Review
The Precious Human Rebirth
We are going through the presentation of the graded stages to enlightenment. The way that we started it was with the precious human rebirth, thinking how fortunate we are that we have attained one. We need to recognize and acknowledge it. So, we looked at the various qualities of such a rebirth, such as the temporary freedoms, or respites, from the worst states in which we’d have no leisure to practice or to develop ourselves spiritually. Also, our lives are filled with enriching factors, opportunities to have teachers, teachings, a supportive community, and so on. When we acknowledge this, we have to do so in terms of understanding just how difficult such a rebirth is to attain. That means understanding the causes (which we’ve already gone through) and appreciating the rarity of having such a wonderful opportunity.
Death and Impermanence
However, that opportunity, this precious human rebirth, is not going to last forever. Death will come for sure, and we can never tell when. And since an assumed fact here is rebirth – beginningless and endless mental continuum – we think how nothing is going to be of help at the time death except the various measures that we’ve taken to prevent a worse rebirth in the future. That’s what “Dharma” means. It means “preventive measures.”
Dreading Worse Rebirth States
We’ve seen that if we have not taken sufficient measures to ensure that we continue to be reborn in one of the better rebirth states, we could be reborn in one of the worst states – as a trapped being in a joyless realm (the hells), as a clutching ghost, or as a creeping creature, an animal. We’ve gone through the descriptions of these states and imagined how horrible any they would be and how long it would take to get out. It would take a very, very long time for the karma that put us there to be worn out and completely exhausted. Then, thinking about these types of horrible experiences, we develop a strong sense of dread. We really want to avoid that.
Safe Direction
Is there a way to avoid that? Yes, there is. It is taking the most fundamental preventive measure, which is to put a safe direction in our lives, refuge. Going in that direction means following the path of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. The Dharma refers to the teachings; the Buddhas are those who have presented them; the Sangha are those who have put them into practice and had the main, deep realizations and insights.
There are many, many qualities of each of these Dharma Gems, but on the deepest level, the preventive measure that we’re aiming for is the Dharma, the ultimate one. This refers to the true stoppings of all the causes for samsaric rebirth that are on our mental continuums. In a Mahayana sense, it also refers to the true stoppings of all the causes that prevent us from helping others, which are the obscurations that not only prevent liberation but also enlightenment. What prevent liberation are the emotional obscurations – our disturbing emotions, our unawareness, their tendencies, and so on. Those that prevent enlightenment are the cognitive obscurations. These prevent us from being able to know everything fully, especially cause and effect, which we need to know if we’re going to teach.
The true stoppings indicate not only what we’re aiming for but also the true pathways of mind, the true understandings, which are the non-conceptual cognitions in general of the four noble truths and in particular of voidness. These insights, these true pathways of mind (“true paths”) and these true stoppings (“true cessations”) occur on a mental continuum; they don’t occur in space, all by themselves. The Buddhas are those who have them in full, and the Arya Sangha are those who have them in part. This is the direction that we want to go in.
Refraining from Destructive Behavior
How do we go in that direction? Since our first motivation, or aim, is to avoid a worse rebirth, the way that we do that initially is to avoid the primary cause of worse rebirths, which is destructive behavior. We then get into the whole topic of karma.
The Certainty of Karma
We began our discussion of karma talking about the four basic principles, or laws, of karma. The first principle is the certainty of karma, which is that if we experience unhappiness, or gross suffering, it is certain that that unhappiness is the result of destructive behavior; if we experience happiness, it is certain that that happiness is the result of constructive behavior. If the type of happiness we experience is itself a problem – it doesn’t last, never satisfies, and the more we have of it, the more it turns into suffering (like when we eat too much ice cream or chocolate) – it is because that happiness is the result of constructive behavior that has been mixed with confusion about how we exist or, more generally, about how everything exists. And although, in the initial stage, we want to act constructively, our constructive actions will be mixed with confusion. Eventually, though, we want to act constructively without confusion. When we speak about constructive behavior within the context of karma, then, we’re just talking about constructive behavior that is mixed with confusion.
So, if we’re experiencing unhappiness or happiness, it’s because we have created the causes to do so, and it’s definite what those causes are.
The Role of the Gods in The Sutra of Golden Light
I was thinking more about this and would like to bring up something that we haven’t really discussed. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I’ve been reading Mahayana sutras, particularly the Sutra of Golden Light, the Golden Light Sutra, which I know has been recommended by many teachers, including Lama Zopa. This is a very popular sutra not only in India but also, and particularly, in Central Asia, Mongolia, and China.
