LTF 28: Avoiding Distraction by Food, Sleep; 4 Immeasurables

Verse 38 deals with distraction to concentration that comes because of food. “Distraction” here also carries the idea of any type of hindrance to gaining concentration. Nagarjuna writes:

[38] Rely on food in the proper (measure), like a medicine, without greed or repulsion, not out of vanity, and not because of showing off, and not because of obsession with health, but merely for the sake of maintaining the body.

This is excellent advice. There is a variant of this verse that is sometimes used to bless the food before eating: “I now rely on this food,” (you know the rest of the verse), “like medicine to mainly maintain my body, without greed, attachment, repulsion,” and so on. 

Relying on Food in Proper Measure, without Greed or Repulsion

The advice of eating properly is something that is, of course, very important in general but that is especially so when we are trying to gain concentration. As I’m sure you’re familiar, part of the full monks’ and nuns’ vows is not to eat after noon. In some countries, they don’t eat in the morning either, though in other countries, they do. In any case, the point is that if you want to have a clear mind for concentration and meditation at night and in the early morning, which are the most favorable times for meditation, then you need to have an empty stomach. 

Then, again, you don’t want to starve yourself, either. The Buddha pretty much starved himself for six years and saw that this wasn’t a very a good way. So, we need to “rely on food in a the proper (measure)” without the greed of wanting to eat more and more. I sometimes refer to this line when asking how much of the food that you like do you have to eat in order to enjoy it. It’s a very interesting question. 

How much do you have to eat? Do you have to eat so much that you can’t possibly eat any more? I mean, I should talk! I’m terrible with food. I eat too much, myself. Scientific findings about food say that it takes a number of minutes – I think ten minutes or something like that – for your stomach to register that it’s full and to give the signal to the brain. It’s not just the stomach involved; it’s enzymes and hormones in the brain that tell you that you’re full. So, it’s quite easy, if you eat quickly, to eat beyond the point of being full, especially when it’s something that you really like, like momos or whatever… maybe chocolate. We all have our favorites. If we recite this verse or think of this verse before eating, it can be helpful with the greed.

It’s really funny. I don’t know if any of you have been brought up this way, but in my family, it was really quite a crime not to finish everything on your plate. In many families, people leave food on their plates and throw a tremendous amount away. This is very, very common, especially in America where I come from, but not in my family. There was always the line, “People are starving in Poland,” or in Africa, or wherever there was famine (when I was child, it was Poland), “So, eat up and finish it, even if you’re full.” This is an interesting point.

There is also the greed of taking a second helping when the first helping was actually quite enough. As I say, I am terrible with these things. I feel a little bit silly teaching it and advising in this way because I don’t follow this advice very well myself. In any case, I know some people who are like this – who are very good in this respect. 

Then, “without greed or repulsion.” Repulsion is… for example, you order something in a restaurant, and when it comes, it’s not exactly the way you want it, so you send it back. That’s basically a type of attachment in which you feel repulsion. There’s also the problem, of course, of what happens when you’re served something that you don’t like. Now, mind you, Nagarjuna is talking to a king. If he were talking to a monk, then, of course, a monk is supposed to eat whatever is given to him, or a nun with what is given to her. When something is offered in their begging bowl, monks and nuns are supposed to accept it without greed, without wanting more, even if it’s only a little bit that they’ve been given, and without repulsion if they’re given something that they don’t like. 

I must say, though, this is not always the easiest thing to do. There are some people who like everything; there’s nothing that they dislike. There are others who are quite fussy eaters. I myself am one of the fussy eaters; there are certain things that I really just don’t like. Obviously, if you cook for yourself, you can make it to your taste, but if you’re served something you don’t like, it’s important not to make a terrible face and to try to eat it, at least to eat a little bit. Again, that gets into questions regarding politeness and the relationship that you have with the person who’s giving you the food. 

Not Out of Vanity or Because of Showing Off

Nagarjuna says also, “not out of vanity.” This would be that you want to eat in a certain way, a way that will make you look beautiful. There’s that type of vanity. Repulsion, by the way, is also a vanity thing for anorexics, people that have an obsession with being too fat. So, whatever type of food it is, they feel repelled by it. Bulimics are people, mostly women, who throw up after eating. That, also, is a type of repulsion that needs to be eliminated. So, vanity: “I want to look good.” 

“I want to impress others by how much I can eat.” That refers to the next line, “because of showing off.” There are people who have eating contests. How many hot dogs – you know, Schnitzel or Wurst – can you eat in a certain amount of time? They have contests like that. Then, whoever wins is considered really quite something. So, this would be showing off. It’s also, I think, with alcohol, especially beer. “How much beer can you drink in the shortest amount of time?” That’s also a macho type of thing that some people do. 

Participant: Oktober-Fest

Dr. Berzin: Right. There’s Oktober-Fest. 

It’s really funny, especially when you’re with Tibetans, also people from other cultures as well, that when they serve you a meal, they really encourage you to eat more and more. Then, if you don’t eat enough, they’re insulted. “What’s the matter? You didn’t like it?” Well, Tibetans wouldn’t say this. In Jewish families, you might get the guilt trip: “What’s the matter? It’s not good enough for you?” This is a terrible thing to say to somebody. But that’s a typical guilt trip that can be done. How do you deal with that? 

