The Correct View of Voidness
We have been studying in great detail this letter by Tsongkhapa. Before we continue with our discussion of it, there’s one question that was hanging over us for the last two weeks, which was why Tsongkhapa refuted the previous theories about no-longer-happening phenomena, not-yet-happening phenomena, and previously-having-perished phenomena from being static to being nonstatic and why he asserted that they were nonstatic.
I found out where Tsongkhapa discusses this. This is in one of the chapters of dGongs-pa rab-gsal (Clarifying the Intention), which is his commentary to Chandrakirti’s Madhyamaka-avatara. In the chapter on the three times, Tsongkhapa explains that when we talk about the previously-having-perished of something (which is equivalent to the no-longer-happening of something), that also is equivalent to death, and the death of something is one of the twelve links of dependent arising. If someone hasn’t died — if there isn’t a previously-having-died — there can’t be a birth. And since it’s part of the chain of dependent arising, it has to be a nonstatic phenomenon, a phenomenon that gives rise to a cause in one way or another.
If you think about it, if the cause hasn’t previously perished, or previously been finished or previously died or whatever, you couldn’t get the result; you couldn’t have the arising of a result. Tsongkhapa doesn’t state specifically what type of cause or condition it is, but looking at the long list of various possibilities, it seems as though it would be a simultaneously acting condition (lhan-cig byed-pa’i rkyen), which would be like… The definition of it is a condition that exists prior to the arising of something and assists in making the arising happen but which doesn’t transform into what arises. If it’s an obtaining cause (nyer-len-gyi rgyu) it transforms into what arises, like the karmic tendency or the seed. The previously-having-perished or the no-longer-happening cause doesn’t transform into the result, but it’s a necessary condition, like water or fertilizer or soil for a plant to grow.
Participant: I’m just a bit surprised about the term simultaneously arising condition for that.
Dr. Berzin: Simultaneously acting condition. This is my guess. It’s not in the text. I was trying to guess.
Participant: But this is a cause. How can a cause be a condition?
Dr. Berzin: It’s not a cause. We’re saying it’s a condition. When you speak about a nonstatic phenomenon, a nonstatic phenomenon is something which functions; it functions to bring about a result. In Abhidharmakosha (Skt. Abhidharmakośa) you have six different types of causes and four different types of condition. One of those causes, the acting cause (byed-rgyu) — which is defined as everything other than the result itself — in Abhidharma-samuccaya Asanga (Skt. Asaṅga) divides that into twenty different kinds. When we talk about a nonstatic phenomenon, a functional phenomenon, it could function in any of these ways. Also, there’s the discussion that it produces the next moment.
The whole context of this discussion in Tsongkhapa is: How do you account for the period of time between the perishing of the cause and the arising of the result? A great deal of his discussion is that you don’t need a truly existent basis for providing that connection. His main point is the refutation of the alayavijnana (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, all-encompassing foundation consciousness) or that mental consciousness is providing the basis for karmic cause and effect going on.
But the thing is that in this discussion of the previously-having-perished of things, it’s not only the previously-having-perished of a karmic cause, like a karmic action; the term is also used for the previously-having-perished of the vase, of lifetime as a man or lifetime as a ghost, or something like that. It is also used for objects. Again, how do you account for the connection is the whole discussion. I can’t say that I totally understand that. I’m sure that there’s a tremendous amount of debate that can be done about it, but this is the main thrust of Tsongkhapa’s discussion.
Participant: Can the twelve links be applied to objects?
Dr. Berzin: No, the twelve links are not applied to objects. But in the context of karma and suffering, etc., death is part of that chain. Aging and death is the twelfth link.
That’s the way that it is argued. Mark, you don’t look very convinced or very pleased with that answer.
Participant: It’s an answer.
Dr. Berzin: It’s an answer.
Participant: I have to think about it.
Dr. Berzin: Good. That’s the best response to give, that you have to think about it. Good. That’s what one does in the real-thing Dharma class. You get some sort of scriptural authority — in this case Tsongkhapa’s dGongs-pa rab-gsal (Illuminating the Intention) — and the teacher will give a short explanation of it, and then you have to go out on the debate ground and debate it back and forth until you work out your correct understanding of it. That’s the method. Just hearing it doesn’t necessarily convince you, not by any means. But that’s the direction to go, OK?
Getting back to the text, we are in the section at the very end about voidness, which Tsongkhapa brings up in terms of the topic concerning how the meditation on voidness in tantra and on the complete stage and generation stage are the same.
Also, one thing that I had to correct — to go back to our no-longer-happenings or the previously-having-perished — Tsongkhapa in this chapter explains that the basis for imputation for those is also the mere I (nga-tsam, mere me). I had that it was the mental continuum, but Tsongkhapa says it’s the mere I.
Participant: You raised the point that there doesn’t need to be a truly existent connection between death and rebirth, but…
Dr. Berzin: There doesn’t need to be a truly existent basis that is providing the continuity.
