LTF 6: 3 Kinds of Emanation Body (Nirmanakaya); the Artist Nirmanakaya

Last time, we went through the good qualities of the physical Bodies of a Buddha. We saw that there are 32 excellent signs and 80 exemplary features. We only spoke about the 32 excellent signs. These reveal inner qualities, and they serve to make a positive impression on the mental continuums of others. In other words, what these qualities actually can do when we are aware of them is to indicate to us their causes, as they are somewhat similar to their causes. This indicates the direction that we want to go in, which is to try to bring about these causes ourselves so that we too can achieve the body of a Buddha. Achieving the Body of a Buddha will enable us to benefit others to the utmost because we can multiply into millions of forms and manifest in whatever way is needed to help beings. 

Last time, when we went through these 32 signs. There were a few of them where there seemed to be a discrepancy between the Pali version and the Tibetan version. As I mentioned, there are two versions in the Mahayana presentation that the Tibetans look at, and there are slight differences between them as well. However, the Pali has some things that are even more different, and some questions arose about a few of these signs, about what they actually were. So, I said that I would try to do a little bit of research on this so that I could report back to you what I found. I must admit, though, that I wasn’t able to finish one of the things that I wanted to look at, so I’ll need a little bit more time to do that.

There was one sign that I presented as “the roots of the nails of the fingers and toes” of a Buddha being extremely long. That’s the way that Geshe Ngawang Dhargye had explained it. But in this English translation that we have of the Pali version, it says “the fingers and toes” of a Buddha are long. Usually, they just say “the fingers,” but it’s the toes as well. I looked this up, and in Pali language, as well as in Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese – in all five of them – it says that the fingers are long. They don’t say anything about the base of the nails. This is a little bit strange, I must say. In any case, in Sanskrit, when they say “fingers,” that also includes the toes. 

I was finally able to locate Tsongkhapa’s commentary in Tibetan on the Abhisamayalamkara, which is one text where this list appears. However, I still haven’t been able to locate in it where he discusses this particular sign, so I’m really not sure where Geshe Dhargye derived his interpretation from. Often you find different interpretations in different texts and in different commentaries, but the literal translation in all the languages is “long fingers.” Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter. However, since people were curious, it gave me the opportunity to have fun looking this up in all of these languages – actually making use of what I studied.

Then there was this sign about the elbows and kneecaps not standing out – it’s this word “elbows” that I was in doubt about. Again, in Sanskrit when they talk about something that’s on the foot or on the legs, like the kneecaps, it usually also covers the corresponding part on the arms. The translation of this sign as “elbows and kneecaps” is probably the most problematic of the various 32 signs. First of all, in most versions in the different languages – the Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese – the word for “anklebone” is used. This is the part that sticks out of the ankle near the bottom of the foot. So, is it really the anklebone or the kneecap that’s being referred to here? How to interpret this is not so clear. 

But the problem is this phrase that it doesn’t “stand out.” The word for it in the Indian languages is a weird word. I looked at it in three Indian languages, actually – in Pali, Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit, and in Sanskrit. There are different spellings of it, and it’s completely unclear what that word actually means. Some people take it to mean that it’s raised high. Then we get some weird Chinese explanations and certain weird Pali commentaries that say that the anklebone is up so high that you can see the bottom of the foot. Then there is something about being able to see the curve on the bottom of the foot. 

In the dictionaries where it describes these words, the person who made the dictionary even says that this is pretty weird. How in the world did they interpret it that way? So, I think there is no clear way of anybody understanding. And nobody seems to agree as to what this sign actually means, what it’s referring to. To have the anklebone sticking out half-way up a Buddha’s leg – that’s really weird, and certainly it doesn’t seem to look like that. The conclusion is that either it’s the anklebone that doesn’t stick out, or it’s the knees and/or elbows that don’t stick out. The latter seems a little bit easier to understand. Then, if the knees aren’t sticking out, one could see one’s foot. Mind you, we’d have to have a pretty big knee sticking out for us not to be able to see our foot underneath it. As I said, this is a very weird sign. One of the letters of the word is different in three different texts, so it’s unclear what the word is. 