In a Tibetan situation, actually, they will always keep filling your plate with food and filling your cup with Tibetan tea, no matter how much you insist that you are full, because if you say that you’re full, that you’ve had enough, they think that you’re just being polite. That’s how they interpret it – that you actually do want more but that you’re being modest. It becomes very difficult. You really have to put your hand over your plate or your hand over the cup – although that’s not very elegant – to be able to do this in a polite way. 

Not Because of Obsession with Health

The next attitude that we need to cultivate with food is to rely on it “not because of obsession with health.” That also can be quite a problem. There are these people who are obsessed with organic, bio food. It has to be this; it has to be that. They’re so fussy and particular about their food, and they make it into something much more important than it is. People even become obsessed with vegetarianism, what I like to call “born again vegetarians,” like a born-again Christians. “Hallelujah! I’ve seen the light! I’m saved, and now I will only eat vegetables.” Becoming a fundamentalist like that also is an obsession that can cause an over-estimation of food. After all, if we looked at food and eating in terms of voidness, we could see that there’s no true, independent existence of this food. Without that understanding, we exaggerate it and make it the most important, most wonderful thing in life. So, then, if we can’t get our organic food, we become very, very obsessed and feel repulsion toward anything that is not organic. 

Having repulsion, like these born-again vegetarians who have repulsion toward anybody who eats meat and even make a big scene about it, is also not very helpful and can be big distraction to concentration. If you’re sitting there trying to concentrate, but you’re thinking about the next meal and what you want to eat or thinking about how terrible the meal that was served was, etc. – especially if you’re off in some sort of mountain cave retreat eating only very simple food and eating the same thing every day – it becomes a big problem, a big distraction. 

Relying on Food, Like a Medicine, for the Sake of Maintaining the Body

It says that we need to eat “food in the proper (measure)” – not too much, not too little – and to take it “like a medicine, for the sake of maintaining the body.” Now, does that mean that we can’t enjoy our food? I don’t think so. I think one can still enjoy the food without greed or attachment.

Participant: If you are really sick, you can even enjoy the medicine.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Tibetan medicine, for instance, you might find – if you have a strange sense of taste – to actually be very delicious and that you like it.

Participant: But it could also be like, “I’m convinced that my mother gives me good things, so I like it.”

Dr. Berzin: Right. Mothers give good things, so even if it’s cod liver oil or something like that, you are convinced that you will like it. Yeah. I think enjoyment is not the same as greed, attachment, or obsession, is it? Then the question again: how much do you have to eat of something in order to enjoy it? Can you enjoy eating just one peanut? 

Participant: You need to eat enough to follow the path to enlightenment.

Dr. Berzin: Right. This is what it’s saying – that we should want to eat in order to have the strength to follow the path to enlightenment so that we have the strength to help others. This is the attitude that is recommended here. Any comments or thoughts on that? I don’t know. A lot of you don’t have a weight problem. But if you do have a weight problem – of being too heavy and putting on weight very easily – your attitude toward food becomes quite important because your attitude toward food affects how much you eat, doesn’t it? 

What about going on a diet? Do you go on diets out of vanity? You want to look pretty? That often is the case. You go on a diet so that you’ll be more attractive, so that you’ll be sexier to a potential partner. Then, there are others who go on diets in order to lower their blood pressure and such – for health reasons. It also says here, though, not out of “obsession with health.” That doesn’t mean that you don’t consider health at all. In order to be able to help others, you need to eat a healthy diet and not just eat junk food. Would you regard “like a medicine” a steady diet of McDonalds, for example? If McDonalds is the only thing available, OK. But if you have choices, obviously, you can eat in a healthier way than that. But that’s like taking the right medicine, isn’t it? This is what Nagarjuna says: view the food like a medicine to maintain the body. 

I remember, in my mother’s retirement village, there were two topics of conversation that dominated everything: my sicknesses and what medicines I’m taking. When you start talking about your aches, pains, sickness, and medications to others, it’s a good indication that you’ve reached an older stage in your life! Then, the other big thing they spoke about was, “Where are we going to eat tonight? What restaurant?” That was the big event of every day. Since most them didn’t really cook, they went out to restaurants all the time. That was a bit of an obsession.

How much of our conversation is about food? That really would be considered idle chatter, I suppose, in terms of the ten destructive actions – just to speak about food. I mean, I do it myself, I must say. I talk about the new restaurants that are opening in my neighborhood, what they serve, etc. I certainly do that. Even showing off… I mean, I’m guilty of all of these. When I have guests from outside of Berlin, I like to show off my neighborhood and all the different restaurants that are available there. This is exactly what Nagarjuna is warning against. He’s saying that it’s going to be a big hindrance for gaining concentration if we are overly concerned with food and what we eat.  

Actually, they often say that, at Dharma centers, retreat centers where you either stay overnight or go for a week-long course, what is really important is to have good food. If there is good food, people will get more absorbed in the course. But if the food is not good, the guests will complain all the time and won’t really be able to pay attention to the course. I think that this is true from people’s experiences that I’ve heard. 

OK. No discussion on that?

Participant: If the food is good, it doesn’t have to be very much, but from good food you get a sense of satisfaction, of being happy. That’s especially so with older people who don’t have that much else going on.

Dr. Berzin: This is very true. This you find, I must say, with monks and nuns. For monks and nuns who don’t have so many other sense pleasures in life, food becomes very important – the sense pleasure from eating. So, you find so many great Tibetan lamas who are very fat. This also has to do with the fact that they take absolutely no exercise. In addition to that, though, they are served a tremendous amount of food and are encouraged by everybody to eat it. And this is their sense pleasure. 

