LPA49: Sutra &Tantra Voidness the Same; Self-Voidness & Other-Voidness

Let’s have a short review (as we always begin):

Reliance on a Qualified Spiritual Mentor 

Tsongkhapa says that we have all the proper qualifications to engage in the practice: we have a precious human rebirth, we’ve met with the teachings, we have superb teachers, and we have the intelligence to discern between what’s to be adopted and what’s to be rejected. To engage ourselves then in the Buddhist teachings on this basis, we need to rely on guidance from a spiritual teacher, one who is qualified: who knows what the states of mind are to develop, which are the ones to get rid of, without adding anything and without leaving anything out, and knowing the order of how to apply them. The teacher needs to have gained this experience from having gone through this practice and training himself or herself with a spiritual teacher based on the study of the great Indian classics.

The Motivating Mental Framework

To begin we need to work on our motivating mental framework. That has many levels, graduated levels. The most commonly followed one is that which we find in lam-rim, the graded stages of working first to (1) improve future lives so that we continue to have a precious human rebirth, and then to (2) gain liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth, or samsara, altogether, and then to (3) achieve the enlightened state of a Buddha so we can help everyone as fully as possible. We’ve explained all of that in great detail.

How To Meditate

In order to build these up sincerely, these mental frameworks, in an uncontrived way, we need to meditate on them, which means to work over and over again, familiarizing ourselves with it, until they become completely heartfelt. Tsongkhapa explains how to meditate. He does this in great detail. He says we need to know what are the various stages that each of these states of mind depend on, what are the bases for it, what harms it, what helps it. We need to know what to focus on. We need to know how our mind takes that object, all the various aspects of the object, what will be the benefit and purpose and function of gaining this state of mind, and what will it bring us, what will it get rid of for us, and how do we apply it then. And in between sessions to build up a lot of positive force and potential and rid ourselves of as many obstacles as possible. We need to have these motivating mental frameworks all the time, not just at the beginning of our meditation session.

The Ethical Self-discipline of Keeping Vows

Then to enter into the practice of tantra, highest class of tantra, in general Tsongkhapa reaffirms the importance of ethical self-discipline of keeping vows — pratimoksha vows of individual liberation as a layperson or monk or nun, bodhisattva vows, and tantric vows. We discussed all of that in great detail.

Then to actually begin the tantra practice, we need to receive an empowerment. Tsongkhapa emphases the vows and says that we need definitely some level of pratimoksha vow for that and best would be that of a fully ordained monk or nun.

The Proper Order of the Generation and Complete Stages of Anuttarayoga Tantra

Then once we have received the empowerment and are keeping the vows, then we need to get into the practice, the generation- and complete-stage practices. These need to be done in their proper order. We’ve gone through the generation-stage practices. 

How To Visualize in Tantra Practice

The main emphasis that Tsongkhapa has put in his presentation of it here in this text is on very practical advice of how to visualize (since the generation stage is dealing a great deal with visualization) and then all the problems involved in actually gaining concentration. We’ve gone through all of that also in great detail. No need to repeat all of that.

Complete-Stage Practice

Then, last time, we began the short presentation that Tsongkhapa has of the complete stage. The complete stage is the stage when we’re actually working with the subtle energy-system. We’re actually able to access it through the shamatha, the stilled and settled state of mind (or at least something approximating that) that we’ve gained in the generation-stage practice. We have honed that concentration so that it is microscopic like a laser beam.

In the generation-stage practice, we have the gross and the subtle generation-stage practice. The gross practice: we are visualizing a whole mandala environment around us — building, everything outside the building, and all the various figures inside it. On the subtle generation stage, we are able to visualize all of that inside a drop — which, depending on which tantra system we’re following, is either at the tip of the nose or at the third eye or at the tip of the sexual organ — and we also multiply those drops (one, then two, then four, then eight, etc.) and then draw them back, and eventually we’re able to visualize the full mandala in each of these. 

One could imagine that that is a very difficult practice, and if we’ve actually mastered that and are able to concentrate perfectly for four hours on these various visualizations, then we’re ready to go on to the complete stage, if we want to look at it in terms of being definitionally qualified to do the complete-stage practices and actually be able to manipulate the subtle energies within our energy-system. Any type of practices that we do with the subtle energy-system before that, when we don’t have that laser-beam type of concentration, is inviting a great deal of trouble when we’re not really able to control those energies.

The whole point is to get to the subtlest level of mind, to access the clear-light level of mind and use that level of mind in order to have the non-conceptual cognition of voidness. Then from that subtlest level of mind, generate from the subtlest energy-wind that accompanies it the form body of a Buddha — or on the complete stage, the causes for the form body, which can be illusory body (sgyu-lus) or rainbow body (’ja’-lus) or devoid form (stong-gzugs), depending on what system we’re practicing. And on the generation stage, we imagine all of this happening in our visualization — the model for it being death, bardo, and rebirth. 

We’ve gone through detailed explanations of all of this.