Investigating the Teachings and the Sources – Developing Discriminating Awareness

I’m bringing all this up because we should be aware that sometimes we receive teachings and think, “Ah, this is a holy word and it has to be exactly like that.” Actually, though, there are a lot of problems with these texts. 

Participant: Is the word “elbow” or “kneecap” used in the most languages?

Dr Berzin: “Anklebone” is used. You see, the problem is that when we look in the dictionaries, we see that they are not really able to define very well the different bones in the body. These are not biologically sophisticated definitions. So, we have to depend on somebody explaining it and actually pointing to the part of the body that it’s referring to. Does this word really mean “anklebone,” or does it really mean “knee” or “kneecap”? Who knows. It mostly appears in the dictionaries to mean “anklebone.” 

I’ll give you an example of this. I looked in the Tibetan-Chinese dictionary for the Tibetan word in question here because it doesn’t appear in the Tibetan-English dictionary. In the Tibetan-Chinese dictionary, which also gives Tibetan-Tibetan, it gives you another word, a synonym, which means “knee.” So, who knows what that original word actually meant. 

Participant: Does this alter the understanding of what the causes for it are?

Dr Berzin: No. That’s why I said before that, in a sense, it really doesn’t matter. Since people were curious, though, I did the research on it. It’s trivial here what these words are referring to in terms of the physical body of a Buddha because the causes for them are what is most important. Of course, in different versions you get different causes for them as well. If we have these types of discrepancies here, we should be aware that similar types of discrepancies probably appear throughout the texts regarding things that may be more significant than these. 

When we approach Buddhism, this is always a very, very delicate issue: who do we rely on? Do we rely on just the oral tradition that comes down through the various teachers to our own teachers? How reliable is that? These people didn’t always take notes; they relied on their memories. They didn’t have recorders. Did they remember the information correctly when it came time to write it down? I don’t know. Is it just our faith that says, “Yes, they remembered all the words of the Buddha for 400 years and never got one word wrong”? Or could some mistakes have gotten in? One has to look at the Western scholarly tradition when it comes to analyzing the words, analyzing the grammar, and so on. 

This word in Tibetan for either “ankle” or “kneecap” – what does it literally mean? As I said, it’s not in the dictionary. One syllable for the term means “foot,” but the word for “foot” and “leg” is the same word in Tibetan. Then the second syllable means “something that sticks out.” Obviously, that could be either the ankle or the knee. We don’t know. The Tibetans obviously didn’t really know what it was either and chose this vague word that could be both. 

When we listen to the Buddha’s teachings and study them, it’s very important, I believe, to remember what Buddha said: “Don’t accept what I said just out of faith in me,” which means not to blindly accept what the lamas say just out of faith in them. His Holiness always emphasizes this as well and often quotes this advice. So, we need to test. Check things out. Do research, which we can do either on the basis of a linguistic analysis or on the basis of practice and checking with various teachers, and so on. But don’t be surprised when there are various versions of many things. Try to get to what the essence behind it is. Also, try to figure out where the misunderstanding could have arisen. 

There was another sign in this list that we had doubts about – that the top of a Buddha’s shoulders is round. One of the English translations of the Pali says that a Buddha’s bust is round. Well, “bust” in English means “breast,” like a woman has, but the actual word in Pali is the word for shoulder. But it is also the word for the whole upper part of the body; it’s the word khandha, which is the Pali version of skandha. Well, a statue of just the upper part of somebody is also called a bust. So, it was a misinterpretation when I interpreted it – which is as most people would interpret it – to mean that the breasts are round. So, you see how easy it is for misinterpretations to come in. That’s why it’s important to try to go to the original languages if you can. Even there, though, one finds discrepancies. So, investigate, as His Holiness always emphasizes. Examine. Investigate what makes sense. Use reason. 

