LPA41: Questions about the Dissolution Process

Then we started last time with our discussion of Tsongkhapa’s presentation of how to visualize ourselves as one of these Buddha-figures and the instructions for how to do that, which form a central part of the generation stage. It’s within the context of visualizing or imagining ourselves as a Buddha-figure that we practice in our visualization, in our imagination, practices similar to death, bardo, and rebirth as a cause for bringing about being able to actually simulate the process of death, bardo, and rebirth on the complete stage, when we actually are able to dissolve the energy-winds into the central channel (at the heart chakra usually) and manifest the subtlest clear-light mind, and within the context of that subtlest clear-light mind, having a blissful understanding of voidness, generate ourselves in the form of a deity, of a Buddha-figure. 

Now, for visualization, what we’re trying to do here is to overcome our ordinary appearances and our ordinary clinging to these appearances by — and this is very important to understand — we overcome our ordinary appearance by imagining ourselves in the form of a Buddha, and we overcome our ordinary clinging to that appearance in terms of our understanding of the voidness of that appearance. 

What’s very important in tantra is always to dissolve our ordinary appearance and clinging to it with an understanding of voidness, voidness of our appearance, and then within that understanding of voidness, generate ourselves in the form of a deity. In other words, when you have a mind that understands voidness, then that mind of course is going to have a body associated with that, and we imagine that body to be in the form of a Buddha-figure, continuing to have, at least on some level, an understanding of the voidness of our appearance. In other words, we start with voidness and continue to maintain voidness of our appearance as much as is possible. 

So, when we read in translations: “Out of voidness, I arise as such and such a figure,” that is really not a very good translation actually. A better translation is “Within the context of voidness, I arise as…” It’s not out of it but within it, and we still maintain it as much as is possible. Of course, it’s going to have to be a… How do I translate that? Explicitly our mind focuses on our form as a Buddha and implicitly we understand the voidness of that. That’s how you usually meditate in the subsequent attainment (rjes-thob) period after total absorption on voidness, in which things appear like an illusion. They appear, but implicitly we understand that they don’t exist in impossible ways, the way that they might appear to exist. 

Participant: When we’re doing a meditation practice where this phrase comes in — “Out of voidness, we appear as this figure” — I can’t help but imagine some kind of blackness, that you arise as this Buddha-figure out of this blackness, in a way.

Dr. Berzin: Right. What he’s saying is that because of the way that it’s phrased usually in English, and probably in other Western languages, we get the impression in these practices that we imagine a blackness when we have focused on voidness, and then somehow coming out of that blackness, or emerging, is an image of ourselves as a Buddha-figure. This is not quite correct. It’s not as though the Buddha-figure was sitting inside this darkness, like inside a dark cave, and then all of a sudden comes out. That’s certainly not the case. But rather we …

Participant: And not materializing out of nothingness. That also would be wrong.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Something out of nothing would also be incorrect. What is crucial here is to have a correct understanding of voidness. What do we focus on when we focus on voidness? 

Participant: What do you focus on in the visual part of the visualization?

Dr. Berzin: What do you focus on with the visual part of focusing on voidness? OK, now we get into a whole other discussion. In anuttarayoga tantra, highest class of tantra — which is what is being presented here, the context within which Tsongkhapa is presenting his discussion — there are two systems. If we speak of the new tantra schools — that’s Gelug, Kagyu, and Sakya (let’s leave aside the Nyingma explanation) — within those schools, you have two dissolution processes, they’re called. One is the system that you find in Kalachakra, which has a ten-step dissolution. But the far, far more common one, which appears in all the other anuttarayoga tantras except Kalachakra, is an eight-step one. This is the one that is most usually explained as the basis. 

Within this… I won’t go into a full discussion of this, but basically what’s happening is that the consciousness is withdrawing from the elements as its basis. Now what does that mean, the elements as its basis? It’s a very interesting question. You have the subtlest wind and the subtlest level of consciousness. This is talking about the same thing, just from two different points of view. Is it the case that the subtlest wind, with the subtlest consciousness, enters into a body and connects with the elements, and on the basis of that activates them so they become the basis for a body? How would that be different from a soul entering into a body? That’s the first thing to clarify. How would that be different?

Participant: A soul would have an unchanging inner part that goes…

Dr. Berzin: Right. A soul would be unchanging, unaffected by anything — static — and could exist totally separately. Can’t the subtlest mind and subtlest energy exist separately from a gross body?

Participant: Not without being affected.

Dr. Berzin: Not without being an affected phenomenon (’dus-byas-kyi chos)? Hmm. What about in the case of a Buddha? What you say is correct. What you say is correct. When we speak in terms of the different types of existence, there’s death existence, bardo existence, conception existence, and pre-death existence. That’s the list of four. And in death existence, then, you only have the clear-light mind and the subtlest wind, and that usually doesn’t last terribly long. That would be in ordinary beings. 

In terms of a Buddha, I don’t think that you ever have a period in which the clear-light mind and subtlest wind of a Buddha is not associated with some sort of grosser level of elements, whether we speak about subtle elements, like in Sambhogakaya, or the grosser elements. This is because, as it says in Uttaratantra, a Buddha’s manifestation as Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya also is without end: it’s always appearing in some place in some form or another. 

Anyway, what you say is correct, that we’re not talking about something solid, existing from the power of something, with its existence being established from its own side, this clear-light mind, as some sort of thing that enters into something else. But it’s associated with it. There’s a basis. Somehow it connects. But also another way of saying it is that it can be labeled on the basis of grosser elements. In that sense we also have some sort of association between the clear-light mind and the grosser elements. 

