We have been covering the meditations on the precious human rebirth, which is how we start our spiritual training in the lam-rim. We’ve seen that the precious human rebirth affords us a temporary respite – a vacation, as it were – from the eight situations in which we would have no leisure to work on ourselves and to develop ourselves spiritually. It also affords us with the ten endowments, or enrichments, that make it possible for us to develop spiritually. We’ve gone through all eighteen factors and seen how to meditate on them.
We’ve seen that the structure of positing both an absence of one thing and a presence of something else is similar to what we find with the third and fourth noble truths – being free of negative situations and qualities (the true stoppings) and being endowed with positive ones (true pathways of mind). In the case of the third and fourth noble truths, of course, these freedoms and endowments last forever, whereas in the case of the precious human rebirth, they last only for a short time.
With Buddha-nature, also, we can see that, on the one hand, there’s an absence of the stains of the disturbing emotions, etc., and on the other, an enrichment of the various Buddha-nature qualities.
Becoming Convinced of Rebirth; Understanding That Mind Is Beginningless and Endless
I was requested last time to discuss beginningless rebirth. Without understanding and being at least a little bit convinced that the mental continuum has no beginning and no end, the precious human rebirth is not so easy to appreciate. If we think this is the only life and that we haven’t had previous lives, trying to appreciate the temporary freedoms that we have from various other rebirth states doesn’t make very much sense. So, I think this is a very legitimate issue to deal with here.
Becoming convinced of rebirth isn’t really dealt with in the traditional Buddhist material. It’s assumed that one comes from a cultural area in which everybody already believes in past and future lives. There are different opinions in the various Indian schools as to whether rebirth is beginningless. There are also different opinions as to whether it goes on forever or comes to an end at some point with liberation. In any case, there is this basic belief in multiple rebirths, not just one rebirth in heaven or hell as we might find in the biblical religions.
So, how do we gain an understanding of, and even some conviction in, rebirth?
The Self Is Imputed on the Five Aggregate Factors of Experience
Understanding rebirth also entails understanding what the self is, how it exists, and whether it has a beginning and an end. The Buddhist assertion is that the self is something that is an imputation on the five aggregates. The aggregates refer to our bodies, minds, feelings, emotions, etc. – in other words, all the nonstatic, or ever-changing, phenomena (mi-rtag-pa) that make up each moment of our experience. Static, or permanent, phenomena (rtag-pa) are not included in the five aggregates scheme.
These five aggregates don’t exist as separate bundles of “things.” The classification of aggregates into five groups is simply a system for organizing and categorizing what makes up each moment of our experience. It is on the basis of those aggregates – the body and mind, to put it in simple terms – that the self, or “me,” exists as an imputation. That self, or “me,” conventionally exists. That’s not refuted in Buddhism. What is refuted in Buddhism are the impossible ways of existing that we might project onto that “me.” We won’t go into that discussion here.
The aggregates have no beginning; therefore, the self that’s imputed on them has no beginning. However, the aggregates that are generated by unawareness and that therefore act as a foundation for suffering – the so-called tainted aggregates, sometimes translated as “contaminated aggregates” – can come to an end. Some tenet systems say they can come to an end with liberation, others with enlightenment. In any case, the pure, untainted mind and some sort of subtle physical basis for that mind continue without end.
The discussion, then, of a beginningless and endless mental continuum – which at this present time has a precious human rebirth – has to do with a continuum of some sort of body and mind and a self that is imputed on them.
Now, the gross physical bodies that we have in any particular lifetime do, of course, have a beginning and an end. One could say that because the elements that make up the body can be traced back pretty far (though I don’t know that we could say they go all the way back to the Big Bang) and that because those elements become part of the soil or whatever after we die, there is a further continuity of the body, one that extends beyond just this lifetime. However, there’s no mental continuum associated with that physical continuity after we die.
When we get further into our discussion, we’ll talk about what kind of physical basis could act as a support for the beginningless and endless mental continuum. This is said to be subtlest energy. That subtlest energy is another aspect of or way of looking at the subtlest mind, which is, according to Buddhism, what continues from lifetime to lifetime. But I’m jumping ahead a little bit. Let’s focus on the mind. The question is: where does the mind come from?
Where Does Mind Come From?