The other example – I’ll just put in one last example, and then we can be finished with this – is the description of a Buddha’s cheeks in the Tibetan version, which says that a Buddha’s cheeks are round and full like those of a lion. But what are a lion’s cheeks like? Lions’ cheeks hang down, don‘t they? Buddha doesn’t look like that. If we look back at the translations in the other languages, we see that in Pali, it says “the jaw”; in Sanskrit, it says “the chin”; in Chinese, it says “the jawbone”; and in Japanese, it’s translated as “the cheekbone.” And the description of it in all cases is that it’s round and full. The Tibetan translation says “cheeks,” but it could be translated as “jawbone” or “cheekbone.” So, we think, “What does a lion’s jawbone looks like?” Lions have pretty round chins, I suppose. But their chins aren’t very big. So, this must mean that Buddhas have round faces with cheekbones. So, like that, one has to use reason and logic. One has to analyze. 

End of discussion! Anyway, thanks for asking about it because, for me, it was great fun looking at all of this. Then, again, I’m weird. I like that kind of fun. 

Remember, one of the main aims that we are trying to achieve in our Buddhist training is to develop discriminating awareness – to be able to discriminate between what’s correct and what’s incorrect, what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense. We could look at all of these discrepancies in the various texts, various languages, various translations, and say, “Ah, this is hopeless! This is chaos. I don’t want to deal with this. This is a hopeless religion,” and get very disgusted with it. Or we could look at it and say, “It is really helpful to have all of these discrepancies because it allows me to develop my discriminating awareness, to analyze and to see what makes sense.” This is exactly what one is supposed to do with the Buddhist teachings – to try to fit it all together and make sense out of it in order to develop our own discriminating awareness. 

We are trying to become Buddhas, after all, and Buddhas are able to figure out everything. We’re not going to develop our discriminating awareness by just being given a long list of things to memorize, thinking, “This is it; this is the holy word.” We develop discriminating awareness by being given puzzles and figuring them out. So, instead of getting discouraged by these seemingly chaotic translations, we can transform them into the path – change negative circumstances into positive ones and use them to develop our discrimination, to figure out what makes sense.

This is what Tsongkhapa did, and look how far Tsongkhapa got! Tsongkhapa was incredible. He took all the versions of all the texts – the previous translations, the commentaries, and so on – and he went through and he sorted them out. He had this incredible photographic memory so that he was able to keep everything in mind. He discerned, “This one doesn’t make sense; that doesn’t make sense,” looking at all of these different commentaries. Then he figured out – at least in his opinion – what the actual meanings were, and he refuted all of the other interpretations, determining, “This is ridiculous; that’s ridiculous. That doesn’t make sense,” and so on. Tsongkhapa is a very good example. Also, what he was dealing with was far more complicated and difficult than just how the various languages translate these words. This shows the principle that I’m trying to illustrate here, which is how we develop ourselves, how we actually become Buddhas. It’s by figuring things out. And it’s not just developing the intellect because, of course, discriminating awareness must go together with bodhichitta and all the other trainings in terms of the emotions and the heart.

Participant: I studied Tibetan art and learned that there are two sets of proportions for drawing a Buddha. I heard that if you don’t do it correctly, it can create negative karma – that it has serious consequences. So, I gave it up.

Dr. Berzin: However, if we look at the different Buddhist traditions in different countries in Asia, we see that they certainly draw Buddhas quite differently. At least the faces look very different; they look like the people in that country, for example. Even prostrations are done very differently in each of the Asian cultures. The Tibetans, especially the fundamentalists, make such a fanatical thing about how the hands should be totally flat, the space between the fingers has to be just so, and so on. Then we look at how the Chinese do prostrations or how the Thai people do prostrations. It’s completely wrong according to that fundamentalist Tibetan version. So, what is going on here? 

I think that we can look back to something that came in refuge. I don’t remember what the exact sentence was, but it said that even if a painting of a Buddha is incorrect according to the various proportions and so on, one should show respect to it. We don’t say, “This is a bad Buddha,. This is a bad thing.” We could say, perhaps, that the artist is not very skilled. Bit paintings and statues are, after all, just for representation. We saw this when we went through the various aspects of the objects of refuge – that statues and paintings of the Buddhas are just representations and not really what we take refuge in, but we show respect for them. Even if a child draws a Buddha, one should show respect for what it represents. There are certainly many fundamentalists within the Buddhist fold who are very, very strict. One has to see what one’s own taste is.