What is the essence of this sutra? It is basically a confession, an admission of the negative things that we’ve done in the past. It also has to do with rejoicing, rejoicing in the reading or reciting of the sutra itself, and dedicating the positive force built up from that. We also find in it a brief explanation of voidness, as well as an explanation of the causes for Buddha to have had a long life, which were not killing, giving food, including feeding himself to a hungry tigress. and so on. So, there are some basic teachings on purification and karma.
Also, there are many, many, many praises of the benefits of reading or hearing this sutra. According to one lama whom I respect very much, Dudjom Rinpoche, one of the reasons for this is that, basically, in these Mahayana sutras, they wanted to emphasize the hearing of teachings – which means thinking about and meditating on them – as opposed to just merely circumambulating stupas (although they certainly don’t put down circumambulating stupas). This is one of the reasons we find such extensive praises of the sutras in the sutras themselves. Otherwise, it’s a bit strange, a bit much.
There are some features that appear over and over again in this sutra that can be quite puzzling in terms of our discussion of karma. One is that a great many of the participants in the audience are gods coming from the Realm of the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods, which is the basic heaven in Hinduism, the heaven of all the Hindu gods. The question is asked: Why are these ten thousand gods coming from the god realms to listen to this sutra? The reason is that they had heard prophecies of future Buddhas in previous lifetimes, or they had been read this sutra by some great bodhisattva when they were fish or something like that, and on the basis of this, they were born in this heaven. So, now they come and listen.
Also, another feature that is prominent in this sutra is that the various gods and, particularly, goddesses talk about how they are going to protect the earth and give all sorts of wonderful, what you would call in Hindu terminology, “boons,” or gifts, to the various people who listen to this sutra, gifts such as clearer wisdom, prosperity, and so on. Also, the protectors of the four directions come, saying that they will protect the land, bring all sorts of happiness, avert disasters, turn back enemies, and stuff like that if the king of the land provides the circumstances for the teaching of this sutra.
Also, there are several chapters about what course of action an ideal king would take. An ideal king would be one that is very interested in upholding the law. If a king turns a blind eye to those who act destructively and so on, all sorts of disasters will come to the land. But if a king follows the Dharma and so on, then everything will go well. There’s a long discussion about what the proper way for a king to rule in an empire would be. This is why the Chinese emperors who were Buddhist always had this sutra read over and over again in court. They wanted to ensure that everything would go well and that the protectors would protect them.
How Does the Role of the Gods as Helpers in the Sutras Fit with the Presentation of Karma?
It’s very interesting to think about this. What we find is a precedent for the protector practice that is so prevalent in Tibetan Buddhism, which is exemplified in the Golden Light Sutra by the four protector kings of the four directions (which you have in Hindu mythology as well). They’re around Mount Meru, and they’re going to give protection. Also, the various goddesses and gods are going to give protection. However, we never hear anything like this in the Indian commentaries, which are what the Tibetans mainly follow. There’s nothing in those commentaries about being reborn in heavens or relying on gods that can help everything to go well for individuals and societies. We never hear mention of that. So, the question is, what do we make of these teachings in the sutras and of the role that the gods play – the role of one god or of many gods – as they relate to the whole presentation of karma? An underlying question has to do with how this relates to the first principle of karma, which is that if we experience unhappiness, it is certain that that unhappiness is the result of our own destructive behavior.
Participant: So you have this sutra, but the Indian commentators don’t say anything about it?
Dr. Berzin: I’m not saying that there were Indian commentators on the sutra itself. I’m saying that in the Indian texts on karma by Asanga and Vasubandhu, which are the main early texts that present the material on karma, and in the various other abhidharma texts that you find in the other Hinayana schools (each of them have an abhidharma), you don’t find any mention of the gods helping in any way. There’s no mention that if you make offerings to the sutra and all of this, the gods are going to make everything go well. So, how do we understand this?
Participant: Maybe it depends on what definition you give to gods.
Dr. Berzin: This Buddhist sutra was originally taught to an Indian audience, basically a Hindu audience, that believed in all the gods and the heavens. In India, whether you were Buddhist or not, you lived in a world that included all the gods. It was assumed that all these gods were there. The Buddhists have them as well in their cosmology. All the heavens and all the gods, including the Hindu ones, are there.
Participant: At that time, people might have taken it pretty literally. But when we read it, we might interpret it as referring to circumstances that ripen when we act in certain ways.
Dr. Berzin: What would be the circumstances?