When we talk about the dissolution of the elements, what we’re talking about is this clear-light mind and subtlest wind withdrawing from various elements as its basis, whether we think of that in a more graphic form of a basis or we think of it in terms of a basis for labeling. There are different levels on which we might understand this. And that of course would require a lot of thinking in terms of trying to understand… Pardon?

Participant: Could you explain the second way as well?

Dr. Berzin: The second way refers to how a Buddha… The omniscient mind of a Buddha knows all phenomena. If the omniscient mind of a Buddha encompasses all phenomena, so does the subtlest wind. What does that mean? Does that mean that a Buddha’s everywhere — Buddha is the size of the universe? — as we would have in some of the non-Buddhist explanations of liberation, of moksha, that the atman becomes the size of the universe: it’s partless and the size of the universe. See, this is the problem. The way that this is explained is that all phenomena can be a basis for labeling the body and mind of a Buddha, just as space can be labeled on all phenomena having form. This is the analogy that is used. That’s the place where I found this explanation. 

Because otherwise it becomes very... The Buddhist view here, or explanation, has the same components as the non-Buddhist, as the Hindu or Jain explanations, in terms of the size of the universe. But it doesn’t mean that we’re one with the universe, it doesn’t mean that we merge with the universe as a Buddha, but that the mind and energy-wind of an omniscient Buddha has everything as its basis for labeling. Therefore, a Buddha can appear in any form, anywhere, simultaneously. That, by the way, is not at all easy to understand. But anyway, this was the explanation that Serkong Rinpoche gave me of that.

Participant: What would be the difference for a non-Buddha? A non-Buddha also can take many forms.

Dr. Berzin: A non-Buddha, meaning an ārya bodhisattva who can manifest in a thousand forms? 

Participant: A samsaric being.

Dr. Berzin: A samsaric being? We would manifest in one form at a time.

Participant: Yeah, but it could be any form.

Dr. Berzin: We would manifest... This becomes interesting. This is a very interesting question. Because we become... First of all, based on our karmic potentials, the ones that are activated at the time of death, our mental continuum could be associated with an appropriate form, so it could be any form within the six realms of beings. And in a sense, it’s generated by… One factor generating it is our karma. The other factor obviously is the genes of the parents and all of that, the environment, etc. That’s one aspect. 

Another aspect that comes to mind is that we can also label me... You see, we have the body… Let me explain this a little bit better. I’m not being terribly clear. When we talk about labeling, we’re talking about labeling me, so what are we labeling me on? We can label me on the subtlest energy-wind and mind That’s always the case, because that has no beginning and no end. Now, the subtlest wind and mind can be associated with a grosser physical basis — the elements, either gross elements of this type of body that we have or different types of elements, the elements that compose the body of a ghost or of a hell creature or of a divine being, one of these gods. Those are a different type of elements. They could also be associated with that subtlest mind and wind, which changes from moment to moment, but each moment of it could be associated with the subtle elements of a dream body as well. Then there’s something called illusory body, which can even leave the body, the gross body. It could be associated with that as well. Because of that association, then the me can be labeled. And when we talk about the labeling here, we’re talking about a labeling of me. We can label me on the basis of these elements, because the continuity of our subtlest mind and subtlest wind is associated with those elements.

Do those elements exist externally? Are they generated from the clear-light mind? This becomes a question that is debated among the various schools of Indian philosophy. Different types of presentations are there. There’s a presentation in the Uttaratantra, that from space emerges wind; from wind… it doesn’t say fire, but water; and from water, earth. This is not very easy to actually understand unless we think in terms of appearances emerging from clear-light mind. 

When we talk about… Excuse me that I’m not really speaking in a terribly well-organized way this evening, but the topic is not so conducive for a well-organized presentation. When you were saying that things come out of voidness, it’s not in the sense that... We were saying that the elements come from space, as is explained in Uttaratantra. It’s not that they exist hidden in space, or hidden in voidness, and then pop out, but we get a sequence, and the sequence is one of things getting grosser. And you can label me on all of that and understand the voidness in all of that. Similarly, we have an understanding of voidness in tantra. This is essential. When we focus on voidness, what we’re focusing on is “No such thing as truly established existence.” When you focus on “No such thing,” all you’re focusing on is “No such thing,” so nothing appears. That would be when we describe this in a sutra way. 

When we describe this in terms of the dissolution process, then, the subtlest clear-light mind always is giving rise to appearances, and so as it withdraws from the elements of the gross body, you can no longer label me on the elements of the gross body — that’s a little bit clearer than what I said before — then that clear-light mind will generate different appearances. 

We are trying to understand voidness through all of this. Depending on whether we’re doing father tantra or mother tantra practice — these are two divisions within anuttarayoga tantra practice — either we, in mother tantra, reaffirm our understanding of voidness before the dissolution process, or in father tantra we affirm it at the end of it. But in any case, you sustain the understanding of voidness throughout. 

Now, there are different appearances. I should just explain. I’ll explain on one level. When this clear-light mind and subtlest wind withdraws from the earth element — that’s the solid element — then you have an appearance like an illusion, like a mirage. When it withdraws then from the water element, then the appearance is like smoke. It’s described as earth goes into water, so it’s like a mirage. Water into fire, so it’s like smoke. Then when fire goes into wind, which means that the consciousness withdraws from fire, the appearance is like sparks in the sky or fireflies (it’s described two ways). When it withdraws from wind, wind into space, then we get the appearance just of like a dot of light. It’s sort of described as a candle at the bottom of a well. I suppose in the West we have this image of a light at the end of the tunnel, a dark tunnel. Just a dot of light. 