When we talk about mind (sems), we are not talking about a “thing”; instead, we are talking about mental activity. Mind, or mental activity, can be defined as the arising of cognitive appearances. “Arising” is usually translated as the word “clarity” (gsal), but “clarity” doesn’t mean things being in focus; it just means the arising of some sort of cognitive appearance (rnam-pa), what I usually describe as a mental hologram (rnam-pa, mental aspect). Another way of defining mind is as awareness (rig), a cognitive engaging ('jug-pa) with the appearances that arise. Clarity and awareness happen simultaneously, not sequentially. They are two aspects of the same mental activity.
Take seeing, for example. What is seeing? Seeing is the arising of visual holograms. Because there’s a cognitive aspect to it, the awareness aspect, seeing is not like a mirror giving rise to images. It’s the same thing with hearing, smelling, tasting, and tactile sensation. There’s an arising of a hologram – a sound hologram, a smell hologram, taste hologram, etc. – and a cognitive engagement with it. This is what mental activity is. In each moment, there is an arising of a mental hologram and an awareness of it.
Mental activity, or mind, always has some sort of object; it always has content. In fact, “mind” in Sanskrit and Tibetan is also defined as “that which has an object.” When we say that it “has” an object, we don’t mean this in a dualistic sense. It’s not that mind and objects of mind exist independently of each other. Nevertheless, experience (which is also a synonym for mental activity) always has content. Mind always has content.
Does Mind Come from No Cause – From Nothing?
What could cause mental activity to arise? This is the question. We could argue that it comes from no cause, from nothing. But then we’d have to ask, how could nothing become something? And how could “a nothing” be affected by a cause or condition in order to produce “a something?” So, there are certain logical fallacies in this argument. Also, if a something could arise from no cause, why, in the case of mental activity, would there need to be a joining of a sperm and an egg in order for that mental activity to begin? If mental activity truly came from nothing, it wouldn’t have any dependence on causes or conditions, in which case, it would be a random event and could arise anywhere and at any time.
Now, since you wanted this to be some sort of meditation, we should maybe pause with each point, think about it, and then discuss any questions that come up. It may take more than one class if we approach it like that, but that’s probably OK since this is a very difficult and important topic, one that’s usually skipped over and taken for granted.
So, let’s think about this idea that mental activity comes from nothing, from no cause. And think about the logical fallacies that I mentioned.
[meditation]
Could mental activity arise from nothing, from no cause?
Participant: No, but maybe it could arise from a material cause.
Dr. Berzin: Well, we haven’t gotten to that point yet. Now we’re talking about something arising from nothing.
Meditating on the Absence of “No Cause”
It has occurred to me how we could meditate on this. It’s not so easy to do, but the process is one that’s essential. OK, we have refuted that mental activity could arise from no cause, from nothing. Now we have to focus on the impossibility of that and on the absence of that impossibility. This is the structure that ones uses in voidness meditation. In voidness meditation, one first refutes an impossible way of existing and then focuses on the absence of that impossibility – that there’s no such thing. How do we focus here on “that isn’t the case: no cause”? Any ideas?
Participant: One has the thought of the absence of this.
Dr. Berzin: What does that mean? Are you saying, “Absent, absent, absent,” in your mind? Are you focusing on words? What are you focusing on? What arises in your mind?
What arises is a feeling, a feeling that this is impossible, that this is not the case. So, how does that “appear” in your mind?
Participant: Well, an absence is, of course, not an explicit appearance.
Dr. Berzin: That’s right. What is said is that when we focus on voidness, there’s basically no appearance.
I think the best description of that “appearance” is in anuttarayoga tantra – that it is a clear-light appearance of a very dark blue color, absence of sunlight, absence of moonlight, absence of total darkness, so, basically, sort of a blank. Even if our eyes are open, we’re not focusing on anything, such as the visual impression of the floor or whatever is in front of our eyes. When our eyes are closed, we usually see some sort of moving red dots, which, as His Holiness points out, can be very distracting. That’s one of the reasons why most of the meditations in the Tibetan tradition are not done with eyes closed.
So, we’re not focusing on any words or any sort of mental picture. There’s just an absence, sort of a blank. But that doesn’t mean we’re focusing on nothing because that absence is accompanied by an understanding. The way that His Holiness describes meditation on voidness, which is the way that Tsongkhapa describes it, is that, first, we focus on the object to be refuted, which, in this case, is that mental activity comes from nothing, from no cause. Then, like Manjushri’s sword, we chop it off – “no such thing” – wham! Then we’re left with an absence, a void. The word “voidness” in Sanskrit, shunyata, is actually the same word as “zero.” That’s why I don’t like the word “empty.” “Empty” suggests that there is something, like a container, that is empty of something else. That’s not the meaning. In any case, we cut the wrong view off very sharply, and then we stay focused on the understanding that what is absent is something that’s impossible, which, in this case, is that things arise without a cause.