Participant: It’s not that there’s someone sitting there, making things happen.
Dr. Berzin: So, there’s not somebody – namely, the gods – sitting there making these things happen. What’s the role of the gods, then? Do the gods have any place in this? Or are we just going to be embarrassed about the sutras, particularly the Mahayana sutras? Are we going to just put them up on a shelf and recite them ceremoniously but not really take them seriously?
Participant: They could be beings who exist and who, due to karma and circumstances, have the ability to act in certain ways to help others.
Dr. Berzin: She says that these are beings who had the karma to be born as gods (which is true) and that they have the ability to do that – to make some circumstances or make things happen. Let’s try to be more specific here.
Remember the difference between causes and circumstances. Do the gods have any role in what happens to us? That is the question. This is an important question, because people in the West will pray to God in a similar way. Does that kind of thing have any role here in the Buddhist presentation?
Participant: I think that as long as you don’t think of worldly gods as being the final refuge, it’s OK if you ask them to help you, provided that they are positive and compassionate. You can make some connection with them, but you don’t make them a final refuge.
Dr. Berzin: Karsten says that, from a Buddhist point of view, as long as they’re not the final refuge and as long as they’re compassionate and kind, why not let them help in some way? But how do they help? Why does it say that the goddess will make everybody prosperous and make them able to understand things quickly and that the protectors, the four guardian kings of the four directions, will turn back enemies and bring prosperity to the land or that they will cause damage to the land if people ignore this sutra?
If People Provide the Causes, the Gods Can Provide the Circumstances
Participant: But the people still have to provide the causes – for example, the king has to uphold the laws.
Dr. Berzin: Right. For example, the king has to uphold the laws, and the people have to act according to the Dharma.
Participant: So, maybe it’s a kind of co-work.
Dr. Berzin: This is why I said “causes and circumstances.”
Participant: But the ordinary people, the humans, lay the causes. It could be that they plant the seeds and that the gods give the sun.
Dr. Berzin: Right. So, the gods are like the sun: they help the seeds grow.
Participant: So, they’re the circumstances, or they help with the circumstances.
Dr. Berzin: So, the gods do have some ability here to provide circumstances. But mind you, the king upholds the laws and so on for everybody else, and everybody else enjoys the fruits of what he does. Nonetheless, the gods help to provide the circumstances – for what? For the results of the karmic causes planted by the people to ripen. The gods provide circumstances for the results to ripen.
Participant: It’s like channeling an energy.
Dr. Berzin: Then do the gods have some power?
Participant: I’d say it might also be a kind of skillful method – trusting in the gods and all this.
Dr. Berzin: Skillful method. That absolutely is true. Buddha taught with skillful means, in accord with what people believed in, in order to be able to lead them on the path. These people believed in the gods and their abilities and in the heavens.
Participant: So, if Buddha kind of affirms that the gods are acting in this direction, people might relax.
Dr. Berzin: So, he says that if Buddha taught in terms of what the people accepted – namely, the existence of gods and heavens – the people would feel relaxed, and this would help the people to grow. They wouldn’t feel that Buddha was putting them down for believing in all this.
Participant: Actually, what he’s doing is saying that there’s no obstacle with the gods.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Buddha’s saying in this sutra that there’s no problem asking the gods for help and that the gods will help us.
The Gods Are Not All-Powerful
But what I would like to ask is, what power do the gods have? Do you remember we discussed this when we studied Shantideva (Chandrakirti and so many other people also deal with this) – the refutations of an all-powerful god? So, how does this fit in?
Participant: Just yesterday, I was talking about religion with a friend. She said she didn’t believe in God. Her answer was simply that if there were a God, there wouldn’t be so many sad and unfair things happening. I didn’t have an answer. It made me think, though, that if God existed, we wouldn’t have any challenges. We’d be putting the responsibility of everything onto something external. What I want to say to your question is that even though the gods could have the power to do all this, we need to face difficulties and challenges in order not to be attached to so many things.
Dr. Berzin: The question – if God is all-powerful, why does he allow for suffering – is a classic question, a question of Job in the Bible. The answer that she came up with, which is actually the answer that we find in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in many other different churches, is that God could, of course, allow suffering not to exist because God is compassionate; nevertheless, that’s not going to help us to grow, so God gives us these challenges. It’s up to us, then, to face them. They’re there to help us to grow, to overcome attachment and these types of things.