Then we have a sequence of what’s usually described as a white appearance, which is like moonlight reflected from a field of snow (which doesn’t mean that we see the moon or that we see the snow, but just that sort of whiteness), then a redness... It’s sometimes called the white appearance, then the red appearance, which is like a glow of sunset, and then a black appearance, darkness. Then there is the appearance of the clear-light mind itself that it generates, which is sort of like it’s an absence of sunlight, absence of moonlight, and absence of complete darkness when there’s no sun or moon or stars. If we have the absence of all of those, the appearance is described as the very, very dark blue that you see when the sky is just, just starting to get light. It’s not moonlight, it’s not sunlight, it’s not complete darkness. That’s what appears. 

If we correlate this — now come my own ideas from my own contemplation on this — what seems to me to make sense in this process… Because just to have visualizations — what’s the big deal of a visualization? It seems to me that with the visualization, one has to imagine a loosening of the grasping for truly established existence. 

Also, I should mention before I get into this, the white, red, and black appearance has to do with the… 

You have a question? You didn’t understand a word?

Participant: The last sentence.

Dr. Berzin: I’ll come back to it. A loosening of the grip of grasping for truly established existence. 

The one thing I have to add in the appearances is that we have what’s known as white and red bodhichittas. White and red bodhichittas. They’re actually referring to very subtle drops, energy drops, creative energy drops that are very, very subtle. They are called bodhichitta because, on the basis of them coming together, we can get the understanding of deepest bodhichitta (the understanding of voidness). It’s not that they are a way of being aware of anything, but they’re given that name. 

At the time of birth, or of conception, as the fetus develops, then the white bodhichitta goes up, eventually being located in the crown chakra; the red bodhichitta goes down, eventually located in the navel chakra. At the time of death, the white bodhichitta comes down to heart chakra, so the consciousness, because of that, gets the white appearance. Red bodhichitta then comes up to the heart chakra. That’s why you get the red appearance. They join together and the consciousness within it, so it’s closed within it, then you get the darkness, the black appearance. That’s the reason for the colors. 

As I said, what seems to me — now I’m adding this (I haven’t had this explained to me) — but it seems to me that in the process of visualizing this, since we’re supposed to be getting all of this with an understanding of voidness, and the whole point is to get to a nonconceptual cognition of voidness through all of this (or in the generation stage it’s still conceptual because we’re imagining it), that when doing this — at least this is how I try to do it — you feel that the tight hold of our grasping on solid existence, truly established existence, loosens. The appearance of truly established existence breaks up, and because it breaks up, then the appearance of everything around us that we see — which appears to be solidly, independently existent, established from its own side — first of all loosens and becomes like an illusion, like a mirage. It doesn’t appear to be so truly existent, so solidly existent. Then it appears to become like smoke, so it’s even less solidly existent. Then you get dots of light, sparks of light, so it’s even less. Then you get just one dot of light. It’s becoming less and less solid. 

When we look at the names for what’s usually just called the white, red, and black appearance, the black appearance — it’s called nyertob (nyer-thob) in Tibetan. Nyertob means “near attainment” literally, so it’s like “threshold.” If we speak in the other... Do you know the word threshold? 

Participant: Schwelle.

Dr. Berzin: It’s a threshold. This threshold is the threshold between the subtlest clear-light state and grosser states. If we speak about the reversal sequence, the clear-light mind emerging from this subtlest level, first there’s a threshold. 

Then the red appearance is called cheypa (mched-pa). Cheypa literally means “increase” or “diffusion,” and so, in a sense, appearance-making diffuses now, goes out [i.e. spreads out]. 

Then the third one is nangwa (snang-ba), which means “appear,” which is like an appearance congealing. 

The appearance-making threshold — it emerges from the clear-light mind (the black appearance), it spreads out (the red appearance), starts to congeal into making an appearance of truly established existence, and then a dot of light, sparks of light, smoke-like, illusion-like, our usual appearance of solid existence. Going the other way around, from the dot of light, then it becomes just a congealing of appearance, just diffusion of appearance-making, threshold, and finished. In this sense we are dissolving not just an appearance, but we’re dissolving an appearance of truly established existence. That’s the point. 

When we talk about appearance, we’re talking about not just what something looks like, but what it seems to... Let me say that again. We’re not talking about only the thing that it looks like it is, but we’re talking about how it looks… the way in which it — I can’t even say that in English — the manner of existence with which it appears to exist.

Participant: How we take it to be, in other words.

Dr. Berzin: How it appears to exist. How it appears to exist and what it appears to be. Finally, I got the English straight. So, both of these are dissolving step by step. 

One more thing to add here is when we speak about the threshold phase, it has two parts — what’s called “with mindfulness” and “without mindfulness.” Now what in the world does that mean? It doesn’t mean that one is conscious, and one is unconscious. Remember what the meaning of mindfulness is. Mindfulness is the mental glue. So, it’s the mental glue that’s holding on to the final subtlest shreds of grasping for true existence and an appearance of true existence. One stage of this threshold would be still with that hold, and one stage is without that, and then you get into clear-light mind. 

Participant: When you only have this appearance, it is already something… nothing solid to hold on.