Participant: Leaving aside the issue of mental activity, I’m still wondering about the term “without a cause.” Saying that something happened without a cause is different from saying it happened by accident. If we just talk about how single-cell organisms came into being, for example, we could say that there were all these chemical elements on earth however many years ago, and then some protein emerged because some chemical elements accidentally came together. So, there would be a cause – all these chemical elements; it’s just that they would have come together by accident.
Dr. Berzin: Would they have come together by accident? I don’t think so.
Participant: I think the point is whether there is a reason why the first proteins developed on this planet. Is there a deeper reason, or are there just causes that explain how it happened?
Dr. Berzin: Oh, that gets into a whole different level of question: Is there a why?
Participant: Yes, exactly.
Dr. Berzin: When we talk about causes, we’re talking about how. Why introduces the notion of a conscious purpose – as in God created this for a certain purpose.
Participant: I wasn’t thinking about metaphysical things. I just wanted to be clear about the term “without a cause.”
Dr. Berzin: If you say that something happens according to fate, then you’re positing fate as some sort of agent that produces things. If you say luck, then you’re positing luck as some sort of agent, some sort of force that causes things to happen. So, then the question is, what does it mean for something to happen by accident? Is an accident a random happening? Well, an accident would be a random event. Randomness follows the laws of chaos and quantum theory, so there would be an explanation why something is at a certain quantum level. You could say, “Well, there is a certain percentage of probability of this happening, and at some point that will happen.” So I don’t think “by accident” would fall into the category of “no cause.” Do you agree?
Participant: Yes.
Dr. Berzin: OK. That’s very important to understand. It will be especially important when we get into the discussion of karma: Did this happen by accident? Was it luck? Was it fate? What’s the role of intention? Intention gets into your question about why, so it’s not a trivial question that you asked.
Then the question is, how do you meditate on “this is not the case; this is impossible”? How do you keep that understanding of “no such thing; this is impossible” in your mind? What is said is that you somehow keep that understanding silently in your mind – which is something that you have to figure out for yourself how to do from experience. Then, if you lose that understanding or conviction, you go through the line of reasoning again – “this is impossible because of…” one, two, three – and come to the conclusion again.
Here’s an example that I’ve sometimes used: You’d like some milk, so, with milk in mind, you look in the refrigerator, but there’s no milk. How do you focus on “there’s no milk”? You drop that mental image of milk with the understanding that there’s no milk, and you believe it – though you maybe had to look again. It’s hard to describe how you actually focus on that understanding, but “there’s no milk” is an easier example than “it’s impossible that there’s no cause.” But then you can extend it to “it’s impossible that there’s no cause.”
Let’s try that as a first step. “There’s no milk.” You’re not focusing on anything to understand that, are you? Whether you see just a blank darkness or not doesn’t matter.
[meditation]
Were you able to do that? It’s difficult to describe what you’re doing, isn’t it?
Participant: I thought about the example that you’ve used before, which is how we have the concept of one plus one equals two. We have a concept of “two.” That’s an affirmation phenomenon (sgrub-pa), of course. But even “two” is a rather abstract thing. It’s not very hard to have a concept of two and to focus on it. But it is very hard to describe to somebody else what’s going on in your mind is when you think “two.”
Dr. Berzin: Right. You’re not thinking a number. You don’t have a visual image of two things.
Monica, you are confused?
Participant: Yes, very much. If I think, “There is no milk in the fridge,” I have a pretty clear idea about what is not in the fridge.
Dr. Berzin: Right. We had a long, difficult weekend on negation phenomena (dgag-pa). To focus on a negation, you have to have an affirmation first. In order to know “no milk,” you have to know “milk” first. That’s why Tsongkhapa emphasizes the necessity of first having the object of refutation clearly in your mind before trying to refute it. But when you are focusing on “no milk,” do you have an image of a bottle of milk in your mind? If you do this in a very step-by-step, slow way, first, you would have an image of a bottle of milk, then, you’d have an image of that bottle of milk with a big X through it – “there is none.” But you wouldn’t continue to focus on an icon of a bottle with an X through it, would you?
Now you’re sitting here and thinking, “Oh, there’s no milk. I have to go to the store if I want milk.” So, you’re sitting there with a full conviction and understanding that there’s no milk.