It is true, though, that when you have a good meal, you feel satisfied. Then, the question arises again: how much do you have to eat in order to enjoy it and feel satisfied? A lot of people want to eat a very large amount and don’t know when to stop. That’s very difficult, especially when there is an unlimited amount of food in front of you. I find that difficult, especially when I’m with Tibetans. They serve so many momos (I really like momos). They bring out plates and plates of them, saying, “Ah, we just made them hot!” And they bring out a plate of forty momos. Then, they put the plate in front of you and encourage you to eat. After you’ve eaten some, they bring another plate, saying, “Just have a few that are hot.” 

When there is an endless supply, it’s much more difficult to control than when you cook just a small amount. I think a fairly wise thing to do, especially if you cook for yourself, is to just make a small amount or, if you’ve made a huge amount, to heat up just a small amount and put the rest away in the refrigerator. Don’t give yourself the chance to eat more than you need… and that if you wanted to eat more, you’d have to do a lot of work to eat more. As I said, this is a difficult one. 

[38] Rely on food in the proper (measure), like a medicine, without greed or repulsion, not out of vanity, and not because of showing off, and not because of obsession with health, but merely for the sake of maintaining the body.

Let’s think about our attitudes toward food for a moment. I suppose the proper attitude is that if you have good food, enjoy it, but in proper measure. If you don’t have food, don’t complain; it’s not the end of the world. I think that’s the point here – not to make a big thing out of it. 

By the way, regarding food, Shantideva says, in the fifth chapter about safeguarding alertness:

[85] I shall share with those fallen to ruin, those without guardians, and those maintaining tamed behavior, and merely eat a proper amount.

Shantideva also emphasizes eating the proper amount – not too much, not too little – and sharing our food: giving to monks and nuns who come begging, giving to those who have fallen to ruin (those who have lost everything), those without guardians (homeless people and so on). He is talking about sharing what we have and not just greedily eating absolutely everything ourselves.

Verse 39 deals with being distracted from concentrating because of attachment to sleep. Sleep is a hindrance to concentration if you sleep too much or are addicted to sleep – you can’t handle having to be concentrated. It says:

[39] O Lord of Propriety, having passed the whole day and the first and last periods of the night (in constructive deeds), go to sleep with mindfulness in between these two (periods), without making your sleeping time fruitless. 

“Lord of Propriety” is referring to the king and to the fact that he does everything properly. This verse is saying that we need to spend our “whole day and the first and last periods of the night” doing constructive things, whatever those might be. Then, Nagarjuna says to just sleep in the period in between. He doesn’t say exactly how much sleep we need, but this is something that I think we need to pay attention to ourselves. 

If you sleep too much, then you can cut down the amount of time that you need to sleep. I did that myself. I used to always sleep seven or eight hours, and then Serkong Rinpoche advised me to cut it down. The way that he said to do it was to sleep fifteen minutes less. When your body gets used to that, which could take a couple months, reduce it by another fifteen minutes. Do it fifteen minutes at a time. If you try to reduce it too drastically by, let’s say, an hour, you’re going to be so tired that it’s hopeless. So, you can cut down. Now I sleep basically six and a half hours. If I sleep eight hours, I feel so heavy, that it’s horrible during the day; I don’t get over it for the whole day. So, one needs to sleep a proper amount. Don’t go to sleep too early, and don’t get up too early. 

Now, if you look at His Holiness, His Holiness goes to sleep quite early. That’s why he doesn’t like any engagements at night. He gets up at 3:30 in the morning and does four hours of practice no matter where he is and whether he’s traveling anywhere. So, is that going to sleep already in the first part of the night? I don’t know. 

Serkong Rinpoche used to sleep at the beginning of the night and the end of the night. He would get up in the middle of night when everybody was asleep and then do all of his various advanced practices. Then, before everybody got up, he’d shut the light off, which would give the impression that he had slept the whole night through. His personal attendant, who had been with him since he was six years old – pretty much his whole life – occasionally shared a room with Serkong Rinpoche when we traveled. He told me that Serkong Rinpoche got up in the middle of the night. Serkong Rinpoche was a big man, quite overweight, and yet his attendant said that, in the middle of the night, he saw him doing all these incredible yoga exercises associated with the six yogas of Naropa and stuff like that, something that he couldn’t imagine that a man of his size had the flexibility to do. He always did it in a completely hidden fashion, though, pretending that he didn’t do anything like that. 

So, obviously, there’s a certain flexibility there with when to sleep. Generally, though, what Nagarjuna is recommending is that we don’t go to sleep too early and don’t get up too late – that we just sleep in the middle part of the night. 

Making Sleep Constructive

Nagarjuna also says, “Go to sleep with mindfulness in between these two (periods),without making your sleeping time fruitless.” This is because sleep is one of the four changeable mental factors, or subsidiary types of awareness. 

There are four mental factors that have changeable ethical status, which means that, depending on the motivation and intention, these four factors could be constructive, destructive. In other words, they are unspecified: Buddha did not specify which one they were, constructive or destructive:

• Sleepiness or sleep (gnyid) is one. 
• Another is regret (‘gyod-pa). If you regret something negative, it’s constructive; if you regret something constructive, it’s negative. So, regret can go either way. 
• The third is what’s called “gross detection” (rtog-pa). 
• The fourth is subtle discernment (dpyod-pa), which is the mental factor that looks very, very carefully at the details of a phenomena. 

