Lam-rim 23: The Three Precious Gems: The Buddha Gem

We are now up to the second cause for taking safe direction, which is confident belief, confident belief in something that is a fact. When we talk about confident belief, we’re not talking about believing that it’s going to rain tomorrow or that the stocks will go up or down or anything like that. We’re also not talking about belief in something that is a fantasy, like Santa Claus. What we believe in is something that is a fact, and we believe that fact to be true. This has to do with recognizing what the objects that provide us with a safe direction are. 

Safe direction, as we explained, is something that is active: it’s showing us a direction out. The analogy that is found in the texts is that of a cave: A cave can offer us a way to avoid getting wet, but we actually have to go in it. We can’t just stand outside and say, “I take refuge in the cave.” If we don’t actually go in, it doesn’t help.

Now, in order to have confident belief that the objects that are the sources of safe direction actually can provide us with protection, as it were, then we have to recognize what these objects are. So, that’s what comes next: recognizing what we call the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This is not so simple. So, let’s begin with that.

The Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are called “the Three Gems,” “the Triple Gems” (dkon-mchog gsum, Skt. triratna). They are called “gems” because they are rare and precious. In Sanskrit, they are referred to simply as ratna, which means “jewel.” But the way that the Tibetans translate the term is with two words that mean “rare” (dkon) and “supreme” (mchog), which is in accord with the explanation Maitreya gives in The Furthest Everlasting Stream (rGyud bla-ma, Skt. Uttaratantra). So, they are rare and precious in that sense. 

(I.22) Because their occurrence is rare, because they are stainless, because they have strength and because they become adornments for those with a perishable basis, because they are what is supreme and because they are inalterable, they are the rare and supreme (gems).

There are various divisions of these so-called Gems. There are, first of all, the Apparent Gems and the Deepest Gems. The Apparent Gem is what we see. The Deepest Gem is the deeper aspect.

The Apparent Buddha Gem is the Buddha’s Rupakaya (gzugs-sku). Those are the bodies with form, these enlightening forms that a Buddha takes. A Buddha’s Body is a network of bodies, not just one body. That’s why the word “body” sometimes is a little bit misleading. I sometimes use the word “corpus,” as in a “body” of literature or a “corpus” of literature. So, it’s a network of a lot of different things. Here, it’s a network of bodies having form that a Buddha can manifest in. A Buddha can manifest in many different types of form, of which there are subtle forms and grosser forms.

Sambhogakaya

The subtle forms are known as Sambhogakaya. I translate sambhoga as forms that can “make full use.” The definition, then, of Sambhogakaya is “forms that make full use of the Mahayana teachings.” The word “sambhoga” – in Tibetan, it’s longcho (longs-spyod) – has several connotations: to use, to eat, to enjoy. So, it makes full use of the Mahayana teachings. The word “enjoy” doesn’t really make sense in this context. Some people translate Sambhogakaya as the “Enjoyment Body,” but I can’t really see any reason for translating it that way. It is a network of bodies that can teach the full Mahayana teachings. 

The Sambhogakaya has five certainties: 

• It always appears with all the various physical characteristics of a Buddha – the thirty-two major and eighty minor signs. 
• It always teaches in pure-land realms 
• and always to arya bodhisattvas.
• The teaching lasts forever, until everybody is liberated. 
• It is always teaching Mahayana. 

It can make full use of Mahayana because a pure land is a place where arya bodhisattvas – those who have non-conceptual cognition of voidness – go. The arya bodhisattvas are the most receptive, most advanced students. “Teaching Mahayana” means aiming for enlightenment. In this form, a Buddha can teach the full scope of the Mahayana teachings to those bodhisattvas. So that’s what is meant by “full use”: it makes full use of the Mahayana. 

In tantra systems, it refers to the speech of a Buddha. It makes full use of the Mahayana teachings in terms of communicating it. But the discussion of Samboghakaya, here, in the lam-rim is in a sutra context.