What Tsongkhapa points out here in this paragraph on the complete stage… Let me read it:

According to earlier (masters), the complete stage was famed as being twofold: the non-profound complete stage and the profound complete stage. The first of these appears (in their literature) to be constituted of meditations on the energy-channels, energy-winds, creative energy-drops, and so forth. As (that is so, their practices) are to be sought in their individual guideline instructions. The latter

That is referring to the profound complete stage.

appears as consisting of meditations on voidness. Whether or not that twofold (scheme) works for the complete stage (and whether or not voidness meditation is exclusive to that stage) needs to be investigated. But no matter which way it turns out to be, (this twofold scheme) is like what is practiced on the occasion of the complete stage.

Tsongkhapa is always going to emphasize the voidness teachings. These are particularly important. That’s the whole point of getting to the subtlest clear-light level of mind. And working with that — we normally access that level of mind at the time of death, in any case, and so that’s no great accomplishment. The point is to access that state of mind, or that level of mind, while we are in meditation and to use it, utilize it, to generate it both as a blissful state of mind and as a mind that cognizes voidness. It will be automatically non-conceptual, and if we’re able to generate appearances with that level of mind, it will not make these appearances have an appearance of truly established existence. It’s a very potent state of mind or level of mind. 

Of course, all of this is within the context of having bodhichitta motivation, etc. Just to have meditation practices on the energy-channels, energy-winds, chakras, drops, etc., is not exclusively Buddhist. We find it in the Hindu systems as well. This is not the point here. The point is to make it into a Buddhist practice and use these general Indic yogic types of practices within a Buddhist context to achieve enlightenment.

In that discussion of voidness, Tsongkhapa is making a point here which is very central to his reforms concerning the understanding of voidness. He says that in earlier schools of explanation of tantra, they divide complete stage into what’s called the non-profound and profound, and the profound is where you have meditation on voidness. But, of course, Tsongkhapa points out that we have voidness meditation throughout the practice, on all stages of tantra, including the generation stage. So, what is actually the difference that is being made here in these earlier schools? And the difference is that when they say meditation on voidness, they’re referring to non-conceptual meditation on voidness (in other words, that part of the complete stage at which you have actually gained access to the clear-light state of mind and had with it non-conceptual cognition of voidness).

Even in Tsongkhapa’s division of the complete stage — which is based on Nagarjuna’s commentaries on the Guhyasamaja Tantra, on his text called The Five Stages (Rim-lnga, Pancakrama), which is referring to the five stages of the complete stage — there as well we have parts of the complete stage which are before the path of seeing (with the seeing pathway of mind we have non-conceptual cognition of voidness) and those parts which are after it. Regardless of how you want to call these two parts of the complete stage, we’re talking about the same thing. 

Now Tsongkhapa goes on:

Regarding that (investigation, Buddha) has said, concerning the view of voidness, that it is in fact alike in both the Mantra and Perfection (Vehicles). The learned masters have also spelt this out (explicitly).

This is really quite an important point here. When we talk about the clear-light mind, the clear-light mind — this is particularly in the non-Nyingma systems — we can speak of it in terms of the actual nature of things (that’s referring to voidness) or something that has this actual nature (which is a way of being aware of things). The clear light which is the actual nature of things is referring to the clear light as an object of cognition. And the other one, something that has this nature, is referring to the clear light as something that takes this object. We have this terminology of object clear light (yul-gyi ’od-gsal) and cognitive clear light (yul-can-gyi ’od-gsal), or subject clear light. 

Object clear light would be voidness as we know it, an absence of…There are various ways of defining it, but an absence… But an absence of impossible ways of existing. Let’s say that. That’s the object clear light, voidness in that sense. But then the mind which takes that, the cognitive clear light, also can be described as an absence, in the sense that it is an absence of the grosser levels of mind, the grosser levels of consciousness. When we speak of these two, they’re not actually separate from each other. Because when we speak of the cognitive clear-light mind, it takes the object clear-light mind as its object, and it itself is devoid of any impossible way of existing. But it’s about this point of: What are you talking about? Are you talking about clear light in terms of voidness as an object? Or are you talking about clear light in terms of voidness as a level of consciousness? We have this terminology of self-void (rang-stong) and other-void (gzhan-stong). 

Self-voidness is a total absence of impossible ways of existing. What are these impossible ways of existing? In a Prasangika sense, we have truly established existence. That could be the impossible way of existing. That’s one possibility. Or another way of saying it would be existence that corresponds to words or concepts. Remember, we made a difference between the fact that words and concepts refer to something but, in reality, things don’t correspond to words and concepts. Words and concepts imply that things exist in boxes and fixed categories. I always use the image of things either with a big solid line around them or encapsulated in plastic. Words would imply that. It’s either orange or it’s red: there’s one box which is orange and there’s one box which is red and one box which is yellow. Things don’t correspond to that. That’s impossible. However, words like red and yellow and orange refer to something.

We can formulate what’s impossible, impossible way of existing, either just simply as truly established existence or as existence that corresponds to words and concepts. Which words and concepts? The word or concept truly established existence, the word or concept non-truly established existence, both, or neither. That would be considered impossible. That means that you don’t have a box out there — truly existent things. But you also don’t have a box out there — non-truly existent things or devoid of truly existing things.

