, at each of the steps. This is fine. This is no problem.
This situation is quite different — in terms of tantra — is quite different from another situation, which is a newcomer comes along into a Buddhist teaching or a Buddhist center, or meets a Buddhist teacher, and the teacher tells them — from the very, very beginning — do a hundred thousand of this or a hundred thousand of that. The student has no idea of what Buddhism is, or certainly doesn’t have any sort of confidence in the Buddhist method based on some knowledge of the Buddhist method — hasn’t really examined it. In that situation, to just follow what the teacher says without understanding anything — that, I think, is not so healthy. Then it’s just taking orders, hoping for some miracle cure. That’s not based on understanding of Buddhism and confidence in it — and understanding of anything.
There’s a big difference between... To say, “Well, I’m not going to commit myself to anything before I get some understanding.” That’s not an example of arrogance; that’s an example of common sense. Whereas when we do have confidence in the teachings, and we do have confidence in tantra, and there is a commitment and we take the commitment, then you do it whether you understand it or not. To say, “I’m not going to do it until you explain it to me” — as if “I’m so important” — that’s arrogance.
That was the difference that I was talking about. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear last time. Is that clearer now? Okay.
Now let’s go on with the text.
The Motivating Mental Framework
Tsongkhapa now is ready to discuss the actual practice, and so he begins:
This being so (how should we begin our practice? As Nagarjuna) has said in his Letter to a Friend (verse 117), “What need to counsel (you) more, Fearless One? The (most) important advice that’s of benefit is this: Tame your mind! The Vanquishing Master has proclaimed, ‘Mind is the root of (all preventive measures) of Dharma.’”
Also, as (Aryadeva) has said in his Four Hundred Verse Treatise (chapter 5, verse 4), “Because you cannot see (any action), such as going and so forth, (becoming) positive and so on except through the thought (that motivates it), therefore the mind is established as crucial for all karma.”
Then Tsongkhapa explains this:
Thus, as these highly realized aryas, father and spiritual son, have said, the root of everything excellent and faulty is but the mind. This is because it is definite that the channels for acting with fault or engaging in what is excellent are in fact (only) three and (of these) the body and speech are under the control of the mind.
This is a very basic point in Buddhism, that the main emphasis on what we need to train is our mind and work on our attitudes. Because as he says, nothing really in terms of our actions becomes positive or negative except on the basis of motivation. In other words, if we are helping somebody, the action of helping in general is positive, but what really affects it very much is motivation. For instance, we can help somebody with the motivation to get them to like us, or to give us something in return, or to trick them into trusting us so that then we can stab them in the back, or something like that. This is obviously negative. Whereas if we help them truly in order for them to be happy, then that’s positive. Although in general you could say helping somebody is positive, actually what makes it positive or destructive is the motivation.
We need to actually tame our mind. This is why the practices in Buddhism are all focused primarily on the attitude. Even prostration. Well, we could do prostration; that’s very good. But again, motivation is very, very important: We could just do it as a physical exercise to lose weight, or we could do it as a way to purify our mental continuums of negative force. This is in contradistinction to the practices of, for instance, bathing in the Ganges River as a way to purify ourselves, or standing on one foot for several years as a way to purify ourselves; it was in response to this that Buddha put the emphasis on the mind.
Now it is true that Tibetan Buddhism — probably following the Indian tradition — doesn’t do very much training for the body. As opposed to, let’s say, the many forms of Chinese Buddhism. Not all forms of Chinese Buddhism, but some forms of Chinese Buddhism combine Buddhist practice with Taiji or these sorts of things, which are taking care of training the body to be fit. That’s primarily in terms of working with energy systems.
Now in the highest class of tantra, there are various exercises that are done to, in a sense, grease the channels of the subtle energy-system, in order to get the energies to flow in a more harmonious way that will be conducive for bringing them into the central channel to get to the subtlest level of mind, which is the most conducive for understanding voidness non-conceptually. But there isn’t that much emphasis on it, I must say. That’s quite different from the forms of Chinese Buddhism and then, correspondingly, Japanese, and Korean and Vietnamese — I’m not so sure about Vietnamese, but anyway — these other systems that do put Taiji and other things together with the Buddhist mental training. Some people say that in the Buddhist training, just putting the emphasis so strongly on mind, particularly in the Tibetan tradition, that this is quite unbalanced, and we don’t have such a healthy body in the end. This one can see from some of the very overweight great masters who can hardly walk or stand because they’ve spent the whole lives sitting — pretty much most of their life sitting cross-legged, and so their legs, in a sense, almost degenerate.