For example, these last two, depending on what you’re trying to figure out and observe, can be either constructive or destructive. If you’re trying to figure out how to kill somebody, obviously, it’s destructive; if you’re trying to figure out how to do a certain meditation practice or to help somebody, that’s constructive. So, sleep is the same thing. This is why it’s always very important to go to sleep with a positive state of mind. 

There are, of course, various tantric practices that can be done with various visualizations and so on when you go to sleep. But on the sutra level, what often is recommended is that, certainly, before you go to sleep, you review the day and do a dedication of all the positive things that you’ve done and then apply the four opponents to the negative things that you’ve done with the hope and intention that “I’m going to be more constructive tomorrow.”  That is a constructive state of mind to go to sleep in. Then, before falling asleep, reaffirm refuge and bodhichitta. Monks do prostrations before they go to sleep. They do three prostrations with refuge as a regular custom so that they have this on their minds when they go to sleep. Also, what often is recommended is to visualize that your head is in the lap of your guru and that you go to sleep in that type of protected space, thinking of your spiritual teacher. 

There are many ways in which we can make our sleep time constructive. All depends on the state of mind. We don’t want to just drop down like an ox, which is the way that Shantideva describes it: people work all day, and then they just drop like an ox at night. Nor do we want to lie in bed, thinking all sorts of negative thoughts, worrying, and these types of things. That’s a terrible state of mind to go to sleep in. If we can’t fall asleep, then best is to do mantra or something like that, something to calm the mind down and to bring about a little positive thought. 

In Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, chapter five, Shantideva writes concerning sleep:

[96] Just as the Guardian (Buddha) lay down to pass to nirvana, so shall I lie down to sleep, on the preferable side, and, with alertness, yoke myself firmly from the start to the intention to rise again quickly.

So, Shantideva recommends sleeping in the posture that Buddha passed away in and also slept in, which is on the “preferable side.” That’s sleeping on your right side, with your right hand sort of underneath your cheek and your left hand extended and lying on your side. It really takes an awful long time to get accustomed to that, and I must say, I don’t know very many people who actually do that. But some do – if you can accustom yourself to that. It is the best for the flow of the energies while you sleep. That’s the reason for this type of posture. 

Then, Shantideva says to “yoke” yourself “firmly from the start to the intention to rise again quickly.” In other words, rather than going to sleep with the thought, “I can’t wait until I fall asleep so that I can escape from the troubles and worries of the day and go off into dreamland and have a good time,” or whatever, to go to sleep with the intention, “I can’t wait until I wake up so that I can continue doing positive things.” This is the type of attitude that Shantideva recommends. So, it is the same point here, which is to sleep with mindfulness. 

“Mindfulness” (remember, it’s this mental glue) means to hold on to some positive thought and not let go of it, whether that thought is of bodhichitta, safe direction, or refuge, or of our spiritual teacher. It can also simply be the thought, “I want to continue doing constructive things,” if that’s what you are involved with. Then one sleeps with that thought in mind. Although it doesn’t say so here, I think that we can also follow the same advice for sleep that Nagarjuna gives regarding food – that we look at sleep like a medicine for the sake of maintaining the body, not out of greed, wanting to sleep more and more and more. 

What About Napping?

The question, of course, is: what about taking a nap in the afternoon? I must say that I take a nap in the afternoon, which some people say is not the best thing to do and which others say is actually quite OK. I know Serkong Rinpoche, the old Serkong Rinpoche, used to be able to lie down or even sit down for the shortest nap ever. I imagine that it’s because he was able to control of the energies and the winds in his body from having done advanced tantric practice that he was able to just instantly start snoring and fall asleep – just dissolve the winds and instantly go to sleep. He would be like that for less than a minute, and then he would wake up and be totally refreshed. This I found really quite extraordinary; quite extraordinary. 

Tibetans say that naps are not good for the phlegm factor in the body, which is true. Your body becomes very heavy if you sleep too much. One doctor friend of mine pointed out that the ideal amount of time to nap is twenty minutes and no more. If you sleep much less than that, it doesn’t really refresh the body. If you sleep much more than that, the whole phlegm problem starts: your body starts feeling very, very heavy, and your mind feeling very heavy. Then, it’s hard to continue with the day; you just want to sleep more, and your mind is very, very dull. That, of course, is a problem for concentration. 

Sleepiness is a big problem, actually. How do you deal with feeling sleepy during the day? I tend to rely on caffeine, which is not very good. That really is a drug, an addiction. At times, when I have gone off caffeine, my energy stays more level, which, in a sense, is better although I might not feel as awake. With caffeine – coffee or tea – your energy goes up, and then it drops down, and you have to have another caffeine fix. And it goes like that throughout the day. Then it catches up, and at night, you can’t fall asleep. We all need to deal with that problem, especially when we are trying to gain concentration, which is the topic here. 

How we deal with sleepiness, how we deal with sleep, how we deal with food – these are very important points. If we don’t sleep well, obviously, we can’t meditate very well. One needs to, I suppose, find the right balance. Practical things, like comfortable beds, we need to try to get, so that we have the best circumstances for being able to continue our work. The  type of mattress that we need can change very much during the course of our lives as we get older. Sometimes we need better support for our back. We can get terrible back pain from sleeping on the wrong type of mattress. I know I get that. These are the points regarding sleep.

Any comments or questions? Anybody addicted to sleeping? You are? You sleep too much?