According to the non-Gelugpa schools — what Tsongkhapa is objecting to here, or he’s clarifying, is that according to them the absence of truly established existence can only be known conceptually. We’re thinking in terms of truly established. There’s no such thing as existing in that box truly established existence. What do we know conceptually? We know not truly established existence. That’s also in a box. That’s conceptual. When we talk about the voidness of existence corresponding to words and concepts, then it’s beyond all these boxes, and that would only be known non-conceptually. To know something that is… it’s not in the box of truly existent, it’s not in the box of not truly existent, it’s not in the box of both, it’s not in the box of neither — it’s beyond all boxes — that would be non-conceptual. Conceptual is with boxes, with categories. They say the first (just to know that not truly existent) is only conceptual, and beyond words and concepts — which is the way that they refer to it (voidness that’s beyond words and concepts) — is only non-conceptual.

Participant: I can’t put this together with the two truths. What would be conventional truth? Non-conceptual?

Dr. Berzin: What would be conventional truth — non-conceptual? In which system? If we talk about in this system that we’re talking about, the non-Gelug system, it would be a pure appearance… According to this system — we have a different presentation — according to this system, conventional truth is the way that things appear to a mind without non-conceptual cognition of voidness beyond words and concepts. Do you follow that? That was a lot of words that I just said. It is how things appear to an ordinary person. That is conventional truth. 

Then how things appear to somebody who has non-conceptual cognition of voidness is deepest truth. You have pure appearances, the way that a Buddha would see or an arya would see, which is an appearance the manner of existence of which is beyond words and concepts. So, they throw pure appearances into deepest truth. 

What Gelugpa would say: conventional truth is both impure and pure appearances; and deepest truth is only voidness, voidness of truly established existence. 

These systems would say that conventional truth would be how things appear in any of these boxes. Someone who doesn’t have non-conceptual cognition of voidness, or even the conceptual understanding of voidness, would be thrown here. And deepest truth would be how things appear to someone with non-conceptual cognition of voidness, so both the voidness that they perceive and the pure appearances that they perceive. And they’re not saying that there’s something out there that appears to ordinary minds one way and arya minds (minds focused non-conceptually on voidness) another way. Don’t think that it’s like that. That’s how they get into this whole discussion of: they always present (in a Chittamatra style) no external appearances. But it’s not the same as Chittamatra.

Participant: What’s pure versus impure in the Gelug?

Dr. Berzin: Pure versus impure in Gelug is an appearance of things as truly existent or an appearance of things without true existence. If it’s an appearance, that’s conventional truth.

Participant: In the non-Gelug systems, would true existence be a conventional truth?

Dr. Berzin: In the non-Gelug systems, would true existence be a conventional truth? Again, it depends on the system. True existence is totally nonexistent. Are totally nonexistent things included in conventional truth? Well, there’s an appearance of it. There’s a difference between actual truly established existence and an appearance that resembles it.

Participant: True. But true existence is what ordinary appearances refer to. If that’s the hallmark of…

Dr. Berzin: No. Ordinary appearances refer to something that doesn’t exist, ordinary appearances of truly established existence. The conceptualized object does not exist. That’s the whole thing that you need to understand in the understanding of voidness, that the conceptualized object — it doesn’t refer to anything real. Not only does it not correspond; it doesn’t even refer to something that’s real.

Participant: In short, even in those systems it wouldn’t be called a conventional truth from any point of view.

Dr. Berzin: Even in those systems it wouldn’t be called a conventional truth from any point of view? I must say I’m not absolutely certain, because in Chittamatra of course you have totally imaginary things that do exist and that don’t exist. It’s not Chittamatra, so I’m not quite sure what they say about totally nonexistent things, whether that’s conventional truth or not. Maybe not. I don’t know. 

Also don’t think that there’s a uniform position in all the non-Gelug schools, and don’t even think that within one school, like Sakya, there’s a uniform position, or within Kagyu, Karma Kagyu. Some of the Karmapas were self-voidness; some of the Karmapas were other-voidness. It’s not at all consistent.

Participant: You’re saying that non-Gelug is like the opposite of…

Dr. Berzin: Non-Gelug is just the whole box of positions that disagree with Tsongkhapa. Tsongkhapa reformed — he was radical, radically different.

You have truly established existence. True existence let’s call it in simple words. True existence you’d only know conceptually; and even if you know the absence of that, non-true existence, that’s still conceptual. You have to go beyond these categories of true existence, not true existence, both, or neither in order to be non-conceptual, which is what it means to be beyond words, beyond concepts. OK? They have technical terms for this, denumerable (rnam-grangs-pa’i don-dam) and nondenumerable ultimates (rnam-grangs ma-yin-pa’i don-dam). Let’s not bother with these technical terms.