Participant: But are these, according to Tsongkhapa, in direct succession, death and rebirth?
Dr. Berzin: According to Tsongkhapa, is it in direct succession, death and rebirth? He goes into a big discussion with that, that although it may say that in a text, nevertheless, except for the case of formless-realm rebirths, there’s always a bardo. Then he mentions in this text — which I must say I never heard — is the bardo considered one of the six realms? Can it be included or is it divided into the six realms? And he says no. Even though there will be a single throwing karma that will give the form of the body, the life form, in the bardo existence, birth existence, and what’s called the previous existence — previous to, prior to, the next death (which is that whole life, which could be anything from one moment to a very long lifetime) — that nevertheless you have a bardo, and that wouldn’t be classified as part of the human rebirth or ghost rebirth.
Do they follow in immediate succession? It depends on how you understand the word birth. Birth is usually taken to be conception, the moment of conception. As I said, except for the formless realms, with rebirths there’s always a bardo.
This whole point of continuity — you can’t really have a basis of continuity on something that’s permanent or something that’s static. If something is static, how can it then be… Let’s think about this. When you talk about an arising, the theories that explain that the previously-having-perished (or the no-longer-happening or whatever you want to call it) is static — they say that it’s brought about by the perishing of the cause, and the arising of the result is brought about by the attainment of a result. The attainment of the result is a nonstatic phenomenon, then that would be caused by various causes and conditions, but by what? Still what’s providing the continuity between the perishing and the attaining of the result? This is the problem. For some reason the tendency itself is not sufficient. The tendency can be weakened, or it can be strengthened so that what results will be different, but the actual attaining of the result itself, if you look at it from the point of view of just an attaining, will not be affected by the tendency itself weakening or strengthening.
You have to have something that provides continuity that is not going to… When we talk about the previously-having-perished or the no-longer-happening or the death of something, that doesn’t degenerate. Neither does the tendency degenerate by itself, but it could be made to weaken. The previously-having-perished can’t be made to weaken. Also, the previously-having-perished of something continues after the result arises; the tendency doesn’t once it finishes giving arise to its result. Again, there’s a change here. As I say, I certainly don’t fully understand this, but these are some of the factors to consider. How do you provide continuity?
Tsongkhapa says that you can’t have one… If you make one of the aggregates the basis for continuity, that almost necessarily makes it truly existent. It would have to be truly existent from its own side for it to function like that. Whereas if you impute these things on the mere me, the mere me — the mere I — is already something which is just imputed onto the aggregates. You see, there is a tendency that if you say, “It’s the alayavijnana (Skt. ālaya-vijñāna), or it’s the mental consciousness,” or even if you make it into the clear-light mind — you have some problems there. That sort of makes it into a thing.
Anyway, I’m not explaining it in a convincing way, I’m sure, and also this is not so easy to understand, but these are the type of things to think about.
All right, let’s get back to the text. Tsongkhapa was saying that… I’ll just read the last paragraph that we covered:
It is said that this was difficult to understand even for the circle (of Buddha’s direct disciples) at the time when the Vanquishing Master Surpassing All was alive. This has been stated in The Compendium of Precious Good Qualities (Yon-tan rin-po-che sdud-pa, Skt. Ratnagunasamcayagatha), “This teaching (on voidness) of the Complete Spiritual Leader (Buddha) is profound and difficult to see. No one would be able to understand it and no one would be able to attain (its realization). Therefore after (Shakyamuni Buddha), who had the loving-kindness to benefit others, attained his purified state (of enlightenment), he taxed his mind to think who among the masses of limited beings could come to know it.”
This was saying how difficult it is to understand not just voidness but the two truths, how they go together.
Then Tsongkhapa goes on:
Concerning how it is impossible for our minds to penetrate into voidness quickly and easily, together with an example for this, as well as concerning the meaning of the (quotation from the above) sutra, (Nagarjuna) has said in The Precious Garland (II 16-18), “Inasmuch as the uncleanliness of our body is something gross, an object knowable by straightforward (sensory) cognition and in fact can be seen all the time; yet, when it is the case that this does not stand out to our minds, then how can this hallowed teaching of non-abiding (in either the extreme of truly established existence or total nonexistence) quickly and easily penetrate our minds when it is so subtle, not (obvious) to straightforward (sensory) cognition, and profound? Therefore, realizing that this teaching, because it is so profound, is difficult for ordinary people to comprehend, the Able Buddha turned away (at first) from indicating this teaching.”
What is this saying? It’s saying that the different types of incorrect consideration, to consider the body clean when it is not clean (talking about what’s inside the body), and if you put food in your mouth and spit it out it’s considered dirty, and considering… This is the example that’s used here, so we don’t have to go into the other examples, that even though it’s obvious that the body is not something which is so pure and clean and holy, especially considering what comes out of all the orifices of it, and you can actually see this uncleanness with your eyes, and that your body gets dirty, and if you don’t wash it it smells, and the same with your teeth — and if we’re able to even just see that straightforwardly and we don’t accept it and we don’t consider that this is valid, how much more difficult is it in terms of voidness, where things don’t even appear to be void? We can’t even see that they are void of being truly established. The appearance is that they are truly established, that they exist independently by themselves.
