Lam-rim 35: Why Believe Buddha?

The point I would like to go into this evening, before we get into the discussion about what, specifically, makes an action destructive, is not an easy one: Why do we believe Buddha about all these points concerning karma? In order to gain confidence in the validity of what Buddha said, we really need to examine very well why we should believe the Buddha. Basically, what we are talking about here is proving that Buddha is a valid source of information. 

Obvious, Obscure, and Extremely Obscure Phenomena

(1) There are certain types of phenomena that are obvious. We can see them, touch them, hear them, etc. We can validly know that they are there just by valid sense perception. 

The classic example is seeing smoke coming out of the chimney of a house that’s on the side of a mountain across a valley. We are able know that there is a house there and that there’s smoke coming out of the chimney just by seeing it. We might have to put our glasses on, but if any source of deception, such as impaired vision, is not present or is done away with (we have the correct glasses on), then we can see those things. 

(2) Other types of phenomena are more obscure. These we can know by using inference – for example, ascertaining that there is a fire going inside a house: Where there is smoke, there is fire. 

(3) There are also certain things that are extremely obscure, like the name of the person who built the fire in the house. That’s something we wouldn’t be able to figure out by using logic. We would have to ask somebody who knew. 

The example that His Holiness the Dalai Lama always uses for these extremely obscure phenomena is one’s birthday. There is no way that we can know our birthdays by ourselves. We have to ask somebody. Somebody has to tell us, and that person has to be a valid source of information. It’s a good example. 

So, how do we know that the Buddha is a valid source of information about karma, an extremely obscure phenomenon? If we look at these various points of karma – for example, that being poor is a result of having taken what was not given to us, stealing, and so on – we might question their validity. So, how do we prove them? How would we know? Should we take them as true just on the basis of faith? 

There are different types of faith. The term that is sometimes translated as “faith” is one that I prefer to translate as “believing a fact to be true,” because that is what is being referred to: something that is true and that we believe to be true as fact. It’s not like believing in Santa Claus or something like that. 

There are several logical arguments that are used for gaining conviction in what the Buddha taught about these extremely obscure phenomena. I’d like to explore them with you and see if they are convincing or not. 

One argument is: 

• If we can verify for ourselves that what Buddha said about obscure things is true, then we can infer that what Buddha said about extremely obscure things must also be true because Buddha had no reason to lie or to pretend. 

So what things did Buddha say are obscure that we can check for ourselves? These are the teachings on voidness. Suppose we go through all the logical arguments about voidness and, through valid logic, become convinced of the validity of what Buddha taught concerning how the ways in which things appear to us do not correspond to the way they actually exist, and, as a result, we see that our problems and suffering are diminished. Suppose we then gain perfect concentration and perfect non-conceptual cognition of this understanding, and, as a result, we see that it actually rids us of problems and suffering, not just lessen them. If that is our experience, then why shouldn’t we believe what Buddha said about more difficult and obscure things like karma? 

Another one is: 

• The only way that Buddha could have gained understanding of these really obscure phenomena was to have become enlightened. And the reason he became enlightened was his compassion. 

So, we would have to become convinced that the power of compassion and bodhichitta is able to increase the power of the understanding of voidness so that that understanding will get rid of not only the emotional obscurations but also the cognitive ones and, thus, enable the attainment of omniscient enlightenment. And we would also have to become convinced that Buddha had equal compassion for absolutely everybody (this we had in the list of the qualities of a Buddha), whether somebody hated him, adored him, or was a total stranger to him, and that, because of that compassion, Buddha had no reason to deceive us. Why would he deceive us if his whole purpose in teaching was to benefit us? 

Let’s examine these two points.

(1) Having Verified What Buddha Said about Obscure Phenomena, Inferring That What He Said about Extremely Obscure Phenomena Is Also True

Let’s start by thinking about the teachings on voidness, an obscure phenomenon. If we can prove by logic and experience that they are valid and that they bring about the results they are said to bring about, then we should have confidence that what Buddha said about other, more obscure phenomena like karma are also valid. Think about that. Is that really convincing? 

[meditation]

What are your thoughts? Can you believe what Buddha said?