You could of course have that understanding of voidness — this is the self-voidness — you could have that understanding of voidness beyond words and concepts with a regular level of mind in sutra. It could be yogic perception (rnal-’byor mngon-sum), it’s called, which is on the basis of combined shamatha and vipashyana. Or you could have it in tantra with a clear-light mind. There’ll be some discussion of that, but in general you could say that. But what the Gelugpa says in terms of this is that truly established existence… When Tsongkhapa says, “Come on! Truly established existence — the voidness of truly established existence — could be known both conceptually or non-conceptually. The others said it could only be known conceptually. We include in truly established existence true existence, non-true existence, both, and neither.”

The question really is: How do you go from conceptual to non-conceptual cognition? Tsongkhapa would say, “What you have to know is the voidness of voidness, and you will go beyond that. The others say that — what’s called the third man argument — you have the non-true existence of non-true existence. That’s still conceptual. And the non-true existence of the non-true existence of the non-true existence — that’s still conceptual.” Tsongkhapa will quote that line from Shantideva, Bodhisattvacharyavatara 9.33: 

Once you have negated voidness, non-true existence, what is it that you’ve negated? Both true existence and non-true existence. What could there be left that stands in front of the mind?” You get non-conceptual. 

This is really the point that these schools are going to differ on, is how do you go from conceptual to non-conceptual, and how are you going to describe that, and what terms are you going to call it by.

Do you follow?

Participant: How do you do that practically?

Dr. Berzin: How do you do that practically is a very good question. It seems that… What I was explaining a little bit last time, which started to get quite complicated, I must confess, was that… If you recall the nine stages of settling the mind in the discussion of shamatha that we presented — you were sick, you weren’t here for that — in the latter stages of that, you have to exert effort throughout the session to get rid of dullness and flightiness of mind. Then there’s a stage where you only have to exert effort at the very beginning, set it, and then after that it will just go easily. And then there’s a stage when you don’t even have to set it in the beginning; it just automatically comes like that.

By extension, if you think in terms of the depending on the line of reasoning: In the beginning it’s very, very important. His Holiness stresses this a great deal, that the understanding of voidness — and we’ll get to this in the next paragraph here in terms of the actual meditation on voidness — that it be generated with the power of relying on a line of reasoning. The one that’s used — and Tsongkhapa mentions it here — neither singular nor plural, neither one nor many. We’ll discuss this in detail.

In the discussion of cognition theory, Tsongkhapa also changes what the previous masters said. Inferential understanding: you depend on a line of reasoning. What’s called straightforward cognition: you don’t have to rely directly on the line of reasoning (that’s why it’s called straightforward); it could be either conceptual or non-conceptual. In the beginning you rely on this line of reasoning — it’s conceptual — to get your understanding of voidness. You just dzak— cut off that belief that the conceptualized object, what you conceptualize in terms of truly established existence, doesn’t exist at all. You cut that off. It has to be generated by the power of the line of reasoning. Eventually you will get to a point where you only have to generate that in the very beginning and then you are able to focus with that understanding. Still, it will be conceptual. And eventually, it says, through familiarity, through building up a great deal of positive force, it will become non-conceptual.

How you actually make that transition, I have no idea. I mean, I certainly haven’t experienced it. It’s hard even to recognize what a non-conceptual state of mind would be, because in general sense perception it’s only for a microsecond that you have it, and then immediately we perceive things in terms of categories (whether you verbalize or not it doesn’t matter). It’s very hard to imagine what it would be. If you imagine, that’s conceptual, so it’s quite circular there of how would you know it. But my point being that you’d have to go through stages of generating that understanding of voidness with effort, sustain that effort throughout; and then just have to generate it with a line of reasoning at the beginning; and then just generate it. This is relevant in the discussion of tantra. 

In sutra methods, we have what’s called analytical meditation (or discerning meditation I prefer to call it) and… Oh, I keep on forgetting how I translate it: fixating… stabilizing meditation. That’s what I call it, stabilizing meditation. The discerning meditation, the analytical one, is when you have… You see, there are three stages: listening to the teachings, thinking about them, and meditating (meditating being the discerning or analytical and the stabilizing).

Thinking about it means that you go through the line of reasoning in order to understand the meaning. So when you think of voidness there’s some meaning category there, not just a word category, not just an audio category of the sound “voidness.” You want to get the meaning, and you want to be convinced of its validity. Once you get an accurate understanding and a conviction that it is true, then you’ve completed the thinking stage. For most of us that’s going to take an enormous amount of time. 

Then with the discerning meditation you have to go through the line of reasoning again. That’s why… I mean, here’s where people get confused. It’s not the same as thinking. Thinking: you’re going through the line of reasoning in order to understand it and to become convinced of it. But here you go through the line of reasoning in order to generate the inferential understanding. Going through that process of relying on that line of reasoning, and wham! you generate it, you have that understanding, and you see things actively in that way. That’s the discerning meditation. You discern it in that way. It’s not that you’re constantly thinking “Is it like this? Is it like that? Could it be…” That’s just on the thinking stage; you’re trying to convince yourself of it and understand it.

You go through the line of reasoning: “If they were truly existent things, there’d have to be either one or many. It would either have to be a singular phenomenon or plural phenomenon. If it’s neither, then no such thing.” You go through that and wham! you cut off that belief, and then you see things actively in that way. Then stabilizing: you just stay with it, with that understanding. Then if stabilizing it becomes weak — the understanding becomes weak — then you go back to generate with the line of reasoning again, so the discerning. You alternate discerning and stabilizing — this is sutra — alternate stabilizing/discerning, stabilizing/discerning.