This is the reason why Buddha hesitated to teach about voidness, because he really wondered who would be able to understand. You can point out to people, as Shantideva said: If the body is not washed and the teeth are not cleaned, etc., for many years, really you’ll look absolutely horrible. Everybody would agree that this is pretty disgusting.
Participant: What is hallowed, hallowed teachings?
Dr. Berzin: Hallowed is the word that usually is translated as sacred or holy, but I don’t really like holy or sacred. Hallowed is a less religious term. Actually, it comes from the hallowed halls of ivy.
Participant: In German there’s only one word for sacred and holy and hallowed.
Dr. Berzin: The usual expression in English is the hallowed halls of ivy, referring to university buildings in which this green plant grows on the walls. That’s a hall of ivy, and that’s a university lecture hall. You just have one word in German?
Participant: Yeah, just one word, so it’s much easier.
Dr. Berzin: It’s much easier. But as I said, I would prefer to choose a word that doesn’t have such religious connotations.
Participant: But in your usage also, in diesen heiligen Hallen, there’s also this special awe.
Participant: I kind of like it very religious.
Dr. Berzin: You like it religious? Fine. Then you can translate it that way. I’ve adopted a convention of calling it the hallowed teaching. Actually, the word in Tibetan doesn’t have any… It’s dampa (dam-pa). Dampa means — it’s used with a teacher as well.
Participant: With what?
Dr. Berzin: A teacher. Shenyen dampa (bshes-gnyen dam-pa). Somebody that is pure, that’s the real thing, that’s special, that fulfills all the proper definitions of what it should be. That’s really the connotation of the word in Tibetan. To call it holy… Hallowed is not the exact word either. It’s often very, very difficult to find exact equivalents, especially for things like adjectives.
Participant: If one already has a meaning for them. For me, for example — because I had no religious education before — for me, all these words: I’m like blank.
Dr. Berzin: Right. If you grew up, as you did, in East Germany and didn’t have any religious education, then these words are blank; they don’t have a connotation anyway. It’s just a word. OK.
I mean, this is an interesting thing. What’s the interesting point here that’s relevant? We read a statement like this. What is relevant? It’s important when you read anything in the Dharma to see: What is the relevance to me? What’s the relevance of that?
Participant: Actually, I don’t remember the quotation.
Dr. Berzin: You don’t remember the quotation? If it’s obvious (you can see) that the body is unclean and yet we don’t accept that, how much more difficult is it with voidness (things don’t even look void)? Because of that, Buddha didn’t teach it, hesitated to teach it. What’s the lesson to be learned from that that applies to you and me?
Participant: But isn’t it that these days the education of the general public is much better? Many people are brought up in high schools and colleges and at university. I think these days it’s easier for people.
Dr. Berzin: OK. She sees this as a statement about people of old, and nowadays our education is much better. For people in the West, would it be more… She says that our education is better, therefore we could understand voidness more easily.
This is talking about what’s obvious. It’s not obvious. Voidness is not obvious. No matter what education we have in the West, we’re not taught that the body… We might learn in an anatomy class what’s inside the body, but we certainly don’t apply that to overcoming our obsessive attachment to bodies, pretty bodies.
Participant: No. I mean that abstract thinking is not completely strange for us.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Abstract thinking is not completely strange for us. But his point is: Can we understand it?
I think the relevant point here is that this is not a topic that is easy, it’s not going to be obvious, it’s not something that we’ll be able to confirm with sensory cognition — like you can that the body is filled with all sorts of dirty substances — and that therefore it’s not something that you would start with in trying to understand the Dharma. This is what’s relevant. And that we shouldn’t get discouraged that it’s difficult for it to really sink in.
How much have we studied what is inside the body? And how much has this been able to help us to lessen our sexual desire?
Participant: I don’t think anybody really sees a connection there.
Dr. Berzin: You don’t think that anybody sees the connection. That’s what I’m saying. For most people, an anatomy lesson is not going to lessen their sexual desire. I don’t know about doctors who in training dissect a human body — if after dissecting a human body they can go home to their partner and totally get out of their mind what they have just been looking at in the laboratory.
Participant: It’s difficult to understand the cleanliness of the body when it’s completely obvious, but it’s even more difficult to understand something we cannot see.
Dr. Berzin: Right. That’s exactly it. It’s more difficult with something that we can’t see, like voidness. The conclusion of that was that therefore Buddha hesitated to teach it at first. Therefore, that’s not something at first that we should really expect is going to… We may understand it intellectually, but for it to really sink in and have an effect is really, really difficult. It’s very profound, and you don’t believe it.
How many of us really believe on a gut level that death can happen at any time and that “I’m going to die”? This is the incorrect consideration. Something nonstatic or impermanent is permanent. We can see it with our friends, we can see it with everybody in history, we can know logically “it will happen to me,” but do we really, really on a gut, emotional level believe it? I think very few of us really do.