Participant: It reminds me of what happens in science – that you don’t always have the mathematical abilities to derive an equation or a method yourself; nonetheless, you can use others’ methods and conclusions inside a research. Even though you aren’t able to understand fully how a conclusion was reached, you trust the body of knowledge. You know that it’s logically consistent and that it has worked, and you know it comes from reliable people. So, basically, you trust in that. 

Dr. Berzin: The example is not exactly analogous. We can have confidence in the scientists, but, at the same time, they aren’t giving us material that can’t be verified. With karma it’s different. How can we verify karma?

Participant: But we can verify it.

Dr. Berzin: Well, most of karma ripens in future lives. There is very little karma that we create in this lifetime that actually ripens in this lifetime. If you have done something very strongly positive or negative toward those who have been especially kind to you, such as your spiritual teacher, your parents, and so on, and you have done so with a very strong motivation, whether positive or negative, it can ripen in this lifetime. But even if it does, how do you know that the cause of it was that action?

Participant: One can verify in the same way that a scientist does.

Dr. Berzin: How do you verify karma? 

Participant: You become enlightened, and you verify it.

How Can We Verify Karma If We Do Not Understand Voidness?

Dr. Berzin: Well, this is the question that came to my mind: If you don’t understand voidness, how can you verify karma? 

You can use logic to verify voidness. So how do you verify it? What logic would you use?

Participant: In order to “verify” (in quotation marks) with logic, you have always have to make some basic assumptions; otherwise, it doesn’t work. For example, the Buddha said that understanding voidness helps to overcome suffering.

Dr. Berzin: Buddha said that understanding voidness not only helps to overcome suffering, it actually does overcome suffering.

Participant: OK. So, how would it overcome suffering? Well, if I understood voidness, I wouldn’t grasp any more. But then I would have to be convinced that grasping is the source of suffering. But to investigate whether that is so, I can’t think just in terms of this lifetime. That means I must be convinced that consciousness is without a beginning. And in order to be convinced that consciousness is beginningless, I must be convinced that every moment of consciousness is preceded by another one. But I’m not convinced of that.

Dr. Berzin: Right. To become convinced of past and future lives, you have to become convinced that every moment of mind has, as its immediately preceding condition, a prior moment in its continuity, and that’s something that you have not been able to become convinced of, even though there are some logical arguments for it. 

Well, yes, all of this is very true. To become convinced of the voidness of something, you, first of all, have to recognize what the object of refutation is and how it exists in an impossible way. You have to recognize that what appears is deceptive and to see what’s deceptive about it. You have to understand the logic and how it actually proves that things don’t exist in the impossible way in which they appear to exist. This is part of the four-point analysis, which involves recognizing the object to be refuted, understanding how the logic refutes it, and then understanding the points of the logic. And all of the points of logic go back to beginningless and endless mind, rebirth, etc. Well, it’s not easy. This is why I am saying we shouldn’t just go on the basis of “yeah, I believe what Buddha said.” Well, do you really believe what Buddha said? And if so, why? 

Participant: I guess there’s no way around it that you will get the final conviction only when you are enlightened.

Dr. Berzin: Oh! Now I’ll debate with you. Can we get enlightenment without that conviction? 

Participant: I think what you need is to have some trust in it, because, overall, the picture makes sense. So, you give it what you say in German “Vertrauenvorschusses,” the benefit of the doubt. You do so because the overall picture makes sense. But to have complete confidence, you have to wait, I guess, until enlightenment. But it’s very often like this. For example, when you’re a student and you start studying the books from the lower eighth semester, you don’t really understand what’s in them. You say, “Well, I know I don’t understand it now, but I’m just starting, so it makes sense that I don’t understand. So, I’ll just go with it, and, finally, I will understand more and have more confidence in what I’m learning.”

Dr. Berzin: I don’t think everybody has confidence that all the textbooks teach valid information, but if we do, then we start at the beginning, and, eventually, our confidence would build up. 

But there are those who aren’t necessarily gifted in logic. 

Participant: I follow an experiential approach to the Dharma, one that is based on emotional feelings more than logical understanding.

Dr. Berzin: But why do you believe what Buddha said? 

Participant: Because I have seen so much change.