Participant: I think so, yes. I think this method that Serkong Rinpoche proposed sounds quite useful – to reduce the time little by little.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It works. Anything other than that is too drastic; it doesn’t work. You’re too exhausted. 

[39] O Lord of Propriety, having passed the whole day and the first and last periods of the night (in constructive deeds), go to sleep with mindfulness in between these two (periods), without making your sleeping time fruitless.

Let’s think about that. 

If we go to sleep with a strong intention to get up – “I can’t wait until I get up!” – it helps us to get up quickly. If you have an alarm clock like I have, one where you can press the button and it will go off again in five minutes, it helps not to keep pressing it for the next half hour each time the alarm goes off. That is a very easy habit to get into if you don’t have work or somewhere that you have to be at a certain time. 

Also, I am reminded of the advice regarding sleep that Trijang Rinpoche gave (Trijang Rinpoche was the late junior tutor to His Holiness). He said that if you are in a foul mood and you don’t feel like doing anything, the tendency is to be quite nasty and complain or to not be very nice to other people. So, the best thing to do if you don’t have any better means to deal with it is to go to sleep. He said, at least, if you go to sleep, you’re not going to do something negative. That’s not a bad idea. It’s sort of the whole mentality of “put the baby to sleep” when a baby is very cranky, crying, and being an absolute pain because it is over-tired. If we look at ourselves in that way – “I’m over-tired. I’m just being like a cranky baby. Just put the baby to bed” – then, when we wake up, we can start again. It’s like re-booting the computer. This was the piece of advice that he used to give that Geshe Ngawang Dharghe was very fond of repeating. 

That concludes the whole discussion on overcoming distractions, which is the first part of the section on preparation for gaining concentration. Next in the outline comes the practice of the four immeasurable attitudes as an aid to concentration. Mind you, that’s only one verse. 

[40] Always meditate properly on love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Even if you do not receive, like that, the highest (goal, nirvana), you will (at least) attain a Brahma realm’s bliss.

This is speaking about the four immeasurable attitudes: immeasurable love, immeasurable compassion, immeasurable joy, and immeasurable equanimity. 

Love, to look at the more elaborate form of it, is, “How wonderful it would be if everybody could be happy and have the causes for happiness. May they be that way. I will try to bring that to them”… there are various steps. Then, one asks for inspiration to be able to do that. This is the more elaborate way of meditating on the four immeasurables. 

Then, with compassion, “ How wonderful it would be if everybody were free of suffering and the causes of suffering. May they be like that. May I be able to bring them to that. Please inspire me to be able to do that.” 

Joy and equanimity – in the various different traditions within Buddhism, these terms are defined differently. In the Theravada tradition, joy is rejoicing in others’ happiness. That’s what rejoicing refers to. It’s rejoicing, “How wonderful it is that everybody is happy.” In the tradition of Vasubandhu, which is also Hinayana but from the Vaibhashika point of view, joy is wishing, “May all sentient beings have mental happiness, the joy that never declines.” Later commentators say, “the joy of liberation and enlightenment.” So, this term, “joy,” can be understood in these two main ways, the Theravada way and the Vasubandhu way. 

Then, equanimity, immeasurable equanimity, again, in the Theravada tradition, means having an even-minded attitude toward everybody and wishing, “May I have even-minded equanimity toward everyone, without attachment, repulsion, and so on.” However, starting with Asanga in his abhidharma text, Abhidharmasamuccaya, which is Mahayana, equanimity means wishing that all sentient beings had equanimity toward each other, free of attachment, repulsion and so on. This is the form of equanimity that the Tibetans emphasize. 

So, in the Tibetan traditions, you find that joy is always, “May others have mental happiness” and, particularly, the joy of liberation and enlightenment. Equanimity is always, “May all sentient beings have equanimity toward each other. May they be free of attachment and repulsion, feeling close to some and far from others.” But as we saw in the Theravada tradition, joy is rejoicing in others’ happiness, and equanimity is, “May I have equanimity toward them.”

Obviously, each of these variants can be very, very helpful. Tsongkhapa, actually, even mentions that there are these two forms of immeasurable equanimity, that of I, myself, having equanimity toward others and that of others having equanimity toward each other.

The Correspondence between the Four Immeasurable Attitudes, the Four Brahma Realms, and the Four Levels of Mental Stability (the Four Dhyanas of the Form Realm)

The four immeasurables are also called the four brahmaviharas, the abodes of Brahma. Here, Brahma is mentioned because if we don’t achieve “the highest goal, nirvana,” with these dhyanas, we “will (at least) attain a Brahma realm’s bliss.” 

In the presentation of the various realms, or planes of existence, in samsara, there are three planes of existence, the “three realms,” they’re usually called. I prefer to call them “planes of existence,” since they’re quite different from each other in terms of what’s going on in them. One is the plane of desirable sense objects, which is where you have attachment to gross sense objects, desirable ones. That’s usually called the “desire realm” ('dod-khams). Then, there is the plane of ethereal forms. These aren’t the usual, gross forms of the desire realm; instead, these are much subtler types of forms. That realm is usually called the “form realm” (gzugs-khams) Then, there is the “formless realm” (gzugs-med khams), which is the plane of formless beings. It’s the plane in which the beings don’t have gross bodies; they have just the subtlest wind as their bodies. 

The plane of the ethereal forms has four levels within it. The first level is called the “Brahma realm,” because the gods called Brahma (there’s not just one Brahma in the Indian mythology) live in this realm. There is the realm of the desire gods, gods that have various sense desires, but, here, we’re talking about the Brahma realm of gods. There’s a whole big presentation of various gods in the Hindu and Buddhist pantheon. In any case, there are four levels within the plane of ethereal forms, the form realm. 