Nirmanakaya

Then there are emanations of the various Bodies of Full Use. These emanations are called Nirmanakaya (sprul-sku). Nirmana is the word for “emanation.” They are emanations of these more subtle forms that then emanate in grosser forms in order to be able to teach those who are of lesser attainment than the arya bodhisattvas. Again, there are different types of forms. There are three major divisions:

1. There are the forms that are called “Supreme Nirmanakayas.” They too have all the thirty-two physical major signs and eighty minor physical signs of a Buddha. 

That would be like Shakyamuni Buddha. They would start the world religions and have all these physical characteristics.

2. Then there are certain types of emanation bodies, the so-called heavenly musicians, that can appear in different kinds of forms that teach others in the heavenly realms or that teach through music, various gestures, and so on.

Participant: Like art?

Dr. Berzin: It’s hard to say. The only example that I’ve ever heard of was of some very proud gandharva, one of these celestial musicians, who said, “I’m the greatest musician.” Buddha appeared in one of these forms and challenged him to a contest to see who could play the best on a sitar (though some say it must have been a lute). They kept on removing one string after another to see who could still play the most beautiful song. They got down to one string, and both of them still played very beautifully. Then the Buddha took off that last string and played with no strings. So the gandharva was humbled. In this way, the Buddha was able to teach him. That is the only example I have ever heard of. 

However, to extrapolate from that that a Buddha could teach somebody all the way to enlightenment through art and music is, I think, taking it a bit too far. I think that one could, as an ordinary person, inspire people on the path and that this could be one way of helping others to approach the Dharma. But to really be able to lead somebody to enlightenment, one has to become a Buddha. And to become a Buddha, one needs to study, to meditate, to do all sorts of practices. So, yes, one can inspire others in a spiritual way with art. But let’s not confuse that with these emanation forms of a Buddha.

Again, it comes down to the difference that I make between Dharma-lite and the Real Thing Dharma – Dharma-lite being a watered-down version of the Buddhist teachings. So, please, I’m not making light of art or music or saying that they’re not good. I’m just saying that the emanation body of a Buddha is something very special and very specific. It usually teaches in realms like the celestial realms.

3. The third type of Nirmanakaya includes those that manifest in ordinary forms. 

The example that the Tibetans always give is His Holiness the Dalai Lama – who, I’m sure, would not agree. In any case, those forms would appear more as ordinary beings – for those who have the fortune to be able to meet them. 

Participant: What was Buddha trying to show when he played the instrument?

Dr. Berzin: What Buddha was trying to show was that, in order to teach somebody, the person has to overcome arrogance and pride, like thinking, “I’m the best. I can do everything. You don’t have to teach me.” In order to help this musician overcome that arrogance and pride, the Buddha showed that “well, come on. You’re not that good.” Only if a person is open will they actually be able to learn. 

As I say, I’ve only heard teachers explain this; I’ve never read about it. And they don’t explain more; they just say that Buddha humbled this celestial musician. But then what? I tend to think that it wasn’t that this person instantly became liberated and enlightened. I think that after the contest, Buddha actually had to teach the person. So, I think this just indicates more than anything else the kinds of skillful methods that Buddha would use to make a person receptive. Again, I’ve never found a lot of information about this. It’s a method that’s usually not emphasized at all. However, it is in the list of different ways in which a Buddha can manifest.

There’s a long list of all the qualities of the Form Bodies of a Buddha. I don’t think that it’s so necessary for us to go through that whole list. The thirty-two major physical features of a Buddha are called “exemplary features” because they indicate or exemplify what their causes are. There are eighty secondary features, which are subdivisions of the thirty-two. 

Then there are the qualities of the speech of a Buddha. There’s a list of either sixty or sixty-four – depending on which text we look at – that describes all the qualities of a Buddha’s speech. 