Yes, that’s one point. But the point that I wanted to explore and clarify is, what are the Indian Buddhist masters refuting in their refutations concerning the existence of God? Of course, when they were talking about “God” at that time, they were talking about the Hindu god Ishvara (Shiva).
Participant: He’s not a creator god.
Dr. Berzin: But what does being a creator mean?
Participant: He’s not dependent on anything.
Dr. Berzin: That’s exactly it. They were refuting that a god can act totally independently of anything, because such a god would have to have true existence (bden-par grub-pa) – which would refute causality, cause and effect. So, what is being stated in the sutra is that, yes, the gods have the ability to act, but dependently. They’re dependent on the king upholding the laws and the people reading, hearing, and studying this sutra – which also means doing purification, understanding voidness, practicing generosity, and so on. Dependent on that, the gods can act. So, the Buddhist refutation is not a refutation of the existence of gods or of God. The refutation is of the gods being able to act in impossible ways. They’re not saying that they don’t act: they do.
I’m bringing this all up because I’m going to a Buddhist/Muslim conference next week in which this will be a major topic. I’m training and practicing for this because this is a major point.
So, the question is, is there a common ground? Yes, there’s a common ground. Buddhism does accept the existence of gods – whether it’s gods or a god makes no difference in terms of the basic principle – and the fact that they help others, provide circumstances, and so on. What is refuted, though, is that they do any of it all on their own, totally independently of anything that anybody does.
Participant: So, what do you think the Muslims’ answer would be to this?
Dr. Berzin: The main thing that’s discussed in the literature that I’ve read is that, in addition to compassion, purity, and all of that, Buddhism and Islam both accept some transcendent principle, whether it be in terms of voidness, nirvana, or the clear light mind. There are many levels of understanding transcendence. So, there is a common ground. Also, there are the thousand names of Allah. There are many, many names. They also speak of Allah being “beyond names, beyond words,” which we also find in Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in the Nyingma, Kagyu, and Sakya presentation. So, there’s a lot of common ground.
But I find it very interesting reading this sutra. This sutra is not unique in speaking about all these gods coming from the heavens and how wonderful it is to go to these heavens. And when better rebirths are discussed in the lam-rim, it’s not just precious human rebirths that are mentioned. I emphasize the precious human rebirth, I suppose, because in our context, it is emphasized. But for those who believe in the heavens, Buddha used skillful means. So, he said, “Hey, all the gods can come from these heavens as well and listen to the sutras. The audience is filled with them.” You don’t hear in the sutras that the audience was filled with 10,000,000 farmers and 10,000,000 merchants. They’re filled with 10,000,000 gods, 10,000,000 yakshas (whatever they are), and 10,000,000 of this and that type of heavenly being.
Participant: In Islam, there’s only one god.
Dr. Berzin: However, the principle is the same, namely, that of transcendence. This is the whole point that is going to be made at the conference. But I think it’s important to understand what it is that Buddhism refutes. Basically, it’s what voidness refutes: independent self-existence – that things are self-established, that they can exist and act totally independently.
Participant: I could imagine, though I’m not sure, that this Muslim concept is just the opposite – that Allah is actually not dependent.
Dr. Berzin: Right. But what is found in the refutations? Do you remember what Shantideva said? If there is the desire to create, the will or the wish to create, then the creator is dependent on that will, on that wish.
Participant: That’s not what we meant.
Dr. Berzin: Shantideva is not talking about whether a god is dependent on what people do; he’s talking about the principle of dependency as a whole – namely, the principle of dependent arising.
Participant: Yes, we understand that. The problem is that the Muslims in your discussion have the opinion that God is independent.
Participant: And not just Muslims, Christians as well.
Dr. Berzin: Right. I don’t want to go too deeply into this, but the refutation has to do with how the gods act. If you say that a god has a will to create but that it also can act independently, you’re not really using “independently” in an absolutely literal sense. Taken absolutely literally, a god that could act independently would have to be independent of a will to create. And that doesn’t make sense.
Participant: I’m not sure that they ever thought about whether Allah has a will to create and whether he can act independently of his will. I think they never thought about that.
Dr. Berzin: Well, whether they analyze it or not is not the point. What I’m saying is that we have these sutras, which various lamas are encouraging their students to read. At the same time, we’re studying lam-rim. The two seem to totally contradict each other in terms of the discussion of karma. There’s no place for the gods in the discussion of karma.
Participant: Or in lam-rim.
Dr. Berzin: In the lam-rim or in any of the Indian or Tibetan presentations of karma in abhidharma, there’s no discussion of them at all.