Dr. Berzin: Ah! Here is a very, very good point that is true from both an experiential point of view and a logical one. You have experienced change, positive change, in yourself, based on having put the teachings of the Buddha into practice. That’s exactly the point. That’s exactly the point: You try it, and it works.

But you will have confidence in it only to the extent that it works. So, if it works, let’s say, 50% of the time, you have 50% confidence in it. If it works 75% of the time, you have even more confidence. However, I think to fully understand the teachings on topics such as voidness, you have to have 100% confidence. Otherwise, there’s a little bit of doubt in there. If there’s a little bit of doubt, you can’t get complete absorption on it. 

Also, I think one of the great inspirations for gaining confidence is seeing the example of the teacher, a qualified teacher. There are a lot of people who claim to be teachers and who have large followings who aren’t authentic teachers. But if you are fortunate enough to meet the real thing, then the experience can be very inspiring because you see what type of person these teachings produce. And if you see more than one, you become convinced that it’s not just this person who is like that but many. It makes you think, “Wow! If I could become like that, even if they are not perfect yet, that would be enough.”

Participant: Is it absolutely necessary to believe in karma in order to follow the Buddhist path? 

Dr. Berzin: Well, why would you want to avoid destructive behavior? Because Buddha said so?

Participant: No, because I see that destructive behavior results in suffering. 

Participant: There are mafia leaders who are really evil and who are really rich and powerful and seem happy.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Karma is not so obvious. You could cheat on your taxes or whatever and feel very happy that you got away with it. You might not be caught at all your entire lifetime. 

To appreciate the details of karma is very difficult. To believe that being poor is the result of not having been generous or having taken what was not given and then to change your ways based on that belief requires quite a bit of confidence, doesn’t it? Why would you do that? This is what I am asking we think about before we go further into these teachings on karma.

It isn’t as if God created these laws and that we have to follow them. It’s not like that. Buddha said to understand why destructive behavior leads to unhappiness.

Participant: But there are people from other religions or people who are not religious at all who also act very ethically.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, is what Buddha said anything different? Is it anything new? What’s special about what Buddha said about karma?

Participant: It’s this future lives thing.

Dr. Berzin: Well, the Hindus and the Jains believe in future lives.

Participant: Is the Jain or the Hindu idea of karma different?

Dr. Berzin: What would be different about it? You tell me.

Participant: I think it’s all the same, probably. The difference is just in how you purify the karma.

Dr. Berzin: I would go even deeper: It’s the Buddhist explanation of the voidness of karma – which is what you need to understand in order to understand how karma works (and that, of course, is related to how you purify). So, this is quite unique.

In the Biblical religions, as well, the idea is that if you follow the laws and are a good person, you go to heaven; if you break them, you suffer. So, the correlation between engaging in destructive behavior and unhappiness is there. However, the basis is different – the reason why you suffer. In other systems, whether religious or civil, it’s because you are disobedient: you don’t obey the laws. In Buddhism, however, it’s because you are confused: you don’t understand cause and effect. So, again, it comes down to cause and effect. And, again, how do you know? Because Buddha said so. 

This is quite a central issue, I think. Why do you believe in what the Buddha said? Is it because “my teacher said so and my teacher believes in it”? Well, do you believe everything that your teacher says? 

An example of the teachings on karma that you find in the texts is the account of a Brahmin who had an elephant that defecated gold. The brahmin tried to get rid of this elephant because everybody was after him to get the gold. But every time he gave the elephant away, the elephant would suddenly appear again. It would pop up out of the earth or whatever. You read accounts like that. I made a mistake of calling it a “story” in Tibetan, which is the word for a fiction story. I was scolded quite severely by Serkong Rinpoche. He said, “No, it’s not a fictional story: this is an account! You find it in the texts.” So, what do you with that? Our teachers believe in these stories quite literally. 

Participant: Even some of the teachings of the Buddha are taken literally.

Dr. Berzin: Right. However, others are not. They have to be interpreted

So, what would you say – that these teachings are given for simple-minded folk and that we don’t need them? That’s rather arrogant, isn’t it?