The qualities of the Form Bodies of a Buddha just describe a Buddha’s physical features. But, also, a Buddha has the ability to multiply into countless numbers of forms and to be everywhere simultaneously. And with his speech, a Buddha can communicate perfectly to everybody in all languages simultaneously – these sorts of things. 

Deep Awareness Dharmakaya (Jnana-dharmakaya)

The Deepest Buddha Gem is a Buddha’s Dharmakaya (chos-sku, Corpus Encompassing Everything). Kaya is, again, referring to a corpus – so, a network of many things. The meaning of “dharma,” here, is in the sense of “all phenomena.” So, Dharmakaya is a network of deep awareness – which refers to the mind of a Buddha – that encompasses everything. This is sometimes called the “Deep Awareness Dharmakaya” of a Buddha, Jnana-dharmakaya (ye-shes chos-sku). 

Svabhavakaya

In addition, there’s the Svabhavakaya (ngo-bo-nyid sku), which is an Essential Nature Body, a Body, or Corpus, of the Essential Nature of a Buddha, which usually refers to the voidness of the mind of a Buddha. 

The Deep Awareness Body has the qualities of deep awareness – so, the understanding of a Buddha’s omniscient mind, which knows the two truths about everything simultaneously, etc. It also has qualities of love and compassion – a Buddha has equal love and compassion for absolutely everybody. There’s also the enlightening influence ('phrin-las, Buddha-activity, virtuous conduct) of a Buddha’s mind, the abilities of that mind, etc. Again, there’s a long list of all these qualities.

Sometimes there’s a system of two bodies, or corpuses, of a Buddha, sometimes three, sometimes four, sometimes five. There are many different ways of presenting five, which I will not go into. But in the system that enumerates just two Buddha Bodies, the two are the Apparent Buddha Gem and the Deepest Buddha Gem – so, the Form Bodies and the Dharmakaya Bodies, each of which is divided into two.

The Apparent Buddha Gem is divided into:

• Sambhogakaya, Bodies of Full Use
• Nirmanakaya, the Emanation Bodies

Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya are defined differently in sutra and in tantra. Kalachakra has yet another definition, which combines both the sutra and tantra assertions of Sambhogakaya. In Kalachakra, Sambhogakaya is both the subtle forms and the speech of a Buddha. There’s also the mahamudra ways of defining these in terms of the mind making appearances, the mind emanating out, and so on. 

The Deepest Buddha Gem, Dharmakaya, is divided into:

• The Deep Awareness Dharmakaya 
• The Body of Essential Nature, the Svabhavakaya

Those are defined differently in lots of different systems. But here we are following the main Gelugpa system, which is that one, the Deep Awareness Dharmakaya, is the mind of a Buddha and the other, the Body of Essential Nature, is the voidness of the mind. 

The Deepest Buddha Gem Refers to the Third and Fourth Noble Truths on the Mind of a Buddha

Now, what’s very important here with the Deepest Buddha Gem is to realize that this is talking about the third and fourth noble truths on the mind of a Buddha. The third noble truth is the true stoppings ('gog-pa'i bden-pa, true cessations) of the obscurations, both the emotional and cognitive ones, on a mental continuum. The fourth noble truth is the true pathway minds (lam-bden, true paths) that bring those true stoppings about. 

The four noble truths in Buddhism are: 

1. true sufferings 
2. their true causes 
3. the true stopping of those sufferings by getting rid of the causes 
4. the true pathways of mind, or states of mind, that get rid of those causes and that result from having gotten rid of them 

When we talk about the Deep Awareness Dharmakaya, we’re talking about the pathway minds. There are always two aspects of the pathway minds: 

• An uninterrupted pathway mind 
• A liberated pathway mind. 