My closest friend died a few weeks ago. Still, I have this illusion and grand dream that I’m going to live to an enormous old age and be able to continue working effectively. I have to really very consciously remind myself that death can come at any time. And even then, when I force myself to think like that and to try to prepare, get all my things in order, still that’s a very intellectual thing. I’m pushing myself to do that because it’s logical.
This is underlining that we shouldn’t trivialize these things and that it’s not going to be so obvious.
The next paragraph I think is really quite helpful here. He says:
Therefore, since in general a (fully qualified) teacher and student of this (voidness), and in particular (such) a teacher and student of the methods for developing on our mental continuums absorbed concentration on this (voidness), are extremely difficult to find, I think that (these accomplishments) will not come about if we have approached them in just any sloppy manner. (We must study and train in them properly.)
He’s saying to find a teacher, a proper teacher, to be able to teach this — and to be a proper student of this — is very, very difficult to find. Even if you get something like that, he says that even more difficult is those who are dealing with what are the methods to actually get absorbed concentration on that. In other words, how do you meditate on it and how do you eventually get perfect concentration and non-conceptual understanding of it (which is what will bring about a true stopping of any of these problems)?
What is always emphasized as one of the most important factors for being able to get any understanding? Anybody?
Participant: Training.
Dr. Berzin: Training. What kind of training? Building up the two networks: positive force and deep awareness. Tsongkhapa doesn’t say that explicitly, but without that positive force from doing constructive things — trying to help others as much as possible, working with developing love, compassion, bodhichitta (Skt. bodhicitta), these sort of things — it’s just not going to happen.
Who is a proper student? Who is a proper teacher? A proper student is one who takes very seriously what you have to prepare in order to be able to understand this stuff and to really understand it and to work with it. I mean, also it has to be somebody that just absolutely loves voidness and loves all these texts that talk about it and loves all the logical reasonings. Not somebody that says, “Oh, this is too much. Why do we need all of that?” but putting that as “Of course it’s like that.” But in addition — because you could have somebody that’s just doing that for intellectual curiosity — but in addition to somebody who likes all this discussion of voidness and is drawn to it, that you take it seriously to become a proper student of it.
How do we build up a lot of positive force? This is the real question, isn’t it? If this is what is really needed, what’s going to build up a lot of positive force? I could sit and do my rosary of a million OM MANI PEME HUMs. That’ll build up some positive force. Doing it with visualizations of compassion — that will build up much more than just reciting, a lot more. Actually, going out and helping people will build up even more, trying to do things that are of benefit to others.
Participant: While doing it consciously.
Dr. Berzin: While doing it with intention and a dedication.
Participant: Then the background, to train your mind.
Dr. Berzin: And background, of course, to train the mind. This is what we have in the intermediate scope. The three higher trainings: ethical discipline, concentration, and discriminating awareness. Approach voidness step by step. Remember we had our big discussion of the tenet systems, how if we can refute the gross levels of what’s impossible, then we see what’s left over, and you refine that further, and you refine that further. Tsongkhapa says it’s not obvious. You can’t see these things. That means try to see things in this way. We’re not talking about see in terms of your eyes.
Participant: Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say to feel it, to experience it?
Dr. Berzin: She says, “Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to just say to feel it or to experience it?” How do you feel it? How do you get to the point where you feel it and experience it? This is the question. Is it going to come from no cause? Obviously not. What would be the cause of it?
Participant: Try to come to a point where you get this understanding.
Dr. Berzin: To try to get to the point where you get the understanding. How?
Participant: I think everybody’s different and has a different approach. For somebody something will work better than for others. Somebody might need a picture, you know?
Dr. Berzin: OK. She says that for different people, there will be different methods. Sure, Buddha taught many different methods. For some, a picture. For some, a logical argument. For the heavenly musicians, Buddha playing the guitar with no strings.
Participant: I think everybody’s different. One has to try different methods, find one that works, and then you use that one.
Dr. Berzin: Everybody has to try different methods, and we have to try different methods. Yes. But if we don’t understand what voidness is talking about… You see, regardless of what methods you employ, I think it still has to fit within the structure of listening to the teachings, thinking about them, and meditating. That’s the basic structure. Unless you’re certain about what the teachings on voidness are — that’s the listening process — there’s no way you can understand them. Unless you think about it in some way — that doesn’t necessarily mean verbal, logical thinking but somehow chew it to the point where you get an understanding — it’s not going to work. You have to understand it.
Participant: I think that you come to experience it.
Dr. Berzin: Yes, but come to experience is a very vague word. What does that mean, to experience it? You experience an understanding, you experience thinking in a logical way, you experience everything. Every moment of our existence we experience. What does it mean?
Participant: Experience the voidness.
Dr. Berzin: To experience voidness. What does that mean? Any way of knowing voidness is an experience of it. An incorrect understanding is an experience. Hating it is an experience. It’s how I experience it. Experience is not terribly much different, at least in English, from just cognizing it.