According to Theravada

According to the Theravada, these four levels correspond to each of the four types of immeasurable attitudes and to each of the four levels of mental stability. What they explain is that the practitioners on these four levels of mental stability, the four dhyanas, can focus on many things, but, primarily, what they focus on is one of the four immeasurable attitudes – the one that corresponds to the level the practitioner is on. This is the Theravada explanation. Immeasurable love would be on the first dhyana, immeasurable compassion on the second, immeasurable joy on the third, and immeasurable equanimity on the fourth. They are immeasurable because they are aimed at all sentient beings. As I said, in the Theravada, joy is rejoicing, and equanimity is even-mindedness toward all. 

According to Mahayana

The explanation of these four dhyanas and immeasurable attitudes and the relation between them is, in other traditions, quite different from the Theravada explanation.  According to Maitreya’s, Abhisamayalankara (A Filigree of Realizations), which expounds the Madhyamaka point of view, the explanation is that they are not only, of course, immeasurable in that they are aimed at all beings, but that they are also immeasurable in that they build up an immeasurable type of positive force. However, Maitreya explains in Abhidharmasamayalankara that they have to be attained with the mind of one of the four dhyanas for them to really be one of the immeasurable attitudes, one of these advanced levels of mental stability. 

When you achieve shamatha, or shinay (zhi-gnas) in Tibetan, there are various stages. You go through the nine stages of stabilizing the mind, and you gain perfect concentration, samadhi, which is absorbed concentration. However, that is not shamatha; shamatha is beyond that. Shamatha has a sense of fitness, both mental and physical. It’s an exhilarating, blissful feeling of fitness that the mind and body can do whatever you want and that you can concentrate for as long as you want. So, that’s shamatha; that’s shinay. With that, you attain the mere preparatory stage of the first dhyana. Then, you go beyond that into deeper and deeper absorptions with each of the four. Also, each of the four dhyanas and formless realm balanced absorptions has a preparatory stage and an actual stage. 

So, what Maitreya explains in Abhidharmasamayalankara, is that for the immeasurable attitudes to really be immeasurable, they have to be attained with one of the four dhyanas; they have to be attained with a mind that has achieved an actual state of one of the four levels of mental stability. Maitreya doesn’t make the correlation that the Theravada makes, which is that the first one is with immeasurable love, the second with compassion, the third with joy, and the fourth with equanimity. He says that any of the four can be with any of the four dhyanas.

Then, Tsongkhapa adds that the four immeasurables need to be accompanied by the six far-reaching attitudes. So, he really puts the emphasis on these being Mahayana practices. Although in Theravada, they have the wish, “May everybody be happy,” and so on – so, compassion and love for everybody are there in Theravada – what they don’t have is taking the responsibility to reach enlightenment in order to bring all beings to the state of ultimate happiness, which is bodhichitta. That, they don’t have. But, certainly, immeasurable love, compassion, joy, and equanimity they do have. 

Anyway, Tsongkhapa says that they have to have the six perfections, six far-reaching attitudes, together with them; otherwise, meditating on them will just be a cause for rebirth in the various Brahma realms. In other words, particularly if you don’t have the understanding of voidness with the type of meditation that you do with these four immeasurables, it will act as a cause for a Brahma realm’s bliss (that’s referring to the first level, the Brahma realm, the first dhyana’s bliss). So, that’s why Nagarjuna says, “If you don’t receive, like that, the highest (goal nirvana), you will (at least) attain a Brahma realm’s bliss” by doing this type of meditation. 

There is a commentary to the sadhana of Kalachakra, actually, by Deti Rinpoche, in which he explains that “Brahma,” actually, in Tibetan means “a pure, excellent, sublime state.” So, he says that, although it could mean the Brahma realms, “Brahma” could also mean “nirvana” – liberation – or enlightenment. And “abode,” he says,  can mean “cause.” So, he explains that, on one level, if these meditations are done without the understanding of voidness, they can be a cause for rebirth in the form realm and that if they are done with the understanding of voidness, they can be a cause for liberation and enlightenment.

Now, what type of wisdom, or discriminating awareness, do you need with the four immeasurables? In Chandrakirti’s text, Introduction to Madhyamaka (Madhyamakavatara), he speaks about the three types of compassion. But there are different explanations of this. According to the Chittamatra explanation, this means focusing on the object, which is all beings. 

The three ways in which the four attitudes focus on their objects is as follows:

• Focusing on them as being limited beings
• Focusing on them in terms of being phenomena
• Focusing on them without any aim at a referent object. 

These are the three that you have in all the systems. 

The Three Ways According to Chittamatra

[1] Focusing on them as limited beings – this means understanding each being to be a substantially existent person, or being. So, you don’t have an understanding of the voidness of persons here. In other words, you see them as static, monolithic entities, separate from the aggregates, and knowable by themselves. So, then, with that understanding of all beings, you would think in terms of “May they be happy, and may they be free of suffering,” etc.

[2] Focusing on them as phenomena – this means understanding that they lack substantial existence as persons. So, we understand that they don’t exist as static, monolithic entities, separate from the aggregates and that they aren’t self-sufficiently knowable – that, for example, I can know Andreas independently of knowing his body, his mind, his personality, his name, etc. Generally, one grasps at people, at beings, as being self-sufficiently knowable. This is the subtle form of selflessness – that we don’t exist in that way. Now, these four immeasurable attitudes focusing on all beings with that type of understanding – the understanding that they don’t have this substantial existence as persons, that they’re just mere phenomena – would be the second type of discriminating awareness.