The uninterrupted mind is the total absorption on voidness that one attains with the various levels of arya pathway minds. It acts as the opponent to the obscuration or degree of obscuration that one gets rid of with the arya pathway mind. A liberated pathway mind is a mind that is still totally absorbed on voidness but that is now rid of – so, has a true stopping of – the obscuration or degree of obscuration that the immediately preceding uninterrupted pathway mind got rid of. With a Buddha’s mind, however, we wouldn’t talk about this type of division because there’s nothing else to get rid of. It is only the arya states of mind – so, those who have non-conceptual cognition of voidness – that have both aspects. 

In any case, here, with the Deepest Buddha Gem, we are talking about the liberated state of mind of a Buddha, which has all the qualities of the mind of a Buddha.

Participant: Is it an affirmation phenomenon?

Dr. Berzin: The Deep Awareness Dharmakaya is an affirmatuon phenomenon, but the Svabhavakaya is a negation phenomenon. The Svabhavakaya, the voidness of the mind of a Buddha, is the third noble truth. So, it’s the true stopping of the obscurations on the mental continuum of a Buddha. According to the Jetsunpa textbooks of Gelugpa, it’s the equivalent to its voidness. 

Now, that’s a very, very subtle point that one finds only in Gelugpa, and I don’t really want to go into it too deeply. It has to do with the state of being parted (bral-ba’i yon-tan), namely, the parting aspect of the state of being parted from the fleeting stains and the impossible ways of existing. Those two partings are equivalent to each other. That parting refers to the pure state of the mind – that it was never stained (1) by the fleeting stains (glo-bur-gyi dri-ma), since the fleeting stains all occur on grosser levels of mind, nor (2) by stains of self-established existence (rang-bzhin-gyi dri-ma). The pure mind’s never having been stained is the parting aspect of the state of being parted from these. The two partings are equivalent to each other – the pure mind’s never having been stained by fleeting stains and the pure mind’s never having been stained by impossible ways of existing. It’s so unbelievable difficult to understand, I must say, because of the difficulty of the Tibetan. The interpretation depends on how one says the words in order to get the emphasis on what they’re talking about in the sentence. 

So, what we’re talking about when we talk about the Deepest Buddha Gem are the third and fourth noble truths on the mental continuum of a Buddha. This is going to be very significant, so we’ll come back to that. 

Then we have what’s known as the Nominal Gem (brdar-btags-pa’i dkon-mchog). The Nominal Gem is a representation of the Buddhas, of the Buddha Gem – so, paintings and statues of Buddhas. The Nominal Gem is just a representation; it’s not an actual source of safe direction. 

So, what are we talking about when we talk about the Buddha Gem? We’re talking about the fully realized mind of a Buddha,  a mind that has: 

• All the true pathways of mind – so, all the realizations and all the positive qualities that constitute the Deep Awareness Dharmakaya 
• All the true stoppings – so, the absence and stopping of all the obscurations of both (1) the fleeting stains, which are the disturbing emotions, their habits, and so on, and (2) the appearance-making of self-established existence, which prevents omniscience. 

Such a mind is also devoid of impossible ways of existing. And seen from the level of the clear light mind, such a mind was never stained by either the fleeting stains or the stains of impossible ways of existing. 

So, we’re talking about the totally purified mind of a Buddha where all the potentials of mind have been fully realized. 

When we talk about the appearance-making of a mind, we’re talking about mental activity. Remember the definition of mental activity, of mind: it is the mere arising of a mental hologram and a cognitive engaging with it. The word “mere” means “only that”; in other words, there’s no separate “me,” no separate mind, or anything like that doing that arising and engaging. 

Here, with a Buddha’s mind, we have the same thing. The appearance-making aspect of it is these Form Bodies. The cognitive engagement aspect is its omniscience, which also includes having equal love and compassion for absolutely everybody, knowing the skillful methods that would benefit everybody most, and all of that. The mere aspect is the true stoppings that are on that mind. So it fits within this definition of mind. 