Participant: For me, the example of milk is more difficult because it’s less abstract. The image of milk keeps sticking in my mind. I think it’s easier to know the absence of something that’s more abstract. I don’t know if you understand.
Dr. Berzin: Yes, I do understand. However, even when refuting something abstract, it is very difficult to cut off our belief in it if we don’t have some representation of that abstraction. When we’re thinking about something physical, like a bottle of milk, and thinking, “There is none,” the image of that thing usually comes more easily to the mind than if we’re thinking “no cause,” which is more abstract. “No cause” doesn’t come to our minds because it’s a different category of thing. We’re talking about something that’s impossible, whereas the milk bottle is possible. But we’re just using the example of the milk bottle as a way of learning how to focus on something that’s absent, something that’s not the case – a refutation.
Remember, when we were meditating on the respites – for instance, “I have not been born as an animal” – we focused on the feeling of relief. We appreciated that we had been in such situations in past lives and that now we’re free of them. It’s sort of the same thing here: we focus, or meditate, on something not being the case. “Meditate” on it means to focus on it. Here, our object of focus is “no cause.” We then let that understanding and the conviction that it’s correct sink in.
The way that His Holiness describes the meditation is that we have some sort of representation of what’s impossible or what’s absent, and then we just cut it off with an understanding. In the case of something that can exist, like the milk, the understanding is that there isn’t any now. With something that can’t possibly exist – Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or whatever – it’s that there’s no such thing.
Does Mind Come from a Physical Cause?
What about a physical cause? Could the cause of mental activity be, for example, the sperm and the egg – whether it be at the moment of the joining of the sperm and egg or after fertilization and when the division of cells has reached a certain point. Is it then that mental activity begins? The question of when life actually begins – if we define life as mental activity – is one that scientists are not able to answer. And if life has a beginning, what causes it to start? In any case, could mental activity come from a physical cause?
Mental and Physical Continuums Belong to Different Categories of Phenomena
The discussion here about physical causes for mental activity has to do with continuities, or continuums, and categories of phenomena. A continuum is the continuous succession of moments of something. According to the Buddhist explanation, things can only continue in their own category of phenomena. For example, one category of phenomena, according to the Western view, is matter/energy. Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed.
Matter/energy has no beginning and no end. For instance, a tree seed that’s given water, soil, and sunlight eventually transforms into a tree, and the tree transforms into lumber, and that transforms into a table, and if the table catches on fire, it transforms into flames and heat – so, energy – and ashes, and the ashes transform into part of concrete or something like that. So, there is a continuum here, but it’s a continuum of the same category of phenomena: matter/energy.
To understand this point about continuums, one has to be very, very clear about what mind is. Mind, as I said, is mental activity; it’s not something physical. There is a physical basis for it, something that is, in a sense, doing the activity. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that mental activity has a physical counterpart or correlate. We could therefore describe mental activity from the point of view of chemicals, neurons, and electrical impulses in the brain; however, those physical elements are not the mental activity itself. Mental activity is merely the arising of a mental hologram and some sort of cognitive engaging with it.
Mental activity is the subjective experiencing of things, and moment to moment, the type of experiencing changes. For instance, experiencing being asleep can change, “transform,” into experiencing being awake, transform into experiencing seeing the refrigerator, transform into experiencing seeing that there’s no milk in the refrigerator, transform into experiencing being angry. One type of mental activity leads to another. Though the types of mental activity change, the continuum of moments remains in the same category of phenomena, that of experiencing – in other words, they all constitute a continuum of mental activity. It’s impossible for a table to transform into anger, or anger to transform into a table, isn’t it? These are quite different categories of phenomena. So, although there is a physical basis for mental activity, the physical basis can’t transform into mental activity. Nor is the physical basis the cause of mental activity.
Obtaining Causes and Simultaneously Acting Conditions
Buddhism differentiates different types of causes involved in the production or arising of something. In Abhidharmakosha, there is a list of six types of causes. In Abhidharmasamuccaya, there is a list of twenty types. There is a long list of conditions as well. The type of cause that we are mainly concerned with in this discussion is an obtaining cause (nyer-len-gyi rgyu). An obtaining cause is that from which a result is obtained and which transforms into the result. And in transforming, that cause ceases to exist. It’s like moment one giving rise to moment two. When moment two is happening, there’s no longer moment one. The traditional example is that of a seed and a sprout. Once a seed gives rise to the sprout, the seed no longer exists.