[3] No referent aim – this would be the Chittamatra understanding of voidness, which is that the mind that cognizes a person, or being, and the person, or being, themselves as the object of cognition don’t come from two different natal sources; instead, they come from the same seed of karma. That would the straightforward Chittamatra understanding of the voidness of phenomena – that the person cannot be established as existing before you cognize them. So, the natal source of the mental hologram of the person in the cognition does not come from out, but rather it comes from the same source as the mind that views, or cognizes, them,. Therefore, the attitudes that we have toward others and so on don’t come from the side of the person or object: they come from our minds, from the attitudes that we have toward others.

The Three Ways According to Prasangika

The Prasangika explanation of this, which Tsongkhapa goes into, is fairly different from that. He says:

[1] Compassion focused on its objects as limited beings means that one focuses on them with the understanding that they take rebirth due to their deluded attitude toward a transitory network (our old friend). This means that they continue to suffer, that they continue not to have happiness, and so on because they identify with their aggregates, whether with their body, their mind, or something like that, and they hold on to it as truly being “me,” or truly being “mine” – so, a “me” that is the possessor of them. This type of thing. 

It’s very interesting, this Prasangika view of the four immeasurables. It’s not only with compassion, but with each of the four immeasurables. The question here is: how do we view all these beings whom we wish to be happy, whom we wish not to suffer? We see that they are not happy and that they suffer and so on. They don’t have equanimity because they grasp at their body and/or mind as “me” or “mine.” What’s underneath the Prasangika standpoint, of course, is the understanding that they don’t exist like that. When we talk here about immeasurable love and compassion or even just regular love and compassion, it’s in terms of “May they have happiness and the causes of happiness; may they be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.” So, this view is pointing out the cause, and as such, is a very profound type of meditation. 

[2] The second one is compassion focused on all beings as mere phenomena. This is often associated with impermanence, nonstaticness – that beings change from moment to moment. But this is to realize that beings not only just change from moment to moment but that they are imputed on aggregates that change from moment to moment. The person is imputed on a body that is changing from moment to moment and on a mind that is changing from moment to moment. Because that is all changing from moment to moment, how could the person be something that is truly existent, static, and so on? Again, this is referring to our understanding of how the person exists, how everybody exists, plus our understanding that because beings don’t understand this, they suffer. So, “May they be free of that suffering and its causes.” 

[3] The third one is compassion focused on these objects, all beings, without any referent aim – so, we’re not aiming at some referent object of them. This refers to the Prasangika understanding of voidness – that there is no findable referent object of the words or names for them. We have the names, Andreas, Karsten, or Renata, but although those names are used to refer to persons, the referent objects of those names are not established or found on the side of the person. This is the Prasangika understanding because even the aggregates and parts that are on the side of the person are only established by mental labeling. So, we would have that understanding of the objects of compassion, love, joy, and equanimity, plus the understanding that they suffer and don’t have happiness and the joy of enlightenment, etc., because they don’t understand this. 

OK? So, the four immeasurables have to be focused on with one of these three types of discriminating awareness in order to become causes for liberation and enlightenment. If they aren’t, if we’re thinking, “May everybody be happy,” and so on, but we’re thinking of “everybody” as being truly existent and ourselves meditating as being truly existent, then, though it’s still very, very constructive, it’s constructive only within samsara. And what will we experience as a result? A rebirth in the form realms. As this verse says, we “will (at least) attain a Brahma realm’s bliss.” This is the bliss that one has on the first dhyana, which is where one still has ordinary physical bliss as well as mental bliss. 

That was quite a lot of information, I must say. These points regarding the four immeasurables are really quite complex. I have a very long article on it on my website. So, if you’re interested, you can look at that. 

I found something really very interesting. I did a survey, an analysis, of seeing how the four immeasurable are formulated in the different Buddhist traditions, in the different texts, and so on, and I found a tremendous amount of variety – not only a variety in what you’re wishing for but also a variety in the order of the four immeasurables. That becomes, of course, a difficult point for many of us: what’s the “real” way to meditate on them? Obviously, there’s no “real” way, so we look at the various versions to see what makes sense. Here, we are looking, particularly, at what Asanga says, what Vasubandhu says, what Theravadans say, and what Tsongkhapa says. This can be very helpful, and it certainly seems to fit in with what Nagarjuna is saying here – that we can achieve the highest goal through these meditations, and if we don’t achieve the highest goal with them, we can at least achieve the bliss of a Brahma realm. 

OK? Any questions about this? 

Participant: We can achieve the highest goal only when we combine the meditation on them with wisdom?

Dr. Berzin: That’s right. 

Participant: So, you view the person that you focus your love and compassion on as being…

Dr. Berzin: Right: You view the person, the beings that you focus your compassion on, as being devoid of… well, there are these three levels of what they are devoid of. And it’s not only that you see that they are devoid of that, you also fortify that insight with the wish, “May they free of the confusion that keeps them from understanding this truth.” So, you have two aspects together: your own understanding and also how terrible it is that they don’t understand that. Of course, this should not be based on the attitude that, “I’m so much better than they are. You poor, miserable things,” and looking down on them. 