Dr. Berzin: Exactly. It already is an appearance of something not solid to hold on to. 

Participant: It’s only a process of appearances.

Dr. Berzin: Right. What she’s saying is that because of the appearances of illusion-like, smoke-like, etc., the appearance itself suggests that there’s nothing to hold on to. What I am referring to then is the feeling that you have, the understanding that you have. It’s sort of a... How can I describe it? Remember what the word grasping means here. Grasping has two meanings. Grasping is to perceive the appearance of truly established existence and to believe in it, believe that it corresponds to reality. We want to dissolve both of those. I can only describe it in terms of a feeling of thing existing solidly. That’s part of our belief. 

There has to be some understanding that goes with this sequence of visualizations. As you have the dissolution process, our understanding is of course “No such thing as truly established existence.” The appearance is dissolving step by step by step by step, and our feeling, based on our belief in true existence, is getting less and less and less and less. Then you have the absence of all these appearances, which then appears like this dark blue. So, it’s not that there’s nothing that appears. The “nothing that appears” even in sutra is described as being like space. What in the world does that look like? Space doesn’t have an appearance. Nevertheless, the clear-light mind — one of its features is that it’s always making some sort of appearance. What is it making the appearance from? It’s the subtlest wind at this stage, not grosser elements. 

Does it make any sense? Obviously, it’s very advanced.

Participant: Upon doing the initialization, how could we apply this? We should imagine somehow the association or labeling of the elements of this Buddha…

Dr. Berzin: When you do the visualization? You mean the dissolution or visualizing yourself as a Buddha?

Participant: Visualizing yourself as a Buddha out of voidness.

Dr. Berzin: Visualizing ourselves as a Buddha. It’s not out of voidness; it’s within the understanding of voidness. Within the understanding of voidness. Now, we’re not talking about a reversal sequence here. The reversal sequence occurs with rebirth, becoming associated with gross elements. 

The clear-light mind (and the subtlest wind associated with it) makes appearances. That’s one of the features of a clear-light mind. And it communicates: energy goes out. In Nyingma terminology, that’s called compassion (thugs-rje) for some reason, but it’s referring to the fact that it goes out [i.e. goes forth]. That’s the communication. We imagine that those features of the clear-light mind now manifest with not just the appearance of that dark blue but the appearance of a Buddha-figure which is generated in stages. There are many different ways of generating the figures — in terms of lotuses and insignias and seed syllables and all this sort of stuff. There’s a huge variety, and I won’t go into all the different ways in which it is generated. But the point is that it’s not that the mind is becoming grosser and that, somehow, it’s becoming associated with grosser elements — or even subtle elements, like in a bardo — but that clear-light mind itself now is making these appearances. What is it making the appearances from? The subtlest wind, which is another way of looking at this thing, the continuity. From one point of view, it’s a way of being aware of things; from another point of view, there’s energy.

Participant: But at the point where one still has to imagine this, how do you deal with the problem that the mind is not able to both create an appearance of an affirming and a non-affirming negation phenomenon?

Dr. Berzin: OK. How do we deal with the fact that a mind cannot make an appearance of an affirmation phenomenon (which would be a body) at the same time as having the awareness of a negation phenomenon of the voidness of it? This is why I said this is like the subsequent attainment period, at least at this stage. We’re not talking about in the case of a Buddha. But at this stage — I’m just giving one explanation here, obviously I could go much deeper into this — but at this stage it is similar to the subsequent attainment situation, in which explicitly we focus on an affirmation phenomenon, and implicitly, without it appearing, there’s the understanding of voidness, and it’s known as illusion-like voidness (sgyu-ma lta-bu’i stong-nyid).

Participant: But could that be what the translations are referring to? Like out of the total absorption — onto a grosser level, maybe — but coming out of the total absorption on a negation phenomenon.

Dr. Berzin: Coming out of the total absorption on the negation phenomenon? It could be referring to that, but it is …

Participant: I don’t know if it’s the terminology or if it’s just a bad translation.

Dr. Berzin: The terminology is tongpey ngangley rangnyi lama lha (stong-pa’i ngang-las rang-nyid bla-ma lha).  So tongpey ngang (stong-pa’i ngang)… Ngang is like “a situation.” Ley (las) can mean “from”; it could also mean “because of.” 

But what one wants to avoid here is that you come out completely from the understanding of voidness, or that the image was existing in there unmanifest, sort of Samkhya style, and popping out. It’s not that you are losing the understanding of voidness. 

Now, mind you, what I just described is how we practice it. What we imagine is what would occur if we actually had manifested the clear-light mind. The clear-light mind is capable of making an appearance of the two truths. In a non-Buddha situation when our mind gives rise to an appearance of the conventional truth of something, it can only give rise to an appearance of truly established existence. Therefore, you can only have one or the other. If you have an appearance of truly established existence explicitly cognized in a subsequent-attainment period, then you can only have the understanding of the absence of that implicitly. It can’t be explicit. With a clear-light mind — if we actually had it — since the clear-light mind does not make an appearance of truly established existence, then we could both have an appearance of something not truly established (or beyond that, if we want to talk in non-Gelugpa terminology) and, at the same time, the fact that it’s not appearing truly existently. You see, an appearance of truly established existence excludes an appearance of an absence of it. But if there’s an appearance of something that does not appear to be truly existent, then you in fact do have an appearance of an absence of truly established existence — you can have the two simultaneously.

Participant: That means an appearance appears, but you know it is not existing?