Now I can ask you a question: what does it matter what a Buddha looks like? The answer is, to repeat, it’s a skillful means for building up a certain quality. By being more and more precise about this, we develop. What quality are we talking about? 

Participant: Mindfulness.

Dr Berzin: Right. So, it’s a skillful means for developing mindfulness, like showing respect for Dharma books. It doesn’t matter what Buddhas looks like; they could look like anything. Does it really matter what Buddhas look like? 

Participant: I have a little problem with the fact that it’s said that these qualities of a Buddha’s body are used to cause an impression on someone. Actually, though, if I imagine all of these proportions, all of these characteristics, on a human body – they actually don’t sound very attractive. They sound very strange.

Dr Berzin: Right. [Laughs] Presumably, though, the statues do look like this. I’m thinking, for instance, of the long arms. Certainly, they do have these long arms when they are sitting. But when they are standing, do their arms go all the way down to their knees? 

Participant: They do.

Dr Berzin: Right. I forget what it looked like in Bamiyan. They destroyed it, but I had seen that one. Certainly, the lying-down Buddha has very, very long arms. What’s interesting about what a Buddha looks like is that – and it’s not mentioned here; it’s mentioned somewhere else, but I forget exactly where – one of the qualities that a Buddha’s body has is that it doesn’t arouse sexual desire in anybody. Look at a Buddha statue – I don’t think you would find it sexy. 

Participant: Sometimes the lips are very sensual.

Dr Berzin: Well, the lips can be very sensual. But this quality of not arousing sexual desire in others is not only a quality of a Buddha but also a quality of someone who has been a monk and kept pure monk’s vows for many, many lifetimes. Then, not only are they not attracted to others sexually, others don’t find them sexually attractive either. So, it won’t be a problem anymore. However, I think the main reason for what a Buddha looks like, as I’ve already said, is to represent the causes.

Participant: It’s a mnemonic technique.

Dr Berzin:  It’s a mnemonic technique, a technique for remembering the causes. 

Participant: It also doesn’t make much sense to tie it down a human form. A Buddha is not human. 

Dr Berzin: Right, exactly. A Buddha is not a human. And I don’t think it looks that grotesque, not really.

Participant: The long tongue?

Dr Berzin: Yes, long tongues, but you don’t usually see Buddhas with their tongues sticking out, touching the tops of their heads. 

Participant: A lot has to do with our interpretation, I think. Remember that statue I told you about?

Dr Berzin: Right. He had seen a statue of Guanyin in Hong Kong. Guanyin is the Chinese name for Avalokitesvara, which is Chenrezig in Tibetan. The statue was of a drunk person – a drunk woman, actually, because Guanyin is a woman in the Chinese tradition – and she was reaching out. He was quite surprised, but he said that there was something written there that explained the meaning: “If you can see me, Guanyin, in this type of form, then you’ll be able to see me not just in the standard form of a statue; you’ll  also be able to see me everywhere.” This would certainly fit in with the Chinese style of Buddhism. It’s certainly a Zen Buddhist type of approach. “Zen” is actually called “Chan” in Chinese. 

Actually, I should answer your comment a little bit more specifically. Yes, the form of a Buddha is designed so that we can keep it in mind very comfortably for visualization or for making statues and so on so that it is nice to look at and not disturbing. This is the point about the physical qualities of Buddhas not being sexually exciting: they are not disturbing. When we look at a Buddha’s form, it makes us calm and allows us to stay focused. This is a special quality of the form of a Buddha. Therefore, it makes it easier to develop respect. So, what you say is correct. 

Remember that with the Nirmanakaya, the Emanation Body of a Buddha, there are three kinds. There is the Supreme Nirmanakaya, with all of these various physical marks; there is the Artist Nirmanakaya; and then there is the Nirmanakaya as a holy, regular being – a regular person. So, let’s think in terms of these qualities – of what a Buddha looks like – when appearing as an artist emanation body. 

