LPA9: Rational & Emotional Approaches to Bodhichitta

We started our discussion last time, and what I would like to explore a little bit further before we go on is this word here intellectual understanding (go-ba) — what I’m translating as intellectual understanding. I don’t know if that really translates the word properly. 

Intellectual understanding as opposed to a gut-level understanding — at least those are the English terms — are really a Western way of talking about experience, dividing experience. You remember from our whole discussion of voidness, there’s nothing on the side of experience that has lines there, walls there, and on this side, there is this little chunk of experience that is called intellectual understanding, and there’s this one which is called gut-level understanding, as if there were some findable defining characteristics on the side of experience. We all have experience, and experience is not, from its side, divided into boxes, and so it’s a matter of how we label them (and of course the result that we experience on the basis of not the labels but on the basis of the experiences). 

With that as a background, then, what is this word that I’m translating here as intellectual understanding? (Provisionally, I mean. I’m using Western terminology here, Western categories.) It’s the word in Tibetan gowa (go-ba) Now, gowa — go is like in hago-sung [“I understand”], for those of you who know a little bit of Tibetan — it’s the ordinary word for understanding. It’s not the word togpa (rtogs-pa) in Tibetan, which is a stable realization (it’s a type of understanding which is a stable realization). This is not a stable realization when we talk about understanding. It is, in a sense, an ordinary type of understanding of something. This really brings into question: What does it mean to understand something ordinarily? Is there something insufficient about that? 

You see, the reason why I brought this up was I was thinking of something His Holiness was explaining, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is primarily my main source of guidance and insight. He was talking about the two methods for developing bodhichitta. 

Bodhichitta, as you know, is a mind or a heart (because they don’t make that difference in Buddhist terminology) that is aimed at our own future enlightenment, enlightenment which has not yet happened. It’s moved by compassion and love for all beings, equal attitude toward everyone. It has the intention to reach that, to actualize that enlightenment which has not yet happened, but which can happen on the basis of our mental continuum and Buddha-nature, and with the intention to thereby help everybody as much as is possible. That’s bodhichitta, a rather complex state of mind. 

But there are two methods for developing that. Both of them are on the basis of having equanimity, in which we do not have attachment to some people, repulsion from others, and indifference to yet others. We have equal openness to everybody. By everybody we mean absolutely everybody, all beings presently in all rebirth states and life forms throughout the universe now, this whole lot of beings. OK? Equal to everybody. Which is an unbelievable accomplishment, that you can not only be open to everybody and conceive of everybody — which is why it’s Mahayana, a vast mind — you can conceive of everybody is unbelievable, but not to be attached to some, repulsed from some, and indifferent to others, that’s incredible. 

But, in any case, on that basis there are two ways. One is recognizing everybody has been your mother in previous lifetimes, and remembering motherly love and appreciating it, wanting to repay it, developing heartwarming love — like seeing your only child when you see somebody, you’re just overjoyed to see this bug or whatever — and then love (the wish for them to be happy and have the causes for happiness), compassion (free from suffering and the causes for suffering), taking some responsibility to help them out of that, and then the exceptional resolve — not just some responsibility to help them on an ordinary level, but to bring them all the way to enlightenment — and then seeing “The only way I can do that is to become a Buddha myself,” so bodhichitta. That’s one train of thought to build up to this bodhichitta. 

The other train of thought is in terms of equalizing and exchanging self with others, that we are all equal (everybody wants to be happy, nobody wants to be unhappy), then we think of the disadvantages of being selfish and thinking only of ourselves, the advantages of being concerned with others, cherishing others, then exchanging our points of view, our attitudes — rather than being concerned just about ourselves, to be concerned about everybody as we had been concerned about ourselves (so with that intensity but without that attachment, obviously) — and then love, compassion, etc. (the same thing). 

Now, if you analyze what is the difference, the basic difference, between these two methods, the difference is that the first method (the one regarding motherly love) is a method which is oriented towards an emotional approach and the other method (equalizing and exchanging self with others) is a rational approach. Now, there are two types of people. More than two types of people obviously, but if we think in terms of dispositions of different beings… Disposition (khams). It’s an interesting word. In Tibetan it’s the same word as element. The elements in the body are slightly different, whether we’re talking about DNA or whatever. But some people, their disposition, from a certain balance of the elements, is to be more emotional; others are to be more rational. 

If you’re a more emotional type, then what would appeal to you and be easier is to think of “Aw, everybody’s been my mother. How kind! How wonderful! I really appreciate that so much. It’s so wonderful to see everybody, and I really want to help everybody.” That’s very emotional. The other one is very rational: “Everybody is equal. Everybody’s the same. Nobody wants to be unhappy. Everybody wants to be happy. If I’m selfish then this disadvantage, that disadvantage, nobody will like me, things go wrong. I’m going to do destructive things in order to get my own way, etc., etc., that’s going to cause suffering. If I help others, everybody will like me and I’ll do constructive things and that will bring happiness, etc., etc.” It’s very rational, very rational. For those who are more rationally oriented, that would be appealing. 