It’s very effective if you can do it. Very effective. Why don’t we try it? Let’s do it with compassion; that’s the standard one in which these three levels are practiced. We might as well do it in the Prasangika way since that’s what Tsongkhapa recommends and since the Chittamatra way would just be a stepping-stone to that. 

The Theravadas recommend that you start close to yourself. I forget if they say that you start with yourself... do they say start with yourself when they do meta meditation, Bhavana?

Participant: Some do.

Dr. Berzin: Some do, but not all. OK. So. you can either start with yourself or not. Either way, you extend it further and further out. So, you begin with those who are extremely close to you, which, in an Indian context, is usually your family – parents and so on. Then you extend the meditation to your neighbors, then to the people in your city, and so on like that. That’s one way of doing it. Another way of doing it is to start with your friends, then to extend it to those who are neutral, and then to those you don’t like. That’s another variant on this meditation that you find in many texts. You can also aim it like we do in sensitivity training, which is toward specific people who are around you rather than just visualized beings and then extend it from there. 

I always find it a little strange when you do these meditations by thinking of all the hell beings or all sentient beings. It doesn’t seem to have very much meaning. But His Holiness points out that it’s helpful to start with all beings. Why? Because the preliminary before this, like the preliminary in all bodhichitta meditations, is having the equanimity in which you have an equal attitude toward all – no attachment to some, repulsion to some, and indifference to others. You are equally open to everybody. That’s the only way that this will become immeasurable. So, in this style, which is, perhaps, a Mahayana style, you start off with, “Yes, I am going to extend this to everybody,” and then you think of everybody to make it an immeasurable thing. Otherwise, you base it on favoritism: those I like, those that are neutral and then, those that I dislike. 

So, there are various ways of doing this practice. It could also be a combination of those as well… you know, within the whole sphere of everybody and having equanimity. Then, you could start with those who are close to you, which is easier to make it a little bit more specific, a little bit more with feeling. Otherwise, I think, it’s very difficult to have feeling toward all beings, especially if you’re thinking of all insects and all these other creatures. That’s really very difficult to do. So, there are advantages and disadvantages to each of the methods you can use to make the meditations immeasurable. 

Despite the many differences, everybody emphasizes, no matter what tradition it is, that “immeasurable” means “all beings.” Only if the meditation is directed toward all beings is it immeasurable. Then, it has to be with perfect concentration as well, according to the Mahayana point of view. On top of that, it has to be with discriminating awareness, or wisdom. Then, the meditations are really immeasurable. Otherwise, what we’re doing is something that only approximates that. There is nothing wrong with doing something that is an approximation, but we should have a clear idea of what the real thing is and what we are aiming for. To just do it with our ordinary level of “may my friends be happy,” while thinking of them and ourselves as truly existent – that is just going to improve our samsara. That’s what Nagarjuna is saying very clearly. It’s going to build up positive force, etc., and we could try to dedicate it toward enlightenment, but it would not be the real thing. OK?

[1] Now, the first level, if we do the meditation using compassion, is with the realization that others take rebirth because they identify with their aggregates. “This is me – my body, my mind and so on,” or “I am the possessor of these things; they’re mine.” That’s why they’re suffering. So, we think about how they are not like that and how wonderful it would be if they could overcome that type of confusion, that type of delusion. Then, on that basis, we think, “May everybody be free of suffering and this cause of suffering.” Let’s try that for a minute. You can do it with everybody if you have equanimity, or you can do it just with a few people that you actually know who have this problem. 

So, the cause of their suffering is that they don’t understand that this isn’t the way in which they exist. They consider themselves to be a static, monolithic entity, separate from the aggregates, one that’s either identical with the aggregates (that’s “me”) or separate from the aggregates (“I am the possessor of them”). And, that “me” is self-sufficiently knowable, which is incorrect. Because of that, they have so much suffering. So, “may they be free of that.” You understand that their way of believing themselves to exist is not true, and with your own understanding of voidness, you imagine it gone. 

[2] Then, the second level is that the “me” is something that is just imputed. The imputed thing, the aggregates that the “me” is based on, is changing from moment to moment. But they don’t understand that. Again, they think that it’s the same static thing that is being imputed on the aggregates from moment to moment. If we understand that the basis is changing from moment to moment, we can understand that what is imputed on that basis has to be changing from moment to moment as well – that it doesn’t exist independently of the basis. So, we think again in terms of how terrible it is that they don’t understand this and that this is causing their problems. And we understand that this is not the way that anybody exists. So, again, with our understanding of the negation phenomenon – that there’s no such thing – we think, “May they be free.” 

OK? What is very important in these meditations is not to lose sight of the conventional existence of people, to see that that existence is like an illusion; it’s not just total voidness.

[3] The last level from the Prasangika point of view, is the fact that beings don’t have the actual, deepest understanding of voidness. What is a person? A person is what the word “person” refers to on the basis of the aggregates. But the person – the “me” – cannot be found. It is not established on the side of the aggregates; it’s not something there, not some defining characteristic or anything like that on the side of the aggregates, on the side of the conventional person, that makes it “me.” How do we establish that the “me” exists? Well, it’s just what the word refers to. And, again, they don’t understand that, and that causes all their problems. 

OK. So, this is this Verse 40 again:

[40] Always meditate properly on love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Even if you do not receive, like that, the highest (goal, nirvana), you will (at least) attain a Brahma realm’s bliss.

That ends the preparation for gaining concentration, or mental stability. Then, the next verse, talks about the actual attainment of these four dhyana states. OK?