How does a Buddha teach when a Buddha appears as an artist? It’s a very interesting question. The classic example of this is when the Buddha appeared as a musician to try to humble a heavenly musician, a Gandharva. They had a contest playing a stringed instrument to see who could continue playing the instrument as they took one string off after another. At the end, the Buddha took off the last string and continued to play with no strings and in this way humbled the Gandharva. But I don’t think that this type of Emanation Body is limited just to being an artist in terms of music. I think that what a Buddha’s body looks like is an example of how one could teach somebody the Buddhist path through representing it artistically. I don’t know. What do you think? 

Participant: Actually, Buddha statues came quite late. They weren’t there in early Buddhism. 

Dr Berzin: Well, yes. We find that they actually came with the influence of the Greeks, after Alexander the Great had conquered what is now Pakistan and a little bit of the Indian Punjab. Then he left behind a Greek kingdom, basically. It was through the influence of the Greeks in that area that we first get the depiction of a Buddha in artistic form. 

Then, of course, there’s the whole question as to why this idea of the different types of Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya, these three Buddha Bodies or four Buddha Bodies, only come in the Mahayana. Mahayana texts also didn’t appear until much later, so it’s hard to put this type of information together. Before there were verbal descriptions of a Buddha being able to teach and appear as an artist, were there artistic representations of the Buddha? Was there a relationship between those two things in terms of the general idea that one could teach through art? I have no idea. The Greek Kingdom and the making of Buddha statues preceded by several centuries the emergence of the Mahayana sutras. It was earlier than even the written Pali version of the texts, if I remember my historical dates correctly. 

The Tibetans say that there are certain statues at the Jokang Temple in Lhasa, that were actually made at the time of the Buddha. Some people say that the statue in the middle of the stupa in Bodhgaya was made at the time of the Buddha. How does anybody know? I don’t know if they have actually done carbon datings on these things. I have no idea. 

Can a Representation of a Buddha Teach?

Now we can go back to the question, which is: can we imagine how one would, as an artist, teach Buddhism? What is an artist Buddha? I think that one way Buddhism can be taught through art is just with the form of the Buddha itself because, as I’ve said, the form represents its causes. Would you be able to figure out the causes just by looking at the form? I don’t know. How far would you get by just sitting and visualizing or staring at a Buddha statue if you didn’t know anything more about it? I think for many people, it would calm them down. Would it take them further? I don’t know. 

Participant: It probably depends on your sensitivity.

Dr Berzin: It depends on your sensitivity and your previous instincts. If Pratyekabuddhas can figure it all out basically by just relying on their instincts from previous lives, I think that there must be some people who could figure it all out just by looking at a Buddha statue. Maybe. I don’t know. What do you think? You are the artist. Does art teach? How does art teach? 

Participant: I believe that it also depends on the intention and the artist and of the observer. For example, with the Buddhas I have painted, people felt very incredible things from the paintings.

Dr Berzin: Was this a standard Buddha painting or was it an adaptation?

Participant: Perhaps we can call it a contemporary Buddha painting.

Dr Berzin: Right. It’s not the standard thangka painting. 

Participant: What I see is that it depends on your intention and your devotion towards the object you are seeing. 

Dr Berzin: For the artist, it depends on the devotion and the intention – not only for the artist but also for the viewer. 

Participant: Also, I believe there is some kind of connection that makes a painging more powerful in a way. In my case, I make it while reciting mantras. I try to empower the paintings in this way. 

Dr Berzin: Right. So, there is an empowering – that the artist does a lot of mantras and so on. Also, I think this fits in with the fact, which it talks about very clearly in the texts, that some people could have the most holy being in their presence and not even see the person because they don’t have the karma to see them. Or they might just see some old man over there. Others look at the same person and see a Buddha. Or some people go to a statue, like Atisha went to the Tara statue in Bodhgaya on the stupa – this statue is still there, by the way – and that statue could speak to them, whereas other people just see it as a statue or even as a piece of junk. So, it very much depends on the state of mind of the person that sees it as well as the state of mind of the person who makes it. 