Now, it’s interesting: His Holiness says that the more rational approach is more stable. Now, I don’t know if His Holiness is speaking in general or speaking in terms of something else. I don’t know. But there seem to be dangers in both ways. If it’s too rational, this is what we would call intellectual understanding: “Just an intellectual understanding.” If it is too emotional, then sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t. I think that was what His Holiness was referring to when he was saying that’s not so stable. The emotional side could be more bringing on the disturbing emotion of attachment. But then again, the rational side could bring about a feeling of arrogance: “I’m so wonderful: I figured it out.” But I don’t think there’s so much of a danger when we’re talking about compassion, in terms of arrogance coming in. That brings in the whole question of what we really mean by intellectual understanding versus a gut-level understanding. Are we just talking about the difference between an emotional and an intellectual understanding, or what? 

Participant: Isn’t it the case that the rational (so-called rational) way can also be quite emotional, since we start seeing the suffering of others while doing the practice? It appears to me really a good mixture of emotional and rational.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She’s saying: If we follow the rational approach and we’re thinking in terms of the suffering of others, then isn’t there some emotion behind it? It becomes a bit of a mixture. 

I think our problem here is that it’s very difficult to define emotional and rational. Well, rational you can say is based on reason, so that’s a little bit easier, but intellectual… It’s very difficult to come up with a very precise definition, let alone to recognize it within ourselves. 

Now, if you look at Shantideva, in his discussion in Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, he says that the hand helps the foot. He said we all form one body of life, and just as the hand helps the foot without wanting a “thank you” or anything like that, the hand helps the foot just simply because they’re part of the whole thing. Naturally the hand helps the foot. Now, using that example, would the hand feel a strong emotion of compassion in order to help the foot? What would be the motivating thought for the hand to help the foot? 

Because I’ve been analyzing, for instance, with my own personal experience. My own experience is that I am a very, very rational person as my disposition. If I look at the enormous amount of work that I’m doing — perhaps I’m obsessive about it — but the enormous amount of work that I do on my website, then if I ask myself, “What is the motivation for that?” If I analyze “Do I feel emotional compassion? Oh, the poor suffering people in Siberia, they really need this material in Russian. My heart goes out to them,” and so on. No. That’s not my experience. My experience is more in terms of the hand helping the foot because you have to help the foot, because there’s something that has to be done and therefore you do it, because it is beneficial. It’s an understanding of it being beneficial and understanding that it has to be done in order to benefit others. Taking responsibility: If I don’t do it, who’s going to do it? That’s my experience.

Participant: You say that it’s some kind of feeling that you want to do it. I think it’s difficult using only the words rational and emotional. Emotional sounds to me that it really has to do with tears in your eyes, but it’s more like a base.

Dr. Berzin: Right. She’s saying that we’re making too much of a difference between rational and emotional, that emotional sounds as though you should have tears in your eyes and so on, and maybe the emotional is more of a base. However, some of the texts will say: you think of the suffering of others and develop — or especially thinking of your guru — and the hairs on every pore of your body should stand up and tears come to your eyes. It does explain… give examples of being moved emotionally. I mean, this is why I brought up, in the very beginning of this discussion, this whole process of mental labeling and that there’s nothing on the side of experience that divides it into these blocks of emotional, rational, intellectual, etc.

Participant: I wanted to add to your comment that we may have a good understanding of what rationality is, but nonetheless it’s something like a garbage collection in which we put everything that’s brought, accessible for our intellectual understanding. We maybe mix up both unstable emotions, for example anger, which might not be there every day, with something which might be very stable, even more stable than any intellectual conviction. For example: motherly love, because it’s something that… I think you can change your opinion on something, but if you have children, regardless of what they will do to you, they will always trust you to trust them. This trust is something which I think isn’t completely explained as emotion; it’s something else.

Dr. Berzin: Right. What she says is that we tend in the West to have one category, which is rational, intellectual, and then we throw everything that’s not that into this other category, which is… she used the word garbage heap, which would include both stable and unstable emotions. I would add disturbing emotions and non-disturbing emotions as well. It’s an unstable feeling — I guess you wouldn’t call it an emotion — the one that you use towards hunger: sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t. That’s more of a feeling. But you could also include attachment: sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don’t feel attachment. 

But then there are other types of emotions, she said, which are much deeper and more stable, like motherly love. Regardless of what your child does to you or how you interact, there is a deep basis which is there. Do we call that an emotion? What do we call that? There’s always the trust of the child to you and a certain trust of you to the child. 