This is similar to what I said, that we have something analogous in the stages for gaining the nine stages of settling the mind. You have to exert effort over and over again to get rid of flightiness and dullness. It’s the same thing: you have to exert effort over and over again to generate an actual understanding of voidness. Not so simple. Eventually you’re able to just set it up, go through the line of reasoning, and then you can discern it, and you can just stay with it, stable. Eventually you wouldn’t have to generate with the line of reasoning.

Now, in tantra, anuttarayoga tantra, it’s said that you emphasize the stabilizing meditation on voidness. You don’t go through this whole area of the lines of reasoning and so on. I mean, you say a mantra, OM SVABHAVA SHUDDHA: SARVA DHARMA: SVABHAVA SHUDDHO 'HAM, which if you understand what it means (“By nature everything is pure…” etc., etc.) — you don’t have to go into the meaning of each word (it’s a Sanskrit sentence), but you remind yourself of the understanding of voidness. Often there is a verse from the Guhyasamaja Tantra which is recited. That also reminds you of the understanding of voidness. But you don’t emphasize going through analysis, especially not in terms of thinking about it and trying to understand voidness and become convinced of it. At the time of practice of the generation stage you should have understood it already and been convinced of it already, so that just reminding yourself with the line, with a mantra — OM SVABHAVA SHUDDHA — or the mantra and a verse, you can just bam! go there and stay with the understanding of voidness.

Then in tantra you have the stages of dissolution of the mind getting more and more subtle and the appearances of true existence gradually fading.

Participant: You generate it, an understanding of emptiness, and then you make the mind…

Dr. Berzin: You generate the understanding of voidness, and then you make the mind more and more subtle. Depends whether it’s father tantra or mother tantra. 

Mother tantra: You get the understanding of voidness first. Then within the understanding of voidness first, you imagine that the appearances get more and more subtle and dissolve. I mean, that’s because the emphasis… more teachings on clear light in mother tantra. That would be Chakrasamvara (or Heruka), Hevajra, and Vajrayogini. 

Or in father tantra — which would be Guhyasamaja, or Yamantaka (Vajrabhairava), or Vajrapani, if we’re talking about in the main practices in the Gelug tradition — then you dissolve the appearances first, since the emphasis is on illusory body, working with the winds, and at the end of that then you reaffirm the understanding of voidness. Father and mother tantra — the order is reversed.

Participant: What you’re saying of course is true. But also, what has to happen through mediation is really clearing your mind of discursive thought for very long periods of time before the experience can occur.

Dr. Berzin: You’re talking about non-conceptuality? He’s saying that in order to gain a non-conceptual state, you have to first achieve quieting the mind of discursive thought. This is the point that I emphasize very much. To just think that quieting the mind of verbal thought is the extent of quieting the conceptual mind is false. It’s the first step, but it’s not the full process. But without that you can’t go further.

Participant: That’s the first practical…

Dr. Berzin: Right. That’s the first practical thing, is to quiet the mind of discursive thought, of verbal thought. But then you have to also quiet the mind of images, of visual images. Then you have to quiet the mind of abstract concepts, which are nonverbal. These are the most difficult, most subtle — to even recognize them.

Participant: The point is it’s an experience that the Buddha then retrofitted into the teachings to describe how you get to the experience.

Dr. Berzin: Yes. The Buddha then retrofitted it into the teachings in order to describe how you get the experience. However, the experience is — to quote the terminology — beyond words and beyond concepts.

Participant: In another lecture, I asked you about the Western approach and Tibetan approach of learning. You explained then how in Tibet people would practice it and not philosophize about it, so they just do it, and they have a different system of learning. Then I thought about how you practice all these elevated concepts. I thought: OK, first you need a master for it. That’s the basis of it. Secondly you just practice. You don’t doubt so much, or you don’t try to bring too much theory into it.

Dr. Berzin: OK. Let me summarize. What he’s saying is that he had questioned some weeks earlier about the difference of Western and Tibetan approach and things. Tibetans don’t question things so much. (I would clarify that: Tibetans don’t object to things so much. You’re encouraged to ask questions in order to understand. That’s all done in debate.) Then he’s saying that you just have to rely on a teacher and actually practice. 

This is the point, the relation with a spiritual teacher. Tsongkhapa said this in the very, very beginning. You have to have examined the teacher. The teacher is qualified. He doesn’t go in all this detail here of the self is a sick person, teacher is the doctor, Dharma is the medicine, etc., and not argue with the teacher. If the teacher says something wrong, obviously — and you’ve checked it up — then you ask the teacher politely: “I’m sorry. I didn’t understand what you said. Is this what you meant? But in the text it says blah blah blah.”