Participant: What is the source of the Golden Light Sutra?
Dr. Berzin: They say Buddha. I don’t know when it first appeared. This sutra, along with the Pure Land Sutra (Sukhavativyuha-sutra), was one of the most popular sutras ever, particularly in Central Asia, Mongolia and China.
Participant: It’s amazing that I’ve never heard of a lama teaching this sutra.
Dr. Berzin: Right. The lamas don’t teach it. Tibetans don’t teach it. However, some lamas recommend that their students read these over and over again because this is what was traditionally done, particularly in Central Asia, Mongolia and China. I don’t know that the Tibetans did so much. Maybe they did. It was a very, very popular one to recite.
Participant: As you said, it is said in all the sutras that this sutra is much more precious and unique than any scripture that was said to have come from Ishvara and all the other gods. I think that this is stated by every religion – that ours is the deepest.
Dr. Berzin: Right, each one praises itself as being the best. That’s standard. Is that to be taken literally? That’s hard to say. No sutra is going to say, “Well, the others are good too; we’re just one of the good ones.” You wouldn’t sell a car that way; you wouldn’t sell anything that way. Prasangika says they’re the best. Chittamatra says they’re the best. Everybody says they’re the best. It’s also the case with the various tantras: each one says it is the best.
Participant: There are some prayers that just became popular. In the Christian religion, the praises to Mary became very popular. So, at different times and places, people put their hopes in different figures. So, it depends on the circumstances. Or a saying becomes very popular. You cannot say one figure or one saying is more special than another. It’s just a movement that happens at that time.
Dr. Berzin: Right. But there needs to be a cause for it being popular. You didn’t mention why, during a particular time, any one thing becomes more popular than another. But then, again, it’s like fashion. Why does anything become popular?
Participant: For the Catholic church, it was the figures of Mary.
Dr. Berzin: Or it was due to good advertising: “If you recite this, you will get 90,000,000 times more merit than if you recite something else.”
Participant: I don’t want to say it’s useless.
Dr. Berzin: So, this is my question: how does it fit in with the teachings?
It’s interesting. In Buddhism, there are some “brands,” let’s call it, since we’re using advertising analogies here, that focus just on meditation or just on psychology. There’s none of this reciting the sutras business. The thinking is that “only the Asians do that.” The Theravadins in Southeast Asia recite sutras, but most of the vipassana people in the West don’t recite sutras. In many of the Dharma centers in the West, people might recite the Praises to Tara. But that’s the same thing: Why does one recite the Twenty-One Praises to Tara? At Serkong Rinpoche’s monastery, the Tibetans recite it for an hour every day in the debate court before their debates.
Participant: Because it is very powerful, very good.
Dr. Berzin: Right. So, it’s advertised as being very powerful and so on. There are a lot of Western centers that just do pujas – Chenrezig puja or Tara puja, for example.
So, how do we fit this in with our discussion of karma? We’re on the topic of karma. That’s why I’m bringing all of this up. Karma can be, and usually is, presented in an almost mechanistic type of way. There are no gods, no other powers coming in and helping out. There’s certainly no judgment or anything like that.
Participant: When I read the sutras and hear all these stories about all the gods, I really doubt that there are all these yakshas or whatever.
Dr. Berzin: You doubt the yakshas?! The yakshas, by the way, for those who don’t know, are either helpers of the gods of wealth or forms of demons. There are two meanings. Here, they’re helpers of the gods.
Participant: To me, it doesn’t make any difference. It just feels like all the very important, high individuals want to listen to this sutra. Everybody is really interested in this teaching. So, one gets the feeling that everything is very huge. There are billions and billions of beings, and I’m just a very small one here. So, I also can participate in this scene. I can imagine that, when it comes to karma, it’s much easier to come in contact with the teachings afterwards because one has already developed an appreciation for them.
Dr. Berzin: OK. So you’re saying that it makes you have much more respect and gives you inspiration to participate in the teachings – which is very true.
Often, if you are having obstacles, for example, some kind of difficulties, the Tibetans will prescribe doing certain rituals to purify yourself and to avoid obstacles. One of them is reading these sutras. Either you read it yourself or – the lazy man’s version – you sponsor all the monks in the monastery to recite it for a day or two, altogether, en masse, and have them dedicate it to you.
But how would this help you to overcome obstacles? I think on one level, reading the sutras provides circumstances for overcoming obstacles, and so the gods, as it says in the sutra itself, are going to help you. But on another level, reading the sutras – whether you take the gods literally or not – gives you some confidence that things are going to go OK. So, you have a much more relaxed, open mind – which certainly strengthens the immune system, if you want to speak on that level.