The Apparent Buddha Gem is the forms that it appears in. The Deepest Buddha Gem is the mind itself, the cognitive aspect of it. And the voidness aspect of it is its purity aspect, the absence of the fleeting stains. That mind is then represented by the Buddha statues and paintings – the Nominal Gem. But, again, those representations are not actual sources of safe direction. We’re certainly not engaging in idol worship. OK?

When we take refuge, safe direction, in a Buddha, what is usually emphasized in the lam-rim texts – Tsongkhapa emphasizes it like that; Pabongka emphasizes it like that – are all the qualities. So, then we get all the lists. In the lists, we see that a Buddha is someone that will help everybody, regardless of whether they help him or not; we don’t have to praise a Buddha – he’s equally loving to absolutely everybody; he knows all the different ways of how to help others, and so on. The danger here, I think, is that we make Buddha into some sort of god. Well, Buddha’s not a creator; he’s not Almighty God. He’s not in the same category of being as Jehovah or Allah. Buddha is not a god. But, still, the danger is that we make the Buddha into some sort of Supreme Being that we then pray to. 

Emphasizing all the qualities of a Buddha is perhaps helpful when we’re still developing the initial scope motivation. After all, all the qualities are listed in all the lam-rim texts. But I think what is much more significant is to see the Buddha Gem, and in fact all three Precious Gems, in the way that they are presented in Maitreya’s texts, both in Abhisamayalamkara (Filigree of Realizations) and in Uttaratantra (Furthest Everlasting Stream). In those texts, there is much more emphasis on the Apparent and Deepest Gems. I think that in order for our refuge, our taking of safe direction, to be deep, we need to see that the real sources are the deepest Gems, these third and fourth noble truths. That’s what really is going to protect us – more so than some wonderful Buddha who’s going to love us. 

I’m not a terribly devotional person myself, but for those who are devotional, this aspect of “Buddha’s all loving; he can help” and so on – so, making it a personal type of thing – is very helpful. But I think that we perhaps need a combination of the two. That’s why we have the Apparent Gems and the Deepest Gems.

Let us think a little bit about what a Buddha means to us and what it means that somebody who is like that – whose state of mind is perfectly purified, who has all the qualities, who can manifest in all sorts of forms in order to help others, who can communicate perfectly with everybody, and so on – is a source of direction that we’re going in. Obviously, in order to have a deep sense of direction, we have to be convinced that such qualities are possible – which becomes very difficult. Do we believe that there are such things? Is such a state of mind possible? Or are we taking our safe direction from some mythical being, like a Santa Claus? Do we believe that there are Buddhas? A lot of people ask that. “Do you really believe there are Buddhas? Are there any of them walking around?” These are difficult questions. So, one has to start to think about what a Buddha is and what we are taking refuge in. 

[meditation]

The real question to explore here is, “What does a Buddha mean to me?” When we’re thinking of a Buddha and that the Buddha is our refuge, our source of safe direction, what does that mean? Is it purely an emotional or devotional thing? Is it an intellectual thing – based on understanding? It needs to be a balanced combination of the three. But what does a Buddha actually signify to you?

Participant: This idea of liberation, of being completely free of disturbing emotions, is something that I would like to go in the direction of. And when I see that, over time, I am able to lessen the disturbing emotions more and more and to act on them less and less, I become convinced that there is actually a way to achieve liberation. If I wanted to go beyond that and achieve enlightenment and help all sentient beings, I would need to understand the interconnectedness of everything and how these obscurations to omniscience could be eliminated. That’s what I thought about when I was thinking about what a Buddha is.

Dr. Berzin: What you’re basically thinking about are the qualities of a Buddha and analyzing how it is possible to be a Buddha. I think this is the direction one needs to go in, in one’s investigation. 

Do We Believe That Enlightenment Is Possible?

What seems crucial to me is to understand in theory whether it is possible to be enlightened. Is that enlightened state possible? Are the obscurations things that can be gotten rid of and gotten rid of forever? If the mind were free of them, would the energy of the mind then be able to manifest in any sort of form, infinitely throughout the universe, with equal love for everybody – so, having no limitations on the positive qualities of the mind: love, compassion, and so on – and be able to communicate fully with everyone? Mind you, others have to be receptive. But if they’re receptive, could such a mind communicate with them? 