Western people tend to give you a hard time objecting. The point is that you have confidence in the teacher. If you have a healthy relation with the teacher (you’re not the blind slave that just “Yes sir!” in the army and obeys), but if you have confidence in the teacher and you’ve examined everything beforehand, then when you actually are ready to do the practice seriously — and not just “I have a half hour now between appointments. Maybe I will practice, but my favorite show is on TV at seven o’clock, so I’d better finish before then” (I mean, we’re not talking about that level but the real thing) — then you follow the instructions. You don’t argue with it. You do it. You have confidence that this is correct. Of course, you have to work on patience, and you have to work on perseverance and all the far-reaching attitudes, discipline… All these are necessary. But your point, to quiet the mind of  “Blah blah blah” — well, that’s the start. That is the start, and it goes further than that.

Participant: Does it mean you go directly into a non-dualistic state?

Dr. Berzin: Does it mean to go directly into a non-dualistic state? This is what we’re talking about. Dualistic — again this is a term that is defined differently by many different schools. Tsongkhapa defines it as: dual means “not in accord with reality.” It’s not that there are two things, the way things do exist, and the way things don’t exist, because the way things don’t exist (which is impossible) doesn’t exist at all. To be nondual means “without thinking in a way which is discordant, dual — different — from the way things actually are.”

The non-Gelug schools will have many other definitions of nondual. But what we’re talking about in terms of direct… You can’t use the word direct because that has technical meaning. Direct/indirect, explicit/implicit — there’s all these very fine distinctions that are made in cognition theory. But if we want to use the word direct in a loose way, in a nontechnical way, then yes, you want to just — this is what we’re talking about — without relying on the line of reasoning (because it’s so well digested), without effort, just there you are.

Participant: Straight. Maybe that’s a better word.

Dr. Berzin: Straight. Well, yes. This is straightforward. But straightforward cognition — as I just explained — according to Tsongkhapa’s explanation of Prasangika, can be either conceptual or non-conceptual; it’s just not relying on the line of reasoning. 

Now, how to instantly go to a non-conceptual state? This is very difficult. What is normally… Here you have a difference between dzogchen method and non-dzogchen method. Dzogchen you find primarily in Nyingma, but you also find dzogchen in Karma Kagyu, Drigung Kagyu, Drugpa Kagyu, Bon (Bonpo).

Participant: Sakya as well?

Dr. Berzin: Sakya dzogchen? I really don’t know. I’ve not heard of that. Maybe you do. I don’t know. I’m not so familiar, not so sure. But in any case, dzogchen method — you recognize the rigpa, the pure… the clear... There’s a difference between clear light and rigpa. Pure awareness is rigpa. Clear-light mind can be either with or without the habits of grasping for true existence. Clear-light mind does not make appearances of true existence (it’s non-conceptual) and doesn’t have grasping for true existence; however, it could have the habits of it. When you have the clear-light mind of death you’re not enlightened by any means. There are still the habits. Appearance-making of true existence — belief in it, grasping for it — will come again as soon as the grosser levels of mind manifest. Rigpa is referring to the clear-light mind in its unstained nature of being without the habits. Rigpa is actually a subcategory of clear-light mind. 

But in dzogchen what one comes to do is to meet face to face (ngo-sprod) — is the expression — the pure awareness underlying every moment. There’s a process for doing that and stages for doing that, and it’s unbelievably subtle and difficult, by no means easy. But you don’t actually go through stages of dissolution of the grosser levels and then more subtle, more subtle, more subtle, more subtle, more subtle, more subtle — eight stages or ten stages, depending on the practice — to the clear-light level. When you talk about going wham! one step to the clear-light level — that’s more the way that it’s described in dzogchen. Non-dzogchen: there would be eight levels or ten levels of a gradual dissolution. In dzogchen you’ve practiced with the energy channels and all this stuff beforehand, and you have, as I explained it, “greased” the channels, so that when you actually do the dzogchen meditation everything dissolves. But you’re not actually, in your meditation, working on dissolving it step by step by step. 

That dissolution process in father tantra is done with the winds going through these eight stages. Or in Kalachakra, ten stages. And in mother tantra you’re working with the levels of bliss, actually, more and more intense levels of blissful awareness of voidness, which will also get you to the more subtle level. There are two approaches in non-dzogchen. Either you work with the winds, which is father tantra, or you work with the blissful awareness side, which is mother tantra.

I have dumped a lot of information on you as usual.

Now let’s get back to our text. We’ve discussed self-voidness, Tsongkhapa’s position. Self-voidness is just voidness — and he doesn’t use the word self-voidness (rang-stong) but just voidness (stong-pa-nyid) — devoid of truly established existence. Truly established existence is either true existence, non-true existence, both, or neither. That voidness of truly established existence can be either conceptual or non-conceptual. Of course, you have to understand the voidness of voidness. Non-Gelug before Tsongkhapa would say just… Tsongkhapa is saying voidness of true existence includes the four extremes. Well, true existence includes the four extremes, and the voidness of true existence negates the four extremes: true existence, nonexistence, both, or neither. 

The others would say: True existence is only one of the four extremes, and that’s conceptual, to understand the voidness of it. When you understand conceptually the voidness of the first extreme, conceptually you’ve gone to the second extreme of making voidness into a thing. To get beyond the four extremes of true existence, voidness of true existence, both, or neither, you have to go to the voidness that is beyond words, beyond concepts, and that is non-conceptual.