Well, it’s hard to say as Westerners what type of balance we’re going to have in our training in the future. Certainly, there is the emphasis in the West on physical exercise and the great emphasis on the importance of physical exercise for general health. Health not only for the body but for the mind; that also has been demonstrated medically and scientifically. I could imagine that if one were going to seriously practice Buddhism as a Westerner and follow the Tibetan tradition, that it probably would be advisable to combine it with some sort of physical exercise. But I don’t think it would be fair to say that whatever physical exercise we use is Buddhist and was taught by Buddha. That I don’t think is appropriate. But I certainly don’t think that it is, in a sense, contradictory to do some sort of physical training together with a Buddhist practice so long as our motivation is appropriate.
Then it goes back to what Tsongkhapa says in the text, quoting from Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. If we’re doing the physical exercise to have a body beautiful and be a muscleman or musclewoman, that is not exactly a Buddhist motivation. If we’re doing it just for this lifetime, that also is not quite a Buddhist motivation either. But this body is for this lifetime, so what we’re doing it for would be in order to be able to take best advantage of the precious human rebirth that I have now. I think then it becomes an appropriate, positive motivation. “I have a precious human rebirth. This is rare. It’s not going to last very long; therefore, I need to take care of this body.” That’s one of the tantric vows, in fact — not to abuse one’s aggregates. To abuse one’s aggregates doesn’t mean simply starving ourselves or not taking medicine when we’re sick, but also it can mean having a bad diet and no physical exercise; that also is neglecting the body and, in a sense, abusing our aggregates. I think, within that general area, that it is appropriate to do some sort of physical exercise.
But as Nagarjuna says, the most important advice that’s of benefit is this: tame your mind. If the mind isn’t tamed, then we could be doing all sorts of nice things and have very, very nasty thoughts; that doesn’t help. As Aryadeva said, no action becomes positive or negative except through the thought that motivates it. Now again this is… One could debate this. In terms of killing, for instance. Buddha killed (in a previous lifetime) an oarsman on a ship filled with merchants who was about to kill everybody on the ship. Buddha saw no other way to stop this oarsman than to kill him. Buddha was willing to do this, fully acknowledging that killing was a negative action, and being fully willing to accept whatever consequences of suffering would come from that, in order to save the 499 merchants on the ship from being killed — and also to save this oarsman from committing such a heavy negative act. Did his act of killing become positive by this motivation? You’d have to say no. But the weight of it was very, very, very much decreased. The result of that killing was that Buddha got… in some versions, a headache, in some other versions, a splinter. I think in most versions it’s a splinter in his finger — or his foot, I think it was. Whatever it was. But because the motivation was so strong, the motivation enabled the Buddha to complete the first countless eon (or zillion eons) of positive force to become an Arya.
Participant: Are there two acts there?
Dr. Berzin: There are two acts. Two things have two different results. One is the action; the other is the motivation. The motivation is going to affect the heaviness of the result of the action.
Participant: But isn’t there one act of saving the people and one act of killing?
Dr. Berzin: There’s one act of saving the people and one act of killing. That’s true. That’s true. I hadn’t thought of it that way. That could...
Participant: Because one is the merit. One of the acts is generating merit.
Dr. Berzin: Well, one is the generosity… I mean, if you analyze it, it’s the practice of generosity of protecting lives. Giving protection from… It’s actually called giving fearlessness; in other words, protection from fear of being killed. That is a positive action. You’re right. But the motivation for... I mean, each of those acts though has a motivation. There’s a motivation for saving these people’s lives. “I want to save these people’s lives so that they will pay me as the captain when they get off the ship, because otherwise — they didn’t pay when they got on and I’m going to lose all the money.” That’s one motivation for saving their lives.
Participant: Evil.
Dr. Berzin: Evil. The other motivation could be to prevent them from suffering and losing their precious human lives. Similarly, there’s a motivation for killing the oarsman: hate this person, or you want to help this person as well, preventing this person from building up so much negative force, and also to save the other people.