If enlightenment is theoretically possible, then to me personally the question of whether anybody has ever attained it is quite secondary. And it is theoretically possible. Those who have taught all these paths and so on must have known what they were talking about. Were they actually enlightened beings? Was Buddha himself actually enlightened? I don’t know. Did he actually achieve enlightenment? To me that seems a secondary question. But I think that for many people, it is an important question.

Participant: If it’s theoretically possible, doesn’t it follow that someone has actually achieved it?

Participant: No, but given infinite time – no beginning – it’s possible that someone has.

Dr. Berzin: Well, yes and no. There’s the argument that, given that time is infinite, if one person achieved it, everybody should have achieved it. However, in Buddhism, there isn’t the idea that everybody’s inevitably going to become enlightened. It would be nice if everybody were to become enlightened. Everybody is capable of becoming enlightened, but it doesn’t mean that everybody will become enlightened. If everybody were necessarily to become enlightened – and given that time is infinite, no beginning – everybody would have become enlightened already. It’s just pure logic. 

But to understand whether enlightenment is possible, we have to understand what is meant by true pathway minds. Why is the mind basically pure? Why is the understanding of voidness able to get rid of the disturbing emotions and to get the mind to stop producing appearances of truly established existence? We have to understand that, which is not a simple thing to understand at all. It requires a much deeper level of teaching and understanding than we can expect to have at this stage in the lam-rim. 

I’m always jumping ahead. I’m sorry. I’m not really approaching this lam-rim, these graded stages, in the proper way – as if we had never gone through them before. But this is the curious thing about lam-rim: It’s only at the intermediate level when we gain an understanding of the twelve links of dependent arising (rten-‘brel yan-lag bcu-gnyis) – which describe how rebirth works, how it can be stopped, and so on – that we can gain confidence in this. But it’s here, on the initial scope, not on the intermediate scope, that we get refuge. On the initial scope, we’re just aiming for better rebirths. That’s why I think all that is emphasized at this level in all the lam-rim texts is to look at all the qualities of a Buddha’s body, a Buddha’s speech, and a Buddha’s mind. It’s so that we really become convinced: “Hey, I can depend on what the Buddha has taught because he’s not going to be jealous, he’s not going to be wrathful, he’s going to help me no matter what,” and all of these sorts of things. But as I say, there is the danger that we then make Buddha into a substitute for God Almighty, which is not what’s intended.

Participant: So, does Buddhism believe in God?

Dr. Berzin: Buddhism believes that the god that’s described in Western religions – or the gods that are described in Indian religions, for that matter – exists. Buddhism doesn’t deny that these gods exist. The question is, are they creators of the universe? Buddhism says no, there is no creator of the universe. That they have all these other powers and abilities is fine. Buddhism doesn’t have a problem with that. But creation out of nothing is a problem. And that there is an omnipotent creator who can do whatever he wants, regardless of cause and effect, Buddhism doesn’t accept. 

Does It Matter Whether Anybody Has Ever Attained Enlightenment?

Participant: Are you saying you’re not sure that Buddha reached enlightenment?

Dr. Berzin: I’m saying, how do I know that a Buddha reached enlightenment? Buddha has taught a path, a series of trainings that lead to enlightenment. Am I convinced that they lead to enlightenment – which is very important for refuge? Personally, I’m convinced that they lead to liberation and enlightenment. I have confidence that there is the state of mind of a Buddha – an enlightened state. Whether or not anybody has ever achieved it is not such an important question to me is what I’m saying. But maybe that’s because I’m not a terribly devotional type of person. Did Buddha achieve it? Did Shakyamuni actually say all this? Did he actually do everything that’s written in the sutras? I don’t know. It seems irrelevant. Whether he did or didn’t doesn’t change my confidence in the teachings. 