I think that there’s some biological, hormonal aspect to that. Whether it’s hormonal or whatever, I think that that has been demonstrated, that there’s something biological behind that to bond the parents with the children. Although His Holiness will bring up the example of the sea turtle that lays the eggs and goes off and the child never sees the parent but putting that example aside (which His Holiness never fails to bring up in wondering about this biological aspect of motherly love and bonding). Nevertheless, for us humans, that usually is there, unless you’re really very, very psychologically disturbed. 

Now that, I think, is the reason why this emotion is used as the example, not the emotion of your best friend, or your lover, or your husband or your wife. You could easily have this meditation by recognizing that everybody has been your husband or your wife in a previous lifetime, or your best friend in your previous lifetime. It never says that. Although Dharma-Lite will use that as an example for people in the West who have psychological problems with their mothers. That’s hard to say. Do people who have psychological problems with their mothers still have this basis of this love for the mother, this bond to the mother? In a sense it’s there, otherwise you wouldn’t be so upset by the other person. But I don’t know about this. That’s a side discussion. But in any case, this meditation is assuming that this is a basis emotion that is very instinctive and there, and so it is a stable one and not a super emotional one. 

As I say, these words are very difficult to define. What’s an emotional approach? What’s a rational approach? If I go back to my example, is there some emotion which is there? I don’t know if you would call it an emotion. It’s not something that brings tears to my eyes. I’m not doing what I do, the work that I do, out of a sense of duty, as my duty, my obligation to do this. I like doing it. 

What does it mean? What is Tsongkhapa getting at here? What I’ve been translating as an intellectual understanding — I don’t think that means rational understanding. We have to look at the adjectives that he uses for it, and the adjectives are partial and the word merely, merely this gowa, this type of understanding. He also uses “that it is based on the verbal formulations of the teachings,” and he contrasts it with… He says this is uncontrived — I mean it’s contrived (he contrasts it with being uncontrived). We have to explore this. But Jorge, you had something first?

Participant: I don’t know if this replaces this idea of intellectual versus emotional. In a similar dimension, maybe another example would be like when you learn something only for a test and you can reproduce (even if it’s with your own words) what the teacher has said, versus learning something that will actually help you when you are actually working. For example, an anthropologist can learn something and really use it in his fieldwork; or an engineer could learn something, either just for a test (i.e. reproducing it) or use it to provide a solution when there’s a problem and the workers in the chemical plant can really use this.

Dr. Berzin: OK. Jorge’s bringing up another distinction, which is to learn something for — if we use the example of Western school — just to pass an examination (so you can repeat all the words) or learning something that you can actually apply, like an anthropologist learning something they can actually apply in their fieldwork. 

I don’t think that the two are mutually exclusive. You could pass the examination as well with the knowledge that you can apply in your fieldwork. I think you’re talking about motivation, but motivation in the sense of the aim. What is your aim? Remember, when we talk about motivation, there’s the aim and then the emotion behind it. If the aim here is to pass the examination so that you get your degree and make money, and the emotion behind it is fear that “I’m going to fail. I’m not going to be good enough. I’m going to be punished” or something like that, “I won’t be able to find a job.” That’s one thing. The other is “I want to learn this so that I can be a good anthropologist.” Now, that could be neurotic as anything: “I want to be good because I want to be the best. I want to be famous,” etc. There are many, many variables, further variables, that are here, and which would also pertain to this Buddhist stuff. “I want to learn this so that I can pass my geshe exam and be a great geshe.” “I want to learn this so that I can actually train people and get a lot of offerings and sit on a throne.”

Participant: [unclear]

Dr. Berzin: Right. What he’s saying is that maybe the difference that we need to make here is between learning something which is abstract knowledge and learning something which we apply to ourselves, which is dealing personally with — you didn’t use these words — but with self-transformation, with working on myself. Am I learning this to work on myself (presumably for improvement)? Or am I learning it just abstractly as knowledge? 

I suppose that is very legitimate... I’m just thinking of the example of somebody learning mathematics. Could you ever learn mathematics to work on yourself? Could you meditate on mathematics? You could meditate on philosophy to try to understand it, but not in a sense of applying it to yourself. 

I think that you’re on the right track here. Because what Tsongkhapa says is: it’s not sufficient to have merely an intellectual understanding of these — this word gowa, this understanding — we must meditate. Meditate means to build up something as a beneficial habit. Now beneficial habit doesn’t mean simply to familiarize yourself so much with a mathematical formula and procedure that you can automatically instinctively solve any mathematical problem that comes along the way that fits into this category, does it? Although that’s building up solving problems as a habit. Meditation… we need to fill in the word much more than “to just build up a beneficial habit.” Because you could say it’s a beneficial habit to be able to solve this equation, because I will make more money that way and support my family in a better manner. That’s beneficial as well. 