When we talk about the voidness that is beyond words, beyond concepts — remember we said clear-light mind — we can talk about voidness as an object. What we’ve been discussing already is voidness as an object of cognition. But you can also speak in terms of clear-light mind as a cognitive clear-light mind, what understands that, and then we get into other-voidness. Other-voidness is void of other levels of grosser consciousness. The other levels of grosser consciousness are the levels that can be conceptual (those could be non-conceptual, but they can be conceptual). So, if you want to get to the clear-light mind that will understand voidness, that clear-light mind is beyond the level on which you would cognize words and concepts. You can speak about voidness beyond words and concepts as an object that you understand — and that would be a self-voidness understanding of it in non-Gelugpa — or as the mind that’s beyond all these levels of concepts and so on (that’s called other-voidness).

What is Tsongkhapa making a big point of in our text here? He’s saying that some masters before him have said that the voidness that’s understood in tantra is different from the voidness that’s understood in sutra. That would be referring to other-voidness as that clear-light level devoid of the grosser levels. That would only be asserted in tantra. And Tsongkhapa says no. He soundly refutes that, the idea of other-voidness.

Now, mind you, Gelugpa of course says that that clear-light mind is beyond the level of concepts and so on. There’s no arguing about the content of what they’re talking about. It’s just how you formulate it and the implications of how you formulate it. The implication of saying “voidness of true existence” is that you have this word or concept voidness of true existence, and no matter of how you say it, voidness of voidness, you’re still talking about words and concepts. You have a problem there. If you talk about just that mind which is beyond words and concepts, you’re making it into a thing, especially since they say that that mind has qualities complete in it. 

Then there’s a different view. Some of the Jonangpas will say that not only does it have complete in it all the qualities of mind — which would be the general other-voidness view — it also has complete in it all the qualities of body as well, of an enlightened body of a Buddha. Even the non-Jonangpa other-voidness people object to that. Whether these things are actually there, these qualities, whether they’re dormant, whether they are there but not functioning, whether they’re there in just potential form — this is what they’re all debating about.

In any case, Tsongkhapa’s point is that voidness discussed in sutra and tantra is the same, this voidness of truly established existence, which includes the voidness of all four extremes. And please, you don’t have to complicate things with your whole discussion of voidness beyond words and concepts and the mind, which is beyond words and concepts, of other-voidness and so on. That is the point of what Tsongkhapa is saying when he writes:

Regarding that

This two-fold thing, that you have a stage in the complete stage which is the profound one about voidness.

(investigation, Buddha) has said, concerning the view of voidness, that it is in fact alike in both the Mantra and Perfection (Vehicles). The learned masters have also spelt this out (explicitly).

OK? I’d like to leave this topic because it’s very complicated and any review of it will just take up another whole hour of complicated. But you get the general idea, I hope, that this is a big point of debate between the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Tsongkhapa radically refuted everybody before him. I think that Tsongkhapa is not saying that you’re stupid or you’re wrong to these people. He’s just saying that the way that you formulate it can be very misleading and confusing. OK? 

Ten more minutes. Let me start, because I’ve already explained this. Tsongkhapa goes on:

Because of that,

That referring to the view that voidness is the same in sutra and tantra.

Because of that, then even though differences do exist, such as in the Perfection (Vehicle)

That’s sutra.

the methods for generating absorbed concentration on that (voidness) are less well-known while they are more abundant and easier in the Mantra Vehicle, still there is in fact nothing better than the Perfection (Vehicle’s teachings) for methods for initially seeking an understanding of it.

It referring to voidness.

Since quotations and lines of reasoning (for establishing voidness) are clearer on the side of the sutras, we must ascertain (its correct view) by listening to and thinking about (teachings) that accord with what derives from (Buddha’s) scriptural pronouncements of the Perfection (Vehicle) as well as from the Indian commentaries on their intended (meanings. More specifically,) the foundation for that, upon which we need to base our listening and thinking, needs to be (Buddha’s) scriptural pronouncements about the profound meaning of voidness 

This would be the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

and such (Indian) treatises of sound reasoning as (Nagarjuna’s Six) Collections of Reasoning, and so forth. 

Six texts by Nagarjuna. I’ll list them in a moment.

(Such texts as these latter) can dispel all our doubts concerning extreme (positions) extraneous (to what Buddha intended) and which would lead us to some meaning of (voidness) other than (the correct one). Thereby, in not allowing us to be misled to any aspects (of understanding) other than (the truth), they can bring us certainty (about voidness) in accordance with reality.