You’re right; there are two actions here. Very good. Thank you.
Tsongkhapa’s summary of these two quotations is that the actions of our body and speech are under the control of the mind. That’s very true. It’s not only motivation that affects the actions of body and speech, but also there’s an intention. One intends to do something, and we commit a certain action. The intention might not correspond to the action. Like we intend to drive our car safely and not hit anything, and then a deer runs into the street, all of a sudden, and we kill the deer. That’s without intention to kill the deer, but there was an intention and the action. The intention was to drive the car. These are other cases that have to be analyzed individually.
Participant: I thought a karmic action is only complete if you don’t regret what you do or what you have done.
Dr. Berzin: Oh, so you’re saying that… He thinks that karmic actions are not complete unless we do not regret…
Participant: Do not regret it. If we think “Okay, that’s just fine, what I have done.”
Dr. Berzin: Right. We need to rejoice. Well, this is referring to the strength of the karmic action. In the strength of the karmic action, if we regret then — if it’s a positive action that we regret, then it weakens the force; if it is a negative action that we regret, it increases the force. What you’re referring to actually is in the list… Did I say that incorrectly? I said it incorrectly. If it’s a negative action and you regret it, it weakens the result; whereas if it’s a positive action and you regret it, it also weakens — it weakens the positive result. Yes. Thank you.
Participant: With Buddha in this example, first his motivation for killing was a positive one, because he wanted to save everybody else. Then the act of killing was not so good, probably, but then afterwards he probably... I don’t know if he rejoiced or…
Dr. Berzin: Well, whether Buddha rejoiced or not after killing the oarsman, I don’t recall that being actually mentioned in the account, but I would think… You see, regret… He could regret that the situation arose that he had to kill him. But Buddha wouldn’t regret that he killed him; he was convinced that he did the right thing. It wasn’t as though he would have thought “I wish I didn’t kill him. I wish somebody else would have killed him.” You would wish that the situation didn’t arise. That’s what you would wish. “I’m not happy that the situation arose.”
Participant: The karmic act in its parts is already…
Dr. Berzin: The karmic action is complete. Now where regret is mentioned as a factor is in breaking the bodhisattva vows — the root bodhisattva vows and the root tantric vows. There, for the breaking of the vow to be complete, you have to… Let me make sure… You have to not regret… Yes, you have to not regret what you did. You rejoice in what you did. You’re happy that you broke the vow. You don’t care. The difficulty with all these things is everything is expressed in several negatives, and so it’s always a little bit confusing.
Participant: Isn’t it more that he’s referring to the rejoicing as a completing factor for the karmic action?
Participant: For a fully ripening karmic result, there are four points. When you do an action, you need to have four points.
Dr. Berzin: Well, for the actions to be complete, you have to have the basis, then you have to have the motivational framework (the framework of mind for the motivation), the action has to be done, and it has to reach its completion. In this case, the person has to die that you kill. If they don’t die, the action of killing is not complete.
Participant: You don’t have to rejoice?
Dr. Berzin: Rejoicing is not there.
Participant: Not regretting it isn’t the same, no?
Dr. Berzin: Not regretting is rejoicing, but that’s not there. That’s not in that list of the four that are complete. The only place that regretting is mentioned as a factor of affecting the heaviness of the karma is in terms of breaking the bodhisattva and tantric root vows. I haven’t seen it on the list. I don’t recall seeing it on the two lists that I’ve looked at of what affects the heaviness of karma.
Participant: There’s one thing that isn’t clear from the way that…
Dr. Berzin: But there is this thing of frequency of doing it. If you only… I mean, I went fishing, for example, in my life twice that I remember — once in which I actually caught a fish. I was maybe eight years old and went with my uncle. I have never gone fishing again in my life. That one act of fishing and killing a fish is not so heavy compared to somebody who’s a professional fisherman. I was eight years old, you know? It’s fun. You go with your uncle out on a boat, fishing.
Participant: Is it clear that regretting it doesn’t destroy the force of karma completely?
Dr. Berzin: No, regretting does not destroy the force. It just weakens it.
Participant: That was my misunderstanding. I thought it would have been the last step for completing the karmic action.