What I’m saying is that if that’s the way that you are formulating it, you need a more precise definition of experience. If I want to experience voidness, what does that mean and how do I do that? This is what Tsongkhapa said. You have to know the methods for absorbed concentration. Even if we could define what experience means, I don’t see how approaching it through the methods that Tsongkhapa and all the Indian masters have outlined here, of going through lines of reasoning and getting a cutting off of the object to be refuted (that there’s no such thing)…
Participant: Yeah, but if you get this experience of no such thing…
Dr. Berzin: If you get the experience of no such thing — but what does that mean? The experience of it is that I understand it, I cognize it, therefore I experience it. I don’t understand what’s the difference here.
Participant: I think we don’t understand each other. A different way of thinking. Your way of thinking is different to mine.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Our ways of thinking are different, that’s right, but we could communicate.
Participant: Yeah, but I don’t see how to communicate. Maybe it’s because my English…
Dr. Berzin: Try it in German.
Participant: [in German]
Dr. Berzin: Right. What you have just said in German — if I understood it correctly — is that when you understand it, you have an experience of it, and then you just stay in that experience.
Participant: Yes.
Dr. Berzin: Right. We’re saying the same thing.
Participant: Yes, so I don’t understand…
Dr. Berzin: Right. Because sometimes, in very vague English, experience means “Oh, I just sit down and now I’m going to experience it.” It’s just going to happen without really going through and trying to understand it. It just sort of comes to you. Like you empty your mind, and you experience, like you experience…
Participant: Marijuana.
Dr. Berzin: Marijuana or to… I don’t know.
Participant: Yeah, that is the problem — what I mean with experience, what you mean with experience.
Dr. Berzin: OK. I’m sorry if there was a misunderstanding. However, if we speak to a more general public, a lot of people use the word to experience as something different from an intellectual understanding, and even just to differentiate experience from understanding... And this I think is incorrect — it’s very vague — because any type of working with voidness is an experience.
What are we talking about? We’re talking about an inferential understanding, right? You go through a line of reasoning, and you come to it. After that you don’t even need to go through the line of reasoning; you’re able to just get that understanding. What is understanding? A discriminating awareness that discriminates with certainty that it’s this and not that, but it doesn’t necessarily have to put it into divisive words like that, that it’s this and not that, especially when we are talking about voidness.
Then for it to really move you or something like that, there have to be some other mental factors that are there. First of all, there has to be conviction, belief that it’s true, not just that “I’ve got the correct meaning of what they say in the texts” but that this is really so. It has to have an effect on you, on the other mental factors, as in diminishing at least, if not getting rid of, your disturbing emotions. Or if we’re talking about meditation on compassion, that you actually develop it and feel something.
I think for a lot of people, maybe not in your usage, Marianna, of the word experience, but at least for a group of English speakers that will use the word experience in a very loose sense — I think what they’re talking about is this stage where there is some sort of emotion that’s involved with it, and then it’s a real experience. It moves you emotionally; then there’s the real experience of it. I think a lot of people use the word in that way, at least in English.
Can it come without any understanding? You could be moved by something without an understanding, but are you moved by what is accurate here? I mean, what’s causing you to be moved emotionally?
Participant: But the movement is in the package of the — the hardware, in a way — the package of the five skandhas. It’s not in the package of the emptiness.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Being moved emotionally is in the package of the five skandhas; it’s not in the package of voidness. Of course that’s true. What’s in the package of voidness? No such thing. There’s nothing else in the package. Experience has to do with the mind, doesn’t it?
Participant: But then the mind comes with this package always.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The mind comes with the package of concentration and understanding and emotion and stuff like that. That’s why I was saying that…
Participant: The problem comes with the imputation of a false me.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The problem comes with the imputation of the false me, and then we realize that there’s no such thing as a false me. To experience that there’s no false me, we could experience that (or know that) conceptually, non-conceptually. We can know that based on a line of reasoning. We can know that not based on a line of reasoning. All of those are ways of experiencing. But let’s not get too hung up on this word experience.
The point that Tsongkhapa is making is that it’s difficult to find a fully qualified teacher and a fully qualified student. What would the fully qualified teacher have to be? Not just somebody who has a correct understanding of voidness and can explain it clearly. What did Tsongkhapa say in the very beginning of the text? A teacher has to not say it’s something that it’s not or leave out something that it is — not add anything, not leave anything out — and know the correct order of explaining it and how to adapt it to the student’s level. Of course, have the proper motivation and all these sort of things. And be honest with what level of understanding they have. That’s not so easy.
If I can pick up on your point, Marianna: The teacher is not fixated on one method, and that everybody has to follow that one method, but can adapt to different students. Some are going to be more drawn to logic and reasoning. Some will be less and will need illustrations or things like that. But it’s very difficult to illustrate voidness and to really get the point. You might be able to get a general idea, but the very precise idea is very, very difficult.