The six texts of Nagarjuna, Collections of Reasoning (Rigs-tshogs drug) they’re called, are:

• Root Verses on Madhyamaka, called “Discriminating Awareness” (dBu-ma rtsa-ba shes-rab, Skt. Prajna-nama-mulamadhyamaka-karika), 
• Precious Garland (Rin-chen ’phreng-ba, Skt. Ratnavali),
• Refutation of Objections (rTsod-pa zlog-pa, Skt. Vigrahavyavarti),
• Seventy Verses on Voidness (sTong-nyid bdun-bcu-pa, Skt. Shunyatasaptati),
• Sutra Called “Finely Woven” (Zhib-mo rnam-’thag zhes-bya-ba’i mdo, Skt. Vaidalya-sutra-nama),
• Sixty Verses of Reasoning (Rigs-pa drug-cu-pa, Skt. Yuktishashtika).

These are the six texts.

One point that needs to be made here. He said that 

differences do exist, such as in the Perfection (Vehicle) the methods for generating absorbed concentration on that (voidness) are less well-known while they are more abundant and easier in the Mantra Vehicle.

What is that referring to? That’s referring to… There are a number of things. There’s always a number of things. Sorry, nothing is easy here. 

First of all, in tantra there are special methods for achieving vipashyana (an exceptionally perceptive state of mind) that you don’t find in sutra. Exceptionally perceptive state of mind is on the basis of shamatha, the stilled and settled state of mind, in which the mind is exceptionally perceptive to be able to perceive anything. 

It can be attained by focusing on a number of different things, not just on voidness. Remember I mentioned you had these visualizations of from the tip of your nose, which would be the most common place, although I said it can be, depending on the tantra system, at other places on the body. One drop — sometimes it’s a vajra rather than a drop, but usually one drop — and then (keeping that one drop) two drops in the next level outside of it, then four drops on the next side out of it (keeping the ones before), eight drops, sixteen drops, thirty-two drops, etc., and then dissolving them stage by stage. By doing like that at the tip of the central channel — which would be either the nose, the third eye, or the tip of the sexual organ, depending on whether it’s the top or the bottom end and how you conceive or where the top end ends — that in the process of gaining that exceptionally perceptive state of mind, you also are drawing the winds into the central energy channel, helping to bring you to the subtlest level of mind, the clear-light mind, with which you can gain the non-conceptual cognition of voidness automatically, if you have the understanding of voidness with that mind, because it’s more subtle than conceptual mind.

You have these extraordinary, special methods in tantra for enabling us to get that total absorption on voidness non-conceptually much more easily by working with these drops and so on. Now, mind you, it’s unbelievably difficult, especially if you’re going to be visualizing a whole mandala inside of each of these drops, but it doesn’t have to be on that more complicated level. This is what Tsongkhapa is referring to here primarily, that these are more special.

Participant: But the point of all these visualizations is to draw in the winds?

Dr. Berzin: She’s asking: Is the point of these visualizations of the drops to draw in the winds? No. The point of it is to gain vipashyana, an exceptionally perceptive state of mind that can deal with an unbelievably complicated thing and keep everything straight with perfect concentration. Then the benefit of doing it this way is that it brings the winds into the central channel, because you’re doing this with these complicated things of things dissolving into either the upper or lower tip of the central channel.

Tsongkhapa says: Although tantra has these special methods for gaining this absorbed concentration on voidness, particularly non-conceptually — nevertheless, as he says, first you have to rely on the texts of Buddha (referring to the Prajnaparamita Sutras) and the Indian classics on voidness (the six texts of Nagarjuna). And what you would have to add to this are the commentaries by Aryadeva, by Chandrakirti, by Buddhapalita — after Buddhapalita comes Chandrakirti chronologically — and Shantideva. Relying on these texts “you will dispel all the doubts concerning extreme positions extraneous to what Buddha intended and which would lead us to some meaning of voidness other than the correct one.” These texts will go through various extreme positions concerning voidness of the self, voidness of the aggregates, voidness of causes, voidness of effects, voidness of actions, etc., etc. — if you go into Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses, he has chapters on the voidness of time, voidness of space, all these sort of things — to cut off extreme views.

Thereby, in not allowing us to be misled to any aspects (of understanding) other than (the truth), they can bring us certainty (about voidness) in accordance with reality.

Most of the rest of the text is going to deal with these extreme wrong views in terms of voidness. Tsongkhapa, in his inimicable fashion, is going to give us a lot of bashing of wrong views — correct? — and discussion of voidness, but in a very, very nice way of pointing out possible mistakes in understanding it. This is very practical. I mean, this is a letter of practical advice.

Just to give you an example — I don’t think that he actually mentions this — but beyond words and beyond concepts, so you could think that enlightenment is outside of time and space. There are some Hindu beliefs like that, but that’s not the Buddhist thing — as if time and space don’t actually exist at all, even conventionally, and a Buddha’s somewhere beyond time and space. But you could misunderstand the voidness of time and space to mean that. I think it’s very easy to fall into such types of misunderstanding.

Participant: But doesn’t the middle way mean that you should always be aware it’s there and not there?

Dr. Berzin: Does the middle way mean that it’s there but not there? No. That is Svatantrika not Prasangika. Svatantrika is: conventionally it exists, but ultimately it doesn’t. That’s a wrong view of both. Middle way, middle path, is — we’ll discuss that, what does middle path actually mean in a Prasangika sense. But these are the types of misunderstandings that one could easily fall into. OK?

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