Dr. Berzin: No, it’s not the last step. It’s not the last step. For it to be really super heavy, in terms of breaking the various vows, you need to not think there’s anything wrong with it, rejoice in it, have no intention of stopping doing it, and then have no sense of moral self-dignity or care how your actions reflect on anybody else. You just don’t care. As I say, I think that one could extend them to any karmic action. Makes sense. But this has to do with the strength of the result.
Anyway, let’s get back to the text. Anything else? So:
Therefore, first of all (before any Dharma practice), it is extremely important for our motivating mental framework to be one which we have (properly) worked ourselves up to and not one that has come from mere words.
That’s very proper. In other words, to just go “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” for your motivation in the beginning of a practice, or the beginning of a class, or the beginning of meditation or initiation, or anything like that, is not at all sufficient. The same thing with, especially, bodhichitta. It’s very easy to recite the verse that is always recited. It’s “Sanggye chodang tsokyi chonamla (sangs-rgyas chos-dang tshog-gi mchog-rnams-la).” “To the supreme Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, until enlightenment I take safe direction. By the positive force of giving and so on. May I reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.” It’s easy to recite that three times and nothing is happening in terms of our mind or our motivation. Or just to say, “I’m doing this to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all,” that also does nothing in most cases.
Tsongkhapa says we have to work ourselves up to it. The word that’s used here is to manufacture or make it. This means going through step by step, starting with equanimity — in terms of bodhichitta — and then the seven-part cause and effect (if that’s the method we’re going to use): Everybody has been my mother, the kindness of mothers, and so on. To work through that until we’ve actually built up and feel the motivation.
Very, very easy to get into the bad habit of ignoring that. Very easy to do that. Especially when there’s a standard verse that you recite and it’s done in chorus, in unison, before a class, so there’s no real building up of motivation. Tsongkhapa makes that quite clear. I think this is really very, very important. The motivating mental framework is one which we have, he says, “properly worked ourselves up to and not one that has come from mere words.”
When we talk about a motivating mental framework, this is… Well, we just mentioned the four things that need to be complete for the karmic force to be the strongest. To be complete doesn’t mean if parts of that are missing, there is no karma built up — there is. No karmic aftermath built up — there is. But this motivating mental framework has three parts to it:
- distinguishing an object
- the motivating aim or intention
- and the motivating emotion
What does that mean? In the case of, for instance, aiming for a better future rebirth — precious human rebirth — distinguishing an object would be to distinguish what we’re aiming for. “I’m aiming for precious human rebirth, one of the better rebirth states.” This is the object that we’re focusing on — precious human rebirth in all my future lives. The motivating aim — the intention — the intention is to achieve that. Then the motivating emotion is that “Because I really, really don’t want to have a worse rebirth state. It’s my dread, having a worse rebirth state.” That’s the motivation in terms of the emotion.
Now this motivating aim, the intention to achieve that, is based on two things: why do I want to achieve that, and how can I achieve it. It also can be based on a deeper level, of the ability to achieve it, or have the ability to achieve it. That becomes very relevant in terms of aiming for liberation and enlightenment. Not only why and how, but also is it possible. Otherwise, why are you aiming to achieve it? Why do I want a precious human rebirth? Because on that basis, I can develop myself spiritually. How would I achieve it? Through avoiding destructive actions and doing positive actions, based on refuge, this safe direction in life.
This is the motivating mental framework. This is what we are building up when we talk about motivation. That’s why this word motivation is a little bit too small. In the West when we think of motivation… I don’t know… What do we think of? It’s pretty much the emotional state, isn’t it? Doing something out of guilt, or doing it out of a sense of duty, or doing it because of love, because of compassion. We just limit it to the emotional state. That’s why I translate it as a motivating mental framework; it’s a whole mental framework — it’s a whole state of mind that has many different parts to it. Do you follow that?
[1] Distinguishing the object. What are we focusing on? Then [2] the intention to achieve it, based on why and how — how to achieve it and how it’s possible to achieve it, why it’s possible to achieve it. Then [3] a motivating emotion. That’s motivation.