Participant: That would imply Serkong Rinpoche was simple-minded.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, now it becomes very interesting. What did Serkong Rinpoche mean by what he said? Was he simple-minded? Did he believe that this elephant defecated gold and popped up out of the earth whenever the brahmin tried to get rid of it? Or was it that he was teaching me not to be so arrogant? I tend to think the latter because when I first came to him, I was quite an arrogant young man!

That gets into the whole relation with the spiritual teacher. No matter what they do – and provided that they are a real, qualified spiritual teacher – you try to see what lesson they are trying to teach you. You don’t just immediately criticize and say they’re stupid and simple-minded.

Participant: This kind of story, I think, is one that can be interpreted on different levels. One is didactic – to teach. One is symbolic; it could represent something else. Another one could be that it’s a true story from another time or another world in which this kind of thing can happen. How can we know?

Dr. Berzin: That’s a very, very good point. 

I always found what Serkong Rinpoche and many of my teachers said to be very, very wonderful, which is that to use the reason of “I don’t think so” as the reason for not believing in something is not valid. “I don’t think so” isn’t a valid reason. So what if you don’t think so? So what? That doesn’t prove anything. 

OK. Applying the teachings on voidness, even if not at a very deep level, and trying to deconstruct the very strong sense of me, me, me – “I have to get my way. I have to be right. I am the most important” – without, of course, going to the extreme of “I am nothing,” can help a lot. We don’t get so angry. And if we do get angry, we are able to get over it very, very quickly. Also, we are not so greedy or selfish. And we tend to be more compassionate toward and understanding of others – at least to be more patient with them. So, we can verify that the teachings on voidness are valid, at least to the extent that we can establish that an understanding of voidness lessens our suffering.

It’s not as though we are immediately happy, however. There’s no instant karma. Nonetheless, we have fewer problems, and we have more equanimity. I think that why we are not immediately happy is because we built up so much negative karma in the past. That karma is still ripening into feeling unhappy or, at least, not very joyous. Even so, we are not as disturbed. We’re calmer.

Then we can examine further: When am I the happiest? I find it to be true in my case that, usually, I am happiest when I am actually helping others. When I am sitting by myself – that’s usually the opportunity or the circumstance for old karma to be unhappy to ripen.

(2) Because of His Compassion, Buddha Had No Reason to Lie

That gets to the other point, which has to do with compassion – that Buddha had no reason to lie to us about these extremely obscure phenomena or to make them up because of this compassion. Why would Buddha make this stuff up if he really had total compassion? He couldn’t have become a Buddha without that compassion. So let’s think about that. 

Participant: I’m not really happy with this line of reasoning. The first point was that because the Buddha’s teachings on voidness are correct, I can assume that the teachings on karma are correct. I’m not happy with that point either. Einstein, for example, was right about the relativity theory, but he was not right about points having to do with atomic theory. 

Dr. Berzin: So, just because he was correct about one thing, doesn’t mean that he is going to be correct about something else. 

Participant: With the line of reasoning having to do with compassion, one has to assume that Buddha was teaching out of compassion. If one does not assume that – maybe he was just showing off or something – the argument is not convincing.

Dr. Berzin: How do you know that Buddha had equal compassion for absolutely everybody? He might have been teaching just to show off how clever he was. Well, again, Buddha couldn’t have become enlightened without that compassion. If you don’t accept that assumption, then you will not be convinced by that argument.

Participant: The line of reasoning that works for me is, if I had a better understanding of voidness and were convinced that it is possible to achieve enlightenment and to develop a mind that is really omniscient, I would then be able to imagine that enlightened beings existed and that they would teach others how to become enlightened. Using this line of reasoning, I can imagine that there are enlightened beings.

Dr. Berzin: The line of reasoning that you are using is that if you can become convinced through logic and experience that, with the understanding of voidness, you can gain enlightenment and become omniscient – and you can demonstrate that – then it would follow that, because the Buddha was omniscient, what he said about everything was correct.

However, I have to ask you, is the understanding of voidness alone sufficient for gaining enlightenment?

Participant: No, one needs compassion as well.

Why Do We Need Compassion to Understand Voidness and to Become Enlightened?

Dr. Berzin: Why? This is exactly the question that we’re thinking about. Why is compassion necessary? What does it add to the understanding of voidness? 

Participant: Without compassion, there would be no reason to want to understand all conventional phenomena completely.