But I think you’ve got the key here. It’s for our personal development. Not just for our personal development but, beyond that, for the benefit of others as well. But in what way? Not just a Dharma-Lite way. Not just “I’m going to meditate and build up, as a beneficial habit, economics, economic theory, so that I can balance the budget and then the economy will be better for everybody in the country.” Is that in the Buddhist sphere? No, it’s not. Beneficial, by all means — no one is ever denying that — but that’s not a spiritual goal. Remember, it says very clearly in Buddhism that the dividing line between what’s Dharma and what’s not Dharma — in other words, what’s a spiritual goal and not a spiritual goal — is whether or not you’re working for improving future lives and beyond (beyond meaning liberation and enlightenment). If it’s just for this lifetime, it’s not spiritual. It could be psychological, psychological improvement, but it’s not spiritual improvement. 

I think this is what we’re talking about here in the text, whether we are following… Now, emotional... Remember, I was making the distinction between “motherly love” manner and “everybody’s equal” manner of developing bodhichitta, and one was the more emotional side. But what you pointed out was quite correct: by using the word emotional, we have this big garbage heap and throw in disturbing emotions and non-disturbing and stable and unstable emotions. We have to qualify. Emotional is not the best word either. 

This is why I said at the beginning we’re just talking about mental labels: there’s nothing on the side of experience that divides it into these categories; it’s just our way of being able to relate to experience, and everybody’s experience is going to be different. But one is based on — this motherly love one — is based on a very basic, fundamental, stable emotion, non-disturbing emotion. Because remember, before it we have to get rid of attachment, repulsion, and indifference. Even before that, we’re working on the intermediate level to get rid of disturbing emotions. We must assume that — because the advanced level is the advanced level after the intermediate level, totally dependent on having gone through the intermediate level — that we have dealt with, at least to some extent, our disturbing emotions. That when we use a method that is going to work on emotional feelings — like motherly love and appreciating motherly love and having heartwarming love toward others — we’re not talking about a disturbing state of mind. Nor are we talking about a state of mind which is unstable. Nor are we talking about a state of mind which is only directed at some and not at others based on attraction, repulsion, and indifference. 

How strong does it have to be in order to feel it? How strong does it have to be, and does it have to be strong all the time? I don’t know. I don’t know. I can only speak from my own experience. The experience that I can draw upon is my experience of my relationship with Serkong Rinpoche, the old one and now the new one, which is also an area that calls upon a very deep feeling or emotion. That was a very strong feeling, and is a very strong feeling, but not at all disturbing. (If it is disturbing, that’s not proper relation with a spiritual teacher. It’s attachment. It’s not a proper relation with a spiritual teacher. Jealousy, clinging, certainly not getting angry when they criticize you — that’s not there at all.) A very, very strong feeling of connection and appreciation. Appreciation (gus-pa) is the word — it’s used here as well — appreciation of the kindness, appreciation of the good qualities, with respect and so on. (This also is involved with helping others, isn’t it? Appreciation that everybody has Buddha-nature, everybody has been your mother, everybody has been kind, appreciation that everybody is equal, etc.) A very deep feeling, but not at all a dramatic one. Except when he died, when the old one died. Then it was pretty dramatic, but not overwhelming, not devastating. The connection with the new one? Incredibly deep. Emotionally overwhelming? Not in the slightest. Attachment? No. But very deep. 

I think this is the quality that we’re looking for in this (recognizing everybody as our mother) is a deep… As you explained it: what you would feel for your child as a mother or as a father — but maybe mother is a little bit closer, even in terms of the physical contact, with breastfeeding and so on — that is just there as an underlying feeling that’s there all the time. Now, could we have that toward everybody? That’s really the challenge, isn’t it? Everybody including the cockroach, the being who in this particular lifetime is experiencing the results of negative karma in the manner of experiencing a cockroach rebirth but who, in previous lifetime, was my mother. How sad and awful that my mother is now experiencing a cockroach rebirth. 

In a sense we need both approaches, rational as well as a feeling of deep connection. When Tsongkhapa says: don’t be satisfied with an intellectual understanding. Partial. We have the words partial, merely (so only that, meaning that there’s more), based just on the words, and contrived. Contrived. We’d have to say that it’s artificial; you don’t really feel it. 

Now, I think back in terms of the progression that one makes in Dharma practice. In the beginning, basically you have to force yourself to refrain from certain negative actions, or to meditate, or to actually help somebody, to go wash the dishes. “I don’t feel like washing the dishes. I don’t feel like helping you do this or do that,” but you force yourself to do it; you make yourself do it anyway. That’s certainly a stage, and maybe a very long stage that we do that. Because we understand that this is beneficial and that it’s just my laziness and selfishness that makes me not want to help. You see the beggar on the street, and it’s not instinctively “Aw, this is my mother” and instinctively we automatically go for our wallet and take out money. You force yourself. 