“Therefore,” he says. “Therefore, first of all before any Dharma practice, it is extremely important for our motivating mental framework” — I’m referring to here — “to be one which we have properly worked ourselves up to.” We have to work ourselves up to wanting to achieve this. Worked up the emotion so you actually feel something. If you don’t have any emotional force behind it, then that’s what we would call just intellectual motivation, isn’t it? Here it’s quite clear that there are the two aspects to motivation — intellectual based on understanding, and emotional. Two aspects. Both are necessary. One is not sufficient. It’s “one which we have properly worked ourselves up to and not one that has come from mere words.” Okay. Any questions on that?
Then Tsongkhapa says:
Although the stages for working ourselves up (to a proper motivation) have been explained in many (different ways), the most commonly helpful scheme for minds of superior, middling and all (scopes of capacity is as follows).
Okay. This is getting into the levels of what’s called the graded stages of pathway minds. That’s referring to graded stages of motivating mental framework. That’s what the graded stages are.
His Holiness in Milan this last weekend explained something which was quite interesting — that I had never heard before — in terms of how you order the teachings, how you grade the teachings. His Holiness said that there were two ways. One is the teachings arranged according to common or universal or general characteristic of disciples, and one arranged according to individual characteristic. Here His Holiness was using the words, in Tibetan, [phonetics:] chitsen (spyi-mtshan) and rangtsen (rang-mtshan), which are the words that we find in the Sautrantika terminology, which is referring to metaphysical entities, I call it there, and the objective entities. The metaphysical ones are the more general things — categories and so on. The objective ones are individual items. Literally the terms are phenomena with general characteristics and specific individual characteristics.
Anyway, whatever the terminology is. In referring to individual characteristics or teachings for individuals, that’s referring to this type of classification scheme. That’s according to individual levels of motivation: that you have this initial motivation to aim for one of the better human rebirths; middling motivation, which is to aim for liberation; and advanced motivation, which is to aim for enlightenment. Those are individually characterized motivations.
Now the general characterized motivation is according to levels of intelligence. One is according to levels of motivation; the other is according to intelligence. For those of superior intelligence, they would emphasize the understanding side first, and then the more emotional side second. For those of lesser intellectual capacity, the emotional side would be first and then the understanding side.
This was in reference to: Which do you develop first? Deepest bodhichitta (meaning the understanding of voidness) or relative bodhichitta (love and compassion, aiming you to achieve enlightenment for the benefit of all).
Participant: This also His Holiness said?
Dr. Berzin: Yes. This was explained in the teaching. What was new was the terminology for this. Because this specific characterization and general characterization was that, for any level of motivation, you could approach the order in one way for those who are more intellectually gifted or intellectually inclined, and one way for those who are more emotionally inclined. Within that individual category. It would be general for all the categories of motivation.
With bodhichitta, for example, what we have in the lam-rim presentation is the emotional thing first — that you have love and compassion and so on, and based on that, you see that the only way to help others really is to become enlightened. You aim for enlightenment and then you do the practices that will enable you to reach that, within the understanding of deepest bodhichitta (voidness). You have the motivation, and then with the motivation you get the understanding.
Whereas for those with sharper mental faculties, then, first you get the understanding of voidness, which is that basically the obscurations covering the mind, which produce… Well, put it another way round: The disturbing emotions and the confusion and the unawareness, it’s based on certain obscurations of the mind. They don’t exist as the nature of the mind because they’re based on a misunderstanding of how things exist. If you become convinced rationally that there is no basis for this ignorance or unawareness, and there is no basis for the disturbing emotions, and it is possible for them to be removed, so it is possible for a mind to be not only liberated from karma and disturbing emotions and therefore rebirth, but to become omniscient — and not only me, but all beings are equal in that — then on the basis of that understanding, you develop love and compassion for others: That they are suffering because they don’t understand this, and I will help them to overcome that and achieve enlightenment, because I am fully convinced that it is possible not only for me to achieve enlightenment, but for everybody else to achieve enlightenment.
Then His Holiness says that the development of relative bodhichitta, if it’s based on understanding first, is far more stable than if it’s based… Relative bodhichitta is based purely on emotion — of love and compassion, and I want to help so much, and this is what I have got to do. That’s not stable. Or put it this way: it’s not as stable as when it’s based on understanding. Two types of people. In any case, bodhichitta by itself needs to be supplemented with… I mean, that’s why you have two aspects of bodhichitta: relative and deepest. We need the two.
Participant: But could there be things that are more stable if you start from the emotional side?