Participant: It relaxes you and makes you more open. Then you can see solutions better.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Well, that’s exactly the mechanism that’s involved with saying mantras, etc., as well. And it works.
Participant: It diminishes the ego when one is reading these things.
Dr. Berzin: It diminishes the ego? In what way?
Participant: There is this big audience. One is not the middle point of what’s going on.
Dr. Berzin: So, there is this big audience, and one’s not the center of attention. One is just a very small participant in the back of the hall.
Let’s think about all of this. As I say, I find it really quite important to consider how the gods fit in with our discussion of karma, especially given that the presentation of karma is so mechanical and straightforward, like laws of physics almost. Is there a place for the gods in the discussion of karma? And why are they there in all the sutras? And can we be comfortable with these two different presentations without seeing them as contradictory or compartmentalizing them in our minds as “well, the texts and the teachings are one thing; the sutras are something else. Only the devotional ones or the Asians recite them; we don’t have to do that”?
[meditation]
How Open Are We to the Idea of Other Realms?
A thought that came to my mind was, do we really believe in all these god realms and all the beings that inhabit them – whether we call them “angels” or “minor gods” or something else? And if, somehow, we believe that they exist and that we can be reborn in these better types of rebirth, do we also then accept the existence of worse types of rebirth? How open are we to these other rebirth states?
Participant: I accept both. Why should I believe in or accept these upper realms and not the lower realms?
What I also wanted to mention is how the discussion comes full circle in terms of what you brought up about the gods not having inherent existence. The sutra finishes with Bodhisattvasamucchaya praising the Buddha, and in the last sentence, she says something like, “Even you, Buddha, do not exist from your own side.”
Dr. Berzin: Right. Exactly. All of this is in terms of what I was talking about before, which is that the gods don’t act, can’t act – nobody can act – independently, as if they existed in a self-established way. And the way that this Golden Light Sutra ends, which I agree is extremely significant, is with the lines, “even you, Buddha, are devoid of true existence.” “Shravakas – all beings – are devoid of true existence.” So, that sort of ties the whole thing up in terms of what really is the message there – which doesn’t mean that these beings don’t exist. This is the point: Buddhism is not refuting that these beings exist.
Just to accept the existence of these gods is hard enough, but to accept that you can be reborn in these states is even more radical, isn’t it? You can accept their existence like it’s in a movie. Or you can accept them as being somewhere out there – so, not something you can really relate to or participate in. Maybe you believe you can benefit from their help, but do you believe you can actually be one of these gods? And would you want to be one? For those who are very drawn to the idea of rebirth in one of the heavens, as undoubtedly was the case with the original audiences of the sutra, it’s great to hear this: “Listen to this sutra – you’ll be reborn in a heaven, and then you’ll come from heaven to hear more teachings.” That’s what you’re going to do when you’re one of these gods in one of these heavens: you’re going to get more teachings.
Now, that conflicts a bit with the description in the intermediate scope of how awful it is to die in a god realm. It entails all sorts of sufferings, so it’s something that you don’t really want. But this teaching on karma is on the initial scope. On the initial scope, you’re aiming for these higher realm rebirths. That’s the result you’re trying to achieve by acting constructively. But again, those actions are mixed with confusion about how we and everything else exists. Then, on the intermediate scope, what you want to do is to get rid of that confusion, the grasping for true existence, while acting constructively. So, then you aim not for rebirth in a god realm but for liberation. So, it’s very skillful.
Then the question is, does it relate to me? Do I really want a rebirth in one of the heavens? That is an interesting question. Since I’m not personally drawn to heavenly rebirths or even pure lands, for that matter, I always emphasize the human rebirth. As a human, you can benefit people right now. I don’t want a timeout in a pure land where I can go faster and maybe come back more quickly. For many people, though, that’s a very attractive option. And it works. So, you have both options.
The next step up from being reborn in a god realm, where you can hear the teachings but where you’re going to have a miserable death at the end, is being reborn in a pure land. What do you do in a pure land? All you do is practice – hear teachings and practice. You don’t do anything else. And at the end of it, what do you have? You have liberation and enlightenment. You don’t have a horrible fall to a lower realm as you do when die in a god realm and all your positive karma is finished.
So, stepping-stones. This is the whole idea of lam-rim: stepping-stones. Can you skip some of the steps? Well, not the major ones. Can you skip the step of wanting to be a god? Personally, I think so. You can’t skip the step of wanting to have a precious human rebirth, though. That you need. So, all the different topics fit together.