In any case, I think that what I would like to stress is the building up of positive force, that we should not underestimate the importance of that.
Joined Shamatha and Vipashyana Focused on Voidness
Tsongkhapa goes on:
An (actual) finding (of a realization) of the totally correct view of voidness, through stainless listening and thinking like this, is necessary and indispensable for developing totally correct absorbed concentration on voidness.
You see, now he’s getting into the topic that you have to be able to… Absorbed concentration (ting-nge-’dzin). That’s the word samadhi (Skt. samādhi). That means perfect concentration — no dullness, no mental wandering or flightiness. To get an actual realization — what we would call realization — you need not just the correct view of voidness, which means understanding it correctly… First, he says you have to get the correct understanding. Then we need the concentration.
He says:
Otherwise, if we have not deeply understood the very nature of the reality of (all) phenomena, then on what shall we focus in order to develop (such concentration on voidness)?
To get an experience of voidness — if we want to use that term — you need to understand it. You have to have the correct view, which comes from hearing it and thinking about it.
Not only just that, but we must also definitely seek either an actual stilled and settled state of shamatha realized through the non-inverted methods for achieving one
In other words, there are methods for achieving shamatha (Skt. śamatha). Inverted means that it’s all topsy-turvy and in the wrong order and not at all proper.
or a state of absorbed concentration having the four characteristics as previously explained and which would resemble a stilled and settled state of shamatha.
Either the real thing or something very, very similar.
Those four characteristics we had in terms of focusing on a visualization of a figure in a mandala (Skt. maṇḍala):
[1] A powerful ability to have — in this case it was the visualization appear clearly whether it takes strong or easy effort.
In other words, to have the understanding of voidness appear clearly so it will arise.
[2] The capacity to have that extend throughout the entire session.
To be able to maintain that understanding. That’s very difficult, to maintain the understanding of something for more than a few moments. I mean, it’s even hard to explain how you would do that. It’s very difficult. It becomes stale; then you’re just focusing, but there’s no active understanding.
[3] During that session, no going under the power either of mental dullness or flightiness of mind.
[4] Contacting, by means of that, an exhilarating joy of body and mind and thus having progressed to resemble something in the direction of a stilled and settled state of shamatha.
If it’s not the full thing, something very, very close. Something like that. Maybe we can’t maintain it for four hours, but we maintain it for three hours, something like that.
Participant: That’s enough.
Dr. Berzin: That’s enough.
Participant: That’s much easier.
Dr. Berzin: Much easier, much, much easier.
Tsongkhapa is saying that we have to work both on the understanding of voidness and on the concentration.
Then he says:
Once we have provided ourselves with these two,
That’s the correct understanding and the concentration skills.
we must then actualize the absorbed concentration of the joined pair of stilled and settled shamatha and exceptionally perceptive vipashyana settled single-pointedly on the meaning (of voidness), parted from all mental fabrication.
You have to get joined shamatha (zhi-gnas) and vipashyana (lhag-mthong) focused on voidness. Parted from all mental fabrication means non-conceptual, without any fabrication or projection of truly established existence. That’s what we’re aiming for.
In other words, if we lack a (correct) view (of voidness) as explained above, then even if we have achieved a single-pointed settling (of our minds), they will not be settled on the meaning (of voidness) parted from mental fabrication.
Just to gain concentration is not enough.
Because of that, then except for its being a stilled and settled state of shamatha, (our achievement) will not be what an exceptionally perceptive state of vipashyana means. Likewise, even if we have found an understanding of the non-inverted view, yet lack a stable state of shamatha, our minds will waver a great deal from this focal object. Then, no matter how much we discern with detection of individual details, we will not be able to conjoin stilled and settled shamatha with exceptionally perceptive vipashyana. Therefore, when most standard classics say that both are necessary, the meaning is like that.
We’re talking about the very advanced states, now, of how we put together shamatha and vipashyana (Skt. vipaśyanā).
- Shamatha is a stilled and settled mind, no dullness — everybody’s falling asleep as I’m saying this — but no dullness, no sleepiness, no flightiness of mind. And in addition, this exhilarating state of physical and mental joy that the mind is able to focus on anything.
- Then vipashyana has, in addition to that, a second exhilarating sense, that the mind is able to discern anything.
If it’s vipashyana, it’s pervasive that it’s a joined pair of shamatha and vipashyana. If it’s actually vipashyana, it means that it’s joined shamatha and vipashyana. People use the term vipashyana for meditation that’s done before that, but that’s not the actual state of vipashyana. That’s basically meditating on voidness, in many cases. We’re not talking about in the Theravada (Skt. Theravāda) tradition.
What’s not pervasive is that, if it’s vipashyana, it has both discerning (dpyad-sgom) and stabilizing meditation (’jog-sgom). Discerning meditation is what’s usually translated as analytical meditation. If it’s discerning meditation, it has subtle discernment — remember we had gross investigation (rtog-pa) and subtle discernment (dpyod-pa) as these mental factors — that is discerning the very, very fine details.