Dr. Berzin: Could there be things that are more stable when you start with the emotional side? I don’t know. Can you think of an example?
Participant: Maybe the understanding of voidness. Like if you have the ability to see it in your relationships and so on, to be less attached because you are more emotional, or…
Dr. Berzin: The example that you’re giving, in terms of in a relationship: if you had the understanding of voidness, this would make the emotions more stable. How is this an example of it being more stable to have the emotional side first?
Participant: In the sense that the understanding can be more stable, know this is what it’s about…
Dr. Berzin: The understanding will be more stable when there is an emotional... Well, put it this way: the understanding… The two are necessary. They will reinforce each other. When you have just the emotional without the understanding, it could be very, very strong, especially when you have the resolve “I’m never going to give up until I reach enlightenment.” Then I’m actually going…
Bodhichitta has these stages. There’s the aspiring bodhichitta, which is merely aspiring that “I am going to achieve enlightenment because of love and compassion and understanding that it’s necessary in order to be able to help everybody. I take responsibility for everybody.” Equanimity. For everybody. Then the second stage of the aspiration is the promised or the committed stage, in which “I’m never going to give up, no matter what.” Then the actual engaging state, in which “I’m really going to now engage in the practices to reach that goal,” and at that point you take the bodhisattva vows. Now that could be extremely, extremely strong. However, the instability here is that it’s still based a bit on faith — that it is possible to reach enlightenment, and it is possible that everybody else can reach liberation and enlightenment.
Participant: It will be until we reach enlightenment.
Dr. Berzin: Yes. You would continue all the way to enlightenment. It is not saying that one is better than the other — one approach is better than the other — it’s just there are some people who really want to understand something before they can really feel on an emotional level what’s going on, and then there are others that feel first. There are two approaches.
I mean, the terminology of course is those of lesser mental faculties and those of sharp mental faculties. That’s the term. We’re talking about somebody who’s smarter than somebody else? I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case. It’s more in terms of... Well, we know with people’s dispositions — some people really are very emotional, and other people are very rational. It’s just the way that some people are. If you understand how something is possible then it’s a different type of confidence, and His Holiness was just saying that it’s more stable.
Participant: But will faith stay there, or confidence stay there until…
Dr. Berzin: Confidence could stay there basically on the basis of faith alone. It can. But faith can be shaken, whereas rational understanding of something can’t really be shaken.
Participant: I’m not just saying that faith won’t leave until we understand completely. Also in science, you need a lot of faith.
Dr. Berzin: Well, you can have a lot of faith, and you pursue it until you understand it. Well, yes. That’s why after developing relative bodhichitta, then, you work to develop deepest bodhichitta. That’s part of the engaging. I’m going to engage in the practice that’s going to bring me there, to enlightenment, which involves the understanding aspect.
Participant: Would you say that with the story of, I think, Naropa — that he was very learned, but would you say that there he didn’t have the emotion part? Or is that something completely different from this story?
Dr. Berzin: Well, with Naropa… That’s an interesting point. Naropa was the most learned pandit, an abbot of his monastery. I forget whether it was Nalanda or Vikramashila. It was Nalanda? Anyway, whichever monastery it was. He left, basically, and pursued the tantra path. Was it because he was lacking in emotion? I don’t really know. That he felt that he needed the emotional or more devotional side? Was it to overcome arrogance? Was it just seeing that he needed more than the sutra path? I don’t really know. I must say it’s been quite a long time since I read that biography.
Participant: Because of the story with the woman who appears and asks him if he understands the texts. Because he was understanding intellectually, but she said, “No. You actually do not understand.” I thought maybe that would be…
Dr. Berzin: Ah, so now it becomes an interesting question. He brings up the account that a woman appeared to him, a female figure appeared to him, and asked if he understood something, and Naropa replied, and then she said, “Well, you really haven’t understood it.” Does that indicate that he had only an intellectual understanding and not an emotional — that in order to really understand it, he needed to have an emotional understanding? I think this is very different. These terms intellectual and emotional understanding are really Western ways of categorizing understanding. It wouldn’t be the way that traditional Buddhists would characterize it.