Participant: From my own experience, I can say that the more I have a good time, the less I practice. So, if I were a god, I would have no time to practice!
Dr. Berzin: That’s what is emphasized in the intermediate scope – that the gods just spend all their time doing trivial things. I always make fun of it by saying it’s like sitting by the pool in a retirement village and playing cards all day long. And then what? Then you get nowhere. But what is being said about the god realms in the sutras? All the gods are coming – express highway – to the Buddha’s teachings. There they are!
So, it’s interesting. What are you going to emphasize? In the initial scope, you emphasize how wonderful the precious human rebirth is. In the intermediate scope, you emphasize how horrible it is – the sufferings of birth, death, old age, sickness. You never get what you want, you’re always frustrated, and so on. So, there are positive aspects and negative aspects, aren’t there? First you want the precious human rebirth, but then, because you don’t want all those sufferings, you want to go beyond it.
Participant: Maybe the gods come just because this wonderful sutra is being taught. If it weren’t, they’d just waste their time.
Dr. Berzin: That’s a possibility – that the gods come just because there’s a really good show playing: Buddha’s teaching this sutra. Otherwise, they would just continue playing cards in the heaven around the swimming pool. Well, then Buddha’s very compassionate. The gods can go pretty much anywhere Buddha teaches.
Anyway, this is an issue that I know is not very easy – how you put the sutras together with the Indian pandits’ teachings on karma, voidness and all of that.
Participant: If I pray to Buddha for something or I pray to Amitabha to be reborn in a pure land or whatever, isn’t it the same as praying to the gods for help?
Dr. Berzin: She brings up a whole different topic: What’s the difference between praying to these gods for help and praying, for example, to Amitabha to be reborn in a pure land and stuff like that? Well, in principle, it’s the same: they only provide circumstances. But as far as providing circumstances goes, they have the power to provide circumstances. So, they’re not powerless. But they act dependently. The circumstances they provide are dependent on the positive actions you do. But it’s not as though they, in a sense, reward you. The Buddhas are compassionate, so they help. This was in the list of the qualities of a Buddha: They will help regardless of what you do – as long as you’re receptive.
Participant: Isn’t it devotion that makes you receptive?
Dr. Berzin: It depends how you define “devotion.” Being receptive means that you’re open, that you’re willing to accept; you’re not close-minded. In Islam, you have “surrender” to the will of Allah, to the will of God. Do you surrender to Amitabha?
Surrender – Relying on the Power of the Other Rather than the Power of the Self
This becomes very interesting. When you pray to Amitabha to be reborn in a pure land (now we get into Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, particularly Japanese), you’re relying on the power of the other, rather than the power of the self. “All you have to do is recite Amitabha’s name once, and there you are in a pure land.” How in the world do you understand that? According to the explanations that I’ve heard and that make sense to me, it’s not that you can do anything as long as you say the magic words. “Say the magic words; then you’ll be saved.” It’s not that. Relying on the power of the other means not relying on the power of a solid, self-existing “me” that’s doing the reciting. You’re relying on the power of what is other than that – in other words, what is non-self-sufficiently existent. It’s not as though Amitabha is this all-powerful god. So, if that is the explanation, then these pure land teachings fit perfectly well with all the other Buddhist teachings.
Participant: Did I understand that right, that the “other” is not the power of Amitabha; instead, it means not relying on the inherent self?
Dr. Berzin: Not relying on the inherent self means relying on the power of the other. Is it relying on Amitabha? Well, Amitabha could represent this non-self.
Participant: But that’s just one interpretation.
Dr. Berzin: That’s right. But it’s the interpretation that, to me, makes the most sense. It fits in with the rest of the Buddhist teachings.
The point we were discussing was surrender – being open. It came from the point about being receptive to the Buddhas.
Participant: What does “surrender” mean?
Dr. Berzin: Saying, “I surrender,” like in a war, means, “I give up.” But “surrender” doesn’t have such a negative connotation here. To surrender means that you give up trying on your own – that God will provide.
Do you surrender to the gods and to Buddha? Do you surrender to karma? No, not quite. Being receptive doesn’t mean that. When you’re in a pure land, do you surrender to the power of Amitabha? I don’t think so.