Participant: I don’t know if it’s as much in the proportions as it is in the pureness of your intention and the pureness of the observer. 

Dr Berzin: Right, but does it depend only on the pureness of the intention of the artist and the observer, or does the form itself play any role? Could it be any form whatsoever? 

Participant: I was asked to paint, for example, one of the Buddhas. I took it very seriously because a Buddha is significant. But what I found out when painting it was so incredible. It was incredible how it flowed. I made it almost without thinking, without obstacles or doubts. The thing is, this person really wanted a Buddha from me. I wasn’t sure if I could do it and said, “Can I make a Buddha?” Then he said, “Yes, you will do a Buddha for me.” I said, “No, I can’t,” but he said, “Yes, you can do it. For sure, you can do it.”

Dr Berzin: Right. So, her experience was that somebody specifically asked her to make the Buddha and because this person had asked so much, even though she had doubts, it just flowed very naturally. What do you think, Albert? You’re an artist.

Participant: I can experience also the opposite – that the art, the craftsmanship of a thangka or a statue could even make me – what’s the word? – feel disgust. No, “disgust” isn’t the right word, but I don’t always have the emotion to make a Buddha. Sometimes they look quite silly. So, it could be the opposite.

Dr Berzin: What do you mean? If it’s not made well?

Participant: Yes, if the craftsmanship isn’t right. I don’t know if you can put the craftmanship so high as to say that it can teach. I mean, there’s also the scale that has to be done correctly.

Dr Berzin: So, your opinion is that the actual form of a Buddha is important as well as what she says – the intention and so on. 

Participant: Yeah. You also must be a gifted artist.

Dr Berzin: Right. Not just anybody can do it; it has to be made by a gifted artist. Christian, you’re an artist as well. What do you think?

Participant: In the Japanese esoteric arts of flower arrangement, pottery, martial arts, and so on, the artist can, by means of doing it, develop spiritually. 

Can You Teach the Buddhist Path through Art?

Dr Berzin: What about somebody who sees it as a teaching medium?

Participant: It doesn’t necessarily have to to be a Buddha, I think.

Dr Berzin: It doesn’t have to be a Buddha. 

[Discussion among audience regarding other art-forms, specifically calligraphy]

Dr Berzin: Right, but as for calligraphy being the “highest art,” does it teach you the Buddhist path? 

Participant: I think it’s intertwined.

Dr Berzin: It could just make you feel nice, but does it also actually lead you along the Buddhist path? Can it be used as a medium? 

Participant: Yes.

Participant: Well, it has the qualities of purity. It’s very precious, the art of calligraphy.

Dr Berzin: Well, the quality of purity. You could also make a very pure, excellently designed toilet. Does that teach you the Buddhist path? 

Participant: Depends on how you see it. 

Dr Berzin: Depends how you see it. Then we get into the whole thing of turning everything into the path to enlightenment. There is a Korean master here who teaches calligraphy and teaches it in both a gradual and a non-gradual – sort of a “sudden enlightenment” – type of way. Similarly, there are ways of using calligraphy to help people on the path. There are many examples. 

But I think we have to analyze a little bit more deeply. What is the classic example of a Buddha manifesting as an artist and teaching? The point of the Buddha teaching that heavenly musician, for example, was to humble him. It wasn’t that the Buddha gave a concert and everybody listened to it and that because the music was so beautiful, they became enlightened. What he did was use playing music as a skillful means to teach this person a lesson so that he wouldn’t be so arrogant. That’s very different from a Buddha teaching as a performing artist or teaching as a painter that just paints, and then everybody that goes to the gallery and sees it becomes enlightened.

Participant: Are you sure it’s also not like that?