Now, that aspect of an emotional involvement with Buddha and so on could involve the disturbing emotions, right? We don’t want the disturbing emotions. So how do we have a non-disturbing form of these emotions, one not involved with grasping for solid, self-established existence, like “Buddha up there, you’re so wonderful, and I’m this lowly worm down here. Protect me.”?

Look at the teachings on the guru. It says that since it is very difficult for us to relate to Buddha Shakyamuni himself or to any other Buddha – Maitreya or whomever – on a personal level, we have the spiritual teacher. It’s said that the spiritual teacher is like the magnifying glass for bringing the rays of the sun down to the earth so that something catches on fire. OK, so we look at the spiritual teacher. Who’s the spiritual teacher that I find the most highly developed? His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Is His Holiness the Dalai Lama an enlightened being? Well, he would certainly say no, that he’s not an enlightened being. He’s pretty far along the path, probably further than anybody else. For me, personally, that’s enough. As they say, if a Buddha were right next to you, you wouldn’t recognize him. You wouldn’t be able to relate to a Buddha. 

Participant: “If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”

Dr. Berzin: That is a Zen saying, which has to do with grasping for a truly existent Buddha. We have to kill that concept of a truly existent Buddha. “Truly existent” (bden-grub) is a strange term, but that’s the literal term. What it means is something that is truly, solidly established, with a big line around it, like a statue. Nothing is like that.

I’m just saying that what is a central issue to me personally is not whether Shakyamuni Buddha himself was enlightened but whether enlightenment is possible and whether the teachings will, if we follow them, they lead us to that state. That they will is something I’m convinced of. So, who gave the teachings? It must have been somebody who was enlightened. It must have been somebody who knew from experience that these teachings led to that state. Well, that’s just it: would one have to know?

Participant: How can you truly believe in a path to a certain state if no one has reached that state? That makes no sense.

Dr. Berzin: Does it make no sense? What about from science?

Participant: You can learn from someone who hasn’t achieved a certain goal, and you can use those teachings to achieve and discover something new. This is normal.

Dr. Berzin: Well, let’s take the Higgs boson or whatever it is that they’re trying to prove with this new particle accelerator. They can say, “We’re confident that this thing exists. We haven’t actually been able to produce it, but given all the theory, it has to exist.” 

What I’m expressing is not an orthodox view; I’m just sharing my thoughts with you. The first thing from a lam-rim point of view is recognizing that “yes, there’s a Buddha,” relating to a Buddha in terms of all the qualities of a Buddha, thinking, “I’d really like to follow a path that somebody like that taught,” and being confident that the Buddhas can help me wherever I am and all of that. However, to me, that level is not very satisfying.

But as His Holiness says – and he takes this from Nagarjuna – there are two ways of approaching the path. 

One way is, first, to develop bodhichitta and, then, the understanding of voidness. So, we open up our hearts: “I love everybody. Everybody’s been my mother. I’m going to help everybody,” and so on. With that strong state of mind, we then aim to understand reality, how things exist, and to get rid of all the garbage, all our misconceptions. 

The other way, which Nagarjuna has in his Bodhichittavivarana (Entering into Bodhichitta), is first to get the understanding of voidness. So, we become convinced through the understanding of voidness that enlightenment is possible, and then we develop the wish to strive for it. Once we’re convinced that it’s possible, we can put our hearts into achieving it.

The first way is for those who are more the emotional and devotional types. I’m more of an intellectual type, so the other way is more appealing to me – and His Holiness himself says it’s more appealing to him.

Participant: Yeah, but that wasn’t the problem we were discussing.

Dr. Berzin: No, but what I’m saying is the same thing. In terms of this refuge, the first question to me, approaching it as I do in this more intellectual way, is whether enlightenment is possible. Is there such a thing? If there is such a thing, then there must have been somebody who achieved it.