When do we attain a joined vipashyana and shamatha? It’s a joined pair. A joined pair (zung-’brel) is a technical term which means you attain one and then you add on the second; it’s not something that you attain the two at the same time. We attain the two together focused on voidness when we get the second of the five paths, or pathway minds (lam) — the applying pathway mind (sbyor-lam), the so-called path of preparation. Then at that point we still have a conceptual cognition of voidness — straightforward cognition (mngon-sum) because it doesn’t have to directly rely on the line of reasoning, but according to Prasangika (Skt. Prāsaṅgika) that straightforward can be either conceptual or non-conceptual, so it’s still through a category. When it’s conceptual, there’s an appearance of truly established existence.
If there’s an appearance of truly established existence with an applying pathway of mind, that means that both in total absorption on voidness (mnyam-bzhag) and the subsequent attainment (rjes-thob), when everything’s like an illusion. The total absorption — it’s like space, no such thing — there’s still an appearance of truly established no such thing. And then everything like an illusion: there’s also an appearance of truly established existence. It’s straightforward — we’re not having to rely on a line of reasoning — but it’s still conceptual.
If you have an appearance of truly established existence, then there is subtle discernment with your vipashyana. Why? Because you are discerning the fine detail, that it’s not like that. You have to discern. That’s a very subtle differentiation that we’re making examining that fine detail. We’re still examining that fine detail of this appearance of truly established existence. At that time our vipashyana — which means vipashyana joined with shamatha — has both the discerning and the stabilizing meditation. Stabilizing is the perfect concentration.
Participant: You said there’s still subtle discernment, that you understand it’s that and nothing else.
Dr. Berzin: No. You’re discerning that even this appearance of truly established voidness is… there is no such thing. There’s an appearance of truly established nothing.
Participant: But the mind would not actively engage with that.
Dr. Berzin: The mind would not actively engage in that verbally or anything like that, because you have stabilizing meditation.
Participant: The focal object would be the impossibility of true existence.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The focal object would be the absence, total absence, of truly established existence. However, it would be conceptual. It appears through an image of truly established existence.
Now, with a seeing (mthong-lam) or accustoming pathway mind (sgom-lam) — either the path of seeing or the path of meditation — during total absorption there’s no appearance of truly established existence. At that time the combined vipashyana and shamatha have only stabilizing meditation; they don’t also have discerning meditation. But in the subsequent-attainment period — it again has both, because there’s an appearance of truly established existence. It’s non-conceptual for the seeing and accustoming pathway of mind, but still there’s an appearance of truly established existence.
That becomes a little bit debatable, is it really non-conceptual at that time. But what I found out is that it is non-conceptual. But I would have to really read up. There probably are different opinions on that. Can it be an appearance of truly established existence without it being conceptual? I don’t know. I don’t think so. No, of course there is. According to Prasangika there is. Even with non-conceptual sense perception there’s an appearance of truly established existence.
Participant: Yeah, but that wouldn’t be the case on the seeing pathway mind during…
Dr. Berzin: During subsequent attainment it would be. It is non-conceptual.
OK, that is that section. Now all we have are the closing remarks of the text. This basically covers the text. Let me just read the closing remarks.
What happened to my watch? Here it is.
Closing Remarks
If I were to have written only in brief about the way to cut off all inverted deviations and thereby develop a non-inverted view (of voidness),
Deviations, where you go astray.
it seemed I would not satisfy your wishes. Yet if I were to have been very extensive, it seemed that this would have become extremely overburdening with words. Therefore, today I have tried not to write (in either of these ways) in this letter.
In general, even if I were to present the (sutra and tantra) pathway minds like this (in a letter form), it did not seem as though it would be of much benefit, even in the future. Therefore, whether those who have requested me to do so, in reference to the future, have been lofty or humble, I have never in the past consented (to write such a letter). But you, my hallowed (teacher), are not like the others. Since you have requested me so earnestly please to discuss (this topic) and since other pressing reasons appeared as well from your noble letter, I have offered you these brief (words), having dispensed with much correlation with scriptural quotations and elaborate arguments to cut off extreme positions with logical reasoning. After examining over and again (what I have written), if it seems to accord with reason, I humbly request you please to implement this with your lofty practice.
I’m trying to translate here the very honorific, flowery language that Tsongkhapa is using.
(In a previous life) when you were the Master Translator Loden-sherab (Blo-ldan shes-rab), you travelled with countless difficulties to the Noble Land (of India) and served there many learned spiritual masters. By so doing, you found an exact (realization) of the total and complete points of the Triumphant One’s teachings. Because of this, whatever marvelous (works and translations) you prepared brought clarity to this land of the darkness of ignorance (Tibet). The banner of your fame still waves on among all wandering beings, including the gods, for, as this Eye of the World who had a heart of compassionately cherishing others more than himself, you attained the enlightened state of a successor to the Triumphant (Buddha).