Now, there’s a difference in terminology between the pair contrived (bcos-ma) and uncontrived (bcos-med) and the pair labored (rtsol-bcas) and unlabored (rtsol-med). Labored means that you have to work yourself up to it: you have to remind yourself. You see the beggar and you think “Oh, this could have been my mother…” I mean, even if you don’t think of past lives, “This could be my child. This could be my mother. This could be my brother or sister who’s there begging. This could be me there begging.” We labor; you have to put in the work to think about it, that “Oh, yeah” and so I’m not going to be lazy and I’m not going to be indifferent and I’m not going to be cheap, and I reach in my pocket and give whatever. That’s the difference between labored and unlabored. That’s not the same as contrived and uncontrived. Contrived and uncontrived; that’s a word which means artificial, not sincere. This intellectual understanding is not sincere. It’s partial. You’re pretending. 

Now, when you have a labored compassion — you build yourself up and you actually give to the beggar — do you feel anything at that time? Do you feel compassion? I don’t know. I don’t think so, not necessarily. You do it because it has to be done. This person needs to eat, just as I would need to eat. Do you feel something? I don’t know. I think that there’s a... 

You know, there’s always a spectrum of feeling something. I don’t even know what word you could use in Tibetan to explain “to feel an emotion.” I mean, there’s no word for emotion, but besides that (we just use a specific one, e.g. compassion), to feel it or to not feel it… I have no idea how you would even say that in Tibetan. “I don’t really feel it.” What do we mean by to feel something? This is why I always explain, when I teach about happiness and unhappiness, that it’s a whole spectrum and something doesn’t have to be dramatic in order for it to be in the category of happy or unhappy. There are low levels of it. It’s a whole spectrum. 

Is the sincerity of a feeling, like compassion, directly proportional to the intensity of the emotion? The more dramatic it is, the more sincere it is? Jorge, you come from Mexico, where the emotions are very dramatical. Are they sincere?

Participant: Sometimes. There’s some correlation.

Dr. Berzin: Sometimes. Some correlation. When somebody is so dramatic about something, does it follow that it’s sincere? Do they actually feel it, or what? 

Participant: It depends on the person, I guess.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, it depends on the person, but we’re generalizing, talking about the case where it isn’t. Obviously, I’m leading to that, but I’m questioning… What you’re saying is that it doesn’t have to be. If it doesn’t have to be… If you’re feeling really dramatic: “Oh, marvelous! This is the best food that I’ve ever had. This is the most beautiful…” you know, the whole trip, even with tears and so on — “Oh, the poor thing!” and so on — is it more sincere? That, I think, could be either sincere or not so sincere. I think it’s also a spectrum. Similarly, when someone is not so dramatic, it also could be either sincere or not sincere. I think we have two axes here, in terms of an x-axis and a y-axis of.... one is the axis of dramatic and undramatic, and the other is the axis of sincere and insincere.

Participant: Is there a correlation there or not?

Dr. Berzin: Well, I think that to feel something… Then there’s a third axis, which is whether or not you actually do anything. Remember, I have this in sensitivity training. You need to respond, respond in feeling and in actually doing something. You might feel something but not do anything, or you may do something and not feel anything. We have these three axes. 

Where’s our intellectual understanding and what are we aiming for in terms of meditation? Well, there’s a difference, isn’t there, between the wishing state of bodhichitta (smon-sems, aspiring bodhichitta) and engaged state of bodhichitta (’jug-sems). We’re aiming for both, to feel something and to do something, not just the wishing state but to do something, engage ourselves. I think we’re aiming for the sincerity side, to actually feel something, but I don’t think we’re necessarily aiming for the dramatic side. There can be a strong feeling without it being strongly dramatical and yet translate into action (if you can visualize this in a three-dimensional graph here). Do you follow that? 

Participant: Now you’re replacing the dramatic effect with rather the feeling, just feeling?

Dr. Berzin: Well, I’m saying that it could be dramatic... Am I replacing dramatic with feeling? No. What I’m saying is that it could be dramatical. (Drama of course is a loaded word, because that means artificial.) It could be demonstrable; it’s demonstrated out. Or it could be subdued in terms of it being demonstrated. Demonstrated isn’t the right word either — I don’t know what word to use — because you don’t have to show it to somebody else; it could be by yourself. 

Does it bring tears to your eyes or not if we talk about compassion? If it doesn’t bring tears to your eyes, does that mean that it’s not sincere? No. I wouldn’t say that. But I think you have to factor in all these axes here. Can’t just be one axis. You have to bring in the level of sincerity (the level of actually feeling something) and the level of actually doing something, and all of these need to be on the positive side of the axis. That’s what meditation is about. as Mark pointed out, it has to be something that is applicable to a spiritual goal — not just personal, but it could also be social, but a spiritual goal, not a goal of this lifetime. Because Tsongkhapa points that out. He says we could just be doing it for this lifetime or for something nice of samsara that we call liberation. “Always being with my teachers and my friends.” Very nice, but that’s not liberation. 