Dr. Berzin: Right. In our level of practice, the appearance appears, and we know that it doesn’t exist in a truly established way. But it’s appearing truly existently to us because we have not actually manifested the clear light mind, but we imagine that we have.

Participant: But we know it’s not.

Dr. Berzin: But we know. That’s why it’s an implicit understanding.

Participant: I was taught that one way to keep that in mind is to visualize things as… one would see a rainbow. Not solid, not completely solid, but almost the way one would look at a rainbow.

Dr. Berzin: Right. What he’s saying is that the way that it’s been explained that he’s heard is that we can imagine it being like a rainbow. Yes. But a rainbow…

Participant: It’s really not there.

Dr. Berzin: Well, transparent. All the visualizations are transparent.

Participant: That’s an important part, I think, of not grasping.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It is a help, but it’s not sufficient. It’s not sufficient. There has to be a convinced state of mind of “No such thing as truly established existence. It’s not referring to anything” — it’s not corresponding to anything, I should say.

Participant: What is the difference between this and kundalini? Is it the same?

Dr. Berzin: What is the difference with kundalini? I’m not that familiar with kundalini practice. Perhaps you’re more familiar with it. But you have a…

Participant: I could say it’s very similar, but it has a completely different goal, in that kundalini accepts the atman exists eternally and permanently and is not with emptiness.

Dr. Berzin: Right. What he’s saying is that kundalini... What he didn’t say, but what I would add, is what it’s referring to… You have the term chandali (gtum-mo), which is just another variant of kundalini, in the Buddhist tantra. It’s referring to a type of visualization within the central channel once you have gotten certain winds already in there — which is not very easy to do — in which you imagine a process which will cause the white and red bodhichittas that I mentioned to come down and join. It is a method for achieving, for manifesting, a clear-light mind. I don’t know whether or not they speak in terms of clear-light mind in Hindu tantra, but I would imagine that a similar type of process occurs. Nevertheless, what is missing there is the bodhichitta aim to achieve enlightenment to benefit everybody and the understanding of the voidness of the whole thing. And it’s seen as a process for manifesting the atman.

Participant: It’s exactly the same process, done exactly the same way, but the goal in kundalini is union of the atman with a deity, period, not for compassion and helping others, not to become a Buddha, and it’s not within the context of emptiness.

Dr. Berzin: Right. The goal is to have the union of atman with the deity — this would be in forms of kundalini that are part of bhakti (devotional type of Hindu practices) — or just to have it be one with the universe… 

Participant: With Brahma.

Dr. Berzin: With Brahma, if we speak in a non-bhakti-based practice. But without bodhichitta, without voidness, etc. But you do have the visualization of yourselves as the deity. So, you have the same thing. 

This is the point. Remember I might have mentioned earlier, not today but at different times, that there are many, many practices that are pan-Indic, that you find in all Indian systems. Hearing, listening to the teachings, contemplating, meditating. That you have in the Upanishads. The practices of shamatha and vipashyana — a stilled and settled state of mind and an exceptionally perceptive state of mind — you have that in all systems, not just Buddhist; it’s not specifically Buddhist. Aiming for a better rebirth — that’s certainly not specifically Buddhist. Aiming for liberation from samsara and from karma — that’s not specifically Buddhist; you have this in all the systems. And to a certain extent, you have being a nice person.

Participant: But only to gain enough good karma.

Dr. Berzin: Right. To gain enough good karma to go to the top level of samsara and get out of it. I mean, they do speak about moksha (liberation). All these things are pan-Indic. You find it in all the systems. A few of the systems don’t have karma. A few of the system are missing little pieces. But we’re speaking in general here. And becoming one with the universe, the size of the universe. As I said, the omniscient mind and body of a Buddha encompasses the whole universe. The same structure. 

You have to see with all of these: What makes it specifically Buddhist? This is the four noble truths. Suffering, the cause of suffering, a true stopping of it, the understanding of voidness (or non-atman, whatever level we want to take it) that will do that. Plus, the motivation — full renunciation, which is to get rid of the deepest causes, having identified what the true causes of samsara are, and then, on the Mahayana level, bodhichitta. These are what makes it Buddhist. 

His Holiness the Dalai Lama always emphasizes: with all of these practices, be sure that you have it within the context of what makes it specifically Buddhist. Where would you start doing this with? Refuge, the safe direction. All of it is based on an understanding of the four noble truths: What really is truly the suffering, samsaric situation which the other systems don’t identify deeply enough? What is the true cause of it? The other systems don’t identify it deeply enough. What is the true stopping of the causes and so on? The other systems don’t go deeply enough. What is the true pathway mind or understanding that would bring that about? Also, the other systems don’t. 

I mean, they say that liberation is on the basis of an understanding of reality. They all say that. But what that description of reality is is something else. And most of them will use the example of an illusion as well. 

Participant: Maya.

Dr. Berzin: Maya. But is everything actually an illusion? Is it just like an illusion? How do you understand illusion? This differs. 

So much is structurally the same in all these systems. That’s why one needs to be quite clear that Buddhism, the way that Buddha taught it, is definitely an Indian system. Therefore, when it went to different cultures, it’s not so easy. Chinese had a terribly difficult time — completely alien to traditional Chinese way of thinking. Tibetans didn’t have such a well-established philosophical system, so it was a little bit easier to adopt. But they understood it in the context of the general beliefs that they had and added in the stuff from Bon which was there before. In the West, I think we have also a terribly difficult time with it, different from the Chinese but equally as difficult as the Chinese; it’s equally alien.