Dr. Berzin: That would mean that all the scientists doing experiments with this particle accelerator in Switzerland in order to try to understand all of physical reality and the Big Bang necessarily have compassion.

Participant: That’s not what I meant. I meant that one needs to understand conventional reality completely in order to be able to benefit others.

Dr. Berzin: But couldn’t you want to understand conventional reality completely just because it’s interesting or just because you want to gain a Nobel Prize? Surely, there could be other motives for wanting to do it.

Participant: Yes, there could be, but you would have no success because to gain an understanding of voidness, you need compassion.

Dr. Berzin: Do you need compassion?

Participant: Not necessarily, but it helps. It purifies the mind, so it’s easier to understand voidness.

Dr. Berzin: Ah! How? Why?

Participant: It calms the mind.

Dr. Berzin: So, it’s a tranquilizer?

Participant: No. It calms the mind – you are less obsessed with yourself. So, that makes it easier. 

Participant: I wanted to say the same thing – that when you have compassion, you open up to others and are able to see the interconnectedness with others as something more real.

Dr. Berzin: I think we’re going in the correct direction. When you are thinking just of yourself, you’re very, very closed. Your heart is closed, and your mind is closed. When you are thinking of others, your heart and mind are open. The more open they are, the more receptive you are to understanding. 

I was thinking a little bit about what I said earlier about when you feel happy and when you feel unhappy. For happiness and unhappiness to ripen, you need circumstances. So what are the circumstances for them to ripen? As I said, I think that one of the circumstances has to do with whether or not you’re being compassionate. When you are being compassionate or at least trying to help others and to be with them in a compassionate way, your mind and heart are more open. That, I think, acts as a circumstance for the potentials for happiness to ripen. On the other hand, when you are just sitting by yourself in front of the computer or doing whatever work you might be doing, thinking, “Ugh, I have to do this. I have to do that,” you are more closed. And that, I think, acts as a circumstance for unhappiness to ripen. Similarly, the more open you are – with compassion – the easier it is, I think, to understand things. So, in order to understand everything, you would have to be infinitely open.

Participant: On the other hand, you can sit on your own and be quite happy because the mind is really quiet.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So there is another kind of happiness she’s pointing out, which is very correct, which is the happiness that you get when you achieve shamatha, the completely stilled and settled mind. With shamatha, you get this exuberant feeling of mental flexibility, mental fitness. That’s a different kind of happiness. 

Is that ripening from karma though? No, that’s not karmic happiness – or is it? Is it related to karma? That’s something to analyze.

Participant: It’s the karmic result of the act of meditation.

Dr. Berzin: Remember, effects do not arise from just one cause. On the one hand, the happiness experienced with a state of shamatha is the man-made result of the meditation. But, on the other hand, you could also analyze that it is also the ripening of the positive potential from previous constructive actions. After all, you could not attain a state of shamatha if you did not have a sufficient build-up of positive potential.

But consider this: If you are sitting by yourself and thinking of a joke or something funny, you laugh. You are happy. Or you could remember something really nice that happened in your life and experience happiness. That’s why I don’t think that being compassionate, thinking of others, is the exclusive reason for happiness to ripen.

Participant: What came to my mind was the line of reasoning that if we understood voidness, we would gain confidence that Buddha was a valid authority and that would enable us to work toward enlightenment ourselves. But everybody’s different, so we have these two types of bodhisattvas, these two ways to go. One type understands voidness first; the other one develops bodhichitta first.

Dr. Berzin: Right. There are bodhisattvas who develop compassion first, although they have a little bit of an understanding of voidness to start with. Out of that compassion, they then realize that they have to gain an understanding of reality, of voidness, in order to know how best to help others. There are others who understand voidness first. In that way, they become convinced that liberation and enlightenment are possible. Once they have the conviction gained from the understanding of voidness, they can develop compassion much more easily. Without that understanding, compassion just amounts to wishing others well without there being any real hope of actually being able to help them. There are these two ways certainly, but everybody would agree that to achieve enlightenment, you need the understanding of voidness and compassion and bodhichitta. 

Why Do We Need Compassion in Order to Be a Valid Source of Information about Karma?