So, when we talk about a continuum, we’re talking about a sequence of moments in which one moment gives rise to the next moment of that continuum. One moment transforms, in a sense, into the next moment. And although it is necessary for a simultaneously acting condition (lhan-cig byed-pa’i rkyen) – which is a physical basis – to exist prior to the arising of a result and to assist in making that arising happen, the simultaneously acting condition is not the obtaining cause for the continuum. Simultaneously acting conditions for the sprout are things like the soil, water, and sunlight. Of course those conditions are necessary for the seed to give rise to the sprout; however, it’s the seed, not the soil, etc., that transforms into the sprout.
So, according to that analysis and given that the obtaining cause and the result of the obtaining cause need to be in the same category of phenomena, a physical basis, such as a joined sperm and egg, cannot be the obtaining cause for – cannot transform into – mental activity.
Participant: The notion of an obtaining cause troubles me. How about the function of something, for example, a stone falling? The falling of a stone is a continuous process. It’s not something that has an obtaining cause. Or the burning of wood – it’s not that burningness is a substance that has been injected into the wood, and now it’s burning. It’s a process of transformation of something else. So, you don’t have an obtaining cause for fireness that is mixed with woodness giving you burning wood. What you have is a process of chemical transformation, which is taking place on a material basis.
Dr. Berzin: But there’s the transformation into heat energy. Fire is a form of heat, and heat is a form of energy – the atoms are moving more quickly, etc.
Participant: But you have an observable phenomenon that is based on a series of transformations in which chemical binding energy is released and so on. So, the question is, could there be processes that take place that don’t require an obtaining cause?
Dr. Berzin: A seed transforms into a sprout, but it doesn’t do so instantaneously; there’s a process. The seed of moment one transforms into the seed of moment two in the process of transforming into a sprout. Is that analogous to the atoms of wood, in one moment, vibrating at a certain speed and, in the next moment, vibrating at another speed and, in the moment after that, vibrating at another speed, until, eventually, at a certain moment, there’s fire?
Participant: I’m talking about more abstract physical phenomena: magnetism, gravity, the burning and falling of things.
Dr. Berzin: Yes, but those are different types of causes. In the Abhidharmasamuccaya, they list twenty different types of causes. We could undoubtedly list more, which would include these various forces – gravity, magnetism, and so on .
Participant: I’m trying to give an example of what a mental continuum could be from the point of view of a scientist.
Participant: Yes, like the falling of a stone or the burning of wood.
Dr. Berzin: Well, the falling of a stone – the stone in position A gives rise to the stone in position B.
Participant: In the burning example, the process is one of transformation.
Dr. Berzin: Well, motion is a process of transformation. Why can’t moment one give rise to moment two in the transformation?
Participant: Yes, exactly. So the question is, why can’t something of one category of phenomena transform into something of another category?
Dr. Berzin: Well, we already said that matter/energy is one type of continuum. That’s one category of phenomena. Science will accept that. But mental activity is a different category of phenomena. What are the categories in Buddhism regarding nonstatic phenomena? They are forms of physical phenomena – so, matter/energy – ways of being aware, and things that are neither of these, like time.
Participant: Well, this distinction already presupposes a Buddhist answer.
Participant: Your whole theory rests on the thesis that one category of phenomena can’t change into another. You just have to believe that that’s so.
Dr. Berzin: This is good. This is how we analyze. Buddhist assertions are based on certain axioms, and one has to examine these axioms. How do you examine the axiom or assertion that something of one category can’t transform into something of a different category – given the categories that are defined here as the categories of forms of physical phenomena and ways of being aware of something? Well, what are the valid ways of being aware of something? The valid ways are either bare perception or inference. Have you ever, with bare perception, seen a table transform into anger? A table is not part of a mental continuum. It’s not a subjective experience. Anger is. How could a table transform into anger?
Participant: But a scientist would not posit this primitive kind of transformation to explain that mind is a mental process that happens on a physical basis. They wouldn’t say that matter-stuff becomes mind-stuff by transforming into something completely different.
Participant: They would probably say that the transformation of matter, such as its spatial movement, is mind or something like this.
Participant: Or that the movement of matter is the foundation for what we experience.
Dr. Berzin: That it is the foundation for our experience, in the sense that movement is an object of perception, is something that Buddhism would accept. You can’t have mind without there being an object cognized by mind; however, the experiencing or cognition of the movement is not the same as the movement itself.