Dr Berzin: I don’t know. I’m just looking at the one, classic example. It’s the classic example that’s always given. I’ve never heard any other example of the Buddha as an artist. What I’m saying is that we have to analyze. Looking at the examples of East Asian Buddhism where they have flower arrangement, martial arts, and calligraphy, it’s not that one teaches people by just having them watch: one teaches people by having them do. Having them do – that’s a skillful means because to do martial art successfully or to do calligraphy successfully, we need discipline, concentration, and discrimination between what’s correct and what’s incorrect. We can’t be conceptual about it, especially in martial arts; it has to be absolutely natural. We can’t be thinking, “Me, me, me, oh, I’m afraid I’m going to get hurt,” or “I’m afraid I’m going to make mistake.” It has to be done not on the basis of the ego. 

Also, we could, by seeing the master do it, develop the wish to become like the master. In a certain sense, this could help us to develop bodhichitta. But then the real question is, how would this develop our love and compassion and the wish to benefit others? Especially if it is martial arts – defending others, maybe? I don’t know. That’s the area that seems to be a little bit weak in this methodology. Certainly, other aspects of the Buddhist path, such as patience, perseverance, and these sorts of things, are there. 

Participant: But, Alex, when someone is open, totally open, automatically bodhichitta is inside them.

Dr Berzin: Well, I wouldn’t say that when you are totally open, automatically bodhichitta is there. Bodhichitta is the striving to become a Buddha for the benefit of others. But what is there when you are completely open is that the natural love and compassion, which is the nature of the mind, shines out. This is very much the Chinese approach, which is then followed in Korea and Japan. The criticism that is often given regarding this path is that it could take an awfully long time before we open, and during that time, we could become quite self-centered and very cold. 

Participant: But also with the teachings you can become very cold ice.

Dr Berzin: With the teachings, do we become very cold ice? It depends. If we are doing metta – meditation on love and compassion – I don’t think we become cold as ice. If we are doing debating, perhaps, and only debating, then maybe it’s possible. 

Participant: You can take it very intellectually.

Dr Berzin: It can be like that, of course. There are always ways in which the full spectrum of the Buddhist teachings are not taught. But we’re looking at the medium – whether the medium of teaching is having people do something artistic with their body or having them study and meditate. That’s what we are looking at here – just the method of teaching. The method of teaching that Buddha did so many times, which we don’t seem to have much of in modern Buddhist centers, is rather than teaching so-called doctrine – you know, the teachings of the Buddha – actually helping people in an interactive way, almost like a therapy, to overcome certain disturbing emotions. In the case of the heavenly musician, it was pride. In the case of the person who could never learn anything, Buddha had him sweep the floor continually. One has to look very carefully at teaching methods. There are many, many, different ways of teaching. This is another example: 

Participant: For me, just watching the way James Lowe, a Buddhist teacher, moved his hands was a good experience. 

Dr. Berzn: I could imagine it calmed you down and so on. But could it actually teach you the Buddhist path? That’s the question. Even if they’re doing mudras, would it teach us to develop concentration, discipline, discriminating awareness, love, compassion, and so on? I think that would be very rare. 

In summary, I think that we can only really learn and develop on the Buddhist path if we participate in an active way. Just being a passive observer isn’t going to work. In other words, if we just listen to lectures, no matter how intellectual they might be, it’s not going to really cause us to develop unless we get out there, debate, and work with the material ourselves. If we listen to lectures on meditation, it’s not going to help unless we actually sit and meditate. It’s the same thing listening to Buddhist chanting or watching vajra dances or looking at Buddhist paintings, calligraphy, or watching people do martial arts – that’s not going to help us develop very much. We have to actually do the vajra dance. We actually have to do the calligraphy, do the martial arts, do the chanting. Then, in the process of doing, we develop the qualities ourselves. 

So, don’t just sit here and listen: do something. One sees this in translating. Because I was a translator, I can say how much more one gets out of a lecture when one is translating it as opposed to just listening to it. 

Participant: You can’t be inattentive, for example.

Dr Berzin: You can’t be inattentive. And you also have to remember. 

So, let’s end with a dedication. Next time we’ll do the qualities of a Buddha’s speech.