Are you convinced that the following lines of reasoning are valid: “Buddha is a valid source of information about karma, because he had no reason to lie; and he had no reason to lie because he had the level of compassion needed to attain enlightenment and, with such a level, he would never lie.” And do you believe that Buddha had that level of compassion? 

Participant: I wasn’t convinced by the argument about Buddha’s compassion because I found it to be a very circular one – namely, that Buddha had to have compassion to become enlightened, therefore, he wouldn’t lie to us about things like karma because he was so compassionate. But then I thought about my teacher Dhargey Rinpoche, who I think is very compassionate and kind. And I thought, why on earth would he lie to us? 

Participant: It could be because he doesn’t know. 

Participant: Well, that’s the dilemma.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It could be that he is mistaken and that he wouldn’t lie on purpose.

Participant: At least I am convinced he wouldn’t lie on purpose. So, that’s a help.

Dr. Berzin: So, how would you know whether he understands Buddha’s teachings correctly?

Participant: I wouldn’t know.

Dr. Berzin:  So, again, are we drawn back to going on faith alone – having no reason? 

Participant: I’m reminded of a story by Dostoyevsky that we studied in religion class in school, the story of the Brothers Karamazov. There’s a famous part where the inquisitor tells a person in prison that everything was invented by the Catholic Church: there’s no resurrection, no afterlife – no heaven, no hell, or anything like that. You come from nothing, and you’ll go back to nothing. The Church just made everything up out of compassion in order to help people get through their lives. It’s a famous story.

Dr. Berzin: That’s a good one. So, maybe Buddha made all of this up – karma, etc. – out of compassion in order to help us. But even if he did make it up, does it help us? 

Participant: Yes.

Dr. Berzin: Even the teachings on karma? Even when it says to refrain from all destructive behavior?

Participant: Last time, you said that any unhappiness comes from destructive actions and that any happiness comes from constructive actions.

Dr. Berzin: That’s what Buddha said. It’s the first principle of karma.

Participant: I am convinced of that. I am also absolutely convinced that smoking, for example, is going to create suffering for me in the future – but I do it anyway.

Dr. Berzin: That just indicates that just knowing is not sufficient. What would be more sufficient and get you to actually stop? 

Participant: An emotional factor.

Dr. Berzin: An emotional factor – so, compassion. Let me give an example, a story my mother always used to tell me. Her father smoked. When she was a little girl, he would say to her, “Come sit on my knee,” and then hug her or whatever. My mother would say to him, “Oh, I don’t want to sit on your knee. You smell so terrible from smoking tobacco.” This caused him to stop. “If my own daughter doesn’t want to sit on my knee because of the terrible smell from smoking, why smoke?” 

Compassion for others – thinking not only about what you smell like but also about how smoking might shorten your life and so limit the extent to which you would be able to help others – could be a much stronger motivation for getting you to stop smoking than the knowledge that it’s bad for your health. Otherwise, you could just say, “Well, it’s my health. I can do whatever I want. It’s my body.” 

So, we start to see the force of compassion for overcoming obstacles and hindrances – that just to understand is not enough. That’s a very good point, isn’t it? Let’s think about it. 

[meditation]

Also, one last point is that Buddha said, “Never believe what I said just out of faith in me. Test it out for yourself, as if you were buying gold.” That also pertains to the teachings on karma. Although we can’t really prove the relationship between being poor and stealing, it does make sense. I had taken from others what didn’t belong to me; therefore, I am not able to keep things. I lose them, or I’m robbed. Or I don’t get what I want or need. So, we start to think that the teachings on karma are not outrageous, that they do make sense. 

And although we might not actually be able to prove these teachings, we have enough respect for Buddha to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that respect is a big factor here. I was thinking about my teachers, the great ones – that when a great teacher gives us some advice, such as, “Stop doing that,” one of the reasons for following that advice is that we have so much respect for them. It’s not that I am afraid of them or anything like that. Rather, it’s because I have such respect that I believe them and want to follow their advice. That type of personal dynamic might be very difficult to develop with Buddha himself. That’s one reason why the importance of the teacher is underlined: because we can have a personal dynamic with the teacher, at least to some extent. I think this is another factor in gaining confidence in the teachings.