I don’t know if intellectual understanding here is the best way of translating this word. I don’t know how to translate it that conveys all of this content behind it.

Participant: [unclear]

Dr. Berzin: How does that express something? You’re talking about expressing. 

Participant: I am talking about communication. For example, if you want to teach someone a message that you are convinced of, you can do it by words. Then you are addressing the rational or intellectual part of the person. We have a lot of experience with other sorts of communication. But everything else in the garbage collection… we can’t control it so much, but we can explore or communicate.

Dr. Berzin: Well, I don’t know. Let me summarize what you said. She said that now we have to speak in terms of communication. The rational or intellectual side would communicate through words, and what she was calling the garbage can side — which is all the emotional side, both disturbing, non-disturbing, stable or unstable, all of these — that that would communicate in different ways (you were using instinct, intuition, etc.). 

I don’t know if that really is communication. I think that one could use instinct or intuition to know how to help others, but what communicates which is nonverbal communication would be teaching by example, for instance. You can communicate something to somebody else just by your way of being, your way of handling something. I mean, how do you learn from a spiritual teacher? How do you learn from Buddha? Buddha had two tenpa (bstan-pa, teaching). Teaching is the word for demonstration: how Buddha demonstrated his enlightenment. That’s the word teaching. Serkong Rinpoche said, “Always milk the meaning out of every little word.” The word to teach is to demonstrate. How do you demonstrate your enlightenment to others? You demonstrate through lung (so your words, scriptural words, the scriptural pronouncements) or your realization (rtogs-pa). (That’s the word stable realization that I was contrasting with this word intellectual understanding.) Through your realization, which means through just the way that you are — how you act, how you behave, your charisma. Your whole way of being communicates your state. 

Yes, I think these are the two dimensions that we’re talking about. You can use your intuition certainly for verbal communication. Intuition of what’s the right thing to say, for example. Now, in terms of communicating… You see, now we get into information theory. This is your topic, Jorge. How do you encode information, the information of enlightenment? Now, you can encode or encrypt it (if we can use a funny word) into words. You can put that information in an image. Like for instance, these Tantric deities. Tantric deities — that’s an information... I don’t know. What’s the technical word? That’s a means of information? What’s the word? 

Participant: A medium.

Dr. Berzin: That’s a medium and it communicates information, because all the different arms and legs and so on represent something. You are taking all that information, and rather than representing that information in straight and curved lines and dots — which some people decided that they represent sounds, and some people decided that those sounds represent meaning, for pure convention — or you can represent it in 24 arms and 9 heads and 16 legs, and so on. It’s another way of encrypting the information, isn’t it? 

Maybe there are other ways of encoding that information. Someone was working on the theory of harmonics, that different types of harmonic combinations can convey different types of information. We’re talking about information here. You can also encode that information in the way in which you behave. You demonstrate, for example, total equanimity in whatever happens; your mood always stays the same. 

Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey taught us Westerners at the library in Dharamsala year after year after year. Hardly anybody remembered anything, hardly anybody really learned, but Geshe Dhargyey continued. Same every single day, never stopping, same level of enthusiasm, whether we learned or we didn’t learn. It’s one of the qualities of a teacher, if you look at the list, not to get encouraged by the good students, not to get discouraged by the bad students, if you teach. That demonstrates a level of realization and accomplishment, doesn’t it? Or His Holiness being like the best friend to anybody that he sees, anybody that he sees — filled with joy — anything, anybody. Equal to everybody. Nobody’s special. It demonstrates, so it’s information about it.

Yes, there are these two sides, and that’s a product of stable realization. Stable realization means internalizing it, making it part of you, so it is completely sincere, and that’s done through what’s called meditation. That’s what the word meditation (sgom) means, build something up as a habit. It is the same word in Tibetan as the word for habit (it’s a modification of that word). In Sanskrit it’s the word bhavana — it comes from the verb bhu “to become” — you become that; the method for becoming that state, literally. OK? 

These are some further thoughts about this topic, which is a very, very important topic really. 

In the beginning, I think that we do have to... it’s not going to be sincere (compassion, etc.), but we know that... Well, let’s use the example from the lam-rim, from the graded stages of the path. What do you use on the initial level? You use self-control to refrain from acting destructively. You understand the negative consequences, the disadvantages of acting destructively, and you refrain. That’s self-control, basically, to use our Western word. It’s only when you get to the intermediate level that you start thinking more deeply in terms of overcoming anger and attachment and so on that would cause you to act destructively. 