Participant: The difference, I think, is that in the West, it’s the time that it came to the West. We have no religion here now, so almost nothing to build on. Our Western countries are so materialistic. In Korea, or Japan, or Tibet they had something. I think that makes it a lot harder for any spiritual system.

Dr. Berzin: What he’s saying is that the time that it has come into the West at the present is not the Middle Ages in the West, in which there was more of a value of spiritualism — but I think much more close-minded.

Participant: But still maybe you’d have an idea…

Dr. Berzin: Some idea that there is something more than our ordinary appearance. But in the West now we have a very materialistic society, for the most part, although there are the born-again types that are very strongly spiritual in a certain sense, in a manner of speaking, certainly. I don’t think that it is worthwhile to say who has a more difficult time, the modern West or ancient China or this or that. Different obstacles are there. But at least we have the method of investigation, of science, if you accept science (not everybody does, as we’ve seen in recent America). But if you do accept the scientific method, then as His Holiness the Dalai Lama says, that is the same type of method of investigation and needing to replicate results of experiments that you carry out, and so on, in order to validate it, etc., that is used in Buddhism. This allows for an investigation of the Buddhist teachings to see if it’s correct or not. His Holiness has said, “Anything that doesn’t stand up to rational type of investigation or observation — like what the world looks like — throw it out.” This is very good.

Participant: But not just rational.

Dr. Berzin: Not just rational. Right. What’s based on experience, but what’s based on experience that can be explained or at least understood.

Participant: When you don’t have the experience of a certain area, then you cannot rationalize about it.

Dr. Berzin: Right. If we don’t have experience, we can’t rationally — let’s not use the word rationalize (that has a different connotation in English) — we can’t rationally explain it. Although you can theorize... Well, let’s not get into whether or not you can theorize something or…

Participant: His Holiness has stressed: Can you repeat the experiment?

Dr. Berzin: If you can repeat the experiment then it is valid. Exactly. You have to get repeatable results, results that repeat.

Participant: I have a question. When you started the explanation this evening, you said that — in Uttaratantra, or whatever it was — that out of the clear-light mind appears space and then wind and so on. That to me sounds quite a bit like Yogachara, that they are one substance, the objects, and the mind.

Dr. Berzin: OK. Now we have another big topic of discussion. In rGyud bla-ma (Uttaratantra, Furthest Everlasting Stream), a sutra text attributed to Maitreya, in one passage it says (I should look up the passage so that we get an exact translation): From space, wind. From wind — it doesn’t mention fire, as I recall — water. And from water, earth. His Holiness has said that this has parallels to the discussion of clear-light mind and the way that appearances evolve. If we’re speaking on a samsaric level, then we can speak in terms of connecting with grosser and grosser levels as conception takes place. 

As you said, there can be a Chittamatra understanding of this, which is that appearances arise from the clear-light mind. This is not specifically Chittamatra. This can be accepted by anybody. When we talk about appearances… Mind makes appearances. This is part of mental activity. Clarity and awareness. Clarity is appearance-making; awareness is a cognitive engagement. Mental activity is to make appearances. What does it make appearances with? The subtlest wind. This is what I’ve described as mental holograms. Now the question is whether or not the existence of anything can be established externally as coming from a different natal source as the cognition of it. 

Chittamatra would say: “No. All you have is the appearance. All that we can know is the appearance. All you can speak about is the appearance. How can you even speak about something external to that? Because if you’re speaking about it, it’s an object of mind. If you are thinking about it, it’s an object of mind. There’s no way that one could work with objects that are other that being an object of mind that is being involved with them.” In that sense, there are no external objects, externally established objects. 

Prasangika says: “There are. What you say is correct in terms of appearance, but that doesn’t mean that there is no basis for these. And they do come from their own natal sources (their elements and so on). But of course, neither the external objects nor the appearances are established by something on its own side.” 

Now, when you speak about appearances arising from the mind and the world arising from the mind, from clear-light mind, and from all these things, what is explained... His Holiness has explained this — I’ve heard Ling Rinpoche explain this as well — is that this is discussing in terms of karma. Based on karmic influences, then various things arise. Where are the karmic influences, the karmic tendencies? On the mind. It can be labeled on the clear-light mind. Therefore, they give rise to various experiences. 

But nowhere are we saying that these things exist unmanifest inside the clear-light mind and somehow pop out, waiting for various circumstances. That’s Samkhya, which is soundly refuted. When we have expressions such as All appearances are the play of the mind, the play of the voidness of the mind, the play of the blissful-awareness aspect of the mind, and so on, this is referring to the automatically occurring — spontaneously occurring (lhun-grub) is the terminology that’s used in Nyingma — spontaneously-established appearances, appearance-making. In that sense it’s the play, the display (display is sometimes a better word than play here).

Participant: In this text, Uttaratantra, it’s not meant that the mind produces the elements.

Dr. Berzin: It’s not saying that the mind produces the elements in the sense that… Now you have to get into the discussion of causality. And there are — in Abhidharmakosha, there are six different types of causes. In Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asanga’s text, The Compendium of Special Topics of Knowledge — that would be the Chittamatra system — there’s twenty different types of causes and conditions. What type of causal relation does the clear-light mind… I mean, here in Uttaratantra they’re talking about space; they’re not saying the mind. But what is the causal relation of the clear-light mind with the appearance? 