(Now you have taken birth as) Konchog-tsultrim (dKon-mchog tshul-khrims), someone who keeps vows strictly, is learned, vastly intelligent, and who (as your name indicates) has respect for the (Three) Rare and Supreme Gems and excellent ethical self-discipline.
His name: konchog (dkon-mchog) are the Three Gems, and tsultrim (tshul-khrims) is ethical self-discipline.
In order to fulfill your wishes, I, Lozang-dragpa (Blo-bzang grags-pa), follower of learned masters who have exactly realized (all) the points they have heard and studied from many stainless scriptural classics and who am (now) a renunciate meditator favoring quiet places, have exhausted (my meager knowledge and insight in trying to satisfy you) in this way. By the excellent (positive) force of this constructive act, obtained from this (humble attempt), may all wandering beings understand the classics exactly as (Buddha), the Guru of the Three Realms, has well explained and thereby spread a festive array of realizations, perfect to the rule.
You with a constructive and confident mind and I are like (Buddha’s disciples, the close friends) Maudgalyayana and Shariputra. I pray that whichever of us receives the nectar (of Buddhahood) first will be able to share it with the other.
Rather a nice wish.
Ah, isn’t it wonderful to have had the excellent fortune of obtaining (a human rebirth with full) respites (to study and practice the Dharma) and to have met with the teachings of the Triumphant (Buddhas)! Now the (only thing) reasonable is to work day and night to make our bodies, with which we can accomplish great purposes, have their full meaning. This is because (Buddha) has said that those who make a marginal (effort) gain marginal results, while those who make a complete (effort) gain a complete result. And what sensible person would be satisfied with something partial?
That’s actually quite a famous line. Those who make a marginal effort gain marginal results, while those who make a complete effort gain a complete result. Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey used to use a variant of that, that those who use fantasy methods attain fantasy results and those that use the real methods gain real results.
Tsongkhapa goes on:
(In the past) there has never been any limited being who has escaped being gobbled up by the cannibal of impermanence. As this is still only the case, mind, how can you sit and relax? Therefore, we must give up meaningless activities which, even though we might exert ourselves in, we will have to discard anyway (when we die). Instead, we need always to think in fact about the two kinds of karmic actions (constructive and destructive, the effects of) which will follow us no matter where we go. Having thought like this, then with moral self-dignity and care for how our actions reflect on others, as well as with mindfulness, alertness, and conscientious care, we will in fact be able to tame our minds well, which are so difficult to subdue.
This thing about moral self-dignity (ngo-tsha shes-pa), thinking about the effects on ourselves and care for how our actions reflect on others, thinking about the results on others — these are defining characteristics for any constructive action.
Mindfulness (dran-pa), that’s the mental glue. Alertness (shes-bzhin), the alarm system if we stray. And conscientious care, which is taking seriously what the effects of everything will be on us. Those are important aspects for gaining concentration.
Then Tsongkhapa concludes:
May this thereby spread joy to our minds at the time of our deaths. May the (Buddhas’) teachings, the basis of all happiness and excellence, abide (forever). May no harm come to those who practice the hallowed Dharma. May all wandering beings’ hopes be fulfilled in accord with the Dharma, and may they never be parted from a heart of loving one another.
This “Brief Indication of the Graded Pathway Minds” has been (written) in response to a letter of request from the holy personage of Konchog-tsultrim, a great renunciate meditator who has exactly realized all the points he has heard so extensively and thus becomes a sacred close friend of the precious teachings and a guide for many wandering beings. It has been composed by the Buddhist monk Lozang-dragpa in the (Tibetan) district of E (E) at the Teura (Te’u-ra) Monastery.
That concludes the text.
The custom is to read the beginning again for auspicious reasons:
Homage to Manjughosha. May I always be cared for by (you,) the foremost of the peerless (Dharma) expounders. Your flawless knowledge and wisdom are unimpeded even concerning the subtlest points. This is due to your familiarization, over a long time, with the methods of profound (voidness) and extensive (enlightening actions, gained) through many magnificent skillful means.
O my excellent spiritual mentor and friend, first you strove to hear and study many scriptural pronouncements. Then you spread the teachings with your excellent explanations. In the end, you made extended effort to actualize them. May your feet be firm throughout a long life!
OK? That ends the text. We went through the last part of it fairly quickly, but as you’ve seen from the content, there’s not very much to add from what we have explained already.
The text I think is a very, very useful text. I gave it the name Letter of Practical Advice on Sutra and Tantra because just to call it the name that Tsongkhapa gave it, A Brief Indication of the Graded Pathway Minds, we would think that it was the short lam-rim, which it’s not. But I think it really does contain a great deal of very practical advice — a lot of it, particularly about how to visualize and how to meditate, I haven’t found in other sources — and therefore I’m very happy that we’ve had the opportunity to go through it, go through it slowly, and I hope it’s of some benefit to you.
Any final questions?
Let’s end with the dedication. We think whatever positive force, whatever understanding has come from this, let it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.