Similarly with the development of compassion: you would start with self-control before you apply the methods to overcome selfishness. Self-control means when I find myself wanting to ignore that beggar and I do have change in my pocket then I use self-control, I remind myself that “Hey, this is a human being, etc. This person needs to eat and is probably very cold” — or very hot if it’s the summer, or whatever — and use self-control to make yourself give the money whether you feel like it or not. But not as a duty, not because “I want to be a good boy or girl,” not because “I want to please my guru. My guru is sitting on my head or in my heart watching me.” Which of course is a method. If my guru were here, would I ignore this beggar? Or if my guru is here, do I just want to put on a big show and give to the beggar? 

You remember Geshe Ben Gungyal, the example of setting up the beautiful offerings when his teacher was coming? Then he realized he was just wanting to show off, and then he threw dirt and ashes all over his altar and offerings, to not be a hypocrite. 

I think not in a hypocritical manner but doing it — giving — because I make myself give, because whether I feel it or not, this is what is beneficial. I’m convinced of that. It’s not that I’m showing off to anybody or I want a “thank you” or anything like that. Slowly, over time, as it becomes part of you, it becomes more and more sincere, although it might not become dramatical. Strong, but not dramatic. I think that’s the first level of just doing it. 

It’s like meditation. “I don’t feel like meditating today.” How many of us have felt like that in the morning? “I don’t feel like doing it. I don’t feel like going to class.” You do it anyway. That’s the real key. That’s why taking vows is very important and very helpful, then you don’t have to make the decision every day: “Am I going to drink alcohol or not? Am I going to have a beer or not?” Take a vow not to have beer then it’s finished, you’ve made the decision once and for all, and then you don’t have the crippling indecisiveness of every time: “Shall I drink it or not drink it? When have I had enough?” etc. You just do it. The same thing with meditation. You just do it. Because it is beneficial and you know that it’s beneficial, not to please somebody, not to be a good boy or a good girl. 

The same thing with acting compassionately. You just do it because it needs to be done, and then it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Slowly you feel this connection, the more that you... this deep basic level of stable connectedness. Remember, this is what I was speaking about when we discussed the advanced level of motivation, that all these infinitely long (no beginning, no end) mental continuums, and they’re all interacting, so we’re all interconnected, so none of them exist separately and isolated. How can just benefiting one occur in terms of everybody else? 

If you understand the voidness of the self… Here’s an interesting point. You need to understand the voidness of the self in order to gain liberation or enlightenment. According to Prasangika, you need to understand the same level of understanding of the self. Then it becomes a very interesting question. If you understand the voidness of the self in the Prasangika manner, the deepest manner, how could you only work toward liberation? If the understanding of voidness led you to the understanding of the interconnectedness of everybody — of all mental continuums — and the equality of everyone, how could you not work for the benefit of everyone? How could you think that you could work for your benefit alone and it would work for your liberation alone? Because all along the way you’re being affected by others. Do I just pretend that… to think that there’s still some barrier, there’s still something that makes me me (whatever type of barrier we might have) inside me that separates me from everybody else so that I could work for my liberation alone. This is a myth, according to Prasangika. We keep our individuality, but we’re all interconnected. 

That’s a very interesting point. I’d not thought of that before. How could you possibly work for your liberation alone if you understood voidness? This, I think, His Holiness is always emphasizing. If you really understood voidness, you would automatically think in terms of Mahayana and compassion and working for everybody. 

There are two approaches, and Nagarjuna points this out very well in his bodhichitta commentary, in which he says… Well, you can develop… Bodhichitta, by the way — there’s the deepest (don-dam-pa’i byang-chub-gyi sems) and relative bodhichitta (kun-rdzob-gyi byang-chub-gyi sems, conventional bodhichitta). Aimed at… the one, with compassion (aiming to help everybody), and the other is the understanding of voidness. There’s two ways. One is to develop the conventional bodhichitta first and then the deepest (the understanding of voidness). The other way, which is what is explained in this Bodhichittavivarana, or Commentary to Bodhichitta, is that first you develop the one which is the understanding of voidness and that automatically leads to the compassion one. 

But they do present, in Prasangika, those who work for their own liberation, and they did get some understanding of voidness. This is the curious thing. I mean, they did get a correct understanding of voidness if they actually did achieve liberation. But nobody could really stop there; eventually... Although it’s not inevitable. This is what I don’t understand. That I’ll have to think about more. It would seem as though it’s inevitable, if you really understood voidness, that you would work for the liberation of everybody. Anybody have any thoughts on that, or am I just talking away in the sky here?

Participant: [unclear]

Dr. Berzin: She’s saying that this was also brought up in question and answer to Lama Zopa Rinpoche, that in terms of working for liberation we shouldn’t forget that with the so-called Hinayana motivation there’s still compassion. Yes, there’s compassion. The difference is how much we can help others — what is the level at which we can help — because inevitably everybody has to understand for themselves. 