That becomes a very interesting question. Is it — what is the word that I use? — a nyerlen gyi gyu (nyer-len-gyi rgyu), obtaining cause? I don’t think you could say it’s an obtaining cause. An obtaining cause is a seed that gives rise to a plant and that transforms into a plant — not in a solid way, but that gives rise to a plant as its successor and ceases to exist upon giving rise to it. It’s not that type of cause. 

What’s explained in Kalachakra is that it is a similar category cause (rigs-’dra’i rgyu). In general, you would say that something with form and a way of knowing do not have the same similar category causes. But here — similar to a Nyingma presentation about rigpa, the pure awareness (which is another way of referring to the clear-light mind in its unstained state) — then its natural quality is that it gives rise to appearances. Therefore, in that sense the clear-light mind is the similar category cause of both ways of being aware and appearances — what’s called devoid forms (stong-gzugs) in Kalachakra. 

When you talk about cause — is it the cause of the appearances? It’s not a natal source. It’s not something that it pops out of. It’s not what it’s made of. Is it what it’s made of? This is again not so obvious. It’s not something that transforms into them, into these appearances. Is it a necessary cause? Yes. What type of cause?

Participant: The space wouldn’t be the natal source for the next three?

Dr. Berzin: No, the space is not the natal source of the wind. The space is the container. If there were not space, there could not be the elements.

Participant: But the wind is the natal source of what comes next?

Dr. Berzin: I don’t know that you would say that it’s the natal source.

Participant: The obtaining cause?

Dr. Berzin: Would it be the obtaining cause? No, because the wind doesn’t cease to exist. I don’t know. If you would be patient, I will look this up, because I don’t know the exact analysis here. I think it is not so simple. I think that if we look at various commentaries to Uttaratantra we will find a large variety of explanations of this verse. Just patience. 

We have not gotten terribly far into the text. What I wanted to explain, our last five minutes, is just a point that I had mentioned last time, which obviously we need to keep in mind, is that we are talking about… Remember, we were talking about the clarity, which means the giving rise to the visualization, and the pride of the deity, which means to label me in terms of this appearance. What we want to get rid of is the grasping for truly established existence and the appearance-making of truly established existence. By focusing on this pure form of a Buddha-figure, we are working on getting rid of the appearance of truly established existence. And by focusing on the pride of the deity being labeled on this (so we have the understanding of mental labeling and voidness), we’re overcoming the belief in truly established existence, the ignorance, the unawareness. The unawareness of truly established existence, the ignorance or the confusion — that’s part of the emotional obscurations that prevent liberation. The appearance-making of truly established existence and perceiving of it, based on that, is coming from the cognitive obscurations that prevent omniscience of a Buddha. 

We are working here on overcoming both the emotional and cognitive obscurations. This is part of the structure of what we are doing with this process. We want to overcome our mind making appearances of true existence, which it does on the basis of the cognitive obscurations, the habits of grasping for truly established existence, and we want to overcome believing in it, so we understand the voidness of these appearances. These are very important factors here. 

And that me can be conventionally labeled on various bases for labeling. It can be labeled on the basis of these gross elements of our ordinary body, which have been… we’ve appropriated, or taken them, as a basis for labeling me by the force of karma. So a samsaric thing. We could also label me on the basis of our mind generating an appearance of this deity, similar to any appearance that we make from... we would say our imagination in Western terminology, or a dream, and label me on that. In a sense, we’re talking about these appearances deriving on the basis of the clear-light mind. But if we imagine over and over again that we appear in the form of one of these figures — which does not have truly established existence, even though the appearance is being generated from subtle winds, not the subtlest but from subtle winds and so on, which is what’s involved with the appearances in dreams and in imagination — it acts as a cause for actually making, on the complete stage, the subtle winds actually appear in these forms, not just in our minds, in a sense, and that acts as a cause for the clear-light mind itself eventually, as a Buddha, to give rise to these appearances from the subtlest energy-wind. 

That’s the process. Does that make any sense? We’re working on building up causes for the body of a Buddha in a much more efficient way than in sutra. Since a Buddha can appear in any form — sure, we could visual ourselves as Mickey Mouse through all of this, but these forms have been specified in the tantras by Buddha and they have various parts of them that signify different things, represent different things: the six arms standing for the six this, and the nine faces standing for the nine that, and the sixteen legs standing for the sixteen this or that. Now, could we visualize Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck with six arms and what they’re holding is this or that? Sure we could. Would it have the same significance? No. Why? 

This is very similar to the situation with mantras. Could you just go “Blah blah blah blah blah” and say this is the mantra for compassion, and then tell other people, “This is the mantra for compassion, and just recite ‘Blah blah blah blah blah’ and focus on compassion while imagining that you are Mickey Mouse holding whatever”? What’s the difference? 

There’s nothing on the side of words or images that by its own power does anything. The fact that these things (the mantras, the visualizations and so on) were specified by Buddha, by an enlightening mind — on the basis of love, compassion, and bodhichitta — to be able to benefit everyone gives these words or these images a certain power, a characteristic feature of them. Is it findable? No. Does that feature establish the existence of these things? No. Nevertheless, things have characteristic features conventionally. So, it has that. Is that characteristic feature sitting in it and now when I recite the mantra or do the visualization, it works? Not quite so solidly as that. Like any type of inspiration, it has confident belief on our part, understanding of the reality involved, our own aim to achieve enlightenment by means of this, combined with the fact that these things have been specified by Buddha on the basis of a Buddha’s prayers and compassion and so on. All of that brings about the possibility of our success with these practices, to arise dependently on all these factors. It’s a dependently arising phenomenon. This is important to understand.