Participant: There’s this differentiation between the person who understands voidness first and the person who feels compassion first. But didn’t Nagarjuna write that understanding isn’t just intellectual?

Dr. Berzin: I was using the word “intellectual” because there’s no other word. I don’t mean it in the derogatory, Western sense, namely, something purely cerebral, without an emotional aspect to it, and so on. It’s understanding. Of course, there’s the type of understanding that’s through categories, which is conceptual, and the type of understanding that’s not through categories. 

However, this whole division into intellectual and intuitive is totally a Western way of looking at things. There’s no equivalent whatsoever in Buddhist terminology. There’s going to be an emotional component to everything. There cannot not be an emotional component to what we experience. That’s why I’m asking, what is the emotional component? Is it a disturbing emotion? Is it a non-disturbing emotion? Is it a dramatic emotion? What do we mean by “emotion”? There is no word for that in Buddhist terminology. It’s very hard to find equivalents for describing the experiences that one has on a spiritual path. 

In the lam-rim as well, the bodhichitta teachings come before the voidness teachings. So, on the initial scope, I think one has a more emotional/devotional approach to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha in terms of looking at all their qualities. Then, later on, one goes deeper, trying to understand “Well, is enlightenment really possible? Do I have confident belief in such a thing, or am I just taking refuge in a Buddha because everybody says he is so great and because I’m attracted to those qualities?” 

In the initial scope, the confident belief we develop is the belief that someone with these qualities can offer safe direction, rather than the belief that there is such a thing as enlightenment and that it’s possible to attain it. What I’ve been presenting is the other way around, which is not faithful to the lam-rim. I acknowledge that. Doing it the other way around, the first question is, “Is enlightenment really possible?” Then, if it’s really possible, the second question is, “Has somebody achieved it,” and if so, “was that person Buddha Shakyamuni, or was it somebody else?” To me that’s a little bit irrelevant: somebody must have put these teachings together. 

Also, if we look from a Buddhalogical point of view, we can see that these teachings have gone through an evolution. We could explain that evolution from the traditional Buddhist point of view as well as from a Western Buddhalogical point of view. Both ways of explaining it are true. They’re just looking from different points of view. 

Participant: At our stage, whether Buddha was perfect or not is not the most important question. The point is that we’re going in the direction of trying to achieve that state. Later on, we can maybe deal with whether or not somebody has actually achieved it. The point is that going in that direction and working to achieve it is going to be much better than not doing anything.

Dr. Berzin: What you say is exactly what I’m saying and exactly how I approach this. So, let’s leave that question about whether the Buddha was perfect or not. Certainly, what he taught is helpful.

Participant: There are some things that we can get feedback on.

Dr. Berzin: Right. We have feedback: we apply the methods, and we get some results. There aren’t instant results, though. And as I have said over and over again, the nature of samsara is that it goes up and down, so sometimes it gets better, sometimes it gets worse. It’s not going to be linear – always getting better. That’s a myth. We have to accept that some days will be better than others, some days will be worse than others, and then slowly work with these things such as “is it possible to get rid of these disturbing emotions forever or not?” For that, we really have to understand the teachings much more deeply than how they are presented at this stage. 

If, at this stage of the lam-rim, we’ve never heard anything about what comes in the later stages, then we simply have to go on the basis of looking at all the qualities and seeing whether following the teachings of such a being would be worthwhile, whether it would be helpful. And what would it be helpful for? To avoid worse rebirths. That’s this initial level, isn’t it – to avoid worse rebirths. So how do we go in that direction? Initially, it’s by following the teachings on ethics – not acting destructively, which is the main cause of rebirth in the lower realms. That’s the start. Then, once we have at least developed self-control – not going around killing, stealing, hurting others, lying, and all these other negative things – we can go more deeply and start working on our minds and our understanding. That’s the general way of progressing on the path as presented in the lam-rim.