You see, we have to be very careful here to not fall into distinguishing Dharma for study and Dharma for practice. Tsongkhapa made a big point in the paragraphs before this to say that they’re not contradictory to each other at all — that all this study is aimed for practice, and all the practice is based on study and understanding. However, in the case of Naropa, there’s a difference between actually understanding something and fully integrating it. You have to fully integrate it into your whole way of being and not just understand it. Understanding is what you get at the end of the second of the three processes of listening to teachings, thinking about it, and then meditating.
Now you can do a lot of meditation, but meditation could be mostly in the category of thinking, to try to understand something and be convinced of it. Debate does all of that. But have you really integrated it to the point where you’ve really changed your mind — I mean changed your attitude. (Tamed your mind — to use the term that Nagarjuna used — that’s something else.) For that, you really need to soften the mind, overcome arrogance. For that, certainly working on the emotional side — the devotional side — helps. Although it may not. It may not. On the emotional side could be stubbornness and fear to open your mind. Those are also emotions, aren’t they? That doesn’t guarantee…
What actually goes on, in terms of... It’s also called the dakini principle. That’s something else. It’s more speaking in terms of opening your heart; melting the energies, as it were. Melting the mental blocks through inner warmth, not just visualizing a fire at your navel. But basically, this inner warmth of being really moved — so how are you really moved — which allows you to open your mind. Not moved in a disturbing way, which would happen, let’s say, when you fall in love with somebody. That’s a very disturbed way and confused and clouded way of being moved. Your energies are moved, but you usually act in a very foolish way. It’s not talking about that. But on the basis of being very clear — as Naropa undoubtedly was, being the most learned pandit — then to open the heart without losing your sensibility is much more what they’re talking about in tantra.
It’s hard to really explain or understand what might have been going on with Naropa and what he actually did experience; that I don’t know. But when you talk about tantra in the Anuttarayoga level of tantra, which is what Naropa was involved with — the so-called six yogas of Naropa, etc. — we’re talking about working with the subtle energy-system. Which means basically we’re talking about working with the mental blocks, the internal blocks of energy, which have to do with of course the mind, as Nagarjuna and Aryadeva said. It’s the mind. It’s not just sitting in a certain posture with a horrible attitude. Okay?
This is excellent, that you bring up questions like this, because that’s exactly what we need to do in what is called analytical meditation or discerning meditation — thinking about it. Here it’s not really formal analytical meditation but it is analyzing, so thinking. In other words, we hear a teaching and then you bring up an example: “Well, how does this apply to Naropa? What was going on there?” We have to investigate these types of things. “How does this go together with what I’ve seen of my teachers? What’s the difference between somebody like this ordinary teacher and His Holiness the Dalai Lama? What’s the difference here?”
His Holiness is certainly the most intelligent being I’ve ever met, and the sharpest and clearest of any being I’ve ever met. But he is so relaxed, and so informal, and warm, and… It’s extraordinary. You can see this anytime that he speaks in public or if you have the ability to — not ability, but the honor to have a personal or private interview. He is up there and within less than a minute he has everybody in the audience loving him, just by his totally human, down-to-earth way of… sitting there and his leg falls asleep, and he puts his leg out and he sort of wiggles his bare foot and scratches, and… It’s just so totally unpretentious and human.
Or there was a microphone at this teaching this last weekend, and you know how there’s this little foam rubber cup at the end of the microphone? While the translator was translating, His Holiness took it off and was sort of looking through it and playing with it, and then putting it back on, and he gave sort of a shrug, looked at the audience… I mean, everybody just totally loved him for being just so human. Yet everything that he was explaining was totally profound.
Here’s somebody whose heart is completely open and not uptight in the slightest about anything. That’s very different from somebody whose heart is overwhelmed with falling in love with somebody. They’re very different.
Tsongkhapa mentions here that “The stages for working ourselves up to a proper motivation have been explained in many different ways. The most commonly helpful scheme for minds of superior, middling, and all scopes of capacity is as follows.” This is what is going to be then for specifics. Anyone — with different levels of intelligence and so on (so that’s the general characteristics) — no matter what your scope or capacity is, these are the stages. Then Tsongkhapa will explain the basic individual characterized stages of the three scopes of motivation that we have in lam-rim that get codified by Atisha in Lamp to the Path to Enlightenment.
Let’s end here for today, and we’ll go into these different levels in more detail starting next time.
Whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.