Participant: In the Christian context, you have the figure of Maria, which seems to me very much to have qualities like those of Tara, as the one who selflessly helps and fulfills all and acts and helps others, so I don’t see why one could not take Mother Maria as a replacement for Tara.

Dr. Berzin: So she’s saying that in Christianity, Maria — Mary in English — mother of Christ is a symbol of love, compassion, and so on. Couldn’t we take that as a symbol here? This becomes a difficult question. Why? Because you do have certain Hindu figures, such as Ganesh, brought into Buddhism and made into a Buddha-figure. Did Buddha specify Ganesh? I don’t know. From an orthodox Buddhist point of view, you would probably say yes. But I would think that the source of the usage of this figure would have to be an authentic realized person within the sphere of Buddhism. I don’t think that we could just say, “OK, this is a...” 

Participant: Not arbitrarily.

Dr. Berzin: It’s not arbitrarily, because Mary certainly is a symbol of compassion. Or Mahatma Gandhi — “Now I visualize myself as Mahatma Gandhi.” But I don’t think that... I mean, Buddha demonstrated his enlightenment both with his realizations and with his pronouncements, whether we take it as pronouncements from the historical Buddha or we take it more in a Mahayana or Tantrayana sense of a Buddha. These figures, the tantras that explain them, the mantras, and so on, are specified by Buddha. 

We can’t specify these things, because we do not — why not? You can’t just say, “Because we’re not allowed to.” That’s a silly reason. Why not? Because we do not have the level of love, compassion, and bodhichitta, and attainment of a Buddha to, in a sense, empower this figure — not in a solid way, but empower the figure or empower these words to be able to benefit to bring about the Buddhist explanation or presentation of love, compassion, enlightenment, etc. Focusing on Mary and love, etc., might bring you the ideal form of love and compassion in Christianity. That is not the same as what is explained in Buddhism.

Participant: But in a way, Buddha took these figures out of Hinduism.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Buddha took these figures, some of them, out of the Hindu pantheon. That’s true. But that was done by Buddha, not by us. That’s the whole point. How do we empower them? 

Participant: Wait a few years. When you have achieved enlightenment, then you can.

Dr. Berzin: Then you can choose Mickey Mouse once you achieve enlightenment.

Participant: Also, if you take Christian tradition seriously, it kind of refutes the Christian tradition. The Pope wouldn’t say that. I believe you have to take your tradition seriously and not mix them. If you mix them, you insult both of them.

Dr. Berzin: Right. If you mix the different traditions, you insult both of them. Did it insult the Hindus when Ganesh was made into a Buddhist deity? I don’t know. Because the Hindus regard Buddhism as a form of Hinduism. Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. They had no problem with this.

Participant: But the Vatican would have a problem.

Dr. Berzin: The Vatican have a problem with saying that Jesus Christ was a manifestation of Buddha and a bodhisattva. They would not be happy with that.

Participant: I think we should respect both traditions on their own merits and terms.

Dr. Berzin: We’re talking about a very different situation of the relation of Hinduism toward Buddhism and the relation of other religions toward Buddhism.

Participant: Also, the Chinese took figures, male figures, or female figures, and they altered them.

Dr. Berzin: The Chinese altered these figures, she says. They altered the facial expression so that the features were more Chinese than Indian. Certainly, the Tibetans did that as well. And the clothing was sometimes changed. Avalokiteshvara became a female figure rather than a male figure, etc. But they didn’t… 

Participant: This Maitreya figure, you know? This fat Buddha.

Dr. Berzin: Maitreya has a different appearance as the laughing Buddha, the big, fat figure. That’s true. Now you have an interesting question. Now you have a different question. The question is: Could you have a Tara that looks like Mary? That’s a very different question from having Mary as a Buddha-figure. There’s a yellow Tara, there’s a red Tara, there’s a white Tara, there’s a green Tara — there are all sorts of forms — Tara with two arms, with six arms, with one face, with three faces. There are tons of different Taras. Could you have a Tara that looks like Mary? Why not? That somebody has some pure vision, like in the Nyingma pure vision tradition, and Tara appears to them wearing the robes that Mary wore and having the facial features of Mary (as conceived of by artists, because who in the world knows what she actually looked like?). That, I think, is very different from saying, “Let’s use Mary as a symbol of love and compassion.” So, the Chinese — yes, they did have slightly different forms.

Participant: They brought in some Daoist elements.

Dr. Berzin: Right. There are some Daoist elements in there as well. I mean, the area where you get non-Indian figures into the Buddhist pantheon, so to speak — if we can use that word, which is not a fitting word here — but into the Buddhist repertoire or assembly of these figures, is protectors. You get all sorts of Bon and other Tibetan type of beings, Central Asian beings, that are then incorporated as protectors. 

Participant: In Japan they have Shinto.

Dr. Berzin: Japanese bring in Shinto figures. They bring in, in China, the Chinese god of war. Confucius comes in there. In Mongolia, Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan) becomes a protector. That’s different. 

Anyway, we are far past our time, so let us end here. We haven’t at all gotten to the text again, but that’s fine. I think that it’s very good that we have these discussions. And we’ll continue next time. For the next two weeks there will not be class, during the Christmas and New Year period. We’ll meet after that, the first Tuesday in January.

Let’s end with the dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for all beings to reach enlightenment for the benefit of everyone. 

OK. Thank you.