To surrender could also mean that you give up (now we’re playing with the English word) trying to do something on the basis of a big, solid ego, a big, solid “me.” Then one has to understand what “effortless” means. You have to do something. It’s not that you can just sit there doing nothing and that something is then going to happen. You put in effort but not on the basis of a solid “me”: “I’m going to do this. I have this solid goal. This is what I’m doing, and I’m counting points. I’m keeping score, and at the end, I’m going to win – me!” Not like that.
Participant: How would all this Amitabha chanting fit in?
Dr. Berzin: Well, how does the chanting of any mantra fit in, whether it’s Amitabha or whatever? There are many explanations. There’s a tantra explanation of the energies and of shaping the energies to get to a subtler level of energy, which I don’t think is what is intended here, at least not explicitly. What does chanting do? You tell me. What does chanting do, repeating something over and over again?
The analogy that I’m thinking of is techno music. Mr. Great Fan of Techno Music (our Mexican friend here loves techno music), tell me: What are the good points and benefits of techno music? I’m talking about the kind of music that just plays the same three notes over and over again for ten or fifteen minutes. What is the benefit of that? And is this analogous to chanting a mantra over and over again?
Participant: It puts you into a certain trance.
Dr. Berzin: So, is this trance necessarily a spaced-out trance? It could be.
Participant: Not necessarily.
Dr. Berzin: But it could be a spaced-out one. Or it could be one of clarity.
What about these Japanese drummers who have this unbelievably huge drum that gives as strong a base vibe, so to say, as techno music?
Participant: Well, you have, for instance, the fetus listening to the heartbeat of the mother. That is also something that is always going “boom, boom, boom.”
Dr. Berzin: Right. The fetus listens to the heartbeat of the mother. And it’s probably very loud for the fetus.
Participant: Yeah, it is very loud. Techno music has the same beat as the heartbeat.
Dr. Berzin: So, techno music uses rhythms of the heart.
But let’s keep to our topic here. The question had to do with surrender – giving up the ego. If that’s how you understand surrender – that you’re opening up to the inspiration of the gods or the Buddhas – then is that what you are doing when you get into rhythmic chanting? Are you surrendering your ego? It certainly helps you to give up all sorts of scrambled thoughts, which are usually associated with me, me, me.
Participant: It gives you a break from self-identification.
Dr. Berzin: Right. It gives you a break from self-identification, from self-preoccupation.
Participant: It can be soothing.
Dr. Berzin: It can also be annoying if it’s a certain frequency. If it’s not in synchronicity with your heartbeat – if it is faster, for example – it could give you what Tibetans call “lung” (rlung), a disturbance of the energies. That gets back to what one of you said about the frequency being important.
Anyway, these are some issues that I wanted to discuss this evening.
Participant: What came to my mind was that we need to surrender without putting all our hope in some outer thing.
Dr. Berzin: Right. Surrender doesn’t mean putting all our hope in outer things, like the gods, for example.
Participant: In another sutra, it is written that a slave died and that he was reborn in a god realm. That was because, at the time of death, he was reciting the name of the Buddha with a pure mind.
Dr. Berzin: What this brings to mind is that it’s not by the power of some savior or something like that, that this can happen. It has instead to do with getting out of relying on the “me,” the ego. In Buddhism, “with a pure mind” means with an understanding of non-self or voidness. So, with that understanding, one would be reborn in a pure realm.
This is the interesting thing: Do we surrender to karma? “Whatever will be, that will be my karma.” “This is kismet, fate.”
Participant: If you trust in karma, you use it.
Dr. Berzin: Right. We have to have confidence in the laws of cause and effect. That’s always emphasized. To tie it up with what you’ve been saying, surrender doesn’t mean to put all one’s hopes in the power of some external being or something like that; it means to have a pure mind. That’s the key to understanding karma. We want to do constructive things, whether it’s hearing the name of a Buddha, which then gives us hope that we can become Buddhas, etc., or hearing a sutra that emphasizes voidness, purification, confession and all of that – with a pure mind. And that means doing those constructive things with the understanding that there’s no self-sufficiently existent, independent, all-powerful “me.” Acting constructively on that basis is what brings liberation and enlightenment. It builds up the networks of positive force, so-called merit, that we need to attain those goals.
So, thinking that the gods or Tara or the protectors are going to help us is OK from a Buddhist point of view as long as we understand how cause and effect works. They can help with circumstances. They do not act independently; they don’t act on their own. It’s not that if we are good, they’re going to reward us. So, surrendering doesn’t mean that we are, in a sense, placing all our hopes in them: we have to do something. What we are surrendering is acting on the basis of a solid “me” or solid gods or solid actions, actions that we do.