Then the second is that we have to watch out not to be arrogant and to look down, that “I’m so much better. I’m Mahayana.” 

Then the third is that inevitably everyone will reach enlightenment. That is... You see, this is a difficult… the third one is the difficult point. The third one is the difficult point, I must say, and I’ll tell you why. Will samsara have an end? Will every sentient being, every limited being, reach enlightenment? I think there is a big difference between everybody can reach enlightenment because everybody has Buddha-nature, but is it inevitable that everybody will reach enlightenment? This so-called... I forget. There’s a word in the theory of religion that everything — teleological? — that everything is going toward the end by itself. I think the Samkhyas believe in that. Pardon?

Participant: Eschatology.

Dr. Berzin: Eschatology?

Participant: Teleological.

Dr. Berzin: Teleological was the correct word, right, in literature — that everything is inevitably going toward this goal. As I say, I think that’s in the Samkhya philosophy, one of the Indian philosophies. I don’t think that’s in Buddhism.

Participant: No, I don’t think he said that. He said that if one understands voidness correctly, then one automatically…

Dr. Berzin: Right. If one understands voidness correctly then you will automatically... This gets into... There’s a difference here. Will everybody enter the spiritual path and become liberated or attain enlightenment? There’s no guarantee. Everybody could, but there’s no guarantee. You can’t say that samsara will definitely have an end for everybody. 

But then there’s the difference between the three ultimate vehicles or just one ultimate vehicle. Is becoming an arhat of the shravaka class or pratyekabuddha class — or a Buddha — are they dead ends, or can one continue? This is the question. Can one become a shravaka arhat, a liberated being, and not go further to become a Buddha? What you’re saying is that Lama Zopa was implying that, no, you couldn’t stay stuck as a shravaka arhat. You might take a time-out. Would you take a time-out? Shravaka arhats could either develop bodhichitta after they become an arhat and then continue to come in this world, etc., or pure lands, or whatever, and work toward enlightenment, or they could just stay with a light body in some sort of realm and hang out. I don’t know. I would tend to agree with Lama Zopa that inevitably they would have to. But why would there even be a time-out? Why would they even want a time-out? That I don’t know. Or maybe it’s not correct that they would have a time-out.

Participant: If they don’t understand correctly about this idea of cognitive obscurations when they become liberated… They’re not inevitably going to be finished when they realize voidness in one way. There are two of them as well — to overcome, and to go on to enlightenment. This idea of the inevitability…

Dr. Berzin: Ah, this is very good. Now you bring up an excellent point: The understanding of voidness does not automatically get rid of cognitive obscurations. If we use the simple terminology of true existence, or solid existence, the understanding of voidness will get rid of grasping for true existence in the sense of believing in it. It will not necessarily get rid of cognitive obscurations, which is the mind making the appearances of true existence (so perceiving these lines, these borders). You don’t believe in it, but you still perceive it. Because you perceive it, then you can’t really... OK. We know the interconnectedness of everybody in terms of voidness, that there are no solid lines dividing us and we’re all influencing each other, when we have the understanding of voidness non-conceptually. You’ve gotten rid of the automatically arising grasping for true existence, but my mind still makes these appearances, these deceptive appearances. I need stronger motivation, a stronger strength of mind, to be able to cut through that. Is that inevitable, that you would want to develop that? Probably. 

That’s a very good point. “I see we’re all interconnected. I’ve been working for my own liberation — why have I been working for my own liberation?” Well, you only get rid of grasping for me and selfishness when you become an arhat. Along the way to becoming an arhat, a liberated being, you would still have a certain degree of selfishness, wouldn’t you? You’d have to. Self-interest. Couldn’t get rid of it 100% until you’re liberated. How much do we emphasize here, that self-interest or the interest in others? 

Anyway, these are all topics to think about more deeply, and we’ve come to the end of the class, so I’ll leave you with these things to think about further. But obviously these are very important issues to contemplate (and not just theoretically, as nice intellectual knowledge), because the issue really is “How do I overcome my own selfishness? What can I expect to be able to overcome along the path, the spiritual path? How sincere does it have to be, my compassion? How strongly do I have to feel it? What is it? How do I develop it?” Tsongkhapa is giving some of the guidelines for that. These are things really to consider very seriously. That’s the practical advice, not just the instructions of “Sit down and put your legs like this and your arms like that, and visualize like this, and do this and that.” That’s not practical advice. That is the instructions in the meditation manual, isn’t it? We don’t just want the instructions of how to do it, but the practical advice is what do we really need to think about and what do we need to focus on in order to really transform ourselves. “Tame our mind,” Tsongkhapa said; that’s the main thing. 

Let’s end here with the dedication. We think whatever understanding and positive force that’s been built up from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.